Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

The case was decisive, and the observation of the Judge or of the Editor (I cannot call to mind which) went to express a hope that the decision would set the matter at rest for ever. The case was respecting the custody of the Church and Church-yard; whether it was in the Incumbent solely, or primarily, with a right of access to the Church and Church-yard, on proper occasions, or whether the Churchwardens have an equal right, and consequently a claim to a duplicate key to both or either.

This is a question so clearly in the Incumbent's favour, and the case of

Hugg. Ross, 173, and cited in Chitty's edition of Burn's Justice, that I have no hesitation myself in asserting my right (a necessity my Church wardens' conduct lays me under), but I would willingly bring ignorant and ill-advised people to a proper understanding by a multiplication of decisions, than put them to the expense of learning, or myself to the trouble of teaching them, in courts of law, civil or ecclesiastical. If, therefore, you can point me to the case I have already alluded to, or any others affecting similar matters, you will condace perhaps to the settling a matter of dispute, which I am willing you should think more of, than conferring a favour upon

An Old SUBSCRIBER. Dec. 30th, 1839.

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER. Sir,– Your correspondent, Presbyter Anglicanus, has fairly answered my question regarding the Tracts for the Times in the affirmative. They do, it appears, positively condemn as idolatrous the Romish image worship. Will he now answer me another question. In what tract and what page this direct condemnation is to be found ? Sir, it is with pain that I have perceived in these tracts much hesitating, ambiguous, and sometimes contradictory language on this point. For example: can any thing be much more unsatisfactory than what is said in the seventy-first tract, viz. that in Belgium and Italy there is not an idolatrous worship, but a worship approaching to idolatrous; and that in the popery which is to be found in many protestant countries, no scandal of the kind exists ! What, is the author of this tract ignorant of the gross idolatry which is to be found in Pope Gregory XVIth's Encyclical Letter, which is received by the papal church throughout the world, and is to be found inserted in the English Laity's Directory for 1833, which I have in my possession ? Sir, I ask you, I ask any candid person, to tell me whether it is any wonder that when such important admissions as these are made,—which are so utterly contrary to our thirty-second article, to our bomilies, and to our rubric after the communion service, is it any wonder, I say, that these tracts are mentioned with delight, in foreign Romanist publications, at Rome, and by Dr. Wiseman ? Can Presbyter Anglicanus answer this?

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

Anglicus. P.S. If the Romish worship of Belgium and Italy only approaches idolatry, may it not be said, Steer clear of it?




Sir,-I have one more word to say on No. 73 of the Tracts for the Times, for which you will perhaps allow me a corner. It appears to me that the proposition, “ The Atonement not a manifestation of God's justice," is almost every whit as objectionable as that which I misquoted, “ The Atonement not a satisfaction to God's justice," because unless the Atonement be an exhibition or a manifestation to us of God's justice, I see not how we can affirm with any degree of certainty that it is, as our homily declares it to be, a satisfaction to God's justice, because we can have no knowledge whatever of any of these things, except such knowledge as is manifested and exhibited to us in Divine revelation. If therefore this doctrine of the Atonement fully satisfying the rigour of the Divine justice be not exhibited in revelation, it is clear that our homilies are guilty of the grievous error of adding articles of belief beyond what is written. I must ever therefore protest against the heading of this page, which in my humble opinion is of a highly dangerous tendency, and calculated to unsettle the minds of the young and unstable.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,




Yes, 'tis a holy chain! that leads the soul,
Like Jacob's mystic ladder, up to God,
And points to brighter paths, by angels trod.
Oh! may this truth the scornful mind control!
When sceptic thoughts in wild confusion roll,
Or schism with its poison walks abroad,
Spreading around foul error's leprous brood,
May this great truth be the eternal goal
Of all our earthly strivings-on that bless'd band
Of holy men to fix our longing eyes ;
Whose numbers, countless as the yellow sand
On ocean's shore, shall yet for ages stand,

The greatest of God's holy mysteries-
Earthborn, yet sprung from One whose house is in the skies!

R. M. T. North Sunderland.

ON IMAGE WORSHIP.' TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER. Sir,–After the explanation given in my last, in which I endeavoured to guard against any misapprehension, I cannot account for H. M'K.'s letter, unless it be the determination to have the last word. He must intend to jest, when he charges me with being the apologist of absurdity. He cannot alarm me with such a gong. What has the tale about the popish priest and the old woman to do with my previous letters? In which did I defend the presence of images to excite devotion? or insinuate that we must walk, in the least degree, by sight instead of faith ? or assert the propriety of setting before the eyes of the people images designedly as objects of honour, or rendering them conspicuous parts of the temple by teaching that they are aids to devotion ? I have intended them to be considered no more than "embellishments;" but the mind of an admiring spectator, if it contain any regard for sacred things, will, I say again, naturally reflect on the circumstances represented, and feel a respect for the representation; and this “ may be dangerous in the case of the uneducated.”

I shall not further pursue the subject, as in another letter signed H. M‘K. (supposing a similar signature to be that of the same writer), I find I am now to contend with a dissenter. A reformed catholic acknowledges no cominunion, no brotherhood with heretics and schismatics, any more than papists. How orthodox soever in doctrine, or strict in moral rectitude, still they who “ cause divisions and offences" in the Church are commanded to be “ marked and avoided." Nor can they of the present day shield themselves behind the plea, that they do pot cause divisions. A late writer justly inquires, “ Does a succession in error amount to an assurance of truth ?-does an evil by its continuance and duration grow into good ?** It is written, “ We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God ?" Ultra-protestants, papists, and mere establishmentarians, virtually make the same charge against Catholic Christians, who take the Common Prayer Book, now assisted by the Tracts for the Times, as their commentary. “We desire," say these anti-traditioners, " to destroy their boasted catholicity, but we shall not find any occasion against these Catholics, except we find it against them concerning the law of the Church." With the Bible in one hand, and catholic tradition in the other, we fear them not. Without them we can but “ box the air.” Nor will we fear to honour an image, when by it any part of the grand scheme of redemption is held up to our view. But, mark! no worship whatsoever of any "image," either painted, hewn, carved, or graven, “ the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth.”


• Poole's Strictures.






Sir,-Having had my attention lately directed to the silent reception of the Communion by the minister, I have bestowed some consideration upon the subject, and endeavoured to ascertain the true meaning of the rubric in question. The result of this investigation I forward to you; that, if it should be thought worthy of insertion, it may be honoured with a place in the pages of the CHRISTIAN REMEM

If my interpretation be the true one, it may perhaps prove useful to some of your readers ; if otherwise, I hope it will be the means of eliciting the truth, and thereby tend to my own benefit.

The rubric is as follows :-" Then shall the minister first receive the Communion in both kinds himself, and then proceed to deliver the same to the bishops, priests, and deacons, in like manner, (if any be present) and after that to the people also, in order into their hands, all meekly kneeling. And, when he delivereth the bread to any one, he shall say, The body, &c.”

Now the whole matter, I think, hangs upon the single word "deliver ;" and consequently the probable signification of it will determine the question. If, when the minister is himself communicating, he can properly be said to deliver the sacred elements, he ought, undoubtedly, to repeat the words of administration. But, if the term cannot properly be then used, ought he not as undoubtedly to omit them?

Now, to determine the point, we must remember that, in general, the act of celebration implies two parties, the minister and the communicant; that these parties have distinct duties to perform, and in different attitudes,—the former standing, the latter “meekly kneeling ;" that, in respect of these duties or offices, the minister is properly said to deliver the sacred elements to the communicant, and the communicant to receive them from the minister. Now, in which of these characters is it, that the clergyman himself communicates ? In his office of minister, or as one of the congregation? Doubtless as one of the congregation. And why? Because, 1. It does not appear that he can exercise his ministerial authority upon himself,—thus, for instance, he does not absolve* or bless himself ; 2. he communicates “meekly kneeling ;” and 3. he is said, in the rubric, to receive the communion. But the rubric connects the words of administration with the delivery, and not with the reception, of the elements. Moreover, the communicant, be it observed, is not directed to say even Amen to them. Is it not then a legitimate conclusion, that the minister ought not to repeat them, when he is himself receiving ?

I am, Sir, your faithful servant,

Αλιευς Ανθρωπων. .

• See the fornis of absolution and blessing in this office. They have the word you and not us.






(Continued from page 47.) VIII. Spiritual person prohibited and also a like notice to the churchfrom residing on preferment on his con- wardens of each and every parish in sent to abide by sentence of bishop or which such spiritual person may hold archbishop, fe.--After sentence given preferment; and the bishop or archno suit to be brought against spiritual bishop shall not in any such case properson.-[And be it enacted, That if ceed to give sentence until after the any such spiritual person shall, within expiration of one calendar month froin fourteen days from the delivery to him the time of sending such last-menof any such statement as aforesaid, tioned notices, nor in case the parties freely and voluntarily, by writing under or any of them to whom such notice his hand, undertake to abide by such shall have been sent shall within the said sentence as the said bishop or arch- month enter into sufficient security to bishop may give, it shall be lawful for the satisfactionof the bishop to institute the said bishop or archbishop, if he and prosecute, and shall accordingly shall think fit, without public proceed within one calendar month thereafter ings, by a sentence under his hand and institute, and in due course of law proseal, to prohibit such spiritual person secute, a suit against the said spiritual from residing on or officiating within person for the said offence or offences any preferment which he may hold in the Court of Arches, or in the Chanwithin the diocese, or province or pro cery Court of York, as the case may be ; vinces, as the case may be ; and all in which suit, and at any stage thereof, such sentences shall be good and effec it shall be lawful for the said bishop to tual in law as if pronounced by the intervene, if he shall think fit: Projudge of the Court of Arches, or by the vided also, that after a sentence so judge of the Chancery Court of York, given it shall not be competent to any after a hearing according to the pro person to bring any suit under this visions of this Act, and may be enforced Act against such spiritual person on by the like means, and shall be final account of the offence or offences for and conclusive, and there shall be no which the said sentence purports to appeal therefrom: Provided always, have been given ; and such offence that in all cases in which such spiritual or offences, and the undertaking person shall have given such under aforesaid, shall be stated in the said taking as aforesaid, the registrar of sentence, which shall be entered and such bishop or archbishop shall, within remain on record in the registry of the ten days after the giving of such un- said bishop or archbishop.] dertaking, deliver or cause to be de IX. Bishop to sequester preferment livered a notice in writing in the form in certain cases.-[And be it enacted, or to the effect in the schedule to this That when any such sentence or proAct in that behalf contained, to the hibition shall have been given, the person desirous of instituting such suit, bishop or bishops shall sequester any and also a like notice to each and every such preferment in the same manner bishop within whose diocese the said and for the same purposes as are herespiritual person may hold preferment, inafter mentioned in cases of suspen

[ocr errors]

* The additions and alterations made in this Bill are enclosed in brackets

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »