Believers under the gospel are, as we have spoken, the people of God, and with all sorts of advantages annexed unto the condition, above what were enjoyed of them who of old were so. Therefore, if believers are now, as the apostle says they are, the people of God, their children have a right to the initial seal of the covenant." In this passage, at least, Owen keeps out of view the heavenly calling of the saints; he looks upon them as God's people blessed on the earth, and put on the earth to enjoy earthly blessings, though sanctified to them in the economy of grace. He considers believers entitled through faith to enter into rest upon earth, and to reap all the advantages which the Jews had as a visible people, when they appeared to the world to be the chosen church and fold of God. He even takes care to define his idea of God's people, which he does negatively, by saying that those who enjoy no political rule or society in the world are not a people of God; which, if we put into the affirmative form, we shall then have it laid down as a canon of episcopal truth, that one indispensable characteristic of God's people, under the gospel, is that they should enjoy political rule or society in the world. There is nothing very surprising in this statement, for we know that it is fully in accordance with the views of all the Puritans, whether Presbyterians, Independents, or Baptists of the Caroline era. The great blot in their creed was the very doctrine expressed in the passage before us; Dr. Owen did himself personally indicate that he thought this world might be a Canaan sanctified for believers; he took to himself much of its power and influence in the government of the university of Oxford, and in many ways by supporting the court of Cromwell (one of whose chaplains he was) as well as by preaching sermons of a military character, he engaged deeply in the unfortunate politics of his party, and lived to reap at last those bitter fruits of disappointment and distress which became the portion of the Puritans on the restoration of the old dynasty. The dissenters of these days have, almost to a man, a similar idea of " the people of God," that "political rule or society in the world" ought to be considered a very important proof of their existence. Hence all their melancholy political associations, and those long continued efforts to bring down the high things of this world to their own low level, which, hitherto, surely have been repaid only with vexation and disappointment. But if it be a question what indeed is to be the position of believers as to political rule, we answer at once, in the very words which the Holy Spirit dictated-That our polity, "our citizenship, [Toλrevμa], is in heaven, from whence also we look for the Lord Jesus" and that therefore we ought to act the citizen-ToλTEVÉσle-" as becometh the gospel of Christ" (see Phil. iii. 20; i. 27). Now the glory of the gospel is this, that it places all the citizens of the kingdom of God not in any position of advantage on the earth, so that they can expect to be recognised by the world as the Lord's people (for that was the position of the Jews in the first covenant), but raises them above the world and out of it, so that they have no longer any inheritance in it, nor can, without a grievous descent, enter into places of advantage or emolument calculated to secure them recognition in the world. "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you" (John xv. 19). "If ye were of the world" are words easy to be understood, "to enjoy political rule and society in the world" may be taken as explanatory of their meaning, and it must be at once acknowledged that he who seeks to enjoy political rule and society in the world is in that predicament which inevitably makes him "of the world." But the christian, as a holy brother, "partaker of the heavenly calling," is utterly placed out of the reach of all these things. "He is dead, and his life is hid with Christ in God:" where Jesus his Lord is, there is he with him in his Spirit: for he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit, and he is joined to him in disownment, joined to him in excommunication, joined to him in exile; for the world disowned, excommunicated, and exiled Jesus, the Lord of glory and though he sits on the throne of power amidst his people, yet the world has hated him and hid its face from him-rejected, despised, and detested him; therefore the christian's citizenship is not here but in the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God, and it is with the laws, rights, emoluments, privileges, and advantages of that city that he is occupied, not with the citizenship and privileges to be enjoyed in the world. The children of Israel had, indeed, a place in the world, and, therefore, the perpetuity of their citizenship was secured in carnal descent; it was an inheritance for their children, who, by circumcision, were admitted into all the advantages of the Mosaic polity; but as the believer has not a place in the world (except as a stranger and a pilgrim) there is no right and advantage to be secured for his children in the world. The believer can give nothing but the flesh to his child; the Spirit, which is the seal of the heavenly inheritance, he cannot give; to be a citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem is a grace not flowing from the will of man but the will of God (John i. 13), and a christian can no more make his child a heavenly citizen than he can raise him from the dead. He has, indeed, the advantage of prayer, and a holy education, and a holy example to bestow, but all these advantages utterly fail as we frequently see-the patent of the heavenly city can be sealed and registered by God alone, who "predestinates to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." We must, therefore, renounce these hopes and views expressed in the passage before us, and we must learn to distinguish between the privileges of the earthly and the heavenly calling. When, therefore, this celebrated Theologian asks" Is it possible that a man should be a loser by the coming of Christ ?" we reply, that if the place of loss is not very clearly stated, a believer may be shewn to be a very great loser by the coming of Christ; for if the calculation of losses is to be made as to the believer's terrestrial position, he loses immensely- "if in this life only we have hope in Christ we are of all men most miserable"-we have in Christ forfeited our earthly citizenship, earthly position, earthly advantages; power, profit, pleasure in the world are all irretrievably lost to us, because "we are dead, and our life is hid with Christ in God,” and we, as buried men (Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12), cannot come back to our old life and its forgotten advantages to take possession of those things which we lost in our death with Jesus. To enter here on the extent of our heavenly privileges would be enlarging the enquiry beyond the demands of the question; that we have lost nothing as saints in our heavenly calling, but gained beyond calculation, it would be easy to shew, but these gains must be always carefully separated from those which are earthly; for almost every gain in our heavenly calling seems to be answered by a corresponding earthly loss, and vice versâ. I would, however, observe that in another point of view these sentiments of Dr. Owen are not without instruction. It is obvious that he has so managed the argument as to come to a deduction favorable to the baptism of infants, though it required some ingenuity to arrive at such a conclusion from the premises which the matter in hand supplied. Now it is no new observation that infant baptism has mainly promoted, and continually supports, the great heresy of a national christianity; without infant baptism it is not possible that there should be that anomaly called "a christian nation ;" infant baptism is the foundation of the union of Church and State, for by this contrivance the whole body of the people come into "the church,” i.e., the establishment; but if conversion, instead of baptism, were to be adopted as the necessary initiation of the establishment, it is plain that in a short time the establishment would cease to exist. But all this we see by a retrogressive mode of argument, unintentionally perhaps, proved to us by Dr. Owen; he is arguing for the earthly advantages of believers, and, therefore, pleads for infant baptism to put the people of Christ on a footing with the Jews of old, as professors of an earthly polity. He insists on infant baptism as the legitimate appendage of the union of Church and State, taking it for granted that this union ought to exist. In reality, infant baptism brings the world into the church, and when the invasion has been allowed, then it is contended that the union between the world and the church is a part of the Gospel. In another part, however, of Dr. Owen's commentary, I find all these arguments everted by the author of them :-" Men," says he, " mistake themselves when they suppose that they are interested in a church-state by tradition, custom, or as it were chance, they know not how. There is nothing but covenanting with God that will instate us in this privilege. Therein we do take upon ourselves the observance of all the terms of the new covenant. And they are of two sorts-1, Internal and moral, in faith, repentance, and obedience. 2, Such as concern the external worship of the gospel in the ordinances and institutions of it. Without such a covenant, formally or virtually made, there can be no church-state" (on chap. ix. 18-22). Similar perplexities we may trace in all the Puritan writers, when engaged in the hopeless task of reconciling their views of grace with infant baptism and a covenant under the gospel to be inherited by the flesh. M. E. GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. SUBSCRIPTION TO THE THIRTY-NINE An ecclesiastical event of no small importance has lately taken place. On the 26th of May, the Archbishop of Dublin presented a petition in the House of Lords, signed by sixty members of the established church, one half of the number clergymen, complaining of certain portions of the Articles and Liturgy of the church, which they deemed to require such alteration as was "consistent with the practice of the clergy and the acknowledged meaning of the