« PrécédentContinuer »
vital, saving, sanctifying truth? Oh! ray of that meridian splendour. Yea, who would covet even a faith that even faith and hope, which are now could remove mountains, rather than in the church along with love, shall charity, without which it profiteth cease: faith shall cease in the sight nothing?"
of the Lord Jesus, who is the great These sentiments are given avow- object of faith; hope shall cease edly as a reply” to my sermon: in the enjoyment of the Lord Jesus, what, therefore, is the obvious, who is the great object of hope. the only possible inference to be Faith and hope both expire upon drawn, by such of your readers as the threshold of the Lord's glorious have not seen that sermon ? Clearly kingdom : but love, freed from the that I either wholly neglected to in- trammels of sin, and the temptations culcate the graces of the Spirit, or of Satan, shallthen live, and sing, and mentioned them as of inferior im- triumph throughout eternity: for God portance to the miraculous gifts. is our salvation, and God is love! O Could they believe that the same follow after love. Desire spiritual sermon, in the same report of it gifts indeed; but follow after love. I from which you quote, contains these shew you a more excellent way.” words? “ It is true, that, though the I may not comment upon the gifts of the Spirit are useful, though spirit of your remarks, above quoted, they are excellent, though they are in connexion with, and as a reply to, much to be desired ; yet the man a sermon which contains these senor the woman who exercises those timents, because the only kind of gifts may nevertheless be still at comment which would be just toenmity against God, and may perish. wards you would be unbecoming Though the Spirit of God were to in me; and I thank God for that work by me, so that by my word grace of his Holy Spirit which now mountains were removed; yet if he prevents me from allowing even such work not in me, so as to remove treatment to make me forget what malice and hatred from my soul, I am is due to my own Christian dignity nothing. Though the Holy Ghost and sacred profession. In reply, howwere to work by me, so as to do ever, to your proposal, “ were it not such wonders as the Lord Jesus wise to turn from such questionable Christ did ; yet if he work not in giftsto the solid, practical,” &c. I ask, me, so that there shall be in me the would it not have been wise in St. mind which was in Christ Jesus, I Paul not to have written concerning am nothing. Though I speak with such questionable gifts, but to have the tongues of men and angels, and confined himself to the solid, prachave not love, I am but sounding tical, &c.? Has the Apostle expendbrass, and a tinkling cymbal.” And ed so large a portion of his Epistle again : “ All gifts, when compared upon what it is wise in us to turn to this (love), are as nothing: they from? Or, to ask an inferior, yet still are excellent in themselves-covet important question, has the Bible Sothem earnestly, says the Apostle); ciety unwisely wasted so large a probut, in the comparison, that which portion of its funds, in printing and was glorious has no glory, by reason circulating hundreds of thousands of of that which excelleth.” And again; copies of certain chapters concern“ Prophecy shall cease to be useful ing questionable gifts, which it is when all the prophecies are fulfilled : wise in us to TUNN FROM? tongues shall cease when all the 5. You'know how « The Preacher," nations of the earth shall speak one and similar publications, are supplied tongue : knowledge such as we have by itinerant Sabbath-breaking shortnow, at the best, shall vanish away, hand writers; and it would have been as moonlight at the approach of the no more than courteous in you to rising sun: but love is the very ele. have asked me, by a private letter, ment of the warmest and brightest whether the report of my sermon,
given in the Preacher, were a correct give us equal credit for our motives, one, before you proceeded to print however much he may think we failed quotations from it, and criticise there- in judgment? Christians shouldavoid upon. In some points the report innuendoes, which mean more than in question is very incorrect, and meets the ear, and convey what can. no marvel : for if men attend the not be replied to because it is not house of God to catch man's words directly stated. We can assure Mr. and make a gain of them, instead M'Neile that we never " deemed it of seeking to find and feel God him- proper or Christian” to write in the self in the ordinances of his church, manner implied in his innuendo. We it cannot be a matter of surprise deem it so highly improper and un(10 those at least who know that the christian, that, if we thought we had Lord our God is a jealous God, and done so, we should not only wish to who mark the Saviour'szeal in cleans. abase ourselves before God, but also ing his temple from the pollution of publicly to beg pardon of an offended the money changers) that such men brother. But, being confident that should be given up judically to the our sole wish, throughout the whole sin of bearing false witness against discussion on modern miracles, has their neighbours. That a respect. been to vindicate what we considerable Christian Journalist should acted truth, and this with as little of. without inquiry upon the random fence as possible to those who differ reports of such men, and so from us, we cannot plead guilty to courage, while he propagates, their the charge. At the same time, if misrepresentations, is deeply to be anything we have written has caused deplored. While such things are Mr. M`Neile, or any other friend (if done, it is in vain to write and talk he will allow us so to call him), unin commendation of brotherly love. necessary pain, we are not only will. I am, sir, your obedient servant, ing, but anxious, that it should be HUGII M'NEILE. either obliterated, or construed in the
most tender manner that truth will We shall add some explanatory warrant. remarks to Mr. M`Neile's letter, Weshall now take our correspondnot to increase, but, if possible, to ent’s paragraphs in their order, as allay irritation ; for we see not why numbered in his letter. Christians should “ bite and devour 1. First, then, he says that the one another” because they do not
case of Miss Fancourt has no conconcur in opinion upon a question nexion with the subject of his letter. of prophecy or miracles. For this If he means only that he does not inreason we pass over certain innuen- tend to touch upon that case, he is, does—such as that in the very first of course, at liberty to select or
“ the use which you have pass over what topics he sees right; deemed it proper and Christian to but if he means that Miss Fancourt's make of my name,” &c.; implying case has no bearing upon the genethat it was highly improper and ral question of modern miracles, we unchristian ; a point which the ask, in reply, who connected them? writer had perhaps better have con
who said that this case tented himself with proving, than instance and proof of the revival, begun with assuming. We should or rather the non-cessation, of mira. not think it right to say to our culous gifts? Was it the Christian correspondent, " after the letter Observer? or was it not the assertors you have thought it proper and of the doctrine for which Mr.M°Neile Christian to write;" because we pleads? We earnestly wished to are sure he did think it proper and divide the two questions: we have Christian, and we are thankful to remarked over and over again, that, him for his candour and explicitness if we believed ever so firmly that of statement: and wliy will be not modern miracles are a part of that
economy of grace under which we sent dispensation now as in the pri-
neither Mr. Boys nor, as we con.
modern miracles, and if Miss Mary ceive, Mr. M'Neile can approve of. Campbell and the Macdonalds had Thus then stands the matter: some not been held forth as proofs of its admit the Church of England miracle, truth, the experiment, we think, had but not the Presbyterian; others ad- not reached Hoxton, unless it had mit both, but not those of the Church come direct from the school of Hoof Rome; others again admit the henlohe. While, then, we do not possible truth of all, so far at least wish to make Mr. M`Neile, Mr. Boys, as to say with H. S.C. H., that “it or any other individual, accountable would be going too far to affirm that for more than what he himself the faith of a truly pious Roman avouches, we are quite sure that in Catholic could not be thus recom- point of fact the whole matter, as pensed." We, however, assure Mr. it has begun, will proceed, and at M'Neile that we earnestly wish that length fall, together. the connexion which he disclaims 2. As our object in these remarks had never been made ; and, moreover, is explanation, and not a general that if it had not we should scarcely discussion of the question at issue, have thought it necessary that the we need say little under the second question should be discussed at such paragraph; since Mr. M'Neile adlength in our pages. Proposed only mits that our statement respecting as an abstract inquiry, whether mi. his views was “substantially corraculous gifts are still continued in rect." He proceeds, with much the church, the speculation was less fairness and candour, to mention exciting, and comparatively harm some of the reasons on which he less; but when fanaticism became grounds his opinion, and we leave embodied in act, when practical his arguments for the consideration Hohenlohism introduced among of our readers. Some of these were 16, when men and women were pre- anticipated in the quotation which tending to be miraculously inspired we gave last month from a work en. by the Holy Ghost to chatter gib. titled “Modern Fanaticism Uoberish, and have even attempted to veiled ;” and the whole of them, as raise the dead, the subject became well as all that has been offered on too serious to be lightly dismissed. the subject elsewhere, may be set Mr. M`Neile may personally throw at rest by the simple position, that off one part of the question, and miracles, under the New-Testament Mr. Boys another; the Jewish Ex. dispensation, ceased with the special positor may not be so omnivorous occasion for which