صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

equal portion of wealth and intelligence in the country, with that in favour of this change, never went up to Parliament. The whole clergy and mercantile interest of London and its neighbourhood, are supplicants for the better observance of the Sabbath. We remember to have heard Sydney Smith define a madman to be a man in a minority of one, with the whole world for a majority.' Will Lord John be disposed to be the minority of one, with all the City of London, and county of Middlesex, to say nothing of other counties and dioceses, as a majority against him?

Two other questions of deep and stirring interest during the month, are those of the Educational Movement Meeting," and the proposed new "Ecclesiastical Commission " for heresy.

The country yet rings-at least it is not the fault of the leaders of those assembled on the occasion, if it does not-with the account of the meeting at Willis's Rooms. That meeting was variously compounded, partly of violent partizans, such as Mr. Denison and his sympathizers; partly of calmer spirits, such as Mr. Napier, the member for the University of Dublin, who has, since the meeting, stoutly disclaimed, in a capital letter, all sympathy with Tractarianism, and desires to be considered merely as maintaining the all-important connection of religious with secular education, and the rights of the clergy to educate their own poor; and partly of a class of persons who, filled with the deepest antipathy to ready-made decisions upon important matters, went to listen to the witnesses before they ventured to pronounce judgment upon the case. Among the last we venture to range ourselves; who occupied, as became us, an obscure corner in so brilliant an assembly. And certainly, strange were, if not the scenes we beheld, yet at least the noises we heard. A large proportion of the excited body appeared to have come to the meeting with the resolution to make each man as much noise as he could. The cries reached many persons in the meeting-"Bravo, bravo, Denison." "Go it, go it, Denison.' And these testimonies of delight were not always very intelligent. Not catching some lively sentence from one of the speakers, we ventured to ask a most vociferous neighbour, evidently a minister of religion, what was the cause of his intense satisfaction, and he answered very simply, “O, I did not catch the words." There was, however, much that was better than this. Mr. Talbot, the chairman, made, supposing him to be right in his view of the case, an intelligent and lawyer-like speech; Mr. Napier, an address equally good: the Bishop of Chichester, a speech full of guileless simplicity; and Mr. Sewell, an address of deep sentiment and of a very high order of eloquence. Mr. Denison was the great offender of the day, egotistical, exaggerated, and inflammatory. The addresses were almost uniformly characterised by great bitterness against the Government, the Commissioners, and their late Secretary, Sir Kaye Shuttleworth; by profound respect for the late Primate, who had given his consent to almost all that was now complained of; and by complete preterission of the present Primate, who has, by a series of admirable letters to the Commissioners, done much to bring the Society out of its difficulties. Nor was there wanting such suppression of good, and exaggeration of evil, as to these opponents, supposed or real, as to leave little hope of the harmony and co-operation so much to be desired among the friends of Scriptural education. Mr. Denison, especially, appears to us to have much to answer for in the damage which he has done, and is doing, to a cause of so much importance.--But, now, turning from the meeting, let us look a little at the subject then and there discussed.

If indeed it be true, as affirmed, that the Council have broken faith with the National Society; if they have introduced terms into the compact with the public, which are unjust in themselves, or are intended to inflict deep injuries on the National Church; if they have discovered a new disposition to destroy all dogmatic teaching in schools; to separate religious and secular instruction; or, whilst most anxious as to the last, to leave the first absolutely to shift for itself, we should be as prompt to condemn them as any one of the speakers at Willis's Rooms. But having given all the attention to the question of which we are capable, we are free to confess that we think no

one of these charges has been established; and that, till facts of a more convincing nature are adduced, we feel compelled to negative the Resolutions framed for us by Mr. Denison and his friends. On these and on other leading topics connected with this important question, we are anxious to refer our readers to a pamphlet mentioned with much approbation in the House of Lords-by the Rev. H. P. Hamilton, of Wath. We shall probably be induced, on a future occasion, to go more at length into this subject; but for the present we are satisfied to give the summary of the conclusions at which he has arrived.

'The Clauses,' (he says, p. 42), if impartially examined, will be found to have for their object to secure the efficiency of Church schools. They violate no engagement, direct or implied, with the Church. They give practical effect to terms of union with the National Society. They involve no principle in the smallest degree at variance with them. They contain many provisions conclusive to the efficiency of Church schools, which those terms confessedly want. They provide at once for the just authority of the clergy, and for the legitimate influence of the laity. They vest absolute power in the Bishops of the diocese, as respects the religious teaching in the school. In regard to all other matters, they provide an appellate jurisdiction, which, in principle, recognises the civil power; but which, in effect, may be considered as ecclesiastical in its character. They commit the general management to a local body. Not only so, but they afford the strongest security against any apprehended interference on the part of the Privy Council. For it seems to have escaped the notice of those who assail the clauses, that they are binding on the Government no less than on the Church. Better it surely is to have definite rules, obligatory alike on the civil and the ecclesiastical authorities, than to leave the management of a school, assisted by the State, to the unlimited discretion of the local promoters.

Whilst saying thus much in justification of the proceedings of the Council of Education, we feel as strongly as any class of persons the necessity of watching over any body of men, and especially so fluctuating and politically constructed a body as this, invested with large authority as to the education of the country. And should it be proved that this particular Committee are grasping at unreasonable power; if they are acting upon the insane persuasion that we can have good schools without the Best Book, and without, as far as may be, honest, zealous, Scripture-loving, devout men, to teach and to interpret it, then we desire to stand, if not in company with Mr. Denison, yet wherever the fight is the thickest and the peril the greatest. The real point of difference, as we believe, between ourselves and especially the Clerical portion of the present petitioners, is, that at the bottom their object is to take from the Laity all power, and give to the Clergy absolute dominion over the schools. And it is our firm conviction that such an appropriation of authority in Education would be dangerous to its best interests. Where the Clergy deserve influence, we are confident they will have it. And where they do not deserve it; where their object is to 'unprotestantize' their parishes by unprotestantizing their schools; to inoculate the young mind with all the follies and fopperies of a new-fangled Christianity; to send them forth elaborate musicians rather than simple-minded believers; to create in them an early distaste for the simple and pure ceremonials of our Church—then, we are among those who think it well to have a lay check upon ecclesiastical folly, and to suffer no one man in a parish, however sacred his office, to endanger the highest interests of all the rest of it.

We have left little space to speak of the Commission proposed by the Bishop of London for the "trial of heresy." Scarcely a person in the country, we should imagine, is satisfied with the present Court of Appeal; consisting, as it does, wholly of lawyers-and of lawyers who may, with a single exception, be every one of them Dissenters or Infidels; and who, at the least, are likely to be persons anything but familiar with questions of theology. The Bishop of London proposes, in the place of this Council, to create a Court of Appeal, consisting of the two Archbishops, the three senior Bishops, the Lord Chancellor, the two Judges of the Ecclesiastical Courts, the four Regius ProCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 147. 2 F

fessors in the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford. Such a Court has the great advantage of a large infusion of ecclesiastical knowledge. But is there no danger of the undue preponderance of the ecclesiastical element? One prominent object of such a Court is the examination of evidence; another, the interpretation of documents;-occupations to which every faculty of a lawyer has, through every stage of his professional life, been mainly dedicated, but to which theologians are, to a considerable degree, strangers. The Lord Chancellor, one of the most occupied men in the three kingdoms, would scarcely ever feel it his duty to abandon his own Court in order to sit among the Commissioners. One of the other legal authorities night be absent from indisposition or business; one of them also might, from having prejudged the question, feel it right to stay away; so that, in effect, the legal members of the Commission might be reduced to one, who might have to contend with nine ecclesiastics. And of these last, how many would be likely to come with unprejudiced minds, or even with unpledged opinions, to the trial?-Whowithout intending the smallest reflection upon the clerical character-would not be able to predict, before the trial began, what would be its results? And, then, if three Bishops are to be chosen, why the three 'seniors?" One of them might be bed-ridden; almost all, considering the period to which their very temperate habits, and their hatred of litigation, often prolong their lives, might be approaching their grand climacteric. And what philosopher will deny, although he cannot explain, the narcotic influence of long speeches upon persons about that period of existence? Considering that every Bishop must be forty years of age, we think it is a matter of doubt whether, having the advantage of experience in the Archbishops, it might not be well to secure the vigour of the younger Bishops, so that the Commission might not only be "taught by the wisdom of age," but be "cheered by the sallies of youth." On the whole, we are disposed to believe that, whilst a change in the Commission is imperative whilst it is no less essential to secure a certain proportion of ecclesiastical knowledge, gravity, and earnestness-it will be no less essential to infuse a larger measure of legal experience and acumen into it, than the Bishop of London proposes; perhaps indeed equally to balance the Church and the Law. If this be not done, we shall either have law without theology, or theology without law. All those arguments which go to prove that ecclesiastics are the only competent judges in cases of heresy, proceed upon the assumption that such questions are questions of theology-which they certainly are not-and not questions of fact, which they assuredly are. The question, for example, which the Privy Council have had recently to decide, is not the theological question whether Mr. Gorham is a heretic according to the Scriptures, but the fact whether he receives or rejects the Articles and formularies of the Church of England.-On that fact we hope soon to find that the Lay and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have concurred in a right verdict; in which case we shall have reason for deep and unfeigned gratitude to Him in whose hands are the hearts of men, as the rivers of water;"-and of much thankfulness to those who, in spite of the defects of their constitution, have done the best that could have been done by any Committee, in whatever way it had been constituted.

