given us some caution against the Book of Enoch as a whole?' I might reply: Why has not Paul given us some caution against Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides?

In the preceding part of this communication, I have gone upon the ground that quotation is matter of fact in the case before us. Yet I have done so principally because this is, at present, altogether the predominant opinion among critics. Indeed, this opinion, it must be acknowledged, cannot well be disproved. The discrepancy between the passages in the two books, extending to several minute clauses, is still not enough to raise much serious doubt concerning quotation; for many passages of the New Testament, taken from the Old Testament, are quoted, as we well know, with even less exactness than is here apparent. Still, it is easy to see, that although the fact of quotation cannot be disproved, yet neither can it be proved. We can account for the resemblance between the two passages, on the ground of a traditional preservation of the brief prophecy of Enoch, which is ascribed to him in the book of Jude. In such a case, Jude and the author of Enoch both drew from one common source.

As to those who maintain a direct suggestion of the passage before us to Jude, by the Spirit of God, it might suffice to ask: Whether any accession, in such a case, is made to the weight and authority of the book? The Spirit, speaking by Jude, was as credible as the Spirit who spake by Enoch. But in case the apostle could truly superadd the weight of tradition in favor of what the Spirit directed him to regard as true, then one of the deepest, toned chords in the heart of a Jew would be touched and moved, viz., his reverence for the sayings of remote ancestors.

That the book before us was translated out of a Greek copy into Ethiopic, there can scarcely be a doubt, on account of the shape of some of the original Greek words which are still retained in this translation. On the other hand; that the first and original language of the production was the later Hebrew of the times, I think we cannot well doubt. The names are so numerous, and withal are, almost without exception, so much of pure Hebrew origin; the style is so exclusively of the Jewish cast; the objects aimed at are so intimately connected with the welfare of the Hebrews; that, at all events, the author was at least of Jewish origin and education. With Laurence and Hartmann, I

must believe that the original language of the work was Hebrew. Of course we have, in our English Version by Laurence, only a translation in the third degree. Ours is a version of the Ethiopic, which was itself a version of the Greek; and this was a translation of the original Hebrew. It is impossible but that much of the light and shade of the original should have been removed by such a process. But still, as, in the third or fourth copies of Raphael or Salvator Rosa, a likeness to the original still remains, so in the present case there is much, nay most, of the peculiarities of the author which remains. This book is too strongly marked to suffer obliteration as to its leading traits, even by the most unskillful copyist.

At all events it seems probable, that the book of Enoch existed in the Hebrew language very early in the Christian era; for the book of Zohar repeatedly alludes to it, and even names it; and this book, although the time of its origin cannot be definitely ascertained, is probably among the oldest of the Rabbinical writings which are extant. The quotations from it may be found in Laurence's Preliminary Dissertations, p. 21 seq. But these serve not merely to shew that the book of Enoch was in repute among the Jews, and existed in all probability in Hebrew, but that in early times it was well known and widely diffused. The matter quoted from it in the Zohar, is still contained in the copies of the book of Enoch that now exist.

I cannot conclude this communication without making a remark that has often been suggested to my mind by the reading of early apocryphal books. It is this, viz., that if any one wishes to know the real excellence of the New Testament writers, in a comparative respect, let him read the other writers of the first and second centuries, respecting matters of religion. If he does not find the Gospels and Epistles standing at an immeasurable distance from all other ecclesiastical productions of the age, and in all respects superior to them-then I can only say, that he must read with feeling and judgment exceedingly different from mine. I doubt whether any man knows, or can know well, how to prize the Gospels and Epistles, in an æsthatical point of view, until he has compared the other productions of early ages carefully with them. The result will compensate him richly for performing the task.

SECOND SERIES, VOL. III. NO. I.

18

ARTICLE VI.

THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST, AS TAUGHT IN ROM. 1: 3, 4.

By Rev. Lewis Mayor, D. D., York, Pa.

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

THIS passage is considered peculiarly interesting, as giving a clear exhibition of the Apostle's view of the character of Christ, and of the import of the term Son of God. "There are," it is said, "three leading interpretations of it. 1. According to the first, the meaning is, Jesus Christ was, as to his human nature, the Son of David; but was clearly demonstrated to be, as to his divine nature, the Son of God, by the resurrection from the dead. 2. According to the second, the passage means, Christ was in his humiliation, the Son of David, but was constituted the Son of God in his exaltation, by the resurrection from the dead, or after his resurrection. 3. According to the third, Christ was the Son of David according to his human nature, but was declared to be the Son of God, agreeably to the Scriptures, by his resurrection from the dead." See Prof. Hodge's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

The author of the Commentary here referred to, adopts the first of these interpretations, and defends it on the following grounds: 1. The sense which it assigns to the several clauses may be justified by usage, and is required by the context; 2. It is favored by the structure of the passage; 3. It is accordant with what is elsewhere taught of the Sonship of Christ, John 5: 17, Ep. 10: 30-33, Heb. 1:4-8; 4. This interpretation should be adopted, because the others are pressed with serious, if not fatal objections.

