網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

cuum.

cap. iii.) also alludes when he thus writes concerning the Christian name: De suavitate vel benignitate compositum: oditur itaque in hominibus innocuis nomen inno

Eusebius refers to the same interpretation, in styling it παντιμος και ενδοξος προσηγορια. Η. Ε. lib. V. cap. i. Lactantius ascribes the change to the ignorance of the Greeks, Qui propter ignorantium errorem, cum immutata litera Chrestum solent dicere. Lib. iv.c.7. But Lactantius is himself to be charged with ignorance or rather with duplicity; for he could not but know that an alteration in the name, calculated to screen our Lord from unmerited odium, or to express his character as a superior being, must have originated with those who at least pretended to be friends of Christ. His enemies, however, applied to him the name thus altered. For Suetonius thus designates him in his life of Claudius, cap. xxv. Moreover, Lucian, in a book entitled Philopatris, repre: sents Critias as asking Triephon, who professed to be a Christian, “ Whether the affairs of the Christians were recorded in heaven;" and receives for answer, “ All nations are there recorded, since Chrestus exists even among the Gentiles." Julian the Apostate, in derision of the Evangelist John, whom he supposes to have first taught the divinity of Christ, calls him Xgnotos Iwarins, the demonizing John. And finally, Aristides the Sophist, in a passage known to refer to the followers of Jesus (see Lardner, vol. viii. p. 85), stigmatizes them as partWY αχρηστοτατοι, the most worthless of all men.

Now it is my object to show that the Apostle Paul in two places has an obvious reference to the above interpretation of the word Xgrotos. The first is in Philipp. i. 21, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain,” where the parallelism requires Xριστος, in the sense of Χρηστον, to correspond with κερδος. . - Onesimus was a slave of Philemon, a friend of Paul, and his brother in Christ. While at Rome, that person was converted to Christianity by the Apostle, who being now in chains, and as such having occasion for his service, detained him for some time from his master, and then sent him back with this letter as an apology to Philemon: "I beseech thee, in behalf of my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds, and whom I again 'send back to thee, receive him as my own bowels.” His argument is this : “ As Onesimus, while yet a stranger to Christ, was a mere eye-servant driven by fear and compulsion, and therefore worthless to his master, so hy imbibing the spirit of Christ, he is now become a faithful and valuable servant-τον ποτε σοι αχρηστον, νυνι δε σοι και εμοι ευχρηστον, i. e, τον ποτε ως αχριστον οντα σοι αχρηστον, νυνι δ' ως εν Χριστώ σοι και εμοι ευχρηστον. The paronomasia is perceptible only to those who understand Greek, and cannot be translated into any modern language.

Page 129. “ But the spirit expressly declareth, that in the latter times some will apostatize from the faith, attending to deceitful spirits, and to the doctrines of demons.” I Tim. iv. 1. Dr. Priestley supposes that by “ demons” is here meant the spirits or souls of dead men, which,” adds he, “ makes one of the most important articles in the corruptions of the church of Rome. Mr. Belsham has adopted the same notion. It gives me pain to differ from these great and good men, whose talents and learning I so much admire, and to a portion of whose spirit I would aspire as the richest gift of God to man. Yet I hesitate not to assert, that the demons of whom the Apostle here speaks, have no reference whatever to the souls of dead men in the dark ages. My reasons are the following :-Paul must have used the term dopoviov in its customary acceptation. The Greek writers used the word to denote the popular gods, but never the souls of the dead in hades; these in Greek being called puxan, in Latin animæ or manes. The writers of the New Testament looked upon the demons without exception as evil: and this is the reason why we do not meet with such words as ευδαιμων, ευδαιμονεω,

[ocr errors]

eu darpovic, in the evangelical records. And this term they uniformly applied to the Pagan gods whenever they had occasion to express them. Things offered to demons, and things offered to idols, were the same; and it is incredible that Paul should here mean by the word, the spirits of dead men, while in every other place he means the objects of Pagan superstition. Nor does the Apostle refer to an age subsequent to that which was then commencing. “The latter days” signified the destruction of Jerusalem, the close of the Jewish dispensation. Our Lord forewarned his disciples that a great apostasy would then take place : and it is to this saying of Jesus that Paul alludes. John has the same reference, when he says, “ Little children, it is the last hour, and, as ye have heard, antichrist will come.” 1 John ii. 18. Paul indeed uses the verb ATOOTNOOVT AU in the future tense; but by this he only means, that the spirits which had already begun to deceive men, would continue to do so, till there should be a general apostasy from the faith. The principles of deception were at work before his eyes; but their final issue was yet in futurity: and the Apostle intended only to say, that the antichristian system, instead of being soon eradicated, would go on from bad to worse, till its complete establishment in universal darkness.

Page 196. I have already observed, that the divine efficacy of the Gospel is founded not in the death of Christ simply, but in his death as the basis of his resurrection. This fact unfolds the absurdity of the following passage of Mrs. More, in her Essay on St. Paul, vol. i. 181. “ It is among the mysteries of Christianity, that the preaching of Jesus made so few converts, and his death so many.... Did not this prove, says the eloquent Bossuet, that not his words but his cross, was to bring all men to Him? Does it not prove that the power of his persuasion consisted in the shedding of his blood ?” The death of Christ in itself tended to destroy all faith

in him; and in fact we find that his disciples, when they
saw him put to death, resigned the hope so fondly
cherished by them, that he was to deliver Israel. But
when he rose from the grave, ascended to heaven, and
caused the holy spirit to descend, as a pledge of his
second coming to raise the dead, their faith revived with
ten-fold energy: and these great facts, to which Jesus,
while he lived, could only allude, and which could not
be felt by his followers till they had actually occurred,
fully explain the mystery why the preaching of Jesus
made so few converts, and the preaching of his Apostles
so many. In truth, Jesus never sought to make converts :
be rather shunned than courted the people. The sole
object of his ministry was to prepare the world for the
reception of his religion after it had been confirmed
and developed by his resurrection from the grave : and
it was after he was lifted up-lifted up not only on the
cross, but lifted up from the grave, and lifted up to
heaven, as a pledge that all his faithful followers shall
also be lifted up in the same manner, that he drew all
men unto him.
Page 228. The passage in Virgil is thus :-

Tum vitulus, bima curvans jam cornua fronte,
Quæritur; huic geminæ nares, et spiritus oris
Multa reluctanti obstruitur; plagisque perempto

Tunsa per integram solvuntur viscera pellem. Presently it is said that a swarm of bees flew out of this carcase, as a shower from the clouds.

Now if we take this story in a literal sense, it must appear false and ridiculous. But in truth it was never intended to be so understood. The poet intimates, that it originated in Egypt, see Georg. lib. iv. 285. In a little work entitled " A new Version of the first three Chapters of Genesis,” accompanied with Dissertations, illustrative of the Creation, the Fall of Man, the Principle of Evil, and the Plagues of Egypt,” by Essenus, it is shown that the facts of the Mosaic history form the

[ocr errors]

basis of the Egyptian mythology. The fable of Aristæus and his bees is another illustration of that assertion. The calf here intended was APIs, whom the Israelites, as devoted to Egyptian superstition, at first worshipped, see Exod. xxxii. The bees which issued from the car. case of this Apis were the Israelites themselves, who escaped from Egyptian bondage, and on the fruits of whose labour, while in slavery, the Egyptians lived as drones in a hive. The Greeks at first seem to have called bees Bouyova, ox-begotten, an idea evidently derived with their mythology from Egypt; and it is still more remarkable, that the Latins have preserved, without any change, the original Apis as a general name for bees,

A plague fell on the bees and cattle of Aristæus, because he had violated Eurydice, a beautiful woman, and the wife of Orpheus. If we cut off the termination of this last name, and read it from right to left, Orpheus in Hebrew is precisely Pharoahhence we discover the origin of the fable. A plague was sent on that monarch and his house, because of his conduct to Sarah, wife of Abraham. Gen. xii. 17. Eurydice in escaping is torn by a serpent, and Orpheus recovers her from hades by the charms of his music, but on condition that he should not look back, as she followed him to the region of light. Forgetting, however, this condition, he did look back, and she vanished for ever. The source of this fiction will be found in Genesis xvii. 17-26.

Aristæus, by the assistance of his mother, compels Proteus to explain to him the cause of his disasters. This Proteus was a sea monster, who turned himself at will into all sorts of beasts, but principally into a lion. This we learn from the fourth Odyssey of Homer. The impostors, who delivered oracles in his name, were the authors of the fable about the bees; the main object of which seems to have been to ridicule the Israelites for worshipping as their god a strangled calf. According

« 上一頁繼續 »