church." His Grace, in introducing the petition, cautiously stated that he did not agree with the petitioners in their desire that the Parliament should interfere with the spiritual affairs of the establishment-the temporalities were on another footing; with these Parliament could deal as might be deemed expedient. The Bishop of Norwich spoke at some length on the questions raised by this unusual petition. "In the matter of subscription to the Articles and Liturgy, there were apparent difficulties-he said apparent, and he begged their Lordships' particular attention to the phrase-in the way of subscription: for if it were to be literally taken, in u strict and stringent way of understanding, then the difficulty would be so great as hardly to be overcome by those who had scrupulous consciences, and prevent all but such as had secular views from signing them. But there was an answer to all this. The church had a sort of elasticity about it: the Reformers had many persons to reconcile, entertain ing different opinions, and were placed in a difficult position on that account, and the articles were prepared with that view. He would remind their Lordships of a sentiment once expressed by the Earl of Chatham in that house. 'Our church had a Calvinistic creed with an Arminian clergy' [qu.? was not this the sentiment, 'the Church of England has Calvinistic Articles, an Arminian Liturgy, and a Popish clergy']; but there were others who asserted that there was Arminianism in the creed, and Calvinism in the clergy." The Bishop then mentioned the case of the Rev. M. Woodhouse, in his diocese, "a clergyman of high preferment and of unquestionable orthodoxy, but who was disposed to resign on scruples of conscience.” "There was one important fact which he desired to impress on their Lordships, that amongst the almost numberless body of clergymen to whom he had spoken, he never met a single one who stated that he agreed with every point of subscription that took place at his ordination. And this was natural; for as we were constituted with different minds, and no two could exactly have the same ideas upon all subjects, therefore there should be a certain degree of latitude allowed to clergymen subscribing, and that was all that was required of the petitioners- namely, that that which was held in private by its members, might be the avowed and acknowledged sentiments of the church at large................he admitted that this was not an assembly which could legislate for the church, but he would earnestly entreat his brethren, the Right Rev. Prelates by whom he was surrounded, to take this question into their most serious consideration; if they did, he was sure that in their private meditations they would see the propriety of doing something to relieve the consciences of many who might be looked upon as ornaments of the church.Otherwise, he must say, in conclusion, that the time would come when that latitude, or rather that relief, that was now required by tender consciences from the Heads of the church, would be forced upon their attention by a stronger pressure, and they would be compelled to do that which it was now in their power quietly to settle; perhaps, too, they would be compelled to yield measures to which they might all object." The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London spoke, as might be expected; the Bishop of London denied "the elasticity" imputed to the Articles and Liturgy, and declared that the church " was founded on truth, and the depository of truth"- and asserted that "the polar star of truth which had guided the Church of England safely along her course was in her Articles and Liturgy." The Bishop of London further remarked "that the Bishop of Norwich seemed to have the misfortune of living amongst an extraordinary class of clergymen for his own part he never met with the case of a clergyman who was not an unhesitating subscriber to the Articles." These opposing asseverations of the two Prelates convey much instruction: it is obvious that in the Diocese of Norwich, the clergy, knowing they have a sympathetic listener in their Diocesan, make no scruple to reveal the secrets of their conscience to his friendly ear. In the Diocese of London, the character of the Prelate for severe churchmanship, awes all the clergy either into respectful silence or courtly acquiescence, whenever the subject of subscription is mentioned; and thus the two Prelates make two diametrically opposite reports as to matter of clerical fact. The House of Lords must be not a little astonished at the disagreement of these witnesses. But here we have it established on high authority, that several of the ornaments of the church are disturbed in their consciences about the matter of subscription: this subscription they have given in a less reflective era of their lives: but now the fact is not to be repelled, and they admit the full force of it, that they do not believe and receive a part or parts of the doctrines to which they have ex animo fully and unhesitatingly subscribed whilst, at the same time, they retain church preferment, of which the tenure is, in all truth and honour, understood to be based on a continued belief and full support of all those matters to which they have attached their voluntary subscription. But, indeed, the Bishop of Norwich has made no new revelations: the only matter of surprise is that a bishop, in the House of Lords, should have thus withdrawn the veil from the penetralia of the priesthood. Bishop Burnet had long ago disclosed the same secrets, -“the requiring subscription_to_the thirty-nine articles," says that Prelate, "is a great imposition. I believe them all myself; but as those about original sin and predestination might be expressed more unexceptionably, so I think it is a better way to let such matters continue to be still the standard of doctrine, with some few corrections, and to censure those who teach any contrary tenets, than to oblige all that serve in the church to subscribe them. The greater part subscribe without ever examining them; and others do it because they must do it, though they can hardly satisfy their consciences about some things in them." In times subsequent to those of Burnet, Bishop Clayton, in his place in the Irish House of Peers, argued for the omission of the Athanasian and Nicene creed, and afterwards published his speech; careless of the fact that these creeds are by name particularly asserted and defended in the thirtynine articles, Edmund Law, Bishop of Carlisle, wrote a pamphlet against subscription; and when his attack was repulsed by Dr. Randolph, he was anonymously seconded by the talents of the celebrated Paley. The particular grievance felt by these petitioners is not stated, but it most probably will be found that the Athanasian creed is one important item in their complaints, for this creed is the general stumbling-block in the establishment. With the violent churchmen it is a peculiar favorite; but its disputatious and arrogant dogmatism, the perplexity of its metaphysics, the aridity of its doctrine, and the fury of its damnatory menaces, render it a most hateful possession to multitudes in the establishment. Many, very many, of the clergy join with the laity in denouncing it as a nuisance, and yet it not only is an important symbol in the Prayer Book, but is embalmed in the thirty-nine articles for the subscription of every clergyman that receives ordination in the Church of England. Paley, in his principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, has endeavoured to establish this "elasticity" in the thirtynine articles, for which the Bishop of Norwich pleads. "The actual belief," says Paley," of each and every separate proposition contained in the thirty-nine articles could not be intended, and is not necessary to justify subscription; because we must then suppose that the legislature expected the consent of ten thousand (sixteen thousand) men; and that in perpetual succession not to one controverted proposition, but to many hundreds. For it is difficult to conceive how this could be expected by any who observed the incurable diversity of human opinion upon all subjects short of demonstration." Whatever may be the view of this ethical writer about the difficulty or impossibility of making the whole body of the priesthood really believe the thirtynine articles which they subscribe, this is certain, that the legislature, in requiring this subscription, expects a profession of belief of each particular doctrine by every person who shall subscribe his assent to the articles which contain the doctrines. The terms of the declarations and subscriptions, according to the plain literal meaning of the words, as received by all men-the restricting every minister to one form of words, and forbidding all others-and the history of the times demonstrate the intention of the legislature, that it was neither more nor less than to secure a perfect uniformity of belief. To contend for any other meaning of the expectation of the legislature is to evert the power of the law, and to sap the foundation of all honesty and integrity. Why did the State adopt the articles at all if it did not require the subscriber to believe them all? If this "elasticity" and "latitude" be allowed, then of course it is left to the consciences of the subscribers to reject as many of the articles as they think fitone will reject two or three, another ten or a dozen, and so the arricles will be a test of nothing, and prove nothing but the "elasticity" of mind and principle of those who profess before all men to believe the whole body of the articles, and every part of them. Paley concludes his inquiry on this subject, by the following convenient canon of morality for elastic minds. "The authors of the law intended to exclude from offices in the church. 1. All abettors of Popery. 2. Anabaptists. 3. The Puritans, who were hostile to an Episcopal constitution; and, in general, the members of such leading sects, or foreign establishments, as threatened to overthrow our own. If, therefore, a person does not find himself comprehended within these descriptions, and is convinced that he is truly and substantially satisfying the intention of the legislature, he may subscribe with safety." Surely words are not wanted to display this ethical distemperature; but we may briefly observe, that in other respects |