Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

THE OXFORD ADDRESS.

of those statements in which the Oxford addressers tell Her Majesty how much authority her popish predecessors were fain to leave in the hands of their clergy; for it is but pure folly to assume, as they have done, that the limit of such restraints as those sovereigns could venture to put upon the incessant aggressions of an usurping priesthood, must be regarded as the limit of what a Protestant Church may properly concede to a Protestant Government. But statement the fourth begins with such an untruth that it ought not to pass unnoticed. The whole of that statement is as follows:-"The largest claim ever made by any king of England was in the constitution of Clarendon, in the reign of your Majesty's predecessor, King Henry II., wherein it was provided, that if the Archbishop failed to shew justice, recourse was at last to be had to the king, that by his precept the controversy might be terminated in the archbishop's court."

Is it too much to ask that the Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, who has allowed his name to go forth with this Oxford document, would give his class an early opportunity of hearing him lecture on the constitutions of Clarendon; on Becket's hypocrisy and sanctioned perjury respecting them; and on Henry the Second's abstinence from claiming, in these constitutions, what his predecessor William I. had not only claimed authority to enforce, but had unshrinkingly enforced? The professor might observe to them, from the text of Matt. Paris, that the constitutions of Clarendon are there declared to be but recognitio sive recordatio cujusdam partis consuetudinum et libertatum antecessorum suorum, regis videlicet Henrici avi sui et aliorum; as if by thus dropping William's name, the king's counsellors intended to give the prelates a tacit hint of the extent to which he might have shorn their power, had he demanded a recognition of the whole, and not of a part only, of what the first Norman sovereign had claimed. A comparison between the authority which William exercised, without suffering

67

his prelates to question its legality, (as distinctly pointed out in a page of the cotemporary historian Eadmer,) and the less portion of that authority claimed by Henry II., would give just the information which these Oxford addressers seem to want. For example, whereas Eadmer says of William, "Primatem regni sui, si coacto generali episcoporum concilio præsideret non sinebat quicquam statuere aut prohibere nisi quæ suæ voluntati accommoda, et a se primo essent ordinata;" this rule has no parallel in the constitutions of Clarendon. And again, whereas William would not suffer that a bishop "implacitaret, aut excommunicaret, aut ulla rigoris pœna constringeret, aliquem de baronibus suis seu ministris," even when charged with the vilest offences, "nisi ejus præcepto," the constitutions say, "Si ab archidiacono, vel episcopo, super aliquo delicto citatus fuerit, unde debeat eis respondere, et ad citationes eorum voluerit satisfacere, bene licet eis sub interdicto ponere eum;" and they only forbid his being excommunicated "priusquam capitalis minister regis villæ illius conveniatur, ut justiciet eum ad satisfactionem venire," Matt. Paris, p. 84, ed. 1686.

I will pass on however to statement eighth, where the addressers tell their sovereign that "it was admitted (by 25 Hen. VIII. c.14,) that heresies should be finally judged in the bishops' court; and in 1530, King Henry VIII, himself stated in a proclamation, that cognizance of heresies, errors, and lollardies, appertaineth to the judge of the holy Church, and not to the judge secular."

In this statement there seem to be both suggestio falsi, and suppressio veri; for the addressers have omitted to state, what Blackstone has told, that by the statute, 2 Hen. V. c. 7,

[ocr errors]

Lollardy was made indictable in the king's courts; which though they did not thereby gain an exclusive, yet obtained a concurrent jurisdiction with the bishop's consistory." Comment. vol. iv. p. 47. They have said nothing about the requisition in the act they cite, respecting "an indictment of heresy being first previously found in the king's courts of com

mon law;" nor of the establishment of "a mixed jurisdiction of clergy and laity, for the trial and conviction of heretics," by a later statute of the same king, Id. ibid.; nor of the farther transfer of power to laymen, in cases of accusation of heresy, effected by an Act which Cranmer carried through parliament in 1544, viz., 35 Hen. VIII. c. 5.

But let us come to statement the twelfth. It tells Her Majesty, "That during the whole reigns of King Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Queen Elizabeth, there is no trace of any of the nobility or common law judges in ANY Commission, nor afterwards in one commission out of forty, until the overthrow of the royal authority in the great rebellion."

ERRATA.-P. 25, col. 2, 1. 13, for sorinianum, read scriniarium; and for creat, read creat. P. 26, col. 1, 1. 26 from bot. for order, read codex; and in the next line, and line 20, for divisions, read decisions, In col. 2, for sciuti, read sicuti; and line 7 from bot. for probatus, read probata.

ON THE LORD'S SUPPER:

WITH REMARKS ON CERTAIN PORTIONS OF DR. PUSEY'S LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF LONDON.

BY THE REV. C. J. FYNES CLINTON, M.A.

Ir must be admitted, that the tendency of the mind of fallen man has ever been to exalt the ordinances of religion above their proper position. In the early Church the sacraments soon began to acquire a reverence which is due only to the Lord of the sacraments; and this undue regard for them gradually increased, until its mature growth was exhibited in the "

opus operatum' " of the sacrament of Baptism, and in the idolatrous sacrifice of the mass. At the Reformation, the most offensive of the human additions with which the sacraments were overlaid, were removed in our Church, but these ordinances were not, we believe, restored to their primitive simplicity,-to the simplicity intended by their Divine Institutor. Much was retained which at the present time affords the Tractarians a locus standi for their error.

Having on a previous occasion made some remarks, in this periodical, on the subject relative to our baptismal Rituals, I would now call attention to the Lord's Supper.

Dr. Pusey, in a recent letter to the Bishop of London, defends his view of the Lord's Supper, which had been objected to by the Bishop, by taking his stand on the Prayer-book. He adduces, also, a host of authorities in corroboration of his view from the

divines of our Church; introducing his quotations by this remark,—"This teaching I learnt in our own divines, and in the Fathers, long before I read a Roman Catholic writer." Now, when we consider the terms in which this sacrament is spoken of even by the Protestant divines whom Dr. Pusey quotes, and the prominency which is given to it in their system of theology, we might well suppose that Scripture describes it, as they do, as "a great mystery," ""the most powerful means of impetration in this world," "a sublime mystery," &c; and that it is a very prominent, if not the most prominent, topic of which Holy Scripture

treats.

But what is the fact? Three of the

Evangelists give a plain narration of the institution of the ordinance, quoting the very words their Divine Master used on the occasion, in which it would be difficult for a mind, that comes to the consideration of them free from any preconceived opinion, to discover any mysterious meaning at all. But here vain man, who "would be wise," steps in, and “darkens counsel by words without knowledge." "It was not without great mystery," says Bishop Taylor, "that our blessed Lord was pleased to command the representation of His death and sacrifice on the Cross should be

ON THE LORD'S SUPPER.

made; to signify to us the sacredness of the Liturgy we are about, and that we minister in the priesthood of Christ." ... "And the event of it is plainly this; that as Christ, in virtue of His sacrifice on the Cross, intercedes for us with the Father, so does the minister of Christ's priesthood here." "May it please thee," is the prayer of Bishop Wilson, "O God, who hast called us to this ministry, to make us worthy to offer unto thee this sacrifice for our own sins, and for the sins of thy people." "Taking as her immoveable foundation," writes Mr. Palmer,-whom Dr. Pusey quotes with high approbation, -"the words of Jesus Christ: "This is my body,' and 'Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life;' she believes that the body or flesh, and the blood of Jesus Christ, are verily and indeed given to, taken, and eaten by the faithful in the Lord's Supper, under the outward sign or form of bread and wine, which is, on this account, the partaking or communion of the body and blood of Christ.'

"Hence it is that the Church, firmly believing in the real presence of the precious and blessed body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, speaks of the Eucharist as 'high' and 'holy mysteries,' exhorts us to consider the dignity of that 'holy mystery,' that 'heavenly feast,' that 'holy table,' the 'banquet of that most heavenly food, even the King of kings' table.'" "Human language," says the Bishop of Tasmania in his Lectures on the Church Catechism, “is inadequate to the full explanation of this sublime mystery... It is not so much by argument of words as by holiness of life, that we can duly apprehend this venerable mystery.... We hold that a great and mysterious change takes place in the consecrated bread and wine; a change of character, not of substance."

We would ask, Where is the scriptural warrant for the use of such language as the above, in speaking of the Lord's Supper? There seems to be no more mystery conveyed in those words of our Lord,-"This is my body," "This is the New Testament in my blood,”—than in the words of

69

[ocr errors]

Joseph to Pharaoh's butler and baker, "The three branches are three days," "The three baskets are three days;" or in his words to Pharaoh himself, "The seven kine are seven years.' Those who reject the Popish figment of Transubstantiation, but who nevertheless maintain that some mysterious change takes place in the consecrated bread and wine, should also maintain that there was something very mysterious, something more than a mere figure, in the kine of Pharaoh.

Surely, if there were any great mystery intended by the words of our Lord, in instituting this ordinance, we should have some hint in Scripture of such intention. But we have nothing of the kind. It would seem that the unwarrantable application of certain passages in John vi. to the Lord's Supper, has greatly contributed to invest the ordinance with a mysterious halo. But if our Lord did intend that what He there said should apply to the ordinance which He had not then instituted, to partake of the Lord's Supper would be absolutely necessary to salvation; the declaration is most solemn and positive, —–

66

Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." And in that case, when the jailor said to Paul and Silas, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul's reply should have been, You must eat the bread and drink the wine of a holy rite, appointed by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in memorial of His death upon the Cross for our salvation; for "except ye thus eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood you can have no life in you." But Paul's reply is a key to our Lord's meaning; he said to the trembling sinner, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Hence we may conclude, that these words of Paul are synonimous with that most solemn asseveration of our Saviour. To exercise a lively faith in Christ is to "eat His flesh, and drink His blood," and "to feed on Him as "the bread of life." Wherever the Apostles preached, they must have preached according to the truth conveyed in those words of their

[ocr errors]

Divine Master. They were sent to invite sinners to partake of "life." But since the only way of obtaining life was by "eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man," their preaching must have been an echo of those words. When, therefore, they preached, saying, “Be it known unto you, men and brethren, that through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by Him all that believe are justified from all things," when such, or similar words, were addressed by them to those among whom they went in execution of this commission, they were in fact expounding and setting forth in plain language the truth figuratively conveyed in the above

words of their Master.

In

Again, if there were any great mystery in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, we might reasonably expect some elucidation of it, or at least some reference to it, in the apostolic letters written to the infant churches. those Epistles we have very clear expositions of Gospel doctrine, but not one word with respect to the supposed mystery contained in the Lord's Supper. St. Paul, in his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, does indeed refer to this sacrament, not, however, for the purpose of explaining any thing mysterious in it, but simply to correct certain abuses of the ordinance, of which the Corinthians had been guilty. Neither does he say one word, from which it might be inferred that it was a "great mystery." On the contrary, his language implies that the meaning of the ordinance was very simple, and generally well understood by them: "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" In the following chapter he again refers to the subject; but his words contain no more than a simple statement of the institution and design of the ordinance, (almost in the very words used by our Saviour at His last supper,) in which there is no hint of any mystery. Now, here was an opportunity (when he was reproving the

Corinthians for their abuse of this sacred rite) for alluding to its mysterious nature, which he would not have failed to use, if there were any thing mysterious in it.

