תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

testimonial for a curate, who removes to another diocese, he bears testimony to the credit of the subscribers, not to the orthodoxy of the curate, whom he does not examine. At least, such an examination, on such occasions, is very unusual. And testimony to the credit of the subscribers, in mere matters of opinion, can amount to nothing more than this, that they would not assert what they believed to be false. But as they may be mistaken in their belief, and no counter-signature can warrant their infallibility, an examination by the Bishop who is to grant the licence, is no mark of disrespect either to the clergy who subscribe the testimonial, or to the Bishop who countersigns it. Nor must we forget, that their testimony to doctrine, is mere negative testimony: it goes only as far as they know. Surely then, when a

Bishop is required to declare that he fully

confides in the sound doctrine of a curate, he may be permitted, without offence to any one, to satisfy himself, that he does not make this solemn declaration, without good reason. When a candidate applies

for holy orders, he brings to the Bishop a

similar testimonial; and if he comes from

another diocese, a similar counter-signature from the Bishop of that diocese. But even with such a testimonial, and such a counter signature, he cannot be ordained without examination. Yet no one is offended with such examination; and no one questions the power of a Bishop to reject a candidate, if, with all his testimonials, he is found deficient, either in learning or doctrine. But the canon requires an examination, as well as on the licensing of curates, as on conferring holy orders. For the licensing of curates is not mere matter of form; it is attended with a serious re

sponsibility: and if a curate is licensed,

who delivers doctrines inconsistent with

those of the Established Church, the Bishop who grants the licence, is answerable for the propagation of those doctrines. It is true, that Bishops may be mistaken, as well as the inferior clergy: but in acts for which they are themselves responsible, they must exercise their own judgment to

the best of their own ability." Charge,

p. 24-26, note.

[merged small][ocr errors]

pared to shew that under the pretence of an examination, he has really required subscription to new articles of faith. His adversaries have asserted that this is the fact; but they have not condescended to furnish us with proof; and we are at liberty therefore to take leave of this part of the subject by putting Wilson and his coadjutors. a short and simple question to Mr. Will an incumbent of their religious sentiments employ a curate of the Bishop of Peterborough's religious sentiments or of ours? If such & person should be strongly recommended to them, will they not answer, have they not answered again and again,

The young man is unobjectionable in point of learning and morals, but his views are not scriptural; he is not qualified to teach the Gospel, for he does not the souls of our people to his care?' understand it; we dare not entrust That is to say, he may subscribe the Articles as readily and as conscientiously as any Calvinist in the country, and still fail to convince a Calvinistic incumbent of his competence. Why then should the mere act of subscription convince the Bishop of the diocese? and if the Bishop be unconvinced, is he not legally and morally at liberty to say so?

From this tedious investigation of the legality, we now proceed to the theological part of the question, of which our view must necessarily be superficial and cursory, since "Episcopal Innovation" alone would involve us in all the sophistry and mysticism of the doctrine of Calvin.

into nine chapters, concerning, 1. The Bishop's Questions are divided Redemption by Jesus Christ: II. Original Sin: III. Free-Will: IV. Justitication, 1. in reference to everlasting salvation; 2. in reference to its cause; 3. in reference to the time when it takes place: V. Everlasting Salvation: VI. Predestination: VII. Regeneration: VIII. Renovation: IX. The Holy Trinity.

The Questions are in number eighty-seven and hence it is inferred that the Bishop has added to the Articles, as if each Article comprised but one single undivided proposition, or as if in an examination, founded upon the Articles, one question only could be asked upon one article.

"Of the nine chapters in which these questions are contained, five are on the me subjects, which the Church of Enghand has defined in her Thirty-nine Articles: viz. Original Sin, Free Will, Justification, Predestination, and the Holy Trinity. On the other four chapters, viz. Redemption by Jesus Christ, everlasting Salvation, Regeneration or the New Birth, and Renovation, the Church of England has no Articles. It is evident then, that bis Lordship considers the Thirty-nine Articles defective as to their number and subjects: and not only so, but deficient in clearness and perspicuity. If he does not, why does he make additional Articles? And why does he bring forward subjects, in a new form and manner, which she has already defined? His Lordship evidently thinks that the Thirty-nine Articles, as they are at present constructed, are in sufficient for the purposes for which they were intended: and therefore attempts in his nine chapters, to supply their deficiency both in number and clearness. But if his Lordship's Articles, which are on the same subjects as some of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, agree with them, then I would contend they are altogether unnecessary: and if they differ from them, then I would hope, that he himself would admit, that they ought to be rejected. And as to the additional Articles, when did the Church of England authorize and empower Bishop Marsh to make them? When did Convocation employ him upon a work of such importance and magnitude? And what right or authority has he to impose them

upon others." P. 14.

It is in this style and spirit that Mr. Wilson introduces his "Remarks upon the Bishop of Peterborough's Eighty-four Questions:" and it was reserved for his ingenuity to discover that "the Church of England has no articles" upon Redemption by Jesus Christ, everlasting Salvation, Regeneration, and Renovation, and that a church has

stood for 250 years without a formal recognition of these fundamental doctrines, without publicly professing Redemption as the foundation, and everlasting Salvation as the end and object of our faith and hope. Is it thus that the genuine sons of the Church undertake her defence, by proclaiming her deficiency in the most essential articles? And is it thus that they maintain that the Articles should be subscribed in their " plain and full meaning," in their "literal and grammatical fered Mr. Wilson's temerity to escape sense?" The Layman has not sufwithout the detection and the reproof which it deserves: and be will probably be persuaded to read again the formularies of our Church, before he ventures to repeat the assertion, that upon such and such doctrines the Church has no articles." The second and the thirtyfirst Article treat of Redemption: the seventh Article proposes everlasting Life to mankind by Christ; the eighth Article recognizes the three Creeds, of which the Athanasian Creed distinctly speaks of what" is necessary to everlasting Salvation;" the seventeenth speaks of bringing men by Christ to everlasting Salvation; and the eighteenth in its very title or heading is The ninth Article treats of Rege"Of attaining eternal Salvation.” neration in two separate clauses, in one of which unctis in the Latin Articles is translated by baptized in the English, and the doctrine is further laid down in the fifteenth and twenty-fourth Articles? Is Mr. Wilson's subterfuge in the pretence, that the Church has no Articles expressly headed or entitled "Of Redemption by Jesus Christ, &c. ?" Even this pretence will fail him in respect of eternal Salvation, the title of the eighteenth Article.

It is worthy of remark, that Mr. Budd, in his Sermon, p. 39, requires the exhibition, in the sermons and ministry of the clergy, of three great fundamental doctrines, namely,

"The total ruin of man by sin; with out any spark' of goodness in him; the restoration of man, simply by faith in a crucified Saviour, by which he is reinstated in the divine favour; and the regeneration of man's nature, not merely by the outward sign, but by the reception of the thing signified, the renewing of his soul in holiness, by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Whatever may become of the other doctrines of grace, in our calculation, can it be said, that the Gospel of grace is preached, when these three at least are not implicitly, and pointedly, and perseveringly insisted on?" P. 39.

And the author of Episcopal Innovation agrees with him:

"If any hold but human depravity, native inability, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, faith as the gift of God, and justification by faith alone-he has our friendship, our approbation, and our prayers." P. xv.

Thus regeneration, one of those doctrines, without insisting upon which, the Gospel of grace is not preached; and which he that holdeth, is entitled to the friendship, approbation, and prayers of his brethren; is, nevertheless, one of the doctrines, upon which Mr. Wilson pronounces, that the Church has no Articles. Such disagreement will appear in numerous instances in the present controversy.

The Bishop's first chapter is upon "Redemption by Jesus Christ." We recite the fourth and fifth questions, adding two questions from the sixth chapter, which remove every doubt concerning the Bishop's meaning.

"4. If then Christ died for all men, and God is willing that all men should be saved; must not they who fail of salva tion, fail through their own fault?

5. Does it not then behove us to inquire into the terms of our redemption, that we may learn to do what is necessary on our parts, towards the obtaining of everlasting salvation?

"C. v. 9. 11. Is not then the perform ance of good works a condition of everlasting salvation, though not of justification?

"12. Are conditions of salvation in

compatible with the doctrine, that salvation is the free gift of God? or must we

not rather conclude from the very circumstance, that on the part of God the gift is free, he may annex to the offer, whatever conditions he thinks proper to prescribe ?"

The introduction of the word terms, or conditions, calls forth the old exception:

"Now' terms of redemption' is an unscriptural phrase; there is no such word as terms in the Scripture; much less can we find the phrase, terms of redemption." But not to insist upon this, it is clear, that redemption is confounded with everlasting salvation, in the fifth Question; whereas, according to the title of the chapter, and the first Question, it ought to have been confined and referred solely to the death of Christ. I merely give this as a proof of inaccuracy and ambiguity." Wilson, p. 30, 31.

There is neither inaccuracy nor ambiguity in the Bishop's language; and so far from its being clear, that Redemption is confounded with everlasting salvation, in the fifth Question, they are expressly and particularly distinguished. We have been redeemed freely by the grace of God, without rendering, or having it in our power to render, any thing, as the price and purchase of our redemption: but to this redemption, gratuitous upon his part, God hath annexed certain terms or conditions, upon which, not for which, ceptable. To object that terms is he hath made us accepted, and acnot a scriptural phrase, is as puerile as it would be to object, that the Greek Testament is not written in English, or that the Bible is not a modern system of theology: but the Bishop's argument, and the terms upon which he insists, are found 2 Cor. v. 13; in which the Apostle "died for all; affirms, that Christ that they which live, should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again." These words, in modern language, would be called the terms of our redemption: and the layman shows the coincidence upon this subject, in the language of Bi

as

shop Marsh, with that of Bishop Burnet; whom Mr. Wilson, upon another occasion, approves, strongly as Mr. Budd, in his Appendix, condemns. Mr. Wilson pursues his argument:

"Bat by terms of redemption,' his lordship most probably means terms of everlasting salvation; and it will be most readily granted to him, that without holiDess both of heart and life, a man cannot obtain everlasting salvation; but even then his holiness does not MERIT it." Wilson, P. 32.

There is nothing in the Bishop's language, no inaccuracy or ambiguity, which justifies this imputation; nothing which a plain man may not, if he will both understand and approve. Even terms of everlasting salvation, the phrase which Mr. Wilson seems disposed to approve, is not, according to his own conception, a scriptural expression; nor does it, according to the author of Episcopal Innovation, contain a Sounder or more wholesome doctrine.

“We fear not to say then, in answer to this extraordinary question," (cap. v. qu. 12.)" that conditions of salvation," in his lordship's meaning of conditions, are ut terly incompatible with the doctrine, that salvation is the free gift of God.' It would indeed mix the two dispensations of Law and Gospel, and destroy the proper character of both.

"Conditions, moreover, are absolutely inconsistent with the DESIGN of God, in Or justification and salvation.

"Our Church stamps this system of works with the brand of infamy." Episc. Innov, p. 62.

There is a long paragraph in p. 61, which introduces the answer to the Bishop's question: the editors of the Christian Guardian may be thankful for our forbearance, in not circulating, in unknown quarters, this extraordinary specimen of theological buffoonery.

The Bishop's second chapter is on Original Sin: the first and third questions are:

"1. Did the fall of Adam produce such effect on his posterity, that mankind became a mass of mere corruption, or of

absolute or entire depravity? Or is the effect only such, that we are very far gone from original righteousness, and of our own nature inclined to evil?

"3. Has not the frequent repetition of the doctrine, that we are not only far gone from righteousness, but are nothing better than a mass of mere corruption and depra vity, a tendency to destroy all sense of virtue or moral goodness ?"

It is not a very liberal or ingenu, ous remark of Mr. Wilson,

"I fear his lordship's intention is, as far as in him lies, to lower the doctrine below the standard which our Church has adopted; for if not, why, in the third question, does he leave out the important word VERY,' and put in only far gone from righteousness? This excites my fears and suspicions, that his lordship wishes to lower the doctrine below our authorized stand

ard." Wilson, p. 33.

[ocr errors]

The Bishop in his first question, quotes the words of the Article, and by that quotation annuls the inference from the omission of the word very in the 3rd question: it would be as conclusive reasoning to ask; Why, if he did mean to lower the doctrine, did he not omit the word in the first question. The author of the legality of the questions, pretends, that the Bishop "aims his hensible mode of expression," and weapons against a quaint and repreadds in a note, that

"After the most minute inquiry it does not appear that the expression of men bring a mass of corruption,' in consequence of the fall is used by any of the clergy, so that his Lordship's motive in introducing it seems to be grounded on a misapprehension." P. 27.

The Bishop may however have read what escaped the minute inquiry of this writer, that Mr. Scott, in his Remarks on the Refutation of Calvinism, p. 12, asserts that "the Calvinists do indeed maintain, that fallen man is an unmixed, incorrigible mass of pollution and depravity," so that the Bishop's only misappre hension consists in mistaking pollution and depravity for corruption. This 'quaint and reprehensible mode of expression' is, however, so far from exciting the censure of Mr.

Wilson, and the author of Episcopal Innovation, that they proceed to vindicate it by the citation of parallel passages from the Homilies. The doctrine might have been safely left to the general and indefinite expressions of the ninth article, without deviating into extremities which have no warrant of sacred authority, or referring to texts which apply to particular cases, and not to the ge

neral condition of mankind.

The Bishop's third chapter is on Free-will. This is a doctrine upou which modern Calvinists do not ordinarily insist so earnestly as upon other points of the controversy: it is nevertheless discussed at very considerable length by Mr. Budd, Mr. Wilson, and the author of Episcopal Innovation.

The Bishop, by an uncommon, and as it appears to us, an erroneous interpretation of 2 Cor. iii. 17. brings that text to bear upon the subject of Free-will; and affords Mr. Wilson an opportunity of escaping from the real question, and of enjoying an easy but unimportant triumph.

The Bishop's first question upon justification is:

"Does not the Church of England distinguish justification from everlasting sal

vation ?"

Mr. Wilson approves of this distinction; but he chooses to suppose that the Bishop has endeavoured to prove its reality, not by the questions themselves, which afford a distinct and unanswerable argument, but by a note affixed to one of them, which is an elucidation, not a proof. We notice the circumstance on two accounts; first, because it shews the weakness of Mr. Wilson's cause; and secondly, because it may serve, when contrasted with the following sentences from Episcopal Innovation to prove the inconsistency of the Bishop's adversaries.

"His Lordship could not have undertaken a more difficult task, than to prove, that the Church of England distinguishes

justification from everlasting salvation. For though a critic may make some disthat the Church frequently makes none. tinction between them, it is remarkable, Not only does the Church unite justificacation and salvation, and make them consequent links in the same chain, and evermore mention them in the same connection, but in some cases she absolutely identifies and considers them as one and the same thing." P. 27.

"First, we shall prove that they are NOT SEPARATED but UNITED, and afterwards shew that they are OBTAINED in the

[blocks in formation]

TIFIED." Ibid.

"The Church never separates, but always unites them.” P. 29.

On the extract from the Catement, it is obvious to remark, that chism, and the accompanying comalthough the same character or person is at the same time a member of Christ, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, these characters or titles do also refer to different periods of time. A Christian in virtue of his baptism, is made a member of Christ, and is actually in possession of Church-membership: he is also in virtue of his baptism an inheritor, but he is not actually in possession of his inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, for the heir in possession

ceases to be an heir: the same distinction is made by the apostle, that we being or having been justified, δικαιωθέντες might be made γινώμεθα heirs according to the hope of eternal life. There is an obliquity and perverseness in the quotation from the baptismal office, which is not often paralleled, never surpassed.

"She prays for the baptized, that be will grant them remission of their sins, the

« הקודםהמשך »