catholic, how comes it that a member of the catholic church in England, when he visits Rome, neither seeks, nor would be admitted to the mutilated Eucharist which is offered and consumed, with such pomp and splendour, beneath the golden dome of the Vatican?

4. The church at Rome is in full communion with the "Vicarsapostolic" and their flocks in Great Britain. Now, surely no true churchman will deny that these are schismatics, for setting up a separate altar from that of the regular catholic prelates in England and Scotland. Well, one of the most clearly established principles of the primitive church was, that to be in communion with schismatics was to be a schismatic; therefore Rome is schismatical-that is, she is not catholic. In like manner, the Moravian church is proved to be schismatical; for her members, when they come into England, do not, as catholics would, communicate with the English bishops and their flocks; but set up a separate altar, which is the very essence of schism.

Lastly, if the Roman church be catholic, why did we, at the Reformation, break off from her communion? To break off from the communion of any branch of the catholic church is to be guilty of schism. If she is catholic now, she was so then; and we, by separating, decatholicized ourselves; for the notion of two catholic churches, not in communion, is nonsense.

The source of the almost universal confusion prevalent on this subject is, men's forgetting that, to make a church catholic, she must have, not only true orders, but also true mission and jurisdiction. The Bishop of London has at present all three. Were he to turn Arian or Romanist, he would lose his mission, which avails only while pastors teach the truth, for the teaching of which their mission was conferred. Again, Bishop Luscombe has true orders and mission; for he was consecrated by the Scots bishops, who are neither heretics nor schismatics; but he has no jurisdiction; for they could give him none ❝for continental purposes," having, themselves, no jurisdiction beyond the channel.

The Romanists understand this matter admirably themselves; and we never see their writers calling the Greek church, whose orders they nevertheless allow, a part of the catholic. They are indeed, in this and some other things, perfectly consistent; while we, from the little attention given among us to these subjects, and from the prevalence, in late years, of low church leaven, do very commonly, I am sorry to say, play into the hands of our crafty foe! Once grant them to be Roman catholics, and they will very soon, as well they may, prove us to be no catholics at all. Hence the number of converts they are making;

-relliquias Danaûm, atq. inmitis Achillei ;"

the arts of methodism, latitudinarianism, and debauchery.

A SCOTTISH CATHOLIC DEACON.

VOL. VII.-Feb. 1835.

2 A

DR. HAMPDEN'S BAMPTON LECTURES.

SIR,-IN the warnings which St. Paul directs, in his Epistle to the Colossians, against "philosophy and vain deceit," some persons may, perhaps, have been surprised at finding two dangers, apparently so opposite, mentioned in such close connexion-viz., a "voluntary humility," and the being "vainly puffed up in a fleshly mind." But when we look to the experience of the Christian world, do we not see much to impress upon us the need of the apostle's caution? Is there not especial danger in the present age of intellectual pride from a "voluntary humility?"

I would illustrate my meaning by referring to the mode in which we are invited, in the present day, in works of reputation or authority, to regard the doctrines of the Divinity and Incarnation of our blessed Lord, and the Atonement. In approaching subjects of this mysterious character we may well feel that we are out of our depth; that such knowledge is too wonderful for us; and we may rightly conclude that 'the revelation of the Divine nature and the Divine counsels has been made in amazing condescension to our wants,-not to fill us with speculative notions, but to produce upon us a certain practical effect. So far we may proceed safely; but we are often tempted to make ourselves judges how far a doctrine is practical, and how far not, and in what way. We attempt to measure the influence of certain Divine truths; we fix our eyes on their visible effects upon our moral nature; we look at them as powerful instruments, fitted to act strongly upon our feelings and sympathies, and produce in us certain emotions, and a certain course of action. Thus from the vision of the Divine glory, we turn our eyes off to human nature: forgetting, meanwhile, that weak and blind as we are, God has in the Gospel made us a revelation of himself and his counsels of mercy towards us, which it is a "voluntary humility" to reject, and that we are therein invited to behold " as in a glass the glory of the Lord." We think of man and his nature, and the "effect" of the doctrine upon it, till we come to forget God, and his divine nature, and his holy "truth" and so are tempted at last to curtail the revealed doctrine to the measure of what we think to be the requirements of man, unconsciously "worshipping the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever."

I shall make my meaning clearer by an instance which deserves notice from the quarter in which it is found, being no other than the pulpit of the Bampton Lecturer for 1832, which hitherto has been considered almost a standard of orthodox teaching. The station of the writer, Dr. Hampden, in his university, is an additional reason for calling attention to his lectures.

One of the chief principles on which Dr. H.'s work is based, is, that the Divine nature being incomprehensible, "we ought to maintain a strictly practical view, profess that we only know God as the exclusive object of Divine worship, and acknowledge that it is quite irrelevant to our scheme of religion either to demonstrate or to refute any conclusion from the nature of Unity." Hence he proceeds

virtually to overthrow the theological statements concerning the Deity which occur in our creeds and confessions. He will not allow us to say more than that there is a mystery in the Scripture notices of God, not to put into words what that mystery is. What that mystery is it matters not, according to him; as all man wants is an object of worship, for he is a religious being, and his reason tells him that polytheism is absurd. "Doubtless there is a mystery," says Dr. H., in those "sacred facts of Divine Providence which we comprehensively denote by the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity;" but "there is also a mystery attached to the subject which is not a mystery of God." "One fact" alone "is clear, that there is some extraordinary communication concerning the Divine Being in the Scriptural notices of God which have called forth the curiosity of thinking men in all ages." Such is the sole idea which Dr. Hampden would give us of the Godhead: as if we were bid to offer "ignorant worship" to an "unknown God." If this is the sole idea, what are we to think of the language which our church adopts when she declares that "the Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin of her substance, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man?" This indeed is to speak as if the Son of God were indeed come, and had given us an understanding that we may know him that is true: as if, when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, we had indeed beheld the glory of the only-begotten of the Father, the "express image" of Deity. With Dr. Hampden, however, it is all scholastic theory for "who can pretend," he says, "to that exactness of thought on the subject on which our technical language is based ?" But if Dr. Hampden leave us with a vague and dim idea of the Godhead, he leaves us equally in the dark respecting the manhood of our blessed Lord. He speaks of it as the scholastic "theory of the Incarnation," that "our Lord is described as assuming to his Divinity, not any human being in particular, but manhood,-human nature itself." In short, instead of the full and lucid doctrine of our second article, we are left with these scriptural "facts" (which "form part of the great history of mankind, and therefore cannot be denied without involving ourselves in universal scepticism,") that "there can be no rational doubt that man is in a degraded, disadvantageous conditionthat Jesus Christ came into the world, by the mercy of God, to produce a restoration of man-that he brought life and immortality to light-that he died on the cross for our sins, and rose again for our justification." "Upon these facts," Dr. Hampden declares "infinite theories may be raised; but these theories leave the facts where they were; and there is enough in these facts to warm and comfort the heart."

But, in the next place, what was this "restoration of man which "Jesus Christ came into the world to produce?"-in what sense is he said to have "died on the cross for our sins"?" to reconcile his Father unto us," says our church, "and to be a sacrifice, not only for

original guilt, but also for actual sins of men." "Not so," says Dr. Hampden, "Christ is said to be our atonement, not that we may attribute to God any change of purpose towards man by what Christ has done, but that we may know that we have passed from death unto life, and that our own hearts may not condemn us." It is not, then, God's anger against sin, but man's unhappiness and dissatisfaction with himself, that makes some declaration of peace necessary. Man is offended with himself, and his own conscience needs something to appease it! "It is of little purpose to urge the natural placability of the Divine Being, his mercy, his willingness to receive the penitent." "God, no doubt, is abundantly placable, merciful, and forgiving. Still the fact remains. The offender is guilty: his crime may be forgiven, but his criminality is upon him. The remorse which he feels, the wounds of his conscience, are no fallacious things. He is sensible of them even whilst the gospel tells him, Thy sins be forgiven thee;''Go, and sin no more.' The heart seeks for reparation and satisfaction; its longings are, that its sins may be no more remembered, that the characters in which it is written may be blotted out. Hence the congeniality to its feelings of the notion of atonement. It is no speculative thought which suggests the theory: speculation rather prompts to the rejection of it. But the fact is, that we cannot be at peace without some consciousness of atonement made. The word atonement, in its true, practical sense, expresses this indisputable fact. Objections may hold against the explanations of the term; they are irrelevant to the thing itself denoted by the term. Turn over the records of human crime; and, whether under the forms of superstition or the enactments of civil government, the fact itself constantly emerges to the view. All concur in shewing that, whilst God is gracious and merciful, repenting him of evil, the human heart is inexorable against itself. It may hope-tremblingly hope-that God may forgive it, but it cannot forgive itself." Now I doubt not many a reader will ask whether all this is not very true and pious? It is pious according to the piety of the day; nay, it is (with some exceptions) true, but it is not the whole truth. This is the age of philosophical systems. The gospel, it seems, must be made philosophically adapted to the wants of human nature; and, when it has been shewn visibly to satisfy these wants, what is over and above must be pared away, as the rough stone according to the design of the architect. Let me ask, then, where do we learn the "natural placability," and "mercy," and "forgiveness" of God? Where do we learn that his wrath does not visit the sinner?—that he needs no atonement? Where do we learn that man has naturally a morbid consciousness of sin? Remorse and self-abhorrence doubtless he feels, as Dr. Hampden describes: he longs for innocence-he wishes he had never fallen into moral degradation-his pride is incurably wounded. The gospel offers forgiveness; but this, as Dr. Hampden tells us, is not enough to satisfy him. The notion of atonement is the only remedy for his wounded peace: the "fact" expressed in "the word atonement in its true, practical sense.'

But, further, what, after all, is this "fact" of which Dr. Hampden speaks? That man is now really innocent, and may look upon him

'self with satisfaction? But how? What is the "parallel fact” with which "the scripture revelation has met this material and invincible difficulty?" Dr. Hampden will tell us it is the exhibition of Christ to us which soothes the mind, whatever becomes of the ulterior question of an expiation in the sight of God. "It has said, we have no hope in ourselves; that, looking to ourselves, we cannot expect happiness; and, at the same time, has fixed our attention to a Holy One who did no sin, whose perfect righteousness it has connected with our unrighteousness, and whose strength it has brought to the evil of our weakness. Thus Christ is emphatically said to be our atonement." But I ask with what emphasis? What is there in this exhibition to soothe us? What fact has the guilty heart, after all, to set against the fact of its own guiltiness? We, indeed, should say, the doctrine of God having given his only begotten Son in our flesh; but not so Dr. Hampden. He says, merely the fact of a Jesus Christ (whoever he is) having lived on earth a holy life, and exhibited a "perfect righteousness." But what is that to us? Shall not his holiness and righteousness rather condemn by the comparison our unholiness and unrighteousness? And anything more than this is rejected by Dr. H. The idea that he assumed "our human nature itself" has been already rejected as a scholastic theory! What does it avail that our attention has been fixed to him? It has been fixed already to other righteous and holy men, and we have turned to our own pollution with the deeper self-loathing and despair. It is painful indeed thus to speak or to think of Him who was lifted up from the earth that he might draw all men unto him. It is an imperative duty for charity to "unstable souls" to sift to the bottom these vague, yet spacious, generalities to which a "voluntary humility" has brought an apparently pious author. But, it seems, scripture has, in some way, "connected the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ with our unrighteousness." There are texts, indeed, ordinarily quoted from scripture to shew in what way; but "texts, as texts, prove nothing; texts establish divine truths only as indices to real facts in the history of Providence!"

Thus, Dr. H.-I have already stated the "real fact" in the history of Providence that does truly meet the "fact" of our guiltiness. In the words of the church, the "One Christ, very God and very man, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father unto us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men." This may be called "Realism." We may be told that the idea of "satisfaction" is derived from the scholastic theory of justice; that it is a mere "philosophy of expiation," the "bane" of which was, that "it depressed the power of man too low;" that "it was no invigoration of the mind, no cheering of the heart to masculine exertion in working out the great work of salvation;" that "it checked the aspirings of the heart and of the intellect." This is, alas! Sir, but a small specimen of the application of the principles of interpretation which are now afloat to the great doctrines of Christianity; nay, but a small specimen from this author. I have confined myself to a single article of our apostolical church-" ex uno disce omnes." "Little children, keep yourselves from idols;" and, when the "great mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh," is