is no ordinary reader, and assures us that the Jews really required ceremonial purification according to the law of Moses, because they had sinned against that law, and desecrated themselves' by deserting it to become Christians. It is difficult to conceive that the law would afford purification for the greatest offence which could be committed against it, whilst the offence was persisted in; or that, after the dispensation was abrogated, its rites and ceremonies remained. We hold, that when a covenant is abrogated, its rites are abolished and its threats at an end. Nor can we conceive how any purification can be required (even from the sources competent to afford it) for quitting a dispensation at the appointed time at which its author had ordained it should expire. But it would be alike impossible and unprofitable to develope all the absurdities which necessarily follow from the admission of Mr. Belsham's theory. We shall therefore proceed to some particular passages of the work itself. We have hardly made a step in our examination of the transla tions and confirmatory notes before we recognize the person of Mr. Belsham by most unequivocal signs, the same peremptory and unsupported assertions-the same inconclusiveness in every argument, In the note on Romans i. 3. (vol. i. p. 14.) we have the following passage: 'Christ is called the son of God for two reasons-first, because this title is equivalent to that of Messiah, and was so understood by the Jews. But the words Son of God are no more equivalent to Messiah, than they are to Mediator or any other common title of Jesus Christ, though, like those titles, they undoubtedly are appropriated to him. Mr. Belsham, we know, has the authority of the German school on his side; but authority can be of no avail against facts, and it must be remembered, that those writers have the same reasons as Mr. Belsham for chusing to affix this meaning to the words. But, says Mr. Belsham, this name is given to Jesus also, because the title was understood by the Jews to be equivalent to Messiah. We must here read as before, appropriated to the Messiah. But Mr. Belsham forgets that significant words are not arbitrarily applied, that the Jews considered the term Son of God as indicative of the Messiah, because the former prophets had expressly foretold that the anointed deliverer of Israel was to be the Son of God; and that the Jews themselves affixed no very obscure meaning to the words, when they accused Jesus of blasphemy for appropriating them to himself. But Mr. Belsham tells us that Christ was called the Son of God-secondly, 'because he was raised from the dead, and put in possession of an immortal life.' Why Jesus, in particular, if a mere man, should be called the Son of God because he rose from the dead, as all other men will, it is not very easy to divine from any Let us see then what Mr. Belsham can any appeal to reason. produce in the way of authority. He refers to Acts xiii. 33. and to Hebrews v. 5.* Of the latter of these passages we have spoken in the subjoined note. On the former we have somewhat more to remark. Mr. Belsham gives us his translation of it in the note below his text, 'God hath fulfilled his promise in that he raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the 2d Psalm, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.' It is curious to observe that Mr. Belsham has here adopted what many have considered as an inaccuracy in our Version-we allude to the introduction of the word again-and departed from the Improved Version of his party, because it suited his purpose in this particular instance to do so. His object is to show, that St. Paul asserts that Jesus is called the Son of God because he was raised from the dead, and that the writer of the second Psalm has reasoned in the same way. But it has been supposed, that St. Paul is not speaking here of the resurrection of the dead his words are ἀναστήσας Ἰησοῦν. Kuinoel indeed goes so far as to say, that avior cannot refer at all to the resurrection of the dead, unless joined with some such words as ex véngwv. This, however, is decidedly erroneous; but, such an adjunct is certainly more common, and the other sense of avionui, namely, to raise up in the sense of bringing forward, is very frequent in allusion to the Messiah, Acts ii. 30. iii. 22. 