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 believe also in a union 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 these, 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 final 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 miracles of our Lord considered them as proofs only that God was with him, and that his disciples ascribed his and their own powers ultimately to God 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 offering any thing in their justification; and that on no better grounds, that we can perceive, than bold and unsupported assertion, Dr. S. should oppose himself to that interpretation of the passage we have been considering, which has been approved, not by Unitarians only, but by Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer, and the great 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 heaven." These words, together with the preceding verse, are thus paraphrased by Dr. S.:

"If ye are so averse from apprehending and embracing my testimony with respect to those subjects of religion which refer to your own reason

and conscience in the present state, how will ye be capable 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, indeed, has ever been, or could be, admitted to that most immediate and perfect 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 blessings to your enjoyment."

Here it will be observed, that the first clause is made to contain an absolute 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 manifested 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 ouders (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 communicate 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 knowledge 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 literally or figuratively, the state it expresses did not always belong to him, but he was enabled to reach it, and having first ascended, he then descended. This objection, we apprehend, to be fatal to Dr. S.'s peculiar 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 Unitarians. 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 being 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 authorized 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 manner as the Unitarians do, many take the second, and many the third, literally. The mixture of the literal and figurative senses, though not altogether impossible, is harsh, and not to be resorted to without very strong reasons. In describing the Unitarian scheme, Dr. S. very needlessly introduces the objections made by some to the notion of a local heaven, which objections he answers in a manner satisfactory to us; but the question 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 him 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 conceivable 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 impossible or very difficult means of gaining the knowledge of it; ascending to heaven represents the means of obtaining the knowledge of things mysterious, 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., but we think a proper consideration of the passage will shew that the majority of commentators who have taken it differently are right. The intention of the writer seems to be to represent the knowledge of God as unattainable by human faculties, and to recommend humility from the consideration 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 can 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 admiration and celebrity which they deserve (vide Job xxxviii. 4, &c.; Isa. xl. 12-14). This passage, then, is exactly to the purpose, ascending up to heaven and descending being figurative expressions for acquiring and communicating 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 purpose, 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 :

"The Calm Inquirer, on the authority of Dr. Whitby, affirms that the Jews in the Targum say in honour of Moses, that he 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 understood 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 Cant. iii. 3, and it very plainly refers to Moses's going up to the top of Mount Sinai to intercede for the people on their having made the golden calf."

He then makes large quotations from the Targum, of which the following 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, I will ascend to the heavens on high, and I will pray before Jah, if perhaps he may be propitiated on account of your offences."

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, but because God peculiarly manifested himself on the mount, because Moses was admitted to peculiar intercourse with him, the great purpose of which was that he might learn and communicate his will. We think therefore that, notwithstanding our author's hasty censure of others, and somewhat 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 peculiar 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 antecedent, the end for the means to which that end was 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 knowledge, 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 prophet 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 known, and those which were new, having hitherto remained mysteries, would almost preclude the possibility of mistake. Accordingly 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