Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

They sought not the Lord while he might be found-they called not upon him while he was near. Yea, though he called, they refused. Now they may call, but he will not answer If any one who is living in the neglect of secret prayer shall read this, will he not be persuaded to commence the practice the very day he reads it-ay, that same hour, if it be possible? If it be not convenient, let him make it convenient. Let other things give way for this, rather than this for anything. Can he think his heart right in the sight of God, or his condition safe in prospect of eternity, while he neglects praver? How dare he live without prayer? Without it can he have courage to die? At the mercy-seat of God we may decline to appear, but before his judgment seat WE MUST all stand. How a frequent access to the first would prepare us for final arraignment at the other! How it would familiarise us with the presence of God! How it would serve to break the shock of the entrance into eternity! Does any one, who is not in the habitual and daily practice of secret devotion, pretend to be a Christian? It is but pretence. He may believe the creed of the Christian, but certainly he does not pursue the practice nor possess the spirit of the Christian. Breathing is essential to living, and prayer is the Christian's vital breath. Does he walk with God who never converses with him?

Some spiritualise the direction of Christ, making the closet to mean the heart, and the duty of private devotion to be discharged in mental prayer only, without the aid of outward retirement.

But the practice of Christ points to another closet besides that of the heart. And here, surely, we must "follow his steps." He selected the still morning, and sought out the solitary place for prayer. May we be less attentive to the circumstances of time and place? Jesus, even in his most retired intercourse with his Father, used his voice. That prayer, Let this cup pass from me," was vocal-and that petition, "God be merciful to me a sinner," was expressed in words. Shall we reserve the voice exclusively for our intercourse with men, and not with it also sup plicate and bless God?

[ocr errors]

Is any one inquiring after truth? What place more appropriate for asking "What is truth," thau the closet? Who so likely to be taught of God as they who ask of God? Some men carry that question to the Bible, and press it there, as indeed they should; but they carry it not to the throne of grace, and press it there also. They read to know what truth is, but do not pray to know it.

Oh, how an hour in the morning, spent with God, prepares us pleasantly and profitably to pass the other hours of the day with men; and at night, what so composing as communion with God! In resigning ourselves into the arms of sleep-that image of death, what security like that of prayer! It engages Him who never slumbers nor sleeps, to watch over us.

Has any one become remiss in secret devotiou? What! tired of God? weary of communion with him? How sad the state of such a soul!-Dr.Nevins, late of Baltimore.

DO YOU PRAY IN YOUR FAMILY?

THERE are families that call not on the name of the Lord. Nor is it a new thing. There were such so long ago as

when Jeremiah lived. He takes notice of them. He has a prayer about them. It seems he was divinely inspired to call

down the indignation of the Lord upon such families. "Pour out thy fury," he says, upon the families that call

66

not on thy name." I should not like to have been a member of one of those families; and much less the head of one of them. It must have been very offensive to the Lord that there were families in which he was not acknowledged and worshipped. And if there were such families among the heathen nations that offended him, how much more must it have displeased him that there should be such families even among his people Israel! families that did not in the family capacity invoke him! I do not know why it should be less offensive now. I do not believe it is. Families are now under as great obligations to God as ever they were.

Some persons ask why we insist on family prayer as a duty. They say we cannot produce any precept enjoining it.

That is true enough. But I wonder if that is not a duty, the omission of which is the subject of prophetic denunciation. I wonder if that is not by implication commanded, the neglect of which brings down the wrath of God on those guilty of the neglect. There are some things so manifestly reasonable, and of such self-evident obligation, that they need no law expressly enjoining them. It is not necessary that they should be taught in so many words.

But if we have no express precept on the subject, we have pretty good examples in favour of it. I suspect, Abraham, who was so careful to instruct his household in the way of the Lord, did not neglect to pray with them. And David, I am quite confident, prayed in his family. It is said of him, on one occasion, that "he returned to bless his household." doubt there were both prayer and praise in that family. Certainly Joshua must have prayed in his house. How otherwise could he have fulfilled his resolution that his house as well as himself should serve the Lord? What!

No

resolve that his house should serve the Lord, and not join with them in supplication for the grace to serve him! That is not at all likely.

Now I would ask if it is not proper and right that every head of a family should adopt the resolution of him who said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord?" But can there be religion in a house without prayer? Is there not inconsistency in saying, "I and my family will serve God, but we will have no family altar nor offering?" Is not prayer an essential part of the service of God? I wonder if any one ever lived who supposed that family prayer was not more pleasing to God than the omission of it. I wonder if the practice of family prayer ever distressed any conThe science. omission of it has troubled many.

It is admitted, I believe, to be the will of God that we should pray to him socially. The Lord's prayer was constructed for social use. The disciples were directed to use it when they should pray together: and it is accordingly in the plural number: not my Father, but " our Father." Now, is

God to be socially worshipped, and yet not worshipped in that first, most permanent, and most interesting form of society-the form of society instituted by God himself-the family? Is that to be believed! But the Lord's prayer seems not only intended for social, but "Give us this day our daily daily use. bread," is one of its petitions. It does not contemplate the morrow. It asks supplies but for one day. Now if, as it appears from this reasoning, social prayer should be daily, where but in the family, the society which is abiding, and which a single roof covers, can it with propriety be daily? Should there be public religious services daily, or daily prayer-meetings for this purpose? Then, how suitable it is that those who together share their daily bread, should together daily ask it!

How reasonable and comely is household religion-family worship! Common blessings, such as families daily share, call for common thanksgivings. Common wants, such as families together feel, call for common supplications. Is it not fit that families, in retiring to rest at night, should together commit themselves to the Divine keeping; and in the morning unite in praising the Lord for having been their protector? It is a clear case, it seems to me. Besides, fathers are directed to bring up their children "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." But can they do this while they pray not with them and for them? I do not know how we are to comply with the apostolical exhortation to pray "everywhere," unless we pray in the family, as well as under other circumstances.

Is any one in doubt whether the practice or omission of family prayer will be the more pleasing subject of retrospect from the dying bed, or the eternal world? Parents should not forget, that presently will come the long deferred and greatly dreaded season of taking the last look, and the last leave of those whom their decease is to make orphans. Oh, then, what a sweet thought it will be to enter into the dying meditation, that they have been in the daily habit of bowing down with their children in prayer, and commending them to the care and grace of their heavenly Father, and that they may now indulge the confident hope that he will infinitely more than supply the paternal place which they are to leave vacant.

But what need of more argument? I suspect everybody secretly admits

the obligation of family prayer. I judge so from the trouble many are at to apologise for the neglect. It tries them not a little to satisfy even themselves with an excuse. The usual plea is inability. They have not the gift, they say. What gift? Can they not collect their family together night and morning? Have they not so much authority in their own house as that? And then can they not read a portion of Scripture to them; and kneeling down, express their common desires to God? The beginning of almost every good habit is difficult. The most of those who make this apology, presume on their inability. They say they cannot, before they have tried. But until they have tried, they do not know whether they can or not. What if

some have tried once and failed? One failure should not dishearten them, nor two, nor even twenty. Besides, how do those who presume on their inability to conduct family worship, know what assistance they might receive from God, if they were to make an humble and faithful experiment?

If any one shall condescend to read this, who does not pray in his family, I advise him to commence immediately. He knows that he will never be sorry for it, if he does; but he is not so sure that he may not be sorry for it if he does not. If there were no other reason in favour of the practice, this alone would be sufficient. I think it is Jay, who says that a family without prayer is like a house without a roofit has no protection. Who would like to live in such a house?-Dr. Nevins, late of Baltimore.

Review of Religious Publications.

An INTRODUCTION to the NEW TESTAMENT; containing an Examination of the most important Question relating to the Authority, Interpretation, and Integrity of the Canonical Books, with Reference to the latest Inquiries. By SAMUEL DAVIDSON, D.D. of the Uni

Vol. II. The

versity of Halle, and LL.D. Acts of the Apostles to the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. 8vo. pp. 496.

Samuel Bagster and Sons.

WE have, at some inconvenience to ourselves, prepared an early notice of the second

volume of Dr. Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament, because we are of opinion that so valuable a treasure cannot be too soon in the hands of those who take interest in the higher departments of our Biblical literature; more especially at a time when theories are being propagated in this country subversive of the Divine authority of the inspired writings. In proportion as those who advocate these theories are anxious to forego historical inquiry, and to throw the intelligent and thinking portions of the community upon what they term the intuitive consciousness of the human mind, in the same proportion must enlightened Biblical scholars urge the historical evidences of the New Testament, as the only sure basis of the truths which have come to us in the form of an express revelation from the Author of our being. We must be thoroughly aware of the tendencies of the present age, if we are to meet them effectually, and to rebut the formidable evils with which they are fraught. At one time, we have all the appliances of a perverted scholarship enlisted against the historical validity of the sacred canon;-at another, we have the facts of the gospels themselves converted into a sort of grand myth, replete, indeed, with lofty morality and Divine inculcations, but no longer to be interpreted upon settled principles of critical exegesis, or to be regarded as veritable narratives of personal history and actual events; -at another, we are cautioned to beware of the whole field of historical inquiry, and are counselled by those who profess to be our teachers, par excellence, to yield ourselves up to the impressions of our inward conscious

ness.

The first class of these antagonists, we would meet in the field of open and honourable controversy, to prove to them, and to the world at large, that the cause may not be materially vulnerated by their weapons, or any others that can be brought to bear against it. It is absolutely astounding that, with all learning and all the obvious wrong bias which have been put forth to damage the canon both of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, it never stood on a firmer basis than it does at the present moment. We could almost forgive the efforts of Germany to inflict a deadly injury upon the historical evidence of the Christian books, for the satisfactory and glorious results which a sanctified and competent scholarship has brought forth to the light. Yet we dare not commend that learn ing which gives currency to its immature and rash conclusions, where the truth of God and the happiness of man are so vitally concerned. Better that some of these men had never been born than that they should have squandered their literary resources in a vain attempt to show that God has not spoken to

his erring and sinful creatures; or even in an endeavour to fritter away the evidence of books which will be an imperishable monument of the truth and goodness of the Divine Being.

With regard to the second class, viz., those who have laboured, with vast ingenuity, to prove that the gospel is mythic, and not strictly historical, we take our standing on two immoveable rocks, and make battle upon them as earnest and believing men are entitled to do. We call on them to disprove the facts of the Old and New Testament Scriptures; to convince us, upon reasonable premises, that the persons and events there referred to never had any actual existence; -but, if they fail to do this, and fail they must, we demand for the inspired books the sane treatment as any other books, not inspired, would be entitled to, viz., that they should be subjected to the same laws of general criticism which they would realise at the hands of all fair, honest, and competent Where the books profess to be history, let them be regarded as history;-where they contain poetry, allegory, or parable, let them be dealt with as such;-and where they announce great doctrinal principles of the Divine government, let their obvious import be admitted and embraced; but let not a mistaken learning claim to apply principles to the interpretation of the Bible, and especially to the facts connected with the life, and teaching, and acts of Jesus Christ, which would be discarded by all honest and upright men, in dealing with any other book which has come down from a remote antiquity.

men.

We may be too self-confident, perhaps; but after having taken pains to understand what Strauss and his party would have us believe, we are satisfied that, before these reasonable canons of criticism, his whole system, if a mere vagary of the imagination can be diguified with the name of system, would crumble to pieces, and be scattered as before the wind.

The third class, who would supplant history, and even inspiration itself,—at least as it has ever been defined by theologians of sound reputation,-by resolving the entire phenomena of religion into a sort of spiritual pietism, depending upon the intuitive consciousness of the human mind, we regard as more specious, but not less injurious, than the other theories already named. This fallacy lies in the strange assumption, that there may be an internal consciousness of the religion of Christ, in the absence of Sts objective truth. It is not that we would have less spiritualism than Mr. Newman and others contend forbut that we would trace all genuine spiritualism to the truths of the gospel, as expounded and applied by the Spirit of Christ. All other spiritualism, which has not its founda

tion in the objective truth of God's Word, we pronounce to be a thing foreign to the spiritualism of the Bible.

But to all these forms of error we would oppose the historical evidence of the written Word. It has driven the gross infidelity of the last age from the field, and it will, as skilfully employed, effect the same result in reference to all the minor forms of scepticism now afloat in our day.

With this conviction, every day gathering strength, we hail the labours of such men as Professor Davidson, who have addressed themselves, on sound principles, to the vast range of questions connected with the transmission of the sacred books.

66

In his second volume of Introduction to the New Testainent, Dr. Davidson has "endeavoured," as he informs us, to keep steadily in view the same principles and object which were followed in examining the gospels. He has ained at writing what is properly meant by Introduction, looking at those recent investigations which the books of the New Testament have received from numerous inquirers and critics." If, in prosecuting his important labour, he has introduced the names of some men to the knowledge of the English reader who were but little heard of before in this country, it has been either to throw valuable ligh. upon particular books of the New Testament, or to demonstrate the untenableness of the opinions and statements which have proceeded from the pens of such writers. In either case, we are indebted to our learned friend-in the former case, as a matter of course, and in the latter no less so,— as we are thus fore-arined against the gathering storm which is surely coming upon us, but from which we will not shrink, in the consciousness of a well-authenticated historical Christianity. It would be diflicult to convey to our readers an adequate idea of the extraordinary labour put forth by Dr. Davidson upon the volume before us. He has spared no pains to make it a complete repository of the most valuable information on the books of the New Testament which has hitherto been supplied from English, American, or oriental sources. Great discretion, too, has been exercised in the use of materials; marked candour in dealing with opponents; and strong attachment to the orthodox and settled in religious opinion. To those who wish to become acquainted with the powerful current of evidence by which the authenticity and inspiration of every separate book of the New Testament is sustained, Dr. David-on's labours will be an inestimable boon. Ministers, in particular, will find this Introduction to the New Testament to be a very precious addition to their libraries, and should inake almost any sacritice rather than not possess themselves of the work.

[merged small][ocr errors]

"A full examination of the subject is connected with another point, viz., when the gospel' was communicated to Paul? We know, from his own words, that the gospel he preached was not after men.' He neither ' received it of man,' neither was he taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ,' (Galat. i. 11, 12.)

[ocr errors]

"Three aspects of the subject have been presented.

"Some think that his illumination was completed on the way to Damascus, by the direct interview he had with Christ at that tiine. Thus it is not looked on as a gradual process, but as a revelation given fully and at once. The gospel he preached was divinely communicated at the time of his conversion.

"Others regard his knowledge of the gospel as a thing which was not communicated to him fully and at once. They think that new and higher disclosures were made to him from time to time, according as there was need. At first, he received by inspiration the substance or foundation of the gospel he preached. He obtained the fundamentals of Christian doctrine by immediate revelation in Arabia; but they were enlarged by other supernatural disclosures. Those who take this view of the subject generally believe Arabia to have been the locality in which the foundation of what he afterwards terms his gospel was laid.

"The subject may be viewed in another light. The central idea, viz., that Jesus is the true Messiah of the gospel, may have been imparted at the time of his conversion; while successive revelations in Arabia, in connexion with solitary meditation, led him into the entire doctrinal creed which he afterwards preached. There the gospel, in the full compass and clearness belonging to his subsequent disclosures of it, received a permanent lodgment in his mind. There his doctrinal creed was perfectly formed.

[ocr errors]

A glance at these different views must suffice on the present occasion.

"1. This opinion is perhaps the most common. It is apparently countenanced by Gal. i. 16: when it pleased God to reveal his Son in me,' &c. But the words in question are no proot of its truth, unless they be interpreted as synonymous with, for I neither received it (the gospel) of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, (ver. 12). It is not probable that both express the same idea. The twelfth

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »