Life of Frederick Denison Maurice

REVIEW
The Life of Frederick Denison Maurice chiefly told in his own letters. Edited by his son Frederick Maurice, In two volumes. London: Macmillan & Co.. 1884.

.......... We have dwelt thus long upon the first thirty years of Maurice's life because that in them he first showed his power and also acquired an experience which afterwards served him well. At Cambridge he was brought face to face with the question of subscription, and in Oxford he met the chiefs of what developed into the Tractarian movement. With a deep knowledge of its meaning and power, which he could not otherwise have attained, he was better prepared than other members of his school to appreciate the motives of the movement, and to acknowledge, whilst he regretted what he considered its misdirection, the energy of its leaders. But even an equally detailed account of his after years would be impossible. We cannot dwell upon the years which he spent as Chaplain at Guy's Hospital, or upon the work which he accomplished during his ministrations at Lincoln's Inn. We prefer to go at once to what may be regarded as the most important point in his life— the time when he was appointed Professor of Theology at King's College, London, by Dr. Jelf, the Principal, who must have known then that Maurice held the opinion (which afterwards procured his dismissal) on the vexed question of the meaning of the words "Eternal Life."
Maurice was determined not to be a silent member in the world of religious thought. When events of moment to the Church of which he was a member, and whose doctrine he professed to teach, were happening, all around him, he was not the man to observe a prudent silence. In every matter the voice of the Professor of Theology was surely to be heard. With no uncertain sound he advocated the cause of religions liberty, more especially in the interests of any man against whom it seemed to him that the world was going, for the mere fact of the accused's unpopularity was sufficient to awaken his sympathy for him. And he would hear of no ecclesiastical rule which would forbid him to take up the cause of the unpopular. "The freer one is from the Church system in this country the better one is able to serve the Church." So he thought, and it was upon this principle that he grounded his practice. And whenever a movement was on foot to free what are sometimes called the masses from ignorance and its effects Maurice was always in the front of the battle. He supported heart and soul the admission of Jews into Parliament, and strongly upheld the doctrines of "Christian Socialism." The very name of this latter movement was an offence in the nostrils of the cultivated England of that day ; but Maurice had no sinister political movement in view when he organized the Society. Socialism to him was "the acknowledgment of brotherhood in heart and fellowship in work ;" it was " the necessary fulfilment of the principle of the Gospel. His primary object was to redress the wrongs of the working classes, then so painfully manifest to all thinking men ; and, at a time when revolution was rife in Europe and "Chartism" was a reality in England, it required a degree of courage which it is almost impossible to overestimate for a teacher in the most conservative society on earth to stand forward boldly and say that there was something unjust in England's treatment of the lower classes. But this very courage and the importance which his position and character conferred upon him conspired to raise up enemies against him from all sides. Dr. Jelf, the Principal of King's College, could not understand why this Professor of Theology could not content himself with the teaching of dry dogmas, but must personally engage in the questions of the day. Why, the very institution to which he belonged was imperilled in the popular estimation by the outrageous action of this "Christian Socialist" and general defender of the unpopular. The " religious" newspapers of the day, the organs of intolerance and narrow sectarianism, raised the cry against Maurice. Dr. Jelf quickly followed suit and wrote to Maurice complaining of the way in which he had compromised the College. But with Maurice's answer the Principal was satisfied for a time, and the objectionable Professor kept on his practice of universal peacemaking. He contributed to Politics for the People, a short-lived paper, which had for its object the amelioration of the condition of the working classes. He largely assisted in the foundation of Queen's College, which aimed at the higher education of women. A Mr. Spurrell deemed it his duty to expose the sisterhood presided over by Miss Sellon. Nothing could have been more objectionable to Maurice than an attempt to Romanize the Anglican Church, but he felt very strongly in Miss Sellon's favour, and was inclined " to look upon the whole transaction as a great cause for shame and humiliation. It seems as if there were to be no effort for the good of poor children which is not marred by some civil interference."
