3. As a rule, universal belief can never be enforced as a duty on mankind. For the fountain of our faith is, and ought to be, accessible to all, and intelligible to all. But what the church has in all places, by all her members and at all times believed, is one of the most difficult points of knowledge to be ascertained and ultimately it would merge in the claims of infallibility. What the Scripture tells of the "unity of the Spirit" and the unity of faith, all may know, and they can all know no more. This informs us that there is "one body and one spirit (as St. Paul writes), even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." And what can they, or what need they know besides? It is most lamentable to think of enlightening the sun by factitious luminaries, all of which profess to receive their tiny lights only from his beams. 4. Again. Should not a canon, so sacred and so commanding, be, as its definition ("Semper, ubique, et ab omnibus") demands, invariable as to persons, times, and places? If it exists now, it is not true (" ab omnibus"), for hundreds of thousands, Dr. Pusey being witness, have deviated from this rule for three hundred years. If it has ceased, it is false as to time; it is not " semper.' 5. Once more. If the "whole church" of Christ be guided by his goodness and foreknowledge," how are we to account for such a numerous body of "his church" being now led to adopt another interpretation of "his words?" Does "his goodness" now, not before, “mislead" them? Or, are they to be excluded from the number of those who are real members of Christ's church, and committed to the " uncovenanted mercies of God?" 6. It is worth while to inquire when this assumed new interpretation started, and what was the state and character of the church of Christ before and since this awful error took place? Dr. Pusey informs us, that this departure was effected at the Reformation: all before were of one creed. Then, if all held this one creed, it was the creed of Popery, and as that has not reformed, it is so still. What, however, is the character of those, who, in this respect, as well as others, have reformed their creed? The Professor admits that "they love their Saviour." (vi.) Does the Romish church, which still retains the opus ope Lord on that account, explained. If our Saviour, instead of drawing the mind of Nicodemus to that alone which is essential to the kingdom of God, had introduced other considerations, explanatory of what is external and internal, of professing members, and real members, of "wheat and tares," would not this have tended to perplex the erroneous understanding of Nicodemus, and to occupy his mind with less important considerations; and might it not even have furnished this technical casuist with pretences for considering himself capable of entering into the kingdom of God, defective as he was of that Spirit which is essential to its true character, and essential to everlasting life? And is it not obvious, that should Nicodemus become, from what our Lord had said, spiritually and experimentally acquainted with the kingdom of God, in its simple and unmixed character, he would soon learn to distinguish things that differ? And when he should learn, that in other parts of our Lord's teaching, the meaning of the kingdom of God was more extensive, and comprehended many that were 66 not of" the "kingdom," he would never again stumble, as now he did, at not being able to distinguish the real kingdom of God, from a mere external body of professors, called by that name. In page 15 we observed, that the words to "see" and to "enter," bear in other parts of scripture, the appropriate meaning which we have there given them. The reader may be glad to have some further evidence of this assertion. We therefore remark : 1. That all words adapted to the sight and action of our natural members, have and must have, a figurative or spiritual meaning when they are used to convey mental or spiritual ideas. 2. The word here translated to 66 see," is not uncommonly used in Scripture to signify mental discernment or perception-the meaning which we have in John iii. 3, given to it. Let the reader examine only the following verses where the same word (or one from the same root) is used in the original. Matt. xiii. 14; Luke ii. 26; John i. 48; Acts ii. 27; xv. 6; Heb. xi. 13. In which passages it is said, "that he should not see death""should not see corruption"-and "when thou wast under the fig-tree I saw thee". "Abraham saw my day"-" these all died in the faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." The above instances are plain, intelligible, and convincing. But the same word in four or five different places, where the prophet Isaiah, (vi. 9,) is quoted, is put in opposition to seeing with the bodily eyes, and must therefore relate to the mental perception only; as in Matt. xiii. 14; Mark iv. 12; Luke viii. 10; John xii. 40; and Acts xxviii. 26. The translation is, " by hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive." In all these cases the seeing is taken from another word, while the same word that is (in John xxxiii.) rendered to see, is in all the foregoing references rendered to perceive. And this, moreover, where spiritual perception alone is the very thing of which the Jews were defective. Seeing ye shall see, but not perceive." That is, seeing with your eyes ye shall not see with your minds. The precise reference in every one of those cases is to the true spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, and the direct and exact idea of John iii. 3,-" Ye cannot see the kingdom of God." 3. The word 66 66 See" must necessarily have a figurative and not a literal meaning, otherwise it could not be strictly true. For if a person must be born again in order to see with the bodily eyes the kingdom of God; or, as Dr. Pusey calls it," grace and glory:" no blind person could possibly be saved, because he could not in this sense see the kingdom of God: and a Pharisee who says he sees, might go to heaven though blind to all the spiritual excellences of it, and full of malignant hatred against the Messiah and his kingdom. 4.. Dr. Pusey and every one else here uses the words to "see" and to "enter" in a figurative, and not in a correctly literal sense. When he speaks of "the kingdom of God," as being explained by a state of "grace and glory," he certainly means more than seeing with the eyes the kingdom of God, or walking on our legs into the gospel church; and thence to glory. 5. The interpretation then which we have given, seems the most exact meaning which the words in their situation can possibly bear. We have added the above remarks that the reader may distinctly perceive that our views of these two texts, upon which so much depends, cannot be shaken by any verbal criticism. FOR CRITICAL TIMES. THE FOLLOWING ARE NOW PUBLISHED, No. I. REGENERATION ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. No. II. OF REGENERATION, ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATIONS, ETC. BETHELL, LAWRENCE, HOPKINS, BUDD, &c. No. IV. Will be Published on the 1st of March, AND WILL CONTAIN THE SPIRITUAL IMPORT OF BAPTISM No. V. IMPORT OF BAPTISM, OF ADULTS AND INFANTS, ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. PRINTED BY STEWART AND MURRAY, OLD BAILEY. |