THE PURCHAS JUDGMENT.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] S111,-Will you permit a word or two from a Nonconformist upon the " Purehas" case and the duty of the Bishops, as put by Mr. Maurice ?
We who have learnt so much from the writings of Mr. Maurice that we can never forget, did feel some regret that he had signed the memorial to the Bishops asking them, as we read it, to violate the Law of their Church as expounded by the highest authority of that Church.
Mr. Maurice's defence of his act appears to me to be even more inconsistent than the attachment of his signature to the memorial.
As a Nonconformist, I must heartily agree with Mr. Maurice's statement as to the true position of every Christian bishop. If, however, the Bishops of the State Church are not to enforce eccle- siastical decrees, surely we have a right to ask that they shall possess no ecclesiastical position or privileges. Nothing would give us more hope with regard to the State Church than the com- plete acceptance of this truly spiritual position on the part of the Bishops. If such a concession should take place, the time would not be far distant when many of the pastors of the Free Churches would gladly accept the advice and spiritual direction of those godly men who, by their piety and learning, are as justly called fathers in God as they are erroneously called "Lords spiritual."
If, however, these fathers in God will still cling to their ecclesi- astical titles, revenues, and "lordships," then, in common fairness, they are bound to enforce the decrees of that Council which in matters ecclesiastical is their superior.
Into the details of the case I do not feel it my duty to enter ; upon the broad question of legality, I cannot but think that Mr. Voysey has as much right of appeal as Mr. Purchas.—I am, Sir,
Previous page
