This letter evoked a statement of the precise points, and the following was the answer:—

".... I now venture to approach the difficulties under which you labour, and I will take them from the words you yourself have used in your letter of April 30. In that letter, speaking of the Church, you say, 'I cannot at this time state any paragraph in her formularies and ordinances with which I cannot conscientiously comply, except the Athanasian Creed.' You then proceed in the following words: 'and now I must go on to state wherein I differ from this Creed: not in the parts which may be called doctrinal; that is, where the doctrine itself is stated and explained.' And you conclude by saying, 'the parts of the Creed to which I object are the condemning clauses.' And you object to the clauses on the grounds that they are not warranted by the declaration of our Saviour recorded in Mark xvi. 16, on which passage those clauses are generally supposed to have been founded. Whether they are so warranted or not depends on the extent of their application in this Creed, which begins with the following words:—'Whosoever will be saved, before all things, it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith, which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled (entire and unviolated, Cath. trans.), without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. Now the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.' So far, then, it is evident that they only are declared to be excluded from salvation who do not hold the Catholic faith, that is, as the term is there explicitly defined, who do not hold the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. Now this doctrine has been maintained, with very few exceptions, by Christians in general from the earliest to the present age. It was the doctrine of the Greek Church ...... and all the Reformed churches. To exclude from salvation, therefore, only those who reject a doctrine which is received by Christians in general, is a very different thing from the denial of salvation to every one who does not believe in all the tenets of a particular Church. The doctrine, nulla salus nisi credas in Trinitatem, bears no resemblance to the sweeping declaration nulla salus extra Ecclesiam Romonam. Surely, then, we may appeal to Mark xvi. 16, combined with Matthew xxviii. 19, in order to prove that a belief in the Trinity is necessary to salvation, and consequently to prove that those two passages warrant the deduction, that they who reject the doctrine of the Trinity will not be saved. The two passages must be taken together, in order to learn the whole of our Saviour's last command to his Apostles. If, then, our Saviour himself commanded his Apostles to baptize 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' and then added, 'he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned;' it really does appear that our Saviour himself has warranted the opinion that a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is such a fundamental article of the Christian faith that they who reject it do so at their own peril.

"But you think that the anathema of our Saviour in Mark xvi. 16, had a different application from the corresponding anathema in the Athanasian Creed. Our Saviour spoke of those to whom the Gospel had been preached, as appears from Mark xvi. 15. And if the anathema in the Athanasian Creed had a more extensive application, or if it were meant to include not only those who wilfully rejected the doctrine of the Trinity when it had been duly explained to them, but those also to whom the doctrine had never been preached, and whose want of belief arose merely from a want of knowledge, I should likewise admit that the anathema of the Athanasian Creed derived no authority from Mark xvi. 16. But I see no reason whatever for the opinion that the anathema of the Athanasian Creed includes those who have never heard of the doctrine. Neither the Creed itself, nor the circumstances under which it was composed, warrant such an opinion. Whoever was the author of it, the Creed was framed during the controversy which then distracted the whole of the Christian Church. It applied, therefore, immediately and exclusively to those who were partakers in or acquainted with the controversy. It could not have been originally intended to apply to those who had never heard of the controversy or the doctrine controverted. It would be, therefore, quite uncritical to apply it at present in a way which was not originally intended. Nor does the language of the Creed itself warrant any other application. When it is declared necessary to hold the Catholic faith, and to keep the Catholic faith, that necessity can apply only to those to whom the Catholic faith has been presented. Unless a man is previously put in possession of a thing, he cannot be said either to hold it or to keep it.

"Surely the most conscientious clergyman who believes in our Saviour's declaration, recorded in Mark xvi. 16, may read without scruple the similar declaration in the Athanasian Creed. And if, on the authority of our Saviour, he may read the anathema in the beginning of the Creed, he may, without scruple, read the less strongly expressed anathema in the end.

"In the hope that, after reading this letter, your mind will become at ease, I subscribe myself, dear Sir,
"Very truly yours,
"Herbert Peterborough."

This letter is a tolerable specimen of the Bishop's power of reasoning, and very sharp it is too; but it does not exactly meet Mr. Spencer's difficulties. He might object:— "What passage of Scripture warrants our uniting together the two passages from St. Mark and St. Matthew?" And "being presented with a thing is not exactly the same as being in possession of a thing." "We should have the same warrant for the remaining clauses of the Creed as for the first three, otherwise, according to the Articles, we are not bound to receive them; then why not erase them?' The Bishop would have no resource here, except to fall back upon the Church, and that was not the point at issue; so perhaps he did well not to try. He uses tradition, and Dr. Blomfield authority; but these could have no weight against a Bible Christian, as Mr. Spencer was then.

A Catholic could very easily solve the difficulty. The Church has used these terms to express her doctrine, and she says this is the revealed doctrine; therefore it must be. No one can be saved who does not believe the Trinity and Incarnation, implicitly or explicitly; those to whom it has never been properly proposed, implicitly, and those to whom it has, explicitly. Some theologians will have explicit credence required of both classes, and say that God would even send an angel to a savage, if he placed no obstacle, and reveal this mystery to him rather than that he should die without it. And now it will seem very strange to say that this doctrine is less terrible than the Protestant open-arm theory. Yet, so it is, for we allow many Socinians and ignorant Protestants and others to be in good faith, and perhaps never have had this doctrine properly proposed to them. We suspend our judgments with regard to them, and say if they live well they may be saved. That is more than the Bishop of Peterborough could allow, according to his principles.

CHAPTER X.
Incidents And State Of Mind In 1827-28.

His life, though perpetually floating on religious discussions and doctrinal scruples, found other matters to check its course and employ it otherwise for a few days more. The family were all in a great glow of delight towards the close of the year 1827, in consequence of the Honourable Frederick Spencer, who was commander of the Talbot man-of-war, having distinguished himself at the battle of Navarino. George, of course, was overjoyed; here was his brother, who pored over the same lesson, played at the same games, and contended about the same trifles as himself, crowned with laurels and in the flush of victory. George loved him dearly, and these well-earned honours imparted a season of sunshine to the clergyman, which all his gospel fervour had failed to do up to this. Lord Spencer alludes to it in the touching letter given in a former chapter; but like everything human, this rose had its thorns. After the letters announcing the startling determination which called forth the efforts of ecclesiastical learning quoted in the last chapter, a great dulness fell over the family circle. Mr. Allen did not clear the atmosphere, and Mr. Spencer tells us feelingly in his Journal that his mother did not exchange one cordial sentence with him during the whole term of her Christmas stay at Althorp. This he felt, but bore in the spirit of a martyr; it was inflicted upon him for what he thought right before God, and he tried to make the best of it, wishing, but unable, to change the aspect of things. The Bishop of Peterborough's letter had the effect of quieting him for some time, in so far as he did not feel himself called upon to preach against what he did not assent to, but was content with letting it remain in abeyance.