Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Yates's "Sequel" to his "Vindication of Unitarianism.”

and continually imposed for articles of

Christian faith."

T. P. concludes his letter to the Editor of the Christian Observer by saying, "So strong is my desire to detach the Quakers from that identity with the Unitarians, under which some mistaken minds regard them, that I

151

scriptural revelation on this point of primary importance, and teaching, in its stead, for doctrine, the inventions of men. THOMAS FOSTER.

SIR,

may perhaps feel rather gratified than I HAVE several times endeavoured

hurt at any consequences that may result from the general diffusion of this knowledge, that their tenets are at an irreconcileable variance. T. P." The Editors, in a courteous P. S., say "T. P. will find a letter in our Vol. for 1819, p. 582, signed Samuel Fennel, containing a similar complaint against the Monthly Repository, and a defence of the Society of Friends from the charge of Socinianism."

In this letter S. F. does, indeed, repeat his totally groundless charge against you. [XIV. 400.] As to his defence of Friends, he has indeed shewn, that the Quakers had not wholly discarded the term Trinity. Directly after his quotation, abruptly ending with an "&c.," Penn adds, "But they are very tender of quit ting Scripture terms and phrases for Schoolmen's, such as distinct and separate persons, and subsistences, &c. are, from whence people are apt to entertain gross ideas and notions of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."

I would willingly remove T. P.'s painful but groundless apprehension, that it is a favourite design with the Unitarians to identify "their tenets" with those of the Quakers, farther than they actually approximate. They can have no motive to do this. He does not seem to be aware, that from the time of Sabellius, those who " say nothing of three hypostases [or persons] but keep to one," in expressing their belief in God, have always been considered by the reputedly orthodox, as nearly allied to the Unitarians, not withstanding their occasional use, like the Quakers, of obscure, ambiguous or semi-orthodox language.

He has, I own, completely absolved himself from the imputation, but before he again asserts" that the Quakers have precisely the same view of this high doctrine" as himself, I recommend him to make farther inquiry, lest he should mistakenly represent them as forsaking generally or collectively, the authentic testimony of

to procure from the booksellers, Yates's " Sequel" to his "Vindication of Unitarianism:" but the answer is uniformly the same-out of print. Now, Sir, as the theological critic in the British Quarterly Review, with a meanness of dissimulation which, I suppose, he would excuse by the convenient subterfuge of inherent moral incapacity, has sunk upon his readers the existence of this tract, although incidentally he betrays his knowledge of it, and as the great advocate of tritheism and vicarious righteousness himself, Dr. Wardlaw continues with unabashed ostentation to re-advertise in the Newspapers his "Unitarianism incapable of Vindication," may I ask why the "Sequel” is not reprinted? If the able author himself be unwilling to risk the expense, (though I should have thought the sale of the first edition a guarantee for the success of the undertaking,) why is not this tract, which so calmly and rationally exposes the hollow blustering pretensions of the orthodox school, reprinted and liberally re-advertised at the expense of the society?

Let me take this opportunity of suggesting also the expediency of reprinting in a separate tract, and at a cheap rate, the excellent and learned Dr. Lardner's "Posthumous Discourses on the Trinity," which appear to state the respective grounds of the Trinitarian, Arian and Unitarian doctrine, with a plainness, comprehension and acumen, calculated to make a strong, popular impression, and, at the same time, to remove much of the prejudice existing against the simplicity of the ancient faith in minds pre-occupied by college theology; and to awaken serious doubts whether "the things which they have learned" be in reality "sound doctrine." This little publication is farther needed as a set-off against the affectedly impartial, but really dogmatic and bigoted, not to say insidious, statement of Dean Tucker; entitled a "Brief and Dispassionate View of the Difficulties

attending the Trinitarian, Arian and Socinian Systems," to which it forms no less striking a contrast in force, than in fairness of reasoning. PROSELYTUS.

SIR,

IN

Feb. 15, 1822. N the last Volume of the Repository, p. 354, your ingenious and learned correspondent, Dr. Jones, animadverts upon my having said that "the New Testament disciples of Jesus were not ashamed or afraid to own that worthy name by which they were called.'” He conceives me chargeable with "a total inattention to the fact." He has not made it evident what "fact" he adverts to; but we cannot be mistaken if we understand him as referring to one, or more probably to both, of the statements which immediately follow: "that all the Jewish converts considered Christianity and Judaism as the self-same religion;" and "that the name Christians was given the disciples by their enemies as a term of reproach: and that, for this reason, the apostles and the converts made by them declined the use of it."

Neither of these assertions can I regard as "beyond controversy;" and I do seriously think that strong objections lie against them both. Nor do I perceive that Dr. Jones has replied to the remarks which I proposed upon his sentiment, (I comply with his wish in not calling it hypothesis,) that Philo and Josephus were Christians. (Script. Test. I. 449, 450.) Till those remarks are distinctly met, I do not feel myself called upon to embark anew in the dispute. My only object at present is to say, that Dr. Jones has misapprehended the point of my reference. Perhaps I did not express myself with due explicitness: but the citation of James ii. 7, I had supposed would have prevented any misconception. By the "worthy name" I did not mean exclusively the appellation Christian, as my respected friend takes it; but the name Jesus, or the official designation Christ, as well as the term Christian: and to that name or designation the allusion was principally intended. My argument was, that had Philo and Josephus, and the persons whom they speak of as having embraced Judaism, been really Christians, there would not have been the

deep silence which reigns through the writings of the former, upon the name and history of JESUS the CHRIST, nor would the alleged Heathen converts have avoided the being distinguished as disciples of Jesus, or Christians. It is, indeed, not improbable that the appellative Christian was first applied to the followers of Jesus by their opponents; and that, according to a prevalent association of idea with Latin adjectives in anus denoting party, the new term might have a discreditable appearance. But it is worthy of observation, that this term was invented and brought into use with reference to the first Gentile church, and at the time when the right of Gentiles to the blessings and privileges of the gospel, without being subjected to circumcision or any other Judaical observance, was established by apostolical authority. Thus there was, primâ facie, some reason why converts from Heathenism to the religion of Jesus should have been the more eminently called Christians. If the name had an unfriendly origin, it would soon, according to the common principles of human nature, cease to convey an unwelcome association, and would be accepted and gloried in as a badge of honour. About eighteen years after, we find the apostle Peter writing thus: "If any one of you suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God on this behalf." 1 Peter iv. 16.

It can scarcely be necessary for me to add, that the argument is not nullified by the passage which has been sometimes called the testimony of Josephus to Christ; for it appears to me very satisfactorily shewn by Lardner and others, that the passage is spurious.

March 9.

Unavoidable hindrances prevented my finishing this letter in time for the last month. I proceed to Dr. Jones's critical and doctrinal remarks on Phil. ii. 6-8, in pp. 535, &c. of your last volume.

(1.) He asserts that cap is a parallelism with ε popov, and is but a varied expression of the same idea." This appears to me to be imputing to the apostle an absolute tautology. If the two terms are synonymous, each of them may be put = a; then the apostle will be made to say,

On his "Scripture Testimony."

"Being a, he deemed it not a thing to be grasped at to be a."

(2.) On the meaning a Oy, it would be unreasonable to ask you to reprint the reasons and the authorities from Greek writers, especially the Septuagint, which are adduced in the Script. Test. (11. 385-402, 414, 415) to support the interpretation of the phrase which the evidence of the case appears to me to warrant. Those who are sufficiently interested in the question to take the trouble of the examination, will, perhaps, do me the favour to weigh my arguments before they reject my interpretation.

(3.) To Dr. J.'s mode of supplying the ellipsis which he supposes the passage to require, I feel no objection: nor does it militate against the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, except upon the assumption of what we most earnestly protest against, that, in holding that doctrine, we suppose that the death of Jesus was the death of Jehovah. That doctrine attributes to the Lord and Redeemer of mankind, not only THE DIVINE NATURE with all its essential perfections, but also the human nature with all its proper qualities.

(4.) I must likewise protest against Dr. J.'s seeming to impute to me the opinion "that God has any form, or that form and nature have here the same meaning." To which assumption he adds, "In this confusion, gross and palpable as it is, is founded the interpretation put upon this passage by the orthodox divines." What I had said concerning the use of pogon in this passage was to this purport: that the word "can be understood of the Divine Being only in the way of an imperfect analogy. As the visible and tangible figure of a sensible object is, in ordinary cases, the chief property, and frequently the only one, by which we know the object and distinguish it from others; so, that part of what may be known of God, (Rom. i. 19,) that which distinguishes him from all other objects of our mental apprehension, may thus, allusively and analogically, be called the form of God. Therefore, dropping the figure, the notion is evidently that of specific difference, or essential and distinguishing properties. It might, I conceive, be unexceptionably ex

[blocks in formation]

pressed by the phrase, teristics of God."

153

"The charac

(5.) Of a passage of Josephus, adduced as an instance of this analogical sense of μopp, my respected friend affirms, "This is said in reference to the Greeks, who represented their gods under material images; and the object of the writer is to set aside that superstitious practice. His words are to this effect: God is not in the least visible in form; it is, therefore, most absurd to represent him under forms that are visible.'"

The passage in question is a part of a long and interesting recital, in the style of just panegyric, of the religion, laws and manners of the Jews. The paragraph from which a small part only, for the sake of brevity, was cited in the Script.Test., is as follows: "God, the all-perfect. and blessed, possesses all things, himself sufficient to himself and to all other beings, the beginning and the midst, and the end of all. He, though displayed by his works and his kindnesses, and more manifest than any other being whatever, yet, as to his nature [literally form] and greatness, is the most remote from our view. All material substance, even the most valuable, compared to his image, is worthless and all art is incompetent to the conception of an imitation. We can neither conceive, nor is it lawful to imagine, any thing as a resemblance to him. We see his works; the light, the heaven, the earth, the sun and moon, the waters, the generations of animals, and the productions of vegetation. These hath God made, not with hands, not with labours, not needing any assistants; but, by the mere act of his will determining these good things, they instantly came into existence, good according to his design. Him we all ought to follow, and serve by the practice of virtue; for this is the holiest manner of serving God." reader will judge, whether it is the more probable that Josephus here uses poppy in the sense of those who formed corporal ideas of the Supreme Being, or to denote the characteristic and spiritual properties (the metaphysical form) of that Infinite Nature. Other and not contemptible evidence for this sense, may be seen in Elsner, (Obs. in N. T. II. 241,) and it is uns

The

questionable that the Greek fathers, who were likely to understand their native language, took μoppn, as here used by the apostle, to signify puris and ουσια. "As the form of a servant," says Chrysostom, "signifies no other than real and perfect man, so the form of God signifies no other than God." See Suiceri Thesaur. II. 377, 378. If there be any propriety in explaining the phraseology of the New Testament by the use of terms among the followers of Aristotle, "it is unquestionable," says the learned and pious Sir Richard Ellys, (Fortuita Sacra, p. 189,) "that with them μop was used to signify To Eva Tvos, that which constitutes the essence of a subject, I venture, therefore, still to think that Schleusner, in giving this interpretation, had a little more reason on his side than that "he might as well have said that white may mean black."

[ocr errors]

:

"The form of a slave," says my learned friend, means the death of a slave." That the apostle, in using the expression form of a servant or slave, had no reference at all to "the death of the cross" which he so soon after mentions, I by no means affirm but that this was the single circumstance comprised in the allusion, does not appear probable. The frequent use of douλos in the New Testament, in various moral significations, suggests a more extensive application of the ideas of servitude to the circumstances of the Lord Jesus. See John xiii. 16, xv. 20, and the numerous passages in which the apostles and Christians in general are called servants of God, or of Christ; while, on the other hand, wicked men are represented as the servants or slaves of sin. In the whole view of the case, there appears to me most evidence that our Lord's "taking the form of a servant" denotes his submission, in his assumed human nature, to "the characteristics of that servitude and dishonour which sin has inflicted upon our nature, and upon all our circumstances in the present state; that which is called in Scripture (ý dovλua τns 40opas) ‘the bondage, servitude, or slavery of corruption.'" (Script. Test. II. 410.)

Dr. Jones is equally confident that "a form of God can only mean a divine or splendid form :" and he has

no hesitation in regarding the expression as an allusion to the transfiguration of Jesus, on the mountain, where "he assumed an appearance bright as the sun, and was seen to converse with Moses and Elias ;" and that, from this magnificent appearance, Peter eagerly conceived the hope of Christ's evad ing his predicted sufferings and death. The Doctor has depicted the scene with great ingenuity and pathos. On the opinion, I beg leave to remark:

1. That the allusion supposed rests only upon conjectural grounds.

2. That, had it been intended by Paul, it is reasonable to think that he would have made his allusion more definite, as Peter did in referring to the very transaction: 2 Pet. i. 18.

3. That the tense of vaxa does not well agree with the supposition of reference to a single past fact, while it properly comports with the idea of a state or habit. Had the former been the object of reference, the proper form of the participle would have been ύπαρξας.

4. That, if the allusion were admitted, a believer in the proper Deity of the Saviour might reasonably contend that the "form of God" most naturally and justly expresses some manifestation, by the symbol of a visible brightness exceeding that of the most magnificent objects in nature, and probably similar to the representations made to Moses and others of the prophets, of that Divine Nature and Perfection which he believes, on other and independent grounds, that the Scriptures ascribe to Christ.

(6.) Dr. Jones, whose soul is filled with the enthusiasm imbibed from his familiarity with Grecian poetry and eloquence, declares his "unspeakable pleasure" in disclosing to the world his discovery that this passage of the Epistle to the Philippians contains allusions to Aristotle's Hymn to Virtue. I must, however, confess that my duller powers of perception cannot see clearly the evidence of this discovery. The resemblances appear to me to be faint and precarious. deed, if I am not mistaken, much closer coincidences of both thought and expression often occur to men of reading, in authors of widely different ages and nations, and of whom it is certain that neither could have received

In

on his "Scripture Testimony."

the hint from the other. I am well aware of the "obscurity" which, as Mr. Locke remarks, has been "unavoidably brought upon the writings of men who have lived in remote ages and different countries,"-" wherein the speakers and writers had very different notions, tempers, customs, ornaments, and figures of speech, every one of which influenced the signification of their words then, though to us now they are lost and unknown," so that "it would become us to be charitable one to another, in our interpretation or misunderstanding of ancient writings." (Ess. Hum. Und. Book III. ch. ix. § 10, 22.) I do not there fore take upon me absolutely to contradict the supposition of an infamous concealed meaning in this celebrated little poem; but I own that it appears to me altogether improbable, and that I am disposed to regard the revolting imputation upon the philosopher and the unfortunate ruler of Atarneus, as a calumny. The charge of impiety, brought by an obscure person against Aristotle, appears to have referred solely to his having been in the habit of singing this hymn, in honour of the memory of his murdered friend, patron and relative, though it was deemed a Pæan, and, consequently, was considered as an affront to Apollo: very unreasonably, for a Pæan was et hominum et deorum laudes, and was not restricted to its primary application. Athenæus, however, maintains that it is not a Pæan, but a Scolion. In no part of this little production is Hermeias said, or so far as I can per bceive implied, to be "invested with a form splendid as the sun;" and app is applied, not to him, but to Virtue. The supposed parallelism of of άρπαγμος and θηραμα is not very sclose, and is at least too weak a cir. ancumstance on which to build the belief of an allusion: for more striking coincidences are often to be found, where no design of reference could have existed. As for the honour which the poet sings as conferred by the Muses upon the patron of letters and victim of Persian treachery, the idea is so common to the classic poets that I cannot see any propriety in taking it as the correlative of the apostle's doctrine of the exaltation of Jesus. The enumeration of persons or things

155

"in heaven, and on earth, and under
the earth," is, I conceive, nothing
more than a Jewish idiomatical expres-
sion to denote the whole created uni-
verse. The same phraseology, with
an unimportant variation, occurs in
Rev. v. 3, 13; where surely no one
will dream of an allusion to the Hea
then gods, dæmons and heroes. We
are, therefore, under no necessity of
accepting Dr. Jones's alternative,either
that the apostle is treading in the steps
of Aristotle, or that his language
"might be deemed the rant of a mys-
tagogue."

But, to form a proper judgment upon Dr. Jones's opinion, it is necessary to have the whole hymn in view. Your learned readers are probably well ac quainted with this beautiful little poem. Those who are not, will find it in Sto bæus, in Athenæus, in Diogenes Laertius, in the first volume of Brunck's Anthology, and in other collections. For the sake of readers who have not the opportunity of consulting any of those authorities, and as the poem is very short, I subjoin a literal transla tion.

"Virtue, thou object of severe la bour to our mortal race, fairest (Onpapa) acquisition in life! For thy (opp) beauty, O virgin, even to die, or to undergo glowing, unwearied toils, is in Greece an envied destiny. Such immortal fruit thou castest into the mind, nobler than riches or ances tors, or gentle sleep. For thy sake, Hercules the child of Jove, and the sons of Leda, bore their many toils, eagerly pursuing (aypevovres, hunting, chasing, which accounts for the use of Onpaua) thine excellence. From desire of thee, Achilles and Ajax went to the abodes of the dead. For the sake of thy friendly (μορφη) form, the favourite of Atarneus widowed the rays of the sun: thus, for his deeds, renowned in song. And the Muses, daughters of Memory, will advance him to immortality, as they celebrate the glory of Jove, the guardian of the hospitable, and [celebrate] the recompence of constant friendship."

["Widowed the rays of the sun." I follow Brunck, Buhle, and Schweighæuser in reading avyás. Dr. Jones prefers the genitive singular auyas, as was given by the older editors. But this requires a harsh ellipsis, and

[graphic]
« AnteriorContinuar »