Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ritability, (which, by the by, the Doctor took to be Paul's "thorn in the flesh") which unfitted him for a public speaker. On occasion of some publick meeting of Dissenters, the Doctor attempted to speak, but could not be well heard; the famous Thomas Bradbury being also present, observing this, cried out, "Brother Watts, shall I speak for You ?2 To this the Doctor, in a vein of good humoured irony, replied, "That would be kind indeed, Brother Bradbury, for you have often spoken against me;" which was well known to have been the

case.

Bishop Bagot's Advice to a Young Clergyman.

Read more than you write, and copy more than you compose, for the first five years of your ministry. Let the fathers and the old divines of the last century be your study; make your commonplacebook the treasury of your mind. I do not wish you to employ much of your time in reading modern divinity, as this for the most part consists of new nothings, wire-drawn from old truths. I would rather advise you to dig for the pure ore in the mine, than content yourselves with the current coin of the age. Let the scriptures be your constant, as they will always prove your infallible, test; make them the support of your principles, and they will always be the incontrovertible witness to your orthodoxy. For ever bear in mind you ought not to be preachers only, you must be teachers of your respective flocks; and oratory is to be cultivated rather as an useful auxiliary, than an essential property. I am sorry to say, for the credit of the pulpit and the sincerity of its hearers, that I have more frequently found popular preachers to be unsound divines, than sound divines to be popular preachers. Be faithfulness rather than fame your chief object; to the

judicious parts of your congregations this will always be acceptable; and it is too much to sacrifice your sincerity to those who seek amusement rather than instruction from the exercise of your sacred function.

Theological Gleanings.

As soon as pride is humbled enough, not to enter into controversy with God about the justice of his own declarations, every man confesses himself a guilty sinner, in danger of eternal ruin.-Venn.

Ministers are, in general, apt to make too wide a distinction between seekers and believers. A

man must have some degree of saving grace and of true faith, before ever he can seek Christ in ear nest.-Madan.

A soul may truly go to Christ, though with a trembling heart; and may truly receive Christ, though with a trembling hand.-Pike and Hayward.

Prove your conversion, and you need not doubt of your election.Alliene.

Faith takes God at his word, and depends upon him for the whole of salvation. God is good, and therefore he will not,-He is true and faithful, therefore he cannot,—deceive me. I believe he speaks as he means, and will do what he says. Mr. Ryland, Sen.

Either exercise your graces, or Satan will exercise your corruptions; as one bucket descends another rises.-Gurnal.

Many plead for those opinions and notions upon which they would be loth to venture their souls in a dying hour. I value more the judg ment of a dying saint, about justification, than all the wrangling disputes of learned men.-T. Coles.

Go to dying beds;-there you will learn the true worth of deliverance from condemnation by the death of Christ. Ask some agonizing friend; he, and he alone can

tell you, what a blessing it is, to have the king of terrors converted into a messenger of peace.-Hervey.

A New Idea.

When the Abbe Sicard had brought his deaf and dumb pupil, Massieu, to conceive the idea of the

Author of the Universe, he cried, "Let me go to my father and mother, to inform them of this happy news!" The youth concluded that his parents were ignorant of this truth, because he had till then been ignorant of it; he thought that idea as new to all mankind as it was to himself.

The following epitaph on the celebrated Dr. SAMUEL JOHNSON, appears in the late publication of the private Correspondence of the Poet CowPER; and was written by him immediately after the Doctor's death. We have never before seen it. We think it would have past the review of the great critic and moralist himself, could he have examined it, with less censure than he has bestowed on most of the epitaphs of Pope.

It appears that Cowper, and his friend Newton, had feared that Johnson's piety was not more than formal till near the time of his death; and that they believed it then became real or evangelical. We mention this as explanatory of the words" And faith at last."

EPITAPH ON DR. JOHNSON.

Here Johnson lies-a sage by all allow'd,

Whom to have bred, may well make England proud;
Whose prose was eloquence, by wisdom taught,

The graceful vehicle of virtuous thought;

Whose verse may claim, grave, masculine, and strong,
Superior praise to the mere poet's song;

Who many a noble gift from Heaven possess'd,
And faith at last-alone worth all the rest.
Oh man immortal by a double prize,
On earth by fame, by favour with the skies.

FOR THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE.

No. IV.

99 66

Keviews.

A REVIEW OF THREE PAMPHLETS, EN-
TITLED, AN ABSTRACT OF UNITA-
RIAN BELIEF," REV. JOHN EMORY'S
REPLY," AND REMARKS ON THE RE-
PLY."

[ocr errors]

In support of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, Mr. E. quotes the following texts: "Phil. vi. 7. "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." 1 Tim. iii. 16.

"Great is the mystery of godliness, God manifested in the flesh," Rom. VOL. II.-Ch. Adv.

xi. 5. "Of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever."

These texts called forth the following remarks.

"We cannot refrain from expressing our astonishment, that Mr. Emory should be so disingenuous, as to adduce certain texts, in support of his opinions, without a single intimation, that learned and pious men of all parties, have allowed very different meanings in the language in which the Apostles wrote, from those which he chooses to attach to them. This appears to us not to be dealing fairly with his readers. And where shall we look for the true meaning of scripture, 2 E

except in the very words of the sacred scriptures p

The Remarker then renders the passages thus, upon the credit of the critics, whose names are attached to each.

"Phil. ii. 7. Who being in the form of God, did not esteem it a prey to be like God (Archbishop Newcombe), or did not eagerly grasp at the resemblance of God. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Great is the mystery of godliness, he who was manifested in the flesh was justified by the Spirit, &c. (Archbishop Newcombe, margins, Sir Isaac Newton, Dr. Samuel Clarke, and others.) Rom. ix. 5. Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all. God be blessed for ever. (Locke, Dr. Taylor.)"-Remarks, p. 12.

After being gravely asked, "where shall we look for the meaning of scripture, except in the very words of the sacred writers," and told that "Unitarians look with suspicion on the decisions of councils, synods and church dignitaries," we cannot but express our astonishment, that instead of finding these texts adduced by Mr. E., explained by a critical appeal to the original, or by sound argument, we are referred to the bare authority of great names! Though we should not expect a perversion of these passages could be supported by any very cogent arguments from the authors, yet we did expect a little more consistency.

It is admitted that 1 Tim. iii. 16, is not deemed by Trinitarians the most potent text that can be adduced in support of their cause. It is found in some manuscripts having 'es, who, instead of os, God. The latter reading is, however, ably vindicated by Travis, Nolan and Hale. As a discussion to prove the integrity of this text, would be too tedious for our review, we must refer the reader to these authors, in whose laborious volumes, it is supposed, every unprejudiced mind will find a weight of evidence to

convince him of the integrity of our common reading. It, however, fortunately happens, that the other two texts adduced by Mr. E., have the honour of being admitted by even Unitarians themselves as genuine parts of the Bible.

Here, even by the permission of the opposers of our Lord's divinity themselves, we are at liberty to inquire, "What do these texts teach?" And when we consider their dexterity in expunging texts, it seems quite like a favour, to meet them on this ground. But we and they disagree, not only on the question, whether certain texts shall be recognised as scripture, but also, on the principles of exegesis, by which scripture shall be interpreted. This requires of us some remarks on the manner in which the meaning of the two texts before us is to be ascertained.

Whether the texts adduced by the writer of the "Abstract," have, in the former numbers of this review, been shown to defeat rather than subserve his purpose, and the charge of absurdity so liberally thrown on the doctrine of the Trinity, to be but a mere gratuitous assumption, must be left to the discernment and candour of our readers. But if this be decided in the affirmative, then, it is most obvious, that neither reason nor scripture stands opposed to the most literal and natural interpretation of all those passages of sacred scripture, in which this doctrine is supposed by its advocates to be taught.

It is a fundamental principle of all sound interpretation of any writing whatever, that language is to be taken in its most natural and proper signification, except when some reason is known, sufficient to authorize a different construction. To this principle we appeal. Tell us not, that this would lead us to adopt as scriptural, notions gross and absurd. For no opinion should be stigmatized with these epithets, until it is proved to be so; and if

this be done, we have then the very reason which demands that a different signification should be given to that passage of sacred writ, which would literally teach such an opinion. But more fully to illustrate our meaning-Did we find God represented, in the Bible, as exercising bodily members-ears, eyes, and hands; and the sun described, as moving through the heavens, and stopping his course; and bread and wine declared to be the body and blood of the Son of God; and no reason offered for taking the passages in which these representations are found in any other than their literal meaning-did we clearly find all this, no man, we say, ought to charge grossness and absurdity upon us, for interpreting the passages literally, until he had proved, that such an interpretation was contrary to some dootrine, indubitably taught in the Bible, or to some demonstration of real science, or to the invincible dictates of common sense. But so soon as he has proved that the scriptures every where, both directly and indirectly, teach us that God is a Spirit; that the apparent motion of the sun in the heavens is effected by the movement of the earth; and that the bread and wine used by our Lord at the Supper, could not be the same as his distinct coexisting body; there is then evidence sufficient to authorize and require us, to depart from a literal interpretation of the texts in which these things are recorded. It is evidence resting upon intuition and demonstration, and this will warrant, in any case, a departure from the literal meaning of the Bible. But without something like this, Unitarians must not be allowed to wrest the words of these texts from their literal signification; and we confidently affirm, that nothing like this can be shown to justify a departure from the strict import of the words. Take them strictly then, and what do they teach? We are

not to ask lexicographers and scholiasts, any more than "synods" or "church dignitaries:" we are to believe none of these any farther than they give us evidence that their decisions are true.

"Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God." The editors of the Unitarian, alias the "Improved Version," render the text after Archbishop Newcombe's margin, "Did not, eagerly, grasp at the resemblance of God." Now the Primate's authority, with that of the Editors to back it, is not much more favourable than that of the learned translators of the English Bible. As they and he do not fully coincide, we must, with all deference, appeal to some other tribunal. Our first inquiry is, "What is the literal meaning of these words, which we find so differently rendered ?" 'Hynaro 'agayov, rendered by the Archbishop "grasp at," must be examined. Hynaro literally signifies, to lead; but as the most obvious signification of the word, in its connexion, forbids that it should take this meaning here, it must be referred to some other of its usual significations. Its next most usual sense, and the one nearest its original signification, is esteem. ‘Agraymos, from 'Agraw, to roh, properly means something taken by an act of robbery, or something taken, to which the person seizing has no right. Now it is evident, that to render these words "eagerly grasp at," is very far from their literal meaning. Ira, for, ws, from, os, equal. That this is the original signification, no Greek scholar can deny. The word can never strictly express resemblance, except when by resemblance is meant equality; as when we say things are similar, meaning that they are in every respect equal. The words literally rendered, would be-" Who being in the form of God (yaro) esteemed not" or "did not esteem (TO EVAL 10α be) the being equal with God, ('agwayμov) a thing

seized upon without right." This rendering will perhaps be objected to, because it will be supposed not to agree with what immediately follows, as it stands connected by the conjunction but. The whole ground of this apparent incongruity Is the erroneous translation of a It is often more properly translated yet than but. If in the present case it be translated yet, there is a perfect consistency maintained throughout the passage. "Who being in the form of God, did not esteem it-the being equal with God -a thing seized upon without right, yet made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." This certainly involves no logical inaccuracy. His being in the form of God, is the reason of his justly claiming equality with God, and yet,-notwithstanding his just claims to this supreme equality-yet, he made himself of no reputation, &c. This translation is preferred,

1. Because the words are all taken in their literal sense. Independently of some preconceived opinion, no man would ever think, that this text could possibly bear such an interpretation as our opponents wish to adopt. We ask by what acknowledged standard of interpretation can be rendered "like" or "resemblance," and "y" σaтo ‘agwayμov“ eagerly grasp at ?" It must be admitted on all hands, that this is a wide departure indeed from the common meaning of these words. So much so, that if it be not a translation directly contrary to their authorized use, it wears very much that aspect. Such a license with the words of scripture, sanctions a principle by which we can make the Bible speak any thing or nothing, just as we please. We may thus, with the greatest convenience, change all its history into fiction; and its prohibitions, not to "commit adultery," "kill," and "steal," into mere rhetorical flourishes.

2. The translation we have offered is preferred, because it agrees with the scope of the whole passage, and the other does not. Upon the supposition that Christ is a mere man, let us try the congruity of the passage. The Apostle exhorts to lowliness of mind, and holds up Christ as a model-"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God, did not esteem the being equal with God a thing seized upon without right, yet, made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." Now, if Christ was but a mere man, as the writer of the "Abstract" and the greater part of his Bostonian brethren suppose, what great condescension did he manifest in being made in the likeness of men. Let us express their doctrine in plain language, and try how it agrees with the tenor of the passage. It will run thus: "Made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and being a mere man, was made in the likeness of other men !!" Great condescension indeed, for one man to be made like other men! If this be the true reading, St. Paul was indeed most unfortunate, in drawing a model of humility. On Dr. Priestley's system, however, we are to expect that Paul will be found occasionally to reason inconclusively. Nothing strange then, if this text should make nonsense! Perhaps we shall find it corrected in the next edition of the Improved Version.

Let us now examine, Rom. ix. 5, "of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." This it seems must be rendered, upon the authority of Locke and Taylor, " Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all. God be blessed for ever." Most unfortunately, after all this rectification, the text still ascribes to Christ the unequivocal prerogative of Jehovah. It de

« AnteriorContinuar »