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 — Edition Insights

The Argument from Unbroken Dogmatic Continuity

Mayow's central claim is that the Church of England's formularies since the mid-sixteenth century do not exclude the sense of earlier Catholic teaching. He writes that if the articles "admit a double meaning," that ambiguity is "qualified and overruled by the earlier unexcluded dogmatic teaching." This is a precise legal-style argument: the burden of proof lies on those who assert severance. Mayow insists that nothing less than having "plainly, openly, and dogmatically asserted the contrary" would annul the obligation to enforce ancient doctrines. The reasoning is cumulative and relies on a chain of authorities, including portions of Mr. Badeley's speech before the Committee of Council.

The Rhetoric of Crisis and Personal Address

The letter is structured as a direct appeal to Maskell, using the second person throughout. Mayow opens with sorrow at addressing "one who has known you so long and loved you so well." This personal frame is not merely conventional; it underscores the high stakes of doctrinal disagreement within a close clerical network. The tone shifts between affectionate regret and urgent warning. Mayow anticipates a coming trial, writing that "those who agree with me at all in the defence I have here set up ... must, in these days, be even more and more distinct, earnest, and plain-spoken." The language of "perils" and "tyranny" suggests a beleaguered orthodoxy facing erastian liberalism.

Limits of the Excerpts: What the Text Does Not Show

While the catalog lists subjects such as "Church and state -- Great Britain" and "Baptism -- Church of England," the excerpts do not develop these topics in detail. The Gorham case (George Cornelius Gorham) is mentioned only in the catalog, not in the supplied text. Mayow's argument is primarily about dogmatic authority and continuity, not about the specific legal or political dimensions of church-state relations. Readers expecting a discussion of baptismal regeneration or the judicial committee's role will find only indirect references. The excerpts also do not reveal the full structure of Mayow's response to Maskell's original letter, nor do they show the conclusion of his argument.

Readers approaching this work should attend to its genre: a public letter that is simultaneously a personal plea and a theological brief. Mayow's method is forensic, building a case from precedent and patristic authority rather than from systematic exposition. The catalog subjects provide context but do not capture the letter's central preoccupation with doctrinal continuity. Those interested in the Oxford Movement's aftermath or the legal reasoning behind Anglican claims to catholicity will find this a dense, specific example of mid-century polemic.

The rain kept time with Mayow’s patient legalism, his sturdy faith in buried continuities. When I finally closed the letter, my eyes wandered to the window, then to my shelf, and settled on something entirely different—a book of vast, quiet spaces. Our National Parks — Reading Notes felt like stepping from a hushed cathedral into open air, both holding a similar reverence for what endures. Odd, how one thought leads so gently to another.