Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

If the circumstances of this case had been reversed, and Peter had reproved Paul, it would have been cited as a triumphant and an incontrovertible demonstration of Peter's supremacy. But as it now stands, it is impossible to reconcile the fact with that unsupported assumption.

It is recorded in the Acts (viii. 14, 15.) that when the "Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, "they sent unto them Peter and John, that they might receive the "Holy Ghost." If Peter possessed or exercised supreme jurisdiction over his brethren, is it probable that they would have sent him on this special commission? The circumstance, and the account of it, are, on the principle of "pre-eminent dignity," alike inexplicable...

J

[ocr errors]

It is also inexplicable on this same principle, that St. Paul, when writing to the Church at Rome, should never advert to the exclusive privilege, they, possessed, in having for their bishop, the Head-Apostle, the Vicegerent of Christ, and in the communication of supreme ecclesiastical power to the future bishop of their Church in succession, and for ever! It is inexplicable, that St. Peter himself, when writing to the Churches two catholic or general epistles, should advance nothing that might lead them to acknowledge his investiture with this authority. In the latter of these epistles, he informs the churches, that he was "shortly to put off his tabernacle," and that he would "endeavour that after his decease, they might have these things in remembrance," and yet he makes no reference to his successor in ecclesiastical supremacy! He calls himself with great humility an elder," and exhorts the elders of the Churches, to a diligent discharge of pastoral duties; but not the slightest allusion to his own pre-eminence, occurs in these apostolic charges." pp. 127-130...

We are unwilling to detach from this connexion, some passages which we should have been glad to copy for the perusal of our readers, lest we should do them injury: of this kind are the remarks on the invocation of Saints. We venture however to copy the following paragraph.

• We never request an unknown. fellow christian to pray for us; and it would never enter into the mind of a man to imagine, that a mental desire, not expressed in language, or by intelligible signs, should be addressed to an unknown christian. As the object of mutual intercession is the promotion of mutual fellowship and mutual advantage, in one way or another, previous knowledge of one another is absolutely indispensable. But how can this mutual knowledge be possessed in the present case? How can I know any of the saints in heaven, or be assured that they know me? I may indulge romantic conjectures and reveries; but what scriptural warrant have I for such conceptions? It is possible I may be known to them, but they have never been exhibited as objects of personal knowledge to me; and therefore it is the fiction of fancy and not the exercise of faith, that would lead me to address them.' PP. 224, 225.

Mr. Fletcher's work exhibits generally a sorupulous attention

to accuracy of statement; it is however occasionally defective in this particular, as in the sentiment which occurs, p. 18. that the determination of what was Apocryphal, and what might be entitled to Canonical authority, would invariably respect the proof of the document in question being the composition of an apostle; a rule which certainly excludes the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles from canonical authority, as these books respectively, though included in the canon, were not the composition of an apostle. It is also incorrect to state, (p. 275.) that an apostolic assembly decreed the abolition of Jewish ceremonies.' The Apostolic decree referred to, only prohibited the imposition of the Jewish ceremonies on the Gentile converts to Christianity. The quotation from Paley, p. 19, presents the very reverse of the Author's meaning, in consequence of an erratum-with, instead of without.

The passages which we have cited from the "Lectures, render unnecessary any remarks which we might be prepared to offer on the style of the Author; it will be appreciated by our readers as the proper kind of diction for sentiments of serious consideration and great moment. Having already expressed our opinion of Mr. Fletcher's general merits as a writer, we shall close the present article with the following extract from the concluding lecture, on the Genius and Tendency of the Papal Religion.

IV. That the principles of the papal religion tend to cherish the spirit of intolerance and persecution. The history of religious intolerance, could its progress be accurately traced, would exhibit a most melancholy proof of human depravity. When that depravity appears in the secular transactions of life, we are not so much surprised as grieved at its awful developement; but when the very religion of mortals, can blend itself with the darkest passions of our nature, and furnish the real, or the ostensible cause of malevolence, we feel amazement and horror at the unnatural combination. Whence is it, we inquire; that any system of opinions, dignified by the name of religion, can admit into alliance with itself, an agency purely infernal, and directed only to vengeance and extirpation? The monstrous incongruity is still greater, when we contemplate the original elements, out of which, it is pretended at least, every form and modification of the Christian religion have arisen. The records of Christianity exhibit a character and a model of transcendent benevolence in the life of our divine Redeemer; and the truths he taught, the obligations he enjoined, and the prospects he unfolded to the faith and hope of his disciples, present the most powerful motives to the practical imitation of his example. One would have imagined, that the most imperfect representation of such a religion would have preserved at least that one characteristic of its divine origin, the spirit and the law of love! It could not surely have been forgotten, that this was referred to, by the great teacher sent from God, as the most decisive test of resemblance to himself, and the most unequivocal

proof of interest in his favour. He had recorded it as the distinct avowal of his design, that he came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them," and the inference was therefore unquestionable, that intolerance and persecution in any form, and to any extent, are in eternal opposition so the spirit and genius of his religion.

It would have been well for the interests of the world, if the force of this conclusion had been felt and acted upon in the Christian Church. But it was soon forgotten, when the corruption of Christian doctrines and institutions had prepared the way for the most tremendous violations of "the law of love." The records of ecclesiastical history are stained with blood. Those offices, to the undertaking of which, nothing should have prompted, but pious zeal and holy benevolence, became by the appendages of worldly emolument, most attractive objects to unsanctified ambition. The possession of power uncounteracted by moral principle, and unchecked by religious liberty, soon gave scope to the exercise of tyranny; and out of this spirit arose the usurped prerogatives, and the unbounded domination of the See of Rome. The world, wondering at the beast," beheld with silent astonishment, the gradual encroachments of a spiritual empire, which by the refinement and extent of its policy, acquired and absorbed within itself the supreme jurisdiction of all affairs, that upon any principle of construction could be reckoned spiritual and ecclesiastical, till it became at length a maxim, supported by the authority of innumerable precedents, that errors of opinion were within the cognizance of the secular power, and exposed their unfortunate adherents to fines, imprisonments, and death' pp. 328-330.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Art. V. On the Rule of Faith: in Reply to Mr. Joseph Fletcher, Minister of the Independents at Blackburn, and Author of the Lectures on the Roman Catholic Religion. By Joseph Fairclough, pp. 51. Price 1s. 6d. Keating and Co. 1817.

AUDI alteram partem. Mr. Fairclough requests a hearing on behalf of the doctrines of the Church of Rome, and by all means let us hear what he has to say. He cominences bis remarks on Mr. Fletcher's Lectures, by lamenting that though the dearest interests of mankind are involved in a proper investigation of religious truths, it seldom happens that inquiry of this kind is either fairly or profitably conducted. Passion and prejudice instilled into the mind from early infaney, nourished and matured by educational habits, but too often warp the intellect, and prevent it from embracing obvious truths. There is, it must be confessed, much truth in this sentiment; but is the process of free inquiry a tenet of Roman Catholicism? It is the very basis of Protestantism, and in this respect, there is an essential difference between its professors, and the members of a Church whose whole proceedings are opposed to the investigation of religious tenets and customs. Without further enlargement on the topics suggested by Mr.

[ocr errors]

Fairclough's opening paragraph, we would take the liberty of admonishing him, that the reasons which he has been pleased to assign in the preceding sentence, as the causes which operate unfavourably against the interests of truth, and lead men astray into error and falsehood, may be as strong in their influence on his own mind as on that of any other person. Mr. F. is, we perceive, a stout declaimer against the partial conduct of other writers; he complains that argument and sound 'reasoning' are discarded by controvertists, and inveighs vehemently against the practice of misrepresenting an opponent's sentiments: we shall consider the conformity of his own practice with his professions. On turning over the first leaf of Mr. Fairclough's pamphlet, we meet with the following sentence.

