« PreviousContinue »
The success attendant upon petty robberies gives confidence, and a gang of desperate villains is formed, who live upon the industry of others. Robbery leads to murder; the fiercer passions are let loose; and then follow all the necessary results of misery and starvation throughout the colony. Lord Eversham's eyes are now opened, and he beholds with deep remorse that his plans have been contrary to the laws of God and the constitution of man. Just at this time a vessel arrives from England (Lord Eversham having contrived to send home word), and brings out not only supplies, but a patent creating him governor of the colony, a detachment of military to enforce obedience, together with a bishop and several clergy. From that day the scene changes; law and order are established; the evil passions of men restrained; a city with its Cathedral, Schools, &c., are reared; and the account of the colony, written by a visitor twenty years subsequently, makes us wish that this were not the only British colony in the world, to which a nominally Christian Government would see the advantage—not to say the honesty-of attaching from the commencement, a staff of clergy headed by a bishop. Alas! such a colony exists as yet, so far as Protestant England is concerned, only in tales, we fear.
The story is not badly conceived; and if it be not very cleverly worked out, at least it is written in the right principles, religious as well as political. We hope it may do good.
III. The Holy Oblation; a Manual of Doctrine, Instruction, and Devotions relative to the Blessed Eucharist. By an ANGLO-CATHOLIC PRIEST. London: Cleaver.
Or all the ordinances which the goodness of God has provided for the nourishment of piety in man, none better fulfils its mission, because none is gifted with such power of adaptation to the ever-varying moods in which the events of this changeful scene leave the mind, than the sacrament of the Communion of our Lord's body and blood. We can neither, then, wonder at, nor object to the multiplicity of Manuals, or "Companions for the Altar," which by this time are offered to the choice of communicants. But since the Liturgy, properly so called, involves, and since all works bearing on it must likewise involve, many points of nicest theology and of deepest importance to Christian truth, we feel bound, as reviewers, to scrutinize with watchful jealousy every fresh work of the sort. Inasmuch as we must believe them all to be penned with good intent, we desire to look at and speak of them in the spirit of charity; but seeing that they treat of the fundamental points of Christian faith, and affect the purity of the
highest act of Christian worship, we may not suffer our charity to the authors to deter us from speaking of their works in such terms of severity as, haply, we deem them to deserve.
We proceed at once to inquire in what respect the "Manual" before us differs ftom its many predecessors. The reply is that, not content with what is prescribed in red and black in our Prayer Book, the compiler makes a conscience of introducing certain ceremonies, and other matters which he is pleased to consider primitive, and (as it would appear) necessary to the due celebration of the Liturgy.
To three of these he calls attention in his Introduction, as of extra importance; indeed, as to the first of them he declares that, "it would be absolutely suicidal in a clergyman to omit it."
These are," mixing water with the wine, washing the hands, and making the sign of the cross." Before mentioning these, he quotes the 34th Article, and then coolly tells us that, though "not prescribed in our Liturgy," yet these "three Eucharistic rites are certainly approved by common authority." This "common authority" (as we gather from frequent notes) is the primitive Church, King Edward's First Book, Bishop Andrewes' Form of consecrating a Church, and Rules for the celebration of Divine Service during Prince Charles's residence in Spain. Now we would ask the compiler, does he seriously mean to affirm that all or any of these can be taken to constitute that "common authority," the stamp of whose approval the Article requires? Nay, we would ask, in respect of regulating how a clergyman of the Church of England at this day is to perform Divine service, of what authority any one of them is? To which of them is it that we have given our feigned assent and consent?" Was it King Edward's Liturgy, or the Liturgy of St. James, that we declared on oath contains nothing contrary to the word of God, and that we would use in public prayer, and none other? Or was it not rather that of the Church of England, ACCORDING TO THE REVISION OF 1662? And if so, we protest that we are utterly unable to discover what any earlier revision of the Prayer Book is to us, much less any foreign Liturgy, ancient or modern. Were a fresh revision made the question, then we should do well to consult primitive rituals: or were it in contemplation merely to provide a manual of private devotions, it would be open to the compiler to recommend any innocent practice. But in the case before us it is otherwise : this book is intended to direct priests how to celebrate publicly
1 That we are correct in this assertion will be readily seen by a glance at p. ix. "Our Church surely never intended that these venerable and significant ceremonies should be abolished."-P. xi. "These rites... were not thought to require any special directions for their adoption or continuance at the last revision." And the
the Eucharist, and, by consequence, to teach the laity to feel and express dissatisfaction if it be not so celebrated. This is one of the ways by which weak-minded persons are insensibly led to Rome.
With regard to the three matters which our author is at such special pains to recommend to us (devoting four pages of Introduction to them, and afterwards inserting rubrics, devotions, and rites at the proper places in the service), we may think them as ancient and innocent or desirable as he does; we may perchance secretly wish that those who revised our Liturgy had retained them but if we deemed them to be even much more desirable than, it must be confessed, we do, we should be very loath to recommend their public adoption; at least, the adoption of the two former, which cannot but excite the attention of the congregation. We do say that, however primitive or excellent they may be, we should consider any clergyman to act exceedingly wrong, who introduced them. We should think it contrary to the 36th Canon, and the Act of Uniformity; for he has promised to "use the form in the said book prescribed, and none other." We should be of opinion that he would "offend against the common order of the Church," understood as in common sense and honesty this expression must be; and we are sure, that he would "wound the consciences of " many "weak brethren." Nor can we by any means allow the correctness of the reasoning at p. vi.
"But it will be said that the Church herself has declared what primitive doctrine is, and that we should submit to her decision, rather than exercise our individual judgment in the matter. True, to a
certain extent, and as regards what is evidently clear and express; but where, from extraneous circumstances, she has been prevented giving full utterance to her mind on any subject, or where any thing has been omitted, she not only permits, but requires us to search for ourselves."
Now we submit that such reasoning would hold in a case whereof nothing whatsoever either is or ever has been said: in this case we do right in searching for ourselves" what primitive practice enjoined. But if it be a matter touching which the Church has once spoken fully and minutely, but now speaks only partially,-in the words of this writer, has not given full utterance to her mind," that is, to what he conceives to be her mind; we argue that she had some good reason for this; perhaps her mind is changed for some cause which may
startling assertion at p. xii. that "it is impossible to conceive the amount of spiritual injury which a clergyman may unwittingly inflict upon the docile and humbleminded portion of his flock, by neglecting" these ceremonies; which neglect is termed a "neglecting to give full effect to the intention of the Church in regard to the service of the altar."
or may not now be guessed at. Thus if she formerly directed bread and wine to be placed on the table, and with it some water to be mixed; but now, though still directing the bread and wine to be so placed, and giving as minute directions about the quality of the bread, she yet makes no mention of the water; we say that it is a fair inference, that she purposely omitted all reference to it. It is quite possible that the cause which suggested the prudence of this omission may have long since passed away; still, until "competent authority "shall re-establish the former usage, we maintain that every priest is bound to omit it: nor can we comprehend how that can be "ordained and approved by common authority," in behalf of which can be pleaded neither canon nor rubric now in force, nor the use of the Church at large, nor the example of even one prelate since the last Review. Every theologian knows that, while some rites and traditions are invariable, there are others which may be changed; at one time used, relinquished at another (provided only it be done by the Church, and not by individual judgment); and certain rules have been laid down for distinguishing variable from invariable rites. The administration of the sacrament to infants rests on much the same authority as the mixture of water with the wine: would, then, "the omission" of this be accounted as "absolutely suicidal in a clergyman?"
But let us examine the work a little further. We have an introductory chapter on "the nature of the Eucharist;" which is said to be threefold;-that, namely, of "a Sacrifice, a Sacrament, and a Communion." So far all is right: "the Church has always viewed this ordinance under these three aspects." But it is well known, that with regard to the first of them-a Sacrifice, much and grievous error has prevailed in one large portion of the Church. It is well known that to such an extent was this error carried in the Church of Rome, and has since been stereotyped there by the Council of Trent, that our Reformers in 1562, judged it needful to frame an Article in counteraction of the heresy. We admit that there is a sacrifice in the Eucharist; and further, that this doctrine has shared the fate of several other Catholic doctrines, which Romanists had abused,-viz. that it has been forgotten and denied; and thus men have sustained an injury, inasmuch as no particle of truth can be overlooked without injury. Hence it is right that this portion of the truth should be re-enforced. But surely common sense and common charity alike point out, that those portions of the truth which have been, and are therefore liable to be, perverted, ought to be treated with more than ordinary delicacy and caution. But is it thus handled in the work
before us? Not so. After devoting a page to explaining that ποιεῖν--in DO THIS in remembrance of me,"--means, "offer this as a sacrifice" (a notion which would appear to have been borrowed without acknowledgment from the Notes to Nicholls on the Common Prayer), we find the following statement:
"Our Church views the Eucharist as a continuation of the sacrifice on the Cross, and commemorative of it, as well as the means of applying its benefits to our souls and bodies.
"In both respects He [Christ] is also the priest, for the ministers of the altar personate Him, and consecrate the oblation 'not in their own name, but in Christ's, and by His commission and authority.' (Art. xxvi.) Wherefore they say not 'This is the Body of Christ,' but simply and absolutely, This is my Body.'
"Its continued identity is strikingly exhibited in the distribution of the sacred elements. When the priest says, 'The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, take and eat this ;' The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, drink this;' he at the same time connects them with the sacrifice on the cross, thus: 'which was given for thee,' 'which was shed for thee.'" -pp. 8, 9.
Now the 31st Article was directed, it is true, prima facie, against the vulgar and heretical doctrine of the reiteration of Christ's sacrifice in the Eucharist. But verily the difference, if any difference exist, between the reiteration and the continuation of it, is much too fine for common understandings. For if the one sacrifice be a continuation of the other, the latter must needs be identical with the former, of which it is the continuation; but if it be identical, we see not how it can be denied to be a reiteration.
The second of the three paragraphs, which we have quoted above, we really do not understand. We do not understand how it can be said that Christ is the priest actually, because the ministers of the altar personate Him: and if He be not so actually, then the writer's argument is not helped; if He be so only by representation, then this supports the true Catholic doctrine of a commemorative sacrifice. Now if the Eucharist be a commemorative sacrifice, it cannot be a continuative one. The truth is, that the words of institution, in this prayer of consecration, are simply a commemoration or repetition of what took place, as related in the three Gospels.
We had intended to remark on several other points, but our observations have already exceeded the limits which we had proposed to ourselves. We will therefore hasten on to another matter, and conclude.