the Reviewer considers as very admirable and important; namely, that God is revealed to us not as he is absolutely and in himself, but as he is relatively to us who are his creatures. I am not deep in these mysteries; but I presume that the observation is intended to intimate, that we must not reason from the Divine attributes as made known to us in Scripture, to the measures of the Divine administration. If such be its object, it might as well have been spared. For, in the first place, it is altogether gratuitous. In the next place, God cannot be imagined to possess absolutely any attributes which stand opposed to those which he possesses in relation to his creatures. And, consequently, if we know what God is in relation to mankind, we can reason with the same certainty and confidence respecting the measures of his government, as if we thoroughly understood what he is absolutely and in himself. If, for instance, we are assured that God is infinitely or (as the Reviewer would say) perfectly good in relation to man, we know just as well what to expect at his hands, as if goodness were proved to constitute his moral nature and essence. In a word, unless revelation be intended to mislead and deceive, God can be nothing absolutely which will not allow him to be, in his dealings towards his creatures, what he has declared himself to be. E. COGAN. May 1, 1822. Contributions to Scriptural Criticismquodcunque potest. LXXXVI. 21.1 doeth shall prosper." I adopt the rendering proposed, in MS., by a scholar of considerable taste and learning, and read, "it shall bring to maturity whatsoever it beareth." Merrick, in his Notes on the Psalms, endeavours to justify the received translation of this clause, and to shew, by means of quotations from Greek and Roman authors, that there is nothing unusual in appropriating to the subject of a comparison expressions which had been employed just before in the comparison itself. The fact, which he takes so much pains to establish, is readily admitted. Yet from this admission it does not, of necessity, follow either that the words before us contain an example of the practice, or that all his citations are pertinent. In the fourth and fifth verses the respective situations of the righteous man and of the ungodly, are placed in contrast with each other, under similitudes, borrowed from natural objects: nor does it appear reasonable to believe, that within so short a compass a transition would suddenly be made to a different figure of poetry. The annotator is not happy in his reference to Virgil, Æn. IV. 300, &c. : "Sævit inops animi, totamque incensa per urbem Bacchatur; qualis commotis excita Thyas, ubi audito stimulant trieterica Orgia, nocturnusque vocat clamore Here we have a comparison, and no- Psalm ii. 7. "- this day have I begotten thee:" upon which clause Bengel has the following observation: "æternitas nunquam vocabulo hodie significatur; quare, ego hodie genui te dicitur hoc sensu, hodie, definii, declaravi, te esse natum meum." His remark conducts us to the just rendering and sense of Luke xxiii. The late Rev. Henry Moore. I am aware that Merrick's view of the lines is countenanced by Servius: but I prefer the comment of Heyne, "Bacchatur, summa cum vi dictum pro discursitat." See, too, Æn. VI. 78. Gnomon, &c., in Acts xiii, 33. 43. It may be added, that Heb. xiii. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever," has been very improperly brought forward as a proof of the generally-received doctrine of our Lord's eternity: such language is never used throughout the Scriptures in relation to HIM who is really "from everlasting to everlasting," and "who," in the strictest and highest signification, "only hath immortality." John xviii. 34. "Jesus answered him, Sayest thou," &c. Matthew, Mark and Luke agree in relating that Jesus, when he was brought before the Roman governor, answered not a word: John, on the contrary, informs us that our Saviour was not altogether silent on the occasion: he even records the inquiries and replies that passed between them. How is the variation to be explained? Pilate had two interviews with Jesus. Now, Matthew, Mark and Luke speak only of the former of these interviews, which was public, and in the presence of the Jewish rulers; 'whereas John limits himself to the latter interview, which was private, and within the judgment-hall. When the chief priests and elders of the people had bound our Lord, they delivered him to Pilate and then, on his being accused by these men, he answered nothing. This scene happened without the Prætorium, which, as John tells us, (xviii. 28,) the Jews would not enter, lest they should be defiled, and prevented from cating the approaching passover. The governor, nevertheless, for a reason that will hereafter be assigned, went into the judgment-hall again, and called Jesus thither. Here they were alone and here they engaged together in conversation. : John often coincides with the other Evangelists undesignedly, and thus confirms their narratives. We collect, for example, from what he says in the 28th down to the 33d verse of this chapter, that something like a public examination of our Saviour was insti Bishop Law's Consideratione, &c. App. Obj. xiv.; and see 1 Sam. xv. 27, 28. + Le Clerc's Harmony, [English,] &c., in loc; Carpenter's Geog. &c. (3d ed.) 49; and Secker's Sermons, Vol, IV. No. ix. tuted by Pilate but the fact is implied rather than declared in his bistory; while he represents at large the dialogue between the governor and his prisoner in private. The deportment of Jesus Christ, in his present as in every situation, was marked by consummate wisdom and propriety, by meekness united with fortitude, by dignity yet gentleness of soul. When his calumniators stood together with him before Pilate, he answered nothing: he was conscious of his innocence; he knew their falsehood and their malice, and was perfectly sensible that it became them to produce credible witnesses against him, but that this was beyond their power. With such persons he could not, and would not, enter into any altercation, in the presence of the governor. On the other hand, when he was admitted to a private audience with Pilate, an audience too sought for by the judge himself; the