Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

admit of a doubt, that the individual, against whom the inhibition of Archbishop Magee was issued, was the decided enemy of revealed religion, and, consequently, of the Protestant Church. The illustrious Prelate, therefore, who displaced him rendered the Church a service. The opinions of dispassionate men appear made up that Mr. Nolan is one whose exertions, Roman Catholics think, would be beneficial to Protestantism-the act of silencing him therefore was, in their judgment, the depriving the reformed religion of an efficient minister. To complain that Mr. Taylor was silenced and to panegyrise the offering an indignity to Mr. Nolan, are, therefore, acts ascribable to the same consistent policy.

Let it be, here, clearly understood, that we confine our observations within the letter of their meaning. We insinuate nothing-we suggest nothing. We affirm, and we contend, on sufficient grounds, that Archbishop Whately is eulogised and encouraged by the partizans of Popery, because they think he has done injury to the Protestant Church; but we do not say, nor have we formed a judgment on the subject, that it was with a design to injure Protestantism, or to purchase the praise of any party, Dr. Whately performed the act in which the enemies of his church are exulting. We shall consider impartially what the Most Rev. Prelate, in the administration of his high office, has thought it becoming of him to do; we shall consider such reasons as have been officially given to justify his extreme exercise of authority; we feel it within our province to advert also to the consequences likely to wait upon it; but into the motives from which it proceeded, we feel our inability to penetrate, nor do we think ourselves at libertyeven to speculate concerning them. Premising, therefore, that wherever we are constrained to complain of the conduct of the Archbishop of Dublin, we shall do so openly; that when we do not directly complain, we hold it unworthy of us to insinuate, we proceed fearlessly with our review. The eulogies of the liberal press we have regarded as lights which served to shew the tendency of the Most Rev. Prelate's act, not the motives from which it proceeded. A very brief consideration of the difficulties besetting the Church of Rome will show that they gave correct intelligence.

It is well known, that doubts which threaten the demolition of their system,

have been widely disseminated, and have been deposited in the minds of many of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. We do not believe that the "healing measure" of 1829, which has made the country sore, had the power to blast the good fruits for which we were taught to look immediately before that year, although it certainly had the effect of checking their growth, and of defacing those manifestations of promise which encouraged even the superficial and the distrustful to expect them. The Roman Catholic clergy had been engaged in controversial discussions. In the endeavour to defend their church, they had been frequently constrained to abandon and deny her principles; their assaults upon the Church of England had provoked replies which taught them for the first time that antiquity bore testimony in favour of that pure faith which was approved by Scripture and right reason; and although boldness of assertion and denial often secured to them a temporary triumph or a happy escape, it could not protect them against a recurrence of thoughts which disturbed the trust with which they relied on their church, and increased their reverence for the great rule of faith and morals with which they had become habituated to compare it. The consequence was beginning to be apparent in the conduct of priests and people, when the political measures of 1829, interrupted the progress of religious discussion by giving a new direction to the public mind, and by causing the interest of argument and reasoning to fade in the more commanding splendor of what the great mass of the Roman Catholic people were taught to acknowledge as their miraculous deliverance.

An interruption of what had become a popular pursuit, thus produced, could not be permanently effectual. The excitement to which sober enquiry had been distasteful, subsided, and the interrupted studies would have been resumed, had not new topics of agitation been discovered and adopted. Instead of meeting the advocates of Protestantism, to discuss points of faith, the priests entered into associations to discuss and advance political interests, instead of defending the doctrines of their own church, they assailed the temporalities of the Protestant establishment, and instead of appealing to truth, and Scripture, and righteousness for the justice of their cause, they ad

dressed themselves to the passions of a misguided people, to men's discontent, and envy, and uncharitableness, and strove, by such auxiliaries, to maintain themselves in the station of power to which they had been raised, and to overthrow all obstacles which impeded them in their efforts to obtain still higher dominion, or menaced them with insecurity in the positions they already occupied. But reflection comes to all men. Such a policy was desperate. It was impossible that at times it must not have appeared to many who were guided by it, dishonest as well as uncertain. Many a priest must have thought the cause bad which was driven to the adoption of such modes of defence. Many a laic must have felt that the boasted characteris. tic of sanctity had been effaced from the aspect of a church whose ministers were engaged in so unholy practices; and the natural result has followed, in the well-known disposition of many to renounce the errors of Rome, in the actual withdrawal of many laics and ecclesiastics from her communion, and in the doubts which it is ascertained, have been awakened in the minds of multitudes by the exertions of Protestant instructors, and, still more, by the confessions which their own clergy have made, or the methods of counteracting the efforts of their antagonists, to which they have resorted.

Of all the incidents which, at the same time, betray the unsoundness of the Church of Rome, and increase the evil of her condition, the most remarkable and the most dreaded is the frequent withdrawal of priests from her communion. The injury is two-fold the affections of some go after the ecclesiastics who have departed-the reliance of others is shaken in the ecclesiastics who remain. The reformed priest is a witness against the church from which he has separated; and, in proportion to the frequency of such separations, will be the facility with which the minds of men may be drawn into conjectures and presages of new conversions, and the degree in which the stability of their dependance will be weakened on the priests who have not yet avowed a change. When a congregation has learned that a vehement asserter of the superiority of their church has joined the ranks of those who testify against it, some among them will be led to believe in the possibility that his successor may also change; and, gradually, something like distrust

will spread, whether the confessional or the sacrifice of the altar may not have been invaded by uncertainties and doubts, such as disturb the intention of the officiating priest and mar the sacrament. We do not set this down as in itself a severe injury to the Church of Rome, but we regard it as one of the approaches by which doubt may enter into her citadel. It will furnish an occasion for thought and enquiry and speculation, and will, to many minds, suggest consequences arising out of Romish doctrine, by which their unsoundness will be rendered more apprehensible than by the scriptural testimonies which condemn them.

It requires little sagacity to determine what should, and what must be the policy of the Church of Rome in this emergency. Whatever can disparage the testimony of reformed priests who bear witness against her ; whatever is likely to deter waverers from renouncing her authority, and attaching themselves to those who have gone out from her, she must naturally hold desirable. The inhibition of the Archbishop of Dublin, and the reasons assigned for it serves to both uses.To all who respect the authority or judgment of the Most Rev. Prelate, it damages the authority of Mr. Nolan's teaching-to those who, within the Church of Rome in profession, and estranged from it in belief, meditate upon the course they will pursue, it utters a dissuasive from the making a good confession. They are wise in their generation, therefore, who applaud the conduct of the Archbishop of Dublin, and pour their invectives on the reformed priest, Mr. Nolan.

There might have been one unavoidable drawback on the satisfaction with which the radical press lent itself to the defence of a Protestant Archbishop. It might have done so under circumstances which involved a defence of the church in which he was a ruler. To vindicate episcopal authority from calumnious aspersions, to assert the duty of submission to canonical government, might have become a necessary part of the duty undertaken by the men who discontinued their assaults on Mr. Nolan, only while they panegyrised the judge who had exposed him to their fury. This would have been a distressing necessity. It would not perhaps have released the sufferer from his tormentors, but it would, to some little extent have abated the gratification with which they dealt their blows, and

hurled their foul missiles at him. The manner in which the Archbishop thought proper to proceed-the ground on which he justifies his proceeding---has enabled the adversaries of the Church to enjoy their freedom without alloy, There is no necessary connection between the vindication of Dr. Whately, and a defence of the episcopal order. There is no difficulty in pronouncing a eulogy on his Archiepiscopal judgment, without ascribing authority to the canons by which his decisions should be governed. In short, a Roman Catholic may praise the late inhibition with its accompanying commentary, because it not only restrained a preacher whom he dreaded, but cast disparagement also on the heads of the Protestant Church; because, in his judgment, the Prelate who proclaimed the ignorance, and censured the presumption, and punished the disobedience of the convert from Popery, betrayed in his own acts, unacquaintance with the canons according to which it behoved him to rule, disregard for the judgment of those whose authority he was bound to respect, and a fixed determination to take his own will and wisdom, as more trust-worthy guides, that the spirit of those laws by which church government is edifyingly conducted. The Roman Catholic may be lavish of encomium, because, as it seems to him, the blow aimed at the reputation of the convert was so awkwardly levelled, that Protestant discipline must take hurt from it. We shall see whether such an anticipation is groundless.

Although the terms of the inhibition against Mr. Nolan may be familiar to our reader's memory, we think it not unsuitable, for many reasons to give it a place in our pages :—

"INHIBITION.

"Richard, by Divine Providence, Archbishop of Dublin, Primate and Metropolitan of Ireland, and Bishop of Glandelagh, to all and singular clerks and literate persons within our dioceses of Dublin and Glandelagh, greeting.Whereas the Rev. L. J. Nolan hath taken upon himself to officiate in performing divine offices in the parish churches of Lucan and Saint John, within our said diocess and jurisdiction, without our license or authority, contrary to the laws and canons of the Church of Ireland, in that case made and provided: We, therefore by these presents, strictly charge and command you, that you inhibit peremptorily the said L. J. Nolan, whom we

also, by the tenor of these presents, inhibit that he presume not to preach, or perform any other clerical office within our said dioceses and jurisdiction, without our special license and authority first had and obtained, under pain of the law and coutempt thereof; and that you certify to us, or our Vicar-General, or some other judge competent in this behalf, what you shall do in the premises, together with these presents. Dated under our Archiepiscopal Seal, the eighteenth day of Lord November, in the year of our one thousand eight hundred and thirtysix.

[blocks in formation]

Before we offer any observations on the substantial matter of this document, we think it right to enter our protest against what we conceive to be a very objectionable form of expression. Mr. Nolan's alleged offence is declared to be "contrary to the laws and canons of the Church of Ireland." We would ask respectfully, what is the "Church of Ireland ?" Is it a Church, in its constitution, character, doctrine, or discipline, different from the established church of these realms ? As we read the 5th article of Union, it runs thus

[blocks in formation]

Such is the article of Union. We ask-are the laws and canons which Mr. Nolan has transgressed, different from those of this United Church ?tion was it right that he should be If they are, we propose another ques judged by them? Are they the same? Are the times such as justify an abandonment of the appellation to which the Church in Ireland has become entitled ? Is it right to familiarize the public mind to the idea of a separation between churches which have been, so far as laws have power, indissolubly united? We know that something may be said respecting adherence to form. We have no opportunity of comparing the form of inhibition issued against Mr. Taylor with that of which we now complain. We can, however, imagine, that an inadvertence

may have been committed in 1822, which, in 1836, it is much more difficult to excuse; and we earnestly hope that the heads of the church, if their interposition be necessary, will rectify an error which should not at any time have been permitted, but which the temper of the present day renders peculiarly obnoxious to censure. In times when a minister of the crown can rear up his scheme of municipal reform on an assumption that in every thing by which legislation should be affected, there is sameness in the coudition and circumstances of Great Britain and Ireland, while his accompanying measure of Church Reform is based on the recognition of a difference and discrepancy amounting to not less than irreconcileable opposition, it would be well to have provided that no Tigellius of law-makers-no present or future Lord John Russell-should avail himself of the precedent set by an Archbishop of Dublin as his excuse for forgetting that the Protestant Church in Ireland had not become disentitled to the protective guarantee assured to it in the articles of the legislative union. But to come to the more substantial matter of the inhibition. It alleges that the Rev. L. J. Nolan has taken upon him to officiate in the diocese of Dublin, without authority or license from the Archbishop, "contrary to the laws and canons of the church." This is to be regarded either as a general proposition, affirming that a stranger officiating in the diocese of Dublin, without license from the Archbishop, transgresses, and infringes the canons, or it contemplates some peculiarity in his particular instance, by which Mr. Nolan was rendered culpable. In either case we think his Grace took an erroneous view of the subject. In the explanation which has been given, (we believe officially) of his procedure, we have certainly seen nothing to satisfy us that he did not act under a misconception.

That a stranger officiating in Dublin is not accounted a transgressor of ecclesiatical rule, although he has not sought or obtained a license or authority from the Archbishop, the frequency of such ministrations renders abundantly manifest. Nor is usage at variance with the canons of the Church, which direct, not that a stranger shall obtain authority from the bishop of the diocese in which he performs an occasional office, but that he be licensed by the diocesan to whom his canonical obedience

[blocks in formation]

And the "aforesaid" authority is declared, in the preceding canon, to be,

diocese, or ordinary of the place, as afore"The testimony of the bishop of the said, whence they came, in writing, of their honesty, ability, and conformity to the ecclesiastical laws of the Church of Ireland."

All this is rational and intelligible. The ministers and officers of each parochial or collegiate church are responsible for the doctrines which shall be preached in their respective pulpits. If they invite strangers to officiate, they are bound to see that they select persons duly qualified; for which purpose it is incumbent upon them to procure, not a license from the bishop of the diocese in which their offices are held, but to have assurance that the stranger has been duly authorised to officiate in the place from whence he came. In a word, the ministers and officers of the church may admit strangers to officiate under certain specified restrictions. The canons which limit their power, by prohibiting them from introducing improper persons to their pulpits, recognise and secure their right to avail themselves of the services of such ministers as are not canonically disqualified.

It would seem, therefore, that a stranger solicited by the minister of a Dublin church to preach in his pulpit, does not necessarily violate the canons by accepting the invitation. He is justified in assuming that he would not have been requested to officiate if any local regulation excluded him; if it were necessary to obtain a special permission from the diocesan, he is justified in assuming that it should be sought, not by him, but by the minister of the place; and that, indeed, had not such a permission been generally understood, or, in that particular instance obtained, he would not have received the invitation to officiate. As to the

canons, he knows that they do not require of him to obtain an episcopal sanction to his preaching other than that which he has received from the bishop of the diocese in which he holds his cure or preferment. So much for the question as affecting strangers generally. We shall now consider it as it may be effected by peculiarities in the recent case of inhibition.

Mr. Nolan, it appears, about three years since, having withdrawn from the Church of Rome, applied to the Archbishop of Dublin, requesting employ

ment in his Grace's diocese.
The ap-
plication was entertained, and Mr.
Nolan was required to undergo an ex-
amination, for the purpose of ascer
taining his competency to discharge
clerical duties. He did not succeed
in obtaining the Archbishop's appro-
bation, and was accordingly refused
permission to officiate. His Grace,
however, did not bid Mr. Nolan de-
spair; he pointed out to him a course
of study, and declared his willingness
to admit him, when better prepared, to
a re-examination. So far the conduct
of the Archbishop may have been con-
sistent with a due regard to the
interests of religion, and with a bene-
volent consideration for the individual
whom he pronounced deficient in
scriptural knowledge. Of all this we
are officially informed. We are fur-
ther instructed, that Mr. Nolan was
recently refused permission to officiate
in Dublin, on the ground that he had
been found incompetent when he was
formerly examined, and that the
Archbishop of Dublin had not had
an opportunity of ascertaining that
he had so benefitted by his Grace's
counsel as to have become capable of
discharging clerical duties with ad-
vantage. We subjoin the document
in which this explanation is given with
authority-

"To the Editor of Saunders' News-Letter.
"Nov. 26, 1836.

"SIR,-Many statements and remarks having appeared in various newspapers relative to Mr. Nolan, who has been inhibited by the Archbishop of Dublin from officiating in his diocese, we observe that the transaction in question is assumed to have some connexion with the circumstance of Mr. Nolan's having been formerly a Roman Catholic Priest, and that accordingly the whole matter is mixed up, more or less, with Roman Catholic controversy. We think it right, therefore, to undeceive the public as to

tant or

the point by a simple statement of facts, which have come under our knowledge. The transaction alluded to is, in reality, totally unconnected with any thing relating to the church of Rome, in its doctrines, or to its members, considered as such. The Archbishop proceeded exactly in the same manner in which he, and it is to be presumed every other Bishop would, in the cause of an individual brought up either in the ProtesRoman Catholic persuasion. Mr. Nolan having some time ago apfor some clerical appointment, was found peared before the Archbishop, applying on examination not to possess that knowledge which is required for candidates for Holy Orders. His Grace was of course time what would be equivalent to orobliged to decline giving him at that dination, permission to officiate as a clergyman. The Archbishop at the same time pointed out a course of study, and expressed his readiness to admit him to a re-examination when better prepared. In an interview with us lately, Mr. Nolan admitted that he wes ignorant of the Scriptures at the period of that examination, and that the Archbishop had acted rightly in refusing him leave to preach. He added that since that period he had acquired religious knowledge. Of this the Archbishop had no opportunity of judging, Mr. Nolan having never presented himself a second time to his Grace. When, therefore, Mr. Nolan commenced preaching in the diocese of Dublin, after having been refused permission as above stated, it became necessary, as a matter of course, to direct an inhibition against him, without any reference whatever to any topics introduced or designed to be introduced in his discourses, and without reference to any popular commotion, actual or apprehended. The whole transaction was, as we have before said, from first to last, totally unconnected with any question between Roman Catholics and Protestants. We remain, your obedient humble ssrvants,

"CHARLES DICKENSON.
"JAMES WILSON,

Chaplains to the Archbishop of Dublin, This must be regarded as a document of importance. Answering as it does for the motives by which the Archbishop of Dublin was influenced, it is natural to suppose that it was submitted to his Grace's inspection. Indeed it would imply a degree of supine indifference, of which we should be sorry to accuse the Archbishop, were he to permit such a statement to go forth to the public without his consent and approbation. It professes to de

« PoprzedniaDalej »