Page images
PDF
EPUB

opinion, the last hope of poor hu- blame us for maintaining the right of manity.

If, happily, the Protestants had adhered in practice to the just and liberal principles which, in theory, they at first adopted, such censures would be undeserved, and the condition of the religious world would be far different to what it is. If, taking the Bible alone as the standard of faith and obedience, they had given free toleration to all opinions which did not contravene the express declarations of the divine word; and required assent to nothing for which a clear scripture precept could not be produced, there would have been no contention, because there would have been no occasion for it. But of what avail was it to take theoretically the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice, when a variety of opinions and speculative dogmas must be superadded as standards of orthodoxy for discordant and conflicting parties? Why reject the traditions of Rome, merely to adopt opinions from Geneva or from Wittemberg? Why diligently circulate the scriptures, and place a copy in the hands of every family in the land, if they deliver along with it the doctrine, that the laity must not presume to understand these sacred writings for themselves, but must receive this law from the lips of their pastor, who alone is authorised to explain the scriptures, and only in harmony with the standards of his church?

We say with truth, then, that while Protestants in theory concede the right of private judgment, in practice they deny it. But it is something to have this concession even in theory. At least, it ought to defend us from censure for heresy when we proceed to carry it into practice. For if conformity to the most important fundamental principle of the Lutheran Reformation be the test, we ought to be considered more purely Protestant than any other community. Certainly no intelligent Protestant can

private judgment in matters of religion and conscience; and in conceding the principle, he must of necessity allow the consequences which legitimately flow from it. These consequences belong to Protestantism, as much as does the principle from which they spring.

It is not, however, my present object to claim kindred with Protestants, or trace our lineage to a principle common to both us and them. We should be sorry to offend the fastidiousness of sectarism by any special claim of fraternity; nor, however desirous of union, are we disposed to form any alliances inconsisten with the free exercise of judgment and the privileges of citizenship in the kingdom of Christ. My purpose is to present some remarks upon the proper method of interpreting the scriptures; and we here simply adverted to the fact, that the right to interpret the scriptures for ourselves, not denied to us by Protestants, has, in practice, been the means of bringing to light all the doctrines by which we are distinguished from other communities. Indeed, the free exercise of this privilege is itself one of the most striking characteristics of the disciples

and leading, as it does, to such results, it is highly important that much attention should be paid to the true principles of interpretation, and that a knowledge of these should be coextensive with the exercise of the privilege of which we speak.

May this precious right never be relinquished! May no one be permitted to curtail the liberties we enjoy in the kingdom of heaven! May no one be allowed to impose his speculations and opinions upon his brethren !

For my part, I shall ever claim the right of thinking and judging for myself, and of fully and freely expressing my views, whether these correspond with those of others or differ from them. This, I conceive to be a high and holy privilege, and

its exercise a sacred duty. By this means alone we have, as a religious body, attained to our present position, and by this alone can we advance or make improvement in the future. "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good," is a worthy motto for a most worthy cause. Let it ever be adhered to, and in its adoption let us seek the wisdom that comes from above," which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy."

R. R.

THE APOSTLE PETER NEVER

66

WAS AT ROME.

TIE assertion of the Roman Catholic Church is this-Peter was the first Pope, and sat in the Pontifical chair at Rome for twenty five years; and that in the thirteenth year of Nero's reign, he was crucified there by that tyrant, with his head downwards. Upon the establishment of this point depends the validity of your Apostolic Succession ;" and unless it be shown to be a "fixed fact," the foundation of said Church is not "this Rock." Two things must be absolutely demonstrated, viz.: that Peter was at Rome, and that he was there in the capacity of Pope for twenty-five years. The one by no means implies the other. If it be admitted that he even visited Rome, the simple fact of his being there does not prove that he was Pope; but I believe it cannot be made out, beyond a guess, that he was there at all. My arguments are these:

1. The Chronology of the Acts of the Apostles is irreconcileably at variance with the aforesaid Pontificate of Peter. Baronius says that Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius, A.D. 44, and sat as Pope twenty-five years. Others, that he went a year earlier, and was martyred A.D. 68, consequently the beginning of his Pontificate must be dated A.D. 43.

Unfortunately this statement is entirely contradicted by the New Testament account.

In the eighteenth year of Tiberius, Christ was crucified A.D. 33. Peter was then at Jerusalem. With the other apostles, he was soon after put into prison, whence he miraculously escaped, and afterwards continued with his brethren to preach daily in the temple of Jerusalem. Acts v. 42. The gospel rapidly extended into Samaria. "Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John," Acts viii. 14. Having fulfilled their mission, they returned to Jerusalem, where they remained; v. 25 Paul was converted A.D. 35, and went to Arabia, where he spent three years. "Then after three years he went up to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days," Gal. i. 18. Peter being a married man, had doubtless a house of his own, where he could accomodate Paul. This interview occured A.D. 38. Afterwards Peter passed through all quarters, preaching the word and healing the sick. He visited Lydda, Saron, Joppa, and Cesarea, sixty miles distant from Jerusalem; and when he had completed this tour, he returned, Acts ix. x. xi.

Tiberius the Emperor died A.D. 37, and nominated Caius Caligula his successor. He was assassinated four years after, and was succeeded by Claudius, A.D. 41. A great dearth, foretold by Agabus, occurred in the days of Claudius Cæsar, Acts xi. 28. This famine lasted, according to Josephus, during the fifth, sixth, and seventh years of Claudius's reign. "Now about this time Herod the King stretched forth his hand to vex certain of the church, and he killed James the brother of John with the sword, and because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also," Acts xii. 1-3. Peter, therefore was in Jerusalem, and not in

thy, A.D. 66, he complained thus: 66 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all forsook me." Where was Peter then? He says himself that he was at BABYLON, in Chaldea, directly east of Jerusalem, on the river Euphrates-a very long distance from the throne of the Cæsars. Had he been with Paul, he never would have suffered him to stand alone in defence of the truth. With his impetuous mind, he could not have forsaken him, as did others, and therefore the inference is irresistible: Peter was not at Rome A.D. 64, that is, within two years of his alleged martyrdom.

Rome, A.D. 47. Nothing more is said of him until we come to the council of Jerusalem, Acts xv. This was held, as we learn from Paul, Gal. ii. eighteen years after the death of Christ, or A.D. 51. According to the New Testament, therefore, Peter had not been out of Palestine up to the year 51, but according to the account given by the Roman Catholics, Peter was at that very date at Rome, in the eighth or ninth year of Pontificate! At this council, Peter agreed with Paul that circumcision was unnecessary for the Gentiles, and argued the matter; but some time after this, Paul met Peter at Antioch, where no doubt the dispute occurred between Again-Paul wrote to Timothy them, on account of Peter's dissimula- about this date, and said that Timothy tion, Gal. ii. 2. Hence it is abso- was with him, 2 Tim. iv. 2. Comlutely certain, that up to the year 52, paring this with Acts xxviii. 14, we Peter had not become Bishop of Rome, must believe that Luke arrived at and this date is within sixteen years Rome with Paul, where, as aforesaid, of his alledged martyrdom by Nero! he wrote the Acts, A.D. 63. Now the My second argument goes to prove Acts give a particular account of that Peter never was at Rome at all. Peter, as well as Paul. That he It is admitted on all sides that the should have been at Rome, and Luke, Acts of the Apostles was written by who wrote from that place, not have Luke A.D. 63. By his manner of known it, especially as his visit was writing, it is clear, from the last chap- to ascend the Pontifical chair, is past ters, that the historian was with Paul all belief. And when we consider on his way to, and with him at Rome. how many important points of faith Here the apostle to the Gentiles wrote are made by Catholics to depend upon six Epistles, in which he mentions Peter's being at Rome, such as the many persons of less note, but never primacy of the Pope, the infallibility once mentions Pope Peter! Some of his chair, the Apostolic succession, four years before he reached Rome, the absolute power of binding and he addressed an Epistle to the Church loosing, no salvation out of the Church there, and sent his salutation to twenty- of Rome, &c.—I say, when we consiseven persons, and to two or three der that such momentous subjects households; but not one word does depend upon Peter's being at Rome, he say about Peter. Now if Peter and yet Luke omits to record the fact had been at Rome at that time, would-Peter's primacy is utterly beyond Paul have omitted the particular all belief. mention of his name? Would he have recounted many persons of inferior standing, and saluted them with varied expressions of tender regard, and omitted the Pope? The thing is impossible, because incompatible with Paul's manner, and with the Spirit of Christianity, which he never forgot to manifest. In his second letter to Timo

On this subject, however, we are not left simply to a high degree of probability, but we have circumstantial certainty that Peter never was at Rome. If he went there at all he went to preach the gospel and as the "circumcision was committed to Peter," Gal. ii. 7, he would have sought out the Jews and pressed upon

66

able epistle which so greatly enriches my soul with the true knowledge of Jesus. Oh that God may be your continual support, with the rest of your worthy correspondents. The enclosed letter upon "Domestic Worship and Government," was composed by Mr. Jacob Nicholas, Baptist minister, Caersws, and was sent to several churches; but wishing it a wider circulation, for the benefit of the disciples of Jesus, (with the author's consent) I addressed it to you, knowing that your periodical visits many families, some of whom, perhaps, neglect this very important duty. This is too often the case with many Christian families. Besides, indeed, the subject corresponds well with the title of your periodical," Family Magazine." Dear brother, if it is agreeable, please to insert it. Your faithful friend, for the truth's sake, EDWARD Evans.]

