professor of real Christianity. "Why, it is the old light snuffed," was the rather volatile reply. With it they both seemed much pleased, and thought it very expressive. But the simile was inapplicable to the facts of the case, and wholly inadmissible, if we consider the relative situation in which man stands with regard to "the light of the glorious gospel."

The latter still remains the same: it beams forth with unsullied brightness from that "lamp unto our feet, and light unto our path," (Psalm cxix. 105.) which was given by the Spirit of "the Sun of righteousness." (Malachi iv. 2.)

The darkness is all the fault of man, who shades his eyes from the rays of light; who actually by nature "hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved;" (John iii. 20.)-who wilfully refuses to permit that "light which God hath commanded to shine out of darkness, to shine in his heart, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ." (2 Cor. iv. 6.)—who, with power to "call down fire from heaven," not to destroy, but to ignite the flame of love and knowledge which springs up in the heart of every true and sincere Christian-neglects these means, and chooses rather to "grope in darkness, without light," (Job xii. 25.)—“ lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto him." (2 Cor. iv. 4.)

66

But in an age wherein many of the principal, and even the fundamental doctrines of the gospel have been termed in derision new light;" and supposed to be fanciful, or strained interpre tations of particular parts of scripture, which admit of a different explanation, it might be useful to consider some of the reasons which may induce men to call a doctrine "new light,”—which in point of fact, is as "old" as the scriptures, and emanated originally from that "true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world," (John i. 9.)-the Lord Jesus Christ.

When an individual has been, as all are by nature, "born blind" to those things which belong to his everlasting peace, and remaineth in this his natural state," having the understanding darkened, heing alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in him, because of the blindness of his heart," (Ephes. iv. 18.)up to a certain period of life, we will suppose, until he become of age, as was the case of the person mentioned in the ninth of John, as having been restored to sight by our blessed Saviour: when such a person at length, by the preventing grace and infinite mercy of his God and Saviour, has had the films removed from the eyes of his understanding, and been brought to the knowledge of his lost state of his total inability to save himself, and of the mode of justification which the Almighty hath appointed-by a living faith in a living Redeemer, he may declare, and with the greatest truth, and his former companions may repeat it in derision, that he sees new light;" it is new to him, for he was before in darkness-it is new to the others, for they may never have beheld it; or if placed before them, may have stubbornly shut their eyes against

66

the glorious truths it would open to their view; but it is not "new" to the people of God.

Or, if an individual, who from his youth up had been closely bandaged or hoodwinked, and from whom that "commandment which is a lamp, and that law which is light," (Proverbs vi. 23.) had been carefully removed and hidden, should suddenly meet with the book of God; as for instance, we learn was the case with Luther; and that "sure word of prophecy, the light that shineth in a dark place," should clearly reveal to him the unscriptural nature of the tenets which he formerly had been taught to hold, and the nature of that true "faith which was once delivered to the saints," (Jude, 3,) and under the direction of the holy Spirit of God, committed by them to paper, and "written for our learning;" and if such an individual was to promulgate and preach this "truth as it is in Jesus," to an unenlightened nation, and the prophecy should be fulfilled with respect to them, "the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined; (Isaiah ix. 2.) would it be a valid objection for them to urge, that to them the light appeared "new," when the cause was, that from them it had been put under a bushel," or hid in a dead language to prevent its appearing; and when at the same time this light was by no means "new" to the church of Christ ?-the woman that had fled away into the wilderness for a time, times, and the dividing of a time-the "remnant according to the election of grace,"—" who had not bowed the knee to this modern "Baal."

And if in after times, from fatal neglect of the word of the most high God, strange doctrines should creep in among the people, and proud man should be permitted to entertain vain ideas of human merit, derogatory to, and utterly depreciating the one sacrifice of the divine Redeemer-if the same evil cause should produce the same bad effect, and ignorance of the will and word of Jehovah, should lead some, even of the preachers, to wish to draw a curtain between the people and the light of the gospel, and a veil over their offences, or the means of their expiation-if, instead of holding forth from the pulpit the lamp of truth, the word of salvation, they should read what are sometimes wrongly termed mere moral discourses; but which nevertheless have proved the greatest possible antidote to morality-if they should fill their hearers' ears with futile notions of their own righteousness-the meritorious nature of their own works-the innate goodness of the human heart; and when speaking of the dead, should say, they have gone to receive the reward purchased by their sufferings, or manifold charities:-if a successor to such a man should "preach Christ crucified; should set forth the doctrine " of original, or birth-sin," (ix Article) and that "the heart" instead of being naturally good, is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked;" (Jer. xvii. 9.) should state that all mankind have erred and strayed from God's ways, the ways of holiness, like lost sheep, by doing things they ought not to have done, and by leaving undone things they

ought to have performed: that if any individual saith, or even thinketh in his own heart, that he hath never committed any sin, and in consequence is not deserving of condemnation to eternal death, the wages of sin, he fatally deceiveth his own self, and the truth most undoubtedly is not in him; and that in consequence we are to be accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own words and deservings;" (xi Article) that all must seek" redemption through his blood, and forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;" that after a person hath "done all those things that are commanded him," (and oh! who will have the hardihood to assert he has ?) that he is "still but an unprofitable servant," still has no merit in the eyes of his Creator; and that therefore, as to Jesus belongs the kingdom to which we hope to be admitted, so also to him alone appertains the power to stretch forth his arm to snatch the souls of sinners from destruction; and that to him alone is to be ascribed the entire glory, even "their righteousness is of me saith the Lord," Jehovah;-the doctrine is by many termed " new light," because they were themselves in darkness: by those among the congregation who have previously deemed themselves righteous, and possessing merit in the eyes of the Almighty, because they have abstained from certain acts rendered penal by the laws of the land, or odious by the laws of civil society, while they are unhesitatingly guilty of many breaches of the law of God as for instance, of the third and fourth commandments. Many possibly object to these doctrines as being of an unholy tendency, while at the same time, they will with strange inconsistency, find fault with the lives of the persons who possess them, as being too much abstracted from the world, and too much devoted to God.

The fact is, the doctrine is not "new," though it appears so to those previously ignorant, and unacquainted with the light of truth; nor do the doctrines which were revealed by the Spirit of Holiness, tend to lead mankind to the commission of sin, as has been already fully proved, wheresoever they are preached, believed in, and accepted. The Sun of righteousness still emits glorious rays of light and knowledge; the lamp of the Gospel still shines with undiminished truth and brightness; and the real reason for the opposition given to the introduction of the light of truth to any family or to any hamlet, is, that "men love darkness rather than light," the reason for which their Saviour tells them.

But it may be asked, are not any of the doctrines, which some communities of Christians believe in, rightly termed " new," or strange? Most certainly they are. The doctrines we protest against in the Church of Rome, would undoubtedly appear "new," to the apostles or primitive Christians, by whom they were not believed or taught, because not revealed by the Spirit of God; but inventions of man in after ages, and delusions of the arch-deceiver Satan. The soul-destroying doctrines of those who deny the divinity of "the great God, even our Saviour" Jesus Christ,

would appear "new" to him, who wrote, "the Word was God:" (John i. 1,) or to him, who knew that "Christ is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Rom. ix. 5,) or to those angels and men who were always accustomed to worship him, without the remotest idea they were thereby committing idolatry, which must have been the case if he were not the Deity. And the doctrine of the non-necessity of baptism, by some denied to infants, by others to both infants and adults, would appear "new" to those who received the commands mentioned in Matt. xxviii. 19, and Mark xvi. 15, 16, to which for brevity sake, I will merely refer the readers; and also "new" to those converted Jews, who had been accustomed by Divine command, to admit their infants within the pale of the Jewish Church, by the corresponding Jewish ceremony of circumcision; and who might very fairly enquire from those who wished to enforce this new doctrine, "where is the writ of my children's divorcement ?"

What then is the most advisable course to pursue, when we hear any doctrine which appears "new" to us, stated?

66

Bring it to the test of "the law and the testimony;" if its promulgators speak not according to this word, there is no light in them." (Isaiah viii. 20.) Try if it will bear the light of truth. "Search the Scriptures" diligently, to discover if it has been revealed by the spirit of truth there. If it has not, reject it utterly, as the crude fancy of innovating man. But if it is found in the Scriptures of truth, however humiliating to the pride of man, or however new" to the ignorance of man, you are bound to receive it, accept it, believe in it; or you reject it at your soul's peril. And oh! if that blessed book were more prized and more studied, with greater frequency and sincere prayer, ignorance and superstition would be utterly dispersed by the light and knowledge of Gospel truth; men would be able instantly to detect any errors in doctrine, which might be preached by the rash and inconsiderate; darkness would be utterly dispelled and illuminated; and we should hear no more of " new light."

K. W. M.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR,-In the authorized version of the New Testament, there seems to me an error, arising from the use of the word "sometimes," for the word "sometime.”

Let us examine the places in which they occur.

I. In Ephes. ii. 13, "Ye, who sometimes were far off"-and again, v. 8, For ye were sometimes darkness.

Now the apostle had no doubt what was the state of the Ephesians. He means to say-That they were once far off, and once darkness. So that in these passages, sometime should be read for

sometimes. In both, the Greek is Tore; and in French (Ed. 1811, Londres.) "autrefois."

II. In Col. i. 21, and iii. 7, TOTE is rendered "sometime," correctly.

III. In Titus iii. 3, Tore is rendered "sometimes." The apostle evidently refers to his former state, as to a definite, not an uncertain time. The French version here also is "" autrefois," so that the word should be, in my judgment, sometime.

IV. The last place in which the word "sometime" occurs, is 1 Pet. iii. 20, "Which sometime were disobedient." Greek— 66 Απειθήσασι ποτε.” The French version reads, "autrefois désobéissans"-" They were once, or formerly, disobedient."

I conclude then from reason and analogy, that in both the passages cited from the epistle to the Colossians, and that in the epistle to Titus, sometimes, should be altered to sometime. I need not occupy time to prove, that they are words of very different signification. The English reader may refer to Johnston's Dictionary, quarto edition, for examples of their respective applications; and for cases of the word Tore, as once, or formerly, I refer the learned reader to Rom. vii. 9, and Gal. i. 13, 20, in all which places, the excellent editor of the French Bible already quoted, translates Tore by "autrefois."

In making these observations, no one can more heartily acknowledge the general excellence of our authorized version, than 1:It is however quite allowable, to point out such errors as are incidental to all works of such a nature.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

C. S. A.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.- ACTS VII. 38.-1 PETER II. 5.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-Diffident in venturing to express a difference of opinion on any point of criticism as all must be who know the talents and learning of your correspondent T. K.; yet, relying on the perfect sincerity with which he professes his desire to be set right, I take the liberty of offering a few words, not so much in direct justification of our translators in their rendering of Acts vii. 38; and 1 Peter ii. 5, as in palliation of their error, if such it be.

That the word lively had in their day the same meaning as in ours may be granted, without granting the conclusion which T. K. would infer from the admission; unless indeed we should be forced to allow, that it had then but the one meaning to which he seems to allude, and which would certainly be "unsuitable" in either of the passages referred to. This however, is I think but one of those cases, in which we may wish, without condemning them, that our forefathers could have foreseen that what with them was