r/j 
 
 m 
 
//f-- 
 
 •^©^^>9©< 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 
 Part of the 
 
 ADDIBON ALEXANDER LIBRARY, Z 
 which was presented by 
 Messrs. R. L. and A. Stuabt. 
 
 sec 10,757 
 
 
 
 
 
 A review of 
 
 Dr. 
 
 J. P. 
 
 Smith' s 
 
 Scripture 
 
 testimony 
 
 to 
 
 the 
 
t 
 
REVIEW 
 
 OF 
 
 Dr. J. P. SMITH'S 
 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY TO THE MESSIAH, 
 
REYIEW 
 
 Dr. J^ p. SMITH'S 
 
 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY TO THE 
 MESSIAH. 
 
 (FROM THE MONTHLY REPOSITORY FOR 1831.) 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 REPRINTED FOR AND SOLD BY THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN UNITARIAN 
 ASSOCIATION, 3, WALBROOK BUILDINGS, WALBROOK ; SOLD ALSO BY 
 R. HUNTER, 72, ST. PAUL'S CHURCHYARD. 
 
 1832. 
 
PRINTED BY G. SMALLFIELD, HACKNEY. 
 
ON 
 
 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 
 
 Dr. J. p. Smith's " Scripture Testimony to the Messiah," is a work 
 which has attained to the highest reputation, not only within the pale of the 
 particular sect to which the author belongs, but amongst all classes of be- 
 lievers in the doctrines of reputed orthodoxy. It is certainly to be ranked 
 amongst the ablest defences of those doctrines which have ever appeared. 
 Learned, ingenious, and laborious, it deserves the attention of all who are 
 interested in the great controversy to which it relates : and if the irresistible 
 ter.dency of the system he defends, and the perverting prejudices to which it 
 gives occasion, have led the author often to treat his opponents with great 
 real injustice, there are also indications of kind feelings, and of a desire to 
 act towards them with candour and Christian meekness, which may with 
 many persons give more weight to his censures, rendering them, when 
 founded in error or misrepresentation, more dangerous, if not more offen- 
 sive. 
 
 It has been a special object with Dr. Smith to furnish a reply to the 
 " Calm Inquiry" of Mr. Belsham, and it is in reference more particularly 
 (though by no means exclusively) to this object, that we now propose to 
 examine his volumes — not that we would hold up Mr. Belsham's work as 
 faultless e'ther in plan or execution — not, certainly, that we consider the 
 great body of Christians who adopt the sentiments he defends, as answer- 
 able for the mistakes into which he may have fallen or the improper spirit 
 which he is accused of having manifested - but his work being honestly 
 esteemed by us an able and satisfactory treatise on a very important subject, 
 written under the influence of an enlightened, disinterested, and impartial 
 love of truth ; and the effect it has produced upon the minds of many intel- 
 
 B 
 
ligent and sincere inquirers being well known to us, we were anxious to 
 satisfy ourselves respecting a laboured attack upon it coming from an indi- 
 vidual who stands so high both as to character and attainments as Dr. 
 Smith : and having long since fully satisfied ourselves, we think it season- 
 able at this time, when our venerated friend has been taken from among us, 
 and bis work, in consequence of the very small number of copies remaining, 
 may perhaps for the present have its circulation somewhat restrained, to call 
 the attention of our readers to the true state of the controversy, and assist 
 them in judging how far Dr. Smith has succeeded in invalidating Mr. Bel- 
 sham's arguments, or in otherwise defending the prevailing doctrine respect- 
 ing the person of our Lord. 
 
 Dr. Smith's woik is divided into four books, of which the first is occupied 
 with preliminary considerations ; the second is " On the Information to be 
 obtained concerning the Person of the Messiah from the Prophetic Descrip- 
 tions of the Old Testament ;" the third, *' On the Information to be ob- 
 tained concerning the Person of the Christ from the Narratives of the Evan- 
 gelical History, and from our Lord's own Assertions and Intimations ;" and 
 the fourth," " On the Doctrine taught by the Apostles in their Inspired Mi- 
 nistry concerning the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ." This distribution 
 of the subject may probably be the most natural and useful for the impartial 
 student, who, as he meets with each passage which may have a possible 
 bearing on the point he is investigating, will refer to lexicograjjhers, scho- 
 liasts, and commentators, without distinction of party or opinion, and having 
 obtained all the aids he can, will form his own independent judgment. But 
 where the object proposed is to set before our readers the results of our 
 inquiries, and to compare these results wi h those obtained by others, we 
 cannot help thinking that such an arrangement as Mr. Belsham's (who col- 
 lects and examines in order the texts which have been adduced in support 
 of each point of disputed doctrine) is more clear and satisfactory, as well as 
 more favourable to conciseness. We do not think it the best method for the 
 instruction of students, yet we were hardly prepared for the following re- 
 marks from any one possessing the least share of judgment or candour : 
 
 ** The selection and arrangement of texts was certainlv, so far as it went, a 
 suitable means; provided a due regard were had to the studving of each in 
 its proper place and connexion. But to throw down before a company of 
 inexperienced youths a regular set of rival and discordant expositions, * in 
 general without any additional, or at least doctrinal, comment of the com- 
 piler's own,' appears to me to have been a method not well calculated to lead 
 into the path of convincing evidence and well-ascertained truth. It might 
 excite party feeling, wordy disputation, unholv levirv, and rash decision : 
 but so far as either from the theory of the case or from experience I am able 
 to form a judgment, I could not expect a better result, except in rare in- 
 stances indeed."— Scripture Testimony, Vol. I. Chap. vi. p. 160, second 
 edition. 
 
 On what grounds is it here insinuated that, under Mr. Belsham's guid- 
 ance, a due regard ivas not had to the connexion of texts, in defiance of his 
 own rule on the subject : *' In order to judge of the true sense of a disputed 
 text, it is necessary to consider the connexion iji which it stands" } (Calm 
 Inquiry, Introd. p. 3, 2d ed.) So long as important passag^es of Scripture 
 are difierently understood by men of learning, who are able each to give 
 some plausible reasons in favour of his own interpretation, what can the 
 honest and impartial instructor do but lay before his pupils, or, in Dr. S.'s 
 phraseology, " throw down before a company of inexperienced youths," 
 
a set of rival and discorduut expositions f Or how would this be avoided 
 by changins: the plan of treating the subject from Mr. B.'s to Dr. Smith's, 
 or to any other tliat may be suggested ? A theological lecturer is certainly 
 not bound to suppress the expression of his own opinions in his class ; and 
 provided that his pupils are prepared not to be the passive recipients of his 
 sentiments, but to reflect on all that is laid before them, and draw conclu- 
 sions for themselves, it is reasonable and natural that they should have the 
 benefit of his thoughts on the subject before them, as well as those of others: 
 but whilst he faithfully executes the duty of opening to them the existing 
 sources of information, his own opinion cannot be essential, and there may 
 be circumstances in which it is much better for him not to brinsj it forward 
 at all. If Mr. Belsham had added doctrinal comments of his own, we may 
 be sure that he would now be accused of having attempted unduly to bias 
 the minds of his pupils. If the fair statement of whatever has been said 
 most important on each side of a disputed question, be not " a method well 
 calculated to lead into the path of convincing evidence and well-ascertained 
 truth," we must presume that the plan preferred is making known only 
 what has been said on one side; or, if they cannot be concealed, accompa- 
 nying the arguments on the other side with such depreciating comments as 
 may effectually prevent their receiving any real attention. Why the de- 
 mand for profound and impartial thought oa the most important topics of 
 human inquiry, that which might be supposed to have, of all possible em- 
 ployments, most tendency to sober the mind and impress it with a feeling of 
 solemn responsibility, should be judged likely to excite " party feeling, 
 wordy disputation, unholy levity, and rash decision," is what we cannot 
 understand, nor can we conceive how the prerequisites for the successful 
 study of the Scriptures demanded by Dr. Smith in the passage immediately 
 following that which we have quoted, should appear to him to be opposed 
 to the vie^vs of his rival, or to be any thing different from what every theo- 
 logical instructor, whatever might be his peculiar opinions, must desire to 
 find amongst those whose studies he is called upon to direct. 
 
 Guided by the arrangement of Dr. Smith's work, we shall now apply our- 
 selves to notice such portions of it as the limits wiihin which this article 
 mu'-t necessarily be confined, will allow us to select for animadversion ; and 
 we mnst begin by exposing the sophistry of the first chapter, entitled, " On 
 the Evidence proper to this Inquiry :" 
 
 " We cannot," says Dr. S., " reasonably doubt of the Unity- of Cod, in 
 every sense in which unity is a perfection : hut to the exact determination of 
 that sense we are not competent A manifest unity of intelligence, design, 
 and active power, does not warrant the inference that taiitt/ in all respects, 
 without modification, is to be attributed to the Deity. For any thing that we 
 know, or are entitled to presume, there may be a sense of the term unity 
 which implies restriction, and would be incompatible with the possession of 
 all possible perfection." — P. 10. 
 
 We ascribe unity to the Deity. Unity is a word — a significant sound — 
 a sound significant (Uke all words) only from the power of association, and 
 having no sense inherent in itself which may remain unknown to those ac- 
 quainted with its ordinary usage. It is not like many words, the notions 
 corresponding to which in difl'erent minds are very different : on the con- 
 trary, the meaning it conveys, on all other subjects besides the one now 
 under consideration, is definite, clear, and universally agreed upon. Why 
 then do we employ it upon this subject ? Either our meaning is the same 
 as when we apply the same term to other subjects, or we use the word in a 
 
loose sense to express some resemblance or approximation to the usual 
 one, or we use it without any distinct meaning at all. It is very possible 
 to use a word without meaning, as part of a formula which we have been 
 early taught, and which, without having been reflected upon, is associated, as 
 a whole, with certain notions of sanctity and doty; but we manifestly cannot 
 so use a word as the result of our own observations or inquiries : it cannot, 
 therefore, be in this manner that we ascribe unity to the Deity from the 
 study of his works. Neither is it in the loose sense, for when we reason from 
 unity of intelligence, design, and active power, to unity of mind, and there- 
 fore of being, the argument may or may not be conclusive ; but it has no 
 meaning, no existence whatever, if we change the sense of the term. It is 
 plain, then, that the unity of the Deity, as a doctrine of natural religion, 
 {whether established by suflacient evidence or not,) is unity in the obvious 
 sense of the term, and is opposed to plurality of persons, hypostases, or dis- 
 tinctions, of whatsoever kind, in the Divine Nature. 
 
 After some farther argument on our ignorance of the essence and mode 
 of existence of the Deity, Dr. Smith proceeds to say, 
 
 " These remarks have been made with a view to shew that there is no 
 antecedent incredibjlitt/ in the supposition, that the infinite and unknown 
 essence of the Deity mm/ comprise a plurality— not of separate heings — but 
 of hypostases, suhsistencies, persons; or, since many wise and good men 
 deem it safest and most becoming to use no specific term for this ineffable 
 subject,— of distinctions; always remembering that such distinctions alter not 
 the unity of the Divine Nature For any thing that we know, or have a right 
 to assume, this may be one of the itmqu'e properties of the Divine Essence*; a 
 necessary part of that Sole Perfection which must include every real, every 
 possible excellence; a circumstance peculiar to the Deitv, and distinguishing 
 the mode of His existence from that of the existence of all dependent 
 beings." 
 
 Now we have shewn that so far as the argument from Katnre for the 
 Divine Unity is good for any thing, (we will not press'it as conclusive,) it is 
 an argument for Unity, in the obvious and usual sense of that term, excluding 
 and opposed to all plurality. No one can say that any appearance of Nature 
 sanctions the doctrine which is contended for ; and from the phi!o?opher to 
 the savage, no one possessing the use of his reason, ever heard it proposed 
 for the first time, or first applied himself to study it, without feelings of sur- 
 prise and of repugnance. It is hardly then too much to say, that there must 
 exist in every unprejudiced mind a justifiable indisposition towards its re- 
 ception—an indisposition which may indeed be overcome by evidence, but 
 which must require to overcome it evidence char, direct, consistent, and 
 ahundant. We are called upon to admit this notion of plurality in unity on 
 the authority of revelation, whilst, inconsistently enough, we are told in the 
 same breath that it cannot be understood. It "is represented that we may 
 conceive it possible that there may be a sense of the term Unity consistent 
 with such plurali'y as exists in the' Divine Nature, though the term Unity is 
 an arbitrary sign, unmeaning, except as it excites by association a certain 
 notion in the minds of those who hear it ; and the notion which it thus re- 
 presents is, with equal correctness, represented by the phrase " absence of 
 plurality;" tliat is to say, we might as consistently affirm existence and non- 
 existence of the same thing, at the same time, as unity and plurality : yet 
 every attempt at rendering the ideas at all compatible is proscribed as heresy. 
 We cannot even know what to call the distinctions in the Divine Nature : if 
 we use the common term persons, we must consider that term as havino- a 
 
special but inexplicable sense ; if we substitute any otlier word, we must 
 equally renieniber tliat it is the sign of an idea, never possessed by any hu- 
 man mind, and is to us an unmeaning sound, or only reminds us at most of 
 the existence of a mystery which we can never hope to penetrate. All this 
 of a doctiine of revelation^ a doctrine revealed^ i. e. made known. JVhat 
 made known ? Is it the necessity of using a certain form of words ? Even 
 thus the principal orthodox terms are not Scriptural — but no ! prescription 
 of words is not revelation. There must be someihing for the understanding 
 to embrace, and by meditation on which the practical benefits of truth or 
 knowledge may be obtained. It is senseless to talk of that being revealed, 
 winch does not even remain unintelligible, but in respect to which we are 
 obliged to substitute language which excites inconsistent and utterly irre- 
 concilable ideas for the confession of ignorance. It is vain to refer us to 
 the mysteries of Nature and Providence, and the incomprehensibility of all 
 the Divine perfections. We are, indeed, blind and feeble-minded, and it 
 would be strange if finite beings could fully comprehend the attributes or 
 works of Him who is infinite ; but on all these subjects what we think that 
 we know is intelligible and practically useful, what remains mysterious is so 
 confessedly, and does not mock us with the pretence of baing revealed in 
 language which is either unmeaning or contradictory. 
 
 It cannot then be thought unreasonable to insist that there is a strong an- 
 iecedent improhabiUty attending the doctrine of the Trinity. For our own 
 parts, so completely are we convinced of the sufficiency of the evidence for 
 the Jev\ish and Christian revelations, and so deeply are we impressed with 
 a sense of the importance of these dispensations to mankind, that whatever 
 is proved from the records to be a genuine part of them we will submissively 
 receive, and if we cannot understand it, we will believe that our profession. 
 of it is to do some sood ; but we neither can nor ought to resist the feelini^ 
 that pecuharly strong and clear evidence is necessary to support a doctrine 
 such as this : nor, if persons who were fully satisfied that no trace of it is to 
 be found in the records of the Divine communications have spoken of its 
 absurdity and utter impossibility, can such language with any appearance of 
 justice be attributed to impiety or contempt of revelation. We do not, 
 however, justify such language ; what we have said has been merely in 
 reply to Dr. Smith's attempt to set aside all antecedent improbability. We 
 are persuaded that Unitarian Christians act most wisely in meeting the 
 question simply as a Scriptural question. Other views of the subject may 
 appear to them very striking, but they acknowledge the Sacred Records as 
 tlie guides of their faith, and, firmly convinced that the Trinity is not taught 
 or implied in them, they are anxious, in the first place, fairly and candidly 
 to discuss that point with those who maintain the contrary position. 
 
 The next passage upon which we feel ourselves compelled to remark, and 
 which is an example of the treatment Mr. Belsham uniformly receives from 
 Dr. Smith, is the note (A) to Chapter HI. which we must quote at length : 
 
 ** No writer can be more prompt to appeal to the original text than the 
 author of the Calm Inquiry ; and for tliis, when reason and truth warrant the 
 appeal, let him he commended. But a case happens in which the error of the 
 Authorized Version affords a semblance of support to the Unitarian cause : 
 and then he can argue from the very inaccuracy of the translation, with as 
 comfortable a confidence as could he felt by the most illiterate of those lay- 
 preachers, upon whom, on another occasion, he has poured unsparing con- 
 tempt. (See a Letter to Lord SiJmouth, by the liev. Tliomas Belsham, 1811 ) 
 This case is one in which, uith a view to neutralize tiie passage, * In him 
 dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,' (,Col. ii. V,) he brings an 
 
alleged instance of the application of similar language to Christians generally : 
 *In the Epistle to the Ephesians, chap, iii 19, the Apostle prays that they 
 may he filled ivith all the fulness of God, i. e. with knowledge of the Divine 
 will, and conformity to the Divine image.' P. 252. — But the Apostle's ex- 
 pression is, * that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God;' suggesting 
 the sublime conception of an approximation to the Supreme perfection, 
 which is begun by religion now, and shall be ever growing in the holiness 
 and bliss of the future state; while the infinity of distance must for ever 
 remain between Deity and the creature. This palpable error is retained in 
 the text of the * Improved Version,' and the true rendering is barely men- 
 tioned in a note with this vapid and silly interpretation — i. e. * that ye may 
 be admitted into the Christian Church.' As if the community of Ephesian 
 Christians, which had flourished so many years in full organization (Acts xx.) 
 and eminent stability (Ephes. i. 13—15/, was not yet to be regarded as a part 
 of the Christian Church !" 
 
 Now it happens, notwithstanding what we must call the bitterness of in- 
 vective in this note, that the common version of Ephes. iii. 19, is not a 
 palpable error, and was manifestly adhered to by Mr. Belshani, whether 
 rightly or not, from conviction after examination. It will be sufficient for 
 us to quote Dr. Bloomfield's note : 
 
 " In the interpretation of these words, the commentators, as on many other 
 occasions, exceedingly differ. But, as often, the mo&t natural, simple, and 
 extensive application will be found the best. Now, as the Apostle had been 
 speaking of the immense and inconceivable love of God and Christ, so here 
 (I assent to Grotius, Whitby, Crellius, and Macknight) he means to say that 
 by thus attaining the Holy Spirit, and having suitable conceptions of the 
 great mystery oif Redeeming love, they may be filled with all the spiritual 
 gifts and blessings, both ordinary and extraordinary, that God can and will 
 impart to his faithful worshipers. 'Ek is put for sv; than mhich nothing- is 
 more frequent in Scripture. Compare infra iv, 10, and Col. i. 9." — Bl. Re- 
 censio Synoptica, Vol. VII, p. 581. 
 
 This distinguished scholar, and the eminent critics whom he here fol- 
 lows, will, in the estimation of most persons, at least protect Mr. Belsham 
 from the charges of retaining a palpable error, and ignorantly or unfaith- 
 fully arguing from the inaccuracy of a translation. In the Improved Ver- 
 sion, it seems. Dr. Smith's true rendering is barely mentioned in a note, 
 (two different translations, however doubtful the case, can hardly be both 
 introduced into the text—one must be placed in a note, or else neglected,) 
 with a vapid and silly interpretation. We v\ill only say this interpretation 
 is that of Schleusner, (in verb. ■nX'^pui^a,, No. 7,) to whom Mr. Belsham re- 
 fers ; and no competent judge — no one who examines his references and 
 reflects on what he says — will treat it with contempt, even if he should be 
 induced ultimately to reject it. 
 
 We must now quote a paragraph from the fourth chapter, *' On the 
 Errors and P'aults, in relation to this Controversy, attributable to Unitarian 
 "Writers," which, for its uncandid and illiberal spirit, we have hardly seen 
 surpassed, even in the course of our attention to the Unitarian controversy : 
 
 '* It has appeard to me," says Dr. S , " that one of the distinguishing fail- 
 ings of the Unitarian theology is a propensity to generalize too soon, and to 
 conclude too hastily, both in criticism and in argumentation. It seems the 
 habit of its advocates to assume a few of the broadest facts in the scheme of 
 Christianity, which are obvious to the most rapid glance : and, with a sweep- 
 ing hand, they either crush down all the rest, and leave them unregarded, or 
 they force them into an unnatural and disfiguring subordination to the fa- 
 vourite assumptions. Unlike the cautious and [laticnt spirit of true philoso- 
 
phy, which is always open to the collection and the careful estimation of 
 facts, and which regards nothing as more hostile to its objects than a precipi- 
 tate and foreclosinic o^eneralizalion, the Unitarian spirit rather resembles that 
 of the old scholasticism, which spurned laborious investigation and slow in- 
 duction, and would force all nature into its ranks of predicaments and predi- 
 cables. This may be one reason, amoni^ others, why these notions meet with 
 so ready an acceptance in young minds, inexperienced, flirty, and ambitious, 
 half-learned, and ill-disciplined. Here is a theology easily acquired, discard- 
 ing mysteries, treading down difficulties, and answering the pleas of the or- 
 thodox with summary contempt : a theology complimentary to the pride of 
 those who deem themselves endowed with superior discernment, and which 
 in practice is not ungenerously rigid against any favourite passion or little 
 foible that is decently compatible with the ivorld's code oC morals." 
 
 We suppose we must expect Dr. S. to speak slighiingly of our mode of 
 reasoning, since he so Utile likes our conclusions, and we are very willing 
 to leave our logic to its own defence ; but we will venture, though the same 
 thought will occur to most of our readers, to illustrate the character of 
 mind— 7/0 W7i^, inexperienced, flirty, and ambitious, half-learned, and ill- 
 disciplined — to which our doctrines have been found acceptable, by naming 
 Milton, Newton, Locke, Lardner, Priestley — and VVhilby and Watts, as the 
 last resting-place of their minds, at the close of lives devoted to religious 
 inquiries. We are tempted to enumerate others distinguished for their 
 great attainments, their ))owers of mind, the prejudices with which they had 
 to struggle, or the sacrifices they made to what they believed to be the truth, 
 but it is needless. Dr. ."S. may have seen that Unilarianism recommends 
 itself to young minds, ardent in the pursuit of truth, ambitious of being dis- 
 tinguished in promoting it, too inexperienced to be influenced by motives of 
 worldly wisdom, not yet having their own thoughts lost and buried in a mass 
 of ill-digested learning, too ill-disciplined to suppress as criminal the doubts 
 which inquiry may suggest — and he forgets that the same views have satisfied 
 the matured judgment of those whose fame he cannot injure, have been en- 
 tertained with the fullest conviction by those whose genius, learning, and 
 virtues, he cannot prevent the better part of mankind from admiring. We 
 will not stop to compare Dr. S.'s own confidence in his superior discern- 
 ment with our recollections of what we have seen manifested by Unitarian 
 writers ; but when our theology is described as " in practice not ungene- 
 rously rigid against any favourite passion or little foible that is decently 
 compatible with the world's code of morals," we are called upon to reject 
 the calumny ; we are entitled to express the disgust widi which it affects us. 
 We ask first, what there is in the doctrines of Unitarian Christianity which 
 should make their professors indulgent to sinful passions, and ready to con- 
 form their standard of duty to the merely prudential requisitions of the 
 worldly-minded and irreligious > Like others, they are taught that they are 
 constantly under the eye of an all-seeing God, perfect in holiness and purity, 
 who has made known to them their duty, and who will one day bring every 
 work into judgment with every secret thought. Is it then because they 
 believe that this all-perfect Being has given them laws, not for his own 
 glory, but for their happiness, and that the strict observance of these laws is 
 essential to their attainment of any real or permanent good } Is it because 
 they are assured that sin and suffering are inseparably connected, and that a 
 death-bed repentance is vainly relied upon to ave.'t the consequences of a 
 life of wickedness .> Is it because they are taught that they must ^* work 
 out TiiKiR OWN salvation with fear and trembling,'' and have not learned 
 to put their trust in another's njerils ? Is it because, whilst they rely on 
 
their heavenly Father and Friend mercifully accepting their faithful endea- 
 vours to perform their duty, to correct their faults, and to improve their cha- 
 racters, they feel certain that no rational hope can be founded on any thincr 
 less than earnest and prevailing endeavours to do right, accompanied by 
 honest self-examination, sincere repentance of known faults, and constant 
 efforts after improvement ? On account of which of these characteristic 
 doctrines is it that they should be judged likely as a body, rather than other 
 professing Christians, to make light of the evil of sin, to find excuses for 
 the indulgence of bad passions, and to join themselves with those who, 
 thinking only of present pleasure, make the decencies of society, not the 
 rules of duty, the standard by which they regulate their conduct? 
 
 We ask, again, are Unitarian Christians in fact distinguished from those 
 amongst whom they live by being less strict in the government of their own 
 appetites, less honest and liberal in their dealings with others, less kind and 
 charitable towards their suffering fellow-creatures ? We know that they 
 are not generally thought so by those who differ from them most widely in 
 sentiment. They are often, through misapprehension of their opinions, 
 accused of relying on their good works, but seldom of any remarkable defi- 
 ciency in performing them. We have no disposition to praise them highly. 
 We lament that they do not come nearer to what, with their advantages, 
 might reasonably be expected. We would to God we could see them more 
 deeply imbued with their professed principles, and more uniformly acting as 
 becomes their high and holy calling ; but we cannot silently allow them to 
 be unjustly and uncandidly condemned. We well know that the faults with 
 which they are chargeable are not effects of their religious principles, but 
 consequences of these not being cherished and felt as they deserve to be : 
 and as the language of Dr. Smith has forcibly reminded us of those whom 
 we have known most truly under the influence of the peculiar religious sen- 
 timents in which we rejoice, most firmly convinced of their truth, and 
 most constantly applying them in practice — of those whose pure minds, ele- 
 vated affections, warm and habitual piety, strict integrity, and active bene- 
 volence, have been to our conceptions a genuine and glowing representation 
 of the Christian life— of some who yet remain to edify ^and bless their 
 friends— of others who have already found their faith triumphant over death, 
 and have closed their pilgrimage as became those who had spent it in pre- 
 paration for that better world, of which through the gospel of Jesus they 
 entertained an assured expectation — that language has apj_ eared to us so 
 inexcusably unjust, so entirely founded in culpable ignorance and preju- 
 dice, and dictated by so arrogantly censorious a spirit, that whilst we appeal 
 from his judgment, we cannot help reminding him of the responsibility under 
 which he has passed sentence upon us. 
 
 In his fifth chapter. Dr. S. makes somewhat more particular charges 
 against the conduct of Unitarians, which, that we may not have to return to 
 the subject, we shall here notice. He accuses them of being generally, " so 
 far as station and circumstances afford opportunities," devoted to " all the 
 forms of gay amusement and fiishionable dissipation ;" of neglecting the 
 ordinances of religion, and of not honouring the Lord's-day. With respect 
 to the first of these charges, we cannot tell what Dr. Smith may have seen, 
 but from pretty extensive opportunities for observation, we feel ourselves 
 warranted in giving the opinion, that the members of Unitarian congrega- 
 tions (rneaning, of course, those who are of a rank to be within reach of the 
 temptation) fjeneralhj partake very moderately in the gaieties of life, and are 
 not justly chargeable with dissipation. It is true they do not think every 
 
thing which has the name of pleasure criminal, and consider it as a point of 
 duty to abstain from it ; they do not atfect that pecuhar austerity which is 
 so frequently characterislic either of the bigot or the hypocrite ; but we 
 should describe them as concerning themselves little with the follies of fa- 
 shion, entering very moderately into scenes devottd to amusement, pursuing 
 the quiet walks of business, of social duty, and of innocent social en- 
 joyment. 
 
 There is, however, no sect which exhibits any thing approaching to uni- 
 formity of excellence among its members : each has many connected with 
 it who are considered by the better part as doing no credit to the prin- 
 ciples they profess, and beings by no means truly under their influence. 
 Now, it sliould be observed that Unityrianism, as understood by the majority 
 of its professors, not attaching to the externals of religion the same essential 
 and inherent importance with most other sysems, and affording no induce- 
 ments to hypocrisy, a thoughtless devotion to the gaieties of the world is 
 just the fault into which our less worthy and serious members are apt to fall; 
 not to mention that there are many partially connected with us, who, though- 
 disbelieving the doctrines of reputed Orthodoxy, and finding their remaining 
 belief Unitarian, have never been brought to interest themselves on the 
 subject, and are never acknowledged by us as those from whom a practical 
 exhibition of the effects of our principles could be expected. On the con- 
 trary, among the orthodox sects, including those members of the Establish- 
 ment who make any considerable pretensions to religion, a particular atten- 
 tion to all outward observances is essential to character : they consider ab- 
 stinence from the gaieties of life as a direct requisition of duty, and the faults 
 to which their situation most exposes them are hypocrisy and the vices 
 which it may conveniently cloak. That they are not all free from these 
 faults, is sufficiently notorious. 
 
 The Unitarian Christian does not in general feel himself under any obli- 
 gation to such an observance of the Lord's-day as Dr. S. deems essential to 
 a religious character, although not many, perhaps, may go so far the other 
 way as Calvin or Mr. Belsham : but it certainly is not just to accuse men of 
 irreligion because they wish to be influenced by their religion every day 
 equally, when no precept applying the strict sabbatical law to Christians caa 
 possibly be produced, and its practical utility may, to say the least, be 
 reasonably called in question. 
 
 It is not to be doubted, that among Unitarians the outward observances of 
 religion are commonly regarded less as the performance of a direct duty, 
 and more as means of improvement voluntarily resorted to, than amongst 
 other sects. Those who think most of the absolute duty of paying a public 
 homage to Almighty God, in the name of his chosen Messenger, will not, 
 amongst us, pretend to determine how many times in one day this may be 
 required ; and as on the question of expediency ditFerent opinions may be 
 formed, those who think most seriously do not make the same point of at- 
 tending worship several times on each Lord's-day with persons of a less 
 degree of real religious feeling in other sects; whilst indolence or carelessness 
 more readily amongst us find excuses for the neglect of some valuable op- 
 portunities for improvement. We regret this result, because we are sure 
 that all the services which are ever attempted by us, might be made useful 
 and found interesting ; to some classes of society they are particularly im- 
 portant; and that improvement of plan which would make them all that they 
 might be, can hardly be expected, except under the sanction of a zealous 
 and uniform attendance. We regret, then, much that our people, though 
 
10 
 
 very many of them are exemplary, are not, speaking of them as a body, 
 such regular frequenters of all the services of the house of God, (there are 
 very few, we believe, who habitually or wantonly absent themselves from 
 one service,) as the members of other sects ; but we will not consent that 
 what we both lament and blame should be considered as provinor the ab- 
 sence of interest in religion, knowing, as we do, that many who will ordina- 
 rily attend but one service, will devoutly join in that one, and seriously 
 endeavour to profit by it ; knowing also that many will attend three or four 
 services in a day, thinking that in so doing they are performing what is re- 
 quired or highly acceptable, and yet not seem much wiser or better for the 
 whole. In short, we allow that Unitarians attach less importance to the 
 ordinances and public exercises of religion, as compared with its feelings 
 and its other duties, than their fellow-christians in general ; that, in conse- 
 quence, some may estimate their value at too low a rate, and indolence will 
 more frequently tempt the less serious among them to a partial neglect of 
 what ought, for our own good, and the good of our brethren, to be strictly 
 observed by us all : but we deny that our body is chargeable with a general 
 or habitual neglect of this kind of duties. There is a considerable propor- 
 tion of it whose zeal for the public exercises of religion goes quite as far as 
 is reasonable or useful ; and we deny that the partial neglect (though an 
 evil) by any means constantly implies indifference or impiety. 
 
 Dr. S. has shewn his want of any solid grounds for the accusations he has 
 made, as well as the kind of spirit by which he was animated, in the most 
 unfair use which he has made of a passage from an anonymous letter in the 
 former series of this work. (Mon. Repos. December, 1817, p. 717.) The 
 writer of that letter is evidently lamenting that persons belonging by educa- 
 tion and liahit to the Estahlishmeiity although brought to perceive the truth 
 of our doctrines, as they are ready in conversation to avow, often cannot be 
 induced so far to break through old habits and connexions as to join our 
 worship, either continuing to frequent the church, or going nowhere. This 
 Dr. S. represents as a testimony coming from ourselves to the neglect of 
 religious ordinances amongst us. We give him credit for having mistaken, 
 not wilfully falsified, the author's meaning ; but with what views did he 
 read, when he justified so serious a charge by evidence of such a character r 
 
 The following passage, being part of the additional matter with which our 
 author has enriched his second edition, may, perhaps, be best noticed in 
 this connexion ; we feel it to be the more necessary to ofifer some remarks 
 upon it, because the subject is one which has excited some uneasiness 
 amongst ourselves, and Dr. S.'s information has probably been derived from 
 papers inserted in a former volume of this work (Mon. Repos. Vol XXI.) : 
 
 ** But I go farther, and make my appeal to intelligent and candid Unita- 
 rians themselves, whether they are not perfectly aware that a proportion, not 
 inconsiderable or uninfluential, of their congregations, at the present time, 
 throughout our country, consists of persons who do not disguise their scepti- 
 cism or even settled dishelief with regard to the divine origin and paramount 
 authority of the Christian religion ? What has produced this coalition ? 
 Why does it continue, with every appearance of mutual contentment ? Is not 
 the undeniable cause a congeniality of spirit, and a conviction, on the part of 
 those sceptics and infidels, that the theory of Unitarianism approaches so 
 nearly to their own, that any remaining differences may he well accommo- 
 dated to the satisfaction of each party ?" 
 
 Exaggerated as we believe the statement here made to be, we acknow- 
 ledge that it has a foundation in truth. We are aware that in some few 
 
11 
 
 places Unilarian congregations contain a small number of persons either 
 sceptical, or denying the divine origin and authority of Christianity: but 
 before we feel any shame at this fact, or admit tlie justice of any unfavour- 
 able inferences from it, we must inquire, first, why such persons desire to 
 join our societies ; secondly, what is impUed on our part in receiving thera 
 as fellow-worshipers; and, thirdly, what are the actual, or what will be the 
 probable, effects of ihe union so far as it exists. Now, as to the first point, 
 it is plain that no one will attend on Unitarian services from mere worldly 
 motives, because the most open opposition to all rehgion is not more unpo- 
 pular — is, indeed, by many even less severely condemned, than the testimony 
 against its corruptions which is borne by Unitarians. Those who in reject- 
 ing revelation despise all religion, either frequent no place of worship, or go 
 to the Established Church, from motives of interest or fashion. Those, on 
 the contrary, who believe in the existence, perfections, and government of 
 God, in the necessity of virtue to human happiness, and in a future retribu- 
 tory state — who consequently desire to pay public homage to God, and to 
 Hsien to moral instructions and exhortations— if from any cause they find it 
 not convenient to have services on their own principles, will, of course, 
 wish to attend where they hear most of what they approve, and least of what 
 they disapprove, and will thus be naturally led to Unitarian places of wor- 
 ship. They can have no motive for appearing there but what is creditable 
 to themselves— the desire of shewing respect for practical religion, and in 
 the purest form which circumstances admit of paying their social homage to 
 the God of Nature and of Providence. If, as many do, though in our judg- 
 ment inconsistently with the rejection of his divine authority, they regard 
 the morality taught by Christ as most excellent, and his character as deserv- 
 ing of respect, they will hear m a Unitarian service nothing to disgust them, 
 though a good deal which they cannot admit as true, and their coming can 
 be taken only as a testimony of their desire to cultivate pious affections, and 
 to promote their moral improvement. As no confession of faith is required, 
 they are guilty of no insincerity, and cannot be accused of making any false 
 professions — to which, indeed, no possible inducement is held out. What, 
 then, let us next inquire, is implied on the part of Unitarian Christians in 
 receiving as fellow-woishipers those who do not believe in the divine mis- 
 sion of him who is acknowledged as their Lord and Saviour ? And here it 
 is important to observe, that the English Presbyterian congregations, which 
 form tlie great majority of those now entertaining Unitarian sentiments, in 
 consequence at first of the impossibility of practically carrying into effect, in 
 their circumstances, the mode of church government which they approved, 
 and afterwards of a growing attachment to religious liberty, and jealousy of 
 all interferences with it, have long been entirely without any attempt at a 
 church constitution or discipline. A minister of the general religious senti- 
 ments of the majority of the people, and who is believed to possess suitable 
 qualifications, is chosen, who, studying the Scriptures freely for himself, is to 
 teach what he believes to be Gospel truth. All who desire to hear his instruc- 
 tions, constitute the congregation. There is no creed ; no man is called in 
 question by his brethren respecting his faith ; the minister does not feel him- 
 self justified in going beyond friendly advice and such discussion as may 
 seem to him Hkely to be useful. The ordinances of religion are closed 
 against no one who satisfies his own conscience as to the propriety of his 
 partaking in them, and no one is subjected to unpleasant proceedings if he 
 think it right to absent himself from any of them ; and thus, in fact, until 
 new regulations are made for the purpose, it is not in the power of a con- 
 
12 
 
 gregalion of Unitarian Christians to prevent their being joined by any other 
 persons who may desire to be numbered amongst them. 
 
