صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

to invest an unscriptural faith with all the gorgeous ornaments of painting, poetry, and music; to exalt the Church into the place of the Saviour, and the Sacraments into that of the faith, hope, and charity of the Gospel; to deal with the word of God as a vague record, requiring in every verse the forced construction of some human teacher; to break down the wall which had hitherto stood between her and an ungodly world, and give her licence to go anywhere in the evening, provided she went to church in the morning;-in an evil hour, as I have said, such a volume fell into her hands. Her understanding was weak; her sensations were strong; and the fine arts had powerful attractions for her. She read the volume again and again. She read other volumes of the same kind. She began to feel a distaste for a simple ritual, and a rational discipline; for articles which refused to speak dogmatically upon unrevealed subjects, to shut a door which the Scriptures had left open, or to open a door which Scripture had closed;-and, before long, she exchanged a spiritual religion for crossings, and bowings, and genuflections, and, must I not say, for petty self-denial and large worldly indulgences. At length she gained what she coveted. Some change of circumstances placed her where she had the largest temptations to this new heresy. She embraced it with all her heart; made unusual progress in its habits and phraseology; became gradually a sort of Lady Abbess to a coterie of such visionaries. But "while the meat was yet in her mouth," she began to feel the displeasure of God. It was next to impossible that she should be contented with the husks of religion, when the real grain was withheld. It did not long satisfy her to hear of many mediators, human or angelic, where she had been accustomed to hear but of the "One" great and glorious "Mediator between God and man." Her soul had long rested on One propitiation and advocate-had cherished one hope-had loved one Lord. But into the sermons, to which she now listened, the name of that gracious Lord was comparatively little introduced; and the truths which especially respected Him, were thrust out of the way to make room for what, to say the least, was infinitely inferior. She lost what was intrinsically precious, and received what was doubtfully true. She found little to quiet the conscience, or to satisfy the heart; and, before long, she was utterly wretched. It is affecting to see her now; she seems like one born for higher things,-but for the present, an outcast and a wanderer. Will no hand strive to bring her back again to the true fold and to the good Shepherd-to her father's house-to her unadulterated Bible-to her pure Church, sprinkled as is its door-way with the blood of the martyrs-to the foot of that cross where the penitent and believer finds a sure refuge and resting place, and a voice whispers "Come unto me, all that are weary and heavy laden ?"

May all such cases-and they are no fictions, but stern realities-prompt us earnestly to seek after the state of mind de

scribed by the Apostle, "I have learned in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content,"-or by the still profounder words of the highest of all authorities, "Thy will, and not mine, be done?" M.


In the able Review contained in your last Number, "On the Alleged Discrepancies of Scripture," Mr. Alford is mentioned as declaring his opinion, that we do not now possess the Gospel of St. Matthew in its original state. He considers that there have been "omissions and transpositions" designedly made at a very early period. He says: "That the Apostle himself drew up the Gospel in its present form, both external and internal evidence forbid our supposing.". "We are led to the inference that we owe our present Gospel to a translator and compiler."

I am sorry that Mr. Alford should entertain and put forth such sentiments, more worthy of the German School of Divines, than of the English. It is a consolation to those who have not time or opportunity to investigate for themselves the grounds of these sentiments, but feel that their faith is shaken by them, to find that a learned and pious Divine, who still lives to adorn and defend our pure Protestant Church, the present Bishop of Lincoln, and who has investigated those grounds, is by no means shaken in his faith,-and for this simple reason, because he considers them insufficient.

"For my own part," he says (in his sixth letter to the well-known author of the Travels of an Irish Gentleman '), "I must confess that, with respect to the origin of the first three Gospels, I adhere to the old mumpsimus of tradition. It is certain, that before the middle of the second century, those Gospels existed substantially in their present form, and were attributed to the Evangelists whose names they bear. It is certain, too, that Eusebius, who carefully distinguished between those books of the New Testament which were universally recognised as genuine in the Church, and those which were of doubtful authority, believed Matthew, Mark, and Luke to be the authors of the Gospels severally ascribed to them. But, after the lapse of centuries, rise up certain learned divines, who think that the verbal coincidences observable in the Gospels cannot be satisfactorily accounted for, on the supposition that they were the works of authors who wrote independently of each other. Luke' (say they) must have copied from Matthew, and Mark from both; or they must have transcribed some common document; or they must have proceeded according to some one of the numerous hypotheses, which have flowed in rapid succession from the pens of German Theologians, each discovering some defect in the schemes of those who have gone before him, and proposing a new scheme, which has, in its turn, been pronounced equally defective.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Critics I saw, that other names deface,

And fix their own, with labour, in the place;

Their own, like others, soon their place resigned,
Or disappeared, and left the first behind.'

Men will at last become convinced, that it is hopeless to look for a satisfactory solution of all the difficulties which ingenious minds can raise respecting works of so great antiquity as the Gospels: and that if an unin

terrupted chain of tradition, extending through seventeen centuries, is not sufficient to establish their genuineness, no ancient work whatever can prefer a claim to be deemed genuine."

The distinguished writer directed these remarks against the hypothesis, that the present Gospels are transcriptions from older documents, but the spirit of his remarks will comfort those who may have been discomposed by Mr. Alford's hypothesis. I am, dear Sir, yours most truly,

C. S. B.


The See of St. Peter, the Rock of the Church, the Source of Jurisdiction, and the Centre of Unity. By THOMAS WILLIAM ALLIES, M.A. 8vo. London: Burns and Lambert, 1850. Ir must ever be, to the thoughtful and observant student of Holy Scripture, a cause for admiring gratitude, to remark how wondrously the Holy Spirit has, many ages before their rise, foreseen, and left without excuse, the two chief idolatries of the great Apostasy. Whether it be the principal idol, Mary, or the false prophet of the system, the Pope,-each is especially provided for, and guarded against, by the repeated, explicit, and unquestionable instructions of Holy Scripture.