respect which he always shewed and inculcated for the office of the civil magistrate would not suffer him to be silent; the less so, as the purpose which the Roman procurator now had in view, evidently was to ascertain, if possible, the nature of the accusation, the ground on which it rested, and the pretensions of the individual accused. Jesus, accordingly, unfolded his claims with his characteristic firmness and wisdom. By this conduct he strengthened the favourable impression which had already been left on Pilate's mind. The difficulty, therefore, that has occurred to some individuals † in respect of this part of the gospel history, is only apparent. Indeed, Paul, when, in one of his letters to Timothy, ‡ he refers to our Saviour's confession at the bar of Pilate, attests the truth of John's account: nor did the early Christians or their adversaries, those who were most capable of deciding on the point, and particularly interested in the decision, see any dissonance, certainly no fatal dissonance, in the narratives of the last scenes of the life of Jesus. Acts i. 26. they gave : forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." The meaning is, that he was added to them, and made the twelfth nor can I doubt of his having been duly elected to that office. What was the business of an apostle? What his essential qualification? He was to proclaim and testify that Jesus, who died, had risen from the grave: and he was to do this on his personal knowledge of the fact, on his individual acquaintance with the identity of his Master. "Of these men," says Peter, (21, 22,) "who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out, among us, beginning from the baptisin of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." The event proved that Matthias was rightly constituted an apostle. It is true, he was not literally appointed one by our Saviour: but neither can it be shewn, that such an appointment was indispensable. Not more valid is the objection, that we hear nothing afterwards of Matthias; since the same assertion may be made concerning most of the apostles. In the number of the twelve, Paul, assuredly, was not comprehended. He himself distinguishes between their situation and his own, 1 Cor. xv. 5, 7, 8, where it is evident, that by the twelve we are to understand the collected body of the apostles; though, at the time referred to, a vacancy existed by the death of Judas of Kerioth. was transferred, naturally enough, into the New Testament. To speak of the name of a being, or of any class of beings, is not simply to use a form of expression. On the principles of sound criticism, it will appear, that there is no real difficulty, and still less any mystery, in the term. They who have doubts concerning its sense, either separately or in combination, may be referred to Glassii Philolog. Sacr. p. 100, ed Dath, to Hammond on 1 Cor. i. 2, and to Schleusner, in verb.* 1 Cor. xv. 24, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom," &c. Alexander† explains the clause in the following manner: "then cometh the end, when Christ shall deliver the kingdom, which hath so long been possessed by others, to God, even the Father." To me, I own, there seems an incongruity in supposing that the phrase the kingdom, which elsewhere in the New Testament means the kingdom of Christ, has here another and unusual signification, and that the word kingdom in ver. 24, and the word reign in the 25th, refer to two distinct and even opposite empires. The whole passage is evidently a description of the mediatorial power of the Saviour. Heb. ii. 16, 66 he taketh not hold of [helpeth not] angels," &c. See the marginal reading in the Eng. Bib. I consider this passage as a decisive proof that the mission of Jesus Christ, and all the benefits ensuing from it, are limited to the human race, to the rational inhabitants of this part of God's creation. With what propriety then has Dr. Paley said, "Great and inestimably beneficial effects may accrue from the mission of Christ, and especially from his death, which do not belong to Christianity as a revolution” ? N. *The divisions, however, in that valuable Lexicon are too numerous aud refined: the explanation of ovoua, No. 6, falls properly under the preceding number. Paraphrase, &c., in loc. Evidences of Christianity, &c. P. ii. Ch. ii., note. SIR, Birmingham, May 2, 1822. N consequence of the friendly and gratifying suggestions of your correspondent Proselytus, (p. 151,) I have given directions to Mr. David Eaton, (187, High Holborn, London,) for a new edition of the " Sequel" to my "Vindication of Unitarianism." It will therefore be ready for publication in a few months, at as low a price as can be afforded without loss; and I shall be obliged if any Book Societies, who wish to furnish themselves with copies, will send notice of their intention either to myself or to Mr. Eaton. to others of your readers besides myself, I shall be obliged to any of your correspondents who will produce whatever evidence he may think either favourable to the translation commonly given by Unitarians, or in any way illustrative of the construction and meaning of the phrase, deriving his remarks either from grammatical analogy, or from the actual use of this and similar phrases in Greek authors. I have seen no reason hitherto to retract the supposition, which many have ridiculed, that this may, perhaps, be reckoned among "the difficulties left in revelation for the purpose of inculcating humility and candour." To the observations of the British Reviewer and Servetus upon this point, I beg to oppose the following remarks of the able and learned Translators of the Bible, in their Preface to the Reader: I embrace this opportunity of adding a few lines in consequence of the remarks which have lately appeared in your valuable work, upon my views of the passages which, in the common version of the New Testament, represent Christians as I calling upon the "Though whatsoever things are nume of Jesus Christ." Servetus, as necessary, are manifest,' as St. Chryquoted p. 106, thinks that the phrase sostom saith, and as St. Augustine, presents no difficulty whatever. Ne-In those things that are plainly set vertheless, it is not clear what his own view of the