 If congregations of Unitarian Christians were voluntary associations of 
 persons deliberately making profession of certain common principles, and 
 therefore, of course, excluding those who think differently, we know not 
 that any one could question their right thus to constitute themselves, or, so 
 long as there is no desire to inflict any injury on others thinking differently, 
 could liave any reasonable cause for complaint. In that case, though any one 
 might come as a hearer, none could be a member of the society who could 
 not make a solemn declaration of belief in the same sentiments. But what, 
 let us now ask, should we gain as to the usefulness of our services by such a 
 measure ? We should discourage the conscientious Deist, or the yet hesi- 
 tating Sceptic, from attending the only public services in which they can join 
 with advantage, and which, we trust, have a tendency to correct what we 
 regard as their very serious errors, as well as to encourao:e their juster senti- 
 ments and excite their better feelings ; and we should do this from the 
 selfish hope of standing some trifle higher in the estimation of those who, 
 in the face of our most solemn declarations of our belief in the divine 
 authority of our Saviour, and in the inestimable benefit of his mission, can 
 still accuse us of congeniality of sentiment respecting the character and 
 claims of the gospel with sceptics and infidels. Are we, then, ashamed 
 because even those who cannot bring themselves to admit the revelation to 
 which we gratefully ascribe all our light and all our hopes, yet acknowledge 
 that our doctrines appear to them to be those of true and practical religion, 
 and that they themselves are happier and better for listening to them ? Are 
 we grieved because almost they are persuaded to be Christians — because 
 they allow the truth and goodness of our instructions, and the force of the 
 additional arguments by which we recommend them, even whilst they call 
 in question their having been communicated by divine authority ? We must, 
 indeed, think that those who reject Christianity, even if they make the 
 most of Natural Religion, and much more than we can believe would ever 
 have been made of it without the indirect aid of Revelation, are yet in an 
 error, seriously pernicious to themselves, and fraught with dangerous con- 
 sequences to others; and if, in consequence of the knowledge that some such 
 persons came amongst us, we suppressed the expression of our own con- 
 victions, dwelhng less earnestly on the claims of our Lord to onr love and 
 obedience, or on the blessed hopes which we found on his promises and 
 resurrection, we might then justly be condemr.ed ; but so long as we are 
 only rendered more anxious to establish the authority of our revered Master, 
 more abundant in our labours to cause his name to be honoured, his com- 
 mands respected, and his promises cherished, it would be difficult to say 
 how our faith should be implicated in the homage which is paid to the 
 purity and excellence of the system we teach, even hy those who professedly 
 do not join with us in attributing to it a divine original. It will be recol- 
 lected that to such persons we make no concessions ; we advance not one 
 step to meet them. We rejoice that the Christianity which we derive from 
 the Scriptures is not repulsive to the natural reason of man, in an age of 
 accumulated knowledge and high intellectual culture ; but we alter not one 
 jot or one tittle of what we find in the Scriptures to satisfy either our own 
 reason or that of others, because divine instruction is intended to supply 
 the deficiencies of reason, and, if received at all, must be received as au- 
 thoritative. We rejoice that any, who agree with us in any great principle, 
 will come and worship along with us; and God forbid that we should 
 
m 
 
 threaten tbeni in consequence of the deficiencies of liieir faith, or pretend to 
 identify the opinions, however erroneous in our judgment, wliich they have 
 formed in a sincere desire to know the truth, with the corrupt and wicked 
 opposition made to the Gospel by the unbeheverswhom our Lord condemns. 
 We cannot wonder that those who, on ojrounds of Natural Religion ex- 
 clusively, believe in essentially the same truths respecting the perfections, 
 character, and government of God, the duties and expectations of man, 
 which we rejoice in as revealed to us through Jesus Christ, should be 
 better satisfied with our services than with those which are founded on 
 doctrines believed by them to be absurd and pernicious ; and we have no 
 wish to close our doors against them. They are not of us; but they are 
 willing to be with us — we hope they will not be the worse for joining with 
 us. It remains to be inquired whether they do us any real injury. What 
 are the effects of the union so far as it exists ? We have shewn that it is 
 not the result of any formal agreement between the parties, but simply the 
 consequence of the constitution of our congregations. A place is set apart 
 for Christian worship on Unitarian principles ; there is no creed or test of 
 any kind employed ; no one claims a right to inquire into his neighbour's 
 faith ; the minister feels himself called upon to do all which circumstances 
 will allow, publicly and privately to improve all his hearers in Christian 
 knowledge and practice, but pretends to no authority to mark any with the 
 sign of his approbation or censure ; all may enter freely; and whoever thinks 
 it right to contribute to the support of public worship becomes, by that act, 
 a member of the congregation. Since, then, it is acknowledged that serious 
 Deists must necessarily regard Unitarian Christians as teaching chiefly what 
 is true and useful, and as much nearer to them in opinions than other Chris- 
 tians, it is plain why some such persons have joined Unitarian congrega- 
 tions; and it is evident that, though they are received in all kindness and 
 friendship, there exists no formal or solid union between them and their 
 fellow-worshipers; and that from their presence no conclusion can justly 
 be drawn respecting the sentiments of any who profess themselves Unitarian 
 Christians. By their presence we are certainly injured, inasmuch as it 
 gives occasion for uncandid adversaries to misrepresent our opinions ; but 
 we trust that no consideration of this kind will ever induce us to change our 
 conduct towards any of our fellow-creatures. Can they, then, cause the 
 sentiments delivered in our pulpits to be less truly Christian sentiments ? 
 This is only possible either by their unfavourably influencing the choice of our 
 ministers, or by their causing them, through fear of off'euce, not as much as 
 they ought to support their instructions by Christian authority, or to dwell 
 on those affections and hopes which peculiarly belong to the Gospel. With 
 respect to the first of these means — it is a thing perfectly understood amongst 
 all who frequent our worship, whatever may be their own particular views, 
 that it is Cliristian worship to which they are giving their countenance : a 
 very great majority in every congregation would be both dissatisfied and 
 much shocked at the thought of any other. No open attempt could be made 
 to substitute services founded on mere natural religion, without an immediate 
 separation of those who approved from those who disapproved of the mea- 
 sure; that is, without the friends of the measure meeting avowedly as Deists, 
 which they are at liberty to do, so far as we are concerned, whenever they 
 judge it expedient. An attempt artfully to introduce, as a Christian 
 minister, a person not really deserving of that name, would be inconsistent 
 with that character and those views which alone can lead men to worship 
 God at all, and is, therefore, not likely to be made ; whilst it could hardly 
 
14 
 
 fail to be delected, and consequently, if made, could only end in the dis- 
 grace of its authors. All who attend on the services of religion are equally 
 interested in the minister who is to conduct them possessing such character, 
 attainments, and address, as will give most weight to his instructions, most 
 dignity and usefulness to his office. In the pursuit of these objects all may 
 join, and theory combines with experience to prove that, in the case now 
 under our consideration, no injurious consequences are to be apprehended. 
 As to the other supposed means of injury — if ministers are capable of modi- 
 fying their doctrines according to the supposed taste of any of their hearers, 
 they may just as easily modify their moral instructions on the same prin- 
 ciple, and the utility of their office is at an end. We think it is not without 
 reason that better things are expected from them. We have great confi- 
 dence in the effects of their pecuhar studies and habits of thought, in enno- 
 bling, purifying, and strengthening the mind ; we have great confidence in 
 their knowledge, that, in a vast majority of cases, the honest and faithful 
 performance of their duty is the way to secure the esteem and affection of 
 the great body of their hearers, and there is abundant proof from experience 
 that the confidence we express is justly placed. We conclude the whole 
 subject with the observation, that it is notorious that Unitarianism has 
 brought numbers to a joyful and grateful acknov/ledgement of revelation, 
 who had been driven to reject it by the revolting character of more pre- 
 valent forms of Christianity, whilst very few pass from Unitarianism to 
 Unbelief, and with those few it appears to be the result of peculiarities of 
 individual character or circumstances, not of any natural current setting 
 from the one doctrine towards the other. We are by no means sure that on 
 this important subject we have expressed the general sentiments of the 
 Unitarian body ; though, believing that we have expressed the dictates of 
 justice and charity, we would hope that our brethren do not widely differ 
 from us. Many, no doubt, reo;ard Unbelievers with a sort of horror — pro- 
 bably from an opinion that none become so but from wilful obstinacy and 
 moral corruption. That these are the causes of a great deal of unbelief is 
 unquestionable; but a sceptical turn of mind, unfavourable impressions 
 made at the most critical period of life, and disgust at doctrines represented 
 as essential, cause a good deal more ; and those Unbelievers who shew any 
 disposition to come amongst us, are generally persons possessing a real 
 respect for religion, and desire to improve by its exercises. We do not, 
 therefore, wish to see them condemned or rejected, and we have great 
 doubt as to the advantage of the only measure which could secure a separa- 
 tion between us and them — the adoption of a profession of faith and a sys- 
 tem of church-membership. We do not question the right to adopt this 
 measure, and we do not venture to decide on its expediency, but we think 
 we have abundantly shewn that there is nothing which either party need be 
 ashamed of in the circumstance of our societies, open as they now are, 
 having been in some places joined by individuals not professing to believe 
 in revelation, nothing which throws the smallest imputation on the sincerity 
 of our own faith, or gives the least cause for exultation to our adversaries. 
 
 Passing by much matter of a merely personal character, which, though in 
 our opinion both unjust and illiberal, can hardly be thought to require the 
 answer which it would occupy much space to give, we shall now offer a 
 few remarks on Dr. Smith's " Observations on the Introduction to the Calm 
 Inquiry." 
 
 Mr. Belsham very judiciously reminds his readers, that since " all Chris- 
 tians agree that Jesus of Nazareth was to outward appearance a man like 
 
r5 
 
 other men/' and that his prophetic office, miracles, and resurrection, do not 
 necessarily im])ly his superiority of nature, " it follows, that in this inquiry 
 the whole burden of proof lies upon those who assert the pre-existence, 
 the original dignity, and the divinity of Jesus Christ." The Unitarian finds 
 nothing more in the Scriptures than what all acknowledge to be there — 
 others imagine that much more is to be found — it is their business to bring 
 forward their proofs : we estabhsh our own doctrine, if we only shew those 
 alleged proofs to be insufficient. 
 
 *' In this controversy, therefore," continues Mr. B., " the proper province 
 of the Arian and Trinitarian is to propose the evidence of their respective 
 hypotheses ; that is, to state those passages of Scripture which they conceive 
 to be conclusive in favour of their doctrines. The sole concern of the Unita- 
 rian is, to shew that these arguments are inconclusive." — (Calm Inquiry, p. 2.) 
 
 It would hardly seem possible to extract from these words any oiher 
 meaning than that the Unitarian, himself fully convinced that his own is the 
 doctrine of Scripture, will have done every thing required for convincing his 
 opponents when he has shewn the inconclusiveness of the texts brought 
 forward by them, since by general confession what remains, after the pecu- 
 liar evidence for reputed orthodoxy is taken away, is Unitarianism. Yet 
 upon this observation, perfectly just as a logical position, and, one might 
 have thought, altogether inoffensive in its mode of expression, Dr. Smith has 
 the following remarks : 
 
 '* This might be proper, if controvertists had no love to truth, nor sense of 
 its value ; if they were theological prize-fighters, who cared for nothing but 
 victory or the sem])lance of victory. But ill do such expressions comport 
 with the mind and motives of a sincere and serious and * calm inquirer' 
 after an object so momentous as sacred and eternal truth. To obtain 
 that object ought to be the sole concern of Unitarians, and of all other men ; 
 and it solemnly behoves those who are pleased with this consequential flip- 
 pancy of assertion, to examine well the state of their own hearts before him 
 who will not be mocked." 
 
 It is a strange misapprehension of Mr. B.'s meaning, which has given 
 occasion to this vituperative language. We need not point out the disposi- 
 tions to which the error may be traced, 
 
 Another very important caution of Mr. B., which has also excited Dr. 
 Smith's wrath, is the following : 
 
 " Impartial and sincere inquirers after truth must he particularly upon 
 their guard against what is called the natural signification of words and 
 phrases. The connexion between words and ideas is perfectly arbitrary : so 
 that the natural sense of any word to any person means nothing more than 
 the sense in which he has been accustomed to understand it. But it is very 
 possible that men who lived two thousand years ago might annex very differ- 
 ent ideas to the same words and phrases; so that the sense which appears 
 most foreign to us might he most natural to them." 
 
 ** If," says Dr. S., " the Calm Inquirer means only to assert that the in- 
 terpretation of a language must proceed on an enlightened acquaintance with 
 its idioms, he has said no more than a school-boy knows and practises every 
 day. But it is doing no service to the improvement of reason or the investi- 
 gation of truth to represent the phrases ' natural signification,' and ' natural 
 sense,' as if they were properly or usually applied to the bald and blundering 
 methods of translation, which betray those who use them to he ignorant of 
 the principles of language. I am greatly mistaken if the established use of 
 those expressions, with correct speakers, is not to denote that sense of a word 
 
If) 
 
 or phrase which it would carry, at the time, and under all the circumstances, 
 in the minds of the persons to whom it was originally addressed." 
 
 The author goes on to shew that the connexion between words and ideas 
 depends on the laws of association, and that we are possessed of means by 
 which a moral certainty may be attained as to the true meaning of words 
 and phrases in ancient writingrs, all which is in perfect agreement with Mr. 
 B.'s principles : indeed, it is acknowledged in a note " that the Calm In- 
 quirer has, in another of his observations, recognized the principal rules of 
 interpretation." 
 
 Mr. B. warns the impartial inquirer against " what is called the natural 
 signification of words and phrases." 
 
 We read the Bible daily from childhood upwards, and it may be hoped 
 that we do not read it without attaching some meaning to the words. The 
 sense in which we first take its various parts must either be that which is 
 suggested by parents and instructors, or that which occurs to ourselves at a 
 time when neither our knowledge nor judgment is much to be relied upon. 
 This sense is by frequent perusal strongly associated with the words and 
 phrases, and immediately occurs to us as belonging to them whenever we 
 consider them ; it is what is called their natural sense, and is in general, to a 
 great degree, the sense ascribed to them by those amongst whom we live : 
 but if we are serious inquirers after divine truth, we shall examine and 
 correct it by a faithful application of the just principles of interpretation, 
 which will often shew us that the sense which seemed natural to us, has 
 little pretensions to be accounted the true one. Now, there is nothing more 
 common than to object to the best-founded and most valuable explanations 
 of Scripture, that they are unnatural, that they give to the words a forced and 
 unnatural sense, when nothing is really intended but that they are not fami- 
 liar to us, and are opposed to our established associations. Dr. S. must, on 
 reflection, be well aware that feelings of this kind are among the most for- 
 midable obstacles to the right understanding of Scripture, and he will hardly 
 say that they do not furnish the most common answers to Unitarian exposi- 
 tions of Scripture : he certainly will not maintain that an answer founded on 
 them is sufficient : let him then be ashamed of his angry declamation, and 
 acknowledge that the Calm Inquirer's remark is neither *' a mere truism," 
 nor " a denial of all certainty in philological studies," but a useful prac- 
 tical caution of which most readers who are not critical scholars, and not a 
 few who are, stand greatly in need. 
 
 Dr. S. is greatly scandalized at the expression, " the incarceration of the 
 Creator of the world in the body of a helpless, puling infant," employed by 
 Mr. B. in describing the orthodox doctrine. We do not wish to defend any 
 thing which needlessly hurts the feelings of others, but as Dr. S. talks of 
 misrepresentation, we must remind him that the language is justified by that 
 seriously used by very orthodox writers. What is to be thought of the fol- 
 lowing language from Bacon } 
 
 ** The Christian believes a Virgin to be the mother of a Son ; and that very 
 Son of hers her Maker. He helieves him to have been shut up in a narrow 
 cell, whom heaven and earth could not contain. He believes him to have been 
 born in time, who was and is from eternity. He believes him to have been a 
 weak child and carried in arms, who is Alrmghty ; and him once to have died, 
 who alone has life and immortality.'" 
 
 When such is the language of orthodox piety, the Unitarian may surely 
 be excused some little strength of expression on the subject. 
 
17 
 
 Dr. S. concludes his observations on Mr. B.'s introduction, and with them 
 the first great division of his work, in these words : 
 
 ** It would have been no disparagement to the writer of the Calm Inquiry^ 
 had he urged the duty of cherishing impartiality, sincerity, and the love of 
 truth, hij the meam of assiduous prayer to the Author of truth, a recollec- 
 tion of our amenahleness to his tribunal, and a holy state of our mental feel- 
 ings, in referoicc to his presence and perfections. Without these moral 
 cautions, can it be expected that our inquiries will be really impartial or will 
 terminate successfully ? The principles of human nature and the righteous- 
 ness of the Divine government equally forbid the expectation. Happy will 
 those be who realize the devotion and faith of him who said, * With thee is 
 the fountain of life ; in thy light we shall see light P But on such sulijects 
 the Calm Inquiry observes the silence of death." 
 
 Mr. B. recommends impartiality, and the sincere, disinterested love of 
 truth ; he does not enter on the means of attaining and cultivating these 
 qualities, because those means are not unknown or much disputed : he was 
 writing a controversial, not a practical work, and he meant to confine himself 
 to one volume of moderate size, where he could not, like Dr. S., give 200 
 pages to introductory considerations. Nothing can be found in his book 
 unfavourable to habits of devotion or feelings of piety. The impartiality 
 which he recommends— the love of truth, without regard to external advan- 
 tages, sensual pleasures, or the gratification of ambition and vanity — is itself 
 a liohj state of the mental feelings, and it is hard to reproach him with the 
 silence of death when he speaks learnedly and ably on the subject he under- 
 takes to discuss, because he does not digress into a practical treatise on devo- 
 tion and faith. Sincere devotion, and prayer, its noblest exercise and best 
 excitement, are most valuable means of producing the dispositions which 
 aid us in the search for truth ; but it must be remembered, that there is a 
 Sort of prayer often employed in what is called religious inquiry, which is 
 no more than a mustering of fears and prejudices against the admission of 
 any new light, or an attempt to overpower the resistance of reason to popular 
 opinions by an accumulation of distempered and enthusiastic feelings. There 
 are many also who pray indeed for help from God in the understanding of 
 his word ; but, entertaining the unfounded expectation of that help being 
 afforded in the form of immediate and supernatural assistance, instead of 
 improving by their pious exercises in the humble and diligent application of 
 the means of knowledge, are puffed up with a vain conceit of their infahi- 
 biHty, and led to ascribe to their own crudest conceptions the authority of 
 divine communication. As these are faults into which those who agree with 
 Dr. S. are peculiarly apt to fall, we have at least as good reason for won- 
 dering that he did' not guard against such common and dangerous abuses of 
 what he justly recommends, as he had for reproaching Mr. B. with his 
 silence on a subject which his plan did not oblige him to introduce. 
 
 We have been able to notice but a few of the more important passages in 
 that portion of Dr. Smith's work which has now engaged our attention. 
 There is hardly a page in which something does not call for animadversion, 
 and there are some subjects of very high interest, as the Unitarian views of 
 the perfections of God, and the inspiration of the Scriptures, which demand 
 distinct essays to do them any justice. We hope, however, that what we 
 have done may be sufficient to make known the true character of what is 
 represented as a formidable attack on our opinions, to expose the treatment 
 which Mr. Belsham has received from one who would willingly be thought 
 a candid adversary, and to repel some charges which, though glaringly 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 false, may be said to be admitted, because Unitarians have not thought it 
 needful to give them a distinct denial— because, in short, no one has yet 
 undertaken the labour of a reply, which must occupy at least three volumes, 
 and when finished, might probably be neglected— by our friends, because 
 they are already fully satisfied— by our opponents, because very few of them 
 desire to know any thing of our side of the question. 
 
 The Introduction to Dr. Smith's second book is chiefly occupied with an 
 attack on Mr. Belsham for not having gone over all the same ground with 
 the author, and for having dismissed the few passages he has noticed from 
 the Old Testament, with an expression respecting their application in this 
 controversy, nearly approaching to contempt. 
 
 It must be recollected that the object of Mr. B.'s work is not to collect 
 every thing in Scripture relating to the Messiah, but to examine the prin- 
 cipal arguments which have been adduced in support of the notions of his 
 superhuman or divine nature. When we consider, therefore, not only how 
 precarious are the grounds for applying to the Messiah at all many of the 
 passages brought forward by Dr. S., but how small a proportion of them, 
 granting the interpretation put upon them, supply any substantial argument 
 respecting his nature, and that of those which are made to appear most im- 
 portant, many have not been insisted upon by the best writers in defence 
 of reputed orthodoxy, previous to our learned and ingenious author, we 
 cannot be much surprised that Mr. B. did not feel himself called upon to 
 devote any distinct portion of his work to the Old Testament. As to his 
 manner of expression, every writer feels himself authorized to express his 
 opinion on the comparative force of the arguments which pass under his 
 consideration : it is agreed, on all hands, that learned and able men have 
 often been " imposed upon by miserable sophisms," and the statement of 
 our belief that this has happened in a particular case, the whole matter being 
 submitted to the judgment of the reader, cannot be considered as going be- 
 yond what is allowable in controversy. When, indeed, we attribute what 
 we regard as the errors of our opponents to pride or other evil passions, or 
 represent them as wilfully perverting the truth, and misrepresenting the 
 Sacred Records, we are chargeable with passing the bounds of fair discussion, 
 and contending for victory with unlawful weapons. Of any such charge as 
 this, we think the " Calm Inquirer" must be acquitted even by his enemies. 
 Dr. Smith, as appears from what we have already brought forward, by no 
 means comes before the tribunal of the public with so good a case. We 
 most sincerely give him credit for much amiable and truly Christian feeling, 
 but a man who talks so much of candour as he does, can hardly be excused 
 in so often forgetting its dictates. 
 
 The enumeration of passages is prefaced by the following statement : 
 
 ** In this enumeration it is proposed to bring forwards, not every text 
 which has been adduced by biblical interpreters as referring to the Messiah, 
 but only those which, according to the criteria above (in the preceding chap- 
 ter) laid down, carry certain, or, at least, probable evidence of having been 
 so designed. The degrees of that evidence will of course be various : but if 
 the passages which appear to be of the least convincing kind, be struck out of 
 the following list, still it is apprehended that enough will remain to furnish a 
 satisfactory conclusion. The number might be greatly reduced without at all 
 diminishing the weight of the argument." 
 
 In reviewing this enumeration, our narrow limits will oblige us to pass by 
 without notice all such passages, however interesting in themselves, as have 
 no direct bearing on the questions concerning the person of the Messiah, 
 
19 
 
 and the nature or mode of the dehverance he effected for mankind. Inter- 
 pretations, however doubtful, or even in our estimation decidedly false, 
 which might be received by a Unitarian consistently with his general views 
 of Christian truth, we do not undertake now to examine, but we shall en- 
 deavour to neglect no passage among thirty-two (exclusive of the sections on 
 the " angel of Jehovah," and on the plural names) which Dr. Smith pro- 
 duces, in which we could not, as Unitarians, receive his interpretation, 
 without our characteristic opinions being in any degree affected. We may 
 safely presume that Dr. Smith has not omitted any thing of much impor- 
 tance. We shall endeavour to assist tlie intelligent and candid reader in 
 estimating the value of what he has produced. 
 
 Sect. ii. Gen. iv. 1 : '' I have obtained a man Jehovah." '* From the 
 special record of this exclamation of Eve on the birth of her first son, and 
 from the very marked importance which is given to it," [it is preserved 
 merely as an explanation of the name Cain, acquisition, and the signs of any 
 very peculiar importance being attached to it are not obvious,] " it may rea- 
 sonably be considered as the expression of her eager and pious, though mis- 
 taken, expectation that the promise, (cli. iii. 15,) which could not but have 
 created the strongest feelings of interest and hope," [it is a matter, never- 
 theless, of very great doubt whether the words referred to imply any promise 
 at all,] ** was now beginning to be accomplished. The primary, proper, and 
 usual force of the particle (n^) placed here before Jehovah, is to designate 
 an object in the most demonstrative and emphatical manner." ** It is true, 
 that in subsequent periods of the language, this particle came to be used as a 
 preposition, to denote tvith or % the instrumentality of ; but this was but a 
 secondary idiom, and many of its supposed instances, on a closer considera- 
 tion, fall into the ordinary construction. There seems, therefore, no option 
 to an interpreter who is resolved to follow faithfully the fair and strict gram- 
 matical signification of the words before him, but to translate the passage as 
 it is given above." — Scrip, Test. Vol. I. p. 235. 
 
 What can Dr. S. mean by saying that the primary and proper sense of 
 the particle [HN] is to designate an object " in the most demonstrative and 
 emphatical manner" > For this purpose it is most usually employed: but 
 it has, without doubt, orifjinally been a noun independently significant, and 
 all its uses as a particle, whether as the sign of a case, or mere emphatic 
 accompaniment of a noun, or as a preposition, are but certain applications 
 of the original and proper sense, of which, though one may have become 
 much more common, we have no right on that account merely to say that it 
 is either older or better established. It appears to be sufficiently proved, 
 that DX, in at least two passages besides the one under consideration, bears 
 the sense of/rom, and in several others hy means of, either of which would 
 remove all difficulty from this passage — in one of these ways too it has been 
 understood by most of the ancient translators. Yet, because the particle is 
 of much more frequent occurrence as an emphatic ascompaniment of nouns, 
 (an argument which, if consistently followed up, would never allow us to 
 give to any word more than one sense,) we are called upon to admit a 
 translation which, understood literally, is in the highest degree revolting and 
 absurd, and from which no rational and probable meaning can be extracted. 
 That the applications of the particle as a preposition are secondary and of a 
 later age, is a mere arbitrary assumption ; and, after all, how is it to be 
 proved to us that the documents employed by Moses had not their expres- 
 sion in any degree altered by him, or even, as their antiquity must have 
 been so extraordinary, that they had not previously to his time existed only 
 in hieroglyphics .^ It is enough for us, however, that there is not the slightest 
 
20 
 
 foundation for Dr. S/s assertion as to the necessity of the extraordinary 
 translation he has adopted. Eve said, " I have acquired a man from (or 
 through) Jehovah ;" she therefore called his name Cain (acquisition). It 
 was quite natural for her thus to express her joy at receiving what she could 
 not but regard as a great comfort and blessing, and there is no reason for 
 seeking any mystery in the words, or for supposing that whatever hopes 
 they may be thought to imply related to the approaching fulfilment of any 
 divine promises. 
 
 We pass to Sect. viii. 2 Sam. xxiii. 1 — 7. The passage contains what 
 is believed to be the latest written of the poems of David. It apparently 
 relates to his confidence in the fulfilment of God's promises respecting the 
 future glory of his family, but is thought by many to be prophetic of the 
 reign of the Messiah, in which view it is brought forward by our airthor. 
 Its interpretation is attended with great difficulty, owing probably to the 
 corrupt state of the text, and we cannot but think the sense at present too 
 uncertain for it to be appealed to as of any importance in the support of a 
 controverted doctrine. As, however. Dr. Smith finds in it the direct appli- 
 cation of the name Jehovah to the Messiah, we shall just lay before our 
 readers the true state of the fact. 2 Sam. xxiii. 4, the Authorized Version 
 gives, " And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, 
 even a morning without clouds ; as the tender grass springing out of 
 the earth by clear shining after rain." Dr. Smith, inserting the word Jeho- 
 vah on the authority of a single Hebrew MS., (a valuable one certainly, yet 
 only one,) doubtfully supported by the ancient Greek Version, translates 
 thus ; 
 
 Ver. 3. •* Ruling- over man is a Righteous one 
 
 Ruling in the fear of God : 
 Ver. 4. Even as the light of the morning shall he arise, 
 
 Jehovah the sun, 
 
 A morning without clouds for brightness, 
 
 (As) after rain the herbage from the earth." 
 
 Dr. Keunicott, who first brought to light the various reading, thus renders 
 the words : 
 
 Ver. 3. '' The Just one ruleth ainong men. 
 He ruleth by the fear of God ! 
 
 Ver. 4, As the light of the morning ariseth Jehovah 
 A sun, without clouds, for brightness ; 
 And as the grass from the earth after rain. 
 
 Ver. 5. Verily thus is my house with God," &c. 
 Though no considerate man would build much on a passage so doubtful, 
 we allow that the authority for inserting the word Jehovah is important, and 
 we think that Dr. K.'s version (which we much prefer to our author's) gives 
 a much clearer sense than we have seen derived from the common text ; but 
 admitting this version, and admitting what is more doubtful, though we 
 would not pretend positively to deny tt, that the words are prophetic of the 
 kingdom of the Messiah, the obvious and natural interpretation would be, 
 not to regard Jehovah as a name given to the Messiah, but to consider the 
 great events contemplated as the bright and glorious manifestation of his 
 presence, the proofs of his fidelity to his covenant with David. It is found, 
 then, that the passage is altogether very obscure ; that its application to the 
 subject of the Messiah is not a little doubtful; that its whole point in the con- 
 troversy respecting the person of Christ, depends on an uncertain emenda- 
 tion of the text; and that, admitting this, (which, us it is plausible, and stems 
 
21 
 
 to clear the sense, we are willing to do, though without placing much reli- 
 ance upon it,) still the words are naturally explained of God's display of his 
 power and glory in the gospel ; and the construction which makes " the just 
 one" identical with Jehovah, is both needless and harsh— it is, indeed, 
 absolutely inconsistent with the preceding and following clauses : " He 
 ruleth by the fear of God'' — " Thus is my house with God." 
 
 Sect. 'ix. Job xix. 23—27. 
 
 Dr. S.'s translation of this passage is very peculiar : 
 
 Ver. 2b. *' I surely do know my Redeemer, the living one : 
 
 And HE the last, will arise over the dust. 
 Ver. 26. And after the disease has cut down my skin. 
 
 Even from my flesh I shall see God." 
 
 It is represented as " a prophecy of the second coming of the only Re- 
 deemer and Judge of mankind," and as " unequivocally designating Him 
 by the highest titles and attributes of Deity." 
 
 It may be sufficient for us to remark, that this passage is one of the most 
 difficult in the Bible ; that of the immense number of critics who have ap- 
 plied themselves particularly to the book of Job, scarcely any two agree 
 respecting its sense, or at least respecting the mode of deriving the sense 
 from the words ; and that a large proportion, equal to any in learning and 
 judgment, and many of them even in what is called orthodoxy of sentiment, 
 have denied all reference of the words to a future state of existence ; whilst 
 amongst those who have contended for their application to this subject, our 
 author stands almost alone in maintaining their direct application to the 
 Messiah, interpreted so as to apply to him the titles and attributes of Deity. 
 Unless, then, his version be so peculiarly clear and satisfactory, and esta- 
 blished by such irresistible force of evidence, as to justify its decided prefer- 
 ence to those of all his predecessors, no person of common sense will give 
 the passage much weight in a controversy respecting the personal nature of 
 one who appeared in the world so many ages after it was written. 
 
 Now, Dr. S. himself will hardly venture to deny that the words of the 
 original may, with strict propriety, be rendered, 
 
 " For I know that my deliverer (or avenger) Uveth, 
 And that hereafter he will rise up over the dust," &c. : 
 
 where the epithets to which he attaches so much importance entirely dis- 
 appear, and even if his version were admitted, the application to the Messiah 
 would not, considering the connexion, be even probable. We should still 
 agree with nearly all translators and commentators in supposing God him- 
 self to be referred to. We ourselves embrace with great confidence the 
 opinion of those who maintain that Job here speaks only of a temporal deli- 
 verance, and that both the general object of the book and several remark- 
 able passages in it, prove the author to have been ignorant of the doctrine 
 of a future state : but whatever the reader may think on this point, we have 
 made it evident that the application Dr. S. has made of the passage is ut- 
 terly unfounded and indefensible. 
 Sect. X. Psalm ii. 
 
 ** The last clause of the Psalm" (says Dr. Smith) " merits particular atten- 
 tion as demanding that trust and confidence in the JMessiah, which the 
 general tenor of Scripture and many particular passages direct to be reposed 
 only in the Almighty and Everlasting God. It is religious reliance that is 
 requiied. If this powerful and victorious King were but a creature, such 
 
22 
 
 confidence would be * trusting in an arm of flesh,' and would mark * a heart 
 departing from the Lord.' But the reason upon which this confidence is 
 called for is equally inapplicable to the idea of a mere creature. It is his 
 right to the most absolute homage; it is his al)ility to bless ; it is \)\?, power 
 as shewn in the dreadful consequence of provoking his justice and incurring 
 'even but a little' of his righteous displeasure."— Scrip. Test., second edition. 
 Vol. I. p. 307. 
 
 The last two verses of the Psalm are thus rendered by Dr. Smith : 
 
 11. " Serve Jehovah with reverence. 
 
 And rejoice with trembling. 
 
 12. Do homage to the Son, lest he be angry 
 And ye perish on the road ; 
 
 When his wrath is even for a moment kindled ! 
 Blessed are all who trust in Him !" 
 
 Did it never occur to our author, that since " the general tenor of Scrip- 
 ture, and many particular passages direct (religious) trust and confidence 
 to be reposed only in the Almighty and Everlasting God," it would be but 
 reasonable to understand this passage in consistency with them, which may 
 be done by a very obvious and altogether unobjectionable construction ? 
 
 " Do homage to the Son, lest He (Jehovah, referring to the preceding 
 verse) be angry. 
 And ye perish on the road (rather * in your way') ; 
 AVhen His (Jehovah's) wrath is even for a moment kindled. 
 Blessed are all who trust in Him (Jehovah)." 
 
 But, though all difficulty is even thus removed, we must not omit to ob- 
 serve that the original word, rendered by Dr. S. and most other translators. 
 Son, and w hich truly has that meaning in the Chaldee dialect, cannot be 
 proved to have it in pure Hebrew, but does signify pure, sincere, whence 
 the words have been, with much probability of truth, translated, *' Reverence 
 sincerely," or, " offer sincere homage," " lest He be angry," &c., which 
 makes the whole passage relate to God alone. 
 
 Another remark of Dr. S., that " the Messiah is clearly and plainly re- 
 presented as an existing and acting person, at the time when the Psalm 
 was written," is answered by observing, that there can be little doubt of the 
 Psalm having had an immediate application to David himself, whatever 
 secondary and prophetic reference to the reign of the Messiah may be found 
 in it, and that, therefore, it must necessarily speak of the anointed king as 
 living and acting, though not intending by that language to convey any- 
 extraordinary doctrine respecting the nature of a greater Messiah afterwards 
 to be raised up, but already appointed in the Divine counsels. 
 
 Sect. xiii. Psa. xl. 6 — 10. 
 
 6. " Sacrifice and offering thou hast no delight in : 
 
 Then a body thou hast prepared for me. 
 Burnt-offering and sin-offering thou desirest not : 
 
 7. Then I said. Behold, I come ! 
 
 In the roll of the book it is written concerning me, 
 
 8. To execute thy pleasure, O God, I do delight," &c. 
 
 *' The terms of the passage," says Dr. S., " appear to require absolutely 
 the sense of the abrogation of animal sacrifices by a person who declares that 
 the very book which described those sacrifices had its superior reference to 
 him, and that he himself would present the only sacrifice that should be 
 worthy of Deity to accept. I must despair of ever ac(iuinng consistent know- 
 
23 
 
 ledg-e, or satisfaction on any subject of rational inquiry ; I must give up the 
 first principles of evidence as to prophecy and inspiration, and, rcnouncin<if 
 all sober rules of interpretation, commit myself to the extravagance of fancy 
 and arbitrary dictates, — if this be not a clear and characteristic description 
 of the Messiah." 
 
 Again, 
 
 '* That glorious Person is represented as, in a state of existence previous 
 to his appearance amon^ mortals, contemplating with supreme joy the de- 
 signs of Divine benevolence, g-lowing witli holy ardour to bear his part in the 
 gracious plan, and ready to assume that human form, which in the appointed 
 time would be prepared and adapted for this all-important desig-n." — Scrip. 
 Test. Vol. I. p. 325, second edition. 
 
 We read with astonishment such confident assertions, resting on so very- 
 slight a foundation, and cannot repress the reflection, that the defenders of 
 popular opinions could not attach much importance to passages like this, 
 unless driven to them, by the entire absence of all really satisfactory evi- 
 dence. 
 
 In the second clause of ver. 6, Dr. S. adopts the reading of the ancient 
 Greek version, " Then a body thou hast prepared for me," chiefly because 
 it has been so quoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The literal translation 
 of the present Hebrew text is what is found in the Received Version : 
 " Mine ears thou hast opened." There is no variation in the Hebrew MSS., 
 and no ancient version, except those taken from the Greek, differs from the 
 common reading ; for Dr. S.'s remark, that there exist MSS. of the very 
 ancient Syriac Version, having the reading " a body," is of no importance, 
 since these MSS., written by Christians, may have been corrected to the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, and there is no good reason to doubt the genuineness 
 of the printed Syriac text, which follows the Hebrew reading. Indepen- 
 dently, then, of the quotation in the Epistle to the Hebrews, no one would 
 hesitate to prefer the reading of the present Hebrew copies. The Greek 
 translation contains many strange blunders, and though of great interest and 
 value, would not alone in a case of this kind be sufficient to shake our confi- 
 dence in a reading which gives a good sense, and is supported by all other 
 authorities. Many learned men suppose that the word *' body," even in 
 the Greek, is a later corruption, but for this we see no reason, as it has been 
 shewn how, by mistaking a letter or two, they might have derived that sense 
 from the Hebrew words, and it is not a solitary instance of their falling into 
 such a mistake ; but no critic would hesitate (setting aside the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews) to adhere to the received text in the Psalm. The question then 
 is, whether the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who, as a Jew acquainted 
 with the Greek language, would be familiar with the LXX. Greek translation, 
 and disposed to quote from it, was protected by his inspiration from follow- 
 ing any error that might be found in it, and does by his authority establish 
 a reading which would otherwise be without hesitation rejected. Now, we 
 do not know who was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrew.^, and the 
 ancient church differed greatly as to its value ; but granting it the highest 
 authority, the writer quotes the passage from the Psalm, not as prophetic, 
 but in the way of application, as a suitable mode of expressing his doctrine. 
 That doctrine, we doubt not, he received on sufficient authority. Grant 
 that he had it by direct personal inspiration, (which if Paul was the writer 
 was true, and may have been true if it was written by others to whom it has 
 been ascribed,) yet is it to be supposed, that he not only received the doc- 
 
24 
 
 trine, but also the mode of expressing it, or that the h<2;]it he had obtained 
 respecting the meaning and purpose of the ancient Scriptures extended to 
 the correction of every error in the version of those Scriptures witli which 
 he was famihar ? We can neither find that such inspiration as this was 
 pretended to, nor can we perceive its utihty. The v/riter of the Epistle, teach- 
 ing what he knew (probably by personal inspiration) to be genuine Christian 
 doctrine, quoted the Psalm in the form in which it was familiar to him, 
 using its words to express the sentiment he wished to convey. That senti- 
 ment is the abolition of the sacrifices of the law, of which the death of 
 Christ, in obedience to the will of God, described as the offering " of his 
 body," was the sign and seal. But we can find nothing resembling Dr. 
 Smith's doctrine in the Epistle, and much less is it to be extracted from the 
 Psalm, which indeed we can see no pretence for considering as at all pro- 
 phetic. The following, we apprehend, to be a fair translation of the prin- 
 cipal verses quoted, which we request the reader to compare with that which 
 we have given from Dr. Smith : 
 
 Ver. 6. " Sacrifice and meat-offering thou desirest not ; 
 
 (My ears thou hast opened;) [i. e. thou hast made me willing to 
 
 attend to thy instructions] 
 Burnt-offering and sin-offering thou requirest not. 
 
 7. Then I said, * Lo, I come ; [I am ready to hear and obey thy 
 
 commands;] 
 In the roll of the booli, it is prescribed to me, 
 
 8. * To do what is acceptable to thee, O God, is my delight : 
 
 And thy law is within me.'" 
 
 Wellbeloved's Bible, Part VI. 
 
 Section xiv. Psalm xlv. 2 — 8. The important vi^ords are in ver. 6, 
 ** Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever !" 
 
 The Psalm is considered as a prophetic address to the Messiah, who is 
 therefore here called God, and the use made of the words in Hebrews i. 8, 
 '' But to the Son (he saith). Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," is 
 regarded as establishing beyond all doubt the validity of this application. 
 Some Unitarian expositors, as Mr. Belsham, adopt the translation, " God is 
 thy throne," the support of thy throne, i. e. he will make thy dominion 
 mighty and durable, which both the Hebrew of the Psalm and the Greek of the 
 quotation in the Epistle will equally well bear, and which suits the connexion 
 in both places: others suppose the word God to be here employed in an in- 
 ferior sense. The prevailing and most probable opinion is, that the 45th Psalm 
 was written on occasion of the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of the 
 King of Egypt, and this opinion, as to its primary sense, is held by most of 
 those who consider it as having a secondary reference to the Messiah and 
 his kingdom, that is, by the great majority of Christian commentators. 
 Some interpreters, indeed, of great learning, and whose opinions deserve 
 much respect, have affirmed that the Psalm must be considered as primarily 
 addressed to the Messiah, and is not properly applicable to Solomon or to 
 any other person ; but their chief arguments are drawn from the quotation in 
 Heb. i. 8, (of which we shall speak presently,) and from the assumption of 
 the point in dispute, that ver. 6 is an address to some individual as the 
 Supreme God, whilst their application of other parts of the Psalm is figura- 
 tive almost throughout, and in some instances extremely forced. The 9th 
 and following verses may be explained secondarily of the church as the 
 bride of the Messiah, but their direct and sole application in that sense is 
 what the sober judgment of no unprejudiced reader can admit. The argu- 
 
rivent from the everlasting duration ascribed to the kingdom of the person 
 addressed is of no weight, being a common oriental idiom : thus, for ex- 
 ample, in Nathan's prophecy to David respecting Solomon, 1 Chron. xvii. 
 1 1 — 14 : " 1 will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons ; 
 and I will stablish his kingdom. He shall build me an house, (plainly 
 shewing that Solomon is the person spoken of,) and / will stablish his 
 throne Foil ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son ; and I 
 will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before 
 thee : but I will settle him in mine house and in mykingdom/o?- ever ; and 
 his throne shall he established for evermore.'''' It is universally acknowledged 
 that this magnificent, prophetic language was intended, and, according to the 
 notions o( the age and country, uas well adapted, to express the promise 
 of a long reign to Solomon, and of posterity to succeed him on his throne, 
 but nothing more; and we cannot but consider it as going far to justify the 
 sense, '* God is thy throne, for ever and ever," in the passage under our 
 consideration, by siiewing how peculiarly God had promised to establish 
 and support the throne of the prince to whom that passage, beyond all rea- 
 sonable doubt, immediately referred ; but supposing the common translation 
 to be preferable, the use of the word God, in an inferior sense, is not un- 
 known to Scripture, nor at variance with oriental idiom. It must be under- 
 stood to mean (as Bishop Young has translated it) prince, and it is certain 
 that what could with propriety be addressed to Solomon, could not be un- 
 suitable to his great descendant, and could not possibly imply any thing 
 inconsistent with the unrivalled deitij and perfect unity of the Supreme 
 Being; indeed, any such abuse of the words is guarded against by the lan- 
 guage of ver. 7 : " Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil 
 of gladness above thy fellows,'' words which, if they have any meaning at 
 all, ascribed to the person addressed inferiority, derived and dependent au- 
 thority, and equality of rank with some human beings. 
 
 Referring to Mr. Belsham's statement, " It is well known that the words 
 ef the original will equally well bear to be translated God is thy throne'" — 
 a statement which, after due deliberation, we have ventured to adopt in the 
 preceding remarks, Dr. S. says, " It is not quite consistent with fairness 
 in argument, for the learned writer roundly to assert as well known, what he 
 could not but know to be extremely disputable, and to have been in fact 
 generally objected to." There is nothing so plain that it may not be dis- 
 puted, and Mr. B. did not say or mean that nobody had denied what he 
 asserted, but he certainly neither did think, nor ought in reason to have 
 thought, it extremely disputable. He was safe in his assertion, 1st, because 
 he was directly supported by the authority of Enjedenus and Crellius, Gro- 
 tius,* Dr. Samuel Clarke, Pierce, Sykes, J. G. Rosenmiiller, and V/akefield, 
 
 * Dr. S. remarks, that Gi otiiis " seems anxiously to avoid giving any construction, 
 contenting himself with saying, '* the sense is." Does Dr. S. then mean to insi- 
 nuate that this great critic affiimed that to be the sense of a passage of Scripture 
 which he knew could not be derived from the words ? Such seen)s to be his meaning, 
 but such a charge neither needs nor deserves an answer. Grotius gives a reasuu 
 why he thinks that the word " God" must, in this phice, be understDod of the 
 Supreme Being himself, and adds, " Sensus ergo est: Deus ipse cj-t sedes tua 
 perpetua." He perceived no difiiculty in this construction : he considered the ori- 
 ginal words as ambiguous, and not seeing reason to admit that Christ could be called 
 God in the highest and proper sense ; having, besides, before observed that the 
 Psalm primarily referred to Solomon, he thought the reason he had given for under- 
 standing the woul God in its highest sense, a sufficient reason for not addressing it 
 
 D 
 
26 
 
 not now to mention others, men certainly as con^petent to juf^ge, and as 
 little under the influence of prejudice, as any who have pven an opinion on 
 the subject ; and 2dly, because, whilst the majority of commentators, 
 adopting, in conformity with their own doctrinal views, the common con- 
 struction, pass by this one without particular notice, those who have under- 
 taken to give reasons against its grammiatical propriety, have signally failed 
 in their attempts.* 
 
 Dr. S.'s objections to the propriety of the fi9;ure, " God is .thy throne," 
 seem to us to be either altogether unfounded, or at least oreatly exagge- 
 rated. God is spoken of as a rock, a foiver, a fortress, a shield, a refuge : 
 and we do not find much truth in the remark, that the protection or aid 
 implied in these terms has more dio;nity than that implied in calling him the 
 throne, i. e. some emblem of dominion of a creature. If we consider that 
 the word throne is not to be understood literally as a seat, but stands for the 
 sovereign power and dignity of which it is the symbol, and compare the 
 passage with Numb, xviii. 20, where God says to the house of Aaron, " I 
 am thy part and thy inheritance,''^ I will provide for thee a suitable main- 
 tenance ; Psa. xvi. 5, " Jehovah is the portion of mine inheritance and of 
 my cup," he allots to me and secures to me ray portion ; Psa. Ixxiii. 26, 
 " God is my portion for ever," he will provide for me, and to him I look 
 for comfort ; we cannot but perceive that to describe God as a throne, 
 meaning the Giver and Upholder of its glory and dominion, is not incon- 
 sistent with the poetical style of the ancient Hebrews, and by no means 
 deserves to be spoken of as irreverent, or as indicating the want of all correct 
 feeling. 
 
 We do not decide in favour of Mr. Belsham's interpretation ; we are in 
 much doubt on the subject, and rather incline to favour the common trans- 
 lation, understanding " God" in the sense of " mighty prince ;" but we 
 have no doubt of the original words fully admitting the sense ascribed to 
 them by Mr. B. and so many distinguished interpreters of Scripture : we 
 think there is good reason for the inquiring mind to pause and hesitate be- 
 tween two highly probable explanations, and it only appears to us certain 
 that the Psalm must have been originally an epithalamium addressed to some 
 prince, (who is determined, with great probability, to have been Solomon,) 
 and consequently that the words under consideration could not possibly have 
 been designed to ascribe deity to the person addressed. 
 
 We proceed to consider the true character and intent of the quotation in 
 
 as a title to a created being. Dr. S. would, in like manner, detract from the value 
 of the opinions ou this point of Enjedin, Clarke, and Pierce : the former only says 
 *' the worda will admit of this explication :" possnnt sic commodfe explicari. And 
 tliis, we answer, is all that is wanted, as no one denies that they mai/ be taken ac- 
 cording to the olher construction. Clarke, in a book written after his Scripture 
 Doctrine, " follows the commonly-received construction ;" but he does not retract 
 his opinion that the other is perfectly allowable. Pierce only affirms, in a note, that 
 it is doubtful which construction is preferable — i. e, precisely the sentiment for which 
 he is quoted. 
 
 * The ambiguity of the Hebrew cannot be denied : the objection to rendering the 
 Greek words, " God is thy throne," is taken from the article being found in the 
 predicate of the proposition ; but though not of common occurrence, there are ex- 
 ceptions to the ordinary practice in this respect, and Mr. Yates, in his Vindication 
 of Unitarianism, (p. 113,) has produced an instance of a precisely similar construc- 
 tion, which sufficiently justifies that translation : 
 
 Psa. Ixxiii. 2G : 'H //.epj? imv 6 @eo<; sk; rov aiavoi. 
 
 Psa. xlv. 6 ; Heb. i. 8 : 'O Bpovoq (tov o Geoq ei^ luv aicovoc. 
 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, and our remarks will extend to the two passages 
 which form the subjects of Dr. S.'s fifteenth and seventeenth sections, which 
 are applied to the Messiah solely on the authority of the author of the 
 Epistle. 
 
 Whoever was its author, which must probably always remain a matter of 
 extreme uncertainty, there can be no doubt that this Epistle was written by 
 a sincere and pious Christian before the destruction of Jerusalem ; and 
 from the general diffusion of miraculous gifts in that first period of the 
 church, and his having been a person of suthcient importance to offer advice 
 to others, we see no reason to doubt that he was one who had experienced 
 personal divine communications, or displayed supernatural powers. What 
 he wrote, then, cannot but be read by us with interest and respect, as being 
 sure to contain just views of Christian doctrine, and valuable instructions 
 which we may all apply to our own improvement. But we know not upon 
 what authority any one can affirm that he made, or was entitled to make, 
 any pretensions to divine guidance as a write?^ d.nd we think there is scarcely 
 any portion of the sacred volume which requires to be read with more cau- 
 tion, lest we should pervert the meaning of the author through ignorance of 
 the circumstances under which he v/rote, and the customs or opinions of the 
 age, and of the people whom he addressed. We are not bound always to 
 assume, nor can we in all cases consistently with our own reason and know- 
 ledge admit, the soundness of the arguments employed even by writers to 
 whose authority, as religious instructors, we implicitly defer, and this dis- 
 tinction has been ol'ten pointed out by learned and judicious divines. Thus 
 Bishop Burnet : 
 
 *' When divine writers argue upon any point, we are always bound to be- 
 lieve the conclusions that their reasonings end in, as parts of divine revelation; 
 but we are not bound to be able to make out, or even to assent to, all the 
 premises made use of by them in their whole extent; unless it appears plainly 
 that they affirm the premises expressly as they do the conclusions proved by 
 them." 
 
 And Paley, 
 
 *' In reading the apostolic writings we should carefully distinguish between 
 their doctrines and their arguments. Their doctrines came to them by reve- 
 lation, properly so called ; yet in propounding these doctrines in their writ- 
 ings or discourses, they were wont to illustrate, support, and enforce them by 
 such analogies, arguments, and considerations, as their own thoughts sug- 
 gested." 
 
 Again, 
 
 " St. Paul, I am apt to believe, has been sometimes accused of inconclusive 
 reasoning, by our mistaking that for reasoning which was only intended for 
 illustration. He is not to be read as a man whose own persuasion of the truth 
 of what he taught always or solely depended on the views under which he 
 represents it in his writings. Taking for granted the certainty of his doc- 
 trine as resting upon the revelation that had been imparted to him, he exhi- 
 bits it frequently to the conceptions of his readers under images and alle- 
 gories, in which if an analogy may he perceived, or even sometimes a poetic 
 resemblance be found, it is aU, perhaps, that is required." 
 
 Now, there is no part of the New Testament where considerations such as 
 these are so much required as in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and there is 
 no subject which demands more caution and care, if we wish not to be 
 greatly misled, and to pervert the authorities to which we appeal, than the 
 use made of passages from the Old Testament. The Jews, in our Lord's 
 
28 
 
 lime, considered the greatest part of their Scriptures as applicable in a se- 
 condary and mystical sense to their expected Messiah. The Christian wri- 
 ters often argued with them from their own concessions, or illustrated and 
 recommended what they taught by expressing it in the words of the Old 
 Testament. ^ The Epistle to the Hebrews is altogether an attempt to render 
 the gospel interesting to Jews by an application to its truths (much in the 
 manner of the applications of Scripture which are now so common among 
 most sects) of the words of the ancient sacred books, and by finding analo- 
 gies between them and the principles or ceremonies of the law. 
 
 In this light it has been considered by some of the most distinguished 
 theologians, and thus only it appears to us that we can obtain an intelligible 
 and rational view of its character and purpose. 
 
 " Long before our Saviour's time," says Dr. Hey, late Norrisian Professor 
 of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, *' it seems probable that the Jews 
 had some sort of traditions; traditional narratives, prophecies, or modes of 
 interpreting prophecies; modes of arranging, construing, and applying the 
 Psalms, and other parts of Holy Writ ; methods of aUeg-orhmg ; all these 
 cm- Saviour and his apostles seem to have so far adopted as to make use of 
 them in reasoning with the Jews." 
 
 Le Clerc, in his edition of Hammond's Paraphrase and Notes, says, (Heb. 
 ix. 16,) 
 
 " All the principles of Christian doctrine which the author of this Epistle 
 defends, are most true, and may be proved from other parts of Scripture ; 
 but the method by which he illustrates them, is manifestly conformed to the 
 custom of those times, as we see it in Philo, whose works 'abound in this sort 
 of accommodations of passages of Scripture, and in reasonings derived from 
 them, in which there is no regard paid to the grammatical sense, nor is any 
 thing else attended to but the truth of the principle thus illustrated." 
 
 This passage is quoted with approbation by Rosenmiiller ; the same prin- 
 ciple is defended by Sykes ; and Paley's opinion may be gathered from what 
 he says of the epistle of Barnabas : 
 
 " It is in its subject, and general composition, much like the Ejmtle to the 
 Hebrews; an allegorical application of divers passages of the Jewish history, 
 of their law and ritual, to those parts of the Christian dispensation in which 
 the author perceived a resemblance."— {Evidences of Christianity, B.iii. Ch.v.) 
 
 But although we do not admit the Epistle to the Hebrews as an authority 
 with respect to the original sense or prophetic character of the portions of 
 ancient Scripture which it quotes, it should still, according to the principles 
 we have laid down, be authoritative in favour of the Christian doctrines 
 which bij means of these quotations it conveys, and if it applies unreservedly 
 to Christ the names God and Lord, (representing Jehovah J there is at least 
 the testimony of the Christian writer, if not of the passages from the Old 
 Testament, to the deity of our Saviour. This is readily granted : but the 
 very means which the writer employed to attract and conciliate those whom 
 he immediately addressed have thrown such obscurity over his style that, per- 
 haps unavoidably, we, in these distant times, are influenced in our mode of 
 understanding him by the opinions we have formed on the great subjects of 
 Christian doctrine from the study of other parts of Scripture. We have en- 
 deavoured to the utmost of our power to divest ourselves of prejudice, and 
 to consider what is the most natural, consistent, and suitable sense : we are 
 ourselves well satisfied that we have chosen the right interpretation, but we 
 have little hope of convincing those who come to the subject impressed with 
 
29 
 
 a firm belief of doctrines which we do not find in Scripture, but which the 
 ambiguiiy of some of the language here employed may naturally enough 
 seem to them to favour. 
 
 The first proposition of the writer seems to be the superiority of Christ's 
 office to that of all previous messengers of God's will to his creatures, which 
 he illustrates by fanciful applications of passages from the Old Testament, 
 availing himself for this purpose of the double meaning of the word 
 " crngfe/," sometimes applied to //Mmrm, sometimes to spiritual messengers; 
 sometimes to the elements executing the purposes of the Almighty ; some- 
 times to an order of superior intelligences ever ready to fulfil his commands. 
 We shall give what we apprehend to be the sense of the passage (ch i. 4 — 
 14) which contains the quotations now under our consideration. "Being 
 made so much better ilian those messengers," (the prophets by whom God 
 had previously spoken,) " inasmuch as he hath by inheritance obtained" 
 (acquired, as belonging naturally to his office) " a more excellent name 
 than they" (they being only called messengers or servants, his superiority 
 being marked by the name of Son J. " For unto which of those messengers, 
 said he, at any time, ' Thou art my son, this day have 1 begotten thee ?' 
 And again, ' 1 will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a Son.'" — (An 
 appeal to the prevalent Jewish opinion that these words, taken from Ps. ii. 
 and 2 Sam. vii. 14, were applicable in their highest sense to the Messiah, an 
 opinion which, so far as relates to the last-mentioned passage, we can have no 
 diflSculty in pronouncing to be erroneous.) " And when he introduces again 
 the hisi-bcgotten into the world," (a reference to the resurrection,) " he 
 saith, * Let all the angels of God worship him' " (rather, " do homage 
 to him." It is somewhat doubtful whence these words are taken. Dr. S. 
 considers them as a loose quotation from Ps. xcvii, 7. " The diflference 
 of the words," he says, '* is immaterial to the sense, and is not greater 
 than occurs in some instances of passages from the Old Testament introduced 
 into the New." It is possible he may be right. The literal translation from 
 the Hebrew in that passage is, " Worship him, all ye Gods;"" but the LXX. 
 render it ayyeXoi, angels. It is not certain whether the original here intends 
 by " Gods," princes, magistrates, ov prophets ; but there is little reason to 
 suppose that it can mean angels in our sense of that word. Whoever they 
 are, it is clear that they are called upon to praise Jehovah, and there is no 
 pretence for supposing any reference of the Psalm to the Messiah ; nor will 
 the opinion of certain Jews, at a period when they were disposed to refer 
 every thing in their Scriptures to this expected prince, and which applies 
 equally to all the neighbouring Psalms, be thought of much importance. 
 Our author's attempt to explain the introduction oi' ihe Jirst-begotten into the 
 world, as implied in the Psalm, is, we should think, too far-fetched and fanci- 
 ful to satisfy even those who are most willing to be led by him. But it is 
 upon the whole the most probable supposition, adopted by Mr. Belsham after 
 Sykes, that the words in the Epistle are taken from the LXX. version of 
 Deut. xxxii. 43, where they are found exactly, though there is nothing cor- 
 responding in the purest Hebrew copies, or in the other ancient versions ; 
 and if we suppose the clause not to be genuine as a part of the passage in 
 Deuteronomy, that is no reason why it may not have been quoted and ap- 
 plied by the author of the epistle, finding it, as we have no reason to doubt 
 that he did, in his Greek copy, from whence he has drawn all his quotations.* 
 
 * Dr. Smith thinks " its variations in tiie ditferent I\1SS. of tlieLXX. itself afford 
 a presumption against its genuineness" (i. e. as a part of the original LXX.)- May 
 
30 
 
 Mr. Belsham agrees with Dr. Sykes in supposing that the homage from all 
 the messengers of God, is, in the passage of Deut., required to be paid to the 
 chosen people, whose father God is called in this very chapter, and who are 
 elsewhere in the book of Exodus collectively spoken of as God's Jirst-born 
 son ; that the introducing again into the world is the restoration of their 
 prosperity after their afflictions, which is the subject of this part of the Song 
 of Moses, and that the application of the words to the resurrection of Christ 
 is an accommodation. Our doubt is, whether the writer of the epistle makes 
 any reference at all to the original connexion of the words he quotes. He 
 may mean merely, that by the resurrection of Christ he was so gloriously 
 exalted, that those words of Scripture might well be applied to him, " Let 
 all the messengers of God do homage to him." When he introduceth again 
 the first-begotten (from the dead) into the world, he saith, the Scripture saiih, 
 i. e. we may apply the words of Scripture, " Let all the messengers of God 
 do homage to him"). " And concerning these messengers the Scripture 
 saith, ' Who maketh his messengers winds, and his ministers a flame of hre.' " 
 (It represents them as mere servants fulfilling his commands, like the winds 
 and the lightning. The quotation is from the LXX. version of the 104th Ps. 
 The proper translation of the Hebrew seems to be, " who maketh the winds 
 his messengers, and flames of fire, i. e. hghtnings, his servants." The author 
 of the epistle means no more than that the condition of previous messengers, 
 as compared with that of the Son, might be expressed in these words of Scrip- 
 ture.) " But concerning the Son it saith, ' Thy throne, O God, is for ever 
 and ever,' " &c., (whichever construction of the words we adopt, the person 
 referred to is spoken of as of exalted rank, and as distinguished by the favour 
 of his God, treated not as a servant, but with distinguished honour, the pas- 
 sage being reputed among the Jews as a prophecy of the Messiah, and ca- 
 pable of being really so understood, though originally applied to Solomon, 
 was the more to the writer's purpose,) " and ' Thou, Lord, in the beginning, 
 hast laid the foundations of the earth,' " &c. (The 102nd Ps., from which 
 this passage is taken, cannot, without extreme violence, be considered as ap- 
 plicable to Christ, and no authority possessed by the writer of this epistle 
 could cause those who are not blinded by prejudice to understand it so. 
 Some have supposed the words to be by accommodation employed to ex- 
 press, still more strongly than the preceding quotation had done, the perma- 
 nence and glory of Christ's kingdom, and to ascribe to him a new and moral 
 creation ; but this is forced ; and besides it is very unlikely, as Mr. Belsham 
 justly observes, that any Writer, addressing himself to Jews, should " presume 
 to hold that language concerning a prophet, however dignified, which, in 
 their sacred writings, was uniformly appropriated to the Deity." Much more 
 probable is the interpretation of Emlyn and others, that "the immutability 
 of God is here declared as a pledge of the immutability of the kingdom of 
 Christ." " The God last mentioned," says Emlyn, " was Christ's God, who 
 had anointed him ; and the author thereupon, addressing himself to this 
 God, breaks out into the celebration of his power, and especially his un- 
 changeable duration ; which he dwells upon as what he principally cites the 
 
 it not be more justly said, looking at Dr. S.'s own comparison of the present Hebrew 
 with the Aldine, Vatican, and Alexandrine editions of the LXX., that the parallelism 
 between the two first sentences, one of which is retained in the Hebrew, the other 
 in the Aldine Greek, is favourable to the genuineness of both, the same sort of paral- 
 lelism being found in the following clauses, and that the difference between the Va- 
 tican and Alexandrine— " be strouy in him"— " strengthen them," proves the ex- 
 istence of an original in another language, of which both these are translations ? 
 
31 
 
 text for ; in order, I conceive, to prove the stability of the Son's kingdom' 
 before spoken of." — Emlyn's Works, Vol. II. p. 340. This deserves atten- 
 tion, but we are disposed to think that this passacre should ratlier be connect- 
 ed with what follows than with what precedes it. The writer quotes a re- 
 markable declaration of the power, majesty, and immutability of God, and 
 then argues in confirmation of what he had before said, that this great Being 
 condescended to place the Son at his right hand, to exalt him and cause him to 
 triumph, whilst other messengers were but ministers of his will for the service 
 of those who were "to become heirs of salvation,"— to be admitted to enjoy 
 the blessings of the Gospel.) " But to which of those messengers, said he, 
 at any time, ' Sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy foot- 
 stool' ?" (Applying a clause from the 2nd Ps., which, though originally re- 
 lating to David, was believed to have a secondary application to the Messiah.) 
 *' Are not they all ministering spirits" (probably mmistering lomrZ^— servants 
 swift as winds, in allusion to ver. 7) "sent forth to minister for them who 
 shall be heirs of salvation ?" 
 
 We have given what we consider as the most consistent and satisfactory 
 interpretation of the passage : respecting the author's mode of quoting and 
 applying texts from the Old Testament, we feel no hesitation. With some- 
 what less confidence, though upon the whole with a feeling that the evidence 
 for it decidedly preponderates, we follow Wakefield, Simson, and Belsham, 
 in explaining " angels" as here meaning the ancient prophets. Dr. S.'s ob- 
 jection to this, from the change in the sense of the word in ch. ii. 5, we do 
 not think of much weight as regards such a writer as the author of this epis- 
 tle ; but the comparison of Heb. ii. 2, with Gal. iii. 19, and (which reference 
 he omits) Acts vii. 53, if those passages are to be understood according to the 
 general opinion of commentators, apparently supported by Jewish traditions, 
 is much more to the purpose ; and as we have doubts on the subject, we re- 
 quest our readers to observe, that admitting, throughout, the translation "an- 
 gels," and understanding the passage to affirm the superiority of Christ to 
 spiritual beings employed in accomplishing the Divine purposes under the 
 former dispensations, it is still the superiority of Christ's office, and the dig- 
 nity to which God has exalted him, which are spoken of, and no inference 
 can be thence fairly drawn respecting his nature. 
 
 Undoubtedly, if the New Testament distinctly teaches the Deity of Christ, 
 the allusions of the writer to the Hebrev/s will be understood as confirming 
 that doctrine. But the present question is, whether the doctrine is taught in 
 the Old Testament, and what we hope we have proved is, that the passages 
 treated of in Dr. S.'s xivth, xvth, and xvith sections, neither in themselves 
 appear to teach it, nor are proved to contain it by the use made of them in 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 The xviith section is on Ps. ex., usually regarded as prophetic of the Mes- 
 siah, and quoted by our Lord himself, to confound the Jews by the acknow- 
 ledgment here made by David of his superiority. We cannot, however, per- 
 ceive that this Psalm contains any thing; which exalts the Messiah in any 
 other sense than as all Christians believe that he is exalted. That, although 
 the descendant of David, he was much greater than David, and might pro- 
 perly in prophetic vision be called by him Lord, and be represented as 
 his superior, his sovereign, is universally acknowledged. Even the Jews 
 would not have denied this. But the difficulty proposed was, how could 
 David address, as his Lord, one not then existing, his own descendant in distant 
 times } The Jews had no answer ready; the Orthodox now answer, because 
 Christ, being God, then existed in heaven, as was well known to David. 
 
32 
 
 In opposition to them is Mr. Belsham's judicious note : " The proper answer 
 seems to be, tliat the Psalmist was transported in vision to the age of the Mes- 
 siah, and speaks as though he were contemporary with Christ. This mode of 
 writing was not unusual with the prophets." The Cairn Inquirer's note 
 does not then " proceed on a wrong assumption of the point under consider- 
 ation," but is a solid answer to the argument usually drawn from our Lord's 
 question in favour of his superiority of nature, and we do not see that Dr. 
 Smith has made the case any stronger. The priesthood, according to the 
 order of Melchisedek, of course refers to the office and work, not to the na- 
 ture of the Messiah, and as explained by the writer to the Hebrews, implies 
 nothing which Unitarians do not fully believe. It only remains for us to no- 
 tice Dr. Smith's gloss on the fifth verse of the Psalm : 
 
 " The Lord (Adonai, which he afterwards observes is * the name appro- 
 priated to the living and true God') is on thy right hand : (the address is now 
 turned to Jehovah :) He smiteth kings in the day of his wrath," &c. 
 
 He would have us understand, that "the Lord" here is the same person 
 spoken of by the Psalmist as " my Lord" in ver. 1st, and that he is here dis- 
 tinguished by a name peculiarly appropriated to the Supreme God. The 
 reason, we presume, for this construction is, that " the Lord" is here said to 
 be " on the right hand ;" whereas in the first verse we find " Jehovah said 
 to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand." " The Lord," therefore, in the se- 
 cond place, must signify the same person who was before placed at God's 
 right hand, and the words addressed to Jehovah who called him there. 
 
 In opposition to this we observe, that as the whole of the rest of the Psalm 
 (and manifestly both the preceding and following clauses) is addressed to the 
 great personage who is its subject, it is most unreasonable and unnatural to 
 suppose these few words to be differently addressed, and there is no occasion, 
 as we have elsewhere the very expression here employed of God heing at 
 the right hand of those whom he favoured, and it is a different phrase from 
 that in the first verse. Ps. xvi. 8 : " Because he (Jehovah) is at my right 
 hand, I shall not be moved." Ps. cix. 31 : " He (Jehovah) shall stand at 
 the right hand of the poor, to save him from those that condemn his soul." 
 It is then evident, that ver. 5 is not addressed to Jehovah, but speaks of him 
 as supporting that great personage whose exaltation had been described ; and 
 to put this beyond doubt, the fact is, that for JJd.onai, a great many MSS. 
 have Jehovah, which there is every reason to believe to be the true reading, 
 and which is adopted by Dathe. 
 
 Section xviii. Isa. vi. 1 — 5. This passage relates a vision of Isaiah, 
 by means of which he was commissioned to the prophetic office, and which 
 consisted in a visible manifestation of the Divine presence, so that he said 
 (ver. 5), " Mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts." In John xii. 
 41, after quoting two passages from Isaiah, the last of them, respecting the 
 obsiinacy of the Jews in rejecting Christ, taken from this chapter, the Apos- 
 tle writes, " These things said Isaiah when he saw his glory and spake of 
 him," the person spoken of being apparently Christ, whence it has been 
 concluded that Christ was Jehovah. The argument is generally employed 
 by the defenders of the deity of Christ, and has been variously replied to by 
 difl'erent Unitarian writers. The trudi is, that if we believe on other grounds 
 in the identity of Christ with Jehovah, this passage will appear to us to con- 
 firm that opinion, but a reference of this kind, which might so naturally and 
 easily have been made witliout intending to teach such a doctrine, will never 
 convince any one who finds that doctrine repugnant to the general tenor of 
 
33 
 
 Scripture, Dr. S. speaks severely of the Unitarian interpretations, as " in- 
 vented in order to serve a system," " evasive, arbitrary, incongruous, and 
 inadequate to the intention." The first charge means that a full conviction, 
 arising from the careful study of other parts of Scripture, that Christ and 
 Jehovah were distinct beings, disposed the minds of Unitarian commentators 
 to seek and accept a sense of the words, not implying their identity : which 
 may be true, but is far from being a reproach to them, or an objection to the 
 interpretation. The other charges are no more than unsupported assertions 
 expressing the feeling of a writer on one side of the question. We quote 
 an expression of feeling on the other side, from the note on Isa. vi., of the 
 learned and excellent Michael Dodson, He gives the words of Bishops 
 Lowth and Pearce, affirming Christ to be called Jehovah, and goes on 
 thus : 
 
 " How absurd ! Is Christ, who suffered death on the cross, the king 
 Jehovah, (iod of hosts ? Did the seraphims address themselves to him when 
 they cried, saying, 
 
 Holy, holy, holy Jehovah, God of hosts ! 
 The whole earth is full of his glory ! 
 
 ** It is wonderful, indeed, that such learned and good men should have satis- 
 fied themselves in shutting their eyes against the clearest light ; and in thus 
 otFering to the world an interpretation which they must have known to be 
 liable to great objections. How easy and natural is the interpretation of 
 John vii. 41, given by Dr. Clarke, in his * Scripture Doctrine of the Tri- 
 nity'!" 
 
 He then gives the passage from Clarke, whom Unitarians in general 
 follow: 
 
 " The true meaning is ; when Esaias saw the glory of God the Father re- 
 vealing to him the coming of Christ, he then saw the glory of him who was 
 to come in the glory his Father (Matt. xvi. 2/). Esaius, in beholding the 
 glory of God, and in receiving from him a revelation of the coming of Christ, 
 saw, (i. e. foresaw) the glory of Christ, just as Abraham saw (that is, foresaw) 
 his day, and was glad."— Clarke's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, No. 59/. 
 
 The reader will find some valuable observations in Dr. Carpenter's Uni- 
 tarianism the Doctrine of the Gospel, third edition, p. 133. It is highly 
 probable that the words, *' these things said Isaiah," refer to the passage 
 quoted from Isa. liii. The dogmatism of Dr. Smith admits of no reply. 
 The impartial inquirer will probably consider this as one of those passages, 
 the just interpretation of which must be determined by our convictions as to 
 the general tenor of Scripture, and which is too ambiguous to be safely ap- 
 pealed to as a proq/" of any doctrine respecting our Lord's person. 
 
 On Dr. S.'s xix'th section (Isaiah vii. 14) we need make no remark, as he 
 himself maintains, that, most probably, the original Hebrew word does not 
 necessarily denote virginity, but might be applied to a young woman lately 
 married; "that the definitive appellation, ' the Virgin,' was at the mo- 
 ment applied to a known individual, who, at the proper time afterwards, 
 became the mother of a distinguished child ;" and that the name Emanuel 
 is a " commemorative and descriptive title. It does not appear to have been 
 intended as a proper name." " In what I suppose," he says, " to have 
 been the primary and inferior reference, it would express no more than that, 
 in the existing distresses of Judea and Jerusalem, God would be with them 
 as their Almighty protector." 
 
 In this sense, no doubt, whether originally prophetic of him or not, it is 
 
 E 
 
34 
 
 applicable to the Messirtii, and therefore, in denying any inference from it 
 as to the divinity of his person, we are justified by Dr. S. himself. 
 
 The argument in the xxth section (on Isa. viii. 13, 14) is most extraor- 
 dinary : 
 
 ** The evident design of this passage is to ])oint out the True and Eternal 
 God as the author of safety and deliverance from imminent danger ; that it 
 is the duty of men to honour him and rely upon him in this capacity; and 
 that those who refuse to do so will he the objects of his awful displeasure, 
 involved by their own unbelief and disobedience in the more terrible ruin. 
 The middle clauses are introduced by the Apostles Peter and Paul, (Rom. ix. 
 33, 1 Pet. ii. 8,) with an explicit ai)plication to Christ. There is also a con- 
 formity of sentiment well worthy of being observed, with other declarations 
 of the New Testament, on the opposite etFects of obedient dependence on 
 Jesus as the only Saviour and rejection of hhn."— »Vide Luke ii. 34 ; 1 Cor. 
 i. 23. 
 
 Hence Dr. S. infers that Christ must have been the Jehovah who was to 
 be the object of confidence and reverence to his people. 
 Isa. viii. 1 3, as he renders the words, 
 
 '* To Jehovah of hosts himself, pay holy homage. 
 Even him your fear, and him your dread." 
 
 The fact is, that the passage in Rom. ix. 33, is a mixed quotation, and 
 merely in the way of accommodation, from this place and Isa. xxviii. 16; 
 the form and chief substance being taken from the latter, but the expression 
 " stumbling-stone and rock of oflfence" derived from this. 1 Pet. ii. 6 is a 
 quotation of Isa. xxviii. 16, and vers. 7 and 8 contain an imperfect quotation 
 of the words in this place mixed w^ith Psa. cxviii. 22, and evidently only ac- 
 commodated. The other passages referred to merely contain similar figura- 
 tive language, which may have been suggested by what is here said, but will 
 not afford the slightest ground for supposing that the subjects must be the 
 same. In Isa. xxviii. 16, to which alone there is the appearance of appeal- 
 ing as an authority in the texts referred to, it is Jehovah who Imjs the stone, 
 and consequently the person so designated must be distinct from, and inferior 
 to, him. 
 
 We now come to a very important passage generally quoted by writers in 
 defence of the deity of Christ, and upon which the advocates of Unitarianism 
 have also frequently expressed their views, so that we may confine ourselves 
 to a few remarks on our author's mode of treating it. Section xxi. Isa. ix. 
 5,6: 
 
 " For a child is born to us : 
 A son is given to us : 
 
 And the sovereignty is upon his shoulder ; 
 And his name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, 
 God the mighty. Everlasting, Prince of peace : 
 
 To the extent of [his] sovereignty and to [his] peace [shall be] no end. 
 Upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom. 
 To fix it and to establish it, in judgment and in righteousness 
 From henceforth and for ever." 
 
 The important points are the epithets " God the mighty" and " Ever- 
 lasting." "Now we observe, that though Rosenmuller interprets the word 
 as meaning God, he gives, even in his second edition, /ortw as the proper 
 sense of Vk, (which seems to have been the way it was understood by Aquila, 
 Symmachus, and Theodotion,) noting also that the term is applied to 
 Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek. xxxi. 11) ; and Gesenius, as well as Bauer, trans- 
 
M ,35 
 
 latcs nnj-^K '^ strong hero," for which Dr. S. acknowledges that he has 
 given a weighty reason^ though he thinks it is outweighed by another conside- 
 ration. But even not to press the argument from the use of the very same 
 words in the plural CDHnj */K hx inighty hemes (Ezek. xxxii. 21), and 
 admitting that the form ^K, when not used collectively, was appropriated to 
 express deity, yet as its primitive meaning is tlie mightij one or the ruler, 
 and it is not a pecuhar name of the true and only God, there would be 
 nothing at all surprising in its being used in poetry as an epithet of a mighty 
 prince, whose power and greatness the writer was prophetically celebrating. 
 Rosenmiiller gives the following extract from the letter of a Persian king of 
 a later age : " Chosroes, king of kings, sovereign of potentates, lord of the 
 nations, prince of peace, saviour of men, in the estimation of gods a man, 
 good, eternal ; in the estimation of men a god, most illustrious, inost glo- 
 rious ; conqueror rising with the sun, and lending his eyes to the night.'* 
 We may here make allowance, in the spirit of Rosenmiiller's caution" for 
 some progress of the fashion of employing such appellations, and yet find 
 enough to justify our interpreting all the titles in the text under considera- 
 tion as fit to be applied to a royal and distinguished personage, without any 
 reference to a nature different from that of other men, and this without 
 ahering the present Hebrew text or the generally-received construction of 
 the words. 
 
 Where Dr. S. has the epithet " Everlasting," there are in the Hebrew 
 two words which may be literally rendered " father of the age to come," as 
 they are by the LXX. He maintains, indeed, that 1^ signifies ** eternity ;'* 
 but this he cannot establish by any good evidence. 
 
 " Enjedin," says our author, speaking of the manner in which different 
 interpreters have treated this text, " observes deep silence on this whole pas~ 
 sage,'* Truly he does so : to him Dr. S. might without any want of can- 
 dour have attributed in this instance " the silence of death,'* (Scrip. Test. 
 p. 185, second edit, and our remarks on that place,) as it is well known that 
 his work (which is posthumous) only wanted for its completion notes on the 
 Prophets, when death interrupted his labours. Dr. S. might have perceived 
 that not this text in particular, but all the prophetic books are passed by in 
 his notes, or he might have read in the dedication, *' Imperfectum quidem 
 opus. Quoniam absoluia locorum Novi Testamenti, ex quibus Trinitatis 
 dogma extruitur explicatione, cum Vetus Testamentum aggressus eo usque 
 processisset, ut solummodo prophetae restarent, in medio opere ceu servus 
 fidelis et vigilans, a Deo ad isetiora est avocatus, et antequam cursum absol- 
 visset bravio donatus ;" * but he wished it to appear that Enjedin was 
 unable by any contrivance to evade the force of the passage, and he did not 
 seek far for any other way of explaining his silence.f 
 
 * " An imperfect work indeed. For, when, having completed the explanation of 
 those passages of the New Testament from which the doctrine of the Trinity is 
 derived, he Imd applied himself to the Old Testament, and had proceeded so far 
 that only the prophets remained, in the midst of his labours, being found like a 
 faithful and watcliful servant, he was called away by God to a happier state, and 
 before he had finished the course, received the prize of victory." — Enjedini, Expli- 
 cationes locorum, Epistola dedicatoria. 
 
 t With respect to the primary or, perhaps, entire reference of the passage to 
 Hezekiah, the admission of which would put an end at once to any argument from 
 it respecting the nature of Christ, we would refer to the papers by the Rev. Robert 
 Wallace, of Chesterfield, in the Monthly Repository, (Old Series,) Vol. XIX. for 
 1824. This gentleman maintains, with nuich force of argument, that the prophecy 
 was fulfilled in Hezekiah. 
 
 E 2 
 
36 
 
 Section xxiii. Isaiah xl. 1 — 3, 9 — 11. What God, the Lord Jehovah, is 
 said to do in this passage is attributed by our author to Christ, because wliat 
 is said o^ preparing a way for Jkhovah, is in the New Testament applied 
 to John, the forerunner of our Lord. Matt. iii. 3 ; John i, 23 ; Luke i. 7Q, 
 16: 
 
 ** To rebut this conclusion," (viz. that the ^lessiah is the Lord Jehovah,) 
 says Dr. S., " it is asserted that * John was the forerunner of the Lord their 
 God, by being- the forerunner of Jesus, the great messenger of God to man- 
 kind.' It must he confessed that this interpretation is not destitute of appa- 
 rent reasons, but after weio^hing* the arguments on each side, I acknowledge 
 that the evidence in favour of the other interpretation seems to me to pre- 
 ponderate." 
 
 It would seem, then, that in this instance Dr. S. does not consider his 
 own case very strong, and as he acknowledges that the prophecy in its pri- 
 mary sense predicted " the deliverance of the sons of Judah from their 
 mournful slavery in Chaldsea," consequently that it was, so far as con- 
 cerned that primary sense, " fulfilled in a series of providential occurrences, 
 without any thing properly miraculous," it is truly extraordinary that he 
 should not consider the manifestations of Divine power and goodness in the 
 miracles and doctrines of Christ as a sufficient accomplishment, without 
 looking for any reference to his person. The attempt to argue from our 
 Lord's application to himself of the same image of the good Shepherd, which 
 the prophet employs to represent the care of Jehovah for his chosen people, 
 is strange, and can hardly need refutation. 
 
 ** Moses and David in the sacred writings," says our author, " and other 
 chieftains in the oldest records of Gentile language and manners, are called 
 the shepherds of their people. But it is to the distinguishing' and exalted 
 manner in which this appellation and its attributes are given to Christ, that 
 the attention of the serious reader is invited." 
 
 Our Lord applies the image somewhat particularly, beautifully repre- 
 senting it by means of his dying for the good of mankind, and hinting at the 
 call of the Gentiles, (" other sheep I have, which are not of this fold, them 
 also I must bring,") as well as indicating the grand doctrine which he came 
 to reveal in the words, " I give unto them eternal life." But Cyrus and the 
 Jewish princes and rulers, as well as Moses and David, are compared to 
 shepherds in the Old Testament, and the case of the bad as well as of the 
 good shepherd is minutely applied, nor could any image be more natural. 
 Any thing distinguishing and exalted in the manner in which the appellation 
 is given to Christ, either belongs of necessity to the character of his mission 
 or exists only in our author's fancy. His own note, where he suggests as a 
 possible objection, " that our Lord follows up this style of sovereignty with 
 expressions of subordination and dependency," is a sufficient answer to him ; 
 for the remark respecting official subordination united with the possession 
 of " Divine dignity and power," if it were not a mere quibble, would at 
 least be in its application to the present purpose a gross petitio principii. 
 What might we not prove if the use of the same image in two instances 
 were to be taken as a sign of the identity of the subjects ! 
 
 Section xxv, Isa. xlv, 21—25. The pretence for supposing this passage 
 to relate to Christ, and hence that he is called Jehovah^ God, the Righteous, 
 the Saviour, is thus stated by Dr. S. : 
 
 " To urge the consideration that ' we shall all stand before the judgment- 
 seat of Christ,' the Apostle Paul undeniably cites and argues from this pas- 
 
37 
 
 sag'e ; * It is written, As I live saith the Lord^ unto me everij hiee shall bow / 
 and every tongue shall render acknoivledgment to God ; so tlien every one of 
 us slmll ^ive account of himself to God.' (Rom. xiv. 4.) That here is an 
 intended application of the passage to Christ is at least corroborated by 
 another reference of the Apostle, '^That in the name of Jesus every knee may 
 bow, of beings in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and that every 
 tongue may acknoivledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the 
 Father:" (Phil. ii. 1(), II.) 
 
 From Dr. S.'s own pasjes we take the sufficient answer to this argument, 
 and we should have no fear, without saying a word more, of leaving the 
 matter " to the reflecting and candid reader:'' 
 
 " The interpretation proposed by Faustus Socinus, an<l oenerally adopted 
 by his followers, is persi)icuously stated by Dr. Priestley. ' The judgment- 
 seat of Christ, and that of God, are the same, not because Christ is God, but 
 because he acts in the name and by the authority of God, wliich is fully 
 expressed when it is said, that God will judge all the world by Jesus Christ; 
 so that being judged by Christ and by God is in effect the same thing.' 
 (Priestley's Notes on Scripture, Vol. IV. p. 330.) By this gratuitous asser- 
 tion the difliculty is evaded ; but whether it is not advanced to serve the 
 purpose, whether it is not far-fetched, while the other sense is near and ob- 
 vious, and whether it duly comports with the terms and scope of the passage, 
 and with the argument of the citation — the reflecting and candid reader will 
 judge." 
 
 The Scriptures speak in some places of God judging the world, in others, 
 of our all appearing before the judgment-seat of Christ, and again of God 
 judging the world by that man whom he hath ordained. Passages of the 
 latter kind, preventing the possibility of the two former being taken as prov- 
 ing the identity of God and Christ, leave us no alternative but to say that 
 " the judgment of Christ and of God are the same, because Christ acts in 
 the name and by the authority of God." Yet this is called a gratuitous as- 
 sertion. The explanation, it seems, is advanced to serve a purpose : the 
 same may he said of every explanation as easily, and of none with more 
 appearance of justice than of those contained in Dr. S.'s volume : it is an 
 accusation of prejudice (for we will not suppose that artifice is insinuated) — 
 prejudice, from which every one thinks himself free, and which each attri- 
 butes to his opponent. Far-fetched often has reference only to the esta- 
 blished associations of the person using the term, as obvious may only sig- 
 nify what readily occurs to him, having his mind preoccupied with a theory. 
 It is clear that no one would have applied the original passage to our Lord, 
 but for the Apostle's quotation : let us inquire then what was his meaning. 
 He is urging those whom he addresses not to indulge in mutual censures, 
 from the consideration of the future judgment to which they would all 
 ecpally be called, and for which it would become them better to prepare, 
 " since we must all present ourselves before the tribunal of Christ ; for it is 
 written. As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every 
 tongue shall acknowledge God, So then every one of us must give an ac- 
 count of himself to God." The Apostle quotes the words of the prophet as 
 declaring that all should be judged. To shew that the judgment of God 
 and of Christ are the same, is necessary to the sense of the passage : this is 
 done satisfactorily by observing that God judges through Christ ; it is not 
 done satisfactorily by affirming that Christ is God, because that assertion is 
 inconsistent with the declaration that " God will judge the world by that 
 man ivhom he hath appointed:* But has Dr. S. never noticed, or does he 
 regard as insignificant, a various reading in Rom. xiv. 10, where, for " we 
 
38 
 
 shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ,'^ a not inconsiderable 
 number of copies read — " of God:^' which, if admitted, would at once put 
 an end to his argument ? We are hardly prepared, as Mr. Belsham has done 
 in his Translation of the Epistles, to introduce this reading into the text, but 
 we cannot do less than pronounce it very probably true, and there ought to 
 be little importance attached to an argument whicli rests on the correctness 
 of one of two readings in so very doubtful a case. Our interpretation of 
 Paul's meaning suits equally well to either.* 
 
 The next Section (numbered, like the preceding, xxv. by an error conti- 
 nued from the first edition) relates to the expression Jer. xxiii. 5, 6, xxxiii. 
 15, 16, " Jehovah our righteousness." The Unitarian interpretation, also 
 adopted by some " who have no prepossession in favour of Antitrinitarian 
 doctrines,'* and by the best of the Jewish commentators, is, that the title is 
 given not as a personal appellative, but as a descriptive name, like Imma- 
 nuel, Isa. vii. 14; Maher-shalal-hash-baz, Isa. viii. 1 ; Ariel, Isa. xxix. 1 ; 
 Magor-Missabib, Jer. xx. 3 ; El-Eiohe-lsrael, God, the God of Israel, the 
 name of an altar. Gen. xxxiii. 20 ; Jehovah-nissi, Jehovah iny banner, Exod. 
 xvii. 15, an altar so called by Moses ; Jehovah-shalom, Jehovah of peace, 
 judges vi. 29, an altar so named by Gideon, because God said to him, 
 " Peace be to thee ;" and Jehovah-Shammah, Jehovah is there, Ezek. xlviii. 
 35, the name of the predicted city. Many personal appellatives among the 
 Hebrews were constructed on the same principle, as Elijah, my God Jah ; 
 Zedekiah, the righteousness of Jah; Hiel, the living God, 1 Kings xvi. 
 34, the name of a Bethelite who rebuilt Jericho. That the name Jehovah 
 our righteousness, meaning " Jehovah will give us justification through 
 him, or in his time," should be used as descriptive of the blessings of the 
 Messiah's kingdom, can seem strange to no one, whatever view of the na- 
 ture of those blessings, and the person of him through whom they were 
 bestowed, he may adopt. Dr. S., whilst acknowledging that " if the person 
 of the Messiah were indubitably ascertained to be only human," which we 
 think that it is by abundant evidence, *' this appellation would be merely 
 a descriptive proposition," maintains that *' there is a consideration which 
 especially belongs to the very phrase of this passage," corroborating the 
 evidence for considering the name as strictly expressing the nature of Christ, 
 which he supposes to be furnished by other parts of Scripture. This consi- 
 deration is, that "righteousness (or justification) is the capital blessing of 
 the gospel," and " is most definitively attributed to Jesus Christ. Every 
 other righteousness is disowned and rejected in comparison with his." We 
 
 ^ * Griesbach places 0£8 in his inner margin with the secondary mark of proba- 
 bility (which he explains to mean that the reading is not to be despised, and is 
 worthy of farther examination, yet inferior to the received). It is found in the 
 principal MSS. of the Western recension, as well as in the Alexandrian MS., which, 
 in the epistles, more generally exhibits the Alexandrine recension. Griesbach pre- 
 fers the reading of the received text, as belonging both to the Alexandrine and By- 
 zantine recensions, and probably because he thought that 0£8 might have been 
 written for the sake of consistency with the following verse. We submit, with all 
 due respect for so acute and impartial a judge, that it is more probable Xoi^a was 
 written instead of Qes, in imitation of 2 Cor. v. 10, Tovi; yap '7:dvraq vjiAuq 
 ^av£^u6'^vai hei ey-irpoa-Oev ra ^-^[xaTOi; ts Xpig-a ; that the VVestern recension, 
 however much to be distrusted respecting changes dependent on the mere substitu- 
 tion of letters, or respecting additions to the text, is less than either of the others 
 to be suspected of a critical change ; and that the Common or Byzantine text can in 
 a case of this kind add nothing to the authority of the Alexandrine recension, so 
 that tlie balance of probability rather inclines in favour of the reading See. 
 
39 
 
 should think this the very reason wliy the promise of righteousness or justi- 
 fication from God through him should be expressed, as being of eminent 
 importance, by a descriptive name. But, perhaps, Dr. S. means by justifi- 
 cation beinoj definitively attributed to HIM, that it is attributed to him rather 
 than to God the Father, that it originated with him, and is his peculiar work. 
 Let us then see how far the passages to which he himself refers in the New 
 Testament agree with this notion : Philipp. iii. 9, *' And be found in him, 
 not having mine own rii^hteousness, which is of the law, but that which is 
 through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." 
 1 Cor. i. 30, *' Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and 
 righteousness y and sanctification j" add 2 Cor. v. 21, " For he hath made 
 him to be sin (treated him as a sinner) for us, who knew no sin ; that we 
 might be made the righteousness of Got> in him," might obtain justification 
 from God through him. It is strange to say, in the face of these passages, 
 that the righteousness or justification belongs to Christ essentially as distin- 
 guished from the Father. To us they appear to agree most exactly with the 
 interpretation of " Jehovah our righteousness," as a descriptive name of the 
 Messiah given above. It may be added, that in the second passage, Jer. 
 xxxiii. 16, some have supposed, not without considerable probability in 
 their favour, that the epithet is given to Jerusalem, and that the learned Dr. 
 Blayney (whom Dr. S. does not condescend to notice) translates the words, 
 " Jehovah shall call his name * our righteousness.' " 
 
 The argument in Section xxvi., on Dan. vii. 9, 10, 13, 14, is so fanciful, 
 that even Dr. S. himself would hardly attribute to it much independent 
 value, and we are sure that none of our readers will think it needs refuta- 
 tion. In the book of Revelation, the visionary scenes of which are every 
 where expressed in language imitating, or borrowed from, the ancient pro- 
 phets, the account of the vision of our glorified Lord contains some of the 
 same words, and one descriptive circumstance, (" his head and his hair 
 were white like wool," of radiant brightness,) the same as Daniel has used 
 in representing " the Ancient of days," who is manifestly the Supreme 
 Being himself. This is called so definite and striking a coincidence, " that 
 the latter cannot but be regarded as designedly alluding to the former." 
 Hence it is expected we should be ready to beUeve the identity of Christ with 
 the Ancient of days. Now, when it is said (Dan. vii. 13) that " one like 
 to a Son of Man approached to the ancient of days, and was brought 
 near to his presence," Dr. S. thinks the word rendered ivas brought near, 
 though *' it does not necessarily imply more than a near approach, may be 
 justly extended to the expression of a personal union. Its radical idea is that 
 of very close contact ; and its difi"erent forms are applied to many instances 
 of conjunction, indwelling, and union, the most near and intimate that can 
 exist amongst men. Upon these grounds it is submitted as a fair and ra- 
 tional interpretation of the whole passage, to view it as declaring, in the 
 symbolical language of prophecy, an assumption of the frail and humble 
 nature of a child of man into an absolute union with the great Eternal." 
 The meaning of the Hebrew word is "to be, or be brought near."" It is 
 used equally of friendly and hostile approach, of nearness in place, time, re- 
 lationship, dignity, ox favour. By a very natural application of the idea of 
 nearness, it is used as a name for what is within us, in reference either to 
 the body or the mind. We can see nothing mysterious or abstruse in its 
 applications, and the idea of extorting from the words, " one like to a son 
 of man was brought near TO the PRESENCE of the Ancient of days," a 
 
40 
 
 declaration of the " absolute union of a child of man with the GREAt 
 Eternal," is perfectly monstrous. Yet our author is one who is ever 
 ready to reproach Unitarians with far-fetched interpretations invented to 
 serve a purpose. 
 
 The passage in ^licah, which is treated of in the xxviith Section, contains 
 the words, (according to Dr. S.'s translation,) " whose comino;s forth are 
 from eternity, from the days of the everlasting period," which he calls *' a 
 clear assertion (respecting the Messiah) of prior and eternal existence.'' 
 The literal version is, " whose descent* is from ancient times,t from the 
 days of old. "^ The passage is interpreted by Grotius, Dathe, and others, as 
 applying primarily to Zerubbabel, affirming the ancient glory of his family. 
 If belonging strictly and solely to the Messiah, it affirms his designation to 
 his mission in the counsels of God, or perhaps, as it is connected with the 
 mention of Bethlehem, his derivation from the family of David. What then 
 becomes of the clear assertion of our Saviour's prior and eternal existence ? 
 
 Section xxx. Zech. xii. 8 — 10. " They shall look unto me (Jehovah, as 
 appears from the connexion) whom they have pierced." The words are 
 applied to our Lord, John xix. 37, where they are quoted, " They shall look 
 upon him whom they have pierced." Dr. S. concludes that Christ is Je- 
 hovah. We hold it to be very evident that the Apostle John only accom- 
 modates to his purpose the words of Zechariah, as, according to the most 
 judicious critics, he has done other passages of Scripture in the same narra- 
 tive of our Lord's death. With Grotius we understand the prophet to use 
 the word pierced figuratively for " treated with insult and injury ;" but if it 
 should be thought that the passage in Zechariah is prophetic of the circum- 
 stances attending the death of Christ, many MSS., by the addition of only a 
 letter, read " look on him," instead of " on me," which reading is pre- 
 ferred by Kennicott, Newcome, &c. One distinguished critic (Dr. Blayney, 
 see his translation of Zechariah) thinks the present Hebrew words may be 
 translated " look on him," and others render them *' look to me (i. e. for 
 pardon) with respect to him whom they pierced," So that there can be no 
 necessity for supposing the prophet to have spoken of Jehovah being lite- 
 rally pierced, a sentiment which would have excited the indignation and 
 horror of all his countrymen. 
 
 Section xxxi. Zech. xiii. 7. " Sword 1 awake against my shepherd, 
 against the man of my resemblance, saith Jehovah of hosts." So Dr. S. ; 
 our Common Version has " the man that is my fellow ;" Archbishop New- 
 come, " the man that is near unto me;'' Dr. Blayney, " that is next unto 
 me," observing in a note that it means " next unto me in power and au- 
 thority, and corresponds with my shepherd in the parallel line ; one that 
 rules his flock or people under rae by virtue of my commission," and he 
 quotes Calvin to the same purpose. The Hebrew word is explained in the 
 lexicons di friend, neighbour, or companion. The radical meaning is parti- 
 
 * Vnt^yiD ortus, orighies ejus. 
 
 t t31p the root, signifies to precede or go before; as a noun, tvhat is before ; as 
 1, the east, whence the sun seems to corae ; 2, former times, antiquity to an indefi- 
 nite extent, but witliout the idea of eternity, except incideutally from the nature of 
 the subject with which it is connected. 
 
 X aVlI? eternity, indefinite duration, past or future, often signifying former 
 times : thus U2h^V n"lD» " the days of old," Deut. xxxii. 7 ; aViir CD^ " the 
 people of former times," Ezek, xxvi. 20 ; Cd'?")!? 'nD3 " as the dead of former 
 times," those who have been long dead, Psalm cxliii. 3, &c. 
 
4\ 
 
 vipation, having sotnelliing in common. Dr. S., as might be expected, 
 contends for equaliti/ of rank and ickntiti/ of nature. More modestly and 
 justly Dr. Boothroyd : 
 
 " I adhere to the version, my felUnr, hecause I think there is the same am- 
 hhjrmftj in the term, as in the original : it may mean * his intimate friend and 
 associate;' one enirao-ed in that work which his wisdom had planned from 
 eternity; or it mav signify the man who is at the same time a Divine person, 
 * mil equal,'' as enjoyinq- the sanie nature " — Boothroyd, as quoted by Smith, 
 ^^ Script. Test, p 477, note, 2nd ed. 
 
 The words, in truth, may be accommodated to, but can never prove, the 
 doctrine of Christ's deiiy, and it is proof which we require. 
 
 We have now examined everif text adduced by Dr. S. from the Old Tes- 
 tament, which, as translated and interpreted by him, contains any thing in- 
 consistent with the Unitarian doctrine, and we submit our remarks to the 
 inquiring and candid reader with great confidence as to the result. There 
 mav be a few pas?ao;es which, supposing the Deity of Christ, and his parti- 
 cipation in the peculiar and saci ed name Jehovah, to be independently and 
 incontestably established, might admit of interpretation conformably with 
 - those doctrines, but there is not one which does not admit of ready and na- 
 tural explanation on other principles, and the greater number may perhaps 
 seem to be incapable of hearing the sense which has been assigned to them. 
 We have a few observations yet to offer on the remaining portions of Dr. 
 S.'s Second Book. But we think we have already established solid ground 
 for the conclusion, not only as has been admitted by many learned defend- 
 ers of the Trinity, that no proof of that doctrine can he found in tlie Old 
 Testament, but that nothing at all plausible can be thence produced in fa- 
 vour of the reputedly orthodox views respecting our Lord's person, and 
 therefore that an examination of the evidence of the Xew Testament is 
 abundantly sufficient to determine the controversy, and Mr. Belsham was by 
 no means called upon to say any thing more on the passages appealed to 
 from the Old Teslament, than he has had the opportunity of saying con- 
 formably with the plan he has adopted. 
 
 " In several parts of the Old-Testament Scriptures," says Dr. Smith, *' a 
 person is introduced under the name angel of Jehovah, in circumstances 
 and with attributes and ascriptions so remarkable as to require a peculiar 
 consideration." 
 
 We need not at present enumerate the passages selected. Our author 
 states that three modes for their explanation are proposed : 
 
 " 1st. That the angel of the Divine presence was souie eminent, celestial 
 creature ; sent to convey the messages of the Divine will to those who were 
 the immediate subjects of revelation ; acting, therefore, on the behalf of the 
 Deity, and allowed to personate the Deity in the assumption of the attributes 
 and forms of address which are distinctive of him." 
 
 This, the hypothesis of Episcopius, Le Clerc, Dr. S. Clarke, and Henry 
 Taylor, in Ben Mordecai's Letters, is examined and rejected by Dr. S., 
 but it does not seem necessary for us, in reference to the object we have at 
 present in view, to detain our readers by its discussion. 
 
 " 2. That the expression is nothing but a Hebraism to denote God him- 
 self, or any peculiar token of the Divine presence, such as the burning bush 
 was, or the pillar of cloud and fire, or the ark of the sanctuary. Thus IMr. 
 Belsham says, ' The phrase ang-el of Jehovah means either the visible symbol 
 of the Divine presence, or Jehovah hims df.' (Calm Inquiry, p. 30S.; But 
 
 F 
 
42 
 
 this^ hypothesis utterly fails, by its leaving unaccounted for the very strong 
 attributions of mteUlg'ence, will, power, moral action, and all personal pro- 
 perties ; which it would be perfectly absurd to apply to a visible splendour, 
 or any symbolical phenomenon whatever; and by its overlooking the essential 
 part of the case, the clear and marked distinction which is preserved be- 
 t\veen this personal angel and him who sent him. It is this distinction so 
 widely different from the idea of either a symbolical token or a personal 
 periphrasis, which makes the insuperable difficulty upon the Unitarian hy- 
 pothesis." 
 
 " 3 That the being eminently called tlie angel of Jehovah, is one who is 
 in certain respects or properties distiyict irom Qo& ; and yet is at the same 
 time truly and essentially the same with God." 
 
 To our rainds this latter hypothesis is encumbered with difficulties in- 
 comparably greater than any which can be supposed to belons; to either of 
 the others. It is in fact perfectly unintelligible, predicating distinctness or 
 difference, and sameness or identity, at one' time, of the same subjects, 
 which, if words have their ordinary meaning, is absurd and contradictory, 
 and if otherwise, can convey no useful instruction ; but we must inquire a 
 little into the alleged utter failure of the Unitarian hypothesis. It fails, 
 according to our author, 1st, by leaving unaccounted for the attributions of 
 intelligence, &c., which it would be perfectly absurd to apply to a visible 
 splendour or any symbolical phenomenon. But is it absurd to apply them 
 to the being whose immediate interference the outward symbol was intended 
 to manifest, and to whom alone the acts and words accompanying it were 
 alleged to belong ? The question we apprehend to be, whether it can be 
 shewn by sufficient examples that the phrase angel of Jehovah is used to 
 signify any agent, animate or inanimate, which is specially employed to ac- 
 complish the Divine Will, or any sensible manifestation of his presence 
 visible, audible, or both, in human form or otherwise, which God was 
 pleased to make in accomplishing his purposes. It is nothing to our pre- 
 sent argument if the word angel is sometimes applied to human messengers, 
 sometimes to a superior order of created intelligences. If we can shew that 
 it is used in the manner stated above, Dr. Smith's objection is answered, and 
 his own explanation of the passages he has cited is rendered needless and 
 improbable. Now, in Isa. xxxvii. 36, we read, " The avgel of Jehovah 
 went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred and four- 
 score and five thousand : and when they arose early in the morning, they 
 were all dead corpses," where, although there is some difference of opinion 
 among the commentators whether God made use for the accomplishment of 
 his purpose of a sudden plague, or of the Simoom, the pestilential wind of 
 the desert, it is generally agreed that he employed some natural agent which 
 is denominated the " angel of Jehovah," Ps.'xxxv. 5. The angel of the 
 Lord signifies any instrument of Divine vengeance. In Exod. iii. 2, the 
 angel of Jehovah niost plainly means the "flame of fire in the midst of the 
 bush." It was a visible symbol of the Divine pres'ence intended to fix the 
 attention of Moses on the spot from which the voice was to proceed. An- 
 other indisputable instance of the symbol of the Divine presence being 
 called the angel of God, is found Exod. xiv. 19, compared with xiii. 21, 22, 
 " And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed 
 and went behind them, and (rather evenj the pillar of cloud went from 
 before their face and stood behind them." " And Jehovah went before 
 them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them the way, and by night in a 
 pillar of fire to give them light, to go by day and night." Compare also 
 Exod. xxiii. 20—22, xl. 33—38. The former of these passages is quoted 
 
43 
 
 by Dr. S., and the clause, " for my name is within him," seems to be 
 properly understood by him as identifying the angel with Jehovah ; but he 
 does not seem to be aware that this angel means the pillar of cloud and Jire 
 from which Jehovah talked with Moses, and gave manifestations of his 
 peculiar presence and agency, not in any respect a distinct being or person. 
 In the cases of the angel of Jehovah appearing to Hagar, to Abraham, and 
 to Manoah and his wife in human form, the angel is in each case identified 
 in the narrative with Jehovah himself; we therefore conclude that the 
 human form was only a manifestation of the peculiar presence of God, not 
 a being commissioned by him. Our author indeed affirms that the Uni- 
 tarian hypothesis " overlooks the essential part of the case, the clear and 
 marked distinction which is preserved between this personal angel and 
 him who sent him." The assertion is positive, but it is unsupported by 
 evidence. We have shewn that the use of the word angel is not of itself 
 sufficient to establish such distinction ; and after the most careful examination 
 of all the passages we can find nothing else which even appears to indicate 
 it. Dr. S. has himself quoted the words of Rosenmiiller : " Thus very 
 frequently in these books the names Jehovah, and angel of Jehovah, are 
 used interchangeably, the latter signifying that visible symbol under which 
 God allowed himself to be seen by men." 
 
 Dr. S., rightly we think, considers the passage in Gen. xviii., where 
 three human figures appeared to Abraham, as of the same kind with the 
 others which he produces, although the expression angel of Jehovah is not 
 there employed ; but we are at a loss to conceive how he could regard it as 
 favouring his own views. The sacred historian commences by saying that 
 Jehovah appeared to Abraham ; the man who remained conversing with 
 him spoke to him as Jehovah himself, not any distinct or inferior being ; 
 and the same thing may be observed of the one who spoke to Lot. As 
 there were several different purposes to be accomplished, different mani- 
 festations of Divine agency were employed, strikingly representing to ig- 
 norant men the idea of sovereign power acting in different places and upon 
 different affairs at the same time ; but the language of the historian, taken 
 strictly, identifies all the appearances with Jehovah ; and upon the whole, 
 this seems to us to be the explanation of the passage attended with least 
 difficulty. Dr. S. quotes some of the Jewish commentaries, in order, as 
 we understand him, to shew that the person who remained with Abraham, 
 usually considered as the chief of the three, had a peculiar relation to 
 Jehovah, yet a distinct personality. 
 
 ** Upon this passage the Jerusalem Targum says, * the ivord (mimra) of 
 Jehovah appeared to him (i. e. Abraham) in the valley of vision' Other 
 Jewish writings have the following explications : — * The Shekinah was asso- 
 ciated irith them, and detained Abraham till the angels departed. He said not 
 tvho he ivas. Out in all these (appearances) it ivas the angel of the covenant' " 
 
 To understand these comments we must bear in mind that mimra, the 
 word of any person, in the dialect of the Targums is only a fuller expression 
 for the person himself, and is so used continually both of God and men, so 
 that the words of the Jerusalem Targum express precisely the same as the 
 words of the book of Genesis itself : " Jehovah appeared to him." A single 
 example of this idiom we shall give for the satisfaction of our readers : the 
 words a covenant betwixt me and thee are rendered in the Targum " a 
 covenant between my word and thy word.'' So " the word of Jehovah" 
 is a famihar expression for Jehovah himself. In like manner the word 
 
 f2 
 
'.44 
 
 Shekinali is constantly used in tlie viewlsh writings for God hinlself — the 
 -manifestation of his presence any where on earth ; and the meaning of the 
 second passage quoted is, that one of the persons was a manifestation of God 
 himself, the other two were angels. With respect to the expression angel 
 pf the covenant, which our author would no doubt have us refer to our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, we have the express testimony of an ancient Jewish 
 writer, thi-t wherever it occurs " the holy and blessed God himself is spoken 
 of." This testimony is taken from the same book as Dr. S.'s quotation ; 
 {Sohar, Genes, fol. 63, col. 268;") but this is not all — will the reader be- 
 lieve it ? the very passage which Dr. S. produces, and which it will be ob- 
 served is broken off abruptly as he gives it, concludes, somewhat awkwardly 
 for his argument, " and all these things are spoken of the holy and blessed 
 God himself," clearly shewing that the Jewish writer understood the angel 
 of the covenant, as a name of God himself in reference to his manifestation 
 of himself in establishing a covenant with his people. Lest our readers 
 should, too naturally, conclude that Dr. S. intentionally suppressed the im- 
 portant explanatory clause, which we have here given — a subterfuge of 
 which we hope he is incapable, we will mention that in the authority to 
 ;which he refers, (Schoettg. Horse Hebr. et Talm. Vol. IL p. 442,) the words 
 of the original being inserted between the parts of the translation, the final 
 clause would be very easily overlooked by one hastily consulting the pas- 
 sage, which, we conclude, must have been our author's case. Dr. S. refers 
 to passages in the prophecies of Zechariah, i. 8, 10 — 13, ii. 8 — 11, iii. 1 — 
 10, vi. 12, 13, 15,) in which, according to him, we find the great angel 
 who is at once the messenger of Jehovah and Jehovah himself, " depicted in 
 the appropriate and exclusive characteristics of the Messiah, the Saviour, 
 the Priest upon his throne, the Intercessor : and not less certainly described 
 as possessing the attributes, exercising the sovereignty, and wearing the holy 
 and incommunicable name of Jehovah." Unfortunately he has not stated 
 how he derived all this from the words of the prophet, and as we can form 
 no conception of the process we know not what remarks to offer, but Dr. S. 
 requests " the serious inquirer to examine the whole" — and if he will do 
 this, he will, we think, participate in our curiosity to know what the parti- 
 cular clauses are upon which the imagination of our author has been at 
 work, and how his ingenuity could find in them any semblance of a founda- 
 tion for his assertions. 
 
 In the passage quoted from Mai. iii. 1, we think it very clear that the 
 last clause, " Behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts," does not 
 prove the person coming to be really or personally distinct from Jehovah 
 himself. The prophecy is, that God will manifest himself amongst his 
 people. They had vainly said, *' Where is the God of judgment?" 
 (Mai. ii. 17.) In due time they should be brought to acknowledge his pre- 
 sence, and special interference in their affairs. This manifestation may be 
 rightly explained of the coming and kingdom of the Messiah, vvho exhibited 
 the most convincing proofs of Divine power accompanying his works, and 
 Divine authority sanctioning his words, but it by no means follows that he 
 must be personally spoken of : on the contrary, that " the Sovereign pl^n 
 whom ye seek," means God himself, seems to be justly inferred from the 
 uniform use of ]ni< with the emphatic n, and we have already given Jewish 
 authority for understanding the *' angel of the covenant in the same sense, 
 as the parallelism seems to require. We would compare with this expres- 
 sion Isa. Ixiii. 9, *' the angel of his presence saved them," where the angel of 
 
45 
 
 his presence is God himself, niaiiifestino; himself by some sensible sign, aiul 
 cannot possibly be understood of any distinct being; and Gen. xlviii. 15, 
 16, " God before whom my fathers did walk, the God which fed me all my 
 life long unto this day, the angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the 
 lads" — where no one can doubt that the angel means God himself, in refe- 
 rence to his sensible manifestations of himself to Jacob. Upon the whole, 
 we do not hesitate to pronounce our author's attempt to identify our Lord 
 Jesus Christ with the angel of Jehovah, and thence with Jehovah himself, to 
 be a total failure, and incapable of affording satisfaction to any inquiring 
 mind ; whilst the general view of the nature of the passage" referred to on 
 the subject, which Mr. Belsham has given, is at once rational and consistent 
 in itself, and abundantly established by their examination in detail. 
 
 The section on the pluralisms is highly creditable to Dr. S. for the can- 
 dour and caution as well as the learning and ingenuity which it displays, and 
 we think he has made the most that is possible of a very dubious and obscure 
 argument. We must observe, however, that as he only contends for an 
 intimation of jjlurality of persons, which may not, he acknowledges, have 
 been understood by the majority of the Jewish people, which even inspired 
 prophets may not have frilly comprehended, and which he cannot prove to 
 have been so understood by any of the ancient Jews, his argument at best 
 is only applicable in confirmation of other evidence : b'Jt we deny that he 
 has produced, or that any one can produce, any such evidence from the 
 Old Testament, and we feel fully authorized in contenting ourselves with 
 the information which is directly afforded us, without disturbing ourselves 
 about fancied intimations, that is, obscure and uncertain hints, which we 
 find opposed to the j^lain and (setting aside these supposed hints) uniform 
 Ianguao;e of the Jewish sacred writings. And, moreover, though we think 
 Dr. S. has shewn that the rule of Hebrew syntax respecting the use of the 
 plural number to express dominion, dignity, or honour, is not very defi- 
 nitely established, or of very general application, we can by no means allow 
 that he has sufficiently explained on other principles all the alleged instances, 
 or even satisfactorily shewn, supposing that the idiom were observable only 
 in the names of the true God, how it can support the Trinitarian doctrine, 
 since if plurality is at all implied, it must be plurality of beings — plurality 
 of Gods. The notion of different persons in one essence is one which would 
 never occur to any mind without being very distinctly expressed, and of 
 which no conception whatever could be obtained in the way oi intiination. 
 
 Tiie explanation proposed by our author of the frequent use of the word 
 CDOIK, (adonim,) lords, (the plural for the singular,) as applied to human 
 beings is, that the word was originally a name of God, and being secondarily 
 applied to human possessors of authority, retained the form which belonged 
 to lis primary use : but no reason or authority whatever can be adduced to 
 shew that the word was at first a peculiar name of the Supreme Being : its 
 meaning would render it equally applicable to God and man, and it is applied 
 to both in the singular form also; we are therefore justified in concluding, 
 that whatever may have been the origin of the anomaly of the use of the 
 plural form in a singular sense, it was something not peculiar to one applica- 
 tion of the word, but common to all the cases in which the anomaly is 
 observed. 
 
 The use of Baalim, (owners, masters, husbands,) in the plural, with a 
 singular sense, is so exactly analogous to that of Adonim, that no one could 
 have thought of finding a different explanation for it, except under the influ- 
 ence of a favourite hypothesis. That which our author has devised, how- 
 
46 
 
 ever ingenious, will hardly be thought, by any competent judge, sufficiently 
 probable to answer his purpose.* 
 
 Dr. S.'s observations do not materially affect the probability that Tannim, 
 the crocodile, Ezek, xxix. 3, is a plural form with a singular sense, and 
 though he readily adopts the opinion of some modern Hebrew scholars that 
 DIDDn, (Chochmoth,) wisdom is singular, it seems to us that this opinion 
 rests on very slight foundation, and that the generally-received doctrine of its 
 being a plural form is by far the most probably correct. Behemoth we will 
 lay no stress upon, though the Coptic derivation is not certainly established, 
 but other instances of the use of a plural for a singular noun to give emphasis, 
 or to produce ttie effect of a sort of superlative degree, all seem to belong to 
 the same idiom. Thus blindnesses for total blindness, Gen. xix. 11 ; 2 Kings 
 vi. 18. Salvations for complete salvation, Ps, xlii. 5, 11, liii. 6. Vanities 
 for much vanity, Eccles. v. 7, &c. There seems, then, good reason for 
 believing that the use of a plural for a singular was one of the various modes 
 of giving emphasis, or marking eminence resorted to by the Hebrews ; and 
 that though not applied generally to all words expressive of authority or dig- 
 nified office, but confined by early custom to a small number, selected in a 
 way which appears to us arbitrary, it does occur in cases where the sense is 
 indisputably singular, and might be used by the people to whom the idiom 
 belonged without suggesting any idea of plurality. 
 
 In several of the instances of the application of plural names to the Supreme 
 Being, the intention of augmenting the force of the epithet is suflficiently 
 evident, as Prov. ix. 10, " The beginning of wisdom is the fear of Jeho- 
 vah, and the knowledge of the holy ones, i. e. most holy, (as it has been pro- 
 perly rendered by Dathe,) is understanding." So in Hos. xii. 1 . Of the 
 same nature seems to be the Chaldee plural ]>3vV)/ (Elionin), Dan. vii. 18. 
 The word in the singular means very high, or might even be rendered most 
 high ; but the plural form increases the force of the epithet. 
 
 It has often been remarked that Jehovah, the peculiar and sacred name of 
 the true God, is singular, whilst the plural name, Elohira, CD'n'?^ is one 
 which is equally applied to idols, and is even given, without impropriety, 
 to human objects of respect, and which, so far as we know or have any 
 means of judging, may be supposed to be a word of human construction, 
 signifying an object of adoration. Dr. S. indeed maintains, that when the 
 word Elohim is applied to a single idol, it refers to something plural in its 
 nature, and he reminds us of the multiform appearance of many idols ; but 
 this is a mere hypothesis, and it is more natural and reasonable to suppose 
 that the plurality in the name had the same cause in all the cases of its oc- 
 currence. Dr. S. thinks that when it is said to Moses (Ex. iv. 16), "Thou 
 shall be to him (cD'n^^'?) /or, as ox instead of Elohim,'' "The sense is 
 palpably limited to his acting, on the occasion, as the immediate messenger 
 and representative of the Most High," and in like manner Ex. vii. 1. It 
 
 * The word does not occur in the full plural form, but in construction with a 
 pronominal suffix, rV^l Dr. S. denies that this is plural at all, and supposes the 
 » to be introduced in imitation of other names of relationship, li^ a father, *]'!« 
 thy father, n« a brother, rnt^ his brother, an a father-in-law, ri^T:in her father- 
 in-law. But in all these instances the primitive forms, as our author properly states, 
 appear to have been >n« 'n^ »Dn which readily accounts for the insertion of the 
 » before the suffix, and there is no reason why they should have been in)itated in 
 words of a different form ; at the best the supposition is a mere conjecture, resorted 
 to to suit a purpose, and not being a very plausible one, the more obvious explana- 
 tion founded on the analogy of 'JT« will continue to be generally received. 
 
47 
 
 cerlainly seems to us, on the contrary, that the only admissible sense is,. 
 *'thou shall be to him as a superior being deHvering directions, which it 
 shall be his business to obey;" that it is not being the organ of Jehovah, 
 but exercising that kind of superiority and authority which the name Elohim 
 implies, which is intended, and, therefore, that the word could not have been 
 used had it been of the nature of a proper name, or had its plural form been 
 considered as connected with any mystery. Again, in the passage adduced 
 by Mr. Belsham from 1 Sam. xxviii. 13, " I see Elohim olim literally,, 
 Gods ascending, but supposed by Mr. B. to mean only the figure of Samuel,'* 
 Dr. S. affirms, that 
 
 " Whatever the impostress saw or pretended to see, her words undeniably 
 affirm a pluriiHty of objects. The figure of Samuel could, therefore, have been» 
 only one form out of several; so that to regard Elohim as an appellation 
 given to Samuel, is both begging the question, and a violation of the plain 
 grammar of the passage." 
 
 Now this is pretty strong assertion, but it cannot alter the facts of the case. 
 When the woman said to Saul, " I saw Gods ascending out of the earth, he 
 said unto her. What form is he of?" (Plainly shewing that Saul under- 
 stood her to speak of one figure.) " She said. An old man comelh up and 
 is covered with a mantle, and Saul perceived that it was Samuel." The 
 connexion seems to us to prove, beyond all question, that only one figure is 
 at all said to have appeared, and that this being considered as something su-^ 
 pernatural, was called a God (Elohim) by the ignorant or artful woman. As, 
 to the grammar, the construction is precisely the same with Elohhn Shofetim^ 
 (both plural,) "a God that judgeth," Ps. Iviii. 12. Elohim haiim, (both 
 plural,) the living God, &c. Mr. B.'s example, then, is a very clear and 
 important one of this plural in a singular sense being used of one being re- 
 cognized as distinct from and inferior to God, and consequently implying no 
 mystery of the Divine nature. But, according to our author, Elohim not 
 being limited like Jehovah to express the Supreme Being alone, 
 
 " For that very reason it became the more necessary to guard against pos- 
 sible and probable abuse. As the word was in ordinary use to designate the 
 numerous false deities of the nations, it was the more likely, and even una-, 
 voidable that the Hebrews would understand its perpetual occurrence in the 
 plural form as the designation of their own God to be an express intimation 
 that plurality in some sense belonged to him." — (Script. Test. p. 517 ) 
 
 We cannot, we confess, understand the logic of this passage. Because the 
 word Elohim, a plural form, was in ordinary use to designate any one of the 
 false deities of the nations, each one of which was known to be, and always 
 considered to be singular, therefore the Hebrews would understand it to 
 have a plural sense when applied to a Being, "of whose essential unity, 
 (to use Dr. S.'s words,) from other infallible testimonies, they were certain." 
 We surely only do justice to them in supposing that had any doubt been 
 suggested they would have drawn the contrary conclusion, and knowing the 
 \iniiy of the object denoted by the plural term in the case of the idol, would 
 have concluded the unity also, independently of any declaration of it, of that 
 Being, concerning whose nature they could not have direct knowledge. 
 We have enlarged upon this subject, not because we think the argument from 
 the pluralisms likely to have much weight with any inquirer, rejected as it 
 has been by many of the most learned defenders of the Trinity, and obscure 
 and dubious as it appears, even admitting all that is affirmed — but because, 
 being a curious subject and very ably treated by Dr. S., we imagined many 
 
48 
 
 readers might be glad to see it noticed somewhat more fully than Unitarian 
 controversialists in general deem necessary. 
 
 Dp. S. devotes a chapter to " An Inquiry into the State of Opinion and 
 Expectation with respect to the Messiah existing among the Jews in the 
 period between the closing of the Old Testament and the dissolution of their 
 National Establishment." 
 
 It is a subject to which many of the defenders of reputed orthodoxy 
 attach much importance, and what our author has written upon it claims our 
 notice as much on account of concessions^ which, comino; from one of his 
 opinions, as well as his learning, deserve to be recorded, as on account of 
 arguments which we are unwilling to pass by without an attempt to ascertain 
 their real value. 
 
 The chapter contains five sections devoted to the inquiry, and a sixth 
 stating the results. The subjects are, 1. The Syriac and Septuagint Ver- 
 sions ; 2. The Chaldee Targums ; 3. The Apocrypha ; 4. The Works of 
 Pliilo and Josephus ; 5. The Rabbinical Writings. 
 
 *' The Syriac Version of the Old Testament is considered by the critics as 
 of an antiquity prior to the Christian era .... It is a strict version ; and it 
 is remarkably clear and strong in those passages which attribute characters of 
 Deity to the Messiah." 
 
 In what degree Dr. S. has exaggerated the testimony of this version in his 
 favour, we shall not now stop to inquire. We think we might trust our 
 own cause to a fair examination of that version only; but we would ask what 
 he means by asserting that it is " considered by critics as of an antiquity 
 prior to the Christian era" } No doubt it is so considered by some writers ; 
 indeed, it has been affirmed to be as old as the time of Solomon ; but a much 
 later date has been assigned to it by critics of deservedly high authority in 
 such matters, aiid we have been accustomed to consider its having been 
 made some time after the Christian era so much as a settled point, that 
 we were surprised at a contrary statement, unaccompanied by a hint of un- 
 certainty or a particle of evidence. The most probable date of the Syriac 
 Version of the Old Testament seems to be about the latter end of the second 
 century after Christ. As to the Greek Version, Dr. S. avows that it gives 
 him no assistance, and in consequence he treats, perhaps, with less than 
 justice its venerable authors. 
 
 In the section on the Targums, or ancient Chaldee Paraphrases on 
 the Old Testament, he insists, indeed, that the instances he has brought 
 forward in speakinoj of the original texts, '* though the number of such is 
 not great, have sufficiently shewn that the writers did not refrain from 
 ascribing to the Messiah the titles and attributes of the Supreme God ;" but 
 be, with evident reluctance, and much to the credit both of his judgment 
 and his honesty, abandons the argument from the use of the phrase, the 
 word of the Lord, giving the following, after a full illustration of the sub- 
 ject by examples, as " the results of impartially examining the question :" 
 
 "I. That the primary import of the Chaldee expression is that, whatever 
 it may be, which is the medium of communicating the mind and intention of 
 one person to another, 
 
 " 2. That^ it thence assmned the sense of a reciprocal pronoun. 3. That 
 when used in the latter sense, its most usual application is to the Divine 
 Being; dei.o ing, if we may use the expression, God, his very set/ ; Deus 
 ipsisshnus^ ; and is the synonyine and substitute of the most exclusive of all 
 the appellatives of Deity, the name Jehovah. 4. That there is no certain 
 proof of its being distinctly applied to the Messiah in any of the Targums 
 
49 
 
 how extant ; while, in very numerous places, it is so plainly used, with peV' 
 sonnl attrihutives, yet in distinction from the name of God, that an application 
 to the Messiah cannot be held improbable." [This extorted acknowledgment 
 is enough for our purpose, but we are prepared to contest the statement in 
 the latter clause.] " 5. That solely from the use of the phrase, the memra of 
 J((Ii, or the tcord of the Lord, in those paraphrases, no absolute information 
 can be deduced, concerning the doctrine of the Jews, in the interval between 
 the Old Testament and the New, upon the person of their expected Messiah. 
 1 have said {^olely from the use of this phrase ; but if we combine this fact with 
 others, derived from the study of the Old Testament, it uill, I conceive, 
 appear a very rational conjecture, that the Rabbinical authors of the age 
 referred to, had vague ideas of the Word 2^^ an intelligent agent, the medium 
 of the Divine operations and communications to mankind. I cannot, how- 
 ever, make this opinion a ground of independent argument, as has been done 
 by some writers,* who have probably taken it from each other in succession, 
 without much severity of examination." — Scripture 'I'est. Ch. vii. Vol. I. pp. 
 561 — 56:^ 2d edition. 
 
 Although his conjecture as to the Rabbinical use of the term Word does 
 not seem to us very rational^ we can excuse Dr. S.'s anxiety to find in the 
 phraseology of the Targumswhat his flmcy may represent as relics of a faith^ 
 in his estimation purer, existing in earlier times, in consideration of the 
 candour of his acknowledgment that the use of the phrase " Word of the 
 Lord," can afford no absolute information concerning the doctrine of the 
 Jews of that age upon the person of the expected Messiah. As to the 
 alleged instances of titles and attributes of the Supreme God being ascribed 
 in the Targums to the Messiah, we can only say that we are acquainted with 
 no such instances, and that in the examples produced by Dr. S. he appears, 
 to us to have strangely misconceived the meaning of the author's words ; of. 
 this we shall give one or two specimens in justification of what we have as- 
 serted. In Dr. S.'s supplementary note on 2 Sam. xxiii. 1 — 7, is the fol- 
 lowing passage : 
 
 ** A part of this Targum or Chaldee Paraphrase of Jonathan deserves to be 
 transcribed, as an interesting proof that the ancient Jews regarded the pas- 
 sage as certainly referring to the Messiah; and that in so applying- it, they 
 attributed to him the exj)ress characters of Deity. The God of Israel spake 
 tvith respect to me, the Hock of Israel, the Sovereign of the sons of men, the 
 true Judge hath spoken to appoint me king, for He is the Messiah that shall 
 be, li'lio shall arise and rule in the fear of the Lord." 
 
 Now we venture to present what follows as a faithful translation of the 
 words of the Targum as found in the London Polyglott, which we transcribe 
 in the note : 
 
 " David said. The God of Israel hath spoken to me; the Rock of Israel, 
 He -who ruleth among- the sons of men ; the righteous Judge hath said, 
 that he would appoint to me a king (i. e. as a successor). This is the Messiah 
 who will arise and rule in the fear of the Lord." f 
 
 Whatever may be the sense of the original, it is perfectly evident that this 
 Paraphrast considered the words of God to David to be the promise of a 
 
 * " Particularly by Dr. Piter AUlv, in his Judgment of the y^ncient Jewish 
 Church; a work not remarkable for accurate statement or jiulicious reasoning." — 
 Author's note. 
 
 «u^j« »jni to'^ptyi ^«itr^n «E3'pr) hhr:^ "hv V«nii^n «nV« nn ")d« f 
 
 Targum on 2 Sam. xxiii. 3, 4. — : v\ 
 
80 
 
 king to sit on bis throne, and explained that promise as applying to the Mes- 
 siah, who was to rule in the fear of Jehovah, not to be the God of Israel. 
 Dr. S.'s translation is unwarrantable, as the meaning he assigns to the pas- 
 sage is preposterous. 
 
 One other example, which we shall take from the xlvth Psalm, will suffice. 
 Dr. S. quotes from the Targum, 
 
 ** Ver. 2. Thy beauty, O kin^ Messiah, is pre-eminent above the sons of 
 men : the spirit of prophecy is given unto thy lips : therefore God hath 
 blessed thee for ever. (Ver. 7-) The throne of thy glory, O Jehovah, standeth 
 for ever and ever ; a righteous sceptre is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (Ver. 
 8.) Because thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness, therefore 
 thus hath Jehovah thy God anointed thee with the ointment of joy profusely 
 above thy fellows." 
 
 There is surely enough in this passage which is inconsistent with Deity in 
 the person addressed, but the question is whether Dr. S. has rightly trans- 
 lated and applied the words of the Targum, ver. 7 ; and if we were obliged 
 to admit without question the present pointing of the word D^p, we could not 
 object to his version, however much we might be astonishea at the sense it 
 seems to convey ; but the Targums originally existed and long remained un- 
 pointed. The pointing was first performed by various and unknown indi- 
 viduals in a very inaccurate manner, and as now given, it has been reviewed 
 and corrected by several Christians, especially by Buxtorf, who would, with- 
 out doubt, point according to their own notion of the sense of the passage. 
 Now, considering the word D'p as a verb, and pointing it with a Trere in- 
 stead of a Kametz under the >, the translation is, " The throne of thy glory 
 Jehovah hath established for et?er," which exactly corresponds with the 
 sense ascribed to the Hebrew original by Mr. Belsham and others. And if 
 any one is scrupulous about altering the points, (though their authority is 
 generally allowed to be exceedingly small,) we would refer him to the Tar- 
 gum on Ps. X. ver. 12, where the same word occurring as a verb is, never- 
 theless, pointed with the Kametz, probably by mistake, as there seems to be 
 no doubt about the sense. The words are ")1> r)^Hll> D*p ** Dip, " Arise, 
 O Jehovah, establish the covenant of thy hand." All other supposed cases 
 of divine names being attributed to the Messiah in the Targums are suscepti- 
 ble of equally easy explanation. 
 
 In his chapter on the Apocrypha, Dr. S.'s utmost ingenuity can produce 
 nothing more like evidence for his system than the expression " Eternal 
 Saviour" in the book of Baruch, a book the date of which is unknown, and 
 which is entirely destitute of authority. Yet even here the Common Ver- 
 sion, " The Everlasting, our Saviour," is to be preferred to his, because the 
 Everlasting occurs frequently as a name of the Deity in the same book, and 
 is even found in the same sentence. 
 
 From Philo our author quotes pretty largely. He identifies the logos of 
 this writer with the Messiah, supposing him to have been led by his philo- 
 sophical opinions to dwell chietly on the spiritual part of the mixed nature, 
 whilst he occasionally recognizes personal qualities rather through the influ- 
 ence of the prevailing opinions of the Jews in general, than in strict con- 
 sistency with his own theories. 
 
 ** It appears to me," says Dr. S , ** that there is a real inconsistency in the 
 assertions and doctrines of Philo concerning the Logos ; but such incon- 
 sistency as, though not excusable, is yet capable of being accounted for on 
 the common principles of human infirmity." . . . *' From all the circum- 
 stances, it seems to me the most reasonable conclusion, that the leading 
 
51 
 
 acceptation of the menira or logos^ among the Jews of this raitUlle age, was 
 to designate an intelligent^ intermediate agent ; that in the sense of a Media- 
 tor between God and man, it became a recognized appellative of the Messiah ; 
 that the personal doctrine of the word was the one generally received ; and 
 that the conceptual notion, which Philo interweaves with the other, was purely 
 his own invention, the result of his theological philosophy, and the filling up, 
 as it were, and finishing of a favourite theory."— Script. Test. Vol. I. pp. 699, 
 600, 2nd ed. 
 
 No one will be surprised that a sufficient number of passages may be 
 found in the writings of Philo, in wiiich the logos is so spoken of; that taken 
 from their connexion, considered apart from the other doctrines of their 
 author, and with the assumption of inconsistency and error on his part, 
 whenever it may seem to be required, they may appear favourable to the 
 doctrine which Dr. S. labours to defend ; but a more particular examination 
 of the opinions and language of the Jewish philosopher will, we think, prove 
 that he has been greatly misunderstood by those who quote him as favouring 
 the pre-existence or Deity of the Messiah, and that his writings can throw 
 little light on Christian controversy, except as an example of that false phi- 
 losophy which so early corrupted the church. 
 
 After rejecting the notion entertained by some, that Philo was a Christian, 
 Dr. S. says, 
 
 ** The coincidences of sentiment, and more frequently of phraseology, 
 which occur in the writings of Philo with the language of Paul and of John 
 in the New Testament, must be accounted for on some other principles. 
 Yet it would be contrary to all the philosophy of human nature, not to ascribe 
 these different but similar streams to one primary source. That source, I 
 venture to propose, is not so much to be sought in the writings of Plato, or 
 in the ethical lectures of the learned Jews of Alexandria, or in the sole spe- 
 culations and invented diction of Philo himself;— as in the Sacred Writings 
 of THE Old Testament, transfused into the Alexandrian idiom, paraphrased 
 and amplified in the terms and phrases which were vernacular to the Grecian 
 Jews, and mixed in a very arbitrary manner with the speculations both of the 
 Persian and the Greek philosophers." — Script. Test. Vol. I. p. 574, 2nd ed. 
 
 Dr. S. can hardly mean to deny that many of the most remarkable charac- 
 teristics of the religious philosophy of Philo are derived from the school of 
 Plato, and if due weight be given to his first remark in this passage, that the 
 coincidences between the Jewish writer and the New Testament are more 
 frequently of phraseology than of sentiment y and to the concluding one, that 
 whatever was drawn from the Old Testament was inixed in a very arbitrary 
 manner with the speculations both of the Persian and Greek philosophers, 
 we see nothing in the rest to which we are disposed materially to object, or 
 the full admission of which has any bearing on the points of difference be- 
 tween us and Dr. S. 
 
 There has been much discussion on the question, to what school of philo- 
 sophy Philo ought to be considered as belonging ; the general voice of anti-^ 
 quity declaring him a Platonist, whilst some learned moderns have maintained 
 that he was an Eclectic; others have supposed him to represent the prevailing 
 opinions of the Alexandrian Jews of his time ; others, again, regard him as 
 himself the founder of a sect, and the original author of the doctrines he de- 
 livered. It has been very justly remarked, that there is much less real dif- 
 ference between these several statements than would at first view appear, and 
 than their authors supposed. If in insisting on the Platonism of Philo we 
 must be understood to maintain that he professedly and exclusively addicted 
 
52 
 
 himself to the Platonic school, against such an opinion arguments scarcely to 
 be resisted mio;ht, without much difficulty, be adduced. Indeed, how could 
 a Jew attached to his religion, di>;posed probably to regard as indirectly de- 
 rived from the writings of his own lawgiver all that seemed excellent in the 
 philosophy of other nations, and obliged to modify into at least apparent 
 harmony with those writings all the doctrines which he embraced, profess 
 unresisting submission to the dicta of any Pagan master ? It is not to be 
 denied, however, that some of the most striking peculiarities of the Platonic 
 doctrine are adopted by Philo, and that he explains his meaning by phrase- 
 ology and imagery derived from the works of Plato himself, and much used 
 among his followers. If we call him an Eclectic, as there is no doubt that 
 he occasionally quotes with approbation, and adopts v.'ithout reserve, the 
 sentiments of philosophers of different schools, still it is not the less mani- 
 fest that his notions respecting the Divine Nature are Platonic. The later 
 Platonists and Eclectics hardly differed except in name, the latter greatly 
 admiring Plato and following him, especially on subjects relating to the 
 nature of God and the mind. 
 
 Those who maintain that Philo only adopted the prevailing sentiments of 
 the learned Jews at Alexandria, should recollect that these Jews studied in 
 the schools of philosophy for which that city was celebrated, and in which a 
 system, which, if not strictly Platonic, was very nearly allied to Platonism, 
 was generally taught. It is probable enough that Philo may not have mate- 
 rially differed in opinion from the more learned of his countrymen in his 
 native city, but it does not follow that his doctrines are Jewish traditions ; it 
 is rather evident how much the circumstances of their education led them to 
 accommodate their religion to the wisdom of the age, explaining its simple 
 truths according to the fanciful speculations of philosophy, and saving its 
 historic details from the contempt with which they would otherwise have been 
 inclined to treat them, by allegorizing them into the mystical expression of 
 obscure and useless dogmas. Those who speak of Philo's philosophy as his 
 own invention, and represent him rather as the founder of a sect than as a 
 supporter of the doctrines of any former leader, can surely mean no more 
 than that he made \i\i=, selection of opinions for himself, that he adopted the 
 principle of the Eclectics, but not satisfied with what was done in their 
 schools, being, indeed, in a peculiar situation as a Jew, his doctrines did not 
 sufficiently agree with theirs for him to be correctly described as belonging 
 to their sect ; all which is not, or need not be denied by those who call atten- 
 tion to the manifest signs of Platonism in the works of Philo, and clearly 
 shew that much of his language, respecting the nature of the Deity, is de- 
 rived, not from the principles of his own religion, or the traditions of his 
 nation, but from the doctrines of the Greek philosopher, which, however, 
 he has mixed with opinions derived from various other sources, and reduced 
 into some sort of agreement with the principles of his own religion. 
 
 We cannot hope to understand the language of Philo respecting the logos, 
 except by considering it in connexion with his whole doctrine concerning 
 the Divine Nature. We ought, perhaps, hardly to expect perfect consis- 
 tency from so obscure and mystical a writer, but it will help much to remove 
 difficulties, if we keep in mind that many parts of his works are written 
 popularly, according to that view of rehgion which he considered to be 
 suited to the condition of mankind in general, whilst others are designed to 
 express the more just and sublime sentiments to which only the learned and 
 contemplative could attain, and which differ from the former so widely, 
 that we might despair of harmonizing them, did we not meet with passages 
 
53 
 
 in which the precepts and opinions of the popular religion are adapted to 
 and explained by the sublimer theology. 
 
 That Philo, believing in one God, nevertheless frequently speaks of three 
 divine principles, is a fact which has attracted much attention, and the pro- 
 per explanation of which has been a subject of much discussion. By many 
 he is considered as a believer in the Trinity, very nearly as it is received by 
 most Christians. Others, sensible of the deviation of his doctrine from re- 
 puted orthodoxy, have, according to their own views, either condemned him 
 as corrupting the traditions of his people with Platonism, or considered him 
 as afTording evidence favourable to the Arian doctrine ; whilst a third party, 
 mtic!) more justly, as it seems to us, have contended, that the three principles 
 of Phiio are not beings or persons, though sometimes figuratively spoken of 
 with personal characters, but only attributes, and that he has derived them 
 entirely from his philosophy, not at all from the traditionary religion of his 
 nation. 
 
 Our first remark is, that this writer is not always content with making 
 three principles in the Divine Nature, but sometimes appears to represent 
 God himself as a distinct intelligence presiding over the three principles, and 
 sometimes also increases the number of these principles. There is a very 
 remarkable passage in the book irspi (pvyooZuv (concerning fugitives) in which 
 the author, allegorizing the precepts of the Mosaic law respecting the cities 
 of refuge, absolutely speaks of six different principles in the Divine Nature 
 all inferior to God himself, being really intended as no more than attributes, 
 and yet having, apparently, distinct intelligence ascribed to them. The 
 passage is long, but we think important : it is as follows : 
 
 " I must next explain which they are, and why their number is six Is 
 not, then, the most ancient, the strongest and best, not city only, but Metro- 
 polis, the Divine JVord to which, above all, it is most protituhle to flee ? But 
 the other five colonies, as it were, are powers of him who uttered the ivord, 
 of vvhich the chief is the creative, by means of which the Maker, by his word, 
 fabricated the world. The second is the royal, by means of which, huving 
 created, he rules what he has made : the third is the benignant, through 
 which the Maker pities, and is merciful to, his own work : the fourth is the 
 legislative quality, through which he forbids those things which ought not to 
 he. Fair and well fortified cities all of them, excellent places of refuge for 
 those who are worthy of being saved. Good and humane is the appointment, 
 fitted to excite and encourage hope. Who else could have exhibited such 
 an abundance of beneficial things, according to the variety of cases of persons 
 sinning unintentionally, who have not all the same strength or the same 
 weakness? The intention is, that he who is capable of running swiftly should 
 press on, without stopping to take breath, to that supreme divine word which 
 is the fountain of wisdom; that, drinking from its stream, instead of death he 
 may find as a reward eternal life ; that he who is not equally swift should flee 
 to the creative power, which Moses names God, because all things were dis- 
 posed and arranged by it ... . but that he who is not sufficiently active 
 
 for this should take refuge with the royal power But to him who is 
 
 not sufficiently quick to reach the above-mentioned stations, as being far 
 removed, other nearer goals are fixed of useful powers, the merciful, and that 
 \\\\\q\\ prescribes ivhut should be done ; and that which forbids what ought not 
 
 to be done These are the six cities vvhich are c^\^A places of refuge, 
 
 of which five are figuratively represented, and have their resemblance in the 
 sacred things. The commanding and forbidding powers (have as their types) 
 the copy of the laws laid up in the ark of the covenant ; but the merciful 
 power, the cover of the ark itself, which is called the mercy-seat ; and the 
 
54 
 
 creative and 7'oyal powers, the two winf^ed cherubim placed over it. But tlie 
 divine K^ord, superior to all these, has not taken any visible form, as bearing a 
 resemblance to no object of sense, being- the very image of God, the most 
 ancient of all objects of thought, placed nearest, there being no separating 
 interval, to him who alone truly exists; (possesses an independent existence;) 
 for it is said (he here quotes Exod. xxv. 22), * I will speak to thee from 
 above the mercy-seat between the two cherubim,' so that the IFord shouhl 
 be, as it were, a charioteer to the other powers, but he that uttereth the word, 
 as the person riding in the chariot, who gives his command to the charioteer 
 in all things for the right direction of the whole. He, then, who is not only 
 free from voluntary guilt, but has not even involuntarily committed crime, 
 having God himself as his inheritance, ivill dwell in him alone ; but they who 
 not intentionally but undesignedly have sinned, will have, as places of refuge, 
 the cities which have been spoken of, abounding in good things and wealthy. 
 Of these cities of refuge three are beyond the river, far removed from our 
 race. Which are these? The Word of our Ruler and his creative and royal 
 powers. For to them belong the heaven and the whole world. But neigh- 
 bouring and contiguous to us, placed near to the mortal race of men, which 
 alone is liable to sin, are the three on this side of the river, the merciful 
 power, that which commands ivhat should be done, and that which forbids things 
 not to be done. For these are close at hand to us." — Philo de Profugis (pp. 
 464, 465, ed. Turnebi et Hoeschelii, Paris, 1640). 
 
 It is plain from this passage that Philo recognizes one Supreme and only 
 true God, whom he placed above all those divine energies or attributes 
 which he endowed with a sort of personality, much in the same manner as 
 Proclus (Coram, in Timseum, Plat. Lib. ii.) contends that Plato himself con- 
 sidered the Supreme God as presiding over his three principles. Again, we 
 see here that Philo is led by no better reason than the desire of allegorizing 
 the six cities of refuge, to distinguish six divine principles instead of three, 
 which he divides into two triads, one superior to the other, but both inferior 
 to the Supreme God himself, whose qualities they all are. As to the nature 
 of the word, we perceive that Philo had no conception whatever of its pos- 
 sible incarnation or sensible appearance among men ; that he considered it 
 as really nothing more than the utterance or expression of the will of the 
 great Supreme ; and that in figuratively giving it a personal character, he 
 made it, though in some respects superior to the Divine attributes, yet infe- 
 rior and subject to God himself. The following passage affords very distinct 
 proof of the sense in which alone Philo attributed personal characters to the 
 Divine perfections. It is an allegorization of the beginning of Gen. xviii. : 
 
 *' For Abraham also coming with zeal, and haste, and great alacrity, orders 
 Sarah, who represents virtue, to hasten and mix three measures of fine meal, 
 and make hearth-cakes, when God, accompanied by his two principal powers, 
 his royalty and his goodness, He, in the midst of them, being one, produced 
 three images in the visual soul,'' (i. e, caused the visible appearance of three 
 persons, though the whole was but a manifestation of himself alone,) '* each 
 of which could by no means be measured, for God is incomprehensible, and 
 his powers are incomprehensible ; but he measures all things, for his goodness 
 is the measure of good men, his power is the measure of obedient men, but 
 he himself, the Sovereign, is the measure of all corporeal and incorporeal 
 things. Wherefore, these powers, obtaining the nature of rules and precepts, 
 are a means of estimating things inferior to them. These three measures, 
 then, it is good to have mingled and worked together in the soul, that being 
 persuaded that God is supremely exalted, who rises above his oivn powers, and 
 is either perceived without them, or manifested in them, it may receive the 
 impressions of his power and beneficence, and, being initiated into the most 
 
55 
 
 perfect mysteries, nmy not readily utter those divine secrets, but usin^ them 
 cautiously, and preservino- silence upon them, may keep them sacred." — 
 (Philo Jud. de Sacriiiciis Abelis et Caini, p. 139, ed. Turn, et Hoesch,) 
 
 It seems justly to be inferred from this strange passage, in which Sarah is 
 made to represent the state of the wise man, virtue, and her action of mixing 
 the meal into cakes what is done by the philosophic mind, that Philo con- 
 sidered the different personations of the Deity, as distinct in the eyes of the 
 ignorant and vulgar, but as perceived by true wisdom, to be none of them 
 any other than God himself, and to have no real separate existence. We 
 suppose he here understands the appearance to Abraliam, as we have in a 
 preceding part of this article explained it, not of any three beings, human or 
 angelic, but of a triple mamfestation of the one only God, which he there- 
 fore fancifully represents as himself, and two of his attributes or powers ; 
 but his whole object is to establish that these powers, though seeming dis- 
 tinct from him, and apparently endowed with a separate personality, are 
 perceived by the reflecting and contemplative mind to be really but one and 
 the same being, and to be only the exhibitions or effects of his attributes. 
 In farther illustration of this subject, we must lay before our readers another 
 extract relating to the same portion of sacred history, though taken from a 
 different work of Philo, which seems fitted to remove every doubt respecting 
 his notion of persons or distinctions in the Divine Nature : 
 
 ** When, therefore, the mind is enlightened by God as if it were noon-day," 
 (shining upon it, as it were, with a noon-day brightness,) " and, being altoge- 
 ther filled with a light of intelligence, is freed from shadows by the splendour 
 diffused through it, it comprehends the three images of the one subject, one 
 being the reality, (the real existence,) the other two, shadows ivhich it throws , 
 something like which happens also to objects in the light which is perceived 
 by the senses, for things standing or moving in it often give two shadows. 
 Let not, indeed, any one think that in speaking of God, the word shadows is 
 employed literally; it is but a figurative use of the word for the clearer 
 expression of the thing to be explained, since the truth is not thus. But any 
 one approaching the nearest possible to the truth might say, that the middle 
 one was the Father of all, who in the sacred Scriptures is called by the 
 peculiar name. He who is ; (the self -existent, an interpretation of Jehovah;) 
 but the powers on each side are the most ancient, and the most closely united 
 to * Him who is,' of which one is called the creative, the other the royal. 
 And the creative power is God, for it established and arranged the whole; 
 (deriving 0£o? from ©fw, to place or dispose ;) hut the roi/al power is the 
 Lord, for it is right that the Creator should rule over and govern that which 
 is created. (This remark shews the essential identity, according to Philo, of 
 the o'cative and governing- powers.) He then that is in the midtUe, attended 
 on each side by his powers, (or attributes,) affords to the acute understanding 
 an image sometimes of one, sometimes of three. Of one, ichen the soul, being 
 completely purified, having risen above not only the multitude of inferior, 
 (powers,) but also that pair which is near to the one, (the Monad,) hastens to 
 attain to the pure, simple, and in itself complete, idea. Of three, when not yet 
 initiated in high mysteries, it is still occupied with inferior matters, and is not 
 able to comprehend him vho exists without any other, by himself alone, other- 
 wise than by means of his acts, creation and government.'' — (Philo de Abra^ 
 harao, pp. 366, 367, ed. Turnebi et Hoesch.) 
 
 It is very observable that the Divine word or logos is not at all mentioned 
 in either of the two passages last quoted, although it is not easy to conceive 
 how it could have been omitted, had Philo considered it as having a real 
 and distinct existence as a part of the Divine Nature. We have now seen 
 
him at one time representing two triads of different degrees of inferiority to 
 the Supreme God, at the head of the first of which the logos was placed, at 
 another, constituting a triad of God himself and two of his perfections, with- 
 out at all introducing the logos ; and what we have seen of his meaning in 
 attributing personal characters to divine perfections, will prepare us for 
 understanding the language which has been so confidently appealed to by 
 the Christian defenders of mystical notions respecting the nature of him who 
 is called the " Word of God." We shall first state what appears to be the 
 true meaning of Philo in using the term logos^ and shall then take such 
 farther notice as may seem requisite of the supposition of his having em- 
 ployed the terra in two different senses, the one derived from the Platonic 
 philosophy, the other from the religious traditions of his countrymen, and of 
 the epithets he has given to his logos, which are supposed to prove its iden- 
 tity with the Messiah predicted in the Jewish Scriptures. First, then, we 
 believe that the logos of Philo really signifies the Divine intelligence or wis- 
 dom, a property or attribute of the Divine Nature, not a real person, or dis- 
 tinct subsistence, and has personal qualities ascribed to it only in the same 
 sense in which other Divine perfections or energies, as the creative and go- 
 verning powers, have a figurative personality ascribed to them by this fanciful 
 writer. To his Platonism, not to his religion, we attribute his doctrine on 
 this subject. The following passage may be considered as a very clear ex- 
 pression of his real meaning : 
 
 '* For God perceiving before-hand, by means of his Deity, that there could 
 iiever be a good copy without a good pattern, nor any sensible object, such 
 as not to deserve censure, unless it should correspond to an idea in the under- 
 standing as its archetype, having determined to form this visible world, first 
 formed an intellectual one, that using as a model that which was incorporeal 
 and most divine in its nature, he might complete the corporeal and newer 
 one as an exact resemblance of the older; containing in it as many species of 
 sensible things as the other did of intellectual (i. e. of those which existed in 
 the understanding only). The world, which consists of ideas only, it would 
 not he right in speaking or thinking to confine to any place, but we shall 
 vnderstand how it e^vists by considering' a similitude taken from our own affairs. 
 When a city is about to be founded by the munificence of a king, or of any 
 ruler possessing sovereign power, and adorning his good fortune by a dispo- 
 sition to liberality, there comes some person, skilful in architecture, and 
 having considered the advantages which the situation affords, first delineates 
 within himself almost all the parts of the intended city, its temples, gymnasia, 
 &c. Then the images of each being impressed, as it were on wax, in his 
 own mind, he thus forms an intellectual city, of which, exciting again the 
 forms in the memory with which he is furnished by nature, and tlius im- 
 pressing them yet more strongly, like a good workman looking to his pattern, 
 he begins to construct a proper union of stone and wood, conforming the ma- 
 terial objects one to each of the immaterial ideas. And thus, in a great degree, 
 are we to think concerning God, who having determined to found this great 
 city, first conceived in his mind its forms, from which, having constructed an 
 intellectual world, he made use of it as a pattern in forming the sensible 
 world. In like manner, then, as in the case of the architect, the precon- 
 ceived city has no external existence, but is only impressed on the mind of 
 the artificer, so neither has the ideal world any other place than the Divine 
 word, (log-OS, reason or intellect,) which arranged all things — for what other 
 place could there be among the divine powers fit for receiving, I will not say 
 all ideas, but even any one of the simplest? .... But if any one should wish 
 to employ plainer tcords, he ii-ould say, that the intellectual world (the world 
 of ideas existing only in the Divine mind) is nothing different from the logos 
 if God creating the world : for neither is the intellectual city any thing 
 
57 
 
 different from the reasoning (or meditation XnyKTfA.oq) of the architect design- 
 ing- to buihl the city, conceived in his mind." — (Philo de Mundi Opificio, pp. 
 3—5, cd. Turn, et Hoesch.) 
 
 We add a short extract from another treatise : 
 
 " God is the first li^ht : and he is not only li^ht, but the archetype of all 
 other light ; rather is elder and more exalted than the archetype, having the 
 word as his copy — for the copy, his most perfect word, is light, but he himself 
 is like no created thing."— (De Somniis, p. 5^6, ed. T. et H.) 
 
 Again, 
 
 ** Moses says expressly that man was formed after the image of God, but if 
 the part (i. e. man, who is but a small part of the world) is an image of the 
 imag'c, (i. e. of the word, which is an image or transcript of God himself, and 
 which Philo means to say that Moses referred to, when he affirmed that man 
 was made in the image of God,) without doubt the whole species, this whole 
 sensible world is so too, which is a better resemblance than the human one 
 of the Divine image ; but it is evident that the archetypal image, (image or 
 reflection of God himself, giving form to all other things,) which we call the 
 intellectual (or ideal) world, must itself be the pattern of the forms of things, 
 the idea of ideas, the Word of God."— (De Mundi Opificio, p. 5, ed. T. et H.) 
 
 Once more : 
 
 " For nothing mortal can be formed after the image of the Supreme Being, 
 the father of all, but after that of the second God, who is his iiwrdy — Liber j. 
 Qucstionum et Solutionum apud Eusebium, Praep. Evang. Lib. vii. Cap. xiii. 
 
 Comparing this last with the preceding passage in which the logos is said 
 to be the God in whose image man was made, at the very moment when this 
 same logos is explained to be the ideal world conceived by God before his 
 creation of the sensible world, and, therefore, having no existence but as a 
 distinct conception of the Divine mind, no deity but as identical with God 
 himself, we obtain just notions as to the real meaning of this author's ob- 
 scure and figurative mode of expression, and plainly perceive, that though 
 this kind of language may have prepared the way for the corruption of 
 Christianity, it is not used by Philo himself to express any thing analogous 
 with the doctrines of reputed orthodoxy. We might confirm the view we 
 have given of the figurative character of what he says of the logos by refe- 
 rence to several of his statements on kindred subjects, as his describing the 
 world as the only and beloved son of God and his wisdom, (De Temulentia, 
 p. 244, ed. T. et H.,) and his representing the thoughts and determinations 
 of wise men as their spiritual children (de Vita Contemplativa, p. 899, ed. 
 T. et H.), which surely afford a sufficient comment on his calling the word 
 the son and the first-born son of God. It is observable, that although, in a 
 passage just referred to, he calls the sensible world the son of God and his 
 Wisdom, in another place he calls the logos, i. e. the ideal world, the pat- 
 tern according to which the sensible one was formed, by the same name, 
 which is enough to prove that the title is figuratively used. Many of Dr. 
 S.'s extracts from Philo, which indeed include most of those we have pro- 
 duced, will be found strongly supporting the view we have given of his doc- 
 trine, and all of them, we think, when examined in their connexion, will 
 harmonize with it. Dr. S. himself has fairly stated, that 
 
 *' The Word is represented as being the same to the Supreme Intellect 
 that speech is to the human ; and as being the conception, idea, or purpose of 
 the Creator, existing in the Divine mind previously to the actual formation 
 
 H 
 
58 
 
 of his works.— If," he proceeds, " this paragraph were to be taken absolutely 
 and without restriction as a key to the other parts, our inquiry would be an- 
 swered ; and it would be summarily decided that all those other attributives 
 are nothing but personifications and allegories, thus variously and fancifully 
 representing the single idea of the original and eternal plan or design of the 
 Infinite Intelligencer— ^cn^t. Test. Vol. I. p. 595, 2nd ed. 
 
 Such has, in fact, been the decision of some of the ablest men who have 
 applied themselves to the subject — of Basnage, Souverain, Nye, and, above 
 all, of Mosbeim,* not now to mention others. What then is the argument 
 by which Dr. S. attempts to resist this conclusion ? 
 
 " This hypothesis," he says, " would involve the charge on the writer before 
 us of an extravagance and luxuriance of imagination and diction, which might 
 challenge all parallel among authors having the smallest pretensions to so- 
 briety of thought. — But Philo was no such preposterous writer. Unjustifiable 
 and of injurious tendency as is his favourite principle of interpretation, that 
 principle may be traced to the ambition of moulding revealed theology accord- 
 ing to his system of philosophy. It is, likewise, observable that his doctrine 
 concerning the word is, in a great measure, conveyed in the form of interpre- 
 tations of the supposed allegories of Scripture : and those interpretations are 
 professedly given as the literal meaning of the allegories. But no sane 
 writer could give interpretations of alleged enigmas in terms equally enigma- 
 tical with the things to be interpreted, or even more so." — Ibid. p. 596, 2nd ed. 
 
 We cannot say what may be the value of Philo's pretensions to sobriety of 
 thought, but we have quoted at length a passage in which he represents the 
 six cities of refuge as really meaning the Divine Logos and five other divine 
 attributes ; yet we have also quoted his own declaration, that neither this 
 divine logos nor these attributes are in any strict sense distinct from God 
 himself, or have any existence but as properties of his nature. Perhaps to 
 those who consider the distinction he draws between popular and philosophi- 
 cal modes of speaking on the subject, and who call to mind the extravagan- 
 cies and inconsistencies with which bis allegories abound, there may not ap- 
 pear any thing very wonderful in what Dr. S. regards as impossible ; at all 
 events, the fact is before us. In accommodation to a favourite system of 
 philosophy, and under the idea that the doctrine of the pure and simple unity 
 of God could only be comprehended by the most refined and contemplative 
 minds, Philo habitually attributed to certain qualities and energies of the Di- 
 vine nature a sort of figurative personality, and never scrupled in forming 
 his allegories to speak of them as, in a certain sense, distinct ; but we must 
 take his own explanation of what he really meant by this language, from 
 which we learn that the word, the creative, and other powers, stand in much 
 the same relation to the Divine Mind, that thoughts and volitions do to the 
 human mind. 
 
 The reason given by Dr. S. for identifying the logos of Philo with the 
 Messiah, that " otherwise it must be admitted that this writer has made no 
 mention of the Messiah at all," is most extraordinary, the want of other no- 
 tices than can be imagined to be conveyed by his use of this term being, in 
 fact, a sufHcient proof that he either was not much impressed with the hope 
 of his countrymen, or had some reason for avoiding its introduction in his 
 philosophical allegories. 
 
 * The learned reader will immediately perceive how much we are indebted to the 
 note of this distinguished man on the opinions of Philo, in his edition of Cudvvorth's 
 Intellectual System. 
 
59 
 
 The notion of a double sense of the term logos — a philosophic, in which it 
 signifies the Divine intellect, or what is conceived in the Divine mind, and a 
 religious, in which it refers to a divine person, cannot be defended otherwise 
 than by shewing either that there are inconsistencies in the use of the term 
 which cannot be reconciled without such an assumption, or that there are 
 titles and epithets given to the logos which, necessarily implying distinct per- 
 sonality, cannot belong to the same logos, which the author affirms to have 
 been no more than the conception or purpose of the Creator. Now the in- 
 consistencies of Philo on this subject relate to no essential point, and are 
 really very trifling, considering his character as a writer ; and in the long 
 train of titles ascribed to the logos in different parts of his work, we do not 
 observe one which is really inconsistent with merely figurative personality. 
 If the WORD is called God, so, more than once, is the creative power : all 
 such expressions as the shadow, image, express image of the seal of God, are 
 peculiarly appropriate to the view we have given of Philo's doctrine : the 
 word angel is often used by this writer to signify only a manifestation 
 or medium of action, and affords no proof whatever of real personal exist- 
 ence : other personal titles are merely figurative, illustrating the action or 
 office of the personified JV^ord in particular instances, and forming parts of 
 particular allegories. 
 
 Upon the whole, the philosophy which appears in the writings of Philo 
 may have been common among his more learned countrymen, especially at 
 Alexandria ; it may possibly have had some influence on the language of 
 the New Testament, and we do not doubt its having been the original source 
 of those corruptions of Christianity which now assume the name of ortho- 
 doxy ; but that in the hands of the Jewish philosopher, or even of the earlier 
 Christian fathers, it meant any thing resembling the modern doctrine, we 
 must altogether deny, and we think we have justified this denial by abundant 
 evidence. 
 
 Dr. S.'s remaining section is on the Rabbinical writings : 
 
 *' That the Jews," he says, " in the middle ages, and their successors of 
 the present day, have looked for only a human Messiah, it would be super- 
 fluous to prove But it is not impossible that in the writings of this 
 
 unhappy people, some remains may be discoverable of their better and earlier 
 faith/* 
 
 It may be readily granted, that if we are determined to believe that their 
 earlier faitb was different from their present, and was more to our taste, we 
 may in the examination of writings so mystical and obscure as theirs, find 
 something like support for almost any doctrine which pleases us ; but the 
 consideration that the modern Jews, who respect these writings and have 
 much better means for understanding them than we have, find notliing in 
 them inconsistent with their own opinions, ought surely to have some little 
 weight with us. Dr. S. proceeds to give an account of the hook Zohar or 
 book of light, said to have been compiled from the sayings of Rabbi Simeon, 
 the son of Jochai, a celebrated Jew, supposed to have been born before the 
 destruction of Jerusalem. " Being unable," he tells us, " to read this book 
 with sufficient intelligence, I have recourse to the more easy method of ex- 
 tracting passages from the ample collections of Schoettgenius." Our own 
 acquaintance with the Zohar being derived from the same source as Dr. S.'s, 
 we shall not say a word on the controversy respecting its real age, or tiie 
 extent to which it has been interpolated, but we are prepared to maintain, 
 on his own evidence, that Schoettgenius was mistaken in attributing to the 
 
60 
 
 author of this book, and to other Jewish writers, a belief in the Divine Na- 
 ture of the Messiah, or in any of the mysteries of modern Christian ortho- 
 doxy. We take as a fair specimen of the whole the evidence of the appli- 
 cation of the names Jehovah^ Shechinahf and Holy and blessed God, to the 
 Messiah. 1. Jehovah. " This essential name of God is apphed to the Mes- 
 siah, Jerem. xxiii. 6, (Jehovah our righteousness,) upon which place see 
 what is said in the 2nd book."* 
 
 ** Zohar Deuter, fol. 119, col. 473, * In another place the learned in our 
 traditions have taught that THE temple and the name of ^^e Messiah 
 maij be called by the name of the Tetragrammaton (i. e. Jehovah).' " — 
 (Schoettgenius, Horse Hebr. et Talm., Vol. II. p. 4.) It is strange that the 
 application of a name equally to the temple and the name of the Messiah, 
 should be thought to prove any thing respecting the Messiah's nature. 
 " Zohar, in Exod. fol. 21, col. 33. The words of Exod. xiii. 21, ' ^nd 
 Jehovah will go before them,'' are explained of the matron and the angel 
 of the covenant, which I shall shew to be names of the Messiah.' " — (Schoettg. 
 loc. cit.) We need not now inquire into the meaning of the mystical term 
 matron in the Zohar. The object of the comment is the remark that it was 
 not Jehovah himself, who could not be more in one place than another, but 
 some symbol of his presence, or perhaps, in the estimation of the metaphy- 
 sical commentator, some emanation from him which really accompanied the 
 people. The next argument is a very strange one. " Midrasch Tehillim 
 ad Ps. cvii. fol. 40, 1, in reference to the words of Isaiah xxxv. 10, ' Jnd 
 the redeemed of Jehovah shall return,^ He does not say, the redeemed of 
 Ellas, nor the redeemed of the Messiah : but the redeeined of Jehovah, It 
 is evident here that the redeemed of the Messiah and the redeemed of Jeho- 
 vah are considered as synonymous." — (Schoettg. loc. cit.) Doubtless the 
 same persons would be intended by the redeemed, whether of Elias, the 
 Messiah, or Jehovah, either of the former being able to redeem only by the 
 aid and authority of Jehovah ; but the identity of the Messiah and Jehovah 
 no more follows than that of Elias and Jehovah. Lastly, *' Midrasch 
 TehilHm, fol. bl, 1, Rabbi Huna said, the Messiah is called by eight names, 
 which arc, Jinnon, Jehovah, our righteousness, &c. ; because the words 
 IJplJf mrr (Jehovah our righteousness) are here counted as two names. 
 
