Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

English version, in the translation

OF THE EVANGELISTS.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

of that passage, I did not think it ON THE CHARACTERISTIC STYLE necessary to state them in a popular essay. It is the opinion of some critics, (vide Pol. Synop. v. 10,) that the ε before νεκρών is omitted for the sake of euphony; and I believe that in most versions of any authority, the expression is rendered as "resurrection from the

in ours, dead."

Your correspondent seems here to think me guilty of some almost incredible misrepresentation; but in truth all that I assert in the passage which he quotes, is, that wherever the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is spoken of, it is expressed by the plural of the word "dead," preceded by ε either alone or in composition. Can your correspondent prove the contrary? With regard to Phil. iii. 11, I will not say that εavaoraσis does not admit of being rendered "the resurrection-out," by which, I presume, is meant out of the grave; but I think it a far-fetched interpretation. In the first place, avaσraois is often used without any such addition, and by itself implies a resurrection out of the grave, as all will admit. And in the second place, it seems to destroy the whole force of the Apostle's language. Why should he so urgently press forward to attain that which he could not possibly avoid? Had either Paul or Saul the Pharisee ever any doubt about attaining to a resurrection out of the grave? or was there any need of great exertion in order to attain to it?

W. D.*

[blocks in formation]

THE circumstance of the three earlier Evangelists having frequently described the same event, affords great facility for ascertaining their respective peculiarities of style. Thus the comparative purity of St. Luke's composition is most clearly seen, after a perusal of the corresponding passages in St. Matthew and St. Mark.

A characteristic of St. Mark seems to me to be a habit of noticing circumstances calculated to heighten the effect of his descriptions; what in an uninspired author we should call a love of the picturesque. Thus, for example: "Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness," say the other Evangelists; but St. Mark more forcibly, "The Spirit driveth him;" adding, "He was then in the wilderness with the wild beasts." Again, in chap. i. 32, we read, "at even, when the sun did set." This circumstance of the setting of the sun, is not noticed by Matthew or Luke. In the same manner, when describing the visit of the woman to the sepulchre of our Saviour, he tells us that it happened at sun-rise. These are instances of a peculiarity observable in every chapter of St. Mark's Gospel; and the equally marked peculiarities of other sacred writers greatly strengthen the arguments for the authenticity of their respective compositions. Y. M.

think we had taken a liberty with the Morning-Watch correspondent, which we did not take with our own. It is our con. stant practice to omit retorts and personal animadversions, which in the zeal of argument are apt to find their way even into Christian controversies; and our correspondents have usually in the end felt well contented that these luxuriances had been pruned. What is thus lost in pungency is at least gained in good temper, fraternal kindness, and calmness of judg

ment.

THE WORSHIP OF THE MASS

IDOLATRY.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

It has been of late maintained, in parliament, in print, and even on the platform of religious societies, and, in some instances, by persons whose names are associated with every effort that is praiseworthy in benevolence, or sacred in the cause of piety and truth; that there is no just ground for charging the Roman Catholics with idolatry, in the administration of the Lord's Supper, because, in the sense in which they understand it, they believe that they are bowing to the Humanity and Divinity of Jesus Christ then present. This assertion has been supported by an appeal to the name and authority of Mr. Faber. Of this writer I would speak in terms of great respect; but, if an appeal must be made to names and authorities, I could, if necessary, adduce the united testimony of the whole body of the Reformers to establish the contrary position.

I would begin with Cranmer: "For as his Humanity joined to his Divinity, and exalted to the right hand of his Father, is to be worshipped of all creatures in heaven, earth, and under the earth; even so, if in the stead thereof we worship the signs and sacraments, we commit as great idolatry as ever was, or shall be to the world's end." (See Fathers of the English Church, vol. iii. p. 494 ) Again; "Forasmuch as in such masses is manifest wickedness and idolatry, all such Popish masses are to be clearly taken away out of Christian churches." The very argument above alluded to, by which this idolatrous act is excused and justified, is met as follows, by the same high and venerable authority:" And although the subtle Papists do colour and cloke the matter never so finely, saying, they worship not the sacraments, which

they see with their eyes, but that thing which they believe with their faith to be really and corporally in the sacraments, yet why do they run from place to place, to gaze at the things which they see, if they worship them not, giving thereby occasion to them that be ignorant, to worship that which they see?" (Ibid. p. 495.) "Having always this pretence or excuse for their idolatry, Behold here is Christ." (Ibid. p. 498.)-It is, in fact, evident that no qualification, or mode of reasoning, can make the act otherwise than what it virtually is. To quote language used on a late occasion, "a superstitious act must be declared to be superstition; and an idolatrous act to be idolatry." It is impossible to be otherwise. The supposition of the Divinity being present, involves in itself a manifest absurdity. For how can we so far degrade the majesty and glory of the Divine nature, as to conceive that it is capable of being identified with the form of a perishing wafer? And as to the argument that Christ expressly says, "This is my body:" so does he also say, "I am the vine;" "I am the door;" but who does not perceive that these are representative terms, descriptive of the character and offices of Christ, as the only appointed source of pardon and acceptance with God? Nor is the idea less opposed to Sacred Scripture. The language of the Apostle Paul is, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." These words denote a prospective coming; but if it be prospective, how can it be an actual coming, or real presence of Christ? Again, the nature and import of the institution cannot be more intelligibly conveyed to us than in the form of words used by our blessed Lord; "This do in remembrance of me." This is its real character and intention. It is a memorial of the death of Christ, and of its propitiatory effects. But if it be a memorial, how can it be the object

remembered? If it be a sign, how can the sign of a thing be the thing itself signified? Under all these circumstances, the act of adoration must necessarily partake of the very essence of idolatry, because the belief of the presence of the Divinity, is opposed to the plainest deductions of sound reason, and to the express declarations of Sacred Scripture. In pursuance of these views, there is no error which is the object of more deliberate censure on the part of the Reformers, than this doctrine of transubstantiation; and they seem to have selected the keenest weapons from the armoury of controversy, to overthrow it."I do undoubtedly believe, and protest," says Clement, "before God and man, that the doctrine of the Papists, concerning transubstantiation, reservation, and adoration, is devilish, detestable, false, feigned, and heretical, and bringeth with it many absurdities and inconveniences, to the utter destruction of all who believe it." (Ibid. vol. iv. p. 294.) That abominable sacrifice," says Philpot, "which ye set on the altar, and use in your private masses, instead of the living sacrifice, is idolatry." (Ibid. p. 458.)"I will speak nothing," observes Bradford," how that this, their doctrine of transubstantiation, be side the manifest absurdity it hath in it, utterly overthroweth the use of the sacrament, and is clean contrary to the end wherefore it was instituted, and so is no longer a sacrament, but an idol, and is the cause of much idolatry, &c." (Ibid. p. 480.)-Ridley speaks of it as an unqualified act of idolatry: "That godly honour, which is only due unto God the Creator, and may not be done unto the creature without idolatry and sacrilege, is not to be done unto the holy Sacrament." I might quote much that is pertinent from Nowell and Jewell; but sufficient has been said to establish the idolatrous character of this ceremony in the estimation of the Reformers; and that the qualification urged in

its defence is utterly inadmissible. It appears to me, indeed, to be a very dangerous position, That, because the Roman Catholic does not conceive himself to be guilty of idolatry in the celebration of the eucharist, he is therefore not amenable to such a charge. This is making our own belief the criterion of truth and error: whereas truth is not dependent on the character of our perceptions, but is founded on its own immutable nature and properties. It stands not in the judgment of man, but in the declarations of God. The sacred Scriptures are the only legitimate and infallible guide for the regulation both of our faith and practice; and erroneous creeds, as well as erroneous conduct, must consequently partake of moral guilt and moral blindness; because the means of attaining truth and avoiding error are therein clearly and specifically unfolded to us. "I am the light of the world," says Christ: "he that followeth me, shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

ru

If, however, we introduce modifications of this reasoning, and consider the nature of an act to be determinate on the belief and mind of the agent, we assume a position which, pursued in all its necessary consequences, must inevitably lead to the most bold and unscriptural conclusions. For, on this principle, the Jew is not guilty in rejecting Christ; because he does not believe in the evidences that attest his Divine mission: the Mohammedan ceases to incur the guilt of infidelity; and the Arian, the Socinian, and the whole assemblage of philosophising sceptics, may plead the persuasion of their own minds, as the grand criterion for determining the claims of Divine truth. Thus the eternal boundaries of truth would no longer be fixed, immutable, and certain; but dependent on

evidently lead us to suppose that a series of Divine judgments will be poured on Papal Rome, as the chastisement for her sins: see Rev. xv. 9, 10; and xvi. 19;) but still God may graciously employ our instrumentality, to give effect to that solemn and warning voice, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

CRITO.

