self-evident, that its loss from the argument of predestination would be real gain. To suggest the result of my own thoughts upon these words, and to show that disputed passages are of little or no use, but probably of more harm than good, to support vital truths, is the object of these strictures, which relate I. To the manner in which your correspondent has treated the pasHe says he is "ignorant of the regular rules of criticism, and so adopts his own course." If then I understand him rightly, he prefers treating the interpretation of these words in a common sense way, (what else is the meaning of his "own course?") as opposed to "regular rules of criticism." To this every genuine student of the Bible would, of course, object. What should we think of the judge who, being ignorant of common law, would try the criminal by common sense, or in his own way; or of the sailor who, discarding nautical science, prefers adopting his own course in steering the ship; or of the medical man, treating human maladies and lives according to common sense, instead of by the infallible light of science? Language has laws, relations, usages, and dependences, which must determine its meaning; and not mere common sense, how excellent soever common sense may be as an auxiliary to science. Is not Biblical interpretation more a question of philology, grammar, and of the regular rules of criticism, than of fancy, or of common sense? In proportion as our churches, ministers, and colleges become familiar with the laws of language, and apply them in the interpretation of God's word, as enlightened by the Holy Spirit, so will the divided church become one- -the serpent error hide its head—and the truth as it is in Christ be taught. II. The meaning of the word Terayμévoi, as used in the verse in question. Your correspondent says, "The whole of the controversy evidently turns upon the real meaning of that word," and, he might have added, that word interpreted in unison with the rules of criticism or the laws of language, and the design of the apostle's discourse. He has shown from Donnegan's Lexicon, the Greek Testament, the Septuagint, Xenophon, and others, that rerayμévoi is rendered, "command," "decree," "ordain," &c.; but observe, only from parallel passages, which happens to be but one of the many laws which determine the meaning of single words. We concede that the word may be so rendered in many of the instances your correspondent has adduced; but does it follow it must necessarily be so translated in every other case, or even in the above text? Words have more than one meaning, although not in one and the same place, but they often stand in such a connexion that a mere collation of parallelisms cannot determine their meaning. To ascertain the true rendering of Teтayμévoi as used in Acts xiii. 48, we examine 1. Its derivation and history. Its root is τάττω Οι τάσσω, to set in order, to arrange, to constitute, to dispose, &c.—from the Hebrew, law, decree, plan, or purpose. It is used in the Septuagint for 14, which Gesenius renders, to give, to set, to apply the mind to, to devote one's self to anything; also for, to put, to set, to place, to turn in any direction, to set the mind upon, &c. Likewise for to set, to lay, to render, to turn in any direction, to set the heart upon. As these words are occasionally reciprocated, all I wish to show is that we derive a sanction from that interchange to translate ráσow other than "ordain" if the nature and design of the argument seem to require. 2. Parallel passages; a few examples of the many that might be given will suffice. Parallelisms are the strong hold of your correspondent; but the passage in question cannot be determined by this rule of criticism; it can only form one among others which must be employed to determine the meaning of this word. Plato de Legg. 6, p. 563, Φύσις εἰς ἀρετὴν τεταγμένη. 2 Mac. vi. 21, Οἱ δὲ πρὸς τῷ σπλαγχνισμῷ τεταγμένοι. 1 Cor. xvi. 15, Εἰς διακονίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἔταξαν. Táoreaba eis sometimes signifies to be thoroughly disposed for, purposed for, bent on, or devoted to, in all which cases the middle sense is certainly apparent. 3. The apposition "arising from the tacit comparison between the conduct of the Gentiles on the one hand, and the Jews on the other." The conduct of the former, as mentioned in verse 48, is contrasted with that of the latter in verse 46. In short, áπwbéîσße Tòv λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ is opposed to ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ Κυριοῦ and οὐκ ἀξίους κρίνετε ἑαυτοὺς τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, to ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 4. The aim of the historian, which seems to be, to show the introduction of the Gospel to the Gentiles. He describes the apostle's visit to the synagogue-his discourse-the rejection of that discourse by the Jews -upon which the apostle turns to the Gentiles-who hear and take the comfort of the good news, give God the glory, and devote themselves to the pursuit of eternal life. Hence, from the aim of the historian, the apposition in the context, the sanction of parallel passages, and the history of the word, it does appear that the word in question ought not to be translated so as to convey the idea of election or predestination from that verse; which would be unnatural, out of place, and interrupt the course and design of the narrative. I entirely concur with Dr. Bloomfield in the full meaning, which contains a sense at once profound and worthy of the evangelist. "Whose minds were in a fit state to judge of the evidence for the truth of the Gospel, who were seriously concerned about their salvation, and were thoroughly disposed to make all sacrifices to obtain eternal life." The persons who then believed appear to have been under a previous religious training, and were probably proselytes associating with the Jews. I should, therefore, render reтaypévoi, disposed, devoted, determined, or resolved upon eternal life. Should the "Unknown Correspondent" ask, Did the ability for this disposition arise from themselves as the original moving cause? I reply, Certainly not, but in accordance to God's free and sovereign purpose and grace; but with that the historian has nothing to do in this passage, but simply and alone to state the result of the apostle's discourse among the Jews and Gentiles-the former rejected eternal life, or the Gospel; but the latter embraced, or determined on the pursuit of eternal life; therefore I conclude with the reputable London minister, that Acts xiii. 48 is one of the "most practical texts in the whole Bible." I avow myself a firm believer in the great