Page images
PDF
EPUB

He would have withdrawn Himself gladly from the presence of the crowd, as He did sometimes, He dismissed them Himself this time with words of exhortation and a peaceful salutation. As He raised His hand to bless them, His eye rested on His mother. After He had taken leave of the people, He turned to the left, and whispering to John and James: “Take care of my mother!" He turned off to the southward, and ascended one of the hills which slope gently upwards to the mountain range. His path lay midst stones and bushes. He loved the mountain solitude, and many a mountain peak in Galilee, and Perea, had become to Him a Bethel, or House of God; for thither had He withdrawn Himself to pray. As soon as He had reached the top, and was out of the noise and bustle of the world below, He felt a perfect sense of rest after His day's work, now done. Without retiring from the outer world, He could give Himself up to prayer, and enjoy a Sabbath of rest in His soul. His glance surveyed land and lake lovingly, and rested on the towns round Him with a peaceful benediction. He felt Himself to be the centre of the universe, sending out rills of sympathy all round Him. He extended His arms, pressed the world to His heart, took it with Him to God, and lifted it as if sprinkled with His heart's blood, as a heaveoffering to God. Now He touched the earth with His forehead, and let His hair rest on it as a covering mantle; then He raised Himself wearily, as if He had the whole world on His shoulders, and stood more and more erect, and stood, apparently raised above His usual height, gazing heavenward. He spoke, was silent, and spoke again. His prayer was a conversation with God; His voice was low and lisping, rather than loud. But at last He raised it to a shout of victorious triumph, which the mountains echoed back again. Nature, which had been hitherto sunk in perfect silence, became all at once as lively, as if morning had dawned in the middle of the night. The cicadas outvied each other; the birds tried who should sing the best; the tree tops bent and rustled; the

brook began to ripple along faster, as if something had been hindering it before, which was now removed; and the waves of Gennesaret were hurried along so swiftly towards its western shore, that they overleaped each other, and broke with a noise like thunder against the sea-wall at Capernaum and Tiberias. But the mysterious suppliant lay for a while on His face, as if overpowered by ecstatic visions; and then, when He stood up, stepped along with flying footsteps back to Capernaum, now lying sunk in sleep, to the house on the hill, the door of which Peter's mother-in-law opened as soon as He knocked. So late again, my Lord!" exclaimed she, as soon as she saw Him, and received His silent greeting. She lighted Him to His room, where He lay down without undressing, and was soon sunk in deep, calm sleep. His last thoughts had been a contemplation of the secret counsels of God, and the peace of God was with Him.

Notes.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

ONE day, many years ago, three youths, of earnest and inquiring minds, sat talking together. One of the three afterwards published an important historical work, and has now been called hence by his Lord. Another is still seeking to bring back the lost

sheep of the house of Israel to the Good Shepherd; and the third has for many years superintended a seminary, which promises to become a blessing to his country.

Two of these friends were Christians, but the third still belonged to the synagogue of the Jews. The two Christians did not indeed as yet know the living power of real Christianity, but still they often tried to persuade their friend not to remain a Jew, and he would reply, "If the truth of Christianity could be proved to me from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, then I would become a Christian." three friends accordingly set to work. Each of them read the Old Testament

The

privately, with the greatest attention, writing out such passages. as strength. ened the argument in favour of this or that point. And so it came to pass

that, after conscientious searching of the Scriptures, all three were laid hold of by the mighty power of the Gospel. The Jew was baptized into the faith of Christ, and the two others became real and heart-felt believers.

The first of these three friends was the late Dr. Dittmar, Counsellor of Zweibrücken; the second is Herr Heman, of Basle, Principal of the College of Proselytes in that city; and the third is Professor Wilhelm Stern.

A CRAZE OF A MODERN WOULDBE EGYPTOLOGIST.

AN eminent and orthodox divine, & ripe philologist and Orientalist, in the north of England, writes to us as follows:

"GOOD MR. EDITOR,-I have great pleasure in congratulating you on your new name, I mean of the Hebrew people,* APERI-U. I have sought for this NAM-I-NIK, nickname (Persian), † of yours, but all in vain. It was alleged in 1865 to have been discovered on the ancient monuments of Egypt !!! One scribe is said to have written, "I have obeyed the command of my Master, and have furnished rations to the soldiers, and also to the APERI-U (?) who carry stone for the SUN of the SUN Ramases Mariamon "!!! [It would appear that the sun had bred suns in Egypt, perhaps from pans Niliacæ plebis.]

"It would appear, from the statement of the fortunate discoverer, that APURU was the original name of the Hebrew people !! It seems strange that no one better informed has detected all this nonsense before now, in this nineteenth century! There is nothing like this name in Coptic, the source Egyptologers draw upon to explain those monuments. When will the learned boobies recover their senses?"

ה

"RECOGNITION OF THE SERVICES

OF AN OLD MISSIONARY. "THE friends of the Society will hear with much satisfaction that its Patron, His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, has conferred the degree of Bachelor of Divinity upon the Rev. F. C. Ewald, PH.D., who laboured so long

See Jewish Chronicle, Feb. 17, 1865. [† Our learned and accomplished correspondent gives the above term in the original Persian, but, unfortunately, our printers are not overstocked with Oriental type.-EDITOR H. C. W.]

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Si itis Jesuitis, non JESU itis.

REV. SIR,-Casting my eyes on the first advertisement on p. 46 in the January number of THE HEBREW CHRISTIAN WITNESS, I observe that the publishers, by way of demonstrating the incontrovertible character of the sermon, THE BANE OF A PARASITE RITUAL, quote the opinion of The Church Times respecting it. Allow me to advert to the criticism of that print. In a book of instructions, published by the Jesuits to their disciples, after several directions how to answer objectors, this advice is given: "If you cannot answer your adversary, turn round and laugh, and say, 'Surely you cannot be serious!' Some (so the pupil is taught by the Jesuit) are put out of countenance by a burst of ridicule, and are thus silenced quickly." The critic in The Church Times feels the power of the multum in parvo publication, and so affects to laugh at it, and curtly describes it in the words, "The silliest discourse that ever was printed." He could not answer its arguments! Hence infidel-i.e., unbelieving-scorn. I sometimes read The Church Times, and I ask the editor, Where did the original school of infidelity arise? Most surely in Italy, during the pontificate of Leo X., at which period, as Coleridge observes, "atheism or infidelity of some sort was almost universal amongst the high dignitaries of the Romish Church." Popery brought forth infidelity, and the daughter devoured the mother : so Voltaire says. He was educated in the Church of Rome, and became hierophant of the modern school of infidelity. (See Dr. Newman's "Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England.")

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"The

Dr. J. H. Newman tells us, evil of infidelity spread; at length it attacked the French Catholic clergy, and, during the last century, there was a portion of them who fraternised with the infidel, still holding their places and preferments in the Church. At the end of the century, about the time of the first sanguinary French Revolution, the pestilence spread into Spain. A knot of the Spanish clergy became infidels, and, as a consequence, abandoned themselves to a licentious life. Earth could not show, imagination could not picture, Satan could not create a more horrible spectacle. These priests were in the very bosom of the Church; they served her altars; they were in the centre of her blessings: how could THEY forget Jerusalem who dwelt within her? How could one that had realised that the Strong and Mighty and the Gracious was present on the altar-how could he go on year after year (horrible !) performing the same rites, holding his Lord in his hands, dispensing HIM to his people, yet thinking it all an empty show, a vain superstition, a detestable idolatry, a blasphemous fraud, and cursing the while the necessity which compelled his taking a part in it?" (See Lecture iv.) Behold the BANE of a Parasite Ritual! Now, if there be any truth in the doctrine of INTENTION, the problem to be solved is, How could the wicked infidels, whom Dr. Newman denounces, be said to perform the rites of the Church EFFICIENTLY, "holding the Lord in their hands, and dispensing HIM to His people?"

I ask the editor of The Church Times next to consider the words of Cardinal Cajetan: "The conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, all of us do teach in words, but, in deed, many deny it, thinking nothing less." . . Archbishop Wake cites the testimony of several learned Romanists in opposition to transubstantiation as defined by the council of Trent. The following is a remarkable instance, and shows the hardening effects of error on the heart and con. science, when knowingly and wilfully entertained: "It will more be wondered at," says he, "that a person so eminent as Cardinal du Perron, who has written so much in defence of transubstantiation, should, nevertheless, all the while, himself believe nothing of it. And yet this he freely confessed, we are assured, to some

of his friends, not long before his death, that he thought the doctrine to be monstrous; that he had done his endeavour to colour it over the best he could in his books; but that, in short, he had undertaken an ill cause, which was not to be maintained !" (Archbishop Wake on the Eucharist, in Gibson's Preservative against Popery, vol. ii.) I read THE BANE OF A PARASITE RITUAL, and L venture to ask the editor of The Church Times, "Are not the sentiments therein distinctly embodied in the Liturgy and Articles?" In the communion service we are taught that "GOD hath given His Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our SPIRITUAL FOOD AND SUSTENANCE in that holy sacrament." In the prayer of consecration we speak of being "partakers of His most blessed body and blood," and, in the thanksgiving at the close, we bless GOD that He doth "vouchsafe to feed us with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ."

Does the editor of The Church Times know the homilies? Your sermon is agreeable to the truth expressed in the Homily concerning the worthy receiving of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ:-" Thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent; but, as the Scripture saith, the table of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the annunciation of his death, yea, the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, in a marvellous incorporation, which, by the operation of the Holy Ghost (the very bond of our conjunction with Christ), is, through faith, wrought in the souls of the faithful, whereby not only their souls live to eternal life, but they surely trust to win to their bodies a resurrection to immortality." The Church of England is scriptural, but it is not properly treated by The Church Times. Parasitic Ritualists are indeed her bane. Evil mingles with good ever. Diogenes, when mice came about him as he was eating, said, "I see that even Diogenes nourisheth PARASITES." Is the sermon called SILLY? When a beautiful woman is called ugly, her face, if not her tongue, speaks, "What is beauty? Why, that is a blind man's question." When a courageous valiant is called a coward, he smiles, and shows a Victoria medal,

perhaps.

When a learned man is styled an ass, he laughs, and says, "ASS. I am complimented; I am styled really Artium Societatis Socius = Fellow of the Society of Arts !"

Some of the medieval school do not understand the preacher of THE BANE OF A PARASITE RITUAL, because, not knowing the Hebrew Scriptures and the meaning of the Jewish passover, they call him or his doctrine by an opprobious epithet. The alumni of that school consider not our Saviour ac commodated all the notions and ideas of the passover-that ancient ceremony-to the eucharist. In that paschal supper, the master of the house took bread, and, presenting it before them, instead of the usual benediction of the bread, he brake it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is the bread of affiiction, which our fathers ate in Egypt.' In this sacred feast our Saviour, in like manner, takes bread,the very loaf which the Jews were wont to take for the ceremony before mentioned,-breaks it, and gives it to his disciples, saying, "This is My body which is broken for you;" alluding thereby not only to their ceremony in action, but even to their very manner of speech in his expression, at the passover before them, which, in the holy tongue, they constantly called THE BODY of the paschal lamb.

In that ancient feast, the master of the house, in like manner, after supper, took the cup, and, having given thanks, gave it to them, saying, "This is the fruit of the vine, and the blood of the grape." In this holy sacrament, our blessed Lord, in the very same manner, takes the cup; HE blesses it, and gives it to his disciples, saying, "This cup is the New Testament in My blood;" His action being again the very same with theirs; and for His expression, it is that which Moses used when he ratified the ancient covenant between GOD and the Jews, saying, "This is the blood of the testament.'

In that ancient feast, after all was finished, they were wont to sing a hymn, the Psalms yet extant, from the hundred and thirteenth to the hun. dred and nineteenth, thence called by them the Great Hallelujah. In this holy supper, our Saviour and His disciples are expressly recorded to have done the like, very probably in the selfsame words. (St. Matt. xxvi. 30.)

Does the editor of The Church Times understand that every part of this sacrament bears most clear allusion to

the ancient solemnity? "This cup," saith our Saviour, "is the New Testament in My blood;" that is as Moses had before said of the Old Testament, in the very same phrase,-the seal, the ratification of it. Now, if those words be taken literally, then, first, it is the cup which is transubstantiated, not the wine; secondly, it is changed, not into Christ's blood (as some pretend), but into the New Testament in His blood, which being confessedly absurd and impossible, it must follow that the apostles understood our Saviour alike in both His expressions, and that, by consequence, we ought to interpret those words, "This is My body which is broken for you," of the bread, as the figure of His body, as we must that of the cup, that it was the New Testament in His blood, i.e., the sign or seal of the New Testament.

Hoping that the editor of The Church Times will use hard arguments and soft words-not soft arguments and hard words-in his next critique on THE BANE OF A PARASITE RITUAL, I remain, yours respectfully,

CLERICUS, M.A.

WHERE ARE THE LOST TEN
TRIBES?

IN REPLY TO THE REV. A. A. ISAACS.

