« PoprzedniaDalej »
work yet to be done in education. And the first if not the most important part of the work is to acquire a competent acquaintance with the subject. Theoretical knowledge must precede or accompany practical efforts, or they will be sadly misdirected. The people of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and some other portions of the Union have already taken in this matter important steps. In some of these states Boards of Education have been established, officers created, whose duty it is to spend their time for the improvement of education, and appropriations more or less liberal made to colleges, academies, and common schools. A beginningimperfect though it is—yet a beginning has been made. But there are still some states even in New England, and a much larger number in other parts of the country, which have hitherto sat by in silence and looked idly on. It is to be hoped, however, that this indifference will not be much longer continued.
It may not be improper, in concluding this article, to bring into view a topic which there is here no room to examine at length, but which seems to us to deserve a more extensive and thorough examination than it has yet received. We refer to the question, “What in a national view is the legitimate connexion between education and religion?" Some, while they admit that physical and intellectual education are not sufficient to produce national morality, because this is not their object, nevertheless imagine that the end in view can be attained by the introduction of a code of ethics, and a suitable attention to moral education. If religion exists in the
them through life. Most of the dwelling houses have an air of neatness and comfort; many have shade trees and ornamental shrubbery about them. But if you find a weather-beaten building, with its blinds swinging upon one hinge, or lying upon the ground with clapboards flapping in the wind-with window panes filled with hats and shawls with a pile of logs before the door, without a tree or shrub to relieve the eye, and every thing around indicating the march, not of mind, but of the destroyer; depend upon it, that is the place selected for the wooing of the muses. Some may think this an overdrawn picture, but it is froin real life. Would that ii existed only in imagination."
community, it is, they think, sufficient without an attempt to introduce it into systems of education. Others believe that if national morality is to be secured, religion ought to be and must be a constituent element of national education. Even if they admit with M. Guizot,* that morality in its elements can be distinguished from religion, yet they deny that it can be sustained without religion by education of any kind or of all kinds. To us it appears that on this subject much is to be learned from antiquity. The importance of religion and the insufficiency of education without it to secure morality and give permanence to free institutions, are abundantly illustrated by the history of the two nations of which we have been speaking. Greece was educated, but her columns fell. In the midst of the most splendid developments of Grecian genius, the eloquence of Demosthenes could not save his country, because her morals were destroyed. Respecting the moral impotence of education in Greece we have the iestimony of Professor Meiners. “But a sad observation is this, that in the very position in which the number and extent of the acquirements and arts in which the youth were instructed increased, education itself grew worse, and that the more their minds were accomplished with beautiful and rare arts and attainments, the more their morals and hearts were corrupted.”+ Rome, when she knew but liule, was virtuous and free. On the other hand, when she knew much, she was corrupted by vice and oppressed by arbitrary power. At the most enlightened period of Italian history, previous to the despotism of the Cæsars, Cato Uticensis, despairing of the liberties of Rome, bared his bosom to his sword. We have said that the Roman education was in a moral view superior to the Athenian. The cultivation of the principle of reverence, the constant appeal to some rule of right or of decorum, and the elevation of maternal influence gave to the Roman education in this respect an advantage over the Greek. The moral tendencies of ihe mode of training youth at Rome were not without their salutary influence. But after all it was not these that fixed the moral character of the Romans, for that was formed by the religious institutions of Numa. It must be
* History of Civilization p. 117.
SECOND SERIES, VOL. VIII. NO. I. 4
remembered that in the best days of both Greece and Rome, education and religion were inseparable. If the Greeks in the midst of all their science were corrupt, the reason was not indeed that they had no religion, but that their religion was corrupt. It is a mistake to suppose that the religions of Greece and of early Rome were the same. For, while the former, aiming at the imagination and not the heart, was sensual in its character and debased by the most revolting fables of the Gods, the latter contained many elements of a sound natural theology. The absence of images, the overseeing providence, if not the unity of God, the immortality of the soul, the accountability of man, and the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, were elements of the early Roman religion which gave it no small amount of moral influence. The first Romans were an eminently pious race, and therefore they were moral. But this subject cannot here be pursued. We therefore close with the expression of the hope that since the agitation of the questions, "Shall religion be incorporated into our systems of education ?” “ And if so, in what way shall this be done?" has been commenced, this agitation will be continued till the momentous bearings of the subject are fully understood. For on the solution of these difficult prob!ems depend in our country the prevalence of morality, the stability of freedom, the security of right, and the safety of life itself.
* For authority respecting the character of the religion of early Rome, and its superiority over that of Greece, the reader is referred to Plutarch's Lise of Numa; August. De Civitate Dei IV: 31, 1: 131 ; Tertull. Apologet 925; Dion. Hal. II : 18, 19, 75; Polyb VI: 54; Cic. De Harusp. Respons. $ 9; Bolingbroke's Works IV: 427; Kreutzers Symbolik II : 992, 993 ; Hegels Werke (Vorlesungen Ueber die Philosophie der Geschichte) IX: 297. “ According to the common idea, the Roman religion, with a change of name only, was the same as the Greek. Upon a closer inspection, however, the most striking difference shows itself.” “In all circumstances the Roman was pious," etc. For a contrary view see Meiners De Vero Deo p. 17: Buchholz Philosophische Untersuchungen ueber die Römer I: 35.
EXAMINATION OF PROF. STUART ON HEBREWS, IX: 16-18.
By Rev. Albert Bames, Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia,
16 Οπου γαρ διαθήκη, θάνατον ανάγκη φέρεσθαι του διαθεμένου.
17 Διαθήκη γαρ επί νεκρούς βεβαια επεί μήποτε ισχύει ότε ζή και διαθέμενος. .
18 Οθεν ουδ' η πρώτη χωρίς αίματος έγκεκαίνισται. .
This passage is rendered in the common version, “ For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood."
It is rendered by Prof. Stuart (Com. on the Hebrews, p. 607*) “Moreover, where there is a testament, it is necessary that the death of the testator should take place; because a testament is valid in respect to those only who are dead, since it hath no force while the testator is living. Hence, not even the first (covenant) was ratified without blood.”
In the explanation of this passage two interpretations have been proposed. The first is that which is found in our common version, and which is defended by Prof. Stuart, by which the word dia@hxn is rendered testament or will; and the other, that which regards the word as meaning covenant. Distinguished names may be found defending each of the interpretations proposed, and though the current of authority has been in favor of the interpretation defended by Prof. S., yet it is not so decided as to make it improper to enquire into the validity of this exposition.
As the meaning of the whole passage, as well as of many other important passages in the New Testament, depends on the sense affixed to the word diadnxn, it will be proper to precede the particular examination of the passage, by a brief enquiry into the meaning of this word.
Perhaps there is no single term in the Bible that is more
* Second Edition of the Commentary.
important than this, or the significations attached to which ramifies itself farther, and gives form to more views in theology. I need not say that it lies at the foundation of entire systems of belief in regard to covenants; that the views attached to this word modify or control the views which we entertain of the divine dealings with Adam and with all his posterity, and that the conceptions of the nature of the plan of redemption are also moulded very much by the sense attached to this word. It becomes, then, a question of immense moment, whether the usual explanations of this word are true, or whether they do not tend to lead the mind into error. It has been no common calamity, if erroneous views of the meaning of this word have been allowed to lead a mind like that of Prof. S. into error in the interpretation of the Bible.
The word dabýxn occurs in the New Testament thirty-three times. It is translated covenant in the common verson, in Luke i: 72, Acts jii : 25; vii: 8, Rom. ix:4; xi : 27, Gal. iii: 15, 17; iv: 24, Eph. ii: 12, Heb. viii: 6, 8, 9 bis, 10, ix : 4 bis ; x: 16, xii: 24, xiii : 20. In every other instance it is rendered testament. In four of those instances, Matt. xxvi : 29, Mark xiv : 24, Luke xxii : 20, and 1 Cor. xi : 25, it is used with reference to the institution or celebration of the Lord's supper. In the Septuagint it is used not far from three hundred times, in considerably more than two hundred of which, it is the translation of the word om. In one instance, Zech. xi: 14, it is the translation of the word 777778, brotherhood ; once, Deut. ix : 5, as the translation of 727, word; once, Jer. xxiv: 18, as the translation of Onnea 7, words of the covenant ; once, Lev. xxvi: 11, as the translation of an, tabernacle ; once Ex. xxxi: 7, as the translation of n79, testimony; it occurs once, Ezek. xxvi: 28, where the reading of the Greek and Hebrew text is doubtful, and three times, 1 Sam. xi: 2, Xx: 8, 1 Kings, viii: 9, when the word is not in the Hebrew text. From this use of the word by the translators of the Septuagint, it is evident that they regarded it as the proper translation of the Hebrew
, and as conveying the same sense which ihat word conveys. It cannot be reasonably doubted, that the writers of the New Testament were led to the use of this word, in part at least, by the fact that they found it in the