A dead end, a possibility, and three more heretics

It's been a while since I posted, in part because of the cheerful distractions of Christmas and also because I've been chasing a number of rabbits down rabbit holes, finding very little. 

1) The bishop of Carlisle: a trial that didn't happen

(Source: Munden, A.F. (1987) The Anglican Evangelical party in the diocese of Carlisle in the nineteenth century with particular reference to the ministeries of Bishop Samuel Waldegrave and Dean Francis Close. Doctoral thesis. University of Durham. Download here.) 

Waldegrave was a man of principle who laboured ceaselessly for the well-being of his diocese far from the centres of power in the church.

An Evangelical and supporter of the Church Society he naturally opposed the High Church wing of the Church of England and sought to keep them out of his diocese. In 1867/68 he preached a series of sermons against ritualism (p348).  

However, the Church of England's law and culture enabled a church's patron to appoint a priest to a parish. High church clergy were appointed to a number of livings in Carlisle diocese despite the bishop (and perhaps to spite him). Consequently a proportion of Waldegrave's time was then spent seeking to control what he regarded as their 'excesses' in worship and ordering of churches:

"He took every opportunity in sermons, letters, public meetings and in his published works to point out the errors of the system. In his opinion the heart of the matter concerned doctrinal error."  (p.110)

In May 1862 the local branch of the high church English Church Union carefully examined the possibility of prosecuting their Bishop for heresy. The Church Review, the organ of the ECU,  took a lead on the issue,: 

We call upon our fellow churchmen, who take an interest in the maintenance of the Catholic faith, to unite in this our remonstrance, and to join with us in the demand that the heretical Bishops [ie Waldegrave and Colenso] shall be called to account; and unless they formally retract the wicked errors promulgated by them, put upon their trial. 

If we be asked to point out the tribunal before which they are to be arraigned, we answer, according to the latest precedents in the law books, before the Archbishop, who tute officii, possesses jurisdiction over the Bishops of his province.  (pp.356-7)

In the end the ECU must have decided not to pursue the Bishop through the courts and the matter dissolved into silence leaving, no doubt, the sour taste of unresolved conflict in the Diocese.

2) Gladstone, Newman and heresy

The public debate between Gladstone and Cardinal Newman is a widely known episode of 1860s church life and debate and I am embarrassed that I hadn't met it before. 

E. Gladstone, The Place of Heresy and Schism in the Modern Church. First published in The Nineteenth Century, 210, August 1894, pp.157-174) [Here] and reprinted as Chapter IX of Later Gleanings: a New Series of Gleanings of Past Years, Second edition, (London, Murray, 1898), Volume VIII, Theological and Ecclesiastical pp. 280-311 [Here].

Reply: Phayre, R. (1895). A word of testimony in reply to Mr. Gladstone's article in the "Nineteenth Century" for August, 1894, on "The place which heresy and schism now hold in the modern Christian Church". London: John F. Shaw and Co. 

Newman himself had previously come under suspicion of heresy:

Given that the English hierarchy shared the clerical views and autocratic tendencies of the Roman authorities, and taking into account the manner in which the issue was reported to Propaganda, it is not surprising that Newman came under suspicion of heresy. This cloud remained over him until 1867, when he sent Fr. Ambrose St. John and Fr. Henry Bittleston to Rome to discuss the various misunderstanding s which had arisen, despite Newman's willingness to submit to questions from Propaganda, and Wiseman's promise of help. The length of the dispute can be attributed to Wiseman's negligence, no doubt made worse by the onset of diabetes, and his preoccupation with the quarrel with Errington. In addition, Manning did nothing to help Newman although he knew he was in trouble with Propaganda. It is unlikely that Manning deliberately withheld Newman's offer of explanation, but he certainly found it convenient not to rush immediately to Newman's aid. ( p.117)

So I will add Newman to my catalogue and, in the fullness of time, a post will emerge.

Modern publications: 

Robert, P. (1991). The Great Dissent: John Henry Newman and the Liberal Heresy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Thomas, S., & Griffin, J. R. (January 1, 1995). Newman and Heresy: The Anglican Years. The Catholic Historical Review, 81, 2, 300.

3) Heresy accusations in C19 Methodism

However, and more relevant, I have found three more Methodists accused of heresy who had previously escaped my searches: Joseph Cook (1805),  Joseph Barker (1841) and Nathan Rouse (1862).  

The growing crowd of heretics

This brings now the total of all those accused of doctrinal offences, between 1698 and the present, in Britain and Ireland, and where some kind of official action followed, to 164 and I would no be in the least surprised to find others. 

Although this number is significantly more than I had first anticipated, it is still a minuscule proportion of all Christian adherents, even of all recognised ministers. And, in good time, I will post more of their stories.