The second and third of these interpretations are easily and briefly disposed of by the learned author, as erroneous and untenable but the refutation of these does not, as he

seems to suppose, establish the first, which appears to me not less erroneous. That interpretation is by no means the only one that is possible, after the other two have been exploded; and I beg leave, respectfully to propose another. But before another interpretation is proposed, I shall, with deference toward those brethren, from whom I am constrained to differ, give my reasons for rejecting that one which the learned and estimable Commentator maintains to be the only true one.

The primary error of this interpretation, from which the rest necessarily follow, consists in taking the terms flesh and Spirit of holiness to designate some things in Christ himself, constituents of his person or character; not things distinct from and external to him. If the flesh, according to which Christ is the Son of David, be his humiliation, then, by the rule of antithesis, the Spirit of holiness must be his exaltation. If the flesh be his human nature, then, by the same rule, the Spirit of holiness must be his divine nature. All the consequences that are legitimately deduced from this position must then be admitted, and, whatever they may be, the interpreter is obliged to defend them. He must then give to every other part of this text, and to every other text. in the Bible, a meaning which will be, at least, not inconsistent with this interpretation. The learned Commentator assumes that the flesh is the human nature of Christ, and then argues that the Spirit of holiness is his divine nature, and that Christ is, according to this nature, the Son of God. His proofs, that the term Spirit of holiness means the divine nature of Christ, are the following.

1. The term Spirit is obviously applicable to the nature of God, and the word holiness, which here qualifies it adjectively, expresses every thing in God which is the foundation of reverence. It therefore exalts the idea expressed by Spirit. According to that spiritual essence in Christ, which is worthy of the highest reverence.'

2. The divine nature in Christ is elsewhere called Spirit, etc. etc. (Here the author refers to, and comments upon Heb. 9: 14 and 1 Pet. 3: 18.)

3. The antithesis obviously demands this interpretation. As to the flesh, Christ was the Son of David; as to the Spirit, the Son of God: if the flesh means his human, the Spirit must mean his divine nature.

4. It is confirmed by a comparison with ch. 9: 5, where the two natures in Christ are also brought into view and contrasted; as to the flesh, he was an Israelite, but as to his higher nature, he is God over all and blessed for ever.

I cannot perceive any weight or force in the first of these proofs. The phrase Spirit of holiness is a Hebraistic mode of expression, very common in the original text of the holy Scriptures, especially of the Old Testament, instead of Holy Spirit. In the original text we have Son of his love, for his beloved Son, Col. 1: 13. Body of this death, for this dead body, Rom. 7: 24. In the likeness of the flesh of sin, for in the likeness of the sinful flesh, Rom. 8: 3. The hill of my holiness, for my holy hill, Ps, 2: 6; and other innumerable examples. If the Spirit of holiness be the Holy Spirit, he is not the divine nature of Jesus, unless that nature and the Holy Spirit be one and the same, which the learned author will not admit.

The reference to Heb. 9: 14, is not relevant to the subject. The sacred writer says in that place, "If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God." The Commentator substitutes for the common translation, through the eternal Spirit, the words, with an eternal Spirit, which he thinks gives a better sense, and is more suitable to the context. He refers to Rom. 2: 27, and to Wahl's Clavis, for his authority to render the Greek preposition dia, with a genitive case, by the English preposition with, in the sense of having, i. e. having an eternal spirit, and tells us, the sense of the text is, Christ offered himself a sacrifice to God with an eternal spirit; that is, having a divine nature. The phrase which is translated the eternal Spirit, he renders indefinitely, an eternal Spirit, on no other ground that I can perceive, than because the article is wanting in the Greek text. But the term eternal Spirit is sufficiently definite in itself, and may therefore, like sòs, and other terms of the same kind, either take the article or omit it. He might on the same ground, translate sòs spavegwen, a god was manifested, 1 Tim. 3: 16; ésòs vó Aoyos, The Word was a god; John 1: 1. The criticism on the Greek preposition is of