Images de page
PDF
ePub

REVIEW.

ART. III.

The excellence of the Church: a Sermon, preached at the consecration of Trinity Church, Newark, New-Jersey, by the Right Reverend Bishop Moore, on Monday May 21, A. D. 1810. By John Henry Hobart, D. D. An Assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New-York. Published by request. New-York, T. & J. Swords, pp. 41. 8vo.

THE

HE "ministry of reconciliation" is the standing ordinance of heaven, for the edification of the Church'; and its principal work is to preach the everlasting gospel. To this employment, ministers are commissioned by him who hath all power in heaven and on earth, and in this they act as ambassadors for Christ. We must, therefore, dissent from those who endeavour to degrade the services of the pulpit, by representing "reading the liturgy" as of greater importance than delivering the message of the living God. Doctor Hobart has, indeed, a better right than we have, to judge of what is suitable for an Episcopal congregation; and yet we cannot admit, that it is a part of the "excellence of the Church," to raise the reading desk above the pulpit. Of so very little importance does preaching the gospel of God appear to Dr. Hobart, that he declares it to be not only inferior to the liturgy, but a thing, which the Church may, without very great inconvenience, dispense with altogether-which, however corrupted, ought to be no cause of separation from that Church-which is but a secondary part of divine service-and, in fact, no part of the public worship of God. Entertaining

such sentiments respecting the work of preaching, we are surprised that Dr. H. should ever enter the pulpit. He certainly did well to apologize for this sermon. We shall present the reader with the author's own words: "The occasion must be my apology for an apology I deem necessary; deprecating as I do, whatever seems to advance in importance the exercises of the PULPIT over the devotions of the DESK*.--Let them LIVE on the evangelical truths contained in the LITURGY-let them offer through the sober, yet animating, FORMS OF THE LITURGY, their prayers and praises; and according to ITS evangelical offices, commune with their God-and they will be NOURISHED AND STRENGTHENED to everlasting life, though instructions from the pulpit should NEVER greet their earst.-Were the ministers of the church LESS ATTENTIVE TO CHRISTIAN SUBJECTS, than they are known to be, yet if the prayers are purely Christian, the DISCOURSES of its ministers should not impel us to SEPARATION. And the reason is this-Preaching is but a

CONDARY part of divine service. Among those protestant sects particularly, who have no established liturgy, a preference is given to PREACHING above PUBLIC WORSHIP ‡." Dr. Hobart does not say, above the other parts of public worship. This would be an admission, that preaching is a part of that worship. But, in order effectually to degrade the pulpit, he makes a distinction which excludes the preaching of the gospel entirely, from the public worship of God. A distinction, not of a part, from the other parts of the same whole, but of one thing, from another §.

† Pages 32, 33.

Page 33.

* Page 30. § Dr. Hobart may hereafter deny the correctness of this interpretation. It is the gentleman's habit to assert, and

We are humbled and pained in reading such sentiments, from the pen of a professed minister of Jesus Christ, who ought to magnify his office. God forbid that they should be ever generally received by our Episcopalian brethren. Such sentiments are

not a necessary part of their own system. Admitting that reading the liturgy is an acceptable mode of prayer, even then, it is not more awful or important than preaching. To deliver the message of God to

then, in some future publication, to explain, to qualify, and half deny his own words. He does this, also, in a style of high dissatisfaction with those who are not candid enough to understand his expressions in a different sense from that, which such words, when employed by others, uniformly convey. We recollect many instances of such management; and we shall mention one of them. Dr. Hobart had asserted, that it would appear from certain reasons which he offered, that the devout participation of the Holy Eucharist is indispensably necessary to our salvation*. He was understood as saying that communion in the sacrament of the Supper was essential to salvation: and that without this none could be saved. But the Doctor was displeased at being so understood. He never believed that participation of the Lord's Supper was a condition of salvation at all, for he readily grants that thousands will be saved without it. And although he wrote, that it is indispensably necessary to our salvation, and proved it too, by a series of reasoning; as he only wrote this for Episcopalians, he is nettled at others, for imagining even that he meant what he both wrote and proved. From the Doctor's style of writing, we should suppose that he uniformly aims at the double entendre. He is never plain or precise. But how does he get over this? Not at all. He never can get over it. But he goes about it, and about it, in a very diffuse apology of thirty-eight octavo pagest; from which we can only gather, that he believes that we can be saved without the sacrament, and yet that he is correct in affirming it to be an indispensable condition of salvation. In short, he says, he meant that Christians are bound in duty to communicate at the Lord's table. But this explanation comes too late. Hundreds will read the text, who will never Hob. Apol. pages 49-86.

• Com. Al. page 182.

man, and to explain to sinners the salvation of God, is not less solemn, than to bear the message of men to God, and to plead for sinners an interest in his salvation. Knowledge of the divine will is first; and upon this is founded an expression of our desires to God. If our faith be wrong, our prayers cannot be acceptable; for, "without faith it is impossible to "please him."

We must also record our protest against the charge

read or understand the explanation. Besides, the connexion will not admit this explanation. Dr. Hobart drew an inference from premises, which, if truc, will bear the inference. "When we firmly believe that the power of God accompanies the due administration of his ordinances; that through them ALONE we can become UNITED TO THE REDEEMER, AND INTERESTED IN THE RENOVATING AND SAVING efficacy of his atonement and grace, the devout participation of the Holy Eucharist will appear INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY to our salvation*." In vain, therefore is the inference qualified, until the argument is denied. "We firmly believe, that through them alone we CAN become united to the Redeemer, and interested in the saving efficacy of his atonement and grace." Now could any one suppose that this assertion means, there is another way in which we can be saved, or imagine that this way is "unavoidable error?" The explanation is therefore inadmissible. Salvation is the gift of God. The condition of salvation are the terms on which God confers his gift. But duty belongs to man. Indispensable condition of salvation cannot, therefore, mean the same thing as obligation to duty. If it does, then are works and grace, law and gospel, confounded. The error is published, and the correction is, alas! inadequate. This reminds us of the following anecdote :-Baldwin the barber entered the house of a sick man, on the river Delaware, and gave himself out for a skillful phlebotomist. He was employed to bleed the patient, and opened instead of the vein an artery. He procured puff-ball to stop the hæmorrhage. He blew the dust in the eyes of the attendants, and placed the arm under the blanket. The barber made his escape, and the patient died.

Com. Al. page 182.

which Dr. H. prefers against the body of Episcopalians, upon the score of practical religion. We are not persuaded, that they are entirely opposed to prayer meetings, and Christian conference. Nay, we are certain, that many Christians friendly to Episcopal order, do, both in their families and in the circle of their pious friends, pray fervently, and without the "Book of Common Prayer," and converse feelingly upon the doctrines and duties of Christianity. We sincerely regret, that their ministers should endeavour to discourage prayer and religious conference. Is it not enough to prostrate the pulpit before the desk ? Must religion also be banished from every private society? Let Dr. Hobart speak: "Our church has thus made the most ample provision for the devotions of her members assembled in the congregation, under their authorized ministers. Private associations for this purpose she dare not countenance. Among other communities of Christians, for aught she knows, they may be harmless; they may prove edifying. But experience, raising a warning voice in the sad pages of her history, proves, that within her bosom, they have been the nurseries of enthusiasm and spiritual pride; the engines by which ambition, cloaked under the mantle of extraordinary sanctity, has excited against her sober order, the rage of ignorant fanaticism, and whelmed in ruin her fairest forms.*”.

We stop for breath. This is a frightful picture. Never did we behold such a group of living creatures in so narrow a space. The scene resembles what is fancied by a man in a violent fever. The disordered brain covers the curtains of the sick-bed with living angry forms; and the patient is terrified at the creatures of his own frenzy.

This is a specimen of the eloquence of Dr. Hobart; very unlike the eloquence, however, which the Roman orator recommends. Is enim est elo

[blocks in formation]
« PrécédentContinuer »