MISCELLANEOUS.

[The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed in this department.]

MR. MAURICE'S KINGDOM OF CHRIST. (LETTER II.) SIR,-In my former letter I confined myself to a simple analysis of Mr. Maurice's preface to his "Kingdom of Christ," without making any remarks upon the work itself. In his preface he states the nature and design of his work. If I rightly understand Mr. M.'s theory, it is, that all persons,-Catholics, heretics, and schismatics, alike,-have hitherto been partially wrong, and only partially right, in their views of the Kingdom of Christ; that nowhere, and by no one, has the true idea of the Kingdom been fully held and exhibited. That Scripture and the Church, of course, contain and express the true idea, and so it has ever been in the world,-but that no individual teachers, or bodies, have ever gathered it in its fulness from the words and forms of Scripture and the Church; that ALL, whether Fathers, Reformers, or modern divines, have only held a portion of the truth, and, mistaking this portion for the whole, have fallen into the error of denying and opposing other portions equally true, from not being able to reconcile and combine them with their own. This, I say, is Mr. Maurice's theory; and his object and design in this book is to exhibit that one true and adequate idea of the Kingdom of Christ, which shall comprehend in itself, reconcile, and harmonize, all the different, partial, and apparently conflicting opinions of Churchmen and Dissenters, Fathers, Reformers, Evangelicals, Quakers, and others. His view is that all are wrong, and all are right; his object, to separate the truth from the error in each system, and to give each its proper place in that one full system which alone satisfies the scheme, spirit, and letter of Scripture, the form and language of the Church, and the experience and the wants of human nature. For the truth of his own view, he appeals to these tests; his view is the true view because it alone fulfils them. The truth does not lie with any school or party, is a favourite saying with him. It lies in the Scripture, and with the Church as a whole; but if we ask, Have these no expounders? he seems to reply,-hitherto, at least, none but themselves; all expounders are parties and schools, one taking one part, another another part of the whole. My exposition claims to be the true one, simply because it does satisfy, reconcile, and harmonize all the parts. Whether Mr. Maurice be right or wrong in this view; whether it be a Catholic, reverential, and modest position, are distinct questions; certain it is that this is his theory and profession in this book, and if he is to be defended and admired, it must be in spite of these, or rather for these very opinions and views. I now proceed to give your readers a specimen of his reasoning in accordance with these views, and may safely pledge myself to make good every word I have said, by simple extracts from his own words.

For this purpose I take his Second Letter, that on Baptism. In this letter he begins by observing that Quakers have rejected baptism because they consider it inconsistent with the idea of a spiritual kingdom which Christ came to establish; and affirm that their witness for the spirituality of this Kingdom has, in consequence of this very rejection, been feeble and ineffectual; this he undertakes to show. On the other hand, he asserts that "for want of the belief in an established spiritual kingdom, the notion of Baptism which prevails among the sects, and among most (if not all) "Churchmen, is a confused and carnal notion;" and goes on to prove "that they who have practised the rite have yet overlooked its power and meaning."-Pp. 70, 71. He then alludes to the differences of opinion existing within the Church on the subject of Baptism, which he classes under the three heads of High Church, Evangelical, and the followers of Mr. Budd; and in reply to a supposed objector, that he must either adopt one of these, or set up some other fourth opinion of his own, he says,-"With submission, I will do neither of these things; I will consider each of these opinions; I will attempt to show how and wherein each seems to have denied the truth of the others. I will attempt to show how that which each really prizes, that which he feels he cannot part with, will unite in a principle-larger, deeper, more satisfactory than any of the three, yet freed from the perplexities and contradictions which each has felt in the opinion of the others, and occasionally in his own." Thus, he says, he will avoid "choosing any of the opposing notions," but "will account for them all, and justify them all." This, he says, will not be "setting up a crotchet of his own in preference to the opinions of wiser, better, and more experienced men;" but will be "refusing to set up his judgment against any of them; refusing to determine to which of them he shall not render the respect and homage which he feels that all have a right to claim from him." If it be objected, again, that still he must on his own authority determine this his view to be that of the Church, he replies:-" Not until I have brought you to confess that each of these parties was right in reading its own view in the forms of the Church; not till I have shown you that each has failed, palpably failed, in identifying its own views with those of the forms of the Church; not till I have shown you, that it is by the forms of the Church, and not by my own wit, that I have been led to see how truly each of these views includes a portion of the meaning of Baptism, how its full meaning is expressed only by the union of them all." If, again, it be objected that he must still assume the Scripture view and the Church view to be the same, he replies, confidently, "not if you can find another that coincides equally with the letter of Scripture, the spirit of Scripture, the scheme of Scripture." If, again, it be asked, But is this view to be forced upon you? he answers, "not unless you want it. If there are no wants in your mind and heart which require such an idea of Baptism, and will not be content without it, I may allege the union of discordant opinions, the authority of the Church, the consistency of Scripture, in vain. In your case (that of his Quaker friend,) I know there are such wants."-Pp. 75, 76.

In another place he says, to the same purpose: "I have now set before you my idea of Baptism, portions of which are acknowledged by each of the parties in our Church, the acknowledgment of which (my idea) in its completion, would, I believe, lead to the reconciliation of all these differences."-P. 107.

Can words be stronger and plainer in proof of what I have ascribed to Mr. Maurice? On this subject of Baptism, at least, on his own showing, is he not alone right, and all others only partially so, and partially wrong? He alone is in possession of that "large, deep, and satisfactory principle, which is free, and frees from all perplexities and contradictions; the only view which reconciles discordant opinions, satisfies the forms of the Church, the whole of Scripture, and the wants of human nature." I am not saying now that this is necessarily a conceited and presumptuous position; Mr. M. thinks he protects himself from this charge by the observation that " he has been led to this view by the forms of the Church, not by his own wit.” Although how it happens that other persons have not been led by these same forms to this same view, or to what these forms speak except to our understandings, or wits, he does not say. I wish, chiefly, that Mr. Maurice's position should be fairly understood and admitted; and I say that, as he himself states it in the strongest way, it is, that all existing views of Baptism are partially wrong, and each of them contains only a portion of that view which is the true view, the Scripture view, the Church view, and of which he is the expounder.

And here it will be of consequence to notice the sense in which Mr. M. uses the expression "the Church's view," or similar expressions. He does not mean by this the expositions of any individuals and authorities within the Church, or of any catena of them; all these come under his term schools or parties. He means by it, the truth which the Church, in all its parts, forms, and ceremonies, taken together, is designed to teach. According to him there has never been a particular, accredited, and complete Church view in the sense of the view of the Church's authorities and divines. According to him, the Church, as a whole, apart from any opinions or expositions by her children, is the only witness of the Church's view, and all its expositors are "schools" within the Church. I say, there never has been such a witness, for now Mr. Maurice distinctly professes to have collected from the forms of the Church that view which is co-extensive with them all,comprehending and expressed by all. This will more fully appear by what follows: "You have heard," says Mr. M. "of a progressive Christianity, a Christianity for the nineteenth century, superior to and destined to supersede the Christianity of all previous centuries. The whole style of these letters will, I presume, acquit me of entertaining any such notion as this; but there is hardly any notion so absurd or dangerous that has not its foundation in an important truth."-P. 108. And what is this important truth? It is this: that the Church has an infancy, a boyhood, and a manhood; that the age of the Fathers was its infancy, the age of the Reformation its boyhood, and this work, the Kingdom of Christ, is the harbinger of its manhood.

one

66

Again, let the appeal be made to Mr. M.'s own words: "HighChurchmen," he says, "appeal in support of their view of Baptism to the Fathers of the Christian Church." And the principal notion which the Fathers held concerning Baptism, he says, was the general of being adopted by God into His family. Now this seems to me (Mr. Maurice) just as it should be,-this feeling, I think, is the one which God would communicate to His infant Church. The truth that men are constituted in Christ, and that they must exert a direct faith in Christ, if they would enjoy the privilege of being children of God; this truth, it seems to me, was intended to be brought into distinct consciousness at a later period, and was brought out at the Reformation. Then first, it began to be clearly understood, that Baptism is a sacrament which applies to all stages of life, and not merely an act instituting a man into a position from which he falls afterwards." "The Evangelical party set up the doctrines of the Reformation against that of the Fathers; and are right so far as this, that the Reformers did see some things that their predecessors did not see." If the age of the fathers was the infancy, that of the Reformation the boyhood, we need not fear to call the time when this truth" (my idea of Baptism) "shall be realized, the manhood of the Church." And then he adds, "I have not shrunk from explaining to you what I consider is the imperfection of each existing sect or system in our Church, and even of the views prevailing in each age of the Church." Again, I say, can words make Mr. Maurice's position and profession plainer than these words make it? He distinctly says that all persons, parties, and ages of the Church, Fathers, Reformers, ancient and modern divines, have been only partially enlightened on the subject of Baptism; that each held only a portion of the truth; and that all the different portions united in one make up that true and full idea of it, which is his idea. From this it is clear, as I have said, that "the Church view" does not mean, with him, the view of the Church held and taught by any of her body, but that view which the whole Church system was designed, according to Mr. Maurice, to teach, and which he alone, as yet, has realized. According to this view of the matter also it follows, that Evangelicals, Dissenters, and Quakers, have, in the same way as High Churchmen, Reformers, and Fathers, a portion" of this his idea. Each-in much the same way, some more, some less-contributes his share to Mr. M.'s "Church view."

66

Now all this may be true, and deep, and philosophical, and Catholic, in Mr. M.'s sense of the word; only let it be fairly understood what it is we are holding up to admiration when we are praising Mr. M.'s work on the Kingdom of Christ. Let him not be confounded with Fathers, Reformers, or modern High-Churchmen: these are all parties within the Church, according to him. He belongs to none. He belongs to the Church in no sense that others do. He stands alone in his exposition of its doctrines. His view is absolutely his own view, so far as it is comprehensive and satisfactory; and every one else's, inasmuch as every one may find his own view somewhere or other in it, and somehow or other "accounted for and justified."

Mr. Maurice may be right, and every one else may be wrong; but, unless he is so, then surely with such pretensions as his, he is very conceited and very presumptuous. There is but one step from the sublime to the ridiculous, in this, as in other cases. These pretensions are either very true and sublime, or very ridiculous. Be Mr. Maurice what he may, be his talents what you will, be he altogether right, or altogether wrong, he claims to be altogether, and alone altogether, right, and imputes imperfection, defect, and error, to "all sects and systems, and even ages of the Church," This is his position; he has none other. By this he must be tried. It is Mr. Maurice against the world. We must make our choice.

But, further, I think it is but fair that we should know what Mr. Maurice's opinion concerning the modern advocates of High-Church -or, as they profess, ancient Church doctrines, is. If Mr. M. is right, the modern assertors, or expositors, of these opinions are most wrong. It seems to me most inconsistent to praise both in the same breath, or in the same work; it is positively a contradiction in terms. I am not saying which is right; I only say both cannot be. I assert, then, that, in apportioning the different parts of his one "deep, large, and satisfactory" idea of Baptism to the different sects and ages of the Church, the modern High-Church divines have, according to Mr. M., the least share of truth, the greatest of error. I declare that of no system within, or sect without, the Church, does Mr. M. speak in terms of such severe censure, as of Dr. Pusey, for instance, and his friends. Kind and liberal to dissenters of all kinds, thanking them for the share they have contributed to the preservation and discovery of truth,-to Dr. Pusey, and his friends, he deals out the strongest reproofs that are to be found in his book. Hear, again, his own words: "I now turn to the High-Church view of Baptism," he says.* "I mean to show wherein I think it inconsistent with itself, and with the idea of a Church." (P. 91.) "The doctrines of this party are nowhere so ably and so eloquently expressed as in the tracts of Dr. Pusey, entitled, Scripture View of Baptism."" "These doctrines," says

Mr. M., "turn upon the principle that God does, in the act of Baptism, change the nature of the person partaking that ordinance. "No other idea of regeneration," he says, "except that which is implied in the words 'change of nature,' has ever struck Dr. Pusey as possible." He then reasons out the conclusion that this notion goes "to destroy the idea of the Church, and to introduce a Genevan individualizing notion in place of it." He first makes Dr. Pusey consider Baptism "as an act done in an instant, and accomplishing its purpose in an instant; not as the sacrament of constant union, the assurance of a continual living presence;" and then drives him to the conclusion that those who, after Baptism, wander into sin "must be content, by much prayer and fasting, to seek for God's mercy,

* An omission of some laudatory terms in the text in this place may seem unfair; but I cannot, on consideration, think it so. I rather think these laudatory terms cal culated to deceive. Mr. M.'s opinion of Dr. P.'s opinions is as I have given it. Does it make it any better that, in the same page, he speaks of him in high terms, as a most able and excellent man?