The Sun.
London, England, 1820-11-14 00:00:00

..t.,,,,,;-=.-;',,,, •
4
'o--
.
4, ~.', . -_,.3,,, • :,...- ;:t..., , 7'------7-"' ' 4/47:
_..,e
. .S.:l ,1/2,, ::;---, • . )2
......iw.
2'4 ii.- .\'''.. ;-:; ! /", 40
Auto,. -sk,
-...
3 , , ~.: ~. ~.
..x... . .. .
z ,itlkt,.
ir. Qt // (ii It/
fez -1-, .
,00-t.i.,- -....,--, - ie,.--,-,----N
,o, -

NtTmB.ER 88

4.]

HOLY ORDERS.

The laudable zeal of the Bishop of PETER-
ROB.OUGII to support the purity of the Christian
Faith, by the proposition of QUESTIONS to the
Candidates for Holy Orders, has excited great
attention in the theological world. Several
pamphlets have been written on the subject, and
to some of them these QUESTIONS are annexed ;
but as they are not within the reach of a nume-
rous body of the Clergy, who, as well as the
sound, reflecting, and religious part of the Laity,
must naturally be anxious to know the nature
and extent of these QUESTIONS, we inserted them
in THE SUN of Friday last, and, in compliance
with the earnest recommendation of many of the
former, we republish them this day.—We need
not offer any apology to the learned, pious, and
venerated Prelate, for taking such a liberty,
since it is evident that what was intended, and
is so well calculated, to illustrate and support
the purest Religion on earth, cannot but prove
highly beneficial, and of the utmost importance,
to mankind, during the whole of their duration in
this transitory state of existence.

QUESTIONS proposed to CANDIDATES for HOLY OR-
ERS, so arranged under Heads or Chapters, that they
iay exhibit a Connected View of God's Dealings with
lan under the NEW COVENANT. •
ATTER. 1.-OF REDEMPTION BY JESUS CHRIST.
Did Christ die fur all men ? Or did he die only lot a
/sen few ? (a)
• If Christ died for all men, and the free gift of God, there-
4,vanie upon all men to justification (b), may we thence
iclude, that all men will be actually saved ?
Is • not God himself willing that all men should be
'e4 ? (c)
. If then Christ died for all men, and God is willing that
men should be saved, must nut they who fail of salvation,
through their own fault ?
• Does it not then behove us to inquire into the terms of our
lemption, that we may learn to do what is necessary on
parts, towards the obtaining of everlasting salvation ?
. Is it not necessary. in order to acquire a knowledge of
hose terms, to examine ; first, the state in which we were
eft by the fall of Adam; and secondly, our deliverance from
that state, through the death of Christ ?
(a) Consult Rom. viii. 32. 2 Cor. v. lb. I Tim. ii. 6. I John
ii. 2. See also the Consecration Prayer in the Communion
Service, .'and the Church Catechism in the answer to the
question, " What Bost thou chiefly learn in the Articles of
thy Belief ?"
(b) Row. v. 18.

(e 1 Tim. ii. 4.

11.-OF ORIGINAL SIN.

I. Did the fall of Adam produce such an effect on his pos-
terity, that mankind became thereby a mass of mere corrup-
tion, or of absolute and entire depravity? Or is the effect
only such, that we are very far gone from original righteous-
ness, and of our own nature inclined to evil ? (a)
2. Does the notion of man's total corruption, or absolute
depravity, produce in general (what is considered its chief
recommendation) a deep sense of humility?
3. Has not the frequent repetition of the doctrine, that we
are not only far gone from righteousness, but are nothing
better than a mass of n►ere corruption and depravity, a tva-
dt;ney-ta destroy all sense of virtue, or moral goodness ?
4. Is it possible, that a doctrine, which tends to destroy
all sense of virtue, or mural goodness, *tumid be a doctrine
that comes from God ?

5. Du we exalt the Creator by degrading the Creature ?

6. ‘Vhat advantage then can we derive from a doctrine,
which converts mankind into a mass of absolute and entire
depravity ?
(a) See Article IX:.
Cuir. 111.-Or FREE WILL.
•

I. Is it in the power of niti, without the assistance
of God, to do what is pleasing and acceptable to God ? (a)
2. Is not divine assistance necessary eve❑ to obtain the will
to do so ? (h)
S. But when we have the will to do what is pleasing to God,
is not the grace of God " working with us (c)," and thus
" helping our infirmities (d) ?"
4. Would it not he absurd to say, that the grace of God is
" working with us," if we ourselves had no share in the
work ?

5. 13 it not then contrary to otr tenth Article to declare,
that Man has no share in the work of his own salvation ?
G. Thou •h the power, which we possess, is derived from
God,. yet Velen God has given us power, dues it not rest with
ourselves to exercise that power?

7. Dues nut Sttl'aul declare, that where the Spirit of the
Lord is, there is liberty (e) ?
(:.Though it is God, who enables us both to will and to do,
are we not required in Scripture to exert that ability, and to
work out our own salvation (1) ?
9. is it not then contrary to Scripture to say, that man has
no share in the work of his salvation

lO.;Are any advantages to he derived from the doctrine,
that boa is the sole Agent in the of man's salvation ?

IT. Is not the power of God egiriily manifested, whether he
operates on man immediately as on a mere panive object, or
whether he acts mediately; through the agency of man him-
self, and by means, which as Creator of all things, he must
have previously imparted ?
12. Is it necessary then to deny the agency of man, in order
to promote the Glory of God ?
13. Has not the doctrine, that man himself has no share in
the work-of his own salvation, a tendency to make him indif-
ferent in regard to his mural conduct ?
14. Can a doetnne, which renders men indifferent with
respect to their moral conduct, be a doctrine, that comes from
God ?
. (a) See Article X. (b) lb. (c) Ib.
(,d) Rout. viii. 26. (e) 2 Cer. iii. 17. (f) Phil. ii. 12.
lifi.lP. IV: OF JUSTIFICATIOIC!

SEcTioNl.—Of Justification, in referenee to everlasting Sal-

vatiwa.

1. Does not the Church of England distinguish Justification
from everlasting Salvation (a) ?
2. Do not our Articles represent Justification as preceding
the performance of all our good works (b) ?
3. Does not therefore our Justification (as the term is used
in our Articles (c) ) take place in this present world ?
4. Is not everlasting Salvation the same as everlasting Life,
or Happiness in the world to come ?
5. Is not then our Justification the mere commencement of
that, of which, iu the general scheme of Redemption, ever-
lasting Salvation is the end ?
SECT. U.—Qf Justification, in reference to its cause.

I. Does not the eleventh Article declare, that we are
" justifitd by Faith only?"
2. Dues nut the expression " Faith only" derive additional
strength from the neg,:tive expression in the same Article
" and not fur our own works 1'

3. Does not therefore the eleventh Article exclude good
works from all share in the office of Justifying ? Or can
we so construe the term " Faith" in that Article, ai to make
it include good works?

4. Do nut the twelfth and thirteenth Articles further ex-
clude them, the one by Asserting that good works follow after
Justification, the other by maintaining that they cannot pre-
cede it ?

5. Can that, which never precedes an effect, be reckoned
among the causes of that effect ?
6. Can we then, consistently with our Articles, reckon the
Performance of good works among the causes of Justification,
whatever qualifying epithet he used with the term cause ?
Sgc.r. 11I.—Of Justification, in reference to the tune when
it ta':es place.
• 1. When we are justifieil, are we not, in the words of the
eleventh Article, " accounted rightous before Gud ?"