Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

"Detector," and containing contradictions of some statements which appeared in the" Congregational Magazine" for July, respecting Richmond, Yorkshire. I have now to request that you will allow me room in your work for a few additional remarks, which I think called for by the observations of the editor of the "Congregational Magazine," in his last number.

Immediately on reading the statement in the July number of the "Congregational," suspecting it to contain that which was far from being true, I took means to make myself sure, and, on ascertaining the real facts of the case, I despatched, with my letter to you, a note, signed Fiat Justitia, to the Editor of the "Congregational," stating the truth in contradiction of the falsehoods he had admitted into his periodical. As I expected, however, he would not insert it, but said in his "Acknowledgments," that " if I would give my name and address he would investigate the matter, and, if necessary, correct the statement to which I referred, but that he could not do that on the authority of an anonymous communication." I then wrote to him another note, referring him to the dissenting minister at Richmond, instead of giving him my own name and address. This note is not acknowledged in his " Acknowledgments" in his September number, because, perhaps, he had not received it, but there is the following:-" After our August magazine was at press, we received the following paragraph from the gentleman who wrote the article in question, which we regret did not reach us in time for our August number:- Our correspondent that furnished the article in our last [July] number, p. 448, having since found that the Auxiliary Bible Society, and Auxiliary Church Missionary Society, at Richmond, have been much more efficient than he had apprehended, especially the former, wishes the statement of the contributions of the said Societies, which has originated entirely in an involuntary mistake, to be considered as withdrawn.'"

Now, what I have to complain of here is, the partial nature of this withdrawment. For here is not a word about the number of sittings contained in the churches, &c. In the article of the July number of the "Congregational" it was stated that "the two churches and methodist chapel do not probably contain more than 1500 sittings." But the truth is, they contain 2004 sittings, allowing twenty inches for each sitting, which, I believe, is two inches more than is allowed by the Church Building Society. I ask, therefore, why this false statement was not also " withdrawn," or rather corrected? For this word withdrawn," as here used, sounds rather oddly to me, as do also the writer's saying that the Societies "were more efficient than he had apprehended!" (not ascertained, it seems, but apprehended,) and that his mistake was an "involuntary mistake," for I thought that these gentlemen always acted on the "voluntary principle."

[ocr errors]

After giving the above paragraph from his correspondent, the Editor of the "Congregational" proceeds thus :-" From this statement, it will appear that the communication from our correspondent was sent to us before the publication of the "British Magazine" for August, and was therefore the result of his own anxiety to correct an error into which he had fallen, and not the effect of the coarse and ungenerous

remarks of Detector in that magazine, in an article entitled Home Missionary Tactics, p. 176." Now if the communication of the correspondent of the "Congregational" were sent before the publication of the "British Magazine," it does not therefore follow that that communication was the result of the communicator's own anxiety to correct an error into which he had fallen, for though not a transcript, yet a similar letter to the one which appeared in the "British Magazine" for August, was inserted in the "Yorkshire Gazette," about the middle of July, and therefore, before the withdrawment was sent to the "Congregational." And there is little doubt that the withdrawment was the result, not of the withdrawer's own anxiety to correct his error in the way the editor of the "Congregational" would have it believed, but of the remarks which appeared in the "Yorkshire Gazette." I have since then published five hundred copies of a more extended contradiction of the falsehoods, on placards, and have sent them to Richmond, for gratuitous distribution. It is, in my humble opinion, by such means as these that the shameless misrepresentations and falsehoods of the dissenters are to be counteracted. It is expensive for individuals to follow such a course, but this should not deter the friends of the truth from doing all they can at the present time. I write many letters myself, to different places, to ascertain the truth of statements which I see in the dissenting periodicals, and sometimes with advantage to our holy cause. I could do much more good this way, were it not for the expense. I have spent several pounds in this way within the last year, and think that a small society might do much good by subscribing a little money and following a similar course. But, whatever others do, Mr. Editor, I will do all I can. I know the principles upon which our church stands, and I love her, and, while I have health and strength, will use my utmost endeavours to defend her. Let each one of her sons do the same. I remain, Sir, yours respectfully,

DETECTOR.

MR. KNOX.

MR. EDITOR,-The suspicions you express at page 312 of your last number, respecting Mr. Knox's views of our salvation through Christ, are certainly not without foundation. I think, however, he can hardly be charged with doing away with all that is subjective in religion, though it must be admitted that he gives a prominence to that internal work of the Spirit of which man is the subject.

I doubt not that Mr. Knox has been led to think and write thus, not only because he was persuaded of the great practical value of the subjective part of religion, but because his views did not exactly harmonize with the objective religious scheme of modern times. I mean, he was of opinion, that the plain statements of mysterious truths, which form the objects of our faith, have received many additions, explanations, and apologies, which are not to be met with in the word of God, nor in the early Christian writers.

The doctrine of the atonement, for instance, appears to occupy a different place in modern divinity from what it formerly held. The

word" atonement"* is no longer regarded as identical with the word "reconciliation." While the divine procedure itself, which these words express, is not simply believed in as a mystery, but is somewhat presumptuously accounted for on the principles of human reason and justice, by making such words as "debt," "satisfaction," " ransom,' &c., nomina propria by which the very nature of redemption, and its occasion are expressed, instead of regarding them as "figures of speech, for the purpose of illustrating the nature and extent of the consequences and effects of the redemptive act, and to excite in the receivers a due sense of the magnitude and manifold operation of the boon, and of the love and gratitude due to the Redeemer."-See Coleridge's "Aids to Reflection," page 323, where this subject is discussed at large. Also Professor Hey's," Lectures on the Articles," appendix, on the Atonement.

I would also take this opportunity of suggesting to those who range themselves on opposite sides, as to the moral and forensic view of Christianity, that these are by no means contradictory to each other; but that each occupies an important place in God's revelation to man. [The moral statement contemplates inherent sin as the true and essential cause of our alienation from God. The forensic argument, (in accommodation of the truth to our reason, by a reference to human courts of judicature,) directs the attention to God, offended at the guilt incurred in consequence of the violated law.] Our blessed Lord, who addressed himself to the hearts of individuals, spoke morally. St. Paul, who combatted the pride of national privileges, necessarily had recourse to forensic language.

This

But would I therefore maintain that the forensic argument is inapplicable to Christians of the present day? By no means. mode of speaking will generally be found necessary in the pulpit, unless, indeed, we were addressing a congregation of philosophers.

We find ourselves compelled to speak of an angry God-a debt incurred the bar of justice-the advocate who undertakes for us, &c.,-but we would not therefore be understood to employ these terms in their strict and literal sense. Nor are we to suppose it possible, by any figures of speech, to express the whole mystery of redemption. I am, your obedient servant,

CATHOLICUS.

[ocr errors]

MR. KNOX.

It

SIR,-I consider the view which Mr. Knox took of justification as so truly scriptural, and the effects of such a view to be so highly beneficial, that I cannot help being desirous that his book should be most carefully studied. I say carefully" because I never met with any work of the same degree of depth which required more study. would be unavoidable to escape misunderstanding the author, and of irritating our prejudices, if we only give it a superficial reading; and such it is likely to obtain from those who do not consider the subject of paramount importance. I am glad to see that your correspondent

VOL. VIII.-Nov. 1835.

• Καταλλαγή.

3 Z

"Catholicus," has vindicated Mr. Knox's doctrine from the charge of novelty. It is one, indeed, universally accepted in a practical sense, wherever true devotion is found; for however narrow a creed may be made, the text stands sure, and is accepted, that," without holiness, no man can see the Lord."

The double design of our Saviour's sacrifice on the cross, and the pre-eminent importance of the grace which sanctifies above that grace which expiates, (as Cudworth observes,) is, I think, evident from these texts. "Delivered (to death) for our offences, and raised for our justification." "If we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Here the death which reconciled us is considered of less importance than the life or spirit of Christ in us, which is said to save us—thus our Saviour said, " Because I live, ye shall live also," and hence we may conclude, that, if Christ be not raised, (though he has died for us, yet still if he be not raised and gone to Heaven to send us the sanctifying gifts of the Spirit,) " we are yet in our sins," and not " saved." So that we may well say, not only that Christ has died, but rather that he is risen again, &c.

I was the more struck by Mr. Knox's opinions, from having been brought to adopt them previously to seeing his work, by a diligent perusal of St. John's gospel, and of the epistles, with the view of illustrating the text so often repeated in the scriptures" without holi

ness no man can see the Lord!"

The degrees of holiness required would be considered by the orthodox as fanatical, and by the Calvinist as impossible--and yet the apostles set out by considering their converts as in a state of justification, as to pardon and righteousness, which the humility of all parties rejects even for the most matured. These Gentile converts are supposed to be assured of their acceptance and reconciliation-to be actually incorporated into the kingdom of Christ-to be sons-to be heirs to be the temples of the Holy Ghost-to be purified-to be sanctified-to have a present access into the most holy places, and thus to be not only priests but high priests, and yet they were required to leave first principles, and go on unto perfection,-to be filled with all the fulness of Christ, to be one with Christ; and such only could have a "hope full of glory" and "perfect peace"-such only "could rejoice in the Lord." Now, supposing that we do not presume even to end where these began, but go on repenting in dust and ashes, and clinging to first principles; supposing that we do not dare to presume upon an assured pardon, and cannot expect a hope of glory, and have not the witness of the spirit within us, and all the other privileges which the ancient churches rejoiced in; I do not see how such spiritual progress can be made as that which is required, for, without these assurances, we cannot deeply love God; and if faith works only by duty, its chariot wheels are soon clogged.

It is also in vain, that God's promises of holiness are unlimited, and his rewards held forth, while we consider the best we can do as 'filthy rags." Our minds are not so constituted as to bear depression and elevation at the same time. If we can do all things through

[ocr errors]

Christ strengthening us, and if our lives are to be without blame before God, must we in the same moment believe that what the Spirit enables us to do is filthy? The New Testament labours to elevate the moral condition of men, and while we are nothing out of Christ, we are, if in Him, raised to such possibility of perfection, that words fail in expressing the greatness of that state of spirituality which we are called upon to attain. Here, then, is a stimulus to exertion,-here is space for love to expand in till it casteth out fear; but, tell me, how can the abased Calvinist, who thinks himself a worm and no man, and supposes that death only can purify him, how can he love with the warni, and generous, and confiding love of the gospel? how can he go on to perfection, when his creed holds him worthless to the last? how can he rejoice, except in the "fractional election" of an arbitrary master? how can he be conformed to the image of God, when his heart is never to be considered otherwise than as " desperately wicked ?"

It is not possible to be sufficiently explicit in this small space, but I am not to be understood as depreciating humility. We have nothing that we have not received, for it is God which worketh in us, both the will and the action. The higher we go in sanctification, the greater delight have we in glorying in our faith and righteousness as the gifts of God. The same Saviour who died for our reconciliation, lives that he may finish our salvation by performing a still greater work, in subduing all things in us to himself. I cannot imagine why. we should make a personal boast of the one work more than of the other; but, as Paul distinguished the old man from the new, so may we distinguish between boasting of the natural fruits and the fruits of the spirit. If we take David as the most humble of saints, we shall find him continually exulting in the righteous, and looking for the reward of integrity. Even when justly under the rebuke of God's displeasure, in the most penitential of his psalms he expects to be restored to the joy of salvation, to have joy and gladness in consequence of being "purged" and of being washed "whiter than snow." He did not mean to lie always in sackcloth and ashes, but he expected to have "a clean heart," and "a right spirit" renewed within him, which was over and above the cleansing and the washing of past sins; for he well knew that mere pardon, without a renewed nature, would do him little good, and that the sacrifice of a broken heart must be followed by the "sacrifices of righteousness." Then, and not till then, would the broken bones thoroughly rejoice. In the 23rd Psalm, David expresses the same notions. He says first, that the Lord, his shepherd, restores his soul, and then leads him in the paths of righteousness; that all good things follow in consequence, and that his " cup runneth over."

It is strange that we see so little appearance of this rejoicing in the Lord among modern saints, though the Gospel so absolutely requires it; but if, on the one hand, we think it presumption to have "quietness and assurance for ever;" or on the other hand suppose that Christ has done all in washing our souls, and that there can be no hope of his power working positive moral righteousness in us; then,

« AnteriorContinuar »