26. It therefore remains to see what the sense of the particular passage requires. Now the Apos tle proposes his subject in the 23d verse of the chapter. Of this man's seed hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour Jesus. To prove this he appeals to the testimony of John, (24, 25); to the preaching of Jesus himself, (26); to his death, as foretold by the prophets, (27, 29); and to his Resurrection. (30) Then, to accumulate proof, and principally for the sake of the Jews, he confirms his assertions separately, by an appeal to the prophecies on each point, for which purpose he repeats the thesis in verses 32, 33. and we declare unto you glad tidings, * We would caution Mr. Belsham against a habit which he has of quoting passages without looking at them. The quotation of Hebrews v. 5. in the present case, is an instance. It so happens that Psalm ii. is quoted in that passage as well as in Acts xiii. 33. Mr. Belsham has seen threm cited together somewhere or other on that account, and therefore, without hesitation, he cites the second passage to prove the same point as the first. When he takes the trouble of looking at it he will find his mistake. But Dr. Smith has convicted him of using Schlichtingius's quotations without examining them, and Archbishop Magee, has fully exposed him on the same point. That the thesis is here repeated, although a different verb is used, (ype is the expression in the first case and dvdornoas in the second) is clear from the passage itself, and is admitted by all the principal commentators. We shall however adduce only the opinion of one, to whose words Mr. Belsham will probably pay more attention than to the remarks of a more orthodox divine. Rosenmüller's words are as follows, dvácnoas tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God has fulfilled the same unto us their children in that he hath raised up Jesus again: as it is also written in the second Psalm.' (v. ii.) But the promise, as has been observed, was not fulfilled only by the resurrection but by the mission of Jesus; and that observation alone may show what sense should be affixed to aviorHIC here. However, if we look on to verse 34, we shall find the writer entering on a fresh subject,* viz. the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and the proof of it from prophecy; and in that verse, as if to distinguish the use of the word dvoru from its former meaning in verse 32, the writer adds the words ex vexgwv. So clear indeed is the case as to the meaning of avior in the 33d verse, that without doubt or hesitation the marginal note in the Breeches Bible explains the passage by the words: In that he was born and incarnate:' and this explanation is supported by some of the best interpreters. Erasmus is decided upon it. So are Wolf, Gerhard, Witsius, Calovius, Gataker, and Kuinoel, with many others. We may now therefore see the object of Mr. Belsham's attributing a meaning to a passage as undoubted, where so many great authorities are against him. But we have not quite done with this note. Mr. Belsham tries to support the hypothesis that Christ is called the Son of God because he rose from the dead, by other texts of scripture. In this view,' says he, Christ is called the first-born, having been the first human being who was raised to immortality from the grave,' Col. i. 15. 18. Nothing was ever more unwise than the adduction of this passage; for if Macknight and others are right in asserting that gwToToxos there simply means Ruler or Lord, the passage does not apply to the case before us. If, however, the common translation be correct, nothing can be stronger against Mr. Belsham, than the Apostle's reasoning, for he there expressly says, that Christ being the first-born of every creature was also first born of the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence. The title therefore of first-born was so far from being given to him because he first rose 'from the dead, that he was first raised from the dead to preserve that character of first-born which he had already possessed. 'Incov. i. e. exhibens Jesum. ut supra, c. ii. 30. iii. 26. Tò áváornoag hid respondet verbo yage supra, v. 23. Alii de resuscitatione ex mortuis accipiunt. Sed prior interpretatio melius contextui convenit. Thesis-proponitur v. 23. quam v. 24. et seqq. probat et confirmat, et v. 34. demum docet eundem Messiam a Deo missum post mortem in vitam rediisse. After Witsius is perfectly satisfactory on this subject. (Miscell. Sacr. ii. p. 777.) noticing how Christ's resurrection may be used as a proof of his being the Son of God, i. e. a divine being he says, Sed si bene attendamus Paulus aliám rem agit. Non probat resuscitationem Christi ex Ps. ii. sed ex Jes. lv. 3. et Ps. xvi. 10, dum com. 34 ita infit: Quod autem suscitaverit eum ex mortuis, &c. ita dixit, &c.—See Calovius against Crellius, p. 296. Vol. i. p. 20. Romans, chap. i. v. 16. is thus translated. For therein the justification of God by faith is revealed to faith, as it is written, the just by faith shall live,' and the following note is added: I have given Dr. Doddridge's translation of this clause, which affords a clear sense to an obscure passage. Qu. " from faith to faith," that is," wholly by faith,"-Locke; not so correct as Doddridge.' Does Mr. Belsham think a translation necessarily correct because it gives a clear sense to what is obscure? It would be strange indeed if a clear sense could not be given to every passage in every book; but the question is, whether that is the sense of the author. We are, however, totally unable to attach even any clear meaning to the sentence that, the justification by faith is revealed to faith.' But besides many other objections to the translation, the words x TiOTEWS EIS TÍOTIV should not be disjoined. Locke very rightly cites Rom. vi. 19, and 2 Cor. iii. 18, as instances of St. Paul using the same figure of speech-and Schoetgenius (Hor. Heb. ad loc.) declares it is a common Hebraism, and cites Psalm lxxxiv. 7. as an example. Mr. Belsham has proceeded, in the note on this passage, to fix, by his own strange method of interpretation, a charge of misquotation or misinterpretation of scripture on the Apostle, who, in mentioning the benefits of faith, refers to a passage in the Old Testament, in which the blessings of faith are also extolled. The passage is said by some to be taken from Habbakuk, ii. 4. by others from Levit. xviii. and the words are, ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται. This Mr. Belsham construes, He who is justified by faith shall live;' (vol. i. p. 28.) and then complacently remarks, that this is one of many instances of the loose manner in which the writers of the New Testament cite the Old, as, in the original passage, there is no reference to the doctrine of justification. Pity, that in his eagerness to inculpate St. Paul on every possible occasion, he did not remember what Michaëlis (a critic, one would think, sufficiently liberal even for Mr. Belsham) says of this very passage, viz. that in many cases the commentators have created difficulties where in reality there are none, by attempting to discover in passages to which the apostles have alluded, a meaning perhaps not ascribed to them by the apostles themselves. Tom. i. p. 212. On the well known passage Rom. iii. 24. Mr. Belsham says that no support can be gained for the unscriptural doctrine of the atonement from it, unless we receive as the genuine text a reading which is wanting in some of the best copies, and which is unwarranted by any similar phraseology in the New Testament.'He alludes to the words did τns πisεws. We wonder at his venturing on an assertion to which so common a book as Griesbach at once affords the most decided contradiction. So far from the pas sage sage being rejected by some of the best MSS., it is in every MS. good and bad, except the Alexandrine. That the word Ts indeed is omitted by several good MSS. is true, and Griesbach on the whole is inclined to reject it, but we repeat that the words did Tηs TiOTEws or diù xíσTews exist in every known MS. of the New Testament good or bad, except the Alexandrine. Which party then acts most reasonably, the Orthodox in retaining words so sup ported, or the Unitarians in rejecting them on the authority of one MS., it is not very difficult to decide. The fourth section of Mr. Belsham's commentary on this epistle (chap. v. 12, to the end) is a curious one. The passage to which it relates contains St. Paul's contrast of the effects of the fall with the effects of Christ's death; and the first two sentences of Mr. Belsham's remarks on it are as follows: 'He (the Apostle) states that all mankind are treated as sinners and suffered death in consequence of the sin of Adam. The Apostle here (v. 12) assumes and reasons on the account of the fall contained in the book of Genesis as an historical fact. We recommend both these sentences to the attentive consideration of the Unitarian. Mr. Belsham afterwards tells us, that the Apostle does not say he was inspired to assert the literal truth of the Mosaic history of the fall, and probably knew no more of it than we do; that perhaps he argued ex concesso, upon the supposition of the fact, &c. But all this wretched trifling does not shake the force of Mr. Belsham's two admissions--the one that St. Paul asserts that we are treated as sinners in consequence of the sin of Adam,-the other, that he reasons on the fall as on an historic fact. How unwillingly these concessions were wrung from Mr. Belsham, may be judged from the tone of the whole of this section, in which, as it were to revenge himself on St. Paul, he treats the Apostle with even more than ordinary disrespect. His reasoning is so bad that its defect need no the pointed out.' He has introduced a confusion of ideas which make it difficult to unravel the sense.' 'It is doubtful whether his argument proves any thing. It is precarious, and not available as an argument, but only as an illustration.'. After all this, Mr. Belsham condescendingly proceeds to show how this miserable argument ought to have been stated. If the Apostle had expressed himself in the clear distinct manner of a correct writer, it would have been in some such manner as this; and again: Had the Apostle been a correct writer, the antithesis would have stood in this form.' We almost doubt whether human nature ever produced an instance of vanity so contemptible. This man, who can scarcely see through the haze of his own ideas, whose definitions in metaphysics have been a perpetual laughing-stock for their indefiniteness; and who hardly writes one page without contradicting VOL. XXX. NO. LIX. G |
