6

mise to Abraham, because He could swear by no greater, he sware by himself."-Heb. vi. 13. The instances are not few in the Bible, in which the Divine Being is represented as with solemnity giving forth an oath.-Jerem. xxi. 5. By myself I have sworn,' is, in the Targum of Jonathan, By my word (0) have I sworn. As, then, in the instance, By my word, I have sworn,' is exclusive of a second person, and is another formulary for By myself,' and cannot be rendered in any other sense or relation; so we must conclude that the Targumist, in the words, 'Look unto my word,' In the word of Jah, &c.', intended no other sense than that which the Hebrew text before him conveyed,' Look unto me - In the Lord shall all the 'seed of Israel be justified.' Why should the phrase in verses 22, 24, 25, be understood in a different sense from that which it bears in verse 23? There seems no ground whatever for assuming another application of the phrase in those verses, than that which is clearly apparent in the other instance. The introduction of a second person is altogether unauthorized; and nothing can be inferred from the language of the Targum, which is not intended and directly conveyed by the original expressions in the prophet. Mr. Gurney quotes other passages; but those to which he attaches most importance, are equally insufficient to support the doctrine which he imagines they contain.

The 18th and 19th chapters of Genesis describe an actual appearance of Jehovah, who came down to converse with Abraham, and to destroy Sodom. This present Deity is in the same Targum (the Jerusalem) denominated" the Word of Jah"; and Gen. xix. 24, in which verse we read that " Jehovah rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven," is there paraphrased in the following explicit manner: "And the Word of Jah sent down upon them sulphur and fire (1) from the presence of Jak out of heaven."' p. 136.

We must repeat the remark, that Mr. Gurney has imposed upon the expressions, by his mode of displaying the words in question, a sense which they do not in themselves convey. We perceive nothing explicit in the paraphrase, nothing which is not in exact agreement with the Hebrew text. But if Mr. Gurney considers this as an explicit passage, what will he say to the same passage as it appears in the Targum of Jonathan ?— And the word of Jah sent down the rains of his goodness upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah, that they might repent; but they repented not, but said, Our evil deeds are not manifest before Jah: then were sent down upon them sulphur and fire from the presence ' of the word of Jah out of heaven?' In the Jerusalem Targum, 'the word of Jah' corresponds to the name Jehovah in the first member of the verse; as does the phrase, from the presence of

'Jah,' in the second, answer to 'from Jehovah' in the conclusion of the verse. In the Targum of Jonathan, the word of Jah' is used in both instances, as a periphrasis for the original expression. No second person is indicated by the use of such terms. In the second Psalm, vs. 4, we have, "He who sits in heaven "shall laugh, the word of Jah shall have them in derision." The subject of the predications is but one. Ps. cxviii. 8, 9. "It is "better to trust in the Lord, than to put confidence in man. It "is better to trust in the Lord, than to put confidence in "princes." In the Targum we have, in both clauses, to trust in "the word of Jah." We are surprised at the facility with which Mr. Gurney, following some other writers, who, whatever be the qualities which we may approve in them, are not to be described as judicious critics, admits such conclusions as abound in this Dissertation.

In Gen. xx. 3, we read, that "God came to Abimelech in a dream, and said to him", &c. Onkelos has here distinguished the divine Person who came to Abimelech, from God who sent him. His paraphrase is as follows: "And the Word from the presence of Jah (or Jehovah) came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him," &c. pp. 136-7.

The whole of the expressions marked by italics in this extract, are simply a periphrasis for the name of the Divine Being: this sufficiently appears from the next verse, in which we find Abimelech invoking the name of Jah as the person appearing to him. The same expressions are of frequent occurrence in the Targumists, and imply nothing of distinction or of mission. So, in Gen. xxxi. 24, "God came to Laban the Syrian, in a dream by night", is, in Onkelos, ' And the word from the presence of Jah, came to Laban the Syrian in a dream by night.' Laban, referring to this appearance, v. 29, describes it by the words, the 'God of your father.' In Num. xxii. 9, we have in Onkelos the same phrase: And the word from the presence of Jah came to Balaam, and said, Who are these men who are with thee?' followed by v. 10, And Balaam said before Jah."

6

6

6

In Gen. xxxi. 13, the angel of Jehovah proclaims himself to be the God to whom Jacob vowed his vow at Bethel. Now', says Mr. Gurney, according to Onkelos, it was to the Word of 'Jah that the vow of Jacob was addressed. "And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, if the Word of Jah will be my help, and will keep me in this way in which I am going, &c., then shall the 'Word of Jah be my God."' * But the passage in Onkelos expresses nothing more than is contained in the Hebrew text. In the Targum of Jonathan, the whole appears as follows.

Gen. xxviii. 20.

Gen. xxviii. 13, I am Jah, the God of thy father Abraham, ' and the God of Isaac.-15, And behold my word shall be thy 'help.-20, And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If the word of Jah will be my help, and will keep me-in this way in which I am 'going, then shall Jah be my God.' The expressions are interchangeable, and refer to the same subject. So, in Gen. xlix. 9,-My sons whom the word of Jah gave to me', as we read in the Targum of Jonathan, is, in Onkelos, whom Jah has given me.' Had the Targumists used the expressions in the manner represented by the Author, there are passages in which they would have employed them, but in which we find a different usage. In Gen. i. 26, the Targum of Jonathan reads: And Jah said to 'his angels, who ministered before him, who were created on the second day, Let us make man in our image.' If, in such a passage, we had read, 'And Jah said to his Word', Mr. Gurney's notions might seem not to have wanted support.

6

We cannot then, subscribe to the notion that, in the language, of the Targumists, there is any thing corresponding to the expressions used by the Evangelist John in the Introduction to his Gospel, or that they supply any confirmation of his doctrine respecting the personality and deity of the Son of God. Whatever may be the origin of the term logos, unquestionably applied by the Apostle to Christ, we entirely agree with Michaelis, that it was not derived from the Targums, since they never intended by the expression, word of Jah, to denote a Being separate and distinct from Jehovah himself. If the phrase had any such meaning, and were so abundantly employed by the Chaldee paraphrasts in the sense attributed to it by Mr. Gurney, it is impossible to suppose that it would be neglected, and that frequent references to it should not be made by the Writers of the New Testament, and by our Lord himself. In all his conferences with the Jews, and in the whole of his discourses, there is no instance of his appealing to them as possessed of traditionary knowledge which included representations of himself so direct and formal.

The introduction of the Apostle John's Gospel is one of the passages in the New Testament which necessarily engages the critical attention of the Author. By all the most eminent commentators of ancient and modern times, the verses which it includes, have been regarded as conveying in very decisive terms the doctrine of Our Lord's preexistent divinity. In his ninth Dissertation, Mr. Gurney discusses the import of the expressions in the third verse: "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." We are sometimes told, in respect to particular interpretations of biblical terms, that no unprejudiced inquirer would deduce them from the passages in which they occur. May we not ask, whether any unbiassed reader could ever conclude the meaning of this verse to be,

6

All things in the Christian dispensation were done by Christ, 'i. e. by his authority, and according to his direction; and in the ministry committed to his apostles, nothing has been done without his warrant ?' This is the explanation given by the Editors of the Improved Version,' who render: All things were done by him; and without him was not any thing done that hath been done.' In support of this rendering, we are referred in their note, to John xv. 4, 5, where we are certainly unable to find any confirmation of it. "Severed from me, ye can do nothing," are words which assuredly bear no relation to Christ's warrant or authority as establishing the Christian dispensation. They occur in his discourse respecting himself as the vine, and his disciples as the branches, and are entirely practical, referring to the faith and obedience of his followers. In the verse under notice, the common exposition is undoubtedly the true one. In Genesis i. 3, éyéveтo pus, in the Septuagint version, is light 'was produced,' and so závra-EYEVETO, in John i. 3, is to be explained of the origin of things. In Mr. Gurney's Dissertation, the generally received reading of the passage is vindicated, but we cannot, in every instance, entirely approve of the mode by which he reaches his conclusion.

