« 이전계속 »
Paul in his defence before the Jews, or before Felix and Agrippa, ever recurs to the same doctrine: he knew the chief objection which was urged against the new faith, “Why should it appear a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead ?” Well might the Heathen sum up the Gospel message heard from an Apostle, in two words, “ JESUS and the Resurrection.” All the early Fathers maintain the doctrine against the Gnostics or Pagan unbelievers, as S. Clement of Rome, S. Justin,2 Tatian,3 S. Athenagoras, 4 S. Theophilus, 5 S. Irenæus :6 it is taught with many proofs and illustrations from Holy Scripture in the Apostolical Constitutions and also in the Recognitions of S. Clement.8 Tertullian wrote a treatise “ de resurrectione carnis," and in Minucius Felix, the Heathen objections against the doctrine are brought forward and answered. Other indications of its faith are presented in the records of the early Church. Thus from the apostolic ages relics were carefully preserved—we are told, in the Acts of their martyrdom, of the remains of S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp being collected together as a priceless treasure, 9 and there can be no doubt, though not for that sole or especial purpose, that their preservation was connected with a belief of the resurrection : and in times of persecution the ashes of the martyrs were dispersed or destroyed, that as the heathen supposed, all hope of a resurrection might be extinguished.10 Or let us enter the Catacombs, and we shall find unmistakeable tokens of the faith of the Church from the days of the Apostles. The Catacombs were anciently called cæmeteria (sleeping places) since the departed Christian is not dead but sleepeth : the bodies are found with the face looking towards the east, that they might at once bebold and rise up to meet their LORD at His coming; rude sculptures are scratched on the tombs, as the “phonix,” the well-known emblem in the early Church of the resurrection, or " Lazarus rising from the grave," a symbol of their assured faith that the Friend of Lazarus would also come to awaken them out of sleep. Let us read the inscriptions placed over the faithful who here sleep in JESUS; even now, in these evil days of rationalism and infidelity, “ we may comfort one another with these words,”-depositus-in spe--dormit dulcis in Deo—in somno heathen, (Opulleitai yedóuevov år) Tv åniotwv.) S. Augustine also tells us, “In nulla re tam vehementer, tam pertinaciter, tam obnixe et contentiose contradicitur fidei Christianæ sicut de carnis resurrectione." (Enarratio in Psalmos.) 1 Epist. i. $ 24.
? Apologia, i. § 19. 3 Adversus Græcos, 6. 4 περί αναστάσεως των νεκρών.
• Ad Autolycum, lib. i. $ 8. 6 Hæreses, lib. v. § 12, 13.
7 Lib. v. § 7. 8 Lib. i. $ 52.
9 In the account of the martyrdom of S. Ignatius the neipava are called Onoaupos ατίμητος υπό της εν τω μάρτυρι χάριτος τη αγία Εκκλησία καταλειφθέντα and in the encyclical Epistle of the Church of Smyrna relating to the martyrdom of S. Polycarp we read ανελόμενοι τα τιμιώτερα λίθων πολυτελών και δοκιμώτερα υπέρ Xpuoiov ootà autoll, ånedéueda Chov kal åkódovbov pw. § 18.
10 As in the account which Eusebius gives of the martyrs at Lyons and Vienne, (An. 160-180,) Eccl. Hist. lib. v. $ 1.
pacis—requiescit in Deo dulcis. Six millions of Christians resting beneath the Eternal city, even now, like their Divine Master, “ witness” before the world“ a good confession,” united with ourselves in the same bond of faith and hope—the symbol of the one Catholic and A postolic Church, “I believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.” Let not Mr. Maurice be deceived as regards the importance of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. Should its truth be disproved, all belief in the divine mission of our LORD and His Apostles must necessarily be abandoned, since that they taught it most explicitly and repeatedly is unquestionable,2 both from the obvious meaning of their teaching, and from the interpretation given to it by the whole Church, a belief in the resurrection of the body or of the flesh, having been from the beginning, both in the East and West an article of the Creed.3 Mr. Maurice, we cannot doubt, believes that he is serving the cause of truth and unity by explaining away the characteristic doctrines of the Gospel, in order to harmonise them with the theology of Unitarianism, a sect to which he is said to have belonged in early life ;4 but whatever may be his intentions, it can be proved by alas too manifold experience that theological speculations founded on a rejection of the literal and grammatical meaning of Scripture, and which deny the authority of the Church in its interpretation, only tend to the propagation of rationalism and infidelity. In denying the truth of the doctrine of the resurrection, Mr. Maurice renounces his baptismal creed,5 and should be numbered with the old pagan antagonists of Christianity. Mr. Maurice speaks in the Dedication prefixed to his Theological Essays, with that confident assurance which is characteristic of innovators. Of the permanence of his system he says, “ the hopes expressed in this volume are more likely to be fulfilled to our children than ourselves,” and be tells us of the “words (his own theories) which will be familiar and dear to the next generation and those that follow it.” Vain and fruitless anticipation! The various opinions and theories of Mr. Maurice are still in an undigested or chaotic state : neither he nor his disciples have succeeded in the attempt to present them to the world in an intelligible and consistent form ! A theological system compounded, as we have seen, of such heterogeneous and ill savoured materials as Unitarianism, Quakerism, and Paganism, is most assuredly not destined to chime those bells of our churches of which he speaks, which shall “ ring out the DARKNess of the land," and "ring in the Christ that is to be.”
