Imagens das páginas

various schools in the Church; and we regret to add, that it is also feared by members of the same schools. Nevertheless we see plainly, that the necessity of doing something is becoming too obvious and urgent, to permit longer delay. Men see that nothing is to be gained by waiting patiently for our rulers to lead the way; and they also see the Legislature yearly becoming less qualified to make regulations for a Christian Church. Let us again hear Mr. Cavendish on this subject:

"Since last century, however, vast national changes have taken place. Parliament was then composed of none but members of the Church. It might pretend, not unfairly, to represent the laity, while Convocation represented the spirituality of the Church. The case is now widely altered. Parliament has now lost the power of taking part, as a united body, in ecclesiastical and religious affairs. It is surely self-evident that Parliament should abstain from passing laws on religious questions, which laws must obtain the free concurrence of Romanists, Churchmen, and Socinians. The Church is Christ's institution, she is the witness to a certain definite and unchangeable body of truth, which has been handed down to us from the time of the Apostles. Parliament is the expression of the infinitely various and ever-changing wills and opinions of the men who happen to be in possession of the right of voting for its members. The mischiefs resulting from this dilemma have been pointed out with his accustomed force, by Archdeacon Wilberforce, in his charge for 1848. 'Parliament,' he says, 'the State legislature, and Convocation, as the legislature of the Church, were once perfectly accordant, because no man was a member of the one, who did not recognize the authority of the other. Such temporal questions as concerned the Church were naturally left to the determination of her lay representatives in Parliament, while they left the consideration of spiritual questions to those whom, as Churchmen, they accounted the spiritual authority. But how can this co-operation be attained, now that the Church cannot look upon the members of the civil legislature as her lay representatives, and therefore cannot expect them to regard her as an authority in things divine? That it is unseemly to submit questions affecting the Church's internal management to those who are not Churchmen, is what their own practice teaches, and their own conscience may suggest. For what member of any other religious body would commit the management of its internal affairs to members of the Church? Would the Wesleyans entrust the arrangements of their conference to a body of Churchmen? Would the Romanists allow any but themselves to settle their faith? Since men of various parties have been admitted to an equal share in our Government, it no doubt becomes us to acquiesce, as good subjects, in what the wisdom of our rulers has decided. But there is surely one condition, on which we have a right to insist; it is so plainly equitable, that it can hardly be refused us. That Romanists or Socinians should have their share in civil legislation, is part of that broad system of liberty

But this

which renders law the expression of the national consent. principle gives them no right to legislate for the Church. Its meaning is, that no man should be bound by laws, unless in person, or by substitute, he gives them his consent. Why, then, should men desire to legislate for a body to which they decline to belong? They can have no claim to make laws which they are not to obey. The result would be as plain a mockery of God, as it would be an injustice to their fellow-creatures. For how can men legislate for a system of religious faith in which they are not believers? Would it become a Christian legislator to devise laws for securing the adoration of Mahomet, or the worship of the idols of India? Would it not be a solemn mockery of the God whom he serves? And why so? Because a legislator is a man as much as his fellows, and in a few days he will be summoned to render his account before the righteous Judge, before whom he must answer for all his doings. And how, then, can he reverence that in public, which in private he disbelieves, or affirm any thing to be true in the senate, which he declares to be a lie in his chamber? Therefore, the only honest course, so soon as the legislature consists of men of various faiths, is the perfect abnegation of those functions which involve the existence of a single belief and an united confession. The contrary course would be inconsistent with the rights of conscience, and the liberty of individuals; with a regard for the sanctity of truth, and a consciousness of the majesty of God. We may well hope that the wisdom, moderation, and conscientiousness by which, under God's blessing, our land has attained its present state of happiness, will not be wanting in the present emergency to our secular rulers. The ancient custom of Parliament was, not to legislate for the Church, except in concurrence with that spiritual legislature, convocation, to which, while Parliament consisted of Churchmen, it naturally deferred in things divine. It cannot be expected to defer equally to a body, with which it is no longer so closely connected. But just as far as this circumstance exempts it from the necessity of hearkening to the counsels of convocation, it disqualifies it from legislating for the advancement of truth. For which truth is it to further? Is it that which Socinians think truth, or Churchmen? The only thing, therefore, which the Church can rightly ask from Parliament is to be let alone. State endowments would only be fetters which would impede her. Even the most useful improvements in organization, would not compensate for that sacrifice of principle which they would involve. Let Parliament confine itself to those temporal interests, of which its abandonment of its connexion with the Church has made it so full an expression. Indeed so numerous and overwhelming are they, that their mere pressure would exclude the possibility of that calm and unobstructed attention which is needed by the exigencies of the Church.'

[ocr errors]

Nothing need be added to this clear exposition of the actual state of things. To those, then, who are still apprehensive that the meeting of Convocation would only lead to renewed struggles

of party, we would appeal whether such a contingent evil ought to counterbalance the excessive actual evil of having to carry Church measures through the House of Commons. Suppose a struggle of parties to take place in Convocation,—in what respect should we be worse off than we now are? Is there not an occasional struggle of party now? Do those struggles make no noise, and lead to no evil results? And, moreover, is there not a very large portion of the Church which has no party spirit at all? Assuredly we cannot see much of party spirit amongst our prelates in general, though there are exceptions to the rule; neither do we see any reason to dread violence of tone or spirit amongst our Deans, Archdeacons, and Canons, who would constitute two-thirds of a Convocation. Neither do we believe that the clergy in general are imbued with party feeling, or that their representatives in general would be any thing but safe men.

When we remember that no regulation becomes an Act of Convocation unless it has passed both the upper and the lower house that it cannot be entered on without the royal licence— that it is not legal without the royal ratification-that it is not legally binding on the laity without the consent of Parliament,it does seem that every possible security exists for safe legislation on Church questions in Convocation; and that at least there is so much reason to trust that good results might follow from it, that every Churchman ought to support the design so far as to make the experiment, and see what the working of the system will be. If it fails we must only look to something else; but surely it is most unreasonable to assert that because the lower house of Convocation quarrelled with the bishops in the time of Hoadley, the same thing must happen again; or that the best way to terminate such differences is to suppress the Church's legislature, and to govern her without consulting her representatives. The Church of England has in fact been deprived of her constitutional and legal rights and liberties for a hundred and thirty years, by an exercise of arbitrary power. Successive governments have kept her out of her rights. The laws of the land give to the National Church her fitting and appropriate legislature and supreme tribunal; and thus do not place her in a less advantageous position than any sect or denomination in the country. But those who are to administer the law so exercise the royal prerogative as to deprive her wholly of the rights which the law recognizes. It is not the law that is in fault, but the Executive Government. The one gives us all the liberty we want, the other interposes the royal prerogative for the subversion of our liberty sanctioned by law. We are of opinion that so gross a case of injustice, and of arbitrary, unconstitutional, and illegal

power, cannot possibly stand the test of argument and discussion. We contend that the Church of England has a just and legal RIGHT to hold her Convocations, as she has always done in past ages, and not to be impeded by the interposition of the royal prerogative, from making such regulations, and offering such petitions, as she may deem necessary. We claim the restoration of powers illegally and arbitrarily withheld. We also claim, as a matter of Christian right, and of imperative justice, that our Episcopate shall in future be selected simply with a view to qualifications, and that no bishop shall be under any political obligations or engagements whatever; but, while the nomination of bishops remains with the political ministry of the day, it is impossible that any securities can exist for a proper system of appointments.

These two points, the restoration of the Church's legislative bodies, and the purification of the sources of episcopal patronage, we believe to be the great essentials for which all faithful and sincere members of the Church of England ought now to contend. The battle of the Church on these points ought to be fought in the House of Commons. Our case presents features that must command the attention of Parliament, and the support of a large body of its members; if it be only treated in the right way, i.e. presented in its broad simple features, its hardships, and its injustice. A stronger case of grievance never was shown. Let it be felt as a grievance, and let the Church express that feeling so as to bring her case before Parliament and the public at large; and we feel confident of ultimate success.

In dealing with the question of Convocation we need not express any opinion as to the particular constitution of that body. This would only lead us aside from the real question, whether the actual legal rights of the Church of England are to be permanently withheld from her by an arbitrary exercise of the royal prerogative. When her rights have been recognized and restored, it will be time enough to see whether she cannot, in some degree, improve the organization of Convocation. In the mean time we hold it wiser not to enter on such questions (reserving our own opinion in favour of some change) because they tend to divert the attention to subordinate matters. In conclusion, we have to thank Mr. Cavendish for his most valuable and interesting publication, and to express a hope that his example may induce other influential persons to come forward in the same cause, with equal sincerity, and, we trust, with equal success.

ART. VIII.-1. Two Lectures, delivered before the University of Oxford. By Professor H. H. WILSON. 1840.

2. Rig Veda-Sanhita. Edidit FREDERICUS ROSEN. 3. The Sankhya Kárika. By Professor WILSON.

4. Panini's Grammatische Regeln. Von DR. OTTO BÖHTLINGK. 5. Lois de Manou. Par DESLONGCHAMPS.

6. Gita Govinda, Interpretationem Latinam adjecit CHRISTIANUS LASSEN.

7. Hitopadésa. The Sanscrit Text by FRANCIS JOHNSON, Professor.

8. Indian MSS. Mahábhárata, and Adhyatma Rámáyana.

WHILST we see abundant reasons for thankfulness in the history of our missions, we must not disguise from ourselves one fact, that is, that in no one part of the world have we as yet planted a Church of converts from heathenism. By a Church we mean an organized body of bishops, priests, deacons, and laymen. This is the object we must have in view, and this we have not yet attained. We have spread a knowledge of the truth amongst savages, and have provided them with foreigners for clergy; on Mahommedans we have not made durable impressions, but amongst Hindus we have not only converts, we have also a few native clergy. Yet the deposit is retained in our hands: at present we see no probability of establishing a Native Church, launching it on its own independence, and committing the truth to its keeping. If British influence were to be withdrawn, and British connexions severed, where would be the Christianity of the New Zealanders, of the American Indians, or of the Hindus? If we argue according to human reason, it would, in a very short time, be totally extinguished.

Now the question is, Are we establishing such a Native Church as may be intrusted with its own economy? Are we making and educating such converts as we might rationally hope will be competent for the priestly and episcopal offices? We will confine our attention to the Hindus, as they are the most civilized and literate heathen with whom we have to deal. If we hope to raise up amongst them a body of native clergy, and a laity who may influence their countrymen by an exhibition of intellectual superiority,

« AnteriorContinuar »