31.] Mark xvi. 19. So then after the LORD had spoken to them.' The word Kupios Lord being constantly used in the Septuagint as the translation of Jehovah, and being frequently employed in the N. T. in reference to the Supreme Being, many have supposed that the application of it to Jesus is founded upon, and supports, the doctrine of his proper deity. The fact is, the word implies no more, than that the person to whom it is applied has authority or power, and very frequently is only a term of respect, given to a person without any reference to his superiority. It may be translated, Master, Sir, or Lord, according to the circumstances of the caseh. Whence Jesus derived that

lation in reference to our Lord, (see Notes on Scripture, Vol. II. p. 244-254). As the expression son of man, wherever it occurs in the LXX, (which it very frequently does,) is used without the article before either word; and as, on the other hand, when the expression occurs in the Gospels as an appellation of our Lord, the article is (with the exception of John v. 27,) uniformly prefixed to both words, the Son of the Man, Mr. S. considers it as designed to intimate his being the descendant of David, and the Messiah." 66 The Jews in general," he observes, "before his appearance and during his ministry, had a persuasion that the Messiah would be descended from David:" and "such an indirect mode of leading his followers to consider him as the Messiah, corresponded with his usual way of unfolding this and some other truths respecting himself and his religion in a very gradual manner to the Jews, whose minds were not prepared to receive them plainly and openly."-I at first thought the above explanation a forced one; but further reflection has made me view it in a different light. I am aware of only one material objection: It is a very general usage of the Greek language, when the governing substantive has an article, to prefix the article to the governed also.

h"It is obvious," says the Eclectic Reviewer, (Apr. 1809,) "that where this word is used only as a compellation of respect, it should be translated by Sir, or Master; and that the solemn title Lord should be employed only when the reference

authority which constituted him Lord, we learn from Acts ii. 36, (see p. 114;) and why he is called Lord of all (Acts. x. 36,) the connexion at once shows, he is the spiritual sovereign of both Jews and Gentiles. He is Lord of the dead and of the living (Rom. xiv. 9), inasmuch as he has "power over the dead, to raise them to life again; and authority over the living, to command their obedience and devotedness to him." And he is the Lord of glory (1 Cor. ii. 8), since it is from his hands that the faithful disciple will receive the glory, honour, and immortality which God has promised to all who obey him1.

32.] Acts iii. 15. And killed the PRINCE OF LIFE, whom God hath raised from the dead.'-The original word apxnyos, signifies a captain or leader. The reason why Peter calls Jesus the leader to everlasting life, appears in the next clause; he was

is to the Deity, or to cases where there is at least some recog. nition of the person and office of the Messiah. This rule is greatly violated in the Common Version; but in the Improved Version we have noticed very few instances in which it is transgressed, viz. John vi. 68. xi. 27. xiv. 5. 8. 22. In these we conceive Lord would be more suitable than Master."-I have no objection to the former rendering, in these and some other instances, but do not perceive that there is any material ground for preference: comp. xi. 28, where Martha speaks of Jesus as Teacher, didarnaλos, immediately after her "solemn recognition" of him as the Messiah.-I have quoted the above remarks, because some unlearned persons have taken great offence at the rendering of Kugs adopted in the Improved Version in reference to our Lord, particularly in Acts xxii. 8. 10, &c.

In vs. 7, the Apostle spoke of the mystery "which God predetermined before the world for our glory, sus dozav åμær. the expression in the next verse, the Lord of that glory,' augio ans dons, appears to me to have a distinct reference to the preceding doğay

the first who was raised from the dead to die no more. In Acts v. 31, the same Apostle says 'Him hath God exalted, as a Leader and Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel and forgiveness of sins.' In Hebr. ii. 10, our Lord is styled the Leader of the sons of God to their salvation; and in ch. xii. 2, he is called the Leader of faith," one that leads the way in faith, encouraging others to follow in that principle," and the Finisher of faith,-one who set a complete example of trust and obedience.These are the only instances in which our Lord is called αρχηγός.

33.] Rev. i. 11. "I am ALPHA And Omega, the FIRST and the LAST." These words, occurring so soon after the same title in part had been given to the Lord God, have led many to believe that Jesus must be God. The fact is, these words are spurious, and are left out of the text by Griesbach. -In ch. i. 17, Jesus says ' I am the First and the Last: I am he that liveth and was dead,' or, as the words are more correctly rendered by Archdeacon Woodhouse, I am the First and the Last, and he who liveth; and I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever.' Jehovah being styled the First and the Last, in Is. xliv. 6, it is inferred by many, that our Saviour must be God, because he also assumes this title. The connexion shows the fallacy of this reasoning; for the same person who says I am the First and the Last, and he who liv eth,' also says 'I was dead.' Can God die? Indeed this class of inferences show the weakness of the cause which they are designed to support. In Isaiah, the Supreme Being says I am the First

and the Last, and BESIDES ME there is NO God;' and the connexion shows that the words refer to His being from everlasting to everlasting in the passage referred to, the connexion shows that the words can have no such meaning, for Jesus WAS DEAD.—In ch. ii. 8, the title again occurs, and in a similar connexion; the First and the Last, who was dead and is alive:' and in ch. xxii. 13, after speaking of the final consummation of all things, our exalted Lord says I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last:' I have begun, and I shall end the Gospel dispensation. The three clauses are obviously of the same import, and serve to show the meaning of the last. Jesus was appointed by God to be the agent in executing the gracious purposes of His wisdom: all things,' as the Evangelist says, 'were done by him:' and as he, by the power of God, set in motion that mighty system which will hereafter include every rational inhabitant of this world, so he is appointed to assign the rewards and punishments of his kingdom, and thus to complete that glorious dispensation by which millions, and millions of millions, will have been led on to glory, honour, and immortality. Thus, (under Him, who is in the highest sense Alpha and Omega, in the highest sense our Saviour, to whose rich and free mercy we owe the gracious gift of the Gospel, and by whose almighty power its influences have been widely and will be most widely extended,) Jesus has the glory and happiness, purchased by his obedience unto death, of being the Cause and Finisher of salvation, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last.

34. Rev. xix. 16. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh, a name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.'-This is another title of the Supreme Being; but unless it implies some degree of power which cannot be attributed to a human being, it affords no argument against the proper humanity of Christ. That it does not, the words of Daniel (ch. ii. 37,) directly prove; Thou, O King, art KING OF KINGS, FOR the God of heaven hath GIVEN thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.' If the personage spoken of in this passage really be Jesus himself, the connexion abundantly shows the reason of the appellation. See also 1 Cor. xv. 24. When he shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power;' when the powers of this world shall have owned him as their sovereign.

35.] 2 Cor. iv. 4. Christ, who is the IMAGE of God.' So also in Col. i. 15. "Who is the

IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD.'

The reason of

this appellation is abundantly obvious; see p. 41, (a). In Hebr. i. 3, we find epithets of our Lord similar to the foregoing, but, according to the Public Version, more forcible. "Who being the BRIGHTNESS OF HIS GLORY, and the EXPRESS IMAGE of HIS PERSON, and upholding all things by the word of his power." The words of the original, however, do not justify this rendering: anavyopa means, a ray or shining forth; and rosaris obviously denotes the essential attributes or moral perfections of the divine character. The true rendering probably is, Who being a ray (or manifestation) of His glory, and the image of His perfec