the flesh, nor through the will of man, but being children of God. And the Logos became flesh (was manifested through a man, the Mind or Spirit* of God shown on the human Image), and dwelt amongst us, and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

Romans ix. 5, page 32.

"Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came; God who is over all be blessed for ever." Amen. "Ων οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα· ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν.

The objections made to our rendering of this passage are these:1. That & coming first in the sentence must refer to the nominative (xplords). But there is no grammatical rule to prevent å år commencing a sentence and referring to a subsequent nominative: so that to say it must refer to the preceding xpiaròs is only to take the desired interpretation for granted.

eos, and the position of

If oeos had been placed

2. That another article is required before the words to be Ὁ δε θεος ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, κ. τ. λ. first in the sentence the article would have been used, but the qualifying expression & rl Tárror more than supplies its place. A passage from Philo exactly parallel is cited by the Rev. W. Hincks in his very able Review of Dr. J. P. Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah —τov πpos åλndelav Ovтos Eov. Ed. 1640, (apud Middleton,) p. 860. Also Clem. Rom. ad Cor. cap. xxxii. d таνтокρатwр beos, where TavтOкpaTwp is equivalent to ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων. Eusebius has this passage, τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἔμμα πρὸς τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν καθαρῶς τείναντες. See Jortin. Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. 235.

3. That evλords ought to come first in the sentence. But the words for ever," els roùs ai@vas, whenever used, are placed at the end of the sentence, and this naturally draws evλontos to the same position, to avoid awkwardness or ambiguity. In the cases where Oeos has dependent words, then evλontos comes first, that the words connected by construction may not be awkwardly separated: in the

"What! when John

* We find in the first beginnings of the Trinity, the Logos and the Holy Spirit identified. This is even angrily contended for by Tertullian. said that the Logos was made flesh, and the angel" (respecting the miraculous conception)" that the Spirit was made flesh, did they mean any thing different?" -Tertullian, Advers. Praxeam. Cap. xxvi.

case of euxoynros having dependent words, as here, then eos would naturally come first.

In the only three cases in which εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας occur in the New Testament they follow one another in this fixed order.

In the Septuagint, contrary to the statement of Whitby, there is one clear instance of a similar construction : Κυριος δ θεος ευλογητος,

Ps. lxviii. 19.

Finally, evλoyros is nowhere in the New Testament applied to

Jesus.

as

4. That our rendering requires another substantive verb. Of such ellipsis examples might be given without number. See Rom. x. 12. 2 Cor. v. 5. Ephes. iv. 6, a case exactly in point. Rev. xiv. 13. 5. That there is an antithesis intended by St. Paul between concerning the flesh," and "God over all." But the sentence is not an antithesis but a climax closed by Christ, as the consummation: and at the close of a climax of blessings and privileges, acknowledgment almost spontaneously bursts out to God.

Comments on the Rev. Mr. Byrth's Lecture entitled “ The Unitarian Interpretation of the New Testament based upon defective Scholarship, or on dishonest or uncandid Criticism.”

Page 108.-"It does appear to me extraordinary, that my opponents should appear to complain of the introduction of critical and scholastic considerations into this discussion." We make no such complaint. We complain that the essence of Christianity should be derived from the Criticism and Interpretation of controverted passages. Will my reverend opponent state a single argument for Trinitarianism, or adduce a single scriptural evidence, not fairly open to hostile Criticism or Interpretation? To us the Revelation is not derived from any thing doubtful; it is derived from those impressions of Jesus the Christ which Trinitarianism itself receives. To us the Revelation is the Person, (in which we include his Life, Character, Destinies,) of the man Christ Jesus. We know our God when we know that he who was as full of grace as of truth was the Image of our Father's Mind: we know God's will for man when we look upon him who was perfected human nature: we know the connections of Heaven with Duty when we see the crucified made the glorified, and taken to the

bosom of his Father.

Page 115.-" It does not, however, follow that, because the Unitarian interpretation of the New Testament bears this character, all Unitarians are defective Scholars, or uncandid or dishonest Critics. Many of them may have received their opinions through the channel of traditional education; and may never have deemed it obligatory them to examine the matter for themselves." So, we have the upon choice of any one of three characters, viz., BAD SCHOLARS, DISHONEST CRITICS, or So-called Christians, who know nothing and care nothing about the matter. Does Mr. Byrth really think that this last refuge removes the insult of his Title, or softens its indictment? Some of us, confined to a choice among these three descriptions, preach Christianity, and are therefore certainly bound" to examine the matter" for ourselves; nor is it to us that the suspicion usually attaches of receiving our "opinions through the channels of a traditional education."

The dogmata are too few, too general, too unimportant, to elicit

APPENDIX.

inquiry, or to excite anxiety as to their truth." There is some truth in this, though not exactly of the kind the author contemplated. The interest of Trinitarianism depends greatly on the number of its dogmata, their intricacy, their supposed necessity to salvation, the exactness of their right mutual positions. There is much in a saving Theology, having an intricate scheme, and whose main principles and evidences are external to the mind of the believer, and therefore constantly agitating him with apprehension as to whether he has disposed them according to the precise conditions of orthodoxy, to occupy and sometimes oppress minds that have little affinities with a saving Religion, a simple spirit of Worship, Duty, and Trust immortal. But is it true that these Unitarian doctrines are -The Fatherhood of God-the Brotherhood of Man-the relations unimportant" of Jesus to God as His image, and to Man as his Model—the retributions of Eternity-the Heaven of Duty?

Page 119.-See the Note.-Surely Mr. Byrth will perceive the unfairness of concluding a Book to be our Standard, merely because some other parties, very unfavourably disposed towards us, choose to

represent it as such.

Page 124.-See the Note.-"I have been charged with almost or altogether suppressing, in the delivery of this Discourse, the word

'controversially.'

was ever made,

I eagerly assure Mr. Byrth that no such charge nor could be made with truth, and I am much grieved

that any rumour has conveyed to him the pain of such an impression. Though using hard words to his opponents, and giving them the choice of any one of three bad characters, I believe him perfectly incapable of dishonesty." Believing me to have made such a charge, whilst I do not excuse him for so believing upon hearsay, I feel obliged by his forbearance, and for a courtesy in denying the charge, which if made I should not have deserved. I complained that the "controversial" attitudes of Unitarianism were confounded with its own peaceful and positive ones, two things that were most carefully separated in the speeches from which Mr. Byrth took extracts; and that he represented as a description of Unitarianism, what was distinctly stated to be Unitarianism, "controversially" described. Mr. Byrth, though giving the word "controversially," overlooked its

meaning.

D

Page 132.-"

note marked †.

Epiphanius asserts that the Ebionites," &c.: also the

As it is exceedingly inconvenient to repeat subjects and answers, and so never to get rid of a topic, I refer Mr. Byrth and my readers to note B, on the Ebionites and their Gospel, in the Appendix to the Second Lecture of our Course.

Page 140.-See the note.- -"I cannot but express my satisfaction, that in the very place where this book was thus regarded as an authority, and thus earnestly recommended, it is now renounced and disclaimed."

I do not know what Mr. Byrth includes in " renouncing" and disclaiming." If these words mean rejecting as a standard authority," then in the place alluded to was the Improved Version always renounced and disclaimed.

The praise quoted in the note certainly requires much qualification. Nevertheless the Improved Version is neither renounced nor disclaimed. We have no predilection for the rude principle of taking things, in the mass, or leaving them, in the mass, without discrimination. And I fancy that if our opponents were in these matters as much at liberty as ourselves, there are some of their standards which would soon be thoroughly sifted.

Page 143." For even they would scarcely think highly of the scholarship of Bishop Pearce."

I have quoted Bishop Pearce, not for his learning, though unquestionably that was respectable, but for the sake of stating that the acceptance by a Bishop of the English Church of a certain interpretation ought to have screened "a reputed heretic" from the charge of accepting the same interpretation solely for the sake of an a priori meaning.

Page 146." Epiphanius has little authority with any one else." Mr. Byrth is quite right in his estimate of Epiphanius. But it is hardly wise for those who, like Mr. Byrth, rest their faith upon external testimonies, to look too closely into the characters of the witnesses, or raise doubts respecting them in the public mind. We know how much of the weight of these testimonies rests upon Eusebius--and I doubt not Mr. Byrth knows very well that he is clearly convicted of having interpolated one passage in Josephus, and corrupted another.