« PrécédentContinuer »
they are speaking. And that mind must be of a low character, which rises from the perusal of his writings on this sacred subject, without such impressions of reverence as will at least prevent any very hasty and peremptory decisions. The first step, whether toward truth or unity, is to inquire in the spirit of reverence and of charity, of which even his opponents will scarcely deny that he has given a rare example.
Archdeacon Denison claims our respect and sympathy, by his straightforward honesty and courage in standing up for the truth. But he is among divines what a noble and high-minded schoolboy is amongst men, and does not always see so much of the case before him, as persons of longer experience or calmer thought. He sees a point clearly himself, and does not see why other people should not see it clearly, when he puts it before them in plain words. He says truly :
'Brethren, it is one of our principal dangers in these latter days, that considerations of policy, observance of times and seasons, love of ease and comfort, and love of this world's peace, be allowed so to influence us in respect of the obligation under which we have come by our Ordination Vow, that the vow itself become to us a dead letter and an unmeaning form.
"The Bishop.-Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?
"Answer.—I will, the LORD being my helper."1
May He, Who gave us the will to vow, keep us from all delusion, whereby we come to forget what we have vowed. For to shrink from handling THE TRUTH,-to set our hearts first upon this world's peace,—to ask for a "more convenient season,"-to have any fears for the issue to the Church of GOD,-if we will give to these things their real name,-is to wait upon man, but not upon GOD,-to love the world rather than GOD,to speculate upon the contingencies of human infirmity, and to rely upon the arrangements and contrivances of human wisdom BUT TO LACK FAITH.'-Pp. 47, 48.
But men of no less orthodoxy, no less courage, and no less faith, may differ from him as to the enforcing of a particular test. It is true that he expresses himself clearly, and draws the very distinction which is so commonly missed:
I am to prove then,
I. That there is a Real Presence.
II. That it is a Spiritual Presence.
III. That to all who come to the LORD's Table, to those who eat and drink worthily, and to those who eat and drink unworthily, the Body and Blood of CHRIST are given; and that by all who come to the LORD'S Table, by those who eat and drink worthily, and by those who eat and drink unworthily, the Body and Blood of CHRIST are received.
The importance of proposition III., which is the specific point at issue between Bishop Spencer and myself, is that it supplies an unfailing test of
1 The Form and Manner of Ordering of Priests.
what is meant by any one who affirms of himself that he holds the Doctrine of the Real Presence. It has been, as supplying such a test, that I have proposed it to Candidates for Holy Orders; not as a "theological opinion," which may or may not be held, but as a test of truth of doctrine, and soundness of faith, e.g. A man may say, I believe in the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of CHRIST in the consecrated Bread and Wine. Suppose that man to be asked, "What then do you believe it is that is given to, and received by those who eat and drink unworthily?" and to reply that, whatever it be, he does not believe that it is "the Body and Blood of CHRIST."
'It would be clear at once that that man might indeed be said to believe in a Presence of CHRIST in the Holy Communion, but that he could not be said to believe in THE REAL PRESENCE of the Bible and of the Church, but in something which he had mistaken for it, or had chosen to substitute for it.
Is it said that to maintain proposition III. is to maintain the "opus operatum?" Doubtless, those who regard the Holy Sacraments only as ordinances whereby the soul of man draws near unto GOD by the operation of Faith, will not be slow to pronounce this judgment; and what they will intend thereby will be, that our affirmation is, that the administration of the Sacraments has a saving power, effect, or operation, irrespective of the state of heart and mind in the receiver.
On the other hand, those who regard the Holy Sacraments as Holy Scripture has delivered them, and the Church Catholic has witnessed to and taught them, that is, as the mysterious means ordained of CHRIST, wherein and whereby the greatest gift of GOD to man's nature is bestowed,-the gift of union with the mystical Body of CHRIST, and of very membership incorporate therewith,-will be at no loss to make the needful distinction in this great matter, and to point out the mistake of such a judgment. These will "affirm constantly " that to maintain-that, in the Holy Sacrament of the LORD's Supper, "the outward part or sign,” and “the inward part or thing signified," are, by the act of consecration, so joined together, that "to receive the one is to receive the other," IS NOT to maintain the "opus operatum."
