Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

and see all he sees, but who also know and see so much more, that they have learned the necessity of humility and modesty, as well as of sincerity, and zeal. He thinks he sees farther than others, only be cause his range of vision is more confined: he imagines himself wiser than others, precisely because he is ignorant of the difficulties which he overleaps. At the first entrance into any science, this effect is too apt to take place in an undisciplined mind: there was a time, perhaps, when the mathematician and mechanic can remember having thought it quite as easy to quadrate the circle or discover a perpetual motion, as to perform any other abstruse operation in their respective sciences; and it was not till each became in reality wiser, that he discovered and confessed his ignorance. It is, therefore, often ominous to find a late and sudden, though perhaps genuine, conversion, followed by an immediate desire to quit a responsible secular station, for the sake of undertaking an office which, in the usual course of God's providence, demands years of deliberation and study, as well as simply piety and zeal to prepare a candidate for its faithful discharge. With regard, how ever, to Nicholas Ferrar, these remarks do not perhaps strictly apply; for though he would probably have been more in the path of duty (supposing his health adequate to the task) by continuing in those departments of life where he was already so usefully employed, yet it must be remembered that from his infancy, he, like Timothy, had known the holy Scriptures; his piety had been deep and early; his judgment in theological matters well matured; and every thing render ed him fit for the sacred office, except the important circumstance that it was incompatible with another and previous allotment, which, unless under very peculiar and providential circumstances, he had no just warrant to forsake. Had,

however, Ferrar's devotion been as novel as it was ardent, he might very probably have become the very character which his tutor Lindsell dreaded, and have lived only to exasperate those controversies and disputes which it is the object of older and wiser Christians to appease. St. Paul expressly enjoins, that the minister of Christ should not be a novice; and surely no man so completely answers to this character, or is so likely to introduce corresponding novelties of doctrine, or innovations on sobriety of discipline, as one whose eyes are suddenly opened to the truth in middle life; whose affections and zeal are ardent, while his judgment is still feeble and immature; and who, finding himself really wiser than his former associates and friends, conjectures that he knows more also than those whose whole life has been devoted to the humble and practical study of the Divine will.

The second feature noticed in Ferrar's character was his diligence in prayer. Here, however, as in almost every thing else, his fault was excess; for his family not only met for devotion six times a day; twice publicly in the church, using the accustomed service, and four times in the house, using prayers appointed by himself for the purpose; but, as was before related, they spent the whole night by turns, in similar employments, two congregations being constantly in attendance in the oratories respectively appropriated to the male and female part of the family. Here, in the course of four hours of the night, the whole Book of Psalms was regularly chaunted; a custom which, except to minds eminently devout, could only serve to render them tedious, instead of interesting and instructive. It is indeed the happiness of the blessed inhabitants of heaven to encircle the Divine Throne "day without night rejoicing;" and there appears at first sight something sublime

and imposing in the spectacle of a Christian family imitating this celestial example. But a further consideration of the nature and the duties of mankind will place this monastic custom only among those splendida peccata into which even the best of men are sometimes apt to fall, in their aspirations after extraordinary excellence.

The great subject, however, of apprehension in the case of Ferrar is lest all these ceremonial observances should have been merely the offspring of a self-righteous spirit; should have originated in superstition rather than piety; in fear rather than love. In the Church of Rome, innumerable cases of this kind occur;-but to Ferrar the remark does not appear to be applicable, at least in its greatest extent; for his biographer expressly asserts, that "he attributed no saving merit to his observances;" and indeed the general tenour of his conversation and conduct proves that he ardently loved the duties which he performed. The following passage, for example, from one of his prayers, shews his delight in the constant worship of God:

"Thou hast given to us a freedom from all other affairs, that we may without distraction attend thy service. That holy Gospel which came down from Heaven, containing things the angels desire to look into, is, by thy goodness, continually open to our view: the sweet music thereof is continually sounding in our ears: heavenly songs are by thy mercy put into our mouths, and our tongues and lips made daily instruments of pouring forth thy praise. This, Lord, is the work, and this the pleasure of the angels in heaven: and dost thou vouchsafe to make us partakers of so high a happiness? The knowledge of Thee, and of thy Son, is everlasting life. Thy service is perfect freedom: how happy then are we, that thou dost constantly retain us in the daily exercise thereof!"

The doctrines of Popery, Ferrar frequently and explicitly denied; so that in his tenets he appears to have been a Protestant, though in his discipline he was evidently. inclined to the rites of Popery. Little Gidding was, in the Church of England, what Port Royal was in that of Rome. Ardent devotion and love to the Redeemer charac-, terized both; and both were open to the charge of unnecessary singularity, and burdensome observances. In each, however, peace, charity, good order, and love for the souls and bodies of men were eminently exhibited, and upon each the hand of persecution fell with unrelenting hostility. The Papists in France urged, that Port Royal was heretically Protestant; and the Protestants in England, that Little Gidding was heretically Popish. Port Royal was destroyed by the Jesuits, and Little Gidding by the Puritans. Perhaps, therefore, the two establishments may be considered as forming the immediate link and nearest points of approximation, between two widely differing churches; and may furnish, both in their excellencies and faults, not a few useful hints to the members of both.

[blocks in formation]

but it is placed in a striking point of observation, and may assist us, I think, in accounting for some recent occurrences.

It is well known, that among many varieties, there are two lead ing parties and two systems of doctrine in the Church of England, which have come to be distinguished from each other, in common conversation, by the names of Orthodox and Evangelical. With what propriety either of these names is assumed or given, I do not mean to inquire. It would seem, that whatever is orthodox must be evangelical; and whatever is evangelical, orthodox: and although it ought to be our constant aim to merit both appellations, there is at least an equal degree of arrogance in laying an exclusive claim to either. The fact, however, is, that these, in themselves harmonious titles, have been made symbols of discord; and I think the passage just quoted from Buchanan, furnishes us with a key to the difference between the two parties to which they are applied.

It has been, of late, fashionable (excuse the term) to consider these two parties as distinguished from each other, by their adherence to Arminianism or Calvinism. But this is now well known to be an error; and, if I were required to distinguish them, it should rather be as believers in a partial or a radical corruption of our nature, in justification by faith conjointly or in justification by faith only and this I take to be the real clue to all the differences in which they have been engaged.

The doctrine of justification by works is, indeed, seldom openly avowed by any Protestant writer; and in our own church especially, the Article is so direct, which teaches, that "we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings," that it is necessary to resort to some

gross subterfuge, in order for a churchman to hold such a doctrine consistently at all. Yet whoever is acquainted with the labyrinth of his own heart, or has had any experience in reasoning with other men, must have often found, that some sentiments which he wished to disavow lay at the bottom of others which he was conscious of entertaining. It is one work of the Holy Spirit to convince us of sin, which could not be necessary, if there were not always something in our hearts which we are not sensible of harbouring. Unbelief itself is often unknown to the unbe liever; and the doctrine of justification by works may be really held, where the form of words which would be necessary to teach it would be repudiated. It is, as Dr. Buchanan says, the doctrine of the world, and may therefore find admittance wherever the principles of the world have any influence.

Sometimes, however, it happens, that a particular course of argument or controversy elicits a sene timent which would otherwise remain concealed in unsuspected obe scurity. This was what happened in a former controversy between Mr. Overton and Archdeacon Daubeny, when the latter was led, in the vehemence of discussion, to represent, as an error of his opponents, the position that "where true faith is, there will be repentance, obedience, and holiness;" although, in his subsequent apology for this mistatement, he was compelled to plead, that had the language of the Twelfth Article presented itself to his mind at the time, he would certainly have avoided this apparent opposition to its sentiments.—(Guide, p. 291. Vindiciæ, p. 345.)

I am inclined to think, that something of the same kind has occurred also in the more recent discussions on baptism. I am not one of those who wish to revive a sinking controversy; and therefore, if I now allude to these divi

sions, it is because I hope the heat
of disputation is over, and that a
be both
few practical remarks may
offered and received without intem-
perance. There must be a bias of
mind somewhere, when different
persons see the same truth in such
different points of view: and a lit-
tle observation of prevailing opi-
nions may, I think, discover, in the
present instance, in what that bias
consists.

What then, I would ask, is the
prevailing sentiment of the great
majority of the Orthodox party, so
called, as opposed to that of the
Evangelical, respecting the impor-
tant practical objects of Christian-
ity?
Is it not notoriously this,
that Christianity is a privileged
state, in which, through faith in
Christ, we are made acquainted
with our duty, and admitted to the
promise of future forgiveness and
reward, if, on the whole, we are
found to act up to the demands of
a tolerably refined morality? In
this case, therefore, baptism may
be looked upon as a mere admis
sion into this state of privilege; re-
generation, as a change of relation-
ship, by which we are taken into
the family of God, without any
actual change in our fitness for it;
and all the high expressions of a
death unto sin, and a new birth
unto righteousness, may thus dwin-
dle down to a gradual improvement
of life, and an abstinence from
grosser crime. All this misconcep-
tion, I think, results from a defect-
ive view of the extent of original
corruption. For no one will dis-
cern an essential necessity to put
on a new nature, who thinks he can
sufficiently reform and sanctify the
old one; and the remains of sin will
give us little offence, if our highest
hope be that of forgiveness through
grace, independently of a renewal
by the Holy Spirit. In a word, if
we believe our nature to be radi-
cally corrupt, we shall acknowledge
the necessity of a radical change;
if only partially so, a partial change
will be sufficient for us: and the

difference between our sentiments will be aptly expressed by the dif ference between the Apostle's term of transformation, and the modern phrase "reformation."

Nevertheless, as those to whom this description applies are com pelled to adopt the same language of Scripture, in their public ser vices, and in their appeals to scrip tural authority, with those who differ from them, each party will be likely to assign to that language a meaning adapted to its own sense of the change required: and thus our notions of regeneration, new creation, and adoption into the fa mily of God, will often be derived neither from the natural import of those terms, nor from their force in the connexion in which they stand in Scripture, but from our previous conceptions of the sense which we imagine they ought to bear.

The great cause, therefore, of difference on this subject, I judge to be, that many persons are not aware how great, how total a change is necessary; how absolutely essential it is, that every sin should be crucified, and the entire man bes come devoted to God.

They believe that every baptized person, who is regular in the ob servance of all the external duties of religion, who is sorry for occasional sins, and desirous to cultivate jus tice and charity, will be received to the presence of God without any further evidence of a heart actually converted from the vanities of the world to the love of its Creator. They do not remember, that every thing that we do is naturally con taminated by sin; that our very prayers are stained with it; and that the entire system must be changed, every sinful inclination be subdued, and the whole heart renovated, be fore we can be fit for the enjoyment of heaven.

When once they are sufficiently impressed with this truth, they will either find a higher meaning for such words as New Birth and New Creation, than that to which they

are accustomed, or they will be at a loss for words to describe the change which they acknowledge to be necessary. Among those who are truly persuaded of this necessity, there can be no important or practical difference, whatever may be their seeming and verbal difference on any part of the baptismal controversy.

The origin of the whole dispute is, as I have stated, that there are many who do not see the necessity of so entire a renovation as has been described; but who, framing to themselves a standard of morals partly from the world and partly from the Bible, think, that by living up to this imperfect standard, they may ensure to themselves the blessings of the Christian covenant, and indisputably attain everlasting salvation. Can persons holding this scheme of religious faith be justly accounted orthodox, while it is evident that they seek their justification not from a renunciation of themselves, and a total dependence upon Jesus Christ as their Saviour, but from a compliance with their own defective code of morality?

Let me not be misunderstood or thought to charge any whole body of my Christian brethren with having little personal religion, or knowing little of the nature of Christianity. It would ill become me to utter such an opinion. I only mean, that as far as any of their sentiments resolve themselves into the doctrine of justification by works in any of its modifications, they are founded in error, and require to be re-examined, and again compared with the only infallible test, the sacred Scriptures.

The sentiments now described, as Dr. Buchanan justly remarks, constitute the religion of the world; and too much of similar sentiments will ever adhere even to the most spiritual Christian to justify him in harshly censuring in others what he himself cannot entirely put away. It is scarcely possible to divest the mind effectually of that

self-complacency in a tolerably faithful discharge of any given duty, which indicates that we trust to it, as a ground of confidence, instead of presenting it with shame and humiliation, as an unworthy and blemished offering: and it is this circumstance which hinders us from adopting with gladness that doctrine of a real regeneration of heart and life by the power of the Holy Ghost, which alone can sustain the mind under an overwhelming sense of sinfulness, and make even the exercises of prayer and watchfulness, and self-denial, grateful to the soul of the penitent. I firmly believe, that, if we could utterly eradicate from the hearts of all professed Christians the idea of justification by their own works, and plant in its stead an entire renunciation of self, grounded upon that apostolical persuasion, that in ourselves (that is, in our flesh), dwelleth no good thing; but that in Christ Jesus, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we have the promise of a new nature, to be obtained by prayer, cultivated with watchful. ness, and maintained through selfdenial, in continual dependence upon the efficacy of those purifying graces, which will gradually transform us into the image of our Redeemer, could we, I say, thus rectify the hearts and conceptions of professed Christians, we should have taken away, I imagine, all ground for serious diversity upon the nature of regeneration, the efficacy of baptism, and the distinction between conversion and repentance. But as long as there remains in the world such a doctrine as that of justification by works, so long must there be a disposition to lower the import of terms which imply a Divine renovation, at which, by our own righteousness, we can never arrive, and to identify spiritual changes with outward privileges, thus substituting the signs of grace for the things signified.

There may be, and are persons, who endeavour to reconcile systems

« ÎnapoiContinuă »