صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

parts in the Established Church! St. Paul's is our only Protestant cathedral, and more than any other it subserves Protestant purposes. Sometimes in the course of the year, it is filled on occasions connected with our religious services. At stated periods, the heads of the Law and the magistrates of the City assemble within its walls. Sermons are there preached for several Societies closely connected with the Church. On another anniversary, thousands of school children congregate. These, perhaps, are objects that could not elsewhere be so well secured, if only due care were taken to secure them. But as the case actually is, the accommodation afforded to those who desire to be present is rather less, we believe, than several of the parish churches in the Metropolis could supply.-Westminster Abbey, again, once in every reign, witnesses one of the most solemn acts of our National Religion. Then it really becomes what some Architectural enthusiast has called it, "a part of the English Constitution;" though at other times, we are afraid it must be content with the appellation given to it by Madame De Staël, when surveying the beauty of its proportions, that of "frozen music."

A still less satisfactory account, we fear, can be given of our provincial cathedrals. Many of them are associated in the minds of the lay members of the diocese, chiefly with the almost theatric exhibition of a triennial music meeting. If a wider interest be taken in them, it is for the most part an antiquarian interest, or a picnic interest, or some other interest, which bears no reference to those objects for which they were reared, and to the purposes they might yet serve. These last, however, must be discovered by the people for themselves, as an increased religious feeling comes to diffuse itself among them. Of one thing, however, we are sure, and it is this,-if religious feeling do not dictate their use, an irreligious feeling, which will usurp its place, will soon discover their abuse. It may not be that particular abuse which Cromwell selected, when he turned them into stables for his troopers' horses. The spirit of the age does not point to that form of desecration;-but may there not be others, and possibly worse?—It would be merely the part of a dreamy projector to hint at some or any of the ways in which cathedrals might become, in the best sense of the word, popular. All might be done, if public feeling were alive to the importance of such an arrangement; and, on the other hand, nothing can be done in its absence, still less in opposition to it. A sense of this checks our suggestions. But we could fancy the cathedral becoming (to borrow our author's figure in a different relation) the central lamp of the diocese,-shedding a radiance on its more distant as well as nearer portions, an example and pattern by which each parish might trim and regulate its lesser lights,—affording, like a watch-tower, security and confidence to the combined movements of clergy and laity; and, on other occasions, serving as a beacon to rally and muster them for the

purpose of joint deliberation. Probably the most imposing ceremony, as things now are, ever witnessed within a cathedral, is the installation of the Bishop. Why, it has been well asked,* is not the more real and important part-that of his consecration -performed there likewise? Deeply has our Church suffered from the misunderstanding thus produced. It doubtless suited the purpose of the Pope most exactly that the Bishops should appear to be merely his vicars, appointed quite independently of clergy and people, and should therefore come to their diocese as exclusively as possible from the hands of his legate, the Archbishop, at Lambeth. And it perhaps suited the objects of the Crown, to continue the remoteness and secrecy of the scene of consecration, and hide the source of spiritual authority which it could ill brook when it had succeeded to so much of the Papal power; but that the custom should go on so long, in these days especially of curious and menacing enquiry, is indeed strange. Is it in no degree impolitic, as well as improper, that the consecration of a Bishop, the most conspicuous officer in the diocese, should be conducted as it is? We should reasonably expect him to be produced before his assembled people in the cathedral of his diocese, where peer and artizan, citizen and rustic, may join in the prayer for their future spiritual father, and bear witness to his receiving the seal of his awful commission. That day would be a day to be remembered ever after, with a revival of solemn feeling and warm affection, by himself and his flock. When we take pride and interest in a person, we are glad to be able to say, "I was present at his christening," or election to some office. Would it not add, then, to our satisfaction, in expressing our regard for our Bishop, to be able to say, "I was present at his consecration ?"

Again; while the daily service in the cathedral is still performed where it is at present, might there not be moveable seats and a pulpit provided for the body of the building, where occasional sermons might be preached, or other rcligious objects prosecuted, and where as many as chose might attend?

We willingly, however, for the reason already assigned, -that these are, as yet, matters of mere speculation,-dismiss the subject. Considerations such as these are fitted to throw a gloom over our future progress as a nation, and that in regard to more scrious matters than the fine arts; though even as to these, our author himself is not sanguine.-But we have no space more. We quit this work with regret, for it has afforded us both instruction and pleasure; nor can we refrain from adding the author's concluding paragraph, as coinciding with some of the anticipations we have ventured to express :


"I have paused, not once, nor twice, as I wrote, and often have checked the course of what might otherwise have been importunate persuasion, as the thought has crossed me, how soon all architecture may be vain, except that

* Evans's Ministry of the Body.

which is not made with hands. There was something ominous in the light which has enabled us to look back with disdain upon the ages among whose lovely vestiges we have been wandering. I could smile when I hear the hopeful exultation of many, at the new reach of worldly science, and vigour of worldly effort; as if we were again at the beginning of days. There is thunder on the horizon as well as dawn. The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar." (p. 197.)

"The Practical Effects of the Gorham Case:" a Charge to the Clergy of the East Riding, delivered at the Ordinary Visitation, A.D. 1850. By ROBERT ISAAC WILBERFORCE, M.A., Archdeacon of the East Riding.

To censure and rebuke is, we are bold to say, an occupation always painful to us. It is doubly painful when the rebuke is to fall on persons of influence and authority. And the trial is still deeper when, as in the present instance, the title-page of the work to be examined and censured bears a "clarum ac venerabile nomen," '-a name dear to ourselves, and to every man of thought, feeling, or piety, we had almost said, in the wide circumference of human existence. To the prayers, writings, and labours of scarcely any member of the human family, is mankind more indebted, than to those of William Wilberforce. As in a former instance, therefore, so now, we take up a work, which is the production of one of his descendants, with extreme reluctance, since it is not in our power to commend it. But this descendant has little in common with his father, if he would wish us to sacrifice truth to feeling, and to surrender a principle out of respect for a name.— While we speak honestly, however, we hope to speak respectfully.

We are concerned to be obliged to begin by saying, that, although prepared by other publications for what we could not approve in the writings of Archdeacon Wilberforce, we were not prepared for this "Charge," which was recently delivered during the Archidiaconal Visitation of the East Riding of Yorkshire. It is stated to have been published at the desire of the clergy, but we have reason to believe that a considerable portion of them felt no such desire.-Its object, as the title instructs us, is "to show the practical effects of the Gorham case;" and, after a very few preliminary observations about churches and schools, he advances directly to his purpose.

Now, irrespective of the merits of the controversy, there is something remarkable in the course which has been taken by the Archdeacon. It must be remembered, that, during the last year, His Grace the Archbishop of York delivered his Primary Charge to his clergy. That Charge, full of sound and practical good sense, of clear reasoning, and of vigorous appeals, powerfully arrested the attention of the assembled clergy of the East Riding of Yorkshire. At the dinner which succeeded it, the Archdeacon rose to thank His Grace, and to request, on behalf of the clergy present, the publication of the Charge.

It is true the proposer felt the uneasiness of his position, and intimated that, amidst so much that was valuable, there might be statements to which some could not agree; but yet he carnestly wished for the publication of the Charge, that all might be able to consider so important a document at their leisure. He would not, however, presume to praise his superior, for he who assumed the right to praise, might suppose himself entitled to


We hope that we are doing the Archdeacon no wrong in thus expressing, in very general terms, the substance of his speech, without pretending to perfect identity of expression. Of this we are convinced, that we have rather understated than overstated the facts of the case. We will now give an extract from the Archbishop's Charge, the publication of which had been thus requested:

"As to the effect of adult baptism, there is little or no dispute among rational men. But the question of the effects of infant baptism seems destined to interminable discussion. It has been proved, however, we think, beyond contradiction or doubt,* that our Reformers, almost without exception, both in the reign of King Edward VI., and especially in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, held and advocated what are now usually called the peculiar doctrines of Calvin, as to Election, and Predestination, and Final Perseverance. Hence they taught that spiritual regeneration in baptism could only result in the case of those who had been from all eternity elected to everlasting life by the free and sovereign grace of God. That all the baptized should be spiritually regenerate, was, in their view, utterly impossible; and therefore they could not intend, in the formularies they drew up, to require or to express such a belief, unless we fairly attribute to them that shameless effrontery, that gross and scandalous dishonesty, which, to the reproach of our times, has been openly avowed by some,―that men may teach what they do not believe, and that they may believe what is contrary to their teaching. With the knowledge of this historical fact before us, we cannot insist on it as a ruled doctrine of our Church, that all baptized children are, as such, spiritually regenerate. For such was not the doctrine of our Reformers themselves. Nor is such the doctrine laid down in the Thirty-Nine Articles. And those very expressions in our Baptismal Service which have been interpreted in modern times as exclusively admitting the sense of the universal regeneration of infants in baptism, are borrowed from a service in which the known sentiments of the author will not allow such a meaning to be affixed to them. In the Articles which the Reformers drew up as the standard of doctrine in our Church, and which still retain their position and place among us, they stated the doctrine of baptism as, according to their view, they had found it in Holy Scripture; and, in a spirit of wisdom and charity worthy of all imitation, there they left it, not venturing to abridge or to extend the privileges of baptism, or to define with greater nicety than the Holy Spirit had done, the mysterious workings of Divine grace. In the case of adults, they have, without hesitation, confined the benefit, as Scripture has done, to the worthy recipient. The case of infants they have left, as the Holy Scriptures have left it, to be determined by analogy from that of adults, and consequently have left it open, within certain limits, to different shades of view. Let me add, however, that those limits clearly exclude the ex opere operato doctrine of the Church of Rome. In the Baptismal Service, the very phraseology is borrowed from a service drawn up by Martin Bucer for the Liturgy, published in 1543

*See that learned and masterly Baptism.' By the Rev. W. Goode, work, The Doctrine of the Church of M.A., F.S.A. London, 1849." Eugland as to the Effects of Infant

by the Archbishop of Cologne, where the well-known sentiments of Bucer forbid any doubt as to the sense in which the language there adopted was used, and show that the words were intended to express only the feelings of hope and charity. That our service is open to another mode of interpretation is, no doubt, unquestionable. And probably it was intended to be so by those who drew it up. But we can hardly deny that those who interpret it in the hypothetical sense approach the nearest to the mind of the Reformers. This is the sense in which, as many think, other services of our Church are drawn up. Nor is it easy to persuade them how a Book of Common Prayer could be framed in any other way." (p. 27-30.)

To these observations the Archbishop adds an exhortation to mutual forbearance, which we should have been glad to see had not been lost upon any of those who listened to him. We are far from thinking that one holding a subordinate office in the Church should feel himself bound to adopt the sentiments of his superior. We would not even affirm that he is in duty bound to abstain from publishing opinions at variance with those of his superior, provided he does so with becoming respect and moderation. Mr. Wilberforce has published a work on Baptism, in which he opposes every distinctive view put forward in the above extract, and thus exhibits himself to the world as one fomenting those divisions of a house against itself, which, if not met by some timely remedy, must issue in the subversion of that house. But this is not the gravamen of our allegation against him. He has come forth as the Archbishop's own representative, in his own diocese, among his own clergy; and, from one end of the Archdeaconry to the other, he has, in the strongest terms, attempted to bring into contempt those lessons of sobriety and wisdom, which just one year before his ecclesiastical superior had so industriously and earnestly inculcated.

We now proceed to a more particular consideration of the Charge which stands at the head of this article. The author says,

"It has now been a subject of debate during many years, whether the Sacrament of Baptism is the means whereby God bestows his regenerating gifts of grace; and while some have censured our rulers for allowing words used at the font to be contradicted in the pulpit, others have affirmed that baptismal regeneration is contrary to Scripture, and is not inculcated by the Church." (p. 4.)

When a disputed case is stated in language at once loose and one-sided, a suspicion is naturally excited as to the real object which the writer had in view. The Archdeacon must be aware, that by insinuating a charge of contradicting in the pulpit words spoken at the font, he is begging the question at issue between himself and his opponents. To give one very simple illustration, out of many which might be adduced to show the injustice of such a mode of procedure, we may suppose the Archdeacon himself, after he had been reading, in the Second Lesson for the Morning Service, the words of our Saviour, "Labour not for the meat that perisheth, &c.," to have ascended the pulpit and taken the passage for his text. Would he insist on a literal in

« السابقةمتابعة »