« السابقةمتابعة »
exist in the Jewish religion that abhorrence of the Sacred Person whom Christians adore as their Saviour, which is generally attributed to it. But does not a bigoted continuance in Judaism imply as much? A Jew, who still venerates and observes the law of Moses, as being still in force, does, ipso facto, deny that Christ has come in the flesh. He may admit, as indeed he must, that a person professing to be such, did appear; and he may possibly admit still farther, as did the authority quoted by the Bishop, that such a person, appearing at the recorded time, was a good, pious, and meritorious character, and suffered death unjustly owing to the cabals of his countrymen. But does this make his rejection of our Lord, as the Messiah, one whit less culpable or direct? Does it not rather increase his condemnation, that, with a certain degree of light before his eyes, he obstinately refuses to go a step farther, and acknowledge that to be true, which a right examination and understanding of his own sacred records would prove to be so? There was one singular discrepancy between the statements of the mover of the debate, and his principal supporter. The former asserted, that it had been the characteristic of the constitution, that it abhorred exclusion-that for a long period of English history there was no exclusion whateverfrom Magna Charta downwards, no disqualifying enactments, &c.' On the other hand, the Bishop of St David's declared, that the old principle of the British constitution was one of absolute and exclusive intolerance. It not only proscribed and excluded from all places of authority and trust the Jew and the infidel, but likewise the heretic and the schismatic'!! Both, however, of these assertions, contradictory as they are, are founded on fallacies. The Bishop rose to speak immediately after the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose mild and orthodox opposition to the measure he seems to have wished to counteract and overwhelm with a torrent of specious liberality and heterodox sophistry. Giving way, however, to the Earl of Winchelsea, he was rewarded for this act of forbearance by having additional matter for sarcasm afforded by the speech of the latter, whose indiscretions too often expose him to the rod of correction. The most splendid speech delivered on this occasion was that of the Bishop of Oxford, who followed the Bishop of St David's, and with his accustomed eloquence dissected and controverted the sophistries of his latitudinarian brother prelate. Lord Stanley, at a later period of the debate, delivered an admirable speech against the measure; Lord Eglinton also strenuously opposed it; and this we hope, will reconcile to him the favour of his presby
terian neighbours, which was somewhat alienated by his famous Tournament.*
On a division, this noxious measure was rejected by a majority of 35, the numbers of each side being severally 163 and 128. Seventeen Prelates (including the Archbishop of Armagh, the only Irish Prelate who voted at all) voted against it. Five were in favour of it: The Archbishop of York; the Bishops of St David's, Worcester (whose anti-catholic propensities are notorious), Manchester, who, of course, sided with his patrons, and Bishop Hampden. At the commencement of the debate, a very significant hint was given by the mover, that the motion, if then rejected, would be renewed again and again. We have no doubt of this; but we trust and pray, that the Peers of England will again and again remain firm to their duty, and that those spiritual rulers of the Church, who by God's grace are endued with true catholic and apostolic principles, will not swerve from their devotion to the same; for, as Lord Ellenborough justly remarked, there never was an instance, in which the smallness of the object was so utterly disproportioned to the magnitude of the sacrifice.'
A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Edinburgh, on Thursday, April 27, 1848. By C. H. TERROT, D.D., Bishop of Edinburgh. Edinburgh: R. GRANT & SON.
WHEN a Bishop speaks ex Cathedra, we regard his words as in a great measure sacred, and by his own Clergy and people, at least, to whom they are specially addressed, to be received with profound deference and respect. A charge, however, when published for the use of the whole Church, may, we conceive, be regarded as public property, and by those who owe no peculiar allegiance to its author, the sentiments propounded may be fairly discussed according to their
* Shortly after this celebrated exhibition, a meeting of presbyterian preachers of the district took place, at which one or two of that class actually propounded an overture (or some such phrase) containing a direct censure on the noble lord for his gorgeous display, which could hardly be said to endamage the cause of morality, whatever might be its deteriorating effect on his own pecuniary resources. Fortunately, however, for the members of presbytery retaining a character for sanity, a majority had sense enough to negative this act of consummate impudence and absurdity.
intrinsic merits. Yet, even in this case, we would speak with great deference, not unmindful that we are dealing with the words of one whom God has empowered to command and exhort, reprove and teach with all authority, for the edification of His Church. With these feelings we approach the charge of the Bishop of Edinburgh ; and we trust that, in our character of reviewers, we shall, when compelled to differ from this learned prelate, transgress no rule of charity or duty. We can, with full confidence, say that we write without diminution of our veneration and regard for the profound learning and exemplary character of the Bishop of Edinburgh, and we earnestly trust, that we shall not in any way, nor by any one, be misunderstood. Had we been able entirely to agree with him, these preliminary remarks would have been unnecessary; but as it is, we trust they will protect us from any accusation of undutifulness or want of respect in reference to one whom we highly esteem, both for his office sake, and for his personal worth. We speak the truth according to the best of our judgment; but if we shall use any expression which may be deemed inconsistent with the most rigid propriety, we disavow, once for all, any intentional disrespect.
With these feelings we cannot help, at the very outset, expressing our regret at the tone of the address. The language of apology, surely, does not become a Bishop when discharging his bounden and official duty; and is not less out of place than it would be, did a clergyman, whenever he ascends the pulpit, apologise to his people for presuming to deliver the message which God had entrusted to his This style is, however, not the unnatural result of a mistake which is expressed in the very first sentence of the Charge. The custom of our Church requires that now, after an interval of three years, I should address to you what is commonly called a Charge.' The Church in Scotland requires an annual Synod to be held in every diocese, and when the Bishop is resident, or can be present, the sanctioned practice has been, for the diocesan to avail himself of every such opportunity to address his clergy on the state of the diocese, their own duties, and the work done, or to be done by them. Owing to the residence of some of the Bishops at a great distance from their dioceses,-a circumstance which nothing but extreme necessity, arising from penal suffering, could justify,-the canons do not render imperative more than a triennial visitation; but they put no restraint upon the discretion of the Bishop. On the contrary, the practice, which in time comes to have nearly the force of law, has sanc
tioned the delivery of an annual charge. The diocese of Aberdeen will serve as an instance. There, for at least fifty years, this custom has been well and wisely followed. It is the very unfrequency of the custom which produces the difficulty of selecting topics of address, a difficulty of which the Bishop in this Charge greatly complains. When a Bishop and his clergy realize the true missionary character of the Scottish Church, and are working actively together for the advancement of her interests, there will be more topics annually suggesting themselves for the opinion and decision of the diocesan, than he will find it easy to attend to. He would then find no leisure, and no necessity, and still less inclination, to descend to those 'vague generalities' of which the present charge is chiefly made up, with facts and reasoning alike imperfect. The practical topics of their daily work would occupy their whole time and attention. The first and larger portion of the present Charge, we cannot help feeling, though learned, able, and in many parts very good, to be a contention with a shadow,—a foe created in the brain, and having no existence external to it: a variety of subjects are touched upon in passing, seemingly without aim or object.
When a Bishop guides the practical working of his diocese, with a view to the fulfilment of his own and his clergy's mission, the duty of all who are placed under him in the Lord, is obedience and submission; but when he discusses general topics, where the accuracy of his judgment depends on the accuracy of his historical research, we do not feel that the same deference is due from us. The paragraph on the unity of the Church, at pp. 14 and 15, we think incorrect as to the historical facts, and therefore, necessarily erroneous as to the deductions. To instance only one point, we do not think that, with the complete independence of the several European nations on any supreme political head, arose the idea of the complete independence of national churches on any foreign pontiff. This is granting more to our Roman opponents than we should feel inclined to give them,-more, we mean, than historical fact would warrant us in giving. The idea of the complete independence of national churches on any foreign pontiff was the original idea which accompanied that of the essential and formal unity of the Church, from the first spreading of the gospel over divers countries. The doctrine of the supremacy was not fully established until long after the dissolution of the Roman empire. With the most perfect unity there was combined, from the beginning, the distinct and separate existence of
the various churches in the different countries of the world. This is distinctly noted in the Divine records, and in the earlier histories of the Church. There were the Churches of Antioch, of Crete, of Ephesus, of Rome, of Jerusalem,-all separate national churches, yet united in one common faith, and in one bond of fellowship.
Indeed, we scarcely observe a page of this Charge in which we do not find something which appears to us in some degree questionable; yet there follow generally such deductions as we should have no wish to dispute. For example, the following sentences will not bear examination: As regards religious duties, God has given to us, besides reason and conscience, a revelation of his will, and that which every conscientious reader has learned from the Bible, because it was there written in letters of light, must be considered and spoken of as catholic truth. But then it is not to be spoken of as truth because it is catholic, that is universal-the truth is in its essence; the catholicity is accidental.' It is impossible to conceive a more unreal statement of the teaching of the Church on this subject. It must surely be allowed by every Churchman, that the truth was given and existed in full force before the giving of the written word. And in the case of every child and catechumen, their assent is not asked, in the first instance, to the lessons of the Bible, but to the creeds, which embody the teaching of the Church on the essential doctrines of Christianity. That teaching existed in perfection before the canon of Scripture was settled, and the creeds were themselves even brought into form before the truth was written in letters of light.' 'The truth is in its essence' true, and so is its catholicity an essential mark of its truth,—a mark which it had before it was written. It is not then to be regarded as Catholic truth because every conscientious reader has learned it from the Bible,' but because the voice of the Catholic Church has declared it be in accordance with the revealed will and word of God. Catholic is universal, not merely as to place but as to time, and extends back to the first communication of the truth by Christ and his apostles. And if any essential truth can be shown not to have existed from the beginning, so far it is not catholic. We regret that we can only touch in this cursory manner on so important a subject, but the Charge would afford us ample scope for a volume to do any thing like justice to every point.
We must now hasten to the only two practical subjects embraced in the Charge. Of the first-the duty of withholding the holy communion from improper recipients, we cannot help expressing our