« VorigeDoorgaan »
fruit, if cultivated in a right spirit. Whether any fruit has resulted, our author says not. Though connected with the mission three years, he furnishes no facts upon which we can ground an opinion. There have been failures—that, on his shewing, is quite clear: there have been errors and mistakes, but of what nature we are not explicitly told. We have given the entire substance of Mr. W.'s report, but must profess our inability to understand it: and, in the absence of any history of the operations of the mission from his pen, and of even so much as a single allusion beyond what we have given, to the head of that mission,-Bishop Alexander,-it would be presumptuous in us to say what opinions the bishop's late chaplain has himself formed. His account certainly does strike us as cold, querulous, and calculated to infuse no little doubt, so far as his influence extends into the public mind : and we think he ought either to have spoken more plainly, or not at all: much less ought he to have given his most significant, his almost only intimation of the state of things at Jerusalem in this short emphatic sentence“Even with these present views they (the Americans) would represent the English Church quite as faithfully, and much more creditably, than some others, from the consequences of whose inadequate ideas of its constitution and character it has long suffered, and is still suffering, more than can be told, in the estimation of the more intelligent christians of the East." We much wish that blame may not attach in other quarters ; that some others than these may not be chargeable with representing and serving their church less faithfully, less creditably, and less efficiently than her attached sons could have desired. But we like no inuendo—and writing as those who view things “through the loop-holes of retreat," without a word of positive information, or even a hint to guide us, we give simply our impressions as taken from Mr. W. himself: and to speak truth, whatever may be his views of the English mission, we think that he is by no means free from bias in opinions, or errors in conduct, as regards what he is so careful reverently to designate, the “ancient, orthodox, and Apostolic Churches" with which he has made himself acquainted during his sojourn at Jerusalem : and this brings us to the last point, a point on which he is far core copious than those which we have just passed in review : we mean, the bearing of our mission on the communions referred to. Having dispatched the Jews (briefly enough) he adds,
“ And it may be that missionary labours, so conducted, might exercise a beneficial influence on the other Christian bodies, sufficient to compensate for the lack of direct intercourse, which neither party seems forward to invite, and which could not, at least for many years, be expected to lead to any decided results. But even without this, much might no doubt be done to disabuse the minds of the Christians of Jerusalem of those unfavourable im.
pressions which have been produced against us by Popish and Protestant misrepresentation, and so prejudices might be gradually weakened, and the way paved for mutual advances when the time shall come. This, it is plain, can only be effected by the utmost circumspection and forbearance : for Jeru. salem is not so large, and its inhabitants not so fully occupied, as to allow the proceedings of a society, which cannot but be regarded with suspicion and distrust, to escape unobserved : so that an inconsiderate expression might create a breach which it would take years to heal : an injudicious act produce an impression which nothing could remove. Further: if the superstitions of the Jews are to be not merely tolerated, but countenanced, may not some consideration be likewise shown to the weaknesses of other Christians, so far as can be without compromising truth? If the symbol of our salvation is to be kept out of sight, for fear of offending the prejudices of the former-though the cross, however presented to them, must always be a stumbling-block, and it is obviously dangerous for Christians even to seem to be ashamed of it, (qu. what?) yet if this be done, should not the same principle be carried out in our dealinge with our brethren of otber communions? Their infirmities deserve at least as much tenderness, and the apostolic rule applies equally to all. For example: if we have not ourselves any deep veneration for the decisions of the Fourth General Council, though its language is adopted by our Church in her authorized formularies, and its decrees prescribed by the State as one of the rules whereby to judge heresy, yet regard for the orthodox church of the East should induce us to be very guarded in our intercourse with those who reject and anathematize it : not that these last bodies need be unnecessarily scandalized, or treated otherwise than with courtesy and kindness, in the hope that the exhibition of such sympathy and consideration as is not inconsistent with the strict maintenance of Catholic truth, may dispose them to listen to our invitations to return to the unity and purity of the faith. So again, even though we place no faith in their local traditions, and regard the sacred places with indifference ourselves, it were surely well to bear with their weakness in this respect, and avoid the appearance of a contemptuous or irreverent violation of scenes associated in their minds with the most awful events of the sacred history. The fact is, that circumspection on these and kindred points is absolutely indispensable, if we wish to exercise any influence for good in any part of the East, in the way of imparting to the Christians of those countries, or deriving from them, any spiritual gift."-(pp. 479—481.)
All this is intelligible enough. There are too, it seems, peculiarities in our establishment at Jerusalem, not connected with the position of our church in the east generally—"which serve to increase the difficulties, and to render caution doubly necessary." “ These considerations," our author concludes
"will excuse the reasonable apprehensions of the Armenian patriarch, who, contrary to his usual courtesy, took occasion, on the first ceremonial visit to the English prelate, to express a hope that if any disaffected member of his Church should sue for admission to our communion, the applicant might not be received without previous reference to him. They might even palliate an offence which it was right to feel more keenly. The same dignitary had one day entertained an English clergyman with a tirade against the ambition of the Roman pontiff; a favourite subject with his holiness, and had expatiated on the evils which the schismatical proceedings of popish emissaries had produced in the East.' Had he felt any doubt on the subject before, a very slight knowledge of facts would have sufficed to convince any one but a Roman Catholic of the justice of these observations, and the Englishman warmly assented. He was somewhat startled by a rejoinder for which he was not at all prepared: Now this is exactly what the Archbishop of Canterbury is doing. A most positive and almost an indignant disavowal of such intentions, with an appeal to his Grace's express declaration, was of course the ready reply. But it is only by a long and consistent course of action, with patient forbearance and forgiveness of prejudices, however unwarranted, that the minds, whether of Greeks or of Armenians, will be disabused of the suspicion of sinister intentions which our enemies have produced, and appearances seemed, in some measure, to justify; while, on the contrary, any assumption of superiority to which the English are so prone, any uncanonical invasion of the patriarchal jurisdiction, or, lastly, not merely the invitation, but the reception of proselytes, must defeat its own object, and widen still more the breach which separates us from the Eastern Churches.”--(p. 483.)
Such are Mr. Williams's views. It is well to have them on record, and here for the present we leave them. Our readers will not suspect us of giving our assent to many of the propositions which might be deduced from the above statement : and it is time to complete our contrasted view of Mr. Williams and Mr. Herschell by now presenting a brief extract from the latter; though in truth, the contrast has long ago been sufficiently marked. But on this particular point, the Eastern churches, and the Jerusalem mission, he must be allowed a word or two more :
" I cannot suppose,” he says, “ that the Archbishop of Canterbury, or any of those concerned, were fully aware of the state of those Churches whose ministers were thus addressed in the Archbishop's letters commendatory); but how grievous is it that the head of the mission at Jerusalem should have been introduced under such auspices; that such a document should hare been published and promulgated in Arabic, that Jews and Mohammedans might see the 'amicable intercourse!' I am well aware of the obloquy to which I expose myself by these remarks: but I seek not to please men; for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." If I sought a life of ease, I should glide along with the current of public opinion, and 'prophesy smooth things;' but I dare not speak of anything otherwise than as God sees I think of it. Nor am I intermeddling with that which is no concern of mine; I have to bear the shame of this unholy alliance among my unconverted brethren, who are but ill-informed in regard to the sectional distinctions of the Christian church, and therefore naturally hold one Christian answerable for the views and opinions of another. It is true I could tell my brethren in Jerusalem, that the Church to which the mission belongs is very different indeed from the Eastern Churches; but what avails such an assertion, in the face of a public document that gives not the slightest hint of any such difference? It may be said that the lives of the missionaries will show their Christianity to be different. Most willingly do I admit this ; but to be able to judge of their walk and conversation, would augur a degree of intercourse from which the more pious Jews will shrink. Any difference they do perceive, they do not lay to the account of their Christianity, but to their belonging to England.”—(pp. 181, 182.)
