and quenchless fires of external penal infliction, but often and awfully of the gnawings of an evil conscience."

But your correspondent objects to my using the term "metaphors :" and yet the only passage of Scripture to which in this connexion I expressly allude, he, as does I believe every commentator, applies to the soul not less than to the body, and so far considers it metaphorical. And surely, until we know somewhat more than we now do of the properties and attributes of a “spiritual body,” we cannot take upon us positively to assert that the truth of that text imperatively demands a literal worm, and a literal fire.

I have long been convinced that the expressed differences of many who, in the main, “ think on the same thing," have been the result not more of different mental constitution than of different outward circumstance. Every man has not only his mental but his circumstantial experience - and is often led by the latter to cherish or repel inversely as others,—or as he would himself under different circumstances. Your correspondent may, from whatever cause, not have been led to see the error and its danger against which my paper protests, but, on the contrary, to see a danger in my paper; and for this I do not feel the slightest displacency towards him. We shall, I trust, at once fully agree in heaven: and should, I think, in a few minutes agree, were it my privilege to meet him on earth. But when I have every half week heard a statement of “the truth as it is in Jesus," which probes the conscience, commends itself to the enlightened understanding, and sounds the heart ; and thus fed upon the marrow of religion, the essential spiritualities of the Gospel—and when I have had occasionally to witness the pulpit exhibition of a bald, meagre skeleton of Christianity, which, in default of all beauty to attract, accumulates obligations, commands, and terrors, to compel love! a system of theology which contains indeed the name of Christ and the peculiar doctrines which accompany that name, but often most incorrectly, nay falsely stated—as if the Father were the inveterate enemy of our fallen race, between whose fierce wrath and unhappy man the Son mercifully interposed,-a system which in sentiment, in spirit, in fact in all that is influential upon the character, would, but for the name of Christ, be little more than a blendure of orthodox Mahommedanism and civilized heathenism,-and wben I have reason to fear that this is not a solitary instance of such mis-statement, but a prevalent perversion and distortion of Gospel truth-it seems to me not amiss to warn men against fleeing from the old school of mere morality, to a new school of mere doctrine, and to remind them of the intimate and intelligible connexion which subsists between this life and the future-“that this world is, in fact, the school in which souls are educated for heaven,-- religion the system of education, the Spirit of God the teacher."

As I have been brought back to my paper of June, permit me to correct in it two misprints—unavoidable in the hurry of a periodical, but which occur as seldom in the Christian Observer as in any other with which I am acquainted. At page 324 line 22, for “cast" read “lost;"-and line 38, for "unwearied” read “ unweaned.”

I remain, very faithfully, yours,



To the Editor of the Christian Observer. Among the sacred poets of the reigns of the Tudors and Stuarts, mentioned in your last Number, you have not noticed William Drummond. He was the son of Sir John Drummond of Haw. thornden, in Mid-Lothian, and was born in the year 1585. He received his education at the High School of Edinburgh, and was sent from there to the university of that city. After spending four years abroad for the purpose of studying the civil law, he returned to Scotland ; but, in consequence of his father's death, having come into possession of his paternal estate, he relinquished his intended legal profession. Suffering at this time from a severe illness, his mind was impressed with a sense of religion, and he published a book in prose, called “The Cypress Grove,” in which he has commented on the subject of death ; also “ Flowers of Sion, or Spiritual Poems." Having lost by death a young lady to whom he was engaged in marriage, the rupture of this attachment rendered his life so wearisome, that he was induced again to travel on the Continent of Europe, where he continued for eight years. At the age of forty-five, however, he married another lady, and again lived at Hawthornden. He was engaged in literary pursuits during the remainder of his life, and wrote a historical work on the Five Scottish Kings; but he held such ultra opinions on ecclesiastical and monarchical authority, and the duty of passive obedience, that his prose writings have been held in no repute, and would be exploded, except among some prejudiced partizans, in the present times. He attained to such eminence as a poet, that Ben Johnson walked to Hawthornden to visit him ; on which occasion the manners and conversation of the guest much disgusted his host. His poems have been reprinted. He died in 1649.

I shall not surfeit your readers with a promiscuous nosegay, but I have culled the following specimen of his poetic composition, which is one of true sublimity and rare excellence.

THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST. “ Bright portals of the sky,

He towers those golden bounds Emboss'd with sparkling stars ;

He did to sun bequeath ; Doors of eternity,

The higher wandering rounds With diamantine bars

Are found his feet beneath : Your arras rich uphold;

The milky-way comes near ; Loose all your bolts and springs,

Heaven's axle seems to bend Ope wide your leaves of gold,

Above each turning sphere, That in your roofs may come the That rob'd in glory heaven's king

King of kings. Scarf'd in a rosy cloud,

O well-spring of this all ! He doth ascend the air ;

Thy Father's image vive; Straight doth the moon him shroud Word, that from nought did cal With her resplendent hair.

What is, doth reason, live. The next uncrystall'd light

The soul's eternal food, Submits to him its beams;

Earth's joy, delight of heaven, And he doth trace the height

All truth, love, beauty, good, Of that fair lamp which flames of To Thee, to Thee, be praises ever beauty streams.


may ascend.

What was dismarshall'd late

Stars, which all eyes were late, In this thy noble frame,

And did with wonder burn, And lost the prime estate,

His name to celebrate, Hath re-obtained the same,

In flaming tongues them turn; Is now most perfect seen;

Their orby crystals move Streams, which diverted were,

More active than before, And troubled, stray'd unclean,

And entheate from above, From their first source, by Thee home Their sovereign Prince, laud, glorify, turned are.

adore. By Thee that blemish old

The choirs of happy souls, Of Eden's leprous prince,

Wak'd with that music sweet, Which on his race took hold,

Whose descant care controuls, And him exil'd from thence,

Their Lord in triumph meet; Now put away is far;

The spotless spirits of light With sword in ireful guise,

His trophies do extol, No cherub more shall bar

And arch'd in squadrons bright, Poor man the entrance into Para

Greet their great victor in bis cadise.

pitol. Now each ethereal gate

O glory of the heaven! To him hath open'd been ;

O sole delight of earth! And glory's King in state

To Thee all power be given, His palace enters in ;

God's uncreated birth; Now come is this High Priest

Of mankind lover true, In the most holy place,

Endurer of his wrong, Not without blood addrest,

Who do'st the world renew,
With glory heaven, the earth to crown Still be thou our salvation and our

From top of Olivet such notes did rise,
When man's Redeemer did transcend the skies.

F. S."

with grace.



For the Christian Observer. It is frequently asserted, that what were popularly called "the Orthodox Clergy" of the last century-at least those who had any pretensions to be called divines-held the peculiar opinions now put forth in the Oxford Tracts, though they might not always explicitly urge them. If this were true, it would not speak well for those opinions; for never was religion at so low an ebb in our church ; and it is unde. viable that it was doctrine and preaching of a very different kind, which, by the grace of God, and the effusion of his Holy Spirit, caused that revival of Scriptural knowledge and practical piety for which we have so much reason to be thankful.

But it is not true that the clergy of the Church of England generally at that period held the peculiar views of the Oxford Tract sect, or that they have ever done so. In the reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth they were for the most part of the school of the Reformation; during that of James the First some of them began to advance not a few steps towards Rome; and in the next reign, chiefly under the influence of Archbishop Laud, the leaven was widely spread, till Church and State fell together. But from the time of the Restoration, the great majority of our bishops and clergy have been of what is called the Tillotsonian as opposed to the Laudean-afterwards the non-juring-school. This school was generally apatheticfew of its members rose to the standard, either doctrinal or prac

tical, of Tillotson himself, or of his friend Burnet, or his successor Wake; but as they are claimed to swell the ranks of the Oxford Tractators, and are made a portion of the unbroken Catena of witnesses, it is of some importance in the argument to shew that they did not belong to this school, and that their standing aloof was not for want of consideration but from conviction. Of course to judge of the question aright the persons and the things to be compared should be correctly defined. Many were not worthy to be called divines; they adopted the current notions of the day ; inveighed against the doctrine of justification by faith ; merely inculcated virtuous actions and the proprieties of religion, and lived for the most part very much like their neighbours. They were Tillotsonians (very poor ones it is true, and Tillotson would have disowned them) rather than Laudeans, though they knew little of the distinction ; their chief aim being to keep themselves and others free from Methodism. These routine ecclesiastics are not worth catechising as to their notions ;-they tell for nothing. But of those who thought and read without coming over to the Reformation standard, the great majority stopped far short of the Laudean or Oxford Tract system, and this upon conviction.

We will illustrate and prove this statement by an authority" to which the Oxford Tractators cannot reasonably object; and that there may be no prejudice on either side we have selected the case of a foreign prelate, the late Bishop White of Pennsylvania, who formed the most conspicuous link between Anglican and American episcoрасу. He was consecrated at Lambeth in 1787, and died in 1836. He was generally regarded as a model of what is called “ the Orthodox School;" and from the language which he and similar writers use, when speaking of the sacraments, episcopal succession, the ministerial office, and many other subjects, it might be averred that they held the Laudean views of doctrine, or at least, that if they did not, it was only from inadvertency or want of information, not from deliberate rejection.

As a test-article of those views we are willing to take the question whether or not the Lord's supper is a sacrifice. Every person who holds the Oxford Tract system asserts that it is; and that to deny it is to obliterate the characteristic feature of that sacrament, Hence the stickling for the word “altar," which our church had sig. nificantly rejected; hence the newly-revived “table of prothesis," and the language of a sacrificial observance. Let us try Bishop White by this test. His friend and pupil, Dr. Hobart (afterwards his Right Reverend brother,) had early imbibed the Laudean doctrines; and spent his life in attempting to spread them throughout the infant episcopal church of his native land. He advocated with great zeal and ability the system set forth in the Oxford Tracts, and among them this of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. We have in our hands two letters from Bishop White to him upon the subject, in reply to the treatise of Dr. Hickes, the Goliath of the Non-jurors, upon the Christian Priesthood. They have never been printed in England, but are well worth perusal. We purpose giving the first in our present Number, and the second next month.

To the Rev. J. Hobart, D.D.

Philadelphia, October 30th, 1806. Dear Sir, I return your two volumes of Dr. Hickes, with thanks for the loan of them. Indeed, I am ashamed that I had been so long without having read a work of so much celebrity. The perusal has confirmed my opinion of the author, that he was a learned, an ingenious, a sincere, but, in some points, a mistaken man; and therefore I cannot send you back the work without intimating to you the general tenor of my objections to some leading matters, in regard to which I hope that you will not only consider them fully, before you finally adopt them, but be aware of the consequences to which they lead.

The part of the work which I have particularly in view, is that entitled “ The Christian Priesthood asserted;" the leading sentiment of which is, that a bishop and a Presbyter are“ priests" in the Levitical sense of the words ; that is, each of them are “ lepous," or * Sacerdos." For as to the word “priest,” it is correct on the ground of either system, being the word 11peo But epos Englished, and yet used as the translation of the Greek and Latin words above mentioned.

Can you be seriously satisfied with Dr. Hickes's conjectural reason for the not calling the Christian clergy “Tepers” in the New Testament? Had the cause of the reserve been such as Dr. Hickes imagines—respect to the Jewish prejudices so long as the Temple worship was in being-surely the cause had ceased when St. John wrote his Gospel, which was long after the destruction of Jerusalem ; and there are many places in which the change of language might have been seasonably insinuated. Supposing a reason could be assigned, though I cannot imagine any, to this omission of the Evangelist, was it not high time, when Barnabas, when Hermas, when Cle. ment, when Ignatius, and when Justin wrote, that the new name should appear? In the writings of all these authors, there is reference more or less to the persons vested with the ministerial character, but never are they designated as “lspris"; unless, indeed, like Daillé, we should so apply the word as it stands in a particular passage of St. Ignatius, and which Daillé accordingly alleged as an argument against the genuineness of his epistle. But what says his learned vindicator, Bishop Pearson ? He impliedly admits the validity of the objection, on the supposition that the sense given by the objector to the passage were the true one. But this he positively, and with great reason, denies, as Dr. Hammond, in answer to another writer, had done before him.

I confidently express my opinion, that for one hundred years after the destruc. tion of the temple, the date to which the reason of the reserve is limited, there is no evidence of a Christian minister's being called “ Tepeus," or Sacerdos." Although these words were introduced not long afterwards, yet they were used sparingly for a while : and when they became a part of the established phraseology of the Church, I cannot help thinking that it was accompanied by a change of sentiment, comprehending the seeds of the errors which became so deplorably prevalent in the succeeding ages. So far was the change of language from being complete when Tertullian wrote, that, having used the words “summus sacerdos,” he explains himself by adding, " qui est episcopus,” which would have been unnecessary some time afterwards.

What I have said concerning“ priest," may be applied, in respect to the same tract of time, to "sacrifice;” distinguishing it, however, from oblation, which Dr. Hickes does not, although the doing so is frequent among writers, and the distinction is obvious in Leviticus. If there be any exception to my propositions, it is in what Dr. Hickes has cited from Justin Martyr, who wrote a very few years within the period mentioned. Concerning this venerable author, I have to remark, that al. though his language, strictly taken, applies to material sacrifice, yet he elsewhere speaks as if there could be no Christian sacrifice but that of the heart. Hence some have not scrupled to accuse him of inconsistency. But this I avoid, if there be an expedient to reconcile him to bimself: and this seems to me to have been well done, with the exclusion of material sacrifice, by Dr. Waterland, to whom I refer you on the point. Certain it is, that Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenæus, and Tertullian, who wrote not many years after Justin, speak very strongly of there being no other sacrifices than holy dispositions of the mind. And that these should be designated by Justin, under the name of a material offering accompanying them, may be the easier conceived, as the like is done in Scripture ; for instance, where the alms of Cornelius are said to have come up for a memorial, meaning not surely the alms of themselves, but the mental benevolence from which they derived their value.

It seems to me that the remark concerning “ priest” and “sacrifice" may be extended to the word “ altar.” There are indeed some passages in St. Ignatius which speak of “altar," in a form that looks more like his having a material altar

« VorigeDoorgaan »