Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub
[graphic][merged small][merged small][subsumed]

EVANGELICAL MAGAZINE,

AND

Theological Review.

DECEMBER, 1822.

To the Editor of the New Evangelical I scarcely know how to conduct a con

Magazine.

SIR,
Your Number for the present
month has just come to hand. I observe
in it, a
"Letter to the Editor of The
Protestant," introduced by a friendly
note by yourself, for which, and for your
former very favourable notices of my
work, I request you will accept of my
best thanks. The correspondent who
addresses me through the medium of
your journal, was kind enough to send
his letter to myself in the first instance;
and I noticed it at the conclusion of the
205th Number of The Protestant, in the
following terms: "Last week I received
a long and well-written letter from a
correspondent, who subscribes 'A Friend
to The Protestant. It contains several
remarks and strictures which I admit
to be correct; and not a few which I
do not admit. But it would be impossible
for me to insert and answer it, without
discussing points of difference among
Protestant churches, which I have en-
deavoured to avoid. I would be glad,
however, to defend myself and my prin-
ciples from his well-meant, but mistaken
remarks; and if he will get any of the
religious Magazines to insert his letter,
I shall answer it through the same
channel." As my correspondent has
taken me at my word, I must of course
fulfil my promise, though I would
rather have been excused, after the lapse
of so much time, and the occurrence of
other matters which require my atten-
tion. Besides, having had none but
enemies to contend with for many years,

VOL. VIII.

troversy with a friend.

I shall first advert to those remarks and strictures which I admit to be correct, and then I shall proceed to defend myself against those which I do not admit.

I admit, then, that nothing which God has revealed, either as doctrine, precept, or institution, is a matter of indifference. I admit that most Protestant churches have in many points departed from the purity of doctrine and worship which the Apostles taught. I admit farther that some of the expressions which he quotes from my work, are not sufficiently guarded, in reference to some of these things. My papers had little more pains bestowed on their composition, than if they had been letters of business, and scarcely so much; for so far as I recollect, not one of them had the advantage of being written over, with such improvement as transcription would have afforded. They were written in the intervals, and partly even in the midst of multifarious engagements, mercantile, municipal, and of every other description that you can imagine, to occupy the attention of a Glasgow citizen and merchant; so that it was not possible that every word should be so carefully weighed, as to escape the censure of so acute a critic as "A Friend to The Protestant," or "My Friend," as for the sake of brevity, I shall call him. I admit that the following sentence of The Protestant, which he quotes near the beginning of his letter, is liable to misconstruction :-" A degree of union pervades all Protestant churches: I

2 Z

mean union in the acknowledgment of divine truth, and the observance of divine ordinances." My meaning was, that such union was to be found among members of all these churches, and in their public formularies; and so, I believe it is. As the sentence stands by itself, it may be understood of Protestant churches as presently existing and visible, in which sense the assertion is not true. Had my friend attended to the general scope of my writing, he might have seen that this was not my meaning, though the detached passage seems to bear as much. Nay, it so happens, that the very paragraph in which the offensive sentence stands, contains the following explanation:-"This union appears not merely in their public creeds and formularies,-though it does appear there; but in what I consider far more important, namely, the union of many thousands of individuals to Jesus Christ and to one another, as members of his body, by the belief of the gospel which is preached to them;" which, I say at the end of the paragraph, "is the only union that is of any real permanent value." My friend does not quote this passage; and he seems not to have attended to it, else perhaps, he would have put a more favourable construction on the words which I admit to be exceptionable.

This is the substance of what I have to say about things which I admit: but my second head will not be so speedily dispatched.

My friend does not hesitate to bring against me the following very serious accusation: "When he proceeds to compare the union which exists among Protestants, with that of the primitive churches, as recorded in the New Testament, there is such a manifest misrepresentation of circumstances, that I am quite at a loss to conceive how it has escaped his otherwise cautious pen." To be guilty of "manifest misrepresentation," appears to me a very serious matter; and I am quite at a loss to conceive where my friend finds a foundation for such a heavy charge. Certainly there is no such foundation "manifest," unless he take my words above quoted in the sense which I disavow; and he does not rest his charge upon this ground, but on what follows. Speaking of the primitive churches, I said, "There was throughout them all, but one Lord, one faith, one baptism;" and then I

said, "This is the case in most Protestant churches at this day,-I should say in all who have any right to the name of Protestant;" then immediately follow the words above quoted, in which I explain myself to mean, not Protestant churches as organized-not merely their public formularies, but the far more important "union of thousands of individuals to Christ, and to one another." This stands in the same sentence, with the words on which my friend founds his accusation; but he passes all this over, and upon the first member of the sentence he first animadverts: "In the above extract, The Protestant roundly asserts that all the Protestant churches have but one Lord and one faith; and that this oneness is to be understood as existing among them in the same sense and manner as it did in the churches described in the New Testament, or he is surely misleading his readers." Now I was not speaking of the sense and manner of the existence of the union among Protestants, but of the reality of it; and surely my friend will not say that such union does not exist. It was the union of all who believe the saving truths of the gospel, which were the fundamental principles of the Reformation; and it was on this footing that I maintained that all real Protestants were united, though in the communion of different churches, while Papists were not united, though all in the communion of the same church. I made comparatively little account of the union of public formularies, though in arguing with Papists, I had a right to avail myself of the fact, that there is much union and harmony in these. The churches of the Reformation did acknowledge but one Lord, and they professed one faith, though with many imperfections as to their manner of exhibiting its con nexion with ordinances of worship and discipline. My friend may not be aware of this fact; but you, Mr. Editor, are well aware of it; and you have shown in your History of the Waldenses, that this oneness in the faith of Protestants existed among many thousands christians, hundreds of years before the name Protestant was heard of.

[ocr errors]

But I had also used the expression, one baptism;" on which my friend remarks:-"This assertion is perhaps a more discernible misrepresentation of circumstances than the former, although of the former it is equally true, and

By bap-"rubbish" with them, and to leave it there, to be consumed by the breath of God's mouth.

stands in need of correction.
tism," says my friend, "I understand a
Protestant as intending the ordinance
of baptism, or baptism with water."
But I intended no such thing. The
ordinance of baptism was not in my
mind when I wrote the passage. I
meant being baptized into one doctrine,
as all Protestants are, who embrace the
truth to which baptism relates. I ex-
plained this to my friend several months
ago, in a letter conveyed through a
channel prescribed by himself. It was
not fair then to publish as my meaning
what he knew before publication was
not my meaning; but it is in this way
that he attempts to find me guilty of
“discernible misrepresentation." If he
did not choose to alter what he had
written, he ought to have given my ex-
planation in a note. But, though I had
meant the ordinance of baptism, there
would have been no misrepresentation
in saying there is but one among Pro-
testants. If I had said there was but
one mode of baptism, I would have mis-
represented the case; but I did not say
that. My friend calls it "baptism with
water;" and I never heard of Protestants
practising any other..

I expressed my conviction that "If serious christians, of all denominations, were to meet on the neutral ground of the Bible alone, they would find that there was scarcely any difference of sentiment among them." This is admitted by my friend; but he has some how found out that I am not willing to meet on this neutral ground; and the following is the way in which he makes out this charge:-"Instead of laying aside every previous prejudice, opinion, and prepossession, which stands opposed to such a meeting, as might have been expected, he appears to plead for all denominations, the right and privilege of meeting just as they are, encumbered as some of them must be, for they cannot all be right, with the rubbish of human opinion, the laws and institutions Most certainly, I do plead for this, and I glory in it. Would my friend have me to beat them all out of their errors and prejudices before I brought them to the Bible? or before I would invite them to meet me on that ground? or, will he tell me by what means this "". preparatory work" can be effected? My plan would be, to invite all men to meet me on the neutral ground of the Bible alone, to bring all their

of men.

But this is taking a larger view of the subject than I did in the passage to which my friend refers. I was speaking only of serious christians meeting on the ground of the Bible alone; and as many of them have not a little "rubbish," I wish them to bring it all with them, for I know no other way by which they will ever get quit of it in this world. I speak of persons who are united in the faith of the gospel; and I am persuaded that the union and communion of such, in reading the Scriptures, in conversing about their contents, with prayer for divine teaching, would have a happy effect in removing their errors and prejudices, and of uniting them with regard to other matters, which do not enter directly into the ground of their hope towards God; but which, being matters of divine revelation and institution, are necessary to be known and observed for the glory of Christ, and the edification of his body. I would not invite them to enter into church-fellowship, while so much discordant "rubbish" remained, that they could not agree in the administration of the laws of Christ's kingdom; but by following out the fundamental principle of the Bible alone as their rule, with love to God and one another, they would come to agree about that too, at least so far as to walk as brethren, in peace and comfort, though not all thinking alike on every point; for this would suppose them all to have attained the same degree of knowledge, or rather perfection of knowledge, which I do not expect to see in the present state.

Speaking of things indifferent, or things of which the kingdom of heaven does not consist, I said," the best way to attain union on these points is, to let their comparative unimportance be on all hands admitted." "This," says my friend, "leaves the things called indifferent so extremely vague, that people are left at liberty to make them whatever things they please; the commandments and institutions of men, or those of universal majesty; or perhaps, what may be considered the more equitable method, of excluding part of both, as exigencies may require." Here I ask my friend, what sort of people he is speaking about? If they are persons who make no difference between the laws of God and the inventions of men,

or if they can adopt the latter, and dispense with the former to suit their exigencies, they do not belong to the class of people of whom I was speaking, and my argument has nothing to do with them. I spoke of persons whose hearts and consciences were subjected to the authority of God, and who are obeying his commandments, so far as they have attained the knowledge of them; but where there are different degrees of attainment, there will be obedience more perfect and more defective; and if my friend will not admit the principle for which I contend, he must cut off from christian fellowship, all the defective, and retain only the perfect, which would, I am afraid, be to retain none at all.

Now, I am sure this was not the manner of the apostles. The churches planted by them had some strong and some weak; and the former were commanded not to despise the latter, whom God had received, notwithstanding their weakness. The strength of some appeared in their understanding and enjoyment of the christian liberty, and the weakness of others in their, at least partial, bondage to ancient usages-such as the observance of days, and abstinence from meats, which had once been matters of divine appointment, and of the abrogation of which they were not thoroughly convinced. What was the case then, is in some measure the case still; and notwithstanding my friend's caveat against taking the apostle's words, Rom. xiv. for my rule, I am determined to abide by my fundamental principle-the Bible, and nothing else. Does he really believe that this portion of the New Testament is become a dead letter? That because it relates to Jewish prejudices, it is of no use to us, for our instruction, and the regulation of our conduct? I believe that this, and all such passages, were meant for the use of the church in all ages, and must be in force while there is room for christian forbearance; that is, while there are strong and weak in the church.

It is a fact, that most christian prejudices (if you will allow the expression) have the same origin as the Jewish ones; that is, in mistaken views of Old Testament institutions. When the Reformers had just emerged from the midnight darkness of popery;-when they got hold of the long-concealed Scriptures, they would naturally begin

[ocr errors]

at the beginning, and read right forward. The first thing that struck them, of the nature of an organized church, was one of great earthly splendour, with a pompous ritual, and commensurate with a whole kingdom. There was something analogous to this in every kingdom of Christendom. This was the only sort of church which they had seen from their infancy. It resembled the first thing of the kind which they saw in the Bible, and which was divinely established. Their first impressions, which are usually the strongest, were all of such a church—that is, one embracing a kingdom, and having submission to its authority enforced by the sword. Whether the above was the actual process in their minds or not, it is very certain that such views of the nature of a christian church had full possession of them. This led to a general, I may say almost universal prevalence of principles and practices among Protestants, which had more relation to the peculiarities of the Mosiac dispensation, than to the simplicity of New Testament institutions; and this continues less or more in most Protestant churches to this day. A worthy correspondent of The Protestant, while commending his work in general, complained grievously of his denying to the christian magistrate, the power of putting idolaters to death; and defied him to show when God had repealed his own law. indeed argued from the unchangeableness of God, that his law was unchangeable; and I believe Luther, Calvin and Knox, all argued in the same way, and to the same purpose. This is the strongest view of the case that I can give; and perhaps there are few Protestants now who hold such doctrine; or who would enforce upon christians a law which was evidently local and temporary. But there are innumerable fainter lines of aberration from New Testament simplicity, which may all be traced to the same source. These arise not from contempt of divine authority, but from a mistaken regard to it, like that of the Jewish converts in the time of the apostles; and hence it is, that the general rule of forbearance, and consideration of the weakness of brethren, seems as necessary as ever it was. Under much weakness and inconsistency, and many mistakes, there may be real love to Christ and to his ordinances; and when persons give evidence

He

« НазадПродовжити »