Part 1

Transcribed from the 1842 J. Hatchard and Son edition by David Price, email [email protected]

THE TRUE MINISTERS OF CHRIST ACCREDITED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.

* * * * *

A SERMON,

PREACHED AT

THE VISITATION

OF THE

VENERABLE THE ARCHDEACON OF DERBY,

IN

ALL SAINTS’ CHURCH,

ON THE 21ST JUNE, 1842

BY THE REV. PHILIP GELL, M.A. MINISTER OF ST. JOHN’S, DERBY, AND RURAL DEAN.

* * * * *

PUBLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLERGY.

* * * * *

* * * * *

LONDON: J. HATCHARD AND SON, 187, PICCADILLY; AND W. BEMROSE, AND W. ROWBOTTOM, DERBY.

1842.

* * * * *

LONDON: S. J. PALMER, PRINTER, SAVOY-STREET, STRAND.

* * * * *

TO THE VENERABLE WALTER AUGUSTUS SHIRLEY, M.A. ARCHDEACON OF DERBY,

AND TO

THE REVEREND THE CLERGY,

ASSEMBLED AT THE VISITATION HELD IN DERBY, A.D. 1842,

THIS SERMON IS DEDICATED, WITH TRUE RESPECT AND AFFECTION, BY THEIR FAITHFUL SERVANT, AND BROTHER IN CHRIST,

THE AUTHOR.

_Derby_, _June_ 21, 1842.

SERMON.

2 COR. ii. 17, and iii. 1–6.

“For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ. Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men: forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us; written, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to Godward; not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; who hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”

To “speak the same thing,”—to “be of one mind in the LORD,”—to be altogether one in the FATHER, and in the SON, as they are one, is the proper habitude of all the members of the church, and especially of all ministers of the word, of GOD.

Because, however, of human imperfections, differences have arisen in the church, even from the earliest and holiest days. Wherefore controversy in the present day need not surprise us; nor should we shun it as if it were necessarily unchristian; nor is any man obliged to take part in it with any other feelings than such as are holy and benignant. With good will may we withstand or intreat one another, or earnestly contend for the faith against an adversary.

Did not the apostle Paul withstand Peter to the face, with feelings anything but personally hostile, because he was to be blamed for his dissembling example: and does not the silence of the story most eloquently speak the silent and affectionate concession of the brother who was blamed?

Do not the words, which I have just read, bring before us another early conflict in holy times: when “many” teachers of the word of GOD “corrupted” it, and the apostle had to maintain the truth against them as “_false apostles_” {2} appealing in his own behalf to sanctions given to him by GOD Himself? And are we not safely to conclude that his zeal and charity in the contest obtained a blessed recompense in the preservation of many from those ruinous corruptions.

Now it is observable that the apostle concentrates the strength of his defence, in this particular passage, in an appeal to the work of the HOLY SPIRIT of GOD attending his ministrations. Whatever might be the truths or errors brought into question,—whether concerning the HOLY GHOST Himself, or other subjects of a different nature,—there were such effects of his labours to be seen, as would prove the presence of that DIVINE SPIRIT with _his_ ministry, and not with the contrary. And hence we may infer, that though all teachers among Christians will assert their possession of the SPIRIT, all may not possess Him; and the teaching of some may want this remarkable and distinguishing evidence of being from GOD.

We need not dissemble that our own Church is Corinthian in this respect in the present day. We clergy are so. We cannot—(and in my heart I feel deeply what I say)—we cannot all be right. And it is my honest and heart-rending conviction, that some of our differences are such, as will separate us for ever, if we die in them.

But come now, and let us reason together. We have all, by our outward vocation, one common interest in one common and most momentous work. We have to save our own souls, and the souls of them that hear us. Our responsibilities reach into eternity! May we by love so serve one another that we may all be workers together with GOD in the immense design, for which His Son our Saviour died upon the cross; that in the great day of His appearing many converted souls may be _our_ “epistles of commendation” before His throne in glory!

Concerning the great controversy, which at present pervades our church, some things relate to the Holy Ghost Himself, some more especially to the Lord Jesus Christ, some to the Holy Scriptures, some more particularly to the church.

Whatever of these I may notice, I wish to keep the HOLY SPIRIT prominently in our view, and to make our truth or error, _as bearing upon Him_, the main matter of our discourse. The general subject will be _The sanction of that DIVINE PERSON in the HOLY TRINITY_, _attending one sort of doctrine and ministry_, _and not another_, _and the evidences to be observed of the fact_: and it will involve this question, namely, Who are _the true ministers of the LORD JESUS CHRIST_, _accredited by the HOLY GHOST_?

If I state things which some of us well know, I feel confident that they will admit the importance of my bringing them before others, who may not be aware of the position at which we are already arrived in the matters we have to speak of.

* * * * *

I. The first thing which I have to propound is this: That _the HOLY GHOST is the essential Agent in the right administration and reception of divine ordinances_. In this, taken generally, we are all agreed.

None of us doubts that the words of the apostle to the presbyters of Ephesus would now apply to all true presbyters of CHRIST: “Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, over which _the HOLY GHOST hath made you_ overseers, to feed the church of GOD, which He hath purchased with His own blood.” {5a} So, the seven deacons were “men full of the HOLY GHOST and wisdom.” {5b} The word also is said to be “preached _with the HOLY GHOST_ sent down from heaven:” to come to those hearing it aright, “in power _and in the HOLY GHOST_, and in much assurance;” {5c} and to be received with “_joy_ _of the HOLY GHOST_;” and “_in demonstration of the Spirit_ and of power.” {5d} And so, both in regard to ministers and members of the church, it is declared, that “to one is given _by the SPIRIT_ the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge _by the same SPIRIT_, to another faith _by the same SPIRIT_;”—all these more ordinary gifts, as well as those which were miraculous, “worketh that one and the self-same SPIRIT, dividing to every man severally as he will.” {6a} And when it is also solemnly declared—“I give you to understand, that _no man_ can say (aright) that JESUS is the LORD, _but by the HOLY GHOST_,” {6b}—and that “if any man have _not_ the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of His;” {6c}—how clear and unquestionable is the conclusion, that _the HOLY GHOST must be the essential Agent_ in the right administration and reception of divine ordinances; and that in fact there can be none without Him, in the minds both of ministers and people.

Hence it was that, in the words before us, the apostle declared his “_sufficiency_ to be of GOD;” that it was of GOD that he ministered the word without corrupting it, as some did; and that the beautiful lineaments of the living christian character, which he had been the means of producing in them, were actually produced by the HOLY GHOST, thus divinely authenticating the office and instrumental ministrations of the apostle. Here was the writing of his recommendatory letters.

This view of things carries in it the point, that no man can be a true minister of Jesus Christ, unless the SPIRIT of CHRIST be with him. And so general is the conviction of this as a fact, that strange indeed would it be to find a single bishop, priest, or deacon of our church, who should not feel it essential to his integrity to lay claim to this holy authentication of himself from God to men.

Now here is the question! Let us calmly and seriously examine it. Can we all have the HOLY GHOST, who lay claim to His presence and power with us? I propose to meet this question negatively, and therefore,

* * * * *

II. My next position is the following: _That it is impossible to suppose that we ALL have the HOLY GHOST_, _who lay claim to his presence and power in our ministrations_.

1. The awful ungodliness of some of us too plainly proves the truth of this, believe it who will. It is fearful to think of their standing as they are in the sanctuary of the Most HOLY GOD! “To the wicked GOD saith, What hast thou to do, to declare my statutes, and to take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.” {7}

2. But, alas! It is not only the unholy beyond dispute that may fail of the HOLY GHOST. What say the habits of vain conversation in many; their ease and pleasure in worldly occupations and amusements; their constraint under sacred employments, their gladness when such works are done? Must _their_ hearts be the temples of the HOLY GHOST? Will He make the word to be “the power of GOD,” to honour _their_ preaching of it; or the sacraments means of grace, to own _their_ administration? May He not, does He not refuse to do so? Where is the fruit of their labour?

3. But even were we questionable in nothing but points of doctrine and religious practices which we teach, this were enough, not only to raise the question, whether we minister by the HOLY GHOST, but also to determine it. For the SPIRIT cannot testify to _both_ of two systems _differing_ from one another in many fundamental points.

Such are the two systems at present in agitation. That of Protestant Evangelical Christianity on the one hand, and that of Anglo-catholicity on the other: the one rejecting Romanism in all its peculiarities; the other sympathizing with it, and avowedly rejecting the principles of the Protestant faith. {8a} The controversy is not new, though it has seldom been so vigorously conducted on either side as now. The same spirits were in active warfare some forty years ago. {8b} But, in fact, it has been fairly said by one of the chief writers on the Anglo-catholic side, that there have ever been these two principal parties in the Church of England, whom he calls the _Apostolical_ and the _Puritan_; introducing a third also, (not now in the controversy,) namely, the Latitudinarian. {9a}

In point of _doctrine_, the terms Apostolical, Laudian, Orthodox, and Anglo-catholic, have more or less of connexion with each other; and the terms Evangelical, Puritan, Calvinistic, and Protestant, have a similar affinity.

_a_. Now it has often been acknowledged by the opposite party, that the compilers of our Articles were not only Protestant, but Calvinistic, and what we now call Evangelical, in their religious views. It has often been felt and allowed, that, in the _plain and full meaning_ of these Articles, according to their _literal and grammatical sense_, which the royal Declaration peremptorily claims for them, without admitting of _any new sense_ whatever, they favour less the Laudians and the Arminians, than the Puritans and Calvinists. {9b} In this sense they are freely and confidently appealed to by the latter; and the appeal is ever most happily and strongly sustained by other appeals to the writings of the Reformers, in proof of what they meant. The true Protestants, therefore, are perceived to have always had the best of the controversy, when conducted by sustaining the full and literal sense on the one hand, and softening it down on the other:—wherefore it is now attempted, with a determination never shown before, not merely to incline the Articles to speak a softer Protestantism; but at once to seize them violently, and force them to an absolute recantation; or, to stifle them under the reiterated pressure of directly antagonist opinions; affirming, against evidence, that those opinions were _intended_ by the compilers to be admissible into the meaning! {11}

They thus, in purpose, completely take away the old, and substitute a new confession of faith, whatever care may seem to be taken to retain the form of words. And, casting out the _Writings_ of our Reformers also, as a Court of Appeal, and proposing extraordinary additions to our Formularies, and various ceremonial innovations, they declare it to be their intention to _unprotestantize_ {12} the Church of England altogether, and to re-unite her, in due time, with the Church of Rome. And they are steadily and gradually advancing.

While they are labouring with most devoted assiduity at this achievement, we, on the other hand, are firmly maintaining our old Church of England ground, standing by our old appeals as resolutely as ever, and humbly believing that the same GOD, who has for years been gradually and steadily increasing our numbers and our strength, will still go on to increase them, until the Church of England shall stand in the full and undisputed possession of the sons of her reforming fathers; and _true_ Anglo-catholicity shall be the share which the English _Protestant_ Church shall enjoy in Catholic Christianity throughout the world.

But now, the question is, how can we possibly imagine that the HOLY GHOST can accredit _both_ these opposing systems, and the advocates of _both_, so essentially differing from each other? For, _either_ the whole system of the Protestant Reformation, and of our Church as Protestant, is one enormous, awful, and tremendous error; or Anglo-catholics are doubly dishonest, first to the Church of England, which they still subscribe to; and secondly to the TRUTH of GOD according to our confession of faith. The decision of the question may be suspended for a moment.

_b_. The more we inquire into this subject, the wider will the difference appear to be. There is one most vital part of it, on which I will not say much; because it is so generally heard of, and amongst ourselves so easily understood. I mean the union, by the Anglo-catholics, of tradition with Holy Scripture as the Rule of Faith, {13a} in direct contradiction (as I think) to our sixth Article. It is contradictory also to testimony upon testimony from their own favourite Fathers and Divines, {13b} as well as the Reformers; and even to the plainest testimony of Holy Scripture itself. “From I child,” says the SPIRIT of GOD by St. Paul to Timothy, “thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee _wise unto salvation_ though faith which is in CHRIST JESUS. All Scripture is given by inspiration of GOD; and is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of GOD may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto all good works.” {14}

Here, in particular, an opposition of sentiments appears upon a vital point, in which the HOLY GHOST, in the very nature of things, can only take one side.

But they _want_ the tradition, and therefore they must have it. It supports superstitions, which Scripture will not. And the difficulty of explaining _ignota per ignotiora_ aggravates the importance of a present priesthood to explain both, as may seem good to them, without the possibility of popular private judgment being exercised on their interpretations and conclusions.

_c_. Again; their doctrine of mystery in religion, putting, (by a strange mutation,) the most obvious things for the deepest, is made particularly to produce a comparative silence respecting the atonement of the LORD JESUS CHRIST. It is remarkable that they should choose for the example of this mysterious reserve, the very subject concerning which the Apostle St. Paul declares to the Corinthians, “I am determined not to know anything _among you_, save JESUS CHRIST, and Him crucified:” “We preach not ourselves, but CHRIST JESUS the LORD:” “We preach CHRIST _crucified_!” {15a} But then, _their_ Christ crucified, by a painful perversion, is shown to be _self_-crucified; tears, and penances, and mortifications constituting their substitution for sin, (atonement I cannot call it;) while CHRIST is kept back, chiefly for mere sacramental exhibition. {15b}

That glorious name of Jesus, “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS,” they almost veil from our sight, as far as His _obedience to the law_ for us is concerned; and His sole justification, _wrought for us_, they actually displace by another thing. The Lutheran doctrine upon the subject, which is that of our eleventh Article, is called _radically and __fundamentally monstrous_, _immoral_, _heretical_, _and antichristian_. {16a} And justification, instead of being by the works and deserving of CHRIST accounted unto us, and received by faith, is said to consist in the “habitation of Christ in us,” or “of GOD the FATHER, and the WORD incarnate, through the HOLY GHOST:” “the SPIRIT’S work, not CHRIST’S:” “an imparting of righteousness;” {16b} “not imputation merely, but the act of God imparting His divine presence to the soul through baptism, and so making us temples of the HOLY GHOST.” {16c} But something also is said about our being able to “_obey_ unto justification,” {16d} in opposition to Luther; which intimates clearly that human works, resulting from this indwelling, are to be the substantial justifying material; and faith is to be the first of those works. For when they refer to the Article, asserting that “_we are justified by faith only_,” they say, “Faith, as being the _beginning of perfect or justifying righteousness_, is taken for what it tends towards, or ultimately will be. It is said by anticipation to be that which it promises; just as one might pay a labourer his hire, before he began his _work_.” {16e} And thus, their Christ _justifying_ seems to be made much like their _Christ crucified_ in us; _self_ imitating CHRIST in another part of His work. A more complete removal of the SAVIOUR out of His place in the great work of redemption, with a specious introduction of the HOLY GHOST to aid in the removal, that man may do the _work_ of his _own justification_, it is not easy to conceive. Whether this be right or not, judge ye. But that the HOLY GHOST should testify _both_ to this justification, _and_ to that which is by faith only in the righteousness of CHRIST, which is the justification of the Protestant Reformers and their Evangelical descendants, it is clearly impossible to suppose.

_d_. The HOLY GHOST himself, and all that religion which consists in spiritual experience, are expressly removed from full and ordinary teaching,—the glory and excellency of them being consigned to reverential reserve! {17}

The new birth of the soul by the SPIRIT, (except as in baptism,) the fruits of the SPIRIT in holiness, the comfort of the SPIRIT, the witness of the SPIRIT, the seal, the earnest, the fellowship, the indwelling, the anointing of the HOLY SPIRIT,—His work as a SPIRIT of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of CHRIST, and the deep things of GOD,—a SPIRIT of intercession, a SPIRIT of adoption, a SPIRIT of glory, and all other subjects of Christian experience, are to be said little about,—while it is the very _fear_ of others that they should grieve and dishonour this glorious Person in the ever-blessed Trinity by not fully declaring them. They are deeply impressed by the fact that His work is equally essential to their salvation with that of JESUS Himself, and full of consolation and delight. And some perhaps may be the more intent upon preaching all that ever appertains to Him from a spirit of holy jealousy, knowing that it is a subject in which so many of us halt.

And what is their substitute? Mere morality with some: devotions, fastings, and almsgiving, with our brethren who are more in earnest; all busy in suspending fruits upon the evil tree, to make it good; instead of “first looking to the SPIRIT of GOD to make the tree good, that his fruit may be good also.” {18}

_e_. The _sacraments_ are a subject in which the difference and the controversy exhibit remarkably strong characteristics. Our Anglo-catholics, it is evident, use the very term _sacrament_ as if the _spiritual grace signified_ thereby constituted the substantial meaning of the term: but our twenty-ninth Article shows at once that our Reformers applied it to the _outward sign_; “The _sign_ OR _sacrament_ of so great a thing:” and they there apply the term to the bread and wine, in _contra-distinction_ to the body and blood of CHRIST. In the twenty-fifth Article the sense is carried out, and the term is applied to the _ceremony_, still having reference to that, which is ordained of God indeed, but perceived by the outward senses. And these are essential matters: for there is no sacrament, by the same article, where there is no visible _sign_ or _ceremony ordained_ of GOD. _Baptism_ is called a _sign_ of regeneration, whereby they that receive it rightly are, as by a significant process or instrument, not regenerated, but visibly “grafted into the church,” as already regenerated; {19} and “have the promises of forgiveness and adoption,” not then first brought home to their souls, but “visibly signed and sealed” to them;—“faith,” not first imparted, but “stirred up”—and “grace,” not first given, but “increased, by virtue of prayer to GOD.”

And if the Liturgy and Catechism speak of the inward and spiritual grace signified as _part_ of the sacrament, or seem to say that the sacrament of baptism, as much as that of the Lord’s Supper, is _a mean_ of receiving that particular grace which is signified,—they should be explained so as to harmonize with the Articles, which do already harmonize with Holy Scripture. It is a _part_, not as tied to the Form in time and place, but as the distinct reality, on which all the value of the formal representation is founded, and which therefore should always be steadily eyed in it. {20}