(many of which could be known no other way), and whose instructions, therefore, are to be implicitly received. Having ascertained that the Bible is the Word of God, that none of the discrepances between the various existing copies in the original languages affect any doctrine, or any important precept, --and that the translation we adopt is correct, we have nothing to do but to determine its plain and obvious meaning, and receive it as true. (p) But this is not the plan pursued by those who deny the Divinity of the Messiah. They constantly examine the Scriptures rather as critics, than as humble inquirers after truth: the natural consequence of which is, that they are critical beyond measure, and adopt those "refinements in criticism "which make men nauseate what is obvious, and

(p) "It hath been the custom of late to lay too much stress upon "Jewish idioms, in the exposition of the didactic parts of the New " Testament. The Gospel is a general revelation. If it is delivered in " a style which is not perspicuous to the illiterate of any nation except "the Jewish, it is as much locked up from general apprehension, as if "the sacred books had been written in the vernacular gibberish of the "Jews of that age. The Holy Spirit, which directed the apostles and "the evangelists to the use of the tongue, which in their day was the " most generally understood the Greek-would, for the same reason, " it may be presumed, suggest to them a style which might be generally " perspicuous. It is therefore a principle with me, that the true sense " of any phrase in the New Testament is, for the most part, what may " be called a standing sense: that which will be the first to occur to com"mon people of every country, and in every age; and I am apt to "think, that the difference between this standing sense and the Jewish " sense will, in all cases, be far less than is imagined, or none at all; "because, though different languages differ widely in their refined and " elevated idioms, common speech is in all languages pretty much the "same." Horsley's Letters in Controversy with Dr. Priestley, p. 122, Ed. 3.

" pursue through the mazes of etymology what was " never imagined before." This, indeed, is the necessary result of adopting a defective hypothesis. If both the Divine and human nature meet in the person of the Messiah, and if they are essentially distinct though they are inseparably united, then is it to be expected that some passages should clearly announce his Divinity, others as clearly his humanity, while others may (perhaps indistinctly) indicate both. But if Jesus Christ be merely man, then all those texts which declare his Divine nature, or indicate his compound nature, must be either rejected as spurious, or explained away by the arts of criticism. Hence Socinians argue, that when Jesus is called "the Son of man," the words must not only be construed in the most literal, but in the most restricted, sense, so that the word man shall be understood to mean one particular man: but when he is called "the Son of God," they must be explained to mean knowledge, commission, affection, office (though the office of son is a strange vagary, that would enter the mind of none but a Socinian critic), any thing or nothing, provided it be not taken literally. If one phrase of St. John be in favour of the Deity of Christ, it is either a solecism, or it is Hebraical-Greek; if another phrase of the same writer have the same tendency, it is an oratorical flourish, or it is an Atticism, or it is an hyperbole: as if it were not contrary to the entire scope and practice of the sacred writers to employ hyperboles in order to do prejudice to the glory of God; which, nevertheless, is done repeatedly not only by John, but by all the apostles, if

LIRPAPE

UNI

DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST.

CA

89

the Socinian hypothesis be true; if in a third place he says, when speaking of Jesus, "We beheld his glory, " the glory as of the only Son of the Father;" (q) we are told it means "his miracles," which it should seem are " used to express merely a higher degree of affection." If Jesus Christ call himself " the Son of God;" it is a strong expression, conformable to the Eastern phraseology, signifying that he was sent by God; though the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who were at least as well acquainted with Eastern phraseology as we are, understood the language literally, and said that Jesus was guilty of "blasphemy, because he made himself equal " with God." (r) If, as Jerome and Eusebius state, John wrote his Gospel principally in vindication of our Lord's Divinity, against Cerinthus and the Ebionites, (s)

(q) See the Socinian version of John, i. 15, and the notes upon that text, p. 201, 202.

(r) John, v. 18. х. 33.

(8) It is highly probable, however, that John had other heretics in his eye than those above-named, both when writing his Gospel and his First Epistle. Thus the names and titles applied to our Lord at the very commencement of John's Gospel would certainly puzzle, if not silence, those in the first century who were inclined to contend, either that he was a mere man, or a Divine appearance merely without flesh. Even in the first chapter, he is denominated :-1. The Word. 2. God. 3. The Life. 4. The Light. 5. The True Light. 6. The Only Begotten of the Father. 7. Jesus Christ. 8. The Only Begotten Son. 9. The Christ, or Anointed. 10. That Prophet. 11. The Lord. 12. The Lamb of God. 13. A Man. 14. The Son of God. 15. The Messias. 16. Jesus of Nazareth. 17. The Son of Joseph. 18. The King of Israel. 19. The Son of Man. Whence this extraordinary diversity of terms, but to designate an extraordinary character, and to excite the utmost attention to the history of the nature, words, actions, and offices of Him in whom, by a glorious unity of design, the diversity

t

still a critic with a certain turn of mind may manage to elude its force; as does Leclerc, who thus ridiculously renders the first sentence of John's Gospel :" In the beginning was reason, and reason was in God, " and reason was God." But as a complete specimen of critical ingenuity attenuated into absurdity, I beg to present you with the late Mr. Theophilus Lindsey's translation of part of the 1st Chapter of this Gospel. Leclerc's version is not sufficiently unreasonable; we are, therefore, now presented with it after this fashion :

" In the beginning was Wisdom, and Wisdom was " with God, and God was Wisdom. The same was in "the beginning with God. All things were made by " it, and without it was nothing made. In it was life, " and the life was the light of men. And the light " shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended " it not.

"It (Divine Wisdom) was in the world, and the "world was made by it, and the world knew it not. "It came to its own land, and its own people received ' it not. But as many as received it, to them it gave " power to become the sons of God, even to them who " believe on its name.

" And Wisdom became man, and dwelt among us ; " and we beheld its glory, the glory as of the well" beloved of the Father, full of grace and truth."

Now, in all this quotation, although as we are informed (s) its "sense is approved by Dr. Lardner, "Dr. Priestley, Mr. Wakefield, and others," there appears to be only one sentence accurately translated, "the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness " comprehended it not:" of the truth of which, considering it as a prediction, the translation itself, and the approbation of such truly learned men as Lardner, Priestley, and Wakefield, is a most lamentable proof. What a deplorable system of theology must that be, which requires such egregious trifling to support it?

But even this is not the whole of the ridiculous incumbrance that impedes the progress of the theological hypothesis, to which I now advert. It takes for granted, that uninspired men may, at the distance of eighteen hundred years, know more of " the mind of Christ," and of the nature of his religion, than those who saw (8) Notes to the New Socinian Version, p. 203.