Page images
PDF
EPUB

formation, or rather of "the glorious Gospel of the blessed God," which that Reformation vindicated and affirmed.

And wherefore this deviation from our old Protestant doctrine and language; why this false principle; why this new school, as it were, of divinity? Ancient testimony in its proper place, who had undervalued? The dignity and race of the sacraments, who had denied? The. study of primitive antiquity, who had renounced? The witness of the early Fathers, who had disparaged? Wherefore weaken, then, by pushing beyond its due bearing, the argument which all writers of credit in our church had delighted to acknowledge?

The testimony of the apostolical and primitive ages, for example, to the genuineness, authenticity, and divine inspiration of the Canonical Books of the New Testament, as of the Jewish church to those of the Old, who had called in question? Or who had doubted the incalculable importance of the witness of the universal ancient church at the Council of Nice to the broad fact of the faith of whole Christian world, from the days of the Apostles to that hour, in the mysteries of the adorable trinity and of the incarnation, as there rehearsed and recognized? Or who had called in question the other matters of fact which are strengthened by Christian antiquity-as the Divine authority and perpetual obligation of the Lord's day-the institution and perpetuity of the two, and only two Christian sacraments-the right of the infants of the faithful to the blessings of holy baptism-the Apostolical usage of Confirmation-the permanent separation of a body of men for sacred services-the duty of willing reverence from the people for them-the threefold rank of ministers in Christ's church-the use of liturgiesthe observance of the festivals of our Lord's birth, resurrection, ascension, and gift of the Holy Ghost-with similar points; to which may be added, their important negative testimony to the nonexistence of any one of the peculiar doctrines and claims of the modern court and Church of Rome. These and similar facts we rejoice to acknowledge as fortified by pure and uncorrupted primitive tradition or testimony.

And we receive such tradition for this one reason-because it deserves the name of JUST AND PROPER EVIDENCE. It is authentic testimony. It is a part of the materials from which even the external evidences of Christianity itself are derived. It furnishes the most powerful historical arguments in support of our faith. It is amongst the proofs of our holy religion.

But evidence is one thing; the rule of belief another. Not for one moment do

we, on any or all these grounds, confound the history and evidences of the divinely inspired rule of faith, with that rule it. self. Not for one moment do we place Tradition on the same level with the allperfect Word of God. Not for one moment do we allow it any share in the standard of revealed truth. Scripture and tradition taken together are NOT-we venture to assert "the joint rule of faith; " but "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith." And tradition is so far from being of co-ordinate authority, that even the Ecclesiastical writers who approach nearest to them, and are read in our churches-which not one of the Fathers is" For example of life, and instruction of manners; "" are still, as being uninspired, not to be applied to establish any one doctrine of our religion.

Against this whole system, then, as proceeding upon A MOST FALSE AND DANGEROUS PRINCIPLE, and differing from the generally received Protestant doctrine, I beg, Reverend Brethren, most respectfully to caution you. I enter my solemn protest against the testimony of the Fathers to any number of facts, being constituted a joint rule of faith." I protest against their witness to the meaning of certain capital series of texts on the fundamental truths of the Gospel being entitled to the reverence only due to the authoritative Revelation itself. I protest against the salutary use made of the testimony of primitive writers by our Church, as a safeguard against heresy and an expression of her view of the sense of the Holy Scriptures, being placed on a level with the blessed Scriptures themselvesthat is, I PROTEST AGAINST A MERE RULE OF COMMUNION BEING MADE A RULE OF FAITH.

After ably illustrating these positions, his Lordship adds-And O that every Christian minister would seriously and incessant attend to the exhortation!

I need not say that the best preventive or remedy for all these evils is the old doctrine of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus fully and scripturally developed, and accompanied with that affectionate pastoral care, and that mild discipline and order, which our Protestant Episcopal Church has provided.

Teach, then, Brethren, more determinately than ever, the ruin and fallen state of man as the Holy Scriptures reveal it. Unfold the unspeakable malignity of sin as committed against God-the deep and in a proper sense, total corruption of

our nature in all its powers-our inability of ourselves to do anything spiritually good-our moral responsibility—our guilt, demerit, ruin, condemnation, helplessness-the inconceivable value of the soul -the nearness of eternal judgment-the everlasting duration of the miseries of a lost state. And point out the remedy for all this, with the simplicity of the inspired Apostles, in "Repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ."

