He only solely in the interests of the Established Church. meant that as the Bible is the test of a Christian so is the Prayer Book of a Churchman. As a bishop, Marsh continued to retrograde. He resolved to drive from the Church all who held the doctrines of Calvin, which, at that time, meant substantially the Evangelical party. He was not content with pouring out his episcopal wrath in a Charge but had recourse to other measures. An Evangelical rector had nominated a curate. Before giving the licence, the Bishop examined the curate as to his views of regeneration in baptism. The latter took the view that it might precede or follow the symbolical rite. The Bishop in the circumstances had little difficulty in persuading the curate that a real regeneration always accompanied baptism. After the curate had come over to the Bishop's view, the licence was granted. The rector soon found that his curate was not teaching the doctrines he had agreed to teach before his nomination and wished to dismiss him, but the Bishop refused to sanction the dismissal. The Bishop now determined to be beforehand with the whole of that race of the clergy. He formulated a series of eighty-seven questions, bearing on the most abstruse points connected with Calvinistic theology, and required from those who were to be licensed a full and explicit answer to every one. A curate, nominated by an Evangelical rector, refused to answer and denied the Bishop's right to exact from him any more minute account of his doctrine than was required by the Thirty-nine Articles. The Bishop said he was bound by the fifty-eighth canon to know what his clergy were to teach, and such was the variety of interpretation put on the Articles that mere legal subscription was not sufficient. It was finally decided that a bishop had no right to make any test of doctrine beyond the Articles of Religion. Sydney Smith wrote1 'The early Reformers leant to Calvinism and would, to a man, have answered the Bishop's questions in a way that would have induced him to refuse them ordination or curacies, and those who drew up the Thirty-nine Articles would in all probability have given an interpretation and their appreciation of the Prayer Book, but 'the Bible and the Bible alone was the Religion of Protestants.' To circulate the Bible without the Prayer Book showed no want of fidelity to Church principles. So long as we had religious freedom there would be Dissent, and therefore it must be accepted as a necessity. Though we cannot always get unity of opinion we may have union of hearts. This opposition provoked Marsh to write in self-defence. He published' An Enquiry into the Consequences of neglecting to give the Prayer Book to the People.' It left them to interpret the Bible for themselves, and so in danger of being led away by the Dissenters who professed to draw their distinctive theology from the Bible. The Church's interpretation should always accompany the Bible. This was intended by the Reformers who gave us both Bible and Prayer Book. To omit the latter would be dangerous both for Church and State, especially in the education of children. Chillingworth's generalised Protestantism bore its fruit in the Long Parliament, when the Liturgy was abolished, and we may see the same fruit again. The principle that the Church's interpretation should always accompany the Bible brought Marsh into collision with new enemies, or rather into alliance with unknown friends. A Roman Catholic priest' expressed his gratitude to the Cambridge Professor for advocating the side of the Catholic Church against her many foes. Catholics had always rested on the Bible, and the Church's interpretation was only given for the benefit of the poor and the unlearned. The professor was compared to the dove which could find no place to rest the sole of its foot till it returned to the ark. Chillingworth's principle dispensed with creeds, but now there was a healthy tendency to return to the bosom of the Church. The priest's congratulations evoked a defence in 'A Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome.' Marsh complained that he had been misunderstood. He entirely repudiated the idea of tradition as an authority, and virtually adopted the Protestant principle of Chillingworth. His advocacy of the circulation of the Prayer Book did not rest on any doctrine of the authority of tradition but was solely in the interests of the Established Church. He only meant that as the Bible is the test of a Christian so is the Prayer Book of a Churchman. As a bishop, Marsh continued to retrograde. He resolved to drive from the Church all who held the doctrines of Calvin, which, at that time, meant substantially the Evangelical party. He was not content with pouring out his episcopal wrath in a Charge but had recourse to other measures. An Evangelical rector had nominated a curate. Before giving the licence, the Bishop examined the curate as to his views of regeneration in baptism. The latter took the view that it might precede or follow the symbolical rite. The Bishop in the circumstances had little difficulty in persuading the curate that a real regeneration always accompanied baptism. After the curate had come over to the Bishop's view, the licence was granted. The rector soon found that his curate was not teaching the doctrines he had agreed to teach before his nomination and wished to dismiss him, but the Bishop refused to sanction the dismissal. The Bishop now determined to be beforehand with the whole of that race of the clergy. He formulated a series of eighty-seven questions, bearing on the most abstruse points connected with Calvinistic theology, and required from those who were to be licensed a full and explicit answer to every one. A curate, nominated by an Evangelical rector, refused to answer and denied the Bishop's right to exact from him any more minute account of his doctrine than was required by the Thirty-nine Articles. The Bishop said he was bound by the fifty-eighth canon to know what his clergy were to teach, and such was the variety of interpretation put on the Articles that mere legal subscription was not sufficient. It was finally decided that a bishop had no right to make any test of doctrine beyond the Articles of Religion. Sydney Smith wrote 'The early Reformers leant to Calvinism and would, to a man, have answered the Bishop's questions in a way that would have induced him to refuse them ordination or curacies, and those who drew up the Thirty-nine Articles would in all probability have given an interpretation of them, like that which the Bishop condemned as a disqualification for Holy Orders.' The Bishop's last effort to stem the tide of progress that was surging all around him was his opposition to singing hymns in the churches. Some of the modern hymns are described as abounding in 'blasphemy and vulgarity,' but the avowed object was to carry out the spirit of the Act of Uniformity, and this could not be done if the clergy were allowed to introduce any hymn books at their pleasure. These new hymns might be the means of undermining the Church's doctrines. As we have an authorised version of the Bible so should we have an authorised version of the Psalms. The metrical version in the Prayer Book had indeed no authority beyond that of the King's Printer, but for the sake of uniformity and soundness in the faith, we should all cling to it. This was the last plea for Tate and Brady, Sternhold and Hopkins. Bishop Marsh deserved to be celebrated in He was probably in Hannah More's mind when she wrote of one who verse. 'Feared 'twould show a falling state Henry Bathurst, Bishop of Norwich, continued the succession of liberal bishops. Though descended from a Nonjuring family, and in fact the son of a Non-juror, he early renounced the principles of his ancestors and ardently promoted all measures for political and religious freedom. He rejoiced in the progress of toleration' and expressed his belief that Roman Catholics were now more tolerant, and Dissenters less acrimonious than they had been in past times. He defended the Evangelical clergy as men whose enthusiasm consisted only in zeal in performing the duties of their calling. He supported and defended the Bible Society in the face of remonstrances from the clergy of his diocese. He was ready to share in every undertaking for the furtherance of the gospel of Christ. Though inalienably attached to the Church of England, he was willing even to renounce that if it stood in the way of his working with his fellow-Christians. The end to be gained was of more importance than the means to be used. To the cry of the Church in danger, he answered that there was danger, but it was from those who raised the cry. Some thought the Church of England of more importance than Christianity itself, but the outward fabric was not worth maintaining if charity, the guardian angel of the inner fabric was gone. Bishop Bathurst was one of the early promoters of the National Society, but he wished it to be national in reality and not merely in name, and to undertake the education of all without reference to Creed. He was the first of modern bishops to disregard Episcopal routine, and refused to be guided by rigid legality. He ordained candidates from Scotch Universities as being of equal standing with those from Oxford or Cambridge. He even ordained without titles; one of those who were so ordained was Graham the poet of the Sabbath, another was Charles Sumner afterwards Bishop of Winchester. Thomas Burgess, Bishop successively of Llandaff and St David's was also one of the first Episcopal supporters of the Bible Society. He was ardent for Chillingworth's rule, 'The Bible and the Bible alone,' and this with the utmost loyalty to the Prayer Book in its proper place. He advanced if he did not originate an argument against the supremacy of St Peter in the variation of the gender between the two Greek words which mean rock in the text, 'Thou art Peter' and on this rock 2 I will build my Church.' The foundation was then not the man Peter but the confession he had just made that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. The Bishop had also a theory that the Church of Rome was founded by St Paul and not by St Peter. In the Epistle to the Romans St Paul spoke of imparting to them a spiritual gift. The Church was really founded when this gift was imparted. Not only did St Paul found the Roman Church, he also founded that of Britain which was entirely independent of the Church of Rome. From this it follows that the Papal |