In 1849, when the subject of co-operation first forced itself upon the attention of the public, Maurice strongly supported the movement. And he did this in the face of the strongest opposition. To all England then the co-operative principle was branded with the stigma of antichristian, revolutionary Communism. The "religious" papers shrieked in their rage against the anomaly that amongst the supporters of the movement was to be found a Professor of Theology. Now that the movement has been wonderfully successful, and that about a twelfth of the whole population of England belongs to Co-operative Societies, the mind of people has strangely changed. But it should always be remembered to his honour that amongst those who were not ashamed to confess sympathy with an unpopular movement none stood higher and none suffered more calumny for the courage of his opinions than Professor Maurice.
Things were now approaching a climax. He received letters and appeals from men in all parts of the country exhibiting "most touchingly, most vividly, most truly, the struggle of doubt, the turbulence of despair, the apathy of exhausted effort so frightfully general among the mechanics of large towns, a something which tells that the present attempts at teaching do not meet the wants of the time, and which speaks inarticulately enough, but with agony, for guidance, and for a God-inspired lesson of belief and duty." In answer to these appeals, Maurice wrote his "Theological Essays." In doing so he well knew what would be the result. He knew that his enemies on the Council of King's College would need nothing further to convince them that it would be compromising the College to keep any longer on the professorial staff a man who could publish such a book. The "religious" organs again raised a cry of "heresy," and Dr. Jelf, always anxious to propitiate them, undertook to examine the book. One man stood by Maurice, whose defence was afterwards illogically used as a weapon against him. Colenso, who had just then been appointed Bishop of Natal, and who had not yet published his books on the Pentateuch, dedicated a series of sermons to him as a pro test against the attacks of the "religious" papers. But all the efforts of his friends were of no avail. It was a foregone conclusion — the writer of the "Theological Essays" must cease to be a Theological Professor at King's College. Maurice preserved his dignity throughout. He demanded of the Council, as due at once to his own character as a clergyman, to the interests of the College, and to the liberties of the English Church, that if a theological sentence was pronounced upon him at all the article of the Church which condemned his teaching should be declared. He denied altogether the right of the Principal and Council of the King's College to pose as "arbiters of the theology of the English Church." But reason and justice did not convince his judges, they refused to accept the amendment proposed by Mr. Gladstone that, instead of passing sentence themselves, they should request the Bishop of London to appoint a committee of theologians to examine the book. But the noblemen and gentlemen who formed the majority in the Council would listen to nothing. They had it in their power to get rid of Maurice, and they exercised that power to its fullest ex tent. And one thing which strongly influenced their judgment was the expectation that it would be popular. In this they were terribly mistaken. The " religious" organs, of course, were delighted with the condemnation, but the leaders of public opinion were strong in their denunciation of it. The Press teemed with letters condemning the Council and its action.
A prominent South Australian clergyman took a distinguished part. ''The most powerful attack on the Council," says Mr. Maurice, " appeared in a letter in the Guardian by a man who had never seen or spoken to my father." The writer of this letter was Dean Russell, but the biographer has made a mistake in saying that he was not personally acquainted with Maurice. The Dean was then curate to Julius Hare, and this connection alone would have sufficed to bring him into Maurice's company. Various extracts from the letter are published in a footnote. It pointed out the fact that the enquiry was really of a commercial character, inspired by the scurrilous attacks of the Record newspaper, and, whilst proving that the decision of the Council was illegal, maintained that the result of the enquiry, from the idiosyncrasies of the judges, was but " the synthesis of their several sectarianisms." This graphic alliteration may be said to contain the gist of the matter. Maurice was condemned, not because he was heretical, but because his opinions expressed at various times and the pleading part which he had taken in questions of the day had rendered him objectionable to the members of the Council.
We cannot follow Maurice into the years which succeeded. Suffice it to say that his influence for good was by no means abated by his dismissal, and that his endeavours to maintain the cause, of Christian liberty were carried on with as much energy as before. Men respected and admired him more for his strenuous fight for the right. As an example of the universal esteem in which he was held, Tennyson's lines occur to the mind. Writing in 1854, the year after Maurice's dismissal, the Laureate said : —
 

 For, being of that honest few

Who give the Fiend himself his due,
Should eighty thousand College Councils
Thunder 'Anathema,' friend, at you ;

 

Should all our Churchmen frown in spite
At you, so careful of the right,
Yet one lay hearth would give you welcome
(Take it and come) to the Isle of Wight.

South Australian Register 22/5/1884, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article43656170