practice in the form, and having the sure promise of God for the bestowal of the blessing without which that form is useless, the Church may without fear challenge objectors to show wherein the error of her practice consists. The third of these charges is as follows: "3. Your Church teaches, that her Priests have authority committed to them to absolve from all sins; which pretended authority is continually exercised in the Absolution Service." I am not aware in what part of the Liturgy this "Absolution Service" is found, never having met with it in the Common Prayer Book. The form of Absolution which follows the Confession in our Morning Service, runs as follows: "Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness, and live; and hath given power, and commandment, to his ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins: He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his Holy Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him, which we do at this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure and holy," &c. &c. Now, I must maintain, that every kind of public worship in which confession of sin, and the declaration of pardon through Christ, is not made a prominent feature, is greatly defective. If dissenting teachers do not constantly proclaim to their people, as the Church here does, that God willeth not the death of a sinner, but hath sent his ministers to declare and pronounce to every penitent free remission of his sins, their ministry is defi cient in that which ought to be its great purpose; and if they do not urge on this very ground repentance and prayer for the Holy Spirit, they can entertain small hopes of real usefulness. The charge brought against the Church is, the teaching that her ministers have authority committed to them to absolve from all sins. This charge, like most of the others, states only half the truth. Had it been said, that Church teaches that her ministers have authority to declare to all who are penitent the absolution of their sins," the whole truth would have been given; but then the charge would have disappeared. In the Visitation of the Sick the same principle is observable. The person visited is brought to confession and repentance, and then remission of his sins is pronounced. The fourth charge is that regarding the Burial Service. 4. Your Church in the Burial Service, which is read over all sorts of persons, declares of whosoever is so buried, whatever his life may have been, that God, of his great mercy' has taken his soul to himself—and that his body is committed to the ground in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life."" This language is used by the Church in the exercise of charity; but it is not improper even where doubts may be entertained of the final state of the deceased. It is of God's great mercy that wicked men are restrained from plunging into the depths of iniquity to which their corrupt dispositions would incline them. And it is of his mercy that they are arrested in the midst of their career, and prevented from further" heaping up wrath against the day of wrath." That the "spirit returns to God who gave it," is not, I suppose, to be treated as a matter of doubt. Respecting the "sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life," you must be aware that the particle "the" was added at the Savoy conference, especially to guard against that very inference which Dissenters are still so fond of drawing. Prayer Book-shall, without doubt, perish everlastingly." The question relative to the Athanasian Creed may be stated and decided in a very few words. 1. Is the leading doctrine con The next count in this indict- tained in it, Scriptural? That docment runs thus: "5. Your Church declares that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. It cannot be denied, that this language is fully sanctioned by many passages in Scripture. Our Saviour says, "Take, eat, this is my body." He says also, "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him." Now it should be shown what other sense can be intended in these plain words, before that adopted by the Church is rejected. "Take, eat, this is my body," are the words. The Roman Catholic understands them to mean actual, material flesh and blood, whether received in faith or not. The Dissenter, going to the other extreme, quarrels with the Church for asserting that the body and blood of Christ are the "things signified" in this Sacrament, and are taken and received by the faithful; that is, by those who partake with faith in the words and promise of Christ. These two extremes are equally distant from the truth. The one renders the doctrine absurd by giving a literal interpretation of a figurative expression; the other leaves no doctrine at all, by denying that the words mean any thing. Proceeding onwards, we come to the sixth objection. "6. Your Church teaches persons to believe, and say, that whosoever does not hold the Catholic faith, as explained in the Athanasian Creed-a Creed which some of the wisest and best men of your Church have wished out of the trine is, the personality and deity of the ever-blessed Trinity. Is this denied by our dissenting opponents? I do not find, in the work we are considering, that it is. 2. Is the necessity of faith in this doctrine too strongly expressed? It is not expressed in more forcible or explicit language than that used by the inspired writers. "He that believeth not shall be damned," is the expression used by the Saviour himself. The Creed we are considering asserts nothing more. 3. But ought the Church to affix this dreadful penalty to the be lief of her own statement of the doctrine? This is the point on which the objectors to the Athanasian Creed generally take their stand. But our reply is easy. The doctrines contained in this Creed either are scriptural or are not. they are, the Church has a right to demand assent to them. If they are not, let their variance with the Scripture be shown. If 4. But, lastly, are these doctrines of such fundamental importance as to be really necessary to salvation? or, has not the Church assumed too much in declaring, that none can be saved without a belief in them? This position is entirely untenable. Salvation is not only a matter of the last importance, but it is also a possession, the terms of which are clearly and distinctly laid down in Scripture. No one will enter heaven by any other path than that narrow one prescribed by infinite Wisdom. No one can escape the punishment of sin, but by the sacrifice and mediation of the Redeemer, the second Person in the Trinity. No one can escape from the power of sin but by the guidance and assistance of the Holy Spirit, the third Person in the. Trinity. To encourage in any way the idea, that men may be saved without acknowledging the Deity, or knowing any thing of the proper operations of either the Son or the Holy Spirit, is to deceive them in a question of the very last importance. It is to avoid being in any way chargeable with this guilt, that the Church has adopted and supported the Athanasian Creed. : The last of the points we are at present discussing is thus stated: 66 7. Your Church forbids me to hold any religious communion with good men of any other Church; pronouncing upon all Dissenters a sentence of excommunication." We have here a great many hard words, meaning literally nothing. If we ask, where the Church has forbidden such religious intercourse? where she has thus excommunicated? the writer cannot tell us. If we ask, in what instance the practice of Churchmen has established such a division, where union would have been really beneficial? they are equally at a loss to inform us. But we could tell them of a large body of Dissenters who exclude not only Churchmen, but even those of their dissenting brethren who do not agree with every article of their creed, from commemorating the death of Christ in their society. Having now gone through these seven objections, let us examine what they collectively amount to. We have, 1st. A passage in the Baptismal Service, exaggerated into a meaning entirely opposite to the sense of the whole service.2d. A similar force put upon the meaning of the Ordination Service.-3d. A like misrepresentation respecting the Absolution of Sins.-4th. An exception taken, in the case of the Burial Service, against language entirely correct and Scriptural.-5th. The same course pursued in the matter of the Lord's Supper.-6th. The same with the Athanasian Creed.-7th. An allegation unsupported and untrue. Now, let it not be forgotten that' these seven Charges are all that' could be raised against the whole volume of the Book of Common Prayer. And of all these, not a single one can stand its ground for an instant, if fairly and candidly/ examined. I would also again remark, that: the error, a wilful error, into which our opponents constantly run in bringing forward these charges, is this-that when hypocrites and careless persons use the forms of the Church, and their misapplication in such cases becomes apparent, the fault is laid by them, not upon the unworthy user, but on the Church who neglected to make any provision for such cases. It is wrong, we are told, to assume, that an infant for whom the prayer of faith has been offered up, and the promises claimed, receives the benefit of those prayers and promisesbecause, the sponsors may in some cases be neither praying nor believing. It is wrong, we are told again, to assume that the Holy Spirit is poured out upon a Candidate at the time of his Ordination, because that Candidate, when he professes to be "moved by the Holy Ghost to take the office upon him," may be professing motives which are really unknown to him. It is wrong, we are again informed, to declare the Absolution of Sins to all penitents, because some may take the consolation thus offered who are not really penitent. It is wrong, we are told, to express the general hopes of Christians over the grave, because the person interred may not have been entitled to adopt the same language. And, lastly, it is said to be wrong to use the language of Scripture at the Lord's table, because those may be present who cannot partake of the body and blood of Christ for want of that faith by which they are realized. Now, in all these things, the same principle prevails. The Church has framed her offices for believers only. She examines, in every instance, those who claim to use them, and enforces the duties connected with them, but never contemplates the use of them in the case of unbelievers. Is she to blame in this? Let me rather ask, what other line she can adopt? Can it be said by any one, that the Sacraments belong to unbelievers? or, that the Church should so administer them as intentionally to include in the administration both those who believe and those who do not? Can the latter with any propriety claim the benefit of the covenant of grace in Baptism? or, to partake of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper? or, to receive Ordination as a Minister of a Gospel to which his heart yet remains a stranger. And if it be obvious, as it certainly is, that Christian ordinances ought to be framed and adapted to Christian recipients, what becomes of all these objec tions of our opponents, except they can show that the expressions they dislike, are not adapted to the cases of Christians? If they merely object, that the language used is not suited to the case of hypocrites and unbelievers, we grant this instantly; and reply, that hypocrites and unbelievers were not, and ought not to have been, provided for in the framing and composing these admirable forms. Having now considered the whole of the points brought forward in the tract to which my attention was directed, I should naturally bring them briefly under review, in order to show how perfectly trivial and nugatory they appear, even collectively, when fairly brought into question. But the author has saved me the trouble of insisting on their insufficiency, by confessing this in the most explicit and satisfactory manner. He has acknowledged the necessity of producing some better justification of Dissent than he has yet done, by bringing forward, in another tract, what he calls" Further Reasons for Dissent." I shall, therefore, follow him in another letter or two over the new ground he has taken, hoping to prove it as untenable as the positions we have already been considering. I remain, dear Sir, A CHURCHMAN. A MIDNIGHT REFLECTION. FROM COTTLE's "Dartmoor, AND OTHER POEMS." Am I a sojourner on earth, Fast passing to an endless state! That withers, while it charms the sight; Compared to every fleeting thing, A cloud, a vision of the night! Do I this moment breathe the air, And stable feel my house of clay; Yet know that, from a world of care, The next I may be call'd away! Have I, till now, disdain'd the voice! Which mercy sends me from on high! And made terrestrial things my choice, That vanish with the evening sky! Almighty Father, grant thine aid, That I may from these dreams awake; Till I have Christ my refuge made, O spare me for thy mercy's sake! May I the remnant of my days Devote to heaven, devote to Thee! And join, at length, the song of praise With thy redeemed family! REVIEW OF BOOKS. Three Sermons preached upon the occasion of his final Departure from Gloucester. By Henry Ryder, D. D. Lord Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, late Lord Bishop of Gloucester. Hatchard, &c. Pp. 62. 1824. IT has recently been remarked, by a very competent judge, That those sermons are evidently the best which approach the most closely to the scriptural model; and it may be confidently affirmed, that the New Testament is the simplest of all books, and the Saviour of the world the plainest of all teachers.'* Estimated by this rule, these farewell discourses will rank very high, and must have produced a deep impression on the minds of the hearers. The venerable author too well understands the importance of his opportunity to indulge in philosophical speculations or critical disquisitions; but endeavours at once to impress on the minds of his congregations the most valuable and evangelical instructions. These Sermons were preached in one week at Gloucester, in consequence of the Hon. and Right Rev. Prelate being translated to Lichfield and Coventry. The first is from Psalm lxxxiv. 5-7, and was preached at the Weekly Evening Lecture at St. Aldate's, Feb. 25; the second from Eph. i. 22, 23, preached at the Cathedral, Feb. 29; and the third from John, xiv. 27, preached at the Sunday Evening Lecture at St. Michael's Church on the same day. In the first Discourse, the Author considers the principle, the aim, the course, as involving the encouragement and assistance, the progress and success of Him whose example of godliness his hearers proposed to follow, and *Cunninghan's Sermons, vol. ii, Pre face. DEC. 1824. whose end of blessedness they hope to reach. The subject is treated by way of perpetual application; and we are persuaded, that the attentive reader, on rising from its perusal, will feel only one point to regret; namely, its brevity. From the second Discourse we insert the following extracts; which may assist our readers in forming their own judgment, while at the same time they may well afford instruction and edification. First-The primary clause of the text"Head over all things to the Church"furnishes us with the consummation of the system of Gospel doctrines, and brings the whole forcibly to our view. There can be no doubt to whom the de scription applies: "To preach Christ Jesus the Lord," is frequently used in Scripture to express the sum and substance of "the ministry of the Word." In. the preaching of Christ is comprehended a bold, explicit, and full declaration of what we are without Christ, without a lively faith in him. In the preaching of Christ is included a picture of what we are with Him, if we be hearty practical believers→ justified-sanctified-redeemed-saved. In the preaching of Christ is contained a history of what he has done, is doing, and will do, to procure these inestimable blessings for us, and to bestow them upon us. His headship, his supreme dominion, his regal power over the Church, seem to be the result, the completion, and the end of all his labours of love-of his incarnation, his sufferings, his crucifixion, his resurrection, ascension, and intercession. Such, then, has been the aim of our ministry, to preach CHRIST, THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, by making "the law your schoolmaster to lead you to Christ." We have endeavoured, we trust, faith fully, however feebly, to bring down 66 every high thing" within you, and to show you to yourselves, "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked," before God-to awaken the sleeper, to disturb the self-satisfied, to arrest the careless sinner, and to constrain all to come to CHRIST, THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, for remission of their sins, for a share in his all-atoning blood, his all-sufficient sacrifice. We have endeavoured to convince you of your own utter helplessness, in conversion and in spiritual progress; and thus to lead to CHRIST, THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, the only source of vital influence 3 R you |