[81b]John vi. 46.
[82]Liturgy of the New Church Office of Baptism, p. 58.
[84]“Jesus the Fountain of Life and Light,” p. 12.
[85]In some places it is not till the end of a fortnight.
[87a]Examination of the opinions of the Plymouth Brethren.
[87b]The following is a sample from one of their published works: “The first eclogue of Virgil has always appeared to me to express most felicitously the pleasures of apastorallife as we too frequently see it in these days. With what force the following lines describe the grateful feeling of ayoung clergyman, who is recounting the benefits conferred on him by his patron:
O Melibœe, Deus nobis hæc otia fecit.Namque erit ille mihi semper Deus—Ille meas errare boves, ut cernis, et ipsumLudere, qæe vellem, calamo permisit agresti.
O Melibœe, Deus nobis hæc otia fecit.Namque erit ille mihi semper Deus—Ille meas errare boves, ut cernis, et ipsumLudere, qæe vellem, calamo permisit agresti.
My patron shall always be a divinity to me, for he put me into this life of ease when he gave me thisgem,the prettiest living in England. He gave me thiseasy duty, so that I can let my flock wander wheresoever it may please them, as you see they do; while I myself do just what 1 like, and occasionally amuse myself with apianoforteby Stoddart, that cost eighty-five guineas.”
“He (the congregational minister) is now, in his own opinion, theone manof the whole body of believers in all the services of the sanctuary. He utters all their sentiments of faith and doctrine, and offers up all their prayers! How can he justify the position he has assumed asan usurper? yea as agrievous wolf! in that he has swallowed upall the gifts of the Holy Ghostin thevoracity of his selfishness,” &c. It is not thus that the “unity of the church,” which they profess to desire is likely to be cemented.
[90]Bishop Jewel, in his “Defence of his apology for the Church of England,” says, that “the termCalvinistwas in the first instance applied to the Reformers and the English Protestants as a matter of reproach by the Church of Rome.”
[91]Whatever difference may have subsisted between Luther and Calvin on the subject of Divine decrees, no language can be stronger than that in which Luther insists upon the moral impotence of man’s depraved nature in opposition to the Pelagian doctrine of freewill.
[93a]It is difficult to reconcile this doctrine with 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. 1 Tim. ii. 6. 2 Pet. iii. 9. Rom. viii. 32. 1 Tim. iv. 10. &c.
[93b]The best account of their system is to be found in “The Assembly’s Catechism,” which is taught their children. To this sect belongs more particularly the doctrine ofAtonement, or, “that Christ by his death made satisfaction to the Divine justice for theElect; appeasing the anger of the Divine Being, and effecting on his part a reconciliation.” That thus Christ had, as they term it, “the sin of the Elect laid upon him.” But some of their teachers do not hold this opinion, but consider Christ’s death as simply a medium through which God has been pleased to exercise mercy towards the penitent. “The sacrifice of Christ,” says Dr. Magee, “was never deemed by any (who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of atonement), to have made God placable: but merely viewed as the means appointed by Divine wisdom by which to bestow forgiveness.” To this it may be further added, that the language used throughout the Epistles of St. Paul with regard to the redemption of man, is that of the then familiar slave market. Man is “bought with a price” from his former master, Sin, for the service of God. The scholar who will consult Romans vi. will see immediately that all the metaphors used are those of purchase for military service; “Your members,” says he, ver. 13, “shall not be the arms (ὄπλα) of unrighteousness used for the service of sin; but the arms (ὄπλα) of righteousness for God.” And ver 23, τὰ γὰρ ὀψώνια τῆς ὰμαρτίας, θάνατος· τὸ δὲ χαρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ, ζωὴ, αἰώνιος ἐν Χριτῷ Ιησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἠμῶν. i.e. The rations of sin are death, but the donative of God is eternal life, by means of Jesus Christ our Lord. It is impossible to express more clearly that it was not the wrath of God which required to be appeased by the great sacrifice—the slave wasbought by Him for Himself—the price was of course paid to another. Much misunderstanding has arisen from the careless interpretation of these and the like passages, whose phraseology has become obsolete along with the practice of buying and selling slaves, at least in this country.
[95a]Matt. xvi. 27.
[95b]Matt. xviii. 14.
[96a]Vide Exod. xxxiii. 14, et seq.
[96b]According to the Calvinistic doctrine above stated, character has no concern whatever with their call; ergo, if this is right, St. Paul is wrong, and mankindarecalled with respect of persons.
[96c]“This system (Calvinism) by setting aside the idea of a human will, leaves the doctrine of Divine Will barren and unmeaning; the idea of a personal ruler disappears, and those most anxious to assert the government of the Living God have been the great instruments in propagating the notion of an atheistical necessity.”Maurice’s Kingdom of Christ.
[98a]Hopkins on the New Birth.
[98b]1 John iii. 7–10, see also v. 21 of the same chapter, where our confidence towards God is shown to depend on the judgment of our own consciousness of wrong or well doing. The whole chapter is well worth the study of every Christian.
[102]I take this from books, not having personal acquaintance with the Presbyterians of Ireland: and such is the confusion generally made by authors between Arianism, Socinianism, and Unitarianism, that it is difficult to know which is meant. As a large proportion of the modern Presbyterians have embraced Unitarian doctrines, it seems improbable that the Irish should have adopted those of Arius, though my author uses the term Arian as applied to the doctrine of the seceders.
[106]See “The Use and Abuse of Creeds and Confession of Faith,” by the Rev. Charles James Carlile, Dublin, 1836. “The Irish Church and Ireland,” p. 66–68, and “A Narrative of the Proceedings of the Associate Synod in Ireland and Scotland in the affair of the Royal Bounty,” by James Bryce. Belfast, 1816.
[122a]Although the excellent Bishop Heber’s mind was deeply imbued with devotional feelings, he considered a moderate participation in what are usually called worldly amusements, to be allowable and blameless. “He thought,” says his biographer, “that the strictness which made no distinction between things blameable only in their abuse, and the practices which were really immoral, was prejudicial to the interests of true religion; and on this point his opinion remained unchanged to the last. His own life indeed was a proof that amusement so participated in, may be perfectly harmless, and no way interfere with any religious or moral duty.”
[122b]“Rowland Hill, in his theological opinions, leaned towards Calvinism, but what is called Hyper-calvinism, he could not endure. In a system of doctrine he was follower of no man, but drew his sermons fresh from a prayerful reading of the Bible. He was for drawing together all the people of God wherever they could meet, and was willing to join in a universal communion with Christians of every name. When, on one occasion, he had preached in a chapel, where none but baptized adults (i.e. baptized after attaining years of discretion), were admitted to the sacrament, he wished to have communicated with them, but was told respectfully, ‘You cannot sit down atourtable.’ He calmly replied, ‘I thought it was the Lord’s table.’” Sidney’s Life of R. Hill, p. 422, 3rd Edit.
[124]Simeon’s Works, Vol. III. p. 101, &c.
[126]Simeon’s Works, Vol. III. p. 333.
[131a]Exod. xxxii. 4.
[131b]Vide Colossians ii. 18, 19.
[135a]2 Cor. v. 15. 1 Tim. ii. 6.
[135b]2 Pet. iii. 9.
[135c]Rom. ii. 6–11.
[136]Rom. xiv. 5.