Correspondence.

SALTED WITH FIRE.
Another view of Mark ix, 49.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE GENERAL BAPTIST MAGAZINE.

DEAR SIR,-I venture to oppugn the exposition of this passage, quoted in your number for June, and respectfully to submit the following as a more truthful exposition of the meaning of our Lord's words.

The disciples of our Divine Master, having as yet but very imperfectly apprehended His heavenly humility, and His self-denying purpose of becoming a sacrifice and atonement for the sins of the world, had, with singular unsuitableness been "disputing which of them should be the greatest" Mark ix. 31-34. Conscience told them that this selfish ambition and vain-glory was wrong; and so when Jesus asked them the occasion of their disputation, shame made them silent. Knowing what was in their heart, he took occasion to renew his instructions concerning child-like humility and inoffensiveness, self-sacrificing generosity and brotherly love, concluding with these words, "Have salt in or among yourselves and have peace one with another." The scope and tendency of the passage thus seems so very clear, that one should have thought, no reader, with ordinary attention, would have formed any serious misapprehension of its meaning.

That principle of interpretation called parallelism, generally acknowledged among biblical critics as true, would evince that the two clauses of this sentence are tantamount, and so the phrase "Have salt in, or among, yourselves, would mean the same as "Have peace one with the other." Thus "salt" signifies the spirit of peace, brotherly love, -friendship.

If this be allowed, all difficulty, I think, vanishes. And it may very well be allowed; for the salt is here said to be a "good" thing-so good indeed, that without it nothing can be properly seasoned; and especially not any sacrifice offered to God. (v. 49, compared with Lev. ii. 13.) This good quality may justly be predicated of peace and brotherly love; but not, (as that other comment would teach us), of the damnation of hell. Our Saviour teaches us that "Every one shall be salted with fire," but he surely does not teach us that we must all go to hell; that that salt is good, and that to be acceptable to God we must all be salted with it. But He does here teach us that rather than sin against God or our fellow men, we must sacrifice our

very limbs and eyes. Indeed the New Testament generally teaches us to "present our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God. And He does tell us of a fire in which these sacrifices must be presented-even the living and loving Spirit of God; that "eternal Spirit in which Jesus offered himself without spot to God," and in which "our offering up may also be acceptable; being sanctified by the Holy Ghost." Romans xii. 1, 15, 16,; Heb. ix 14. And he, therefore, also most appropriately tells us of a salt with which every such sacrifice must, in order to its acceptance, be seasoned. "For," as under the former dispensation, every Jew must necessarily present to God, through the priest, sacrifices for sin, and peace offerings "made by fire to the Lord;" so under the present dispensation, must every Christian, through Jesus the High Priest, and by the fire of the Holy Ghost, be offered up to God a consecrated and self-devoted sacrifice. But as no sacrifice among the Jews would be accepted by God without salt, so no religion or religious service of ours will be pleasing to our Heavenly Father, unless accompanied with brotherly love. "Therefore, (saith our Saviour, Matthew v. 23-25) if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought-hath some ground of complaint-against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother-confess thy fault to him, do thy best to repair it, obtain the salt of peace with him,-and then come and offer thy gift." And He then adds a word just equivalent to the context in Mark ix. saying, " Agree with thine adversary quickly, lest thou be cast into prison."

What a church, and speedily, what a world we should have, if this salt of peace and brotherly love were present, or were really believed essentially necessary to all our religious exercises! And how indispensable it is, we may see in the Divine rejection of the religion of those of whom we read in Psalm 1. 16, 20; Isaiah i. 15, 51, i. 11; Mal. iii. 4, 5; and 1. Cor. xi. 17, 22. (See also Church of England Catechism, the last answer).

This is the salt of the "Covenant of God," as it is called Lev. ii. 13, the Covenant of Friendship with God, and with all our fellow men. The same idea is contained in the phrase "Covenant of

CORRESPONDENCE.

MISSIONARY BAZAAR AT THE ANNUAL ASSOCIATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE GENERAL BAPTIST MAGAZINE.

to private individuals, numerous and Subscriptions to provide materials 6 15 8 urgent appeals for contributions to our Missionary Bazaar, I feel it not only a duty, but also a great pleasure, to lay before your readers a statement of the results, which will, I feel sure, be read with great satisfaction. I would also most heartily thank all those who so kindly helped in this good cause, expressing the joy and thankfulness I felt to Him who alone maketh His people "able to offer so willingly after this sort." Now, therefore, Paid to R. Pegg, Esq. our God, we thank Thee and praise Thy glorious name, for all things come of Thee, and of Thine own have we given Thee,

6

6 13
1 11 0
1 7 6
9 40

£18 16 0 Besides this, the juvenile stalls realized the handsome sum of £19 4s., making a total of £162 1s.

£8. d. not materially to lower prices, especially
of those articles which were at all likely
to sell in India. After the Bazaar was
over, the committee presented to Mrs.
Miller a parcel of articles which would
be useful in providing her family's outfit,
feeling assured that this would meet with
the cordial approbation of all. By far
the larger part of the goods_remaining
unsold are being packed up for India; and
with the few which it was not deemed
advisable to send, a stall will be set out
at some tea meeting or any other appro-
priate time which may present itself,
Again thanking all who have contributed
anything, whether much or little,
Believe me, my dear Sir,
Yours sincerely,

The appearance of the Bazaar seemed to give very great satisfaction, and the attendance was good. On the third evening of course it was crowded by those who came not out of love to the cause surely! but with the hope of obtaining cheap bargains. The committee, however, adhered as much as possible to their previous determination,

CORNELIUS.

In reply to a Query.

MARY S. WILKINS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE GENERAL BAPTIST MAGAZINE.

DEAR SIR,-The honest and earnest | Jewish mode. Of such, the term "One inquirer after truth is worthy of the most that fears God" was the usual designation. careful instruction; and if one of God's To this view the objection is made, why children has been enabled to see clearly did the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, when another sees but dimly or not at all, after Peter had taken food with Corneit will be felt a duty and a pleasure to lius, charge him with having eaten with communicate as fully as possible the the uncircumcised? (xi. 2-3.) It may be greater light received. On these accounts replied, that there were two classes of I regret that the inquiry of your corres- proselytes-those of the gate and those of pondent on the above subject, which ap- righteousness-the latter receiving cirpeared in the Magazine for May, has cumcision, and being formally admitted been, in the two subsequent numbers, into the Jewish church; the former not unanswered. With your permission, there- submitting to the Jewish rite, and consefore, and without at all assuming that I quently regarded by the Jews as still belong to that class of your correspondents unclean. To this class, if the affirmation to which "Querist" refers as "mighty in be correct at all, Cornelius must belong. the Scriptures," I venture to offer him Amongst the advocates of this view are such assistance as I am able. Neander, in his "Planting," &c. (vol I. p. 66-75, Bohn,) and Olshausen, Whitby, and Clarke, in their Commentaries.

The difficulty of your correspondent seems to be the apparent discordance between the two distinct records of Cornelius's state-the one seeming to represent him as "accepted of God," "devout," &c., and the other as unsaved. That Cornelius was in the latter state previous to his interview with Peter, there is not much reason to doubt; in the passage Acts xi, 14, therefore, there is nothing perplexing. The difficulty, if we take our stand here, which we must-lies in the two other passages referred to, Acts x. 1, 4, 35; how to reconcile such statements with the fact that he was not already saved.

As to the secular position of Cornelius, indicated in ver. 1, any remark would be superfluous. On this point all are agreed. His religious position, as intimated in ver. 2, is the point that demands consideration; and on this opinions differ. Many gifted men are convinced that he was a Jewish proselyte-having become dissatisfied with the Gentile religions and become a worshipper of the true God, according to the

With this however many do not agree, though the difference of opinion is chiefly, if not entirely, not with regard to the true moral state, or actual religious position of Cornelius, but with regard to his supposed external relationship to the Jewish church. Those who maintain that he was a proselyte, and those who maintain that he was not, agree in all essential points; viz., that he had adopted (at least in principle) the Jewish religion, that he observed several Jewish customs, read their Scriptures, was a worshipper of the true God, and if not a proselyte formally, was one practically. The difference is scarcely worth contending for. Amongst the writers on the non-proselyte side of the question may be mentioned, Doddridge, in his Exposition; Barnes, in his Notes; and J. F. Denham, in Kitto's Cyclop. art. Cornelius.

