« AnteriorContinuar »
each fallacy. But this effect cannot be perceived without close attention. The result of such attention, in the reviewer's case, was a wish that if he was ever obliged to take to metaphysics again, Mr. Newman might be compelled to write a treatise, in order to secure the benefit of his unrivalled talents for stating propositions clearly, and clearing away all obscurity, real or intended, in the statements of those of opposite views. The second chapter is directed against the Romanists, and is intended to shew that their view—(viz., that sanctification is justification)-is, not erroneous, but deficient, Mr. Newman shews, convincingly, in that and other chapters, that besides the ensuring future sanctification, the justified person is declared to be righteous, and thus justification has respect to the past as well as the future, on which (the past) sanctification can have no effect. He afterwards states his own view, which he contends has been that of the great men of our church-viz., that justification is both an application of Christ's merits to the individual, and also an inward gift-that, in other words, it is a real and actual communication to the soul of the atonement through the ministration of the Spirit, and that a privilege distinctly promised us in scripture exactly answers this description viz., “the habitation in us of God the Father, and the Word incarnate through the Holy Ghost.” The argument by which this is principally maintained is, that whatever is predicated of justification in scripture, is also predicated of this in-dwelling of the divinity, and that therefore the two are identical. He rejects as cold and insufficientnot as untrue, (for he holds it to be true, as far as it goes,)-the view that Christ's death and our individual baptism so changed our nature, that henceforth salvation depends on ourselves, on our doing our part, on faith and obedience; while the truth is, that Christ is not only the author of salvation to the whole race, but the Saviour of each of us individually in every act of our lives.
Mr. Newman thinks that where his view is not held, as the doctrine of the atonement still living in Christians cannot be resisted, the common protestant error of imputed righteousness arises from the error, that the mind is fixed, both in that and the Romanist school, on self, not on Christ, whereas his view absorbs self in the consideration of an in-dwelling God; that so awful a view increases our responsibility, and will make us more watchful, &c.
Mr. Newman then answers various objections, some most happily; but the reviewer cannot say that he is quite satisfied with that as to Abraham. While the privileges and blessings of faithful Jews in general, and faithful Christians, may have differed as the shadow and substance, can we so speak of Abraham, the father of the faithful, proposed by St. Paul as the great example on the question before us, and so remarkably spoken of, though in parable, by our Lord himself?
After this part of the work, Mr. Newinan proceeds to argue that our Lord's resurrection is the source of our justification, on the ground that what is done to us by the Spirit is done within us—
s-that what is done in the church since our Lord's ascension, is done by the Spirit ; whence it follows that our justification being a present work, is an inward work, and a work of the Spirit. Now Christ's work is double to every man; what he did externally to us, what he does within us; what he did on earth, what he does in heaven, what he did in his own person, and what he does by his Spirit. The atonement, or putting away God's wrath, he accomplished in his own person—the application to each man he accomplishes by his Spirit; for he ceased to act towards us by his own hand from his ascension. Then his mission ended. He was to come again; but by his Spirit. The mysteries and difficulties of this subject Mr. Newman dwells on with great power and high reverence, explaining and illustrating several passages in scripture. His explanation of the very difficult words, “ Touch me not,” deserves much consideration, as it sheuis much. But the passage is indeed a difficult one.
Mr. Newman now addresses himself to another point-the language of our article, that “ we are justified by faith only." And here he argues that it is meant that faith is the sustaining and abiding means which we want, that it is sole and only, not as opposed to external means, (baptism,) but to the other graces, and as preceded and made an instrument by the secret virtue of baptism, (p. 264,) and that consequently, as an instrument, it is secondary to the sacraments, that it justifies the Christian, and is not the means of justifying the pagad.
It is impossible at present to give more than this slight sketch; and the lecture just noticed (the 10th) and the two which follow, “On the Nature of justifying Faith,” and “ On Faith viewed relatively to Rites and Works,” contain so many difficult and delicate points, that notices such as are alone admissible in a magazine are quite inadequate to any discussion of them. But these points are so important, and what Mr. Newman says is so important also, that they shall be discussed in a different part of the inagazine hereafter. The reader will learn, at all events, from this notice, (what is indeed its proper and only object,) what the nature of the work is, and what kind of discussion he may expect to find in it.
