of Rome any more than in the Church of England, the authoritative decision which they seek.

But it is impossible not to perceive that it is not to us alone that this Westminster Pastoral, with all its power of dic

"Home and

Review.'

tion and all its gravity of statement, is addressed. Foreign It evidently attacks, through the sides of the Church of England, that noble movement, of which we just now spoke, of which the centre is the focus of Roman Catholic learning in Germany, and of which the chief organ has been one of the most learned and able of all our English contemporary journals. We know not any sight more commanding the respectful sympathy of Protestant theologians at the present moment, or more instructive as bearing on our own present difficulties and speculations, than the history of the late Roman Catholic Congress at Munich, and of the Home and Foreign Review' in England. In the pages of that Review -which, now that it is unhappily extinguished, we may treat as a separate work of independent authorship-there will be found matter more calculated than anything else that could be named to allay the fears of those who have been agitated amongst ourselves. There they will see how the spirit in which the recent Judgment was conceived, and the spirit of those inquiries which have called it forth, is shared by the most devout and faithful adherents of the most dogmatic Church in the world. A glance at its last theological article (on Dr. Smith's 'Dictionary of the 'Bible') will show that on every one of the great Biblical questions which have so vexed the minds of English Churchmenthe authorship of the Pentateuch, the authorship of the second part of Isaiah, the authority of the Septuagint, the date of the Book of Daniel, the speech of Stephen, the Noachian delugethe writer, from the most orthodox point of view, decides fearlessly on all these questions, and decides on what (for want of a better word) we must call the liberal side-on the side of the Essayists, against the Oxford Declaration and the Bishop of Salisbury. In the pages of an earlier number of that same Munich Review is told, in language as forcible as its informaCongress. tion is exact and its knowledge wide, the story of that memorable meeting of German Catholic divines summoned in the capital of Bavaria under the presidency of their distinguished Professor, Dr. Döllinger. Were we to search the pages of all our contemporary literature for a just delineation of the situation of parties in our own Church during the last five years, and for the warnings and consolations which that situation suggests, we could not wish for anything more apposite than the remarks

contained in the address with which Dr. Döllinger closed the proceedings of that august assembly.

'I remember a time, when there prevailed amongst German theologians a spirit of concord and a brotherly striving after a common end, for which for some years past we look in vain-which, if we may trust more than one serious indication, threatens more and more to vanish entirely from amongst us. It is especially striking that every attempt to handle theories of philosophy or principles of knowledge in theological matters immediately provokes a bitter peace-hating tone, a mania for denunciations and censures, which must fill the quiet observer, who cares only for the welfare of the Church and of science, with grief and disgust. How often in the reading of our ecclesiastical journals and controversial writings are we reminded of the truth of the saying, "Qui pauca considerat "facile pronunciat?" But even worse than those rash and hasty judgments is the passion which, within the last few years, has grown up for an organised system of religious suspicion. One is tempted to believe that amongst certain divines the old rule, "quilibet præsu"mitur esse bonus, donec probetur malus" is reversed in all cases where ecclesiastical orthodoxy is in dispute.

It would be

far better for us, if we could but always remember, that no theologian has the right to give out a mere theological opinion, or the doctrine of a particular school, as an article of faith sanctioned by the Church. The great scholastic theologians maintained that it was not less heretical to declare that to be an article of faith which was not de fide, than to deny an article of faith altogether.

8

'What we need in our theological discussions is to allow the unbroken dominion of a spirit of mutual justice, and of brotherly, considerate, forbearing charity. The cause of the Church, which our zealots profess to serve, would be best secured, if they would but give the first place to the great virtues-the characteristic virtues of the Church-Humility and Charity-and abstain from assuming the office of judges over others, who to their own Master must stand or fall. That there are now in Germany two theological tendencies is an acknowledged fact, which no individuals can hope to alter. The methods of these two tendencies must be different from each other. The one, we may say, fights with the bows and arrows of a past age, the other with the firearms of the present. What is so earnestly to be desired, so absolutely necessary, is, that as they both aim at a common object, each should endeavour to interpret the other's expressions from the other's circle of thought. There may be many, to whom, from their natural want of spiritual and mental elasticity, this may seem an impossible demand. So much the more urgent is the duty of always taking for granted that the writer of whom we complain is in accordance with Catholic doctrine, and that his views, though expressed in other terms than those familiar to his opponents, must be taken in an orthodox sense,

Compare S. Basil, quoted by Jeremy Taylor, vol. viii. p. 25.

unless the opposite is self-evident. I entreat you for the future in all theological and philosophical questions to contend only with scientific weapons, and to banish all denunciations and all suspicions from our literature as alike alien to the spirit of our country and our religion; and much rather take for our pattern the noble and truly evangelical mildness with which the enlightened teachers of the ancient Church, as Augustine in his dispute with Jerome, dealt with the differing views of their opponents.'

The Congress, which had been opened under the blessing of the Pope, and with the concurrence of the highest ecclesiastical authorities, has been overtaken by a storm of Pontifical displeasure. In exact accordance with the clamour of the less. enlightened of our own clergy, a Papal Brief has been issued, refusing to acknowledge the claims of scientific truth, and endeavouring to exalt the floating unauthorised opinions of small bodies, or popular theologians, to the level of dogmatic authority, not altogether denying the distinction between dogma and 'opinion, but reducing the practical recognition of it to the 'smallest possible limits.'

From this conflict thus instituted between the Papal See and the principles advocated by the Congress of Munich, the distinguished editor of the Home and Foreign Review' has thought it right to withdraw, by submitting to an authority which he considers legitimate, though he wholly declines to accept its principles. We will not insist on contrasting the dignified and manly attitude of this submission with the wavering alternation of defiance and surrender held out by too many of our own divines in the presence of the decision of our own Supreme Court of Appeal. It is more profitable to dwell on the elevated sentiments with which the Review is closed, and which apply to all those who, whether within or without the Church of Rome, within or without the Church of England, refuse to abandon the hope of a reconciliation between Religion and Science, or delight to cherish, amidst whatever discouragements, the light which still lives and burns, and will live and burn with everincreasing brilliance, 'in the hearts of the silent thinkers of the 'Church.' It is consoling to feel that the principles which ' have been upheld in that or any other organ of Christian free'dom will not die with it; but will find their destined advocates ' and will triumph in their appointed time.' It is consoling to be assured that from the beginning of the Church, it has been 'a law of her nature, that the truths which naturally proved 'themselves the legitimate products of her doctrines have had 'to make their slow way upwards through a phalanx of hostile

' habits and traditions, and to be rescued, not only from open enemies, but also from friendly hands that were not worthy to 'defend them.'

Hopes of the

logians of

the Roman

Catholic

Church.

6

The gallant champion of these truths in the Roman Catholic Church turns with confidence to the belief that in the piety, in the sincerity, in the learning of the great writers of Liberal theo- his own creed, 'practice will compel an assent which ' is denied to theory, and men will learn to value in the fruit what the germ did not reveal to them.' Our confidence is the same, but founded, we trust, on a still firmer basis. We cannot but believe that in the Church of England the spirit of Hooker and of Butler will again revive, in those new forms which the change of times and circumstances requires. We see already the possibility of a Christian union based on other grounds than those of a mistaken antipathy to Christian progress and enlightenment. We know that genius and knowledge and freedom have a uniting tendency, as surely as narrowness and dulness and ignorance have a sectarian and dividing tendency. We believe that what Professor Döllinger has well said of the contending Churches in Germany, is still more true of the contending parties within our own communion :

'The future union cannot be looked for in the form of a simple, immediate, and, as it were, material reincorporation of the divided confessions. There must be first a certain introductory process of purification on both sides, and knowledge must pioneer the way; each of the two communities, though in different measure, has advantages to receive from the other; each has to free itself from faults and onesidedness with the help of the other, to fill up gaps in its religious and ecclesiastical life, and to heal its woundswhile neither could be asked to give up anything which had been found to be a real good. And thus the domain of historical science [and we may add of biblical criticism] appears like the Truce of God in the middle ages, or like a consecrated place, where those elsewhere religiously divided have come together and carry on their inquiries and their work in harmony; where all, impelled by the same thirst of knowledge, and drinking out of the same sacred fountains of Truth, grow together in one common fellowship; and from this fellowship and brotherhood of knowledge there will one day proceed a higher unity and conciliation, embracing the whole domain of historical and then of religious truth, when under the influence of a milder atmosphere the crust of polemical and sectarian ice thaws and melts away, as the patriot and Christian hopes and prays.'

9 These remarks are taken from the eulogium delivered by Professor Döllinger on the late King of Bavaria. But it is evident that they represent the Professor's

hopes no less than the King's (König Maximilian II. und die Wissenschaft, pp. 32-34).

109

A LETTER ON THE STATE OF SUBSCRIPTION IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.1

MY DEAR LORD BISHOP,

I have asked your permission to address this letter to you, not with the view of making your Lordship in any way responsible for its contents, which I have purposely forborne from submitting to your perusal beforehand, but because your eminent position in the Church will be the best explanation of my motives in calling public attention to a state of things which demands the serious consideration of those who are most interested in the welfare of the Church of England, and which has, both in former times and recently, engaged your own attention. That such a task as I here undertake is not of my own seeking you will readily understand. It diverts me from pressing and far more inviting occupations; and brings me across conflicts which I would gladly avoid. But I know that the sentiments which are here expressed are shared by many both amongst clergy and laity. My office as one of the Theological Professors in our great University, and as Examining Chaplain in the diocese of London, brings these questions directly before my notice; and 'the signs of the times point not obscurely' in the direction which was indicated in your Lordship's memorable charge of last year, when you gladdened many hearts by declaring that 'the whole subject of what our Subscriptions ought 'to be requires, and must receive, immediate attention.'

You will not need any assurance from me that my interest in this subject, and the necessity of considering it, are quite independent of the controversies, which during the last three years have so vehemently agitated the Church on the questions of Biblical Criticism and the relations of Theology to Science. Important as these questions are, they are only in the most indirect and casual manner (as I shall presently show) affected

' [This Letter, addressed to the Bishop of London (Dr. Tait) 1863, preceded by a year the Article which it here follows for the sake of convenience. The 'state of 'subscription' is given in the Notes ap

pended to the Letter. There are obvious reasons why the Letter may still have an interest beyond the particular occasion which called it forth. 1870.]