sistency with the grammar and idiom of the language from which the translation is made;-its consistency with the grammar and idiom of the language into which the translation is made; -and its consistency with the connexion and scope of the paswhere the phrase occurs. The learned men who presage fer the translation "God is thy throne," had, no doubt, all these considerations present to their minds in giving the preference. Mr. Yates, however, in opposition to Grotius, and Dr. Clarke, and Mr. Pierce, and all the other eminent men to whom he refers, " is inclined to prefer the common transla❝tion" on account of "the want of a parallel form of expres❝sion."-Were these "most learned and respected Theologians that ever wrote" not aware of this want?

2. By "the want of a parallel form of expression," we are not, I presume, to understand him as meaning, the want of a parallel form of Greek construction. For he says, "there is "no disputing the observation of the learned men above re"ferred to, that the original may, with equal grammatical propriety, be translated God is thy throne;'"-and he brings forward two instances, which have "come in his way inci"dentally while writing his treatise," requesting me "to

say as to them how the article got into the predicate of the "proposition." The passages are, Rev. xix. 10. ǹ yag magtuρια του Ιησου εστι το πνεύμα της προφητειας: and 1 Cor. xi. 3. παντος ανδρος ή κεφαλη ὁ Χριστός εστι. Mr. Yates " advises any of his "readers who thinks that he understands Greek, to look at "these passages; and then," says he, "he may consult Dr. "Middleton and the Eclectic Review, if he pleases." P. 185.

It

may be worth the reader's while to consult Dr. Middleton, notwithstanding this contemptuous sneer. He will there find the former of these two texts classed amongst convertible propositions, which he elsewhere defines to be "such, that of

either term taken as the subject the other may be affirmed "as the predicate." *-As to the latter text, (which is part of a verse) it is somewhat remarkable, that the very same verse furnishes two instances of the general rule that the predicate of the proposition should be anarthrous: “ κεφαλη δε γυναικος ὁ ανηρ nepaλn de Xpiorov o eos."-On that clause, which is considered as in opposition to the rule, Dr. Middleton's Note is as follows: και σε V. 3. παντος ανδρος ή κεφαλη. We have not here a real, "though an apparent, breach of the rule of regimen: for σε παντός ανδρος is equivalent to του ανδρος, using the article in the "hypothetic or inclusive sense. Besides, Tavros tou avôgos would "have a different meaning. The next xepaλn wants the arti"cle, which could not be admitted." +

3. Should it be alleged that the text in question, understanding og to be in the nominative case, may be a convertible proposition too, we answer, No. Mr. Wakefield, indeed, seems to have thought that it might. He translates the words, with Unitarians in general, "God is thy throne for ever and ever:" but in his History of Early Opinions, to which, in his note on the text, he refers the reader, he subjoins; " Or, perhaps, Thy "throne is the everlasting God."-Without insisting on the absurdity of the translation "the everlasting God," which is sufficiently exposed in Dr. Middleton's remarks on the text; I observe, that, if the Unitarian rendering, "God is thy throne," is justified on the principle of ellipsis,-the meaning of the phrase being "God is the stability of thy throne," what will become of the ellipsis when the arrangement of the words is reversed? Had it been a metaphor, such a reversal might possibly have been made without producing any material alteration of the sense. But a metaphor it is not pretended to be: and

* Middleton on the Greek Art. page 674, and page 77.

+ Ibid. P. 476.

surely "Thy throne is God," for, Thy throne is established or supported by God, is something still farther beyond the range of common sense than the other. It cannot be said, that it is more entirely without parallel, for no expression can have fewer parallels than none at all.

66

4. That the phrase "God is thy throne" for "God is the

supporter of thy throne" is without a parallel, is admitted, we have seen, by Mr. Yates; and on this ground he prefers the common translation. I should have, therefore, spared my remarks on that which he gives up, had it not been for the severity of his observations on my "unhesitating dogmatism,” in presuming to say a word against the high authorities by whom it was sanctioned.—In allowing that is is here in the vocative case, and that the clause is rightly translated " Thy throne, "O God, is for ever and ever," Mr. Yates agrees with Wetstein, who also assigns the same reason for approving the common version: Quidam," says he, "ita interpretantur, "Deus est thronus tuus, i. e. Deus fulcit et erigit thronum ❝ tibi. Isto vero sensu cum nusquam scriptura hac phrasi utatur, "simplicius multo est intelligere vocem Deus in casu vocan"di: O Deus, Dei Filius, thronus tuus est a seculo in secu"lum, regnabis æternum. Luc. i. 32. 33. Thren. v. 19."

66

"Some interpret thus: God is thy throne, i. e. God sta"blishes and upholds thy throne. But as the Scripture no"where employs this phrase in such a sense, it is much more "simple to understand the word GoD in the vocative case: "O God, Son of God, thy throne is from generation to gene❝ration, thou shalt reign for ever." Luke i. 32. 33. Lament. v. 19.*—This critic, indeed, not only considers it as in the vocative here, but conceives that, in the subsequent part of the

* Wetstein's Greek Testament, Notes on the Text.

quotation, where sos occurs twice, and is rendered "God even thy God," it should, in the first of these occurrences of it, be rendered in the vocative too. His words are:"Prius vocandi casu iterum intelligendum est, ut commate 8. "Cum enim in eo sit Paulus, ut honorem et dignitatem "Christi adserat, magis consentaneum est, ut Dei nomen illi "hic tribui credamus."-" God] In its first occurrence in "this verse is again to be understood in the vocative case, as ❝ in verse 8. For since in it the object of Paul is to as"sert the honour and dignity of Christ, it is more con"sistent to consider the name of God as here given to him.”* -According to Wetstein, therefore, the whole would stand thus: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever;

66

a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; there"fore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of "gladness above thy fellows."

unto

5. But it seems the words " unto the Son he saith," do not denote an address to the Son. "I shall have occasion," says Mr. Yates," in the latter part of this chapter to show, that "the words with which the quotation is introduced "the Son he saith,' do not denote an address to the Son." P. 185. This observation, as appears from the latter part of the chapter, is founded on the circumstance, that the preposition rendered "unto" (ПPOZ) often signifies with reference to, or concerning, and that it is used in this sense in the preceding verse, where it is rendered " of the angels," that is, "concerning the angels he saith."-These observations are accompanied with the following formal statement:-"With"out fear of being contradicted by any accurate scholar, I

* Ibid.

"affirm, that the exact sense and only allowable translation,

"of the inspired author's words is as follows:

Και

μεν

προς

τους αγγέλους

"Verse 7. And, on the one hand, concerning the angels, λέγει

"he saith, who maketh his angels spirits, &c.

Δε

προς

τον υἱον "Ver. 8. But on the other hand, concerning the Son," &c. Page 197. *

Now, granting all this with the utmost readiness, what is it to the purpose, as to the present quotation? Nothing can be more futile than this formal appeal to all accurate scholars, about the "exact sense and only allowable translation" of the words with which the quotation is introduced. For what, after all, shall we make of the quotation itself? It bears the form of an address; " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and "ever;" and, translate gos in any way you please, an address it will inevitably remain. Nothing else can be made of it. The translation of the preposition cannot alter the nature of the thing. It is an address ;-and an address to the Son.

6. "At present," adds Mr. Yates, "the only question to "be determined is, whether the word 'GOD' is here to be "understood in its highest sense, as denoting the supreme Di"vinity, or in its inferior sense, as signifying a person autho"rised, commissioned, and inspired to declare the will of God "to mankind. In order to remove every doubt upon this sub

* In a note, Mr. Yates had gone so far as to express a doubt, "whether προς is "ever used to denote an address to any one, this being signified by the dative case "without any preposition." Subsequent examination, however, suggested possibly by Mr. Brown's remarks on that note, in his " Strictures," has convinced him of his mistake; and he has candidly acknowledged it by inserting, on the back of the title-page of his Sermon on " the duty and manner of deciding the princi"pal religious controversies," the following notandum, along with two or three other" inaccuracies of statement in his Vindication of Unitarianism,' which he "takes that opportunity of correcting:"-" P. 197. erase the Note. See Schleusner, "V. Igos. No. 2."