Transcribed from the 1842 J. Hatchard and Son edition by David Price,
email ccx074@pglaf.org





                 THE TRUE MINISTERS OF CHRIST ACCREDITED
                           BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.


                                * * * * *

                                A SERMON,

                               PREACHED AT

                              THE VISITATION

                                  OF THE

                    VENERABLE THE ARCHDEACON OF DERBY,

                                    IN

                           ALL SAINTS’ CHURCH,

                          ON THE 21ST JUNE, 1842

                      BY THE REV. PHILIP GELL, M.A.
              MINISTER OF ST. JOHN’S, DERBY, AND RURAL DEAN.

                                * * * * *

                 PUBLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLERGY.

                                * * * * *

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
                  J. HATCHARD AND SON, 187, PICCADILLY;
                 AND W. BEMROSE, AND W. ROWBOTTOM, DERBY.

                                  1842.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
               S. J. PALMER, PRINTER, SAVOY-STREET, STRAND.

                                * * * * *

                                    TO
                              THE VENERABLE
                      WALTER AUGUSTUS SHIRLEY, M.A.
                           ARCHDEACON OF DERBY,

                                  AND TO

                         THE REVEREND THE CLERGY,

          ASSEMBLED AT THE VISITATION HELD IN DERBY, A.D. 1842,

                               THIS SERMON
                              IS DEDICATED,
                     WITH TRUE RESPECT AND AFFECTION,
                        BY THEIR FAITHFUL SERVANT,
                          AND BROTHER IN CHRIST,

                                                               THE AUTHOR.

_Derby_, _June_ 21, 1842.




SERMON.


                         2 COR. ii. 17, and iii. 1–6.

    “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of
    sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ.
    Do we begin again to commend ourselves?  Or need we, as some others,
    epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
    Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
    forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ
    ministered by us; written, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the
    living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the
    heart.  And such trust have we through Christ to Godward; not that we
    are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but
    our sufficiency is of God; who hath made us able ministers of the New
    Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter
    killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”

To “speak the same thing,”—to “be of one mind in the LORD,”—to be
altogether one in the FATHER, and in the SON, as they are one, is the
proper habitude of all the members of the church, and especially of all
ministers of the word, of GOD.

Because, however, of human imperfections, differences have arisen in the
church, even from the earliest and holiest days.  Wherefore controversy
in the present day need not surprise us; nor should we shun it as if it
were necessarily unchristian; nor is any man obliged to take part in it
with any other feelings than such as are holy and benignant.  With good
will may we withstand or intreat one another, or earnestly contend for
the faith against an adversary.

Did not the apostle Paul withstand Peter to the face, with feelings
anything but personally hostile, because he was to be blamed for his
dissembling example: and does not the silence of the story most
eloquently speak the silent and affectionate concession of the brother
who was blamed?

Do not the words, which I have just read, bring before us another early
conflict in holy times: when “many” teachers of the word of GOD
“corrupted” it, and the apostle had to maintain the truth against them as
“_false apostles_” {2} appealing in his own behalf to sanctions given to
him by GOD Himself?  And are we not safely to conclude that his zeal and
charity in the contest obtained a blessed recompense in the preservation
of many from those ruinous corruptions.

Now it is observable that the apostle concentrates the strength of his
defence, in this particular passage, in an appeal to the work of the HOLY
SPIRIT of GOD attending his ministrations.  Whatever might be the truths
or errors brought into question,—whether concerning the HOLY GHOST
Himself, or other subjects of a different nature,—there were such effects
of his labours to be seen, as would prove the presence of that DIVINE
SPIRIT with _his_ ministry, and not with the contrary.  And hence we may
infer, that though all teachers among Christians will assert their
possession of the SPIRIT, all may not possess Him; and the teaching of
some may want this remarkable and distinguishing evidence of being from
GOD.

We need not dissemble that our own Church is Corinthian in this respect
in the present day.  We clergy are so.  We cannot—(and in my heart I feel
deeply what I say)—we cannot all be right.  And it is my honest and
heart-rending conviction, that some of our differences are such, as will
separate us for ever, if we die in them.

But come now, and let us reason together.  We have all, by our outward
vocation, one common interest in one common and most momentous work.  We
have to save our own souls, and the souls of them that hear us.  Our
responsibilities reach into eternity!  May we by love so serve one
another that we may all be workers together with GOD in the immense
design, for which His Son our Saviour died upon the cross; that in the
great day of His appearing many converted souls may be _our_ “epistles of
commendation” before His throne in glory!

Concerning the great controversy, which at present pervades our church,
some things relate to the Holy Ghost Himself, some more especially to the
Lord Jesus Christ, some to the Holy Scriptures, some more particularly to
the church.

Whatever of these I may notice, I wish to keep the HOLY SPIRIT
prominently in our view, and to make our truth or error, _as bearing upon
Him_, the main matter of our discourse.  The general subject will be _The
sanction of that DIVINE PERSON in the HOLY TRINITY_, _attending one sort
of doctrine and ministry_, _and not another_, _and the evidences to be
observed of the fact_: and it will involve this question, namely, Who are
_the true ministers of the LORD JESUS CHRIST_, _accredited by the HOLY
GHOST_?

If I state things which some of us well know, I feel confident that they
will admit the importance of my bringing them before others, who may not
be aware of the position at which we are already arrived in the matters
we have to speak of.

                                * * * * *

I.  The first thing which I have to propound is this: That _the HOLY
GHOST is the essential Agent in the right administration and reception of
divine ordinances_.  In this, taken generally, we are all agreed.

None of us doubts that the words of the apostle to the presbyters of
Ephesus would now apply to all true presbyters of CHRIST: “Take heed to
yourselves, and to all the flock, over which _the HOLY GHOST hath made
you_ overseers, to feed the church of GOD, which He hath purchased with
His own blood.” {5a}  So, the seven deacons were “men full of the HOLY
GHOST and wisdom.” {5b}  The word also is said to be “preached _with the
HOLY GHOST_ sent down from heaven:” to come to those hearing it aright,
“in power _and in the HOLY GHOST_, and in much assurance;” {5c} and to be
received with “_joy_ _of the HOLY GHOST_;” and “_in demonstration of the
Spirit_ and of power.” {5d}  And so, both in regard to ministers and
members of the church, it is declared, that “to one is given _by the
SPIRIT_ the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge _by the same
SPIRIT_, to another faith _by the same SPIRIT_;”—all these more ordinary
gifts, as well as those which were miraculous, “worketh that one and the
self-same SPIRIT, dividing to every man severally as he will.” {6a}  And
when it is also solemnly declared—“I give you to understand, that _no
man_ can say (aright) that JESUS is the LORD, _but by the HOLY GHOST_,”
{6b}—and that “if any man have _not_ the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of
His;” {6c}—how clear and unquestionable is the conclusion, that _the HOLY
GHOST must be the essential Agent_ in the right administration and
reception of divine ordinances; and that in fact there can be none
without Him, in the minds both of ministers and people.

Hence it was that, in the words before us, the apostle declared his
“_sufficiency_ to be of GOD;” that it was of GOD that he ministered the
word without corrupting it, as some did; and that the beautiful
lineaments of the living christian character, which he had been the means
of producing in them, were actually produced by the HOLY GHOST, thus
divinely authenticating the office and instrumental ministrations of the
apostle.  Here was the writing of his recommendatory letters.

This view of things carries in it the point, that no man can be a true
minister of Jesus Christ, unless the SPIRIT of CHRIST be with him.  And
so general is the conviction of this as a fact, that strange indeed would
it be to find a single bishop, priest, or deacon of our church, who
should not feel it essential to his integrity to lay claim to this holy
authentication of himself from God to men.

Now here is the question!  Let us calmly and seriously examine it.  Can
we all have the HOLY GHOST, who lay claim to His presence and power with
us?  I propose to meet this question negatively, and therefore,

                                * * * * *

II.  My next position is the following: _That it is impossible to suppose
that we ALL have the HOLY GHOST_, _who lay claim to his presence and
power in our ministrations_.

1.  The awful ungodliness of some of us too plainly proves the truth of
this, believe it who will.  It is fearful to think of their standing as
they are in the sanctuary of the Most HOLY GOD!  “To the wicked GOD
saith, What hast thou to do, to declare my statutes, and to take my
covenant in thy mouth?  Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my
words behind thee.” {7}

2.  But, alas!  It is not only the unholy beyond dispute that may fail of
the HOLY GHOST.  What say the habits of vain conversation in many; their
ease and pleasure in worldly occupations and amusements; their constraint
under sacred employments, their gladness when such works are done?  Must
_their_ hearts be the temples of the HOLY GHOST?  Will He make the word
to be “the power of GOD,” to honour _their_ preaching of it; or the
sacraments means of grace, to own _their_ administration?  May He not,
does He not refuse to do so?  Where is the fruit of their labour?

3.  But even were we questionable in nothing but points of doctrine and
religious practices which we teach, this were enough, not only to raise
the question, whether we minister by the HOLY GHOST, but also to
determine it.  For the SPIRIT cannot testify to _both_ of two systems
_differing_ from one another in many fundamental points.

Such are the two systems at present in agitation.  That of Protestant
Evangelical Christianity on the one hand, and that of Anglo-catholicity
on the other: the one rejecting Romanism in all its peculiarities; the
other sympathizing with it, and avowedly rejecting the principles of the
Protestant faith. {8a}  The controversy is not new, though it has seldom
been so vigorously conducted on either side as now.  The same spirits
were in active warfare some forty years ago. {8b}  But, in fact, it has
been fairly said by one of the chief writers on the Anglo-catholic side,
that there have ever been these two principal parties in the Church of
England, whom he calls the _Apostolical_ and the _Puritan_; introducing a
third also, (not now in the controversy,) namely, the Latitudinarian.
{9a}

In point of _doctrine_, the terms Apostolical, Laudian, Orthodox, and
Anglo-catholic, have more or less of connexion with each other; and the
terms Evangelical, Puritan, Calvinistic, and Protestant, have a similar
affinity.

_a_.  Now it has often been acknowledged by the opposite party, that the
compilers of our Articles were not only Protestant, but Calvinistic, and
what we now call Evangelical, in their religious views.  It has often
been felt and allowed, that, in the _plain and full meaning_ of these
Articles, according to their _literal and grammatical sense_, which the
royal Declaration peremptorily claims for them, without admitting of _any
new sense_ whatever, they favour less the Laudians and the Arminians,
than the Puritans and Calvinists. {9b}  In this sense they are freely and
confidently appealed to by the latter; and the appeal is ever most
happily and strongly sustained by other appeals to the writings of the
Reformers, in proof of what they meant.  The true Protestants, therefore,
are perceived to have always had the best of the controversy, when
conducted by sustaining the full and literal sense on the one hand, and
softening it down on the other:—wherefore it is now attempted, with a
determination never shown before, not merely to incline the Articles to
speak a softer Protestantism; but at once to seize them violently, and
force them to an absolute recantation; or, to stifle them under the
reiterated pressure of directly antagonist opinions; affirming, against
evidence, that those opinions were _intended_ by the compilers to be
admissible into the meaning! {11}

They thus, in purpose, completely take away the old, and substitute a new
confession of faith, whatever care may seem to be taken to retain the
form of words.  And, casting out the _Writings_ of our Reformers also, as
a Court of Appeal, and proposing extraordinary additions to our
Formularies, and various ceremonial innovations, they declare it to be
their intention to _unprotestantize_ {12} the Church of England
altogether, and to re-unite her, in due time, with the Church of Rome.
And they are steadily and gradually advancing.

While they are labouring with most devoted assiduity at this achievement,
we, on the other hand, are firmly maintaining our old Church of England
ground, standing by our old appeals as resolutely as ever, and humbly
believing that the same GOD, who has for years been gradually and
steadily increasing our numbers and our strength, will still go on to
increase them, until the Church of England shall stand in the full and
undisputed possession of the sons of her reforming fathers; and _true_
Anglo-catholicity shall be the share which the English _Protestant_
Church shall enjoy in Catholic Christianity throughout the world.

But now, the question is, how can we possibly imagine that the HOLY GHOST
can accredit _both_ these opposing systems, and the advocates of _both_,
so essentially differing from each other?  For, _either_ the whole system
of the Protestant Reformation, and of our Church as Protestant, is one
enormous, awful, and tremendous error; or Anglo-catholics are doubly
dishonest, first to the Church of England, which they still subscribe to;
and secondly to the TRUTH of GOD according to our confession of faith.
The decision of the question may be suspended for a moment.

_b_.  The more we inquire into this subject, the wider will the
difference appear to be.  There is one most vital part of it, on which I
will not say much; because it is so generally heard of, and amongst
ourselves so easily understood.  I mean the union, by the
Anglo-catholics, of tradition with Holy Scripture as the Rule of Faith,
{13a} in direct contradiction (as I think) to our sixth Article.  It is
contradictory also to testimony upon testimony from their own favourite
Fathers and Divines, {13b} as well as the Reformers; and even to the
plainest testimony of Holy Scripture itself.  “From I child,” says the
SPIRIT of GOD by St. Paul to Timothy, “thou hast known the Holy
Scriptures, which are able to make thee _wise unto salvation_ though
faith which is in CHRIST JESUS.  All Scripture is given by inspiration of
GOD; and is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness; that the man of GOD may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED
unto all good works.” {14}

Here, in particular, an opposition of sentiments appears upon a vital
point, in which the HOLY GHOST, in the very nature of things, can only
take one side.

But they _want_ the tradition, and therefore they must have it.  It
supports superstitions, which Scripture will not.  And the difficulty of
explaining _ignota per ignotiora_ aggravates the importance of a present
priesthood to explain both, as may seem good to them, without the
possibility of popular private judgment being exercised on their
interpretations and conclusions.

_c_.  Again; their doctrine of mystery in religion, putting, (by a
strange mutation,) the most obvious things for the deepest, is made
particularly to produce a comparative silence respecting the atonement of
the LORD JESUS CHRIST.  It is remarkable that they should choose for the
example of this mysterious reserve, the very subject concerning which the
Apostle St. Paul declares to the Corinthians, “I am determined not to
know anything _among you_, save JESUS CHRIST, and Him crucified:” “We
preach not ourselves, but CHRIST JESUS the LORD:” “We preach CHRIST
_crucified_!” {15a}  But then, _their_ Christ crucified, by a painful
perversion, is shown to be _self_-crucified; tears, and penances, and
mortifications constituting their substitution for sin, (atonement I
cannot call it;) while CHRIST is kept back, chiefly for mere sacramental
exhibition. {15b}

That glorious name of Jesus, “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS,” they almost
veil from our sight, as far as His _obedience to the law_ for us is
concerned; and His sole justification, _wrought for us_, they actually
displace by another thing.  The Lutheran doctrine upon the subject, which
is that of our eleventh Article, is called _radically and __fundamentally
monstrous_, _immoral_, _heretical_, _and antichristian_. {16a}  And
justification, instead of being by the works and deserving of CHRIST
accounted unto us, and received by faith, is said to consist in the
“habitation of Christ in us,” or “of GOD the FATHER, and the WORD
incarnate, through the HOLY GHOST:” “the SPIRIT’S work, not CHRIST’S:”
“an imparting of righteousness;” {16b} “not imputation merely, but the
act of God imparting His divine presence to the soul through baptism, and
so making us temples of the HOLY GHOST.” {16c}  But something also is
said about our being able to “_obey_ unto justification,” {16d} in
opposition to Luther; which intimates clearly that human works, resulting
from this indwelling, are to be the substantial justifying material; and
faith is to be the first of those works.  For when they refer to the
Article, asserting that “_we are justified by faith only_,” they say,
“Faith, as being the _beginning of perfect or justifying righteousness_,
is taken for what it tends towards, or ultimately will be.  It is said by
anticipation to be that which it promises; just as one might pay a
labourer his hire, before he began his _work_.” {16e}  And thus, their
Christ _justifying_ seems to be made much like their _Christ crucified_
in us; _self_ imitating CHRIST in another part of His work.  A more
complete removal of the SAVIOUR out of His place in the great work of
redemption, with a specious introduction of the HOLY GHOST to aid in the
removal, that man may do the _work_ of his _own justification_, it is not
easy to conceive.  Whether this be right or not, judge ye.  But that the
HOLY GHOST should testify _both_ to this justification, _and_ to that
which is by faith only in the righteousness of CHRIST, which is the
justification of the Protestant Reformers and their Evangelical
descendants, it is clearly impossible to suppose.

_d_.  The HOLY GHOST himself, and all that religion which consists in
spiritual experience, are expressly removed from full and ordinary
teaching,—the glory and excellency of them being consigned to reverential
reserve! {17}

The new birth of the soul by the SPIRIT, (except as in baptism,) the
fruits of the SPIRIT in holiness, the comfort of the SPIRIT, the witness
of the SPIRIT, the seal, the earnest, the fellowship, the indwelling, the
anointing of the HOLY SPIRIT,—His work as a SPIRIT of wisdom and
revelation in the knowledge of CHRIST, and the deep things of GOD,—a
SPIRIT of intercession, a SPIRIT of adoption, a SPIRIT of glory, and all
other subjects of Christian experience, are to be said little
about,—while it is the very _fear_ of others that they should grieve and
dishonour this glorious Person in the ever-blessed Trinity by not fully
declaring them.  They are deeply impressed by the fact that His work is
equally essential to their salvation with that of JESUS Himself, and full
of consolation and delight.  And some perhaps may be the more intent upon
preaching all that ever appertains to Him from a spirit of holy jealousy,
knowing that it is a subject in which so many of us halt.

And what is their substitute?  Mere morality with some: devotions,
fastings, and almsgiving, with our brethren who are more in earnest; all
busy in suspending fruits upon the evil tree, to make it good; instead of
“first looking to the SPIRIT of GOD to make the tree good, that his fruit
may be good also.” {18}

_e_.  The _sacraments_ are a subject in which the difference and the
controversy exhibit remarkably strong characteristics.  Our
Anglo-catholics, it is evident, use the very term _sacrament_ as if the
_spiritual grace signified_ thereby constituted the substantial meaning
of the term: but our twenty-ninth Article shows at once that our
Reformers applied it to the _outward sign_; “The _sign_ OR _sacrament_ of
so great a thing:” and they there apply the term to the bread and wine,
in _contra-distinction_ to the body and blood of CHRIST.  In the
twenty-fifth Article the sense is carried out, and the term is applied to
the _ceremony_, still having reference to that, which is ordained of God
indeed, but perceived by the outward senses.  And these are essential
matters: for there is no sacrament, by the same article, where there is
no visible _sign_ or _ceremony ordained_ of GOD.  _Baptism_ is called a
_sign_ of regeneration, whereby they that receive it rightly are, as by a
significant process or instrument, not regenerated, but visibly “grafted
into the church,” as already regenerated; {19} and “have the promises of
forgiveness and adoption,” not then first brought home to their souls,
but “visibly signed and sealed” to them;—“faith,” not first imparted, but
“stirred up”—and “grace,” not first given, but “increased, by virtue of
prayer to GOD.”

And if the Liturgy and Catechism speak of the inward and spiritual grace
signified as _part_ of the sacrament, or seem to say that the sacrament
of baptism, as much as that of the Lord’s Supper, is _a mean_ of
receiving that particular grace which is signified,—they should be
explained so as to harmonize with the Articles, which do already
harmonize with Holy Scripture.  It is a _part_, not as tied to the Form
in time and place, but as the distinct reality, on which all the value of
the formal representation is founded, and which therefore should always
be steadily eyed in it. {20}

It is evident that our twenty-seventh Article contemplated, in the body
of it, the baptism of adults, spiritually born.  And though our ritual
prefers to _pray_ for the HOLY SPIRIT, that they may _then_ surely have
His regenerating grace, to presuming on the previous certainty of its
experience; yet the certain answer to this prayer is assuredly taken for
granted as the ceremony proceeds; inasmuch as the acts of living souls
are forthwith required of the subjects _before_ they are baptized;
namely, that they can speak spiritually, and deliver “the answer of a
good conscience before God” in the exercise of repentance and faith, and
the avowal of them.  And so it is observable, that though our form of
_infant baptism_ prefers to _implore_ regeneration _then_, to presuming
certainly that the infant _is_ regenerated ere he comes, yet the fact is
_presumed_ to be granted _previously_ to the answers being made; for they
are the answers of a new-born soul.  Charity afterwards hopeth all
things, though often disappointed.  And thus our church uniformly goes
upon the apostolic rule, given in answer to the question, “What doth
hinder me to be baptized?” viz., “_If thou believest with all thine
heart_, (which is the fruit of regenerating grace, {22a}) thou mayest.”
A heart, even in infants, that would show faith, if organs served, is
presumed to be; for “except they be born again, they cannot see the
kingdom of GOD.” {22b}  The law has no exception.

The terms _baptize_ and _baptism_ are used in Scripture to express the
spiritual regeneration as well as the mystical.  On the one hand, we hear
of “the _Baptism_ of John;” “I indeed _baptize_ you with water;” “he that
believeth and is _baptized_, shall be saved;” “CHRIST sent me not to
_baptize_;” “there is one _baptism_;” “they were _baptized_ in the name
of JESUS;” “_baptizing_ them in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON,
and of the HOLY GHOST;” and many other instances, having reference only
to baptism with water.  On the other hand, we read, with reference to
_spiritual_ baptism, “He shall _baptize you_,” saith John, concerning
Jesus, “_with the HOLY GHOST_ and fire;” {23a} where water is not
contemplated: “_By one SPIRIT are_ we all” “_baptized_ into one body.”
{23b}  “So many of us as were baptized into JESUS CHRIST, were baptized
into His death.  Therefore we are buried with Him by the _baptism unto
death_, that like as CHRIST was raised from the dead by the glory of the
FATHER, even so we also should walk in _newness of life_.  Our old man is
crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed;” and that we
should “yield ourselves unto GOD, as those that are _alive from the
dead_.” {23c}  And St. Peter, speaking of the salvation of Noah through
the flood, says, “The antitype, or counterpart, of which, even _baptism_,
doth also now save us; not the putting away of the filth of the _flesh_,”
(which is of water baptism,) “but the answer of a _good conscience_
towards GOD,” (which is of spiritual baptism,) “by the resurrection of
JESUS CHRIST from the dead.”  You have it {24a} also, where the apostle
speaks of the Colossians as “circumcised with the circumcision made
without hands,” and “_buried_ with CHRIST in _baptism_, wherein also they
were _risen with Him through faith_ of the operation of GOD, and
_quickened together with Him_.” {24b}

Now, whether this latter _baptism_ is, or is not, ever without the
former, and the washing of the SPIRIT only synchronous, or not, with that
of water; it is unquestionably evident that the two things are perfectly
_distinct_, the one from the other.

Proceed, however, a step further, and observe that it is not water
baptism which the HOLY oracles speak of as the mean, instrument, or
channel, of spiritual baptism or regeneration, but _the Holy Scriptures
themselves_ without it; and immediately the general _separation_ of the
two is as clear as the distinction between them.  “Of His own will,”
saith St. James, “begat He us with _the word of truth_.” {24c}  “Being
born again,” saith St. Peter, “not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by _the word of GOD_, which liveth and abideth for ever.”
“And this is the word, which by the Gospel, (not water-baptism,) is
preached unto you.” {25a}  And add to this, concerning the thousands of
outwardly baptized sinners, the testimony of St. John, that “_whosoever
is born of GOD doth not commit sin_; _in this_ the children of GOD are
manifest, and the children of the devil, _whosoever doeth not
righteousness is not of GOD_;” {25b} and the proof is conclusive, that in
the formal baptism of these thousands upon thousands, who do so commit
sin, no regeneration of GOD was ever experienced at all.  The separation
is clear.  Men are born, without water-baptism, by the SPIRIT and the
word; multitudes have it, and are never born of GOD at all. {25c}

Against all this, however, the system of the Anglo-catholics speaketh on
this wise:—“The Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers declare, with
united voice, that regeneration takes place at baptism.  But they go
farther; they tell us very definitely what regeneration is; they tell us
that it is an engrafting into CHRIST; a new creation in CHRIST; and by
consequence, that all the gifts of grace are actually and really imparted
to us in baptism; that in short we are justified, sanctified, quickened,
crucified with Christ, planted together in the likeness of His death,
risen with Him by the power of His resurrection, and seated with Him in
heavenly places; and that all this is effected by baptism.” {26}  This is
in a sermon entitled “Nehushtan, or an Attempt to break the Trifle of
Brass.”  And this Nehushtan is the doctrine of justification by faith;
concerning which I refer you to the glory of our Articles, the eleventh;
and then I close this point with the plain question, _Who_ are the true
members of the Church of England; and with whom is the SPIRIT of the Holy
Scriptures, the SPIRIT of the martyrs of the Reformation, the SPIRIT of
the living GOD, the HOLY GHOST?  He cannot be with both.

_f_.  The assigning of regeneration and remission of sins to _outward_
baptism gives immediate occasion to many other errors: but to one in
particular, of a very lamentable character.  I mean the deplorable, and
all but hopeless condition of those, who sin away their regeneration, and
their plenary remission received in baptism; as innumerable multitudes
are held to do.  “The great majority,” say the Anglo-catholics, “die
under the bond of their sins;” yet so far “under GOD’S favour,” that if
they pray, and fast, and give alms, and confess, mourn, and judge,
humble, afflict, and abhor themselves, they may peradventure obtain
pardon somewhere, plenary pardon; though it cannot be granted them any
more in this life! {27a}  And that somewhere, is Purgatory, plainly
avowed! {27b}

All this ministers strongly to the authority of a priesthood, in
confessions, partial absolutions, and penances; {27c} but our Church
(Art. 22) seems to us to say that it is plainly repugnant to the word of
GOD: and so we believe.  Certainly, therefore, the HOLY GHOST is not with
_one_ portion of us in this matter.  We know of no condition, except that
of blaspheming against the HOLY GHOST, in which, “if we confess our sins,
GOD is” not “faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us
from all unrighteousness;” and, “if _any_ man sin, we have an advocate
with the FATHER, JESUS CHRIST the righteous; and He is the propitiation
for our sins.”

_g_.  I shall not go over the same ground again, with reference to the
sacrament of the holy Communion, as I have done with respect to Baptism,
but state little more than that the way, in which the Anglo-catholics
treat it, is precisely similar.

Spiritual communion in the body and blood of CHRIST, which we hold that
believers _always may enjoy by faith_ in the living _words of CHRIST_,
the Anglo-catholics bind inseparably to the sign or sacrament thereof;
namely to the bread and wine, and the sacred ceremonial.  _Their_ body
and blood of CHRIST is the bread and wine _made so_ by their priests, and
given only by their means to the people.  “The sacraments,” to the
exclusion of other ordinances, “are (with them) the sources of divine
grace.” {28a}  One is the very and only womb of regeneration itself; the
other the only breast that nurses the child of GOD with the very body and
blood of CHRIST.  These _forms_ their clergy can handle and talk about,
and they reservedly hint at the work of the SPIRIT of GOD in them:
howbeit of spiritual life and spiritual communion, as things distinct
from them, and much more large, and of other times and places, and means
also, they profess to believe nothing.  They hold the SPIRIT of GOD
mostly within their own sources; and the body and blood of CHRIST quite
at their own disposal. {28b}

Now, when our SAVIOUR says, “Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood ye
have no life in you,” and it is held that the _baptized_ have life,
_though they have not come_ to the table of the LORD; it will needs be
granted that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of CHRIST is a thing
_previous_ to coming to that holy table: therefore it may be, as no doubt
it is, _after_ coming thither also; of course in _other_ places and by
the use of _other_ means.  JESUS says, therefore, “Whoso eateth my flesh
and drinketh my blood hath eternal life:” and when He would save them
from the delusive idea of eating His carnal body and blood, He tells them
“it is the SPIRIT,” that is, the HOLY GHOST taking of the things of
CHRIST, and showing them unto us spiritually, “_that quickeneth_,”
ministereth life; and then he refers them for the means, not to any
contemplated sign or sacrament, but to _His words_ attended by His
SPIRIT: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are
life.”  In them believers have their constant food.

The very flesh of CHRIST itself, if they could have it in a literal
sense, would profit them nothing; all that is effective being the
“ministration of the SPIRIT.”  Even in the sacrament, the WORD, thought
of, and received by faith of the operation of the HOLY GHOST, is that
medium by which the SPIRIT most properly conveys the SAVIOUR to the soul.
The bread and wine have no more in them than the character of the most
beautiful, significant sign or sacrament of so great a thing: just as the
king’s letters, and not his picture, even in the most affecting
transactions of his life or death, would really convey the presence of
his mind and attributes to his people.

It is, however, habitually true of this sacrament, though not so of the
other, that it is _A means_ (not THE means) whereby the inward and
spiritual _grace signified_ is received by the faithful.

But if the same precision were used in a review of our Liturgy and
Catechism, as was exercised in the framing of our Articles, we might
avoid asserting anywhere, as well as in the latter, that the sacraments
are means of the grace signified, without the loss of anything essential;
and so we should be saved from predicating _that_ in the _definition_ of
a thing, which is proved not to be universally true of it.  We might be
saved from seeming to affirm that we are made children of GOD
_spiritually_ by formal baptism, when in fact it is only _formally_ that
we are thereby made so; or by baptism are regenerate.  That sacraments
are _signs_ and _seals_ to the faithful of the inward and spiritual grace
signified is universally true, and therefore proper in a definition of
them: that they are _means_ thereof, _or pledges_, {30} is not
universally true, and therefore improper in a definition, though true in
part.  And our conflicts upon the subject will never be put an end to
until our church clearly expresses herself agreeably to the distinction
and separability between things spiritual and things formal. {31a}

It does not appear that any of the principal Protestant Confessions of
faith affirm the sacraments to be _means_ of _the_ special grace
signified by them, except the Augsburg, which is the Lutheran.  And if it
is generally to this that the English articles are to be traced, the
difference of the latter from the former upon this particular point can
scarcely be otherwise than purposely intended. {31b}

When our Anglo-catholic brethren seem as if they would “not oppose
anything existing,” {31b} or touch so much as an iota of our Anglican
Confession in _verbal_ alterations, and yet hesitate not deliberately to
sharpen their weapons, and at a few gashes to embowel it of its vitals;
(I allude to the ninetieth Tract;) if they describe our church as
“teaching with the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies,” and as
“incomplete in her formal doctrine and discipline,” and would totally
change her Protestant character by _introductions_ from the Roman
Breviary and Missal;—with all this havoc of change before us, it is a
small matter to desire merely a clearer distinction between formal and
spiritual things, or any other sanatory touch of like character, which
would fulfil the work of the Reformation, instead of thoroughly undoing
it, {32a} as _they_ design to do.

In such a process we should be casting off the last frontlet of our
_ancient_ grave-clothes, and putting a crown of pure gold upon our head.
Rome would have done with us for ever, and we with Rome; and our
separated brethren of other communions would see the way opening for
re-union to an unlimited extent.

_g_.  The essentials of the OFFICE and WORK of the ministry, as
propounded on either side, constitute another very material ground of
difference. {32b}

We are, I suppose, agreed that the _first_ essential of the OFFICE is,
that we be clearly called to it, and effectually sustained in it, by the
HOLY GHOST.  But when we come to the outward and visible proofs of this
call and this supporting power, then we differ.  The Anglo-catholics
consider it essential to be ordained by bishops receiving their
appointment in regular succession from the apostles; as that, without
which no benefit of sacraments or other ministrations can be imparted,
nor, in fact, any church exist.  The Anglo-protestants, on the other
hand, attach not the same importance to the apostolical succession of
bishops; and will say with Melancthon, “When bishops do not teach the
truth, an ordinary succession avails nothing to the church;” {33a} and
they hold that the appointment of a bishop by presbyters among themselves
is valid.  They consider the laying on of the hands of a bishop and
others of the presbytery, to be the most scriptural Ordination of
presbyters, and best for their own church; {33b} yet not so essential to
the being of a church but that Ordination without a bishop may be valid,
and is so in other churches, and has scriptural succession in its
Presbytery.

By the former, it is assumed, that the HOLY GHOST is given in ordination
to all who are thus ordained, for the custody of the good deposit, the
fundamentals of doctrine and practice, and all other parts of their
office; and that through these ministers alone the people can derive
sacramental grace; and if this ordination once be given, it is of itself
the grand, essential, and sufficient proof of a true minister, and of the
abiding of the HOLY GHOST, with him continually.

Now, it is true that we hold, that an evil minister, incurring even
deposition by our discipline, does not necessarily prevent the
communications of divine grace to the souls of men in the ministration of
the word and sacraments.  But we hold also that he is to be deposed, and
that there is something vastly contrary to the true system of things in
his being where he is; though GOD has acted with inscrutable wisdom in
having suffered it.  But unless ministers continually prove by all the
“fruits of the SPIRIT,” that the SPIRIT of GOD is with them, their
ordination does nothing for them in our esteem, but load them with
extraordinary sin and guilt.  It is expected, that they be “not of the
world;” though it is not by monasteries that they are to go out of it;
but by keeping themselves unspotted from the sins and vanities and pomps
of it; while their light shines before men in doing good in it, for the
glory of their heavenly FATHER.  Their love of souls dictates zeal and
labour and self-denial and holy co-operation.  They weep and pray and
wrestle with GOD for blessings on their unworthy ministrations; they
reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine; they humble
the proud to penitence without penance; they comfort the feeble-minded,
and heal the broken-hearted, without the unhallowed domination of
confessionals, or absolutions other than declarative or merely
ecclesiastical; {35} and they are conscious of maintaining, (without
forced explanations,) an honest consistency, in doctrine and practice,
with the plain meaning of their own articles and of Holy Scripture.
These and all other fruits of the SPIRIT, love, joy, peace,
long-suffering gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance;—these
are their essential proofs of office; without which the form of
Ordination would be nothing but a heavy grief to them.  It always has
been, moreover, and I believe it ever would be, did circumstances lead to
it, the blessedness and glory of these men to die as martyrs for their
faith.  The love of CHRIST would constrain them to do it joyfully.  Few
indeed are the clear instances of any other kind of religious
persecutions unto death; while the thousands upon thousands of those who
have been the _usual_ martyrs for CHRIST, have been, not of the
Anglo-catholic, but of the Evangelical faith.  The _Reformers_ are
granted to us: the _Huguenots_, the _Waldenses_, the _Lollards_ and
_Hussites_, the _Paulicians_, the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, &c., have
all been of the same confession of faith and the same character.  But,
alas! if the likeness of the Anglo-catholic creed and practices to Popery
be considered, how near are the professors of that creed most fearfully
coming to the character of the accusers of the brethren, the persecutors
of the saints, the very crucifiers of the LORD OF GLORY!  With whom then
is the HOLY GHOST to be supposed to be?

So, with respect to the essentials of ministerial WORK, they say that
“the Church,” i.e. the Clergy, and _her sacraments_, are the ordained and
visible means of conveying to the soul what is supernatural and unseen.
{37}  “The sacraments, _not_ preaching, are the sources of divine grace.”
We do not disparage the sacraments; but we say that in holy Scripture
preaching has the pre-eminence; preaching the Gospel of CHRIST, “the
everlasting Gospel,” “the Gospel of salvation,” “the glorious Gospel of
the blessed GOD.”  And I am anxious that we should all feel this,
understand it well, and study to be “able ministers of the New
Testament.”  The Anglo-catholic doctrine of the wonderful importance of
sacramental grace and of the mysterious dignity and power of the
priesthood in connexion with it, is a comparative nullifying of the great
commission of CHRIST, “Go ye into all the world, and _preach the Gospel
to every creature_; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; and
he that believeth not shall be damned.”  CHRIST also sent the apostle
Paul, “not” with a commission, “to baptize,” though he did baptize; “but
to preach the Gospel.”  And his triumphant argument for preaching, as the
grand mean of grace, and faith, and salvation, will never be overcome.
“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.  How then
shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed; and how shall they
believe in Him of whom they have not heard; and how shall they hear
_without __a preacher_; and how shall they preach except they be sent?
As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that _preach the
Gospel of peace_, _and bring glad tidings of good things_!” {38a}  Of
regeneration itself as produced by the special instrumentality of the
word, we have already heard: and so also the remission of sins; for “be
it known unto you,” says St. Paul to the people of Antioch in Pisidia,
“that through this man is _preached_ unto you the forgiveness of sins;
and by Him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye
could not be justified by the law of Moses.” {38b}  The Acts of the
Apostles, in fact, are full of it.  By the foolishness of _preaching_ it
has always pleased GOD to save them that believe, incomparably more than
by any other means.  And forasmuch as the ministers and stewards of GOD’S
mysteries “cannot,” (as our Ordination Service speaks,) “by any other
means compass the doing of so weighty a work, pertaining to the salvation
of man, but with _doctrine and exhortation taken out of the Holy
Scriptures_, and with a life agreeable to the same,” the assiduous study
and preaching of the Holy Scriptures have been the main subject of the
charge given to them, from the days of Timothy to the present.  With
ministering “the Holy Sacraments” they have been most solemnly intrusted;
but with _preaching the word CHIEFLY_: and to _this_ has the “success” of
their ministry been consigned. {39a}  This is that which, (as
Anglo-catholic teachers affirm,) “to say the least, Scripture has never
much recommended;” an assertion very much to be blamed, as very untrue.
{39b}

Now they who are not sensible of the inconceivable importance of
preaching, will not _seek_ the SPIRIT of preaching, neither will they
_have_ Him, if they do not ask for Him to be given them.  The word, to be
“the power of GOD unto salvation,” must be “preached _with the HOLY
GHOST_ sent down from heaven,” {39c} “not in the words of man’s wisdom,
but in the demonstration of the SPIRIT and of power.” {39d}

I feel convinced, that after all this, my main position will be generally
admitted to be extremely probable, if not certainly proved; that we
cannot on both sides, have the HOLY GHOST in the ministrations I have
described, though both lay claim to His presence and power in them. {39e}

                                * * * * *

III.  I now, therefore, intreat your permission briefly to press a third
position on your serious consideration, namely, _that whoever of us have
Him NOT_, _they are under most FEARFUL GUILT in PRETENDING to His
presence_.

We all make the pretension.  We are guilty therefore, it is to be feared,
on one side or the other: deeply guilty!

_a_.  The guilt is that of _being false_; of lying in some things
_concerning_ the HOLY GHOST, and in some things _unto_ Him, when false
before His saints in whom He dwells.  Are we incurring then the very
guilt of Ananias and Sapphira?  Let us fear their condemnation.

_b_.  Our guilt is also that of _resisting_ the HOLY GHOST, in His
_truth_, in His _work_, in His _people_.  If we have not known the ways
of GOD aright, we have erred in our hearts and hardened them,—against
what the HOLY GHOST saith, “Harden not your hearts;” and hereby He is
grieved: and the result is that GOD swears in His wrath, that we shall
not enter into His rest. {40}

_c_.  Our guilt is that of substituting _another spirit_ for Him: the
_Anti-spirit_ in league with Anti-christ.  It may be said that I go nigh
to affirm that our work may possibly be the working of Satan, if it be
not of the HOLY GHOST.  My brethren, I mean quite to say it.  For of all
evil men, who are instruments of Satan for seduction, false apostles and
ministers are the most so.  And the more apparently holy they are, the
more diligent to put on the form of godliness when they have not the
power,—the more they _imitate_ the love, the meekness, the humility, the
self-denial of CHRIST,—and profess, at the same time, that it is by the
HOLY GHOST that hereunto they have attained; the more awful is their
reception of Satan _for_ the HOLY GHOST.  Am I not right in saying, that
errors in principle and in doctrine are quite as full of guilt in the
sight of GOD as sins of the flesh?  They are sins of the mind, it is
true: but are the sins of purely intellectual evil spirits less than the
sins of men, because they are sins of minds and not of fleshly bodies?
And is Satan to be gently dealt with, and not rather the more indignantly
repulsed, when, and because, he comes as an angel of light?  He is the
very best imitator in the universe, and will be amiable in commending
heresies to men.  And you may take him to your hearts in the very
resemblance of the SPIRIT of GOD Himself, and assume that you possess the
holy anointing of that blessed SPIRIT; and hence may issue the most
deadly perversions of the truth of GOD, under the most amiable guise.
You may be making an unction to yourselves, _like_ unto the holy
anointing oil, under that curse of GOD, that you “shall be cut off from
His people.” {42}  Consider the guilt and danger!

                                * * * * *

IV.  We are now prepared to come to the consideration of our fourth
point; _That the possession of some accrediting proofs of the presence of
the HOLY GHOST is essential to our most important interests_.

Am I a true minister of JESUS CHRIST, or am I not?  And if I am, is all
as it should be with me?  Have _I full proof_ that _my_ ministry is a
participation in the “ministration of the SPIRIT,” or have I not?  Is He
present with me at all?  Is He present with me in all that fulness and
power, that is most justly and rationally and earnestly to be desired?
What are the most certain credentials or proofs of this?

_Two_ are all that I shall refer to: one is in my text; the other, which
I advert to first, is elsewhere found; I mean the scriptural _Character_
of the true minister of CHRIST.  You find it concisely expressed in 2
Tim. iv. 1–5, “I charge thee therefore before GOD and the Lord Jesus
Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and His
kingdom,—_Preach the word_, be instant in season, out of season; reprove,
rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine.  Watch thou in all
things, endure afflictions, _do the work of an evangelist_, _make full
proof of thy ministry_.”  And in 1 Tim. iv. 12, “Be thou _an example_ of
the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith,
in purity.  Take heed to thyself and to the doctrine: continue in them:
for in so doing, thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.”
{43}

As to integrity in doctrine, enough has been said, we should imagine, to
prove the true servant of CHRIST from the false, the Holy Scripture in
its plainest sense being taken for our guide.

And who, you ask, is to say what the standard of Scripture doctrine is,
and so to determine what we ought to teach?  You must _decide for
yourselves_.  “I speak as unto wise men; judge ye what ye say.”  “Wisdom
is justified of her children.”  Nothing can possibly be plainer than Holy
Scripture.  _Pray for the HOLY SPIRIT to be your guide_ in understanding
it.  We shall soon see, if we have Him indeed, “who is the LORD’S, and
who is holy,”—without his judgments to convince us.

We must do the same with regard to ascertaining _who_ have that true
consistency of ministerial character and conduct which is laid down in
Scripture, and are therefore those, whom we should “follow; considering
the end of their conversation, JESUS CHRIST, the same yesterday, to-day,
and for ever.”

Consider, brethren, what and where the _power_ of godliness really is,
and where _the form_; what and where is the most honest self-abasement,
and where, on the other hand, the exaltation of man by means of
office:—consider whether it be right to say, where the human commission
is, there, and there only, all is right as to the SPIRIT; and not rather,
where the SPIRIT is vitally proved to be, there, and there only, all is
right as to the human commission: consider what is that dominion over the
people’s faith, which is to be unselfishly repudiated; and who is their
true servant, for JESUS sake, and the fellow-helper of their joy.  Think
whether it is indeed and beyond a doubt the fact, that you have
yourselves “passed from death unto life,” and know what a wounded spirit
is, and what the godly sorrow of a broken and contrite heart, and the
agonizing conviction of being a sinner deserving eternal condemnation.

I will add nothing concerning the happier experience of a sure interest
in CHRIST, of that holiness without which no man shall see the LORD,—and
all the work of the SPIRIT in the soul of the believer; and of the love
of CHRIST shed abroad in the heart.  But such as this, is the personal
character of the true minister of CHRIST, which ought to be a
discriminating credential of the presence of the SPIRIT of GOD with us.
O that we may have it in all its fulness and excellency!

2.  The other point, which St. Paul appeals to in the text, is the
_effectual blessing of God upon ministerial labours_.  “Ye,” says the
apostle, speaking of souls brought out of death into life by his means,
“Ye are our Royal letters, which we carry out in our hearts, as
ambassadors for CHRIST, to be read by, and spoken of unto, all men.
JESUS ordained them on my behalf; I was the ministering hand by which He
wrote; the HOLY GHOST was with me, and indelibly impressed them on the
tablets of your hearts; the character, and language are those which
pourtray the new creature, the children of the living GOD, the heirs of
everlasting glory.”  He disclaims all sufficiency, not only to write, but
even to conceive, what was written, except as it was given to Him by GOD,
(a point they would readily admit,) and thus, in their conversion by his
means, he had the clearest and strongest evidence that GOD was with him
of a truth.  So he says in another place, “The seal of mine apostleship
are ye in the LORD: are not ye my work in the LORD?”  And it is evident
that this is a most essential, decisive, and therefore desirable, proof
of our ministry being of GOD.  I do not think we should by any means rest
and be satisfied without it.  I know that a minister may be a true
prophet without always having this testimony; and though the Israel of
GOD be not gathered by his means, his work is with the LORD, and his
judgment with his GOD; and Isaiah says, “LORD, who hath believed our
report, and to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed?”  But this is
the _exception_ and not the _rule_.  What are pastors and teachers for?
Truly “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry,
for the edifying of the body of CHRIST; opening men’s eyes, turning them
from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto GOD; that they
may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among all them which are
sanctified, by faith that is in CHRIST.” {46}  If these holy and heavenly
purposes be not evidently answered by us, what are we better than others?
If they be but feebly and equivocally answered, why are we not afraid,
and put upon inquiry as to the cause, and upon prayer, most earnest
prayer, that we may not be disowned both of GOD and man?  What letters
have we to show that we are not thus disowned?  O that our gracious LORD
and master may give us all imperishable seals of our apostleship in great
numbers!  Let us earnestly see to it that we obtain them.  The _double_
testimony of scriptural character, and of such seals given to our
ministry, is irresistible.

                                * * * * *

But it may be asked, have not even false apostles their disciples, and
sometimes many; Theudas, four hundred; Judas of Galilee, much people?
{47}  They have: but not of such sinners converted into saints, as
evidently prove the operation to be of GOD; not such as would glorify GOD
on the racks of persecuting torture; not such as would die martyrs in the
flames, if called to it; nor such as, in peaceful departures, could
triumph through faith in the SON of GOD, and rejoice in the _certain_
hope of a glorious immortality.  The happy and heavenly deaths of those
who had lived upon the doctrines of Evangelical Protestantism are
immortal and irresistible testimonies in favour of that sort of
Christianity, as the truth of GOD.  They constitute an evidence, which
Anglo-catholics will never be able to produce.  What were the latter days
of Froude, their modern proto-saint, if not their proto-martyr?  Where
are their dying witnesses?

What do they in the formation of such characters as I speak of?  Here, my
honoured fellow-labourers in the Church of GOD,—the questions which I
would put concerning them, allow me to put pointedly to you all.  What
are you really doing in the work of the ministry you have received of the
LORD?  Are you answering the purposes for which you were called to it?
What can you do, by the grace of GOD?  Can you convert a sinner from the
error of his way?  Can you give me the heart of stone broken down and
melted into the humble and contrite heart?  Can you display a
compassionate and crucified SAVIOUR, till men love Him fervently, and
mourn for their sins which pierced Him?  Can you heal a wounded spirit?
Can you beautify disciples with Christian graces?  Can you help the
saints of GOD in their preparations for death and eternal glory, when
JESUS shall come and receive them to Himself?  Shall you then have any,
of whom you will be humbly able to say, “Behold, I and the children whom
Thou hast given me!  These are my letters of commendation!  These are my
joy and crown of rejoicing: while all the supreme and sovereign glory, O
CHRIST, is thine!”

Thus let us examine and prove both ourselves and our work.  And may GOD
indeed make us able ministers of the New Testament; that we be not
ashamed, but may rejoice before Him, at His appearing and His kingdom.

                                * * * * *

                                 THE END.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
               G. J. PALMER, PRINTER, SAVOY STREET, STRAND.




FOOTNOTES.


{2}  2 Cor. xi. 13.  See also Rom. xvi. 17.  Gal. i. 7, &c.  Phil. i. 16,
iii. 18.  Col. ii. 8.  1 John iv. 1.

{5a}  Acts xx. 28.

{5b}  Acts vi. 3.

{5c}  1 Thess. i. 5, 6.

{5d}  1 Cor. ii. 4.

{6a}  1 Cor. xii. 1, 8, 11.

{6b}  1 Cor. xii. 3.

{6c}  Rom. viii. 9.

{7}  Ps. l. 16.

{8a}  Tracts 71, 77, and 86; Froude’s Remains, i. 322, 380, 394, 425,
433; British Critic, July 1841, p. 45, 69.

{8b}  See _Overton’s True Churchman Ascertained_.  See also Goode’s
Divine Rule of Faith, Preface, p. 16, referring to two centuries ago.

{9a}  Newman’s Lectures on Romanism, &c. p. 23.

{9b}  See OVERTON, p. 71, 72, 82, 92.  ROBERTSON observes, in his History
of America, p. 163, “Of all the Reformed churches, that of England has
deviated the least from the ancient institutions . . .  Though the
Articles to be recognized as the system of national faith were framed
_conformable to the doctrines of Calvin_, his notions with respect to
church government and the mode of worship were not adopted.”  See the
same testimony in Mosheim, Eccles. Hist. vol. iv. p. 87, 88.  Bishop
Burnet says, “In England, the first Reformers were _generally in the
sublapsarian hypothesis_; but Perkins and others asserted the
_supralapsarian_ way.”—Exposition of the Articles, p. 151.  Dr. Heylin, a
zealous Arminian, has the following testimony.  “Of any men who publicly
opposed the Calvinian tenets in this University” (Oxford) “till after the
beginning of King James’s reign, I must confess that I have hitherto
found no good assurance.”  Buckridge, tutor to Abp. Laud, and Houson, are
all he can name.  Quinq. Hist. Works, p. 626.  When Laud preceded about
suppressing Calvinistic doctrines, he could not “venture the determining
of those points to a Convocation,” so general was the disposition of the
bishops and clergy in favour of them.  Heylin’s Life of Laud, p. 147.
Bishop Burnet’s honest observations, in the close of his discussion of
the Seventeenth Article, will not be forgotten.  “It is not to be denied,
but that the Article seems to be framed according to St. Austin’s
doctrine.”  . . .  “Since the Remonstrants do not deny but that GOD,
having foreseen what all mankind would, according to all the different
circumstances in which they should be put, do or not do, He upon that did
by a firm and eternal decree lay that whole design in all its branches,
which He executes in time; they may subscribe this Article without
renouncing their opinion as to this matter.  On the other hand, the
Calvinists have less occasion for scruple; since the Article does seem
more plainly to favour them.”

{11}  Tract 90, p. 82.  They affirm that their interpretation of the
Articles was intended to be admissible, though not that which the authors
took themselves.  This is the old way of putting darkness for light
further carried out.  Dr. Powell, Archdeacon of Colchester, and Master of
St. John’s College, Cambridge, preached a sermon some forty years ago to
instruct the University in the matter of subscribing to the Articles.
And he says, “Where the _original sense_ is one, and the _received_
another, the subscriber is at liberty to use them in either.”  But he
never went so far as to say that the subsequently received sense was
_intended to be admissible_ by the compilers.  And Dr. Hey, the Norrisian
Professor, speaks of “a religious society changing its doctrines, and yet
retaining the expressions by which they were defined;” and says, “In
whatever degree the Articles grow obsolete, the Injunction, (that is, the
Royal Declaration,) must grow so,” notwithstanding it commands
interpretation in the literal sense; and “that a man, by speaking
according to the literal sense, may speak falsehood.”—Lectures, vol. ii.
p. 68, 72, 74.  This mode of dealing with the Articles, when strongly
carried out, as in the present case, issues, of course, in a total
change.  See Overton, p. 22–26.

{12}  British Critic, July, 1841, p. 45.

{13a}  Tracts for the Times, No, 71, p. 8, No. 78, p. 2.

{13b}  Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom,
Jewel, Hooker, Morton, Hall, Laud, Ussher, Taylor, Stillingfleet, and
many others.  See Goode’s Divine Rule, ii. 484, &c.  The importance of
this question, according to the testimony of Roman Catholics themselves,
is evident from such passages as the following from Lumper, Hist. Theol.
vol. iii. p. 362.  “If Protestants would admit that the complete Rule of
Faith is Scripture joined with Divine Tradition, all the other
controversies between us and them would soon cease.”  See Goode, i. 103.

{14}  2 Tim. iii. 15–17.

{15a}  Cor. ii. 2, and i. 23.

{15b}  In Tract 81, p, 75, adverting to expressions including the terms
_Christ crucified_, they say, “It may be seen by an attention to the
context in all the passages, where these expressions occur, that it is a
very different view, and in fact the opposite to the modern notion, which
St. Paul always intends by it.  It is the necessity of OUR being
crucified to the world; it is OUR humiliation together with Him;
mortification of the flesh; being made conformable to His sufferings and
death.  It was a doctrine which was foolishness to the wise, and an
offence to the Jew, on account of the debasement of the natural man which
it implied.”

{16a}  Brit. Crit. for April, 1842, p. 446.

{16b}  Newman’s Lectures on Justification, p. 160, 236, 247.

{16c}  Pusey’s Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 71.

{16d}  Newman’s Lecture on Justification, p. 68.

{16e}  Tract 90, p. 13.

{17}  Tract 80 and 87.

{18}  That Aristotle should teach that we are to become right-minded by
acting rightly, is not to be wondered at.  He knew nothing of the work of
the Spirit of God, or of the love of Christ, or of the impossibility (see
Acts x. and xii.) of our acting rightly without the grace of the Holy
Spirit to give a right mind first.  But that Oxford Divines should teach
so is to be wonderfully “dark amidst the blaze of noon!”

{19}  To be grafted into the church is to be outwardly admitted into the
enjoyment of church privileges and ordinances.  _Rightly_ means, not as
hypocrites, but with the repentance and faith of the regenerate.  The
wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, do receive the sacrament
of so great a thing as regeneration to their condemnation.  Not receiving
baptism rightly, they have no true part in the privileges and ordinances
of the church, which are thereby sealed to the faithful.

{20}  When the invitation is received, “Arise, and be baptised, and wash
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord,” (Acts xxii. 16,)—our
church has guided us at once to say, it is the _mystical_, that is, the
_significant_, washing away of sins, that is then accomplished; _but_ so
_signifying_ the _true_, that a lively recollective enjoyment of it is
excited in the mind.  When we are called to obtain the true remission of
sins, it is thus,—“Repent,” (there is the spiritual operation,) “and be
baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ,” (there is the
outward sign) “for the remission of sins;” or, without any notice of the
sign at all, “Repent, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted
out.”  But repentance, and faith, and conversion, are the fruits of
regeneration.  Baptism was no more intended to _impart_ the spiritual
cleansing from sin, than was the offering of the blood of bullocks and
goats; and yet the people are spoken of as purged by that blood, and
remission of sins as received by it.  It was only a mystical
ceremony.—Circumcision was the same: the thing itself was mystical: And
Baptism is its counterpart; and both of them are significant of the
remission of sins, “the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh,” a
death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness in Christ Jesus,
effected by the Holy Spirit of God implanting the seed of the Word of
Christ in the soul and vivifying it; before even it is proper that
baptism should be administered.

{22a}  1 John v. 1.  Whosoever believeth that JESUS is the CHRIST is born
of GOD.

{22b}  “Except a man be born of _water_ and of the HOLY GHOST, he cannot
enter the kingdom of GOD.”  Of the HOLY GHOST comes the spiritual birth,
and thereby the entrance into the spiritual kingdom or church of GOD: if
the water of baptism be meant, then also figurative birth, and
concurrently the visible kingdom or church to which baptism is the only
door: a proper parallelism of idea being sustained.  But probably, as the
expression “baptize with the HOLY GHOST and with fire,” means, _baptize
with the_ HOLY GHOST _as a spirit of burning_, so “born of water and of
the HOLY GHOST” means, “_born of the_ HOLY GHOST _as a Spirit of
washing_,” the real “washing of regeneration.”  This last expression is
most frequently understood, and by Archbishop Whitgift and Bishop Hopkins
amongst others, to refer to the sacramental washing, not the spiritual.
But why the force of the term _regeneration_ should _not_ preponderate
over that of _washing_, I cannot see.  So “the washing of water by the
Word,” wherewith CHRIST sanctifies and cleanses His church, is the
ablution, like as of water, that is by the Word, when the HOLY GHOST uses
that Word in the hearts of men.

{23a}  Matt. iii. 11.

{23b}  1 Cor. xii. 13.

{23c}  Rom. vi. 3, 4, 6, 13.

{24a}  1 Pet. iii. 21.

{24b}  Col. ii. 11, 12, 13.

{24c}  James i. 18

{25a} 1 Pet. i. 23, 25.

{25b} 1 John iii. 9, 10.

{25c}  See Scott’s Remarks on Bishop Tomline’s Refutation of Calvinism,
vol. ii. p. 197.

“There may be in divers cases,” says Hooker, “life by virtue of inward
baptism, where outward is not found.”  B. v. 60.

The same may be argued concerning the real “forgiveness of sins,” and the
mystical forgiveness.  There is one spiritual baptism for the actual, and
one sacramental baptism, significant of the same thing, for the
significant remission.  Equally distinct and separate, and even more so,
if possible, is justification; of the possession of which by means of
baptism the Scriptures say not a word, neither the Church of England, nor
any other church, but the Church of Rome.

{26}  Sermons for the Times, p. 29, 30.

{27a}  The revival of “stations” for confession, of “the rod of
discipline,” and “the robe of shame,” with other matters of penance, is
wishfully inquired after, and may possibly ere long be brought about.
See Wordsworth’s Sermon on Evangelical repentance.

{27b}  Tract 79, p. 5.

{27c}  Wordsworth’s Sermon, p. 42.

{28a}  Tracts, vol. i.  Advt.

{28b}  Tract 4, p. 5.  Theirs is stated to be “the only church in this
realm, which has a right to be quite sure that it has the LORD’S body to
give to His people.”

{30}  A pledge has respect to a _thing future_.  The _proper_ order of
regeneration is to _precede_ baptism, which cannot correctly therefore be
a pledge of it?  Where does Scripture so represent it?  Circumcision was
not a pledge to Abraham of the righteousness he _had_: a “seal” it was.

It is easy enough to state and explain the sound meaning belonging to our
ritual and catechism.  But it should be quite clear and obvious at the
first glance, without explanation.  The verbal expressions should be
such, as that the right meaning only should present itself to the mind of
the reader.

{31a}  Where our twenty-fifth Article says, that by the sacraments God
doth not only _quicken_, but also _confirm_ our faith in Him, “the Latin
has _nostramque fidem in se non solum excitat_, (not _vivificat_) _verum
etiam confirmat_.”—See the Latin Articles in Burnet.

{31b}  Pusey’s Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 51.

{32a}  Tract 90, p. 3.

{32b}  The sermon is printed almost entirely as it was written; but in
preaching, the whole of this section, to the end of the second head, was
omitted, on account of the time.  A few other paragraphs were also
shortened in the delivery, but the sense universally preserved.

{33a}  Melancthon, Loci. Com. Sig. de Monstr. Eccles.

{33b}  St. Paul adverts to the laying of the hands of the presbytery upon
Timothy, and the laying of his own hands upon him; most probably
referring to the same thing.  St. Paul, himself a presbyter, possessed an
actual _superiority_, like other apostles, among many presbyters; which,
by Divine Providence, was continued in the church: and they who were
advanced to it had the name of Bishop (once general among the presbyters)
assigned and limited to them.

In the ordination of Deacons, our Church appoints the laying on of the
hands of the Bishop only.  For more of her views respecting ordination,
see Burnet on the twenty-third Article.  And note the liberal style of
the article itself.

{35}  Hooker, (Book VI.) shows that with respect to sin generally, the
Church, or the ministers thereof, can only _declare_ the divine
absolution of the truly repenting sinner believing in Jesus.  She
_actually remits_ only such outward sins as she can take ecclesiastical
cognizance of, and can retain and censure until openly repented of and
confessed.  Our Church expresses herself better in her Liturgical
Absolution, than in that for the Visitation of the Sick, which might be
improved.

{37}  Tracts, vol. ii.  Advt.

{38a}  Rom. x. 13, &c.

{38b}  Acts xiii. 38, 39.

{39a}  Collect for the Ordering of Priests, “Most merciful Father,” &c.

{39b}  Tract 87, p. 75.

{39c}  1 Peter i. 12.

{39d}  1 Cor. ii. 4.

{39e}  I have said nothing of many other grounds of revived difference
asserted by the Anglo-catholics; such as the Eucharistic sacrifice for
the quick and dead, the invocation of saints, the worshipping of images
and relics, and the spiritual supremacy of the Pope: it is enough to
mention them.  If those who assert all these things have the Holy Ghost,
those who deny them have Him not.

{40}  Heb. iii. 7–11.

{42}  Exod. xxx. 31–33.

{43}  See also Col. i. 28, 29.—“CHRIST—whom we preach, warning every man,
and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man
perfect in CHRIST JESUS: whereunto I also labour, striving according to
His working, which worketh in me mightily.”

{46}  Ephes. iv. 12.  Acts xxvi. 18.

{47}  Acts v. 36, 37.