Page images
PDF
EPUB

tian simplicity-still, the thought is suggested, is the heart so replenished with grace as to possess them, and not to be entangled in these refinements? The question will occur, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou ME more than these?" It is impossible to prescribe particular rules in regard to the administration of this important talent,-worldly substance, which is committed in such various measures to different individnals. The grand point, perhaps, is to regard it as a talent, the possession of which involves a solemn responsibility.

It cannot however, but excite a painful impression to observe any who profess to "know the love of Christ," to whom it seems desirable to have the elegancies and the luxury of which the world is. naturally covetous. It may be right, it may be necessary, for those in the higher ranks of life, to

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

EASTER ODE.

SET the watch, and seal the stone-
Powers of earth and air, combine.
He is risen! He is gone!
LORD! the victory is thine.

Thou, the Spoiler of the grave,

Soon her portals chill didst burstStrong to conquer, true to saveThou the Last, and thou the First!

Circled by His friendly band,

Must the Miracle be tried? "Poor misdoubter! reach thy handThrust it in my riven side.

Spirit hath not flesh and bone, As ye see your Saviour have. How could God's Most Holy One Taste corruption in the grave?"

Touched by the Almighty Word,
Mark the unbeliever fall
Prostrate" Hail! MY GOD, MY LORD!
Saviour! Sovereign! All in all !

CORYLUS.

"Bruiser of the Serpent's pride! Death's Abolisher! all hail ! Though my sins have pierced thy side, Through thy love I shall prevail.

"Thou the unfailing Surety art,

Yea, THE RESURRECTION, Thou! Welcome Death's once dreaded dartSpite of terrors, welcome now!

"Heard I have with dubious ear

Now my trustful eye doth see. Death! no more thy sting I fearGrave! where is thy victory?”

Thomas, when he saw, believed; Happy they who, seeing not, Have the attested truth receivedSuch be our exulting lot!

So, in spirit, may we rise

With the Lord of Glory risenOur affections in the skies,

Ere our souls have burst their prison.

Then, when Death's dark vale is trod, And the chilling Jordan past,—

In the likeness of our GOD

We shall wake TO SIGHT at last!

THOMAS MAUDE.

ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY.

SIR-I am glad to perceive that you have noticed Ancient Christianity.' I hope the zeal of that Author will provoke very many. For beyond a question some of our Divines, even besides the Oxonians, have given too much confidence to ancient writers, and have grievously deluded us by appeals to the Fathers instead of the Scriptures. The author of Ancient Christianity' appears to be bold, confident, and able; and fears not to overthrow the idolatrous attachment to antiquity, by an exposure of the errors and iniquities which very early appeared in the professing church of Christ.

[ocr errors]

The error of celibacy and monasticism, though fraught with the most danger to morals, was not the only mistake which was generally received among the early Christians. It was commonly expected that the world would be very quickly destroyed; and that error was very likely to encourage the former one. Respecting the honour and merit of martyrdom, the enthusiasm was very contagious, and even Ignatius himself burnt with an unscriptural ardour in its favour. Baptismal Regeneration, which I do not see that the Apostolic Fathers held in an unscriptural meaning, soon became one of the reigning doctrinal, as monasticism was of the moral errors of antiquity. And your Author has introduced the latter to the world in a form which is calculated to rouse the sleeping sensibilities of our modern Christians.

You have observed, however, that this Author has said some things which his premises will not readily justify. And I will point out another consideration or two, with your permission, which need a little explanation before entire confidence can be placed in his representations. You confine your APRIL, 1838.

T

remarks to his "First" pamphlet, and I will do the same.

1. In the first place, does not the author of Ancient Christianity,' too boldly and roundly charge the earliest fathers with introducing and substituting a new ' principle of virtue and piety for another,' which had been the rule under the APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANITY,' and this in the ' age immediately following the death of the apostles.' And that CELIBACY was this NEW thing.

Now, Sir, that men of true godliness, brought up under the apostles, hearing the words of their mouth, and witnessing their example, and receiving their written instructions upon this very point, and instruction too, given in answer to special inquiry made by the Corinthian Church on the subject, should 'immediately' after the death of the apostles,' have thrown aside their advice and direction, for the substitution' of another PRINCIPLE of virtue and piety' in its stead, is an event so perfectly unique in the world, that I cannot receive it without some modification.

