« PreviousContinue »
day have entered. It is not ne- while the larger part of the clergy cessary that we should defend all and laity of our church were somtheir words, writings, or actions ; nolent, their being the few instead we could speak strongly of vari- of the many is no reason that ous things which we deem mis- we should not be grateful for taken or exceptionable in the pro- their labours. Or is it that they ceedings of some, perhaps many, adopted theological opinions with of them ; they were neither per which sound churchmen would fect men, nor perfect theologians; not wish to identify themselves ? we do not panegyrize the high We suppose that between the Calvinism of one, or the low Ar- opposing views of Toplady and minianism of another; the con- Romaine on the one hand, and troversial bitterness of a third, Wesley and Fletcher on the other, the coarse humour of a fourth, or there would be found sufficient the ecclesiastical irregularities of shades of variety to prevent a several ; but shall we, therefore, general respect for their common be ashamed to avow our convic- piety being identified with any tion, that the church of Christ, sectional school of doctrine. Such and especially our own branch of moderate men as Walker and it, owes to these clergymen a vast Adam were denounced as Caldebt of gratitude for the intense vinists by Arminians, and as Arzeal and piety with which they minians by Calvinists; and some urged the Scriptural doctrines of of their brethren stood only a grace, and of the Protestant Re- little higher or lower, as it is abformation; and for those unwea- surdly called, in the theological ried labours which have led to scale; the first Venn for instance, results second only to those which might be half a step above, and followed the Reformation itself. the second about as much below, We feel heartily ashamed of the their standard; and so on of coyness with which some very others, till we come to the exgood men think it expedient to tremes; but that which has advert to such names as those caused the whole body to be of the Wesleys, Whitfield, Grim- linked together in public opinion, shawe, Walker, Talbot, Fletcher, was their union in the great outAdam, Newton, Riland, Conyers, lines of evangelical doctrine, as H. Venn, Romaine, Hervey, Top- distinguished from the pelagianlady, the Stillingfleets, and the ism and semi-pelagianism, the elder Milner; who were succeeded practical popery and formalism, by the Simeons, Cecils, Scotts, which had well-nigh shut out both Milners, Venns, Robinsons, Rich- the doctrine of justification by faith, monds, Farishes, and Biddulphs, and the work of the Holy Spirit. who lived to instruct the next ge- Whitfield and Wesley might seneration; not to mention the lay parate ; and Hervey and Fletcher Thorntons and Wilberforces, who might contend with more hardaided their efforts, and were edi. ness, than sat gracefully on such fied by their ministrations. And gentle spirits; but, quarrel as why this prudential reserve ? Is they may, their common oppoit that these men, and others who nents will brand them together as were classed with them, were “divines of the evangelical class ;" a small and despised minority and we see not why their comamong their brethren ? If they mon friends should not acknowwere in the main right, and their ledge the bond ofunion. The Chrisbrethren wrong ; if they were zea- tian is not obliged to bear his lously affected in a good cause, neighbour's reproach, when he is CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 14.
buffeted for his faults ; but he gether the various ranks and demust not be ashamed to bear grees of the church inilitant upon with him the reproach of the earth in well-adjusted order ; cross of Christ ; and, disguise it there were others as devout, as as we may, these men were bear. laborious, and as zealous, who ing that reproach, though some maintained the duty and necessity of them gave other causes of of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and offence which might have been, subordination; and dreaded every and should have been, avoided. approach to confusion and schism.
And here we may notice, and of this class were Romaine, Adam, we do so without scruple, the and Walker; with others whose ecclesiastical irregularities from names are on record; not to menwhich several of the individuals tion the many more whose names whom we have named were not are not blazoned, only because free. Mr. Venn had this acknowthey discharged their sacred duledgment to make in his interest- ties diligently and efficiently in ing and valuable memoir of his their allotted sphere of action, ungrandfather; and Mr.
and Mr. Carus known beyond the range of their will have to record the same benignant influence. Be it recol. of the early days of Mr. Simeon. lected also, that some, who at first And why should it not be record. were hurried into irregularities, ed? How stand the facts ? At were led, by more mature reflection a time of great ignorance, luke. and experience, to discern the imwarmness, and irreligion, men of portance of conformity and order, much zeal, devotion, and love to and their own duty as clergymen God and man, were raised up to of the Church of England; and stem the national torrent of un. have left upon record, both in their godliness, and to disturb the As- writings and by their example, a phaltic waters of religious tor far stronger protest against irrepidity. Among them, some de- gularity, than if they had never viated into ecclesiastical irregula- fallen into it. The remarkable rities, with a view to attack the “revival” (as such effusions of kingdom of Satan more boldly and Divine grace are usually called,) successfully than they thought was at Truro, under the pastoral care possible without innovating upon of Mr. Walker, was in strict conthe discipline of the communion nection with the discipline as well to which they belonged. They as the doctrines of the Anglican believed themselves not only jus- Church ; and even those at Hudtified in, but especially called to, dersfield under Venn, at Haworth their itinerant labours; but their under Grimshawe, and at Everton misapprehension in regard to the under Berridge, were not the remode of exercising their ministry, sult of the irregular itinerating does not prove that the matter of labours in which those clergymen their ministry was not essentially indulged-or rather toiled-but scriptural : nor need we disparage of their zealous exercise of their their zeal because we do not ap- sacred office in the parishes asprove of their innovations. And signed to their charge. then again be it remembered, that When, then, the conduct of some if a few individuals, in their laud- of these good men is adduced to able fervour to reclaim the wan- convict those who in the present derers from Christ's fold, over- day preach, in the main, the same looked the important considera- doctrines, of being bigots, because tions, which, for the sake of the they discern the duty and necescommon object, should bind to- sity of ecclesiastical order, or of
being lax churchmen, because they interesting narrative of him in symbolize in their theological Mr. Bickersteth's Christian Liopinions with some who were so, brary; and now Berridge by Mr. the argument fails on either side. Whittingham, (to which we hope To take the extreme case of Ber- shortly to add Simeon by Mr. ridge himself, it is no more neces- Carus), have greatly enlarged the sary to applaud or imitate his knowledge of the readers of relibreaches of church discipline, than gious biography, respecting the his eccentricity of conduct, or his characters and proceedings of frequently coarse humour ; which, such men as we have mentioned, if his good and serious intentions and the state of religion in Engwere not taken into the account, land in their times. It is immight sometimes be called, as possible to read those narratives Southey calls it, “buffoonery." without perceiving the need of adAnd yet when we think of the ar- ding sobriety to zeal; of refraining dent devotion, the intense labours, from acrimony of discussion; and, the irrepressible energy, the large- we must add, of maintaining the hearted self-denying charity, of this due order, as well as the doctrines, remarkable man; of his love to his of the church which God, in his Redeemer, and his anxiety for the mercy, has established among us. salvation of souls; and of the Mr. Wesley had often urged this, thousands whom he was the in- though he violated his own prestrument, in the hands of God, of cepts. Whitfield does not appear turning from darkness to light, to have had any settled judgment and who, at the last day, will call upon the subject, as we think Mr. him blessed ; we can well under- Philip admits in his recent memoir stand what Mr. Venn meant, when of him ; a book full of diligently. he spoke of him as “the verera- collected matter connected with ble father Berridge;" and readily “ The Life and Times of Whitcan we believe what he wrote in a field," but which, coming from letter to Mr. Harvey, that when the pen of a Dissenter, often draws Mr. Simeon preached the funeral the
very contrary conclusion from discourse (from 2 Tim. iv. 7,8; facts to that which Churchmen probably that published in his must conscientiously be of opinion Skeletons in 1796), “Everton they fairly suggest. The life church could not contain half the and exhortations of Walker are multitude who came to the burial an invaluable antidote to the ex. of their beloved pastor; nor is it ample and arguments of his easy to conceive what tears and
Mr. Sidney, we sighs were to be seen and heard recollect, tells us that Walker was from those who had been called once summoned to a conference to Christ through the word of the respecting the itinerancy of Berdear deceased." If vituperations
If vituperations ridge, at which Whitfield was were as plentiful as crimes in present. Whitfield strongly enTipperary, we should be sorry to couraged his irregularity, Walker be hurling them at such a man as taking the contrary side ; " but," John Berridge, however little some says Walker, "nothing was conof his doings and sayings may cluded." Berridge must have approve themselves either to our been hard pressed for arguments taste or our understandings. when he placed in the fore-front
The recent Memoirs of Walker of them Nathan's reply to David by Mr. Sidney, Venn by his concerning his design to build the grandson, Adam by Mr. Westoby, temple ; "Do all that is in thine Newton in the enlarged and very heart, for the Lord is with thee ;" a text which had nothing to do We took up the volume before with the question of clergymen us, intending to make it an apo. of the Church of England becom- logy for offering some remarks ing itinerant preachers; though, upon religious revivals, and other even if it had,“ the context,” says topics; but having exhausted our Walker, "shewed that it was con- space, we must postpone them to trary in the case of king David." another occasion.
