« AnteriorContinua »
Mr. Cogan's Remarks on a Passage in Dr. Paley's Natural Theology. 695 and should also advert a second time by no means proves that God is one ; to the title of the chapter in which or as Dr. Paley would probably have the above remark is found, namely, interpreted liis own remark, by no on the Unity of the Deity, what means disproves a plurality of perwould be his surprise on being told sons in the Godhead. But would it that nothing more was meant by this not have been more just to say, that unity than a unity of counsel! A though uniformity of design does not unity of counsel! he would say, be- in itself demonstrate, that not more tween whom and what? Between than one mind was concerned in the God and himself? Or between one work of creation, yet when we come God, and certain other gods possess- to consider the attributes which we ing the same essence and the same must ascribe to a self-existent Being, attributes ? The first interpretation he we see susficient reason to conclude would reject as meaning nothing, and that God is one undivided and indithe second he would consider as set visible intelligence ? But without aside by the combined force of the this species of reasoning, Dr. Paley's two chapters on the personality and remarks in his incomparable chapter the Unity of the Deity, in which it on the personality of the Deity, are seemed to be proved that God is one quite sufficient to establish this conintelligent agent or person.
clusion. · He observes that, “in what“ The whole argument for the Di. ever mind resides, there is a person." vine unity goes no farther than to an And what he meant by the term perunity of counsel.” If by unity of son, is manifest from the definition counsel we are to understand, accord. which he afterwards gives of the ing to the natural meaning of the Deity as a “perceiving, intelligent, words, an agreement of purpose be- designing, Being.". But as wherever tween more minds than one, it may mind resides there is a person, if there be justly observed, that nature gives is more than one mind and conseevidence of no such thing. Nor, in- quently more than one person in the deed, is it possible that anere uni- Deity, then, according to Dr. Paley, formity of design should suggest the God consists of more than one intellinotion of more than one designing gent and designing Being, which few mind. To say then that the argument will choose to acknowledge. for the Divine unity goes no farther Should any one say that I have than to an unity of counsel, is to say, taken advantage of the use which Drá that it goes no farther than that to Paley has made of the term person, which it neither does nor can go. In I answer, that when he defined God one sense, indeed, of the word counsel, to be a person, and also an intelligent Dr. Paley's observation is true enough; Being, he spoke the language of reasince uniformity of design, in itself son and cominon sense; and if there considered, proves only unity of will is a theological hypothesis with which or purpose. But when it is allowed this language is at variance, let those that nature points to one Creator look to it whom it may concern. alone, and Dr. Paley's reasonings I cannot dismiss the subject with. have proved that Creator to be a per- out expressing my conviction that no son, nothing seems more clear than Trinitarian, when reading the Natural that, according to the evidence of Theology of Paley, ever conceived of nature, God is one great and undivided God as consisting of more than one Mind." But this is a conclusion which person; nor do I believe that the mind Dr. Paley seems to have been un. of the writer was ever fixed on more willing to admit. And, if I under. than one person, except it was when stand him rightly, to guard against he penned the sentence which I have this conclusion he bas" emphatically been considering. Indeed, I question said, “ Certain, however, it is, that not but that Trinitarians universally, the whole argument for the Divine except when their minds are engaged unity goes no farther than to an unity on their particular doctrine, or when of counsel.” In other words, the they are contemplating what they call whole argument for the Divine unity the schenie of redemption, annex the
same idea to the term God which the
Unitarian annexes to it, that of one • Natural Theology, p. 483. great Intelligence which first created
and now governs and pervades the Chrestus exists even among the Genuniverse. On the other hand, when tiles." Julian the Apostate in dethey reflect on the divinity of Christ rision of the Evangelist John, whom as distinct from that of the Father, he supposes to have first taught the I have no doubt but that if they were divinity of Christ, calls him X095s to analyze their ideas, they would find Iwrms, the demonizing John. And that they conceive of two Gods as finally, Aristides the Sophist, in a distinct in their attributes as in the passage known to refer to the followoffices which their system allots to ers of Jesus, (see Lardner, Vol. VIII. them. Of the Holy Spirit as a sepa- p. 85,) stigmatizes them as Tarta rate person, I am persuaded that the cX8950Tatos, the most worthless of all idea seldom presents itself at all.
E. COGAN. Now, it is my object to shew that
the Apostle Paul in two places has an ŞIR,
Nov. 3, 1823. obvious reference to the above interHAVE already observed (p.571)that pretation of the word Xp150s. The name Xpoços into Xonsos, with the double live is Christ, and to die is gain," view of characterising him as a good where the parallelism requires Xposos, demon, and his doctrine as useful in the sense of Xonsey, to correspond To this interpretation Justin Martyr, with sepdos. Apol. I. p. 6, thus alludes, OY TE EK Onesimus was a slave of Philemon, τε κατηγορουμενον ήμων ονοματος χρης - a friend of Paul, and his brother in Tator 'macxoje, i.e. from the mere Christ. While at Rome, that person name which is imputed to us as a was converted to Christianity by the crime, we are the most excellent. In Apostle, who being now inchains, the next page he calls the Christians and as such having occasion for his Xongiavos, and he then adds, “To hate, service, detained him for some time Chreston, what is good is not just." from his master, and then seat him To this signification Tertullian (Apol. back with this letter as an apology to cap. iii.) also alludes when he thus Philemon, “I beseech thee, in behalf writes concerning the Christian name; of my son Onesimus, whom I have De suavitate vel benignitate composi- begotten in my bonds, and whom I tum: oditur itaque in hominibus inno- again send back to thee, receive him cuis nomen innocuum. Eusebius refers as my own bowels." His argument is to the same interpretation, in styling it this: “As Onesimus, while yet a παντιμος και ενδοξος προσηγορια. Η. Ε. stranger to Christ, was a mere eye lib. v. cap. i. Lactantius ascribes the servant driven by fear and compulchange to the ignorance of the Greeks, sion, and therefore worthless to his Qui propter ignorantium errorem, master, so by imbibing the spirit of cum immutata litera Chrestum solent Christ, he is now become a faithful dicere. Lib. iv. c. 7. But Lactantius is and valuable servant-TOY COTE himself to be charged with ignorance Χρηςον, νυνε δε σου και εμοι ευχρης, i. e. or rather with duplicity; for he could TOY TOTE, as expecoy QYTU COL-EX450, not but know, that an alteration in yuys 8", wc, ey Xp15 col xos Est eux ongev. the name, calculated to screen our The paronomasia is perceptible only Lord from unmerited odium, or to to those who understand Greek, and express bis character as a superior cannot be translated into any modern being, must have originated with those language. who
at least pretended to be friends Every contribution of Mr. Cogan of Christ. His enemies, however, ap- to the Repository I peruse with pleaplied to him the name thus altered. sure, as the production of an amiable For Suetonius thus designates him in man and accomplished scholar. That his life of Claudius, cap. xxv. More in the last, notified in the title-page
Lucian in a book entitled Phi as “ Mr. Cogan on a Criticism of lopatris, represents Critias as asking Porson's,” more than usually excited Triephon, who professed to be a my curiosity. But I confess that I Christian, “Whether the affairs of was somewhat disappointed, when I the Christians were recorded in hea. saw that it consisted only of the as. ven," and receiving for answer, “All sertion that aura Mete, the reading nations are there recorded, since of Porson, was wrong, and that, if it
On a Criticism of Porson's.Notes on Passages in the New Testament. 697 were the right reading, he should adopt gitimate government. Besides, the Porson's interpretation. Mr. C. would noun áhua, which corresponds to have done more justice to himself and draw, occurs in the context, which have been more edifying to his read- occurrence seems to be the effect of ers, if he had given us more reasons association. Had the verb used been than one for this opinion." Now, I madaw, and not smallw, the ensuing will give my reasons for thinking that noun would probably have been ranna. Porson's reading is right and that his In line 476 of the same play, eander interpretation is wrong ; and this. I is again used for sennhoy, (which is, shall do with as little intentiou as Mr. perhaps, the true reading,) and águas Cogan, to detract from the just repu- is implied. The critics render the tation attained by that " prince of word here by currebant,” a vercritics." The passage in Orestes 316, sion which miserably fritters away the is, do TE TOY tayaov arbeg' aptarnete. sense of the poet, who paints the Here as the connected noun is in the velocity of the chariot to the imaginaaccusative, the natural construction tion of the reader, by, representing requires an active verb, “ Ye, who the horses as causing it to rebound shake the expansive air;" and this from the ground in the impetuosity of accords with the object of the poet, their speed. who wishes the reader to infer the
J. JONES. violence of the furies in pursuit of 4*, their victim, by their throwing the whole expanse of the atmosphere into Notes on Pussages in the Nero Tes
Nov. 29, 1823. agitation. Hence, Potter in his ele
tament. gant and vigorous translation, renders the clause, Ye shake the aftrighted M
ATT. xxvii. 50: ” Jesus, when air.” But if the right reading be the
he had cried again, with a loud middle form, aurateche, it must sig- voice, yielded up the ghost". (admke nify to fly, as the Latin version has To TIYEUA): in Mark XV. 37, and Luke it, per latum acrem volatis, a sense xxiii. 46, CTVEYSE, BFERVEUTSV ;, in which the verb cannot have but by Johu xix, 30, wapewe To TRVEUXU. implication. Besides, a foreign word There is an abundance of examples in (Katx) must be borrowed to account the classical Greek writers, to prove for the contraction, and a circuitous that the phrase deseribes simply the phraseology is introduced which must act of " dying, or expiring. But a weaken, if it be not foreign to the far greater stress may, fairly be laid object of the writer. But, says Por on a text in the Septuagint Version, son, simplex Tad.w, medio .sensu OC Gen. xxxv. 18, where Rachel's death currit, Elect. 438. This appears to has been represented in these words, me to contain a two-fold mistake; ev to abrevat aytne Thy Huxnu ! and a first, because palla is not the verb similar, mode of speaking oécurs in there used ; and secondly, because the Isa. liii. 12. active used for the middle voice is an That Jesus voluntarily shortened anomaly utterly unknown to the Greek bis sufferings on the cross,- is an opi. language, unless, indeed, as is the nion, which, if- trize, and if justly case with anyw, EXw, pepw, when used pursued, would lead to the most rein the active voice, the reflex pronoun volting, absurd and dangerous conbe understood. In the passage to clusions. By the late Dr. Price it which Porson refers, Euripides repre- was once entertained : but with his sents the dolphin not as bouncing characteristic ingenuousness, he afaround the ships, but as jumping terwards and publicly avowed,* that against the site of the proivs as it he considered it as destitute of all were to climl), to dance on deck with support. In vain is an appeal made the mariners to the sound of the flute to Jolin x. 17, 18, "Therefore doth my in which he delighted. Hence, erande Father love me, because I lay down is for enake from the data, with my life, that I may take it again. No Pautor implied—the dolphin caused man taketh it from ine, but I lay it himself to jump: and this is evident from Egw pozos, in the same clause, which depends on Ti, combined with the
* Appendix to Sermons on the Chris. verb, and which otherwise has no le- tian Doctrine, &c., Note Ff.
down of myself: I have power to lay of him as “ the alone most highl." it down, and I have power to take it Nor is the description, “ the true again. This commandment have I God,” identical with "the chief God," received of my Father."* These but conveys a far more interesting and words of our Lord were verified in magnificent idea. To us Christians, his willing surrender of himself into there is, literally and absolutely, one the hands of his enemies : he would God, and no other than He: all benot avert his death, by the exercise sides, who have been so called, are of his miraculous endowments in his nothing. We dishonour, though unown defence, but was an unresisting intentionally, the Being whom we victim, Matt. xxvi. 53–55. Thus, adore, when we declare simply that and thus only, he laid down his life, he is “ the God, by way of emphasis, that he might take it again. The the God in the most famous and ex“ strong cry,”+ which he sent forth, traordinary sense;" for the Scriptures just before he expired, is no proof go much further. * "Those places of that he dismissed his breath before the New Testament,” which Hallet the vital principle was subdued. In cites, are irrelevant to his purpose: in circumstances like his, shrieks are none of them is the word true emsometimes the result of a convulsive ployed “in a like manner as in this effort of nature, and have been known text.” Our Saviour, iu Luke xvi. Il, to precede immediately the moment contrasts “ the unrighteous mamof dissolution. Let me transcribe the mon," i. e. the deceitful, precarious judicious and excellent note of J. G. riches of this world, with the true, or Rosenmüller on Mark xv. 39-" Inter. durable, riches of heaven. In John i. punge: ŠTO OUTW5, Kpatas ESETVEVCEV, 9, the Evangelist opposes the true, quod ita, (ut nerope comm. 33, 34, 37, the everlasting, light of Christian dictum) clamore edito expirasset. Non knowledge, to all material light; as, clamor (hic enitn non plane insolitus in John vi. 32, our Lord does the moribundis) sed miracula, de quibus manna received by the Israelites, a paullo ante dictum, in admirationein temporary and perishable food, to the rapuerunt centurionem.” I will add, vital nourishment supplied by his own that our Saviour's language-"it is instructions. So, the true vine, John finished-into thy liands, &c.-ap- xv. 1, is that which endures for ever, pears to have followed his “ loud and fails not to refresh the mind: the voice,” or shriek,
true tabernacle, or sanctuary, Heb. John xvii. 3:.“
the only viii. 2, ix. 24, is the church of Christ, true God." | This appellation is ex- permanent and stable, in contradisplained by the parallel text in 1 Thess. tinction to the convention-tent of the 1.9: " ye turned to God from Hebrews ; it is, figuratively, the idols, to serve the living and true “ house of prayer for all nations." God;" which passage Hallet has Even if this class of texts stated, or overlooked, in his observations on the implied, a comparison of what is chief phrase. According to that ingenious and eminent with what is greatly inand learned ammotator, $ " the ex- ferior-and not a comparison of what pression, The only true God, signifies is earthly and fleeting with what is the same as the alone most high, or spiritual, heavenly and immortalsupreme, God. The true God signi- still, John xvii. 3, does not belong to fies the same as the chief God, The them: here the phrase is, “The ONLY God, by way of emphasis, the God in true God.” Now he alone is the true the most famous and extraordinary God, who is the ever-living God: sepse." In this criticism I cannot consequently, the passage before us acquiesce. The sovereign dominion does not place in contrast a Supreme of God would seem to imply his God and a secondary or subordinate Unity: and it were pleonastic to speak God, but the only God and the idol
vanities of the Heathens. Grot. on Matt. 'xxvii. 50, Benson's Life of Christ, p. 514. t Doddridge's Expos., in loc.
* " The God of gods,” in Psa. cxxxvi. I Gerard's Institutes, &c., 2d ed., pp. 2, is "the Lord of magistrates," &c. 321, 322.
+ See Hosea ii, 1, in the original, and § Notes, &c., Vol. I, pp. 14, 15. Bahrdt's Note on it: App. Critic. in loc.
Notes on Passages in the New Testamento
699 1 Cor. iv. 2: "I have fed you with yet Mr. B. rightly intimates, that the milk, and not with meat: for you apostle was not called upon to treat were not then able to receive it; nei- of it, in the letters to the Corinthians. ther are ye even yet nble.” On this I have sometimes thought that Paul declaration Mr. Belsham (Translation, might refer to the future state of the &c., in loc.) pertinently asks, “Qu. church of Christ, and the fuller disWhat was that meat which the Co- closure of the existence, nature, claims rinthians could not digest ? that doc- and acts of an antichristian power. trine which they could not receive ?” Concerning all these points be seems Doubtless, we can only conjecture, to have been in possession of prophetic what it was; and there is much diffi: knowledge: and to his friends at culty in the employment. I might, Thessalonica, who, certainly, were indeed, answer generally, that it was spiritual, in comparison of those at some instruction which their conten. Corinth, he writes, with much freedom, tious, worldly spirit disqualified them on the man of sin, &c. 2 Thess. ii. for admitting and using: Ver. 3, &c. Let me not finish this note, without Still, a more specific reply is desirable. remarking, that Mr. Belsham's TransIf in the second epistle to the Corin. lation, &c., of the Epistles of Paul, is thians Paul had discussed any point honourably characterized by some of of religious doctrine, concerning which the most luminous and impressive he is silent in the former, our per- statements, which can any where be plexity might be removed or lessened. found, of both direct and presumptive But I discover no such difference be- evidence in behalf of Christianity tween these two letters, which, in 12 Cor. viii. 2: “ - the abundance truth, are particularly characterised of their joy, and their deep poverty.” by local references, and a local appli- Dr. Mangey (Bоwyer's Conject. in cation. Probably, the apostle does loc.) vrould read xpeles, instead of not, in this passage, allude to any one xapas. Were the emendation requitenet : all which he means, may be, site, nothing could well be happier that, as the consequence of the un- than this reading : were the text in so happy state of things in the church at desperate a condition, as to bafilc the Corinth, and of the prevailing habits established principles of criticism, we of its members, he forbore to touch might gladly have recourse to this on certain matters, to which his com- conjecture. But a glance at Gries. mission extended, and in which he felt bach's edition will shew that all the a deep interest; these he waived, as MSS. and versions, &c., are in favour he could not, for the present, write on of the clause, as it now stands : and them with advantage to the infant the attentive reader will perceive that society—and he consulted, as became the apostle represents the predominant him, their urgent wants. “ The va- joy of his Macedonian friends in their riety and worthlessness of all their Christian privileges as inciting them boasted systeins of philosophy,” had to make uncommonly generous efforts not entirely escaped his attention; as for the relief of some of their yet is clear from the preceding part of the poorer brethren, and as thus enhancepistle. Of “the perfect spirituality ing the merit of their contributions. of the Christian religion" much could, Dr. M.'s conjecture is extremely inunquestionably, have been said by genious : I cannot think it solid, and him: and this, perhaps, was a subject it strongly proves the impropriety of on which he would have enlarged, had attempting to alter the text of the circunstances permitted.* Another · New Testament only on conjecture. favourite topic of his thoughts and I Tim. v. 8: “ if any provide pen, was the liberty of converts from not for his own, and specially for among the Gentiles to the Gospel : those of his own house
says Hallet, “ for those of them, who
are of the household of faith," or He who carefully peruses the ac
Christians; in illustration and supcount, which J. D. Michaelis (Introd. port of which coinment he cites Gal. &c., iv. 44) has given of these circum- vi. 10." Now in that passage the stances, will not be astonished that Paul does not now enlarge on many general topics.
Notes, I. 31.
;?. i. e.