FRASER ON THE BROAD CHURCH.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Si,—The writer of a very able and interesting article on "The Broad Church," in Fraser's Magazine for this month, states that persons, or a person, whom he takes as a typical example of a Liberal clergyman, "discovers that the Thirty-Nine Articles express his very deepest convictions in the most unequivocal language." I should be glad to know to what or to whom this alludes. It is important, because a considerable part of his argument turns upon the truth of the allegation on which he naturally lays very great stress.
For my own part—and I have been acquainted with as many "Liberal or Broad-Church" clergymen as most people—I should say that I never met with a single instance of such a statement by anyone, who will be so described. The nearest approach to it was Mr. Maurice's ," Subscription no Bondage," written thirty years ago (if he will allow me to say so), in one of his most ingeniously
conservative moods, and which, if I mistake not, be has since declared that he thought mistaken. Even this, however, fell far short of what the writer in Fraser asserts. Many may acknow- ledge with "An English Clergyman," in your paper of last week, that the Articles are more tolerant than any test drawn up by the religious world of the present day would probably be. Many may think that a new Church-constitution, like that of the Church of Ireland, or of the Evangelical Alliance, would add, as these have done, new Articles to those already imposed. But no Liberal theologian has ever touched the subject of any of our modern Confessions of Faith without sonic expression of their ambiguity or hyper-dogmatic character. Look at Arnold's letters and pub- lished works ; look at Dean Milman's speech on the Articles, published in Fraser itself ; look at the Essays of any one of the seven Essayists ; look at Principal Tuned', or Dr. McLeod, or Dr. Wallace, in Scotland ; look (may I venture without presump- tion to add?) at anything either published or approved by your