Miscellanea.

MINISTERIAL CONSISTENCY.

THE REV. MR. MORISON AND THE ARMINIAN CREED.

[We beg it may be distinctly understood, that by inserting the following communication, we do not express any opinion on the subject at issue between our correspondent and the gentleman on the other side. Our sole motive is to shew, that the difference between the two parties consists more in words than in sentiments, and thus to induce a closer union of effort in spreading the influence of the common salvation.-EDIT.]

To the Editor of the Scripture Magazine.

SIR-The paper which you did me the favour to insert in your liberal columns, and in which I presented, as the sequel demonstrates, a sort of unanswerable question, has excited no inconsiderable sensation of surprise and concern. Wherever it has met the notice of such as are living in the spirit and practice of Christ's" peace-makers," and who are consequently alive to the importance of that excellent patriarchal admonition, "See that ye fall not out by the way," a secret but perceptible sigh has involuntarily heaved the bosom, and a general and pathetic exclamation has appeared to burst spontaneously from the heart-"When shall the happy day arrive, that the obliquity of human jealousies and jaundiced prejudices shall be driven, root and branch, from its strong hold, and the half-smothered, suffocating fire of party spirit give place to the pure and holy flame of beneficence and good-will to all mankind!" May the God of love, and peace, and concord, hasten and consummate his own work in his own way!

I am aware of the delicate situation in which you are placed by this appeal, from the rage of party zealots; and although I appear not in the field of controversy to advocate or defend the peculiar doctrines of any party, but simply as a general pleader for the outraged cause of consistency and truth; yet this will not suffice. You will still be reproached with the high crime of fostering Arminian heresies; and ail the consequent heavy penalties and responsibilities will be piled like a mountain upon your own devoted head. I shall, therefore, very cheerfully submit my paper to be weighed in your own balance, and am con

tent either to be brought forward or cast upon the fire. If, however, the topic is at all admissible, I would proceed at once" to the law and to the testimony."

The Arminian Creed has been publicly stigmatized from a highly respectable pulpit, as a delusive system, made up of "works" and "will-worship"! As one of the hearers, I ask for the authorities upon which such portentous assertions are grounded, and I am answered by a sullen but expressive silence!

In the passage which I quoted from Mr. Morison's sermon in my last (p. 310), there are two things implied, each of which I feel no hesitation in stating to be utterly incorrect:-first, that, according to the Arminian system, a sinner possesses an inherent power to repent and obey the gospel; and, secondly, that he regards his works as meretorious, and thus affording a ground of dependence for his acceptance with God.

Now, in contradiction of these positions, I might refer to the whole body of Arminian writers. But as the Methodist Society does not stand pledged to the individual opinion of its members, I shall confine myself to the expressed sentiments of its venerable founder, which are regarded as the standard of the Methodistic creed.

From Mr. Wesley's sermon on Jer. xxiii. 6 :- "All believers are forgiven and accepted, not for the sake of any thing in them, or any thing that ever was, that is, or ever can be done by them, but wholly and solely for the sake of what Christ hath done and suffered for them. I say again, not for the sake of any thing in them, or done by them, of their own righteousness or works. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but of his own mercy he saved us. By grace are ye saved through faith. Not of works, lest any man should boast ;' but wholly and solely for the sake of what Christ hath done and suffered for us."

In reference to the doctrine of " free-will," I find the following appropriate remarks in Mr. Wesley's observations on unsettled notions in religion (p. 191), in reply to the charge which Mr. Morison has reiterated." The assembly of divines, in their confession of faith (c. 9), do expressly say, 'God hath endowed the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity determined to do good or evil.' Mr. Baxter also, in the preface of his Call to the Unconverted, says, that Calvin as well as Arminius held freewill;' and that no man of brains denieth, that man hath a will that is naturally free; it is free from violence,-it is a self-determining principle. Sure here is as much said for free-will as any man need to say, and perhaps more. For, the difference between us is this:--they say, man hath a will which is naturally free; we say, man hath this freedom of will, not naturally, but by grace. We believe, that in the moment Adam fell, he had no freedom of will left, but that God, when of his own free grace he gave the promise of a Saviour to him and his posterity, graciously restored to mankind a liberty and power to accept

VOL. IV.

2 F

of proffered salvation. And in all this, man's boasting is excluded; the whole of that which is good in him, even from the first moment of his will, being of grace, and not of nature."

Upon the doctrine of works, Mr. Wesley submits the following proposition (p. 181):-" Suppose my obedience is the cause of my election to salvation, what is the cause of my obedience? Ans. My love to Christ. But what is the cause of my love to Christ? Ans. My faith in Christ. But what is the cause of my faith in Christ? Ans. The preaching of the gospel of Christ. But what is the cause of the preaching of the gospel to us? Ans. Christ's dying for us. But what is the cause of Christ's dying for us? Ans. God's great love of pity wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses and sins. Thus all men may see, that I do not hold God chose any man to life and salvation for any good which he had done, or for any which was in him, before he put it there "

As a private individual, possessing neither disposition nor ability to enter upon polemic discussion, I shall not attempt to add any remarks of my own. I therefore submit the controversy to the candid consideration of your readers, and will close my paper with a brief extract from Mr. Wesley's sermon on 2 Kings x. 15, exhorting all Christian churches to cultivate a spirit of unity and love.

"Although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, need it prevent our union in affection? Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt we may. Herein all the children of God may unite notwithstanding these smaller differences. These remaining as they are, they may forward one another in love, and in good works. Although, therefore, every follower of Christ is obliged, by the very nature of the Christian institution, to be a member of some particular congregation or other, some church, as it is usually termed, (which implies a particular manner of worshipping God,) for two cannot walk together unless they be agreed; yet none can be obliged by any power on earth, but that of his own conscience, to prefer this or that congregation to another,—this or that particular manner of worship. I know it is commonly supposed, that the place of our birth fixes the church to which we ought to belong; that one, for instance, who is born in England, ought to be a member of that which is styled the Church of England; and consequently to worship God in the particular manner which is prescribed by that church. I was once a zealous maintainer of this; but I find many reasons to abate of this zeal. I fear it is attended with such difficulties, that no reasonable man can get over. Not the least of which is, that if this rule had took place, there could have been no reformation from popery; seeing it entirely destroys the right of private judgment, on which that wholesome reformation stands.

"I dare not, therefore, presume to impose my mode of worship on any other. I believe it is truly primitive and apostolical; but my

belief is no rule for another. I ask not therefore of him with whom I would unite in love, Are you of my church? of my congregation? Do you receive the same form of church government, and allow the same church officers with me? Do you join in the same form of prayer wherein I worship God?' I enquire not, Do you receive the supper of the Lord in the same posture and manner as I do? Nor whether, in the administration of baptism, you agree with me in admitting sureties for the baptized, in the manner of administering it, or the age of those to whom it should be administered. Nay, I ask not of you (as clear as I am in my own mind) whether you allow baptism and the Lord's supper at all? Let all these things stand by; we will talk of them, if need be, at a more convenient season. My only question at present is, “Is thine heart right as my heart is with thy heart? If it be, give me thine hand.' I do not mean, Be of my opinion.' You need not. I do not expect or desire it. Neither do I mean, I will be of your opinion.' I cannot. It does not depend on my choice: I can no more think than I can see or hear as I will. Keep you your opinions, I mine; and that as steadily as ever. You need not even endeavour to come over to me, or bring me over to you. I do not desire you to dispute these points, or to hear or speak one word concerning them. Let all opinions alone on one side and on the other. Only give me thine hand.

"I do not mean, Embrace my modes of worship;' or, I will embrace your's.' This also is a thing which does not depend either on your choice or mine. We must both act, as each is fully persuaded in his own mind. Hold you fast that which you believe is most acceptable to God, and I will do the same. I believe the Episcopal form of church government to be scriptural and apostolical. If you think the Presbyterian or Independent is better, think so still, and act accordingly. I believe infants ought to be baptized, and that this may be done either by dipping or sprinkling. If you are otherwise persuaded, be so still, and follow your own persuasion. It appears to me, that forms of prayer are of excellent use, particularly in the great congregation. If you judge extempore prayer to be of more use, act suitably to your own judgment. My sentiment is, that I ought not to forbid water, wherein persons may be baptised; and that I ought to eat bread and drink wine, as a memorial of my dying Master. However, if you are not convinced of this, act according to the light you have. I have no desire to dispute with you one moment upon any of the preceding heads. Let all these smaller points stand aside. Let them never come into sight. If thine heart is as my heart, if thou lovest God and all mankind, I ask no more: give me thine hand."

Chelsea, July, 1826.

ALIQUIS.

Biblical Gleanings.

INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH'S-PROPHECIES.

The Jewish Expositor for February and May contains two papers on the interpretation of Isaiah's prophecies, which merit the attention of the biblical student. The former paper contains a developement of the method adopted by the writer, from which we make the following selections:

"In sitting down to the study of Isaiah, with a hope to benefit myself and others, the following steps appeared to me most conducing to the right understanding of the prophet. Neither do I find that they have hitherto been taken by any one to my satisfaction.

First, then, I considered that the original Hebrew text is the foundation of the whole superstructure of explanation. But I did not find, after all the researches of a Kennicott, and the improved versions of the moderns, sufficient warrant to reject a single consonant in the Masoretic text, nor canons of criticism hitherto established by any one determining true from false readings solely by the authority of manuscripts, and independently of every bias in favour of a particular construction and application of the passage concerned. In order, then, to build upon the safest ground, I determined to adhere to the Masoretic consonants, and in respect to the vowels, to give a preference to the Masoretic points, but not an implicit one. "Secondly, I considered that the next step after that of deciding on the original text was, to translate that text into English as accurately as I could do, and without bias to any application of it. Here I found myself on ground rarely trod, and generally overlooked or undervalued. Pagninus, not Montanus, was here my model; and Dean Woodhouse's new version of the Apocalypse convinced me what a fruitful field for investigation was thus opened. Popular translations are made by change of idioms, otherwise they would be unintelligible to popular assemblies. The church, then, has, in her wisdom, added marginal readings, where she saw any particular probability of misapprehension from the English idiom printed in the text of the English version. A church can do no more; and if such marginal cautions be not duly attended to, and estimated, it is not the fault of the church, but of the reader. But it is now more than two centuries since the English version was made; and during all this time many have been running to and fro, and knowledge has been increased. Critical knowledge and skill, in respect to the classics, have confessedly been greatly advanced during this period; and is it unreasonable to expect that many improvements have been suggested during so long a time with respect to the translations of Scripture, and more particularly, many close idiomatic renderings of the original properly proposed for the margin ?

6

"The importance of close renderings is ably stated by bishop Horsley, in his preface to Hosea,' page xlv.; and it is due to this eminent critic to observe, that he was the first person who stemmed the torrent of conjectural criticism, which, at one time, seemed ready as a flood to overwhelm the true and received sense of