« PreviousContinue »
guardedly, and limits and qualifies : * The second Allegation is;" That her declaration. In the second to the above 87 Questions, his Lordship she speaks positively, and leaves no
nositively and leaves no has very recently added 36 more, on one doubt of her meaning. How' then
doctrine alone : and that on the same prio
ciple the number may be multiplied till can there be a question whether
there is no limit but the will and pleasure Bishop Marsh is fully justified in of the Diocesan. : .. refusing to ordain the advocates of " Here, my Lords, is another misrepre an opposite system? The men who sentation. Instead of adding, I have subendeavour to explain away the ob
tracted. Instead of adding $6 to 87, I vious signification of the Twenty
have substituted 36 for 87, namely in the seventh Article, and the Baptismal
examination of Curates : no alteration
having been made in the examination for service, ought not to be allowed to
Orders. But let me substitnte what I entangle themselves in the mazes of wilt, it is impossible to please the Petiequivocation, by accepting orders tioner, whose ohjections are in fact directo from the Church.
ed, not against this or that set of Ques" The first Allegation is, "That the
tions, but against all questions which relate Lord Bishop of Peterborough has for
to doctrines *.
. some time introduced into his Diocese a - The third allegation asserts the new mode of Examination, consisting of illegality of this mode of 'examina. 87 Questions, embracing the minutest mo- tion, but as this mode has been difications of doctrine, and peremptorily shewn to be a mere . fiction, the requiring all Candidates for Ordination, and Curates applying for a Licence, to.
charge is already answered. . conform thereto, or to incur the penalty
" The fourth Allegation is, ' That the of being rejected.'
Clergy recognize no standard, to which “ My Lords, it is absolutely false, that they are bound to conform, but the 39 I propose Questions to be answered, on Articles as by law established. the terms stated in this Allegation. Nei- "My Lords, this Allegation is again ther in practice nor in principle do I im. intrne. Conformity to the Liturgy, as pose such hard conditions. When I was by law established, is no less required of Bishop of Landaff, the Questions were the Clergy, than conformity to the Artiaccompanied with Directions for answer.' cles. It is true, that conformity to the ing them, in which the Candidates were Litirgy has been understood in a different cautioned to pay due attention to them, sense from conformity to the Articles. It because an unsatisfactory answer, (as was was understood, for instance, in a different there added) may tend to their exclusion sense, by the Clergy who returned from from the sacred office." But' as this cau- Geneva in the time of Elizabeth, with the tion, though never carried into effect, was tenets of Calvin, fenets so adverse to our liable to misrepresentation, I 're-printed Liturgy, that Calvin, in one of his epistles, the Questions before I came to Peterbo- calls it the leavings of popish dregs t. rough and omitted the Directions. Every copy, without exception, which has been
terborough, the extent to which I expect delivered, either to Curates, or to Candi.
wi satisfactory answers can be determined dates for Orders, in the Diocese of Peters' only by the rule, which I adopt in pracborough, has been delivered according to
tice. And by this rule I lave never rethe re-printed form, that is, without the
jected any one for unsatisfactory auDirections. Yet the Petitioner represents
swers on such subjects as Original Şin, the Bishop of Peterborough, as peremp
Free-Will, and Grace, noless they were torily reqniring'what he calls a conformity
accompanied hy answers to other qnesto my Questions, under the penalty of
tions, directly impugning the doctrine of being rejected. And even the Directions,
the Liturgy avd Articles, on subjects of which I gave as Bishop of Landaff, (with
the greatest importance." wbich, however, he has no concern) are
« * This is evident from the tenor of the
whole Petition. grossly misrepresented. I there said, that
A Bishop may examine an unsatisfactory answer may tend to
in the Greek Testament, or' in Grotius; exclusion, whereas, according to this Alle.
but he must ask no' questions about docgation, it must tend to exclusion *.” P.14.
*, pu trine,"..
+ The doctrine of conalitional salvatino, * Asf no terms or conditions are ex- which pervades the whole of our Inray, pressed in the Exainination Paper, nor is irreconcilable with Calvin's te have been since I became Bishop of Pe- absolute election. The
Mr. Rennell, but he will probably. Christianity. It is also valuable on review or rescind his opinion of the account of its disinterestedness, and period at which St. Paul received no motive besides an earnest desire the apostolic character, deriving it of bearing witness to the truth, from the call of the Holy Spirit, could have actuated these apostolic addressed to the Church of Antioch, men to acknowledge their own iofe rather than from the words of the riority, and to defer to the sole and Lord at his conversion : “ Deliver- exclusive authority of their predeing thee from the Gentiles unto cessors. Their testimony is conwhom now I send thee." The former firmed by that of later writers, whose. representation, however, supported authorities are cited with approby the commentators, is liable to priate comments by Mr.' Rennell, many exceptions, and is not neces- by Justin Martyr, Theophilus of sary to Mr. Rengell's argument. The Antioch, Clemens Alexandrinus, apostolic rank of St. Paul is unques. Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius, tionable, and the inspiration pecu- . " What thien is the conclusion, to which liar to this rank, is attested by St. tbis uninterrupted series of testimonies, Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude : it beginning from the time of the Apostles, was claimed by the Apostles alone; and continuing to the fourth century, will it was not conferred or supposed lead us? It is this, that the writings of the to be conferred even upon l'imo. Apostles, and of the Apostles only, were thy, who was instructed to bear in
-received as the words of God: that upon
them and upon them alone was built the mind of whom he had received the
whole superstructure of the Christian truth.
faith. The inspiration thus exclusively “Such then are the proofs upon which we claimed by the Apostles, was with admit the inspiration of the New Testament, the same exclusion appropriated to as an article of our belief. If we allow the them by their successors, Clemens anthenticity and credibility of the sacred
books, we must also allow their inspiration, Romanus, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
pe for they both depend upon the testimony “Now if these three Apostolic Fathers, of the same persons, viz. the Apostles Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, did not and their successors. If then we admit believe their great masters to have been their testimony in one sense, we must adinspired, why do they so perpetually copy mit it also in the other, especially as the their style, allude to their expressions, and evidence of the Apostolic Fathers, to the cite their very words ? St. Peter does not high and exclusive anthority of their mas." borrow from St. Paul, nor St. James from ter and predecessors is, as has been shewn, St. John. In two or three instances in
upon every account, highly disinterested." decd we may find a reference made by P. 52. one Apostle to the words of another, for
. The exclusive claim of the Apos. the sake either of persuasion or explanation, but never for the sake of authority, tles to inspiration may be sustained Now, in the writings of these three Apose without detracting from the inspired tolic Fathers, we find both phrases and authority of the Gospels of St. passages from the Sacred Volume, worked Mark and St. Luke, who, although into the general mass, for the purposes of they were not themselves of aposgiving it energy, strength, and support. Tolin order were
tolic order, were the companions of This of itself implies a sense of inferiority in the writers, and a consciónsness of the
Apostles, and the character of weight and authority, which the apostolic whose writings deserves the strong. phraseology would impart." P. 39.
est confirmation from the remark. The testimony of these Apostolic
able coincidence of expression in Fathers is valuable in point of time,
the account given by St. Paul and as it proves that the doctrine of the
St. Luke of the last supper, in exclusive inspiration of the Apos. which St. Paul asserts his owu intles, was not invented in a corrupt spiration. and degenerate age, but maintain " If, therefore, from evidence both ered in the first and purest æra of ternal and internal, we have good reasud
to believe that the gospels of 'St. Mark : It is true that these writings were and St. Luke' were severally transcripts read in the Church in the same of the preaching of St. Peter and St. monnor ne the Anorrunha or the Paul, written under their superintend
Homilies are read in tire present ence, and recommended by their authority.--we cannot hesitate to receive them day. They were called ecclesiastias compositions guided and assisted by cal not canonical Scriptures, and the Spirit of God. Even in the first age Jerome, who records the fact of of Christianity, they were cited as freely their public recitation, denies that and as frequently as the other two į the they were canonical Scriptures, or earliest fathers of the Church made no in distinction between them ; no more should
possessed of any authority to dewe,” P. 56.
termine articles of faith. The assertion then of their own
The same proofs of inspiration exclusive inspiration by the Apos
are next applied to the doubtful
pos. books. It is very doubtful who was tles, and the acknowledgment of
the author, and what the age of the that inspiration by their successors,
Pastor of Hermas: but even on the are the two irrefragable proofs of the
supposition of its authenticity, the inspiration of the canonical Scrip- ;
writer is, by his own confession, not tures. Can these same proofs be
superior but inferior to Clemens applied to the several treatises con
Romanus. The work is written in tained in the apocryphal New Tes.
. imitation of the Apocalypse, but on tament, whether those treatises are authentic, as the writings of Cle
a comparison of passages cited from
the two works by Mr. Rennell, the mens, Ignatius, and Polycarp, or of
Pior of inferiority of the Pastor is very obdoubtful authenticity as the Pastor
vious, nor does the writer, as St. of Hermas and the Epistle of Bar. Y Dabas; or, unquestionable forgeries,
John does, assert his inspiration. as the other pieces of which the
me is not counteracted by any external apocryphal Volume consists. : .
testimony. Irenæus calls the work · Clemens, Ignatius, and Polycarp, do not claim but disavow inspira
arp, a writing, carefully, as Mr. Rention, and acknowledge their inferio.'
nell, on the authority of Lardner, rity to the Apostles.
explains the word, distinguishing it
Their silence or denial is confirmed by the testi
from the Scriptures. Neither does
Clemens Alexandrinus class it with monies of Irenæus, Clemens Alex. andrinus, Origen, and Eusebius, who
the Scriptures. Tertullian is so far either pass over their writings with
from admitting its authority, that out admission of their authority, or
bę ridicules and rejects it. Origen deference to their judgment as wri
alone asserts its inspiration : but he
is no more than a single witness, . ters, although they speak of them
delivering an opinion rather than a as individuals with veneration and
testimony, an opinion which he affection.
himself does not support, and “ The pumber of witnesses to the in- which he invalidates in other parts spiration of the New Testament is very of his writings by classing it with large, the passages cited by them are in- ' numerable, and the chain of evidence is
is the Apocryphal and not with the uninterrupted. The references, on the Canonical Scriptures, and writing other hand, to the epistles of Clemens, upon it: neither commentary nor Igoatius, and Polycarp, are extremely bonily. Eusebius also places it rare, and the mod, of citation is quite among the Apocryphal books. different. They are not appealed to in It is not probable, that the episany matter of faith or of controversy, nor te of Barnabas was the work of the are their expressions interwoven, as the expressions of Scripture perpetually are,
Apostle of that name. From the with the language of the author who cites mann
manner in which he speaks of his them to give it energy, au hority, and state before his conversion, of the support," P. 70,
destruction of Jerusalem, and of
The Calvinistic Clergy, therefore, in the " no man shall pnt 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 generálly. For if no man shall put bis Clergyman of the present age can take own sense upon the Articles, no sepse 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 asmen, 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 unfeigned 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. From this sentence your Lordships therefore, that the Tbirty-nine Articles will perceive that the Royal Declaration are the sole standard of faith for the Clergy is so far from prohibiting an interpreta. of 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 Lordships 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; and 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 had 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 Examica. Lords, 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 which 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 severth 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 peli. no man shall put his own sense or comment tioner's language, and the unfound. to be the meaning of the Article, we most
understand the words' own sense or comed nature of his accusation. But
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, but that no sense shall be put on .." The eighth Allegation is, ' That the them which is incousistent with their literal • Royal Declaration asserte no less that and grammatical sense,
their 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
hot topic of the royal declaration, the
tonic of the royal declaration the merely in matters of curious search,'
tento allegation (the ninth being where a latitude of opinion might be allowed, but on points of doctrine, which mere repetition and tautology) afare too clearly expressed to admit of fords bis lordship an opportunity doubt, aod too important to he regarded of saying a few words respecting · as vot essential to the Established Church*. Laud, which must bave 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 liave 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 undue 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 onmber of re- Declaration, prefixed to the Articles, was jections on account of doctrine has, 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 Calvivists 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 tions. If I had admitted those, whio gave
in contemplation against the Examination such answers, I might have been justly
Questions. Nor is it improbable that charged with liaving recruited for dis
the fate which attended Archbishop Laud, senters.'”
would befall the Bishop of Peterborough, + “ This may serve as an answer to the
if the same party should again obtain the charge of ondue severity. But I had hardly
ascendancy in the Church. Be this, howknown what answer to give, when I am
ever as it may, I sliall not be deterred charged with want of toleration in the use
from the performance of what I believe in of these Questions, Toleration is a term,
my couscience to be niy bounden duty." which applies only to dissenters from the 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 per. pions.' Though we can understand there
suaded to move for an address to fore what is meant by the toleration of dissenters, when they have perfect liberty the throne to enforce the royal deto preach their own doctrines in their own claration of Charles I.-rather a places of Worship, we involve ourselves 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. might thereby be widened: but it would lisbing 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 motion for a Comfrom the doctrines of the Church, as well wittee, 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 end in the destruction fourth Allegation."