Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

THE passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, discussed by your correspondent, N. L., (Christian Observer for August, p. 499), is certainly a difficult one; yet I do not think it incapable of a rational interpretation.

In prosecuting this matter, our first business must be to ascertain the meaning of the word dialyx, as it occurs in the passage under discussion; namely, Heb. ix. 15, 16, 17; and our second, to translate the passage agreeably to the meaning of the word when thus ascertained.

I. With respect to the meaning of the word, it certainly must, by every just rule of composition, be ascertained from the general context of the passage in question.

Now, the subject of the eighth and ninth chapters at large is clearly enough a comparison of the first covenant, or the Mosaical dispensation, with the new covenant, or the Christian dispensation: and the doctrine inculcated is, that in each covenant alike, atonement was made by blood;-in the first covenant, by the blood of the typical offerings; in the new covenant, by the blood of the anti-typical offering, Jesus Christ. Throughout the whole, therefore, of these two chapters, with the exception of the litigated passage, the word diabyxy manifestly and allowedly denotes a covenant; agreeably, indeed, to the quotation from Jeremiah, who employs the Hebrew word 2 where the Apostle employs the Greek word diabyxy and the word dan, thus allowedly denoting a covenant, is used to designate severally the Mosaical dispensation, and the Christian dispensation. We must here, moreover, observe, that this word diadyxy in the course of the two chapters occurs both BEFORE and AFTER the litigated passage; but still, wherever it occurs, it INVARIABLY occurs in the sense of a covenant, meaning either the Mosaical

covenant or the Christian covenant. Hence it appears, that the litigated passage, which itself four times contains the word diabnxy, is inserted in the very MIDDLE of a discussion, the subject of which is a comparison of the Mosaical (dialyxn) covenant, with the Christian (dialyxn) covenant.

Such being the case, the rules of good composition certainly require us to conclude, that the word Sadyxy in the litigated passage is used by the Apostle in the same sense, as the self-same word dialyy is used by him throughout all the remainder of the eighth and ninth chapters. For, upon any other hypothesis, we shall be obliged to maintain, that the Apostle sets out, in the eighth chapter, with using the word dianuŋ in the undoubted sense of a covenant, or in a sense exactly equivalent to the Hebrew word n employed by Jeremiah; and that he continues to use it in the same sense, as far as to the end of the 14th verse of the ninth chapter; but that, in the 15th, 16th, and 17th verses of the ninth chapter, without the slightest intimation whatever, he uses the same word day in a new and totally different sense,-namely, that of a last will or testament, by which a dying man makes a disposition of his property after his death; and that, in the 18th verse of the ninth chapter, with as little intimation as before, he resumes his original mode of employing the word; and thenceforward, to the end of the chapter, uses it, as at first, to describe a covenant. But it is incredible, that so faulty a mode of writing should have been adopted by the inspired author. fore I conclude, with Codurcus, Whitby, Pierce, Doddridge, Wakefield, and Macknight, that the Apostle must needs have employed the word dialyx in the litigated passage in the same sense as he employs it throughout the general context of the eighth and ninth chapters: in other words, I con

[ocr errors]

There

clude, that the word Babyxy uniformly denotes a covenant, throughout THE WHOLE of those two chapters, and that the covenant spoken of is always either the Mosaical or the Christian covenant.

II. The next point is, to translate and interpret the litigated passage, so as at once to preserve the now ascertained meaning of the word dialyxŋ, and to make it harmonize with the plain drift of the general context both previous and subsequent.

Now, the drift of the general context is this: The first cove. nant, typically, makes an atonement for sinners by the blood of the slaughtered victims; those victims (in virtue of their typical character) forming the medium of acceptance between God and man, and the covenant itself being of no avail except in so far as the victims are put to death: the new covenant, in a similar manner, antitypically and really, makes an atonement for sinners by the blood of the one sacrificed victim Christ; that victim (the antitype of every typical victim) forming the medium of acceptance between God and man, and the covenant itself being of no avail except in so far as the victim Christ is put to death.

Such I take to be the drift of the general context, more especialy as it occurs in chap. ix. 1-14. But with this drift the litigated passage will exactly correspond, provided only the word dann be translated covenant, as the whole context requires it to be translated.

And, on this account, he is the mediator of the new covenant; in order that, death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first covenant, the called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance, For, where there is a covenant, it is necessary that the death of him who ratifies the covenant should be brought forward. For a covenant is firm only over

the dead (victims), since it is of no strength, while he who ratifies the covenant is living.

Here the train of reasoning per fectly agrees with the preceding context; for, in fact, it is no other than a continuation of the argument.

The typical mediators of the first covenant were animal victims: and it was necessary that the death of these victims which ratified the covenant should take place; for a covenant, constituted on such principles, could be firm only over the dead: it was of no efficacy, while its appointed ratifiers were alive. Analogously to this, as substance answers to shadow, the antitypical mediator of the new covenant was Christ: whence the conditions of the new covenant must answer throughout to the conditions of the first covenant. And, ON THIS ACCOUNT, he is the mediator of the new covenant; in order that, death having taken place (primarily, the death of the animal victims,-secondarily, the death of the human victim), for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first covenant, the called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For, where there is a covenant, (that is to say, a covenant framed on the principles of the Mosaical), it is necessary that the death of him who ratifies the cove nant should be brought forward, (just as the death of the typical victims, which ratified the first covenant, were brought forward under the Levitical dispensation). For a covenant (framed on the principles of the first covenant) is firm only over the dead, (whether the immolated victim be an animal or a man); since it is of no strength, while he who ratifies the covenant (as the typical victims ratified by their death the first covenant) is living.

WHEREUPON or WHENCE-as the Apostle goes on very logically, in the eighteenth verse, to conclude from the specified principles of a

Divine covenant made with men AS To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

a sinner-WHEREUPON, neither the first covenant was dedicated without blood. The reason of which conclusion is obviously to be found in the litigated passage. A covenant is firm only over the dead; since it is of no strength, while the ratifier of the covenant is living. WHEREUPON, neither the first covenant was dedicated without blood: because, unless blood had been shed, the typical ratifiers of that covenant would have been left alive; and consequently, the covenant itself, being firm only over the dead victims, would plain ly, on the very principles of a covenant between a holy God and fallen man, have been of no strength or efficacy.

Such, so far as I can judge, is the obvious meaning of the whole passage; but, even if we choose to take dialyx, in verses 16, 17, as there importing a covenant in general, and if we thence exhibit the Apostle as arguing from the nature of a covenant in general to the nature of God's covenants with man in particular, the train of reason. ing will not, I conceive, be altered. Among the ancients, every cove nant was ratified by the death of slaughtered victims: and, until these victims were slaughtered, or while these ratifiers of the covenant were living, the covenant itself was of no strength or efficacy, being deemed firm only over the dead. Thus, whether, in verses 16, 17, we suppose the Apostle to argue, from the necessary nature of a Divine covenant with fallen man in particular, or from the nature of all covenants then known throughout the world in general; his reasoning will be equally conclusive to prove the need of Christ's death, when he is viewed as the Mediator or ratifying medium of the new covenant.

Long Newton, September 11, 1820.

G. S. FABER.

ON opening "the Monthly Review" for May last, I met with an article which appeared to demand the notice of the Christian critic. It was the review of "Sermons, by Edward Maltby, D. D., Vol. I. 8vo. ;" and, while I am fully assured of your pacific disposition, and of your unwillingness to admit into your pages one line of needless controversy, I trust you will insert the following extracts and observations.--

"We have carefully read," says the reviewer, "all these discourses, which are in number twenty-four: and the impression which they have left on our minds is highly favourable to the author, as an able defender of the truth of Christianity, an eloquent expositor of some of its difficulties, and an earnest teacher of its most important duties." The reviewer presently adds, "as sermons, they are not contaminated by any of that evangelical mixture which has been falsely denominated Christianity." In a sentence that follows soon after, the reviewer thinks proper to remark, that for about five and twenty years past

[ocr errors]

a much more general adherence to the most objectionable of the Thirty-nine Articles has been manifest, than through the whole of the preceding century. The Methodists, in a very early period of their spiritual domination in the Christian fold, began a furious attack on the clergy, for not preaching according to the Articles, which for a season was repelled with vi gour, and produced no alteration in the general style of pulpit eloquence; but when the complaints of the Methodists became sanctioned by the authority of Mr. Wilberforce on the one hand, and of Bishop Horsley on the other, sermons on original sin, on the expiation of that sin by the death of Christ, and on other doctrines of mysterious import, but of uncertain

authority, became very prevalent in the church. The opinions of the established clergy began to run in a new current; and as that current was rendered more impetuous and powerful by the force of ecclesiastical patronage, it required some strength of intellect, as well as some energy of character, not to be carried away by the violence of the stream. Several of the clergy, however, had the courage to resist this irruption into the precincts of the Establishment, and chose rather to be censured as mere moral preachers, than to purchase honeyed praise by enlisting themselves under the banners of the evangelical party." The reviewer then says in triumph, "We are happy to add Dr. Maltby to the honourable band who have not suffered their sermons to be tinctured with this infusion."

Now, Mr. Editor, when I recollect how commonly it is exclaimed against those who are stigmatized as "evangelical" among the clergy of our Establishment, that they eat her bread though they refuse to preach her doctrines, I would ask with all Christian moderation, is it possible that the foregoing extracts can be approved, or even tolerated, by a dignitary of the Church of England? What, in fact, is the amount of those extracts, and of similar ones that follow throughout the article in question? If I understand it rightly, it is this:-a CONRESSEDLY SOCINIAN REVIEWER not only pronounces Dr. Maltby an able defender of the truth of Christianity," while in the same breath, the reviewer points at some of the Thirty-nine Articles of our Church as "objectionable," but he goes the length of strongly insinuating that the Articles, of original sin, of the expiation of that sin by the death of Christ, are part of "that evangelical mixture which has been falsely denominated Chris-, tianity:" and the reviewer evidently enlists Dr. Maltby among those,

"who have not suffered their sermons to be tinctured with this infusion."

Surely the learned Dr. Maltby will, ere long, inform the public, that he utterly rejects such praise as is here offered him, by a decided enemy to the doctrine of that Establishment whose sacred cause he is so solemnly bound to defend. Surely he will deem it a high and outrageous insult to his theological character, to be classed by a soCINIAN EULOGIST, among those who deny the atoning efficacy of that death which the Church of England so solemnly pronounces "a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world."

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ.

P. S.-Perhaps it might be fairly asked, with reference to the foregoing extracts, did the Monthly Review (the eulogist of Dr. Maltby) ever think proper to commend Dr. (now Bishop) Magee's work on the Atonement; or Bishop Burgess's Reply to Mr. Belsham? If not, Dr. Maltby must surely exclaim with the poet, and especially in this "day of rebuke and blasphemy,"

"Their praise is censure, and their censure praise."

I do not recollect whether the Socinian reviewers praised or censured. Dr. Maltby's publication against the Bible Society, in which he contended that out of the sixtysix canonical books of Holy Writ, only seven of the Old, and eleven of the New Testament, are fit for general distribution!

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

SOME of your readers who reside in the country remote from the agi. tations of the metropolis, know very little more of the politics of the nation, than they collect from

your summary of public affairs. But enough, and more than enough, must be known by the most retired, to cause the soul to mourn in secret, and to send up many a prayer for the peace of the church and state. This, I doubt not, is the daily practice of many Christians in every part of the realm. But do not the alarming signs of the times call for something more? Have we not as a Christian public been threatened with the daring attempt to set up Deism, and more gross infidelity in the place of the Gospel of our Divine Redeemer? Has not an alarming spirit of turbulence and sedition been not long since manifested among the discontented in the land? These, sir, are blows aimed at our common mercies as a nation. Should we not then, as a nation, supplicate from the God of mercy, from whom alone national prosperity can come, the continuance of blessings so long and richly enjoyed, but, alas! so much abused? But if there be any just cause, from the conflicting interests of parties, why our rulers should not call upon the nation at large, surely there can be none why Christians should not unite in prayer. Let the fact be once admitted, that there is just cause of alarm for the peace of our country, and the preservation of true religion amongst us, and men may be allowed to judge as they please of the causes which have brought us into this state: but no person's mind can for a moment doubt whether we ought or not to unite in prayer for the continuance of our national blessings. In former times, on much less important occasions, pious men have called upon their fellow-Christians to appoint a certain hour in which to address, either each individual privately or with his family and friends, the Throne of Grace and Mercy. I leave the hiut for the consideration of your readers. Respecting the duty itself, there can be no difference of opinion among those who wish well

to their country, and believe in the
value and efficacy of prayer to Him
who is "the author of peace, and
lover of concord;" who "maketh
men to be of one mind in a house,"
and who has the hearts of all man-
kind at his supreme disposal.
A. B. C.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

IN your table of contents for August I observed with pleasure, that a "religious communication" had been made to you on the Prayer for the Parliament." I turned somewhat eagerly to the article, but was considerably disappointed when I found it related merely to a word in the prayer, to the title therein given to the king. I will not take up your columns by inquiring with what success Agnostos may have answered the objection which he states; but, judging from the feelings of my own mind, when I now join in that admirable prayer, I think that very many of your readers would have been grateful to him had he subjoined a few serious remarks on its indisputable excellencies.

I know of nothing which would more tend to allay party feelings, than joining with a "pure heart and humble voice," in that most solemn, most interesting, and most applicable supplication.

The prayer is generally for the kingdom at large, and especially for the parliament, as employed in solemn deliberation on its internal regulations. It seems to have been penned in a time of peace, and it breathes a calm and peaceful spirit. It beseeches the guidance of the Almighty in the consultations of our legislature; it implores of Infinite Wisdom the special direction of their proceedings; it proposes the most noble and praiseworthy ends, "the advancement of the Divine glory, the good of the church, the safety, honour, and welfare of our sovereign and his dominions,"

« ElőzőTovább »