« السابقةمتابعة »
to our particular duties.' The purport of this remark we should hardly have been able to discover, had our author not referred us to the fifth sermon for the deductions from the theories of the first. There indeed we found not only an exposition of it, but more-much more than enough to convince us that when men leave the beaten track of catholic truth, to establish theories of their own, they immediately fall into error-they take matters out of God's hands, and try to reconcile what He hath put for ever asunder-truth and error. He defines the Church as 'one visible definite society, linked with its founders by continuity of organizatian;' and yet he extends its full blessings to those who refuse to be in communion with this one visible definite society, and who are destitute of its continuity of organization. This, we acknowledge, we are not sufficient philosophers to comprehend. Christ instituted one Church, with which He promised His presence to the end of the world, and unto this Church He gave a commission His apostles and their successors to receive men to the end of time, with the assurance that, if they remained therein, and were faithful and obedient, they should receive a crown of life in His heavenly kingdom. The promises of our blessed Lord are directly connected with the acceptance of the terms both in the Sacred Volume and in the Creed which embodies the teaching of the Church. The communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting,' are all privileges which belong only, according to the covenant of promise, to the Holy Catholic Church,' and to its individual members. If we wish them that are without' to know and embrace all saving truth, we must not deceive them by confirming them in the belief that their own heretical systems are safe and sufficient for them, or that they are not schismatics, though, unhappily, their forefathers were guilty of that sin. Such unfaithful teaching can only rivet them to their present delusive systems. With all the qualifying 'ifs' which it is possible to prefix, who can conceive a more dangerous line of instruction than the following:'However schismatic may have been the community to which they belong, in its origin and formation, and however defective in its appointments, as compared with the apostolical Church, they who accidentally, and from misapprehension, belong to it, ought not to be called schismatics'—the bodies to which they belong are to be denominated merely 'rival communions.' That is, schism is really schism at the outset, but, after the lapse of a generation or two, it ceases to be schism, and it is no longer sinful to embrace it! It would be an unfavourable symptom' in any one to tell such persons of their danger, and to invite those who have erred and strayed from the right way to come back. No wonder, when the trumpet thus gives an uncertain sound, that men should not prepare themselves for the battle! No wonder, where such a system of theology prevails, that the doors of God's house should be open only on the Sunday, that the sheep should be little cared for, and that no effort should be made to bring into the sacred inclosure those that are without! This would be a more useful work than drawing fine-spun lines of distinction as to the
degree of blame which may be attached to them. For it ought not to be forgotten that if the Church has a right to the guidance of one soul, she has a right to the guidance of every soul in this land;' and if her ministers do not act upon this principle, they are unfaithful to their sacred trust. There is a long note in defence of this unscriptural and uncatholic theory; but to enter upon the various points which it embraces, would occupy far more space than we can now spare for it. But such topics will from time to time be discussed in our miscellaneous articles.
We must also pass over an uncalled-for defence of Bishop Hampden, of which it is enough to say, that it is in character and keeping with those portions of the volume to which we have already directed attention. Of the general character of these discourses, we would say they are the most thoroughly unpractical and unedifying sermons which we have ever seen prepared for the use of a mixed congregation. They are enough to justify the Bishop of Edinburgh's censure of his clergy, in his recent charge, for not with sufficient frequency and earnestness dwelling on the simpler and more solemn truths of Christianity. We are confident that in nine cases out of every ten the hearers would go away as wise as they came, and with their hearts as little moved. Let us not be misunderstood. These discourses
display much talent, and contain some striking thoughts; and had
The Reciprocal Obligations of Church and the Civil Power. By the Rev. J. LOCKHART Ross, M.A. of Oriel College, Oxford. Pp. 434. J. H. Parker, Oxford.
THIS is a very able work, the result of much reading and reflection, and we heartily wish it all the success it deserves: but we greatly fear that the time is rapidly going by, if not already gone, when men in authority can be convinced by arguments, however sound, or convicted by reasoning, however conclusive. Passion and prejudice, or early prepossessions, or the influence of high-sounding names, or some such mischievous principles of action, bear sway, almost universally, in the present distempered times; and hence, instead of following truth, which is surely within the reach of all who sincerely seek her, and 'which is the same yesterday and for ever,' we are divided and subdivided into endless denominations, and, what is worse, few can see this to be an evil, and thus no
means are used for its removal. In a word, it may be feared, that the light which is in us is darkness, in which case, how great must be that darkness ! Add to this, when we see the civil power, which should protect, and uphold, and extend the Church, doing just the opposite, and gradually sapping her foundations, and removing, one by one, all the fences which our wise forefathers placed around her— founding 'godless colleges' in Ireland-endowing too, in the same country, a mongrel system of education, and refusing all aid to the schools in connexion with the Established Church-thrusting obnoxious bishops on the Church of England-endowing Popery on the one hand, and Socinianism on the other-trying to separate religion from education-giving unbounded liberty of conscience to Dissenters, and refusing the same indulgence to Churchmen-and finally (to mention no more instances), when we see a Secretary of Foreign Affairs removing a chaplain holding the Bishop of London's license, because a party had been found against him, and putting another in his room, holding no Episcopal license-when we see all this (and these are only a few of the Church's grievances), we greatly fear that no dissertation, however profound and unanswerable, on The Reciprocal Obligations of the Church and the Civil Power,' will have the smallest effect on men who know their duty, and have the power, but want the will, to perform it. Every thing tends to a disjunction between Church and State. We know what happened 200 years ago under such a catastrophe; and we pray God that similar results may not again follow from similar causes. But when men rush upon destruction with their eyes open, and with the experience of history before them, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Mr Ross has chosen a very extensive range of subject in his work, and yet all connected with his main design: The principle and origin of an Established Church-duty of the Church-duty of the State-maintenance of the Church-revival of convocation-present exigencies of the Church-obligation of the State to extend it, &c. &c. On the subject of tithes, the author has spoken his mind fully and unequivocally. Without entering upon the apostolic authority of this grant to the Church, there can be no doubt about its Old Testament and very early Christian origin and we are persuaded that the Church will never prosper till it be generally accorded to her, either voluntarily or compulsorily. Jacob, when at Bethel, evidently acted under a divine impulse, when he dedicated to God the tithe of all he possessed. And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house; and of all that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth unto thee.' Gen. xxviii. 22. • Whatever difference of opinion,' says Mr R. 'may be entertained on the subject of the suppression of the monastic bodies, and the confiscation of their revenues by Henry VIII. (many of which were, besides being perhaps only charitable bequests, frequently unjustly procured, to the disinheritance or injury of the rightful heir), there cannot be a doubt (and this is a grave point of consideration) that these im
propriations of parochial tithes which have been solemnly dedicated to God, constitute sacrilege; and those by whom they are (perhaps inadvertently) retained, must be partakers of the guilt involved in retaining for their own use what properly belongs to God. Will a man rob God?' says the Almighty, at the close of the Old Testament canon, yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse; for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.' This, however, is a very unpalatable doctrine, because it thwarts the selfish propensities of human nature; and yet it is lamentable to think how many persons there are who profess to be guided by Scripture, and at the same time pay no attention to this most scriptural of all obligations. Since the Pharisee paid tithes of all he possessed; and since it is required that our righteousness should exceed his, what title can we have to the kingdom of heaven if we come short of his RIGHTEOUSNESS?
'After the Reformation,' continues Mr R. 'when parochial revenues were not merely withheld from their proper ecclesiastical owners, but appropriated by lay proprietors, or confiscated to the service of the State, there can be no doubt entertained that such an unjustifiable detention of the returns of parochial benefices by lay impropriators is, in the strictest meaning of the term, sacrilege, or robbing of God. What this term really implies, may be gathered from the Sacred Volume, when it is repeatedly declared to be a presumptuous and mortal offence; and its awful consequences may be inferred from the fearful anathemas which are invariably annexed to the violation of ecclesiastical bequests; whose fulfilment may be seen in the decay or misfortunes of families which have incurred, by hereditary possession or otherwise, the guilt or penalty of sacrilegiously defrauding Almighty God.'-P. 303.
When we find so much to approve, we are sorry to find Mr R. defending the Jewish Disabilities' Bill. This argument is a common, but, as it seems to us, a very untenable one.
'As matters now stand
in this country,' he says, 'since the passing of Romish Emancipation Bill and the abolition of test and corporation acts, by virtue of which acts of the Legislature the ancient principles of the constitution of this country were essentially infringed, we really cannot discern that any fresh principle is now introduced, since a body which the Church considers heretical (namely, Socinians), and other religious bodies whose tenets are more or less erroneous, are now eligible to Parliament, and many of them now possess seats in the Legislature.'—P. 429. The answer to this is both easy and short. Mr R.'s argument just amounts to this, that since we are already very bad, we may as well become a degree worse; whereas surely we ought rather to try and retrace our steps and become better. Because we have gone a great way down the hill, that is no good reason why we should descend to he very bottom of it. Besides, the Socinians and Romanists are
' erroneous' and 'heretics,' it would be rash to call them anti-Christians, as all Jews are avowedly. And being so, is it wise, or rather is it not impious, to admit them into an assembly professedly Christian
at least, for the express purpose of legislating for a Christian people, and to enact laws for the upholding, or it may be the overthrow, of Christian communities? This certainly appears to us introducing a fresh principle' into the constitution of our Legislature, Happily, however, the House of Lords have rejected the bill; we sincerely hope they will continue to do so every time it is brought before them.
In the miscellaneous department of our last number, we alluded to the small subscription appended to the name of Mr Oswald, M.P. for Ayrshire, in the last report of the Episcopal Society, in connexion with his remarks in the House of Commons on the meagre contributions afforded to the Church. We have since received a communication from a highly respectable, nay official source, from which we learn, that since the publication of the Society's last report, Mr Oswald has sent for this year a subscription of £25, and notified his intention of contributing that amount annually. We have unfeigned pleasure in making this statement, both on account of the Church, and the gentleman, to whom we formerly alluded. Our informant proceeds to state, that Mr Oswald, sometime ago, gave a handsome annonymous donation to the funds of the Society, and also contributed £100 to Trinity College, Glenalmond. It is needless to remark, that of the former we could know nothing; and the latter (had it even occurred to us at the time) was not connected with the subject in hand. We wrote merely from the evidence before us; but lest an erroneous impression should have been conveyed by our former remarks, we gladly give insertion to our correspondent's information.
At the meeting of the Committee of the Society, on the 6th of September, Mr Oswald was proposed as a vice-president, and appointed accordingly. We think this was rather a hasty proceeding, and as, of course, it originated in Mr Oswald's increased contribution, we think the dignity of the Society would have been better consulted, had his subscription been allowed to appear once upon the printed report before such a step was taken.
We may take this opportunity of correcting a mistake in the same article of last number, where, in the last line of page 446, the word maximum was erroneously printed instead of minimum, thereby entirely altering the intended sense of the passage.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SCOTTISH MAGAZINE.'
DALBETH HOUSE, GLASGOW, 23d September 1848. SIR,-In your last number I regretted to observe some rather severe strictures on Mr Oswald of Auchincruive, M.P. for Ayr. In justice to that gentleman, permit me to state, that on my applying to him for aid towards erecting a church for my people in Anderston, he in the kindest manner, by return of post, sent a cheque for £20. In the general scope of your observations, I heartily concur. The clergy are expected to make EVERY sacrifice, while the laity make