fulness and influence in society. But, in general, this is not, perhaps, to be immediately looked for; for godliness was not intended to open the way to worldly riches or esteem; and in numerous instances it will be found so strongly to oppose itself to the natural feelings and desires of mankind, as greatly to check, instead of advancing the worldly prospects of its professor. But admitting this, it will still be profitable, even in a worldly sense, by bounding our wants and wishes within a narrow compass. It will teach us, that "having food and raiment, we should be therewith content." Thus limiting our desires will be equal to increasing our riches; "for godliness with contentment is great gain." 2. But godliness is, again, profitable for the present world, on account of the promises connected with it.We have already seen that it bounds our wishes and wants; it must now be added, that it holds forth the promise that all those wishes and wants, as far as best for us, shall be abundantly supplied. The Christian is taught, that all things are his; and that God bestows them upon him in such proportions as seemeth best to his infinite wisdom. More than is afforded might have seriously injured him. "No manner of thing that is good shall God withhold from them that walk uprightly and trust in him." Our Lord, after speaking of the supply of temporal wants, adds; "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." Thus, whether we consider the extent of our temporal wants or the supply of them, we perceive that "godliness is profitable;" especially if we add, that the religious man, viewing all his blessings as flowing from the love and mercy of God, feels gratitude for the slightest enjoyment, more particularly when he reflects upon his own sinfulness and guilt, which have rendered him unworthy of the least of the Divine mercies. And now permit me, in conelusion, to urge upon you this godliness of which you have heard the profitableness and pleasure.-Have you hesitated to begin to enter seriously upon religion, lest in giving up much you should receive nothing in return? Be' assured that the exchange is infinitely in your favour. Even in the present life, the pleasures of sin cannot make you happy; but the favour of God can. Could you gain all you desire, it would be worthless in comparison of the blessings of religion, than which nothing else can give true peace and satisfaction to the soul. Be sides, consider, that after all, this life is but a very small portion of our existence. Our great object, therefore, should be to be prepared for an eternal world. Now we all acknowledge that true godliness is. the only thing profitable for this purpose. All other preparation would be useless. If, then, godli-: ness were attended in the present life with nothing but what was painful and terrible, it would still be our duty to follow it. We could not neglect it without infinite ha zard to our immortal souls. But how much more, then, is the argument strengthened when God has been mercifully pleased to make the way to heaven the way of true happiness upon earth; when he has connected our future with our present interest, and invited us by hopes and pleasures, as well as revealed the severest threatenings in case of our disobedience? Be assured, then, that you will lose nothing by giving up yourself to be the faithful servant of Christ-you will have to resign nothing that is worth retaining. Even in health and youth, religion will be the best of all your possessions--and how much more, if that be possible, in sickness and old age. Then, indeed, it will be your most earnest wish that you had reflected upon the truth revealed in the text, and had learned to value the love and favour of God in Jesus Christ, as a far better inheritance for both worlds than the trifles in which you have, perhaps, hitherto delighted. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I BELIEVE it is generally admitted, that much aid has been derived to wards the interpretation of Scripture from the works of modern critics and translators; but, whilst we allow that much has been accomplished in this interesting and important branch of study, not a few instances may be mentioned, in which modern critics have deviated, without sufficient grounds, from our excellent authorized version of the Bible. I am inclined to think, that the sense which has been affixed by some popular modern writers to the Hebrew word 2 in certain passages of Scripture, ought to be reckoned amongst these instances, and that the passages of the authorized version, to which I allude, require little or no alteration. Parkhurst, in his Hebrew Lexicon, on the word 7 observes ; "The lexicons have absurdly, and contrary to the authority of the ancient versions, given to this verb the sense of cursing, in the six following passages, 1 Kings xxi. 10, 13; Job i. 5, 11; ii. 5, 9. As to the two first, the LXX render 7 in both by Euλoyew, and so the Vulgate, by "benedico," to bless. And, though Jezebel was herself an abominable idolatress, yet, as the Law of Moses still continued in force, she seems to have been wicked enough to have destroyed Naboth upon the false accusation of blessing the heathen Aleim and Moloch, which subjected him to death by Deut. xiii. 6; xvii. 2-7. Job's fear, chap. i. 5, was, lest his sons should have blessed the false Aleim; so Aquila evλoyroar, and Vulg."benedixerint." V. 