6

Gen. xxviii. 13, I am Jah, the God of thy father Abraham, ' and the God of Isaac.-15, And behold my word shall be thy help.-20, And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If the word of Jah will be my help, and will keep me-in this way in which I am going, then shall Jah be my God.' The expressions are interchangeable, and refer to the same subject. So, in Gen. xlix. 9,-~My sons whom the word of Jah gave to me', as we read in the Targum of Jonathan, is, in Onkelos, whom Jah has given me.' Had the Targumists used the expressions in the manner represented by the Author, there are passages in which they would have employed them, but in which we find a different usage. In Gen. i. 26, the Targum of Jonathan reads: And Jah said to his angels, who ministered before him, who were created on the 'second day, Let us make man in our image.' If, in such a passage, we had read, And Jah said to his Word', Mr. Gurney's notions might seem not to have wanted support.

6

We cannot then, subscribe to the notion that, in the language, of the Targumists, there is any thing corresponding to the expressions used by the Evangelist John in the Introduction to his Gospel, or that they supply any confirmation of his doctrine respecting the personality and deity of the Son of God. Whatever may be the origin of the term logos, unquestionably applied by the Apostle to Christ, we entirely agree with Michaelis, that it was not derived from the Targums, since they never intended by the expression, word of Jah, to denote a Being separate and distinct from Jehovah himself. If the phrase had any such meaning, and were so abundantly employed by the Chaldee paraphrasts in the sense attributed to it by Mr. Gurney, it is impossible to suppose that it would be neglected, and that frequent references to it should not be made by the Writers of the New Testament, and by our Lord himself. In all his conferences with the Jews, and in the whole of his discourses, there is no instance of his appealing to them as possessed of traditionary knowledge which included representations of himself so direct and formal.

The introduction of the Apostle John's Gospel is one of the passages in the New Testament which necessarily engages the critical attention of the Author. By all the most eminent commentators of ancient and modern times, the verses which it includes, have been regarded as conveying in very decisive terms the doctrine of Our Lord's preexistent divinity. In his ninth Dissertation, Mr. Gurney discusses the import of the expressions in the third verse: "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." We are sometimes told, in respect to particular interpretations of biblical terms, that no unprejudiced inquirer would deduce them from the passages in which they occur. May we not ask, whether any unbiassed reader could ever conclude the meaning of this verse to be,

6

6

6

All things in the Christian dispensation were done by Christ, 'i. e. by his authority, and according to his direction; and in the ministry committed to his apostles, nothing has been done 'without his warrant ?" This is the explanation given by the Editors of the Improved Version,' who render: All things were done by him; and without him was not any thing done 'that hath been done.' In support of this rendering, we are referred in their note, to John xv. 4, 5, where we are certainly unable to find any confirmation of it. "Severed from me, ye can do nothing," are words which assuredly bear no relation to Christ's warrant or authority as establishing the Christian dispensation. They occur in his discourse respecting himself as the vine, and his disciples as the branches, and are entirely practical, referring to the faith and obedience of his followers. In the verse under notice, the common exposition is undoubtedly the true one. In Genesis i. 3, iyÉVETO pas, in the Septuagint version, is light 'was produced,' and so závτa-Eyévero, in John i. 3, is to be explained of the origin of things. In Mr. Gurney's Dissertation, the generally received reading of the passage is vindicated, but we cannot, in every instance, entirely approve of the mode by which he reaches his conclusion.

The title Word, which is here applied to Our Saviour, carries with it an especial allusion to this very doctrine-that by him, God created all things. That God created by his word, is a truth declared in the Hebrew Scriptures; in the Apocrypha; and as appears from the preceding note, in the Jewish Targums.'

6

No

The passages of the Bible, to which Mr. Gurney refers, are, Gen. i. 3; Ps. xxxiii, 6. We do not see the propriety of the reference, in connexion with the subject of his remarks. coincidence or agreement of expression appears between the term Word, óyos, as used by John, and the phrase, 'God said,' in Gen. i. 3. In Psalm xxxiii. 6, "By the word of the Lord, “ τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ Κυρίου, were the heavens made, and all the host of 'them by the breath of his mouth," there is nothing in accordance with the term used by the Evangelist. In the Apocryphal book of Wisdom ix. 1, the passage to which Mr. Gurney's reference directs us, we have ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα ἐν λόγῳ σοῦ, who hast 'made all things by thy word.' But in these passages, λóyos does not signify person; nor, as the term is used by the Evangelist to denote a personal subsistence, can his use of it receive any illustration from such references as the preceding. There is more than verbal obscurity in such a sentence as the following, p. 153. ‘From Gen. i., 3, 6, &c., we find that, in this "beginning," God repeatedly expressed his will and spake the word; and accordingly, we learn from John, that in the beginning, was the 'the Word, and the Word was with God." Speech is attributed

to the Omnipotent Creator, more humano, as commanding the world, and the things successively described as being formed, into existence,— He spake, and it was done;' but John cannot be understood as alluding, in the opening of his gospel, to the creative command, the almighty fiat.

Mr. Gurney's criticisms on the important topics of his Notes and Illustrations, are copious and elaborate, and abundantly shew that there is no penury of evidence to support the evangelical doctrines which he so ably vindicates. Our strictures on the objectionable passages which we have noticed, seemed to us necessary, in order to relieve a solid argument from the unnecessary assumptions with which he has encumbered it. The length to which our animadversions have extended, forbid our adverting to the critical reasonings which meet our approval. From the conclusion of the work, which is entirely practical, and conveys in a very serious and impressive manner, the thoughts of the highly respectable Author on the importance of the doctrine maintained by him, we extract the following paragraphs.

--A belief of the deity of Christ is not only inseparably connected with the Christian's experience, but is essential to the general maintenance of his creed. That this is true, however, is still more clearly proved by the notorious fact, that a denial of that doctrine is ever accompanied by a corresponding degeneracy of religious sentiment, in relation to other important particulars in the system of Christianity.

Those who allow that God was manifest in the flesh-that the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON was clothed with humanity, and died on the cross to save us-are naturally impressed with the malignity of sin and with the weight of its eternal consequences, which called for such a surrender, for such a sacrifice. But to the unbeliever in the deity of the Son of God, sin is no longer a mortal offence against a Being of perfect holiness. It assumes the softer name of "moral evil." The existence of it is ascribed to the Creator himself, and in connection with its punishment, it is even regarded as forming one part of a providential chain, which is destined to terminate in the happiness of the sinner. Satan is transformed, from the father of lies, a murderer from the beginning, the deceiver, accuser, and destroyer of men-into a harmless metaphor-a mere figure of poetry. Hell, of course, is robbed of its deepest terrors, and is treated of, not as a place of eternal punishment, but as one of temporary and corrective suffering-a purgatory provided in mercy, rather than ordained in judgment.

With these unscriptural views of sin, it author, its origin, and its effects, is inseparably connected a partial and inadequate estimate of the law of righteousness, which sinks down from the high and consistent level, maintained in Scripture, of universal godliness; and while it still borrows something from Christianity, gradually assumes the shape of a worldly, though plausible, moral philosophy.

Since man is no longer regarded as a fallen and lost creature, prone to iniquity, and corrupt at core, but as a being essentially virtuous, it is plain that he can no longer be considered as standing in need of Re

demption. That word may indeed, in some metaphorical sense, find its way into the creed of those persons who reject the deity of Jesus Christ. But the doctrine of pardon through faith in his blood is dismissed as unnecessary and absurd; unnecessary, because we are not under the curse of the law; absurd, because it is inconceivable that a mere man, "weak and peccable like ourselves", could possibly atone for the sins of the world.

In like manner, the doctrine of a spiritual influence, freely bestowed by a glorified Saviour for our conversion and sanctification, is discarded as untenable. On the one hand, such an influence is no longer required; on the other, the greatest of merely human prophets can have no power to bestow it. Since, indeed, the divine character and inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are intimately connected, in the system of revealed truth, with the deity and atonement of Christ, it naturally follows that the latter doctrines cannot be forsaken, without the surrender of the former. In point of fact, they usually disappear at the same time, or in rapid succession, from the creed of the sceptic.

Lastly, since the Bible has explicitly declared the several doctrines, to which we have alluded, its plain declarations (in order to meet these novel views) must now be interpreted, as harsh, unnatural metaphors -as strained, oriental figures. Hence its authority is gradually weakened, and although perhaps it is still allowed to contain much true history and some divine doctrine, it descends from its lofty station of a volume truly "given by inspiration of God." No longer are its contents food for daily, pious meditation; no longer is it the test by the simple application of which, all questions in religion must be tried and determined. On the whole, revelation is marred, and religion becomes a wreck. Man is left to the perilous guidance of his own perverted reason, and must steer his course through the ocean of life, without the true rudder.

It may perhaps be objected that the degeneracy of religious sentiment, to which we have now adverted, attaches chiefly to the lowest grade of faith in relation to the person of Christ; and this is certainly true. Nevertheless it is, I believe, in various degrees, the inevitable accompaniment of every system which does not include the doctrine of his deity; and the lower we fall in our estimate of HIM, the greater and more conspicuous this degenercay becomes. The lines which separate the different classes of persons, who reject the deity of Christ, are of a finite breadth and easily passable. The broad, impassable distinction-the infinite difference of opinion-lies between those who confess their Saviour to be God, and all who regard him only as a creature.' pp. 468–471.

The volume affords abundant marks of extensive reading and accomplished scholarship; but it is as a practical and devotional writer that Mr. Gurney will, probably, be most useful and most deservedly honoured.

Art. VI. Principles of Church Reform. By Thomas Arnold, D.D., Head Master of Rugby School, and late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 8vo. pp. 88. London, 1833.

FROM a crowd of publications upon this fertile topic, of

which a list will be found in another part of our Number, we have selected this very able pamphlet,-not with the intention of making it the text of any lengthened remarks, but for the simple purpose of strongly recommending it to the attention of our readers. We do not mean to intimate that we agree with Dr. Arnold as to either all his principles or his scheme of comprehension. We greatly fear that the time for such irenical measures is gone by, and that the temper of all parties would be fiercely opposed to the very mention of any plan of the kind. Upon some future occasion, we may, perhaps, enter the lists with the present Writer respecting those points upon which he assails the Dissenters. We are nevertheless so much delighted to meet with an antagonist of his comprehensive mind, independent and patriotic views, and catholic spirit, that we cannot withhold our approbation of his object and purpose, although we may deem his plan chimerical and his principles vulnerable. The following remarks, we are confident, must gratify our readers.

Whoever is acquainted with Christianity, must see that differences of opinion among Christians are absolutely unavoidable. First, because our religion being a thing of the deepest personal interest, we are keenly alive to all the great questions connected with it, which was not the case with heathenism. Secondly, these questions are exceedingly numerous, inasmuch as our religion affects our whole moral being, and must involve, therefore, a great variety of metaphysical, moral, and political points;-that is to say, those very points which, lying out of the reach of demonstrative science, are, through the constitution of man's nature, peculiarly apt to be regarded by different minds differently. And thirdly, although all Christians allow the Scriptures to be of decisive authority, whenever their judgement is pronounced on any given case, yet the peculiar form of these Scriptures, which in the New Testament is rather that of a commentary than of a text;— the critical difficulties attending their interpretation, and the still greater difficulty as to their application ;-it being a constant question. whether such and such rules, and still more whether such and such recorded facts or practices, were meant to be universally binding ;and it being a farther question, amidst the infinite variety of human affairs, whether any case, differing more or less in its circumstances, properly comes under the scope of any given Scripture rule ;-all these things prevent the Scriptures from being in practice decisive on controverted points, because the contending parties, while alike acknowledging the judge's authority, persist in putting a different construction upon the words of his sentence.

'Aware of this state of things, and aware also with characteristic