Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

damaged his reputation for sincerity. His Lordship intended to pass an Act which should be a strong parliamentary declaration, and nothing more; but, thanks to a still Protestant party, this has been prevented, and we may hope that the Romanists will not be allowed to insult our Queen and Faith, and then, by the connivance of our ministers, enabled to laugh at the penalties we have imposed.

In the House of Lords, the speaking was admirable; the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst battled well with their unfortunate position as promoters of the fatal Act of 1829. The speech of the latter was a full and bold denunciation of the arrogant claims of the Romanists, and expressed determined resistance to their insulting aggressions.

The Duke of Argyll made, however, the best and most convincing speech in support of the Bill,-so good, that we deeply regret that any effect it produced should have been marred by the vote of the noble duke for the rejection of Sir F. Thesiger's efficient clauses. There is so much of real point and interest in this speech, that we have thought it right to extract the following portion, which we think deserving of our readers' serious consideration.

"If they had attentively listened to the speech of the noble earl (the Earl of Aberdeen,) they would have found that all the arguments he had brought forward naturally divided themselves into three. First of all, there were arguments ad hominem addressed to the noble lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government and his colleagues-arguments founded on quotations with respect to previous language used by them, which he (the Duke of Argyll) did not feel called on to answer. He inferred from their silence it was not easy to answer those arguments, and that the language held by them, and by those connected with the great party to which they belonged, on former occasions, was not strictly consistent with the line taken by them on the present occasion. He had nothing to do with that question either, nor had any of their lordships. The noble earl then addressed the argumentum ad hominem to the members of the right rev. bench, and had remarked on certain documents emanating from them,

and in the tone of the noble lord's remarks, he (the Duke of Argyll) entirely concurred. Much of the language in which the right rev. prelates had stated the grounds on which they based their opposition to the see of Rome, was not only of a nature in which he could not concur, but was, he was free to state,

particularly in the celebrated protest of which they had heard, language involving, in his opinion, precisely the same obnoxious spiritual assumption as that against which he objected on the part of Rome. He had nothing to do with arguments of that kind addressed to Her Majesty's Government or to the right rev. prelate, but as the noble earl was fond of arguments addressed to members of the House, would he allow him (the Duke of Argyll) to take his own line of argument? It was in the noble earl's recollection that, on the occasion of presenting a petition, some time back, he (the Duke of Argyll) had expressed his satisfaction that during the ministerial

crisis no Government had been formed in England on the basis of passing over in total silence an act which he believed to be an aggression against the spirit if not the letter of the public law of Europe, and of the municipal law of this country. The noble earl, rising on that occasion

with some warmth to deny the imputation cast upon him by the terms of his (the Duke of Argyll's) observations on the way in which he had treated the question, told their lordships he would not have formed the Government of England on the basis of passing over in total silence that act of the Pope. He did not know the form in which the noble earl would have expressed that opinion, for he had not stated it, but there were two documents which required to be dealt with in the matter-a certain rescript of the Pope and a pastoral letter by Cardinal Wiseman. The offensive expressions which caine home to the hearts of Englishmen were (as we understood) contained in the terms of the latter. A more pompous and more absurd document proceeding from a proud and foolish priest had never been brought under the notice of the English people; and if the noble earl had answered it in his place in parliament, he would tell him that he conceived it not only to be beneath his notice in the distinguished position he occupied, but the notice of any individual in the country.

[ocr errors]

The noble earl had referred to other religious sects in this country, and had asked why not attack them? He men

INTELLIGENCE-ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.

tioned the Episcopal Church of Scotland, the Wesleyans, and other sects, and said that they had ecclesiastical districts. He (the Duke of Argyll) would have no objection to see the same legislative prohibition as was applied to the Roman Catholics also applied impartially to the Episcopal Church of Scotland. But, although he made that admission, he protested in the most emphatic manner against their lordships being seriously called upon to debate the question whether they were bound to treat the Protestant Dissenting sects in the same manner in which they were entitled to treat the vast hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. All dioceses were ecclesiastical districts, but it did not follow that ecclesiastical districts were the same as dioceses. Their lordships must look at the claims made by one religious body and the claims made by the other, before they could make a just comparison. The doctrines of the different bodies must be regarded. Take the case of excommunication.

