« FöregåendeFortsätt »
the canon) that “pænis legitionis puniatur," simply for not having discovered that a heretic was on his soil. Indeed, when all circumstances are taken into consideration, especially the fact mentioned by Mr. Maitland, it would appear that the danger was to be apprehended, not from a « medicus diffamatus” whom no one would venture to employ, but from the physician to whom no suspicion attached ; and therefore, to make everything doubly sure, the sick person suspected of heresy was forbidden to employ any physician at all, a prohibition rendered still more severe by the addition of the decree of the council of Albi. But whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the force of the argument derived from this source, the phraseology of the disputed clause is still before us, and it is worthy of remark, that Oberhauser, Richard, and Father D' Achery, are certainly in my favour, as fur as regards the most correct way of expressing the meaning which they attached to the canon, whether that meaning be the correct one or not. With respect to the quotation from Carena, I perceive that p. 285 has been printed for p. 235, and “ Greg. XIV.” for “ Greg. XV.;" a correction is also necessary in the first line of the extract, which will render the passage still more favourable to my view of the phraseology, for instead of “ne catholici operâ medici utantur," should be read, "ne catholici operâ medicorum hæreticorum utantur.” Why Carena should be suspected of having made a mistake I cannot see, as the phraseology employed by him is fully borne out by my quotations from Livy. The title of the book quoted from is as follows, “Cæsaris Carenæ Cremonensis, I. C. Sacræ Theol. Doctoris, Eminentiss. et Reverend. D.D. Camporei auditoris, Judicis conservatoris, consultoris, et Advocati Fiscalis S. Officii. A Sanctissimo, D. Nostro Urbano VIII. et Eminentissima Universali Inquisitione specialiter deputati Tractatus,” &c.* It also appears, from the laudatory style in which the book is prefaced by two members of the society of Jesus, Horatius Martinius, theologue and consultor of the Holy Office, and Leonard Vellius, of the college of Cremona, that Carena was considered, by persons well qualified to judge of his merits, a writer who might be trusted. I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
John EVANS. Whitchurch, March 20th, 1838.
BANNS OF MARRIAGE FORBIDDEN FOR SCANDALOUS CONDUCT. Sir,—May I be permitted, through the medium of your Magazine, to ask the opinion of your clerical readers on the following case ?
A clergyman in this neighbourhood was very lately called upon to publish the banns of marriage between two persons who had been discreditably connected for some time previous. The fact had just become notorious in the parish, and the parties did not deny the
* I give the reference according to the division of the work itself, part II. tit. xvii. sect. v., as there was a prior edition in 1641; and that edition is, I believe, in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
charge. The man belonged to a parish at some little distance ; thither he went to reside when his conduct became known to the woman's friends; and there it was intended that the marriage should take place. There were circumstances, it seems, connected with the case, not necessary to be here detailed, that made it more than usually scandalous. The clergyman felt very strongly that such persons were improper objects for the church's blessing, and therefore unfit to enter into the holy estate of matrimony, until they had given some evident token of repentance; and after the publication of the banns for the third time, he forbad them himself, and then went down to the house, where he understood one of the parties was still living, that he might explain what he had done, and carrying with him a paper to the following purport: “ We, and
being unfeignedly sorry for the heinous sin we have committed, and fearing lest others should be encouraged by our bad example, do hereby request and authorize the clergyman of make known publicly in church this our humble confession, and to ask the prayers of the congregation for us.
Signed Had he met with the parties, and obtained their signatures, I suppose he might, with the consent of his ordinary, have read his paper, as intended, in the church, and thus renewed, in some degree, the ancient practice of penance, of which we are taught, in the commination service, to regret the disuse. As it happened, however, he did not meet with either of them, but only with some of their friends, who were naturally rather more than surprised, I believe, at what had taken place. Of course he explained his motive to them—the scandal universally given by what had happened, and the propriety of making all the reparation for it that lay in the power of those who had occasioned it. How far he succeeded in making them agree with him I have not yet heard. But to conclude my account—when he was asked for the certificate of the publication of the banns, he gave it, coupled with his objection as stated above.
Now I can vouch for the substantial correctness of what I have related ; and I think many will agree with me in considering that it involves much that is important, as regards both the duties and liabilities of the clergy under existing circumstances. The following questions seem to embrace the points which most need consideration
1. Whether it is not desirable to refuse the church's blessing to such persons ?
2. Whether, considering the late change in the law respecting marriages, any legal penalty is incurred by so doing, and what?
3. Whether it be a sufficient objection to say that, by such refusal, you drive the parties into a union merely legal—that is, without the church's blessing—such union being rather like a heathen marriage than a state of concubinage ?
4. Whether such a case as the above affords an opportunity of recurring to the ancient practice of penance, and ought to be so used ?
With regard to the third of these questions, it may be as well to
state, that the clergyman already referred to says, that, according to his present view of the case, if placed again under similar circumstances, he should urge the parties, supposing them to have made up their minds to continue their connexion, (the wickedness of which he would not fail to set before them,) to license it by the legal means now afforded. In this way he thinks that, though they would not be really married, the profligacy of their connexion would be, in a great degree, obviated, and they would be in a state in which, if they conducted themselves decently, they might be judged, on their repentance for past sin, fit for the church's blessing, should they desire to receive it.
And now, without further remark, I would commit the subject to those who will examine it attentively in all its bearings, according to the dictates of sound church principles, and remain, Sir, yours, &c.
AN INQUIRY RESPECTING THE CHURCH OF ROME. SIR,-Will you have the kindness to indulge me with a short space in your columns to make an inquiry which appears to me deserving of attention ? Supposing—as is usually held and maintained that our church considers the church of Rome as a church of Christ, I wish to ask, how the nineteenth of our articles can be reconciled with that view? From the practice of our church, in admitting Romish priests, who have recanted their errors, as lawful ministers of her communion without re-ordination, (which in respect of other dissenters would take place, it is reasonably enough concluded that she regards the church of Rome as a church of Christ. But the nineteenth article, “on the church," appears to me to convey an opposite conclusion. It expressly says, “ The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." The necessary and immediate consequence from which is, that if “ the pure word of God is not “preached, and the sacraments be” not“ duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, a “congregation,” in such a case, is no “visible church.” Now, our church declares against the church of Rome in both the particulars referred to in the article; inasmuch as she says in one place, that “the church of Rome hath erred in matters of faith ;" consequently " the pure word of God is” not “preached” in her; and in another, that the cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay-people;" consequently, as the church of Rome withholds “the cup” from the laity, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not “duly ministered” by her “according to Christ's ordinance,” in the sense of the church of England. Hence, one who takes the import of an article in its “ literal and grammatical sense, would, I think, upon reading the article above referred to, conclude that the church of England regards the church of Rome as no part of Christ's church. How is the difficulty between the two different conclusions, from premises equally plausible, to be reconciled ? It
certainly would not do to sacrifice one at the expense of the other. Should this letter be thonght worthy of an insertion in your periodical, I should be greatly obliged by having the subject elucidated and explained by any one of your numerous and intelligent correspondents. And I do not think that I should be the only one who would be gratified by a satisfactory explanation. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
CLERICAL ATTENDANCE AT BALLS.
Sir,-In Number LXXIV. you declare your wish to receive the opinions of a highly respected individual, mentioned by name, upon this question, or of others.
Perhaps if I explain the grounds upon which I, as a clergyman, am not unwilling to be present on such occasions, it may induce those who think differently to pause awhile ere they condemn us,—to sift the matter carefully before they judge their brethren.
In the first place, it may be well to observe, that if convocation or the bishop of the diocese were at once to forbid the presence of any clergyman in a ball-room, as used according to the present habits of the laity, those who think and act as I do would feel the whole responsibility removed from themselves, and would simply have to obey without a murmur.
But no such peremptory command having been issued, it remains for us to shew how and why we have used our Christian liberty respecting this custom; which, if ungodly, must be proved so by some weightier arguments and higher authority than I have hitherto seen employed against it.
I say, then, that in the present state of society there are many persons whom I am glad to meet, who perhaps are also glad to meet me, without the ceremonial of an actual visit. We choose, therefore, the neutral ground of the assembly-room for the expression of our kindly feelings toward each other, which without such intercourse might fade away. Nor let it be said that other means of intercourse, equally effectual and more spiritual, might be devised or do now exist. As for the future possibilities, I cannot say; but I utterly deny the present existence of other means equally direct or effectual. For on such occasions it is quite certain that in one half hour more of social kindness, or casual but useful information, may be enjoyed or obtained than in a whole month of calls and visiting. It surely would not be expedient for the clergy to devote their time to a perpetual search after society; that would indeed be unclerical, whether carried on in the ball-room or elsewhere; yet their occasional attendance at balls in their own neighbourhood will afford them at once almost all that general intercourse with people of their own rank which is the real origin of common sense in every man.
I have known arguments upon the weightiest matters both in science and morals carried on with perfect ease in the midst of a ball-room, when the animation of the surrounding scene appeared only to give
more steadiness to the minds of the reasoners, and more gracefulness to their mode of expression. For my own part, I can sincerely say, that on examining the state of my feelings after a moderate participation in such a scene, I have usually found a greater kindness of heart, and, let me venture to add, a higher degree of Christian charity, resulting from it. And how could it well be otherwise ? For had i not, within the space of two or three hours, conversed with many whom I should not have met excepting on that occasion ? Had I not heard of their welfare, or partaken of their anxieties? Had not the wholesome conflict of opinions been carried on without that bitterness which in private life it is too likely to produce ?
Again, it may chance to be the case that a clergyman is possessed of private property far greater in amount than his clerical income. Will it be thought his duty to issue his anathemas against the ballroom, and withdraw himself entirely from all places of public resort except the churches ? I cannot bring myself to this opinion. Such does not appear to be my duty to my neighbour. I am aware that the whole subject requires delicate handling; for on this point we have no ancient or direct examples to guide us, and we must argue from difficult and remote analogies.
How are those clergymen to act who are the owners of large lay properties, involving them in the secular affairs of their neighbourhood, and subjecting them to various claims from the society in which they move ?
It is evident that there are three ways of acting in such a case. 1. The behaving altogether as a layman; which, in a priest, is an offence punished by excommunication. 2. An outward may so say) a carnal separation from the world, which, if enforced upon the clergy, might induce fathers to prevent their sons taking orders, and the legislature to prevent lay property from falling into ecclesiastical hands. 3. The difficult, yet, as I conceive, the only safe course, the via media, the temperate exercise of our discretion, in short, such conduct on our part as would render neither our absence from, nor our presence in, the ball-room at all unusual or unpleasing to the laity.
Suppose it should be considered likely that at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee there was music and dancing, (both of them common at Jewish festivals,) as well as a plentiful supply of wine; would it not be fanatical, or something worse, to make his example of no effect who chose with his disciples to be present there?
At the same time, if an ordained person has really convinced himself that he becomes worldly-minded, or selfish, or sensual, by partaking in any degree of those amusements which are one feature of modern society, to him doubtless they are sinful; but let him beware how he condemns his brother, to whom they are not so. If he says, “they cannot be otherwise,” his ipse dixit will not satisfy me. If he quotes Alexander Knox or Bishop Jebb as his authorities, these also are not sufficient. For who is there at all acquainted with the lives of those excellent men that is not aware how unfitted they both seem