Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
OCR
he,
¢
Q
x
pe et
the Cathy
tt fs Hera aoa
x vt
not pour his leprous distilment into the unsus-
pecting ear? his tainted pleasures into the un-
guarded eye? his ashen apples into the liquor-
ish_mouth? his mock incense and false de:
lights,—his lust of the eye, his lust of the
flesh, and the pride of life, into the jaded nos-
tril, the foolish sense, the unwary and unde-
fended flesh? Does he not breathe into our
sleeping thoughts unhallowed desires; nour-
ishing pride, relteshing vanity, exciting lusts,
lulling the soul w: ydian measures
into a slothful ease; ‘and ‘stifling i in the meshes
of a drowsy content, those impulses, feelings,
desires, and passing emotions of the heart,
soul, and intellect, which springing from our-
selves, are fostered, soothed, and gratified by
him, till the adversary has so far lured us from
the way of life, that he may clatch us when
he will; yea, clutch all who will not know bis
wiles and his ways, and who arm themselves
not with the whole armour of humility? But,
blessed be God, those that fight for us are
more than they who come againstus. He who
is Almighty knows that we are weak, and
sendeth us help from on high. | In every cor-
ner of this awful place are means and appli-
ances of grace; and with these, “* Who can be
against ust” ‘In the silence of the heart he
sends his still small voice, and ‘* Happy and
blessed is he,” as St. Bernard says, * who in
silence receives the breath of that divine whis-
per;”’ * Felix et beata est anima que ventum
Divini susurri percipitin silentio;” “(18)— for to
such the enmity of evil agency is ma
instrument of good, “and “ALL things “work
together unto good to them that love God,”
says the blessed apostle St. Paul.
28.) He that is the Almighty, the ever- living,
hath staid the arm of malice that would ruin,
so that it may no longer kill, though it never-
theless torment: yea, more bountiful still, that
very torment He converts into a salutary pen-
ance, that cleanses. and shall one day give
joy; for He is our Father, and with a father’s
hand chastens our souls with the wounds, of
love. But he knows that we are weak, and
hence hath Ie sent Holy angels to watch over
and shield us from the unseen foe; hence hath
He given tous his holy Church to be our mo-
ther, and in her has appointed us as Jinks in
that wondrous communion, which attaches
earth to heaven, the weak to the perfect, the
dead to the living, and all to God; whose vi-
earial voice gathers her little ones under her
brooding wings, and by a marvellous service
of preparation, suits them for that holy light,
which is eternal, immortal, invisible, and
which shall never pass away.
ow good a thing itis to be here! From
the moment that we have crossed the thresh-
old we are in the hands of God; earth, in its
substance, is, as it were, already changed, to
those that love; for stormy winds fulfill his
word, the blasts of hell breathe dew, where
they thought of malice; the fire of persecution
heals the wounds that it inflicts; and 10 his
servants, death is robbed of its most bitter
sting. Like a bird poised on the wing in mid-
air, the soul that loves hangs suspended on
5
the arm of God; and like a ship gliding along | don
the tranquil sea, that maketh a pleasant noise
with its rippling waters, it murmurs forth the
soft and undefined language of the heart. It
is borne on by desire, not by reason, ** Desi-
derio feror, non ratione,”’ as St, Bernard says;
by emotion rather than thought, by nature
remodelled in grace, that throws itself on, and
gives unasked to its Father the free-will offer-
ing of undivided love. For we have been
regenerated in the mystic waters of baptism,
and the appliance of one of God’s simplest
creatures to our bodies, has, with life accom-
panying, restored us to that happy state,
whereby we are privileged to use the sweetest
and most tender name of Father, which as an
introit to THE Nave let us now in the secret
of our heart repeat, saying: —
PATER NOSTER.
And as its fruit, in’ commemoration at
once of the adorable mystery of the Incar-
nation, and of its appliance to our souls, let
us humbly and in like silence,—* Bonum est
enim prestolari cum silentio salutare Dei.”
Let us pause once more, and say,—
. AVE MARIA!
Feast of St. Francis Xavier, Apost. Ind. 1842.
(18) Sti. Bernardi Ser. in Fest. Omn. SS.
—_++e—__
From the article on' Communion in one hind
which we copy from the U. S. C. Miscellany, it
will beseen that the editor has dispatched our
our neighbor of the Cross in short order. Qur pro-
lix discussion with the Churchman on the same
point has beeninterrupted for some weeks, as we
the Cross has responded to our wish, that he
would ¢sketch his demonstration of - the fan-
cied theorem, that the partaking of the Cha-
lice is ordained by God’s Word as the right
ofall.’.. Ife ** answers 1. ‘The positive insti-
tution of our Lord: “And taking the chalice
he gave thanks; and payo it to
Drink ye att of this.”
2. The undeniable practice of the Apostles :
“The Lord Jesus * * took bread &c : in like
manner also the chalice, &e. * * * for as often
as you shall eat this breed, and drink this cha-
lice, &c. 2.3 Let n_ prove himself; and
so let him eat of that | bread, and drink of the
chalice.” (I. Cor.. xi. 23, 25, 26,28. We
quote from the Douay version.) _ 3. The uni-
versal practice of the primitive church ; which
is freely acknowledged by many Romish au-
thers themselves to be against their moderna
custom of refusing the cup to the laity. ‘This
is evident also from all the ancient writings,
which speak of the minister's delivering the
bread first with a certain form of words, and
then the cup with another form. It is well
known that the denial of the cup to the people
was first established by the authority of the
Council of Constance, in the year 1414... Yet
even that Council’admitted that ** Christ did
institute this sacrament of both kinds, and that
the faithful in the primitive church did receive
both kinds.” And the same acknowledgment
was afterwards made by the Couneil of
Trent.
To each part of the above demonstration,
we offer a brief reply, ex ordine
1. The Institution of our Lord, gives no
iii, | support to the opinion, that all Christians
have a right to communicate in both kinds,
independently of the Church’s regulations.
We learn from the Evangelists, that our Bles-
sed Saviour came, in the evening, with his
twelve Apostles to the place where the Passo-
ver had been prepared, and sat down with
them [*}. supper, he * took bread, and
blessed 2f, and brake if, and gave if, to the
disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my
body.’ * This do in rememberance of me.
‘And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and
gave if tothem, saying, Drink ye all of it; for
this is my blood of the new ‘Testament, which
is shed for many for the remission of sins,
“And they all drank of it.’ By this collation
of texts, it is evident that the phrases ¢ this do,’
‘ye all, and * they all,’ must be understood
in reference to the Apostles, who alone were
present with our Lord. And before ** the po-
sitive institution” can be admitted to decide
this question in his favour, the Banner of the
Cross must establish that one of these phrases
was addressed to all of the disciples who were
absent, as well as to the Apostles who were
present—which he has not attempted to do,
Ile must likewise shew that there is a differ
ence in the application of those phrases: that
the command, * ” was designed to
restricted to the ‘Apostles, and their successors
in the ministry ; but that the other, * drink ye
all of this,’ was’ intended as a rule for the
general body of the faithful—this he has not
The practice of! the Apostles, suggests and
sanctions communion in one kind. ‘The
converts * continued steadfastly in the aposles
doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of
bread, and in prayers’ (Acts ii. 42.) For
which purpose—to break bread—the disci-
ples were wont to assemble upon the first day
of the week ; and it was upon one of these oc-
casions, that St. Paul preached unto them un-
til midnight, after which, he * broke bread,’ and
renewed, and continued his‘ discourse until
daylight (Acts xx. 7.11.) The breaking of
bread mentioned in those passages, is under-
stood by Protestant commentators, to signify
the celebration of the Sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper. ’ Here, then, we have the receiving of
the Eucharist, manifestly denoted by allusions
to only one of theelements. We next adduce
thotremarkable declaration of St. Paul concern-
ing * whosoever shall eat this Bread or drink
the chalice of the Lord unworthily,’ (1 Cor. xi,
27) which our wary contemporary has skip-
ped in making quotations from the ** Douay
version ;"’ and, which the ‘translators of the
Protestant English Bible have wilfully eorrupt-
ted, changing or for and. As proof of the
apostle’s practice, the Banner votes certain
texts in which the two elements of the Sacra-
are mentioned conjunctively ; from
which he concludes, that the Eucharist should
be administered in both, On the contrary
part, we instance passages, in which only one
is mentioned, and another, in which both are
mentioned disjunctively ; from whic!
conclude that it is lawful to communicate in
had to halt until our contemporary could get up
with us, and he tuned aside to castigate some dis-
turbers of public worship. Woe expect soon to
hear from him, and are prepared to satisfy him on
any difficulties that may still perplex his con-
science,
Communion IN ONE KIND.—The Banner of
either alone. Who shall decide whether he,
or we, rightly interpret the Scriptures ? He
appeals to the sense of the Primitive Church,
y which we also are willing to be govern-
3: Here note, that there was no divine com-
* Matt. xxvi, 20, Mark xiv.{17, 18. Luke xxii'14,
e joyment to others.
mand, ‘hor ‘apostolic rule, nor canon of the
early Church, obliging the faithful to partake
of both species ; ; or declaring that it was their
right to require both. ‘The: Church. was. left
at full liberty to act agreeably to her pleasure
and discretion in. the premises. Thus she
allowed the Sacrament to be dispensed, in
general, in both forms: yet in numerous ca-
ses, she sanctioned its administration in one or
in either, according to circumstances, And
when (owing to the diversity of practices that
prevailed, the irreverence that sometimes oc-
curred, the disputes that sometimes were be:
ginning to agitate respecting the lawfulness of
administering i in one kind) she deemed it need-
ful to establish an uniform system, she legisla-
ted in this matter in a deliberate manner, in
her collective tribunals, and with the guidance
of the Holy Spirit who abides with her, and
teaches her all, truth, ‘Those various practi-
ces, traceable, some of them, to an early peri-
od, establish the position that she ever regarded
this as one of the points of discipline, not of
faith. In which view of the subject, the prin-
cipal denominations of Protestants concur; for
they have provided for the administration of
the Sacrament in one kind, when necessary.
The universal practice of the Primitive church
matters of discipline is not binding. The
Protestant Episcopal Church, as we have late-
ly shewn, has. abrogated two rules of the
primitive church respecting the Eucharist, on
the pretence that their observance is not essen-
tial to the Sacrament.
But our brother of the Cross ought not to
have appealed to primitive practice, until he
had satsified us, that his Church’s professed
respect for antiquity is not a matter of caprice
or convenience—as in the cases that we have
instanced—and also, that apostolical Tradition
has some determinate force, by which such
questions should he decided and settled.
The conclusion to which we come, relative
to the point in ‘issue, are, that our Saviour
neither ordained that all must communicate in
both kinds, nor prohibited the administering of
only one—that the practice of the Apostles
suggests to us, that they distributed either or
both—and the usages of the Church, for cen-
turies afterwards, oblige us to admit that she
regarded communion in both kinds, or in one,
as a matter of discipline.
—__+ 0+ —___
The fourth number of the Pictorial History
of the United States, by John Frost, A.M., is
like the preceding numbers, interesting in the
narrative, and» beautiful in. execution.-- We
extract an account of a controversy in’ Massa-
chusetts, which serves to shew what ideas of
religious liberty were entertained by the Puri-
tans of those times. Tew of the advocates of
religious liberty are willing to extend its en-
The liberty of thinking
as we please is agreeable, but men often ima-
gine that others are bound to think precisely
as themselves.
The structure of the government in Massa-
chusetts gave political power to: the clergy,
since church-membership was a necessary
qualification for a voter, and this could oly
be obtained» by clerical
founders of the colony, Winthrop and me
friends, of course, approved of this state of
things, since it had originated with them.» A
party, however, soon rose in the colony, ac-
tuated by more liberal views, and opposed to
every infringement of spiritual liberty.: The
leader of this party was a woman, and the or-
igin of her influence is thus explained by For-
ster:
“During Vane’s administration, Mrs. Ann
Hutchinson, a very remarkable and accom-
plished woman, arrived from England, and
became a member of the Boston church, Her
husband was a gentleman of respectable stand-
ing;. and her brother-in-law, Mr.
wright, who accompanied her, bore a highly
estimable character as a Christian minister.*
‘She was possessed of extraordinary talents,
information, and energy. Her mind was prone
to indulge in theological speculations, and the
happiness of her life consisted in religious ex-
ercises and investigations. _ She was perfectly | c!
familiar with the most abtruse speculations of
the theology of the day. In keenness of per-
ception and stability of reasoning, she had no
superiors, and her gifts as a leader of devotional
exercises were equally rare, and surprising.”
It was the fortune of this singular. woman to
kindle a religious strife in the infant common-
wealth of Massachusetts, which has secured
to her name a lasting memory there, and ren-
dered her the heroine of a passage in the Ame-
rican historyy as wonderful and tragical as
any it contain:
+ was the velo in Boston, at the period
of her arrival, for the brethren of the church
to meet every week for the purpose of impress; -
. “s Upham. Life of Vane.
- | By declaring to her hearers,
‘ ~ i
ing still more deeply upon their minds ‘the
discourses and other exercises of the previous
Sunday. ; Following out this custom,’ Mrs.
Hutchinson very soon instituted weekly reli-
gious meetings for females ; and so attractive
and interesting did she make them, that almost
all the Jadies in the place altended. ‘The “ex-
ercises were conducted and superintended by
Mrs. Iutchinson herself, and it soon followed,
as a matter of course, that she exerted a con-
trolling and almost irresistible influence over
the'whole community.*
The clergy of the colony, startled at first,
were not long in discovering the danger that
threatened them. ‘IIere was a power sudden-
ly brought to bear upon the religious feelings
and views of the people, irresponsible to them,
wholly beyond their control, and withdrawing
from their reach that very portion of society,
which is always, perhaps, the chief source of
such authority and influence as theirs. Of the
religious opinions which prevailed generally
among these clergy, it will be enough to say,
that the doctrines, as professed by the reform:
ed churches, were received with almost unani-
mous consentby their order throughout New '
England, while they permitted themselves to
regard with very great jealousy and aversion
the exercise of free inquiry, whenever it in
any way threatened to lead to results different
from their own.» Their views of Mrs. Hutch-
inson’s particular case were not likely to be
propitiated by the very disagreeable compari-
sons, to say the least of them, which her pow-
ers and talents were likely to provoke among
the people.
Mrs. Hatehinson, i in her turn, was neither
wise nor considerate in the style and manner
she adopted. To say nothing of the somewhat
unbecoming position in which, as a woman,
she placed. herself, it soon became obvious
that one of her great objects in these weekly
audiences, was to utter disparaging criticisms
upon the discourses of the preceding Sunday
or lecture day, to circulate imputations against
the learning and talents of the clergy, and
even to start suspicions respecting the sound-
ness of their preaching. ‘Anything like mo-
deration, where a system of personality has
been adopted, is a thing vainly looked for,
and now not a day passed which did not, in
the matier of these attacks, add to Mrs. Hutch-
inson’s offences and indiscretions, and tend
to drive beyond all fairand reasonable ground
the hostilities of which she had become the
object. The mninisters, the magistrates, all
the leading men in the colony, rose in array
against her, and, not confining their animosity
to the point on which she was in the wrong,
and might easily have been shown to be in
the wrong—not satisfied with proceeding
against her as a contentious and busy . calum-
niator and disturber of the peace—they impu-
ted to her grossly and openly what was then
considered the darkest crime in the catalogue
of depravity, and demanded against her crim-
inal penalties of the deepest dye. . She was
8 heretic, they said, and must be crushed by
¢ punishment due to heresy. At this point
Vane interfered—the ever gallant and Bene:
rons defender of the rights of faith’ and
science—and a sharp’ religious controversy
was soon fairly developed, which of, course
led to and **intro-
dueed innamerable questions of. doubtful dis-
putation, and finally wrapt the whole country
in the raging and consuming flames of a mora!
and religious conflagration. mt
As Mrs. Hutchinson and her party insisted
upon justification by faith alone, and declared
that ** sanctification is no evidence of justifica-
tion,”? they were, in the course of the contro-
versy, driven to speak disparagingly of exter-
nal and visible morality, while their oppo-
nents assigned too high a value tot; until at
last the two. watchwords or. countersigns of
the controversy became, in theological phrase,
@ covenant of faith and a covenant of works.
in explanation of
her distinguishing principle, that Mr. Cotton
preached a covenant of faith, while Mr. Wil-
son and the other ministers were, under a
covenant of works, Mrs, Hutchinson had the
address to detach the former from his- breth-
ren, and. render him.a faithful and aes
champion of her cause, while Mr. Wilsoi
and the rest of the clergy went about inflam:
ing the people with the most violent invectives
against their antagonist. ‘The subject had so
important a bearing on political affairs that at
the ensuing election it was of ‘course made
the ruling question. Mrs... Hutehinson’s
brother, Mr. Wheelwright, having been cen-
sured by the general . court. for. sedition, in
consequence of one of his sermons, his friends
threatened an appeal to England; and from
that moment the clerical party, whose candi-
date for the office of Governor was Winthrop,
were gaining the ascendant. Appeals to Eng-
land were never popular in this country,
* Forster. Life of Vane.
¢ Upham, Life of Vane.