Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

CONFIRMATION.

SIR,-I shall be very thankful if you, or one of your many learned readers, will favour me with an answer to the following question :

"Would a clergyman be justified in recommending to the bishop for confirmation a person who has never received baptism at the hands of a clergyman of the establishment ?"

The case has lately come under my observation, and the facts are as follows:-The person in question, although born of dissenting parents, and baptized by a dissenting minister, is herself ardently attached to the church of England, and desires to be confirmed.

I am, Sir, yours respectfully,

A COUNTRY CURATE.

MR. GRESWELL ON THE PARABLES.

In a

THE prophecies of the Old and New Testaments, concerning the final triumph of the church, are part of that rich treasure of consolation reserved for those who continue faithful in such times as we every day see more reason to expect for ourselves and our children. moment like the present, the guardians of such a treasure must look with no common anxiety at those who approach it, with however friendly views. They cannot but be tremblingly alive to the danger which the prophecies incur of being discredited and rendered less useful at the very time that the church stands most in need of them, -a danger inseparable from such an emergency, because arising, in great measure, from the fact, that critical events in the church's fortunes naturally draw increased attention to those mysterious portions of God's Word, with more or less excitement of the feelings and imagination.

I hope I am not deceiving myself, in attributing to a jealousy of this kind a certain dissatisfaction which I have experienced in examining some portions of Mr. Greswell's late work on the parables; a work generally admirable for learning and elegance, and still more so for the rarer quality (for must it not be so called?) of devotional reverence for its subject, maintained throughout. The more is the pity that in any part its reasoning should be liable to so just exceptions, as I fear may be taken, against many material points of the dissertation in the first volume relating to the millennium. I am not now going to dispute his general conclusion; perhaps I am one of those (and surely there must be many) who have not-yet seen grounds for a decided opinion one way or the other on that serious and delicate subject; but on that very account, possibly, I may be the fairer judge of the premises. And I must say, that some of them appear to me what a sober and considerate millenarian would be most inclined to deprecate, as likely to throw discredit on any conclusion to which they may be supposed essential.

In this view, it is much to be wished that the excellent author may VOL. VI.-Oct. 1834. 3 E

be induced to reconsider the concluding portion of his first volume; in which he argues a priori for the millennium, first, because "the interposition of such a dispensation is necessary to reconcile the world's actual constitution with the nature of its original beginning, and to vindicate the majesty, goodness, and omnipotence of its Creator." That is to say, the original paradisiacal scheme having been as it were disappointed by the frailty of man under the influence of the evil spirit, it is supposed derogatory to God's attributes if the same scheme be not literally revived for some considerable time on this earth before the final everlasting judgment. Now the thing decidedly objectionable here is the unqualified introduction of such phrases as "necessary;" "obviously required by the glory of the Creator;"+"essential to its entire justification." A way of speaking surely most unguarded on matters in which it is but possible that the actual course of Divine Providence may be other than the speaker anticipates. And certainly the experience of what men have anticipated, in all ages, from unfulfilled prophecy, is not such as to encourage interpreters to be more peremptory as the world grows older. Nay, even after God's dealings are known, it is no unwise nor irreligious caution to be slow in pronouncing them "necessary and "indispensable," except the same authority which reveals the fact reveal also the mode and reason. "Regularity, and order, and right, we know, cannot but prevail finally in a universe under God's government; but we are in no sort judges what are the necessary means of accomplishing this end."§

The medium, through which it is attempted to make out this moral necessity of the millenary scheme, is the supposed frustration, on any other hypothesis, of God's original purpose in the formation of this world.

It is said, that except we interpret the promise of a millennium literally, we are supposing the Creator "able, indeed, to counteract the plots and contrivances of the devil by plans and dispensations of his own, but not able to prevent their interfering with his designs, nor disturbing the orderly course and consummation of the plans he himself had laid down; successfully resisting, and at last surmounting, the ascendancy of evil in opposition to good, but not having it in his power to prevent its taking partial effect, and obtaining a temporary triumph." (p. 457.) There is something painful in transcribing this sentence; but it is presented to the reader, that he may candidly consider whether the absurdity expressed in it be not quite as chargeable on the scheme of a literal millennium, as on that which is so accused. Does not the millenarian himself allow, that while the present state of things lasts, the "ascendancy of evil takes partial effect, and obtains a temporary triumph"? Unfortunately it is a fact which cannot be any how denied; and how the difficulty which it involves the mysterious enigma, Tо0èv Tò кakov-is more completely

Page 453.

+ Page 461.
+ Page 462.
§ Butler: Analogy, Introd. p. xii. ed. 1736.

solved on the notion of a gradual than on that of a sudden transition to a better state, does not seem intelligible.

Undoubtedly the existence of widely-spread physical evil among creatures, to our perception innocent, is a great mystery of natural religion. And does it not remain such just as entirely when all is granted that is affirmed of the millennium? God, we may reasonably and piously believe, has ways of his own for recompensing to those, his inferior creatures, all the evils they are subject unto; but is it not too much, first, to imagine how this may be done, through a millenary dispensation, and then to infer that there must be a millenary dispensation, in order that this may be done at all?

A question yet more serious remains-a question approaching the most awful and distressing of all subjects. How does the proposition assumed by Mr. Greswell agree with the doctrine of Holy Scripture concerning eternal retribution to the wicked? The All-Merciful, we know, "has no pleasure in the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his sin, and be saved." Yet we know, on the same authority, that there are those who will "go away into everlasting punishment." Does not this undeniably shew, that it is no sufficient objection to a given method of interpreting Scripture to say, that it represents God's purposes as being, to our conception, "partially defeated by the machinations of his enemy"?

In a word, it does seem to me, that this principle, carried as far as it would go, would lead us to nothing short of absolute scepticism with regard to God's moral government altogether.

As this first argument for the antecedent probability of a millennium involves results dangerous to natural religion, so the other, to which I now proceed, will appear to many no less injurious to a capital article of revelation. For thus it stands: there are passages in Scripture which promise men a reward according to their works; but it is also the known doctrine of Scripture that we are saved or justified by faith only. The former of these cases implies a gradation of rewards; the latter (so it is assumed) excludes such gradation; therefore it is quite impossible they should each refer to the same dispensation: consequently, the system of proportional recompence belongs not to eternity, but to the millennium. To this ingenious chain of reasoning, the majority of theologians will at once answer, (and, for aught I see, will rightly answer,) that they do not perceive how being freely justified excludes all future inequality of condition. What is meant

will at once appear if we substitute for "justified" the equivalent term "forgiven.' No offender, considered in himself, can have a right or claim to forgiveness; if any are so, it is wholly and only through the merits of our Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith. Now, forgiveness is an act of that nature, that, to all who are concerned in it, it must apply alike; but how does it follow that any subsequent effects of the bounty of him who forgives must be exactly equal to all? "There was a certain man which had two debtors; the one owed him five hundred pence, and the other fifty: and when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both." One as much as the other was absolved, or, in theological phrase, justified. Suppose now one of the two, according to our Lord's own declaration,

more considerate and humble, and therefore more grateful, animated by a deeper love than the other, and consequently more intent ever after on exerting himself in the service of his benefactor,-can it be said to follow from any thing in the nature of the case, that no distinction at all will be made between them in any future assignment of benefits which the same gracious friend may confer on them? If not, then the argument in question is untenable, as far as it depends on the nature of justification by faith considered in the abstract.

But, it is alleged, our Saviour has told us, that such as shall partake of the happiness of eternity will be made like unto the angelsand the angels are nowhere affirmed in Scripture to differ one from another in glory-therefore it is reasonable to conclude there cannot be such difference among the spirits of glorified men; and of course the texts which assign to these latter degrees of glory, according to their works, must be interpreted of the millenary and not of the celestial kingdom.

It is far from my wish to do injustice to the reasoning of any man, much less to that of such a person as Mr. Greswell; and I hope and believe that I have stated the above argument fairly. If not, the error shall be promptly acknowledged. But if it be substantially such as I have said, it appears, on the face of it, inconclusive; first, in assuming the term ioáyyeλo to comprehend all the properties and accidents of angelical nature, whereas we cannot be sure, from the context, that it means any more than the two points on which our Saviour's argument turns,-viz., that angels are spiritual and immortal. Secondly, and palpably,-if Scripture is silent as to any inequality of the angels, it is equally silent as to their equality; and what right have we to conclude for one alternative more than the other? The analogy of such created beings as we do know would rather give our thoughts the contrary turn. The topic altogether seems irrelevant, and proves nothing so much as this,—that the advocates of a literal millennium would do well not to go upon antecedent probabilities, but rest their cause entirely and exclusively on the words of Scripture and the traditions of the church.

Whether in his treatment of this part of the subject, also, this very learned and estimable writer may not have trusted more than once to strong impressions too hastily acquiesced in, and consequently have ventured on assumptions which blemish his reasoning not a little, it is not my purpose to inquire at present. But, perhaps, a few words may be permitted in conclusion, on the moral and practical effect of starting opinions, like the last objected to, concerning the doctrine of justification by faith. Suppose it generally received among Christians, that degrees in faith (i. e. in good works; for, when the two are mentioned as conditions of salvation, they both come to the same thing, the one in the mind, the other in the conduct)-suppose it, I say, once established, that degrees in goodness make no difference to a man's eternal condition, but only to his millenary, i. e., to his temporal happiness, what becomes of those many Scriptures which give direction to grow in grace,-to add to faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge, and above all these things to put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness? Why are we all encouraged by St. Paul

to press towards the mark of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, forgetting those things that are behind, and reaching forward unto those things that are before? I do not say that such passages are rendered nugatory by the proposed interpretation, but I do feel that they are narrowed and lowered in their meaning in a degree which can only be expressed by the difference between time and eternity. They become rules of worldly prudence, like those which discreet parents inculcate on their children with a view to their success in life. The Divine charm is gone which has hitherto connected such maxims with the pure, affectionate, loyal love of our Saviour. We are no longer incited and emboldened to increase in every good work, by the hope of being brought, through his ineffable bounty, so much the nearer to him for ever.

Then, although one of course is not charging, with St. Jerome, on all millenarians the low extravagancies of a sensual paradise; yet there is unquestionably some danger in whatever encourages men's natural tendency to depend too much upon earthly goods. A false step of that kind in the investigation of Scripture must, in the nature of the case, do harm. The error cannot be merely speculative; it will mingle itself, more or less, with our plans, and tastes, and conduct in life. E. g., let us imagine a person (we all know too many such persons) over-inclined to devote himself to politics, permitting his party in the state, right or wrong, to take up his entire mind; letting his fancy dwell too exclusively on certain expected changes in the outward and civil arrangement of the world; will it be no encouragement to this turn of mind to be told, that most of our Lord's own promises, regarding his glorious kingdom, are to be understood in the like political sense? The experience which the Christian world has hitherto had of the abuse made in unquiet times, and by unquiet minds in all times, of the literal millenarian doctrine, ought to make us very careful how we put such a construction on so very considerable a portion of the most practical and familiar lessons of Holy Scripture.

Of course, if the interpretation in question can be established, it must be received with all submission and reverence; of which reverence one main effect will be, the inculcating it with caution and reserve, and guarding against the too probable abuse of it. But, if it be indeed unscriptural, it must be immoral too, in the sense of lowering our views. It must be prejudicial to that unity of purpose which Christian discipline chiefly labours to establish and perfect in every heart of man.

I am, Sir, your humble servant, N. E.

LETTERS ON THE CHURCH OF THE FATHERS.

NO. X.

In my last paper I directed my reader's attention to the labours of a missionary bishop, who restored the light of Christianity where it had long been obscured. In my present, I will put before him, by way of contrast, a scene of the overthrow of religion, the extinction of a

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »