garded our Saviour as their Maker and God, or that he ever assumed that character.....Throughout the New Testament we find nothing which implies that such a most extraordinary change of feeling ever took place in the disciples of Christ as must have been produced by the communication that their Master was God himself upon earth. Nowhere do we find the expression of those irresistible and absorbing sentiments which must have possessed their minds under the conviction of this fact. With this conviction, in what terms, for instance, would they have spoken of his crucifixion, and of the circumstances with which it was attended? The power of language would have sunk under them in the attempt to express their feelings: their words, when they approached the subject, would have been little more than a thrilling cry of horror and indignation. On this subject they did, indeed, feel most deeply; but can we think that St. Peter regarded his Master as God incarnate, when he thus addressed the Jews by whom Christ had just been crucified? 'Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, proved to you TO BE A MAN FROM GOD, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know, him, delivered up to you in conformity to the fixed will and foreknowledge of God, ye have crucified and slain by the hands of the heathen. Him has God raised to life.'-Acts ii, 22-24.

"But what has been stated are not the only consequences which must have followed from the communication of the doctrine in question. It cannot be denied by those who hold the doctrine of the deity of Christ, that, however satisfactorily it may be explained, and however well it may be reconciled with that fundamental principle of religion to which the Jews were so strongly attached-the doctrine of the Unity of God—yet it does, or may, at first sight, appear somewhat inconsistent with it. From the time of the Jew who is represented, by Justin Martyr, as disputing with him, about the middle of the second century, to the present period, it has always been regarded by the unbelieving Jews with abhorrence. They have considered the Christians as no better than idolaters; as denying the first truth of religion. But the unbelieving Jews, in the time of the

Apostles, opposed Christianity with the utmost bitterness and passion; they sought on every side for objections to it. There was much in its character to which the believing Jews could hardly be reconciled. The Epistles are full of statements, explanations, and controversy, relating to questions having their origin in Jewish prejudices and passions. With regard, however, to this doctrine, which, if it had been taught, the believing Jews must have received with the utmost difficulty, and to which the unbelieving Jews would have manifested the most determined opposition-with regard to this doctrine, there is no trace of any controversy. But, if it had ever been taught, it must have been the main point of attack and defence between those who assailed and those who supported Christianity. There is nothing ever said in its explanation. But it must have required, far more than any other doctrine, to be explained, illustrated, and enforced; for it appears not only irreconcilable with the Unity of God, but equally so with that of the humanity of our Saviour; and yet both these doctrines, it seems, were to be maintained in connexion with it. It must have been necessary, therefore, to state it as clearly as possible, to exhibit it in its relations, and carefully to guard against the misapprehensions to which it is so liable on every side. Especially must care have been taken to prevent the gross mistakes into which the Gentile converts from polytheism were likely to fall. Yet, so far from any such clearness of statement and fulness of explanation, the whole language of the New Testament, in relation to this subject, is (as I have before said) a series of enigmas, upon the supposition of its truth. The doctrine, then, is never defended in the New Testament, though, unquestionably, it would have been the main object of attack, and the main difficulty in the Christian system. It is never explained, though no doctrine could have been so much in need of explanation. On the contrary, upon the supposition of its truth, the Apostles express themselves in such a manner, that, if it had been their purpose to darken and perplex the subject, they could not have done it more effectually. And, still more, this doctrine is never insisted upon as a necessary article of faith; though it is now represented by its defenders as lying at the foundation of Christianity.

With a few exceptions, the passages in which it is imagined to be taught are introduced incidentally, the attention of the writer being principally directed to some other topic, and can be regarded only as accidental notices of it. It appears, then, that while other questions of far less difficulty (for instance, the circumcision of the Gentile converts) were subjects of such doubt and controversy, that even the authority of the Apostles was barely sufficient to establish the truth, this doctrine, so extraordinary, so obnoxious, and so hard to be understood, was introduced in silence, and received without hesitation, dislike, opposition, or misapprehension. There are not many propositions to be proved or disproved merely by moral evidence which are more incredible*."-Ib. pp. 37-40.

