[merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small]

DEATHS OF EMINENT CHRISTIANS. visit him on his death-bed, and among others the

judges, being then at Sarum in their circuit. To No. XVII.

them he spared not his Christian admonitions ;

and, when he discoursed before them, he insisted ROBERT ABBOT, BISHOP OF SALISBURY*,

very much upon the benefit of a good conscience, (Died 1617, aged about 57.)

rendering many thanks to his Creator for the

great comforts he felt thereby now in bis exDR. Robert Abbot filled the see of Salisbury only tremity. He also admonished all who heard him, two years and three months. When preaching so to carry themselves in their most private and on St. John xiv. 16, “I will pray the Father ; and secret actions, as well as in their public, in order he shall give you another Comforter, that he may to obtain that at the last, which would stand them abide with you for ever, many of his hearers in more stead than what all the world could afford presaged his departure from them. This indeed them besides. proved his last and farewell sermon ; for, soon after Having, when death approached, summoned he came out of the pulpit, he was seized with his domestics, and with broken speeches in the most dreadful fits, from a disorder which was language of a dying man beginning to make a brought on by a sedentary life and close applica- profession of his faith, his friends persuaded him to tion to study. But in all these bodily tortures refrain, as his principles were manifest in his his soul was at ease; for the assurance of hea- writings. He yielded to their advice, and signed venly things caused' him most cheerfully to part all his works with these words : " That faith with earthly; and the quick sense he bad of the which I have defended in my writings is the powers of the life to come” jeadened the sense truth of God, and in the avouching thereof I leave of his bodily pains. There were many came to the world.” Thus with exhortations, benedictions,

From " Last Hours of Christian Men; or an Account and the pains of his disease, he became quite worn of the Deaths of some eminent Members of the Church of out, and lay as it were slumbering, with now England;" by the rev. H. Clissold, M.A. London: Society and then a short ejaculation. At length, with fur Promoting Christian Knowledge.

leyes and hands uplifted for the space of two or No. 935.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]






three hours, he departed this life. His last words minds us that in the Corinthian church “it is were, Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly ; finish most true, that in one instance of a flagrant, unin me the work that thou hast begun: into thy deniable, and scandalizing sin, the apostle does hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit; for thou command separation. But in reference to those bast redeemed me. O God of truth, save me, tby generally, who were envious, and who fomented servant, who hopes and confides in thee alone. strife and divisions, those who were guilty of Let thy mercy, O Lord, be shown unto me: in frauds in business, and irregularities in worship, thee have I trusted. O Lord, let me not be con. and those who questioned or even denied the founded for ever”'*.

resurrection of the body, the apostle does not comAN ARGUMENT FOR PATIENCE.—Lord Clan maud separation,” &c. (p. 61). rendon, in his “ Tracts,” thus reasons : “ If we Dr. M.Neile further reminds us that the rubric could give no other argument for Christian pa- directs the minister not to exclude from the comtience, it should be enough that never any man munion, unless the offence be of a nature so sound ease, benefit, or relief by impatience, bat "that the congregation be thereby offended ;" increases and extends and multiplies the agony and therefore that any members of the congreand pain and misery of whatever calamity he uu- gation who may be actually “offended” ought dergoes by it. Whereas patience lessens and softens to be prepared to give solid proof of the offence the burden, and by degrees raises the constitution to the minister, without which they have no right and strength to that pitch, that it is hardly sen- to complain if he does not reject the oftender from sible of it.

the Lord's table.

On the law of the case, see Wheatly on the Common Prayer, c. vi. sec. 1 p. 253 ; Adn. Sharp'

charges, No. iii. pp. 40-52; the bishop of St. LITURGICAL REMARKS:

Asaph's History of the church of England, s. 591, p. 429; and Cripps' Laws relative to the Church and the Clergy, b. VI.C. v. pp. 695-697 ; whiclı latter work seems to show that a minister would not

(as some suppose) render himself liable to an BY THE REV. C. H. Davis, M.A., action for libel or defamation of character, in ful

filling his duty according to the rubrics, since Of Wadham College, Oxford; Chaplain of the these rubrics are a part of the statute law of the Stroud Union, Gloucestershire.


