1856.]

reckon themselves among either, to look it in the face. Evidently it is a practical difficulty. It affects all our relations with our flocks. They must say to us, 'Are you sincere when you profess to refer the Articles to the Scriptures as their ultimate standard? Do you mean what you say? Or are the words mere words to be explained away in every particular instance? Is the Sixth Article a mere sham ?' Romanists will press the question on one side; Protestant Dissenters will press it on the other. Have we any honest answer to give to it, or must we always shuffle and evade it ?

as

For my own part I answer,-1st, That I accept the appeal in the Sixth Article to the authority of Scripture, as a simple, straightforward appeal to an authority which the Reformers looked upon superior to their own. 2nd, That I think the Scriptures explain the Articles better than the Articles explain the Scriptures. 3rd, That I have a profound reverence for our Prayers and Articles as bearing witness for a common truth, and for the willingness of God to guide us to it, in spite of all our differences of temper, opinion, circumstances, education-the Prayers pointing out the direct road to communion with Him who is righteousness and truth; the Articles warning us of certain by-paths into which we may wander out of that road-neither intelligible without the other-both unintelligible if we had not the Scriptures to expound them. 4th, That I find both the Prayers and Articles of the greatest value in removing obstructions to the free and fruitful study of the Scriptures; the former especially, by teaching us that there is a living God whom we are to exalt above the Book which explains His gradual revelations of Himself to us; the other, by pointing out certain scholastical hindrances to the apprehension of a message which is addressed to men, and not to scholars, and which scholars can only illustrate by bringing out its essentially human character that all may recognise it together.

These may seem very general principles to be connected with such a special case as that of Archdeacon Denison. But every special case

733

must involve the most universal principles, and it seems to me that the circumstances of this trial force the whole question of our subscription to Articles, and of the allegiance to the Scriptures which these Articles demand, upon our understandings and consciences. I do not, however, at all shrink from the application of what I am saying to the special points which have been raised in that trial. Archdeacon Denison has affirmed two propositions which contradict, his Judges declare, two express Articles. He thinks that the wicked partake of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, though to their own detriment. The 29th Article affirms that 'The wicked, and such as are devoid of a lively faith, though they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth the Sacrament, yet are in nowise partakers of Christ. He thinks that worship is due to the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. But the 28th Article says, 'The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.' Possibly the mere terms of these Articles would not alone have determined the minds of the Judges. But there is a long historical commentary upon them. It is clear that some of the great points of opposition between the Reformers and the Romanists turned upon the question, whether faith is not the organ of man's spirit, and whether anything can be received spiritually except through that organ. Still more clear is it that the adoration of the elements was one of the idolatries against which they protested most, and which they believed to be most fatal to the worship which must be in spirit and in truth.

These are strong arguments, no doubt: they may be amply sufficient to justify the lawyers in coming to their decision. But a divine and

a

reader of Church history is bound to remember that every extravagant and false opinion has had a contradictory which was no less extravagant and false. Every page in controversial history illustrates this position,-none so much as the history of the Sacramental controversy.

It may be very dangerous to affirm-I conceive it is-that the wicked are partakers of Christ. We may be thankful to the Article for warning us of that danger. But is there no danger in saying that God does not bestow the gifts that are necessary to man's well-being, and that man is not responsible for the abuse of them? It may be very dangerous to affirm that man can apprehend any spiritual truth except by a spiritual organ. But is there no danger of our glorifying our faith till it actually takes the place of God? It is most dangerous to approach even the borders of worship of the elements. But if we positively prohibit the worship of Christ at His own table, do we not encourage men to ask the question, Where, then, would you worship Him? If not there, à fortiori, you must not when you walk in the streets or sit in your houses.' Dare we face that consequence ?

It seems to me that we shall not encounter that or any other dangerous consequences, if we take practically the warnings which are given to us in our Communion Service, and use them for our own guidance, accepting the Article as a reason for not shaping them into a theory as Archdeacon Denison has done; if we take the assurance of the same Service that Christ will meet us at His table, accepting the other Article as a reason for not constructing any theory of worship in the Sacrament which may most grievously interfere with real worship. If then we bring both the Prayers and the Article to the Scriptures as their interpreter, and learn from the sacramental language of that Book (I know no other word which expresses so exactly the divine and human, inward and outward, spiritual and popular character of its teaching), why we must err if we attempt to circumscribe the idea of the communion between God and man in logical terms and propositions which, when they are most accurate, can but express one half of the meaning.

