Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

indeed complain of the unequal justice which the state, in the plenitude of its power, is pleased to dispense. Facilities are introduced for correcting delinquent clerks of the second order, but not a word is said of facilitating actions against delinquent clerks of the first order. Let it not startle the high-church man that I thus speak; he is not really a high-churchman who maintains the divine right of the episcopate, and forgets the divine right of the presbyterate. In the primitive ages, bishops were, not frequently, but as occasion required, deposed. It is true that care was taken to prevent the bishops from being exposed to the malicious calumnies and slanders of every false accuser; that, according to the rule of the apostle, the testimony of two or three witnesses was required before he was condemned; that a heretic was not permitted to give evidence against a bishop; nor a single witness, though he were one of the faithful:* many other provisions were made, but the primitive Christians seem never to have carried their episcopal notions so high as to have supposed, like some of our legislators, that bishops were impeccable. If things remain in their present state; if there be not some provision made for controlling the ministerial power of nominating to bishoprics; if the enemies of the Church should, by chance, come into power, and seek its injury by placing at its head persons hostile to its doctrines (and things more improbable have come to pass), it may be very important to have facilities afforded us for bringing bishops, as well as presbyters, to trial. At all events, for the mere decency of the thing, when the first order of the clergy are increasing their own powers by law to control the second order, they ought to make provision by law so as to enable the second order to obtain redress against those whom they reverence as the successors of the apostles, but do not regard as either infallible in their opinions, or impeccable in their conduct. The Bishop of Exeter, indeed, assumes to himself, by right of office, a power almost despotic; and by the circular against the Church-discipline bill, published at Oxford, such power seems to be conceded to the bishop. The Bishop of Exeter deserves the thanks of the Church for venturing to look out from the House of Lords, and to look to the Church itself; for thinking less of his peerage, and more of his episcopate; for desiring rather to exercise his spiritual authority, than to receive temporal magisterial power; and the publishers of the Oxford circular at all times deserve well at the hands of their brethren. But I do humbly conceive, that they have not studied this subject sufficiently: I do humbly conceive, that they have so dazzled their eyes in looking at the glories of the episcopate, that they are unable to see the glories of the presbyterate. The sun is brighter than the moon, but he only sees rightly who can also admire the lesser glory of the moon and all the starry host. It is with a reflected glory that the moon and planets shine, and yet we may not despise their light; and if the authority of priests, and even of deacons, be less than that of bishops, and be derived from the episcopate, he would not be a Newton in the spiritual world who should overlook them.-Pp. 23-26.

Our author then proceeds to justify his position by an extract from the richly furnished stores of Bingham. We recommend the following passage to the bishops whom it affects.

But whether the dean and chapter be council of the bishop for the general· government of the diocese or not, if the bishop is ever to consult his presbyters, it is abundantly clear that he is bound to do so when he enters their parishes for the discharge of episcopal offices. He enters a parish, not to supersede the incumbent thereof, but either to discharge one of those offices, such as confirmation, or the consecration of a church, which the presbyter himself has no authority to discharge; or to act as an episcopus episcopi, the overseer of the incumbent, who is overseer himself of the district assigned to him, and to be

[blocks in formation]

assured no duty prescribed by the Church is omitted. Now, when he comes to discharge his episcopal offices, it stands to reason that he ought to take counsel of the parish priest as to the best method of discharging them in his parish. But is this ever done? It is so by some excellent prelates, whom it would be invidious to name; but it is very rarely the case. Perhaps the parish priest feels this invasion of his rights at no time more severely than at the time of confirmation. Instead of being consulted as to the age at which circunstances render it most expedient for the young persons in his parish to be confirmed, he receives an official notice of the bishop's intention to confirm; and the age of the persons to be confirmed is fixed sometimes at fourteen, sometimes at fifteen, sometimes at sixteen. There are parishes in which it is most important that children should be confirmed while they remain at school, and are under the control of the clergyman; in other places, where the minister has been assiduous in catechizing, young persons of thirteen are as well qualified as those of other parishes at fifteen or sixteen. Then, again, there are in every parish some parents (you may call them, if you will, weaker brethren, superstitious, and the like), who look in ordinances more to God's grace than to the human preparation, and desire that their children may at an early period receive the grace of confirmation, that they may also, at an early period, be brought to the Lord's table. With these circumstances the bishop cannot be acquainted; he has omitted his duty in consulting the parish priest as to the exigencies of his parish; he resents as an insult any remonstrance; his mandate has been issued, and it is irrevocable; and the poor presbyter consults with his weaker brother as to the precise meaning to be attached to the injuction of the Church, "Ye are to take care that this child be brought to the bishop, to be confirmed by him, so soon as he can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments in the vulgar tongue, and be further instructed in the Church Catechism set forth for that purpose. "All these things can be done by my poor child," says the weaker brother, "why should he be deprived of his privilege?" The presbyter can only answer by recommending to him in private the doctrine of passive obedience,- -a doctrine which he could not assert in public without exposing himself to the censure of the bishop. I allude to this circumstance because the practice is becoming common, and I know that the clergy feel the grievance. Surely our bishops, who are bound to consult their presbyters, may at least have such confidence in their judgments as to permit them to decide on such a subject for themselves.-Pp. 29–31.