[ocr errors]


As much regret has been expressed by Country Correspondents at the discontinuance of the acknowledgment of Books Received, we may be induced, when our space permits, to make such acknowledgment. On the present occasion, we have no space except to thank our Correspondents for books, letters, good counsels, and encouragement; of all of which we hope, as well as we are able, to avail ourselves in due time.

[blocks in formation]

[The Editor desires to be considered as not responsible, except for the general tone and character of the Papers in the "Miscellaneous" department of this Work.]


A WOMAN no sooner becomes a mother, than she finds a new feeling spontaneously-we may say, irresistibly--springing up in her soul; a bias of the strongest, deepest, and most delightful character, towards the poor little helpless infant that is now for the first time presented to her. And if that infant is permitted to live for a year or two, the parent perceives that a corresponding feeling is awakened in the child towards herself. He lisps her name in his first accents. If he is frightened, his place of refuge is in her bosom. If he wants food, he seeks it of her. If he is awake, he delights in nothing so much as playing with her, and watching the eye which watches him. If he is sleepy, he loves to nestle down his head on her lap. And that delighted mother could scarcely bear to have him love any other lap as well as her own. Talk of the power of attraction in material bodies; what attraction is there like this?

Now why does the mother so love her child—and the child so love his mother? This cannot be the work of mere chance. The same thing takes place in all families; and it is felt to the same extent in all countries of the world. The savage Indian feels it, as she forces her way, hungry and weary, through the thick woods with her infant at her back; and when she hears the roar of the wild beast, trembles less for herself than for her child. In civilized countries, where luxury and self-indulgence do much to dry up the natural affections, the same drawing of love to a considerable degree prevails. It triumphs even over profligacy; and he who loves nothing else, loves his child. And it was the same thing in old times as it is now, Hagar felt it when driven out into the wilderness. The true mother, in the judgment of Solomon, chose rather to give away her child, than to have it "divided by the sword." Such feeling, so strong, so general, in all ages, places, and classes, cannot be the CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 148.

2 G

result of accident. It must spring out of the appointment of God; and it is just as much His ordinance, as that the sun shall rise in the East; the river run to the sea; and the stone, when thrown upwards, fall to the ground.

One effect of this law of our nature, as it may be called,—of this love of the parent to the child, and of the child to the parent, is the division of every nation into families. However large or small the country, you find its people separated into so many distinct families;-the great mansion, divided into so many dwelling-rooms. These families are a part of the whole; but they are at the same time distinct from the whole. They are like the leaf of a flower within a flower; or like the wheel of a machine within the whole machine.

In the short history which the Bible gives us of the Jews, we have a graphic picture of the families of Abraham, of Jacob, of Isaac, of Eli, of Daniel, and of a multitude of others. And in the New Testament we have a sort of cabinet-picture of the family of Lazarus. And just in the same way, all the world is made up of families; all more or less acting their part in the great business of the world, but all having their own family concerns, pains, pleasures, hopes, interests, fears, and joys. They are like those heavenly bodies which, while they pursue their bright course through the heavens, yet faithfully turn on their own axis.

Now, what we have already said of the love of parents and children, is equally true of the binding together of families. This cannot be the effect of chance; for if so, how should it prevail, as it does, though perhaps in different degrees, yet in all countries and ages, states and conditions, of society. It has as much the character of a moral law of our nature, as gravity or electricity have the character of a physical law. And as these last are traced without hesitation to the hand of the Creator, so must the former. He is the common Author of all families. He fixes the earthly father and mother in their peculiar station. He links, by some invisible bond, the parent to the child, and the child to the parent; and, then, all the members of the family to each other. When so united, they are to be regarded as fulfilling His will; when divided, they must be considered as truants from His school, or rebels against His authority.

It is obviously one effect of this appointment of God, that the power of a parent over a child is almost boundless. Not only is he able to starve or to feed it; to clothe, or to send it naked and shivering into the walks of life; to give or to deny it reasonable comforts,-new shoes or none,-but he has an almost irresistible control over its intellectual powers. He cannot, indeed, cleanse its heart; for that is simply and altogether the work of the Holy Spirit. "I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh." But he can teach him, or keep him ignorant; he can give him books, or refuse them; send him to school, or

« السابقةمتابعة »