Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

world is so ready to acquit herself, even when laden with guilt, and because true Christians are so frequently seduced by her into a degree of acquiescence in some of her false maxims, that I think it necessary to trouble you on this subject.

Is it necessary to shew to what extravagant and ridiculous lengths the world pushes her false candour, in what regards the conduct of men towards their God? She will allow a man to be of what sect he pleases; to be a Socinian, an Antinomian, a Roman Catholic, a Gentoo, or even to be of no religion whatever, and she will be most liberal in her apologies for him, provided he will but let her alone. If he disturb her quiet by endeavouring to point out her faults, and to propagate his own opinions, he immediately falls under her condemnation; but let him only abstain from this, and she will repay the civility by pronouncing all his errors void of guilt. To support the honour of God, and the right of his sovereignty, "is not in all her thoughts." But if the world is thus disposed to "call evil good" when she does not conceive her own interests to be concerned, let Christians be on their guard against the contagion of her example. While they watch over themselves with a holy jealousy, and are exact "their own defects to scan," let them cherish a warm love for all their fellow-creatures, and entertain as favourable an opinion of others as circumstances will admit: but, at the same time, let them steadily maintain right principles in their full extent, and never compliment man by softening down any part of the law of God.

R. S.

[ocr errors]

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

THOUGH Conformably, Sir, with the sentiments of neutrality which, in your official capacity, you maintain as to the tenets at issue between Calvinists and Anti-calvinists, you have repeatedly avowed your conviction that the thirty-nine articles are so framed as to include both parties; there are many persons who do not hesitate to affirm, or to imply, that the articles were designed to establish Sublapsarian Calvinism in the Church; and that no individual, who is not a Sublapsarian Calvinist, ought to subscribe them. On this opinion I beg

leave to offer the following remarks, which may at the same time serve to justify the moderate and conciliatory views which you have adopted upon the subject.

1. It is a fact admitted by all candid Calvinists, that great numbers of intelligent and conscientious men have successively subscribed, and continue to subscribe, the articles in an Anticalvinistic sense, believing each of them, the seventeenth not excepted, to be fairly susceptible of such a sense. Hence arises a strong presumption that the articles relating to the tenets in question, were purposely worded in terms sufficiently comprehensive to embrace Anti-calvinists.

2. If the turn of expression in some parts of the seventeenth article appear to incline towards the calvinistic side, there are many very important expressions in the liturgy which, according to the natural and obvious interpretation of them, incline at least as much in favour of the Anti-calvinists. I do not mean to intimate that Calvinists may not conscientiously assent and consent to these expressions; indeed I am fully convinced that they do so. But the Anti-calvinist is, to say the least, autho rized to produce these expressions as strong presumptions, that the Established Church has always opened its arms to receive him.

3. I proceed to historical facts.

The seventeenth article, as it now stands, is the same with the corre sponding article in the articles established towards the close of the reign of Edward VI. in 1552, with the exception of three verbal corrections of no importance in the present enquiry, and the omission, after the word "furthermore," in the concluding paragraph, of the following words

though the decrees of predestination be unknown to us, yet (see the comparison of the Articles in the Collection of Records subjoined to Burnet's History of the Reformation, folio, Vol. II. p. 194). It will not, I presume, be affirmed, that the omission of those words has rendered the article more rigid.

4. The articles established in 1552 were framed by Archbishop Cranmer. "The council appointed the archbi shop to draw up a set of articles.” (Gilpin's Life of Cranmer, 1784. p.. 153.) "In this work it is not known that he had any coadjutor. It is im

probable, however, that a man of his candour and modesty would engage in a work of this kind without many consultations with his friends; and it is commonly supposed that Ridley, Bishop of London, was particularly useful to him." Ibid. p. 156.-"We have Cranmer's own word for it, that he drew them." (Burnet's History of the Reformation. Vol. III. p. 211.) When interrogated on the subject by his enemies under Queen Mary, "the last part of his answer to that was, As for the catechism, the book of articles, with the other book against Winchester, he grants the same to be his doings." Ibid.

Having premised this statement, I would ask, Where is the evidence that Cranmer was a Calvinist, even on the sublapsarian scheme? Evidence, I believe, has been repeatedly produced from his writings to prove that he was not a Calvinist; and has been resisted on the ground that the work whence it is taken would equally prove him in part a Papist, as some Popish errors are retained in it. That he afterwards renounced the Popish doctrines of the book was abundantly manifest. Where is the proof that he also renounced the Anti-calvinistic opinions?

If Cranmer was not a Calvinist, to suppose that he would frame articles which should exclude from the Church himself and all who were not Calvinists, is an absurdity which I need not examine.

If Ridley, and other leading divines, assisted the archbishop, as we may be confident was the case, in his undertaking, it may be inferred, that in completing it they had no purpose or idea of excluding the primate and those who concurred with him in doc

trine.

5. But perhaps Cranmer was a Calvinist: suppose the assumption granted. Let the following facts then be duly weighed. The disunion and discordance of the Protestants were among the circumstances which most efficaciously impeded the progress of the reformation, and furnished to the Roman Catholics the most plausible argument for the necessity of an infallible Church. The archbishop, deeply impressed by these mischiefs, earnestly laboured, especially about the year 1516, to accomplish an object which he had greatly at heart; the union of all the Protestant Churches

of Europe in one mode of ecclesiastical government, and one confession of faith. For this purpose he eagerly applied to the most eminent of the foreign reformers. He entreated them to co-operate with him, and proposed England as a secure and commodious place for their consultations. “During the course of this projected union, a question arose of great importance Whether, in drawing up a confession of faith, definite or general terms should be adopted. The primate, with his usual candour, pleaded for the greatest latitude. Let us leave the portal, said he, as wide as we can; and exclude none whom it is in our power to comprehend." Gilpin's Life of Cranmer, p. 149.

The stiffness with which some of the foreign divines insisted on their own peculiarities, and the subsequent troubles in England, terminated the de-. sign. But can any man maintain or conceive that Cranmer, Calvinist as we now assume him to be, when called from his labours for an univer sal union among Protestants to frame a set of articles for England, when invested by the king's council with full and exclusive power to frame them, would instantly abandon his comprehensive views, and narrow the portal so as to exclude all who were not of the Calvinistic creed?

AQUITATIS AMATOR.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. THOUGH I am a Dissenter, I read your monthly publication with pleasure, as it appears well calculated to promote the interests of religion in the Church of which you are members. It cannot be supposed, that your views respecting the national establishment coincide with my own; but I do not charge you with going beyond the bounds of Christian moderation. In regard to the grand matters of faith and practice, I for the most part approve, and think that you proceed in the happy medium between the opposite extremes. I most sincerely wish the spiritual prosperity of that Church, from which I am bound in conscience to dissent, and cannot but regret whatever appears injurious to it. I doubt not you will receive with candour, what I now take the liberty to offer to your consideration on a matter of general concern, which I

have often observed, and that is, the disproportionate stress which some preachers lay upon a few doctrinal points, and the high extreme to which their zeal carries them in stating and defending them. Not satisfied with introducing these doctrines into every discourse, some of these gentlemen scarcely ever treat upon any thing else, whatever be the text which they have chosen; and not uncommonly is the text itself stretched, not to say perverted, to make it speak their favourite sentiments: and those sentiments are sometimes carried so far as not to be defensible upon the ground of scripture, any more than of the articles of your Church. I have not only heard very exceptionable modes of expression made use of in explaining or defending the doctrines of grace; but I have also witnessed such representations of the doctrines themselves, and such disparaging terms applied to moral duties, as had a direct tendency (contrary, perhaps, to the design of the preacher) to countenance that Antinomian spirit which I fear is gaining ground among the professors of religion in the Church, as well as among the Dissenters. One proof of this is, that preachers of this description in the Church are particularly admired and followed by those Dissenters who are of Antinomian sentiments, and who are in the habit of reproaching such of our ministers as insist much on the grand topics of practical godliness, as legal preachers. Let me, however, caution your readers, both clergy and laity, against that kind of preaching, which, under the specious name of evangelical, is calculated to undermine the Gospel.

I have been the more confirmed in what I have advanced, and the more determined to communicate my thoughts to you by some recent occurrences, of which I have myself been a witness. I had lately an opportunity of hearing a preacher who has been greatly followed and extolled; and I could not help being surprised and grieved to find, that instead of improving the valuable opportunities afforded him, in the vast congregations which he collected, of "calling sinners to repentance," of awakening the careless, and exciting Christians to abound in the work of the Lord, he avoided almost every thing of a practical kind, and generally confined himself to a point of

doctrine without at all urging its proper improvement. In one discourse, when exposing legalists who depend upon their sincerity, he expressed himself in such a way as to lead his hearers to disparage that Christian grace, and he told them (what I have more charity than to believe) that he himself was never sincere for a single day. His text on the same occasion was most grossly perverted. Isa, xliii. 8-11. Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears, &c. These words, which most evidently refer to idols, he applied to God's people who had been blind and deaf, but whose eyes and ears the spirit had opened*.

I could mention other and some worse perversions of scripture, but I forbear, lest I should be thought invidious. I wish that what I have said may be taken as it is intended; not to discountenance evangelical preach ing, but to caution those who are friends to it against that manner of conducting it, which rather tends to encourage a false taste among the hearers of the Gospel; who are too ready to prefer what is popular and singular to what is just and scriptural; who are more fond of hearing any thing that is comfortable than what is truly useful; and who are apt to condemn those ministers as "legal" whose judgment and conscience will not allow them to gratify this corrupt taste.

If those gentlemen, on whose style of preaching I have been animadverting, were to know the true reason of their being so much followed, I am sure they would be displeased with themselves, and that while they retained their attachment to the doctrines of grace, they would alter the strain of their discourses, and employ a part of them in shewing the ineffi cacy of mere speculative faith, and in exhorting “ those who have believed to be careful to maintain good works." If what I have written should meet with your approbation, and induce any abler correspondent to pursue the subject, or to correct me

* A dissenting minister, discoursing lately from Isaiah xl. 20. He that is wimpoverished that he hath no oblation, choesin a similar style, the man who was impoeth a tree that will not rot," represented, verished as the convicted sinner, and the tree that will not rot as Jesus Christ. Are not such gross perversions of the word of God truly lamentable?

in any thing wherein I may be mistaken, it would afford great pleasure to your obedient servant,

NE QUID NIMIS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I WISH to return my thanks to your correspondent B. T. for his instructive and appropriate observations in your number for April last (page 207.) I fully concur with him in opinion, that "no small knowledge, ability, discretion, and christian piety, are requisite in discussing theological questions." Repeating over and over the same things, which produce no new conviction, and admit of no new reply, tends only to weary some and perplex many. There are truths, which, considered in relation to others, are like suns in their respective systems. If these are clouded by misconception, to disperse such clouds by a simple and perspicuous statement, is to illuminate at once those subordinate truths which are connected with them, and thereby to promote essentially the edification of the Church. But whilst the primary truths remain obscured, the labour spent upon collateral ones only generates strife by increasing confusion.

One thing I beg leave to recommend to such as venture upon the investigation of theological questions, viz. that in stating their opinions, they will avoid using the language of scripture, because this is really begging the question in debate, since we mean not to contradict scripture but to inquire its meaning. It is very allowable when persons have stated their opinion, that they give those passages

of scripture which appear to them to authorize it, and the reader must judge if such texts apply to the case in hand; but the authority of revelation, though it may be pleaded, must not be assumed, and we are well strict integrity. There is no Papist aware this be done by persons of may can read our Lord's approbation of St. Peter, without thinking it applicable to the Pope; or his promise to abide with his Church for ever, without imagining the doctrine of what they term the real presence on their altars to be comprehended in it*. Protestants must not flatter themselves with being intirely free from the power of erroneous associations, and those who have constantly heard a text of scripture made the organ of a controverted opinion (when such controversy is supported on each side by men of acknowledged piety and learning) ought to consider that they have never yet probably read that scripture with impartiality, since it concerns a subject upon which men may think differently and yet be truly the servants of God; consequently, their own sincerity is no positive proof of their exemption from error in this particular.

I venture to send you, Mr. Editor, these observations from the desire that my former inquiry may not tend "to the exercise of theological subtilty rather than to edification," which is an effect I very sincerely deprecate.

A SERIOUS INQUIRER.

We believe, that the Papists com monly consider this passage as proving the infallibility and perpetuity of their Church, rather than the doctrine of the real presence.-ED.

MISCELLANEOUS.

EXTRACTS FROM AN UNPUBLISHED TOUR bye had a juster claim to entertain

ON THE CONTINENT.

ACCOUNT OF THE MONASTERY OF LA

TRAPPE.

(Continued from p. 356).

ABOUT half past six, our guide desired us to follow him, when we were joined by several other guests of needy and shabby appearance, who by the

ment than we; for the rules of the order enjoin, that those only should be received who visit this abbey through piety or want. I am afraid that neither of these motives could apply to us. We were conducted into the cloisters, where the monks were singing, with books in their hands, divided into two rows. Down the middle were placed long crachoirs,

between which were two copper buckets; one of them was full of warm water and sage, which the brethren, whose turn it was to wait upon the rest, laded out into small basons they held in their hands, and stooping down washed the feet of all their brethren. In this ceremony the great est neatness was observed, for it was remarked that a fresh towel was used for each individual, and when one person was washed, that water was thrown into the other bucket, and clean water made use of for the next. As the bason gradually approached the row where I sat, I began to be under a dreadful alarm, lest the good father should literally attempt to practise the charitable custom of the eastern worthies in washing the feet of strangers. Had any pressing offers of this sort been made, the scene must have been as ridiculous as can well be imagined. I had on my boots, which, without the help of a bootjack, require the labour of some minutes to pull off; to have asked for such a machine was out of the question; to have broken silence at that solemn time would have turned the whole community into one general confusion; and, on the other hand, for the good father and myself to have been tugging for some time, with our united strength, must almost have been sufficient to unsettle the muscles of the austerest Benedictine among them. Luckily for them and for us, they kept close to the old proverb, Charity begins at home, and made no offers of washing any feet but those of the brotherhood. At the conclusion of the ceremony they walked away singing, while we were conducted to the same room into which we were first shewn at our entrance, and an elegant supper was provided for us; it consisted of a salad, fried eggs, and a dish of thick pease-soup, with apples, cheese, and dried figs, by way of dessert. After the supper we retired to our chamber, expressing a desire to attend at early prayers: accordingly, the following morning (July 6,) about a quarter before two, our kind attendant brought us a candle: we dressed ourselves immediately and went to our gallery. A lamp suspended before the altar shed a glimmering light over the chapel, and was scarcely sufficient to afford us a view of our watchful fathers, though clad in white: we could but just dis

cern their different motions and various postures. This awful medium between light and darkness, this visible gloom, added to the deep doleful voices that issued from beneath us, together with the solemnity of the place, and the unusual earliness of the hour, was sufficient to call up a re

verence and attention in the most unhallowed soul. About three o'clock they sang the Te Deum, which they performed better than any part of the service besides; at least it pleased and affected me more than any thing I ever heard in catholic chapels.

At nine o'clock we went to high mass, and observed that the brethren kissed each other before they partook of the consecrated elements. After I left the chapel I felt myself excessively hungry, not having eaten any thing for several hours; but could not help being amused at the oddity of longing for my dinner at ten o'clock in the morning. A little after this hour we were called to dinner, which was much the same as the day before, except that a dish of boiled milk and flour was served up instead of peasesoup, with the addition of a few radishes. About the middle of the dinner, one of the community having spilled some beer or water upon the table, immediately left his seat, and fell prostrate in the middle of the hall, till the abbot knocked as a signal for him to rise.

I enquired this afternoon of our conductor what was the revenue of the convent; he told me it amounted to about 27,000 livres annual rent, which is nearly £.1140. sterling. I have, however, been informed since, that the income did not exceed 20,000 livres: out of this are maintained every year a considerable number of strangers, exclusive of the neighbouring poor, besides their own society, which amounts to almost two hundred persons. They have three different orders of men in the house-1. The real brothers, who wear white cowls, nineteen of whom are priests.-2. The Freres Convèrts, who are dressed in brown with girdles round their loins: these are not confined to a strict attendance on prayers, as the others; they are of various trades, and work for the benefit of the rest.-3. The Freres Donnés, of which there are never more than five or six. These make no vows of any kind, are dressed in their common habits with

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »