« PreviousContinue »
quotation, where ó Qeos occurs twice, and is rendered “God. 66 even thy God," it should, in the first of these occurrences of it, be rendered in the vocative too. His words are:-“ ó Osos] “ Prius vocandi casu iterum intelligendum est, ut commate 8. 66 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 6 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 as6 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; * 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."
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 • unto 6 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” (TIPOE) 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, 66 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
« affirm, that the exact sense and only allowable translation, of the inspired author's words is as follows: KO MED
προς τους αγγέλους “ Verse 7. And, on the one hand, concerning the angels,
λεγει 6 he saith, who maketh his angels spirits, &c.
προς τον υιον 66 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 66 ever;" and, translate ugos 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 66 be determined is, whether the word God' is here to be 66 understood in its highest sense, as denoting the supreme Di66 vinity, or in its inferior sense, as signifying a person autho66 rised, commissioned, and inspired to declare the will of God 6 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 pros is " ever used to denote an address to any one, this being signified by the dative case es 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. Ilgos. No. 2."
“ject, it appears only necessary to bring forward the entire quo“ tation.”—Having done this, he proceeds:-“ Can the all6 perfect Jehovah be anointed? Can any thing be imparted
to him, or his eternal glory receive any increase? Is there “ any being in existence who can be called his God? Can 56 the God who is supreme over all have a superior ?-Either
these questions must be answered in the affirmative, to the . « subversion of piety, as well as common sense, or it must be 6 conceded, that the invocation • O GOD' is to be understood 6 according to the inferior sense of the name.” Pages 185, 186.
We have, first of all, in this singular passage, the admission, that the words quoted by the apostle are an address to the Son; so that, in as far as this quotation is concerned, the criticisms on the import of IPOs have no application whatever. How little they have to the quotation which follows it, we shall afterwards see.-But further: we have here a remarkable instance of what is a common practice with our author. He states, in terms of the utmost confidence, difficulties attending the interpretations of Trinitarians, difficulties involving, according to him, “ the subversion of piety and common sense,” without ever so much as adverting, any more than if he never had heard of such a thing, to the great principle of their system, by which such difficulties are solved I mean, the double view of the person and character of Christ, -as being God in our nature, and as sustaining the voluntarily assumed relation of a servant of the Godhead, fulfilling a work, and receiving his mediatorial dominion in reward of it. 6 Ita et 66 de Christo,” says Calvin, “ Scripturæ loquuntur: attribuunt 66.illi interdum quæ ad humanitatem singulariter referri o“ porteat; interdum quæ divinitati peculiariter competant: " nonnunquam quæ utramque naturam complectantur, neutri “ seorsum satis conveniant. Atque istam quidem duplicis
er se comm
« naturæ conjunctionem, quæ in Christo subest, tanta re“ ligione exprimunt, ut eas quandoque inter se communi66 cent ; qui tropus veteribus idwarwy rovania dictus est.” Instit. p. 123. So also the Scriptures speak of Christ : « sometimes ascribing to him properties which belong ex<i clusively to the human nature; sometimes such as are « peculiar to the Divine; and, occasionally, such as em4 brace both, not being sufficiently appropriate to either 66 of them by itself. And, indeed, that union of two na“ tures which subsists in Christ, they express with so much “ scrupulosity, that they even at times impute, recipro* cally, the properties of the one to the other ;-a figure 56 of speech, which is called by the ancients idiopatwv rowwlick 66 —communion of properties." --Let the reader assume the correctness of this principle, and he will find no difficulty in conceiving, how Christ should be addressed as possessing the Divine nature, and yet, in the character of Mediator, and in the form of a servant, as anointed; as having the Father for his God; and as receiving « dominion, and glory, 64 and a kingdom.” From this single consideration, he may appreciate the value of Mr. Yates's confident assertion, that, 56 in order to remove every doubt that the name. God is to be understood in the inferior sense, “it is only ne 66 cessary to bring forward the entire quotation." "1 John v. 20. “ 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 6 in his Son Jesus Christ. THIS IS THE TRUE God, and * eternal life.” · Of Mr. Yates's strictures on this text too (which is the text of my Discourses on the Divinity of Christ), I might simply say, 6 answered by anticipation." The extreme con
fidence of his assertions, however, which is here, as in some other cases, in the inverse ratio of the strength of his argument, renders a few remarks necessary.
1. On the question whether the pronoun “ this” refers to the near or to the remote antecedent, Mr. Yates first tries to get a near antecedent more suitable than the existing one to the Unitarian hypothesis, by observing, that Griesbach inarks as doubtful the words « Jesus Christ,” “ Now,'' says he, “if these words be omitted, the nearest antecedent is
the word (aurou) his,' which refers to God.” (P. 187.)-Had Mr. Yates felt perfect confidence in the validity of his subsequent principle of interpretation, by which the pronoun is made to refer to the remote antecedent, he would hardly, I should think, have condescended to notice this. For, in the first place, Griesbach not only does not reject the words “ Jesus « Christ” from the text, (which of itself should have been enough to prevent Mr. Yates from founding any thing on their & uncertainty')—he is so far from rejecting them, that the particular mark which he affixes to them is one which implies, that had they been absent from the received text, he would have inserted them as having been omitted ; only marking them with a certain sign, to indicate to the reader that this had been done, from a preponderance of evidence in their favour. In the second place, their omission would, after all, make no difference whatever in the argument. The words would run thus, and we are in him
that is true, even in his Son. This is the true God, and 66 eternal life:"--xou illers, ÉGMEV ŠV TW åandiww,'EN T9 TI'Artor. or' TOE Sorró å anbívos 80s, %. T. do-ATTOY, Mr. Yates alleges, thus becomes the immediate antecedent to ortoz: and, no doubt, in point of mere local position so it is. But let the reader judge, how low he reduces himself in the argument, when