11. should be translated, And indeed stretch forth thy hand now, and touch all that he hath, Es, surely (comp. 1 Kings xxi. 13.) he hath blessed (772 being used in a past sense, as Nan ver. 7, and nwy ver. 5.) thee to thy face, i. e. hypocritically. The LXX; and Theodotion y EIS πρόσωπον σε εύλογησει, truly he will bless thee to thy face; Vulgate, “nisi in faciem benedixerit tibi," unless he hath blessed thee to thy face. Satan brings the same charge of hypocrisy against Job, chap. ii. 5. which the LXX, Theodotion, and Vulgate render in the same manner. And at ver. 9, his wife says to him, Dost thou yet retain thy integrity, thy regard for the true God, ob blessing the Aleim and dying, or even to death." This opinion of Parkhurst, though it did not indeed originate with him*, seems to have found many supporters. Miss Smith, in her elegant and ingenious translation of the Book of Job, and her commentator, Dr. Randolph, concur in sentiment with Parkhurst: and Mr. Mason Good, in a still more recent translation of the Book of Job, supports the same opinion, in a long note on Job i. 5. The great objection of these writers to the use of 72 in the sense of cursing, is because this sense is directly opposite to its usual meaning. If, however, there are passages of Scripture in which it is most obvious and natural to take the word in the sense of cursing, I do not think this grammatical objection ought to preponderate. The Arabic word" to bless," according to Pocock, signifies also, "to reproach," or "rail att." In Latin, religio signifies "religion," and "superstition." superstition." Fama, also signifies" renown" and "infamy." Johnson gives " "reputation" and "reproach" as different senses of the word "note." Sacer, as Campbell observes, commonly signifies • See Poli Synops. in loco. " Sensus esse possit, Ni inclinaverint ad benedictionem sive adorationem, Angelorum, vel falsorem deorum, &c. ↑ Hammond, on Ps. x. 3. ברך ascribed to "sacred, holy, venerable;" somne- " benefacere, beneficium conferre. 3. Contrarie, mala precari *." It may be observed, that Parkhurst censures the lexicons for having given to the verb 7 the sense of cursing, contrary to the authority of the ancient versions. This statement is not quite correct. I am inclined to think, that, though the LXX and Vulgate support the sense of blessing, in 1 Kings xxi. 10, 13, both the Syriac and Arabic take the word in the sense of cursingt. In Job i.5, though the Vulgate renders the word "benedixerint," all the other versions in Walton's Polyglott favour the sense of our authorized version: The LXX xaxa EvEVONσav. Chald." provocabit te." Syr. Ar. "Contumeliis Deum affecerunt." In the other passages, Job i. 11, ii. 5, 9. Syr. and Ar. support the authorized version. Chald. renders the word by an "irrito," "provoco," in the two first, and has the corresponding Chaldee word 72 in the last passage. The Vulgate always translates "benedico," LXX. ευλογεω except Job ii. 9, ειπον τι ρημα and Job i. 5, κακα ενενόησαν. It should be observed, that the versions which are most allied to the Hebrew; namely, the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, generally support the use of the word 7 in the sense of cursing, in the passages in question. I propose, now, further to examine these six passages adduced by Parkhurst. 1 Kings xxi. 10. "Thou didst blaspheme God and the king;" ver. 13." Naboth did blaspheme God and the king." We have already seen Parkhurst's rendering. Mason Good translates, "thou didst," or "Nabal (Naboth) did bless or worship the gods, even Moloch." Now it certainly does seem extraordinary, that Jezebel, the daugh • Schindleri Lex. Pentagl. in verb. + I cannot speak positively as to this point, having no opportunity of consulting the ancient versions of this passage. Good's Book of Job. Note ou chap. 4 Good's Book of Job; Note on ch, i. 5; i. 5. thee to thy face." ter of an idolater (1 Kings xvi. 31.) and the wife of the most wicked and idolatrous monarch that ever sat on the throne of Israel, should have imputed idolatry to Naboth as a plea for putting him to death. It is much more natural to suppose that she should accuse him, according to our Authorized Version, of cursing God and the king. Miss Smith, chap. i. 11," whether to thy face he will not bless thee (curse thee);" chap. ii. 5, "Will he not curse thee to thy face?" Good, "Will he then indeed bless thee to thy face?" Of Parkhurst's translation I will only observe, that it does not Good accord with the context. considers the words as interrogaThe next passage is Job. i. 5. tively spoken; but in that case, "It may be that my sons have sin- the correct translation would be, ned, and cursed God in their "Will he not bless thee to thy hearts." "Job's fear was," says face?" And Mr. Good himself has Parkhurst, "lest his sons should given a similar translation of sb-Da "But are not have blessed the false Aleim." Miss in Job xvii. 2. Smith, "Lest my sons should sin, revilers before me?" Dr. Randolph, and bless the gods in their hearts." in his note on Miss Smith's Job, Good, "Peradventure my sons chap. i. 11, proposes to separate may have sinned, nor blessed Gods from 5, and to translate in their hearts." It may here be "supposing this were to happen." remarked, that the LXX, the Chaldaic, Syriac, and Arabic, concur in supporting the Authorized Version; and it seems much more probable, that in the midst of feasting and mirth, the sons of Job should have been guilty of contemptuous or irreverent feelings towards God, than of secret idolalatry. Mr. Good's proposed emendation is ingenious, but I doubt the correctness of his criticism. He says, "is either an affirmative or a negative particle, according to the nature of the proposition in which it occurs; and whenever it is employed negatively, it has the precise force of, and in its general range runs precisely parallel with, our own now, and the Latin nec and neve, &c." There are, doubtless, many passages in which has the sense of nec, neve; but I believe in this case, a negative invariably precedes itt. Noldius says, "It must be admitted also, that the neque: post negationem." If this be correct, 1 cannot be used in a negative sense in this passage. I now proceed to Job i. 11, and ii. 5, both translated, “and he will curse thee to thy face." Parkhurst translates, "surely he hath blessed Note on Job i. 5. See the passages enumerated in Taylor's Hebrew Concordance. But I apprehend no authority can be adduced, either for disjoining the particles DN and N, or for tak ing us by itself in the sense which he would give it*. With respect to the ancient versions which Parkhurst, without any qualification, pronounces to be contrary to the authorized English version in the passages under consideration, I have already observed, that, although the LXX and Vulgate translate 77 euλoyew and "benedico" in these two passages, the Chaldaic, Syriac, and Arabic, are more favourable to the Authorized Version. I now proceed to the last passage, Job ii. 9, "Curse God and die." Parkhurst translates, "Blessing the Aleim and dying." Miss Smith and Good, "Blessing God and dying." The conjecture is plausible, and makes a good sense. interpretation of 72 in the sense of "blessing," receives support from the LXX, Vulgate, and Chaldaic. But all the ancient versions of the Polyglott, and the Masoretic punctuation, take 7 in the imperative, not the infinitive mood. And if the Authorized Version be consi * See Noldius in verb. DN and NY-ON, dered the best interpretation of Job i. 11, and ii. 5, there can scarcely be a doubt as to the propriety of giving it the same preference in the passage now be fore us. I have been induced to trouble you with these remarks, by a wish to rescue our Authorized Version from one instance of needless alteration; whilst, at the same time, I am most anxious to see it improved with all the important aids of modern criticism; believing, with Archbishop Newcome, that although "nothing of this kind can be undertaken without temporary offence to the prejudiced and ig. norant," yet that "the opinion of these will soon be outweighed by the judgment of the reasonable and well-informed." KIMCHI. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. AMONG the many charges brought against the Established Church, by those who have separated from her communion, is this, that she and the Church of Rome are the only Christian churches that adthe Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to dying persons; and that this is an abuse of that Sacrament, making it a Viaticum, as it were, in the passage to another world. Now, on considering this matter, it occurred to me, that this charge might be founded more in the abuse, than the usage of the Church of England; and that it might not have been the intention of that church to administer the Lord's Supper to the dying. I will briefly state what gave rise to this question in my mind, in order that some of your correspondents, who may be better informed on the subject, may be induced to favour us with their opinion on a matter which appears to deserve consideration in the present day. In the first place, the title of the service in our Common Prayer Book, is "the Communion of the Sick," not the dying again, in the Visitation of the Sick, there is a prayer to be used, where there is small hope of recovery, and another entitled, "a Commendatory Prayer for a Sick Person, at the Point of Departure;" but no mention is made in the Rubric of adminstering the Sacrament to the dying person. Secondly, in the Rubric, which states reasons why a clergyman is not to administer the Sacrament to a sick person, one reason is, "extremity of sickness;" which cannot mean incapacity from weakness or loss of intellect, or insensibility, because the minister is directed to "instruct the person," &c. which he could not do in the above cases. Might not then the expression of "extremity of sickness" signify, when the person was " given over,' as we say. Some of the prayers, particularly that which follows the Lord's Prayer, after the administration of the elements, appear to intimate that the sick person is likely to recover, and be able to present his body as well as his soul, a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto God, and " to do all such good works as he has prepared for us to walk in." There is no doubt that the Lord's Supper has been much abused in this way, and many in all ranks of life have deceived themselves by considering the receiving of it, when dying, as a kind of necessary preparation for death; though, while in health, they have repeatedly turned away from the Lord's Table, without the smallest compunction. inquiry, therefore, into this matter might, I think, be attended with benefit, both to the Church of England and her professing members. An H. K. |