« EelmineJätka »
and trial, all which she met and surmounted comes they often act in a manner which with an uncommon degree of Christian forti. they had previously thought impossible, we tude and courage, her mind being generally should suppose that a large secession must richly supported by the glorious doctrines of now take place. It has been solemnly dethe grace of God. She was the mother of a clared by the highest ecclesiastical authority, numerous family of children, all of whom, that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is except three, we trust, preceded her to glory, the doctrine of the church of England. This most of them dying in their infancy.
we dissenters have always said, and this the For several months past Mrs. Brooks ap- tractarians say; but this the evangelical adpeared to be rapidly sinking under that herents of the episcopal church have been flattering but generally fatal complaint, pul- accustomed to deny. Now, however, it is monary consumption, which at length brought determined by the president of the Court of her body to the grave. But death to our Arches, sitting on his judgment-seat, after friend had no terrors, Christ having taken listening patiently to the arguments of eminent away the sting. Not a doubt was permitted counsel on both sides, that if a man do not to trouble her mind. A short time before believe the doctrine of baptismal regeneraher departure, when taking leave of a dear tion, it is a sufficient reason why he should friend, she pressed his hand, and with a not hold office as a minister of the English smiling countenance and confident tone of establishment. voice said, “ All is well.” As her end drew The case which has occasioned the decision near, her weakness and bodily suffering in- is this. Mr. Gorham, a highly respectable creased, and conversation was to her extreme clergyman in Devonshire, having discharged ly difficult and painful, her cough being very the duties of his ministry more than thirty distressing. At length the hour of dissolu- years, was presented by the Lord Chancellor tion arrived, and at her request prayer was with a vicarage in the same county nearly twice offered to the divine throne by her two years ago, both livings being in the dioweeping partner. After which she said, cese of Exeter, and in the patronage of the “My dear, you did not ask the Lord Jesus crown. The bishop, however, refused to to receive my spirit.” On his inquiring if it admit him, though so long a minister in his was her desire that he should, she instantly own diocese, without a previous examination. assented; when he had so done, she immedi- | That examination was commenced on the ately repeated the words after him, “ Lord 17th of December, 1847; it was continued Jesus, receive my spirit ;" and her happy on the 18th, 21st, and 22nd days of the spirit was shortly released from its clay same month; and after an interruption of tenement, and took its flight to the regions some length it was renewed on the 18th of of everlasting life and glory.
March, 1846, continued on the 9th, and The mournful event was improved on finally terminated on the 10th. On that day sabbath evening, July 8th, by Rev. J. Mr. Gorham was informed that the bishop Phillips of Southwell in an impressive and declined to institute him. Thus the matter faithful discourse from Eccles. xii. 1-7, a rested till June, 1848, when a monition was passage chosen by our deceased friend for issued from the Court of Arches, at the suit the occasion.
of Mr. Gorham, calling upon the bishop to institute him within a certain time specified into the vicarage of Bampton Speke, or to
show cause why he should not be so institutDied, August 13th, Mr. Mark Moore of ed. To this the bishop pleaded, that in the Queen Street Place, Southwark Bridge, many
course of the examination which he had years a deacon of the church meeting in thought it right to institute, Mr. Gorham had New Park Street. Mr. Moore's health had that great and fundamental point, the efficacy
MR. MARK MOORE.
advanced some unsound doctrine respecting been failing for some months, but his removal was eventually occasioned by a sudden and persisted in holding that spiritual regene
of the rite of baptism, inasmuch as he held attack of the prevailing epidemic.
ration was not given or confirmed in that holy sacrament, and that particularly therein
infants are not made members of Christ and MISCELLANEA.
