Imatges de pÓgina

in short, a system of discipline, intended to teach them the necessity of an atoning and propitiatory sacrifice; and thus to keep their views directed to the promised Seed; and likewise to preserve them a distinct people, separated to the service of God, till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made; thus, in the natural course of things, keeping the door open for the introduction of the better hope. Hence it appears, that the Jewish law, so far from being a new, independent dispensation, and laying a new foundation for justification, was, in fact, a temporary expedient, so to speak, perfectly subordinate and subservient to the gospel, or covenant with Abraham, which the apostle affirms to be the same thing when he says, that the gospel was preached to Abraham.

I will here remark, in passing, that this text, in my judgment, presents an insurmountable diffi culty in the way of those, who contend that the covenant with Abraham was a mere temporal covenant, relating only to the earthly Canaan. The 20th verse is extremely obscure in its connexion, and uncertain in its import. I shall offer, what appears to me the plainest solution of the difficulties in volved in it; only premising that it does not appear so clear to my mind, as to render me very confident, that it is the true one. The apostle had just been show ing that the law was subordinate to the Abrahamic covenant; that it was not an independent, disconnected system; but a subordinate part, a codicil, so to speak, of the latter. Having observed that it was established

through the intervention of a Mediator; the mention of the word Mediator, seems to have furnished him a hint for an additional enforcement of his doctrine. Now a Mediator is not a Mediator of one, but God is one. This is perfectly in the manner of St. Paul, to depart from the principal subject, whenever a new idea is suggested to his mind by the casual use of a word, or phrase, related to such idea. A Mediator is not, &c. As if he had said, "the manner, in which this law was proclaimed and established, furnishes additional evidence, that it was connected with, and subordinate to the covenant with Abraham. Of that covenant Christ was the Mediator. So likewise in ordaining the Jewish law, Moses, the type of Christ, acted as Mediator between God and the people.

This shows, that it was of the nature of a covenant, where two parties enter into a contract; and not, strictly speaking, of the nature of a law given by a prince to his subjects. For in the establishment of laws, properly so called, there is but one party, the lawgiver; the consent of the subject not being necessary. Therefore the Jewish law, being ordained by the mediation of Moses, acting as a type, and in the room of Christ, must have been a part, an under part, so to speak, of the former covenant, of which Christ was Mediator. Deity, considering that covenant, as still in force, and the Jewish nation, as a party to it, would not introduce these temporary and subsidiary provisions without their formal consent. He therefore employed Moses to negociate the terms between them. The argument, in short, stands thus:

The Jewish law was a temporary therefore is, that the Mosaic ipstitution, connected with, and law was of the nature of a covesubordinate to, the covenant with nant; that it was considered, as Abraham. For, had it been an closely connected with the fororiginal, independent law enjoin- mer; and as a subordinate part ed upon men, there would have of the same; not designed to abbeen but one party in its estab- rogate that, and furnish a new lishment; for God the lawgiver ground of justification; it did is one; and the consent of men not touch this subject at all; but had not been required. But to to regulate the manners of the the establishment of this law people in the earthly Canaan ; there were two parties. For to secure them in possession of there was a Mediator employed, the blessings of it; and gradualwhich necessarily supposes two ly to prepare them for the comparties; for a mediator is not a ing of the Messiah, the promised mediator of one. The conclusion Seed. J. C.






"THERE WAS a German, who laid himself out for the conversion of the Jews, lately in London, one of the most surprising linguists in the world he formed a resolution, when but five years of age, of learning the languages in use amongst the Jews, without any reason that could be assigned; so that the pure Hebrew, the Rabbinical, the lingua Judaica, which differs from both, and almost all the modern languages of the then European nations, were as familiar to him as his own native tongue. With this furniture, and with great knowledge of God and love to Christ, and zeal for the salvation of souls, he had spent twelve of the thirty-six years of his life in preaching Christ in the synagogues, in the most apostolic manner, warning the Jews of their enmity to God; of their misery, as rejected by him; of the only hope that remains for Vol. III. No. 3.



them, by returning to their own Messiah; and by seeking from him righteousness of life, and placing their souls under the sprinkling of the blood of that great sacrifice. God blessed his labours in many places! Germany, Poland, Holland, Lithuania, Hungary, and other parts through which he had travelled, more than 600 souls owned their conversion to his ministry, many of whom expressed their great concern to bring others of their brethren to the knowledge of that great and blessed Redeemer; and besought him to instruct their children, that they might preach Christ also.”

Dr. Doddridge adds, that he heard one of his sermons, as he repeated it in Latin; that he could not hear it without many tears; and that he told him that sermon converted a Rabbi, who was master of a synagogue.

[Gen. Mag.


PEACE, harmony, and love are some of the graces of the Divine Spirit, which create a little heaven upon earth, wherever they are found to prevail; while the contrary tempers must have just the contrary effects.

The sin of backbiting stands registered in the word of God, not only as a great evil in itself, but as being very mischievous in its consequences and effects. It is a great evil in itself: it is recorded as being one of the worst of crimes committed by the Heathen world, who are said to be full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, and malignity. From these principles, we have next whisperers and backbiters; while even on the same list are next registered the haters of God.* The Psalmist observes, that such are not to be reckoned among the real citizens of Sion; for he, the real citizen, "speaketh the truth in his heart, he backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour;" and in the fiftieth Psalm we have the following sharp rebuke of the same evil: "Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit : thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son:" and in the 120th Psalm, David offers up this prayer against the same evil: Deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue;" and then adds, "What shall be given unto thee, or what shall be done unto thee, thou

• Rom. i. 29, &c. ↑ Ps. xv. 2, 3.

false tongue? Sharp arrows of the Almighty, with coals of juni♣ per." Even among the professors in primitive times, this spirit was unhappily found to exist. St. Paul thus complains against some belonging to the Corinthian church: "I fear, lest when I come, I shall not find you such as I would; and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not : lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults." But it is enough further to observe, that it is a direct violation of the ninth command; while the evil consequences which attend a backbiting spirit are incalculable. Chief friends are separated thereby; and the spirit of mutual patience, forbearance, brotherly love, and all these milder graces, which so eminently belong to the Christian character, are entirely forgotten and thrown aside. It were well if all professors would but remember, "that the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity :" that it "defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature, and is set on fire of hell;" and that "it is an unruly evil, which no man can tame."*

Now, notwithstanding these evils are so glaring, and the consequences so pernicious, yet there is scarce a backbiter upon the earth who cannot make an excuse for his crime. I mention some of them: "I spoke nothing but the truth; and where is the harm of that?" But we are never in a right spirit, or fit to speak at all, but as we are enabled to speak the truth in love. Let such apologists for themselves

* See James iii, 5, &c.

ask their consciences the following question: "Are they ready to repeat the same words, and in the same spirit, they formerly uttered behind your back, when they next meet you face to face?" Besides, as most backbiters speak at random, and by mere report, where would be the harm of going personally to such people, that if falsely accused they may have a fair opportunity of explaining themselves? It is amazing, what astonishing mischief is done by the false colouring that is frequently put upon the words and actions of others, quite the reverse of their real purpose and design!

This sin of backbiting, perhaps, may discover itself by other yehicles, than by the tongue. When the envenomed anonymous letter-writer sends you his rancorous charge, is not he a backbiter? First, You may almost depend upon it, that he is just as free with his tongue as he is with his pen. Then let his charges be ever so cruel and unjust, he gives you no opportunity to speak for yourself, while he perplexes your mind with a thousand suspicions against others, not knowing who this clandestine writer can be. If he writes in a good spirit, need he be ashamed of his name? If he writes in a bad spirit, should he not be

ashamed of himself that he ever wrote at all?


Of the same description, I conceive, are the writers of anonymous pamphlets. I mean so far as the characters and sentiments of individuals are attacked. If such sort of opponents mean a fair and honourable attack, why not first make themselves known to the persons whose sentiments or conduct they design to oppose! If we have no party designs, or any other unjustifiable motives, why secrete our names. does it not bear the mark of that which is very mean and cowardly, in a very high degree? In short, truth is fair and open, and loves to appear best in the light. Let truth and love be guides to each other, and the world will be a thousand times happier than it is. I find, however, that I am on a subject that will soon outgrow my design. Short papers are best for magazines. I drop these hints that others may take up the same subject, especially as it is so much calculated to promote the general good. May peace be within the walls of all our houses! May peace rest upon Zion universally! And may the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep all our hearts and minds through Jesus Christ our Lord!" Ev. Mag.

Review of the Eclectic Review.

Concluded from page 84.

THE Reviewers allege that the "omission of u in honor, favor, &c. militates against a rule adhered to in questionable cases; that of preferring The orthography of the language from


which a word directly comes to ours, whatever its origin may have been."

This rule was followed by Dr. Johnson in many cases, with evident. propriety, because it best answered

[ocr errors]

the purpose of writing, which is to represent sounds to the eye, and in many cases, the orthography of words received from the Latin, through the French nation, is best adapted to express the pronunciation, as in the example Johnson gives, entire, instead of integer.

But to the Reviewers, it may be replied, that retaining u does not preserve the French orthography of the words mentioned, which is honeur, fareur; and therefore the rule, if just, The is not applicable to the case. French acted with wisdom in adapting the orthography to their pronunciation; and this is an unanswerable reason why the English should not follow them, for their spelling does not suit the English pronunciation.

The rule, however, is far from being generally adopted in our established practice; nor can it be adopted as a general rule, for in a multitude of cases, it is impossible to know whether a word was taken originally from the Latin or the French. Indeed a careful inspection of particular words and classes of words will show that no general rule has been followed. We write legal and lateral. Is this the Latin orthography, omitting the termination? Or is it the masculine gender of the French? If so, why do we write motive, figurative, relative, the feminine gender of the French, and not the masculine motif, figuratif, relatif. If we have followed the Latin in legal and lateral, why not in futile, volatile, omitting the termination, futil, volatil. We have received many words in ic from the French ique; perhaps public, music: yet we have conformed to the Greek and Roman originals in the orthography. Words in ous deviate from the French as well as the Latin, as odious, precious. Nourish, flourish, debt, doubt, indorse, &c. are neither Latin nor French. Confessor, predecessor, protector are from the French confesseur, predecesseur, protecteur, yet. "always written without ; and what crowns the contradictions on this subject, is, that even those, who pretend to follow the French in honour, favour, depart from it in the derivatives, honourable, favourable, which the French write without u, honorable, favorable.

The truth is, the history of our

language exhibits a series of contra-
dictions and absurdities, partial cor-
rections, mixed with gross blunders,
and repeated efforts of the learned to
refine and improve it, without reject-
ing numberless barbarisms.
merly all words of the class under
consideration were written with u
authour, debtour, candour, inferiour, an-
cestour, traitour, &c. without any ref-
erence to the question, whether they
were of French or Latin original.
The English have retrenched u from
the whole class, except perhaps ten
or twelve. We are pursuing the al-
teration to a uniform consistent rule;
the omission of u is now the prevailing
usage in the United States; and as
far as respects this class of words, it
is an improvement which ought to be


The Reviewers are far from expecting that the public will approve of some of my corrections of orthography; yet they express their own approbation of particular instances. general they observe that a lexicographer should adopt the prevailing orthography of the age in which he writes. This rule, if received without qualification, is fraught with mischief to our language. Indeed it is impracticable; for in some classes of words, the usage is not ascertainable, the orthography being unsettled. But the rule itself contradicts the principle adopted in every other branch of literature, that errors are to be corrected, when discovered or clearly proved to be such. Dr. Johnson adhered to the rule generally, as laid down by the Reviewers, but not without exceptions. He deviated from the principle" Quid te exempta jurat spinis de pluribus una "Why correct one error, when you cannot correct the whole? For in words, where the orthography had been "altered by accident or depraved by ignorance," he held it to be his duty to inquire into the true orthography, by tracing them to their originals, and deciding in favor of the etymology. See Preface to his Dictionary. Thave pursued the same rule; and have attempted only the correction of a few palpable mistakes and incongruities. Nor ought any lexicographer to deWhen cide every case by numbers. the practice is unsettled, it is his du,

« AnteriorContinua »