This is a daily growing grievance, and calls for a remedy. In our larger towns the evil is most sensibly felt in the yearly desertion of the lambs of Christ from the fold. Why do not the presbyters as one man remonstrate with their bishops, and if that will not do, why do they not appeal to the metropolitan? The following passage is calculated to call attention to another serious evil.

But, so far from consulting their presbyters, there are some bishops of the Church of England who will not hesitate to head a faction against the incumbent of the parish. The injury which is thus done to the cause of religion is often great. Let us suppose a hard-working painful parish-priest to have matured all his plans for the management of the parish over which the Holy Ghost has made him overseer: let us suppose him to have united the churchmen, always excepting a factious few; to have shown, from Scripture and the teaching of the Church, the principle upon which he gives his support to some and withholds it from other religious societies; to have been proceeding cautiously, introducing first one institution, then another, we can easily understand his feelings, if, all of a sudden, he shall hear that the Dissenters, having united with the factious few of the Church who happen to be opposed to him, have determined to hold a meeting of the Bible Society, or the Religious Tract

Society, or the Lancasterian School Society, or some similar institution, and that the bishop, without deigning to consult him, or even to apprise him of his intentions, will preside at it. The spiritual peer attends, accompanied perhaps with one or two temporal peers, and other great men desirous to conciliate the Dissenters before the next election; and thus he, who ought to be the centre of unity, becomes the rallying-point of schism. The liberal sentiments of the spiritual peer are applauded the more loudly because they are contrasted with the exclusive Church principles of the pastor of the parish; and as his lordship passes through the street, his condescension on the platform to his reverend brethren of the Baptist, Independent, and Unitarian churches," is compared with the cold distant bow with which, in the embarrassment occasioned by some undeveloped consciousness of having done wrong, he meets the minister of the "established" Church, i. e. of that Church which, in common with his Independent and Unitarian brethren, he does not regard as the church of the parish, but as that one church out of many which happens to be established by law. And so all parties separate; the Dissenters to laugh at "the humbug of the bishop's apron;" the factious churchmen to eulogize the spirituality of the episcopal leader of their schism; the spiritual peer to declaim to the temporal peers on the extreme want of judgment in the incumbent of the parish, who ought to concede something to the Dissenters, while his lordship is, in turn, congratulated on the popularity he is, by his liberality, securing for "the establishment;" the profane to laugh at "the flooring of their pastor; the worldly-minded to express their indignation at the idea of an incumbent with only 1507. a-year thinking that the Church and her principles are dearer to him than they are to a bishop with 4000l. a-year; the poor to lament the insult offered to their best friend; the presbyter himself to weep in private, and to pray; and of prayer he will have ample need, lest he should be disgusted into inactivity. The true churchmen will also grieve in private, and ask-what ought to be done? They will know intuitively that some wrong has been done, and yet they will not know how to remedy it. They will bemoan the injury done to the Church; for if the incumbent justify himself for not attending, he must, by implication, blame the bishop: if he does not justify himself, he will be lowered in the eyes of his parishioners, since he will appear to have been

censured himself.

[ocr errors]

Now it is one of the objects of this pamphlet, by asserting the rights of the presbyterate, to let people see what ought to be done. They ought to remonstrate. The presbyter should protest against the invasion of his rights: he may even appeal to the metropolitan. I contend that he may do, that he ought to do this, on high-church principles. The day is coming-it may come shortly, unless there be some great change in the political world-when we shall have bishops coming into our parishes to support some government-plan of irreligious education. It becomes us to be prepared, and to assert the principle, that the bishop has no right to enter into our parish and to hold a meeting there, without having first consulted with the incumbent and the other clergy of the parish. If he do so, he commits an act of schism. Let no fear of being deemed unfilial deter us. If the bishop be our father, the church is our mother; and if our father injure our mother, we must protect her even against him. 1 once heard of a man of rank, who was about to strike his wife; his son interposed, bound his arms, and carried him out of the room, and then he immediately loosed him and let him go: the father instantly raised his hand to strike his son; the pious son put his hands behind him, and said, "You may strike me, if you will-Î will bear it all; but you shall not strike my mother." And so must we deal by our bishop, when he would damage the Church by violating her principles. I do not say that the bishop may not support the Bible Society, or any similar institution, if he will. He may be able to explain away all the texts which command us to keep the unity of the body-i. e. the visible church-as well as of the spirit; he may be able to explain away Romans xvi. 17, Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them

