Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

time that, by the conditions of this wonderful union, the things belonging both to God and man belong to Jesus Christ our Lord.

In the light of this subject the question, Did the divine nature participate in the sufferings of Christ? is easily answered. If it be meant, Did the divine sympathize with the human? the fact of the union of the two is sufficient to demonstrate, not only sympathy with this nature, but with all the race which this is to redeem. But if it be intended to ask whether the divine nature suffered by this sympathy, one might assert even dogmatically, if it were necessary, that it did not and could - not. So far as we know, suffering implies weakness. Now since we also know that God is not weak, and have no intimation from the Scriptures that he suffered or can suffer, he is indeed a poor Baconian, and a reckless theological adventurer, who, in the face of so broad an induction, would argue against all parity of reason, that the divine nature suffered in the person of Christ. We have no patience, and ought to have none, with the sickly sentimentalism and vaporing theology which know no better way to make man happy than to make divinity suffer. We ought at least to be able to assume, in the discussion of this point, that no one would assert such suffering on the part of the divine nature of Christ, unless he was convinced that the exigencies of the case demanded it; for there are few minds so unappreciative that they will not find the scenes of the cross and Calvary sufficiently tragic without adding fiction. to facts. But not only do these exigencies not demand such suffering, but the nature of the case forbids that it should be.

The penalty of the law is death, and not suffering, only as the former involves the latter. Much that Christ suffered, we dare not try to determine how much was intended to qualify him for the work of his priesthood. The necessity for this terrible discipline involves a mystery too deep for our feeble comprehension. Nor should we dare to tread this road at all had not an apostle, guided by the light of inspiration, gone before us. Paul says: "It became him in bringing many sons unto glory to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings "-" For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." If the penalty consisted in both suffering and death, and it

were thought necessary that the divine nature should suffer in order to make atonement, would it not appear just as necessary, and for the same reasons precisely, that that nature should die as well as suffer? If the penalty were suffering, the completeness of the scheme of redemption might depend on the quantity of those sufferings. But this is not so. The commercial idea of the atonement is now pretty much abandoned, and very justly. Declarations to the effect that Christ suffered in his person as much as would have been inflicted on the race, or even on a single soul, are derogatory to the scheme of redemption, and leave no room at all for the exercise of mercy. The Gospel offer of salvation to man goes not, therefore, on the principle of quid pro quo, so many grains of suffering for so many ounces of mercy scrupulously and parsimoniously weighed out, but upon the principle of substitution, the death of the innocent instead of the guilty. The penalty being death, the suffering of the divine nature in no way assists the human in dying. So far from it, that it seemed impossible for Jesus to die until God had forsaken him. It was this, and not the crucifixion, justice, and not man, that executed the penalty

on the offered substitute.

It should be distinctly remarked here that the doctrine of substitution does not go upon the assumption that the acceptance of a substitute gives the law any new force, or justice any rights not previously possessed. The penalty could be inflicted only on the nature of the transgressor, or on a like nature substituted therefor. Hence "Christ took not on him the nature of angels." If he had, the lower nature in the person so constituted would have been at least one grade higher than that on which justice had claim for the sin of man. But if justice had no right to inflict penalties on angelic natures, much less had it on the divine. But now Christ took on him the seed of Abraham, that he might have whereof to offer; as it is written, "A body hast thou prepared me."

But it may be asked, Wherefore was it necessary that Christ should take on him the seed of Abraham or human nature at all? The answer is, that, so far as we can see, it was necessary because atonement without it was impossible. For where all are guilty, and alike under the same penalty, and that penalty death, it requires no argument to prove that substitution

is out of the question. But suppose we have given the manhood of Christ without the divine Logos united with it, we have now a sinless nature, and one not under the penalty, but one that is nevertheless necessarily disqualified for performing the functions of a vicar in the high sense demanded; because the nature and person are under law, the demands of which it is impossible they should ever transcend. The state of the case is plainly this: the sacrifice must be more than a creature, and in some sense less than a god. To this conclusion we never could have come had not the great mystery been enacted before us. Precisely what is needed, but what never could have been invented by any human genius, or the combined wisdom of any age, or of all ages, is plainly realized in the person of our Redeemer. In him we have the sinless nature, not under the penalty, and of the same grade or kind with that which is taken up by its union with the divinity into a higher personality than that on which the infracted law has claim. The same truths precisely which St. Paul comprehends in these words: "For such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens." Thus the object of the incarnation seems to have been, to make it possible for humanity to suffer for humanity under, if I may so speak, the patronage of the person of the Son of God, to accomplish which it seems there was no other way than to take this humanity up into that divine personality. It was thus sacrifice was made possible, and super-legal merit obtained.