The title Word, which is here applied to Our Saviour, carries with it an especial allusion to this very doctrine-that by him, God created all things. That God created by his word, is a truth declared in the Hebrew Scriptures; in the Apocrypha; and as appears from the preceding note, in the Jewish Targums.'

The passages of the Bible, to which Mr. Gurney refers, are, Gen. i. 3; Ps. xxxiii, 6. We do not see the propriety of the reference, in connexion with the subject of his remarks. No coincidence or agreement of expression appears between the term Word, ayos, as used by John, and the phrase, God said,' in Gen. i. 3. In Psalm xxxiii. 6, "By the word of the Lord, τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ Κυρίου, were the heavens made, and all the host of 'them by the breath of his mouth," there is nothing in accordance with the term used by the Evangelist. In the Apocryphal book of Wisdom ix. 1, the passage to which Mr. Gurney's reference directs us, we have ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα ἐν λόγῳ σοῦ, ‘who hast 'made all things by thy word.' But in these passages, λóyos does not signify person; nor, as the term is used by the Evangelist to denote a personal subsistence, can his use of it receive any illustration from such references as the preceding. There is more than verbal obscurity in such a sentence as the following, p. 153. From Gen. i., 3, 6, &c., we find that, in this "beginning," God repeatedly expressed his will and spake the word; and accordingly, we learn from John, that "In the beginning, was the 'the Word, and the Word was with God." Speech is attributed

to the Omnipotent Creator, more humano, as commanding the world, and the things successively described as being formed, into existence, He spake, and it was done;' but John cannot be understood as alluding, in the opening of his gospel, to the creative command, the almighty fiat.

Mr. Gurney's criticisms on the important topics of his Notes and Illustrations, are copious and elaborate, and abundantly shew that there is no penury of evidence to support the evangelical doctrines which he so ably vindicates. Our strictures on the objectionable passages which we have noticed, seemed to us necessary, in order to relieve a solid argument from the unnecessary assumptions with which he has encumbered it. The length to which our animadversions have extended, forbid our adverting to the critical reasonings which meet our approval. From the conclusion of the work, which is entirely practical, and conveys in a very serious and impressive manner, the thoughts of the highly respectable Author on the importance of the doctrine maintained by him, we extract the following paragraphs.

-A belief of the deity of Christ is not only inseparably connected with the Christian's experience, but is essential to the general maintenance of his creed. That this is true, however, is still more clearly proved by the notorious fact, that a denial of that doctrine is ever accompanied by a corresponding degeneracy of religious sentiment, in relation to other important particulars in the system of Christianity.

Those who allow that God was manifest in the flesh-that the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON was clothed with humanity, and died on the cross to save us-are naturally impressed with the malignity of sin and with the weight of its eternal consequences, which called for such a surrender, for such a sacrifice. But to the unbeliever in the deity of the Son of God, sin is no longer a mortal offence against a Being of perfect holiness. It assumes the softer name of "moral evil." The existence of it is ascribed to the Creator himself, and in connection with its punishment, it is even regarded as forming one part of a providential chain, which is destined to terminate in the happiness of the sinner. Satan is transformed, from the father of lies, a murderer from the beginning, the deceiver, accuser, and destroyer of men-into a harmless metaphor-a mere figure of poetry. Hell, of course, is robbed of its deepest terrors, and is treated of, not as a place of eternal punishment, but as one of temporary and corrective suffering-a purgatory provided in mercy, rather than ordained in judgment.

With these unscriptural views of sin, it author, its origin, and its effects, is inseparably connected a partial and inadequate estimate of the law of righteousness, which sinks down from the high and consistent level, maintained in Scripture, of universal godliness; and while it still borrows something from Christianity, gradually assumes the shape of a worldly, though plausible, moral philosophy.

Since man is no longer regarded as a fallen and lost creature, prone to iniquity, and corrupt at core, but as a being essentially virtuous, it is plain that he can no longer be considered as standing in need of Re