Page images
PDF
EPUB

A Sermon, preached at Amersham, on Tuesday, June 3, 1834, at the Triennial Visitation of John, Lord Bishop of Lincoln, and printed at the request of the Clergy present. By SAMUEL BIRCH, D.D., Vicar of Little Marlow. London: Rivingtons. 1834. 8vo. Pp. 24.

THAT dangers beset the Church as well from the lukewarmness of her friends as from the malice and cunning of her enemies, is no less clearly proved by Dr. Birch, than his own zeal is manifest in the cause of our beleaguered Zion. From Phil. i. 27, 28, he sets forth the example of the suffering Church of Philippi as an encouragement and a warning to ourselves in the crisis that overhangs our destiny. Our destiny did we say? No! We know in whom we place our confidence; and we have His word that the gates of hell shall not prevail against us. Still in these times we must not slumber on our post. If we will not exert ourselves, we cannot expect another age of miracles. We have, however, some forward champions in the field; and we are proud to acknowledge Dr. Birch among the first of the number.

The Church of England its own Witness. An Argument to prove the Identity of the Church of England with the ancient British and Apostolic Church in Locality of Jurisdiction, Form of Government, and Institution of Doctrine. By BRITANNICUS. London: Rivingtons. 1834. Pp. 33.

THE enemies of our Church, who intended us much evil, have in reality, in many ways, done us much good;

inasmuch as there has not been a supposed evil charged upon her but what has been honestly and manfully rebutted. The talent which has been called forth from the clergy and laity of the Church of England in the different works that have issued from the press, convinces us more and more that the infidels and heretics would not have made so great a stride in their unhallowed course had they been instantly met,and their falsehoods simultaneously exposed. Silent satisfaction in our own

strength and rectitude has been our failing. In the pamphlet before us we have another learned and enlightened champion in our holy cause, who has, with no mean ability, defended the different points specified in the above title to his work.

We quote the following as a literary curiosity, as well as a document in favour of Episcopacy:

"The ancient records of the British Church, which have been collected by the authorities to which I have before alluded, inform us, that Bishops have existed in the island from the earliest dawn of Christianity. We have the names of many, in a long continued succession, who have filled various bishoprics. I shall give the names of the primitive bishops of London and York. We begin with those of York; Sampson, about A.D. 170; Eborius, 314; Taurinus, appointed by Constantius Chlorus, 300; Pyramus, appointed by King Arthur, about 520; Todiacus, who fled into Wales, 586. Of London, the names of a greater number have been preserved; Theanus, about A.D. 170; his church was founded on the spot now occupied by St. Peter's, Cornhill. Three bishops were delegated by the Church of England to attend the Council of Arles, in France, A.D. 314. These were, Eborius, of York; Restitutus, of London; and Adelfuis, of Carleon; and it may be mentioned in connexion with this historical fact, as an important corroborative proof of the agreement of the ancient with the modern British Church, that Bishop Adelfuis was accompanied in his mission by Sacerdos, a priest, and Arminius, a deacon. To conclude this portion of proof, I shall only further quote the words of Gregory, in answer to an inquiry of St. Austin, as to the manner in which he should conduct himself towards the bishops of Gaul and Britain. We give thee no power over the bishops of Gaul, they being under the Bishop of Arles; but all the BISHOPS of the BRITONS we commit to thy paternal care.'—Bede, B. l. c. 7. This is conclusive evidence of the fact.

"The government of the ancient British Church was episcopacy; and the Church of England at the present day maintains the same discipline."-P. 10.

A SERMON

ON THE GOSPEL FOR THE FOURTEENTH SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY.

LUKE xvii. 17.

Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?

THE Evangelist relates that our Lord, in journeying from Galilee to Jerusalem, entered into a certain village, where "there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off: and they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed. And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, and fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger. And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole."

To understand this transaction fully, and consequently, to derive from it the full advantage which it was intended to convey to all generations, we must consider two things-the nature of the blessing bestowed, and the character of those who received it.

First, we will consider the nature of the blessing bestowed.

:

In Judea the disease of leprosy was nearly the most terrible mìsfortune which could befal a human being. Beside being a very loathsome and painful state of existence, there were some circumstances attached to it, which, to a believer in the law of Moses, made it almost insupportable. The virulent and contagious nature of this disease rendered it necessary, under any circumstances, to shun the society of persons infected with it; the Levitical law, therefore, was very severe and minute in its restrictions with regard to lepers and as all the provisions of that law had an emblematical meaning, representing spiritual matters by material objects, leprosy was considered a type of moral defilement, and, on this account, treated with great severity. All persons whom the law pronounced unclean, were excluded from society; and few were likely to violate this prohibition, for independently of the danger of infection, those who touched a leper incurred all the penalties of impurity themselves. The poor patient, therefore, was not only the prey of a miserable disease, but he was denied the few consolations which his wretched situation admitted. The regulations of the Mosaic law were very necessary, but the miseries of the leper were no less real. In addition to his distemper and his destitution, he was compelled to adopt the humiliating warning of a particular dress, and to proclaim his misfortunes to the passengers, crying aloud, "Unclean." All these calamities were greatly heightened by the opinion generally prevalent among the Jews, that the leprosy was an especial judgment from God. In some instances we find that leprosy was inflicted as a divine judgment; and hence it was too rashly concluded that it was so in all.

Outcast, therefore, as he supposed, from God, and, as he knew, from mankind, the victim of pain and sorrow, unalleviated, unconsoled, the leper endured an existence, the intense misery of which is scarcely conceivable.

It was then to be delivered from this state of insurpassable degradation and wretchedness, that ten persons addressed themselves to our Lord. Their application to him was evidence of the very highest faith; for they believed that nothing less than divine power could effect the cure of a leper. Thus far then we find them all equal. It was commanded in the law that when the leper had recovered, he was to go and shew himself to the priests, that he might be declared clean, offer his sacrifice and receive his purification: and then be admitted into civil society. Jesus, to make further trial of their faith, commands the lepers to shew themselves to the priests, as if they were actually cured; they abided this trial, and, accordingly, on their way, they were all cleansed. But although all possessed faith, one only, we find, was influenced by gratitude. What might have been the religious professions of the other nine must be uncertain: sure it is that all must have been believers in Moses. But he who alone returned to thank his divine Benefactor for a deliverance only to be estimated by those who can form an idea of the extreme misery of the leper, was a Samaritan.

The Samaritans, in the time of our Lord, were a mixed race of Israelites and Gentiles. Samaria was the chief city of the ten tribes, when they revolted from Judah. Jeroboam, the author of the revolt, and founder of the kingdom of Israel, knowing that Jerusalem was the place selected by God for his peculiar worship, and fearing lest the affections of his people should return to the crown of Judah, if they were allowed to attend the stated feasts in Jerusalem, instead of leaving these events to the Disposer of hearts, determined to prevent his subjects from performing an express duty. Unmindful, therefore, of the positive distinction of the family of Aaron, he consecrated priests of the lowest of the people, and set up two images of calves, in imitation of the Egyptian superstitions, in Dan and Bethel, proclaiming, "These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt." This was at once an essential corruption of the purity of true religion; and therefore we find the sin of Jeroboam, who made Israel to sin, alluded to throughout the history of the kings of Israel in the very strongest language of condemnation. The seeds of religious corruption had been therefore sown; and circumstances afterwards contributed strongly to ripen them. When the Israelites were removed into captivity by Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, their country was given to a mixed multitude of various nations and religions. The new settlers being infested with lions, applied for protection to the king, who considering, according to the heathen notions, that the God of Israel was a mere local deity, sent one of the priests to teach them, as he expressed it," the manner of the God of the land." The strangers, from that time, associated the worship of God with that of their own idols; and although, after the general return from the Babylonish captivity, the true God alone was worshipped, great corruption still existed in the Samaritan religion. They received the law of Moses, with the books of Joshua and Judges; but they paid slight regard to the other parts of

66

Scripture, although they gave so much general credence to prophecy as to believe in the approaching Messiah; who was too clearly revealed even in the law only, to admit of a doubt on the subject. On account of their religious errors, and their opposition to the re-erection of the temple at Jerusalem, they were held in universal contempt and hatred by the Jews. The very word Samaritan was a term of bitter reproach: Say we not well," said the Jews to our Lord, "that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" The Samaritans, on their part, were equally hostile to the Jews, and, when parties of that nation were going up from Galilee to Jerusalem, frequently waylaid and murdered them. On one occasion, they refused to receive our Lord in one of their towns, because they suspected he was journeying toward Jerusalem; and the woman with whom he conversed at the well, was perfectly astonished to find a Jew asking of a Samaritan so small a courtesy as a cup of water. Our Lord never gave the least support or sanction to the false notions of the Samaritans: he told them that they knew not what they worshipped, and that salvation was of the Jews; but he severely reproved the Jewish zealots for the uncharitable manner in which they regarded their mistaken brethren, and the unworthy notions they entertained of their God, in supposing him to take delight in the persecution of his creatures.

It was one of these Samaritans then, who alone, of all the ten afflicted persons, returned thanks for the beneficent miracle, in the benefits of which all had equally partaken. The blessing then which these persons received was of the very highest character. The restoration of sight or hearing, or of a palsied limb, would have been a trifle by the comparison; and yet we are apt to imagine that any person who should be recovered from blindness or palsy by a miraculous act of God, would be all gratitude and devotion. Notwithstanding we find that nine persons, suddenly rescued from the most abject and lonely misery, and restored to health and society by the especial exertion of Omnipotence, neglected to pay their thanks for the blessing, and that one alone was found grateful. But we should be inclined to suppose that there might be something about the circumstances of these persons which might sufficiently account for the difference. The nine might be ignorant and brutish, their notions of a God might be very confused, and their ideas of the connexion between the Divine will and the operation of the cure still less distinct: while the remaining one might have been trained from early youth in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, accustomed to depend at all times on the providence of his Father in heaven, and to refer all his blessings to the universal Parent of good. Let us then, secondly, examine the character of the restored persons. So far from being ignorant of duty, all, it is evident, had been instructed in the law of Moses, which taught all the great articles of belief and practice; all trusted in the power of Christ to relieve them from their misery; otherwise they would not have so confidently besought his aid; all therefore must have been aware of the prodigious mercy conferred, and of the dignity of the hand that wrought it. Nor was the grateful leper in any way distinguished in religious advantages above his brethren in calamity: in all probability, he was much less fortunate in this respect than the rest: for when we are told expressly

that he was a Samaritan, it seems to be implied that the rest were not; and as their whole conduct shews them to be followers of Moses, it will remain that they must have been Jews; he therefore had less light than the rest; and, by consequence, the conduct of all these men appears little less miraculous than the miracle itself.

Before I proceed to account for this singular circumstance, let me be allowed a passing observation. We are frequently too forward to imagine ourselves superior to others from certain outward habits and practices in themselves perfectly commendable and right in which we perceive them deficient. Any Jew, no doubt, would have considered himself degraded by a comparison with the thankful Samaritan. And yet it is unnecessary to prove who was the truly religious. This circumstance alone should awaken in us a disposition to judge in all things charitably of others, and to be extremely careful how we mistake in ourselves feelings which arise from custom and prejudice, for those which are the fruit of genuine religion.

This premised, we will attempt to find a solution of the difficulty in question. For this it will be unnecessary to go far. Let us, my brethren, seek it in ourselves. The conviction may be humiliating, but it is indispensable; we are living evidences of the truth of this history. We are all instructed in the ways of God, in the mercies of Christ, far more fully than were these lepers; and yet, ungrateful as were the majority of them, they had faith enough to call upon their Saviour and to prevail on him to work a miracle for their deliverance. Now do I say that any among you do not seek in your misfortunes to Christ? Assuredly not; such a supposition could never be entertained by a christian minister -of a christian congregation. Yet, my brethren, it is our duty to exhort one another, and to encourage one another, to cast our care where we know it will be borne. But let us grant that the Christian is forward to betake himself to the assistance of his Saviour in sickness, losses, or calamity: let us suppose that, in this respect at least, we are unreproached by conscience, and can never recollect the occasion when we felt the sorrow without instantly seeking the appointed comfort. When we have cried unto the Lord in our trouble have we not been delivered out of our distress? Has the balm ever been denied? Will any of us say that in the time of affliction he has prayed and read his Bible in vain? What has supported us when to the eye of the world we have been destitute and helpless? What has detained us in life, when to all human appearance every object worth living for has been lost and forfeited? Has it not been the conviction that we still had a Friend greater than any we had lost or could lose? that objects far worthier than the best of the imperfect and perishable happiness of earth demanded our reflections and exertions? And to whom have we been indebted for these glorious convictions and consolations, but to Him whose aid we sought in prayer, and found in his unalterable word? But some earthly prosperity, the work of his own beneficent hand, has befallen us, and we are ready, even in consequence of his own goodness, to forget those comforts and encouragements when we less powerfully experience the need of them. We have become insensible to the attractions of infinite and inexhaustible love, to the surpassing beauty and perfection of that happiness which is offered to all who are willing

« PreviousContinue »