Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

LATIN HYMN OF FRANCIS XAVIER.

This justly celebrated hymn has often been republished; but as we think it may well have a place in every religious miscellany, we insert it in ours-with the best translation we have been able to select, out of several which we have seen. But no translation we have ever seen, comes near to the simplicity and tenderness of the original.

O Deus! ego amo te,
Nec amo te ut salves me,
Aut quia non amantes te
Eterno punis igne.

Tu, tu, mi Jesu! totum mc
Amplexus es in cruce;
Tulisti clavos, lanceam,
Multamque ignominiam,
Innumeros dolores,
Sudores, et angores,

Ac mortem; et hæc propter me,
Et pro me peccatore.
Cur igitur non amem te,
O Jesu amantissime!

Non ut in cœlo salves me,
Aut ne æternum damnes me,
Aut præmii ullius spe;
Sed sicut tu amasti me,
Sic amo, et amabo te;
Solum quia rex meus es,
Et solum quia Deus es.

TRANSLATION.

My God, my Saviour, thee I love,
Not for the hope of joys above,
Not for the fears of pains below-
What love from fear or hope can flow?
Thou on the cross didst me embrace,
While bloody sweats bedewed thy face:
For me, O God, thou deign'st to bear
The shameful cross, the nails, the spear.
Thy precious blood for me did flow,
For me thou drank'st the cup of wo,
Died'st on the ignominious tree-
For me, poor sinner, all for me.
And can I then ungrateful prove,
And not return thee love for love?
Let heaven or hell my portion be,
Still, Jesus, still I must love thee.

Heviews.

[blocks in formation]

learn, by the advertisement prefixed, that it consisted chiefly of theological students; and it appears that it was published at their request, and was "designed to aid them in forming their opinions on the important subject discussed." The subject likewise which the preacher undertakes to treat, the nature of the atonement, is one than which, none in the whole range of theology is more interesting. In addition to all, we are in a degree directly concerned in the religious sentiments taught and imbibed in the Andover institution. Its pupils are freely invited to preach, and often become settled pastors, in the Presbyterian churches. For these reasons we not only think it a matter of propriety to give to our readers a careful review of this sermon, but we feel ourselves bound in duty to examine it closely; and if we find it erroneous, to bear a very explicit testimony against its errors.

The text of this discourse is taken from Rom. iii. 25, 26.

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

No production of Dr. Murdock's pen has before fallen under our noBut although he has hitherto been less known to the publick, than his learned and respectable colleagues; yet, we are of opinion, that as far as learning and talents are concerned, this discourse will detract nothing from the literary reputation of that important seminary. The style is bold, free, and forcible; and if here and there some carelessness is observable, it creates no disgust in our minds. We are even pleased to see a preacher so absorbed with the magnitude of his subject, as to forget the nice collocation of words, and studied embellishments of diction; and although manifest imperfections of this kind are usually corrected when pulpit compositions are committed to the press, yet if an author, whose matter is excellent, chooses to let them remain, he shall do it without offence to us. We think, that the candid and judicious reader will not refuse to Dr. Murdock some talent for profound and discriminating investigation; and his disposition to trace every opinion as far as possible, to its first principles, and to bring every doctrine, however venerable for antiquity, to the test of rigid inquiry, is laudable. We feel constrained, however, to qualify this commendation by remarking, that Dr. M. is too dogmatical for our taste: by which we mean, that he often asserts peremptorily, where he ought to prove conclusively. Professors, who are accustomed to dictate ex cathedra, are, perhaps, in danger of contracting this habit;

but we cannot say that we have before observed it, in those who have recently favoured the world with their writings.

Perhaps we shall appear fastidious when we object to the display of literature, and especially of German literature, in this discourse. We cannot but be of opinion that there is more parade of authors in the margin than the occasion required. What need was there to send us to Germany for authorities to establish such a sentiment as this-" An offended God will make his own terms, and who can tell what they will be until he reveals them?" We are at a loss to conjecture what new light these learned men can cast on this plain proposition; which we think might very safely have been left to the good sense of Dr. M.'s hearers. But the truth is that we would not have noticed this circumstance, if it had not appeared to us to manifest a disposition, which we exceedingly regret to observe is becoming prevalent-a disposition to defer too much to German criticks, and German theologians. That the most distinguished writers and professors in that country, are not at present safe guides in matters of faith, seems to be admitted by the most liberal among us; yet it appears to be taken for granted, that we may make the lexicons, scholia, and commentaries of these men our standard books, without any danger. But if deists and Socinians are permitted to compose our lexicons of the original tongues, and our critical commentaries on the text of sacred scripture, they need not be concerned about our creeds and symbols of doctrineundermine the foundation and the superstructure must fall. The fact really is, that some of the German commentators, whose works are in highest repute in this country, are as openly deists as Hume or Gibbon. They are not afraid to say, that the early history of the Jews,

recorded in the Bible, is fabulous; the opinion, that these books must

that the Mosaic account of the creation is repugnant to true philosophy; and that inspiration never existed. Is it really come to that pass, that we must be dependent on such men to inform us what is the true meaning of scripture? Is there no danger that they may insidiously obscure or pervert the word of God? And after all, what do these boasted works contain which cannot be found in other authors? It is a fact that the Scholia of Rosenmüller the younger, are principally made up of scraps from other books, and often in the very words of the authors, with no other acknowledgment than the general mention made of their names at the beginning of the work. And yet, according to the rising fashion, if the authority of a commentator is needed, we are referred to this infidel. We do not speak at random, when we call him an infidel; the charge can be made out completely from his own works, so highly prized by many in our country. And, in our opinion, there is no vehicle of the poison of error and infidelity so effectual as a critical exposition of the Bible. Here the unwary student, while he feels as if he were drawing from the fountain of life, is in reality imbibing the streams of death. The deleterious potion indeed is not prepared in large draughts, but drop by drop is instilled into the unsuspecting mind.

We desire to ask, what sort of a system of theology that would be, which should be formed in exact conformity with one of these commentaries? Would it contain one fundamental article of revealed religion? We think not. Yet these are the authors who are honoured by a constant reference to their writings, while our old standard commentators are treated as unworthy of regard. And what is most to be deplored, young tyros in theology are somehow led into

be possessed, cost what they may, and let the price come from whence it may. We admit that it is altogether proper, that such works should be in the hands of professors, and such as are called upon to refute their errors; and we make no objection to students reading such works, where they enjoy the best aid to enable them to detect the infidelity which insidiously lurks in them. But this will not suffice. By some means German theology is in vogue, and there is a pride in referring to a long list of German authors; the natural inference would be, that Germany was the land of sound theology; but how far this is from being the fact, we have already hinted. We wish to indulge in no undue severity, nor to deny to any set of men the praise which they have merited. We are ready to acknowledge that in biblical criticism the Germans have laboured much, and as far as relates to the mere letter of the sacred text, not unsuccessfully; but let us beware, cautiously beware, of the leaven of infidelity with which many of their books abound.

In the beginning of the 7th page of the discourse before us, Dr. M. contracts the fundamentals of Christianity within very narrow limits. "For the attainment of salvation," says he, " it may be sufficient that we know and believe firmly the simple fact, that there is forgiveness with God, for the penitent believer, on account of something which Christ has done or suffered." This is certainly liberal enough; for we cannot recollect that we ever saw or heard of any person bearing the Christian name, who would refuse his assent to this proposition. But perhaps there is more implied than appears-perhaps the preacher would so explain his words as to include some correct view of the character of Christ; otherwise we must think, that he has gone much too far in his libe

rality. We shall be able to judge of this in the sequel.

In the same page the learned professor of Ecclesiastical History has given a brief sketch of the history of the atonement from the earliest ages to the present time, which, as a curiosity in this department of literature, we shall present to the reader, entire.

"On few points in theology, has the Christian church made greater progress in knowledge. From the days of the earliest fathers to Martin Luther, there was a gradual though not very rapid advance. The reformers cast much light on the subject. From that time, the adversaries of the doctrines of grace have, with eagle eyes, detected errors and mistakes in the writings of the reformers and their successors. Within the last fifty years, the subject has undergone a more full discussion than ever; and the advance in knowledge has, I conceive, been answerable to the efforts made. One fact is noticeable, and

demands our gratitude to the Author of all light: the believers in gratuitous justification, both in Europe and America,

seem to be gradually coming to nearly

the same conclusions."

It would seem from this sketch, that the darkest age of the church was that which immediately succeeded the apostles; at least as it relates to a knowledge of the atonement.-That knowledge was steadily, though not rapidly, advancing through all the dark ages of Gothic barbarity and Popish superstition; that the adversaries of the doctrines of grace have detected errors and mistakes in the writings of the reformers and their successors; and finally that the subject of the atonement has been more fully discussed, and had more light cast upon it, within the last fifty years than ever before. Now all this was new to us; for we had been accustomed to think, that in the earliest ages, the fundamental truths of the gospel were best understood, as being received immediately from the apostles, or from men instructed by the apostles that soon the church began to degenerate, and continued declining until the gospel was al

most entirely obscured in the dark ages: And we were startled at hearing of the success of the adversaries of the doctrines of grace in detecting the errors of the reformers, for we had thought that these champions of truth had been triumphant in all controversies on this subject. But no part of this statement of facts surprised us more, than the account of the advancement of knowledge within the last fifty years. It was as if some strange thing had come to our ears. We asked ourselves, where this great light had appeared? What important works had been written on the atonement, in Europe or America, within that period? We knew, indeed, that in the Unitarian controversy some men had written ably in defence of a vicarious atonement, but we were not aware that they had disclosed any new views of this doctrine. It was also within our knowledge, that some pamphlets and small books in this country, had been written on this subject; but we were not prepared to hear, that in these, there was a more thorough and clear discussion of the nature of the atonement than was ever before made. We were pleased to find here a reference to a note in the Appendix, and that the reader may have a fair opportunity of judging how far ecclesiastical history will support her professor in his assertions, we will insert a part of it.

"The death of Christ, they often considered in the light of a sacrifice for sin; and often too, in that of a ransom paid for dered all men as having resigned themthe redemption of captives. They consiselves up willing slaves of the god of this world; who therefore had over them the rights of a conqueror over captives. To rescue them from this captivity, Christ Irenæus, Clemens Alex. Tertullian, Origen, paid his own life a ransom. Thus Justin,

Basil, &c., who maintained that the ransom was paid to the devil. Indeed this was the general opinion in the earlier ages. But Gregory Naz. Augustine, Athanasius, and Ambrose, held that the ransom was paid to God;-a sentiment which was

generally held among the schoolmen."

That the opinion here ascribed to the primitive church and earlier fathers, is correct, ought to have been shown by undoubted authorities; or at least the passages in the Fathers, on which the opinion is founded, ought to have been so referred to, that we might have the opportunity of judging for ourselves. As the matter stands, we have it not in our power to determine by any evidence furnished by Dr. M., how much or how little truth there may be in this serious allegation against the earlier fathers, and the whole primitive church. But we believe the true state of the case to be, that some unguarded expressions, seeming to have the import "that the ransom of Christ was paid to the devil," may be culled from the writings of some of the earlier fathers; but that it was the general opinion in the earlier ages, or that it was held by all the venerable men whose names are mentioned in the note, we utterly disbelieve.

And here let it be remembered, that the real opinion of a writer must not be determined from some one or two detached expressions which he may have inadvertently used, but from an impartial analysis of all that he has written on the subject. We are much mistaken, if Dr. M. would not find it the most difficult task he ever attempted, to sustain the allegation which he has made, so dishonourable to many of the Fathers, and to the earlier ages of the church. At any rate, as he has produced no evidence whatever of his assertion (except a reference to another list of learned authors), we shall indulge ourselves in incredulity on this point, until the proof shall appear.

But although Dr. M. allows that "the reformers cast much light on this subject," yet it appears from this note, that they adopted the opinions of Anselm, who lived in the eleventh century; and that their chief merit consisted in extending the efficacy of the atone

ment to all sins, and not merely to sins committed before baptism. But the theory of Anselm adopted by the reformers, we are next told, is incumbered with difficulties; and Grotius is mentioned as one, who has exhibited a new scheme, which it is said is now generally embraced by Protestants, and has nearly supplanted the scheme of Anselm.

The only remark which we shall make on this statement is, that we have good reason to believe, that the reformers borrowed their ideas of the atonement directly from the word of God; and that when they availed themselves of human helps, they did not go to the schoolmen, and to the dark ages, but to such men as Augustine, and others of the Fathers.

As this new theory is doubtless the one which our author attempts to explain and defend in this sermon, we shall have opportunity of judging of its consistency before we are done.

The preacher commences his exposition of the text, by a critical examination of the principal words and phrases of which it consists. This is proceeding in a scholar-like manner; for there is no sure method of ascertaining the meaning of any book, or any sentence in a book, but by learning the true import of the words, phrases, and figures which the author employs. Nor does the sacred volume form any exception from this rule; for if God condescends to speak to us in the language of men, he expects us to understand him according to the true meaning of the words used; otherwise a revelation would be useless, or rather no revelation to us. But while we approve Dr. M.'s method of arriving at the sense of the text, we cannot say that we think his interpretation altogether satisfactory. He takes not the least notice of a clause of the 25th verse, which by some learned commentators is thought to have a very

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »