Page images
PDF
EPUB

dianship, rather than to a body, in which it is implied that there are some who might make an evil use of the opportunity afforded them to do harm. In a word, we could understand the reasonableness of praying the House of Lords to adopt a scheme which had been previously formed;-we could understand the reasonableness of petitioning the queen, that her majesty would be graciously pleased to devise a system of ecclesiastical government; we confess ourselves incapable of discerning wisdom in the course which the petitioners adopted.

The Archbishop of Dublin, although he presented the petition to the House of Lords, and in a certain sense advocated its prayer, is by no means to be held responsible for its reasoning. His grace's views, as they appear in the report of his speech, are perfectly intelligible and consistent. He would require of the parliament permission, only, for another body to legislate for the church, and he would, probably, propose an address to the crown, with a view to effect such arrangements as the circumstances of the times rendered necessary:—

"He begged their lordships' indulgence in declaring solemnly that rights carried with them duties, and above all legislative rights; and if the parliament, which had alone the power of legislating for the church, did not consider its intervention on this subject proper, it was the duty of parliament to permit some other body, whose province it should legitimately be, to interpose with a regular and recognised authority for the settling of the disputes and dissensions now unfortunately prevailing. He alluded, of course, to spiritual matters alone-matters of doctrine or discipline.

"Were he permanently in this country, and in their lordships' house, he should feel it his duty to submit a substantive proposition to their lordships' on this momentous subject; either for an address to her majesty, praying that a commission might issue for inquiry, &c., or some other course. But as it was, he commended the matter to his brethren of the English bench, conscious that if they did not concur with him it would be in vain for him to moot the question; and that if they did, they were, if for no other reason, certainly for that to which he had just alluded, best fitted to undertake it.'

in the discussion or conversation, which the Archbishop of Dublin on this occasion invited, were the Bishop of Salisbury, who supported, and the Bishop of Ossory, who dissented from, the prayer of the petition. Of the speech of the latter learned prelate, the archbishop has furnished a report from his remembrance of it :

"The Bishop of Ossory's speech, though inaudible in the gallery, was heard by those near him.

"His lordship expressed his hearty assent to the principle of the petition; but was averse to its being applied at the present time, on account of the excited state of party feeling now existing in the church, and which he feared might be aggravated by the assembling of any commission, synod, convocation, or other body of men for the purpose of either acting as a government for the church, or framing any such government."

Having given this report, as containing the substance of Dr. O'Brien's reply to his speech, and, apparently, considering it as representing the strength of the argument against him, his grace the archbishop enters upon ths task of refuting it :

"I have heard the same language from many others; not only from those who are merely seeking a pretext for getting rid of the measure, by indefinite postponement, but from persons whom

cannot doubt to be sincerely convinced of the anomaly, the discredit, and the danger of leaving the church virtually without any legislative government, and sincerely desirous of remedying the evil on some favourable occasion which they expect will actually offer.

"Such persons cannot, I think, but perceive, on more attentive reflection, that the very same argument would ap ply equally in civil affairs; and yet it would be thought ridiculous for any one to say, that though parliaments are a very beneficial institution, he deprecates the assembling of a parliament just now, because there is so much political excitement in the country, and the hostile parties are so violently opposed, that it is to be feared there would be a very stormy session, and that mutual hostility would be aggravated rather than allayed; let us therefore have no session of parliament this year.

"No one in the present day would, on such a question, use such arguments. But it is not unlikely that they occa

The only prelates who took a part sionally had weight with the unhappy

Charles I. and some of his advisers. He dreaded the probable violence of a par liamentary session, after having for some time endeavoured to carry on the government without parliaments. It is not unlikely that some of his advisers hoped to avoid the evil by waiting till men's minds should be in a somewhat calmer state and if at any time there did appear to be a comparative calma remission of the murmurs, and of the agitation of the public mind, this would naturally supply a renewed ground for hope that the discontents would blow over, and the nation submit to the want of parliaments. And the result, as we all know, was that every remedy was deferred till too late, and that the parliament, which ultimately it was necessary to summon, overthrew the constitution.

"Certain it is, that in all cases of this kind, we must expect to meet with the cry of NOT Now,' on occasions of the most opposite character. When men's minds are in an excited and unsettled state, we are told not now;' wait for a period of greater tranquillity: when a lull takes place, and there is as little of discontent and party animosity as one can ever hope to find, again the cry is, not now; why unsettle men's minds? Why not let well alone? Quieta ne movete-it will be time enough to take steps when there is a general and urgent cry for it. In short, when the waters are low, we are told that it is useless trouble and expense to build a bridge; when they are high, that it is difficult and hazardous to build a bridge."

Before presenting the reader with some observations of the Bishop of Ossory on these arguments and analogies, we think it right to apprise him, that our abstinence, in this arti cle, from all expressions of praise, is intentional and deliberate. When adversaries of "so high front" contend, or rather, we should say, when so high parties are at issue, the reviewer is most faithful to his duty when he is least intrusive of laudatory comments. Let us not be supposed, then, insensible to the ability displayed on the one side or the other, because we express no admiration of it.

The Bishop of Ossory, while deny. ing that his speech in the House of Lords, has been accurately or adequately reported, is careful to place the discussion between the archbishop and himself on higher grounds than those of merely personal altercation :

"It is hardly necessary, I suppose," says his lordship, "to say, that this is a very imperfect account of what I attempted to urge, in support of my dissent from the prayer of the petition. But that is a matter of very little importance. What is of real importance is, that it is a very imperfect account of the objections which actually lie against the measure. And it is only in this respect that I shall attempt to correct it. I shall make no attempt to give a faithful report of what I said on the occasion. I should probably not succeed in the attempt if I made it. I shall merely endeavour to present distinetly the reasons which were in some shape present to my mind, and which I attempted to state, against the expediency of restoring to the church, at the present time, the privilege of selfgovernment. As I endeavour to restate them in this more deliberate way, I am sure they will appear in a more orderly form than I was then able to give them, and probably in more fulness too. This is obviously unavoidable; and I should make no attempt to avoid it if I could. For what I am really anxious about, is to give something like a fair representation of the chief objec tions to the measure, which is so earnestly pressed for at the present time."

The Bishop of Ossory's main objections to the projected experiment upon the church are these: he thinks it would not prove remedial, that, on the contrary, it would aggravate and confirm the very evils it was expected to remove or cure, and that it would interrupt a sanative process, of which his lordship imagines he can discern unambiguous symptoms, and from which, if not rashly interfered with, he anticipates a favourable issue :

"I need not enlarge upon the divisions which harass, and disgrace, and weaken our church at the present day. No one, unhappily, can be ignorant of them. And in fact I presume that, (as appears by the speeches of the prelates who supported the petition,) one of the chief reasons for so earnestly desiring the restoration of a self-governing power to the church now, is the hope that it would be the means of healing them. I have said enough to show that I consider this as a very delusive hope. My opinion on the contrary is, that such a measure would be likely to exasperate, and prolong, if not perpetuate, these unhappy divisions. And that this is not a vague or random apprehension, but one which rests upon grounds which

are very intelligible, whether upon examination they will be found sufficient to support it or not, will I hope appear by what follows.

"Whatever be the constitution of the body to which it is proposed to give such powers, it must, so far, I presume, partake of the nature of convocation, as to be an elective body. Any body that did not represent the church, would be plainly unfit to legislate for it-so plainly indeed that I do not think it ne. cessary to consider any plan of churchgovernment of that nature, if such a plan has been conceived. Now, it can hardly be doubted that the elections by which this governing body, or a very important part of it, was to be formed, would materially affect our unhappy divisions, and be materially affected by them; that they would widen the divisions, and the divisions embitter them; that they would, in fact, at once carry our existing differences into every dio. cese, and every archdeaconry, and every rural deanery, and every parish in the kingdom; and in a form, compared with which, the controversial contests to which they at present give occasion, are tranquillity and harmony. In fact, all the evils which attend upon parliamentary elections in heated times, short of absolute personal violence, might be dreaded in such contests. And not the less that the opposing parties were not contending for any objects of worldly honour or emolument. Indeed in the party struggles which convulse the country at a general election in seasons of great political excitement, every one knows how very few comparatively, of those who are most deeply and desperately engaged in them, have any defi nite hope of personal advancement, or personal advantage of any kind—at least how very few there are who have any hope of such advancement or advantage as could be regarded as at all commensurate with their exertions and their sacrifices, in the cause to which they devote themselves. It is the success of a man's friends-the elevation of those to whom he has attached himself as his leaders the predominance of his party -the triumph and the influence of his opinions and his principles--which are much more the object and the reward of the intense interest, and the desperate exertions which are made on such occasions, than gain or ambition. These last are the motives of comparatively few, the others embrace and sway the many. Now, it can hardly be doubted that all the former class of motives would be called into action by the contested elections, which must attend upon the only mode of restoring church-go

vernment which we need consider; while a new and most powerful source of interest and excitement would be added, in the infinite importance of the results to be hoped or dreaded from the prevalence of opinions, and the victory of parties, in the present case. The connection of such struggles with religion would no doubt chasten and regulate the ardour of some, and make them watch anxiously and jealously over their own temper and conduct. But with others, and many others, it would only serve to exalt their zeal, and to justify every measure which it prompted-so that it could not be doubted that such contests would be carried on with no less energy, and hardly, if at all, less bitterness, than secular conflicts-enkindling the same passions, and sowing the seeds of the same heart-burnings, and jealousies, and animosities.

"This would be a sad state of things while it lasted. But it might well be borne with if it were to end with the elections; and to end in providing the church with a deliberative assembly, from which we might reasonably expect a calm consideration of the various points which divide us, and a fair and impartial adjudication upon them. This is the result hoped for by the petitioners. But no such expectation can, in my opinion, be reasonably entertained. Such contests might be expected to terminate, not in providing a calm deliberative body, from which the church might receive the stability and repose which she needs, but in engaging upon a new arena the representatives of exasperated parties, and the advocates of their conflicting opinions. These representatives, returned, not to deliberate but to contend, and carrying on their contests on a public stage, would keep throughout the land their constituents, and the large proportion of the laity who would every where range themselves under them, in the same hostile position with respect to each other to which the elections had brought them, And how absolutely incompatible such a position of parties is with any thing like a calm consideration, or a satisfactory settlement of religious differences, I need hardly say."

So much for the dangers attendant on an enterprise such as the archbishop proposes. The hopes cherished by Dr. O'Brien of good to be effected through agencies even now at work, are declared in the following passage:

"But what are we waiting for? it is asked. Is it until divisions, which have

grown up under the present state of things, heal themselves? I have seen,' the archbishop says, also in a recent publication a forcible representation of the discrepancies prevailing in the seve ral dioceses of the doubts, perplexities, and heart-burnings that exist and of the discredit and danger to the church thence resulting, while the conclusion drawn was that no commission, assembly, synod, or other church-government should be appointed; but that the bishops should be left (as now) to decide

pro re nata,' each according to his own judgment, on matters coming under his control. In short, that because the existing state of things produced great and notorious evils, therefore it should be left unaltered!'-Appendix, pp. 35,

36.

"I have never seen the publication to which his grace refers, and therefore, though this summary of the argument of it wears the air of a caricature much more than of a fair representation, I cannot of course say that the writer may not have given some colour for it by his mode of stating his views. But of course it can only apply to the form into which he has contrived to throw his argument; it does not apply to its sub

stance.

"The archbishop states that the writer pleads to have the existing state of things left unaltered, because it has produced great and notorious evils.' It seems tolerably safe to conjecture that what he does plead for, at least in substance, is, that the existing state of things should for the present be left unaltered, although it has permitted gross and notorious evils. This, at least, is my plea. It is the one with which the archbishop has actually to deal; and however the unskilfulness of some who sustain it may have supplied him with it in a form in which it seems too absurd to be seriously treated, it is presumed that, whether it be well-grounded or not, it is in itself neither inconsequent nor ridiculous. It may be rash to decide whether, if the convocation had always continued to exercise its powers, such evils would have been prevented from arising in the church; but it is very plain that that is an entirely different question from the practical one with which we have now to deal—namely, will the evils which have grown up during the suspension of the powers of this body, be removed or mitigated by reviving these powers-whether by convening the convocation, or an elective body of the same functions, but differing from it in some respects in constitution? I have already said that my apprehension is that the result would be greatly

to aggravate those evils, and I have attempted to give some reasons for this opinion, be they sufficient or insufficient.

"And if it be asked, what hope is there that under a state of things which has permitted the rise and growth of such evils, any relief from them will be obtained? I answer that if there were no such hope, that would be no reason for altering the existing state of things in the way proposed, if, as I apprehend, and have attempted to show, the change is likely to lead to worse evils than any that we now endure, or under existing circumstances can reasonably apprehend. If it be wholesome, though homely philosophy, which

-makes us rather bear those ills we have, Than fly to others that we know not of;'

the prudence of patience under existing ills, is still more evident, when we have good reason to fear that the ills to which we are urged to flee, are worse than those which we are enduring.

"But I do not think that we are thus without hope of some alleviation of the evils of our present condition. The present time is one, no doubt, of ardent conflict to some; and of course, as in all such cases, the passions which inflame the actual combatants, extend to many who do not share actively in the struggle. But it is a period of calm thought to very many--a time of investigation and reflection-out of which, if it be left uninterrupted, a much greater measure of harmony and peace than we now enjoy, may be expected to arise. The course of the fierce controversy which has been, and is still carried on, supplies numbers who are not actively engaged in it, with such materials as their own industry and research could hardly have provided, for coming to a sound judgment upon the various points which are so hotly contested. Among those who are thus seriously, and it may be hoped prayerfully, reviewing these questions, are many who exercise an influence upon others-many especially who exercise the influence which belongs to the ministerial character-the importance of whose opinions extends far beyond themselves. And without entering inconveniently into a consideration of existing differences, it may be said, that there are not a few reasons for hoping that the great mass of the ministers and the members of the church are at this moment in a fair way of settling in a sound and moderate view of them, if they be suffered to go on forming their judgments in the way in which this process is at present going on. And that we may hope to arrive gradu

ally and quietly, not at a state of perfect unanimity and perfect peace, but at a much more united and tranquil state than we at present enjoy: such a state as would make it safe and advantageous to restore to the church her synod (with whatever modifications of its constitution may appear expedient)—the office of which seems to be much more to give stability to such a state of harmony, than to bring it about out of such a state of division as at present unhappily exists.

"Such harmony can never be brought about by debates, and votes, and enactments. It must be the result of sober and sincere convictions, formed by more tranquil investigation and thought than the contests of rival parties in a public assembly allow; by such a process in fact as I believe to be going on at this moment in the minds of honest and thinking men throughout the empire. My desire is to leave this process for a time to its natural course. But with the commencement of such contests as the restoration of her synodical func. tions to the church would at once necessarily give rise to, all calm inquiry must come to an end. Men must in such a case support the side with which they at the time agree most, if they would not see the one to which they are op posed, however moderately, prevail and rule. And when they are once engaged in such a conflict, how hard-how impossible indeed, speaking generally-it is, to maintain the seriousness, sobriety, and moderation which are essential to coming to a sound judgment upon the points in dispute, needs scarcely be said. Indeed, thenceforth the means of forming opinions would not be the object for which men would seek, but the means of asserting and defending them. And I need not repeat what I have before said of my apprehensions that such warfare could not be carried on in this new form without grievously, if not irreparably, widening and exasperating our wide and angry divisions."

Such are the hopes of the Bishop of Ossory, and such his apprehensions; his observations on the analogies which appear as arguments in the pamphlet of his metropolitan, are conceived and expressed in a similar spirit. They appear to him incomplete and inapplicable. On the analogy of which parliament furnishes the subject, the bishop observes:—

"The analogy on which this mixture of raillery and argument relies, is a very tempting one. It is a great fan

vourite with his grace, and it is not surprising that he builds somewhat more on it than he is able to sustain. That he does so, I think is very certain, and I should hope that it cannot be very diffi cult to make it apparent. Looking only in a general way at the church and the state, and their respective legislatures, it might, no doubt, seem that we had an analogy sufficiently exact to warrat any such inference as the archbishop draws; and that when we find any ge neral principle, established by experi ence with respect to parliament and the state, we may without further examination assume it of the church and convo. cation. But when one considers the ease a little more narrowly, he will see that this is proceeding too rapidly; and that we ought to require in every instance some better reason to warrant such a transfer. And as I cannot but apprehend, that what I must take the liberty of saying has much misled the Archbishop of Dublin, may have the effect of misleading many others, I shall endeavour to show, as briefly as I can, where the fallacy of his application of this analogy lies.

"If at any time, any one were to deprecate the assembling of a parliament just now, because there is so much political excitement in the country, &c., there is no doubt that, as the Archbishop of Dublin says, 'it would be thought ridiculous.' And moreover-which is not exactly the same thing, and is more important-there is little doubt that it would really be ridiculous. And I have as little doubt that there are many who will agree with his grace in thinking, that therefore it is ridiculous to deprecate the assembling of convocation just now, on the ground of the religious excitement which prevails in the country. But this, as I said, is going on much too fast. It is true that parliament bears to the state the same relation that convocation does to the church, so far as this, that parliament is the state-legislature, and convocation the church-legislature. But a great deal more is necessary to warrant such an inference as the archbishop proposes to make. Such a general agreement is perfectly compatible with very important differencesand differences in the very points in which these legislative bodies must be assumed to agree, in order to render the inference a valid one. And in fact such differences do actually exist. The two bodies differ so widely both in their general nature and in their actual circumstances, as to make the inference wholly unwarrantable.

"And to begin with their circumstances. In considering the question, it

« PreviousContinue »