"her first-born son," (Luke ii. 7). This was zealously contradicted by their opponents, who went so far to the opposite extreme that they absolutely paid divine honours to her, offering her sacrifices: among other things of a species of twisted cake (collyris), whence they obtained the title of Collyridians.

About the year 428 began the celebrated Nestorian controversy, of which this was the occasion:-The Presbyter Anastasius, in a public discourse, took occasion to declaim warmly against the title Theotokos or Mother of God, which, since the disputes with the disciples of Arius, began to be frequently given to Mary. As the Deity cannot be born, and, consequently, nought but the manhood of Christ could be derived from an earthly parent, he contended that she should rather be styled Christotokos, or Mother of Christ. His friend, Nestorios, approved, adopted, and advocated these sentiments; for which he was tried before the Council of Ephesus, three years after, condemned unheard, and sent into exile, where he ended his days. However gained, this was a great triumph to the high Orthodox party, and, as a natural result, costly images of the Virgin and Child, began, before the end of the 5th century, to occupy the most prominent places in all the Churches.

In the end of the 6th or beginning of the 7th century, a sect must have existed among the Eastern Christians, who regarded Mary (in imitation of some of their predecessors at the Council of Nice,) as the third person of the Trinity; for Mohammed (born 569, died 632,) has this striking passage in the Koran, chap. v. :—“ And when God shall say unto Jesus at the last day, O Jesus, son of Mary, hast thou said unto men, Take me and my Mother for two Gods besides God? He shall answer, Praise be unto thee! it is not for me to say that which I might not."

We shall not now be surprised to learn, that in the 10th century, the custom was introduced of celebrating masses, and of abstaining from flesh every Sabbath day in honour of the Virgin. To the same period also has been traced the institution of the Rosary and Crown of the blessed Virgin; the former consisting of fifteen Pater Nosters and one hundred and fifty Aves, and the latter of six or seven Pater Nosters and sixty or seventy Aves, according to the age at which she was supposed to have died.

In the 12th century first appeared the controversy, the decision of which the present Pope has undertaken for the solace of his exile. About the year 1140 some churches in

France began to observe the festival (which was already kept in England) in honour of the alleged Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, i.e. that she was born free from the taint of Original Sin. The introduction of this new festival was strenuously opposed by St. Bernard, who contended that the privilege of being so born pertained to Christ alone. The variety of opinion and consequent practice thus excited, seem never to have completely subsided, and burst forth with tenfold acrimony in the 17th century, when the affirmative was supported by the Franciscans, and the negative by the Dominicans. Pope after Pope was troubled and perplexed by it, and the kingdom of Spain was so divided and thrown into confusion by the controversy, that two of its Monarchs in succession sent solemn embassies to Rome, to beseech the Pontiff to decide the question. But none of the heads of the Church would hazard a verdict, for this ignoble reason, that none of them could afford to arouse the displeasure of either of the conflicting parties. At length one of the Infallibles hit upon this ingenious expedient, he issued one declaration saying that the opinion of the Franciscans had much in its favour, and commanding the Dominicans not to oppose it in a public manner; and he accompanied it by another forbidding the Franciscans to treat the doctrine of the Dominicans as erroneous! A decree rather more definite was promulgated in the beginning of the 18th century by Clement XI. in which he appointed a festival to be observed annually throughout the Romish Church in honour of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin; so that our present Pius seems to have been forestalled. But we presume it did not, in so many words pronounce an authoritative decision on the question, for the Dominicans sturdily refused to observe the festival, and were not molested for their contumacy.

How grateful should such a review as this make us, that we belong to a Church which claims no authority in matters of faith, but where each Minister and each Hearer may search for himself into the true signification of Holy Writ, and utter his opinions when formed, with all boldness and plainness of speech! And how strongly should it determine us to adhere to our good old rule of holding no article as a portion of Gospel truth, which cannot be stated in the express language of our Lord himself, or of his chosen Apostles! Canterbury.

R. E. B. M.

THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.

LECTURE I.

(Concluded from page 130.)

The New Cloth and the Old Garment.-MATT. IX. 16.-The New Wine and the Old Bottles..-MATT. IX. 17.

JESUS CHRIST delivered also another parable on the occasion of the feast to which he was invited by Matthew, as forming part of his reply to the question put to him by the disciples of John, and the Pharisees, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not ?" It is that of The New Wine, and the Old Bottles. Matt. ix. 17.-" Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved."

In the East the bottles are made of skins, or leather; and when new they would extend and bear much better than old bottles the pressure of new wine, which was then in a state of fermentation, and which required both extension and strength in the bottles to prevent them from bursting.

Livermore says on this passage, that "the bottles referred to by Christ were made of the skins of animals, as sheep and goats. When new, they were capable of being distended, and would hold new wine in a state of fermentation without bursting; but when old and dry, they were not sufficiently strong for the purpose, though they would still without injury hold wine that had been fermented. The Gibeonites speak of their bottles as worn and rent. Josh. ix. 13; Job. xxxii. 19; Ps. cxix. 83.”

