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 translating 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.

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

:—

"What was he else?-What was he not according to the "flesh?—The ordinary translation of the phrase in question "conveys the precise meaning of the original :- as concerning "the flesh; that is, as far as respects the flesh,' or 'as to his "human nature;' which is thus contrasted with that higher "view of his person, according to which he was the possessor ❝ of underived and independent existence. Remove from the "words this idea of antithesis, and you deprive them of all force "and meaning whatever: you convert them into a useless and ❝ unnatural pleonasm, which adds weakness, instead of strength " and propriety, to the expression and the sentiment.”—This reasoning Mr. Yates has thought proper to pass unnoticed. In a Note, indeed, he refers to a subsequent remark of mine, condemnatory of the translation of the clause in the " Improv"ed Version of the New Testament," where it is rendered, "by natural descent." Speaking of the extract from Clement, quoted above, he says: "The expression xara rov Ioudav, "in the "line of Judah," in the last clause, assists to explain ro xara 66 σαρκα, ' as concerning the flesh,' in the second clause; and, so "far as I can judge, justifies the translation by natural de"scent,' which is given in the Improved Version. Mr. Ward"law, however, affirms, that to understand the expression in "this sense, is taking a most arbitrary freedom with the "words themselves, which is utterly inadmissible, and de"serving of the severest reprehension.'" (Page 183.)

6

Will Mr. Yates venture to stake his credit as a Greek scholar on the soundness of this criticism? He knows too well, I should think, the effect of the prepositive article in such phrases.

-“ To nara sagna—Act. Apost. ii. 30. Quantum ad carnem "attinet." Vigerus." Interdum o absolute ponitur, et ver"tendum est quantum ad, ad illud quod attinet, nempe, Rom.

“ ix. 5. 7o nara cagna, nempe quoad humanam ejus naturam. ›

Schleusner.

66

Rom. ix. 5. το κατα σαρκα, for κατα το κατα σαρκα

Xenua, in respect of the flesh."-Parkhurst.

The reasoning, then, from the antithetical form of the sentence, stands in all its force.-Acts ii. 30. referred to by Schleusner, furnishes a strong confirmation of it:-"Therefore, "being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an "oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh “(ro zarɑ gagna) he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne." What is the meaning of the phrase here? If Jesus possessed no other nature than the ordinary nature of a man, was it not enough to say that he was to be of the fruit of David's loins? How could he spring from the loins of David otherwise than after the flesh? Why, then, the qualifying clause-in respect of the flesh? unless it was intended to exclude a higher nature, which entered into the constitution of his person, but according to which he was not descended of David-not his Son, but his LORD.-On this principle, it appears to me that the occurrence of the phrase—ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁ Κύριος Ιησές ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΣΑΡΚΑ—in the extract from Clement, is a much stronger evidence in support of the Trinitarian view of the person of Christ, as held by that Father, than any fancied allusion to Rom. ix. 5. without quoting the part of the verse which directly affirms his divinity, can furnish against it.

"Wherever that phrase according to the flesh' occurs, it "implies some other aspect under which the thing or person "may be contemplated. Paul had other brethren besides those "who were sprung by natural descent from Abraham (Rom. "ix. 3.);-there was another Israel, besides that distinguished "by the name on account of fleshly birth (1 Cor. x. 18.);"Christ might be viewed in another aspect than according to "his descent from David (Acts ii. 30.);—and finally, there were

Y

"other masters than masters according to the flesh (Eph. iv. 5.); else this form of expression could not, in the passages "referred to, with propriety have been used." *

It is truly surprising to hear Mr. Yates assert (pages 180, 181.) that "the utmost that can be said to vindicate this ren

dering" (the rendering in our English Bibles) " is that it does "not violate the rules of grammar or the idioms of the Greek "language, and therefore may possibly be the true translation." This, I say, is truly surprising. The ordinary translation is admitted to be unobjectionable on the ground of grammar or of idiom: And, indeed, supposing the Apostle to have meant to say, what we affirm he did mean to say, it is just the manner in which we should have expected him to express it. +-But this is a great deal more than can be said for the Unitarian version. Mr. Yates" has no doubt" (p. 181.) "that a person familiarly acquainted with the Greek, and free "from any previous bias to the Trinitarian doctrine, would "without hesitation understand the last clause as an abrupt "ascription of praise to the God who is above all." And yet

*

"Ubicunque enim locutio illa ara cagua reperitur, indicatur simul alia rei aut personæ facies, quæ considerari potest. Paulus alios habuerit adeλous quam hos Abrahamo oriundos; alius sit Israëlis populus quam is tantummodo qui propter natales hoc nomine insignitur; alio intuitu possit considerari Christus, quam quatenus natales ejus ex Davide repetuntur; alii denique sint xv quam xava σagxa, necesse est, si L.C.L." (Rom. ix. 3. 1 Cor. x. 18. Acts ii. 30.) "et Eph. vi. 5. ea loquendi forma usurpari potest." Hermanni Royaards, Diatribe de divinitate Jesu Christi vera. P. 139.

+ “Illud o wy ad neminem nisi ad Christum potest referri. Id docet ipsa loquendi forma: ea enim permutatur cum altera is sor. Ita Rom. i. 25. dicitur o κτισαντα ός εστιν ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας: sed 2 Cor. ii. 51. ὁ θεος—ό ων ευλογητος sis tous diwvas: et usurpatur, quum plura de eo dicuntur de quo sermo erat; ita Joh. i. 18. ὁ μονογενης υἱος ὁ ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος, et Joh. iii. 15. ὁ υἱος του ανα AgWrov i WY EV TX ougave, adeoque ea de re dubitari plane nequit: eo minus, quoniam illud antegressum To xara σagna Christum certa quadam in ratione collocat, et manifesto docet, eum alio etiam intuitu considerari posse." Royaards, Diatribe, &c. P. 138.

he is obliged to admit, that the words, so interpreted, are differently arranged from what is the uniform practice in the Old and New Testament Scriptures, with one solitary exception, and even that one, we have seen, more than doubtful. On what reasonable principles of criticism, then, can it be affirmed of one translation that it " may possibly be the true one," and that this is "the utmost that can be said" for it, although it is admitted to be quite consistent with syntax and with idiom; while the preference is given to another, in which the idiom, or customary practice of the language, is acknowledged to be violated?

In concluding my remarks on this text, I adopt, with Dr. Middleton, the words of Michaelis: "I for my part sincerely "believe, that Paul here delivers the same doctrine of the "divinity of Christ, which is elsewhere unquestionably main❝tained in the New Testament."

The next passage which Mr. Yates, with other Unitarians, endeavours to set aside from the list of proofs of our Lord's divinity, is Heb. i. 8. "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, "O GOD, is for ever and ever."

1. It is amusing to observe, how Mr. Yates puffs off his high authorities against me, accusing me of the most impudent effrontery, in venturing to bring any charge against them, and then,

"With hesitation admirably slow,"

humbly presumes to differ from them himself. We have had one instance of this. Here we have another. "Grotius, Dr. "Samuel Clarke, and Mr. Pierce, with many other learned men, "have remarked," it seems, "that this passage may, with equal

66

propriety, be translated, God is thy throne for ever and "ever." " Now, the propriety of a translation of any phrase

must be estimated by various considerations;-such as, its con