صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

The doctrine, that Noah was Melchisedec, is very consistent with the chronological table, in the eleventh chapter of Genesis. It is recorded thus:

From the flood to Arphaxad,
Arphaxad to Salah,
Salah to Eber,

Eber to Peleg,

Peleg to Reu,

Reu to Terug,

Terug to Nahor,


[ocr errors]




[ocr errors]






Nahor to Terah, Abraham's


Thus far we have a regular se

you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood-And God said, This is the token of the covenant, which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth." The parallel between the sacrifice of Noah and that of Christ, is drawn in Isai. chap. liv. where the Lord says, "For this is as the waters of Noah unto me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah shall no more cover the earth,ries of years, which cannot be so have I sworn that I would not mistaken: but we cannot, in this be wroth with thee, nor rebuke manner, proceed any farther. We thee." The sacrifice of Noah, are next told, that Terah lived sevlike that of Christ, was offered up enty years, and begat Abram, Nafor the whole world, and the ben-hor, and Haran. But, from this eficial effects of it, reach to the we cannot infer the age of Terah, end of time. when Abram was born. It is natural to suppose, that Abram was the oldest of the three: and as Terah was 70 years old, when Haran was born, it is reasonable to suppose, that he was several years younger when Abram was born. The proper method of reckoning, therefore, is this: to ascertain the age of Abram, when he met Melchisedec; add this to the 222 years already calculated to the birth of Terab; deduct the sum from $50, the number of years that Noah lived after the flood; and see whether this allows Terah to have had a reasonable time to come to man's estate, and be the father of children?

4. Was Noah, like the Son of God, without descent? As it respects the new world, into which he was miraculously brought, and of whose inhabitants he was the sole progenitor, he was truly with out descent. As his children only were preserved with him in the ark; so he had no ancestor in the new world, none, whom he could call father or mother.

5. Was Noak a King? He was, unquestionably, Lord and King of the whole earth. His family comprised all the inhabitants of the world, over whom he had a patriarchal right to rule. As to his titles; these were derived from his sacerdotal office, in which he offered a sacrifice of perpetual efficacy, and procured a covenant of perennial peace. He is, in a natural way, to all the world, what Christ is, in a spiritual way, viz. the person, in whom the Divine Justice and Mercy united, to give life to men: and hence his titles of King of Righteousness, and King of Peace.

Abram, then, was 75 years old, when he left his own country. After journeying into various places, he overthrew the kings, and was met by Melchisedec; but we are not told what his age was, when this happened. After meet. ing with Milchisedec, he had sev eral visions of God, married Hagar, and had a son by her; and when this son was born, Abram was 86

years of age. All this must have taken up some time. But, we will suppose (which is the most unfavourable supposition) that Abram was 85 years old, when he met Melchisedec. Add 85 to 222, the number of years which elapsed from the flood to the birth of Terah, and the sum is 307. Deduct this from 350, the number of years that Noah lived after the food; and we have 43 years for the age of Terah, when Abram was born. It is, therefore, perfectly consistent with the chronology, to suppose, that Noah was living, when Abram defeated the kings. And if we suppose (as we reasonably may) that Terah was only 50 years old when Abram was born, and Abram only 80 years old, when he met Melchisedec; Noah might have lived 18 years after that meeting.

To this result, however, there is one objection; which is this: Stephen, in the viith of the Acts, tells us, that Terah was dead, before Abram left Haran: and it is said, Gen. xi. that Terah lived 205 years. Add this to 222, the years from the flood to Terah's birth, and the sum is 427. But Noah lived only 350 years after the flood, and must, therefore, have been dead, long before Abram met Melchisedec.

The answer to this objection,

[blocks in formation]

is, that the chronology is inconsistent with itself, and must, therefore, in one part or the other, be incorrect. Even supposing Terah to have been 70 years old when Abram was born; he must have lived 135 years longer, to have been 205 when he died; and consequently Abram must have been 155 instead of 75 years old when he left Haran. An errour there must be, some where: and it is not inconsistent with a belief of the Divine authority of the Scriptures, to suppose, that an errour in stating a number, might arise, either from a wrong translation (numbers being represented, in the Original, by letters, instead of figures) or from the carelessness of a transcriber. I am inclined to think, that Terah's age should be 105 instead of 205; in which case, Terah must have been 30 years old when Abram was born; and it is not unnatural to suppose, that Abram left Haran the same year his father died, i. e. the 75th of his age: but, for this I have no authority. Every one may suppose what he pleases: but still the character remains the same; and there is not, nay, we are sure there would not be another of the human race, to whom the things spoken of Melchisedec could, with any propriety be applied, besides Noah himself.

shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least èsteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one who shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now there.

fore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

which is better than "great riches," if it happens to be a brother in the church, from whom he receives the injury, he must be content with such redress, as he can obtain by means of church discipline-such as a pertinacious offender, perhaps, may please to give. Is it a duty to wait, till he is excommunicated? On the supposition, that this would be safe, it is at best a sorry pretence, that



It is, then, an important point to decide, what characters the apostle designed to specify, by the terms "unjust" and "unbeliev


And since Corinth was un

In this part of the epistle, the apostle reproves the church at Corinth for two faults: that controversies existed among them, and that they went to law with one when excommunicated, he is another before heathen magistrates. no longer a" brother," it is right When a controversy exists, one to arraign him before a tribunal, if not both of the parties were gen- where, to have arraigned him beerally in the wrong. It is, how-fore, would have been wrong. ever, possible, that men may dif- The excommunicated person we fer about their secular affairs, and are not to count as an enemy," yet have no disposition to "do but to admonish as a "brother." wrong," or "defraud." Both parties may be willing to refer their cause to a tribunal, where it will be decided on principles of justice and equity. But it is more than intimated by the apostle, der the Roman government; it that some of the Corinthian breth- must have been the Roman magisren were of a litigious spirit; that trates, who were Pagans, to whom they loved contention, and enter- he had reference. GUYSE, in his ed into law-suits, not to secure Paraphrase, has the following: "Is important rights, or to obtain reit not a rash, unnecessary, and dress for great injuries, but to con- unwarrantable venture, beyond tend about the smallest mat- the rules of prudence, love and ters." For such a spirit and prac-duty, for any of you, who have tice, they deserved reproof. a matter of controversy with a But the apostle evidently puts Christian brother, about civil afthe greater stress on the other fairs, to enter immediately into a fault. He expresses astonishment law-suit against him, and try it in at their going to law before the litigious way before heathen mag"unjust," or the "unbelievers.' istrates?" DR. GILL, in his comIt should be observed, that the mentary on this passage, says; apostle's meaning much depends The apostle here dissuades from on the above terms. If the unjust the practice of going to law before and unbelievers mean all persons, heathen magistrates." The same who are not members of the visible interpretation is given by Scott, church; it follows, that it is wrong Whitby, &c. Even the Jews refor professors of religion to go to garded it as profane and wicked law before any courts, except for any of their own people to go those, which are purely ecclesias- to a heathen tribunal to settle a tical; and that though a man has controversy. WHITBY says, and been defrauded of all his sub- Macknight states the same fact, stance, and deprived, by calumny "The saying of the Jews is this, and slander, of a "good name, "I that he who goes to law before the


[ocr errors]



tribunal of the Gentiles, profanes the name of God, and gives honour to an idol." From which it appears, that such was the manner of the Pagan courts, that those, who brought causes before them, must acknowledge their religions or pay homage to their idols; which was a sufficient reason, surely, why the apostle should reprove those members of the church at Corinth, who went to law before such courts."

Had the Jews at that time, then, no civil courts, by which the rights of individuals could be secured? Or were the Jews and primitive Christians obliged, by their religion, to see their individual rights suffer from injustice and fraud, without any legal redress? MACKNIGHT says, The Jews in the provinces, were allowed by the Romans, to hold courts of judicature for determining, according to their own jurisprudence, such controversies about secular affairs, as were among themselves. The same privilege (he says) I doubt not, was enjoyed by the Christians. For, as there were many Jews among them, and as they agreed with the Jews in abstaining from the worship of heathen gods, they were, in the first age, considered as Jews, and enjoyed their immunities."

Hence, though it was inconsistent, that Jews or Christians should go to law before heathen courts, they considered it a right to have civil courts, by which they could have their rights secured, or their controversies decided, without paying homage to false gods.

If, indeed, it be admitted, that these words of the apostle prove, that it is wrong, in any case, for professors of religion to go to law with one another, even under a Christian government, where no other than the God of the Bible is

acknowledged, will it not follow,

that Christians must not hold civil offices? For how can a Christian obligate himself by an oath, to be faithful to the laws of his country, when the case may happen, that a brother in the church may expose himself to the penal sanctions of the law, if, at the same time he is bound by the vows of his covenant not to go to law with a brother? But if it is consistent, that members of a Christian church should hold civil offices, or rule as magistrates in a Christian land; then must it be conceded, that the words of the apostle do not imply, that it is absolutely wrong for brother to go to law with brother-it must be conceded, not only that it may be right, but a duty.

I conclude with the following quotation from CALVIN'S INSTITUTES, Book ix. chap. xx. "Those, who positively condemn all controversies at law, ought to understand, that they thereby reject a holy ordinance of God, and a gift of the number of those, which may be "pure to the pure:" unless they mean to charge Paul with a crime, who repelled the calumny of his accusers, exposing their subtilty and malice; who before his judges asserted his right to the privileges of a Roman citizen; and who, when he found it necessary, appealed from an unjust Governor to the tribunal of Cæsar.

The objection, which is frequently alleged, that law-suits are universally condemned by Paul, has no foundation in truth. It may be easily understood, from his words, that in the church of the Corinthians, there was an immoderate rage for litigation; so that they exposed the gospel of Christ, and all the religion which they professed, to the cavils and reproaches of the impious.-But, when one sees that, without any breach of charity, he may defend his property, the loss of which

would be a serious injury to him; | whatever litigations are undertak

if he do it, he does no offence against that doctrine of Paul. In a word, as we have observed at the beginning, charity will give every one the best counsel: for

en without charity, or are carried to a degree inconsistent with it, we conclude them, beyond all controversy, to be unjust and wicked." PACIFICUS

No. IX.

In the last number some topics of reflection were suggested, to show the importance of a revival of religion in every church to its members as individuals. I would now observe,

II. Let the members of the

church consider the great importance of a revival to the church to which they belong.

1. Let them consider how much its present peace depends upon it. When there is a revival in a church, and all its members are in the lively exercise of the Christian graces, all is harmony and peace. They are of one heart and one soul. Little differences of opinion that may exist, occasion no discordant feelings. They can bear with each other's infirmities, and yield to each other's wishes. The glow of Christian feeling, which then animates their bosoms, binds them to each other with indissolu. ble ties. No root of bitterness can spring up to trouble them. No assaults from without can disturb their harmony. For the spirit that was in Christ animates the whole mass. But, let religion decay, let a state of coldness succeed, let the lively exercise of the Christian graces give place to the spirit of the world, and the church becomes a divided and distracted body. And it is very natural that it should be so. As the spirit of God withdraws, another spirit takes possession. When the glory of God ceases to be the prominent object of regard, other objects, of

a very different nature, are set up in its place. One man urges upon others his own favourite views of truth and duty, not so much because they are right, as because they are his, and thinks that all dissent from them is highly criminal. Another thinks those views are wrong, and that opposition to them is a duty. And each censures the other for his conduct. One man thinks it belongs to him to be a leader in the church, and that others do not pay him the honour that is due. Another thinks he takes too much upon himself, and ought to be kept down. One thinks that his brother has treated him with slight, and that a proper self-respect calls upon him to resent the affront. The other thinks that his brother's conduct merited such treatment, and feels justified in extending it a little further. | One thinks that his brother has wronged him in his property, and that a little retaliation would teach him better. The other thinks the wrong is wholly on the opposite side, and retaliates again. One thinks his brother has done him wrong, and tells him his fault. | But he does it in a manner and with a spirit which is calculated to provoke rather than to concil| iate; and the offender is made worse. Another thinks his brother has done him wrong; but thinks a reproof would do no good, and broods over the injury in sullen silence. Another who has received an injury, says nothing to his offending brother, but tells the fault to others, and they again to

« السابقةمتابعة »