Moreover, of this word, which is here styled God, the Apostle saith, "He came to his own, and his own received him not." Which cannot be true of God the Father, whom the Jews always owned to be their God; but only of that Jesus, who is here said to be with God, and to be God.

SECTION VII.

Texts in the Epistles considered.

Thus have I considered all the arguments for this identity of the Father and Son, produced from the Evangelists.

I come next to consider those, which are offered to the same purpose from the Epistles.

FIRST, Rom. ix. 5. Where in our translation we read thus, of whom as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, i àv iπì πάντων Θεὸς ἐυλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.

Now to this argument, I have returned one answer in my Reply to Dr Waterland, by approving the ingenious conjecture of a learned critic, that these words are to be read thus, ὧν ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, and are to be referred to God the Father's being the God of the Jews. And then the whole verse will run thus, ὧν οι πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς, whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the

flesh; v, of whom, or whose, is the God over all, blessed for ever; he being peculiarly known to them, and related to them as their God in covenant. And this exposition is the more probable, because this phrase is by the same Apostle, in this Epistle, and in another, plainly referred to God the Father; as when he says, "The Heathens worshipped the creature more than the creator,” ός ἐστιν ἐὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, who is blessed for ever. Rom. i. 25. And, "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is irri Ευλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, who is blessed forever more, knoweth that I lie not."* 2 Cor. xi. 31.

* [The conjecture here alluded to originated with Schlichtingius. His

words are as follows.

Venire etiam alicui in mentem posset in Apostoli verba levem et facilem vocum istarum i v transpositionem irrepsisse, cum à Paulo scriptum esset » ò̟, quorum, nempe Judaeorum intellige, est ille super omnia Deus benedictus in secula. "One might suppose it possible,

that a slight transposition has crept into the words of the Apostle, and that instead of, Paul wrote v i, of whom, that is, of the Jews, is the God over all blessed for ever.

The author further observes, that this rendering is consistent with the remaining parts of the sentence, and goes on to show its suitableness. The Apostle is enumerating here the particular privileges, of the Jews, to whom, he says, "pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises." And by introducing the above conjectural emendation, the sentence will continue as follows, alluding still to the Jews, "whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, whose is the God over all blessed forever." The learned John Taylor prefers this reading, because, he says, it makes the sense much more perfect; and, in enumerating the peculiar privileges of the Jews, it was certainly natu

But the words, read according to our translation, are interpreted by Hippolytus, thus; "That Christ is God over all, because God the Father had delivered all things into his hand ;" and, as the Apostle saith, "had made him head over all things to the church." Eph. i. 22. His words are these; "In these words of the Apostle he plainly sets forth the mystery of truth. He that is over all is God, for so he dares to say, All things are delivered to me of my Father."* And again, "he rightly calls him omnipotent; for this Christ testifies, by saying, 'All things are delivered to me of my Father;' and he

ral that their greatest privilege should be mentioned, which was, that the supreme God was their God, in whom they had gloried, and had reason to glory.

It is a little remarkable, that although Schlichtingius was the first, who proposed this emendation, and pointed out its harmony with the general sense of the passage, yet he did not believe it was correct. He proposes two objections to it; first, that it is supported by no manuscripts; and, secondly, that the phraseology, God over all, is never applied in the Scriptures to the Supreme Being. He says, Christo rectius hic titulus convenerit, ut intelligeretur Christum non super quædam tantum, sed super omnia Dominum ac Deum effectum esse. "This title applies more properly to Christ, that it may be understood,

* Καλῶς διηγεῖται καὶ λαμπρὸν τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας μυστήριον. οὗτος ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός ἐστιν· λέγει γὰρ ὅυτω μετὰ παῤῥησίας, Πάντα μοι παρα δέδοται ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρός. Εt rursus, Χαλῶς εἶπεν παντοκράτορα Χριστόν· τοῦτο γὰρ εἶπεν καὶ ἀυτῷ μαρτυρήσει ὁ Χριστὸς. Μαρτυρῶν γὰρ Χριστὸς ἔφη, Πάντα μοι παραδέδοται ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς. καὶ πάντων κρατεῖ· παντο κράτωρ παρὰ Πατρὸς κατεστάθη Χριστός. Contra Noet. p. 10.

hath a dominion over all things, and so is made omnipotent by the Father." And it is worthy of observation, that this interpretation of these words is given by Hippolytus, in answer to Noëtus, who used them in confirmation of his Sabellian doctrine.

And, whereas it is said by some, that the Apostle having said in the immediate preceding words, "That Christ came from the Father, xarà rágna according to the flesh," or, as to his human nature, it is reasonable to conceive he should proceed to say what he was according to his divine nature; that this is not necessary, appears from Clemens Romanus,* where, speaking of the dignity of Abraham, he saith, "That from him descended the Lord Jesus,

that he has been made Lord and God, not over a certain number of things only, but over all things." Accordingly, in his explanation of the text, he takes it in the same sense as it bears in our common version, and considers it as referring to Christ.

This mode of interpretation from Schlichtingius is accounted for, by knowing that, although he and the other Socinians of his time did not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, yet they considered him as entitled to the name of God by virtue of his exaltation, and his power over all things, granted to him by the Father. In this respect their opinions seem to have differed little from those of Whitby, and the early Arians, as explained in the third section above. Vide Schlicht. Comment. in Epistolam Pauli ad Rom. ix, 5. Also Racovian Catechism. Sect. iii, Chap. 1.-For a concise and ingenious exposition of the above text, consult Professor Norton's Statement of Reasons, p. 51. EDITOR.]

* Epist. ad Corinthios, Sect. 32.

xarà σágxa according to the flesh;" but saith not one word concerning his spiritual descent.

SECONDLY, Nor doth this follow from these words of the Apostle, "When ye knew not God, ye worshipped them, who by nature were no Gods." Gal. iv. 8. Christ being by nature truly God, as having by that nature which he derives from the Father true divine power and dominion over all things both in heaven and earth, in subordination to him who alone is absolutely ὁ παντοκράτως, of himself supreme over all.

Again, These words may be fairly rendered thus, "Ye worshipped gods, rois un quoer, which had no being or existence in nature." For such were many of their fictitious gods, Venus, Diana, Minerva, &c. or gods made with hands, for of such gods the Apostle saith, "we know that an idol is nothing." And Demetrius, the silversmith, complains that St Paul taught, "That they were no gods that were made with hands." Acts xix. 26. And the Psalmist saith, "The gods of the heathens are the works of of men's hands." Psalm cxv. 5. and in this sense this text cannot at all concern our blessed Lord.

THIRDLY, Nor will this follow from those passages, which say, "All things were made by him, and by him were all things created;" it being expressly said in the same Scriptures, that "God eated all things by Jesus Christ." Eph. iii. 9. and

"by him, he," that is, God the Father, "made