20 DECEMBER 1873, Page 12

THE DECLARATION ON CONFESSION.

(TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.")

SIR, —It always strikes me as a cardinal blunder in discussions like this of the recent Declaration referred to in your last number that they are argued logically rather than historically, and that the same persons who plead so strongly for the letter of certain state- ments in our Prayer-book would be unwilling to submit them- selves to like treatment in a different direction.

Could we but place ourselves in the position of our Reformers —men who notoriously held very decided opinions in their great controversy with Rome—opinions, too, which they stated pretty forcibly in the Articles, we should surely feel with them the supreme importance of carrying with us the feelings of our countrymen at large, and whilst we should neither inculcate nor retain any doctrine manifestly erroneous, we should be slow to expunge every phrase in a book of devotions long endeared to them, which bore a colouring that we might not ourselves have imparted to it. Surely such was the conciliatory spirit of the noble Apostle of the Gentiles in the great conflict of prejudices in his day. It is easy to stigma- tise such a course as latitudinarian, or to describe such a result as a compromise. Assuredly their spirit was inclusive, as far as might be, rather than exclusive, and for my part, I think they acted wisely and considerately, and owed their pre-eminent success to their real Christian principles, and their profound knowledge of the character of their countrymen.

Even in the composition of the Articles they exhibited much of the same spirit, and those who know well the extremely high Calvinism of those days, especially in Holland and Geneva, will ever feel grateful to them for their comparative moderation and mutual forbearance which the history of the Sixteenth and Seven- teenth Articles especially attests. If, then, we know from their more express language, in the Articles and elsewhere, the clear purport of their general teaching—and the period of Archbishop Whitgift shows this more clearly than any other—we should surely in disputable points of any moment be right in deciding the issue by such broad historical considerations, rather than by pressing particular phrases in a manner more suitable to attorneys than to the theologians of the sixteenth century.

Further, our Reformers were emphatically English in their handling of such matters, looking rather to practical ends than to precise statements. They were not Sabbatarians, yet they placed the Fourth Commandment in our service, with a prayer to keep the same. Would those who argue for the " honest " and " literal" interpretation of the Ordinal like to be bound by their own method in reference to the Fourth Command- ment? And if they insist, as we all rightly do, on a different in- terpretation, why not also allow a similar treatment of that form of words whose full literal force, in general estimation, belonged only to the Apostles of Christ ?—I am, Sir, &c., A CONSTANT READER.