網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

THE

CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER.

OCTOBER, 1835.

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

ART. I.-The First and Second of Law's Three Letters, to Bishop Hoadley, in answer to His Lordship's Sermon on the Nature of Christ's Kingdom, and his Notions of the Authority of the Christian Priesthood. Reprinted 1835. London: Rivingtons. Fc. 8vo. Pp. iii. 150.

WE hail this reprint as most opportune, and transcribe the admirable Dedication, prefixed by the Editor, as the best method of acquainting our readers with the reasons for, and the object of this little volume.

TO THE CONSIDERATION OF

REV. DR. ARNOLD, AND HIS READERS,
THIS EDITION OF

THE FIRST TWO OF LAW'S LETTERS TO BISHOP HOADLEY,

NOW REPRINTED FOR THE DOUBLE PURPOSE

OF DISABUSING THE ONE OF HIS ERRONEOUS VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT OF
CHURCH GOVERNMENT,

AND

OF PROVING TO THE OTHERS, THAT THOSE ERRORS HAVE
NEITHER THE CHARM OF NOVELTY, NOR THE FORCE OF TRUTH,
IS RESPECTFULLY ADDRESSED BY THEIR WELL-WISHER,
THE EDITOR.

We feel a peculiar satisfaction in the perusal of this very seasonable publication; for the pages of the Christian Remembrancer were foremost amongst the periodicals to brand the errors revived by Dr. Arnold.* We cannot hope, indeed, that the arguments of Law will disabuse the Master of Rugby School of his extravagancies, but we are rejoiced that his repetition of Hoadley's errors will be restrained in its mischief, by the Letters before us, which ought to be in the hands of every man, who wishes for correct information on the subject of the Christian ministry, sacraments, and Church. As controversial arguments on.

See CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER, for September, 1829; March, 1833; and April, 1835.

[blocks in formation]

these momentous topics, Law's writings are unrivalled. Their style is remarkable for simplicity, plainness, and purity; and the clearness of the author's views can be equalled only by his humour. The republication of this admirable work merits every encouragement at our hands, and we heartily pray that it may accomplish for Dr. Arnold what it formerly effected for Bishop Hoadley, so that the old master and his new disciple may receive their common death by the same irresistible weapon. It is well said, in the advertisement to the volume under review, that

No excuse could at any time be required for bringing Law's celebrated Three Letters to Bishop Hoadley to the notice of the public.

The admiration with which, on account of their truth of argument, brightness of wit, and purity of English, they were received on their first appearance, and the number of editions through which they quickly passed, would, under any circumstances, vindicate their republication. But it is confessedly to the recent reproduction of the Hoadleian notions on Church government, and episcopal authority-on the sacraments, and christian priesthood, that the present reprint is altogether owing.

If, indeed, the old positions were enforced by new arguments, there might seem to be a call for some enlargement of the plan,-for something more than is here done. But as all the talents, . . . which have hitherto engaged in the reassertion of these opinions, have been able to add nothing to them in number, weight, or value, it would be most idle presumption to attempt to strengthen the resistless reasoning, by which they were more than a century ago encountered and overthrown.—Pp. i. ii.

We would not enter upon a formal review of these Letters; but we cannot forbear to point out how singularly applicable they are to Dr. Arnold, in almost every respect. It was a matter of loud complaint that the Bishop of Bangor was classed by his opponents amongst the enemies of the Church. This complaint has been as loudly urged by the partisans of the Master of Rugby School, as if he were painted in false colours, to increase the triumphs of his adversaries. This, however, was an idle complaint; and it is just the same now. The avowed foes of our Church claim Dr. Arnold, as they were wont to claim Bishop Hoadley, for their champion; and, surely, what his admirers state as matter of praise, may be adopted by others as a faithful report of his character and intentions. How irresistible is the answer of Law, and how applicable to Dr. Arnold, whom we might thus address, mutatis mutandis, from the pages of the little work on our table.

Do you suppose, that the T-ds, the H-ks, the B-ts, would be at so much expense of time and labour to justify, commend, and enlarge upon your notions, if they did not think you engaged in their cause? There is not a libertine, or loose-thinker in England, but he imagines you intend to dissolve the Church as a society, and are ready to offer incense to you, for so meritorious a design. It is not my intention to reproach you with their esteem, or to involve you in the guilt of their schemes; but to show, that an adversary does not need malice to make him believe you no friend to the constitution of the Church, as a regular society, since your greatest admirers every day publish it by necessary construction, to the world in print.-P. 4.

any

Again; how truly applicable to Dr. Arnold is this remonstrance, addressed by Law to Bishop Hoadley !

Have you said so much as one word in recommendation of our communion? Or, if it was not for your church character in the title pages of your discourse, could any one alive conceive what communion you were of?-Pp. 7, 8.

Again; the readers of Law will see the confutation of Dr. Arnold's conceits in the following passage, touching what Hoadley had said of the regular and uninterrupted succession of our ministers, when he described such vain fancies as "niceties, trifles, and dreams." Dr. Arnold has said the same thing: let us hear his refutation from the lips of Law.

Thus much is surely implied in these words, that no kind of ordination or mission of the Clergy is of any consequence or moment to us:... ... for no ordination whatever can have any worse defects, than as being irregular, and not derived by a succession from Christ. So that if these circumstances are to be looked upon as trifles and dreams, all the difference that can be supposed betwixt any ordinations, comes under the same notion of trifles and dreams; and, consequently, are either good alike, or trifling alike. . . . So that, if episcopal ordination, derived from Christ, hath been contended for by the Church of England, you have in this point deserted her; and you not only give up episcopal ordination, by ridiculing a succession; but likewise, by the same argument, exclude any ministers on earth from having Christ's authority.-Pp. 11, 12.

Again; who does not remember with indignation and grief the indecent and vulgar attack made, or rather, we should say, revived by Dr. Arnold, after the example of Hoadley, against "the vain words of nullity and validity of God's ordinances," whether administered by a clergyman or a layman? Dr. Arnold sneers at "the repetition of a particular form of words, by one particular individual," and teaches us that the notion, "that there can be no true sacramental commemoration of Christ's death, without the presence of a minister, is manifestly absurd and profane." So Hoadley preached when he said, that "to expect the grace of God from any hands but his own, is to affront him ;" that "all depends upon God and ourselves; that human benedictions, human absolutions, human excommunications, have nothing to do with the favour of God." Now, how does Law refute the Bishop of Bangor? Why, thus: and even thus, would we refute Dr. Arnold.

St. Paul says, "The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" My Lord, is not this cup still to be blessed? Must there not, therefore, be such a thing as a human benediction? And are human benedictions to be all despised, though by them the bread and wine become means of grace, and are made the spiritual nourishment of our souls? Can any one bless this cup? If not, then there is a difference between human benedictions; some are authorized by God, and their blessing is effectual; whilst others are only vain and presumptuous. . . . If the solemnity be to be blessed only by God's ministers, then how can you answer it to God, for ridiculing and abusing human benedictions, and telling the world that a particular order of the Clergy are not of any necessity, nor can be of any advantage to them.... Your novel doctrine has only this to recommend it to the libertines of the age, who universally give into it, that it never was the opinion of any Church, or Churchman, &c. &c.-Pp. 54—56.

Dr. Arnold has told us that it is "a superstitious error to make a broad and perpetual distinction between one part of Christ's Church, and another," i. e. between Clergy and laity. So taught Hoadley. Would that we could afford space for the unanswerable answer,—the wit, the point, the learning,-of Law on this head. How is Hoadley demolished under his blows! How triumphant a reply to the observations of Dr. Arnold! We give but his peroration,—so to call it.

They are these sacerdotal prayers, these authorized sacraments, these commissioned Pastors, whom the Holy Ghost has made overseers of the flock of Christ, that your Lordship encourages the laity to despise. You bid them contemn the vain words of validity or invalidity of God's ordinances,—to heed no particular sort of Clergy, or the pretended necessity of their administrations. Your Lordship sets up in this controversy, for an advocate for the laity, against the arrogant pretences and false claims of the Clergy. My Lord, we are no more contending for ourselves in this doctrine, than when we insist upon any article in the creed. . . . All persons, whom you have taught not to regard any particular sort of Clergy, must know, if they have the common sense to which you appeal, that then no Clergy are at all necessary; and that it is as lawful for any man to be his own priest, as to solicit his own cause. For to say that no particular sort of Clergy are necessary, and yet that in general the Clergy are necessary, is the same as to say, that truth is necessary to be believed; yet the belief of no particular truth is necessary.-Pp. 76, 81.

The trite and hackneyed vulgarisms of Dr. Arnold, with respect to sacerdotal absolution, and the power of the keys, are but repetitions of Bishop Hoadley's trash on these matters, and may be irrefragably confuted by the sound arguments of Law. But we are compelled to refer our readers to the excellent volume under review; whilst we hasten to show them how accurately the Bishop and the Schoolmaster agree in the jesuitical pretences, and softening admissions, which they assume, and make in the progress of their disquisitions. Hoadley, after all his wanton declamation against the Church, her ministers, and her ordinances, professes himself an advocate for the "order, the decency, and the subordination, belonging to christian societies." Dr. Arnold, true to his great exemplar, after all his declamation against the mischievous superstition, which assigns sacerdotal ministrations to sacerdotal hands, thinks proper to concede that "it is most fit, most excellent, as a rule of order and decency, that they who minister, should especially wait on their ministry in the very holiest act of our christian brotherhood." Now, what did Law say to Hoadley on this matter? What would he say to Dr. Arnold on the same point? Let our readers turn to page 79 of the volume before us, and peruse the reply for themselves.— Dr. Arnold, like his leader, declaims in vituperative strains against the scandalous usurpation of divine power, by the Clergy in their doctrine of the power of the keys. But, it is justly asked,

Is God robbed of the disposal of his blessings, when in obedience to his own commands, and in virtue of his own authority, they admit some as members of the Church, and exclude others from the communion of it? Do they pretend

to be channels of grace, or the means of pardon, by any rights or powers naturally inherent in them? Do they not, in all these things, consider themselves as instruments of God, that are made ministerial to the edification of the Church, purely by his will, and only so far as they act in conformity to it? Now, if it has pleased God to confer the Holy Ghost in ordination, confirmation, &c. only by them, and to annex the grace of pardon to the imposition of their hands on returning sinners; is it any blasphemy for them to claim and exert their power? Is the prerogative of God injured, because his own institutions are obeyed? Cannot he dispense his graces by what persons, and on what terms he pleases? Is he deprived of the disposal of his blessings, because they are bestowed on persons according to his order, and in obedience to his authority? If I should affirm, that Bishops have the sole power to ordain and confirm, would this be robbing God of his disposal of those graces that attend such actions? Is it not rather allowing and submitting to God's own disposal, when we keep close to those methods of it which himself has prescribed?-P. 88.

Such of our readers as have seen Dr. Arnold's memorable scheme of Church Reform, and compared his wild notions upon that question with the avowed principles of his Sermons, will need no other testimony to the fearful latitudinarianism of his creed. In this, as in other particulars, he does but follow Hoadley's steps; and therefore Law shall address him thus:

I cannot indeed charge you with being well-affected to the Church of Rome, or of England, to the Jews, the Quakers, or Socinians; but this I have demonstrated, and will undertake the defence of it, that your principles equally serve them all alike, and do not give the least advantage to one church above another, as has sufficiently appeared from your principles. I will no more say you are in the interests of the Quakers, or Socinians, or Papists, than I would charge you with being in the interest of the Church of England; for as your doctrines equally support them all, he ought to ask your pardon, who should declare you more a friend to one than the other.-Pp. 124, 125.

It is again and again asserted by Dr. Arnold, that there is not an iota of scriptural evidence for the necessity of episcopal ordination, or a syllable said therein of the uninterrupted succession of the Clergy, and, therefore, that both doctrines are "a profane superstition!" So said the Bishop of Bangor. But what, we ask in the strong language of Law, and we dare Dr. Arnold to answer us,—

Though it be not expressly said, that there shall always be a succession of Episcopal Clergy, yet it is a truth founded in Scripture itself, and asserted by the universal voice of tradition in the first and succeeding ages of the Church.

It is thus founded in Scripture: there we are taught that the priesthood is a positive institution; that no man can take this office unto himself; that neither our Saviour himself, nor his apostles, nor any other person, however extraordinarily endowed with gifts from God, could, as such, exercise the priestly office, till they had God's express commission for that purpose. Now, how does it appear, that the sacraments are positive institutions, but that they are consecrated to such ends and effects as of themselves they were no way qualified to perform? Now as it appears from Scripture, that men, as such, however endowed, were not qualified to take this office upon them without God's appointment; it is demonstratively certain, that men so called are as much to be esteemed a positive institution, as elements so chosen can be called a positive institution. All the personal abilities of men conferring no more authority to

« 上一頁繼續 »