ON SOCIALISM. DEAR SIR,-I promised to furnish some statement of the results which the socialists deduce from their first principle of the non-responsibility of man. Christianity declares this responsibility; therefore Christianity is renounced. Thus they are driven to find motives of action in other sentiments than can be learnt in the gospel revelation. They cannot go to deism for lessons, since the material philosophy, which lies at the bottom of their system, assures them that of the power or powers by whose agency they came into the world nothing can be known. Here, then, we have their first palpable distinction, the omission of all worship. I am aware that a spurious metaphysic has given this cast to most of the opponents of our faith in the present day; yet, as a sect, atheism (as distinguished alike from antitheism and from the deism of such men as Lord Herbert of Cherbury) is a distinguishing mark of the socialists. Another peculiarity, though common to them with some obscure bodies, is the notion that it is immoral to receive the profits of trade and commerce-that an artificer has the full right to all the earnings which are, under the prevailing system of society, derived from his work by his master. Here, again, one can trace the result of a fundamental error. For in denying Christianity, and in denying, moreover, that moral sense which even the better part of infidels recognise, these persons lose all notion of any source of power beyond that which the old school of infidels has ever recognised-viz., the right of conquest. Yet Mr. Owen, like his predecessor, Spence, carries the principle more consistently out than they generally do, for he extends his democratic amendments to the workshop instead of confining them to the body politic. But as some believers in the gospel once delivered to the church may have imbibed this individual portion of the atrocious system, (and the experience of what took place among the German anabaptists &c. may teach us the possibility of such errors arising in unsuspected quarters,) it is well to remark, that there is not a portion of the scriptures, nor a century in the history of the catholic church, which can be consistently interpreted, except upon the supposition that the Lord came not to destroy but to sanctify the ancient relations of mankind. I need not remind the readers of the British Magazine of the sandy foundation on which the anabaptist deduction from the history of the infant church at Jerusalem rests. I pass on to the infatuated disclaimer of all schemes of government which the socialists make. To reduce civilized mankind into one vast federative union of little societies presupposes that, without the prospect of eternal judgment, it is possible for a scheme of morals to be so far sanctioned as to be made binding upon every mind alike. But if that awful sanction could be dispensed with, the general adoption of an educational scheme on their principles would yet be requisite before society could undergo such an wholesale resolution; and, as a minister of that catholic church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, I may safely venture to tell the party that, though they may do a great deal of mischief, their full triumph will never, can never, be realised. I spare your readers the painful detail of the most disgustful part of the system, of which it will be sufficient to say, that their views upon the subject of sexual intercourse are identical with those of all recent infidel writers, except those of the utilitarian mould; and that, like all their impure predecessors, they cannot render their scheme of libertinism feasible, except by the advocacy of public schools in which children are to be brought up without any connexion (of a direct nature) with their parents; to render the violation of the seventh commandment reasonable, the fifth must be thrown aside. Thus Owenism panders to vice, and we have already seen that it panders to the love of power which infests our fallen nature. In calling the more common periodicals "accredited sources of information" I may have possibly erred, but I can cite a more valid authority as to the infection which has been spread within the last twelvemonths. Mr. Dudley, the respectable agent for the British and Foreign Bible Society, mentioned, at a meeting, in December, of the Farnham auxiliary, at which the Bishop of Winchester presided, that socialism had spread fearfully in the north, and that a great many editions alike of the Social Bible and Social Hymns had been sold. I am happy to add, that in the important county from which I write, the efforts of infidelity in this new form have been early (and, it is hoped, successfully) met. Yours respectfully. R. W. J. ON NATIONAL EDUCATION ON CHURCH PRINCIPLES. SIR,-A great deal has lately been said and written on the subject of national education on church principles. - On this subject I feel deeply interested, and desire information for practical purposes; and shall be very much obliged to any of your correspondents who will take the trouble to explain to me what is meant by education on church principles. Perhaps it will be better that I should state what I suppose is not meant by the advocates for education on church principles. I do not, then, consider that teaching to the children the words of the catechism, and using the bible as a class book, is all that is expected to be done. Nor, secondly, adding to the above the Common Prayer as a class book used to teach the doctrines of the church, with arithmetic, algebra, grammar, and geography. For after having succeeded in teaching all these to the children, there still remain untaught church principles, principles to carry the children safely through the waves of this troublesome world to everlasting life. My object in troubling you is, to inquire what these principles are, and how they are to be taught effectually to children? For I candidly confess that my own practice has not succeeded. I seem only to have been able to teach a certain degree of obedience and of knowledge of the doctrines and discipline of the church, with arithmetic, &c., without having the desired success in teaching principles. I shall REMARKS ON PROFESSOR POWELL'S RECENT WORK ON TRADITION. SIR,-As no discussion on any particular system of Christianity can proceed till some grounds have been first ascertained for establishing the general truth of Christianity itself, it seems expedient to begin the matter of the present letter from this point. It is evident that, according to the manner in which a person becomes first convinced of the fundamental truths of his religion, his views on all other questions in detail, as of church authority and tradition, will very much take their colouring. Before, then, we follow the author of "Tradition Unveiled" into his peculiar statements on particular points, I may advert briefly to what he has alleged concerning the evidences of the Christian religion in its more wide and general acceptation. And here the field of inquiry is much limited by his requiring of us at once to discard all appeal to acknowledged authority, and the voice of the church, on this subject. He reduces the question to the simple testimony of the New-Testament scriptures, and to the consideration of the sufficiency of these alone, without any adventitious help, (save that of a little learning and science, see pp. 13, 14, 17, 18, 68, 71,) to impress the belief of Christianity, and to secure its reception among mankind. Now it will be admitted that these scriptures could hardly be perused with any attention without leaving on the mind some serious impression of their inspired character and origin. The force of this impression, however, would very much vary in different persons, according to the different dispositions of each, and to the different degrees of religious knowledge to which they had severally attained. If opened and perused with a previous belief of their inspiration, and with a determination to profit further by their contents, the writings of the New Testament would undoubtedly unfold a vast body of convincing evidence, sufficient to repay the most diligent research. Yet this very evidence, unassisted by any previous belief, and not meeting with a disposition equally favourable to its reception, would no less certainly fail to produce the same degree of conviction as before. That which would be esteemed evidence in one case, might pass only for the result of prepossession or fancy in the other. The inward power of scripture to soothe and comfort as well as to renew and edify, its benevolent maxims, high and disinterested motives, transcendent promises and authoritative threats, the simplicity yet majesty, the soberness yet warmth, the clearness yet mystery* of its sentiments and language, the heavenly-mindedness yet intimate acquaintance with the human heart that pervades its pages, all these, presupposing the belief of inspiration, have indeed great accumulated force in confirmation of that belief. But arguments of this kind address themselves chiefly to the heart and conscience; and in proceeding merely "I confess that the more I examine the Bible the more am I disposed to consider it a book full of second meanings, of wheels within wheels."-Blunt's Sketch of the Church of the First Two Centuries. Serm. V. upon grounds of abstract reason, or demonstrative evidence, they could scarcely be alleged as proofs that the scriptures were divine. If Christianity is to be argued on wholly independent grounds, and divested of all reference to existing forms and notions, we must advance with more caution and reserve than to give weight to evidences not obvious or applicable to the understanding of the most indifferent and uninformed inquirer. Without the benefit, then, of the numerous class of internal evidences just alluded to, and without the witness of a church, how are we to be assured, or rather how is the indifferent and unenlightened inquirer to be assured, of the truth of that book on which, nevertheless, and on which alone (68-71), he is to rely for all the articles of his belief? Must we go to the Old-Testament scriptures, and seek in the fulfilment of types and prophecies the groundwork of the gospel? These were esteemed powerful arguments indeed in primitive times;* but here again we are fearful of incurring the author's charge of "mixing up the Old Testament in some ill explained manner with the New," (p. 19,) "reviving Jewish opinions," &c. (see pp. 14, 58, 65, and 66.) What, then, are the proofs of the Christian faith? All seems overcast with doubt, and involved in perplexity. Is it to be assumed without proof that to the general reader of the bible, (supposing it put into his hands,) the necessary evidences of its truth would be either as self-evident or as easily demonstrable as the author appears to think? Yet this is assumed in "Tradition Unveiled." The basis of all rational faith is there expressly laid in the fact that the New-Testament scriptures contain a full, final, and determinate body of divine truth (pp. 68-71), to which nothing, not even a gloss or commentary, can authoritatively be added (p. 27), but the understanding of which is competent to every individual who will fairly exercise his reason upon it, (pp. 69, 76, and 50.) And how, I repeat, are we to be assured of this fact? What are the proofs that establish it? The author is evidently aware of the vast importance of this to the whole question at issue, but what is his answer? Let him speak for himself: "This is to us the all important point; and it is especially to be observed that this depends on no tradition or sentence of the church, either as independently divine, or, still less, as resting its claims on scripture; that is, sanctioning its own authority, and a judge in its own cause; but essentially on mere human and fallible testimony, supported by the broad fact that the writings of the New Testament were attacked by the earliest enemies of Christianity as being its authentic charter; and still more in (?on) the important circumstance that within the pale of Christianity these books were appealed to......and either party charged the other with being unscriptural, and thought their case made out if they could substantiate the charge."—pp. 69, 70. Besides this, he contents himself with affirming only that there is abundant evidence (not specifying what) for all, learned and unlearned; only that each must be left entirely free to the exercise of his own conscientious conviction, (pp. 68, 9, 50, and 76.) In short, the allsufficiency of scripture, as a book whose inspiration is evident to Luke, xxiv. 25-27, and 44-46; 2 Pet. i. 19. VOL. XV.-May, 1839. 3 Y reason, and whose contents need no interpreter, is a point evidently assumed throughout the Treatise; but, I contend, not so fully made out as its importance requires. And this I take to be a serious objection against the whole. Is it wise, or is it just, in an author who expresses great concern for the welfare of religion generally, (pp. 7, 67, 8,) to wrench Christianity from its olden grounds, and bestow no pains to substitute foundations of equal strength with those which he labours to remove? This deserves some other name than an "Exposition of the Pretensions and Tendency of Church Authority;" we should rather regard it as a grievous and irreparable injury to religion itself. Having made these preliminary remarks, I now proceed to consider more particularly the subject of tradition, which occupies the first place in the author's treatise. The advocates of tradition, it is observed, take up their strong position on the point that, if men were left entirely to their own interpretation of scripture, they would hardly avoid great diversity in their views of Christian doctrine; and hence maintain the necessity of some further guide, which they find in tradition, (pp. 15, 16.) It is evident they must claim for this some authority higher than mere human opinion, which it purports to guide, (p. 17;) and the great question is, whether such authority can be made out? To argue it from scripture, the author contends, is absolutely absurd (p. 18); and he gives the "Oxford school" some credit for avoiding this absurdity by allowing the insufficiency of scripture on this point, and seeking the foundation of church authority elsewhere. Tradition, then, it follows, must be argued on independent grounds, (pp. 20 and 21,) wholly distinct from scripture; or else we are driven to the absurdity of proving tradition from scripture, (which, for this purpose, he observes, must be interpreted in a certain sense,) while this very sense is taken from tradition; which he calls a perpetual circle. It is to the examination of this dilemma that I wish to call particular attention. The author has taken such advantages of it as to make it the ground of a general and sweeping conclusion, that there are "NO scripture proofs of tradition* or church authority." This, if true, will be a somewhat appalling discovery to those who have been accustomed to look up to scripture with great comfort and satisfaction as their chief ground of obedience to the spiritual instructions of their church. The shock, too, will be felt by others who, by a similar way of arguing, have been accustomed to take some of their strongest proofs of the New Testament from the writings of the Old, while yet they have not scrupled to take the sense of the Old from the writings of the New. By parity of reasoning, this is a dilemma as formidable as the other. But it is better to examine first into the truth of the dilemma itself, before we alarm ourselves about its probable consequences. I will state it at full in the author's own words: : *This is not, I think, stating it more broadly than he has done, when he says, (vid. "Argument II.,")" Church authority not proved from scripture." |