페이지 이미지

upon his book a sentence not more severe than merited and just. If he act wisely he will in future confine his lucubrations to his own pulpit and to his own people, who can understand them, and ask no more questions about the "accredited pastors" of other congregations feeding their flock with negatives. But should he have the temerity to come again before the public, he will do well to remember that those principles of reason and common sense, which he has laboured to explode, are likely to become the fashion. The reign of occult qualities is long since past, and that of mystery is hastening to a close. Unitarian Christianity, the simple and beautiful, the heart-dilating, the mind-expanding religion taught by Christ and his Apostles, is prevailing more and more; and all such efforts as his to throw obstacles in its way, and retard its progress, serve only to accumulate its volume, and roll it forward with accelerating speed.

humanity. We affirm, on the highest authority, that there is none good but God-none wise but God-therefore none infallible-none impeccable but God. A being who cannot be tempted, has no more virtue in resisting temptation, than Mount Atlas in withstanding the breath of a zephyr. The virtue of Christ lay in his moral, not in his physical superiority to temptation. How could he have been tempted in all points, or in any point, like as we are, if no part of his constitution was liable to assault? Can the blind be tempted by beauty, or the deaf by a Siren's song? Where was the merit of his triumph over the tempter, if he was incapable of feeling the charms of ambition and glory? If he had not hungered, would the devil, with all his subtlety, have acted so like a simpleton, as to desire him to convert the stones into bread? The gentlemen, who are in such wrath at Priestley for openly expressing what they virtually admit, inform us, on their own authority, that Adam was created perfect. How, then, we ask, did he fall before the very first temptation that assailed him? Oh! he was fallible.Admirable consistency! And also peccable?-It must be granted. And consequently, that a being may be perfect, and, at the same time, liable to be deceived, and to be tempted to sin. Adam was not only fallible and peccable, but he was actually deceived, and he actually sinned. This cannot be predicated of Christ, the second Adam. He also was tempted. But he did not yield to temptation; and herein lay one part of his superiority to the first Adam. He was "without sin :"-this Dr. Priestley would not only admit, but maintain; and so far from alleging, as Mr. C. says he does, that Christ was "a sinful man," he would have been among the most strenuous in maintaining that he was altogether sinless, "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." A well-known author, whom the orthodox would fondly claim as their own, while he yet stood on the high pinnacle of orthodoxy, eloquently said, "As the Son of God put on our flesh and blood, so he assumed the various powers and properties of human nature-the appetites and passions of mankind; he endured hunger and thirst; he had fear and love, hope, and joy; nor were the more troublesome affections of anger and sorrow left out of his constitution; but they were all innocent and holy— (Priestley would have said the same;) they were never tainted with sin as ours are; they had no corrupt mixtures to defile his soul-(Priestley would have said the same ;)—our passions are like water with mud at the bottom; when they are moved; they too frequently raise the mud and betray their impurity. But the passions of Christ were ever pure; like water from the clearest fountain in a glass of crystal, which, though it be never so much agitated, is still unpolluted." Priestley would have said the same.



GROTIUS informs us (Ex Syro) that ancient copies had not the word "God," in this text of Romans, c. ix. v. 5, and that Erasmus remarks, Cyprian, Hilary, and Chrysostom omit it. "In this short statement," says the Dublin Christian Examiner, (1827) “there are almost as many inaccuracies as words; Grotius certainly argues, that from its absence in the Syriac, ancient copies must have wanted it; but Dr. Drummond ought to have known that Grotius was mistaken, for that it occurs in that version.”

Had it been Dr. D.'s object to ascertain whether it is in the Syriac version, or to found any criticism on that version in particular, he confesses he ought to have known it; or had he affirmed on his own authority, as the Examiner has affirmed of the text, Acts xx. 28, that the Syriac version has the word God, he farther confesses, that he would have justly exposed himself to all those charges of ignorance and precipitancy, or of critical dishonesty,' which the Examiner has shewn so much eagerness to advance against him, and which will recoil on the Examiner's own head, if he fail to produce the Syriac of that text which, he positively asserts, contains the disputed word. But Grotius did not confine his observation to one copy, for he says veteres codices; nor did he leave it to rest solely on his own authority. He fortifies his opinion by that of Erasmus, who affirms that Cyprian, Hilary, and Chrysostom, omit the word s. From this statement, however, the author did not, by any means, contend for its removal, but merely supposed there might be some corruption, or some dislo cation of the words from the position in which they originally stood; and this supposition, for it is offered as nothing more, receives countenance from the different situations which the word occupies in different copies, as well as other discrepant readings, to say nothing of the variety of punctua tions which affect the sense. For instance, some copies omit the xal, and others the TO. Instead of παλιών-one has παντα, and another παντας ; and i wy ei kavray is altogether omitted in the Ethiopic version, if Mill informs us truly:-Omittit Ethiop. Mill in loc. Lipsiæ 1729, p 550. Instead of xai swy the Armenian version transposes the words and reads wy nas. The words χριστος το κατα σαρκα are also transposed, in another copy, into το κατα σαρκα χριστος Cyr. vide Griesbach in loc. also has his mark of omission as to 90 prefixed to four copies=Cypr. ed. Hilar. ed. semel. Leo semel. Ephr. ap. Jackson. Ante T Tavτ ponunt Syr. Erp. Iren. Tert. semel.-2nd Edit. Vol. II. p. 193. Mill observes of Grotius that he was in an error as to the Syriac, and apologizes for him as became one liberal-minded scholar in speaking of another. Whitby also contents himself by saying that it was a mistake' in Grotius. He would have felt ashamed to bring a charge against his general accuracy, much less against his critical honesty. Such insinuations belong to a modern school of SMALL CRITICS, who excel in that "index learning which turns no student pale"-who "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel”

[ocr errors]


Grotianas enim in locum annotationes minus moror, tumultuario nempe congestas quæque non receperant ultimam manum; ut proinde quodnam fuerit in hac re viri maximi judicium, ex iis colligere non liceat.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

who found doctrines on Greek particles, while they neglect not only "the length and breadth," but the height and depth of the law and the testimony, and who cultivate criticism, not as a liberal art for the improvement of taste, the developement of truth, and the elucidation of the Sacred Volume, but as a craft for the fabrication of the fragile weapons with which they are always ready to engage in personal hostilities, and which are but as chaff to the whirlwind, before the weighty artillery of Scripture, reason and common sense. The Christian Examiner,' with a boldness of assertion, which would call forth whole pages of his censure, if made by a Christian Unitarian, affirms that, in the text under question, "the word God,' is found in every known MS. in every ancient version, and in every quotation from every father." What opinion does the Examiner entertain of the understanding of his readers, when he makes such an unqualified assertion, in the very sentence following that in which he has written his own confutation, viz. ?—“ As to Cyprian and Hilary, Erasmus states, that the word God is omitted in one place of each writer, but also, that it must have taken place from the carelessness of transcribers." Happy salvo for the Examiner! With what a pitiless and vindictive storm of abuse would he and his school have assaulted Belsham, had he made such an observation? But how did Erasmus know that it was omitted through the carelessness of transcribers? Had he the omniscience of the Examiner, to know not only that it was to be found in every known MS. in every version, and in every quotation of every father; but having this knowledge of its universality, did he also know that it was not universal, but that there were certain copies, or quotations at least, in which it was not to be found, and that the omission must have proceeded from the carelessness of copyists? Verily, his knowledge was great, and of much wider extent than his own consciousness of it would have led him to believe! But Erasmus does not say what the Examiner says for him, that the omission must have taken place through carelessness. He has more modesty, and conjectures its possibility, incuria librariorum esse omissum videri potest. "Etiam Chrysos

tomus nullum dat significationem, se, hoc loco, legisse Deus; quæ vox poterat adjecta videri a studioso quopiam, velut exponente quis esset ille super omnia nimirum Deus.* Nec est quod vociferemur Christum spoliari Divinitate, cum idem dicat periphrasis quod nomen Dei, veluti si quis pro Deo dicat cælestium et terrestrium Conditor." He continues: "Let those, therefore, be at peace, who, tickled by the love of popularity, are on every occasion exciting disturbance, as if the church were about to fall. Whether or not, the word God' in this place be omitted, it contributes nothing to the meaning of the text, since the periphrasis (viz. who is over all) expresses the sense more aptly than the solitary name of God."

As to Erasmus's own opinion, he clearly ascribes the words who is over all, to the Father, by whose kind providence all their religious privileges were conferred on the Jews; concurring with "many fathers who deny that the appellation can belong to Christ." Multi Patres, qui Christum (sic) appellari posse negant (Griesbach.) But like a true son of the church, who had not, as he said of himself, the courage of a martyr, i. e. the courage to be burned; he declares that if she says it ought to be interpreted of the Deity of Christ, she must be obeyed; but that her decision will have no influence on heretics, who hear only the Scriptures."

In this opinion of Erasmus the author fully coincides. Whether the word God be retained or omitted is of no consequence as to his doctrine. The words he who is over all blessed for ever," designate Jehovah, the everlasting Father, as clearly as language can express; and to give the periphrastic appellation to any other being whatsoever, is to rob Jehovah of his glory. But the author would not wish to part with the word, even if the authorities for retaining it were much less numerous and decisive than they are. Middleton's proof that the reading on Lock's supposition would have been

* Erasmus was under a mistake about Chrysostom.-See Mill and Griesbach.


ευλογητὸς ὁ θεος instead of 9εος ευλογητος is shewn to be not worth the paper on which it is written, by a single text from the Septuagint, Ps. lxviii. 19, Κύριος ο Θεός ευλογητος. See Yates's Vindication of Unitarianism, p. 178,

and Grabii Septuaginta λ. . 20.


After all this turmoil, it is entertaining to find, that Grotius was right ! His words are, Ex'Syro, by which he means the authority of the Syrian, viz. Ephrem, who was commonly distinguished by that appellation. learned author of Christian Liberty asserted, in his answer to a late book of Dr. Waterland's, has largely treated of this text, and has fully cleared Grotius, and directly proved from Ephrem the Syrian himself, a great Athanasian, who wrote in the Syrian tongue, and used the Syriac version, that even so late as the fourth century, the word God was wanting therein; for in the Greek version of Ephrem's Syriac, printed at Oxford, 1709, as this author truly informs us, in both the citations, or allusions, of Ephrem to this verse, the word God is entirely wanting."-See a small work, entitled, Athanasian Forgeries, Impositions, and Interpolations, London, 1736, p. 8.

The Examiner, after his cruel triumph over the author's ignorance, precipitancy, critical inaccuracy, and critical dishonesty,' and after making assertions which his own pen confutes, observes in a note, that " Dr. D. is not even accurate in his errors"-(who is?)—and charges him with affirming what he never said, viz. that the criticism relative to the transposition of the two small Greek words was first suggested by Whitby and Taylor. Dr. D. must take the liberty of giving a flat contradiction to this assertion of the learned Critic. He had not the temerity to say by whom it was first suggested, for the plain reason that he did not know. He said that Whitby and Taylor had each the merit of making the same ingenious criticism nearly at the same time. This was stated merely to mark a curious, contempora neous coincidence of judgment between two eminent divines, the one a Trinitarian, and the other an Arian. The same transposition is said to have been proposed by Crellius, and that it is to be found in Slichtingius the author knows. As to its being "so monstrous that even Belsham would not admit it into his text of the improved version," the author knew not till he read the learned critic's note. But this he knows, that Belsham has adopted it in his "Exposition of the Epistles of Paul the Apostle," and that he says, "this is most probably the true reading, though it is not authorised by any manuscript version, or ecclesiastical authority." An honest acknowledgment, even the critic will allow, though made by Belsham! The critic observes that the author would, perhaps, "respect such a man as Wakefield," and in this observation he is perfectly correct. For Wakefield's honesty and learning, the author entertains a respect amounting almost to veneration, and thanks the Examiner for furnishing him with an opportunity of quoting the following passage from a work of that distinguished scholar, which is earnestly recommended to the Examiner's attention :-" There are some very probable reasons for concluding a transposition of two small words to have taken place, and this from the very earliest antiquity. Such an easy and trivial mistake, no one, who considers the weariness of transcribers, can think at all unlikely to have happened. For, observe, upon this extremely slight alteration, the amazing improvement of the passage, the uncommon grandeur of the climax, the pertinency of the argument, the completeness of the paragraph, and the rotundity of the conclusion." Mr. Examiner, is not this a beautiful quotation? Read it again and again, that you may see the pertinency of the argument; and lay aside the odium theologicum for only two minutes, that you may enjoy "the rotundity of the conclusion.'

The following extract from the same eminent critic, may also be perused with advantage :-speaking of the disputed word God, in Acts xx. 28, he says, "This is one of those unscriptural texts, which sturdy polemics, of little learning, of less impartiality, and of no shame, are perpetually obtruding on our notice to the deception of common readers, and the disgrace of ingenuous criticism."

Before the author concludes this long note, he must give the kind and indulgent reader, an amusing specimen of his Examiner's qualifications for the

office, which he has undertaken.

It is stated in the essay, that the Almighty Jehovah can have no fellows; and the Examiner, at once to overthrow and confound the author for an assertion so heretical, brings forward the text Zech. xiii. 7, "Awake, O Sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man who is my fellow, saith Jehovah of Hosts," Sure enough, it appears from this verse, that the orthodox have an argument to prove that Jehovah of Hosts hath a fellow, and that this fellow is a man!-a rather startling idea, if we are to understand the term as an equal to him who asks, " to whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal, saith the Holy One?" Is. xl. 25. But this opinion of orthodoxy, like many of its other opinions, is founded on mere similarity of sound. The original Hebrew is immeeth, and does not signify a fellow or equal, but a neighbour; and it is thus rendered in several places where it occurs in Leviticus, viz. once, vi, 2; once, xviii. 20; twice, xix. 15, 17; three times, xxv. 14, 15; and in the 17th v. it is rendered one another.* Parkhurst translates it "neighbour, a member of the same society;" and says, it is applied to the human nature, associated with the divine, in the person of Chtist." Zech. xiii. 7. But this is an idle and absurd Newfiction, for which there is no authority, except some old wife's fable. come renders the passage thus:—

Awake, O Sword, against my shepherd,

And against the MAN who is near unto me,
Saith Jehovah, God of Hosts.

"The Septuagint renders it sadga oλrny μs against the man that is my citizen or countryman. Aquila i ovμQvλov μs against the man of the same tribe as me. Symmachus. ' avoga тy λas μy against the man of my people. Theodotion, sm' avòga wλnosov avty against the man who is his neighbour. Junius and Tremellius, Hebræa vox proximum aut amicum sonat, &c, i. e. the word in the original signifies a neighbour or friend." (Lindsey.) The Examiner and critics of his school, seem not to care how they degrade Jehovah, provided they can trace but the "shadow of the shade" of an argument in favour of their extravagant and most unscriptural invention, that Christ is the Almighty, How can they-how dare they so horribly profane the Word of God, and make him, whom the Prophet denominates a man, the equal of Jehovah of Hosts? They speak of two natures in Christ. Grant them: still they would not constitute a being the fellow of that Je hovah, who has but one nature, which has nothing human, but is all divine. Such is an instance of the miserable folly of the system, that would reduce the omnipotent to the condition of a man, founded on a wrong translation, and by critics who are proud of their learning: and yet does the same critic, who is guilty of this, and the other offences, proved against him in this note, speak of Unitarians, as having a shew of learning, without the reality, (of which the Examiner affords such a signal proof) of referring to authors unexamined and untried, (to Bishop Bull, for instance,) of a bold contempt of all the rules of legitimate criticism, (borrowed from Griesbach without acknowledgment,) and an anxiety only to dazzle uninformed readers, (like the subscribers to the Christian Examiner.) The critic, who drew this picture, seems to have sat for his own likeness, and being dissatisfied with the fidelity of the resemblance, he hangs it up for public exhibition, and calls out, Behold a Unitarian!

It is left to the candid reader of this note, "to estimate as he may, the critical accuracy, and the critical honesty of Dr. D." and of the Christian Examiner.

* In all these places, the Septuagint translates it Anσloy.


« 이전계속 »