the candidate's faith *, combined with a capacity to "answer to the questions of the Catechismt," a right sense of the meaning of the baptismal obligation, and a sincere intention to perform it, is suffi. ciently evident, as well from the fearful profanation which must result from a mere adherence to the letter of the mandate, as from the recorded sentiments of some of her most orthodox and accredited authorities." I must entreat you," as Secker charged his clergy, "to endeavour that none be brought, but those who, to speak in the language of the Rubric, are come to years of discretion,' who have learned, not the words only, but, in a competent degree, the meaning of what was promised for them in baptism, who can say with seriousness and truth, (what surely else they ought not to say at all,) that in the presence of God and the congregation, they ratify and confirm the same in their own persons‡.' To the same purpose speaks Bishop Burnet, and perhaps more plainly:" With catechising, a minister is to join the preparing those whom he instructs to be confirmed, which is not to be done merely upon their being able to say over so many words by rote. It is their renewing their baptismal vow in their own persons which the church designs by that office, and the bearing in their own minds a sense of their being bound immediately by that which their sureties then undertook for them. Now, to do this in such a manner as that it may make impression, and have a due effect upon them, they must stay till they themselves understand what they do, and till they faith, according to the catechism in the said book contained." The rubric in the Catechism respecting Confirmation, more accords with the letter of the archbishop's words, and probably was in his mind. "All such as he shall think fit to be presented to the bishop to be confirmed."

See the words of the canon quoted above. Preface to Confirmation Service, and Rubric appended to the Catechism. Secker, Charges, p. 53.

have some sense and affection to it: and therefore, till one is of an age and disposition fit to receive the holy sacrament of the Lord's supper, and desires to be confirmed, as a solemn preparation and qualification for it, he is not yet ready for it; for, in the common management of that holy rite, it is too visible, that of those multitudes that crowd to it, the far greater part come merely as if they were to receive the bishop's blessing, without any sense of the vow made by them, and of their renewing their baptismal engagement in it*."

Nothing can be more satisfactory than these recorded judgments of two of the authorized guardians of our church, deservedly of great name among us. It needs only be added, that the compliance with the letter of the mandate, in a large majority of instances, gives plausible ground to the objections of Dissenters, is utterly inconsistent with the spiritual character of our church, and the spiritual engagements she requires from her members, and reduces the ordinance of Confirmation to an empty ceremony, productive of no possible benefit to the persons confirmed, and bearing only the stamp of wilful falsehood, and solemn mockery, insulting to the presence and house of a holy, jealous God. The difficulty, however, that is often and painfully felt, of complying with what has been usually considered the requisition of the church, will be materially diminished, by a decided course of applicatory instruction. In my own case, I have found it curious and most affecting to observe the effect consequent upon this system. At the commencement of the course, all the catechumens were constant in their attendance; but as the subject gradually approached into closer contact with their consciences, and was brought closer still by individual inquiry and grappling remonstrances, the numbers gradually

Burnet's Pastoral Care, ch. viii.

diminished, (as in Gideon's army, though not in the same fearful proportion,) until they had dwindled down to one half of their original complement. The mixed multitude soon began to find the gate too strait, and the way too narrow, for their pleasures, self-indulgence, and habits of sin, and retired; they discovered that they had altogether mistaken the matter, and that what they had conceived to be only a decent form, or perhaps a day of mirth, involved a profession which in common honesty they dared not make, and obligations which they had neither desire nor purpose to bind upon their consciences. And though they were repeatedly warned that declining the public profession still left the obligations of the baptismal vow in their full force, yet there was a solemn aggravation of hypocrisy in the profession, without any possible good resulting from it, that, when pressed with closeness upon their consciences, they had not the hardihood to presume upon. They were often assured of my earnest desire that they should be confirmed, while I felt it most incumbent upon me to explain to them the real nature of Confirmation, or the ratification "with their own mouth and consent, openly before the church, of their baptismal engagement of renunciation, faith, and obedience." If they were willing "to confirm this promise in their own persons," it was equally my duty and privilege to encourage them. But if they were in heart and life unwilling, would they not present themselves to the bishop with a falsehood in their mouths; the guilt of which would be in no degree diminished by the awful fact of a multitude answering with them in it, but rather would be aggravated by every circumstance of the occasion; the light and knowledge which made it wilful, and the presence of God in his own house, with the minister and representatives of his church? By this mode, there was little occa

sion for a stretch of ministerial prerogative. Their drawing back was their own act and deed. It was not that I forbad them, but that they declined: the discouragement, indeed, to their wishes and intentions, was at my door; but the responsibility of declining the profes sion was entirely their own. It is obvious, that the tone of system would be widely different with the more encouraging cases, and with those also, where the first marks of discouragement began to exhibit a more hopeful and favourable aspect. Not a few there will be, at this important season, who will call us closely to tread in our beloved Master's steps, in his merciful tenderness in not breaking the bruised reed or quenching the smoking flax. But with the careless, the more respectable, who still remain either unintelligent or unimpressed, and even with the doubtful, this system may be pursued in perfect consistency with ministerial tenderness, though not indeed, (in some instances more especially,) without some conflict with our personal feelings, and probably some taking up of a ministerial cross. It is important in all cases to hold out the language of invitation to the last stage of inquiry, lest we seem to prescribe limits to the grace of God, and hinder, as far as men can do, the operation of his own work, by want of conciliation, patience, and love.

(To be continued.)

ON THE PHRASE "THE CHARACTER OF GOD."

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

In writing upon religious subjects, especially upon the knowledge of God, our expressions should be strictly scriptural. When we use the direct words of holy writ, we can be in no danger of falling into any impropriety; but when we use

our own phraseology, we justly subject it to examination. On this principle, I would call the attention of your readers to the common phrase, the CHARACTER of God. The term, simply as a term, is indeed applied in Scripture to Christ. Heb. i. 3; "The brightness of his glory (the glory of God), and the express image (Greek, character) of his person" (subsistence). But the term is not here applied in any such sense as that which is intended when a modern theologian speaks of the CHARACTER of God; which phrase he uses as a comprehensive expression, to set forth collectively the attributes of the Deity. But the term in such a sense is not scriptural; and I object to it, as appearing to indicate an unseemly approach to irreverent familiarity.

To give a character of another, seems to place the giver of the character, and the person of whom the character is given, too much upon a sort of equality. It implies also an assumption of intimacy, which, with our very superficial knowledge of the perfection of the Divine attributes, strikes, upon my own apprehension, as unbecoming. În In Scripture, we have indeed, as it were, a glimpse given us of the attributes of God; but in regard to pronouncing upon what is styled his character, we may well ask, in the words of inspiration, "Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection? It is as high as heaven, what canst thou do? deeper than hell, what canst thou know ? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea." (Job xi. 7-9.) To speak of the character of God, might lead a person incautiously to think of him as if he were altogether such an one as himself; but my scruples would be removed, if I could be satisfied, that the use of the phrase comports with the ineffable dignity and holiness of him to whom it is applied; and that it also aptly agrees with "the

depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, whose judgments are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out."

Z.

IS THE LAW OUR SCHOOLMASTER?

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

THE Apostle Paul teaches that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith;" but adds, that "after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster; for we are the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus." In reference to these important declarations, I request permission to submit to the consideration of your readers, more especially those of the ministry, a passage in Limborch's System of Divinity. Having in the third book, chap. i. sect. 9, given a very clear and satisfactory statement "of the insufficiency of the Law of Moses for justification," he says (I quote Jones's translation):

"But here another question arises; namely, whether at present among Christians, the law be our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ. This, indeed, is the opinion of some, who suppose that men are first to be terrified by the threatenings of the law, but not to despair, that so they may betake themselves to the mercy of God in Christ. But these men do mightily mistake the meaning of St. Paul's words. For he does not say that the law should always be our schoolmaster; but only has regard to the time past before the birth of Christ, and tells us that then it did perform that office; and especially, with respect to the ceremonies, the types of Christ, and upon account of that imperfect grace, which put them upon seeking that which was more perfect, to be found in Christ alone. Now it is ridiculous that men who know themselves to be freed from the

obligation and threats of the law, should yet desire to be terrified by them. Nor is it to the purpose to say, that the Gospel makes use of the threatenings of the Law to deter sinners, since it has no occasion for such assistance, having weightier and more grievous denunciations of its own, to terrify the impenitent, than any contained in the Law."

I am anxious to draw the attention of the ministers of our church to this question; because I believe that those of them who adopt the principle which Limborch rejects, are at variance with the church to which they belong. The church does not employ "the Law," (neither the Law of Moses, nor that more general system, extracted out of it, and confirmed by the testimonies of reason and conscience, which is considered as the primitive and universal law of mankind,) as its "schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ." On the contrary, the Catechism, which it requires every one of its children to learn, teaches us that we have all been called into a state of salvation through Jesus Christ," and leads us to look upon ourselves as received into the bonds of the Christian covenant at our baptism. To that covenant, it consequently refers us in all its warnings, exhortations, and encouragements; and not to any exclusive "covenant of works," under which we might have been antecedently to the "grace of Christ." It assures us at confirmation, that we have been " regenerated," provided we then exercise "repentance, whereby we forsake sin, and faith, whereby we believe the promises of God," and are sincerely desirous of "keeping God's holy will and commandments." It goes farther than this; it assumes that such a disposition will be generally found in those who have received a Christian education, and are so brought to partake of its rites and ordinances. Hence it not only makes its daily worship that of penitent, confiding, and devoted congregations; but it actually invites

them all to the holy communion. And even in the case of those individuals of whom it entertains the greatest fears, what is its language? Does it tell them, "You have never been admitted into the Christian covenant; you are still in a state of nature, and under the penalties of the law of works?" No; its admonition is of a very different kind : "Repent you of your sins, or else come not to that holy table; judge yourselves, that ye be not judged of the Lord;" "Repent ye truly for your sins past; have a lively and stedfast faith in Christ our Saviour; amend your lives, and be in charity with all men so shall ye be meet partakers of those holy mysteries."

If any person will dispassionately consider the formularies of the church, he surely must acknowledge that I have not overstated its principles on this great question. Is it then, I would humbly inquire, consistent in a minister who has conformed to the church in the desk, at the font, and at the altar, to adopt quite another view when he ascends the pulpit? Can he properly, as a minister of the Church of England, treat the vast majority of the congregation as persons who are still under the law;" and by expatiating on its "extent, spirituality, and awful sanctions,' endeavour, as if de novo, to urge them to come to Christ? Would it not, at least, be much more consistent to urge upon them the whole obligation of the baptismal covenant, of which "the keeping of the commandments of God," as those commandments are fully explained and enforced in the Gospel, is an essential part? Would it not be far more in character to say: "God in his mercy has caused you to be born under the dispensation of the Gospel; you were therefore received into the church in your infancy, in the expectation that when you arrived at years of discretion you would confirm the covenant then made on your behalf. Accord

ing to that covenant, you are members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven, if you will forsake and renounce sin, believe in Christ, and keep God's holy will. But if you do not thus practically ratify this covenant; if you continue in any evil practice, if you reject or disregard the Saviour, if you do not actually lead a holy life; oh! how will you appear before the judgment-seat of Christ ?"

I should be entering on too wide a field, were I to investigate the Scriptural foundation for what appears to me to be the clear sense of our church on this important subject. I will therefore content myself with observing that the one authoritative declaration, "Now God commandeth all men, every where, to repent, because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that Man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead," amply warrants the extension of 66 THE LAW CHRIST," (Matt. xxviii. 20; Gal. vi. 2; Rom. iii. 31; and vi. passim; 1 Cor. ix. 21; 1 Thess. iv. 2; Titus ii. 11-15; James, Peter, John, Jude, passim,) to every person who hears the Gospel. The other view and mode of address have not been found, as I conceive, in the records of our religion; but they have been derived into our modern divinity from some early Protestant systems, which were themselves the offspring of the scholastic theology. The root of the error probably consisted in a mistaken apprehension of the introductory argument of the Epistle to the Romans. Because the Apostle there shews the necessity of the redemption of Christ to all mankind, inasmuch as neither the Jews could obtain salvation by their law, nor the Gentiles by "the law written in their hearts," it seems to have been supposed that every man in whom the Gospel might not yet have produced its due effect, was to be considered as left exactly in

the state in which his fallen nature had placed him. But such was not the Apostle's conclusion respecting the Jews; who, he tells us, would be "judged by the law,"-not the law of human nature, but that law which they had expressly received from God. Neither, therefore, ought we to draw such an inference concerning Christian nations; who will as certainly be brought forth to judgment, according to that revelation of the mercy and righteousness of God, which has been made to them by the Lord Jesus Christ.

You might not think it for the use of edifying, to open up for controversy in your pages some of the points of Calvinistic and Arminian theology which appear closely connected with the present discussion; but one point I consider incontrovertible, that not only the doctrinal representations, as well in the Holy Scriptures as in the Articles of our Church, which many understand according to the notion of an absolute Sovereignty, are consistent with invitations, promises, and admonitions; but must have been intended by the respective authors to be understood in consistency with them. "Work out your salvation, for God worketh in you," brings the apparently contrary ideas into perfect congruity, and discloses the elementary principles of the system (for it is one and the same) of the Apostles and of our Reformers.

I have but one further remark to offer on the subject; but that, if its justice be admitted, is of paramount importance. I am inclined to think that not a little of the want of success, of which many of my more serious and earnest brethren in the ministry are heard to complain, may be attributed to their deviation from the course which had been prescribed by the church. They ought, I conceive, as ministers and ambassadors of Christ, to embrace, as it were, all the people committed to their pastoral care in the arms of Divine mercy, and then affectionately to ask, "How shall we escape,