[ocr errors]

And though this skin and body feed the worm,
Yet in my flesh, and with the eyes of sense,
I shall behold my Saviour and my God;
Shall see him for myself, and not another:

My reins within me yearn with strong desire !
We have said that we cannot pretend, within the limits of
this work, to give any thing like a complete review of a work
80 extensive as that of van der Palm ; nor can we enumerate
even a small portion of those passages which deserve severe
animadversion. We can only give a few hints, by which our
readers may be enabled to judge of the spirit in which his work
is conducted ; and as it seems but just to give two or three
specimens out of the New Testament, we will only remark
further, that, with the writers of the neologian school generally,
van der Palm seems to consider the Canticles as not at all be-
longing to the inspired Scriptures. We say, seems ; for he does
not say so in so many words; but he speaks, as usual, in a
doubtful manner, which may rather lead one to guess at his
meaning, than suffice to declare it. However, this he tells us
plainly, that he considers it only as a collection of love songs,
intended to set forth the sweetness and tenderness of conjugal
affection when limited to one object, in opposition to the poly-
gamy which has prevailed in the East from the most ancient
times. He treats it as a thing not to be dreamed of, that there
should be any mystical or spiritual meaning sought in this
book ; and therefore feels himself obliged to offer many excuses
for the Oriental colours in which every thing is described, and
makes a sort of apology for its admission into the Sacred

Turning, then, to the New Testament, we find the brief notice of the doctrine of the Trinity, given by the old translators in a note referring to Matt. iii, 16, 17, entirely omitted, as useless and unseasonable. Matt. iv. 4 is rendered : “ Man needeth not to live by bread alone, but by every thing which the mouth of God thereto ordains.This is called translation! We wish that there were no need to accuse English divines—Dr. Campbell, for instance of putting the same construction upon it. In his notes on the whole passage, vers. 1-11, our author notices with some appearance of contempt the idea that this must all be taken literally; but mentions that others suppose the tempter to have been a person deputed by the Jewish council, who wanted to put the truth of the Divine mission of Jesus to the proof, or to persuade him to unite with their party. A third class (with whom he seems disposed to agree) consider all this as having been presented to the imagination of Jesus in a trance or vision ; and thinks the expression, “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit

I am

into the wilderness,” gives us to understand as much !-In Matt. v. 3, he would omit the words "in spirit;” and read, Blessed are the

poor, for theirs,” &c. : for he tells us that “poor in spirit”is " a strange expression, and scarcely in the style of Jesus ! We can believe, indeed, that to this learned Professor it is totally unintelligible: but what becomes of the force and sweetness of the passage, if such a maiming of the sacred text be admitted ?-On Matt. xviii. 20, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name," he observes in the note, “That is to say, two or three Apostles ; for to these alone belong properly the promises which we here meet with”!

The idea of a real conversion is intolerable to such divines. Therefore, in the notes on Luke xix. 8, he tells us that the saying of Zaccheus, " Bebold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor,” is to be understood of his ordinary conduct during his whole life : and translates the last clause of the verse, ready to return him four-fold;" and considers this as the language of a man who was conscious he had never defrauded any one, and was unjustly despised by the prejudiced Jews, merely because he was a publican! We need not point out how completely the words of our Lord (in vers.9,10) refute such a strained interpretation.

We might point out how, in the notes on John i. 1 and 14, instead of the plain, straight-forward declaration of the proper Deity and Incarnation of the

Son of God, the reader is bewildered with a learned account of the notions of certain philosophers of his time, from whose opinions the Evangelist intended to warn and wean his readers. His own opinion, as far as may be gathered from the notes, would seem to be that of Sabellius, rather than that of the Nicene Fathers : but we are rather inclined to question whether he himself knows what his opinion is respecting the person of Christ.

Perhaps our readers will be glad to know what is said on John iii. 1–11. He tells us, then, in the note on ver. 3, that “ without conversion, and a change of tenets (or opinions), no one can have part in God's kingdom : this conversion Jesus names, a new birth; which expression the Jews used at that time, to express a transition from heathenism to Judaism.” This is the key to all he says on that important conversation, and on all similar passages. If this were forgotten, he would sometimes appear to give a true and spiritual interpretation : but this explains all that he elsewhere says, and reduces it to nothing.

Let this then suffice. We trust it is enough to prove to our readers, that it was worthy of the craft of Satan to alter the Dutch language, so that a new translation of the Scriptures should seem to be required, when he could find opportunity, by the expedient, to substitute such a work as that of Professor van der Palm for the old Dutch version, of which we gave an account in our preceding Number. And to this work there is prefixed a list of nearly three thousand subscribers! persons of the first respectability in the country, and a large proportion of them ministers of the Dutch Church! Nor has any one come forward, except the converted Jew to whom we have alluded, to point out, in a public and resolute manner, the numberless abominations which this book contains! This is a fearful token of the awful state of the Dutch churches at present: and it is partly to give some idea of the state of religion in that country that we have dwelt upon this book : and while an unforeseen accident, which has broken the thread of his narrative, and made it rather difficult to resume it, has interrupted the communications of our Correspondent on the State of Religion in Holland, we trust our readers will think we have not done amiss in giving, by way of episode or appendix, this brief account of the old and the new Dutch versions of the Bible. We think the consideration and comparison of the two will furnish some important hints, upon many points conpected with the progress of religion in general, and with the important work of Bible-translation in particular.

We conclude with citing the last sentence of van der Palm's preface, and (as a pleasing contrast) the last paragraph of another preface, which is, perhaps, not so well known to our readers as it should be.

I conclude, after having supplicated the abundant blessing of the Most High, and of the glorified King of his Church, upon your important occupations for the promotion of truth, love, and virtue, with naming myself, &c.

This is the only expression of a devotional nature in the whole preface; which we may easily perceive would come as suitably from the mouth of a Socinian as from that of a Christian, if not indeed (all circumstances considered) much more so. It is therefore a relief to turn to the conclusion of the Address of our own pious Translators to the Reader, which may be studied for itself, as well as in contrast with the above.

“Many other things we might give thee warning of, gentle reader, if we had not exceeded the measure of a preface already. It remaineth that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of his grace,

which is able to build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts ; opening our wits, that we may understand his word; enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea, that we may love it to the end, Ye are brought unto fountains of living water which ye digged

[ocr errors]

not : do not cast earth into them, with the Philistines ; neither prefer broken pits before them, with the wicked Jews. Others have laboured, and you may enter into their labours. O receive not so great things in vain : O despise not so great salvation. Be not like swine, to tread under foot so great things; neither yet like dogs, to tear and abuse holy things. Say not to our Saviour, with the Gergesites, Depart out of our coasts: neither yet, with Esau, sell your birthright for a mess of pottage. If light be come into the world, love not darkness more than light : if food, if clothing, be offered, go not naked, starve not yourselves. Remember....... the admonition and menacing of St. Augustine ; They that despise God's will inviting them, shall feel God's will taking vengeance of them. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God; but a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to everlasting blessedness in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when he setteth his word before us, to read it; when he stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to answer, Here am I, here we are, to do thy will, O God. The Lord work a care and conscience in us to know him and serve him, that we may be acknowledged of him at the appearing of our Lord JESUS CHRIST: to whom, with the Holy Ghost, be all praise and thanksgiving. Amen.


[ocr errors]


Letter from a Brother Bigot. As an introduction to the letter from a Brother Bigot which I propose to give, let me premise an extract from a previous one, from the same quarter, to which it refers.

“I thought to have told you,for your refreshment and encouragement,something of some good friends and brother Bigots abroad: but I believe I must reserve this for another communication. Perhaps I ought to have told you how I became a Bigot: for such Bigots as we, are no Bigots born and bred. On the contrary, I was nursed in the very lap of Liberalism, both in politics and religion; and I have been obliged for myself, under guidance and a blessing from on high, to search and sift the whole system to the very bottom : and therefore I know, so as very few can know, what miserable folly and wickedness it is. As such I have renounced it all, and I have taken God's word to be my only rule and guide in all my conduct and opinions; and that (as you justly observe) determines every thing. I know that truth is found of all who truly seek it; and that those who do not know and love the Lord Jesus Christ, whatever they may pretend of love to truth and wisdoin, do in reality hate them both : for Christ is wisdom and Christ is Truth itself-immutable and eternal Truth and Wisdom. And I have so learned this, that the errors and opposition of all men else do only afford fresh proof of, and confirm, the truth which I maintain. Thus much then about myself, that we may fully understand one another. And as the enemy is in front, and we are called to the battle, I will only give you my motto, from an oldfashioned ballad, in which a son of ancient kings is introduced using expressions which the Christian soldier (who remembers that he is a king as well as a priest unto God) may fitly apply to himself: for he knows his own dignity, however poor and despised he may be, and is content to be, upon earth.

This only I retain

Of all our honours past,
And this shall still our pride remain

Our glory to the last,
That when my father's sword

I draw for truth and right,
Then-cloth'd with majesty restor’d,

And with ancestral might-
This poor, despised stranger,

This wanderer in the earth,
Shall stand as bold in front of danger

As kings which gave him birth :
Then all and each shall hear

A king and warrior's shout,
While from this eye they see with fear

A kingly soul look out.
Here follows the second letter :-
« Good Brother and true,

“Having yet a little time to spare, I must write you again a few words, because I perceive that some persons do not a little wince to find themselves set down among Papists, in your paper No. II., because they advocate the Popish

One thought, however, has occurred to my mind, which has satisfied me that you are right, and that Papists they certainly are. For, who were the first Protestants ? Those who came out of Babylon, separated themselves from an apostate church, and resolutely protested against antichristian errors and abominations. Now, then, it is evident that those only who would do the same are worthy to be called Protestants. But would those who have sided with the Papist on the late question, ever have found in their hearts to do so? I am persuaded they would not. They would have reasoned with themselves, that such harsh measures could do no good -- that schism certainly was a fearful sinthat they might do much more good by remaining where they were, by conciliating, by shewing love, by scattering the good seed in a quiet and secret manner, by gradually persuading their brethren to renounce some of their errors : and so with their politic measures they would have thought to prevail upon Popery to become No Popery. (A hopeful scheme truly !!!) But to set up the standard of Divine truth, to denounce the Pope as antichrist, to take the sword of the Spirit and attack idolatry, to drag forth the secret iniquities and corruptions of the mother of harlots,” to open the chambers of imagery and let in the light of truth upon them, that heaven and earth might join to loathe and abhor them—would they not have started at all this ? would they not have done much to tie the hands and impede the efforts of those who did it? Well, then, they are no Protestants. A man may be a Papist, because his father was such before him; and to be a Protestant for no better reason, is to be no Protestant at all. So also a man may be a Papist by mere tame acquiescence, and by taking opinions upon trust: but let not men think to be Protestants in this fashion; this is mere Popery; just what the Pope requires in the laity. Set them down, therefore, for Papists, till they shew something of a truly Protestant spirit; till


« VorigeDoorgaan »