Page images
PDF
EPUB

yet lack that one thing, the spirit of proselytism, which would in the estimation of at least a very material portion of the "party" here spoken of, effectually exclude him from their ranks? Would not Mr. Williamson have ranked him, after all, only among those whom he elsewhere designates as "semi-evangelical?" His evangelicalism would be deemed very superficial, we believe, if it did not induce him to enroll himself among the members of certain societies; if it did not induce him freely "to give the right hand of fellowship" to some out of the Esta blished Church, who even are known to entertain no good will towards it; if it did not induce him to forget the "horribile decretum" of Calvin, and the conduct of some of Calvin's followers, in consideration of the zeal of those of his own time, who hold in other respects the same ténets with himself.

[ocr errors]

We object to the above as an erroneous and defective statèment: but moreover, the method of proof which is employed on behalf of the tenets of the "evangelical party," throughout these volumes, appears to us highly objectionable. A great number of eminent writers are introduced to notice; each is made to contribute something, and thus the whole fabric is reared: this is no sooner accomplished, than the names which had so materially aided the undertaking, are forgotten or cease to have the smallest weight. If we measure the strength of this "party in the Church" by those called forth in its defence, we find some who little thought of being so employed. The author of the "Divine Legation of Moses," we should apprehend, little imagined he and Whitfield were of the same party; and we rather doubt whether the learned translator of Michaelis is aware of the important link he constitutes in the chain of proof. But indeed we are told in one place that "of men of evangelical principles all missionary societies and all missionaries consist." Vol. II. p. 51. So we should say also,-using the word evangelical in its proper sense; but in the connection in which it is here made to stand we know not whether the venerable Societies for Promoting Christian Knowledge and the Propagation of the Gospel, will acknowledge the truth of the assumption. But if the assertion be true, it must follow that all the bishops are evangelical; and that consequently Mr. Williamson's fears, as elsewhere expressed, were unnecessary.

It.

Supposing, however, that all which is said in favour of Mr. Williamson's clients were correct, surely it was incumbent on the author of a work like this, to give the reasons assigned for their conduct by those who do not join this " party." was impossible that he could be ignorant of the fact, that numbers of truly conscientious men have thought it incumbent on

them to act very differently, and that many have published what they deemed satisfactory reasons for their conduct. Why then was not as full a statement made on their behalf as on the other side of the question? Was it because his great and avowed object is to promote evangelical religion. It is assumed that " evangelical religion" contains every thing that is honest, lovely, and of good report; and that if any thing to the reverse is found, that is a mere exception to the general rule. It is assumed, that by the testimony of Scripture, and the opinions of the fathers of the English Church, these principles are maintained, and to the same extent. Admitting that this is correct, what inference would an ordinary reader draw from such a statement? Mr. Williamson indeed passes over in silence the conduct of those whom he does not call "evangelical," but his work is calculated to leave the most unfavourable impression on the mind respecting them; for it necessarily follows, that, according to his statement, they virtually renounce pure Christianity as taught in the Gospel, and professed by the Reformers; that they shut their eyes to an extraordinary revival of religion which is taking place in our own times, and in fact incur the anathema pronounced by St. Paul against those "who preach another Gospel."

But the minister of a small congregation, in a remote part of the kingdom, is almost the last person we should select to discern the "signs of the times;" and whatever respect we may have for Mr. Williamson's integrity, the volumes before us give us no reason to infer either superior talent or superior learning. We cannot therefore bow to a decision which casts imputations of this kind on the thousands who have thought at least as intensely upon the subject as himself, and have come to different conclusions; and we deeply regret the publication of statements like these, which are calculated to widen the breach which unhappily does exist, and create enmity between those who are united by the most solemn and affecting ties. If there be a difference of opinion as to the best mode of declaring "the whole counsel of God," and of walking "worthy of the vocation wherewith" we" are called," (for it is into this, that. the question must, in a great measure, be ultimately resolved,) it surely is most unbecoming to prejudice the minds of the unwary by assertions, more easily made than refuted because few are able or disposed to examine the foundation of such matters for themselves.

But the question at issue between" the parties in the Church" is by no means as Mr. Williamson represents it. Because the evangelical clergy" preach some of the doctrines of Christianity, it cannot be inferred that others do not; nor that all bear

66

ing that name preach only the doctrines of the Gospel. Any thing like a candid enquiry would have satisfied the author that even were his supposition correct, the difference in opinion as to the essence of Christianity might be very slight, when the difference in opinion as to the method to be pursued in declaring it, is very great.

evan

The ground of objection which numbers of considerate Clergymen take to that which is called, in these volumes, the evangelical system," is not so much upon the points mentioned by Mr. Williamson, as upon others wholly omttted by him; and a person of different opinions might easily draw a picture of those who do not throw themselves into the ranks of the 66 gelical party," which would make the conduct of its advocates appear quite as inexcusable as Mr. Williamson leaves it to be inferred that the majority of the Clergy now are. But recri mination is not our object-far, very far from it-nor should we have written thus much upon the subject, but from deep regret at finding a Christian minister, certainly in many things highly deserving of commendation, presenting so very partial a statement, which his general moderation is only likely to render the more extensively pernicious. It is calculated to mislead many as to the real differences of opinion in the Church, to encourage others in error, and to create and nourish a spirit of bitterness against those whose conduct and preaching deserve a very different reception.

If any determinate idea must needs be attached to the word " evangelical" in its modern signification, we can only receive it as follows, that a certain body, conceiving themselves to preach the Gospel of our Lord more correctly and more fully than others, have, by similarity of views, been led to pursue the same method in disseminating their opinions, and have thereby created a distinction which before did not exist. But after all, this is only their opinion; others bound by the same weighty obligations, having the same Gospel in their hands, and the same motives to declare it honestly and zealously, yet pursue a different course. There are many who deem the evangelical party" much in error; and a very great number indeed, who, however they may respect individuals in it, consider the manifest tendency of the "party" to separate from their brethren and approximate to the Dissenters, likely to produce much lasting evil, with but little chance of even temporary good. The question as to which is right, is not the one before us; it only respects what ought to be the representation of the case in a work of this nature, and in this view of the subject we believe most of our readers will be disposed to agree with us.

[ocr errors]

Пpakeis TWV ATOOTоλWY. Acta Apostolorum, Variorum Notis tum Dictionem tum Materiam Illustrantibus suas adjecit. HASTINGS ROBINSON, A.M. Soc. Antiq. Lond. Philosoph. Cantab. et Collegii Div. Johannis Socius. 8vo. 248 pp. 9s. 6d. London. Rivingtons. 1824.

Ir the plan of Mr. Robinson's work were not so simple, and its merits so obvious, as to insure it an extended circulation, we should be tempted to regret the scanty notice to which the limits of our publication confine us. He has presented us with a very neat and elegant edition of the Acts, for the most part after Griesbach's text, accompanied with a judicious selection of notes from the best commentators. Considerable light is thrown upon the style of the sacred history by frequent references both to the classics and to those later and provincial writers, whose dialect more exactly agrees with that of St. Luke. Jewish antiquities and customs are illustrated by extracts from Josephus and Philo; and the fathers of the Church are occasionally introduced in elucidation of difficult passages.

The concise form into which this various information is thrown, is not the least recommendation of the edition. The service, indeed, which Mr. Robinson has rendered to sacred literature cannot easily be estimated. It is too much the practice of students to read the New Testament with little of the care and accuracy they think necessary to bestow upon the writings of the classics. Composed, as it is, in an impure dialect, it is almost considered to be without the range of critical examination: the Gospels and Acts in particular, being read at school as easy Greek for tyros in the language, are not unfrequently accounted too simple to engage the attention, and employ the research of the advanced scholar. Nay, the very reverence in which the writings of inspired authors are naturally held, is calculated to deter him from trying them by the common rules of grammar; and from handling the composition so familiarly, and so rigidly analyzing the phrases, as he would if they were works of merely human original. Mr. Robinson's labours will, we hope, assist in removing these prejudicial mistakes: under his hands the sacred historian is raised to the dignity of a classic, and takes his place among those writers whose works, as compositions, are to be studied with critical precision.

[ocr errors]

Another important, though at first sight less considerable, advantage of Mr. R.'s edition, arises from his having thrown the history into its original and continuous form, and marking

We cannot help

the verses merely on the side of the page *. wishing this method were universally observed. When it is considered how great an obstacle the division into chapters and verses proves to the right interpretation of Scripture, obscuring, perverting, and destroying the sense, it is almost a subject for regret that the additional facility of reference, which it supplies, should have led to its adoption: certainly we may regret that the division, when introduced, was not conducted with more judgment than was actually employed. Conducted, however, on any principles, it has the effect of breaking up the sacred volume into so many unconnected fragments; and necessarily tends to encourage the practice, so lamentably common in the present day, of explaining passages altogether detached from the context.

On inspecting Mr. Robinson's note on Acts xiii. 33, we were surprised to find him agreeing with Cyril and Gregory Nyssen in referring the words "Thou art My Son" to Christ's divine, and "This day have I begotten Thee," to his human nature. The passage itself plainly points to the resurrection: Kaì Яμɛic ὑμᾶς ευαγγελιζόμεθα τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας επαγγελλίαν γενομένην, ὅτι ταύτην ὁ Θεὸς εκπεπλήρωκε τοῖς τέκνοις αυτῶν ἡμῖν, αναστήσας Ιησοῦν ὩΣ ΚΑΙ εν τῷ πρώτῳ ψαλμῷ γέγραπται· υιός με εἴ συ...κ. τ. λ. that is, "Thou art My Son, this day (i. e. of the resurrection) have I declared the to be so, even My only begotten Son.' Agreeably to the same Apostle's words in the opening of his Epistle to the Romans: περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ·· τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ εν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης εξ αναστάσεως νεκρῶν.

On xvii. 22. we observe he understands deioidaιpoveorépes, to mean not "religious," but "superstitious:" a rendering which, though agreeable to the authorized version, destroys, in our opinion, the beauty of the Apostle's exordium; in which his usual delicacy and address are visible, in seizing upon a point in Athenian habits for which he could commend them; and thence leading them on gently to the doctrines he wishes to impress upon them. It is the more remarkable that Mr. Robinson should have thus explained the word, as in a subsequent passage, in which it occurs (xxv. 19.) he determines it to bear a favourable meaning.

But it is not necessary to enlarge upon points of this nature, in which there will always exist a difference of opinion. If we wished to be very critical, we might find fault with the latinity of some of the notes; and might suggest the expediency in a

We wish Mr. R. had also taken away the division into chapters. As specimen of the awkwardness of the common arrangement, we need only refer to the fourth chapter, the four first verses of which belong to the third, and the six last to the fifth.

« PreviousContinue »