« ZurückWeiter »
vity, the necessity of an atoning sacrifice, justification by faith, and sanctification by the Spirit. Their opinions upon the subject of human depravity must be low--because he who believes that God's justice could be vindicated by the sacrifice of a creature must consider the estimate which he forms of the corruption of human nature to be inconsiderable. Their sentiments upon the necessity of an atonement must be vague and obscure because they divest the Saviour of those attributes which can alone impart to the atonement its value and sufficiency. Their opinions upon the doctrine of justification by faith must be equally erroneous-because the righteousness of a creature could only serve for his own justification, and could not be communicated to another. And their sentiments upon the necessity of sanctification, by the Spirit, must also be inadequate, if their estimate of the corruption of our nature be ineorrect, and if they deny to the Holy Spirit those qualifications of Godhead which are necessary to enable him to perform the office of Sanctifier. In fact, the doctrine of our Saviour's dignity is the very essence of Christianity; so that, just in proportion as the opinions of men upon this fundamental tenet rise or fall, their opinions upon every other doctrine will be influenced in a similar degree; and none but those who admit the Supreme Deity can attach to the other doctrines of the Gospel that importance and elevation which they possess in the Bible. . . . - “5. It is necessary to believe in the Snpreme Deity of the Saviour, in order that his death may be regarded as an adequate expression of God's hatred of sin. The transgressions of mankind, when considered in re, ference to the infinite holiness of that Being against whom they are committed, must necessarily wear to his observation an aspect of infinite enormity. Would, then, the death of a finite and created being afford to the inhabitants of God's'moral universe a sufficient indication of the estimate which he forms of transgression? Would not the solitary death of one created being, whilst myriads were pardoned, afford but a partial exbibition of the unsullied purity of Jehovah's character, and of the amount of satisfaction required by his justice? But admit the Deity of Christ, and his death is at once an expression of God's hatred of sin, commensurate with the length and breadth of the estimate which he forms of it, and presents an emphatic and awful testimony of the moral enormity of transgression,
“6. The Deity of Christ is absolutely necessary, in order to give value to the atonement which he has effected upon the cross. The very nature of an atonement implies that its efficacy is intended for beings distinct from him who was the agent of its accomplishment. Now, if Christ, was a created and finite being, every work which he discharged was necessary for his onn justification, and he could perform no more than what was incumbent upon him by the very necessity of his condition, as a subject of the moral government of God. He could, therefore, have no righteousness to communicate-No work of supererrogation to offer, on behalf of a ruined and a guilty world. How awful, then, are the consequences of that system which denies the Deity of the Saviour, and thereby destroys, altogether, the vicarious sufficiency of his sacrifice! But contemplate the atonement, as consummated by him who was “God manifest in the flesh,' and the work which he performed, as Man, acquires an infinite value from the character which he sustains as God, and becomes a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice and ablation for the sins of the whole world.
· “7. It is necessary to believe the Supreme Deity of Christ, in order to give influence and cogency to the motive to Christian obedience which the Gospel supplies. That motive is “the love of Christ,” exemplified in becoming poor, in order that we, through his poverty, might be made rich. If, then, Christ was a mere created and finite being, where was the extreme condescension, the infinite disinterestedness of his love, without which it cannot possess that constraining efficacy which is ascribed to it in the Scriptures? The enterprize in which he engaged was, one so inconceivably grand, and brought with it such an emolument of dignity and of glory, that if he was a creature his philanthrophy should rather be attributed to motives of personal ambition, and a desire of personal aggrandizement. Where was the humiliation in a merely created being con. senting to undergo a few short hours of suffering, no matter how intense. in order to be elevated to a participation of the throne of the Eternal-tó be appointed to the gorernment of the universe-to receive the adoration and worship of all the inmates of Heaven-to be recogoized as the 'arbi. trator of the final destinies of man--and in fact, to supersede the domi. nion of Jebovah by an exertion of his prerogatives, and an assumption of his glory? By such a representation the benefit resulting to man would become insignificant and unobservable, in comparison with the immensity of glory acquired by the Saviour. There must, in short, be some sense in which even the Mediatorial exaltation of the Son of God was an act of con. descension, in order that his object in undertaking the office might ex. clusively refer to the welfare of his people; but this cannot be the case on any supposition which would contradict his Deity."
Mr. Bagot is advantageously known as an eloquent public speaker, and, judging from his present work, we expect him, in future, to be better known as a laborious and instructive writer.
immmmwanammans RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE.
ORDINATIONS.-On Tuesday, 6th inst., the Rev. Hugh Hamilton was ordained to the pastoral charge of the congregation of Cullybackey. The services were conducted by the Rev. Hugh W. Rogers, Rev. Mr. Ruske, and Rev. Mr, Hutchinson.
On the 15th inst., the Rev. John Canning was ordained to the pastoral charge of the congregation of Malin. The services were conducted by the Rev. Mr. Moore, Rev. Mr. M'Clure, and Rev. R. Dill.
173, line 13 from bottom, for “]s he" read Is it as."
180, line 14 from bottom, change the note of interrogation to a comma, transfer the inverted commas to line 27, after the words “unacquainted with,” and for “It” read it.”
* NEW SYSTEM OF NATIONAL EDUCATION: Establishment of Popery commenced-Presbytery of Edin
burgh-Judgment of Dr. Chalmers-Congregational Board of London - Record Newspaper.
We continue to regard the New System of National Education with unmitigated and increasing opposition. The more we think of it, the worse we think of it. We stated, from its first promulgation in Mr. Wyse's bill, that the system involved a virtual establishment of Popery. Accordingly, in confirmation of our opinion, the first school in Ulster taken under its care (first so far as we have heard or know) has been the Roman Catholic School of Belfast. This school, we understand, has been endow. ed with £70 per annum, gifted with books at half price, and promised aid for occasional repairs of house and fur. niture. Of this we do not complain, because it goes to educate Roman Catholics. Far from it: we wish them educated, and if need be, at the national expense. But we complain because we are morally certain, that this endowment goes to teach Popery, and, by consequence, to establish it, in its most offensive form. That our readers may be enabled to judge for themselves, we shall select a few specimens from one of the ordinary lesson books, lately taught in the chapel school. This book is called “The Grounds of the Catholic Doctrine.” As å speci. men of this precious work, take the following “reasons why a Roman Catholic cannot embrace Protestantism:
“Because, even in the judgment of Protestarts, we must be on the safer side. They allow that our church does not err in fundamentals, that she is a part, at least, of the church of Christ: that we have ordinary mission, succession, and orders, from the apostles of Christ : they all allow that there is a salvation in our communion; and consequently that our church wants nothing necessary to salvation. We can allow them nothing of it at all, without doing wrong to truth, and our own consciences. We are convinced, that they are guilty of a fundamental error in this article of the church; which if they had believed arigbt,
they would never have pretended to reform her doctrine. We are convinced that they are schismatics, by separating themselves from the communion of the church of Christ; and heretics, by dissenting from her doctrine in many substantial articles; and consequently, that they have no part in the church of Christ; no lawful mission, no succession from the apostles, no authority at all to'preach the word of God, or administer the sacraments: in fine, no share in the promise of Christ's heavenly kingdom, excepting the case of invincible ignorance, from which the scripture, in so many places, excludes heretics and schismatics.
"The fruits of the reformation were such as could not spring from a good tree. 1. An innumerable spawn of heretics. 2. Endless dissen. tions. 3. A perpetual itch of changing, and inconstancy in their doctrine. 4: Atheism, Deism, Latitudinarianism, and barefaced impiety: in fine, a visible change of manners for the worse, as many of their own writers freely acknowledge, and old Erasmus long ago objected to them, Ep, ad Vulter, where he defies them to show him one who had been reclaimed from vice by going over to their religion; and declares he never yet met with one who did not seem changed for the worse.”
We know it has been asserted upon oath, that this book has not been taught in the school, by the present master, since May, 1831, nor by the present mistress, since October, 1830; and the simple truth of this statement we are not disposed to question. But we are decidedly of opinion, that it amounts to nothing. For we are not informed whether this book has been ejected from the Sunday. School-we are not informed that it will not be taught upon the day for separate religious instruction. And even should this most abominable work be expelled for very shame, what security have the Board that something as bad will not be introduced in its stead ? None but the security of Dr. Murray, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, in which we acknowledge, that, in a case of this kind, we are very little disposed to confide. No matter. The Protestant members of the Board of Education vote £70 for teaching that they are heretics, schismatics, and, save and except the case of invincible ignorance, (which we presume the noble, reverend, and learned commissioners will not plead,) are fairly without the pale of Christ's hea. venly kingdom! Modern liberalism may think it good to establish such a system; but we confess we are not yet sufficiently enlightened to adopt it.
We rejoice to find that the subject of education in Ireland has made its way to Scotland, and has come under the consideration of so important a public body as the Presbytery of Edinburgh. The subject was introduced by the Rev. Dr. Lee, in a speech of great length and power, who concluded by moving a petition to Parliament, against the new system-seconded by Rev. Dr. Gordon. The motion was opposed by the Rev. Messrs. Grey and Somerville; and, considering the high position they occupy in the Church of Scotland, we deem it but justice to the friends of the new system, to furnish them with their reasons; but as we have not been convinced by their arguments, we deem it an act of justice to its opponents to offer a few words in reply.
Since writing the foregoing, Mr. Grey has visited this country, and has favoured us with an authentic report of his speech. We rejoice in this circumstance, because we had seen his sentiments both imperfectly and erroneously reported. Accordingly, at some inconvenience and expense, we have cancelled as much of our original comments as appeared to be founded upon newspaper misrepresentation. Upon some points we still differ from Mr. Grey; but we are happy to find that we differ much less than we had been led to suppose.
Mr. Grey sets out with two great principles, in which we most heartily concur, viz., “that education to be an instrument of good, and not of evil, must be founded on religion; and that religion, that it may guide and not mislead, elevate and not degrade, must be founded on the Scriptures.” But when he “ sees nothing in the Bill (proposed system) to shock his Christian principles," we think he cannot have examined, with his usual acuteness, the anti-Presbyterian supremacy with which it invests one individual norits stipulated “encouragement for teaching the doctrines of Popery, or direct Infidelity.
When Mr. Grey expresses confidence in the extracts from the Scriptures, to be published by the Board, because the majority are Protestants, he evidently speaks in ignorance of the real constituency of the Board. There are two Roman Catholics and one Unitarian on the one side-two members of the Established Church and one Scots Presbyterian on the other; the Duke of Leinster mediates between them. : The extent of his Grace's theological knowledge we confess ourselves unable to estimate-how far Protestants can confide in his casting vote, we cannot tell; but for our own part we look upon it as more than a forlorn hope. We solemnly protest against Mr. Grey's lạx and indefinite use of the word Protestant, when employed in a theological question. When a man's Protestantism is adduced as a ground of confidence, it must be used, not