Church begins her office of praise and thanksgiving with a hymn, of encouraging her members to call upon one another to keep the feast. At Morning Prayer, instead of the Psalm, "O come let us," &c. these anthems shall be sung or said. The words sung or said everywhere signify the same, as Minister and People. The word sung relates to a hymn in parts; as in choir service, one side singing one verse and the other another: and the word said relates only to the parochial. Though this hymn is not printed alternately, yet it is pointed as the Psalms are. It is to be divided, then, between minister and people, there being the same variety designed here as in the Psalms. (To be continued.) DAVID, A MAN AFTER GOD'S OWN HEART. MR. EDITOR,-To point out the mistakes of others is always, more or less, an ungracious office; and, therefore, were I aware of any mode of communicating with a correspondent in your last Number, I should have much rather preferred the giving him an opportunity of correcting his own errors, than placing them myself before the eyes of the public. But to be brief, in the article, headed, "David, a Man after God's own Heart," your correspondent X. asserts that the words after mine own heart are not to be found in the Old Testament. Why, Sir, the very words occur in 1 Sam. xiii. 14; and that X. should be ignorant of this is the more remarkable, as the chapter is appointed as the first lesson for the evening of the Fourth Sunday after Trinity, and is, therefore, read annually in the service of the Church. But I can perceive the cause of X.'s oversight: had he referred to any of the common Bibles, with marginal references, he would have been directed to this very text, but it is clear that he wrote the article in question, having consulted Mant's Bible alone, which, however valuable it may be in other respects, is very deficient in these most essential addenda. I have often experienced and lamented this deficiency; might I then take the liberty of suggesting to the Editors, that should another edition be called for, they will do a material service to the public, if they would increase the number of the marginal references. In conclusion, I beg to inform your correspondent X. that he will find a most excellent Sermon on 1 Sam. xiii. 14, in a volume lately published by Dr. Shuttleworth, Warden of New College. I am, Sir, your obedient humble Servant, T. B. CLERICUS. November 9, 1829. SCHISM. (Continued from Vol.XI. p. 766.) WE have now, we apprehend, taken a tolerably fair and accurate estimate of the " masterly" and " unanswerable" work of Mr. Towgood, and it will remain for our friends and his to determine the inclination of the balance. We would remind both that the great question is by no means concerned, either on Mr. Towgood's prin- "After hearing what our Church can say, We have, we think, satisfactorily shewn that Mr. Towgood's objections do not touch the point on which, by his own confession, the whole controversy rests; that they are false, ignorant, mistaken, or inapplicable; that, although the ordinances of a Church may fairly be canvassed, and legitimately censured, they afford no ground for dissent, unless they are conscientiously believed to be CONTRARY to Scripture, which ours have never been PROVED to be. For to allow separation on account of ecclesiastical forms, because they are not supposed to have been used or commanded by Christ and his Apostles (as the consecration of churches, &c.), would, indeed, be a low estimation of the Apostolic entreaty, "BY THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST," that there be no schisms amongst us. When, therefore, Mr. Towgood, in many parts of his work, charges the Church of England with schism, because her ceremonies trouble tender consciences, and thereby compel separation, his argument and accusation are unsound. If the Church of England has the right, as we have shewn, to ordain ceremonies not contrary to Scripture; and if her ceremonies are admitted not to be anti-scriptural, it must be manifest where the guilt of schism must remain. On this point we will hear Mr. Towgood awhile. If an honest and sincere Christian now brings his child to you to be publicly baptised, desiring it may be done without the sign of the cross, and that himself may stand forth as surety for its education, would you not refuse him? Or, if he desired to be admitted to the communion of Christians, in the other sacrament of the Lord's Supper, but that he might not take it kneeling, would you not reject him? But, if the same person had come to Jesus Christ, or the Apostles, offering himself and his child upon the same terms, would they not have received him? But, how is it, Sir, that you take upon you to reject from Christ's family and church those whom you believe he himself would have Towgood, p. 2. received? Is not this lording it over God's heritage, and usurping Christ's throne? Is it not setting yourselves up for law-makers and rulers in his kingdom, and claiming homage from his subjects? And are not his faithful subjects, by the allegiance they owe him, obliged to enter their protest against such usurpation, and to "stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath set them free?” Pp. 12, 13. We would not unnecessarily offend any; if the sign of the cross were to create offence, it might, on another revision of the Liturgy, be omitted.* With regard to sponsors in baptism, Mr. Towgood's alteration would be mòst injurious. But are not both scruples absurd? Can the sign of the cross invalidate baptism? Does our Church make it any part of baptism? Does she not expressly reject the very idea? And does the appearance of a sponsor at the font exonerate or prevent a parent from doing his duty? Who, then, is the schismatic; the Church, who provides an indifferent or an useful institution, or the less than half-learned objector, who pretends not to except against the innocence of the one, or to assert that the other puts any restriction on the course which he wishes to follow? "But if the same person had come to Jesus Christ or his Apostles, offering himself and his child on the same terms, would they not have accepted him?" We answer, Christ himself, and his Apostles, have left to the Church, as we have abundantly shewn, the authority to make any regulations not inconsistent with the divine revelation. Whatsoever, with this reservation, she binds and looses on earth, is bound and loosed in heaven. If this be true, the divine Founder of the Church beholds with small complacency those who come on what are not his terms, but their own. And this is so far from " a liberty wherewith Christ has made them free," that it is rather a license of their own making. It is surprising how often texts are hackneyed in a sense which the inspired authors never dreamed of. That which Mr. Towgood here applies, is one which has suffered no small distortion. Our liberty from the onerous observances of the Levitical law is here applied to defend disobedience to the lawful authorities in Christ's Holy Catholic Church. We do not say that we have much respect for the memory of Mr. Towgood. The mediocrity of his talents would have little weight against him; his ignorance, considering his undertaking, is not quite so excusable; but sincerity would do much for him; yet his garbled quotations of our Liturgy, and his arguments in the very teeth of the merest common sense, will scarcely allow Charity herself to accord him this praise. But we feel otherwise with regard to many who have embraced his opinions. The flippant affectation of pungency which characterizes his style, his bold assertions, distorted facts, and tawdry declamation, have, no doubt, imposed on many sincere and well-intentioned persons. Conscientiousness must be respected, and the conscientious Dissenter is as much entitled to respect as the There can be little doubt that this ceremony was retained by our Church from conciliatory motives. It is harmless, it is even expressive; but the same motive which originated its adoption, might induce its removal. It has, at least, antiquity in its favour, as stated in our Remarks on the Early Fathers. Canon XXX. conscientious Churchman. In nothing that we have said would we wish to wound the feelings of one such character. But it is because such persons are peculiarly worth the solicitude of all Christians, that we would wish to expose the sophistry by which they are misled, and to shew them the great duty of spiritual unity; a duty which the Scriptures enjoin in the most solemn language, and which never can safely be dispensed with, except only where the choice lies between it and a duty still higher: in short, where the dilemma is conformity or SALVATION. Such persons will be far from considering us their enemies, because we have told them the truth. We have produced our case; and now, without any apprehension, we boldly ask, Is there any such dilemma? Has our Church enjoined any thing to be received CONTRARY to Scripture? (not beside, for that is not the question). Has she enjoined any thing dangerous to salvation? and if not, both on Mr. Towgood's principles, and our own, surely the religious Dissenters should conform! If it be said that some Dissenting ministers may be better preachers, &c. than the Clergy of their respective parishes, this may be true, without affecting our consequence; although it can scarcely be so in any very considerable extent. Prudence, and, above all, CHRISTIAN prudence, looks further than to mere immediate advantage. And if the Saviour could counsel the people to attend the ministry of THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, rather than break the bond of spiritual union, the importance of the duty, and the rule of a Christian's conduct, must, we think, be evident. No individual edification could compensate the evil produced by a breach of Christian unity; and, indeed, it may be much doubted whether real edification is likely to be found in a course of conduct at variance with a broad Christian principle. Let the sincere religious Dissenter retrace the grounds which separate him from the National Church, with prayer, with candour, and with reflection. If then he thinks his salvation endangered by conformity, let him not conform! But as this can scarcely be the case, by the entreaties of his Master's Apostle, in his Master's name, let him no longer persist to create division in the Church of Christ! If ever there was a time when such a course was more conspicuously necessary than at another, now is that time: when Popery, Atheism, and that happy association of both, Socinianism, are confederates against orthodox Christianity, whether within or without the Church. If the Establishment, as some would have us believe, is destined, for the sinfulness of this nation, very shortly to fall, let not the religious Dissenter, through mistaken views, have part in this unholy alliance; for he shall find, to his cost, that he has only been serving in the ranks of his own bitterest foes. He may, perhaps, but this will be all, have the same distinction which Ulysses was to enjoy from an equally humane and merciful master: -- Οὗτιν ἐγὼ πύματον ἔδομαι μετὰ οἷς ἑτάροισι, τοὺς δ ̓ ἄλλους πρόσθεν, ΤΟΔΕ ΤΟΙ ΞΕΙΝΗΙΟΝ ΕΣΤΑΙ. The cause of religion, and the cause of the Church, are now most strictly one; and her prostration will not be the elevation of an orthodox Dissenter, but the triumph of mingled Popery and infidelity. And we would add, before we conclude, a word or two for those heedless members of our own communion, who frequently attend the meeting-house, perhaps even when there is a service in the parish church. How inconsistent, to say the least, is this! But in truth the evil is greater than a mere inconsistency. If the Dissenters are wrong in secession, Churchmen must be wrong in continuing and encouraging their proceedings. If they are right, let the Churchmen become their proselytes. It cannot be right to do that which is, at least, doubtful. "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin."* Physical inability to attend a distant church, is not a sufficient excuse for attending a neighbouring meeting-house; for if the latter act be absolutely wrong (which it must be to one who considers such meeting schismatical), it cannot become right, because the meeting is nearer than the church. Churchmen have, indeed, occasionally appeared in conventicles, as in popish chapels, to see the nature of their proceedings; but this is a different thing from habitual attendance on that which we allow to be a means of unnecessarily separating the Church of Christ: and, indeed, curiosity in this way ought never to be exercised, unless some public good is contemplated; for the presence of a Churchman on these occasions, may be interpreted in the way of authority. Under these strong impressions and convictions, our attachment to the Church is one with our attachment to Christianity. With all arguments, measures, and principles, which aim at her subversion, we wage interminable war. Against the unrighteous coalition, which is now plotting her destruction, we raise our loudest voice, and call on all Christians, who find in her doctrines and ritual the way of SALVATION, to rise in her defence in this hour of her peril. But we trust we shall always conduct ourselves towards sincere and consistent Dissenters, as towards Christians and brethren; remembering that when we endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit, it should be in the bond of peace.† PRO-POPERY SOPHISTRY. MR. EDITOR, The kind notice you have shewn me in allowing me so much space in a periodical which is never in want of materials, and the attention which the subject appears to have generally created, encourage me still to retain my pen; and in my present letter I intend *Rom. xiv. 23. We consider the papers on "Schism," of which the present is the last, of infinitely too much value to be laid upon the shelf, as Magazines usually are, after the passing interest of the month. Cannot the writer be prevailed with, to collect them into a small volume, for the lasting benefit of all sincere believers, of whatever denomination? -EDIT. |