clare with authority what were, and what were not, his views in issuing the inhibition-it records an acknowledgement from Mr. Nolan, that when the Archbishop pronounced him incompetent to discharge clerical duties with propriety, (which was, as Mr. Nolan affirms, two years and seven months since,) his Grace was justified in denying him permission to officiate and it exhibits an opinion as held by his Grace of Dublin and his chaplains, in which we fondly hope no other bishop and chaplains in the united Church of England and Ireland will be found to participate. We do not wish to be censorious in our observations. We do not wish to inflict, even had we the power, unnecessary pain. For one of the parties whose name has become connected with this unhappy transaction, we have long entertained feelings of respect and affection, from which it would be very painful to us to be severed; but, as we impute no blame to the holders of the opinion, as they have courageously and candidly, because unnecessarily, avowed it, we will not think, that any private feeling can be embittered by entering a protest against it, in respectful terms, but in the strongest also which our temperate vocabulary can supply; because of what we believe to be its unsoundness in doctrine, and its most injurious tendency. The opinion to which we feel thus constrained to advert, is that which is "Ministeral power is a mark of separation, because it severeth them that have it from other men, and maketh a special order, consecrated unto the service of the Most High, in things wherewith others may not meddle. Their difference, therefore, from other men is in that they are a distinct order. So Tertullian calleth them. And St. Paul himself, dividing the body of the Church of Christ into two moieties, nameth the one part drar, which is as much as to say the order of the laity, the opposite part whereunto we in like sort term the order of God's clergy, and the spiritual power which he hath given them, the power of their order, so far forth as the same consisteth in the bare execution of holy things, called properly the affairs of God; for of the power of their jurisdiction over men's persons we are to speak in the books following. They which have once received this power may not think to put it off or on like a cloak, as the weather serveth, to take it, reject, and resume it as oft as themselves list; of which profane and impious contempt these latter times have yielded, as of other kinds of iniquity and apostacy-strange examples. But let them know, which put their hand unto this plough, that once consecrated unto God, they are made his peculiar inheritance for ever. Suspensions may stop, and degradations utterly cut off the use or exercise of power before given; but voluntarily it is not in the power of man to separate and pull asunder what God by his authority coupleth. So that although there may be through this desert degradation, as there be cause of just separation after matrimony; yet if (as sometimes it doth) restitution to former dignity, or reconciliation after breach doth happen, neither doth the one nor the other ever iterate the first knot; much less is it necessary, which some have urged, concerning the reordination of such, as others in times more corrupt did consecrate heretofore which error, already quelled by St. Jerome, doth not now require any other refutation."-Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Book 5. come dispossessed. In what sense, then, can permission to officiate and ordination be termed equivalent ? If permission to officiate as a clergyman be equivalent to ordination, ordination is unnecessary. But the Church of England declares that no man who has not been duly ordained, shall presume to officiate. "No man shall be accounted, or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon in the united Church of England and Ireland, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter following, or hath before had Episcopal ordination or consecration."-Book of Common Prayer-preface to the form and manner of making, ordaining, &c. &c. If the Archbishop of Dublin would admit a person not thus qualified to officiate as a clergyman, we do not hesitate to affirm that he would in so doing transgress the laws of his church. If he require ordination as an indispensible pre-requisite to his granting such permission, he cannot, rationally, account "permission" an equivalent for what it cannot represent, for what it presupposes, for that of which it cannot supply the absence or want. It is clear, then, that in the ordinary and general sense of the terms, it would be a very grave error to pronounce "permission to officiate, equivalent to ordination." Is there any such peculiarity in the circumstances or condition of Mr. Nolan, as justify the use of such expressions, if limited to his particular case? It would appear to us that the limitation rather serves to render the incorrectness more manifest. The Archbishop of Dublin regarded that gentleman either as a layman or an ecclesiastic; as an individual seeking admission into priest's orders, or as one who had been already ordained. If he accounted Mr. Nolan a layman, his case is of the kind which has been already considered. We need not return to it. If, on the other hand, his Grace regarded him as a person in orders, he must have known, surely, that he did not a second time require ordination, in order to his engaging in clerical duties. Why should, therefore, the grace to be accorded to him be pronounced equivalent to ordination? Had it been described as supplemental, as conferring a right to exercise powers bestowed by ordination, we could un derstand, and would acknowledge its propriety. But to affirm that an equivalent for ordination was granted to, or was withheld from, one who had already received that of which it was the equivalent, is not to speak rationally; it is, indeed, to pronounce that in the case of Mr. Nolan, the permission sought and refused was wholly supershould serve as an equivalent for orfluous, because its use was that it dination, and he had already been ordained. 66 which which the efficacy ascribed to There is another supposition by permission" might be rendered intelligible, namely, that the present Archbishop of Dublin is invested with a species of dispensing power-according to which he can supersede the constitutious of the Church, can disregard the book of common prayer, and by his simple "sic volo" convey all the power and authority imparted in the rite of ordination. But we are persuaded that no such power will be asserted on his Grace's behalf, and accordingly, we conclude that the proposition on which we have been commenting is in itself untrue, and that no privileges belonging to his Grace the Archbishop of Dublin, and no peculiarities in the case of Mr. Nolan furnish an excuse for it. Perhaps, although not correctly expressed, the proposition has an intelligible meaning. We shall recite the sentence preceding that in which the censurable expression occurs. appeared before the Archbishop, applying "Mr. Nolan having some time ago for some clerical appointment, was found ledge which is requisite for a candidate on examination not to possess that knowfor holy orders." Then follows the objectionable passage decline giving him at that time what "His Grace was of course obliged to would have been equivalent to ordination, permission to officiate as a clergyman.” It is possible that the term "equivalent" may have been designed to convey no more emphatic idea, and have been used in no higher sense than to intimate that permission to officiate would be as effectual a recognition of Mr. Nolan's competency to discharge clerical duties, as that which takes place when, under other circumstances, a candidate is admitted to holy orders. In the ceremonial of ordination there is a solemn attestation given to the learning and godly conversation of those persons who are candidates. There is also a solemn service, holy and earnest prayers, and the appointed imposition of hands through which graces are sought and imparted to those who are commissioned to preach God's word, and to administer sacraments. If it be the habit of his Grace the Archbishop to think or speak with slight regard of the deep spiritualities of ordination, and if his thoughts are accustomed to rest on the public notification of the candidates' worth, as that which is alone, or principally, important, we can understand that the word "equivalent" has been deliberately employed-the ceremonial of ordination, and the forms of permission having, according to his Grace's judgment, one meaning; but if he believe the elevating and subduing service by which the Church sets apart an order of men to minister before the Lord, and supplicates that he will bestow upon them richly his promised graces, to be more than idle words, he cannot have wilfully suggested or permitted the application to it of a disparaging, and indeed a profaning expression, and he will, we are persuaded, take some public opportunity to undo the mischief it is likely to effect wherever his name possesses authority. Having assigned the reason why Mr. Nolan's application to the Archbishop proved unsuccessful, the official statement proceeds to explain the refusal, continued to this day, of the permission which nearly three years since had been vainly solicited. "In an interview with us lately, Mr. Nolan admitted that he was 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 be had acquired knowledge. OF THIS THE ARCHBISHOP HAD NO MEANS OF JUDGING, MR. NOLAN HAVING NEVER PRESENTED HIMSELF A SECOND TIME TO HIS GRACE. When, therefore, Mr. Nolan commenced preaching in the dio cese of Dublin, after having been refused permission as above stated, it became necessary, as a matter of course, to direct an inhibition against him." have no wish, to sit in judgment on any exercise of power which men in authority may think themselves called on to make. We have no wish to spy out blemishes, and are far, indeed, from the desire to abridge episcopal authority, or to bring it into disrepute. For ourselves we distinctly and deliberately affirm that we would not willingly, had we opportunity and power, officiate in the diocese of Dublin, in opposition to the Archbishop's expressed direction and will; and with all our respect for Mr. Nolan's high character and attainments, and without at all presuming to judge whether the motives by which he was influenced ought not to be more constraining than ours, we should be well pleased to find that when that excellent man undertook to officiate in Dublin, he did so not deliberately and with full knowledge of his Grace's objection. We are not, therefore, to be regarded as condemning an exercise of episcopal authority of which we cannot see the advantage. But the same disposition to respect legitimate power which draws from us this declaration, influences us also to protest against any exercise by which legitimacy itself is threatened or shaken. The same jealousy with which, had we power, we would defend the rights or dignity of Archbishop Whately, would arouse us to remonstrate, if, inadvertently, or of set design, we found his Grace" moving his neighbour's land-mark;" and, as we would express unfeigned regret that Mr. Nolan, coming from the diocese of Meath, should take upon him, in opposition to the Archbishop's will, to preach in Dublin, so must we also regret that, in the explanation of his Grace's conduct which has been officially sent forth, an expression is to be found by which the authority and Church in Ireland seems virtually, jurisdiction of every prelate of the though indirectly, abrogated. re "No means of judging!!" Mr. Nolan was a curate in the diocese of Meathhe had obtained that permission* to We have no right, and certainly officiate which the Archbishop of It has been affirmed that Mr. Nolan was not duly licensed by his diocesan. We have not ascertained whether the assertion is correct. It may have been in his case, as we have known it to be in the instance of many curates, that permission to Dublin pronounces equivalent to ordination, and which, accordingly, in his Grace's judgment, at least bears testimony to the "learning and godly conversation" of the individual to whom it is granted-and yet it is said that "the Archbishop had no means of judging" whether Mr. Nolan had acquired knowledge." Surely to as certain that the important "permission" had been obtained, a personal interview with Mr. Nolan was not necessary. But we must be more exact. When the Archbishop declined giving Mr. Nolan permission to officiate as a clergyman, he pointed out to him a course of study, and expressed his readiness to admit him to a re-examination when better prepared." When next his Grace's attention was drawn to the rev. gentleman, it found bim in circumstances which rendered the proffered re-examination unneces sary. Mr. Nolan was curate of Athboy. The fact of his having obtained the requisite permission to officiate had become notorious, and if the Archbishop desired no further satisfaction than an assurance upon this point, he could have obtained it from a still more unsuspicious source than the lips of a party interested, by directing an inquiry to be made at the office of the Ecclesiastical Commission. When, therefore, his Grace is represented as having no means of judging as to the proficiency of Mr. Nolan, because that gentleman had not sought a second audience, it seems evident that a "reexamination" was the sole "means of judging" by which the Archbishop of Dublin desired to be satisfied. This "means of judging," the canons of the Church, in our opinion, most wisely disallow. A bishop may ex amine a minister who seeks at his hands collation to a benefice. It is right that he should be afforded all facilities to judge the fitness of one to whom momentous interests are to be entrusted, for the duties he is about to undertake. It is right that he should have assurance not only of general ability and good conversation, but also of those qualities which promise harmonions and edifying correspondence and intercourse between the minister and his particular congregation. But where there is no permanent relation formed-where the matter to be considered is the qualification required in a stranger who is solicited to perform some occasional act of ministerial duty, it appears that no such authority is given. It is directed, in this case, to ascertain that the stranger is subject to episcopal governance, and that he is duly accredited and authorised by his proper superior. Where the requisite testimonials are found, they are assumed to certify competent knowledge and propriety of life. By this regulation the Church is preserved as a national establishment. If bishops were to disallow the testimonials of their brethren, (and to insist on an examination is to disallow them,) each diocese would become an established church, separate and estranged from every other diocese, and perhaps hostile also. insisting on re-examining Mr. Nolan the Archbishop of Dublin claimed a power which would have proved detrimental to the general well-being of the church, and with which, therefore, the canons did not endow him. The power to inhibit we do not dispute. Upon the exercise of that power we do not sit in judgment; but the reason given for the late exercise has been thrown out before the public, and we By officiate was not given with all the formalities which ecclesiastical discipline in its strictness enjoins. We do not enter at large into this part of the case, because our limited space will not allow of our undertaking it with a hope of giving it a full examination. We confine ourselves to a review of the reasons assigned on behalf of the Archbishop for his act of power. Mr. Nolan was inhibited, not for want of a license from the Bishop of Meath, but because he had not license or authority from his Grace of Dublin, Had the want of letters testimonial from his diocesan been the reason why Mr. Nolan was denied permission to preach, it is, we trust, no more than justice to affirm that the inhibition or the explanation would have stated as much. The reasons assigned, however, are that the authority of the Archbishop of Dublin had not been obtained, and that his Grace did not consider Mr. Nolan competent to the discharge of clerical duties. Such being the case, it would be superfluous labour to investigate the ground of assertions relative to a license from Meath, or to the degree in which such considerations affect the question at issue. That question is not, was Mr. Nolan rightly inhibited from preaching ?-but, are the reasons assigned on the part of his Grace the Archbishop satisfactory? VOL. IX. H have no hesitation in declaring that it is unsatisfactory and incorrect. Mr. L. J. Nolan was refused permission to officiate because of his alleged ignorance. That cause, with due respect for the regulations of the Church, could not be assigned against a settled and officiating minister. If Mr. Nolan were, as he professed, curate of Athboy, to accuse him of ignorance would be a violation of decorum, a wide departure from the respect and deference owing to the bishop who had admitted him into his diocese, and indeed a contumelious disregard of the canons. If he was not what he professed to be, there was a still better ground than ignorance for the inhibition. But Mr. Nolan was, we hope, we may say (unless promotion has removed him) is, curate of Athboy. The Archbishop does not express a doubt of the fact. We therefore complain, not that he issued an inhibition, which we believe it may have been competent for him to do, but that he required what was not competent for him, a minister in the diocese of Meath, to submit to his examination; or, what was still more objectionable, that he imputed ignorance to that minister, because he had considered him ignorant before he had qualified himself to undertake the duties of a cure, and because in despite of the testimony borne by his clerical appointment, he was resolved to think him so still. It is not matter of surprise that an inhibition issued under such circumstances, and justified by such explanations, shall have brought gladness to the enemies of the Protestant Church and religion, or that it should cause to us much anxiety and sorrow. The whole transaction seems to indicate a separation of the diocese of Dublin from the national establishment, disclosing a very remarkable peculiarity of religious opinion, and assuming a very extraordinary privilege in matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. There may be found some who will say that in commenting on such manifestations of sentiment and belief, we have applied ourselves to topics incidental and collateral, to the exclusion of what was more obviously the matter most to be regarded. Our reply is, that we have addressed our observations to that which we accounted of the highest moment-to principles which must ever be matter of grave alarm, rather than to an incident which, considered apart from the maxims by which it is justified, might have been, for a time a subject of poignant regret, and then a warning against subsequent inadvertencies. We looked upon the documents issued in the Archbishop's justification, as containing expressions by which the holy rite of ordination was profaned, and advancing claims by which episcopal authority is disallowed; and wherever we find such expressions, whether they are set forth as constituting professedly the substance of the document in which they occur, or seem parenthetically insinuated, like the celebrated "proponentibus legatis" of Pius IV. we shall continue to pronounce them the scandals which most imperatively demand correction, holding that the severity under which the purest individual may suffer or sink, is not worthy to be compared with the injury done by a proposition, appearing as part of an official statement, which a knowledge of its author alone would prevent us from pronouncing a defamatory libel on the spiritual offices of our Church, and an avowal of contempt for her constituted authorities. ESSAYS ON THE ENGLISH POETS.-NO. II. HENRY MORE. THE poems of Henry More, the Platonist, are but seldom opened in our day; the neglect into which they have fallen, though easily enough accounted for, is we think undeserved. We know but of two accounts of the volume, one in the Omniana, and a second in the fifth volume of the Retrospective Review, neither of them exhibiting the peculiar character of the poems; and both critics, it would seem, wholly uninterested by the philosophy of the writer on whom they were commenting. We therefore think we are doing some service in bringing before the public some extracts from the works of |