(To be continued.)
VIEW OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS.
The decision of Sir H. Jenner, in the for the state or place out of which it is matter of the Carisbrooke superstitious desirable to pray a soul, is surely a purinscription, is beginning to work its gatory, and dropping the name will not baneful effects. We do not mean that alter the thing. Harding the Jesuit was the Papists exult, and that the Oxford right, when he told Jewell that the one Tract sect exult with them; or that inevitably implies the other: “Oratio the Protestant Dissenters taunt us, and pro mortuis, purgatorii doctrinam inthat the friends of the Anglican refor- vehit necessario. Archbishop Usher, mation are deeply afflicted at the dis- and some other eminent men, anxious grace brought upon our Church, and our to wrest from the papist the doughty common Christianity, by that ill-judged weapon of tradition, have shewn that and lamentable decision; thougb all this the practice, in early ages, was not is true; but we refer to the practical wrought into the abominable system effect, as exemplified in some recent pro- which the Church of Rome built upon ceedings in the Roll's Court, in which it; but we are quite ready to concede, the decision of Sir H. Jenner is urged that if we take one step, we must take in proof, that property devoted to pur- two, and perhaps many: and that Usher chase prayers for the dead is not dedi. had done better if he had appealed from cated to a superstitious use.
fathers and councils, to the word of fess, that if Sir H. Jenner is right, we God, which offers not a shadow of argusee no honest way of avoiding this con- ment for the practice. clusion; and hence immense masses of We had a strong foreboding, when the property held by cathedrals, colleges, Carisbrooke case was pending, that it parishes, municipal corporations, endow- might end as it did. We should not, ed schools, public companies, and pri- however, to prevent that result, have vate individuals, bequeathed, or other- been satisfied that the case should have wise devoted, to praying for the souls of been tried upon the mere technicality the departed, are fraudulently retained, of the clergyman's consent not having and ought to be restored to Chantry been obtained ; for clergymen might be priests, and others, who will duly exer- found who would readily give their concise the appointed trusts. We do not sent to such an inscription. It was know whether the Rolls case requires better, therefore, that the question, if the judge of that court to give an tried, should be tried upon its merits ; opinion upon this question; we speak but our anxiety was caused by observonly of an argument in the pleadings. ing, that the line of pleading took very It is gravely maintained, that “Ora pro much the turn that prayer for the dead anima,” or “ animabus," is not is forbidden by the Church of England. counted by the Church of England a Now, for ourselves, we have not any superstitious condition annexed to pro- doubt that it is forbidden, as we have perty. If so, land and funds, of the often shewn, and not longer ago than in value of millions of money, ought either our very last Number. But we have to be restored to the popish owners, or had so much experience in our contest conferred on Mr. Newman, Dr. Pusey, with the Oxford Tract party, of the Mr. Palmer, Mr. Keble, and others, who specious manner in which those who may think it right and charitable to per- wish to foist superstitions npon our form the conditions. The wire-drawn Protestant Church, construct their sodistinction, that prayer for the departed phisms, that instead of chiefly searching does not imply purgatory, and that it is for passages which directly, or by im. proper to pray for the dead, though plication, forbid the practice, we should not perhaps to offer masses for them, have dwelt mainly upon the conclusive affords no extrication from the dilemma í fact that it was rejected; rejected by