6

It is perfectly obvious that both our Lord, (Matt. xix. 12,) and his apostle Saint Paul, have introduced THIS PRINCIPLE OF Celibacy, (1 Cor. vii. 1, 7, 8, 26, 32, 34, 38.) And it is further obvious from the above references, that under certain defined circumstances, (in such as possessed God's special gift of continence,' and under the then present distress' of the Christian Church, which indeed went on and increased) it was recommended as preferable to the burdens and cares of the married state. Saint Paul himself expressly considered it so, in his own case, as well as that of Barnabas,' and perhaps some others of the apostles.

[ocr errors]

6

That the ancient Christians might easily mistake the true design of our Saviour and St. Paul, in what they said about this principle,' and might therefore, as they did, force it into an application to cases which could not bear it,' and to which it was not intended to apply, (as you have well argued) is no way incredible or uncommon. The fallen state of human nature has always had this tendency to pervert and overstrain certain points of doctrine and practice, to the gratification of self-righteousness or sinful indulgence. This principle,' thus overdrawn, deduced from scriptural instruction or example, adopted as highly meritorious in Christianity, and being perverted to the toleration of the habit of converts from heathenism, which esteemed 'fornication' as no transgression, will readily aecount for those scenes of disorder and immorality which so soon began to disgrace the Christian church, without supposing the anomaly that a substitution' of another' and unscriptural principle' took place in it.

6

[ocr errors]

2. As our author has forced upon the ancient Christians the substitution' of another principle' (a charge which is not true) has he not further made too much, and drawn in colours too dark or too general, the evil which is true?

He describes the morals of the early Christian church as far more flagitious and abominable than its morals were after it had been corrupted, by bad instruction and bad example for many hundred years. Now, when I read, in Justin Martyr, I think it is, that he had known great numbers of unmarried persons who had retained spotted purity all their days, though they lived to an old age, I cannot consent to our author's bold and broad statements, without considerable modification, both as to nature and time. Besides, where would have been the boot of his

un

and Tertullian's long and bold defence of the Christian Church, if such had been the gross, and overflowing immorality of Christians in their days? We all know that the primitive religion was not especially objectionable to the 'idolaters' because of its "setting forth strange gods:" these they would have embraced but because it claimed an exclusive worship and a pure morality.

What would a foreigner think of Christianity in Great Britain were he to read, even in this our day, the description given of it by some modern seceders, in our great schools and universities?

3. Has not this author made an apology for popery, not intentionally so perhaps, which will highly gratify the maintainers of corruption in doctrine and morals? What can more elate the pride and veil the infirmity of that" Mother of Abominations," than to hear the Christian world dared to prove, that she is not vastly less impure, than the very earliest Christian Church next to the Apostles? If the conduct of the Christian Church after the establishment of Popery, and after the compulsory enactment of an unmarried priesthood, which every one knows to have been the foundation and key-stone to that mystery of iniquity," was even an improvement upon," and an actual" reformation" of the ancient Church of Christ, even from the death of the Apostles themselves; I do not see what Rome can seek or obtain more. If she is and was, more pure than all that preceded it up to the Apostles' days, we allow her all`she asks; i.e. that she herself is apostolic!

66

If moreover celibacy and monkery were recommended and practised 'immediately' after the death of the Apostles, and were then in their highest perfection and glory, will not those things derive great eclat from that circumstance? For

what is tradition in matters of doctrine and morals, but such matters handed down from the primitive Christian Churches? If Dr. Pusey could say with truth, what the author of ancient Christianity has said of celibacy, &c. that Baptismal Regeneration,' in his sense of those terms, was so taught and so held in all the Christian Church

immediately after the death of the Apostles,' I think it would require more than human wisdom to convince that learned person, that those doctrines were not derived, in their essence, from the Apostles themselves.

[ocr errors][merged small]

AMBROSE, ARCHBISHOP OF MILAN.

SIR-AS I have been for a long time a constant Reader of your useful publication, you will not be displeased, I hope, if I tell you what I have been doing of late,

especially as the result of my occupation must be, from its very nature, interesting to one who keeps a Magazine of information and instruction for members of the Church of England. In sooth, then, Sir, I have been busying myself, in this my retirement, with the writings of men of ancient days. I have been reading some of the Fathers,' and have before me at present, a massy volume containing all the works of the eloquent, laborious, devout, and venerable prelate of Milan, Archbishop Ambrose. My reason for pursuing this line of study you will readily surmise. I desired, in the first place, to satisfy myself of the accuracy of the quotations and arguments of the able and excel, lent author (for such I reckon him) of Ancient Christianity;' to verify his quotations, and ascertain if the facts of the case were such as to warrant the conclusions which he draws from them. I began with Cyprian, and though I think the

author not altogether justifiable (on the ground of the documents he refers to) in some of the terms he uses with respect to the professors of perpetual virginity: for though there were not unfrequent, and often very gross instances of delinquency among them, it does not appear that there were at Carthage, or elsewhere in Cyprian's time, stews of ecclesiastical virginity, nor a state of things in the church, which would countenance the idea of prevailing grossness of pollution; yet is it my firm persuasion, from all that I have read, that the author's statements, and his arguments deduced from them, are substantially correct. The tendency of things was to the extreme corruption of doctrine and of practice which followed; and the Fathers, on some accounts so admirable and worthy of honour, were unwittingly the pioneers of Rome. They cleared the way for that abominable antichristian system, which has lorded it for centuries over the consciences of its deluded votaries. Theirs in fact was the incubation of the egg, which eventually 'broke forth into a viper.' The Author of Ancient Christianity'

[ocr errors]

has in my judgment distinctly proved his point; the main point in controversy between him and the writers of the Oxford Tracts, that the Nicene Fathers are not safe (yea that they are most dangerous) guides to the knowledge of Divine truth. The writers of the Oxford Tracts would have us believe that our safety lies in bowing to the authority of the Fathers, especially of Augustine, Ambrose, and Basil; the Author of 'Ancient Christianity' attempts the proof that it is at the utmost peril that we do so. I must repeat my own entire persuasion that he has made his proof good, and that every serious-hearted Christian, who reads those parts of their works, which bear most distinctly on the main subject in debate, will acknowledge that he has so.

The main strength of his proof lies here. The Nicene Fathers had adopted one or two false principles, one especially, the superior merit of virginity; and upon these they reasoned and acted as unquestionable truth. Whatever, therefore, seemed to invalidate the false principle, or at all to interfere with it, must be accommodated, and even forced into an agreement with it.

Now this principle enters more or less into every part of the great system of the Christian religion. And therefore some point or other of doctrine, practice, and ecclesiastical regulation must needs be affected by it. We may expect traces of this fallacy in the whole system of those who hold it, and to see them most clearly where this false principle is most particularly touched upon.

Expecting to find this made out in the case of Ambrose, I turned to his Commentary on the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and methought, now, honest man, for the Archbishop must not be denied the character of sincerity, hard though it be for us, who have been mercifully delivered from the errors

by which his firm understanding was pitifully infatuated, to give him entire credit for it; honest man, how will you get over the plain words of St. Paul, respecting the marriage of the clergy: a state distinctly anticipated for them by the apostle, though by no means enjoined upon them, as essential to the due fulfilment of their office? My chief object in writing to you, Sir, is to show your readers how he contrives to evade the force of the plain language of the apostle, and enable them to judge, from this and a few other specimens of the worthy man's writings, what little confidence is to be placed in the authority of those Fathers when divine truth in its most explicit statements, came in the way of received ecclesiastical maxims. It was a maxim with the church of those days, eminently so of the leading churchmen, that celibacy, professed, devoted celibacy, was the holy state. Widowhood had its merits, so had honest matrimony, but virginity set its professors above them all. So much so, indeed, that as Ambrose tells us, there was a pew in his church partitioned off for their use, with 1 Cor. vii. 34. "There is a difference," &c. written over it: and thither religious and noble matrons would resort to receive a kiss from those who occupied that pew, as from beings much holier and more worthy than themselves.

But I will you the Archbishop's Commentary on 1 Tim. iii. 2— 13. First, what appears in his notes on that epistle; and secondly, his remarks on the same portion in his treatise • On the Dignity of the Priesthood,' ch. iv.

"The husband of one wife." v. 2. Although it be not forbidden to have a second wife in succession, yet, to be worthy of the episcopal office, (he observes, by the bye, that a bishop is but the first of presbyters) every one should despise a lawful indulgence on account of the sublimity of his order: for he ought to be better than others who is desirous of that station. "Vigilant, sober, of good

« PreviousContinue »