Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

of those they love or fear, rather than in lifting up their voice and crying aloud against the first invasion of error. They betray their trust by their silence, not by their consent. In the private character of Andrewes we see much to admire; in his public conduct we see much to condemn. But it was his misfortune to be great. Known only as a learned man, conversant with Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, besides other modern tongues to the number of fifteen," he may well be ranked "amongst the rarest linguists of his time in Christendom." As a preacher, Mr. Russell overrates his powers. He had lost the true idea of pure pulpit eloquence, and dealt largely in the childish affectations of his childish and affected age. But he was a holy man, and we take leave of him with the respect which is due to goodness, though without the reverence that is due to goodness when allied with courage and wisdom of the highest kind. His piety in his later years was not without a dark tinge of superstition. It does not raise our admiration to be told that he spent five hours a day prayer and meditation; for prayer and meditation are a means, and not an end. There was One, indeed, who passed a whole night in prayer to God; but an awful mystery conceals the nature of that night's intercession. Nor do we find that any attempt was ever made by His disciples to imitate their Lord. If the length of time employed in devotion were the test of piety, the perfection of the Christian life would still have to be sought in nunneries and cloisters. The religion of Jesus Christ is averse from both. His own dying prayer for us was not that we should be taken out of the world, but kept from its evil, and qualified for its pursuits; and he is truly and wisely devout who goes to his closet for strength "according to his day," and comes forth to do the will of his Father;-not he who abstracts himself from the calls of life and the duties of his station, that he may devote five hours a day moodily to solitude and prayer.

in

Mr. Russell's volume bears the marks of great labour and much painful and dispassionate research. He has exhausted his subject, and left a storehouse of materials on every thing that concerns the life and reputation of bishop Andrewes. But his narrative is tedious and often obscure from the digressions which so constantly return. Scarcely a name is mentioned but, either in the body of the work itself or at the foot of the page, we have some notice of his history, perhaps his genealogy. This is the old style of biography, to accumulate facts from every quarter, and say all that can be said; and it may, perhaps, still find its admirers. The modern taste is for a more rapid or, however, less tangled style of writing.

THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER'S CHARGE, &c.

1. A Charge delivered at the Triennial Visitation of the Diocese, September and October, 1860. By Charles, Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. London: Seeley.

2. A Letter on Canonical and Rubrical Reform, to the Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in reference to his recent Charge. By T. P. Boulibee, M.A., late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge; Chaplain of Cheltenham College. London: Wertheim. THE admirable Charge of the bishop of Gloucester, though not so divided by the author, consists of two parts. In the former, the state of the diocese and the church of England is reviewed; in the latter, matters of spiritual import are pressed upon the consciences of the clergy. Were we to consult our own feelings, we should be glad to enlarge upon the second part; but the necessities of the moment induce us rather to direct attention to the first. There is a solemn protest against those errors of foreign growth, now openly and extensively circulated in the most popular and attractive forms, from the light novel to the learned essay. Well does the Right Rev. prelate say,

"It is for you, my reverend brethren, to be on your guard against the poison of these deadly heresies ever becoming mixed in the very least degree with your own purity of doctrine, or destroying the scriptural faith of those for whom you have pledged yourselves to do what you can to drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word. Never were the exhortations more needed, 'Stand fast in the faith;'Take heed to the doctrine;' 'Hold fast the form of sound words.' For if this negative theology, which is now being spread with such activity have in it a particle of truth, then has it taken from you the only lever which is mighty enough to raise humanity from a life of sin to one of righteousness; it has robbed you of the one balm wherewith a soul, wounded by the arrows of an accusing conscience, can be healed; and Christ is dead in vain;' and your 'preaching is also vain.' Thanks be to God, it is not so. Though heaven and earth shall pass away, not one word shall pass away, or fail, of all the good promises which He hath promised by the hands of those holy men who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (pp. 31, 32.)

In the former part of his Charge, the bishop adverts to the question of church-rates, and takes a view of the question very similar to that which we have advocated in these pages. He thinks that it is scarcely possible to over-estimate the injury which would be inflicted on the cause of religion and philanthropy throughout our country by the unconditional abolition of church-rates; and yet he adds, "I must confess that I should look forward with more hope to the final result of the conflict if I could discern on either side a spirit of concession." We have often said the same

[blocks in formation]

thing, and are glad to repeat it once more under episcopal shelter. Another sentence of the Charge we consider as beyond dispute. It is that, "unless we speedily and unanimously consent to a liberal concession, the total abolition of church-rates is only a question of time." But we are told there is to be no compromise; it is a question of principle. We wish that those who talk thus would give a little thoughtful consideration to the following remarks:

"Now there might be something chivalrous in this determination, if we of the present day were to be the only or chief sufferers by such a course. But as any imprudent steps on our part, which might lead to the total abolition of the church-rate, would far more seriously affect future generations than ourselves, we must not allow our indignation at the unreasonable demands of our opponents to warp our judgment, but must endeavour calmly to consider what steps may best secure the permanent maintenance of religion in our country, and whether it may not be our duty by a timely concession to preserve a portion of that rate, which few can be sanguine enough to hope to maintain in its present integrity. I am aware that the reply to this is, that the usage of churchrates is an essential feature in a national church, an acknowledgment of the duty of the State to support religion, and that it must therefore be defended at any cost as a matter of principle. I trust, my reverend brethren, that none of us will ever be found ready to advocate the sacrifice of principle to expediency; and as a compromise is avowedly a question of expediency, if the maintenance of the church-rate on its present basis be without any doubt a matter of principle, there is clearly no alternative left to us, but we must manfully resist every form of concession, even though we be sure that the end of such a contest must be our signal defeat. I need scarcely, however, remind you that whilst the appeal to some general principle is often plausibly made the plea for an obstinate adherence to any unwise line of action, it is seldom that any single principle presents itself in such an isolated form as not to be greatly modified in its practical application by other general principles. Thus, in the present instance, the duty of toleration, of charity towards our dissenting brethren, and even of wise and loving loyalty towards our own church, may materially affect the question how far we are in duty bound to preserve inviolate an usage which has been handed down to us from our ancestors. But, after all, what, in its full extent, is this principle of church-rates which is so often urged as an unanswerable reason why any compromise is inconsistent with our duty as churchmen? Is it only that a christian nation is bound to pay for the religious instruction of its people? Surely this is but the minor part of the principle, and its far more important element is that the party receiving the funds should supply means of religious instruction commensurate with the religious wants of the nation. The principle of church-rates, as I understand it, is, that it is a compact between the church and the state, by which the latter engages itself to find the necessary funds, and the former engages to provide for each individual throughout the several parishes of the country a seat in his parish church. And clearly if either party fail in fulfilling their portion of the contract, it cannot in fairness be required that the conditions should be strictly enforced on

