Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ing it was long concealed; and their infidelity is now too plainly discovered to be be mistaken or denied.*

In the article under consideration, the conductors of the Advocate use the following language:

"We regard one as our master, even Christ; from him we would derive our faith. We view him as the true light, and we would seek illumination from him, conceiving that his doctrines have the sanction of divinity. This is our impiety, and the whole of it. For this our names are cast out as evil; for this we are told that we deserve, and shall find, the hottest place in hell.”

In reply, I would barely ask these gentlemen, Where are you told so? And by whom? Just refer us to the author and page. When you have done this, and we have read for ourselves, we will believe you. But until you do it, we hold you chargeable with gross and unpardonable misrepresentation.

Again, these gentlemen assert in regard to the Bible,

"They (Unitarians) believe its doctrines inspired, but not, as it is said, its language; the matter, but not the style; the thought, but not the turn of expression in which it is conveyed; and therefore it is dogmatically asserted that they are to be classed with infidels."

Now, if it was true that the Unitarians here referred to merely denied the inspiration of the sacred writings, this would be no slight error, as it would go to destroy the infallible, binding authority of these writings, and, to some extent, their credibility.† But the individuals spoken of do more than this. In respect to many parts of the book of God, they do not believe" the matter" is inspired, any more than "the style ;"" the thought," any more than "the turn of expression in which it is conveyed." Speaking, for instance, of a passage in Timothy, the reviewers in the Christian Examiner ask, "Can any sensible man believe that these ideas were inspired? We presume not."

The object of leading, learned Unitarians, in rejecting the inspiration of the Scriptures, and adopting the views which have been exhibited, is too obvious to be mistaken. They find the plain testimony of Scripture against them, and are satisfied that, on principles of fair, grammatical interpretation, it can never be made consistent with the Unitarian doctrine. Much has been done in years past to bring into doubt and suspicion certain portions of the

*The conductors of the Advocate speak of it as a new thing for men such as they to be charged with infidelity. But they ought to remember, that they have themselves been complaining of this charge, from their first number to the last. See vols. i. p. 3, and ii. p. 27. In 1822, the conductors of the Christian Disciple thought it necessary to publish an article to vindicate themselves against the charge of infidelity. See vol. iv. pp. 313325. See also Chris. Exam. vol. v. p. 86.

On the subject of inspiration, as extending to the language of our sacred books, I quote with much pleasure the following passage from Ernesti. However we may be content to depend on human writers in human matters, yet in divine ones, containing rules of faith and life.... we cannot be content to depend on mere human strength. For IT IS HARDER TO WRITE ACCURATELY THAN TO THINK RIGHTLY, a truth very conspicuous in the writings of philosophers, who so often fail to express their meaning with accuracy. We conclude,therefore, that in the actual writing, the apostles were assisted immediately by the Holy Spirit, the choice and order of matter pointed out, and the necessary accuracy and certainty given; and that otherwise their writings could not properly be proposed as a rule of faith and life." See an art. in the Theol. Bibl. vol. iii. p. 469.

Bible, under a pretence of correcting the sacred text. Much, too, has been done by new translations, and by forced and far-fetched interpretations. But after all, there are, (as Mr. Dabney would say,) "vexatious passages," which cannot be disposed of by either of these methods. There are many things which do not

square with humanitarian theology; and the Orthodox doctrines of the divinity and atonement of Christ, of regeneration, justification by faith, and eternal punishment are too apparent. But what more can be done? The next resort is, to deny the inspiration of the sacred writings, and set them aside, as of infallible accuracy and binding authority. We will receive so much of them as seems to us reasonable, and reject the remainder.

The Liberalists of Europe, we know, have reasoned after this manner, whether those of this country have done so, or not. Wakefield acknowledges that the hypothesis of the two natures in Christ agrees best with the letter of Scripture;" but insists "that here the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."* Wegscheider too admits that "in Scripture, literally understood, there are some grounds (semina) for the Orthodox doctrine as to the union of two natures in Christ."+ Eichhorn, in his Introduction to the Old Testament, "confesses that the Orthodox interpretations are in perfect conformity with the text." Another of the German Rationalists, in accounting for the conversion of a celebrated theologian from Neology to Orthodoxy, says, "It was very natural, as he (the convert) was no friend of forced interpretations of the Scriptures." Professor Gabler, also a Rationalist, has the following concession; "Whoever proceeds from the principle of an immediate divine revelation through Christ, and is still decidedly heterodox, must either do the utmost violence to the clearest expressions of the New Testament, or be exceedingly inconsequent in all his reasoning: for an impartial view of Biblical Theology, as a history of the doctrines of the New Testament, must, in its nature, be PRETTY MUCH ORTHODOX."||

But I hasten to bring this communication to a close. The great importance of the subject is my only apology for presuming to occupy so large a portion of your pages as I have already claimed. If there is any subject which the people of God in all ages have been agreed in regarding as fundamental, it is the inspiration and binding authority of the sacred Scriptures. Our Saviour and his apostles appealed to the writings of the Old Testament, as to a perfect standard. The primitive Christians appealed to the canonical writings of both Testaments in the same way. "Look into the Holy Scriptures," says Clement," which are the true words of the Holy Ghost. Ye know that there is nothing unjust or counterfeit written in them." Sect. xlv. On the foundation of

* Hist. of Dissenters, Vol. iv. p. 253.

[ocr errors]

+ Instit. Theol. Christ. Dogmat. Sect. 128. p. 383.

See Biblical Repertory, Vol. ii. p. 495.

Journal for Theol. Literature (published by Gabler) for 1802, p. 594.

the Scriptures, as the "true words of the Holy Ghost," our feet rest upon a rock. We know where we stand, and feel that we have a firm support. But breaking away from these, and regarding them no longer as a perfect standard, we are afloat together on an ocean of speculation and conjecture, without anything on which to depend for guidance and safety.

Till the questions now at issue respecting the Bible are fairly settled, it is obviously of little importance to discuss any other questions, at least where an appeal to the divine word is necessary. For in the language of your reviewer, "Why should we be at the trouble of quoting and interpreting proof-texts, if, after the meaning is ascertained, there is still another question to be decided at the bar of reason, viz. Is this meaning true, or false?

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE LATE GOV. SULLIVAN AND DR. SAMUEL WEST, ON ISAIAH VII. 14,

AND MATT. I. 22, 23.

LETTER OF GOV. SULLIVAN.

DEAR AND REV. SIR,

Groton, 17th Nov. 1781.

Having an inexpressible pleasure in cultivating an acquaintance with you, and no opportunity offering to be where you are, I take the freedom of intruding this letter upon you, not doubting but that the goodness of your heart, and the deep literature of your mind, will furnish me with an answer sufficient to remove any doubts I may labor under. I should not expect a satisfactory solution of the following case from a divine who teaches the Christian religion, because it is the religion of his country or family; but from one who builds upon first principles, I may hope for light and information.-But to the point.

I have lately blundered upon a question in revealed religion. I find in the first chapter of Matthew, where the Evangelist is describing the advent of our Saviour, this text-"Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son," &c. The prophecy here referred to is in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, where, by the history of the transaction therein mentioned, two kings came up against Judah in the days of Ahaz, and about 750 years before Christ, and the prophet was directed to tell Ahaz to be quiet, and not to fear, for they should not prevail; and a sign was given, "A virgin shall conceive and

bear a son; butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to choose the good and refuse the evil. For before the child shall know to choose the good and refuse the evil, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."-The child here predicted was to be born in the days of Ahaz, and before the captivity of the ten tribes by the Assyrian monarch, as is agreed by Grotius, Hammond, Le Clerc, and others: And if this was not the case, how could the birth of the child be a sign of the truth of the prophecy? And if it was, how can the Evangelist's saying that the prophet spake of Jesus be reconciled with truth? An anonymous writer says that the prophet, in the sixteenth verse, left speaking of the child predicted, and turned his attention to the Messiah. But the particle for appears to me an insuperable bar in the way of this hypothesis; for in this light, instead of affording a reason in support of the prophecy, or serving to urge the truth of it, it will be but an unmeaning and useless part of the text. Le Clerc and some others solve the difficulty for themselves, in supposing that the Greek word rendered fulfilled, does not always mean the fulfilment of predictions of future events, but barely expresses an accommodation of borrowed words. If this is true, the prophet did not in this place prophesy of the Messiah at all; and if the observation has force, it applies to many other quotations of the apostles, and will have a great tendency to weaken the evidence of revealed religion.

But some suppose that the prophecy is fulfilled in a secondary, typical, or allegorical sense, in Jesus; and why may not the prophecies apply to everybody and everything else as well, in an allegorical and typical sense? And if they have applied to two several persons already, why may we not expect a third?

Whiston, aware of this difficulty, condemns all allegorical meaning, and wishes to restore the whole Hebrew Bible to its primitive purity, and avers that the Jews in the third century put a false copy into the hands of Origen to deceive the Christians. But this seems to be agreeing that the present copy does not amount to evidence sufficient to evince the truth of the Christian religion. And besides, how does Whiston know that there was a better copy 1700 years ago? Surenhusius, the Hebrew professor at Amsterdam, talks learnedly of points used by the ancient Jewish doctors in reading and construing Hebrew, and gives many instances of license taken by the apostles in shifting Hebrew points and letters in their quot ations. But why did not the apostles use the ancient points and letters? or is it probable that they would make such shiftings as to turn the meaning of the text from one person to another? Upon the whole, this learned conjecture serves only to resolve the difficulty into a multiplicity of errors.

I do not expect to have every part of revealed religion opened to my capacity, but sincerely wish to have it cleared of every palpable

contradiction. The Christian religion spreads so many moral beauties before my sight, that I am exceedingly unhappy when my mind labors in the evidence of it. And therefore from your learning and friendship, I hope to be taught, either that an inspired penman can, consistently with divine inspiration, be mistaken, or that there is no mistake in the quotation, by Matthew. If this point bas been long settled, as perhaps you will tell me it has, you will forgive this intrusion, remembering that I only ask for the milk pro

[blocks in formation]

I received last night your favor of the 17th ult., which gave me inexpressible satisfaction, as it revived in my mind those happy days when I had the pleasure of your company and conversation; besides it was a convincing proof of your sincere and affectionate regards for me. Permit me, Sir, further to assure you, that I am extremely pleased with the subject of your letter, and I heartily wish that every gentleman of my acquaintance would discover as earnest a desire as you have done to attain a rational conviction of the truth of revealed religion. Were this the case, bigotry and infidelity would be no more. They would vanish away, like the shades of night before the rising sun.

Most cheerfully, then, will I now endeavour to solve the difficulties which you have proposed. I am fully convinced in my own mind that the passage in Isaiah vii. 14. is a real prediction of the miraculous conception of our Saviour; and that Matthew, in his first chapter, has applied this text in its true and literal sense, and not merely by way of accommodation. My reasons for it are these,First, both the ancient Greek translations of the Seventy, (which I have by me) and the Chaldee paraphrase (as I find by Pool's Synopsis) translate the words as we do, viz. "Behold a virgin shall conceive," &c.-Now as both these translations of the Seventy and the Chaldee paraphrase were made before the birth of our Saviour, and consequently before the sense of the text came to be controverted, they are a plain proof, that these ancient Jewish interpreters understood the text in the sense that Christians now do, viz. that a virgin should, in a supernatural way, conceive and bring forth a son. And we must naturally suppose that these ancient interpreters understood the true meaning of Hebrew words much better than we do at this day: therefore, they are unexceptionable

« AnteriorContinuar »