Dr. John Jones in answer to Dr. J. P. Smith. pare them for that event, he assumed, in the presence of three of them, a form splendid as the sun, and symbolical of the change which awaited him after his resurrection. Peter, who was much distressed at the thought that his Divine Master was to undergo a cruel death, greedily laid hold of the magnificent scene before him as a happy means of averting the terrible event. And he expressed himself to this effect: "Master, let us stay here and not go to Jerusalem; for the splendour of thy appearance, and the testimony of Moses and Elias, will bring all men to the spot, and even thy enemies will in consequence hail thee as the expected Messiah." Now I maintain that this is the very circumstance to which Paul alludes when he says of Christ, "Who being in the form of God, did not think this divine form a thing to be caught at as the means of avoiding death; but he divested him self of it, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Now Dr. Smith remarks, that this allusion to the transfiguration is conjectural; that, if true, it would be more definite; and that, on the same supposition, the original zapov would be the past participle inapas. To remove the first of these objections, it is only necessary to shew that the phrase "form of God" is an exact description of the transfiguration. It is well known that the term god in the genitive is often used by Hebrew, and even Greek writers, to denote pre-eminence. Thus the words "power of God," denote "a mighty power;" a "trumpet of God," a loud or awful trumpet; a "wind of God," a violent tempest, or, as Homer writes, a "cloud of Jupiter," as a dark, tempestuous cloud. On the same principle, a "form of God" may mean a very splendid form. Dr. Smith knows that Greek writers sometimes use SEO exclusively to mean Apollo, or the sun. The reason of this is to be sought in the origin of the word. The Hebrew 1, zoe, to command, exists in Arabic in the form of So, to illumine or shine. The same word obtains in Persian, but is pronounced zee (which, through the medium of the Gothic, is the parent of our see and shew, the former of which means to perceive, the latter to exhibit, in the light). The Persian and Chaldean 351 sages considered light as the emblem of God, and called the Benevolent Principle by that name. Hence the origin of 30: and this etymology is confirmed by a remark of Aristotle, namely, that the Spartans pronounced Saos, aos: and thus the two different modes of pronouncing the term among the Greeks corresponded to the different pronunciations of it among the Arabic and Persians. Nor were the writers of the New Testament ignorant of the primary import and origin of the word, as they seem to allude to it when they say that "God is light,” and call him "Father of lights." The history of our Lord's transfiguration is connected with his crucifixion, and founded on it. Peter seized the former as a plea to avoid the latter. The drift of the disciple's meaning is omitted in the narrative, and it is remarkable that the apostle in copying the narrative has copied also the omission, and the ellipsis has rendered the passage forced and unnatural in the extreme. Let the ellipsis be supplied from the Gospel, and the words of our apostle become as clear and natural as the light. And here let me ask, what can more decisively prove the truth of an allusion, than that it gives ease, grace and perspicuity to a paragraph which has hitherto baffled all the efforts of criticism to render it intelligible? If one key can, and ninety-nine keys cannot, open a lock without violence, is it conjectural that this is the true key? If the apostle Paul uses terms which with the ut most propriety describe the transfiguration of our Saviour, and his conduct on that occasion, is it conjectural that he alludes to that scene? Indeed, my learned and excellent friend is not so happy here as he commonly is in the use of his terms. The Doctor quotes the following assertion of Chrysostom as illustrative of his own notion: "As the form of a servant signifies no other than real and perfect man, so the form of God signifies no other than God." The form of any visible object may mean that object itself, for this very reason, that it has always been associated with it, has always appeared under it as an external mark peculiar to that object and that alone, precisely by the same association of ideas that the name of a thing stands for the thing itself. But has God any external form? Does he appear unto men under any sensible figure, which induces them to associate that figure with him as an index of his nature and essence? If not, the maxim of Chrysostom is a piece of sophistry utterly unworthy of Dr. Smith. The form of a man may mean a real, perfect man, because that man and his form are in our minds the result of invariable associations: but the form of God cannot mean God, because no such associations could ever take place in the human mind. And there must be an end to all rational criticism, if a word that implies only a sensible appearance can be perverted to mean a Being who is infinitely remote from all perceptions of sense. And yet on this perversion, gross as it appears, is founded the interpretation of this passage given by the orthodox divines. Dr. Smith supposes, that if the apostle alluded to the transfiguration, he would have used the past participle, napas, instead of napay, the present, as necessary to mark the previous change which Jesus underwent before his crucifixion. The remark is ingenious, and argues a critical skill in the language. I will illustrate its justness by an example:-In the beginning of the Iliad, it is said of Agamemnon and Achilles, that, poate diary, having quarrelled, they separated. Here the past participle implies that they quarrelled before they separated, and was the cause of their separation: and the phrase might be rendered, they separated in consequence of having quarrelled; whereas, if the poet used pote, his meaning would have been that they separated while quarrelling. Let us apply this remark to the disputed verse. The Doctor maintains, that while Jesus suffered and died as a man, he was still alike incapable of suffering in his divine character. Now, if the apostle entertained this notion, it would have been indispensable in him to mark the difference of the two natures, and this would have been effectually done by the use of the past in the room of the present participle, as it would lead the reader to infer that Christ died on the cross in consequence of having previously disrobed himself of his divinity; whereas the use of the present participle unequivocally sanctions the conclusion, that he expired in the very nature and character which he possessed when in the form of God. This leads me to observe, that an obvious and marked contrast is intended between inapxwv and uoppm, as the former comprehends the latent principles essential to the being and character of our Lord, while the latter denotes only an external appearance. These latent principles which constituted his nature remained till death unchanged, but his splendid form vanished away previously to his dissolution. The apostle opposes those men who taught the divinity of Christ. His reference to these impostors is certain, because he mentions them by name: "Many are now going about, whom I have often mentioned to you, and now mention with tears, as enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is their own destruction, (and not, as they pretend, the salvation of those whom they deceive,) whose God is their belly, and who glory in their shame." They were enemies to the cross of Christ because they maintained that he did not really suffer, he being a man only in appearance. But while they taught the divinity of our Saviour, they refused to acknowledge him as Lord; in other words, they denied any obligation on the part of the converts to obey his moral precepts and to imitate his virtuous example, the end of his appearance being not to preach repentance and reformation to the world, but to annul the righteous laws of the Creator, and to give full scope to the worst passions of the human heart. Their object, in short, was to neutralize the moral influence of the gospel, and this they sought to do by substituting in the room of its divine virtues the notions which the Pagan philosophers had of virtue, and to class the Founder with the Pagan gods. The high reputation of Aristotle, and the Ode which, though composed in praise of Virtue, breathes a spirit hostile to the peace and happiness of society, sanctions an abomination that cannot be named, fell in with the views of the deceivers. They therefore introduced it into the church at Philippi. Of this the apostle, though at a distance, could not be long ignorant, as he corresponded by every means with the several churches he had established. If the Dr. John Jones in answer to Dr. J. P. Smith. apostle was not previously acquainted with this piece, a copy might have been sent by those in the church sincerely attached to him and his cause. In the Epistle which in consequence he addressed to the Philippians, he notices the Ode, and sets aside the infamous doctrine it contains. It was usual with the apostle to adopt any peculiar words which they might have used, and retort them in a new or modified sense. His object thus was to give a point to what he was saying, and to shew his readers that he was alluding to his opponents, who sought to deceive them. Thus the impostors said of Christ, that he was in the resemblance of man, meaning that he was a mere phantom in a human form. Paul takes up the same phrase, and then sets it aside by adding that he was "found in frame a man," meaning, that he proved himself a real man by his trial and crucifixion. He deals in the same manner with the Ode of Aristotle; he copies the same words, or words, peculiar as they are, of the same import, and applies them to Christ in a new, beautiful, yet analogous sense, thus intending to contrast him with the personages which are mentioned in it. The poet calls Virtue up, a form-an object the most splendid, and to be hunted or captured, Onpapa Kaλ50-as conferring the fruits of immortality, kap abavatov. Hermias was endowed with this splendid form, but he divested himself of this radiant figure, this effulgence of the sun, acλio Xnwσy avyas, he, it is probable, having honourably fallen in battle. But the Muses rescue him from death, and advance him to immortality in the temple of their father Jupiter. The apostle has copied this train of ideas; and, peculiar as this train is, he has preserved it unbroken, and expressed it in nearly the same language. Jesus was invested with a form splendid as the sun. This splendid form was naturally a thing to be caught at, especially as it was the emblem of his glory and immortality; yet he did not seize it as the means of avoiding death. On the contrary, he laid it aside, and voluntarily submitted to the ignominious death of a slave. He does not, however, remain the victim of his enemies; his Almighty Father, as the reward of his obedience, raises him VOL, XVII. 353 from the grave, and exalts him to im mortal glory. The impostors classed Jesus with the Heathen gods, and claimed for him the worship which was paid to Hercules and others. The heroes of Greece were eager for divine honours, and the most exalted philosophers of the Pagan world were not backward to gratify this pernicious vanity. Paul contrasts the conduct of Jesus of Nazareth with the objects of idolatrous superstition, and the direct scope of his words is to this effect: "Though endowed with power and wisdom from above, though once invested with a form surpassing the sun in brightness, and though announced by a voice from heaven as the beloved Son of God, he did not profess himself a God, he did not violently arrogate those attributes and worship which belong to Jehovah alone. On the contrary, he laid aside his supernatural endowments, and surrendered himself to be crucified." The Heathen divinities were worshiped, some in the heavens, some on the earth, some in hades. This is implied in the Ode of Aristotle; and the apostle proceeds to intimate that the gospel, so far from sanctioning the idolatrous practices of the Heathens, was intended to become the instrument of abolishing all idolatry; and that the name of Jesus, instead of himself becoming an object of worship, was to be the medium of worshiping the Father alone. "Therefore God has highly exalted him, and given him a name above every other name, that in the name of Jesus every knee, of those in the heavens, of those on the earth, and of those under the earth, shall bow-to the glory of God the Father." The impostors were guilty of the foulest impurities. Paul (1 Tim. i. 9, 10) gives a catalogue of their enormities, and among these he expressly. mentions some as being αρσενοκοίται. It is a fact which is not known, but which ought to be known, that the very same men who opposed the apostle make a figure in the second Satire of Juvenal; and it is remarkable that their pretended veneration for Aristotle, and the atrocities here alluded to, are associated together, as in this Epistle: "Perfectissimus horum est, si quis Aristotelem similem vel Pittacon emit. Frontis nulla fides; omnis 2 z enim vicus abundat tristibus obscœnis. Castigas turpia, cum sis inter Socraticos notissima fossa cinædos." The false teachers were anxious to withdraw the attention of the converts from the perfect model of virtue exemplified in Jesus, and to recommend to them the notion of virtue as illustrated in the language and character of Aristotle. Their end, in this respect, the apostle earnestly strives to defeat, by again and again directing them to Christ as the sole model of their imitation, and giving a minute and eloquent description of that virtue which as Christians they were called upon to cultivate." Be you, brethren, together with me, imitators of him, and mark those (as unworthy of your imitation) who thus behave themselves, as ye have us for your model-us, and not them, as they would persuade you. -Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever dignified, whatever just, whatever pure, whatever friendly, whatever fair in name, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, meditate on these things; and what you have learnt and received and heard of me, and have seen in me, these things practise." This description of virtue is beautiful and eloquent; but it derives its chief force and propriety from the contrast which every clause carries to the views of the impostors, and to the Ode of Aristotle. Thus whatever things are true and dignified, and not such false and puerile things as are alluded to in the composition of the Stagirite-whatever things are agreeable to justice and moral purity, and not such impure, fraudulent arts as they are guilty of who would first deceive, then rob and betray you-whatever things are friendly and conducive to the peace and happiness of society, and not the warlike temper, not the fury, revenge and rapaciousness recommended to you in the conduct of Achilles-whatever things are fair in name, and not things too infamous to be named, yet practised by these impostors, and sanctioned even by Aristotle and his base favourite. It is worthy of remark, that "the Praise of Virtue," the proper title of the Ode of Aristotle, existing in the mind of the apostle, seems by association to have given birth to the clause, "if there be any virtue, if there be any praise;" just as the phrases "the man of sin, the son of destruction,” (2 Thess. ii. 3,) resulted from the title "Son of Man," then present to his thoughts. It is a fact, then, not to be disputed, that the apostle here alludes to Aristotle, and that he is a preacher of Unitarianism in opposition to those who taught the divinity of Christ. The votaries of the orthodox faith in general, and Dr. Smith in particular, are deeply interested in this conclusion. He will doubtless peruse my remarks with attention, and though, through the influence of early prejudice, he may remain insensible of their force, yet it gives me heart-felt pleasure to think that, however widely we may differ in opinion, I shall retain a share in the esteem and friendship of my amiable and enlightened opponent. But I must not conclude before I make an observation worthy of notice. We here have before us the great philosopher of the Heathen world, and the great apostle of the Gentiles, placed side by side. And we see in this comparison what unenlightened reason, in its most exalted state of cultivation and genius, could do to reform mankind without the aid of revelation. The enemies of the gospel shall themselves be judges whether the morality of Paul or the morality of Aristotle, if reduced to practice, would prove most beneficial to society. Let the appeal be made to those who are ever ready to vilify this apostle. Let our Hunts, our Godwins and our Benthams, undoubted friends of their species, be asked which of the two they would, in their efforts to promote knowledge, freedom and an enlightened spirit of legislation, themselves copy, or recommend to others as the safest model of their imitation? Ignorance of the writings of Paul is the only cause of the prejudices cherished against him by many well-disposed and otherwise enlightened men. J. JONES. "The Christian Remembrancer" on the Unitarian Marriage-Bill. 355 House of Commons by Mr. Smith is withdrawn, but another Bill will be brought forward in the next Session. If the objections of certain clergymen can be obviated by any alteration of the projected measure, it is just and reasonable that this should be done. To shew the disposition of Churchmen, we extract verbatim et literatim a paper on the subject from the "Christian Remembrancer" for May. This work is regarded as the organ of the ruling party in the Church, and if their views be here fully represented, they cannot be fairly accused by Unitarians of want of liberality. ED. UNITARIAN MARRIAGES. Bill. WHEN it was proposed to enact that the Clergy of the Church of England shall solemnize marriage after a different form from that which is prescribed in the Prayer Book, I expected that so extraordinary a measure would be defended upon extraordinary grounds. But I was unable to anticipate any thing half so strange as the first argument upon which this Bill proceeds, namely, that our laws consider marriage as a mere civil contract, and that the statutes by which it is regulated have nothing to do with religion. I thought that our ancestors had observed a proper mean between the Papist who exalted marriage to the rank of a sacrament, and the Puritan who degraded it to the level of a bond and indenture. I thought that all direct interference, with regard to the validity of marriages, was reserved to the ecclesiastical judge, because they partook of a sacred character. But it seems that I have been under a mistake. The words civil contract are used by writers of good authority, in the course of their remarks upon marriage; and on this account we are to unlearn our old ignorance and prejudices, and believe that an engagement, which can only be contracted with the assistance of a priest, which can only be set aside by a spiritual court, and which, unless declared to have been void ab initio, cannot be set aside at all, is to be considered in the same light as a deed of bargain and sale!! Let the Unitarian produce an instance of any other contract, as solemn and as indissoluble as marriage, or which is looked upon as equally sacred, by those good judges of the tendency and spirit of our institu. tions, the great body of the people; let him shew at what period matrimony could be celebrated by a layman, except during the grand rebellion, when the constitution was subverted, and then perhaps it will be time to review the history of the marriage laws, and expose the weakness of the opinion which they have been now declared to favour. For the present it is sufficient to observe, that the sacred character of the marriage rite is just as much an admitted fact among us, as the value of a trial by jury. No parent of respectability would endure to see his daughter coupled to her husband by a parish constable, or a lord-mayor. No woman of feeling and decency would submit to such a degradation. And the fathers and friends of the present bill would solemnize their marriages to-mor row in their religious assemblies, if the law threw no obstacle in their way. All this results, not merely from the natural propriety of the thing, though that is sufficiently obvious, but from the actual provisions of the statute-book-the known, the acknowledged, the unvaried regula tions which, from the earliest periods of our history, have connected matrimony with religion. So much for the first very ill-selected topic, which the advocates of the present measure have thought proper to introduce; but it is sufficiently in character with the measure itself, to the consideration of which I will now proceed. I cannot be expected to know the complete history of this bill; but part of it, and a very material part, has been long before the public. The precise period at which the consciences of Unitariaus took alarm at certain expressions in the Marriage Service, has not been communicated to the world; but the first symptom of that alarm was made sufficiently notorious, and the relief then sought was of a very objectionable nature. A person of the name of Fearon objected to being married according to the comthe ceremony to the officiating clergymou form, and delivered a protest against man. Another person, Mr. Dillon, an Unitarian Teacher, followed up the blow, and contrived to insult the Church, the Prayer-Book, and the Clergyman, and to get married, according to his own statethe proper ceremony. Mr. Dillon pubment of the case, without going through lished an account of his own misconduct in the Monthly Repository, and strongly recommended his own behaviour to general imitation. The first step, therefore, that was taken by the tender consciences for which we are called to legislate, was an attempt to break the law. They tried their own strength, and protested, before |