A Letter to the Rev. William Maskell, A.M.: How far the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council commits the Church of England by its decision, even allowing it to have jurisdiction in points of doctrine

In Short

This 1850 open letter by Mayow Wynell Mayow addresses the turbulent Gorham controversy regarding baptismal regeneration. Responding to a fellow clergyman, Mayow examines whether an unfavorable legal decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would automatically commit the Church of England to heresy. He argues that while a court may find unavoidable ambiguity in church formularies, that technical interpretation does not prove the Church intended to teach false doctrine. By actively petitioning the Crown for the restoration of Convocation, the Church can clear its name without breaking with civil order.

The Story

The text opens in an atmosphere of acute crisis, with the author writing to his colleague, the Reverend William Maskell, amidst anxious times for the Church of England. Mayow shares the heavy burden of the theological difficulties raised by Maskell concerning the competency and authority of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. While acknowledging the gravity of denying the doctrine of baptismal regeneration—which he views as absolute heresy—Mayow seeks to carve out a middle path. He addresses the upcoming judgment in the high-stakes dispute between the Reverend George Cornelius Gorham and Henry Phillpotts, the Bishop of Exeter.

The core of the argument rests on distinguishing between the legal interpretation of ambiguous language and the actual historical intent or animus of the Church. Mayow concedes, for the sake of argument, that the court has the legal authority to try the case and that its judgment must be obeyed regarding the specific benefice in question. However, he maintains that if the court rules that the Church's formularies permit diverse interpretations, this merely exposes an inadvertent linguistic ambiguity rather than an intentional departure from the catholic faith. To illustrate this judicial distinction, Mayow draws a parallel to secular legislation, specifically referencing the Ten Hours Factory Act. When courts interpreted that act to permit a system of relays that frustrated the original humane intent, observers did not automatically accuse Parliament of deliberate cruelty; rather, they recognized an accidental flaw in the wording.

Applying this analogy, Mayow argues that if the Privy Council finds an ambiguity in the baptismal services, it reflects an unfortunate editorial oversight rather than a deliberate betrayal of doctrine by the Church. Therefore, the Church is not yet tainted with heresy unless she knowingly and willingly acquiesces in the erroneous interpretation. Because the Church of England currently lacks the freedom of speech and direct synodical power to immediately rewrite her formularies, she must pursue the next best course of action. Mayow proposes that clergy and laity alike should organize, meet in London, and petition the Crown for permission to convene a functioning Convocation. By taking this practical step to address and correct the ambiguity, churchmen can clear their consciences, reject implied heresy, and wait faithfully upon Providence without resorting to lawless defiance.

How It Unfolds

• The opening concern — The author explains his motivation for writing during a time of great peril, expressing profound respect for his correspondent while tackling difficult questions about church courts.
• The core dilemma — He confronts the alarming proposition that accepting a judicial ruling on doctrine leaves no middle ground between total submission and outright repudiation of the court.
• The definition of heresy — He firmly denounces any denial of baptismal regeneration as unmitigated error while insisting that a Church cannot be deemed heretical without proof of a deliberate, willful intent.
• The factory act parallel — He introduces a secular legal comparison involving labor laws and judicial interpretation to demonstrate how courts can alter practical outcomes without staining the original lawmakers' intent.
• The call to action — He outlines a concrete plan for clergy and laity to petition the throne for the revival of Convocation so the Church can address its own linguistic ambiguities.
• The concluding tribute — He closes with a warm, deeply sympathetic tribute to the steadfast Bishop of Exeter, praising his courage and endurance on the front lines of the ecclesiastical battle.

The People

• Mayow Wynell Mayow — The author and concerned clergyman who wants to find a logical and faithful way through a divisive legal crisis. He seeks to reconcile loyalty to church law with an uncompromised defense of orthodox doctrine.
• William Maskell — The recipient of the open letter whose recent writings and doubts regarding the Judicial Committee's authority prompted Mayow's careful theological inquiry.
• George Cornelius Gorham — The appellant in the ecclesiastical lawsuit whose challenge to the doctrine of unconditional infant baptism sparked the entire controversy.
• Henry Phillpotts (the Bishop of Exeter) — The diocesan bishop standing firm against Gorham's views, whom Mayow regards as a heroic, steadfast prelate bearing the brunt of the trial with extraordinary courage.
• Sir Herbert Jenner Fust — The esteemed judge of the Court of Arches who previously evaluated the case and found no linguistic ambiguity in the Church's traditional teachings.

In Its Own Voice

Most heartily do I desire to adopt and echo your words “that the enquiry on which we are all engaged is far too great to admit of any personal consideration; and our aim is not to win a victory, or to prove that we ourselves are in the right, but to discover the truth, and point it out to others.”

The author opens his letter by aligning himself with his correspondent's noble and humble pursuit of theological truth over personal triumph.

I cast to the winds and repudiate with all my soul, that spurious charity of our day, which would seek to “please men” at the expense of God’s truth; which would recommend the Gospel by denying the Faith; which would render it more popular or palatable, by explaining away the Creeds.

He forcefully rejects any theological compromise that waters down traditional dogma in the name of a modern, superficial liberality.

If the Church of this our day, knowing all the circumstances of such an interpretation as we have been supposing in the matter of baptismal regeneration, do not use the powers she may have to correct the ambiguity which permits heresy to be lodged within her, she will acquiesce in and adopt that heresy as her own.

He warns that passive silence in the face of a flawed legal precedent will ultimately implicate the entire body of the Church in false doctrine.

What It's Really About

This text explores the tense intersection of civil jurisprudence and ecclesiastical authority in nineteenth-century England. At its heart lies the philosophical and legal question of how a religious institution maintains its dogmatic integrity when governed by secular courts that evaluate only the literal wording of historical texts. Mayow investigates the nature of institutional guilt, asking whether corporate bodies inherit the accidental flaws of their written documents. The underlying argument challenges the inevitability of schism, suggesting that procedural remedies and earnest petitions can bridge the gap between state-mandated legal rulings and the unyielding demands of traditional faith.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in Victorian church history, ecclesiastical law, or the mechanics of institutional crisis will find this text a fascinating primary window into a pivotal nineteenth-century debate. Reading it feels like sitting quietly in a study across from a deeply troubled, highly articulate clergyman working through a complex moral puzzle by candlelight. The prose is earnest, measured, and distinctly conversational yet rigorously logical. Modern readers may find the intense preoccupation with nineteenth-century liturgical technicalities and court jurisdictions demanding, but the underlying meditation on how institutions bear responsibility for textual ambiguity remains strikingly relevant. It offers a masterclass in how thoughtful traditionalists navigate moments of profound structural anxiety without abandoning their principles.