Page images
PDF
EPUB

fact, the salvation or damnation of these unhappy persons, in the judgment of the church, depends upon the verdict of the laity !*

ESSAY IV.

ON LEARNING.

How much learning is necessary to qualify for the sacred ministry? Just so much as is necessary to acquire a knowledge of christianity; for he who understands any art or science is qualified to teach it. Thus a man who understands the art of shoe making, can teach others to make shoes; a lawyer, who is well versed in the principles of justice, the civil code of the realm, and the practice of the courts, is competent to give instructions on jurisprudence; a physician who is acquainted with anatomy and physiology, the nature, causes and symptoms of diseases, and the properties of medicines, is sufficiently learned to give lectures on the healing art; and the reason equally holds in relation to all other professions.

The question, therefore, is, What learning is necessary to acquire a knowledge of christianity? The clergy reply, a knowledge of the languages in which the sacred scriptures were originally written. But this can only be true upon the supposition, that the translation does not give the sense of the original; a supposition which reflects disgrace upon the translators, as ignorant or designing men, in giving us a spurious version, and upon the present clergy, as enemies to learning and religion, in not giving us a better. When a motion is made, however, for a new translation, the clergy are

*This is an aggravated statement of the case. The judgment of the church is not that the salvation or damnation of the suicide depends on the verdict of the laity, but that the ground of hope respecting his religi is state, and his consequent right to christian burial, depends much on the evidence presented to the jurors of his sanity or insanity.-EDIT.

loudest in the cry, that the old one is strictly just and faithful. It may therefore be safely affirmed, that by a careful and devout perusal of the Bible, the christian system may be comprehended, and that, consequently, a knowledge of the dead languages is not necessary to a teacher of the science of salvation.

But it is said, admitting our translation to be a good one, yet every scholar knows, that it is impossible to give the full force and spirit of any work, in a translation; and that, however well it may be executed, it must from the nature of things contain some errors. This is granted. But still it will not be denied, that the doctrines, duties, privileges, and rewards of christianity, may all be clearly made out from the authorised version, and may therefore be inculcated with effect by a minister who is ignorant of Greek and Hebrew.

It may justly be inferred from the imperfections and errors of the translation, that a critical knowledge of the originals is useful, though not necessary. But when it is considered what innumerable new translations, paraphrases, commentaries, dissertations, histories and dictionaries of the Bible, we have in our own language, a man of extensive reading and good understanding, may acquire a critical knowledge of the sacred books, without studying the languages in which they were written. A dabbler in Greek and Hebrew can add nothing to cur stores of biblical criticism, and possesses no advantages over a mere English scholar.

If it were supposed that a minister must be a master in the dead languages, the sentiment would be more fatal to the church than to the conventicle; for after all the parade of the clergy about learning, it is questionable whether there be a body of reverends in the protestant world, which contains so large a proportion of ignoramuses as are to be found in our establishment. Not one in a hundred of them has a critical knowledge of the Greek, nor one in a thousand of the Hebrew. How contemptible to hear a man boasting of his learning, who cannot deliver a discourse of twenty minutes long without book, and who cannot read it with as

much grace and pathos as a boarding-school miss does her favourite novel!

It is pretty generally admitted, that Greek and Hebrew can contribute very little more towards clearing and illustrating the sacred text. These languages have been cultivated with so much zeal and success, and such pains have been taken to procure and collate manuscripts, that there is scarcely anything left for the man to do who comes after the kings that, for the last two centuries, have reigned over the world of sacred literature. The learned have now turned their attention to the Samaritan, which was the language of the Jews before the captivity, to the Arabic, from which the Hebrew is probably derived; and to the several oriental languages which bear any affinity to the Greek and Hebrew, and in which any ancient manuscripts of the scriptures are to be found. The ministers among the sectaries are labouring in this new field of action, while the principal part of the clergy are applying to the Latin; a language in which few works are preserved that are not full of either the debaucheries of heathenism, or the superstitions and persecutions of corrupted christianity.

There is nothing important in christianity which a man of common capacity cannot comprehend. The clergy are perpetually insisting on the necessity of a learned education in ministers, because they have to dispense the mysteries of our holy religion. This cant refers to baptism and the Lord's supper. Let us therefore inquire, what there is of mystery and difficulty in the administration of these sacraments. It cannot require much learning to sprinkle a little water upon a child, and say, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It must be confessed, however, that there are some mysteries in baptism, as practised in the church of England. For instance: there is something inexplicably mysterious in asking an infant, "Wilt thou be baptized? Wilt thou obediently keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of

thy life?" It would be equally proper to interrogate the baby upon other subjects, on which it could certainly give quite as much information: it might be demanded, Wilt thou be a soldier, a sailor, or a parson? Wilt thou at a proper age be married?" etc. There is no less mystery in asking the sponsor, "Dost thou, in the name of this child, renounce the devil and all his works? Dost thou believe," etc. If we can believe and obey by proxy, we may also be saved by proxy; for nothing more than faith and obedience is necessary to salvation. This is certainly a very mysterious subject; but thus much is plain, that a man who can go to heaven by proxy, may possibly go to

hell himself.

No person has a right voluntarily to become responsible for another, who has not the means of fulfilling the obligation. When a man, therefore, engages for the virtue of another, he ought to possess the power of making him virtuous, which is inconsistent both with free agency and the grace of God,- or else he ought to possess as much virtue himself, as will satisfy for them both, in which case the popish doctrine of works of supererogation is established, and the sale of indulgences, founded upon it, justified. But whatever mystery there may be in this business, it is certain no very great degree of learning is necessary to ask infants and their sponsors these silly questions.

The bread and wine in the Lord's supper are called holy mysteries. There is nothing mysterious in the celebration of the eucharist, as practised by the first christians. Our Lord did not consecrate the bread and wine when he instituted the supper, any more than the loaves and fishes when he fed the multitude; for he rendered the same thanksgiving to God on both occasions. Compare the texts:

"And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and

"Jesus took the bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to the disciples; and said, take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and

brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.

"And he took the seven loaves, and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude." (Matt. xiv. 19; xv. 36.)

gave to them, saying, drink ye all of it." (Matt. xxvi. 26, 27.)*

It surely is not necessary, that a man should have much learning to qualify himself to express gratitude to God, to hand about a little bread and wine, and to desire the people to take it in remembrance of the death of Christ, and as figurative of his body and blood. But in the church of England this subject is enveloped in mystery. The priest consecrates the elements by a prayer; and in doing this, he must "lay his hand upon all the bread, and upon every vessel in which there is any wine to be consecrated." This is a very mysterious touch, a deacon's hand is not sufficiently holy to perform this magical operation; some spiritual virtue must surely be infused into the sacred food, because if any of it remains, "it shall not be carried out of the church, but the priest, etc., shall, immediately after the blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.

But these mysteries are explained in the catechism, where we are told, "The body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's supper." It is not the body and blood of Christ figuratively, or even spiritually, but verily and indeed, that is taken by the faithful. The only difference, therefore, between a popish and protestant priest in this affair, is, the papist changes the bread and wine

*Our translators have added the pronoun it, "He blessed it ;" but there is no it in the original, and should be none in the translation; for it was not the bread, which our Lord blessed, but God. When he took the cup, he gave thanks. If the pronoun be retained in the preceding verse, it ought not to be omitted in this, and then the reading will be. "And he took the cup and gave it thanks," which is making Christ an idolater.

« PreviousContinue »