Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

but this only by the way; since, if conduct like this answer the Scripture notions of liberality, it would be our duty to put it in execution, without hope of reward. But let us bring this species of liberality to the light of the Saviour's practice. He states that he is not sent save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He directs his disciples, before his death, not to go into the way of the Gentiles. Why so?— did he not come to enlighten the Gentiles? Certainly he did. But his own personal human ministry could only be performed within certain limits, and those limits his unerring wisdom found in his countrymen according to the flesh. Besides, however charitably or complacently a Churchman may regard an individual Papist, and ought to regard him, yet to lend a hand to the dissemination of what a man believes to be corruption, is surely an evil work to be undertaken by any conscientious Christian. The Jews of our Lord's time were bitterly exasperated against the Samaritans: our Lord, both in words and in actions, carefully endeavoured to allay the irritation, by forcibly instancing the claims which the Samaritans, in the common brotherhood of humanity, possessed on their neighbours. But he never sanctioned their errors, nor approved their ritual. He distinctly told them, "Ye worship ye know not what; we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews."

Another distinguishing act of modern liberality is that of the amalgamation of sects. To explain what we mean, we will just adduce an instance which has been noticed in the papers. In a town in Huntingdonshire, the Dissenters have periodical prayer-meetings, which take place in succession at the different meeting-houses. Here Independents, Anabaptists, and Non-descripts of all (non) descriptions, unite in prayer. This a provincial journalist extols as the perfection of liberality, and piously wishes that every town and village in England may follow the edifying example. Let us now examine this practice by the light of our definition. If differing communions can ever meet for religious worship, why not always? If their differences are essential, they cannot join in religious communion without compromising something more important than liberality; if non-essential, their separation is schismatical. Is there no medium between a puritanical warfare, and a partnership as incongruous as that of the heroes of Mother Hubbard's tale?

66

The quality commonly called liberality, differs from that heavenly quality which the Scriptures call charity, in another striking instanceCharity hopeth all things." She leaves the sinner and wanderer to his God, and presumes not to judge him. She "is kind," and prays for all, however opposite their error. She "suffereth long," however violent their conduct. She "doth not behave herself unseemly." Nevertheless, she is no partaker of errors. She "rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth:" and happy would she be to reclaim wanderers to the truth, when she could effect her object without compromise of any part of her heavenly character. Modern liberality, however, steers a different course. For kindness, she employs invective. All who presume to differ from her are stigmatized by every term of censure which language can supply. We are too well known to be afraid of being designated advocates of Methodism;

but really it is too much to hear a self-styled "liberal" legislator, while panegyrizing in a lofty tone the rights of conscience and religious liberty, talk of "that wretched sect, the Wesleyan Methodists." Is this "rejoicing in the truth?" In what respect are the Wesleyan Methodists a "wretched sect?" What is conveyed by the epithet? Is their poverty the object of the attack? If this be the case, they share their disgrace with the primitive church, that "sect every where spoken against." Is it their moral character? If it be, the assailant is bound to shew in what their principles conduce to immorality, or at least to evince the superior morality of his own. Will the world endure to be taught liberality by a professor whose very lectures proclaim him a stranger to his subject? The fact is, the Wesleyan Methodists, of all sectarians (if sectarians they can be called) are the closest to the Established Church. Hence they have obtained the honour of a place in the Index Expurgatorius of modern universal liberality.

It is only to the Church that modern custom addresses her lectures on "conciliation." When any act or expression justly offensive to the Church occurs, we never hear of the necessity for conciliating a body confessedly embracing great piety, talent, and learning, and constitutionally united to the country. But not only must we approach dissenters and dissent in a grave and respectful vein, but we are occasionally called upon to give up points of the most decided moment, to "conciliate" those who are our enemies upon principle, and who well understand the meaning of "odium theologicum." To concede points of inferior consequence for the sake of peace and the interests of the Gospel, is plainly the Christian's duty: but no point, possessing any importance, however slight, should be conceded where there is not obvious proof that its concession has a direct tendency to achieve the object in view: and much less where there is evidence to the contrary. Some points, however, should never be conceded; because no conciliation is worth the loss of them. Paul, with a very proper view to Christian conciliation, circumcised Timothy but in this he compromised no essential point, and his consequent success amongst the Jews was highly probable, not to say absolutely certain. But when the Jews set up their prejudices as essential to salvation, he did not hesitate to use the most decisive language, Behold, I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." If you trust in circumcision, you must fulfil the law which it imposes; you must stand or fall by that; and as you have taken your ground on the law and not on the merits of Christ, the latter shall profit you nothing, and you shall be judged by the letter that killeth.

[ocr errors]

The same Apostle's conciliating conduct, with respect to the tender consciences of those who objected to the participation of certain meats, is a deference to harmless prejudices every way worthy the imitation of the Christian, whose great and essential object is the progress of the Gospel and the salvation of souls.

We have been called upon by the Socinians to alter, in consideration of their tenets, the marriage service of our Church. The call has been seconded, not in the most conciliating manner, by a knot of individuals liberally calling themselves "Freethinking Christians," (as though

freedom of thought was their exclusive heritage,) whose "principles and practice" have been tolerably well exposed by an excommunicated member, as liberal and christian as themselves. The law of the land requires that marriage should be celebrated according to the church ritual, with certain expressed exceptions. The Church professes not to judge them that are without; and therefore it is but right that all who are obliged to submit to her ceremonies should do so with a safe conscience. But how the Socinian is affected by our present service we cannot perceive. The Socinian, we suppose, "baptizes in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," whatever his opinion of the persons. How can the performance of the marriage contract in the same name offend him? The only part of the service open to his objection, is the blessing in the name of God the Father, &c.; but this is, in fact, only accidental, not essential, to the rite. There is, besides, another blessing; so that if he disrelishes the blessing of the three divine persons, he is not concerned to appropriate it.

"Yet the concession of this point would be most conciliatory." How so? Does any man affect to believe that, like the circumcision of Timothy, it would bring one human creature nearer to the truth? Would one dissenter think more charitably of us than before? We do not believe that there exists the person, churchman or dissenter, who entertains such an opinion. Why then make a concession unnecessarily, because really unrequired by a well-informed conscience, where nothing is obviously to be gained? Where there are really conscientious objections, let separate forms be legalized, as in the case of the Quakers and Jews; but when we alter our forms for conciliation, let it be clear, first, that in so doing, we compromise no essential part of our Christian deposit; and, secondly, that there is really a probability that our concessions will produce the conciliation intended.

66

An instance of false conciliation, is the ready concession of the terms "Catholic," "Unitarian," Evangelical," "Baptist," &c., usurped by various parties. The terms themselves are in the highest degree illiberal, because they imply a censure on every person but themselves, and on every principle but their own; and whoever concedes the assumption, subscribes to the censure. Thus, when the Romanist calls himself "Catholic," he thereby intends to exclude all who differ from him from the pale of Christianity: when the Socinian assumes the title of " Unitarian," he means, as he scruples not to say, that all the Christian world are polytheists: when Calvinists appropriate to themselves the title of Evangelical, it is understood that nothing but Calvinism can be the Gospel: when the Anabaptists (a term, by the way, by no means offensive, but simply implying that they baptize those who have been baptized when infants,) drop the first part of their designation, they wish it to be inferred that no baptism, save theirs, is lawful. All this is neither liberal in the Christian sense, nor is it liberal even according to the latitudinarian notions of the day. Yet it is thought proper to "conciliate" these and numberless other parties by the toleration and even the adoption of this contracted phraseology. This is indeed no conciliation; no

kindly feeling is thereby generated, nor can be; a feeling of exultation at the concession of their own pretensions, and contempt for the indifference and meanness of their opponents, is all that can be expected; while total confusion is created in the meaning of language, which, while men continue to be the slaves of words, must ever be most ruinous and fatal.

We might be led into too extensive a field, were we to discuss a subject which, more than any other, has rested its claims on the basis of conciliation. The Romish question, we consider as much more political than religious; although we cannot blind ourselves to the tremendous religious consequences which it involves. But although a political question, it is, like all others, to be decided by Christian politics. We are called upon to conciliate a body of men who, in the last two years, by a fecundity, we believe, quite unprecedented, and which renders modest and probable the multiplication of Falstaff's antagonists, have increased from five to seven millions. But were their numbers quadrupled or multiplied to any extent, it is evident that they must be conciliated on the same terms-the integrity of our Christian duty. The point which they seek is by no means unimportant, an irresponsible exercise of legislative functions over the Church and the State; and the prospect of a real conciliation is not very clear to those who have studied either past or passing events. According to our rule, therefore, it is no part of Christian conciliation to accede to these turbulent demands.

But the subject is capable of almost endless discussion. The restless character of the present age is continually presenting us with instances, in which we cannot act as Christians without being defamed as hostile to "liberality" and "conciliation." In these cases we must take comfort from the advice of St. Peter, "It is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing than for evil doing." We have endeavoured to sketch a rapid outline of the favourite virtues of the day, as viewed through the glass of Christianity. Let this outline be filled up in the multifarious exigencies of political and private life, and let it be seen whether the peaceable fruits of righteousness will not better be produced, than under a system of noisy but heartless profession, where Christian liberality is preached by those who deny and vilify Christianity; and Christian conciliation comes recommended by the voice of men of strife and contention to the whole earth."

THE STATE OF DISEMBODIED SPIRITS.

PART II.

In resuming our inquiry into the state of disembodied spirits, and to refute the opinionists who talk of their annihilation, we begin with appealing to the scriptural narratives of the return of many souls into the bodies from which they had been severed. Elijah raised the child of the widow of Sarepta, "and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived." (1 Kings xvii. 22.) Elisha raised the child of the Shunamite from death; and, even when a dead man was cast into the sepulchre of Elisha, "he revived and stood upon his feet."

(2 Kings xvii. 21.) When the daughter of Jaïrus was dead, "Christ said unto her, Talitha cumi, Damsel, arise; and her spirit came again, and straightway the damsel rose." (Mark v. 41, 42.) "When he came nigh to the gate of the city of Nain, there was a dead man carried out, and he came nigh and touched the bier, and said, Young man, I say unto thee, arise; and he that was dead sat up and began to speak." (Luke vii. 12, 14, 15.) The resuscitation of Lazarus is familiar to us all. (John xi. 39.) Now, were the soul annihilated by death, the same soul, it should seem, could not be restored to the defunct body; and therefore Chrysostom has well observed, that these and similar accounts afford a strong proof of the immortality of the soul.

[ocr errors]

Equally to our purpose is the singular history of the Witch of Endor, which divines have variously interpreted. When Samuel, to the evident astonishment of the sorceress, (for she had not yet begun her enchantments, which therefore had no power to evoke the spirit of the prophet,) appeared, and stood in his mantle before the affrighted monarch of Israel, he put this question, "Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up?" Whence it is apparent, that the soul of Samuel, by revisiting this sublunary scene, was called from a state of comfort and peace; if such a state be inconsistent with the idea of the soul's annihilation or insensibility, you possess in this memorable example another testimony to the truth of the doctrine, which I have endeavoured to establish.

The pages of the New Testament are equally favourable to our hypothesis. The testimony of our blessed Redeemer, who came down from above, and by virtue of his omniscience had a perfect knowledge of the state of separate spirits, is full to our purpose. In the eventful parable of the rich man and Lazarus, having described their respective situations and habits whilst living, our Saviour adds, that "the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, Father, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, (for I have five brethren,) that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment." (Luke xvi. 22, &c.)

In applying this parable to the topic under discussion, it will be necessary to inquire into the general scope of it, to consider the meaning of the phrase of " Abraham's bosom," to shew what place is intended by "hell," and to point out the precise period of time when this singular dialogue is represented to have occurred. Now the chief design of the parable is to paint the wickedness of luxuriousness and avarice, and the punishment awaiting them hereafter. "And the Pharisees, who were covetous, heard all these things, and they derided him." (Luke xvi. 14.) Still our Saviour would have dissuaded these

« ForrigeFortsæt »