DR. J. P. SMITH'S SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY TO THE MESSIAH.

(Continued from p. 113.)

Section xiv. Psalm xlv. 2-8. The important words are in ver. 6, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever!"

any

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 inferior 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 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 figurative 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 argument from the everlasting duration ascribed to the kingdom of the person addressed is of no weight, being a common oriental idiom: thus, for example, in Nathan's prophecy to David respecting Solomon, 1 Chron. xvii. 11-14: "I 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 I will stablish his throne FOR 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 my kingdom for ever; and his throne shall be established for evermore." It is universally acknowledged that this magnificent, prophetic language was intended, and, according to the notions of the age and country, was 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 shewing how peculiarly God had promised to establish and support the throne of the prince to whom that passage, beyond all reasonable doubt, immediately referred; but supposing the common translation to be preferable, the use of the word God, in an inferior sense, is not unknown to Scripture, nor at variance with oriental idiom. It must be understood 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 unsuitable to his great descendant, and could not possibly imply any thing inconsistent with the unrivalled deity and perfect unity of the Supreme Being; indeed, any such abuse of the words is guarded against by the language 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 authority, and equality of rank with some human beings.

Referring to Mr. Belsham's statement," It is well known that the words of 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 disputed, 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, Grotius, Dr. Samuel Clarke, Pierce, Sykes, J. G. Rosenmüller, and Wakefield, not now to mention others, men certainly as competent to judge, and as little under the influence of prejudice, as any who have given an opinion on the subject; and 2dly, because, whilst the majority of commentators, adopting, in conformity with their own doctrinal views, the common construction, pass by this one without particular notice, those who have undertaken to give reasons against its grammatical propriety, have signally failed in their attempts.t

Dr. S. remarks, that Grotius "seems anxiously to avoid giving any construction, couteuting himself with saying, "the sense is." Does Dr. S. then mean to insinuate that this great critic affirmed that to be the sense of passage of Scripture which he knew could not be derived from the words? Such seems to be his meaning, but such a charge neither needs nor deserves an answer. Grotius gives a reasou why he thinks that the word "God" must, in this place, be understood of the Supreme Being himself, aud adds, "Sensus ergo est: Deus ipse est sedes tua perpetua." He perceived no difficulty in this construction: he considered the original 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 understanding the word God in its highest sense, a sufficient reason for not addressing it as a title to a created being. Dr. S. would, in like manner, detract from the value of the opinions on this point of Enjedin, Clarke, and Pierce the former only says "the words will admit of this explication:" possunt sic commodè explicari. And this, we answer, is all that is wanted, as no oue denies that they may be taken according to the other 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 exceptions to the ordinary practice in this respect, and Mr. Yates, in his Viudication of Unitarianism, (p. 113,) has produced an instance of a precisely similar construction, which sufficiently justifies that translation:

VOL. V.

Psa. lxxiii. 26 : Η μερις μου ὁ Θεός εις τον αιώνα.

Psa. xlv. 6 ; Heb. i. 8 : Ο θρόνος σου ὁ Θεος εις τον αιώνα.

N

Dr. S.'s objections to the propriety of the figure, "God is thy throne," seem to us to be either altogether unfounded, or at least greatly exagge rated. God is spoken of as a rock, a tower, 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 dignity 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 maintenance; Psa. xvi. 5, "Jehovah is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup," he allots to me and secures to me my portion; Psa. lxxiii. 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 inconsistent 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 translation, 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 between 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 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 sufficient 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 writer, and we think there is scarcely any portion of the sacred volume which requires to be read with more caution, lest we should pervert the meaning of the author through ignorance of the circumstances under which he wrote, 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 knowledge 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 often pointed out by learned and judicious divines. Thus Bishop Burnet:

"When divine writers argue upon any point, we are always bound to believe 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 revelation, properly so called; yet in propounding these doctrines in their writings or discourses, they were wont to illustrate, support, and enforce them by such analogies, arguments, and considerations, as their own thoughts suggested."

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 doctrine as resting upon the revelation that had been imparted to him, he exhibits it frequently to the conceptions of his readers under images and allegories, in which if an analogy may be perceived, or even sometimes a poetic resemblance be found, it is all, 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 time, considered the greatest part of their Scriptures as applicable in a secondary and mystical sense to their expected Messiah. The Christian writers 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 analogies 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 allegorizing; all these our 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 Rosenmüller; the same principle 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 Epistle 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 by means of these quotations it conveys, and if it applies unreservedly to Christ the names God and Lord, (representing Jehovah,) 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, perhaps 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 endeavoured 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 a firm belief of doctrines which we do not find in Scripture, but which the ambiguity 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 "angel," sometimes applied to human, sometimes to spiritual messengers; sometimes to the elements executing the purposes of the Almighty; sometimes 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 than 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). "For unto which of those messengers, said he, at any time, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee?' And again, I 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 difficulty in pronouncing to be erroneous.) "And when he introduces again