Page images
PDF
EPUB

dible communication of divine knowledge. Nothing which he has learnt from natural theology, will diminish his desire of farther instruction, or his disposition to receive it with humility and thankfulness. He wishes for light: he rejoices in light. His inward veneration of this great Being will incline him to attend with the utmost seriousness, not only to all that can be discovered concerning him by researches into nature, but to all that is taught by a revelation, which gives reasonable proof of having proceeded from him.”

From the very cursory view which we have been able to take of his writings, it might be suspected, that some of the leading and distinguishing doctrines of our religion would not be asserted in his Discourses so frequently, or so clearly as could be wished. This is, in truth, the case. His admirer and biographer, Mr. Meadley, does not scruple to say that" the minutiae of Dr. Paley's creed have never been distinctly avowed, and the charge of heterodoxy, so generally attached to his theological tenets, is supported by the omissions, rather than the assertions of his works. The opinions of those, who are usually called Socinians, have been suspected in the protegé of Bishop Law, and the friend of Dr. Jebb." Some of these omissions will probably be thought to be supplied, in the two additional volumes of Sermons which are now before us. In the first will be found a series of no less than five discourses upon "the efficacy of the death of Christ;" in which those who can detect Socinianism, must have a keener sight than we can boast of. The whole five appear to us to be replete with the soundest and clearest statement of the Christian doctrine of redemption; discussed, it is true, in a popular, yet truly scriptural manner: but not on that account the less satisfactory to our minds, and certainly the more instructive to those to whom they were addressed. We could quote largely from them all in support of our opinion, or rather the whole should be read to confirm it. But the following passages, perhaps, will suffice to shew, that the genuine doctrine of our Church, upon this cardinal point, is here temperately, but unequivocally laid down. After quoting in the first sermon of the series, a great many of the principal texts which are usually cited in proof of the doctrine of the atonement, the archdeacon thus proceeds

"In these and many more passages that lie spread in different parts of the New Testament, it appears to be asserted, that the death of Christ had an efficacy in the procurement of human salvation. Now these expressions mean something: mean something substantial. They are used concerning no other person, nor the death of any other person whatever. Therefore Christ's death was something more than a confirmation of his preaching; something more than a pattern of a

holy and patient, and perhaps voluntary martyrdom; something more than necessarily antecedent to his resurrection, by which he gave a grand and clear proof of human resurrection. Christ's death was all these, but it was something more; because none of these ends, nor all of them, satisfy the text you have heard-come up to the assertions and declarations which are delivered concerning it."

And again in the second sermon of the series, it is observed,

"This efficacy is in Scripture attributed to the death of Christ. It is attributed in a variety of ways of expression, but this is the substance of them all. He is a sacrifice, an offering to God; a propitiation; the precious sacrifice fore-ordained; the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; the Lamb which taketh away the sin of the world. We are washed in his blood; we are justified by his blood; we are saved from wrath through him; he hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.' All these terms, and many more that are used, assert in substance the same thing, namely, the efficacy of the death of Christ in the procuring of human salvation."

And again in the twelfth sermon:

"When the Scripture talks, therefore, of sin requiring atonement and expiation, and of the death and sufferings of Christ, as of great and mighty efficacy thereto, does it talk of more than what we should judge to be necessary for us, considering what sin is?"

This, it will be thought, is an explicit recognition of the doctrine of the atonement; but still, it will be observed, there is here no admission of the divinity of our Saviour. We are not, however, left wholly in the dark respecting our author's sentiments upon this point, though it were to be wished that they had been expressed with more clearness and decision. It is certainly possible, that we may have overlooked some references to this subject: but the only passage that bears upon it, which we can produce, is contained in the twenty-seventh sermon of the second volume upon the "unity of God," in which after quoting several texts in proof of that Article of our faith, it is said,

6

"These passages are very clear and express, and can never be mistaken to us Christians; that is, There is one God, blessed for evermore.' We hear, nevertheless, of three divine Persons-we speak of the Trinity. We read of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.' Now concerning these, it is to be observed, that they must all be understood in such a manner as to be consistent with the above positive declarations, that there is one only supreme God.' What is that union which subsists in the divine nature; of what kind is that relation by which the divine persons of the Trinity are connected; we know little,

perhaps it is not possible we should know more: but this we seem to know, first, that neither man nor angel bears the same relation to God the Father as that which is attributed to his only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; and secondly, that very thing does not break in upon the fundamental truth of religion, that there is one only supreme God,' who reigneth and dwelleth in heaven and on earth; who is all in all, the same spirit always, unchangeable; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light which cannot be approached; whom no man hath seen, nor can see; to whom be glory and dominion for ever."

Although this be not so full and explicit as the importance of the subject required, from a man of Dr. Paley's station in the Church; still were it the only passage in all his writings, in which the doctrine of the Trinity is mentioned we should consider it quite sufficient especially when coupled with our previous quotations upon the atonement to refute the charge of Socinianism; which it appears to us has been much too hastily brought against him; though perhaps not without some apparent cause. We could easily produce abundance of passages from these sermons, to shew that Dr. Paley's orthodoxy was much less questionable, than by many persons seems to have been supposed. But for this purpose, we must refer them to the volumes themselves. We will not conclude, however, without extracting one specimen of the nervous and peculiar manner in which he enforces the commonest topics of pulpit exhortation. In the twelfth sermon of the first Volume he observes,

"I am at present to treat of the malignity and aggravation of our sins, under the circumstances in which they are usually committed.

"First, our sins are sins against knowledge. I ask of no man more than to act up to what he knows: by which I do not mean to say that it is not every man's obligation, both to inform his understanding, and to use his understanding about the matter; in other words, to know all he can concerning his duty; but I mean to say that, in fact, the question seldom comes to that-in fact, the man acts not up to what he does know-his sins are against his knowledge. It will be answered, that this may well be supposed to be the case with persons of education and learning, but is it the case with the poor and ignorant? I believe it to be the case with all. Is there a man who hears me that can say he acts up to what he knows? Does any one feel that to be his case? If he does, then he may reasonably plead his ignorance, his want of education, his want of instruction, his want of light and knowledge, for not acting better than he does, for not acting as he would have acted if these advantages had been vouchsafed to him. But he must first act up to what he does know, before he can fairly use this plea-before he can justly complain that he knows no more. Our sins are against knowledge. The real truth is, and it comprehends both the wise and the ignorant, the learned and

the unlearned-the real truth I say is, that we not only sin, but sin against our own knowledge. There may be nicer cases, and more dubious points, which a man, informed and instructed in religion and morality, would perceive to be wrong, which a man, ignorant and uninformed, would not discover to be so; and there may be many such cases; but what I contend is, that the question never comes to that. There are plain obligations which the same men transgress. There are confessed and acknowledged duties which they neglect. There äre sins and crimes committed, which they know to be sins and crimes at the time. Therefore, since they act contrary to what they know, small as their knowledge is, is it in reason to be expected that they would not act contrary to what they know, if that knowledge was increased? Alas! in computing the number, and weight, and burden of our sins, we need only take into the account the sins which we know. They are more than enough to humble us to the earth upon the ground of merit they are more than enough to banish that consideration: they are more than enough to humble every one of us to the dust."

Discourses on some important Subjects of Natural and Revealed Religion, introduced by a short view of the best specimens of Pulpit Eloquence, which have been given to the World in ancient and modern times. By DAVID SCOT, M.D. Minister of Corstorphine. 8vo. pp. 463. 10s. 6d. London. Hurst. 1825.

IN In all cases where it is practicable, it is our proposed plan, to give a short analysis of the works which we undertake to review. In some instances we must, however, unavoidably deviate from our regular path; and we should indeed deserve the severest censure if we imposed upon our readers the onus of reading an analysis of Dr. Scot's essays. It is an abuse of language to call them discourses, in the usual acceptation of the term, for the text of Scripture at the head of each of them is the only property which they have in common with productions that are proper for the pulpit.

The passage of Scripture prefixed to the two first of Dr. Scot's essays is taken from Rom. xv. 1. "We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not please ourselves. From these words, Dr. Scot deduces the duty of cherishing a tolerant spirit in religious matters: he observes that the mind of man cannot be forced into the belief of any notion at random, that though in the common concerns of life, man may take up

opinions on the authority of another, in religion" his own act is more immediately required in believing them," (believing an opinion rather a questionable expression.) The two methods adopted in the dissemination of opinions, are persecution and argumentation. The former Dr. Scot justly and strongly reprobates. The magistrate is to check opinions as dangerous to the country, not as false in religion; he is the guardian of temporal interests,-the care of spiritual welfare belongs to ano ther class of persons. These persons may counsel, but not constrain; for we are answerable to God only for our opinions. The Pope and his adherents are censured,-for infallibity of judgment can never reside in fallible men. Ignorance is no excuse, because the Scriptures are translated into a language which we understand. Creeds and formularies of faith may be useful, but they are neither to supersede the necessity of reading Scriptures, nor to stand in their place.

"The present state is mercifully intended as a school of discipline not only in regard to practice but also opinion, if we neglect our neighbour's moral qualifications, why should we make our own opinions the only recommendation to that happy conntry, (i. e. Heaven). The outrages of the Papists are inexcusable, and the rage of prosylitism deserves condemnation. Our Saviour obtained followers not by compulsion but by affability and gentleness. This spirit is copied after by his apostle."

The first Essay consists of these and similar observations repeated more than once, without any order or connection. We quite agree with our author in many of his remarks, especially in those which relate to the Romanists, but notwithstanding the Stagyrite, though we have a common foe, we are not friends. In the first place our author is by no means equal to discuss the subject which he has chosen, and in his endeavour to do it he has given a most happy illustration of the poets image, "glacies ceu futilis." But this is a pardonable fault when compared with that lamentable indifference to divine truth which pervades the whole volume. We find persecution for religious opinions justly reprobated, but nothing or next to nothing is said of the momentous duty of having a right faith ourselves, and communicating it unto our brethren by the use of all lawful means, Dr. Scot's principles, however, of which we shall speak hereafter, are but too well calculated to quench the spirit of truth, and to remove that abhorrence of falsehood which is one distinguishing characteristic of the sincere Christian.

We object to the manner in which Dr. Scot represents the seve

« PreviousContinue »