tive order-the fall of Rome, the wailing of the nations, and the appearing of Christ: in our Lord's discourse, recorded Matt. xxiv. 30, we find three transactions likewise taking place in consecutive order-the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, the mourning of the tribes of the earth, and the coming of the Son of Man. Now the two last events in each series, the mourning and the appearing of Christ, are clearly identical, and we may reasonably conclude that the same event is the cause of mourning in each instance; in other words, that the fall of Rome is the predicted sign of the Son of Man while he is yet in heaven. This view appears to be strengthened by the expression of St. Paul, in 2 Thess. ii. 8, when he describes the Papal power as to be destroyed, not by our Lord's actual coming, but "by the brightness," the epiphany or shining forth "of his coming;" from which I conclude that the sign of the Son of Man, the epiphany of his coming and the fall of Rome are identical. I offer this however only as conjecture. Be this as it may, it is clear from Rev. xvii. xviii. xix. that the fall of Rome immediately precedes the appearing of Christ; but there are other matters of vast importance to be considered before we proceed to contemplate that great event. On these I hope, if the Lord permit, to enter in my next letter.

H. B. M.

VERSIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

DEAR MADAM,

6

Will you allow me to add my protest to yours against the objections of A Trinitarian' (signing himself X. Q.) to our authorized version of the Holy Scriptures, which you justly observe, it is far easier to find fault with than to improve.' Though appreciating his pious motive, and fully acquiescing in his views of the Godhead of our adorable Jesus; yet I cannot agree with many of his statements. I think several of his proposed translations not only to be faulty, but decidedly incorrect, being at variance both with the Greek original and with the analogy of faith. His pious zeal to assert the Deity of his Saviour seems to have led him into error.

6

I will only touch upon what I consider the more objectionable parts of the Notes of a Trinitarian.' At p. 139, he says, 'the Greek word kai, translated ‘and,' signifies also and even as well as and; and therefore we are justified in reading these passages thus,' &c. Now I beg to remark, that though the assertion concerning the word kai is correct; yet the inference deduced from it is not necessarily so; for it is far from being universally true, that, because kai signifies also and even as well as ' and,' therefore we are justified in translating it by either of the two former English conjunctions. X. Q. cannot mean to say that the mere fact of the Greek word in question being translateable by either of these three English words will

་

6

authorize the substitution of any one of them for the other in any particular passage. It is true the word

' even' might be substituted for 'and' in many passages of our authorized version, and would more correctly express the Greek original. I gladly mention a few such passages with a view of furthering the object of X. Q. Titus ii. 13, "Looking for that blessed hope, even the glorious appearing of the great GOD, even our Saviour Jesus Christ." 2 Peter i. 2,

Through the knowledge of GOD, even Jesus our Lord." Ephes. v. 5, “Inheritance in the kingdom of the CHRIST, even GOD." 2 Thess. i. 12, "According to the grace of our GOD and LORD Jesus Christ." And again, in Jude verse 4, as given by X. Q., p. 139. But this is not true of very many others. I would state the fact, (if X. Q. be not acquainted with it), that when the Greek kai connects together two or more personal nouns of the same gender, number, and case; if the first has the definite Greek article, and the rest have not, then they both or all (if more than two) relate to the same person, which is the case in the instances given above. But this rule will not apply to the passages to which X. Q. refers us, viz., Rom. i. 7. Gal. i. 3, &c., which contain the benediction with which St. Paul commences all his epistles. I feel convinced that the translation will be for the worse, if we deviate from that given in our authorized version. Scott, the commentator, justly observes, that these blessings of grace and peace' spring from the free mercy of GOD the reconciled Father of all believers, and come to them through the person, merits, and mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ.' He adds, This is the customary apostolical salutation; and it is most undeniably a prayer, or act of worship, in which

6

66

Christ is addressed in union with GOD the Father.' So that nothing seems to be really gained by the supposed emendation of X. Q. The same remark, I think, will apply to his rendering 'Jesus Christ' by 'Jesus Messiah ;' while I decidedly object to rendering the words translated' our Lord' by 'our Jehovah ;' not because I do not believe that the term " Lord," (KUPIOS) when applied to Jesus Christ, is often equivalent to Jehovah; for it certainly is in a multitude of passages; but because I am convinced that the phrase our Jehovah" is contrary to all scripture usage. In no one instance is the incommunicable name of GOD, i.e. Jehovah, joined to the personal pronouns, in the Old Testament scriptures; and, I suppose, for this reason-that Jehovah is the scriptural name for GOD, considered in his infinite, selfexistent, independent and incommunicable essence. Jehovah is not the name of GOD expressive of office, or relationship, covenant relationship, to his people. This is generally expressed by the word which we render GOD (Elohim), which is a plural noun expressive of the persons in Jehovah, or in the "blessed and glorious Trinity," in their covenant relationship to believers. Hence, when it is recorded in Gen. i. 26, "And GOD (Elohim) said, Let us make man in our image, after OUR likeness "-the plurality of persons in Jehovah is plainly expressed; but again the unity is asserted in Deut. vi. 4,-" Hear, O Israel; Jehovah, our Elohim, is one Jehovah." And when the gracious relationship of Jehovah to his people is intended to be expressed, the phrase adopted is "Jehovah their Elohim," or my, thy, our Elohim, &c. i.e. Jehovah our covenant-GOD.

We see, then, why the personal pronouns may be

annexed to Elohim (GOD in covenant), but not to Jehovah. We cannot say my, thy, or our Jehovah, &c., because this word denotes the Divine Essence in its incommunicable, ineffable and unrepresented properties, or what the Deity is abstractedly considered; but Elohim implies the endeared relationship in which the adorable persons in Jehovah stand to us, as GOD in covenant to redeem, as GOD our Saviours, as the Authors and Givers of eternal life.*

When Jehovah says, "I am the Lord thy GOD," or more literally, "I am Jehovah thy Elohim;" it is as though he said, I am Jehovah thy covenant-GOD, in covenant with my co-equal and co-eternal Son and Spirit to save sinners. I have loved thee with an everlasting love, and therefore given my Son to redeem thee with his blood, and to present thee spotless before my presence with exceeding joy,

As the word Jehovah denotes the incommunicable Essence, so the word Elohim implies a personal plurality in that Essence. They are very frequently joined together, in order to shew that though the Essence be one, and the Persons three, they are reciprocally pledged in every promise, and in every covenant-engagement revealed to man. As each of the three Persons in the self-existent Essence is properly and essentially Jehovah, because Jehovah cannot be divided; so each of them, for the same reason, is essentially and properly the Elohim. And though the manifestations of divine grace and power are distinct in the three Persons, according to their respective engagements and undertakings in the everlasting covenant; yet they carry on their operations conjointly, and are as equally undivided in their energies as in their nature. Thus, when God made all things, we find that "without the Word" (or Second Person) "was not any thing made that was made;" and when "the heavens and the earth were created," "the Spirit of GoD moved upon the face of the waters." All, together, concerted the glorious plan; all, together, concurred in and accomplished its execution. The Trinity engaged and performed every thing in the Unity; and the Unity was active in every engagement and performance of the Trinity. The mode of agency varied, but the power in all was the same.'-Davy on the Trinity.