doctrine of unconditional and eternal election; but I have an instinctive dislike to attempt at supporting that or any other truth from words of doubtful import. It betrays a want of candour-special pleading-and a want of confidence in sound, enlightened, Biblical interpretation. I have studied closely the last paragraph of your correspondent, but I cannot fully comprehend his meaning. He seems there to shift the question, to concede to Dr. Hammond, who is strongly opposed to the common version, and to Dr. Doddridge, who certainly does not support it. If, Sir, you deem these thoughts any way worthy of the attention of your readers, they are at your service for insertion in your instructive periodical. Leicestershire, Feb. 23, 1843. Yours truly, W. S. LINES ADDRESSED TO THE REV. ROBERT MOFFAT, ON HIS DEPARTURE FOR AFRICA. BY A FRIEND. AND have we looked our very last upon thy noble brow? Thou bearest not away from hence the victor's blood-stained wreath; It is because the smile of Heaven hath blest the child of earth. Oh be that smile upon thee still, in each remotest glen, Thy memory will be with us still in every house of prayer Thy brethren, on their hearts to heaven, thy cherished name shall bear; Thy friends will love them for thy sake; and, watching o'er them still, And oh that all may grace at last the Saviour's diadem! Mission School, Walthamstow. REVIEWS. The Death of Christ the Redemption of his People. By A. Marshall, D.D., LL.D. pp. 227. 1842. Paterson, Edinburgh; Marshall, London. Strictures on Dr. Marshall's Work on the Atonement. By an English Congregational Minister. pp. 42. 1843. Gladding, London; Fullarton, Edinburgh and Glasgow. OUR readers are perhaps aware that the Scotch Secession Church, though it has cast aside the trammels of state alliance and the dishonour of state support, yet retains, with the Establishment, the Westminster Confession as its standard of belief. The clergy of the kirk appear hitherto to have subscribed to it in good faith; but who shall say to the progress of reformation, "Thus far shalt thou come, and no farther!" In the movement from error, an impetus is sometimes acquired, which carries forward its originators beyond the goal they aimed at. The first blow against oppression strengthens the courage that impelled it. The mind that has opened its portals to the examination of received opinions, and weighed and found wanting the "wisdom of ancestors" on one point, will find it difficult to close them against the importunity of a second. Obsta principiis should be the motto of those who love darkness rather than light. Within the last few years, the open avowal, in many of the Secession pulpits, of the moderate Calvinism of Fuller and Williams, and in a few instances a tendency towards the sentiments of Stuart and Barnes, has excited no small alarm and outcry among the orthodox of the body. In June, 1841, this subject was discussed by the Synod, and a prophylactic resolution was adopted, not of the most satisfactory nature, as speedily became apparent. Feeling that something further was required, and wisely preferring reason to rule, before the end of the year it was resolved to write in vindication of the old opinions. The choice of an advocate fell on Dr. Marshall, who, from the weight of his character and influence, the signal service he had already rendered the body, his antipathy to these novelties, and the clearness of his views on most subjects, appeared well qualified for the task. The result of the choice is, however, sufficiently amusing. Like the barrister who took up the wrong brief, he has just done the very thing which he should not, and argued with no small ability in defence of the sentiments he was expected to explode. As might be supposed, his book has raised a shout of triumph from one party, and struck the other with consternation and dismay. "Art thou also become like unto us?" exclaim "the novices," while his friends cry, "Neither curse them at all, nor bless them at all." True, he wears the face of a foe, and spares neither sneers or frowns on these innovations, while at the same time he maintains positions scarcely differing from those he denounces! Nothing can be more excellent than the manner in which the "Strictures" before us demonstrate this, strip off the garment of orthodoxy which the Doctor has assumed, and show him up in his proper character, as a disciple of what he calls "the new school." That subscription to articles of belief is useless and worse, is shown in the ecclesiastical history of every century, in the annals of the English and Scotch establishments, in the Wesleyan Tracts for the Times, and not less convincingly in the recent proceedings of the Secession Church. Articles of belief are useless. Uniformity of faith never has been or will be secured by them. Forms of words are too flexible to make it possible. Dr. Marshall writes in defence of the Westminster Confessions, which says, "The elect are redeemed by Christ; neither are any others redeemed by Christ but the elect only." Will it be believed, that this gentleman deems himself a consistent maintainer of this doctrine while he declares, "For all men, for sinners in general, the Saviour died: he died in their nature, he died in their stead." But creeds are not useless merely, they are positively mischievous. They tend to repress independence of mind, and to impair that honesty and openness which the defence of religious opinions should ever exhibit. Witness the deference paid to the words of men in the standard writings of the Secession Church. Witness the "stealthy way" in which, according to Dr. M's. description, the new opinions have been disseminated. How much more truly venerable is reverence to the word of God as such. Though the impracticability of Dr. M's. position must be apparent to every eye but his own, we believe him to be perfectly sincere in the midst of all. Part of the opinions of the "new school" he approves and appropriates, with some of his old familiar notions still clinging to him. Driven by dissatisfaction from his old position, he has adopted part of the new system, without remembering that like him who drank but "one small drop" of the oblivious waters, he must straight forget all his former habits and modes of thought. The systems are not like polypi, of which parts of many will unite and grow together; they have complete and distinct vitality. He has mended the rent in the tattered garment of his old opinions with a piece of the new, and made the rent worse. He has attempted a task as hopeless as to harmonize the systems of Copernicus and Ptolemy, or to defend the philosophy of Plato on the principles of Aristotle. Like the angel with one foot |