Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

MISCELLANEOUS.

REMARKS ON THREE YEARS IN

ITALY."

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

In looking over your January Number for this year, I am arrested by your extracts from "Three Years in Italy." It must be confessed by every pious traveller on the continent, that there is an awful contempt of the Sabbath displayed through all Popish countries. With deep humility must we also confess that our own countrymen and countrywomen too generally fall more or less into the same sin; and many truly pious Christians, and even ministers, would tremble, if they knew how much they have themselves inadvertently conduced by their example to augment this aggregate of evil. I will cite only one instance. A lady was once urged to join a party in an excursion from Paris, to see the grand display of waters playing at Versailles; which never takes place but on Sundays. This invitation she peremptorily declined; and on her conduct being afterwards commented upon, a neighbour remarked, with an air that seemed to indicate an unanswerable reply, "Why, the Rev. went when he was here." In vain did she attempt to make his example less injurious by pointing out that, as he was on the spot, and she resided ten miles off, this made a great difference in the way in which each would have passed the remainder of the Sunday: it was sufficient that a clergyman of so established a religious character was seen among the spectators on that day. The world is severe on the conduct of those who profess to be not of the world; and will take advantage of their inadvertences to justify their own most flagrant breaches of the Fourth Commandment.

After these remarks, your readers will perceive what has distressed my mind in "Three Years in Italy." In the affecting narrative there given of the last hours of a lovely and pious child, how painful is it to hear her, in the review of past occurrences, exclaiming, "Oh mamma, why did you let me go on Sunday to the musical entertainment given to the king of Naples !" And how unsatisfactory is what follows! "My sister having explained the particular circumstances to her, she recovered her composure." She might indeed thus silence, rather than satisfy, the doubts of the dying child; but the law of God is not so easily satisfied. I must also confess that I was much distressed, at finding our authoress and her family in attendance on all the parades of Romish idolatry, almost through a whole Christian Sabbath; and then concluding the day with a visit to St. Peter's to see the illumination; and afterwards to the castle of St. Angelo to witness the display of fireworks. It is true that throughout the continent the most striking spectacles are to be seen only on Sundays, and more particularly in Italy, where these sights are connected with, and indeed form a part of, their religious festivals; but is this a sufficient reason for a British Protestant to violate his conscience? No view of expediency, much less of mere pleasure, can justify a departure from the plain commandments of God. In proof of this, let us only cite from the Gospels two instances; for I will not go back to Jewish times, as some, strange to say, fancy that their moral law is less binding on us than it was on them. Our Lord says, "

Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, nor on the Sabbathday." The other instance is equally striking; "They prepared spices

and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment." Surely both these were cases of great emergency; yet, as to the latter, the embalming of the body of their beloved Lord was considered actually insufficient ground for breaking in upon the Sabbath; and though not forbidden to flee for their lives on that day, yet the command to pray that it might be otherwise, sufficiently proves the great importance which our Lord attached to the exact observance of this commandment. The only answer that can be given is the miserable excuse, that "it is but for once."

I would only add, in conclusion, that if the above quotations were not so decisive as they are, there would still be enough to guide the conscientious and feeling mind, which trembles at being an occasion of stumbling; for it is universally answered by foreigners, if you remonstrate on the breach of the Fourth Commandment, "Why, after all you have said, I cannot see but your own countrymen crowd to our entertainments and spectacles as much on Sunday as on any other day." And while we express our abhorrence of their religious parade, "the purple and scarlet colour, decked with gold and pearls and precious stones," may they not make a similar remark-"You pro

[blocks in formation]

*** Another correspondent, commenting on the extracts in the Christian Observer from the same work, writes,

"The remarkable marble slab, on which I well remember seeing the stains left by drinking cups, is, says the writer of Three Years in Italy, in a place supposed to have been a coffee-house. This is an unhappy supposition to make, respecting a period so long before the use of coffee was known. She has also fallen into a mistake about the inscription at La Riccia (ancient Aricia), p. 806 of your Appendix; which inscription, she says, with truth, is common in many churches. Virgini Deiparæ does not mean, as she says, "equal with God," but "the mother of God."

