Page images
PDF
EPUB

the vacant see.

He yielded, however, at length, to the entreaties or intrigues of the minister,-who is said to have procured the intercession of George I. of England in his favour-and named him to the Archbishopric.

Of all the disqualifications of Dubois for the Episcopate, that which legally was the most formidable was the fact of his being married.

"He had no trouble, however," says the historian," in finding a magistrate, (un magistrat,) to take on himself the duty of clearing him from all legal inquiry, in the person of Breteuil, mayor of Limoges. Dubois, when a young man, had attempted to seduce a peasant girl, whose scruples he had at length been obliged to overcome by a clandestine marriage. On his elevation he had prevailed on his wife to take another name, and on receiving a pension, to remove to a distance and live apart from him."

Breteuil, having plied with wine the curate of the village where the marriage was celebrated, procured the register, and tore out the evidence of the marriage. Thus this obstacle was disposed of.

"But Dubois was not in holy orders; he wished to receive all the orders of the Church, up to and inclusive of the priesthood, in one day; but the Cardinal de Noailles refused it as a profanation. Other Bishops came to offer their services. The Bishop of Nantes was preferred, and Dubois received from him, in one hour, all the orders below and inclusive of the priesthood. "The Cardinal de Rohan then joyously took upon himself the task of consecration. He was assisted by the Bishop of Nantes, and by MASSILLON (!) Bishop of Clermont. This last could plead in excuse (!) says M. Lacretelle, his obligations to the Regent (!!), and the seclusion in which he lived, and which made him ignorant of the scandals too well known to the Court Bishops. The ceremony accordingly took place June 9, 1720, at Val-deGrace, with great magnificence."

This was in the age of Bossuet, Fénélon, Armand, Nicolle, and Massillon; and this last even assisted at the ceremony!

'We read of no opposition on the part of the as a body; no remonstrance from her Prelates. was the only man in all France who dared to great a scandal, or rather in so great a crime.

French Church or Clergy The Cardinal de Noailles refuse participation in so

'Yet in France there is no act of præmunire. 'Which of the two cases shows the more intolerable power vested in the State?

'Which the more abject supineness on the part of the Clergy?

'Lord John Russell's conduct has been indecent enough, but the Church bas PROTESTED against it unmistakeably.

'That of the Regent Orleans was simply atrocious, yet it was acquiesced in by the Church of France without a murmur.'

Of this case there can be but one opinion; and it is plain that such things caused, though they did not excuse, much which happened in the Revolution. Our case is widely different, yet, in its degree, very serious. When the body of the Church has resisted, as it has, and when the Primate and three Suffragans have proceeded to consecrate, with the charges unheard and untried, it is certain that one side or the other must be very seriously in the wrong; which that side is, it is not ours to determine. On earth it will be decided by foreign Churches, and posterity; its ultimate decision must rest with Him who is our Judge.

1 Lacretelle's Hist. de France, pendt. le 18me Siècle, vol. i. p. 342, whence the above is taken.

[blocks in formation]

500

NOTICES.

'SERMONS and Essays on the Apostolical Age,' by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of University College, Oxford, (J. H. Parker.) We have not space here for entering at large on Mr. Stanley's volume, and must confine ourselves to one Sermon, which seems as much as any other to require notice; viz. the 'Sermon on the Epistle of S. James.' Mr. Stanley, with his usual candour and modesty, indeed, disclaims the origination of the view of the Epistle contained in this sermon, expressing himself as " indebted to Chevalier Bunsen' for a good deal of it, and refering often to German authors, at the bottom of the page, as his authorities. So that it appears to be the view held by a particular school of German divines; still, as Mr. Stanley has put it forward, it is our disagreeable task to connect it with his name.

Mr. Stanley's view, then, of the Epistle of S. James, makes that Epistle a half Jewish, half Christian, document. He says, 'Not only is the Gen'tile Christian completely out of sight, but the distinction between Jew and · Christian is itself not yet brought to view.' ‹ This Epistle exactly coincides with the character of him (S. James) in whom the Jew and the 'Christian throughout his whole life were indistinguishably blended toge'ther.' For this somewhat strange view of an Apostolic Epistle, the reason advanced is, perhaps, hardly less strange. 'Christianity appears in it,' he continues, 'not as a new dispensation, but as a development and perfection ' of the old: the Christian's highest honour is not that he is a member of 'the universal Church, but that he is a genuine type of the ancient Israelite; 'it instills no new principles of spiritual life, such as those which were to ' turn the world upside down in the teaching of Paul and John, but only ' that pure and perfect morality, which was the true fulfilment of the law.' Now, if an Epistle is to be regarded as Jewish, because it exhibits a Christianity which is the development and perfection of Judaism, we do not know what is to save the New Testament, as a whole, from that charge; for, certainly, the New Testament throughout puts the new dispensation before us as the development of the older one. If the religion in the Epistle of S. James is confessed to be in the first instance not Judaism and the law, but the development of Judaism, and the fulfilment of the law;—what is the ' development of Judaism,' and the fulfilment of the law,' but true and genuine Christianity? Why, after acknowledging a developed religion in the Epistle, go back again to the charge of an undeveloped one? Again, 'the Christian's highest honour (as represented in the Epistle) is not that ' he is a member of the universal Church, but that he is the genuine type ' of the ancient Israelite.' The 'genuine type of the ancient Israelite,' being no other than the perfect Christian character; the comparison between the honour which that, and the honour which membership of the universal Church, bestows, would be, we think, a somewhat idle one. Nor does S. James enter into it. He simply draws the Christian character itself, and exhorts men to aim at it. Is to do this alone, and of itself, Judaic? If

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. Stanley replies that, though the exhortation to Christian holiness is not Judaic, the absence of allusion to the universal Church, and the coming in of the Gentiles is, on that view of the Epistle of S. John, the tone of which Mr. Stanley specially contrasts to that of S. James, on the point of Judaism, is Judaic also; for there is no reference there, any more than in S. James's Epistle, to the Universal Church, and the coming in of the Gentiles. Again, 'It (the Epistle of S. James) instills no new principles of spiritual life 'which were to "turn the world upside down," in the teaching of Paul ' and John, but only that pure and perfect morality which was the true ' fulfilment of the law.' Only that pure and perfect morality which was the true fulfilment of the law! And what would, in the way of practice, Mr. Stanley expect the New Testament to teach us? If his words, new principles of spiritual life,' refer to practice, such new principles, and the true development of old ones, mean the same thing: Christianity has introduced no new original principles in this sense, but only developed and perfected old ones. That love which S. John, that faith which S. Paul taught, were principles which existed before Christianity. If the words, new principles of spiritual life,' refer to doctrine, it is enough to say that the mere omision of the mention of certain peculiar doctrines of Christianity, no more stamps a Jewish character upon the epistle of S. James, than the same omission would upon any discourse of the present day. It is not necessary, for an epistle or a discourse to be Christian, that it should contain the whole of Christianity.

[ocr errors]

men,

6

6

Mr. Stanley is struck again with the resemblance of S. James's teaching to that of some of the Jewish prophets. 'It is impossible to overlook the ' likeness of the moral teaching of Amos and Jeremiah, which reappears in 'the prophet at Jerusalem.' 'He saw the oppression which trampled on 'the poor, and his spirit burned within him, and breaking through all the forms of the Apostolic Epistle, once alone in the page of the New Testament, we hear the terrific denunciation of the ancient prophet, delivered ' with all the impassioned energy of an Amos or Joel, “Go to, now, ye rich '&c. And, on the whole, he concludes that S. James was called ' to fulfil the mission, if I may so say, rather of a Christian Baptist, than of ' a Christian Apostle or Evangelist, to make them believe in Moses, before 'he could make them believe in Christ.' Upon this we have only one remark to make-if to do things which Jewish prophets did, and to say things which Jewish prophets said, is Jewish, then every true Christian is a Jew. An argument which is to prove a Jewish spirit in any book of the New Testament, should surely point to some peculiarities of the Jewish dispensation existing in such a book. If all that the argument does is to point to certain doctrines and precepts in it which Judaism, Natural Religion, and Christianity all hold in common, it does seem to fail remarkably of its aim. If the Epistle of S. James recommended circumcision, or the washing of cups and platters, it might legitimately be called a Jewish document. But it is a very small help to such a conclusion, that it enforces in some parts the universal laws of morality, and the eternal principles of justice, mercy, and truth;—especially if those laws and principles appear in it in that perfect and developed form, which is peculiar to Christianity. Indeed, we seem to see here and there Mr. Stanley himself rather waver

[ocr errors]

6

ing in his judgment on this Epistle, and half revoking it after he has pronounced it. For he admits that its voice is indeed the voice of the new dispensation,' but adds, that its outward form and figure belongs almost entirely to the older.' But what is the outward form and figure here meant? Is it that of style, phraseology, imagery, &c.? If so, Mr. Stanley's conclusion is not formidable, and would not provoke any serious controversy.

[ocr errors]

To proceed to some other points, Mr. Stanley, on examining the internal structure of the Epistle, discovers, in accordance with his view of its Jewish tone and character, that it was actually addressed to Jews and Christians equally; and that S. James's flock was a mixed one, composed half of members of the old, and half of members of the new dispensation. Both

[ocr errors]

are equally addressed in the Epistle as belonging to the twelve tribes 'scattered abroad: it passes at once from rebuking the unbelieving Jews ' of the higher orders, to console the believing Jews of the lower; the Chris'tian assuredly is spoken of under the name of synagogue.' Here are three arguments. With respect to the first;-the expression, 'the twelve 'tribes which are scattered abroad,' shows, undoubtedly, that the persons whom S. James was addressing, were Jews: but it leaves perfectly open, and does not at all decide the question, what Jews they were, whether believing or unbelieving ones, or both. Supposing there is evidence elsewhere that the Jews addressed were believing Jews exclusively, this expression is no evidence that they were not. With respect to the second, viz. that S. James says, (v. 1,) 'Go to, now, ye rich men, weep and howl 'for your miseries,' which rich men, says Mr. Stanley, were unbelieving Jews; which circumstance proves that the Epistle was addressed to Jews and Christians promiscuously; how such an expression as this can prove this conclusion in the case of the Epistle of S. James, any more than the expostulation, Rom. ii. 17, Behold, thou art called a Jew,' &c., proves it in the case of the Epistle to the Romans, we do not see. An expression which may so naturally be a mere apostrophe, cannot be any evidence for Mr. Stanley's purpose. Indeed, does not Mr. Stanley himself make it an apostrophe, when he says, S. James here breaks through the forms of the Apostolic Epistle?' With respect to the third, viz. that S. James 'speaks of the Christian assembly under the name of synagogue;'-the word synagogue has two meanings, a particular and a general one. In the particular, it means the Jewish synagogue, in the general it means simply assembly. Now, S. James could not have used it here in its particular meaning, because the Christian assembly' certainly was not the Jewish synagogue. And from the general meaning, no inference, of the kind Mr. Stanley wants, can be extracted. Such are the arguments in favour of the Epistle of S. James being addressed to a mixed body of Christians and Jews. On the other hand, is the plain fact that S. James addresses those to whom he writes this Epistle, as believers in Christ: My brethren have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.' Again, 'Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.' Again, 'Be patient, therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord; stablish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The strangeness of the view which makes this Epistle addressed to Jews and Christians equally, does not diminish, as Mr. Stanley carries it out into the details of the Epistle. For example;- My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; knowing this, that the trial of your faith worketh patience,' &c. i. 1—3. The faith which S. James here appeals to is, according to Mr. Stanley, not Christian, but Jewish faith. Without insisting again on the fact that S. James himself expressly calls this faith, (ii. 1,) The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory,'-to make a Christian Apostle appeal to Jewish unconverted faith, not as a preparatory, but as a final faith, (‘that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing,' i. 4), does appear to us exceedingly strange. Such, however, is Mr. Stanley's explanation of this passage. It was probably 'some immediate practical occasion from which this address took its rise. 'I have said, that early as it might be, the troubles of the last period of 'Jewish history were already beginning; and it might seem, as it has been 'well expressed by a modern historian, as if the skirts of that tremendous ' tempest which was slowly gathering over the native country and metro'polis of the devoted people, first broke and discharged their heavy clouds ' of ruin and desolation, one by one, over each of their remoter settlements. Such, amongst others, was the train of calamities which, about the pro'bable date of this Epistle, fell upon that vast Jewish population which 'still dwelt in the plains of Babylonia, and which, unlike their brethren of 'Alexandria, still looked to the temple of Jerusalem as the centre of their 'faith, and still regularly sent their contributions for its support. It was, as we may suppose, to console and sustain these, or such as these, of his countrymen that S. James wrote, just as his predecessors had, in like 6 manner, striven to revive the sinking spirits of the different portions of 'their nation, or its kindred tribes, as, one by one, they fell before the ' advance of the Chaldean invasion.' There is one important distinction between the Jews of the Chaldean invasion before, and the Jews of the final and destructive Roman invasion after, the Christian era, which Mr. Stanley here overlooks. The former were God's beloved, the latter were God s cast off people. Mr. Stanley, we cannot help observing, gives the Apostle S. James a very questionable office, in making him the consoler of the Jewish nation, under the approach of that final judgment of God, which its rejection and crucifixion of our Lord drew upon it;-the consoler, without any allusion to punishment or repentance, accompanying his consolation, My brethren, count it all joy; the trial of your faith worketh patience: let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.' That appears to us a strange explanation indeed of these words, which would transfer them from their generally understood application to the trials of Christian faith, to being an encouraging address to the Jewish nation before God's abandonment of it as a punishment for its apostasy.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. Stanley's theory of this epistle has not a less difficulty again to sur mount, when it comes across the much-discussed passage (ch. ii.) respecting justification. The ordinary view of this passage makes it the correction of a perversion of S. Paul's teaching on the subject of faith. The fact that S. Paul's teaching on this subject was mistaken and misapprehended is

« PreviousContinue »