Tillotson's proposals for comprehension, drawn up in 1689, cannot be too much studied at the present juncture. These proposals, with which his name and that of Stillingfleet, two of the most estimable names in the English Church, are specially associated, humiliate no one, refute no one; they take the basis of existing facts, and endeavour to build on it a solid union. They are worth quoting entire, and I conclude with them. Their details our present circumstances would modify; their spirit any sound plan of Church-reform must take as its rule.
These are proposals 'to be made by the Church of England for the union ofProtestants.' Who cannot see that the power of joint life already spoken of would be far greater and stronger if it comprehended Roman Catholics too. And who cannot see, also, that in the churches of the most strong and living Roman Catholic countries,—in France and Germany,—a movement is in progress which may one day make a general union of Christendom possible? But this will not be in our day, nor is it business which the England of this generation is set to do. What may be done in our day, what our generation has the call and the means, if only it has the resolution, to bring about, is the union of Protestants. But this union will never be on the basis of the actualScriptural Protestantismof our Puritans; and because, so long as they take this for the gospel or good news of Christ, they cannot possibly unite on any other basis, the first step towards union is showing them that this is not the gospel. If we have succeeded in doing even so much towards union as to convince one of them of this, we have not written in vain.
[1]IITimothy, ii, 19.
[1]IITimothy, ii, 19.
[2]In a letter to theTimesrespecting Dr. Pusey and Dr. Temple, during the discussion caused by Dr. Temple's appointment to the see of Exeter. Dr. Temple was the total leper, so evidently a leper that all men would instinctively avoid him, and he ceased to be dangerous; Dr. Pusey was the partial leper, less deeply tainted, but on that very account more dangerous, because less likely to terrify people from coming near him. A piece of polemical humour, racy, indeed, but hardly urbane, and still less Christian!
[2]In a letter to theTimesrespecting Dr. Pusey and Dr. Temple, during the discussion caused by Dr. Temple's appointment to the see of Exeter. Dr. Temple was the total leper, so evidently a leper that all men would instinctively avoid him, and he ceased to be dangerous; Dr. Pusey was the partial leper, less deeply tainted, but on that very account more dangerous, because less likely to terrify people from coming near him. A piece of polemical humour, racy, indeed, but hardly urbane, and still less Christian!
[3]Mr. Winterbotham has since died. Nothing in my remarks on his speech need prevent me from expressing here my high esteem for his character, accomplishments, oratorical faculty and general promise, and my sincere regret for his loss.
[3]Mr. Winterbotham has since died. Nothing in my remarks on his speech need prevent me from expressing here my high esteem for his character, accomplishments, oratorical faculty and general promise, and my sincere regret for his loss.
[4]Gal., v, 22, 23.
[4]Gal., v, 22, 23.
[5]διὰ τῆς πραΰτητος καὶ ἐπιεικείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ.IICor., x, 1.
[5]διὰ τῆς πραΰτητος καὶ ἐπιεικείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ.IICor., x, 1.
[6]IICor., xii, 20.
[6]IICor., xii, 20.
[7]ICor., iii, 3.
[7]ICor., iii, 3.
[8]ICor., i, 10.
[8]ICor., i, 10.
[9]The late Bishop Wilberforce.
[9]The late Bishop Wilberforce.
[10]ICor., vii, 1.
[10]ICor., vii, 1.
[11]It has been inferred from what is here said that we propose to make re-ordination a condition of admitting Dissenting ministers to the ministry of the Church of England. Elsewhere I have said how undesirable it seems to impose this condition; and to what respectful treatment and fair and equal terms, in case of reunion, Protestant Nonconformity is, in my opinion, entitled. See the Preface toCulture and Anarchy. What is said in the text is directed simply against the objection to episcopal ordination as something wrong in itself and a ground for schism.
[11]It has been inferred from what is here said that we propose to make re-ordination a condition of admitting Dissenting ministers to the ministry of the Church of England. Elsewhere I have said how undesirable it seems to impose this condition; and to what respectful treatment and fair and equal terms, in case of reunion, Protestant Nonconformity is, in my opinion, entitled. See the Preface toCulture and Anarchy. What is said in the text is directed simply against the objection to episcopal ordination as something wrong in itself and a ground for schism.
[12]SeeCulture and Anarchy(2nd edition), chap. iv.
[12]SeeCulture and Anarchy(2nd edition), chap. iv.
[13]Romans, xv, 8.
[13]Romans, xv, 8.
[14]IIPeter, i, 4.
[14]IIPeter, i, 4.
[15]SeeCulture and Anarchy(2nd edition), chap. ii.
[15]SeeCulture and Anarchy(2nd edition), chap. ii.
[16]SeeCulture and Anarchy, chap. iv.
[16]SeeCulture and Anarchy, chap. iv.
[17]SeeCulture and Anarchy, chap. v.
[17]SeeCulture and Anarchy, chap. v.
[18]Histoire de la Théologie Chrétienne au Siècle Apostolique, par Edouard Reuss; Strasbourg et Paris(in 2 vols. 8vo.) There is now (1875) an English translation of M. Reuss's work.
[18]Histoire de la Théologie Chrétienne au Siècle Apostolique, par Edouard Reuss; Strasbourg et Paris(in 2 vols. 8vo.) There is now (1875) an English translation of M. Reuss's work.
[19]SeeCulture and Anarchy, chap. v.
[19]SeeCulture and Anarchy, chap. v.
[20]Nahumi, 2.
[20]Nahumi, 2.
[21]SeeCulture and Anarchy, chap. iv.
[21]SeeCulture and Anarchy, chap. iv.
[22]Rom.xi, 32.
[22]Rom.xi, 32.
[23]Acts, xxiv, 16.
[23]Acts, xxiv, 16.
[24]Ps.cxxxix, 7; cxix, 72;Ibid., 20.
[24]Ps.cxxxix, 7; cxix, 72;Ibid., 20.
[25]Luke, xi, 28;Matth., xix, 17;IJohn, iii, 7.
[25]Luke, xi, 28;Matth., xix, 17;IJohn, iii, 7.
[26]Rom., ii, 9, 10.
[26]Rom., ii, 9, 10.
[27]Verses 22, 23.
[27]Verses 22, 23.
[28]Rom., xii, 2.
[28]Rom., xii, 2.
[29]Gal., iii, 21.
[29]Gal., iii, 21.
[30]Gal., v, 22, 23.
[30]Gal., v, 22, 23.
[31]Col., iii, 5.
[31]Col., iii, 5.
[32]Gal., vi, 8.
[32]Gal., vi, 8.
[33]Rom., vii, 9.
[33]Rom., vii, 9.
[34]Rom., iii, 23.
[34]Rom., iii, 23.
[35]Rom., vii, 24.
[35]Rom., vii, 24.
[36]Ps.xl, 12.
[36]Ps.xl, 12.
[37]James, ii, 10.
[37]James, ii, 10.
[38]Rom., ii, 29.
[38]Rom., ii, 29.
[39]ICor., iv, 4.
[39]ICor., iv, 4.
[40]Ibid., 20.
[40]Ibid., 20.
[41]Ps.xxxvi, 6; vii, 11.
[41]Ps.xxxvi, 6; vii, 11.
[42]Ps.lxi, 2; lxii, 6; cxxxix, 5, 14; cxlv, 9.
[42]Ps.lxi, 2; lxii, 6; cxxxix, 5, 14; cxlv, 9.
[43]Ps.xxxvi, 6, 8, 9.
[43]Ps.xxxvi, 6, 8, 9.
[44]Rom., i, 19-21.
[44]Rom., i, 19-21.
[45]Ps.xxii, 29.
[45]Ps.xxii, 29.
[46]Jer., x, 23.
[46]Jer., x, 23.
[47]IICor., iii, 5.
[47]IICor., iii, 5.
[48]Eph., iii, 20.
[48]Eph., iii, 20.
[49]Philipp., iii, 12.
[49]Philipp., iii, 12.
[50]ITim., i, 13.
[50]ITim., i, 13.
[51]Rom., viii, 14.
[51]Rom., viii, 14.
[52]Prov., viii, 22-31; andWisd., vii, 25-27.
[52]Prov., viii, 22-31; andWisd., vii, 25-27.
[53]Col., i, 15-17.
[53]Col., i, 15-17.
[54]Tit., ii, 12;Rom., vii, 4;Gal., v, 22, 23.
[54]Tit., ii, 12;Rom., vii, 4;Gal., v, 22, 23.
[55]Tit., ii, 14.
[55]Tit., ii, 14.
[56]Ibid., 13.
[56]Ibid., 13.
[57]Gal., v, 6.
[57]Gal., v, 6.
[58]Rom., viii, 2.
[58]Rom., viii, 2.
[59]Gen., xv, 6;Habakkuk, ii, 4.
[59]Gen., xv, 6;Habakkuk, ii, 4.
[60]Mark, xi, 22.
[60]Mark, xi, 22.
[61]With secondary uses of the word, such as its use with the article, 'thefaith,' in expressions like 'the words of the faith,' to signify the body of tenets and principles received by believers from the apostle, we need not here concern ourselves. They present no difficulty.
[61]With secondary uses of the word, such as its use with the article, 'thefaith,' in expressions like 'the words of the faith,' to signify the body of tenets and principles received by believers from the apostle, we need not here concern ourselves. They present no difficulty.
[62]IICor., iv, 10.
[62]IICor., iv, 10.
[63]IICor., v, 17.
[63]IICor., v, 17.
[64]Eph., iv, 25.
[64]Eph., iv, 25.
[65]ἀποθανεῖν σὺν Χριστῷ,Col., ii, 20;ἐξανάστασις ἐκ νεκρῶν,Philipp., iii, 11;αὔξησις εἰς Χριστόν,Eph., iv, 15.
[65]ἀποθανεῖν σὺν Χριστῷ,Col., ii, 20;ἐξανάστασις ἐκ νεκρῶν,Philipp., iii, 11;αὔξησις εἰς Χριστόν,Eph., iv, 15.
[66]Rom., xiv, 9.
[66]Rom., xiv, 9.
[67]Col., iii, 1.
[67]Col., iii, 1.
[68]SeeRom., vii, 1-6.
[68]SeeRom., vii, 1-6.
[69]It has been said that this was the error of Hymenæus and Philetas (IITim., ii, 17). It might be rejoined, with much plausibility, that their error was the error of popular theology, the fixing the attention on the past miracle of Christ's physical resurrection, and losing sight of the continuing miracle of the Christian's spiritual resurrection. Probably, however, Hymenæus and Philetas controverted some of Paul's tenets respecting the approaching Messianic advent and the resurrection then to take place (IThess., iv, 13-17). If they rejected these tenets, they were right where Paul was wrong. But if they disputed and separated on account of them, they wereheretics; that is, they had their hearts and minds full of a speculative contention, instead of their proper chief-concern,—putting on the new man, and the imitation of Christ.
[69]It has been said that this was the error of Hymenæus and Philetas (IITim., ii, 17). It might be rejoined, with much plausibility, that their error was the error of popular theology, the fixing the attention on the past miracle of Christ's physical resurrection, and losing sight of the continuing miracle of the Christian's spiritual resurrection. Probably, however, Hymenæus and Philetas controverted some of Paul's tenets respecting the approaching Messianic advent and the resurrection then to take place (IThess., iv, 13-17). If they rejected these tenets, they were right where Paul was wrong. But if they disputed and separated on account of them, they wereheretics; that is, they had their hearts and minds full of a speculative contention, instead of their proper chief-concern,—putting on the new man, and the imitation of Christ.
[70]ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ἀσθενείας,IICor., xiii, 4.
[70]ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ἀσθενείας,IICor., xiii, 4.
[71]According to the true reading inPhilipp., iii, 3.
[71]According to the true reading inPhilipp., iii, 3.
[72]Eph., ii, 6.
[72]Eph., ii, 6.
[73]Rom., viii, 18-25.
[73]Rom., viii, 18-25.
[74]IICor., v, 16.
[74]IICor., v, 16.
[75]Rom., x, 6-10.
[75]Rom., x, 6-10.
[76]Rom., xiv, 17.
[76]Rom., xiv, 17.
[77]Stirb und werde!Denn so lang du das nicht hast,Bist du nur ein trüber GastAuf der dunkeln Erde.
[77]
Stirb und werde!Denn so lang du das nicht hast,Bist du nur ein trüber GastAuf der dunkeln Erde.
Stirb und werde!Denn so lang du das nicht hast,Bist du nur ein trüber GastAuf der dunkeln Erde.
Stirb und werde!
Denn so lang du das nicht hast,
Bist du nur ein trüber Gast
Auf der dunkeln Erde.
[78]Rom., i, 4.
[78]Rom., i, 4.
[79]Rom., vii, 23.
[79]Rom., vii, 23.
[80]Rom., v, 12-21.
[80]Rom., v, 12-21.
[81]Rom., ix, 16.
[81]Rom., ix, 16.
[82]Rom., viii, 28.
[82]Rom., viii, 28.
[83]Is., lxiv, 8.
[83]Is., lxiv, 8.
[84]Jer., xviii, 6.
[84]Jer., xviii, 6.
[85]Ecclesiasticus, xxxiii, 13.
[85]Ecclesiasticus, xxxiii, 13.
[86]Rom., vi, 4.
[86]Rom., vi, 4.
[87]Rom., x, 13.
[87]Rom., x, 13.
[88]ITim., iv, 10.
[88]ITim., iv, 10.
[89]Gal., v, 2.
[89]Gal., v, 2.
[90]Considerations drawn from date, place, the use of single words, the development of a church organisation, the development of an ascetic system, are not enough to make us wholly take away certain epistles from St. Paul. The only decisive evidence, for this purpose, is that internal evidence furnished by the whole body of the thoughts and style of an epistle; and this evidence that Paul was not its author the Epistle to the Hebrews furnishes. From the like evidence, the Apocalypse is clearly shown to be not by the author of the fourth Gospel. This clear evidence against the tradition which assigns them to St. Paul, the Epistles to Timothy and Titus do not offer. The serious ground of difficulty as to these epistles will to the genuine critic be, that much in them fails to produce that peculiarlysearchingeffect on the reader, which it is in general characteristic of Paul's own real work to exercise. But they abound with Pauline things, and are, in any case, written by an excellent man, and in an excellent and large spirit.
[90]Considerations drawn from date, place, the use of single words, the development of a church organisation, the development of an ascetic system, are not enough to make us wholly take away certain epistles from St. Paul. The only decisive evidence, for this purpose, is that internal evidence furnished by the whole body of the thoughts and style of an epistle; and this evidence that Paul was not its author the Epistle to the Hebrews furnishes. From the like evidence, the Apocalypse is clearly shown to be not by the author of the fourth Gospel. This clear evidence against the tradition which assigns them to St. Paul, the Epistles to Timothy and Titus do not offer. The serious ground of difficulty as to these epistles will to the genuine critic be, that much in them fails to produce that peculiarlysearchingeffect on the reader, which it is in general characteristic of Paul's own real work to exercise. But they abound with Pauline things, and are, in any case, written by an excellent man, and in an excellent and large spirit.
[91]IICor., viii, 9;Is., liii, 5;IPet., ii, 21;Is., liii, 12.
[91]IICor., viii, 9;Is., liii, 5;IPet., ii, 21;Is., liii, 12.
[92]IPet., i, 18, 19.
[92]IPet., i, 18, 19.
[93]IICor., v, 21.
[93]IICor., v, 21.
[94]Rom., v, 8.
[94]Rom., v, 8.
[95]Acts, xx, 21.
[95]Acts, xx, 21.
[96]Gal., v, 6.
[96]Gal., v, 6.
[97]Eph., iv, 24.
[97]Eph., iv, 24.
[98]Rom., v, 10.
[98]Rom., v, 10.
[99]The endless words which Puritanism has wasted uponsanctification, a magical filling with goodness and holiness, flow from a mere mistake in translating;ἁγιασμόςmeansconsecration, a setting apart to holy service.
[99]The endless words which Puritanism has wasted uponsanctification, a magical filling with goodness and holiness, flow from a mere mistake in translating;ἁγιασμόςmeansconsecration, a setting apart to holy service.
[100]IICor., iii, 18.
[100]IICor., iii, 18.
[101]ITim., vi, 4.
[101]ITim., vi, 4.
[102]IICor., iii, 15, 16.
[102]IICor., iii, 15, 16.
[103]ICor., xv, 9.
[103]ICor., xv, 9.
[104]In his very interesting history,The Church of the Restoration, Dr. Stoughton says, most truly of both Anglicans and Puritans in 1660: 'It is necessary to bear in mind this circumstance, thatboth parties were advocates for a national establishment of religion.' Vol. i, p. 113.
[104]In his very interesting history,The Church of the Restoration, Dr. Stoughton says, most truly of both Anglicans and Puritans in 1660: 'It is necessary to bear in mind this circumstance, thatboth parties were advocates for a national establishment of religion.' Vol. i, p. 113.
[105]For example, what an antidote to the perilous Methodist doctrine of instantaneous sanctification is this saying of Bishop Wilson: 'He who fancies that his mind may effectually be changed in a short time, deceives himself.'
[105]For example, what an antidote to the perilous Methodist doctrine of instantaneous sanctification is this saying of Bishop Wilson: 'He who fancies that his mind may effectually be changed in a short time, deceives himself.'
[106]Nothing can be more certain than that thekingdom of Godmeant originally, and was understood to mean, a Messianic kingdom speedily to be revealed; and that to this idea of thekingdomis due much of the effect which its preaching exercised on the imagination of the first generation of Christians. But nothing is more certain, also, than that while the end itself, the Messianic kingdom, was necessarily something intangible and future, thewayto the end, the doing the will of God by intently following the voice of the moral conscience, in those duties, above all, for which there was then in the world the most crying need,—the duties of humbleness, self-denial, pureness, justice, charity,—became from the very first in the teaching of Jesus something so ever-present and practical, and so associated with the essence of Jesus himself, that thewayto the kingdom grew inseparable, in thought, from the kingdom itself, and was bathed in the same light and charm. Then, after a time, as the vision of an approaching Messianic kingdom was dissipated, the idea of the perfect accomplishment on earth of the will of God had to take the room of it, and in its own realisation to place the ideal of the true kingdom of God.
[106]Nothing can be more certain than that thekingdom of Godmeant originally, and was understood to mean, a Messianic kingdom speedily to be revealed; and that to this idea of thekingdomis due much of the effect which its preaching exercised on the imagination of the first generation of Christians. But nothing is more certain, also, than that while the end itself, the Messianic kingdom, was necessarily something intangible and future, thewayto the end, the doing the will of God by intently following the voice of the moral conscience, in those duties, above all, for which there was then in the world the most crying need,—the duties of humbleness, self-denial, pureness, justice, charity,—became from the very first in the teaching of Jesus something so ever-present and practical, and so associated with the essence of Jesus himself, that thewayto the kingdom grew inseparable, in thought, from the kingdom itself, and was bathed in the same light and charm. Then, after a time, as the vision of an approaching Messianic kingdom was dissipated, the idea of the perfect accomplishment on earth of the will of God had to take the room of it, and in its own realisation to place the ideal of the true kingdom of God.
[107]IITim., ii, 19;Gal., v, 22, 23.
[107]IITim., ii, 19;Gal., v, 22, 23.
[108]Address of the Rev. G. W. Conder at Liverpool, in theLancashire Congregational Calendarfor 1869-70.
[108]Address of the Rev. G. W. Conder at Liverpool, in theLancashire Congregational Calendarfor 1869-70.
[109]The Rev. G. W. Conder,ubi supra.
[109]The Rev. G. W. Conder,ubi supra.