Deut. iv. 24.-For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

every mode of faith, and every variety of interpretation; and the moral responsibility of man-for the errors of his creed, as well as for the delinquencies of his conduct-would cease to be an imperative principle of duty. I am fully convinced, that no persons would be more earnest in deprecating these conclusions than some to whom I have alluded; and it is because I am conscious of the influence of their names, arising from the influence of their characters and virtues, that I have ventured to make FAMILY SERMONS.-No. CCLVII*. these remarks. The period appears to me to be now arrived, when that great theological controversy which involved the necessity of the Reformation, must again be agitated; and I think we should be peculiarly careful how we afford a plea to the Romanist to continue in any one erroneous doctrine, by the too-incautious admissions of the Protestant. In this important warfare, the Reformers must be our guides. They have fought in the field into which we are only about to enter. They have explored every position, and examined every strong hold: and the rich trophies which they have won attest the skill of the combatants, and the vigour and ability of the attack. Let us then gird on the same armour, by means of which a Cranmer, a Jewell, a Latimer, and a Ridley, were enabled to maintain the battle of the Lord; if we wish to extend the bounds of that inheritance which they transmitted to us, the narrow limits of which attest the languor of our zeal, and the supineness of the generations that have gone before us. We can add nothing that is new, without impairing the energy of that which is old. But by adhering to their arguments, their persevering zeal, and their righteous cause, we may anticipate, with the Divine blessing, not, indeed, the entire overthrow of Catholic error and superstition; (for this will probably be effected by other means; for I consider, that the sacred Scriptures

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 331.

THERE is a quality in the moral character of our Creator, which he is pleased to represent under the name of jealousy. In the Second Commandment, both at its first delivery on Mount Sinai, and at its repetition in the Book of Deuteronomy, God says of himself, "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God." The same phrase occurs afterwards, where Joshua says, in his charge to the people of Israel, when speaking of their natural unfitness for the service of God, "Ye cannot serve the Lord; for he is an holy God, he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions, nor your sins."

The quality which is intimated by this word, seems one so peculiarly appropriate to the relation which exists between God and his people, and so peculiarly fitted to express the real nature of his character, that it is used, like holiness, as the very title by which he should be addressed; as the name by which he should be known among his creatures.

In one part of Scripture, accordingly, we read of the Lord "whose name is holy;" and in another, we find the Almighty speaking of himself under the other title of jealousy, and saying to the Israelites, "Thou

See Review department. 3 H

shalt worship no other gods, for the Lord, whose name is jealous, is a jealous God."

Jealousy in man means a suspicion of want of love on the part of those from whom it is due. It is the resentment of disappointed affection. It belongs to those who love, and who feel that they have a right to be loved in return; and it is directed towards those who ought, and who are bound to love. The assertion, that such a quality as this belongs to God as one of the attributes of his moral character, involves a number of deep and awful considerations;-considerations calculated to give an interesting and important view of his nature, as they seem to include his love, as well as his holiness and justice, in one complex idea; and to form, from the union of these qualities in one attribute of jealousy, an affecting, as well as a tremendous picture of his feelings towards us.

For, first, the existence of jealousy in God, implies the previous exist ence of love.

If he had not loved us himself, he would have been indifferent to our dispositions towards him. If he had not felt that love was due from us to him, as a return for love already felt and exercised towards us, he would not have resented its being withheld, nor made use of this phrase as declaratory of his affections. In agreement with this idea, we find that jealousy in God is never spoken of except with a reference to those whom, in one sense or other, he has called and chosen as his own; whose love therefore he has a right to claim as due to himself, in virtue of some covenant relation; and whose love he has excited by some previous exercise of favour and benevolence. Any wandering of the affections; any deviation from the truth of allegiance, however slight it may seem to the eye of indifference, carries wounds and provocation to that of jealousy, and we may therefore say, that such behaviour as this, when

existing in the people of God, is calculated to excite in him a feeling of displeasure, analogous to that which infidelity and unrequited affection excite in the heart of man.

And

This attribute is peculiar to the true God; to Jehovah. There have been other gods, and other lords, the fictions of corrupted hearts, or the suggestions of evil spirits; but jealousy was never ascribed to them by any of their votaries. The great original character of God is the exclusive possession of Deity; his sole, undivided nature. "I am the Lord, that is my name," is his language by the prophet; "and my glory will I not give unto another, neither my praise to graven images." But while the true God, in the fulness of his own nature, rejects every possible approximation as an insult, and claims, in the unity of his being, undivided allegiance and affection from all his creatures, it is not so with those imaginary deities which have been invented by men. what was then true with regard to them, is equally true with regard to the idols and idolaters of the world at present. They have no jealousy of one another. They are only jealous of God, and exhibit no feelings of the sort except when he is the object of attraction. The drunkard will endure the evil passions, the violence, the profaneness of his neighbour; he will view them with calmness, and will speak of them with indifference, and will associate cheerfully with those whose views differ from his own, if they are but equally averse from God. The worldly-minded man feels little disturbance, little alarm at any form of immorality in his family or neighbourhood, which does not trespass on his security; but all his prejudices start up at the least appearance of godliness in his household or connexions.

In the same manner also, as in those days, the simple purity of the Jewish religion drew down on them the charge of an austere and malignant superstition from their heathen

« AnteriorContinuar »