WORD's being made FLESH, is by Mr. Belfham understood figuratively; but it may be proper to obferve, that of the vast variety of unitarian interpretations of these figures which he produces, there is hardly one in perfect unifon with another. On this fubject, however, we mean not to enter. It is fo fully difcuffed by Mr. E. Nares in the work already referred to; and Mr. Belfham's principal objections to the literal interpretation are so completely obviated, that hardly any thing is left for us to fay. One or two of Mr. Belfham's interpretations, however, feem to have been overlooked by our acute and learned friend*; and therefore, as all the confe quences to which the reasoning, employed in their support, neceffarily lead, appear not to have occurred even to the author himself, we shall take the liberty to examine some of these reasonings, and to point out their confequences for the benefit of all concerned.

For fettling the controverfy concerning the perfon of Christ, it is of great importance, fays this author, (and we heartily agree with him,) to underfland rightly John iii. 13: "No man hath afcended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man, who is in heaven." We fhall not enumerate the various interpretations of this text which he rejects, nor follow him through that kind of criticism and reafoning which leads him to what he calls the beft fupported expofition of the two firft claufes, (he is inclined, most naturally to reject the third claufet,) but merely flate that expofition itself, together with one short paragraph, which he very judiciously adds in illustration of it.

No man bath afcended up to heaven;" i. e. "No man is in ftructed in the divine counfels:" "but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man?' ́ ́i.e. " excepting the Son of

* We call Mr. Edward Nares our, friend, and we are proud to call fuch a man our friend; but for reasons which will readily occur to many of our readers, it is proper to fay, that the writer of the prefent article never had the pleasure of being in his com pany but once, and that it is from no biafs of perfonal or private friendship, that he declares Mr. Nares's Remarks on the Unitarian Verfion to contain as able a defence of the catholic faith againft modern Unitarians, as he has ever seen within fo narrow a compass. Rev.

This he does on the authority of the improved version! He refers, indeed, to Griefbach, but Griefbach does not reject it.

Man,

Man, who had a commiffion from God to reveal his will to mankind.

"This is a form of expreffion which is unquestionably used in fcripture to exprefs what is of divine origin or authority, Matt. xxi. 25. The baptifm of John, was it from heaven or of men? And they reafoned with themfelves, faying, if we fhall fay, from heaven, he will fay unto us, why did ye not then believe him?" This queftion our Lord put in reply to the queftion of the chief priests and elders." By what authority doeft thou these things?" So that in the language of our Lord himself, coming from heaven is equivalent to coming with divine authority." P. 48.

Thus then we fee, that, in this author's opinion, John the Baptift came from heaven in the very fame way in which our Lord came from heaven. John himself, however, seems to have thought otherwife. When his difciples and some of the Jews came to him with information which they certainly expected would excite his jealousy of Jefus, John anfwered and faid, "Ye yourselves bear me witnefs, that I faid, I am not the Chrift, but that I am fent before him.He must increase, but I muft decrease. He that cometh from above, is above all: he that is of the earth, is earthly, and fpeaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all *."

This laft verfe Mr. B. tearing it from the context, explains thus:

"He that cometh from above, or from beaven, is he who cometh with a divine commiffion or authority. He that is of the earth, is a teacher who has no pretenfions to fuch authority, the priests and Levites, who inftructed the people, and expounded the law. Their inftructions were fallible and imperfect: those of Jefus, the prophet of the Moft High, were infallible and di. vine." P. 55.

The Unitarians are perpetually declaiming in favour of free enquiry; but furely Mr. Belfham relied on the implicit confidence of his readers, when he published this paraphrafe on the text. The most illiterate man who can barely read, has only to open his New Teffament at the place, to find that the comparifon or contraft, here drawn by John, is not between JESUS and the Priefts and Levites, but between JESUS and himself. John therefore fays exprefsly, that Jefus was from heaven in the same sense that he himself was of the earth; but John as certainly came with a divine commiffion to

St. John iii. 28, 30, 31.

preach

preach the baptifm of repentance and to baptize, as Jefus came with a divine commiffion to preach the gofpel, and to Jay the foundation of his Church. It cannot, therefore, be in confequence of the different authorities by which they taught, that thefe, two great prophets, as our author admits them to have been, are faid to have been, the one from above, and the other of the earth, but from fomething which placed them as far from each other as heaven is conceived to be from the earth; but what could this be, if not the pre-existence and fuperior nature and dignity of Jefus? By their mothers, Jefus and John were of equal dignity, while the dignity of John's father was certainly greater than that of Jofeph; but, in truth, no diftinction of civil rank could Have given rife to fuch a contraft as this, even in the figurative language of the evangelift St. John!

Mr. Belfham affirms, that every thing faid by our bleffed Lord in the fixth chapter of the gofpel by St. John, of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, is univerfally understood of receiving, digefting, and practically improving his divine and heavenly doctrine; and this may be admitted, if in the divine and heavenly doctrine be included the doctrine of atonement, with every pofitive duty resulting from it. It is, however, a mere begging of the question, and a begging of it against the voice of all antiquity, as well as of fome of the most eminent modern divines, to interpret this chapter of the doctrine of Chrift, excluding the atonement, with all its confequences * But whatever be the meaning of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man, none but a determined Unitarian will admit the fenfe put by this author on the fixty-fecond verse of the chapter; whilft all, who believe in the atonement, must confider that verfe as a declaration by our Lord himself, that he exifted in a prior 'ftate, and in a fuperior nature, before he was born of the Virgin Mary. The words are," Doth this offend you? What and if ye thall fee the Son of Man up where he was before?".

