of the Redeemer, if he would in reality become his disciple; and is but a varied form of what he affirmed on another occasion, "that whosoever loveth father, or mother, or brethren, or sisters more than me, is not worthy of me." The challenge on his affection and allegiance was supreme. Every earthly connection was to be thrown behind him in comparison; not however by a neglect or forgetfulness of the duties imposed by such affinities, but by a proper subordination of them, and the obligations they involve, to the higher claim he had upon In short, the principle of love to him and his service must constitute the master-spring of all his feelings and deportment. When, therefore, our Lord says, "No man having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God;" he designed, in the sententious brevity of that method of tuition he uni formly adopted, to expound the terms of his service, and arm the individual who was primarily interested in the remark against the seductive pleas his relatives might put forth to overrule his resolution. And it strikingly attests, by its wisdom and fidelity, the truth of that eulogy, which was pronounced upon the Saviour, his enemies themselves being judges, "Never man spake like this man.' Assuming this as the proper import of the declaration, it evidently inculcates the necessity of deliberation in the choice, and unfainting perseverance in the profession of the discipleship of Jesus Christ. Unless such prove the informing spirit of our profession, we are not fit for the kingdom of God. Should these remarks suit the purpose of your miscellany, your insertion of them will oblige, Your's respectfully, X. Y. Z. MISCELLANEA BIBLICA.-No. XI. PAUL'S APOLOGY FOR REPROACHING THE HIGH PRIEST. Acts xxxiii. 3-5. ARRAIGNED before the Sanhe- For this apology, Paul has drim at Jerusalem, the Apostle had scarcely commenced his defence, when the High Priest, Ananias, commanded him to be smitten on the mouth. "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall," said the much injured servant of Christ," for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten, contrary to the law?" Provoked at the indignity offered to so exalted a personage, some of the apparitors of the court indignantly charged him with reviling God's high priest. I knew not, brethren," replied the Apostle, "that he was the high priest: for it is written, thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." been charged with prevarication by sceptics and unbelievers, from the times of Orobio to the present. And if we might judge from the various interpretations of commentators, they have found no small difficulty in vindicating him from the aspersion. The words, primâ facie, clearly intimate, that Paul was ignorant that the person whom he had addressed, sustained the dignified office ascribed to him; and therefore, on principles of sound interpretation, they ought to receive no other sense, unless a narrower investigation of the circumstances require us to depart from the more obvious meaning. It may be presumed, that the apprehension of some such case has influenced times given him the title of learned men to prepare exposi- apxiepevs, taken in the more extions, which, however they might tensive meaning of a priest, who meet some supposed difficulty, had a seat and voice in the Sanheappear in themselves not very drim; and Jonathan, though we probable. To consider the Apos- are not acquainted with the cirtle's words as spoken ironically, cumstances of his elevation, had seems unsuitable to the gravity been raised in the mean time, to of the occasion, and inconsistent the supreme dignity in the Jewish with the reason which he assigns. church. Between the death of That he was aware what indivi- Jonathan, who was murdered by dual had commanded him to be order of Felix, and the highso unjustly smitten, is manifest priesthood of Ishmael, who was from the personality of his denun- invested with that office by ciation: God shall smite thee, Agrippa, elapsed an interval, in thou whited wall." Had he which this dignity continued vacant. meant, "I do not acknowledge Now it happened precisely in this him as high priest;" we should interval, that St. Paul was apprehave read, not, ουκ ήδειν οτι εςιν hended in Jerusalem. It is possiaрxiɛpevs; but, as Bloomfield cor- ble, therefore, that St. Paul, who rectly observes, ουκ οιδα τετον had been only a few days in apxiepea. To consider his apo- Jerusalem, might be ignorant that logy, as implying a concession, Ananias, who had been disthat he had spoken inconside- possessed of the priesthood, had rately and unbecomingly, seems taken upon himself a trust to which hardly consistent with our Lord's he was not entitled." promise to his disciples, (Mark xiii. 11.) or with the consciousness which he undoubtedly felt of the divine influence under which he spoke, as the fulfilment of the prediction evinces. αρχιερέα. In fact, these injurious interpretations are as uncalled for by the exigencies of the case, as they appear in themselves improbable. Michaelis (Introd. to New Testament, vol. i. pp. 52, 53,) has shown from Josephus, the existing state of things. "Soon after the holding of the first council, as it is called, at