himself like Godt. The last clause is obviously a part of the charge adduced by the Jews against our Lord, and as the foundation of it is before us, we can thence form a judgment as to its correctness. If they meant, (what is, however, very improbable,) that what Jesus had said vs. 17, was making himself equal with God, it would only serve to show the strength of their malice, for their charge would then have been totally groundless.

3] John x. 30. 'I and my Father are one v.. The Jews, it is said, considered this as an assertion that he made himself God, (vs. 33.)-Are we to rest our faith upon the perverse insinuations of the Jews? Our Lord had said (vs. 28,) that his true disciples, would not be deprived of the blessings which he communicated, that no one would ever force them out of his hand; and the reason follows, that the Father is greater than all, and that his own purposes and those of the Father were the same; His power therefore would preserve the true disciple of Jesus. That & (one thing) denotes one-ness in design and operation, see ch. xiv. 20. xvii. 11,

well accord with it; and that, as I think, is all. If the mere circumstance, that the three are mentioned thus together, be regarded as a proof, let the mode of expression in Rev. i. 4. iii. 12. Acts xx. 32, be considered.

This is the most literal construction of the words; yet the context would lead one to prefer at the same time putting himself on a footing with God,' viz. by saying and I also work.' Compare the force of os Matt. xx. 12.

21-23". Vs. 20-23 fully explain the nature of the union between Jesus and the Father, Nor do I pray for these only, but also for those who believe on me through their word; that they all may be ONE έv; that as THOU, O Father, art IN ε ME, and I IN ε THEE, THEY also may be [one ] in ε US; that the world may believe that thou hast And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given them, that THEY may be ONE év, as WE are ONE &v; I in ev them, and thou in ev me;

sent me.

εν

that they may be made perfect in one ; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved THEM as thou hast loved ME.'

4] John x. 38. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.' -That this affords no proof of the equality of the son with the Father, see Ch. xvii. 21, as quoted in No. 3, and ch. xiv. 20, 23. Vs. 20. At that day ye shall know that I am in my FATHER, and YE in ME, and I in you.'

5] Rom. ix. 5. "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."-This passage admits of different renderings, according to the punctuation adopted. The one just quoted from the common version, is obviously justifiable as far

See also 1 Cor. iii. 8. Gal. iii. 28. Eph. ii. 14. quoted in Mr. Simpson's excellent remarks on the passage; Notes vol. II. p. 283.

as language merely is concerned; but the language does not in any degree require it. The original equally well admits of this rendering, 'From whom was the Christ, as to the flesh*. God who is over all be blessed for every.' The only difficulty attend

> This is the arrangement in the original, and lessens the apparent abruptness of the doxology. That the expression To nara σagna according to the flesh, does not prove that the Christ had two natures, see vs. 3. for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh κατα σαρκα. See also the remarks on Rom. i. 3. in Chap. VII.

y The original is και εξ ὧν ὁ χριςος το κατα σαρκα ὁ ων επι πάντων Θεός ευλογητός εις τους αιώνας αμην. The rendering which is generally adopted by Unitarians, requires the point after cagxa.Dr. Middleton (Doct of Gr. Art. p. 459,) says, "that in all "the Doxologies both of the LXX and of the N. T. in which "EUλoynros is used, it is placed at the beginning of the sen"tence: in the N. T. there are five instances all conspiring

❝ to prove this usage, and in the LXX about forty. The

same arrangement is observed in the formula of cursing, in "which exaragaros always precedes the mention of the per66 son cursed. The reading, then, would on this construction RATHER have been ευλογητος ὁ ων επι παντων θεος εις τους αιώνας. This is the only reason Dr. M. adduces, and the only one which, in my opinion, can be adduced, against the rendering God who is over all be blessed for ever. Yet he afterwards says, For these reasons I conclude that both the proposed constructions are INADMISSIBLE," referring to the above and to Mr. Locke's, which is, 'God be blessed for ever.' Dr. M.'s assertion then, as far as it respects our construction, amounts to this, It is inadmissible, because the reading would on this construction rather have been evλoyntos ὁ ων επι παντων θεός εις τους αιώνας. As Dr. M. has not ven

tured to maintain, that such must have been, or even probably would have been, the arrangement of the words on our construction, his unjustifiable assertion may be left to its just fate. However it may not be amiss to observe 1. That his arrangement leaves it doubtful to what us TOUS awvas belongs; and best suits this rendering Blessed be he who is for ever God over all,' which obviously was not the Apostle's meaning. 2. Since Jos has here nothing de

ing the phraseology, arises from the position of blessed, (since in the other passages in the N. T. where a similar doxology is employed, we find blessed come first, thus, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies,' &c.), and this is a very trifling one; for in the other instances there are words depending upon the word God, which render it at least more desirable to introduce blessed first, as in the instance now quoted; and nothing either in the words or construction renders it necessary to be so placed in the present case.Here then are two interpretations of the words of

pending upon it and uλoynros has, the arrangement in cases where Jos has dependent words and Euλoyres has not, is not in point, and therefore furnishes no objection against our construction. 3. That the epithet hoyros is no where applied to Jesus, but it is used in reference to God and to God only in every other case in which it is employed in the N. T. viz. Mark xiv. 61. Luke i. 68. Rom i. 25. 2 Cor. i. 3. xi. 31. Eph. i. 3. 1 Pet. i. 3. If the reader will take the trouble of examining these passages, he will soon perceive to which interpretation the usages of the N. T. should direct

us.

After perusing these remarks, if the reader should turn to the Eclectic Review for April 1809, and observe the strong assertions in p. 331, founded upon Middleton's proofs, he must feel confident, either that have kept back Dr. M.'s evidence, or else that system completely warped the convictions of the Reviewer. I can assure him that the former is not the case. The only objections that M. brings against Locke's construction are, the want of the article before Jos, and the position of Euλoynros; both of which, if the point be placed after arwy have some weight. He admits that upon our construction ɛos does not want the article, and his only objection is what I have stated, and I hope proved to be of little or no weight. The Reviewer calls this passage a "signal testimony to the Deity of the Messiah.' Does he mean to affirm too that it is unambiguous, and to represent it as a chief testimony to this doctrine?

Paul; one perfectly accordant with his manner of writing, and with the general tenor of his Epistles, -the other, inconsistent with that general tenor, and directly opposed by his express assertions in various other parts of his writings". Let common sense decide to which the preference should be given; and let not its decision be called in question, merely because it leads to reject a rendering which custom has made plain and obvious, in favour of one' which custom would soon make at least as plain and obvious. 6-Phil. ii. 6. Thought it not robbery to he equal with God.”—The original is ava to Dew; and may justly be rendered to be like God.' As I shall consider the rest of the passage in Ch. VI. §3, I refer to that for farther remarks upon it.

7—Eph. v. 5. “The kingdom of the Christ and God." 2 Thess. i. 12. "According to the grace of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ." 1 Tim. v. 21. "I charge thee before the God and [Lord], Jesus Christa." Tit. ii. 13. "The glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ." 2 Pet. i. 1. "Through the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ."-These are all

See pp. 37, 40, 45, &c.

. Mr. Sharp adduces also 2 Tim. iv. 1. probably supposing that rou before xugov is alone spurious. The fact however is, that both rov and xvęιou are spurious, and are rejected by Griesbach. This puts the passage out of the reach of Mr. Sharp's canon.

The common reading of Jude 4, has led Mr. Sharp to render it, Denying our only Master, God, and Lord, Jesus