Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

who have at any time been most negligent of that which is now popularly, and with just limitations properly called evangelical preaching, and who have insisted chiefly on such topics as the attributes of God, the resurrection, and the last judgment, or who have treated separately of repentance, humility, meekness, temperance, charity, and other Christian graces, can be justly charged with delivering " a system of ethics little better than the Heathen instruction which it superseded." If the absence of those leading doctrines of the fall of man, justification by faith alone, and other truths, which are now sometimes made the form and substance of religion, constitutes the offence of moral preaching, may not the same offence be imputed to the Sermon on the Mount, to the hortatory conclusions of St. Paul's Epistles, to the Epistle of St. James, to the writings of the Primitive Fathers, to some of the Homilies, which in the judgments of some men have a sacred and almost prescriptive authority, and to the discourses of many of the best and most profound of English theologians, whose writings abound in the fullest and most varied expositions of Christian truth. If the most distinguished of the moral preachers, Blair, or Sturm, or or Samuel Clarke, preached "little better than Heathen instruction," will it be contended, that the doctrines and maxims of Aristotle, of Cicero, and of Epictetus, were little worse than Christian? Have the Heathen and the Christian preachers been known to draw the attention of mankind to the same virtues and the same vices, to enforce the same common responsibility of all men, and to direct their hopes and their fears, to the same eternal recompense of evil and of good? Has the Heathen philosophy in its highest elevation, or the Christian morality in its lowest degradation, in any degree approximated to the

same standard of truth and righteousness? If there has not been this agreement, if the alleged parallelism between the Heathen and the Christian writers is merely of a negative cast, and consists altogether in the omission, or in the inadequate notice of the fall of man, may not another parallel with equal truth and candour be drawn, between the Heathen philosophers and certain Christian preachers, by whom the doctrine of the last judgment is less fully insisted upon than it requires to be? Nothing, however, can be more unjust, than to impute to public preachers, whose doctrines are founded in the Scriptures of truth, the adoption of a "system of ethics little better than the Heathen instruction which it superseded." There are many reasons, and many topics of pastoral exhortation, in which the preacher, whose judgment is not biassed in the interpretation of Scripture, will not think it necessary to insist on what are improperly called, the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, which he cannot interpret at any time in a sense agreeable to the British Reviewers. It is easy to make the fall of man and the grace of God, the two sole causes of all effects in religion and morality: and to infer from the omission of these doctrines, upon any occasion, however irrelevant their introduc tion might be, a general charge of moral preaching.

Dr. Copleston preached a Sermon for the benefit of the Devon and Exeter Hospital; the Sermon was afterwards published, and was reviewed in the Christian Observer, in which it was described, as "completely exclusive of every motive to benevolence deduced from the principles, which are peculiar to the Christian dispensation;" as "having little or no claim to the appellation of a Christian dis. course;" and such as mutatis mutandis might have "been delivered in the porch, or in the academy,

in a Mahometan mosque, or in a Jewish synagogue." Dr. Copleston naturally felt the wrong, which was done by this gross misrepresentation of his argument, and having endeavoured in vain to obtain a correction of this misrepresentation, republished the Sermon with the charges annexed. Thus the doctrine of the Sermon was maintained, and the justice of the reviewer's charge was denied. It is remarked, most probably with allusion to this controversy, by another writer in the British Review, in a candid and temperate critique on the Provost's Inquiry into the Doctrines of Necessity and Predestination :

“If any doubt has ever been made of the strength and quality of the Christianity of Dr. Copleston, we do not think, that such doubt ought in common candour to survive the perusal of this Discourse, in which we find the true spirit of the Gospel breathing in every line,-the scholar tempered into the disciple,-the accomplished reasoner bowing to the discipline of the cross, the man adorned above most in our day with those gifts, which minister occasion to self esteem and encourage ideas of human dignity, avowing his own inherent guiltiness before God, his reliance on Christ alone for pardon and acceptance, as attainable only by his grace, and the sanctification of the Holy Spirit."

There is nothing peculiar in the case of Dr. Copleston, except the high merit and character of the person unjustly suspected and accused. There are many others, of the purity and integrity of whose doctrine, of the strength and quality of whose Christianity, if any doubt had been suggested by the delivery and publication of one and another discourse, that doubt ought in common candour to cease on the more full developement of their religious opinions, and whose censors ought to blush and be ashamed of the presumption and the precipitancy, with which they infer from single cases, hardly understood, a general charge against the English Clergy of preaching "little better than heathen instruction." Nor is

this, according to the reviewer, whose observations principally challenge our attention, the full height or front of their offending.

"We are quite sure, that in endeavouring to excite attention to a spiritual and superior cast, both of teaching and preaching in all who minister in holy things, we shall incur no hazard of being understood to recommend the exhibition of any crude doctrinal theories; much less to advocate any other than the most practical and experimental course of instruction. Our simple object is to guard against the desecration of the sacred office by a merely moral style of preaching, which is neither honourable to the Law nor to the Gospel,

which leaves whole congregations in the quiescent though perilous state of spiritual darkness and security in which it found them, and of which, we fear, it may be too truly predicated, that it is not even its object or design to turn many from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God."

Experimental instruction is the language and study of a sect: practical instruction, comprehending Christian truth in combination with Christian righteousness, is the great duty of the Christian minis. try, and it is neither candid nor just to assume, that that duty is neglected. But what shall be thought of this series of gratuitous insinua, tions, that there is a style of preaching, which not only in effect "leaves whole congregations in the quiescent, though perilous state of spiritual darkness in which it found them," but of which it is also feared, "that it may be too truly predicated, that it is not even its ob ject or design to turn many from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God." This sentence can impute no less to a certain portion of the Clergy, than a wilful and deliberate indifference to the object and design of their sacred office, a profane and callous disregard to the salvation of themselves, and those that hear them. Be it, that there are some, by whom the "full and unreserved exposition of the humbling and trans forming doctrines of the cross," is

are

less appreciated than it deserves to be, and that there are some by whom the doctrines themselves are variously interpreted and understood; it is nevertheless affirmed, with confidence, that there none the object or design of whose preaching is NOT in agreement with the recorded commission of St. Paul, to turn many from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, as far as their "faculties" will allow, and as far as is consistent with the existing circumstances of the Church upon the earth.

Upon the important truths for which he contends, the reviewer observes the difference of some, and the agreement of all, which it is happily not in our province to explain, as it is not in our power to comprehend.

"We desire to institute no invidious comparisons; but it is impossible, with all our unfeigned attachment to the Church of England, (and we are, perhaps, rendered somewhat more quicksighted on account of that very attachment,) not to observe a difference between some, who minister at the same altar. We had rather, indeed, that they, who may derive benefit from the discovery, should discern this difference for themselves, than be more particularly reminded of it by any plainer statement on our part; but we will simply observe, that the good of souls-the security of the national establishment-the very existence of the country-all appear to demand the fall and unreserved exhibition of the humbling and transforming doctrines of the cross. All unite in declaring, that the necessity of repentance and renunciation of sin cannot be too earnestly enforced; that faith in Christ, as the fundamental principle of our common Christianity, and alone sufficient to produce the fruits of righteousness, cannot be too distinctly inculcated as essential to salvation that the influence and agency of the Holy Spirit, (in his ordinary operations, indeed, but not less certain, because not extraordinary,) cannot be too strenuously maintained- and that the meagre statement of mere moral duties, abstracted from and unconnected with, a justifying faith, cannot be too carefully avoided." The same sentiments are

ex

pressed, with the usual variations of uncharitable suspicion, in another part of the article.

"Still it is not to be doubted or dis

guised, that there exists an entire and

essential difference between certain views

and statements of Divine Truth, within the pale of the same ecclesiastical establishments; or perhaps we should rather say, that cases are not uncommon, where Divine Truth is scarcely exhibited at all in its sacred lineaments and due proportions, but is superseded by the lifeless and spiritless ethics of natural religion, a system altogether destitute of the vitality and power of a revelation from heaven, and neither calculated to confer honour upon God, nor to improve the condition of his creatures. We fear it is a truth, which however painful to tell, and however unwelcome to hear, is still not less a truth-that in some quarters, the genuine and life-giving principles of our early reformers, as displayed in their doctrinal instructions, exhibited in their holy lives, and embodied in their invaluable formularies, are found no longer; and that a cold and heartless system of mere morals has usurped the place of the only legitimate principles, which Christians can safely recognize as the rule of their faith, and the guide of their practice. Now we apprehend, that Mr. Richardson, least of all men, intended to apologise........for the absence of sound scriptural instruction in any case; and still less to assert or in timate, that it was of no importance whether truth or something else than truth were propounded from our pulpits. No one better understood than himself the indispensable importance of that kind of instruction which can alone effectually abase the sinner and exalt the Saviour; which, while it displays the depth of our original apostacy, and the extent of our practical incapacity, does yet assert the absolute necessity of a renewed heart, and a holy conversation; and at the same time directs the penitent to the only single source of all spiritual life, and all sincere obedience, in pointing to Him, who came into the world to save sinners, and without whom no man cometh to the Father. Mr. Richardson was least likely, of all men, to feel that the course of religious instruction, which (we say it more in sor row than in anger') is but too commonly afforded, could supply any adequate remedy for the moral miseries of mankinda system which leaves men as fully satisfied with themselves 'in their natural coudition,' as if the expensive sacrifice, pro

[merged small][ocr errors]

pounded by a Gospel of mercy, had never been offered, and indeed had never been necessary; and which in the proportion that it sets up human merit, irrespective of saving faith in the great atonement, does in the same degree depreciate and invalidate the costly provision once of fered for the sins of the world."

[ocr errors]

Is it unjust to call upon the Reviewer to specify some of the cases "where Divine Truth is scarcely exhibited at all, but is superseded by the lifeless and spiritless ethics of natural religion:" and to declare openly and without reserve in what quarters the genuine principles of the Reformers are abandoned, in "which the cold and heartless system of mere morals has usurped the place of the only legitimate principles, which Christians can safely recognize," in which there is an absence of sound scriptural instruction," in which "something else than truth is propounded from our pulpits," in which the system of religious instruction "leaves men fully satisfied with themselves in their natural condition," sets up human merit irrespective of saving faith in the great atonement," and "depreciates and invalidates the costly provision once made for the sins of the world." These are grave charges which should not be advanced without sufficient proof; and what is the nature of that proof? We know of no volume of printed sermons out of the Unitarian school which deserves these accumulated imputations. And in respect of sermons delivered from the pulpit, we are bold to ask, does the charge rest on the testimony of individuals, or on the collected evidence of the whole company of British Reviewers? Does it refer to sermons which they themselves have heard, or to sermons which they know only by report, and of which the merit has been debated with the exact discrimination of a religious coterie? Is it appropriated to sermons which their forbearance has been exercised in hearing for a long course of time, or to those which 7

they have heard only upon occa sion, at various times and in distant places, in London, and in the country, as chance or choice, and vicious or censorious curiosity has drawn them from their favourite preachers to their own or to their neighbour's Church? The charge cannot be justified without betraying a neglect of sound doctrine, and an exceeding love of itinerancy in pursuit of error: nor is a casual attendance sufficient to ascertain what may be the course of religious instruction, nor can the experience of a few individuals establish the fact, that such a course is "not uncommon" in a Church, in which from ten to twenty thousand sermons are delivered every Sunday. A charge, which it is thus difficult to substantiate, should at least be advanced with studied and scrupulous moderation: and while the Reviewer is painfully reflecting on the character of accusations, not proven, it may direct his attention to be reminded that the body which he accuses has been industrious in vindicating the genuine principles of the Reforma tion, and in supplying the public with sound scriptural instruction: that in the hour of danger, they have been zealous in maintaining the evidences of Christian truth; that they have powerfully counteracted the efforts of the socinians in disputing the original apostacy and practical incapacity of mankind, the necessity of the great atonement, and of faith in that atonement, the sole merit and worth of the One propitiation for sins, the Deity, personality and office of the Holy Spirit, with the incarnation and divinity of the Son of God. Whatever be the merits of the school of which the British Reviewer is the advocate and apologist, and whose fair fame we desire not to depreciate, the versions of the Unitarians and of Mr. Bellamy, and the insinuations of Hone from the Apocryphal Gospels, have been examined and refuted by some who are not of that school, and

whose ministerial labours the British Reviewer pretends more in sorrow than in anger to condemn.

He especially charges, "that in some quarters the genuine and lifegiving principles of our early reformers as displayed in their doctrinal instructions, exhibited in their holy lives, and embodied in their invaluable formularies are found no longer." The fact is denied, and of the competence of the British Reviewer to decide the fact, the reader may judge from the following passage, in which he writes with reference to the year 1769, at which time he says,

1

"The best friends of the Church of England are willing to allow that those leading doctrines of the reformation, the fall of man-justification by faith alonethe absolute necessity of that' death unto sin and new birth unto righteousness,' of which baptism is the outward and visible sign,' had greatly fallen into neglect in the Established Church."

Now in which of the invaluable formularies of the Church of England is it taught, that BAPTISM is "the outward and visible sign" of a "death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness?" It is the doctrine of the Church Catechism, thát Baptism is a sacrament, and as a sacrament comprises two parts, an outward visible sign, and an inward spiritual grace; that the outward visible sign or form in Baptism is water, and that the inward spiritual grace of which water, not Baptism is the sign, is a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness. This is the doctrine of the Church of England: but the Reviewer mistakes the part for the whole, the sacrament including the sign and the grace, for the sign without the grace.

This confusion is in itself most erroneous, and in its direct and immediate consequences by separating the outward sign from the inward grace destroys the sacramental character of Baptism, and thus according to the masterly exposition of Waterland, outward

Baptism is thrown out of the idea of regeneration; renewal of state is confounded with renewal of mind; conversion and repentance are held equivalent to regeneration; and the doctrine of infant regeneration and the practice of infant baptism are rejected.

This is the consequence of the misuse of words, and it may teach the British Reviewer while he imputes to others the abandonment of the formularies of the Church, to be himself more circumspect in interpreting and explaining them, more diligent in ascertaining their proper sense and import, than he appears It is the hitherto to have been. observation of Mr. Richardson :

"I found that the Bible will not submit to any system however neat, and made to go upon all fours: that in the perpetual controversy between Calvinists and Arminians, both sides go beyond the line of simple truth, in order to make their respective systems complete, and that the Church of England agreeable to Scripture, holds the Calvinistic doctrine of election, and the Arminian doctrine of general redemption, as is plain from the explanation of her Creed, where I learn to believe in God the Son, who hath redeemed me and all mankind, and in God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me, and all the elect people of God.""

The Reviewer remarks,

"C ...... it is impossible to pass by without commendation what appears to us so accurate a description of the safe and modified course pursued by the Church of England, in her interpretation of Scripture."

With what accuracy of chronology the Arminian doctrine is imputed to the Catechism, the Reviewer will probably explain upon another occasion: of the Calvinistic doctrine of election which "the Church of England agreeable to Scripture" is here said to hold: another writer in the same review observes with admirable perspicuity:

"According to Calvin, the predestination is absolute and irrespective, and the election single, sure and everlasting, so

« ForrigeFortsett »