the Lord." We quote this language not in a spirit of railing or anger, for we know that the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God, but with the most fervent and benevolent desire that God would give him repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth.

Mr. B. may sneer at us, as he has already done, at our "godly associates finding these and other precious articles of faith in the writings of Paul." He may treat with contempt "the humility and holiness generated by the belief of these doctrines." He may consider our reproof, as he has done that of others, "the overflow of gall towards godless Socinians and others." He may smile with self-complacency at the "evangelical worthies," and " be loth to disturb those humble and godly souls in their sublime meditations."

On our own account we feel nothing, and we fear nothing from such language. But we pity Mr. Belsham; and we most sin cerely pity the class of persons of whom he has long been a leader. "Professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools;" "being ignorant of God's method of justification, they go about to establish their own method, not submitting themselves to the method of justification which is by faith;" denying the Lord that bought them, and speaking great swelling words of vanity;"

holding men's persons in ad miration, that they may take advantage:" in them the pointed and partly prophetic language of Peter and Jude has met with a marked fulfilment,

Had we required any thing to confirm us in the conviction which we have long entertained that the origin of Socianism, like that of many other errors in religion, is to

Belsham's Reply to the Quarterly Review, pp. 9-11.

NEW SERIES, No. 1.

be found in the state of the heart, Mr. B.'s work would have supplied us with very ample evidence of the justice of our opinion. If he does not indulge in any "subtime meditations" on divine things, he has unquestionably a very sublime idea of his own intellectual importance and superiority. The meekness of spirit and docility of disposition, which ought to characterize a disciple, do not form prominent features in his character. He is too proud, and too learned, and too intellectual to submit to be taught by the Galilean fishermen. We are enemies, as much as Mr. B. or any of his friends can be, to that indolent acquiescence in established opinions; that superstitious veneration for sentiments which have only the sanction of ages, or the suffrage of numbers; that dread of innovation and change which fetters inquiry, and depresses genius. These, we know,are frequently mere apologies for indifference. We care nothing for the authority of names, however high, or venerated, or lettered; but we can distinguish between these things, and the deference and submission due to the authority of those, who were the ambassadors of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. To their testimony, and reasonings, and commands, we feel it to be our privilege implicitly to bow.

Want of submission to the exclusive and unlimited authority of the apostles occasioned the rise, progress, and completion of the mystery of iniquity. It placed the mitre on the head, and the crosier in the hands of bishops; it put anathemas in the mouths of synods and councils; and finally placed the man of sin in the temple, and on the throne of God. breath of apostolical authority is poison to every ordinance of man in the affairs of religion, whether that ordinance be enforced by an appeal to the principle of super

F

The

stition, or to the claims of reason. It is singular to trace the operation of the same cause, producing the seemingly opposite effects of popery and infidelity. The Bible is not sufficient, says a Roman Catholic, without the aid of an infallible interpreter, and a power to decree its meaning and obligation. The Scriptures, say Unitarians, must submit to the tribunal of reason, and their doctrines and obligations be determined by our sense of their fitness. In both cases the Bible is objected to as the only guide. The spirit of bondage is gendered by the one system, the spirit of pride and selfsufficiency by the other. The church is the God of idolatry in the one case, the human understanding in the other. Genuine Christianity is opposed to both, It is not the spirit of fearfulness, but of fortitude, and love, and selfgovernment.

Although we have no room for minute and extended criticism, we consider it but justice to allow Mr. Belsham to appear in his own words and in his true character in our critique. We shall therefore give, as a specimen, his translation of the seven introductory verses of the epistle to the Romans, with the principal notes upon the passage.

"The apostle introduces the epistle with an appropriate salutation, in which he hints at the argument for Christianity from the accomplishment of prophecy, ver. I, 2; and from the resurrection of Christ, ver. 3, 4; and in the course of which he also asserts his own apostolic mission to the Gentiles, ver. 5-7.

"Paul a servant of Jesus Christ, invited to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God, (which he had promised before by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) concerning his son (who by natural descent was of the lineage of David, but with respect to his inspiration, was miraculously distinguished as the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead,) even Jesus Christ our Lord; through whom we have received the favour of an apostleship, for preaching obedience to the faith among all the Gentiles, for the sake of spreading his name: among which are ye also invited by Jesus Christ: To all in Rome, who are beloved of God, invited, and holy, favour be to you and

peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

"This sentence is a memorable example of that involved and intricate style which so much distinguishes the apostle's writings, and which, being very difficult to counterfeit, constitutes one considerable internal proof of the genuineness of Paul's epistles. It arises from the warmth and fulness of his heart, which often prevented him from paying attention to accuracy of method and perspicuity of expression. The main design of the apostle is to represent the gospel dispensation as the free unmerited gift of God, both to Jews and Gentiles; and authoritatively to establish the full equality of the Gentile believer with the believing Jew. With a view to this, in the very first sentence, and in the introductory salutation of the epistle, he asserts the divine authority of the gospel revelation as founded upon the prophecies of the Jewish scriptures; the claim of by his resurrection from the dead; and Jesus to be the true Messiah established his own apostolic mission for the conversion of the heathen world. And he addresses the whole body of Christians at Jews and Gentiles, as all equally entitled Rome, consisting of converts both from to those high and honourable appellations which under the old covenant were appropriated to the Jews alone, as the peculiar people of God.

the Son of God for two reasons; first, Concerning his son.] Christ is called because this title is equivalent to that of Messiah, and was so understood by the Jews. See John i. 50. Thou art the Son Compare Mark i. 1. Luke iv. 41. xii. 67.70. of God; thou art the King of Israel.' Secondly, because he was raised from the dead and put into possession of an immortal

life. See Acts xiii. 33. Heb. v. 5. In this view Christ is called the first-born, having been the first human being who was raised to immortality from the grave. Col. i. 15. 18. Heb. i. 6. Rev. i. 5. All be

lievers, as heirs of the same inheritance,

are also sons of God John i. 12. Rom. viii. 14-17. 1 John iii. 2. Hence they are coheirs with Christ, and he is the first-born among many brethren. Rom. viii. 29. These are the only senses in which the title Son of God is applied to Christ in the genuine apostolical writings.

upon orthodox principles, it is not agreeable to the style of the scriptures to call the divine nature of Christ the holy spirit.

Mr. Locke by the spirit of holiness' understands that spiritual part of Christ which, by divine extraction, he had immediately from God,' and in this interpreta tion Dr. Taylor concurs. But this by no means suits the connexion, nor the scope of the apostle's argument; for how can the resurrection of Christ prove, that the soul which animated his body was of a nature different from other human souls? The expression, spirit of holiness, or holy spirit, must therefore be taken in its common acceptation, of divine inspiration. The apostle's meaning then will be clear and obvious. By natural descent Christ is of the lineage of David, but by his inspiration he is the Son of God. q. d. As a man he is descended from David, agreeably to the predictions of the Jewish scriptures; but as a prophet he is distinguished (opto0vTOS, accurately marked out and defined. See Schleusner) from all others, as being entitled to the appellation of Son of God, or the promised Messiah. But what is the circumstance which so decisively demonstrates his right to this high distinction ? It is the wonderful exertion of divine power in raising him from the dead. This extraordinary fact abundantly proves the great superiority of Jesus to all preceding prophets, and establishes his claim to the

character of the Messiah. Acts xiii. 33.

• God hath fulfilled his promise in that he hath raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.'' And after his resurrection the former prophets are, by a bold and sublime figure, summoned to do homage to him, and to acknowledge him as their superior. See Heb. i. 6. Improved Version; also Wakefield in loc. See likewise Mr. Lindsey's Second Address to the Youth at the Uni

versities, p. 276, where the learned writer justly observes, that the words by natural descent will be found a more just translation of the apostle's words than the literal rendering of them, according to the flesh."-pp. 11-16.

This quotation is a fair specimen of Mr. B.'s manner; and as it is the very first part of his work, he cannot object to us that we have quoted it for the purpose of invidious criticism. The liberties in which it shows the author to have indulged with the phraseology of the apostle, need scarcely be pointed out to the Greek scholar. For the sake of others we shall indulge in a few remarks.

We object to his rendering

Kλŋrós áróσroλos, invited to be an apostle; and Anтo, when applied to the people of God generally, the invited. It confounds what is always kept distinct in the New Testament; those who are invited to participate in spiritual blessings with those who accept the invitation. All are invited to believe the Gospel, but all do not believe it. In the parable of the marriage feast, all were invited, and therefore made welcome to come, but many declined the invitation.— "The invited guest," (says Mr. B. "is a true quoting from Taylor,) and proper guest." That parable shows the incorrectness of the observation. The man who was found without the wedding gar

ment had been invited as well as the others, yet he was neither a true nor proper guest. He was among the xλŋrò, the invited, but not among the EKλEKTOι, the chosen. The apostle uses the word in reference to the apostolical office, and in reference to christians, in a limited sense, to distinguish those who had been led under gracious influence to accept the divine invitation or command. The reader will find undeniable evidence of this in the following passages, Rom. viii. 28; 1 Cor. i. 24-26; Jude v. 1; Rev. xvii. 14.

We object decidedly to Mr. B.'s interpretation of the phrase, the Son of God. It is not equivalent in The meaning to the term Messiah. latter is descriptive of office, the former of nature. It was not, in the sense in which our Lord applied it to himself, understood by the Jews to be equivalent to Messiah; for they objected to his appropriation of it to himself. See John v. 17-25; x. 24-36. The resurrection of Christ did not constitute him the Son of God, as Mr. B. would make us believe, it only proved or established his claims to that high character. He was constituted the Son of God, for a reason which is assigned, Luke i. 35;

but which this unfair writer chooses to forget or to conceal. He degrades Jesus to the rank of prophet, and then of an heir, along with his brethren, to the inheritance of immortality, and concludes with a sweeping assertion, "These are the only senses in which the title Son of God is applied to Christ in the genuine apostolical writings." For shame Mr. Belsham!

66

The translation of κατα σαρκα, and karα τνevμа ayiwovvns, by the expressions, by natural descent," and "with respect to his inspiration," afford striking proof how monstrously the judgment may be perverted by an erroneous system. We can scarcely suppose that the translation is satisfactory to Mr. B. himself. For though natural descent may be a sufficiently correct version of the first phrase in some passages, it is obviously not suitable in this connexion. Mr. B.'s translation does not preserve the antithesis, which he himself admits to exist in the sentence. The absurdity of rendering the latter phrase by inspiration, needs hardly be remarked. And the assertion that "the Holy Spirit, in its ordinary acceptation, means inspiration," is as false as the other is absurd. We question whether it ever has this meaning. The translation is grossly incorrect, and the whole note a tissue of blundering, dogmatical assertion, and false criticism. Dr. Smith has, we think, given a very accurate translation and interpretation of the passage. "His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who, according to the flesh, was made of the posterity of David, [but] according to the spirit of holiness, was powerfully evinced to be the Son of God, by his resurrection from the dead! Here there is an evident and marked opposition between "the flesh," the mortal and suffering nature; and another principle, the miraculous action of which in

his raising himself from the dead, proved Christ to be the Son of God. This superior principle is called "the spirit," in contrast to "the flesh," the human nature; and "the spirit of holiness," adducing the moral excellency of the divine nature, its crowning perfection, as the most suitable compendium for denoting that nature itself." (Script. Test. vol. ii. p. 174.)

We find we must draw to a conclusion, and yet we have much to say. Mr. Belsham professes to have constructed his work after the model of Mr. Locke's Commentary on the Epistles, and Dr. Taylor's on the Romans. He evidently endeavours to shelter himself occasionally under these and some other names. That he carries matters much farther than either of these writers, he will himself allow; that they are entitled to all that deference and submission, as interpreters of the Bible, for which the Unitarians contend, we boldly deny. No one will suspect us of treating disrepectfully the name of Locke, the friend of philosophy, and the patron of liberty. We venerate the philosopher, we honour the advocate of toleration; but we demur to his accuracy as a critic, and his success as a commentator. Out of his proper department, Locke was an ordinary man. His "Essay. for the understanding of St Paul's Epistles," contains some valuable principles, and his Commentary often throws light on the meaning of the inspired writer. But his notes discover no profound attainments in Greek literature or biblical criticism, and in numerous instances they force a meaning upon Paul, most opposite to the true one. With all his philosophical calmness and acumen, he brought a system to the Bible, instead of taking his system from it. We would recommend one of Locke's most distinguishing qualities to

Mr. Belsham; a quality more valuable than all his attainments in learning and science-we mean his humility. Had Mr. B. studied this Christian virtue, he would have thought more highly of Paul, and less of himself.

Of Dr. John Taylor we wish to speak respectfully, differing most widely as we do from him in our theological sentiments. His at

tainments as a Hebrew scholar were very considerable, and his diligence most exemplary. In the ponderous volumes of his Hebrew Concordance and Dictionary he has left a monument of his learning and persevering industry, which will ever be gratefully acknowledged by oriental scholars. Of his celebrated work, falsely designated "A Key to the Apostolic Epistles," which Mr. Belsham admires and follows, we entertain a very different opinion. It is not a key, but a picklock, which, enendeavouring to force the bolt; breaks the spring, crushes the wards, and demolishes the whole mechanism. It is unworthy of the learning and the talents of Dr. Taylor. Instead of interpreting, it perplexes and darkens the plainest language, and the most obvious sentiments of the apostles.

Before we conclude we must notice one thing more. In the 59th Number of the Quarterly Review there appeared a very able, spirited, and, as we think, not uncandid review of Mr. Belsham's work. In this article the theological and literary merits of the performance are fully discussed. To this critique, Mr. B. has pub lished two replies. The first, “A Vindication of Mr. Belsham's new Translation and Exposition." The second, "Extracts from the Writings of Eminent Divines of the Church of England, on the History of the Creation and Fall, on Justification, and on the Inspiration of the Apostles.” The first of these pamphlets even the friends of

66

66

Mr. B. have considered a very lame defence. The second is intended to prop it. Can Mr. B. think that his sneers and flings at his anonymous antagonist, as a juvenile aspirant," a theological bully," a young unfledged ecclesiastic," "a college pedant," &c. &c. will be mistaken for arguments? We know nothing of the writer; but whether he be a young or an old man, an ecclesiastic or a civilian, the article does credit to his understanding and his heart. The extracts from Divines of the Church of England will never answer Mr. B.'s purpose. Had they been more eminent than they are, their authority must have gone for nothing with us, and we believe it will not go far with any. Men who openly oppose what they have solemnly subscribed as their faith, are scarcely entitled to be regarded as eminent, or to have eulogiums pronounced on their piety. At all events, the meaning and doctrines of revelation are not to be determined by names. In these matters we know no man after the flesh. Give us fair grammatical construction, and just definitions of terms, and we shall listen to Mr. Belsham as readily as to Kennicott, or Lowth, or Campbell. But bold and unwarranted assertion, conjecturalemendations, rash and unsupported interpretations, which we conceive to be the character of the work now before us, mixed up with a large portion of presumptuous confidence, and silly pretence to superior learning and argument, we shall most decidedly reject, from whatever quarter it may come.