« AnteriorContinuar »
we say then What can we think of such conduct? "There is but one fold and one shepherd, the Lord Jesus.
Sobriety of action and conduct denotes the new and sincere disciple of Christ. Stedfastness in his faith and doctrine is the test, the surest test of the sincere hearted. Those who are ready at every new wind of doctrine to cry, "Lo, here is Christ,” or, “ Lo, there,” we may be assured are tottering and wavering in their sentiments, and that their religious principles are built upon a sandy foundation. The road to Heaven is straight and narrow, and not that ready-made path which too many are planning and making for themselves.
Let the worthy meinber of the Church follow the path his duty leads him into, and I need not say he will want no other guide to lead hin, nor any other
name to be called by. The doctrine of the Church is pure, holy, rational, devoid of enthusiasm, and of all those plagues which infect different sects. I take my leave for the present,
And am most sincerely your's,
London, November, 1806.
UPON THE PROPER MANNER OF RECON
CILING APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN SCRIPTURE.
By the Rev. THOMAS LUDLAM. A. M.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S
each other, the proper way of removing such dif. ficulty is, not by attempting to explain such texts, which at best is but a meie human exposition of divine
revelation; but to produce some other text, which clearly reconciles the seemingly inconsistent passages. Thus:
Titus, iii. 4, 5. If the Apostle had intended to exclude all human agency from a claim to any efficacy in the work of our Salvation, could he have expressed himself more clearly, or more fully? Ote do su xensons, when the benevolence, not only the general principle of benevolence, but the more particular one of pináv@gwrıc, philanthropy, the love of men as men, because in this, God' peculiarły manifested his love towards us, arising not εξ εργων των εν δικαιοσυνη (the casual preposition) ων εποιησαμεν ημεις, i. e. Works Originating in rectitude, the great principle of holiness, anda xaTA TOY QUTY &deov, but in consequence of his own innate pity and compassion alone, sowotv muas. And to make this matter still plainer, the Apostle rehearses the particular means made use of for thin purpose. He (God) did it δια λαθρύ παλιγγενεσιας (not της παλιγγενεσιας) because it was a matter discoverable only by revelation, rj avaraswa σεως Πνευμαίος αγια, being far beyond the reach of human reason, and the bounds of human imagination ;- ivce dixaowdertes, that, though sinners, being treated as righteous persons tñ exH8 xapito, we might be made heirs of eternal life, xol' entida, scilicet oñs xano ews aula, Eph. i. 18.
On the other hand, had this same Apostle intended to show the efficacy of human conduct in the work of our salvation, could he have manifested it more clearly, or more fully than by his exhortation, Phil. ii. 12. tclopγαζεσθαι την εαυλών σωλαριαν, i. e. to labour hard at working oui (zalepyaleo dan) their own salvation ?
Now, it has been thought sufficient to remove this apparent inconsistency in the two passages, to allege, that the design of human salvation originated in the Divine Mind, without respect to any part of the conduct of mankind. But though the purpose ofbestowing salvation upon fallen men certainly originated with the Father καλα την ευδοκιαν θηληματος. aule, yet, if the possession of this gift depends upon buman conduct, can this gift be said to be WHOLLY owing to the commiseration of the Supreme Being? When benefits are granted upon conditions, compliance with the conditions changes the nature of the favour into that of a contract. It is to speak with the civilians, a beneficial covenant, and withdrawing the benefit becomes an act of injustice. But if, instead of this imperfect view of the matter, iin perfect, because the two disputable texts alone are attended to, information had been sought from some other text, that is, in this instance, fron the Apostle's question, Heb. ii. 3. Πως ημους εφευξομεθα τηλικαύλης αμηλεσανlες σωληριας, the nature of this salvation, as respecting both the author and the receiver of it, would have plainly appeared. For, though we may neglect, that is, forbear to attend to, or to perform, many matters, which relate to our duty, or our interest, we cannot properly be said to neglect that which it is not in our power either to attend to, or to perform.
CORRECTION OF SUPPOSED MISTRANSLA.
TIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S
are not rightly translated. It is possible, that the mistranslation of them has been noticed, by some commentator or other, but I do not recollect to have seen it noticed. Some, too, may think, that the mistakes are not of sufficient importance to deserve notice. I am of opinion, however, that no pains are misemployed, which contribute to bring any part of Scripture, whether in the original, or in translations, to the greatest possible degree of purity in the one, and accuracy in the other.
The first passage is Luke i, 54, 55, which, in Buck's · edition of the Greek Testament, is thus pointed, Avlencßélo Ισραηλ παιδος αυλέ, μνησθηνάι ελεες (καθως ελαλησε προς τις πατερας ημών, τω Αβρααμ, και τα σπερματι αυτε) εις τον αιώνα.
In our version of the New Testament, this passage is thus translated:
“ He hath holpen bis servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy; as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.”
In the Magnificat, a hymn used in the daily service, it stands thus, " ře, remembering his mercy, hath holpen his servant Israel ; as he promised to our forefather Abraham, and his seed for ever." Naw, it is evident, that in these translations, “ Abraham and his seed for ever," are put in apposition with " our fathers, or forefathers," as signifying the same persons. But it is not very good sense to say, that Abraham and his seed for ever, were the forefathers of those in whose name Zecharias made this declaration. In the original, this is not said; for tes aclepas inpwr is not put in the same case, por in apposition, with τω Αβρααμ, και τα σπερματι αυτε, εις τον αιώνα. The words zauws encanoe angos tos Talegees nuwv, ought, I think, to be considered as a parenthesis, and the passage to be translated thus: “He hath holpen bis servant Israel, remembering the mercy, of which he spake to our fathers, towards Abraham and his seed for ever."
The other passage is Mark vi. 32, 33. Kabardor ερημον τοπον τα πλοιω κατ' ιδίαν. Και ειδον αυθες υπαγονίας δι οχλοι και επεγνωσαν αυθον πολλοι και πεζη απο πασών των πολεων συνεδραμον εκέι, και Trgoña Gov cezles, rj avviñadov nsgos avlov, which is thus translated, " And they departed into a desert place by ship privately. And the people saw them departing, and many knew him, and ran afoot thither out of all cities, and 'outwent them, and came together unto him." Now, it is not very natural for the Evangelist, nor does it make much for his purpose, to inform us here, that " many knew Jesus." It is pretty evident, therefore, that the word
in the 33d verse; as also in the 34th, refers, not to Jesus, but to the word Tomos, which had been used in the 31st verse, and that the passage should be rendered thus :
-“ And they departed into a desert place by ship' privately. And the people saw them departing, and many knew the place, and ran afoot thither out of all the cities, and outwent them, and were gathered together there."
This interpretation is confirmed, and in a manner which leaves no room for doubt, by the parallel passages in St. Matthew and St. Luke. In the first of these, Matr. xiv. 13. the original is, Kæv censoas ó Incês aveywemoar exelev er πλοιω εις ερημνο τοπον κατ' ιδίαν. Και ακέσαντες οι οχλοι ηκολέθησαν uvlw me ñ TO TWv tomewr ; and the translation, "When Jesus heard of it, he departed thence by ship into a desert
place apart ; and when the people had heard thereof, they followed him on foot out of the cities. In the second, Luke ix. 10, the original is, Kar Taçacaawavles, Steywende xa?? ιδιαν
ερημον πολεως καλεμενης Βηθσαϊδα. Οιδε οχλοι γνούλες ηκολεθηcav avtwand the translation," And he took them (the Apostles) and went aside privately into a desert place, belonging to the city, called Bethsaida. And the people, when they knew it, (i. e. not Jesus, but the desert place, and the circumstance of his going thither) followed him.”
I am, Sir, &c.
E. PEARSON Rempstone, Dec. 10, 1806.
ON A NEW PROFESSORSHIP
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S
that the hint I threw out so long ago as May last, had excited the attention of a gentleman so well calculated to improve upon it. I rejoice still more, that there is actually a probability of its being carried into execution. Perliaps it will be news to the majority of your readers next month, to learn, that Mr. Pearson has received a letter from a gentleman, a stranger to him, wlio desires his name may be concealed, making him the offer of a salary of 200l. per annum for five years, on condition that he can obtain the sanction of the University of Cambridge, to his appointment to the new Professorship which is recommended. It is, however, a fact; and Mr. Pearson has written to the Vice-Chancellor on the subject. I forbear to panegyrize the generous donor, whose fame no eulogy of mine can increase, and whose desire of concealment should be a caution not to attempt it: but
Vol. XI. Churchm. Mag. for Dec. 1806. 3 L I inust