That in some things our nature is cross to the divine commandment, is not always imputable to us, because our natures were before the commandment.
This is what I most complain of in Jeremy Taylor"s ethics; namely, that he constantly refers us to the deeds or "phenomena" in time, the effluents from the source, or like the "species" of Epicurus; while the corrupt nature is declared guiltless and irresponsible; and this too on the pretext that it was prior in time to the commandment, and therefore not against it. But time is no more predicable of eternal reason than of will; but not of will; for if a will be at all, it must be "ens spirituale"; and this is the first negative definition of spiritual--whatever having true being is not contemplable in the forms of time and s.p.a.ce. Now the necessary consequence of Taylor"s scheme is a conscience-worrying, casuistical, monkish work-holiness. Deeply do I feel the difficulty and danger that besets the opposite scheme; and never would I preach it, except under such provisos as would render it perfectly compatible with the positions previously established by Taylor in this chapter, s. xliv. p. 158. "Lastly; the regenerate not only hath received the Spirit of G.o.d, but is wholly led by him," &c.
Ib.
If this Treatise of Repentance contain Bishop Taylor"s habitual and final convictions, I am persuaded that in some form or other he believed in a Purgatory. In fact, dreams and apparitions may have been the pretexts, and the immense addition of power and wealth which the belief entailed on the priesthood, may have been their motives for patronizing it; but the efficient cause of its reception by the churches is to be found in the preceding Judaic legality and monk-moral of the Church, according to which the fewer only could hope for the peace of heaven as their next immediate state. The holiness that sufficed for this would evince itself (it was believed) by the power of working miracles.
Ib. s. lii. p. 208.
"It shall not be pardoned in this world nor in the world to come"; that is, neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles. For "saeculum hoc", this world, in Scripture, is the period of the Jews" synagogue, and [Greek: mellon aion], the world to come, is taken for the Gospel, or the age of the Messias, frequently among the Jews.
This is, I think, a great and grievous mistake. The Rabbis of best name divide into two or three periods, the difference being wholly in the words; for the dividers by three meant the same as those by two.
The first was the "dies expectationis", or "hoc saeculum," [Greek: en touto kairo]: the second "dies Messiae", the time of the Messiah, that is, the "millenium": the third the "saeculum futurum", or future state, which last was absolutely spiritual and celestial.
But many Rabbis made the "dies Messiae" part, that is, the consummation of this world, the conclusive Sabbath of the great week, in which they supposed the duration of the earth or world of the senses to be comprised; but all agreed that the "dies", or thousand years, of the Messiah was a transitional state, during which the elect were gradually defecated of body, and ripened for the final or spiritual state.
During the "millenium" the will of G.o.d will be done on earth, no less, though in a lower glory, than it will be done hereafter in heaven.
Now it is to be carefully observed that the Jewish doctors or Rabbis (all such at least as remained unconverted) had no conception or belief of a suffering Messiah, or of a period after the birth of the Messiah, previous to the kingdom, and of course included in the time of expectation.
The appearance of the Messiah and his a.s.sumption of the throne of David were to be contemporaneous. The Christian doctrine of a suffering Messiah, or of Christ as the high priest and intercessor, has of course introduced a modification of the Jewish scheme.
But though there is a seeming discrepance in different texts in the first three Gospels, yet the Lord"s Prayer appears to determine the question in favour of the elder and present Rabbinical belief; that is, it does not date the "dies Messiae," or kingdom of the Lord, from his Incarnation, but from a second coming in power and glory, and hence we are taught to pray for it as an event yet future.
Nay, our Lord himself repeatedly speaks of the Son of Man in the third person, as yet to come. a.s.suredly our Lord ascended the throne and became a King on his final departure from his disciples. But it was the throne of his Father, and he an invisible King, the sovereign Providence to whom all power was committed.
And this celestial kingdom cannot be identified with that under which the divine will will be done on earth as it is in heaven; that is, when on this earth the Church militant shall be one in holiness with the triumphant Church.
The difficulties, I confess, are great; and for those who believe the first Gospel (and this in its present state) to have been composed by the Apostle Matthew, or at worst to be a literal and faithful translation from a Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic) Gospel written by him, and who furthermore contend for its having been word by word dictated by an infallible Spirit, the necessary duty of reconciling the different pa.s.sages in the first Gospel with each other, and with others in St.
Luke"s, is, "me saltern judice", a most Herculean one.
The most consistent and rational scheme is, I am persuaded, that which is adopted in the Apocalypse. The new creation, commencing with our Lord"s resurrection, and measured as the creation of this world ("hujus saeculi", [Greek: toutou ai_onos]) was by the doctors of the Jewish church--namely, as a week--divided into two princ.i.p.al epochs,--the six sevenths or working days, during which the Gospel was gradually to be preached in all the world, and the number of the elect filled up,--and the seventh, the Sabbath of the Messiah, or the kingdom of Christ on earth in a new Jerusalem.
But as the Jewish doctors made the day (or one thousand years) of Messiah, a part, because the consummation, of this world, [Greek: toutou aionos toutou kairou], so the first Christians reversely made the kingdom commence on the first (symbolical) day of the sacred week, the last or seventh day of which was to be the complete and glorious manifestation of this kingdom. If any one contends that the kingdom of the Son of Man, and the re-descent of our Lord with his angels in the clouds, are to be interpreted spiritually,
I have no objection; only you cannot pretend that this was the interpretation of the disciples. It may be the right, but it was not the Apostolic belief.
