Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Snow, H......... .... Bibury, V........ ...................................... G. & B...... Lord Sherborne ........ £1023
Swainson, J. H.... Alresford, R................ Winchester Bishop of Winchester...
Turton, W. R...... Edingley, P.C............. Lincoln...... C. of Coll.Ch., Southwell
111
Duke of Devonshire.....
Umpleby, J......... Bolton Abbey, c.......... Ripon.
The Crown........

.......

Upwood, T. T....ments, V...............................
(Terrington, St. Cle-} Norwich....

[ocr errors]

950

2314

[ocr errors]

112

1466

Walker, G.
Belford, P.C.......
Durham.... W. B. Clarke, Esq....... 147 2030
Waltham, J......... Out-Rawcliffe, P.C....... Chester...... Rev. H. Hornby
75
Wigton, W.......... Ch. Ch., Tean, P.C....... Lichfield....
Williams, J........ Thornbury, R.............. Hereford W. L. Childe, Esq.
Wilson, M........... Loddington, V............. Peterboro'.. Chas. Morris, Esq.
Wise, W. J.......... Grandborough, v. Worcester.. Rev. T. R. Bromfield...
Wodehouse, A..... Crownthorpe, R.......... Norwich.... Lord Wodehouse.........

......

183 212

92 185 528

164

133 106

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Garnett, J., at Firbank.

Goff, T., of Hale House, Hants.

Howell, E. L., B.A., Curate of Little Malvern
and Berrow.

Irwin, A. L., M.A., Principal of the Collegiate
Seminary of the S. P. G. at Madras.

Knox, Dr., Head Master of Tonbridge School.
Lynes, J., Incumbent of Hatton, near Warwick.
Taylor, J., D.D., P. C. of Hope and Ford.
Tucker, P. C., Rector of Washford Pyne.
Wallace, J. L., Master of Queen Elizabeth's
Grammar School.

Whytehead, T., Chaplain to the Lord Bishop
of New Zealand.

MISCELLANEOUS INTELLIGENCE.

ABERDEEN.-Our readers will find in another department of the Remembrancer an account of the degradation and excommunication of Sir Wm. Dunbar, late minister of St. Paul's Chapel, by the Bishop of this diocese. It seems very important that this document and proceeding receive careful attention in England, lest her Church be in any way taken by surprise, or found without resource, in so important

a matter.

MIXED MARRIAGES-IRELAND.-The Queen v. Millis. The Queen v. Carroll.-August 10.This was the day appointed for giving judgment on these important appeals. The opinion of the judges, as rendered last month, was, it is well known, to this effect: that a contract per verba de presenti did not by itself, according

to the old common law of England, constitute an actual marriage, but only an obligation to celebrate one. The intervention of a priest was necessary to establish matrimony. On this day, however, Lords Brougham and Campbell intimated their dissent from this opinion, and declared their conviction that England did, anterior to the Marriage Acts, recognise the Law Christian of Europe, which upheld the validity of the marriage contract, even when gone into without the intervention of a priest. Lord Denman, it was intimated by Lord Brougham, was of the same opinion with himself. The views of Lords Lyndhurst and Cottenham have not yet been laid before the House; so that the case stands over till next session. It seems likely, from an intimation given by the former, that it will be argued over again by ecclesiastical lawyers.

THE

CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER.

OCTOBER, 1843.

Speculum Ecclesiæ Anglicana; or, Some Account of the Principles and Results of the Reformation of the Church of England. By JOHN HARTLAND WORGAN, M. A. Curate of Calthorpe, &c. London: Parker. Leicester: Crossley. 1843.

THIS is an admirable work, obviously the result of much study and reflection, vindicating, as we think, successfully, that which ought to require no vindication among us-the main character and essential principles of our English Reformation; taking a cheerful view of our prospects, and marked throughout by that hearty loyalty to the Reformed Church of England which we believe to be a necessary condition, as well of success in removing her defects as of all other healthy exertion within her pale. This last point is so important that we propose pausing on it, and devoting a couple of articles to the consideration of our ecclesiastical condition and character.

Is the Church of England Catholic or not? This is a question that is asked alike by friend or foe. If any understand it as an inquiry whether or not the Church of England be the Catholic Church, we must inform them at once, that we have no intention of either vindicating or impugning a thesis, the very proposal of which is an extreme absurdity. We should not, indeed, have alluded to this preposterous inquiry, had it not really been raised both by Romanist and Anglican writers, the former of whom are too glad to see made, and some of the latter of whom have been too willing virtually to make, such a ridiculous claim. When we ask whether or not the Church of England be Catholic, our inquiry can rationally and fitly take but two

[merged small][ocr errors]

directions. We may ask if she be a legitimate branch of the Catholic Church, so as alone to have rightful authority over those placed within her geographical boundaries: or secondly, we may ask if she be Catholic in tone, temper, and character, manifesting the reality of her profession to this effect, by her words and by her deeds.

Of these inquiries we have no intention, at present, of entering on the former. It is a question of facts, and of facts easily ascertained. It has been already abundantly discussed, and if there be any one of our readers who feels unsettled on the subject, we must refer him to the works of our standard divines, as containing all that can be said on it.

The latter, however, is ground that still remains in great measure to be worked; for, when our Romish assailants are tired of impeaching the validity of our orders, the sufficiency of our liturgy, and the orthodoxy of our doctrine, they not unfrequently, at present, shift the discussion from those points to our actual temper and practice, and impugn our Catholicity, by denying that we bear the fruits of Catholicity. They argue, "it is very well to say that you are Catholic, that you have never quitted the unity of the Church, that you hold the doctrine, and join in the sacraments, of the whole body of the faithful; that you have never broken the sacred line of the priesthood, that you propose no terms of communion but such as are entirely Catholic, and refuse none such as it is Catholic to demand of you. Granting all these things, for argument's sake, how come you to be so uncatholic in all you think, and say, and do? Try as you like, you cannot act the part which you claim for yourselves your own habitual conduct condemns you. From the date of that event which you call the Reformation, your Church has been nothing but a national institution, and all your talk about Christ's universal kingdom and holy Catholic Church, has not opened to you one glimmering of communion with any christian souls born out of your own geographical limits." Nor is this estimate of the Church of England confined to Romanists. There are those among her own children who form a very similar one; who consider her to be indeed the branch of the Catholic Church to which they owe allegiance, but nevertheless to have forfeited every claim to their affection, except that essential one, to be, in short, as uncatholic as it is possible for a Catholic Church to be.

Now, it is notionally possible that the case should be so. There might be a Church, having rightful authority over her children, and yet acting a cruel part by them, even as there are parents who must be reverenced and obeyed as such, though they have no personal claims on the respect or affection of their offspring. The Church of England may be the representative of the Church Catholic to Englishmen; and yet may be the

worst branch of that Church,-the coldest and the most neglectful,-may do less than any other for the spiritual advancement of her children, and may be the most willing of any to remain in a state of isolation, and consequent languor and decay. It is very distressing if the case be so; but it is, as we have said, supposable that it should, and many seem to think it certain that it Let us ask how far the facts justify such an impression. We need hardly say, at the outset, that the interruption of communion between ourselves and the Latin Church, however great a calamity, does necessarily involve no loss of Catholicity. If our position can be justified in this respect, (as we have taken for granted,) then, though we must bear meanwhile with the partial loss of one of the most beautiful fruits of Catholicity, we may ourselves be altogether Catholic. The intercommunion of churches must not be confounded with the unity of the Church. The one is an unchangeable reality, "eternal in the heavens," of which each integral portion of the visible Church on earth is the sacrament, and to which each such portion conducts her faithful members: the other is a manifestation that men and churches perceive and enter into that reality, one of the fruits of Catholicity, but not Catholicity itself. For every faithful branch, nay, every faithful member, of the Church is so far Catholic; and only as being so, can either the one or the other be within the promises. Catholicity consists in having such an apprehension of the faith, and following such a line of conduct, as shall produce a capacity of, and readiness for, christian sympathy and communion with any church or any man willing, on true principles, to grant and return them; and if they be withheld, the offerer is not one whit the less Catholic. The question, then, comes to this, whether, the Catholicity of her formal position being granted, the Church of England does exhibit such capacity and readiness,whether she be not herself too well pleased with her insular independence-whether she may not have discouraged Catholic communion when it might have taken place-whether she has not stinted her children of that largeness of sympathy and fellowship to which it was her part, as a Church, to have invited and raised them. This is some of the complaint which certain of them are now making against her. Let us see if they have any good reason for making it.

We have several times taken for granted the Catholicity of our formal position; i. e. we have taken for granted that our Church, as a Church, did nothing material at the Reformation, or subsequently, which she had not a right to do; nothing, therefore, which justified other churches in interrupting their communion with her. Our own convictions go further; for, since we believe the integral character, and consequent occasional independence, of churches to be as vital a truth as is the duty and privilege of intercommunion, we cannot but think that it

was right to bear a witness for it; and that, under the circumstances, the work of reformation could not have been accomplished without such a witness. But this is beside our present question. Has our Church ever exulted, or ever contentedly acquiesced in a state of separation from other churches? It costs us little to admit that her rulers, at the time of the Reformation, may not have always carried about with them a due sorrow for the schism in which they were taking a part. Such an admission in no way commits the Church, which has entered into the benefit of their labours; for she, simply as being a Church, must ever have a largeness and perfection beyond that of any of her individual members; they serve her each in his place and degree, each seeing his own especial side of that truth which she retains as a whole. While, therefore, it is no disparagement to the Anglican reformers, that they did not escape that one-sidedness which is more or less the necessary condition of each individual's thought and action; that, occupied with one great and holy work to which the Head of the Church had called them, they were not mentally and morally fitted for every other; such considerations can still less be made an imputation against that Church which is committed to nothing about those men but their public and formal proceedings; and to whom in every other respect they are but two or three individuals among her children of one particular time. In this imperfect state of affairs, no truth, especially no long-forgotten truth, is ever very sedulously pursued, except at the temporary and partial expense of some other; it is our duty, for our own parts, to see that this be as little the case as possible; but as we can hardly hope altogether to avoid its occurrence in ourselves, so are we bound to look most leniently on it in others. As far, then, as we have yet gone, no worse case is made out against the Church of England than that, during the bustle and crisis of her Reformation, those who were engaged in that work may not, perhaps, have always kept their minds awake to considerations not directly connected with it.

Passing, then, the period of Reformation, what have been the subsequent tone and temper of our Church in this matter of communion with the rest of Christendom? That the seventeenth century saw no greater signs of christian intercourse between the English and other churches than had taken place during the sixteenth, we frankly admit; but we think that the same kind of considerations which we have pleaded on behalf of the

* It ought, moreover, to be mentioned, that the reformers generally cannot be considered to have known how vast and how long-enduring was to be the suspension of communion in Western Christendom; and that, the moment that fact became too apparent to be mistaken, English churchmen felt themselves called to a new line of thought and action, and the foundations were laid of that theology which has ever since been the characteristic of genuine English divines, and by means of which only can a more extensive development of Catholicism than we have yet seen be looked for.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »