Sidor som bilder

having any one, &c.” The Lon. Car. in answer, (page 103) says, " Mr. Turner goes too far in saying they have “not one;" and then instances Confirmation, Penance, Extreme Unction, Matrimony, and Ordination ; to which he adds, “ In all these one at least of the requi“ sites of a sacrament occurs, viz. an outward visible

sign.” He admits that the use of oil, and joining of hands (and he might add, laying on of hands, penitential contrition, and the delivery of a bible) were not ordained by Christ himself. “ But,” says he, this is not the question-I ask you, sir, “ Then pray what is ?" The L, C. says, the question is, Whether these five Romish ordinances have any of the requisites of a sacrament. Admitting this to be the question (only for argument's sake) I answer on the authority of our cATECHISM itself, they have not. Let us look to the two first questions and answers on the subject :-Q. How many Sacraments hath CHRIST ORDAINED in his Church ? A. Two only as generally necessary to salvation, &c.Q. What meanest thou by this word Sacrament? A. I mean an outWARD VISIBLE SIGN of an inward and spiritual' grace, given unto us, ORDAINED BY CHRIST HIMSELF, as a means, &c. Surely, then, sir, if language have any meaning, we must understand, that to make an outward çisible sign, really and truly sacramental, aacording to the opinion of our Church, it must be ORDAINED BY CHRIST himself, as well as indicative of an inward and spiritual grace. If we admit with the L. C. that the Popish ordinances have each an essential part of a Sacrament, we may multiply sacraments ad infinitum, as was the case when the name was given almost generally to every thing holy. There is scarce a right or ceremony of our Church, that has not an equal claim to be put on the list of Sacraments with the five Romish oneskueeling at prayer--bowing at the name of Jesus--singing-repeating the creeds--burial of the dead, &c. &c. have each an outward visible sign : but that man would be branded as an heretic by all Christendom, who should presume to call these Sacraments, although they « adumbrate in a certain degree," some inward and spiritual grace. Till, therefore, it can be proved, that the five pretended Romish Sacraments have each or any of them an outward and visible sign, ORDAINED BY CHRIST HIMSELF, according to the judgment of our Church on the meaning of a sacrament, they must be declared


defective in the main point and cannot be sacranténtai. In these times, when the Papists are making proselytes in every part of the kingdom, by various means, it ill becomes the defenders of our establishment to give too much consequence to their superstitions, as they will be sure to gain an advantage by it.

Both Mr. T. and the L. Č. wish a line of demarcation between a holy rite and a sacrament to be laid down by some masterly hand. Allow me to say, that I conceive this * is already done, by an authority which cannot be called in question : viz. by our pious and venerable REFORMERS themselves, in our Catechism, our 25th article and the homily on common prayer and sacraments, from all which I learn “ that to constitute a Sacrament, such as is to be “continued and received of every christian in due time " and order, and generally necessary to salvation; there “ must be an outward visible sign, ordained by Christ “ himself, and expressly commanded in the New Testa“ment, not only as a badge or token of a christian man's “ profession, but as setting forth and representing some “inward and spiritual grace and favour of God towards ad us, by which we have understood to us, the forgiveness “ of our sins, our acceptance with God, our holiness and « joining in Christ, which is promised to such persons as « receive the outward and visible sign with true faith; " which true faith will cause them to receive it as a « means, wbereby God communicates his blessings, and 6 fulfils his promise, and by which he doth work invisibly « in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen « and confirm our faith in him, and give us a pledge or « earnest; to assure us of his good will towards us, and of “ the blessings he will bestow upon us in his heavenly “ kingdom." That I may not seem singular in the opinion I have advanced on the subject in dispute, allow me to refer your reader to Bishop Beveridge on the Cate: chism and on the 25th article, and to Archbishop Secker's Lectures.

Should this letter, from a new correspondent, find a place in your Magazine, as I trust your impartiality will allow it, at a fulure period I may trouble you with a few short remarks on the other part of the correspondence. In the mean time I remain with sincere respect,

Your constant reader and admirer, Sept. 13, 1801.



MAGAZINE. Sir, : THE frequent melancholy instances of suicide which

1 bave lately, within a very short period, occurred, have suggested to me an inquiry, which I shall be very happy to see answered through the medium of your va. luable miscellany, as it will relieve my mind from much anxiety. The question is this, Whether. I, as Minister of a parish, am bound, or compellable by law, to read the burial service over one who has laid violent hands on himself, supposing the Coroner's inquest returns a verdict of lunacy? I put out of the question whether I myself knew the deceased to be sane or insane, and suffer that point to rest entirely on the Coroner's verdict: I only wish to know whether I am obliged to read the church service over a person so deceased?

The words of the Rubric appear to me to be express and absolute : " Here it is to be noted, that the office ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptized, or excommunicate, or have laid violent hands upon themselves." There is no qualification of this exclusion, with regard to those who in a fit of insanity have laid violent hands upon themselves, but the exclusion appears unconditional; over those who have laid violent hands upon themselves this service is not to be used.

I have consulted Wheatly, generally an able counsellor in all cases of difficulty or doubt with respect to the ritual of our Church, on this subject; and his opinion .confirms me in the notions I at present entertain upon it; that is, that I ought not to read the service over a person who has laid violent hands upon himself. He remarks that it may be questioned, whether even persons who, being deprived of reason or' understanding have laid violent hands upon themselves, are not exempted from having this office said over them; since neither the rubric nor the old ecclesiastical laws make any exception in favour of those who may kill themselves in distraction, and since the office is in several parts of it improper for such a case. As to the Coroner's warrant, I take that to be no more than a certificate that the body is not demanded by the law, and that therefore the relations may dis-, Vol. VII, Churchm. Mag. Oct. 1804.

hurchm Moo Oct. 1804. M m pose

pose of it as they please. For I cannot apprehend that a Coroner is to determine the sense of a rubric, or to prescribe to the minister when Christian burial is to be used.”_" And there is no reason, because à Coroner prostitutes his oath, that the clergy should be so complaisant as to prostitute their office."-8vo. pp. 441. 442.

Thus this learned son of the Church and able Ritualist; and so strong to me do his arguments appear, that if it should happen that one of my parishioners should die in this melancholy way, and application were to be made to me to bury him, I should answer the person who applied to me, “ I believe I cannot hinder your depositing the body in my church-yard, since the Coroner's verdict has exempted it from the claim of the law, but I consider myself as bound both conscientiously and legally to refuse to read, or suffer to be read, the burial service over it."

If I am wrong in my present determination, I shall be happy to be corrected by your abler correspondents. · I stated Vol. vi, p. 17, how I acted with respect to one who was excluded by the Rubric as having died unbaptized, As my conduct in that instance has not been censured in your work, I trust I acted right. .

I remain, with the best wishes for the good cause you have undertaken,

Your faithful Servant,

EREUNETES. London, Oct. 2, 1804.




• SIR, AMONGST many advantages derived from the peruA sal of your very excellent miscellany, it is not surely one of the least that speedy intelligence is communicated to the friends of the established religion of the machinations of its eneinies. On various occasions you have laid open. the vile conspiracies of the METHODISTS, the OVERTONIANS, and other enthusiasts and sectarists, which seem to be conducted with unabated zeal and unwearied diligence; and would deserve great commendation in a better cause,


Your valuable correspondent, who signs hiinself: IOTA, hath excellently well shewn“ the artful perversion of the scripture prophecies in favour of the enemy,” in a publication lately produced by " the teacher of a dissenting congregation," who, he adds, has the effrontery to call himself “A CHRISTIAN Believer.” It is not at all surprizing that our natural enemies, the DISSENTERS," and " FANATICAL INCENDIARIES” noticed by your correspon. dent, should act in this manner; but it is a matter of deep regret that those of our own body, who are MINIŞTERS OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH, should take part in the same unrighteous cause. This has been done by the Rev. Mr. Warner, a celebrated and popular clergyman of the established church at Bath, in a Sermon which he delivered the last fast-day before a company of Volunteers, in his own parish church, the church of St. James's parish, in Bath, of which, it seems from the title-page of his said Sermon, that he is the curate. The title of this very extraordinary discourse is, “WAR INCONSISTENT WITH CHRISTIANITY ;” and it seems to have been composed with a predetermined resolution to propagate the doctrine contained in it as widely as possible, by means of the press; as the author inforins us, it was consigned to the hands of the publisher and printer of it, in the vestry, immediately after its delivery. The demand for this heterodox Sermon, whether from a principle of curiosity or surprize at the singular opinion which it contained is not material, very soon it ran to a third edition, which, as this has been printed five or six weeks, or more, may have gone into many others by this time. It was answered in a very able manner by a young clergyman of Bath, soon after its publication, but that gentleman, from the beginning of his "LETTER &c." and from the conclusion of it, seems to have been a particular friend of the sermon-writer, and very evidently has been actuated by a fear of giving offence, since he has by no means gone to the bottom of the argument in his. LETTIR. In the third edition of his Sermon, Mr. Warner, has been pleased to add some preliminary matter, in which he speaks still more explicitly and clearly than in the discourse itself, and declares himself, with considerable energy, to be an enemy to every species of war, defensive as well as offensive ; and says, that he will not de-.. part one jot or tittle from his opinion, notwithstanding all that his opponent hath advanced. This obstinate persisting in error is properly noticed by Mr. Falconer in

Mm 2

« FöregåendeFortsätt »