the other party. Now I need not remind you how lamentably the church has failed, from various causes, in its duty to the nation, and how generally the poor have been robbed of that room in our parish churches which it was the primary object of church-rates to secure for them. Thus the great principle, of which the church-rate was to be the exponent, of a church providing for the religious wants of the whole nation, and therefore justly claiming the support of the whole nation, has long been in abeyance. And whilst I believe it to be still a matter of the highest political and religious expediency not to strip the church of England of any of its temporalities--because, with all its shortcomings, it is the chief instructress of all classes, and the strongest pillar of our national religion-I would also maintain that, until it fulfil its tacit compact with the state, and provide a refuge within its bosom for every wayfarer, a place within its temples for every one who would enter, the argument cannot be equitably urged that the universal enforcement of church-rates is a principle, which none can propose to modify without being guilty of treason towards the church of their fathers. Rather would it appear that they are best fulfilling their duty as churchmen, and consulting the permanent interests of religion, who are endeavour ing in a spirit of liberal concession to meet the conscientious scruples, or even the prejudices, of objectors, at the same time that they are resolved to do their utmost to retain whatever is absolutely necessary for the efficient working of the parochial system."

There is another subject of much difficulty and delicacy, from which his lordship does not shrink from expressing an opinion; it is the further revision of the liturgy. He is aware of the objections. He foresees the apprehensions of some of the wisest and best churchmen. He admits that no little discretion on the part of the advocates of revision is required, and yet he thinks the present time a most favourable one for the introduction of the measures for revision. "Nay, that there are features in the religious aspect of the present times which seem to render some alterations absolutely necessary." He thinks that a few verbal and a few rubrical alterations, and the amendment of the Act of Uniformity (an Act which his lordship justly describes as being "as disastrous in its consequences as it was cruel in its intention,") would go far towards satisfying the moderate advocates for revision in our church.

All these are questions upon which, treated as they are by the bishop of Gloucester in a wise and temperate spirit, much diversity of opinion will still continue to exist. The Charge should be read, however, by men of all parties.

Mr. Boultbee's Letter is occasioned by his lordship's Charge. The services of this gentleman to the church of England, in connection with the Cheltenham college, have been invaluable, and fairly entitle him to a hearing, and yet he has no status in the church of England. "Without touching on the debated point of a revived convocation, it may be allowed me to state that I am one of those who are unrepresented there. A Presbyter of the

church of England of sixteen years standing, and one who has borne the heat and burden of the day in laborious and responsible positions, I am yet officially unrecognised by the laws which halt two centuries behind the necessities of the age; and, in common with a large proportion of the diligent of the ministers of the church, I have no voice in the election, such as it is, of the members of convocation. If that venerable body, therefore, had powers which are denied it, I could only speak through the press, as I am now doing, being, with thousands more, an unenfranchised man."

In the first, the

This pamphlet likewise consists of two parts. author argues that we ought to pause awhile in the work of restoration, being, on this, a little at variance with his bishop; and it is a point on which we forbear to decide. In his second head, we go with him heartily and entirely. He maintains that whatever else be done, the canons ought to be at once revised, and not a few of them repealed. The worst of them, eleven in number, excommunicating in set terms every species of dissenters from the church of England, are obsolete, and, to a great extent, illegal; being, in fact, repealed by the Toleration Act and other statutes. "These eleven canons," says Mr. Boultbee, Mr. Boultbee, "are dead, let them also be buried out of sight." Undoubtedly; and the sooner the two houses of parliament perform the funeral service, the better for the church of England. The challenge which Mr. Boultbee throws down is perfectly fair and courteous: "Let any one who desires the retention of this eleven-tongued anathema, point out its real practical benefit to the church, what error it restrains, what schism it prevents; failing this, let him consent to its unconditional abrogation."

Of the remainder of the canons, it may be said, generally, that while the spirit of many of them is excellent, there is scarcely one of them which, in its present state, is exactly suited to the necessi

ties of the present age. We hope we respect tender consciences

as much as the most tenacious stickler for canons and rubrics. But we cannot admit that the slightest violence would be done to the most scrupulous conscience by the revision of our canon law, even supposing, which is not the case, that the whole of it was binding, in every particular, as it now stands, upon the consciences of the clergy. Every good subject is bound, without oath or promise; and most officials are bound by a solemn oath to bear true allegiance to our sovereign lady the queen. If this oath means anything, it means thus much at least, that we shall obey the laws of England, the laws as now upon the statute-book. But does any man suppose that it binds him to resist all changes, if made by competent authority; to refuse obedience to new laws enacted by the three estates, or acquiescence in the abolition of old ones? Yet this is precisely the argument by which it is attempted to throw dust in the eyes of the clergy, whenever the revision of

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »