Page images
PDF
EPUB

our Apostolical Church, in all its purity, throughout the length and breadth of this Christian land.

In apologising for the acts of this Board, it is far from my intention to disguise or to extenuate the real objections to which they are liable. I admit, unequivocally, that the Church will sustain a loss by the suspension of above sixty appointments, calculated to be rewards of industry, of piety, of learning. I also confess that the reduction in the number of residentiaries may, in particular cases, diminish the quantity of personal superintendence now bestowed upon the performance of the daily choral service; though this defect will be partially remedied by the increased residence to be required from the deans; I am moreover sensible of the danger attending the disturbance of institutions which have endured and flourished nearly three centuries; but the sacrifice appeared to be demanded and justified by the wants of the Church, and was more likely to be pleasing to the great Head of that Church than a sacrifice which cost nothing.-Pp. 20—22.

This Charge was the more peculiarly interesting at its delivery, from its having been the first notice given to the Church at large of the extensive and important improvements now making in the plans of the National Society, and the proposals then making for the formation of Diocesan Boards, in connexion with that institution, which have since been so generally carried into effect.

We should be glad to quote very largely from the Charge of the Bishop of Oxford, as almost every page contains some valuable observation; but as it has already gone into a second edition, we trust this is the less necessary. We must, however, find room for two extracts. The first is on the subject which has occupied most space in this article.

In the appointment of the Board of Ecclesiastical Commissioners, we have witnessed the creation of a power as irresponsible as it is gigantic, an "imperium in imperio," which, before long, must supersede all other authority in the Church, and whose decrees are issued in such a manner as to render expostulation and remonstrance unavailing. With a sincere belief in the pure and conscientious motives of every member of the Board as individuals, their acts as a corporation seem to me to be every way full of peril to the Church, of which they ought to be the protectors. And as one of the spiritual guardians of that Church, (though unworthy,) I take this solemn occasion of recording my protest against both the Commission and its proceedings. I disapprove the Commission, as utterly unconstitutional in its permanency; in the extent of its powers; and in the obstacles which it throws in the way of fair and open discussion; in the limited selection of its clerical members, taken from one rank of the University only; in the exclusion of four-fifths of the bishops from all participation in the consultation on Church measures; and, lastly, I disapprove this Commission, as being under the controlling influence of the Government for the time being, and therefore not altogether likely to remain unbiassed by the force of political claims and predilections."-Pp. 7, 8.

The other extract refers to the views and proceedings of the authors of the Tracts for the Times, or, as they are popularly entitled, the Oxford Tracts.

I have spoken of increased exertions among us, and of increasing sense of our Christian responsibilities; and therefore you will probably expect that I should say something of that peculiar development of religious feeling, in one part of my Diocese, of which so much has been said, and which has been

supposed to tend immediately to a revival of several of the errors of Romanism. In point of fact, I have been continually (though anonymously) appealed to in my official capacity to check breaches, both in doctrine and discipline, through the growth of Popery among us. Now, as regards the latter point-breaches of discipline, namely, on points connected with the public services of the Church-I really am unable, after diligent inquiry, to find any thing which can be so interpreted. I am given to understand, that an injudicious attempt was made, in one instance, to adopt some forgotten portion of the ancient clerical dress; but I believe it was speedily abandoned, and I do not think it likely we shall hear of a repetition of this or similar indiscretions. At the same time, so much of what has been objected to, has arisen from minute attention to the Rubric; and I esteem uniformity so highly, (and uniformity never can be obtained without strict attention to the Rubric,) that I confess I would rather follow an antiquated custom, (even were it so designated,) with the Rubric, than be entangled in the modern confusions which ensue from the neglect of it. With reference to errors in doctrine, which have been imputed to the series of publications called the Tracts for the Times, it can hardly be expected, on an occasion like the present, I should enter into, or give a handle to any thing which might hereafter tend to, controversial discussions. Into controversy I will not enter. But, generally speaking, I may say, that in these days of lax and spurious liberality, any thing which tends to recall forgotten truths is valuable; and where these publications have directed men's minds to such important subjects as the union, the discipline, and the authority of the Church, I think they have done good service: but there may be some points in which, perhaps, from ambiguity of expression, or similar causes, it is not impossible but that evil, rather than the intended good, may be produced on minds of a peculiar temperament. I have more fear of the disciples than of the teachers. In speaking therefore of the authors of the Tracts in question, I would say, that I think their desire to restore the ancient discipline of the Church most praiseworthy; I rejoice in their attempts to secure a stricter attention to the Rubrical directions in the Book of Common Prayer; and I heartily approve the spirit which would restore a due observance of the Fasts and Festivals of the Church: but I would implore them, by the purity of their intentions, to be cautious, both in their writings and actions, to take heed lest their good be evil spoken of; lest, in their exertions to re-establish unity, they unhappily create fresh schism; lest, in their admiration of antiquity, they revert to practices which heretofore have ended in superstition.-Pp. 19-21.

To this a note is appended.

As I have been led to suppose that the above passage has been misunderstood, I take this opportunity of stating, that it never was my intention therein to pass any general censure on the Tracts for the Times. There must always be allowable points of difference in the opinions of good men; and it is only where such opinions are carried into extremes, or are mooted in a spirit which tends to schism, that the interference of those in authority in the Church is called for. The authors of the Tracts in question have laid no such painful necessity on me, nor have I to fear that they will ever do so. I have the best reasons for knowing, that they would be the first to submit themselves to that authority which it has been their constant exertion to uphold and defend. And I feel sure, that they will receive my friendly suggestions in the spirit in which I have here offered them.-P. 21, note.

The Bishop of Ripon's Charge contains a very clear outline of the general condition of the new diocese lately formed, over which he presides. We do not, however, observe any thing very peculiarily deserving general attention amongst its contents, except it be a very

admirable passage on the benefits to be derived from public catechizing of children in church. We regret that we must forego the pleasure of presenting it in this article to our readers.

We cannot close our remarks on these important documents without mentioning one other benefit which may arise from their publication, in addition to those noticed above. We think that if the laity should be induced to peruse them, they would be more and more convinced of the value which ought to be set on the apostolic-may we not say, divine,-institution of Episcopacy, and the blessings we enjoy of having over us so many bishops, however they may differ in views, line of conduct, or abilities, yet all vigilant and zealous watchmen over that portion of Christ's Church of which he has made them overseers.

ART. II.-A Collection of the Principal Liturgies used in the Christian Church in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist; particularly the Ancient, viz. the Clementine, as it stands in the Book called the Apostolical Constitutions; the Liturgies of St. James, St. Mark, St.Chrysostom, St. Basil, &c. Translated into English by several Hands. With a Dissertation upon them, showing their Usefulness and Authority, and pointing out their several Corruptions and Interpolations. By THOMAS BRETT, LL.D. London: Rivingtons. 1838. Pp. xxiv. 465.

Continued from page 135.

In our former notice of this profoundly learned and interesting work, we made some extracts on the use of incense in the Christian Church; and we had intended a much longer quotation on the same subject, chiefly on account of the admirable critical discussions exhibited in this part of the book in regard to the Canons of the Apostolical Constitutions. There are, however, other matters of so much greater importance, that we forbear to do so; only stating that the origin of this practice arose from the ancient mode in which the laity made their oblations in the early ages. Besides money, some brought bread and wine; others, oil for the lamps; others, frankincense for embalming the dead; fowls, sheep or other animals for food; and in short almost any thing which was convenient. But it was expressly forbidden by Canon to offer or present any of these things at the altar, "but what our Lord ordained concerning the sacrifice, excepting ears of corn, and bunches of grapes in their season, and oil for the lamps, and incense." Now from hence gradually arose the custom of burning some small portion of the incense thus offered, for the very different but pious use of embalming the dead; but this very Canon itself proves that the four things thus permitted to be offered, were "otherwise than the Lord ordained concerning the sacrifice."

Of all the subjects belonging to Christian Antiquities, none is more singular in itself, nor more necessary to be thoroughly known by all who would enter upon the Romish controversy, than the Disciplina Arcani. We have too often regretted that the champions of Protestantism have, from ignorance of the subject, given very unnecessary advantage to their opponents; a very egregious instance of which occurred in Mr. Faber's published Controversy, some few years since, with a French Bishop. The Disciplina Arcani is a fact which, however opposed to modern notions, cannot be dismissed with a smile of incredulity or indifference, but must be profoundly investigated and understood, or in the hands of a skilful antagonist it will prove a formidable weapon against the truth. We certainly would propose what is here said as to the narrative of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the Evangelists and St. Paul, being written under this sacred reserve, as a most curious and deeply interesting matter of inquiry (p. 134), and as throwing an entirely new light on the subject.

We think that the author has very satisfactorily proved that the Clementine Liturgy was actually the original Liturgy of the Church of Rome :

-it being so firmly corroborated by the testimony of Justin Martyr, who, living within fifty years after the Apostolical age could not but know a true account of the form which was used by the Apostles themselves, being contemporary to their immediate successors. And Justin Martyr having so clearly testified for the antiquity of this thanksgiving form, the use of it in all the other Liturgies, except the Roman, is a good evidence of the universality of it. For though the Roman form may seem an exception to that universality, yet it is not really so, since the testimony of Justin Martyr may convince us that this was not the old Roman form used in his days. For Justin was at Rome when he wrote his Apology, and he wrote it to emperors residing at Rome; and therefore, no doubt, gave them an account of matters agreeable to the practice of the Church of Rome in his days. And if the Christians at Rome had then administered the Eucharist, as they do now, without an eucharistical or thanksgiving prayer, Justin must have exposed himself to the just anger of the emperors, for giving them a false account of the Christian practice. For of whom should they inquire whether he had told them the truth in the matter, but of the Christians who inhabited the city where both they and Justin lived? Therefore we may reasonably conclude that this very eucharistical prayer, which is transmitted to us in the Clementine Liturgy, was used in the Church of Rome in Justin's days, since there is no other eucharistical prayer in any Liturgy whatsoever that so fully agrees with the account he has given of this matter; there being in no other Liturgy a prayer of great length to this purpose. And if this long prayer was used in the Church of Rome in Justin's days, as we have his testimony that it was, then we have no reason to question but the whole Clementine Liturgy (of which this prayer is the largest part) was the ancient Liturgy of that Church. For as to the present Roman Missal, the learned men of the Church of Rome can give no account when or by whom it was composed, as we may learn from Cardinal Bona, who says, "Some think Pope Gelasius was the author of the Canon; others, Musæus, a presbyter of Marseilles; others, Voconius, bishop of Castellana in Mauritania; others, Gregory the Great. But Gregory himself says it was composed by a private scholar, but at what time he doth not tell us.' This is certain, that it was confirmed and ordered to be

used in the churches under the Roman jurisdiction by Pope Gregory himself about the beginning of the seventh century; and is therefore of too late an original to be of authority in this case, farther than it is agreeable to the old traditional form, as we find the several parts of it borne witness to by some or other of the Ante-Nicene fathers. And that it is not agreeable to that tradition in the eucharistical or thanksgiving part is evident from this testimony of Justin, and consequently is disagreeable to the primitive form used at Rome in the Apostolical age, and that which succeeded it; at which time the Clementine form, or one exactly agreeable to it, was certainly used there, as has been proved. -Pp. 173, 174.

It has been objected too to this Liturgy that it has not the Lord's Prayer, which every other known form has: this objection we think the author has successfully met, and showed that the introduction into the Communion Office of that particular prayer, which seems to have been originally intended for private use, was a practice subsequent to the Apostolic age. We think too that he has fully proved that the words "fruits of the vine" in the Evangelical narratives of the institution of the Sacrament really denote a mixed cup of water and wine; and that the tradition of Justin Martyr is worthy of belief, that our Lord himself actually mingled water a second time with the paschal cup of blessing, which already was a cup of mixture, or of water and wine mingled together, according to the Jewish rites. We cannot, however, suffer this portion of the work to pass without confronting with his very strong opinion of the absolute necessity of this peculiar rite, the almost universal opinion of the most learned men that it is not essential to the valid celebration of the Eucharist.

The following account of the grounds on which the ancient Church commemorated the dead in the Holy Communion will be read with interest at the present time, when a late decision in the Ecclesiastical Courts has given prominency to the subject.

It is certain, these prayers were not founded on a belief of purgatory fire after death, but upon a supposition that they were going to a place of rest and happiness, which was their first reason for praying for them, that God would receive them to himself, and deliver them from condemnation. 2. Upon the same presumption some of their prayers were always eucharistical, or thanksgiving for their deliverance out of the troubles of this sinful world; as appears not only from the forementioned testimonies of St. Chrysostom, but from the author under the name of Dionysius, who on describing their funeral service, speaks of the exη evxapiστýpios, the eucharistical prayer, whereby they gave God thanks not only for martyrs, but all Christians that died in the true faith

and fear of God.

A third reason for praying for them, was, because they justly conceived all men to die with some remainders of frailty and corruption, and therefore desired that God would deal with them according to his mercy, and not in strict justice according to their merits: for no one was then thought to have any real merit or title to eternal happiness, but only upon God's promises and mercy. -Pp. 323, 324.

This was not a prayer for persons in the pains of purgatory, but for such as rested in peace, only without dependence upon their own merits, and with an humble reliance upon God's mercy, that he would not suffer them to be

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »