So

trine of the Church of England and the same might be said of the Church of Rome is wide enough to cover fundamental differences. Human nature is too strong for dogmas. long as there are many men, there will be many minds, in theology as well as in everything else. It is the great merit of the Church of England, that for a great length of time it has been in the habit of deing openly what all ecclesiastical bodies have been obliged to do, and what most of them have done secretly. It has avowedly allowed great differences of opinion amongst the elergy; but, if this is so, what conscientious obligation lies upon any elergyman to adopt the opinions of any other clergyman or set of clergymen? Would any one, a few years ago, have cared to know whether Dr. Williams and Mr. Wilson agreed or differed with Dr. Longley and Dr. Thompson, and what difference is made in the intrinsic value of the men, by the fact, that the Prime Minister appointed the two lastnamed doctors to be Archbishops of Canterbury and York? No one is specially troubled at the difference between the Archbishops and the Bishop of London, and it is highly probable, if that is a matter of any importance, that, if the Archbishops were separately cross-examined as to their own private opinions on the Bible, and as to their reasons for holding them, they would be found to differ widely from each other.

What, then, is the conscientious obligation of a clergyman who has no formularies to guide him, no general consent of eminent divines, and who is not in any way bound to respect or share in the opinions of any contemporary authority whatever? Any one who faces the question candidly will be obliged to own that it is absolutely impossible to discover any other test than that of legality. A clergyman no doubt is bound to teach the doctrines which he has promised to teach. At any rate he is bound not to contradict them; but what has he promised to teach or not to contradict?. The Thirty

nine Articles. And who is to say what they mean? In the last resort the Queen in Council, for it must never be forgotten that the supremacy of the Crown in all causes, civil and eccleclesiastical-that is, in the present case, the supremacy of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council-is itself one of the Articles of the Church of England. It is in this sense perfectly true, as Mr. Wilson said—and the Bishop of St. David's has since said the same thing-that the legal obligation is the measure of the moral obligation. The phrase may sound harsh, and to inaccurate observers it no doubt has

a harsh appearance. It sounds as if those who used it meant to say that they cared nothing for the moral character of their conduct, that they paid no attention to the degree in which they might deviate from the standard which they were bound in honour and conscience to maintain, that they feared nothing but legal punishment, and would submit to no compulsion less rough than that of an ecclesiastical court and the legal process at its disposal. In fact, the phrase in question seems by many persons to have been understood as if those who used it had said, "No doubt, in honour and conscience, I owe you 20%.; but, as you have no memorandum in writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, I will not pay, and you cannot make me; 'the legal obligation is the measure of the moral one.'

This is an entire misapprehension. The meaning of the phrase in question is, that it is impossible to specify any set of opinions which a clergyman is under any obligation whatever to hold, except those contained in the Thirty-nine Articles-a document which, as every one knows, is in many parts incomplete. To what, then, is he bound, as to the ambiguous and incomplete parts of this document? He is bound to that which the highest authority (declared by the document itself to be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council) shall decide to be the meaning. As to matters which the document so interpreted does not decide,

he is in the position of an independent inquirer into truth, and is under a moral obligation to discover and uphold it by every means in his power. It is in this sense that the legal measures the moral obligation. This often happens in private life, and in matters unconnected with theology. A family finds that a distant relation has left a large property amongst them by a will, of which the meaning is altogether obscure, and which was obviously made in ignorance or forgetfulness of the state of the family, and of the chronology of the births and deaths of its members. What would the most united and affectionate family do under the circumstances, if they wished to act with the most perfect regard to honour and morality? Would they not say, "No one of us has more claim to this property, apart from the will, than any other, and, honestly, we do not know what the will means. Let us take the opinion of eminent lawyers, or, if necessary, of the Court of Chancery, as to the legal effect of the will, and be bound by the result; the legal obligation is the measure of the moral obligation.' The moral obligation imposed on a clergyman with respect to his belief arises from his subscription, from his individual promise, and the exact meaning of this can be decided only by a court of law.

If this view is the true one, it hardly admits of a doubt that the judgment is a great happiness for every honest member of the Church of England. Let any one consider for a moment what would have been the result of an opposite decision. Suppose it had been decided that the clergy were to be excluded from all bona fide criticism of the Bible; that they were not to be allowed to say this or that statement is not accurate; this or that book has usually been assigned to a wrong author, or to a different period from that at which in fact it was written. Such a decision, of course, would have been a great triumph for the stricter classes of the clergy. They would have been able to say, with perfect truth, to the liberal party in the Church, "You may be right, or you may be wrong, but honest pro

fessors of your real opinions you are not, and cannot be, so long as you retain your preferment." This most formidable of all weapons is now taken out of their hands, and, if the clergy are but true to themselves, they have the power of discussing, as it never has yet been discussed, at least in this country, with perfect freedom, and in the calmest and most deliberate way, one of the most interesting questions that ever engaged human attention-the question, namely, What is the Bible really? This, of course, will lead by degrees to a free and full re-examination of much of our existing theology, and, it may be hoped without any extreme rashness, to its settlement on a sound basis. That this will have to be done some time is as clear as the sun at noonday; that it had better be done by friendly hands in the Church than by rough and unfriendly critics outside of it, must be obvious to every one who can in the least degree appreciate the difference between reform and revolution.

The conduct of those who are most bitterly opposed to the recent decisions affords an instructive and conclusive proof of the fact, that they agree with the general principle that the question is, after all, a legal one; and that, like it or like it not, room cannot be denied to those who have now established their right to a standing-ground in the Church. If the archbishops who dissented from the judgment of the Privy Council, and the bishops who joined in condemning the "Essays and Reviews," had been able to go further, if they had firmly believed in any coherent system of their own, based on grounds which challenged inquiry and would command the assent of the reasonable and devout, their course would have been clear. They would have said, The law has decided against us. We bow to its decision, but we will use that freedom which is open to us as to all other English subjects. We will throw off from the Church that which makes it appear to sanction what we know, and can prove, to be damnable errors, destructive of the souls of those who

entertain them. We will lay down our mitres, we will resign our palaces, our incomes, and our seats in the House of Lords; we will set up the pure and true doctrine of the Church independently of all State trammels, and leave the Judicial Committee to rule over willing and degraded slaves. They do not say this, or anything like it. As yet we have heard nothing of secession, and why not? Is it because of an ignoble preference of place, power, and money over truth and the Gospel? To answer yes would be, to the last degree, unjust and untrue. There is no reason whatever to suppose that the accomplished and pious men who hold the high offices of the Church are mercenary or incapable of making sacrifices in a good cause. They have, in 1 See however letter from Dr. Pusey to the Editor of the Record (Feb. 19, 1864), which looks in the direction indicated.

a high degree, the honourable qualities of Christians and gentlemen. Many of them have given strong proofs of disinterested zeal in all good and charitable causes. The late Bishop of London gave away what might have constituted a princely fortune for his family. The late Bishop of Durham, who was attacked with the most vindictive acrimony for giving a living to his son-in-law, died poor. No man in his senses could charge the Bishop of Oxford with caring for money; nor has any one a right to suppose that the members of the Bench would shrink from any duty which conscience distinctly imposed upon them. What, then, does their acquiescence prove? It proves that they have no strong convictions on the points settled by the Privy Council, no clear, plain system of doctrine on which they can appeal to the country against the law as now established.

IT is to be regretted that the able and entertaining writer of the above "story" should not have been content to accept the plain, unvarnished tale of the "Relief of Arrah" as originally delivered in official despatches published at the time, and the truth of which has never been impugned, but has wandered into the uncertain regions of romance in quest of "telling incidents" wherewith to season a pleasant dish for the public palate, not, perhaps, duly considering the injurious tendency of these dangerous embellishments, as far as they are calculated to affect the soldierly reputations of the principal actors.

That he must be acquitted of any malus animus against anybody concerned is sufficiently evident from the pervading tone of the writer's graphic sketches of

1 See Macmillan's Magazine, for September, pp. 351, 352.

men and things in India generally, which betoken the generous, highminded English gentleman, whose main. object it is to inspire a kindly interest for the land of his adoption in the minds of his countrymen at home.

It is, therefore, in no unfriendly spirit that I feel myself imperatively called upon, at the earliest practicable moment after my return from India, to correct the statement made in the following extract, descriptive of the crisis of the struggle between Major Eyre's small band of British soldiers and the formidable host of mutineers and rebels who opposed their progress to the relief of Arrah, on the 2nd of August, 1857.

The "Competition Wallah" writes. thus:-"Our troops began to be dis

"trying work receiving twenty bullets "for every one they fired. At such a "moment the man of sterling stuff feels "that things cannot go well unless he "personally exerts himself to the utmost. "It is this state of mind that wins foot"ball matches, and boat-races, and battles. "A young officer, by name Hastings, "not relishing the idea of standing "still to be shot down, ran forward, "sword in hand, towards the point "where the enemy stood thickest, with "a dozen volunteers, and twice as many "soldiers at his heels. This appeared "to the sepoys a most unaccountable "proceeding, but they were ignorant of "the great military truth, that when two "hostile parties find themselves on the "same ground, one or the other must "leave it; and, as Hastings and his "companions kept coming nearer and "nearer, with the expression on their "faces which the Sahibs always wear "when they don't intend to turn back,

66

they had no choice but to run for it. "That charge saved Arrah. When 66 once the natives have given way it is "almost impossible to bring them again "to the scratch. Coer Sing retreated, "leaving on the ground six hundred of "his followers, most of whom had been "killed in the attack upon the battery, "and our poor little force, which he "had expected to devour, gathered "together the wounded, limbered up "the guns, and with lightened hearts pressed forward on the mission of de"liverance."

The reader of this story must naturally wonder what Captain L'Estrange and the other officers of the 5th Fusileers were about, when a young stranger thus assumed the command of their men and led them to the charge in this abrupt and disorderly manner, and why Major Eyre did not place himself at the head of the force at so critical a moment?

Now, it is curiously illustrative of the obstinate vitality of error, that Captain Hastings, the hero of the above pleasantly-told tale, and who was the officiating staff-officer of the Force, actually took the trouble to address a letter to one of the leading Calcutta

papers, wherein he publicly and emphatically denied having acted, on the above occasion, otherwise than in strict obedience to the orders of his immediate superior, viz. Major Eyre, whose personal presence, it must be remembered, was, at that critical moment, absolutely indispensable with the guns, there being no other artillery officer in the field The great object of the enemy throughout the action had been to gain posses sion of these guns, and twice had the sepoys charged most desperately almost to their very muzzles, but had been driven back with great slaughter. Our ammunition was, however, falling alarmingly short, and it was necessary jealously to husband every round until the proper moment arrived for delivering fire with effect. In the excitement of action, nothing is more difficult than to restrain gunners from wasting their ammunition in mere random shots. Had these guns been taken, we were all doomed men, and all hope of relieving the Arrah garrison was for Hence it was that Major Eyre, though commanding the whole party, felt that his own proper post was, just then, with his guns; feeling as he did every confidence in the ability of his second in command, Captain L'Estrange of the 5th Fusileers (than whom a braver or better officer never existed), to carry out his wishes with regard to the infantry portion of the force, consisting simply of 160 men (first-rate marksmen all) of his own admirable regiment, distributed in skirmishing order along a front of 300 yards.

ever gone.

Now, Captain L'Estrange's operations being partially concealed by trees and by the nature of the ground, Major Eyre was obliged to employ his staff-officer, Captain Hastings, who was well mounted, to maintain communication with the second in command during the action. At the critical period alluded to by a "Competition Wallah," Hastings had galloped across the field with a message from L'Estrange, to the effect that he feared his men could not much longer retain their present ground, and requesting fresh instructions how to

act in such case. Major Eyre's reply to this was an order to collect his men forth with in line, and charge the enemy, while he himself would support the movement with a brisk cannonade. At this very moment the two guns on the left flank were themselves in imminent peril from a line of sharpshooters, who had gradually crept up under cover of the rough ground and thick bushes, and within a radius of eighty yards were deliberately aiming at the gunners, while a fresh column of sepoys stood ready to rush forward to another attack. Therefore not a moment was to be lost. What took place is accurately recorded in the despatch penned by Captain L'Estrange on the following morning. He writes:

"Our line was then about 300 yards "in length, and the enemy came pour"ing down on us in large numbers. At "this time we were in imminent danger, "when Major Eyre ordered us to charge "the enemy. The movement was per"fectly successful, and, our line advanc"ing at the charge, the mutineers fled "from the woods, from whence emerg

ing, Major Eyre opened on them with

grape, and the enemy cleared off in all "directions."

Major Eyre's own account of the matter, as communicated to Government, ran as follows:

"Finding at length that the enemy "grew emboldened by the superiority "of their numbers and the advantage "of their position, I determined on "trying the effect of a general charge "of infantry, and sent the Hon. E. P. Hastings to Captain L'Estrange, with "orders to that effect. Promptly and "gallantly he obeyed the order," &c.

66

With regard to the personal bearing exhibited by Captain Hastings, in carrying out the orders he had received, it is unnecessary to add a word to the very cordial recognition of his bravery, already rendered by Major Eyre in his public despatch. But Hastings himself would have been the very last to sanction the version of the affair now given by the "Competition Wallah," after a lapse of six years, whereby an invidious attempt is made to exalt that

officer's reputation at the expense of his responsible superiors. It may be safely asserted that Captains L'Estrange and Scott, of the 5th Fusileers, were quite capable of leading their own men at such a crisis; yet no mention is made of those officers in the "Story." Like most fictions, however, this one seems to have been founded on a basis of fact. Mixed up with our fortunes on this occasion were about a dozen British volunteers, chiefly railway officials and merchants, who had, from generous and patriotic motives, accompanied the force from Buxar, and who looked to Hastings (himself a volunteer from the same locality) as their natural chief. In galloping along the line to transmit the order to L'Estrange, it is undoubtedly true that Hastings waved his sword and shouted to the volunteers and skirmishers to prepare for a charge, and nothing could be more natural than that one of them, in writing to his friends in Calcutta, should make Hastings his prominent hero. But Hastings was far too thorough-bred a soldier and gentleman to accept the well-meant, though dubious compliment, and lost not a moment in stating the exact truth in the most public und unmistakable

manner.

It would seem as though the "Competition Wallah" had, in the course of his travels, come across this old piece of gossip, which savoured too much of romance to be resisted. My sole object in noticing it thus seriously is to prevent what is, in reality, an incomplete and injurious statement from being accepted as reliable material for history. Happily, both Major Scott and Captain Oldfield, of the 5th Fusileers, still survive, and are now in England, to corroborate, if need be, the facts I have stated. They can also state whether, at the most critical period of the battle, their men were really like a flock of frightened sheep, without a leader of their own, as represented, or whether, on the contrary, the utmost order and calmness had not prevailed among all ranks from first to last of that trying day. Our struggle, be it remembered, had been carried on, at in