and ch. vi. In Isaiah liii. is a distinct prophecy of the Messiah, who, (after various sublime declarations respecting the unrivalled supremacy of JEHOVAH, recorded in different parts of the preceding portion, beginning with the 40th chapter,) is called by JEHOVAH himself, HIS SERVANT, (ch. lii. 13,) and spoken of by the Prophet as a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. In ch. vi. is a vision of the glory of JEHOVAH of HOSTS. It is impossible that there can be Two Jehovahs; and it is impossible that the Messiah, the SERVANT of Jehovah could be Jehovah himself: it therefore necessarily follows, that the JEHOVAH, whose glory the Prophet saw, was the great Being so often styled Jehovah, and who solemnly declared by Isaiah himself, I am JEHOVAH, and there is NONE ELSE. To suppose to the contrary, is (in my judgment) to make Revelation full of absurdities and contradictions.

Could the Apostle John, then, (who heard his revered and beloved Master pray to the FATHER as the ONLY TRUE GOD, who was near him in that hour when, with strong crying and tears, he offered up prayers and supplications, and said, FATHER, not my will but thine be done,-who heard him ascribe his doctrines, his powers, his authority, his glory, to the agency of God,-and, even in heaven, speaking of God, as his God,) could this Apostle mean to have it inferred, that he spoke of the servant of Jehovah as Jehovah himself? Surely it is impossible.

As Isaiah vi. refers to the appointment of the Prophet to his divine message, and that message, though applicable to the age of the Messiah, peculiarly referred to the times of the Prophet, it is most probable that the Evangelist, when he says that Isaiah saw the glory of the Messiah, &c. (i.e. foresaw it, as Abraham is said to have seen, i.e. foreseen the day of Christ, John viii. 56,) meant merely to refer to the portion of Isaiah beginning with ch. liii. 1, which, though first describing the humiliation and sufferings of the Messiah, plainly predicts the glory that should follow, and the unrivalled diffusion of gospel blessings. In this view the words quoted in John xii. 39, 40, from Isaiah vi. 9, 10, may be considered as a parenthesis, attributing the incredulity of the Jews, complained of in v. 38, to the same perverse stupidity which was manifested in the times of the Prophet.

Even if the Evangelist really referred to both passages of Isaiah, in the expression these things said Isaiah, yet as he could not intend to contradict his Lord himself, or the declarations of Jehovah by Isaiah, he could have meant no more, than that the glory of Jehovah, of which the whole earth is full, (Isa. vi. 3,) was the glory arising from the diffusion of gospel blessings, that glory with which Jesus glorified his Father, that glory which Jehovah gave his servant, the Messiah, and which he had designed for him from all eternity.

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 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 ever.'t The only difficulty attending

* This is the arrangement in the original, and lessens the apparent abruptness of the doxology.-That the expression Tо каTа σаρKа (according to the flesh), does not prove that the Christ had two natures, see v. 3. for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh (kara σapka). See also the remarks on Rom. i. 3. in Chap. VII.

+ The original is, και εξ ὧν ὁ Χριστος το κατα σαρκα ὁ ων επι παντων Θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιώνας αμην. The rendering which is generally adopted by Unitarians, requires the point after σapka. 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 "Evλoynroc is used, it is placed at the beginning of the sentence; "in the N.T. there are five instances all conspiring to prove this 66 usage, and in the LXX about forty. The same arrangement is "in the formula of cursing, in which Erucaraparos always pre"cedes the mention of the person cursed. The reading, then, would " on this construction RATHER have been ευλογητος ὁ ων επι « παντων θεός 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. Middleton'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 ευλογητος ὁ ων επι παντων θεος EIS TOVS Aιwvas.' As he has not ventured 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 is rous alwvas

the phraseology, arises from the position of blessed, (since in the other passages in the New Testament, 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 renders 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

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 Jeos has here nothing depending upon it and evλoynto has, the arrangement in cases where cos has dependent words and Evλoyηros has not, is not in point, and therefore furnishes no objection against our construction. (3) The epithet ɛvλoynros 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 I 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 Dr. M. brings against Locke's constructions are, the want of the article before Seos, and the position of evλoynros; both of which, if the point be placed after Tavтwv, have some weight. He admits that upon our construction 9ɛog does not want the article; and his only objection to it 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?

of 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 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. Phil. ii. 6. “Thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

The original is είναι ισα θεῷ; 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.

1

Eph. v. 5. "The kingdom of the Christ and God." 2 Thess. i. 12. "According to the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ." 1 Tim. v. 21. "I charge thee before the God and [Lord], Jesus Christ."+ 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."

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

Mr. Sharp adduces also 2 Tim. iv. 1. probably supposing that Tou before Kupiov is alone spurious. The fact however is, that both Tov and Kupiov 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 Christ.' Griesbach rejects Seog. This rather more conveniently brings the case under Mr. S.'s canon, but destroys much of its supposed force. Still, since the word deσTоrns sovereign Lord is, in no clear instance, applied to Jesus, and in the N.T. is at least three times applied to the God of Jesus, and since the word povov, only, if it refer to our Lord Jesus Christ, excludes Him who is assuredly the Sovereign Lord, and whom Jude himself calls the ONLY GOD (p. 56), that rendering is most scriptural which refers the only sovereign to the only God.