Изображения страниц
[ocr errors]

man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth ?” (Luke xviii. 8.) We are told of many signs and wonders which shall usher in and accompany that event; these shall be the warning note to the watchful believer, as the green leaf of the fig-tree denotes the approach of summer. Does Dr. Temple express the sentiments of himself and others equally advanced, that, when such outer manifestations are presented in their case, the faculty of faith is so turned inward that it cannot accept them, albeit they bear evidences of God's power and are in strict agreement with His revealed truth?

We rise from the examination of this essay with a sense of devout thankfulness for those teachings of God's word which show the danger of intellectual pride, the vanity of mere human learning, and the value of a teachable and childlike spirit. It has been noted as one of the evidences of our Lord's divine mission, that he beld out to his followers no bright hopes of worldly advancement; in the world they must look for tribulation, they must count the cost, and like their Lord take up the cross. So the apostle writes, in the early chapters of the first epistle to the Corinthians; a portion of God's word to be studied in connexion with such a volume as these essays. Could we hope to reach them, we would earnestly commend it to these essayists; not as part of “a letter for the time," but as containing instruction for all time; to be profoundly weighed by the rationalists of the present day, as well as by the church of Corinth. On such teaching we fall back. Our brethren who are sound in the faith will not be drawn from the truth by the ostentatious display of intellect on the part of our adversaries. They meet us with the scornful look of the proud, and the supercilious smile of self-confidence; and they will receive the adulation and homage of those who are led away by the captivating snares of unballowed reason; but our trust is in God. In the midst of this new assault upon the gospel we fear no adversary, while we seek grace to watch and stand fast in the faith, to quit us like men and be strong.

But we cannot close without asking what is to be the reply on the part of the church of England to Dr. Temple and his friends ? The reviewer's task is a humble one ; his sphere of operation limited. Cannot the university, which is alike insulted and injured by such a volume of “Oxford Essays,” maintain her own rights, and pronounce an authoritative condemnation upon those of the writers who are her own sons, just as she did upon the occasion of Ward's publication of “the Ideal of the Christian Church?” If there be so much of the subtle wisdom of the serpent in these essays that their authors cannot thus be laid hold of; or if-which alas ! is more to be feared—the canker of rationalism has eaten into the

very heart of our seats of learning; or if, again, the very names of Temple and Jowett carry with them so much fascination that such an attempt is unadvisable because its success would be doubtful; then may we not look to our bishops? Can not, and will not, our bishops collectively, as well as individually, pronounce their solemn verdict against Dr. Temple and his compeers ? This is the season for visitations and episcopal charges ; let the note of warning from our bishops be clear and loud against this fuller development of a mischief which has long been lurking in the midst of us, but of which we have now plain and tangible evidence. To maintain the church of England in the hearts and affections of its members, it must be known that, however it may be in the educational department of our church, such opinions will have no countenance or support from the episcopal rulers of her parochial clergy.

After all, however, when such heretical views are found amongst those who profess the creed and share the emoluments of our church, the surest remedy is to be found in the laity. Are they content that their sons shall imbibe these opinions from the head master at Rugby and Mr. Jowett at Oxford ? If so, the matter ends; if not, let them be manful and fearless for the truth's sake. When a member of parliament persists in a course at variance with the political opinions of his constituency, he receives a remonstrance from his friends, to which he yields, or honestly resigns the seat which he cannot conscientiously hold. Dr. Temple has a large constituency in the parents of his boys; let them act decidedly with the master to whom they have committed the sacred deposit of the education of their sons. Remonstrances such as these, if firmly carried out, will produce one of two results ; they will either lead Dr. Temple to review and retrace his course, or they will empty Rugby School.

Is it too much to hope that Dr. Temple will retrace his course ? Among many interesting passages in his essay, there is one to the following effect, which seems to speak powerfully to himself:

“In the last stage of his progress a man learns in various ways; by experience—by reflection. Thirdly, he learns much by mistakes, both by his own and by those of others. He often persists in a wrong cause, till it is too late to mend what he has done, and he learns how to use it and how to bear it. His principles, or what he thought his principles, break down under him, and he is forced to analyse them to discover what amount of truth they really contain. He comes upon new and quite unexpected issues of what he has done or said, and he has to profit by such warnings as he receives. His errors often force him, as it were, to go back to school ; not now with the happy docility of a child, but with the chastened submission of a penitent.” (p. 33.)

We suspect that he already feels that he has committed an error in joining himself to the writers of these essays, and coming before the world in their company. Let him learn that he has made a still greater mistake in his mode of treating the subject upon which he has written. Reliance upon his own intellectual power has led him to embrace, in their germ at least, those errors which others have more fully developed. But having "come upon new and un


expected issues of what he has done and said,” the next step, according to his own teaching, is “to profit by the warnings which he receives.” May his errors force him, as it were, to go back to school, even the school of Christ! There he may combine, if he will, “the happy docility of a child with the chastened submission of a penitent.” Studying God's blessed word for divine instruction, instead of in a merely critical and captious mind ; and praying earnestly for the teaching of the Holy Spirit, although he has, in his essay, depreciated that word, and slighted that Spirit, he may be led into the path of pure and simple truth—he may yet stand forth to defend the faith which once he destroyed—and in such a case, many are they who will rejoice over his return, and “glorify God in him.



The Parish Pastor. By Richard Whately, D.D., Archbishop of

Dublin. London: John W. Parker. 1860. Small Svo.



The archbishop of Dublin is a writer under whose sanction men of all parties would be glad to find a shelter for their opinions. A mind so penetrating, a style so clear, an understanding so powerful and so richly freighted, are seldom combined. When we agree with him, we feel a conscious satisfaction; when we are aware that he is leading us, we experience no humiliation; when we differ from him, we do not cease to respect him. There is something in his writings which always commands the respect of his readers; and we believe that on reflection it will be found to be the strong conviction of his integrity,-integrity not standing unsupported and alone, but in connexion with the other qualities to which we have referred.

A treatise on the parochial system from such a writer, had it derived no additional weight from his position in the church, could scarcely fail to have been instructive. Taking into account the distinguished position and high reputation of Dr. Whately, his little volume of course assumes an importance which could not otherwise have attached to it. But it is not unworthy of his fame, and will no doubt exercise a considerable influence both with the clergy and laity; for both of whom it appears to have been designed. Indeed, archbishop Whately is perhaps the only theologian of our day who has the rare advantage of being as much, if not more, read by the latter than the former. Why this should be the case, we do not now inquire; though the cause is perhaps one which it requires no great research to discover. The matters of which he trcats in this new work are simple questions of general conceru,

and his mode of treatment popular and easy, though neither superficial nor too dogmatic. The subjects treated of are contained in six lectures, or chapters, which are headed thus: The Parochial System ; Explanations of the Bible ; Explanations of the Prayer Book; On Baptism ; On the Lord's Supper; Christian Moral Instruction.

The first chapter contains much wise advice on the pastoral care of a parish, and the distinct branches of ministerial duty. On the qualifications necessary for private ministrations, the archbishop insists with much discrimination; and his remarks show, as might be expected, no slight acquaintance with human nature. We quite agree with him that, even with a view to really profitable public teaching, private intercourse with the members of the congregation is highly important; since none can be well fitted to instruct any class of persons with whose characters they are not well acquainted. Nor are we at all indisposed to admit that domestic visitation occasionally produces important effects upon those who had remained practically unmoved by addresses from the pulpit. In the hands of a competent minister it has its own work, with which the pulpit scarcely interferes. Still we are of opinion that the pulpit claims the higher place, as being in a more especial sense a divine ordinance, and, as the history of the church will prove, that which

, in general has been blessed with the greatest success; and therefore we can scarcely agree with the archbishop when he says that, “as for instituting any inquiry into the comparative utility or dignity of the several branches of ministerial duty, this would then-and then only-be pertinent, if an alternative were before us--if one or else another of these must necessarily be neglected. But a conscientious man, who has several distinct duties imposed on him, will occupy himself, not in considering which of them deserves a preference, but how he can best fulfil them all.” The subject, however, has been discussed by several writers—one of them, at least, no mean proficient in the art of preaching-in these pages so recently, that we need not again enlarge upon it. Dr. Whately says, that he is so far from undervaluing public instruction and exhortation from the pulpit, that "he is fully sensible of an advantage, in some respects, which a discourse delivered in a

congres gation possesses over private admonitions to an individual ;” and he dwells upon “ mutual sympathy, and mutual consciousness of that sympathy, as tending very greatly to heighten any emotion that

may have been excited. Thus a powerful effect is often produced on a large audience, of whom not one perhaps would have been equally influenced if addressed in private.” We think much more might be advanced : we say with George Herbert, “the pulpit is the parson's joy and throne;" and we must confess that we attribute the success of the reaction against evangelical principles in the church of England, which set in thirty years ago, first under the form of Tractarianism, and then, having nearly spent itself in that direction, now again under the more specious garb of a philosophical religion,-in some degree to the decay of power in the sermons of the evangelical clergy. They had been attempting too much, and, in consequence, had not done any part of their work so well. That which required most preparation was of course most injured by haste and overcrowding. Dr. Whately is a little too much afraid of impassioned preaching; he repeats in substance what Paley advanced seventy years ago, when preaching was in so low a condition that it could descend no lower. We have not a word to say when we are reminded that popularity is no certain test of usefulness; that itching ears should not be encouraged; that a love of eloquence, even of sacred eloquence, is not to be confounded with the love of sacred truth, and so forth,—for we might fill a page with remarks of this kind, all equally trite, and all unanswerable. But two facts would still look us in the face, and with an honest simplicity claim to be refuted. The first is, that the great Founder of our religion commissioned His disciples to spread the gospel everywhere by means of public preaching; and that, without entering on any critical investigation, it is abundantly evident that the New Testament recognises a distinction between this “public preaching" and " teaching" from house to house, and that the former had, in general, the precedence. Secondly, that no instance can be found, either in the past history or present circumstances of the church of Christ, in which the pulpit has not been the barometer of piety. The church has never thriven when the pulpit was languid ; the church has never failed to thrive under the faithful, vigorous preaching of the word. “ Take thou autho. rity to preach the word of God, and to minister the sacraments in the congregation," is the solemn charge in which the clergy of our church receive their commission to preach in the congregation ; this is their one grand vocation. It is not the whole of their ministry, by any means; but it is its most important feature. Dr. Whately would probably agree to this. The only point between us is, that we think he has scarcely drawn the line with sufficient distinctness between public and private teaching; and that, without at all unduly estimating the latter, he hardly assigns to the former its full dignity and paramount import

We agree with him, again, in placing the ministry of the word far above other functions; and think the following paragraph, though it may startle some of our readers, is not only perfectly just, but of serious concern both to clergy and laity :


“ The duty of giving religious instruction to the people is one of the most important of our duties, and what may be said to characterize our office, as established by the apostles, and maintained in our church, and as distinguished from the office of the sacerdotal priest under the Levitical law, and of the priest in the unreformed churches, whose chief function is, not so much instruction, as the offering a supposed sacrifice

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »