The advocates of this creed appear to be aware of this, and therefore supply their want of conclusive argument by fulminations intended to effect by fear, what more honourable means could not accomplish.

They not only contend for the truth of their doctrine, they make the belief of it essential to salvation. None are elect who do not receive their views of election. All others are reprobate. "Shall I tell you," says one of their most eminent men, "some of the ends that may be answered by preaching this doctrine? One important end is, to detect hearts which are unwilling that God should reign; to lay open those smooth, selfish spirits, which, while they cry Hosannah, are hostile to the dominion of Jehovah. The more fully God and the system of his government are brought out to view, the more clearly are the secrets of all hearts revealed." Men, who fancy themselves impelled by a "special influence" to receive this creed, may consistently pronounce judgment on those who reject it. The absurdity in one case, is not greater than in the other. But their attempts at intimidation will have no other effect with persons of dispassionate reflection, than to render more repulsive those errors which foster insolent conceit in vulgar minds, and encourage those who appear to have but a superficial knowledge of themselves to pass sentence of condemnation on the hearts of others.

Formally to disclaim a charge so gross and misapplied as that of "hostility to the dominion of Jehovah," would be to treat it with more respect than it deserves. But it may not be improper to remark, that the charge proceeds with the worst possible grace from the vindicators of a creed which obliterates from the divine government every trace of wisdom, of rectitude, of goodness, and so represents the Ruler of the word, as to make Him an object of detestation and terror to his creatures. Other sentiments must inspire the heart before we can reverence the divine administration, and unite in "the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty: just and true are thy ways, Thou king of saints."

APPENDIX.



ADDITIONAL REMARKS ON MR. NOEL'S TRACT ON "THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH."

The writer of these pages has no personal knowledge of the author of the tract, of whom he has only heard by report, that he is a zealous minister and popular preacher. His writings indicate natural suavity of temper. Having therefore no feeling of personal disrespect, he deems no apology to be necessary for the freedom of his strictures on a work which challenges attention and defies contradiction.

Mr. Noel has openly and dogmatically set forth a theory of the visible Church and her fellowship, not only hostile to the Church of England and fraught with absurdity, but propounded under the alluring guise of Christian charity; a charity which has won for him the applause of the professors of modern liberalism, because, on a cursory glance, it appears to embrace all sects and denominations of Christians. It is proper, therefore, to set the matter in a true light, by showing that this liberality of sentiment is more specious than real; that Mr. Noel is throwing out false colours, and that while, in no measured terms, he condemns the supposed want of brotherly-kindness in the members of the Church of England, his own apparent liberality is resolvable into nothing else than Calvinistic exclusiveness and intolerance.

Liberality is the order, the fashion, the idol of the day. In many it takes the form of infidel indifference, regarding as equally true, or equally false, every creed that is called Christian.

The charity of our holy and Apostolical Church is not thus lax and indiscriminate. It rests not upon scepticism, but upon sound and definable principles. It does not proceed on the assumption that all creeds are equally good, but that men of all creeds have a political right to follow the dictates of conscience, whether enlightened or erroneous, in matters purely spiritual, and that they are responsible only to God for their religious faith and worship; indulging, at the same time, a charitable persuasion of the sincerity and Christian goodness of multitudes who are believed to be labouring under mistaken views of truth. This is true Christian charity, which tolerates error, hopes well of misinformed but sincere piety, breathes no malignant feelings, indulges in no haughtiness of conscious superiority; but, after all, holds firmly to its own persuasion of what is true and right, without the smallest approach to a compromise of principles even with honest and well-meaning error. This is the charity of the sound English churchman, and this charity lies at the foundation of the religious liberties of the British empire.

As churchmen we contemplate with reverence, our protestant, episcopal, and apostolical communion. We believe that it rests on "the foundation of Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself the chief corner-stone." And we contend for the right of the Church to demand from her own ministers faith in her doctrines, and to model her own worship, and adjust her own ceremonies according to her own holy discretion. But we compel no man to come in. We love and cherish the chartered and constitutional liberties of our country; and while we sympathize not with the errors which are tolerated, we rejoice in the freedom, the just and evangelic freedom, which leaves every man, without control or interference, to settle all points of religious duty with his conscience and his God. We do not feel bound to attempt what would be impracticable, to construct a church which should suit the caprices of all, and whose flexible creed, like the vane which surmounts the steeple, should shift with "every wind of doctrine;" but we allow the discontented to depart without molestation, and we honour their conscientious scruples, while we regret and condemn their errors.

With charity so large yet discriminating, founded on principles which approve themselves to the judgment and the heart, we solemnly protest against every charge of intolerance and bigotry that is brought, by friend or foe, against our National Church.

But this does not satisfy Mr. Noel, who proposes, what appears at first sight, a charity still more generous and comprehensive. The Anti-paedobaptist and the Presbyterian, with all their germane varieties, are not only to be treated with forbearance and regarded with charity, but are all to form one fellowship, united and co -operating in the great cause of their common Christianity. Take the following passage. "And these" Baptism and Church government, "are two of the most important points which separate Christians. Should they separate them? As well might the brothers of a family be separated by the most trifling difference on some question of taste or literature. . . . . . Episcopalians and Presbyterians, Baptists and Paedobaptists, with all others, who differ on obscure and undecided points, ought, if they have one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God, and one hope, under the influence of one Spirit, who sanctifies them all, to be one in profession, in action, and in heart." This passage, which is in the spirit of the entire tract, is open to grave animadversion.

1. The points mentioned as being "most trifling differences," are regarded by all theologians of any reputation as questions of great moment, although not equally so with those which immediately touch our salvation. Mr. Noel is altogether original in regarding either the construction that is to be put on the sacrament of baptism, or the degree of importance to be attached to the episcopal office, as matters "most trifling."

2. The Baptists and Presbyterians, who look on these points with other feelings than those of Mr. Noel, have considered them of sufficient moment to justify their separation from the communion of our Church. That separation is their own "act and deed." And to charge the Church, on this account, with bigotry, intolerance, and want of charity, proves either consummate ignorance of ecclesiastical history, or deliberate injustice to serve a party. Nevertheless, the entire argument of the tract, proceeds on the assumption that the Church is the guilty and impenitent party.

3. Under these circumstances, it is impossible that there should be but "one profession," unless one of the differing parties can deny its own faith, and profess what it does not believe. The Catholic Church of England cannot, and will not, be guilty of that turpitude. The members of Mr. Noel's Church have declared, by their voluntary separation, their determination to profess their own principles.

4. That which is most reprehensible in this charitable project of hailing all sects as brethren is, that it is, after all, deceptive and hollow. Mr. Noel does not intend a promiscuous fellowship with various denominations. His charity is extended to those, and to those exclusively, who, within these several communions, hold "the doctrines of grace." All others he denounces as not being children of God. That is, his union includes all those who think with himself; Calvinists of every persuasion, and not a soul besides! These are his "one body," and this one body is "the church." How beautiful, how noble, how godlike is the charity of the Church of England, which exists in unison with the love of truth, but embraces with Christian affection even those who have quitted her fellowship, contrasted with the drivelling and sectarian partialities of the Calvinist who pronounces every man who differs from himself to be no child of God! The charity of Mr. Noel resolves itself into Calvinistic exclusiveness and intolerance.

If in these remarks there is any apparent severity, they are not to be applied to the author, but to the principles of his work. Calvinism obscures the finest intellect, and gives a false direction to the most humane and generous feelings which can impart graceful dignity to the Christian character.

THE END.



Gilbert & Rivington, Printers, St. John's Square, London.

By the same Author.



I.

DISCOURSES on some important Theological Subjects, Doctrinal and Practical. 7s.

II.

ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENTS not inconsistent with CHRISTIANITY. Part I. 2s. 6d. Part II. 2s.

III.

The CONSOLATIONS of CHRISTIANITY, in four Discourses. 3s. 6d.

IV.

On BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 3s. 6d.

Footnotes

[1] Dr. Griffin in his "Lectures on Important Doctrines," broadly charges the rejectors of Calvinism with embracing another Gospel, and with being on the high road to infidelity. "And when they have gone this length," he says, "in frittering away man's dependence on grace, they are just prepared to place him completely on his own works, to deny justification by faith, and of course, the proper influence of the atonement; short of this these systems never stop: and when they have gone thus far, there is but one step to a denial of the divinity of Christ and the infinite demerit of sin. The next step is universalism, and the next infidelity." Every intelligent reader will know how to appreciate this senseless dogmatism. The infidel might with equal propriety charge the professors of Scriptural Christianity with being on the high road to Calvinism, and prepared, by their faith in the corruption of human nature, and the atonement of Christ, for the most extreme views of the Divine decrees. Yet these bold and baseless assertions have their weight with those for whom they are intended, and many weak but good persons are held in passive bondage to these teachers and their creed, through the holy fear of moving a step towards infidelity. On the other hand, we might retort the charge. Calvinism has made more infidels than any other corruption of Christianity, excepting Popery. But we suggest this only in the way of fair retaliation.

The rejectors of Calvinism do not reject "the doctrines of grace," but the corruptions by which they have been dishonoured. They maintain, that on the absolute predestinarian scheme, there is no room for grace, such as the Gospel exhibits to the sinful and the lost; and that their own views are not only more accordant with the justice, but with the unmerited and infinite mercy of God. They ascribe all true holiness to the Divine Spirit.

[2] Dr. Coplestone, now the Bishop of Llandaff, denies that the foreknowledge of an event proves the event to be necessary. "We may be unable to conceive how a thing not necessary in its nature can be foreknown; for our foreknowledge is in general limited by that circumstance, and is more or less perfect in proportion to the fixed or necessary nature of the things we contemplate, with which nature we become acquainted by experience, and are thus able to anticipate a great variety of events: but to subject the knowledge of God to any such limitation is surely absurd and unphilosophical, as well as impious; and, therefore, to mix up the idea of God's foreknowledge with any quality in the nature of the things foreknown, is even less excusable than to be guilty of that confusion when speaking of ourselves."

But, with due deference to his lordship, this does not contradict the statement in the text, that we are ignorant of any principle on which such prescience can be explained. Assuming, indeed, that any events are contingent, that human actions proceed from freedom, and not from necessity, we cannot deny that they come within the range of infinite knowledge.

But the philosophical necessarian does not grant this postulate. He assumes the existence of an infinite mind, to whose knowledge all events are open, and thence infers the necessity of these events. He pleads that omniscience and contingency are incongruous ideas, and, on the ground of pure metaphysics, it would be difficult to refute him. But we demolish his theory by an appeal to facts. We oppose the moral constitution and history of man, to the plausible speculations of philosophy. In other words, the mere metaphysician is a fatalist; and his position, in the present state of our intellectual philosophy, can be successfully attacked only by an appeal to facts and consciousness, and by moral argument. That sound metaphysics and just moral reasoning cannot really be at variance is certain, since there cannot exist contradictory truths. Our metaphysics therefore are wrong, or there must be an unknown third principle, by which they are to be reconciled with our moral reasonings. But until we can detect the fallacies of the metaphysician, or supply the connecting link which is now wanting, we must rest in the unsatisfactory conclusion that abstract philosophy is with the necessarian, and that liberty and its ennobling consequences, moral agency, and moral responsibility, rest on the solitary basis of moral argument.

[3] On the "special teaching" claimed, in connexion with "special grace," by the most popular writers of the Calvinistic school, the reader may find some just and forcible remarks in Essays by W. and T. Ludlam. Their fearless exposure of the erroneous statements given by Milner, Robinson, Newton, Harvey, and others, more particularly on the subject of divine influence, awakened the indignation of a party whose pretensions, when tested by reason and revelation, were proved to be groundless. Without attempting an indiscriminate defence of their opinions or their arguments, we may recommend these essays as being eminently worthy of attention in the present day, when two distinct but zealous parties are aiming to establish exclusive doctrines, by discountenancing the legitimate use of human reason in religious inquiries—one resting on tradition, the other on individual inspiration; neither of them seeming to remember, that tradition may be pleaded for and against the same dogmata, and that the private persuasions of one good man may be opposite to those of another, who has, with equal earnestness and humility, prayed to be directed into the knowledge of saving truth. The man of independent mind will find in these essays, much to admire in their elucidation of truth and detection of error, but more in their dauntless defiance of those who represent the Bible as a "sealed book" to all who are not visited with a special faculty for discerning its mystic characters and hidden sense. In that case, the Scriptures are a revelation only to the elect, who, to satisfy themselves and the world, that their interpretation is the only sound one, ought to produce miracles as proof of their own inspiration, not less unequivocal than those which vindicated the authority and infallibility of the Apostles. Such opinions, although held by religious men, are dishonourable to the Scriptures, and needlessly degrading to the human mind.

[4] "There can be no approaches towards regeneration in the antecedent temper of the heart. The moment before the change, the sinner is as far from sanctification, as darkness is from light, as death is from life, as sin is from holiness."

"Regeneration is an instantaneous change, from exclusive attachment to the creature, from supreme selfishness, from enmity against God, to universal love, which fixes the heart supremely on Him; and there is no previous abatement of the enmity, or approximation towards a right temper; the heart being at one moment in full possession of its native selfishness and opposition, at the next moment in possession of a principle of supreme love to God; acquiring thus, in an instant, a temper which it never possessed before."—Lectures on Important Doctrines by Dr. Griffin.

How extravagant in theory, how false in fact! The doctrine of the Anglican Church on this; and all similar points, never appears so wise, and sound, and scriptural, as when contrasted with the speculative systems of men, who, to give harmony and consistency to their notions, close their eyes to the real world of man, and create for themselves an ideal universe, peopled by another order of beings, and governed by a power unknown but to the dreamers themselves.

[5] The Presbyterian Church of Scotland is both Calvinistic and National. But this fact does not militate against the argument of this section; that Calvinism is opposed to the constitution and purposes of a visible Church. Her creed and her discipline are at variance. Her ministers are required to believe in the Westminster Confession. And the great body of her people are said to be attached to that system of doctrine. But her more educated classes reject it, and the Scottish Church is a divided house.

[6] The prominent part taken by the doctrinal Puritans, in the revolutionary movements which brought Charles I. to the block, is proved by the concurrent testimony of the writers of those times. It is amply illustrated and confirmed by Mr. Nichols in his "Calvinism and Arminianism Compared."

The "Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson," by his widow Lucy, is not only a work of great general interest, beautifully composed, and combining with the life of an eminent person vivid sketches of the times; but it illustrates the subject discussed in the text. Colonel Hutchinson was a doctrinal Puritan, and one of the regicides. In himself we behold all the elements of a great and noble character, devout, humane, scrupulously conscientious, and of heroic courage; every quality that might adorn the gentleman, the patriot, the Christian. But his extreme principles induced a mistaken sense of duty, which embittered his own days, and added to the calamities of his country; after having been spared at the restoration, his gloomy reserve and supposed readiness to act again the part of a rebel, if opportunity should occur, led to his imprisonment in Sandown Castle, where he died more ignobly than if he had been brought to the block. It would have been more to the honour of the king, if he had at first doomed him to a public execution, the proper death of a regicide, or had left him afterwards unmolested; but the second Charles was not less mean and malignant than his sire was unfortunate. Of the character of the humbler class of the doctrinal Puritans, the following hints are incidentally given in this work.

The name of Roundhead "was very ill applied to Mr, Hutchinson, who, having naturally a very fine thick sett head of hair, kept it clean and handsome, so that it was a greate ornament to him, although the godly of those dayes, when he embrac'd their party, would not allow him to be religious, because his hayre was not in their cutte, nor his words in their phraze, nor such little formalities altogether fitted to their humour; who were, many of them, so weake as to esteeme rather for such insignificant circumstances, then for solid wisdom, piety, and courage, which brought reall ayd and honor to their party; but as Mr. Hutchinson chose, not them, but the God they serv'd, and the truth and righteousness they defended, so did not their weaknesses, censures, ingratitude, and discouraging behaviour, with which he was abundantly exercised all his life, make him forsake them in any thing wherein they adher'd to just and honourable principles and practizes; but when they apostatized from these, none cast them off with greater indignation, how shining soever the profession were that gilt, not a temple of living grace, but a tomb which only held the carkase of religion." In other words, like other partisans, whose principles have degenerated into the spirit of faction, he overlooked the baseness of ingratitude, and worse immoralities, in his associates, so long as they maintained the just and honourable character of traitors and rebels.

[7] The Manchester Synod, at which were present 620 ministers of various denominations, was held in the year 1841, for the purpose of discussing the corn laws, with a view to their abolition. The professed object was the relief of the poor by procuring cheap bread; the real object was the depression of the landed aristocracy, and, through them, of the Clergy of the National Church, whose tithes are regulated by the average value of corn. Had those gentlemen been sincere in their lamentations for the manufacturing poor, they would have long ago agitated the country for the abolition of the Factory System, and the rescue of its miserable victims from oppression and famine. That system must be strengthened by the abolition of the corn laws, which would only aggrandize the great manufacturers, and plunge the working people into deeper misery, by throwing the agricultural poor out of employment, and driving them to the towns and cities for occupation, thus glutting the market with superfluous labour. Looking at some of those individuals who took a leading part in the Synod, men of reputed truth and probity in their customary habits, their disingenuousness on this occasion supplies a striking proof of the power of faction to impair the moral sense, especially when originating in hatred of the Church. The great body of this Synod were ministers of Calvinistic Churches. The "dissenting interest" has degraded itself by assuming the character of a political faction.

THE END