« AnteriorContinuar »
with ει γάρ. .
ROMANS III. 7, 8. MR. EDITOR,- I am desirous of submitting to the decision of your readers a version of Romans iïi. 7, 8, which always seemed to me the plain and simple meaning of the words, though I cannot find that any commentator, as far as my very limited reading goes, has adopted it. I do so with humility, as conscious how often our own hasty firstsight interpretations fall to pieces when compared with the masterly explanations of older and wiser men. The Apostle is contending that the wickedness of the Jews, though it brought about the design of the gospel-justification, would not be the more excusable, because it was thus productive of eventual benefits long before planned in the divine mind : for we know that God maketh even the wrath of man to praise and serve Him. “ And how," says he, “ could God ever condemn mankind for their sins, if nothing were ever to be punished which in any wise contributed to future good ?” Then follow the verses in question. I should be inclined to render verse 7 as a mere repetition of the former objection, and so make kai un correspond
“ For if the position be maintainable, that because the truth of God is illustrated by your infidelity, therefore you are not to be answerable for that infidelity, may we not, by an extension of the argument, assert, as indeed some say we do, that we may always purposely do evil, if good will thereby result, which doctrine leads its advocates to destruction ?" Literally, verses 6–8; “God forbid, since how then could God judge the world in general ? For if you may say, 'the truth of God has abounded yet more to His glory through my lie, and why then am I to be treated as a sinner?' may we not also declare (as we are scandalously reported, and as some affirm that we do say), that we may do evil in order that good may come, while truly the condemnation of such persons is just ? - Is this allowable? Is it correct? Or will not the Greek bear the construction ?
I would also ask those who are so great advocates for faith per se, whether niotis does not only, as Mr. Terrot remarks, in his Preface to the Romans, include its action, but furthermore, whether its more correct translation should not occasionally be “ fidelity.” Above, verse 3, “ God's faithfulness to his promises” (Titus ii. 2, 10.) as our received version gives it. 1 Tim. v. 12 ; " Because they have cast away their former fidelity of discipleship, and devotion to Christ's service.” 2 Tim. iv. 7 ; “I have kept, not my faith and confidence in Christ, but, my fidelity to Him as my commander.” The very phrase being thus frequently used in Polybius for faithfully discharging our obligations. See Parkhurst's Lexicon in enpéw, and TLOTòs, and Matthew xxv. 21; Luke xii. 42 ; xvi. 10, &c.
As these remarks are somewhat desultory, I shall take the liberty of adding yet another, perfectly unconnected with the preceding. Will they who are so fond of the unconditional and arbitrary interpretation of Romans ix. 21, be so good as to compare it, not only with the usual and most satisfactory place of reference (Jeremiah xviii. 1-11), but also with 2 Tim. ii. 20, 21? I am, Sir, Your very obedient humble Servant, and constant Subscriber,
Bishop BLOMFIELD's List.
A. D. 1826.
ON THE EVIDENCES. Horne's Introduction, Vol. I.
Butler's Analogy Paley's Evidences.
Van Mildert's Bampton Lectures. Bishop Porteus's Evidences.
Boyle Lectures. Beattie's Evidences.
Sherlock's Sermons. Chalmers's Evidences.
Jenkins's Reasonableness of ChrisLeslie's Method with Deists.
tianity. with Jews.
Douglas's Criterion of Miracles. Leland's Deistical Writers.
Bishop Marsh's Lectures.
COMMENTATORS. Patrick, Lowth, Whitby, &c.
Elsley on the Gospels. Graves on the Pentateuch.
Slade on the Epistles. Newton on the Prophecies.
D'Oyley and Mant's Bible. Sumner's Records of the Creation. Doddridge's Expositor. Prideaux's Connexion.
Clarke's Paraphrase of the Gospels. Josephus's Jewish Antiquities, Book Beausobre's Introduction to the N. T. XI. to end.
Wolfii Curæ Philologicæ. Schleusner's Lexicon of the N. T. Paley's Horæ Paulinæ.
ON DOCTRINE. Archbishop Wake's Catechism.
Scholar Armed. Hammond's Catechism for Reference. Pearson on the Creed. Bishop Tomline's Second Volume. Magee on the Atonement. Encheiridion Theologicum.
Nares and Rennel on the improved Bennet on the Study of the Articles. Version. Waterland's Works, by Van Mildert. Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony.
ON DISCIPLINE. Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity.
Shepherd on the Common Prayer. Beveridge's Sermons on the Common Potter on Church Government.
Prayer and the Christian Priesthood. Falkner's Libertas Ecclesiæ AngliMant's Common Prayer. Wheatly on the Common Prayer. Bishop Sanderson's Sermons.
ON POPERY. Bishop Marsh's Comparative View of Blanco White's Evidences against
the Churches of England and Rome. Catholicism. Secker's Five Sermons.
Southey's Book of the Church.
Crevier's Histoire des Emp. Rom.
Burnet's History of the Reforma
ON CLERICAL DUTIES, Burnet's Pastoral Care.
Brewster on the Ordination Services. Taylor's Institutions.
Chrysostom de Sacerdotis. Secker's Charges.
Hieronymi Epist. ad Nepot.
Addenda, A. D. 1827. Blomfield on the Traditional Know- Jennings's Jewish Antiquities. ledge of the Redeemer.
Stackhouse's History of the Bible. Blomfield's Lectures on St. John.
MEMOIR OF THE “EVER-MEMORABLE” MR. JOHN HALES.
Mr. Editor,- Among the dispersed and scarce productions of that learned divine, Bishop Pearson, is one prefixed to the “ Golden Remains of the ever-memorable John Hales. It is the “Preface to the Reader,"— an interesting piece of composition; and, coming from such a man, will, I am sure, gratify those of your readers who may not have already seen it. The insertion will also oblige yours, H.
“I intreat thee, reader, being deprived of the proper Plutarch, not to expect any such thing as a life from me : but to accept so much only as is here intended. If Mr. Hales were unknown unto thee, be pleased to believe what I know and affirm to be true of him: if he were known, then only be satisfied that what is published in his name did really proceed from him: and more than this needs not to be spoken in reference to the advancement of this work; because he which knew or believeth what an excellent person Mr. Hales was, and shall be also persuaded that he was the author of this book, cannot choose but infinitely desire to see and read him in it.
“ In order to the first of these, I shall speak no more than my own long experience, intimate acquaintance, and high veneration, grounded upon both,
shall freely and sincerely prompt me to. Mr. John Hales, sometime Greek Professor of the University of Oxford, long Fellow of Eton College, and at last also Prebendary of Windsor, was a man, I think, of as great a sharpness, quickness, and subtilty of wit, as ever this, or perhaps any nation bred. His industry did strive, if it were possible, to equal the largeness of his capacity, whereby he became as great master of polite, various, and universal learning, as ever yet conversed with books. Proportioned to his reading was his meditation, which furnished him with a judgment beyond the vulgar reach of man, built upon unordinary notions, raised out of strange observations and comprehensive thoughts within himself
. So that he really was a most prodigious example of an acute and piercing wit, of a vast and illimited knowledge, of a severe and profound judgment.
“Although this may seem, as in itself it truly is, a grand eulogium ; yet I cannot esteem him less in any thing which belongs to a good man, than in those intellectual perfections; and had he never understood a letter, he had other ornaments sufficient to endear him. For he was of a nature (as we ordinarily speak) so kind, so sweet, so courting all mankind, of an affability so prompt, so ready to receive all conditions of men, that I conceive it near as easy a task for any one to become so knowing, as so obliging.
“ As a Christian, none more ever acquainted with the nature of the gospel, because none more studious of the knowledge of it, or more curious in the search, which, being strengthened by those great advantages before mentioned, could not prove otherwise than highly effectual. He took indeed to himself a liberty of judging, not of others, but for himself: and if ever any man might be allowed in these matters to judge, it was he who had so long, so much, so advantageously considered; and which is more, never could be said to have had the least worldly design in his determinations. He was not only most truly and strictly just in his secular transactions, most exemplary meek and humble notwithstanding his perfections, but beyond all example charitable, giving unto all, preserving nothing but his books, to continue his learning and himself; which, when he had before digested, he was forced at last to feed upon, at the same time the happiest and most unfortunate helluo of books, the grand example of learning, and of the envy and contempt which followeth it.
“ This testimony may be truly given of his person, and nothing in it liable to the least exception, but this alone, that it comes far short of him. Which intimation I conceive more necessary for such as knew him not, than all which hath been said.
“ In reference to the second part of my design, I confess, while he lived none was ever more solicited and urged to write, and thereby truly to teach the world than he ; none ever so resolved (pardon the expression, so obstinate) against it. His facile and courteous nature learnt only not to yield to that solicitation. And therefore the world must be content to suffer the loss of all his learning with the deprivation of himself; and yet he cannot be accused for hiding of his talent, being so communicative, that his chamber was a church, and his chair a pulpit.
“Only that there might some taste continue of him, here are some of his remains re-collected ; such as he could not but write, and such as when written, were out of his power to destroy. These consist of sermons, miscellanies, and letters, and each of them proceeded from him upon respective obligations: this impression is further augmented with the addi on of some authentic letters, relating to the same transaction. His letters, though written by himself, yet were wholly in the
power of that honourable person to whom they were sent, and by that means they were preserved. The sermons preached on several eminent occasions were snatched from him by his friends, and in their hands the copies were continued, or by transcription dispersed. Of all which published for his, there is need to say no more than this, that you may be confident they are his. “This, reader, is all the trouble thought fit to be given thee by
“ JOHN PEARSON."
SERMONS FOR THE CHURCH SOCIETIES, MR. EDITOR,—Admitting, as every friend to the cause of truth must, the overpowering claims of the Christian Knowledge Society, I have been often at a loss to account for the apathy, or to say the least, the want of zeal, on the part of its avowed supporters and friends. It is true, most of them subscribe their annual guinea, and having done this, they seem to imagine that they have done all required at their hands-an assumption most injurious to the interests of the Society. It is not for me to point out all the various means, which, if employed by individual Christians, would lead greatly, under the Divine blessing, to promote the cause of christian truth ; but one means I must notice, which is this : that every clergyman should make it a matter of conscience to have a scrmon preached annually in behalf of the S. P. C. K. In many large towns, the sum thus collected would prove of immense benefit to the funds of the society. Nor should such collections be confined to large towns. Every village should have an opportunity of contributing a something, if only a widon's mite. That a disposition exists among even the poorer classes, to assist this cause, I am well persuaded from experience, and requires only to be appealed to, to call it forth into active exercise ; in proof of this, I would mention the following fact: The writer of this has the charge of a small parish in Lincolnshire; for the last half century, and perhaps longer, not a penny had been collected within the walls of the parish church, for any cause, divine or human, when this month he purposed having a sermon in behalf of the S.P.C. K. Many were the discouraging prognostications of thin attendance, and empty plates ; still he persevered; and the result was, that although the day was most unfavourable, and the congregation consequently small, the sum of two pounds was collected. Does this simple fact require a comment ?-Yours, Mr. Editor, respectfully,
A LINCOLNSHIRE CURATE.
COWPER NO CALVINIST. MR. EDITOR,- To attempt a proof of the proposition, “ Cowper WAS NO CALVINIST,”—nay, even to state it, may appear somewhat like presumption. This charge I am willing to incur, if any person is disposed to allege it, after
reading the quotations which I have selected in proof of my assertion. They are, I think, quite decisive of the question, and add one instance to the accumulated certainties which we possess, that an opinion, once current, is often allowed without examination, and thus error perpetuated to an infinite extent.
It is right, however, to state under what limitations I make the assertion, that CowPER WAS NO CALVINIST. No man can be a genuine Calvinist who does not hold the “horrible doctrine,” which is the very palladium of Calvinism, IRRESPECTIVE PREDESTINATION. That Cowper did not admit this doctrine is what I purpose to show: I mean, in his lucid intervals ; for, during his insanity, Calvinism was his belief certainly, if it was not indeed the disease itself. But, assuredly, the opinions of a man are not to be judged from extravagant notions which he may take up when his mind is in a state of incapacity to form any opinion whatever. When Cowper enjoyed the blessing of a healthful mind, and wrote those beautiful metrical essays, where fervent piety sanctifies brilliant wit and just views of human nature, he was, as I shall presently demonstrate, no believer in irrespective predestination. It is not to be denied, however, that Cowper appears
to have embraced one tenet, which, logically pursued, undoubtedly leads to the worst horrors of Calvinism; but it is certain, that he did not so pursue it; and there are many others who coincide with him in this illogical disjunction of consequences; I mean, the doctrine of non-baptismal regeneration. Yet, after all, it is not impossible that he used the word regeneration in a loose sense for renewal, which has been done even by divines, when they have not had an eye to this particular controversy: nay, (which is most to the purpose) by