« AnteriorContinuar »
indefatigable men in a long course of experiments into the properties of material substances; and those experiments, after repeated failure and disappointment, gradually led to the discovery of a vast collection of invaluable truths. But still, nothing could well exceed the absurdity of affirming that Fourcroy, or Lavoi sier, or Davy, borrowed their science from the nonsense of the Rosicrúsians. Much after the same manner, Justin Martyr went through the whole Encyclopædia of ancient philosophy; and he found in it, at the beginning, the middle, and the end,—nothing but vanity and vexation of spirit. And so, his course of experi ments brought him at last to the knowledge of the truth. What was the actual event or fact which finally opened his mind to the reception of the truth, is a comparatively unimportant matter. In one part of his writings he ascribes the revolution to the incomparable fortitude with which the Christians supported their persecutions; in another to the instructions and remonstrances of an aged and venerable personage whom he met upon the seashore. These accounts are different, it is true, but we cannot perceive that they are at all contradictory. The courage and composure of the martyrs may have awakened him to a sense of the value of Christianity, as a practical principle of unrivalled energy and power. The statements of some casual friend or companion may have satisfied him of its theoretical superiority above every other extant scheme of moral science or theology; and he may, naturally enough, have been willing to give dramatic effect to this last mental change, by ascribing his conversion to the wisdom of an aged man with a long beard and a reverend aspect. Whether this was certainly and actually so, it is need less to inquire. At all events, it is very much in the manner of all writers of dialogues; and it is extremely well calculated to exhibit, in an interesting and striking way, the progress of the writer's feelings and convictions. But, whatever may be the real fact, the result is obvious. He forsook Stoicism and Platonism for Revelation-the porch of Zeno for that of Solomon. And where can words be found to stigmatize the perverseness of describing the Christianity he embraced, as the produce of the errors which he had cast away?
Mr. Faber has shown, as many other writers have shown, that instead of borrowing his Christianity, or any part of it, from the wisdom of the wise, he is perpetually and urgently insisting that whatever fragments of truth are to be gathered in the former schools, were collected by the heathen masters from the traditions and revelations of the Jewish Scriptures. Whether this notion be tenable, or not, is a question which is just nothing to the purpose. That it was Justin's belief, cannot for a moment
be doubted by any mortal who has ever looked into his works, He is, perhaps, fantastic, and even piteously absurd, in his efforts to find out the vestiges of Scriptural verity in the legends and reveries of the heathen fablers or sages. But it was, beyond all doubt, his persuasion, that the best parts of the recondite classical theology, as well as the most bewitching mythological fictions of the olden time, were no better than a wretched mimicry of the awful visions imparted to seers, and prophets, and inspired men. Every thing that was touched by the philosophers and the poets became, in his judgment, a villainous caricature of those. sacred realities; and dæmons, as he fancied, were the secret getters-up of this vile and unholy masquerade. And, how any individual, advancing grave pretensions to argumentative power, historical information, or common sense, can venture to affirm, that Justin derived any one article of his Christian belief from fantasies which he evidently despised, and even hated,—is one of those problems which do sometimes cross us, in our contemplation of that great enigma-the moral and intellectual nature of man!
That his imagination should be occasionally haunted by the phantoms of his departed speculations, is nothing more than might reasonably be expected; and these apparitions may have led him many a wild and devious chace, in search of resemblances and analogies, between the dreams of Plato and the revelations of Apostles. The same thing has doubtless happened to many an ancient doctor of Christian theology, who had, nevertheless, been delivered from the snares of plilosophy and vain deceit. Something of the same kind may have happened to divines of later times; and, as Mr. Faber contends, actually has happened to one of the greatest divines of modern days. The very man the pounding of whose gigantic mortar Dr. Priestley has undergone-the mighty Bishop Horsley, Mr. Faber affirms, is, himself, an example of it. That great writer fancied that he could discover traces of the Christian Triad, "in the mysteries of Orpheus and Pythagoras-in the traditional representations of Plato-in the secrets of the Egyptian priesthood-in the theology of Persia and Chaldea-in the orgies of the Samothracian Cabiri,-and in the worship of the three gods of the Roman capitol."* In all this learned labyrinth of speculation, the bishop's path may have been right, or it may have been wrong. But,-whether it were right or wrong
* See Faber, vol. ii. c. viii. p. 222. Mr. Faber here states his own opinion to be, that the Triads of the Gentiles had a totally different source; and that, with a singular mixture of Sabianism and Materialism, they originated from the three sons of Adam, transmigratively re-appearing in the three sons of Noah." And he refers us to his Origin of Pagan Idolatry," b. i. c. 1.
if we would imagine the consummation of human absurdity, we should only have to suppose some future historian of "palmary corruptions" talking of the matter, much after the fashion of Dr. Priestley; and complaining that "till the latter end of the 18th century the Anglican Church of England was a pure and simple Humanitarian Church,-but that, at that inauspicious period, there arose one Horsley-a wrong-headed prodigy of learning,-with a brain horribly stuffed with the circumstance of triads, and other by-gone extravagances-and that from that moment, alas! the Apostolic Church of England was frighted from the aboriginal orthodoxy, by a phantasmagoria, conjured up from the depths of pagan erudition." And yet,monstrous as all this would be—we know not that it would be much more monstrous than the hypothesis, which tells us, that the Doctrine of the Trinity burst into the primitive Church through the Ivory Gate which was set up in the cranium of certain Platonizing doctors and catechists! The truth of the matter is, that the ancient philosophy, both classic and oriental, was a sort of limbo, from which the early Heretics-not the Catholic Christians were constantly importing an endless variety of chimerical and abortive fantasies: and their practices, in this respect, were exposed and condemned without mercy by the Catholic Fathers. Irenæus, for example, declares that the heretics had contrived to make up a miserable patch-work out of the most worthless rags of philosophy. Tertullian affirms that the philosophers were the patriarchs of all the heretical families and tribes: and that the store-house of philosophy furnished the "seasoning" which gave their relish to the mixtures and preparations of heresy. That the orthodox may, likewise, have been, occasionally, tempted to embellish the surface of Christianity with colouring-matter from the old philosophical laboratory, may possibly be true. But it is also true, that they never resorted to this species of alchemy for the purpose of transmuting its sub
There is a long chapter in this volume respecting that most intrepid allegation of the Unitarians, that the New Testament furnishes no authority for the adoration of Christ. We cannot undertake to travel over this ground with Mr. Faber. We have space only for the remark, that the whole history of biblical criticism can scarcely furnish a more disgraceful instance of ignorance and effrontery, than the expedient by which the Unitarians propose to evade the force of those passages in the New Testament which bear upon the question. Speaking of it purely as a matter of scholarship, and setting aside, for the moment, the sacred importance of the doctrine it involves, we may safely
affirm, that a much more ignominious blunder can hardly be found, than the attempt to extort from the passages in question the meaning, that the primitive believers did not invoke Christ -but merely call themselves by his name. A comparison of those passages in which the word exaλéoμa occurs, in the Sep, tuagint and the New Testament respectively, must set the matter at rest for ever. This comparison is actually made by Mr. Faber to an extent abundantly sufficient for the purpose;* and the clear result is, that in Hellenistic Greek, when exaλéopas is followed by an accusative case, it always implies religious invocation. When the same word is used to denote the imposition of a name, the form is entirely different: thus, xxλytai. Tò Ővoμá MoU ET AUTÒv, signifies, "he is called by my name" or, more literally," upon him my name has been called, or pronounced;" that is, my name has been imposed upon him. So sensible was even Mr. Lindsey of this, that he plainly allows the address of Stephen to our Lord, to have been neither more nor less than a prayer: and he disposes of the difficulty arising out of this admission, in a manner which we hope is satisfactory to the conscience and understanding of his followers; he reminds us that Christ was, at that moment, visible to Stephen, and might therefore properly be invoked by him. Dr. Priestley has a different expedient. If this expression, he says,—must signify invocation, it is not invocation that implies worship, but simply invocation, or address, by way of appeal. Stephen appealed to Christ from the unjust judgment of the Sanhedrim, just as Paul appealed to Cæsar from the iniquity of Festus!
Before we dismiss this work of Mr. Faber, we have one or two words to offer, on the Appendix to his second volume. In No. III. he labours hard to show that there is nothing in Origen which can fairly be held to discountenance the doctrine that plenary adoration is due to Christ; and, in support of this view, he refers to Huet. Origenian, lib. ii. c. 2, quest. 2, s. xxix. Now on turning to Huet, we cannot find that confirmation of Mr. Faber's notions which we were led to expect. It appears evident, from the following words of that writer, that, in his judgment, the worship due to Christ is represented by Origen as some+ thing decidedly inferior to that which is due to the Father:"Orationem propriè dictam, Deo Patri fundi jubet (Origenes); impropriam et xaтaxpnsxny, Filio: illi, ut Summo Deo, bonorum datori; huic, tanquam Merir, qui preces nostras Deo offerat: quia non est auctor-inquit, ex Origenis personâ, Augustinus→ indulgendarum petitionum, sed supplicator." (p. 48, ed. 1678.) And this statement seems to be supported by the following
Vol. ii. pp. 172. 176.
words of Origen himself:-Μόνῳ προσευκτέον τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι Θεῷ· καὶ προσευκτέον γε τῷ μονογενῆς καὶ πρωτοτόκῳ πάσης κτίσεως, Λόγῳ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἀξιωτέον αυτόν, ως Αρχιερέα, τὴν ἐπ ̓ ἀυτὸν φθάσασαν ἡμῶν ἐυχὴν, ἀναφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸν Θεὸν αυτου, και Θεὸν ἡμῶν, Other passages undoubtedly there are, in which Origen allows that prayers should be offered to the Son, not merely as the Mediator, but, actually, as the author and giver of blessings. But then, in spite of all this, the commentary of Huet is as follows:"Multo magis rogari jubet Patrem quam Filium, et intentiori ac humiliori oratione. Atque id sibi volunt Patres, cum clamitant dixisse illum non esse orandum cum Patre Filium; i.e. non esse orandum, itidem ut Patrem, Filium." And, after affirming that this will solve innumerable passages, he adds-" Orari quidem Patrem, jubet, et Filium, sed diverso genere Orationis." Of course the question here is, not whether these opinions are correct, or erroneous, but whether or not they were entertained by Origen. But even if it could be shown that, in his opinion, worship is due to the Son, principally, as executing the office of our High Priest and Intercessor, he would still prove but a mi serable comforter to the modern Unitarians. Indeed, we know not that Origen, even according to Huet's interpretation of him, could render much support to the notion, that the divinity of the Son is something subordinate to the divinity of the Father: for, the Saviour may be co-essentially divine with the Father, and yet it may be a part of the sacred dixovoμía, that, until his mediatorial dominion is ended, he shall be chiefly addressed in his mediatorial character. But, at all events, what can the notions of Origen do for those who contend for the simple humanity of the Son? By believers of this stamp, all worship offered to Christ is regarded with the same feelings, to say the very least, with which Protestants regard the worship offered to Angels or to Saints. Whatever services, therefore, Origen may be supposed to render to the Arians, he can never be converted into an ally by Dr. Priestley.
In No. IV. of the same Appendix, Mr. Faber appears to us to speak somewhat too contemptuously of the application of certain Rabbinical figments to the purpose of illustrating John vii. 27→ "Howbeit we know this man whence he is; but, when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is." We here allude to the tradition, that, after the Messiah was born, he would be conveyed away, and miraculously concealed, till Elias came to reveal and to anoint him. Of the tradition itself, it is, perhaps, impossible to speak too lightly. The story is as worthless as the legend of the seven sleepers, or the eleven thousand virgins. But still, if some fable of this sort was actually prevalent among