BOOKS.
THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD.*
[SECOND NOTICE.] AT the end of our first notice of this volume we expressed a hope that we should find something in it which we could praise. Having now carefully read the whole, we can but say that this hope has not been wholly disappointed. Mr. Alfred Robert • The Church and the World: Essays on the Question, of the Day in 1868. By Various Writers. Edited by the Rev. Orby Shipley, ALL London : Lougmane. 186$.
Cooke writes an able essay, more able, we think, than anything else in the volume, on what he calls "The Abolition of Marriage." He makes out a strong case against the present condition of our Marriage laws, especially as they are carried out in the practice of the Divorce Court. He shows with special clearness what intolerable wrongs an ill-disposed husband or wife, aided by some sinister legal ingenuity, may inflict upon an inno- cent partner. But if he convinces us of the necessity of some change, he fails to commend to us his own remedies. The matter is indeed one of surpassing difficulty, in which it is far easier to criticize existing arrangements than to suggest any which will prove to be more satisfactory. Mr. Cooke, of course, proposes that marriage should be held to be indissoluble, except in the case of auteuuptial unchastity, to which he sup- poses the declaration of our Lord, "Saving for the cause of forni- cation," to refer. This has been always the theory of the Roman Church ; and we may safely say that the history of Roman dealing with the marriage tie presents us with instances of more cruel wrong than can be found under any other system. The feelings of mankind have always rebelled against the intolerable hardship of an inseparable tie which theoretically bound together those whom some unpardonable wrong had practically separated. Accordingly, the ingenuity of ecclesiastical lawyers was perpetually exercised to afford relief. It was found that often a marriage which could not be dissolved might be declared void al, initio. Numberless pretexts might be discovered in the system of "prohibited degrees," including as they did so wide an extent both of natural and of spiritual relationships, and in the theory of pre-contracts. We do not know whether Mr. Cooke wishes to revert to this state of things; what he does propose would, we think, land us in worse confusion than ever. It might be possible indeed, as it certainly would be justifiable, to make adultery a criminal offence, and such legislation might not be altogether without some deterrent effect.. But the plan of declaring marriage to be indissoluble, and, of investing at the same time with this permanent character any miserable union in which a lad's recklessness may entangle him, by affirming the validity of " consensual " marriage, seems contrary both to public policy and to morality. Mr. Cooke, however, whether we agree with him or no, always commands our respect, except, indeed, when he ventures into the province of theology. It is really astonishing to see a shrewd lawyer declaring that the indissolubility of marriage is a certain inference from the fact that the Evangelist gives the pedigree of St. Joseph to prove that our Lord was the son of David. "Marriage," he says, "so com- pletely unites man and wife, that whatever may be predicated of the one is to be held true of the other Surely, then, a tie of such closeness as marriage is here shown to be is not one that can ever- be broken ?" It is very possible that St. Matthew's genealogy would be satisfactory to a Jew, and for the reason here suggested;. nevertheless, a Jew believed, and had the sanction of his law for believing, that the tie could be broken. Where was the certain inference then ?
We are disposed to agree with the conclusion at which Mr. Charles Brown arrives in his essay on "Charitable Trusts and. their Probable Future," that men had better do what good they- can in the present, rather than attempt to provide for the needs of the future. About endowments that are purely eleemosynary, most men are agreed that they do more harm than good ; about those that are devoted to purposes of education, there is more question. The view of some of their ablest advocates is that they meet a present need, that their utility will cease when society shall have reached a more complete and intelligent organization. But when Mr. Brown tells us that he gives this advice to the charitably disposed because their gifts are less secure of being used according to the donors' purpose in England than they are elsewhere, he is- manifestly in the wrong. The fact is, that in no country of Europe is the tenor of legislation and the whole habit of popular thought so conservative in these matters as it is here. A "Pro- testant." country cannot, of course, expect justice at the hands of one of Mr. Orby Shipley's contributors. But does Mr. Brown know what has been done in countries which have not incurred the- odious reproach of this name? Italy we will not mention, though it has had the benefit of the most complete " Catholic " system from the earliest time. But what of France, the eldest son of the Church ? What of Spain, with all its faithful devotion to Catholic: principles? The truth is, that excepting in the dissolution of the monasteries, an act provoked by the most frightful abuses, and certainly not done by Protestants, a scrupulous respect has been shown by the State, as distinguished from private persons, to charitable and religious gifts. Mr. Brown would do well to add some little knowledge of history to whatever acquaintance lie may
have with law. It is really too bad to find him, after the examina- tion which the subject has received at the hands of Mr. Froude, repeating as unquestionably true the statement tlot "seventy thousand persons suffered capital punishment in the reign of Henry VIII."
The essay on "Immoral Literature" we have read with almost unmixed satisfaction. The writer, to use a common proverb, 4' puts the saddle on the right horse," and his style is uncommonly vigorous. As the subject was lately discussed in these columns, we need not enter upon it again.
The " Mother " who writes on "Defects in the Moral Training of Girls," says much that is true, and sometimes says it very well. But she is better in denouncing the evil than in finding a remedy. Her great panacea seems to be the practice of confession. One thing is very clear which she does not perceive, or at all events does not notice, that before this practice can become even tolerable, we must have in the English Church something like the careful organization which Rome has pro- vided. We must have a clergy to whom marriage is forbidden, or, if we accept the alternative which the Greek Church has .adopted, to whom it is compulsory. We must have properly arranged confessionals. Confessions made face to face in a vestry or a drawing-room are simply intolerable. And when all is done, it is very much to be doubted whether the results will be satisfactory. Is there anything reassuring in what we know of female morality in countries where the practice obtains ? Ireland is, possibly, an exception ; but are France, Italy, or Spain better than England ? Is Catholic Vienna better than Protestant Berlin ?
Mr. Burges writes a very lively and readable articla on "Art and Religion," and Mr. Lunn a learned essay on the "Composition -and Choice of Ecclesiastical Music." These we do not feel our- -selves competent to criticize in detail, but we may say- that they can be read with pleasure, and, whether we agree with their conclusions or no, without offence.
The most ambitious attempts in the volume are the most disap- pointing. Mr. Baring-Gould discusses, or professes to discuss, the "Origin of Schools of Thought in the English Church," a great subject, which the writer's undoubtedly extensive knowledge should have qualified him to treat satisfactorily. No church has ever included within her limits such varieties of opinion as has the Church of England in the three centuries of her Reformed existence. The two great parties, Anglican and Puritan, whose struggle for the mastery occupies so much of the history of the -sixteenth and seventeenth centuries ; the latitudinarianism of the eighteenth century, with its Arian or even Socinian forms of belief ; the theological developments of the philosophy of Cole- ridge; the 'Tractarian movement, with that remarkable phase, 4' High-Church Methodism," these are some of the interesting phenomena of which we should be glad to have an intelligent -and comprehensive account, even though it should be written in the interests of the party which this volume represents. Mr. Baring-Gould does not give us this, or anything like it. In an -essay of the most pretentious form he does nothing but contrast the Catholic theory of " Authority " with the Protestant theory of "Belief in a Book." But he does contrive to say some things which, to us at least, sound very strange. Did any theological school, for instance, ever hold that justification by faith means "the method of sanctifying peculiar to the Christian Faith," i.e., the building-up of the soul which is effected through the Christian -Sacraments?
Of an elaborate article on "The Supernatural," by Mr. E. G. 'Wood, the main feature is the assertion that the supernatural -element still exists in the priestly consecration of the Eucharist. In setting this forth he seems to come very near to asserting Transubstantiation. "Whereas," he says, "before [the institu- tion of this sacrament], it universally followed that a certain series of accidents always marked the presence of a certain sub- stance, it now, under certain accurately determined circumstances, is true that this same series is associated with a different sub- stance." Does Mr. Wood, then, assert that the substance of bread and wine does not remain in the elements after consecration?
We close this volume with a strong feeling of disappointment and regret. The latest manifesto of the Ritualist party, it displays such a temper, and sets forth such views as must make a cata- strophe inevitable. No Church, however wide the limits of her toleration, can continue to find a place for a party which assumes such an attitude. Not claiming, by their own confession, a history -of more than a few years, they cut themselves off most resolutely -from all Anglican traditions. They affect, indeed, to appeal to the authority of a certain set of English divines ; they invoke the names of Andrewes, of Laud, and of Ken, Bat Andrewes, and Ken, and even Laud would have promptly repudiated such disciples, would have condemned Mr. Blenkinsopp, for instance, when he acknowledges the primacy of the See of Rome ; or Mr. Baring-Gould, when he compares the Church of England as affected by the Reformation to a patient suffering under an attack of typhus fever. We do not advocate, indeed, any measures of repression. Their own action must hurry on a result. It is manifest that their only hope of retaining their position lies in the extinction of all other theological parties. If the Church of England will not listen to the message which they deliver to her, if she will not disavow the founders of her present order, remodel her formularies and her confessions of faith, and generally undo the work of the last three centuries, they cannot remain in her. They must seek refuge in that Church all of whose doctrines they profess to accept, which has an undoubted posses- sion of all the spiritual privileges which they prize, and which from the vantage-ground of this position, by denying the validity of their orders and stigmatizing their worship as a . blasphemous show, exercises a pressure which they will find it impossible to resist. There are many among them whose loss we should regret, for they have zeal at least, and zeal, even when it is coupled with such violence and extravagance, has its worth. It consoles us to think that if they go, they will take but little learning and ability with them.
Previous page
