Page images

as to the extent of his powers, surely The Archbishop writes, "Now, whatthere must be the like uncertainty as ever may be the force of the arguto that of others, and consequently ments on either side, a difference of the more reason why any such power opinion will always exist in regard to should be tenderly and faithfully used the contested points.” Of this there by those that are in authority. can be no question, and it will also

This mode, then, of settling the happen again, as it has done in times differences having failed, and it being past, that when the consciences of found impossible to enforce a rigid men are aroused to the position in conformity, is there any probability of which they are, they will make the their being adjusted in any other way? effort to relieve themselves from it.

[To be continued.]


THE CHURCH VISIBLE, AND THE CHURCH INVISIBLE. In all ages, and not least in the pre- Israelite. But our Saviour, piercing sent, so many errors and mistakes deeper, giveth further testimony of him have continually arisen from overlook

than men could have done with such cering the distinction between the Church tainty as He did:– Behold indeed an invisible or mystical, and the Church

Israelite in whom there is no guile. If visible, that it may be well to call the

we profess, as Peter did, that we love the attention of all parties to the very

Lord, and profess it in the hearing of clear statement of this distinction and, therefore, charitable men are likely

men, charity is prone to believe all things; which is given by the judicious to think we do so, as long as they see no Hooker, in the commencement of the proof to the contrary. But that our love third book of his “Ecclesiastical Po- is sound and sincere,— that it cometh lity.” The passage runs thus :- from a pure heart, and a good conscience,

and a faith unfeigned, — who can pro“ That Church of Christ, which we pro- nounce, saving only the Searcher of all perly term His Body Mystical, can be but men's hearts, who alone intuitively doth one; neither can that one be sensibly dis- know in this kind who are His ? cerned by any man; inasmuch as the And, as those everlasting promises of parts thereof are some in heaven already love, mercy, and blessedness, belong to with Christ, and the rest that are on earth the mystical Church; even so, on the (albeit their natural persons be visible) other side, when we read of any duty we do not discern under this property, which the Church of God is bound unto, whereby they are truly and infallibly of the Church whom this doth concern is a that Body. Only our minds by intellec- sensible. known company. And this visitual conceit are able to apprehend, that ble Church in like sort is but one,-consuch a real Body there is; a body collec- tinued from the first beginning of the tive, because it containeth an huge mul. world to the last end.

Which company titude; a body mystical, because the being divided into two moieties; the one mystery of their conjunction is removed before, the other since, the coming of altogether from sense. Whatsoever we Christ; that part which, since the coming read in Scripture concerning the endless of Christ, partly hath embraced, and love and the saving mercy which God show- partly shall hereafter embrace, the Chriseth towards His Church, the only proper tian religion,- we term, as by a more subject thereof is this Church. Concerning proper name, the Church of Christ. And this flock it is, that our Lord and Saviour therefore the Apostle affirmeth plainly hath promised, 'I give unto them eternal of all men Christian, that, be they Jews life, and they shall never perish, neither or Gentiles, bond or free, they are all in. shall any pluck them out of my hands.' corporated into one company; they all They who are of this society have such make but one body. The unity of wh ch marks and notes of distinction from all visible body and Church of Christ, conothers, as are not object unto our sense; sisteth in thut uniformity which all several only unto God, who seeth their hearts, persons thereunto belonging have, by reaand understandeth all their secret cogita- son of that one Lord, whose servants they tions, -unto Him they are clear and ma- all profess themselves; that one Faith, nifest. - All men knew Nathaniel to be an which they all acknowledge ; that one


[ocr errors]


Baptism, wherewith they are all initiated. The visible Church of Jesus Christ is therefore one, in outward profession of those things which supernaturally appertain to the very essence of Christianity, and are necessarily required in every particular christian man 'Let all the house of Israel know for certainty,' saith Peter, 'that God hath made Him both Lord and Christ; even this Jesus whom ye have crucified.' Christians therefore they are not, which call not Him their Master and Lord. And from hence it came, that first at Antioch, and afterwards throughout the whole world, all that were of the Church visible were called Christians even amongst the heathen: which name unto them was precious and glorious; but, in the estimation of the rest of the world, even Christ Jesus himself was execrable; for whose sake all men were so likewise,

which did acknowledge Him to be their Lord. This Himself did foresee; and therefore armed His Church, to the end they might sustain it without discomfort: All these things they will do unto you for my Name's sake; yea, the time shall come that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth God good service. These things I tell you, that when the hour shall come, ye may then call to mind how I told you beforehand of them.' But our naming of Jesus Christ the Lord, is not enough to prove us Christians, unless we also embrace that Faith which Christ hath published unto the world. To show that the angel of Pergamus continued in Christianity, behold how the Spirit of Christ speaketh: Thou keepest my Name, and thou hast not denied my faith.' Concerning which faith, "The rule thereof,' saith Tertullian; 'is one alone, immoveable, and no way possible to be better framed anew.' What rule that is, he showeth by rehearsing those few articles of Christian belief. And before Tertullian, Ireney, The Church, though scattered through the whole world unto the uttermost borders of the earth, hath from the Apostles and their disciples received belief.' The parts of which belief he also reciteth, in substance the very same with Tertullian; and thereupon inferreth, This faith the Church, being spread far and wide, preserveth,-as if one house did contain them; these things it equally embraceth,- as though it had even one soul, one heart, and no more; it publisheth, teacheth, and delivereth these things with uniform consent,— -as if God had given it one only tongue wherewith to speak. He which amongst the guides of the Church is best able to speak, uttereth

[ocr errors]


no more than this; and less than this the most simple doth not utter,' when they make profession of their faith. Now, although we know the Christian Faith, and allow of it,-yet in this respect we are but entering; entered we are not into the visible Church, before our admittance by the door of Baptism. Wherefore, immediately upon the acknowledgement of Christian Faith, the Eunuch, (we see) was baptized by Philip; Paul by Ananias; by Peter an huge multitude, containing three thousand souls; which, being once baptized, were reckoned in the number of souls added to the visible Church."

This distinction is most important; therefore Satan endeavours by all means to persuade men to disregard it. The Church of Rome, being under his influence and dominion, totally forgets it; and those who are tending Romewards entirely forget it too. Yet there cannot be a greater or more dangerous mistake than to apply to the Church Visible,-that is to say, to the whole multitude of those "who

profess and call themselves Christians," the promises and declarations that belong only to those who are


very members incorporate in the mystical Body of Christ, which is the blessed company of all faithful people." The promises of the Holy Ghost belong only to the Church Mystical; and therefore were not given by our blessed Lord to His Apostles, till the traitor Judas had withdrawn (see John xiv. 15, 18, 26; xv. 26; xvi.7-15), and none were left with Him but the truly faithful. The outward Ordinances belong to the Visible Church. Judas himself partook of the Lord's Supper (see Luke xxii. 19-23). But there is no promise of the Holy Ghost, or of any infallible or saving teaching, to any Visible Church; but only to that Church which is truly the Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore before any man, or any body of men, may presume to claim to themselves the Holy Ghost, or the fulfilment of such promises, it behoves them to examine themselves whether they be in the faith, according to 2 Cor. xiii. 5. How fully the Church of England adopts this principle, and how earnestly it calls us to self-examination, may be seen by attentively considering the third part of the third Homily,


ye that mind to come to the Holy Communion of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ," &c.

"Of the Salvation of Mankind;" the whole of the fourth Homily, "Of the true, lively, and Christian Faith," and especially the third part; and the Homily for Whitsunday, especially the latter portion of the first, and the whole of the second part; as also the first exhortation in giving notice of the Communion, and the exhortation in the Communion Service itself, which begins, "Dearly beloved in the Lord,

To the Editor of the Christian Guardian.

DEAR SIR,-I have to thank you for your favourable notice in this month's number (pp. 138-9) of my little work, "Hints and Suggestions on a Revision of the Liturgy," Since its publication, some unknown friend has sent me a


[The Editors are not responsible for every statement or opinion of their correspondents; at the same time, their object is to open the pages of their Magazine to those only, who seek the real good of that Protestant Church with which it is in connexion.]

copy of Rev. P. Gell's "6 Essay on Spiritual Baptism;" at pp. 98, 99, of which I am reminded of an omission of any notice of the sacramental portion of the Church Catechism, of which I ought not to have been guilty, though I must confess that until pointed out by Mr. Gell's Work, I had not perceived how very liable to be misunderstood and perverted, certain phrases in this part of the Catechism are. As some of your readers may possibly have been induced by your remarks to favour my little treatise with a perusal, I will, with your permission, now state what should have been said on this subject in the last line of p. 53.

With respect to the answer to the question, "What meanest thou by this word Sacrament?"-Dr. M'Neil in his "Church and the Churches," c. ix. s. 4, pp. 422-24, (2nd edition,) has pointed out the anomalous nature of the answer, which quite excludes the original idea of the word "Sacrament" (viz. the oath taken by soldiers to be faithful to their generals) from its definition. I ought to have no

• 8vo, Second Edition, J. H. Jackson, Islingtom green and Paternoster row.

It would be well if some of those who write, and write very much, and very vehemently, in the present controversy, would consider and take to themselves these exhortations; and that they would examine themselves whether they be in the faith, before they presume to write so much about it.


ticed this, but somehow I forgot it. I would now propose an answer framed more in the terms of the Twenty-fifth Article, by which slight alteration, more verbal than real, the import of the present answer would be retained, while the original idea of the word "Sacrament would also be preserved in the definition, viz., "I mean a badge or token of Christian men's profession, ordained by Christ Himself as a certain sure witness, and effectual sign of grace, and God's good-will towards us, and a pledge (or seal) to assure us thereof.” The answer to the next question, "How many parts are there in (or of) a Sacrament?" would then need to be worded thus, Two ; an outward [and] visible sign, and an inward [and] spiritual grace." (In the next answer, "Water wherewith" would be preferable to "wherein.") Mr. Gell further reminds us that the answer, "which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper," is certainly open to the view of Transubstantiation or of Consubstantiation; and he would substitute the word " Spiritually" for


verily and indeed." In this I quite concur with him, as it would clearly express the exact teaching of our Twenty-eighth Article, and also of the Communion Service,-which in the Exhortation runs thus, "then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood." The insertion of this word "spiritually" would also be


a decided improvement in one of the prayers of the Communion Service, "Grant us, therefore, so to [spiritually] eat the flesh of Thy Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His blood," &c.

I would also propose the omission of the words, "as generally necessary to salvation," in the answer of the Catechism respecting the Sacraments, for two reasons, (1) Because, in direct opposition to the Twenty-fifth Article, these words have been construed as teaching that there may be more than two Sacraments, if not regarded as "necessary to salvation." (2) Because, in plain opposition to the rubrics of the Communion of the Sick, and the exhortation in the Office of Adult Baptism, the word "generally" has been construed as meaning "universally."

Having thus introduced Mr. Gell's little book, I would now just quote his excellent definition of a spiritual reception of the Lord's Supper. He says, "If I am asked what a spiritual reception of the body and blood of Christ means, I answer, a mental reception, in opposition to a bodily reception; a mental reception of Christ with all His mediatorial excellency, as 'spiritual food,' in opposition to a bodily reception of His natural flesh and blood." (p. 98, note.)

At p. 44, of my little Work, I propose an alteration of the rubric respecting the use of the prayer for the Church militant, when there is no communion, so as to meet the usual custom. To me, however, it seems a pity that a traditionary custom should have been suffered to set aside a plain written direction in our Prayer-Book, thereby giving a pretext, a semblance of an excuse to Mr. Bennett and others, to make out a pretended case of persecution, because they are not suffered to add to our ritual, and to break other rubrics, while we are allowed to break this rubric with impunity. I have myself adopted the use of this beautiful prayer when there is no communion. But I read it in the pulpit, and habited in the gown. In cathedrals, a minor canon usually reads it at his desk. Why, then, in parish churches, may we not

read it in the pulpit? And as there is no direction to change the vestment after the sermon, therefore, I conceive that when there is no communion, the preaching dress may be retained. In short, since Archdeacon Sharp reminds us that when there is no collection, no offertory sentence need be read, (c. iv. p. 76, note,) there can be no substantial reason why this beautiful prayer, with one of the post-communion collects,—such


"Grant we beseech thee," &c.,should not be used in the pulpit in the form of collects after sermon. The essence and true spirit of the Church's provision would thus be preserved. A prayer very suitable for the present times, and directly founded on 1 Tim. ii. 1-4, would thus be continually offered up for our rulers and our clergy. And a special intercession for the "congregation' then " "present," that they may "hear and receive God's " holy Word" (just preached) would be most appro→ priately offered up after the sermon: I am not aware that its introduction gave any offence to my own people. And I suppose that few Bible Christians, with 1 Tim. ii. 1-4, before them, would condemn its use, when thus unostentatiously adopted without any of the ceremonials of Puseyism. The remark may be of use to some of our brethren in the dioceses of London and Exeter, if not to others.

I remain, dear Sir, yours truly,
C. H. D.
2nd April, 1851.

P. S.-In your December number, (p. 560,) you admitted a few remarks of mine on John iii. 5. Perhaps the most plain and intelligible definition of "sacramental (or ecclesiastical) regeneration," would be "an entrance into a new state of sacramental consecration to Christ's service." In John iii. 5, our Lord's meaning seems to have been, "Except a man be completely changed in outward profession by baptismal water, and in heart and mind by the Holy Spirit, he cannot become a subject of God's holy kingdom." He must be entirely changed by a baptismal profession, and a spiritual renewal of heart and mind.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Reviews, and Short Notices of Books.



ii. 19.)


quires to be considered in a twofold RESULTS. By WILLIAM Dods- aspect; that is to say, in its reference to

“Anglicanism”or Tractarianism; and worth, M.A., late Perpetual Curate in its reference to Evangelical Chrisof Christ Church, St. Pancras. tianity. And according to the aspect Second Edition. pp. 112. Pick- in which it is regarded, will be our ering.

judgement concerning it. In reference

to the former, it is weighty, powerful, “They went out from us, but they conclusive, crushing : in reference to were not of us; for if they had been the latter, it is as weak as water, of us, they would no doubt have con- miserably inefficient, because mitinued with us: but they went out, serably dishonest. Grant him his that they might be made manifest premises (as Tractarians do, and must that they were not all of us.' (1 John do,) and we do not see how any one

can deny his conclusions: but once These words of Holy Scripture have bring his premises to the test of Scripcontinually recurred to our minds, ture; and nothing can be more feeble whenever we have heard of persons and contemptible than the whole of who left the Church of England to this production. join the antichristian, idolatrous, and Let us, however, do Mr. Dodsworth apostate Church of Rome. We have the justice to keep in remembrance, always felt, that such persons never that it is addressed to a particular could have really belonged to the class, whom he might be warranted to Church of England. They might be consider as fully prepared to receive in it, like dead and withered branches it: for it is inscribed “to the Memin the vine : but they never were of it; bers of the Congregation of Christ they had no vital union with a scrip- Church, St.Pancras;"—to those whom, tural and living Church—with "a for many years, he had been encongregation of faithful men, in the deavouring to indoctrinate with those which the pure

word of God is principles of which he now proclaims preached, and the sacraments be duly the result. To these he feels, naturally ministered according to Christ's ordi- enough, that he is bound to explain nance in all those things that of ne- the reasons of the step which he has cessity are requisite to the same.' so recently taken: nor can we be at (Art. xix.) Their continuance among all surprised that to these he should us could only be for a time, and for a say, purpose. They naturally must leave

“I cannot doubt but that, upon mature us at last, to go to their own place,- reflection, these reasons will appear in to sink into the yawning gulph of various degrees satisfactory to many that mystery of iniquity, which opens amongst you : because they are indeed wide to devour double-minded and but the legitimate results flowing from unstable men, and faithless professors; those truths (?) which it has been my aim “because they received not the love

to teach you.” of the truth, that they might be saved." To the application of the word (2 Thess. ii. 10.)

truths to the main points of Mr. DodsSuch has been, all along, our judge- worth's teaching, we must, of course, ment in this matter. Does any one demur. But this brings us at once so far question its soundness as to ask to the enquiry, What are the principles for proof? Well then, Mr. Dodsworth which he assumes, and from which he has written and published a pam- reasons? Or, in other words, what phlet to prove it; in which he proves are the fundamental principles, adit, more fully, more satisfactorily, mitted and avowed by “Anglicans" or more unquestionably, than we could Tractarians? We cannot, we prehave pretended to prove it ourselves. sume, act more fairly than by stating

This Work of Mr. Dodsworth re- these in Mr. D.'s own words, as we

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »