Page images
PDF
EPUB

Their creed being barely compatible with saving faith, their rubrics, and their liturgy, and other things, far more practical than the creed, may not only justify, they may require us to withhold from them all recognition of their church estate, because they do not make a credible profession of faith. Does not Rome make professions in baptism incompatible with saving faith in Christ? If so, he has decided that "they cannot be a church." (p. 461.) Or, if she holds some truth, does she not at the same time hold and profess errors that nullify its influence-errors which not only counteract the truth, but which subvert the very foundations of faith? Hence we may see the fallacy of all this reasoning about their professing truth enough to save the soul, and "the minimum of truth that can save the soul" (p. 461), and the conclusion, from these considerations, that Rome is a Christian. church. His argument from the Scriptures on this point is irrelevant, for the Bible speaks of the church as composed of believers and saints, not professors merely. If their profession is not 66 credible," we do not receive it as evidence of character. Besides, how many, with clear views of truth, have no piety? This sad result follows not from their having received less than the "minimum of truth," but from their want of faith.

It should be remembered, that faith is not in the creed. It is not enough to write the truth, or to repeat it. Of what avail is the assertion of the truth coupled with the denial of it, especially when the assertion is theoretical, and the denial is practical? What can be the efficacy of truth that is " verted and overlaid," as it is in Rome? (p. 463, 464.)

per

He affirms that Romanists believe in Christ as the meritorious ground of salvation. But this is not the real belief of Rome. We wonder at this misrepresentation. He can doubtless find isolated expressions of such a doctrine in all the writings of Catholicism, or Jesuitical concession in controversy to silence the arguments of Protestants, or to make. such men as Dr. H. believe that Popery is nearly orthodox; but to say that that is the faith of Rome is preposterous.

What then was all the controversy about at the time of the Reformation? Was not the doctrine of justification by the merits of Christ through faith the "articulus stantis, &c."? and did not Rome hold, as the great head of its system of errors, the doctrine of justification by works? We would much sooner think that Luther and Calvin lived and died unbaptized, than that they so misrepresented the papacy, if the facts are as Dr. H. represents.

No; to be a member of the so-called church of Rome, furnishes a strong probability of disbelieving in Christ as the meritorious ground of salvation. With them the priest saves, the church saves, and Christ is denied.

Whatever, then, may be their worship, or the amount of truth which they profess, or the possibility of their salvation, we are not required to receive or regard them as a Christian community, unless they give such evidence of piety as amounts to a credible profession.

Is it "therefore evident that the question, What is a true church? resolves itself into this, How little truth may avail to salvation?" (p. 462.) They may profess much more of truth than is necessary to salvation, while it is not productive of one particle of faith. But "how little truth may avail ?" Why, he is "hardly competent to answer," (p. 462)—of course he is incompetent to tell us "what is a true church." How then does he pretend to tell us that Rome is a true church?

He has encountered a difficulty which he cannot master. False reasoning from sound principles has led him into concessions which nullify all his conclusions. He is "hardly competent to say how little truth may avail to salvation ;" yet a decision on this point is indispensable, in order to determine the question, what is a true church. Why does he argue a question which he is confessedly incompetent to decide? Why say that Rome is a true church, when he does not and cannot know what a true church is?

But suppose there are a few real believers in Rome (which is by no means proved). One or two believers in a body of

two or three hundred, does not prove that to be a true church. They may belong to the true church, if by that is meant the whole company of believers; but the visible body to which they belong is not therefore a true church. That body must be sound. Nor is it essential to this that every member should be found faithful. A few hypocrites do not destroy the claim. of such a body to the character of a church, any more than a few believers in such a body can give that character. Exceptions do not destroy the rule either way. The general character of the body is all that is essential.

If we are warranted in believing that there is such soundness of doctrine, and such a prevalence of faith in that body, as to warrant the apostolic address, as a body of believers; if joining that body can reasonably be regarded as making a credible profession of religion, we need go no further for evidence that that is properly regarded as a true church. But the existence of a single believer in such a body, otherwise corrupt, does not furnish such evidence of evangelical cha

racter.

His argument from the fact that the Jews were not recircumcised, though the rite was performed by apostate priests, is of little weight, though much relied on. For there may have been a physical impossibility to hinder the repetition of that ceremony; or if not, the cases are not analogous. This is apparent from the difference in the constitution of the church, before and after the coming of Christ. Then the promise was to the natural seed; now it is to faith. Then the church was confined to one nation; now in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him. Then, to cease to be of the church, was to cease to be a Jew. Then the only excommunication was death. But it is not so now. Under the gospel, the continued destitution of Christian character is a sufficient ground for exclusion from the church.

We have only now to add that, if the Reformers in any case support Dr. H.'s views, we can only say they contradict him too; and moreover, if they were consistent, they are not our theological masters.

And why should we receive one sacrament of that church as valid, and reject the other, which has as many elements of validity as the other? On the ground that that is a true church, its mass should be received. On the ground of her orthodoxy, it should be received; on the authority of her ministry; on the ground of its significancy and design; on every account it should be received, if Dr. Hodge is right in claiming the validity of Romish baptism, and in asserting that the church of Rome is a true church. There is nothing more truly miraculous or absurd, or anti-christian, in this than in the other sac

rament.

ARTICLE VIII.

CRITICAL NOTICES.

1.-Hilpert's Dictionary of the German and English Languages.

THIS gigantic undertaking, whose completion has so long been looked forward to by the lovers of German literature, is now happily brought to a close. The first part was issued in the year 1828, and the whole now forms two immense quarto volumes, comprising together about 2700 pages. The size of the work, however, although a matter of first rate importance in a lexicon, is by no means its only or its greatest recommendation. The design of Dr. Hilpert, and of those who have carried on the work since his death, has been to introduce into Anglo-German lexicography, those improvements which philological science has effected in the best lexicons of the ancient languages. Thus especial pains have been bestowed on tracing the etymology and primary signification of words, and arranging their various meanings in the natural order of their evolution; in doing which, care has been taken to separate those words which have the same forin, but are totally distinct in their origin. In all these respects our English dictionaries are lamentably deficient. It is well known that our native lexicographers, including the latest and most celebrated, as Johnson, Todd, Webster, and Richardson, were ignorant of the northern languages. It is true that, as regards the more modern terms adopted into English from southern sources, their classical education enabled them, without much difficulty, to point out the original form of a word in Latin, Greek, or French, as the case might be; but in respect to the older and more vital part of the language, for which we are indebted to our Saxon forefathers, their blunders are constant and ludicrous in the extreme. Where Skinner and Junius fail, their servile copyists of course fail with them. So too as regards the arrangement of the various acceptations in which a word is em

ployed; although Webster succeeded in introducing something like order into the chaos that reigned in this department before his time, his dictionary presents us with nothing like a philosophical system in this respect. In Hilpert's work, great attention has been paid to the synonyms both German and English; and the accentuation and pronunciation of both languages are carefully marked. In fine, the work is not a mere turning of an English dictionary into German, and of a German dictionary into English, but is a valuable contribution to the lexicography of both English and German, and will prove of the greatest utility to all who wish to obtain a better knowledge of the two languages and their affinities, than can be gained from any lexicons heretofore existing; and it is to be hoped that its sale in this country will be such as to materially aid in repaying the spirited publisher for his great outlay of capital and labour in producing it. The agent for America is Mr. William Radde, of this city. The work can be had of Wiley and Putnam.

2.-The Novitiate; or, a Year among the English Jesuits. By ANDREW STEINMETZ.

There is an air of sincerity imparted by the straightforward style of this narrative, which commands the reader's assent to its assertions. The young author relates his own year's experience in a way to engage a strong personal interest in himself, and to convey much information respecting the branch of the great Jesuit family in England. Though the best side is put outward, as would naturally be the case, to a novitiate, there is enough in the narratiɣe to show the essentially debasing, superstitious, and oppressive character of the system, and to create all the horror of its influence in which the warmest Protestant ever indulges.

3.-The Cyropædia of Xenophon, according to the text of L. Dindorf; with Notes for the use of Schools and Colleges. By JOHN J. OWEN. New-York: Leavitt, Trow and Co.

The neat and careful typography of this work is noticeable. Always of great value, it is essential in a classical work. Mr. Owen's Notes strike us as more nearly realizing the true idea of classical editorship than usual. The practical acquaintance with the scholar's wants, acquired by long and successful teaching, has enabled him to supply the right word of explanation, at the right place, without making confusion by too much, or obscurity by too little. The work itself is very desirable as an elementary study; and the timely aid which the excellent Notes afford, and the beautiful appearance of the volume, will render it popular with teachers.

4.-Harper's New Miscellany.

It gives us pleasure to remark of this new series of books for popular reading, that its pledges of utility, good character and interest, have thus far been kept with more than ordinary fidelity. Truly useful reading which possesses novelty of subject, and attractiveness of style, and of outward appearance, and furnished at a price not beyond the means of the poorest, is a public benefaction. Four volumes have been added to the series since our last notice. Darwin's

« PreviousContinue »