« AnteriorContinuar »
Nor ever shall he be in praise
By wise or good forsaken;
Of one whom God bath taken!
I learn to think upon him ;
On God, whose heaven hath won him.
Towards his love to blind him ;
Where breath and bird could find him;
Such quick poetic senses,
Harmonious influences !
His own did calmly number;
Fell o'er him like a slumber.
From falsehood's chill removing,
Beside him true and loving!
To share his home-caresses,
With sylvan tendernesses.
Unconscious of the guiding,
The sweet sense of providing,
Though frenzy desolated
Whom only God created.
Whether we look at the intrinsic merits of his writings, or to the wide influenco they have exerted upon that class of minds that are in their turn to influence the world, no writer of the present century stands higher than RICHARD nations; and is not one of those who doem it necessary to destroy the foundation of others, before he can begin to build up his own.'
of the numerous works of Dr. Wbately, the “ Elements of Logic” and “ Elements of Rhetoric" have had the most extensive circulation. His “ Kingdom of Christ Delineated, in two Essays," is an able and lucid argument on the Nature of Christ's Kingdom, and on the Constitution, Powers, and Ministry of the Christian Church, and is written in a most catholic spirit. In his “ Thoughts on the Sabbath,” he takes the true scriptural ground of the proper observance of the “Lord's Day,”-showing that “the Sabbath was made for man,"--and removes the obligation for observing it “from the foundation of sand, on which it is ordinarily placed, to fix it upon a rock.”
of the general character of his works, a writer in the “Edinburgh Review"2 thus speaks :-“Though this lucid and eloquent writer may, for obvious reasons, be most widely known by his · Logic' and · Rhetoric,' the time will come when his Theological Works will be, if not more widely read, still more highly prized. To great powers of argument and illustration, and delightful transparency of diction and style, he adds a higher quality still-and a very rare quality it is-an evident and intense honesty of purpose, an absorbing desire to arrive at the exact truth, and to state it with perfect fairness and with just limitations. Without pretending to agree with all that Archbishop Whately has written on the subject of Theology, (though he carries his readers with him as frequently as any writer with whom we are acquainted,) we may remark that, in relation to that whole class of subjects to which our present essay has reference, we know of no writer of the present day whose contributions are more numerous or more valuable. The highly ingenious ironical brochure, entitled • Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte,' the essays above mentioned, “On some of the Peculiarities of the Christian Religion,' those 'On some of the Dangers to Christian Faith,' and ' Errors of Romanism,' the work on the Kingdom of Christ, not to mention others, are well worthy of universal perusal. They abound in views both original and just, stated with all the author's aptness of illustration and transparency of language. We may remark, too, that in many of his occasional sermons, he has incidentally added many most beautiful fragments to that ever-accumulating mass of internal evidence which the Scriptures themselves supply in their structure, and which is evolved by diligent investigation of the relation and coherence of one part of them with another."
1 The following is, I beliere, a correct list of his works:-“ Elements of Loric,” which has reached nine editions in England, been often republished here, and introduced as a text-book into some of our first colleges; “Elements of Rhetoric," of which the seventh edition has been published in England, and which has also had a very extensive circulation here; "Introductory Lectures on Political Economy," third alition; “ Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte.” ninth edition: “Easy Lessons on Reasoning," fifth edition; “ Easy Lessons on Money vaiterx," tenth cition; "The Kingdom of Christ Delineatei," fourth
TRUE FOUNDATION OF CHURCH ENACTMENTS.
The Rock on which I am persuaded our reformers intended, and rightly intended, to rest the ordinances of our church, is, the warrant to be found in the Holy Scriptures written by, or under the direction of, those to whom our Lord had intrusted the duty of “ teaching men to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded them.” For in those Scriptures we find a divine sanction clearly given to a regular Christian community—a church; which is, "a congregation (that is, society or community; ecclesia) of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things which of necessity are requisite to the same.”
This, which I have called a foundation on a rock, is evidently that on which (as has been just observed) our reformers designed to place our church.
While they strongly deny to any church the power to “ordain any thing contrary to God's Word,” or to require, as essential to salvation, belief in any thing not resting on scriptural authority, they claim the power for each church of ordaining and altering “rites and ceremonies,” “ so that all things be done to edifying, and nothing “contrary to God's Word.”
And they rest the claims of ministers, not on some supposed sacramental virtue transmitted from hand to hand in unbroken succession from the apostles, in a chain, of which if any one link be even doubtful, a distressing uncertainty is thrown over all Christian ordinances, sacraments, and church-privileges for ever; but on the fact of those ministers being the regularly-appointed officers of a regular Christian community.
Those who are not satisfied with the foundation thus laid-and which, as I have endeavored to show, is the very foundation which Christ and his apostles have prepared for us—who seek to take higher ground, as the phrase is, and maintain what are called, according to the modern fashion, “church principles,” or “Church-ofEngland principles," are in fact subverting the principles both of our own church in particular, and of every Christian church that claims the inherent rights belonging to a community, and confirmed by the sanction of God's Word as contained in the Holy Scriptures. It is advancing, but not in the right road—it is advancing not in sound learning, but error—not in faith, but in superstitious credulity, to seek for some higher and better ground on which to rest our doctrines and institutions than that on which they were placed by the “ Author and Finisher of our Faith.” 2
But, if any persons claim for any traditions of the church an authority, either paramount to Scripture, or equal to Scripture, or concurrent with it—or, which comes to the very same thing, decisive as to the interpretation of Scripture-taking on themselves to decide what is "the church,” and what tradition is to be thus received—these persons are plainly called on to establish by miraculous evidences the claims they advance. And if they make their appeal, not to miracles wrought by themselves, but to those which originally formed the evidence of the Gospel, they are bound to show by some decisive proof, that that evidence can fairly be brought to bear upon and authenticate their pretension ; that they are, by Christ's decree, the rightful depositaries of the power they claim.
Kingdom of Christ.
A PRIMITIVE BISHOP.
It seems plainly to have been at least the general, if not the universal practice of the apostles, to appoint over each separate church a single individual as a chief governor, under the title of “angel" (i.e. messenger or legate from the apostles) or “Bishop," i.e. superintendent or overseer. A CHURCH and a DIOCESE seem to have been for a considerable time coextensive and identical. And each church or diocese, (and consequently each superintendent) though connected with the rest by ties of faith and hope and charity, seems to have been (as has been already observed) perfectly independent as far as regards any power of control.
The plan pursued by the apostles seems to have been, as has been above remarked, to establish a great number of small, (in comparison with modern churches,) distinct, and independent communities, each governed by its own single bishop, consulting, no doubt, with his own presbyters, and accustomed to act in concurrence with them, and occasionally conferring with the brethren in other churches, but owing no submission to the rulers of any other church, or to any central common authority except the apostles themselves. And other points of difference might be added.
Now to vindicate the institutions of our own, or of some other church, on the ground that they “are not in themselves superstitious or ungodly"—that they are not at variance with Gospel principles, or with any divine injunction that was designed to be of universal obligation, is intelligible and reasonable. But to vindicate them on the ground of the exact conformity, which it is notorious they do not possess, to the most ancient models, and even to go beyond this, and condemn all Christians whose institutions and ordinances are not “one and utterly like” our own, on the ground of their departure from the apostolical precedents, which no church has exactly adhered to-does seem—to use no harsher expression—not a little inconsistent and unreasonable. And yet one may not unfrequently hear members of Episcopalian churches pronouncing severe condemnation on those of other communions, and even excluding them from the Christian body, on the ground, not of their not being under the best form of ecclesiastical government, but, of their wanting the very essentials of a Christian church : viz. the very same distinct orders in the hierarchy that the apostles appointed: and this, while the Episcopalians themselves have, universally, so far varied from the apostolical institutions as to have in one church several bishops; each of whom consequently differs in the office he holds, in a most important point, from one of the primitive bishops, as much as the governor of any one of our colonies does from a sovereign prince.
natory of the very errors with which they are especially chargeable. Thus, those who from time to time have designated themselves "Gnostics," i.e. persons “knowing" the Gospel in a far superior degree to other professed Christians-have been generally remarkable for their wunt of knowledge of the very first rudiments of evangelical truth. The pbrase "Catbolic" religion (ie. " Universal") is the most commonly in the mouths of those who are the most limited and erclusive in their views, and who seek to shut out the largest number of Christian communities from the Gospel-covenant. “Schism," again, is hy none more loudly reprobated than by those who are not only the immelinte authors of schism, but the advocates of prin.
And Church nrinciples"
cinles tending to generate and perpetuate schisms without and
Now, whether the several alterations and departures from the original institutions were or were not, in each instance, made on good grounds, in accordance with an altered state of society, is a question which cannot even be entertained by those who hold that no church is competent to vary at all from the ancient model. Their principle would go to exclude at once from the pale of Christ's church almost every Christian body since the first two or three centuries.
The edifice they overthrow crushes in its fall the blind champion who has broken its pillars.
WIIAT IS A CHRISTIAN?
There is a difference, and a wide one, between practising moral duties and being a Christian. Christianity is a religion of motives. It substitutes an eternal motive for an earthly one; it substitutes the love of God for the love of the world or the love of self. There may be, and are, many persons who practise temperance and other virtues, which Christianity inculcates, but who never think of doing so because they are so inculcated. It would be as absurd to ascribe a knowledge of mechanics to savages, because they employ the lever;