near is death, how solemn is judgment, and, to those who are unprepared for it, how awful is eternity. Let this be said as from a dying man to his dying successor, and be accompanied with earnest prayer for the influences of the Holy Spirit, to render the admonition truly availing; and who can estimate the benefit that might result from such an undertaking ;—an undertaking, which if determined upon, should not be delayed, for who is permitted to foresee either how soon or suddenly he may be called to give an account of his stewardship? Suppose that such a letter as I have suggested should be put into the hands of a successor truly devoted to the service of God, but inexperienced in the duties of the Christian ministry, would he not be glad to receive such friendly infor. mation and admonition? and might he not in consequence become, by the grace of God, a more zealous, faithful, and efficient minister of Christ? Or if he should be young and thoughtless, a lover of pleasure, or even greedy of filthy lucre, might not the voice of his prede. cessor, who, though dead, would thus yet speak, arouse him to consideration, to prayer, and to the study of those Holy Scriptures which are able to make us wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus? Might not such an appeal lead the mere theologian to reflect, that something more than intellectual attainments in divinity will be required of him by the Judge of all, at the great day of his appearing? Might not even the coldest formalist, or the most determined lover of the world, be led to ask himself in the depth of silent contemplation, "What are my duties now? What will be my account hereafter? Am I, in the sight of a heart-searching God, a faithful or a faithless steward? Do I preach Christ, or myself? Do I follow the Saviour, or the world?" In any case, the supposed commu nication could do no harm; since the author would be beyond the reach of human animadversion,and the receiver could scarcely be offended at a voice thus speaking to him privately from the tomb. Πισις. ON THE ORIGIN OF WRITTEN SERMONS. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. THE author of the communication on the subject of Extempore Preaching in your Number for last October, states that the practice of reading sermons is peculiar to the Church of England, and peculiar to it only in latter times; being in every respect an innovation, though counted now by many as a valuable relic of antiquity. It commenced, he adds, in the time of king Charles II.; alleging in proof a mandate sent by that king to the university of Cambridge, enjoining extempore or memoriter preaching. 66 I cannot immediately refer to this mandate, and therefore cannot say how far its authority bears upon the question of the antiquity of the practice alluded to; but there is a passage in Burnet's History of the Reformation, which carries it back to a much earlier period, even to the reign of Henry VIII. In his remarks upon certain injunctions issued by Bonner to his clergy, A.D. 1542, he informs us, that, now that the Reformation made a greater progress," eminent preachers were sent over the nation with the king's licence, and that no one was allowed to preach without a licence either from the king or his diocesan. "But," he proceeds, "in order to qualify this, a Book of Homilies was printed, in which the Gospels and Epistles of all the Sundays and holy-days of the year were set down; with a homily to every one of these, which is a plain and practical paraphrase of those portions of Scripture. To these were added many serious ex hortations, and some short explanations of the most obvious difficulties, that shew the compiler of them was a man both of good judgment and learning. To these were also added sermons on several occasions, as for weddings, christenings, and funerals; and these were to be read to the people by such as were not licensed to preach. But those who were licensed to preach being often accused for their sermons, and complaints being made to the king by hot men on both sides, they came generally to write and read their "with Onesimus a faithful brother." SCRIPTURE. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. sermons. From thence the reading ON VERBAL MISAPPLICATIONS OF of sermons grew into a practice in this church in which, if there was not that heat of fire which the friars had shewn in their declamations, so that the passions of the bearers were not so much wrought on by it, yet it has produced the greatest treasure of weighty, grave, and solid sermons that ever the church of God had, which does in a great measure compensate that seeming flatness to vulgar ears that is in the delivery of them." It does not appear on what authority Burnet makes this statement; but had the practice of reading sermons commenced so late as the time of Charles II. he could hardly have been ignorant that it was a recent innovation. VINDEX. CASE OF ONESIMUS. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. THE case of Onesimus is often cited in favour of slavery. But in truth it bears a very different aspect. St. Paul did not send Onesimus back to his master as a slave, but "as a brother beloved." He was sent back in the capacity of a minister of Christ; for St. Paul said to the Colossians that he had sent Tychicus, a faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord, that he might know their estate and comfort their hearts, CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 327. MUCH has been said in your pages respecting doctrinal misapplications of Scripture; I wish some correspondent would add a few lines on what, though a minor, is not an unimportant, matter,—I mean verbal misapplications. We sometimes hear passages applied, and perhaps to prove what is scripturally true, in a manner which is little better than a play upon words-I had almost said punning upon them. I abstain from citing any instance of a painful or ludicrous kind,—but as a single exemplification, to exhibit more clearly my meaning, I select from your last volume a remark cited by one of your valued correspondents, as made by the late Mr. Cadogan: -"You have but one thing to do," said Mr. Cadogan: "exalt Jesus, and the promise is, I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me." This advice is most important; but how is it enforced? Exalt Jesus, because the promise is, that if he is exalted he will draw all men unto him. But true as is Mr. Cadogan's position, his application of the text is grounded on a mere play of words; for to exalt, in the first clause, means to magnify, but the "lifting up" in the second, means crucifixion; and Mr. Cadogan was obliged to mutilate the phrase before he could make it suit his pur. Z pose. For the real words are" And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said signifying what death he should die." Had Mr. Cadogan said, Preach the cross of Christ, that is, all that in Scripture is included in that emphatic and comprehensive phrase, the application of the text would have been just and simple; but the attempt to say the thing more strikingly and antithetically led him to a verbal accommodation of a promise which did not directly apply to his position. I might offer scores of illustra tions, but I forbear. Let all who cite Scripture endeavour in so doing to speak, so far as they can, the true meaning of the Holy Ghost. G. QUERY ON GOING TO CHURCH LATE. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. want of employment. This, strictly I HAVE observed, Mr. Editor, that several of my friends are in the habit of going to church some five or ten minutes after the service has commenced; and as they are orderly and reasonable persons in other matters, and above all never keep a party waiting at dinner, I must not in courtesy suppose that they would act without a good reason in this more important matter. My rule has been to be in my pew at least five minutes before service commences; for which I could give many excellent reasons, such as composing the spirits, finding the Psalms, lessons, and collect for the day; and imploring the blessing and presence of God. Can my friends give me better reasons for arriving late? VIGIL. ON DEARTH OF EMPLOYMENT. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. It is reiterated on every side, that the great cause of public distress is the excesses of to-day. More is used, while not more is produced; there is, therefore, the less left. The just way, therefore, to express the matter is, that there is a want of the necessaries and conveniences of life compared with the number of those who are candidates for them. We want either more bread or fewer mouths. This is the true alternative. We but deceive ourselves if we think that transferring money from one to another, so long as money's worth remains the same, will ease the nation. It benefits those individuals who by this transaction get more than their ordinary share of comforts; but it takes away in an equal proportion from the common stock. A garrison-town reduced to short allowance in a siege would not be deceived by the fallacy of its making good for trade to have a day of idleness and waste. A civil ball under such circumstances might add to the pro perty of a few tradesmen employed, but in proportion as they were enabled by this accession of money to purchase more than their share of the articles which all wanted, the bulk of their fellow-townsmen must suffer. The only real allevia tion of the calamity of such a town would be to reduce the number of consumers, or to increase the articles required for their consumption. Say what we will, this is our condition in this country; and this is our only remedy. Our consumers are too many; our articles for consumption too few. We talk indeed of plenty; nay, of superabundance; but if so, where does it go? is it thrown away? No, there is no superabundance: the butcher's shop and the baker's shop are replenished; but they do not perhaps contain a single day's full allowance for the whole of the population in their neighbourhood; and if all had as much as they wished, the stock would be soon exhausted. My practical inference then is this,We must not artificially increase our population, and we must not artificially diminish our supplies. Both these we have hitherto done: the former by our poor-laws, our restrictions upon emigration, and in other ways; the latter, by fettering the free exchange and importation of the very commodities which we require. We have artificially increased our mouths, and artificially diminished our bread; instead of leaving both our demand and our supply to the ordinary direction of God's providence, unincumbered by the short-sighted interference of hu man legislation. A CHRISTIAN PATRIOT, MODERN GRAMMATICAL AFFECTATIONS. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer, THE word "avocation," which your correspondent J. S. H, complains of, was introduced to us not immediately from the Latin, but from the French language. It is not to be found in Johnson's dictionary, though it was in use long before his time. A copy of Boyer's dictionary now before me, dated 1720, has the word in the English-French part, with the meaning of the Latin word avocamentum affixed to it; namely, "Empêchement, obstacle, distraction," in which sense it is still rightly used. "My numerous avocations prevent my attending parish vestries." The speaker's ordinary business or vocation was an avocation, a distraction, as respected his attendance upon parish vestries. Many other Latin words came to us gallicised. For instance, Dr. John. son has only meliorate, meliorations but modern custom has introduced, from the French, ameliorate, amelio ration; not in the sense of turning from good, but to good, admeliorate. The d in the prefix is dropped in many French words taken from the Latin: thus in the very word J. S. H. mentions, an advocate is in French un avocat. The French a means to, If J. S.-H. would reduce all colloquial words derived to us from French, to the standard of the ori ginal Latin root, he will find he may almost re-compose the language. I, however, quite agree with him, that the word individual is not correctly used for person. The same may be said of the word character, as frequently used for the person who bears the character: "I proceed to apply my discourse to various characters." This is both barbar ous English and barbarous Greek. Character, in both those languages, means a mark, a designation; not the person who bears it. What should we think of a person's saying to a servant, "I cannot give you a good character, because you are a bad character ?". But where should I stop, if I were to enter upon the subject of affectation in language? The affectation of parliamentary usage is one of the most common species of this evil. The current matters of business for the day in parliament come in regular course, according to the paper of regulations or "orders;" a preacher, therefore, or a platformspeaker, talks of its being "quite in course to make a religious profession; it is the regular order of the day." Again, some cabinet minister, who could not, without violating secrets of state, disclose all the reasons which prompted a particular measure, yet adds that he feels himself at liberty, or, as he expresses it, is free to state what is his own private opinion upon the subject. "I do not feel at liberty to discuss the matter in detail; but I am free to confess that it caused considerable difference of opinion in the cabinet." Affectation eagerly grasps at the expression: and hence we hear from the pulpit-"I am free to confess that I consider the salvation of the soul the most momentous concern that can interest a human being;" or from the platform "I am free to confess that I am most anxious to promote the interests of this invaluable society." Ministers of state are denominated, according to their function, the minister for foreign affairs, the minister for the colonies, and, in some of the continental nations, the minister for ecclesiastical affairs or religion; but some person caught hold of the phrase and applied it absurdly enough to the clergy; they are ministers of Christ and ministers to the people - but not ministers of religion, unless religion is to be personified, or made a sort of goddess. Affectation in language is one of the most common faults of the writers and speakers of the present age. Almost all the refinements of our would-be Lindley-Murray grammarians are grammatical errors. Take an example. Our forefathers said, and said rightly, "I am averse to such a proceeding :" our innovators say, "I am averse from such a proceeding." But the from is expressed in the prefix a, and ought not to be duplicated. "I have a dislike, an aversion, a back-turning to a person;" I do not turn my back from him to express my abhorrence. The preposition to means only in reference to, or as it respects : it points out the object towards which the aversion is directed. I might mention various other prepositions which are similarly misused through affectation; but I will content myself with one remark, that almost invariably, whenever a person finds himself, under the idea of grammatical correctness, innovating upon the ordinary modes of speech, he is wrong, and the vernacular idiom is right. What would our Addisons and Johnsons have thought of these novelties? The prefix is no guide to the right preposition; for the same prefix may be used with different prepositions. A merchant corresponding with his friend finds that their ideas correspond to each other. I might turn from prepositions to adverbs, in which there is much innovating affectation. "Miss A. has not nearly learned her lesson." What gibberish is this! It is correct |