Excommunication in the mouth of a Presbyterian or a Wesleyan was a totally different thing from the excommunication contemplated by the Roman Catholic Church. A trial took place in Ireland about five years ago arising out of the following circumstances :- A Roman Catholic conceived that he had a right to read the Bible, provided that it was the Douay version, and he did so. He was found fault with by the priest, who, before all the congregation, cursed him from the altar in these horrible and blasphemous terms: My curse and God's curse upon- -and all who work in the same field with him, or even sit at the same table!' What was the consequence of this excommunication?

The

man was totally ruined. He was a miller, and no man would carry grain to his mill-no one would speak to him-he was alone in the community. He was advised to bring an action against the priest; he did so, and the cause was tried before a jury in the north of Ireland, and what were the arguments used by the lawyer of that priest? They were the identical arguments which their lordships had had dinned into their ears week after week and month after month, by the opponents of the Bill now before their lordships. The argument was this: Since you have guaranteed the Roman Catholic religion, you must tolerate everything that is necessary to the development of that religion.' If the noble lords who rejected this Bill, had been retained by that priest, they could not

333

have advanced an argument different from that which they had urged against this Bill. Excommunication was, it was said, a notorious power of the Catholic Church. The legislature had tolerated that Church. The priest was acting in spiritual things; what right, therefore, had the State to interfere with that priest? It was very true (it was said) that the man whom it concerned was ruined, but that was an accident, the priest had nothing to do with that; the State was bound to allow the priest to fulminate his excommunications as he pleased. He (the Duke of Argyll) rejoiced, however, to say that there was a judge upon the bench and a jury who took a different view of the case. They said, 'No! we do not tolerate everything that the Roman Catholic priests might think necessary to the exercise of their religion, and we will fine this priest in £70;' and he was fined accordingly. Now, what he wanted to point out was this :-He had no doubt all their lordships rejoiced in this result, but what he contended for was, that their lordships should be more cautious in the stating of their abstract principles. If they pursued logically to its legitimate result the argument that, because they tolerated the Roman Catholic faith, therefore they must tolerate everything that was enforced by the Roman Catholic Church, then they gave up the whole moral ground upon which their opposition to that faith was made to rest. If he were asked whether he was prepared to act upon the same principle with regard to other religious bodies, he would say he was. A certain Bishop Skinner having had some disagreement with one of his clergy, thought it consistent with his duty to use lan. guage almost as offensive as that used from the altar by the Catholic priest. He issued a fulmination against Sir William Dunbar, and pronounced a sentence of excommunication against him, in which he said that all his (Sir W. Dunbar's) acts were done apart from the mystical body of Christ, and warned all Christians in the most solemn manner from holding any spiritual communication with him in his spiritual capacity. An action was brought against Bishop Skinner, and it was only not tried because, as he (the Duke of Argyll) understood, a compromise was submitted to. He had adduced these two cases because he believed that theoretically the principle which had been stated by the noble earl would go against the recognized principle of the existing law.

"It was contended that the ultramontane spirit of the Roman Catholics was totally different from what it was fifty or sixty years ago, but he warned their lordships not to suppose that the ultramontane body of the Church of Rome did not know what was best for their own interest. He would entreat the House to look at the spirit in which this act had been done. The Pope had acted from his own sole will and pleasure; and he would remind their lordships, that the Church which the Pope by a breath had made, the Pope by a breath could rule. He entreated the House and country to believe that the ineasure that was now being passed, did not at all interfere with those advances, real or supposed, which the Roman Catholic religion was conceived to be making. He

conceived that under no circumstances,

and at no time, should the advances,

even in error, be met by the arm of power. He trusted that the advancesthe purely spiritual advances, which the Catholic religion was now making in our land, were but the current of an eddy, and not the main current of the stream. Nay, he trusted and believed it was but the rise of a single wave, and not the advancing of the tide. Nevertheless, he declared, whatever might be the case with regard to that advance, the floor of parliament formed no part of the field on which such advances must be met. but they must trust to far other exertions to meet it. This, however, he must observe, that the Roman Catholic Church had not always advanced by merely spi ritual means. He therefore entreated their lordships to remember that they had a solemn responsibility to discharge, not only to themselves but to future generations. If the Roman Catholic Church was to advance, they were bound to see that that advance should not be aided by footsteps proudly trampling on the ancient principles of their public law, and the sacred prerogatives of this king

dom's Crown."

[blocks in formation]

doctrine and discipline, are to be watched with vigilance, lest they should forge fresh chains for the consciences of those committed to their oversight, whether they be laymen or of the clerical order. Had we a properly and liberally constituted convocation at home, acting wisely, and in a thoroughly christian spirit, for the whole episcopal Church; these colonial bishops might be permitted to hold their own local synods, constituted upon the same comprehensive principle; but even then, their acts or declarations should be inoperative until they had received that sanction, which must alike ratify the decisions of the convocation at home. have thought it well to extract the following proceedings of the Adelaide clergy, with the answer of their bishop:

We

REPORT OF THE OPINIONS OF THE CLERGY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA ON THE 66 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE AUSTRALASIAN BISHOPS," AT SYDNEY, IN OCTOBER, 1850.

To the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Adelaide.

Chapter House, Adelaide, Feb. 5, 1851. My Lord.-We, the Clergy of the Diocese of Adelaide, having deliberated at your Lordship's suggestion, upon the Minutes of Proceedings at a meeting of the Metropolitan and Suffragan Bishops of the Province of Australasia, held at

Sydney in October last, have now the honour of submitting for your Lordship's consideration our views and opinions thereon, as embodied in the following propositions.

Though unfortunately under the necessity of differing from your Lordship on many points, we trust that our manner of doing so will be deemed unexceptionable. only do justice to the chief pastors of the We are persuaded that we Australasian Churches by giving them credit for a sincere and earnest desire to advance the interests of true religion in their respective dioceses. As presbyters and deacons of the Church of England,

we must claim to be considered no less desirous of securing the attainment of the great ends of the Church's institution.

It was not thought necessary to remark upon those matters contained in the minutes which are determined by the rubrics, referred to the decision of the ordinary;

INTELLIGENCE-THE AUSTRALASIAN SYNOD.

or, judging from the general usages in the mother country, left to the discretion of each individual clergyman.

Any attempt to enforce a rigid uniformity on minor or trivial matters would, it is to be feared, not only fail in its object, but would tend to engender strife and evil surmisings.

The Church needs rest. May its chief pastors be endued with the spirit of wis dom, power, love, and of a sound mind; and may we all, clergy and laity, be divinely enabled to maintain the faith "in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life."

Propositions above referred to.

1. That our proceedings may be made public.

2. That we proceed to the consideration of the Minutes seriatim; omitting, however, all discussion upon the question of baptismal regeneration, except to affirm on the propriety or otherwise of its introduction into the "Minutes."

3 That we regard the meeting of the Bishops respectively of Sydney, Tasmania, New Zealand, Adelaide, Newcastle, and Melbourne, simply as a voluntary assembling of the chief pastors of the Australasian dioceses, to confer upon matters affecting the interests of the Church.

4. That, while we approve mainly of the objects on which the bishops pro.. posed to consult as specified in Section I., we cannot refrain from expressing regret that, as they had not conferred with their respective clergy before their meeting, they should have forwarded their "Minutes" to England, with a view, it is presumed, to Imperial Legislation, without previously submitting them to the clergy and laity of their respective dioceses.

66

Future Synods and Conventions. 5. That, adverting to chap. iii., " On Future Synods and Conventions," we are of opinion that it would be preferable for the clergy and laity to meet in one assembly or convention, consisting of every licensed presbyter having cure of souls, and one or more laymen chosen by and out of the members of each congregation, in full communion, and presided over by the bishop of the diocese. Subdivision of Dioceses and Nomination of Bishops.

6. That the right and power of Her Most Gracious Majesty to subdivide the Australasian dioceses and to nominate bishops thereto has hitherto been wisely and beneficially exercised, and ought for the present to be retained intact; and

335

that, should a period arrive when it should be deemed expedient that Her Majesty should relinquish the right of nominating to colonial sees, we are of opinion that, according to ancient usage, such right of nomination should be vested in the clergy of the diocese over which the bishop is to preside.

Church Membership. MINUTE. On a discussion of the phrase, "duly baptized," it was understood that the word "duly" was intended to be explained by the words following, viz., with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and not to refer to the person baptizing.

[blocks in formation]

Status of Clergy.

9. That we view with some degree of fear and disapprobation the desire of the Australasian bishops to licence clergymen to charges of a "temporary nature,' and the wish expressed by them "that candidates for holy orders should place themselves entirely at the disposal of their bishop for some definite term of years, and leave to him the responsibility of appointing and changing their station -as we believe such during such period ;"a policy, if general, would, under present circumstances, be injurious to the maintenance of mental independence, doctrinal purity, and pastoral fidelity among the junior clergy, and would be inimical to their domestic comfort and general usefulness.

10. That it is of the utmost importance to the respectability, influence, and efficiency of the clerical body in this diocese to keep up, as far as possible, the standard of secular and theological learning for candidates for holy orders which is required by the bishops at home.

11. That, under present circumstances, it is not advisable to admit to the diaconate, for the service of the Church in this diocese, persons whose previous position in the colony would materially impair their influence.

12. That, for the due preservation of order and harmony, it is desirable that no deacon or catechist should be intro.. duced into any district already under the care of a presbyter, but on the nomination of such presbyter to whom the said deacon or catechist should be subordinate.

LITURGY.

Marriage of Persons, neither of whom belong to the Church.

13. That whereas, up to a recent period, no marriages of Dissenters in England were legal, unless celebrated according to the rites and ceremonies of the Established Church; and whereas at the present time the majority of Dissenting marriages are so celebrated in the mother-country-we are of opinion that no Australasian clergyman ought to refuse to marry any parties who may apply to him, though they be not members of our communion.

Ministering to Dissenters.

66

14. That, while we are relieved from any legal obligation" to perform religious services for persons who are not members of our Church.-yet, to guard against any misconception, we desire to express our readiness to afford our ministerial offices, as far as in us lies, to any one who may need or desire them. MINUTE. We deem it expedient to express an opinion on some points touched upon in chap. vii., as we believe these points must be left, to a certain extent, to the discretion of the

officiating minister. We feel bound, however, to remark, that in section 8, letter d, no mention is made of marriages to be solemnized on certificate from the Registrar's Office; but we cannot suppose that it is intended by such omission to condemn the solemnization of such marriages by ministers of our Church.

We desire also to express the difficulty we are under of understanding what is meant by the advice of the bishops to repel from the Holy Communion persons who have married within the prohibited degrees "until they have repented and be reformed." Holy Baptism.

15. That the introduction by the Australasian bishops of the question of Holy Baptism into their Minutes was uncalled

for and injudicious. That the construction put by them upon the "Creed, Articles, and Liturgy," with respect to this subject, would, if imposed, be tantamount to a new article of faith; and that the dogmatical determination of a question which has ever been practically considered an open one, virtually narrows the terins of communion with our Church.

Education.

16 That whilst desirous of seeing a school established in connection with every Church in this colony, we shall be prepared to regard favourably any system of education in which the Bible shall be the basis of the instruction given. Missions.

17. That we hail with great satisfaction the establishment of the Australasian Board of Missions in connexion with our Church, with a view to the conver sion of the aboriginal inhabitants of Australasia, and the Isles of the Western Pacific; and we earnestly hope and pray that such measures may be adopted and carried out by its members as may be crowned with the Divine blessing.

[Here follow the signatures of eleven clergymen.]

The following is the Bishop's reply,—

"Claremont, February 6, 1851. "My dear Mr. Farrell-I return, for publication, the resolutions and opinions arrived at by the clergy on the Minutes of the Conference at Sydney, which, on my return, I submitted for their consideration. They appear to me to be characterised by a calm and serious spirit, which, under the circumstances of excitement lately prevailing, is peculiarly gratifying. Should Her Gracious Majesty, as Supreme Head of the Church of England, authorize the clergy and laity of the Australasian diocese to frame their own ecclesiastical polity, subject to her approval, and should it be deemed advisable to depart on any point from the existing constitution of the English Church, I trust that the pattern of other reformed Protestant and Episcopal Churches will be followed, and the relations of the bishops, clergy, and laity, as set forth in the Scriptures, carefully preserved-I remain, yours very truly, "AUGUSTUS ADELAIDE. "The very Rev. Dean Farrell."

LONDON: J. H. JACKSON, ISLINGTON GREEN.

« VorigeDoorgaan »