children of God. The bishop went on to state that this was contrary to the plain teaching of the church of England in her
articles and liturgy, and especially contrary The evangelical clergy of the established to the office of confirmation and the catechurch have received a heavy and portentous chism, contained in the Book of Common blow. Did not the history of mankind teach Prayer, and that upon that account he refusthat men of general integrity sometimesed to institute Mr. Gorham to the said sacrifice their own consistency and professions vicarage. This case having been brought rather than part with worldly dignities and before the supreme ecclesiastical court, the emoluments, and that when the day of trial Court of Arches, and the discussion of it
IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE COURT OP
having occupied six days, the judge, Sir Her- | individuals. This would, therefore, dispose best Jenner Fust, on the 2nd of August pro- of that part of the question so far as the nounced sentence. In the course of an court was concerned. Now he was not aware elaborate address, the reading of which that it was necessary for the court to occupy occupied four hours, he observed that the much more time upon the question which had question between the parties was as to the arisen here. The point to be ascertained was, efficacy of baptismal regeneration in the case was the doctrine of the church of England of infants only. He dismissed from conside- that of the baptismal regeneration of infants ration altogether the question of the regene- or not. Another point to be determined was, ration of adults by baptism, it being admitted did Mr. Gorham deny it was? He (the on the part of the bishop, that in the case of learned judge) said it was clear from the adults the efficacy of baptism depended on passages he had read, and from the whole the faith and repentance of the parties bap- tenor of the examination, and of the learned tized, and on the sincerity of their professions counsel's argument upon it, that he did opand promises. Nor was he called upon to pose this article of baptismal regeneration. pronounce an opinion whether the doctrine Children presented no obstacle, and received of baptismal regeneration in the case of in- the benefit of baptismal regeneration, whatfants was or was not a clearly Christian doc- ever it might be. It was a spiritual regenetrine. It was not within the province of the ration according to the words of the formulacourt to institute an inquiry of that sort; all ries of the church, and, therefore, if this was the court was called upon to do was to the doctrine of the church of England, which endeavour to ascertain whether the church undoubtedly it was declared to be, that chil. had determined anything on the subject, and dren baptized were regenerated and saved if having done so to pronounce its decision they died without committing actual sin, then accordingly. The court was bound to ad- | Mr. Gorham had maintained doctrines which minister the law as it found it laid down, and were opposed to the doctrines of the church. not to give any opinion as to what the law And then the question was, had the bishop ought to be ; and, therefore, he was most shown sufficient reason for not instituting Mr. anxious that it should be perfectly understood Gorham to the benefice. Now, he was of that in the observations he was about to opinion that Mr. Gorham had maintained a make he should confine himself wholly to doctrine that was opposed to the doctrines of the doctrines of the church so far as he was the church of England; that the bishop had capable of ascertaining them, without any shown sufficient cause why he had not instiintention to extend them to scriptural inter- tuted Mr. Go am to the benefice; and that, pretation. The first of the 149 questions therefore, the bishop must be dismissed, and which the bishop had put to Mr. Gorham dismissed with costs. was, “ Prove from scripture that baptism and An appeal has been made to the Judicial the supper of the Lord are severally necessary Committee of the Privy Council ; but the to salvation-first, of baptism; secondly, of Record, which professes to speak the sentithe Lord's supper.”. Now, said the judge, ments of the evangelical clergy, says, " It is here it was evident that the bishop had not difficult, we think, to over estimate the imput the question in a form that would draw portance of this case in its essential nature, out a specific answer as to the doctrine of the or in its probable or possible consequences." church upon the necessity of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper. Mr. Gorham was perfectly well aware of the slip
NAUNTON, NEAR STOW-ON-THE-WOLD, which the bishop had made, and his counsel took advantage of that slip to show that his On Wednesday, August 15th, a large and lordship was wrong, and that he was obliged deeply interesting tea meeting was held in to correct his error in the next question. To | Mr. Hank's barn in the above village, for the this question, however, Mr. Gorham answer- purpose of raising funds to erect a new place ed, and truly answered, “I do not find in of worship for the use of the baptist church scripture that the necessity of baptism to sal- and congregation there assembling. In convation is declared in terms so absolute as this sequence of the increased attendance upon proposition.” The learned judge then went the means of grace, it has become necessary into the details of the examination, and of to “arise and build,"the present chapel being the articles and services of the church in far too small to afford the requisite accomreference to the subject, maintaining that as modation. On the evening already mentionlong as these were reconcileable, and not ed, about 260 persons took tea together, after only reconcileable, but necessarily consistent which a public meeting in furtherance of this with the general and literal interpretation of good object was convened. After singing the words, they were not at liberty to put and prayer, Mr. Comely of Notgrove, the any new interpretation upon them. They deacon of the church and the treasurer to the must take those doctrines and expressions in fund, was called to the chair, when the pas. their true and literal sense, and not construe tor of the church, the Rev. J. Teall, stated, them by resorting to the private opinions of that the estimated cost of the proposed erec
tion would be about £400, one half of which were convened to consider the measures sum was immediately promised by a few of necessary to be adopted in consequence of the Naunton friends themselves. The meet- his determination, on the 26th and 29th of ing was afterwards addressed by the Rev. J. June. At the latter it was resolved to conAcock of Stow, who for upwards of twenty vene a special meeting of the Council for the years sustained the office of pastor of the 6th of July. The Rev. John Jordan prechurch, and also by Rev. Messrs. Dunn of sided (Sir Culling E. Eardley being unwell). Winchcomb, Hall of Arlington, Statham of The chairman read Psalm xlvi., the Rev. Bourton-on-the-Water, Cherry of Milton, Dr. Hamilton offered prayer, thé Rev. W. and Amery of Campden, and all present had Bevan stated the reasons which had influreason to acknowledge, “ It is good to be enced him in resigning his office, whereupon here.” It is hoped that such pecuniary it was resolved :assistance will be rendered by the denomination generally as to justify the commencement office as Secretary to the British Organization of the
“I. That the Rev. W. Bevan having resigned his of the building as early as possible in the Evangelical Alliance, such resignation to take effect ensuing spring, inasmuch as the object has from the 1st of August next, this Council cannot been long in contemplation, and a house and part with their much beloved brother as their garden were purchased and paid for by the for his faithful discharge of the duties of his
office, Naunton friends upwards of six years since, and his valuable services therein, and also its best as a site upon which to raise the intended wishes for his future happiness and usefulness. erection.
“II. That the Revg. Dr. Steane, Edward Craig, and J. P. Dobson, be affectionately requested gratuitously to undertake the duties of the official
secretariat, from the 1st of August to the time of COLLECTANEA.
the third Annual Conference."
The Rev. Dr. Cox was added to the Board EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE.
of Advice. After prayer by Dr. Cox, the In consequence of the failure of the funds Council adjourned. Communications on the expected from some of the divisions of the business of the Alliance are, in future, to be organization, the Rev. W. Bevan has felt it addressed to the Rev. Dr. Steane, 7, Adam to be his duty to resign the office of secretary. Street, Strand, London.-Evangelical ChrisTwo meetings of the Committee of Council I tendom.
MARRIAGE WITH A SISTER OF A DECEASED, many other thoughtful and conscientious WIFE.
persons profess to be satisfied that the rela.
tion in question is not within the degrees of To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine.
affinity prohibited from intermarriage by the
scriptures. I am not extensively acquainted DEAR Sir,- In your Magazine for the with what has been written on this subject, or present month are some rather decided ob- perhaps I should be so well informed as not servations, in the review department, on the to trouble you with this letter. I have read desirableness of repealing the law which pro- a pamphlet in favour of the connexions in hibits marriage with the sister of a deceased question by the Rev. J. F. Denham, but all wife. I beg permission to say a few words the main positions of that respectable clergyto your readers on this subject.
man I had seen very carefully examined, The Commission of Inquiry, it appears, has and, to my apprehension, plainly proved to ascertained the fact, which no one can ques- be untenable, in a work which I beg to retion, that such connexions, under the form of commend to the perusal of any one interested marriage, or without it, do exist to a consi- in this subject. It is called,' “ The Hebrew derable extent. From this fact the Reviewer Wife: or, the Law of Marriage Examined,” thinks it very expedient and desirable that &c., by S. E. Dwight. Glasgow : Gallie, the prohibition should be removed, and that 99, Buchanan Street. The writer is an Amesuch marriages should be sanctioned by law. rican lawyer, son, I believe, of the celebrated It is not of course lost sight of, that in morals Dr. Dwight. The British edition is edited and religion there is a higher priciple of con- and strongly recommended by Dr. Wardlaw, duct than mere expediency. With every no mean judge of literary merit and biblical conscientious person the first question will be criticism. As I have never seen this work “ what is righi ? do the scriptures in any way referred to, I fear it is but little known in determine this subject ?" The Reviewer, and this country.
Within a small space the intelligent and These and other positions appear to be learned writer gives a very interesting “Essay firmly established by the clear and powerful on Polygamy,” in which he clearly shows that reasoning of Mr. Dwight; if, therefore, perthe supposition that polygamy was allowed sons under the influence of such convictions, in the patriarchal and Levitical economies is petition Parliament on the subject at all, it a popular error. Then, by a careful exami- will be, not to alter the present prohibitory nation of the Levitical code, and of numerous law, believing, as they must, that it is in harother portions of scripture, he gives clear and mony with the law of God. satisfactory information on all subjects con
I am, Sir, nected with this interesting controversy. In
Yours respectfully, a very careful examination of Levit. xviii. 18, March, July 13th.
J. JONES. a verse of the greatest importance in this question, he shows by evidence amounting to demonstration, that the reading inserted in
The Reviewer's Reply. the margin of our bible is the correct im- The work to which your correspondent report of the inspired writer. Not,“ Neither fers—"Dwight's Hebrew Wife”-although shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her, not a part of the most recent controversy on -beside the other in her life time,” but, the subject to which it relates,* is a perfor“ Neither shalt thou take one wife to another," mance of undoubted ability and merit. It is &c. As it stands in the text, it is a kind of not every able work, however, that is conclupermission of polygamy, but not with the sive; and we must be permitted to say that sister of the first wife, because that would vex a careful perusal of the Hebrew Wife has not her, but with any other woman, as if that been satisfactory to us. would not vex her, and you may take the According to Mr. Jones, the author has sister of the first wife after her death. In this “ clearly shewn that the supposition that absurd and incorrect sense the passage seems to polygamy was allowed in the patriarchal or be taken by many, making it a direct sanction Levitical dispensation is a popular error.'' for polygamy and for marrying the sister of a That it is not without authority of learned deceased wife. But, by an examination of men, however, may appear from the following every other place in the Hebrew bible, in words of Michaelis, in his Commentaries on which the phrase used occurs, Mr. Dwight the Laws of Moses :shows that it is an idiomatic expression, mean- “How much soever some may have denied ing the uniting of one to another. Thus he it, nothing is more certain than that by the rescues this passage, pressed as has been civil laws of Moses, a man was allowed to into the service of polygamy and incest. By have more wives than one. No doubt all the a chain of reasoning compact and strong, but proofs of this fact which it is usual to adduce which is incapable of much abridgment, the are not valid ; and to the maintainers of the learned and pious writer appears to have es- opposite opinion it may be an easy matter to tablished, among others, the following propo- controvert such as are weak and inaccurate." sitions :
The last observation explains a part of Mr. 1. That polygamy was forbidden as immo- Dwight's apparent success. Some of his arral in its tendency, under both the patriarchal guments fail, however, for a different reason. and the Levitical dispensations ; and that We give one case as an example. After an under both it involved the crime of adultery. historical review of polygamy among the
2. That Levit. xviii. 18, is merely a prohi- Israelites, he sums up in these terms :bition of polygamy under the Levitical dis- “ These, if I mistake not, are all the inpensation.
stances of polygamy on record among the 3. That incest was a crime before the Israelites. They amount, if we include Levitical law was given.
Joash, to only thirteen single instances, be4. That the law of incest forbids all mar- side that of the children of Uzzi, in a period riages both of lineals and of collaterals of the of more than twelve hundred years." —Hefirst and second degrees by affinity and by con- brew Wife, p. 23. sanguinity, therefore of a husband's brother, And then follows an argument founded on or a wife's sister, or a niece, or aunt.
the assumed fact that among the Israelites 5. That either the whole of the law of in- there actually were only thirteen cast of cest is in force, or that no part of it is in force ; | polygamy in twelve hundred years. and, of course, that if it is lawful to contract Now, in the first place, if only thirteen any one of the prohibited marriages, it is cases had been recorded, it would not have equally lawful to marry an uncle, a nephew, followed that only thirteen had occurred. a sister, a daughter, or a mother.
But, in the second place, many more than 6. That the law of incest was not a part of thirteen are recorded-many thousands more. the ceremonial law, nor one of the local statutes of the Levitical code ; and that the fact of its being one of the general statutes of that code,
* It was originally published in America, and was furnishes no evidence that it is not still in re-published in Glasgow, in 1837.
may be found in the Eclectic Review for February, full force and obligatory on all mankind.
A notice of it
For this case of “ the children of Uzzi,” | at least, of the arguments employed. We whom, although the author mentions, he content ourselves, however, with referring to thrusts out of his argument, is that of a tribe the high authority of that distinguished orienof six and thirty thousand men: see the mentalist, Sir William Jones,* in favour of the tion of them in 1 Chron. vii. 3, 4.
latter opinion, and with extracting from the And, in the third place, he entirely over- evidence presented before the Commissioners looks the fact, which is strongly put by the following statement of the Rev. T. Maelis as showing “how very common Binney :po gamy must have been at the very time * The verbally expressed marriage laws of when dioses lived, and gave his li, s," that the the Hebrews are contained, or are supposed number of the first-born, as stated in Numb. to be contained, in the 18th and 20th chapters in. 43, gives only one first-born among 42 of Leviticus. On these it is to be remarked, children. “So that,"adds this eminent scholar, first, that a question may be raised whether “ had the Israelites lived in monogamy, it these laws are laws regulating marriage, or would follow that every marriage had given whether they are only prohibitions of the birth to 42 children, whereas if every Israelite grosser forms of irregular sexual intercourse. had four or more wives, it was very possible it is not enough perhaps to say, that they that of every father that number might have were unnecessary in the latter sense, since they sprung."
were forbidden in the general and compreThe structure of Mr. Dwight's general ar- hensive law of the Seventh Commandment. gument on polygamy exhibits a palpable | The particulars noticed, their being exceedfallacy, by which the whole is vitiated.
ingly gross and abominable forms of dis“We find as the result of our inquiries,” obedience, might warrant their distinct specisays he, “that the original law of marriage fication. To which may be added, that they forbade polygamy to mankind ; that no re- were the crying offences of the Canaanites, peal of that law is found in the scriptures ; against which the Israelites were to be warned, and that polygamy was not lawful, either that in the 20th chapter, 19th verse, the among the patriarchs, or under the Levitical Seventh Commandment itself is repeated, hacode."--Hebrew Wife, p. 39.
ving added to it the punishment of death, as “ Not lawful” – that is, not expressly denounced against its violation. In this list sanctioned by statute. Certainly not: why also (that is, in the 20th chapter), it is to be should it be? But it was, in the words of observed, that several of the prohibitions of Michaelis," allowed," not forbidden, but con- the first list are repeated, with the addition of nived at, as a fact of actual prevalence and a denounced punishment, mostly that of long-established habit, which could not well be death, which looks much more like the proabruptly interfered with, but was rather to be hibition itself being the prohibition of a gross indirectly discouraged and gradually eradi- crime, than the regulation for a possible concated.
templated marriage. It might be further Mr. Dwight's argument on the question of added, that if the first list be taken as prohipolygamy failing, the principal argument fails bitory of marriages, and not of criminal acts by which he endeavours to establish his inter- without marriage, it prohibits such a marriage, pretation of Leviticus xviii. 18. That this is as that which was contracted by Abraham, neither new, nor unconsidered by learned and and would have been sanctioned by David ; judicious men, may appear from the following and one which is expressly enjoined or reguing extract from Scott's Commentary on the lated by another law, a marriage bearing on place :
the question before us."-Report, p. 88. “Some think that this verse contains an As to the obligation of the Mosaic law of express prohibition of polygamy, supposing incest, should it be held to relate to the questhe sister merely to signify a wife which the tion of marriage, we should quite agree with person spoken of had already married. But Mr. Dwight in separating it altogether from though the Mosaic law contains no explicit the Levitical code. It is clearly necessary, allowance of polygamy, yet there is no other as he lays it down at p. 124, that all laws passage which favours the interpretation of intended to regulate an institution common to this text as a direct law against it, and many mankind should have been given at a time, things in the whole subsequent history imply and in a manner, rendering it at least possible a conivance at it. The context also seems that mankind should become acquainted with to require a more literal interpretation, name- them. From hence it follows that the Lely, the marrying of two sisters together." vitical precepts respecting marriage have,
In treating of the law of incest as given in as such, no general obligation at all; and the 18th and 20th chapters of Leviticus, Mr. that they can present no claim to our regard, Dwight argues strongly that these passages unless as being either a collection of anrelate to marriage, and not, as has been as- ciently promulgated statutes not otherwise serted by others, to criminal acts without recorded, or an expression of the instinctive marriage. To us, nevertheless, this still seems feelings of mankind in their most just and debateable ground, and it would be easy, did our space permit, to show the fallacy of come, * Cited in the Eclectic Review, for February, 1841.
VOL. XII.-FOURTI SERIES.