OUR readers may recollect that in a former number of this Journal there appeared some comments upon the controversy which arose out of the act of his Grace the Archbishop of Dublin, in issuing the inhibition against the preaching of Mr. Nolan in the Church of St. John's. We believe that this occurrence has not been one destined to create a transitory sensation and leave no permanent effects. The matter at issue in this controversy was not merely the adjustment of a personal dispute, or the decision of the propriety or impropriety of a particular act of authority. If it were so, our feelings would have led us to leave the settlement of the controversy to others, and to have taken no part in its progress, perhaps no interest in its issue. But it is because we believe that this inhibition, and the circumstances immediately connected with it are but the indications of a current that is running deeper than a superficial observer might suppose that we think it well to pause and calmly look back upon the character of the events which excited so much interest, and gave rise, we regret to say, to so much angry discussion.

With these feelings we gladly avail ourselves of the opportunity presented by the appearance of the volume before us, to review the entire transaction of which it is intended to be a record. We think it well that of that transaction some memorial should remain; and while we confess, upon reading over all the correspondence which is here preserved, that there is much upon all sides of evidence of an unbecomingly excited spirit-much that we would wish should be forgotten-we still have no hesitation in saying, that it is of more importance, of infinitely more importance, that the mind should be preserved, than that the incidental causes

of regret which are preserved with it, should be forgotten. And though we desire that less asperity had been manifested, and more forbearance of love exhibited between those members of the Church who held different sentiments upon the point we neither regret that the question has been agitated, nor that there is a memorial of the discussion; and perhaps it is censorious to complain, that when men's feelings are excited, there should be occasionally manifested something of a temper of which calm reflection cannot altogether approve.

The circumstances attending on this inhibition have, been simply these; we desire to state them as generally as possible, and without any reference to irritating topics. Archdeacon Magee, incumbent of St. John's Church, in this city, had invited the Rev. Dr. Nolan, formerly a Roman Catholic clergyman, but now, we believe, a licensed curate in the diocese of Meath, to preach a controversial sermon in the Church of St. John's-an inhibition was issued by his Grace the Archbishop, preventing Mr. Nolan from preaching. This inhi bition was issued on the plea of an authority vested in the diocesan of excluding a clergyman from any other diocese from officiating within the limits of his own,

The assertion of this authority contains really the entire interest of the question; we must, however, fill up our sketch by relating the events which followed. Archdeacon Magee, though he yielded in this instance to the inhibition, did so with a protest against the power assumed by the Archbishop, and resolved to try his right over his own pulpit, by apprising his Grace of his intention to invite strangers to preach in his Church without his Grace's permission. Of the strangers whom he named, Mr. Trail was the ouly one who came

With

forward to support him; several others, while they seemed unwilling to disapprove of the boldness of the step, yet refused to join in it. Mr. Trail, however, responded to the call, and preached without the permission of the Archbishop; the Archbishop has taken no notice of this freedom, and so the matter rests. Mr. Trail has published the two sermons which he preached, and has added to them an appendix, containing all the documents and letters connected with the inhibition. The object of the publication may best be described in the words of the preface.

"In laying the following discourses, with the letters which passed relative to the inhibition of the Rev. L. J. Nolan, and those which arose out of it, before the public, the author is influenced by the same motives which regulated his conduct during the whole of the late important transactions.

press.

"If, as he believes, in occupying Mr. Nolan's place, and accepting Archdeacon Magee's subsequent invitation, he was contending for a principle intimately connected with the well-being of that church, to which, as years mature his judgment, he is becoming daily more attached, it is in order to perpetuate litera scripta manet-what he considers the vindication of that principle, that the present volume is committed to the Another reason, however, there is, which has not been without its influence on his mind. At a period when so many high in authority are bowing the knee before the idols of Rome, and yielding obedience to her inauspicious sway, he was anxious to enter his abiding protest against her errors, and thus to deliver his own soul, as a minister of that church with which she wars unto the death, and which she regards with peculiar malignity and suspicion.

"Annexed, in an appendix, will be found the correspondence-no letter of any importance having been omitted which took place between the different parties whom the controversy called forth. On the merits of that correspondence, the writer of these pages wishes not to decide. It is now laid permanently before the public; and every one will form his own estimate of its nature, its value, and its interests. Separate from it, friends whom he has consulted have stated it as their opinion, that this volume would not only be incomplete and defective, but destitute of one of its most striking features a view in which the author coincides.

:

"He feels, moreover, some solicitude to leave it on record as a book of refe

rence hereafter, and as a landmark to any of his brethren who may be embarked on like troubled waters: though the proba bility of such an occurrence is now, he would hope, materially diminished. It is, in truth, that correspondence, altoge

ther distinct from the discourses that accompany it, which imparts validity, and will give permanence to the late memorable events eliciting, as it did, such a variety of facts bearing more or less upon the question at issue, as could not fail, in their publication, to be productive of the most salutary results.

"The subject, it cannot be doubted, was one of the deepest interest: namely whether a bishop, without assigning other reason than his own supreme volition, thus at no remote period expressed by lips on which "the law of kindness" would more becomingly have dwelt sic volo, sic jubeo, sine ullâ ratione—could lay an interdict on any pulpit in his diocess, and prohibit its legitimate guardian, and rightful owner, so constituted, not less by the solemn and affecting address of institution on the part of the ordinary, than by the legal forms of induction imposed by the legislature-from permitting even his nearest and dearest friend to enter it, however assimilated to himself in manners, morals, and doctrine; or, whether a power was reserved to the incumbent by law, equity, or prescription, of allowing free ingress and egress to all, duly authorized to exercise the ministry within the pale of that church to which he belongs, and of the propriety of whose deportment, and of the soundness of whose religious sentiments, he is cognizant :he holding himself alike responsible for each.

"Such was the principle contended for, and at stake-a principle of vastly greater importance than at first view meets the eye-a principle implicating the character, as it involves the efficiency of the establishment, co-extensive with its usefulness, and bounded only by the sphere of its operations. To ascertain this principle it was, and to define its limits, that St. John's Church was thrown open to the author of the following discourses, and that he was requested by the Archdeacon of Kilmacduagh, incumbent of the parish, to officiate on the occasion; an opportunity being thus afforded by one beneficed clergyman, and avowedly embraced by another, of bringing the matter at once, should the Archbishop of Dublin be so disposed, to fair, honourable, and legitimate issue."

It is not our intention to offer any opinion upon the conduct of any of the persons engaged in this transaction. We say not whether the Archbishop

was right or wrong in the issuing of the inhibition-whether Archdeacon Magee has taken the best mode of defending the rights of the inferior elergy against what he believed to be the aggression of his spiritual superior: we express no opinion upon the propriety or the prudence of those who refused to unite with him in the mode by which he questioned it. We have but a few pages to devote to this subject, and we are anxious for many reasons to place the question in that point of view in which it bears most directly upon the general interests of the Church.

The question at issue we understand to be this-on the one hand it is as serted that the Bishop, and the Bishop alone, is the guardian of all the churches within his diocese; that his guardianship is so complete and entire that no clergyman from another diocese can officiate in any of these churches without his express permission, no matter how high his testimonials from his own Bishop, no matter whether he have the permission, or even earnest request of the incumbent of the parish. Before he officiates in any Church, the permission of the Bishop must be expressly obtained, and the incumbent permitting any stranger to do so without previously obtaining such permission, is guilty of canonical disobedience, and liable to be punished.

Furthermore, the Bishop alone is the judge of the propriety or impropriety of such permission being granted; he is not bound to assign any reason-but simply the refusal of his permission disqualifies the stranger from performing any clerical office within the diocese.

On the other hand, it is contended, that each incumbent is the guardian of his own Church, and the Bishop exercises only a superintendence; that, accordingly, the rector is at liberty to introduce any properly qualified clergy. man into his pulpit, and that the only right which the Bishop has is to see that the stranger so introduced is really authorized to act as a teacher in the Church, and that he has preached nothing contrary to her authenticated standards of doctrine.

These different views of episcopal authority materially influence the entire question of Church polity. The tendency of one view is to reduce our Church to almost exclusively an episcopal staff, upon which the inferior clergy are only the ministers and attendants. The tendency of the other is, to distribute authority among the different members of clergy, and give

each a proper place and position as an independent authority in the church. The mere agitation of such questions involves deeper interests than any belonging to an ephemeral dispute. The mind of Churchmen has now been stirred upon a matter involving the genius and constitution of the Church itself, and he must be blind indeed who can only see in its discussion no more momentous principles than the question, whether a particular Bishop has done wisely or well, or a particular incumbent observed all due propriety in resisting him.

It is for this reason, that in these few remarks we have carefully avoided all expression of opinion on the particular instance in which this question has been stirred. Not that we would feel the slightest unwillingness to give the freest opinion when it would be of use; but now our object is simply to place before the minds of all churchmen the great principle at issue, a principle affecting the entire ecclesiastical polity of the church, and involving in it considerations of the most prominent and permanent importance.

And in the discussion which has been thus excited, another and a still deeper question has been stirrednamely, the share which the laity should have in the direction of church affairs. Let men of all parties rest well assured that this is a question upon which a growing feeling of interest is abroad. After expressing his confidence in the cooperation of the laity, Mr. Trail concludes his preface in these remarkable words :

:

our children the comforts and blessings of civil and religious liberty.

"We will neither part with our Bibles, the free and unrestricted use of them, nor ask leave for ourselves or others to pray to Him, who has promised to be present where two or three are met in his name. The degraded vassals of Rome are beginning to throw off the galling yoke of priestly tyranny; and it is not likely that the Protestants of the nineteenth century will submit to spiritual despotism, under whatever form or garb it may appear.'

"The writer feels that he cannot better conclude these few observations, explanatory of the late occurrences in which he bore so prominent a part, than in the language of one who seems to have been an accurate observer of recent events, and who thus records his sentiments upon the subject: Earnestly do we desire the re-establishment of a church government similar to that of primitive times, which shall have a legal and acknowledged right to declare what is the law, and to altar and amend it, where it shall be found necessary which shall remove from the bishops the ungracious appearance of attempting to make laws, when they have authority merely to execute them; and from the inferior clergy the odium of acting in apparent opposition to legitimate rule, when, in reality, they are only conscientiously maintaining their just liberty against the encroachments of arbitrary power. The bishops are but the justices of peace' of the church-not its legislature. . In every age,' as one of the greatest of living writers has remarked, it has been by gathering themselves into clusters, apart from the people-by sitting in conclave, with the doors barred against the laity and by concerting measures, not in the church, but in chambers and closets that the ministers of religion have converted the Gospel into a system of tyranny and an engine of cruelty. The history of Spiritual Despotism hinges upon this divulsion of the elements of Church power.'"

A spirit is abroad, not only

among the enemies of the Church, but amongst its best and sincerest friends, to examine the true principles of her polity. The inquiry has been forced upon us by the course of events. The assertion of a high and absolute episcopal authority must be used in connection with the fact, that our bishops are the nominees of ministers who hold their places at the will of a majority of the House of Commons; and that, under existing circumstances, those for whom supreme authority is claimed, may be placed in their high position for their hostility to the sound and ac

knowledged principles of the Church. It must now be plain, that if bishops are to be the sole governors of the church, and to be selected by men who need have no respect for religion, it is possible, by the simple process of filling up the vacant sees, in a little time to unchristianize the church.

So long as parliament was an assembly of churchmen, and church principles were acknowledged as the rule of civil government, so long the appointment of bishops by the minister was in effect but a control exercised in church affairs by its lay members. The case, however, is changed, and it is more than possible that Mr. O'Connell may influence the appointment of the next Irish bishop.

Under such circumstances the entire question of our church polity must be agitated. A spirit is abroad among the laity, that demands the discussion of its principles, and it is impossible for any lover of the church to remain indifferent.

We have had but little space for these remarks. We intended in them merely to call attention to the deep interests that are now agitated in occasional, and what might almost appear trivial occurrences; and in so doing, to prepare the way for a series of papers, in which it is intended that the entire question of our church polity should be discussed in the pages of this journal.

In the mean time, we could not permit the appearance of this little volume to pass, without a notice. We have offered no criticisms on the merits of the two sermons it contains-which are, however, in many passages, very eloquent-we have regarded its publi

cation as the author wishes it to be considered, not in the light of a literary performance, but simply as recording the vindication of a principle-we have endeavoured to point out the depth and the extent of the questions at issue

the best and calmest consideration of and we entreat for these questions every lover of the church.

While we wish to avoid a discussion of, the merits of the immediate question-which it would be difficult to enter on without touching on some irritating topic-it is but justice to add, that the inferior clergy of Ireland are under great obligations to those who so boldly and uncompromisingly as serted what they believed to be their rights, and who exposed themselves to some misconstruction, and no little obloquy, for the sake of declaring the principle of their privileges.