Thus, if, in the blasphemies of Liguori, or the other promoters of Mary-worship, we read of the authority of the mother of our Lord,-authority distinctly declared to be exerted by her, even now, in heaven,-we cannot easily forget, that, at the outset of Ilis ministry, when His mother once ventured to offer a suggestion as to the exertion of His Divine power, she was instantly stopped by the seemingly abrupt exclamation, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." Is not the purport, the drift of this Divine record, perfectly clear? Can it mean any thing less than this,-that from the moment of our Lord's entry on His public ministry, all the previous subjection to His parents was laid aside, and even the slightest interference on the part of His mother was immediately suppressed by a positive rebuke?

[ocr errors]

Nor is this a single instance, merely, the purport of which might be questioned. Still later, on an occasion when He was Voccupied about his Father's business," "His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to see him." Again He repudiated the claim on their part to interfere in the slightest degree with His work ;-" Who are my mother and my brethren?"

Once more, we are informed by Mr. Hobart Seymour, that a statue of the mother of our Lord now exists in Zug, the inscription upon which runs thus :

"If thy Son, our unappeased Judge, condemn us accused of sins,-O mother, shew him thy breasts!"

And even this perversion is foreseen and provided for in the Gospel narratives. For we are told that when a certain woman, struck with admiring awe, cried out, "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked!"—the instant rebuke placed earthly feelings in their lower place, and heavenly things in their higher,—" Yea, rather blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it."

Similar is the wonderful provision made against the foreseen exaltation of the Apostle Peter. Many faults, doubtless, were committed by all the disciples in their turns. But, knowing beforehand what was in man, and foreseeing what undue and undeserved homage would be paid to one of the apostles in particular, the Holy Spirit graciously provided instructions which leave the idolators of Peter without excuse. According to the hypothesis on which the Papacy is built, Peter was the firm and immoveable rock upon which the Church was to be founded. But according to the inspired history, Peter was the weakest, the most fearful, and the most unstable of the twelve. If we consult the Papal writers, we shall suppose Peter to have been divinely preserved from error, and guided into all truth; so that his decision was always the most true, as it was to be always the most authoritative. But if we read the inspired record, we find this wisest of men, often falling into dangerous error; and this authoritative judge, rebuked, both by his Lord, and by his fellow-apostles, for error and carnal compromises.

Thus, it was Peter who, with his Lord in sight, having asked and received a command to come to Him on the water, "when he saw the wind boisterous, was afraid, and began to sink." It was Peter who, presumptuously rejecting his Lord's teaching, as to His sufferings and death, received the terrible rebuke, "Get thee behind me, Satan! for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." It was Peter, who, after being plainly warned by his Lord of the coming temptation, thrice denied that he knew Him, and even "began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man!" And even after receiving pardon for this dreadful sin, and being restored to his apostleship, he is the only one of the twelve of whom we read such words as these:

"When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said," &c.

Thus, as we have remarked, it pleased God to provide beforehand an abundant warning against the error which He foresaw would arise in the Church, by displaying to us this apostle,

who was to be so unduly glorified, in all those features of rashness, instability, fear, and unfaithfulness, which would, to men of common sense, entirely refute the idea, that he was to be the Church's rock, he the arbiter of all her controversies!

[ocr errors]

Yet no warning can restrain the rashness and blindness of man. Of this, Peter himself was indeed the most wonderful example. A few hours only before the temptation came, He whom Peter knew to be the very incarnation of Divine Truth, warned him of it, saying, "Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." With his usual temerity, Peter answered, Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee." Thus warned, and still reckless, he rushed forward, confident and unheeding; and soon he who promised to die rather than deny his Lord, shrank back at the voice of a servant-maid, and "denied with an oath," saying, "I know not the man!" And thus, in like manner, in spite of all the warnings given, headlong men, like Mr. Allies, rush on, and declare this infirm and timorous apostle to be "the Rock of the Church, and the Centre of Unity."

Mr. Allies begins by reminding us, that he declared himself in a former work

"Convinced that the whole question between the Roman Church and ourselves, as well as the Eastern Church, turns upon the Papal Supremacy, as at present claimed, being of divine right, or not. If it be, then have we nothing else to do but submit ourselves to the authority of Rome; and better it were to do so before we meet the attack, which is close at hand, of an enemy who bears equal hatred to ourselves and Rome;-the predicted Lawless One, the Logos, reason, or private judgment of apostate humanity, rising up against the Divine Logos, incarnate in His Church." (p. 1.)

It is certainly matter of just congratulation, when a man of note, publicly embracing a dangerous error, no less publicly avows that he does so on untenable and insufficient grounds. Mr. Allies has kindly narrowed the field of dispute, and made his own refutation easy and obvious to any well-instructed schoolboy. Our first emotion, on reading the pamphlet now before us, was that of utter astonishment. It seemed quite unintelligible how Mr. Allies could be ignorant of the most common arguments against the Papal claims; or how, on the other hand, if knowing them, he should choose to leave them quite untouched. Let us briefly explain our meaning, by going rapidly over Mr. Allies' argument.

After an opening chapter, to prove a truism, namely, that, "the primacy of St. Peter is an existing power,”—Mr. Allies, in chap. ii., gets into the centre of the question, "the Scriptural Proof of the Primacy."

This announcement excited our curiosity. To find a man, in these days, who could venture, in the face of Protestants, lately his associates, to enunciate such a proposition, was an unexpected audacity. But, on reading the chapter, we find that it attempts. even more than at the outset it promises. It endeavours to comprise, in the short compass of two and twenty pages, not

« السابقةمتابعة »