Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

Reviewer's argument, until he proves, and not merely asserts the Evangelist's intention to oppose the errours of Philo. But since he will have it so, let us look somewhat farther into his reasoning. A prevailing errour of the age, according to the Reviewer, was the personification of the divine power, under the name of Logos. And how does the Evangelist go about to correct this errour? Truly, on the Reviewer's interpretation, by falling into it himself-by speaking of the divine power displayed in creation, &c. under the appellation of "Logos;" by affirming that "all things were made by it," that it" was made flesh and dwelt among us ;" and that "we beheld its glory as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." All this of an attribute of God! But, says the Reviewer, the errour was in supposing this attribute to be "resident in, and exercised by, or through an inferior or intermediate being." This the Evangelist means to deny, and hence the language which he adopts in declaring that the Logos or divine power was with God, and was God.' What sect of heretics then, existed in the time of St. John, who maintained that the power of God was not with Him, but with another being? Not the followers of Philo, for according to the Reviewer's own statement, the Logos of Philo was himself a being, and of course was not the divine pow

er.

Not the Gnostics, for they too, in the words of the Reviewer, "gave the name of Logos to one of that class of beings called Eons." Where then shall we look for those singular heretics who needed to be assured with so much emphasis that the power of God resided with God? It is a question which the Reviewer ought in common kindness to have answered, since he appears to know; for it had greatly perplexed Mr. Stuart in his Letters, and the Reviewer was employed in the friendly office of enlightning his ignorance. Until, therefore, "a local habitation and a name" can be found for those who held the doe

trine of a powerless God, we must confess ourselves, in common with Mr. Stuart, to be brought completely to a stand at this point in the argument; and we wait for the guidance of that ingenuity, which has so frequently made the most obstinate texts and historical records, yield to the progress of modern "improvement."

In the mean time, however, we may advert to a fortunate discovery of the Reviewer, who assures us that "the doctrine concerning the Logos as a BEING distinct from God, and intermediate between Him and His creatures, was the embryo form of the christian Trinity. The writings of Philo, by whom it was taught, were, as we have said, a favourite study of the christian fathers. This doctrine we believe it was one purpose of St. John to oppose in the introduction of his gospel." What then were the opinions of Philo concerning this being whom he called Logos? That he was Mediator between God and man, the only begotten son of the Father, and most intimately united to Him; that he created all things, and for this or some other reason, Philo gives him the title of God.* And how does St. John correct these alarming errours? By declaring exactly the same things in almost the same identical terms; by teaching that the Logos "was with God," an expression denoting the greatest intimacy of union; that "his glory was as the glory of the only begotten of the Father;" that He created all things, and was truly God. Was there ever a more unfortunate attempt to correct an errour? But, says the Reviewer, the Logos spoken of by St. John, was not Philo's Logos,

*Vide Smith on the Messiah, in which all the important passages respecting the Logos, in the works of Philo, are collected. It is totally immaterial in what sense the Logos was styled durigos Otos by Philo; whether denoting the second person of the Godhead, as some maintain, or a secvine nature. All that is essential to our ond and inferior being partaking of the diargument, is the fact, that the title God was applied to him by Philo.

but the power of God personified in action. And how were the followers of Philo to know that? John had affirmed of his Logos exactly the same things which they had always believed of theirs. And yet the Evangelist requires them to understand him as speaking of a totally different thing, and designs these very words as a sharp rebuke to them for their errours! But were they so understood in the early ages of the church? On the contrary, did not the Valentinians, a sect of the Gnostics, make great use of this passage to defend their doctrines ?* The adoption of language so open to misconstruction of the very phraseology respecting the Logos, which had been employed by Philo to describe his intermediate be ing, called Logos, is the strongest possible proof that St. John had no reference to the opinions of that writer, or of the Gnostics. Had he been employed in correcting their errours, he would certainly have used language so guarded and explicit, as to preclude the possibility of misconception.

The word Logos as used by St. John, must denote one of three things. He was either a divine person, or a being inferior to God, or a divine attribute personified. The first we maintain, and the Reviewer denies. He is then presented with this alternative. If St. John used the word Logos with any reference to the opinions of Philo, the language which he adopted was so unguarded, that he must have foreseen he would be understood by the Gnostics to give a direct sanction to their errours; and we may add, the errours of Mr. Channing, who considers the Logos as a being of an intermediate character. If the Reviewer insists on the third sense of Logos and makes Him the power of God in action, we wait for the solution of the former difficulty-the discovery of that nameless sect who maintained that the attributes of a being are not resident with himself. Until that *Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo, quod est secundum loannem (evangelio) plenis

ime utentes &c Irenæus.

sect be found he is totally at a stand; and both Philo and the Gnostics, according to the Reviewer's own statement of their opinions, have nothing to do in the case. Our readers will now decide whether these unfounded assertions and palpable contradictions, have done any thing to shake the weighty argument of Mr. Stuart.

Heb. i. 10. And, thou Lord," &c. is next cited by Mr. Stuart, as applying to Christ the title of Jehovah, and ascribing to him creative power. The Reviewer contents himself with expressing his belief that not Christ but the Father is addressed in this passage; but ventures no argument in support of his opinion. As a fair reasoner he was bound to do more; for Mr. Stuart had stated in strong terms, that the laws of grammar and the nature of the Apostle's argument, forbid this forcible divulsion of the tenth verse from the preceding and subsequent context. is either true or false. er will have it to be prove his assertion;

This statement If the Reviewfalse, he must and until this is done the ground remains in possession of his antagonist. When a man who is by profession a biblical critic, leaves an argument untouched in circumstances like these, can stronger evidence be needed of his consciousness that he could not meet it?

But the Reviewer perhaps relies on his quotation from Emlyn, who remarks that the passage in question though a new citation is not prefaced with "And to the Son he saith," or with an "again," as in some other passages. Is it then against Greek usage to connect two citations referring to the same person, by a simple "and?" This the Reviewer will not venture to maintain, however convenient he may find it to quote Emlyn on that point. What follows in the quotation goes only to prove that the verse before us, if forcibly torn from this context and addressed to the Father, would make sense. This may be true, but the question returns, what right have you to violate the laws of grammar, and break in upon

the Apostle's argument by this violent separation? The ellipsis to be supplied after the word "And," must be either "to the Son he saith," as we maintain; or "to the Father (or God) he saith," as the Reviewer and Emlyn maintain. The omission of "the Son" is perfectly natural, because having just been mentioned, He would of course be understood as referred to. But if the subject of the proposition is to be changed, if "the Father" is now to be addressed, the established usage of language demands that this be indicated by an express mention of Him; otherwise how can it be known that a new person is addressed? An ellipsis therefore in the present instance, is equivalent to a direct introduction of the Son by name. It is indeed too clear a case to be argued; and we cannot but consider the violence which has in this instance been done to the word of God, as a striking illustration of that spirit, which is resolved, per fas et nefas, to tear the doctrine of Christ's divinity from the Scriptures.

Mr. Stuart next adduces Col. i. 15-17 as attributing to Christ the creation of "all things that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible," &c. The Reviewer contends that this refers to a moral creation under the new dispensation, or Christian church. But in the verse which follows this magnificent description of Christ's power in the new dispensation, the Apostle subjoins "and He is the head of the Body the Church." Would this cold addition be necessary or natural, after the highwrought description which had just preceded, of Christ as Head of the Church, or new dispensation? On the interpretation of the Reviewer, the Apostle has given an unrivalled example of the art of sinking. "For to him (it is the Reviewer's translation) all things in the Christian world owe their origin, the highest and the lowest, what is seen and what is not seen; those who sit on thrones, those who exercise dominion, those who have government, and those who have

power. He is the Author and Master of all, he is over all, and all exist through him, (or have a common relation to him.) What next? "and He is the head of the Body the Church;" as though this fact had not just been dwelt upon throughout three verses of the most exuberant poetical amplification! The Professor of Sacred Literature at Cambridge, who enumerates a taste for poetry among the qualifications of a "consummate theologian," would have taught the Reviewer to be cautious of attributing poetry like this to the Apostle Paul. But let us look a moment at these splendid images. "Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers," what are these? Oh! the different orders of the Church, Evangelists, Presbyters, Deacons! What! the despised, persecuted preachers of the gospel who were driven from city to city, "in labors abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons frequent, in deaths often," all these high sounding titles applied to them? Where else do we find the Apostle Paul so lavish of his honours? Under a splendid establishment like the church of Rome, when the simplicity of the gospel was debased by worldly pomp, and even under the Jewish Hierarchy which was splendid by design, such images might not be unnatural. But that the Apostle, writing in his chains at Rome, should speak of himself and his companions in the sufferings of Christ, as "those who sit on thrones," "and exercise principality," is too thoroughly ridiculous to admit of serious argument. The "things visible and invisible," too, what are they? The Reviewer has here accidentally omitted a small word introduced by the Apostle to explain this point; "whether they be thrones, dominions, principalities and powers;" which proves that those words are an enumeration of the "things visible and invisible" just mentioned. The officers of the church, then, who are indicated by these several titles, are part of them "visible" and part “invisible;" or in the Reviewer's words,

part "seen" and part "not seen!!" Such are a part only of the absurdities arising from this attempt to force a metaphorical sense, on one of the simplest passages of the Scripture.

Mr. Stuart next appeals to Rom. ix. 5. "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all God blessed forever." The Reviewer makes a feeble effort to convert the last clause of this verse into a doxology, in direct contradiction to the acknowledged usage of the language. He assigns this reason, however, for a departure from that usage in the present instance; that the words "who is over all," are designed to represent God as "Author and Head of the Jewish dispensation" spoken of in the preceding verses; "which reference to God considered in this character, would be lost by any different arrangement of the words."But how would it be lost? If the word "all" refers to the things enumerated in the preceding verses, surely it may do this, though eλoynos, blessed" should precede. "Blessed be be that is over all," (i. e. the things enumerated above) is exactly the same with "He that is over all (i. e. the things enumerated above) be blessed." We appeal with confidence to any person acquainted with the original, that the ordinary collocation of suλoyros need not have been altered to express the idea of the Reviewer; though we think it clearly, not the true sense of the passage.' Conscious apparently, that this ground is untenable, the Reviewer now changes his position, and by the magic of a new punctuation, reduces to perfect order, this obstinate and perplexing passage. Place a colon after σapxa and a comma after wavewv in the original, and the work is done. words 'o wv, which naturally refer back

"The

*The Reviewer remarks that the interpretation here given is not the one commented upon by Mr. Stuart. Ought he not in fairness to have added, that Mr. Stuart's argument lies against a doxology in any shape whatever? Why did he not meet Mr. Stuart on all his points instead of merely attempting to evade a single one?

to Christ, are thus made the subject of a new proposition; and the pas sage reads "of whom was Christ according to the flesh. He who was all is God, blessed forever." Under certain circumstances undoubtedly the words 'o wv may thus commence a new sentence, to wit, when there is no preceding noun to which they naturally refer. When such a noun precedes, however, the words 'o wv, by one of the most common usages of the language, refer back to that noun, and go on to describe it by some additional circumstance or title (in the passage before us by the words I TaVTavos, God over all.) If this established usage is to be violated in the present case the Reviewer should at least, have produced a few instances to authorize the violation. No such instance occurs in the New Testament; we recollect none elsewhere; and we believe he will find it difficult to adduce many cases (in violation of the general rule) in which 'o wv preceded by a noun to which it may naturally refer, and followed by another noun (like sos in the present case) descriptive of character, is made

tInstances of so common a usage scarcely need be given. The reader may how

ever refer to John i. 18. 2 Cor. xi. 31. Rev. v. 5. In the last passage by altering the punctuation after the manner of the Reviewer, the meaning may be wholly changed. Place a colon after the word Av in the original, and give to the infinitive aražas the sense of the imperative, than which nothing is more common; the passage then reads. "And one of the Elders saith unto me, weep not behold the Lion hath prevailed. He who is of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, let him open the book and the seven seals thereof" "The Lion," and "he who is of the tribe of Judah" thus become two distinct beings, like "Christ," and "God over all"

in the Reviewers translation. No one is weak enough to receive this; and yet the words will bear it, if Rom. ix. 5 will bear the Reviewers version. If you reason from the scope of the passage, we sincerely think, that two arguments can be brought against the new translation of Rom. ix. 5, for one against that of Rev. v. 5. In Col. iv. 13, likewise, by placing a colon after the word Justus, os OVTES will be made the subject of a new proposition, expressing with emphasis, a very different meaning from that of the Apostle.

su

Jno. xx. 28.-" And Thomas answered and said unto him, my Lord, and my God." For adducing this text, Mr. S. has given the following reasons.

1. There is no satisfactory proof, that it is an exclamation of surprise or astonishment. No phrase of this kind, by which the Jews were accustomed to express surprise or astonishment, has yet been produced; and there is no evidence that such a phrase, with the sense alleged, belongs to this language. 2. The evangelist tells us, that Thomas addressed himself to Jesus; said to him uw aury; he did not merely exclaim. 3. The commendation, which the Saviour immediately bestows upon Thomas, serves chiefly to defend the meaning, that I attach to the verse. Christ commends him for having seen and believed. The evidence that he believed, was contained in the expression

the subject of a new proposition.-ishment," "their worm shall not die, But even if he could do this, it would their fire shall not be quenched.”only prove his construction possible; These and a thousand other contraand not equally natural with the oth- dictions and extravagances, have er, which follows the ordinary usage made Origen the very worst evidence of the language. He must still meet that can be produced in scriptural inthe argument of Mr. Stuart, "how terpretation.* comes it that Christ according to his human nature (To xarα daρxa) is said to have descended from the Fathers? What if I should affirm that David, as to his human nature was descended from Jesse ? Would you not of course ask what other nature he had? And such an enquiry, forced upon us by the expression in question, the Apostle has immediately answered; as to his nature not human, he was preme God, blessed forever. Amen.” The Reviewer has, however, one sweeping argument in reserve-some of the Greek Fathers did not understand this passage in the orthodox sense. Origen particularly considers Christ as not being "God over all;" which proves either that the passage before us did not stand in his copy of the Scriptures as it does in ours; or that the Greek idiom does not require the orthodox interpretation. An appeal to the Fathers as biblical critics, and especially to Origen, would be thought by some, to partake a little of the ridiculous. Our means of understanding the Scriptures are well known to be incomparably superior to theirs. Even as to idiom, Origen sometimes blunders; witness his argument founded on the assumption that da cannot denote the efficient cause, which every one knows to be false (vide Rom. xi. 36. Heb. ii. 10.) But could Origen in direct terms, contradict so plain a passage of Scripture? Such things have happened. Origen himself maintains that Christ died as a sacrifice not for men only, but for all rational beings; in pointed contradiction to the whole tenor of the Scriptures: and particularly

to Heb. ii. 16. He contends that not only all men, but the devils themselves will at last be saved; notwithstanding Christ had declared "these shall go away into everlasting pun

departed from the simplicity of the Gos*By a singular fatality, men who have pel, sometimes like Origen, contradict the very terms of Scripture, while they appear wholly unconscious of the fact. We this kind in one of Dr. Priestley's works, distinctly recollect a striking instance of though we have not the volume at hand to give the passage. Mr. Belsham in his Calm Inquiry, p. 190, says "we have no clusion whether Jesus through the whole sufficient data to lead to a satisfactory concourse of his private life was completely exempt from all the errors and failings of human nature;" though the Apostle had declared that "he did no sin." Mr. Buckminster in his Sermons, page 307, says, "There is nothing in the Scripture which represents that Christ has made it just for God to forgive sins now, upon repent

ance, when it would not have been before." Can there be a more direct con

tradiction of the Apostle who affirms of Christ, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation-to declare at this time his the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." righteousness, that He might be just, and Should it be convenient a thousand years hence, to prove that these passages of Scripture did not exist in the English version at the beginning of the nineteenth century, or that they must have been generally understood in a sense very different from their literal and obvious meaning, nothing would be easier or more conclusive than to produce the authority of Mr. Belsham, and Mr. Buckminster.

« IndietroContinua »