« AnteriorContinuar »
authority in his diocese according to Apostolic order and Catholic rule, and does all that in him lies to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine. Thus, the praiseworthy endeavours of the Bishop to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Church, as shown in the Shore, Head, and Gorham cases, which are particularly mentioned, are regarded as mere acts of wanton oppression. How different were the illegal proceedings of another Bishop, taking part with a profane and vile mob, regarded! The ignorance of these writers, not merely on such a subject as Baptismal Regeneration, but on all Church matters, is so palpable, the animus so plain, that little harm is done.
The friendship in the other case is more damaging and more humiliating. When, alluding to the late Primate, the writer speaks of "a prelate whose private life was irreproachable, and who commanded universal respect for the gentleness of his manners," we can fully appreciate these good qualities, and so far agree with our contemporary. But, when we are told that these are the sole qualifications required in an Archbishop, we feel that the Church must have fallen very low indeed in the estimation of the world. And yet it is undoubtedly the truth that, we quote from the article in question," those who are to fill the first of our Archi-episcopal Sees are chosen far less for their theological acquirements, their association with the great political questions of the day, and the brilliancy of their attainments in Parliament, than for modera
tion of temper, amiability of demeanour, and a general desire to deprecate controversy." These are estimable qualities as far as they go, and would be estimable in an enemy; but one would scarcely be satisfied with these and nothing more when seeking a zealous champion in a righteous cause. It shows the world's low estimation of the Church, when the virtues of private life and indifference to truth are held up as the highest recommendations to the Archi-episcopal office. may to a certain extent be true that the irreligious and ungodly respect the good man, if only he will let them alone in their infidelity. But is the Church to obtain the respect of the world upon no other terms than by a weak submission to the State, and blindness. to the many errors and eccentric follies of the day?
CHURCH AND STATE.
['Church Review,' April 11, 1863.*]
HE union of Church and State is; at present, in a very unsatisfactory condition not because there is any unwillingness on the part of the Church to submit to the powers that be, or because there is any lack of energy to govern on the side of the State, but because the mutual relations of the one to the other are forgotten. As regards the Church, it does not speak with sufficient firmness and authority,-its counsels are uncertain and vacillating, as we have seen so lately in the case of the Royal marriage in Lent: as regards the State, it draws more and more tightly the bonds which keep the Church in subjection, without giving anything in return but the merest modicum of grudging protection.
There is a democracy of thought which pervades everything; and as popular opinion is the opinion of the world, it is a generally received notion that the
*Also in Public Opinion, April 18, 1863.
['Union,' August 30, 1861.]
HE extracts from the letter of an English clergyman at Naples which the Rev. F. G. Lee has made public, horrible as are the de
tails, will not take the world by surprise. Men are so conversant with the immutable laws which regulate the consequences of certain events that they come to regard them merely as natural results. Anarchy and confusion inevitably follow rebellion every one knows it, but rebellion is not one whit the less fostered and cherished by evil minded men and their dupes. A year ago rebellion was all the fashion in England: there was a perfect rage for it; the newspapers took it up like any other nine days' wonder, and all kinds of absurd stories were invented to gratify the public appetite, and afford some slight pretext or excuse for that dethronement of a King which had already been determined upon.* Englishmen were told that a King ought to be deposed if the people so *Francis II, King of Naples.
willed it, and the governing powers who owe allegiance to Queen Victoria assented to this awkward and embarrassing dogma. It was accounted a noble thing to go and succour a persecuted people, for there is no cause so bad that it cannot find a name; and numbers went, as we believe, in a Quixotic spirit, merely to gratify a wanton yearning after excitement, and got (as it turned out) more kicks than half-pence for their pains, besides having, as might have been expected, conducted themselves so as to bring the very name of Englishman into odium and contempt.
And what is the result of all this turmoil, which has cost so many lives and dethroned a European Sovereign ? Just what everyone might have expected. There is no tyrant like a newly fledged usurper. Fear is the only motive by which he is actuated, and, of fear, cruelty is the natural result. We read concerning the wretched Neapolitans-"They are harassed in a manner which English people can hardly comprehend, and a system of tyranny is established which positively exceeds all that can be imagined. Many members of families of the highest classes-including women are walked off to prison upon no charge whatever, without any examination, and with no prospect of being released. Some few weeks ago, six Neapolitan clergymen, men of position and ability, greatly beloved by their people, were actually shot in cold blood at Caserta by a detachment of Piedmontese soldiers; and, when some of the populace exclaimed