Page images
PDF
EPUB

written, as well as the tone in which the Bishop of Oxford addressed the House of Lords on a late occasion.* "Nettled and stung by pismires," the two Right Rev. Prelates feel their dignity assailed, and cloak their personal mortification under a seeming zeal for the integrity of the Church.

We have not much inclination, neither do we suppose have our readers, to follow the Bishop of St. David's through the forty pages of his Charge devoted to the Revision question. We rather marvel at the patience of the Welsh clergy, generally thought to be somewhat hot-headed, who could sit it out; still more are we amazed that any of them should have "requested its publication."

One misstatement, however, we think it important to notice. The Athanasian Creed, on the most favourable supposition,† does not date earlier than the fifth or seventh century, whereas it is here reckoned as of co-authority with the Nicene. At the same time the Bishop's defence of this Creed‡ and the

* See Letter xcvi., p. 151.

+ Dr. Cave observes of this Creed that it obtained not in the Churches before the year 1000; nor became to be famous everywhere till the year 1233. Father Montfaucon says it was not taken notice of or received before the year 670 or 673, while Dr. Waterland conjectures that it was in all probability composed between the years 426 and 430, and received in the Gallican Church as early as 670.-Life of Chillingworth, p. 80.

"The creed was certainly not composed by Athanasius (says Dr. Hook), nor can it be attributed to any author. It is unfortunate, indeed, that the name of St. Athanasius has been attached to it. Bishop Thirlwall, in his Charge of 1872, p. 39, says, " According to the earliest date than can with any probability be assigned to its authorship, it was the product of a very evil and unhappy time, a period marked by a rapid decline of spiritual life

in the Church."-Sermon by Rev. W. Milton; Sheffield. 1873.

"The recitation of a Creed so intolerant is contrary to the right spirit of public worship, as being destructive of that calm and reverent frame of mind in which men ought to approach God.”—Dr. Payne Smith; Ritual Report, p. xx. This deponent sayeth true.

A correspondent of the Cambridge Independent Press, Oct., 1862, writes: "The friends of Church reform and Liturgical revision will be surprised to know that they have reason for expecting sympathy in one direction

DR. LONGLEY AND THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

209

power of priestly absolution, will probably not a little surprise some of his college contemporaries who have not forgotten the correspondence which passed between him and the late Dr. Wordsworth of Trinity, on the question of the admission of Dissenters to the University.

Nous avons changé tout cela. Bishop Thirlwall is by no means singular in exhibiting the metamorphosis produced by donning the episcopal purple. There is another college in Cambridge, to say nothing of the sister university, which has afforded of late a memorable instance of the power of the lawn. Humble Incumbents who fought the battle of the Church, to their own damage,† some twenty years ago against the attempted innovations of those in power, stand aghast at reading articles in the Times commending the orthodoxy of a certain occupant of the Episcopal Bench,‡ who was prevented only by the interference of the Visitor from striking a blow at the Church in the University, unparalleled since the days of James the Second.

Well, so be it, since Prime Ministers will have it so. But we are greatly mistaken if the highest order in the Church

of their efforts from the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Several years ago Dr. Longley's sister married a gentleman who was a Dissenter, and of a heterodox sect. A correspondence, which was afterwards published under the title of 'The Brothers' Controversy,' ensued between the brothers-in-law, in the course of which the present Archbishop of Canterbury observes, 'Nothing that I have advanced on the subject of the Athanasian Creed is, as I conceive, in the least degree inconsistent with my joining in the sentiment of Tillotson, and wishing it removed from our Church Service. If I were called upon to give my vote upon the subject, it would be for its omission.' It is true Dr. Longley at that time was only a simple clergyman, but it is possible he may not even now shrink from the avowal" (and I believe he did not). See also letter from Tillotson to Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury, Oct. 23, 1694; in Life of the latter, vol. vi., p. 326.

* See Vol. I., Letter LIII., p. 335.

+ The Incumbent of Ingoldsby, author of these "Letters," to wit.

Dr. Graham, some time Master of Christ's College, Cambridge, Chaplain

to Prince Albert, and subsequently Bishop of Chester, 1848-65.

gains in public opinion by such gross instances of tergiversation. We do not protest against all change of opinion either in politics or theology-quite the reverse-men get wiser as they get older. But we think it deeply to be deplored when such change is concurrent with the worldly interest of the individual, whether in Church or State; and we cannot therefore attach the slightest value to any deúтepai opovтides thus tardily and equivocally arrived at. Meanwhile the great question of Revision is left by Bishop Thirlwall in this Charge much as he found it; not an argument being adduced against the measure which has not been satisfactorily refuted a hundred times.

The short reference made to Archbishop Whately's recent Charge is sufficiently amusing, when we consider how entirely that learned Prelate's arguments in favour of Revision are passed over in silence. The appeal to Convocation would also raise a smile, if the subject were not too painful a one. Hard would be the case of the advocates for Revision if they were driven into that port as their only resource. Convocation t has not the power (and we very much doubt of its will) to do anything of the kind desired. He, therefore, who, like the Bishop, would still dance attendance upon that anomalous body, may well be compared to him who, in his simplicity,

"Waits till the river pass away-but lo!
Ceaseless it flows, and will for ever flow."
I remain, yours, &c.,

Dec. 27, 1860.

"INGOLDSBY."

* Lord Shaftesbury (who bore the title of " Bishop-maker" sub rege Palmerston) said in the House of Lords, that "experience had taught him to trust no one after he became a Bishop." (1878.)

+ Archdeacon Denison observes of this body: "In 1852 the doors of Convocation were opened, and Churchmen might meet and talk once more in the Constitutional Synod; but as for doing, it was never meant that they should do anything for the Church, and never will be.”—Notes of my Life, chap. iv., p. 65.

ANNUAL RETROSPECT FOR THE YEAR 1860.

211

LETTER CVII.

RETROSPECT OF REVISION FOR THE YEAR 1860.

"Should I all recount, the day would fail, Unequal to the melancholy tale."-POPE.

SIR,-Another year, alas! has rolled over our heads since we commenced this Liturgical warfare, but it has been neither an uneventful, nor an unprofitable one, to the cause we have espoused.

We shall again, therefore, take stock at this season, as we did at the close of 1859,* and furnish our readers with a brief analysis of the leading features of the past twelve months, so far as the Revision question is concerned; begging them to notice how we have been steadily, though it may be slowly, going on the while from "strength to strength," inasmuch as 1860 is a decided advance in this respect on 1859, as that year was on 1858, and it again on 1857,-when the present struggle began.

The clerical year opened (as usual of late) with the gathering of Convocation, which, though continuing its session longer than ordinary, nevertheless contributed nothing towards the solution of the Revision difficulty. This was the more to be deplored, inasmuch as the Dean of Norwich, the Hon. and Rev. George Pellew, had a notice on the boards connected with the subject; which was, however, designedly thrust aside from day to day to make way for matters comparatively insignificant.†

* See Letter LXX., p. 1, "Retrospect of Revision for the year 1859." The Dean succeeded at last in bringing forward his motion in the Session of 1861, but (as might have been anticipated from the constitution of Convocation) without success. See remark at the close of last Letter.

About the same time the Church was startled by the resignation of all his preferments by the Rev. C. N. Wodehouse, of Norwich,*-comprising a canonry, a valuable living, and chaplaincy to a Bishop, the alleged ground of his resignation being that he felt he could no longer conscientiously hold his present position consistently with a presumed "assent and consent to all and everything in the Prayer-book.”

Some surprise was expressed that no public notice was taken of this step by the Bishop of the Diocese (Pelham). Either the Canon was right, or he was wrong. If wrong, an authoritative exposition of the error under which he laboured might have done much to allay the uneasiness of others similarly situated.† If right, an admirable opportunity offered, upon Lord Ebury's renewing his motion the following May, for the Bishops as a body to admit that the whole question was deserving of serious consideration, and should receive it at their hands.

The resignation of the Canon was followed (as if in mockery of his "scruples") by the publication of a Manifesto, from a large number of the clergy, to the effect that "any attempt at the present time to alter the Book of Common Prayer, would be attended with great danger to the peace and unity of the Church."+

This document received ultimately 9,925 signatures, but has been popularly called "the Declaration of the Ten Thousand;" on the same principle as "the Millenary Petitioners" under James I. received their title, though it is believed their numbers did not much exceed 600. But granting "the Ten Thousand" the full benefit of the fraction, they will in vain attempt to represent their numbers as

See Letter LXXIII., p. 17; and Letter cvI., p. 205.

+ See the case of the Rev. R. P. Cornish, Letter LXXIII., p. 22.
See Letter LXXXII., p. 67, “Advance of the Ten Thousand.”

« PreviousContinue »