they were afas the Morning Watch; but in pub. forded : they were adapted to peculic feeling, and we think in practical liar circumstances, to the first foundsequence, the whole question hangs ing and promulgation of Christianity, together. How can we be certain and were never promised or rethat there is no connexion be- quired to extend beyond it. We see tween Miss Fancourt's cure and ample reason why the gift of tongues Mr. M`Neile's sermon preached at should have been bestowed at the the Jews' chapel on the very Sun- day of Pentecost ; when us there day before? or how separate Mr. were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, G.'s conduct and doctrine from the devout men, out of every nation recent proceedings in Scotland? Will under heaven;" and when, by means our correspondent say that even he of this miraculous manifestation, himself was not led to devote his Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, attention to the subject by what was and persons of the other nations there passing in Scotland, or by the spe- mentioned, heard in theirown tongues culations of writers congenial with the wonderful works of God. The the Morning Watch ? If Mr. Irving, result was, that “all were amazed" Mr. Erskine, or Mr.Campbellof Row, and though some"mocked,” yet, by had never promulged this doctrine of the especial blessing of God on the
ministry of St. Peter on the occa- reasoning against the notion that sion, there were added to the church miracles continue, is, that it is too three thousand souls. But what palpably unreasonable to assignable good can arise from the with. It is not enough to
there jargon of the Macdonalds at Port were miraculous gifts of old; for Glasgow ? Has any Chinese or Cal. there were many things of old which muck, any Indian or Greenlander, are not now.
Mr. M`Neile cannot even any
Celt or Gael, heard in tell us exactly when sorcery and his own tongue the wonderful works witchcraft ceased, or even give us of God? So far from it, the most any text to prove that they do not learned linguists cannot recognise exist at this moment : these miraculous tongues; so that surely would not have us believe even Mr. Erskine is obliged to that there are really sorcerers and shelter himself in the astounding witches nowin existence, and in conremark, that “though no proof were sequence revive the barbarous staever made out that such languages tutes and cruel massacres of the days are spoken, I should not feel myself of the Tudors and Stuarts. And so in in the least degree disturbed by it." many other instances; though we This is certainly one way of answer must do Mr. Boys the justice to ing objectors; but if St. Peter had say that he is so far consistent as to not been able to give a better an confess his belief in modern posses. swer to those that « mocked" on the sion and exorcism; and we see not day of Pentecost, it would not have how, upon his own principles, either been easy to silence their mockery. he or Mr. M°Neile can deny the If the people, instead of hearing each modern agency of witches and sorin his own tongue the wonderful cerers. works of God, had discovered that 3. Our correspondent's next comthe Apostles were talking mere gib. plaint is, that we have spoken of berish, and passing it off for a mi- him as giving himself out for a proraculous gift of tongues, they would phet sent of God with a special denot have acted unreasonably in nunciation against the people of doubting their inspiration; though England. As he repels the charge, in such a case they had far better it is far more grateful to us to have wept over such a scene than hope we were mistaken, than to have "mocked," or accused them of search over his writings for materials drunkenness. But the two cases are to support it. We cannot consent wholly, utterly, inseparably diverse: to so ungracious a task as endeawe will not, we dare not, for a mo. vouring to rake out what, if found, ment compare them; and we there. were better forgotten ; and as every fore adduce the example only to writer must best know his own senshew that there were special reasons timents, we feel bound to take his why miracles were afforded in the words in his own signification, and early church, which now are not not as they might have struck our own bestowed, because not needed. If minds. if, therefore, we have unthey should be required again, they justly censured Mr. M`Neile, we are will without doubt be again vouch- quite willing to acknowledge and safed. It is not for us to argue what repent of our evil deed. But, in God may or may not do; but it is truth, the statement complained of a plain palpable fact, that rniracles was but an abridgment of the folhave long ceased, and that “lying lowing passage in our volume for wonders” have for many centuries 1829, p. 719 ; which we quote, not usurped their place; and it is the to plunge more deeply into the prediction of Holy Writ that such subject, but only to shew our corlying wonders shall accompany the respondent, that if we used strong deeds of the beast and the false language, it was only in describing prophet. The chief difficulty in strong language of his own. We