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE.

"Supposing the doctrines maintained by Trinitarians to be capable of proof, the state of the case between them and their opponents would be this: They quote certain texts, and explain them in a sense which, as they believe, supports their opinions. We maintain that the words were intended to express a very different meaning. How is the question to be decided? We do not deny that there are certain expressions in these texts which, nakedly considered, will bear a Trinitarian sense; how is it then to be ascertained whether this sense or some other was intended by the writer?

"In order to answer this question, it is necessary to enter into some explanation concerning the nature of language, and the principles of interpretation. The art of interpretation derives its origin from the intrinsic ambiguity of language. What I mean to express by this term is the fact, that a very large portion of sentences, considered in themselves, that is, if regard be

* This consideration, since it presented itself to me, long before I saw it thus luminously developed by Professor Norton, carried full conviction to my mind.-J. B. W.

had merely to the words of which they are composed, are capable of expressing not one meaning only, but two or more different meanings; or (to state this fact in other terms) that in very many cases, the same sentence, like the same single word, may be used to express various and often very different senses. Now in a great part of what we find written concerning the interpretation of language, and in a large portion of the specimens of criticism which we meet with, especially upon the Scriptures, this fundamental truth, this fact which lies at the very bottom of the art of interpretation, has either been overlooked, or not regarded in its relations and consequences. It may be illustrated by a single example. St. John thus addresses the Christians to whom he was writing, in his first Epistle, ii, 20 :-' Ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and know all things.'

"If we consider these words in themselves merely, we shall perceive how uncertain is their signification, and how many different meanings they may be used to express. The first clause, 'Ye have an anointing from the Holy One,' may signify,

"1. Through the favour of God, ye have become Christians or believers in Christ; anointing being a ceremony of consecration, and Christians being considered as consecrated and set apart from the rest of mankind.

"2. Or it may mean, Ye have been truly sanctified in heart and life; a figure borrowed from outward consecration being used to denote inward holiness.

"3. Or, Ye have been endued with miraculous powers: consecrated as prophets and teachers in the Christian community. "4. Or, Ye have been well instructed in the truths of Christianity. (See Wetstein's Notes on this passage, and on 1st Tim. iv, 7.)

"I forbear to mention other meanings, which the word anointing might be used to express. These are sufficient for our purpose.

"The term Holy One, in such a relation as it holds to the other words in the present sentence, may denote either God, or Christ, or some other being.

"Ye know all things, literally expresses the meaning, ye have the attribute of omniscience. Beside this meaning, it may sig

nify, ye are fully acquainted with all the objects of human knowledge; or, ye know every truth connected with Christianity; or, ye have all the knowledge necessary to form your faith and direct your conduct or the proposition may require some other limitation; for all things, is one of those terms the meaning of which is continually to be restrained and modified by a regard to the subject present to the mind of the writer.

"This statement may afford some imperfect notion of the various senses which the words before us may be used to express; and of the uncertainty that must exist about their meaning, when they are regarded without reference to those considerations by which it ought to be determined. I say, imperfect, because we have really kept one very important consideration in mind, that they were written by an Apostle to a Christian community. Putting this out of view, it would not be easy to fix the limit of their possible meanings. It must be remembered that this passage has been adduced merely by way of illustration; and that, if it were necessary, an indefinite number of similar examples might be quoted."

It is absolutely necessary to stop in this selection, by doing violence to the feeling of delight and admiration which invites the selector to proceed, as he turns page after page. Let no sincere Christian deceive himself into a persuasion that he has done justice to the question between the Unitarians and the Orthodox till he has impartially studied Professor Norton's REASONS. This praise, however, is not meant to be exclusive: on the contrary, I am of opinion, that, in many cases, it would be difficult to decide whether that work, or Mr. Yates's VINDICATION, mentioned in my Preface, would be preferable.