design, and upon deliberation, as alto- over as silently as though we had never gether contrary to the principles of the adduced a single argument; and instead Church of England. Those readers who of attempting to answer either us or have been pleased to peruse our various Wheatly-who was too honest not to adpapers upon the Oxford Tracts, will re- mit this unwelcome truth ;-instead of member how often we have had occa- grappling with our statement, that this sion to allude to this obvious but very article of furniture was rejected" or important distinction between rejecting “excluded"_for those were our words; and forbidding; and Sir H. Jenner -he pretends that we said, that it was shewed himself a somewhat young and * expressly forbidden;" which we did rash judge in not assuming this ground. not say; and he then triumphantly calls The largest portion of popery is not upon us for proof of that assertion, suppression but addition, and our We proved by facts, by canons, by ruChurch, in conducting the work of re- brics, and by the dolorous lamentations formation, threw off innumerable exuviæ of Wheatly himself, that it was of superstition; but it was neither neces- cluded ;,' all which our correspondent sary nor practicable to catalogue every discreetly passes over, and asks us to rejected article. She probibited, when prove that it was 'expressly forbidshe expelled. This is no new argu- den,” which we never asserted. It ment invented to meet the present would be absurd to suppose that the case ; for we have had many occa- Church, in giving directions what arsions of urging it, when the Oxford ticles parishes are to provide, should Tract divines have speciously asked us give a list also of what they are not to in which part of the Prayer-book such provide. The negative is included in or such a thing is “ forbidden.” To the positive; they are to provide what save our readers the trouble of referring the canon declares to "appertain to back, we will quote the following re- churches," and a shew-bred table is marks from our Number for last April, not among the number. It was enough relative to the introduction, by Mr. that the church “excluded” and Newman and others, of shew-bread jected" these appendages ; and she did tables, as Dr. Pusey confesses them to scores of other articles which popery be, beside the “sacrificial altar.”
made use of, and the loss of some of “We did not say that the side-table which the Oxford Tract divines bitterly " has been expressly forbidden by the lament. To shew the unfairness of the Church of England.' We shewed that Canterbury Presbyter's arguments, take our reformers rejected the Oxford Tract a parallel instance. Suppose that we sacrificial hypothesis, which is the real said that chrism and exorcising are matter in question, and not merely a cluded” or “rejected," by our Church, piece of church furniture; we shewed from the administration of baptism, that throughout the whole communion would it be honourable to keep out of office they speak of “the table ;”. sight all the arguments by which we THE table-without the slightest allu- prove this deliberate exclusion, and sion to there being two tables ; and we to pretend that we had asserted that added that the canons, in enumerating they are “expressly forbidden;" and to " things appertaining to churches,"even ask us to prove in which part of the to “ the alms-chest” and “the ten Prayer-book we find this prohibition ? commandments and chosen sentences,” It is for those who wish to have a table pointedly exclude this piece of furniture, of prothesis, to shew us where it is enwhich the Laud school divines consider joined; to account for its marked omisso important as to be worth making a sion, as a part of church furniture, schism about ; and we also quoted the in the canons; and for one ritualist Wheatly as actually complain- only being mentioned in the Commu. ing that “ We Have NO SIDE-TABLES nion-service, as well as for the word AUTHORIZED BY OUR CHURCH;" and his altar being wholly suppressed ; and for testimony is the more memorable, because the consecrated emblems being called he wished for a side-table, and grievously only bread and wine.'” lamented its absence ; for the ancient Apply this reasoning to the case of praychurch, he says, “had generally a side- ing for the dead. Suppose that it were table near the altar;" so that the pre- not directly forbidden ; though we feel termission by the Church of England assured it is, both in the Homilies and in was not by chance, but in accordance the Article on purgatory; still its being with the whole spirit of the English banished with abhorrence from all our ritual; which does not recognise a formularies,-struck out wherever it table of prothesis, just because it does occurred in the corresponding parts of not recognize “ an altar." All this, the Romish liturgy--is the strongest however, and much more to the same prohibition. Take one instance among effect, the Canterbury Presbyter passes many. Some Oriel Master of Arts has