|
(Concluded from page 358.)
“Quotation from other writers,” says Mr. H., “are
made in two ways; one in order to show their opinions on some particular
subject, and the other by way of adaptation, where we make use of
another person’s words as suitable to express our meaning without at all
wishing it to be understood that such was the meaning or object of the
original writer.” On this second plan he gives us a paraphrase of what
he thinks Paul meant to say, and adds: “If this interpretation be
correct, all Mr. Dias’ objections and ridicule fall to the ground.” And
if his interpreta<<447>>tion be not correct, of which there is little
probability, then Mr. Dias’ objections and ridicule stand confirmed and
justified, and however we may admire the worthy gentleman’s ingenuity in
the apology he has made, I cannot help seeing in the words of the text
an intention that his readers should apply to Jesus what Moses said of
the Law.
Mr. H. having favoured us with his explanation of
No. 19., of Dias’ objections, does not think it necessary to say a word
about No. 20; but gratifies his readers with a dissertation on faith and
works, and argues that unless a person has faith he cannot believe; and
that, “if a Jew has no faith in the forgiveness of God, how call he
approach Him in his spirit, how can he pray to Him for good, how can he
remain anything else but an outcast from God’s presence, like a cursed
spirit enshrouded in darkness and misery for ever?” This passage reveals
a certain want of kindliness as well as proper reflection on the part of
the writer. Who world accuse the Jews of wanting faith? where is there
an instance of a nation whose faith has triumphed over so many
difficulties and trials? They have seen their kingdom overthrown, their
nation dispersed; they have for 1800 years been in exile, suffering
imprisonment, confiscations, tortures and death, been everywhere treated
with scorn; have had their children torn from them and brought up in
error. If any nation received and tolerated them, it was only till a
pretext was invented to pillage and banish them. And yet, under all
these trials and persecutions, they have not faltered in their faith of
the fulfillment of the promises which God made to their fathers, that
after having been chastised for their transgressions, He would
mercifully restore them to the happy and glorious state from which they
had fallen. Where can be found a more splendid instance of Faith under
circumstances which seem almost to preclude hope? Yet the worthy
gentleman insinuates that the Jew has not faith, and must remain like a
cursed spirit in darkness and misery for ever. I guess the gentleman
restricts the meaning of the word Faith to the belief in the doctrine of
Christianity, and perhaps to only one of the sects into which it is
divided; but surely he will not deny that the Egyptians, the Chaldeans,
the Chinese, the Hindoos, the Greeks and the Romans, all had faith in
their respective schemes of religion, though they were founded in error.
<<448>>Mr. H. dwells on the visionary theory of types and
antitypes, the supposed connexion of things which assuredly does not
exist. This, he says, in course, a Jew will not acknowledge; “but all
these things upon the matter of fact, the matter of history, knowing
that Jesus rose from the dead, knowing his teaching, knowing the spirit
which he gave to his apostles, and the work they did, all these
allusions of the law become unsealed to us.” But a Jew knows nothing of
all this: the resurrection of Jesus rests on the authority of those only
who were interested in its being believed. What is the fact as related
in the gospel? The body of Jesus was buried in the evening of Friday.
The women went early on Sunday morning, and were told that the body was
gone. A part of this time the sepulchre was guarded by the Roman
soldiers. The chief priest on the Saturday morning applied to Pilate for
a guard; but from Friday evening to Saturday morning when the guard was
set, there must have been an interval of at least fifteen hours,
including the night between Friday and Saturday. What evidence can be
given that the disciples did not carry off the body in the mean time? To
them it was a matter of the utmost consequence, as to what regarded
their future position, that the body should not be found, to disprove
the assurance Jesus had given of his resurrection. The priests on the
other hand were interested that the body should be found, but did not
take the necessary steps to prevent its removal until the next morning.
The other party were on the alert. There is no evidence that the body
was in the sepulchre when the guard was placed there, and Mr. H. has the
boldness to say that Jesus rose from the dead. That it is a matter of
history, a matter of fact!
One of the Evangelists who relates the
circumstances of the resurrection says (Matt. 27:52): “And the graves
were opened, and many of the saints who slept arose, and came out of
their graves after his resurrection, and went into the Holy City, and
appeared unto many.” These many resurrections resting on the same
authority as that of Jesus, Mr. H. must believe all or none. Nobody will
doubt the power of God to resuscitate a dead body; but can we believe He
did so without any object? for we do not hear that these resuscitated
saints had any mission to perform. We may indeed suppose they sadly
frightened those to whom they appeared; but that does not seem an
adequate cause <<449>>for the performance of such a miracle; the more we study
the case, the more incredible it appears.
The worthy gentleman asks the Jews in reference to
the words of Moses, quoted: “If the knowledge of the law be so ample and
easy a thing as he describes, what becomes of the volumes upon volumes
of rabbinical comments?” He advises us to establish again Moses’ Law in
all its simple grandeur, and throw away all the multitudinous rabbinical
comments and additions. That the wisdom of God could have provided for
all possible cases and contingencies cannot admit of a doubt; but it is
equally undeniable that such a code of laws would be inconvenient if not
inoperative to a people who must depend on their memory for the due
performance of the divine commands; a certain number of precepts were
given for their general conduct, and a provision was made in case any
question should arise, as to the extent of the application of any
precept; they were to apply to the priests and judges, and conform to
their decision under penalty of death. This was the practice during the
existence of the Judges, Kings, and Sanhedrin. After our dispersion, our
Rabbins, men of eminent piety, found it necessary to write comments on
such points of the Law as they conceived required more particular
explanation, now that the people could no longer have recourse to a
Supreme Ecclesiastical Tribunal. But diffuse as Mr. H. may think them,
do they amount to one thousandth part of the tomes which encumber the
shelves of the Christian colleges and universities, on the Christian
theology and religion? Are they equal to the volumes on divinity which
may be found in any second or third rate bookseller’s shop in London?
What are they in comparison to the controversial works of the different
sects and schisms which vexed the early ages of the Christian church? At
least if we may judge from the works of the fathers of the sect which
finally triumphed; for it seems to have been the policy of the
successful sect to destroy the works of their vanquished opponents, and
it is only from quotations made in order to refute what they termed the
heresies of their opponents that we have any knowledge of their works.
Who told Mr. H that it was necessary “again to establish Moses’ Law?” We
have never ceased to acknowledge it as the guide we ought to
follow,—that which alone can insure our happiness here and hereafter. We
continue to revere the writings of
<<450>>our Rabbins as valuable directions on
minute points, which for the reasons assigned above were not included in
the text of the Law.
I will not longer encroach on your valuable time,
by making any farther remarks on Mr. H.’s excuses and modifications of
the assertions and quotations of Paul, whose spirit seems to pervade
the present teachers of Christianity. I will not
say they promulgate error intentionally; but they certainly deliver
their doctrine in such terms as must almost necessarily be misconstrued.
I doubt whether any Christian pastor would venture to tell his flock
that the Son of God did not become incarnate in the frame of Jesus; that
it is an absurdity to suppose that the Son whom he believes to be
omnipresent could be contained in or inhabit a human body; that it is
impossible for a divine person to die or be resuscitated, consequently
that the incarnation, the atonement, and the resurrection were mere
fictions. Yet I am persuaded that the same preacher, if pressed, would
admit all these points, and affirm that the terms in which these dogmas
were expressed, must not be understood literally, being only intended as
adaptations. Indeed, it is not pretended that the fundamental dogmas of
Christianity are to be taken in the literal meaning of the words; but
that any one may interpret them in the manner most consonant to his
reason. In the year 1844, the Reverend Mr. Woodhouse sent his
resignation of the canonry which he held, by his subscription to the
Thirty-nine Articles, and which he could not conscientiously retain in
consequence of his dissent from them. The Bishop of Norwich, to whom he
addressed himself, made the following remarks in a letter which was
published in the Times newspaper of Jan. 22d, 1845: “Because considering
the number and nature of many of the propositions included in the
Thirty-nine Articles, the Homilies and the Book of Common Prayer to
which assent is given by subscription, it is impossible that any number
of individuals should view such prepositions in exactly the same light,
or subscribe them in exactly the same sense; latitude in subscription is
therefore absolutely unavoidable. There would therefore be a manifold
injustice in allowing you to resign a situation which you have filled
long and usefully, while others who on the same grounds would be equally
called on to resign theirs, continue to retain them.” Here it is
unequivocally <<451>>admitted that the dogmas are laid down in such a vague
manner that the clergy themselves cannot be assured of their meaning,
and that the church has no rule as to the interpretation of those
propositions. Were I to adopt Mr. H.’s plan and suggest a paraphrase of
the Bishop’s answer, it would be in the following words:
“My dear Mr. Woodhouse,—You request me to accept
your resignation of the canonry you have so long and usefully held, in
consequence of your no longer believing some of the dogmas to which you
subscribed on your appointment, in the view which, as an honest man, you
did and do see them. Your conscience need not feel hurt on this account;
it is sufficient if you find some sense in which you can assent to the
Thirty-nine Articles, &c. There are other persons who do not assent to
what is the natural meaning of those propositions, and who, perhaps, do
not discover any sense in which they can receive them, but who do not on
that account think it necessary to resign their livings.”
Ought not the Christians in honesty and good sense
determine among themselves what is meant by their dogmas, since it is
clear they must not be understood in the natural meaning of the words,
before they ask a Jew to believe them?
I remain respectfully,
Yours, truly,
J. R. Peynado |
