66

and my readers, I hope, have more understanding and freedom from prejudice than to be misled by it. According to this sim❝ple and reasonable interpretation," not only is that taken for granted which has never been proved, that “a god” was a usual synonyme for a prophet or inspired religious instructor; but the appellation given by Thomas to Christ is no higher than the disciples in general might have given to himself. He too was one" to whom the word of God came;" and so were the other apostles and prophets of the New Testament church: and if "my God" means no more than "my inspired religious instructor," they were all alike entitled to the same appellation. Let parallel cases, then, be produced, of prophets and apostles being thus addressed, and we will be satisfied. Every man must judge for himself of simplicity and reasonableness; but till this is done, I must be allowed to consider it as the very opposite of both, as an unexampled and arbitrary departure from the established meaning of words,. betraying a system lamentably pressed for support.-If any reader is prepared to admit, that when Thomas, addressing Jesus, said, "MY LORD " AND MY GOD," he meant no more than "my Master and in- . "spired instructor;"-there is not much at which he will need to stop:-he must be tolerably well initiated already in the through-going principles of Unitarianism, if he has come to consider this as a "simple and reasonable interpretation." Rom. ix. 5..." Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ who is OVER ALL GOD BLESSED FOR EVER." "If there were any evidence," says Mr. Yates, "that this "translation is correct, here would be a case in point: the "words of the apostle would present a clear and valid argu"ment for the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ." P. 180.All that we have to do, then, with regard to this text, is to establish the correctness of the translation. Mr. Yates is

66

came;

of opinion that "the utmost that can be said to vindicate "this rendering is, that it does not violate the rules of gram"mar, or the idioms of the Greek language, and therefore may "possibly be the true translation:"-and the reasons which he assigns for preferring the translation of the latter words of the verse as a doxology, "God, who is over all, be blessed "for ever!"-" appear to him to have so much weight, that, "if he were not checked by a regard to the opinion of those ❝ learned men, who have embraced different views, he would "consider the passage as scarcely even ambiguous." Here, then, we are entirely at issue: and, referring the reader to what I have before written in support of the established translation, I shall now offer a few brief strictures on those "rea"sons," which Mr. Yates considers as so cogent.

❝ 1st. Because such ascriptions of praise are very frequent "in the Old and New Testaments, and in all Jewish composi❝tions."--I do not recollect these "very frequent" instances of such abrupt ascriptions of praise at the close of sentences as are supposed in the Unitarian translation of this verse. At all events, they are nothing like so frequent as the texts which affirm or imply our Lord's supreme divinity:—so that even on this ground,—a calculation of probability from the comparative number of texts on either side, proceeding on the assumption that the phraseology of the verse is equally capable of the one translation or of the other, we should not feel ourselves at all at a disadvantage.-But the proper construction of the words in the text, is the very point in controversy; and with this the mere frequency or infrequency of ascriptions of praise, has obviously no connexion; unless it could be shown, that such ascriptions of praise are usually expressed in the same manner as here.

66

2dly. Because they almost uniformly want the substantive

“ verb (sorw or sın) as in this instance."-Suppose it so; what then? What does this prove, except that the mere absence of the verb does not disqualify the sentence from being considered as a doxology?—and who ever said that it did?-Further; Is there any thing at all a-wanting in the verse on our interpretation? While the absence of the substantive verb may accord with the usual practice in doxologies, does this, or does the absence or the presence of any other word in the sentence, in any degree disqualify it from bearing the ordinary translation?—We shall find Mr. Yates, in his sixth reason, resting on one solitary instance of exception from an otherwise universal practice; and yet here he rests on a practice as "almost uniform" while the exceptions to it are -See 1 Kings x. 9: 2 Chron. ix. 8: Psal. cxiii. 2. If he thinks one exception of avail against others, how far should three go against himself? But even that one we shall afterwards see to be more than dubious.

more numerous :

"3d. Because the periphrasis here used as a name of Deity, “THE GOD WHO IS ABOVE ALL,' (ó WV ETI TAνTWV Osos) or phrases "almost exactly the same with it, (such as T TAVTWY ©EOS, ❝and & ε Tai sos) are expressions of perpetual occurrence ❝in Greek writings upon religious subjects, which are univer❝sally understood as designations of the supreme Deity, and "are employed to distinguish him from all the beings to "whom the name (os) God was applied in a subordinate "sense.”—But what is this to the purpose? Is the circumstance that "the God who is above all" is an appellation uniformly appropriated to the supreme Deity, in distinction from all other beings, to be considered as any reason why it should not be applied to Jesus Christ? The reader will at once perceive, that it cannot be so considered, without having first begged the question. We admit what is stated as to the peculi

X

arity of the designation, and rejoice in the admission; because it is this very circumstance that renders the text so decisive a proof of the doctrine which we maintain. This third reason, therefore, is a mere assumption of the very point which should have been proved: an assumption of the Unitarian dogma that Jesus Christ is NOT the supreme God.

66 6

“4th. Because, in all such ascriptions of praise, the words 'for ever,' or the equivalent expressions, if introduced at all, " are placed at the end of the sentence, as in this example.”This, truly, is making the most of it. Was there any likelihood of the words "for ever" being placed any where else than at the end of the sentence, on the supposition of our rendering being the right one? If not, this can be no ground of preference to the other;-and it is mere trifling to mention it.

"5th. Because the position of these words at the end of "the sentence, naturally, though not necessarily, draws the "participle (Euλoynros) Blessed, which they qualify, to the same "quarter."-This must be settled by an appeal to facts. Amongst the doxologies in the Old Testament Scriptures, in which the words "for ever," or equivalent phrases, occur, I do not find any instance of this drawing of the participle to the end of the sentence. See, in the LXX. 1 Chron. xvi. 36: Psal. xli. 13: lxxii. 19: cvi. 48. And when no parallel cases can be produced, in the ordinary practice of the language, we are not satisfied with Mr. Yates's admission that this "drawing" is not necessary; we cannot concede to him that it is even natural. Mr. Yates may fancy it to be so. But no phrase can with any propriety be denominated natural, unless it corresponds with the customary usage of the language in which it occurs. The idioms of one language, must not be made the standard of what is natural or unnatural in another.

"6th. Because, in Psalm lxviii. 19. (Kugros o EOS EUλOYNTOS) "the participle is placed in the latter part of the sentence "by the Septuagint translators, contrary to the assertion "of Dr. Whitby in his commentary."-Dr. Whitby's assertion is: "The phrase occurs twenty times in the Old Testa66 ment, but in every place suλoynros goes before, and the "article is annexed to the word sog."-To this assertion Mr. Yates, like others, has discovered one exception. We have found him, above, in his second reason, resting his conclusion on the general form of the doxologies in scripture, as "al"most uniformly wanting the substantive verb." I have referred to three exceptions to this:-and it does not seem very consistent, as has been already hinted, for Mr. Yates to rest there on the general practice, in opposition to three exceptions; and then here to question the validity of our argument from a practice, to the uniformity of which he can produce no exception but one.-But I go farther. I think it is more than doubtful, whether, after all, this exception will stand.-In the LXX. the 18th and 19th verses of Psalm. lxviii. stand thus: 18. Avaßas sis infos, ñxuaλwrevoas αἰχμαλωσίαν· ἔλαβες δοματα ἐν ἀνθρωπῳ, και γαρ ἀπειθούντες του κατασκηνώσαι. 19. Κύριος ὁ Θεος ευλογητος, ευλογητος κυριος ήμεραν και żμegav, x. 5. 2.—Without attempting a translation of these words, which it would not be very easy to give, I request the attention of the English reader to the verses as they stand in his own Bible:"18. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast "led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men, yea "for the rebellious also, that THE LORD GOD might dwell "among them. 19. Blessed be the Lord who daily loadeth "us with his benefits, &c."-In the original Hebrew, the words, corresponding to Kugros Osos in the beginning of ver. 19. in the LXX. are the concluding words of verse 18.