"We saw the Berlings on Tuesday night: on Wednesday, Edith and I went on deck at five o'clock; we were off the rock, and the sun seemed to rest upon it for a moment as he rose behind. Mafra was visible; presently we began to distinguish the heights of Cintra and the Penha Convent; the wind blew fresh, and we were near enough the shore to see the silver dust of the breakers, and the sea-birds sporting over them in flocks. A pilot boat came off to us; its great sail seemed to be as unmanageable as an umbrella in a storm; sometimes it was dipped half over in the water, and it flapped all ways, like a woman's petticoat in a high wind. We passed the church and light-house of Nossa Senhora de Guia, the Convent of S. Antonio with a few trees behind it, and the town of Cascaes. Houses were now scattered in clusters all along the shore; the want of trees in the landscape was scarcely perceived, so delightful was the sight of land, and so cheerful does every thing look under a southern sun." Now was the time, when in the skies, Night should have shown her starry eyes; Possess'd us at that well-known sight; And in one feeling all allied, We blest our Lady of the Guide. · Star of the sea, all hail!' we sung, And praised her with one heart and tongue; And, on the dark and silent sea, Chaunting Our Lady's Litany." Again, how true an appreciation of some of the benefits of one religious ordinance is shown in the following letter: "To John May, Esq. "Feb. 18, 1800. 'My dear Friend,-Your last letter entered into an interesting subject. A young man entering into the world is exposed to hourly danger-and what more important than to discover the best preservative? To have a friend dear enough, and respectable enough, to hold the place of a confessor, would assuredly be the best; and if the office of confessor could always be well filled, I would give up half the Reformation to restore it. In my moments of reverie I have sometimes imagined myself such a character-the obscure instrument in promot ing virtue and happiness, but it is obvious that more evil than good results from the power being, like other power, often in improper hands. I have wandered from the subject. It is not likely I shall ever gain the confidence of my brothers to the desired extent: whatever affection they may feel for me, a sort of fear is mixed with it; I am more the object of their esteem than love; there has been no equality between us; we have been rarely domesticated together, and when that has been the case, they have been accustomed, if they were faulty, to understand my silent disapprobation. No; will never intrust his feelings to me: and as to precepts of warning, indeed I doubt their propriety; I doubt lest, from the strange perverting power of the mind, they should be made to minister to temptation. Indirect admonition, example,— are not these better means? Feelings almost romantically refined were my preservation, and with these I amalgamated afterwards an almost stoical morality. "Yours affectionately, "ROBERT SOUTHEY." With these extracts we commend the volumes themselves to our readers—they will find in them a store of agreeable and interesting matter such as has not for a long time come from the English Press. THE ECCLESIASTICAL SUPREMACY OF THE CROWN. 1. Church Matters in 1850. No. 1, Trial of Doctrine. By the Rev. JOHN KEBLE, M.A. Oxford and London: Parker. 2. The Things of Cæsar and the Things of GOD. A Discourse. By WILLIAM DODSWORTH, M.A. London: Masters. 1850. 3. The Church, the Crown, and the State. Their Junction or their Separation. Considered in two Sermons. By the Rev. W. I. E. BENNETT, M.A. London: Cleaver. 1850. It is admitted by all thoughtful men that we have arrived at no ordinary crisis in the destinies of the English Church. There are those who would willingly ignore the existence of this crisis, and who imagine that it has derived a mere fictitious and transitory importance from the agitation of a few restless minds. Some from mixed, others from the purest, motives, would fain hope and believe, that the expected decision in the Gorham case once given, matters will very shortly settle down into their usual quiet and tranquil course. The Baptismal controversy will, they think, be set at rest, either by a clear affirmation of the doctrine of the Church, or by some shuffling compromise between truth and error. In the latter case, those who feel aggrieved may be expected to vent their disappointment in useless protests to the Crown or the Bishops, to flutter for a time, like a wounded bird; but, after all, to submit to a state of things which cannot be altered, without the risk of greater personal sacrifices than most men are willing to make. For our own part, we deem it a duty to assert, that, however desirous men may be to return to the quietude of past years, this retrograde step is neither lawful, nor possible. The Baptismal question is, even now, merging itself in another, to the importance of which no Christian can shut his eyes, who has any jealousy for the faith of CHRIST, and any regard for the independence of the Church. An extraordinary chain of circumstances is attracting unwonted attention to the theory of the Regal Supremacy. Lately, we have seen the Minister of the Crown, by a claim of supremacy, obtrude into an episcopal see an individual accused of false doctrine, against the reclamations of no mean body of Churchmen, and without condescending to grant, either the accusers, or the accused, the justice of a fair, impartial, inquiry. This memorable event disclosed to the world the unpleasant facts, that the chief Bishop of the English Church lies open to the imputation of being a mere minister in the hands of the temporal power, having no will or judgment of his own; and that the most solemn forms of confirmation, transacted in the House of GOD, and accompanied by prayer, have been made, by a claim of supremacy, a fearful mockery, and have so continued during three centuries. And lest we should forget the lesson which this remarkable event was intended to teach us, another case arises, presenting a few more startling facts for our unpalatable digestion. A trial between a bishop and a parish clergyman, in the course of its progress, reveals what seems to have been unknown to many before, that the Sovereign in Council is, by the existing laws of England, the final court of appeal in all spiritual causes affecting the Church of England; and that the Crown, by its judicial committee, consisting exclusively of laymen, of any or no creed, has a right by law and prerogative, to make decisions on points of doctrine, which shall be legally binding upon the national Church. Well may men look aghast, and ask, how can these things be? Has the Church, indeed, sold herself, and her inalienable spiritual rights, to the world, for the sake of lands, and palaces, and rural ease, and earthly pomp, and the gold that perisheth? Is it possible for any religious man, once this startling fact is thus strangely brought before him, to pass it by, as if it were of no practical moment to himself? Is he not, on the contrary, bound, by a strong obligation of duty, to look * Mr. Keble in his tract on Church Matters, says, "The mind of the Church was not roused by them to any consciousness of her having intrusted to a merely civil court the authority now claimed. I speak for myself, and I have no doubt, for the great majority of my brethren, when I say that we bore with this state of the law through ignorance." Mr. Dodsworth says much the same in his sermon. this question in the face; to use the liberty freely conceded to him by the English Church, and the English constitution, and to examine the grounds upon which our sovereigns have laid claim to supremacy in spiritual matters;-to see how far the Church has yielded to these claims, and to trace the limits, within which alone, it can be lawful for the Church of God to recognise the interference of any temporal potentate? With a view to the solution of these questions, it is not sufficient to frame for ourselves a moderate theory of a limited supremacy over the State Ecclesiastical in temporal matters, and then say, that the Regal Supremacy cannot mean anything more than what we may wish it to mean. In dealing with this matter, we are dealing with facts, far more than with theories; and we must remember, that in assenting to the assumption of Ecclesiastical Supremacy by the Crown, we must either take the full meaning attached to this power by the State, (whatever it may be); or the imposing party must clearly understand and sanction our reservation, namely, that we consent to any Ecclesiastical Supremacy being vested in a temporal prince in one particular sense, and in that sense alone. The claim of ecclesiastical pre-eminence on the one hand, and the assent to it on the other, is virtually a compact between the Church and State: and when two parties enter upon any agreement, and put their seals to any bond of covenant, it is usual for them to know beforehand what are the exact obligations they contract by the engagements into which they enter. Otherwise, a man might sign away his property in the dark, or find out that by consenting, (as he supposed,) to be another's servant for a time, he has bound himself to be his slave for ever. We will not, therefore, as has been done too frequently, first of all, frame our own theory of supremacy, and then attempt to reconcile facts with this theory; but we propose, fairly and honestly, to examine the existing statute law of the land, to learn from it its own meaning of the power in matters ecclesiastical, and then to see whether or not the Church has, in any way, signed deeds in the dark, and unwittingly consented to her own bondage and degradation. We have no other desire than to discover the truth. The time has arrived when we must know with clearness and certainty, what the State really does mean by the word "supremacy"-not what we have hitherto thought it might, or ought to, mean. And if from this inquiry painful and unpleasant truths are brought to light, it is better to learn the truth at any cost, than to go on in our present state of uncertainty, indecision, doubt, and ignorance. Besides, matters cannot be so bad that they may not be mended by prompt and vigorous action; but how can the evil be remedied if it be not known in its full extent? supreme Few, it is hoped, would be willing to defend the violence and tyranny with which Henry VIII. proceeded to restrain the papal jurisdiction in England, and to separate his people from the communion of the Western Church. Impelled by the vehemence of his personal quarrel with Pope Clement VII., he entered upon a course of hostility to the see of Rome, from which he soon discovered that there was no retreat. His first serious step in this direction, was the assumption of the title "Supreme head in earth of the Church of England," and his attempt to obtain its recognition from the English clergy. The way this was effected is worth relating. It was pretended that by submitting to the legatine jurisdiction exercised by Cardinal Wolsey, the whole body of the clergy had subjected themselves to the penalties of premunire, by virtue of a statute of Richard II. Obsolete statutes were suddenly brought to light, and the king threatened to put in force the penalties enacted by them. The fear of these penalties affrighted and awed the clergy, who attempted to propitiate their rapacious monarch by voting him, in convocation, a subsidy of £100,000. The timidity of the Convocation immediately disclosed to Henry the weakness of his opponents, and gave him proportionate confidence in his own strength. He therefore refused to accept the sum they had voted him, unless it was accompanied by a formal recognition of his claim to be "supreme head in earth of the Church of England." The clergy for a time demurred to this demand, as well they might, but at last timidly yielded their assent, and in full synod acknowledged Henry as their supreme head, quantum per Christi legem licet. This act of convocation was subsequently accepted by Parliament, which in two separate acts (26 Hen. VIII. cap. i.; 35 Hen. VIII. cap. iii.) recognised this title as rightfully belonging to the Crown. These two statutes were afterwards repealed in the reign of Queen Mary, and were never subsequently re-enacted. It is however the opinion of lawyers, that the style legally belongs to the sovereign, although it may not be expressed. Burn observes with respect to this title, that "these are the words which seem to be understood in the abbreviated style of the king, as it is now usually expressed, [defender of the Faith, and so forth.]"* The title of " supreme head in earth" was no empty sound destitute of practical meaning, in the intentions of the impetuous and tyrannical Henry. If the mere assumption of such a designation pained all good Christians, and brought lasting scandal upon the English Church and people, how much more was Western Christendom astounded and amazed, when they beheld the fearful reality into which this usurpation speedily rose? Henry, in his use of the title, and in the corollaries he deduced from it, appears to have stopped little short of direct blasphemy. As a necessary consequence of being head of the Church in earth, he claimed to be God's Ecc. Law, Art. Supremacy. See also Gibson, Codex, Vol. I. p. 30. |