Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

together. Time and space are of man's ideas, and to oppose impossibilities according to our notions, of man's ways; but God's thoughts are not as man's thoughts, nor God's ways as man's ways. It is written, therefore it is possible: GOD hath said, therefore it is Truth. Communion, Commemoration, Sacrifice!

"Hoc opus stupent Angeli."

Shall man be faithless where Angels worship, where devils believe and tremble? Worship they because He lieth on the altar, our Victim, our Food, our GoD; and so should the worthy faithful worship. Believe and tremble they, because the mystic Bread is CHRIST'S Flesh to all who eat it, and the Wine His Blood to all who drink it. Woe to those who, discerning not that Presence, or daring with sullied lips to kiss the Son of GOD, eat and drink to their death. Joy unthought to those who in faith and meekness, and penitential love, know their LORD, and receive Him as their Life.

[blocks in formation]

The Atonement and the At-one-maker. By J. H. BLUNT. Masters. THIS is a work deserving of unqualified approbation, both for the soundness and truth of the views it enunciates, and for the very simple and lucid manner in which they are stated. The author is to be congratulated on having attained to an appreciation of the real nature of the Great Atonement, which few we fear can be said truly to possess. We trust that his volume, along with another from which Mr. Blunt seems to have drawn his inspiration, although he does not acknowledge the debt, will do much towards dispelling the popular error that the mighty work of man's Redemption, expressed in the word "At-onement," is accomplished solely by that Death upon the Cross, which is in reality only one feature in the wonderful plan. Until men can learn to see that the Atonement is that whole work from its Alpha to its Omega, including all means of grace whereby we are made at one with GOD, there is little hope that it will produce its practical effect on them by moulding them into the holy likeness of CHRIST

Mr. Blunt has been very successful in laying bare the whole system in its unbroken truth, proving that the very fundamental principle of the Atonement is union of substance, and showing how the glorious fabric of Redemption is built up thereon in all its details. We are disposed to regret that this work has been thrown into the form of discourses, generally so distasteful to the public, but we have no doubt that the valuable matter contained in them will find favour with all readers.

The Sanctuary: a Companion in Verse for the English Prayer Book. By ROBERT MONTGOMERY, M.A., Author of the "Christian Life," &c. London: Chapman and Hall.

THIS little volume is greatly in advance of any thing that Mr. Montgomery has before published: the doctrine is more what we can approve, and the taste very greatly purified. A few things there are which we should still wish corrected, as the frequent use of the titles JEHOVAH and Emmanuel.

In another edition, which we have no doubt will be called for, we would counsel the omission of the stanzas on SS. Philip and James' Day, as well as those on the State Services, and a few others. Much obscurity is caused by the leaving out of relatives. And surely it is not right to use "swerve as an active verb.

[ocr errors]

Among the subjects that have received the best treatment at Mr. Montgomery's hands, we would specify S. John Baptist's Day, Morning Prayer, and Ordination.

Les Disciples d'Emmaus.

Sermon par le Rev. FREDERIC GODFRAY.

In this Sermon, reprinted from the valuable Jersey periodical "L'Ami de la Religion," we have a very satisfactory proof that our brethren in Jersey have the benefit of sound Church teaching from one source at least; and the excellent matter contained in these pages, clothed in French of unwonted elegance from an English pen, can hardly fail to produce an impression on those to whom it is addressed.

One part of it only seems to us open to remark, that namely, where the author allows it to be a matter of uncertainty whether the breaking of Bread, in which our LORD revealed Himself to His disciples, was or not the blessed Eucharist Itself. The faith of the Church has not we think admitted of any doubt on this subject.

Mr. PORTAL, who now acknowledges himself to be the author of the pamphlet reviewed by us last month in condemnation of non-Communicants being present at the celebration of the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, has come out, as might be anticipated, with another piece of extravagance, namely, a sermon on Personal Faith, and which, we need scarcely say, quite justifies the surmises we then expressed as to the author's general state of mind, whosoever he might be. The writer, it appears, has met with ill success in his ministry; but instead of attributing that, as any one of ordinary modesty would have done, to his own personal defects, he chooses to lay it to the charge of the system of the particular Church to which he was attached. Consequently he must take up with another, and that the last new, system. We fear it must be by further failures only that he can be made to see that something more than system is required in order to make a successful shepherd of souls.

We have lately had occasion to notice several lectures which have been delivered by earnest Churchmen to different Literary Societies. It is a species of literature which we welcome with great satisfaction. And this month we have two additions to it, deserving our acknowledg ment, namely, one by Archdeacon GRANT (a very epitome of history)

on the Crimea (Bell and Dudley), and the other on The Translation of the Scriptures (Masters), by the Rev. J. L. Low. The latter subject is scarcely one of great promise for a company of miners; but the writer has nevertheless contrived to make it interesting. These lectures, we may add, contrast favourably with a very trumpery attempt on the part of Mr. OAKLEY to amuse his audience at Islington with "Recollections" of the English Church.

The Annals of England (J. H. Parker), of which the first Volume has appeared (bringing the history down to the reign of Richard II.), seem to be compiled with great care and accuracy, and will form a valuable work of reference. It is hardly to be expected however, that persons (and least of all the young) should be able to read through such a mere catalogue of facts. And this of course materially narrows the utility of such a work.

Old William (Masters), is a pleasing Biographical Narrative in verse, and a considerable improvement upon some similar efforts by the same writer.

MY DEAR SIR,

CORRESPONDENCE.

Burghclere Rectory, Newbury, Berkshire.

In reading your article on Dissenting Periodicals in the April number of the Ecclesiastic, it appears to me that your reasoning with regard to the Christian Priesthood is not so conclusive as it might have been, because you, (albeit in common with the most able Divines who have ever written on the subject,) ignore one point in the argument which, if established, is the strongest that can be found either in the Holy Scriptures or in the History of the Church. It is this: that only one Priesthood ever existed at the same time in the full exercise of Divine authority, and that the Jewish Priesthood held that authority in GOD's Church up to the time of Jerusalem's destruction; that the successors of the Apostles did not assert the full power of their commission as Priests of the Most High, until GOD had utterly destroyed the Jewish Priesthood,—until He had slain those murderers, and burnt up their city; that then, and not till then, the Church of GOD was fully committed to the charge of the Christian Priesthood, at the head of which were the Bishops from its very beginning.

In a pamphlet that I published some years since, entitled, The Gainsaying of Core, I have compared the conduct and the authority of the Apostles before the destruction of the Jewish Priesthood, to that of David before the death of Saul, and have entered on this matter at some length. I believe the importance of the argument cannot be overrated, as it accounts at once for the indistinctness of the Episcopal power which Gibbon remarks during the first century, and meets the most popular objections of the gainsayers at every point. I should be very glad if through your pages this matter were fully sifted; for I believe that the importance of the argument will become more and more evident, the more the subject is discussed.

May 8th, 1855.

I remain, my dear Sir,
Yours very truly,
W. B. BARTER.

BAINES' LIFE OF LAUD.

The Life of Archbishop Laud. By the Rev. J. BAINES. London: Masters.

ENGLISH History is perhaps more difficult than any other for us to consider accurately. Our vision is continually haunted by those idola which Bacon speaks of as so detrimental to scientific investigation. How difficult it is when standing in some busy thoroughfare of a modern city to realize the circumstances of the same place in former times, when perhaps a river ran where we are standing on dry ground and peasantry laden with bundles of sticks from the adjoining copse paused upon a rustic bridge by which they approached their home in the town. If, amidst the general changes, some of the features have remained the same, and the nomenclature has continued without alteration while the things to be named have become altogether different, the mind perplexed by that great equivocator, Time, is less able to grasp the actual features of the original topography than she would have been in a place entirely strange, just because of the additional effort of casting aside the actual data which are before her eyes. It is just so with our national history. People cannot, without great effort, cast aside results and changes of position when they are estimating celebrated events. In judging of those who had to influence events, it is all but impossible to keep from admitting into the premises of their conduct, the subsequent issue, known to us, although unknown to them, whereas a true estimate of their conduct can only be framed by considering the use they made of the data in their actual session. In judging of historic characters, we ought, as far as we can, to keep out of sight all motives gathered from history later than the year we are considering, otherwise we shall be liable to condemn unjustly, and to pass a verdict of acquittal in homage either to fortune which favoured or to subsequent conduct which repaired the error.

pos

If real impartiality is so difficult at all times, much more is it so at those periods which are crises in our history. At moments when objects that we value are at stake, we cannot judge coolly of those who cherished or thwarted them. We can scarcely fancy that the man who saved Wesley when a child from perishing in the fire, looked upon him simply as a child, without any consciousness of the important part he was to play. When we look back and see that our constitutional privileges were wrapped up in some trifling practice, it is difficult to conceive that men could take part for or against the practice without being either patriots or traitors to the good cause.

VOL. XVII.-AUGUST, 1855.

2 Y

In no period is it more necessary to avoid the tendency to exaggerate than in the history of the Stuarts. Such vital treasures were risked in that stormy era, that it seems as if all who took part in the struggle must have been acting always with a view to future consequences rather than present emergency; and so all become martyrs or rebels, although as we turn from one writer to another we find the titles of the two lists transposed according to political fancy. According to people's likings of various principles which were developed into contrast by the progress of revolu tion, is the judgment they pass upon those who may be supposed to have thwarted them or hurried them on. Probably we should find, that in the majority of cases, the differences between men's real philanthropy were not so great as might be imagined. Many supported the king from a consciousness that they were dependent upon his stability rather than from deep patriotic loyalty. Many more opposed him without any intuition of constitutional rights being in danger, for very few had any real notion of a constitution. Government and arbitrary power were pretty nearly convertible terms upon the lips of all; the great dispute was, where this power should reside. Modern political principles were not yet developed. Men opposed to Charles desired a Government quite as absolute as he claimed to exercise. The denouncers of the hierarchy were quite as violent as any in the maintenance of their own ecclesiastical theory. The great division of men was between those who looked upon the world as given up to their own fancy, and those who regarded it as subject to the fixed government of Divine authority. Among the latter class was William Laud.

He saw that the time was come when the battle must be fought out between authority and democratic independence. The Church and the State were both engaged in the same struggle. The royal prerogative had been growing under the strong government of the Tudors. Henry VII. had got strong assertions of his power from the lips of the Parliament themselves. Henry VIII. had carried out those assertions into practice, and his two daughters were able disciples of their despotic father. What they had acted upon, James I. with a scholar's wisdom, began to write about. His son Charles found himself invested with a sovereignty all but absolute, and it was his fixed purpose to maintain and exercise this sovereignty for the benefit of his people.

The people, however, had begun to awaken to a consciousness that they had let slip a trust which belonged to themselves. The excitement of the Tudor reigns had passed away. They had allowed their sovereign to manage matters for them in the agitation of the Reformation movement. The king had been on the popular side, and the idea of national religious liberty had cloaked the growing form of political despotism. They now began to feel that they ought to have some of the management in their own hands. They

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »