been shown that its figurative import in the Scriptures is strength, support, defense, &c., and is thus used in its application to God as the Jehovah of the Jews, and Christ as the promised Redeemer and Saviour of men. The quality represented by this figure is what Mr. Sharp calls the "divine dignity," and St. Peter, more properly, "his [Christ's] divine power." This is what rendered the Messiah, the Son of the living God, an object of trust to those who believed on him. Without it he could never have been received by any who understood the import of the prophecies respecting him, as the promised "rock," the true "foundation."

The object of our Lord's conversation with Peter, and the rest, on this occasion, was to obtain a declaration from them of that faith in him as the promised Messiah, which he knew them to possess, and that he might assure them of its acceptableness to God; therefore he said, "Whom say ye that I am?" Peter answered, stating what the others professed, and he himself sincerely felt, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This was the same as to say, We believe and know that thou art the promised Redeemer, the object of our faith and trust, the source of spiritual life, and the Saviour of all who believe in thee. As Peter could speak positively concerning his own experience only, the Saviour addressed his reply to him, "Blessed art thou," &c., "for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven." These words were intended to assure him that this was satisfactory evidence of his being a true disciple, having been "born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God," or, in other words, having accepted by faith that vital truth which he had just professed, as made known in the word of God; and thus been made "a partaker of the divine nature," by which he was constituted "a lively stone" in the spiritual or Christian temple which the blessed Redeemer had come into the world to establish and rear. Still farther to assure him that his experience was genuine and acceptable in the sight of his heart-searching Master, the Saviour called in the familiar allusion to the metaphorical rock, by first reminding Peter that he had given him a name which signified a rock or stone; and then referring to the soul-renovating truth which he had just confessed, in which he recognized Christ as the source of all spiritual good, he said, "On this rock will I build my church," &c.; clearly signifying that he accounted Peter, and those of "like

precious faith," suitable materials to be built up upon this true foundation, purely on the ground of their relation to the spiritual Rock, being made partakers of his nature. This seems to be the most natural interpretation of our Lord's words on this occasion. The view we have here taken of the subject is very much strengthened by a reference to St. Peter's epistles. Take 1 Pet. ii, 3, 4, 5, "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious; to whom coming as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious; ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." He then quotes Isaiah, to show that Christ was promised as the chief corner stone, or true foundation, of the church, the gospel Zion. Here, adopting the term stone, by way of accommodation, in the place of "rock," as used by the Saviour, he expresses the very thing he seems to have understood, by our Lord's conversation with him, as recorded in Matthew. Christ is the living stone-having life in himself; and as such he is the only foundation of the spiritual temple. Men, quickened and regenerated by his Spirit, are the lively stones, who are constituted and continued such by coming to him, or exercising faith continually in him; and these are built up a spiritual house on this true foundation. Such are clearly the views the apostle expresses in this and several other passages in his epistles; and they accord most perfectly with the whole tenor of the Scriptures; but they are absolutely irreconcilable with the oft-repeated language of our author, that Peter was constituted by our Lord the foundation of the Christian church.

On the whole, the views we have been accustomed to entertain of the exalted piety of the apostles of Jesus Christ, and of their entire deadness to the world, and devotion to the things of God, will not be much strengthened by the work before us. On the contrary, it represents these holy men, throughout their lives, and under the most solemn circumstances, as swayed by those passions, and subject to those impulses of feeling, which characterize the men of this world in their earth-born pursuits. Peter was, indeed, in the estimation of our author, an illustrious chief, renowned for that cool discretion and perfect self-command, by which he was enabled to keep the ambitious spirits of his jealous inferiors in check, and maintaining that dignity and propriety of conduct which

evinced the wisdom of his Master in selecting him to be the foundation of his church, and committing to him the keys of the kingdom. But these are not imitable virtues. As an example for Christians to follow-a model of personal excellence in a life of piety-little is said of him which is worth perusing. In the plain record, as we find it in the New Testament, a much more favorable and truly religious portrait is drawn of him. This is altogether the more safe record to consult, if we would obtain correct knowledge of the character of this apostle.

As to the others, our author does them marked injustice, to the dishonor of the apostolic character, and the disparagement of the Christian name. James he represents as a jealous bigot, fomenting the spirit of faction, and indulging in groundless suspicions and unmanly dissimulation respecting his superior. After Peter had spoken in the council at Jerusalem, and Paul and Barnabas had "recounted the extent and success of their labors," "James," says the writer, "the leader of the Mosaic faction, arose and expressed his own perfect acquiescence in the decision of Simon Peter, and proposed an arrangement for a dispensation in favor of the Gentile converts, perfectly satisfactory to all." And then, after noticing that Peter went from Jerusalem to Antioch, he adds: "But in a short time a company of persons came down from Jerusalem, sent particularly by James, no doubt with a reference to some special observations on the behavior of the chief apostle, to see how it accorded with the Jerusalem standard of demeanor toward those whom, by the Mosaic law, he must consider improper persons for the familiar intercouse of a Jew." Thus much respecting James. But Peter himself, in the same connection, is brought under a somewhat similar condemnation; though, from the peculiar partiality of the author for him above all the rest, he is exonerated from all blame. He proceeds: "Peter, probably, knowing that they [the persons above named] were disposed to notice his conduct critically on these matters of ceremonial punctilio, prudently determined to quiet these censors by avoiding all occasion for any collision with their prejudices. Before their arrival he had mingled freely with the Grecian and Syrian members of the Christian community, eating with them, and conforming to their customs as far as was convenient for unrestrained social intercourse. But he now withdrew himself from their society, and kept himself much more retired than when free VOL. I.-3

from critical observation." Here St. Paul is brought in also for a share in these critical observations and censorious animadversions. "The sharp-eyed Paul," continues our author, "on noticing the sudden change in Peter's habits, immediately attacked him with his characteristic boldness, charging him with unworthy dissimulation in thus accommodating his behavior to the whims of those. sticklers for judicial strictness of manners. The common supposition has been that Peter was here wholly in the wrong, and Paul wholly in the right; a conclusion by no means justified by what is known of the facts, and of the characters of the persons concerned. Peter was a much older man than Paul, and much more disposed, by his cooler blood, to prudent and careful measures. *There is no Scriptural authority to favor the opinion that Peter ever acknowledged he was wrong; for all that Paul says is, 'I rebuked him; but he does not say what effect it had on one who was an older and a wiser man than his reprover, and quite as likely to be guided by the Spirit of truth; nor is it wise or just for presuming moderns to condemn Peter in this matter without a hearing. The decision which seems safest to the rational defender of Peter is, that he had good reasons for his own conduct, which he doubtless was not slow to give his youthful reprover; and his answer might, if recorded, have thrown much light on this controversy." But we will not dwell. The above is sufficient to show the feelings and motives by which the author represents the apostles to have been actuated in their intercourse with each other. In the same tone of ascribing to the influence of the human passions that conduct which we have been accustomed to ascribe to a far more holy origin, he awards to Stephen the fate of a victim to his own indiscretion, rather than the crown of a martyr in the cause of Christ. Speaking of his murder, he says, it "was no doubt preconcerted among the chief men, who caused the formal preamble of a trial, with the design of provoking the mob, in some way, to this act; in which scheme they were too much favored by the fiery spirit of the martyr himself, who had not patience enough with their bigotry to conceal his abhorrence of it." Respecting the impressions such representations of the spirit and conduct of the apostles and primitive saints are calculated to produce, we leave the reader to judge. We are not disposed to bestow a single comment upon them. Sure

3*

we are that they can never tend to advance the cause of deep and manly piety.

But we said that the work, with all its faults, is not without merit. The author has brought into his critical notes a great amount of historical information and philological disquisition, which cannot be found in any other single production. These impart a value to it. But its harmlessness will depend much upon its being read with discrimination of its contents, and caution about what to admit as truth, and what to set down to the score of fiction.

L.

ART. III.—Christianity the Means of Civilization—shown in the evidence given before a Committee of the House of Commons, on Aborigines, by D. COATES, Esq., Rev. JOHN BEECHAM, and Rev. WILLIAM ELLIS, Secretaries of the Church Missionary Society, the Wesleyan Missionary Society, and London Missionary Society, &c. London: T. MASON, 1837: octavo―pp. 360.

THE appearance of this volume, the paramount importance of its theme, the nature of the evidence it contains, the authentic facts with which it abounds, and the benevolent motives of the publication, all combine to add lustre to the British crown, and stamp the present era with new claims to be regarded as the golden age of improvement. Here we have the proof, that the government of the mightiest nation on the face of the earth have been diligently investigating the character, condition, and prospects of the native aborigines in distant and foreign lands, not for purposes of commerce or conquest, but with the benevolent and avowed design of protecting, improving, and elevating them, by introducing the arts of civilized life, and the yet higher blessings of our holy religion. In the volume before us the novel and interesting developments of this investigation are presented, so far as derived from the examination of those witnesses who are directly associated with foreign missionary efforts among the tribes of heathenism. It will be found to imbody a series of facts derived from the proceedings of modern Protestant missions, calculated to evince their beneficent influence in promoting the temporal well being of man, as well as in imparting to him the inestimably greater blessing of eternal life, through faith in the merits of a crucified Redeemer.