Page images
PDF
EPUB

and while throwing a shade of doubt, not only over the particular narrative, but over numerous passages in the sacred story besides, commits the writer to no definite position at all. A general principle is laid down, but the reader is left to himself to determine whether this or any other case comes within the range of its application. The effect, The effect, undoubtedly, is to leave the impression that the supposed Divine call, in obedience to which Abraham prepared to surrender the heir of those glorious promises made to himself and his seed, was the prompting of the Devil, not the intimation of God. Yet, if any one were to assert that Dr. Stanley had actually ascribed the conduct of Abraham to the working of the Evil One, he might reasonably object that his language falls far short of anything so positive or distinct. It is to statements of this kind, suggesting so much and saying so little, that unfriendly critics point when seeking to establish charges of insincerity against Dr. Stanley, and undeniably the facts have an ugly appearance. But they are susceptible of a more charitable interpretation. We should be more disposed to think that the mode in which this notion is propounded indicates rather that the author himself had felt considerable difficulty in connection with the narrative, and that this was one form of solution which had suggested itself, and which, therefore, he states though without positively adopting it. All this is very undesirable in one who seeks to be a teacher of others; but it is at least very different from the unworthy conduct imputed to the Dean, by those who will have it that he has deliberately chosen this mode

of statement in order to screen himself, and his doctrine, from the consequences that might have followed a more manly avowal.

Our business, however, is with the opinion rather than with the man, and that is certainly as untenable as it is perilous. Not a word does Dr. Stanley allege by way of proof. We all knew before, that the sacred writers sometimes attribute to God acts done by His command, or even with His permission, but the question is whether it is so in the present instance, and there is not a shred of evidence to justify an affirmative answer. On the contrary, all the statements of the narrative point to a directly opposite conclusion. If, indeed, the Devil did tempt Abraham, it can hardly be denied that he was successful. If he suggested a false view of the Divine character, Abraham as certainly adopted it, and was ready to act in accordance with its demands. He left his own home, and journeyed towards the mountain, with the deliberate purpose of sacrificing his innocent son under the belief that such an offering would be acceptable to God, and was in fact required by Him at his hands. It is quite true that in his readiness to surrender one round whom all his tenderest affections had gathered, and in whom all his brightest hopes centred, he showed a spirit of trust, obedience, and selfsacrifice worthy of the highest praise; but it is equally true that in adopting this mode of manifesting it, he, on this supposition, accepted the Devil's idea relative to God's requirements; and that the very service which he proposed to render, was essentially sinful. Yet not a hint of this is anywhere given-not a word of censure is

mingled with the high eulogium pronounced upon him; and his conduct, instead of being branded with any mark of Divine reprobation, issued only in his receiving - promises richer and fuller than any that had hitherto been vouchsafed to him.

Let us look carefully at the facts themselves. Isaac, indeed, is spared, but an oblation is prepared in his stead; the assurance of Abraham's faith that God would provide Himself a lamb for a burnt-offering is fully realized; the ram is caught in the thicket, and sacrificed, and the Divine approval is expressed in these striking terms, "By myself have I sworn, said the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying, I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore ; and thy seed shall possess the gates of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." (Genesis xxii. 17-19). Strange language indeed, if the voice which Abraham had obeyed was the voice of the Devil and not of God. We have, in fact, only to compare this history with that of the sad passage in David's life to which Dr. Stanley refers, to see how utterly futile is the attempt to institute a parallel between two cases so essentially diverse. In David's case, compliance with the diabolical suggestion meets with the condemnation and punishment which might naturally have been anticipated. Here, on the contrary, God rewards Abraham for an act which involved an insult on His character, and reduced

Him to a level with the gods of the nations round!

The event is referred to in the New Testament, and there too, the same tone is always employed in relation to it. In reciting the achievements of faith in that marvellous 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Paul expressly quotes this, and dwells upon it as one of the most signal triumphs of Abraham's faith,-accumulating in his own characteristic style, all the circumstances which increased the severity of the trial, and enhanced the glory of the victory. "By faith, Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son; of whom, it was said, that in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, from whence also he received him in a figure." (Heb. xi. 17-19). But if Abraham had received no Divine injunction at all, and had only been misled by the craft of the Devil,—surely, instead of discovering faith, he showed only a spirit of unbelief, alike in God's righteousness and mercy, and his sad pilgrimage to Moriah was a revelation of miserable weakness, not to say a positive sin. In such case, instead of being exhibited as an example, he should have been held up rather as a beacon, to show us how prone are the best to err, even in their attempts to do God's service; how easily we may be misled even by the purest instincts of our hearts; and how great the need of constant watchfulness against an adversary who, as he first corrupted Eve by his subtlety, was able by the same art to transform himself into an

angel of light, and pervert a spirit so

noble as that of Abraham, making his very faith in God the instrument of alluring him into an act dishonouring to the Most High.

The language of James on this subject is equally strong and decisive. "Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works when he had offered up his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he was called the Friend of God." (James ii. 21-23). Accepting the theory suggested by the Dean of Westminster, how are we to explain a statement so direct and conclusive as this? The Devil puts it into Abraham's heart, that God requires him to slay his son; Abraham believes him, and at once proceeds to reduce his faith to practice, and this faith in the Devil is accepted as faith in God, this readiness to do the Devil's bidding is imputed to him for righteousness. The very act, which

of all others we should deem the most questionable in Abraham's course, is thus represented as that which secured for him the most distinguished honour; and the loftiest title which was ever bestowed on man, the "Friend of God," is conferred upon him, because, ⚫ unable to detect the wiles of the Devil, he had supposed that a sacrifice which hell alone had prompted would be acceptable in the sight of heaven. Such a conclusion is certainly sufficiently monstrous, and yet we do not see how it can be escaped, if the premises be once conceded. Perhaps we shall be told by some that the apostles were but Jews, sharing the notions of their nation and their time;

and that whatever authority may attach to their express statements of doctrine, the same does not belong to the arguments and illustrations by which they are sustained-that their logic is often imperfect, their allusions to Old Testament Scripture fanciful and unconvincing, and that on these points, they show the errors of humanity not the infallibility which belongs to a Divine revelation. To examine these assertions in detail would lead us far beyond the limits of the present paper. Suffice it to say, that such principles, however guarded the language in which they may be conveyed and however great the reverence for sacred Scripture professed by some of their advocates, cannot be admitted without destroying the distinctive character of the Bible altogether. For ourselves, we prefer to abide by the interpretations given of the Old Testament by men who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, rather than to accept the gloss of modern critics, whose notions, however ingenious, would change the character and lower the authority of the sacred record.

The real origin and tendency of such a speculation as that we are here considering, it is not hard to discover. The error seems to us to spring from a disposition to judge all these narratives by our own a priori notions of what the Divine procedure ought to be. Men ask in relation to the particular case before us, "Is it credible that God could give a command which he never intended should be obeyed, or that He would thus give even an apparent sanction to the fearful practice of human sacrifice, which formed one of the greatest abominations of the Heathen?" We can only answer

that we are in no position to judge.
There were certain truths which God
was then teaching the world through
the
agency of His chosen servants :
in what way, He, in His infinite
wisdom, might see fit to instruct those
who were thus themselves to become
teachers, we are unable to decide.
We know only that He would do that
which was right and good, and can
rest in that assurance even though
unable ourselves to explain all the
mysteries of His procedure. We can

see that great purposes were subserved by the trial of Abraham, that his faith was manifested, that a human sacrifice was rejected, and condemnation the most emphatic passed upon the practice, and that an illustrious type was furnished of the Saviour yet to come, the "Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world;" and we are content to believe that God, having these lessons to impart, chose to do it in the way described by Moses.

