ment of the Apostle, in this chapter, to prove the preëmimently exalted nature of Christ. To say of this illustrious personage, God is thy throne, i. e. thy support, might excite the persons to whom the epistle was addressed, to ask, "And who is not supported by God? How is Christ entitled, on this account, to claim any preëminence in our regard?"

3. Such a translation contradicts the meaning of the word throne, understood either literally or figuratively. Literally, it is the seat on which kings seat. This sense is here out of the question. Figuratively, it stands for dominion, empire, regal authority; because it is one of the ensigns of such authority. But there is no such figurative sense to it as that of support. And what sense would it make to say, God is thy dominion, thy regal authority? If you reply, This may mean, God is the cause of thy dominion or regal authority, then I ask again, Of what king's dominion and authority is not God the cause? it not the universal doctrine of the Bible that " by Him kings reign and princes decree justice?" And how, then, is Christ entitled to any preeminence because God is the cause of his dominion? Or, what advances does the Apostle make in his argument by such an assertion?

Is

To the translation in question there is still another objection, which is drawn from the nature of Hebrew parallelism in poetry. The verse under discussion plainly is one in which the subject is the same in both parts, i. e. it is a synonimous parallelism. Now, the second member of this is," The sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness;" in other words, thy dominion is righteous. The first member of the parallelism, consequently, is to be explained in a similar way, and evidently means thy dominion (throne) is everlasting. What could be more tasteless or unmeaning here than to say, "God is thy throne,”i. e. support, or cause of dominion-when the object of the writer is to show the preeminent dignity of the Son of God?

The proposed mode of rendering, then, violates Greek usage-frustrates the argument of the Apostle-forces an unexampled meaning upon govos-and transgresses the

laws of parallelism in the Hebrew original, from which the passage was taken.

I am aware of the objections which have been made to understanding the word God, in the passage now under consideration, in its highest sense. For, first, It is said that the person called God, (Elohim), here calls another being his God, and therefore he cannot be Supreme.

To the fact I readily assent; but the conclusion drawn from it I must be permitted to doubt. If Christ be described in the Forty-fifth Psalm, (and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews asserts this to be the fact), he is described as a king triumphant over his enemies. As the Messiah, the anointed king, he might, with the greatest propriety, call Jehovah his God-for, as Messiah, he is to be considered as incarnate-and, of course, subordinate. It is still a matter of wonder, that the same person could at one time be called God, and have everlasting dominion ascribed to him, who, the next moment, calls Jehovah his God? It is a wonder of the same nature, as that which perplexed the Jews, when Christ asked them how David could call the Messiah Lord, while at the same time he was his Son. It is a wonder which no ground but that of Trinitarians can ever explain. I mean, the ground that the divine and human natures coexisted in Christ, and that, in the same sentence, he could, with propriety, speak of himself as human and divine. The sacred writers appear not to take the least pains to separate the two natures, in any thing which they say of either. They everywhere speak of Christ, (so it appears to me), as either human or divine, or both. They do not seem to apprehend any danger of mistake in regard to the subject, no more than we when we say, Abraham is dead, or Abraham is alive, think it necessary to add, as to his body, in one case, or as to his soul, in the other.

This very negligence, (if I may be allowed the expression, saving every thing that would imply improper want of care), offers a powerful argument to me, I confess, to prove that the sacred writers regarded the human and divine natures as so intimately connected in Christ, that it was unnecessary and inexpedient to attempt a distinctive

G 3

separation of them, on every occasion which brought to view the person or actions of Christ.

A second objection is urged,-viz. that the king, who is the subject of the Forty-fifth Psalm, not only calls God his God, but is said to be "anointed with the oil of gladness, above his fellows." If Christ be truly divine, how, it is asked, can he have fellows, i. e. equals?

Το

The answer to this has, in substance, already been given. Christ is introduced here as the incarnate Messiah. the office of king, God "consecrated him with the oil of gladness," i. e. placed him in a royal station; he has the "oil of gladness above his fellows," or a rank above those who also hold a regal office.

It has been objected, thirdly, that the Forty-fifth Psalm, from which our text was taken, does not belong to the Messiah, but to David or Solomon. But how is this proved? "The language," it is said, "is such, as to show that it is a mere epithalamium, or nuptial ode, on the marriage of one of these kings with a foreign princess." I have no time to enter into a discussion of this topic here; but I am satisfied that the difficulties which press upon such a view of the Forty-fifth Psalm are overwhelming. Whatever may be said, moreover, to prove this, unless it be palpable demonstration, cannot weigh much in the minds of those who regard the authority of the writer that composed the Epistle to the Hebrews. He has told us that the passage in question is addressed to his Son.

Here, then, if our view be correct, is one instance more in which Christ is called God, with adjuncts which render it probable that the Supreme God is meant.

I should rank the texts which I have already produced, as the leading ones to establish the divine nature of Christ. But there are others which should not be neglected, in an impartial examination of Scripture evidence, on the present topic.

1 John, v. 20, "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and "eternal life."

There are two reasons here why (antivos Deos) the true God may be referred to Christ. 1. The grammatical construction favours it. Christ is the immediate antecedent. I grant that pronouns sometimes relate to a more remote antecedent; but cases of this nature stand on the ground of necessity, not of common grammatical usage. What doubt can there be that John could, without scruple, call the Logos the true God, (λntivos Deos), whom he had before asserted to be God, and to have created all things?

But, secondly, my principal reason for referring the true God (ö áλntivos Dos) to Christ, is the other adjunct which stands with it: "This is the true God-and the ETERNAL LIFE." How familiar is this language with John, as applied to Christ! In him (i. e. Christ) was LIFE; this LIFE was the light of men-giving LIFE to the world—the bread of LIFE-my words are spirit and LIFE- -I am the way, the truth, and the LIFE-the Logos of life. This LIFE (Christ) was manifested, and we have seen it, and do testify to you and declare the ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us.” 1 John, i. 2. Now, as I cannot find any instance in John's writings in which the appellation of LIFE and eternal LIFE is bestowed upon the Father, to designate him as the author of spiritual and eternal life--and as this occurs so frequently in John's writings, as applied to Christ-the laws of exegesis compel me here to accord in my exposition with the common laws of grammar, and to construe both indivos Pros and Cwn wvios, (or, as some manuscripts, more consonantly with Greek idiom, read (wn nos), both of Christ. If the true God then be not really divine, who is? John, xx. 28. "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

I have three reasons for adducing this text. 1. There is no satisfactory proof that it is an exclamation of surprise or astonishment. No phrase of this kind, by which the Jews were accustomed to express surprise or astonishment, has yet been produced; and there is no evidence that such a phrase, with the sense alleged, belongs to this language. 2. The Evangelist tells us, that Thomas addressed himself to Jesus; said to him Tv άvr; he did not merely exclaim. 3. The commendation which the Saviour immediately be

stows upon Thomas, serves chiefly to defend the meaning that I attach to the verse. Christ commends him for having seen and believed. The evidence that he believed was contained in the expression under examination; for, before uttering this expression, he is represented as doubting. On the supposition, then, that the expression was a mere exclamation, what evidence was it to the mind of Jesus, or could it be to the minds of others, that he admitted the claims of the Saviour of men, to the character which was connected with this office? What more proof of real belief can be found in such an exclamation, if it be truly one, than we can find that men are Christians, when they repeat, as is very common on occasions of surprise or delight, the name of Christ, by way of exclamation? But, if we admit that the words of Thomas were the proper evidence and expression of that belief, for which the Saviour commended him, (and I do not see how we can fairly avoid this), then we must admit that he will commend us, for believing that he is both Lord and God, Kugios naι Osos, unless we adopt the notable expedient of Schlichting, who avers that Lord is to be referred to Christ,, and God to the Father; which latter, he thinks, Thomas spoke, after some interval of time had elapsed.

I pass over several passages, where our common text applies the name of God to Christ; e. g. Acts, xx. 28, and 1 Tim. iii. 16. In regard to this latter text, however, it appears to me a plain case, that the authorities which Griesbach himself has adduced, would fairly lead to a decision different from his own, respecting the genuineness of the reading, sos. I will not attempt to weigh them here; as I feel no desire to press into my service, witnesses of a character at all dubious. I admit the great desert of Griesbach, in his critical edition of the New Testament. I believe he was a man who would not willingly or consciously misrepresent either facts or arguments, for or against any reading. But the work which he undertook was too great to be accomplished by one person, or even by one whole generation of critics. Dr. Laurence, in his Essay upon the Classification of Manuscripts by Griesbach, has rendered it more than probable that Griesbach's account of facts is not unfrequently very erroneous, not