Jerusalem, Ananias was dispossessed of his office, in consequence of certain acts of violence, between the Samaritans and the Jews, and sent prisoner to Rome, whence he was afterwards released and returned to Jerusalem. Now, from that period he could not be called High Priest in the proper sense of the word, though Josephus has some Those who, in opposition to this opinion, contend that the peculiar dress of the High Priest would infallibly distinguish him, appear not to be aware, that such peculiar dress was worn in the temple only, out of which, as Braun has shown, (De vesti sacer. Heb.) his attire was similar to that of other Jews. Some expositors have augmented the difficulties of the passage, by confounding the entirely distinct offices of sw, or President of the Sanhedrim and High Priest. The latter dignitary was not, by virtue of his office alone, even a member of the Sanhedrim. If, as was general, he became a member of that court, he appears to have taken his place among the other judges, seventy-one in number, according to his age, which was their established order of precedency, (Witteii de Syned.) Though, therefore, the Apostle certainly knew the person of Ananias; yet, as he also knew that he had been dispossessed of his office of High Priest, as he had, during the seven or eight days of his abode in Jerusalem, so little occasion to inquire who at present sustained that dignity, and indeed, had been so much better occupied than in inquiries of that sort, he may be readily supposed ignorant, that the deposed Ananias had, on his own authority, assumed its functions and honours. And while there appears no real difficulty in his apology, understood according to the most obvious meaning of the words, the manner in which it harmonizes with the recondite circumstances above noticed, strongly argues the authenticity of the sacred narrative. H*. ON A TITLE APPLIED TO MR. HOWE, IN A PUBLICATION OF THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY. To the Editors.-THE operations of the Religious Tract Society are unquestionably amongst the most efficient means of promoting the interests of religion; and the Committee are entitled to the warmest thanks of the public for the way in which they have provided for the instruction of the young, the thoughtless, and the ignorant; a provision for which, thousands will have cause for thankfulness through eternity. The Committee are, I am persuaded, too much influenced by the religion which they have so effectively promoted, to receive offence from any friendly hints with regard to their publications. Your correspondent I., in his answer to the remarks of J. S. on a recent reprint of the Society, has remarked, that it might have been as well, if the complaint of the latter had been in the first place made to the Committee. I am inclined to think the contrary; because, if the Committee should take no notice of such a communication, it would then seem invidious to obtain its insertion in a periodical publication, and because the same objections to the course pursued by a public institution may occur to many persons, and in that case the explanation which is given to one, may serve to afford satisfaction to them all. Looking over a parcel of tracts, which were put into my hands the other day, I was gratified by seeing a reprint of some excellent thoughts of Mr. Howe's on the question: "Do I love God or not." The author of the tract is entitled, "The Rev. John Howe, formerly Rector of Great Torrington, Devonshire." Against this title I would enter a friendly protest. First, because it is a title which, considering the character and associates of Mr. Howe, would probably have been offensive, or at the least unacceptable, to himself. "How came you to be parson of Morton Corbet?" said the Chancellor of Lichfield and Coventry to the persecuted Axton. " I am no parson," replied the Confessor. "Are you then Vicar?" rejoined the Chancellor. "No," replied Axton, "I am no Vicar. I abhor those names as Antichristian. I am pastor of the congregation there."* And though in the succeeding century the aspect of puritanism had become softened, its sentiments, rigid Brownism excepted, were un * Brook's Puritans, Vol. I. p. 161.. changed. During that period, Presbyterian and Independent incumbents were not accustomed to style themselves rectors or vicars; but preachers of the word, pastors of the church, or some similar appellation. I think this objection has some force; but I do not attach any great degree of importance to it. is un a Secondly, I more strongly object to the title, because it is adapted to convey a false impression. The object of styling Mr. Howe a rector, is doubtless, to conciliate the prejudices of those, who would read a tract not for its contents, but on account of the person who was supposed to have written it. That there are many such persons lamentable; that it is desirable to induce them to read what is adapted to profit them, is most true; but then I would not induce them to read by an founded representation. The impression, which the title in question is adapted to make, is, that the author of the tract was minister of the Church of England; but this Mr. Howe never was. He was ordained by Mr. Herle, of Winwick, in Lancashire, assisted by the ministers of the several chapels in his parish. He held the living of Great Torrington for a few years; when he seems to have been the pastor of a sort of Independent church, which assembled in the parochial edifice. Subsequently to his ejection in 1662, he removed to Ireland, the frequent refuge of persecuted Englishmen, and there, through the liberal connivance of the Irish Bishops, preached in the parish churches, but without any conformity. In 1675, Mr. Howe became the pastor of a Presbyterian congregation in London, in connexion with which he continued till his death in N. S. No. 54. 1705.* Can it be right, for any purpose, to lead the ignorant to believe, that such a man a minister of the Church of England? was Thirdly, I object to the title, because it is adapted to produce a feeling of disgust in the persons whom it seeks to conciliate. It is quite obvious that this would be its effect on what is called an orthodox churchman, who should happen to be acquainted with the circumstances of Mr. Howe's incumbency. And suppose the tract were received under an impression, that Mr. Howe had been a good and orthodox rector; (for the term "formerly," might be considered as implying death, rather than ejection, or relinquishment,) and it should be afterwards discovered that Mr. Howe was, at no period of his life, a minister of the Church of England; we may easily conceive that, in this case, an impression very unfavourable to the Society which had printed the tract, would be infallibly produced. Is Fourthly, I object to the designation as casting, though doubtless most undesignedly, an unworthy reflection on the body to which Mr. Howe belonged. there any thing so objectionable in the principles of the dissenters, that the writings of our best divines must not be allowed to appear, unless the authors dressed up as ministers of the Church of England? It would be quite monstrous to suppose that such an idea could enter into the minds of the Committee; but something very nearly approaching to it seems included in applying to Mr. Howe the title of rector. And when it is considered are *See Palmer's Noncon. Mem. and Wilson's Dissenting Churches. S s that dissenters form a large proportion of the Tract Society, it must appear as though they were singularly destitute of a salutary self-respect, to concur in disguising one of their principal divines as a minister of the Church of England. Of such a self-respect too many dissenters are, I fear, destitute but, Gentlemen, I am one of the old fashioned class of Nonconformists, who are equally attached to ecclesiastical unity and order with any Bishop on the bench, and who consequently view dissent, unless it is an act of conscientious obedience, as a censurable levity, if not an enormous wickedness. Now, as in my own case, nonconformity is an act of obedience to God, though I can find unnumbered causes for humility, I could never feel myself inferior to any man, simply because I am a dissenter. And though in a publication of the Tract Society, I would not exhibit Mr. Howe as a dissenter, I have too much self-respect not to feel an implied reproach in an attempt to exhibit him as a churchman. I should not, Gentlemen, have troubled you with these remarks, if the case to which I have referred were the only instance in which the tracts of this excellent Society have given a degree of prominence to the Established Church, scarcely consistent with the liberal basis on which it is formed, and the large support which it receives from the Protestant dissenters. I rejoice in giving circulation to such publications as those of the excellent Richmond; publications containing authentic narratives of facts, which, in whatever communion they occur, must excite the gratitude of the pious, and claim the attention of the thoughtless: and considering the influence of prejudice, were a narrative of a similar character, written for the Society by a dissenter, I should think he acted discreetly by adopting a phraseology suited to any place or mode of worship; but I never could see why, if any good were done, the Clergyman must be the doer of it, and the church the place where it is accomplished, when it is so perfectly easy to adopt a language suited to the views of all the different parties which support the Society. It seems to me that the language of their tracts, excepting in the case of narratives, and there, as an offering to prejudice, I would make an exception in favour of the Establishment, should not be the language of the Church of England, nor yet the language of the Dissenters, but the common language of Christianity. I am, Gentlemen, Your obedient Servant, Of the Hinckford Hundred Auxiliary "ON THE CANT OF REVIVALS." To the Editors.-MAY I be permitted to offer, with Christian frankness, a few remarks upon the Review of various publications on revivals in your last number? As you have shown yourselves amongst the earliest advocates of that most important subject in this country, so I trust you will allow me to criticise even your critical labours, which I fear, at least in this instance, are not likely to promote the cause you have ever ppeared solicitous to advance. |