OUR HOME MISSIONS

Ar a meeting of two hundred and fifty clergymen, held in Islington on the 11th of January of this year, the question was gravely and earnestly discussed, "Whether the Church of England is duly fulfilling her office as a Missionary Church?" There were some things said in the discussion which we are sorry to read. But we wish most heartily, that good men in the Church of England could understand, how sincerely Evangelical Dissenters rejoice in every sign of spiritual life and spiritual progress in the Established Church. Their objections to the connexion of the Church with the State, and to many things in the constitution and services of the Church herself, are too strong and radical to be easily removed. But that loyalty to Christ and His truth which compels them to "come out and be separate," compels them likewise to regard, with honest Christian satisfaction, every Scriptural endeavour of those within the Church to gather the people into the one fold of the Chief Shepherd. We only regret that the endeavours of those without the Church to accom

AND EVANGELISTS.

plish the same end, should be regarded with jealousy, by those whose eyes are open to the true nature and magnitude of the evil which afflicts England.

66

Turning for a moment to the dark side of the picture," said the Rev. Edward Hoare, at Islington, " he would observe that there were multitudes of parishes where nothing was being done. He did not know how to express his deep compassion for some of those poor people who lived in villages where there was no Gospel, where there was a cold, dead, lifeless ministry, and the only object of the minister was, as he said, to keep things quiet. That quietness, what was it?

The stillness of the grave;

a deep sleep had fallen on the people; and when he heard brethren speak of the parochial system as if it were a panacea for all evils, he wondered whether they had been in some of the dark, dead, country parishes where the people was asleep and the people loved to have it so? Again, there were many parishes where there was real activity and zeal, but a sad absence of that Gospel which was the

power of God unto salvation. While on this point he must remark that, having had an opportunity of observing the working of what was termed the sacramental system in bringing communicants, he had been perfectly amazed at its total failure. In churches where the services were conducted on that system, there were not half as many communicants as in churches where the object of the clergyman was simply to exalt Christ and lead souls to accept His salvation."

In illustration of the state of the rural population in Kent, Mr. Hoare made statements which, but for his knowledge of the facts, might be deemed incredible. "Throughout Kent nearly all the boys were leaving school before they were ten years of age, and many at eight or nine. Take the history of one of those boys removed from school at eight or nine years of age, and sent out to spend the whole of every day, Sunday included, an involuntary prodigal, feeding swine, and living in their society. That poor lad asked you at one or two o'clock in the afternoon, what o'clock it was, in the hope that the time was coming when he might return home, perhaps hungry, cold, and weary. There he was, week after week, perhaps, with no one to speak to him all the week, and there was no Sunday-school for him because he was still with his pigs on Sunday. These poor Kentish boys occupying that position, had certain hieroglyphics on their pig-whips which they used as a sort of charm. It was called in Kent the Hog's prayer.' He could never make out the meaning of it, but the boys who tended swine in Kent all knew it by heart, and it was almost their only form of devotion,

whether on the week-day or on Sunday. Follow that poor boy a step further, and you saw him, perhaps, the mate of a waggoner, being raised in life by living with horses instead of pigs; and he was again employed every week-day and Sunday. When at last he married, he presented a spectacle of stolid indifference; and, when he came to die, the clergyman who was sent for, found before him a poor, dark, ignorant creature, with no thought that he could work upon— a man who had a sort of dim, misty idea about God and about Jesus Christ, but nothing beyond.

[ocr errors]

If such be the spiritual condition even now, of a "multitude of parishes," in which "the Church" so-called has had it all its own way, undisturbed either by infidels or dissenters, and from which the ministers of other parishes are excluded by law, why should Mr. Hoare, and men likeminded with him, deprecate the intrusion of Nonconformist preachers of his own Gospel? Is it better that the people should perish, than that they should be saved by the labours of those whose consciences keep them without the pale of the Established Church?

When our Home Missionary Society was formed in 1819, its constitution was Catholic, and both Churchmen and Dissenters contributed to its funds. The first work of the Committee was to ascertain, by careful inquiry, the true condition of the rural populations in certain given districts. The reports presented were of a very depressing character. From Northumberland it was reported that the "more internal parts were awfully destitute," and that "the people were living in the greatest darkness and wickedness"- 66 gambling and drunkenness, especially on

« PreviousContinue »