I had indeed once thought, that the appellation xupiog might, perhaps, have become so appropriated to our Sa viour, as to be considered as a proper name, just as “our Lord” is sometimes among us: in which case του Θεού, και Κυρίου Ιησου Χριστου might have been understood in the same meaning, and have fallen under the same rule with του Θεου, και Ιησου Χριστου. But I have found no other evidence for this notion *.

Your next example (2 Tim. iv. 1.) would now require our attention: And there might seem to be some reason to hope for assistance there with respect to our past difficulties. But the fact is, I have met with this verse no where, but only when it takes its turn in the Commentaries of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Damascenus, Oecumenius and Theophylact: And in all these places, except the last, which I have already transcribed, the reading is not του Θεού και κυριου, which alone could make them objects for our notice; but the common reading (till Griesbach, who has thrown the rou xugiou into his margin) of our printed editions, viz. του Θεού και του κυρίου.

Όριζου δε και την ημετεραν ευσέβειαν, διδάσκων, ένα μεν ειδέναι Θεον αγεννητον, τον Πατερα, ένα δε γεννητον Κύριον, τον Υίον, Θεον μεν, ὅταν καθ ̓ ἑαυτον λέγητα, προσαγορευομενον, Κυρίον δε, όταν μετα Πατρος ονομάζηται. το μεν δια την φυσιν το δε δια την μοναρχίαν. Gregor. Nazianzen. Orat. z3. vol. i. p. 420.

Των γαρ ονομάτων τα μεν εστι κοινα, τα δε ιδια. κοινα μεν ἵνα το απαράλλακτον δειξη της ουσίας, ιδία δε ἵνα την ιδιοτητα χαρακτηριζε των ὑποστάσεων. Το μεν ουν Πατηρ και Υιος, ιδιον ἕκαστης ὑποστασεως. το δε Θεος και Κύριος, κοινον. επει ουν τεθεικε κοινον ονομα το, εἷς θεος, εδεήθη και του ιδιάζοντος, ἵνα γνωρισῃ τινα φησιν. Chrysostom De Incomprehensibili Dei Natura, vol. i. p. 482. See also vol. ii. p. 708.

It

It is, therefore, needless to transcribe the passages. Indeed, I may just remark, that there runs through the whole (excepting Damascenus, who has nothing but the bare text) a great resemblance, derived, as usual, 'from Chrysostom: so that Theophylact may serve as a tolerable representation of them all. There is not one of them more particular and determinate than he is.

The Latin Fathers, almost without any exception, here as well as in 1 Tim. v. 21, entirely omit the Domini*.

I must not close this Letter, without apologizing for detaining you so long, to so little purpose.

I am, Sir, &c.

*See Appendix, No. 4.

LETTER

LETTER V.

SIR,

"MANY modern writers understand this whole sentence" (says Dr. Samuel Clarke, speaking of Titus, c. ii. 13.) to belong to one and the same person, viz. Christ: as if the words should have been rendered, The appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Which construction, the words will indeed grammatically bear; as do also those in 2 Pet. i. 1. But it is much more reasonable, and more agreeable to the whole tenor of Scripture, to understand the former part of the words to relate to the Father: the word God, with any high title or epithet annexed, always signifying the Father only: See above, ch. 1. sect. 3. and my Commentary on 40 select texts, in answer to Mr. Nelson, p. 85." (Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, chap. ii. sect. 1. No. 541. p. 89. Lond. 1732.)

Again; the following is the whole of Dr. Benson's note on that passage, in his Commentary on the Epistles." The literal translation is, And (or even) the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Our Saviour Jesus Christ will appear at the last day, clothed in his own glory, attended by his Father's

K

Father's glory, as well as accompanied with all the angels (Mat. xvi. 27. and xxv. 31. Mark viii. 38. Luke ix. 26.) By "the great God" therefore, must be understood, the one God and Father of all, who is here, and every where else, most evidently distinguished from our Saviour Jesus Christ. And this title, "the great God," is never, in Scripture, applied to Jesus Christ, but frequently to the Father, and to him alone *."

Now, I believe, that no man could transcribe the above paragraphs, whatever might be his religious creed, without feeling powerfully tempted to enter his protest against the strangenesses of reasoning in both of them. But I have resolved to keep as clear as possible from all the other arguments which may be, or ever have been urged in behalf of either interpretation of the text; and to confine myself strictly to my own proper object.Wherefore, my motive in making these extracts, was only to shew, in general, (vhat it needs no comment to explain) in how badly a settled state, writers so deservedly esteemed as Doctors Clarke and Benson, have suffered themselves to leave this passage; and how much more those persons who have taken their way of understanding it from them, must have been led by the authority of their names, than the goodness of their arguments; so that we may the less wonder, that it should be left to this late day, to examine more perfectly, what ought in

* The expression "great God" in the New Testament occurs (but the reading is dubious) in one other passage (Revelat. c. xix. v. 17.). And, as to the interpretation, (on the supposition of the truth of that reading) compare v. 9. of the same chapter.

reason

reason to have been the ground-work of all the rest, the philological nature of the clause in dispute.

You, Sir, at last, have boldly declared, not "that the words will indeed grammatically bear that construction," but, that they must, and can bear no other.

The subject of my Letter is, to enquire, whether they ever did bear any other sense, during the times while the Greek was a native language.

1. The first authority, in our order, is Clemens Alexandrinus. I shall be contented to transcribe him for his antiquity; and not stop to enquire, whether one might not also justly claim from him that interpretation which we are in quest of.

Νύν δε επεφανη ανθρωποις αυτος οὗτος ὁ Λόγος, ὁ μόνος αμφω, θεος τε και ανθρωπος, άπαντων ήμιν αιτιος αγαθων, παρ' οὗ το ευ ζην εκδιδασκομενοι, εις αίδιον ζωην παραπεμ πομεθα· κατα γαρ τον θεσπεσιον εκείνον του Κυρίου αποστο λον, ἡ χαρις του θεου ἡ σωτήριος, πασιν ανθρωποις επεφανη, ή παιδεύουσα ήμας, ἵνα αρνησάμενοι την ασέβειαν και τας κοσμικας επιθυμίας, σωφρόνως και δικαίως και ευσεβώς ζησωμεν εν τώ νυν αιωνι· προσδεχομενοι την μακαρίαν ελπίδα, και επιφάνειαν της δόξης του μεγάλου Θεου και σωτηρος ήμων Ιησου Χριστου. Τούτο εστί το ασμα το καινον (Psalm xcviii, 1, Apoc. v. 9.) ή επιφάνεια ή νυν εκλαμψατά εν ημιν του εν αρχή οντος, και προοντος Λογου επεφανη δε εναγχος ὁ προων σωτηρ· επεφανη ὁ εν τῷ οντι ων, ὅτι ὁ Λου γος, ὃς ην προς τον θεον, διδάσκαλος επεφανη, ᾧ τα παντα