Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

66

99 66

and the sacrifice" of the Jewish dispensation "were not to be swept away" (page 88), is most extraordinary. "Christ himself" set the example of frequenting "the temple (which he chooses to call the church') at stated hours for prayer." Attending the temple for prayer, a proof that "the priesthood and sacrifice were not swept away!" Observe how the proofs accumulate: "Christ speaks of His own Church several times;" promises to "found it upon a rock;" describes it as a city set upon a hill," a light in the world," " grain of mustard seed, growing up to an immense tree!" What imaginable connection is there between these doings and sayings of our Lord with "Gregory's" priesthood and sacrifice, which subvert the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ? Let the passages we cite below* be read, and the whole tenor and spirit of the Christian dispensation be duly considered, and it will be seen that no sacerdotal institution existed under the apostles, and that none were designed to exist after them. Let Mosheim and Neander be read in the next place, and the time and manner in which the simple Christian bishop appointed by the apostles was supplanted by the priests of Rome will be clearly perceived. It is incumbent upon "Gregory to explain the fact that he cannot adduce a single instance in which the inspired authors of the New Testament employ sacerdotal phraseology to designate the functions of the Christian minister and deacon; whereas they do use sacerdotal phraseology to indicate the dignity and privileges of the body of Christians, who are constituted "a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices" (1 Pet. ii. 5). Rome has divested Christians, who blindly submit to so great a loss, of their spiritual functions, and pretends to invest the teaching and ruling class to whom, as such, Christ bequeathed no priestly function whatever.

In the absence of all warrant for the assumption of priestly func tions, Roman Catholic writers resort to such passages as those to which we refer in the note below,† and in which "loosing,' "binding," "remitting and retaining sins," and "stewardship" of divine "mysteries," are described as apostolical functions; and then assume, without proving first, that they imply priestly functions; and, secondly, that, as such, they were transmitted to their successors. We have already observed, that, except as teachers and baptizers, the apostles had not, and could not, have successors, and it remains only to be shown that it is a pure assumption that the apostles had any priestly functions to transmit. We have, under the Mosaic economy, a divinely constituted priesthood. Now, "Gregory" ought to have proved, not to have assumed, that binding, loosing, remitting, or retaining sins were the appropriate functions of the Levitical priesthood. Did Aaron, or any of his successors down to Caiaphas, ever blaspheme God (Luke v. 21), by pretending to absolve men of their sins? If not, it does not follow *Rom. xii. 1; Heb. x. 19, 20; 1 Pet. ii. 4-10; 1 Jo'n ii. 1, 2; and the whole Epistle to the Hebrews.

† Matt. xvi. 19; John xx. 23; 1 Cor. iv. 1.

that apostles were priests because of their peculiar functionsfunctions which no divinely-constituted priests ever pretended to discharge. If they were not priests, their successors cannot be priests.

If, again, the functions of an apostle, denoted by "binding," "loosing," &c., are rightly interpreted by Rome, we have reason to expect some intimation that they, at least some of them, did absolve men from their sins. Romanists indicate their sense of the importance of such pretensions by giving prominence to them; and the apostles, supposing they also absolved men, could not have been ignorant of the importance of such a function; and yet, neither in their "Acts" nor their "Epistles" is there a single instance of the exercise of so awful a function. As interpreted by all Protestants, they imply that Christ commissioned the apostles as His ambassadors, to unfold and enforce the terms on which God forgives men their sins. The "Acts and the "Epistles" show that they fully and finally discharged this their sacred trust; and, therefore, left neither room nor occasion for a succession, that is, made an apostolical succession a simple impossibility, and all pretension to it something akin to blasphemy.

66

If, as asserted, "the Christian was to take the place of the Jewish law, but to be a continuation and development of it-not its destroyer" (pp. 87, 88), it follows that the apostles " offered gifts and sacrifices for sins;" for "every high priest," and therefore every apostle, "taken from among men," was ordained" for this very purpose (Heb. v. 1). St. Paul tells us, that this was the function of the priesthood, and if "Gregory "be right, it was at least one of the most important functions of an apostle; and in any description of the apostolic office, this priestly function could not possibly have been omitted. We have such a description in Acts i. 22, 23; 1 Cor. iv. 1—3, 9—17; and chap. ix. And yet not the barest allusion to anything sacerdotal exists in these passages. We have, again, qualifications of a Christian bishop specified in 1 Tim. iii. 1–7; but amongst them there is not one that has the remotest approach to priestly functions. We have, in Acts vi. 1-7, the institution of the diaconate, and in 1 Tim. iii. 8-13, a statement of the character of the duties of a Christian deacon, but in neither passage is there a word to bear out "Gregory's assertion that deacons existed to "assist at the altar and in the church" (p. 86). The whole tenor and spirit of Christianity is so antagonistic to sacerdotal ideas, that though, in certain communities, a Christian minister is called a 'priest," yet the man who should venture to "offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins" would be regarded as insane. The teaching of the whole New Testament, and even of the Old, so clearly declares Christ to be the only priest of this dispensation, His cross its only altar, and His body our only sacrifice, that even Gregory, in the plenitude of his assurance, does not, and dare not, cite the texts that would prove the contrary. The only way in which he does endeavour to show that the officers of the Romish Church are priests is by representing the Lord's Supper as a eucharistic sacrifice."

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"

[ocr errors]

But that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, is so pure an assumption, that we need not take any pains to explode it.

66

Having illustrated how "Gregory" has begged every essential point it was incumbent upon him to prove, it is unnecessary to enter upon the series of minor misrepresentations, which form the remainder of his article. A Layman" writes the third article in support of" Gregory's" paper; but as it is in support of assumptions, it may, for the present, at least, be left unnoticed. The ground upon which the Catholic Rule of Faith" is based is a quicksand. To trust that rule, a man must be credulous. To appreciate the arguments used in its defence, we must carefully abjure our reasoning faculties.

[ocr errors]

There is another point on which "Gregory" bases his Rule of Faith, namely, the visibility of the Catholic church. A few paragraphs allow sufficient room to assume this dogma of visibility, but it cannot be exposed without writing a separate article. If the Editor can protract the discussion, we should gladly take up the subject in the next number of this periodical. If not, we trust that "Theophylact" will, in the closing negative article, show what the assumption is worth. LEX SCRIPTA.

Philosophy.

ARE THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DEVELOPMENT
THEORY TRUE?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-II.

SUCH is the consternation produced in the world of dogmatism by the "Vestiges of Creation" and the“ Origin of Species," that, were we guided alone by their fears, we might speedily anticipate the closing scene of this world. We are not of those who tremble at every theory the busy intellect of man may publish to the world. He who sitteth on high in the heavens, guides the mighty stars in their courses, and with equal facility superintends the progressive life of the tiny animalculæ. Our faith in truth is strong, and still stronger in the God of truth, that He does all things well, while we erring mortals go on groping in the dark with our poor, mean, and meagre capacities, fixing the limits of His power, the propriety of His action, and the wisdom of His laws. Pietists may exclaim with frantic anger, may quake with fear, or dogmatize with arrogance. Still the world moves on, inquiry progresses, theories are propounded, criticized, and exploded, while truth gradually cumulates, facts take the place of fiction, and man advances in civilization and knowledge. The outcry raised against this theory is proof positive of the weakness of that faith in truth, nature, and nature's God, which all pietists and theorists should alike

possess.

The following extract from the last number of the Quarterly Review seems so perfectly apposite with our present feelings, that we cannot resist the inclination to present it to the reader :

"He

who is as sure as he is of his own existence that the God of truth is at once the God of nature and the God of revelation, cannot believe it to be possible that His voice in either, rightly understood, can differ, or can deceive His creatures. To oppose facts in the natural world because they seem to oppose revelation, or to humour them so as to compel them to speak its voice, is, he knows, but another form of the ever ready feeble-minded dishonesty, of lying for God, and trying by fraud or falsehood to do the work of the God of truth. It is with another and a nobler spirit that the true believer walks amongst the works of nature. The words graven on the everlasting rocks are the words of God, and they are graven by His hand. No more can they contradict His word, written in His book, than could the words of the Old Covenant, graven by His hand on the stony tables, contradict the writings of His hand in the volume of the new dispensation. There may be to man difficulty in reconciling all the utterances of the two voices. But what of that? He has learned already that here he knows only in part, and that the day of reconciling all apparent contradictions between what must agree, is nigh at hand. He rests his mind. in perfect quietness on this assurance, and rejoices in the gift of light without a misgiving as to what it may discover."

Although it is not our purpose to follow the arguments, in their present ex parte condition, of the veteran controversialist, "L'Ouv rier," in passing, we would express our thorough appreciation of the religious tone with which he has introduced the question: as our opponent, we agree with him, that by "friendly counsels and mutual instruction," the thoughtful student of nature is assisted in the attainment of truth. Much stress is not laid by advocates of this theory on the evidence obtained from geological science, although firmly believing that it preponderates in their favour. It is chiefly by the facts of every-day life in the natural world by which we are surrounded, that the theory is and must be supported. Great confusion exists among naturalists as to what is and what is not a species. Consequently, some instances, both in the animal and vegetable world, are classed by different naturalists in more than one species. This, while it retards the extension of accurate know ledge, does not affect the question now at issue. It is sufficient for our present purpose to take the common acceptation of the term; we shall then understand a species to be a division of organic life, in which certain peculiarities are possessed by every individual: these peculiarities being considered either as morphological or physiological essentials, however much they may differ among themselves as to other varying peculiarities.

That all organic life has descended from a few primordial forms must be apparent to every student of nature, whatever may be the peculiar theory he may have adopted with reference to their original creation. We read, in the second chapter of Genesis, that all things were created by God before they grew, and that they all possessed those peculiarities by which they were to be propagated upon earth. Hence it is unnecessary for us to enter upon any theory to

the

account for their existence; that is a fact, and we have now only to do with things as they do and may exist.

Much variety is found in all animals and plants with which we are most familiar. The question is, How is this variety to be accounted for? Dogs are so greatly varied, that but few can tell the catalogue of their names and characters. Yet perhaps no animal has become so plastic under the controlling care of man. Who shall dare to assert that a new race, crossed between two varieties of this animal, may not possess such peculiarities as to recommend them to the particular care of man as his servants, to the exclusion of their original parents, and perhaps to the utter extinction of the original races from which the mongrel has sprung? In such a case, what would be the position occupied by the mongrel race, supposing all living specimens of their originals to have failed? Would it then be regarded as a race, a variety, or a species? The horse presents great varieties; yet who will say that the pure Arab steed, in his native clime, is not morphologically a distinct animal from the dray-horse of the city of London? Are we to call this difference a race, variety, or a species? And if these differences are so perceptible, and so capable of production within a limited historic time, why may not still longer times produce still greater deviations? The argument of infertility, as applied to hybrids and crosses, is without effect, because facts show equal evidence for and against fertility. The permanence of the peculiarity in any line of race is strong evidence of the possibility to originate new species, or beings essentially different to their progenitors. The rock pigeon is said to be the parent stock of all the varieties of pigeons; and from this man has selected certain peculiarities of form, colour, or habits; and these peculiarities he has carefully propagated, so that they are comparatively permanent. Now supposing this had taken place in nature far from the influence of man, and that variety farthest removed from the rock pigeon in form, colour, or habits, had shared with its original the domain of life, extinguishing all transitional or intermediate forms, would these two kinds of birds on their first discovery have been considered as the same species, but of different varieties, or would they have been placed on the records of science as different species? We are inclined to believe, that had they fallen into the hands of a naturalist with leanings in favour of a morphological classification of species, he would have ranked them as separate and distinct species.

Again, counting up the points of divergence, do we not find that there are points more distinct, more divergent, and more numerous between the so-called varieties of dogs, horses, and pigeons respectively, than there are between some species?

The delicately formed Italian greyhound, the lady's pet, is much more divergent in its morphological peculiarities from the bulldog and the mastiff, than the wolf is from the pointer, or the fox from the English terrier.

In like manner, the ass is nearer in many respects to the Welsh

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »