Page images
PDF
EPUB

degree in which the word ovμpépe 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. Εγὼ τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω ὑμῖν, συμφέρει ὑμῖν ἵνα ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω. Ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ ἀπέλθω, ὁ Παράκλητος οὐκ ἐλεύσεται.—John, xvi. 7.

2. Πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ' οὐ πάντα συμφέρει. 1 Cor. vi. 12.

3. Ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε οὐδέν· οὐδὲ διαλογίζεσθε, ὅτι συμφέρει ἡμῖν, ἵνα εἷς ἄνθρωπος ἀποθάνη ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ.—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 ouppépet 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. 3 Y

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 in 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, that 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. A LAYMAN.*

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 subverting 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.-ED.

instrumental to its aggrandizement? Truth is too high and holy a matter to be compromised by worldly policy.

Relying upon your hearty co-operation in the spirit of this communication, which I place entirely at your disposal,

I am, Sir, very faithfully yours, CLERICUS.

MR. STANLEY AND DENS'S THEOLOGY,

SIR, I feel much obliged to a correspondent in your last number, signing himself "T. E.," for turning the attention of your readers to a supposed erroneous statement made by me in a note (p. 12) of a pamphlet entitled "A few Observations on Religion and Education in Ireland," as it enables me to state my authority for asserting, that the approbation of the work mentioned in Coyne's Dedication was limited, by his own confession, to the eighth volume.

In page 6 of a list of books published by him, "Dens's complete Body of Theology" is advertised as just published in eight volumes. "This additional volume," it is stated, being "now for the first time annexed to the present edition," &c. &c.; which "supplementary matter"—viz., that in this eighth volume-" has been added with the sanction and approbation of his Grace the most Rev. Dr. Murray."

I beg leave further to add, that, when at Dublin, to prevent any mistake on this point, I called at Mr. Coyne's shop, and was there informed that it was to this limited approbation of the eighth volume, and that only, that the sentence " ejus cum approbatione" referred.

In your Magazine for September, 1835, p. 329, the question was put, "What is to be said for the disgraceful suppression of the dedication to Dens's Theology in the copies sold to Mr. M'Ghee ?" That no delay might take place in a reply, a letter was inserted in the Globe, Sept. 15th, stating, on the authority of Mr. Timms, the great Orange bookseller of Dublin, who himself sent the fifty copies to England in which the dedication was omitted, that the story of this asserted disgraceful suppression was wholly and entirely false. In the same letter, the subject of "the limited approbation" of Dr. Murray was also discussed, and an explanation given similar in substance to the above.-I remain, your obedient servant,

EDWARD STANLEY.*

With every possible deference to Mr. Stanley, it must be observed, that Mr. Coyne expressly dedicates the second edition of Dens to Dr. Murray, as undertaken with his approbation. (See the dedication in the last number.) Surely it is not open to Mr. Coyne now to say, that he meant something else than that which he said. Mr. Coyne's situation is evidently an awkward one, and no one can wish to press hard on him; but the facts cannot be changed, and every one will judge of them for himself. With respect to the correspondence in the Globe in September last, it is so impossible for any but those who take it in to refer to it without a large sacrifice of time, that it is to be regretted that Mr. Stanley did not state to what Mr. Timms's declaration went. The fact that the dedication was cut out of many copies is certain. The writer was desired to procure a copy for a friend, which was without the dedication; and the fact that there was such a dedication was not known at the first meeting at Exeter Hall, if the writer's recollection serves him. Certainly it was not known when the subject was first stirred, and its discovery made a great sensation.—ED.

NOTICES AND REVIEWS.

The Life and Character of John Howe. By Henry Rogers. London: W. Ball. 1836. 8vo.

JOHN HOWE is one of those beautiful examples of a Christian temper, united with great but evenly-balanced powers, that, scanty as the materials for this life are, they can never be read without deep interest. Mr. Rogers has made as much of these scanty materials as probably could be made, in this handsome volume, and has added to them some very interesting letters of Howe to Baxter. He pledges himself, at the commencement, not to write such a life in a sectarian spirit, and has redeemed his pledge very fairly, with the exception of a few hard words, such as ferocious bigotry, &c. &c. There is a passage too of two or three pages, very early in the book, against Laud, which recites the regular common-place parrot-stuff about dreams and ceremonies, and convicts Mr. Rogers, beyond all question, of speaking of a man not one word of whose writings he has ever read. Mr. Rogers read Laud's conference with Fisher. He has displayed powers and feelings which will enable him to appreciate that great book, and will prevent his again indulging in these common-place remarks against Laud.

Let

It is a very remarkable thing that a man like Howe, with a mind alive and open to everything else in the Gospel, seems to have utterly forgotten that unity is ever recommended there to the disciples of Him who gave it. In all his reasonings he is gentle, kind, and reasonable enough, on the supposition, (1) that all men were like himself in bearing and temper, and (2) that unity is of no sort of value. The judging one form of worship better than another seems to be quite ground enough, in his eyes, for separation. Nay, he expressly holds that one man's having a taste or gust for extempore prayer, and another for composed forms, at once accounts for, and justifies, their forming and continuing in different bodies. After the toleration act was passed,-i. e., when conscience could not be said to be forcedHowe, who over and over again says that the differences were small, and who occasionally conformed, ought to have considered the evils of separation. He had practical proofs of them at once from the furious. and outrageous quarrels which shook the nonconformists to pieces the moment that their outward bond of joint resistance to the coercive laws was removed.

An Historical and Descriptive Account of China. By Hugh Murray, Esq., and others, (in three vols.) Vol. I. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. 1836. (Edinburgh Cabinet Library, Vol. 18.)

THERE are few parts of the world about which one is more anxious than China, an empire the civilization of which is of such remote antiquity, and which has never gone beyond the point which it reached ages ago-an empire which jealously excludes strangers, and

« PreviousContinue »