the expression, My Lord and my God; and the verbal address is as direct to David in the one case, as it is to Christ in the other. Yet no one believes this to be proof that David is God.

If we concede to Trinitarians all they ask, in reference. to this passage, it furnishes no proof that Christ is Jehovah. Just before, Thomas did not believe Christ was risen; now he believes him to be God Supreme. In the first, we know he was mistaken; in the last, he may have been mistaken. The opinion of a man, who, in his obstinate unbelief, had fallen into so great an error, is not to be relied on as infallible in a case like this.

Heb. i. 8, 9. "But unto the Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom; thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

66

'It has ever been the opinion," says Dr. Adam Clark, of the most sound divines, [Trinitarians] that these words, which are extracted from the 45th Psalm, are addressed by God the Father unto God the Son." God the Father may call his Son 'God,' as he calls himself Lord;' but I seriously question whether "the most sound divines" approve of expounding this passage so as to represent the Father as addressing the Son, in the words, " O God." Who says that GOD THE FATHER addressed these words to the Son? The Psalmist does not say so; neither does the writer of this Epistle. The words " he saith," in the 8th verse, are a mere supply by the English translators. If they meant the Psalmist, by the pronoun "he," they were correct; but if they meant God the Father, they have certainly misrepresented the Psalmist, who was himself the person that addressed the Son, saying to him, "O God," &c. It is evident that the Son is called God according to the inferior

sense of the term. None but the ignorant, or the impious, or the inconsiderate, will assert that the all-perfect Jehovah can be exalted and rewarded for his services; or that he can have a God who hath anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows. But the Son was anointed above his fellows; that is, he was anointed prophet, priest, and king. "None was ever constituted prophet, priest, and king," says Dr. Clark, "but Himself; some were kings only, prophets only, and priests only; or kings and prophets; but none had ever the three offices in his own person, but Jesus Christ.”

CLASS II.

PASSAGES IN WHICH THE WORD 'GOD' HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY APPLIED TO CHRIST.

Rom. ix. 5. "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever."

All that gives to this passage the appearance of an argument for the Deity of Christ, is the punctuation. But this is of no authority. It was not done by the pen of inspiration. It is well known that the ancient manuscripts were written without points. The punctuation as in the Common Version, has been introduced by later "transcribers and by editors. The proper method of ascertaining the true import of an ambiguous passage, is to come to the examination of it in its original form, as delivered to us by the inspired writer; and not in the artificial form given to it by uninspired men. Any scholar who will read the Greek text of this passage, without the points, will readily perceive that it may be translated at least three or four different ways; and each in perfect accordance with the rules of Greek syntax. Hence it is clearly certain that its true

meaning cannot be ascertained by the rules of grammar, but must be determined by other considerations.

Mr. Locke renders it thus: " Of whom Christ came, who is over all, God be blessed for ever." This construction differs from that of the Common Version in nothing but the supply of the substantive verb, which in the Greek is omitted, according to the idiom of that language. From the 4th to the 8th verse inclusive, of the chapter containing this text, the verb is wanting at least six times. See also Rom. viii. 33, 34. 1 Cor. i. 26. 2 Cor. v. 6. Eph. iv. 4. Col. ii. 17. In these passages the verb is in italics in the Common Version, which denotes that it is wanting in the Greek. Nothing is more common in the Hebraistic Greek in which the New Testament is written, than the ellipsis of the substantive verb.

In the Improved Version this text is thus rendered : Of whom by natural descent, Christ came, God, who is over all, be blessed for ever."

If a colon, or semicolon, be placed after σagra in the original Greek text, the following meaning will be the result. He who was over all, was God blessed for ever." Or by using the participle instead of the verb which must be supplied in an English translation, "the rapidity of expression in the original" may be imitated thus: "He who was over all being God blessed for ever." This construction is given by Mr. Norton, who translates the text and context thus :-" My brethren; who are Israelites, whose was the glory of being adopted as sons, whose were the covenants, and the law, and the service of the temple, and the promises, and from among whom the Messiah was to be born; he who was over all being God blessed for ever. Amen."

Now if either of the above mentioned constructions is admissible according to the rules of grammar, (and this no

scholar will deny) the passage furnishes no proof that Christ is God.

For referring the latter clause to God the Father, the following considerations are submitted.

1. "God over all," and "God blessed for ever," are both the appropriate and peculiar designations of God the Father. Neither of them is once given to Christ in the Bible. Now it is quite incredible that St. Paul should thus abruptly, and without note, comment, or explanation, couple together and apply to Christ two well-known appellations of God the Father; and still no use be made of the doctrine.

2. A difficult. or ambiguous text is to be explained according to the known sentiments of the writer. Now as we have no evidence that St. Paul believed Christ to be "God over all blessed for ever," we ought to refer the phrase, as he has in other places, to God the Father.

3. By referring the latter clause of the verse to God the Father, it expresses an important fact which the Apostle could not have overlooked in describing the prerogatives of the Jews that God had, in a peculiar manner, presided over all their interests and concerns.

4. Such ascriptions of praise to God are of very frequent occurrence, not only in the Scriptures but in other Jewish writings; and, as in the passage under consideration, in most cases we find the ellipsis of the substantive verb.

5. For referring the latter clause to God the Father, we have the authority of learned authors in general who are not Trinitarians, and also of many of the most eminent critics of unsuspected orthodoxy; among whom are Erasmus, Bucer, and Le Clerk.

6. According to Griesbach, Wetstein, and Whitby, many of the Christian Fathers denied in the most decided terms

* See Rom. i. 25. 2 Cor. xi. 31. Eph i. 3. iv. 6. 1 Tim. i. 11. vi. 15,

L*

that Christ could be called "God over all;" referring the latter clause to God the Father.*

7. Those of the Christian Fathers who referred the latter clause to Christ, did not believe him to be God Supreme, but understood the term in its inferior sense, according to the views of the early Christians relative to the subordination of the Son to the Father.†

* "There is no one of the Fathers, more eminent than Origen. 'Sup posing,' says Origen, in his work against Celsus, 'that some among the multitude of believers, likely as they are to have differences of opinion, rashly suppose that the Saviour is the God over all; yet we do not, for we believe him when he said, 'The Father who sent me is greater than I.'[Origen cont. Cel. Lib. VIII. § 16. App. I. 752.]

"Even after the Nicene Council, Eusebius, in writing against MarcelJus, says; As Marcellus thinks, He who was born of the holy virgin, and clothed in flesh, who dwelt among men, and suffered what had been foretold, and died for our sins, was the very God over all; and for daring to say which, the church of God numbered Sabellius among atheists and blasphemers.'-[Euseb. Eccles. Theol. II. 4.]

"Now it is incredible that the text in question should have been overlooked. But the early Fathers in making these, and a multitude of other similar declarations, concerning the inferiority of the Son to the Father, never advert to it. It evidently follows from this, that they had not the same conception, as modern Trinitarians have, of the meaning of the passage. They had read the words of the Apostle in which he speaks of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed for evermore; [2 Cor. xi. 31.] and the mystery of the Trinity being as yet but ill understood, they had not made such an advance in Orthodoxy as to believe, that Jesus Christ was the same being as his God and Father,"

Tertullian says; "We never speak of two Gods or two Lords, but following the Apostle, if the Father and Son are to be named together, we call the Father, God, and Jesus Christ, Lord.' But when speaking of Christ alone, I may call him God, as does the same Apostle; Of whom is Christ, who is God over all blessed forever. For speaking of a ray of the sun by itself, I may call it the sun; but when I mention at the same time the sun, from which this ray proceeds, 1 do not then give that name to the latter."-Norton's Statement of Reasons, p. 149, 150.

Mr. Norton, in the same connection, mentions a writer under the name ef Hippolytus, who, he says, "explains it in reference to the declara