"It is still the custom in the eastern countries," says Dr. Adam Clarke, "to make their bottles of goat skins; if these happened to be old, and new wine were put into them, the violence of the fermentation must necessarily burst them, and therefore newly made bottles were employed for the purpose of putting that wine in, which had not yet gone through its state of fermentation."

And the former of these two commentators observes, that "flasks made of skins are still used in several countries, as in the south of Europe."

It is on this custom of using bottles made of skins, and their different properties, when new and old, with respect to new and old wine, that our Saviour founds this parable.

And the meaning is the same as the one of the New Cloth and the Old Garment. The religion of the Scribes and Phari

sees may be considered as old bottles; and the religion of Jesus Christ as the new wine. They were not, therefore, suited to each other, and it would be in vain to attempt to unite them. Or we may understand our Saviour as also referring to the Old Covenant made known by Moses, and the New Covenant promulgated by himself. They were not intended to be combined together. Their principles, in many respects, are different; or those in the one system are carried to greater perfection than those in the other; and the one is inferior, of course, to the other. The one was designed for a certain time, and it has answered its purpose. The other has taken the place of it, and, being perfect in its nature, it is to last to the grand consummation of all things by Christ. These two different covenants or dispensations cannot be formed into one, or united together; and the attempt would be vain, as well as dangerous to the nature of that which is designed to carry us forward to perfection.

But our Lord may probably refer more particularly to the peculiar notions and rites of the Scribes and Pharisees. "The institutes of Christ," says Dr. Adam Clarke, " and those of the Pharisees, could never be brought to accord: an attempt to combine the two systems, would be as absurd as it would be destructive. The Old Covenant made way for the New, which was its completion and its end: but with that Old Covenant, the New cannot be incorporated."

Thus also Livermore observes :-" As, in the last verse, we understand by the new cloth the religion of Christ, and by the old garment the rites of the Parisees, so in this, the new wine and old bottles stand respectively for the new religion and the old. The spiritual faith of Jesus, and the cere monial rigour of the Pharisees, were totally at variance."

ness!"

Let us remember that the religion of Jesus Christ is superior in its nature and tendency to all other systems of religion; that it is designed to elevate its disciples to the highest state of moral and religious perfection; and that, therefore, they ought to be and to "do more than others." "What manner of persons ought they to be in all holy conversation and godliLet them be careful lest they should be led imperceptibly to attempt to blend worldly things with their religion; such as worldly notions and opinions, worldly dispositions and affections, worldly maxims and customs, worldly lives and conduct. It cannot be united with them, as it is of the heaven, heavenly. It cannot come in contact with them, without great danger Its purity, by communication

with them, is sullied, its spirit is enfeebled, its light is clouded, its joy is depressed. It cannot be attempted to be blended with anything that is evil, but it must suffer; as the new wine perisheth by the bursting of the old bottles. And hence, worldly establishments, state connections, political alliances, human formularies, and man-made-creeds, are most dangerous to it, and destructive of its interests. Through their connection and agency it has been made a by-word and a scorn, a political engine, a source of merchandize and worldly aggrandizement. "The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."-Matt. xi. 12, Worldly men eagerly seize it as a temporal kingdom, to promote temporal objects, by temporal means. For, in this passage, "Jesus referred to those many Jews, who, possessed with false notions of the character of the Messiah, as a deliverer from the tyranny of the Romans, and ready for deeds of violence, were eager to enlist as his followers, striving to force themselves upon him, without any of the dispositions he required in his disciples." (Norton, as quoted by Livermore in this connection.) Let, then, the true friends of religion guard it as much as in their power from all such pernicious worldly influences. Let them study, at least, for themselves, to keep it at the remotest distance from such contaminating associations. And in their daily lives and conduct let them study to "abstain from every appearance of evil.” For as Jesus is a Prince, whose "kingdom is not of this world," and "he is not of this world," so are "they not of this world," but are subjects of a spiritual kingdom; and "risen with him," they, with him, "have their conversation in heaven.”

as

SIGNING ARTICLES OF RELIGION WITHOUT BELIEF.

66

LORD CHANCELLOR KING, in conversation with the celebrated Professor Whiston, [honest William Whiston, of Cambridge,] justified the signing of Articles not believed, for preferment, saying, "We must not lose our usefulness for scruples." Mr. Whiston expressed his surprise and regret at this, and asked his Lordship, "Whether the Courts, at which he himself presided, would allow such prevarication or not?" He confessed that they did not allow of it. Then," said Mr. Whiston, "suppose God Almighty should be as just in the next world as my Lord Chief Justice in this, where are we then ?" To which his Lordship made no answer. On Mr. Whiston's relating this story to Queen Caroline [Consort of George II.,] that Princess said, "Mr. Whiston, no answer was to be made to it."W. Belsham's History of Great Britain, vol. v., p. 265.