God, in the Jewish idiom, was a titular distinction of persons who had commission from God, or were appointed by him. John x. 35: "Ye call them gods to whom the word of God came.". Exod. vii. 1: "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." Exod. xxii. 28: "Thou shalt not revile the gods, [the judges,] nor curse the ruler of thy people."Ps. lxxxii. 1: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty he judgeth among the gods [magistrates] Names were employed with a similar meaning. Elijah is "God-Jehovah;" Elihu, "my God himself." Thus in the accommodation of the passage in Isaiah to Jesus, vii. 14, "A virgin shall conceive, and hear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel;" which Matthew interprets, i. 23, "God with us.'

:

ZECHARIAH xiii. 7. Awake, O sword! against my shep. herd and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts.

The words may be rendered" him that is near to me;" but even as they are, they prove nothing as to Christ's original or essential equality with the Lord of Hosts, any more than those other passages of Scripture which speak of his co-ordinate power. Christ, doing "the works which the Father had given him to finish," was in his ministry and cooperation the fellow of God; and in the came sense he affirms, "I and my Father are one."

ZECHARIAH Xii. 10. And I will pour upon the house of David the spirit of grace, and they shall look on ME whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son.

This text is urged in proof that Christ was Jehovah; which is the Patripassian heresy. If the bias to system had not blinded the critical judgment, it should seem impossible to suppose that me and him referred to one and the same person. He, who pierced the representative of God, might be said to have pierced God. Dr. OWEN, however, shows

that Ignatius, Irenæus, and others, countenanced the reading "him whom they have pierced;" and it is adopted into the text by Archbishop Newcome: "Attempt towards an Improved Version."

ISAIAH xl. 3. Prepare ye the way of the Lord: make straight in the desert a high way for our God.

9-11. Say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God! The Lord God will come with strong hand. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd.

The JEWS were accustomed to describe the appearing of a prophet as the appearing of GOD among them.

Luke vii. 16. "There came a fear on all, and they glorified GOD, saying, 'A great prophet is risen up amongst us, and God hath visited his people.' And they who believed on Jesus as the Christ, did not suppose him to be himself God, but only that he was commissioned from God. John xii. 13: "Hosanna! blessed is the King of Israel who cometh in the name of the Lord.' Mark ix. 8: "When the multitude saw it, they marvelled and glorified GOD, who had given such power unto men."

"He that receiveth you," said Jesus to his Apostles, "receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me."

ISAIAH viii. 13, 14. Sanctify the LORD of Hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And lie shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel; for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Here also it is on the same principle assumed, that because the Lord of Hosts, as revealed by Christ in his gospel ministry, was a rock of offence to the Jews, who "in despising Christ, despised him that sent him;" therefore Christ was the LORD of Hosts.

ZECH. XI. 12, 13. They weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them.

This is brought to prove that Jehovah is the person prized at thirty pieces of silver, and that Jehovah is therefore Christ. But, in the usual manner, the text is separated from its context. The preceding verse has, "I (the Prophet) said unto them, if ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver." And it is the Prophet who says, "a goodly price that I was prized at of them." HEB. i. 8. But unto the Son he saith, "Thy throne, () God! is for ever and ever."

This is the application to Christ of a passage in the Psalms of David, xlv. 6, entitled, "A Song of loves," and originally addressed to Solomon, the future king of Israel, on his marriage with the princess of Egypt. The inferior sense in which the word God is here used appears from the succeeding verse, which is equally accommodated by the Apostle to Christ. "Therefore GOD, even THY GOD, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." If from this style of address the Jews did not infer that Solomon was God, neither could they infer from it that Christ was God.

It was the opinion of Grotius and Dr. Clarke, that the words might equally be rendered "God is thy throne:" the stay of thy throne.

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.

As the ancient copies of the Gospels were not pointed, the pauses must be regulated by the sense. The charge of altering the punctuation, in order to make the text conform with a system, is therefore absurd. The received pointing is suspicious, because, notwithstanding the obstinacy of Trinitarian writers in defending it, the most obvious grammatical construction is at variance with it.

In the English version the position of the original words is changed, in order to bring Christ into

closer apparent connexion with the latter clause of the sentence. The literal version would run thus: "Whose are the Fathers and of whom was the Christ according to the flesh.

ὁ ων.

The words rendered who is are in the original The Greek article is often used as a relative, especially by Homer; but as the Apostle had used the proper relative os, three times before this passage, in reference to the Israelites, he might have been expected to write os Esiv, and not i wy, in case he intended Christ as the antecedent; and this relative he actually does use in reference to Christ, in Col. i. 15: 05 εçiv ɛixwv тe Ose, who is the image of THE God, or God. But further, when the article is connected with a participle, it does not mean who, but he who; as i iλw-he who loves; or the person loving: iw is therefore "he who is" or the person being; "he who is over all" or "the one that is over all," easily connects with the following substantive, God; and that such is the proper connection, independently of grammatical reasons, appears from corroborative scripture evidence, that this is the peculiar distinctive title of the most high God, the Father. Ephes. iv. 5, 6: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and FATHER of all, who is above all." Or, the one that is above all: ὁ επι παντων.

"The blessed," and "blessed for ever," is also the distinctive character, or title of the most high God; Christ being distinguished only (as in Mark xiv. 61) by the appellation, "SON of the Blessed."

Romans i. 25: "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the CREATOR, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Or if this be questioned as inconclusive, from the erroneous confounding of Christ, the Gospel creator, with the Creator of heaven and earth, we may refer to 2 Cor. xi. 31: "The God and FATHER of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, which is

blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not: where the same words, wv, the one that is, are used. The English reader is not aware that the inflexion of cases in the original makes it impossible that there should be any ambiguity in the application of this title to the God and Father; though, as much in the Trinitarian scheme depends on the placing of words, this title would be vindicated to Christ instead of to God, if there were sufficient grammatical authority to favour the attempt. A literal version as to position will

obviate all ambiguity.

"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knoweth, he who is blessed for ever, that I lie not.'

The same title occurs in doxologies, or ascriptions of glory, to the Father, God. It is indeed made an objection to the considering the passage in question as a doxology, though it has the characteristic annexation of Amen, that it is necessary to supply the ellipsis of the verb substantive. Yet the same Apostle, using the same term of blessing, adopts the same ellipsis. 2 Cor. i. 3: "Blessed BE the God' and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." And Peter: 1 Pet. i. 3: "Blessed BE God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." From the circumstance of blessed being the first word in these sentences, it is urged that the passage under consideration cannot be a doxology to the Father. But there are two obvious reasons for the different positions of the words. God is here accompanied with an epithet; and blessed with a term of endless duration. Now, "He who is over all, God," has more of titular emphasis, when placed first in the sentence, than if the words ran "blessed be God, he, who is over all;" and as the term blessed cannot be disjoined from the words for ever, which most emphatically close the sentence, it is of necessity placed towards the end. The propriety of this