to employ the confidence with which he was entrusted against his principal. The public has, occasionally, seen with approbation a barrister throw up a deceptious brief, or a friend repudiate an unconscientious trust. But this is justifiable only in extreme cases-and à multo fortiori, we venture to think that the case must be one of the most extraordinary magnitude, of the most urgent necessity, and the most indisputable certainty, which should induce a clergyman of the Church of England-one who has adopted her Articles at the outset of his education, and embraced her Liturgy in the solemnity of ordination-not merely to abandon, but to arraign them. And, above all, we think we may safely say, that if such a person, after full consideration, feels that he is at liberty to throw up his brief, he is bound at least to return the fee! When he retracts his acquiescence in the Liturgy, he should resign the trust and profit which, on the express condition of that acquiescence, were conferred upon him.

The framers of our ecclesiastical constitutions so clearly foresaw this danger, and the serious consequences which might arise from light or litigious ministers employing the authority of the church against the church, that the law takes every possible precaution against such schism. The Reverend Mr. Riland, curate of Yoxall, for his own good reasons, as we shall see presently, calls such precautions a trap and snare to entangle and lacerate the clerical conscience,'-(p. xxii) and a 'contrivance borrowed from heathen and anti-Christian mysteries.'-(p. xvii.) Let us trace the

facts.

Candidates for holy orders are not led-like the neophytes of either ancient or modern mysteries-blindfold into the sanctuary: they are not hurried into engagements which they do not understand, nor involved in doctrines which they have not had opportunities, and even exhortations, to consider maturely; they are not brought to the final and irrevocable pledge of assent and consent to the Liturgy,' but by a series of distinct steps, at each of which the candidate may pause-delay-and finally, if he pleases, decline the proposed engagement. The Articles of the Church meet the student in the very porch of the temple. During a college education of at least four years, he is necessarily a daily partaker of, and of course made familiar with every detail of the divine offices-(we say nothing of attendance on divinity lectures, or such other voluntary studies as are proper and usual, but not imperative). Next comes the form of ordination of a deacon, in which he accepts the doctrine and discipline of our church, in words of general spiritual import-the limited duties of the deacon's office not requiring more particularity on that point, in this stage. But even yet the candidate has not assumed the full clerical

VOL. L. NO, C.

2 L

function,

function. With superabundant tenderness to the mutability of human opinions, and to the scruples of tender consciences, the law not only does not oblige the deacon to assume the character of the priesthood, but will not even permit him to do so, without a due interval for instruction in its duties-for, after the ordination of deacons, follows this rubric:

And it must be here declared to the deacon, that he must continue in the office of deacon the space of one whole year, to the intent that he may be perfect and well expert in the things appertaining to ecclesiastical administration. In executing whereof, if he be found faithful and diligent, he may be admitted to the order of priesthood :'

Prior to which admission, after the same general obligations as before, the candidate-priest enters into a further more solemn and specific engagement—

To give his faithful diligence always to minister the doctrines, and the sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this church and realm hath received the same, &c.'

Under this engagement, the candidate receives the character of a priest, and the consequent privilege of receiving an ecclesiastical benefice-but the caution and tenderness of the laws do not end here there is another final, and (as it, therefore, ought to be) still more precise engagement. It is provided by the Act of Uniformity,' that no minister shall enjoy any benefice or promotion, till he shall have performed divine service according to the Book of Common Prayer, in his church or chapel

and openly and publicly, before the congregation, declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the said book contained, and prescribed in these words:-I, A B, do hereby declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the Book entitled the Common Prayer, &c.'

Here then we see the Church and the State have taken the most extraordinary care-(to a degree, indeed, which might, but for our experience of human falsehood and perversity, be thought supererogative) to guard against the disturbance of men's minds, by the critical curiosity, the morbid scruples, or the self-seeking presumption of individual ministers. And, we thank God, their pious care has been on the whole successful! It has kept the church essentially together; and though, as we see with sorrow and shame, it has not prevented a few ministers from broaching illegal, and, in their circumstances, culpable propositions, yet the authority of such men must be so invalidated by a consideration of all the previous engagements and promises that they have broken, that the danger from their schismatic deviations is considerably diminished. For even in the least offensive cases, and where we should be inclined to hope that there was a misguided sincerity at bottom, what confi

dence

dence can be placed in the judgment or the advice of men, who do not know their own minds from day to day? and how can we be assured that they will be more steady in their new-fangled and irresponsible doctrines, than they were to their former deliberate and sacramental obligations?

These considerations lead us to the case of one of the most im portant-in clerical rank at least-of those who have put themselves forward in soliciting a revisal of the Liturgy-we mean the Reverend Charles Nourse Wodehouse, Prebendary of Norwich; and we make no apology for mentioning his name and probing his case, because he has voluntarily brought himself before the public in a most unusual and ostentatious manner. We find that, on the 5th of August last, a petition was presented to the House of Lords from this gentleman to the following effect:

That your petitioner was ordained a Deacon of the Church of England in December, 1814, and Priest in the following year; and within two years after was presented to the preferment which he now holds: That your petitioner begs to remind your Lordships, that by Statutes passed in the 13th Eliz., c. 12, and 14th Car. II., c. 4, and also by the 36th ecclesiastical canon, certain subscriptions and declarations are required from every clergyman at his ordination, and upon institution to a benefice: That your petitioner, on reviewing in after years the engagements which he had thus entered into, became doubtful whether he could renew them if called upon to do so; that further reflection only serving to add strength to such scruples, he feels himself bound no longer to conceal his opinions; and that he now ventures to lay them before your Lordships, in the hope of being relieved from the difficulty in which he is involved: That your petitioner begs accordingly to state, that when called upon to declare the Liturgy and Articles of the Church of England to be in every respect "agreeable to the word of God," he thinks himself obliged to make such a declaration according to the plain, obvious meaning of the words then used by him; and that your petitioner cannot conscientiously affirm the following parts of the Liturgy to be sanctioned by Scripture-namely, the 2d, 28th, 29th, and 42d clauses of the Athanasian Creed; the form of absolution in the office for visiting the sick; and the words used at the imposition of hands in ordaining priests and bishops,' &c. &c.

Our readers will observe that Mr. Wodehouse, by the palliative suggestion that he was very young when he did it,' betrays some little awkwardness in confessing that he is now disturbed by passages which he had formerly adopted under the most solemn sanctions. He was ordained deacon, he tells us, in 1814, priest next year, and within two years after, was presented to the preferment he now holds.' There are probably

2 L2

many

many reformers who would consider this leading allegation, that a young gentleman was preferred to a rich stall within about two years and a half after his first ordination, as a very good argument for some other measure of church reform than the mere amendment of the Athanasian Creed. We leave Mr. Wodehouse to settle that matter with such troublesome allies; but we must observe that this gentleman has not stated the facts of his case with all that fullness and fairness which we should have expected from so scrupulous a mind. He was very young when he did it ;— and this prebendal stall--one by the way so good as to have been just before held by a bishop-fell on him, it seems, quite suddenly, and dazzled and seduced his inexperienced innocence— For Satan now is wiser than of yore,

And tempts by making rich, not making poor.' But alas! we find that, before the Snarer of consciences had tempted him with this stall, the young and interesting victim had been previously assailed twice over, and twice over had fallen into similar temptations; for we see in the Ecclesiastical Register, that the Reverend Charles Nourse Wodehouse was presented to a certain rectory called Murningthorpe, in July, 1815, that is within six months of his being ordained deacon -(he must have found a most indulgent Bishop!)-and again, in October, 1816, to another living called Gildestone. But even this is not all: the petition states that he was presented in 1817 to the perferment' (in the singular) ́ which he now holds,' leaving, in the reader's mind, an impression that he holds but that ONE preferment. Now, it appears that he held both these livings at the date of the last edition of the Ecclesiastical Register' (1829); and, if we are not misinformed, he does, to this hour, enjoy one of his original preferments, and only resigned the other rectory a very short time since-in favour of his own nephew. It cannot fail to strike every reader that the fact of Mr. Wodehouse being a pluralist was probably disguised in his petition for two reasons;-first, to give more weight to his appeal, which would obviously have been impaired if it had furnished some more extensive reformer with such a tu quoque; and secondly, to conceal the fact that he had not only signed the thirty-nine Articles and professed the vows requisite at both degrees of ordination, but had twice over read himself into rectories, and had, probably for a couple of years, done parochial duty, with ample time and opportunity to consider and understand the meaning of the Athanasian Creed, before he accepted the preferment he now holds!' On the very reading of this petition, one of their lordships saw enough

of

of the case, as we find in the Mirror of Parliament, to induce him to say

If the petitioner entertains conscientious scruples on the subject to which his petition refers, he can give up his preferment; but so long as he remains in the church, he must conform to its doctrine.' This is the common sense of the matter. When his conscience became troublesome, he should have relieved it by resignation, instead of disturbing other men's minds by his petition.

We

Let it not be said that we deal hardly by the individual, and mix up, unfairly, personal topics with a public discussion. It is that individual himself who introduces the personal topics, and claims for his proposition the authority of his personal character. only accept his own data, and apply his personal merits to the same purpose for which he introduced them-the illustration of the argument. If he modestly requires that the Liturgy of the whole Church of England shall be altered to fit his conscience, it is surely quite fair to show that his conscience seems to be of so particular a kind, that what would suit it might probably suit no other conscience in the realm.*

Again, the Reverend John Riland, A.M., after having necessarily gone through all the consecutive forms of assent and consent' to our Church Liturgy, introduces his plan of reform, with these words

The Anglican ritual is spotted and wrinkled with such sarcasm, resentment, abuse, and assumption of its own excellence, as grieves and irritates its best friends; while it furnishes gratuitous matter of contempt and recrimination to those whom it should have pitied and disarmed.'-Introduc. xvii.

As Mr. Riland has not only taken all the previous engagements which we have quoted, but does still administer weekly, nay, daily, to a deluded flock, this 'spotted, wrinkled, sarcastic, abusive, assuming, grievous, irritating, and contemptible' ritual, we think it will be admitted that there is no need-however bad it may beto alter it for the ease of the Reverend Mr. Riland's conscience.

The same objection, in foro conscientiæ, applies to all the clerical proposers of liturgical reform. They have all voluntarily-deliberately-repeatedly-pledged their assent and consent to all

* A crazy reformer, whose trash is not otherwise worth notice, asks, what chance a clergyman of liberal sentiments would have had of promotion under the oligarchical Government of Lords Eldon and Liverpool? We tell this obscure scribbler that it is universally admitted, even by their political opponents, that Church patronage was never more judiciously and conscientiously distributed than during the administration of those noblemen. Lord Eldon may indeed think, with some degree of contrition, that it is to him that Mr. Wodehouse owes the preferments which he, as we think, so much misemploys. We should like to know to what interest the Prebendary owed the very unusual and (we will say, whoever did it) improper favour, of being allowed to resign and name his successor.

and