With this extract we must conclude. It is in many respects a striking counterpart of the notice which Mr. Williams has taken of the Jerusalem mission; and as strikingly completes the entire contrasted view which it has been our object to present. We must now commend the subject to the serious and prayerful attention of our readers; just observing for ourselves, that, in the midst of all this confusion, we look with good hope to the simple Episcopate now
established on Mount Zion. We cannot but recognize in it a most remarkable providential movement; and, to use Mr. Herschell's words, “ we believe our dear brother, Bishop Alexander, to be a truly Christian man"-sound at heart—and zealously concerned to do his Master's work. We knew him as a Jew,-the humble reader of a synagogue in one of our cathedral towns, and can distinctly retrace, as we have often done, the features of his interesting character. We have once since heard his mellifluous and heart-piercing tones on a platform—we have read his simple unassuming pastorals addressed to his European brethren, and we cannot but feel a secret persuasion that he has been raised up for some important purpose. “Who knows what work may yet be allotted to him in the providence of God?” We repeat the question with solemn interest, and as he keeps his watch on Zion's heights, we earnestly commend him to the prayers of those whose purpose it is imploringly to beseech the Lord, and “ give him no rest, till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth.” He builds in troublons times, and we would warn him and others that they say not "peace, peace," when, may be, there will as yet be no peace. But, (to refer to a very beautiful passage from Mr. Williams, in the sentiment of which we entirely agree), let our brother, and all who work with him, remember the example of good Josiah. He had before him but a dark and disheartening prospect.
“ Never did reformer prosecute his task under such gloomy forebodings, but never any with more fervent zeal than he. He built as for eternity, though he knew that a few years would lay all his labours in the dust, when the destroyer should come up with axes and hammers, to break down the carved work which he was setting up; to set fire upon the holy places which he was renewing; and to carry away the living stones of the spiritual church to captivity in a heathen land.” So must we, each in his sphere, prosecute the work which the great Master-builder assigns us. But let us not think that the temple of our God, his house the church, will here spring up as did the first and mystic temple, in the progress of which
“No hammer fell, no ponderous axes rung ;
Like some tall palm the mystic fabric sprung." No, we see it is not so: but there is a temple, the living stones of which are fast gathering in solemn awful silence, to take the place assigned them, and ere long, we doubt not, the top-stone shall be brought forth with shouting, “Grace, grace, unto it ;” and then shall the labourer find, however hard and apparently hopeless his toil, that his "work has not been in vain in the Lord.” 1845.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF EPISCOPACY IN SCOTLAND, from 1688 to the present time. By the Rev. D. T. K. DRUMMOND, Minister of St. Thomas' Episcopal Chapel in Edinburgh.
Edinburgh: Kennedy. HOLINESS THE TRUE REFORMING POWER OF THE
CHURCH. By the Rev. P. Cheyne, Minister of St. John's,
Aberdeen. Aberdeen: Brown. 1844. REMARKS ON A SERMON, and the Notes annexed to it, by
the Rev. P. Cheyne. By the Rev. J. D. Hull, Minister of
Huntly. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. By the Rev. P.
CHEYNE. Aberdeen: Brown. A BRIEF REPLY TO THE REV. P. CHEYNE'S PREFACE.
Aberdeen: Wyllie. THREE ADDRESSES TO THE MEMBERS OF ST. JUDE'S
CONGREGATION, GLASGOW. By the Rey. C. P. MILES.
Glasgow : Bryce. AN AFFECTIONATE ADDRESS TO THE MANAGERS AND
CONGREGATION OF ST. JUDE'S, GLASGOW. By the Right Rev. W. Russell, their Bishop; and Reply to State
ments in Mr. Miles's Address. Glasgow: Maclehose. ENGLISH EPISCOPAL CHAPELS IN SCOTLAND: a Letter from a Committee of Managers and Constituent Members of St. Paul's Chapel, at Aberdeen, to the Lord Bishop of London.
Aberdeen: Wyllie. 1845. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN BISHOP LOW AND THE
REV. J. D. HULL.
Our readers will see, by the above publications, that since our Reviews in January, 1843, and March, 1844, on this subject, there has been a steadily-growing conviction among Episcopal ministers in Scotland, of the unscriptural character and papal tendency of the peculiarities of the Scotch Episcopal Church. Two more devoted ministers have felt bound in conscience to relinquish its communion, and another has refused to act out its persecuting anathemas, and has, for this reason, been separated from it.
The account of these proceedings, in the midst of the progress of popery and infidelity on every side, is too full of instruction to be disregarded by the Churchman's Monthly Review.
We will first follow Mr. Drummond's Historical Sketch, which