תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

Articles of Religion approved in the synod of the Bishops and Clergy of this realm, one thousand five hundred sixty and two, and to confirm the same by sufficient testimonies out of Holy Scripture, and exeept moreover he shall exhibit letters testimonial," &c.

case, it may be observed, that there is a difference between the trial or examination of the Deacons, of whom it is only required, that they shall subscribe to the said Articles," and that of the Ministers or Priests, of whom it is further required, that they shall be able to ANSWER and render to the Ordiaary an account of their faith in Latin according to the said Articles." Of the Priest, therefore, is required not merely a subscription to the Articles, but an ability to render an account of his faith in Latin, in testimony of his learning; and according to the said Articles, in proof of his conformity with them: but first there was required of him an ability to answer. To answer implies at least a previous question: but if we remember in whose reign this statute was passed, it is not unnatural or unreasonable to understand the ability to answer, with reference to the logical disputations which were common to the age, in which the candidate would be opposed by subtle sophisms, and be expected to remove those sophisms, and thus to render an account of his faith according to the Articles. If this interpretation be rejected as too refined, and the words of the statute be interpreted in their ordinary sense, it will nevertheless be difficult to prove in defiance of this statute, that any examination, grounded more or less directly upon the Articles, and conducted by question and answer is

illegal.

This canon must not be understood as a tacit repeal of the provisions of Elizabeth's act, which is still in force, and is recognized and explained by 23 George II. cap. xxviii. It differs, however, from Elizabeth's act, in one important particular, by requiring a confirmation of the candidate's profession according to the Articles, by sufficient testimonies out of Holy Scripture. It is obvious, therefore, that the act and the canon must be taken and construed together as one enactment, and that the restrictions upon the Bishop's power of examination are to be determined accordingly. He is not at liberty, except in certain excepted cases, to ordain whomsoever he shall think proper, but the candidate must at least be able to give an account of his faith in Latin according to the Articles, and to confirm the same by sufficient testimonies out of Holy Scriptures. Not a syllable is here said respecting the maximum of theological knowledge which a Bishop may require--the minimum only is fixed; and it is fixed in terms which imply that more is desirable and may be required.

From the act of 1571 we proceed to the canons of 1604, which having the authority of Convocation, although not of Parliament, are held to be binding upon the Clergy where they are not invalidated by any subsequent enactment. By canon Ixxiv. the Bishop is forbidden to ordain any person, except he

"Hath taken some degree of school in

either

f the said Universities, or at the least except he be able to yield an account of his faith in Latin, according to the

This view of the subject is con

firmed by the preface to the Offices

of Ordination, which are recognized

by the Act of Uniformity, and of which, by the provisions of that act, the thirty-sixth Article is now to be understood. The Bishop is there stated to be at liberty to or dain the candidate, "after examina

tion and trial, finding him learned in the Latin tongue, and sufficiently instructed in the Holy Scripture." Is the examination here prescribed restricted" to the Thirty nine Articles as now constructed?" And may there not in this "examination," as

well as in the Bishop's eighty-seven questions, be a dissimilarity" from those which are put to candidates for holy orders, in our truly pious and devout Ordination Offices?" Wilson, p. 23.

The 35th canon prescribes an excellent mode of examination.

"The Bishop before he admit any person to holy orders shall diligently examine him in the presence of those ministers, that shall assist him at the imposition of hands: and if the said Bishop have any lawful impediment, he shall cause the said ministers carefully to examine every such person so to be ordered. Provided," &c. Thus the Bishop, or his deputy, is constituted sole judge of the candidate's qualifications. It may be thought inconsistent with the spirit and design of this canon, that when the Bishop of Peterborough issues his Questions, he desires all candidates for orders in his diocese "to take special notice, that if any question remains unanswered, or receives an unsatisfactory answer, it may tend to their exclusion from the sacred office." The Bishop's meaning may, however, be, that the neglect to answer, or the delivery of an unsatisfactory answer, will appear to him a failure in those indispensable requisites upon which the act of Elizabeth and the canon require him to insist. He may contend, and with great reason, that the very object of his questions is to make candidates give an account of their faith according to the Articles, and confirm the same by sufficient testimonies out of the Holy Scripture. He may contend that what is called the Calvinistic interpretation cannot be confirmed by sufficient testimonies out of Scripture; and therefore is not the interpretation which he is bound to require. He may say that the only sense in which the faith can be confirmed is his sense, (and in this opinion, he must be joined by all who do not hold with Calvin ;) and that therefore those persons by whom his sense is rejected are in error respecting the faith and the Scrip

