Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

advantageous, in giving the opportunity of assembling in sacred worship." For in the first times of Christianity it gave no such opportunity, above what might have been enjoyed on any other day; nay, much less to the Jewish converts than the seventh day would have done. Yet it might be questioned, whether the Christian day of sacred rest were not more conscientiously observed, before the observance of it was made a part of the law or custom of many nations, than it ever has been since. Yet still this law and custom gives many and great advantages both to ministers and Christians in general, in hallowing the Lord's day: and I own, I cannot see the reason why Christian rulers should not be considered as performing an important duty, in restraining all those practices on the Lord's day which interfere with men's thus hallowing it; as much as Nehemiah did his duty in enforcing the observance of the Jewish Sabbath (Neh. xiii. 15—21); provided they do not interfere with the rights of conscience, in things more immediately pertaining to the worship of God, or the manner of performing that worship,-or en. force by penalty any thing beyond the external observance, and even that only negatively.

But the way in which the Apostle John speaks, in the book of the Revelations, on this subject, seems to me fully decisive. He evidently calls "the first day of the week" THE LORD'S DAY, (Kupiany

spa,

as St. Paul calls the Eucharist Kupianov dεIπvoν, THE LORD'S SUPPER.) Now, if "the first day of the week" be "the Lord s day," in the same sense that the Eucharist is "the Lord's supper;" the one the memorial of his resurrection, the other of his crucifixion; surely the observance of it is no matter of mere expediency, but of the highest possible obligation. The day is his; The day is his; and that sufficiently shews in what manner it ought to be employed, as far as opportunity and ability will

permit. Surely the Lord's day should be wholly devoted to the Lord; and none of its hours employed in a secular, a sensual, or a dissipated manner. Compare the above expression with the words of the Fourth Commandment: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." In like manner, "The first day is the day of the Lord thy Redeemer. The Lord hath blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed it." Has not the Lord Jesus blessed the first day, and hallowed it? Is not the same stamp of Divine authority given to the Christian day of sacred rest, under the New Testament, as was given to Israel's day of sacred rest, under the Old Testament? In this connection let us again consider the words of the evangelical prophet already quoted, and see if they be not even more peculiarly appropriate to the Lord's day, than they could possibly be to the Sabbath of Israel.

Can any reason be assigned, why the memorial of the creation, or of Israel's deliverance out of Egypt, should be honoured, and hallowed, and a delight, which does not apply with far more energy, to the observance of the Lord's day, the memorial of redemption, and the Redeemer's triumphant resurrection?

If I mistake not, the Lord's day, as the season of sacred rest in the times of the Messiah, was itself foretold in prophecy. "The stone, which the builders refused, is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. This is the day that the Lord hath made: we will rejoice and be glad in it.” Ps. cxviii. 22-25. What day, it may be asked, did the Spirit of God who spake by the Psalmist, intend? Must not we answer, The day on which the crucified Redeemer began his triumphs and victories, even "the Lord's day." And if so, shall we not hallow that day, thus given, thus set apart, "this

[blocks in formation]

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. THE most satisfactory explanation I have seen of the first passage alluded to by Es, Gen. ii. 4 -6, is that given by Willet in his Commentary on Genesis. He thinks that the negative used in the former part of the verse, is to be supplied in the latter; a construction the more probable as it is perfectly consistent with the idiom of the language. There is an analagous form of expression in Exod. xx. 4, where the negative particle, which is used in the beginning, is understood throughout. Though questioning the accuracy of the authorised version be liable to diminish the confidence in it, of those particularly who are unac quainted with the original language; yet, when the rules of construction, and the opinions of learned men, justify us in adopt ing that interpretation which the consistency of the sentence requires, we should seize with alacrity the opportunity of wresting an argument from the sceptic, and enlist ing it in the cause of Revelation: but I fear that it requires a far more than human power to convince one "who, having trusted to his own wisdom, has become a fool," and has submitted to believe the monstrous absurdity of a spontaneous creation.

In reference to the second pas sage, Ephes. ii. 2, the word amp, which occasions the principal difficulty, is certainly twice used by

* Christian Observer for April, p. 212.

Homer, to signify darkness; but it is rather extraordinary that in both instances the feminine article is prefixed: there is, however, a passage in the Seventeenth Idyllium of Theocritus, where it is evidently used to signify the infernal regions Τὰ δὲ μύρια τῆνα

Αἔρι πᾷ κεκρύπται, ὅθεν πάλιν ουκέτι νόρος. But there is still a difficulty attending το πνεύμαλος: our translation seems to refer it to τον αρχονία which is impossible, neither will it make sense if put in apposition with της εξεσίας 18 αέρος. The scholium on this verse appears to be the most probable interpretation "70% μαλος; ἥλοι τῶν πονηρῶν πνευματῶν: ἕξεσιαν λαχανα 18 ἐν τῶ ἀέρι πνευthis would have been more satisfactory if the expression in the original had been Tv Euμalv 12 depos: it is, however, easy to conceive TVεualos to include all those beings who partake of the Véuμa Tovcov, and that it should be placed after dipos to be near that part of the sentence to which it more immediately belongs. Under this supposition, the passage may be rendered thus-" According to him who hath dominion over the infernal spirits, his agents with the children of disobedience."

S.

[blocks in formation]

appréhend, that unless there appear a palpable and gross deviation from the true import of the original, when compared with parallel texts; and this after a very careful and conscientious inquiry; little benefit, or rather much injury, will arise to mankind, by proposing alterations in the generally received and approved translation. In the present day especially, pretenders to religious information are SO much more common than disciples in Christian principles and practice, that in order to repress the vanity which too often arises from knowledge when unaccompanied with piety, I would earnestly recommend a candid and liberal con struction of the received transla tion, rather than the adoption of new readings and latitudinarian conjectures.

A moment's consideration will be sufficient to shew, that it is necessary to guard very carefully against any infringement upon the character of the Scriptures, as now publicly authorised and distributed. If a doubt is suffered to exist respecting the general truth and faithfulness of the translation, it will tend to loosen that just and proper confidence which now forms the basis of the hopes and joys of many unlearned but pious minds, and may, perhaps, eventu ally lead to the admission of flagrant deviations from the true import of the most plain and obvious passages.

I might, perhaps, be justified in referring to page 346 in your last volume; and, while pointing to the weight of learning and piety engaged in the received translation of the Bible, might fairly deduce this conclusion, that the host of great and good men there on record, though fallible like ourselves, and by no means possessing our advantages, cannot be supposed to have fallen into many errors of such magnitude as to render it necessary that the correction of them should be attempted, even at

the risk of endangering the safety of that invaluable treasure which we have the happiness to possess.

Having thus adverted generally to this subject, I would, with all possible respect for the learning and research of your correspondent H.S., take occasion to observe, that while the translation of the passage in Genesis, which he proposes to adopt, appears, at first sight, to convey a meaning very different from what has been generally received, the real sentiment of the original text is, in fact, neither lost sight of nor misapprehended in our present mode of reading. "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen." (Gen. xxii. 14.) As if it were said, "According to the current observation, made on this remarkable transaction to this day, or, agreeably with the generally received opinion, founded thereon, and in use at the time of Moses, that where faith in the promises of God is exercised, a corresponding provision, as heretofore in the mount of the Lord, will be seen or experienced as it respects the recipient; or will be provided, as it respects the Ageut or Giver." This will appear to be a sentiment, naturally intended to be recorded, by the grateful, and obedient Patriarch, when he affixed a name to the place where he had received so signal a mark of the approbation of his Lord, and had obtained by his constancy the name of "the father of the faithful."

[ocr errors][merged small]

hodie, in monte Jehovæ providebitur." Amstelodami 1669.

"Et Abraham apella le nom de ce lieu là, l'Eternel y pourvoira; c'est pourquoi on dit aujourd'hui, il y sera pourvu sur la montagne de l'Eternel." A Amsterdam 1747. Perhaps, however, the most simple rendering of the passage would be as follows:-And Abraham called the name of that place JEHOVAH-JIREH, (the Lord will provide); as it is said this day in the mount JEHOVAH-JIREH, (the Lord will provide.)

'S. M.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. THE term Charity is so frequently misapplied; it is so often appealed to as an indefinite principle of action, while its genuine influence is but little understood and exemplified; it is so vaguely, unreasonably, and unscripturally extended by some, and so narrowed and constricted by others, that I trust I shall be forgiven for attempting to review the limits which should define its influence on the heart of the Christian.

Real charity will ever be found active, exactly in proportion as the great truths of Christianity exert their prevailing tendencies on the character of the individual. Our Lord instructs his disciples in the duty of cultivating this loveliest of Christian graces; not as an occasional act, or as the natural impulse of excited feeling, but as the constant disposition of a truly renovated heart.

Since, however, the truths of the Gospel are destined to pass through media so differing as the minds of men, we cannot expect a perfect coincidence of opinion. In different individuals, the habits of thought and action are so dissimilar, that we must not be surprised when we observe those who think at all often forming conclusions the most opposite from nearly the same premises. The object of the present remarks is to ascertain how far the

principle of Christian charity may and ought to be extended in such cases, so as to preserve a perfect standard of rectitude on the one hand, and yet not destroy the unity of Christian society on the other.

The exercise of charity does not require, and certainly must not involve, a dereliction of principle. This would be to destroy at once uprightness of character, and to blend the prominent and distinctive features of truth in one indiscrimi nate mass of confuted and heterogeneous opinions. In principles so important as those which regulate our affections and direct our conduct, it is necessary that our views be precise and well defined, and that our judgment be duly informed on those points which cou cern our own and our neighbour's welfare. We must be enabled to appeal with confidence to the standard of truth, the holy Scriptures, for the rectitude of our mo tives, and the consistency of our practice. At the same time, we must be careful not to confound prejudice with principle. We are too frequently disposed, from partial consideration and hasty reflection, to form erroneous conclusions: and from the constant habit of acting upon these determinations they are so interwoven with all our ideas, they are so perpetually awakened by a thousand different associations, and they become at length so congenial with our feelings, that we readily mistake what is, in effect, the offspring of prejudice, for the logical deductions of the most correct principle. Besides this, we are so much the creatures of circumstance and association, that we are perpetually liable to confound our impressions and feelings with the results of deliberate judginent. Weimbibe many prejudices during the progress of education; some of which, doubtless, may prove essentially useful, and become most properly permanent and stable principles of conduct; but since our education is conducted by those who are

themselves far short of perfection, and are exposed like others to the influence of prejudice, it is manifest that some useless bias, some hurtful obliquity, will almost necessarily be impressed upon the character. Against this effect we should sedulously guard, and carefully avoid mistaking its silent influence for the dictates of reason and reflection.

But though charity does not involve a dereliction of principle, yet it surely requires that even our principles, those secret motives of our conduct which ought to be uniformly acted upon, should not be rendered ostentatiously prominent, so as to disgust where they can do no good. I do not say we are to keep our sentiments out of sight: far from it; we must be ever ready to inculcate and defend them; but charity demands that we should avoid that narrow spirit which cannot endure the slightest difference of opinion. We should even, I conceive, cheerfully make those little sacrifices of feeling which will induce us sometimes to be silent, and to bear with the prejudice, the ignorance, and the intolerance of others, rather than suffer charity to be wounded in an angry and hopeless contest against inveterate obstinacy and bigotted preposses sion.

In these remarks I allude only to points of confessedly minor importance. There are some grand principles of Divine Revelation which charity cannot allow to be compromised: there are some cardinal truths, the very soul and substance of religion, which we cannot for a moment yield without depreciating them; which we cannot overlook, without tacitly questioning their importance; and which we dare not abandon, unless we are prepared to admit the perfect indifference of that momentous inquiry, "What is truth?" But the mischief is, that even those who agree in their interpretation of the principal doctrines of Christianity-because

they chance to differ on some minuter points, the reception or rejection of which has been identified with the well-being of a party-too often make the latter their standard of real piety, and contend for them with more vehemence than for those truths which are allowed on all hands to be necessary to salvation. Thus it often happens, that men who quarrel with a test, under other circumstances, erect a test of admission to their own little society, -a test not of belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, as the only propitiation and satisfaction for the sins of his people, but of implicit adherence to the peculiarities of a sect. I have often admired the candour of our church, whose doctrinal views, though clear and scrip tural, are yet so charitably framed as to include and reconcile many of these zealous disputants: indeed on this very subject of church discipline, Christian charity, I imagine, demands a kind of tolerating spirit. It happens not unfrequently, that those who coincide in their views of Divine Revelation, will still differ about the peculiar form of ecclesiastical government and regulations. Certainly, candour res quires, in this case, the subserviency of individual prejudices to the paramount claims of our common faith. Our opinions on such subjects, even though correct, must not be erected into principles upon which it would be criminal to be silent. Something, surely, must be left to every man's conscience; especially as the church of Christ has undeniably existed under different external forms; and it is probable (I speak at least my own sentiments), that the point was left indeterminate, in order that ecclesiastical discipline might be variously modified, according to the existing circumstances of the civil governments with which Christianity should become connected. Other persons may and do think differently; and I can readily "agree to differ" with those of my

« AnteriorContinuar »