« EdellinenJatka »
following the same means, as in America ? Why have we not heard of general awakenings among the hearers of the word throughout the land? Why have we not heard of eminent devotedness character ising the body of Christ generally? In a word, Why have we not heard and seen the same enviable and holy results following the use of the same means, as in the new and rising world ? Surely there must be a cause: let it be our endeavour to remove it, that we may not only hear of these glorious things, but become par takers of them to their utmost extent. Have we not rather been forcing a revival, than seeking it with holy patience and perseverance ? No sooner did the heart. cheering news reach us, from America, of those seasons of refreshing which were enjoyed by the brethren there, than many a bosom glowed with the most intense desire that our own churches might be favoured with the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit from on high.
Did this feeling arise from ardent de sire for the glory of Jehovah, and deep abasement for our supineness ? or, rather, from spiritual jealousy for our Christianity? Did it spring so much from a desire to glorify God, as to wipe away a reproach which the increased zeal and prosperity of the transantlantic brethren had cast upon us? Let us look with jealousy at the motives, when we perceive the smallness of the results.
Whatever was the motive which prompted the effort, under the influence of excited feeling, much was done: sermons were preached; facts were stated; books published; days for prayer set apart; and other vigorous and practical efforts were made by many. Some uttered their fears; others more silently opposed ; and numbers stood by, and gazed with astonishment. But these efforts, to a great extent, have ceased; and many, who arpeared forward in the work at the onset, are now fallen into the rear; and many churches, which distinguished themselves in the revival cause, have sunk again into their former supineness: and why ?-because the efforts made were rather the effect of a revival than the means-rather the end than the beginning. Revivals are not the production of excitement; they do not consist in the externals of religion. They are the result of an increase of personal piety in a church, which, by its diffusive and benevolent influence, constrains its partakers to a strict conformity to the will of Christ, and those
that are without to come in and be separate. In the case of American revivals, we may observe, that they were the result of long-continued self-abasement by individual churches-of pre-eminent ministerial devotedness and zeal-of rigid church discipline; they were thus tutored for the reception of those gracious influences which God in his mercy bestowed.
How different 'was it in this land! In the generality of churches, what supineness, what prayerlessness, what want of discipline, was manifest to the most superficial observer! Yet we expected that The great Head of the Church would pour out his Spirit upon us, even as on them. We have yet, I fear, to begin that course of spiritual discipline which shall bring back our churches to a healthy and spiritual state-such a state as shall lead them to indulge a reasonable hope that God would revive them again. Those things which may be deemed hindrances to the increase of true piety are neither few nor small: would that they were! The prominent characteristic of our religion is not the least. It requires, alas! but a limited acquaintance with Christian society, to discover how vapid and theoretical the character of that religion is, which distinguishes the generality of professors. It consists rather in generals, than in a practical application of truth to the heart; rather in admiring than practising; rather in a universal lamentation over the lack of genuine piety than in a universal effort to improve it. This too general characteristic of religion would seem to imply a fearful neglect of those duties which transform à Cbristian into the image of Christ :--the duties of the closet, those which prevent even an approach to inconsistency; the duties of the family; and those which tend to edify and animate the duties of the sanctuary.
Would that it could be said that slander was a thing unknown! How often is it couched in the language of criticism, and extends itself to the holiest performances! How far have we degenerated from that simplicity in dress which distinguished the early nonconformists; and how far are we from that simplicity which becomes the meek and lowly followers of the Lamb! Our congregations, alas! would too often lead to the conclusion that the scene for fashionable display was transferred from the theatre to the sanctuary; and not only to the sanctuary, but to the pulpit itself; the emulation, in many cases, being, not who shall be most
like Christ, but like the world. This, in the sight of God, rather than accomhowever, let us remember, is no difficult modate our ministrations to the fastidious attainment.
tastes of inconsistent men. The mode of instruction which has D early beloved brethren, let us not put been adopted in latter years appears to away these truths from us with contempt demand our serious attention. Our ser or neglect. Let us not try to hide or cloak mons partake more of the finished essay them, because of our course; rather let us than the useful sermon; they appear lay them deeply to heart, and mourn over more to be intended to please the few than them, with many others which will readily edify the many; rather to instruct the occur to you. Let us attend more punciątellectual than arouse the conscience, tually and devotionally to the duties of Where are our Wilkses and Bogues, where the closet, more strictly and spiritually to our Hills and Waughs, in the rising mi- the duties of the family, more regularly nistry? Where that liveliness and sim- and humbly on the means of grace. Let plicity, which distinguished the sermons us be more faithful to ourselves, to our of those men in their early days? Where, neighbours, and to our Lord. Let us now oh, where, brethren, (let it deeply humble awake from our slumbers, put on our us) where the striking instances of use, beautiful garments, and cause the church fulness, which distinguished their career? to appear in all her majesty and strength, It is true, we may be more polished; but in all her loveliness and glory; that, putting are we more useful? We may be more to flight the armies of the alien, rallying learned ; but are we more faithful? Are around her triumphant banners the sol. our accomplishments and superior advan diers of the cross, she may achieve that tages laid at the foot of the cross? Do conquest, in which the last enemy shall they fit us more eminently for the work ? be defeated, and many crowns be placed If not, we had better have never attained upon the head of the Saviour, them, seeing the great end of our calling
Fidus. is the salvation of souls; to preach Christ,
London, Oct. 29, 1832. not ourselves; to approve our consciences
PAUL'S REBUKE OF PETER. —GAL, II,
For the Evangelical Magazine.
· In the second chapter of Paul's epistle to the Galatians there is a passage which has exercised the ingenuity of the Roman Catholic doctors, in order to save the dignity of their first pope, Peter. The real state of the case is known to every one. Paul declares that he openly reproved Peter at Antioch for his dissimulation; for, till his conduct had come under the inspection of some Jews who had lately arrived at Antioch, he made no scruple of eating 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 with him: but when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter, before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ?” This narrative, if duly considered, is fatal to the dream of the papists, who have dreamed that Peter was the first pope of
Rome, having, according to their fable, been appointed to that office by our Saviour; for, if Peter were pope, it is certain that Paul never would have ventured to rebuke him in this decided manner before the whole church, it being impossible for any ecclesiastic. to stand on an equality with the pope, much less to claim the right of accusing him of dissimulation, and of lecturing him openly, in the face of the Christian world. Jerome, the monk, in whose days the popish heresy was coming into fashion, perceived this dilemma, and therefore determined to save the honour of the first pope, by twisting the words of Paul, and giving them a double meaning. This he has done, with the usual dexterity of learned ecclesiastics, when they turn their talents to prove a falsehood; for, when he came to that verse which narrates this controversy, where it is said, “ When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed,” (ver. 11.) he endeavoured to make it appear, both by hiş
translation and exposition, that this oppo sition of Paul's was only in appearance, “in faciem;" according to a preconcerted plan of the pope Peter, who, by an ami. cable arrangement, had given permission to Paul to get up this scene for the edifi, cation of the church, and to still the con. troversy between the Jewish and Gentile converts. Jerome's translation, in the Vulgate, stands thus: “ Cum autem venisset Cephas Antiochiam in faciem ei restiti, quoniam reprehensibilis erat.” In the Greek it reads, öte de nadɛ IIetpos els AVTlOxeLav, kata rpoow Tov avtq avto TIV ott katey wojevog nu. It may be curious also to observe, that where Paul's opponent is called Peter in the Greek, in the 11th and 14th verses, the Vulgate calls him Cephas,
Augustine—the famous Augustine, a contemporary with Jerome, was indignant at this pious stratagem of the learned monk, and wrote him a reproof, which is still extant. I would observe, however, that Castellio has translated the passage, “Ego ei in os restiti quoniam reprehen-dendus erat;” which is a most important difference, in faciem allowing or rather requiring the interpretation, according to Latin idiom, of “appearance." Erasmus was too good a scholar to follow the trick of Jerome, knowing that the suffrage of the older theologues was against it: nevertheless, it is amusing to see how he gets over the difficulty, by inserting a gloss in his paraphrase, “ quanquam viderem hujus inter Apostolos primam esse autoritatem, tamen non veritus sum palam ct in os obsistere, pluris habens Evangelii negotium quam illius dignitutam--although I perceived Peter to have the first authority amongst the apostles, yet I did not hesitate to oppose him openly, and to his face, esteeming more the interests of the gospel than his dignity.” It is need less to remind the reader, that all about "authority” and“ dignity” is a pure invention of this subtle writer,
Augustine, however, though claimed as one of their saints by the papists, had no such tender feelings for the dignity of Pope Peter, as is evident in these senti. ments of his in an epistle to Jerome, which I translate from the Latin of the Benedictine edition : “I have read some things written by you on the epistles of the apostle Paul, particularly on his letter to the Galatians, where you come in your translation to that passage in which Peter is rebuked for his pernicious dissimulation That the defence of a lie should have been
undertaken, either by yourself (a man of such note) or by any other person, if indeed some other person did write that of which I complain, I confess, grieves me not a little, unless these things which grieve me may perhaps be refuted, if refuted they can be: for it appears to me most dangerous to believe that any lie should be contained in the sacred books; that is, that those men, by whom the Scriptures have been furnished and written for us, should have uttered any falsehood in their writings: for, having once admitted an intentional lie, though for a good purpose, in works of such paramount authority, no particle of those books will remain, which may not be resolved into the advised purpose of the author telling lies by design, according as the passage may appear either difficult to our notions of what is right, or incredible as a matter of faith. For, if the apostle Paul was dissimulating when he rebuked Peter, and if Peter in reality appeared to Paul to have done right, of whom he both said and wrote that he had done wrong, merely that he might quiet the controversy in the church, what shall we answer when those perverse men, for instance, shall appear, who will forbid to marry, according to Paul's prophecy, (1 Tim. iv.) when they, according to your system, shall urge that all which the apostle said on behalf of matrimony was a feigned doctrine, put forth for those men who erred in too excessive a love of their wives ?-that is to say, when they shall urge that Paul did not mean what he said, but that he merely wished to repress the error of those who were too uxorious ? Other examples I need not urge." (Ep. xxix.) In another epistle to Jerome he resumes the subject. “ Paul did not reprove Peter because he kept the traditions of the fathers, for that which was merely superfluous, though customary, would not have been mischievous; but because he compelled the Gentiles to act like the Jews, which he could not have done, unless he thought the Jewish customs necessary for salvation after the coming of our Lord; and this error was vehemently confuted by the truth as it is set forth by Paul. Neither was the apostle Peter ignorant of this; but he acted from fear of those who were of the circumcision. Thus was he really and truly rebuked, and Paul really and truly said what he meant, lest holy Scripture, which was published to establish the faith of them that come after, should, by the authority of one lie, appear a mass of un
certainty and instability, which no man could rely on. But I neither can nor ought to explain to you, in a letter, what great and irremediable mischief would follow, if we allowed this; but this I can do more readily, and with less risk, when we next meet. Wherefore, I beseech you, lay hold of the genuine Christian severity, to correct this work of yours, and, as it is said, sing your Palinodia; for the truth of Christians is far more beautiful than the Helena of the Greeks, and for her our martyrs have fought more bravely against this Sodom (heathenism), than those Greek warriors did against Troy. And this I say not that you may recover again your heart's eyes ; for far be it from me to say that you have lost them; but to beseech of you to make use of them (for I know you have them, and that they are both sound and watchful); but nevertheless you have, in a fit of dissimulation, turned them away, so as not to perceive the adverse consequences, if it once should be admitted that a writer of the holy books could, in any part of his works, have uttered a falsehood with honesty and piety.” Ep. xl.
This reproof, given to the monk by the Bishop of Hippo, is very faithful; and, though written in polite language, is as strong a dose of correction as could be well digested. It is curious to observe the extremely obsequious title of so free a letter"Augustine, to his most dear Lord and Fellow-presbyter, a Brother who is worthy to be regarded and embraced with the most sincere worship of love.” The hint about the heresy of those “ who
should forbid to marry" is interesting, inasmuch as Jerome himself was a most mischievous ringleader of that wicked heresy. Neither was Augustine himself free from the taint of the times; for there is extant a scandalous letter of his to a married couple, in which he commands them to abstain from the marriage-bed. Augustine is incomparably the most evangelical of the fathers; but he can by no means be relied on with security, for he is not free from the heresies of Antichrist, which were beginning to grow up towards a luxuriant harvest in his days; though his writings do, nevertheless, abound with insurmountable testimonies against many of the doctrines of popery; and the specimen here produced will satisfactorily prove how little the supremacy of the pope was acknowledged, as well as point out the wretched artifices of the monastic party, in endeavouring to lay a foundation for that edifice of imposture and tyranny.
Luther, in his golden commentary on Galatians, has duly noticed the subtilty of Jerome in defending Peter, and has, in this passage, as well as in many others, shown how entirely ignorant the learned monk was of the gospel; for, though Jerome was master of the words of Scripture, yet the spirit he knew not. He was ignorant of justification by faith, denied the imputed righteousness of the Saviour, and was altogether in the covenant of works: for which reason we need not wonder that the Roman Catholics have made his translation of higher authority than the Scriptures themselves. Sept. 8, 1832.
GIFTS OF TONGUES.
(To the Editor of the Evangelical Magazine.) I HAVE, like many others, given some cision, I have seen nothing so intelligent consideration to the preaching of the as our worthy Brown's Commentary. Rev. Edward Irving, and the idle com- On the fourteenth chapter of the first munications of many of his disciples; of Corinthians—the constitution of Mr. but I never yet found so sensible an ex- Irving and his disciples-Mr. Brown says position of their errors as in the para- (speaking as St. Paul) :-"Let me, therephrase, or commentary, of the late excel- fure, earnestly intreat and charge you to lent and worthy John Brown, of Hadó cultivate and exercise the important grace dington. I have attended to all that of Christian love; and, in subordination passed at the Chadwell Meeting, as well to it, to be zealously concerned to abound as those at London Wall; but, with all in spiritual gifts, provided it be with a due deference to the learned Scottish view to glorify God and edify your neighministers who were charged with the bour. And I recommend to you, chiefly, judicial office of investigation and de- the gift of prophecy, by which, under the
direction of the Holy Spirit, ye may explain and apply the oracles of God, upon the principles, and in the exercise, of Christian love: for, as to the gift of speaking unknown languages, which some of you are so fond of, it is much less useful; for, let a man deliver the most important truths, in a language which the hearers do not understand, they are nothing instructed by all he says; your words are all lost unless you speak in intelligible language, and you might as well speak to the wind unless your hearers understand you. There are, probably, as many different languages in the world as there are different nations in it; and all of these are useful to convey ideas to those who understand them, but to none else; if, then, I should meet with one who talks in a language which I do not understand, and who understands nothing of mine, neither of us could instruct or be instructed by, or even sensibly answer, one another, any more than if we were wild savages of different nations.
It is, therefore, manifestly proper that, in leading the prayers and praises of a congregation, my language should be plain to all who profess to join with me, that they may, with understanding, heartily join in the work. Would not a heathen, hearing and not knowing your strange tongue, condemn you as a number of frantic enthusiasts, or persons possessed of the devil, rather than influenced by the Spirit of God?”
These are the rational and Christianlike arguments of John Brown, a man to whom the religious world is indebted for a faithful service, during a well-spent life, to his Master and Redeemer, and in which he has illustrated many Seriptures in an admirable manner.
This is so apposite to the refutation of the weak arguments of Mr. Irving's partizans that I select it, and even that in an abridged way, to show the opinion of one of the most enlightened of Christian divines. Sept. 1832.
For the Evangelical Magazine.
[Our readers must have observed that we did not give our sanction, by any means, to the article upon which “Truth” animadverts: indeed, we thought it wrong in principle, and defective in argument; but respected and loved the writer, and allowed him to speak for himself, fully intending to answer him ourselves if no other one had done so.-Ed.]
It is, in general, with great pleasure I peruse the columns of your magazine, following with cordiality the able and judicious articles contained in them: I therefore much regret the insertion, in your last number, of Mr. Brynmair's letter on “ Religious Bequests.” Mr. Brynmair is evidently unacquainted with the subject on which he has written, and his sentiments on it are founded in error.
Mr. Brynmair states, that he considers religious bequests as one of the greatest evils of the present times. I do not find religious bequests in the black catalogue of crimes mentioned in the sacred volume. I would ask, which commandment forbids religious bequests? It may be said of them, as the Apostle Paul said in re
commending the practice of certain virtues
against such there is no law.” He says “ their principle is bad," and makes many other statements, but without giving one proof. The fact is, a right to leave property in trust, towards establishing his plans or principles in the world, after he is dead, so far as such plans and principles are consistent with religion and morality, belongs to every man, and every class of men ; and such right existed from the foundation of civil society. It can be claimed by Christians, Jews, Infidels, Mahometans, and Pagans.
A Christian may bequeath his thousands towards establishing his religious creed, or form of worship, in the world; but a Papist or a Druid has no right, in the sight of God, to do the same: because we are commanded to teach our children, and our children's children, the wonderful works of God; and again, to worship the Lord our God, and him only to serve. A Christian may devote his thousands for ever to a Bible society, but a Mahometan may not devote his thousands for ever to a Koran society :--the one is the Bible,