Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

the term a life; if the ideas of the Romish Church amounted to its being the existence of a spiritual principle. But no it is rather an animal life in the soul, or a vegetative life, that is implied in their notion of the principle of Religion: for it is a something which is to be continually sustained and nourished by mysterious external applications of what is termed sacramental grace. If the appearance of levity be chargeable on our expressions, we beg once for all to disclaim any feeling that borders upon irreverence with regard to the ordinances of religion themselves, although we are obliged to exhibit in this contemptible light the monstrous perversion of sacred names and sacred things, which superstition has introduced.

[ocr errors]

Religion, then, even according to the Romish Church, bears some analogy to a life. We have seen that this life is supposed to originate in the visible ordinance of Baptism. Hooker himself, in a passage quoted in our last Number, urges as a reason for not administering the Eucharist to the unbaptized, that no dead thing is capable of nourishment.' It would be contrary to the whole hypothesis of the Church, in relation to the necessity and efficacy of the sacraments, to allow of such an inversion of their order. The Church of Rome consistently deeming that the Baptismal sacrament, which can in no case be repeated with regard to the same subject, and that of the Eucharist, were an insufficient provision, as channels of grace, to meet all the exigencies of her members, made use of her Authority in matters of faith, to augment the number of sacraments to seven; the benefit of which act of benevolence is contumaciously rejected by the Protestant Churches.

The number of the sacraments, is, however, a point of subordinate importance, if the principle on which their administration is conducted, be not abandoned. The solemnity of Confirmation, in the English Church, although not nominally a sacrament, has ceased to be considered as such only since the discontinuance of the Unction, from which its ancient name, the Chrism, is derived.* We learn the design of this rite, from the Rubric contained in all the Common-Prayer-Books before the last review, which declares, That forasmuch as CONFIRMATION is ministered to them that be baptized, that by imposition of hands and prayer they may receive strength and defence against all temptations to sin, and the assaults of the world and the devil; it is most meet to be ministered when children come to that age, that partly by the frailty of their

،

* See Wheatley, "Of the Order of Confirmation;" in which he contends in behalf of the ceremony, that it was very ancient and significant, and that the use of it was continued in all parts of the Church, through every century, quite down to the Reformation.

own flesh, partly by the assaults of the world and the devil, they begin to be in danger to fall into sundry kinds of sin.'* The Collect contains the petition, That God,who had vouchsafed to regenerate the persons who now come to be confirmed, by Water and the Holy-Ghost, and had given unto them forgiveness of all their sins, would now strengthen them with the Holy-Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them the gifts of grace, viz :-The sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit.' With respect to its efficacious influence, we might refer to the expressions quoted by Hooker, from Tertullian and Cyprian, as given in the Article on Baptismal Regeneration, which form a comment on the above collect. Remission of sins was, according to the Church, given by Baptism, THE SPIRIT, by imposition of hands. The Fathers every where impute to it that gift or grace of the Holy-Ghost, not which maketh us first Christian men, but, when we are made such, assisteth us in all virtue, armeth us against temptation and sin.' The honour of administering Confirmation, is restricted to the Bishops, as their 'pe6 culiar and incommunicable prerogative as they have the sole honour, so they have also the whole charge of this institution. It must be wholly omitted, if they do not perform it.' 'But though the laying on of hands,' continues this learned expositor of the Book of Common Prayer, is a token that the Bishops act in this office by Divine authority; yet at the same time they sue to heaven for the blessing they bestow, in humble acknowledgement that the PRECIOUS GIFTS HEREBY CONFERRED are not the effect of their own power and holiness, but of the abundant mercy and favour of him, who is the only fountain of all goodness and grace!!

[ocr errors]

We have dwelt the longer on the illustration of this rite as practised in the English Church, because we think it must be allowed to throw considerable light on the disputed import of her other ordinances. If Confirmation be a means of conferring the Holy Spirit, surely it is not incredible that she should also teach that Baptism conveys Regeneration. Let us abide by old Hooker's axiom, which he introduces in answer to some of the specious pleas of the Romanists: In actions of this kind, we are more to respect what the greatest part of men is commonly prone to conceive, than what some few men's wits may devise in construction of their own particular meaning.' The principle on which the Sacraments and Rites of the English Church are administered, we cannot then allow to be essentially different from that which

6

* Wheatley, p. 393.
Hooker, §.66.

+ Ibid. p. 396.
Wheatley, p. 394.

actuates the Romish Church, notwithstanding the particular meaning,' and the construction of the offices devised by pious individuals. The principle is this; an inherent efficacy in the Sacraments legitimately performed, and the consequent adequacy of professional functionaries to the essential ends of the Christian ministry.

[ocr errors]

The fundamental point at issue between the secular and the evangelical clergy, or should we rather say between the Established Church and the Dissenters, is, the great purpose and the necessary qualifications of the Christian Ministry. The Dissenters,' says Mr. Biddulph, in his "Remarks" on Dr. Mant's former Tract, are multiform in doctrine; and some of them, as might be expected, approximate very nearly in 'their views of truth to our own doctrinal articles. Heterodoxy, 'therefore, is not the ground on which they can altogether be 'convicted of error, nor that on which some of them can be addressed at all with any advantage. The real point of general disagreement between us and them, is that of church-government. We believe in the divine origin of 'episcopacy, and in the necessity of a commission from the great Head of the Church, transmitted through the Apostles, by succession, to the regular exercise of the pastoral func'tion. On this, Dissenters of every name are at issue with us.' (p. 186.) This is manly and explicit, and we sincerely wish that all the Evangelical clergy would come to the point with equal directness. Still, Mr Biddulph omits to notice one essential circumstance, which, no less than the regularly transmitted Apostolic Commission, is necessary to the legitimate exercise of the pastoral function in the Established Church; and that is the recognition of the said Commission on the part of the State.

