selves at liberty to invite all baptized believers to partake with them of the sacred emblems. Our reasons for rejecting their view and practice have been already given; for the brethren themselves, however, we cherish the highest esteem.

From what has been said it appears that the principles which require Baptist churches to limit their invitation to the Lord's supper to Christians of their own faith and order, are identical with those which determine the action of other

evangelical churches in this matter. Hence we cannot perceive the fitness of calling their practice "close communion." In principle it is as open as that of most orthodox churches; as open as the New Testament allows them to make it. We freely admit that it is "restricted"; and so it must continue to be while the example of apostolic Christians and the authority of inspired men retain their hold on the conscience; but we see no good reason for pronouncing it "close."

In reality, the great question between other denominations and the one for which we have endeavored to speak, relates to the subjects and the rite of baptism. A more careful examination of this question may, perhaps, in time, by the blessing of God, bring together those who now differ; and if it does, whether by a change of belief on the part of Baptists or by a change on the part of Pedo-baptists, the former will be relieved of a duty, the performance of which occasions them far more sorrow than it does others, the duty of restricting their invitation to the eucharist to members of Baptist churches. Such a "consummation is devoutly to be wished." May God hasten it by revealing his truth to all who love our Lord Jesus Christ! Then shall we rejoice, not only in Christian fellowship, but also in sacramental fellowship.

ARTICLE VI.

THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS, VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE SOUTHERN REBELLION.

BY EDWARDS A. PARK, ABBOT PROFESSOR IN ANDOVER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

THOSE Scriptures have been called imprecatory which contain a request, or intimate a wish or even willingness that moral agents be chastised or punished; and also those which express gratitude for the past afflictive event, or even submission to it. Many an amiable Christian reads some of these scriptures with a half-closed eye. The Imprecatory Psalms, in a special manner, are thought to be ill suited for modern times. They may have had their use as a wartrumpet in the shock of an ancient battle, when the soldiers of Israel were not ripe for gentler words; but it is imagined that we are to look upon them now as we gaze at the helmets and coats of mail which are hung up in the museum of antiquities. There are crises in life, however, which bring out the hidden uses of such parts of the Bible as had seemed to be antiquated. Since the commencement of the present rebellion, the Imprecatory Psalms have gained a new meaning in the view of men who had been wont to regard them as unchristian. Now the red planet Mars, which had been unnoticed in our horizon, has reappeared. The lost hymns have been found again. It is a new proof of the inspiration of the Bible, that so many of its forgotten teachings have been commended to our regard by the martial scenes of the day. The present occasion, therefore, appears to be a suitable one for considering the Imprecatory Psalms. And the design of the present Essay is to examine, first, some of the reasons why these Psalms are often

1 Even such passages as the following have been classed under the general name of Imprecatory: Psalm iii. 7; ix. 2−4; xviii. 37 −43; xxi. 7–11; xxxvii. 12-15; lii. 5-7; lxiii. 9-11; lxiv. 7-9; cxxxv. 8-12.

condemned as adverse to the spirit of Christianity; and, secondly, some of the ethical principles which these Psalms illustrate.

On the first topic I remark, in the first place, that we are often inclined to condemn the Imprecatory Psalms, because we overlook the benevolent temper which characterized the writers of the Old Testament, and which was eminently conspicuous in David, the author of the sternest songs. Far too frequently do we fail to recognize that kindly spirit which pervades the Hebrew scriptures, and in harmony with which we ought to interpret the imprecations. When we inquire into the design of some appalling threat, we must keep in view that symbol of a humane temper which is found in the Levitical prescription: "If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days." If men have an enemy, and they behold one of his cattle going astray, or lying down under a too heavy weight, the Mosaic law forbids them to take advantage of him, although he be their enemy, and it commands them to drive back to him his straying ox, and to help the animal that is overburdened. The Christian scriptures quote some of their most touching rules of benevolence from the Levitical code. It prescribes: "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." 3 The Proverbs of the Jewish nation declare: Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, lest the Lord see it, and it displease him."4 "Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me."5

66

1 Deut. xxii. 6, 7.

8 Lev. xix. 17, 18.

2 Ex. xxiii. 4, 5.

4 Prov. xxiv. 17, 18.

Prov. xxiv. 29. See also, Prov. xxv. 21; xxvi. 21, 22; Job xxxi. 29

As we ought to associate the Imprecatory Psalms with the humane spirit of the school from which they emanated, so we ought to interpret them in harmony with the generous temper of David, to whom we ascribe some, and the severest, of them. If his character had been savage, we should' be less clearly authorized than now in ascribing a benevolent spirit to his word:. By no means do we deny that he committed many grievous offences against the rules of charity; but his lamentation over his bitter foe is of itself a touching proof that in his general character he was clement beyond his times.' "Thou art more righteous than I," was the confession made to him by Saul, "for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil."? It may have been in allusion to his forgiving spirit towards this malicious king and his courtiers, that David sung:

"Yet my prayer also shall be in their evil doings.
When their judges were set free in rocky places
They heard my words; for they were sweet.”

When they were sick my clothing was sackcloth:

I afflicted my soul with fasting;

And my prayer returned into mine own bosom.

[i. e. I fell on my knees and inclined my head to the ground,
as in 1 Kings xviii. 42.]

I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother.
I bowed down heavily as though he had been my mother."3

Commentators have noticed the contrast between Prov. xx. 22, "Say not thou, I will recompense evil," etc., and Psalm xli. 10, "Raise me up, that I may requite them," my enemies. But the general spirit of kindness pervading the Old Testament may allow us to interpret the seemingly harsh phrase by the obviously benevolent one. See note on Psalm xli. 10, under the second head of the second division of this Essay.

'See 2 Sam. i. 19-27. See also 1 Sam. xxiv. 5; 2 Sam. xvi. 10.

1 Sam. xxiv. 2-22.

Psalm cxli. 5, 6; xxxv. 12-14. See also Psalm xxxviii. 20; cix. 4, 5. Throughout this Essay the rhythmical quotations of the Psalms are generally taken from Mombert's Translation of Tholuck's Commentary.

But why need we expatiate on the kindly temper of the Old Testament, when its entire system of sacrifices for sin was a symbol of atoning love, and one of the clearest expositors of those sacrificial offerings was the poet, warrior, and monarch who has been most frequently censured for the severe songs?

In the second place, we are apt to condemn the Imprecatory Psalms, because we often fail to recognize the sentiments of justice which are breathed forth by the New Testament writers, and particularly by Christ himself. The old covenant would not have been so often denounced, if it had been seen to be harmonious with the new. The gospel is thought to be a synonyme for mere gentleness. "Thy money perish with thee," said Peter to the sorcerer.1 "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall," said the chief of the apostles to the high-priest. And if this expression be deemed a hasty one, he said at his leisure: "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision;" and again: "I would they were even cut off which trouble you;" 4 and still again, in a style like that of the condemned Psalms: "Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil; the Lord reward him according to his works."5 We shall have repeated occasion in the progress of this Essay, to quote similar imprecatory words from the apostle John. He even portrays the martyrs as crying "with a loud voice, and saying: "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth!"6 Indeed, the general spirit of the New Testament overawes us by its references to God as a "consuming fire,"7 into whose hands "it is dreadful to fall," for "He that despised Moses's law died without mercy under two or three witnesses of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall

1 Acts viii. 20.

3

Phillip. iii. 2.

2 Acts xxiii. 3.

4 Gal. v. 12.

5 2 Tim. iv. 14. See also Gal. i. 8, 9, "Let him be accursed."

6 Rev. vi. 10.

Heb. xii. 29.

See also Rev. xviii. 20-24; xix. 1–8.

8 Heb x. 31.