« AnteriorContinuar »
her own personal acts. The one is the Bounty she bestowed on the impoverished clergy of the Church of England; the other is the union of England and Scotland."
Unlike queen Mary, Anne felt at times all the pangs of remorse. The remembrance of her guilt in stigmatizing her injured brother as illegitimate, was even more insupportable than the cares of royalty, when she called herself "a crowned slave," and his imaginary presence incessantly haunted her miserable death-bed.
"It is an undoubted fact," says her biographer, "that if the young prince or princess of the house of Stuart would have renounced the Roman Catholic religion, their kindred of the house of Hanover would not have opposed their claims on the throne of Great Britain." The young princess died in early youth and her brother Charles Edward, with all his father's pertinacity, refused to wear his rightful crown at the expense of his cherished religion. His son, the last of the unfortunate Stuart race, under the name of Cardinal York, died at Rome in 1807.
* Vol. XII, p. 143.
NOEL'S CHURCH AND STATE. Ed.
ART. V.-Essay on the Union of Church and State. By BAPTIST WRIOTHESLEY NOEL, M. A. 'AλndεUOνTES Ev ayαяn, Eph. iv, 15. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1849. pp. 442.
To American Churchmen every thing bearing upon the English Church possesses an absorbing interest. It is not merely because of the "Unity of the Faith," and our common membership in one mystical Body, that our sympathies are awakened, but there is also a community of origin, language, character, destiny; a thousand associations of home, and kindred, and friends, which clothes with the deepest importance every thing which pertains to her weal or wo. The links which bind together that Church and our own, are growing brighter and stronger every day. There is between them an identity of character, which, while it should make us jealous of her honor, at the same time places the Church in this country upon high vantage ground. The Church of England is linked inseparably with her greatness. It is enshrined in her Universities, her Parliament, her Literature, in the hearts of her nobility, and of the mass of her true yeomanry. It is at once the measure and director of her future destiny. It is the life-blood which wells out from her noble heart. It is the beauty and bloom of health which sits upon her cheek. It is the mighty strength of her right arm. And that heart will wither; that beauty and bloom will fade; that arm will be palsied, when the enemies of the Church, without or within her hallowed precincts, shall accomplish what they have so resolutely undertaken, and which they predict with such untimely exultation. It will do them no harm to remember, however, that as "one swallow does not make a spring," so one withered leaf does not make an autumn. Hitherto, in our country, the English Church has not exerted that commanding influence which might have been fairly anticipated. Aside from old prejudices and transmitted animosities, which are however fast wearing away, the great mass of English Literature republished in the States has breathed an unchurch spirit; while the few Puritan writers of the Cromwellian period have been "brought out" again and again, and ushered into notice with prefaces which, to say the least, have
exhibited an exceedingly fertile imagination. Now we find no fault with the descendants of the Puritans for thus attempting to stamp their own character upon American Literature. We honor them for their industry and zeal; and in so wide and rich a field we would not abridge the largest liberty. At the same time we may remind Churchmen, that the brightest pages of England's history and of her literature, have been adorned by the sons of England's Church. A very intelligent gentleman, who has recently returned from Europe, has remarked to us, that in visiting private and public libraries in England and on the continent, he could not but notice the fact, that the great proportion of their books were not even known in this country. And so it is. While among modern authors such writers as D'Aubigne, and Carlisle, and Macaulay, and the miserable scribblers in this country, who at a remote distance in talent, if not in temper, attempt to imitate them, are giving tone to our literature and public taste, the real treasures of our mother tongue have until recently scarcely been exhibited among us. In departing from this narrow and beaten track, and in cultivating a literature breathing the spirit of that Apostolic Church in which we have membership, we, as Church Reviewers, are not governed by partisan and contracted feelings. True Catholicism is the only basis on which literature and art can be developed in their full and beautiful proportions. Dissent, individualism, is in its own nature a dwarfish thing. Rejecting all sympathies and affinities, its ruling idea leads it to revolve alone in its own contracted orbit, around its own little self as its sun and centre. What great and noble thing has it ever conceived or executed? Isolated in its position, sundering every cord that connects the present with the mighty past, and binds the brotherhood of man together, it knows nothing of that harmony and order, in which the sphere of true progress moves on to its highest perfection. Communion, is a word not to be found in its vocabulary. Hence, a greater injury cannot possibly be done to the cause of letters, than that it should become a forced tributary to any narrow system of philosophy or metaphysics, upon which doctrinal sectarianism is built up. It is evident enough, that a new era of social influences has already dawned, full of promise to the Protestant Episcopal Church. The new channels of communication providentially opening with the great fountains of English learning; the growing distrust already noticeable of continental philosophy and German speculations, after which Americans in their own literary poverty have been thirsting; the
constant reciprocity of thought and opinion between old England and her American daughter, who has inherited the language as well as the enterprise of the Anglo-Saxon race, so that we now watch the book-market of London as narrowly as that of New York; all this is operating to liberalize the remains of Puritan prejudice, and is inducing the conviction that it may after all admit of question whether the only chrysalis of modern civilization was deposited in the Mayflower, destined to burst its cerements and become the generative organic life of free institutions in the new world; although to doubt this seems to be thought more heretical, at least it awakens fiercer opposition than the denial of every article of the Christian Faith. Just now, in New England, let a man deny the Trinity, or sneer at the Atonement, and he shall be apologized for, admitted into orthodox pulpits, courted and ca ressed. But let a man question the patriotism of Hampden, or the tolerance of the early New England Puritans, and you shall see him denounced as a bigot and covered all over with opprobious epithets. Now in all this a revolution in public sentiment has commenced, and its progress no human power can check, while its results are certain to bear directly and powerfully on the best interests of the Church.