From the passage under consideration, however, one thing is evident-that Cor

This passage, thus taken, has been considered by some as an evidence of the superflousness of the gospel, and the sufficiency of mere morality or virtue to secure, here and hereafter, the Divine approval. That such misunderstand and pervert the apostle's meaning is satisfactorily shown by the connexion in which the words were used; for in this he immediately proceeded to unfold the gospel scheme, and to show the necessity of faith in a crucified Saviour. "To him give all the prophets witness," said he, "that, through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (v. 43). This shows that Peter could not have given utterance to any such sentiment as these self righteous moralists profound. By detaching an author's expressions formed from the connexion in which they stand, he may be made to support the wildest theories; but the unjustness of such a course is obvious. Only by such a course, which every honest mind would scorn to adopt, can there be found even an apparent basis for his self-righteous theory.

nelius was an earnest, devout seeker after | of sins." (Acts xiii. 26, 38.)---The term thetruth. Much light had already dawned in fact, as already stated, was the usual upon his mind, but he was conscious that designation of proselytes. Whatever much darkness yet remained, and longed Peter meant by the phrase "accepted of for more light. He had heard of Chris- God," taking the passage as it now stands, tianity, and was unable satisfactorily to it was not employed in reference to Cordecide whether he should receive it as nelius as one that feared God only, but true or reject it as false. He was thus also as one that worked righteousness. disturbed and anxious, and longed to have the conflict brought to a right issue. For this purpose, doubtless, he "prayed to God always;" for though this intimates, (as also ver. 30. "at the ninth hour I prayed in my house,”) that he observed the usual Jewish hours of prayer, the supposition cannot be entertained, that, in doing so, he was characterized by the prevailing Pharisaic formalism. He was truly and deeply sincere; and the earnest cries of such will enter acceptably the Divine ear. Nor was his sincerity destitute of truth, The Pharisees devoured widows' houses, and for a pretence made long prayers; but the prayerfulness of Cornelius was accompanied by a steady and extensive liberality, for "he gave much alms to the people." He acted indeed, according to the light he had received; but this, now the claims of the new religion had been presented to his mind, did not, could not satisfy his inward cravings, and he asked for more. In the teachings of x. 1-4, therefore rightly understood, there is nothing inconsistent with xi. 14. His position, as there indicated, is nothing more than an earnest and anxious enquirer. With this view agree those of Olshausen, (comp. Acts x. 1, 8, 37.) and Neander, ("Planting" &c., vol. I. p. 69.) But it will be asked, if this was the true internal position of Cornelius, how could Peter use the language in ver. 35, which seems to intimate that he was already divinely accepted and truly a worker of righteousness? It is here where the real difficulty is met with. That "Querist" feels this is plain from the latter part of his query. His expression, however, is not accurate. He is not represented "as fearing God and CONSEQUENTLY being accepted with him." All that is meant by the term "he that feareth God" is perfectly compatible with the absence of a consciousness of pardon, and the Divine favour through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. To this Paul's discourse at Antioch bears abundant testimony. "Men and brethren" he says, "children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to YOU is the word of this salvation sent." And again: "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness |

But this notion is not only disproved by the connexion: it is also shown to be false by the circumstances of the case and the language employed. Peter was a Jew, and it is evident that his Jewish prepossessions had, up to this time, been very strong. The notions he had derived from Judaism had obscured his views of Christianity. God, by a remarkable vision, had just shown him the wrongness of one injurious prejudice. Just as the vision had passed away, and as he was anxiously pondering over its import, the messengers sent by Cornelius arrived, and he was directed by the Spirit to accompany them. Accordingly, having for the rest of that day entertained them at his lodgings and listened to their account, the next day they started for Cæsarea. On the second day of the journey they arrived at Cornelius's residence, and then Peter (v. 28,) acknowledged the prejudice he had cherished, and said how he had been shown by this vision that it was wrong. Cornelius then described the vision with which he had been visited, and how by that he had been led to send for Peter that he might give him the instruction he required. It was not till then that the lesson Peter had been taught fully flashed

upon his mind. The combined evidence | the inference, on the contrary it is perof the two visions was so irresistible in its force that his Jewish predilection was utterly swept away, and he at once involuntarily exclaimed: "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him." "Evidently says Neander, "Peter spoke in opposition to the Jewish nationalism. God judgeth men not according to their descent or non-descent from the theoretic nation, but according to their disposition."

fectly natural, that by the term here ren-
dered righteousness. Peter meant nothing
more than liberality or alms-giving.
Where then is the notion of the sufficiency
of virtue? The passage contains no
allusion to virtue. But then the difficulty
remains, how could Cornelius be said,
on such accounts, granting the correctness
of this new rendering, to be "accepted
with God?" Does not the passage thus
make devoutness and generosity grounds
of acceptance? That Cornelius was not
accepted, in the sense in which that term
is now usually understood, and that it
was impossible for him to be so, is plain
from other portions of God's Word,
"Though I bestow all my goods to feed
the poor
and have not charity,
it profiteth me nothing," 1st Cor. xiii. 3.
The liberal man, therefore, even when
his liberality is manifested to the greatest
possible extent, does not meet with the
Divine approval and CANNOT, when it is
associated with a wrong state of the
heart. How then must the passage be
understood?

The very expressions employed also, though here I would speak with diffidence, are, it seems to me, unfavourable to the weak notion of the sufficiency of virtue. Olshausen speaks of the expressions "To fear God" and "to work righteousness," as denoting devoutness and righteousness, of a legal kind; so that the "righteousness" would not be such as is acknowledged to be genuine in the Divine Word. But this, so far as our version is concerned, does not help us out of the difficulty; for, whether genuine or not, according to that version, and taking the passage by itself, it was such in its character as led Peter to say of the worker of it he was "accepted of God." It must be observed, however, that the term righteousness on which the moralist builds | his self-complacency and his hopes, is the translation of a term which has a wider range of meaning than its English representative. Like the corrresponding Hebrew word tzedek, dikioтvvn does not invariably signify the moral character or general uprightness and integrity of conduct. For some of the various meanings of the word, the reader may consult Robinson's Greek Lexicon; Campbell on the Gospels, especially his notes on Matt. iii. 15; vi. 1; xxi. 32; and chap. xvi. of Taylor's "Key to the Apostolic Writings" prefixed to his "Paraphrase, and Notes on the Romans." By consulting these it will be found that amongst the various meanings of this word is that of generosity or liberality; and that the word itself is sometimes put for alms. Now we are expressly told that Cornelius was a man of very liberal disposition, and "gave much alms to the people" (v. 2); and when Cornelius was narrating the circumstances of his vision to Peter he told him an angel appeared unto him and said, "Thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God", (v. 31), which statement agrees with the one previously made in v. 4. There is nothing unreasonable, therefore, or improbable in | Belper, July, 1859.

It may be of some service to remark that the term rendered accepted, would be with equal correctness and greater propriety translated acceptable, and has been thus translated by several distinguished men. But this, of itself, would not remove the difficulty. Let it then be observed, that, as Olshausen has well remarked, in order to get at the true sense of v. 35, it must be taken in connexion with v. 36. The sense in this way educed by him has thus been expressed: "he is acceptable to him in reference to the word which God sent to the Israelites, that is, so as to have part in this word." What Peter meant therefore was, that the promises and provisions made known in God's Word, were not, as he had hitherto thought, intended only for the Jews, and those who formally identified themselves with the Jewish church and passed through its various ceremonies as preparatory steps; but that they were intended for the men in all nations who had the right dispositions, altogether independent of Judaism. In perfect and beautiful accordance with this, Peter at once proceeds to preach to Cornelius the gospel.

Trusting this will be of some service to "Querist," and praying that God would raise up many such devout, liberal, truthseeking men as Cornelius,

I am, Dear Sir,
Yours very truly,

W. SHAKSPEARE.