Images de page
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Since concluding my letter, I find sundry scraps, notices, &c. which I pencilled among my reminiscences, but which it is too late to introduce where they might have found an appropriate place in my letters. I must, however, request you to observe the inscription on the monument of Bishop Horne, in your cathedral, in proof of what I said in one of my letters of the altered tone of our sepulchral inscriptions after the Reformation. How many, think you, among the old Popish "ora-pro-nobis" shoals of epitaphs in that venerable structure, or the modern Protestant laudatory tablets, will you find like the following, on this good Elizabethan bishop, who died and was buried at Winchester in the year 1580? "Robertus Horne, quondam Christi causa exul, deinde episcopus Winton., pie obiit in Domino." Mark," in the Lord"nothing more; neither Popish saints, nor Protestant acts of merit; heaven-purchasing deeds, or grace of congruity." I fear that, with the exception of the recent revival of religion among us, we have been declining from the simplicity of the Gospel from the age of Elizabeth up to the present moment; and that the average of religion among us even now, in our most religious circles, is very far short of the standard of our Reformers and how much more short, therefore, of the scriptural standard, since even they were but fallible expositors !

66

Another memorandum of another kind,

ON THE STORY OF CERINTHUS AND

ST. JOHN.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I VERY much doubt the truth of the story quoted by Mr. Melvill at the Naval and Military Bible Society Meeting, and since iterated and reiterated to disparage the Bible Society, of St. John's rushing from the bath at the approach of the heretic Cerinthus. It rests on as little authority as the tradition of that Apostle having been thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, or a hundred other vague narratives relative to the Apostles,-some of them palpable frauds, unjustly called pious,—which found their way into ancient ecclesiastical legends. I do not think it likely that St. John believed the bath would fall, because a wicked man happened to be in it, he could not so have forgotten his Divine Master's own instruction about the tower of Siloam; and if he did not believe it, he would not have used the words as a mere rhetorical flourish.

But, be the story true or false, it has nothing to do with the particular question for which Mr. Melvill quoted it: it no more bears upon the expulsion of Socinians from the Bible Society, than of Millenarians. St. John's alleged words, as quoted with perfect accuracy by Mr. Melvill himself, are, "6 'Let us flee lest the bath should fall, while Cerinthus, an enemy of truth, is within it." He and I lay down my pen. William the calls Cerinthus an enemy of "truth;" Conqueror's Doom's-day Book, you pro- there is not a word about that parbably know, was founded on king Alfred's ticular heresy which Mr. Melvill alvenerable Winchester register. Doomsday Book is still used in law, and may be ludes to; for Cerinthus entertained consulted for the fee of six shillings, at a whole legion of heresies: he opthe Chapter-house at Westminster. Its posed "truth" in almost every parcontents, as given in the following old ticular of his theological creed; he Latin verses, so curiously illustrate the state of British society at that period, held all sorts of strange fancies about that I copy them. This book contains, cons, deinurges, and I know not Quid deberetur fisco, quæ, quanta tributa, what; he "attempted," says MoNomine quid census, quæ vectigalia, quan- sheim

[blocks in formation]

"to form a new and singular system of doctrine and discipline, by a monstrous combination of the doctrines of Christ with the opinions and errors of the Jews and

Gnostics." I quote the following from
Mosheim :-

"Cerinthus required of his followers, that they should worship the Father of Christ, even the Supreme God, in conjunction with the Son; that they should abandon the law giver of the Jews, whom he looked upon as the Creator of the world; that they should retain a part of the law given by Moses, but should, nevertheless, employ their principal attention and care to regulate their lives by the precepts of Christ. To encourage them to this, he promised them the resurrection of this mortal body, after which was to commence a scene of the most exquisite delights, during Christ's earthly reign of a thousand years, which was to be succeeded by an happy and never ending life in the celestial world. For Cerinthus held, that Christ will one day return upon earth, and, renewing his former union with the man Jesus, will reign with his people in the land of Palestine during a thousand years."

This was the man whom St. John, if the story be true, avoided, and most justly, as an arch-heretic, a fabricator of all sorts of unscriptural enormities. But what warrant has Mr. Melvill to lay hold of one of his heresies, and leave out all the rest? St. John shunned him, because he was an enemy to " truth." Is Mr. Melvill prepared to follow up the precedent? If he, and his Sackville-Street friends had argued that we ought not to unite with any opposer of " truth," any heterodox, ungodly, or schismatical man for the distribution of Bibles, his illustration would be to the point, and his argument would be consistent. I do not think it "truth," that Christ will one day return personally, (as Cerinthus the heretic taught, and as some teach now,) upon earth, and reign with his people in the land of Palestine; I think it a notion wholly unwarranted by Scripture, a mere fancy: but would Mr. Melvill allow the alleged anecdote of St. John to be urged to prove that none who profess

this millenarian creed ought to be admitted into a Bible Society? The anecdote proves the one point as much as the other; and might be just as fairly applied by those who do not believe the personal reign of Christ in Palestine to be "truth," to exclude some of Mr. Melvill's own friends from the membership of the Bible Society, as to exclude Socinians or any other class of persons. The fact is, it applies to neither case, and has nothing to do with the question; and ought not to have been quoted by Mr. Melvill, unless he intended to make his test commensurate with the truth, and the whole truth. The inconsistency was akin to that of Mr. Irving on the same occasion, who quoted 1 Corinthians v. 11; which says, "Not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one, no not to eat;" and then, instead of moving that such persons be ejected from the Society, which was the natural inference, if the passage applied at all to the question, left them contentedly in it; passed them over without a word of reproof, and only exclaimed, "How much more then a Socinian!" Alas! if He who maketh men to be of one mind in a house interpose not, where are these things to stop? May He heal our sinful differences, and over-rule all things for his own glory!

A FRIEND TO TRUTH.

LETTER FROM DR. BURTON ON THE

OXFORD CONTROVERSY.

In justice to Dr. Burton's feelings, we readily insert the following letter, though we cannot believe we have given any occasion for the tone which pervades it. Our Reverend correspondent little knows our feelings, if he thinks we had any intention of penning" a cutting sentence," much less of destroying a man's reputation:" we only remarked,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

honestly and candidly, in relation to the published controversy between himself and Mr. Bulteel, what we still think the pamphlets bore us out in asserting, that if Mr. Bulteel erred on the one side, Dr. Burton erred on the other; a proposition which we feel prepared to justify, if requisite, by a review of the whole controversy. In the mean time, as Dr. Burton has alluded to some remarks of the Rev. D. Wilson, our pages will, in justice, be open to that gentleman, should he see fit to offer any reply. A clear understanding of what are the real points of difference, doctrinal and practical, between two such men as Dr. Burton and Mr. Wilson (we mean not as individuals, but as representing in a measure, the views of two large classes of our clergy), might be of considerable utility towards the investigation of scriptural truth. These differences we believe to be by no means slight; on the contrary, notwithstanding Dr. Burton's explanatory statements and disclaimers (which, so far as they extend, we have read with much pleasure), we still think them of serious moment; though they have been confused in public estimation by connecting them with questions that do not of necessity belong to them, as if there were no medium between Pelagianism and Antinomianism. We would not confound Dr. Burton with Bishop Maltby: the following letter shews how unjust it would be to do so: and he, we are persuaded, would as little confound us with Mr. Bulteel or Dr. Hawker. This limits the ground of discussion to the real points at issue; a candid consideration of which, either by ourselves or our correspondents, we think might be of service to the church, especially at the present moment, when fanaticism in one quarter, scepticism in another, avowed blaspheming infidelity in a third, and vice, ignorance, and immorality every where, are assailing the common hope, and calling on all who profess and call themselves Christians to strive together

for the faith of the Gospel. But the union must be real, not nominal; for with much verbal coincidence of statement, there may be serious discrepancy of opinion, especially as the practical spirit in which doctrines are held is connected with an essential difference in the views and habits of those who hold them. We might illustrate this in regard to the fall and sinfulness of man, the atonement of Christ, the need of Divine grace, the influences of the Holy Ghost, repentance, faith, justification, regeneration, conversion, sanctification, and all the intimacies of the spiritual life. But for the present, we forbear, only suggesting to our readers the consideration of the subject. The following is Dr. Burton's letter.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

Sir, I have only just met with your Number for the month of May last, or I should have taken the liberty of addressing you sooner. You there review the Rev. D. Wilson's funeral sermon upon the Rev. B. Woodd; and you say, that "Mr.Woodd had seen several Bulteel and Burton controversies, and had discovered that scriptural truth lies far apart from either of the contending systems." It appears, therefore, that in your opinion my system lies far apart from scriptural truth; and though to write such a cutting sentence may be a light matter to a reviewer, the anathema falls rather heavily upon one who feels himself innocent. You seem to have no compunction in destroying a man's reputation by a sentence; nay, even in putting him out of the pale of Christianity: for if the Scriptures are to us the sole source of truth, by what figure of speech can we call that man a Christian, whose religious system is " far apart from scriptural truth?" I am, of course, aware, that what you say of a frigid creed," and of " cold orthodoxy," is meant to apply to myself. The unscriptural ultraism of the respective schools alluded to by Mr. Wil

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

hard that I should be obliged to dis-
claim the belief, that " a man's sal-
vation depends on his subsequent
works."

son," must necessarily refer to me
as belonging to one of these schools.
When you
"bless God that both
our universities can shew us not a
few eminent ministers of Christ, who
have been enabled by his Holy Spirit
to discover and adhere to this nar-
row line of truth and consistency,"
you evidently mean to say that I
have not discovered it; and your
readers will naturally imagine, from
all these expressions, that you are
perfectly acquainted with my reli-
gious sentiments. You ought, in-
deed, to have been acquainted with
them, before you condemned them
in this way; and yet I suspect that
you have written these cruel sen-
tences without knowing any thing of
the person whom you have attacked.
Mr. Wilson, whose remarks you have
identified with your own, would per-
haps tell you that he was mistaken
as to my opinions; and when he
says, that the professor of divinity
in the university of Oxford seems to
imply that justification takes place
at baptism that this sign of the
covenant conveys the vast blessing
-that at that moment the baptized
person is righteous, but that his sal-
vation depends on his subsequent
works," I beg leave to state, that I
do not believe that his salvation
depends on his subsequent works,"
in the sense that Mr. Wilson and
you seem to imply. I believe that
justification and salvation come to
us by the free gift of God, and sim-
ply in consequence of Christ's death.
I undoubtedly believe that justifica-
tion may take place at baptism, as
did all our Reformers, and as does
the Church of England; but it is
justification through the merits of
Christ's death: which merits are
then applied to the infant, or the
adult, by the free grace of God. I
never supposed, as the above quo-
tation would insinuate, that "this
sign of the covenant conveys the
vast blessing" by any virtue inherent
in the ceremony itself: it is the
grace of God, or rather it is the
blood of Christ, which " conveys
the vast blessing ;" and it is rather

[ocr errors]

66 eva

Mr. Wilson speaks of my porating the whole doctrine [of justification] in the sacrament of baptism." But I beg to say, that I shrink with horror from such a notion, if followed by the consequence, that "Christ our Lord is robbed of the fruits of his obedience unto death." It is his obedience unto death which enables an infant to be justified, as well as an adult, by the free grace of God; but I do not evaporate the doctrine, when I say that the person so justified is in need of the grace of God, and of the justifying merits of Christ through every moment of his life.

Again; Mr. Wilson says, "If the professor fears as to the consequences of the doctrine of justification by faith only," &c. &c. Now, I beg to state, that so far from fearing the consequences of this doctrine, I have never held or preached any other. I cannot even in imagination suppose a man to be justified by any thing but the free grace of God through the merits of Christ. Let me advise you, sir, not to be so fond of imagining that the doctrine of justification by faith is confined to a small party. There are many persons, whose minds have been cast in a different mould from yours, who would lay down their lives for that doctrine, and yet would rather part with a right hand than have written the uncharitable review to which I now allude. I do not know to what party you suppose me to belong; but I beg to say, that I belong to no party. I neither belong to that which you are so fond of describing, but which I verily believe does not exist in the church, a party which preaches justification by works: if there be any such, may God forgive them, as I trust that He will forgive those who condemn them: neither do I belong to that party which assumes to itself the title of Evangelical, thus violating by the very assump

tion, a fundamental principle of the Gospel. I call no man master upon earth. Or, if I am attached to any party, it is to that which would give the right hand of fellowship to all who differ from it, which strives to repair the walls of our Zion, and not to narrow them by unchristian zeal or exclusive intolerance.

To say, in such unqualified terms, that I belong to a "school of unscriptural ultraism," would be very uncharitable, even if it were true: but my heart tells me it is not true: and allow me to add, that you are not warranted, either as a writer or as a Christian, in thus dealing your blows at random, and in wounding the feelings of others, who have not only their own salvation at stake, but have souls committed to their charge. I beseech you, sir, for your own

[blocks in formation]

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

Biblical Notes and Dissertations, chiefly intended to confirm and illustrate the Deity of Christ. By JOSEPH JOHN GURNEY. 1 Vol. 8vo. 1831.

THIS is an admirable work. It contains a series of notes and dissertations on various passages of Holy Scripture connected with the doctrine of the Deity of our blessed Lord. It is also unique; there being no work, the production of a member of the society of Friends, which fixes on so important a subject, and pursues it with such clearness of argument, such depth of sound critical knowledge, and such sobriety and discretion. The respected author is already advantageously known to the British public by his Essays (which we reviewed in our volume for 1826); but he will now take a yet higher place. That work elevated him above the peculiarities of the religious body to which he belongs, and ranked him amongst the ablest

defenders of our common Christianity and of the great truths of which that revelation consists. Our readers will have observed in that volume the prominence given to the great articles of the Divinity of Christ, and the Atonement of his death. These articles are pursued in the present publication, which will raise the author to a yet higher rank amongst solid, able, and learned theologians,

will place him with Pearson, Sherlock, Jones, Horsley, Pye Smith,— amongst the more eminent supporters of the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, against the artful and dishonest representations of mistaken scholars and unsound divines. It is, indeed, a refreshment to the studious Christian, amidst the speculations now afloat on almost all subjects, to open the volume and trace the grave, weighty, calm, well-balanced mind of this excellent writer, following out with great patience the evasions of the Unitarian opponent, and exposing in all the glare of day

« PrécédentContinuer »