« EelmineJätka »
cipline can never absolve a Minister of the Church from his duty to obey its Law. The conscience is as much under subjection where there is no penalty and no coercive power, as if the sentence of the Law had the whole sovereign force of a kingdom to execute them. The vow of the Minister binds him to obey his Church in all her Godly precepts, in all her rules for his ministrations. Before this tribunal, the goodly company of true believers and faithful followers of her Discipline as well as her Worship, must he stand. The Bishops of the Church, here and in England, exhibit much reluctance to proceed through the process of Law to punish for offences. It may be wise, as it is charitable; although the habits of thought of a Judge make him unwillingly accede to it. But the last vindication of any deviation from rule should be the security of escaping condemnation. A higher and better spirit, we are persuaded, influences those, who, in the case of those observances, and in the sad breaches of our Law in calling Ministers of other Denominations to teach the people from the pulpit, have awakened deep solicitude for the cause of the Church. It may be permitted to one, in the close of a life, much of which has been given to this cause, earnestly and most respectfully to press upon their thoughts, that lawlessness of every kind retards the progress of the Church, and so inevitably obstructs the advance of Christ's Religion. The practices to which we have now referred, might be of little moment, if they were not the offspring and the symbols of Superstitions and Doctrines imperiling Faith and Truth.
To a reverential Churchman's mind, the most important of all these questions is that which regards the apparel of the Altar at the Administration of the Lord's Supper. But no just opinion of what is fitting here can be formed, unless we have some opinion of what that Sacrament means. In our most humble judgment, no man of ordinary reasoning powers, who believes in the Divinity of Christ, and that what He and His Apostles taught is in substance truly narrated, can accede to the tenet of mere Symbolism. To suppose that the ordination of this Rite was like a wish of Socrates, that his friends would meet and commemorate the day of his death with a 25
solemn feast, is wholly incompatible with what is thus divinely declared. The doctrine of Zwinglius is but a shade beyond this. There is here a mystery to be believed in, if we allow that anything may be credited which cannot be explained. But if we take the Articles of Religion as the exponent of the Catholic truth, we find "that the Bread which we, (faithfully), break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the Cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ." (Article XXVII. Even upon this presentment of the Faith, there is mystery. And it will be no deeper if we admit, as it seems to the writer must be admitted, that we are warranted by Scripture, Ancient Fathers, and modern Reformers, in recognizing a Spiritual Sacrifice, and an Altar, in a sense truly Catholic, and yet wholly variant from Romish doctrine.
Thus instructed and believing, we look to what was sanctioned by our English fathers at the Reformation, for the celebration of the Communion. There is the fair white linen cloth upon the Table, the Bible open upon it, the Book of Common Prayer at either end, the Elements set upon it at the appointed time, the Paten, the Chalice, the Cup, and the Almsbasin for the poor, termed the devotions of the People. All these, so fitting, so sacred in association, so august in their simplicity, furnish the true garniture of the Holy Table for the most holy Rite of the Church. Everything else lessens, or is inharmonious. The presence of the Elements should exclude them all. Even the flowers of Easter Morn should bloom and diffuse their fragrance elsewhere in the Church, Purity, solemnity, true faith, holy hope, hover over the Altar thus prepared; and there is not, to the calm religious eye, a sight on earth, more impressive and heavenward, than the Communion Table of a Parish Church, thus plainly, thus sublimely ornamented.
NOTICES OF BOOKS.
THE TEMPORAL MISSION OF THE HOLY GHOST; or Reason and Revelation. By HENRY EDWARD MANNING, Archbishop of Westminster. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1866. 12mo. pp. 274.
We have here the flounderings of an athlete deeply sunk in the mire. Mr. Manning, or the Archbishop of Westminster, as he styles himself, has not lost, and cannot by any possibility get rid of, that innate sense of truthfulness, consistency and honesty, which belongs to him as an Englishman, and especially an English Clergyman. And this is what troubles him. He is not a logician. He is a casuist and rhetorician. Of late he seems to have been reading the Medieval Scholiasts, and they have evidently put him on a new tack. His great difficulty is to reconcile what he calls Revelation with Reason, Faith with Science, Dogma with Free-thought. In other words, it is to get along with, and to get over the difficulties of, the dogmas of Modern Romanism. He knows and feels them to be difficulties; but what to do with them, that is the question which makes him so uneasy, and which he is perpetually trying to solve. In this book he solemnly and formally recants certain opinions on the subject which he once held and taught. In doing this he is at least honest. But he does not tell us what he thinks now of another theory, which, in common with Mr. Newman, he is understood to have held since he became a Papist,-the Theory of Development; a Theory which Brownson, then in good odor among the Romanists, thus characterized: "They are," says he, "neither fish nor flesh, nor yet good red herring. They are nice men, but shockingly bad logicians." And again: "These [developmentists,] not accepting the authority of the Church, cannot, without such theory, get over the difficulties presented to their minds by the Fathers, nor can we without it, satisfactorily explain those difficulties to them." Brownson, however, has since lost caste among the Romanists, been tabooed by them, and compelled to give up his Review; and it is evident enough from what we see in the Romish papers, that even Mr. Manning is already looked upon with more than suspicion. At any rate, he did not venture to submit these pages for examination at Rome before publishing; but he is careful to say, that if the Pope says he is wrong, he is ready to eat his own words again! His new Theory is this: that the Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost is so lodged in the Church, or rather in the Pope, that,
"The Definitions and Decrees of Pontiffs, speaking ex cathedra, or as the head of the Church, and to the whole Church, whether by Bull, or Apostolic Letters, or Encyclical, or Brief, to many or to one per
son, undoubtedly emanate from a divine assistance, and are infallible." p. 94.
And yet, this same Mr. Manning says: "It is no part of Reason to believe that which is contrary to Reason, and it is not Rationalism to reject it. As Reason is a divine gift, equally with Revelation— the one in Nature, the other in Grace-discord between them is impossible, and harmony an intrinsic necessity." p. 22.
Here then we take our stand with Mr. Manning. The more shrewd of the Romish Controversialists have never cared to tell us precisely where the sort of Infallibility which they hold to, is located. Mr. Manning is more unguarded. And, in this attempt, be has upset his whole theory, and only plunged himself deeper than before in the quagmire. For any well-read student will give him a list, as long as he may desire, of these "infallible "(?) Pontiffs, solemnly affirming, and solemnly denying and condemning the very same identical things! calling black white, and white black! We will furnish him, if he wishes, with page after page of these self-evident bare-faced contradictions; each, too, condemned with an anathema!! No, no, Mr. Manning. You are on the wrong tack again, Your new theory is not a whit better than the Development theory. You will give up this by and by, as you gave up that. For you exhibit proof, in your book, that you have still left in you some at least of the elements of an honest man; and that Medieval Casuistry and Romish perverseness have not utterly blinded you to all spiritual perception of what is Catholic, and right, and true. If your life is spared, you may yet find rest and peace in the bosom of that Catholic Apostolic Church which you have deserted and betrayed.
So far as Mr. Manning's argument in this volume is concerned, its two main faults are, 1st, his wrong conceptions of the great objects, ends, and purposes, of the Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost; and, 2d, his mistaken idea as to the true test of Faith. Some thoughts bearing upon this general subject, may be found in the first Article of this present Number of this Review.
A COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES-Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical-by JOHN P. LANGE, D. D., in connection with a number of eminent European Divines. Translated from the German, and edited with additions, original and selected, by PHILIP SCHAFF, D. D., in connection with American Divines of various Evangelical Denominations.
Volume II. contains
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK. BY JOHN Peter Lange, D. D., Professor of Theology at the University of Bonn. Revised from the Edinburgh Translation, with additions by W. G. T. SHedd, D. D.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE. By J. J. VAN OOSTErzee, D. D., Professor of Theology in the University of Utrecht. Translated from the second German edition, with additions, original and
selected, by PHILIP SCHAFF, D. D., and Rev. CHARLES C. STARBUCK. New York: Charles Scribner & Co. 1866. 8vo. pp. 167, 405.
In the January Review, 1865, we described the plan of this great work, its general character, and its probable value. We stated also, clearly, what we regarded as its deficiencies, and the fatal tendencies to which even the better class of this school of critics are constantly prone. The present volume confirms us in the opinion which we then expressed. Especially are we convinced that the modern Rationalists of Germany, Holland and France, who have expended their strength in assailing the Supernaturalism of Christianity, who have made a last desperate effort to undermine the foundations of the Faith, are to find their antagonists in men who fight with the same kind of weapons. Strauss, Baur, Feuerbach, and the men of that stamp, the disciples of the Pure Reason of Kant, the Idealism of Fichte, and Schelling's Philosophy of the Absolute, and who applied these principles of reason ing to Christianity, are met inch by inch, upon their own chosen ground, by a class of men more orthodox, and equally learned, who are vindicating the Sacred Records of Inspiration with a thoroughness that is exhaustive and leaves nothing to be desired, and with a success which a more Catholic and Churchly method, like that of Dr. Wordsworth, could hardly hope for in such a field. In this respect Lange's Commentary is of great value, and is almost indispensable to the Biblical student.
This work presents the text in a literal translation, with the principal readings and a three-fold commentary-Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical-under distinct and separate heads. In textual criticism, the principal readings of the Greek text are given in foot notes, and they comprise the results of the critical apparatus of this century, which is so ample. The critical editions of Lachmann and Tischendorf are made the basis. It is worthy of note, how Tischendorf returns more and more, in his latest writings, to the received text of the most Ancient Manuscripts. This he has done in St. Matthew's Gospel in more than a hundred instances. The critical notes explain all the difficult words and passages; the doctrinal and ethical thoughts present the chief doctrines and precepts of the text; the homiletical hints suggest themes, and points for sermons and Bible lectures, and exhibit the endless applicability of the Word of God to all classes and conditions of men. In all those points at issue between Rationalism and Catholic doctrine, such as the Trinity, Inspiration, Miracles, the personality of Satan, the Fall, the Atonement, &c., &c., the tone of the work is clear and uncompromising. In the Commentary on St. Luke, the Lutheranism of the author appears in his view of the Sacrament of the Supper.
There is another feature of the work worthy of notice. Even these learned Commentators, orthodox as they claim to be, cannot, by any possibility, prove the authenticity and integrity of the Gospel of St. Mark and St. Luke, without going back to the testimony of the Early Church; but when they come to interpret the meaning of the Sacred 25*