God does not use such extraordinary means for the producing of those effects, which may be accomplished in a more ordinary way. --The assistance of God's Holy Spirit is still necessary to men, to incline and enable them to do that which is good; but not in that manner and degree that it was necessary at first; because the prejudices against Christianity are not now so great, and many of these advantages which were necessarily wanting at first, are now supplied in an ordinary way; and therefore it is not reasonable now to expect the same extraordinary operation of the Spirit of God upon the minds of men, which we read of in the first beginning of Chris tianity.— Archbishop Tillotson. REVIEW OF BOOKS. By the FABER, London: Toovey. The Rosary, and other Poems. Rev. FREDERICK WILLIAM Rector of Elton. 1845. pp. 174. THIS volume is the production of a ripe scholar, and of a poetic mind, but it abounds with the obscure mysticism and yearnings after communion with Rome, which have for a few late years saturated the disciples of Mr. Newman. The report not only spreads, but is allowed to be a subject of discussion, as a coming fact, among those who hold ultra-Catholic views, that there will soon be a considerable secession to Rome. They will then rank as "" open enemies;" but hitherto it has been as professing friends that they have done dishonour" to the Church of England. It is to be hoped that Mr. Faber, who publishes this volume "in aid of the restoration of an ancient parish church," will not be found among that number; but that he will rather preach to his parishioners at Elton the faith so ably defended by his ven erable relative, Mr. Stanley Faber, who has not only carried on extensive researches on the subjects of prophecy and Heathen Mythology, but has applied the Fathers of the three first centuries to refute the peculiarities of Romanism, and to elucidate the scriptural and primitive faith respecting the doctrines of the Trinity, Election, Justification, and Regeneration. "The Rosary of our Lord Jesus Christ," is a richly coloured Frontispiece, representing the Birth, Temptation, Agony, Crucifixion, and Ascension of our Lord, in the style of Roman Missal adornment. The poem is dated at Rome, on the eve of St. Barnabus, 1843, and contains much recognition of the true doctrines of the dubious import. The remaining poems Gospel, with one or two passages of contain a rich vein of true poetry, but mixed with much earthly matter, resulting from the cause alluded to above. The Poem on New Rome, (Constantinople) is very finely conceived; but there, as elsewhere, there is an evident recognition of Old Rome as the centre of Christian unity. But the "Thoughts while reading History" contain still more suspicious passages. Witness the sentiment that amidst the confusion of the middle ages Then were the natural charities exhaled Afresh from out the reverence of St. Mary. them as "sceptics made by that halffaith which seeks for good unbound from ill." It is well that Mr. Faber allows that there is evil in "mysterious Rome" (is it not the mystery of iniquity?) to tempt "thoughtful minds," which are not limited to Romanists, to doubt the Catholicity and divine infallibility and unity of the Romish Church. But the spirit of such" thoughtful minds," to use the somewhat conceited Tractarian phrase, is shown in this sonnet, by the words :: SUBSCRIPTION OF THE ARTICLLS. SIR, Though you have quite sufficiently answered the objections made in the letter of "Catholic," which appeared at p. 161 of your last number, and which seems to charge the whole body of Evangelical clergy with Jesuitry, yet it might be proper for me to offer a few words of explanation. I am at a loss to conceive where there is anything like Jesuitry in my papers. I presume your correspondent means to point it out when he says, "with much evident satisfaction he quotes the Bishop of Norwich, the Rev. C. I. Yorke, and Close,-nay, even the "Record" itself, -men who are eating the bread of the Church, but lifting up the heel against her, who remain within her pale only by suffrance, and the loss of her ancient discipline." Your answer to this at p. 163, col. 2, explains the true state of the case. I quoted a few words of the Bishop of Norwich once, (viz., in No. 2, p. 66, col. 2.) and then hinted that the passage must be received with some limitation. That passage, properly explained, means just the same as some of Bp. Burnett's remarks in his introduction to the 39 Articles. What little I know by report of Bp. Stanley, leads me to think that I am very far from agreeing with his views. As to Rev. I. C. Yorke, I do agree with what little I have seen of his doctrinal and practical writings; on Rubrical matters perhaps I might differ in some of the details. The Record I gave a passing and that only to prove a fact admitted reference to once, (viz. p. 70, col. 2), 1844, to which I also refer. As to The by The Church Magazine in 1843 and Record, I see in it much that I do ap prove of, as well as some things which I do not approve of: I believe much unmerited abuse is levelled against it. As to Mr. Close, I quote him only on this one occasion, and I quote what has I believe been unanswered (viz., his Sermon of 5th Nov.), which has had a wonderful effect on the Camden Society, and which was (as I have heard on tolerably good authority) the cause of the Bishop of Exeter withdrawing from it: I am certainly not one of the devoted admirers of Mr. Close, nor do I agree with him in all things, yet I believe his labours in Cheltenham have been greatly blessed by God. Your correspondent quite overlooks the fact that I have quoted copiously from Archdeacon Sharp, Bishop Mant, and Bishop Jebb, &c., &c. I leave it for the common sense of any candid reader to determine whether " a Protestant Schismatic" (as I am termed) would have quoted from these writers as I have done at p. 68, col. 1, for instance. I ask whether I have not proved at p. 98, col. 2, that Mr. Yorke's foreboding was correct? And again in my last letter, at pp. 188, 189, whether the same is not evident? The passage from Rev. H. Venn. reminds me very much of similar pas sages quoted in Bishop Mant's Prayer Book, pp. vi.-viii. from Bishop Taylor and Dean Comber. Your correspondent's notice of Mr. Close, reminds me of a volume of Sermons, preached by him many years ago, on the Liturgy,* (Hatchard, 1835), at pp. 3.4, of which I read; "I shall consider the perfect harmony and accordance of our public services with the doctrines and precepts of Scripture, and . I trust that one result may be, that we shall all see cause for a deeper attachment to our Church-not from mere prejudice, ignorance, or bigotry, but because we believe that she is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." Again, the Liturgy has been handed down to us by our ancestors as a sacred legacy, purified in the various strifes of faction," and "although it is generally comprehensible to the meanest capacity, it challenges the fastidiousness of criticism, and presents itself unrivalled in beauty of composition, and piety of spirit, to the attention of the Christian world." (pp. 7, 8.) The late Rev. H. Blunt (Mr. Close's friend) was "convinced that the highest ornament and the strongest bulwark" of our Church" are to be found...in the fact, that every great and vital truth of the Word of God, is embodied in her unequalled Liturgy, and her invaluable Articles," &c. (Preface to Sermons on the Articles, p. vi.) Rev. H. M'Neile in his Lectures on the Church, No. iii. pp. 129–143, ably vindicates our Liturgy against the objections of Dissenters, speaking of "the * It may help to vindicate Mr. Close's character as a Churchman, to make it known that there is service in his Church on all the Holy days and Saints' days, and also (I believe) on Wednesdays and Fridays; and three services on Sundays. Moreover, he gives notice of the Holydays during the ensuing week after the Nicene Creed, according to the Rubric. I have heard also that he observes the letter of the Rubric by placing the elements on the Communion Table just before the Prayer for the Church Militant. excellence of the liturgical branch of our Church's instrumentality" (p. 130), and our precious formularies" (p. 142), &c. Again, Rev. E. Bickersteth in his Treatise on Prayer, c. vi. (on Public Worship) speaks of "the simple and scriptural devotion of our Liturgy," and says that "It also appears to him, that our Liturgy has advantages which we cannot otherwise so completely and effectively receive." (p. 129). Again, he says "the candid testimony of those who dissent from us, is very satisfactory respecting the excellence of our Liturgy (p. 131), and he then quotes from Doddridge, and Robert Hall,* and adds that we must rejoice "there is a devout and scriptural Liturgy, in which the congregation may join and worship God in spirit and in truth." The late Rev. T. Scott wrote to a friend on 5th April, 1818: "I, however, think that the advantages of our worship so much counterbalance what may be thought imper fections, that I am cordially attached to it; though not with such indiscriminating partiality as some are." (Life, p. 502.) He is writing on objections made by some friends to parts, and particularly to the Athanasian creed. Again, Rev. S. Rowe has written "An Appeal to the Rubric, with suggestions for general uniformity" (Hatchard, 1841), and speaks of the Liturgy as in "close conformity with holy writ," and "though not faultless, yet so free from any important imperfection" (p. 7) as to leave little room for alteration by "modern hands." Of the late Rev. J. G. Breay, it is recorded "To the rite of Confirmation, Mr. Breay attaches a very deep importance; and the laborious nature of the duties he took upon himself in order to prepare the candidates, attests his pastoral fidelity." (Memoir, c. vii. p. 282). The particulars, and beneficial results are recorded at pp. 282-286, and 499. Writing to a friend on receiving the Lord's supper, he said, "The sacramental cup is not * Mr. Goulburn, at p. 18 of his "Reply" to Ward's "Address," quotes a passage from Baxter, which shows how he valued "the fundamental doctrine of the Catechism." -only a vow of fidelity on our part, but, 920-921, and part of that from Sharp at pp. 914, 915 of Bishop Mant's Prayer Book. When the Articles are clear, conceive we have neither reason nor right to appeal to the Liturgy to modify the doctrine they contain, as their primary authority must determine our opinion. In case of any apparent contradiction between the two, the proper language of the Liturgy framed for public worship, and not so much for the a pledge of faithfulness on the part of .Christ. He gives you his body and blood. He confers on you all the benefits of his death. He promises you all the blessings of his intercession," &c. (c. ii. p. 92). His admiration of the Ordination Service may be seen at c. i. p. 55, and his caution in signing testimonials for Ordination at c. viii. pp. 308-312. See also the value he placed on Baptism in the account of the Bap-regulation of Theological doctrine, must tism of two of his own children, c. v. p. .162, and c. vi. pp. 209-210. Yet these are the men who, according to "Catholic," remain within the pale of the Church only by suffrance"! Of course he would say the same of Hooker, inasmuch as he wrote certain Sermons on Election and Justification, which "the low Evangelical school" are accustomed to quote as strongly sanctioning their own views. As to persons who object to portions of our formularies, as Dr. Holloway does, it puzzles me to comprehend how they can subscribe to the 36th Canon. Certainly my view of subscription does not recognise such subscription; I can only defend the subscriptions of such persons on the ground of comparison with others who are much worse. Dr. H. says, "I use the form accordingly, in the spirit and prayer of the service, that a blessing from the Lord may rest upon the child in this ordinance," &c. (p. 73.) If it be thought that I am guilty of the same thing in my remarks, at p. 190 on the daily service, I must refer to Robertson's How shall we conform to the Liturgy? Part ii. c. i. pp. 37-55, for a defence, as the PrayerBook allows an "urgent cause" to be sufficient cause for not using it. The view of subscription which I have adVocated appears to me to be in strict agreement with Bishop Burnett's Introduction to the Articles, pp. 7-11, of Page's Edition; Bishop Tomline's concluding remarks on the Articles; and Archdeacon Sharp's Charges on the Rubric and Canons-No. viii. pp. 122— 123, No. i., p. 1, 4, 11-15, and iv. 66, xi. 206. Parts of the passages from Burnet and Tomline* are quoted at pp. give way to the stricter language of the Articles, as documents framed expressly as guides of our faith-as a sort of Creed broken into separate parts; since it is expressly said that the Articles were put forth in 1562," for the avoiding of Diversities of Opinions, and for the establishment of Consent touching true Religion," which also had been declared concerning the 42 Articles of 1552. Since 1628 there has been in addition to this explanation of the meaning and purpose of the Articles, the King's Declaration to guide us. To vindicate the primary authority of the Articles seems to me not only according to the teaching of our Church, but also necessary at the present time for the preservation of the Liturgy in its integrity. Mr. Waterworth in the Hereford Discussion says, "I say that the Athanasian Creed cannot be proved by most certain warrant of Holy Scripture" (p. 56); and Mr. Ward says, considering "how much there is in it with no distinct or explicit Scripture warrant," and also its anathemas, "I see not how any one could recite it without a shudder, much less subscribe it without dis honesty, who should not consider that there is some Divine authority in matters of doctrine, over and above the text of Scripture," (Address, p. 43.) When we read this, and consider how many persons object to this creed, supposing Articles, implies "assent to every part and proposition contained in them." (p. 12.) Tomline, however, says, "It is not, indeed, necessary that he should approve every word or expression, but he ought to believe all the fundamental doctrines of the Articles." Which of these opinions is correct? I am inclined to think the former. Apocryphal Books set down, which contain "erroneous doctrines" &c. (as Bp. Mant says in the passage I quoted at p. 190, col. 2, note) contradicting Holy Scripture and our Articles: unless we admit the primary authority of the Articles, how can we be certain that the Church does not read these Books as Scripture, and does not hold the error neous doctrine contained in certain passages? Mr. Perceval, in his letter to the Bishop of Chester, p. 28, argues in favour of these erroneous doctrines, since the Church reads these passages. The 6th Article is, however, plain enough.* Again, in the Prayer for the Parliament, how can we feel that "most religious," means, merely "sacred, a title frequently ascribed to Kings," and denotes "the good qualities which princes profess and should have." (Archbishop Secker, quoted at p. 83 of Mant's Prayer Book), unless the 37th Article seemed to countenance this view ? it uncharitable, * &c, how could we vindicate its use, if we had nothing but the simple direction to use it in the Liturgy? On referring to the Articles of our Church, we find the 8th Article declares it ought to be "received and be lieved" because it may be proved by warrant of Scripture. Of course, then, those who believe it Scriptural (whether they are right or wrong in this point is another matter) can defend the use of this Creed. That it is Scriptural may be seen in "Church of England Magazine," Vol. ii. No. 53, pp. 322-324, and The Liturgy Compared with the Bible, published by the Christian Knowledge Society, and Bishop Mant's Prayer Book, and Rev. T. H. Horne's work on the subject. Mr. Horne (Concise History and Analysis, p. 36) quotes Baxter as saying that this creed is the "best explanation" of the doctrine of the Trinity he ever read, and he received it, "the damnatory clauses excepted, or modestly expounded." Bishop Mant, at p. 58 of his Prayer Book, quotes Arch- So far from lifting up my heel against bishop Secker as saying, "There are ex- the Church, I hope what I have writpressions which may seem liable to exten may lead some other persons better ception; but it must be for want of un-qualified by position (for I am not in derstanding them, or admitting fair interpretations of them;" and in the Church of England Magazine, Vol. x. No. 286, pp. 368-373, is a sermon on the subject by a clergyman who had objected to it, but was led by the pas- As to the quotation from Bishop sage in the Preface, on "just and fa- Stanley, which gives so much offence, vourable construction," to receive and I confess that I gave it, in a great meause it again. (p. 372). I think, there--sure, to enable us to account for men fore, that this was a fair illustration of my argument in my first paper, p. 36, col. 2. If, however, the Prayer Book is to interpret the Articles, as the Bp. of London and Mr. Ward contend, how can the arguments of the latter gentleman, which I have quoted above, be answered? Again, the Rubric directs the 1st lessons to be from the Old Testament as appointed in the Calendar, and in the Calendar we find certain Especially as they are sanctioned by Bishop Tomline, who, in 'his Elements of Theology, intended for Candidates for Orders, says part of it is "unnecessary and presumptuous:" I quoted the passage at p. 133, col. 1, note. orders,) and attainments to follow up the subject by advocating the same cause, which I feel necessary for the preservation of the Church of England as such. holding views so opposed to the plain meaning of the articles, as the following passages of Bishop Mant's Bampton Lectures seem to be; but who doubtless imagine that they hold views in agreement with them: *The above named examples may be considered as illustrations of the remark of Rev. C. I. Yorke, quoted at the beginning of my second paper, viz., " that we understood the Liturgy, and all our Formularies, in the sense of THE ARTICLES." The following expression in the Preface to the Prayer Book,-"great importunities were used to His Sacred Majesty," seems to confirm Abp. Secker's explanation of the term "religious.” |