« PreviousContinue »
two rollers respectively, and the, so called, book, being thus put before him, (not necessarily, as it is in English, "delivered unto bim," and being unrolled, he found the proper lesson as usual, and read it off, and afterwards preached on it, as a text. At the same time, we are not concerned particularly to contend for this view, though it seems so natural.
We needs must say something about the discrepancy which occurs between Luke iv. 18, 19, and Isaiah lxi. 1-3; though such a subject cannot be conveniently, nor at all satisfactorily, treated, without using the original languages of the Sacred Scripture, which we cannot expect our readers to be acquainted with. We shall therefore say little on this subject here; and at the same time refer the reader to what we said on quotations in our former article, “INSPIRATION AND REVELATION."
The Old Testament seems to have been well known in the time of Christ, (see Rom. xvi. 26.) one, at least, of the translations then extant, was in Greek, and is designated, the Septuagint, which we still possess. That of Daniel alone, now found in the Septuagint, is not the original Septuagint translation of that Prophet; and we learn from St. Jerome, that the doctors of the Church, finding the Septuagint translation of Daniel very imperfect, though it is quoted by the earliest Holy Fathers of the Church, rejected it, when they had the superior translation of Theodotion, of the second century, to substitute in its stead. In the New Testament, the quotations are made sometimes from this Septuagint translation ; sometimes they are a more exact translation of the original Hebrew; and sometimes they seem to vary from both. (See our last Article.) In the passage in St. Luke before us, which, with some exceptions--and the whole of v. 19 wanting—is a transcript from the Septuagint, it seems to us the most satisfactory view, to assume, that the Lord, in reading from Isaiah lxi. purposely added, from memory, in reading, or else introduced in his exposition, part of Isaiah xlii. 7; and the learned reader would have no difficulty in recognizing in St. Luke, a pretty fair translation of the two passages (in Hebrew) combined. And if, as is reason to believe,“ in the Prophet Isaiah," be the proper reading in Mark i. 2, a similar principle would there be proceeded upon. The reader of a translation of the Bible must never forget that he is only reading a translation, and, in comparing quotations in the New Testament from the old, often a whole complication of translations, on which no criticism what
ever can be founded.* That which may be no difficulty at all to the learned, seems often an insurmountable obstacle to the unlearned. (See 2 Pet. iii. 16.) Let the unlearned Christian then thank God, that He has appointed a Church, as a resting place, at least, for the unlearned ; and let the English Church man especially, thank God, for having cast his lot in a Church which has ever abounded with the most learned Divines, wbo may rather be trusted than the infidel, or the heretic, who would base his sophistry, on a pretended improved translation of an original text. Our Church has men within her pale, it is a great, a glorious boast, who understand the original languages of the Sacred Scriptures, better than all the infidels and heretics in the world. If you then, our less learned friends, find things in the Sacred Scriptures which you do not understand, be not perplexed; and always think, there are others in your Church who do understand em; and you have that warrant of God's word, which you can understand, that you may trust the Church: (1 Tim. iii. 15.) and in this you will be the more confirmed, if you attentively read, or rather study, what we have still to say on our subject.
(To be continued.)
GOING TO ROME.
The Rev. R. D. Winslow, was a devoted clergyman of the American Church. Towards the close of last year, he was called by Almighty God to render an account of his stewardship; and departed this life in the flower of his age. His funeral sermon. was preached by his uncle, the Bishop of New Jersey. This admirable Prelate has added in a note to the sermon, an account of a remarkable passage in Mr. Winlow's life, which we here transcribe for the edification of our readers.
Mr. Winslow was a catholic Churchman, in equal contradistinc. tion to the Papist and the Puritan. He had acquainted himself with both. It was THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM, saving him, in Christ, from either error, in which he lived, and in which he died ; and
* We hope we need not caution our readers against the imposture, for it is nothing else, of those who prate about the “right of private judgment in the interpretation of Sacred Scripture;" every honest, unlearned man will readily acknowledge that he does not understand all which he reads in the Sacred Scriptures,
of whose training he approved himself, through grace, so beautiful a specimen. Few men have had experience so critical of the dangerous influence of Popery. Never has there been exhibited a clearer demonstration than in his case, of the effectual resistance of THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM to its most winning blandishments. A piece of private history, as interesting as it is instructive, will perfectly establish, while it well illustrates this statement.
It was during his residence at the University, that the Romish convent at Charlestown was destroyed, by an outrageous act of lawless violence. Winslow was a young man, not only of an enthusiastic, but of a bighly excitable temperament. He felt most strongly the indignation which that deed enkindled in every generous breast.
What he felt deeply, he was wont to express warmly. In some such way, his feelings were enlisted on the side of Rome. A young man of “ mark and likelihood,” his case attracted the notice of the clergy of that communion, in Boston. One thing led to another, until he found himself admitted to, what seemed, their fullest confidence. Books were put into his hands. The enticing arts, which none know better how to use, were sedulously applied. His very position, as a leader among the young Churchmen of the University, when neither his years nor his acquirements had enabled him to know-much less to give-a reason of the hope that was in him, increased his expo
With just enough acquaintance with the Church to feel a reverence for antiquity, and a disposition to be governed by authority, he had made but little progress in that search of Holy Scripture, and of ancient authors, by which alone the Christian can be guarded against the countless forms of error-more dangerous, in proportion as they seem the more to ąssimulate themselves to truth. The result of such a state of things was natural and obvious. A young man of less than twenty, his spirit all alive to classical and chivalrous associations, thrown off his guard by the stirring up of all his deepest impulses, thinking himself to be somewbat, as a Churchman, in close and constant conference with a Romish Bishop and his Priests! Who could hesitate as to the issue? Of all this I was in perfect ignorance; when I received from him the following letter :
“ Harvard University, Feb. 23, 1835. “My dear UncleThe contents of the following letter will undoubtedly give you both surprise and pain; but duty to myself, to you, and to God, compel me to make this disclosure. The only thing for which I lament is, that I did not write you my
doubts and difficulties six weeks ago ; and then I might have been rescued from what you will consider a great error. To be brief, I am all but converted to the faith of the Roman Catholic Church; and, unless I am to be reclaimed, I must in the course of a few weeks openly join her communion. My affections, my sympathies, are all with the Protestant Episcopal Church ; but my judgment is almost convinced that she is in a state of schism. But you will naturally enough inquire, how did this come about ? Ever since the destruction of the convent at Charlestown, my attention has been directed to the faith of the [Roman] Catholic Church. I have perused the works of several of her best champions; and have had long conversations with Bishop Fenwick, of Boston, and another Roman Catholic Clergyman. Not that I would give you to understand that my investigations have been of an ex parte nature; I have also studied the ablest Protestant authors : and yet, the result is, that I am nearly if not quite convinced that the Church of Rome is the only Church of Christ.
“ It is not my design, in writing these lines, to enter into a full relation of the various reasons which have led me to such conclusions : suffice it to say, that my present views seem to my mind to be the Church theory of our own Church, carried out to its legitimate result. I have always believed that Christ is not divided that there should be but one fold, as there is one Shepherd—that our Lord has promised to be with His visible Church, to the end of the world--that His Church should be guided into all truth, and be the pillar and ground of the truth, because He was to be with it all days. Now these are truths, as I humbly think, which are so firmly founded in Scripture, antiquity, reason, and common sense, that they cannot be overthrown. But if these views be true, the Church of Rome, as it appears to me, is the only true Church. Where was our Church, before the (so called) Reformation ? Did she not separate from the Catholic Church at that time? If she be the true Church, then Christ deserted His Church, and was false to his promise of being with her all days. There certainly cannot be two true Churches so at variance as Rome and England. If Rome be right, England must be wrong. If Rome be wrong, then our views of the Church must be erroneous. Such is my dilemma.--And I cannot see any better alternative than that of returning to the Mother Church.
No Dissenter can possibly meet my objections.-Churchmen, and Churchmen alone, can understand my peculiar difficulties. I would therefore beg of you, my dear uncle, if you should have time, to recommend any work which will meet my case; and also
give me any light, by which I may conscientiously remain in the Protestant Episcopal Church-a Church which I have so much loved and honoured. Excuse my troubling you with this letter. It is no less painful to me than it can prove to you. But it is my duty, and duty must be done.
“Very affectionately yours,
“ BENJAMIN Davis Winslow." In a moment, I saw his position. I saw that to refer him to books, while Jesuit expositors had his confidence, was vain. I I saw that he was not accessible to reason. I saw that to remain at Cambridge was to rush, and that at once, into the gulf that yawned for him. The image that possessed my mind at once, and haunted it by day and night, for weeks and months, and has not yet lost all its vividness, was the poor bird, charmed by the rattle-snake, and shooting with a desperate impulse into his sanguinary jaws. I resolved, if there was help in God, to save him; and by the help of God, I did. I wrote to him briefly, but per emptorily, to come at once to me—that the subject was of the utmost moment—that no correspondence at a distance could meet its requirements-that it called for time and thought, and careful study of authorities, without the bias of an overruling influence on either side--that Burlington was a calm, sequestered place,—that my books were at his service that he should investigate the subject thoroughly-that he should follow implicitly, wherever that investigation, guided by the Holy One, should lead -if it be to Rome, he should go-if, convinced himself, he could convince me, I would go with him-if conviction failed, his place was where the providence of God had set him. I used no word of argument, and I referred to no authority against the Romish claim; for I felt sure, that they who had so far secured him, would have access to my letters. I told him to go at once to the President-to say that I had need of him; and that he must rely on my character that the occasion was sufficient, without a statement of the reasons.--He went to the President. At first, he refused permission. Then be sent for him, and told him that, on further consideration, he felt assured my reasons must be good ; and granted leave of absence. As I had anticipated, so it was. My letter was shewn to his seducers. Every argument that Romish craft could suggest was used, to prevent, or to delay, his coming. One of them was going on soon, and would accompany him. If he went he must take letters to the communion in Philadelphia. At least, he must take books. But it was all in vain. The principle of loyalty was in him more strongly than