opened unto you." "Every good and perfect gift cometh down from the Father of lights." " If any one lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to every man liberally and upbraideth not." attaches the very same meaning to the word." As my discussion has been principally of a practical nature, I have not digressed from the ostensible topic, to enlarge on particular doctrines, which nevertheless are essential to religion and form the only true basis of Christian conduct. But for these I must refer you to the Scriptures themselves, where you will find them detailed, not only with infallible accuracy, but in the aspect and proportions best calculated for religious improvement, and with the impress of divinity on every statement. Believe me, with every kind wish, your affectionate and faith ful friend, E. L. C. Now, it will appear from inves. tigation, that the translation in our Bibles is quite correct, and that the argument in the above-mentioned note for admitting the shower in question into the list of meteoric stones, is without foundation; the writer having mistaken the sense of the original both in the passage in Joshua, and in that which he has cited from the Book of Job. The 11th verse of the xth chapter of Joshua, in our translation, runs thus: "And it came to pass, as they fled before Israel, and were in the going down to Beth-horon, that the Lord cast down great stones (D) from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones (77) than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword." Hence it appears that the words and not the single word אבני הברד To the Editor of the Christian Observer., (or, according to the author IN the Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, No. II. in the article entitled, "A List of Meteoric Stones, &c., which have fallen from the Heavens from the earliest Period down to 1819," the shower of stones which destroyed the enemies of Joshua at Beth-horon, Josh. x. 11, is inserted. The author of that paper, or of that part of the paper which makes mention of this shower (for it appears that the article is a compilation of catalogues of meteoric stones, &c., drawn up by different hands), observes in a of this note, ), are, by our translators, rendered hailstones; that is, literally, stones of the hail. The word " alone undoubtedly signifies "stones in general;" but in the present instance, its signification is determined by the word 7727 with which it is in regimine ; and always signifies hail. And from this, it is manifest, what we are to understand by mb the "great stones" mentioned in the former part of the verse. And of this opinion, undoubtedly were the Seventy, when they translated both by the אבני הברד and אבנים גדלות אבנים note annexed, that the word which, according to Parkhurst, signifies stones in general, has been translated, without any reason, HAILSTONES, in our version of the Bible." He moreover adds, "In the Book of Job, however, xxviii. 3, the same word is translated STONES OF DARKNESS,' meaning, says Scott, undoubtedly metallic stones, or metals, which man searches out.' Miss Smith, in her translation of Job, same words, les xaλains, stones of hail. With regard to the passage in Job, the Hebrew for "stones of darkness," as it is rendered in our translation, is not simply as, but consists of the two words DN 28, which translated literally is, stone of darkness. Thus the signification of in this place is determined by the word bes, with which it is in regimine. And though commenta men on a future retribution expressed by the mother and her seven sons in their noble refusal to comply with the wicked commands of Antiochus, for the infringement of their Law, was founded on sure grounds, and that they considered themselves as having received the promises of God to that effect. What else could have enabled them to despise the torments with which they were afflicted, and to assert with their last breath their confidence of being raised up again in their bodies unto everlasting life? (See verses 9, 11, 14, 23, 29, 36). Razis also (chap. xiv. 46.) appears to have been animated by the same confidence, although the manner of his deathfor he perished by his own hand→→→ tors may explain the sense of these two words together by "metallie stones, or metals" which " search out" in the earth, it by no means follows that either DN alone should mean the same, or that by should be signified meteoric stones, to whatever origin we may attribute the production of those bodies. But, independently of the signification of the Hebrew words, and of the testimony of the Septuagint translation, is it not more reasonable to suppose, that the Almighty would have destroyed the enemies of his people by an instrument so much more natural in its cause than meteoric stones-and the more so as he had employed the ageney of hailstones against the Egyptians (Exod. ix.)—was far from being such as we may a circumstance with which the lawfully consider as authorizing Israelites must have been well ac- the expectation of a resurrection quainted than that he should have to future blessedness. 'L. P. A. produced the quantity of meteorie stones sufficient for the destruction of such a multitude of men, "in the going down from Beth horon unto Azekah?" And if we look to other parts of the Old Testament, (Isaiah xxx. 30; Ezek. xiii. 11, 13; and xxxviii. 