Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

that in bestowing it, He and the Father were one. The word 'proceedeth,' in all probability relates to the Spirit's mission to the sons of men, not to the origin of the Spirit's existence. Yet on this slender and doubtful basis has the Church (falsely so called) raised the doctrine of Divine existence by procession, as distinguished from generation; a distinction utterly unintelligible and perfectly useless. Nor is this all. It is assumed that the words 'proceedeth from the Father,' relate to the origin of the existence of the Holy Spirit; and then the argument runs thus. The Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father, because He proceedeth from the Father; but He is also called the Spirit of the Son, therefore He proceedeth from the Son. Again, the Spirit is said to be sent by the Father, and this, it is assumed, is because He proceedeth from the Father: the Father in virtue of His priority in the Godhead, sending the Spirit. But the Spirit is also sent by the Son; therefore He proceedeth from the Son. We shall not tarry for the purpose of exposing further this ricketty logic, but with a smile at the logical divines who are every year pouring forth from the Universities, to declare their unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything which the creeds contain, pass on to the Quicunque vult. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; and the catholic faith is this: the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal. In this trinity none is afore, or after other none is greater or less than another; but the whole three persons are coequal. He, therefore, that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood.' Surely the popular sense of these words, and that which they do and must convey to the multitude is this: that as to the Divine nature there is a perfect equality between the Father and the Son; that if inequality, or inferiority, be affirmed of the Son, it is in relation to His human nature only. The Nicene creed, on the contrary, affirms, and the Apostles' creed implies, inequality in the Divine nature. The orthodox belief unquestionably is, that the Father alone is self-existent, and that the Son is not self-existent, but God of God. A churchman affirms in one breath, that the Son is equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and in the next breath, that the Son is not self-existent, but only the Father; and contends that the two affirmations are reconcilable."

Yet one more "article of impeachment" remains. It is urged, that the doc· trine of regeneration is no otherwise taught, than as taking place in baptism. This would lead us into too wide a field of discussion; we therefore refrain. The concluding sentences of the review must not, however, be omitted;—

"Oh! for the pen of Milton, or Isaiah, to expose and denounce in words of fire that awful book, by which myriads of DELUDED VICTIMS' are blinded to their character and danger. By all the love which they feel to their neighbours, their country, their kind; by their appreciation of the soul's worth, and their jealousy for God's honour, we implore our readers to do what in them lies towards counteracting the influence, and destroying the reputation of the most dangerous and injurious book which the English language contains."

The foregoing Article has been the subject of Editorial comment in The Record newspaper, from whose pages we subjoin a few extracts.

The charge of "vain repetitions" is thus noticed :—

"We can only pity the unhappy prejudices of the man who thus writes and pass on. The repetitions in the Prayer-book have been regretted by some of the best

*

It is not worth while, except in a note, to defend the style of the Prayer-book against such a critic. Our readers know that the tautology he complains of has been often pointed out as a remarkable instance of the desire our Reformers had, that the language addressed to the assembled congregation should be certain of being understood by all of them. Thus, when they employ a word of foreign derivation, as "confess," they use it with its equivalent of native origin, acknowledge," The same remark applies to "dissemble," "cloak," "humble," "lowly," "assemble," "meet together," &c. -ED. REC.

friends to the Church; but the wretched critic who can take the Litany to pieces, and not only accuse it of vain repetition,' but of being filled with flippant sentences,' ought to be rebuked with a severity becoming his ignorant profanity. The repetitions of which good men have complained, arise from three services having been crowded into one, and are not to be found in the beautiful supplications of our ancient and beautiful Litany.

"Of the petitions which follow the Apostles' Creed, the writer speaks in language, which needs only to be quoted in order to be exposed and condemned. The same weapons with which the reviewer attacks the so-called repetitions of the Prayer-book, would apply with greater force to several of the inspired Psalms of David, and also to the example left us by our blessed Lord, when, in His agony in the garden of Gethsemane, He prayed three times, using the same words."

On a subsequent day, the Editor of The Record, referring his readers to the former Number, in which he had quoted several parts of the article in The Eclectic Review, writes as follows:

"Our readers marked the ribald and profane attacks on our forms of devotion put forth by the Eclectic Review in November, 1840. Let them listen nominally, though, in reality, to a far higher authority, as presented by the Eclectic Review of 1829, before the Dissenters had assumed their present hostile position to the Church, and while the influence of the spirit of the men of weight among them of a past age still prevailed. The following summary of the excellencies of the Liturgy adorned the pages of that periodical in the number for December, 1829. The Church, it then annunciated, puts into the lips of the people a language of devotion UNRIVALLED in majesty, beauty, propriety, and comprehension.' This unrivalled form of devotion has now changed into the most dangerous and injurious book which the English language contains!' We ask, what has changed, the Prayer-book or the Dissenters?

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Beyond all doubt Robert Hall was the first Dissenter of the past age. We presume this truth is universally acknowledged, while there is no individual among the Dissenters of the present day who can for a moment be compared with him. Indeed, their sense of the importance of his character and abilities to their cause, was somewhat laughably displayed in the extreme pains and unusual measures they adopted in the preparation of his life, so that it might bear with the fullest moral effect on the public mind. How, we inquire, did this truly great man regard 'this dangerous book?' Did he consider that our high value of it was to be accounted for on the same principle as the Laplander thinks his train-oil the greatest delicacy which the universe supplies?'

"Listen, ye men of besotted minds and perverted understandings, to this your leader and chief, when he tells you, that the Evangelical purity of its sentiments, the chastened fervour of its devotion, and the majestic simplicity of its language, have combined to place it in the very first rank of uninspired compositions!'

"How dreadful must the fall of these men be from sound judgment and scriptural godliness, how deep their ignorance and malignity, to apply the disgraceful terms we formerly quoted, to a work thus described, by confessedly the first of their number, and this amidst the repose of peaceable times, and in the maturity of his deep and comprehensive mind!

It were easy to retaliate on these Dissenters; and this not in ignorance, or by the exhibition of our own views of the evils attending their manner of public worship, but by quotations from the writings of zealous and highly-esteemed members of their own body. We shall only give a single specimen or two.

--:

"The Rev. J. Angell James, of Birmingham, than whom there is scarcely a Dissenter of the present day more highly esteemed by the body, thus speaks of their public worship in his Church Member's Guide :- The brethren who lead our devotions,' he says, 'are so outrageously long and dull.' We are often prayed into a good frame, and then prayed out of it again.' He also states, in the same publication, that many ministers spend so much of their time at public Meetings, and in gossipping from house to house, that their sermons are poverty itself, or the

VOL. XIII.

с

mere repetition of the same sentiments in the same words.' It is obvious their prayers must be of the same description.

"In a Dissenting publication, entitled Remarks on the Present State of the Dissenting Interest, the following statements are to be found at p. 47:-'The mode of conducting the devotional part of our worship is not always so solemn or methodical as may be desired. Sometimes it partakes of an odious familarity,—at others, too much of grimace. What is called preaching in prayer should always be avoided; and to hear the Deity addressed, as is sometimes the case, in scraps of poetry, is quite insufferable.'

The Record returns to this subject in a third article :-
:-

"The virulence, still more than the coarseness and vulgarity of the attack upon the Prayer-book, would naturally lead to the belief that the Reviewer can hav eno hearty attachment to the doctrines so fully and faithfully embodied in the Prayerbook. It is not, therefore, surprising to find the creeping pestilence of the Arian heresy visible in the midst of his invectives. Against every one of the three creeds contained in the Liturgy the reviewer directs some flippant or disparaging remark. They are not only described as 'jejune' and wretchedly incomplete,' but, still further, the writer discovers the Arianism which taints his theology, in his attempt to prove inconsistency between the Nicene and Athanasian creeds. We are not going to involve our readers in a discussion wholly out of place in these columns, relative to the mysteries of the Godhead-a subject never to be approached without feeling that we are treading on holy ground-but to assert that there is inequality between the Father and the Son, as touching the Godhead, is a palpable heresy, containing in it the very essence of Socinianism. It is to deny the great truth, that our Lord, although in the form of a servant, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' The Reviewer, indeed, tries to cover the subtle poison of his doctrine under quotations from writers of reputed orthodoxy, who distinguished between the order of the persons in the Trinity. He thus endeavours to establish what they did not admit, that a distinction in the order of existence implies inequality of nature, and in contradicting the Athanasian Creed, opens the door for the admission of the grossest Socinianism. No wonder that such writers should look with indulgent complacence on the Neology of Milman, while they sneer at the 'petulant' Waterland. In short, according to the Eclectic reviewers, our Lord misled the Jews, when they conceived that He made 'Himself equal with God.'

[ocr errors]

"We may add, in conclusion, that the doctrinal statements of the Eclectic Review are the more important, as the names of its contributors are not private, but are publicly and even ostentatiously blazoned to the world. Among them we find almost all the heads of the Dissenting Academies; for example--Dr.Pye Smith, of Homerton, who has lately been welcomed as a Fellow of the Royal Society for his futile and childish attempt to prove that the world was not destroyed by the flood, but that there was only a partial deluge; and Dr. Henderson, of Highbury, who has done what he could to recommend the heresies of professor Moses Stuart to the public, by editing his works. There are, besides, several connected with the Baptist Academies and the Baptist denomination. Among others, Mr. Howard Hinton, whose zeal as a political agitator is scarcely surpassed by his zeal as a disturber of the orthodox faith relative to the influence of the Holy Spirit. We have also the Rev. Francis Watts, of the new Dissenting Academy at Birmingham. Now we ask, Do these gentlemen also approve of the Arianism of the Eclectic Review: Are the sentiments it inculcates concerning the Prayer-book the same which are taught at Homerton, Highbury, Stepney, Springhill, &c.?"

2. MEMOIR OF THE REV. DR. NEWMAN.

IN The Baptist Magazine for December 1840, we find a well-written memoir of this gentleman, from which we will make nn extract. WILLIAM NEWMAN was born on the 10th of May 1773. His first religious impressions he received at ten years old, from the simple circumstance of hearing

a friend of his mother's say in conversation, "If a man's heart is not changed, he must be lost for ever.' On the first of January 1792, he was baptized at Carter Lane Chapel, by Dr. Rippon, being at that time assistant in the Rev. John Ryland's seminary at Enfield. On 15th of May 1792, he was ordained pastor of the Baptist Church at Old Ford; this office he held till his death, being also for some years (1810 to 1826) theological tutor at Stepney College. He was among the first Committee of the Religious Tract Society, and took an active part in the formation of the British and Foreign Bible Society.

Of the close of his life we have the following account:

"In 1835 his journal contains the following entry:

6.66 Wednesday, 8th April. As I went out my left hand hung down. I thought it was asleep-would tingle; went into the garden, rubbed it. I wist not that my strength had departed.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

'My Saviour is saying, I have no need of thee.' But I have need of Thee, and shall have need for ever. That text comforted; The Father loveth the Son, and hath committed all things into His hands. The gordian knot is cut for me, yea, several at once.

[blocks in formation]

Let me but hear my Saviour say.'

"Pack up, as Newton, ready to sail away.

"Took down David's harp; read Psalm c.-peace, peace. O my Father, pity my weakness!

"In the following September, he wrote a letter to the church, in which he says, More than five months having elapsed since I was laid aside, I think it is time that I should communicate to you some things which have been revolving in my own mind. On the 8th of April last, it pleased God to visit me with a paralytic affection on the left side. Though this was not accompanied with any degree of pain, yet no words that I could employ would adequately express the sensation of extreme weakness which has followed. I bow with reverence to the hand that has afflicted me.' He then proceeds to give his advice respecting the election of a co-pastor.

"The concluding scene will be given to the greatest advantage in the words of his biographer —

"On Monday afternoon, the 21st, he conversed freely with a young friend, who called to see him, on missionary affairs, and, among other things, alluding to the missionary meetings, said, 'I tell you this now, because I may not live to see the time.' Before the time arrived for the commencement of the evening service, he was anxious to visit a poor dying man. Accompanied by one of his deacons he proceeded to the house, but death had anticipated his arrival: the man was no more. This occurrence appeared to affect him considerably. When he entered the spacious school-room, in which the prayer-meetings are held, his countenance appeared changed, and several circumstances during the continuance of the exercise, indicated an alarming increase of indisposition. His address was from some of the concluding verses in the fifth of John. He was observed to be both longer and louder than usual on such occasions; his last prayer was very fervent and emphatic, in the progress of which, having supplicated for preservation through the night, before he concluded he repeated his request thus: We pray again, O Lord, to be preserved during the night.' On returning home, which he did with much difficulty, he said to the servant, I have been to see that poor man, but he was gone before I arrived.' After a short pause he continued, 'Death came, and he could not be discharged from that war-no, he could not. I told his brother what I should have said to him, that-It is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.' By this time the paralytic affection had greatly increased, and it required considerable effort to remove him to his bed-chamber. Medical aid was immediately obtained, and for some hours his consciousness was continued; at length, paralysis was suceeded by apoplexy, and between eight and nine o'clock the following morning, Dec. 22, his gentle spirit winged its way to everlasting joy."

[ocr errors]

3. RIGHT OF MINISTERS TO VOTE AT ELECTIONS, FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

DURING the recent revision this question came before Mr. COVENTRY, one of the Revising Barristers for Middlesex, who in the following judgment has stated the law with much distinctness. The question arose upon the claims of Clergymen of the Established Church, who have been appointed to the several new churches (not mere proprietary chapels,) situate at Islington and Chelsea :

"I have taken an opportunity of looking into the Church Building Acts, from the 58th Geo. III., cap. 45, to the 3d and 4th Victoria, cap. 60, of the last session (eleven in number); but before I go into them, it may be necessary to say a word or two respecting the state of things prior to the passing of those Acts. As to a rector, we know that he is entitled to the parsonage-house, glebe, and great tithes, and that he has the freehold of the church; for each and all of these, he is entitled to be placed on the county register. Where the great tithes are impropriate that is, in the hands of lay-owners-there is usually a vicarage endowed, the incumbent of which has the glebe and small tithes for these he is entitled to a county vote. At this point it may be observed, that pews in the church are annexed to the houses of the inhabitants, and yield no profit to the rector or vicar, who are considered as amply paid by the glebe and tithes. With respect to a curate, he is employed by the rector or vicar at a stipulated salary, and is removable at pleasure; he has neither a freehold in his appointment, nor any direct profit arising from land; he, therefore, cannot be admitted as a county freeholder. But in some parishes the great tithes are impropriate, and there is no vicarage, in which case the lay impropriator is bound to appoint a curate, and the bishop assigns him a stipend out of the tithes. This curate is not removeable at the pleasure of the impropriator, and is, therefore, called 'perpetual,' in contradistinction to an ordinary curate, whose appointment is merely temporary. A perpetual curate, then, having a benefice for life, with a salary out of the tithes, I hold to be entitled to a county vote. We now come to the Church Building Acts, which introduce an incumbent in many respects different from those before described, and he is called a stipendiary curate. Such are the present claimants; and they are declared by the above Acts to be severally, sole corporations, and to have all the characters, privileges, and authorities of rectors and vicars; but instead of any glebe or tithes, they are paid a fixed salary out of the pew-rents of their respective churches; and the only question is, whether these pew-rents are to be considered profits arising from land? To answer this question satisfactorily, it may be necessary to take a short review of the Church Building Acts. By the two first of them, the Commissioners are empowered to divide large and populous parishes into districts, and after having built, or assisted in building, one or more churches in each district (the nomination to which is in the incumbent of the original parish), to appropriate the glebe, tithes, and other ecclesiastical benefices, in such way as they shall think proper, and the incumbent in each district is then to become the rector or vicar thereof, in the same way as the original incumbent was of the original church. This appears to be the case of the Rev. H. Burgess, whose claim to a vote is, 1 think, clearly admissible. The Commissioners are further empowered to assist subscribers in any parish to erect churches and chapels, the site whereof is to be conveyed to them, and the nomination of the incumbent is to be in the rector of the mother church. Subscribers of £100 each are to have pews for life or for a term of years, discharged of pew-rent; but the remainder of the pews are to be let by the chapelwardens (appointed as in the Acts mentioned) according to certain fixed tables; these officers are empowered to recover the rents by action at law, but no renter of a pew is to continue the same beyond twelve months after he shall have left the parish. From the gross amount of rents thus received, the chapelwardens are to pay the stipend to the minister, fixed by the bishop; also the salary of the clerk (who is appointed annually by the incumbent), and all other expenses. The surplus, if any, is to be accumulated into the hands of the trustees for the purpose of purchasing a building of residence for the minister; but it is expressly provided that the

« AnteriorContinuar »