puted term? Whether A. Knox is right in his sense of " justification," or whether the term "sanctification" in this sense be more correct, the truth which we contend for is the same. "We participate Christ partly by imputation, as when those things which he did and suffered for us are imputed unto us for righteousness; partly by habitual and real infusion, as when grace is inwardly bestowed while we are on earth, and afterwards more fully both our souls and bodies made like unto his in glory." Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v., §. 56.

I am, Mr. Editor, your very obedient servant, E. C.

P.S. May I take this opportunity to note a remarkable error in a very popular book, Thomas Scott's "Force of Truth," which, in however many editions it has been repeated, the friends to his memory should at least remove from all future editions of the work? Among his quotations from Hooker may be found the following sentence-" As for such as hold that we cannot be saved by Christ alone without works, they do, not only by a circle of consequence, but directly deny the foundation of Faith; they hold it not, no, not so much as by a thread." These words may certainly be found in Hooker, (Disc. on Justification, §. 19,) but they are not Hooker's words. Whoever will take the pains to refer to that section of his Discourse, will see that the whole of it is a statement of the objections of his opponent, which he is mustering together in order to answer them; and accordingly this tranchante sentence receives a very full answer in §. 29–31. ἀταλαίπωρος τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡ ζήτησις ΤΗΣ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑΣ. *

Οὕτως

JACOB ABBOTT'S WORKS.

MY DEAR —, — As I think it of great importance that works so extensively circulated as Jacob Abbott's should be justly estimated, I beg to call attention to the following observations on a part of the "Corner Stone." The familiar tone, so constantly made use of in speaking of our Saviour, is highly offensive; and perhaps the best mode of shewing its objectionable nature will be by extracting a passage, and adding a few plain comments upon it. Take, for instance, that portion of the book in which the author speaks of our Saviour's love of nature, (p. 66-71, in the London reprint, published by Wightman). After quoting our Saviour's address on the subject of the lilies of the field &c., he remarks—

"A cold, heartless man, without taste or sensibility, would not have said such a thing as that; he could not, and we may be as sure that Jesus Christ had stopped to examine and admire the grace and beauty of the plant, and the exquisitely pencilled tints of its petal, as if we had actually seen him bending over it, or pointing it out to the attention of his disciples."

* May the Editor take the liberty of expressing his wish that some of the many Correspondents who have sent him letters on Mr. Knox's opinions on Justification, would look at what seems to him a far more important portion of his works, viz., his Treatise on the Mode of our Salvation through Christ. (Not having the book, he may give the title wrongly.) After twice reading, he must say, that it appears to him to do away very much with all that is objective in religion, and to make it wholly subjective. He still cannot but think that he does Mr. Knox wrong, and would be very glad that some one would examine the point.-ED.

I confess that I cannot feel so sure, as Mr. Abbott appears to be, that HE, whom I believe to be the Creator of the material world, as well as the Creator and Redeemer of the moral world, needed to bend over the beauties of his own creation in order to use them for man's spiritual improvement; nor do I think myself justified in presuming to judge of the sources of his enjoyment and his knowledge. It is a subject on which one hardly dares to write, for fear of being betrayed into something like an irreverent expression. The reproof which was conveyed by the vision of St. Augustine, when he attempted to fathom the depths of the great mystery of our faith, the Holy Trinity, would seem to me justly required here also. But to proceed, the author, after speaking of the seed of a plant, and the complicated system safely packed away in its little covering, and the wonderful effects of its growth, thus continues

"(1) * Now Jesus Christ noticed these things; he perceived their beauty, and enjoyed it. His heart was full of images, which such observations must have furnished. (2) He could not otherwise have so beautifully compared the progress of his kingdom to the growth of such a tree; he could not have related the parable of the sower if he had not noticed with interest the minutest. circumstances connected with the culture of the ground. His beautiful allusions to the vine and to the fig-tree, the wheat and the tares, the birds of the air, and the flocks of the field, all prove the same things. (3) It is not merely that he spoke of those things, but that he alluded to them in a way so beautiful and touching and original, as to prove that he had an observing eye, and a warm heart for the beauties and glories of creation."

(2) There is the same kind of evidence that he noticed with the same observing eye, and intelligent interest, the principles and characteristics of human nature," &c.

Now, in the first place, I am well aware that in speaking of the early years of our Saviour, Scripture has said, that " he increased in wisdom and in stature." But I confess that I should tremble, from this general expression to deduce in detail all the sources of his knowledge, and to conclude that they were those of the ordinary race of men. In the next place, while every feeling heart must acknowledge, with Mr. Abbott, the beauty and propriety of the images made use of by our Saviour, it is more becoming in us to be thankful that they were drawn from objects familiar to all, and therefore were such as all, or almost all men could enter into, than to speculate how our Saviour acquired his knowledge of them. The real lesson which we ought to learn is this, that all the knowledge of nature which we can acquire may be turned, and ought to be turned, to our spiritual improvement.

Let us now very briefly remark on the leading points in this passage. The writer speaks of our Saviour's "enjoyment" of these things, as if he looked upon them with the eye of man, to examine and to learn from them, and he informs us, peremptorily that these images must have been furnished from such observations. This is speaking boldly, but hardly so boldly as in the succeeding paragraph, number (2). He there tells us that "our Saviour could not otherwise have made these beautiful remarks!" In paragraph (3,) we are told that the nature of these sayings of our Lord proves, that "he had an observing eye and a warm heart for the beauties and glories of creation! This language applied to HIM whom we

(1) N.B. I have added these marks, and the italics, merely for the facility of reference, and to call attention to the chief points.

VOL. VIII.-Sept. 1835.

2 s

acknowledge as the Creator of the world, perplexes us almost as much by being very unintelligible, as it startles and disturbs us by its extreme irreverence.

I would simply ask, whether the whole passage (with the exception of the word "his kingdom,") would not be far more applicable to some student of nature, than to such a Being as our Saviour, and whether the last passage would not be a kind of bathos, or a very trumpery common-place in the biography of some young naturalist. We ought most strongly to deprecate such a tone on such subjects. It is no excuse to say that the author had no intention of writing irreverently; and it may be doubted whether any good which can be learned from the rest of these books will make up for the injury which they cannot but do by such a low, earthly, sensual mode of treating the Divine Being. It becomes, at all events, a sacred duty, incumbent on all who desire the propagation of sound religious doctrines and feelings, to examine these books very strictly under this point of view ; and it would be well if those who are in such haste to reprint every American book which happens to contain striking passages, or exciting views, would reflect more fully on their tendency. If they think this coarse familiarity proper, they must be prepared to see it carried much farther. When the novelty of this has worn away, something more familiar, if it can be found, must succeed, and I leave it to the serious consideration of every devout mind, whether a succession of such publications would be likely to become a means of edification. I may seem to trespass too long by writing so much on a single passage, but although only one is adduced, passages similar in feeling might be produced from so many portions of these books, that they may fairly be said to imprint a character upon them as a whole.

Thinking that these remarks might perhaps be of use, in calling attention to a point which has been somewhat overlooked, I venture to hope they may appear in your pages; and I beg to subscribe myself, Yours, &c., S. J.

AGE OF THE LXX.

SIR,-In addition to the opinion of Anatolius, alleged by your correspondent "J. H. B.," we may obtain an approximation towards determining the time at which the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek by considering the citations from Demetrius, a Jewish historian, which are to be found in Eusebius. (Præss. Evang. 1. 9, s. 21, 29.) The phraseology used by Demetrius, and the chronology which he has adopted, (see Hody, 1. 3, par. 1, s. 61,) shew that he derived his materials from the Greek version; and if he lived, as is maintained by Huet, (Demonstr. Evang. p. 50,) neither earlier than the reign of Ptolemy Philopator (B.c. 221-204), nor later than that of Ptolemy Lathyrus (B.c. 117-80), we obtain an age for the version, at least anterior to the latter period. But from the statement of Clemens Alexandrinus, (Strom. i. p. 337,) that Demetrius brought down his chronological computations to the beginning of the reign of

Ptolemy the Fourth, or Philopator, it seems most probable that he was a contemporary of that prince; and, consequently, that the version was not composed at a later period than the third century before Christ. The citations from Demetrius are made by Eusebius through the medium of Alexander Polyhistor, who flourished in the reign of Lathyrus, and was of course either contemporary with, or subsequent to, the author whom he quotes. Hody considers Demetrius as a Gentile historian. Jerome, however, (De Scriptor. Eccles.) classes him with Aristobulus and Eupolemus, as Jews, who wrote on the antiquities of their nation in a manner similar to that adopted by Josephus. The last mentioned author (lib. 1, contr. Apion) appears to have confounded him with his namesake Demetrius Phalereus. (See Huet, ibid.; and Hody, lib. ii. c. 3.)

I am, sir, your obedient servant, H. H.

HOSEA, v. 7.

SIR,-Will any of your correspondents have the kindness to favour me with a literal translation from the original of Hosea v. 7? My attention has been called to this passage by the translation of the word puoiẞn, which occurs in this verse in the Septuagint, and is rendered in our version "a month." I cannot find any authority for this meaning of the word. It seems to me that a mistake has arisen in the first instance from the negligence of the printer, and that the word has been originally "a moth," which appears to me more agreeable to the context, though I fear that ipvoißn will hardly bear this translation. August 2nd.

M. N.

ON READING THE LITURGY.

SIR,-It has been the wisdom of the church to provide that the whole of the Scriptures should be publicly read over once, at least, every year. This order was intended to be a prominent feature in her services, and it was done by way of returning to the practice of the ancient fathers. Prayer in a known tongue, and the reading of the word of God, "very and pure," thus became the two grand parts into which she caused her offices to be divided. The latter was enjoined with a special view to redress the inconveniences which had arisen from those "uncertain stories and legends, with multitude of responds, verses, vain repetitions, commemorations, and synodals," which in the Romish church had been made to supersede the purer practices of the ancient fathers, and the free use of the uncorrupted word of God. Yet, sir, the Romish missal contains in many of its gospels the very identical passages of holy writ which are contained in our own Prayer Book, and the ten commandments in like manner, though in a form somewhat abridged. It is not to these, therefore, that we can point as to an arrangement peculiar to ourselves. We might, indeed, point them out as being fuller and longer in many instances than the portions which are appointed to be read in the Romish missal, but wholly peculiar to ourselves they could never be considered to be. This pre-eminence, sir, I conceive, must be reserved to those portions which we call the lessons for the various days of the year, and which indeed comprehend, as a whole, nearly the whole of the inspired volume. The lessons are the part of the service most peculiar to ourselves. In the lessons it is that we

should place our chief pride and glory. These no honest church would fear, no dishonest church would dare, to read. No dishonest church could read them without condemning herself out of her own mouth. Dare the Romanist to read them as we do?

Yet, sir, it must be remembered that "we have this treasure in earthen vessels ;" and it cannot be expected, nor does it prove, in fact, that the word of God, thus appointed to be read, produces all that effect which the framers of our admirable liturgy must have fondly anticipated. It is to this unhappy, most unhappy failure, and to the causes and remedies of it that I am most anxious to call the attention of your readers. These are times which make every man jealous of every impediment, however slight, to the successful working of the great machine of our reformed church establishment. We wish now to put out our utmost strength, to strain every sinew, compatibly with established rules and rights, to give full efficacy to every institution, rite, and practice of that establishment. Shame would it be to us, (if, when our founders provided us with the principle, we should fail in carrying that principle into execution,) if our downfal should be occasioned by any neglect or fault of our own. The remarks which I have to offer on the subject of the lessons will do good, if they only awaken the attention of others better able than myself to conduct the question.

Where cathedral chaunting is not in use, and congregations are not very careful to respond with enthusiasm to the voice of the priest in those otherwise most animated offices of the TE DEUM, the Magnificat, &c., where consequently these offices are rather read than felt-read too, for want of a general spirit of congregational zeal, not in the most animated or the most solemn manner-the effect is, that the word of God, as contained in the lessons, seems half-buried and lost in a confused heap (as it may appear) of prayers and responses; and, lagging heavily behind, seems only to act as a drag upon the rest of the service.

I, sir, for one, should hail the day with rapture when a "Glory be to Thee, O Lord," sung in loud anthem, should precede the lessons, those towers of our strength, as it already does the gospels, which the Romanist may say he has in common with ourselves; when those portions of the Scriptures, no less than these latter, and no less than the ten commandments themselves, should be rehearsed with equal solemnity from the holy table itself; when for this purpose the minister should descend from his place of prayer and proceed to that table as his place of rehearsal; when the Te Deum, or the anthems corresponding, or some other shorter and simpler chaunts, should be sent up to cheer him on his way, as well as to raise and kindle the eager attention of all present, and to prepare the worshipper for the words of his God. One can scarcely but admit that some such arrangement (for it is merely a question of arrangement) would not be wholly without its effect; it could not but operate beneficially, both in relieving any possible monotony or lengthiness in the service, felt more by the weak than by the strong, in heightening devotion, in honouring God's word, in impressing it with greater solemnity upon the hearers, and in bringing out, so to speak, into stronger relief, one grand characteristic distinction between the formulæ of our own and those of the Romish church.

But not to insist on changes of this sort-not to give any handle to innovation, even in things indifferent-are there no means, I ask, of compassing the same desirable ends without having recourse to such questionable means? A difficulty, no doubt, is felt by ministers, by some* more than by others, to give the Scriptures their full effect as an express message from Heaven, or to produce a suitable impression on the minds of the hearers. It may be difficult to pass suddenly from the tone of devotion to the tone of authority, to drop the

*

Especially those who think the study of reading not worth their while.