self, but to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 3. That the introduction of the doxology, if it be referred to Christ, is too abrupt a transition, in a passage, the purport of which is, not to honor Christ, but to recount the glories of the Jewish race, in the passionate remembrance of which the apostle is carried on to the praises of God. 4. That in the phraseology of St. Paul катà σáрía is not naturally contrasted with Θεός, but always with ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας κатà πνеÛμа, and is often used without contrast. 5. That the word evλoynròs is referred in the New Testament (as the corresponding word in Hebrew) exclusively to God the Father and not to Christ (Mark iv. 16; Luke i. 68; Rom. i. 25).* On the next three passages referred to, which come under one head, much stress is laid by our Trinitarian brethren, and an elaborate work has been published by Dr. Middleton to shew, that according to the proper use of the Greek article certain texts would be in favor of the Deity of Christ, which do not appear so in our Common Version. The question is really one for the Greek scholar, but I think I can make it sufficiently plain to enable the reader to understand the nature of the evidence on both sides.+ It is contended by Dr. Middleton that where two attributives are connected by kaì (and), and the article preceding the first is not repeated before the second, the two relate to the same person or thing. * Jowett On St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians, etc., vol. i., p. 244. "The Greek has only one article, and it has puzzled all the grammarians to reduce the use of that to any clear and certain rules."-Bishop Lowth. Thus, in Eph. v. 5, instead of "in the kingdom of Christ and of God," as in our Common Version, we should have, "in the kingdom of Christ and God;" in Titus ii. 13, instead of "The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," we should have, "Of Jesus Christ our great God and Saviour;" and similar changes would be required in 2 Peter i. 1, and Jude 4. Now, with regard to this argument, the exceptions allowed are such, as in our opinion to explain the very instances in question; e. g., it is acknowledged to be not necessary to repeat the article in the case of proper names. As in "the Lord swore to Abram, and Isaac, and Jacob." Again, the rule does not apply "where the signification of the personal words renders any further mark of personal distinction unnecessary." There are other exceptions, but we think these two quite sufficient. We think the article was not introduced because the writers of the New Testament never contemplated any confusion of God and Christ on the part of the reader. In all the chapters in which the passages in question occur, we think God and Christ are spoken of in so distinctive a way as to obviate any difficulty as to our interpretation. "It appears," says Professor Norton, "by comparing the rule with its exceptions and limitations, that it in fact amounts to nothing more than this, that when substantives, adjectives, or participles are connected together by a copulative or copulatives, if the first have the article, it is to be omitted before those which follow, when they relate to the same person or thing; and is to be inserted when they relate to different persons or things, except when this fact is sufficiently determined by some other circumstance. The same rule exists respecting the use of the definite article in English." Thus, we naturally adhere to the common rendering of the foregoing texts, and in this we find ourselves in harmony with many learned Trinitarians. 1 John v. 20: "And 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 in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." The word "this," we think, refers to God; it is true "His Son Jesus Christ " is the last noun, but introduced by way of explanation as to how we are in Him that is true, whereas God, He that is true, is the subject on which the apostle is writing. He simply states that it is through Christ we have our union with God. But here, again, I know of no better exposition than that of Lücke; he says, "the word translated 'this,' particularly when so emphatically put as here, is not always to be referred to the locally nearest subject, but often to that which, according to the context, is the chief subject of the preceding proposition." (A similar instance occurs in John's second epistle, i. 7.) After mentioning that an antithesis to idols (vide next verse) is implied, Lücke goes on to state considerations which he thinks render it certain that ourÓS (this) refers to God. 1st. The emphatic tone of the proposition shews that it has in view the prevailing chief subject of the preceding proposition. 2nd. The epithet translated "true," is applied to God and not to Christ. John xvii. 3, explains this passage, which may be paraphrased, "This is the true God, and the knowledge of Him is eternal life." In the quotation Mr. Bickersteth makes from Dr. Wardlaw, stress is laid on the phrase "eternal life" in reference to Jesus Christ; but let St. Paul's words be remembered, "Eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord."* I add remarks on other passages, which, though not adduced in order under the present head, are referred to by Mr. Bickersteth in the course of his Treatise. : : "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."-Isa. ix. 6. The word rendered God here is employed in reference also to angels, Moses, Samuel, Kings, etc.† The plural of this word is employed in Ps. viii. 5, and is translated there angels, "Thou hast made man little lower than the angels." But in the present instance it is combined with another word meaning strength or strong. The name Gabriel is formed of the same two words, and means "strength of God;" and * Vide also Winer's Grammatik (ed. 1836), in which he says, in reference to this passage, "näml. & cós, nicht Xplorós, wie die ältern Theologen aus dogmat. Rücksichten wollten; denn theils ist aλne. eòs ein beständiges und ausschliessliches Epitheton des Vaters, theils folgt eine Warnung vor Götzendienst; den eldwλois wird, aber stets aλne. Oeds entgegengesetzt," p. 149. † Gen. iii. 5; Exod. vii. 1; 1 Sam. xxviii. 13, 14; Ps. lxxxii. 1. again, the same two words are found in reference to Nebuchadnezzar, Ezek. xxxi. 11, "I have therefore delivered him into the hand of the mighty one of the heathen (Nebuchadnezzar); he shall surely deal with him." Accordingly Luther has in Isa. ix. 6, strength or strong hero; De Wette, mighty hero; some have preferred mighty potentate; but there is no objection to the common translation, if the article which is put in by the translators be left out, and the reader understand with what latitude the original word is used in the Old Testament. The phrase translated in the Common Version, "everlasting Father," has also been variously translated by learned men: Pater æternæ vitæ, Melancthon; Pater perpetuitatis, Cocceius and Schulz; Father of the everlasting age, Bishop Lowth; of the future age, Boothroyd and Hammond. "There are in the Hebrew two words, which may be literally rendered father of the age to come,' as they are by the LXX. (Hincks.)" Christ may be called the Father of eternity in being the cause of eternal life to all believers (Vitringa). I ought to add that many critics, some of them Trinitarians, regard the whole prophecy as referring, in its primary signification, to King Hezekiah, and they appeal to the context as a proof. "I and my Father are one "John x. 30. This is a doctrine I am constantly preaching; obey God by obeying Christ; accept Christ's promises, for they are the promises of God; God is manifest in Christ. They are separately to be loved, but obeyed as one. Our Trinitarian brethren say the oneness is in sub E |