8. Forty Days in the Desert on the Track of the Israelites. V. THE DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENTS. 1. Theological Essays. By Frederick Denison Maurice, M.A., Chaplain of Lincoln's Inn. 2. The Difficulties of Belief. By the Rev. T. R. Birks, Sacrifice in its Relation to God and Man. An Argu- ment from Scripture. By the Rev. R. Ferguson, D.D., LL.D., Fellow of the Royal Geographical The Testimony of the Rocks; or, Geology in its Bear- 3. The City of God: a Vision of the Past, the Present, Later Biblical Research in Palestine and the adjacent Regions; a Journal of Travels in the Year 1852. By Edward Robinson, Eli Smith, and others. Drawn up from the Original Diaries, with Historical Illus- trations. By Edward Robinson, D.D., LL.D., Pro- THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND Quarterly Review. JANUARY, MDCCCLVII. ART. I.-1. The Revised Liturgy of 1689; being the Book of Common Prayer, interleaved with the Alterations prepared for Convocation by the Royal Commissioners in the first Year of the Reign of William and Mary. Edited, from the Čopy printed by order of the House of Commons, by JOHN TAYLOR. London: Bagsters, 1855. 2. Ecclesiæ Decus et Tutamen. The Extension, Security, and Moral Influence of the United Church of England and Ireland, augmented by a Revision of its Economy, Discipline, and Ritual, &c. &c. By the Rev. JOHN RILAND, M.A. London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co. 1853. WE are very far from having any doctrinal sympathy with Mr. Denison; we have again and again expressed our views on that subject which has recently, in his case, been made the subject of a legal decision; and we do not hesitate once more to declare our solemn conviction that the ex-archdeacon is on this subject wholly and radically in the wrong. At the same time, we look with considerable regret on the proceedings which have taken place; we cannot regard such subjects as fit for lay-courts, nor do we desire to see them mooted even in ecclesiastical ones. We expressed our objections to the course pursued by the Bishop of Exeter towards Mr. Gorham, and we cannot see but that the same principles apply to Mr. Denison also. We blame no one, certainly not the venerable primate, who has been absolutely driven into a line of conduct which, for a long time at least, he has been sincerely desirous of avoiding. It will be fresh in the remembrance of our readers, that Bishop Bagot declined to bring the archdeacon's heresy to a trial. It was said that Bishop Bagot had a tractarian bias; perhaps he had, but the same imputa VOL. XLI. B tion certainly cannot be brought against his successor, the present Bishop of Bath and Wells; yet he, too, refused to be instrumental in bringing the matter to trial; and the Archbishop of Canterbury has, as we well know, tried by every means in his power to put a stop to the proceedings. Nor do we blame him for his verdict: called upon to give one, we do not see how he could have decided otherwise. There were the facts of the casee-there was the law of the case, and the decision could not be other than these made it. Neither do we cast any blame upon the Rev. Joseph Ditcher. He acted, no doubt, according to the dictates of his conscience; he felt that the doctrine of his neighbour was wrong and dangerous, and that it was incumbent upon him to come forward and stand in the gap. We would gladly see all such doctrine as that of the exarchdeacon, not only cleared out of our Church, but banished from all Christendom. We regard it as containing the very essence of Popery; and yet we must again express our regret at the proceedings. Our readers will naturally say, why? We reply, from a great multitude of reasons. First, we shall do no good to the truth by putting Mr. Denison in the position of one suffering for what he would call "righteousness' sake." His adherents will call him George Antony the Confessor, and will point to his "persecution' as one of the blots of the age. Now, if we are to act according to strict principle, well and good; then let us proceed against each of the three thousand clergymen who are said to preach precisely the same doctrines with the late Archdeacon of Taunton; but do not let it be said that he stands alone in his punishment but not in his heresy. We are bound to seek out all who agree with him, and not to rest contented with making examples of those who, like Mr. Liddell, openly proclaim themselves the champions of Mr. Denison. But this will not be done. Here and there, perhaps, one may be proceeded against who shall display a little more zeal and a little more courage than the rest; but of the hundreds and thousands of clergymen, equally popish in their hearts, equally unsound in their preaching, and far more jesuitical in their conduct, no notice will be taken. We shall find that we have attacked a symptom only, and not the root of the disease: it will go on covertly spreading, and infecting a larger number of our parochial clergy; till, at last, the rupture long dreaded will take place under most unfavourable circumstances, and the Church will never recover the effects of the blow. MR. DENISON'S POSITION. 3 We have a certain respect for the frank and open proceedings of Mr. Denison; we were sorry to see him fencing with his case like an Old Bailey lawyer, and we were satisfied that he was not following the dictates of his own mind, but the advice of his solicitors and counsel; and we rejoiced that the Archbishop did not allow himself to be caught by the trap so cunningly set for him, and consent to have the doctrine argued upon from Scripture. The question was not, "is the Archdeacon of Taunton scriptural in his teaching?" -it was, "is he in accordance with the Articles of the Church of England?" His judges declare that he is not; his friends say he is in conformity with the Catechism, the Liturgy itself, and especially the Communion Service!-the teaching of some of the greatest and holiest divines of our Church, all are in his favour; and we are bound to admit that, to a very great extent, it is so. When the Bishop of Exeter refused to institute Mr. Gorham to the living of Bramford Speke, he did so on the ground that the views held and maintained by that divine were contrary to the teaching of the baptismal service; and he was right! Why is Mr. Gorham to be at liberty to differ from the teaching of the Prayer-Book, and Archdeacon Denison not to be at liberty to dissent from that of the Articles? This does not look like even-handed justice. We differed from Mr. Gorham, and yet regretted the proceedings against him; we differ from Mr. Denison, and equally regret those against him. And yet we would not desire to see the doctrine of our Church so closely assimilated to Popery, as it is by the clergy of that school to which Mr. Denison belongs. We would ask, what steps ought we to take so as to be just, and yet the defenders of Protestant truth, the impugners of Popish error? The first thing that will strike us, as conducive to this end, will be, that all our formularies ought to be made to express the same system. It is manifest that we can do but little to the public satisfaction in the repression of heresy, while one man says, I hold to the Liturgy; another, I hold to the Articles; a third, I am guided by the Homilies; while a fourth declares, I rely on the Rubrics and all are able to prove that, according to their respective standards, they are in the right. It is the Church that is divided against itself. Had a calm, sober, catholic revision of the Liturgy taken place thirty years ago, we should have been spared all the heresies of the |