Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

professing Christians, at a proper age, would communicate,) I would say, that, to be consistent, we must render to all the canons the same strict obedience which is insisted upon in the case of any single canon. And, with reference to this question, we must require, according to canons 21 and 22, that every lay person, "under the penalty and danger of the law," shall receive the communion three times a year. And, doubtless, at the time when the 29th canon was drawn up, this penalty of the law was enforced for non-attendance at the communion far more strictly and severely than any person would think it advisable, were it possible, to enforce it at present. Surely, sir, in reasoning on the animus with which any canon is framed, it is only fair and candid to take into our account the bearing which other canons have upon it, and to recollect also what were the usages and circumstances of the times when all the canons were drawn up. On the whole, it seems to me, that unless a person is prepared to enforce the 21st and 22nd canons, "under the penalty and danger of the law," he has no right to act upon such an interpretation of the 29th canon, on his own private judgment, as would involve an exclusion from the offices of sponsor of every person who has not actually communicated. I may agree with "Alpha" in wishing that a better discipline were established on this as other matters; but differ from him as to the conduct which, in the absence of some general regulation by competent authorities, individual presbyters should pursue.

Before I conclude, may I be allowed to advert to the very unsatisfactory ground on which the whole subject of the canons seems to rest at present. A prelate, of whom it is impossible to think without veneration, the Bishop of Chester, has not hesitated to assert, in his last charge, that several of the canons are universally neglected. He instanced three: the 31st was one; the 21st, I think, another; but I quote from memory, not having his charge by me. The bishop proceeded even to question the authority on which the canons claim our obedience, as compared with that belonging to the rubric. It should seem, I think, that their authority is precisely the same; but, however this may be, it is really not a little distressing to those who would willingly remember their oath of obedience to the canons of the church, to be told, on such high authority, that they are only binding so far as enforced by the ordinary, and to find that many of them are universally neglected. The bishop's object was to shew that the practice of holding cottage-lectures is not inconsistent with the 71st canon. The mere fact of such a question being raised by such authority, would seem to call for a satisfactory revision of the canons, or at least a positive definition, by competent authority, of the degree in which they are binding. I am, Sir, your faithful servant,

A COUNTRY CLERGYMAN.

Take again the case of the 75th canon, in which ministers are forbidden to play at dice, cards, &c., by day or night. Is not this neglected or explained away by many, from an idea, thus sanctioned by the Bishop of Chester, that the canons are not strictly binding? Surely a settlement of the question one way or other is called for.

In my former letter, No. xlix., p. 48, for "Communion Service" read "Commination Service,"

CHURCHING OF WOMEN.

6

SIR,-Your correspondent "Davus" has put the following query:"Is there any authority for introducing into the Litany, after all women labouring with child, all sick persons,' the clause, especially those for whom our prayers are desired,' as it stands parenthetically inserted in the prayer for all conditions of men?"

There is a slight error in this quotation: the expression is "of child," not "with child," in all the editions that I can at this moment recollect.

I know of no authority for the insertion of the clause "especially those for whom our prayers are desired," except the Cambridge edition of the Common Prayer-book, printed in 1814; and perhaps you will excuse my asking, whether you know upon what authority that authority is grounded? I have consulted the Letany and Suffrages of Edward VI., A.D. 1549; the Letanie of Edward VI., A.D. 1552; the Letanye of Elizabeth, A.D. 1559; the Letanie of James I., A.D. 1604 (a very scarce book); the Letany of Charles I., A.D. 1637, (for Scotland); and the Litany of Charles II., 1662. This list, I believe, comprehends all the authorities we can properly refer to; and in no one of them can I find the insertion of the words in question. If I remember rightly, the prayer for all conditions of men-in which these words properly appear-was not introduced before the year 1662. If any of your readers are curious in such matters, the different methods of spelling the word Litany may be interesting to them. Yours, obliged, in great haste, WM. RILAND BEDFORD.

SINGING BEFORE SERVICE.

SIR,-The practice in many of our churches and chapels of singing at the commencement of divine service, appears to me to be contrary to what was intended by the compilers of our excellent liturgy, as well as destructive of those solemn feelings which the opening of the service seems to be intended to produce. I therefore beg, through the medium of your excellent Magazine, to draw the attention of your clerical readers to the subject, and to inquire whether I am correct in supposing the practice to be irregular. For two reasons I am inclined to think it would be better to refrain from it: first, it is not directed by the rubric; second, it is calculated to prevent or interfere with those feelings of humiliation and self-abasement which ought to possess the mind when the minister is reading those portions of the divine word which are intended to remind us as well of our being grievous sinners as of his precious promises of forgiveness, if we heartily repent and turn to him. I speak from experience when I say that this practice tends very much to destroy that feeling of lowliness and self-abasement with which we ought to approach the divine Majesty, and with

Singing before and after divine service is allowed by the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth; but this does not seem to justify the making of it a part in the beginning of divine service.

which it seems intended that in our public service we should approach him; and I know that this evil is felt by many sincere worshippers in our churches. It seems to me, therefore, desirable to call attention to the subject, which is all that I, a layman, would presume to do. Yours, &c.

SAINT WORSHIP IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.

A.

SIR,-As you kindly inserted a letter of mine last month, you will, perhaps, should you have space, allow me to occupy another place in your Magazine. It appears to me to be of immense importance rightly to ascertain how far the church of Rome is justly chargeable with idolatry in her saint and image worship; because if it can once be satisfactorily proved against her, it is evident that it must be a duty, at whatever cost, to remain separate, and that this ground of separation must in itself be amply sufficient. Of course it is quite right for those who have abilities and leisure to bring forward all those evidences against the supreme ecclesiastical dominion of Rome which antiquity and ecclesiastical history affords, and these may form excellent supplementary proofs; but even if these did not exist, the idolatry of the Romish church must be a full justification for deserting her communion. Now, as you justly observe, the Romanists, when pressed on the subject, always maintain that they merely ask the saints to pray for them. This is the plan specially adopted by Bishop Baines, of Prior Park; but as is remarked in a subsequent part of your last number, speaking of popish miracles, there is one doctrine for the educated, and another for the uneducated classes. As it is with miracles, so it is with saint worship: there is one doctrine for the Italian peasantry, and another for troublesome English inquirers. In the first place, we do not intend to deny that many of the Roman-catholic prayers are directed to the saints merely as mediators, or to deny that the church of Rome holds real and independent omnipotence to be the attribute of the supreme God alone; but in doing this, what does she more than was done by most of the leading systems of polytheism, which, though they worshipped gods many and lords many, did yet acknowledge one God supreme over all? But although the Romish church in many cases addresses the saints as mediators, we maintain that in others she addresses them directly to bestow those favours and blessings which God alone can grant. I thought that I had adduced a satisfactory instance of this from the highest living authority of the Romish church-an authority which, when no general council is assembled, must be paramount to the authority of the Bishop of Liga, of Usula, of Dr. Wiseman, or any other; an authority to which they cannot but bow; and I ask again whether we ourselves, if we were offering up a prayer to the Redeemer of the world for our own hierarchy, could ask more for them, or could ask it more directly than in the following words :-" We [will] implore, in humble prayer, from the Saviour of mankind, that you may all stand as a wall"—" We will implore, in humble prayer, from Peter the prince of the apostles, and from his fellow-apostle Paul, that you may all stand as a wall" ?

I have before me the "Catholic Magazine and Review" of January, 1833, and copy the words from the translation therein provided. How, I ask, can this by any possibility be made to agree with the following assertion of the Bishop of Liga (Baines), in his sermon on the dedication of the Roman-catholic chapel at Bradford :-"We worship no creature whatever, and therefore not the saints; but at least we pray to them. Yes, my Christian brethren, just as St. Paul prayed to his own converts, or 1 pray to you. Under this persuasion, I say to them as I just now said to you, Holy Mary, holy Peter, holy Paul, pray for me. What is there in reason or revelation to forbid me to do so?" See also the "Protestant Journal" of January, 1834. Here it is clear that either the Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Liga have grievously misunderstood and misrepresented the doctrine of their own church, it being quite evident to the most careless reader that the Bishop of Rome prays to St. Peter and St. Paul in a sense totally different from that in which St. Paul prayed to his converts ! Let Roman-catholics freely take their choice whether they will be disciples of the Vatican or of Prior Park, and consider impartially which authority is the highest. Two more examples, and I have done. In the Litany of Loretto, which is to be found in Bishop Challoner's "Garden of the Soul," a book which has had some circulation among the Roman-catholics of this country, we have the following prayer:-"We fly to thy patronage, O sacred mother of God; despise not our prayers in our necessities, but deliver us from all dangers, O ever glorious and blessed virgin." Again, I ask, is this the manner in which St. Paul prayed to his converts, or the Bishop of Liga prays to his congregation? Can we ask more than this of the one true God, or ask it more directly? St. Bonaventure, a Roman saint and cardinal, turned the book of Psalms into a formulary of prayer and praise to the virgin. The following is one out of the many instances:-" Have mercy upon me, O lady, who art called the mother of mercy, and according to the bowels of thy mercies cleanse me from all mine iniquities." Lastly, see No. 410 of the list on the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, called "Faber's Facts and Assertions," page 49 :—“ Hail, Mary, lady and mistress of the world, to whom all power has been given in heaven and in earth!" Be assured that it affords me no pleasure or satisfaction to be able to collect such evidence of the idolatrous practices of any branch of the Christian church; but I think it of the highest importance that the truth should be known and proclaimed, especially at a time like the present, when agents are busy in all quarters" beguiling unstable souls."

On a future occasion I will, if you permit me, consider the degree of worship given by the Romish church to images.

[blocks in formation]

ON MR. NEWMAN'S CHARACTER OF LOT.-SERMONS, VOL. III. SIR,-I am sure that Mr. Newman would immediately agree with me, that whenever we venture to infer the unrecorded motive from the

recorded action, and then from both to draw the character of a man, even to the blameable habits or opinions that made him susceptible of the motives we have ventured to assign, the greatest caution should be used at every step of so hazardous a process.

According to that gentleman's view of Lot's character, he is an example of "common men who are religious to a certain point, and inconsistent in their lives, not aiming at perfection." The first error charged against him is his choice of the valley of the Jordan, of which Luther says, "Scriptura non dicit malum an bonum fecerit opus." It has, indeed, been generally supposed that this was the choice of a covetous man, who thought more of the rich pastures than of the sinful inhabitants; but I am persuaded that it was not so certainly an indication of covetousness as to justify us in charging that idolatry upon him.

I believe that this notion arose from supposing that the fertility of the country is mentioned as what excited the cupidity of Lot. But another reason for the mention of it seems to me at least equally probable. The persons for whom Moses was immediately writing knew the district only as it was after the judicial overthrow of the guilty cities: it was necessary, therefore, to account to them for Lot's making choice of a region which was in their days one of fearful sterility. As to the separation itself, it was necessary; "the land was not able to bear them that they might dwell together;" the proposal to separate comes from Abraham, who even uses the language of entreaty; Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me." It is not said that Lot knew how much the wickedness of the cities of the plain exceeded the ordinary wickedness of the inhabitants of Canaan; there is no mention of any previous warning or subsequent remonstrance on Abraham's part; it is not even hinted that he disapproved of his nephew's choice; it is probable that Lot made a great sacrifice when he consented to separate himself from the heir of the promises and take up his abode among strangers; and it is surely an important consideration, that this supposed instance of remarkable covetousness is not mentioned as such in any one passage of the Bible.

[ocr errors]

"In the meantime," says Mr. Newman, "Abraham is left without any earthly portion.' This remark seems intended to contrast Abraham's condition with Lot's; but surely when Lot" chose him all the plain of Jordan," he had no power to choose it for his own possession he only made choice of it as the district in which he would search for a dwelling place, not knowing in what part of it he would be allowed to settle.

We are then told that "a calamity was sent to rebuke and reclaim him." Mr. N. infers this from our knowledge that "all affliction is calculated to try and improve us;" a principle from which we may safely conclude that it ought to have this effect upon all who are visited by it, but from which it does not follow that this particular calamity was sent for the purpose of rebuking and reclaiming Lot, rather than as a warning and punishment to the guilty Sodomites, a forerunner of the calamity that was soon to overwhelm them.

Even with respect to Lot's continuing to dwell at Sodom after his

« FöregåendeFortsätt »