Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

and Luke xviii. 19. "If ye had known me, (uc,) ye should have known my Father." John xiv. 7. "He that loveth me, (,) shall be loved of my Father." Ver. 21. "As the Father

hath loved me, (us,) so have I loved

you." John xv. 9. "Ye have not chosen me, (us,) but I have chosen you." Ver. 16.

[ocr errors]

"But," says your correspondent, suppose the sense to be, Lovest thou me more than these love me?' the Greek is correct." Whatever the drift of our Lord's question may have been, it was far from my intention to deny the correctness of the Greek; for though the passage is now wrapt up in obscurity and ambiguity, owing to the imperfection of written language, it was no doubt painfully intelligible to the apostle when first uttered, and accompanied with a tone and gesture calculated to give it the intended effect. I merely observed that it was usual, when there was a strong opposition, to mark that opposition by inserting the pronoun; and gave this as a reason, not for denying the possibility, but for questioning the probability of the correctness of Doddridge's interpretation. I will now venture to add, that, if this had been the sense intended, the other apostles who were present, justly anxious to remove the imputation of being less zealous and sincere than Peter in their attachment to Jesus, would have been unanimous in endeavouring to free themselves from the consequences involved in such a comparison. When Christ said, during the last Supper, in the presence of the twelve," Verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me," they "began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?" evidently with a view of eliciting some remark which would lead to their exculpation and it appears to me highly reasonable to conclude, that a similar effort would have been made in the case supposed, to place their attachment to Jesus above the possibility of suspicion. But, as it is possible that I may still labour under some misconception respecting the passage which it has been the object of this and my former communication to illustrate, I shall still feel obliged to Mr. Cogan or any other reader of the Mon. Repos., who

will be kind enough to offer some further remarks upon the subject. O. P. Q.

SIR,

respondent T. F. B., in your THE communication of your corlast Number, (p. 211,) brought forcibly to my mind an observation which I had made to a friend not a week ago, which was, that the Unitarians; while they have endeavoured to shew the absurdity of the popular doctrine of the atonement, have not sufficiently urged upon the public the true interpretation of the phraseology on which it is founded. This interpretation will, I conceive, be found in the Sermons of the late Mr. Kenrick. This able and excellent man has satisfactorily shewn, "that the death or blood of Christ has no efficacy in removing moral guilt, but that, whenever it is spoken of as procuring the forgiveness of sin, it relates entirely to restoration to a sanctified or privileged state, which in the language of both the Old and New Testament on many occasions is expressed by the forgiveness of sins." Sermon XIV. Vol. I.

Thirty years ago I was led to doubt whether the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sin (in the usual sense of this expression) were ever associated in the minds of the apostles, and Mr. K.'s Sermons have convinced me that my doubts were not groundless. To many, I am aware this declaration will appear strange, and will seem to indicate a wish to dispose of a plain Scripture doctrine by any expedient. Against strong prejudices it is not easy to reason with effect; I would, however, just suggest to such persons the advantages which attend the above-stated hypothesis. In the first place, it is founded upon a truly scriptural interpretation of Scripture phraseology. In the second place, it gives a view of the consequences of the death of Christ which is conforma ble to fact. In the third place, it is free from the difficulties which encumber every scheme of the atonement which the advocates of this doctrine have hitherto been able to devises

While I have my pen in my hand, I will make a remark or two upon an observation which I met with the other day in the Quarterly Review, and which

the Reviewer considers as very admirable and important; namely, that God is revealed to us not as he is absolutely and in himself, but as he is relatively to us who are his creatures. I am not deep in these mysteries; but I presume that the observation is intended to intimate, that we must not reason from the Divine attributes as made known to us in Scripture, to the measures of the Divine administra tion. If such be its object, it might as well have been spared. For, in the first place, it is altogether gratuitous. In the next place, God cannot be imagined to possess absolutely any attributes which stand opposed to those which he possesses in relation to his creatures. And, consequently, if we know what God is in relation to mankind, we can reason with the same certainty and confidence respecting the measures of his government, as if we thoroughly understood what he is absolutely and in himself. If, for instance, we are assured that God is infinitely or (as the Reviewer would say) perfectly good in relation to man, we know just as well what to expect at his hands, as if goodness were proved to constitute his moral nature and essence. In a word, unless revelation be intended to mislead and deceive, God can be nothing absolutely which will not allow him to be, in his dealings towards his creatures, what he has declared himself to be.

E. COGAN.

May 1, 1822. Contributions to Scriptural Criticism quodcunque potest.

LE

EV. xxvi. 34, 43. [2 Chron. xxxvi. 21.] "Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths." This language is sometimes interwoven with modern thanksgivings for days of sacred rest. In such an adaptation of it, however, there can be no propriety. The phrase expresses a curse, and not a blessing it signifies, that the ground was to lie fallow through long years of captivity and desolation; and in these circumstances the ordinances of religion, the weekly sabbaths, could scarcely, if at all, be celebrated. Psalm i. 3. «. whatsoever he

[blocks in formation]

doeth shall prosper." I adopt the rendering proposed, in MS., by a scholar of considerable taste and learning, and read, "it shall bring to maturity whatsoever it beareth." Merrick, in his Notes on the Psalms, endeavours to justify the received translation of this clause, and to shew, by means of quotations from Greek and Roman authors, that there is nothing unusual in appropriating to the subject of a comparison expressions which had been employed just before in the comparison itself. The fact, which he takes so much pains to establish, is readily admitted. Yet from this admission it does not, of necessity, follow either that the words before us contain an example of the practice, or that all his citations are pertinent. In the fourth and fifth verses the respective situations of the righteous man and of the ungodly, are placed in contrast with each other, under similitudes, borrowed from natural objects: nor does it appear reasonable to believe, that within so short a compass a transition would suddenly be made to a different figure of poetry. The annotator is not happy in his reference to Virgil, Æn. IV. 300, &c. : "Sævit inops animi, totamque incensa per urbem

Bacchatur; qualis commotis excita sacris

Thyas, ubi audito stimulant trieterica
Baccho

Orgia, nocturnusque vocat clamore
Citharon."

Here we have a comparison, and nothing more; the verb bacchatur being now used in a general, not in its primary and specific, sense.+

[merged small][ocr errors]

Psalm ii. 7. " this day have I begotten thee:" upon which clause Bengel has the following observaæternitas nunquam vocabulo hodie significatur; quare, ego hodie genui te dicitur hoc sensu, hodie, definii, declaravi, te esse natum meum." His remark conducts us to the just rendering and sense of Luke xxiii.

The late Rev. Henry Moore.

+ I am aware that Merrick's view of the lines is countenanced by Servius: but I prefer the comment of Heyne, "Bacchatur, summa cum vi dictum pro discursitat." See, too, En. VI. 78.

Gnomon, &c., in Acts xiii. 33.

43.* It may be added, that Heb. xiii. 8, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever," has been very improperly brought forward as a proof of the generally-received doctrine of our Lord's eternity: such language is never used throughout the Scriptures in relation to HIM who is really from everlasting to everlasting," and "who," in the strictest and highest signification, "only hath immortality."

John xviii. 34. "Jesus answered him, Sayest thou," &c. Matthew, Mark and Luke agree in relating that Jesus, when he was brought before the Roman governor, answered not a word: John, on the contrary, informs us that our Saviour was not altogether silent on the occasion: he even records the inquiries and replies that passed between them. How is the variation to be explained?

:

Pilate had two interviews with Jesus. Now, Matthew, Mark and Luke speak only of the former of these interviews, which was public, and in the presence of the Jewish rulers; whereas John limits himself to the latter interview, which was private, and within the judgment-hall. When the chief priests and elders of the people had bound our Lord, they delivered him to Pilate and then, on his being accused by these men, he answered nothing. This scene happened without the Prætorium, which, as John tells us, (xviii. 28,) the Jews would not enter, lest they should be defiled, and prevented from eating the approaching passover.† The governor, nevertheless, for a reason that will hereafter be assigned, went into the judgment-hall again, and called Jesus thither. Here they were alone: and here they engaged together in conversation.

John often coincides with the other Evangelists undesignedly, and thus confirms their narratives. We collect, for example, from what he says in the 28th down to the 33d verse of this chapter, that something like a public examination of our Saviour was insti

• Bishop Law's Considerations, &c. App. Obj. xiv.; and see 1 Sam. xv. 27, 28.

+ Le Clerc's Harmony, [English,] &c., in loc; Carpenter's Geog. &c. (3d ed.) 49; and Secker's Sermons, Vol. IV. No. ix.

tuted by Pilate but the fact is implied rather than declared in his history; while he represents at large the dialogue between the governor and his prisoner in private.

The deportment of Jesus Christ, in his present as in every situation, was marked by consummate wisdom and propriety, by meekness united with fortitude, by dignity yet gentleness of soul. When his calumniators stood together with him before Pilate, he answered nothing: he was conscious of his innocence; he knew their falsehood and their malice, and was perfectly sensible that it became them to produce credible witnesses against him, but that this was beyond their power. With such persons he could not, and would not, enter into any altercation, in the presence of the governor. On the other hand, when he was admitted to a private audience with Pilate, an audience too sought for by the judge himself; the respect which he always shewed and inculcated for the office of the civil magistrate would not suffer him to be silent; the less so, as the purpose which the Roman procurator now had in view, evidently was to ascertain, if possible, the nature of the accusation, the ground on which it rested, and the pretensions of the individual accused. Jesus, accordingly, unfolded his claims with his characteristic firmness and wisdom. By this conduct he strengthened the favourable impression which had already been left on Pilate's mind. The difficulty, therefore, that has occurred to some individuals † in respect of this part of the gospel history, is only apparent. Indeed, Paul, when, in one of his letters to Timothy, refers to our Saviour's confession at the bar of Pilate, attests the truth of John's account: nor did the early Christians or their adversaries, those who were most capable of deciding on the point, and particularly interested in the decision, see any dissonance, certainly no fatal dissonance, in the narratives of the last scenes of the life of Jesus.

Acts i. 26.

Origen, cont. Cels. L. i.

he

they gave

+ Evanson's Dissonance, &c. 2d ed.

286.

1 Tim. vi. 13.

forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." The meaning is, that he was added to them, and made the twelfth nor can I doubt of his having been duly elected to that office. What was the business of an apostle? What his essential qualification? He was to proclaim and testify that Jesus, who died, had risen from the grave: and he was to do this on his personal knowledge of the fact, on his individual acquaintance with the identity of his Master. "Of these men," says Peter, (21, 22,) "who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." The event proved that Matthias was rightly constituted an apostle. It is true, he was not literally appointed one by our Saviour: but neither can it be shewn, that such an appointment was indispensable. Not more valid is the objection, that we hear nothing afterwards of Matthias; since the same assertion may be made concerning most of the apostles.

In the number of the twelve, Paul, assuredly, was not comprehended. He himself distinguishes between their situation and his own, 1 Cor. xv. 5, 7, 8, where it is evident, that by the twelve we are to understand the collected body of the apostles; though, at the time referred to, a vacancy existed by the death of Judas of Kerioth.*

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

was transferred, naturally_enough, into the New Testament. To speak of the name of a being, or of any class of beings, is not simply to use a form of expression. On the principles of sound criticism, it will appear, that there is no real difficulty, and still less any mystery, in the term. They who have doubts concerning its sense, either separately or in combination, may be referred to Glassii Philolog. Sacr. p. 100, ed. Dath, to Hammond on 1 Cor. i. 2, and to Schleusner, in verb.*

1 Cor. xv. 24, "when he shall have delivered up the kingdom," &c. Alexander+ explains the clause in the following manner: "then cometh the end, when Christ shall deliver the kingdom, which hath so long been possessed by others, to God, even the Father.". To me, I own, there seems an incongruity in supposing that the phrase the kingdom, which elsewhere in the New Testament means the kingdom of Christ, has here another and unusual signification, and that the word kingdom in ver. 24, and the word reign in the 25th, refer to two distinct and even opposite empires. The whole passage is evidently a description of the mediatorial power of the Saviour.

'Heb. ii. 16, 66 he taketh not hold of [helpeth not] angels," &c. See the marginal reading in the Eng. Bib. I consider this passage as a decisive proof that the mission of Jesus Christ, and all the benefits ensuing from it, are limited to the human race, to the rational inhabitants of this part of God's creation. what propriety then has Dr. Paley ↑ said, "Great and inestimably beneficial effects may accrue from the mission of Christ, and especially from his death, which do not belong to Christianity as a revelation”?

With

N.

*The divisions, however, in that valuable Lexicon are too numerous and refined: the explanation of ovopa, No. 6, falls properly under the preceding num

ber.

† Paraphrase, &c., in loc.

‡ Evidences of Christianity, &c. P. ii, Ch. ii., note.

SIR,

IN

given by Unitarians, or in any way illustrative of the construction and meaning of the phrase, deriving his remarks either from grammatical analogy, or from the actual use of this and similar phrases in Greek authors.

Birmingham, to others of your readers besides myMay 2, 1822. self, I shall be obliged to any of your [N consequence of the friendly and correspondents who will produce what gratifying suggestions of your cor- ever evidence he may think either farespondent Proselytus, (p. 151,) Ivourable to the translation commonly have given directions to Mr. David Eaton, (187, High Holborn, London,) for a new edition of the " Sequel" to my "Vindication of Unitarianism." It will therefore be ready for publica tion in a few months, at as low a price as can be afforded without loss; and I shall be obliged if any Book Societies, who wish to furnish themselves with copies, will send notice of their intention either to myself or to Mr. Eaton.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

I have seen no reason hitherto to retract the supposition, which many have ridiculed, that this may, perhaps, be reckoned among "the difficulties left in revelation for the purpose of inculcating humility and candour." To the observations of the British Reviewer and Servetus upon this point, I beg to oppose the following remarks of the able and learned Translators of the Bible, in their Preface to the Reader:

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

I embrace this opportunity of adding a few lines in consequence of the remarks which have lately appeared in your valuable work, upon my views of the passages which, in the common version of the New Testament, represent Christians as calling upon the Though whatsoever things are name of Jesus Christ." Servetus, as necessary, are manifest,' as St. Chry quoted p. 106, thinks that the phrase sostom saith, and as St. Augustine, presents no difficulty whatever. Ne-In those things that are plainly set vertheless, it is not clear what his own view of the construction of it is: for he gives no less than five different translations; 1st. "being called by the name of the Lord:" 2dly. "taking his name upon them" 3dly. " calling on his name?" 4thly. "calling his name upon them :" 5thly. being named by his name." Before I can admit that any one of these is a correct translation of the phrase, I must see sufficient evidence of it. That the expression had the meaning now commonly attributed to it by Ünitarians, has been repeatedly asserted, but, as I think, never proved. Your author cites the authority of Wakefield. I ask, Where are Wakefield's PROOFS ? Wakefield evidently supposed erixadovμas to be in the middle voice; Hammond, who deduces from it the same general sense, asserts that it is in the passive. See his Note on 1 Cor. i. 2. This, as it appears to me, is a most material difference, but scarcely regarded by those who have written on the subject. The use of εaλεσaμevoç, in Acts xxii. 16, seems to indicate, that in the disputed passages the verb is in the middle voice. the

Upon this subject I beg leave still to express my doubts; and, as the inquiry may probably be interesting

down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern faith, hope and charity; yet, for all that, it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer; and, lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those who be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God, in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched, that the Scriptures are plain,) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and, if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty."

SIR,

JAMES YATES.

Norfolk,
May 10, 1822.
OUR Chichester correspondent,

who

(pp. 22-24,) desires to be informed, how Unitarians can acquit themselves

« AnteriorContinuar »