COMMENCEMENT OF HOLY TIME. To the Editor of the Christian Spectator. I HAVE read with pleasure the ingenious remarks of your correspondent Investigator, in your number for May; and if I cannot adopt his conclusion it is not because I am at variance with his premises. He has shown satisfactorily to my mind that the Jewish Sabbath commenced at sunset; but does it follow that the Christian Sabbath should so begin? To establish the affirmative of this question, it is indispensable to show that such is the precise injunction of the moral law. But no one will pretend that the fourth commandment, in consecrating a seventh part of time, prescribes the exact hour when it shall commence. The command, "from even to even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath," was a subsequent regulation, local in its nature, evidently a part of the ceremonial law, and consequently must have ceased to operate at the introduction of the Christian dispensation. Accordingly, as your correspondent proves for another purpose, the apostle John, who wrote his gospel after the destruction of the Jewish polity, "adopted the Roman division of time;" and no doubt the entire Christian church at that period followed his example. For, as the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ is intended for the whole world, so its doctrines and precepts and ordinances are adapted to the diversified condition of the human race. Now how can an inhabitant of the frigid zone observe a Sabbath from sunset to sunset' during that considerable portion of the year wherein no such vicissitude exists? What part of the many weeks about the season of the winter solstice, when the sun rises not at all, or of the equally long period at the summer solstice, when he sets not at all, would your correspondent denominate evening? Should a Moravian missionary direct his Greenland con verts to observe the Sabbath "from sunset to sunset," would he be understood, much less obeyed? and even the Christian inhabitants of Iceland, or of the Russian province of Archangel, would they not also feel confounded by a similar injunction? and yet they experience no difficulty in appropriating one diurnal revolution of the earth in seven, to Holy rest. In short, the Jewish regulation indefinite as it apparently was, might of beginning the Sabbath at sunset, be observed without inconvenience within the limited territory of Palestine; but surely for the world at large it would become a most irregular standard, varying with the climates of the globe, and its observance, as we have seen, in many cases absolutely impracticable; and hence I conevidence to the contrary, that the clude, in the absence of all positive Son of Man who is Lord of the Sab bath has made it no part of that sacred institution. By beginning the day at a fixed hour, as at twelve o'clock minate rule, easy to be observed in all at night, we have a custom, a deterwithin the spirit, and sufficiently places and at all seasons, plainly within the letter, of the fourth com mandment. C. REMARKS ON MATT. XI. 11: REPLY To the Editor of the Christian Spectator. I TAKE the liberty of making some remarks on an exposition of Matt. xi. 11. which appeared in your August number of 1827, with the signature of Philodemus. The confused impression which I received on the first hasty perusal of that article did not produce in my mind a single objection. The want of perspicuity in the exposition was counterbalanced by the apparent plausibility with which it was supported and the bril liancy of the writer's language. But having lately turned to it, and having ascertained what I believe to be the meaning of the author, I beg the favor of laying the subject again before your readers. The question is, what Christ meant when he said, (6 He that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist." From the difficulties which have perplexed interpreters, Philodemus has extricated himself by one leap, and has taken the ground that by John the Baptist in this place is not meant the person so denominated,--the compound man, made up of several properties, but merely that John's "official character," was taken into view and is compared with a different quality, viz. Christian piety in other men. Now I would ask, whether such a comparison can be exemplified by any instance contained in the sacred volume or in any other volume? Philodemus admits that John was amongst the most distinguished of believers, and therefore that his piety was not inferior to that of those with whom he is compared. They have no advantage over him in any respect, because he possesses all that they do, and more. But according to Philodemus this very characteristic in which he rises above them, is that which justifies the propriety of saying that he is inferior, because that characteristic in him is not so important as another which they possess in common with him. I have two copies of the same work, one is bound in calf and the other in sheep; what sense then should I utter by saying that the copy bound in sheep is more valuable than that bound in calf? My friend is astonished at my paradoxical assertion. I then explain it to him by observing that I did not mean to compare book with book, but merely the superior binding of the one with the valuable matter of the other. By what authority does Philodemus "pretermit or exclude John's personal character," whilst he considers the personal character of those with whom he is compared. Such a distinction is, in my view not only without authority, but the context renders it inadmissible. It is the obvious design of the speaker not to diminish the splendor of John's character in any respect, but to render it more conspicuous in the view of his hearers. I see no reason to believe that John was at this time "envied, or overrated or idolized." He was shut up in prison, and his mortal life was at the mercy of a cruel tyrant. His dignity as the harbinger of the Messiah, was scarcely known or acknowledged. The great masters of learning and religion did not believe his message nor receive him; nor is there reason to believe that the crowds who followed him and who held him for a true prophet, had adequate views of his dignity of character. His poor and despised friends were disconsolate, and many doubted of his worth and excellency. This is evidently implied in the message which John sent to our Lord to inquire," art thou he that should come or do we look for another;" whether we attribute the message to a doubt arising in his own mind, or in those of his disciples. Yet his character was of great consequence to the cause of Christ. On its force and influence depended much the testimony which was necessary to establish the real character of Christ himself. The greatness which he ascribes to John is expressly founded on the high and intimate relation which he bore to the Son of God, and the superior greatness of the least in the kingdom of heaven must of course be founded on a similar distinction. Before hazarding an opinion on this passage, I would premise a few things. 1. A Christian is not necessarily greater in any sense than a believer under the Old Testament dispensation. For with regard to private persons' greatness,it must either consist in the fuller manifestations of divine grace with which they have been honored or in a superior excellence of character derived from some other source. That Christians in general excel the ordinary class of ancient believers is perhaps doubted by none, their light and means being more abundant. Yet as few will doubt, there are Christians so low in every respect and indeed a great number of them who deserve a place far inferior to that of the ancient prophets. Who in these days would justly claim a superiority to Abraham or Moses, to Elijah or David, or Daniel or Isaiah, in knowledge of divine things or in holiness of character? It may indeed be said, that the most ordinary Christians, from the fuller light of divine revelation which shines through the gospel, may be better acquainted with some doctrines and can explain their relations more justly. If this were even true universally, (and I think it is not) yet an opportunity of light and information does not constitute greatness before God, when it is unimproved. And how many Christians" are exalted to heaven," with regard to privilege who on account of their low attainments may almost be considered "as cast down to hell?" 2. The greatness which is here made the ground of superiority consists in an official relation to Christ. John was more than a prophet, because, as Christ says it was written of him, I will send my messenger before thy face who shall prepare thy way before thee? He was greater than the prophets not because of any personal relation to Christ which they had not-for they too were holy men and saved by grace; nor because he was more holy than they, although this might have been true with regard to most of them-but it is expressly said that his superior greatness was founded on his appointment as harbinger of the divine Redeemer. 3. The avowed object of the speaker with regard to John was to magnify him, and in connection with him to manifest the real dignity and superior excellence of the kingdom of Christ. The glory of this kingdom was gradually developed; through the instrumentality of John it began to shed its rays upon the world. He immediately preceded the glorious Redeemer. But those who were with Jesus Christ during his ministry who attended on his person, who were particularly instructed by him in the things pertaining to the kingdom, who were endued with miraculous powers and commissioned to proclaim terms of peace to a rebellious world, and who were to sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, surely they were greater than John the Baptist and they were at this time emphatically the members of the kingdom of heaven. The interpretation to which I have been led is now obvious. And I think when properly considered it will commend itself to any understanding. The only doubt which seems to remain is whether we are at liberty to confine "the least in the kingdom of heaven" to the apostles. On this I would remark that the words of our Lord do not determine that he meant the "least person" or the least prophet, but that seems to be determined by the context. As in the former comparison, where John was compared with the prophets, public office was only regarded, this ought, it would seem, to be regarded in the latter. Indeed it would be incongruous to compare so great a man as John with any other man than one invested with a public office. John was the harbinger of a great prince, he is therefore a great man, but the ministers who are about the person of the prince when he comes into his kingdom and sits on his throne are in all cases to be ranked above the harbinger. Nor can I at all agree with Philodemus in considering John's official character as a mere empty distinction or to be classed with the hollow splendor of worldly dignity. His greatness was real and was evidently esteemed so by our Lord himself, and on this very account he is devoted above all that went before him. Nor am I willing to place John's relation to Christ on a parallel with that which his mother and brethren according to the flesh bore to him. The latter is as much below the former as carnal things are below spiritual. I do not commonly consult commentaries on a difficult passage until I have collected all the light I can from other sources, but I am happy to find after writing the above that my interpretation coincides with that given by the eminently pious and judicious Thomas Scott. Without the most cogent reasons, I could not by advancing an opinion contrary to his, weaken that salutary influence which his valuable commentary is exerting over thousands. usually appropriated to a spot employed for idolatrous worship; and when a mere elevation of land is intended the word ' is commonly : used. Perhaps places called high places orn, being places of resort, were occupied by distinguished and wealthy people, and were the abode of splendor and pleasure, and were the scenes of large assemblies, and these circumstances distinguished them more than their height. The "lords of the high places of Arnon" were men who occupied the principal places at Arnon, Num. xxi. 28. God made Israel" ride on the high places of the earth," that is, he gave him possession of the principal places, places of wealth and splendor and resort, Deut. xxxii. 13. See also Deut. xxxiii. 29, and Isaiah lviii. 14. "God setteth me on my high places," 2 Sam. xxii. 12, Ps. xviii. 33: God gives me the safe enjoyment of rich and populous places. בכה THE MEANING OF THE WORD THIS word occurs a number of times in the Bible, and a correct apprehension of its meaning will be of some use in understanding the Scriptures. Gibbs' Hebrew Lexicon from Gesenius does not in my view fully exhibit its signification. It is there said to mean height, high place. It did probably originally signify an elevation simply; but as men chose elevated situations for religious worship, and here erected temples and other buildings, and had public as semblies; the word came at last to signify a place thus occupied, whatever its local situation might be; and another word therefore was used when a common high hill was intended. Let the reader look into his Hebrew Bible, and he will find the word answering to hill to be usually If he looks to the גבעה or הר "God treadeth upon the high places of the earth," Amos iv. 13, Micah i. 3: God does all his pleasure where men are in the greatest number, and in the most wealth and power. In the beautiful lamentation over Saul and Jonathan, David says, "O Jonathan thou wast slain in thine high places." On this passage Dr. Scott says, "Jonathan is named as having fallen upon the high places where he had often successfully displayed his valor." No mention is made of ni being scenes of war: MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS. To the Editor of the Christian Spectator. I EXTRACT for your pages occasional descriptions from the communications of an American friend residing in England, who has spent several years in that country and enjoyed many advantages for acquainting himself with its peculiar features and characteristics. The following notes were written during an excursion into Devonshire in company with two or three English friends during the early part of the year 1826. RUINS OF BERRY-POMEROY CASTLE. About two miles before we reached Totness, an old town situated on the river Dart, we turned aside from our route to see the ruins of Berry-Pomeroy Castle. We approach these perishing remains of art with different degrees of interest according to the associations with which they are connected in our minds. I knew nothing of the history of this castle, and therefore experienced no other emotions than those produced generally by the sight of ruins-a word often of tender and sometimes of terrific import. My feelings however were of a nature not easily to be forgotten. The path leading to the castle is through thick and deep woods, which entirely hide it from the view; and even after the visiter has approached the gate-way he is unconscious of the magnitude of the dilapidated structure before him, so thickly is it embowered by the branches and foliage of stately forest trees. It was not until I had passed the double gate-way and stood in the area, that I became sensible of its size and grandeur. Here a thrilling sensation spread through my frame, similar to that which I have sometimes felt on hearing a sudden burst of eloquence from some eminent speaker. These ruins are in several respects unlike any I have elsewhere witnessed. They stand on a rocky eminence with a rivulet on one side, and a range of hills rising to a considerable height on the other. A dense natural growth of forest trees has sprung up both without and within the walls, as well as on the fortress: these mingling, their tops with the lofty ivy-capped battlements and towers present a noble and deeply interesting spectacle. Most of the ruins which have come under my inspection have been situated in the immediate neighborhood of houses, or surrounded by cultivated fields, but these stand, so to speak, in the midst of a wilderness, and seem to have come into existence, not from the hand of man, but by the command of the great Architect. Byron says there is a pleasure in the pathless woods. But how would that pleasure be increased were you, whilst travelling in a place where from few marks of culture you would scarcely expect to meet with any tenement of a human being, to come suddenly and unexpectedly upon the mouldering remains of a once proud and magnificent castle, the residence of some feudal lord of the middle ages; yet such was the case with me. When entering the woods I expected to pass quite through it before I should find the ruins. This castle was built in 1070 by a descendant of Ralph-de-la-Pomeroy who came over to England with William the Conqueror, and received many lordships in this county as the reward of his services. In the reign of Edward VI. it was purchased by Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, in whose family it still continues. Twenty thousand pounds were expended in additions and repairs by the Seymours, but their designs seem never to have been completed and the whole was suffered to go to |