nity, from the evidence which his CREATING power afforded-from considering the THINGS THAT WERE MADE?

And is this truth (that the Deity possesses eternal power and Godhead) so plain, then, and so easily deduced from CREATING ENERGY, that the very Heathen are destitute of all excuse for not seeing and admitting it; and yet, can it be the object of Christianity to bring us back to the very polytheism for which the Apostle condemned them-to bring us to " worship the creature more than the CREATOR?" Does Christianity contradict a truth of natural religion so plain and incontrovertible, that the very Heathen were without excuse for not acknowledging it? And, after reading such a passage in the writings of Paul, can it be possible to suppose, that he ascribed the creation of the world to any thing but the true God only? Compare now Acts, xvii. 23-26. with John, i. 1-3, and 10; Heb. i. 10-12; Coloss. i. 14-17; and then say, is it possible to admit the rules of interpretation which you have laid down, and not admit that the Apostles designed to assert that Christ is the Creator of the Universe? And if he is so, is it possible to deny that he is truly divine?

It were easy to produce passages of the New Testament, which ascribe the same works to Christ as to God, (as John, v. 17-23; xiv. 9, 11). But, as the vindication of these would swell these Letters beyond their proper length, I shall not enter into a discussion of them at present. I am not anxious to increase the number of witnesses; for, acknowledging the New Testament to be of divine authority, I consider whatever it plainly declares once, to be the truth. The relevancy and plainness of the testimony, therefore, is more the object of my solicitude, than the number of witnesses,-a point, I may add, in which many, who have defended our sentiments, have greatly erred.

I shall proceed, therefore, to other texts of Scripture, in which Christ is declared to be God.

Rom. ix. 5, "Whose are the Fathers; and from whom, in respect to the flesh, (his human nature), Christ (descended), who is the Supreme God, blessed for ever. Amen!"

In regard to this text, it may be remarked, first, that

although Griesbach has filled his margin with conjectural and other readings, he attributes no considerable weight to any of them; for, all the manuscripts of the Epistle to the Romans, which have been collated, contain the text as it stands; as do all the ancient versions, and nearly all the Fathers.

In rendering το κατα σαρκα, in respect to his human nature, I feel supported by corresponding passages, in Rom. i. 3;* Acts, ii. 30. And that ὦ ὧν ἐπι παντων θεος ἑυλογητος is tous dwvas, is literally translated, who is Supreme God, blessed for ever, may be shown in various ways. 'O av is here put, as in common, (see John, i. 18; iii. 13; 2 Cor. xi. 31), for is iσTI, who is. The ground of this lies simply in the nature of Greek usage. Whenever is used for i, it takes the participle & instead of the verb it. The Greeks say ὁ ὤν, but ὃς ἐστι.

Επι παντων Θεος is, literally, "over-all God," i. e. Supreme God. Compare with the phraseology here, the word Tava (all), as used in a connexion which respects Christ, in Col. i. 17; Eph. i, 19, 23; John, iii. 31; and 1 Cor. xv. 27. It is used in such passages as a term of qualification which serves to describe him as the head or ruler of the universe. What, then, can ἐπι παντων Θεος mean, but Supreme God?

But, on no text has greater pains been bestowed, in order to devise an unusual construction and meaning.Schlichting proposed to transposer, and read av o, i. e. of whom, (the Jewish Fathers), is God, blessed for ever. But as, in this very Epistle, the Apostle has laboured to prove that God is as well the God of the Gentiles as the Jews, (ch. iii. 29), this expedient would seem to impeach the Apostle's consistency, as well as violate the text. would the text itself, as amended by Schlichting's conjecture, be in any measure accordant with the idiom of the Greek language. If 90s has the article (and his transposition makes it Deos), then ivλoyntos must of necessity have it too, inasmuch as an adjective following a noun with an article, and agreeing with it, of necessity takes the article.

Nor

As it stands in the Textus Receptus.

Wetstein's conjecture, that it should be read av, ó iz TAYTAY 05, is not more fortunate. Such a mode of expression as i av ¿, all relating to the same subject, is repugnant to Greek usage. Besides, this conjecture, like that of Schlichting, not only violates the integrity of the text, but assigns the article to 90s, and omits it before ivλoyntos, which is surely inadmissible.

Enough of amending the Apostle's words by conjecture, without the authority of a single manuscript or version. Critical acumen has also employed itself in dividing and translating the verse in question, in a manner different from that in our common Testament. The late Professor Justi, at Marburg, a man of great acuteness and fine taste, undertook to defend the ingenious supposition, that the latter part of the verse is a doxology. He renders it,"Whose ancestors were those [renowned] Fathers from whom the Messiah, as to his mortal body, was derived, who is exalted over all [the Fathers]. God be blessed for ever!" Thus, by the aid of supplying an idea not contained in the text, and by doing violence to the custom of language, in the doxological part, he has devised a method in which we may avoid the assertion, that Christ is God over all, or Supreme God. But who does not perceive the violence and inaptitude of the divulsion which he makes, by separating the former from the latter part of the verse? Besides, how would a doxology fit the passage in question? Crellius (Init. Evang. Johan. p. 230, 237), long ago, was candid enough to own, that when the Apostle was affected with the greatest sadness, on account of the unbelief of his Jewish brethren, and the loss of their privileges, a doxology was not very congruA prayer (as in ch. x. 1.), would seem, as he thinks, to be much more appropriate.

ous.

Omitting, however, all this, it may be added, that Greek usage, by no possibility, admits of the doxological version of Justi. Eos Evλoyntos means, God who is blessed, i. e. the proposition in such a case is assumed, not asserted. But Evλoyntos i Oros means, God be blessed; let God be blessed or praised. In accordance with this Greek usage, we find five instances of doxology in the New Testament, and about forty in the Old, in which λotos is uniformly

G

placed FIRST. The same order is observed in respect to xaτagatos, (cursed), when an imprecation is uttered. Besides, the text must be changed to make out a doxology; and we must read eos instead of Oε05; for universal usage prescribes ευλογητος ο Θεος, (The instance Ps. lxviii. 19; Sept, brought by Stolz in his Erlaeuterungen, &c. to support Justi's rendering, depends merely on wrong punctuation, and the repetition of a word which does not correspond to the Hebrew text.)

Finally, if a doxology to the Father were intended here, it is scarcely possible to suppose that a particle of transition, (de, for instance), should not have been inserted, in order to give notice of so great a change. In any other case, we should expect to find it thus,-i de av; or, if the doxology begin at Θtos, then ευλογητος ο Θεος. No text, no manuscript, no ancient version, gives us a trace of either of these readings. To invent them, therefore, and force them upon the text, or to substitute a conjecture, which originated from theological speculation, against the plain and incontrovertible evidence of the integrity of the text, what is it but to introduce a principle fundamentally subversive of all interpretation and criticism, and give up the Scriptures to be moulded to every man's own wishes? All conjectures and theories, then, appear to be quite incompetent to explain away the common rendering of the verse, and the meaning connected with it. On the other hand, we may ask, How comes it that Christ, according to his human nature, (ro xaτa σagxa), is said to have descended from the Fathers? What if I should affirm that David, as to his human nature, was descended from Jesse? Would you not, of course, ask, what other nature had he except human? And such an inquiry, forced upon us by the expression in question, the Apostle has immediately answered. As to his nature not human, he was " Supreme God, blessed for ever. Amen!" have produced the human nature connected with such an exalted Being, the Apostle reckons as one of the special privileges which the Jews had enjoyed. See and compare Rom. ix. 1-4.

To

I do not argue that Christ is divine, merely from having the appellation ses bestowed upon him. But, if av in

Taytay Oros be not Supreme God, and if the antithesis in this verse do not require us to understand a divine nature here, then I must despair of discovering the sentiment of any text of Scripture, by using any of the rules of exegesis.

Heb. i. 8, 9. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

This passage is quoted from Ps. xlv. 6, 7. It has been objected, that : 905 here should not be translated as the vocative, but nominative,—e. g. "God is thy throne for ever and ever, or thine everlasting throne, or eternal support."

To this it may be replied, 90s is the common vocative of the New Testament and Septuagint. No objection to the usual rendering of this verse in the vocative case can be made from the form of the word, which is altogether common in Hellenistic Greek. * The Attics use the same form of the noun, but they write it & 90s, and not : 9:05. One needs only to open his Septuagint, in the Book of Psalms, or in almost any other part, to see incontrovertible evidence that 905 is the common vocative of the Hellenistic writers.

To the translation, "God is thy throne," i. e. thy support, several objections may be made.

The

1. Greek usage does not permit such a version. subject and predicate cannot both have the article, unless in the case of a convertible or reciprocal sentence; and, surely, it will not be urged that such is the present case. "God is thy throne," would stand, in Greek, govos Θεος, + For such a change in the text there is no respect

able authority..

σου

2. Such a translation would render insipid the argu

* There were several dialects of the Greek language, the Attic, the Doric, &c. The Hellenistic Greek is a mixed dialect, which prevailed in the countries and periods in which the New Testament writers lived.ED.

↑ See the latter clause of the verse, where ǹ faldos is the subject, but falsos the predicate, according to the laws of the language.