SEA.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

fess to dislike these displays of ON THE MEASURE OF THE MOLTEN pomp in religious worship; but do you not, by putting off your own simple Protestant service to attend our cathedral, prove that in your hearts you admire them?" Though I feel assured that this is very far from being the case with the religious part of our British population abroad, yet on coming to that passage in the narrative," About two o'clock all was at an end; and we and the rest of the English met at the clergyman's apartments, &c, where some hearts, at least, we trust, were drawn to him in fervent prayer;" I involuntarily answered, It is well said, "we trust," for I am

W. D., in your Appendix for 1828, p. 814, has committed an error in speaking of the proportion assigned to the diameter and circumference of the molten sea, as "incidentally proving the accuracy of the whole description." The proportion of one to three is so rough an approximation, that if the diameter of a circle be ten cubits, the circumference must be more than thirty-one cubits and a half. If the sacred writer is to be

supposed to have meant to speak with exactness of any thing so unimportant, "the line of thirty cubits that did compass it round about," 1 Kings vii. 23, may have passed under the brim,- concerning which see ver. 24.

E. A.

REPLY TO UNJUST CENSURES UPON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

IN perusing "The Modern Martyr," by the author of a series of popular religious tracts, entitled, "The Evangelical Rambler," I was grieved to observe the following misrepresentations of our venerable church, especially as the writer professes to have kept his pages free from "the leaven of a sectarian bigotry."

"The Church of England," he says, " is a human institution, founded on human authority, supported by human laws, and whose emoluments and rewards are derived from the honours and wealth of the world and though it incorporate in its Articles, its Homilies and its Liturgy, the essential doctrines of Christianity, yet it does not absolutely require its members to be spiritually-minded men." Again: "If I inquire from the oracles of inspiration, what description of men should be employed in the public service of the church of Christ, I am told that they should be good men, full of faith and the Holy Ghost, ardently attached to the Lord Jesus, zealous and devoted to his service, &c.......But does the Church of England require these essential qualifications in the men whom she consecrates to the work of the ministry?" Let her answer for herself in the very first question which she puts to all candidates for holy orders" Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost,

to take upon you this office and ministration, to serve God for the promoting of his glory and the edifying of his people ?" Can any thing be more solemn and heartsearching than this inquiry, and the whole of the service? It is quite irrelevant to allege, in reply, that the church is indifferent to the spiritual qualifications of her ministers, because unworthy persons thrust themselves into the pastoral office. Rather is it one among many instances of human imperfection, that the best-contrived systems of discipline are too often impeded by human infirmity. Would not a person who could hypocritically answer the questions in our ordination service, give an account of his conversion, and profess a devotedness to God as is required among the Dissenters, if it were likely to further his worldly interests, though he had neither experienced the one, nor felt the other.

The author of the work alluded to, declares that his first objection against the church is," because she does not absolutely require the essential qualifications of a NewTestament minister, in her candidates for holy orders." Happy, therefore, shall I feel, to remove so serious a scruple; for which purpose, I should think it sufficient to recommend him to read with attention, the affectionate and serious charge given to priests at their ordination; in which the bishop says, "Consider how studious ye ought to be in reading and learning the Scriptures, and in framing the manner, both of yourselves and of those that specially pertain unto you, according to the rule of the same Scriptures ;" and then let him candidly ask, whether our church does not absolutely require the essential qualifications of a New-Testament minister in her candidates for holy orders?

CLERICUS.

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

1. The Book of Enoch the Prophet: an Apocryphal Production, supposed to have been lost for Ages; but discovered, at the Close of the last Century, in Abyssinia; now first translated from an Ethiopic MS., in the Bodleian Library. By RICHARD LAURENCE, LL.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew. [Now Archbishop of Cashel.] Oxford. 1821. 8vo. pp. xlviii. and 214.

2. Three Letters to the Lord Archbishop of Cashel, on the recent Apocryphal Publications of his Grace, &c. &c. By the Rev. JOHN OXLEE, Curate of Stonegrave. York. 1827. 8vo. pp.

144.

3. The Genuineness of the Book of Enoch investigated. By the Rev. J. M. BUTT, M.A., Vicar of East Garston, Berks. London. 1827. 8vo. pp. 92.

FROM the second century of the Christian æra, down to the present day, great difference of opinion has existed among Biblical scholars with regard to a passage in the Epistle of St. Jude (verses 14, 15), which records a prophecy of "ENOCH, the seventh from Adam." This very remarkable passage has given occasion to the inquiries; whether the Apostle cited this prophecy from some book, extant in his time, bearing the name of "ENOCH," and whether, on the supposition of his having quoted such a book, he must be considered as having cited an apocryphal or a genuine work.

Were we to reason merely à priori, we should not hesitate to say that it is incredible that St. Jude cited a book then extant claiming to be the prophecies of Enoch; for, had it been genuine, the Divine Spirit would not surely have suffered his own word to be afterwards lost; and had it been Apocryphal, the inspired Apostle would not have

CHRIST. OBSERV, No. 331.

stamped it with his authority, and have declared it to have been the production of " Enoch, the seventh from Adam." Indeed, the language of St. Jude by no means implies that he quoted from any book whatever, professing to be written by Enoch (a circumstance which most writers on this controverted subject have mistaken); and hence some persons have come to the highly improbable conclusion, that the prophetic words attributed to Enoch were revealed to the Apostle by immediate revelation. But this conclusion is not more improbable than it is unnecessary. There is yet another source from which this insulated passage might have been derived; namely, an authentic tradition. There is nothing to forbid, but much to establish, the supposition, that some historical facts omitted in the Hebrew Scriptures were handed down by the uninspired authors of the Jewish nation. Although it is true that, in the most ancient remains of Hebrew literature, history is so obscured by fable as to be an altogether uncertain guide, yet some truth doubtless exists in this mass of fiction. observation may be applied with still greater force to the Jewish records which existed in the Apostolic age. We know, indeed, from the highest authority, that the Jewish doctors of that period had "made the word of God of none effect by their traditions;" but still their uninspired records must have contained some authentic narratives. From such a source, we may rationally suppose that St. Jude gathered the traditional. antediluvian prophecy of Enoch, under the direction of that infallible Spirit who preserved the inspired writers from error, and guided them into all truth. We conclude, therefore, that the Apostle did NOT quote from any book extant in his day

31

This

purporting to have been written by Enoch.

This conclusion is built on an hypothesis both easy and natural; and it saves us from some very serious difficulties, or rather gets rid of some very dangerous consequences, to which we shall advert in a future page,

The advocates

for the opposite opinion, it must be admitted, are numerous and respectable. Those of the early fathers who have adverted at all to the subject, and by far the greater number of Biblical critics in modern times, maintain that St. Jude had actually before him a book extant under the name of ENOCH, from which he made the quotation under discussion. Nay, we are required to believe that the very book which the Apostle quoted is still in existence; and that it was the same (abating the spoliations of time) with that identical volume which now lies under our eye! A critical examination of a book professedly written by the seventh man from Adam-the only book which has survived the Flood!-might seem to fall more appropriately within the province of "The RETROSPECTIVE Review," than of our publication. However, to be serious, we propose to demonstrate, not only that this piece is Apocryphal, as is admitted by Dr. (now Archbishop) Laurence; but that it was composed in a later period than that which closed the canon of the New Testament, a point in which he is not disposed to acquiesce.

The summary decision of some of the early fathers, (adopted, we regret to say, by the learned prelate whom we have just named, and by Mr. Oxlee), that the date of the Book of Enoch must be prior to the Apostolic age, because it is quoted by St. Jude, will appear to be altogether inconclusive, even from what we have already advanced. In fact, we have not a particle of evidence, that a book, bearing the name of Enoch as its author, was known to the church before the

latter part of the second century. Dr. Laurence has, indeed, pointed out several quotations from Enoch in the Zohar (Laurence, pp. 21, 22), and Mr. Oxlee has added several more from the same source (Oxlee, pp. 108, 109); so that if the antiquity which some writers have claimed for this cabalistic work could be established, the date of the Book of Enoch would necessarily be carried back beyond the age of the Mishna; that is, beyond the early part of the second century; but Mr. Oxlee has given abundant proof that the Sepher Zohar itself is comparatively a modern work *. It may, then, be confidently stated, that the earliest notice of the Book of Enoch, is a quotation made from it by Irenæus, towards the close of century II. It was well known to Tertullian, at the beginning of century III.; to Origen, a little later; and to Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea, in the middle of the same period. It was still extant (probably only in Greek), in century VIII., at the close of which a long quotation was made from it by George (surnamed Syncellus), a monk of Constantinople. From that time it disappears; and all that was known of it at the close of the last century, is comprised in the insignificant fragments preserved

ment in the text, we take this opportunity * That we may not interrupt the arguof stating in a note, that Mr. Oxlee's criticisms on this subject (pp. 11-26) are most ably conducted. He clearly proves that the Zohar could not have been written earlier than century IV., from the names it contains of the Talmudic doctors; nor than century VII. or VIII., from its citing the Jerusalem Targum; quoting the Sepher Raziel. He maintains nor than century X. or XI., from its (on the authority of the Sepher Jeuchasin, Constantinople, 1566) that the Zohar was the composition of Rabbi Moses, of Leon, who flourished about 1293. It has been stated that the original bulk of the Zohar was was so great, that it would have formed a load for a camel; and that, on the Spaniards plundering Heidelberg in 1620, a copy of it was found in that university, on all the twenty-four Books of the Old Testament, which was as heavy a burden as a stout porter could carry!

« PreviousContinue »