DR. HAMPDEN has thought proper to publish a Correspondence between the Archbishop of Canterbury and himself, or, as he puts it, between Dr. Hampden and Dr. Howley. For many reasons, it is thought better not to renew the discussion in this form, or to say more than this,—that if Dr. Hampden is his own sole adviser, or if he has advisers who can urge him, first to write, and then to publish, such letters as his own, he is a truly pitiable man. Had pains been taken to effect the object, nothing could have been done more effectual to lower his character, by shewing its sad deficiency in the graces which are required from all Christians, but especially from those who chuse to occupy high posts in Christ's church. No one can be blind to the fact, that Dr. Hampden's situation has been a trying one. But heavy trials have fallen to other men also, and the decision on the value and excellence of the character of conspicuous men is made by the calmness, dignity, patience, and firmness, with which those trials are borne. Are these the qualities displayed in Dr. Hampden's painful letters?
Archbishop Lawrence has republished his Translation of Enoch, now in the third edition, and his very valuable Bampion Lectures, a book which ought to be in every divinity student's hands; for whatever opinions men may form on the Calvinistic controversy, it is well that they should have indisputably proved to them the fact that our articles do not and can not refer to any
protestants as to the points involved in that controversy, but to the Romanist views on the same points.
It is singular that just at the same time two works of an old divine not generally known, Christopher Sutton, have been republished-the one by Mr. Newman, consisting of devout meditations for the eucharist, aud called Meditations on the Most Holy Sacrament; the other entitled, Disce Mori, or Instructions to Prepare for Death ; by two Hampshire Clergymen. Both of these books are entitled to strong recommendation, especially if read with the caution recommended in Mr. Newman's very judicious preface to the first.
Mr. Yarrell's British Birds is going on in a way to give increased satisfaction.
The London Churches is really a valuable publication. The Memorials of Cambridge shew the same talent as the sister work.
PETITION FROM THE CLERGY OF THE ARCHDEACONRY OF
LEICESTER. The following copy of the resolution agreed to at the meeting of the clergy, convened by the Venerable the Archdeacon of Leicester, on Friday, May 4, and of the petition founded upon it, is taken from the “ Leicester Journal
Resolved—That it appears to this meeting that the additional powers proposed to be given to the “ Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England," by the “ Benefices Plurality Bill,” are injurious to the rightful authority and dignity of the right reverend the bishops of England and Wales; and that the present great powers and permanent establishment of the above-mentioned body corporate are incompatible with the principles of the constitution, both ecclesiastical and civil, and highly dangerous to the rights and liberties of the church of England. To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned clergy of the Archdeaconry of Leicester,
Sheweth-That the attention of your petitioners has been drawn to the clauses of the bill now before your honourable house, entitled, “ A Bill to Abridge the Holding of Benefices in Plurality, and to make better Provision for the Residence of the Clergy;" and they beg to express to your honourable house their sincere and hearty approval of the main purpose and chief provisions of that bill. Your petitioners will most willingly assent to any just and reasonable enactments which may be framed with a view to restrain the holding of benefices in plurality, and to enforce the residence of spiritual per
sons in their benefices. Your petitioners also entirely approve the principle of those provisions of the bill by which the bishops are empowered to take measures for ensuring the adequate performance of ecclesiastical duties in all benefices.
But your petitioners humbly submit, that certain enactments of the bill now before your honourable house require careful scrutiny and amendment.
Your petitioners observe that, by the eleventh and eight following clauses, which relate to the uniting and disuniting of benefices, additional powers are granted to the body incorporated by the Act 6 and 7 William IV. cap 77, by the name of the “ Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England.” Your petitioners have no objection to offer to the union or disupion of benefices, which may in many cases conduce to the more efficient discharge of the cure of souls, but they humbly suggest, that these purposes may be effected without the intervention of body, which they believe to be in its nature unconstitutional, and in its tendencies highly dangerous to the rights and liberties of the church of England.
Your petitioners perceive that, by clauses 11, 14, 16, and 19, all recommendations concerning the uniting or disuviting of benefices, the altering the shape or boundaries of contiguous parishes, and forming chapels of ease into separate parishes, are to pass from the respective bishops, through the “ Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England,” to her Majesty in council. Your petitioners respectfully observe that these provisions are most injurious to the rightful authority and dignity of the bishops, inasınuch as a new power, hitherto unrecognised in the church, is thus interposed between the diocesan and her Majesty in council, and the presentation of the bishop's recommenmendation to her Majesty is made to depend upon the determination of the “ Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England.”