construction of it is: for he gives no less than five different translations; 1st. "being called by the name of the Lord:" 2dly. “taking his name upon them:" 3dly. "calling on his name:" 4thly. "calling his name upon them" 5thly. being named by his name." Before I can admit that any one of these is a correct translation of the phrase, I must see sufficient evidence of it. That the expression had the meaning now commonly attributed to it by Unitarians, has been repeatedly asserted, but, as I think, never proved. Your author cites the authority of Wakefield. I ask, Where are Wakefield's PROOFS ? Wakefield evidently supposed εminaλovμas to be in the middle voice; Hammond, who deduces from it the same general sense, asserts that it is in the passive. See his Note on 1 Cor. i. 2. This, as it appears to me, is a most material difference, but scarcely regarded by those who have written on the subject. The use of εminaλeσaμevos, in Acts xxii. 16, seems to indicate, that in the disputed passages the verb is in the middle voice. Upon this subject I beg leave still to express my doubts; and, as the inquiry may probably be interesting down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern faith, hope and charity; yet, for all that, it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer; and, lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those who be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God, in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched, that the Scriptures are plain,) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and, if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty." SIR, JAMES YATES. Norfolk, May 10, 1822. YOUR Chichester correspondent, Yo Signs himself Non Con, (pp. 22-24,) desires to be informed, how Unitarians can acquit themselves of duplicity when, in disseminating our common version of the Bible, they pretend that they circulate the Scriptures "without note or comment." "DUPLICITY" is a strong term, Sir, and when I call to mind the conduct of one with whose name, I will venture to say, the charge of "duplicity" was never for an instant coupled; one who, excellent in many ways, was perhaps most conspicuous in abhorrence of every thing like deceit; (need I name the late venerated Dr. Lindsay?) I cannot suppress a rising emotion of keen regret at the rashness of the judgment which would affix the stigma of "duplicity" on those who tread where he has trod, and fearlessly avowing in all companies, and on every proper occasion, the grounds of the difference between themselves and their Trinitarian brethren, esteem it their duty to join them in the circulation of a version of the Scriptures, imperfect it is true, and liable to many objections, but fully competent, according to the confession of the most eminent among Unitarian writers, to lead the diligent inquirer to the knowledge of the true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. Instead of "duplicity," your correspondent will have no objection, I trust, to read "forgetfulness" for if a Unitarian has been betrayed into a momentary assent to the notion that he is employed in circulating the Scriptures entirely without note or comment, he will, I should think, be glad to correct himself the first opportunity, and let his orthodox friends know that such is not his deliberate opinion. Having made this point clear, he will next be led to inquire, whether he is therefore bound to withhold his support from the Bible Society. And here, I should think, a difficulty will occur. If our inquirer be a zealous Christian, he must feel a longing desire to dispense the word of life as far as lies in his power. Looking abroad, he sees but two versions of the Scriptures which he can disseminate in his own country. These are the received text and the Improved Version. To both of these, probably, he sees objections. He thinks there may be interpolations in the first; he suspects there may be suppressions, or alterations, which have nearly the effect of suppressions, in the last. He thinks it highly probable that the latter may have corrected some erroneous passages, but he dislikes the strained and unnatural phraseology of some of its texts. They appear to him to act as a "note and comment" upon the sacred penman, rather than to flow easily from the nature of the subject. Encompassed with difficulties, he finds no better refuge than in the belief that the Scriptures, however varied in the hands of different translators, are yet "profitable_for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," and therefore, in the assurance that all who will, may be by them "made wise unto salvation," he embraces every opportunity for promoting their circulation among his fellow-creatures; believing, that were he to wait till he had secured a translation in which there should not be an unsuspected chapter, verse or word, he might tarry till the day were far spent indeed. To advert for a moment to the letter of your former correspondent, "A Berean:" it strikes me that both himself and the writer of the letter in your last Number, would do real service to the cause of truth, if at public meetings of the kind described, they would take occasion to declare their dissent from the opinions expressed on controverted points, and endeavour to impress on the minds of those with whom they associate, the duty and policy of keeping these subjects out of sight on such occasions. I am far from surprised that Trinitarians who certainly began upon this plan, have now learned free language. No objection, as far as I have heard, has ever been made to it. Unitarians have silently withdrawn from these meetings; but have they ever taken occasion publicly to testify the reasons of their dissent? These reasons may have been stated in print; but Unitarian books are not very saleable among Trinitarians, and I should be glad to feel assured that those Unitarians who are connected with the Bible Society, were taking the better course of calm and immediate remonstrance whenever the original rules of that Society appear to them infringed. If such be not their conduct, no wonder that the most active party considers itself as free from the obligation to respect the private and unexpressed opinions of |