« ZurückWeiter »
of loving an enemy, and avoiding offence, and other graces belonging to the Christian martyr, (c. 14--18.) and, producing a variety of examples of women who had rendered themselves famous by these virtues (c. 19.), introduces a pleasing illustration of the character of a good wife (c. 20.). Under the appellation of a true Gnostic, he describes the perfect Christian, who does what is right neither from fear of punishment nor hope of reward, but adopts the course which is pleasing in the sight of God, solely on the principle of a love of Christ (c. 21-26.). Respecting the duties of a wife, he writes thus :Φίλανδρον μετά σεμνότητος υπογράφει γυναίκα Ευριπίδης, παραινών:
ήδυ δ, ήν κακόν πράξη τι, συσκυθρωπάζειν πόσει άλοχον,
έν κοινή λύπης τ' ηδονής τ’ έχειν μέρος: το τε πράος και φιλόστοργον ώδε πως υποδεικνύειν καν ταϊς συμφοραίς επιφέρει:
Σοί δ' έγωγε και νοσούντι συννοσούσ’ ανέξομαι,
Πάνυ γαρ κυρίως η Γραφή βοηθόν είπεν την γυναίκα δεδόσθαι τάνδρι παρά του θεού. Δήλον ούν, οίμαι, ώς έκαστον των προσπιπτόντων λυπηρών προς τανδρος κατά την οικουρίαν, λόγω θεραπεύειν μετά πειθούς προαιρήσεται· ει δε μη υπακούοι, τότε ήδη πειράσεται, καθόσον οίόν τε έστιν ανθρωπίνη φύσει, αναμάρτητον διεξάγειν βίον εάν τε αποθνήσκειν δέη μετά του λόγου, εάν τε ζην" συλλήπτορα και κοινωνών της τοιαύτης πράξεως τον θεόν είναι νομίζουσα, τον τω όντι παραστάτης και σωτήρα, είς τε το παρόν, είς τε το μέλλον στρατηγόν τε και ηγεμόνα πάσης πράξεως εκείνον πεποιημένης σωφροσύνην μεν και δικαιοσύνης έργον ηγουμένη, το θεοφιλές δε ποιουμένη τέλος. Χαριέντως γούν εν τη προς Τίτον Επιστολή ο Απόστολος δεν είναι φησί τάς πρεσβύτιδας, εν καταστήματι ιεροπρεπεί, μη διαβόλους, μη οίνω πολλή δεδουλωμένας ένα σωφρονίζωσι τας νέας φιλάνδρους είναι, φιλοτέκνους, σώφρονας, αγνάς, οίκουρους, αγαθάς, υποτασσομένας τοίς ιδίοις ανδράσιν ίνα μή ο λόγος του θεού βλασφημήται.
* ΕΘ', οίον κολοφώνα επιθείς τα περί γαμου ζητήματα, επιφέρει: Τίμιος ο γάμος εν πάσι, και η κοίτη αμίαντος" πόρνους δε και μιχους κρινεί ο θεός. Strom. IV. 20.
620. The fifth book, which is exceedingly discursive, commences with a disquisition on faith and hope, more especially as objects of mental perception (c. 1–3). It seems to be the main object of the book, however, to trace the source of Grecian knowledge among the Jews; and thus, in reference to symbolic representations, their high antiquity, as aids to memory and means of concealing the mysteries of religion from the impure and uninitiated, is developed (c. 4.); the symbols of Pythagoras examined (c. 5.); the mystic import of the tabernacle and its furniture explained (c. 6.); and the Egyptian enigmas and hieroglyphics considered (c. 7.). Clement then adverts to the use of symbolic writing among the Grecian poets and philosophers (c. 8.); points out the probable motives of its adoption (c. 9.); and adduces some instances of a similar nature from the apostolic epistles (c. 10.). He then argues upon the difficulty of speaking plainly of the nature and attributes of the Deity, as being the great first cause and principle of all things, and in all respects inscrutable and incomprehensible (c. 11–13.). He then concludes with a variety of quotations from the Greek writers, shewing that their notions on this subject were originally derived from the Hebrew Scriptures (c. 14.).
In the fifth and sixth books, the author proceeds with his delineation of the character of the true Christian ; having first completed the argument in which he had been mainly occupied in the foregoing discussion (Strom. VI. c. 1–6.). Throughout the investigation, he exhibits, in a striking point of view, the virtuous habits of the primitive Christians, and vindicates them from the aspersions and calumnies of the Gentile philosophers. While Pagans and even Jews were contented with the negative merit of abstaining from actual crime, the true Christian passed his life in acts of positive virtue, subduing and mortifying his corrupt inclination, and practising the solid and substantial duties of justice and benevolence (c. 7-9.). Clement then advocates the acquirement of secular learning and scientific knowledge, as subservient to the honour of God (c. 10, 11.); and affirms that different degrees of happiness are prepared in heaven for different approximations to the example of Christ, in the due performance of the ministerial offices as well as the discharge of the relative duties of the Christian (c. 12-14.). Reverting to the mystic interpretation of Scripture (c. 15.), which he illustrates by an allegorical exposition of the decalogue (c. 16.), he again points out the imperfections of philosophy (c. 17.), and sets up the doctrines of Christianity as the only fountain of true wisdom (c. 18.). In a defence of the brethren against the charge of Atheism (Strom. VII. c. 1.), he writes thus :*Η καί μοι καταφαίνεται τρία είναι της γνωστικής δυνάμεως αποτελέσματα, το γινώσκειν τα πράγματα δεύτερον, το επιτελείν ό τι αν ο λόγος υπαγορεύη και τρίτον, το παραδιδόναι δύνασθαι θεοπρεπώς τα παρα τη αληθεία επικεκρυμμένα. Ο τοίνυν θεόν πεπεισμένος είναι παντοκράτορα, και τα θεία μυστήρια παρα του μονογενούς παιδός αυτού εκμαθών, πως ούτος άθεος; άθεος μεν γαρ, ο μη νομίζων είναι θέον δεισιδαίμων δε, ο δεδιώς τα δαιμόνια, και πάντα θειάζων, και ξύλον, και λίθον, και πνεύμα, άνθρωπόν τε λογικώς βιoύντα καταδεδουλωμένον. He then describes the anxious care of the true Gnostic to conform his life to the example which Christ has left that we should follow his steps (c. 2, 3.); exposes the absurdity of heathen idolatry (c. 4.); enforces the necessity of inward purity (c. 5.) ; enlarges upon the efficacy of prayer (c. 6, 7.); displays the character of a sincere Christian in all its bearings (c. 8-13.); and illustrates bis portrait by a paraphrastic exposition of 1 Cor. vi. 1. sqq. (c. 14.). The book concludes with a confutation of heretical errors, and a statement of the methods by which false doctrines may be distinguished from the "faith as it is in Jesus” (c. 15—18.).
It was a distinguishing tenet of the Pyrrhonists, that all science whatsoever was a system of doubt and uncertainty. In opposition to this doctrine, the eighth book of the Stromata, which is a detached metaphysical disquisition, perfectly distinct from the preceding seven, maintains the certainty of human learning, and its useful application, under due regulations, to the furtherance of the great purposes of Christianity (c. 1.). The book principally treats of definitions (c. 2.), of syllogisms (c.3.), of assent and dissent, and other logical terms (c.4–9.). It is, in fact, rather a separate treatise on dialectics, than a part of a series of religious dissertations. Photius (Cod. 111.) observes, that the seven first books την αυτήν έχειν επιγραφήν, και ενιαίους τυγχάνειν εν άπασι τοις βιβλίοις το μέντοι όγδοον διάφορών τε είναι και την επιγραφή kai tò éôcpet. In some copies, indeed, the book is wanting ; and its place is supplied by the tract entitled, Tiş ó owSóuevos adoúolos; of which some notice will be taken in our next number.
IS IT LAWFUL TO ADD A NAME AFTER BAPTISM ?
A child is privately baptized, the parents not being willing to wait till the sponsors, who live at a distance, can be brought together, when it will be duly received into the Church : query-at the receiving of the child can an additional name be given at the request of one of the sponsors?
J. P. C.
years, s. 14.
When a child is baptized, according to the Act of Parliament 52 Geo. III. c. 16. S. 4. prefixed to the register of baptisms, the name must be registered ; and if, at any time after, "any person shall knowingly and wilfully insert, or cause, or permit to be inserted,” any thing in addition to what was written at the baptism, when there has been no “accidental error committed," that person subjects himself to the liability of transportation for fourteen
Moreover, by consulting Wheatly, ch. vii. sect. iii. §. 2.; and Dr. Comber under“ Baptism," sect. ii. 9. 3, 4; it will be seen, that the name is to be given at baptism only; and since the clergy are not allowed to re-baptize, they therefore cannot at any time lawfully add another name.
But it is asked, " If the parents, at the receiving of the child by the Church, please to add a name, and enter that additional name in their usual place of entry, their Family Bible, and attest it by the godfathers and friends present, would the law take it in evidence ?"
The law perhaps might, while the identity of the individual could be proved: but if, after sixty or eighty years there should be the
least difficulty upon this point, it appears to us that property might be placed in very great jeopardy. We would therefore advise, that Paley's rule be followed, which is to this effect.—“When we are in doubt upon the lawfulness or expediency of any point, always to take the safer side."
In Burn's Ecclesiastical Law (Tyrwhitt's edition), under "Baptisms," mention is made of Lord Coke's opinion, that at confirmation, Christian names might be altered. This, we believe, used to be done, though only when the names were improper, until about the time of the Reformation ; but from that period it has ceased, owing to the difficulty that might ensue in identifying any certain individuals. What an act of parliament can do is another question.
2 Sam. xxiv. 1.–1 Chron. xxi. 1. We agree with "Scrutator" that the solutions noticed by him of the difficulty arising from comparing 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. with 1 Chron. xxi. 1. are not satisfactory.
There are two ways, however, of harmonizing the passages, one of which, we think, if not both, is perfectly so.
1. If no be the Niphal form, the passage might be rendered, " and David was provoked.” This version clears the difficulty at once, and is supported by the authority of Bishops Patrick and Kidder. But, as it may not please the Punctists,
2. Let it be considered that the maxim, "qui facit per alium, facit per se,” is especially recognised in the language of Scripture, (see Exod. xviii. 6,7 ; John iv. 1,2 : compare Matt. xix. 20 with Matt. x. 35.) and God is often said to do that actively, which he permits to be done (see particularly 1 Kings xxii. 23.); and with strict propriety, when an Omnipotent Being is the subject of discourse. The difference is not in the action itself, but in the moral character of it. Satan tempts David, in order to lead him into sin, and in order that he may gratify his own malignity by the consequences to prince and people : God permits the tempter to succeed, because David, after all his trials and warnings, had not learned to rely on his God; and the people needed punishment, both for judgment and for correction. The malice of the tempter thus executes the just pleasure of God. Satan is but the instrument of God's good providence. Had David been faithful and the people pious, Satan could have had no advantage. Satan is indeed, “ the accuser of the brethren;" -ó diábolos—the traducer ; and when he can bring no accusations, he can obtain no power.
It may be said, this does not apply to the history of Job. But, in the first place, Job, although possessing the highest testimony to his integrity, was, as a partaker of human nature, unquestionably a sinner; beside the temptation itself was intended to manifest his eminent grace of patience, which otherwise could not have been exercised, and which received a superabundant reward.
But the history of Job is, in fact, eminently applicable to the present difficulty. In Chap. ii. ver. 7, we read that “Satan went forth from
Rev. xii. 10. The position of standing up assigned to Satan in 1 Chron. xxi. 1. is the formal act of an accuser. VOL. XIV. NO. VIII.
the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with sore boils ;" but in verse 10, Job
says, “Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil ?” and yet “ in all this Job did not sin with his lips," as he certainly would have done, if he had ascribed his sufferings to God unjustly. The hand of God is to be acknowledged in all things, though the intermediate agent be devil or man ; since “there is no power but of God;" and when the malevolence of earth or hell prevails against us, we may be sure that those malicious agents are unconsciously fulfilling his just and benevolent purposes.
In our last paper of “Curæ," on Swedenborgianism, we offered some observations on the connexion between the ideas of covering and atoning, both expressed by the Hebrew verb 70). We will here adduce two quotations on the subject, which will be allowed curious - one as falling from the pen of an author who was not only wholly ignorant of Hebrew, but generally illiterate ; the other from a sonnet written by a French layman, and therefore not likely to be the production of a deep Hebrew scholar.
“He [Christ] has therefore another righteousness, which he puts upon sinners, and by which their sins are COVERED.” — Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, Part II. The dialogue between Greatheart and Christiana.
“ Mais dessus quel endroit toinbera ton tonnerre,
EFFECTS OF THE POPISH BILL. MR. Editor.—During the agitation of the fatal Popish questionfatal every way— fatal to confidence – to property- to credit-to national honour—to national religion-you did me the favour to admit into your truly valuable pages some remarks on PRO - POPERY SOPHIstry.” So completely has all I ventured to predict been borne out by subsequent events, that I have not as yet seen cause to change my opinion. Will you indulge me with a few words in pursuance of the subject ?
The St. James's Chronicle reports the following as the subject of a speech very recently delivered by the Duke of Wellington :
“It was unfortunately too true that Ireland had been for too long a time in an unsettled state ; but it was equally true that peace was preserved in that country in former times at a less expense than at present. The present force in Ireland amounted to a great military power, besides the police. IN FORMER TIMES THE DISTURBANCES WERE TRIFLING COMPARED TO THE PRESENT EXCITEMENT. It was true that, during the disabilities of the Catholics, great excitement did exist, and which he had hoped would have been at an end by a removal of the great grievance. ALL FORMER EXCITEMENTS WERE NOTHING, COMPARED TO THE PRESENT STATE OF PUBLIC FEELING IN IRELAND."
Here we have, on the testimony of him who, three years since, considered the removal of the Popish disabilities a panacea for all the evils of Ireland, a confession, that not only has that measure utterly failed of its expected effect, but that the present state of Ireland is