22), we shall find that hail is there spoken of as an instrument of God's vengeance against his enemies and in the New Testament (Rev. xxi. 21), it is described as falling from heaven upon the ungodly in the latter days. C. P. N. W. To the Editor of the Christian Observer, A RECENT Number of the Chris tian Observer contained some remarks drawn up by the late Rev. Henry Martyn, on the Old-Testament arguments for a future state. Permit me to suggest another which may be deduced from the seventh chapter of the Second Book of Maccabees, in proof of the preva lence of this doctrine amongst the Jews, prior to its full revelation by Jesus Christ. It will scarcely be doubted that the firm reliance To the Editor of the Christian Observer. THE word day used in Heb. ix. 15-17. frequently occurs ip the New Testament, and is generally rendered covenant by our transJators. In the passage under consideration, however, they have preferred the word testament, although neither in the preceding nor following context does the Apostle refer to a last will, but treats of the inefficacy of the legal sacrifices, and the sufficiency of the blood of the incarnate Son of God for the expiation of guilt. I agree with D. M. P. that didSyx does not necessarily signify a reciprocal compact between two or more contracting parties; it rather means a disposition, or constitution, or appointment. The new dispensation as described by the Prophet, and quoted by the Apostle, does not even contain a condition*. (Heb. viii. 8--10.) pensation as promised by God to his *The above refers to the new dispeople. Faith in Christ is essential to our individual interest in the blessings of the Gospel. It is certain that victims were immolated on occasion of solemn engagements, whether these were compacts or simple promises. This is proved both by sacred and profane writers; and hence the phrase ferire fœdus. In the Scriptures we have repeated instances of the ratification of engagements by slaying victims. Thus Gen. xv. 9, 18. Jer. xxxiv. 15, 20. Neither of these transactions was a mutual compact between two contracting parties: in the former, God solemnly promised to give the land of Canaan to the seed of Abraham; and, in the latter, the Jews engaged to give liberty to their servants. In neither case do we read of sprinkling the blood of the victims; the engagements were ratified by passing between the two parts into which they were divided. This militates against the opinion of D. M. P., that covenants were not "ratified by the mere act of executing them over the sacrifices, but by sprink ling the parties with the blood of the victimis." This took place at the ratification of the Sinai cove nant, but nothing similar is record ed in either of the above instances; and as it is no where said that it is essential, we have no right to assume that sprinkling the parties with blood was necessary". But, according to what I conceive to be the true rendering of the passage under consideration, the Apostle affirms that a covenant was confirmed upon, or over, the dead; and this exactly corresponds with all the instances referred to. There is every reason to believe that the offering of victims at the ratification of solemn engagements originated in the Divine conduct to our first parents. It is generally admitted, that • There was no sprinkling of the blood on the parties when the new covenant was ratified. Believers are indeed said to be "come to the blood of sprinkling;” but the language is figurative, and alludes to what took place at Sinai. Gen, iii. 15, contains the first promise of salvation through Christ. The Apostle establishes this when he says, that "Christ took part of flesh and blood, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death-that is, the devil." (Heb. ii. 14.) This is the truth or explanation of the mysterious and parabolic language, that the serpent's head should be bruised, while he bruised the heel of his conqueror. Moses, indeed, gives no account of victims being slain, or sacrifices being instituted on that occasion; but, in the next chapter, we read that Abel offered with acceptance the firstlings of his flock, which demonstrates that animal sacrifices were of Divine appointment; for "will worship" has been condemned in every age. (Isaiah xxix. 13; Col. ii. 22, 23.) To this may be added, that previously to the expulsion of our first parents from Eden, God made them coats of skins, and clothed them. Hence it is highly probable that, although the brevity of the narrative did not admit of an account of the institution of sacrifices, this institution was connected with the first promise of a Saviour, and to this we may probably trace the practice which afterwards prevailed of slaying victims as a ratification of solema engagements. Besides the grammatical impropriety of rendering dadŋŋ testament in the passage before us, when it occurs both before and after in the sense of covenant, there is a grand objection which necessarily arises from this construction. For if the Sinai dispensation was a testament, who was the testator? The Ten Commandments spoken by God, and it was certainly his dispensation or covenant, (Jer. xxxi. 32); but in this case there was nothing resembling the death of the testator, either figuratively or otherwise. And how could Moses be termed the testator? He made no promises in his own name; he was merely a servant employed were to declare his Master's will: he was not even his Master's representative. But if these difficulties, which to me appear insuperable, could be got over, if we could consider the Law as a testament of which Moses was the testator, it would inevitably follow that the law was "of no strength" till the death of Moses, forty years after its promulgation; for, says the Apostle, "where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator: for a testament is of force after men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength while the testator liveth." But the Apostle affirms, that the Law was dedicated or ratified, not by the death of Moses, but with the blood of the victims, forty years before that event, (ver. 18, 19.) This amounts to a positive contradiction, representing the Apostle first declaring that the death of the testator is essential to the ratification of a testament, and with the same breath affirming that the testament was ratified forty years before that event. It is not necessary at present to determine on what principle the death of victims was connected with the ratification of an engagement. The supposition of D. M. P., that it was significant of the deadness of the party as to all power of revocation, is ingenious, but not, I fear, well founded. It is supported by no proof; and if it were admitted that the death of the victims at the ratification of the Sinai covenant signified the deadness of Moses as to all power of revocation, it must follow that the death of those victims was typical of the death of Moses, which certainly was not the case. That your correspondent should find it necessary to introduce the expression" mediatorial testators," I think a strong presumption against his argument. Moses and Christ are both represented as Mediators between God and the people, but no such idea as a Mediatorial Testator is conveyed in Scripture, and there is no foundation for such language in human transactions. To this may be added, that neither in sacred nor profane history do we find any trace of a last will being ratified by the blood of victims. A testament derives its efficacy not from any particular ceremony or significant emblem, but from the death of the testator. While, on the whole, I approve of the view given of this passage by Mr. Faber, I cannot agree with him, that "the typical mediators of the first covenant were animal victims." There was but one mediator of the old covenant, namely, Moses, corresponding with the one Mediator of the new, covenant, Jesus Christ. There were indeed many sacrifices under the Law; for it had only a shadow of good things to come, and not the very images of the things (Heb. x. 1), but the victims are never represented as mediators. I shall not occupy your pages with any critical remarks. I only observe, that, in my opinion, the Authorized Version of this passage, not only represents the Apostle as arguing inconclusively, but also does more violence to the original than would be necessary if the usual rendering of day were retained. J. H. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I BEG leave to offer a few remarks on the paper, in your Number for November, respecting the death of Sir Walter Raleigh. Your correspondent first quotes the words of Dr. Tounson, and then proceeds to observe, that "no truth can be more incontrovertible than that contained in Raleigh's reply, that, for a man who knows the character of God, and fears him, there is but one source of support in death, an assurance-not a mystical, but a well-founded and scriptural assurance-of God's love and favour to him, grounded, as Dr. Tounson observes, on the hope of salvation by Christ." Now, sir, what strikes me is, that, considering the infinite importance of the subject to which your correspondent's remark has reference, he has not expressed himself with sufficient clearness. The most weighty of all questions is, How may I obtain a well-founded hope of salvation? On this great point Dr. Tounson's words to Raleigh are perhaps themselves scarcely satisfactory; nor are Raleigh's own expressions sufficiently precise to yield any peculiar matter of general instruction. Your correspondent considers Dr. Tounson as observing, that Raleigh's assurance of God's love and favour was "grounded on the hope of salvation by Christ." This, however, is not exactly the expression of Dr. Tounson. In fact, the Doctor's words are so loosely put together as to throw some doubt even on their grammatical construction. As they stand, the hope of salvation by Christ is not to be the ground but the matter of Raleigh's assurance, conjointly with God's love and favour; and to both is added, Raleigh's own innocence as to the particular crime laid to his charge: but exactly in what manner this last ingredient is to be connected with the two preceding particulars, the careless texture of the sentence does not strictly determine. Of the sincerity of Raleigh we cannot entertain a doubt. He is ready to try himself by Dean Tounson's standard; and he expresses, without hesitation, his assurance of God's love and favour toward him; justly observing, that nothing but this could give cheerfulness and courage under such circumstances as those in which he then stood. But on what evidence he rested this assurance is not stated. That it was primarily grounded on God's inestimable love in the redemption of the world by his Son, cannot be questioned; but CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 231. on what specific evidences Raleigh concluded himself personally interested in this general provision, we are not informed. When, therefore, your correspondent applies the case of Raleigh to an instructive purpose, might he not, with advantage, have supplied greater strictness to the vague language of Dr. Tounson, and somewhat more specification to the general terms used by Sir Walter Raleigh? Is "6 assurance grounded on hope" a perfectly intelligible idea? Rather must not hope grow into moral certainty, before it can imply assurance? Either the hope of salvation by Christ is a general hope of that which is conditionally attainable, or it is a confident expectation of that in which we trust we have an appropriate interest. In the former sense, hope cannot sustain assurance, without a consciousness of the needful qualifications: in the latter sense, hope is not the foundation of assurance, but practically the same thing. Ought not, then, your correspondent to have expressed himself with somewhat stricter propriety as well as greater clearness? When he spoke emphatically of" only one source of support in death," ought not this to have been described, not as the assurance of God's love and favour to the individual, grounded on the mere hope of salvation by Christ, but as the hope of salvation by Christ matured through seeking, obtaining, and exercising the saving grace of the Gospel, into the assurance of God's love and favour to the individual? This assurance, your correspondent proceeds to say, must not be mystical, but well-founded and scriptural. In the latter of these qualifications all will agree; but the question recurs, What is a well-founded scriptural assurance? Something more specific, in order to fix the import of this too indefinite idea, would have been desirable. Indeed, the more so for this reason, because your correspondent X |