tian churches, in substituting the three great Christian, for the three great Jewish festivals. Easter succeeds the Passover-Whitsuntide the feast of Pentecost, and Christmas the feast of Tabernacles. Easter in the Greek and Latin languages is called Pascha; the French write it Pâques ; which words have an allusion to the Paschal Lamb; and the Church of England, in the service appointed for Easter Sunday, says, Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore its being designated by a word previously used in our language, is of no manner of consequence. Indeed the prudent Christians in all ages have taken care to do as little violence as possible to the feelings and prejudices of the people; and our ancestors acted wisely in substituting the Christian for the heathen festival, without altering the name. That the new idea annexed to the word was distinct and altogether different, is evident from the consideration, that since the establishment of christianity among the Saxons, few beside etymologists and learned men, had any knowledge that such a goddess as Eostre was ever worshipped, or that she was honored with a festival. The ridiculousness of this sectarian objection may be made manifest on other grounds. 1. The word Gospel is ever in the mouths of the sectaries; and this word is, like Easter, a heathen word, and entirely of Saxon derivation. It is compounded of the Saxon words God (good) and Spel (speech or tidings.) In the Greek (the language in which the new testament was written) it is called Euaggelion, a word which is used by Greek authors for good tidings: therefore on the principles of these triflers, they ought to say Euaggelion, instead of Godspel, or, by contraction, Gospel. 2. The word God is Saxon, and has been applied to the Saxon gods Thor, Woden, &c. as Easter has to Eostre; therefore in using this word, the sectaries are guilty of the same impropriety they charge on the Church. In the sacred Hebrew language, the unspeakable (except by the high priest in the holy of holies) and incommunicable name of the Tetragrammaton, is Jehovah. The words Elohim and Aleim, Adonai, &c. were applied to the Deity in the old testament. In the Greek language he is called Theos; in the Latin, Deus; in the French, Dieu, &c. [These things I mention for the purpose of enlarging the ideas of these unfortunate, narrowminded bigots.] 3. The names of our months and days are heathen; but many of the sectaries use them, without being acquainted with their origin. January was dedicated to the Roman god Janus; February is from Februo, to purify, that being the month of the Roman purifications; March was dedicated to Mars, the god of war; April is derived from Aperio, to open, meaning the opening of the buds; May was dedicated to the goddess Maia; June to Juno; July to Julius Cæsar; August to Augustus; September, October, November and December are the Roman names of numbers. Sunday is the die solis of the Romans; Monday was dedicated to the Moon; Tuesday to the Saxon god, Tuesco; Wednesday, or Wodensdach, to Wodin, or Odin: Thursday to Thor; Friday to Fritag; and Saturday to Sea ter. Нн 4. The word Sacrament is derived from Sacramentum, an oath, used by the ancient Roman soldiers. This holy institution is, like Easter, expressed by different words in different languages, as Sacrament in English, Sacramentum in Latin, Eucharistia in Greek, and St. Cene in French. These observations will serve to shew the littleness of the objections advanced against the Church, by its adversaries. However, we must allow them to cavil about trifles, as they have nothing of moment whereto they can possibly have recourse. A CHURCHMAN. Exposition of the Articles of the Church. ARTICLE XI. Of the Justification of Man. We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification. JUSTIFICATION, in the language of scripture, signifies the being accounted just or righteous in the sight of God, or the being placed in a state of salvation. Such is the general corruption of human nature, and such the imperfection of the best of men, that if God were to enter into judgment with his servants upon the strict ground of their own works or deservings, no man living would be justified; and therefore we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merits of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, by faithAnd this is the express declaration of scripture. The righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness; that he might be just and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus....Rom. iii. 22. For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God....Ephes. ii. 8. By the faith, which in these passages is said to justify and to save, we are to understand that lively faith which worketh by love....Gal. v. 6. which purifieth the heart, which keepeth the commandments of God. But though by these acts of obedience we demonstrate that we truly and firmly believe the divine authority of Christ and his doctrines, yet this faith is not so meritorious in its own nature, as to entitle us to the reward of eternal life; it justifies us only by being the condition upon which it has pleased our Almighty Father to offer us salvation. Our justification is not to be attributed to the inherent efficacy of faith, but to the mercy of God, and the merits of Christ, from which alone that efficacy is derived. By grace we are saved through faith.This was the doctrine of the early christians. It may be proper upon this occasion to explain some passages in the Epistles of St. Paul and St. James relative to justification, which at first sight appear to be contradictory to each other. St. Paul says, that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law....Rom. iii. 28. And again, that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ....Gal. ii. 16. St. James says, a man is justified by his works and not by faith only....James ii. 24. We are to remember that St. Paul, when he makes the above declarations, is arguing, as clearly appears from the context, against those judaizing christians, who contended that circumcision, and an observance of the whole ritual of the Mosaic institution, were necessary for salvation in all who embraced the gospel; and therefore the works and deeds of the law, of which he speaks, were those numerous outward ordinances prescribed by the law of Moses, and abolished by the gospel of Christ. But this obvious sense of these passages was soon perverted, and they were made to signify, that faith in Christ, without works or deeds of any kind, that is, without the practice of moral virtue, was of itself sufficient to procure salvation. This most unwarrantable interpretation St. James reprobated and refuted by proHe ving that a man is justified by his works, and not by faith enly. does not say, by the works of the law, but by his works, that is, by When therefore he says, that a man a man's own works or actions. is not justified by a bare belief of the divine mission of Christ; that belief must be accompanied by obedience, or it will be ineffectual; that is, as he says in another place, Faith without works is dead.... James ii. 20. Hence it appears, that the words faith and works are used in different senses by St. Paul and by St. James. St. Paul puts faith for the whole of christianity, in contradistinction to the law of Moses; and the works which he declares to be unnecessary for jusOn the other tification, are the rites and ceremonies of that law. hand, by faith, St. James means a bare assent to the truth of the gospel; and the works which he declares to be necessary for justification are the moral duties enjoined by the gospel, and which are produced by faith. St. Paul therefore says, the religion of Christ, if believed and obeyed, is sufficient to justify. St. James says, the bare belief of the religion of Christ, without a conformity to its precepts, is not sufficient to justify. These two propositions are perfectly consistent with each other; and the seeming contradiction in the passages themselves arises from the circumstance just now noticed, namely, that the two apostles, in reasoning against different erWe may observe, in rors, use the same words in different senses. confirmation of our having rightly explained St. Paul's meaning of the word faith, that every one of his epistles abounds with the most earnest exhortations and strict injunctions to the practice of the moral duties, as forming an essential part of the christian character, and as absolutely indispensable to salvation: and in his epistle to the Romans, he expressly says, that God will render to every man according to his works; tribulation and anguish unto every soul of man that doeth evil; and glory, honor and peace to every man that worketh good: and that, "not the bearers of the law shall be just before God, but the do ers of the law shall be justified....Rom. ii. 6. 13. The word faith in this article is used in the same sense in which St. Paul uses it. The assertion in it, that we are justified by faith only, is not intended to signify that we are justified by faith without moral virtue, but that faith, or obedience to the whole religion of Christ, including both belief and practice, is the only appointed means of justification, our own works or deservings being utterly insufficient for that purpose. This is pronounced to be a wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort; and so it surely is, since it secures acceptance to our sincere, though imperfect endeavors after righteousness, and places our hope of everlasting happiness upon the infallible promises of God, and the all-sufficient merits of Christ. Three Essays; On the CONSTITUTION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH; the Suc- [Continued from page 232.] HEB. VII. 24. On the Succession in the Christian Mirustry. IT being once admitted, that the Constitution of the Christian Church was fixed by Christ and his Apostles, it must follow, that that constitution cannot be changed by men. It is a principle in human societies, that all things must be clone agreeably to the constitution, otherwise they have no validity. If the governor of Maryland were chosen in any other way, than that pointed out by the constitution, he would not be a constitutional governor. Civil communities are formed by men, and their constitutions must be subject to the control of men religious communities are instituted by divine authority, and can only be changed or modified by the same power. To say, that Christ and his Apostles fixed a plan for the government of his Church, and that that plan must be occasionally mended or altered by men, would not imply very respectful sentiments towards the divine head of the Church. The only question with an humble christian must be, what is the plan instituted by divine authority? This being ascertained, he without hesitation adheres to it with unlimited confidence. The strongest figures of speech are used to denote the connection between Christ and his Church. He is said to be "the good shep herd that knoweth his sheep and is known of them." (1) He is called a vine and his followers the branches. (2) He is the head and his Church the body. (3) The Church is called his spouse. (4) These expressions surely mark out an intimate connection; and this connection must be continued, otherwise the church is cut off from her head. Whatever, then, was instituted by Christ or his Apostles must be inviolably preserved. If he appointed baptism to be the sacrament by which members should he initiated into his church, without being baptized, no one can be considered as belonging to that church. If he instituted the Eucharist, as a testimony of the faith, and a proof of the communion of his followers with him, none (1) John x. 14. (2) John xv. 5. (3) 1 Corinth. xii. 27. (4) 2 Corinth. xi. 2. I can be deemed in communion with him, unless they partake of this sacrament. If the ministry was organized by Christ and his Apostles, that ministry must be continued on the same plan, otherwise the ministers are not " Ambassadors for Christ, (5) or "Stewards of the ministers of God." (6.) These general remarks will lead to an easy understanding of the succession in the Christian ministry. I think it has been already proved, in my first essay, that Christ and his Apostles fixed the ministry upon this plan.-There were three orders, and to these orders were assigned different duties. My purpose does not require, that I should point out all the different duties assigned to each order. I shall only repeat, that the right of ordination was confined to the highest order, and was considered as a gift to be transmitted through that order. If then, any person of either of the inferior orders, a priest or a deacon, had undertaken to ordain, this would have been a violation of the constitution of the church, and could not have passed without detection. (7) Had Philip the deacon, presumed to ordain, his ordination would have been disclaimed, inasmuch as it would have been contrary to the constitution of the church. This is so plain, that I think it cannot be easily mistaken. And if the church began under this form of government, surely she must continue under it, until it shall be changed by the same authority by which it was formed. There is however to be found, in the history of the church, an instance of a man coming into the ministry without ordination-I mean St. Paul. He was called immediately by Christ himself, and the circumstances and miracles attending his call were such as could not be mistaken. He saw a great light from heaven. Jesus himself spoke to him, and directed him what to do. He was struck blind, and continued so for three days. Nor was the reality of his call left to rest upon his own credibility. When he was struck down, there were several with him, and his blindness was a matter of notoriety. Ananias, an inhabitant of Damascus, was informed by the Lord, in a vision, of the call of St. Paul, and directed to go and receive him as a brother in Christ. (5) 2 Corinth. v. 20 (6) 1 Corinth. iv. 1. (7) This is the ground, upon which the church disclaims the ordination of the Methodists. The Rev. Mr. John Wesley, who was only a priest or elder of the church of England, in vlolation of the rules of that church, which at his ordination he had solemnly vowed to maintain, undertook to consecrate Dr. Coke, a superintendant, since called a bishop, who was also himself an elder or priest. Now were any of the elders of the Methodist society to ordain preachers, these would be in the same situation as the preachers ordained by Mr. Wesley were in, with regard to the church. But it will be said, that the rules of the Methodists forbid such a step. And did not the canons of the church also forbid such an ordination as Mr. Wesley conferred? consequently the church must hold the Methodist ordination to be amere nullity. Besides, not contented with the appellation of Superintendant, which Mr. Wesley adopted, or the name of society, which he fixed, they have lately called Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury bishops, and their society an Episcopal church. The members of the church therefore, being unable to account for such changes, only on the supposition that it was wished people should believe them to be real Episcopalians, felt themselves compelled to expose the fallacy of such a claim. |