2. It has appeared to some to be frivolous to No II.

read the communion service in a different place

from that in which the prayers are read; and also IN THE COMMUNION SERVICE, AND THE BAPTISMAL objectionable to differ from our authorized bible

version in the decalogue, and other portions of

scripture which occur in this service. To the first Having in a former paper discussed certain of these objections it may be replied that, the comclauses in the three creeds” of the church which munion service being a distinct and complete ser. have occasionally been the subject of misunder-vice in itself, the change of place is well calcustanding or of controversy, the next point to in- lated to keep this fact in remembrance, as well as vite our attention will be the sacramental services to avoid monotony, and to secure a pleasing variety of our church, or certain clauses in these services, in the morning service of the church. To the viz., in I., The Communion Service; and, II., second, that the portions of scripture wbieh occur The Baptismal Services.

in our communion service, are according to an I. The Communion Servicet.

authorized version of scripture, viz., “the trans1. The introductory rubrics will first call for lation of the great English bible, set forth and some slight notice; inasmuch as it is sometimes used in the time of king Henry the Eighth, and objected that we are entirely destitute of proper Edward the Sixth,” from which the prayer-book ecclesiastical discipline in our church, and that we psalter is also taken. habitually admit unconverted persons to the Lord's 3. It has appeared to some that, by the insertion table. The whole subject is ably treated in rev. of two passages from the apocryphal book of Jos. Baylee's“ Institutions of the Church of Eng. Tobit among the offertory sentences, the church land,” pp. 49-57. To search the beart belongeth regards that book as holy scripture. But it is not only to the Lord. All the communicants in our unworthy of notice that in the present rubric the church profess to join in her expressions of peni- offertory sentences are spoken of (not as “sentences tence, faith, and obedience, and on this pro- of holy scripture,” as they were termed in the fession ought not, unless convicted of noto- liturgy of 1549, but) simply as “sentences.” rious sin" (in which case these rubrics empower The change thus made in 1552 (see Keeling, p. the minister to exclude them), to be refused ad-181) is significant. The actual use of these mission to the Lord's table. Some excellent practical remarks on this sub- tention to receive the communion. But this direction appears

* Some persons object to the requirement of notice of inject are to be found in Dr. M`Neile's “ Letters to

to be designed (1), to enable the minister to provide a snttià Friend," on the church of England (Hatchard, cient quantity of bread and wine ; (2), to enable him to ad1834), No. V., pp. 60-63, and 88-96. He re- monish any notorious evil-liver to abstain from coming to the

Lord's table. Still it has been ruled in the ecclesiastical * Fuller's “ Abel Redivivus;" Life and Death of Robert court of the diocese of Down, that ministers have no legal Abbot, 1651.

power to enforce this rubric. It relates rather to the people The term "holy communion" is founded on 1 Cor. x. than to the minister, who is not positively commanded to re16, 17.

fuse admission to those who have not given the notice.


sentences is left entirely to the minister's “dis- i should stand “before" the table to "order” the cretion."

elements, and then return to the north side to 4. In the prayer for the church militant, it has “say the prayer of consecration”. (see Wheatly, been supposed that, by the use of the word “ ob- c. vi. s. 22, p. 296 ; and bp. Mant's Prayer-book, lations," the church refers to an offering of the p. 363)*. elements of bread and wine as a propitiatory sac- With respect to the supposed petition for the rifice ; that the word has a direct reference to a dead, as the homily on prayer (pt. iii. pp. 298, previous rubric respecting the placing of the ele- &c.) expressly condemns the practice, so this canments on the table, to comply with which a not possibly be the meaning of the petition ; but "credence table” is needed ; and that at the close the words merely mean, so that we'-"in of the prayer a petition is made for the departed, order that we” may hereafter join the departed implying a supposed benefit to them from this pro- faithful in God's blessed kingdom (see a full dispitiatory sacrifice. To this it is to be replied, cussion of the subject in bp. Mant's letter of 1843 that the word “oblations” refers (not as some on the prayer for the church militant, pp. 11, 12). suppose, to the elements, but) to the “other de- The same remarks will apply to a similar clause votions of the people,” spoken of in a previous in the burial service. rubrie. In the Scotch liturgy of 1637, in the

5. In the “Warning for the celebration of the parallel rubric, “the devotions of the people” are holy communion," objection has sometimes been expressly termed “oblations." And this it was, made to the phrase " that holy mystery”' (and to no doubt, which suggested to our reviewers, in the parallel phrases, “meet partakers of those holy 1661-2, the additions then made after the word mysteries," and "hath instituted and ordained holy “ alms” both in the rubric and in the prayer, mysteries,” and “ who have duly received these viz., in the former—"and other devotions of the holy mysteries”); to that, “increase your damna:: people ;” and in the latter—"and oblations,” tion” (and “ eat and drink our own damnation”); with obvious reference to the same. They also and to the concluíling clause, as seeming to counadded, at the same time, a rubric at the end of the tenance the Romish practice of “ auricular conservice respecting the distribution of the collec- fession” and sacerdotal absolution. tions to “pious and charitable uses” generally,

But the words “ mystery” and “mysteries” which did not before exist. Dr. Cardwell says,

seem to mean no more than sacrament" or indeed, that "it was proposed in Mr. San

"symbols.” For in the writings of the early croft's book that the rubric should stand thus : fathers the words “mystery” and “sacrament" "The priest shall then offer up and place upon the seem to be used as convertible terms. Thus, in table ;' but the words offer up' were not adopted. Ephes. v. 32, the vulgate translates uvotnplov as Had it been otherwise, a different interpretation

sacramentum. And we know that tbe words might bave been suggested for the word obla

"mystical” and “symbolical” mean much the tions” (Conferences, p. 382, note). Clearly, same thing. Thus in the baptismal services, the then, the very rejection of the proposal proves phrase “ mystical washing away sin” means obthat the word " oblations” does not refer to the viously the symbolical or emblematical washing elements, but to other devotions of the people.” away of sin. And even in the catechism of a This interpretation is confirmed by the homily Scottish bishop, the late Dr. A. Jolly, we find on the sacrament, &c., pt. i. p. 399, which, in af- this statement: “What is the effect of these firming that there is no other sacrifice or obla- words ? By them the bread and cup are made tion” than Christ's for sin, proves that the authoritative representations or

symbols of " oblations”in the prayer cannot refer to any pro- Christ's crucified body, and of his blood that was pitiatory sacrifice, oblation, or offering, but only shed.” to pecuniary offerings* (see a discussion of the

As to the word “ damnation," that it means sabject in rev. J. C. Robertson's " How shall simply “condemnation” has been shown by archwe conform to the Liturgy?" pp. 207-209; and bishop Secker, as quoted in bp. Mant's prayer, the bishop of Rochester's charge of 1843, p. 14): book, p. 353, col. 2. It is the old English word

With respect to the rubric, no “credence table” for it. Thus in an old statute of 2 Henry VII. is necessary. The elements inay be brought from

c. xix. it is said of certain fraudulent fabrics the vestry by the minister or church wardens at

that they “may not be sold, but” are utterly the proper time; or they may be deposited under to be damned.” Knox's Scottish Confession the table until the proper time; or, being placed of Faith also contains this passage : (according to custom) on the middle of the table, utterly damn the vanity of those that affirm before service, the minister may comply with the sacraments to be nothing else but naked and rubric before the prayer thus, viz., by then re- bare signs.” moving the elements, and uncovering them, and As to "auricular confession,” the practice is expouring out into the cup or cups" so much.... pressly condemned in the homily on repentance (pt. wine as he shall think sufficient to be consecrated. ii. pp. 479-481). And this exhortation speaks of He will then have, before the prayer of consecra- absolution (not by the word of man- such as any tion, to bring them nearer to him (according to liturgical form of absolution—but) by “the mithe rubrie), so as to consecrate them most con- nistry of God's holy word”, by a close and indiveniently before all the people. For the meaning vidual application of God's written word (such as of the latter rubric appears to be that the minister

[ocr errors]

* In some churches the communicants kneel during the * In this sense the word is used by Hooker, b. v. c. 74, 9. exhortations previous to the confession, and sit during the 4; and in Acts xxiv. 17 we read of “alms and offerings”, prayer of consecration. This is a mistake: they should clearly of money. The evcharist is of course a “sacrifice of certainly kneel go as to join in the prayer of consecration, and praise and thanksgiving" for redeeming mercy. But this is not kneel daring the exhortations till the words “meekly quite another thing.

kneeling upon your knees."

66 We


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1 John ii. 12) to the heart and conscience, by is now the standard of the established Presbyte

“discreet and learned minister.” On this rian kirk of Scotland, is far stronger than our subject more will be said in a future paper. Communion Service. On giving the bread, the

6. The “proper prefaces” for Christmas and minister is there directed to say, "Take ye, eat Whitsuntide—as also the collects for these days, ye. This is the body of Christ, which is broken have been supposed to speak too dogmatically of for you. Do this in remembrance of him.".This the time of Christ's birth (which is doubtful and cup is the New Testament in the blood of Christ, uncertain), and of the descent of the Holy Spirit which is shed for the remission of the sins of many; at the feast of Pentecost. But, whenever Christ drink ye all of it” (see Hall's Reliques, vol. iii. was born, his birthday (like those of earthly p. 57). And in the “ Corner Stone," by Jacob kings) may surely be “ kept” on another day? Abbott (an American congregationalist) in c. vii, And our Whitsuntide is kept according to the pp. 216.17, is to be found language equally strong Jewish computation of the months of the year. with that employed in our service, if not stronger, Moreover, in the “prefaces” and “collects, the respecting the design and effects of the Lord's word “as," occurring as it does before the words supper. "at this time,” may well be taken to explain the

8. It has been supposed by some that, by the language as meaning that we celebrate the fes

prayer of consecration, the church teaches that tivals "as” at such times, though without assert the priest in laying his bands on the bread and ing that the facts commemorated did actually wine, confers on them some mysterious, undefined, occur at those precise periods of the year. 7. It has been asserted that our communion is a mistake*. ' The rubrics respecting the "tak

inherent virtue, some change of substance. This service teaches the doctrine, if not of transubstan- ing" and laying hands upon the elements are tiation, at least of consubstantiation, by the use merely for the designation of that portion of the of the following terms: “ Grant us therefore, elements which is to be “consecrated," that is, to gracious Lord, so to eat the ficsh of thy dear Son be set apart for a holy use in the ordinance. Thus Jesus Christ, and to drink bis blood,” &c.;,“ may, the rev. Mourant Brock, in a short tractt on be partakers of his most blessed body and blood;" the Lord's supper, observes that “the act of con" to feed us, who have duly received these holy secration is merely a separation, or setting apart mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most pre- the elements from profane to holy uses” (p. 9). cious body and blood of thy Son our Saviour So again, the rev. S. Rowe remarks, that " by Jesus Christ;” which interpretation is confirmed, this act the elements are set apart from all ordithey argue, by the catechism, which teaches nary and common uses, but their nature is not that the body and blood of Christ“ are verily changed. In substance they are the same as bez and indeed taken and received by the faithful in fore consecration, in purpose totally different" the Lord's supper."

(Appeal to the Rubric, p. 18). But the communion service explains itself in one

II. The Baptismal services. And here the of the previous exhortations, which runs thus: "Then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, ground of infant baptism, and sponsorial provisions

, aud drink bis blood ;" while the 28th article expressly affirms that the body of Christ is received that the baptism of young children is in any wise

attention. The 27th article of our church affirms and eaten only after an heavenly and spi- to be retained in the church, as most agreeable ritual manner»'*. And the Communion Service thus admonishes the communicant: “Feed witli the institution of Christ”'s. For we infer on him in thy heart by faith.” Dean Nowel, in * So unimportant as regards the essence of the sacrament bis “ Second Catechism” of 1572, which received did our reformers consider these rubrics, that in the liturgy of the sanction of convocation, thus explains the mat- 1549, only the two respecting the “taking of the bread and ter : “The body and blood of Christ, which are

of cup were retained. In 1552, even these were removed. Nor

were they restored until 1661-2, when the rest were added. given, taken, eaten, and drunken of the faithful

† Rev. M. Brock's tract on “The Sacrament of the Lord's in the Lord's supper only after a heavenly, and Supper,” is an useful little manual. So is the rev. C. Kemble's spiritual manner, but yet verily and indeed” “Manual for Communicants," of which it is scarcely possible (p. 55 of the Prayer Book and Homily Society's to speak too highly. Rev. J. Phillips' “ Help to Communiedition). The Puritan directory for public wor

cants”, is also an useful tract. ship of the Westminster Assembly of 1645, which the baptismal water, says, "Not that the water contracts any

In like manner Wheatly, speaking of the consecration of "spiritual reception" of the body and blood of new quality in its nature or essence, by such consecration; Christ, is meant a mental reception in opposition to a bodily but only that it is sanctified or made holy in its use, and reception; a mental reception of Christ with all his media separated from common to sacred purposes” (Illustration of torial excellency as “spiritual food,” in opposition to a bodily the Book of Common Prayer, c. vii. s. 3, p. 339). So also reception of his natural flesh and blood. Everything is pre- rev. S. Rowe observes that, by the act of consecration of a sented to us in holy scripture, and commemorated in the church or churchyard, “vo indwelling holiness is attributed Lord's supper ; and the receiving act is faith. And the or superstitious honour paid to the building itself, where the Christian, beholding in the elements the symbols and pledges living assemble to worship their Lord, nor to the surrounding of his redemption, with thankful joy receives them, and thus cemetery where the dead sleep their last long sleep of the is "quickened" to "feed on Christ by faith.” And thus grave" (Appeal, &c., p. 21). through them, when faithfully received, the Holy Ghost This cannot of course mean that infant baptism is in effectually works. Thus sacraments are not physical but itself more agreeable with Christ's institution than adult moral instruments of salvation, &c.” (Hooker, book v. chap: baptism; but that “ its retention” is most agreeable; i e. 57, sec. 4). And “the real presence of Christ's most blessed hat it is “most agreeable" with Christ's institution to admit body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacra- infants to the sacrament rather than to exclude them, when ment, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament” (Hooker, provision is made according to his “institution,” as recorded book v. chap 67, sec. 6). The language in the exhortation as in Matt. xxviii. 18-20, for following up the rite by teaching to our being “one with Christ," &., is founded on 1 Cor. x. the baptized “to observe" his commandments-an important 16, 17; and the warnings against unworthily receiving the feature in the institution. Or “ most agreeable” may mean sacrameut, upon 1 Cor. xi. 29-32.

“ very agreeable,” as we sometimes say." most certainly."

By a

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

from scripture that the children of one or both pro- | those who are not communicants are also forbidfessedly* Christian parents (1 Cor. vii. 14) may den to stand as sponsors ; and apparently for this lawfully be baptized, and are thus privileged to reason, “because the Christian who does not go to receive the seal of the covenant under which they the Lord's supper has no real regard for his soul, are born (Gen. xvii. 7, Gal. iii. 8, 13, 14, 29), and therefore is unfit to take the charge of anwhen security is given for the training “them other's. It would be of unspeakable benefit were up" (Prov. xxii. 6) in the observance of Christ's this regulation strictly enforced. How many commandments, according to his“ institution”, as children might be saved from ruin had each of recorded in Matt. xxviii., 19, 20-a provision them three sponsors, who felt as they ought the which our own church attempts to secure through weight of their responsibility" (Prophetic Herald, the medium of the sponsors, whose “parts and b. i. 1845, p. 320; compare archd. Sharp's duties to see” to all this is strongly enforced in charge vi. p. 106). the concluding exhortation of the baptismal ser- With respect to the sponsions, in the baptismal vice. And our church rightly deems the bringing service, they closely resemble those in the order of a child to baptism in this manner to be a “ cha- of public baptism in the church of Scotland” (i e. ritable work," wbich the Lord “favourably al- the established Presbyterian kirk), as given at p. loweth”, i. é. permits or approves. Any such 75 of Dr. Cumming's“ Baptismal Font.” In iliis provision, however, would of course suffice as the form “ the parents, who are the sponsors,” present general scriptural ground for infant baptism. But their “child during public worship,”, and the miour own church has deemed the sponsorial method nister interrogates them whether it is their “deto be the most suitable for her own members ; sire” that the child should be baptized into the and accordingly we find in the church catechism, visible church”; whether they “believe” the in reply to the question, “Why then are infants articles of Christian faith in the apostles' creed; dibaptized, wlien by reason of taeir tender age they | and whether they “promise and vow” to “train cannot perform them ?(i. e. repentance and up” their “child in the nurture and admonition faith) the following answer: “Because they pro- of the Lord", &c. And then, after prayer, the mise them both by their sureties ; which promise, child is baptized, and prayer is again offered up when they come to age, themselves are bound to to God in its behalf. perform." Upon which rev. C. Benson justly Now the objections to the sponsions in our argues, from the permission of private baptism service often arise from a mistaken notion that the without sponsors, that “the promise of the suré- questions are addressed to the infant. Thus Mr. ties .... is the reason only why children are, not Binney considers it an "astounding" fact that why they may be baptized; the reason only why the minister has “ actually in the course of” this it is espedient, not why it is lawful; the reason office “ to interrogate a babe, and to receive its only why the church permits herself, not why she replies through the lips of adults, who answer for is permitted by the gospel to do so” (Theological it" ("Conscientious Clerical Non-contormity," p. Inquiry into the Sacrament of Baptism, dis. iv. 32). But this is a mistake. In king Edward's p. 707.

first liturgy of 1549, it is true, the preceding With respect to the sponsors themselves, they rubric stood thus : '“Then shall the priest are special intercessors for the child at the font; demand of the child these questions followand witnessess, spiritual guardians, and authorized ing.” But in the second liturgy of 1552 it was movitors through life. They are called “god- altered 10 this form : “Then shall the priest defathers and godmothers"; because they are parents mand of the godfathers and godmothers these in things pertaining to God; “sponsors,” be- questions: Dost thou forsake the devil ?”' &c. At cause they promise for the child; “sureties," the last revision in 1661-2, this rubric was rebecause they give security to the church for its moved (for a previous rubric declares that the adChristian education; and “witnesses,” because dress is made “unto the godfathers and godthey witness the child's baptism, and are to re- mothers”), and the words " in the name of this mind bim of his consequent obligations to lead a child” were added to the question*. The ques. Christian life.

According to the 29th canon, parents are not parents. And, as a minister is liable to suspension for refusing permitted to become sponsors, in order, doubtless, Prayer,” it might be a serious experiment to positively refuse

or delayiug to baptize according to “ the Book of Common to provide additional care-takers and spiritual to receive parents as sponsors. On the abstract question see guardians for the childt. By the same canon, the bishop of St. Asaph's History of the Church of England,

sec. 672 p. 496, note. In the American rubric parents are On this subiect see rev. C. Benson's "Theological Inquiry,” formally permitted to act as sponsors to their own children. disc.ii. p. 55; Dr. M`Neile's“ Lectures on the Church of Eng- * In the American liturgy the rubric bas been restored, land, iv. p. 238; and " Church and the Churches,” c. viii. pp. and in a form, too, which removes the ambiguity, viz., “The 393 395; and rev. E. A. Litton's sermon on Jolin iii. 5, pp. minister shall then demand of the sponsors as follows; the


[ocr errors]

questions being considered as addressed to them severally, See Hooker, book iii. chap. 1 sec. 12 and 13, and book and the answers to be made accordingly.” Doubt is some1, chap. 60, sec. 6. The church by its ministers dedicates times felt whether or not, when several children are presented and presents to the Lord the children born within its pale-- at the font by the several sets of sponsors, these questious the children of professedly Christiau parents.

should be altered to the plural,“ Do ye, in the name of these † Prior to the last revision in 1661-2, the answer in the children, renounce ?” &c. But, since there is no change of catechism stood thus,“ Yes; they do perform them by their type, as in the other parts of the office where such changes sureties, who promise and vow them both in their names ; are to be made; and since in the liturgies from 1552 to 1604 which when they come to age, themselves are bound to per- (inclusive), while all the previous parts of the service assumed form" (Keeling, p. 282). On the subject of infant baptism more children than one to be presented, and so were worded in generally see Dr. M'Neile's “The Church and the Churches,' the plural number throughout, yet in this part the singular chap. vii. p.368; and rev. E. H. Hoare's “ Baptism according number was used as it is now (see Keeling, pp.244, 245), it to Scripture” pp. 65, 66.

would seem that the singular number should be here reThe Prayer-book, however, makes no exception against tained.


« 前へ次へ »