which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have heard, and avoid him; and Heb. xviii. 17, If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican; and 2 Thess. iii. 6, Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition he received of us; and 2 John 10, 11, If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed. Presbyters and laymen have explained away these passages, and others more important; and as bishops are not infallible, a bishop may do the same. If he can do so, no one will blame him for presiding at one of the meetings of such a society in a parish where the other clergy, the incumbent and his curates, desire his attendance. All that I contend for is, that on the principles shown to be those of the Church in this pamphlet, he has no right to enter into a parish to support the society where the presbyters are opposed to it.-Pp. 31-35.

We have made long extracts, but the subject is one of paramount importance. Most heartily do we concur in the following hope :

I conclude with expressing a hope, that in vindicating the rights of my own order, I have not spoken disrespectfully of a higher order. In elevating the presbyterate, I do not wish to depress the episcopate. I shall ever value a bishop's blessing; I shall ever maintain the honour of those who are the successors of the apostles: but when they are tempted by circumstances to assume an authority which does not pertain to them, and when they apply to parliament for the power of the sword, I shall not think that I am transgressing my duty, or acting an unfilial part, if I adopt the words of a brother presbyter of former times, St. Jerome, and say, "Contenti sint honore suo; patres se sciant non dominos, amari debent, non timeri."*-P. 39.

ART. III.-Eternal Life in Jesus Christ: a Sermon preached at the Consecration of St. Luke's Church, Cheetham Hill. By JOHN BIRD, Lord Bishop of Chester. London Hatehards. 8vo. Pp. 23. THIS sermon is a singular production. It becomes us, prima facie, to speak with all reverence of the productions of one of the fathers of our Church; but we confess we should have had more confidence in the probable statements of the sermon, had the dedication been to the clergy who heard the sermon, on account of their having requested its publication.

As it is, the sermon bears no symptom of clerical sympathy. The dedication is to the Trustees of the New Church-who requested its publication. If things go on at this pace much longer, we shall have laymen not only providing teachers, but doctrine, for the people. As far as we can make the sermon out, it is a sly hit at high-church principles, such, at any rate, low-churchmen say;-but the statements assailed are so dissonant from the views of good churchmen, and are so utterly without foundation in the published teaching of high-church

Hieron. Ep. 62. ad Theoph.

men, that we shall begin to fear the pious author of Apostolical Preaching has, in his zeal to be spiritual, forgotten to be candid.

We believe, that owing to the consecration of this church taking place on a Sunday, but very few of the Clergy were present: and it has been thought singular that his Lordship—having sermons to preach on three consecutive days-should choose on the Sunday to preach the sermon which contained the most debateable matter. It will be recollected that the opening clause of the Bishop's last published Charge contains a peculiar attack on high-church principles, which was only delivered in some obscure parts of the diocese, though published as if by request of all his Clergy, and now we have a sermon unbepraised by any Clergy, -and we had almost said-no wonder! for it is difficult to discover the point at which the Bishop is driving. However, we have neither space nor time for a full consideration of this sermon this month. At pages 12 and 13 are insinuations with which we may deal next month; meanwhile, if the Bishop and his party are really anxious to see the inefficacy of the Church as an end strongly put, we recommend to their especial notice, the close of Dr. Hook's noble sermon-" the Gospel, and the Gospel only-the basis of education."

ART. IV.-Plain Sermons. By Contributors to the "Tracts for the
Times." Series the First, Second, Third, and Fourth.
Rivingtons. 1839.

London:

THE peculiar object of these Sermons is thus stated in the "Advertisement," or Preface, by which they are introduced :

[ocr errors]

"If, as time goes on, there shall be found persons, who, admiring the immediate beauty and majesty of the fuller system of primitive Christianity, and seeing the transcendent strength of its principles, shall become loud and voluble advocates in their behalf, speaking more freely because they do not feel them chiefly as founded in divine and eternal truth; of such persons it is our duty to declare plainly, that, as we should contemplate their condition with much serious misgiving, so would they be the last persons from whom we should seek support.

"But if, on the other hand, there shall be any, who, in the silent humility of their lives, and in their unaffected reverence for holy things, show that they in truth accept these principles as real and substantial, and by habitual purity of heart and serenity of temper give proof of their deep veneration for sacraments and sacramental ordinances, these persons best exemplify the kind of characters which the writers for the Tracts for the Times' have wished to form.

« AnteriorContinua »