dom of his dear Son;" as " being quickened ;” as “ having risen with Christ;" when, in truth, he was still dead in trespasses and sin. Many a man may join in our Liturgy with the lip-service that is abomination in the sight of God, and may fancy that he has a right to address the Almighty, as a reconciled Father, in Christ's name, who is only miserably deceiving himself. But he only can heartily offer up his prayers and praises, his confessions and thanksgivings, in the language of our Prayer-book, who has a good hope in himself, that his sins are blotted out, and wiped away ; that he is one with Christ, and with the Father, through him.

How else can he dare to approach the throne of grace at all ? How can he appeal to God, as seeing “ that we put not our trust in anything that we do?” How can he say that his "service is perfect freedom,” unless he is standing in that liberty wherewith Christ has made him free? How can he thank God for the redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ, day after day, if he is not conscious that he himself is a partaker of that redemption ?

There are only two kinds of persons who can, with any peace of mind, address Almighty God through our forms of prayer; these are, first, the justified, the elect, the saints of God; and, secondly, those who are unconverted, unrepentant, and so ignorant of the true nature of God, and the infinite vileness and hatefulness of sin, as to believe that they may use the language of sons of God, without that union with Christ, which alone makes men his sons.

But here Mr. Ward objects——“How can the justified and the unjustified unite in prayer at all ?” We answer by another question-How can he who is living in sin and rebellion call God his Father? How can the man whose life is daily crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting him to an open shame, ask for blessings in his name?

That the continually renewed prayers for pardon are not inconsistent with the justified state of him who prays, Mr. Goulburn shows, in a clear and very impressive passage.

“ It is the justified person who, on our theory, knows something of God's holiness and justice, which could not be brought to acquiesce in the pardon of sin without an infinite ransom. It is he accordingly, on our theory, who being sensitively alive to that holiness and justice, will also be sensitively alive to his own miserable shortcomings, to his want of continual pardon, his want of more abundant grace, of more fervent love."

“Let us,” says the Apostle, come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy.”

We have so high an opinion of the greater part of our Liturgy, that we are not afraid to express our belief, that if ever a company

should meet together, consisting wholly and purely of the elect of God, justified through faith, and long tried in their Redeemer's service, they could find no fitter language for their common addresses to the throne of grace than the Prayer-book supplies. For their natural desires (as Christians) would be to pour forth their deep sorrow for the sin that cleaves to them, their firm and steady hope of everlasting life, their praises for the redemption of the world, their prayers for new supplies of grace, and all in the name and for the sake of Christ Jesus. The faithful are not apt to be always talking of their faith, or thinking of their faith-much less bringing it forward, and presenting it as something acceptable to God. On the contrary, when it is most in action, its existence is least felt; for, in its action, it carries the whole soul of the believer out of itself, and fixes it on the object of all faith-the Son of God. And who can deny that the Son of God is the central object to which our Liturgy directs the eyes of those who join in it?

We have no space to follow Mr. Ward over the oft-contested ground of the Baptismal service, with those parts of the Catechism which are connected with it; and the service for the Visitation of the Sick. We can confidently refer to Mr. Goulburn's reply, for a short and most satisfactory statement of the principles on which an " Evangelical” can fairly admit that there is nothing in either of these services “contrary to the word of God.”

We must, however, notice Mr. Ward's argument from the Creed, because it is really curious to see how he has produced a weapon precisely suited to his adversaries' purpose.

" It is impossible, he says, to omit the observation, how absolutely inconceivable it is, if the Prayer-book considered the atonement to be that one absorbing truth of the gospel which you consider it, that there should not be so much as an explicit mention of it in the Creed. Try to imagine yourselves teaching your children the ' Articles of your belief,' and omitting all special reference to the atonement. This is still more striking in the Athanasian Creed: 'Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary'-what? that he renounce all trust in bis own merits ? that he close with the gospel offer ? that he believe himself freely pardoned by the atonement? Such would be your answer, you must acknowledge: but widely different is the Prayerbook's answer that he hold the Catholic faith.' 'And in all the detailed exposition of Christian mysteries which follows, the atonement receives only a passing allusion. Ask yourselves fairly the question-Can any religious service be less edifying to you than the Athanasian Creed?”

Mr. Goulburn replies :"The party whom Mr. Ward addresses hold, it is true, that the work of mediation, accomplished by the different steps in our Lord's life which are reckoned up in the Creed, is the central truth of Christianity. All those Articles which respect our blessed Lord, have an immediate bearing upon that work of mediation, if they are not distinct steps in it. .... We acknowledge his crucifixion and death, whereby he hath purchased our pardon-his resurrection, whereby God the Father declares his acceptance of the workhis ascension and session, which enable him to plead for us the merits of his blood and righteousness-finally, his return, at which the work of his mediation having been accomplished, he will give up the kingdom to God even the Father.

“ In a word, the articles of belief which respect our blessed Lord might be summed up thus—I believe in the mediation of Jesus CHRIST, and in every fact and event necessary to render that mediation effectual. I believe,' i. e. of course, not historically (with the devil's faith), but really and influentially, ' in all these facts and events.'. A person so believing is justified-yes, certainly—and his justification itself is a distinct article of faith ; for he has to profess his belief in the 'Remission of sins.'”

Mr. Ward could scarcely have lighted on an argument more unfavourable to himself, when disputing with those who attribute man's salvation wholly to Christ, than this of the Creed. We readily accept it as the voice of the Prayer. book and of the Church ;-and what does it say? Why, that seeing there are two parties in the new covenant, that is God and man, and conditions attached to each party, the Church, in drawing up and setting before her children a summary of that which is essential for them to know and believe, insists exclusively on what God has done for us.

Not a word of works, of obedience, of prayer, of sacraments, of faith itself— here is simply the object of all faith, all love, prayer, obedience. As Moses in the wilderness, amidst the dying İsraelites, simply lifted up the brazen serpent, and called on the people to look on it and be healed—so the Church, as a faithful witness, sets forth the antitype, Christ on the cross, simply and plainly shewing her children what He has done and suffered for them, and points with the finger and says, “ Look unto Him and be saved.” We have no wish to see human faith exalted to a place in the creed: that would be simply to confound things essentially separate—the means and the end--the fruit which we desire, with the hand that reaches it for us.

We cannot conclude without thanking Mr. Ward for being the occasion of the publication of Mr. Goulburn's tract. It really is the most encouraging symptom that Oxford has shown in these later days. For among all the controversial works, great and small, that have swarmed in that learned University during the last few years, it is almost the only one we recollect that seems to have been based on Scripture as its authority. We are assured that this will have its weight: young minds, at any rate, will be attracted by the simplicity of the truth; and we have a strong hope, that among the students at the University, there is a growing number of those who can and do appreciate the saving truth of the gospel.

A VOLUME OF VARIETIES. By the Editor of “ The Weekly

Volume.” London : Knight. 1844. MEMOIRS OF A WORKING MAN. London: Knight. 1845.

In an address issued by “ The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge,” in 1843, it was truly stated, “ that the name of the society, and the mode of publication which it adopts, have frequently extended the circulation of its works beyond that which the same species of books could have been expected to have had; so that many have been induced to attempt the acquisition of information which they would otherwise never have hoped for.” “ One of their mathematical works,” we are told, “ of the sort which usually circulates its hundreds, has been inereased to thousands." '" Of many of its scientific treatises, more than 25,000 copies have been sold: nor can the committee refer, without satisfaction to “The Penny Cyclopædia'—a work which, they have reason to know, is not only largely used by the affluent, but is bought and diligently studied by a multitude of persons in the humbler walks of life.'

Now all this we can easily understand; nor would it concern us to advert to the fact, were it a question simply between us and the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge—so far, at least, as its mathematical, scientific, and literary works are coneerned. But in connection with the fact as thus stated, there is another, not so obvious indeed, but quite as real, and to us far more important. The remark which we have quoted from the Society's address applies with scarcely less force to the works of the Society's publisher-Mr. Charles Knight. It is difficult, indeed, as a contemporary has observed, if not impossible, to distinguish between the soeiety and its publisher, to disentangle the separate interests and views of the one from those of the other. Of one thing, however, we are quite sure, that the imprimatur of Mr. Charles Knight is, in fact, the imprimatur of “ The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge:"—that the means and appliances which can avail for obtaining an extensive circulation are enjoyed by each alike; and that, consequently, the works issued by the Society's publisher have, on the whole, as fair a chanee of suecess as those issued under the immediate superintendence of his distinguished patrons. When, therefore, Mr. Charles Knight turns publisher of a “ Weekly Volume" for all readers, issued at the low price of a shilling, and possessing not a few intrinsic, along with many adventitious, recommendations, we

2 E


are bound, as Christian reviewers, to inquire how far his publications come within our province, and, if need be, to warn our readers against what may appear to us of doubtful or dangerous tendency. To say nothing of the principle upon which the “Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge,” along with the London University, was first established, it must be obvious that, constituted as the Society was and is, there is greater danger perhaps in any departure from that principle than there would be in a strict adherence to it; and we should be glad to know in what way the Society has acquitted itself in furnishing a “History of the Church," and the theological articles in the "Penny Cyclopedia.” For the same reason, we feel it our duty to watch the movements of Mr. C. Knight; and, in introducing two more of his volumes to the readers of our pages, we regret that it is not in our power to speak of them with unqualified approbation.

In our last number we expressed our sincere approval of the tone and spirit of one specimen of Mr. Knight's weekly volumes“ The English woman in Egypt," and intimated that we should not have less pleasure in noticing any other of the like kind. The two volumes which we have placed at the head of this article are also "original productions,” furnished for this cheap weekly series, and, we are free to admit, “ by authors of ability," -one of those authors being Mr. Knight himself, the other, a writer of less pretension, but one whom Mr. Knight has honoured with an eulogistic introduction, and whose little volume may, on many accounts, be safely left to speak for itself. That both the volumes have been “conceived in a right spirit,” we are not at liberty to question; they contain much which we would gladly commend; and claiming notice, as both of them do, to some extent, on moral and religious grounds, we should rejoice to say that we thought them sound in principle. But here it is that we feel bound to enter our caveat, and this the more, as the volumes in question will probably be among the most popular of the series, and can hardly fail to have an extensive circulation. They may also be taken as specimens of what we may expect in this line from the editor himself, and from those whom he has influence to engage in his service. “The Volume of Varieties," as we have said, is his own production. “The Memoirs of a Working Man” have passed under his review, and are, therefore, impressed with his authority. A brief notice of them will

, we think, satisfy our readers that they must exercise considerable caution in giving currency to these

Weekly Volumes," and examine for themselves before they admit them into their libraries as “Books for all Readers.'

“ The editor of The Weekly Volume,' has," he tells us,

« VorigeDoorgaan »