DEAR BRETHREN,

them the claims of Christ, as the Messiah. This is beyond a question. Now what is the fact ? Paul, upon his arrival at Rome, called the chief of the Jews together for a conference, Acts xxviii. 17-29. They said to him-" We desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against." "And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him unto his lodgings, to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the Prophets, from morning until evening." And what was the effect? "The Jews departed, and had great reasoning As it is customary with us to address among themselves," v. 29. All the you annually on some subject relating knowledge they had about Christianity to Christian doctrine or practice, perwas this:- -"concerning this sect, we mit us, this year, to invite your attenknow it is every where spoken against," tion to the faithful discharge of a very and their request was, we desire to important duty, viz.-that of Domestic hear of thee what thou thinkest ;" and Worship and Government. Theprinafter they had heard, they departed, ciple which impels us rightly and faithand had great reasoning among them- fully to perform the first of those duties, selves. Is it not perfectly evident gives impulse to the discharge of all that this was the first exposition of other duties of the Christian life. the gospel they had ever heard? Now The man who, surrounded by his how did it happen that Peter was at family, devotes a portion of every Rome for at least 22 years, according morning and evening to the service of to your account, and yet these Jews, God, is the man who is always glad, his especial charge, as well as "breth- when it is said unto him, “Let us go ren according to the flesh," had not into the house of the Lord." His "soul heard the gospel, and were only ac- fainteth for the courts of the Lord, quainted with the gainsayings of the and his heart and flesh cry out for the opposition? The conclusion is irre- living God." He is seldom found to sistible, from which there can be no be an unfaithful or an unprofitable fair escape, that Peter never was at servant. Whatsoever his hand findRome. According to your account eth to do, he doeth with all his might. he died there, A.D. 68. According to He seldom shrinks from the discharge the argument from inspired chrono- of known duties, at the same time that logy, he could not have been at it is the desire of his heart to know Rome up to A.p. 66. The remaining | more of the will of his Lord, in which two years are not worth contention. he delights, as the law by which his conduct is regulated.

GORDON.

DOMESTIC WORSHIP AND

GOVERNMENT.

[Dear Brother-About the close of each month, I look with great anxiety towards Nottingham, for that elaborate and invalu.

We are sorry to be necessitated to add, that this is not a true portraiture of the majority of Christian professors. There are those who look upon all Christian duties-those duties by which Christians ought to be charac

terised and distinguished from the world-as too irksome for them to perform. Even family worship seems to be almost, if not entirely neglected by many; which in a great measure accounts for the general tepidity and callousness by which professors of religion are characterized, as well as for the little success of the Redeemer's cause in our days. Should, therefore, this brief address, under the blessing of God, be the means of awakening, in the minds of individuals, placed by Providence at the head of families, a deep and permanent sense of the importance of this duty, to which they have hitherto been inattentive, our heart's desire will be realized, and our labour more than compensated.

comprising the history of almost two thousand five hundred years, given us in the book of Genesis, we find several allusions to this part of the patriarchal institution. Immediately after his going out of the ark, we find Noah rearing his altar upon the recently baptized earth, and of every clean bird and beast offering to the Lord whole burnt offerings. The father of the faithful, in all his sojournings, wherever he pitched his tent, there also he erected an altar, and called on the name of the Lord: and thus he is honored by his God—“ For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the. Lord, to do justice and judgment." Abraham had known" the way of the Lord," which is the true religion, and he would have that religion preserved in his family. Are we, brethren, imitators of this "friend of God?" Is it, moreover, likely, that our children and our household after us, will " keep the way of the Lord?" A multitude of instances might be added, but let this suffice.

Reason and Scripture concur in

Families are the smallest social division of the human species; and that individuals among mankind, bearing to each other the relations expressed by the term father, mother, husband, wife, children, &c. should thus be associated, is a Divine institution, ordained for their mutual good; and whereas it is neither the inclination nor the duty of man to live in solitude, it is spoken of as an expres-pointing out the head of the family as sion of the Divine goodness, that the "Lord setteth the solitary in families." In any collective body of people, be it great or small, there can be no enjoyment comparable to that of serving the Lord. The greater the purity with which He is worshipped, the more it gladdens the heart, which is one reason assignable for the perfection and endless duration of the felicity of heaven: "That, in His presence, there is fulness of joy; and at His right hand there are pleasures for evermore." Domestic worship is the most ancient mode in which the Almighty was served by our race. In this way our first parents worshipped Him, in the green and shady bowers of Eden; and the antediluvian patriarchs presented their sin offerings and thank-offerings on the family altars. In the brief outlines

As a

the fittest person to officiate at the do-
mestic altar. Anciently, indeed, the
father of every family bore to it the
threefold relation of prophet, priest,
and king. As a prophet, he instructed
his household in the knowledge of
God, and the history of man.
priest, he officiated at the family al-
tar, interceded for those under his
care, and pronounced benedictions
upon his children. As a lawgiver
and king, he "commanded his chil-
dren and household" to "keep the
way of the Lord," at the same time
that his own deportment presented to
them the most salutary and impulsive
example. What a blessing to the
church and the world it would be,
did Christians act on this principle !
It would be an admirable means of
bringing "up their children in the
nurture and admonition of the Lord"

« PreviousContinue »