Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

would be popular by the concession of even vital points. How far it may be allowed to proceed, rests, under Heaven, with those to whom the destinies of this degraded country are committed. Let us remember the declaration of Lord Grey, in the House of Lords, on Friday, the 22nd day of March :-"His wish, he again repeated, was to go every length he conscientiously could in removing the real grievances of the dissenters. He professed himself to be the sincere and ardent well-wisher to their claims." "GRIEVANCE," like "emancipation" and "reform," is now the cant term, the " argumentum breve" et "ad misericordiam," the broad cloak for arrogancy and encroachment! The grievance of excluding wolves from your penfolds, ferrets from your warrens, kites from your dovecots! The grievance of not educating your adversary, of not training to arms your mortal enemy in the very heart of your citadel! The grievance of being excluded from the firm of Drummond & Co., 49, Charing-cross! But that which was said of Charles II., by a poet of his time, has a ready application to the modern friends of the church :

"Never was such a Faith's defender :

He, like a liberal prince, and pious,

Gives liberty to conscience tender,

And doth to no religion tie us :

Jews, Christians, Papists, Turks !-He'll please us
With Moses, Mahomet, or Jesus."

TARPA.

TRANSLATIONS OF BISHOPS.

SIR,-The calculations of your correspondent, Iota, have done so much to remove the misconceptions under which the generality even of churchmen labour, with regard to the frequency of episcopal translations, that I dare say it may not be disagreeable to your readers to be furnished with a similar series of calculations for the Irish branch of the united church. I confess that it might not have occurred to me to enter on this inquiry, had I not found, among my own acquaintance, persons most sincerely attached to the church, who were under the impression that translations have been far more numerous here than among the English bishops. I shall be surprised, therefore, if the following statement, which I have endeavoured to make as accurate as possible, will not exhibit such a similarity in the history of the episcopacy of both countries, as few of your readers could have anticipated. In order to render the comparison easier, I follow the same order as that which your correspondent has adopted, observing with him, that, by the word translation, "I mean the removal from one bishopric to another," and that I do not take into account the promotion of bishops to archiepiscopal sees. This being premised, it may be thus stated, that, of the present bench of Irish bishops, seven have not been translated at all; six have been once translated; three, twice; and one, three times. The average time, during which the present bishops have held the sees which they now occupy, is somewhat more

than fourteen years and five months. Omitting, however, these prelates, and confining ourselves to their predecessors, there have been, since the year 1660, one hundred and seventy-two bishops; of whom, ninety-eight were never translated; fifty-three were once translated; seventeen, twice; and four, three times. The average period of their episcopacy was above fifteen years and three months; and the period of their remaining in one see will average, if we include those who never were translated, more than nine years and eight months; and if these be excluded, eight years and five months.

It is a coincidence worthy of observation, that the proportion of prelates who were never translated is almost exactly the same in both countries-viz., a little less than five-eighths of the whole number. The same similarity is observed in the proportion which the number of those who were once translated bears to the whole being, in England, a little less than three-tenths; and, in Ireland, a little more than the same fraction.

One cannot but lament that, even amongst the real friends of the church, there is so little of actual knowledge and information to repel the attacks and insinuations, of which it is truly astonishing how they can emanate, from men who have the fear of God. Were the Dissenters to consider the question with any degree of calmness, they must feel that there are, at least, as many and as weighty objections against the removal of one of their ministers to a more extensive and lucrative situation, as can be alleged against the translation of a bishop. Nay, I go much farther, and I hesitate not to say, that, if it be at all questionable with us, it must be wholly indefensible with them. They may consider one of their ministers deserving a larger income, or they may conceive his preaching suited to a more fashionable or intellectual congregation,-if there be much difference in their congregations in these respects; but, to profess a desire to enlarge his influence amongst his brother ministers, and place him in a position which will give him greater weight amongst the dissenting interest, seems something like a practical departure from the pure and abstract notion of independent churches, and does excite a suspicion, that some persons, whatever independence and equality their congregations and ministers profess to enjoy, have less objection to the actual working of an episcopal order than they are willing to believe.

The churchman professes to recognise in his bishop the various offices of pastor, teacher, and governor, of ecclesiastical magistrate and judge, of legislator, of adviser to his sovereign, and, consequently, he cannot doubt the lawfulness or expediency of episcopal translations, without ignorance or forgetfulness of his own system. If a bishop who has been consecrated for an obscure and remote diocese evinces such talents and temper as qualify him for a more difficult, important, and influential see, it is the plain duty of Government to remove him, at the first opportunity, to the situation for which he is fitted. If the Government had not the power to do so, or if, under the old capitular system, this liberty was not enjoyed, I cannot see how any conscientious men could choose to undertake the responsibility of nomination at all. For, whatever care they may exercise in the original

selection, they must know that there are some men whose real powers are developed only by the duties which call for their exertion; that some appear at first to have far more suitableness to office than they actually possess; that some men gain prodigiously by experience, while others gain little or nothing; that, in point of fact, it is hard to tell what sort of bishop a man will make until he has had some trial; that a mistake in one diocese may be mischievous to the whole church, which in another would have been scarcely felt or noticed; that different sees call for prelates of totally different habits and natural character; and, therefore, it is undoubtedly better, in general, not only that men should at first be sent to an easier and less important diocese, but that the more difficult and influential sees should, if possible, be committed to men who have had some previous experience, and have proved themselves fitted for the charge.

And who can undertake to condemn the prelate who may feel willing, or even desirous, to be removed to a situation more suited to his habits, and more likely to afford exercise for his peculiar talents and acquirements? Some there may be who cannot conceive any other motive for such a desire than a low and sordid covetousness. But others can entertain more charitable opinions, and recollect that a wealthier diocese is generally a more expensive one. And some there are who have had opportunities of knowing that but few of our bishops lay by much money, or leave large fortunes to their families, and that a large proportion bring as much to the church as they can possibly hope to receive from it.

But surely translations of bishops, be they right or wrong, can, in no instance, take place without the concurrence of the supreme magistrate, who is always a layman; and, indeed, without more of the concurrence of the laity at large than was perhaps contemplated by the founders of our constitution, civil or ecclesiastical. How this fact comes to be forgotten by those who consider it their glory that the ministers, by whom our bishops are appointed and translated, are little more than the creatures and servants of the people, (if, indeed, they be content to regard the Members of the House of Commons as their representatives,) does seem difficult to understand. But, be this as it may, one thing is certain, that the bishops do not translate themselves, or one another, nor are we any longer under the capitular system. They are translated by an administration composed of laymen. If, then, the Government think that three-eighths of our prelates is too large a proportion to have deserved advancement in their profession, the matter is in their own hands, and can be guarded against in future without any necessity for a new enactment. No sound politician will ever delight in resorting to legislation to rectify evils which can be easily and effectually rectified without it.* I am, Sir, your obedient servant, J. C. C. Dublin, July 19th, 1834.

How ardently is it to be wished that such sound and just views as those expressed in this letter were more general. That silent reforms are the only real reforms ever effected, has been justly said by a statesman of the present day.—ED.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY TRULY A PRIESTHOOD. AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEK.

FEW things have more tended to lower the character of the ministerial office in the English church in the eyes of others, or to infuse doubt and hesitation into the minds of those who are called to it, than the endeavours which some of our writers have made to shew that the term "priesthood" is misapplied when used of the Christian ministry, for that they do not and cannot perform any priestly office (sacrifice or offering). To such an extent has this notion obtained, and so vague, consequently, and indefinite are the ideas entertained of the office of the Christian ministry, in its most immediate and direct relationship to the Almighty, that I have little doubt many, both laity and clergy, will be startled when they are plainly told that the Christian ministers of the first and second order are truly priests, and do really offer sacrifice; and will, perhaps, think the person who should tell them so to be no better than a semi-papist.

Hurtful and erroneous as are the endeavours of those who, by writing or conversation, would seek to lower the estimation of the sacred office, the opposite error, at which they revolt, and which is advocated by Harding and some other Romish writers, is so monstrous, that it is not to be much wondered at, though it must needs be deeply lamented, that in their horror at one extreme, they should have rushed into the other. Pity, therefore, and regret should soften the expression of censure, from which they cannot be excused.

The use of the word "priest" (the only one we have to express an offerer of sacrifice) has much contributed to the error; for, because the origin of this word is from presbyter, and it is used as synonymous with presbyter when we apply it to one of the orders of clergy, and speak of bishops, priests, and deacons, therefore, it is supposed by many, and has been stated by some, that when the word occurs in the Eucharistic Service and other parts of the liturgy, it means no more than "presbyter." But I conceive this is a mistake, arising from the poverty of our language. For if we consult the Latin or Greek formularies, we shall find the distinction between "priest" and "presbyter" clearly marked. In the Roman Pontifical the term used to express the second order of clergy is presbyter, but the officiating minister at the mass is sacerdos. It is the same in the Greek churchπρεσβύτερος for the second order of clergy ; ἱερευς for him who offers the eucharistic sacrifice. Nor let any suppose that these are modern innovations and corruptions; for the distinction appears as early as Cyprian among the Latins (compare Ep. 63, and 314), and as Cyril of Jerusalem among the Greeks, as may be seen in his Fifth Mystagogical Catechism. And, earlier still, we find the blessed Ignatius, in his Epistles, repeatedly speaking of the altar (see Epp. Ephes. Rom.) Nor him only, who was an apostolical man, but the apostle himself, who expressly says, "We have an altar,” (Heb. xiii. 10,) at which none were allowed to eat who were not truly the servants of Jesus Christ. "The Scripture cannot be broken." But how can there be an altar, VOL. VI.-Sept. 1834.

20

of

if there be not an offering? or, how an offering without an offereri.e., a priest? or, how, again, could another apostle have applied to the Christian people the terms which Moses applied to the Jewish, "a royal priesthood," (comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9; Exod. xix. 6,) if the Christian dispensation is so wholly distinct from the Mosaic, that while the latter confessedly had priests, the former has neither priest, nor offering, nor altar? or, what would be the sense of St. Paul styling our blessed Lord an High Priest, if in truth he has no priests under Him? or why does St. Paul claim for himself the style of a priest of the Gospel (ἱερουργαντα το Ευαγγελιον) Rom. χν. 16: But it is not the New Testament only which stands in the way those who would thus lower and almost annihilate the character of the Christian ministry; the prophets of the Old must be set aside, and the words of Isaiah and Malachi be disproved: for it was of the Christian dispensation that the prophecy is concerned when by the mouth of Isaiah it is uttered-"I will take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord" (Is. lxvi. 21); and of the same dispensation was it said before-"Ye shall be named the priests of the Lord; men shall call you the ministers of our God;" (Is. lxi. 6.) Thus "the comparing spiritual things with spiritual," the testimonies of the prophets and apostles, combine to shew that under the Christian dispensation there is an altar, a priesthood, and a sacrifice.

And yet so extensively has the error obtained of those who would lower the Christian ministry, and so little pains been taken to inculcate the truth either upon the laity or the clergy, that, as was before observed, it is probable that many of both will be startled when they hear these things, and say, Is not this some new doctrine? Alas! that in a true branch of the church of Christ there should be room to ask the question! that there should be man or woman among us ignorant of the real nature of the highest act of Christian worship! The writings of Jewel, of Andrews, of Laud, of Taylor, of Bull, of Wilson, among the Bishops; of Field, of Mede, of Hammond, of Johnson, of Brett, of Daubeny, among the Presbyters, may serve to shew that this is no new doctrine in our church, so far as it is reformed; while Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Austin, Jerome, Ambrose, Ephraim Syrus, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Eusebius, Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr, all speaking with one voice, may convince every one that as she is catholic, this is but the doctrine which at all times, and in all places, has been set forth by all the faithful.

But what, some will say,-what is the nature of the priesthood which you claim for the Christian ministry? and what the nature of the offering which you assert is made upon the Christian altar? Is it a sacrifice of that kind for which some of the wild Romanists contend, who speak of Christ as twice immolated, once on the cross, and again in the eucharist, and call the sacrifice of the mass a repetition of that upon the cross, and consequently style the latter an offering of itself expiatory? Nay; God forbid! this were indeed a "blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit," rendering the one only expiatory sacrifice of no avail, and totally opposed to the truth of Scripture.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »