with another who should say, "the sense which appears most foreign to us, might be most natural to them." We are not destitute of means by which a moral certainty is attainable as to the true signification of the words and phrases of ancient writings; and, with respect to the scriptures, we have signal advantages, such as arise from the cognate dialects of the Hebrew, the ancient versions both of the Old and of the New Testament, and the series of Christian writers descending from the apostolic times. These are additional to the general means of acquiring a satisfactory knowledge of the grammar and idiom of an ancient language, by studying its structure, comparing authors and passages, close attention to the context, and acquiring a familiarity with the genius and peculiarities both of the language and of the particular writer.*

I hope to be forgiven for thus formally making observations which to many readers must appear

* I acknowledge with pleasure that the Calm Inquirer has, in another of his observations, recognized the principal rules of interpretation:" In order to judge of the true sense of a disputed text, it is necessary to consider the connexion in which it stands; the scope and design of the writer; the customs and modes of thinking which prevailed in the age and country in which the author wrote; his own turn of mind and peculiar phraseology, and whether he means to be understood literally. or figuratively. Also, similar passages and forms of expression must be compared with each other, so that what is obscure and doubtful may be illustrated by what is clear and intelligible."-p. 4.

trite. They have seemed necessary to meet the remark of the Calm Inquirer; a remark which is either a mere truism, or a denial of all certainty in philological studies.

In the same dashing and injurious manner, our Inquirer goes on to affirm: "The inquiry [concerning the person of Christ] is into a plain matter of fact, which is to be determined like any other fact, by its specific evidence, the evidence of plain unequivocal testimony; for judging of which, no other qualifications are requisite than a sound understanding, and an honest mind. Who can believe that the decision of the great question, whether Jesus of Nazareth is the true God, and the Creator and Governor of the world, depends upon a critical knowledge of the niceties of the Greek Article? With equal reason might it be maintained, that no person can know any thing of the history of Greece, who is not perfect in the metres of the Greek dramatic writers?"*

When the emperor Commodus chose to amuse himself with gladiatorial contests, he had his own arms of the highest temper and keenness to which steel could be brought; but he took care to allow his hapless antagonists none but leaden weapons. I am sorry that the Calm Inquirer's age and talents and respectability have not raised him above this vulgar art of controversy. He knows well that

* Calm Inq. p. 5, 6,

his man of “ sound understanding and honest mind" could not judge on any question, if he knew not, or knew imperfectly, the terms and expressions in which the statements are conveyed to him and if it should so happen, that "a critical knowledge of the niceties of the Greek article" is necessary to a competent apprehension of the sense and force of a capital and turning clause; must not the man of understanding and honesty furnish himself with this requisite, either by his own attainment, or by testimony on which he could rely? Equally does this writer also know, that the argument from the use of the Greek article is only a minor branch of the evidence adduced by the advocates of the Deity of Christ, and that it bears a very small proportion to the whole of that evidence. Where, then, is the integrity of these representations? Where is the applicableness of the pretended parallel which rounds his period?

A similar want of argumentative justice appears in the choice of terms to represent our doctrine.

Jesus of Nazareth, the true God." No correct and considerate orthodox writer would adopt this mode of conveying his doctrine. Jesus is the universally admitted name for the human nature of our Lord: and if we were constructing a clause for the purpose intended, we should express the subject of our proposition by some term which would designate the official character, or according to our conceptions, the whole person of the Being spoken

of. The language selected, whether from carelessness or from unhandsome désign, imputes to us the opinion of a conversion of the humanity into the Deity; though our opponents cannot but know that both the ancient and the modern assertors of the Divinity of the Messiah, have earnestly protested against such an imputation.

In a still more painful style of misrepresentation, this author takes upon himself to stigmatize our doctrine, as if it taught "the incarceration of the Creator of the world in the body of a helpless puling infant:"* a notion about which it would be absurd to talk of "evidence direct, presumptive, or circumstantial," for it is a palpable and selfevident impossibility. But our Unitarian Commodus secures his victory at a cheap rate, when he makes his admirers believe that his opponents are plumbean enough to maintain such doctrines as this. It would, however, be no disparagement to him to meditate on the maxim of scripture, often verified by unhappy experience; "a scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not."

Another preliminary caution is laid down by the Inquirer:-"Nevertheless, when a fact is contrary to the established order of Nature, and the antecedent improbability is very great, the direct evidence must be proportionably strong. The doctrine of the pre-existence and high original

* Calm Inq. p. 6.

VOL. I.

+ Ib.

K

+ Prov. xiv. 6.

powers of Christ ought not to depend upon a few obscure, mystical, and ambiguous texts."*

I wish not to indulge an unreasonable jealousy, nor a disposition to cavil: but notwithstanding the plausible appearance of this paragraph, it does seem to me to involve some inequitable assumptions. It must be ever kept in view, that the question is not, whether one, who "was to outward appearance a man like other men,-is not a real man ;" but is, whether, in a case which is perfectly sui generis, and without example, parallel, or analogy, known to us, a real man may not have been produced in a preternatural way, and united to the Deity in a manner so much above all other instances of influence, inspiration, presence, or communication, as to be the most stupendous of miracles, and to form, by such union of the two natures, one complex and indiscerptible person. In such a case, therefore, it is little relevant to speak of " the established order of nature, and antecedent improbability." There is no "order of nature" to which we can appeal on this inquiry; or on that which is connected with it, What is the mode of the existence of the Divine Being? The only line in which reasoning à priori is admissible, would lie in considerations on the moral circumstances of mankind as ren

dering necessary, in the mercy and wisdom of

* Calm Inq. p. 4.

+ See Note [A] at the end of this Chapter.