« 上一頁繼續 »
the Church of Rome than the Church of England ; viz., that of excommunication!
Next we observe that he speaks of the Church of England as if it were the Church of Christ; and claims for her the exclusive possession of those spiritual privileges, which belong not to any particular church, but to the whole of Christ's mystical body. Dissenters he classes with beer-houses and bad cottages, as the trinity of evil which hinders the Church's prosperity; but the Dissenters are the only ones which he deems it worth his while to dwell upon. He thinks little of unchurching all the nonconformist churches in England, and the Established Church of Scotland, with all the continental churches, except the equally corrupt Roman and Greek. He instructs his clergy that " we do possess, as we cannot see that others do, Christ's direct commission for our ministry; and a certainty and fulness therefore of His presence, and of His sacramental working, which, to say the least, may be lacking elsewhere." To this he adds, “If we do, we must teach, as well as live, as those who are possessed with this belief." This he further enforces by adding, “ We want more distinctive Church teaching." Alas! we thought we had too much of this preaching the Church, instead of preaching Christ, already. Froude and his friends set out with this for their motto :"As we go on, we must recede more and more from the principles, if any
such there be, of the English Reformation.” Their followers are doing it bravely; and his Lordship's Charge will strengthen their hearts and bands. Their Church teaching has filled the Church of England with strife : and the Bishop now says,
* We want more distinctive Church teaching !"
Next, we are compelled to notice the attempt to revive obsolete canons in the Church of England. These have fallen into disuse, because utterly unsuitable to the state of things which now exists. But the Bishop recommends the revival of the 90th canon, by the general appointment, at Easter next, of Sidesmen, whose duty is “to see that all the parishioners duly resort to their church on all Sundays and holy days ; earnestly monishing those who are slack and negligent, and finally presenting the obdurate.” Imagine men going forth with such authority to admonish all the dissenters in a large parish for going to their chapels, and all the labouring men for not keeping innumerable holy days.
With pain, and even astonishment, we remark also the confidence with which the new Sisterhoods after the Romish fashion are commended. · The Sisterhoods, of which I spoke in my last Charge, persevere patiently and lovingly in their evangelic labours for bringing sinners to repentance. To the great question, asked somewhat anxiously at first, whether the Church of England could maintain and direct the zeal and common life of such institutions, a sufficient answer seems now to be practically given.” The bishop answers himself very satisfactorily to himself.
But let us compare the answer which Miss Margaret Goodman, herself an ex-Sister of Mercy, gives in her published work, entitled “Sisterhoods in the Church of England." We could not find an individual better qualified to give an opinion. She writes,—“ With regard to the St. Saviour's House in Osnaburgh-strect, more than half the ladies once
connected with it ARE NOW IN THE CHURCH OF ROME!! Another Sisterhood, some two or three years back, WENT OVER BODILY TO Rouw !!--that is to say, the Superior and all her children were received at one time. They proceeded to France, and served a noviciate in a nunnery there"-(observe, they call them nunneries in France) —“and then returned to England, and worked under Father Oakley at Islington.” Even to Dr. Pusey it cannot be a small matter, that twenty out of one Sisterhood-twenty, whose consciences were for years in his hands, who obeyed his teachings, and followed his leadings with the simplicity of little children—ARE NOW IN THE Rouisa COMMUNION !!
Others beside the Bishop of Oxford consider the question settled, but in the opposite to his lordship's view ; viz., to protect the Church of England from these Romanising institutions.
I will mention only one more point-the bishop's earnest endeavour to discourage the Christian charity which was growing up among the different sections of Christ's Church. Many of the clergy, like myself, have learnt to meet Christian ministers of other denominations on the platform of the Bible Society, and such like institutions. His lordship solemnly denounces it as an “intrusion," as “entirely contrary to the rule of the Church,” and “full of mischief." And he stigmatizes the cunning of these transgressors, by stating that they just “contrived to avoid that technical transgression of the law, which rendered them liable to punishment." Seldom have I seen his lordship so indignant, as when declaiming on this subject. Of course it applied to the Evangelicals, and to no others. If good high-church men of the Puseyite stamp went into the parish of some miserable Evangelical, to plead for one of the Bishop's pet Societies, it would be no wrong at all, but a very right and proper thing, and one which his lordship himself would sanction with his own episcopal presence. But why do I say, would do ? It is just what his lordship did at Faringdon, where the incumbent, an Evangelical man, disapproved of the Propagation Society, preferring the Church Missionary. But though his views were well known, the Bishop, with a number of high-church clergymen, presided over a meeting there, and the vicar staid away from a meeting which he did not approve of. Afterward, thinking it necessary to explain in a published letter his own views of the matter, he stated this as the conclusion at which he had arrived. “One good result of the late ineeting is the practical admission, by the bishop and clergy who were present at it, that a clergyman does not by his Ordination vows forfeit his rights as an Englishman; and that he may go into any other parish, and attend any religious meeting, whether the incumbent approve its object or not. Two years following have the neighbouring clergy carried out this principle at Faringdon; and the diocesan has now also added his sanction to it, so that neither he nor they will henceforth think it strange if I continue to go into other parishes in behalf of the British and Foreign Bible Society," &c. This is what some persons would call a dilemma. But, dear sir, is love then of such small value ? Is unity worth nothing? His lordship dares not say this in plain words.
My whole soul yearns for greater unity among all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.'
“No sacrifice could be too costly which would bring us back to the unbroken unity of the early Church.” Beautiful and most Christian words! But what will the yearning of his whole soul lead hiin to do? Will he yield one word of those human compositions, the Baptismal and Burial Services of the Church of England ? Not a word. What then will he do ? Echo answers, what? But for Christian love he will perhaps make some little sacrifice, when he so touchingly declares none could be too costly. Well, he will give a a prayer, as we have heard before of a priest giving, who would give nothing else, not a penny.
“ God forbid that we should be uncharitable.” In the same breath, he insists upon more distinctive Church teaching, and inveighs against all association with Christians of any other denomination. Would that he had omitted the prayer !
To conclude. All this, dear sir, is bad enough in itself; but the worst feature of all is the quiet and satisfied manner in which such teaching is received by the great bulk of the clergy, not excepting those called Evangelical. No protest, no remonstrance is heard, and rarely an expression of dissent is whispered. Our diocese
be said to be unprotestantized. The Popish dogma of baptismal regeneration is now so widely preached, that I fully believe not one in twenty of the clergy would venture to tell any of their baptized people that they must be born again before they can enter the kingdom of heaven. As if he were the true Christian that is one outwardly; and as if Baptism were that which is outward in the flesh! It is but a sad time for the Church of Christ when that is true of it which was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, “The leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.”—I am, dear Sir, yours in Christian sorrow,
REV. D. T. DRUMMOND ON A RECENT ARTICLE IN THE
EDINBURGH REVIEW. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. DEAR SIR,- In the last April number of the Edinburgh Review, the writer of the article on “ The Bible and the Church” (Dean Stanley ?) says, “ The next phenomenon which strikes the honest student of Scripture is, that there are contradictions there (the italics are not mine)-statements some of which cannot possibly be reconciled with each other,” &c. Here is indeed a grave indictment made with unshrinking boldness. Surely from so
« honest a student” we might look for evidence, to substantiate his accusation, as full and clear as his assertion is dogmatic. And what then is the evidence adduced ? Of course he selects what he considers the strongest; and here it is. The first is an arithmetical difficulty as to the number of Levites in Numbers iï. 39. Then follow two chronological difficulties in the reigns of Asa and Ahaziah. These are really not worth noticing; but it is to the fourth, and last, I wish to refer, inasmuch as it is evidently regarded as the most weighty, because it involves a presumed mistake, not in numbers only or in years, but in the record of an event. Here it is, just as the reviewer sets it forth :-“ Lastly,
2 Chron. xxiv. 14 relates that 'spoons and vessels of gold and silver were made of the surplus inoney collected by Jehoiada ;' while 2 Kings xii. 13 states distinctly, “There were not made
any vessels of gold or of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of the Lord.'"
It is difficult to refrain from expressing the deepest indignation at the recklessness with which such a statement is made in a review so widely circulated, many readers of which will be satisfied to take the fact as boldly stated by the writer, and make no further inquiry. This is surely " handling the word of God deceitfully."
I am willing to place these two chapters out of Kings and Chronicles before an intelligent boy or girl in a Sunday school, and after giving a little time for examining them, I am contident I could elicit this fact, that the two parallel narratives, instead of being contradictory, are supplementary, and that (as in the case of the four Gospels) we gain from the record in the book of Chronicles the full view of a transaction which is only partially recorded in the book of Kings.
Will you allow me to supply a brief harmony of the two chapters referred to ?
1. There were two chests, not one. The “honest student" has overlooked this fact, and hence the formidable " contradiction.”
2. The one chest was prepared by commandment of Jehoiada, the other by commandment of the king.
3. The one was “set beside the altar on the right side as one cometh into the house of the Lord.” The other was set without, at the gate of the house of the Lord.”
4. Into the one chest the “priests which kept the door” cast in money. Into the other “the princes and all the people.”
5. Into the one chest was put “the money of the dedicated things;"
" the money that was brought into the house of the Lord;"_" the money that was found in the house of the Lord.” Into the other was put “the collection which Moses, the servant of God, laid upon Israel in the wilderness.” Exodus xxxv. 5, 21, 29; xxxvi. 5, 6.
6. The money from time to time collected in the one chest was counted without removing it from “ beside the altar.” When the money in the other chest was counted, the chest was brought into the king's office," " emptied," " taken ” and “carried to his place again.”
7. The money in the one chest was counted in the presence of the “ king's scribe, and the high-priest." The money in the other chest was counted in the presence of the “ king's scribe and the highpriest's officer."
8. The money in the one chest was to be used for one purpose only. " There were not made for the house of the Lord bowls of silver, snuffers, basons, trumpets, any vessels of gold or vessels of silver, OF THE MONEY THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO THE HOUSE OF THE LORD: But they gave that to the workmen.” Of the money in the other chest, when “they had finished" the work of " setting the house of God in his state," they “BROUGHT TIE REST before the king and Jehoiada, whereof were made vessels for the house of the Lord, even vessels to minister and to offer withal, and spoons and vessels of gold and silver.”
The simple fact is, that the money which was “ brought into the house of the Lord” for hallowed purposes, was to be put into the chest at the altar by the priests; and this was to be used for the wages of the men repairing the house exclusively. The general “ collection" put into the chest at the gate by the “princes and people,” was first to be applied to the same purpose, but the remainder was to be used in making vessels of gold and silver for the sanctuary. The book of Kings supplies the history of the one; the book of Chronicles adds the history of the other.
And it is on a misapprehension of this fact, all the more culpable because arising from the most reckless negligence of the history itself, that this writer in the Edinburgh Review would seek to unsettle the faith of thousands in the full inspiration of the word of God. There are difficulties in the word of God sufficient to try the faith and patience of all His people; but words fail in endeavouring to express the feelings of righteous indignation which rise up in the mind at the Hippant zeal and the flimsy morality which, under the name of "honesty” and “ free thought,” prepare traps for the unwary and pits for
1 the ungodly.
Weighty and true are the words of Bishop Ellicott, and they may well make our jaunty impugners of the word of God pause, and think, and pray :-“ Nay, I am old-fashioned enough to be fully persuaded, that if modern thinkers lent an ear to the express declarations of Inspiration as readily as they do to the deductions of philosophy, if we perused the Book of Life as studiously and as dutifully as we do the Book of Nature, our theology would be of a higher strain, and our philosophy no less attractive and VERACIOUS." (Destiny of the Creature. Preface.)-Ever, dear Sir, yours very truly, Edinburgh ; Jan. 23, 1864.
D. T. K. DRUMMOND,
NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.
We have not lately met with a more valuable assistant to theological and other students, in the direction of Ecclesiastical history, than The History of the Christian Church, from the Earliest Ages to the Present Time. Translated from the German of T. H. Kurtz, D.D., Professor of Divinity at Dorpat. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark. London : Hamilton, Adams, and Co. 1864.—The title is a misnomer; it ought to have been “Outlines of the History of the Christian Church.” In nothing else will these two volumes disappoint the real student of history. All the authorities of importance, as well as the historians of every age, are given with an industrious accuracy such as only a German knows or practises ; with just so much of narrative as serves to weave the whole into one continued story. As a book of reference, it is sufficient for ordinary purposes. As a cata. logue of the great writers of every age and of every sect, it has still a higher value. Its nature, however, will be better understood if we transcribe a section. Vol. 63.-No. 315.