and are rendered in the established version accordingly, "that THE LORD GOD might dwell among them.” In the LXX. these words have been transferred, at the expense of sense and syntax, from the end of the 18th to the beginning of the 19th verse; and this has given rise to the insulated and anomalous phrase ΚΥΡΙΟΣ Ο ΘΕΟΣ ΕΥΛΟTHTO, in the beginning of the latter. There seems good reason, therefore, for thinking, that this is only an instance (and it does not stand alone) of confusion and anomaly in the Septuagint version, and that the proper doxology begins with the second ευλογητος in verse 19.—Ευλογητος ὁ Κύριος 2. T. λ; which brings this case into agreement with the established practice of the language, and, in so far as the phraseology of the Scriptures is concerned, renders it invariable.

66

"7th. Because, although the participle comes first in 66 every other instance, a sufficient reason for its being so placed, may, in almost all these cases, be assigned, viz. that the name of God is connected by the relative pro"noun (s) with one or more clauses, the interposition of "which would remove the participle to too great a dis"tance from its noun, if it were thrown back to the end "of the sentence."-The answer to this is obvious.' 1st. There is a considerable number of cases, in which there are no such subsequent clauses, yet the arrangement is still the same. If it were indeed on account of these clauses that the participle is thrown to the beginning, how comes it to be still thrown to the beginning when no such reason exists?-2dly. When such clauses do exist, connected with the noun by the relative pronoun, there is no necessity for the participle, on the supposition of its following the noun, following also the clauses which describe or qualify the

noun, and being thrown to the end of the sentence. There is another arrangement, which produces neither obscurity nor inelegance. The participle may follow the noun, and yet precede the relative, and the clause or clauses connected with it. This may be illustrated by the following instance, in which the use of the substantive verb with the participle makes no difference as to the principle:-1 Kings Χ. 9. Γένοιτο Κυριος ὁ Θεός σου εὐλογημενος, ὃς ἠθελησεν ἐν σοι δουναι σε ἐπι θρονου Ισραηλ· κ. τ. λ. which suits equally well the idiom of our own language: "Let THE LORD THY GOD be blessed, wнO “delighted in thee to set thee on the throne of Israel,” &c. In the circumstances, then, described by Mr. Yates, the participle may, in this manner, come after its noun, without being at all removed to too great a distance "from it." These circumstances, therefore, cannot be the -true reason for its being placed before it.

Such are the grounds which appear to Mr. Yates "to have so much weight" as to render the passage "scarcely "even ambiguous." The reader must judge of them for himself. To me they appear weak and flimsy in the extreme :—and in such a case as this, weakness on the one side of the argument is so much additional power on the other.

But Mr. Yates proceeds:-" Further, where the opinions "of the writer are unknown, the best method of ascertain❝ing the sense of a dubious expression is, to inquire how "it was understood by those persons to whom he directly

wrote. In the present case, we have unusual advantages ❝ for the determination of this question." (P. 182.)—These ❝unusual advantages" consist of a quotation from the epistle of Clemens Romanus to the church at Corinth:-" From "them came all the priests and Levites, who minister

at the altar of God; from him (Jacob) as concerning the

σε flesh came the Lord Jesus (ἐξ αὐτῇ ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς το κατα σας"xα); from him came kings, and rulers, and leaders, in "the line of Judah."-A Unitarian must surely feel his resources to be very scanty, when, with all due formality, he introduces this quotation as "affording unusual advantages." -I may be told that "there are none so blind as those "who will not see." I can't help it. I certainly do not see that there is any "clear allusion" in the words of Clement to the passage before us. It is a sentence which any person might have written, without having the most distant thought of the passage in his mind. And, even if the allusion were as clear as Mr. Yates thinks it, the inference from the allusion is merely presumptive; and the alternative of the presumption is, whether it was natural for a writer, in alluding to a particular sentence, to allude to it in whole or in part :-a question, as to which, (considering the endless variety of circumstances by which a writer's mind may at the moment be influenced) we are surely most incompetent judges.

Mr. Yates further refers to "many of the most eminent "Christian writers of the first four centuries."-I make no pretensions to intimacy with the fathers; nor do I feel any particular anxiety to cultivate it. A question which we cannot determine for ourselves from the Bible, will be but poorly determined by a reference to them.—While Mr. Yates, following Wetstein, makes confident appeal to "many" of them, on one side of the question; Dr. Whitby, on the other, asserts, "that the reading we follow is cer❝tainly the true reading,—because it has the general consent " omnium ferme patrum, of almost all the fathers, who have "thus cited it from the second to the sixth century:"and then he enumerates his authorities. I leave it to those

who choose to be at the trouble, to balance these accounts. As the fathers differ from one another, and sometimes, I fear, hardly agree with themselves, I see little good to be got by reference on disputed points to their authority.

Mr. Yates concludes his strictures on this passage in the following terms: "The various evidences which I have here 66 brought together, to determine the true method of translat❝ing this verse, leave in my mind not the smallest doubt, that "instead of 'WHO IS OVER ALL GOD BLESSED FOR EVER,' the "translation ought to be, GOD WHO IS OVER ALL BE BLESSED "FOR EVER.' If this is the meaning of St. Paul, how bold, "how rash, are Mr. Wardlaw's animadversions. He affirms, "that the clause, so translated, is deprived of all force "and meaning whatever,' and 'converted into a useless and ❝ unnatural pleonasm, which adds weakness instead of strength "and propriety to the expression and the sentiment." P. 184.

દ

Now, in the first place, this is absolutely false; and Mr. Yates, in writing this paragraph, must have been guilty of most inexcusable carelessness. Of "the clause so translated" I have said no such thing as, with the charge of " boldness and rash"ness of animadversion," he here imputes to me. The words which Mr. Yates quotes were used by me with exclusive reference to the phrase "as concerning the flesh."-They stand thus: "But besides these considerations as to the construction of "the words in the original, there is something in the antithe"tical form of the sentence, which clearly indicates the same ❝ thing, and confirms, if such confirmation were necessary, the "common translation. I allude, as you will perceive, to the ❝phrase according to the flesh. Is not this expression evi"dently intended to distinguish what he was thus, from what he " was otherwise? Does it not immediately suggest the question

σε flesh came the Lord Jesus (ἐξ αὐτῇ ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς το κατα σαρ"xa); from him came kings, and rulers, and leaders, in "the line of Judah.”—A Unitarian must surely feel his resources to be very scanty, when, with all due formality, he introduces this quotation as "affording unusual advantages." -I may be told that "there are none so blind as those "who will not see." I can't help it. I certainly do not see that there is any "clear allusion" in the words of Clement to the It is a sentence which any perbefore us. passage son might have written, without having the most distant thought of the passage in his mind. And, even if the allusion were as clear as Mr. Yates thinks it, the inference from the allusion is merely presumptive; and the alternative of the presumption is, whether it was natural for a writer, in alluding to a particular sentence, to allude to it in whole or in part :-a question, as to which, (considering the endless variety of circumstances by which a writer's mind may at the moment be influenced) we are surely most incompetent judges.

Mr. Yates further refers to "many of the most eminent "Christian writers of the first four centuries.”—I make no pretensions to intimacy with the fathers; nor do I feel any particular anxiety to cultivate it. A question which we cannot determine for ourselves from the Bible, will be but poorly determined by a reference to them.—While Mr. Yates, following Wetstein, makes confident appeal to “many” of them, on one side of the question; Dr. Whitby, on the other, asserts, "that the reading we follow is cer❝tainly the true reading,—because it has the general consent "omnium ferme patrum, of almost all the fathers, who have "thus cited it from the second to the sixth century:"and then he enumerates his authorities. I leave it to those