« PreviousContinue »
yet I know his judgment is very right; and as for his affections in the particular you point at—the support of the doctrine and discipline of the church-I have more confidence of him than of his father, in whom you have seen better than I so much inconstancy in some particular cases.' Neile and Laud examined him as to his grounds for this opinion, which he gave them at large, and, after an hour's discussion of the subject, Andrews, who had hitherto been silent, said, “ Well, Doctor, God send you may be a true prophet, concerning your master's inclination, which are glad to hear from you. I am sure I shall be a true prophet. I shall be in my grave, and so shall you, my Lord of Durham (Neile), but my Lord of St. David's (Laud), and you, Doctor, will live to see the day, that your master will be put to it, upon his head and his crown, without he will forsake the support of the church.”
Everybody knows that Laud took precedence of Charles, in being “put to it upon his head.” The Bishop of Ely (as our “ Doctor” had then become) had eighteen years in the tower for reflecting upon Andrews' discerning the signs of the times; if he had not employed every minute of them in a way which so much exceeds all that, in my wildest presumption, I have ever thought it possible for me to do, that I have always been inclined to doubt the fact, did not the writings which he contrived to have constantly conveyed to a place of safety (in a manner by stealth, Walker, p. 21,) still exist—several of them in print and reprint, to shew me that a human being may employ any length of time to the honour of God, and the benefit of his creatures, under the most adverse circumstances that can be conceived. Second only to this is my wonder at seeing him, with a mind as unbroken as that of another prisoner-the Prometheus of Æschylus-reject the counsel given him by his nephew, Christopher Wren, almost in the words that the tragedian puts into the mouth of Prometheus—"Adulate the liberal that is at present in power,” (OWITE TOY kpatouvra, 936 Butler, 973 Blomfield,) and this, not as the sarcasm goes in the poet, “ Make it your constant practice" (act). This unconquerable man waited till the Protector's death occasioned bigotry and illiberal principles again to stalk abroad, rather than do one single act of homage to him.
Yours, Francis HUYSAB.
DEAR SIR,—I heartily concur in an opinion expressed in your January number, (p. 67,) that “it is not very advisable for one periodical to consider how another deals with particular books." But, of course, in laying down this rule, you do not mean to probibit the discussion of the opinions or doctrines maintained in periodicals any more than you would wish to prevent the consideration of them as they are maintained in any other works.
Without more preface, then, let me offer some remarks on a passage in the last number but one of the “ British Critic,” (p. 241,) to the effect following :—The reviewer is speaking of a sermon of the late Mr. Saunders, from which he quotes this passage - abridged, but not garbled, by myself.
The preacher had been saying, that concessions had been made on the ground of expediency, which are working fatally. “Expediency,' he proceeds, “ is the watch-word of the many, and also of the few.* And under this plea of expediency, what evils have not been perpetrated ? what injustice not committed ? Alas! so it has been ever since the day that an unjust judge sat to administer according to the law, and condemned the innocent contrary to the law; and consigned the adorable Saviour to the harpy fangs of a lawless and depraved multitude, with this ominous sentence - • It is expedient that one man should die for the people.'
On which the reviewer breaks out _“So, because the word in this text happens to be ovupépet, it is expedient—the same word, by the way, which is used by our Saviour where he says, it is expedient, ovupépet, that I go away,'— Mr. Saunders, misled perhaps by an idle annotation, has the preposterous weakness to quote scripture,' as against the doctrine of all expediency, from the pulpit of St. Paul's. Why, he might as well denounce any other principle whatever, because the term which expresses it has been prostituted to the purposes of wicked men; he might as well make our Lord, as Caiaphas, the author, or advocate, of the tenet which he abominates from the expressions of the New Testament.”
I will confess that this criticism, proposed in this tone of confidence, struck me with much amazement; and, as the general subject involved is one of no small interest or importance, I am anxious to give it a chance of fair discussion in your pages, if any considerable doubts shall be supposed to hang over it. I will endeavour carefully to abstain from the politics of the question, and look only to the point of sound apprehension of scripture.
