Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

Christ, most certainly, I held the usually received opinion of three Divine Persons in one Godhead. My ministry, also, when I was a member of the Establishment, broadly proclaimed the same truth. It was, indeed, of such a nature, as little to agitate questions of any sort in relation to polemic divinity. I was situated among a simple, affectionate, and, for the most part, very poor people. It had pleased the Lord, in his sovereign mercy, to bless the word to the souls of sinners. I beheld many around me earnestly asking, What must I do to be saved?others led to receive Christ as all their hope for time and eternity-others living upon the fulness of that Saviour, whom they had, through grace, received, and adorning, as through the same grace, with but very few exceptions, they still adorn that doctrine which they professed. Of other Christians we saw but little. To the religious world we were, in a great degree, minister and people, alike strangers, unknowing and unknown. No wonder, then, if at such a period of my life, disputable questions concerning the niceties of any point in theology, but little occupied either my mind or theirs. I preached to them, as far as I knew it, the total corruption of man's nature--the necessity of a new birth unto righteousness and true holiness-God's everlasting love to his church and people-the doctrine of imputed righteousness-and the necessity of real sanc. tification: and, in all this, set forth the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as personally and distinctly sustaining covenant offices in the economy of salvation."-"Soon after my leaving the Establishment, however, and my settling in London, circumstances occurred which I need not detail, but which led me to oppose certain statements, which went to assert, that Jesus the man was God by the indwelling of the Father. This was toward the close of 1817. And it was not till I descended into the arena of controversy, that I began to discover how little I had really entered into the minute consideration of the question; that I had, indeed, in the years that were past, embraced simply what I saw was simply revealed, and the truth of which I felt so needful to my own soul; but that, as it regarded the subtle genius of an opponent, or the real argument of the point, or those nice distinctions which the ingenuity of man has devised upon the subject, I had never once regarded them."" In 1818, some of Dr. Watts's works fell into my hands. I read them with that portion of respect which the high esteem I entertained for his talents, and the real veneration I held for his picty, were naturally calculated to inspire. I read them much, and with no little attenN. S. No. 28.

tion. And although I thought that I saw what sometimes appeared to me as unsettled, and sometimes as contradictory statements, yet, as in many parts there was an evident leaning to the indwelling scheme, and in some a real defence of it, it can excite but little wonder, if the violence of my opposition began insensibly to abate. It cannot, at least, be considered as very strange, if I no longer thought that such a scheme involved a denial of the real deity of our Lord, when one, whom I had never heard charged with such a denial, appeared so decidedly, in some parts of his works, to favour it. Certain, however, it is, his mode of reasoning greatly settled, or rather let me say, greatly unsettled, my mind. And if he had himself any definite ideas of a distinction of persons in the Godhead, most true it is, he was in no small degree the means of leading me to a denial of any such distinction. If he had been a man of less piety, betrayed less sweetness of spirit, shown less skill in argument, exhibited less power of research, 1 had, perhaps, been less influenced by him. And yet, my dear Sir, how little has all this really to do, in the absence of direct testimony from the word of God, with settling an inquiry about a scriptural truth! In 1819, concluding my views on the subject to be settled, I was induced to publish; and next to the holding of such opinions, the publishing of them to others, is what I the most deeply and bitterly regret."— pp. 24-32.

The principles which our author was thus led to embrace, are stated as follows.

"The system which I had been led to adopt, in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, has been usually termed the indwelling scheme. it is by no means a new theory; but this consideration is but little in its favour. It supposes the Father to have taken his Son, the man Christ Jesus, into an union with himself, so close and indissoluble, as that the Son had thereby a relative right to all the glories of the Godhead, is in conclared to be God, and is God."-p. 23. sequence a partaker of real deity, is de

[ocr errors]

"What he meant by the Spirit,' is not indeed very clear and obvious: sometimes he speaks of the Holy Ghost as the unction of God, sometimes as the power, sometimes as the influence of God; at others, as if the Spirit were the Father himself. In short, Biblicus did not deny the actual need of spiritual influence upon the soul, in order to salvation, but he denied the distinct personality of the Spirit of God."-- pp. 92, 93.

2 D

It is matter of regret, rather than of surprise, to find that the writings of one, so justly esteemed as Dr. Watts, were the means of misleading an inquirer on points so momentous. For his practical and devotional productions, few authors have so large a claim upon the gratitude of Christians. But that, catching the mania of the day, he should daringly attempt to penetrate the unrevealed peculiarities of the divine existence, and still more that he should have scattered his hazardous speculations indiscriminately abroad, are facts which the warmest admirers of his piety and genius cannot but deplore. To investigate and ascertain the amount of Scripture testimony on the subject, in order that our faith may rest on divine authority, is the duty of a disciple; to speculate and infer, and construct hypotheses, whether applauded as orthodox, or branded as heretical, is the arrogance of impiety. On questions of pure revelation, a devout and holy temper requires us as much to restrain curiosity from prying beyond the hallowed record, as to exercise diligence in surveying, and appreciating, and enjoying, the inheritance that it offers to our acceptance. Could the modus subsistendi of what are called the divine persons in the Godhead, be as clearly demonany proposition in Euclid, it might prove an illustrious triumph of philosophy, but after all would involve no exereise of religion, no subjection of soul to the authority of God. On the other hand, the temerity of speculation upon this awful subject, has, from very early ages of the church, proved the bane of Christian simplicity, the prolific mother of hateful passions and destructive errors.

strated as

But not to indulge in reflections which are little called for by the happier temper of the pre

sent day, let us follow our author in the account of his restoration to a sounder state of mind, and more correct sentiments.

"As a proof to you," he remarks, "how little was really conscious to

myself of the actual tendency of my own principles, I would observe, that when I was broadly charged with holding a system, which viewed the Saviour as God indeed by name, but as a mere man by nature, and with an entire denial of the real glory of the Holy Ghost, in the economy of redemption, such a charge appeared to me of so awful and appal. ling a nature, that it made the deepest and most solemn impression upon my mind, and I well recollect my secret conviction, that if such was really my systhis charge was again and again repeated, tem, it could never be true. But when and that too by many whose opinions I could not but respect, I was led by it seriously, and I trust prayerfully, to review my scheme altogether, and narrowly to survey the ground on which it had ventured to stand. This I did at intervals, for a period of about three years, that is, till towards the middle of 1823. And what was the effect? I began to find the ground, which I once thought so strong, seemed to tremble under me. Instead of

a rock, which I once esteemed it to be, I discovered it to be the sand, or rather som some treacherous morass, which seemed to threaten the whole fabric with in

evitable ruin. My former view was found to be unscriptural and most dangerous, and my mind was gradually, but firmly, settled in the conviction, that the Son and the Holy Ghost are, with the Father, truly, properly, personally God. In consequence of this, I inserted, in one of the monthly magazines in 1823, a brief, but an unreserved retractation of my former sentiments, and I need scarcely add,

bought up the remaining copies of the work. But can I ever forget the solemn conviction, which was now presented to my consideration?

Sensible as, I trust, I am, and ever shall be, of the mercy and grace of God, that my understanding was not permitted to remain in that darkness which once surrounded it, as to this inexpressibly important truth; infinite as is my debt of gratitude to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for that boundless compassion that was displayed towards me, yet was the discovery itself, I may truly add, of a nature the most affecting to my own soul, and accompanied with the most pungent regret."—pp. 18-21.

The preceding extracts present our readers with a distinct and candid statement of the affecting

case, which our author lays before the public. That case suggests various reflections. The speciousness of error; the evil of unwarranted speculations on the great truths of religion; the value of theological studies, systematically pursued, to candidates for the christian ministry; and the danger of precipitate decisions, on points which contravene the generally adopted opinions of Christians in all ages are topics illustrated in the instance before us, on which the younger part of our readers especially, would, upon such an occasion, do well to indulge their self-applicatory meditations.

The greater part of the volume is occupied with an account of the reasonings by which the author's mind was happily restored to a belief of the generally received doctrine of the Trinity. To enter on a minute examination of those reasonings, is not required by the intention of the writer, who does not present himself as the champion of the momentous doctrine in question, but as the memorialist of his own mental exercises, and the opponent of erroneous sentiments previously published by himself. How far he has succeeded in the latter capacity, we have not the means of ascertaining, since his former publication never came in our way; but if a correct opinion may be formed from references made to it in the volume before us, he has found himself abundantly competent to refute its erroneous positions. The author's reasonings in behalf of the proper divinity of the Son, and the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit, indicate an honest and devout state of mind; an anxious desire to ascertain the genuine sense of scripture testimonies, and an implicit deference to the dictates of revelation. Some readers may hesitate to admit his interpretation of a few passages, and, occasionally, be unable to perceive

the force of his remarks; but there are few candid and judicious students of the sacred volume, who will not conclude from his arguments, that the doctrines which he advocates are the doctrines of the Bible. We must content ourselves with submitting a single instance on each of the great points in question.

"Next to John i. 1. I think that Phil. iii. 4-11. was the most deeply impressed upon my mind.-In considering the whole of this interesting portion of divine truth, I remarked especially these three points. First, That there was a manifest antithesis in the passage. Our Lord was in fashion as a man,' he was in the form of God.' But he was truly and properly man, and not merely man in name; so, by all fairnes of reasoning, he was truly and properly God, and not merely God in name. Secondly, I was led to infer, that if our

Lord had been in himself of a nature have thought it robbery, yea, the greatest inferior to the Father, he must necessarily of all robberies, to have made himself equal with the Father, and to have taken from Jehovah that glory which the law gives, and exclusively gives to the One Suprime, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.' I reasoned thus, if the Lord Jesus Christ be in himself the man, though we allow, for argument's sake, that he was the man in whom the Father dwells, and be one with the Father, yet, as it regards himself, he is so far from being equal with the Father, that he is inconceivably, yea, infinitely inferior to the Father. Touching his huma

nity, or rather his office as Mediator, our

[ocr errors]

Lord says, My Father is greater than I.' If, then, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God, while the expression implies, indeed, that he had a nature inferior another nature, equally with the Father, to the divine, it implies also that he had namely, the divine. Thirdly, I observed that the Apostle begins by exhorting the Philippians with look not every man m things of others; let this mind be in you, his own things, but every man also on the which was also in Christ Jesus; and then elucidates his meaning, by shewing how the Lord Jesus looked not on his own things, namely, by divesting, or rather ternal glory of the Godhead, while that emptying himself (ekevwσe) of the exwhich he did look upon, was the forlorn condition of the church given him to save. But the whole force of this reasoning appeared to depend upon the glory of the Godhead being the glory of his own Godhead."--pp. 47--51.

"My mind thus becoming satisfied that

the Holy Spirit was a personal agent, my next inquiry was, whether, as a person, he was distinct from the Father. And here Rom. viii. 27. gave, under the divine blessing, complete conviction to my mind.-I felt that if any one thing were ascribed to the Holy Spirit as a person which could not be assigned to the Father, a distinct personality would necessarily be proved. And in this verse I clearly discerned such a distinction. For the Holy Spirit is there represented as making intercession for the saints with the Father. Here, then, was a manifest distinction from the Father with whom he pleads, and from the saints for whom he pleads. And that he is distinguished from the Son, on the ground of whose finished work he pleads, was as evident, by comparing John xiv. 16. in which he is called another Comforter, or Advocate. This was solid ground to rest upon. And the more I look at it, the Lore solid does it appear. Here was not only a personal act, an act in which no one but a person could be really engaged, but here was the act of one who must be personally distinct from the Father, and that, because he intercedes with the Father. It would be impossible here to say it is the Father interceding; for if so, the Father would intercede with himself. When such a text as Eph. ii. 18. is quoted, it is possible that it may be replied, The Father draws, (John vi. 44.) by his Spirit, through Christ, unto himself. But here such a mode of interpretation is impossible."pp. 103-105.

The volume closes with a letter, declaring, that the author has always steadily maintained "the personal sanctification of the believer by the Spirit of holiness;" and another, suggesting cautions and directions to inquirers who are perplexed on the momentous doctrines on which it treats.

We unite with Mr. E in devout acknowledgments to the Author of his recovery from error, and doubt not that his volume will be read by many with pleasure and advantage.

་་་་་་་་་་་་

SERMONS ON THE DEATH OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK.

1. Death the Last Enemy: a Sermon preached at the Parish Church of St Mary, Islington, on Saturday, January 20, 1827, on the Occasion of the lemented

Death of his Royal Highness the Duke of York and Albany. By Daniel Wilson, A. M., Vicar of Islington, pp. 40. Wilson. 2. The Convictions and Expectations of the Patriarch Job: a Sermon on the Decease of His Royal Highness Frederick Duke of York, preached at the English Chapel, Paris, on Sunday, January 21. By Rev. Lewis Way, A. M. pp. 27. Hatchard. 3 and 4. The Tears of David and the People at the Grave of Abner, and the great

5.

6.

White Throne: two Sermons on the Death of His Royal Highness the Duke of York and Albany, &c. &c. delivered in the Parish Churches of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, and St. Olave, Southwark, on Sunday, Jan. 21, 1827. By Thomas Mortimer, M. A., Lecturer of the said Churches. pp. 40. Seeley.

a

A Nation's Bereavement:
Sermon preached in Castle Street
Chapel, Launceston, on Sunday
Evening, Jan. 21, 1827, to the
Memory of His Royal Highness
Frederick Duke of York. By
J. Barfett. pp. 32. Simpkin
and Marshall.

A Sermon, occasioned by the
Death of His Royal Highness the
Duke of York, preached at Mill
Street Chapel, Wincanton. By
Rev. J. A. Paterson. pp. 28.
Holdsworth.

7. A Sermon, occasioned by the Death of his late Royal Highness Frederick Duke of York and Albany, &c. &c. By the Rev. Thomas Macconnell, Minister of the Presbyterian Church, Gosport. Simpkin and Marshall. THAT the English people are strongly attached to the monarchical form of government, is a fact, which the annals of their past history demonstrate, and which to this day is exhibited in the lively sympathy and loyal interest they discover in all those events which really affect the

prosperity of the reigning family. Exempted, however, from the absurd affectation of intense emotion, which their French neighbours display at every trivial circumstance which may occur in the palaces of their princes, the feelings of the British people are generally regulated by a rational estimate of the extent of the royal calamity, and when a bereavement does occur which demands their grief, they give utterance to a manly sorrow, such as would become a father's or a sister's grave.

Thus in the death of the Princess Charlotte, there was a peculiar combination of circumstances, calculated to arouse and interest the public feeling. Every thing connected with the individual herself, independently of her rank, concurred to produce the profoundest emotion as heiress to the British throne, the nation regarded her with an honourable pride-an event was daily expected which every heart had prepared itself to welcome with rapture; in one moment the hope of the kingdom was crushed, and the joy ready for utterance, and just waiting, as it were, the signal of expression was transformed into anguish as sincere and poignant, as if every subject of the realm had been called to sustain some domestic calamity. On that occasion, as was natural, piety and genius of the highest order combined their exertions to interpret the language of the event, and embalm the memory of the illustrious dead. The decease of the late heir presumptive to the throne of the British empire, was not an event calculated thus powerfully to awaken public sympathy, or to excite the energies of extraordinary minds. In his personal character, there was nothing which raised hin above the benevolence, virtue, and intelligence of his less noble countrymen, and much that distinguished his life, it is more loyal

to forget than to remember. His death was neither premature or unexpected, nor did it occur at one of those critical junctures in our history, which made it the precursor of calamities to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, indeed, he seemed the admiration of the country; but that fact does not furnish a theme, on which a minister of "the Prince of Peace" can dilate with complacency, when the tears of the widows and the orphans of those who perished in the fields of blood, are not yet wiped away. It does not, therefore, surprise us, that amongst the several discourses which have appeared to honour the memory of the noble Duke, and to exhibit the moral instruction involved in his decease, that we have not met with any piece of distinguished excellence. Indeed, it is our painful duty to state, that of all the sermons named at the head of this article, that by the Vicar of Islington alone rises above mediocrity.

Mr. Wilson's sermon is founded on the words of St. Paul, "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death," and its perusal afforded us sincere pleasure. The known loyalty of the preacher led us to anticipate a laboured panegyric on the character of the Royal Duke, and especially on the last display of his senatorial powers; but Mr. W. prudently avoided that topic on which the public mind is so painfully divided, and with exemplary solicitude for the highest interests of his auditors, directed their attention in a strain of Christian eloquence to the Saviour, by whom even the destroyer shall die.

"For all the mournful topics on which we have dwelt, are but concessions-am

le indeed, but still only concessions to the feebleness of man. it is the highest glory of Christianity to triumph over them all. She passes amongst the ruins of the fall and plants her banner in the midst. She stands in the field of death and sur

reys the whole melancholy scene, and pre

« ElőzőTovább »