II. The doctrinal views which stand connected with the subject of our investigation are truly important, in respect to the character of the Saviour, and the duty of his followers.

1. The Lord Jesus is the Lord on whom Christians call, i.e. he to whom they direct their petitions and their praises; comp. A. 1, 35. B. 15. pp. 759, 764, above.

2. The Lord Jesus is the Lord to whom the primitive Christians looked in a peculiar manner for guidance, for consolation, for illumination, for success in their work, and for victory over their spiritual and temporal enemies. Him they regarded, in a peculiar manner, as "Head over all things to his church;" as "King of kings and Lord of lords," for the express purpose of accomplishing the work of redemption. Hence their frequent supplications for his grace and favour; their desire for his benediction; their deep sense of dependence on his protection and his mercy. To cite the proofs of this, would be to cite a great part of the examples which have been already produced in the preceding pages. No attentive reader should overlook the instruction afforded by such examples.

It is indeed ordained of God, that "every knee shall bow to Jesus, and every tongue confess that he is Lord." He will surely "reign until all enemies are put under his feet." But is it not equally true, when "every knee shall bow to Jesus, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord," that this will be to the glory of God the Father?" So thought Paul, Phil. 2: 11; so then we ought to believe. But when the proper idea of the voorns of Christ as Mediator is once well understood, the explanation of this seeming paradox becomes much more easy. The xvpiórns in question is delegated; see p. 750 sq. above. It will cease at the end of time, 1 Cor. 15: 24-28. But who delegated the mediatorial dominion to Christ as Messiah? The texts cited on p. 751 shew that it was the Father. To the Father, then, glory will redound, when "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord." Why should it not? "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." "Thanks be unto God, then, for his unspeakable gift." Glory and praise be unto him for ever and ever, for his boundless mercy!

But is glory due to him who said, "Lo I come, my God, to do thy will?" So thought and said the apostles; so the redeemed in heaven are represented as declaring, Rev. 5: 13. Why should the one exclude the other? Why should the glory

which redounds to God the Father, because that every tongue confesses Jesus to be Lord, detract from the glory which is to be given to this same Jesus as Lord?

But you will say, perhaps, that the glory to be given to Jesus is inferior and secondary praise. Be it so then, so far as that xvoiórns is concerned which is delegated, and which will come to an end. But is there not something more than the praise of this xvoorns due to "Him who was in the beginning with God, and "WHO WAS GOD;" who is "GOD OVER ALL and blessed for ever;" who is "OUR GREAT GOD and Saviour," who is "the TRUE GOD and eternal life?" The humble Christian will pause, at least, before he decides against this.

One remark more, and I have done. It pertains to the practical part of our subject. Shall we separate, in our own minds, between the homage we pay to the Saviour as being Lord by delegation, and in our nature, and that which we pay to him as the eternal Logos?'

How can we do this? For myself, I have made the attempt. in vain. Others may be more successful; but I cannot reach such a point of abstraction in my own views and feelings. Am I required to do it? I can find nothing in the New Testament which imposes this upon me. I find in the ascriptions to the Saviour, which John represents the redeemed in heaven as making, that he is praised and adored in the same words and by the same actions, which are employed in order to praise the Father, Rev. 5: 13. If worshippers in the temple above do not separate the objects of their worship, by the manner and matter of rendering homage, then worshippers on earth may dispense with such a separation. I doubt whether it is practicable. I am fully persuaded that it is not expedient. It would disturb the thoughts of the worshipper; it would give him a low instead of an elevated flight. If I am wrong here, most cheerfully will I submit to correction. If I am not, then let the humble Christian apply to practice the principle which I am endeavouring to confirm.

All this, however, does not hinder us from knowing and fully believing, that Christ as mediatorial xugos, is in some important respects to be distinguished from Christ as xvotos in the character of Móyos and . The whole of this mystery we cannot explain; it is deeper than we can fathom. I feel this to be true; and from the bottom of my heart I acknowledge it. But how can this be otherwise? 'God manifest in the flesh,' we have good authority for believing, 'is a great mystery;' one which

perhaps the light of heaven itself will never fully unfold. But then, even granting this, I would forever say, "Let me believe and adore," and not "wonder and perish !"

ART. VI. FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE.

THE following extracts of letters received from distinguished individuals abroad, are presented to the readers of the Repository in the belief, that nothing can be more acceptable to them, than thus to learn from time to time the views and feelings, as well as the occupations and prospects, of persons whose names and characters are well known to the American churches, but whose works are as yet little circulated among us. Indeed, one great object of the present work, and in the Editor's view one of the most important, is, so far as opportunity may arise, to communicate information of this kind; in order thus to bring Christians of different countries into more intimate acquaintance with each other, and enable them better to appreciate and honour and love the Christian character and exertions of each other. To the sentiments of fraternal affection expressed in the following extracts, the heart of every American Christian cannot but warmly respond. EDITOR.

1. Extracts from a Letter to Prof. Stuart, from the REV. EBEnezer HendersoN, D. D. Prof. of Theol. in Highbury College, near London.†

LONDON, FEB. 22, 1831.

I cannot proceed further, without tendering you my best thanks for the copy of the new edition of your Hebrew Grammar; I was already well acquainted with it, and quite agree with you as to the importance of the more condensed form in which it appears. Even as it is, it is, however, I am sorry to

+ Dr Henderson is the well known traveller in the northern parts of Europe and Iceland, as the agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society. ED.

say, too formidable for most of my countrymen; who have got so spoiled by the habit of learning the language without points, or with them so superficially, that I fear few copies will be in demand.

*

*

You have greatly the advantage of us, in having the young men that come to Andover already initiated into the elemental parts of the [Hebrew] language. With us all is to begin; and that with the Theological Tutor. I am happy to say however, that at Highbury College, (to which I removed last July, the Mission College having been given up on the ground of the disproportionate expense,) I have succeeded in getting Hebrew begun at the commencement of the second year; during which I find I can take the students through the Grammar and Genesis at least; the third year we can master the more important of the other Mosaic books and the Psalms; and this leaves us time in the fourth year to go through Job, Isaiah, or the minor Prophets. I have now a class that began Job last September, and have read the whole of it,-all the Chaldee portions of the Old Testament, and two long chapters of Jonathan's Targum. Formerly the students only got a mere smattering, and never having got fairly over the threshold, could not enjoy the scenes within. It grieves me to think that I cannot devote more time to the prosecution of Biblical researches, for the immediate benefit of my Hebrew classes; but when I tell you that with the exception of a course on Biblical Criticism (already prepared), I have still in a great measure to get up lectures on Biblical Antiquities, Divinity, Church History, and Pastoral Theology, you will not wonder that it should be the case. In the preparation of my divinity lectures, it is my object as much as possible to make them exegetical, that the students may have the means of judging whether any view is contained in the book of God, or not, and what is the exact amount of evidence which any particular passage may furnish in its support.

A specimen I wish to send you with some other things. It is a defence of [the reading] GOD manifest in the flesh, brought out to meet the temporary exigency occasioned by an attempt on the part of the Socinians, to persuade the public that Sir Isaac Newton had proved a corruption of the passage.t

+ Of this little work the Archbishop of Canterbury says, that it is "a valuable specimen of critical ability, successfully exerted in the investigation and discovery of truth." It will be reprinted in the next number of this work. ED.

The review of your work [on the Epistle to the Hebrews] in the Eclectic greatly vexed me.-However, you have this comfort, if you required it, which you do not, that this periodical is very much gone down in the estimation of the public; which I the more regret, (I mean this in reference to the cause,) as it is the only ostensibly literary production published by the Dissenters in this country. It was peculiarly ungracious, on the ground that we should, instead of carping and endeavouring to depreciate the productions of the two countries, do every thing in our power to mutually bring them forward.

* *

We have a communion of labour. Our aims are the same. We serve the one Great Master. We endeavour in the strength of his grace to consecrate our energies to the advancement of his word and cause in the world. Let us persevere. 'In due time we shall reap if we faint not.' Commending you and your various and important labours to his blessing, I remain Your's, very fraternally,

E. HENDERSON.

2. Extract from a Letter to Prof. Stuart from the REV. JOHN PYE SMITH, D. D. Prof. of Theol. at Homerton near London.

MY DEAR SIR,

HOMERTON, NEAR LONDON, APRIL 7, 1831.

*

*

I have not yet seen the works constituting the Course of Hebrew Study, which you have so kindly sent to Dr Henderson; but I have no doubt of being favoured with the inspection of them. He teaches Hebrew at Highbury College, upon the solid principles to which you are giving currency and effect. In our College the arrangement is different. The Hebrew tuition belongs to the Classical Tutor's office. I lament to say that Mr Walfort, an inflexible man, who has sustained that office for seventeen years, has followed the baseless scheme of Parkhurst, which you so justly denominate "without form and void." He has, under heavy mental affliction, very recently resigned. My new colleague, the Rev. Daniel Godfrey Bishop, has long entered, and most cordially, into your principles; and he will zealously and ably act upon them. Our number of students does not average more than about sixteen; at Highbury, they have usually double that number, or more. The term of study with us is usually two years longer than theirs. Our insti