« EdellinenJatka »
"go in peace.” And in all this, our Lord acted agreeably to bis great design, which was to bring sinful men to repentance : and he faithfully discharged the important commission, that had been given him, wbicb was " to seek and to save, that which was lost."
But it cannot be reasonably supposed, that he would admit such a person, as he did Mary Magdalene, into the number of his stated attendants. And I believe, that they, who attentively observe our Lord’s bistory, as recorded in the gospels, may perceive his life to bave been an example of admirable wisdoin and prudence, as well as of the strictest virtue, and the most generous goodness and compassion,
Let us now sum up the evidence, so far as we have gone. —Mary of Magdala was a woman of distinction, and very easy in her worldly circumstances. For a while, she had labored under some bodily indisposition, which our Lord niraculously healed; for wbich benefi she was ever after very thankful. So far as we know, her conduct was always very regular and free from censure; and we may reasonably believe, that after her acquaintance with our Saviour it was edifying and exemplaryI conceire of her as a woman of fine understanding and known virtue and discretion, with a dignity of behaviour, becoming her age, her wisdom, and bigh station. She followed our Lord as her Master and benefactor ; she shewed him great respect in his life, at bis death, and after it; and as appears from three of the evangelists, she was one of those, to wboun he ôirst showed himself after his resurrection."
Dr. Lardner then proceeds to some more particular evidence to the same effect, supported by the opinions of several other learned theologians, and concludes as follows.
“ After this long argument and so many good authorities, I may leave you to consider, whether they have not some good reason for their judgment, who dislike the denomination or inscription, taken notice of at the beginning of this letter "A Magdalen house for penitent women." “It appears
to me a great abuse of the name of a truly bon. ourable, and I think, truly excellent woman. If Mary's shame had been manifest, and upon record, she could not have been worse stigmatized; whereas the disadvantageous opinion concerning the former part of her life is founded only in an uncertain and conjectural deduction. And if the notion that she was the woman in Luke seventh, be no more than a vulgar error, it ought to be abandoned by wise men, and not propagated and perpetuated.”
The following verses have been republished in our country; but we be.
lieve will be new to many of our readers. They breathe throughout a strain of sentiment, wild, melancholy and solemn, the interest of which is heightened by the circumstances mentioned respecting their author. The versification too is peculiar, and adds to the general effect.
From the West of England Journal.
BY A SCHOOL BOY-SINCE DECEASED.
It is good for us to be here ; if thou wilt, let us make three Tabernacles, one for ihee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias." MATT. XVI. 14.
METHINKS, it is good to be here :
Shall we build to ambition ! ah no!
To beauty ? ah no! she forgets
Shall we build to the purple of pride ;
To riches ? alas !'lis in vain,
To the pleasures which mirth can afford,
Shall we build to affection and love?
Unto sorrow ? the dead cannot grieve,
Unto death, to whom monarchs must bow?
1. Discourses on the Christian Revelation viewed in con.
nexion with the modern astronomy, together with six sermons embracing the last occasioned by the death of the Princess Charlotte of Wales. By Rev. THOMAS CAALMers, D. D. minister of the Tron churcb Glasgow. Andover: Published by Mark Newman. Flagg and Gould
printers. 1818. 2. Sermons preached in the Tron Church, Glasgow. By
Thomas CHALMERS, D. D. Glasgow printed. New York, reprinted by Kirk and Merceio. 1819.
DR. Chalmers was first made known to the public by an article entitled “Christianity," which was originally published in the Edinburgh Encyclopedia. This has been very generally, and on many accounts, deservedly admired. He has since given to the world a series of Discourses on the Chris, tian Revelation, viewed in connexion with the modern astrono
my, and various other sermons and addresses of a miscellaneous character, which were principally delivered in the Tron church, Glasgow. It is our present intention to make some remarks on these latter productions, especially on the astronomical Discourses. There are two considerations wbich induce us to undertake this notice. From the extent of the universe, as made known to us by modern science, an objection bas been derived, which is supposed to bear upon the truth of Christianity. This Dr. Chalmers bas undertaken to answer, and we think unsuc. cessfully. But as we believe, the whole force of the objection is directed against false notions of christianity; we wish to explain our own opinions upon this subject. But beside this, the Discourses of Dr. C., both those in which this objection is discussed, and his other sermons, have gained a popularity, which is so very extraordinary, that we cannot help thinking it worth while to analyze their composition.
Our first concern is with the objection and the answer to it. Dr. C. speaks of it as occurring chiefly in conversation, and as noi occupying a prominent place in treatises of infidelity. It is bowever stated, by the author of the "Age of Reason" in bis strong coarse manner, and has been elaborately, in a manper conformed to his views of Christianity, answered by Andrew Fuller in the “Gospel its own Witness.” It consists properly of two parts. First it is alleged, that in the Mosaic account of the creation, there is so “worked up” a belief that the world in wbich we dwell is the whole of the habitable creation, that to believe otherwise, that is, that there are innumerable worlds, renders the christian system of faith “ at once little and ridiculous.” The objection that the account of Moses supposes the existence of no other habitable world than our own, wbich is not noticed by Dr. C., if it have any force, goes to prove that Moses was not inspired as a historian. But it seems to us to be altogether frivolous. For what is the basis of this objection of the unbeliever? It rests entirely on the supposition, that God, provided he intended to give to the Jews such a dispensation as is asserted to have been given would at the same time bave conveyed some intimations at least, of the extent of the universe. But is this a fair or a rational supposition ? Is it not allogether gratuitous ? Shall the unbeliever presume to decide what God ought to have communicated ? Should we expect to find in this early message from heaven, any thing but what it was the especial object of that message to communicate? What then was the object of this communication ? It was to instruct a particular pation, during the infancy of the world, in the existence, unity, and perfections of the Deity, to banish idolatry, and to prepare the way for the complete revelation which was made by the Son of God.
This was the scope of the Mosaic dispensation, and all this was fully and compleiely effected. Is it not then irrational to ex. pect to find in such a communication, the results of modern science anticipated, which results had not the slightest connes. ion with the express object of that communication ? Now the antecedent probability that God would have instructed the Jews in the discoveries of modern science, which froin their nature require no revelation at all, at the same time that he made a communication to them on a subject entirely different, this antecedent probability is the precise measure of the force of the objection under consideration.
But this objection of the unbeliever seems to us untenable in another view of the subject. The revelations of God to man, it is reasonable to suppose, -it is indeed impossible to believe otherwise, will not only be adapted to ihe objects for which they are intended, but also they will be adapted to the circumstances, to the degree of understanding and information of the recipients. What then was the intellectual and moral condition of the Jews? They were a people not yet redeemed from a state of the grossest ignorance, requiring grand and striking miracles to awaken them from intellectual corpor, and continual displays of divine power to keep alive in their minds the most obvious truths. It was to such a people, that the unbeliever demands, that a sublime system of astronomy, perfected as it has been, by modern philosophy, should have been given ;-that is, a communication should have been made to them, which, from the nature of the case, they could not have understood. But why is the objection limited to the fact, that the extent of the material world was not revealed in the earliest times? A parity of reasoning would lead him to demand that all the discoveries of modern science should have been included in the Mosaic dispensation, and in fact that it should contain in embryo the discoveries of all future times ;
* Who asks and reasons thus, will scarce believe
But we proceed to consider the second part of the objection against christianity, derived from the extent of the universe. This regards the redemption of the world. Without following the course which Dr. C. has pursued, or adverting to numerous topics which might as well be intıoduced in a series of discourses on any other subject, we quote the unbeliever's argument as stated by him, where we first find it.
" In the astronomical objection which infidelity has proposed against the truth of the christian revelation, there is first an assertion, and then an