tarianism, by J. S. Hyndman, Minister of the Unitarian Chapel, Alnwick."

66

Having altered" the Word was God," John i. 1, to "God was the Word," this advocate for "the use of reason in religion" deduces the following most rational inference. John, by saying that God was the Word,' teaches them that the Logos" (or the Word) was not, as they supposed, an intelligent being." I do assure my readers that there is nothing either preceding or following this sentence which throws the least light upon its meaning; so that, if it have any meaning, it must be, that, in the opinion of Mr. Hyndman, St. John (like a modern French philosopher) assumed, as the basis of his system, that God was not an intelligent being. I shall not insult my readers by extracting from Mr. Hyndman's heavy pages any more of the mystical blasphemies with which they abound, thus triumphantly confuting themselves.

He can, however, sometimes write an intelligible sentence; and the following is no mean specimen of argumentative declamation. Referring to his text, John, xvi. 23, "In that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you"-He energetically exclaims, "The text, the very text, my brethren, proves that our sentiments, as Unitarians, with respect to the proper object of religious worship, are correct-wholly and undeniably correct. Let orthodox ingenuity be called into exercise, as it frequently is on other points, and what can it do to overthrow the firm foundation on which our principles rest? Speaking of the day in which he was to ascend into heaven, Jesus, in the most express terms, declares to his disciples, In that day ye shall ask me nothing; whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my

name, he will give it you.' We regulate our worship according to this rule. We are therefore right, and of course the multitude must be wrong in worshipping him, who thus to his disciples declares that when removed from the sphere of sensible communication, they should ask him nothing. Where is there an express command to worship Jesus, as there is here an injunction not to worship him ?"

I confess I was a little startled when I first discovered this brilliant passage. But recollecting the many powerful arguments which had led me to hold fast till now the doctrine of Christ's Divinity, and the spiritual comfort I had experienced from communing with him as God, neither my feelings nor my reason would permit me to forsake at once the God of my fathers, and bow down before the idol1 of the Socinians, without farther examination. I determined, therefore, in the first place, to exercise a little" orthodox ingenuity" upon the text appealed to, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it really bore the meaning upon which this triumphant argument had been founded. Accordingly, I opened my Bible, in pursuance of an orthodox rule, which I strongly recom

1 "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true: and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from IDOLS." 1 John, v. 20, 21. “The true God is He that was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself;' there is none other but He; and if this great characteristic be denied, or any other assumed in its stead, a man is left without God; after which he may call himself a Deist," or he may call himself a Unitarian, "if he will; but his God is a mere IDOL of the imagination, and has no corresponding reality in the whole universe of beings."-JONES's Cath. Doct. of Trin. p. lxxxvi.

mend to all who are desirous of knowing the truth, Never to decide upon any point of doctrine from a detached verse, till it has been carefully compared with the context. Reading from the beginning of the chapter, the first thing that struck me as bearing upon the text under consideration, was the use of the verb usk in the 5th, as again, in the 19th and 30th verses, in the sense of asking a question, asking for information. The following is my conclusion from the whole context, beginning at the xiiith chapter.

Want of faith had prevented the Disciples from understanding what Jesus had told them3 respecting his approaching departure. Vague apprehensions of impending danger pressed heavily upon their spirits, while the degrading consciousness of spiritual blindness filled up the measure of their sorrow, (xvi. 6,) and made them ashamed to ask for clearer information, either in the first instance, by repeating the question, Whither goest thou? (v. 5,) or afterwards, by asking the much desired explanation of the words, “ A little while, and ye shall see me ; and again a little while, and ye shall not see me." (vv. 1619.) Jesus, however, the Divine Jesus, "needed not that any should ask him, (v. 30 ;) but "knowing all things," replied at once to their thoughts. In both instances, His object was, to encourage their hearts against the fear of the world, and to give them a motive to bear with patience their present distressing uncertainty about many things, the knowledge of which they were not yet able to bear (v. 12.) This motive was, in both instances, the same, viz. the prospect of having the veil removed from

2 See xiii. 36, 37, and xiv. 5-11, 22. 3 xiii. 31-33, and xiv. 2, 3, 19.

4 xiii. 36, and xiv. 5.

their minds; for, said he in the former case, "When He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He shall guide you into all truth," (v. 13); and in the latter, "I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you,” (for “ I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.") "And in that day," (or time, viz. of enduring joy,)" ye shall ask me nothing," either verbally or (as on this occasion) mentally, so completely shall your present distressing ignorance have been removed, by my own personal instructions, (Acts, i. 3,) and by the illumination of the Spirit of Truth. Our Lord then proceeded to suggest a topic of encouragement against the fear of the world, different, or at least exhibited in a different point of view from that (viz. the promise of the Comforter, v. 7,) which he had employed in the former instance, and from that which he had “ now plainly spoken" (v. 29) in the present, (viz. the promise of an abiding joy from his own return, v. 22,) though all the three consisted in a promise of Divine protection. This third promise, as relating to "his Father and their Father," and being peculiarly adapted to remove their apprehensions of being left" orphans," even for a single instant, he introduces, in his most solemn and impressive manner," Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatso

5 Matt. xxviii. 20. 6 Compare c. xiv. 19, 20, and xvi. 25, 26, 7 See ch. xiv. 18, margin.

8 Our adversaries are capable of suggesting that this transition from one topic to another would not be made in the middle of a verse; but few, I trust, are ignorant enough to be so misled. Christ did not speak in verses. The Evangelists did not write in The division into chapters and verses is altogether arbitrary, and a modern invention, very convenient for the purpose of reference, and intended for that purpose alone.

verses.

ever ye shall ask the Father in my name, He will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name; ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.” The same two promises, of clear instruction, (v. 25,) and of a favourable and affectionate answer to all their faithful prayers, (verses 26, 27,) Christ immediately reiterated in other words, more fully, but in the same order as in verse 23 ; thus strongly confirming our interpretation of that verse.

If any doubt remained of the soundness of that interpretation, it would vanish at once when we turned to the Greek Testament; for there we find, in the first member of the said verse, a verb, (igwrnors,) which is the same verb as is used in verses 5, 19, and 30, and which usually signifies, as it does in all these places, to ask in the interrogatory sense, as asking a question; and in the second member of the verse we find a different verb, (ÅITNONTE,) which signifies to ask in the precatory sense, as asking a favour or benefit. The former verb is indeed sometimes used in the precatory sense; but still its most common and familiar signification is decidedly the interrogatory, which that of the latter verb never is. No one who reads the verse in Greek, even without thinking of the context, can for an instant doubt of its meaning; the change of the verb so naturally and obviously marks a change from one kind of action to another, from asking for information, to asking for a gift or benefit.

What now becomes of Mr. Hyndman's triumphant argument? It falls to the ground along with the false interpretation upon which it was founded; and leaves to him; instead of the glory of having brilliantly "burnt to ashes that fabric of mysticism," (meaning, of course, the orthodox faith, or rather the established church,)" which,"