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 judgmentseat of Christ,' the Apostle Paul undeniably cites and argues from this passage; It is written, As I live saith the Lord, unto me every knee shall bow ; and every tongue shall render acknowledgment to God; so then every one of us shall give 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 acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."" (Phil. ii. 10, 11.)

From Dr. S.'s own pages 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, and generally adopted by his followers, is perspicuously stated by Dr. Priestley. The judgmentseat 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, which 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 assertion the difficulty 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 obvious, 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 proving 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 assertion. The explanation, it seems, is advanced to serve a purpose: the same may be 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 attributes to his opponent. Far-fetched often has reference only to the established associations of the person using the term, as obvious may only signify 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 equally 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 account 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 whom 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 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 which 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 continued 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 Immanuel, Isa. vii. 14; Maher-shalal-hash-baz, Isa. viii. 1; Ariel, Isa. xxix. 1; Magor-Missabib, Jer. xx. 3; El-Elohe-Israel, God, the God of Israel, the name of an altar, Gen. xxxiii. 20; Jehovah-nissi, Jehovah my banner, Exod. xvii. 15, an altar so called by Moses; Jehovah-shalom, Jehovah of peace,

• Griesbach places ɛe in his inner margin with the secondary mark of probability (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 prefers the reading of the received text, as belonging both to the Alexandrine aud Byzantine recensions, and probably because he thought that Ose 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 Xage was written instead of Oce, in imitation of 2 Cor. v. 10, Teùs yàp пártas juäs φανερωθῆναι δεῖ ἔμπροσθεν το βήματος το Χριςό; that the Western recension, however much to be distrusted respecting changes dependent on the mere substitution 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 the balance of probability rather inclines in favour of the reading Oɛɛ.

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 nature 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 consideration 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 should think this the very reason why the promise of righteousness or justification from God through him should be expressed, as being of eminent importance, by a descriptive name. But, perhaps, Dr. S. means by justification being 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 righteousness, 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, and sanctification;" 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 GOD 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 distinguished 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 refutation. In the book of Revelation, the visionary scenes of which are every where expressed in language imitating, or borrowed from, the ancient prophets, 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.”

66

Hence it is expected we should be ready to believe 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 was 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 different forms are applied to many instances of conjunction, indwelling, and union, the most near and intimate that can erist amongst men. Upon these grounds it is submitted as a fair and rational 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, relationship, dignity, or 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 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 Micah, which is treated of in the xxviith Section, contains the words, (according to Dr. S.'s translation,) "whose comings 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,† 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 Jehovab. We hold it to be very evident that the Apostle John only accommodates to his purpose the words of Zechariah, as, according to the most judicious critics, he has done other passages of Scripture in the same narrative 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

ni ortus, origines ejus.

+p, the root, signifies to precede or go before; as a noun, what is before; as 1, the east, whence the sun seems to come; 2, former times, antiquity to an indefinite extent, but without the idea of eternity, except incidentally from the nature of the subject with which it is connected.

, eternity, indefinite duration, past or future, often signifying former times: thus nip', "the days of old," Deut. xxxii. 7; by Oy, "the people of former times," Ezek. xxvi. 20; b," as the dead of former tines," those who have been long dead, Psalm cxliii, 3, &c.

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 preferred 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 literally pierced, a sentiment which would have excited the indignation and horror of all his countrymen.

Section xxxi. Zech. xiii. 7. "Sword! 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 Newcome, "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 authority, and corresponds with my shepherd in the parallel line; one that rules his flock or people under me by virtue of my commission," and he quotes Calvin to the same purpose. The Hebrew word is explained in the lexicons a friend, neighbour, or companion. The radical meaning is participation, having something in common. Dr. S., as might be expected, contends for equality of rank and identity of nature. More modestly and justly Dr. Boothroyd:

"I adhere to the version, my fellow, because I think there is the same ambiguity in the term, as in the original: it may mean his intimate friend and associate;' one engaged in that work which his wisdom had planned from eternity; or it may signify the man who is at the same time a Divine person, my equal,' as enjoying the same 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 deity, and it is proof which we require.

We have now examined every text adduced by Dr. S. from the Old Testament, which, as translated and interpreted by him, contains any thing inconsistent with the Unitarian doctrine, and we submit our remarks to the inquiring and candid reader with great confidence as to the result. There may be a few passages which, supposing the Deity of Christ, and his participation in the peculiar and sacred 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 natural explanation on other principles, and the greater number may perhaps seem to be incapable of bearing 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 defenders of the Trinity, that no proof of that doctrine can be found in the Old Testament, but that nothing at all plausible can be thence produced in favour of the reputedly orthodox views respecting our Lord's person, and therefore that an examination of the evidence of the New 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 Testament, than he has had the opportunity of saying conformably with the plan he has adopted.

(To be continued.)