that, under different circumstances of the church, doctrines will be preached in a different manner-e.g., when danger from false doctrine on any particular question does not exist, or has passed away, it is natural that the view of the church should be then taught and alluded to as an acknowledged fact, simply and without entering into details of explanation on the one hand, or of controversy, in order to guard against or to expose false statements, on the other. Further, particular doctrines will be more or less insisted on-1st, in some measure according to their relative importance in the Christian dispensation as a whole; 2nd, according to the opposition raised to them, or the corruptions of them by contemporary parties in the church, or by sects-e.g., in the early part of the Arian controversy the doctrine of the Trinity, with explanations and vindications of it, was a common subject for public preaching. [See No. IX. of the interesting Letters on the Church of the Fathers, in the British Magazine for September last.] Similarly the corruptions of popery and apologies for separating from the church of Rome were the common topics for sermons about the time of the Reformation. And I believe the same may be said of some of the subjects connected with the present letter, at and about the time of the commonwealth in England. So that the pressure of external circumstances, and the state of religious opinion of the day must, in many respects, guide the Christian minister in the choice of doctrinal subjects, best suited to the temper of the timessuited, however, not with a view to comply with it, but with a view to expose and correct its errors and corruptions. I shall conclude with enumerating some of these subjects, in order that the manner in which I think this might be done may be more clearly understood.— 1. On the Divine blessings promised to the visible church, resting in and conveyed to it alone. 2. On the ministerial succession, as the most natural and probable channel for these blessings, and the preservation of these gifts. 3. On the apostolicity of our succession, as a fact. 4. On our church as, on that account, the only church in this realm, which has a right to be quite sure, that she administers the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, not only as a commemorative rite, but also offers the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful therein, and which convey to them certain spiritual blessings. 5. On the nature and meaning of the authority of the church. 6. On the compatibility of Christian obedience and Christian liberty. 7. On the fact that such a sin as schism is stated and characterized in the New Testament, and on the way in which this sin has been interpreted by the church in all ages. that a clergyman should enter, as it were, per saltum, upon them, or where he is not known, or regularly established. But I mean that they ought to be introduced among the regular course of subjects which recur during a continued parochial ministration. I am by no means pressing them as frequent or as favourite subjects, but only protesting against their being looked on as excluded ones. 8. On the nature, peculiarity, and duties of the ministerial suc cession. 9. On the general differences between the church and dissenting bodies; with a view to shew-1st, that few who become dissenters now-a-days have well considered what is really a case of conscience for so doing, and the propriety and necessity of such a reason for their change; 2nd, that as a fact, few condemn the church of England for that which they would think their own salvation prejudiced by holding; 3rd, that the principle of their dissent is entirely an objection to church control, and not to church doctrine; and that separation is often only an assertion of a principle of right, and therefore rather to maintain a doubtful assumption on the part of each individual, than to protest against positive grievances or corruptions. Oct. 28th, 1834. R. F. P.S. It may be (and it is hoped that there are many parishes, where this would be the case) that this letter may fall under the notice of those to whom its contents are inapplicable. It is in no way here meant to conjecture whether there are more or fewer places in which such a system of preaching, or upon any similar principle, is or is not pursued. It is unquestionable, that in many places there is nothing of the kind attempted; and that any allusion to dissent in preaching is (one may say) religiously avoided, with a view, as it is said, to preserve peace and Christian charity. Peace and Christian charity! what names, under cover of which to justify a keeping back of the truth, if, indeed, not an abandonment of it. Such peace and charity may look well; but is καλλος ὕπελον κακῶν. Any rude touch, or irritating cause, will renew the unhealthily covered wound, and with aggravated symptoms. Many will not see this. You may talk on the subject, and will often be answered in some such way as this: "Your views are all very true and very sound, and in theory undeniable, but they are not suited to the present temper of the times, and it would therefore be highly inexpedient to put them forward just now." Would that any such person might be convinced, that this is (I use the term in no offensive sense) mere time-serving! Is not the better rule ὅσιον προτιμᾷν τὴν ἀληθειαν, though it is an old one ? JACOB ABBOTT'S "CORNER STONE." SIR,-The name of Jacob Abbott is now quite familiar in England. His "Young Christian" has obtained a wide circulation, and his "Corner Stone" and other slighter works seem to be progressing, if we may borrow an American expression, to the point so flattering to any author, and more particularly to a foreigner. There is good reason, moreover, for this popularity. The works in question come home to the consciences of many who are unaccustomed to the manner in which Mr. Abbott converses with his readers. He has studied the habits of children, and the means of obtaining access to their most secret thoughts, till it has become not less easy to him to search into the heart of the adult. His illustrations of common truths, and of the way in which the application of them to the conduct of life is continually eluded by petty sophistries, is more various, more ingenions, and more engaging than any I have met with. I have sometimes been tempted to say-of what use is it that others can dive into the recesses of the heart, if they cannot solve the hidden mysteries discovered there, nor raise a blush upon the cheek of the self-deceiver? There is an air of sincerity also about him, which shews that he will admit of no compromises; a moral probing which makes us feel that, if we do not go along with him, we are not sincere ourselves. Holding this very favourable opinion of Mr. Abbott, I am satisfied that no one will blame me for endeavouring to prevent any possible danger arising from writings which are calculated to produce so much good; and it is not without deep regret that I feel myself compelled to point out some passages in the "Corner Stone" startling, to say the least of them, and which, I fear, cannot be passed over without animadversion. I can easily understand that Mr. Abbott's transatlantic habits of thinking have made him hostile to ceremonies in religion; but I can neither see the logic nor propriety of confounding empty with substantial forms; and I shrink from the boldness with which he asserts that the elements used in the Lord's Supper were such as accidentally fell in the way of our Saviour at his last parting with his disciples. I can also imagine that all church government, as it is conducted in the eastern world, presents a frightful anomaly to Mr. Abbott's eyes; but I cannot admit that the outline of a spiritual hierarchy was not first drawn by our Lord himself, and afterwards filled up, in some measure, by his immediate followers. I merely allude to this latter point because Mr. A. has touched upon it; but he has dwelt at length upon his peculiar views relating to the fortuitous appointment of sacramental emblems; and it is this misrepresentation which I think it my duty to lay before your readers. For this purpose, I shall first extract a passage from the "Corner Stone," ch. iii. p. 91, Philip's Edition : "It is remarkable how little he [our Saviour] specified as to forms. He did not even arrange any form of church government for his own times, nor give many specific directions in regard to any Christian ceremonies; an example unparalleled, we believe, among the founders of religions. There is something peculiarly striking in this point of view, in his manner of instituting the celebration of the supper. Instead of having a sort of code drawn up, specifying the various parts of the ceremony, the kind of elements to be used, the frequency, and the attending circumstances, he simply says, at the close of his last supper, as they were about to depart, 'Do this in remembrance of me.' This. One word contains the whole description. He could not have left it more vaguely and indefinitely expressed; and they who press the forms of Christianity, while they forget its spirit, cannot be more pointedly reproved than by asking them to contrast the clearness, the point, the emphasis, the distinguishing precision, with which Christ pressed spiritual duties upon men, with the unconcerned and almost careless air with which he dismissed the whole subject of the most solemn ceremony he established-with Do this in remembrance of me.' " One would almost think that the pregnant relative here noticed had no antecedent. But what was the antecedent to which it referred? I need scarcely put before your readers a statement of the circumstances attending the appointment of the eucharist. Here, however, is one which has been thrown together by one of our soundest divines— Waterland, vol. vii. p. 44, of the Bishop of Durham's edition: Matt. xxvi.; Mark xiv; Luke xxii.; 1 Cor. xi. "The night in which the Lord Jesus was betrayed, as they were eating, or did eat, Jesus took bread, and, giving thanks, blessed it, and brake it, and gave it unto his disciples, and said, ' Take, eut, this is my body, which is given and broken for you ; do this in remembrance of me.' After supper, likewise, having taken the cup, and given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new covenant, the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you, for many, for the remission of sins: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me, [and they all drank of it.] Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father, in the kingdom of God.' And when they had sung an hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives." Our author's opinions on these points, respecting which he believes that Christians are in complete darkness, are more fully developed in the seventh chapter of the same Treatise, pp. 220, 221, 222:— "At the close of the interview, he [Jesus Christ] established the great Christian ordinance, which has been celebrated, without interruption, from that day to this. The circumstances under which that ordinance was established teach us a lesson, as we have already briefly said in a preceding chapter, in regard to the manner in which the Saviour regarded forms and ceremonies, which it is strange that Christians have been so slow to learn. In the first place, he made, apparently, no preparation for it. The articles used were those which, we may literally say, happened to be there. In fact, it seems as if the Saviour, when the time arrived for his last farewell, his very last act of intercourse, as a mortal, with his disciples, and he wished to leave something as a memorial of himself, did not devote a thought, not a moment's thought, to the consideration of what the thing itself should be. They are sitting, or standing, around the table, about to separate, and he takes up the very first thing which comes to hand. It is no matter what the action is, which is commemorative of his affection and sufferings; the only thing of consequence is, that it should be done in remembrance of him.' He does not look around, and choose some act, or arrange some ceremony with care, adapting it to its purpose, and prescribing nicely its forms. No; he selects a portion of the very transaction which was before him, and consecrates that. He just takes the bread, which was upon the table, and pours out another cup of wine, and says, 'Take these, as emblems of my sufferings and death, incurred for the remission of your sins, and henceforth do this in remembrance of me; as often as ye do it, you will represent the Lord's death, until he come.' Had he been walking in a grove, instead of being seated at a table, when his last hour with his disciples had arrived, he would, perhaps, on the same principles, have broken off a branch from a tree, and distributed a portion to his friends; and then Christians would have afterwards commemorated his death by wearing their monthly badge of evergreen; or, if he had been returning to Jerusalem, he would, perhaps, have consecrated their walk, and then, during all succeeding ages, the sacred ceremony would have been performed by a solemn procession of his friends. No matter what the act was which was thus set apart as a memorial. The feeling of which it is the symbol is the most important." Here we find, in the first place, that our Saviour apparently made no preparation for the great Christian ordinance. How this should appear to Mr. Abbott I am at a loss to know. The evangelists give a very different account of the matter. We will take that of St. Luke, ch. xxii. 7 to 16: "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare? And he said unto them, VOL VII. Jan. 1835. Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. And ye shall say unto the good man of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. And they went, and found as he bad said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God." So much for the preparation actually made. It was not assuredly such a preparation as would have been made by a human being, for divine knowledge and foresight was exercised in making it. Nevertheless the time, the place, and the materials were all arranged. We are not informed that any other materials for the supper were placed there excepting bread and wine. Still it was a passover: our Lord calls it so. It is the Christian's passover. The rites of baptism and the holy communion are to the Christian what circumcision and the paschal supper were to the Jew. Our Lord was the bread, to represent his body about to be pierced; and the wine, to represent his blood about to be shed for the sins of mankind. Have we any right to say that this was fortuitous? Is the idea of fitness to be excluded from the emblematical representation of the bloody sacrifice? Would a branch of a tree, or a walk in the fields, have pointed to the cross? So far from thinking that any other materials would have answered the purpose as well, I should be inclined to look upon the paschal supper as a double type; a type both of the sacrifice of Jesus and of this second passover-this substituted rite, this holy emblematical ordinance, which was to recall the memory of the great event when past. However this may be, we recognize in this ordinance that admirable correspondence which is always to be found in the types and antitypes of sacred history. "It is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes." We should think ourselves ill-employed in considering projects for the improvement of the form of the eucharist upon Mr. Abbott's principles. Indeed, so closely connected does this ordinance appear to be in its form and substance with the death of Christ, that I do not see how any alteration can be proposed in the one, without, at the same time, setting aside the typical nature of the paschal lamb; and, in that case, we should be called upon to believe, not only that our Saviour made no preparation for the last supper, but that the Almighty made no preparation, 1500 years before, by the appointment of a rite which should prefigure the coming event. It must be supposed that Mr. Abbott has been led into all this light talking by horror of formal ceremonies. Why, we will buckle on our armour, and join him in his crusade; but for our own church, we may be allowed simply to submit that she follows the form which was ordained by her heavenly Master closely, and without daring to ask whether it might not have been altered or improved; that, in her hands, it is cleared from all superstitious tendencies; that she holds it to be a means of spiritual grace when it is spiritually received; and likely to lead to the destruction both of body and soul when it is received in sin.* * Service of the holy communion. |