Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

Ireland. The progress during that interval has been steady and its labours abundant, while much fruit has by the Divine blessing been produced, to cheer the hearts of all who take an interest in the success of the Gos

pel. We remember hearing that honoured servant of Christ, the late Rev. E. Bickersteth, avow at one of its earlier meetings, that nothing less than the conversion of our Roman Catholic fellow countrymen was the aim of this Society. He repudiated the false liberalism which would quietly allow men to sleep in the bosom of so corrupt a Church as that of Rome; and stated his conviction, that it was as much the duty of Christians to preach the Gospel to them as to the heathen in distant climes. Romanism is eminently aggressive, and we must be also, if we would accomplish any spiritual good. If that corrupt system, with its confessional, its priestly domination, and its various deceptions, whether subtle sophistry for the intellectual, or miraculous pictures and charms for the vulgar, be the enemy of social progress and domestic happiness, it is surely the duty of every lover of his species to seek to diminish its influence in the world. But we take higher ground. We firmly believe that Popery is ruinous to man's immortal interests; and, if so, with what increased energy should Christians combat such a system, and substitute for its teaching that pure Bible truth, which is able to make men wise unto salvation.

The subjoined extracts from the journal of one of the missionaries will shew the manner in which the work is carried on :

"Met Mr. —, a Carmelite, and said, Well Mr. why don't you place your confidence in Jesus, and take salvation in God's appointed way? R. C. There are too many different opinions among Protestants-the religion of Jesus is one faith. Visitor. All Protestants are agreed in the great leading doctrines of christianity, but I see no Church so divided and split in opinion as the Church of Rome. The Carmelites believe that the

blessed Virgin Mary goes down to Purgatory every Saturday, and takes all the Carmelites with her to heaven, so that a Carmelite cannot be in Purgatory a second week. But the secular clergy will read mass for the departed Carmelites a month, and twelve months, after

they die, to take them out of Purgatory; lars are wrong. so, if the Carmelites are right, the secuR. C. You know we

must hear the Church. Visitor. Did Jesus Christ or His Apostles give scapulars to the people, or tell them anything about the blessed Virgin Mary going down to Purgatory every Saturday to take the Carmelites to heaven? R. C. Well, indeed, I can't say that they did. Visitor. But did You know that they did not. not Jesus Christ and His Apostles teach the whole of the true religion? R. C. I scapulars and cards are all human invenknow that they did. Visitor. Then your tions-they don't belong to the religion

of Jesus.

You promised to defend transubstantiation against me last night, Why did you not come ? R. C. Why, to tell you the plain truth, my wife is afraid you will disturb my mind, and make a Protestant of me!"

We heard it stated by a clergyman a few weeks back, that for every pervert to Romanism in this country, he could shew a hundred converts to Protestant truth on the Continent. Thus we see, that-although some unhappy men, who have long dwelt in a land of Gospel light, but have not received the truth in the love of it, that they might be saved, have been suffered to fall into a strong delusion, that they may believe a lie,- there are others, both in Ireland and foreign lands, well acquainted by sad experience with the character of Romanism, who are earnestly longing to be delivered from its shackles, and welcoming with eager delight the messenger of Christ, who brings the Gospel in all its purity and simplicity among them. May such cheering signs be multiplied a thousand fold.

We conclude our remarks by urging upon such as are able to do it, the duty of helping the mission in its good work. In its labours we recog nize one means by which we may counteract the evil which now threatens our beloved land.

LONDON: J. H. JACKSON, ISLINGTON GREEN.

THE CHRISTIAN GUARDIAN,

AND

CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE.

MAY, 1851.

REVISION OF THE LITURGY.

In the recent charge of Archdeacon Sinclair, there occur the following passages:

"A baptized infant therefore is regenerate. He is accepted, adopted, and receives the grace of God; and it is practically important to consider him, as well as every other member of our flock, in a capacity to work out their own salvation. If we see our people leading negligent or unchristian and wicked lives, it is of the last importance that we should be able to remonstrate with them, not as if they were incapable of doing better, but as persons who are not true to themselves, abusing the means and talents afforded for their salvation. We should feel ourselves entitled to tell them, 'You are throwing away inestimable privileges: you have been baptized into the Church of Christ: you are in covenant with God: you have received forgiveness of original sin: you have obtained the help of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter. If you are not repenting, and believing, and obeying, it is your own fault. You are without excuse; you are grieving, resisting, and quenching the Spirit; you are receiving the grace of God in vain.' "This conclusion is drawn from the MAY-1851.

following premises :-) -Baptism is a federal right. The child, through his sponsors, enters into covenant with God: he promises and vows repentance, faith, and obedience. Can we suppose that the God of truth would authorize this solemn vow to be pronounced, unless he meant to give the child capacity to keep it? To the questions asked by the minister, in the name of God, Wilt thou repent? Wilt thou believe? Wilt thou obey? the sponsors reply, in the name of the child, I will.' Can we suppose that the child, notwithstanding, may be denied the grace of God, which we know to be indispensable for the performance of the promise; and without which, repentance, faith, and obedience are impracticable? If a child, pledged to work out his own salvation, in virtue of his christian privileges, has, after all, no security whatever for the enjoyment of them, there seems no warrant, no pretence, no apology, for baptizing him at all. We exact from him a promise which we do not know that he will ever have the capacity to perform."

We have extracted the above passages from the Archdeacon's charge, as singular instances of the bold and

N

unhesitating manner in which a rite of the Church, and the language with which it is administered, is made conclusive evidence of the state of the baptized community. Wholly regardless that the Scriptures are entirely silent as to the practice of infant baptism; without a particle of proof that the office of the sponsor, and its vows, are even so much as hinted at, either in apostolic precept or apostolic example, the theory of a covenant between God and an infant is presumed to be established, and certain inevitable consequences are declared to follow, from the carrying into effect, or the rejection, of the contract then entered into by sponsors on the part of an unconscious babe.

It is not our intention to enter here into the baptismal controversy; we have merely cited Archdeacon Sinclair, as one amongst the many who hold, and build upon the traditions and opinions of men, doctrines, to which they give the place of God's inspired word. What the PrayerBook teaches, is with such people esteemed of equal weight and authority with the doctrines clearly laid down in the Bible.

We do not wrong the Archdeacon in this, and for proof we have only to introduce his own plain question:"Can we suppose that the God of truth would authorize this solemn vow to be pronounced, unless he meant to give the child capacity to keep it?" Now where, but in a service of man's framing, does Mr. Sinclair find any authority given, either for the vow itself, or for the vicarious parties who take upon themselves its solemn responsibility? It is a pure assumption, from beginning to end, of Divine authority and sanction for that, which however right in itself, is of human invention. Of course

we speak now only of the words with which the sacrament of infant baptism is administered, and of the effects which are said to flow from the reception of the rite. We have as high a reverence as any for the Divine authority of Christ's holy ordinances, and we can as readily strive to appropriate, by faith, the blessings resulting from the right use of this, as well as the other sacrament, but we dare not ascribe to God that which man, in his own language, declares to be the nature and efficacy of the baptismal rite; far less is it our province to dogmatize or to build any theory of the aftercondition and responsibility of baptized infants from vows taken by parties not recognized in Scripture, and from declarations not warranted by the same infallible source of Divine authority. We have in all this a sufficient proof of the necessity of a wise revision of the Ritual.

"A baptized infant therefore is regenerate," says Archdeacon Sinclair, arguing, not from Scripture, and its plain and positive statements of baptismal grace, but speaking solely from the too unconditional and unguarded language of the Prayer-Book ;-and churchmen are held to be bound by the latter, as firmly as though all its statements were amply supported by the former. What is this but to set up another standard of doctrine, and to make it of co-ordinate authority with the word of God? Nay, as in the case of infant baptism, the question as held and determined by men of Archdeacon Sinclair's stamp, really makes the authority of the PrayerBook to add to and over-ride the authority of the Bible; for on infant baptism itself, much more on its accompanying vows, declarations, and effects, the latter is wholly silent,

REVISION OF THE LITURGY.

where the former is full, distinct, and authoritative.

We have not scrupled to admit, that, like ourselves, many can conscientiously use the strong language of the Ritual, carrying in our minds the conviction that our Reformers intended their language to be purely of a conditional character. They did not universally and invariably annex the blessing to baptism, administered wholesale and indiscriminately, whether in populous parishes, like Kensington, or in any other way whatever; but we cannot refuse utterance to our conviction, that what may be understood, used, and enjoyed by us, upon the principle we have named, is of a most unscriptural and dangerous character, as interpreted by the Archdeacon and the school which holds unconditional baptismal regeneration. It is high time for us to be stirring in the matter of Ritual revision, when we find ultra High Churchmen, like the Bishop of Exeter, and High Churchmen, like Mr. Sinclair, stating positively the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and defending their position by arguments drawn entirely from human sources. When will our evangelical brethren thoroughly understand their position, and the danger which threatens the Church from this source of mischief? surely they must soon abandon their laboured explanations, and join in seeking for the alteration of the few things in our Prayer-Book which give such advantages to Tractarians and High Churchmen.

It is most dispiriting to hear this class describe the fearful state of "baptized infidels;" of those who have the form but not the reality of Christianity;-who may partake of every outward ordinance, but yet be desti

195

tute of the very germ of spiritual life. Such characters are rightly followed, and warned from the font to the grave; and told, that although charitable words of hope may there be spoken over them, yet that their funerals are but the burial of lost souls. Words of singular contrast these to the equally strong declaration with which the Church welcomed their admission to baptism, and with which she committed them to the tomb. How is it that they can quiet conscience with the delusive notion, that words which may be spoken of, and over, comparatively few who, by God's sovereign grace, may become really regenerate, and live and die as believers in the Lord,- --can truly, safely, and with benefit to the living, be hypothetically and charitably used of all who may be brought, under every variety of circumstance, to receive the ministrations of services which the Church has provided for the baptism of infants and the burial of the dead? It is no light matter for us to know, that in our large parish churches, where infants are every Sunday baptized in large numbers, and where the children of a hallowed union, and the offspring of a sinful connexion, may be, and are, brought to the font, and all by a variety of characters, and with a variety of purpose and motive,-yet that over each and all, alike, are the same words actually spoken :-" Seeing now, dearly beloved, that these children are regenerate," &c. The ungodly and prayerless parents see the same rite administered, and the same words spoken, to all alike; and what marvel if these careless ones go away without much thought or impression of the duty and responsibility which they, on their part have incurred?

In like manner it is no light thing

for the Church unconditionally to declare, before bystanders of all sorts, the same words of lively hope for the departed, of every shade of character, whether they may have been really spiritual and alive to God, or have lived in sin, and died without peace or hope. We cannot imagine how our brethren can dwell with satisfaction on ministra tions which lose their force and weight upon the living, by the universality of the language employed, and their compulsory, if not their unhesitating, administration to every one who may be brought for that purpose.

This charitable interpretation of the expressions of the Burial Service ought not to be defended by evangelical men any more than the strong, declarative, and, when taken by itself, the unconditional language of the baptismal rite. We cannot sufficiently strongly express our astonishment at the apathy with which

men, who are thoroughly alive to the ungodliness which is ever festering and corrupting in the masses of our baptized population, should still persist in defending the language of these services by the one plea, that each service is but one link of a continuous chain, all constructed upon the one principle, that the Church charitably supposes that all who partake of her offices are worthy recipients. It is enough to know, what is the actual reality, that the exception is, unfortunately, too truly and in too large a proportion, the rule;-this quite destroys the value of the above argument. It were far better to revise services, and re-model and guard statements, which, in certain senses, and under certain conditions, may be true, than to cherish and retain expressions which, as they now stand, are, and ever will be, fruitful and perpetually recurring sources of error and dissension.

C. A.

Dibinity.

THE PEACE OF THE GOSPEL.

MAN is in want of peace. The chief characteristic of his state on earth is, that he is in want of a calm and satisfying repose of spirit. The fact is, that in his natural circumstances he has really ample ground for being miserable. His state is imperfect and uncertain: it is sinful. His heart bears testimony to the melancholy truth, that he is, in his natural propensities and inclinations, at variance with the principles of moral obedience that his conscience approves and the consequence of this is, distance from God, and separation from communion with Him. Man dislikes the controlling rule of God's holy law. He acts contrary

to it, and then, having disobeyed, he shrinks from the presence of his Maker, and dreads the idea of approaching Him. And then, on the other hand, God beholds man, His creature, as a disobedient, guilty creature, and withdraws from him; so that naturally men have no pleasing, encouraging ideas of their Creator and Judge. Many would be thankful to believe that there was no God: and none, in a natural state, can look forward to that exit into the world of spirits, which we call death, with satisfaction. The indefinite and gloomy consciousness of being in a wrong state-a state of guilt-keeps a man unhappy;

« VorigeDoorgaan »