Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

are to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all long-suffering. The proper punishment of a low, mean, indecent, scurrilous way of writing seems to be neglect, contempt, scorn and indignation.' These latter expressions seem prophetical of the fate of Paine's attack on the Bible. It is a pity that any prosecution should revive a work falling into oblivion! Let us have more regard for the mild and tolerant genius of our common Christianity." JOHN EVANS.

[ocr errors]

SIR,

HAVE read Dr. Channing's last sermon with great pleasure and interest. A glowing fervour of feeling, controuled by a vigorous understanding, breathes in every page. But I am sorry that he should have thought it necessary to cast certain reflections upon the English Unitarians, and upon that eminently great and good man Dr. Priestley. To these reflections I should probably have replied, had not this been already done by abler hands. But there is one observation relative to Dr. P. on which I cannot forbear to make a remark. Dr. Priestley is represented as "distinguished more for rapidity than for profoundness of thought." To this I reply, without hesitation, that if to think justly is to think profoundly; that if in every matter of controversy to see where the question hinges, and to separate that which is extraneous from that which is essential; that if to penetrate into the abstruser mysteries of metaphysical science, and to make that clear to many which before perplexed the few; that if to dive into the recesses of the human mind, and thence to draw forth negative reasonings to array against what had passed for positive proofs; that if all this indicates profoundness of thought, Dr. Priestley was the profoundest thinker of his age. But what is it, after all, that not unfrequently passes for profoundness of thought? Laborious research, which promises much, and accomplishes nothing. Instances might be produced of writers who have been thought profound, who have seldom arrived at a just conclusion, who have only lost themselves in the depth of their own conceptions, and bewildered those who have admired their profundity. It is said, indeed, that truth

lies hid in a well; and, as though misled by this adage, we sometimes overlook it when before our eyes, and then take vast pains to draw it from its deep retirement. And when we have fatigued ourselves with a tedious and fruitless search, we either reward our labour by embracing a shadow for the substance, or charge our own blindness on the supposed obscurity of the thing pursued. In fact, it is not so much profundity of thought which is necessary for the discovery of truth, as a quickness of perception to see what kind and degree of evidence are required, and a comprehension of mind which can balance arguments against objections, and ascertain on which side the scale preponderates. But to return to Dr. Priestley. Dr. Priestley, then, was a man in whom acuteness and comprehension of intellect were combined in a pre-eminent degree. In the grasp of his understanding and the extent of his views, he far indeed surpassed every contemporary writer of whom I have any knowledge. And in accordance at once with the greatness of his conceptions and the singleness of his soul, he writes with a simplicity which has seldom been paralleled and never surpassed. Bent on some great object, he never stops to set off a single idea to the best advantage, but as though secure as to the general validity of his reasonings, he leaves the naked truth to make its own impression. From a magnanimity of thought peculiarly his own, he overlooks inferior objections which might be brought against the views which he defends or those which he attacks, and never descends to those subtleties which have secured a more general admiration to writers whose talents have borne no comparison to his. In one respect, I confess, Dr. Priestley was not a profound thinker; - he thought without effort, and enables his reader, for the time being, to think without effort also. He often seizes his point at once, and gains by a glance reseinbling intuition what others would have endeavoured to establish by the formalities of a long and elaborate proof. He is never obscure, and therefore never leaves us to wonder at the depth of that knowledge which we find ourselves unable to comprehend. But Dr. Priestley sometimes errs in his judgment. And who does not?

But it is matter of just astonishment that a man who thought so rapidly should have erred so little. And I feel the fullest conviction, that he has not erred at all on some of those topics on which many English Unitarians, together with Dr. Channing, differ from him. Upon the whole, I do not think that Dr. Priestley's talents are held in the estimation which they deserve by those who are so much indebted to his labours. His moral excellence will indeed be acknowledged by all except weak men and bigots, "whose praise is censure, and whose censure praise." But few seem to me to form a just estimate of his intellectual endowments, or to understand how great a man he was.

If I may be allowed to occupy a little more space in your pages, I should willingly make an observation or two on certain positions of Dr. Channing's, which are found in the same note with his remarks on Dr. Priestley. Dr. Channing gives it as his opinion, that "reason teaches that the supernatural must occupy either a large space or none at all, in the Divine administration." From what premises this conclusion follows, I am at a loss to discover. Reason seems rather to teach, that under the administration of an infinitely wise Being, who has confessedly instituted a system of general laws, supernatural interposition need not be frequent, and fact in this case seems to confirm what reason dictates. But Dr. Channing farther remarks, that “it may be said of men, in whom the intellect acts alone, or in whom it is disjoined in a great degree from imagination, taste and refined moral sentiment, and from the perception and feeling of the great, the good, and the lovely, that although they claim for themselves peculiarly the character of rational, they are among the last to discover the rational in religion." I hope that I am not too old to learn, since I feel that I am willing to be taught; but this is a lesson which I fear that I shall find it difficult to apprehend, having always thought that the great impediment to the discovery of religious truth has been, that in the pursuit of it intellect does not act alone. And hence I have explained what otherwise would have appeared inexplicable, how it comes to pass that

men of sense and reflection can resist the evidence of truths which appear to me to admit of as clear and easy demonstration as any proposition in Euclid. I have heard, indeed, that carnal reason cannot judge of spiritual things. This, however, I have always considered as the refuge of absurdity, as the evasion of men who have felt a galling conviction that they were engaged in the defence of an irrational system. But I did not expect to hear that reason without some foreign aid cannot discover the rational in religion. But according to Dr. Channing, imagination, taste and refined moral sentiment, must be called in to assist the decisions of the intellect, and to guard it against the errors into which, when acting alone, it will: be prone to fall. How it may be on the other side of the Atlantic, I cannot tell, but on our side of the water there are men not deficient in understanding, who profess to see in Calvinism the perfection of moral harmony and beauty. Now as Calvinism certainly does not make its appeal to the intellect alone, I presume that these gentlemen must find it to accord with their imagination, taste and moral sentiment, and perhaps (strange as it might appear to me) they may derive an argument in its favour from their "perception and feeling of the great, the good, and the lovely." It will be in vain to reply, that their taste, imagination and moral sentiment must be miserably perverted; they doubtless think otherwise, and unless the appeal be made to reason, and to reason alone, it will be impossible to prove that they do not think justly. But Dr. Channing has moreover observed, that "that system of faith alone is rational which accords with man's whole nature, and especially with his moral nature, and with those high spiritual faculties and sensibilities which adapt and direct the mind to God, and to a nobler existence than the present." But the question is, whether the views which, in Dr. Channing's opinion, accord best with man's moral nature, are or are not the views of scripture. I am ready enough to allow that a system of divine truth must in reality be adapted to the moral nature of man; but there is a better judge of that adaptation than either Dr. Channing

or myself I mean the great Author of Revelation, who, though he has doubtless done all that it was right to do for the moral improvement of mankind, may not have done all that our imaginations might have anticipated, or all that our "sensibilities", may crave. But, to return to the remark which I chiefly proposed to consider, I would observe, that imagination, taste and moral sentiment, unless they are under the guidance of reason, will rather impede than promote the discovery of truth, as in this case taste will be false, imagination delusive, and moral sentiment incorrect. Taste, imagination and moral sentiment, are terms which are grateful to the ear from the pleasing ideas with which they are connected, but the things intended by these terms differ in different individuals according to the countless variety of influences and associations to which they have been exposed; and unless Dr. Channing can point out a method by which they may be rectified to the standard of pure reason and abstract truth, they must, if listened to, in innumerable instances lead to error. Dr. Channing's reasoning seems to proceed upon the supposition that while the naked intellect will pronounce one judgment, taste, imagination and moral sentiment will pronounce another. Which ought to yield in the conflict, I cannot for a moment doubt. But if Dr. Channing means (which perhaps he does mean), that where true taste, a correct imagination, and just moral sentiment, are combined, they will imperceptibly guide the judgment, and save it from the chilling errors into which it might otherwise fall,-in this case, it is true, no conflict will be experienced, and our inquiries may proceed with a smooth and uninterrupted current; but the misfortune is, that it is difficult to say when taste is true, when imagination is correct, and when moral sentiment is just; and this must be decided by reason, if decided at all. In few words, unless we mean to open a door for enthusiasm, we must admit that in the study of revealed truth, as of all other truth, reason is the sovereign authority to which every thing else must bow. Nor need we wish to call in any principle whatever to assist the "naked intellect" in the study of religious truth, since the views which

[blocks in formation]

the sacred volume will unfold to the understanding alone are of the most sublime and elevating character, and, if cordially received, are abundantly sufficient to work upon the best affections of our moral nature, and to "make us wise unto salvation." That imagination, taste and moral sentiment may be of great use in illustrating and enforcing these views, I am very ready to grant. Of this, indeed, Dr. Channing is himself an eminent proof. And I wish from my heart that there were many Unitarian preachers like him, save and except in the prejudices which he has taken up against the English Unitarians, and against a man who, by a rare combination of intellectual and moral excellence, may justly be regarded as one of the brightest ornaments of human kind.

SIR,

TH

E. COGAN.

HE very intelligent papers of your Correspondent and my quondam associate, Mr. R. Wallace, on Isaiah ix. 5, 6, [Vol. XIX. pp. 21, 94, 223,] I have perused with deep interest; and am happy to observe the particular notice which they have drawn forth from our judicious American critic. They have led me to renew my investigation into that passage; and as one result of my examination, I send for your acceptance a translation of the elaborate Scholium, or note on this passage, by the younger Rosenmüller, a name known to most of your readers, and whose criticisms will long obtain the candid attention of enlightened biblical inquirers. Let me add, that I employ the second edition of this author, Leipsic, 1810, between which and the former edition, I remember, that our learned Theological Professor pronounced that some material variations exist, and in none of more essential importance than in the Scholia on the prophet Isaiah. I have not aimed to give a translation in all respects literal, but believe that I have fairly represented the meaning of my author. I purpose to subjoin a few remarks suggested to me, both upon the Scholium of Rosenmüller, and the explanation of the same passage, as an argument for the Deity of Christ, in Dr. Pye Smith's "Scripture Testimony." B. M.

"Unto us a child is born," i. e. to our assistance, Immanuel, whose birth the prophet had foretold, ch. vii. 14, and whom he had called the Preserver of his country, when describing the incursions of the enemy. According to the prophetic manner, he represents the future as if present before

his view.

"Unto us a son is given," who shall work out our deliverance. This repetition of the same sentiment is [here] a mark of exultation.

"And the government is upon his shoulder." He administers the affairs of the state. Pliny employs a similar expression, Pan. Traj. ch. x.: "Since your father has abundantly tried how well the sovereignty sits upon your shoulders," Cicero also, in his Oration for Flaccus, § 94, thus addresses the judges: "In this trial, (judicio,) I say, that you support the whole Republic on your shoulders." Others understand the Hebrew word of the royal robe, as in Jonah iii. 6; for here the word n is used of the royal robe, worn by the king of Assyria, the insignia of royal authority worn about the shoulders. Grotius thinks, that by these words the birth of a monarch is signified, who should bear the royal purple from his cradle. "And his name shall be called," or "he shall call his name." Και καλειTaι to ovoμa autov, is the reading of the LXX.

[ocr errors]

Wonderful." Isaiah xxv. 1. The abstract for the concrete object of admiration, Vulgate, Admirabilis, Aquila, Oavuasos; Symmachus, Ilapadotados, derived either from Tapa doar, beyond expectation, as Hesychius explains it, or from Tapadotal, -I make illustrious, glorious,-in which sense the word is used by those Hebrews who lived among the Greeks, as is evident from 2 Maccab. iii. 30. The appellation Wonderful may be applied to this divine hero, both on account of his miraculous birth of the virgin, and on account of the many illustrious works done by him, [N.B.1 The same name is given to the divine Messenger who appeared to Manoah, and did wondrously. Judg. xiii. 18, 19. "Counsellor." "Imparting salutary counsels to man out of the stores of his own wisdom. Some critics, after Theodotion, join this epithet with the preceding, thus, Wonderful Counsel

lor, Davμasŵs Bouλevay; but in opposition to the genius of the language, which in that case requires that the order of the words should have been inverted.-Since by the epithet Coun sellor the wisdom of Immanuel is denoted, so his power is described by the next words 12 8 [in the English Version] Mighty God, Deus, fortis heros-God, or mighty hero.

properly denotes a mighty one, and is applied to Nebuchadnezzar, who is called the mighty one of the heathen. But in the verse before us the Supreme Being is to be understood, (Remark 1.) See ch. x. 21, where the same words are manifestly employed in this sense; and by comparing these two passages, it is known that these two words are not to be separated, as some interpreters have attempted, as if they were written, God, mighty; which is proved by the Masoretic point placed under, to denote that it should be joined to the next word. a denotes one who excels in valour, strength, power, and is the title of a hero, Gen. x. 8; 1 Sam. xvii. 51; and is applied to Jehovah, Deut. x. 17; Zeph. iii. 17; Ps. xxiv. 8. That God, clothed in human nature, may appear among men, was the persuasion of all antiquity. (2) See Huet. The Indian Brahmins to this day teach that the Deity has been concealed, in the forms of certain great men, and thus held intercourse with the human race; and that Vishnu, i. e. conqueror, vikat@p, who, they say, is the second person of the three-one God, has already assumed a body nine times, and sometimes even a human body; and that the same will yet be done by him once more. He maintains, that under the name of Chrishnu, and the character of a teacher of morals, the same has descended to promote the reformation of men of wicked habits. See the Asiatic Researches.-The divine nature of the great hero and prince described by our prophet in this passage, is designated by the additional epithet

8, Father of eternity, (3) i. e. eternal, for possessor of eternity, as in 2 Kings i. 8, possessor of hairs, i. e. hairy. Nothing is more frequent with the Arabs, than in similar forms of expression to employ father for possessor. Hence the balsam-tree is, at the present day, called by the Arabs

father of odours, i. e. odorous. And father of variegated colour, i. e. variegated, is the epithet of a bird of the heron species. It is evident from Job xx. 4, that the name y signifies not only that eternity which the schools denominate à posteriori, but also that which is denominated à priori. Tri fling is the idea of Abarbanel, who takes the word in the sense of spoil, which the word denotes, Gen. xlix 27; so that Hezekiah would be called father of spoils, because the spoils of the Assyrian army, miraculously slain, and of the Egyptians and Arabs whom he had plundered, came into his possession. But this appellation of plunderer would little comport with the other splendid epithets with which the prophet adorns his hero. Lastly, the appellation Prince of Peace, i. e. peace-maker, who will reign over a world to which he has restored peace; comp. ver. 7 with ch. xi. 6-8. Virgil, in similar language, describes the reign of that illustrious prince of the golden age, in his celebrated Eclogue iv. 15:

"The son shall lead the life of gods,

and be

By gods and heroes seen, and gods and

heroes see;

The jarring nations he in peace shall bind,

And with paternal virtues rule mankind."

The Persian kings of the Sassanian race, subsequently to the time of our prophet, assumed to themselves similar lofty titles. A letter sent to the king of Armenia speaks of one of them in the following language :Chosroes, king of kings, sovereign of potentates, lord of the nations, guardian of peace, saviour of men, in the estimation of gods, a man, good, eternal; in the estimation of men, a god most illustrious, most glorious; conqueror, rising with the sun, and by night gratifying the eyes.-Let us be cautious how we believe that such proud appellations as the haughtiness of the later kings of Asia claimed for itself, were attributed to any king of Judah, Israel or Syria, in the simplicity of that early age of the prophet. (4) The epithets used in this and the following verse do none of them agree with a man who is not God. The Jews, however, for the same reason which has induced them to pervert

the meaning of the oracle registered, ch. vii. 14, have disturbed the sense of the present prophecy. Some of them, as Jarchi and Kimchi, deny that all these splendid epithets are referable to the child born, and the son given. They refer, most of them, to God. The last epithet, Prince of Peace, they apply to the child who should be born. The Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The Eternal, shall call his name Prince of Peace; and by the latter they consider Hezekiah to be understood. How finely the appellation pacificator agrees with him, what is read in 2 Kings xviii. 8, &c., will inform us. But I regret having related such childish interpretations. They have been amply expressed and refuted by Saubert and Frischmuth. But in applying to the child the single appellation of Prince of Peace, they follow the Chaldee interpreter, who, although he admits that the Messiah is announced in this passage, yet gives the following explanation. The prophet saith to the house of David, Since a little child hath been born to he hath taken the law upon him, to us, a son hath been given to us, and protect it, and his name shall be called, by the Wonderful Counsellor, the Mighty God, who endureth continually, Messiah, in whose time peace shall be multiplied upon us. He considers, therefore, that the name of Messiah would be given by the Supreme Being to the child that would be born. But it is contrary to the usual mode of Hebrew expression, that the words his name, in phrases of this sort, should precede the namer. (5) The word name occupies a middle place between the word expressing the namer and the named; so that the name which follows the word nw is always attributed to the person named, not to the person who gives the appellation. See Gen. iii. 20, iv. 25, xvi. 15, xxi. 3; Ruth iv. 17; 1 Sam. i. 20, &c. Besides, the Chaldee interpretation is opposed to the punctuation which the Masorites have preserved, doubtless received from their ances tors. For if the words, Father of Eternity, belonged to God who gave the name, they would have separated them by the proper mark from the words which follow, viz. Prince of Peace. [· ] Is it, in fine, probable that the prophet, by such an

« PoprzedniaDalej »