Page images
PDF
EPUB

the close of the Tudor epoch; but though this was done by the first Stuart, yet the Bible as the Bible was not revised, only the previous translations and MSS. None of its precepts or doctrines, though changed as to the mere outward expression, were altered in their spirit and application. So should it be with standards of faith. A revision to suit the changes of language is not a revision of the matter of faith, nor, when it does take place, is it any proof that standards of faith are or ought to be revisable. In fact, it proves just the opposite, viz., the care of the church to preserve intact the matter of her articles of faith by adapting them to the common language, so that, as all can understand, none may have an excuse for rejecting or disregarding them.

The argument of G. M. S. (p. 40), deducible from the fact that different minds perceive things differently, defeats itself. For, firstly, things which can be fully understood and comprehended by all do not form the matter of a creed. They are not the objects of religious faith, which is the expectation of things hoped for, the conviction of undiscernible things. And the origin of creeds was as G. M. S. describes on the same page. But, secondly, supposing standards to be revisable in order to suit the new ideas of the varied schools of theology, it is manifest that there could be no standards at all, or that their number would be innumerable, each man forming his own to suit his taste, or the way in which he, as G. M. S., conceives faith, or rather the matter of it.

Again, the argument that standards, as in the case of that branch of the Church Catholic established in England, do not secure uniformity, is no argument against their use. Because, in the first place, it is not the fault of these standards, which are explicit enough, but of the delays and glorious uncertainty of the civil law. A revision may be needed of the method of dealing with ecclesiastical offenders, but this has nothing to do with standards of faith. Indeed, were these standards revisable at pleasure, it is manifest that the church would be continually making ex post facto laws, and have really no power of determining what was heresy or of judging any offenders; for it is evident that, assuming the advisability of revising the standards of faith, they would be altered each time any cause célèbre—as that of the Essayists and Reviewers, Bishop Colenso, &c.-turned up, to suit the new ideas of such persons; and also that any other future offender would feel certain that a new change would be made to suit his fresh views, and justly feel himself aggrieved if such measure were not dealt out to him.

With the origin of creeds given by G. M. S. on (p. 43) I cannot agree, and it is quite contradictory to that given on (p. 40). There were not standards of faith at first. There was but one standard; and here I boldly accept the challenge thrown down by "R. D. Robjent," and declare that as there was at first but one standard, so now there should be but one. But this does not prevent the use of varied formularies, as those of Bangor, Lincoln, Hereford, and Salisbury, to which he and others allude. There is one faith, though

diversity of expression. It was so in the days of Tertullian, who more than once alludes to it, yet did not on that account consider the church divided. It is no doubt better that all the realm should have but one use, and so it was enacted by the reformers, but there was no schism though there was diversity in the early history of the Christian church.

66

Ruddy," in his article, shows the necessity for creeds; and if there were nothing more to appeal to than to the Bible, a case would certainly be made out for diversity of creeds, or for revision whenever thought convenient. Every sect claims that its creed is in all parts consistent with the Bible; in every case the Scriptures are wrested to the support of certain theories, or to the spiritual destruction of those who hold them. But there is something more than this to appeal to,-not as overriding the teaching of Scripture, but as supplementing and explaining it, and this is the custom and doctrine of the primitive church, as noted in the writings of the fathers. “R. D. Robjent" may sneer at the idea of successors of the apostles, but there can be no doubt that there were such successors in the bishops or overseers of the various churches founded by the apostles, who were fully informed as to apostolic doctrine and practice, and if not inspired themselves, received their instruction and commands from those who were.

The recommendation of "Ruddy" and others to have a periodical revision of standards of faith is not tenable, because on his (and their) own showing these should only be altered when new ideas absolutely demand it; and it is quite possible, even when the time "Ruddy" would allow for the periodical revision came round, there would be nothing to revise, and the faith of the many would be unnecessarily disturbed.

