ESSAYS AND REVIEWS

IN 1860 a small volume, termed 'Essays and Reviews,' raised a hysterical storm of indignation against its authors, and a clamour for the impeachment of the writers, and their expulsion from the Church.

Its contents were as follows: Education of the World,' by Dr. Temple; 'Biblical Researches,' by Dr. Rowland Williams; Evidences of Christianity,' by Baden Powell; 'The National Church,' by Bristow Wilson ; 'Mosaic Cosmogony,' by Goodwin; 'Religious Thought,' by Mark Pattison; Interpretation of Scriptures,' by Jowett.

The principal features in these articles (which were moderate in tone, compared with the productions of the present day) were a claim to the free exercise of reason in the pursuit of truth, liberty of conscience, and toleration : claims that are generally conceded in theory by all parties in the Church, but too often overlooked when such freedom and toleration outsteps the narrow limits which each individual has fixed as his own standard of faith, a departure from which is branded as infidelity or atheism.

The movement was a direct reaction from that system of narrow and mischievous interpretation of the Scriptures which is opposed to all common sense and research, and is nowhere claimed by the Scriptures for themselves. Such a system is enunciated by Bayle, in his ' Verbal Inspiration,' as part of the course of St. Aidin's College:

The Bible cannot be less than verbally inspired; for every syllable, every letter is just as it would be had God spoken from heaven without any human instigation. Every scientific statement is infallibly accurate, all its history and narrations of every kind are without any inaccuracy. The words and phrases have a grammatical and philological accuracy, such as is possessed by no human composition.

Dr. Molesworth, as was his wont in such cases of popular

excitement, kept his mind clear and undisturbed. He said that there was very little in the Essays and Reviews,' and but for the outcry against them, they would have been little known, and have had hardly any influence.

He believed that infidelity was the great evil of the day, but that the remedy rested, not in anathemas against it, nor in a denial of the free exercise of reason, but in the unity and vitality of the Church itself, which should, without sacrifice of truth, enlarge its borders, and, instead of indulging in party spirit and barren controversy, should enter into an honourable rivalry of love and good works with those from whom it might differ;-imitating that which is good, while avoiding that which is pernicious in them; at the same time making, with all Christian humility, allowances for difference in mind, education, and circumstances of others, and believing that they also may have a share in the truth.

His opinion was that the real difficulty in religion consists, not so much in knowing what is right, but in doing that which one knows to be right; and that he who steadily performs his duty to God and his neighbour, and declines to allow his mind to be unsettled by 'doubtful disputations,' cannot be far astray from the right path.

In fact, the Essays and Reviews' had the effect of causing men to think; and though, as might have been expected, the reaction led, in some cases, to extravagant extremes, the ultimate result has been beneficial to the Church; and now that the ferment of reaction has settled down, its benefit is generally acknowledged.

If the popular clamour had been successful, the services of many valuable clergy would have been lost to the Church, including those of Dr. Temple, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury.

THE PURCHAS CASE

IN 1871 a remonstrance was framed, to be sent to the Bishops, asking them to abstain from acting on the decision of the Privy Council, in a case which had been instituted against the Rev. Mr. Purchas, who had been accused of ritualistic practices regarding vestments and the ‘Eastward position.'

Dr. Molesworth refused to sign the remonstrance for the following reasons:

Not only must I withhold my signature, but I am constrained to controvert the conclusions, which (as appears to me) impulse and excitement, rather than sound reason, or Christian principle, have led them to adopt.

I do not dispute the existence of the four grievances consequent upon the judgment, which are set forth by the memorialists as their premises. But I am entirely at issue with them on the conclusion which they draw from these premises. On these grounds,' say they,' we earnestly trust that your Lordships will abstain from acting upon the decision, and thus preserve the ancient liberty of the Church.' This is neither more nor less than memorialising the Bishops to be partisans with their clergy in at least evading, if not resisting, a decision which is Established Law. Can such resistance, or even evasion, be consistent with the duty of any believer (much more of a Bishop) under the Gospel, which expressly enjoins obedience to the Powers that be ' '?

Moreover, this memorial utterly ignores the main principle of the Bishop's jurisdiction over his clergy. His office is to administer, not to make, law. And, in administering, he is not to consult his own private will and opinion, nor the popular sentiments of those who are the subjects of such administration.

In general, his administrative functions (when they exceed private and friendly counsel) are called into action by some party, or parties, claiming the protective or the remedial exercise of his lawful jurisdiction. In such cases, his duty is judicial. He is to administer law lawfully;

G

not according to his private opinion, not in favour of any whom his decision may satisfy or dissatisfy.

The objections to it are not merely speculative. The reasoning referred to tends to serious practical evils. I cannot pursue the subject herein, but I have issued an address to my congregation which may illustrate these evils. J. E. N. MOLESWORTH, D.D., Vicar of Rochdale.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, to whom the 'remonstrance' was subsequently sent, replied that the chief pastors of our Church were the very last who ought to be requested to set the nation an example of refusing obedience to the highest tribunal. He exhorted his brethren not to be disquieted by strife respecting vestments or 'position,' and he added:

Such things cannot touch your teaching of the Gospel of Christ, or affect the validity of the Sacraments. In these days, when every effort is needed to resist ungodliness and infidelity, all zeal and energy ought to be directed to the promotion of real religion among our people.