THE EDITOR'S PORTFOLIO.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume I, Issue I, 16 July 1842, Page 76

THE EDITOR'S PORTFOLIO.

REMARKS ON THE FORMATION OF ASSOCIATIONS TO ACCOMPLISH ALL OBJECTS BY ORGANIZED MASSES OF SOCIETY. BY CHANNING. [.Continued from our last.] , There is one strong presumption in favour . of the means which they have used. We have , never heard of their awakening enmity and counteraction. In one particular some of them may have erred. We refer to the compact I formed by their members for abstaining from , wine. When we consider that wine is universally acknowledged to be an innocent and often ' salutary beverage, that Jesus sanctioned its use ' by miraculously increasing it at the marriage f feast, that the Scriptures teach us to thank God [ for it as a good gift, intended to " gladden the ' heart of man," and when to these considerations we add that wine countries are distin- , guished for temperance, we are obliged to , regard v.his pledge as injudicious ; and we re- . gret it, because it may bring distrust and contempt on an excellent institution, and because its abandonment, for it cannot long continue, ■ may be construed by some as a warrant for re- . turning to inebriating liquors. In one view, the success of the efforts against intemperance affords us peculiar satisfaction. It demonstrates a truth, little felt, but infinitely precious; namely, the recoverableness of human nature from the lowest depths of vice. It teaches us never to despair of a human being. It teaches us that there is always something to work on, a germ to be unfolded, a spark which may be cherished, in the human soul. Intemperance is the most hopeless state into which man can fall; and yet instances of recovery from this vice have rewarded the recent labours of the philanthropist. Let philanthropy, then, rejoice in the belief that the capacity of improvement is never lost, and let it convert this conviction into new and more strenuous efforts for the recovery of the most depraved. We proceed now to Bible Societies. These need no advocates. Their object is so simple, unexceptionable, beneficent, that all Protestants, at least, concur in their support. By spreading the Bible without note or comment, they especially assert the right of private judgment, and are thus free from the great reproach of trenching on Christian freedom. Perhaps they have not always been conducted with sufficient prudence. We have particularly feared /that they might be open to the charge of indiscreet urofusion. We believe it to be a good rule that, where the poor can give any thing for a Bible, no matter how little, they should be encouraged and incited to pay this part of the price. We believe that it will be more valued, and more carefully preserved, where it has cost something. We do not think of the Bible as the superstitious among Catholics and heathens do of relics and charms, as if its mere presence in a family were a necessary good. We wish some pledge that it will be treated with respect, and we fear that this respect has been diminished by the lavishness with which it has been bestowed. One cause of the evil is that societies, like individuals, have a spice of vanity, and love to make a fair show in their annual reports ; and accordingly they are apt to feel as if a favour were conferred when their books are taken off their hands. We think that to secure respect to the Bible is even more important than to distribute it widely. For this purpose, its exterior should be attractive. It should be printed in a fair large type, should be well bound, and be pro.vided with a firm case. This last provision seems to us especially important. The poor have no book-cases. Their Bibles too often lie on the same shelves with their domestic utensils : nor can it be doubted that, when soiled, torn, dishonoured by this exposure, they are regarded with less respect than if protected by peculiar care. We have a still more important remark to make in reference to Bible Societies. In our last number we noticed an edition of the New . Testament, recently published in Boston, and differing from those in common use by a new translation of those passages of the Greek original, of which the true reading was lost or neglected when the received Engish version was made. This edition of the New Testament we stated to be undoubtedly more correct, more conformed to the original, than our common editions. On this point we speak strougly, because I wish to call to it. the attention of Bible Societies, and of all conscientious Christians. To such we say — Here is a translation, undoubtedly more faithful to the original than that in common use. You have here in greater purity what Jesus Christ said, and what his apostles wrote ; and, if so, you are bound by your allegiance to Christ to substitute this / for the common translation. We know that uneducated Christians cannot settle this question. We therefore respectfully, and with^ solemnity, solicit for it the attention of learoq£ men, of Christian ministers, of professors oi theology of every sect and name. We ask for the calmest and most deliberate investigation ; and if, as we believe, there shall be but one opinion as to the claims of the version which we have recommended — if all must acknowledge that it renders more faithfully the words of the inspired and authorized teachers of Christianity — then we see not how it can he denied the reception and diffusion' which it deserves. We conceive that, to Bible Societies, this is « great ?|uestion, and not to be evaded without unfaithulness to our common Master, and without disrespect to the holy Scriptures. We fear that there is a want of conscientiousness on this subject. We fear that the British and Foreign Bible Society has forfeited, in a measure, its claims to the gratitude and admiration of the church, by neglecting to secure the greatest possible accuracy and fidelity to the new Jtrans-

lations which they have sent forth. We hear continual expressions of reverence for the Bible; bur the' most ' unambiguous proofs of it — we mean, Unwearied efforts to purify it from human additions, mutations, and corruptions — remain lo be given. Before leaving the consideration of Bible Societies, we cannot but refer to a very singular transaction in relation to the Scriptures, in which some of them are thought to be implicated. In some of our citieß and villages, we are told, that the rich as well as the poor have been visited for the purpose of ascertaining whether they own the Bible. The object of this domiciliary investigation we profess not to understand. We cannot suppose that it was intended to lavish on the rich the funds which were contributed for spreading the Scriptures among the poor. One thing we know, that a' measure mote likely to irritate, and to be construed into an insult, could not easily be contrived. As a sign of the times it deserves our notice. After this step, it ought not to surprise us should an inquisition be established, to ascertain who among ua observe, and who neglect, the duties of private and family prayer. We might smile at this spirit, could we tell where it would stop. But it is essentially prying, restless, and encroaching, and its first movements ought to be withstood. We now proceed to another class of associations — those which are designed to promote the observance of the Sabbath. The motives which gave birth to the^we respect. But we doubt the rectitude and usefulness of the object, and we fear that what has begun in conscientiousness may end in intolerance and oppression. We cannot say of these associations as of those which we have just noticed, that they aim at an unquestionable good, about which all good men agree. Not a few of the wisest and best men dissent from the principle on which these societies are built, namely, that the Jewish Sabbath is binding on Christians. Not a few of the profoundest divines and most exemplary followers of Christ have believed, and still believe, that the Sabbath enjoined in the fourth commandment is a part of Judaism, and not of the Gospel ; that it is essentially different from the Lords-day; and that to enforce it on Christians is to fall into that error which Paul withstood even unto death, the error of adulterating Christianity by mixtures of a preparatory and very inferior religion. We beg to be understood. All Christians whom we know concur in the opinion and the desire that the Lords-day, or the first day of the week, should be separated to the commemoration of Christ's resurrection, to public worship, to public Christian instruction, and in general to what are called the means of religion. This we gratefully accept and honour as a Christian rite. But not a few believe that the Lords-day and the ancient Sabbath are not the same institution, and ought not to be confounded ; that the former is of a nobler character, and more important than the latter, and that the mode of observing it is to be determined by the spirit and purposes of Christianity, and not by any preceding law. This is a question about which Christians have differed for ages. We certainly wish that it may be debated till it is settled. But we grieve to see a questionable doctrine made the foundation of large societies, and to see Christians leagued to pass the sentence of irreligion on men equally < virtuous with themselves, and who perhaps better understand the mind of Christ in regard to the Sabbath. We know that it is confidently affirmed thaj God, at an earlier period than the Jewish law, enjoined the Sabbath as a perpetual, universal, irrepealable law for the whole human race. But can this position be sustained ? For ourselves we cannot see a trace of it in the Scriptures, those only sure records of God's revelation to mankind. We do indeed incline to believe, what many wise men have questioned, that there are appearances of the institution of the Sabbath at the beginning of the human race. I We know that these are faint and few; yet we attach importance to them, because nature and reason favour the supposition of a time having been set apart from the first as a religious memorial. Whilst, however, we incline to this view as most probable, we see no proofs of the perpetuity of the institution in the circumstance of its early origin. On the contrary, ah ordu-' nance or rite, given in the infancy of the human race, may be presumed to be temporary, unless its unchangeableness is expressly taught, or is necessarily implied in its very nature. The. positive or ritual religion, which was adapted to the earlier, can hardly suit the maturer periods of the race. Man is a progressive being, and needs a progressive religion. It is one of the most interesting and beautiful features of the sacred writings, and one of the strong evidences of their truth, that they reveal' religion as a growing light, and manifest the Divine Legislator as adapting himself to the various and successive conditions of the world. Allowing, then, the Sabbath to have been given to Adam, we could no more W«d its perpetuity than we can infer the perpetuity of capital punishment, as an ordinance of God, because he said to Noah, the second parent of the human race, " Whoso sheddetb man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Our opinion leans, as we have said, to the early institution of the Sabbath ; but, we repeat it, tL<5 presumptions on which our judgments rest are too uncertain to authorize -confidence, much less denunciation. .. The greater part of the early Fathers of the Church, according to Calmet, believe that the law of the Sabbath was not given before Moses ; and this, as we have observed, is the opinion of some of the most judicious and pious Christians of later times. Whilst disposed to differ from these, we feel that the subject is to be left to the calm '

decision of individuals. We want no array of numbers to settle a doubtful question. One thing is plain, that, before Moses,, not one precept is given in relation to the Sabbath, nor a hint of it 8 unchangeableness to the end of the world. One thing is plain, that the question of ' the perpetuity of this institution is to be settled by the teachings of Jesus Christ, the great prophet, who alone is authorized to determine how far the institutions of religion which preceded him are binding on his followers. For ourselves, we are followers of Christ, and not of Moses, or Noah, or Adam. We call ourselves Christians, and the Gospel is our only rule. Nothing in the Old Testament binds* us any further than it is recognized by, or incorporated into, the New. The great and only question! ' then, is — Does the New Testament, does Christianity, impose on us the ancient Sabbath? To aid us in settling this question, we may first inquire into the nature and design of this institution ; and nothing can be plainer. Words cannot make it clearer. According to the Old Testament, the seventh or last day of the week was to be set apart, or sanctified, as a day of rest, in commemoration of God's having rested on that day from the work of creation. We beg our readers to observe that we are now simply stating the account of the Sabbath which is given in the Old Testament. How this 1 account is to be interpreted, is a question not involved in our present subject. We would, however, observe that the rest here ascribed to God must be understood in a figurative sense. [To be continued.]