The fact that the general opinion of the educated now is contrary to that of the same class in the seventeenth century, as to the method and time of the Creation, does not invalidate the Westminster Confession, which declares it to have been performed in six days. The point between a believer and an unbeliever is not what time the Creation occupied, but whether there was a creation at all, or whether all things are not the result of chance. The Westminster Confession and the fourth commandment of the moral law do not state the length of the days, but the cardinal fact that there was a creation. Again, I believe in the existence of a heaven and hell, of angels good and evil, but it is probable that my conceptions of these things are very different from those of others who still believe in their existence. There is a certain right of private judgment to be conceded, but this does not go so far as the sticklers for it suppose. Seeing there are so many religious denominations existing, the right must be conceded for each man to judge which of the many appears to him to be most in accordance with the one original standard originally delivered, and to adhere to that; but having once done so, he cannot expect that that sect will continually alter its creed to suit the new ideas of himself or others.

66

I do not consider that I have run my head into such a snare as Ruddy" has described. The revision that is desiderated by my opponents is a revision to suit new and modern ideas, not a return to the old standard. Now I maintain that a return to the old standard by any of those churches which, as I have said, have obscured and almost nullified the truth, would not be a revision at all, and would only prove more forcibly still the irrevisability of standards, or rather of the standard. The Reformation was not a revision of the standards, but simply a clearing away of the errors which had accumulated during many ages, a repudiating of them on the part of those branches of the Church Catholic established in England and other countries, and a determination on their part to return as far as was then possible to the pure doctrines and practices of the primitive Christians. The church hath authority in controversies of faith to decide what is or is not in accordance with the standard, but it has no power to impose new articles of belief on its members. When, in early times, the Nicene and Athanasian creeds were promulgated, they were not promulgations of new doctrines, but a reiteration of what was and had been the belief of the Catholic Church, and as such a condemnation of those who differed from them. So that I do not concede to the church the right to settle a question of faith one way or the other, as Ruddy" implies; its province in this respect is like that of a court of equity, and sentence must be given in accordance with ancient decrees and longestablished usage. The consequences predicted do not thus inevitably follow, and though we are bidden to prove all things, we are enjoined to hold fast the good. The article of "R. D. Robjent" next claims my careful consideration. Strange to say, my pen does not tremble as I write; I do not feel mortally wounded and at my last gasp; my armour is, I believe, unshattered, my lance unbroken, and I really feel sufficiently strong to enter the lists again to meet "R. D. Robjent" or any other knightly comer in fair and open tourney. I hope often to meet my present friendly opponent in the pages of the Controversialist; and while I esteem him for the work in which I believe him to be engaged, and respect him for the manner in which he has expressed his opinion, I at the outset express my total dissent from that opinion. To much of the matter of his article I have already replied by anticipation in meeting the views of others of my opponents, and little therefore remains to be noticed.

66

Standards of faith must refer to doctrines, persons, or things, or qualities-as the existence of the Deity, His attributes, the origin, present and future condition of man,-and these qualities and existences remain the same whatever may be the doctrine or teaching delivered concerning them. If the teaching of the church on these points has once been right; if, in short, the church ever has held the truth, there can be no doubt that any departure therefrom is manifest heresy, and is to be censured accordingly. I believe that the Christian church in its early days-when presided 1866.

2 E

over by the apostles, who were undoubtedly, whatever "R. D. Robjent" may say or think, the immediate messengers of that Lord who had promised to be with them continually (and consequently with their successors) until the end of time, and who were under the immediate influence of that Spirit which was promised for the express purpose of guiding them into every truth-held the truth, and that she delivered this truth unsullied to the saints, embodied in creeds and formularies. This, I think, is manifest from the consideration of the passages cited in my first paper, the object of which was not, as R. D. R. seems to think, to show what was sound doctrine, but simply to prove that there was then one and only one standard of faith recognized by the church. That the decrees of the church at the time were inspired, and so infallible, we gather from the report of the first great council, Acts xv. 28. It is not, then, probable that man, however much he may be advanced in knowledge now, will have a clearer insight into the truth than those who received divine aid for this very purpose. Any alteration, except it be a return to the primitive state of the church, is a change for the worse, and that branch of the Church Catholic which at the present day approaches nearest in doctrine and practice to that form which existed in apostolic times, and during the first century of the Christian era, is the nearest to the truth, and holds the faith once delivered in the greatest integrity, if I may be allowed the expression. It is not needed, in order to belief in them, that creeds be taken word for word from the Bible, but that they be in accordance with it; but, as the Church of England Articleex presses it, "the three creeds, the Nicene Creed, St. Athanasius's Creed, and that commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed, (not because they are taken verbatim from the Bible, but) because they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture." I will endeavour to put myself on the right side of the hedge with R. D. R., though I do not think I have been on the wrong side, by stating that the bishops intended on p. 38 are the overseers of the various churches, wherever and however constituted. It is not connection with this or that church or government which constitutes a man a bishop, but consecration at the hands of a bishop and presbyters, who have themselves been consecrated and ordained by others, deriving their ordination from others similarly set apart, and so back and back to the earliest times of the Christian church. In concluding my reply to the article of "R. D. Robjent" I cannot help expressing my doubt that the day will ever come when creeds will be things of the past, and the Bible be the only recognized standard, because then there would be no church at all; every man would believe that which was right in his own eyes, and not a few wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. But as the Church is to exist till the coming of her Bridegroom and Lord, such a thing cannot take place.

The warning note of the editor is ringing in my ears, and therefore I can only partially notice the article of W. I will do so in a

66

matter which concerns myself personally. W. will see, on reperusing my article (p. 35), that I have not reasoned in a circle. Though I asked the question, Ought there to be a standard?" I of course, from the title of the debate, assumed that those who took part in it would allow that there was or ought to be a standard; and then, from the considerations given in the same page, I endeavoured to show how, on a mere prima facie view of the subject, it appeared that standards should be irrevisable; but, as W. must be well aware, this was not the whole of my proof, or anything like it. As Bacon observes ("Advancement of Learning," book ix.), "In religion the first propositions are self-existent, and subsist of themselves, uncontrolled by that reason which deduces the subsequent propositions."

In conclusion, I have to thank my coadjutors for the able papers which they have contributed to what I believe the rational and logical view of the question. With the readers of this Magazine the question now rests, and I only exhort each and all to "prove all things;" to "hold fast the faith once delivered to the saints;" and say "let each be fully persuaded in his own mind." R. S.

NEGATIVE REPLY.

"I would only ask why the Civil State should be purged and restored by good and wholesome laws made every third or fourth year in Parliament assenibled, devising remedies as fast as time breedeth mischief, while, contrariwise, the Ecclesiastical State should still continue upon the dregs of time and receive no alteration?"-Lord Bacon.

THIS subject has now been fully as well as ably discussed, and we shall endeavour to reply to some of the arguments adduced in support of the affirmative side of the question in as brief a space as we possibly can. Of course all standards of religious faith are based on Holy Writ; and we understood that this debate was limited to the standard compiled from the Scriptures by men, not whether the Scriptures should be revised. But since it has been brought forward, it matters very little to us. We admit that faith is unchangeable-that it is the same through all ages, but then the present generation will not accept the religious beliefs and teachings of the twelfth century. A great deal of superstition is liable to gather about faith. In the interval a great many changes have taken place; so that civilization has been greatly extended, and knowledge has greatly increased. People are therefore more qualified to judge for themselves, even on matters of faith, as to what may or may not be consistent with their own minds. But it is contended that, as faith is unchangeable, all the standards of faith which might have been framed ten centuries ago by the narrowminded bigots that then lived are binding on those who live at the present day. This is the ground taken up, and we shall consider what has been advanced in its support. R. S. gives certainly no evidence, except a number of scriptural quotations, which prove nothing except the infallibility of the Bible. He has not, however,

« PreviousContinue »