PART IV.

AN EXAMINATION OF DIFFICULT PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE.

LETTER I.

Rules of Interpretation stated and applied.

REV. SIR,

IN the preceding Letters, my views of many passages of Scripture, which have been supposed to favor the Athanasian theory, have been occasionally given. But there are others to which no distinct attention. has been paid. It is my wish to have error detected, if there be any in my views. Suffer me, therefore, to lay before you my adopted rules of interpretation, and give you a specimen of their application.

Rule I. "The Scriptures were inspired, to instruct common readers, by using words according to their common acceptation, and not to confound them by an abuse of language."

The language in which this rule is expressed, is borrowed from Dr. Spring's sermon on the self-existence of Christ, and is applied to the many thousands of texts in which personal pronouns of the singular sumber are used as substitutes for the nouns God,

LORD GOD, &c. and the inference is, that God is one Person only.

The same rule is applied to the numerous texts in which Christ is represented as the Son of God, God's OWN and ONLY SON; and the inference is, that Christ is not the self-existent God, but the Son of the selfexistent God.

Rule II. The terms used in Revelation must be understood in a sense corresponding with some analogy known to men.

According to this rule, also, it is inferred, that the Son of God cannot be a self-existent Person. It is likewise concluded, that there are no passages of Scripture which were designed to teach us that three Persons are but one intelligent Being; nor that there may be two intelligent Beings in one Person. As extraordinary as it may seem, both of these contradietory hypotheses pertain to your theory. God you suppose to be three distinct Persons; and yet but one intelligent Being. You also suppose that Christ is both God and a Man united in one Person. This, it is thought, amounts precisely to the hypothesis of two intelligent Beings in one Person. Is it not, sir, extraordinary, that great and good men should adopt two hypotheses so manifestly contradictory, while neither of them can be supported by Scripture, nor illustrated by any analogy in nature?

But did not Christ say, I and my FATHER are ONE? Yes, sir; but he never said, I and my Father are but one intelligent Being. Nor have we any analogy which can justify such an interpretation of the words. There are many senses in which a Father and a Son may be one, besides that of one Being. And în no other case, in which the words are used by a Son,

should we have the least suspicion that this is the intended import. God and Christ may be of one nature as a Father and Son; they may be one in affection, in interest, and in operation; they may also be one in respect to fulness and authority, as has been already noted and explained.

When Christ made this declaration, the Jews aceused him of blasphemy, and of "making himself God." But Christ, in his answer, distinctly let them know that his words imported no more than that he was truly the Son of God, and as such united with the Father-"Say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God.”

Rule III. So far as the Scriptures may interpret themselves, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, such interpretation is to be preferred to any human hypothesis.

This rule has been found of extensive application. The Divine names and titles given to the Son of God; the Divine works and honors ascribed to him, and his Divine fulness, are all distinctly accounted for in the Scriptures, on the ground of the Father's love and pleasure. Therefore, these titles, these works, these honors, or this fulness, may not be considered as evidence of the personal self-existence of the Son of God.

Rule IV. In many instances, it is necessary to take into view the customs of the people to whom the Scriptures were originally communicated, and to consider in what light they would most naturally understand particular passages.

The prophecies respecting the Messiah were probably originally written for the comfort and benefit of the good people among the Israelites or Jews; at

least, this may be supposed to be one principal object of the predictions. In the prophecies, the promised Messiah was called by various names, and some of them were Divine names, or names of Divine import. He was not only called David, and David the King, but it was predicted that his name should be called EMMANUEL, WONDERFUL, COUNSELLOR, the MIGHTY GOD, the EVERLASTING FATHER, and the PRINCE OF PEACE.

If we would know how a Jew would be likely to understand these names or titles, we should consider a custom which was common among the Jews, viz. that of giving significant names to persons, places, altars, &e. At the close of our great Bibles we have a table of the names used in the Old Testament, with their several significations. If you will examine this table, you will find that other Persons had Divine names, besides the Messiah. See a few of these names, with their signification-Eliashib, the God of conversion-Elijah, God the Lord, or the strong Lord-Eliphalet, the God of deliverance-Elisha, the salvation of GodLemuel, God with them, or him. They also gave Divine names, or names of Divine import, to places and altars-Jehovah-jireh, the Lord will see or provide Jehovah-Nissi, the Lord my Banner-El-elohe-Israel, God, the God of Israel.

Now, sir, imagine yourself to have been a Jew, living in the days of the prophets, and perfectly acquainted with the custom of giving significant names; then eonsider what ideas you would naturally have taken from the various names given to the promised Messiah. If you had heard him called David, or David the King, would you have supposed that the Man who killed Goliah was to appear again as the promised

Savior? If you had heard the prophet say, respecting the promised Son, They shall call his name Emmanuel, would you have supposed that God himself was to come as the promised Messiah? Would you not rather have supposed the Son to be one in whom God would make some gracious manifestations of himself to men? If you had heard him called the Mighty God, and Everlasting Father, wonld it not have been natural for you to suppose that the Son was to be one in whom the Mighty God and Everlasting Father would make surprising manifestations of his power and his kindness? If you had heard him called, "The Lord our Righteousness," what would have been more natural than for you to have supposed, that the Messiah was to be one in whom Jehovah would display his righteousness, or one through whose righteousness. men should be benefited by Jehovah ?

Accustomed as the Jews were to believe in one God only, and to speak of that God as only one Person; accustomed as they were to the use of significant names of high import; would it not have been unspeakably more natural for them to understand the names of the Messiah as significant, importing some such ideas as I have mentioned, than to suppose that the Sox to be born was the VERY GOD who had promised to SEND HIM into the world

The prophet did not say the SoN shall BE Emmanuel, but "they shall call his name Emmanuel." He did not say, the Son shall BE the Mighty God and Everlasting Father, but "his name shall be called," &c. And this phraseology was probably used with direct reference to the custom of the Jews in giving significant names. And the Son's having the Divine names thus given him by the spirit of prophecy, is no proof