Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

but of this we suppose Mr. Erskine has some new rendering; so that by his "principles," faith will vanish, and the propitiation remain applicable to all, whether believers

or not.

If the esteemed author whose work has called forth these observations hopes to be useful, as we are quite sure he desires to be, let him both receive and use words in their clear acceptation, and not affix to them new and unheard-of meanings, which they cannot possibly bear. The necessity for this last caution will appear to the most cursory reader. We are told at p. 26, that "heaven is the joy of God;" but at p. 11, first, that it "is the name for a character conformed to God," and then, in the same page, that "it is the name for health in the soul." Again, at p. 55, we learn that "the two great commandments describe heaven as well as duty;" for (p. 57) "the fulfilment of the law is not the way to heaven: it is itself hea ven ;" and in like manner, "an opposition to them in the heart is hell, as well as disobedience." We have, therefore, not only a new meaning for the words heaven and hell, but, in fact, though we are sure not wilfully on the part of the author, an express contradiction to every passage of Scripture which describes heaven as the place of recompense to the obedient, and hell as the place of punishment for sin.

Further, as we said, the term "pardon," as employed by Mr. Erskine, is not that which in general we understand by that word, In the first place, we are told, p. 13 and p. 130, that "pardon is neither happiness nor heaven;" a truism equivalent to the information which should tell us, that sentence is neither punishment nor misery. Then, p. 13, "pardon is the spiritual medicine for the removal of sin," where it is substituted for its intended effect: but at p. 122, "the pardon of the Gospel is another name for holy compassion," where

it is no longer its own effect, but the Divine attribute from which itself springs: and, p. 47, it once again changes its nature, and becomes the atonement of Christ; that is, its immediate procuring cause. Again, we learn at p. 58, that the scriptural examples of prayer for pardon, are not prayers for pardon, but for the sense of pardon; or, in other words, that pardon is not pardon, but the sense of pardon. Thus the prayer taught by our Saviour, " Forgive us our trespasses," is not a prayer for forgiveness, but for the sense of that forgiveness which was granted to us before our sins were committed, nay, long before we ourselves were born.

The errors we have spoken of are so exactly pointed out, and so justly reprobated, by the "judicious" Hooker, that we shall venture to transcribe the passage. "I hold it," he says, "for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more dangerous and deluding than the art which changeth the meaning of words, as alchemy doth, or would do, the substance of metals: this art maketh of any thing what it listeth, and bringeth in the end all truth to nothing." We trust that a writer, who has such large claims upon the esteem of his fellow-Christians as Mr. Erskine, will in future refrain from this dangerous alchemy.

With the peculiar opinions which we have described, as to the meaning of the word " pardon," it is not surprising that our author should not at at all times know what have been its exact effects. Hence we find (p. 17), that though all are pardoned, yet "the penalties are not cancelled." At p. 27, however, we read: "The use of faith is not to remove the penalty, or to make the pardon better; for the penalty is removed, and the pardon is proclaimed, whether we believe it or

not." Again, at p. 144, we are told," The pardon is universal; and still it may with propriety and consistency, be said that until man receives it into his own heart, he is under condemnation," So that pardon is something which "removes" without cancelling the penalty of sin, and which though "it belongs to man as a sinner" (p. 61), "whether he believes it or not, yet leaves him under condemnation till he does believe it." We would not speak harshly; but surely such inconsistencies betray, at least, great carelessness, if not the want of understanding, in what is affirmed.

We could have been content to stop here; but it may be expected that we should say something of the superstructure raised upon this unstable foundation : and here again, we can by no means fully, agree with Mr. Erskine. Though, for instance, there is much in what he says on self-love and love to God, which will find an echo in every Christian bosom, he carries the doctrine to an extent not attainable by any human, or, perhaps, any created being. Even in the case of the angels themselves, we do not imagine that admiration sets aside gratitude.

"The object of the Gospel," says our author, pp. 92, 93, "is to displace self and the creature from the heart, to restore the love of God to the supremacy which is its due, and thus to restore man to his place in the happy family of God." "Self," he tells us (p. 142), " is the great Antinomian, because it is the great Antichrist:" and accordingly he considers that God must be loved quite independently of any reference to ourselves, "for his own sake, and not for his gifts." But why not for both? Why not with the love of gratitude, and with the love of admiration also? To us the sentiment of St. John is perfectly conclusive: "We love God, because he first loved us." Unquestionably, religion appeals to our personal feelings, or it must appeal to us in vain: its object is

not to annihilate self-love, but to direct it aright, to "make us love that which is commanded, and desire that which is promised;" to teach us that our real happiness will be found in her paths, and not in those of sin. It unquestionably calls upon us to love God: but it is by our personal interest in the merciful disclosures of the Gospel, that they become calculated to implant this love in our hearts. We may approve and admire amiableness in the abstract; but our affections are drawn towards those who exhibit it, only as we are brought into contact with them. Filial affection is the return for parental care: "Faith worketh by love" to God, because faith perceives the love of God towards man, even that which has created, supported, and redeemed him. God is loved for his gifts; still, however, not so much on their own account, as because they prove His love. Indeed though Mr. Erskine denies this in terms, he admits it in fact, and most gladly do we quote, in proof of this, the following beautiful passage.

its being a true representation of the gra "The value of the Gospel consists in cious character of God in relation to his rebellious creatures. Jesus Christ is the subject of the Gospel, for He is God in relation to sinners. The Gospel tells us how full of love He is towards sinners, in all his feelings, and in all his actions. It tells us of a love beyond utterance and conception, of his humbling himself even to the death of the cross for them, of his suffering for them on earth, and of his rejoicing for them in heaven. It tells us that this is our God, the God who made us, and with whom we have to do; that this is he from whom we have been turning away with fear, or hatred, or disgust, or indifference, and who yet hath all along been thus loving us, and hath been putting forth his love to us continually, in every breath which we draw, and in all the care, and protection, and support which we experience; and it tells us all this, that we may be constrained to love him supremely, and to choose him for our portion, and to depend on him with an absolute confidence, and thus to have our individual will subordinated to his

will."

All this is as correct as it is beautiful: but when we are told

that self must have no portion in our love, we would ask, how then can we love our neighbour? For we are commanded to love God supremely, but our neighbour as ourselves. Yes, supremely; for to set limits to our love to the adora ble Source of all that is lovely, is an idolatrous attachment to the creature above the Creator. Let our author carry his ideas of love to God, to all that the "seraphic" Fenelon aspired after, or the deeply reasoning Edwards proved, and we will joyfully pray and endeavour to follow his footsteps: we will acknowledge that whatever were excess and enthusiasm elsewhere, here is but sober reason: only let us not forget that we are still created beings, who may and must be influenced by the actual emanation, as well as by the contemplation, of the essence of the Father of our spirits, and that the very absorption of our self-love into the love of God, is itself but a higher, a refined species of self-love. But we forbear enlarging on this fruitful theme. Our readers will find some excellent remarks upon it in one of Dr.Chalmers'sTronChurch Sermons. While, however, we thus state our objections to the system of Mr. Erskine, it would be most unjust not to admit that there are many passages in his Essay, which, taken independently, challenge great and just admiration. Such, for example, is that we have transcribed just above, and eminently such is the following.

"The laws of nature are the continual actings of God. There is no power in the universe but His; and where His power is, there is he. He made the clay, and sustains it with his qualities, and in whatever form it may be; the cessation of his will that it should exist, would be the cessation of its existence. The uninterrupted actings of that will are the laws of nature, and in every one of these actings is the entire Godhead. The course of nature, the elements, the order of events, the existence and movement of all matter, are the direct actings of God. And are not the existence and movement of mind, too, His actings? Surely, it is so, and must be so; and yet CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 326.

I feel that my will works contrary to His. My will is the sustained creature of His will from moment to moment, incapable of a single act without power communicated from Him, and yet I am conscious that it works contrary to Him, and is [that I am] morally responsible ful for me, I cannot attain unto it." for [its] so doing. This is too wonder

The passage, however, which most calls out every sympathy in the Christian reader is that with which the author concludes his work. Amidst all the errors into which we cannot but consider him to have fallen, this paragraph shews such a meek and holy and humble spirit, as leaves no room to doubt but that the promise he quotes for the encouragement of others shall be fulfilled to himself.

look

"Reader, farewell. I believe that what I have written is according to the word of God; and as far as it is so, I may would be an unspeakable joy to me to up to Him for a blessing upon it. It have any reason to think that it has been really honoured by him to be the bearer of a message to your soul. At all events, I citing the spirit of controversy in you. If trust it may not do you the injury of exyou do not agree with it, lay it down and go to the Bible; and if you do agree with it, in like manner lay it down and go to the Bible; and go in the spirit of prayer

to Him whose word the Bible is, and ask of Him, and He will lead you into all truth-He will give you living water.

[ocr errors]

May it be so to us also! We have made the preceding remarks not in "the spirit of controversy," but from a fear lest the merited celebrity of our author's name, and the wide estimation in which, owing to his former essays, he is held, should give such authority to his statements as might mislead some; or (and still more) lest, on the other hand, the confusion which we think he has introduced into the subject, should increase and confirm in others their heedless prejudices against the fundamental and allimportant doctrine of justification, through the merits of Christ, by faith. It will be seen, that we have not touched, chiefly for brevity's sake, upon many of the subjects to which the discussion would have led us; we have not even considered it necessary to shew the wide Q

distinction between Mr. Erskine's views and those of the Church of England; the catechism of which he quotes in corroboration of his argument,-"redeemed all mankindsanctifieth the elect people of God." It is, we believe, very generally considered by the divines of that communion, that their church holds the doctrine of universal redemption and particular salvation; the intricacies of which Gordian knot we shall not now attempt to unravel: we for the present leave wiser men to contend on the two sides of the argument; difficulties, doubtless, there are on both. All that we now mean to urge is, that Mr. Erskine's hypothesis is not to be confounded with this longlitigated question: his view is as novel as, we are persuaded, it is untenable; and we shall rejoice to learn that further consideration has led him in Christian wisdom and candour wholly to re model it.

The Spiritual Duties of the Christian Minister; a Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Bath and Wells, in July 1828. By the Right Reverend G. H. LAW, D. D. Second Edition. Wells. 1828.

OUR attention was directed to this very interesting Charge by the following passage in the Supplement to the last Number of the Gentleman's Magazine:-"It is expressly stated in the Charges of the Bishops of Salisbury and Bath and Wells, that Evangelical preaching has the tendency of producing Antinomianism; that is, demoralization of the people and infidelity." We have not the Bishop of Salisbury's Charge at this moment before us; but we do not believe the assertion, because his lordship has often stated quite the contrary, both in private and in print. With regard, however, to the Bishop of Bath and Wells's Charge, there is no such "express statement;" there is, in fact, no

mention of" Evangelical preaching:" what the bishop really says is, and we perfectly agree with his lordship, and so would all "Evangelical preachers," that "it is always dangerous and delusive to trust to the imagination and feelings, instead of placing our belief and reliance on the sure unerring word of the Gospel;" and that "an age of enthusiasm has always been succeeded by an age of infidelity." This is true; but "enthusiasm" is not, as the Gentleman's Magazine concludes, a synonyme with "Evangelical preaching." The preaching which deserves the epithet "Evangelical," so far from promoting "demoralization and infidelity," is the strongest safeguard against both.

We will not, however, do injustice to our brother reviewer; for though the bishop does not mention "Evangelical preaching," he certainly does by implication allude to the prevalence of some dangerous tenets in the church, against which he cautions his clergy; but with the most perfect sincerity we assure both his lordship and Mr. Urban, that these tenets do not characterize what is popularly called " Evangelical preaching."

The matter is this; his lordship had been enumerating "the spiritual duties of the clergy;" as the foremost of which he most justly specifies "propounding and explaining to their hearers the full and entire word of God;" which he further explicates as follows:

"To enforce some favourite doctrine, to impress some peculiar opinions, passages of Scripture have been brought forward, separately and disjunctively. The preacher has thus promulgated a truth, but not the whole truth; has taught a part, but not the whole of what has been delivered on these controverted points. Thus, for example: In reply to the most important question which man could ask,

have eternal life?' we are told, and by What good thing shall I do that I may the Son of God himself, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' We are perfectly sure, therefore, that' without holiness, no man shall see the Lord.' But though this be a declaration of incalculable importance, yet would our hearers be left

[ocr errors]

n ignorance of the main principle of the Christian religion, if they did not at the same time hear and know, that there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, except that of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.' If, however, they be persuaded to add to their faith, virtue; if they be induced to lead a holy, and an useful life, upon the true scriptural principle, then the Christian character is full and complete, nothing wanting. Then, we build our hopes on that foundation which will never fail; Jesus Christ himself being the chief cor

ner-stone.

"In like manner we are told by St. Paul, that it is God which worketh in us, both to will and to do, of his good pleasure.' There are other passages, however, which call upon us not to quench the Spirit; to grow in grace; and to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. The whole of Scripture, then, bearing upon this point, must be brought forward together, or else we may excite an erroneous opinion, respecting the operation and influence of God's Holy Spirit. Then only we are safe, when we rely solely and entirely upon that strength which is from on high; whilst at the same time we labour and strive, as if all depended on ourselves." pp. 19, 20.

The Right Reverend author proceeds to apply the same argument to the doctrine of predestination, concluding the whole as follows:

--

"The foundation should be laid in sound scriptural doctrines. We should then proceed to erect the temple of God

in the hearts of our hearers. Whatever may induce men to place practical moral virtue in the back ground, whatever leads them to disregard deeds of benevolence and brotherly love, such a religion can never have proceeded from the fountain of all good. The sum and substance of Christianity may be compressed into a small compass, and it is this. We must have faith in Jesus Christ; and we must also endeavour to practise what he has enjoined. Then, through his alone merits and mediation, we may at length hope to hear this promised sentence, Well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.'"' pp. 22, 23.

Having thus stated his position, our respected and amiable prelate proceeds to apply it as follows, in the passage to which theGentleman's Magazine seemingly alludes:—

"But though all the tenets of our religion appear to be thus in harmony with each other, thus clear and indisputable, yet the Church, alas! instead of being at unity within itself, is sadly torn asunder by contentions and schism. The rent, however, does not reach to the centre.

The main difference exists with a class, very considerable in number, highly respectable in character and conduct and who are found in the bosom of our church. These, however, I would remind, in the true spirit, I hope, of Christian charity, that it is always dangerous and delusive to trust to the imagination and feelings, instead of placing our belief and reliance on the sure unerring word of the Gospel. Fain, too, would I impress on their recollection, that an age of enthusiasm has always been succeeded by an age of infidelity. And to both parties I would observe, that an house divided against itself cannot stand. Mutual explanations, ten. dered and received as they ought to be, would go far in bringing back the disputants to a better understanding with each other. At least, let no bitter words proceed from the mouth of either party. Let no malign accusations degrade the character of a teacher of religion. For, are we not believers in the same Gospel? are we not aspirants to the like hopes of glory, through the mediation of the same atoning Saviour?" pp. 23, 24.

[ocr errors]

To us it is perfectly novel intelligence, that there is in the bosom of the church a class "very considerable in number, and highly respectable in character and conduct," who deny the "harmony" of Christian doctrine and practice. There may be here and there a Pelagian on the one hand, or an Antinomian on the other; the one disparaging faith, the other good works; but neither of these classes, we would hope, is very consi derable in number;" and certainly neither is "respectable" as ministers of Christ. But the Gentleman's Magazine is pleased to solve the difficulty, and to point the moral, by telling us that the Right Reverend prelate refers to what are called [for ourselves we utterly reprobate party names] the "Evangelical Clergy." The description, we allow, would agree with this body, so far as numbers and "respectability of character and conduct are concerned; but it utterly fails of designating them where it speaks of the anomalous class in question as not inculcating the doctrines that "without holiness no man shall see the Lord," that we must " grow in grace," that we must not "quench the Spirit," that we must "work out our salva

« AnteriorContinuar »