« AnteriorContinuar »
part “ seen" and part "not seen!!” to Christ, are thus made the subject Such are a part only of the absurdi- of a new proposition; and the pasties arising from this attempt to force sage reads" of whom was Christ a metaphorical sense, on one of the according to the flesh. He who was simplest passages of the Scripture. all is God, blessed forever.” Under
Mr. Stuart next appeals to Rom. certain circumstances undoubtedly ix. 5. “Of whom is Christ according the words 'o ww may thus commence to the flesh, who is over all God a new sentence, to wit, when there is blessed forever." The Reviewer no preceding noun to which they natmakes a feeble effort to convert the urally refer. When such a noun prelast clause of this verse into a doxolo- cedes, however, the words 'o wv, by one gy, in direct contradiction to the ac of the most common usages of the lanknowledged usage of the language. guage, reser back to that noun, and He assigns this reason, however, for go on to describe it by some additiona departure from that usage in the al circumstance or titlet (in the paspresent instance; that the words Sage before us by the words επι παν* who is over all,” are designed to TW Eos, God over all.) If this esrepresent God as “ Author and Head tablished usage is to be violated in of the Jewish dispensation” spoken the present case the Reviewer should of in the preceding verses ; wbich at least, have produced a few instanreference to God considered in this ces to authorize the violation. No character, would be lost by any dif- such instance occurs in the New Tesferent arrangement of the words.” tament; we recollect none elsewhere; But how would it be lost ? If the and we believe he will find it difficult word “ all” refers to the things enu to adduce many cases (in violamerated in the preceding verses, sure tion of the general rule) in whicho ww ly it may do this, though euroyntos, preceded by a noun to which it may e blessed” should precede. “Bless- naturally refer, and followed by aned be he that is over all,” (i. e. the other noun (like eos in the present things enumerated above) is exactly case) descriptive of character, is made the same with “ He that is over all
+ Instances of so common a usage scarce. (i. e. the things enumerated above) ly need be given. The reader may bow. be blessed.” We appeal with confi ever refer to John i. 18. 2 Cor. xi. 31. dence to any person acquainted with
Rev. v. 5. In the last passage by altering the original, that the ordinary colloca- Reviewer, the meaning may be wholly
the punctuation after the manner of the tion of suroyntos need not have been changed.' Place a colon after the word altered to express the idea of the Re asar in the original, and give to the infiviewer; though we think it clearly, than which nothing is more common; the
nitive arogas the sense of the imperative, not the true sense of the passage.
passage then reads,
“ And one of the ElConscious apparently, that this ground ders saith unto me, weep not : behold the is untenable, the Reviewer now chan- Lion hath prevailed. He who is of the ges his position, and by the magic of tribe of Judah, the root of David, let bim
open the book and the seven seals tberea new punctuation, reduces to perfect of." “ The Lion," and "he who is of the order, ihis obstipate and perplexing tribe of Judah” thus become two distinct passage. Place a colon after sapxa beings, like“ Christ,” and “God over all"
in the Reviewers translation. No one is and a comma after wavrwv in the ori.
weak enough to receive this; and yet the ginal, and the work is done. « The
words will bear it, if Rom. ix. 5 will bear words 'o wv, which naturally refer back the Reviewers version. Ifyou reason from
the scope of the passage, we sincerely think, *The Reviewer remarks that the inter tbat two arguments can be brought against pretation here given is not the one com the new translation of Rom. ix. 5, for one mepled upon by Mr. Stuart. Ought he against that of Rev. v. 5. In Col. iv. 1), not in fairness io have added, that Mr. likewise, by placing a colon after the Stuart's argument lies against a doxology word Justus, os Ortes will be made the subin any shape whatever ? Why did he not ject of a new proposition, expressing with sneet Mr. Stuart on all his points instead of emphasis, a very different meaning from merely attemptiog to evade a single one? that of the Apostle.
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 Jno. XX. 28.--" And Thomas anhuman nature (50 xata dapxa) is said swered and said unto him, my Lord, to have descended from the Fathers ? and my God.” For adducing this text, What if I should affirm that David, Mr. S. has given the following reasons. as to his buman nature was descend
1. There is no satisfactory proof, that it ed from Jesse? Would you not of is an exclamation of surprise or astonishcourse ask what other nature he had ? ment. No phrase of this kind, by wbich
the Jews were accustomed to express surAnd such an enquiry, forced upon us
prise or astonishment, has yet been produby the expression in question, the A- ced; and there is no evidence that such a postle has immediately answered; as phrase, with the sense alleged, belongs to to his nature not human, he was “su
ibis language. 2. The evangelist tells
us, that Thomas addressed himself to Je. preme God, blessed forever. Amen.'
SUS'; said to him FITTY AUTO; he did not The Reviewer has, however, one merely exclaim. 3. The commenda. sweeping argument in reserve-some tion, which the Saviour immediately beof the Greek Fathers did not under stows upon Thomas, serves chiefly to destand this passage in the orthodox fend the meaning, that I attach to the
Cbrist commends bim for having sense. Origen particularly considers
seen and believed. The evidence that he Christ as not being “ God over all;" believed, was contained in the expression which proves either that the passage before us did not stand in his copy of
* By a singular fatality, men who bave
departed from the simplicity of the Gosthe Scriptures as it does in ours; or pel, sometimes like Origen, contradict the that the Greek idiom does not require very terms of Scripture, while they apthe orthodox interpretation. An ap- pear wholly unconscious of the fact. We peal to the Fathers as biblical critics, this kind in one of Dr. Priestley's works,
distinctly recollect a striking instance of and especially to Origen, would be though we bave not the volume at hand thought by some, to partake a little to give the passage. Mr. Belsbam in his of the ridiculous. Our means of un
Calm Inquiry, p. 190, says " we bave no derstanding the Scriptures are well clusion whether Jesus through the whole
sufficient data to lead to a satisfactory conknown to be incomparably superior course of his private life was completely to theirs. Even as to idiom, Origen exempt from all the errors and failings of sometimes blunders ; witness his ar. human nature ;" though the Apostle
had gument founded on the assumption minster in his Sermons, page 307, says,
declared that “ he did no sin." Mr. Buck. that dia cannot denote the efficient « There is nothing in the Scripture which cause, which every one knows to be represents that Christ has made it just for false (vide Rom. xi. 36. Heb. ii. 10.) God to forgive sins now, upon repent
ance, when it would not have been be. But could Origen in direct terms, con fore.” Can there be a more direct contradict so plain a passage of Scrip- tradiction of the Apostle who affirms of ture? Such things have happened. Christ, "Whom God hath set forth to be Origen himself maintains that Christ a propitiation-to declare at this time bio died as a sacrifice not for men only, the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."
righteousness, that He might be just, and but for all rational beings; in point should it be convenient a thousand years ed contradiction to the whole tenor bence, to prove that these passages of of the Scriptures: and particularly Scripture did not exist in the English verto Heb. ii. 16. He contends that tury, or that ihey must have been general.
sion at the beginning of the nineteenth cennot only all men, but the devils them- ly understood in a sense very different selves will at last be saved; notwith- from their literal and obvious meaning, standing Christ bad declared “these nothing would be easier or more conclu
sive than to produce the authority of Mr. shall go away into everlasting pun. Belham, and Mr. Buckminster.
under examination: for before uttering To such a construction of the pasthis expression he is represented as doubi
sage, there is this insuperable objecing.-p. 84.
tion, that it makes the humiliation of To this the Reviewer has made no Christ a negative act; consisting reply. Mr. C. conjectures, that,“ my merely in his not taking that “perLord," was addressed to the Saviour, sonal distinction” which he might and that, “ my God," after a pause properly have assumed. But the was addressed to the Father, or that Apostle represents it as a positive Thomas left the sentence unfinished
act—" taking (naewv) the appearthrough the force of his feelings !- ance of a servant.” This language He is also pleased to say, that this decisively indicates a change of state confession of the believing disciple, is
-a previous elevation and a subsethe “ passionate language of an unin- quent depression; for how could spired man,"_“the broken excla- Christ “lower himself by taking the mation of a man strongly moved.” appearance of a servant,” unless he Whether he regards it as the “rhap- had previously worn some other“ apsody of wonder,” or “the bombast of pearance ?” This the Reviewer eveulogy," or as a sudden burst of pro- idently feels; and he therefore says fanity, we are not able to decide. Be that Christ á lowered himself to the this as it may, the exclamation must be
condition of common men." “ Loisconsidered as unmeaning and imperti- ered himself? Was he not always Dent, as the cry of Herod's admirers, in the condition of “ common men," and yet, for this groundless, not to say from his first appearance on earth? impious compliment, Jesus promised Whether he was the carpenter of eternal blessedness to all who should Nazareth and served his father, or the afterwards adopt it!
preacher of Gallilee and ministered Passing by a number of other pas- to his disciples, his condition was the sages adduced by Mr. Stuart, we now
same; and if he ever had the “apcome to Phil. ii. 5-8. " Who be
pearance of a servant,” he carried it ing in the form of God, thought it" with him from the cradle to the grave. &c. Of this passage the Reviewer Patiently to remain in this state withgives the following translation.
out aspiring to greater a personal dis"Let the same dispositions (of humility tinction” might be an illustrious act and benevolence] be in you which were in Jesus Christ; who being the image of referred to by the Apostle, for he
of humility ; but it was not the act God, did not think his likeness to God, a thing to be eagerly retained, but lowered could not speak of Christ's “ taking” himself, and took the appearance of a ser. an " appearance” which he had alvant, and became like men; and being in the common condition of a man be bum
ways worn, a condition of life in bled bimself, and submitted to death, even
which he was placed by God from be death of the cross."
the birth. Nor could he, without the We believe, that the original passage af- grossest abuse of language, employ fords no more proof of the Trinity, than the words “taking the appearance of the translation which we have just given, Christ was in the form of God, or was the
a servant,” to express a humility image of God, on account of the authority which consisted merely in remaining delegated to him as the messenger of God as he was—in not assuming personlo men, the divine power committed to
al distinction, rank, or splendor. him of performing miracles; and because as an instructor he spoke in the name of Not ascending to a higher station, is God, as he was laughtly God. Yet not. a totally different thing from actually withstanding he bore this high character, taking” a low one. he was not eager to assume it for the sake
Again the Reviewer says,
6 Christ of any personal distinction, rank, orsplendour, or to obtain any other personal grat.
was in the form of God, or was the ification. tle lowered himself to tlie cun. image of God on account of the audition of common men; lived in similar thority delegated to him as the mescircumstances to theirs, and submitted to senger of God to men; the divine similar deprivations, and sufferings. --Pp. 416, 417.
power committed to him of performVol. 3_No. III. 19
ing miracles.” But the language of and "like.” Objects which are equal the Apostle implies, that Christ laid are indeed alike; but they are more aside the (Mopon €8) “ form or im- than merely alike; and it certainly age of God," when he took the cannot be contended that the gens form of a servant.” Did he then eral resemblance expressed by ouo105, ever relinquish his “authority as a is all that is properly denoted by messenger of God," or "the divine the perfect correspondence or equalpower of performing miracles?”– ity of scos. The passage thereNever. Then he did not lay aside fore remains unshaken. Cbrist is the image of God, according to the declared to have existed before he Reviewer's own statement; for here. appeared on earth, both in the form tained those things in which that im- of God and with an equality to God. age consisted. On this point again Among passages pronounced by there is a direct contradiction to the tbe Reviewer to be mistranslated in Apostle's meaning.
our common version, are such as Christ, according to the Reviewer's speak of Christians under the title of translation of the words, “ did not " those who call on the name of the think his likeness to God, a thing to be Lord,” (or Etixa suevos so ovojla Kueagerly retained.” But in what sense pix.) These, he says, may with ewas this the fact? Not as to his holiness qual propriety be rendered, “ those or wisdom, for in these attributes he who are called by the name of the surpassed every human being, and was Lord;" or those who call themselves most conspicuously in the “ likeness by the name of the Lord.” After of God.” The stupendous power of the severe censure which he had passworking miracles, likewise, which ed on Mr. Stuart, for neglecting to exmore than all other things united, es amine Wetstein opon a point of no cept holiness, constitutes the most importance to the argument, it would striking likeness to God," which perhaps have been more consistent inade Moses as God to Pharaoh in the Reviewer, before venturing --this power was “ retained” by this confident assertion, to have conChrist, to an exteot which exalted him sulted so common a work as Schleusinfinitely above every other messen ner's Lexicon or a Concordance of ger from God to man. What then the Scriptures. He would thus have did he not « retain” of “the likeness spared himself the pain of discovering, of God?' Personal distinction, rank when too late, that his translation is and splendour !" If this be the Re- in direct opposition to the invariable viewer's meaning, it is impious and usage of the Septuagint and Newdegrading to the character of God. Testament. In ihe expression “to It reduces the most illustrious exhibi- be called by the name” of any one, tion of Christ's humility, to this, that the word ovoua is uniformly in the dahe did not covet the contemptible tive, with or without a preposition; grandeur of the world ! In other res or in the nominative, by a well-knowo pects, in all that constitutes the real Hebraism; and never in the accusa* likeness of God,” Christ did retain tive, as in the case before us. The that likeness; while the Reviewer's appropriate sense of seixa hop with translation makes the Apostle declare croua in the accusative, is religious inthat he did not. The translation vocation;* and the proposed alteration therefore is incorrect. The words of the Reviewer is not only without ausra @sw, denote not merely resem- thority, but in pointed contradiction blance, but equality to God. And to the usage of sacred writers. such is the appropriate sense of was which is no less distinct from ouosos
* Vide Psalm cxv. 4. Lam. iii. 55–57. the proper expression for likeness, and a multitude of other passages, in all than the Latin words “equalis," and Hebrew, « 10 call on the name of the
of which the words correspond with the as similis," or the English "equal,” Lord" and deaote religious invocation.
ans at once.
rian interpretations and exposes their Scriptures, interpretar me readers...,
Of the passages cited by Mr. S. The nature of this argument and the the preceding are all* wbich are com manner in which it is disregarded, mented on by Mr. C. and the Review- will be seen in the following remarks er, and such is the strength of their of Mr. S. addressed to Mr. C. cause, as maiotained against one of
But in no single instance, bave you nothe most able and condensed se ticed the a connexions and circumstanries of arguments that we have had ces," in which the appellation of God is the happiness to see. The arguments
bestowed on Christ. Can you reasonably of Mr. S. are continued through near
expect your thinking readers will take this
assertion upon credit ? Are you not bound ly sixty pages, he takes up the Unita
the unifallacy; he gives the reasons for his
versal laws of erplaining human language,
that the New Testament writers have not own interpretation, derived from al
ascribed to Christ CREATIVE power, om. most every legitimate source of evi niscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, didence, fortifying the obvious mean vine worship, divine honours, and elernal
eristence! What are names in this dispute ? ing of passages by decisive subsidia
Show that these attributes are not ascri. ry considerations, and thus satisfying bed to Christ, and you make us Unitarithe candid mind pot less of the con
You ought not to take the clusiveness of his reasoning, than of advantage of representing our arguments
as consisting in tbat in wbich we do not zbe honesty of his intention to elicit
place reliance; and then intimate to our the true import of the inspired vol readers, " This is all which Trinitarians ume. In a manner entirely unlike have to allege in their own favour.” Disthis, Mr. C. and the Reviewer after pute can never be terminated in this way. lodging an appeal at the tribunal of bate. Many of your readers are certainly
Meet fairly and openly the points in dehuman reason, after pressing the doc too intelligent, and too consciencious to trines of their opponents with absur he satisfied with any other course. Any dity in every form in which misrep
other does not become your bigh charac
ter and distinguished inlents.-p. 117. , resentation could preserve plausibility, and in which versatile contrivance
We do then feel authorized to say, could shock or cajole the self-conceit
that Mr. S's. letters are a complete ed arbiter ; after having conducted to
and triumphant refutation of Mr. C. the conclusion that the doctrines in and virtually of the Reviewer on the debate are essentially incredible,”
grand points in debate. That Mr. C. and to be rejected whether the Bible should have wholly withdrawn from cootaios them or not; aim to elabo the controversy after the publication rate some hypothetical import from the of the letters addressed to himself, sacred text, or to evade and neutral was not to be expected. He has been ize its force by that apparatus of crit
considered, by his party, as one of the icism which we have examined, and
ablest defenders of their system of docagainst which all the precision and trines; nor has he, we believe, except power of language, would be utterly
in two or three occasional sermons, ineffectual and vain. of nearly forty appeared as an author for many years, texts dwelt upon in the argument by
but in the attitude of a controversialMr. S. no notice is taken; and what at
ist. Why theu, we have often asked least is enough to cover with shame
ourselves, has Mr. C. consented that and confusion of face, the theological
so able an answer to his sermon as Mr. combatant of honourable feeling, the
S's letters are on all hands acknowle very argument on which Mr. S. and edged to be, should pass without at other Trinitarians, place their chief least a professed reply? We confess reliance, and on the validity of which we have thought of the possibilhe designed to rest the whole cause, is
ity, and been often inclined to welnot even glanced at by his opponents.
come the hope, though with many
fears of its illusive nature, that his Mr. C. just mentions Heb. i. 8, and i
silence might yet prove to be no un300. v. 20, but without anticipating Mr. propitious omen; that perhaps the S's. argument.
reasonings of his antagonist may at