INTELLIGENCE. Convulsion in the Church of England. Notwithstanding the crowded state of our pages, we must find room for the extraordinary Protest of thirteen of the Bishops against the appointment cf Dr. Hampden, the Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, to the vacant see of Hereford,-and Lord John Russell's admirable and crushing reply. "My Lord,-We, the undersigned Bishops of the Church of England, feel it our duty to represent to your Lordship, as Head of her Majesty's Government, the apprehension and alarm which have been excited in the minds of the clergy by the rumoured nomination to the see of Hereford of Dr. Hampden, in the soundness of whose doctrine the University of Oxford has affirmed, by a solemn decree, its want of confidence. "We are persuaded that your Lordship does not know how deep and general a feeling prevails on this subject; and we consider ourselves to be acting only in the discharge of our bounden duty both to the Crown and to the Church, when we respectfully but earnestly express to your Lordship our conviction that, if this appointment be completed, there is the greatest danger both of the interruption of the peace of the Church, and of the disturbance of the confidence which it is most desirable that the clergy and laity of the Church should feel in every exercise of the Royal supremacy, especially as regards that very delicate and important particular, the nomination to vacant sees. "We have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's obedient, faithful servants, "C. J. LONDON (Dr. Blomfield). "E. SARUM (Dr. Denison). "To the Right Hon. the Lord John Russell, &c." "Chesham Place, Dec. 8, 1847. My Lords,-I have had the honour to receive a representation signed by your Lordships on the subject of the nomina. tion of Dr. Hampden to the see of Hereford. "I observe that your Lordships do not state any want of confidence on your part in the soundness of Dr. Hampden's doctrine. Your Lordships refer me to a decree of the University of Oxford passed eleven years ago, and founded upon lectures delivered fifteen years ago. "Since the date of that decree, Dr. Hampden has acted as Regius Professor of Divinity. The University of Oxford and many Bishops, as I am told, have required certificates of attendance on his lectures before they proceeded to ordain candidates who had received their education at Oxford. He has likewise preached sermons, for which he has been honoured with the approbation of several Prelates of our Church. "Several months before I named Dr. Hampden to the Queen for the see of Hereford, I signified my intention to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and did not receive from him any discouragement. "In these circumstances, it appears to me that should I withdraw my recommendation of Dr. Hampden, which has been sanctioned by the Queen, I should virtually assent to the doctrine that a decree of the University of Oxford is a perpetual ban of exclusion against a clergyman of eminent learning and irreproachable life, and that, in fact, the supremacy which is now by law vested in the Crown is to be transferred to a majority of the members of one of our Universities. "Nor should it be forgotten, that many of the most prominent among that majority have since joined the communion of the Church of Rome. "I deeply regret the feeling that is said to be common among the clergy on this subject. But I cannot sacrifice the repu tation of Dr. Hampden, the rights of the Crown, and what I believe to be the true interests of the Church, to a feeling which I believe to be founded on misapprehension and fomented by prejudice. "At the same time, I thank your Lordships for an interposition which I believe to be intended for the public benefit.-I have, &c., "J. RUSSELL. "To the Right Rev. the Bishops of London, Winchester, Lincoln, &c." Intelligence.-Convulsion in the Church of England. These documents give rise to many grave reflections, to one or two only of which will we now give utterance. What Lord Clarendon said of the clergy of England two centuries ago, is true of their descendants: "He had observed in his progress through life, that, of all classes of men, the clergy took the worst measure of human affairs." Had the Bishops truly read the signs of the times, they would not have chosen them as suitable for an attempt to enlarge the privileges of the hierarchy, and to make the State, in the exercise of one of its most important functions, the mere mouthpiece of the bench of Bishops. Their powerful secular ally, the Editor of the Times, in the exercise of "a severe candour,' admits that "the Church of England is compelled to recede, step by step, from an honorary position and a formal ascendancy, which it never really occupied or used, and which consequently contributed more to its pomp than its power." Had Lord John Russell quailed before the assault of the Bishops, the effect would have been, to give to the hierarchy of the English Church a veto on all future appointments to the Bench. To-day, a man would be excluded as a latitudinarian in theology; to-morrow, another for the same offence in politics. Ultimately, the Bench would embody merely the narrowest and most intolerant views-in fact, the discarded bigotries of a past age. No Minister of the Crown, even if he looked simply at the interests of the Church of England, would have dared to reduce it to such a degraded position. With little wisdom, therefore, have the Bishops permitted themselves to be seduced by the rash counsels of their brother of Exeter to renew the Puseyite crusade Above all against Dr. Hampden. things they should have abstained, in times like these, from mooting the tickle question of the connection of The more clear Church and State. the proof they offer of the injury likely to be inflicted on the Church by the control of its highest appointments being vested in the civil power, the greater is the danger to themselves. Only let them succeed in making out their case to the satisfaction of the mass of the people, and the day will not be far distant when Bishops will by a gentle compulsion retire from Parliament, their Church will resign many of its pomps, and the clergy exchange their temporal immunities for authority of a 51 more spiritual But there is another point of view in which this move of the Bishops strikes us as truly calamitous to Christian literature, so far as the Church of England is hereafter to contribute to it. The ground of accusation against Dr. Hampden is, we believe, very insignificant. By the process of quotation and argument used to prove him heretical, a stronger case could be made out against the orthodoxy of many of the acknowledged lights of the Church -Arnold, Jortin, Butler, Secker, Clarke, Tillotson, Taylor, Whichcote and Burnet. Theology will be hereafter regarded as the most dangerous study for an ecclesiastic. If, undeterred by the danger, men of high powers and learning devote their thoughts to theological studies, they will, if they wish to rise in the Church, avoid the publication of the results of their labours, lest they should arm some petulant bigot or senseless dunce with the means of proving them unsound members of the Church. The consequence would be, that we should have in bishops, deans and the higher clergy, many men capable of editing a Greek play, but ignorant of sacred criticism; ready in expounding Plato or ArisAlready the Church of totle, but inapt interpreters of Paul and John. England is miserably behind other Neology!" Protestant churches in learning and literature. The outcry of " and "Infidelity!" will not much longer scare English readers from Neander and other learned and fearless theological inquirers of foreign countries. The hour of conflict will come upon the Church of England, and, through the cowardly policy now pursued by her leaders, she will find her troops not only unskilled in warfare, but without the necessary weapons of defence. The clergymen selected by the Premier for the recent episcopal appointments have been assailed with a coarseness and rancour rarely exhibited by any but ecclesiastics. Where the orthodoxy of the new Bishop was unassailable, his character has been impeached. In the new diocese of Manchester, the Bishop has been assailed by a Dr. Molesworth, the Vicar of Rochdale, who is best described as a humble imitator of the gentleness, charity, truthfulness and other virtues of the Bishop of Exeter. That his appointments should be censured by such men, ought to be their passport to general approbation. A curious fact is stated in the "Minutes of the Trustees of the National Gallery during the years 1845 and 1846," which was printed in accordance with an Order of the House of Commons, Feb. 4, 1847. In the Minutes for August 24, 1846, notice is taken of an application, made "on the part of clergymen of the Church of England and others, asking for admission to the Trustees of a deputation for the purpose of stating their objection to the representation of the Eternal Father' in some of the pictures of this Gallery." (P. 10.) The Trustees, feeling, no doubt, the delicacy of theological discussions, and the danger of allow ing such subjects to be opened at their Board, refused admission to the deputation, briefly stating that they did not sympathize with the theological scruples which it proposed to urge. · The picture against which these clergymen and others take objection is that of Murillo, in which is introduced a figure to represent God the Father. This much-admired picture, designated in the catalogues "A Holy Family," was purchased in 1837 for £6300. It is of large dimensions, being upwards of nine feet in height. Originally, it was painted for a certain Marquis del Pedroso, at Cadiz, and passed through various hands before being placed in the National Gallery. He The most prominent figure is the youthful Christ, who is represented about the age of eight or ten. stands on a fragment of rock, which serves to elevate his figure, so that the head is near the centre of the composition; and it is on this head that the painter seems to have lavished all his care and genius, the expression being full of exalted grace and refinement. Joseph and Mary are represented half kneeling on either side of the child, whom by the hands they support. Immediately above the child's head, the emblematic Dove is hovering; and in the upper region of the picture, God the Father is seen, in a recumbent posture, surrounded by cherubim, one hand resting on the globe, the other gently extended. This figure possesses but little dignity, which may be said of all the figures excepting that of the young Jesus. The colouring of the picture is warm, and the composition easy and flowing. It might not have been easy for the Trustees of the National Gallery di rectly to meet the objections prepared by this clerical deputation. But the consequences of admitting the principle which it apparently came to enforce, that you must look in a work of art for correct theology as well as beautiful painting, would be fatal to the great mass of Scripture subjects by the old masters. It cannot be denied that some very erroneous theological notions have been fostered in the popular mind of Christendom by paintings in high repute as works of art. But the exclusion of these pictures from public galleries would not help to set the public right. Where one person has taken up his ideas on the subject from looking on an original painting, ten thousand have taken up theirs from engraved copies. If an Index Expurgatorius of pictures and engravings is to be formed, how many altar-pieces must be removed from our churches, how many illustrations must be torn from Family Bibles !-not excepting that whose circulation has been promoted by the "orthodox" Christian-Knowledge Society, by Mant and D'Oyley. In obedience to the same prudish scruples, what havoc would be made with the varied symbolical figures, in wood and stone, in which our early ecclesiastical architects delighted! There is nothing for it, then, for clergymen and others who are shocked by the theological errors or irreverent daring of our old masters, but to provide an antidote. Let them teach the people to abide in Scripture alone, and to realize to their minds, by independent thought, the ideas and representations of holy persons and subjects there given. Whether such teaching will assist the "orthodoxy" of the people, is another question. But it will certainly prove fatal to some cherished idolatries, both Protestant and Popish. E. g. In a picture attributed to Tommaso Vigila, in the University of Palermo, the Holy Spirit is represented, bearing to her in his mouth the embryo of Christ. The representation of the third Person of the Trinity by the figure of a Dove is thought to be a mere blunder. The words woeì TEprepày (Matt. iii. 16; Luke iii. 22), it is admitted by "orthodox" theologians, do not express or define the bodily shape in which the Holy Ghost appeared. Had the evangelists intended to describe the actual appearance of a Dove, they would have written wo περιστεράς. As Unitarians, we should like to have heard how far the scruples of the clerical deputation extended. Information on this point might have thrown light on the important subject of the practical effect of the doctrine of the Trinity on the devotional feelings. Objection, it seems, is taken to the representation of "the Eternal Father," i. e. in orthodox language, to a representation by painting of the first Person of the Trinity. Is equal objection taken to representations of Jesus Christ, the second Person of the orthodox Trinity, or of the Dove and other representations of the Holy Ghost, the third Person of the Trinity? As the two latter are constantly introduced into the works of modern and Protestant painters, and as the emblem of the Holy Ghost is to be seen hovering over the altar of modern-built churches, we suppose they are regarded not only as unobjectionable, but as expressions of reverent feeling. Yet, if orthodoxy be not a fable, they are representations, equally with Murillo's picture, of the High God. If these clergymen do not feel their piety outraged by representations of Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, there is reason to suspect the soundness of their orthodoxy. They have forgotten the very first Article of the Thirty-nine to which they have solemnly sworn, which declares God is "without body or parts," and that the three Persons of the Godhead are "of one substance;" and the second Article, which declares that "the Son is of one substance with the Father," and "that the Godhead and Manhood were joined together in one Person, never to be divided." There is some consolation in the belief that, notwithstanding the zealous profession of a Trinitarian creed, mankind, including the clergy, do in their innermost souls revere the Father of Jesus Christ as the Supreme God. But at the same time, it is impossible to escape from the reflection that orthodoxy blunts the delicacy of religious perception and devotional feeling. Every man, whatever were his professed creed, would be shocked to see or hear the name of "God the Father," or "the Almighty," or "Jehovah," applied to designate a street, a building or an institution. Yet who resents the impiety when he hears of "Trinity House," "Trinity Square,' and “Trinity College"? The meta We wonder that the Trustees of Hartford College, in N. America, had physical dogma of a Trinity of Persons has, in fact, put the popular mind at a distance from the proper idea of GoD. There are some sensible remarks on the general subject in a recent No. of the Edinburgh Review (No. CLXXIII. 208-213). One or two passages will illustrate some of the remarks we have been led to make: "The opposite charges against a recorder of Salisbury for breaking a painted window, on account of its containing a representation of God the Father, and against Archbishop_Laud for having restored a window, at Lambeth, with a picture on it of God the Father in the form of a little old man, will be found in the first volume (230, note) of a very interesting work just published, Hints on Glass Painting." The reviewer admits that all attempts to represent God "are irreverent, because they are inadequate." He goes on to ask, "Does not the same objection lie to any precise exposition of the Creator's attributes or essence by words? Human language cannot express them, the human mind cannot conceive them; and such an objection might be urged against Paradise Lost or the Athanasian Creed." This combination is singular enough. Yet another point of resemblance may be adduced between the Creed and the Epic Poem. Both are fictions. One other passage is curious: "We do not wish to see these attempts to represent the Eternal Father imitated in our own day; it is a sufficient reason against them that they give pain to some sincere and pious Christians; but we do protest most strongly against any rejection of pictures, desirable as works of art, solely on account of the recurrence of such a figure. We feel the more strongly on this matter, because we cannot but fear that the apprehension of giving offence may have indisposed the Trustees to purchase one of Mr. Warner Ottley's pictures—a picture historically interesting, since we learn from Vasari that it was executed by the artist Pesello Peselli, for a church at Pistoia. The subject, unfortunately, is the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity; but the execution is masterly, and the picture very remarkable on account of its own merits, as well as the uninjured condition in which it no misgivings of this kind when they changed the name of their institution from "Washington" to "Trinity College." has been preserved. Another picture of the Padre Eterno,' offered by Mr. W. R. Hamilton, was declined by the Trustees as inadmissible to the Gallery. What its merits were we know not. We remember being very much struck at the Monastery of Monreale, and at the Cathedral of Palermo, by the gigantic, Saracen-looking heads of God the Father. The first, Nostro Padre de Monreale, had been the favourite oath of the old King of Naples." Removal of Jewish Disabilities. In a speech worthy of himself and his cause, Lord John Russell, on Thursday, December 16, moved that the House of Commons should "resolve itself into committee on the removal of the civil and political disabilities affecting Her Majesty's Jewish subjects." "The Jews," he argued, "lived according to the same moral code which was admitted by ourselves. In the offices to which they had been already admitted, they had shewn their capacity for administering them, and in science and intelligence had proved themselves entitled to any public charge to which other British subjects were entitled to aspire. They were subject to the burthens of the country, they submitted to all the duties which the State imposed upon them, and therefore they had a claim to its usual rewards." He then proceeded very skilfully to analyze and refute the objections made by various parties to Jewish emancipation, and concluded by "appealing to the House, in the name of the constitution of England, which was a friend to freedom, liberty and justice, and an enemy to every kind of disqualification, to take away this last remnant of religious persecution. He appealed to it also in the name of our common religion, which was a religion of love and charity, and which religion dictated to us to do unto others as we should wish that they should do unto us. He called upon it to reflect that the Jews belonged to the great family of man, to act upon that consideration, and to agree to the motion which he now placed in the Speaker's hand." An interesting debate ensued, which lasted two evenings, and resulted in a division in which the motion was carried by 253 to 186 votes. Some fears are expressed for the safety, in the House of Lords, of the Bill about to be introduced. It is not impossible that the thirteen remonstrant Bishops may wreak their vengeance on Lord John Russell by opposing a Bill in which he is, from his firm attachment to religious liberty, so warmly interested. But we cannot think that a majority of the House of Lords will support a purely factious opposition, or assert the expediency of continuing civil disabilities on the ground of religious peculiarities. As bigots, however, are here and there getting up Petitions against the Jews, it may be well for public bodies to re-assert the universal principle of religious freedom. Education-Conference of the Congregationalists at Derby. This Conference, as adjourned from York, has been held at Derby. About 60 delegates attended, namely, 35 ministers and 25 laymen,-influenza, together with the frequency of previous Conferences, being the explanation of the small attendance. The resolutions of the late annual meeting at York were confirmed and taken as fixed points henceforth-namely, to give religious (i. e. "Evangelical") instruction in day-schools, and to refuse Government aid. It was resolved to make the Congregational Board of Education the permanent central organization of the body for the promotion of popular education. The chief point of discussion was, whether the Congregationalists should continue to act "denominationally," or seek to combine with others who refuse State aid. Both sides of the argument were held. The chief advocate of "denominational" action was Mr. Edward Baines, Jun., and his view prevailed. At the same time it was resolved, that "while the schools connected with this Board will be chiefly Congregational, *** neither the learning of any particular formulary, nor attendance at any particular place of worship, shall be an indispensable condition of admittance into them ;" and the Conference, in another resolution, "trusts that the proceedings of this meeting afford a practical demonstration of the catholicity of its operations," though it "deems it desirable, under all the circumstances, to act denominationally." Dr. Kay Shuttleworth gave occasion to the Conference for a little melancholy fun. It appears he was once an Independent Dissenter. Mr. George Hadfield said, "No man was so well calculated to take them in successfully, as one who, like Dr. K. S., had belonged to their own body (hear, |