tures. Mr. Wilson's assertion that Bishops are to examine merely as to competency is the sole answer which this reasoning can receive, and as the assertion rests upon the bare authority of the asserter, it does not require refutation. Yet any one but a controversialist might be expected to perceive that a candidate is not competent unless he understands the Scripture correctly; unless he brings the proper texts to support the various articles of our faith; and who is to be the judge who is commanded to examine, and of this propriety but the Bishop what are the Bishop of Peterborough's Questions but such an examination? If Mr. Wilson's reasoning proves any thing it proves this; that the office of a Bishop is merely ministerial, and that he may be compelled by law to ordain or to license any person who can translate the Thirty-nine Articles into Latin, and who will subscribe to them as containing his belief. But as he may not be quite satisfied with this reductio ad absurdum, we proceed to other topics upon which he is equally conclusive.

Is it in sober seriousness, that Mr. Wilson (p. 68) admonishes tlie University of Cambridge to remove the Bishop of Peterborough from his chair, on the authority of the Royal Declaration, and for the alleged offence of having violated that Declaration? Is it possible that Mr. Wilson is ignorant, that the Declaration has no power to authorize such a proceeding, or to direct that any man shall be dispossessed of his freehold? Mr. Wilson and the author of Episcopal Innovation should make some further progress in the study of the law, before they again venture upon the discussion of a legal question: they would then be more cautious in applying the terms arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, and would refrain from renewing the clamour against the Consolidation Bill, that it conveys to the Bishops

new and extraordinary powers. The Bill was largely defended from this imputation in the twelfth Number of the Christian Remembrancer, and it is only necessary to repeat, that that power, the power of snmmary removal of curates, was not newly introduced into the Consolidation Act, but was copied almost verbatim et literatim, from 53 George III. cap. 149. (Lord Harrowby's Bill), 36 George III. c. 83. (Sir William Scott's Bill), and 12 Anne c. 12., and is also recognized in an old constitution of Edmund Archbishop of Canterbury, quoted by Burn with an explanatory comment from

Johnson.

It is recorded by the author of Episcopal Innovation :

[ocr errors]

“ One young man has been refused holy orders, and two Clergymen have been dismissed from their situations, because when they wished to obtain his Lordship's sanction and license to officiate in his diocese, they either declined to adopt these Questions, as the medium of admission or did not satisfy the Bishop in their views respecting them. The Articles, the Liturgy, and the Orders and Regulations of the Established Church,' made no division between his Lordship and these three gentlemen, but these QUESTIONS,' these questions' only were distinctly placed as the key to let into and to lock out candidates and clergymen from his Lordship's diocese. The Bishop's Charge and his Declarations when applied to during his primary visitation hold precisely the same tone! Thus have the Rev. the Rector of Winwich, the Rev. the Rector of Blatherwicke, and the Rev, the Rector of Burton Latimer, Northamptonshire, all been deprived of the services of young men of unimpeached, and, we believe, unimpeachable characters, within the very short space of time during which his Lordship bas possessed the Bishopric of Peterborough, and wholly through the arbitrary and illegal imposition of these new articles of faith.

"We have reason to believe, and we earnestly hope that some of these parties will make legal inquiry into this tremendously alarming evil. The genuine sons of the Church are literally turned out of their own doors by the arbitrary and iron rod of usurpation and despotism, His Lordship greatly commends the Curates Act,

[ocr errors]

which allows every Bishop to dismiss a curate for any cause, which shall appear good to himself." Advertisement, p. iii. "The Bishop holds out a threat,

i

that if any question remains unanswered, or receives an unsatisfactory answer, it may tend to their exclusion from the sacred office.' This is little less than saying, If you do not receive the system of doctrines, which I have here placed before you, I will not ordain you.........

such a proceeding, does not need much "The illegality, as well as danger, of proof. That his lordship would subject himself to the censure and cognizance of the courts of law, were he to refuse candidates ordination, simply because they deelined subscribing to his lordship's view of the new covenant,' as exhibited in these Questions, there can be little doubt." Introduction, p. xii.

[ocr errors]

It will abridge the labours of a the facts are as they are represented tedious controversy to admit, that by this writer, although the case is peculiarly liable to misrepresentation, although the credulity of a polemic is almost proverbial, and the evidence upon which he relies is seldom subject to a cross examination. If this writer's offensive and contentious hope and belief should be realized, if the Bishop's Questions should upon these or any similar cases which may occur be exposed to " legal enquiry," and the " cognizance of the courts of law," we have no doubt that the subject will be amply discussed, and that we shall obtain far better information upon its legal merits, than we at present possess. But perhaps it may prevent the disgraceful and unbecoming transaction of a curate or a candidate for orders, appealing to the temporal courts against the judgment of a Bishop, to recite the remarks of Burn on the discretionary power of the Bishops in the rejection of candidates.

[blocks in formation]

shall think proper, consistent with law and right. And by the Statute, Rubric, and Canon aforegoing, he is not required, but permitted, only to admit persons so and so qualified: aud prohibited to admit any without, but not enjoined to permit any persons, although they have such and such qualifications." Burn, vol. iii. p. 34. Art. Ordination.

The right of the Bishop to put these, or any other questions, to candidates for orders, is unquestionable. No man can prove, that he has a natural, or even a civil right, to be admitted; or that he sustains any injury which the courts can redress, in not being admitted to orders; and it is an essential part of the Episcopal office to judge and determine, who is fit or unfit to be admitted, and what shall be the qualifications for admission. If the Bishop proposes a question, and the answer, in the Bishop's judgment, is unsatisfactory in such sense, as to betray either a deficiency of learning, an obliquity of understanding, or an erroneous faith, the Bishop is justified in rejecting the candidate, and is accountable to no tribunal upon earth.

It is not quite so clear a question, whether the Bishops of our Church are invested with similar right, any either founded in law, or derived from the ordinary and immemorial usage of the Church, which has the authority of law, in virtue of which they may propose questions to curates applying for a licence, and refuse the licence desired, because the questions proposed are not answered, or not satisfactorily answered. The Act of Elizabeth does not appear to apply to this case: the 48th canon prescribes, that,

"No curate or minister shall be permitted to serve in any place without examination and admission of the Bishop of the Diocese, or ordinary of the place, having episcopal jurisdiction, in writing, under his hand and seal, having respect to the greatness of the cure, and the meetness of the party. And the said curates and ministers, if they remove from one diocese to another, shall not be by any means ad

mitted to serve, without testimony of the Bishop of the Diocese, or ordinary of the place, as aforesaid, whence they come in writing, of their honesty, ability, and conformity to the ecclesiastical laws of the Church of England."

The first clause of this canon is universal, "No curate or minister," arise must refer to the meaning of &c.; and the only doubt that can the word examine. The same word occurs in the 39th canon; and thence we may readily ascertain its import.

"No Bishop shall institute any to a benefice, who hath been ordained by any him his letters of orders, and bring bìm a other Bishop, except he first shew unto sufficient testimony of his former good life and behaviour, if the Bishop shall require it; and, lastly, shall appear, upon due examination, to be worthy of his ministry."

Here the ordination of the applicant, and his good life and behavi. our, are mentioned separately and extends to something more, viz. to previously; examination, therefore, learning, and to doctrine. The comment of Burn is:

"As to the matter of learning, it hath been particularly allowed not only by the courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas, but also by the high court of Parliament, temporal court, for the measures he takes, that the ordinary is not accountable to any or the rules by which he proceeds in examining and judging, only he must examine in convenient time, and refuse in conve nient time; and that the clerks having been ordained, and so presumed to be of good abilities, doth not take away or diminish the right, which the statute above recited, doth give to the Bishop, to whom the presentation is made to examine and judge. Gibs, 807, Show. 88. 4 Mod. 134. 3 Lev. 311." Burn, vol, i. Article, Be

nefice.