On the other hand, they will admit, fully and unreservedly, that to maintain—that the Holy Sacrament" the outward part or sign,” and “the inward part or thing signified," so joined together by the act of consecration, that to receive the one is to receive the other—has a saving power, effect, or operation, irrespective of the state of heart and mind of the receiver-WOULD BE to maintain the "opus operatum."'-Pp. 20—22,
But it may be also true, that he has little chance of bringing prejudiced minds at once to his own point of view, and that a test which is logically good in itself may fail in its application for want of authority in the person who applies it. Candidates for Holy Orders do, in point of fact, at every ordination, accept from the Church Catholic, or even from the Church of England, tests which they would not accept from a single Archdeacon. Now this particular test is a proposition which the framers of the Articles of the Church of England were as careful not to affirm, as they were not to deny it. Their language implies that they were aware that such expressions might be used in more than one sense, and they satisfied themselves with guarding against the superstition of a delusive confidence in the reception of the Viaticum. Such being the case, it is natural
that resistance should be aroused by a minor ecclesiastical authority, attempting to impose a test which the Church of England would appear not to have intended. And under such circumstances, the terms of the test would be sure not to obtain that calm consideration and favourable construction, which we give to all expressions that come to us under a competent sanction. It must rest with the body of living authority in our Church, whether any new test is to be imposed. And the logical precision of a test is not always a sufficient proof of its serviceableness and safety. Tests ought to be such as men can be brought to understand, and there is no time-serving, but only the wisdom of true and faithful charity, in taking some pains to adapt them to the prevailing infirmities of the times, and to avoid cutting off at a blow members that might be healed by judicious treatment.
As to the charge of unsound doctrine,' that is another question; and as there is no ground for maintaining that his is not the doctrine of the Church of England,' in the full sense of contrariety, so neither is it easy to answer fairly and directly the arguments by which even the lower sense of that censure is disproved, and by which it is shown that the Church of England holds by implication a real presence toward all receivers. But real logic is a rarity, and even when men have an apprehension of it they commonly use it within very confined limits. It takes the full powers of a schoolmaster to enforce it upon his class, starvation will scarce avail to inflict it upon a jury, or invasion upon a prince. And while the proofs in the present case are sufficient to command the assent of any qualified judge, they may still be insufficient to enlighten an ignorant multitude, or to satisfy the scrupulous conscience of a young Divinity student, brought up in Calvinistic opinions. Even fair scholars in Divinity will evade the strongest arguments, and raise fresh issues, in order to throw the proof into a new line on their own side, and satisfy themselves that they have proved their own case, though they may not have really disposed of that of their opponents. And it needs something besides mere logic to compel them to accept a given issue, and argue the whole question on a given basis.
An individual may or may not be right in pressing a test as such. The Church has no such absolute general rule, as that every error is to be at once brought to a test, and exterminated. And if she had, it would not follow that error which has been tolerated, and confusion which has subsisted for centuries, can be at once cleared away by the adoption even of the most perfect test by a few persons. A test must have authority in order to answer its purpose, and if a single officer cannot give it its due
force even with respect to those who come under the jurisdiction of his own office, much less has he the right of putting it to the Church herself, and making it a test of her faith and purity, not only whether she holds it, but whether she will make it a test obligatory upon all her ministers. It must be considered not only whether the thing is true, but whether the way of putting it is intelligible, and the point involved in it so necessary as to require an immediate settlement. The point in this case is important, but the test, however correct, is not well chosen for general apprehension. To a straightforward logical mind, beginning with the true, general doctrine, it appears perfectly natural and unquestionably proved; but it has a forbidding side, and those who approach it on that side will evade its proofs, and are very likely to contradict it formally while they really hold it implicitly. Meanwhile, there are those who will think it no less an exercise of faith to wait God's time, than to dash forward without consideration of the state and capabilities of other minds. It is under the severest pressure that God expects His people to wait.
ART. II-A Spring in the Canterbury Settlement. By C. WARREN ADAMS, Esq. London: Longman & Co. 1853. DURING the early part of the summer of 1851 there left England, under circumstances of unusual hope, and with anticipations far more brilliant than had hitherto been wont to attach themselves to emigration, a small fleet of six ships, filled not only with so many individual souls, each expecting to fight his way in another world, like some solitary beast of the forest, but with the supposed elements of a civil and religious community, which on landing in New Zealand, might at once assume the habits and the constitution of a civilized people; might even succeed in leaving behind them many sources of discomfort, many evils that pertain to an old country, many heartburnings and divisions, without also quitting the benefits of Christian civilization. It was hoped that, in the Canterbury settlement, those various orders and degrees of men, civil and religious; which are associated with our experience of English life in its most cheerful aspects, if not in all its dignity; might take root, without loss of order and unity, and yet fully enjoying the advantages of an unburdened territory, where land might become freehold on payment of a year's English rent, and where the incubus of our national debt and our consequent taxation might be avoided. Great stress was laid upon the distinction between emigration and colonization; the latter being thought far more calculated for the settlement in new countries of educated and Christian people, or, in short, of all who wish to enjoy, in whatever position they may be, the benefits of civilized life. This scheme was a great effort to give dignity to the very act of seeking one's fortune in other lands; it arose from the desire to plant new countries and people, which might truly be the offspring of England as a whole, which might tempt a higher class of society to leave their homes than had hitherto been the case, and might thus supply a useful vent to much unemployed energy of mind and body in the overburdened middle classes, to the great advantage also of the poorer emigrants with whom they might go, and the future benefit of the colony.
It is not at all our object, in noticing the book before us, to make this an occasion of entering upon the wisdom or the practical merits of the Canterbury Association. That association has broken up, and looking upon it as a committee of persons