Teach the atonement and satisfaction made to the Divine justice and government by the incarnation and obedience unto death of the consubstantial and co-equal Son of God. Clearly explain that justification is the penitent sinner's being accounted and dealt with and treated "as righteous in God's sight by faith only in the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not for his own works and deservings; distinguish, as Hooker did, between justification and sanctification, and boldly preach, as he did, that God hath made him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Account this, as Luther, the Articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiæ. Read again, I entreat you, the incomparable treatise of that great Reformer on the epistle to the Galatians, which it seems will be once more as requisite and appropriate in our Protestant Churches now, as it was three centuries since.

Teach also the personality, divinity, and inward work of God the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, in all Scriptural fidelity, as infusing the righteousness of sanctification; as renewing man after the Divine image; creating him in Christ Jesus unto good works; raising him from spiritual death; inscribing the law of God upon his heart; transforming him in the spirit of his mind; as commencing first, and then carrying on that new birth and life of holiness, which is the preparation and qualification for serving and loving God both on earth and in heaven-and in developing this, shun the fatal error of limiting, or appearing to limit, the determined commencement of all this mighty transformation to the change of state and attendant grace-important and blessed as they are received by the infants of the faithful in the Sacrament of Baptism.

Teach, again, the indispensable necessity of good works in all their ramifications,

[merged small][ocr errors]

the fruit of faith and following after justification; so that by them a lively faith may as evidently be known as a tree is discerned by the fruit." Enter into all the details of duty as opened by our Lord in his Sermon on the Mount and by the Apostles in the practical division of their epistles. Enforce the perpetual obligation of the Moral Law upon every human being. Explain the interior life of com

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Instruct your flocks, for example, in all those texts of inspired Writ which describe or imply the entire fall and corrup tion of man; and also those which insist on his unaccountableness, and his duty so use those means to which God attaches the promises of grace; and preach on both these series of passages in order to produce, and in a manner calculated to produce, and for no other object but to produce, contrition of heart for sin, both original and actual, and earnest prayers for the aid of the Holy Ghost. Let these texts appear in your discourses, as they do in Scripture, not as abstract dogmas, but as humiliating arguments for selfknowledge, confession, penitence, faith, and heartfelt returns to God. No abuse can then arise.

Preach justification by faith only, but that not by a dead, notional belief-a mere presumption-the faith of devils-but by a living, heartfelt, holy principle of reliance on Christ, springing from an awakened and contrite spirit, and necessary to the consolation of the penitent's mind, when sinking under the consciousness of guilt and unworthiness. Let justification be employed in your discourses, as it is in the writings of St. Paul, as the remedy against despair, and the motive of love to God, and of filial and unreserved obedience. Thus you shut out all perversions.

Preach the influences of the Holy Ghost-but operating in a manner not to supersede, but aid our endeavours; not to exclude, but magnify the inspired Word of God; not by sudden illapses or sensible movements, but in a way agreeable to our moral and accountable nature; not appearing in animal fervours and overconfident claims, but in the meek and solid fruits of "all goodness, righteousness and truth." This is wholesome doctrine.

Preach the merciful will and election of God in Christ Jesus; but not to lead men to rush into the secrets of the Almighty, but in order to gather grounds of grati tude in the results of the Divine dispensations in providence and grace; whilst, "in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God."

And in teaching all these truths, and guarding against the abuse of them, avail yourselves of all the TESTIMONY to the facts, and all the HELPS to the just interpretation of Holy Scripture which you

can possibly reach-collect from Fathers, Historians, Critics, Commentators, Divines, Scholars, Travellers, Poets, Biographers, Natural Philosophers of every age-the whole body of writers who furnish the materials of sound criticismamongst whom you will pay, I am sure, an especial regard to the Fathers of the primitive Church. A learned as well as pious and laborious Clergy has ever been the glory of our Anglican Church.

But to not one of these writers, ancient or modern, concede for an instant the least share in the Rule of Faith. Stand firm on the inspired Scripture only, as on an immoveable rock. If you are once seduced to place one foot on the quagmire of Tradition and the other on this Eternal Rock, the consequence is inevitableyour foundation is gone. A JOINT RULE OF FAITH IS NO RULE AT ALL. Give, then, to the witnesses and writers of each age all reasonable weight and influence, but yield not to them any part of that paramount authority which appertains only to the revealed Word of God. Use them as advisers, bow not to them as sovereigns. Honour them as attendants around the footstool, but allow them not to obscure the majesty or usurp the throne of inspired Scripture.

Let our one Rule of faith, in short, bethat implied in the language of St. Paul, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good wofks." And let our one master

argument against Tradition, as sharing in that one Rule of faith, be the thrilling caution of the last of the Apostles: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book; if any man add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life."

And let us finally remember, that the grand blasphemy of the Pope, as the Head of the Romish Church, is his putting human traditions in the place of Almighty God speaking in Holy Scripture, -"He, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thess. ii. 4.

We intreat every reader, especially our clerical readers incessantly to keep these exhortations in view. It is by preaching the truth that error is destroyed. Much time is lost and precious opportunities wasted in preaching against Popery, Heresies, Infidelity,but where Christ is preached, where man's misery, the Redeemer's mercy, the Holy Spirit's grace are proclaimed, Popery, Infidelity, and Heresy alike fail, and the preaching of the cross is now as formerly, the power of God unto salvation.

ESSAYS ON ROMANISM. By the Author of Essays on the Church.', 18mo. Pp. xiv. and 488. Seeleys. THESE Essays are a republication, with corrections, of the series of papers on Romanism, which have for some time appeared in our

pages. They are now published in a cheap commodious form, and will, we trust, prove extensively useful.

ESSAYS ON THE CHURCH. Fifth Edition.

[ocr errors]

LETTERS TO A DISSENTER, being an abridgment of Essays on the Church.' By a LAYMAN. 18mo. Pp. 118. Seeleys.

WE strongly recommend these cheap and seasonable publications. This new edition of the Essays on the Church, contains one of the best and most popular statements and refutations of the Modern Ox

JULY, 1839.

ford Schism we have yet met with. While the Letters to the Dissenters convey an outline of the main argument of the Essays on the Church, admirably adapted for popular perusal.

2 N

Intelligence.

NATIONAL EDUCATION IN THE PRINCIPLES OF THE

ESTABLISHED CHURCH.

ON Tuesday, May 28, a crowded meeting of the members and friends of the National Society for the purpose of carrying out the system of National Education in the principles of the Established Church, was held at Willis's Rooms, King Street, St. James's.

The Chair was taken by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Earl of CHICHESTER moved the first resolution, which ran in the following words: That it is an object of highest national importance to provide, that instruction in the truths and precepts of Christianity should form an essential part of every system of education intended for the people at large and that such instruction should be under the superintendence of the clergy, and in conformity with the doctrines of the church of this realm, as the recognised teacher of religion.'

The Bishop of LONDON then rose to second the resolution. He had, he said, accepted, without the least hesitation, the duty which had been imposed upon him by the committee of seconding the resolution which had so ably been proposed by the noble Earl who had just sat down, because he felt the deepest interest in the subject, as the bishop who was presiding over a diocese containing innumerable streets and alleys, all, or very many of which, were, he lamented to say, crowded with thousands of neglected children-children who at the present moment were nearly, if not totally, destitute of means of obtaining religious instruction. The resolution which had been offered to the meeting consisted of two parts-one of which, he conceived, would command the immediate assent of all those who, being themselves Christians, knew the ends and the value of Christianity, and the other would not fail of obtaining the concurrence of the immense majority of those who were then listening to him, and who were persuaded of the opinion that in this country Christianity was taught in the highest purity, and

with the most efficient instrumentality by the church, of which they were members. In pleading in support of the great principles embodied in the resolution, he was most desirous to express himself with the utmost, the most perfect candour. He was anxious-the National Society was anxious, to preserve an attitude of defence, rather than to attempt to assume the position of hostility towards others who had expressed opinions and convictions of a somewhat different character. It was, however, well known to be a matter of impossibility, to assert truth without being compelled to combat with error, or to rear the fabric of practical religion, without at the same time, in effect, tending to the demolition of that fabric, which the mistaken zeal of others had attempted to erect. He should be sorry, if in the

course of the observations he should feel called to make, he should utter a single expression which could excite a feeling of dissatisfaction in any of those who might that day hear him, or in the breasts those who might not on that occasion be present; who, although sincere Christians, still dissented from certain doctrines of the Established Church. But he must speak the truth. He did not stand there for the purpose of compromising the sacred duties or principles of their holy religion, considering, as he did, that they were indissolubly connected with the most vital interests of the Established Church itself. That instruction in the truths and precepts of Christianity ought to form a part of any system of education intended for the people at large, for the whole or any part of that people, was a position which was so nearly self-evident, that he found it a matter of no inconsiderable difficulty to attempt a proof of it without dealing out a series of axioms, which to a Christian audience would be superfluous and wearisome. In fact, the very enunciation of the proposition went to involve the proof of it: for unless they were to

narrow the meaning of the term education' within limits which would deprive it of the most important of its functions, they must understand it to imply the complete training of the moral agent to a fitness for the accomplishment of the ends of his being; and then, if it were religion which made known those ends, and the methods by which they were accomplished, and if the Christian religion were true, it followed, that an education which did not comprise instruction in its truths and precepts, was no education at all, but a partial, limited, imperfect, and inadequate training, which left unfinished and undone far more than it attempted to effect. But he need not spend any arguments in opposing those persons who contended that religious instruction ought to form no part of a system of education.

some

Perhaps there were no such persons except those who were themselves without religion. The parties with whom they had to contend were, in the first place, those who divided their schemes of education into two, one secular and one religious, the former being the substance, the latter only the accidence, and who would provide for the people at large one uniform system of secular instruction, leaving them to superadd, if they should chance to desire it, the religious part, or of providing such a religious system, in cases uniform, as the sands which constituted the surface of the desert were uniform; in others so contrived to act with a kind of shifting machinery, that although all those who were to be taught could not profit by it at one and the same time, they might all be brought under its operation in turns, and extract from it different kinds of religion, according to the taste of those who directed such operations. Now, the National Society and its advocates held, in opposition to all projects of that description, that for a Christian people there must be one system of education-one and indivisible as to its principles and leading features-one of which instruction in all those branches of knowledge which might fit man for the duties and circumstances of active life might form an important part, but which made the one thing

needful-the instruction in the will of God, and in the means of performing it-the training up of an accountable being destined for immortality by methods of God's own appointment, to the enjoyment of his rich inheritance. Entirely to separate religious instruction-that is instruction in the Bible as it is understood by the church-from instruction in every other branch of knowledge, and to make the latter the main business of education, the subject of common consent, the object of common interest, while the former was thurst into places and corners, and was either taught with a vagueness and generality which destroyed its specific qualities as an instrument of truth and sanctification, or was committed to the casual and desultory inculcation of teachers not concerned with the main process of education at large-what was that, he would ask, but to degrade religion from its just supremacy, to deprive and disparage the pearl of great price, and to accustom those who were the objects of instruction to regard the best instruction of all, that of religion, with indifference and contempt? No; that society maintained that religion should be interwoven into the whole tissue of education for a Christian man, that it should be the guiding sanctifying principle of the whole, that around which the entire system should turn, each luminary of truth and knowledge revolving in its proper orbit, religion being the centre from which a genial and holy light was diffused through every part. They protested, therefore, against the doctrine and would resist the efforts of those associated friends of education, who argued for the exclusion of religion from the regular cycle of intellectual teaching in the schools intended for that class of persons to whom a knowledge of religion was especially valuable. They protested against the projects of those who declared that to shut out the Bible from what they denominated the secular school, was a sine qua non to a general system of national education. They were satisfied as to the truth of what was asserted by one who was an opponent of that scheme of education, but who at the same time was no friend to the national schools, that

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »