Page images
PDF
EPUB

rivet would be fixed in that fastening which unites our colonial empire in bands of loyalty to the mother country.

BISHOPRIC OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL.

THIS see has been now filled up by the appointment of Dr. Baring, formerly the rector of All Souls, Langham-place. We have nothing to say against the appointment. The jubilation of certain journals and parties leads us to think that a better choice might have been made; and we confess to a great disappointment, that the announcement made by the "Times" concerning the Rev. R. C. Trench was unfounded: we say unfounded, rather than premature, because we have reason to know that such an appointment was never contemplated by Government at all. We regret this, because it would have been pre-eminently a good one, and would have been a real blessing to the Church, as well as an encouragement to biblical learning among the clergy. We do not affect to undervalue the claims of the house of Baring on the Government, nor are we at all surprised at finding them acknowledged by a bishopric. The time will, perhaps, come when such claims will be recompensed in other ways. Meanwhile we must take things as we find them, be glad that the bishop is so good, and only lament that his episcopal career should be commenced by a demand of £8000 for a palace. On this point we copy some very sensible remarks from a cotemporary. Alas! that there should be cause for such severity.

"CHURCH WEALTH AND POVERTY.-From the time when Oliver Twist startled the respectable but not less terrible Mr. Bumble by asking for more,' the higher or more fortunate members of the clerical profession have lain under the imputation of taking that interesting youth for their model. Not long ago the world had an edifying instance in the case of the Rev. Mr. Lupton, who complained-justly of course-that he was shockingly neglected by the Chapter of St. Paul's in the disposal of their loaves and fishes. To be sure, he had a canonry of St. Paul's, and another at Westminster-a rectory in London, and a vicarage in the country -offices which would have taxed the ordinary energies of four gentlemen, but he asked for more,' and instituted proceedings before the Bishop of London to have another mess of porridge transferred to his pannikin. The bishop, who probably thought that a minor canon was hardly great enough to set all church laws at defiance, decided against him-and the world (for the world is proverbially ill-natured) made many uncivil remarks upon him and his proceedings. We, however, who knew that he could not be far wrong, as he was only following the example of his betters,' said nothing. If we had spoken at all, we should have commended the zeal and

[ocr errors]

FACTS AND PROGRESS.

469

spirit with which he had trodden in episcopal footsteps, and an instance has just occurred which would have amply justified our praise.

"All those newspapers and other publications which put themselves forward as pre-eminently religious, which declare that they have especially at heart the spiritual welfare of the people, and which look down on the rest of the press as distressingly secular, if not profane, set up a universal shout of gratulation when the Rev. Charles Baring was appointed to the bishopric of Gloucester and Bristol. It will not be needful to enter into an examination of those points of doctrine which won for him their golden opinions. With his doctrines his practice was understood to correspond, and above all he was cited as a moral man of high conscientious principle. He was no self-seeker, it was the advancement of the Church and not his own that he cared for, and the world was now to see the example of a prelate whom the apostles themselves might approve. We joined in this laudation no more than in the previous censure. It appeared perfectly natural that a man with high political connexions should rise high in the Church, and in the close relationship of the new bishop to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and to many other equally powerful persons, the discerning eye would find a more probable cause for preferment than in any conceivable amount of learning, virtue, and piety. Nor should we refer to it now, but since his elevation we are told that he must have £8,000 in lieu of a palace, inasmuch as that which was inhabited by Bishop Monk is sadly out of repair, and is moreover so princely in its lands and character as to be inconsistent with the reduced resources of the episcopate. But why did the late incum-. bent of the see allow it to become out of repair? He was a very rich man, for his personality amounted to nearly £140,000, and he had this splendid palace rent free. Surely he ought to have kept it in order. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners would have been perfectly justified in saying to the newly-appointed bishop-We cannot put your lordship into the possession of Stapleton Palace, because we intend to sell it, as unsuitable for the episcopal residence ; but we will call upon the representatives of Dr. Monk to pay what may be due for dilapidations, and we will make you an allowance that you may provide yourself with a residence, till the time comes when by the sale of Stapleton we may furnish you with one for a permanence. There would have been, we say, no impropriety in this, for a bishop must be housed as well as a curate; and even those who contend that a feudal castle, with an extensive park and an array of gamekeepers, is not necessary for a Christian prelate, would not, therefore, keep him without a roof over his head. But instead of any procedings such as these, the application is made to the Ecclesiastical Commission to furnish at once the large sum mentioned above.

"Now it has been one of the greatest errors into which this commission has fallen, that whereas they were to equalise bishoprics

[ocr errors]

and increase poor livings, they have done as little as possible towards the one, and scarcely anything towards the other. They have arranged matters that sees which ought respectively to have been worth £8,000 and £4,500 have been really worth £20,000 and £12,000. Nor was this all, for if a thousand per annum were taken from a bishop, £25.000 have been spent in either purchasing, rebuilding, or restoring a palace for him; and thus what was taken from the sees with one hand was kindly given back to them with the other. All this while the poor vicars and perpetual curates were expected to look on with loving admiration, and to wait with Christian patience till all the palaces were finished, and all the parks stocked, and all the revenues furnished for the superior order.' But alas, this happy moment has not yet arrived. Each daily paper brings its sad contribution to the catalogue of distress among the 'inferior clergy.' Now we hear of a curate, after forty years' labour on sixty pounds per annum, laid by with a painful and fatal disease, and having paid another clergyman for a long time to do those offices for which he was no longer capacitated, he is dismissed from his curacy and must probably die in a workhouse. There is no commission for him to apply to, to give him a retiring pension: the unfortunate man never was rich enough to entitle him to such a provision as this.-- To him that hath shall be given,'—while from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he seemeth to have'-awful words, which appear to have a literal fulfilment in the stipends of the clergy. Every enactment seems to make the rich, richer; and the poor, poorer!

6

"But it will be said a curate cannot be taken under the care of the commission, he must depend on his rector and his bishop. Are there then no vicars-no perpetual curates-even are there no rectors steeped in as deep distress and penury as this unhappy curate! We shall soon find them-as one of our cotemporaries observes, like Lazarus, cured by dogs, and comforted with crumbs.' Let him appeal then-surely they will not allow his cry to pass unheeded: wait, my lord, a little longer for your palace-you can with your £5,000 a-year surround yourself with all the comforts, all the luxuries, all the splendours of life. This poor man is dying, dying under circumstances of the greatest penury and privations; his education was equal to yours, his exertions have been not less strenuous, his abilities are possibly not inferior; but his home is cheerless, his children are uneducated, and he himself is clothed in

the cast-off garments of a charitable layman.' This is no fancy portrait, but were such a picture presented to these commissioners, and were they urged to act upon the representations thus made, is there any chance that they would do so? Would not their practical reply be, why do you molest us with your stories about Lazarus-do you not see that Dives wants a new dining-room?"

ARCHDEACON DENISON.

BEFORE the close of this month, this case, the most important by many degrees which has been tried in the Church

FACTS AND PROGRESS.

471

Courts, will be decided. The Archdeacon has been declared in the wrong, and if he do not amend his error before the 21st inst., he will be removed from his position and dignity in the Church. Were this all, it would be a matter of little real consequence; for though we are quite willing to agree with his friends that he is an active, learned, and zealous man, and far from disposed to call his piety in question; yet the loss of one man, however distinguished, will be very slight compared with the effects which will follow his deposition. It must be remembered that he does not stand alone; there is a very large party who declare that not only is Archdeacon Denison's teaching in accordance with Scripture, but it is in substance the same as that which has at all times been exhibited by the wisest and most renowned doctors of the English Church, from the time of the Reformation downwards. This party is numerous, active, wealthy, zealous, and comprises a considerable number of the dignitaries of the Church. We do not for a moment suppose that the Archdeacon will or can retract, neither can the Archbishop; so that, so far as the primate's sentence is concerned, Archdeacon Denison may be looked upon as already deprived. Now supposing this sentence to take effect; some hundreds, if not thousands, of clergymen must resign their benefices, for they have been for years teaching exactly what the Archdeacon is deprived for teaching. Granting, too, which is humiliating enough to grant, that in numberless cases they would and will be silent-quietly modify their tone and sail with the stream-yet, in many instances, there will be hearers ready enough to pounce upon them and drag their heresy, as it will then have been decided to be, to the light of day, so that they will be obliged either to retract or resign. We, for our own parts, fully agree with the Primate, and differ from the Archdeacon; but we cannot look forward without apprehension to such a disruption as the execution of this sentence will give rise to. The more closely we study the articles and the formularies of our Church, the more are we convinced that it was never the intention of the Reformers to make the basis of admission a narrow one; that they meant to exclude Popery and all popish doctrine is selfevident; but they as evidently accepted themselves, or looked on at least as admissible, much that is now called Popish. The differences of opinion between Ridley and Hooper, Jewell, Whittaker and Grindall, will be sufficient to show this. We do not now speak of the divinity of the seventeenth century, a great part of which-and that portion,

too, which has been commonly looked upon as most valuable -must be at once thrown overboard, including the writings of Lancelot Andrewes; but we confine our observations at present to the divinity of the Reformation, that embodied in the volumes put forth by the Parker Society, and we have no hesitation in saying, that from those volumes Archdeacon Denison might successfully defend his cause, were it to be decided by such authority. Their theology seemed to be capable of a mathematical definition thus:-their line was limited towards A (Rome), but unlimited towards B (Geneva); they even went so far as to admit into full communion with themselves, and to licence and institute to cures in the Church, persons who had never received Episcopal ordination; they never attempted to re-ordain them, but called Presbyterian ordination" the laudable custom of foreign churches." Now, indeed, the line has become limited towards Geneva also; but as it yet stretches far enough to admit Mr. Gorham, it might, without undue tension, admit Archdeacon Denison also. The question is not whether of the two be right, but whether the Church intends that the basis of communion should be so narrow as to take in only one, and that one Mr. Gorham. This conclusion is one to which we very seriously demur. We wish a broad basis, and that within wide limits, the appeal should be, not to church discipline, but to theological argument. It was on this ground that we objected to the tyrannical and unconstitutional course pursued towards Professor Maurice: we differed from him strongly on many points, but we were not the less satisfied that he was unfairly and arbitrarily deprived of his post. The differences between Maurice, Gorham, and Denison are not matters for legal adjudication, but for legitimate controversy.

Archdeacon Denison seems himself to have mistakenand for so acute and learned a man to have very strangely mistaken, if, indeed, it be really a mistake unconsciously made -the true grounds on which his defence rests. He appeals to the Scriptures, and offers to prove that what he has been teaching may be proved by most certain warrant of Holy Writ; and because the Archbishop very properly refuses to admit this appeal he throws up his defence. Strategetically, of course, he is right in this; it is throwing a mist about the controversy, and putting the Primate apparently in the wrong, and, moreover, just in a way in which it is unpopular to be in the wrong. You," he virtually exclaims, "who profess such an extraordinary value and reverence for Scripture

66

« PreviousContinue »