On the other hand, I believe we are liable to all kinds of half truths and serious falsehoods, if we merely aim at getting an authoritative contradiction of any rash formula which

this or that man has put forth, or taking vengeance on the utterer. In the name of the Church, of the Scriptures, and of God, I would protest against such experimentsnot when they touch upon some favourite dogma, or some friend of mine, but especially when they strike those with whom I have no sympathy, and from whom, if they were in the ascendant, I should expect no quarter. I hope, if I had been a candidate for Ordination in the diocese of Bath and Wells, I should have done anything rather than accept Archdeacon Denison's propositions, when they were imposed as a test. But I think we should all strive that he may not be hindered from expressing them as opinions. In that form I cannot fear them. I don't believe that they are likely to be popular, unless it be through sympathy with a persecuted man. I am sure they will be met with denials as strong-perhaps as wise as they are. Those who hold the glorious doctrine respecting the Eucharist which is proclaimed in Hooker's Fifth Book, will rejoice to meet the holders of those opposite views of the Sacrament-to meet Zuinglians, Consubstantiationists, Transubstantiationists, at the table of the same Lord, -because they believe that the food which is provided there has no reference to any theories, and is above them all, and that those who hunger for it, and will cast themselves and their theories before the Cross, may have fellowship with Christ, and with each other, in spite of them all.

So far I have addressed myself especially to the clergy. But no men are so much interested as the laity, in maintaining Hooker's idea of the Communion, and in checking our frantic desire to limit the operation of it according to our party conceits. The lawyers of the Privy Council were hailed by a large portion of the laity as representing their interest, when they reversed Sir Jenner Fust's decision in the Gorham case. The middle classes were right, I think, in their demand -that the Church should be bound as little by the theory of the Bishop of Exeter, as by the theory of Mr. Gorham, respecting a Sacrament

1856.]

which transcends them both. So far as the decision in that case had this object-so far as it declared that Mr. Gorham should not be deprived of his living for refusing the formula of the Bishop of Exeter, I think it did the Church generally, clergy as well as laity, an immense service. I dislike most cordially many of the obiter dicta in that judgment, because they seemed to take it for granted that we (the clergy) use divine words with a latitude and want of truth which an English lawyer and gentleman would not allow himself in using ordinary words-calling men brothers whom we do not believe to be brothers, &c.; which imputation I, for myself and the body of my brethren, do solemnly repudiate. But the substance of the decision, which is not affected by these unfortunate passages, I thankfully receive as a protection of the Church, granted it, through whatever hands, lay or clerical, by its Living and Present Head. It is idle to calculate on the consistency of any body of men ; and we are bound to seek help from One who does not change. Nevertheless, I hope that the Privy Council will act in this instance on the principle which they followed in the other, omitting the unnecessary prelections on Divinity which made what on legal grounds was so wise, more wounding to the consciences of Churchmen than it might have been. The Evangelical clergy need not be told that they must not receive the 28th and 29th Articles in any loose or unnatural sense. But they may be told that it is not a safe or righteous course to make a brother an offender for a word; that the Articles are too strong to need the help of persecutions and deprivations; that these may cause exultation to journalists, but that they injure the

735

practical and moral life of the whole Church; that it is not possible to adjudicate on the whole question, according to the sense of the Articles, without that appeal to the Scriptures which the Court at Bath, with sound judgment, refused to entertain. If they speak thus, I believe the Lords of the Privy Council will be real benefactors to their country; that they will be doing justice according to their oaths; that they will be asserting the principle of spiritual freedom, not for Conformists only, but Nonconformists; and that none will have ultimately more cause to thank them than the very school which they will deprive of a momentary victory by refusing to set at nought its dearest and most sacred maxim. A few factious men on one side may be angry that an adversary has escaped; many men of another Church may be still more angry that they have not won the prizes which they looked for. But the body of thoughtful, earnest, devout men of all sections and schools will rejoice that they may regard the sacrament of Christ's redemption as only a pledge of eternal truth, love, and charity; that their country is not permitted to offer one more instance how the evil passions of men turn it into a badge of divisions, an occasion of strife and hatred.

Your obedient servant,
F. D. MAURice.

5, Russell-square,
Nov. 20.

P.S.-Since this letter was written I have met with an able paper on the subject in The Saturday Review. The writer of it arrives at the same conclusion with me, though by an entirely different process of reasoning.

THE political season may be said

to commence with Lord Mayor'sday, about which time the Cabinet Ministers usually re-assemble after the prorogation of Parliament. We therefore resume those comments on public affairs which we have been accustomed to present to our readers during the period when such topies are of interest and importance.

We need hardly say that we write in the interest of no party, nor in the support of any political dogma. Men of sense and candour are now so nearly agreed upon the main guiding principles on which the domestic government and the foreign relations of this country should be conducted, that it is a matter of secondary importance to all but those immediately concerned, whether the administration of affairs be in the hands of gentlemen taken from this or that side of the House. It does not follow, however, that we are quite indifferent whether Lord Palmerston or Lord Derby be at the head of affairs. We think if the gentlemen who sit on the front Opposition bench were transferred to the other side of the table tomorrow, they would find little difficulty in assimilating their views to those of the present Government; but unfortunately, Mr. Beresford and Mr. Spooner have a larger following than Mr. Disraeli and Sir John Pakington; and these statesmen, with their friends, could not retain office without lending themselves, to a certain extent at least, to a policy at once obsolete and ridiculous. The only objection, indeed, to the heads of the Conservative party is, that they are dragged back by their tails.

Regarding, then, the battle-field of politics with indifference, we have criticised the movements of the various leaders, not with reference to the banners under which they were ranged, but according to our judgment with regard to the public interest in which they were for the time engaged, and to the conduct of their operations. Accordingly, we gave our humble support to Lord Aberdeen's Government until it attempted to bring to a premature and inglorious termination a war in

which the honour and interests of the country were deeply involved. We thought it a great misfortune that the services of Lord Aberdeen's most distinguished colleagues should be lost to the Administration; but when we saw the unhappy aberration from the true and high line of England's policy into which those eminent persons had been led, we should have considered it a far greater calamity had they remained in office. In like manner we presumed to censure the negligence and levity of a great statesman who occupied a post not exactly suited to his talents and experience; but that has not prevented us from offering our respectful meed of admiration to the courage, the constancy, and the assiduity of Lord Palmerston since he has been placed at the head of affairs. Much, indeed, as the conduct of the Premier has been applauded by the generous spirit of his countrymen, we doubt whether the difficulties of his position have yet been fully appreciated. Suddenly, and without notice, deserted by the most influential of his colleagues, upon whose cordial cooperation he had a right to calculate up to the very moment of their secession, he was left almost alone to maintain a war disparaged by the retiring Ministers, at a crisis when success had not crowned our arms, when disaster had almost annihilated our army, in the face of an exulting and almost derisive foe, closely watched by great military Powers, resting on their arms, and only waiting a decided turn of fortune to exchange professed neutrality for avowed hostility. In these most trying circumstances, to which may be added the open attempts of the party foe to carry his position, Lord Palmerston never for a moment lost his fortitude and resolution. For some time it was doubtful whether he would be able to make head against the adverse tide of events; but his pluck and versatility of talent at length prevailed, and the country hailed with applause the justification of their choice.

The Opposition, or rather that portion of it which are eager for

1856.]

place and power, have tried hard to persuade the people that, when the war terminated, Lord Palmerston's mission was at an end. They appeal to the parliamentary inaction of last session as a proof that the present Ministry is unfit to carry on the Government in ordinary times. The quarterly organ of the old Tory party, in one of those heavy, pointless invectives against Liberal policy which it has been accustomed to launch periodically ever since the Reform Bill, now attempts to depreciate the very institution of Parliament itself. Because it was not found practicable in a broken session, amid the excitement of the closing scene of war, to mature a variety of important measures, which ought perhaps to have been reserved for the ensuing year, not only is the Administration to be condemned for incapacity, but the House of Commons also must be sent back to its constituents! The nation, however, we apprehend, is of a different way of thinking. If we are not mistaken, the English people will hardly be guilty of the folly and ingratitude of dismissing a Minister as soon as he has served their turn, and of withdrawing all confidence from the most experienced statesman of the time, because, in his zeal for the public service, he has failed in a first, and perhaps hasty, attempt to legislate on some questions of great intricacy in themselves, and still farther complicated by selfish interests and prejudices. The most unpopular Minister has in this country always had fair play and a sufficient trial; and it is not very likely that the most popular Minister since Lord Chatham will be denied the opportunity of submitting to the candid criticism of Parliament and the country the measures which he has now had time to mature. If we are rightly informed, Lord Palmerston required the departmental Ministers to be prepared with their respective Bills for the consideration of the Cabinet at its first meeting after the recess; and we may conclude therefore that the various legislative measures in which the country is interested, will be fully discussed in the confidential councils of the Crown before they are

737

presented to Parliament. It would be difficult to point out any better mode of securing good and effectual legislation. If the result is a farther failure, there may then, indeed, be some ground for questioning the capability of the Administration. At present, we think the charge of incapacity so loudly brought against it, and echoed in quarters which ought to be better informed, is premature and unjust.

There are some measures, indeed, which will test the public confidence in Lord Palmerston's energy and promptitude in the ensuing session. During the whole of the present Parliament, for example, there has been pending one great question, pre-eminent among many other important topics of Law Reform. We refer, of course, to the state of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and especially to their testamentary jurisdiction. For a series of years-nay, for centuries-the administration of this branch of the law, in which the great bulk of the people are immediately interested, has been a scandal to a country which boasts of free and enlightened institutions. For the last three or four sessions the absurdity and iniquity of these courts-Christian, as they are called -have been, through Parliament and the press, paraded before the country, by both lawyers and laymen. Nobody has openly ventured to come forward and defend a system by which the representative of a deceased person is obliged to prove his title in a dozen or more petty courts, if it so happens that his testator shall have left property to the amount of five pounds within their jurisdictions respectively; by which the title to real property and the title to personal property (there being often only a technical distinction between the two), though arising from the same document, must be tried before different tribunals, because the Ecclesiastical Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over wills, as far as they relate to personalty, and the Courts of Common Law pronounce upon their validity, inasmuch as they involve the title to what is called the realty. The result of this biform litigation has frequently been, that one court has set up the will, and the other