obliged to deny it to Chronos. When he talks of the "son of a phantom," and of casting out "the phantom and its son," he ought to know that he is guilty of an unworthy misrepresentation of the doctrine of miraculous conception. Adam was not the "son of a phantom," because he was created by the immediate agency of divine power. It is by such arts as these that Christianity is assailed by some Unbelievers; and Unitarianism, by some who think themselves the only Christians. Let the Unitarian leave them to his opponents: they disgrace any cause; at least they disgrace those who use them.

Let the doctrine of miraculous conception, if false, be argued down; but it ought not to be attacked with all the associated imaginations derived from the ribaldry of the scorner, or the follies of its injudicious advocates.

As to the Introduction of Luke, I see no reason to deny its genuineness. I cannot estimate its evidence as of equal weight with those parts of the Gospel which respect the ministry of Christ: St. Luke could scarcely have had such indubitable means of knowledge with respect to the events recorded in the Introduction, as he possessed for those which occurred thirty years after. But the diligent research, sound judgment, and faithful accuracy, which his invaluable writings shew to have been his constant characteristics, will not allow me to withhold my assent to facts which he has recorded, and which he obviously believed with undoubting credit, till better cause is assigned than the "fabulous appearance" of some parts of the things related. I am not without a perception of the difficulty attending some parts of the Introduction: but, taken generally, I think the history of great moment; and among the great objects which the events recorded would accomplish, were the strengthening the expectations which even then existed of the near approach of the Messiah; the preparing Mary to watch with peculiar assiduity over the spiritual growth of one who was to be holy from his birth; and the training of Jesus himself to that character of mind, and in that culture of holy faith and obedience, which made him eminently fitted for the great work before

him. The character of Jesus, as we know it must have been before his great work commenced from what we see of it afterwards, affords to my nind a powerful evidence to the general authenticity of the Introduction.

The most weighty difficulties which have operated against its credibility, are those of a chronological nature; and they vanish when the Introduction to St. Matthew's Gospel is relinquished. Both accounts, as far as I can judge, cannot be true; but Luke's Introduction ought not to be attacked through the most incredible parts of the Narrative prefixed to Matthew's Gospel. This Chronos has done (p. 258); and in a manner which has none of the characters of "truth and soberness" to recommend it.

Even if I could spare time, I should be indisposed to examine all the statements in the Letter and Postscript of Chronos, which I deem utterly unfounded; some of them appear to have been made to try the credulity of the reader; and the investigation of the rest is less necessary, because the randomness of the manner in which he argues and asserts is so striking, that few who are accustomed to think and reason on critical and theological subjects, can be so far misled as to take Chronos for authority.

I

SIR,

LANT CARPENTER.

EXPECTED much pleasure from the reply of Dr. Smith, and I was not disappointed. [See Mon. Repos. XVI. 354, and present Vol. p. 152.] The candour, the truly Christian spirit, the ability and research which characterise that reply, render it a pleasing specimen of the manner in which theological controversies should be conducted. But my admirable opponent has left unnoticed the strong parts of my letter. I therefore purpose in this paper to concentrate my views of the disputed passage in the Philippians, noticing as I proceed some of the positions advanced by the Doctor.

Our blessed Lord, in his last journey to Jerusalem, laid before his disciples, in the clearest terms, the sufferings that awaited him: and farther to pre

pare them for that event, he assumed, in the presence of three of them, a form splendid as the sun, and symbolical of the change which awaited him after his resurrection. Peter, who was much distressed at the thought that his Divine Master was to undergo a cruel death, greedily laid hold of the magnificent scene before him as a happy means of averting the terrible event. And he expressed himself to this effect: "Master, let us stay here and not go to Jerusalem; for the splendour of thy appearance, and the testimony of Moses and Elias, will bring all men to the spot, and even thy enemies will in consequence hail thee as the expected Messiah." Now I maintain that this is the very circumstance to which Paul alludes when he says of Christ, "Who being in the form of God, did not think this divine form a thing to be caught at as the means of avoiding death; but he divested himself of it, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Now Dr. Smith remarks, that this allusion to the transfiguration is conjectural; that, if true, it would be more definite; and that, on the same supposition, the original mapy would be the past participle raptas. To remove the first of these objections, it is only necessary to shew that the phrase "form of God" is an exact description of the transfiguration.

It is well known that the term god in the genitive is often used by Hebrew, and even Greek writers, to denote pre-eminence. Thus the words "power of God," denote " a mighty power;" a "trumpet of God," a loud or awful trumpet; a "wind of God,” a violent tempest, or, as Homer writes, a "cloud of Jupiter," as a dark, tempestuous cloud. On the same principle, a "form of God" may mean a very splendid form. Dr. Smith knows that Greek writers sometimes use Se exclusively to mean Apollo, or The reason of this is to be sought in the origin of the word. The Hebrew my, zoe, to command, exists in Arabic in the form of Saos, to illumine or shine. The same word obtains in Persian, but is pronounced zee (which, through the medium of the Gothic, is the parent of our see and shew, the former of which means to perceive, the latter to exhibit, in the light). The Persian and Chaldean

the sun.

sages considered light as the emblem of God, and called the Benevolent Principle by that name. Hence the origin of Jos: and this etymology is confirmed by a remark of Aristotle, namely, that the Spartans pronounced Seos, as: and thus the two different modes of pronouncing the term among the Greeks corresponded to the different pronunciations of it among the Arabic and Persians. Nor were the writers of the New Testament ignorant of the primary import and origin of the word, as they seem to allude to it when they say that "God is light," and call him "Father of lights."

The history of our Lord's transfiguration is connected with his crucifixion, and founded on it. Peter seized the former as a plea to avoid the latter. The drift of the disciple's meaning is omitted in the narrative, and it is remarkable that the apostle in copying the narrative has copied also the omis sion, and the ellipsis has rendered the passage forced and unnatural in the extreme. Let the ellipsis be supplied from the Gospel, and the words of our apostle become as clear and natural as the light. And here let me ask, what can more decisively prove the truth of an allusion, than that it gives ease, grace and perspicuity to a paragraph which has hitherto baffled all the efforts of criticism to render it intelligible? If one key can, and ninety-nine keys cannot, open a lock without violence, is it conjectural that this is the true key? If the apostle Paul uses terms which with the utmost propriety describe the transfiguration of our Saviour, and his conduct on that occasion, is it conjectural that he alludes to that scene? Indeed, my learned and excellent friend is not so happy here as he commonly is in the use of his terms.

The

The Doctor quotes the following assertion of Chrysostom as illustrative of his own notion: "As the form of a servant signifies no other than real and perfect man, so the form of God signifies no other than God." form of any visible object may mean that object itself, for this very reason, that it has always been associated with it, has always appeared under it as an external mark peculiar to that object and that alone, precisely by the same association of ideas that the name of a thing stands for the thing itself. But

apostle was not previously acquainted with this piece, a copy might have been sent by those in the church sincerely attached to him and his cause. In the Epistle which in consequence he addressed to the Philippians, he notices the Ode, and sets aside the infamous doctrine it contains. It was usual with the apostle to adopt any peculiar words which they might have used, and retort them in a new or modified sense. His object thus was to give a point to what he was saying, and to shew his readers that he was alluding to his opponents, who sought to deceive them. Thus the impostors said of Christ, that he was "in the resemblance of man," meaning that he was a mere phantom in a human form. Paul takes up the same phrase, and then sets it aside by adding that he was "found in frame a man," meaning, that he proved himself a real man by his trial and crucifixion. He deals in the same manner with the Ode of Aristotle; he copies the same words, or words, peculiar as they are, of the same import, and applies them to Christ in a new, beautiful, yet analogous sense, thus intending to contrast him with the personages which are mentioned in it. The poet calls Virtue μopn, a form-an object the most splendid, and to be hunted or captured, Onpaμa kanλ50-as conferring the fruits of immortality, κаρmov abavatov. Hermias was endowed with this splendid form, but he divested himself of this radiant figure, this effulgence of the sun, asio xpworey avyas, he, it is probable, having honourably fallen in battle. But the Muses rescue him from death, and advance him to immortality in the temple of their father Jupiter. The apostle has copied this train of ideas; and, peculiar as this train is, he has preserved it unbroken, and expressed it in nearly the same language. Jesus was invested with a form splendid as the sun. This splendid form was naturally a thing to be caught at, especially as it was the emblem of his glory and immortality; yet he did not seize it as the means of avoiding death. On the contrary, he laid it aside, and voluntarily submitted to the ignominious death of a slave. He does not, however, remain the victim of his enemies; his Almighty Father, as the reward of his obedience, raises him

VOL. XVII.

from the grave, and exalts him to immortal glory.

The impostors classed Jesus with the Heathen gods, and claimed for him the worship which was paid to Hercules and others. The heroes of Greece were eager for divine honours, and the most exalted philosophers of the Pagan world were not backward to gratify this pernicious vanity. Paul contrasts the conduct of Jesus of Nazareth with the objects of idolatrous superstition, and the direct scope of his words is to this effect: "Though endowed with power and wisdom from above, though once invested with a form surpassing the sun in brightness, and though announced by a voice from heaven as the beloved Son of God, he did not profess himself a God, he did not violently arrogate those attributes and worship which belong to Jehovah alone. On the contrary, he laid aside his supernatural endowments, and surrendered himself to be crucified." The Heathen divinities were worshiped, some in the heavens, some on the earth, some in hades. This is implied in the Ode of Aristotle; and the apostle proceeds to intimate that the gospel, so far from sanctioning the idolatrous practices of the Heathens, was intended to become the instrument of abolishing all idolatry; and that the name of Jesus, instead of himself becoming an object of worship, was to be the medium of worshiping the Father alone. "Therefore God has highly exalted him, and given him a name above every other name, that in the name of Jesus every knee, of those in the heavens, of those on the earth, and of those under the earth, shall bow-to the glory of God the Father."

The impostors were guilty of the foulest impurities. Paul (I Tim. i. 9, 10) gives a catalogue of their enormities, and among these he expressly mentions some as being αρσενοκοίται. It is a fact which is not known, but which ought to be known, that the very same men who opposed the apostle make a figure in the second Satire of Juvenal; and it is remarkable that their pretended veneration for Aristotle, and the atrocities here alluded to, are associated together, as in this Epistle: "Perfectissimus horum est, si quis Aristotelem similem vel Pittacon emit. Frontis nulla fides; omnis 2 z