Page images
PDF
EPUB

find them in different pages of this pamphlet.

He says, p. 17,—

"I propose to consider what are the legitimate results of that system which passes under the name of Anglicanism ;by which term I mean more particularly that system of religion which is adopted by the high-church school in the Establishment. The practical results which I mean to point out are those which affect the allegiance of Anglicans to the Established Church, and their continuance in it. The difficulties then involved in these results are such as will not be felt to be difficulties by the low-church school."

Certainly not: and we do not much thank Mr. D. for that admission. He could not well avoid it. And we have little reason to thank him, when we consider its connexion with what immediately follows,- to which we must advert hereafter. He adds, p. 18,

"The difficulties however of which I have to speak, are those alone which beset the high-church party in maintaining their principles, and yet continuing in their allegiance to the Established Church. This must be specially borne in mind as the ground of the following argument. The first difficulty I will mention is that which has reference to

46 I. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH." This brings Mr. D. at once to the Tractarian notion of the Church. He says, very truly, p. 19,

"This is a difficulty which does not oppress low-churchmen, because they resolve the doctrine into that invisible

bond, which, as they say, unites together all real Christians of whatever denomination. They do not believe the Church to be a visible body."

Certainly they do not believe THE Church to be a visible body. We might object to the use of the terms high-church and low-church,-which Mr. D. uses, adroitly enough, to serve his own purpose. But we know what he means; and we will dispose, both of these terms, and of the exception which might be taken against them, by simply relating an anecdote.

A lady, whose heart was right with God, but who had not much head for controversies, and the distinctions involved in controversial terms, once Complained to a clergyman, that she

had been much perplexed and troubled with a discussion about HighChurch and Low-Church,-which she could not rightly understand. She asked him, therefore, "Can you tell me the difference?" "O yes," replied he immediately,-"I shall not have the slightest difficulty in so doing. The High-Church set the Church above Christ; and the Low-Church set Christ above the Church."

This is the real distinction between the two parties; and, keeping this in remembrance, let us proceed with our quotation,—

"But the Anglican utterly rejects this theory. It enters as an element into his definition of the Church that it is VISIBLE."

And he adds, in the same page,

"The Anglican ... considers the whole Church Catholic to consist of the Roman communion, the Greek communion, and the Anglican communion (including of course the American.)"

[ocr errors]

66

This, then, it seems, is the first and main principle of Anglicanism: that THE Church is VISIBLE, (and, therefore visible union with it is essential,) and that the Roman communion is a main branch of it. If this be grantedif this be assumed as a first principle -we think the question is settled. We do not see how the conclusion can be avoided, that the separation of the 'Anglican" communion from the Roman was a deplorable schism;" and that it is the duty of all who admit this principle, to join the Church of Rome without delay. They have already given up the only principle on which separation from it can be justified. Writing, therefore, (as Mr. D. professedly does) to those who fully admit his premises, we think that he proves them, most triumphantly, to be in a position altogether untenable and indefensible: and-if they cannot logically refute his argument-moral honesty requires, that they should come practically to the same conclusion with him.

Mr. D. next adverts (under head II. p. 38,) to "the doctrine of SACRAMENTAL GRACE" which, we presume, must be considered as the second great principle. And, after observing that, "To deny baptismal regeneration, or

REVIEWS-ANGLICANISM CONSIDERED IN ITS RESULTS.

[blocks in formation]

"1. That the very Body and Blood of our Lord are in no merely figurative sense, but really and substantially present, not merely to the heart and soul of the believer, but, under the form of bread and wine' upon the altar.

“2. That in this sacrament, the priest really offers in commemoration the true and proper sacrifice of that very Body, which once for all was offered on the Cross, and that in this sacrament is transacted the perpetuation of that one Sacrifice once offered, which is propitiatory for the sins of the whole world.

"This I suppose is also, in substance, the belief of the Catholic, and however others may doubt of, or deny the truth of this doctrine, no one can question its immense and overwhelming importance,

if true."

Many would have thought that, by this time, Mr. Dodsworth must have known what is "the belief of the Catholic;" but perhaps those spiritual masters, to whose despotism he has thought fit to subject himself, may deem it expedient to keep him for a time in the dark. He may be a more useful tool in their hands, before he really knows-while he only sup

poses

what is the doctrine of that apostate Church which he has joined. But, be this as it may, the doctrine (which he assumes that the "Anglican" believes) is, it is evident, so essentially the same with the Popish doctrine, that Mr. D. may well appeal to those who have gone so far, that it is very inconsistent and inconsequential in them, not to go one step farther; that is to say, by leaving a Protestant Church and joining that of Rome. This conclusion is further enforced by the remarks which Mr. D. makes upon

"III. THE ACTUAL STATE OF THE EXISTING ESTABLISHED CHURCH," p.49, and

"IV. the interference of the CIVIL POWER IN MATTERS OF A PURELY SPIRITUAL NATURE," p. 53.

From what is said under this latter head, it appears, not merely that

183

"Anglicans" are aggrieved by the recent decision in the Gorham case: but that they are much more aggrieved by that exercise of Royal Authority which was manifested in the act of pronouncing a judgement in such a case at all. And, if so, it is evidently impossible that they can, with good conscience, remain in the Church of England. They have, in regard to her Supremacy" in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes (see the thirty-sixth canon) renounced their allegiance to their Queen, and they ought to withdraw from a Church which requires them, not only to subscribe to, but openly to maintain, "to the uttermost of their wit, knowledge, and learning, purely and sincerely, without any colour or dissimulation," the doctrine of the Royal Supremacy, (compare the thirty-sixth canon with the first.)

But let us come to still more imunder his first four heads, to shew, portant matters. After saying enough, that the whole of the Anglican party Mr. Dodsworth comes at last to that are in a false and dishonest position, point, with which, we think, in common honesty, he ought to have begun, that is to say, to the "Thirtynine Articles." On this head he says, p. 70,

"V. PASSAGES IN THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.

"For some time I have had misgivings about some passages in the thirty-nine Articles. But my misgivings have been suspended rather than laid asleep by such considerations as these; that the Articles were intended to be articles of compre hension; that they have in fact been subthat on the whole they admit of a Catholic scribed by Catholic-minded men; and

sense as much as of a Protestant sense.

"I now feel, on further consideration, the untenableness of these reasons, chiefly on grounds which recent events have led me to examine; First, that it is an impiety to allow of comprehension on such subjects as some of those on which the Articles treat. It is in fact to make "open questions of distinct dogmas of the Church. And next that some of the Articles do not admit of a Catholic sense. And further that it is no real reason for subscribing them, to say that there are others which equally condemn a protestant subscription. This may be a good argu.

ment ad hominem but not ad conscien tiam."

And he then proceeds to make particular remarks on Articles vi., XI.,

XIII., XIX., XXI., XXII., XXV., XXVIII.,

XXIX., XXXI., XXXv., and xxxvIII. (Mr. D. evidently means xxxvII.; for he says, it "treats on the subject of the royal supremacy, and spiritual jurisdiction;" but both in the "Contents," and in the body of the pamphlet, it is wrongly numbered).

This part of the pamphlet more especially must be looked at in its twofold aspect: we cannot be content to deal with it, as we well might with most of the preceding portion, merely

in reference to those to whom it is primarily addressed; we should, in so doing, be guilty of compromising the cause of Divine Truth. Much of what precedes is, as we have said, in its bearing upon Tractarians, weighty and powerful it demolishes their position: and, as so doing, we might fairly commend it to the serious consideration of the reader, and approve it, as clearly setting forth the only legitimate result of the premises which it assumes. But we cannot, in any respect or measure, concede the meed of praise to that part of the pamphlet which relates to the Articles. With reference to what seems to be the main object of the writer, that which might have been,—that which ought to have been the most forcible portion of his work, is in fact the feeblest: and the reason is, that, in regard to Evangelical Truth, and to the questions at issue between the "Anglican" party and the faithful portion of the Church of England, it is the most dishonest and Jesuitical. There is, indeed, even in this part of the pamphlet, enough to shew, that-much as he and they are disposed, and long as he and they have been accustomed to wrest, and pervert, and explain "the plain and full meaning, the literal and grammatical sense" of the Articles, still there is abundance to which no " Anglican" can pretend honestly to subscribe :-" some of the Articles do not admit of a Catholic sense:"no, not even when the nonnatural method of interpretation has been tried to the uttermost!!

away

But the truth is, that, as soon as we come to the Thirty-nine Articles, we discover, but too plainly, the utter dishonesty of the whole party. They dishonestly and wickedly keep the Articles out of sight as long as they can: they thrust them into the background: for they know and feel that those Articles, many of them expressly, and all of them taken as a whole and as a system,—are directly against them. And when they are forced at length to take some notice of them, it is in the spirit of the infamous Tract, No. xc.,- -even when they do not go to the full length of that shameful and shameless production. Mr. Dodsworth is evidently disposed to admit and use the principles of that Tract as far as he can,though he is sometimes compelled to allow that it is unsatisfactory; for he quotes it again and again, applauds its ingenuity (p. 86), and never once condemns its Jesuitism: nay, he says, in regard to one of the grossest instances of its dishonesty (its remarks on the condemnation of Transubstantiation, in Art. XXVIII.) :-

"And I suppose Anglicans generally reconcile their subscription to this Article by adopting substantially this interpretation of it." (p. 81.)

The

So that, on the testimony of Mr. D. himself, the principle of a non-natural interpretation of the Articles is commonly adopted by Tractarians, as the only way of reconciling their consciences to subscription! What are we, then, to think of their consciences?* And what, then, is the conclusion to which all this brings us, but simply that with which we set out? whole of this pamphlet proves that the Tractarians (or "Anglicans') are not of the Church of England, though for their own convenience, or for the purposes of their true and proper mother, the Church of Rome, they may for a time continue in it. Mr. D. conclusively proves, that-in common honesty and consistency-they ought to leave it, and to join the Church of Rome: for to that apostate Church their admitted and avowed principles inevitably lead them. Their first

See Tit. i. 15.

REVIEWS

-CONVERSATIONS ON THE LORD'S SUPPER.

[blocks in formation]

We cannot sit down to review this excellent treatise, without taking blame to ourselves for not having done our part to make the christian public earlier aware of its merits. Every one knows that treatises, tracts, sermons, and polemical discussions, on the holy communion of the Lord's Supper, are abundant enough. They are so numerous, that a decided preference of any one, to all others, may be no more than a proof that the judge has but a very limited acquaintance with the fruits of the labour of many wise and highly-gifted servants of the Lord, who have cultivated this portion of sacred literature. If it be so, the present reviewer must confess himself unacquainted with any other treatise on the Lord's Supper, in which the subjects considered correspond so fitly and so fully with the topics suggested by our liturgy and catechism. And the manner in which they are treated is simple, clear, grounded on Scripture, and elucidated by quotations from some of

our soundest divines.

The instruction is conveyed in dialogues between a good Nathanael, his

185

rector, Mr. Goodall, and an intelligent Inquirer; and the tone and manner will remind some of our readers of the conversations between Mr. Lovegood and Thomas Newman; though Mr. Stannard is never led away by that unhappy love of the humorous, which enlivens, but detracts from the general wisdom of Rowland Hill's "Village Dialogues."

To take an example from the fourth chapter, where the subject is that answer in our Catechism, which says that "the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." Mr. Goodall observes, upon these ward, in times past, as a stumblingwords, that "they have been put forblock in many a weak brother's way; and are now again perverted by some, even ministers of our Church, to the same pupose;" and he proceeds to ask the Inquirer, what he understood our Lord to mean, in John vi., by eating His flesh, and drinking His blood? (p. 54.) To this question, the Inquirer answers:

"I understand that by the words, flesh and blood, as there used, our blessed Lord intended to express whatever he did, or

suffered in the body (prepared for Him as Mediator) for our redemption and salva. tion; and that by eating and drinking He meant a hearty receiving of Him, and reliance upon Him as the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey do you

Him.

"Mr. G.-For what reason,

suppose, did our Lord express himself

in such terms as these?

"I-In order most strongly to impress on the minds of His hearers the necessity of depending on Him alone for eternal life, shewing them, that as the natural life is supported by food of God's appointment, so the life of the soul is maintained by that Saviour whom He had given, the true bread from heaven; and that as we must eat and digest our food, in order that our bodies may be nourished and kept alive, so we must come unto Jesus Christ; must receive, believe in, and rely on him for the saving of the soul.'

"Mr. G.-I think that your view of this matter is correct; and that you are also perfectly right as to the obligation and indispensable necessity that is upon us to receive Jesus Christ as our Saviour.

As such, we must receive Him in all His offices. Every act and word of His is of importance to us,-His teaching, His exhortation, and His example; but, above all, His death: and this it is which we are especially directed to remember in the Lord's Supper. The importance of the death of Christ (the immediate cause of which was a separation of the blood from the body) is very strikingly shewn by His appointing the bread and wine to be taken separately, with an express command respecting each. These

were the significant emblems which our Lord appointed to be employed for keeping up the remembrance of His decease, which He speaks of as already accomplished; it being His 'determinate counsel' soon to finish the work which the Father Him to do. And I would here gave observe, that the injunction, 'do this,' appears from St. Paul's words, 'Ye do shew the Lord's death till He come,' to have laid an obligation not only upon the Apostles, during their lives, to shew the Lord's death, by partaking of the emblems of His body and blood, then actually broken, and shed for them; but to be equally binding on all, both then and in the ages to come, who should believe on Him, through their word; and moreover, that the grand and chief design of the Lord's Supper is, so to bring to the devout remembrance of His disciples,

the exceeding great love of their Master and only Saviour thus dying for them,' as to strengthen and confirm their faith in Him, 'in whom we have redemption through His blood,' and for whose sake alone, pardon of sin, increase of grace, and all the mercies and blessings of the new covenant are poured forth In the answer of the upon us. . . . . . .

:

Catechism, we are told, that true believers, receiving in this holy ordinance the emblems of Christ's body and blood, according to their Lord's command, and thus openly expressing their thankful acceptance of the benefits thereby held forth to them, do actually experience the reality which by faith they seek the like blessings to those which Paul desired for his Ephesian brethren, when he prayed the Father that he would grant them to be strengthened with might by His spirit in the inner man;' and that Christ might dwell in their hearts by faith.' Agreeably to this view of the matter, our twenty-eighth article declares, that the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner: and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

in the Supper is faith.' Therefore (as in the twenty-ninth article), the wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press, with their teeth, the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ.' It is with a direct view to this important truth that every part of our communion service is constructed. First, we are exhorted to observe, that the benefit afforded by the Lord's Supper is great, if, with a true penitent heart and lively faith, we receive that holy sacrament; for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink His blood; then we dwell in Christ and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us.' Afterwards we are taught to pray that our gracious Lord' would grant us so to eat the flesh of His dear Son, Jesus Christ, and to drink His blood' (so, i.., to do it with a true penitent heart and lively faith), that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in Him and He in us;' or, in other words, that our sinful deeds, done in the body, may be expiated by the sufferings and death of God's dear Son, Jesus Christ;' and that we 'being cleansed (by Him) from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,' may have a constant dependence upon Him for life, which is our dwelling in Him; and that He may bestow a constant influence of His quickening spirit, which is His dwelling in us.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

To think and to believe are

as really acts of the mind, as to eat and to drink are acts of the body; and what is done by the mind is as truly done as what is done by the body. The body and blood of Christ, therefore (i.e., a leart-cheering and invigorating sense of the benefits which Christ purchased for us, in the body of his flesh, through death), are as truly, as 'verily and indeed received' by faith, as bread and wine are by the mouth. In every part of our beautiful service, the grand stress is laid upon faith."-Ch. iv. pp. 54-65.

This exposition of our Church's doctrine is followed by an account of the doctrine of transubstantiation, as stated in the official documents of the Papal church, and of the ground alleged for it from the Scriptures by the Romanists. The insufficiency of that ground is shewn by a comparison of Scripture with Scripture; and some of the monstrous results which avowedly follow from the doctrine of tran

« PreviousContinue »