Your petitioners respectfully represent to your honourable house, that the body of “ Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England,” though established by act of parliament, does in its form and powers, and in the dependence of the great majority of its members upon the crown, strongly resemble those courts of ecclesiastical commission which, by the Bill of Rights, 1 W. and M. sec. 2, cap. 2, were declared to be “illegal and pernicious;” while there is one feature of the present commission which renders it still more dangerous to the liberties of the church-viz., that it is a corporation “with perpetual succession.”
Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your honourable house, which has always been regarded as the watchful guardian of liberty, not to grant to the “ Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England” any extension of the powers which they now possess; but so to define their jurisdiction, and limit their duration, as may seem to your honourable house most consonant with the true principles of the constitution.
Your petitioners observe that, by clause 42, power is given to her Majesty in council, to add, from time to time, further questions to those contained in the schedule of the act, which are to be answered annually by all incumbents. Your petitioners humbly suggest, that by the operation of this clause the clergy may hereafter be subjected to an inquisitorial examination, at once unnecessary and degrading; and they earnestly entreat your honourable house not to authorize the addition of any queries to those which shall hereafter be specified in the schedule of the act.
Your petitioners believe that clause 48, which enacts that if the benefice of any spiritual person shall continue for the space of one whole year under sequestration, issued under the provisions of this act, for the disobedience of the bishop's monition or order, requiring such spiritual person to reside on his benefice, or if such spiritual person shall, under the provisions of this act, incur two such sequestrations in the space of two years, and shall not be relieved with respect to either of these sequestrations upon appeal, such benefice shall become ipso facto void, is unduly severe in its enactments, and requires revision.
Your petitioners likewise request that the term allowed to a non-resident incumbent (clause 52) to nominate a curate to the bishop, in case of the death, resignation, or removal of any curate wbo shall have served his church or chapel, may be enlarged to three months, as, in many cases, a shorter period may not be sufficient to make the proper inquiries.
Your petitioners also humbly submit, that clauses 68 and 69, which em power the bishop, in certain cases, to appoint an assistant curate to a resident incumbent, and to assign a stipend to such curate, require the most carefal examination and revision, in order that the enactments for the above purpose may not press heavily upon the incumbents of moderately endowed benefices.
Your petitioners trust, also, that whatever alterations may be deemed neces. sary in the existing law, none of them may have (as is now proposed by the 3rd, 30th, and other clauses) a retrospective effect ; thus unavoidably and unjustly inflicting upon individuals, in many cases, pecuniary Joss.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your honourable house, that the above-mentioned clauses may be altered and amended in such manner as may seem to the wisdom of your honourable house best fitted to afford to your petitioners the relief which they crave.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
THE CHURCHWARDENS OF TIVERTON.
To the Editor of the Exeter and Plymouth Gazette. Sır, -The letter of the Rev. J. W. Astley, of Tiverton, in your paper of April 28th, has revived a subject, which, twelve months since, caused a very deep feeling of astonishment and sorrow in the minds of all the members of the church to whom the circumstances of the case were known.
I refer to what I must call the profane contempt which was shewn by the churchwardens of Tiverton for the sacrament of the Lord's supper, by their providing the cheapest Cape white wine for the celebration of that holy rite. Nay more, it appears from the letter of the archdeacon, quoted by Mr. Astley, that a question had even been submitted to him by the church wardens, whether uine of any kind was necessary for that purpose.
This profanation of the holiest ordinance of our religion astonished, as I said, and grieved, every person who heard of it last year. All were at a loss to account for a proceeding, unparalleled in the history of the church of Eng. land since the days of Cromwell; and even among the outrages of that period, it may be doubted whether we could find one by which so deliberate an insult was offered to the church of Christ, and to Him, who is indeed treated with indignity again, when this his sacred institution is thus profaned.
A contempt for sacred things is generally the feeling of men who are far advanced in the career of desperate wickedness; but that this should be the act of men of education, of respectable station and connexions-nay, of men pledged by a solemn declaration, made in the presence of God, to be guardians of the church in all her rights, and to provide every requisite for decency and order in her ministrations,this increased the astonishment of those who beard of it, and aggravated the enormity.
But the year of office expired; and it might have been hoped that, if not the voice of conscience, yet the louder expression of public displeasure, which must have been heard from various quarters during that period, would have caused some feelings of compunction, and have led ingenuous minds to make some public reparation for so public and gratuitous an injury,
What then was my surprise, when I saw from Mr. Astley's letter, that, at the annual election of church wardens in Tiverton for the present year, those