written this account, or have used it in compiling his narrative. It was then, as now, the policy of the Laudites to designate the Anglicans of the school of the Reformation as "Puritans," "rigorous Sabbatarians," "irreverent Dissenters," and the like. It is a familiar artifice of fraudulent controversy to call what is good by some bad or unpopular name. The Puritans objected to sundry of the rites and ceremonies, and even to the episcopal structure, of the Church of England; whereas the true Anglicans, such as Bishop Hall, firmly adhered to these; they were not non-conformists, or "low churchmen," in any tenable interpretation of that phrase, for the vaunted high-churchism of the Laudites, the Sacheverellites, and our modern Tractarians, is not Anglican Churchmanship, but spoilt Popery. ON ADMINISTERING THE LORD'S SUPPER IN THE AFTERNOON. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. In reply to a query in the Christian Observer for October, 1842, from a NORFOLK RECTOR, "Whether it is customary, or has been so, in any part of England or Ireland, to administer the Sacrament in the evening, i. e. at three o'clock service, or at six,"-I beg to say, that when visiting in the house of a clergyman in Cardiganshire in 1840, the Sacrament was administered in his church at the afternoon service; and I understood this was not an unusual occurrence in the Principality. Α CONSTANT READER. ON THE DATE OF THE FOUNDATION OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. YOUR correspondent F. S., in the June Number of your volume for 1841, expressed a wish to obtain additional information respecting the date given for the Foundation of Solomon's Temple in 1 Kings vi. 1; and the anomaly existing between the 480 years there mentioned, and the greater number of years actually accounted for in the Bible history. Though I cannot pretend decidedly to settle the period which really intervened between the Exodus and the fourth year of Solomon's reign, yet, as I can direct him to one or two Scriptural data, overlooked by him, but clearly requiring to be taken into account in making the calculation, and which have led me to a conclusion at variance with his,—and as I can also shew in what manner the number 480 has been arrived at, though irreconcileable with Scripture,-I take the liberty of submitting to your notice the result of my investigation of the subject. Maimonides, calculating 17 Jubilees (or 850 years) from the 15th year after the first entrance of the Israelites into Canaan to the 9th of Zedekiah, merges the times of servitude into those of the Judges. Cooper, in his Chronology, published in 1722, following his example, altogether omits the years of oppression mentioned in the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 10th, and 13th chapters of Judges, amounting in all to 111, and mixes up some with the periods of the Judges, while he makes the administrations of 挝 Samuel and Saul synchronical, reducing the time in this manner to the 480 mentioned in 1 Kings vi. 1. He thus shews how the calculation is made : He excuses the discrepancy thus created between his calculation of the period of the Judges, and the 450 years mentioned in Acts xiii. 21, by affirming that the meaning of the verse is, that Judges were given 450 years after the circumstances mentioned in verses 17, 18, and 19, had occurred, because Beza's translation reads it thus: "And after that, about the space of 450 years, he gave them Judges until Samuel the prophet." These years therefore, he says, must commence about the time of the birth of Isaac, and are not to be considered in reckoning the duration of the government under the Judges. Josephus, however, retains the years of servitude, which Scripture, I think, plainly intended, because where these are not to be numbered independently, it is expressly added that such a person was Judge at that time, as in the instances of Deborah and Samson. (Judges iv. 3, 4, and xv. 11, 20.) His account, therefore, of 592 years appears to me likely to be correct; but it is nearly 5 years short of the subjoined calculation which I have made. Wanderings in the Wilderness under Moses, Deut. i. 3, (com- "" with In Joshua xi. 18, it is said he "made war a long time CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 61. E yrs. mths. 40 O 25 0 Dates in Judges, up to the time of the oppression of the Ammonites, iii. 8, 11, 14, 30; iv. 3; v. 31; vi. 1; viii. 28; ix. 22; x. 2, 3. Here we must remark, that in Judges xi. 26, Jephthah speaks of Israel dwelling in Heshbon, Aroer, and the cities along the Arnon, for 300 years; which gives rise to a difficulty, because if we reckon from the first conquest of those cities under Moses, as mentioned in Numb. xxi. 25, that period will be considerably exceeded. If we make the 8 years mentioned in Judges iii. 8, to have formed part of the time of Joshua's administration, it will bring us within three years of the settlement of the Israelites, and the dismissal of the two tribes and a half: but then that can hardly be allowed, when, from Joshua xxiii. 1, we may clearly infer, that up to the time of Joshua's death, "The Lord had given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about," and therefore no time of servitude can be reckoned till after that event. If we include the 8 years before alluded to, and add the remaing 11 years of Joshua's administration, the period from the division of the land to the time of which Jephthah is speaking, will be found to be 312 years. Jephthah, however, may have been speaking in round numbers. The oppression of the Ammonites, Judges x. 8. The remaining dates in Judges, xx. 7, 9, 11, 14, and xiii. 1 Othniel to the death of Samuel to be 458 years and 7 months, which can hardly be considered as repugnant to Acts xiii. 20. (Or if we take the whole of Samuel's administration, 36 years and 7 months.).. The reign of Saul, Acts xiii. 21, (40); but if the other calculation be taken, including the whole lifetime of Samuel, 22.. The reign of David, 1 Kings ii. 11.... Solomon founded the Temple in the 2nd month of the fourth year of his reign, 1 Kings vi. 1 yrs. mths. 18 7 40 0 40 0 3 1 Total.. 596 8 Josephus (Antiq. Lib. viii. c. iii. § 1) states that 592 years intervened between the Exodus and Solomon's founding the Temple; but subsequently (Antiq. Lib. xx. c. x.) says there were thirteen high priests during that interval, whose priesthoods occupied a space of 612 years; which agrees with the number of years calculated by your correspondent, but for the admission of all which I cannot find Scriptural authority,-it seeming clear to me, that the 20 years and 7 months, mentioned in 1 Sam. vi. 1, and vii. 2, or rather 18 of them and 7 months, must be included in Samuel's judicature. The apparent discrepancy in Josephus' two dates of 592 and 612, may probably be caused by his reckoning, in the second place, the whole priesthood of the 13th priest, Zadok, instead of only those years of it up to the time of the foundation of the first Temple: while his former calculation of 592, comes short of the 596 years and 8 months, for which I think there is Scriptural proof, by allowing too short a period for the unassociated administration of Samuel. C. L. ON EXAMINING OURSELVES WHETHER WE LOVE GOD. THERE is a popular hymn which commences thus : ""Tis a point I long to know, Do I love the Lord, or no?" Allow me to ask, Is this question scriptural? I might add, subordinately, Is it consistent with reason or experience? Does an affectionate child say to itself, "I long to know whether I love my father and mother?" It knows that it does love them. An unaffectionate child, also, on the other hand, knows that it fails in love, and would not propound such a question. When our Lord said to his humbled Apostle Peter, "Lovest thou me?" he did not imply that there could be any difficulty in answering the question; and Peter, though deeply abased by his late backsliding, yet did not affect the false humility of saying, "That is a point I long to know;" he appeals to the Searcher of all hearts, “Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." doctrine of assurance. I do not enter upon the controverted question of what is called the There is a sober and scriptural, and there is an inflated and presumptuous, assurance. There is the witness of the Holy St. Paul says, Spirit; and there is an antinomian self-confidence. " The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." And again, "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." St. John says, "We know that we have passed from death unto life." Similar passages are numerous; and the Church of England, in entire accordance with them, writes in her "Homily of Salvation," "The right and true Christian faith is, not only to believe that the Holy Scripture and the Articles of our faith are true; but also to have a sure trust and confidence in God's merciful promises to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ; whereof doth follow a loving heart to obey his commandments." The Homily describes this true faith as "a sure trust and confidence in God that a man hath, that by the merits of Christ his sins be forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God;" which faith, says the Homily, "No ungodly man can have." An ungodly man may have a false confidence; it is clear, therefore, that the Homily contemplates first our belief of the sufficiency of Christ's salvation; and secondly, of our interest in it, as grounded upon the fact of our having been graciously led to lay hold of it; and this corroborated by our bringing forth the fruits of faith; as is implied, and often expressed, in such passages as those above referred to; as for example, "We know that we have passed from death unto life,"-why?"Because we love the brethren." This is one fruit of faith. In this sense we are to examine ourselves whether we are in the faith; and we ought to enquire whether our love is proved by the works of love; and if the Hymn means only this, I concur with the sentiment; but this meaning if it be the meaning-is not clearly brought out in the lines which I have quoted. A LEARNER. DESTITUTION IN THE UNITED STATES, IN REPLY TO MISS SEDGWICK. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. THERE must have been some affectation in the surprise expressed by Miss Sedgwick, (referred to in yonr Number for November, p. 700), at the mention of the word "struggle;" as if struggling for the means of subsistence were unknown in her country. In no nation is there a more eager struggle, a more intense competition to amass property and "go a-head;" but this I admit is not the precise point in question; for Miss Sedgwick refers to the procurement of the bare necessaries of life. The United States being a new country, with a widely-extended soil, and a population not closely packed; no person who has health, and is moral, provident, and industrious, needs be destitute of the ordinary comforts of human existence; but as America is not an Eden from which sin is banished, so neither does it afford the fruits of the earth to the idler, or hold out prospects of competence to the spendthrift or the profligate. Vice produces destitution in America as elsewhere; forsaken wives and starving children are not spectacles confined to the old world; of which the following recent incident is a mournful illustration. I copy it from a New York Newspaper. "A tall, haggard looking woman, not very neatly clad, but with an air of wornout gentility about her, was charged at our Police Court with stealing a brass candlestick worth about two shillings. She sat apart from the other prisoners, and appeared to be deeply stricken with poverty and sorrow. It was evident, however, that she took no interest in her present position, nor cared for the disgrace or inconvenience she might be subjected to, but that her sorrows had a deeper root, and that her heart (alas, what a wretched heart was that) was elsewhere. She sighed continually, but her sighs were suppressed, as if she did not wish them |