The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1871-10-03 00:00:00

Local anb District 1,b15.

THE. DIOCESAN SYNOD.

ulna OF lIIE 4ILV. RI IN TO RI I %V.
LETT

To the Edit.r.
811,—The Dorset County Express of last week con.
tabus two replies to my letter on the Synod. I heartily
thank Dr. gams for his fair and courteous letter, but
am unable to chersoterise Mr. Psars's quite in the same
Icons, I, however, bear in mind that it was written
under so erroneous idea—that I had indirectly held
him and others up to morn as "selfish, lazy, cowardly,
ancethollo, and sectarian." I completely deny having
made a paeans' application of those terms to any con.
ssiontions opponent of the Synod, including Mr. Peon.
Your readers will be surprised at the very mesgra
grounds upon which Mr. Pears charges me with this
offensive condemnation. I quoted a sentence from Mr.
Bile, laying down the broad general position that
members of • Christian community, who will join in o
usecubly of their brethren where they are likely to meet
with contradiction, adopt • line of conduct which
' admits of pram enquiry whether it be not selfisheeas,
aideess,or eowardioe,diaguised under other names." all
warty endorsement of thee, " dicta " of Mr. Byte is
'redly, I submit, • sufficient justification for the charge
cought against we by Mr. Pests; certainly the epithets
cowardly, selfish" are the very last I should
link of applying 10 the Rector of St Peters, though I
es far from singular in wishing he was in the habit of
clog more justice to the motives and views of Ma °pp°.
eats • arid, although I have received no mercy at his
Ands, I will freely say that no one supports his opinions
rith more boldness or ability than he does. But let me
sek him serlowily, is his representation of the Catholicity
id Protestionern which I advocate, either charitable
sentiment Or lithe io fart? What precise meaning he
=hes to " Einasealated Universalism " is not easy to
1, but I cannot think so ill of Nonconformists as to
lleys (es Mr. Pears =sorts), that they would treat
lb utter contempt • Catholicity and Protestantism
deb eankriese "oil who love the Lord Jesus Christ in
amity " and "all who ding to Pl= en their Saviour
1 example, renouncing their own merits." Seek, Sir,
re the limits of the Catholicity laid down distinct, y
swisasta
such this e Catholicity which Mr. Pe designates
•• ted Universalism." It this be Culver.
diem, would that it were more universal I Mr. Pain
ould appear to think that the views of High Church•
en on the Real Prow= exclude them from the 1.10
salvation. The way in whiob he refers to Mr. KeMe
td Bishop Hamilton mod on reflection be regretted by
smelt. Of the former I had no personal knowledge,
it. as long as the English March endures, he will be
membered and loved by millions. Had he written
thing but his morning and evening hymns, he would
ve mitt= enough to sattrfy me that be is now.
ranee. I was one of Moth who fat it their duty (aud
roi7 Palatal duty it was), to oppose some of his doe
cal statement.; but this I will say—that if heaven
to be peopled by those whores whole life was • waiters
abut sin, who manifested the spirit of Christ in a
ost remarkable manner by returning good for evil,
no delighted in prayer and in studying the Word of
4, who habitually led a most unworldly, simple,
dilloent life of benevolense and good works ; and
hose whole dependence was upon the precious blood
Christ, Mrs Walter Hamilton will have no mean
aes in that abode of bills, where all our prejudees
rill be banished, all our nkfTOWOOII enlarged, all our
nisoonceptions rectified and forgiven.
Those who interpret the Divine declaration, " Tris
Is my body," more literally than we who are Evangelical
believe to be consistent with the intention of Chritt and
with His declarations as to his D,DILY absence until the
ink' of his second Advent,are stigmatised (nadir, ctly) by
Mr. Pears as "false brethren." ' traitors in the camp,"
"idolaters of the mass," Such sweeping condemnations
of whole bodies of Christians are, thank God, becoming
IntuanulingiF rare. More than anything else do they dis•
pace Evangelical religion in the eyes of all thinking men.
In common with my Evangelical brethren, I do bold
the belief of a corporeal presence in the elements to be
a grievous error, freight with hurtful results, yet not
such an error es to exclude men from the favour of
God. I have before called attention to the higher
views than we hold (concerning the Lord's Supper), of
Luther, Melanothon, Calvin, and of Luther's successors
do= to fAs pretext lists. To our OWD Reformers, is
I believe, a clearer light was given. 13y that dearer
light let us walk; but what thou ? Shall we shut
out of communion those whom Christ bath not
shut out? Shill we refuse the right hand of fellow.
ship to those in whom the Holy Ghost dwells? Shall
we shut ourselves up in our narrow ezolualveness, and
=I all men "false brethren" and "idolaters of the
mess," who do not hold exactly the same views as to
the mode of the Saviour's Presence that we do?
believe that the Lord is really pretest by his Spirit In
the believer,' heart at the Communion table as well as
at other those: my brother believes himself bound to
adhere to the literal interpretation of the words "This
is my body." I think he is mistaken; by all means
let me try to convince him, but, if he retain Ills for•
mar opinion, am I to denounce him, and refuse to co.
operate with him in • synod. or in any other way, for
the general good of the church in whir* we are both
members, especially when sailed thereto by the voles of
06, Bishop, and Um general wish of oar brethren? That,
sir, is the immediate question before us, in which Mr.
Peare and I take different views. I should It .ve been
coolant to let our two former letters stand aide by side,
but the strange misconception of my meaning, uud the
@barge so publicly made against me, of " holding up
some of my brethren to scorn as lazy and cowardly,"
but rendered it advisable for me to write this letter.
There is one statement in Mr. Peare's letter to which
I advert, because of Its importance. I affirmed that
the Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church of
England, as a whole and not merely of one party in it.
Mr. Pears denies it, and says that ii Ile were, then, the
church must be saved as • whole. I folly grant that
there is • church every member whereof will be saved—
it is that which is so admirably defined by onc Prayer
Book as "Th. mystical body of Christ, the Mewed
company of all faithful people." The exact limits
thereof are not visible on earth—they are known only I
to God; certainly it Is not co-extensive with the Church
of England, or any other thank, or sect, or denomins-
don. That is not the point to which I ref., re
What I meant, and what I =Wish), is, that the Lori
Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church of England in
the same sense in which he was the Head of the Primi-
tive church of Rome. or Corinth, or Philippi or the
'even olanrchos of Asia. In all of them there were
errors and blemishes, yet the Apostles spoke of them
all as being pcserally "in the Father and in tie Lord
Jesus Christ." In the church of RAMO there was a
strong ritualistic section ; in that of Corinth there nero
grievous disorders, and even • denial of the reaurrec.
lion of the body ; in that of Philippi there were many
who were the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who
minded only earthly things; in the churches of Asia
there were not • few things which called forth rebuke
and threatening from the Lord. Notwithstanding all
these blemishes, He acknowledged them all as his
*bombes, and revealed Himself to St. John as "He
that walketh in the midst of the seven churches, ant
upholdeth the stars ; (i.e., their chief ministers or
bishops) with his right hand. These are heti stated in
God's own word. Now, sir, precisely Indio same souse
I maintain that Christ is the Heed of the Church of
England. I fully admit there are amongst us almilar
snore and evil practices to those prevalent in the
churches of Rome, Corinth, and the rest; but my argu-
ment is this, that if in spite of these blemishes the
Lord was the Head of the church of Rome, or that of
Corinth, or of the *even chorales in Asia, then is
He the head of the Church of Eastland. In all her
confessions of faith, in all her doctrines, in all her
ordinances, and by the mouth of many thousands of
congregations day after day, the Church of England
acknowledges Him and no other to be her head; and
my inference from it is &wand one, viz., that ills the
bouoden duty of every churchman to 00-operate with his
fellow churchmen for the common good, and not to keep
himself entirely to those in whose doctrinal views he most
thoroughly sympathises. With respect to the Synod
it may be the opinion of some that it will do harm
Instead of good; but even in that cue they are more likely
to prevent the evil by Doming and stating their °Nue.
dons than by &tweeting themselves altogether, eed I
would respectfully beg them to oondder ehithor by
such &beim* they ere totalling their duties either to
the church or to her great Head. lam Oct ono who
thinks the constitution of the Synod porteot • I
should have preferred the cumulative vote, as enabling
all minorities to be fairly represented; but of this I
feel sure, and I speak after an acquaintance of ab.ait
forty years with our present Bishop, that it is oo lii
part moat honestly meant to idea= the kingdom of
God to this sinful world.
That we may all DO brought nearer to cacti other by
being brought nearer to our itideemer Is icy earwwt
wish, and to this end let us all pray for a P.ntee 'stet
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, for the convi awn uf
sinners, and the edification and union of bel!evert iii
holLoan and remain, Sir, yours faithfully.
REGINALD SRI FM
West Stafford, Dorchester, Septa RS,