Page images
PDF
EPUB

7

ral duties of the Clergy and the magistrate. It is obvious that the latter is to exercise the authority which he derives from the arm of the law, and he must in no case exceed the limits of power with which he is entrusted. But a Christian magistrate is amenable to a high tribunal; and therefore, as one who is to give an account, he must labour to advance the glory of God, and the present and future welfare of mankind. We maintain, moreover, to speak generally, that there is a close connection between opinions which are false in religion, and those which are dangerous to the country; and that this assertion is confirmed by our Blessed Saviour's parable of the tree and the fruits. But if a magistrate be in some sense responsible for the eternal interests of his countrymen, and if those be endangered by the prevalence of "opinions false in religion," it is obviously his duty to discountenance, and, as far as is sanctioned by law and discretion, to suppress them. When he is called upon to legislate he must be actuated by the same views and be perpetually referring to the highest principles. In short, for the sake of his sovereign, and his countrymen, for the sake of himself, of his sons, and his son's sons, he must in all his enactments providere ne quid detrimenti Ecclesia capiat.

We trust that these feelings and observations can trace their origin to the fountain of truth, and that they will be approved by every cool head, and warm heart; but unfortunately we are travelling a road diametrically opposite to Dr. Scot, and to him we must return.

The second Essay treats of religious observances. In our examination of this precious production we shall be as just to Dr. Scot as he is to himself, for he virtually refutes himself; and we shall attempt no more. Dr. Scot strenuously argues against attaching any importance to religious observances ;-if justly, then the inference is, that they may be innocently complied with, and in this case we ought not to please ourselves. But Dr. Scot considers persecution a much less evil, than submitting to this yoke of bondage, and in his own words "if we should suffer, our lot is not worse than that of the apostles and martyrs."

Dr. Scot shall now give us his own account of religious ob

servances.

"In all the observances attached to our religion men have varied and will vary. One may think himself bound to read a written prayer, another to use an unpremeditated prayer: one to sing psalms standing, another to sing psalms sitting one may contend for baptizing children,

another may be eager for baptizing adults: one may believe that he is called upon to take the Lord's Supper every sabbath, a second that once in the year is sufficient: and a third that it was never intended to be taken beyond the age of the Apostles. The reason of all this difference among Christians is, that no one of these and a hundred like things are prescribed in Scripture, but left to human discretion." p. 29.

[ocr errors]

Dr. Scot may find one follower here and there, but we portend upon the whole that he will not be more successful in making than he is in spelling prosylites. The majority of those who name the name of Christ will ever desire to feed on the Bread of Life, and will turn aside with scorn from the speculations of those who either add to, alter, or mutilate that sacred law which they have received from above. The expression, prescribed in Scripture," is capable of bearing an extended meaning, but, as appears from the whole passage, it is here used in a more limited sense. If then we adopt the principles laid down in the foregoing quotation, all those parts of Scripture which do not contain direct precepts and commandments, would unavoidably become a dead letter. For the resolution of all doubts whether in matters of faith, practice or ceremonies, to the Law and the Testimony,' as our Author on another occasion exclaims. But if the Law and the Testimony contain no express injunction, are we immediately to conclude that the question is a thing of indifference? Can no authority be derived from the equity of the thing in general, the Analogy of the Jewish Law,-probable insinuations in the New Tes tament, and the continued practice of the Church in her earliest and purest ages ? Can a legitimate inference from Scripture, the example of our Blessed Lord and his Holy Apos tles impose upon us no obligations? Ought we to care for none of these things? Or rather, on the other hand, is not a disposition of heart and mind to be guided by a concurrence of them all, or the greater part of them, prescribed in Scripture. We are much mistaken if with these lights the necessity of retaining Infant Baptism, and the duty of kneeling at prayer be not discerned.

But further, according to Dr. Scot's views, a precept (as will be seen by his allusion to the Holy Sacrament) may be given to the Apostles, and at the same time be neither in letter nor spirit binding upon ourselves. But we must require him to produce one single reason why we are not equally exempt from obeying the precept, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them," Matt. vii. 12. as we are from

* See Bishop Sanderson's Cases of Conscience.

[ocr errors]

that, "This do in remembrance of me," Luke xxii. 19. Both were primarily delivered to those who lived in the age of the Apostles; both have been constantly observed by the faithful in all ages of the Church; and both must be observed by us, if we hope to be saved.

Our readers must ere this have suspected Dr. Scot's principles: his views respecting that solemn institution which our Lord appointed at his death, will have afforded them too strong a confirmation of these suspicions. But to proceed: in the twenty-second of his Discourses, he proposes to discuss the Socinian, Arminian, Calvinistic and Antinomian Theories of Justification. The passage of Scripture prefixed is taken from Philip. iii. 9. "Not having mine own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." In the progress of this discussion, he observes that some (we conclude he means the Socinians) hold that this righteousness is entirely our own performance. The second class assert, that man is in a degenerate state, and that the Divine assistance or grace promised in the Gospel is requisite to help him; and that Christ obeyed the Divine Law in the stead of all mankind, and that hence man's imperfect obedience will be accepted. A third class maintain that man is under the thraldom of sin from the very womb, and wholly unable to do any good work. They assert also that Christ obeyed the Divine Law for the elect only. The fourth class assert, "that Christ did not obey the law in their room, as their legal head and representative, but that he believed for them, repented for them as well as died. for them by a real transference of persons and conditions." Of these two classes the first and the last are condemned as objec, tionable in the extreme, and the second and third are considered the best. Of these two Dr. Scot evidently prefers the third, For though he allows that the scheme adopted by them may be objected to, he says no more, but speaking of the second, he says, it has been objected to, and we think with considerable strength. If our inference then is correct, Dr. Scot professes himself a Calvinist. Several of Dr. Scot's observations, whilst he is discussing the tenets of the second class, are plausible, but anguis latet in herba. His real creed is a mixture of the doctrine of Calvin with those of Socinus. Is it not strange that he should have the assurance to discuss the doctrine of justification without ever making the slightest allusion to the Divinity of the second person in the ever blessed Trinity? Our author (speaking of the doctrine of justification) observes, that these are the only four theories on the subject which deserve any

notice. But as far as we can discover, these are f ur theories on the subject which deserve no notice-for this plan reason, because the Scripture takes no notice of them. He can have but short sighted views respecting the guilt of sin who imagines that the perfect obedience of one mere man can justify, in the sight of God, the imperfect obedience of another. He can know but little of the doctrines of Scripture, who has never known, “that none can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him." Whilst treating of the doctrine of justification, we have also to remark that Dr. Scot, though he frequently alludes to the obedience, makes no mention whatever of the sacrifice of Christ. This it must be confessed is wise policy. Christ is called the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world. It is said that he was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; that he was once offered to bear the sins of many. Passages bearing upon the same point might be multiplied without end. Texts which assert this blessed truth are totally kept in the back ground, and with good reason, for with one voice they condemn the opinions of those who rob the Son of his glory, and the faithful of their hope. In short, though our Author is very earnest in his appeals to reason and Scripture, he is very sparing in the use of them.

The other essays treat of general subjects, but as they are discussed without any reference to the great doctrines of Christianity, if they were in much abler hands than those of Dr. Scot, they would be dull, lifeless, uninteresting and uninstructive. Dr. Scot, however, not only undertakes to write, but also to criticise. In his short view of the best specimens of pulpit eloquence, many great men are mentioned, but we look in vain for any traces of them in the other parts of his volume. A man of Dr. Scot's principles must have some courage to eulogise Barrow and Secker. But his commendations will be well bestowed, if they refer his readers to the instructive discourses of these excellent men. We promise them that they will there find a complete refutation of his unscriptural theories of justification, and a most effectual antidote to all the poisonous doctrines with which his essays abound. We could easily give a few specimens of Dr. Scot's grammar, which might amuse our readers; but we only beg to recommend Dr. Scot to acquire a greater facility of spelling and writing his own language, before he reads any more of the works of Chrysostom.

[ocr errors]

Sermons from the French; translated, abridged, and adapted to the English Pulpit. By the REV. M. H. LUSCOMBE, L.L.D. Chaplain to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge. 8vo. Pp. 320. 9s. London. Rivingtons. 1825.

THIS Volume contains twenty-four sermons, selections from the publications of six celebrated Protestant divvines on the Continent, Cellerier, Reybay, Picot, Merle, De Jouk, and Le Cointe. Of these Sermons, twelve are taken from Cellerier. Dr. Luscombe has presented us upon the whole with a spirited, correct, and faithful translation of the discourses, which he is desirous of introducing to the English reader; and he does not seem to have taken any intentional liberty with the doctrine or sentiments contained in the originals. We could however, point out some few passages in which he has fallen short of his usual precision. For example, the following reading is decidedly erroneous, in sense and punctuation.

"But you will perhaps ask, may we not hope for this grace, for pardon, and the mercy of our Divine Master. My brethren, you can have no certainty of this. He has not given you this assurance. In his sovereign administration, justice has its rights as well as his mercy; and we must submit to the means, which he has been pleased to choose for our reconciliation, and to the conditions by which his grace is to be obtained. He has spoken. And the means proposed is the sacrifice offered on the cross by the great Mediator his only Son." P. 268.

Upon referring to the original, which we happen to have by us, and which is a sermon of" J. J. S. Cellerier, ancien Pasteur de Satigny," Vol. I. No. 12. entitled "La foi Chretienne," as published by "Manget et Aubuliez, Genève, 1819," the passage stands thus:

"Mais, disez-vous peut-être, ne pouvons nous pas espérer cette grâce, ce pardon, de la clémence de notre mâitre. M. P. nous ne saurions avoir à cet égard aucune certitude s'il ne daigne lui-même nous en assurer. Dans son administration souveraine, la justice a ses droits aussi bien que la miséricorde: il faut qu'il parle, il faut qu'il nous apprenne, et le moyen qu'il a choisi pour les concilier, pour nous réunir à lui, et la condition, à laquelle cette grâce est attaché. Or il a parlé: ce moyen, c'est le sacrifice offert sur la croix, par le grand Médiateur par son propre fils." P. 323.

It is evident that the sentences which we have distinguished by Italics, should have been rendered in this way. 'My brethren, we could have had no certainty of this, if he had not

« PreviousContinue »