Neither do we find any allusion to the mystery of this ordinance, much less any attempt to impress the minds of his readers with the greatness of this mystery, in his Epistle to the Hebrews; wherein, if anywhere, we might expect that he would treat of it. In that elaborate commentary on the book of Leviticus,-in that clear exposition of the design of the priesthood and sacrifices of the ceremonial law, not one word is to be found explanatory of the ordinance which superseded the Passover. If there were any thing of a sacrificial character in the Lord's Supper, as Dr. Pusey maintains, (giving a meaning, they will not bear, to the words avaμrnois and μνημοσυνον, which he says are sacrificial words,) surely the Apostle would not have failed to have enlightened us on that point, when he was contrasting the priesthood of Aaron with that of Christ, and the sacrifices offered by the former, with those offered by Him who was "a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." If, as Bishop Taylor observes in the above quotation, "it was not without great mystery that our blessed Lord was pleased to command the representation of His death and sacrifice on the Cross, to signify to us that we minister in the priesthood of Christ," should we find not only no instruction on this subject, but no reference whatever to this supposed mystery in that Epistle which expressly and fully treats of Christ's priesthood and sacrifice? The only words that can be considered as at all referring to the Lord's Supper, in that Epistle, are the following,-"We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle:" the most natural interpretation of which assertion is, that the altar here referred to is the altar of the Cross on which the Great Antitype of all the Jewish sacrifices was offered.

Then, again, we might fairly expect an elucidation of this mystery, or at least some information about it, in

A PLEA FOR OPEN-AIR PREACHING.

the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, which were written for the express purpose of teaching the bishops and pastors of Christ's flock "how they ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." To these Epistles all ministers of the Gospel should refer for directions as to their ministrations. We look therein, however, in vain for any word of counsel relative to the Lord's Supper. But should we look in vain, if this ordinance were a great mystery,—if the celebration of it were the most important duty of the minister of Christ? We read much in those Epistles about diligence and faithfulness in "preaching the word;" but certainly no minister of the Gospel can rise from the attentive perusal of them, with the conviction that his first duty is to establish in his parish what is called "the sacramental system."

So much, then, with respect to the mysterious character of the Lord's Supper, and its prominency in the Gospel system. The case stands

[blocks in formation]

Three of the Evangelists record its institution; it is incidentally referred to twice, or, at most, thrice, in the Acts. No further mention of it is made in any other book of the New Testament, with the exception of two references to it in one of St. Paul's Epistles for a particular purpose. Even St. Peter, to whom that corrupt Church, which has exalted this sacrament to adoration, looks up as its founder and prince, says nothing in his Epistles on the subject.

If, then, we take our view of the holy ordinance from Roman Catholics,

71

or from a certain party in our own Church, or from the Fathers, we shall be led to believe that it is indeed a rite involving the most awful mysteries. But if, on the other hand, we take our view of it from the plain letter of Scripture, we shall be rather disposed to conclude that it is an ordinance which the humble-minded Christian can have no difficulty in comprehending; that it is not, as Dr. Pusey holds, a "propitiatory sacrifice," or a "sacrificial memorial," &c., but a simple commemoration of the death of Christ for our redemption. In Scripture there is nothing to support the fabric, which the Papists, or Tractarians, or Fathers, or some of those of whom we hope well, have raised.

Since, however, Dr. Pusey takes his stand for his sacramental scheme on the Prayer-book, it is a subject which well deserves the consideration of every true Protestant Churchman, whether the Prayer-book itself should not be weeded of those expressions which afford Dr. Pusey his standingground, and which are founded not on any sure warrant of Holy Writ,' but on the writings of the Fathers, derived through the corrupt medium of Popery.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In making the above remarks, we have not the remotest intention to disparage the Divine ordinance of the Lord's Supper; but we wish that the disfigurements with which it has been overlaid should be removed from it; being convinced that to exalt it beyond its proper position in the Gospel system, is not to honour, but to dishonour, Him, whose great atonement, by way of remembrance, is shadowed forth in it.

A PLEA FOR OPEN-AIR PREACHING.

A Letter addressed to Incumbents, by the REV. J. H. TITCOMв, M.A. [Continued from page 29.]

THE importance of this subject will be more distinctly opened by a consideration of the five proposed points, to which I now invite attention.

I. The Bible authorizes it. This is so plain that I need scarcely say much upon it. We have it ex

pressly sanctioned by the example both of our Lord and the Apostles. Let us contemplate for a moment our blessed Lord. Did he confine his teaching to the Temple in Jerusalem, or to the synagogue at Nazareth? Far otherwise. Who can forget His

« AnteriorContinuar »