Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

cia, Ionia, Attica, Syria, Italy, and other countries. Kibotos is another name of the ark used by the writers of the new Testament. This name the Greeks probably borrowed from the Eaft. Accordingly, a haven in Egypt and a city of great antiquity in Phrygia bore this name. A coin of Philip, the elder, ftruck at this place, had on the reverse a history of the flood in miniature. A fquare veffel or ark is graven, in which are a man and woman; over the ark fits a dove; below is another on the wing, holding a fmall branch in its mouth. Before the ark a man and woman feem just to have left it, underneath the perfon is the word Noe. The gentiles reckoned the ark, as a temple, and the refidence of the Deity; and the perfons faved were finally confidered, as deities. Hence the ancient gods of Egypt were precifely eight. Agreeably with fcripture the ancient writers always represent Noah, as the firft after the deluge who built an altar to God, planted a vineyard, and made wine.

In the delineation of the fphere, though altered in the hands of the Greeks, there remains evidence, that reference was had to the deluge. According to Hegefianax, Aquarias was Noah or Deucalion. Berofus relates that Noah was reprefented by a fifh, and Hyginus fpeaks of the fishes on the sphere, as reprefentations of perfons, and mentions from Eratofthenes, that the fish Notas was the father of mankind. Tradition relates, that the raven was fent on a meffage by Apollo, and never returned; this bird is placed in the fphere; and there is Argo, the facred fhip, formed by divine wifdom. This was the ark of Noah, fometimes

called the fhip of Ofiris. Plutarch fays, the veffel in the facred fphere, which the Grecians call the Argo, reprefented the fhip of Ofiris, which, from reverence, had been placed in the heavens. The precife meaning of Argus is an ark, fynonimous with Theba. When the ark of God was to be restored to the Ifraelites, prefents of atonement were put into an arAs colonies went abroad, gus. called Thebeans, or Arkites, and built cities, called Theba or Ark ; fo were many cities in different countries called Argos, as in Theffaly, Boeotia, Epirus and Sicily. In all which places is the tradition of Deucalion and the ark. The whole Peloponnefus was once called Argos. The anclents defcribed the ark, as a lunette, or half moon; it was therefore called Meen, which fignifies a moon, and a crefcent became its fymbol. Of course the patriarch was called Meen, and Menes, and was worshipped in all the nations of the Eaft, as Deus Lunus, or the Lunar God. This Lunar God, according to Strabo, had temples erected for his worship in. Phrygia, in Pifidia, and in many other places.

In thefe facts we fee how extenfive and permanent was the remembrance of the deluge. Is it poffible for any man to read, and impartially confider these things, and reject the account of Noah's flood? Is it conceivable, that fuch uniformity of religious rites, fuch uniformity of names, of hieroglyphicks, and traditions exills by chance? As well may a palace or city rife by chance from the fands of Africa, or the forests of America.

[To be continued.]

For the Panoplist.

Letters to a brother, a young man of fashion.

LETTER I.

ON THE IMMUTABILITY OF RELIGION. Dear Brother,

It is often a subject of regret, that I can so seldom enjoy your company. But be assured, our long separations do not diminish that love, which began to glow in my breast at your birth, and constantly grew with your growth. With what sensations of mingled pleasure and gloom do I recall the years of our childhood and youth. How pleasing were the scenes, through which we passed. How many the advantages we enjoyed. Our parents, now sleeping in death, were tender, exemplary and pious. Such parents ought to be recorded among the best gifts of heaven. May we never forget their excellent instructions, their worthy characters, their anxious concern for our good.

Through what scenes have we both passed since our father's decease. Divine Providence has favoured you with uninterrupted health and prosperity, and finally placed you in a very eligible situation. But while I rejoice in your worldly prosperity, my joy is not without abatement. It is painful to this heart of mine, which so tenderly loves you, to think of the dangers attending your present flourishing condition; especially as the circle of your particular friends is removed far from the examples, which we were early taught to

venerate.

You know not, my dear brother, with what emotions I heard you say, when I was last at your house, that the religion of the fathers of New England, though well enough adapted to their condition, is by no means suited to this enlightened, polished age. You gave to all present a

proof of your candour, by acknowledging what, I apprehend, is capable of abundant confirmation, that the early religion of New England was, in substance, the same with primitive christianity. But you added, what is called orthodoxy might be very well fitted for men just delivered from the idols of paganism, for men beginning to emerge' from the darkness and superstition of popery, and for men exiled from their country by the hand of persecution, and employed in establishing the rudiments of learning and piety in the American wilderness. But that religion is not necessary for men of better education and more refined morals. In short, you gave it as your opinion, that there is no need of supposing the doctrines and exercises of religion to be at all times precisely the same, but that they may undergo a change corresponding with the great changes which take place in society.

Bear with me, dear brother, while I attempt, with the freedom which warm affection inspires, to expose the fallacy and danger of such an opinion. This I do in obedience to the solemn charge, which I received from our dying father. My son, said he, with a faltering voice, that God who has been pleased to take your amiable mother to himself, now calls for me. I earnestly recommend you to his mercy. And I desire you to consider the tender age of your dear little brother. I know your affection for him. I charge you to take care of his soul. Now as I write in the name of our honoured father, and shall defend that religion, which animated him in life, and consoled him in death; I am sure that you, to whom his memory is so dear, will peruse what I write with seriousness and candour.

The first consideration which occurs, is, the immutability of Ged,

the object and the author of all true religion. Although human things are all subject to change; although your temporal affairs now so prosperous, may tomorrow be in the most calamitous state; although the revolutions of the age may demolish institutions, which have been the boast of other times; although rising improvements in the arts and sciences may obliterate every trace of former ignorance and weakness; still God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Now that religion which has the unchangeable God for its object, and essentially consists in conformity to his holy character, must be unchangeable. Since the life of our parents, since the days of our forefathers, or since the age of the apostles, has there been any change in Jehovah, which makes it proper to render him a religious service less humble, less strict, solemn, and evangelical, than that which they rendered?

The immutable God is not only the object, but the author of all true religion. The doctrines or truths of religion are contained in the volume of inspiration. They were written there, my brother, by the finger of God. The tenets of heathen philosophy, passing through the hands of changeable men, who modelled them as they would, had no fixed, invariable stamp. But the doctrines of revelation, coming from an unchangeable source, are the same in all ages. God is the author of only one system of religious truth. He has not, since the apostles' day, introduced a new system, nor altered that which was given to them. That which they believed, which, yougrant, differed not materially from that which our pious ancestors believed, is that which we must believe. The author of all religious truth has not taught us to expect, that the pro

gressive cultivation of reason will add any thing to revelation. Nor has he empowered us to lay aside, as obsolete, any part of revealed truth, and substitute in its place the improvements of human wisdom.

The precepts or practical rules of religion are also from God, and are therefore immutable. Jesus spoke not the language of modern fashionable religion, when he said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than one jot or tittle of the law to fail." God's law, my brother, admits no alteration, and is no respector of persons. It requires the same duties of the rich and the poor, of the learned and the ignorant, of the refined and the vulgar, of the king on his throne, and the servant of meanest name. It laid equal obligations on polished Greeks and wild barbarians. The accomplished Saul, when divinely taught the unchangeable strictness and perfection of the law, found himself upon a level with the greatest criminals. The law being once published by the unchangeable Jehovah, can never be altered, except by the authority of him who made it. But has God ever authorized us to lower the precepts of the law, or the gospel, and to adapt them to the varying manners and situations of men? Are not they who possess the greatest advantages of fortune, under as high obligations to obey the commands of Christ, as they who possess the least? Consider those precepts ofchristianity,which require the greatest strictness of religion, the most unreserved devotion to God. "Whosoever will come after me, let him dery himself, take up the cross, and follow me. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. If they

right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. Put off the old man, which is corrupt according to deceit ful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Be ye holy, for I am holy." Now, dear brother, are men of high birth and education, men of fashion and opulence released from the obligation of these holy precepts? Does the whole burden lie upon the unlearned, the poor, the retired, the afflicted? Or has time exhausted the force of precepts, which once had power to bind all, so that they must now be considered as laws repealed, or fallen into disuse?

What strange inquiries are these? Yet they are naturally suggested by the fashionable opinions of the day. Let us remember, then, that the rule of duty is unyielding and immutable. Proceeding from God, it cannot conform to the taste of the times; it cannot be accommodated to the corrupt inclinations of the heart. No man may add to it, or take from it. And if the rule of duty, the standard of religion, is always the same, then religion is always the same. For two things essentially different from each other cannot be conformed to the same standard. We are further taught, that religious affection, or conformity of heart to the doctrines and precepts of revelation, is the effect of divine efficiency. Hence we infer that it is, substantially, the same in all ages. It is a supposition inconsistent with the immutability of him, who workethall in all, that he should in one age produce religious affections essentially different from those, which he produces in another; that virtue and piety, always the fruit of his Spirit should vary

their essential features according to the state of science and manners.

That the terms of salvation are always the same is another proof of the immutability of religion. The gospel addresses mankind, as being sinners. Christ declares that his undertaking respects sinners only. Therefore he proposes salvation to all upon the same conditions. Repentance and faith are constantly represented to be absolutely necessary to salvation. Christ and his apostles gave no intimation, that it could ever be obtained on any lower terms. They made no allowance in favour of men possessed of high literary advantages, and distinguished by the suavity of their manners, and the exterior fairness of their character. Repent, and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, is the solemn language, which the gospel addresses to all men; or if it makes any distinction, it is by declaring the uncommon difficulties, which impede the salvation of the wealthy, the learned, the selfrighteous; and by suggesting the greater divine power and mercy, which in their case are needful.

What, then, shall we say to these things? Is not saving relig ion the same in all ages? Are not regeneration, repentance, and faith the same things now, as they were in the first period of christianity, and in the devout ages of New England? In short, is it not, in all times and circumstances, the same thing to obey the gospel of Jesus Christ?

You may derive another argument for the immutability of relig ion from the sameness of its evidence. The evidence of religion more directly belongs to its doctrines, or those things which are the objects of faith. Now the same evidence, which primitive christians had of the divinity of the gos

pel, and of its particular truths, is, in substance, transmitted to us. Improved reason and philosophy have discovered nothing to invalidate that evidence, which satisfied primitive believers respecting the peculiar tenets of revelation. If they had sufficient evidence, that by the offence of Adam his posterity were made sinners; that all are by nature dead in trespasses and sins, and so the children of wrath; that Christ was set forth as a propitia tion for sin; that none can be received into heaven without regeneration; that they, who are called, are called of God according to his eternal purpose; that they who repent and believe, owe their repentance, their faith, and their consequent salvation to grace; if they had sufficient evidence of these positions, so have we. If they had such evidence of Christ's divinity, as rendered it proper for them to consider him, as God, and to address him as the suitable object of divine worship; then we have such evidence, as renders the same proper for us.

There was no considera

tion to justify Thomas in calling Jesus, his Lord, and his God, and dying Stephen in offering prayer to the ascended Saviour, which does not warrant and require believers now to honour him with the same religious worship. The same might be said of every christian doctrine. As truth is unchangeable in its nature, its evidence remains the same. To ancient believers sufficient evidence was satisfactory. It ought to be so to us. I am your ever affectionate brothCONSTANS.

er,

[To be continued.]

From the Christian Observer.

QUESTION.

"WHEN there is a struggle in the mind between right and wrong,

how may it be known whether this struggle arises from the checks of natural conscience in an unrenewed mind, or from a principle of grace in the soul?" If the following thoughts on the subject seem likely to afford any satisfaction to the Querist, they are at his and your service.

1. The struggle which arises from the checks of natural conscience in an unrenewed mind, will generally be found to be partial as to its object, having respect only to some particular sin or sins, which may appear more heinous in their nature, or more dangerous in their consequences, than others. The conflict, in this case, is not with what the scriptures term the body of sin : whereas the struggle that originates in a principle of grace is against sin universally its object is that the old man (i. e. the old nature altogether) may be put off with his deeds. It is far from being a mere struggle against prominent vices; it is an opposition which prompts the true christian to search out and

pursue the foe, and wherein the severest conflicts are with the latent evils of the heart, such as pride, unbelief, selfrighteousness, want of submission to the divine will, &c. There is no hypocrisy, allowed deceit, or indulgence of any sin whatever, in the true spiritual warfare.

2. The struggle between passion and conscience in the breast of a natural man is generally unsteady and variable. At certain seasons it is vigorous and strong; at other times faint and feeble ; and then again, for perhaps a long season, altogether suspended: whereas the conflict between nature and grace, between the flesh and the Spirit, is more steady, regular, and uniform. The true believer, communing daily with

« AnteriorContinua »