tion of Ministers in the county of Windham; and they proceeded to expel me, on this account, not only from their body, as a voluntary Association, but from all "minifterial connexion." It was my intention to have published a general statement of the manner in which this affair was brought to its crifis. But for certain reafons which I did not fufficiently confider, it is at prefent withheld. I would only observe, that, by the decree of the Affociation, or any decrees which, as a body of mere Ecclefiafticks, without appointment from the churches, without their fanétion, and without pursuing the regular difcipline pointed out by our Lord, they may affume the authority to make, I confider my good christian and ministerial standing not in the leaft degree impaired. Were they an ecclefiaftical court, known in the fcriptures; had they charged me with crime, with a breach of the divine law to man kind; and were there any other kind of To The work is divided into two parts. In the first the author endeavours to shew that the passages and considerations alleged in favour of the supreme and independent deity of Christ do not establish such doctrine concerning him." high and obscure expressions to The difficulties, which attend the explanation of these verses,as referring to the new moral creation, or rather organization under the gospel,are not a few; and Mr. S. has in some degree injured the plauIn the first section, those pas- sibility and compactness of his sages are examined, which repre- own interpretation by not sufficsent Christ as the creator of all iently attending to the propriety worlds. These are John i. 1-14. of clearly referring all the clauses Col. i. 16, 17. Heb. i. The pro- without exception either to one em to John's gospel has long been creation or the other. Hence we the crux antitrinitarianorum. They think he should have admitted no have agreed in nothing but to other interpretation of gororoxes TAS wrest it from the hands of the ortho-Ts than this, "first-born or most dox,but have never been able to con- eminent of the whole creation;" vert it into an auxiliary. Though in the same sense in which Christ some of the early Polish Socinians is elsewhere styled "first born athought they could apply all its mong many brethren," Rom. viii. By 29. Mr. S. also argues in favour of the identity of the agency at tributed to Christ in the 16th and in the 20th verses, from the use of the same preposition "by" in our English version; when he must have recollected, that in the original is used in the former, and in the latter clause. This variation, though it does not destroy the force of the argument, yet deserved to be noted. "things in heaven" Mr. S. supposes are meant, Jews, and by "things in earth," Gentiles. The passages, quoted to illustrate this meaning of the words, certainly prove no such application; for though by "new heavens and new earth," in Isaiah, is probably intended the flourishing state of the christian church, in which Jews and Gentiles are included, we have never yet seen any passage which decisively shows, that Gentiles are ever described under the figure of the earth, or Jews under that of heaven. In the second section are examined the proofs of Christ's omnipotence, which are usually drawn from the introduction to the epistle to the Hebrews. On this passage the author is unusually lucid; and congratulates himself on having derived from it "substantial and invincible evidence of the truth of his doctrine.” deavours, though with no peculiar ingenuity, to obviate the proofs from other texts of Christ's omnipresence. The passages which are adduced to prove the eternity and immutability of Christ are examined in the two next sections, and in the seventh the power which our Saviour exercised on earth of forgiving sins is discussed with much learning and acuteness. The distinction is pointed out between and Suvas; it is shown that the former, derived from ı, it is lawful, conveys the idea of licence, legality, or a moral right to exercise authority; and that it is the word used by our Saviour to sig mify the power of forgiveness which he exercised on earth. It is afterwards maintained and confirmed by the authority of Calvin, Macknight, and Pool, that the forgiveness of the sins of the paralytick in the passage in question means only his deliverance from his disorder. This Jewish mode of speech is then illustrated by several passages in Isaiah, and a similar representation from the New Testament is produced in the following passage. The argument we do not recollect to have seen stated before with equal acute ness. A very plain example of fimilar reprefentation occurs in the New Testament. "Then faid Jefus unto them again, Peace In the third section are consid- be unto you: As my, Father hath fent ered the texts, which are supposed had faid this, he breathed on them and me, even fo I fend you. And when he to teach the omniscience of Christ. faith unto them, Receive ye the holy Here we think the author quarrels ghost. Whofefoever fins ye remit they unnecessarily with our English are remitted unto them; and whofefoeyretained." translation of Rev. ii. 23. The er fins ye retain they are But were the Apostles endowed with the expressions which he would sub- power of forgiving the fins of men, or stitute are not nearer to the orig-xing their fins upon them in the literal inal, than those which he condemns. Section fourth contains a long quotation from Christie to explain John iii. 13. The author then en fenfe of this phrafeology? All that can be faid, concerning them in this respect, is, that they bad the pover of bealing all fuch as oppofed them in the performance of the manner of dife fes, and inflicting judgments on duties of their mifion. Accordingly we find, that Paul caufed the fins of Elymas, the forcerer, to be retained, by fixing blindness upon him, for labouring to turn away the deputy from the faith. This was the extent of the Apoftle's power to forgive and retain fins. This therefore was all that Chrift himself poffeffed, while here on earth. For he told them, that, as the Father had fent him, fo he commiffioned them; i. e. with the fame power to forgive and retain fins which he poffeffed. There can be no queftion then, that, by forgiving the fins of the paralytick,our Lord meant nothing more than healing him of his diforder, taking away the confequence of that intemperance, of which he had been guilty. Hence our Lord replies to the malicious wrefting of his words by the Pharifees, Whether is it easier to fay, Thy fins be forgiven thee? or to fay, Arife and walk ? i. e. What matter is it about the expreffions, which we use, if they are but in telligible? Which beft conveys the idea of cure, to say in the language of the prophets, which you cannot but underftand, Thy fins be forgiven thee? or to fay, in plain common language, Arife and walk? Surely you difplay a captious difpofition in cavilling about words. But, that ye may know that the Son of man bath authority on the earth to forgive fins, to take away the diseases which come upon men for their fins, then faith he to the fick of the pally, Arife, take up thy bed, and go into thine boufe. p. 60. The eighth section contains a very full discussion of the use of the word worship in the Old and New Testament, in order to prove, what we believe no one will deny, that "there is nothing in the word itself, which confines it to προσκυνέω divine homage. The kind of homage implied in any particular instance is to be decided by the circumstances under which it is paid." P. 62. The next section is employed in examining several important texts, in which names and titles appropriated to God appear to be given to Christ. We have not room to pass every criticism in review before us; a few remarks on some erroneous suppositions of Mr. S. may not be unprofitable. Op the original of John xx. 28. Mr. S. makes the following observation : Both xugios and 90s, Lord and God, are in the nominative, and require fome verb to fucceed, in order to make fenfe. Otos God, is, indeed, often ufed, for the vocative. But we have never seen an instance of this ufe of xugo; Lord. It is believed,that there is no example of it in the fcriptures. ο κύριος xiii. 13. VITE M Jerem. xxiii. 6. "His name sons or things thus nominated are called Jehovah, than that the city Elizabethtown is called Elizabeth. Surely also it cannot be supposed by any person, who attends to the subject, that, in the passage which Mr. S. has quoted from Psalm xlvii., the ark is called either God or Jehovah. We are also satisfied that the author is mistaken in his interpretation of Isaiah viii. 14. compared with 1 Pet. ii. 8; but we can only refer him to a most valuable note of the learned James Peirce, on Heb. ii. 13., and also to Dodson on this passage in Isaiah; for the limits of our review, and perhaps others will say of our knowledge, do not allow us to expatiate in elaborate criticism, and copious illustration. "We now proceed to examine," says Mr. S. in the next section," such passages as are said to indicate or imply two natures in Christ, a divine and human nature." After stating the arguments in favour of the reading in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Mr. S. offers the following translation of a passage, which, we believe, will forever excruciate the wit of the antitrinita rian. Indeed openly proclaimed to all ranks and defcriptions is the fublime mystery of godliness, which has been made known to mortal man, fubftantiated by miraculous atteftations, revealed to infpired meffengers, preached to the nations, credited by the world, embraced with joy ful exultation. Mr. S. must pardon us for our opinion, that he derives not his principal credit from his original attempts at Greek criticism. He makes several remarks to justify his unnecessary and paraphrastick version of oxyuves, a word to which confessedly in English exactly corresponds. Ev dag (in Mr. S.'s version, to mortal man) cannot be justified by any parallel passage in scripture, and hardly by theGreek idiom; wpên is never used in the passive to express the disclosure of truths to the understanding; and finally, it is too much to say that the verb αναλαμβάνω no more signifies to receive up, than it does to receive down." Though its classical use is undoubtedly extensive, yet in the New Testament it is repeatedly used to signify the assumption of Jesus into heaven. Indeed whether, or os, or os be the true reading in this celebrated text, we think every impartial theologian must confess that the subsequent clauses can be properly applied to a person only, and to no person but Jesus Christ. Mr. S. conjectures that him is the true reading in Zach. xii. 10. He might have added, that Kennicott assures us it is found in forty Hebrew MSS. to which De Rossi has added the authority of several editions. On the celebrated prediction of the birth of Jesus in Isaiah vii. 14. we have much to observe, but this is not the place for our remarks. We will only suggest, that if this prediction, as Mr. S. supposes, does not relate to the birth of Christ, there is no literal prediction of his birth in the Old Testa ment. It is true that many illustrious names in scriptural criticism, among whom we may mention Grotius, support Mr. S. in his opinion; but it should be recollected, that they also maintained a double sense of the prophecy, whereas Mr. S. with Porphyry, the modern Jews, and the subtile Collins not only contends that the name Immanuel belongs only to the child which the prophetess of that time was to conceive, but far ther supposes that the evangelist in Matth. i. 23. does not mean to apply it in any sense, as a prediction of the birth of Jesus. Mr. S. ventures also to intimate his doubt whether Isaiah ix. 6, 7. has any reference to Christ. We are fully sensible of the difficulties, which attend the application of prophecies under the old dispensation to characters and events in the new, but we are not yet prepared to give up these capital predictions, though they have always perplexed the apologist for christianity, as well as the controversialist. We think also that a more full and accurate account of the variations of the different versions in this latter passage might have been expected. dignity upon the sufferings of the human nature, is only an imagination of their own brain; for the fcriptures fay nothing the virtue of his fufferings being enof this abfurdity. They fay nothing of hanced by any fuch connexion. If the union of Deity to humanity rendered the humanity any thing different from mere humanity; if it raised it beyond its namay we not conclude, that it rendered it tural dignity to the dignity of God; why impoffible, incapable of fuffering? This, in the days of the apoftles, was the conclusion of certain metaphyfical reafoners. And it may be as well inferred, from the connity, that Chrift must have been impaffible, fideration of the union of Deity to humaas that the fufferings of the man Chrift Jefus were infinitely more than human fufferings. It was, fay our opponents, a divine peron, who suffered; and therefore thefe fufferings were precious, in proportion to the dignity of the perfonage fuffering. They will have it that it was GOD, who died on the cross. That Chrift was really the infinite God, is a doctrine not known in the scriptures. Befides, may we not turn the tables and fay, that God's hungering and thirfting, in the human nature, after earthly food, was infinitely derogatory from the dignity of the divine nature, as to affirm, that God's fuffering on the cross, in the human nature, conferred an infinite dig Section twelfth, upon the pluralisms applied to God in the Old Testament, and section thirteenth, upon the appearances of what is called the angel of the Lord, are written with much ability; and a consideration of two very popular objections, in section fourteenth, closes this part of the work. In answer to the question what atone-nity upon that, and rendered its fufferings ment can there be, if Christ be not verily the supreme God, Mr. S. has the following observations. Did the fuppofed divine nature become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross? Did divinity itfelf fuffer? Our opponents do not pretend it. This is true only of the man Chrift Jefus. Whatever virtue in his obedience unto death, must therefore be the virtue of the man Chrift Jefus only. But, fay our opponents, the union of divinity to the humanity conferred an infinite dignity upon the fufferings of the human nature, and rendered them infinitely precious, fo as to amount, in effect, to the eternal fufferings of the whole human race. Thus Chrift fatisfied the demands of juftice, in the room and stead of our apoftate world. The doctrine that the union of the divinity to humanity conferred an infinite inconceivably more precious, than merely human fufferings? Sufferings furely denote great weakness, want of strength, and dignity of nature. And, fince the infinite God fuffered, he must be very weak, impotent, and devoid of dignity. Do our opponents diflike this reprefentation? Will they fay that these things are true only of the human nature, the man Chrift Jefus? Then let them not confound things which they themfelves diftinguifh. Let them acknowledge, that the fufferings of the man Christ Jefus were clothed with no other than merely human dignity; and were no more precious than merely human fufferings. Let them look out for fome more fcriptural and rational doctrine of atonement: For there is, clearly, no more ability in the man Chrift Jefus to fatisfy divine justice, upon their fcheme, than upon ours. P. 142. The second part is introduced by the following statement, |