Now, herein is a wonderful thing; and one of those wonderful things which will give the reader of this article, who has not read the Theodicy, some idea of the spirit of that book. The passage selected by the author for his refutation of the Calvinists, as "the precise passage on which greatest stress is laid," is a passage concerning which the author had, doubtless, lying before him at the moment, the concession of a candid and enlightened Calvinistic critic, that no stress was by him laid on that passage at all!

We shall give our author further room to speak for himself, page 132; he says:

"Let us, then, proceed to examine the eighth chapter of Romans, on which he (Dr. Macknight,) relies. The words are as follows: For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the first born among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called, and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified them he also glorified." We need have no dispute with the Calvinists respecting the interpretation of these words. If we mistake not, we may adopt their own construction of them, and yet clearly show that they lend not the least support to their views of election and reprobation."

After some explanations of the manner in which he understands, and agrees with Professor Hodge, in his annotations on these words, the author of the Theodicy proceeds:

"The bare fact of the election is all that is here disclosed. The reason, or the ground, or the principle, of that election, is not even alluded to; and we are left to gather it from other portions of Scripture, or from the eternal dictates of love and mercy. Hence, as this passage makes no allusion to the ground or reason of the divine election, it does not begin to touch the controversy we have with the theologians of the Calvinistic school. Every link in the chain here presented is perfect, except that which connects its first link, the election to eternal life, with the unconditional decree of God; and that link, the only one in controversy, is absolutely wanting. We have no occasion to break the

chain, for it is only to the imagination that it seems to be unconditionally bound to the throne of the Omnipo

tent."

The crotchet of conditional election is here yielded, not expressly, but as implied in the adoption of yet another device of interpretation. National election will not answer in this place, for obvious reasons. The Pharaonic category admits no other case but the individual one for which it was manufactured. Something else still was now to be done. The links of this chain were too strong, The order in which they come was too definitely stated; foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and final glory. The link which binds this chain "unconditionally to the throne of the Omnipotent" is not expressly stated, we admit, in the passage itself. It is a link, however, which is found in the English Grammar. It is, indeed, one of the first principles of grammar, that a verb must have a nominative case; and that the person who is the nominative to the verb, does those things which the verb affirms to be done. There is the wanting link. We challenge mortal man to break it. Inspiration itself wraps it "around the throne of the Omnipotent!" God foreknew. God predestinated. God called. God justified. God glorified. Let the reader remember that this chain, in its order, is conceded, in the passage above quoted from the Theodicy. An election based on a foresight of the sinner's coöperation with the divine influences, is but expressing, in other words, a predestination based on justification. But justification is admitted to flow from predestination, according to the plain order, and the obvious sense of the passage of Scripture in question. And this is all we can make of the interpretation, that predestination is based upon justification, and justification is based upon predestination! It does not seem to be a better device of escape from distasteful Scripture truth than the

others.

Why is this author so reluctant that the chain of the government of this world should be "unconditionally bound to the throne of the Omnipotent?" We beg to know around what other throne he would wish to have it bound? Does it give him more pleasure to contem

plate human destinies, as bound around the throne of those peculiar volitions of his philosophy, which, being too strong for law, for motive, or for God, "take their rise in the world without any efficient cause of their existence," and without being subject to the control of "any power within or without?" The Christian knows of no such thing as fate, chance, or accident. He be holds an all-wise, all-powerful, and spotlessly holy God upon the throne. What are not revealed of the reasons of that God for what he does, are known, in the confi dence of faith, to be holy, and just, and good. And there is comfort, deep and strong, in this vision of a universe with a righteous God on the throne. But, we believe that the strongest teachings of the stoic Chry sippus himself, concerning the "adamantine links of Fate," will be found, on practical experiment, as pleasant to the Christian heart, as that apotheosis of a lawless human will, which constitutes the main staple of this whole book.

There are many and overwhelming testimonies in the Scriptures, against the philosophy of this book, and against its view of what it calls the "great theandric fact of regeneration," which would have greatly cheered and warmed our discussion, if our space had permitted their introduction: such as the calm assumption, everywhere visible in the Bible, that God has efficient power over the human will without destroying its freedom;that his counsel shall stand and he will do all his pleasure; that he can turn the hearts of all men whithersoever he will, when reasons dictate, which must be forever unknown to us, save that they are holy, just, and good; that his designs find as infallible fulfilment through the free agency of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, Caiaphas and Herod, Pilate and Judas, as through Elijah, Isaiah and Paul; that he risks his veracity, and places the pledge on record, for the infallible certainty of the largest, and longest, and deepest, and highest concert and harmony, and chorus of events, on the widest stream of prophecy, just as if he were the real and efficient Lord of all. We may add, that he directs repeatedly, constantly, distinctly, that we PRAY to him, not as the God of this Theodicy, who cannot turn the human

will, but as able, when the time shall come, to turn the hearts of all, to bow all stubborn knees, and to make all human souls willing to the reign of him whose right it is to rule.

There was once a man among us, one of the humble and childlike great men of other days; the Washington of the theological chair; a man of giant intellect, but one who found theodicy enough for him, in the written word of God; a man in whose decease there passed away from the earth, intellect enough to have made very many ambitious Theodices, but who has left upon paper, almost nothing to show his mighty powers; from whose lips it was once our labour of love to catch falling pearls of deep and genuine, but temperate and modest wisdom, and commit them to paper, for others sake and not for his. Here is one such pearl, with which we conclude this article:

"I have never read a treatise on the subject of the power of motive over the will, which did not seem to

too far one way or the other. If the power of motive is made to deprive the mind of all causal power, it takes away guilt. If it gives it too much self-determining power, it removes the sovereignty of God, and contradicts the Scriptures. How a free being is controlled by the sovereign God, is, perhaps, a secret to the highest angel in Heaven. Most treatises on the subject are attempts to find out this deep secret. It is better to let the metaphysics of this point entirely alone."

ARTICLE V.

ON ELOHIM AS A TITLE OF GOD, AND AS IMPLYING A PLURALITY IN THE GODHEAD.*

The names of the Deity in general and constant use in the Hebrew language are more numerous than in either of the beautiful languages of classical antiquity,

* Intended to illustrate and confirm the argument from this name in the article on the objection to the Trinity, founded on the unity of God, in the January No. of this Review.

or in the most cultivated tongues of modern Europe. There was no shadow of necessity, difficulty, or even inducement, for the adoption of a phraseology which, on Unitarian principles, every candid mind must confess, can with difficulty, if at all, be defended from the charge of pernicious example and very dangerous tendency.

Among these names, are the term ELOAH, a singular form of a word signifying the object of fear, reverence, or the principal and mighty, or the swearer, or one who enters into covenant by oath,-and ELOHIM, which is a regularly formed plural of the singular word, and having the same meaning, if regarded as derived from it. The etymology of this word, however, says Dr. Pye Smith, has been much contested; some making it a compound of El, and Jah, so as to signify "the Mighty Jah; others deriving it from Ala, "to enter into an engagement by oath," and thus signifying "the Being of sworn veracity and faithfulness." The most reasonable and probable derivation, so far as I can judge, is that of Schultens, Reineccius, and a host of the most eminent orientalists, who make its primitive, Ala, which, though not occurring in the existing remains of the Hebrew, is preserved in the Arabic Alaha," and denotes "to adore." Hence, the noun will signify "the object of adoration," or, as the illustrious Schultens well expresses it, "Numen Tremendum."*

Much however, may be said, and we think, with great force, and no little Scriptural support, in favour of the first derivation. The word Eloah signifies a denouncing of a curse, a curse denounced either upon oneself or others, or both, and therefore, an oath taken or given, for what is an oath but a conditional curse or execration? It was so used by the ancients; and, to this manner of swearing our blessed Lord himself submitted.(See Matt. xxvi: 63, 64.) Hence, the word Elohim, which is a regularly formed masculine plural of Eloah, would naturally signify the denouncers of a conditional curse. So, we find Jehovah swearing to Adoni, (Psalm cx.,) on oath, certainly prior to the creation.-See Prov. viii: 23, and seq., comp., John xvii: 5, 24. According

* Smith's Messiah, vol, i., p. 465.