come to summon him away. To what, to whom, is he summoned ? To that final judgment, into which every work of his hands will be speedily brought, with every secret thing; to that Judge, from whose sentence there is no appeal, from whose eye there is no concealment, from whose hand there is no escape. Through the last agonies lies his gloomy dreadful passage into the unseen world, his path to the bar of God. What a passage! What an interview! He, a hardened, rebellious, impious, ungrateful wretch, who has wasted all the means of salvation, prostituted his talents, squandered his time, despised his Maker, crucified afresh the Lord of glory, and done despite unto the Spirit of grace, now comes before that glorious and offended God, who knows all the sins which he has committed. He is here, without an excuse to plead, without a cloak to cover his guilt. What would he now give for an interest in that atonement which he slighted, rejected, and ridiculed, in the present world; in that intercession on which while here he never employed a thought; and in that salvation for which perhaps he never uttered a prayer! The smiles of redeeming, forgiving, and sanctifying love are now changed into the frowns of an angry and irreconcilable Judge. The voice of mercy sounds no more; and the hope of pardon has vanished on this side the grave. To the judgment succeeds the boundless extent of eternity. Live he must: die he cannot. But where, how, with whom, is he to live? The world of darkness, sorrow, and despair is his final habitation. Sin, endless and increasing sin, is his dreadful character; and sinners like himself are his miserable and eternal companions. Alone in the midst of millions, surrounded by enemies only, without a friend, without a comfort, without a hope, he lifts up his eyes, and in deep despair takes a melancholy survey of the immense regions around him, but finds nothing to alleviate his woe, nothing to support his drooping mind, nothing to lessen the pangs of a broken heart. In a far distant region he sees a faint glimmering of that Sun of Righteousness, which shall never more shine upon him. A feeble dying sound of the praise, the everlasting songs, of the general assembly and church of the first-born, trembles on his ear, and in an agonizing manner reminds him of the blessings in which he also might have shared, and which he voluntarily cast away. In dim and distant vision those heavens are seen, where multitudes of his former friends and companions dwell; friends and companions who, in this world, loved God, believed in the Redeemer, and by a patient continuance in well-doing sought for glory, honour, and immortality. Among them, perhaps, his own fond parents, who with a thousand sighs, and prayers, and tears, commended him, while they dwelt here below, to the mercy of God, and to the love of their own Divine Redeemer. His children also, and the wife of his bosom, gone before him, have perhaps fondly waited at the gates of glory, in the ardent expectation, the cheering hope, of seeing him, once so beloved, reunited to their number, and a partaker in their everlasting joy. But they have waited in vain! The curtain is now drawn, and the amazing vast is unbosomed to his view. Nature, long decayed, sinks under the united pressure of sickness, sorrow, and despair. His eyes grow dim, his ears deaf, his heart forgets to beat, and his spirit, lingering, terrified, amazed, clings to life, and struggles to keep possession of its earthly tenement. But, hurried by an unseen Almighty hand, it is irresistibly launched into the unseen abyss. Alone and friendless, it ascends to God to see all its sins set in order before its eyes. With a gloomy and dreadful account of life spent only in sin, without a single act of piety, or voluntary kindness to men, with no faith in Christ, and no sorrow for iniquity, it is cast out, as wholly wicked and unprofitable, into the land of darkness and the shadow of death, there to wind its melancholy journey through regions of sorrow and despair, ages without end, and to take up for ever the gloomy and distressing lamentation in the text, "The harvest is past, the summer is ended; but I am not saved." BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 1 Cor. viii. 1-4. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. THE authorized translation of 1 Cor. viii. 1," we know that we all have knowledge," is not, I think, satis factory; nor indeed the version of the whole passage. I should be obliged if your readers would turn to the original, and consider whether it would not be better construed, punctuated, and paraphrased as follows: "Now, as touching things offered unto idols, we know (I say we know, for we all have knowledge; though, alas! know ledge by itself puffeth up, but charity edifieth and if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know; but if any man love God, the same is known of him): as concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice to idols, as I was about to say, we know that an idol is nothing in the world," &c. Σ. ON ST. PAUL'S OBTAINING MERCY. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. No thoughtful reader of the New Testament could suppose, from the words of St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy (i. 12), that the Apostle meant to justify his former conduct on account of his ignorance and unbelief; but, on the other hand, it does not appear to me that the sense put on the passage by C. L. (Christian Observer for April) is the natural and true one. Had St. Paul considered that ignorance and unbelief constituted a justifying plea for his former sins, he might have demanded an acquittal before God, and needed not have stood so deeply indebted to that mercy which he was so highly extolling. On the contrary, it is evident that he considered those offences as having brought upon him great guilt; since he declares the pardon of them to be a most illustrious example of superabounding mercy. But, though his ignorance was not a sufficient excuse to clear him from a high degree of criminality, yet certainly his offence would have been more aggravated had he known that he was persecuting the true church of God, and in so doing actually persecuting "the Lord of glory." (Acts xxii. 8.) He therefore seems to consider his ignorance as a comparative excuse; and to intimate, that if he had done knowingly what he did ignorantly, the mercy which he had obtained would in all probability not have been vouchsafed to him. Though his ignorance was culpable, and could not constitute for him any claim to mercy, yet it rendered his delinquency less flagrant; and, in the gracious consideration of that God who knows how to have compassion upon the ignorant and upon them that are out of the way, might be a reason why that mercy was not withheld. What was our Saviour's prayer upon the cross? "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. I see no sufficient reason for the parenthetical reading suggested by C. L. There seems to have been no occasion for the Apostle's mentioning, in an abrupt parenthesis, the fact of his having obtained mercy, when almost immediately afterwards (ver. 16) he does expressly state it, adding one of the true; for, in the second verse of the same chapter, our Saviour said that neither had the blind man nor his parents sinned, which no one can suppose to have been literally the fact, or that our Saviour meant it so to be understood. He spoke only in reference to the particular case of a bodily affliction not being the direct punishment of a particular offence; as he speaks of those who perished by the falling of the tower of Siloam, and in other instances. K. reasons why it had pleased God that he should obtain it. And, omitting the supposed parenthesis, it seems very harsh and unnatural, for so correct a writer as St. Paul, to say, "Who before was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." To make sense of the passage in this way, the latter clause must stand thus, "For I acted ignorantly in unbelief;" which, I apprehend, would be an incorrect translation of the words of the original: because, in this sense, "for" is only a connecting particle; but it signifies more than this, it implies some reason; and wouε does not, that I am aware of, signify "to act." On the whole, I think no candid Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. reader can be misled by the received reading; and that there is no occasion, as I believe there is no authority, for the suggested alteration. Neither does C. L.'s interpretation of John ix. 41, appear to me correct. The natural sense of Scripture is generally the true one; which in this passage appears to be, that had the conduct of the Pharisees been the result of ignorance alone, they would, comparatively speaking, have had "no sin;" but since, notwithstanding their moral blindness, they boasted of their wisdom, and, as the result of this obstinate self-conceit, refused instruction, and continued to neglect the means and opportunities of obtaining knowledge, "their sin remained" chargeable upon them in its full extent. On C. L.'s supposition, that "if ye were blind," signifies "if ye were convinced that ye were blind," I should think the words following would have been, "your sin should be at an end," or should cease," or "should be done away," or some equivalent expression, and not simply, as it stands, "ye would have no sin." It is no objection to It is no objection to this expression, taken in its natural sense, that it would not be literally ON MR. FABER'S VIEW OF TRAN SUBSTANTIATION. THE doctrine of transubstantiation more follows as a necessary consequence, senses. But this answer implies a To give a most important instance: we read that the Apostles, " by many infallible proofs," were convinced that the same Jesus who died upon the cross "shewed himself to them alive after his passion." We are satisfied that they could not be deceived: we therefore, on their testimony, receive this great fact; and, holding that their evidence is sufficiently strong to establish its truth beyond dispute, we rest on it the whole superstructure of the Christian religion. But what evi. dence had the Apostles which could assure them that they were not deceived? The evidence of the senses-they saw him, they heard him, they handled him; and therefore they were assured it was he. Can any man point out a distinction between their assurance and the assurance of Protestants in the case of the consecrated elements? We do not hesitate to receive the evidence of the senses of the Apostles, confirmed by manifold testimonies, to the fact of Christ's resurrection, although it is contrary to ordinary experience: may we not, then, be permitted to credit our own senses, respecting the identity of substances which are every day submitted to their close examination? A religion which refuses this permission, opens a door to universal scepticism: it deprives men of all rational and consistent assurance of the truth of our holy faith, nay, of the very existence of the world around us; and it is credibly reported to give rise to much secret infidelity among the outward members of the Papal church. I know of no attempt to give a straightforward answer to this overwhelming objection, except the following. The belief of this doctrine is effected by a supernaturally infused faith; and therefore it is excepted from the universal rule, which submits all other matters to the decisive cognisance of the total misconception of the nature and objects of a divinely infused faith. The work of saving faith is not to convince the understanding of facts; but to incline so effectually the heart and the will that they embrace and appropriate the consequences which, flowing from those facts, affect ourselves. That God loves his rebellious creature, man; that his love caused him to send his blessed Son to die on the cross for his redemption; that the gift of the Holy Spirit was thereby purchased for him, and the way of salvation made straight before him; cannot be denied, by any who will candidly examine the evidence, founded on the plainest testimony of the senses, in their favour. But to follow out these principles into their consequences to accept with humility and thankfulness the salvation thus freely offered; to renounce all hope of acceptance through our own righteousness, and to trust unreservedly to the merits and righteousness of Christ; deliberately to choose heaven for our portion, and to reject mammon; stedfastly and consistently to persevere in a pure and self-denying life-is the mighty work of a divinely inspired faith: no agent is able to achieve it in us and for us, except the Holy Spirit. But, then, it is a work about which the senses are not conversant; nor should we advance one step towards those tempers and and dispositions which it is the great object of the Gospel to create anew in the children of God, although we implicitly acquiesced in the doctrine that every sense is mystified, and incapable of distinguishing truth from falsehood; and that the lying wonders, to which our ignorant forefathers gave easy credence, are daily repeated before dence on which the common sense of mankind builds the certainty of every imaginable thing respecting which we possess the capability of forming a judgment. To this extravagant demand on our credulity we may look with some degree of hope, as suggesting the application of a principle which, in skilful hands, will overthrow the dominion of the Church of Rome in the heart of many an uneducated, yet sensible, man. Such a person cannot judge of the testimony of the Fathers; and as to the interpretation of Scripture, he may feel inclined to acquiesce in the dictation of those to whom he has from infancy been taught to look up with reverence and faith. But in the use of his senses he has ever been in the practice of judging for himself; and the happy moment may arrive when he will apply them to this false doctrine, and cast off the intolerable spiritual oppression which insists on its right to stultify them. With such a conviction of the force and importance of this wellestablished argument, it is a matter of deep regret to me to find that the acute and learned Mr. Faber has gone out of his way, in his late controversy with the Bishop of Strasbourg, to notify his formal surrender of it; and I beg leave, in common with many other members of the Protestant Church, to enter a protest against his decision. I refer to his "Difficulties of Romanism," p. 54; and to his "Supplement," p. 44. It was not till the publication of the Supplement that I was aware of the extent of the concession which the former work was intended to convey. The author, however, having himself declared it, I do not hesitate to affirm that he has not correctly stated the argument which he wishes to resign as inconclusive. It is not on the ground of "impossibility" that the objection to transubstantiation is mainly supported. No one denies the "possibility" of practising deceptions on our senses. CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 330. repre The Almighty Being who made us would doubtless be able, in point of mere power, to sport with the perceptions of his creatures. But can we believe that he will do so? that he requires us under the most dreadful penalty to believe; and at the same time, and on the very occasion when he does so require 'us, confounds the faculties on the assurance of which (according to the laws which he has impressed on our nature) all certainty must be built? In the firmness with which the negative of this question is maintained, I perceive no hensible want of good manners," no "tone of presumptuous loftiness," "desertion of the true field of rational and satisfactory argument." Mr. Faber argues, that "the doctrine of transubstantiation is a question not of abstract reasoning, but of pure evidence;" and therefore "will ever contend, that, IF revealed in Scripture, he is prepared to receive it with entire prostration of mind," because "Scripture is the infallible word of God." Much as I respect the piety and humility of this sentiment, I cannot refrain from asking him, on what" evidence," independent of the senses, we can attain to the belief that Scripture is the infallible word of God?" no 66 As Even in his Supplement, Mr Faber, in referring to Tillotson and Bennet, has not given the exact colour under which the argument is presented by those writers. he has not referred to particular passages, I must limit my assertion to what I have myself been able to find in their respective works. So far from confining themselves to the single proposition that transubstantiation contradicts the evidence which actually conveys to us the assertion that transubstantiation is true, I do not even once meet with that assertion specifically made. It is, indeed, one out of innumerable instances which might have been adduced of the inconclusiveness of all arguments in favour of transub 3 A |
