Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

THE REAL DEFEAT OF THE BISHOP OF EXETER.

In our review of the celebrated "Gorham" controversy in a former Number, we referred to the appeal of the Bishop to the Court of Queen's Bench. The decision was adverse. But there was the Court of Common Pleas, and to this the Bishop applied in order to stay proceedings. Notwithstanding the learning and eloquence of the Bishop's Counsel,—and he certainly cannot complain that he had not been ably represented,-the Judges of this division agreed with their brethren of the Queen's Bench in the decision which their Chief, following the example of Lord Chief Justice Campbell, immediately delivered. Two thirds of the judicial bench had thus pronounced against the Bishop, and the judgment of the Committee of Privy Council was untouched. With a tenacity of purpose that in a better cause would have won admiration, but which in this could only be regarded as the obstinacy of invincible prejudice, an appeal, which was known to be a final one, (as all methods of staying proceedings, if this failed, would be exhausted,) was made to the Court of Exchequer. From the tone of the address of the Chief Baron, it was not difficult to perceive that the opinions of this last division of the Judges differed not from those of the other two whose decisions had been previously given: but whether it was that Sir Frederick Pollock thought that-as this was the very last inch of ground on which the battle could be fought-if any chance of success existed, the Bishop should be allowed every opportunity of striving to secure it,—or, whatever might be the reason,-a "rule to show cause' was granted, and once more the case was elaborately argued by Counsel on each side. The Court took a reasonable time for consideration, and then delivered a judgment fully agreeing with those which had been pronounced by the other Judges. The whole bench, thus canvassed in its several divisions, was thus found to be arrayed against the Bishop, who at length consented to do what he could no longer refuse without exposing himself to very awkward consequences. We were not surprised at his perseverance in seeking to interpose the courts of law betwixt himself and the judgment of the Privy Council. By himself, and those in the Church who think with him, that judgment is declared to be either a solemn affirmation of heresy, or a solemn denial of essential truth, actually placing the Church of England at the present day in opposition to the favourite Church of the sixth century and, surely, suffering had been better than submission to such sinful assumption of power on the part of laymen over Bishops, who alone can impart the power of communicating and sustaining spiritual life! But certainly, though we were not surprised at seeing the Bishop resist up to the verge of præmunire, we never expected that he would step beyond it, and incur certain pains and penalties sooner than commit a portion of his flock to the care of his heretical opponent. The Bishop is a sturdy polemic, but he is neither martyr nor confessor. No legal plea, therefore, remaining for refusing to admit Mr. Gorham, heretic as he is, to the cure of souls at Brampton-Speke, the Bishop yielded, and we learn from the public papers that the living is now full.

We are not going to re-open the controversy. One or two circumstances, however, connected with its later stages, we wish to point out to the reader. When it first began, great care was taken on the part of the Bishop's friends to assure the public that the question did not at all relate to any opinions which he might hold, or be supposed to hold, on the

subject of baptism. One of the "Puseyite" leaders, which occasionally appear in the "Times" newspaper, was written for the very purpose of showing that whether the Bishop was right or wrong was not the point in dispute. This was stated to relate exclusively to the opinions of Mr. Gorham. Well. The case is fully argued before the Committee of Privy Council, and the Judges pronounce their decision. In this they state the question to be, whether Mr. Gorham's views are so repugnant to the standard documents of the Church, that he is manifestly unfit for Churchpreferment. They carefully examine the documents themselves: they then, with admirable propriety, collate the language with that employed by their authors in their other writings, thus, in a manner, calling on these venerable men to explain the meaning of the terms they used. In the next place, they take an historical survey of the language of writers of undoubted orthodoxy, many of them of high authority. And thus they come to the conclusion,―First, that within certain limits, on this question a certain discretion and latitude of interpretation has always been allowed, for it has always existed. Second, that Mr. Gorham, in the opinions acknowledged by him, does not exceed these limits. They conclude, therefore, that his opinions are not so repugnant to the teaching of the Church as to render him incapable of Church-preferment. Now, in their statement of fact respecting this limited diversity of opinion, that they are correct is beyond all controversy. The Bishop may find a succession of writers like-minded with himself. But Mr. Gorham can do the same; with this advantage, too, that he can trace his succession higher; that it comes down through men who have always been considered as the very jewels of the Church; and that the opinions thus held are most in harmony with those of the Reformers on cognate subjects. The opinions of the Bishop are not condemned. The judgment only declares that variation from them is not fatal variation from the opinions of the Church, thus properly ascertained. Now, if the original profession had been an honest one, the Bishop, having done his utmost to keep Mr. Gorham from preferment in his diocess, would have sat down quietly, contented with having discharged his duty. "The question," said the writer in the "Times," ""does not relate to the correctness of the Bishop's teaching, but to the unsoundness of that of Mr. Gorham." We always thought that this, on the part of the Bishop and his friends, was attempting to split a hair. According to what standard was Mr. Gorham's teaching to be tried? That of the authoritative documents of the Church, first collated together, and then with other writings of their authors, and so on with Churchwritings through many intervening years? This is what the Privy Council very properly did. Their statement respecting a limited diversity is as clearly true as the shining of the sun at noon-day; and on this ground they pronounced on the non-repugnancy of Mr. Gorham's teaching to that which has always existed in the Church of England. Why, then, this tremendous outcry? The truth comes out at last, notwithstanding the previous attempts to disguise it. The notorious Tractarianism of the Bishop might have operated in Mr. Gorham's favour, and therefore it was said, "Never mind the Bishop. His opinions may be right or wrong. We have nothing to do with them. Look at Mr. Gorham's, and at those only." What was the virtual reply of the Judges? One worthy of English Judges,-an honest one, and as judicious and wise as it was honest. "We will not look at the Bishop's opinions." Ay, there was the rub. The teaching of his Lordship was not taken, ex officio, as the teach

ing of the Church. The Judges went further a-field, and inquired of other teachers in the Church. They called in such men as Usher, and Taylor, and Pearson; and at the conclusion they said, in effect, "However Mr. Gorham's teaching may differ from the Bishop of Exeter's, yet, on a close, wide, and long collation of witnesses, we say that, according to what has been admitted in the Church from the beginning, Mr. Gorham's teaching is not fatally repugnant to it. We do not condemn the Bishop's teaching, as beyond the limits of allowed diversity. We only say that it is not the exclusive rule according to which the standards of Church doctrine are to be explained." Yes; the truth comes out at last. The grand object for which the Bishop and his friends have been all along contending is not merely the erroneousness of Mr. Gorham's teaching, but its erroneousness as fixed by that of the Bishop; that is, that the Bishop's opinions on this subject were exclusively the doctrines of the Church. This is the real defeat which the Bishop and his party have sustained. From the beginning, two elements have existed in the Church. For distinction's sake we will call them the Anglican and the Roman. Of the first, the cardinal principle has been, salvation by grace through faith; of the second, salvation by union with the visible, successional episcopal Church, and participation in its sacraments. Does the Bishop fancy that no one reads the history of those times, that no one examines the sources of history? We would fain hope that this is a line of study of which he is profoundly ignorant ; and sometimes we think that so it is. But others have felt an interest in those times of trouble, when light and darkness were struggling together, and evangelical simplicity and purity were engaged in unequal combat with political expediency, and clerical formality and ambition, and courtier rapacity. Let the writings of those Fathers of the Anglican Church be read. Who will say that Cranmer, Latimer, Hooper, Bradford, or Jewel, or even Hooker, subsequently to the days of martyrdom, were members of the school to which the Bishop of Exeter belongs? Let their letters, before and during the Elizabethan age, be read; and who can deny that they deplored the co-existence of the Roman element? Here, in fact, was the difference between them and the Puritans. They hoped that what they believed to be truth would prevail, and they therefore submitted,— grieving, hoping, but still submitting. The Puritans saw no ground for hope, and took their own course. What is the fact? What the true Anglican Reformers only submitted to, deploring it, opposing it, a strong party is now endeavouring to fix as the exclusive doctrine of the Church. The judgment of the Privy Council has been a real defeat to this party. And this is the reason of the tremendous outcry which it has occasioned.

RULES FOR TRAVELLERS AND VISITERS.

(PREPARED BY THE LATE REV. dr. bedell, of PHILADELPHIA, FOR HIS OWN CONGREGATION.)

IF RESIDING IN THE COUNTRY.

1. NEVER neglect your accustomed private duties of reading, meditation, self-examination, and prayer.

2. Never fail to attend some place of worship on the Lord's day, unless prevented by such circumstances as you are sure will excuse you in the eye of God.

3. Never entertain invited company on the Lord's day; and pay no visits, unless to the sick and needy, as acts of benevolence.

4. Never engage in anything either on the Lord's or on any secular day, which will compromise your Christian consistency.

5. Seek to do good to the souls of your family, and of all others within your reach.

6. Always remember that you are to "stand before the judgment-seat of Christ."

IF TRAVELLING.

1. Never, on any plea whatever, travel on the Lord's day.

2. Make your arrangements to stop, if possible, in some place where you can enjoy suitable religious privileges.

3. Every day find or make time for your private duties of reading, meditation, self-examination, and prayer.

4. Carry tracts and good books with you to read, distribute, or lend, according to circumstances.

5. Seek for opportunities to do good to the souls of those into whose society you may fall.

6. Never, by deed or conversation, appear to be ashamed of your religious profession.

7. Remember you are to "stand before the judgment-seat of Christ."

"THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHERUBIM." *

The

In a former Number of this Magazine appeared a paper on this subject.† Our correspondent called in question the views of Professor Stuart, and an editorial note contained strictures on one of the points he raised. The subject possesses considerable interest for the biblical scholar; and the treatise of Mr. Smith awakens serious reflection as to its probable importance in a spiritual and evangelical aspect. As we then remarked, all discussions of this nature are encompassed with difficulty; and they should be conducted with great caution, reverence, and candour. volume before us, though showing that its author's views are very decided, possesses these characteristics; and, if we still cling to our former opinions, we hail its appearance, and ask for it the attention of theological readers. On such a subject, the conclusions of Mr. Smith-familiar as he is with biblical inquiries, and eminent for research, frankness, and evangelical religion are entitled to very respectful consideration; and, assuredly, the manner in which they are here expressed will abate nothing of his claims. We do not propose, strictly speaking, to review the volume, but to give a synopsis of its contents, and to present the author's reasonings upon one or two points which have been recently discussed in our pages.

The result of Mr. Smith's investigations is thus stated :

"The concurrent testimony of every class of evidence has led me to the conclusion, that these figures, from first to last, were intended to symbolise and set forth visibly the faithful recipients of the great Atonement; or,

*The Doctrine of the Cherubim: being an Inquiry, critical, exegetical, and practical, into the symbolical Character and Design of the cherubic Figures of Holy Scripture. By George Smith, F.A.S., &c. Pp. viii, 156. Longmans.

+ See pp. 402-405.

in other words, the united body of those who, in all ages and countries of the world, and under every dispensation of the truth, have believed in the appointed Redeemer to the saving of the soul." (P. 114.)

We do not attempt a minute analysis of the argument by which the author reaches, and seeks to sustain, this conclusion. The following is a general outline :-After some introductory remarks on the importance of scriptural truth, and the duty of a devout examination of any difficulties which it presents, the main question is discussed under the following heads :-"The different Opinions which have obtained on this Subject stated, and Objections to those which have obtained general Acceptance urged: An Examination of every Text in which the Words-' Cherub,' 'Cherubim,' or cognate Terms-are found: The Cherubim shown to be always connected with a visible Revelation of the Divine Presence: The Cherubim further shown to be continually associated with the Incarnation and sacrificial Atonement: The Solution of cherubic Symbolism thus obtained, namely, that they were designed to represent the whole of those saved by the great Atonement,-applied to every Text of Scripture referring to the Subject: General Observations on the Results of the preceding Inquiry."

This outline is very comprehensive; and a full discussion of it would seem nearly to exhaust the subject. One of the most important points involved, if not the pivot on which the argument turns, relates to the character of the "living creatures" of the Apocalypse, as redeemed, and to their identity with the cherubim of Ezekiel's visions. As this includes the topic on which we have animadverted, we will endeavour to give Mr. Smith's views regarding it. He gives us, in the first instance, "in parallel columns, a comparison of the prominent features of both accounts ;" namely, Ezekiel's, and that of the Apocalypse. The following is his commentary on this comparison :

"In carrying out this comparison, it must be remembered that these two accounts were not written by two contemporary authors, living under the same circumstances, using the same language, and writing for the same purpose. The inspired men whose productions are thus placed beside each other flourished in different ages, Ezekiel preceding John by five hundred years. The first had to communicate religious knowledge to the Hebrews in the most perilous crisis of their history: the other was called to build up the Christian church in its early struggles for existence and increase. Ezekiel was appointed to sustain the principal doctrines of revealed truth, and to uphold the cardinal promises of redemption, in a season of general apostasy and national judgment; while John had to exhibit the glorious accomplishment of prophecy, the certain acceptance of the great Atonement for the world's redemption, and the establishment in heaven of a gracious economy for the salvation of man, in which the types of preceding dispensations were all fulfilled and verified. The Prophet was called to minister consolation and guidance to his people amid national ruin and unexampled temptations: the Apostle's inspired design was to raise a standing memorial of Gospel truth for the support and consolation of the church during her struggles and conflicts throughout all time. When these different times, circumstances, and objects of the two sacred writers are fairly considered, it may be asked, with unhesitating confidence, Supposing they referred to the same emblems, and recognised the same symbolism, what greater degree of harmony could we expect to find in their productions?

« НазадПродовжити »