Page images
PDF
EPUB

"In truth," he says, "it is no hard thing to make a rationalist or an antirationalist-meaning by this term one who is afraid to trust himself in the pursuit of truth, and who talks of the danger, perhaps of the profaneness, of an inquiry, though its subject be strictly within the province of the intellect: but to make an enlightened, yet humble Christian-one who feels the comparative worthlessness of all merely intellectual exercises, yet follows them steadily and fearlessly, in full faith that no truth can ever separate him from the love of the God of truth-this is hard to the extreme of difficulty. Deeply impressed with the profound knowledge of human nature exhibited in the Scriptures, and with the adorable wisdom of God's manner of dealing with it; convinced of sin and of righteousness,' of his own indwelling evil, and of the perfect remedy for that evil, provided by the death and resurrection of Christ; living in the daily consciousness of possessing the earnest of the Spirit, and hoping therefore the more boldly for the full enjoyment of those promises whose pledge and foretaste is so abiding a source of peace and joy; such a man's faith is far too deeply rooted to need the paltry aid of ignorance and fear. He that is spiritual judgeth all things,' all things save the very principles of that spiritual wisdom from which his power of judgment is derived.”—(pp. 19, 20.)

Again,

"To read an account of Christ as written by an indifferent person, is to read an unchristian account of Him; because no one who acknowledges Him can be indifferent to Him, but stands in such relations to Him that the highest reverence must ever be predominant in his mind when thinking or writing of Him. And again, what is the impartiality that is required? Is it that a man shall neither be a Christian, nor yet not a Christian? The fact is, that religious veneration is inconsistent with what is called impartiality; which means, that as you see some good and some evil in both sides, you identify yourself with neither, and are able to judge of both. And this holds good with all human parties and characters, but not with what is divine, and consequently perfect; for then we should identify ourselves with it, and are perfectly incapable of passing judgment upon it. If I think that Christ was no more than Socrates (I do not mean in degree, but in kind), I can of course speak of Him impartially; that is, I assume at once that there are faults and imperfections in His character, and on these I pass my judgment: but if I believe in Him, I am not His judge, but His servant and creature; and He claims the devotion of my whole nature, because He is identical with goodness, wisdom, and holiness. Nor can I for the sake of strangers assume another feeling and another language, because this is compromising the highest duty; it is like denying Him instead of confessing Him."-(pp. 21, 22.)

So, in another place, he describes the opposite to the Romish idolatries, to be "the doctrine of the Person of Christ; not His Church, not His Sacraments, not His teaching, not even the truths about Him, nor the virtues which He most enforces, but Himself; that only object which bars fanaticism and idolatry on the one hand, and gives life and power to all morality on the other. This is what St. Paul constantly opposes to the several idolatries of the Judaizers."-(p. 10.)

These various passages, evidently written, not for the public, but in the full confidence of private friendship, and with the most entire sincerity and earnestness, settle us in the happy belief, that

Arnold was no doubtful character, but one who had "found Christ," and who had been found by Christ;-one, who, in short, had believed, and was saved.

[ocr errors]

3. And yet, in the next place, we are continually startled and annoyed, at the sight of a learner, who sets up for a teacher:of a man who evidently has scarcely any settled and fixed ideas, and yet goes about finding fault with all existing systems :-of a man, who, though in some measure enlightened by Christ, still sees men as trees walking," and yet sets up as a critic on other men's blindness. Take a few instances:

[ocr errors]

"To insist on the necessity of Episcopacy, is exactly like insisting on the necessity of Circumcision-both are and were lawful; but to insist on either as necessary, is unchristian,, and binding the Church with a yoke of carnal ordinances." (p. 9.)

Now here, two things are said to be "exactly alike,” which are altogether unlike. Circumcision was absolutely necessary, up to a certain period, because it was positively enjoined. When Baptism came in its place, Circumcision ceased, at once, to be anything. Episcopacy on the other hand, never was positively enjoined at all. It was a mere institution of the Apostles, desirable and expedient, and what it then was, it continues to be still. Again,

"Whilst St. Paul would have been utterly shocked, could he have foreseen that, eighteen hundred years after Christianity had been in the world, such an institution as the Sabbath would have been still needed; yet, seeing that it is still needed, the obligation of the old commandment is still binding in the spirit of it-that is, that we should use one day in seven as a sort of especial reminder of our duties, and a relieving ourselves from the over-pressure of worldly things, which daily life brings with it. But our Sunday is the beginning of the week, not the end-a day of preparation and strengthening for the week to come, and not of rest for the past."-(p. 11.)

He is here speaking, be it remembered, of one of the ten commandments; nay, of that one which may be distinctly traced back to paradise itself. Yet he can only admit it, as "still needed,” but only until better times should arrive! That institution which was given to Adam in his sinless state, ought, thinks Dr. Arnold, to have become antiquated long ago, had Christianity done its work more effectually!

[ocr errors]

4. The grand fault, however, of this so-called "New Theology is, that it ignorantly and rashly endeavours to unsettle everything, while it decides and settles nothing. Thus,

"I would join with all those who love Christ and pray to Him; who regard Him not as dead, but as living. Make the Church a living and active society, like that of the first Christians, and then differences of opinion will either cease or will signify nothing."-(p. 16.)

Are we to forget, then, that among "the first Christians" "differences of opinion" arose; and that the Apostles did not regard them as "signifying nothing?" "A man that is an heretic, after "the first and second admonition, reject." "If there come any "unto you, and receive not this doctrine, receive him not into your "house, neither bid him God speed."

Again,

"It seems to me that absolutely all our religious affections and veneration should go to Christ himself, and that Protestantism, Catholicism, and every other name which expresses Christianity and some differentia or proprium besides, is so far an evil, and, when made an object of attachment, leads to superstition and error."-(p. 17.)

Again,

"Popery and narrow dogmatical intolerance tainted the Church as early as the days of Ignatius; while, on the other hand, Christ's true Church lived through the worst of times, and is not to be confined to the small congregations of the Vaudois.”—(p. 13.)

Again,

"In giving or withholding the title of Christian, I was much more influenced by the spirit and temper of the parties alluded to, than by their doctrinal opinions. The feelings with which we regard Christ, are of much greater importance than such metaphysical questions as those between Homoousians and Homoiousians, or even than the question of His humanity or proper divinity."-(p. 15.)

Again,

"Nor do I see that the Church of Christ has at any time plainly apostatized, although it has been greatly unworthy of its privileges; nor that the doctrine of Christ crucified and risen has been so forsaken, as that the very standard of Christianity should need to be planted afresh.”—(p. 13.)

Now if all this liberality were merely directed to the inculcation of a catholic spirit, leading us to hope well of some in all sections and denominations of Christians, it would be just and right, but it would not be new. Does not Milner carry us through the Romish Church in the darkest ages, and find saints of God in every century? But it is not of men only, but of systems, that Arnold speaks. He doubts that the Romish Church had apostatized, even when she authoritatively commanded men to bow down to an image or a wafer, and burned men and women for no other offence than reading God's word. And he puts "the feelings with which we regard Christ" (and many a romantic young Socinian may regard him with great veneration) above" the question of His humanity and proper divinity." This is preferring imagination to fact.

But the last instance we shall give, is the most fearful one. It is this:

"Considering that Arnold thus clearly discerns and lucidly exhibits Christ

Himself as the essence and centre of Christianity, the final object of all Revelation, we might naturally expect that he would also possess the power of distinguishing between what is God's word in scripture, and what is the human clothing and accompaniment, to a degree not coinciding with the views of ordinary English theology; and of understanding the idea of inspiration better than it was capable of being comprehended by the old theology. And this was just the case. He himself was aware that the result of a new theory of inspiration must issue in the transformation of theology. In speaking of Coleridge's posthumous Letters on Inspiration,' a spirited, independent composition of a deep thinker, and a mind akin to his own, he says, These letters are well fitted to break ground in the approaches to that momentous question, which involves in it so great a shock to existing notions; the greatest probably that has ever been given since the discovery of the falsehood of the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility. Yet it must come, and will end, in spite of the fears and clamours of the weak and bigoted, in the higher exalting and more sure establishing of Christian truth.' (Vol. i. p. 403.) We are told also by his biographer, that he applied the words of Christ,' Give unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's,' with a deep discernment, to the distinction of the divine and the human in holy scripture." (pp. 17, 18.)

As an instance of this " power of distinguishing," we are told by Neander with evident pleasure, that he (Dr. A.) "believed that he found in Daniel passages belonging to a later period." In other words,-rejecting all the abundant historical evidence which exists, Dr. A. sat down to the text of Daniel, and decided, by what he called "biblical criticism," that certain portions of the book were genuine, and certain other portions interpolated!

Now this is nothing less than "removing the ancient landmarks." It is a step utterly fatal, and therefore not to be contemplated with the least forbearance.

We cannot imagine for a moment, that this good man,—whom his mistaken followers would fain elevate into the founder of a party, had ever seriously considered the whole consequences of his proposition. It leads inevitably either to Popery or Scepticism.

The great, the all-important fact, that we have a Revelation from God, clearly ascertained, open to no doubt, and abundantly intelligible, lies at the very foundation of our faith. Bring this point into question in any way;-cast a doubt on the authenticity of the alleged Revelation, or deny that it is intelligible to all, and we are at once at sea, without compass or rudder. If God has not spoken, or if it is doubtful which of various writings is the record of his will, or if, the identity of the record being clear, its meaning is disputable and fairly open to question, we are, truly, "of all men most miserable." Miserable, from being awakened to a hope so precious, but quenched in so sad a disappointment. Miserable, from being brought so near to eternal life, and yet left, at last, without a possibility of realizing more than a "perhaps" the most vague and excruciating. To think, that God should have sent a message to his crcatures, and that that message should have been

mixed with human fables and falsehoods; or that those who received it, should have taken no pains to secure its intelligibility! --but why dwell on what is, after all, a dream?

There is no doubt or uncertainty about the matter; and those who speak or write, like Dr. Arnold and Dr. Neander, as if there were, involve themselves in a very serious amount of criminality.

There is the strongest ground for arguing, a priori, that, having graciously resolved to give to man a revelation of His will, God would not permit that revelation to become subject to what human beings call chance, or misfortune. Can anything be imagined, less like the God of Providence, who is perpetually shewing that "not a sparrow falleth to the ground" without his permission, and that the very hairs of our head are all numbered;-can any thing be less consistent with what we know of His works and ways, than this alleged uncertainty and doubt as to "what is divine and what is human in Holy Scripture?"

But we have the surest ground for our confidence. It is noted as an especial honour conferred on the Jewish people, that " unto them were committed the oracles of God." And assuredly, if the same inspired apostle who declared this, had known, when he so wrote, that they had betrayed this trust, he would most unquestionably have coupled with his statement some condemnation of this their guilt.

But there is not the slightest ground for such a supposition. They preserved and handed down to us, under Divine guidance, "the oracles of God," uninjured and unimpaired. And it has always struck us as a remarkable fact, that while the Jewish Church, to whom were committed the oracles" of the Old Testament, never wavered or hesitated in their testimony, or in the least betrayed their trust,-the early Christian Church, to whose care the New Testament was consigned, were made equally faithful to that charge. So that the only question which has been raised, as to which is God's word, and which is not,-arises, not from the Jews having added to the Old Testament, or Christians to the New,but from certain Christians of a corrupt age having interfered with the Jewish canon, and attempted to thrust into the Old Testament, what the Jews themselves, the lawful keepers, declare to be no part of the Divine word. Let us particularly bear in mind, that these two churches, Jewish and Christian, having cach had a portion of God's word committed to their care, have never wavered or hesitated concerning it, their own portion; but that Jews are clear and unanimous in their judgment as to what is the Divine revelation of the Old Testament, and Christians equally so with

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »