office as Messiah? We say not that the phrase always designates office, but certainly Professor Stuart has pointed out no instance in which it is used to designate the nature of Christ as God-man. He asserts that it is so used, but until he condescends to adduce some shadow of evidence in proof of his assertion we must be allowed to doubt his accuracy.

The conclusion to which the Professor arrives, taken in itself, and according to the ordinary import of language, is in strange incongruity with his premises.

"If," says he, "I rightly understand the meaning of vio Jou, it designates the Messiah, the King of Israel, the Lord of all, in the passage before us. Such was Christ constituted, after his resurrection from the dead, when he ascended to take his place at the right hand of the Majesty on high, and was made κληρονόμος πάντων.

p. 67.

Here, again, as it will be observed, the dropped, and only office is alluded to, so Professor find it to preserve consistency.

idea of nature is difficult does the

In his remarks on the word declared, in the 4th verse, but which the Professor renders constituted, constituted the Son of God,- he quotes Grotius, as saying that the "regal dignity of Jesus as the Son of God, was predestinated, or prefigured when he wrought signs and wonders in his incarnate state; "* and adds, "But how predestinating or constituting can be made to mean prefiguring, I am not aware. Grotius does not say that it does. The truth is, the Professor has misquoted him. Grotius in his version of the passage uses the term predestinated simply, in common with the old Latin interpreters generally. Afterwards, in his explanation of the passage, he adds the word prefigured, evidently not as synonymous with predestinated, but as conveying an additional meaning. He says "predestinated and prefigured," not "or prefigured," as the Professor has translated it. The two conjunctions, as we take it, are not precisely of the same import. The Professor has shown a want of exactness in rendering the language of Grotius in another respect. The expression "jam tum cum mortalem agens vitam," he translates "in his incarnate state, a phraseology, which when used in reference to the Saviour, at the present day, has always, we believe, a technical meaning, which the words of Grotius do not suggest.

*pp. 61, 62.

Before dismissing this passage, we will advert to a mode of reasoning employed by the Professor, which does not appear to us to be entirely conclusive, and which violates one of his own principles of interpretation. Arguing against the opinion of those who understand the Apostle to assert, as in our common version, that "Jesus was declared to be the son of God, with power, by the resurrection from the dead," he observes, that others were raised from the dead as well as Jesus. Now "an event common to him, to Lazarus, and to many others" he contends, can afford no adequate evidence that he was the Messiah, or Son of God, and therefore he thinks that we ought to reject this construction of the words of the Apostle, and seek a more "simple and unembarrassed meaning.' The resurrection of Jesus from the dead, he affirms, was no proof of his Messiahship, and the Apostle could not have meant to assert that it was. * But the question, we beg leave to say, is not what the Apostle could, or could not have asserted, but what he has asserted. This principle the Professor has on several occasions recognised, and pushed it quite as far as we should feel authorized to do. Thus we are bound to admit the "fact that the degradation of our whole race is connected with the first sin of Adam," though, a "matter of divine sovereignty, altogether beyond our power to fathom." "We can speculate, and reason about it, and wonder, but," he adds, "it becomes us to bow in humble submission." The question, upon this principle, is, Does the Apostle assert it to be a fact, that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection? does he allege the resurrection as a proof or declaration of his Messiahship? If so, the Professor appears bound in consistency to receive it, however seemingly opposed to "carnal reason." He may "speculate, and reason about it, and wonder,” but it becomes him to "bow in humble submission."

We think that Acts xiii. 33, already quoted, has somewhat the appearance of a recognition of the fact in question. And indeed if we consider the resurrection of Jesus in connexion with its consequences, that is, in connexion with his subsequent exaltation, to which he alludes, when he says just before his ascension, "All power is given unto me in

* pp. 63, 69, 70.

† p. 541.

heaven and in earth," and to which the Apostles, and St. Paul in particular, allude in such passages as the following, "According to the working of his mighty power, which he [God] wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in heavenly places, far above all principality and power, and hath put all things under his feet, and given him to be head over all things to the Church," *- if we consider his resurrection in this connexion, we see no insuperable difficulty in admitting that it constituted some evidence of his Messiahship. We do not perceive how better evidence could be afforded, or desired.

Besides, the instances the Professor adduces, - those of Lazarus and others, have no analogy whatever with the case of Jesus. This stands alone. Jesus laid claims to the character of a divine messenger; he wrought miracles, and wrought them, as he alleged, in testimony of his heavenly mission; more than this, he repeatedly foretold his resurrection, and expressly appealed to the event as one which would fully establish his pretensions. Now, under these circumstances, is it possible for us to conceive that, had he been an impostor, God would have raised him from the dead, thus performing a most signal miracle only to give sanction to deceit and falsehood? It seems to us that the fact, that God raised him from the tomb, taken in connexion with the several acts of his life, with the character and office to which he laid claim, affords the strongest of all proofs that he was what he professed to be, the Messiah, or Son of God.

Is it possible that the Professor sees no distinction between the resurrection of Jesus, according to this view (and this is the only correct mode of viewing it), and the resurrection of Lazarus, and "others raised from the dead by Christ, by the Apostles, by Elijah, and the bones of Elisha"? He speaks of what the resurrection of Jesus can or cannot "of itself demonstrate." "Of itself"! Does he mean considered as an insulated fact, having no connexion with his life and pretensions, and the state of power and glory to which it was preparatory? Considered as the mere return of the breath of life to a cold, inanimate form?

* Eph. i. 19-22.

So his argument supposes. But we cannot so regard it. And was it ever before so regarded by any mortal?

Thus far we have confined ourselves to an examination of Professor Stuart's translation and commentary on portions of the first four verses of the Epistle, which he has attempted to explain. Not to be too tedious, we have passed over much which appeared to us exceptionable, or, at least, of doubtful propriety. As it is, we are almost ashamed of the length to which our remarks have been protracted. But we were desirous to give our readers a specimen of what is to be found in the volume, and for this purpose took the passage which first came to hand. We are not aware of having done the Professor injustice. It is pretty evident, we think, that his claims to respect as a commentator, whatever they are, do not rest on precision, accuracy, and a judicious use of learning.

The following statement, among others, appears somewhat extraordinary, as coming from one who professes to have advanced in his book, "no opinions which have been hastily taken up." "Finally, the Apostle every where opposes the Sixaiwois or dinαiooúrn of the gospel, to that justification which results from works in general, works of any kind whatever." That he sometimes "opposes," the justification obtained through faith, to justification by the works of law, that is, law in general, any law or rule binding on conscience, whether written or unwritten, inscribed on the heart, or engraved on tables of stone, for this is what the Professor means, may be true. If so, however, we believe that it is only in a comparatively small number of instances, and not as he asserts, always. The opposition or comparison of which he speaks is, in general, as we conceive, not between faith or the result of faith in Christ, and obedience to the great moral law of conscience, as he affirms, but between the claims of Christianity and Judaism, as affording means and helps to justification and life. Passages enough occur, we should think, in the Epistle under his immediate notice, to convince him that such was the contrast or comparison sometimes intended. In fact, the great question discussed by St. Paul in nearly all his Epistles addressed to churches or communities of Christians,

* p. 158.

related to the comparative excellence and claims of the two religions.

The Jews contended that they were to be saved by Judaism, or the influences of Judaism, that is by the law, the Mosaic dispensation, which laid great stress on ritual observances. Those of them who embraced Christianity, as it is well known, long entertained very imperfect conceptions of its nature and design. They supposed it only a sort of appendage to Judaism, an exposition of its great principles, something perfective of it, perhaps, certainly not an institution designed to supersede it. Thus they continued to make use of its ritual forms, and imagined that Judaism was still to survive, was to be perpetual. So fully convinced were they of this, that the attempt was made, as we know, to compel the Gentile converts to an observance of the ceremonial law, and thus in the language of St. Paul to bring them into "bondage."

In several of the communities of Christians to which the Apostle addressed letters, as it appears from the face of the letters themselves, there existed Judaizing teachers, who endeavoured to seduce the new converts from their allegiance to the religion of Jesus, and make Jews of them, that is, so far at least as to induce them to submit to the outward rites of the Mosaic institution. Was this necessary? Which was superior, Judaism or Christianity? Which was principal, and which secondary? Were persons to be saved by Judaism, and the means and influences it employed, or by Christianity with the means it adopted, and the influences it employed, including all those emanating from the life, character, death, resurrection, and subsequent exaltation of its founder? Or, (to adhere to the Scripture phraseology) were they to be saved by faith or works? by faith in the divine mission and authority of Jesus with its legitimate effects, or by an adherence to the Mosaic law of ordinances?

This was the great controversy discussed by the Apostle. The question, we repeat, was, were persons to be saved by faith, or by works of the law, particularly the ritual part of it, that is, by Christianity or Judaism, and not, as Professor Stuart's language implies, whether they were to be saved by faith, that is, in "Christ's atoning blood," or obedience to the law of conscience, a diligent discharge of every