Mr. Fletcher prettily informs us, that Jesus Christ foreseeing the undue honours which would be paid in future ages to his Virgin Mother, treated her upon all occasions with apparent harshness and neglect.'

Now let us turn to Mr. Fletcher's pages. After supporting, which he very satisfactorily does, his statement, that not the shadow of scriptural authority can be adduced to warrant the practice of adoring the Virgin,' and rendering to her acts of homage and worship, he proceeds:

The conduct of the Saviour towards her, seems as if prophe tically intended for the very purpose of preventing any sanction from being derived in favour of such idolatrous veneration, from his own personal behaviour. When she discovered on one occasion a dispo.. sition to dictate to the Saviour as to the exercise of his miraculous powers, he replied,- - Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not come," (John ii, 4.) Just before his death he commended her with filial affection to the care of his beloved disciple; and if in any circumstances it would have been natural to have stated her claims to their full extent, it would have been when performing the last act of duty towards her. But not a syllable of that affecting interview relates to the subject, and the whole of the disciple's obligation is confined to the discharge of filial duties.' Lectures, p. 230.

Whether it be to shew his learning, or to display his love of truth, or to obtain credit on the ground of modesty, we cannot tell, but Mr. Fairclough has embellished his title-page with a Latin motto: Si ignoras, disce; si nosti, erubesce;'If you 'be ignorant, learn; if you already know, be ashamed.' Mr. Fletcher's book was open before Mr. Fairclough. We have thought it our duty to confront the passage with his statement. What shall we think of his honesty, or his honour, in telling his readers, that Mr. Fletcher informs us that Jesus treated his mother upon all occasions with apparent harshness and

neglect? He cannot allege that this misrepresentation originated in ignorance or mistake, and we therefore think that every reader will expect from him the glow of shame and self-reproach, as an exemplification of the erubesce' in his motto.

The assertions in this pamphlet are hardy in the extreme: it is really surprising that any man should risk his reputation by exposing himself so openly to detection as does the present Author. Here are specimens of his bold assertions..

'Jesus Christ neither wrote himself, nor commanded his Apostles to write after his ascension. p. 5.

"Write," said Jesus Christ to the Apostle John at Patmos, after his ascension, "Write the things which thou hast seen, " and the things which are, and the things which shall be "hereafter."

St. Clement, and St. Polycarp, who had both been instructed by the Apostles, constantly admonished the faithful to listen to their pastors. Where will Mr. Fletcher discover in their writings and exhortations to their converts, to apply to Scripture, in order to find a rule of faith which they themselves had never learned?'

Clement and Polycarp both refer the readers of their epistles to the Scriptures, but they do not constantly admonish the faithful to listen to their pastors. On this subject they do not contain a single word, for though they both speak of the Christians of their time as submitting themselves to the Presbyter of their own communities, they never admonish them to listen to traditionary instructions. Mr. Fairclough, we presume, has read the Epistles of Clement and Polycarp; he has not therefore the plea of ignorance to urge for this misrepresentation of their contents. Were his statement however correct, it would be of no advantage to his cause; for it might well comport with the most perfect deference to Scripture, as the sole rule of faith, and with the absolute exclusion of tradition, as authoritative in religion, that the early Christians were exhorted by Clement and Polycarp to listen to their pastors; it being by no means an uncommon circumstance for Protestant writers, who exclude traditionary faith as a rule of conscience, to exhort their readers to listen to their pastors.

Who can peruse without a smile the following charge and query urged with so much gravity by the Author?

Mr. Fletcher is determined to support his system even at the expence of his own principles. He is not content with the private discovery of his rule of faith in Scripture, but he wishes that other people should understand the texts, which he brings forward to prove his system, in the same sense which he is pleased to confer upon them. How can he reconcile this with his principle of private judgment, and private examination? p. 7.

« AnteriorContinuar »