εν

By

29. Mr. S. also argues in favour
of the identity of the agency at
tributed to Christ in the 16th and
in the 20th verses, from the use
of the same preposition "by" in
our English version; when he
must have recollected, that in the
original is used in the former,
and in the latter clause. This
variation, though it does not de-
stroy the force of the argument,
yet deserved to be noted.
"things in heaven" Mr. S. sup-
poses are meant, Jews, and by
"things in earth," Gentiles. The
passages, quoted to illustrate this
meaning of the words, certainly
prove no such application; for
though by "new heavens and new
earth," in Isaiah, is probably in-
tended the flourishing state of the
christian church, in which Jews
and Gentiles are included, we have
never yet seen any passage which
decisively shows, that Gentiles are
ever described under the figure of
the earth, or Jews under that of
heaven.

deavours, though with no peculiar ingenuity, to obviate the proofs from other texts of Christ's omnipresence. The passages which are adduced to prove the eternity and immutability of Christ are examined in the two next sections, and in the seventh the power which our Saviour exercised on earth of forgiving sins is discussed with much learning and acuteness. The distinction is pointed out between

find, that Paul caufed the fins of Elymas, the forcerer, to be retained, by fixing blindness upon him, for labouring to turn away the deputy from the faith. This was the extent of the Apostle's power to forgive and retain fins. This therefore was all that Christ himself poffeffed, while here on earth. For he told them, that, as the Father had fent him, fo he commissioned them; i. e. with the fame power to forgive and retain fins which he poffeffed. There can be no queftion then, that, by forgiving the fins of the paralytick,our Lord meant nothing more

Op the original of John xx. 28. Mr. S. makes the following observation :

Both xugos and Jos, Lord and God, are in the nominative, and require fome verb to fucceed, in order to make sense. to God, is, indeed, often used, for the vocative. But we have never feen an believed,that there is no example of it in inftance of this ufe of xugios Lord. It is the fcriptures.

What does Mr. S. think of John

ο κύριος

? He had better also have forborn to supply, what he supposes to be the ellipsis in this exclamation of Thomas.

than healing him of his diforder, taking xiii. 13. ύμεις φωνειτε με, ὁ διδασκαλος, και away the confequence of that intemperance, of which he had been guilty. Hence our Lord replies to the malicious wrefting of his words by the Pharifees, Whether is it easier to fay, Thy fins be for given thee? or to fay, Arife and walk? i. e. What matter is it about the expreffions, which we ufe, if they are but in telligible? Which best conveys the idea of cure, to say in the language of the prophets, which you cannot but underftand, Thy fins be forgiven thee? or to say in plain common language, Arife and walk? Surely you difplay a captious difpofition in cavilling about words. But, that ye may know that the Son of man bath authority on the earth to forgive fins, to take away the diseases which come upon men for their fins, then faith be to the fick of the pally, Arife, take up thy bed, and go into thine boufe. p. 60.

The eighth section contains a very full discussion of the use of the word worship in the Old and NewTestament, in order to prove, what we believe no one will deny, that "there is nothing in the word for itself, which confines it to divine homage. The kind of homage implied in any particular instance is to be decided by the circumstances under which it is paid." P. 62.

The next section is employed in examining several important texts, in which names and titles appropriated to God appear to be given to Christ. We have not room to pass every criticism in review before us; a few remarks on some erroneous suppositions of Mr. S. may not be unprofitable.

Jerem. xxiii. 6. "His name shall be called Jehovah our righteousness." On this appellation Mr. S. observes, “Christ is here called, in Hebrew, Jehovah-T'sidkenu. Abraham, that Father of the faithful, called the mount, on which he was to sacrifice his Son, Jehovah-Jireh. Moses built an altar and called it JEHOVAH Nissi Gideon built an altar and called it JEHOVAH-Shallum. Yea, when David brought up the ark, from the house of Obededom, to the city of David, he styles it, in his song on the occasion, both God and Jehovah; God is gone up with a shout, the Lord (Heb. Jehovah) with the sound of the trumpet. Thus evident is it, that Jehovah is not a name appropriated only to the supreme God." Here we think the zeal of the author has rather overleaped his good sense, and led him to express himself inaccurately. If any thing is plain from the Old Testament, it is, that the title Jehovah can in strictness of speech be given to none but the only true God. Because it is sometimes used in composition with other words, as in the instances above cited, to con stitute a name, it cannot with any more propriety be said, that per

sons or things thus nominated are called Jehovah, than that the city Elizabethtown is called Elizabeth. Surely also it cannot be supposed by any person, who attends to the subject, that, in the passage which Mr. S. has quoted from Psalm xlvii., the ark is called either God or Jehovah.

We are also satisfied that the author is mistaken in his interpretation of Isaiah viii. 14. compared with 1 Pet. ii. 8; but we can only refer him to a most valuable note of the learned James Peirce, on Heb. ii. 13., and also to Dodson on this passage in Isaiah; for the limits of our review, and perhaps others will say of our knowledge, do not allow us to expatiate in elaborate criticism, and copious illustration.

"We now proceed to examine," says Mr. S. in the next section, "such passages as are said to indicate or imply two natures in Christ, a divine and human nature." After stating the arguments in favour of the reading in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Mr. S. offers the following translation of a passage, which, we believe, will forever excruciate the wit of the antitrinita rian.

Indeed openly proclaimed to all ranks and defcriptions is the fublime mystery of

godlinefs, which has been made known to mortal man, substantiated by miraculous atteftations, revealed to infpired meffengers, preached to the nations, credited by the world, embraced with joyful exultation.

Mr. S. must pardon us for our opinion, that he derives not his principal credit from his original attempts at Greek criticism. He makes several remarks to justify his unnecessary and paraphrastick version of oxymas, a word to which confessedly in English exactly corresponds.

Everage (in Mr. S.'s version, to mortal man) cannot be justified by any parallel passage in scripture, and hardly by the Greek idiom; wp0n is never used in the passive to express the disclosure of truths to the understanding; and finally, it is too much to say that the verb αναλαμβάνω no more signifies to receive up, than it does to receive down." Though its classical use is undoubtedly extensive, yet in the New Testament it is repeatedly used to signify the assumption of Jesus into heaven. Indeed whether, or os, or bos be the true reading in this celebrated text, we think every impartial theologian must confess that the subsequent clauses can be properly applied to a person only, and to no person but Jesus Christ.

Mr. S. conjectures that him is the true reading in Zach. xii. 10. He might have added, that Kennicott assures us it is found in forty Hebrew MSS. to which De Rossi has added the authority of several editions.

On the celebrated prediction of the birth of Jesus in Isaiah vii. 14. we have much to observe, but this is not the place for our remarks. We will only suggest, that if this prediction, as Mr. S. supposes, does not relate to the birth of Christ, there is no literal predic tion of his birth in the Old Testa ment. It is true that many illus cism, among whom we may mentrious names in scriptural critition Grotius, support Mr. S. in his opinion; but it should be recollected, that they also maintained a double sense of the prophecy, whereas Mr. S. with Porphyry, the modern Jews, and the subtile Collins not only contends that the name Immanuel belongs only to the child which the prophetess of that time was to conceive, but far

ther supposes that the evangelist in Matth. i. 23. does not mean to

apply it in any sense, as a predic tion of the birth of Jesus. Mr. S. ventures also to intimate his doubt whether Isaiah ix. 6, 7. has any reference to Christ. We are fully sensible of the difficulties, which attend the application of prophecies under the old dispensation to characters and events in the new, but we are not yet prepared to give up these capital predictions, though they have always perplexed the apologist for christianity, as well as the controversialist. We think also that a more full and accurate account of the · variations of the different versions in this latter passage might have been expected.

Section twelfth, upon the pluralisms applied to God in the Old Testament, and section thirteenth, upon the appearances of what is called the angel of the Lord, are written with much ability; and a consideration of two very popular objections, in section fourteenth, closes this part of the work. In answer to the question what atonement can there be, if Christ be not verily the supreme God, Mr. S. has the following observations.

Did the fuppofed divine nature become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross? Did divinity itself suffer? Our opponents do not pretend it. This is true only of the man Chrift Jefus. Whatever virtue in his obedience unto death, must therefore be the virtue of the man Christ Jefus only.

But, fay our opponents, the union of divinity to the humanity conferred an infinite dignity upon the fufferings of the human nature, and rendered them infinitely precious, fo as to amount, in effect, to the eternal fufferings of the whole human race. Thus Chrift fatisfied the demands of justice, in the room and stead of our apoftate world.

The doctrine that the union of the divinity to humanity conferred an infinite

dignity upon the sufferings of the human nature, is only an imagination of their own brain; for the fcriptures fay nothing of this abfurdity. They fay nothing of the virtue of his fufferings being enhanced by any fuch connexion. If the union of Deity to humanity rendered the humanity any thing different from mere humanity; if it raised it beyond its natural dignity to the dignity of God; why may we not conclude, that it rendered it impoffible, incapable of fuffering? This, in the days of the apoftles, was the conclufion of certain metaphyfical reasoners. And it may be as well inferred, from the confideration of the union of Deity to humanity, that Chrift must have been impaffible, as that the fufferings of the man Chrift Jefus were infinitely more than human fufferings.

It was, fay our opponents, a divine perSon, who fuffered; and therefore these fufferings were precious, in proportion to the dignity of the perfonage fuffering. They will have it that it was GOD, who died on the cross.

That Christ was really the infinite God, is a doctrine not known in the scriptures. Befides, may we not turn the tables and fay, that God's hungering and thirsting, in the human nature, after earthly food, was infinitely derogatory from the dig nity of the divine nature, as to affirm, that God's fuffering on the cross, in the human nature, conferred an infinite dignity upon that, and rendered its fufferings inconceivably more precious, than merely human fufferings? Sufferings furely denote great weakness, want of strength, and dignity of nature. And, fince the infinite God fuffered, he must be very weak, impotent, and devoid of dignity.

fentation? Will they fay that these things Do our opponents dislike this repreare true only of the human nature, the man Chrift Jefus? Then let them not confound things which they themselves diftinguifh. Let them acknowledge, that the fufferings of the man Chrift Jefus were clothed with no other than merely human dignity; and were no more precious than merely human fufferings. Let them look out for fome more fcriptural and rational doctrine of atonement: For there is, clearly, no more ability in the man Chrift Jefus to fatisfy divine juftice, upon their scheme, than upon ours, P. 142.

The second part is introduced by the following statement,