Does the reviewer, then, in the above passage, mean to contend that, because our Lord has used the word ovupépɛe to the effect described, no argument can, therefore, be derived from any other use of this same word in scripture? Such notion, followed out, would go the length of virtually maintaining that doctrines must depend more on the use of special words than upon context and connexions of thought. The bias of the speaker's mind, the evident or the presumable intention, with which he uses such or such words, becomes, in such a view, of no consideration or importance whatsoever. Our Lord has used a certain word, and Caiaphas is represented as having used the same; therefore, seeing our Lord has used it in a good sense, no inference can lie from any sense in which a wicked man has prostituted the same term.
I should be extremely sorry to misrepresent any writer; but if I do not so in deducing this consequence from the reviewer's proposition, that proposition will at once be felt to be a startling one.
The fairest way of bringing the matter to an issue, without any appearance of unworthy cavil, will be, to take three several places of degree in which the word oudépet is used in the New Testament, (three being quite sufficient,) and then to estimate the power of each to yield us any inference at all. Of such three places, two, of course, are fixed already. 1. Εγώ την αλήθειαν λέγω υμίν, συμφέρει υμίν ίνα εγώ απέλθω. Εάν γάρ
μή απέλθω, ο Παράκλητος ουκ ελεύσεται.-John, xvi. 7. 2. Πάντα μοι έξεστιν, αλλ' ου πάντα συμφέρει.-1 Cor. vi. 12. 3. Υμείς ουκ οίδατε ουδέν ουδέ διαλογίζεσθε, ότι συμφέρει ημίν, ίνα είς
άνθρωπος αποθάνη υπέρ του λαού.-John, xi. 49. I quote the fewest possible words, and omit the English versions, for brevity's sake. The same Greek word is rendered by expedient in all three, and that is enough.
Now, without going the length of “ quoting scripture as against the doctrine of all expediency,” is there not a doctrinal (or, at the least, an axiomatic?) inference to be derived lawfully from every one of these three places ? Not, however, from the words ovupépet or expedient, but from the sentiment conveyed, and the apparent animus of the speaker. The word, thus influenced, appears to pass through three several gradations. In our Lord's own use of it, its force extends to beneficial. A doctrinal inference results, that Christ's departure to his Father was for our great positive good. The speaker's tone is altogether that of tenderness and of affectionate sincerity and earnestness, and leaves no doubt as to the drift of his assertion. St. Paul's employment of the same word does not reach so high a sense as this, but may be taken at advisable. Here also the intention of the writer is obviously in accordance with Christian integrity; and may we not, with full propriety, deduce from what he says a general rule for circumspect employment of our Christian liberty ?
But what is Caiaphas's mind in his recorded use of still the same word ? Certainly the thing he counsels is neither beneficial nor advisable in the same sense with that of Christ or his apostle; but something answering, as nearly as possible, to expedient, in the modern sense (as it may be called) of that abused word. Had the reviewer taken up a different position, and, standing on the ground that Caiaphas “spake not of himself,” shewn only any plausible reason for refusing the common interpretation--viz., that this unconscious prophecy of the high priest was uttered, quatenus himself, purely on grounds of worldly policy—there might have been some colour for his sharp rebuke of Mr. Saunders. But as he has not done this, nor can that common acceptation of the words be easily set aside, I more than doubt the justice of his authoritative criticism, and must take leave to think that we may draw correctly from those words -- I will not say a doctrinal, but, at the least, an axiomatic inference (deserving to be settled as a principle within our minds), that it is highly perilous to sanction, even thus far, a tone of principle and conduct so very near to “ doing evil that good may come.” Here is a bold, bad man persuading others to the condemnation of an innocent person, under that false pretence which bold, bad men will never want-the good of the majority. This conduct is recorded in the Scriptures “ written for our learning." The end of such dishonest counsel is recorded also. It is not to the
VOL. IX.-May, 1836.
purpose to contend that from that counsel has resulted actually the greatest benefit ever bestowed on man. That mode of arguing, pursued to its inevitable consequences, would claim our approbation for this very Caiaphas-nay, even for Judas Iscariot. If Caiaphas here spoke, then, upon principles of a mere worldly policy, did he, or did he not, enforce a doctrine equivalent to modern expediency? And if he did, wherein is it a culpable thing for any earnest Christian minister to point to his example and the fruits of it, as holding out a solemn warning of the unsoundness of that worldly no-principle which he commended? And why should we not lift up the voice of admonition against the dangers consequent on any other principle whatever,” of which the operation is displayed to us, in scripture, in a like manner, as capable of such an easy "prostitution to the purposes of wicked men?” I do not see how this is “quoting scripture, as against the doctrine of all expediency?” And what did Mr. Saunders do more ?
I ask this question, Sir, with much earnestness, because (to own the truth) the reviewer in question appears to me to have assumed a tone, not only not excusable as respects
Mr. Saunders, but highly calculated to discourage—not to say mislead-more inexperienced and modest brethren in the clerical office. If it were known to be the inclination of the day to yield too little honour to expediency as a rule of conduct, either in public or in private life, his sensitive concern for its authority and prevalence might be less wondered at; but, as things are, it does not appear to me quite becoming to vent censures, with such surpassing scornfulness as the present instance, upon such ill-considered and untenable foundation.
I am, dear Sir, yours truly, R. B.
ROMAN - CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY.
Mr. Editor, I wish to offer one or two observations regarding the Romish controversy. It seems to me, that if we once prove the idolatry of that church, we go tolerably far to knock the whole system on the head. Now I am prepared to prove, in a very few words, the idolatry of that church, out of the mouth of her living head and high priest, Pope Gregory XVI., who, in his “Encyclical Letter to the Romish Hierarchy," says “ We will implore, in humble prayer, from Peter, prince of the apostles, and from his fellow apostle, Paul, that you may all stand as a wall.” If this be not as direct worship of the creature, forbidden in the last chapter of the New Testament, as ever was uttered, then I defy any man to shew what is. This Encyclical Letter is to be found translated in the “ Protestant Journal” of Feb., 1833 ; it is also to be found in the “ Roman-catholic Laity's Directory" for the same year. With regard to the Pope being antichrist, thut is quite a distinct question. It by no means follows that because idolatry and superstition are mixed up with the Christianity of the Romish church, that therefore the Romish church or the popedom is antichrist. That the popedom is not antichrist, is, in my humble opinion, most satisfactorily proved by Mr. Faber, in his « Sacred
Calendar of Prophecy," who, I think, likewise proves very conclusively that it is the man of sin foretold in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians; and to this learned work I take the liberty of referring your readers.
BOSSUET'S EXPOSITION. SIR,—I state on the authority of a letter now lying before me, from a priest of the church of Rome, that it is the determination of himself and his brethren to use every means in their power of “ opposing and subrerting" our “ law establishment." This ingenuous avowal only comes in aid of every protestant's observation and experience. And a due sense of our responsibility ought surely to lead to the inquiryWhat course should be pursued in order to counteract the efforts of these vigilant and unscrupulous adversaries of the sacred cause which we are solemnly pledged to uphold ? Now my humble suggestion is, that some able polemic should draw up a popular examination of the tenets advanced in Bossuet's “ Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church.” I specify this work because it is recommended by Dr. Murray, in his « Address to Protestants," as containing an accredited statement of the real differences, in matters of faith, between the reformed churches and his own. I am convinced that a manual, such as I recommend, would be found serviceable as an antidote against the subtle poison of popery; and, if written with plainness and perspicuity, so as to be generally intelligible, with such an union of temperance and firmness as to speak the truth in love, and so comprehensively as to embrace every material point in the argument, would easily supersede the many ill-digested and obsolete publications which are at present circulated under the sanction of high authority. By giving monthly as much space to this important discussion as you have often devoted to the learned lucubrations of Mr. Huyshe, my object would soon be attained; for I conceive that the refutation might be compressed into as narrow a compass as the Bishop of Meaux's Treatise.
I throw out this suggestion as one means amongst many of meeting the question on tangible grounds; but write anonymously, that I may thus escape the personal charge of presumption in putting myself forward as the adviser of my clerical brethren. Admitting, as we all must needs admit, that, as men of honour and common sense, we can no longer blink the question whether popery is or is not on the advance in this country; and then calling to mind the tenour of our Ordination vows, that we will use all faithful diligence to banish and drive away such doctrines as we believe in our consciences to be contrary to God's word, can we remain lukewarm and indifferent to the spread of this most pestilent heresy, alike destructive of civil and religious liberty, and perilous to the eternal interests of all who are
The excellent writer is of course aware that the Romanists, when taxed on this subject, always profess that they only implore the saints to offer prayers to God for them.-Ep.