Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

arrangement of words, should bestow so many appellations upon the person by whom the name was to be given, and only one upon the individual named? It is contrary to common sense. (7) The LXX. have thus translated the words : "And his name shall be called Messenger of the great Council; for I will bring peace upon the rulers."-I think that the LXX., terrified by the majesty of the names, durst not say of the child what are evidently names of the Supreme Being; but for the six names have given what is not in the Hebrew-angel or messenger of the great council, &c. But they have taken Wonderful Counsellor for Wonderful Council; the words 1, the component parts of the name Gabriel, they have understood of that illustrious angel, whence they have translated angel; the rest they have expressed as if they had read by 's, and what is added, and health to him, or, as Jerome reads it, and his health, is a gloss, from another interpretation of some one who for man, which begins the next verse, read DDS. See Cappellus and Vitringa.

Remarks.

(1) The force of this reasoning, is not obvious. The two words as appear to follow each other only twice in the Bible-Isaiah ix. 6, and x. 21. We cannot reason, therefore, from the regimen of the words in one case, that the same must necessarily be the case in the other also. Dr. Smith's assertion, that "wherever the two words occur together, they are invariably connected as substantive and adjective in the same order," would naturally imply that there are many such instances. But, with the exception of one passage, in all the instances which he cites, either some other adjective is employed, or some other adjective intervenes.

(2) What can be more absurd than to attempt to explain passages of the Jewish Scriptures by the leading dog mas of Heathenism; to borrow, in short, from a system which denied the unchangeableness and unity of the Deity, illustrations of the perfections of the God of Israel, who in innumerable passages declares these to be his essential attributes? The agreement between the doctrines of the

Jesuit Missionaries and the religionof the Eastern nations, only proves, either that, with more knowledge, they sinfully accommodated the gospel to the prejudices of those whom they instructed, or that their own convictions were influenced by Heathenish conceptions. This is not the only example which the Christian Church presents of the combination of pure Christianity with the reveries of Pagan superstition.

(3) It would be difficult to prove that the metaphysical idea of duration absolutely without end, is included in this Hebrew word. In the following passage it clearly is not, Job. xx. iv. The fact is, that it expresses indefinite future duration, and in this respect is somewhat allied to the scriptural usage of awr.. Mr. Wallace's translation does not, I think, come up to the force of the original. A requires peλλovσa in order to express futurity, whereas the above Hebrew word does not.

(4) One does not see any great propriety for the caution here expressed by our orthodox critic. It is necessary, indeed, to the system of interpretation, to which such an analogical explication would be fatal. There would be greater propriety in the caution if the appellation had been found in the narrative of the book of Genesis.

(5) This rule will generally hold good, because the nominative to *p* is not usually expressed, or it consists of one noun only. The common usage of the Hebrew language, by which the verb precedes its nominative, occasions the only ambiguity of the passage.

(6) That no implicit reliance should be placed on the Masoretic punctua tion, has been admitted by critics of profound learning and sound judgment. As an argument with Rosenmüller, it may be urged, that we may fairly presume that the Chaldee interpreter would be as well acquainted with the traditionary explanation of the passage, as the Masorites themselves, whom he preceded by several centuries. Or, if it be admitted that the Masoretic punctuation reflects the sense attributed to this passage from. before the time when this paraphrase was made, it must also, one would suppose, be admitted that he, as well

as they, must have known of this ancient interpretation. Any argument, therefore, founded on the disagreement of the Chaldee interpreters, who were themselves Jews of ancient date, with the Masoretic punctuation, must be frail and unsatisfactory.

(7) Rosenmüller should have informed his readers that the different editions of the Septuagint vary greatly in the rendering of our passage. They are accurately and faithfully described by Dr. Pye Smith.

[blocks in formation]

S the "Creed" to which the

I shall presume, in the following A following strictures, from the

observations, that all those to whom they will have any interest, have access to Dr. Pye Smith's " Scripture Testimony."

(5) In opposition to Grotius, Dr. S. remarks, that y signifies a giver of counsel, and not a solicitor of it. The verb, however, from which this participial form is derived, may be taken in either sense. If, at least, we can depend upon Cocceius, (ed. 1777,) whom Dr. Smith frequently consults, this verb denotes "partim concilium dare, partim concilium capere," so as to correspond with both the English words to counsel and to consult. See also Pagninus: "Consiliarius, consulta." Ought not the erudition and accuracy of Grotius to have vouched for the possibility of his translation?

(9) Dr. Smith attributes to Rosenmüller the words, " hic est fortis, potens, heros, as Job xli. 17; 2 Kings xxiv. 15," which he proceeds to controvert. Dr. Smith perhaps employed the first edition of the Scholia, as the clause is not to be found in the second edition.

(10) Is Dr. Smith correct in affirming that the Arabic (if of the London Polyglott) supports the reading of the Hebrew? It appears to be a combination of the different readings of the LXX.

(") Dr. Smith objects to the interpretation of Le Clerc, that the prefix might have been expected before I can see no reason that this should be, and the probability surely is, that Le Clerc would have attended to this if he believed it to be a rule of the Hebrew grammar. If in the following instances,-Gen. i. 2, "spirit of God;" Exod. ix. 29, "voice of God;" Job. i. 16, "fire of God,"the word for God requires no prefix,

Philadelphia Universalist Magazine, relate, has been laid before your readers, (Vol. XIX. pp. 14, 339,) I transcribe a copy lately received from America for insertion, in the hope they may convey useful instruction to some of the brethren on this side the Atlantic, who may equally require it, and not be unacceptable to others of your readers.

F. "A Novel Creed, intended for Quakers, but honourably rejected by them.

"One would have thought that the Christian world, of all sects and denominations, had become too well informed, for any few designing men to attempt to make and palm a Creed upon a whole body of Christians, almost without their knowledge or consent: but if our information be correct, (and we have it from one of the Society who was present at the General Meeting of Friends,) the way in which the Essay of a Creed (from which we have made the following extracts) was got up, and attempted to be carried in the General Meeting, falls but little short of the manner of making creeds in the third and fourth centuries. To the credit, however, of the Society, the attempt did not succeed.

"The Essay of a Creed from which the following extracts were taken, was adopted and printed by "the Meeting for Sufferings" of the Yearly Meeting of Pennsylvania, and copied on their Minutes, which are annually read in the Yearly Meeting for its approba tion: but so much disapprobation was expressed with it, that the pamphlet was ordered "not to be published." Hence the work was suppressed; but this cannot make it any less true or any more false; and as it was evi

dently drawn up by some of the lead ing members of the Society, it is a proper subject for animadversion. A few copies were put into circulation, by some means or other, before the Meeting, and all attempts to buy them up since, for the purpose of suppressing them, (although we have understood that the sum of five dollars has been offered for a single copy,) have proved ineffectual.. But we will keep the reader no longer in suspense in regard to this singular production, which contains some truth, but more error, and most of all, that which conveys no definite idea whatever!

"After the preamble, which contains nothing very objectionable, and an expression of a firm belief in the Scriptures, which so far is certainly very good, it adds, 'But they are not and cannot be subjected to the fallen, corrupt reason of man.' Now, what is meant by fallen, corrupt reason'? Is not the reason of man as good now as it ever was? And did not God address this reason when he said, Come now, let us reason together, saith the Lord. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; and though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool'? Isa. i. 18. Here God calls upon sinners, whose sins were of the deepest dye, to use their reason; and on what subject can they exercise it better than in gaining a correct understanding of the Scriptures? But only make mankind believe that their reason is so fallen, so depraved, that they are incapable of understanding the Scriptures without supernatural aid,-you have the hook completely in their nose, and they can be led obsequiously at your will. It is impossible to corrupt reason, or that reason should be corrupted; for although mankind may exercise a great degree of foolishness, and call it reason, yet reason, to be reason, must act rationally; and when actions are incorrect, it is not reason that acts, but something else. If, therefore, this Creed means that the Scriptures cannot be understood by

the · reason of man' in his present state, it either means that which is false, or else it charges God with folly, in giving man a guide, and calling upon him to exercise his reason in understanding it, when he knew that this guide was not subject to

[ocr errors]

reason.' But the Creed says, "We have always asserted our willingness that all our doctrines be tried by them, (that is, the Scriptures,) and admit it as a positive maxim, that whatever any do, pretending to the Spirit, which is contrary to the Scriptures, be accounted and judged as a delusion of the Devil.'

"But how is a common man to know when doctrines are agreeable to the Scriptures or not? His reason is no guide to him: he must therefore sit in silence and hear what spiritual men say on the subject, and take it for granted that what they say is true! It will be readily perceived, however, that upon this principle the Scriptures are of no use to any except to those who are spiritual; and if these receive direct communications from God, it seems that the Scriptures might be dispensed with altogether.

"The Creed continues, We receive and believe in the testimony of the Scriptures simply as it stands in the text: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.' It is presumed that the framers of this Creed were not aware that the above text, on which they have laid so much stress, and the only one they have quoted correctly, (and the only one, except one, which they have inserted as a quotation from scripture,) is a most spurious interpolation, which is not to be found in any Greek MS. of the New Testament written earlier than the 15th century. If they had known this circumstance, they would not have attached so mucli importance to this text; but this is a truth acknowledged by the most learned, even among the Trinitarians. It is also presumed that the makers of this Creed were ignorant of the meaning of the text itself, even admitting its authority; for it no more proves that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are one being, than it is proved that Paul and Apollos are one being (1 Cor. iii. 8); and any person who has the least knowledge of Greek, must know this.

"We believe in the only wise, omnipotent and everlasting God, the Creator of all things in heaven and earth, and the Preserver of all things that he hath made, who is God over all, blessed for ever—who hath created

[ocr errors]

all things by his eternal Word and Son,' &c. Eternal Word and Son. This is what is called believing in the testimony of the Scriptures simply as it stands in the text.' But where do we read in the Scriptures of an eternal Son? The idea is totally absurd. A son must be begotten and born (or else created as Adam was) before he can be a son, and to call such a being an eternal being, is an absurdity. But the Creed (after a statement to which we do not object) continues,Hence he (Christ) is the only Mediator between God and man ; for having been with God from all eternity, being himself God,' &c.Having been with God from all eternity. Here the words of John, 'from the beginning,' which may mean from the beginning of the gospel dispensation, but at most can mean no more than the beginning of creation, these Creed-makers have changed into their own words, from all eternity.' But any thing that was with God from all eternity,' must be as eternal as God; yet, nevertheless, it could not be that God with whom it (the Word) was; and therefore, if this be God as well as that, it makes out two Gods as clearly as two and two make four.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Passing on in the Creed, we no tice the following: God is willing to be reconciled to us, and ready to remit the sins that are past, if we repent. Astonishing! How can God, who changeth not, be willing to be otherwise than what he is? And how can vain man suppose that any thing which he can do, may produce a reconciliation in God? If God be willing to be reconciled, is he not equally willing to effect that which will make bim so? The Scriptures do not tes tify of any unreconciliation in the mind of God, but that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself' (2 Cor. v. 19); not saying that he is willing to be reconciled to the world, because this would imply that he is changeable, as well as man. That God forgiveth sins on repent ance, we readily admit; but if he for giveth sin on repentance now as he always did, why should it be supposed that he doth this for the sake or on account of something else which he has received as a satisfaction, in the room and stead of that punishment which the sinner is supposed to have

deserved? God always did and always will forgive the truly penitent, merely because he delighteth in mercy.'

"But the Creed continues: 'He (Christ) is both the word of faith and a quickening spirit in us, whereby he is the immediate cause, author, object and strength of our living faith in his name and power, and of the work of our salvation from sin and the bondage of corruption.' This, unless they mean to speak of Christ figuratively, meaning thereby the doctrine of Christ, is wholly unintelligible; but if this be their meaning, why did they not use language more definite and less liable to be misconstrued? One great object in having a creed is, in having something plain, explicit and easy to he understood, in and through which professing Christians may unite in a kind of spiritual and heavenly union. But as we have begun to dive into the hidden mystery of something we profess not to understand, so we must proceed. 'The Son of God cannot be divided from the least or lowest appearance of his divine light or life in us, any more than the sun from his own light,' &c. All this, to men of common sense, is unintelligible lan guage of which there was more of the like nature, which we did not think it expedient to quote. The above may suffice as a specimen.

"Is it meant to be understood that there is any thing of this divine light or life' of the Son of God' in every person? If so, it makes the salvation of all as secure as that of the Son of God, because he cannot be divided' from it (and of course they cannot be divided from him) any more than the sun can be divided from his own light. But if it be meant that the least or lowest appearance of his di vine light and life in us,' is something supernatural, which none but the power of God can produce, and none but the goodness of God can give, and that it is given to some while it is withheld from others, then here is clearly perceived all the horrid partiality of Calvinism, veiled, indeed, in the mystery of Quakerism, But the words are so couched, and it appears not without design, that they will admit not only either of the above constructions, but that of Arminianism! Wonderful Creed! to which men of such opposing sentiments might, perhaps, subscribe with

out violating their consciences, because each could give a construction to suit himself!

[ocr errors]

Speaking of believing_unto justification, the Creed says, By the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ without us, we, truly repenting and believing, are, through the mercy of God, justified from the imputation of sins and transgressions that are past, as though they had never been committed. And by the mighty power of Christ within us, the power, nature and habits of sin are destroyed; that as sin once reigned unto death, even so now grace reigneth, through righteousness, unto eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.' The meaning, if it have any, is above our comprehension. To our understanding, faith is produced by evidence, not by obedience, and obedience may be the fruit of faith. What is meant by the common sacrifice'? And what was effected by it? What is meant by the propitia tory sacrifice of Christ without us'? And what connexion hath that with the mighty work of Christ within us? What is this mighty work? What sins have been imputed to us, more than what we have personally committed? What proportion of the mighty work here spoken of belongs to our truly repenting and believing'? What to the sacrifice of Christ without us? And what to the mercy of God? For it seems that, according to the above Creed, all have something to do in the case; and how is any one to know or understand what is to be performed by himself, what has been done for him by Christ, or for what must he depend wholly on the mercy of God?

"Is it at all to be wondered at that the younger part of the Society, whose minds are yet open and free to judge for themselves what is rational, were almost to an individual disposed to reject this creed? But it has taught them a good lesson, and we hope that old and young will profit by it. It will teach those whose minds are not fully established, not to place such implicit confidence in the supposed guidance of the Spirit in their spiritual leaders, as they have hitherto done: for if they have the Spirit of God to direct them, they certainly stood in the most need of it when they were framing a Creed which was

designed to give a proper direction to the minds of all the Society, particu larly to the young. But will any one believe that the above Creed was ever dictated by the Spirit of God? If so, the medium of communication was certainly an unfortunate one, for much of it either has no meaning_at all, or else its meaning cannot be understood from the words used to express it. Let Friends (a dozen of them or so, to try the experiment) undertake to answer the questions we have proposed, and let them all agree to answer them according to their understanding of the Creed, and see how many or how few will answer them alike. And if they cannot agree among themselves what it means, how could it have been any guide to others? It is doubted whether the framers of this Creed themselves (for it is supposed there must have been more than one) would agree in all points relative to the questions we have proposed.

"We congratulate the young Friends on their success in checking in the bud an attempt (as we consider it to be) to lord it over their faith, so as not to let them judge for themselves in matters of religion, or at least not to be permitted to express their judg ment, unless their opinion should coincide with that of their spiritual guides. It is manifest to all who are acquainted with the circumstances and facts, that this Creed was designed to have a particular bearing on an individual [Elias Hicks] whose boldness and independence of mind has occasioned of late some considerable excitement among the Friends. But the veil was too thin, and the more liberalminded discovered the fetters which were to bind down the mind and prevent free inquiry, before the rivets were wholly fastened upon them. We sincerely hope that this will be a good lesson to all Creed-makers in future.

"We can assure the Friends that we mean them no harm, nor even disrespect, but verily a kindness, by the liberty we have taken. We shall not name the person who lent us the copy, but presume that he was not aware that we should make extracts from it, much less publish them. If, therefore, we have committed an error in this respect, it is all our own, and no fault of his."

« AnteriorContinua »