which they may be preserved and communicated. When, on any subject of wide extent, the conceptions of the generality of men are erroneous, their errors enter into the structure of their speech; they are embodied in the words which they use. It is often necessary for him who would correct such errors to introduce new terms, or to give new senses or a new application to terms already in use. When circumstances do not require, or admit, that those errors should be controverted, the language in which they are incorporated may be used by one fully acquainted with the truth. It may often be employed with propriety and advantage. There are occasions when, by its use, right conceptions and feelings may be produced, which could not be communicated by language more correct. I understand (for it is a subject on which I am incapable of forming an independent opinion), that, at the present day, many of those qualified to judge reject the theory of the emission of rays from luminous bodies, and regard the sensation of light as produced by the undulations of a luminous ether, as that of sound is caused by undulations of the air. Supposing this theory to be true, and that it should be universally received, the language which has been formed upon the old belief will not soon, if ever, cease to be the language of common life and of poetry. Though, upon the supposition just made, this language implies throughout what is contrary to the truth, yet it is equally well adapted to the expression of all truths that concern the generality of men, as language conformed to the correct theory. It will, at least for a long time, be better adapted to this purpose, as being more intelligible to the unlearned, - more conformed to the appearances, if not to the reality, of things. Nor can we, with our present associations, readily believe that a similar profusion of figures and imagery to that which poetry now bor

rows from light may be effectively addressed to men's imagination and feelings through the medium of other forms of language than those to which we are accustomed. So also in Chemistry; however requisite the new nomenclature may be for the purposes of science, it is unimportant, except indirectly, as regards the arts or medicine. The old terms might, in many cases, serve equally well for the practical purposes of life. We might continue to call one substance the Oil of Vitriol,' and another 'the Sugar of Lead,' and, notwithstanding the erroneous ideas suggested by those names, we might talk of them as intelligently, and explain their properties and uses as correctly, as if we denominated them Sulphuric Acid,' and 'the Acetate of Lead'; and, in speaking to those familiar only with the former names, no one would hesitate to use them. Truth, then, may be clearly and effectually conveyed in the language of error; that is to say, in terms having their origin in erroneous conceptions, and adapted to the expression of those conceptions.

6

"In the time of our Saviour, the notions of the Jews on many subjects connected with his preaching were false and superstitious. These notions were necessarily ingrained in their forms of speech. A philosophical language, in which they should be avoided, might undoubtedly have been formed by him; and such a language might have been intelligible to the philosophers, if there were any philosophers, among the Jews. But our Saviour preached to the poor, he addressed multitudes, his immediate disciples were fishermen and tax-gatherers, and others of no higher intellectual attainments, and he could use only popular language,- such language as his hearers would understand and feel. He might, on a certain occasion, have said, I foresee the triumph of my religion over evil, moral and physical; but, even had he been partially understood by his

hearers,

- if they had had some notion of what was meant by 'evil, moral and physical,' and by 'the triumph of his religion,'— the assertion would have passed over their minds as a shadowy abstraction, and left no impression. He did in fact say, with the same meaning, 'I saw Satan falling from heaven like lightning'; and in so saying, he used imagery which was adapted to their conceptions and feelings. The whole phraseology of the Jews concerning the Pentateuch and the other books of the Old Testament was moulded on their erroneous opinions respecting those books. Our Saviour might have avoided the use of it, and have introduced new modes of speech, conformed to the truth. In this case, it is probable that he would have abundantly excited their attention. Such a fundamental change in their religious language would have exposed him to questioning. Pharisees would have come to try him' on the subject. What would have been the effect, if he had declined to explain himself? What would have been the consequences, if he had explained himself? In the latter case, unless God had seen fit to use other means than he did for establishing truth among men, the whole ministry of Jesus might have been wasted, and he might have died a martyr to an ineffectual attempt to correct the false opinions of his countrymen in relation to the Old Testament and the Levitical Law. What he did do, that is, what the circumstances of his ministry permitted him to do, to manifest his sense of those errors, will appear hereafter.

"ESSENTIAL truths, then, may be clearly and effectually, sometimes most effectually, conveyed in the language of error. It is true, that one writing at the present day on any subject of morals or religion, who may suppose himself to be addressing

intelligent and well-informed readers, is bound, as far as possible, to avoid such language, when it may occasion any mistake as to his meaning. It is his duty to express himself with unequivocal distinctness. But such language, in regard to many topics, constituted the popular, or rather the only, language of the Jews; and our Saviour was placed in circumstances altogether different from those of a philosopher of our own times. That he might not distract the attention of his hearers from the great truths which it was the purpose of his mission to make known, that he might not uselessly alarm their prejudices and rouse their passions, he sometimes adopted their common language, though founded on error. We are not hence to consider

him as sanctioning their errors.

Such language, as used by

him, is to be understood as we always understand the language of error when used by one whom we believe fully to comprehend the truth, and to have no purpose but to express it. We view it as an adaptation of his thoughts to the conceptions of those whom he addresses; or as the presentation of ideas, essentially correct, in the only forms in which they have been embodied in language, though these forms may contain an alloy of error. In the teaching of our Saviour it is the essential meaning alone that is to be regarded. The form of expression may be an accident, resulting from temporary and local circumstances, from the character of those whom he immediately addressed, and, especially, from the nature of their conceptions and language."

NOTE E.*

(See pp. 63, 108, 135, 159, 161, 189, 196, 265, 282, 300, 302, 345, 352, 374, 380, 409, 414, 419, 427, 440, 442, 479.)

ON THE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IN WHICH OUR SAVIOUR SPEAKS OF HIS PERSONAL AGENCY, AND PARTICULARLY OF HIS FUTURE "COMING"; AND ON THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE APOSTLES CONCERNING HIS VISIBLE RETURN TO EARTH.

"IT is a common figure in the New Testament to speak of Christ personally, when his religion, under some one of its aspects, effects, or relations, is intended; and this is sometimes done when the expression is such as our use of language does not allow. St. Paul addresses the Colossians, according to a verbal rendering, thus (ii. 6, 7): As, then, ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in him, rooted and grounded in him.' He exhorts them (iii. 13) to forgive each other, as Christ had forgiven them'; not referring to any forgiveness from Christ in person, but to the forgiveness of their past sins upon their becoming sincere Christians. He says to the churches addressed in the Epistle to the Ephesians, churches to which Jesus had never preached (iv. 20, 21): 'You have not so learned Christ, since you have heard him and been taught by him as the truth is in Jesus.' He speaks to the Romans of the 'spirit of Christ,' that is, the spirit of Christianity,' dwelling in them; and the expression, that Christ may dwell in your

* [From the "Statement of Reasons," pp. 198-212, and (Appendix) pp. 299-331.]