i So F. Marchi calculates them after diligent examination.— Fabiola, or the Church of the Catacombs, p. 149.
2 Mark also S. Paul's very express language " by the word of the LORD.” 1 Thess. iv. 15–18.
3 Pearson on the Creed, Art. xi. first section. 4 See his life in the English Cyclopedia," by Charles Knight-Biographical Division, vol. iv. p. 155.
5 “Dost thou believe in . . . the resurrection of the flesh ? . . This I stedfastly believe."
PROPOSALS FOR PEACE IN SCOTLAND. Proposals for Peace ; or, A Few Remarks on the Eucharistic Doc
trine of Bishops Taylor, Ken, and Wilson, with reference to the Recent Pastoral of the Bishop of Brechin : with a Postscript on the Case of Mr. Cheyne. Edinburgh : Constable.
This pamphlet is intended to do away with the effect of Bishop Forbes Pastoral noticed in our last number ; and, with professions of “all due respect,” to raise the question, whether it was with bona fides that he referred to three great Anglican Prelates, Taylor, Ken, and Wilson. The argument is, if Bishop Forbes quoted them bona fide, he must be ready to adhere to them throughout : if we may “ take him at his own word,” he is ready to accept all their teaching. But they, in several places, teach the theory called Virtualism; or teach, at any rate, inconsistently with the doctrine of a Substantial Presence: therefore Bishop Forbes will be ready to do the like.
The logic is a little hasty. First of all, we deny the major. The Bishop of Brechin never dreamed of binding himself to accept all that these three men might say about the Holy Eucharist. What he said was, “These men did, in such and such passages, use such and such language, the obvious' sense of which supports my teaching." He has a right to the plain, literal, grammatical meaning of their words. If it can be shown that they elsewhere used language inconsistent with that meaning, this only shows that they were in some degree inaccurate thinkers or careless writers. It is not the Bishop of Brechin's duty to reconcile them with themselves; he only appeals to their more Catholic statements, as proving that his doctrinal statements are allowable.
And now a word as to this Proposer. There is in him a mysterious authoritativeness, combined with an affectation of unofficial simplicity. He does not say whether he is even a cleric. He puts forward as his motto a passage from that Pastoral of Bishop Wordsworth, wherein that Prelate, in quoting the Black Rubric, altered corporal into substantial. He “ trusts,” “thinks,” “understands," "has an impression,” “would infer," “ can imagine,” “would hope,” “ ventures to bope,” that Bishop Wordsworth, or other Bishops, have meant this, or would do that. It “ does seem to him” that Bishop Wordsworth “ might have had some reason” for what he said : he “ can scarcely venture to hope that these few remarks will be found of real importance.” This eipwveía, this undogmatical mode of speech, this sweet and diffident humility, are striking and attractive, no doubt; but how to reconcile them with certain other appearances ? Ever and anon we discern an imperious sternness breaking through this elaborate dis
guise. This nameless writer, forgetting his modest profession, thinks fit to appeal to God as to the fact that he has had “no wish to press in any way hardly upon" one of the Bishops of the Church. (P. 24.)
