« ZurückWeiter »
tion by giving a place, in your next number, to the following remarks, in support of the positions contained in my former commų. nication, and in reply to the “ observations of Leonidas."
Without troubling your readers with a lengthened notice of your correspondent's introductory "observations, in which he in vain endeavours to extend my principle beyond my intention or the fact, I will at once proceed to his arguments.
The first, then, is, that I have “ asserted without any proof," that the exertions of females and undergraduates in imparting spiritual instruction to the sick, are inadequately performed. Now, Sir, I would ask my “observer,” will his statement of “reading a chapter in the Bible, and making an occasional remark on its subject,” afford adequate instruction for the inmates of an hospital, without being accompanied or preceded by a searching examination into the spiritual state of each individual, and a consequent personal application of instruction, exhortation, reproof, or consolation? May I not fairly re-assert, if this be not done, or cannot be done, by the classes in question, that the “ object is imperfectly or injudiciously attempted ?" and, that it is impracticable, is amply demonstrated by the general consent of all nations and ages, to set apart a particular order of men for the purpose.
I have been much mistaken if I and my o observer” would not cheerfully join in encouraging every spark of " love” which may warm the heart of any young Christian.” But we should thus far differ. He would make his “ young Christian” virtually encroach on the office of a “public preacher,” in defiance of the 23d article of our church (Mr. Examiner); as in his subsequent metaphor he. strikes at the root of the 26th. While I would have all such “ cupy their talents," first in their own circle, and then, should their time and circumstances permit, I would gladly direct them to fan the flame of faith by the works of love, under the direction of a minister of that Redeemer who prefers
mercy to sacrifice,” and regards, as done to Himself, the kind and charitable attentions paid to the poor and afflicted of his flock. I regret to perceive that your correspondent has fallen into the vulgar error of supposing that the qualifications of a candidate for orders are confined to the becoming“ master of Pearson or Burnet." Can he be ignorant of the fact, that every such candidate, at least, as would follow the suggestion contained in my last paper, has not only perfected a course of private theological study, but has gradually undergone a peculiar mental training for “ that holy relation to his Maker, and that elevated and affectionate position, with respect to his fellow-crcatures, that gives the noblest exercise to his higher faculties, and developes to its utmost, all that is good within him."* It was with great pleasure that I perceived my “observer's" appeal to Scripture;there we meet on common ground, and, did I not believe my positions to be Scriptural, I would instantly abandon them.
* See an admirable article in Blackwood's Magazine for May, 1829, on
Irish Church Establishment."
The text first adduced is, 1 Tim. v. 10. A comparison of this verse with the context and analogy of Scripture, will make it evident, that in the phrase " every good work," the Apostle sums up the whole of the recommendatory conduct of a "widow not under three score years old,” and that the “ good works” consisted, first, in the faithful discharge of domestic duties, and then in the exercise of charity.
The subjects of Titus ii. 3. are “ aged women likewise;" and a reference to the context in this instance also will, I trust, undeceive “ Leonidas,” who dwells or the precept
“ to be teachers of good things," without considering the subject matter of this teaching contained in the 4th and 5th verses, " that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their chil. dren, to be discreet, keepers-at-home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” The mere inspection of this passage of Scripture ought to convince any one that the duties here inculcated are domestic, not spiritual, and that, therefore, the text, instead of supporting your correspondent's arguments confirm mine. Phil. iv. 3: “ To resemble those women who laboured with Paul in the Gospel.” &c. :-surely, this co-operation could not include public prayer, as the same Apostle so strictly forhad women to preach ; and a reference to the parallel passage, brought forward for the same purpose, (Rom. xvi. 3) where “ Priscilla and Aquila," as styled St. Paul's " helpers in Christianity," (ầuvepyes us) will go to prove that this assistance was of a temporal nature, not a spiritual; for compare the preceding and following verses of the latter passage, and there can scarcely be a doubt concerning the nature of the co-operation. Or, suppose 'I grant the full apparent force of the first passage, it can only refer to the private exhortation of their own sex, which, considering the seclusion of females, required by the customs of Grecian society, would be an important help to the Apostle, but affords no precedent in our country
The other passage alluded to by your correspondent, would receive a similar and satisfactory elucidation, should he refer to Bingham's Ecclesiastical Antiquities, who clearly proves that those females were a distinct order in the primitive church, called Deacon
I did indulge the hope that my anxiety to apply a remedy to the present disorders, would have convinced any unprejudiced mind that my design was not to leave the perishing souls without assistance and advice, but to provide them with the best spiritual consolation, without drawing from their proper sphere Protestant females and undergraduates.
I remain, Sir,
A MUNSTER CURATE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER. SIR—Some time ago I had not a doubt on my mind that it was the absolute duty of every Christian master, to enforce the attendance of his Roman Catholic servants at family prayers. But, since that period, I have listened attentively to arguments directly opposed to the above proposition, the consequence of which is, that I am at present in a complete dilemma respecting this subject, which, I conceive, to be highly important. The expectation of a few lines from some of your more talented and experienced correspondents, on this point, will increase my anxiety for your next “Christian Examiner.” Very truly yours,
ON THE “QUERY OF A MAGISTRATE.”
TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.
SIR-In the number of March last, there was a reply given by a constant reader to my query respecting the propriety of attaching a blessed crueifix.to the Gospels, on administering oaths to the Roman Catholic peasantry. The observations there made by no means give the information sought, and the writer appears to me unacquainted with the usual manner of administering oaths, when he considers that such an oath, acknowledged in the Petty Sessions, differs from that acknowledged in the Assize Court.
Your correspondent, H. T. W., in your May number, comes more to the point, but he omits all scripture proof; and, I shall feel obliged to him, or any other person, by scripture proof, to show whether I am justified or not in my proceeding. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
N: H. W.
ON THE SITUATION OF THE ALTAR OF INCENSE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER. Sir-Many of your readers doubtless have been struck by observing the difference in the enumeration of the vessels of the tabernacle, as mentioned by St. Paul in the beginning of the 9th chapter to the Hebrews, from that which is generally received among us. As the passage is not lengthy, it may be well just to transcribe it here, for convenience sake :
“For there was a tabernacle made ; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the shew-bread; which is called the sanctuary.
“ And after the second veil, the tabernacle, wbich is called the holiest of all;
“ Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant, overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that bad the manna, and Aaron's rod that buided, and the tables of the covenant;
“ And over it the cherubims of glory, shrouding the mercy-seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.”
In this enumeration no mention is made (as it is generally thought) of the golden altar, or altar of incense.
Whitby takes no notice of the apparent omission. Scott, in his note upon the place, says, “ The golden altar of incense is not mentioned in this catalogue; for what reason we know not: but the conjecture of some expositors, that the words, the golden censer,' meant that altar, is groundless ; for that was stationary in the first sanctuary, and was not used by the high priest on the day of atonement, who burned incense on a portable censer, within the vail.”
As I am inclined strongly to the opinion, that by the words “golden censer" are really meant the altar of incense—and farther, as I conceive the golden altar did not stand in the first sanctuary, but was within the vail (in which St. Augustine, among others, agrees with me,) I wish, through the medium of your pages, to state my reasons for these ideas, and to request the aid which any of your contributors might feel disposed to give, in throwing light upon the subject
. The first piace in the Old Testament where mention is made of the vessels or furniture of the tabernacle, is Exodus xxv. In it are given directions for making the ark, the table of shew-bread, and the candlestick; and at the 35th verse we read, “And thou shalt set the table without the veil, and the candlestick over against the table, on the side of the tabernacle towards the south : and thou shalt put the table on the north side.”. No mention is here made of the altar of incense—though the arrangement and relative situation of the vessels of the outer sanctuary seem to be complete. I would remark, too, that these portions of the tabernacle furniture are said to be placed without the vail, not before it. The altar of incense is not spoken of till the 30th chapter. And at the 6th verse, where directions are given for placing it, the words are, “ Thou shalt put it before the vail that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy-seat that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee.”,
In the 40th chapter, where Moses is described as preparing all things according to command, the like difference of expression is observed—the table, candlestick, &c. being said to be without, the altar before, the vail. Now, in the 30th chapter, where the altar of incense is first described, it is said, at the 10th verse, Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once a-year, with the blood of the sin-offering of atonements : once in the year shall he make atonement upon it, throughout your generations : it is most holy unto the Lord.” Upon referring to Leviticus xvi. where the ceremonies of the day of atonement are described, we find no mention made expressly of blood sprinkled on this altar, VOL. IX.
though the “reconciling," the brazen altar is mentioned particularly. This would seem a strange omission. But at the 15th verse we read, “ Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat." This sprinkling of the blood before the mercy-seat, I conceive to be none other than the purification of the golden altar, and this is expressly said to be done within the vail.
It may be objected to this arrangement, that incense was burnt every day, morning and evening, on this altar, whereas we know that the high priest alone went within the vail once in the year. I would observe here, that as the height of the vail is no where stated in Scripture, (the Jewish writers themselves do not agree about it either,) it is probable that it was but low, forming a slight fence between the Holy place and the Most Holy place, and that, the altar standing* close to it, in the centre, before the ark-he had only to lay down the coals which he brought in on the censer, or, perhaps, lay down the censer itself, filled with live coals, upon it, and offer the incense. It seems to me more likely, too, that the vail should be constructed of such a height as not to exclude a view of the mercy-seat. For it is said of the mercy-seat (Exod. xxv. 22,) “And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give you in commandment unto the children of Israel.” This appearing of God was under the form of a cloud, as we are told, Levit. xvi. 2. It would seem probable that this cloud should be visible to the priests, which would not be, did the vail extend to any great height. The vail, probably, just served to mark the lines of the boundary of the place where, God being personally present, man was not to approach but under peculiar circumstances - like the barrier round about the mount, which prevented the people coming too nigh, yet allowed them to see the glory of the Lord."
As I think, from what I have stated, there are grounds for concluding that the golden altar stood within the vail-so the conjecture is not “altogether groundless," as Mr. Scott says, that the words rendered “golden censer,” in our translation, mean the altar of incense. We do not read of any golden censer made for the service of the tabernacle; and the word Oupcarupov, which St. Paul employs, evidently may signify any thing on which incense is offered. Hoping that some of your correspondents may be inclined to consider this subject, as every thing is valuable which tends to reconcile apparent discrepancies in Holy Writ, I remain, Mr. Editor, with much respect,
J. C. L.
This situation of the altar, I think, is what is intended by the words “ before He vail."