composed of the mere exhibition of spoils; and much less of rescued prisoners. Indeed, though the circumstances of these spectacles varied in ancient nations, I do not recollect that persons liberated from the captivity in which they had been held by the vanquished enemy, ever made any part of the triumphal procession. At all events the vanquished themselves, and specially their King, his royal family, and his principal officers, were the principal objects in the spectacle, and it was over these that the victor thus publickly triumphed. "Vecta spolia," says TACITUS, in his curt and graphie manner, "CAPTIVI, simulacra montium, fluminum, præliorum." "The spoils of the vanquished, captives, and pictures of battles, mountains, and rivers were exhibited," in the triumph granted to GERMANICUS. But according to C. L.'s interpretation, the principalities and powers were not made a "show of openly" in any sense, and the only object exhibited was the person of the conqueror himself. Now this is so far from being a "full" explanation of the text, that it will not justify at all the use of the terms employed by the Apostle, which he takes from the military triumphs of the ancients. It indeed contradicts the text, instead of explaining it, for the Apostle is express, that CHRIST did not make a spectacle of himself, but of the "principalities and powers;" and by this means put them to open shame, as the word imports.*

3. C. L.'s theory obliges him further to adopt an unauthorized and harsh interpretation of the clause, "triumphing over them in or by IT;" that is, as generally understood, by the cross, referring it to Tu sauga in verse 14. C. L. chooses to read, "triumphing over them in or by it, or rather by himself." ORIGEN, says WHITBY, and others of the ancients, read ev Evw, on the wood; so did the Arabic version; others read ty saury, in himself; but ST. JEROM testifies that that reading is only in the Latin copies, and CHRYSOSTOM, THEODORET, ECUMENIUS, and THEOPUYLACT, read the passage as we do. The

"Contumeliæ publicæ exponere." ROSEN

*MULLER:

context certainly establishes the received sense, unless with PIERCE We suppose God the FATHER Spoken of in this verse. But if the reading were conceded to C. L., it would make no impression upon my argument; these evil spirits were triumphed over, if C. L. pleases, by CHRIST himself; but how? except by a display and application of his power? not as C. L. would state it, by a mere exhibition of his quickened body to his disciples. The text speaks of a direct triumph: C. L.'s comment makes it merely inferential: one is a matter of reasoning; the other of sight: "triumphing over them openly."

I have no wish certainly to lower C. L.'s sense of the importance of our LORD's resurrection, as a conquest over death, and over him "who had the power of death;" it was a glo rious, and, when proclaimed and verified by miracles, a public indication of a triumph over SATAN, as well as over his Jewish persecutors; all that I contend for is, that that event considered in itself, and separate from the transactions in Hades, between our LORD's death and the morning of his resurrection, does not correspond in its circumstances to the representation made by the Apostle in the text under consideration:-There is nothing in it which answers to these ideas of a public military triumphant spectacle, in which principalities and powers were PERSONALLY made a show of openly; and the kind of criticism which C. L. has applied to this passage, and on which I have already remarked, is, I think, in proof that he himself felt the difficulties of his own interpretation.

C. L., it is true, joins the glorious ascension of CHRIST to his resurrection, to heighten the impression, and to give to his hypothesis a greater seeming accordance with the ideas of victory, and overthrow, and spoiling, suggested by leading captivity captive," and "making a show of principalities and powers openly." But in point of fact the triumph of the ascension, as understood by C. L., is precisely of the same kind as that of the resurrection: it consists wholly in the exhibition of the body of CHRIST as rescued from the grave, from which it was to be inferred,

C. L. says, "he was holden by the pains of death :" whereas ST. PETER says expressly, "that he could NOT be holden" of them; and the reason is, that he was the LORD of Life.

The second objection is, That it is difficult to reconcile such an open triumph over evil spirits, as I have supposed, with the circumstances in which they continue to the present time. But this would be an equally valid objection against any past triumph of our LORD over "principalities and powers," the rulers of the darkness of this world, whatever the manner of that triumph might be. This, however, is certain, that, "through death, our LORD destroy ed," deprived of power, as the word signifies, "him that had the power of death;" that he bruised the serpent's head,-inflicted a fatal blow upon his dominion; or, as one of the texts in question expresses the same all-important fact, "spoiled principalities and powers:" stripped them of their arms. This is unquestionable: but it is in perfect consistency with this, that SATAN should still " go about seeking whom he may devour;" because the actual benefit of this great act is, by individuals, to be received by faith in CHRIST; and, from the moment of their believing, they are saved from the power of their ghostly enemy: and as to the world, the benefits of the actual conquest are to be imparted in their "times and

seasons," till SATAN is bound, so that he shall deceive the nations no more. There was a moment, however,

when this dominion of SATAN was potentially taken away; and it was consistent with the solemnity and importance of that act, that it should be marked by some visible humiliation and infliction of terror and shame upon the rebel host, as a prelude to their actual and universal subjugation. Thus, even when on earth, our LORD displayed his power over devils, made them confess his Godhead, and confess too, that they themselves anticipated a severer infliction of his power:-" Art thou come to torment us before our time?" In a still more eminent sense, says the Apostle, did he make a show of them openly,-a spectacle of humbled pride and defeated malice, and forfeited dominion,

when he triumphed over them by his cross; that is by, and as I think immediately consequent upon, his death. In other words, he then assumed the mediatorial DOMINION, proclaimed himself LORD OF ALL, took the KEYS of death and of Hades, as well as of the world of men, amidst demonstrations of his right, and of his power to enforce it. This done, he ascended to his throne to carry into actual effect his purpose of giving redemption to the world, and casting down SATAN as lightning from heaven. I am, dear Sir, yours, truly, London, Oct. 5, 1824.

W.

stans,”—an indivisible, immoveable point;-and others, to the same effect, and with great felicity of language, have said that He dwelleth in "eternity, which, by its unalterable permanency of duration, is one continued, unsuccessive day." This will serve to open the subject of this paper, in which it is intended to give some reasons for attributing to the infinite JEHOVAH, "unsuccessive" existence.

It is necessary, in the first place, to state the question a little more fully. We are conscious that our own existence is successive. By the flow of our own thoughts we get the notion of time. This doctrine of

LOCKE, that it is from the succession of our own thoughts that we obtain the complex idea of duration, or time, seems the most rational mode of accounting for our possessing it; -more rational than the supposition of our deriving it from the motion of bodies without us, because, the greater or less rapidity of our thoughts, as is well known, has a sensible influence on our perception of the length of time. Now, when we turn our thoughts to the Divine Being, we are apt, in this respect, as in many others, to measure Him by ourselves; and we attribute to Him successive existence. This, however, as we have already hinted, has been thought, by some who have deeply considered the subject, to result from the imperfection of our views, and from the difficulty our minds feel in apprehending any thing of which experience affords us no immediate knowledge; and that, in reality, the mode of existence in the Divine Nature must be under stood to be such as entirely excludes this successive existence. The DEITY, then, according to these latter, has a permanent, unsuc cessive" being. He fills the whole amazing circle of eternity, as He fills all space. In scripture language, "He inhabiteth eternity;"" One day is with Him as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Such persons would, in all probability, frequently use, in common conversation, terms concerning the existence of the Infinite JEHOVAH, which would seem to assimilate it to our own. If it be said that the Scriptures do so too;-we allow this; but deny that it militates against the opinion for which we contend, any more than their speaking of the LORD coming down from heaven, militates against the doctrine of His Omnipresence.

66

That the existence of the DEITY is unsuccessive, we argue,

(1st.) From the corresponding attribute of His Ubiquity. The comparison of the unsuccessive existence of God, by which He com pletely possesses eternity, with His Omnipresence, by which He completely fills all space, even if it does not properly deserve the name

of an argument, must certainly be regarded as a presumption in favour of the view we are taking. If objections lie against the former, from the seeming impossibility of it ;— objections as strong, or rather equally unfounded, will lie against the latter: If the one be objected to, because it is incomprehensible ;-equally incomprehensible is the other. Can it be more difficult to conceive of a Being unlimited by our measures of duration, than of a Being unlimited by any measures of space? It may be necessary here, just to remind the readers of this paper, that reason enlightened by Scripture may enable us to decide on the certain existence of things, as to which, at the same time, it affords us no clue to lead us to the knowledge how they exist. Thus it is generally allowed, as a sound dictate of reason, that God is every where present. We look upon this as the sure result of His having all possible perfection. But does any one pretend to form the most distant conception how this is? Let him form an idea of the infinitely diversified actions of eight hundred millions of the human race;-let him extend his thought to as many millions of worlds, and their concerns;-let him conceive of the DEITY as present and attentive to all these concerns at the same instant ; -and if he finds but little difficulty in imagining the mode of this ubiquity, he may, with the more propriety, object to the unsuccessive existence of the DEITY, on the ground that it is a mode of being of which we know nothing by experience.

(2.) We argue the unsuccessive existence of JEHOVAH, in the next place, from the infinite perfection of His nature. We are not disposed to say, with CUDWORTH, that the proper term to express this complete possession of eternity, is itself, "perfection." But the infinite perfection of the Divine Nature being first granted, this mode of existence seems to be involved in it. The suppo sition of a flowing and successive existence in the DEITY, seems to be a supposition of imperfection. We appeal to the general sense of those who have made the Scriptures their study, (perhaps it is rather an

appeal to the feelings than to the understanding; but we frequently feel aright on those points where logic is of no service,)-we appeal, whether sentiments like the following would not convey the idea of a measure of imperfection. "The Being in whom we live, exists, after the manner of His creatures, by a successive existence. To-morrow, as to us, is not yet arrived ;-neither is it arrived to Him. There are ages yet to come as it respects us; and our existence must be prolonged in order to our existing in those future ages. But so must the existence of the DEITY be prolonged before those ages will be present to Him." We might carry this language farther but the subject is too awful to admit of our saying all that might be said, on the hypothesis we are combating. This specimen is sufficient, by way of appeal to the general sentiments of the mind. It would, perhaps, be possible to enter into a more argumentative consideration of this point; but not so as to do justice to it within the limits assigned to this short Essay. We will just hint at the mode of argument that might be pursued. It would rest upon that doctrine which we have before alluded to, namely, that our sense of duration is derived from the succession of thoughts in our own minds. It will, perhaps, be allowed that it is a mark of imperfection, at least, it is proper to us as creatures, that we cannot see all things at once. We are obliged patiently to build thought upon thought, in erecting the edifice of reason; and, owing to this succession of our ideas, we are conscious of prolonged existence. Let us, oh the other hand, consider, that this imperfection belongs not to GoD. This is an attribute of an imperfect, created intelligence, who arrives at knowledge by processes of reasoning. The intelligence of the Divine Being is not inferential, but intuitive. At a single glance, (0 the imperfection of human language!) at a single glance, he perceives all things. Now, if we have reason to suppose, that in this fundamental particular, from which our very perception of duration is taken, there is an infinite difference betwixt the modes of exist

ence in GoD and in his creatures ;would it not follow, that successive existence is impossible to be predicated of the DEITY?

(3.) Another circumstance that favours the view for which we contend, is, that it removes some of the difficulty from our conceptions of eternity. Let any one attempt to conceive of a successive eternity, and he will not only meet with that mysteriousness which attaches to every thing that relates to the DEITY; but he will find himself involved in palpable contradictions. On the supposition that the existence of the DEITY is successive, it is certain that our measures of duration may be applied to that eternity of His, which, to us, is past. Eternity, à parte ante,-what we are obliged to call past eternity,-will then admit of having applied to it, our measures of days, and years, and ages; for, through years and ages it has, on this hypothesis, been successively prolonged. If, then, the question be asked, what is the number of days in this eternity?-The answer is;Their number is infinite. If the question be repeated, as to the number of hours sufficient to make up this past eternity; still the answer is;-An infinity of hours. But here we fall into gross absurdity. Our notion of a successive eternity makes us speak of an infinity, in the latter case, twenty-four times as great as the infinity first mentioned. Nor is it possible to escape this reductio ad absurdum, unless by reverting to the theory we contend for, that the DEITY possesses an unsuccessive existence. It avails nothing to say, that the soul of man is immortal, and therefore expects an eternity to come, which will be made up of parts, and measured by the common measures of duration. It is plain that this eternity will never be completed;whereas the eternity of which we have already spoken, as belonging to GOD, is to be considered as complete and perfect. "It is possible," says a modern writer,* "to conceive of an endless addition of parts; but an infinite sum of parts, which have actually had existence, is a self-contradiction."

* DWIGHT.