« AnteriorContinuar »
error in recently making, and in retaining, such a canon as the 28th canon, and still more in keeping up such a Communion Service. Without judging brethren who, like Mr. Bagot and other faithful men, remain in that Communion, we think that they are called upon to exert themselves to get such blots removed from their Church. They are blots which must be a stumbling-block in the way of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland; they are opposed to the deliberate and repeatedly expressed judgment of our Church, by our Reformers, and at the various periods of the revising of our Liturgy; and they furnish a strong reason for a Church of England Minister separating himself in Scotland from their communion. Why should there be such a barrier against union between the two Churches ? To attempt to introduce such a service in England would be wholly impracticable; the great majority of the ministers of our Church would, we are assured, resist it to the utmost, as a return of the Church to Papal principles.
It is no excuse to say that our own Articles are also received, and that there are in the service itself corrective expressions, which may neutralize the more Papal forms. This is the very character of the Mystery of Iniquity. Romanism itself contains in its corruptions the great truths of the Gospel; but so mingled with its errors as to be styled by the word of God “all deceivableness of unrighteousness.”
It would be well if those who seek to cast upon others the charge of schism, were first to enquire how far they themselves are guilty, remembering the instructive direction of our Lord, Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye. The position of the Scotch Episcopal Church is at present, in this very point, most unsatisfactory: It might be well for this Episcopal Church to separate from the National Presbyterian Establishment of Scotland, in order to give a testimony to Episcopacy, and to meet the desires of Christians who feel the importance of this sacred institution. It was needful to separate from Rome, for God has commanded his people to come out of her. But the Scotch Episcopalians profess a real union with the National Episcopal Church of England, and yet they have so lately as 1838 raised a barrier making union impracticable, by a return to Roman principles, from which they also profess to have been separated. Thus they stand alone, and have separated themselves from full union with every Church, and multiplied needless divisions. The real schismatics in that Church, then, are those who insisted on making the Scotch Communion Office of "primary authority.”
It has been objected that Mr. Drummond withdrew before he knew of the most tangible ground of offence prominent in this church,—the papistical tendencies of the service. But in reality the objection to extempore prayer is the thin end of that wedge by which all vital godliness may be destroyed, and the mere form be established in its place. The line which Bishop Terrot would draw is so perfectly indistinct, as to be utterly unworthy of being accounted a rule of discrimination and government. The line which Mr. Drummond has marked out is clear and distinct, and in our view unexceptionable : in the public services in the Church to adhere to the established formularies; in private rooms, entirely under his own control, to be at liberty to use or not use forms just as he found most profitable to the people of his charge. On this principle we know that many of the most excellent ministers in our Church, and that we apprehend in every diocese in England, are continually acting. The blessings of such a course have been very great ; the poor have been brought to love and value more, both the Church and the Church services. We can hardly conceive a more destructive blow that the enemy of souls could give to vital piety, than to succeed in measures which would make this course impracticable to ministers of the Church of England. The significant hint in Bishop Terrot's opening letter, of "suggestions from a quarter which I am bound to respect,” may shew the ministers in our own Church that there is some danger of such measures as he has pursued being adopted in our own country, and that we have a deep and real interest in this present more distant controversy.
The great danger of all established Churches is mere formalism, and there is no need of further restrictions to increase this danger. We rather want more encouragement to a spirit of enlarged exertion, to do the full work of an Evangelist, to preach the word and be instant in season and out of season—and to follow the plain direction of God himself in his own word, answering at once all the petty and trifling distinctions that man makes—I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting. How dreadful the guilt of forbidding men thus to pray !
We cannot but anticipate much good from the faithful stand which, under peculiarly trying circumstances, Mr. Drummond has made. The whole controversy has been generally conducted in a kind and courteous spirit on both sides; but Bishop Terrot was unhappily advised in the steps which he has taken, and we cannot but think that Mr. Drummond has shewn much faith and holy decision in contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, and that in a very difficult position. He has honoured the authority of Christ as the only just and safe ultimate appeal, and refused to renounce it for the authority of man ; which, however important in its place, must never supersede the supreme claim of the Lord of all. Having done so, he will not be forsaken of his heavenly Master, nor by the faithful servants of that Master, when they fully understand the whole case, in the trials to which he may be exposed.
The cleansing of the sanctuary (Dan. viii. 14,) seems to be commencing both in the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, and it will doubtless soon pass over to us in this country. Every Church will be sifted to the utmost, and compelled to take its only sure footing on the word of God. If there be anything in any respect contrary to that word, it will not stand the trial. “Every plant shich my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up."
It is very painful that any bishop should set himself against extempore social prayer between the minister and his people; and that, when the appointed public worship of the sanctuary in the house of God had been strictly observed, according to the prescribed form. There is such a want of common knowledge of the actual state of men's minds everywhere, and of their real wants; and such a disregard of the many directions of scripture on this subject, and such a total want of spiritual judgment in discerning things that differ, that we must earnestly desire that this precedent may stand alone in these days. But should so bad a precedent be followed by others in authority, the laity are now beginning to be alive to this subject, and to their responsible duties in it, and will not bear such unscriptural restrictions upon their ministers. A more serious conflict may thus be occasioned than even that which shook our country in the days of Archbishop Laud. After that deeply impressive lesson of the results of arbitrary measures, the suicidal madness of treading in his steps would be wholly without excuse.
God give all our rulers scriptural wisdom and soundness of judgment in guiding his Church aright, according to his mind and will, in the stormy days which are now before us.
As might be expected, our contemporaries, the British Critic and the Christian Remembrancer, with their Tractarian views, see nothing in Mr. Drummond's conduct but schism and independency. If the Reformation itself be a "grand schism,” and the Revolution of 1688 a “rebellion," no wonder they think, that however closely Mr. Drummond adheres in his Church to the order of our Common Prayer Book, while he has in a private room any thing but the exact form of morning and evening prayer, he is a Schismatic. The Reformers did not in practice require the daily use of the Liturgy in the Church. In proof of this we refer to Bishop Ridley's injunctions to his clergy in 1550, and to Queen Elizabeth's injunctions of 1559, and to the 84th Tract for the Times itself. We see nothing in these publicationsto alter the sentiments which we have just given.
REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE HOME AND
COLONIAL INFANT SCHOOL SOCIETY, for the Years
1836, 1837, 1838, 1839. 1840, 1841, 1842. PRACTICAL REMARKS ON INFANT EDUCATION, for
the Use of Schools and Private Families. By the Rev. Dr. Mayo and Miss Mayo. Third Edition. London: Seeley &
Burnside. 1842. MODEL LESSONS FOR INFANT SCHOOL TEACHERS
AND NURSERY GOVERNESSES. Prepared for the Home and Colonial Infant School Society. By the Author of “ Lessons on Objects," &c. Second Edition. London: Seeley 8
Burnside. 1842. A SELECTION OF HYMNS AND POETRY, for the Use of
Infant Schools and Nurseries. In Five Parts. Second Edition.
London : Suter. 1842. HYMNS, SONGS, AND MARCHING PIECES, for Infant
Schools and Families. Set to Music by Mr. JAMES PYNE.
Infant School Depôt, Gray's Inn Road. “ FEED MY LAMBS.” The Annual Sermon of the Home and
Infant School Society for 1840. By the Rev. EDWARD BICK
ERSTETH, Rector of Watton. LESSONS ON SCRIPTURE PRINTS, to accompany the Pre
ceptive Illustrations of the Bible. Intended also to assist Parents and Teachers in the Use of Prints as an Aid to Elementary Instruction. By the Author of “Lessons on Objects.”
London: Roake & Varty. 1842. MODEL LESSONS FOR INFANT SCHOOL TEACHERS,
&c. Part II. By the same. London : Seeley & Burnside. 1842. PROCEEDINGS AT THE HALF-YEARLY MEETINGS OF
THE TEACHERS instructed at the Institution of the Home and Colonial Infant School Society, held on Wednesday, July 7th, 1841, and Wednesday, Jan. 5th, 1842. London:
L. & G. Seeley. 1842. . USEFUL HINTS TO TEACHERS. Published by direction of
the Committee of the Home and Colonial Infant School Society. London: Nisbet. 1842.
We have placed these publications at the head of the present article, in order to give some account of them and of the Institution from which they emanate.
The Home and Colonial Infant School Society demands our attention from the importance of its work and the extent of its labours. Commencing with infants, it professes to have laid down a system suited to children from two to eight or nine, thus supplying a want which has long been grievously felt in our manufacturing and agricultural districts; and to enable teachers to carry out this system, it claims to have set forth principles and provided lessons, objects, pictures and other materials in accordance with them. It has also already sent forth nearly 700 trained teachers, and continues to supply annually upwards of 100, to aid in the instruction of our dense population; it is obvious therefore that its theory and practice challenge investigation.
Pestalozzi many years ago proclaimed, what at the time was undoubtedly entitled to all the merit of a discovery, that “Education has to deal with the mind, the affections, and the bodily organs, and should simultaneously, harmoniously, and progressively develope all the various powers with which man is gifted." He declared too, “that the subjects ordinarily presented to the youthful mind were too remote from that knowledge which the child acquired without regular instruction, and were in general taught in too abstract a manner;" and he proposed, in consequence, “to bring education more into contact with the child's experience and observation to find in him the first link in the chain of his own instruction.”
The system to which his name has been given, though it has long been followed on the continent to a great extent, is but just beginning to be popular in this country. Unfortunately its first advocates were men holding opinions opposed to gospel truth, and they engrafted on Pestalozzianism their own metaphysical fallacies of the innate virtues-of children possessing germs of moral excellence, which it was the office of the educator to develope. This caused the system itself to be viewed with suspicious fear; its real good was choked under the rubbish that had been cast upon it, and it would probably have been altogether lost to this country, had not the Rev. Dr. Mayo judiciously and quietly worked out its principles in his own school at Cheam, and adapted them to our English character and feelings. Several of his pupils have taken the highest honours at Oxford and Cambridge, and his establishment now ranks in the very first class of private schools. He has been followed by the Rev. Mr. Barron at Stanmore, the Rev. Mr. Brown at Cheam, and a few others in different parts of the country ;-still the system has made its way slowly. And until the establishment of the Society now under our notice, no systematic effort had been made to introduce it extensively amongst the poorer classes. Jan. 1843.