Now, there are only two ways of deciding the point at issue. The one method would be that of external evidence sufficiently strong to bear down all a priori reasonings, and hypothetical objections. A Divine right must be specifically revealed, and the regular transmission of the Commission through the Apostolic pastors of the Church of Rome, is sus ceptible of historic proof.

If this method be abandoned as fraught with uncertainty and danger to the cause of the Church of England, tue alternative remains for Mr. Biddulph to substantiate bis assertions by the internal evidence attending the said Commission, as arising from the reasonableness or the necessity of the case. But this would lead us back to the prior inquiry, which we started at first, namely, What is the nature of that Religion which it is the grand object of the Christian ministry instrumentally to propagate? Does it consist in the mere belief of certain propositions, or in a participation of certain rites? or is it of a na

1

ture to be conveyed to the mind by the efficient means of ecclesiastical ordinances, for which purpose a counterfeit ministry would be unavailing? Is the Apostolic Commission' necessury,' in order to convey the Holy Spirit in Ordination, as well as in Confirmation, Remission of sins in Baptism, and Absolution in the hour of death? Are these the pastoral functions to which Mr. Biddulph alludes? Let him not imagine that any description of Dissenters would attempt to invade so fearful a prerogative as this.

But if Christianity be something more than the reception of a new creed, or an external communion with the visible Church; if it be a religion of life and power; if men require, not merely to be taught, but to be converted, not merely to be mystically regenerated, but renewed in heart and soul; if, in fact, the message of the Gospel be salvation to sinners, and the souls of men are at stake: then, shall we coolly ask if a legitimate Commission or State endowments, are necessary to the discharge of the pastoral function? A legitimate Commission to convert sinners! A warrant from ecclesiastical authority, to preach the glad tidings of a Saviour to dying men! Yes it is the guilt of Dissenters that they despise these qualifications; that, having one Master, and one Saviour, they feel HIS command their sufficient warrant, and the value of their own souls an adequate incentive, to go forth and preach the Gospel to every creature.

So far, then, is the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration from being a solitary error, and so far are the Claims of the Church from being a question of polity or expediency, that the very nature and design of Christianity, together with the import of its essential doctrines, are involved in the discussion. The Evangelical clergy are well aware, that with respect to the extent of human depravity, the necessity of conversion, the spirituality of Christian obedience, no less than what are generally denominated the doctrines of grace, there is between themselves and their self-styled Orthodox brethren of the Establishment, a greater disagreement than exists among the Dissenters, how multiform soever in doctrine they may be, with the exception of the Socinians, and perhaps the followers of the excellent Penn.

The points at issue between the Evangelical clergy and the Dissenters, consisting of hypothetical assumptions on the one hand, and a simple appeal to the New Testament on the other, are after all questions only of order, legitimacy, and discipline. Those on which Dissenters differ among themselves, relate to Baptism, to Church Government, or to confessedly subordinate mat

* See Bp. Horsley's Sermons, Vol. I. p. 286.

ters in theology, respecting which they " think and let think." But the contest within the Establishment, relates to that change which is the very foundation of the Christian character; it involves the very vitality of religion. Yet, strange to say, this Apostolic Commission, this lineal legitimacy, together with the sanction of the State, is esteemed a closer bond of brotherhood, than holding the same " Head," and preaching the same Gospel. *

* We alluded in our last number to a pamphlet by the Rev. Mr. Cunningham, entitled, "Conciliatory Suggestions on the subject of "Regeneration," as being founded on an absolute misapprehension of the real nature and merits of the Controversy. That pamphlet, though obviously well-intentioned, appeared to us to contain some very exceptionable matter; but our purpose was to confine our attention to the main points of the general subject. We are happy to find, however, that it has since drawn forth a manly and spirited remonstrance from the Rev. Mr. Bugg, author of one of the answers to Dr. Mant, reviewed in our last Number. He coincides with us in shewing that Mr. Cunningham does not justly represent the matter by considering it greatly as a strife about words; and adds that Mr. C's supposition, that the parties are ignorant of each other's meaning of the term Regeneration,' is perfectly gratuitous, and conveys an injurious reflection on the writers who have engaged in the present Controversy. Mr. Cunningham's Conciliatory project, is proved by Mr. Bugg to be both erroneous and inefficient : erroneous, as involving the unscriptural and dangerous notion of two Regenerations, the one not necessarily connected with the other; and inefficient, since Dr. Mant contends that there is but one Regeneration, viz: Baptismal Regeneration, possible in this world.'

Mr. Bugg remarks, that it is a very bad habit to pare down the meaning of scriptural and spiritual language into a mere outside; into something which raises the expectation from the sound of its name, but which nevertheless may be possessed without advantage, and predicated upon the vilest man that breathes.' The latitude plea ded for in the "Conciliatory Suggestions," in the application of the term Regeneration, would neither, it is shewn, promote concord, nor secure truth. The discussion respects, according to Mr. Cunningham's own statement, a fundamental doctrine of religion,' and his proposal is, that uniformity should be secured by agreeing to employ the term REGENERATION, in two different senses; both senses, that it is the true and the false, being, according to Mr. Cunningham, so highly important,' that neither party should expect or desire from the other, a surrender of the term!' Mr. Bugg adds, that it is afflicting to remark, with reference to so respectable a Clergyman, that though his own statement appears to make one party contend exclusively for the change of heart and character,' and the other as exclusively for the change of state,' that is, in plain terms, the one for the substance and the other for the shadow,' yet he has not

« ForrigeFortsett »