Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

Spirit by whom he believed they were animated. Gradually, however, as the mind became more and more darkened in its ideas about the real nature and attributes of Deity-while it remained sensible as ever to the beauty and utility of the earth, the sun, and other orbs, man was led to give them that worship which he felt he owed to some being. Traces of this primitive system of religion may still be found amid the records and monuments of all ancient nations. In Persia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria, there are evidences that these were the gods originally worshipped by their inhabitants. The same may be said of many countries on the continent of Europe, and of our own lands. In India and China a remnant of this system is still preserved; and in Egypt every traveller can see one of its noblest relics as he wanders among the gigantic ruins of the temples of Luxor, whose colossal statues and massive columns, after a lapse of near four thousand years, still stand, memorials of Egypt's glory and Egypt's shame. But designing princes and prudent legislators arose, who determined to use for their own purposes the superstitions that were gaining ground. The belief was general that the disembodied spirit would exist in another state, and as the hope of future reward forms one of the strongest inducements to present rectitude of life and obedience to law, these men propagated, gradually and cautiously, the opinion that those who in life proved benefactors of their country and of mankind, were after death raised to high honours,alted, in fact, to the rank of gods, and consequently entitled to worship. And that the prejudices of the people might not be interfered with, the names of such heroes as they wished to have venerated they gave to those other gods the people had been accustomed to serve. The sun was by almost all nations acknowledged as supreme, his transcendant glory gained for him that station: but when the great deeds of Osiris had been done in Egypt, and posterity wished to deify him, his name was given to the sun, and all the rites which had been hitherto used in sun worship, were henceforth used in the worship of Osiris. What was done in Egypt regarding Osiris, was also done in Phoenicia, Chaldea, and Mesopotamia, with the honoured Prince Bel, or Baal, and in Greece with the famous Jupiter. (See Diodorus Siculus; Herod.; Plut. Isis et Osiris.) This cast a mist over

-ex

the origin of hero-worship, which the philosophers of succeeding ages were unable clearly to see through. Hence the numerous contradictions and the universal confusion that pervades the writings regarding the religious systems. At one time they stated that their gods were of celestial origin. At another, that they had all once been mortals, but raised after death to such exalted rank. At one time they pay them the highest honours, at another, regard them as holding a middle place between the great spirits and mortals, and carrying on all intercourse between them. The giant intellect of Socrates, Plato, and the sages of a later period, could not but view with disdain such a system of superstition. They saw in their wide survey of nature's worksin the harmony and undoubted unity of design that pervades the whole world,in the wondrous mechanism of the human mind-in the noble powers of the intellect

in the exquisite arrangement of the moral feelings,-they saw in these the evidences of one great overruling Spirit of infinite wisdom. But their views of Deity were still imperfect. Chained in some measure by the very superstitions they affected to despise,-retaining the false ideas that this One Spirit was too great to attend to the comparatively trifling affairs of this world, they were thus led still to give their hero gods a place, regarding them as the Great Spirit's deputies, to whom He had given over the management of the several portions of the earth, and the various pursuits or crafts to the prosecution of which human energy is directed.

The introduction of hero-worship gave a new phase to the religion of the world. So long as one God was acknowledged by men, all nations agreed in worshipping Him alone; but when dead princes and rulers were exalted to Divine honours, and when this system spread from country to country, not only those who were worshipped in one nation attained universal homage, but each individual nation set up its own heroes. This explains the universal custom that prevailed: when one nation was conquered by another, the conquerors always adopted the gods of their new

* Allusion is here made to their popular systems of religion, which are widely different from the more metaphysical, and sometimes beautiful and noble views given of the nature and perfections of Deity in the writings of the philosophers that were intended not for the populace, but for the initiated.

territory, regarding them as the local powers who directed the affairs of that land. There was yet another form which this introduction of hero-worship gave to superstition. The deified dead were acknowledged as the directors in each nation, of the peculiar craft or pursuits, for advancing which they had been celebrated while living. Vulcan first invented or greatly improved the manufacture of brass and iron; and Neptune advanced the knowledge of navigation; Ceres instructed men in agriculture: and these were honoured as the patron divinities of their several arts. In process of time gods were multiplied, each art came to have its own patron, each town and village its local protector, and hence men became desirous of paying honours to all the gods of whom they had ever heard, viewing them as the directors of the affairs of this world, each one in his own particular sphere. From such a system there could not but be universal harmony among the nations of the world on religious subjects. No one kingdom was exclusive. Each deity had his own field. Egypt honoured the gods of Persia, and Persia honoured the gods of Egypt. Rome, as mistress of the world, extending her sway from Britain to China, from Siberia to Ethiopia, became in this way a very Pandemonium. The gods of all her tributary states were served there, each one found an appropriate niche in her comprehensive Pantheon.

Such was the origin and progressive rise of hero or "Daimon" worship. The Jews had been taught a better and a nobler system. Jehovah had not only written His law upon their hearts, so that they were, as Paul said of the Gentiles, a law unto themselves: but to the Patriarchs in olden days He had manifested His glory, and made known the way in which he desired to be worshipped. And afterward, through Moses, the Lord gave them a clear description of His nature, and a full transcript of his law. Still the Jews were a superstitious people. The dogmas of the Heathen made a deep impression on their minds. Their long residence in Egypt, then the most polished as well as the most learned nation in the world, contributed much to give them those opinions regarding daimons, or herogods, the effects of which we can trace in their character and conduct down even to the Christian era. The religion they were taught, too, was widely different from that which they saw practised in other lands.

[ocr errors]

Their religion was exclusive. Not only was Jehovah represented as their peculiar God, but as the God of the whole worldthe God who ruled supreme. Not only was their mode of worship set forth as true, but as the only true mode, to the exclusion of all others. All these were singular and peculiar features, and running counter as they did to the universal toleration of other nations, they exposed the Jews to scorn and often to persecution. And these were the causes that so often led the Jews, in direct opposition to the commands of God, but in accordance with the foreign superstition they had imbibed, to adopt and worship the gods of other countries.

Having given this general statement, we now proceed to apply it to the elucidation of Scripture texts.

Exodus xxxii. 1-6, and 1 Kings xii. 25-30. It will be observed that in neither of the instances spoken of in these passages was it the intention of the Israelites that any other gods should be set up in the room of Jehovah. It was the God who had brought them up out of Egypt they intended to worship. In the former case it was stated by Aaron, and in the latter by Jeroboam, "These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." The sin in both cases lay not in the refusal to worship God, but in their worshipping Him in a way contrary to His command. What we have said in the foregoing remarks explains the reason of this tendency on the part of the Israelites to disobey God. The Egyptians had their local gods dwelling, as they believed, in certain images and forms which they had set up among them. The Israelites, just come forth from Egypt, deeply imbued with their superstitions, no doubt believed that their God dwelt in and manifested His power through Moses. Moses had now been absent thirty-nine days; fear took hold of them lest their God should desert them altogether; and after the custom of their tyrant masters they made a calf and set it up as the local habitation of that God who had already wrought so many signs among them. Jeroboam took advantage of the lingering and cherished superstitions of the Jews, and in order to bind the ten tribes to their own land, he set up the calves in Bethel and Dan to form shrines for Jehovah.

2 Kings xvii. 24-28. It does not appear that those Assyrians who were sent to inhabit the deserted cities of Israel,

had received any express intimation that their ignorance of the true God was the cause of the judgments that were sent upon them. Their own belief in national gods was sufficient to make them fear this. All countries, they believed, had their local deities, under whose care they were placed, and their ignorance of the God of Israel is at once assigned as the reason why they were afflicted. These same superstitious feelings regarding local gods explain the wish the Jews manifested at almost every period of the history previous to the Captivity, to worship the gods the former inhabitants of Canaan had served. It was against this they were so often warned by the prophets. (Deut. vii. 28.) It was for indulging in this they were so often punished with famine, the pestilence, and the sword; and for this the ten tribes were at last driven from their home and their country, and led captive into the land of the stranger. (2 Kings xvii. 11.)

make a

[ocr errors]

When the Jew presented his titheoffering, he had at the presentation to solemn declaration to this effect, among other things, that nought of it had been given to the dead. (Deut. xxvi. 14.) When the Psalmist sums up the various sins of which the Israelites had been guilty, this is found among the others,-"They ate the sacrifices of the dead." (Ps. cvi. 28; compare with Num. xxv. 1-2.) Isaiah also, when warning the people against the sins of the Gentiles, warns them against this, that they should not seek from the dead protection for the living. (Isa. viii. 19.) All these passages, which appear somewhat obscure to the general reader, the foregoing remarks at once explain. It is against the daimons, the gods of the Heathen, the prophets warn the Israelites. These daimons were dead men. The prophets, discarding the false theories of the nations, altogether denying that the souls of the departed dwelt in the shrines set up for them, or that they exercised any supremacy over the world or over the pursuits of men, simply set them forth in their true aspect, declaring by implication, as Josephus does by express words, that the daimons of the Heathen are dead men. But as the gods of the Heathen were thus called dead, in contradistinction to these, Jehovah was called the "Living God." ́ (Deut. vi. 26; Josh. iii. 10.) He has the same title in the New Testament. (Acts xiv. 15; 1 Thess. i. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 16.)

There is another class of passages in which the meaning has been rendered obscure, by the unfortunate translation that has been given to the original word. In the passages we are about to refer to, the word in the original of the New Testament and in the Septuagint translation of the Old is the same, daimon, which in all the passages quoted below has been rendered "Devil." (1 Cor. x. 20.) The Corinthians had no doubt been accustomed, either for the sake of escaping persecution, or of gaining the favour of their idolatrous brethren, to enter with them into the temples of their gods, and partake of feasts given in honour of them. It is the apostle's desire in this passage to show them the inconsistency of such conduct. Then they partook of the Sacramental Supper Christ had instituted; they thereby, he told them, showed to the world that they were Christ's disciples: and for the same reason, when they partook of feasts in honour of daimons, they thereby showed that they adopted them as their gods. Then follow the words, “But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils," &c. Now the idea apparently expressed in this translation is not just. The Gentiles never worshipped, yea, they never knew, the beings called by Jews devils. They worshipped daimons, their dead heroes, who had in most cases been moral and virtuous, and benefactors of their country. We give the same interpretation to Lev. xvii. 7; Deut. xxxii. 15; and Ps. cxxxvi. 37. This view of an important subject also throws some light on that remarkable discourse of Paul to the Athenians, Acts xvii. 22, 23. The apostle tells them, "I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious." This was no term of reproach as our translation would seem to signify; the original is, "too much given to daimon worship,' a system in which the Athenians gloried. So much indeed had they been addicted to it, that when the city was visited by a plague, and when they had prayed to all the gods in their calendar to remove it, but in vain, thinking there must be one daimon who presided over this form of disease,-they erected an altar to the "Unknown God."

[ocr errors]

There is one other passage which we think may be explained from the foregoing remarks, Col. ii. 18. It was the Creed of Plato, and likewise of the Eastern philosophers who were followers of Zoroaster, that the gods were divided into two classes. One class, the superior, ruling

in heaven; the other, superintending the affairs of the world. The former they worshipped as supreme, the latter only as mediators between the supreme gods and mankind. The Jews in the days of the apostles, especially the sect of the Gnostics, received this doctrine, and joined it to the Mosaic and also to the Christian dispensation. It is referred to in 1 Cor. viii. 5. The systems of the Eastern and Western nations were substantially the same, and indeed they had really the same origin. But the names by which they distinguished other gods were different, and it is this difference in name that explains the passage under consideration. The Greeks called their gods by the names "gods," (Theoi), and "daimons; the Jews and Eastern nations called them "Lords," (Baalim) and "angels," or 66 eons." That the apostle had this system in view when he wrote this chapter cannot be doubted, from the manifest Gnostic phraseology we see in many parts of it; and hence we conclude that he warns them against the same superstitions to which we have alluded in this article, against what the Greeks called daimon worship; what the Gnostics called eon worship; and what the Jews, who had joined Gentile superstitions to Scripture rites, called “angel worship.”

[ocr errors]

[We purpose in two succeeding articles to offer some explanation on the subject of demoniac possessions in the time of Christ, and then to trace the image and saint worship of the Roman Church to the Heathen superstitions referred to in the above article.]

[blocks in formation]

by which these evils of ministerial character are produced or perpetuated? The mischiefs of Independency to the people are still greater. On the one hand there is either an implicit worshipping of the idol that presides over them, or there is a cruel tyranny exercised over the pastor. Moreover, when difficulties or disputes arise in any Church, there is no court of review, no possibility of appeal, no protection from wrong, no safeguards against the hasty decisions of passion, or the mean intrigues of party. All the members of each church, whether male or female, old or young, are, according to the Independent system, vested with ecclesiastical authority. All are governors, and all are governed. All are judges, whether in matters of doctrine, duty, or discipline. "Obey them that have the rule over you" is a precept that has no place in Congregational Churches, for where all are rulers, whom are they to obey? Authority of other Churches, or of any ecclesiastical courts, is denied. Office-bearers with authority to rule are also abjured.* Disputes, when they arise and cannot be settled, must end either in “a split," or smoulder in secret strife. Wherever the Congregational system is fully carried out it cannot be expected that sensitive and high-minded men will undertake the ministry, nor any who have right views of the pastoral work and office. There are many honourable and excellent men among the Independent ministers, but these keep their own place, and accustom

* In the Tract series, No. xii., published with the approbation and authority of the Congregational Union of England and Wales, the following is laid down as the distinctive principle of Independency:-" Congregational Church polity is distinguished from the aforementioned systems by the principle that all Church power resides in the Church itself, and not in the Church officers." Granting this axiom, it is a miserable foundation for the arguments built upon it. The same principle is true as to civil power, "all civil power esides in the people." But does this imply that all power, legislative and executive, resides in the body of the populace? Reason and common sense require the principle of This is the only representative government. wise and practicable way among large bodies of men. The Presbyterian system adopts it, in its Church officers and Church courts. The Independents reject it, and hence the anarchy, and strife, and many mischiefs,

necessarily accompanying nob-rule (whether in Church or State) when unregulated by representative government, and uncontrolled by central authority.

It is often said by Independents that the Presbyterian Church government is not more efficient to prevent the introduction or spread of error than Congregational Church government. The lapse of English Presbyterianism into Socinianism during the eighteenth century is the great proof adduced.

What are the facts as to the English Presbyterian Church?

In the year 1690 a plan of union was adopted, called, "Heads of agreement assented to by the United Ministers, formerly called Presbyterian and Congregational, in England." It was agreed "that none of the particular churches shall be subordinate to another, each being endued with equality of power from Jesus Christ. And that none of said particular churches, their officer or officers, shall exercise any power, or any superiority, over any other church or their officers. That in order to concord, in weighty and difficult cases, it is needful, and according to the mind of Christ, that the ministers of several churches be consulted and advised with about such matters."

the people to keep theirs. No rightminded and true-hearted minister could long brook the censorious, busybodying, patronising spirit to which the position of the pastor of an Independent church usually must subject him. Hence the low standard in our days for learning, spirit, and even outward station among Dissenting ministers. Few men of a superior class will expose themselves to degradations, which are as injurious to the cause of the Gospel, as hurtful to individual character. It is all very well for men like Dr. Wardlaw, of Glasgow, or Mr. James, of Birmingham, or Dr. Campbell, now editor of the "Christian Witness,' or any of the other stars of Dissent, who have always ruled as they willed in their own spheres, to set forth the praises of Independency. But we advise the oppressed pastors of Congregational churches throughout the country, and all who mourn over the disunion and confusion and low state of religion among the Congregational denominations in England, to study the question of Presbytery. It is the only system which gives to the people protection from undue priestly domination, and at the same time to the pastor protection from undue popular control. Our form of Church government is, in the words of Merle d'Aubigné, the historian of the Reformation, the good middle way between Episcopacy on the one side, and Congregationalism on the other. We combine It is evident that the Presbyterian the two great principles that must be Church in England, although it retained maintained in the Church-order and the name to secure the church endowliberty, the order of government, and ments, abandoned Presbyterian governthe liberty of the people.' To use the ment, and became, in fact, Congregational, language of another distinguished minis- years before the doctrinal errors were ter, the Rev. James Hamilton, of admitted. Each church was independent; London, "while we rejoice unfeignedly and in the place of Presbyteries, comin the successful labours of Christian posed of ministers and ruling elders, ministers in other communions, we will with power to adjudicate, they substituted not disguise our belief, that nothing can meetings of ministers, with power to so effectually meet the present crisis in advise. English Christianity as a revival of the Presbyterian polity, and the Presbyterian pastorate, that polity and pastorate which in ten years did more to render England a religious people than all the discursive efforts of different denominations since.' The revival of Presbyterianism after the rigid model of the seventeenth century is not expected or desired in England, but let there be an attempt as far as practicable to revert to a system, the superiority of which over Independency is demonstrable by Scripture, by history, by experience, and by common sense.

[ocr errors]

The plan of "Agreement" was entered into mainly through the influence of Baxter and Doctor Increase Mather, a Congregational minister of Boston, at that time on a visit to England; and it was made a part of the Saybrook Platform, adopted in the year 1708 by the Congregational churches in Connecticut.

In the foregoing remarks let it be noted, that we refer only to those Churches where the system of Congregationalism is fully carried out; where the people are the sole patrons, paymasters, and proprietors of their minister for the time being; where the pastoral relation is so loose a bond, that a pastor is liable, at any time, to be unceremoniously dismissed, it may be on account of his very faithfulness towards those whom he teaches, and who, at the same time, have the rule over him; and where the affairs of the Church are managed by as many

« ElőzőTovább »