« 上一页继续 »
to be observed.” P. 83, note. It is added, that in 1791, custom had completely given up the catechism of Calvin, and sanctioned that of 1788, and that as this law was the last which had been passed relative to this subject, it might alone suffice as an answer to all M. Gaussen's reasonings.
We shall not follow the committee into the third head of their Report, entitled “ Argumens tirés des Resultats," for we regard the actual merits of the manual itself to be very much beside the question. We shall notice only the conclusion, which is to the effect, that it is absolutely necessary to maintain the authority of their body, which could only be done by adopting such resolutions as the following: 1st, That the authorized catechism must be used by the children in the parish of Satigny, both in the schools and in the catechetical exercises in the church. 2d, That M. Gaussen is, at the same time, invited to submit to the Venerable Company any proposals or observations which he may have to make, either on the existing catechism or on the means of improving the religious education of youth. 3d, That M. Gaussen must withdraw his letters. P. 97.
These resolutions were adopted by a large majority ; but before we notice any further proceedings, we must mention that M. Gaussen, wishing to correct an inaccurate statement of the affair, which had appeared in one of the newspapers, writes a letter to his parishioners, giving his own version of it-upon which ninety members of his flock address a letter to the Company, expressing their ardent attachment to their pastor, and their deep concern at the chance of being deprived of him.
On the 6th of November, the secretary to the special committee communicated to M. Gaussen the determination to which the Company had come respecting him; and, on the 12th, he sent in his answer, in which, after saying that he had at length discovered, what he professes that he had not before understood, namely, that the Company did not intend to restrict him in his instructions to the use of the catechism, but that they only required it to be repeated by the children, both at school and at church, he states his willingness again to introduce the obnoxious book as a manual of instruction. He even gives thanks to God for putting so amicable a termination to the dispute ; but he at the same time positively refuses to withdraw his letters. With this the offended dignity of the Company was not satisfied ; and they made another communication 10 him, to the effect that they regarded the three articles of their decree as forming a whole, and that they could not accept a partial submission. To this M. Gaussen replied, naturally enough, that the withdrawing of his letters would be regarded by the world as a retractation of his principles, and that he must persist in his refusal. Unwilling to proceed to extremities, the Company gave him the opportunity of reconsidering his answer; they added to their committee a particular friend of his ; and it was not till after they had waited with patience, and tried in vain the influence of private friendship as well as of public authority, that they considered his determinalion as final, and proceeded to act upon it. But how were they to act ? To remove this rebellious brother from his situation would have been harsh; to suspend him would have been inconvenient; they, therefore, very wisely determined to censure him, and to forbid him his usual place in their deliberative council for the space of one year. P. 151.
Such is the history of this unfortunate dispute. While we see here an illustration of the evil of establishments, even in their best and most inoffensive form; while we rejoice in our Christian liberty, and congratulate ourselves that in prosecuting our schemes for the advancement of what we deem to be true religion, “none are permitted to rise up and make us afraid,” we certainly do think that the pastors of Geneva could not, consistently with what they owed to themselves, have acted very differently from what they did. Had they required M. Gaussen to apologize for the disrespectful language he had used, instead of withdrawing his letters, they would have been more likely to succeed in their immediate object, and would perhaps have avoided a refusal which they might have foreseen. But we are not surprised that they required what they did ; and we are clearly of opinion, not only that they were justified in all the steps which they took, but that their taking those or similar steps was the only way in which they could assert their own rights, and maintain their abused authority. If the discipline of their church was to be kept up, punishment was to be inflicted on one who obstinately refused to submit ; and had they been less decided in the notice they took of the offence which had been committed, they might have seen their privileges disputed, and their authority set at naught, in a manner still more flagrant. We must also say, that throughout this whole proceeding, the Venerable Company displayed a degree of candour and of temper, of charity and forbearance, which are deserving of all praise, and which their refractory member would have done well to imitate. But M. Gaussen does not seem to approve of conciliatory measures. Though he was left very much at liberty to pursue his own methods of instruction, provided only that the catechism was repeated, and though he appears, from his letter of November 12th, to be satisfied with this permission, yet it is a matter of notoriety that he has since hired a room for a Sunday evening service at Geneva, and that he is taking measures which clearly indicate that he contemplates the formation, not of a dissenting church, but of a new one in the bosom of that which is already established in his own city and canton. What 'may be bis success, remains still to be seen. In the mean time, we trust that late events will only have served to stimulate the clergy of Geneva to proceed more vigorously in the correction of those abuses by which their religious institutions are disfigured. If they have laws which fetter free inquiry and discussion, let these be rescinded without mercy, and without delay. If their catechism be confessedly faulty, let it be speedily revised, If the Scriptures be read, and the hymns sung in their churches, in a style which would disgrace a schoolboy or a ballad-singer, let these abuses, too, be corrected forthwith. Let them manifest, in all their proceedings, a spirit of promptness and activity, of fearlessness and superiority to prejudice, and then we shall see less reason than we do now to regret that some of the noblest geniuses that ever adorned the sacred profession, should be confined within the pale of an established church, instead of exulting in the free range, and inhaling the invigorating atmosphere, of religious liberty.
ON THE CHRONOLOGY AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE GOSPEL NAR
(Continued from p. 457.) We now resume our chronological arrangement of our Lord's Ministry, with the third of those parts into which (p. 454) we divide our Monotessaron.*
Part III. Transactions connected with the Feast of Tabernacles : about which time,
probably, the Baptist was imprisoned. This part of our Lord's Ministry is recorded exclusively by the Apostle John ; and his account of it forms a remarkable portion of his Gospel. With the exception of ch. vij. 1, it occupies the whole of the viith and following chapters, to the 21st verse of the xth,--the preceding part of which chapter should not have been separated from the ixth. The vivid and indeed graphic narration which the Evangelist has given of the leading occurrences at the Tabernacles, indicates the pen of an eye-witness, and gives us a strong impression of the importance of them in the history of our Lord's conduct towards the Jews. Considering that all the Jews of Palestine were under a general obligation to attend this Festival—as well as the Passover and the Pentecost—it is an inadmissible supposition that the transactions recorded by St. John could have occurred after the call of Matthew, without that Evangelist giving some account of them, or at least referring to them as having actually taken place : and as none of the first three Evangelists have made any allusion to them, and the train of their narrations does not supply any suitable position for the occurrence of them
* We must beg the reader to make the following corrections in our last article. Tu the middle of p. 450, read (ch. viii. 18-ix. 26); and in line 12 from the bot. tom, know for knew. In p. 451, read ch, i. 16–. 22, and ch. iv, 35—v. 43. And at the end of the note in p. 453, read, “ as it must have been, if on the same day," (that is, if delivered on the same day,) “ with the miracle at Peter's house." The accidental omission of the if destroys the sense.
after the commencement of our Lord's public preaching in Galilee, there is full and adequate reason to conclude that they occurred before that period -in other words, about the time of the Baptist's being imprisoned by Herod. For more detail as to the reasons of this opinion, and the consideration of the objections against it, (arising particularly from the position of the miracle of the Five Thousand in St. John's Gospel,) we must refer the reader to our former articles, especially to pp. 171–173, 305-307. And for the causes of his long-continued retirement in Galilee, and comparative privacy, we request him to consult p. 457.
When the Feast of Tabernacles was approaching, the brethren (or cousins) of Christ, oi adea.pos aute, who had not yet become convinced of bis claims, urged him to go into Judea, and shew himself to the world. This, however, our Lord might have thought likely, in the circumstances of the case, to lead to tumult, and perhaps afford a reasonable pretext for the charge of sedition against the Roman government ; and he expressed his purpose of not going up to the Feast. * When, however, the crowds had disappeared, and he saw that the roads were become solitary, and that there ceased to be any fear of interrupting the progress of his doctrine, by exciting the worldly expectations of a misguided populace, or of involving them in ruin and in guilt, he determined again to try if he could save the Jews from impending ruin. About the middle of the Feast he entered the temple and taught publicly. The Rulers sent officers to seize him; but they were confounded by the authority with which he taught, and returned with their commission unperformed. He still continued his public discourses; but his declarations excited the rage of the Jews; and they endeavoured to take away his life. He escaped, however, from them; and, as he went away from the Temple, he gave sight to a man who had been born blind t-a miracle which was investigated with the utmost strictness, by our Lord's bitter enemies. After this he delivered his discourse respecting the Good Shepherd, which concludes St. John's account of the transactions at the Feast of Tabernacles.
Having thus been openly rejected by the Jews, at three successive national festivals, and knowing that the ministry of his forerunner was finally closed, our Lord returned to Galilee to proclaim the near approach of the Messiah's kingdom, and to commence that series of wonderful miracles, and public teaching, which we denominate his Public Preaching in Galilee.*
* The common translation of John vii. 8, is “ I go not up yet (ouTW) to this feast;' but the most ancient reading was oux, not " I go not up." The addition of yet is made by Archbishop Newcome; and not yet is the force of the Syriac translation. The present reading arose probably through the alteration of some early transcriber, who thought that our Lord must from the first have intended to go up at a later part of the Feast.
of in John ix. 2, the expression “ his disciples" occurs. This may denote some of those who had already been recognized as such (see ch. i.). John and Andrew, Peter, Philip, and Nathanael : it by no means requires us to suppose that the Twelve had been chosen.
Part IV. Christ's Public Preaching in Galilee, as far as the Mission of the Twelve,
shortly before the Feast of Dedication. This Part occupies from the 12th verse of the ivth chapter of Matthew, to the end of the sth. - Immediately on returning to Galilee our Lord called Peter, Andrew, James, and John, to be regular attendants on his ministry; and on the ensuing Sabbathi cured a demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum, healed the mother of Peter's wife, (see p. 453,) and wrought many other miracles. The next day, after retiring to a solitary spot to hold communion with God, he commenced his first progress through Galilee, that is, Galilee Inferior-a very populous district, but not larger than Monmouthshire. During this progress the miracles of our Lord were peculiarly numerous and striking ; and the immediate effect was to draw round him a large concourse of those who were eagerly expecting the approach of the Messiah. The absence of Herod, the return of the people from the Tabernacles, the completion of the husbandman's labours, and the settled mildness of the weather, must all have contributed to promote the publicity of our Lord's progress; but his inestimable discourse at the close of it must have disappointed those who followed him from merely worldly motives; and embarrassed the better disposed, whose notions of the Messiah's kingdom were founded on a literal interpretation of the splendid predictions of their ancient prophets. After delivering the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus healed a leper : and, on entering into Capernaum, cured the centurion's servant.
If the true reading in Luke vii. 11, is er ty eens (sc. quepo), then our Lord went the next day to Nain, in the south-western part of Galilee, about twenty miles from Capernaum. If Luke wrote sy tw eens, in order, in the course of events, still, as there is no improbability in the present situation of the fact, our subsidiary principle (p. 453) would lead us to arrange it here. St. Mark informs us (ch. i. 45) that, after the cure of the leper, our Lord was for some time absent from Capernaum, in the more retired parts of the country. A few days after, in the evening, he crossed the southern part of the Lake. It was at this time that he stilled the storm, and, on landing in the region of Gadara, healed the demoniacs, and caused their phrensy to take possession of the herd of swine. On his return to Caper
. By the expression “ these three years," in Luke xiii. 7, our Lord is usually supposed to denote the “ three years" of his mivistry. If it were the fact that his ministry lasted three years, this reference would be natural : but it may with great propriety refer to the three great festivals, at each of which our Lord proposed his claims to the Jews at Jerusalem.