4, 'Ekevwσe does not signify to deprive a person of what he might possess, but of what he does possess, and hence we inquire at what time Christ possessed that dignity and splendour of which he is here said to have divested himself? A manger was his cradle-during his subsequent life he had not where to lay his head' he was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief -all the insults which malignity could devise were heaped upon him, and on the cross was the acme of his agonies. The close of his life was marked by at least as much dignity and splendour as any other period, and as we read his eventful history we inquire when he possessed these distinctions of which Dr. C. says he divested himself? The following, then, is the dilemma to which our author's position leads. Christ being man only, and naturally possessed of dignity and splendour, either divested himself of them on earth, or he did not. That he divested himself of them on earth is contradicted by the very facts of his history, for from the first 'he was despised and rejected of men,'' he had no beauty that they should desire him,' and whatever dignity and splendour he had remained with him to the last. The other position is equally fatal, for if he did not divest himself of external dignity and splendour while on earth, these cannot form the appropriate explication of ἐκένωσε ἑαυτὸν.

Bearing in mind, then, the fact that Christ is here represented as being in the form of God,' and that the whole intention of the passage is to describe his disinterestedness and condescension, by the antithesis of his humiliation to his exaltation, we cannot, if we would be in the least amenable to the laws of criticism, regard the words ékévwoe kavròv as expressive of anything but the veiling of his glories by assuming humanity for our redemption. We conceive that an analogous passage is furnished in the eighth chapter of the 2nd Corinthians, 9th verse. Γινώσκετε γὰρ τὴν χάριν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι δι ̓ ὑμᾶς ἐπτώχευσε πλούσιος ὤν, ἵνα ὑμεῖς τῇ ἐκείνου πτωχεια πλουτήσητε.

Μορφὴν δούλου λαβὼν, taking the form of a servant.

After what has been said already concerning poppǹ coû, we need not add any remarks on poppy douλov. Suffice it to say that Christ, who, in his Divine nature, had the characteristics of God, in his human nature had the characteristics of a servant. 'He washed his disciples' feet.'

Ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, becoming in the likeness or similitude of men.'

Καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ‘and being found in fashion, or condition, as a man.'

On the word aveрwπоs, Dr. C. remarks, When used by way of contrast with a state of high rank or power, it peculiarly denotes a person of ordinary rank and ordinary powers.' And after citing a

few instances in proof of this assertion, he concludes, 'with such usage of the word in the Septuagint and corresponding employment of it in the New Testament, I cannot hesitate in regarding avoрwоs as here denoting a man of ordinary rank and powers-an ordinary man, poor, and ignoble.'

Now without attempting to deny that aveрwños is sometimes used in the manner above described, we cannot coincide in the conclusion which Dr. C. has drawn from so inadequate an induction. Though avoрwоS, DT, and homo, sometimes denote a mean or poor man, they are far more frequently used to express, generically, man. Christ is so often spoken of in the New Testament under both the forms of amp and avoрwnоs, that we must look to the context in the present case for a determination of the question. Εν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, are two of the responsive or antithetical clauses to ἐν μορφῇ Θεον ; and as these words have been considered as expressing the Divinity of Christ, so the former we consider as expressing his humanity. Ocós and avoрwоs are here contrasted, and not a man of high rank and powers with one of low rank and powers. And here a question arises, which, by his interpretation, Dr. C. skilfully avoided: Whence arises the propriety of Paul's speaking of Christ as being in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, if he were only a man, and recognised to be nothing more? Does not the very fact of his specifying so minutely the humanity of Christ necessarily imply another, and a more exalted nature?

Εταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν, γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σravρov. He humbled himself, becoming obedient as far as death, the death, to wit, of the cross.' We might propose similar objections to the Unitarian hypothesis, on the phrase eraneivwoev éavτòv, as we proposed on the phrase éxévwoe kavròv, but the length to which this article has already extended deters us. The following, then, is, in our estimation, the sense of the whole passage:-'Look not every man merely on his own things, but manifest your interest in the welfare of others-in fact, let the same disposition be in you which was in Christ, and which he exhibited as follows, that though he was in the form of God, he did not think his high position an object so eagerly to be caught at and enjoyed, that nothing lower should experience his regard, but emptied himself, and instead of the form of God, took upon himself the form of a servant, and appeared in the likeness of men. Nor did his disinterestedness stop here, but when man he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross.'

III.

ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE ARTICLES ON THE POETRY OF THE APOCALYPSE.'

TO THE EDITORS.

"THE poetical character of the Apocalypse is so evident, that it requires no proof.' So says the Contributor of the Articles on The Poetry of the Apocalypse; adding: Many parts are professedly songs, formal expressions of praise, triumph, or mourning.' If the latter assertion is intended to support the former, it would equally prove the poetical character of the Pentateuch, many portions of which are lyrical, and the language of which is often, in like manner, highly figurative. But I should have thought that the two positions, that the Apocalypse is throughout poetical in its character, and that it contains portions which are poetry, were so different as to be almost irreconcilable, since the latter implies that the prevailing character is not poetical. Professor Stuart, in the same absolute tone, declares it to be 'now agreed on all hands among intelligent critics, that the Apocalypse is essentially a book of prophetic poetry." At the risk of being set down among unintelligent critics, I venture to dispute the propriety and truth of the learned Critic's assertion. There have not been wanting writers, as he tells us, who have ascribed to the Apocalypse a dramatic form. David Paræus remarks, that the book exhibits a constant change and succession of characters, and also interpositions of a chorus,' which might warrant its being styled drama propheticum.** Hartwig and Eichhorn, improving upon this hint, have attempted to make a regular drama out of the Apocalypse; and Stuart thinks that he disposes of the question at once, by asking, Was the Apocalypse written to be exhibited by actors on a stage? This is,' he adds, the distinctive feature of the drama.' It is obvious, that Paræus meant nothing of the kind; and we see no greater impropriety in comparing the Apocalypse to a drama, (as we speak of the drama of life, the drama of history,) than in describing it as an epic, a species of the epopee,' having, like the Iliad and other

*Although the Apocalypse is mainly a history, not of the church, but of the kingdoms of the world, of the fortunes of political society, yet do we `find interwoven with the prophetic narrative, a series of visionary representations, not to be interpreted of historical events, but full of mystical meaning; sometimes, like the Greek chorus, suspending the action, to declare the purpose of the drama; at other times partaking of a supplemental character, and synchronising with the preceding predictions.'-Literary History of the New Testament, p. 566.

poems of the like nature, its episodes;' which is the language of Professor Stuart. In refuting Eichhorn's absurd notion, the Ame rican Professor remarks: No proof is needed, that the Apocalypse cannot be ranked among this category. The writer merely relates what he saw in vision. . . Symbols of what was to take place at some future period, i. e., pictorial sketches of what would take place, constitute the frame-work of the Apocalypse. The dialogue is only so much as Thucydides, or Xenophon, or Livy, usually presents: it is a mere incidental matter, not a main constituent element of the book. The Apocalypse is merely a narration or account of symbols seen in a vision it is not the imitation of life, and manners, and actions, by agents who are to appear upon the stage.' But does not this very correct description of the frame-work of the Apocalypse as completely exclude the notion of its epical, as of its dramatic structure? Had the learned Critic consistently adhered to this view of the true character of the book, there would have been little to find fault with in his criticisms. But we have only to turn over a page or two to find him speaking of it in language which appears contradictory. It seems plain to me,' he says, 'from the whole tenor of the Apocalpyse, that the writer chose for his theme the certain triumph of Christianity over all its enemies, and the glorious consummation of the struggle with the powers of darkness, because this theme, above all which could be chosen, was best adapted to the purposes which the author had in view. It is a truly magnificent and soul-stirring theme. To do it justice, so as to make it impressive in the measure which John desired, he must expand and adorn it; he must present not a mere outline, but a finished picture.' (vol. i. p. 157.) What inducement, now, could John have to disclose, by prediction, the ecclesiastical history of the churches in distant ages?' (p. 159.) "In the epistles, he finds opportunity of saying some things which are appropriate to the particular condition of each church. So soon as he has done this, the epistolary form of the composition is abandoned, and the writer betakes himself to a method of representation which is free from any of the embarrassments that a continuation of it might have occasioned. The transition, however, is so easy and natural, that most readers scarcely notice it. This circumstance shows the tact of the writer; and the whole plan of the work shows, at all events, the independence of its author, and the originality of his conceptions, notwithstanding the very numerous subordinate resemblances, in parts of the work, to passages of the Old Testament Scriptures. (p. 128.) In the arrangement of his first catastrophe, he has presented us with a magnificent proëm,-the theophany and the vision of the sealed book. To repeat that theme again, at the commencement of his second catastrophe, would not be a display of that sagacity which he has elsewhere so

abundantly manifested. He resorts, therefore, to a new subject In this way, the writer of the Apocalypse has, with no little tact and skill, introduced the actors in the second great catastrophe,' (pp. 210, 211.) Such is the language employed by a critic who finds fault with Paræus for styling the book a drama propheticum! He tells us, on the one hand, that the Apocalypse is merely an account of symbols seen in a vision;' but then, it is evident, on the other hand, that, with Bertholdt and Eichhorn, he supposes that John had not really the visions; he invented them! It is impossible to put any other construction upon his language. Those persons who have imagined that the Apostle was actually commanded to write the epistles to the seven churches by a voice from heaven, and that they are the very words of Christ, are, it seems, under a delusion, not understanding the 'hermeneutical principles applicable to the Apocalypse.' The Apostle John, having 'chosen his theme,' bethought him of the best mode of securing attention to his book; and, with wonderful tact, he hit upon the plan of addressing the churches by epistle, in which he finds opportunity of saying something appropriate to each! In the name of truth, does this, or does it not, ascribe to John the invention of the narration? Let us have no mystification, no evasion. The question at issue is, not whether the Apocalypse contains poetry, or is of a poetical character, but whether or not it is a fiction. Professor Stuart declares, that it is a book of poetry in its very mode of conception,'-an epopee,different, in that respect, from any other prophetic book in the whole Scriptures,' and for which, therefore, we must make all the allowances due to such a method of composi tion,' as in the case of the Iliad or of Paradise Lost. (p. 209.) What is the meaning of these expressions? I am sincerely anxious to understand them as coming short of that profaneness and impiety of which, to my mind, they seem to partake, being utterly at a loss to reconcile such language with the character of the learned writer. But, had I met with it in the pages of a disbeliever in inspiration, I could have had no doubt that it was intended to ridicule the notion that the Apocalypse is better entitled to be regarded as a prophetical book, a portion of the word of God, than the Shepherd of Hermas, or the Sybilline Oracles, or the Pilgrim's Progress.

The whole of the two volumes of Professor Stuart's elaborate Commentary and Dissertation resolves itself into this conclusion; that the Apostle John occupied himself, while in Patmos, with composing a very ingenious and instructive poem, modelled upon the writings of the Old Testament prophets. The theophany' is a skilful invention; the visions, poetic machinery; the triple catastrophe, with its episodes, an epical arrangement. Professor Stuart may imagine that this view of the Apocalypse does no dishonour to the Apostle, and is not disparaging to either his