Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

that case there would have been a parallelism between Christ and Adam, which is here expressly denied.-P. 239.

66

We are not disposed to deny Mr. Terrot's doctrine, but we cannot altogether subscribe to his manner of stating it. It is certain that, in whatever future curse the sin of Adam involved us, that curse was removed by Christ being made a curse for us." "As in Adam all die, EVEN SO (oŰTw kaì) in Christ shall all be made alive." This must refer to spiritual death, because it is plain matter of fact that Christ has not delivered us from temporal. But Mr. Terrot's unqualified statement would seem to subvert this very evident truth. His doctrine, as we conceive, is, and it may be true, that death eternal was not entailed upon Adam's posterity in consequence of the sinful nature which they inherited from him: but since this sinful nature is sure to produce its proper fruit, which does merit everlasting punishment, this distinction is of little consequence; and we are certain that the sacrifice of Christ exerts ALL its efficacy upon spiritual life. We cannot, therefore, but consider Mr. T.'s comment at best unguarded; and even if ever so well expressed, an useless distinction.

On chap. VI. ver. 3, we have the following note :-

εβαπτίσθημεν εις τον θανατον αυτου, means, not to profess in baptism a faith in the meritorious efficacy of Christ's death, which would be quite foreign to the argument, but rather to profess an imitation of his death for sin, by our death to sin. The Apostle in Col. ii. 11, 12, shews that the spiritual essence of baptism was "the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh" and in Titus iii. 4, 5, he directly connects the outward sign, the washing of regeneration, with the inward grace, the renewing of the Holy Ghost; which in the next verse he speaks of as having been already abundantly poured upon them. There can be no doubt that the church in the purest ages considered baptism as being not merely typically but actually a new birth. Thus Basil de S. S. x. p. 167. Apxn (wns To βαπτισμα, και πρωτη ήμερων εκεινη της παλιγγενεσίας ἡμερα. And Greg. Naz. Or. x. p. 169. calls the newly baptized person νεοκτιστον ψυχην, ἣν το Πνευμα δι' ύδατος ανεμορφωσεν. Ρ. 244.

The Paraphrase, which follows up the same view of the text, is, we think, luminous and just. It must naturally be annoying to the advocates of a non-baptismal regeneration, and CONSEQUENT irrespective predestination, to be reminded that the Apostle of their choice, in the Epistle of their admiration, has taken the opposite view. Here Mr. Terrot has not escaped the censure of the Eclectic reviewers, (as the reader will find, from a letter in the miscellaneous division of this number). We do not ordinarily intermeddle with brother critics; but since Mr. Terrot himself has called our attention to this subject, we could hardly justify ourselves, did we not give a passing notice to the temerity which calls the doctrine of baptismal regeneration a dogma, which has much the same affinity

Let not this be forgotten. Admit this doctrine, and all the horrors of Calvinism NECESSARILY follow. This is often lost sight of by men of better intention than argumentative powers.

with the doctrine of Paul, as that of penance or extreme unction. The Eclectic reviewer must have been very ignorant, or something much worse, if much worse can be in a man who undertakes to pronounce judgment on important scripture doctrines. Baptismal regeneration (which penance and extreme unction never were) has been abundantly proved to be the doctrine of the primitive church: it has been proved, to all minds whose attachment to private opinion is not stronger than their openness to fair grammatical reasoning, to be the doctrine of SCRIPTURE: and is this plain doctrine, thus confirmed, thus sanctioned by the voice of the ancient catholic church, to be confounded, at nineteen centuries distant, with the vilest rubbish of Rome, solely because it presents an impenetrable barrier to a tenet alike false and horrible? The importance of theological error is no where more conspicuous than in this instance. An hypothesis degrading to God, and preposterous as regards man, is assumed; it must be maintained at all hazards; and, therefore, scripture and primitive antiquity must be denied or falsified.

In chap. VI. ver. 23, we have the following very excellent note;— Zwn alwvios. Here we may observe, that eternal life, which means not merely eternal existence, but eternal blessedness, is given conditionally; for the wages of sin being death, i. e. eternal misery, eternal happiness must be conditional upon our forsaking sin. Yet it is not ovwvia but xapioμa, not the payment of something fairly earned, but a free gift unbought and unmerited by any thing that the holiest Christian has done or can do. Divines of the Calvinistic school are fond of considering it as a contradiction to talk of the conditions of a free gift. But is there any absurdity in saying, that a king offers a free pardon to rebels, on condition of their laying down their arms?— P. 247.

In entering on that part of the eighth chapter which refers to the doctrine of predestination, and on the ninth, which is now pretty generally considered untenable ground even by Calvinists themselves, Mr. Terrot observes:

The reader may be presumed to know that we are now entering upon a portion of the Epistle, which has always been a field of controversy between Calvinists and Arminians. It has been the author's object, both in the Paraphrase and Notes, to avoid as much as possible all reference to either system, and to explain merely the proper sense of the terms used by the Apostle, and the mutual connexion of the propositions which he advances.-P. 261.

And Mr. Terrot has kept to his intention, with a very praiseworthy fidelity. The following note, though not original, is clear and excellent; and if it shews not how predestination and free agency may be reconciled, it at least demonstrates that they are reconcilable.

God foreknows all persons and things equally: when, therefore, it is said that God foreknew certain individuals, we must understand that he foreknew something of them, which he did not foreknow of others, and this circumstance must have been either mentioned or alluded to in the preceding context. But the only circumstances mentioned are, that they were called by the offer of the gospel, and that they loved God. And since many are called who are not chosen,

it follows that the foreknowledge here spoken of, is God's foreknowledge that they would accept the offer of salvation, and consequently love Him.-P. 262.

The text, ix. 3, ηὐχόμην γὰρ αὐτὸς ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ Twv ádeλpov pov, has been variously interpreted. It seems admitted on all hands that the Apostle could never mean to imprecate upon himself eternal perdition, even though the salvation of all his brethren should be the consequence. For this reason we cannot approve Mr. Terrot's version.

Were it, indeed, of any avail, I could pray that I myself were separated from Christ, if thereby my brethren according to the flesh could be admitted to the blessings forfeited by me.-P. 137.

To be separated from Christ is what no Christian could have implored under ANY circumstances. Mr. Terrot, after adducing

several very unsatisfactory expositions, adds of his own store

The Apostle might, therefore, express a wish that, if it were possible, he might change places with his brethren; that they might possess the faith which he had, while he came into their state of unbelief; but without saying or meaning that this unbelief must necessarily be final. Upon the whole, however, it seems unnecessary, perhaps impossible, exactly to define the Apostle's meaning. In the warmth of his zeal he expresses himself willing to make any sacrifice for his brethren; perhaps without calculating, even in his own mind, the exact extent of the sacrifice. And this is the more probable, as he well knew, that no sacrifice on his part could be available for their salvation.-P. 266.

Now this, we think, is not as felicitous as Mr. Terrot is wont to be. St. Paul had known, by melancholy experience, the miseries of a state of unbelief; it is not to be believed that he could have again wished to incur them. The zeal of the Apostle is well known and acknowledged; yet it is hardly conceivable that the Spirit of God should have allowed him to record his willingness to make a sacrifice which would have been absolutely sinful, even though his zeal at the moment might have betrayed him into thoughtlessness. The reason last assigned is, in our opinion, any thing but "probable;" to make large professions, large too, because he knew he could not realize them, is surely very unworthy of a Christian, and more so of an Apostle. To us the interpretation of Edwards appears the most satisfactory. The Jews bore a national curse from Christ, which was, by consequence, temporal. They lost all their privileges; and, in return, suffered great miseries and privations, on account of their national sin, in the rejection and murder of the Messiah. The Apostle might, with true Christian charity, and yet with true Christian affection for his Lord, wish that he could bear this temporal judgment in their stead; and this, we conceive, was his meaning.

The remark on chap. XI. ver. 5, is too prolix to be quoted-too concise to be abridged. But it is triumphant against Socinianism.

On the eleventh verse, it is judiciously observed,

Ἡ κατ' εκλογήν προθεσις.—The reader will observe, the Apostle is here speaking, not of the election of individuals to eternal life, but of a certain individual and his posterity to be the depositaries of God's law, and the origin from which Messiah as to his human nature was to spring. If then any choose to use this text in support of the Calvinistic hypothesis, they ought to be aware, that it can be so applied only by inference, the propriety of which inference may fairly be questioned.-P. 269.

But we do not altogether approve Mr. Terrot's version of μnw yàp YEVvηOEVTWV, though it follows in substance the authorized translation. He paraphrases, or rather renders, "when the children were yet unborn." Now the original passage referred to (Gen. xxv. 23), shews that the ellipsis ought to be supplied, "the nations;" for the expression is, "Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the elder shall serve the younger." Besides, we know that Esau in person never served Jacob; although the Edomites became tributary to Israel. Mr. Terrot and our version both obscure the sense, and seem to refer to an individual election, what the whole text and context prove to belong to national; what Mr. Terrot acknowledges to be so, and what must indeed be so acknowledged by every candid critic.

There is one observation which we will add to what we have already said on particular portions of this work, although it is an objection which incurs the risk of being charged with hypercriticism. Mr. Terrot's work is designed for UTILITY, and is so very useful, that we would willingly see nothing wanting to the objection. We can speak from experience, that its utility is much impeded by the simple omission of the chapter at the head of the page both in the text and notes. We think we should not be saying too much in affirming, that it has cost us at least twice the pains to analyse and examine the work under its present disadvantages, which it would, had this slight addition been made. We therefore recommend to Mr. Terrot the adoption of this plan in future editions. But although this difficulty might be removed with little trouble, it is not one of those difficulties which improve while they exercise the reader; yet even with this disadvantage, the theological and biblical student will find his labours amply repaid by the critical perusal of this volume; and with less time and study than by any other means known to us, will be enabled to gain a distinct comprehension of this portion of Scripture.

We think the appearance of this work calculated to do more good in assisting the eradication of the perverse dogma of unconditional election and reprobation than any thing lately published. It is so perfectly candid; no attempt is made to distort a text; the interpretations are so fully confirmed by meditation and grammatical examination, that with unprejudiced minds it must have weight,

and with not a few of the less blindly prejudiced. The errors of the unlearned are here combated by learning; and the unstable may here find somewhat scriptural to rest on. Indeed the ninth chapter of this Epistle, the ancient stronghold of fatalism, seems now pretty generally admitted to be inapplicable to the question: and an ingenuous spirit, aided by an extended inquiry, which works like the present eminently facilitate, will dissipate the dreams of presumptuous confidence, and scatter the darkness of a groundless despair.

ART. II.

A Treatise on the Doctrine of the Atonement: by CHARLES JERRAM, M.A. Vicar of Chobham, Surrey. London. 8vo. 1828. Price 9s.

WHILST the Deist laughs at the very notion of a Mediator, and the philosophising Christian fashions it to his own hypothesis, it is the duty of those "whose lips should keep knowledge," to vindicate the word of truth from the mischievous assaults of both. That duty has been well discharged by Mr. Jerram in the Treatise before us. To those who are acquainted with the writings of Butler and Horsley, Magee and Pearson, the Vicar of Chobham will offer nothing new; (novelty, indeed, upon such a topic is almost impossible ;) but he who wishes to see the great doctrine of the Atonement perspicuously handled in a small compass, may profitably consult the volume, of which we extract the following account from the Preface.

The great object I have had in view was to set the scriptural doctrine of the Atonement in a clear and full point of view: to separate it from all extraneous matter and minute refinements; to give a plain answer to the objections brought against it; to establish it on the clearest scriptural evidence; and to rescue it from the charge of being founded on principles contrary to the constituted order and fitness of things. The principal merit of the work, (if it have any,) consists in its laying before the reader a connected view of the whole subject.-Pp. 8, 9.

That the blessed Son of God laid down his life as an expiatory sacrifice, whereby he made an atonement for transgression, and propitiated our offended God by his vicarious sufferings, is indeed the corner-stone of the Christian Fabric ;-the beginning, the middle, and the end of the oracles of truth. "To know Jesus Christ, and him crucified," is life eternal: not to know him as "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world," is to be ignorant of the first principles of Christianity; and the mixture of error with our notions upon this tremendously important topic, in proportion as it vitiates our faith, so does it endanger our best hopes.

The doctrine has an inseparable connexion with the entire system of religion, and enters essentially into the whole experience and hopes of the Christian. If he find, on inquiry, that he is wrong in this article of his faith, he is wrong in every other; and he will have every thing to begin afresh. He must find a new mode of obtaining pardon of sin and peace of 3 P

VOL. XI. NO. VIII.

« AnteriorContinuar »