Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

plete: he will not merely make them independent and free, but happy and enlightened. He will base his work upon eternity.

He must not then found it on a cheat, but on truth. But how reconcile this contradiction? The real God he dares not reveal to the Hebrews, because they are incapable of comprehending him; a fabulous one he will not, for he despises the base part. Nothing then remains but to announce to them his true God in a fabling manner. Now then he puts to the test his rational religion, and examines into the additions and erasures necessary to its favourable reception with his Hebrews. He places himself in their restricted situation, descends into their very soul, and discerns the hidden threads by which they may be bound to truth.

He attributes to his God those qualities which the intellect of the He brews and their present need demand. He adapts his Jao to the people to whom he is to be declared, and to the circumstances under which he is to be announced; and thus arises his Je hovah.

In the minds of his people he finds a belief indeed in divine things, but one that has degenerated into the rudest superstition. The former must be eradicated, but the latter maintained. He must disengage them from their present unworthy situation, and turn them to his new divinity. Superstition herself offers him the means. According to the universal delusion of the time, each nation stood under the peculiar protection of their national god, and their patriotic pride was flat tered by assigning him supremacy over the deities of all other countries. To these, divinity was by no means refused; it was even recognized; but they must not dare to elevate themselves above the national god. With this error did Moses connect the truth. He made the Demiurgos of the mysteries, the peculiar god of the Hebrews, but he advanced yet one step farther.

. He did not content himself with barely making this being the mightiest of all, but he made him the only one, and cast all others into their original nothingness. He granted him indeed to the Hebrews as a property, in order to accommodate himself to their mode

of representation, but at the same time subjected to him all other people and all the powers of nature. Thus he preserved in the model exhibited to the Hebrews, the two most important properties of the real God, unity and omnipotence; and made them more effective in this human covering.

The vain and childish vanity of possessing an exclusive deity must be rendered actively subservient to the interests of truth and procure an entrance for the doctrine of the one Supreme. It is, indeed, only a fresh error by which he overturns the old one, but an error far nearer to the truth than that which it supersedes, and this little alloy of delusion is precisely that which makes the reality welcomed; and all the progress he makes must be attributed to this looked-for misconception of his doctrine. What could the Hebrews have done with a philosophical god? With a tutelar deity he may achieve miracles. Place yourself once in the situation of the Israelites. Ignorant as they are, they measure the strength of the God by the fortune of the people who range themselves beneath his protection. Abandoned and oppressed by men, they believed themselves forgotten by all Heaven; the same relation they bear to the Egyp tians, must their respective gods maintain; the one can be but a twinkling light by the side of the other; perhaps they even doubt whether they really possess any. At once it is declared to them that they too have a protector in the starry circle, that he has awaked out of his rest, that he has girt himself and made ready to achieve wondrous deeds against his enemy.

This proclamation of a god is like the call of a general to enroll beneath his victorious banners. If this general give proofs of his strength, or if he be known of old times, the vestige of inspiration carries forward the most timorous, and this also Moses turned to the account of his enterprise.

The conversation which he held with the vision in the burning bush, presents us with the doubts that suggested themselves to his mind, and the manner in which he replied to them.

Will my unhappy nation place confidence in a god who has so long abandoned them; who now on a sudden

seems to fall from the clouds; whose name they have never once heard; who already, for long centuries, has been an unconcerned spectator of the ill treatment they have been compelled to endure from their oppressors? Will they not rather esteem as more mighty the god of their more fortunate foe? This was the next thought that must have arisen in the soul of the new prophet. But how does he now remove this difficulty? He makes his Jao the god of their fathers, incorporates him with their old traditions, and metamorphoses him into a native, ancient and well-known deity. But in order to prove that he means by this the real and only God, to guard by anticipation against confusion with any creature of superstition, to leave room for no possible misunderstand ing, he gives the sacred name which in fact appears in the mysteries, "I am that I am." "Thus shalt thou say to the people of Israel, (are the words which Moses puts into the mouth of God,) I am hath sent me unto you."

In the mysteries, God really bore this name one, however, utterly unin telligible to the stupid Hebrew people. They could by possibility attach no meaning to it, and Moses might have been much more successful with another denomination; but he would rather face this evil than give up a thought on which all was set, and this was to make the Israelites really acquainted with the God who was taught in the mysteries of Isis. As it is tole rably clear that the Egyptian mysteries had flourished long before Jehovah appeared to Moses in the thorn-bush, so it is truly remarkable that he should give himself the very name he had hitherto borne in the mysteries of Isis.

But it was not yet enough that Jehovah should announce himself as a familiar God, as the God of their fa thers; he must prove himself a mighty Being if he is to inspire courage in slaves; and this was so much the more necessary as their lot in Egypt could give them no high opinion of their Protector. As he would lead them on only by means of a third, he must confer power on the individual, and enable him, by extraordinary proceed ings, to vindicate both his own mission and the might and majesty of him by whom he was sent.

If Moses would accredit his mission, it must be supported by wonders. That he in fact worked these wonders, there is perhaps no doubt. How he achieved them, and how, above all, they are to be understood, is left to the consideration of each individual.

Finally, the allegory in which Moses relates his mission has all the necessary conditions for obtaining credit from the Hebrews, and this was all that was required with us it is no longer needful that it should have this effect. We now know, for instance, that it must be indifferent to the Creator of the world (should he ever reveal himself) whether he appear in the fire or in the wind, or whether his worshipers be bare-footed or not barefooted. Moses, however, makes Jehovah command that "the shoes should be put from off the feet," for he knew right well that he must aid the Hebrew ideas of divine sanctity by sensible signs, and a similar one he had borrowed from the initiatory ceremonies.

In like manner, doubtless, he thought that his slow speech would be preju dicial to him; he therefore anticipated this untoward occurrence, and, alleging in his narrative the objections he had to fear, leaves to Jehovah himself the task of refuting them. He undertakes the mission only after long opposition; the more weight then must be attached to the divine command which rendered it compulsory. Above all, he paints in his story, in the most detailed and precise manner, those particulars which to the Israelites, as to us, must be the most difficult to believe, and there is no doubt that he had good grounds for so doing.

What then, on a brief review of the preceding facts, was the peculiar plan laid down by Moses in the Arabian desert?

He wished to conduct the Israelitish nation out of Egypt, and to assist them in the acquisition of independence and of a political constitution in a country of their own. But because he well knew the obstacles to this enterprise; because he knew that it was impossible to reckon on the power of this people until they were inspired with self-confidence, zeal, hope and animation; because he foresaw that his eloquence would avail nothing with the abject slavish soul of the Hebrews,

he conceived that it would be necessary to proclaim a higher and celestial defence, to assemble them, as it were, beneath the banners of a divine commander.

He gives them therefore a god in the first place to liberate them from the Egyptians. But as to effect this alone would be doing nothing; as, in lieu of the country of which he deprives them, he must provide them with another, to be won and held sword in hand; so is it necessary that he should bind together their united powers in one commonweal, he inust give them laws and a constitution. Knowing as priest and politician that the firmest and most indispensable prop of all constitutions is religion, he must employ in the impending legislation that power which he at first only gave them for their deliverance from Egypt, to perform the functions of a mere general: he must too announce him in the beginning in

the character he is afterwards to fill:

For the purposes of legislation and the formation of the state, he requires the true God; for Moses is a great and noble man who cannot found on a lie a labour which is to endure. He seeks to make the Hebrews happy, and perinanently so, by the code he destines for them, and this can only be done by building the constitution on truth. For these realities, the understandings are as yet too obtuse, nor can they be introduced into the soul by the open path of reason. Where he cannot convince, he must persuade, overpower and bribe. He must bestow on the real God whom he announces qualities which will render him comprehensible and acceptable to weak minds; he must veil him in a heathenish garb, and be content, though they should prize in the divinity the drapery alone, and receive the truth only after a pagan form. And thus is he an infinite gainer, for he obtains a true and solid principle for his legislation, an essential foundation that no future reformer need overthrow for the purpose of improving or correcting particular parts-thus steering clear of an inevitable result in all false religions, as soon as flashed on by the torch of reason.

All other states of this and subsequent periods are founded on deceit, error and polytheism, although we

have seen that in Egypt a little circle existed, nursing just conceptions of the Supreme. Moses, himself one of this group, and being indebted to its tuition alone for his more elevated ideas, Moses is the first who ventures not simply to publish the hidden result of the mysteries, but even to make it the fundamental principle of a Republic. He becomes, therefore, for the advantage of the world and of posterity, a traitor to the mysteries, and admits a whole nation to the participation of a truth, hitherto the property of a handful of sages. He could not, indeed, together with the new doctrine, bestow a mind to grasp it, and in this respect the Egyptian Seers maintained a vast superiority. The Seers perceived the truth by their reasoning faculty; the Hebrews could, at the best, only blindly believe in it.

SIR,

Homerton, April 8, 1825.

M with the proposal of the fol

R. GIBSON has favoured me

lowing question, supplementary to the four preceding: "Will every individual be included in the act of Justification, who has improved to the utmost of his power the means for attaining personal holiness, placed within his reach by the Supreme Moral Ruler?" (P. 154.)

With deep humility of feeling, but with the most satisfactory conviction of mind, I record my decided reply, YES.

But I must also beg permission to ask a question and to add some remarks.

Quest. Where is, or ever was, such an individual, among all the sons of Adam; except the man Christ Jesus?

Rem. 1. Of such an individual, the Justification would be essentially different from that which I have endeavoured to describe, and to which I supposed Mr. Gibson's former questions to refer; namely, the Justification of a sinful human being, a Justification of which a free and full pardon is a necessary part. To the person whom Mr. Gibson now describes, that Justification would be irrelevant. Such a person needs no pardon. He is under no charge of defect or blame. He has "to the utmost of his power” improved his opportunities and means of attaining holiness and the Righ

teous Jehovah requires no more. We are commanded to "love the Lord our God with all our heart and mind and strength :" and that is all. Obedience is required only "to the utmost of our power;" but not beyond our power. The supposed individual would, therefore, not be justified as a sinner pardoned, and restored to the Divine favour, by a constitution of grace (which all admit the gospel to be); but he would be justified in another sense and upon a different principle. He would be treated as a sinless and meritorious person; that is, he would be approved, accepted and rewarded with heavenly happiness, upon the ground of his own perfect moral excellence.

2. If, however, Mr. Gibson do not intend his terms to be construed strictly, but design only to describe a character distinguished by a singularly eminent degree of that upright, impartial, and persevering obedience which may be predicated of every sincere Christian; my answer to the question would be still and most decidedly in the affirmative. But I would solicit attention to a very se

rious addition to the answer : that the

man who is most zealous and diligent in cultivating personal holiness will be the least disposed to rely upon his holiness, as the ground of his Justification. On the contrary, his moral sensibility is so quick and tender, and his conceptions of the perfections and government of God are so exalted, that no language can describe the strength of his conviction of the utter absurdity, yea the arrogance, the impiety, of considering his purest obedience, in any of its acts and through its whole continuance, as, in the smallest degree, a meritorious consideration for obtaining the pardon of sin and the blessedness of the Divine favour. He is unspeakably thankful that he is enabled to render that devout and constant obedience to his God, which is congenial to the best feelings and the warmest desires of his heart, and which he also knows to be the only genuine evidence of his being justified before God: but he is so sensible of its deficiencies and aberrations, that penitence and lowliness are among the strongest feelings of his mind, and he can find no peace or satisfaction in contemplating the results of his ac

countableness to the Most Holy One, excepting through the medium of the scripture-doctrine of Free Justification by the grace of God, through the redemption which is by Christ Jesus. The daily language of his soul is, "Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord; for in THY sight shall no flesh living be justified!What things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ: yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is by the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

God grant that this may be the sincere conviction and belief and desire of him that writes, and of every one that may read these words!

J. PYE SMITH.

Dr. J. Jones on Philo, Josephus,
False Gospels, &c.

the Gospel, but one of the most HILO was not only a believer in eloquent and intrepid apologists which the gospel ever had. Facts highly important respecting its divine origin and propagation may be gathered from his works. We might reasonably expect that an advocate so distinguished by zeal, rank and talents, should have been noticed in the New Testament : and I now propose to prove at least to shew by probable reasons-that Philo is the very person to whom Luke addressed his Gospel, under the name of Theophilus.

Tradition is very vague and uncertain as to the country in which the Evangelist Luke published his memoirs of Jesus Christ. We are not, however, without some testimony that Egypt was the place of its first publication: and this supposition is corroborated in a remarkable manner by internal evidence. I shall at present mention only one circumstance in its favour. The sacred historian speaks of many who took in hand to write about the things said and done by our Saviour. Origen and Jerome, if I remember rightly, two of the best informed of the Greek and Latin fa

[ocr errors]

thers, say, that in the number of the false gospels, to which the Evangelist alludes, was the famous Egyptian Gospel. It is reasonable, then, to conclude, that Luke wrote in the very country where the Egyptian Gospel was known and propagated, and this was Egypt, the birth-place and abode of Philo. Whoever might be the person to whom Luke dedicated his narrative, Theophilus was not his real name, but a name which he received in consequence of his conversion. The epithet Sons, indeed, was in use among the Greeks before the Christian æra; but the appellation Theophilus owes its origin to Christianity. It means e pinos, a friend of God, and points to pinay, or Philo, as the person to whom it first belonged. We recognize a similar change from Saul to Paul, which last (Paulus) being a Roman name, the Apostle adopted to hold forth that he was a Roman citizen. Abraham himself, after he believed in God, was called copies, or a friend of God; see James ii. 23: and all those who followed his example by their faith in Jesus might have had the same title: but the name and virtues of Philo naturally gave him a sort of exclusive right to it.

Farther, Philo was a civil magistrate, and at the head of the Jews in Alexandria; and this circumstance accords with the epithet xpats, which Luke annexes to Theophilus, and which implies the highest degree of influence and power.

We may gather from the writings of Philo that he had been instructed in the Christian doctrine some few years before the publication of Luke's Gospel in Egypt: and it is observable, and most characteristic of the fact for which I contend, that this Evangelist supposes this illustrious friend whom he addresses, to have been already acquainted with the transactions respecting Jesus Christ, which he was going to relate-"That thou mightest know the certainty of the accounts in which thou hast been instructed;" or, as the clause may be rendered, "of which thou hast been a catechumen." This last word is known to be derived from kзτηxeμevos, the passive participle of narxew, to catechize, the verb here used by Luke.

While I am on this subject I must notice a remark, made by the critic

who reviewed my Greek and English Lexicon in the Eclectic. The writer is an able scholar, and did my book, in some respects, justice; and we are to ascribe the following judgment to his jealousy and zeal for orthodox theology." The quality," says he, "of some of Dr. Jones's explanations of words occurring in the New Testament, will not, we apprehend, be very highly appreciated by intelligent and sober writers. Under avataσow, we have, I new model, forge, or falsify the gospel, Luke i. 1. Such meaning, we are persuaded, does not belong to the word. There is evidently nothing in the expression used by the Evangelist Luke, which can fix the charge of dishonest intention upon the writers, whose productions preceded his own Gospel."

Now, reader, judge between me and my Reviewer. Luke wrote his narrative that Theophilus might know the truth. It seems, then, that the many to whom he alludes as having already attempted to give a similar narrative, were little calculated to lead Theophilus and others to a knowledge of the truth. If the authors referred to were not calculated, or had no intention, to deceive their readers, then (Luke had good reason for determining not to write, as many honest and competent men had already written on the subject. Farther, Luke sets forth his own qualifications to write in opposi tion to the many who undertook to write on the same subject. He had himself, as his language implies, closely attended from beginning to end the transactions which he records; that is, he had been an eye and ear witness of all that his Divine Master said and did: he, moreover, was in the number of those Jewish believers to whom the Apostles, who had with him witnessed the same events, delivered an account of them in their discourses; so that he claimed the double qualification of having himself witnessed the things which he relates, and afterward of having heard an account of them from the mouth of those who had heard and seen them like himself. Now, why this emphasis and precision in stating his own competence as an historian of Christ? Clearly in reference to the "many," who at tempted to write without being so competent, who sought to lead Theo

« AnteriorContinua »