Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

press his mind on this subject in the place of public preaching. His text was from Daniel vii. 24, 25. "And another (king) shall rise after them: and he shall be diverse from the first; and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand, until a time and times, and the dividing of time." In the beginning of his sermon he showed the great love of God toward his church, whom he pleased to forewarn of dangers to come, so many years before they came to pass. He briefly treated of the state of the Israelites, who then were in bondage in Babylon, and discoursed shortly of the four empires-the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman, in the destruction whereof, rose up that last beast, which he affirmed was the Church of Rome; for to no other power that ever yet hath been, do all the marks which God hath showed to the prophet appertain; and unto it they do so properly appertain, that such as are not more than blind, may clearly see them. But before he began to open the corruptions of Popery, he defined the true church, showed the true marks of it, whereupon it was built, why it was the pillar of truth, and why it could not err: Because it heard the voice of the only pastor, Jesus Christ, would not hear a stranger, neither would be carried with every wind of doctrine." Having declared every one of these heads sufficiently, he entered to the contrary, and on the marks given in his text, showed that the Spirit in the New Testament gave to this king other new names: "The man of sin-the Antichrist-the whore of Babylon." Showed that this man of sin, or Antichrist, was not to be restrained to the person of any one man only, any more than by the fourth beast, was to be understood the person -of any one emperor. But by such names the Spirit would forewarn God's chosen of a body, and a multitude, having a wicked head, which should not only be sinful himself, but should also be occasion of sin to all who should be subject to him, as Christ Jesus is the cause of justice to all the members of his body. He is called Antichrist, that is, one contrary to Christ, because he is contrary to him in life, doetrine, laws, and subjects. Their doctrine and laws he plainly proved to repugn directly to the doctrine and laws of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ his Son. This he proved by comparing the doctrine of jus

tification expressed in the Scriptures, which teach, "That man is justified by faith only-that the blood of Jesus Christ purgeth us from all sin :" with the doctrine of the Papists, which attributes justification to the works of the law, yea to the works of men's inventions, as pilgrimages, pardons, and such like. That the laws of the Pope were repugnant to the laws of the Gospel, he proved, by the observation of days, abstaining from meats, and from marriage, which Christ Jesus made free, and the forbidding whereof St. Paul calleth, "the doctrine of devils."

He called men to consider if these marks of that beast given in the text, "There shall another rise, unlike to the other, having a mouth speaking great things and blasphemous," could be applied to any other but to the Pope and his kingdom. "For if these," said he, "be not great words and blasphemous-the head of the church-most holy-most blessed-that cannot err-that can make right of wrong and wrong of right-that of nothing can make somewhat-and that had all verity in the shrine of his heart-yea, that had power of all, and none had power of him-nay, not to say that he doeth wrong, although he draw ten millions of souls with himself to hell. If these and many others, easy to be shown in his canon laws, be not great and blasphemous words, and such as never mortal men spake before, let the world judge. And yet is there one most evident of all; John, in his Revelation, says, that the merchandize of that Babylonian harlot, among other things, shall be the bodies and the souls of men. Now, let very Papists themselves judge, if any before them took upon them power to relax the pains of those in purgatory, as they affirm to the people that daily they do, by the merits of their mass and of their other trifles. In the end, he said, if any here (and there were present, of the university, the sub-prior, and many canons and friars of both orders) who will say, that I have alleged Scripture doctrine or history, otherwise than it is written, let them come unto me with sufficient witness, and by conference I shall let them see, not only the originals, where my testimonies are written, but I shall prove, that the writers meant as I have spoken." Such was the first sermon preached by John Knox, and we have given it thus fully not only on account of its value, but also to prove the decided part which he took in the cause of God in that day. Of this sermon there were many opinions : it was followed by a disputation on the principal points

at issue, in which John Knox and the heads of the Romish Church engaged, the result of which was, that God so prospered the labours of his servant, that not only all those of the castle, but also a great number of the town, openly professed, by participation of the Lord's Table, in the same purity that it is now ministered in the Church of Scotland, with that same doctrine that he had taught unto them. Let us, who in the present day are permitted, in the good providence of God, to sit under our own vine, and beneath our own fig-tree, to worship God according to the dictates of our conscience and his holy word, and none to make us afraid, remember, that it was widely different at that day. The path of the herald of the Gospel led not to worldly honour, wealth, or fame-it lay through much suffering, persecution, shame, and blood. The ashes of those fires, which, like chariots of flame, had borne so many of God's chosen to heaven, and lighted up the way to eternal glory, were not yet quenched, and the martyr's pile and the martyr's stake, met, wherever he turned, the view of him who preached salvation only through the cross. Let this be taken into consideration, and we shall be enabled to form a better estimate of the character of the man, who, at that day of peril and blood, was faithful to the truth; and, like Paul of old, was ready not only to be bound, but to die for the name of the Lord Jesus.

JAMES VI. AND JOHN KNOX'S DAUGHTER.

H.

ELIZABETH, the third daughter of John Knox, was married to John Welch, who was sentenced to death for resisting the unjust measures of James VI. to overturn the Church of Scotland. Mrs. Welch found access to the King, when the following singular conversation took place :-The King having asked her who was her father, she replied, "Mr. Knox." "Knox and Welch," he exclaimed," the devil never made such a match as that." "Its right like," she replied, "for we never speired (asked) his liberty." He asked her how many children her father had left, and if they were lads or lasses. She said three, and they were all lasses. "God be thanked," exclaimed the King, " for an they had been three lads, I had never bruiked (enjoyed) my three kingdoms in peace." She again requested that he would give her husband his native air. "Give him his native air!" said James, "give him the devil." "Give that to your hungry courtiers," said she, offended at his profaneness. At last he told her, that if she would persuade her husband to submit to the bishops, he would suffer him to return to Scotland; when Mrs. Welch, lifting up her apran, and holding it towards the King, replied, in the spirit of her father, "Please your Majesty, I'd rather kep (receive) his head there." Dr. M'Crie.

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

A DISCOURSE on NATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS of CHRISTIANITY; illustrating their Consistency with the Spiritual Nature of Christ's Kingdom, their Warrant from the Word of God, and their Necessity to the Safety of States. By M. WILLIS, A. M., Minister of the Gospel, Glasgow. OGLE. P. p. 144. 1833.

THE prejudice against establishments is, in these times, very strong and, we believe, almost universal. The principal cause of this, we have no doubt, has been their great abuse. The question with the majority is not, what saith the Scripture? but what do I behold? The public are reasoning on this subject as the infidel commonly does upon Christianity, not going to the word of God and forming his views of it thence, but looking at the lives of its professors, and charging on Christianity whatever is faulty in them. Nothing, however, can be more obvious than the injustice of such a procedure; any cause whatever might be condemned by it. In the face of the popular sentiment, we feel ourselves bound to declare our belief, that the Scriptures recognise the principle of religious establishments. They teach, we conceive, that it is the duty of a nation to acknowledge the divine origin of Christianity, to form all their laws agreeably to it, and to make provision for the instruction of the people in the knowledge of it. How any one can read the Scriptures and not perceive these things to be taught there, we are at a loss to conceive. And yet these involve the entire principle against which there has been so much clamour. At the same time, while we thus freely profess our views of establishments, we would act toward that principle as we would toward any other which we conceived was taught in the Scriptures. We would not force its adoption on any person or people. We would say to the nation, your duty is the establishment of Christianity, but we would leave it to act for itself. We are far from thinking that it is a wise step in the friends of Christianity to pronounce it the establishment of a country, whenever they may have power to do so, however ignorant of the matter or opposed to it the people may be. We hold that this is like every other Christian duty, to be done with the heart and the under standing also. The universal establishment of Christianity in such a spirit as this, we conceive, will constitute the glory of the Millennium. Men will unite, in the love of the truth, to declare the Gospel to be the only rule of conduct in public and private life, and they will make full provision for the maintenance of all its officers and offices. However ready we may be, therefore, to admit the abuses of establishments, we cannot join in the popular cry against them. We have no sympathy with the conduct of many of our brethren in England and in Scotland, from whom we would have expected better things. Our souls sicken at the thought of their unhallowed union, in many instances, with the radicals and infidels of our times, to pull down what is ancient and venerable in the land. And if our voice could reach to them, we would entreat them to act more worthily of their own principles; and if they will oppose the principle of establishments, to do so temperately, and justly, and by an appeal to the word of God, but not by clamour, and in the company of the enemies of all righteousness. Surely some respect, at least, is due to the sentiments of such men as Knox, and Brown, and the Erskines, all of whom were the firm supporters of the principle of establishments.

II.

Mr. Willis's book on this subject is a very able production. He is not a member of an established church, and must therefore be acknowledged to be at least an impartial witness. The discourse is divided, naturally, into eight parts. I. He proposes to neutralize the argument alleged against establishments from the words, "my kingdom is not of this world." To us it appears strange this should ever have been thought an argument against them. Because a state pronounces Christianity to be the truth, and provides for the instruction of the people in the knowledge of it, therefore it is secularized! It might as well be said, it is inconsistent with Christianity that one of its ministers should receive any support, save from the acknowledged members of his church and communion. Yet we do not understand that they who make this objection refuse to receive support from the men of the world, when such is offered to them. Mr. Willis proposes to state the proper ground on which establishments may be advocated. Nations are bound by the law of God, whether they acknowledge it or not; but it is their duty both to acknowledge it, and act conformably to it. Nothing can release them from this obligation. III. He confirms his argument by a reference to the nature of civil government. It is an ordinance of God, for the good of man, and ought therefore to be conducted on principles of righteousness. IV. The argument is farther confirmed by the admission of the opposers of establishments with regard to the Sabbath. The magistrate, they allow, may take measures to insist on its outward observance, but this is manifestly incon sistent with their own principles. V. Our author adduces the argument from the Old Testament. There is only one example of a nation being directly modelled and governed by the authority of God, and there the principle of establishments was adopted. VI. He vindicates the consistency of establishments with the New Testament law, regarding the support of the Gospel. This, it is alleged, ought to be voluntary, and a reward for benefit conferred, for duty done. And so it ought; and the provision which the state makes for the support of the Gospel should be paid cheerfully, and reckoned as the best expended money, for to no man is a country so indebted as to a faithful teacher of truth and righteousness. VII. He examines the bearings of history on the question. Christianity has flourished without an establishment, but it has also flourished with an establishment. It has been corrupted under an establishment, and it has been corrupted without an establishment. The Church of England is pointed out, in this country, as an evidence of a corrupt church under the auspices of an establishment. Well, the Church of Rome is not established in this country, and we call upon the objector to admire its loveliness and purity. VIII. Glance at the natural workings and consequences of the non-establishment scheme. One thing is evident-it has never yet made such provisions for the support and propagation of the Gospel as are necessary. Even in America, where it has had the best trial, under the most favourable circumstances, the provision is most defective. A large portion of the land is little better than heathen. At present the supporters of that scheme are chiefly occupied in finding fault and pulling down. But if they really object to establishments, as unfavourable to the truth, let them show a more excellent way. They would do more to recommend their principles by one vigorous effort to spread the Gospel in some neglected district, than by a thousand speeches or pamphlets. There is yet no example of the success of their principles which would justify the abandonment of the opposite for their adoption.

« ZurückWeiter »