Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

that they have been spared so long,and have experienced so many mercies-with feelings of con. trition for their many offenceswith a sense of their dependence on the mercy of God, for life and every favor with pious resolu tions that while life and reason are continued, God the Preserver shall no more be forgotten or neglected that every day shall be commenced with prayer, employ

ed in obedience, and closed with praise.

O Lord, so teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom. So teach us to commence this year, as to insure thy favor through life, thy presence in the hour of death, and that blessed immortality, brought to light in the gospel of thy Son.

ON THE AMBIGUITY OF LANGUAGE, AS A SOURCE OF ERROR. IN a former Number some observations were made on the influence of education, as a source of error; and it was intimated that other sources would be brought to view. The ambiguity of language demands a particular consideration.

Language is ambiguous when the same sentence is liable to be understood in different senses; and such ambiguity may result from the useof an equivocal word or phrase, or from the arrangement of the words in forming the sentence. We shall now consider the ambiguity which results from the use of equivocal words or phrases.

Words are but arbitrary and artificial signs, by which ideas are communicated from one person to another. They derive all their meaning from those who use them. As by the consent of community certain motions of the head, the hand, or the body, are used as signs of obeisance, or tokens of friendship and civility; and as certain beats on a drum are used as signs of ideas in an army; so certain combinations of letters and words are, by the consent of mankind, used as signs of

ideas in the customary intercourse of those who are endowed with the powers of speech. A soldier, who is acquainted with the various beats of the drum, and has been accustomed to having his duty signified in this, manner, will seldom mistake the signs. But au ignorant soldier would be very liable to many innocent mistakes, even if his heart were perfectly upright. But if the same beats on the drum were so used as sometimes to signify one thing, and sometimes another, the most intelligent soldier would be liable to mistakes.

Now such is the imperfection of human language, that the same words have various significations; and in some instances the different significations of the same word, and the same sound, are nearly opposite. It would be a work not adapted to the Disciple, fully to display the ambiguity, or equivocal character of the words in our language; a few examples only will be given, to show how liable men are to mistake the meaning of each other, and the meaning of particular passages of scripture.

The word let is used in two senses, which are nearly opposite; it signifies to permit, and to hinder. "John wished to go to school; his father was so simple as to let him." By this might be intended either that his father permitted him to go, or that he hindered his going. If the writer used the word in one sense, and the reader understood it in another, an erroneous opinion would of course be formed of the conduct of the father.

The word overlook is used in at least three very different senses. At one time it signifies to oversee, inspect, or superintend; at another it signifies negligence or want of care; and again it signifies forgiveness, passing over an offence, or neglecting to punish. "The general overlooked the conduct of the captain," Suppose we have nothing but this declaration to guide us, who would be able to say whether it means-The general carefully inspected the conduct of the captain; or, the general neglected to oversee the conduct of the captain; or, the general passed over a fault in the captain? Any person who had been acquainted with one sense only of the word overlook, would naturally understand it in that sense, whether right or wrong. If wrong, must his error be ascribed to the depravity of his heart? The word translated Angel, so often used in the scriptures, signifies a messenger; and it is as applicable to a human, as to a heavenly messenger. At the present time in our land it commonly signifies a celestial spirit. Suppose then that an ignorant

[blocks in formation]

The word translated God, was formerly applied, not merely to the Supreme Being, but to Angels, to rulers, and to the innumerable objects of heathen adoration; and it is thus variously used in the bible. But among us, in speaking and writing, the word God is commonly used to signify the high and lofty One, who inhabiteth eternity. Is it then very wonderful, if on some passages of scripture in which the word is used, there should be different opinions? Those who have been taught to believe that in the scriptures this titie is peculiar to the Supreme Being, are certainly very liable to mistakes, and to think he is intended when he is not.

[ocr errors]

The Greek word, translated church, signified congregation, and was equally applicable to any congregation, whether Jewish, Christian, or Heathen. We now make a distinction between the church and the congregation that meet in the same place; a distinction which perhaps was wholly unknown in the days of the apostles. This however may be the subject of future inquiry. But we not only apply the term church to a number of professed believers, who meet in the same place, but it is often applied to the meetinghouse. These several facts may have been the occasion of many mistakes. If I simply say, "the

Rev. Mr. E. has a very good church," one may suppose I mean to praise a house for worship, and another may think I praise the worshippers.

Phrases, as well as words, are often equivocal. "I will have mercy and not sacrifice." Math. ix. 18. "The expression," says Dr. Campbell, "I will have mercy, commonly denotes, I will exercise mercy; whereas, it is in this place employed to signify, I require others to exercise mercy." Must it be ascribed to wickedness of heart if some other persons have been less discerning, or less learned, than Dr. Campbell? If not, others perhaps have innocently mistook the meaning of the text.

Of

"For the love of Christ constraineth us." 2 Cor. v. 14. Now who can certainly tell whether by the phrase "the love of Christ," was meant the love which the apostles had to Christ, or the love which Christ had displayed towards mankind. two learned ministers, one understands the phrase in the former sense, the other in the latter. Shall they on this account, mutually reproach and accuse each other of gross depravity and wickedness? As unreasonable as this would be, it would not be more unbecoming than one half the contentions which have distracted and disgraced the christian world.

Besides the ambiguities in our own language, we have to observe, that our scriptures are a translation from other languages, in which also the same words and phrases were used in different senses. Most people have to

depend on a few learned men, all of whom have been fallible translators. Each of these transla. tors had probably imbibed a system of opinions, before he began to translate. They were severally apprized of the ambiguity of words in the original. They may all have been men of integrity; yet it would be natural for each one to suppose, that the scriptures were not intended to contradict his own correct opinions; and every one's opinions appear to himself correct. Consequently when one translation of an equivocal word or phrase would favor his opinion, and another would contradict it, we may be pretty certain which of the two he would adopt. But if a translator were perfectly impartial, he might be liable to mistake the meaning of an equivocal word in a particular case, as honest men often mistake each other's meaning in our own language.

When these things shall have been duly considered, will it not appear to every impartial mind, that error in opinion is far less evidence of depravity of heart, than an uncharitable spirit one towards another, on account of diversity insentiment? It is very easy to see, how persons may innocently mistake in explaining the scriptures, and how different persons may be led into different opinions. But it is not so easy to see, how they can be innocent in hating and reviling one anoth

er.

But let it not be supposed, that the liability of some passages of scripture to different explanations, is any valid objection to

the Bible. Other books, even the laws of a state, are liable to different expositions; and the same is true of language when spoken, as well as when written. We may with as much propriety say, that tongues and pens are of no use, because we sometimes mistake the meaning of what is spoken or written; as to say, the Bible is useless, because some passages are capable of different interpretations. In deed, with the same propriety

that we may urge such an objection against the scriptures, we may affirm, that our understandings are of no use, unless they are so perfect as to be incapable of error. And he who, in defiance of common sense, will impute all the supposed errors of his brethren to sinful depravity, is not an object of envy, in regard either to the extent of his understanding, or the purity of his own heart.

THE MARTYRDOM OF DR. HUSS. JOHN HUSS was born in the year 1376, near Prague in Bohemia. Having obtained an edu cation, and being eminent for piety, he was elected Rector of a university in 1408. On reading the writings of Wickliff he became an admirer of that eminent man, and embraced so many of his opinions as to be considered a disciple. This exposed him to the vengeance of the papal clergy, and finally brought him to the stake.

In 1414, the General Council of Constance was convened; at which, says Mr. Fox, "There were archbishops and bishops 346; abbots and doctors 544; princes, dukes, earls, knights, and squires 1600." The attention of the Council was soon called to the heresies of Wickliff. He was now dead, but the council reviled his memory, condemned his opinions, burnt his books, and ordered his bones to be dug up and consumed to ashes. Huss was a principal character among the followers of Wickliff. The Council ap

plied to the emperor Sigismond to bring him to Constance. Having obtained a safe conduct from the emperor, and testimonials in favor of his character, Huss set out,Oct. 1414, to meet the Council. His name was so much known and respected, that he passed through Germany in a kind of triumph. In the cities he was received with loud acclamations, and the streets were lined with people who had come together to see him.

When he arrived at Constance, his friend, Baron de Clum, gave information to the pope, that the emperor had given Huss his safe conduct, and he requested the pope to do the same. This was promised, but the promise was soon violated. Instead of appearing before the Council, as Huss expected, he was called before the pope and cardinals for a sham examination, and then cast into prison. Here he was confined, in violation of the safe conduct, and notwithstanding the exertions of his friends, until he was seized with a violent disease, which

threatened his life. The pope hearing of his sickness, feared he would die before he should be formally condemned. He and his friends therefore resolved to draw up articles against him, and to condemn him while in prison. Articles were accordingly prepared,and a formal citation sent him to appear before the Council.

The messengers found him with his eyes sunk and languid, his visage pale and emaciated. The good man raised himself up and said "You see, friends, my condition. Do I seem like a man fit to plead a cause in a public assembly? Go, tell your masters what you have seen. But staytell them likewise, that if they will allow me an advocate, I will not fail even in this condition to join issue with them."-But this small favor was denied, and the trial was postponed.

In Constance the populace imbibed the spirit of their leaders, and became so furious that the friends of Huss were in great danger. But in Bohemia, where Huss was known and beloved, a different feeling prevailed. The whole kingdom was in motion in his favor. A petition was circulated and signed by almost the whole of the nobility and gentry in the kingdom. It was dated May 1415, and addressed to the Council. In this they complained of a breach of the safe conduct, and requested that an end might be put to the sufferings of Huss, by granting him a hear ing as soon as possible.

The trial being still delayed, a second and a third petition were sent. On the first of June, a promise

was given that Huss should be examined within a week. On the fifth, the same Council resolved that the articles objected to him, should be produced and examined in his absence; after which he was to be sent for and condemned.

Being informed of this resolve, the Bohemian deputies went immediately to the emperor, and laid their complaint before him. He was greatly offended with the conduct of the Council, and sent them an arbitrary mandate to desist; and said "he would have nothing done but with the defendant face to face." Huss was then summoned to appear the next day. He appeared; an article of charge was read; but soon such a tumult was excited, that he could not be heard in his own defence. They adjourned. The next morning they met again; the emperor attended, that more decency might be observed. Several articles of charge were brought against Huss, to which he answered in a cool, dispassionate manner. The following were some of the opinions which gave most offence.

"That there is no absolute necessity for a visible head of the church; that the church was better governed in apostolic times without one;-that a wicked pope cannot possibly be the vicar of Christ; that liberty of conscience is every one's natural right; that ecclesiastical censures, especially such as touch the life of man, have no foundation in the scripture;-that no excommunication should deter the priest from his duty; that preaching is as much required from the min

« НазадПродовжити »