Ib. s. 1. p. 257.
For this was giving them pardon, by virtue of those words of Christ, "Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted;" that is, if ye, who are the stewards of my family, shall admit any one to the kingdom of Christ on earth, they shall be admitted to the partic.i.p.ation of Christ"s kingdom in heaven; and what ye bind here shall be bound there; that is, if they be unworthy to partake of Christ here, they shall be accounted unworthy to partake of Christ hereafter.
Then without such a gift of reading the hearts of men, as priests do not now pretend to, this text means almost nothing. A wicked shall not, but a good man shall, be admitted to heaven; for if you have with good reason rejected any one here, I will reject him hereafter, amounts to no more than the rejection or admission of men according to their moral fitness or unfitness, the truth or unsoundness of their faith and repentance. I rather think that the promise, like the miraculous insight which it implies, was given to the Apostles and first disciples exclusively, and that it referred almost wholly to the admission of professed converts to the Church of Christ.
"In fine".
I have written but few marginal notes to this long Treatise, for the whole is to my feeling and apprehension so Romish, so anti-Pauline, so unctionless, that it makes my very heart as dry as the desert sands, when I read it. Instead of partial animadversions, I prescribe the chapter on the Law and the Gospel, in Luther"s "Table Talk", as the general antidote. [13]
VINDICATION OF THE GLORY OF THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES IN THE QUESTION OF ORIGINAL SIN.
Ib. Obj. iv. p. 346.
But if Original Sin be not a sin properly, why are children baptized?
And what benefit comes to them by Baptism? I answer, as much as they need, and are capable of.
The eloquent man has plucked just p.r.i.c.kles enough out of the dogma of Original Sin to make a thick and ample crown of thorns for his opponents; and yet left enough to tear his own clothes off his back, and pierce through the leather jerkin of his closeliest wrought logic. In this answer to this objection he reminds me of the renowned squire, who first scratched out his eyes in a quickset hedge, and then leaped back and scratched them in again. So Jeremy Taylor first pulls out the very eyes of the doctrine, leaves it blind and blank, and then leaps back into it and scratches them in again, but with a most opulent squint that looks a hundred ways at once, and no one can tell which it really looks at.
Ib.
By Baptism children are made partakers of the Holy Ghost and of the grace of G.o.d; which I desire to be observed in opposition to the Pelagian heresy, who did suppose nature to be so perfect, that the grace of G.o.d was not necessary, and that by nature alone, they could go to heaven; which because I affirm to be impossible, and that Baptism is therefore necessary, because nature is insufficient and Baptism is the great channel of grace, &c.
What then of the poor heathens, that is, of five-sixths of all mankind.
Would more go to h.e.l.l by nature alone? If so: where is G.o.d"s justice in Taylor"s plan more than in Calvin"s?
Ib. Obj. v. p. 355.
Although I have shewn the great excess and abundance of grace by Christ over the evil that did descend by Adam; yet the proportion and comparison lies in the main emanation of death from one, and life from the other.
Does Jeremy Taylor then believe that the sentence of death on Adam and his sons extended to the soul; that death was to be absolute cessation of being! Scarcely I hope. But if bodily only, where is the difference between "ante" and "post Christum?"
Ib. p. 356.
Not that G.o.d could be the author of a sin to any, but that he appointed the evil which is the consequent of sin, to be upon their heads who descended from the sinner.
Rare justice! and this too in a tract written to rescue G.o.d"s justice from the Supra- and Sub-lapsarians! How quickly would Taylor have detected in an adversary the absurd realization contained in this and the following pa.s.sages of the abstract notion, sin, from the sinner: as if sin were any thing but a man sinning, or a man who has sinned! As well might a sin committed in Sirius or the planet Saturn justify the infliction of conflagration on the earth and h.e.l.l-fire on all its rational inhabitants. Sin! the word sin! for abstracted from the sinner it is no more: and if not abstracted from him, it remains separate from all others.
Ib. p. 358.
The consequent of this discourse must needs at least be this; that it is impossible that the greatest part of mankind should be left in the eternal bonds of h.e.l.l by Adam; for then quite contrary to the discourse of the Apostle, there had been abundance of sin, but a scarcity of grace.
And yet Jeremy Taylor will not be called a Pelagian. Why? Because without grace superadded by Christ no man could be saved: that is, all men must go to h.e.l.l, and this not for any sin, but from a calamity, the consequences of another man"s sin, of which they were even ignorant. G.o.d would not condemn them the sons of Adam for sin, but only inflicted on them an evil, the necessary effect of which was that they should all troop to the devil! And this is Jeremy Taylor"s defence of G.o.d"s justice! The truth is Taylor was a Pelagian, believed that without Christ thousands, Jews and heathens, lived wisely and holily, and went to heaven; but this he did not dare say out, probably not even to himself; and hence it is that he flounders backward and forward, now upping and now downing.
In truth, this eloquent Treatise may be compared to a statue of Ja.n.u.s, with one face fixed on certain opponents, full of life and force, a witty scorn on the lip, a brow at once bright and weighty with satisfying reason: the other looking at the something instead of that which had been confuted, maimed, noseless, and weather-bitten into a sort of visionary confusion and indistinctness. [14] It looks like this--aye and very like that--but how like it is, too, such another thing!
AN ANSWER TO A LETTER WRITTEN BY THE RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER, CONCERNING THE CHAPTER OF ORIGINAL SIN, IN THE "UNUM NECESSARIUM."