Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of God that forbids any thing to be added to or taken from his Word, decree what they please on their own authority, and who, not content with those Scripture oracles which are the exclusive rule of perfect wisdom, palm upon us their own novelties."* And is it conceivable that so straightforward a reformer as Calvin should thus speak of the guilt of adding to or taking from the one inspired rule of faith, and, while disdaining to look at any argument drawn from an uncanonical book, lest he should seem to put it on a footing with Scripture, should over and over again quote the Apocalypse along with the undisputed books of Scripture, as conclusive evidence on the most vital doctrines, if, as Sir William Hamilton persists in affirming, he had "either denied or doubted the canonicity of the Revelation?"

The one thing in the shape of evidence that Calvin, notwithstanding all this, did doubt the canonicity of the Apocalypse, is the story from Bodinus. The bitterest, and yet the most impotent, part of Sir William Hamilton's reply is what he has said on this subject. First, he leaves his readers to suppose that, in asking who this Bodinus was, we asked for information, "knowing less than nothing of Bodin"-(this is only more solito). He adds, "I shall attempt to answer;" taking care not to tell his readers that we had answered our own question, and that while we alluded to Bodin's celebrity as a political writer, on which Sir William expatiates at length, but irrelevantly-we furnished some particulars about the theological speculations of Bodin, which it did not suit our author to notice. As to the truth of the story, our readers can judge for themselves. On the one side we have his colleague Beza, firmly contending for the canonicity of the Apocalypse, and Calvin himself explicitly ascribing it to the apostle John, and ranking it with the undisputed books of Scripture in proof of doctrines, while disdaining to listen to books pretendedly canonical: on the other side, we have simply a conversation he is reported (after his death) to have held-with whom, where, and when, no one knows, but a conversationin which he is alleged to have expressed himself sceptically both about the book and its author. Who but one who has what Sir William calls "a pre-adopted crotchet," can hesitate which of these two alternatives to embrace? But why, asks our author, did not Beza, or some other friend of Calvin, contradict the story, if they knew it to be untrue? "We know (he says) why they could not." But nothing can be more precarious than such inferences. As to Beza, if this story ever came in his way, or if it ever occurred to him as deserving of any notice, the actual treatment of the Apocalypse by Calvin and himself— both of them, nevertheless, chary of all attempts at a scheme of interpretation-would be held refutation enough. We adhere, therefore, to every line we have written about Bodinus. We never called in question his probity-Sir William writes as if we charged Bodinus with inventing the anecdote which he simply relates-but the thing alleged, be the history of it what it may, is plainly worthless.

One other point remains to be noticed-the one point which our author appears to make good against us, namely, that Calvin and Beza "prohibited the pastors of Geneva from all attempt at interpretation,"

* Calv. Inst., iv. ix. 2.

or, as now expressed, "prohibited the ecclesiastical employment of the Apocalypse."

But first, let the reader observe how much the fact concludes for, supposing it a fact. For no more than this, that Calvin and Beza were not only unable to open the Apocalyptic prophecies, but believed, as many do still, that the time for doing so was not come; and, therefore, that all attempts to manufacture a "key to the Apocalypse" were so much lost labour; and, as the extract we gave from Morus showed that many such attempts had already been made, to the disgust of Calvin, who saw in them rather an effort to display the ingenuity of their authors than any solid interpretation, it would appear he proceeded, in a somewhat high-handed way, to put a stop to such trifling, by interdicting professedly Apocalyptic exposition by those under his authority. That is the whole amount of the thing, supposing the case to be as reported by our author from the "Casauboniana." Sir William however, infers from it a great deal more. By this prohibition, he says, Calvin and Beza "virtually express their suspicion, at the least, that such book is not the Word of God." But as this is purely an inference of Sir William's, so we have seen it to be a false one; and there is positively nothing else relied on (except the Bodinus story, which we have disposed of) to prove that those two reformers "denied or doubted the canonicity of the Revelation." Sir William Hamilton persists in the assertion, that a divine cannot find the Apocalypse an enigma-cannot express his jealousy of " Apocalyptic keys" and such like productions-without virtually expressing his suspicion, at least, that the Apocalypse itself is not the "Word of God." It is useless to tell him that dozens of divines have done so, who firmly believed, and some of whom have elaborately proved, the canonical authority of that book. Our author has " presumed" the contrary, "and acted on it as true;" and as he holds that it needs no proof, he deems it useless to go into any detail regarding the divines he has named. This just shows that his whole reply, to use his own phraseology, "is radically naught." We proved, for example, conclusively that South, notwithstanding his witty and well-known saying about the Apocalypse, held its canonicity; to which Sir William naïvely replies by telling us in which of his Sermons "he finds" that the saying occurs-which we had done already. Scaliger, also, he makes nothing of, to his purpose. In his usual generous style, he says we know nothing about him,-do not know the meaning of the title of one of the posthumous collections of his Table-Talk, and have drawn all our knowledge of its history from an old French book. One would suppose from this, that we had made some gross blunders about it, or at least showed but a partial acquaintance with its literary history. Instead of this, while Sir William parades all the knowledge he possesses on the subject, it is found to contain not one tittle beyond what was in our paper, and to correct our statements in not so much as a jot. The minute details we gave were indeed taken from "an old French work," to which we gave such a reference as every generous scholar would consider worthy of something else than a taunt; and because we possessed only one of the collections, which even Sir William will not deny to be scarce, and frankly stated that we had to quote from

the other through Bishop Newton, Sir William Hamilton shows the fineness of his feelings by sneeringly adverting to this, to our disparagement. No attempt is made to meet the evidence we adduced to prove that both Casaubon and Morus held the canonicity of the Apocalypse, except his "single common-place of argument"-shall we call it? to apply to himself again his own language-that a divine may call the Apocalypse Scripture, and speak of it as the Apostle John's, and yet believe nothing of the sort.

But we have almost lost sight of the prohibition of apocalyptic interpretation by Calvin and Beza, which, supposing it true, we have seen to prove nothing against their faith in its canonicity. Whence is our author's information on this subject derived? From a posthumous work of Casaubon, consisting of miscellaneous observations on a variety of subjects, and published at Hamburg in 1710, from his MSS. deposited in the Bodleian Library. We have done our best to obtain a copy of this work, but without success. A friend, however, has transcribed the passage, with the editor's notes, from a copy in the British Museum.* On reading it carefully over, two remarks occur. First,Their "not allowing any one at Geneva to profess an interpretation' (ut interpretationem profiteretur), appears plainly to refer to those schemes of apocalyptic interpretation, or "Keys" to the Apocalypse, which were rife in those days as well as now; and which Casaubon might very well consider it wise in Calvin and Beza to discourage at Geneva, though never dreaming that this would be construed into a reflection upon the Apocalypse itself. But that Beza should forbid any one to "preach touching aught within the circuit of that book," is scarcely probable when we know that he has himself left Annotations upon it. Second,-Though Casaubon was well able to speak to a matter of this kind, he might very naturally, in a casual allusion like this, confound a known dislike and public dissuasive with a positive prohibition. The former is what no one who knows the sentiments of those illustrious men would hesitate to ascribe to them; the latter they will be slow to believe. But if the practice of the early French Church -according to the testimony of Durell, referred to by our author, in not allowing more than the first three chapters of the Apocalypse to be expounded from the pulpit without leave obtained from the synods, while yet they and he held it canonical t-should appear to favour the idea of a positive prohibition, still we have seen that their faith in the canonical authority of the Apocalypse-the one point in question between Sir William and us-was no whit the less on that

account.

In short, our author, in his long reply, has not furnished a single fact in support of the accuracy of his list of deniers or doubters of the canonicity of the Revelation. We conclude, therefore, by simply repeating our former conclusions: "With the single exception of Erasmus, the weight of whose doubts has been sufficiently considered, we have seen that Sir William Hamilton is wrong in all his authorities

The notes by the editor of this work seem to be the source whence Sir William Hamilton has drawn all his references;-there, at least, we have the passages from the "Scaligerana;" there, "Bodinus, p. 416;" there, "Durellus, p. 119." +"Qui Canonicus est."- Vindicia, p. 119.

NO. VIII.

N

against the canonicity of the Apocalypse. Calvin owned it; Beza owned it; Scaliger owned it [though he disowned it too, if his selfcontradictory Table-Talk is to be our authority.] Casaubon owned it; our countryman Morus owned it; even Bodinus-if we may judge by the quotations from it in his Dæmonomania'-had the same faith in it as in other portions of Scripture, which perhaps was none at all; and finally, that great Anglican authority, Dr South, owned it."

6

Perhaps our readers will think we have bestowed more pains upon this business than it deserves. We are inclined to think so too. But as we were unwilling at the first, that Sir William Hamilton's great name should lend weight to assertions as inaccurate as they were injurious to the credit of the Apocalypse, so afterwards, we felt indignant at an attempt to crush this Journal under the bitterest charges of ignorance, dishonesty, and presumption, advanced without a shadow of foundation, in a reply to us which left the things replied to precisely where they were,-a reply discreditable in many respects to the dignity of the learned baronet, and not very consistent with the courtesies of literary controversy.

CRITICAL NOTICES.

An Ecclesiastical Dictionary, &c. By the Rev. JOHN FARRAR. London: John Mason.

THE author of this work has already published a Biblical and Theological Dictionary, to which the present volume is an appropriate and valuable sequel. It aspires to furnish a brief explanation of the leading facts and peculiarities connected with the history, antiquities, heresies, sects, and various branches of the Christian Church, and professes to be the result of much careful research and thought on the part of the author. As to the success of the attempt, considering the peculiar difficulties attending it, we cannot but express a very favourable opi.. nion. It is the best book of the kind. Whoever contrives to get all its facts digested and stored up in his mind, will be an eminently well-informed man in most ecclesiastical matters.

We have alluded to difficulties inherent in works of this nature; and these are obvious. It is not easy for one mind to be the perfect encyclopædia of information requisite for such an undertaking. There is a temptation to estimate the importance of articles from local influences and personal considerations. The author is obliged to draw freely upon other compends of the same kind, and there are many topics of which the treatment in such works is extremely superficial.

More as friendly suggestions to improvement in future editions, than as carping objections to a work which cannot be expected to be minute and complete on all points, we might remark first on the absence of some words which deserve a place in the volume. Such words as "advowson," "the doctrine of intention," "intoning," and others constantly before the public eye, find no explanation in the work. In regard to courts and associations of an ecclesiastical nature, and for ecclesiastical purposes, while a place is found for some of the less important of them, we look in vain for an account of the Sanhedrim of the Jews, the Rota of the Papists, the General Assembly of the Presbyterians, or the Union of the Congregationalists, omissions the more remarkable when even the "Conference" at Hampton Court is mentioned. On the subject of Presbyterianism, the author seems by no means well-informed. Nine pages are devoted to "Methodists;" the "Presbyterians" are dismissed with little more than one and a half, while of this one and a half, fully a third is given to the history and tenets of the Reformed Presbyterians. With all the respect we cherish for that denomination, their claim to be the oldest Presbyterian denomination in Scotland, if their relative size is considered, hardly entitles them to bulk so largely in the article, especially as under the soubriquet of "Cameronians," which, in spite of the historical blunder involved in the use of it, threatens to stick to them, they have, what some other Presbyterian bodies in Scotland have

« AnteriorContinuar »