Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ta, quæ contra adduci solent, respondetur. Dialogus xx. : Ostenditur nobis necessarium esse credere Trini tatem. In the Colloquy, Ochin assigns to himself the task of stating and defending the doctrine of the Trinity, but he puts into the mouth of the Spirit with whom he is disputing, some of the strongest arguments that can be urged against it, and which he very ineffectually combats. The tone also of the reasoning against the doctrine, the irony and ridicule with which some orthodox statements of it are repeatedly treated, very clearly shew that the writer could not have been a believer. It may not perhaps be equally apparent what his own opinion was. But from the manner in which he defends a statement of the Arian doctrine concerning the person of Christ, which the Spirit is made to give, it may be conjectured that he had adopted that hypothesis.

Some of Ochin's publications have been already mentioned. Besides those enumerated, the principal arc, 1. His Discourses on the Lord's Supper. 2. His Labyrinths, wherein he treats of Free-will and Necessity, &c.; and 3, a Dialogue on Purgatory. Ochin wrote all his pieces in Italian, and those of them which were published in the Latin and other languages, were translated from his manuscripts. His works are all scarce, and sell at high prices. R. S.

Ben David's Remarks on Eichhorn's

Account of Genesis.
No. I.

TH
HE reputation of Eichhorn for
learning and talents might well
lead his readers to expect much valu-
able information from his biblical re-
searches. But if the extracts in the
Repository be fair specimens of his
literary labours, they hold him forth,
not as an enlightened critic of the
nineteenth century, but as an immured
monk, equally remote from the light
of truth and the light of heaven, in
the darkest period of the dark ages.

He thinks the book of Genesis, instead of being the genuine production of Moses, is but a compilation extracted by him from different documents. Thus he supposes the second

* Dialogues, II. 43.

chapter to be an isolated document in no ways connected with the first, and the whole a patch-work from different unknown authors, rather than one entire, consistent narrative of the same writer. In judging of an ancient composition there are two methods of pronouncing on its character and merit. The one is to detach it from the antiquity of the author, and, bringing it down to the eye of the inquirer, to judge of it by the standard of modern productions. This method is easy but fallacious: for the work examined in this point of light will not appear in its genuine colours. The features which were called forth by the circumstances peculiar to the writer, will be deemed inconsistencies and imperfections; and if the critic be a man of talents, and in the habit of substituting fancy for solid sense, he will form some hypothesis to account for them as anomalies in a work of acknowledged credit. The other is for the inquirer in imagination to convey himself through the channels of ancient literature to the age and country of the author, and to examine the work in connexion with the characteristic features of the times. This way, indeed, is sure, yet difficult and labori ous; but the piece, like the painting of an ancient master, will then be viewed in its true though sombre light. The anomalies which had before perplexed the critic will disappear, and while they add simplicity, beauty and harmony to the work, they will furnish additional evidence of its authenticity. The researches of the critic in this respect resemble those of the astronomer, who, if he observes the heavenly bodies from the spot to which he is actually confined, must witness much inequality and disorder But if the observer will imagine himin their motions and arrangement. self in the centre of motion, and take his observations from thence, all irre

gularities will entirely vanish: every position will then present itself in just regular and harmonious, and the pla proportion; every movement appear

net which before seemed retrograde or stationary, will henceforth be uniformly progressive in its course. Eichhorn exemplifies the first of these methods of examining ancient records. I, in answering him, will endeavour to illustrate the second: and if my abi

lity be equal to the subject, I shall assuredly shew his conjectures to be no other than cobwebs that ought to be brushed to the dust, or flung on the wind.

It has been the fashion of late to consider marriage as an institution purely human, without any sanction from revelation. But this, I am bold to say, is contrary both to reason and to the fact. The union of one man with one woman comprehends so large a portion of human happiness, that, if it be true that God at first made and still continues to exercise paternal providence over mankind, he could not but recommend and enforce such an union as essential to their well-being. In the commencement of society, some time must have elapsed before experience could evince the manifold benefits resulting from the observance of this rite, or the evils occasioned by its neglect or violation; and this was an additional circumstance which rendered the expression of the Divine will to Adam and his immediate descendants the more necessary. Nor does this ordinance rest on a solid foundation when resting solely on the sanction of human laws: for human laws, whatever penalties they may annex to the infringement of the marriage institution, are incompetent to preserve it in its purity, a regard to the authority of God being alone adequate to produce this effect in either party. Moreover, marriage is a considerable restraint on the passions of mankind; and it may be fairly doubted, whether it would have been generally adopted, even in civilized countries, unless it had been at first imposed by the Creator himself; and this doubt is warranted by the whole history of our species, by the licentiousness of the antideluvians, by the polygamy of the patriarchs, by the frequent divorcements of the rabbies, by the seraglios of Eastern monarchs, by the lawless lust of novelty in princes and great men, and finally, by notorious cases of infidelity on the part of husbands and wives, in every rank of society and every age of the world.

This lesson

kind is actually ordained by God himself. With this view Moses represents the Creator as saying, that it is not good for man to be alone. Adam is then directed to look for a mate among the inferior animals; and he is made to say that no proper mate could be found in the number of these; thus with great delicacy holding forth the important lesson, that all commerce with beasts was degrading and foreign to the nature of man. The attention of Adam was then directed to the one that was alone suitable for him; but this is done through the medium of a vision, a deep sleep having been brought upon Adam, in which he saw, as in a dream, one of his ribs taken away and built into a woman. The man is made to understand the purport of the vision, and he immediately recognizes the woman as his intended wife, saying, "This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; and because she owes her being to my being, and is made on my account, she shall assume my name." was too important to be taught by mere implication; Moses therefore applies it himself in unequivocal terms: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." It is worthy of remark, that the Christian lawgiver on one occasion refers to this part of the Mosaic history, and appears to have understood it in the way it is here explained, adding his own sanction to the opinion that inarriage is an ordinance of Divine appointment : "Whom therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Now since Moses represents the creation of the woman as having taken place in a deep sleep, that is, since he represents it as but a vision, the object of which was to inculcate the divine institution of marriage, it by no means follows that she was really created on this occasion. We are therefore left at liberty to consider her as having been actually created before the vision took place, agreeably to the summary account given of the creation of both male and female in the first chapter. But it may be asked, why the woman should be represented as made of the rib of the man? The answer to this question I presume is to be sought in the practice of communicating instruc4 Q

Now, if we narrowly examine the history which details the creation of Eve, we shall perceive that its sole object is to shew that the union of one man with one woman is desirable and necessary, and that an union of the

VOL. XVII.

evening, and they requested me to send
you the inclosed Minute which prohibits
us from acceding to your request.
"I am, respectfully,
"Your Friend,

tion by symbols, which prevailed in the times of Moses and afterwards. A wife, undoubtedly, if such as she ought to be, is a moral security as well as a help-mate to her husband; nor could the strength and position of one of his own ribs fail significantly to suggest to him, that she in turn oughtIt is the judgment of this Meeting,

to be an object near and dear to his heart.

SIR,

BEN DAVID.

October 15, 1822. THE Unitarian Society at

TH being necessitated to vacate their chapel several Sabbaths, for the purpose of its undergoing some repairs, made application to the Society of "Friends," requesting their permission to make use of their MeetingHouse at intervals in which it would not be occupied by themselves. The Friend to whom the application was first intimated, expressed his own inclinations to be favourable to a compliance, acknowledging that on occasions in which application had been made by his brethren for the use of the Unitarian Chapel, it had been readily complied with. He proceeded immediately to lay the case before his friends; by whom he was instructed to return an answer, which, with the advice of several friends, I have judged proper to offer for insertion in your Repository. It may answer some useful purposes, both to those of our own persuasion and others, thus to be apprized of the judgment and feelings of a society, whose general amenity of manners have justly attracted the esteem of the liberal part of the community, upon the point merely of a reciprocal accommodation in conducting religious services. The even demands of justice seem to require it to be added, that on the applications which have been made by the Friends for the use of our chapel in a few instances since the adoption of their prohibitory resolution, that part of it which requires their reasons to be alleged, "restraining" them "from reciprocally granting their own," has not, so far as our information reaches, been observed. The following is a copy of the answer made to our application.

"RESPECTED FRIENDS,

"I have consulted my friends on the subject on which you spoke to me last

66

"A Minute of the Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, 1799.

that our Meeting-Houses should not be lent to the Ministers of other Societies, who do not profess to depend on Divine direction in every step taken in worship and ministry; and for the use of modes and forms, from which we are religiously restrained. On this account, it is the the Meeting-Houses of other Societies further judgment of this Meeting, that should be very cautiously applied for, or accepted; and it is recommended on such occasions, if unavoidable, that Friends endeavour in meekness and wisdom to inform such as are free to offer their Meeting-Houses, of the reasons by which we are restrained from reciprocally granting our own.""

As the above statement is made with no disposition to arraign the personal conduct of the parties immediately concerned in this affair before the tribunal of the public, I abstain from the mention of their names and place of residence, as also from that of my own; which, however, I am ready to give, should it be required in confirmation of the correctness of what I have alleged.

[blocks in formation]

way or method in which it has seemed good to the Divine Wisdom to grant to mankind remission of sins, that is, deliverance from the consequences of transgression, and restoration to the privileges of the Divine favour." With deference to your correspondent, this proposition, though intended to concentrate and define his views, contains nothing very explicit; nothing more, perhaps, than every Unitarian would unite with him in asserting. He should explain to us, what ideas he attaches to the term mediation, and in what sense he supposes that the death of Christ particularly, any more than his life, or his teaching, or his resurrection, was "the way or method in which it seemed good to the Divine Wisdom to grant to mankind remission of sins." He complains, that the manner in which Unitarians in general explain the phraseology of Scripture, is a "violent straining of language." But, Sir, it is at least one way of explaining it, and the interpretation alluded to by Mr. Cogan is another. He who publicly declares himself dissatisfied with both, is surely under obligation to affix some other definite meaning to the language in question, consistent with the acknowledged character of God, and with the general teaching of the Scriptures. But your correspondent rather appears to me willing to admit, that he can attach no meaning whatever to phraseology which he yet contends was meant to convey one of the most important doctrines of revelation. "In what way," he asks, "does the death of Christ lead to the remission of sins?" And immediately answers, "This is not a necessary inquiry, neither can we find any forinal answer to it in the Scripture." Surely, Sir, either this is a very necessary inquiry, or your respectable correspondent has been wasting his labour and talents in endeavouring to prove that Unitarians in general view a very unimportant subject in a false light. Indeed, he had himself stated in the preceding page, before he was fully aware, perhaps, what an indefinite and indescribable doctrine he was about to advocate, that this inquiry was the only question that required any discussion. "The only question, therefore, is, in what way our Lord's death pro

moted this end; in what way the forgiveness of sins depended on his death." I submit, then, that until T. F. B. more clearly explains in what sense the forgiveness of sins depends on the death of Christ, his doctrine is an unsubstantial phantom: whether it be true or false, I cannot easily determine; for he refuses to inform me what it is.

Your correspondent assures us, however, that "we find in the Scriptures, the immediate connexion between these two things, (the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sins,) strongly, repeatedly and variously asserted, and brought forward as a great and prominent truth of the gospel." This is language so unguarded, and so wholly unwarranted by the Scriptures themselves, that I am surprised it should have escaped from so sensible and candid a writer. I shall not content myself, however, with returning a mere denial to this imposing assertion. In proof, then, that the immediate connexion between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sins, cannot, in any sense whatsoever, be regarded as

[ocr errors]

a great and prominent truth of the gospel," I submit the following simple, and as it appears to me, decisive facts.

1. This connexion is never declared by our Lord himself, except in the solitary instance of Matt. xxvi. 28: "For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Is this fact favourable to the supposition, that Jesus regarded the said immediate connexion as a great and prominent truth of his religion? How often does our Lord speak of his own death, but with no particular allusion to the forgiveness of sins? How often does he speak of the forgiveness of sins, but without the most distant allusion to his own death? Could this be, if these things were, as your correspondent supposes, immediately connected?

2. This connexion between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sins, is never expressly asserted by any of the apostles, in their many discourses recorded in the Book of Acts. To my humble judgment, this strong negative evidence against the doctrine in question, is altogether irresistible. The silence of the great Teacher of

Christians, and of his inspired apostles, may well be regarded as its condemnation.

3. In no other part of the New Testament can I find that this connexion is insisted upon, either so variously, or so very repeatedly, as your correspondent seems to imagine. I am not aware of there being more than nine or ten passages of Scripture, in which the connexion between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sins, can be said to be expressly asserted, or clearly alluded to. One of these passages (Coloss. i. 14) may be entirely dismissed; since, in the judgment of Griesbach, the words, through his blood," are decidedly spurious. With respect to the remain ing passages, after the most careful consideration, I must assent to the opinion of Mr. Kenrick, (see Sermon xiv. Vol. I.,) and indeed the opinion of Locke, Chandler, Taylor, Benson, Belsham, and of all the most rational commentators with whom I have any acquaintance; namely, that there is little or no allusion in these passages, to moral offences, or sins, properly so called, but exclusively to the restoration of the Gentile world from their condition of ceremonial impurity, to a state of religious privilege or covenant, such as had hitherto belonged to the Jews alone. ↑

[ocr errors]

I have not made these statements without caution; yet it is not impossible that I may have overlooked one or two passages, and if so, shall most gladly see myself corrected. Let me not be misunderstood, however, in that which I mean to state. In many other places, doubtless, Christ is said to have "suffered for us," to have "died for us," to have " given himself for us;" but with no especial reference to the forgiveness of sins, more than to the confirmation of his doctrine, to the finishing of his per

John i. 29; Rom. iii. 25, 26, v. 1, 19; Ephes. i. 7, ii. 13; Coloss. i. 20; 1 Pet. i. 2, 19; Rev. i. 5.

+ It can scarcely be disputed by any, that this is the just interpretation of some of the passages alluded to. If this be admitted, the remark of Mr. Cogan well deserves the attention of T. F. B.; namely, that this then becomes an indisputably scriptural interpretation when applied to all the other passages.

fect example, or to the several other benefits which Unitarians in general ascribe to the death of our Lord. Indeed, in most of these instances, the allusion clearly is to our Lord's benevolent sacrifice of his life, viewed as an incitement to love and obey him; as in the following passage: For the love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again." I am aware also, that we are often said to have received remission of sins and forgiveness of sins through Christ; but with no particular allusion to his death, more than to his teaching, to his promises, or to his present exaltation. The apostles, in the course of their preaching, frequently declare, that which no Christian has ever disputed, that Jesus is the Mediator, through whom we have received the Divine promise of forgiveness, and are led into favour with God; yet without any mention of this supposed propitiation effected by his death. Now, Sir, I must insist that these passages are not to be regarded as merely indifferent in the present discussion: they are fatal to the hypothesis of your Penzance correspondent. Were the connexion between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sins so immediate and so important as he supposes, it could not be that the apostles should thus repeatedly speak of one, with no direct allusion to the other.

The writer whose observations I am

It will be observed that I have made no allusion in these remarks to the Epistle to the Hebrews. This circumstance

I hope will not be attributed to my entertaining the slightest apprehension that this Epistle contains any peculiar doctrines, but solely to the following reasons:-1. The Epistle altogether is of extremely doubtful authority. 2. Its style is so peculiar and figurative, that it requires to be considered separately; and this communication is already too long. 3. If the doctrine in question cannot be supported from other portions of the New Testament, few persons will contend, even should they suppose it taught in this particular Epistle, that it is therefore to be received as a Christian doctrine.

« AnteriorContinuar »