If now it be required, in order to our salvation, that this divine person shall suffer, to do this it will not be necessary that he should suffer in his divine nature; for, as we have already seen, whatever is done or suffered in either nature is done and suffered by the divine person Christ. Christ must suffer that man may live; but this suffering is achieved as truly by inflicting the penalty, death, on his human nature, which is of the same kind with that under the curse, and on which the law has claim, as it would by involving the divine nature in these sufferings, on which the law has no claim.

ART., VIII.-FOREIGN RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE.

PROTESTANTISM.

GREAT BRITAIN.

THE ESSAYS AND REVIEWs.-The late decision of the judicial committee of the Privy Council continued to be the subject of much agitation among the members of the Church of England. The most important document which the decision has called forth was drawn up at a meeting held at Oxford on the 25th of February. This "Oxford Declaration" is to the following effect:

We, the undersigned, presbyters and deacons in holy orders of the Church of England and Ireland, hold it to be our bounden duty to the Church of England and Ireland, and to the souls of men, to declare our firm belief that the Church of England and Ireland, in common with the whole Catholic Church, maintains without reserve or qualification the inspiration or divine authority of the whole canonical Scriptures, as not only containing but being the word of God; and further teaches, in the words of our blessed Lord, that the "punishment" of the "cursed," equally with the "life" of the "righteous," is everlasting."

The committee by whom this "Declaration" was framed consists of Dr. Clerke, Archdeacon of Oxford; Dr. Cotton, Provost of Worcester College; Archdeacon Denison; the Rev. W. R. Freemantle; Dr. Leighton, Warden of All Souls'; Dr. Miller, of Birmingham, and Dr. Pusey. This list contains the names of the leaders of both the High Churchmen and the Evangelical Party, and the majority of the clergymen of both parties hastened, consequently, to subscribe to it. There were, however, some notable exceptions. There was, first of all, a question raised respecting the lawfulness of signing it. Certain clergymen, foremost among whom stands Dr. Goode, Dean of Ripon, who agreed in principle with the "Declaration," were doubtful as to the legality of signing it, and a case was therefore prepared on the subject for the consideration and opinion of counsel. A joint opinion was obtained from Mr. A. J. Stephens, Q.C., LL.D., and Mr. J. C. Trail. The opinion sets forth that "it is evident that the declarants impeach the judgment of the judicial committee by affirming the converse of the propositions

established by the judgment; and that fact, taken in connection with the language and tenor of the Declaration' and its title, is open to no other reasonable construction than that of an intention on the part of the declarants not to submit to the judgment pronounced by the queen." The opinion concludes in the following terms: "Under the foregoing acts and circumstances we are of opinion that it is not consistent with the obligations under which the clergy have placed themselves by their subscription to the three articles contained in the ' declaration' 36th canon to sign the drawn up at the meeting held at Oxford on the 25th of February, 1864."

[ocr errors]

On the other hand, however, an opinion was obtained from the attorney general (Sir Roundell Palmer) and Sir Hugh Cairns, two of the ablest lawyers of the English bar, declaring that while "the observance of articles 1 and 37 will of course involve, among other things, obedience and respect to any judgment, that is, to any sentence which the sovereign may pronounce in an ecclesiastical cause, on the recommendation of the judicial committee of the Privy Council," this is wholly distinct from an assent to or acquiescenee in the reasoning or statements pursued or advanced by members of the judicial committee as the grounds of their recommendation to Her Majesty." "It is to this sentence of the sovereign, and to that alone, that the subjects of the sovereign, both lay and clerical, have to look; and it is the sentence which those who are affected by it have to obey." The two eminent jurists, therefore, hold it to be not in any way unlawful to subscribe to the Oxford Declaration.

Other parties condemned the declaration itself. One of the first among these was the Rev. F. D. Maurice, who branded it with the designation of a new test, and asserted that the agreement between the High Churchmen and the Evangelicals was only brought about by each one putting upon the words of the declaration a different meaning. He thought that even Dr. Williams and Mr. Wilson, the condemned essayists, might sign it, if they would follow such an example. This called out a declaration from Mr. Wilson, to this effect, that he

would not sign it if he could and could not if he would. A spicy correspondence also ensued between Dr. Pusey and F. D. Maurice, in the columns of the London Times, and both combatants, though clergymen of the same Church, came at length to the conclusion that they did not "believe in the same God." Some low churchmen opposed it, because in view of the Romanizing tendencies of the high church party they deemed it the right course of the evangelical body to stand off from any amalgamation with persons holding such dangerous opinions. High Church clergymen, on the other hand, refused their signatures because the word "presbyter" had been used instead of "priest." Nevertheless, the declaration received the signatures of some twelve thousand clergymen, a clear majority of the entire clergy of the Established Church, which in all numbers about nineteen thousand clergymen. The petition was presented by a large deputation, on May 12, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who on this occasion was accompanied by the Bishops of Carlisle, Gloucester, and Bristol, St. Asaphs, Bangor, Rochester, Moray and Ross. archbishop, in the name of the bishops of the United Church of England and Ireland, expressed his joy at the sentiments expressed in this declaration. It strengthened, he remarked, their conviction that the Church would never be disposed to propagate opinions tending to subvert the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The bishops, on their part, would ever feel it to be their duty to maintain the authoritative teaching of the Church, humbly trusting to receive guidance from above.

The

Soon after the publication of the judgment of the Privy Council, the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a pastoral letter to the clergy and laity of the province of Canterbury, setting forth his views respecting the decision. The archbishop states that while he would not undertake to define inspiration, he accepted the testimony of the Church that the Bible was God's word written, and therefore Dr. Williams must be wrong in saying that it is only the voice of devout reason in the congregation. As to his acquiescence in the judgment on the point bearing upon eternal punishment, he says it arose from no doubt in his own mind that the Church teaches the eternity both of rewards and of pun

|

ishments, but that from the misty way in which Mr. Wilson had put his views, he doubted whether they had the meaning which the prosecutors attached to them.

In the session of the Convocation of Canterbury, which opened on the 19th of April, the subject of the Essays and Reviews came again before the bishops, in consequence of a deputation from the lower house having brought up a gravamen, signed by forty "dignified and beneficed" clergymen, affirming that injury had been done to the Church by the delay of synodical judgment upon the subject, and that it was expedient now to proceed to such judgment. The Bishop of Oxford explained that the action of convocation with regard to this volume had slumbered since July, 1861, in consequence of the book being under the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Now that these courts had definitely and so lamentably determined the question, the authority of this convocation revived; and he proposed that they should not allow the matter to rest longer. After showing that it was in the power of this convocation to deal with the book, and even, as some lawyers thought, with the authors too, though he did not propose that, he proceeded to say that he thought the authority of the convocation would come in to supplement the defects of the Privy Council. He held that the Church had some power to deal with error, and that power was not possessed by the judicial committee of the Privy Council, which could only try the subtle forms of modern heresy by the honest literal application of ancient formularies, that had scarcely any bearing on these new heresies. A condemnation of the "Essays" by the House of Bishops, he believed, would tend, in the minds of many, to re-establish a faith which had been grievously shaken. He moved the appointment of a committee to consider and report on the subject. The Bishops of London and St. David's opposed the motion. The Bishop of St. David's said it would be better to sign a dogmatic declaration of doctrine than to undertake such work as that. He then criticised severely the Oxford Declaration, and declared that so far from considering the eleven thousand names appended to it as adding any weight to its statements, he regarded them "in the light of a row of figures preceded by a decimal point." "The declaration was a sort of moral

« IndietroContinua »