We have been led to this train of reflections, by examining the volume placed at the head of our pages, and by noticing the manner of its reception among dissenters in England, and by a portion of the religious press in the United States. Perhaps no book recently issued will be more efficacious in calling up from "the vasty deep" a spirit of mischief; certainly none which, as coming from a minister of the Church of Christ, will be read with more surprise. But who is the Hon. and Rev. Baptist W. Noel? The grandfather of Mr. Noel was Lord Barham; whose only child, a daughter, the Baroness of Barham, married Sir Gerard Noel, member of Parliament for Rutlandshire. Mrs. Noel, mother of our author, having separated from her husband, took up her residence in Wales, at Fairy Hill, near Swansea, taking her children with her. In her religion, she was a "Catholic Methodist," so called, in the sentiments of which sect she educated her children, and doubtless laid the foundation of those loose and erratic notions which Mr. Noel has since developed. How he became connected with the Established Church we are uninformed. But in the violent outbreak of hostility against the Church, from 1830 to 1834, we find Mr. Noel sympathizing with, and encouraging dissenters; and in a letter to Mr. Thomas Binney, which Mr. Binney published, expressing
opinions of the English Church and Clergy similar to those in the book before us, regretting that he cannot exchange pulpits with dissenting preachers, and meet them at the Lord's table, &c. Mr. Noel was also an active originator of the scheme for "City Missions," and the "Colonial Church Missionary Society," both which organizations employed lay missionaries. In 1845, we find him the author of another characteristic production, a letter to the Lord Bishop of Cashel, in which he says "The Irish (Romish) Priests must be endowed, or the endowments of the Protestant Church must be sacrificed. The time seems come when this sacrifice must be made." This production, the London Record spoke of as "radically unsound, . . . . having error as its end, and by a tortuous course of error attaining that end. . . . . It is rather the work of a political dissenter than that of a sober-minded clergyman of the Church of England." As a preacher, the same paper, several years ago, alluding to Mr. Noel, spake of "the poverty of his pulpit ministrations, which his best and most discriminating friends deeply lament." And the Irish Ecclesiastical Journal, of about the same date, classes Mr. Noel among those "weak and meddling persons who trifle with dangers by propounding these irrational and mischievous projects for the ruin of the Church." These public facts in his history will help us to appreciate the book before us. They show also his real position in the English Church, concerning which, we notice a very popular mistake, and one which the fact of his being successor in his parish, of Cecil, and the present Bishop of Calcutta, has helped to confirm. At home, judging from the tone of English journals, his secession seems to have occasioned neither surprise or regret. So far from his book being likely to make the slightest disturbance in the Church, Churchmen of all grades and altitudes unite in regarding it as little else than a gross caricature; while dissenters are making a great hue and cry over it, holding public meetings in their chapels for the purpose of reading its gross charges against the government, and the Bishops, Presbyters, and laymen of the Church. And among the sworn enemies of the Establishment, religious and political, it will doubtless be a very taking thing. The song of chartism having just now been pretty well worn out, it will add another string to the crazy old instrument which ever squeaks and groans away to the tune of reckless insubordination under long established institutions.
As a specimen of the spirit of the man, we quote the following from his preface." Still more anxious am I to do jus