AN article under this heading appeared in the first number of THE HEBREW CHRISTIAN WITNESS, a twelvemonth since. The inquiry was made by "A Believing Israelite," requesting that "its pages might be opened as a forum for Hebrew Christians to discuss and argue the subject from their respective points of view." So invited, we had hoped that some amongst our brethren of Judah would, long ere this, have entered on the discussion of a question, the right understanding of which is as interesting and important for them as for us. But now that it is for the first time taken up by one of them in a magazine so ably conducted by a Hebrew Christian, we cannot but express our disappointment that the chief ground of objection in the Rev. A. A. Isaac's brief paper, summarily dismissing the claims of the AngloSaxon race to an Israelitish origin, should be but a repetition of Professor Rawlinson's, to which so full a reply has already been given. There is no attempt to refute the arguments by which those objections have been met, merely a reiteration of the assertion that the so-called lost tribes were re

1

united to Judah after the captivity, as shown by James's Epistle, addressed to "the twelve tribes," and St. Paul's reference to them, Acts xxvi. 7. But however individuals, or portions of all the tribes, may have been included in the mention of them in these passages; yet this cannot nullify the express and precise language of the Scriptures as to the distinctness of the two houses even to the time of their final restoration to their land.

The thirty-seventh chapter of Ezekiel is, we maintain, conclusive on this point. "Judah and the children of Israel, his companions," embracing such individuals only of the ten tribes as had fallen away from the house of Israel and joined Judah and Benjamin, before their captivity in Babylon; and whether or not others accompanied them on their return from that captivity, or were amalgamated with those who remained behind, and subsequently dispersed in the different countries mentioned in Acts ii. ; yet the "devout Jews of every nation under heaven," dwelling in Jerusalem at Pentecost, could have comprised but a fraction of the ten tribes, though a sufficient number to be addressed as "the twelve tribes scattered abroad." But, besides these "children of Israel, the companions of Judah," we have the express mention of the bulk of the ten tribes as separate and distinct from Judah, found with "Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and all the house of Israel his companions," this separate and distinct position maintained up to the still future hour of their restoration to their own land, made there one nation, and no more two nations," and one King made King to them all."

66

So far, then, from "there being no reason to believe," as Mr. Isaacs contends, "that the ten tribes continued in the countries to which the Assyrians carried them, or that they were subsequently kept distinct from the two tribes which constituted the kingdom of Judah;" we assert, on the contrary, that there is every reason to believe that only such small fragments of the ten tribes as had been incorporated with them before the Babylonish captivity returned with them, and, even if a few more, these were equally insignificant when compared with the infinitely larger and more distinguished portion, denominated "all the house of Israel," the companions, not of Judah, but of Ephraim. Had any notable portion of these returned with Judah,

[ocr errors]

we should surely have had some particular mention of them in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, with "the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites." Concerning all these, detailed genealogies are given in those books; and in both, those who returned are expressly stated to be "the children of the province that went up out of the captivity of those who had been carried away into Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his own city" (Ezra ii. 1; Neh. vi. 5, 6); whereas the captivity of the ten tribes into Assyria took place upwards of a hundred years earlier.

To overlook all that is distinctive of these tribes, and so clearly pointed out in the Scriptures, not only as to their past history in the land, but their subsequent position in "the wilderness" of the north and "the isles afar off," and the still future prophecies concerning them, is, to say the least, to form but a light estimate of the Lord's purpose in the separation of the two houses: "For the thing is of Me," was His express declaration when "He commanded Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the people, saying, Ye shall not go up against your brethren, the children of Israel." (1 Kings xii.)

And was the Lord's purpose in this their separation fulfilled merely in the continuous rebellion and idolatries of that house whilst in their land for the space of 390 years,-to signify which the prophet was commanded to lie on his left side for as many days, bearing their iniquity? (Ezek. iv. 4-8.) Were they, at the end of that period, merely to be merged in Judah, and nothing further evolved of the Lord's purpose in their separation? We believe not; but that they were reserved for a higher destiny after the trial of Judah and their rejection, because of their yet more signal failure and unbelief. Restored from the Babylonish captivity, all their former provocations forgiven, the Lord continued to deal in mercy with the house of Judah, till they filled up the sum of their iniquity in the "forty years "that elapsed between the baptism of Jesus and the commencement of His ministry among them, when "He began to be about thirty years old," until the destruction of their city and temple, A.D. 70. Then was wrath poured upon them to the uttermost for their rejection of Him

« PreviousContinue »