 * Oil tiiniiii^ to the passage referred to we find several extracts from Jewish 
 books. Echa rabbatlii, fol. 5y, 2 : " What is the name of the king INiessiah ? Rabbi 
 Abbas, the son of Cahana, said, Jehovah is his name." It is diflicult to judge of thi.s 
 without seeing what precedes and follows it, but it probably refers to this very pas- 
 sage of Jeremiah, understood as explained in the following extracts : Rabbi Joseph 
 Albo in Sepher Ikkarim : " The Scripture calls the name of the Messiah, Jehovah 
 our righteousness, because he is the mediator of God, through whom we obtain justi- 
 fication from God." Kimchi : " The Israelites shall call tlieir Messiah by the name 
 Jehovah our righteousness, because in his times the righteousness of God towards us 
 will be firm and well established." Midrasch Tehillim ad Psa. xxi. 1 : *' God calls 
 tlie king Messiah by his own name. But what is his name } The answer is found 
 Exod. XV. 3, Jehovah is a man of tvar. But it is said concerning the king Messiah, 
 and this is his name" (referring to Jer. xxiii. 5). The meaning of this evidently is, 
 that God himself could not properly be called a warrior; but the expected Messiah, 
 expected by the Jews as a warlike deliverer, is said by Jeremiah to be called Jehovah 
 our righteousness ; he may, therefore, be mii^wii^iWiy JcJiovah the toarrior, it being 
 understood, of course, in both places, not that the Messiah ?/;(w Jeiiovah, but that 
 Jehovah acted by him. Tlie argument for the application of the passage rests eu- 
 tiiely on the Messiah not tjeing Jehovah^ but honoured with his name as his repre- 
 sentative. 
 
61 
 
 whereas in reality they are but one, perhaps the modern Jews have expunged 
 one which might be ascertained by a collation of copies." — (Schoettg. loc. 
 cit.) If this remark be correct, the whole force of the passage is destroyed, 
 since the object is to prove that the Messiah is called Jehovah, not by the 
 symbolical name " Jehovah our righteousness," which would not convey 
 the least hint of identity with Jehovah. And whether the passage has been 
 altered or not, it is evident from what has been already said, that the appli- 
 cation of the name could not be intended to express participation in nature. 
 This is the whole Rabbinical evidence adduced by Schoettgenius to prove 
 that the Jews expected their Messiah to be Jehovah : it is perfectly worth- 
 less. 
 
 The word Shechinah was used by the Jews to express any manifestation 
 of the Divine presence or energy. It is not a name of God, but of the 
 symbols of his presence on earth, and might without impropriety be applied 
 to men enabled by him to act in an extraordinary manner, as well as to a 
 bright cloud or a burning bush. It will be enough for us to notice one pas- 
 sage from the Zohar, upon which Schoettgenius chiefly relies. " Zohar, 
 Gen. fol. 88, col. 343 : " This son is the faithful shepherd. Concerning 
 thee it is said, Ps. ii. 12, * kiss the son,' and ver. 7, ' thou art my son.' 
 But he is the Prince of Israel, the Lord of things below, the chief of minis- 
 tering angels, the Son of the Most High, the Son of the holy and blessed 
 God, and the gracious Shechinah.'' — (Schoettg. Horse Heb. et Talm. Vol. 
 II. p. 6.) The last expression means the gracious manifestation of God's 
 favours to his people. It is not a personal appellation, and is therefore no 
 proof of the Messiah's participation in divine names. With respect to the 
 third title, " Zohar, Genes, fol. 63, col. 249," is quoted thus : " And the 
 King Messiah, who is called by the name of the holy and blessed God.'* 
 (Sclioettg. Horse Heb. et Talm. Vol. II. p. 8.) It may be enough in illus- 
 tration of the sense in which this is said, to quote from Bava-bathra, fol. 75, 
 2, words elsewhere alleged by Schoettgenius : " There are three things 
 which receive the name of the holy and blessed God himself, namely, the 
 Just, the Messiah, and Jerusalem." — (Apud Schoettg. Vol. II. p. 205.) 
 After reading this, will any man in his senses suppose that Jewish writers 
 understood being called by the name of the Most High to imply any partici- 
 pation in his nature .^ 
 
 We conclude that there has been no proof afforded either from the Zohar 
 or from other Rabbinical works, that the Jews at any period expected their 
 Messiah to be a partaker in the Divine Nature. We think we have shewn 
 that Dr. S. has totally failed in his endeavours to deduce, either from the Old 
 Testament or from Jewish writings of a later date, any evidence favourable 
 to his doctrine ; and that he cannot carry forward to the examination of the 
 Christian Scriptures themselves, even the slightest reasonable presumption in 
 behalf of the views which he so ingeniously and learnedly labours to es- 
 tablish. 
 
( 62 } 
 
 PART II. 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Dr. S.'s third book, which occupies the whole of his second volume, is 
 employed in considering the " Information to be obtained concerning the 
 Person of THE Christ from the Narratives of the Evangelical History, and 
 from our Lord's own Assertions and Intimations." It is not possible for us 
 to enter as minutely into the examination of the remaining as we have done 
 of the preceding parts, nor do we think that it is at all required. We shall 
 produce sufficient specimens relating to important points, and bringing into 
 view, in some instances at least, the claims of Mr. Belsham, as well as the 
 general merits of the controversy. 
 
 Among Dr. S.'s introductory observations we find the following : 
 
 " That Jesus Christ was and is really and properly a man, is maintained by 
 the orthodox as strenuously as by the Unitarians. To bring evidence in 
 proof of this point is, on either side, unnecessary ; unless it were conceded 
 that proper humanity implies necessarily a mere humanity; or in other 
 words, that it is impossible for the Deity to assume the human nature into an 
 indissoluble union with himself. Such a union, let it be carefully remem- 
 bered, is not a transmutation of either nature into the other ; nor a destruc- 
 tion of the essential properties of either ; nor a confusion of the one with 
 the other. The question of such a union is a question of fact : and its pro- 
 per, its only evidence, is Divine Revelation.'* 
 
 The question of such a union is a question of fact : by Unitarians it is 
 always so treated. They cannot be blind to the strangeness and antecedent 
 improbability of the doctrine, but their difficulties will be overcome by the 
 clear and direct evidence of Divine Revelation. What they allege is, that 
 no such evidence has been or can be produced, that in fact the contrary 
 doctrine is as plainly taught in Scripture as any thing can be taught which 
 had never been denied, and can therefore only be incidentally recognized as 
 true. When they quote passages in which our Lord is spoken of as a 
 man, they produce them not merely as testimonies to real and proper hu- 
 manity, but as instances in which, from the nature of the case, it is impos- 
 sihle to conceive of one who believed him to have also had a divine nature, 
 having withheld the expression of that belief, and therefore as proofs that 
 no such belief was entertained by those to whom alone we can look for in- 
 formation. The argument is not merely that Jesus is called a man, but 
 that, whilst God-man and all equivalent expressions are unknown to Scrip- 
 lure, he is called a man in immediate reference to his most extraordinary 
 powers and most exalted offices, without a hint being added in those 
 places of any superior nature united with the human ; and this we contend 
 
G3 
 
 is absolutely inconsistent with the reputedly orthodox doctrine. We may 
 distinguish as nicely as we please what is or is not implied in the union of 
 natures, but it is evident that either all that is ascribed to Jesus belongs to 
 his whole person including both natures, which is altogether inconsistent 
 with his declared ignorance respecting the day of judgment, his inability to 
 do any thing of himself, the merely human affections at times attributed to 
 him, and, in short, with almost every page of his history ; or else we need 
 some sufficient test for distinguishing what belongs to each nature, and 
 must in every instance apply it so as to determine whether one or the 
 other or both together be in that place intended — a position which involves 
 the Scriptures in inextricable confusion, and would almost reduce to non- 
 sense some of its most interesting and instructive pages. To offer separate 
 proofs of the divine and human natures of our Lord, even if it were possible, 
 would not be sufficient. Such passages standing by themselves could only 
 be considered as either unintelligible or contradictory. We are bound to 
 require direct and positive evidence of the union of the two natures, and we 
 reasonably expect this to be accompanied by abundant indirect indications 
 of the influence of that doctrine on the minds of those who have recorded 
 our Lord's actions and discourses. Nothing, certainly, of this kind has 
 been produced, and without it there is no other species of evidence, even if 
 much better in quality than it actually is, which can be sufficient to esta- 
 blish the orthodox doctrine. 
 
 We must now direct the reader's attention to the 4th section of our au- 
 thor's 3rd chapter. It is intended to shew that " the person of Christ, 
 equally with that of the Father, surpasses human knowledge." The argu- 
 ment is drawn from Matt. xi. 27, thus translated by Dr. S. : " All things 
 have been committed to me by my Father ; and no one knoweth perfectly 
 the Son except the Father ; neither doth any one know perfectly the Fa- 
 ther, except the Son, and he to whom the Son may be pleased to unveil 
 [this knowledge] ;" and John x. 15, " As the Father knows me, even so 
 I know the Father." 
 
 From the passage in the Gospel of Luke parallel to that here quoted from 
 Matthew, (" No man knoweth ivJio the Son is except the Father, and who 
 the Father is except the Son,") Dr. S. concludes that the knowledge 
 spoken of " refers primarily to the nature ?Lndi person of the Father and the 
 Son," which, he says, " nullifies the Calm Inquirer's interpretation of the 
 words." He considers the passages quoted as " including statements of 
 truth, '^ of which we shall endeavour to give the substance. 
 
 ** 1. That the communication to mankind of the doctrines which refer to 
 their highest interest in knowledge, holiness, and happiness, is, i)y a consti- 
 tution of Divine Wisdom, made the province of the Messiah, as the Mediator 
 between God and man." " 2. That this knowledge of the Father and know- 
 ledge of Christ are expressed in the way of a perfect reciprocity. The de- 
 scription and properties of the one are the description and properties of the 
 other; without limitation on the one side, or extension on the other.'* " 3. 
 That in relation both to the Father and the Son this knowledge is not attain- 
 able by the ordinary means of human investigation; it is fundamental to a 
 saving and practical knowledge of true religion ; it has its seat in the affec- 
 tions as well as in the intellect ; and it is here affirmed to be a special com- 
 munication of Divine influence." *' 4. That this knowledge, as existing in 
 the state of communication from Christ to any of mankind to whom the Son 
 may be pleased to reveal it, though the same in kind, cannot he imagined to 
 he the same in degree or extent ; unless it be assumed that the capacity an<l 
 attainment of the instructed must, as a matter of course, be equal to those of 
 
64 
 
 the Instructor." " 5, Had the member of the sentence which introduces 
 tlie Son as the object of kno\vledii;e been wantinsc," the remainino^ part of 
 the passage would have been supposed to refer " to the peculiar olories of 
 the Divine Being*, or that which distinctively constitutes him God." It 
 would have been understood " that the Infinite Majesty and Perfection of 
 the Adorable Supreme, as distinguished from the imaginary deities of the 
 Heathen world, were revealed and demonstrated by the Christian religion 
 alone. Restore, then, the clause which has been withdrawn ; and will not 
 fairness of interpretation require us to accept it as equally attributing to the 
 Son the same Infinite Majesty and Perfection ?" 
 
 On a very slight foundation a considerable superstructure is here raised. 
 We admire the ingenuity of the artist, but it is our business to try the sta- 
 bility of the work. In the first place, let us refer to the nullified comment 
 of Mr. Belsham on Matt. xi. 27, and Luke x. 22. 
 
 " It is plain that he to whom the Son reveals the Father, knows the Fa- 
 ther. But what can a man thus learn of God ? Nothing, surely, but his re- 
 vealed will. In the same sense, precisely, the Son knows the Father, i. e. 
 he knows his will, his thoughts, and purposes of mercy to mankind. And 
 the Father alone knows the Son, knows the nature, the object, and the ex- 
 tent of his mission. See John i. 18, x. 14, 15.'' 
 
 Mr. Belsham here manifestly uses will rather to express the design of 
 God's providence, that which he intends to accomplish, than what he re- 
 quires from his creatures, or at least be includes what Dr. S. calls the de- 
 cretive as well as ihe preceptive part of the Divine will. To the objection 
 that this is not all which a man can learn of God by revelation, we might 
 reply, that the knowledge of the excellencies and perfections of God's na- 
 ture being only interesting and useful to us in connexion with his com- 
 mands and his designs respecting us, and being only in this way necessary 
 to piety and happiness, it is not to be accounted distinct from the will of 
 God in the general sense in which the Calm Inquirer used that term, and 
 was in fact included by him, revealed will being opposed to metaphysical 
 nature and essence; but it is sufficient to shew that Mr. Belsham's interpre- 
 tation of the Evangelist's meaning is approved by the most judicious com- 
 mentators, and is not in the least affected by our author's objections to it. 
 We quote first from Rosenmiiller's Scholia : 
 
 *' Uavra [aoi itapsdoOrj vith ts Trarpb? jwoy (All things are delivered unto me 
 of my Father) — All things which are to be done or taught for the salvation 
 of men, my Father hath made known unto me. I have no doubt that -Trapa- 
 tiitovobi in this place means to teach, to reveal, [in which sense the Heb. friD 
 very frequently occurs in the Rabbinical writings,] on account of the fol- 
 lowing words, for Christ says that the revelation of all mysteries relating to 
 human salvation is entrusted to him : hvliiq t-Kiyivcoa-y.si. rhv vlhv, ii p/j o Trar^p 
 (and no man knoweth the Son but the Father) — No one hath yet understood 
 the nature of the office committed to the Messiah hut the Father. Tlh(; (the 
 Son) is here put concisely for that which was committed by the Father to 
 the Son to be done or taught : and enxiyivuxTv.ztv here denotes accurate know- 
 ledge. 'OfSe rhv n:ari§a ti? liriyivcca-Aei ii fx'ri o vlhq (neither knoweth any 
 man the Father save the Son) — Nor does any man except the Son fidly un- 
 derstand the decrees and counsels of the Father, relating to the salvation of 
 the human race. Respecting the sense of rov Ticcrkpa, (the Father) the same 
 thing is to be remarked which we have before observed of the Son. Even 
 the prophets had but a very imperfect view of the things which they pre- 
 dicted on these subjects : Koi a lav ^ovXrirai o vlhq diroyiaXtxpai (and he to 
 whomsoever the Son will reveal him). This is to be referred equally to what 
 
65 
 
 is known of the Father and of the Son. For it was left to the wisdom of the 
 bon both to what persons, and to what extent, and at what time, he would 
 communicate this knowledge."— J. G. Rosenmuller, Schol. in Nov. Test. ed. 
 3d, Vol. II. p. 169. 
 
 We shall next give the principal points in Kuinoers annotation : 
 
 *' Ml} Father hath delivered all things to me. The discourse is here con- 
 cernintr divine instruction and the explanation of the divine counsels, as the 
 whole connexion shews— the sense of the words is, ' those things which I 
 teach I owe entirely to my Father : he hath delivered to me his own instruc- 
 tion in all its parts.' And no one hath so accurately/ knoicn the Son, what 
 sort of a person I am, and what is the nature of the office entrusted to me, 
 except the Father ; nor hath any one so accurately knotvn the Father y what 
 is the deo-ree of intercourse between me and my Father, what are the plans 
 of my Father concerning- the salvation of men to be effected through me, 
 except the Son, and he on ichom the Son shall choose to bestow this hmdedge, 
 which last words must be referred to each of the preceding clauses. No 
 one, Jesus declares, can know these things unless taught by me. Whence 
 he establishes that he is the true teacher, from whom every one is able, and 
 ought, to receive salutary instruction."— Kuinoel, Comm. in Nov. Test. Vol. 
 I. pp. 355, 356. 
 
 And in like manner Wetstein : 
 
 " Although those Jewish doctors despise my humble condition, you think 
 more justly : you believe that I am the only partaker in the secret things of 
 God, and have been sent by him that I might shew the way of salvation ; 
 that those who depart from me depart from the light, and cannot truly un- 
 derstand God the Father, though they boast that they know him."* 
 
 But Dr. S. thinks that the words of the parallel passage in Luke, who the 
 Son is, who the Father is, prove that the text must be understood of know- 
 ledge of the nature and person of the Father and the Son. Cannot then 
 the words, who the Son is, be at least as readily understood — what are his 
 character, office, and the nature of his mission, as what are his nature and 
 person ? Does not the context direct us to that interpretation > And is 
 not the other evidently suggested, not by the words and connexion, but by 
 the opinion received as true, that there is some mystery respecting the per- 
 son of Christ ? A judicious and learned commentator, whom we have 
 quoted above, thus explains the words of Luke : " Who the Son is, for 
 what purpose and with what power he is sent. JVIio the Father is, how 
 good, how just, how wise he is, what are his plans in giving salvation to 
 men, or at least depriving them of excuse, if they should reject it." — J. G. 
 Rosenmiiller, Scholia in Nov. Test. Vol. II. p. 102. 
 
 In the passage quoted from John x. 15, the word know is most probably 
 to be understood in the sense of love, regard with distinguishing affection, 
 a sense derived from the Hebrew, (see Bloomfield, Recens. Synopt. and 
 Kuinoel in loc.,) and the 15th verse must be taken in connexion with the 
 14th, thus: " I am the good shepherd : and I know my sheep, and am 
 known of mine, as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father : and I 
 lay down my life for the sheep." 
 
 * We add Grotius's note : " A^o one knoweth the Son but the Father — the Fatlier 
 only who hath ordained it from eternity, knoweth what the Sou is to do and 
 suffer, and what glory is reserved for him. Nor doth any one know the Father saoe 
 the Son — the Son only partakes in the counsels of the Fatlier as to the manner in 
 which lie will arrange the calling of tlie Jews first, and then of the Gentiles." 
 
 I 
 
66 
 
 It appears, then, that Mr. Belsham^s note gives an excellent sense, such 
 as the connexion would seera to require, is confirmed by a fair considera- 
 tion of the parallel passage, and is in accordance with the sentiments of the 
 most judicious and generally approved commentators, whilst it is our author 
 who is here chargjeable with giving an unusual, far-fetched, and forced in- 
 terpretation. We will now offer one or two remarks on the statements of 
 truth which he finds included in the passages under consideration, and 
 first as to the perfect reciprocity of the knowledge of the Father and the 
 knowledge of Christ. 
 
 *' Is it conceivable," asks Dr. S., "that a wise and good teacher, con- 
 scious of no dignity above that which was strictly and merely human, would 
 select, for the purpose of conveying what might have been expressed in 
 plain words, language which unquestionably describes himself and the Eter- 
 nal Being by equivalent and convertible terms?" 
 
 We answer, all Christians believe their Lord to have been conscious of a 
 dignity not merely human, though we understand it to have been a dig- 
 nity of office and powers, not of nature. Nevertheless, we insist that the 
 meaning we ascribe to the words of Christ, could not have been well ex- 
 pressed more plainly according to the idiom of his country, and is by no 
 means difficult to be discerned in our times. Precisely in the same manner 
 as when the disciples were exhorted to he perfect as their Father in heaven 
 is perfect, they and the Eternal are described in equivalent and convertible 
 terms ; our Lord and the God who sent him are certainly here so spoken 
 of; but no conclusion can be drawn in the one case which would not be 
 equally just in the other, and the attempt to infer the identity of the know- 
 ledge spoken of in kind and extent, is altogether unreasonable and extra- 
 vagant. 
 
 It is perfectly true that the knowledge here spoken of is represented as 
 not attainable by the ordinary means of human investigation : it is the 
 subject of Revelation : but when Dr. S. says, that *' it is here affirmed to be 
 a special communication of Divine influence,^'' he affirms that for which 
 he has no warrant in the fair interpretation of the passage. Jesus spoke of 
 the actual state of things. Certain knowledge respecting the Messiah's 
 office and the Father's plans, was not then possessed at all justly and cor- 
 rectly by those who made great pretensions to it. The Father had reserved 
 to himself the exact knowledge of the nature of the Son's mission : the Son 
 alone was admitted to the full understanding of the Father's designs, and 
 this he was to communicate to whom he pleased, to his chosen followers ; 
 but being: communicated, and the communication recorded for the benefit 
 of mankind at large, no farther revelation to individuals is to be expected, 
 or is at all hinted at in our Lord's words. Again, in reference to our 
 author's fourth position, it was the actual knowledge respecting the true 
 character of the gospel dispensation, which had hitherto been kept secret, 
 which our Lord undertook to reveal to such as he should choose for that 
 purpose. Dr. S., who had just before been contending for a perfect reci- 
 procity and co-extension of the knowledge of God and Christ, now finds 
 room for differences in degree and extent, according to the different capa- 
 cities of the instructed and instructor. Of course, the truths communicated 
 would not be equally well apprehended by all, but the plain sense of the 
 passage is, that it was the very knowledge, and the whole of it, respecting 
 the true nature of the Messiah's office, and the Divine purposes in his 
 mission for the salvation of men, which had not before been possessed, 
 
67 
 
 which Christ undertook now to communicate to his disciples, and which 
 they afterwards gave proofs of their having received and fully understood. 
 Lastly, if the clause respecting the Son, as the object of knowleda:e, were 
 removed, and, of course^ the passage were taken entirely out of its con- 
 nexion. Dr. S. thinks it would be understood, " that the Infinite Majesty 
 and perfection of the adorable Supreme, as distinguished from the imaginary 
 deities of the Heathen world, were revealed and demonstrated by the 
 Christian religion alone ;" and, therefore, he argues, when the clause 
 respecting the knowledge of the Son is inserted, the passage must be taken 
 " as equally attributing to him the same Infinite Majesty and Perfection.'* 
 Now leaving out the clause respecting the Father's knowledge of the Son, 
 the kind of knowledge of God intended, would be to be inferred, in a con- 
 siderable degree, from the connexion, and the words being addressed to 
 Jews, and spoken in reference to Jews, could not certainly be explained of 
 the knowledge of the Great Supreme as distinguished from Heathen deities, 
 but must have been interpreted of the real and correct knowledge of his 
 character and dispensations in op})Osition to errors prevailing among those 
 who supposed that they understood these subjects ; but granting Dr. S.'s 
 interpretation in the supposed case, what sort of logic is it which argues 
 that because, leaving out an important member of a sentence, and consi- 
 dering what remains, independently of its context, it might be supposed to 
 have a certain meaning, therefore that is the true meaning, and must be 
 applied to explain the very member, without removing which it could not 
 have been found out? We are astonished that any man can pretend, by 
 such a mockery of reasoning, to afford support to a doctrine so manifestly 
 requiring the clearest and most direct evidence to overcome our justifiable 
 scruples, so stupendous in itself, and so important in all its consequences. 
 
 We will nov/ turn to the 6th section of the same chapter, John x. 24 — 
 38, including the words, "I and my Father are one." We will first en- 
 deavour correctly to represent the nature of Dr. S.'s argument, and to note 
 his concessions, after which but few remarks from us will be needed. 
 
 " In this portion of the doctrine of Jesus we find the following parti- 
 culars : 1. The avowal, so often made, on other occasions, of \\\'s official 
 subordination to the Father."— [We do not find any such expression as 
 official subordination in Scripture : to our apprehension the language of 
 the New Testament expresses real and complete subordination, the sense 
 of authority which was only derived, powers which v/ere only communi- 
 cated, and of a course of prescribed duty which must be accomplished. 
 We have read of a feudal prince doing homage for a portion of his terri- 
 tories to a sovereign whom he equalled or exceeded in real power, and 
 whom he shewed that he considered himself at least to equal, even whilst 
 rendering to him a formal act of obeisance ; this is our idea of merely 
 official subordination, but it is not our understanding of the words of 
 Christ, when he ascribes all his works to his Father, declares that he can 
 do nothing of himself, and expressly affirms that his Father is greater than 
 he. If it were, we could hardly retain our reverence for his character or 
 our confidence in his instructions.] " 2. The assertion of his own power 
 
 to confer the blessings of salvation the bestowment of which implies 
 
 the attribute of All-sufficiency in the donor." — [We deny that there is here 
 any assertion of our Lord's own, i. e. his independent, power to communi- 
 cate any blessings, at least we find ourselves utterly incapable of perceiving 
 any such meaning of what seem to us very plain words : The works which 
 I do IN THE NAME OF MY Fathek, they testify concerning me. But 
 
6S 
 
 ye believe not : for ye are not of my sheep. As I said unto you, my sheep 
 hear my voice, and I knoio them, and they follow me ; and I give unto 
 them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them 
 out of my hand. My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than 
 ALL ; and no one is able to snatch them out of the hand of my Father. 
 It is surely evident that Christ gives as the ground of his confidence, that 
 his sheep should never perish, that his Father is greater than all. He felt 
 that he could give a positive assurance, for he knew that he was supported 
 by the power of God himself. This is the natural and sufficient meaning 
 of the words j and to suppose that he claims independent power, is arbi- 
 trary with respect to this passage, as it is directly opposed to others.] — 
 " 3. This assurance of security is repeated, with a confirmatory declaration 
 that the Omnipotence of the Almighty Father is pledged to the same 
 object." — [As there can be nothing stronger than omnipotence, Christ's 
 ovyn omnipotence was abundantly sufficient, had he claimed or possessed 
 this attribute.] — " 4. These two assurances are consolidated into the pro- 
 position, I and my Father are one." 
 
 Dr. S. here joins himself with those who take this expression as implying 
 at least the co-equality and union of nature of Christ and the Father. He 
 concedes, indeed, that in every other passage of the New Testament, where 
 the expression " to be one" is used, (there are two distinct passages, in 
 one of which it occurs several times,) union of affection, or of design and 
 co-operation, is intended. He even grants that if we were to argue from 
 the spurious passage, 1 John v. 7, we should interpret it of consent or 
 union of testimony, but he thinks "that the grammatical sense of the 
 phrase will not, of itself, determine the precise import; and that the 
 meaning must be ascertained in every instance, by our attention to the 
 nature and circumstances of the given case." The mode of expression in 
 John xvii. 21, &c., and all the circumstances of the case, are so very similar 
 to those in the passage before us, that we can hardly help considering the 
 one as a key to the other : That they all may be one, AS thou. Father, art in 
 me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us* • « • • -THAT they may 
 BE one as we are ONE : and the only other instance, 1 Cor. iii. 8, 
 He that planteth and he that watereth are one, is a case of exactly the 
 same kind ; yet we have no objection to decide the question by attention 
 merely to the nature and connexion of the words immediately under our 
 consideration. Dr. S. goes on, 
 
 ** WTiat then is the kind of union which the nature and circumstances of 
 the case point out ? It is a union for the bestovvraent of the most important 
 blessings, for the averting of the greatest evils, for a sovereign and effectual 
 preservation from spiritual danger and eternal ruin. Tkes^e are the plain 
 facts of the case. It is, therefore, a union of power. A^o one shall snatch 
 them out of my hand— No one can snatch them out of my Father's hand— 
 I and the Father are one. The argumentative connexion of the clause re- 
 quires also to be attended to. Jesus had affirmed the adequacy of his own 
 power for the certain salvation of his sincere followers, as well as that of 
 God his Father. Therefore, to shew that he had not exceeded the bounds 
 of truth in the assertion, and to furnish a sufficient ground of reason for it, 
 he adds, / and the Father are one. The union of power is thus shewn to be 
 a real identity of power." 
 
 Our author's argument is pretty exactly expressed by Euthymius : — 
 
 kyu Koi I TvaT'/jp eV eV/x.£V Tccvro'bvvafxoi, it he ev Kara t>)v tvva[xiv, h apa y.a) 
 Kara, r-^v daoTrjra, kcu eaLav, Ka\ (pvaiv — I and the Father are one, equal in 
 
69 
 
 power, and if one in power, then one also in godhead, and essence, and 
 nature. The answer is, that Jesus himself denies his having the same 
 power with the Father, and describes himself as exercising a communicated 
 and dependent power. His reasoning is, No one shall snatch them out of 
 my hand, for no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand ; but I and 
 the Father are one. I know his will ; I act entirely by his direction ; I 
 have reason fully to depend on his support in all that I do. 
 
 It is affirmed, that the acts here attributed to Christ require " a power 
 which could be neither communicated to, nor exercised by, any beino- 
 merely a creature ;" but this is mere assumption. Jesus simply declares 
 that, whilst those who were not of his sheep, could not be convinced by 
 any evidence offered to them, those who were, would receive and adhere to 
 his religion, and would surely enjoy its eternal blessings, and his confidence 
 in this is expressly founded on his Father's power. 
 
 It is farther argued, from the accusation immediately brought by the Jews 
 and our Lord's answer to it, that he must have made some extraordinary 
 assertion of the divinity of his nature. " The hearers of Jesus instantly 
 accused him of assuming Divine honours — whether their alarm was sincere 
 or affected, it is clear that there must have been an apparent ground for it." 
 The hearers of Jesus took up stones threatening to stone him, and, on beino- 
 asked the reason, answered, for blasphemy, and because, thou, being a 
 man, makest thyself God. Now, considering the character of those who 
 brought it, there can be no doubt that sufficient ground would have been 
 afforded for this charge by our Lord speaking of God as his Father in such 
 a manner as to imply that he was pre-eminently the Son of God. The 
 reply of Jesus shews that he understood this to be the sole ground of the 
 accusation ; and had it not been so, his enemies would not have failed to 
 remind him that he had offered no defence of his most offensive ex- 
 pression. 
 
 " But," says Dr. S., ** upon the Unitarian hypothesis, no motive can be 
 imagined why [our Lord] should not have met the accusation with the 
 clearest and most pointed denial. Though he saw it not to be proper, as 
 yet, to avow himself pubficly to be the Messiah, there could be no reason 
 why he should omit to protest that he was merely a man such as other men ; 
 and every consideration of piety and veracity and all other good principles, 
 demanded the most prompt and unambiouous declaration against the blas- 
 phemv with which he was charged. This course, however, he did not 
 take."' 
 
 We shall reply to this, by calling attention to the course which Jesus did 
 take. He was unwarrantably, maliciously, and notwithstanding that his 
 expressions might easily have been understood, accused of blasphemy, 
 because his calling God his Father was represented as a sort of assumption 
 of divinity. The sum of his defence is, " Judges and magistrates are 
 called gods in Scripture, because the word of God was with them, or was 
 addressed to them — because they had to administer justice in his name, 
 or because he had commanded them to plead the cause of the destitute 
 and fatherless, and to govern and protect the poor ; this would be allowed 
 to be certainly right, for the Scriptures cannot be made void ; how, then, 
 should he, whom the Father had selected as his chosen servant, and sent 
 forth on a mission of grace and truth, which was proved by so many 
 miracles, be accused of impiety for only calling himself the Son of God?'' 
 The defence clearly shews that he had called himself no more than the Son 
 of God, and knew this expression to be the cause of offence, and it justi- 
 
70 
 
 fies the use of it by an eminent servant of God on the supposition of his 
 being, like the magistrates who had been of old called Gods, a human 
 being, in the most satisfactory manner. Since, then, his exculpation was 
 complete, and included a disclaimer of any pretensions founded on any 
 other grounds than having been chosen, authorized, and peculiarly employed 
 by God, it would be great presumption in us to say that it ought to have 
 been made in any terms which might seem to us more precise. It an- 
 swered its purpose at the time, and if we give it our candid attention we 
 shall not now mistake its meaning. We will notice one more attempt 
 which our author has made to strengthen his case : 
 
 *' He (Jesus) then appeals to his unquestionable miracles, as the attesta- 
 tion of his truth in again affirming the very thmg which had created the 
 offence ; in terms different, indeed, but clearly of the same import, and most 
 strongly expressive, not of a nnion of power merely^ though that involved a 
 claim of omnipotence, [precisely as an officer who arrests a man in the 
 king's name claims for himself the royal authority,] but of a union in the 
 very nature and manner of existence : in me is the Father and I in him." 
 
 Dr. S. is right, that this expression is of the same import with the 
 other, and he has himself brought forward the unanswerable and irresisti- 
 ble objection to his interpretation of it, in the examples of its use in 
 other places. In that day, says our Lord, John xiv. 20, ye shall know 
 that 1 am in my Father, and YE IN ME and I in you. That they all 
 may be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may 
 
 be one in us I in them, and thou in me, that they may be completed 
 
 into one. John xvii. 21, 23. By this we know that we abide in him, 
 
 and he in us, that he hath cjiven us of his spirit* God is love ; and 
 
 he who abideth in love abideth in God, and God in him^ 1 John iv. 13, 
 16. Our author attempts to resist this objection, by an appeal to the 
 circumstances of the particular case in which " a oneness of power for the 
 performance of works which imply omnipotence," is the subject. We 
 have already shewn that the circumstances of the case imply nothing of 
 this kind. Our Lord is establishing his authority, and he proves it by an 
 appeal to his miracles ; but if we interpret the words in which he declares 
 his knowledge of the Divine counsels, and the extraordinary aid he receives 
 from God, of a union of nature, we must in consistency beheve also in a 
 nnion of nature between Christ and his followers, and even between the 
 all-perfect God himself and some of his creatures. 
 
 We are astonished at the hardihood with which, in the face of such 
 declarations as tliese, As the Father gave me commandment even so I do ; 
 The Son can do nothing of himself ; I can of mine own self do nothing ; 
 The Father that dwelleth in me He doeth the works ; Dr. S. asserts that 
 " Jesus Christ constantly speaks of himself as being, not an instrument 
 only, but the agent, in works of miraculous power." Again, " The 
 apostles ascribed the hnal agency," in the miracles which sanctioned their 
 ministry, " to Christ as readily as to God the Father," which is justified 
 only by the words of Paul, in Rom. xv. 18, "Christ wrought them through 
 me ;" although it is expressly declared that Christ, in his exalted state, 
 had received of God the power of communicating miraculous gifts to his 
 disciples, which gifts might, therefore, be in a certain sense properly 
 ascribed to him, though known to be manifestations of the power of God 
 his Father. We must not repeat the evidence, that all who saw the mira- 
 cles of our Lord considered them as proofs only that God ivas with him, 
 and that his disciples ascribed his and their own powers ultimately to God 
 
71 
 
 alone, but we cannot suppress the expression of unfeigned wonder, that 
 statements should be made in opposition, as it appears to'^us, to the plainest 
 facts, and yet almost without the appearance of otiering any thing in their 
 justification ; and that on no better grounds, that we can'^perceive, than bold 
 and unsupported assertion. Dr. S. sliould oppose himself to that interpreta- 
 tion of the passage we have been considering, which has been approved, 
 not by Unitarians only, but by Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer, and the ^reat 
 majority of learned commentators, however sincere in their attachment to 
 the doctrines of reputed orthodoxy. 
 
 We select one more passage, and it is all that our limits will allow, 
 from the volume now before us. It is the first section respecting Christ's 
 descent from heaven, on John iii. 13, " No one hath ascended into heaven, 
 except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in hea- 
 ven." These words, together with the preceding verse, are thus para- 
 phrased by Dr. S. : 
 
 ** If ye are so averse from apprehending and embracing my testimony 
 with respect to those suhjects of religion which refer to your own reason 
 and conscience in the present state, how will ye be capahle 'of understanding 
 those more sublime truths, the knowledge of which is entirely dependent on 
 a revelation from the Deity himself? Yet doubt not my ability to give you 
 correct information even on these exalted themes. No human being, in- 
 deed, has ever been, or could be, admitted to that most immediate and per- 
 fect manifestation of the Divine Presence, which would communicate to 
 him that knowledge. But the Messiah, whose superior nature is Eternal, 
 Omniscient, and in every respect Divine, has assumed the nature of man for 
 the express purpose of bringing this knowledge and all other divine bless- 
 ings to your enjoyment." 
 
 Here it will be observed, that the first clause is made to contain an abso- 
 lute assertion, admitting of no exception, to which the remaining part is 
 opposed in the way of contrast. No merely human being hath ascended 
 into heaven, i. e. hath had the opportunity of obtaining divine knowledge. 
 On the contrary, the Messiah, who, as to one part of his nature, is not 
 human, who is in heaven, hath descended from heaven, i. e. hath mani- 
 fested himself in the flesh on earth to bring this knowledge : but the 
 construction of the original requires that the latter part should be considered 
 as an exception to the general declaration in the first clause, and ovl^q (no 
 one) cannot have the emphatic sense, " no human being," forced upon it. 
 We must take it, " No one hath ascended to heaven, except he who 
 came down from heaven." Since, therefore, he who came down, first 
 ascended, was enabled by some means to attain to " that most immediate 
 and perfect manifestation of the Divine Presence, which would communi- 
 cate to him (divine) knowledge," he could not have possessed it naturally 
 and originally, consequently could not be in nature " Eternal, Omniscient, 
 and Divine," Dr. S. appears to consider the phrases as expressing a real 
 being in heaven, and coming from heaven, but as including and implying 
 the possessing and communicating divine truths. The obvious defect of 
 his interpretation is, that, as he cannot allow Christ to have ascended to 
 the place where his divine nature always existed, or to have acquired know- 
 ledge which inherently belonged to him, he is obliged to refer the first 
 clause exclusively to others, whereas the original clearly expresses, that 
 though no other ascended to heaven, Christ did ascend ; that whatever is 
 meant by being in heaven, whether it is to be taken hterally or figuratively, 
 the state it expresses did not always belong to him, but he was enabled to 
 
72 
 
 reach it, and having first ascended, he then descended. This objection, 
 we apprehend, to be fatal to Dr. S.'s pecuHar view of the subject ; we must, 
 however, consider other modes of explaining the passage, and endeavour 
 to estimate the force of his objections to that generally adopted by Unita- 
 rians. We can conceive it possible that all three clauses might be intended 
 literally, all three figuratively, or part literally and part figuratively. Dr. 
 S.'s hypothesis, which we have just considered, takes them all literally so 
 far as supposing them to express an actual heincj in heaven, though as 
 connoting the possession of that divine knowledge which is there obtained. 
 The Unitarian explanation takes them all figuratively, supposing the ascent 
 into heaven merely to express being admitted to the knowledge of divine 
 things ; the descent from heaven, going forth into the world as an autho- 
 rized divine messenger to communicate heavenly truths ; and being in 
 heaven, the continued reception of divine communications and powers. 
 Most commentators interpret the first clause figuratively in the same man- 
 ner as the Unitarians do, many take the second, and many the third, lite- 
 rally. The mixture of the literal and figurative senses, though not altoge- 
 ther impossible, is harsh, and not to be resorted to without very strong 
 reasons. In describing the Unitarian scheme, Dr. S. very needlessly in- 
 troduces the objections made by some to the notion of a local heaven, 
 which objections he answers in a manner satisfactory to us ; but the ques- 
 tion has no more than an accidental connexion with the present subject, 
 and the acknowledgment that there may probably exist a place designated 
 peculiarly as heaven, will not be supposed to imply that that place must 
 be always literally meant whenever the word is used. But Dr. S. says, 
 
 " The statement of the Calm Inquirer is not correct when he says, * To 
 ascend to heaven is a Hebrew form of expression, to denote the knowledge 
 of things mysterious and remote from common apprehension.' The four 
 passages referred to by bim and other writers, evidently signify a real and 
 local ascent, with a view to obtain the knowledge, or other blessing, adverted 
 to in the connexion of each." 
 
 The first of these passages is Deut. xxx. 11 — 13 : 
 
 *' This commandment is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is 
 not in heaven that thou shouldst say, Who shall ascend for us to heaven and 
 bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it ?" 
 
 Our author contends that the succeeding sentence, which in the same 
 manner affirms that the Israelites needed not to make long journeys or 
 perilous voyages to acquire the knowledge of the Divine Will, proves that 
 the words of the former question intend an actual ascent to some celestial 
 region. 
 
 It proves that they believed heaven to be a place to which it was con- 
 ceivable that men might ascend, and by reaching which the knowledge 
 which is here unattainable might be supposed to be acquired; but the 
 expressions in both sentences are evidently figurative. Moses illustrates 
 the position that the commandment was neither unintelligible, nor kept 
 from their study, by telling them that they need not inquire after impos- 
 sible or very difficult means of gaining the knowledge of it ; ascending to 
 heaven represents the means of obtaining the knowledge of things myste- 
 rious, the commandment being in heaven signifies being unintelligible, 
 beyond the reach of human faculties. 2. Prov. xxx. 4 : " That the 
 ascending and descending are here assumed as undoubted properties of the 
 Most High, is manifest from the succeeding question." So says Dr. S., 
 
76 
 
 but we think a proper consideration of the passage will shew that the ma- 
 jority of commentators who have taken it differently are right. The inten- 
 tion of the wriier seems to be to represent the knowledge' of God as unat- 
 tainable by human faculties, and to recommend humility from the consi- 
 deration of his inconceivable majesty. " Who hath ascended up into 
 heaven or descended ?" What mortal hath immediately contemplated the 
 glories of God, and attained to the knowledge of divine things, or hath 
 brought forth such knowledge and communicated it to others ? You know- 
 that there is none. " Who hath gathered the wind in his fists ? Who 
 hath bound the waters in a garment ? Who hath established all the ends 
 of the earth ?" Is there any man that hath done these things ? Or is it 
 not known to all that they are such as the Almighty himself alone caa 
 accomplish ? If there be man who can perform such wonders, *' what is 
 his name, and what is his son's name?" that they may obtain the admira- 
 tion and celebrity which they deserve. (Vide Job xxxviii. 4, &c. ; Isa. xl. 
 12 — 14.) This passage, then, is exactly lo the purpose, ascending up to 
 heaven and descending being figurative expressions for acquiring and com- 
 municating divine knowledge. 3. Rom. x. 6: " But the justification by 
 faith speaketh thus : Say not in thy heart. Who shall ascend into heaven ? 
 that is, to bring Christ down." The meaning is: Do not entertain any 
 doubt concerning the divine authority of Christ ; do not say. Who shall go 
 to heaven to fetch the Christ down ? as if he had not yet been manifested 
 to the world. Do not ask. Who shall obtain for us the blessings of divine 
 knowledge ? which you already possess. Lastly, Baruch iii. 29 : *' Who 
 hath gone up into heaven and taken her, i. e. wisdom, and brought her 
 down from the clouds ?" Here the form of expression and the sense are 
 exactly similar to the passage in Exodus. Dr, S. produces other instances 
 of ascent into heaven being spoken of in Scripture, where a real translation 
 to heaven as a place seems to be intended, but these are not to the pur- 
 pose, as it is not denied that such is the original and proper meaning of the 
 words ; it is only contended that they may also bear the figurative meaning 
 assigned, which Mr. B.'s examples appear sufficient to prove. 
 But Dr. S. continues : 
 
 *' Tiie Calm Inquirer, on the authority of Dr. Wliitby, affirms that ' the 
 Jews in the Targum say in honour of Moses, that /le ascended into the high 
 heavens, by which they could mean no more than his admission to the divine 
 counsels.' Whitby, perhaps copying from some other author, has not un- 
 derstood the passage, nor even referred to it rightly. It is evident that 
 neither he nor the Calm Inquirer, who borrows it from him, took the pains 
 to consult the Targum, The place is in the paraphrase on Cunt. iii. 3, and 
 it very plainly refers to Moses's going up to the top of Mount Sinai to inter- 
 cede for the people on: heir having made the golden calf." 
 
 He then makes large quotations from the Targum, of which the follow- 
 ing specimen is sufficient: 
 
 " Moses their leader ascended to the firmament, and made peace between 
 them and their King— Moses the chief scribe of Israel answered and spoke 
 thus, / will ascend to the heavens on high, and I will pray before Jul), if per- 
 haps he may be propitiated on account of your otfences." 
 
 No doubt the reference is to ascending the mount, but why is it called 
 ascending to heaven ? Not, assuredly, as Dr. S. suggests, because the word 
 for heaven is sometimes applied to a moderate elevation in the atmosphere, 
 
 K 
 
74 
 
 but because God peculiarly manifested himself on the mount, because 
 Moses was admitted to peculiar intercourse with him, the crreat purpose of 
 which was that he might learn and communicate his will. We think there- 
 fore that, notwithstandins: our author's hasty censure of others, and some- 
 what affected display of his own accurate learning, he has not shewn 
 Whitby to have been in error ; Moses' ascending certainly meant his going 
 up into the mount, but its being called the heavens on high, as certainly 
 meant that it was the immediate presence of Jehovah, admission to his 
 counsels, the power of learning his will, and addressing him with a pecu- 
 liar assurance of being attended to. The surprise of our author " that 
 Schoettgenius and the other learned persons should not have perceived that 
 they were putting the result for the operation, the consequent for the ante- 
 cedent, the end for the means to which that end v/as attributed," is also, 
 we think, much misplaced. To be in heaven is to be where we have the 
 opportunity of attaining to the wonders of Divine knowled«;e, and is hence 
 put for the possession of that knowledge by a figure of a kind than which 
 none can be more common or natural ; and it follows of course that to 
 ascend into heaven, must mean to be admitted to the means of acquiring 
 such knowledge. Our Lord in using the phrase most probably had the 
 application of it to Moses in his thoughts, meaning to affirm that no pro- 
 phet or messenger of God, not even the great lawgiver, had been admitted 
 to that complete knowledge of God's purposes and will which he possessed, 
 and which it was the object of his mission to communicate. The figure 
 was the less liable to be misunderstood, as the contrast of heavenly and 
 earthly things, in the preceding verse, for things familiar, which might be 
 expected to be knov.'n, and those which were new, having hitherto re- 
 mained mysteries, would almost preclude the possibility of mistake. Ac- 
 cordingly there is, as Mr. Belsham observes, a remarkable agreement of 
 commentators of all parties in the interpretation of this first clause, and 
 we cannot anticipate that Dr. S.'s remarks will interrupt its continuance. 
 
 The second clause being correlate to the first, it is very harsh to take, 
 as many do, the one figuratively, the other literally ; they should certainly 
 be interpreted in reference to one another, and on the same principle. If 
 to ascend into heaven is to obtain the complete knowledge of divine things, 
 to come down from heaven, is to communicate that knowledge by divine 
 authority, to come forth as an authorized teacher of heavenly truth. Dr. 
 S.'s statement, that " from a careful examination of the scriptural use of 
 the expressions from heaven, and being, coming, or descending from 
 heaven, it appears that the idea intended is A dwine origin, which is, 
 of course, applied variously according to the nature of the subject," is 
 nearly coincident with Mr. Belsham's, and is sufficient for our purpose, 
 since divine origin, the idea being applied according to the nature of the 
 case under our consideration, must mean divine authority, as Matt. xxi. 
 25, " The baptism of John, was it from heaven or of men f'^ It is ob- 
 jected that there is no other instance of a person being said to come from 
 heaven, meaning to bring and communicate truth, or to teach by divine 
 authority. Prov. xxx. 4, as we have explained it, is an example of this 
 use of the phrase ; but if there were none, it arises so completely from the 
 connexion and the sense of the preceding clause, that no difficulty need be 
 felt. 
 
 The figurative sense of the third clause, who is in heaven, " who has 
 received divine communications perfectly qualifying him for his office," 
 follows, of course, (allowing its genuineness, which is not certain, as it is 
 
to 
 
 omitted by some important authorities,) from that of the others, and Dr. 
 S.'s interpretation of it, " who as to his superior nature is in heaven, even 
 whilst he speaks to you on earth," is far more difficult and strange than any 
 figurative one. We have now carefully examined our author's remarks on 
 this very important passage, and we hope it will be perceived that he has 
 done nothing to weaken the force of the criticisms of Mr. Belsham and 
 other eminent men, who have contended for its interpretation as figurative 
 language, but that a full consideration of the subject only confirms and 
 establishes the justness of their views. 
 
 With regret we pass by other portions of Dr. S.'s volume, which cer- 
 tainly deserve attention. We have preferred the plan of carefully examin- 
 ing a few articles to that of merely touching upon many, and we venture to 
 assure the reader (we hope that some such will be found) who is, upon the 
 whole, satisfied with what we have done, so far as it goes, that we have not 
 chosen the least difficult portions, and that, should he not possess the re- 
 quisite knowledge for personal examination, he may judge of the contro- 
 versial value of the whole from what has been laid before him. 
 
 The fourth part of Dr. Smith's work, to which we now proceed, is 
 devoted to the consideration of " the doctrine taught by the Apostles in their 
 inspired ministry, concerning the person of the Lord Jesus Christ." The 
 subjects of the four chapters are, the book of Acts ; the testimony of the 
 Apostle John ; the testimonies of the Apostles Peter, Jude, and James ; and 
 the testimony of the Apostle Paul. 
 
 The anxiety shewn by Dr. S., lest the book of Acts should be expected 
 by the reader to contain a body of Christian doctrine^ appears to us a 
 strong extorted testimony to the impossibility of finding, in this important 
 portion of Scripture, any thing like a satisfactory expression of his favourite 
 sentiments, though he does not fail afterwards to adduce passages which he 
 seems to regard as affording countenance to them. 
 
 " The annunciation of his design, which Luke gives in the preface to his 
 Gospel, seems very jnstly to comprehend both parts of his work : and if 
 this be admitted, it will supply us with a sufficient reason why the book 
 called the Acts was drawn up in its particular manner and order; and it will 
 prevent our disappointment at not meeting with those statements in either 
 history or doctrine, which an incorrect estimate of its intention might lead 
 us to expect. Whoever Theophilus, to whom the two hooks are inscribed, 
 was, it is plain that the writer's design was, not to make him acquainted 
 with the fundamental truths of Christianity, for in them he had been already 
 instructed ; hut to furnish him with a selection of facts relative to the actions, 
 discourses, and sufferings of the Lord Jesus, and the diffusion of his religion 
 in some particular places, and by some particular persons. Those places 
 and persons, it is highly probable, had some connexion v/ith Theophilus 
 more than other places or persons would have had : and thus some specialty 
 of circumstances was the principle which guided the selection." ...... 
 
 ** As we are not to regard the book of Acts in the light of a regular history, 
 so this view of its design will prevent our expecting from it a i)ody of Chris- 
 tian doctrine. It supposes the reader to be, like Theophilus, already ac- 
 quainted with the great principles of that doctrine, and it is therefore occu- 
 pied in giving him the facts which formed the i)asis of evidence for those 
 princii)les, or which were examples of their diffusion and influence among 
 men."— Script. Test. Vol. IIL p. 6. 
 
 The book of Acts can certainly pretend to no more than being a faithful 
 narrative of some interesting and important particulars respecting the first 
 
 K 2 
 
7G 
 
 preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles and their companions after their 
 Lord's resurrection. Our author's conjecture, as to the principle on which 
 the facts were selected, appears to us arbitrary and fanciful, but it is not 
 material to the argument whether it he true or false. Whether chosen 
 from amongst others, on account of some peculiar power they possessed, 
 from mcidental associations, of interesting Theophilus individually, or, as 
 seems far more probable, on account of their intrinsic value, and their 
 suitableness for convincing men's minds, and giving them just views of the 
 religion of Christ, it seems abundantly certain that the facts and discourses 
 recorded by the Evangelist must be sufficient means of making known to 
 any body the fundamental truths of Christianity. It is true, Theophilus 
 had already acquired some knowledge of the Gospel from other sources, 
 but the purpose of the Evangelist was to confirm and establish him in the 
 truth, and to give him a record on which he might rely of authoritative 
 instructions and remarkable facts, containing the principles and the evidence 
 of the religion he had received. No book of Scripture contains any thing 
 which can be called " a body of Christian doctrine." 
 
 Our divine religion has been, by the wisdom of God, conveyed to us 
 historically: we are to collect its principles and their influences from the 
 study of the discourses and actions of our Lord and his chosen followers. 
 But that there should he a single narrative of any considerable portion of 
 *^^ PV^Jic ministry of Christ himself, or of his apostles, which should not 
 exhibit the leading and essential truths of his religion, seems altogether 
 incredible and almost inconceivable. All the evangelists wrote their his- 
 tories for the immediate information of those who had already been con- 
 vinced of the truth of Christianity and instructed in its doctrines, but it was 
 necessary to give them an authentic recoid, and it is not to be for a mo- 
 ment supposed that what were esteemed sufficient, though very imperfect, 
 memoirs of the words and actions of Christ, could leave untouched any 
 peculiar and characteristic doctrines of his religion. The same reasoning 
 applies to the book of Acts. It contains only specimens of apostolic in- 
 struction, but they are fair and sufficient specimens, and we must expect 
 them to put us in possession of the substance of Cliristian teaching : not 
 to re-state all which was adopted from Judaism, and assumed, as known by 
 Christian preachers, but to give us the peculiarities of the gospel, and to 
 explain the opinions of its promulgators on those points which, from their 
 novelty, their extensive influence, or the prevalence of erroneous views, 
 they deemed it most important to press upon the attention of their hearers. 
 Are the doctrines respecting the person and work of Christ, which now 
 assume the name of orthodoxy, to be classed in this number ? If they are, 
 let the plain fact that they are not made the subjects of instruction in any 
 part of the book of Acts be accounted for ; if they' are not, then, even 
 supposing them not to be altogether false and unscrip'tural, why do modern 
 divmes presume to attach to them an importance which apostles and evan- 
 gelists evidently did not attribute to them ? 
 
 It is chiefly in an indirect manner that Dr. S. supposes the book of Acts 
 to support his opinions. He has collected its testimony under nine heads. 
 Some of his statements excite our extreme surprise, but we are under 
 the necessity of confining our remarks at present to one or two points. 
 He tells us, first, that the real humanity of Christ is here " stated in the 
 clearest terms." This, it seems, is perfectly consistent with the reputedly 
 orthodox doctrine. Yet we certainly feel at a loss to understand how some 
 of the texts here quoted are to be reconciled with that doctrine. We 
 
n 
 
 know it is held that our Lord was truly man as well as truly God, and, 
 therefore, we might expect to find him on some occasions called man, but 
 what is to be thought when he is said to be " a man proved to you to be 
 from God by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did by him amongst 
 you ?" ^ man from God — not a God-man— proved to be sent from God 
 by miracles — which were not his own — were not effected by any part of 
 his own nature, but which God (plainly spoken of as a distinct beini;) did 
 through him. To us these words seem absolutely irreconcileahle with the 
 doctrine of the two natures, as directly opposed to it as if they had been 
 designed to contradict it. Of this at least we are certain, that if the most 
 perspicuous and appropriate language for designating a human prophet^ 
 divinely commissioned and attested, were carefully sought out, no words 
 could ibe found fitter for the purpose than those which the Apostle Peter 
 has employed in this passage, according to common supposition, with so 
 very ditterent a meaning. 
 
 Were it necessary, we might apply a similar argument to other remark- 
 able instances in which our Lord is called a man, but it would be useless 
 to go on ; for those who do not see the force of the reasoninp; in the case we 
 have been considering, will not be impressed by any thing we might add 
 respecting other passages. We hope it is clear to every reader that here 
 and elsewhere our argument is drawn not from Christ being called a man, 
 but from his being so called under circumstances y and with explanations, 
 which appear to us inconsistent with the notion of his having been more 
 than man. It is, therefore, no reply on the part of believers in his deity 
 to say that they also acknowledge his humanity. They are called upon to 
 shew, by suitable and consistent explanation, that we have not good 
 grounds for affirming the incompatibility of the language used with the 
 admission of any other besides a human 7iatiire. This is what is required, 
 but what we have seen no attempt to accomplish, and firmly believe that 
 no ingenuity can accomplisii. 
 
 We must now pass to our author's 9th head, which is introduced by the 
 following general statement : 
 
 " This book of Acts represents the first Christians as paying religious w or- 
 ship to the Lord Jesus Christ, and that this was a known and acknowledged 
 characteristic of their profession." The particular cases upon which this 
 general statement is founded are, i. the passages which contain the expres- 
 sion, calling upon the name of the Lord ; li. the dying words of Stephen ; 
 iii. the prayer of the eleven apostles, Acts i. 24 ; and, iv. the conduct of 
 Paul and Barnabas, Acts. xiv. 23. If the book of Acts does plainly represent 
 the first disciples as paying religious worship to Christ, let its authority have 
 due weight, but we must frankly declare that it is not by any ambiguous 
 expressions, or by any circumstances which admit of rational explanation 
 in other ways, that we are to be induced to believe any thing so extraordi- 
 nary as that he who, whilst on earth, addressed his own prayers to his 
 Father in heaven, and directed the prayers of his disciples to the same 
 great Being, his Father and their Father, his God and their God; he 
 whom with^ full conviction we believe to be uniformly described in Scrip- 
 ture as distinct from and inferior to God, and as elevated above men, not by 
 his nature, but by appointed office and communicated powers, ever accepted 
 or allowed that worship from his followers, which it is not pretended to 
 justify by any express injunction of himself or his apostle. We do not 
 profess to come to this inquiry as if it were to be decided by the exclusive 
 consideration of the texts now before us ; we openly declare that we shall 
 
78 
 
 avail ourselves, as we feel bound to do, of any uncertainty as to a commonly 
 received construction, or doubt as to the meaning which has been usually 
 assigned to a phrase, to vindicate the consistency as well as the reasonable- 
 ness of what is contained in the Sacred Records, and to avoid placing the 
 doctrine of a few passages in direct contradiction to the general tenor both 
 of precept and example in the evangelical narratives. 
 
 The passages first offered to our notice in proof that the worship of 
 Christ is recognized in the book of Acts, are those which contain the 
 phrase, (according to the common translation) calling upon thy name, or 
 upon his name, applied to Christ. " The Calm Inquirer," says Dr. S., 
 " with the general body of those who hold the same system, besides some 
 other writers inclined to lax opinions,* affirms that ' these words may 
 be rendered, who are called, or who call themselves after thy name, i. e. 
 who profess themselves thy disciples.'" 
 
 It is generally agreed that the expression referred to is a periphrasis for 
 disciples of Christ : the question is, how it comes to convey this meaning } 
 — how the sense is to be derived from the words ? 
 
 If any man, of any sentiments, can honestly declare that after the best 
 attention he can give to the reasoning, precepts, and narratives, found in 
 the New Testament, he is prepared to find Christians familiarly spoken of 
 as those who worship Christ, we can only express our unfeigned astonisli- 
 ment. We can entertain no doubt that the majority of reflectmg readers 
 will well understand the feeling which has led many truly pious and learned 
 men, some of them even believers in the divinity of our Lord's person, to 
 pause and consider whether a phrase, which is manifestly idiomatical and 
 of Hebrew origin, must necessarily be understood as implying so startling 
 a fact as that the disciples addressed religious worship and supplication to 
 their glorified Master. There is no doubt that the word i7tiKaXeo[Acci, 
 literally meaning " to call upon," and hence often, very naturally, " to 
 call for aid," " to implore," is frequently used of religious supplication 
 to the Supreme Being. To call upon God, or upon his name, frequently 
 signifies to pray to him — does it thence follow that the notion of religious 
 supplication is implied in the word, and that to call upon a man is to v.'or- 
 ship him } Far from it — the peculiar modification of the signification 
 belongs not to the word, but to the connexion, diud we must be cautious how 
 we apply it. Now it happens that the Greek word, imitating the Hebrew 
 J^^^p, which it very often represents in the ancient Greek version of the 
 Old Testament, has sometimes the sense oi celebrating, praising, honouring, 
 and thence acknowledging the authority of the person spoken of. It is in these 
 significations that, joined with {ovoi^a) name, it is, we think, often applied 
 to the Supreme Being, and in tlie same way it may, with strict propriety, 
 be applied to an eminent servant of God. This, we are inclined to think, 
 (agreeing, in the main, with our learned and excellent friend Dr. Carpenter, 
 though we do not like his translation, who appeal to the name of Christ,] 
 is the true sense of the passages under consideration. The other way of 
 taking them, noticed by Dr. S., has, however, strong claims on our atten- 
 tion, and, whether we look to the great authorities by which it is supported. 
 
 * Lax opinions ! Of what sort are they .' or, if the term is meant as a reproach, 
 where is tlje authoritative rule to which thet^e writers are accused of not strictly 
 adhering, and how will our author justify his presumption in such a censure whilst 
 lie affects to encourage freedom of inquiry? 
 
79 
 
 or to the force of the argument adduced in its favour, is not to be lightly- 
 rejected. 
 
 The verb e7rmaXeV«', though generally used actively to call upon^ i? 
 also capable of meaning to call oneself, or be caZ/ef/, ' (L^havorinus apud 
 Schleusner,) which v/ould give an excellent sense to all the passages. 
 The commonness of the expression, with the verb in the passive form, 
 applied to persons as well as things, having the name of the Lord called 
 iipon them, for being distinguished as his property, devoted to his service, 
 makes it highly probable that persons might be said to call upon themselves 
 a name, in the sense — not of actually bearing that name, as Dr. S., from 
 one of his remarks, (Scrip. Test. Vol. III. p. 36,) seems to have under- 
 stood it, and which is not at all implied in the phrase — but of openly ac- 
 knowledging the authority of the person, or numbering ourselves as of his 
 party. It is true, that no precise mstance of this use of eTrivtaXeo.uaj can be 
 ibund in the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament, but there is an 
 analogous expression with a verb of the same form, and nearly the same 
 sense, where indeed this verb might be substituted without altering tlie 
 meaning, in Isa. xliv. 5. The words of the authorized translation are, 
 *' One shall say, I am the Lord's ; and another shall call himself by 
 the name of Jacob ; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the 
 Lord, and surname himself by the name of Israel." Here, in the second 
 and last clauses, we have in the Hebrew ^<■*|p> in the unq'iesiionable sense 
 of calling oneself, and n33* as equivalent with it. Both these words are 
 expressed in the LXX. Greek by (Bo'^a-srai will call himself, or be called, 
 and in each case followed by d]/oi/,cc. This goes very tar towards justifying 
 the translation of the New-Testament phrase eTrmaX^/^Evo* to oyoi^a, calling 
 themselves by the name, in the sense of acknowledging the authority; but 
 there is one other circumstance : the phrase is found in the opening of the 
 1st epistle to the Corinthians : " Unto the church of God which is at 
 
 Corinth with all that in everyplace call upon the name of Jesus 
 
 Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." Nov/, in the conclusion of his 
 1st epistle to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome lias evidently imitated 
 this apostolic phrase : " May the God who seeth all things, the sovereign 
 of spirits and lord of all flesh, who hath chosen the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 us through him, to be a peculiar people, give to every soul that is called bij 
 his excellent and holy name, faith, fear, peace," &c. — vraV/j i'v^ri eViXE/cA'/j- 
 uievr\ TO (/.eyocXoTrpsTrei; /cat dyiov ovoi/.(x a.vT8, k. t. X. riere there IS nO ambi- 
 guity. The passive participle places the sense beyond doubt, but if Cle- 
 ment is imitating the apostle, he has expressed the same sense by an 
 equivalent form of words— and we are forcibly led to the translation called 
 themselves by the name — profess adherence to — in the passage of the 
 apostolic epistle, and, of course, in other similar places. To all this it is 
 replied in substance, that there is no certain example oUTViY-ccXsTa-Oai ro Qvofxa, 
 with the passive or reciprocal sense of the verb, signifying to call upon 
 oneself, or be called by the name, whilst there are many unquestionable 
 ones where the same phrase signities to call upon the name ; that the other 
 mode of expression referred to — having a name called upon a person or 
 thing, is the appropriate one in Scripture tor conveying the idea of assum- 
 ing a name; and that as Acts ii. 21, which cannot be denied to be a key 
 to the other instances in the New Testament, is a quotation from Joel, 
 where the sense certainly is call upon the name of the Lord, we cannot 
 fairly refuse to render the other examples in the same manner. We are 
 led by these arguments, though with some little hesitation, to prefer giving 
 
80 
 
 an active sense to the word kiciKa'hkrjy.ai ; but we have aheady stated tliat this 
 by no means necessarily impUes religious supplication, and is not happily 
 rendered in EngHsh by call upon. The passage from Clement is abundant 
 evidence of the equivalence of the passive and active formulas, and there- 
 fore leads us to understand the latter, acknowledging the name of Christ, 
 viz. that he is our divine Master, deliverer, and instructor. Calling on 
 the name of the Lord, in the Old Testament, often means celebrating, not 
 praying to him, and this sense is ascribed by the best lexicographers to K"lp, 
 which I'KiKuXeoiA.ai represents: examples are, Psa. cv. 1, "O give thanks 
 unto the Lord, call upon, i. e. celebrate his name;" and Isa. xii. 4, 
 " Praise the Lord, celebrate his name, declare his doings," &c. From this 
 readily follows the sense o^ owning as a master, admitting the authority of, 
 addressing in acknowledgment of his power, which seems to be clearly found 
 in Psa. xiv. 4, '* Who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon 
 the Lord" — do not acknowledge him. Psa. Ixxx. 18, " Quicken us and 
 we will call upon thy name" — acknowledge ourselves thy servants, i^tr, x. 
 25, " Pour out thy fury upon the Heathen that know thee not, and upon 
 the families that call not on thy name" — that do not acknowledge thy 
 authority — address thee as their Lord. Zeph. iii. 9, " For then ""will J 
 change the language of the people to purity, that they may ail call upon 
 the nayne of the Lord" — acknowledge the authority of Jehovah — to serve 
 him with one consent. This is the sense most applicable to Joel ii. 31, 
 which is accommodated to his purpose by Peter, Acts ii. 21. 
 
 Li all these examples, it is true that the phrase is apphed to the Supreme 
 God himself, but there is nothing in its nature which should prevent its 
 equally proper application in such a case as that of our Lord ; and as the 
 occasions for the use of such a phrase could not be frequent, it is nothing 
 wonderful that we do not meet with more varied examples. We conclude 
 then confidently, that the periphrasis for Christians — *' those who call on 
 the name of the Lord," does not Imply the worship of Christ. 
 
 We proceed to the words of Stephen, upon which, however, we hardly 
 need detain our readers. 'E'KiKcc'koviA.ivov does not at all imply that he called 
 in prayer ; it is simply called upon., entreated; and the word God here in- 
 troduced in our common Bibles, being printed in italics, is understood by 
 all attentive readers to be introduced on the translator's own judgment, and 
 to have no authority whatever. Let it be considered, then, how, in the 
 first age, our Lord held constant communication with his church, ruling its 
 aflairs, and immediately directing the course and services of his principal 
 disciples; let due account be taken of the vision of the glorihed Jesus 
 which the martyr had just before enjoyed, which was probably continued to 
 him at the very time ; and let the marked ditierence be observed between 
 this address and the prayer immediately oftered by Stephen to God \\\m- 
 seU, when /ie/e/Z o?i /i«,s /i?iee5 and said, "Lord, lay not this sin to their 
 charge;" and we think the entire futility of any argument founded on this 
 passage for the religious worship of Christ, must be abundantly manifest. 
 
 Respecting the third of Dr. S.'s examples, the prayer of the apostles. 
 Acts i. 24, but one remark can be needful — that most assuredly this prayer 
 was addressed not to Christ, but to God himself, his Father and his God. 
 Dr. S. states the matter thus : 
 
 '* In the narrative of the proceedings of the eleven apostles, for supplying- 
 the vacancy in their numhcr occasioned by the defection of Judas, we find 
 that Peter, after uppAying to Jesus, in an emphatical manner, the epithet ' the 
 
81 
 
 Lor,l,' proceeded to pray, ' Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts, shew 
 whom thou hast chosen.'"— iScript. Test. Vol. III. p. 52 
 
 Now, in fact, Peter, in his discourse, applied the epithet to him whom 
 all his followers call their Lore? in the accustomed manner, without any sign 
 of peculiar emphasis, and it is related that after he had concluded when in 
 consequence of his advice, two proper persons had been selected, Barnabas 
 and Matthias, which selection must have occupied some time, " they," the 
 assembled apostles, (it is not said, nor do we know, that Peter spoke for 
 them,) " prayed and said, ' Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all 
 men, siiew which of these two thou hast chosen ;' " using a title elsewhere 
 given only to the All-seeing God the Father himself, and which, as there is 
 evidently no ground in this passage, so there is none elsewhere, for apply- 
 ing to Christ. It is even observable that respectable orthodox writers da 
 not generally press for this application. With a candour, courtesy, and 
 kindness, which ought, for the sake of truth and justice, to be known and 
 duly estimated, Dr. S. has called the natural and, we think, just remarks of 
 some eminent Unitarian critics, that Stephen, witnessing the presence of 
 Christ, and knowing that the government of the Church, in its first period, 
 was immediately carried on by him, might entreat his aid in an awful 
 moment, without praying to him as God, or sanctioning religious addresses 
 to him, a childish and irnbecile subterfuge. We neither choose to retort in 
 any case such insulting and unwarrantable language, nor do we believe Dr. 
 S. capable of using a subterfuge ; but we do think that, if influenced by no 
 higher motive, he ought at least to have been more cautious respecting the 
 character of his own arguments, than he has shewn himself in the instance 
 we have just been noticing, before he ventured to make such reflections on 
 those of others. 
 
 There remains one other passage. Acts xiv. 23, " Having prayed, with 
 fasting, they commended them, the disciples, to the Lord on whom they 
 had believed." This is thought by Dr. S. to imply religious address to 
 Christ. Let it only be observed that Paul and Barnabas prayed first as a 
 distinct thing from commending the churches to the Lord, and that as the 
 word commend means to commit to the care and direction of another, if 
 Christ exercised controul and government over the churches, which is 
 stated in Scripture to have been the fact, nothing could be more proper 
 than, in taking leave, to wish that they might be under his special care, and 
 if he is elsewhere plainly stated to have exercised this controul by the ap- 
 pointment, and in fulfillmg the will of God his Father, then commending 
 to his care, cannot imply making him God, or worshiping him as such. 
 We have now gone through Dr. S.'s proofs that the book of Acts repre- 
 sents the first Christians as paying religious worship to the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and offered to the judgment of our readers what we hope they will 
 esteem sufficient reasons for resisting his conclusion. 
 
 We must, in the next place, take a specimen from the chapter on the 
 testimony of the Apostle John. The elaborate dissertation on the intro- 
 duction to the gospel we must not touch, because we cannot now occupy 
 the space necessary for doing any thing like justice to the subject. Alter 
 all that has been written upon it, much may probably yet remain to reward 
 farther investigation. We acknowledge that there is difficulty, but we 
 sincerely think that the difficulty presses harder, on the whole, upon the 
 orthodox than the Unitarian methods of interpretation, and we feel no 
 doubt as to the general tendency of the passage. 
 
82 
 
 But we turn at present to our author's remarks on a text in the 1st 
 Epistle of John v. 20 : " And we know that the Son of God is come, and 
 hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true : and 
 we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true 
 God and eternal life." On the reference of the demonstrative pronoun thiSf 
 in the last clause, to its nearest possible antecedent, Jesus Christ, a favourite 
 argument for his deity is constructed. Our author commences by stating 
 that the interpretation of the words " is attended with considerable diffi- 
 culty." He, hov/ever, decides with sufficient confidence in favour of 
 orthodoxy. 
 
 We follow, without feeling that we have much ground for hesitation, the 
 interpretation usually given by Unitarians, and supported as being the 
 most natural and suitable construction by not a few writers of unquestioned 
 orthodoxy of sentiments. On the first part we adopt the paraphrase of 
 Dr. Bloomfield, who leaves the application of the pronoun in the last clause 
 doubtful, but clearly admitting the possibility and propriety of referring it to 
 the Father. " We, moreover, assuredly know that the Son of God (the 
 Messiah) is come, and hath given us this understanding that we may know 
 him that is true (i. e. the true God, and the most acceptable way of obeying 
 and worshiping him). And, indeed, we ^re m union with ihe ime God, 
 by means of his Son Jesus Christ." As to the remaining clause, since the 
 reference of the pronoun to the more remote antecedent is acknowledged 
 by all to be allowable ivhen necessary to the sense, and since our blessed 
 Lord himself, as recorded by the very apostle who writes this letter, ad- 
 dressed his Father as " the only true God," consequently, cannot him- 
 self be here so called without the most direct contradiction, we hardly need 
 seek any better authority for the only construction which frees us from the 
 contradiction. Dr. S. objects to the translation, " We are in (ev) the true 
 God, by or through (h) his Son Jesus Christ." He cannot say it is inad- 
 missible, but he likes the other best, and he thinks it " harsh to suppose 
 that a change" (of the sense of iv) " was intended in so close and con- 
 tinuous a clause." In truth, it hardly is a change of sense : it is a slight 
 modification of the same sense required by the connexion, which we 
 happen to express in English by a difi^erent word. Dr. Bloomfield says, 
 " 'Ihe ev in iv ra via is by most rendered in, as in the former clause. But 
 the best commentators, from Grotius to Rosenmiiller, assign to it the sense 
 per (through). And so Tyndal. Certainly this sense is more apt : and 
 Benson has shewn from several examples that kv may have two significa- 
 tions in the same sentence." 
 
 The expression eternal life is much relied upon as always belonging to 
 Jesus Christ. But Christ is spoken of as the communicator and establisher 
 of the doctrine of eternal life, not as the original author of the blessing. 
 Let Rom. vi. 23, be recoWecied— eternal life is *' the gift of God through 
 Jesus Christ ;" and in John xvii. 3, which the author probably had in his 
 mind when he wrote the words we are now examining, eternal life is said 
 to consist in knowing the onli/ true God and Jesus Christ whom he had 
 sent. What more natural, then, than for the apostle, after glorying in the 
 knowledge of the true God obtained through his Son, to exclami, " This 
 is the true God, and eternal life" — the Author and Source of that eternal 
 life, which is miade known to us by his Son ! It may now be sufficiently 
 apparent that the argument for the deity of Christ from this text might as 
 well have been abandoned by our author, as it has been by some of the 
 most learned and respectable supporters of the doctrine. 
 
83 
 
 In the chapter on the " Testimonies of tlie Apos-tles Peter, Jiide, and 
 James," all the most important arguments are derived from the rule 
 respecting the use of the Greek article, to which public attention was first 
 called by Mr. Granville Sharpe, and which has been corrected, explained, 
 and illustrated, by the late Bishop Middleton. 
 
 Dr. S. employs very triumphant language on this subject, but it is asto- 
 nishing that he and others should venture on such slight grounds to assume 
 so confident a tone. Mr. Granville ^sharp applied to his purpose what he 
 observed to be a general fact, without very well understanding the nature 
 of the phenomenon, or noting the exceptions with sufficient nicely. Dr. 
 Middleton exhibited the rule as resulting from the true nature, origin, and 
 purpose cf the Greek article, and pointed out its limitations and exceptions, 
 accounting for them with great skill and general success ; but his previously 
 fixed theological opinions did not allow him to perceive that the texts to 
 which the rule is applied in the New Testament may be so considered as 
 to fall within his own exceptions, which are quite as certain and well esta- 
 blished as the rule itself. 
 
 If, indeed, it were not so, we should still remain unconvinced, because 
 a few clear examples have been brought forward of deviation from the ge- 
 neral rule which cannot be accounted for upon any known principle. Such 
 irregularities are most likely to be found in works written in a foreign 
 dialect. Even the learned Philo Judaeus is accused of not having in all 
 respects understood the proper use of the article, and it is much more pro- 
 bable, that there should be found in such works as the writings of the New 
 Testament departures from the niceties of Greek construction than from 
 self-contradictions, and assertions which, judging from what they have 
 elsewhere said, the authors must have considered as impious. Such would 
 be the state of our feelings if we could do no more than to point to the 
 unexplained exceptions to the rule referred to j but our case is a much 
 stronger one. Our position is, that the very principles of exception laid 
 down and illustrated by Dr. Middleton, will be found capable of being ap- 
 plied with the strictest propriety to the passages which are the subjects of 
 this inquiry. 
 
 It might, perhaps, be fairly said, that, explaining the general principles 
 both of the rule and its exceptions, his statements \\\ effect leave the parti- 
 cular cases to be determined by custom and authority ; but we will not 
 insist on this point. We shall give the rule in his own words, detail its 
 acknowledged limitations and exceptions, explain its application to the 
 class of passages in question, and shew on what grounds that application 
 may be denied. 
 
 The rule is, " When two or more Attributives, joined by a Copulative 
 or Copulatives, are assumed of the same person or thing, before the first 
 Attributive the Article is inserted; before the remaining ones it is omitted;'' 
 of which it is taken for granted that the converse must be equally true : 
 that whenever the article is inserted before the first attributive, and omitted 
 before the remaining ones, they all belong to the same person or thing. 
 But exceptions are made for names of substances, considered as substances, 
 proper names, and names of abstract ideas : also for all such attributives, 
 both singular and plural, as hy their nature cannot be predicated of the 
 same subject without the most evident and direct contradiction. Dr. Mid- 
 dleton is content with stating that, in this latter case, the perspicuity of the 
 passage does not require the rule to be accurately observed ; we think it, 
 however, scarcely doubtful that the omission of the second article marks 
 
84 
 
 some common relation of the objects, qualities, or persons, to the subject 
 in hand. Certainly it can never shew those persons, things, or ideas, to be 
 identical which are notoriously distinct, and this admission is all we re- 
 quire. Examples of the application of the rule in theological controversy- 
 are the following : Eph. v. 5, iv rf paa-iKeia TOT Xpia-Ta ^oci 0£8— " Jn the 
 kingdom of Christ and of God :" common translation. ** In the kingdom 
 of him who is Christ and God :" translation contended for by Middleton, 
 &C. Titus ii. 13, TOT y.tydXa ©es kcci a-corrj^oq 'fj^uv "IrjTS Xpicrrs— " Of the 
 
 Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ :" common translation, which is 
 usually understood to make God and Christ distinct. " Of Jesus Christ 
 our great God and Saviour :" translation according to the rule. 2 Tliess. 
 
 1. 12, yiard tyjv %ap<y TOT @£8 '^[xuv Mai Kvpis'l'/jcrs XpiaTs — " According tO 
 
 the grace of our God, and the Lord Jesus Christ :" common translation. 
 *' According to the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ :" translation 
 according to the rule, the application of which, however, in this case, Dr. 
 Middleton considers as doubtful. 
 
 It will be seen that the construction contended for, in the first example, 
 makes being anointed and being God Wo attributes of one person, to whom 
 the kingdom belongs. But it must be noted that Christ is very frequently 
 used in Scripture (as it is familiarly by us) as a proper name of him who 
 was pre-emmently God's anointed. Dr. Middleton has very properly 
 limited his exception for names of substances to the case when considered 
 as substances, and pointed out that such names are not unfrequently used 
 to mark, not the object itself, but some quality which it eminently possesses, 
 in which case they are properly attributives and come within the rule. He 
 should have stated also that words which are, strictly speaking, attributives, 
 when frequently applied to an individual person or object, eminently pos- 
 sessing the attribute, may become truly of tlie nature of names of substances 
 and proper names, and so may be excluded from the operation of the rule. 
 We judge this to be the case with Xpicrro<; (Christ) here, and when joined 
 to the name Jesus, it is as to the construction a part of the proper name. 
 It is also true that 0£o? (God) without or with the article — God absolutely, 
 or He who is the God, i. e. the only true God, is continually used in Scrip- 
 ture as the name of the Supreme Being, and, so employed, is to all intents 
 and purposes a proper name. The translation, therefore, " in the king- 
 dom of Christ and of God," may be justified on the same principle as that 
 
 of the words >jv &yocr£ Kvpioq TO, 'A^^aaa Kcci 'la-aaK v.ai 'Iukcc^, " which the 
 
 Lord swore to Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Jacob," making them three 
 persons, not one ; and this translation is supported not only by the distinc- 
 tion constantly marked in Scripture between God and Christ, but by the 
 unambiguous parallel expression. Rev. xii. 10, " The kingdom of our God, 
 and the dominion of his Christ," both names of the same state of things, 
 but marking the relation of that state to two distinct beings— the great Ruler 
 of all things, and him whom he had appointed. It remains for us to ascer- 
 tain whether the principle here maintained is applicable to the other cases. 
 They are distinguished from that we have examined by the word God 
 (which in them comes first) being accompanied by an adjective or pronoun, 
 {2 Pet. i. 1,) and the word Christ being joined to Jesus and having before 
 it either Kvpis (Lord) or larrj^ot; (Saviour). The construction contended 
 for as required by the rule makes the being the great God or our God, and 
 being our Lord or our Saviour, attributes of the one person Jesus Christ ; 
 but either of the attributives Lore/ and Saviour being very frequently ap- 
 phed to Christ, and pre-eminently above all beings, God himself excepted. 
 
85 
 
 both of them bein^ in fact recognized titles of Christ, the connected words 
 " Lord Jesus Christ," or *' our Saviour Jesus Christ," mav form too-ether 
 one personal appellation or proper name, and the *' Great God," or^" our 
 God," beinoj incapable of designating any being but one, is likewise of 
 the nature of a proper name, and tlius the rule is inapplicable in these 
 cases. No doubt the construction which makes God and Saviour or Lord 
 both attributes of Jesus Christ, is allowable as a construction, but if Jesus 
 was generally spoken of at the time as " the Lord Jesus Christ," or *' our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ," and his being entirely distinct from God was uni- 
 versally and without hesitation acknowledged, so that no ambiguity could 
 arise, which is what we maintain on the authority of the general tenor of 
 Scripture, and of numerous distinct testimonies ; then it is evident that Dr. 
 Tvliddleton's exception for proper i. e. personal names and other cases ivhere 
 the subjects of the attributes could not be confounded, exactly applies to 
 the texts under consideration ; so that the question as to the possibility/ of 
 the proposed new translation is to be settled by considerations arising, not 
 out of the words of these texts taken by themselves, but out of the study of 
 other parts of Scripture. Such expressions as follow where there is no 
 ambiguity in the construction, and where the terms " God the Father," or 
 " our Father," and " the Lord Jesus Christ," or " Jesus Christ our Sa- 
 viour," are manifestly complex personal appellations, render it, we fear- 
 lessly say, certain that the corresponding terms must be so considered in 
 the disputed texts, and shew the impossibility of their having been misun- 
 derstood or deemed ambiguous in the purest age of the church : " Favour 
 be to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ," 
 2 Cor. i. 2. " Favour, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and the 
 Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour," Titus i. 4. *' Favour and peace be multi- 
 plied unto you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus who is our 
 Lord," 2 Pet. i. 2, immediately following one of the contested texts, which 
 it therefore may be taken as explaining. Here the name Lord being spe^ 
 daily attributed to Jesus, not used as a known and established title, is 
 placed after, with its own article ; but this passage is a clear example of God 
 having the nature of a proper name, and it shews the Being intended by 
 that term (not here characterized as the Father only, but including the 
 whole of what the term expresses) to be distinct from Jesus. Dr. S. 
 speaks as if the Unitarians rested their defence in this part of the contro- 
 versy entirely on the occurrence of unexplained exceptions to the rule, and 
 he says, " Dr. Middleton contends that all the exceptions are such in 
 appearance only, and may be accounted for on principles, not assumed to 
 serve the purpose, but rational and necessary." On the contrary. Dr. Mid- 
 dleton has himself produced a remarkable exception to the rule which he 
 acknowledges he cannot account for, (nor has he accounted for all those 
 produced by others,) and the Unitarians contend that the disputed texts, 
 properly considered, come within his own exceptions from the rule, and 
 therefore exhibit no irregularity when translated in the usual manner. In 
 reference to Dr. S.'s last paragraph on this subject, (Vol. IIL p. 207,) we 
 repeat that the difference between the expressions TOT GaS i'^Sv ^^ociKvpta 
 'I'/jo-s XpjcTTs and TOT wpts 4jiaSv -^cu (TUT-^j^oq'l'/jcrsX^ia-Ts is, that @aS being a 
 personal appellative is not in this instance an assumable attributive. His 
 being called our God, does not recognize any others as true gods, but marks 
 our sense of our relationship to him. He is still God pre-eminently, the 
 God recognized as having no equal, and therefore Lord is at once under- 
 stood as a title forming part of the name of Jesus Christ, as 2 Cor. i. 2 3 
 
86 
 
 Titus i. 4, &c. On tlie contrary, in the second sentence, but one word 
 which can be the name of a person occurrins^, "the other words miist be 
 taken as attributes here specially ascribed to that person, and this appears 
 to us to be perfectly consistent with the much-boasted rule, as explained 
 and properly limited by Dr. Middleton, though not with that learned wf'i- 
 ter's own application of it.* 
 
 No doubt, one who thinks we have elsewhere s.n^c\eni proof of the deity 
 of Christ, may with propriety adopt the proposed translations, but it is 
 equally certain that one who believes that elsewhere God and Christ are 
 always distinguished, may with equal propriety resist them, and conse- 
 quently no independent argument in favour of the orthodox doctrine can 
 be derived from the passages. 
 
 We now come to the testimony of the Apostle Paul. Dr. S. begins 
 with a common rhetorical artifice. He calls our attention to all the enmity 
 against the Apostle of the Gentiles, which has existed in ancient or in 
 modern times, from the opposition of the first Juda^zers down to the *' Not 
 Paul but Jesus" of Gamaliel Smith, and, without takins; the slightest notice 
 of the very obvious circumstances which account for both the one and the 
 other — Jewish bigotry in the one case ; horror of the unnatural system of 
 Calvinism, commonly reputed to be especially contained in the writings of 
 Paul, in the other — by a quiet assumption of the very thing which he un- 
 dertakes to prove, he offers to explain the whole. Paul, according to his 
 account, was " the chosen vessel of the Divine Spirit for completing the 
 archives of Christian doctrine, by a clear and bold, a copious and uncom- 
 promising testimony to the Divive person and the redemption of Christ, 
 the reign of his grace, and the conformity of its subjects to his holiness.'^ 
 Those who cannot, after the most patient investigation, see any thing of the 
 testimony here referred to, but who can readily account for the enmity 
 which has existed against the apostle, without at all recurring to it, have a 
 double objection to Dr. S.'s statement, as being neither true, nor even 
 apparently required for the explanation of the facts, which are detailed and 
 commented upon in a declamatory style, fitted to excite or foster prejudices, 
 and most unlike that of a calm inquirer after truth. A large portion of 
 what Dr. S. has been pleased to call the testimony of this apostle " con- 
 cerning the Person of the Redeemer and Saviour of men," does not really 
 
 * In Jude i. 5, the word God being a gloss and rejected from the text, we are 
 in this dilemma : either tlie term ^sa-iroTriq '* sovereign," was, as some think, pe- 
 culiarly and exclusively applied by the Jews of our Lord's time to the Deiiy, or it 
 was not : if it was, that peculiar use, by altogether forbidding its application to a 
 person recognized as distinct from Deity or to any other than the one being, made 
 it a personal appellation, and the text comes under the exception ; if it was not, 
 then Jesus Christ might with the most perfect propriety be called our only Sove- 
 reign and Lord, meaning to exclude all other pretenders to divine commission and 
 consequent authority over us in God's name, and the rule is applied, but does not 
 prove the Deiiy of Christ. Of course this argument assumes the decision of the 
 question, respecting whicli no Unitarian ft^els any doubt, whether God and Christ 
 are plainly and uniformly spoken of in Scripture as two distinct beings, but our 
 object is to shew that no independent proof of the Deity of Christ can be drawn 
 from the use of the article. In this passage of Jude, on either supposition, but 
 especially on the latter, religious obedience is, as Dr. S. observes, required to 
 Christ, " thus verifying his own word, that all may honour the Son, even as they 
 honour the Father," in its only admissible interpretation— honouring the Son be- 
 cause they wish to honour the Father, because in honouring the Son they do best 
 honour his Father who sent him. Vide Mon. Repos. Vol. I. New Series, p. 60. 
 
S7 
 
 relate to his person at all, but to the blessincrs of his roh>]jion, and, in a 
 controversial point of view, can be nothinpr to our author's purpose, inas- 
 much as it presents no difficulty whatever on the Unitarian scheme ; — thus 
 the first article states, that " the Lord Jesus Christ is constantly celebrated, 
 either by the mention of him alone, or in conjunction with the Divine 
 Father, as the author and bcstower of the greatest possible blessincrs, the 
 supreme good of everlasting possession and enjoyment." What is here 
 said is in the main true, and is acknowledged and felt to be so as 
 much by Unitarians as by any other class of professing Christians. 
 
 Of the blessings of the gospel we cannot think too highly, and Jesus 
 Christ is constantly celebrated as the communicator, in a verv proper sense 
 of the term, the bestower of these blessings. Taking, indeed, the word 
 author strictly as meaning the original source, it cannot be applied to 
 Christ ; but every reader surely must observe that not one of the texts 
 quoted justifies such an application, whilst the words of the same Apostle 
 afford the strongest and clearest evidence against it ; *' Christ Jesus, who 
 OF God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and re- 
 demption," 1 Cor. i. 30. " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly 
 places in Christ Jesus," Eph. i. 3. " God, who is rich in mercy, for his 
 great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath 
 quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved,) and hath raised 
 us up together and made us to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus : that 
 in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace, in his 
 kindness towards us, through Christ Jesus." Who will pretend to recon- 
 cile these plain and positive declarations with the doctrine that Jesus was 
 the author of gospel blessings ? Let Dr. S.'s testimonies to *' parity of 
 power and influence with the Almighty Father" (which are no more than 
 the conjunction of the name of Jesus with that of God in respect to the 
 communication of those spiritual blessings which are elsewhere said to be 
 given through him) be compared with these, and what doubt can there be 
 as to the result ? It is, indeed, strange that the following passages could be 
 thought to afford proof of parity of power, even if that doctrine were not 
 excluded by express declarations to the contrary — yet they are all which 
 it has been thought expedient to produce : " Grace and peace be unto 
 you, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ !" Rom. i. 7. 
 " Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus 
 Christ our Saviour 1" Tit. i. 4. " Our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and our 
 God and Father, (who hath loved us and hath given everlasting consolation 
 and good hope by grace,) comfort your hearts and establish you in every 
 good word and work !" 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17. All that can be inferred from 
 these passages is, that God and Christ are two beings, from both of whom 
 something is to be expected respecting the desired gifts. He who believes 
 what is elsewhere abundantly declared, knows that from God all blessings 
 proceed, and that through Christ the inestimable blessings of the gospel 
 were communicated, in the first age at least, by his express intermediation. 
 To him, therefore, these passages present no difficulty ; and he wonders at 
 those who infer any thing from the distinction between the author and 
 communicator of the gift, so often clearly marked, and naturally so little 
 subject to doubt, not being repeated every time the blessing is thankfully 
 celebrated or earnestly desired. 
 
 We must here notice a most uncandid and unjust reflection on Mr. 
 
88 
 
 Belsham, introduced in connexion with the article we have been ex- 
 amining : 
 
 " Mr. B ," says Dr. S , *' does indeed, (i. e. in his work on tlie Epistles,) 
 as his plan necessarily required, give his interpretation of the passag-es which 
 have been above quoted. He adopts various methods of aUering their 
 meaning or evuding their api)hcation." (This, reader, is said of a man of 
 known and tried integrity, respecting a work which professes to expound to 
 the best of his judgment the true meaning- of the Apostle, and in which he 
 was bound by the most solemn obligations of public duty and of personal 
 fidelity to the Master whom he professed to serve, to introduce nothing 
 which he did not conscientiously believe would conduce to that object ! 
 But such accusations are easily made, and by the majority of Dr S.'s readers 
 will be readily believed, without much inquiry, as to their foundation.) 
 ** In one place, he (Mr. B.) takes into his text a different reading, upon 
 evidence which Griesbach did not think amounted to even his lowest degree 
 of probability, and which Heinrichs, Knapp, and Vater, have not thought 
 worthy of noticing:" viz. as stated in a note. Col. iii. 13, " The Lord freely 
 forgave you," instead of Christ. 
 
 Now, it is intended here to insinuate that Mr. Belsham made this altera- 
 tion to serve a controversial purpose, whereas it is evident that no material 
 point is gained by the change, and that Mr. B. could not have felt at all 
 embarrassed by the reading of the received text. It is declared (Eph. iv. 
 32), that " God, through Christ, hath forgiven us." Whether, therefore, 
 God or Christ, at the suggestion of the context, is named as affording us 
 forgiveness, we know what is meant. But Mr. B. exercises his own judg- 
 ment freely. He does not profess to follow Griesbach's text ; he some- 
 times (and we regret it, as an incautious and unjustifiable course) even 
 adopts conjectures which have recommended themselves to his own mind. 
 In the present instance, he takes up as more suitable in his opinion to the 
 context, and as being, to the best of his judgment, most probably what the 
 Apostle wrote, a reading which certainly is in the situation which Dr. S. 
 describes ; but the inattention of even celebrated critics is no proof that a 
 reading deserves neglect. The authorities followed by Mr. Belsham are 
 the Alexandrian MS., which in the epistles exhibits pretty purely the Alex- 
 andrine recension of the sacred text, the Clermont, Augian, and Boerne- 
 rian — all remarkable copies of the Western recension, with one other MS., 
 and the Latin versions. Kvpis u as then an ancient Western reading, not 
 completely excluded from early copies containing the Alexandrine text. 
 Griesbach probably thought that it was introduced to avoid something un- 
 usual, and that might be offensive in the expression " Christ forgave us ;" 
 and from comparison of the passage with Eph. iv. 32, or in consequence 
 of the compound reading, " the God of Christ," found in the Armenian 
 version, and " God in Christ," used by Augustine, in a seeming quotation 
 of the words. But is not Mr. Belsham right, as a critic, in judging that 
 XP<o-T8 was more likely to arise as an interpretation of Kvpis, than the con- 
 trary change, which would be to substitute the indefinite for the clear; that 
 the compound readings only shew the authors to have been acquainted 
 both with *' Lord" interpreted of God, and " Christ," and rather create 
 a presumption that the word Christ, coming after, had been taken in from 
 the margin ? To the discussion, however, we attach little importance : 
 what is important, is, that Mr. B. has been wantonly and without even a 
 plausible pretence, charged with wilfully corrupting the text of Scripture, 
 Yet Dr. S. has expressed himself so well on the duties of candour towards 
 
89 
 
 opponents, and of maintaining a Christian spirit in controversy, that, sin- 
 cerely believing these passages to represent the genuine sentiments and 
 feelings of his mind when uninfluenced by peculiar prejudices, we cannot 
 but hope that he will, on reflection, regret and be anxious to recall charges 
 which are equally injurious and unfounded. 
 
 The 7ih article of this chapter relates to the name of Jesus, from which 
 we make the following extract : 
 
 " Here a very important passage may be considered, which not only gives 
 information on the honour proper to the name of Christ, but comprehends 
 a full v'leiv of a subject which has an intimate relation to our inquiry, the 
 Mediatorial kingdom of Christ. * Wherefore also God hath highly 
 exalted him, and hath bestowed upon him the nam a which is above every 
 name ; that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow, of heavenly and 
 earthly and infernal beings ; and that every tongue may confess that Jesus 
 Christ is the Lord, unto the glory of God the Father.' . . . The ohject or 
 thing bestowed, is the transcendant exaltation, tlie name of dignity and au- 
 thority above every created name. This object appears to compreliend 
 several important particulars : and the termination of the period of the 
 Messiah's humbled condition ... ii. The renewed manifestation of his 
 Divine Perfections and Majesty to holy intelligences : the name u'h'ich is 
 above every name, iii.^ The acknowledgment, on the part of the intelligent; 
 universe, celestial and'human, in the present state, and in the state of the 
 dead, of his supremacy and authority ... iv. In the respect which this 
 exaltation has to the human nature, faculties, and enjoyments of the Mes- 
 siah, it probably includes the following as principal circumstances : (1) His 
 resurrection from the dead, (2) His being locally translated to . . . heaven 
 ... (3) The possession of the highest perfection, natural and moral, of 
 which created existence is susceptible. (4; The especial and unparalleled 
 dignity, happiness, and delight, resulting to the human nature, in all its ca- 
 pacities and feelings, from its conjunction with the Divine Nature of Christ; 
 a union immortal, unique, and intimate, beyong all created capacity to con- 
 ceive. V. The possession of a peculiar kingdom or reign." — Script. Test. 
 Vol. HI. pp. 250—253. 
 
 Now all this is little better than pure fancy ; and it is a most character- 
 istic specimen of that unjustifiable refinement on the words of Scripture, by 
 grafting upon them our own thoughts and opinions, for which Dr. S. is 
 remarkable as a commentator. It cannot be needful for us to point out 
 how many distinct particulars have nothing at ail answering to them in the 
 text, but in opposition to such strange perversion, it may be useful for us 
 to explain what we take to be the full, real, and simple meaning of the 
 Apostle. " Wherefore," i. e. as the reward of his humility and volun- 
 tary submission to suffering, " also God hath highly exalted him, and 
 bestowed upon him that name* which is above every name." Name 
 here stands for title, dignity, like the corresponding word in Hebrew 
 and Latin : examples of the usage are given by Wetstein, Schleusner, 
 and others. " That at the name of Jesus every knee may bow." 
 Dr. S., like Mr. Belsham, after Seeker, translates iv tS oi/o>aTi T/jcrs, 
 " in the name of Jesus," of which version we think Mr. Belsham 's note 
 expresses the true sense : " that men should be taught by Jesus the worship 
 
 * To ovo[A.oc TO, K. T. X. *' that name," which we here adopt from Grie-sbacli, 
 may be the true reading, though supported only by Alexandrine authorities and, 
 perhaps, just the sort of verbal nicety to have originated iu that recension. It does 
 not, however, alter the sense of the passage. 
 
 L 
 
90 
 
 of the true God :" but surely £v, answering to the Hebrew 2, here signities 
 at, and the intention is not literally to require the act specified, the per- 
 formance of which in these times is absurd, if not idolatrous, but to express 
 the authority of Jesus over his church, by the mention of a usual sign 
 among oriental nations, of supreme authority, namely, bendino; the knee 
 as an act of homage on the name being proclaimed. (Vid. Bloomfield, 
 Rec. Syn. in loc.) " Of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things 
 under the earth ;" or better with Mr. B., according to the generally-ac- 
 knowledged sense, " of those who are in heaven, and upon the earth, and 
 under the earth," understood by most modern commentators " of angels, 
 of men now living, and of departed men ;" more probably, perhaps, signi- 
 fying " in whatever state they may hitherto have been with respect to re- 
 ligious privileges and knowledge." " And that every tongue may confess 
 that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." These last 
 words teach plainly enough that whilst Christ was to be honoured and ac- 
 knowledoed as a Prince and a Saviour, he was not to be thought of as equal 
 with God his Father, by whom his dignity was conferred, and whose glory 
 was displayed in his elevation. In reading the whole passage, we find it 
 £0 strongly expressing those opinions which we receive as scriptural and 
 true — that the exaltation of Christ is derived from the Father's power, and 
 acknowledged to his glory — as to be led to inquire with some curiosity how 
 it could happen to be quoted in support of opposite doctrines, and the re- 
 sult of our reflection on the subject leads us to notice a very common fal- 
 lacy which we must attribute to Dr. S. He never appears to us to make it 
 his consideration, whether a text necessarily implies or directly teaches a 
 certain doctrine ; but, svpposing the truth of the doctrine, how it will 
 apply to the text. He sets out with a general conviction that his views 
 are scriptural, and then applies as certain truths to the interpretation o? each 
 passage what he supposes that he has found in a number of others, though 
 when distinct assertions are required, he is unable to produce them. His 
 general convictions, which 7nay not— for he is, like all men, liable to preju- 
 dice — have been originally derived from the study of the Scriptures, but 
 from education and the influences of those around him, constitute the 
 chief reason for the application he makes of each text, and suggest those 
 strained and fanciful philological criticisms, and those developments of the 
 supposed sense of a passage in which so many matters are introduced, un- 
 connected with the v\ords, that we wonder whence they were obtained, or 
 \Ahy they were placed where they stai.d rather than any where else, which 
 characterize his work. On the contrary, the true method of scriptuial in- 
 vestigation appears to be, as we read the successive portions of the Sacred 
 Volume, to observe what each book and each remarkable passage teaches, 
 considered in itself alone, or with reference only to other plainer uses of 
 the same phraseology, or expressions of the same thoughts, and having 
 thus arrived at a general conclusion, to interpret the ambiguous or difficult 
 passages in conformity wiih those which are liable to no misapprehension. 
 Hcd Dr. S. pursued this method, he would hardly, we presume to think, 
 either have thought so much to be derived from many passages he has 
 quoted, or, in what professts to be a collection of a// the testimonies of 
 Scripture respecting the person of Christ, have omitted so many of those 
 which are most intelligible and most decisive. 
 
 Conscious as we are of having already exceeded the limits which con- 
 venience would prescribe for this paper, we must say a few words on Dr. 
 
91 
 
 S.'s mode of treating tliat celebrated text, considered as " the principal passage 
 in Paul's Epistles which treats on the Deity of Christ,"* (Rom. ix. 5,) and 
 which certainly appears to be valued in proportion to the rarity of such a sup- 
 posed testimony by all the defenders of the doctrine. Dr. S. has taken due 
 pains to guard against the supposition of the word God not being genuine, 
 as well as against the conjectural emendation of Slichtingius and' Taylor, 
 which we lament to see adopted by Mr. Belsham, of uv o "instead of 6 uv. 
 Thus far he has our entire concurrence, as well as that, we suppose, of 
 nearly the whole body of Unitarians in the present day. The question is, 
 whether the words in the text, as they now stand, clearly and unambiguously 
 express or teach the doctrine of the deity of Christ. The Unitarians con- 
 tend that the words maij indeed be so explained without gramrnatical im- 
 propriety, but that they may as well be explained differently, and that no 
 early Christian could have thought of so taking them as to make them ex- 
 press this doctrine. It is, and it must be to serve their purpose, insisted on 
 the other side that the words will properly admit of no other construction 
 than that which makes them expressive of the doctrine. We shall spend 
 no time in considering the plan adopted by Mr. Locke, of placing the point 
 after -navTuv, because, though he may have shewn his accustomed sagacity 
 in discovering the Apostle's general meaning in the passage, it is now 
 pretty well agreed that the construction he supposes would not be a good 
 one ; and the other being esteemed most plausible by our adversaries, we 
 may, with perfect fairness, confine our attention to it. 
 
 We translate the words then — " Whose are the fathers, and of whom is 
 Christ, as it respects the flesh," i. e, as to his descent. " God who is over 
 all be blessed for ever. Amen," To this it is objected by Dr. S,, first, 
 that *' it is an evasion to serve a purpose ; for every Greek scholar must 
 admit that the fair and just construction of the sentence is that which is 
 generally received." We admit nothing of the kind. Many of those 
 whose opinion we adopt are usually esteemed Greek scholars, and Wet- 
 stein's quotations seem to prove, beyond contradiction, that in the earliest 
 times our construction was generally followed. That the Fathers after- 
 wards, with the growing corruption of the Church, came to patronise the 
 construction now generally received, is nothing to the purpose, since we do 
 not deny it to be grammatically good, nor do we doubt the disposition of 
 those Fathers to find or make evidence for the deity of Christ ; but the 
 numerous testimonies against Christ having ever been called in scripture 
 " God over all," shew how the words were understood by those whose au- 
 thority is most valuable. Secondly, it is objected that our construction " is 
 contrary to grammatical propriety, for o &'j/ must refer to xhe foregoing noun 
 as the subject, while that which follows is the predicate ; except in cases in 
 which there is no preceding nominative, but the article contains the predi- 
 cate and becomes in effect a pronoun. To render the construction tenable, 
 the form of the sentence must have been considerably different;" either, it 
 
 is added in a note, 'O §£ 0£O? o av CTrt itdvTo^v fOXoyvjT^^ dq rovq alSvaq OF 
 
 EvXoyyjToi; o ©eo? o av c'tt* itoLvravy bU rovq alZvocq, whereas the present words 
 
 are 'O av eiii Ttdvrav &£oq £vXoyrjrh(; elq rovq aluvat;. It is supposed, then, that 
 
 another article is required, that Qeot; ought to be be placed before o in) 
 iravTuv, and that the o av coming as it does first, must necessarily refer to 
 the nominative in the preceding clause ; and, lastly, that svXoyvjThi; ought, on 
 
 * Michaelis, Aumerkungeii., apud Smith, Script. Test. Vo^ III. p. 377. 
 
92 
 
 our supposition, to come first in the sentence. To prove that another 
 article is not required, (which indeed Dr. Middleton does not contend for, 
 only suggesting as the more probable expression of the sense we contend 
 for, EvXoyriThc, o ccv eit) itavrav @soq tlq rovi; alSvccc;,) we quote from Philo, p. 
 860, Ed. 1640, (apud Middleton,) rov ivoo^ dXyjQsiccv ovto? @eov • Clem. Rom. 
 ad Cor. Cap. xxxii. a 'jtccyro-nparcop 0£o?. The first is a case precisely in 
 point ; and in the second, itavroKparap is equivalent with &'v Itt} Travrccv. No 
 doubt ifBeoq had been placed firsts it would havejiad a separate article, and 
 the clause would have resembled, for instance, that of the Epistle of Barna- 
 bas, 'O 0£O$ Tcavroq rov y.O(Tuov Kvpisvuv, Savj tJ/xtj/, k. t. X. ; but there is no 
 
 ground whatever for asserting that such an arrangement is necessary lo give 
 the sense, or would be on any account preferabfe in the present instance. 
 Again, that o av must refer to a nominative in the preceding sentence, 
 whenever there is one, is altogether an arbitrary assertion, and a rule made 
 for the occasion. When it is at the beginning of a sentence, it refers of 
 course to a nominative following, of v/hich there are many examples in the 
 New Testament. The question is whether, in the example before us, it 
 does begin a sentence or not, which would in general be very easily de- 
 termined by the connexion, as we think that it may be in this instance. 
 Lastly, before it is asserted that EuXoynThi; must stand first for the proper ex- 
 pression of what we take to be the sense of the passage, let it be considered 
 that there is one clear example in the LXX., Ps. Ixviii. 19, (which Dr. S. 
 vainly endeavours to set aside by an unfounded attack on the text,) of 
 EvXcyriTh<; coming last in a doxology, and that in all the instances in the Old 
 Testament there is but one in which al(; rov aluva. is appended to EyXoyfizU, 
 and there only o 0£o? comes between them. On the other hand, in the 
 New Testament, the words EvAoyfiTlc, tU roy^ aluvaq occur three times, always 
 immediately following one another; and if they had been here separated, it 
 must have been not by one, but several words, which would have been a 
 harsh construction ; there appears, therefore, to be a sufficient reason for 
 the somewhat unusual position of eOXoy/jTo? on our construction, and it can- 
 not be affirmed that it violates any rule. Middleton, indeed, puts the ob- 
 jection to it very modestly ; but Dr. S., in copying him, has not thought it 
 necessary to observe the same caution. We would add here, that o k^c) 
 irdvrav being a recognized title of the " Supreme God," expressly appro- 
 priated by the early Christian writers to the Father , the grammatical am- 
 biguity would cause no doubt in any mind as to the true sense, until after 
 the structure of modern orthodoxy had been nearly completed by a corrupt 
 age. Mr. Yates justly appeals to the remarkable imitation of the passage, 
 by Clem. Rom. ad Cor. Cap. xxxii., where even the words " from him, 
 (meaning Jacob,) as concerning the flesh, (rb xara a-doKa,) came the Lord 
 Jesus," are found, but where the doxology is omitted as having no connex- 
 ion with the other part, a decisive proof how the text was understood in a 
 very early age, since it is hardly conceivable that Clement should not have 
 added the final clause, or something to the same purpose, if he had thought 
 it applicable to Christ. 
 
 But farther, and finally. Dr. S. " conceives that there is reason in the ob- 
 servation that the clause, as it respects the fleshy is one part of an antithesis, 
 the other member of which is to be sought in the sequel of the paragraph," 
 There is truly a sort of antithesis, but the other member is here, as in ver. 3 
 of the same chapter, to be sought in the Apostle's mind, and in the minds of 
 his readers. He speaks of " his kinsmen according to the flesh" in contrast 
 with his spiritual relationship to all Christians. He describes the Lord Jesus 
 
93 
 
 as descended from the Israelites, "according to the flesh," in contrast with 
 his appointment to be the Son of God tvith power^ according to the spirit 
 of holiness, or holy spirit. See Rom. i. 3, 4, and the Monthly Repos. New 
 Series, Vol. IV. pp. 661—664. 
 
 We are now obliged to bring this critique to a conclusion. It is our hope 
 that our remarks are calculated to assist the honest inquirer in justly esti- 
 mating a work which is esteemed one of the bulwarks of orthodoxy. Dr. S. 
 himself we regard with respect, both on account of the learning and abiHty 
 he has displayed, and of the spirit which he often manifests. For all, and 
 it is not a little, which he has said kindly, hberally, and as became a Chris- 
 tian, of our body and our supposed errors, we sincerely thank him ; and if, 
 when we have met with uncandid reflections, with unfounded and injurious 
 accusations, we have presumed to hold the language of rebuke, we have 
 done so not in anger against him, but in justice to our fellow-believers and 
 our friends, in defence of what we are fully convinced is Christian truth and 
 the grand means for the promotion of human happiness, which we hope 
 will appear to him and to others a sufficient apology. 
 
 ERRATUM. 
 Page 88, line 37, the first word, for " and" read or. 
 
 M 
 
CATALOGUE OF BOOKS 
 
 Distributed by the British and Foreign Unitarian Association in 
 the Year 1832, at their Office, No. 3, Walbrook Buildings, 
 Walbrooki London, 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT, in an Improved Version, upon the Basis of Arch- 
 bishop Nevvcome's New Translation, with a corrected Text, and Notes Critical and 
 Explanatory. The fourth edition, corrected to Griesbach's last Text, with addi- 
 tional Notes. Super Royal 8vo. \L bs. 
 
 The Same. Demy 12mo., with the Introduction and the Critical and Explana- 
 tory Notes, but omitting the Various Readings. 7s. 
 
 ASPLAND'S (Rev. R.) Sermon on the Power of Truth. Is. 
 
 A New Way of Deciding Old Controversies. By BASANISTES. 8vo. 5*. 
 
 BELS HAM'S (Rev. THOMAS) Translation and Exposition of Paul's Epistles. 
 4 Vols. 8 vo. 1/. 5^. 
 
 ■ Sermon on the Death of the Rev. T. Lindsey. Ad. 
 
 The Bampton Lecturer Reproved. 8vo. Boards. 
 
 66'. 
 
 — Sermon on the Act to relieve Persons who im- 
 pugn the Doctrine of the Trinity. 6d. 
 
 Essay on the Character and Writings of. 8vo. 
 
 2*. 
 
 CARPENTER'S (Dr.) Unitarians' Appeal, with the Texts. Id. 
 
 Catechism of the Unitarian Churches of Poland : to which is prefixed a History 
 of Unitarianism on the Continent. By THOMAS REES, LL.D. F. S.A. 12mo. 
 Boards. 5*. 
 
 CHANNING'S (Dr. W. E.) Sermon preached before the Governor, Lieutenant- 
 Governor, Council, and Legislature of Massachusetts at the Annual Election, May 
 26, 1830. 1^. 
 
 CLARK'S Answer to the Question, '* Why are you a Christian ?" 4d. 
 
 COGAN'S (Dr.) Letters to W. Wilberforce, Esq., on the Doctrine of Hereditary 
 Depravity. 2^. 
 
 DE LUC'S (JEAN ANDRE) Examen de la Doctrine des Ecritures touchant la 
 Personue de J6sus Christ. 8*. 
 
 DISNEY'S Sermons. Vols. III. and IV. Boards. 10*. 
 
 Three Tracts in Vindication of the Worship of One God. Is. 6d. 
 
 DRUMMOND'S (Rev. Dr.) Discourse — " Reason the Handmaid of Religion" 
 
 (delivered before the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, 1829). 1*. 
 
 Letters to Archbishop Magee — " Unitarianism no 
 
 feeble and conceited Heresy." 1*. 6d. 
 
 Elton versus Elton ; or Mr. Elton's Second Thoughts answered by his First. 
 (Extracted from the Christian Reformer.) Is. 
 
 EMLYN'S (Rev. THOMAS) Narrative of his Sufferings at Dublin for his Writ- 
 ings against the Trinity. 1*. 
 
 FARMER'S Dissertation on Miracles. 4*. 6d. 
 
 on the Demoniacs of the New Testament. 3*. 6d. 
 
 — — on the Nature and Design of Christ's Temptation. 2s, 
 
Catalogue of Boohs, 
 
 First Principles of Religion, in the form of a Catechism for Young Children. 2d. 
 FLOWER'S Answer to the Inquiry, Why are you a Dissenter ? 2d, 
 FOX'S (Rev. W. J.) Sermons on the Mission, Character, and Doctrine of Jesus 
 Christ. 2 Vols. 14^. 
 
 — — ^ Sermon, "The Claims of the Poor on the Followers of 
 
 Christ." 3f/. 
 
 FURNESS'S Genius of Christianity. Zd. 
 
 GIFFORD'S (Capt. JAMES, R. N.) Remonstrance of an Unitarian : addressed 
 to Bishop Burgess. 3*. 
 
 GREENWOOD'S Lives of the Twelve Apostles. 2*. 6d. 
 HARRIS'S (Rev. G.) Sermon on Christian Worship. Ad. 
 
 Antichrist, what it is, and what it is not. 1.?. 
 
 HARTLEY (Dr.) On the Truth of the Christian Religion. 12mo. Boards. 
 
 1*. 6d. 
 
 HAYNES'S Scripture Account of the Attributes of God, and of the Character 
 and Offices of Jesus Christ. 4*. 6d. 
 
 HINCKS'S (Rev. W.) Discourse on the Importance and Universal Diffusion of 
 Truth. 1*. 
 
 Hundred Scriptural Arguments for the Unitarian Faith. 3d. 
 
 HURLBUT'S Presumptive Arguments in Favour of Unitarianism. 6d. 
 
 HUTTON'S (Dr. J.) Discourse on the False Accusations against Unitarianism 
 (delivered before the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, 1828). \s. 
 
 JOYCE'S Analysis of Paley's Evidences. 1*. 
 
 KENRICK'S (Rev. J.) Discourse on the Obstacles to the Diffusion of Unitari- 
 anism (preached before the Association, 1827). 1*. 
 
 KENTISH'S Accomplished Teacher of Religion (a Funeral Sermon for Mv, 
 Belsham). 1*. 6d. 
 
 LARDNER'S (Dr.) Counsels of Prudence for Young Persons. Ad. 
 
 Two Schemes of the Trinity, and the Divine Unity Asserted. 
 
 \s, 6d, 
 
 LAW'S (Bishop of Carlisle) Reflections on the Life and Character of Christ; 
 with an Essay on the Nature and End of Death under the Christian Covenant. 
 18mo. 1*. 6d. 
 
 Letters to a Protestant Divine in Defence of Unitarianism. By ANOTHER 
 BARRISTER. New Edition, containing Five Letters. Boards. ISs. 6d. 
 
 Fifth Letter (separate). 3^. 
 
 LINDSEY'S (Rev. T.) Apology on resigning the Vicarage of Catterick. 3*. 
 
 Catechist ; or an Inquiry into the Doctrine of the Scrip- 
 tures concerning the only true God, and Object of Religious Worship. 2s. 
 
 MANNING'S (Rev. JAMES) Vindication of Dissent, extracted from the Writ- 
 ings and in the Words of many eminent Divines of the Established Church. 2*. 
 
 MARTINEAU'S (Miss) Essential Faith of the Universal Church j addressed to 
 Catholics. 2*. 
 
 The Faith, as unfolded by many Prophets ; addressed to 
 
 Mohammedans. 2*. 6d. 
 
 Providence as manifested through Israel ; addressed to 
 
 tlie Jews. 3*. 
 
 MERIVALE'S (Rev. S.) Prayers for Individuals. 8d. 
 
 MILLS'S Letters on the Satisfaction of Christ. 1^. 6d. 
 
 MILTON'S Last Thoughts on the Trinity (extracted from his Treatise on the 
 Christian Doctrine). Boards. 2*. 
 
 Monthly Repository, New Series, Vol. I. 1827, VoL 11. 1828, Vol. III. 1829, 
 Vol. IV. 1830, Vol. V. 1831. Each 18*. 
 
 MORELL'S (Dr. J.) Discourse on the Connexion between the Unitarian Doc- 
 trine and the Paternal Crovernment of God. l,y. 
 
Catalogue of Books. 
 
 NEWTON'S (Sir I.) Historical Account of two Notable Corruptions of Scrip- 
 ture : reprinted from the edition of his Works by Bishop Horsley. 8vo. Boards. 
 
 PENN'S Sandy Foundation Shaken. 12mo. M. 
 
 Prayers for the Use of Families, &c. 2.s. 
 
 PRICE'S Four Dissertations on Providence, Prayer, &c. 8vo. 5.9. 
 
 PRIESTLEY'S (Dr.) Tracts in Controversy with Bishop Horsley ; with Notes 
 by the Editor ; and a Review of the Controversy, in Four Letters to the Bishops, 
 by the Author. 10*. M. 
 
 Appeal to the Serious Professors of Christianity, ^d. 
 
 ^- General View of the Arguments for the Unity of Cod. 4c?. 
 
 Familiar Illustration of certain Passages of Scripture. 8c?. 
 
 Memoirs of. 2 Vols. 8vo. 10*. 
 
 Memoirs of. 12mo. Extra boards. Is. 
 
 Questions to Trinitarians. Per Dozen, 6c?. 
 
 Rise, Progress, and present Influence of Methodism. 1*. 6c?. 
 
 ROBBERDS'S (Rev. J. G.) Two Sermons :— " The Duty of Christians," &c., 
 and " Christian the best Name," &c. Zd. 
 
 ROBINSON'S (ROBERT) Morning Exercises. 8^. 
 
 ROGERS'S (Rev. G., Rector of Sproughton) Five Sermons. A new edit. 1j. > 
 
 SCOTT'S (Rev. R.) Discourse against Coercion in Supporting the Religion of 
 Jesus. 6g?. 
 
 Serious Address to unlearned Christians on the Trinity. M. 
 
 Sermons: viz. Dr. Price's Sermons on the Security of a virtuous Course; the 
 Happiness of a virtuous Course ; and the Resurrection of Lazarus. — Dr. Priestley's 
 Sermons on the Importance and Extent of Free Inquiry in Matters of Religion ; Ha- 
 bitual Devotion; the Duty of not Living to Ourselves; and the Danger of Bad Ha- 
 bits. 12mo. Boards. 2*. 6c?. 
 
 SMITH (Dr. SOUTHWOOD) On the Divine Government. Is. 6d. 
 
 TAYLER'S (Rev. J. J.) Discourse on the Perpetuity of the Christian Dispensa- 
 tion (preached before the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, 1830). 1*. 
 
 TAYLOR'S (Dr. JOHN) Defence of the Common Rights of Christians. 1*. 
 
 TOWNSEND'S (Rev. JOSIAH) Catechism. 4d. 
 
 TREMLET^rS Six Services for Public Worship. 1*. 
 
 Trinitarian Catechized. 3d. 
 
 Triumph of Truth ; being an Account of the Trial of Mr. Elwall. 2c?. 
 
 Two Tracts on the Study of the Scriptures. By A LADY. 2d. 
 
 TYRWHITl^ on the Creation of all Things by Jesus Christ, &c. 2d. 
 
 Unitarians' Creed. Ic?. 
 
 WArrS'S (Dr.) Last Thoughts on the Trinity. 1*. 
 
 WATTS'S (Rev. G.) Beauties of Solomon. 1*. 6d. 
 
 WAWNE (Rev. G. B.) on Unitarian Christianity, compared with reputed Or- 
 thodoxy. 2c?. 
 
 WELLBELOVED'S (Rev. C.) Sermon—" Unitarians not guilty of denying the 
 Lord that bought them." 1*. 6d. 
 
 WORCESTER'S Atoning Sacrifice. 3*. 6d. 
 
 WRIGHT'S (Rev. R.) Essay, " Christ Crucified." 1*. 6d. 
 
 YATES'S (Rev. JAMES) Vindication of Unitariamsm ; in Reply to Dr. Wardlaw. 
 8*. 
 
 Sequel to Ditto. 3*. 
 
 G. SMALLFIELD, PRINTER, HACKNEY. 
 
:^? 
 
i 
 
v.* 
 
 %^< 
 
 »• 
 
 '.»■»