four men were right in taking on themselves a vow. St. James was right in recommending, and St. Paul in participating in the prescribed ordinances. St. Paul could with a good conscience undertake to prove that he had not taught the Jews to forsake Moses: he had never taught any such thing, but had bona fide kept the law. Against this view it may be argued-1st, That St. Paul did not always keep the law; and, 2ndly, that when he did, it was only from motives of expediency, as he himself says-" And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law as without law," &c. (1 Cor. ix. 20.) To the first inference, that St. Paul did not always observe the law, for he says he became as without law, I reply that this must in every case be taken with limitation. St. Paul does not mean to say that he ever did what was unlawful or sinful in order to gain any. He means to say, that his conduct went only so far as the word of God allowed him. He that says it allowed him to transgress the Mosaic law, at once begs the question. The truth is, that St. Paul might do all that was necessary to gain the Gentiles without transgressing a single Mosaic precept. To have free intercourse with the Gentiles-to eat and drink with them— would be quite enough for his purpose, and also to draw down upon him the censure of the bigoted part of his own people. That these words cannot mean that Paul lived in the habitual breach of any Mosaic command, is plain from the other half of the verse," To the Jews became I as a Jew." What greater stumbling-block could he lay in the way of the Jews, than by the habitual transgression of commands which they considered binding. In most places whither he came there were Jews, and therefore his own rule would prevent him from giving them unnecessary offence. His eating and drinking and intercourse with the Gentiles, he could defend from the law itself. To the second inference, that he observed the law only from motives of expediency, I reply that the words "to the Jews became as a Jew" mean something more than that Paul occasionally kept the law. To become a Jew to the Jews it was necessary to observe many of the customs of the fathers, and this he did. We read in the Acts of the Apostles that he was in the habit of going to the synagogue. This is nowhere required in the law. We read again that he circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews which were in those quarters." This is nowhere commanded in the law of Moses. But we still read in the oral law* that the son of a father who is a heathen or a slave, or of a bondwoman or heatheness, is to be reckoned according to the mother. Therefore as Timothy's mother was a Jewess, he was a Jewish child, and consequently ought, in the opinion of the Jews, to have been circumcised. When therefore Paul says, "To the Jews became I as a Jew," he means that in different things he followed the Jewish customs. We cannot therefore infer from these words that Paul kept the Mosaic law from motives of expediency, for these words do not refer to the keeping of the Mosaic law, but to Rabbinic traditions not contrary to the word of God. * Jad Hachasakah, part ii. fol. 146, col. i. Another passage capable of a similar explanation is Gal. ii. 14— "If thou, being a Jew, livest ethnically and not judaically, why compellest thou the Gentiles to judaize ?" It may be inferred from these words that Peter also transgressed the Mosaic law. But this inference does not necessarily follow. By eating with the Gentiles-i. e., by eating food not slaughtered in the Jewish manner-Peter, in the opinion of the Judaizers, lived ethnically; but, as observed above, he did not thereby transgress any precept of the Mosaic law. That St. Paul by the words "judaically" and "judaize" especially intends the Jewish system, and not the Mosaic law only, is plain from the first chapter of this same epistle, ver. 13, 14-"Ye have heard of my conversation in time past ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ,....and profited ἐν τῷ 'lovdaïou above many my equals, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers." Having thus endeavoured to answer the two objections that may be made to my assertion, I go on to offer my reasons for supposing that it was the will of God that the Christian church should consist of two great branches, the Jews and the Gentiles, each retaining their distinctive peculiarities. 1st. I find that God appointed two distinct apostleships, one of the circumcision, the other of the uncircumcision; Gal. ii. 7, 8. 2nd. The Jewish branch in Judea was ignorant of the fact that their peculiarities had ceased. Their observance of the Mosaic ceremonial was not a matter of expediency. They were all "zealous of the law." It is evident from this ignorance, that the apostles of the circumcision had not taught the cessation of Jewish peculiaritiesthat therefore this doctrine of the abrogation formed no part of the gospel committed to them. 3rd. The Acts of the Apostles, written so late as the year 63, contain no intimation that the church in Judea was wrong in observing the law, nor even that it was observed from motives of expediency. 4th. St. Paul expressly commands the believers of each branch to retain their peculiarities-" Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised." 5th. St. Paul distinctly asserts the continued nationality of the Jews-Rom. xi. 1, &c., "I say then, hath God cast away his people? God forbid." If all national distinctions have ceased, then God has cast away his people Israel. Suppose that all the Jews were now to be converted, and to give up the circumcision of their children, what would distinguish them in the third generation from the nations amongst whom they live? Would they not cease to be Israelites and be numbered amongst the nations? 6th. Many passages of St. Paul's epistles necessarily imply the continuance of the distinction. For instance, St. Paul proves the case of the Gentiles by a passage from Deuteronomy-" Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people." Here are two parties, " his people" and the believing Gentiles. Again, Ephes. iii. 6, the mystery "that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel." There are many more passages of this kind, but this letter is already too long. I will therefore reserve my remarks upon the sacrifices as the subject of another letter, in case you should think this worth inserting. Yours, &c. ONE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. M. DEAR MR. EDITOR,-The "Irish Catholic Priest," who writes a letter with the above title, in your September number, appears to me to have fallen into an "impropriety" as great as that of which he accuses others. After proposing, from amiable feelings, to avoid the use of the words papist and popery, and quoting Butler in favour of the appellation" Roman catholic," he goes on to say-" Well then, let this be their appellation; we have no great objection to it: for the sect to which Mr. Butler belonged is, doubtless, the Roman church,→→ a true church, and a part of the catholic church,.....' Now, Sir, I deny that the Roman church is any part of the catholic church of Christ; and thus I attempt to disprove her claim :— 1. "The church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." The word congregation evidently here means "communion." Now, as the churches of Rome and England are not of one communion, they cannot both be parts of the catholic church, which is "a congregation." Besides, is the pure word of God preached in the Roman church? Is the sacra ment of baptism duly administered according to Christ's ordinance in all things necessarily requisite? On the contrary, does she not hold baptism valid when administered by a layman or by a woman? that is, by a person who wants the most essential thing in "Christ's ordinance," a commission to act in his name. Then again, is the sacrament of the Lord's Supper duly administered in all things requisite? On the contrary, does the immense majority of those who communicate at the Roman altars ever receive this sacrament at all? Certainly not; for they do not receive the cup according to Christ's ordinance." Thus either the nineteenth article is wholly wrong, or the Roman church is no part of the church catholic. 2. But, "the Roman church is a true church," that is, has true orders so had the Novatians, the Donatists, and the Arians; and yet the catholics of those days never thought of allowing the claim of these sects to be called catholic. These schismatics and heretics, no doubt, called themselves catholics; and so does the schismatical and heretical church of Rome at this day; but it is evident that either she, or the reformed episcopal communion, is no part of the church catholic; for 3. The universal voice of antiquity shews us that the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church of the creeds was one communing body; communing in faith, worship, and sacrifice; and any one of whose members, with proper testimonials from his bishop or presbyter, might, in any part of the world he should visit, communicate at the holy table with the catholics he should find there. Now, if Rome is catholic, how comes it that a member of the catholic church in England, when he visits Rome, neither seeks, nor would be admitted to the mutilated Eucharist which is offered and consumed, with such pomp and splendour, beneath the golden dome of the Vatican? 4. The church at Rome is in full communion with the "Vicarsapostolic" and their flocks in Great Britain. Now, surely no true churchman will deny that these are schismatics, for setting up a separate altar from that of the regular catholic prelates in England and Scotland. Well, one of the most clearly established principles of the primitive church was, that to be in communion with schismatics was to be a schismatic; therefore Rome is schismatical-that is, she is not catholic. In like manner, the Moravian church is proved to be schismatical; for her members, when they come into England, do not, as catholics would, communicate with the English bishops and their flocks; but set up a separate altar, which is the very essence of schism. Lastly, if the Roman church be catholic, why did we, at the Reformation, break off from her communion? To break off from the communion of any branch of the catholic church is to be guilty of schism. If she is catholic now, she was so then; and we, by separating, decatholicized ourselves; for the notion of two catholic churches, not in communion, is nonsense. The source of the almost universal confusion prevalent on this subject is, men's forgetting that, to make a church catholic, she must have, not only true orders, but also true mission and jurisdiction. The Bishop of London has at present all three. Were he to turn Arian or Romanist, he would lose his mission, which avails only while pastors teach the truth, for the teaching of which their mission was conferred. Again, Bishop Luscombe has true orders and mission; for he was consecrated by the Scots bishops, who are neither heretics nor schismatics; but he has no jurisdiction; for they could give him none "for continental purposes," having, themselves, no jurisdiction beyond the channel. The Romanists understand this matter admirably themselves; and we never see their writers calling the Greek church, whose orders they nevertheless allow, a part of the catholic. They are indeed, in this and some other things, perfectly consistent; while we, from the little attention given among us to these subjects, and from the prevalence, in late years, of low church leaven, do very commonly, I am sorry to say, play into the hands of our crafty foe! Once grant them to be Roman catholics, and they will very soon, as well they may, prove us to be no catholics at all. Hence the number of converts they are making; —relliquias Danaûm, atq. inmitis Achillei ;" the arts of methodism, latitudinarianism, and debauchery. A SCOTTISH CATHOLIC DEACON, VOL. VII.-Feb. 1835. 2 A DR. HAMPDEN'S BAMPTON LECTURES. SIR,-IN the warnings which St. Paul directs, in his Epistle to the Colossians, against "philosophy and vain deceit," some persons may, perhaps, have been surprised at finding two dangers, apparently so opposite, mentioned in such close connexion-viz., a "voluntary humility," and the being "vainly puffed up in a fleshly mind." But when we look to the experience of the Christian world, do we not see much to impress upon us the need of the apostle's caution? Is there not especial danger in the present age of intellectual pride from a "voluntary humility ?" I would illustrate my meaning by referring to the mode in which we are invited, in the present day, in works of reputation or authority, to regard the doctrines of the Divinity and Incarnation of our blessed Lord, and the Atonement. In approaching subjects of this mysterious character we may, well feel that we are out of our depth; that such knowledge is too wonderful for us; and we may rightly conclude that 'the revelation of the Divine nature and the Divine counsels has been made in amazing condescension to our wants,-not to fill us with speculative notions, but to produce upon us a certain practical effect. So far we may proceed safely; but we are often tempted to make ourselves judges how far a doctrine is practical, and how far not, and in what way. We attempt to measure the influence of certain Divine truths; we fix our eyes on their visible effects upon our moral nature; we look at them as powerful instruments, fitted to act strongly upon our feelings and sympathies, and produce in us certain emotions, and a certain course of action. Thus from the vision of the Divine glory, we turn our eyes off to human nature: forgetting, meanwhile, that weak and blind as we are, God has in the Gospel made us a revelation of himself and his counsels of mercy towards us, which it is a "voluntary humility" to reject, and that we are therein invited to behold "as in a glass the glory of the Lord." We think of man and his nature, and the "effect" of the doctrine upon it, till we come to forget God, and his divine nature, and his holy "truth;" and so are tempted at last to curtail the revealed doctrine to the measure of what we think to be the requirements of man, unconsciously "worshipping the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever." I shall make my meaning clearer by an instance which deserves notice from the quarter in which it is found, being no other than the pulpit of the Bampton Lecturer for 1832, which hitherto has been considered almost a standard of orthodox teaching. The station of the writer, Dr. Hampden, in his university, is an additional reason for calling attention to his lectures. One of the chief principles on which Dr. H.'s work is based, is, that the Divine nature being incomprehensible, "we ought to maintain a strictly practical view, profess that we only know God as the exclusive object of Divine worship, and acknowledge that it is quite irrelevant to our scheme of religion either to demonstrate or to refute any conclusion from the nature of Unity." Hence he proceeds |
