[ocr errors]

The Calvinistic Clergy, therefore, in the no man shall put his own sense or com. reign of Elizabeth, as also in those of her ment to be the meaning of the Article.' two immediate successors, regarded a con “ My Lords, I cannot deny that these formity to the Liturgy as implying only words, when taken by themselves, appear the reading it from the desk, whether they at least, to militate against interpretation believed in its doctrines or not. But no generally. For if no man shall put his Clergyman of the present age can take own sense npon the Articles, no sense refuge in such explanations. By the Act whatever can be put on the Articles. of Uniformity, which passed on the Re. Such an assent to Articles of Religion storation, it is required that all Clergy would indeed be a very unmeaning as, men, within two months after their admis sent: it would in fact be an assent to sion to a Benefice, shall make the following nothing. But if the words, quoted by declaration, openly in the church, in the the Petitioner, are taken in connection presence of the congregation to which with what precedes and follows, the effect they are appointed. I do here declare is very different. The sentence from my upfeigned assent and consent to all which he has extracted a few words, is as and every thing contained, and prescribed, follows, ' And that no man hereafter shall in and by the book intituled the Book of either print or preach, to draw the ArtiCommon Prayer. Now, my Lords, when cle aside any way, but shall submit to it a Clergyman declares his anfeigned assent in the plain and full meaning thereof: and to all and every thing contained in the shall not put his own sense, or comment Book of Common Prayer, he necessarily to be the meaning of the Article, but shall declares his unfeigned assent to the doc- take it in the literal and grammatical trines therein contained. It is not trne, sense.'l'rom this sentence your Lordships therefore, that the Thirty-nine Articles will perceive that the Royal Declaration are the sole standard of faith for the Clergy is so far from prohibiting an interpretaof the Established Church. But though tion of the Articles (which would be a the Petitioner has failed in his attempt to perfect absurdity) that it prescribes even exclude the Liturgy from all participation the rules of interpretation. It enjoins in the standard of national faith, your that the Articles shall be interpreted in Lordsbips cannot fail to remark the prin their literal und grammatical sense;' ciples which are displayed in this allega- that they shall not be drawn aside from tion. In 1641, when similar principles this sense; aud that no man shall put on prevailed with regard to the Liturgy, the them any other meaning, than their plain House of Lords appointed a Committee and literal meaning. My Lords, these of religion, the ouly instance, I believe, are rules of interpretation, from which I on record. The first resolution of this have never swerved. They are rules, Committee was, that the five points, as which I have uniformly and zealously they are called, should be explained in the maintained, as the petitioner himself might Calvinistic sense. They then undertook have known, if he liad read his Diocesan's to reform the Liturgy: and not long af- Lectures on Interpretation. terwards the Liturgy was abolished. My “ But in the Answers to my ExamioaLords, I sincerely hope, that our Liturgy tion Questions I have met with woeful inwill not be abolished again. But of this stances of departure from these rules. I I am certain, that Petitions to the House have met with instances, in which the of Lords, in wbich such principles are re words, both of the Liturgy and of the vived, must prepare the way for it." Articles have been so drawn aside from P. 18.

* “ The words at the latter end of the The fifth, sixth, and seventh alle- sentence, but shall take it in the literal gations refer to the old charge of in- and grammatical sense,' shew that they troducing a new standard or doctrine.

are opposed to the words immediately preThe Bishop of Peterborough briefly ceding. When it is said, therefore, that shews the inaccuracy of the peti- no man shall put his own sense or comment tioner's language, and the unfound.

to be the meaning of the Article, we mast ed nature of his accusation. But understand the words “ own sense or com

ment' with reference to the subjoined reas this part of the question has been striction. Consequently the words quoted formerly before our readers, we pro- in the 8th Allegation must denote, not ceed to less beaten ground.

that no sense whatever shall be put on the

Articles, bat that no sense shall be put on “ The eighth Allegation is, . That the them which is incousistent with their literal • Royal Declaration asserts no less that and grammatical sense.

tbeir literal meaning, as to make them ex Lest this should not be considered press the reverse of that meaning. And

a sufficient answer to the favourite such interpretations have been given, not merely in matters of curious search topic of the royal declaration, the where a latitude of opinion might be al

tenth allegation (the ninth being lowed, but op points of doctrine, which

mere repetition and tautology) afare too clearly expressed 10 admit of fords bis lordship an opportunity doubt, and too important to be regarded of saying a few words respecting as not essential to the Established Church". Laud, which must have astonished And I can solemnly assure your Lord. his deeply learned ecclesiastical opships, that in the few. instances, in which my duty has compelled me to reject on

ponents. account of doctrine, I have never done it “ The tenth Allegation, still in referfor deviations of the former kind, unless ence to my Examination Questions, is, accompanied by deviations of the latter

That no similar attempt has ever been kind. And as my conduct in this respect made since the time of Archbishop Laud, has been grossly misrepresented, I beg when it produced the most serious consepermission to add, in answer to the charge

quences, alike affecting both Church and of andue severity, that I have spared no State.' pains to recover those, who had departed “ My Lords, I cannot deny, that the from the doctrines of the Church. And Prelate to whom the Petitioner alludes, my endeavours in this respect have been did make a similar attempt.' The Royal so successful, that the total number of re Declaration, prefixed to the Articles, was jections on account of doctrine bas, in the prefixed at the suggestion of Laud, when course of five years, amounted only to Bishop of London. And that Declaration three t." P. 26.

has the same object with my Examination Questions, namely, literal and grammati.

cal interpretation. The Declaration also “For instance, the doctrine of our

gave as much offence to the Calvinists of Church respecting the Sacrament of Bap

that age, as my Examination Questions in tism, which has been directly and grossly

the present age. The former prepared an impugned in some of the Answers which

Address to the King against the DeclaraI have received to my Examination Ques

tion : and it seems a similar Address is now tious. If I had admitted those, who gave suck answers, I miglıt have been justly Questions. Nor is it improbable that

in contemplation against the Examination charged with leaving recruited for dis

the fate which attended Archbishop Laud, senters.'"

would befall the Bisliop of Peterborough, † “ This inay serve as an answer to the

if the same party shonld again obtain the charge of undue severity. But I had hardly ascendancy in the Church. Be this, how. known what answer to give, when I am

ever as it may, I shall not be deterred charged with want of toleration in the use of these Questions. Toleration is a term,

from the performance of what I believe in

my conscience to be my bounden duty." which applies only to dissenters from the

P. 32. Established Church. It is quite inapplicable to those who profess conformity to The plan which Lord Dacre conthe thirty-nine Articles, which were pub- descended to father was thus comlished for avoiding diversities of opi- pletely done up. He had been pernions. Though we can understand therefore what is meant by the toleration of suaded to move for an address to dissenters, when they have perfect liberty the throne to enforce the royal deto preach their own doctrines in their own

claration of Charles 1.-rather a places of worship, we involve oarselyes in strange proposition to be made by a contradiction, when we speak about the toleration of dissent on the part of those, of the Church. The foundation indeed who are bound by Articles, for the estab. night thereby be widened: but it would lishing of consent touching true religion.' be widened with materials, which wonld But if the toleration, which the Examina soon let down the whole superstructure.” tion Questions are supposed to infringe, “ Though the motion for an Address denotes the privilege of preaching dissent was changed into a notion for a Comfrom the doctrines of the Church, as well mittee, there is a parallel also to this moin our own pulpits, as in licensed meet- tion, in the Committee of Religion aping houses, it is a species of toleration pointed in 1641. See the Remarks on the which would shortly cnd in the destruction fourth Allegation."

a distinguished whig. His spiritualisting laws : and laws cannot be annulled advisers, however, had long solaced by one branch only of the legislature. The themselves with the anticipation of 3.4th canon is my warrant for an exanina

tion in the articles. My questions constiits efficacy, and Lord Dacre con

tute an examination in the articles. And sented to surrender his historical whether I propose for that purpose the koowledge, and his constitutional questions which I now employ, or introjealousy of the prerogative, in or- duce another set as circumstances may reder to silence Bishop Marsh. The quire, is a matter which must depend on Bishop, in ten sentences, prored the my own discretion, and in which no one scheme to be absurd, convinced has a right to dictate.

“ My lords, I do not deny, that bishops, Lord Dacre that the address would

as well as other men, may abuse their aube a waste of powder and shot, and thority. With such an abuse of authority compelled him to substitute a mo I am charged in the present petition : but tion for a committee. This had whether truly or not must depend on the been Lord King's plan a year ago.

truth or falsehood of the allegations. My. A profound knowledge of ecclesias. Jords, I have sifted those allegations to tical law enabled his lordship, (see allegation contains a direct falsehood ;

the bottom. I have proved, that the first. Christian Remembrancer, Vol. iii.

that the second is a misrepresentation; p. 486.) to recommend the House of that the third allegation, in which the peLords to go into a committee on the titioner contends for an abuse of authority, Bishop of Peterborough's Questions, is dependent on the two former, and conor in other words, to do nothing at scquently devoid of truth. I have further all. Lord Dacre came forward proved that his fourth and fifth allegations under happier auspices, but in the exhibit other deviations from the truth;

while his attempt to exclude the Liturgy course of one short half hour he

as a standard of faith, betrays a creed, was constrained to change his tack, which ill deserves the protection of your and to steer, in some confusion, for lordships. Of the remaining allegations, the old port? The learned Prelate as far as they have any reference to the had the magnanimity to pity his si. pretended abuse of authority, I have tuation, and to lay before hiin (what shewn, that they are altogether fallacious.

I ask then your lordships, will you none of the evangelical privy-coun

accede to the prayer of a petition, which cil had discovered) a mode in which

is founded in sophistry and falsehood? the object of the petitioner might That the noble lord who has presented it be obtained.

was not aware of its sophistry and false

hood, when he yielded to the solicitations, “ My lords, I now come to the prayer with which I know, that be was earnestly of the petition, in which is proposed an pressed, I am well assured, or be would address to his Majesty as Head of the have rejected those solicitations with disChurch, to enforce the royal declaration daiu. The noble lord could not suspect, But the enforcing of the royal declaration that any man would dare to affront the will, for reasons already stated to your house of lords by the tender of unfounded lordships, defeat rather than promote the allegations. purpose of the petitioner. That parpose, “ My lords, before I conclude, I beg if answered by an address to the throne, permission to say a few words concerning can be answered only by an address im- myself. Whatever be the fate of the ploring his Majesty to issue his royal man- questions, I have no personal interest at date to the Bishop of Peterborough, and stake. I shall be no personal loser, if they prohibit the questions, of which the peti- are wholly abandoned. I have no other tioner complaius. My lords, if his Majesty desire to retain them, than what arises could be induced to issue such a mandate, from the belief, that they have contributed I would bow in obedience to the royal to the welfare and security of the Church, commands. But before your lordships The voice of faction has been raised against concur in a motion to that effect, it is ne them, and in the outcry episcopal authocessary to consider, whether soch an ex. rity has been treated with insolence, and ercise of the royal prerogative would be ecclesiastical discipline has been set at consistent with the constitution in Church naught. But, my lords, this very oppoand state. Iu the use of those questions sition, when viewed in its true light, may I exercise a right, which I enjoy under ex be regarded as an argument in their fa

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

to be.

vour. From assgrances, which I still pos. I have been compelled to relinquish it.sess, I know that they were approved by At my last Ordination the Examination learned and orthodox divines : and if that Questions were answered at Peterborough: approbation has been lately checked, it is and so they will be in future." P. 12. the infirmity of human nature, which recoils at the approach of danger.” P. 36.

Such is the Bishop of Peterbo- A Sermon preached before the Inrough's triumphant defence, aud corporated Society for the Pro.

we are heartily glad that it has pagation of the Gospel in Foreign = been published, because we con Parts; at their Anniversary

sider the attacks upon his Lordship Meeting in the Parish Church of as parts of a system for governing St. Mary Le Bow, on Friday, by menace and intimidation. Feb. 15, 1822. By the Right Rev. Whenever a clergyman oppuses or

William, Lord Bishop of Llandaff. è displeases certain parties, they. It is impossible to do justice to this i threaten him with Mr. Wilkes and discourse by a mere analysis of its

a prosecution, or Lords Dacre, contents, or by selecting one or two Holland, King, &c. and a Petition

of its principal paragraphs. The to Parliament. The effect thus whole is so well conceived, and produced is greater than it ought ably executed, that those whó have But in the case before us

a due sense of the importance of the Bishop of Peterborough has Christian Missions, and are desiri done justice to bimself and his

ous of seeing them conducted by cause and at the same time has the Church, should lose no time in afforded that degree of explanation making themselves acquainted with which was desired, and is deemed this excellent Anniversary Sermon. satisfactory by real churchmen.-

His Lordship commences by One instance we have already no.

shewing that St. Paul's conduct and ticed—a second is contained in the language both to Jew and Genfollowing passage, which is added file was suited to the peculiar cirto the work as a pote, and which cumstances of each. With respect acquaints us with all the alteration

to the Jews, he indulged them in which has been produced by the their regard for the Mosaic law, and incessant, and virulent invectives of endeavoured to convince them out his Lordship's opponents.

of the Scriptures that Jesus was the “ My original object in sending the Christ. To the Gentiles, while he * Examination Questions to Candidates for treated them in a different manner,

Orders, before they appeared personally he spoke different languages. sy in the Ember week, has been greatly mis

understood : and that wbich was intended « It is evident that such reasoning as as an act of kindness, has been represented

this would have been altogether misplaced as an act of harshness. I sent the. Ques- in preaching to the Gentiles. To impress tions, that the Candidate might have time them with any reverence for the Jewish to consider them, and answer them at his Scriptures, an entirely different process leisure; that if his answers were found to would be necessary; and to give them any be at variance with the doctrines of the adequate conceptions of the nature and

Established Church, I might have an op- design of Christianity, or of its Divine * portanity of writing to him, and explain- pretensions, not only much preparatory

ing in what respect he deviated from the instruction would be requisite, but an aldoctrines of the Church ; and lastly, that most total ciiange in their religious views if he persevered in doctrines which were and sentiments. How, then, did St. Paul irreconcileable with the Liturgy and Ar conduct limself in this most arduous part ticles, he might be refused without under of his office? going the public disgrace of a rejection in " When the ignorant multitude at Lysthe Ember Week. But my conduct in tra, astovislied at the miracle wronght by this respect has been so misunderstood, l'aul and Barnabas, wonld have done sa-, and the openness with which I have acted crifice to them as Gods, what arguments has by many persons been so abused, that do the Apostles use to dissuade them from REMEMBRANCER, No. 45.

4 B

such wretched impieties! They exhort nature, nor the former by the law of Mo them to ' tarn from these vanities to the ses. On this ground, he establishes the living God, which made heaven and earth, necessity of redemption, of jastification, and the sea, and all things that are there and of sanctification, through some other in,' and who had never left himself without means; and then brings forward the proofs, witness, in that he did good, and gave that these had been accomplished by Jen them rain from heaven, and fruitful sea sns, the Author and Finisher of our faith." sons, filling their hearts with food and His argument is conducted sometimes with gladness. These were proofs, from the reference to the prond pretensions of Heaworks of Creation and Providence, level then philosophy, or the gross delasions of even with the grossest understandings, Heathen superstition; sometimes, with whep set. before them in their true and considerations more directly adapted to proper light.

the Jewish worshipper,” P.11. When, again, at Athens, he found “ Corinth was the head-quarters of vow himself surrounded by a more enlightened luptuousness, vice, and false philosophy. audience, the learned frequenters of the In opposition to these, and especially to Areopagus, and the teachers of philosophy the last, St. Paul descants upon the insufand morals, be opened his commission in ficiency of luman knowledge as a guide a similar way;-declaring' that UNKNOWN to spiritual truth. He contends, that 'the Gon,' whom they ignorantly 'worship- world by wisdom knew pot God; and that ped;' setting forth His power as Creator, what the Heathen philosophers deemed His spiritaal nature, and His providential weakness and foolishness in those who and moral government of the world; de. preached the Gospel, had proved to be ducing from these, by an obvions and easy wiser and stronger thau their efforts to inference, the absurdity of that idolatrous overthrow it, beiug supported by the sig. worship which even these men of wisdom nal power of God This is the substance either embraced or connived at; and then of the earlier part of the Epistle. Towards openly asserting that momentous truth the latter part, bis mode of illustrating which they were wont to ridicule, the Re: the doctrine of a Resurreetion of the Dead surrection of the Dead." P. 8.

affords another instance of this appropriThe Bishop then comments upon the doctrine are refuted, partly by phy.

ate mode of teaching. The objections to the Apostle's writings, and shews in sical, partly by moral evidence, as well as masterly summaries of the principal by insisting opon the established fart of epistles, that the rule already men our Lord's Resurrection t. To the Jews, tioned is strikingly exemplified in there was no need of arging such consiall of them. We extract his Lord. derations as these ; since all, except the ship’s remarks upon the Epistles to Sadducees, admitted the truth of the docthe Romans and the Corinthians, trine ; and the Sadducees our Lord himselt and bis proof that the same system but by an appeal to the Books of Moses,

had silenced, not by philosophical proofs, was always observed in the dissemie which they professed to believe I." P. 14. pation of divine truth.

“ The rule, then, which the Apostle laid “ The great question discussed in the down for his own observance, in the words two former of these Epistles, is that which of the text, was strongly exemplified in relates to the connection between the Law every part of his conduct. In addressiug and the Gospel ;-how far they were,

the Jews, he invariably assanies the first either or both of them, necessary to salva. principles of religion in general, and even tion, and compatible with each other. some of the main doctrines of revealed Two opposite parties felt an interest in religion, as already known and admitted this question ;-the Jews, who held that on their part. In arguing with the Gentiles, none could be saved bat by the law of te begins with laying down the most simMoses;-the Heathen, who believed the ple and obvionş maxims of moral and relilight of nature to be sufficient, without gions truth, and from thence leads on his either Moses or Christ. Although the ar

hearers or his readers to the plainest evignment, therefore, appears' principally to dences of the Gospel, and gradually to its concern the Jews, yet St. Paul, in writing mblimest mysteries. Nor was this mode to those who lived among the Heathen, of teaching peculiar to St. Paul. It was found it necessary to adapt his reasoning characteristic of Iris fellow.labourers in to both. He shews, that all had sinned, the same cause : it was characteristic of both Jews and Gentiles; and that neither their heavenly Master kimself : it was cla. could the latter be justified by the law of

• 1 Cor. i. 18-28.

1 Ibid. xv. * Acts xiv. lö-17.

Lake xx, 37.

« ForrigeFortsett »