Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

THE CHURCH VISIBLE, AND THE CHURCH INVISIBLE.

as to the extent of his powers, surely there must be the like uncertainty as to that of others, and consequently the more reason why any such power should be tenderly and faithfully used by those that are in authority.

177

The Archbishop writes, "Now, whatever may be the force of the arguments on either side, a difference of opinion will always exist in regard to the contested points." Of this there can be no question, and it will also happen again, as it has done in times past, that when the consciences of men are aroused to the position in which they are, they will make the effort to relieve themselves from it. [To be continued.]

This mode, then, of settling the differences having failed, and it being found impossible to enforce a rigid conformity, is there any probability of their being adjusted in any other way?

THE CHURCH VISIBLE, AND THE CHURCH INVISIBLE.

IN all ages, and not least in the present, so many errors and mistakes have continually arisen from overlooking the distinction between the Church invisible or mystical, and the Church visible, that it may be well to call the attention of all parties to the very clear statement of this distinction which is given by the judicious Hooker, in the commencement of the third book of his "Ecclesiastical Polity." The passage runs thus :

"That Church of Christ, which we properly term His Body Mystical, can be but one; neither can that one be sensibly discerned by any man; inasmuch as the parts thereof are some in heaven already with Christ, and the rest that are on earth (albeit their natural persons be visible) we do not discern under this property, whereby they are truly and infallibly of that Body. Only our minds by intellectual conceit are able to apprehend, that such a real Body there is; a body collective, because it containeth an huge multitude; a body mystical, because the mystery of their conjunction is removed altogether from sense. Whatsoever we read in Scripture concerning the endless love and the saving mercy which God showeth towards His Church, the only proper subject thereof is this Church. Concerning this flock it is, that our Lord and Saviour hath promised, 'I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hands.' They who are of this society have such marks and notes of distinction from all others, as are not object unto our sense; only unto God, who seeth their hearts, and understandeth all their secret cogitations,-unto Him they are clear and manifest. All men knew Nathaniel to be an APRIL-1851.

Israelite. But our Saviour, piercing deeper, giveth further testimony of him than men could have done with such certainty as He did :-'Behold indeed an Israelite in whom there is no guile.' If we profess, as Peter did, that we love the Lord, and profess it in the hearing of men, charity is prone to believe all things; and, therefore, charitable men are likely to think we do so, as long as they see no proof to the contrary. But that our love is sound and sincere,- that it cometh from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a faith unfeigned,-who can pronounce, saving only the Searcher of all men's hearts, who alone intuitively doth know in this kind who are His?

66

And, as those everlasting promises of love, mercy, and blessedness, belong to the mystical Church; even so, on the other side, when we read of any duty which the Church of God is bound unto, the Church whom this doth concern is a sensible. known company. And this visible Church in like sort is but one,-continued from the first beginning of the world to the last end. Which company being divided into two moieties; the one before, the other since, the coming of Christ; that part which, since the coming of Christ, partly hath embraced, and partly shall hereafter embrace, the Christian religion,we term, as by a more proper name, the Church of Christ. And therefore the Apostle affirmeth plainly of all men Christian, that, be they Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, they are all incorporated into one company; they all make but one body. The unity of which visible body and Church of Christ, consisteth in that uniformity which all several persons thereunto belonging have, by reason of that one Lord, whose servants they all profess themselves; that one Faith, which they all acknowledge; that one

M

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

[ocr errors]

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

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

66

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 mine themselves whether they be in such promises, it behoves them to exathe 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,

CORRESPONDENCE REVISION OF THE LITURGY.

"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,

179

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

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.

Correspondence.

[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.]

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,

44

Hints and Suggestions on a Revision of the Liturgy," Since its publication, some unknown friend has sent me a copy of Rev. P. Gell's "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

Svo, Second Edition, J. H. Jackson, Islington green and Paternoster row.

[ocr errors]

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 66 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 as "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, Nailsworth, 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.

Reviews, and Short Notices of Books.

[blocks in formation]

"THEY went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.' (1 John ii. 19.)

These words of Holy Scripture have continually recurred to our minds, whenever we have heard of persons who left the Church of England to join the antichristian, idolatrous, and apostate Church of Rome. We have always felt, that such persons never could have really belonged to the Church of England. They might be in it, like dead and withered branches in the vine: but they never were of it; they had no vital union with a scriptural and living Church-with "a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.' (Art. xIx.) Their continuance among us could only be for a time, and for a purpose. They naturally must leave us at last, to go to their own place, to sink into the yawning gulph of that mystery of iniquity, which opens wide to devour double-minded and unstable men, and faithless professors; "because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thess. ii. 10.)

[ocr errors]

Such has been, all along, our judgement in this matter. Does any one so far question its soundness as to ask for proof? Well then, Mr. Dodsworth has written and published a pamphlet to prove it; in which he proves it, more fully, more satisfactorily, more unquestionably, than we could have pretended to prove it ourselves.

This Work of Mr. Dodsworth re

quires to be considered in a twofold aspect; that is to say, in its reference to "Anglicanism" or Tractarianism; and in its reference to Evangelical Christianity. And according to the aspect in which it is regarded, will be our judgement concerning it. In reference to the former, it is weighty, powerful, conclusive, crushing: in reference to the latter, it is as weak as water,miserably inefficient, because miserably dishonest. Grant him his premises (as Tractarians do, and must do,) and we do not see how any one can deny his conclusions: but once bring his premises to the test of Scripture; and nothing can be more feeble and contemptible than the whole of this production.

Let us, however, do Mr. Dodsworth the justice to keep in remembrance, that it is addressed to a particular class, whom he might be warranted to consider as fully prepared to receive it: for it is inscribed "to the Members of the Congregation of Christ Church, St. Pancras;' -to those whom, for many years, he had been endeavouring to indoctrinate with those principles of which he now proclaims the result. To these he feels, naturally enough, that he is bound to explain the reasons of the step which he has so recently taken: nor can we be at all surprised that to these he should say,

"I cannot doubt but that, upon mature reflection, these reasons will appear in various degrees satisfactory to many amongst you because they are indeed but the legitimate results flowing from those truths (?) which it has been my aim to teach you."

To the application of the word truths to the main points of Mr. Dodsworth's teaching, we must, of course, demur. But this brings us at once to the enquiry, What are the principles which he assumes, and from which he reasons? Or, in other words, what are the fundamental principles, admitted and avowed by "Anglicans" or Tractarians? We cannot, we presume, act more fairly than by stating these in Mr. D.'s own words, as we

« AnteriorContinuar »