13

"The fenfe of which," fays our author," appears to be this: are you offended at what I have already taught: what would you fay if I were to reveal truths ftill more foreign to your conceptions, and more offenfive to your prejudices ?" P. 6.

* On this fubject the reader may confult Bishop Cleaver's Sermons on eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of the Son

of Man.

This, however, he confeffes, may be called "a forced interpretation;" and truly fo it may, an interpretation fo very forced, that it cannot. be admitted without believing Mr. Bellham in direct oppofition to our Lord himself. If by eating our Lord's flefh, and drinking his blood, be meant receiving our Lord's doctrine, it muft relate to fome doctrine not fully taught at the time of his fpeaking; for at the fifty-first verfe, he had faid, "The bread not that I have given, but that I will give, (dwow,) is my flesh, which I will give, (not have given,) for the life of the world." To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Chrift, therefore, could not have been belief in the doctrine which he had already taught; for his flesh, whatever was, meant by it, was not then given for the life of the world.

Our author, aware that his expofition of the verfes is very different from the plain and literal meaning of the words, affures thofe who may choofe to believe him, that it is moft agreeable to the connexion; and then condefcends to favour fuch as may not be perfectly fatisfied, with the following illuftration of it.

"Seeing the offence which his (Christ's) difcourfe had already given, what could be more fuitable to his defign than to add, What if I should speak truths which would be ftill more obfcure and offenfive? or, in the language of the allegory, What if you fee me, THE SON OF MAN, (i.e. MY DOCTRINE!) afcend to heaven where I was before, i.e. go further out of your reach, and become still more perplexing and mysterious?" P. 69.

Who can hesitate, on fuch evidence as this, to undeify his Saviour, and adopt the creed of the modern Unitarians? It muft indeed be confeffed, that the Jews appear to have understood our Lord as fpeaking of his own defcent from heaven, and that St. Peter feems to have understood him in the fame fenfe; but if there be any man fo bigotted and illiberal, as to be influenced in his belief by thefe appearances, Mr. Belfham urges other arguments, of equal force, to convince him of his mistake! One of thefe we fhall here produce, and then take leave of the subject for this month.

"John viii. 58, is held up," fays this author, "as a tri umphant argument for the deity, or at leaft the pre-existence of Jefus Chrift. The words are, Jefus anfwered, Verily, verily I fay unto you, Before Abraham was, I am ;”

1

which he confeffes were understood by the Jews as an affertion of the existence of Jefus before the birth of Abraham.

But thie

&

the Jews appear to have understood the words as implying fome. thing more than mere pre-existence; for in a paroxyfm of rage, (as Mr. B. obferves,) they took up ftones to ftone the fpeaker, as a liar and blafphemer; but if they had not understood him as claiming the divine attributes, if we may fo call it, of neceffary exiftence, it is not eafy to conceive why they fhould have confidered him as a blafphemer, whatever had been their opinion of his veracity. As Jefus did not speak Greek, but the language of Judea, we think the Jews may be allowed to have underflood the import of the words which St. John has rendered ¿yú èi, at least as well as Mr. Belfhamn, or any other critic of the nineteenth century. Mr. Belfham indeed admits, that "the words of our Lord, when confidered in their grammatical import and conftruction, will bear the fenfe in which the Jews appear to have understood them;" but he thinks that "againft this interpretation it may be alledged, that the word , even when ufed abfolutely, very rarely, if ever, expreffes fimple exist- · <ence,' P. 79.

We are not fure that we perfectly know what he means by the abfolute ufe of the verb ; but we are of opinion, that fimple existence is never expreffed by us, fum, am, oli, eft, is, &c. though we are of opinion that these words often imply fimple and permanent exiftence. The import of the fubftantive verb, as it is called, feems to be, in all the languages with which we are acquainted, affertion or predication, and nothing more; but when one ufes, after any fubject, the fign of predication, without faying what is predicated, we naturally infer, and the inference is univerfally made in all languages, that he means the moft general predication poffible; and furely nothing is fo general as fimple existence. Hence yw ei, ego fum, I am, &c. means, in all languages, I am exifting. It is likewife to be obferved, that the present tenfe, oli, eft, is, eio, funt, are, &c. are always used in a propofition expreffive of neceffary truth. It would be very abfurd to fay,The three angles of a plane triangle were equal, or fhail be equal to the right angles," or to fay, " God exifted, or fhall exist;" for fuch affertions would imply, that though the three angles of a plane triangle were, at some paft time, or muft be, at fome future time, equal to two right angles, they are not, or at least are not known to be fo now; and that though God exifted at fome paft time, or must exist at fome future time, he does not exist, or at least is not known to exift now. This is fo obvious, and has been fo often pointed out, that every grammarian, who is at all acquainted with the laws of human thought, is fully aware that neceffary truths can be properly expreffed, only by