He deals in significant insinuation, or at least in what mightily resembles it, as to the Bishop of Brechin's sincerity of purpose. He coolly tells us that he has not read “the articles which have appeared upon this controversy in the Christian Remembrancer or in the Ecclesiastic.” He tells us that “this” (S. Chrysostom's passage in the Homily on S. Philogonius) “is all that S. Chrysostom really says about (Eucharistic) Adoration." He "must confess he should be glad if some satisfactory explanation could be offered of the unhappy reference to the notorious Canon of the Council of Sardica, as in favour of appeals to the Church of Rome, which appears in the Bishop's Charge at p. 30.” He denounces “the Guardian, London weekly newspaper," as having “opened its battery of anonymous abuse and detraction against the Bishop of S. Andrew's:” considers this to be quite in keeping with the "conduct of that journal towards the late Bishop of Glasgow, the Bishop of Aberdeen, and the Dean of Edinburgh ;” and hopes that in due time “this tyranny will be overpast." Above all, he lets out the fact (under the decent veil of a sentence beginning with “ Who can tell ?") that the conduct of the English Church press had “some weight in determining the final sentence against Mr. Cheyne.” In plain words, that Mr. Cheyne was subjected to the severest possible punishment (short of utter excommunication) in revenge for the language of the Church periodicals on the tyrannous conduct of the Bishops.
We think we “ do know this sweet Roman hand." There is a Bishop in Scotland who must know that he is supposed to press hardly, to press with especial hardness, to press with personal animosity, against the Bishop of Brechin ; who has, as we know, shocked the spectators in open Court by the display of his vehemence and bitterness. There is a Bishop who can hardly ever succeed in doing justice to his opponents' motives. There is a Bishop who wrote round to his Clergy to tell them that he had not read the hostile articles in the Christian Remembrancer,—that he had understood them to be written “in a very bad tone,”—but that he would read them if they really desired it! There is a Bishop who, in “Notes” circulated among his Clergy, but guarded against reviewers by not being published,) exhibited a want of real patristic knowledge, which would make him likely to ignore some of S. Chrysostom's most sublime language on the adoration due to Christ in the Eucharist. There is a Bishop who discerned a Popish plot in Bishop Forbes' historical assertion, that S. Cyril of Jerusalem lectured in “the very year in which the orthodox Fathers at Sardica first ordained the law of appeal to Rome:".
who complained, we suppose, that they were called “orthodox,” and whose sympathies, perhaps, would go with the heretical conciliabulum of Philippopolis, because they did not look up to the friend of S. Athanasius on the throne of S. Peter. There is a Bishop who cannot bear the gravest and most earnest remonstrance from the Guardian, or other Church papers, and who naturally writhes under the censure pronounced by the Guardian of November 16, on his “increasing bitterness” and his “ restless vehemence of temper :" who was quite likely (as the “proposer ” thinks) to have replied to previous expressions of English opinion by heating the furnace for Mr. Cheyne more fiercely than it might otherwise have been heated. The “proposer” whom we have been dealing with, and who has outdone the Gracchi complaining of sedition, and the S. George's parishioners denouncing the “violence” of their Clergy, by adopting the suffering Psalmist's language to depict Bishop Wordsworth as the victim of the Guardian's “ tyranny," is, we verily believe, Bishop Wordsworth himself, the self-elected; who, having no longer any other alias under which he can appear, (for Messrs. Shaw, Rorison, G. H. Forbes, and Marshall are of course oply his tools,) is now obliged to come himself to the rescue in an anonymous pamphlet. And we much fear that, in spite of the title of his pamphlet, he has not any notion of peace, but the extermination of all those who differ from him. “Solitudinem facit, PACEM appellat.”
REVIEWS AND NOTICES. .
An Account of the Persecutions of the Early Church under the Roman
Emperors. By EDWARD STEERE, LL.D., Curate of Skegness, Lincolnshire. London : Masters.
We are sometimes told that the Church of England's profession of dependence on the ancient Church is a decorous paper formula. And undoubtedly there are circumstances which in themselves would seem to militate against its being a practical reality : for instance, the remark. able ignorance which well-educated church people often show as to the lives and sufferings of the early saints. There are many who know nothing more of S. Laurence than that he was broiled on a gridiron ; to whom the martyrdoms of SS. Ignatius and Polycarp are quite unfamiliar; who never heard of the Martyrs of Lyons, who know Perpetua only (if at all) through the calendar, and have no picture before their minds when they are told of Christians being "questioned ” before a proconsul. We speak, of course, of persons unacquainted with the exquisite writings of Mr. Neale, and large as is the circle of his readers, especially among the young, we fear that among those whom