It is clear, therefore, that the Bishop has a right of examining a clerk, presented to a benefice; and although the right is ordinarily waived, it is not therefore abolished. In the Welsh Dioceses, it is frequently enforced in the rejection of clergymen imperfectly acquainted with the Welsh language, and there

fore incapable of exercising their ministry in the Welsh districts. Whether it is expedient to revive this custom of examination in the English Dioceses, and in what manter, and to what extent, the right shall be exercised is a different question. But if candidates for orders cannot be ordained without examination; if clerks presented to a benetice are liable to examination; and if curates shall not be permitted to serve without examination and admission, is it just to stigmatize the Bishop of Peterborough's claim to examine, as arbitrary, unconstitutional, and illegal? The abstract right, however superseded in modern practice, is sanctioned by the laws which govern the Church; and it is unjustly and untruly denied by the writer, who, without reference to law or canon, has assumed the illegality of the questions proposed.

"The rule is made to extend to individuals already in the ministry, but removing into the Diocese of Peterborough, It is here proper to observe, that in no former instance, either in that or any other diocese, has it hitherto been deemed necessary in such instances to require an examination, or to demand any further proof of qualification, than a testimonial signed by three accredited clergymen, and countersigned by the Bishop of the Diocese, where the individual in question has resided, declaratory of his conduct and principles. The obvious reason for dispensing with further examination, has been the consciousness of its having previously occarred on the two several occasions of his having taken deacon's and priest's orders; and a just presumption, that the fidelity with which it is attested that he fulfilled past engagements, forms a sufficient pledge for their future performance. But according to the recently-introduced system, an individual may have exercised his ministry for several years in other dioceses; he may have fulfilled his duties in the most exemplary manner, and been selected in consequence of high testimony being borne to his character and princis ples, to fill a similar situation in the diocese of Peterborough; and yet, with all these recommendations in his behalf, and a compliance with the usual prescribed forms, on his evincing a reluctance to accede to REMEMBRANCER, No. 25.

the propositions so often alluded to, he may be rejected.

But this is not all his lordship has examination to persons applying for instiannounced his intention of extending the tution to a benefice; and unless the basis of examination adopted in other instances be adopted in this, the individual may incur the loss of a benefice." P. 23.

The Bishop has not announced this intention in his Primary Charge, from which we extract his own statement of the reason, upon which he proposes the questions to clergymen applying for a licence to at

curacy.

"The examination as well for a curate's licence as for holy orders, I generally make by proposing certain questions relating to the principal doctrines of our Church, that I may learn from the answers to those questions, whether I can conscientiously declare, (what every Bishop declares in a curate's licence) that I 'fully confide' in to discredit the letters testimonial, which his sound doctrine.' I mean not thereby

it is usual to bring on such occasions, When three clergymen in my own diocese declare, that the person of whom they testify, hath lived piously, soberly, and honestly, and diligently applied himself to his studies,' they bear witness to facts, which I am ready to believe on their assertion. And if they belong to another diocese, the counter-signature of the Bishop' of that diocese, expressing, that they are worthy of credit, affords the same satisfaction, which a Bishop derives from a personal knowledge of his own clergy. But when these clergymen, whether of my own or of another diocese, proceed in their testimonial from the subject of morals, to the subject of doctrine, they certify what is matter of opinion, not what is matter of fact. And a clergyman may be of opinion, that the doctrine maintained by the person of whom he testifies, is the doctrine of the Established Church, which a Bishop, on examination of that person, may find reason to entertain a very different opinion. In these times especially, when that which some persons call the doctrine of the Established Church, is very different from that which is so called by others, the examination required by the canons is so much the more necessary, in addition to the usual testimonial. Nor does the counter signa ture of the Bishop, if a person comes from another diocese, remove this necessity on the part of the Bishop who is to grant the licence. When a Bishop 'countersigns a Ꮐ

« הקודםהמשך »