VIII. 1 Tim. iii. 16. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

There are three different readings of this passage.

1. That of the Received Text: "God was manifest in the flesh," Θέος (abbreviated into ΘΣ) εφανερώθη εν σαρκι.

Whether this be the reading of the Alexandrine manuscript is disputed: but it is supported by the majority of Greek copies, and by the later Greek ecclesiastical writers. But the word God' is not found in the earliest and most approved manuscripts, nor in any ancient version of credit; nor is it cited by any early Greek writer, nor by any Latin writer whatever; and, what is decisive in the case, this text was never appealed to in the Arian controversy before the sixth century, when the word God' is said to have been introduced into the Greek copies by Macedonius bishop of Constantinople. This word is therefore most certainly spurious 10.

2. "He

interpretation of the Scriptures. The principles upon which they acted have not only been successful in their hands in detecting the gross errors of the antichristian church, but have furnished their successors with a clue for discovering and correcting their own. No person will now agree with this learned reformer in the objection which he starts to his own happy conjecture.

This conjectural emendation was adopted by the learned and candid Whitby, in his Last Thoughts, p. 79, though, by mistake, he imputes it to Crellius. The very same conjecture occurred to that excellent and judicious expositor Dr. John Taylor, who had not then heard that any one had thought of it before him. Mr. Wakefield likewise suggests several probable arguments in favour of this conjectural transpo sition, in his Inquiry into the Opinions of Christian Writers, p. 166, et seq.

100s is not found in any manuscript of the Alexandrine, or the Western editions. Those copies in which it occurs are of the Constantinople edition, of modern date, and of very inferior value. Of the versions, it is found only in the Polyglot Arabic and the Sclavonic. See Griesbach. It appears indeed in the printed text of Gregory Nyssen

and

2. "He who (OE) was manifested in the flesh," &c. This is the reading of the Ephrem, of four other valuable and ancient manuscripts, and, as Griesbach thinks, of the Alexandrine also; and certainly, of the copies of those persons in the sixth century who complained that Macedonius had corrupted the text:--it is supported by the Coptic and Sahidic versions, and by the citations of Cyril of Alexandria 11, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Epiphanius, and others; and finally it is much more probable that OΣ, 'he who,' should be altered to OZ, God,' or to O, that which,' than that either of these should have been changed to OZ. Upon these authorities it is received by Griesbach into his corrected text.

6

q. d. "He who 12 was manifest in the flesh 13,"who appeared in a mean and humble form. John i. 14. 2 Cor. iv. 11.

"was justified by the spirit," -was proved by his miraculous powers to be invested with a divine commission.

"was seen by angels 14," by the men who were chosen to be his messengers and ambassadors to the world. "-preached unto the Gentiles:"-his gospel was published to all nations, and Gentiles as well as Jews were invited to accept the blessing.

"we

and some others; but, as Dr. Clarke observes, (Scr. Doct. 540,)". are to judge, not from the present copies of these writers, but from their manner of commenting upon the place, how the text was read in their days." Griesbach cites Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, as reading ε05.

Cyril does not cite this text in reply to Julian, who denies that Christ is ever called God in the writings of Paul.

18 'Os,' he who.' See a similar construction, Rom. xiv. 2. 5. Archbishop Newcome, who refers to Mark iv. 25; Luke viii. 18; Rom. viii. 32. "I ectio hæc difficilior, et insolentior cæteris." Griesbach.

13 In the flesh.] Perhaps the meaning may be, he who was really and truly a man,' in opposition to the doctrine of the Docete, that he was a man in appearance only. See chap. i. 4; vi. 20. Compare 1 John iv. 2, 3; 2 John, ver. 7. Imp. Ver. note.

See Benson. One copy reads arpwπois.

L

"--believed

"-believed on in the world,"-many embraced and professed his doctrine.

"was elevated in glory 15,"-he had a glorious ascension into heaven;—or rather, he was elevated above principalities and powers to a station of the highest dignity and authority in the church.

3. O, quod, that which,' &c. is the reading of the Clermont manuscript, the Syriac, Ethiopic, Italic, and Vulgate versions, and of all the Latin ecclesiastical writers without exception 16. q. d.

Great is that mystery of godliness which was manifested in the flesh, i. e. the Gospel which was preached by men in humble life. Many of the Latin fathers explain the word mystery, of the of the person of Christ.

IX.

Tit. ii. 13. "Looking for that blessed hope, even the glorious appearance of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ."

Or, as some contend, according to the construction of the original," of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,” τε μεγαλ8 Θε8 και Σωτηρος ήμων Ιησε Χριστ8. It is said, that in order to justify the common translation, the article vs should be prefixed to Σωτηρος.

In reply to this argument, Dr. Clarke well observes, (Scr. Doct. 541,) that though "the words will grammatically bear this construction, it is much more reasonable, and more agreeable to the whole tenor of Scripture, to understand the former part of the words to relate to the

15

ανελήφθη, "met with a glorious reception," Benson; who explains it of the great success of the Gospel in the apostolic age. But the text will hardly bear out the learned writer in this interpretation. The word, or its derivatives, occurs fourteen times in the New Testament, and without a single exception expresses local ascent or change. Ev do, in glory;' not as dotav, into glory.'

16 Of modern critics Beza, Whitby, Pearson, Le Clerc, Woide, Doddridge, &c. adhere to Eos, God.' Calvin, Slichtingius, Przipcovius, Erasmus, Dr. Clarke, Wetstein, Benson, Harwood, Griesbach, Wake. field, Lindsey, &c. read os or o.

Father:

Father: the word God, with any high title or epithet annexed, always signifying the Father only 17."

X. Heb. i. 8. "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever."

This is a quotation from Psalm xlv. 6. And it is well known that the words of the original will equally well bear to be translated," God is thy throne;" that is, the support of thy throne. See Grotius, Clarke, and Pierce in loc. Mr. Lindsey contends that this must be the proper translation, because it is most analogous to the language of Scripture. 2 Sam. vii. 13. 16. 1 Chron. xvii. 12. 14. Psalm lxxxix. 4. Archbishop Newcome translates, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:" but he remarks, that in the Psalm the same words are addressed to Solomon.

17 See likewise Clarke's Reply to Nelson, p. 85, &c. And to the same purpose Erasmus and Grotius in loc.

The author is not unapprised of the great zeal with which this argument for the proper deity of Christ, from the construction of the Greek article, has been lately resumed and pursued by that eminent philanthropist Granville Sharp, Esq. and his learned coadjutors Bishop Burgess, Dr. Wordsworth, and Dr. Middleton. That many of the observations of these respectable writers are ingenious, acute, and just, as far as the Greek language is concerned, is, I believe, universally admitted. But the witty and shrewd writer of Six more Letters to Granville Sharp, under the signature of Gregory Blunt, has ably and amply refuted the argument derived from this principle in support of the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Indeed it is an indignity to the human understanding to maintain that a doctrine, which, if true, would shine conspicuously in every page of the New Testament, should depend for its evidence upon the critical use of the Greek article by the plain and unlettered writers of the New Testament; together with what would be equally necessary, the immaculate correctness of transcribers. If this is the state to which the controversy is reduced, it would be better to give up the point at once. A doctrine of such magnitude as the proper deity of Christ, must have clearer and more substantial evidence, or none at all. That Dr. Middleton's Theory of the Greek Article will not bear him out to the extent to which he has applied it, has been amply and satisfactorily shown in an able critique upon that learned and laborious treatise, by the hand of a master, in the Monthly Review, N. S. vol. lxii. See also Mr. Winstanley's able Vindication, &c. in reply to Mr. Sharp.

L 2

XI. 2 Pet.

XI. 2 Pet. i. 1." Through the righteousness of

God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."

τε Θε8 ήμων και σωτηρος. The words may be translated, "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ."

Answer. It is admitted that the original will bear this translation; but the common version is also admissible. And it is preferable, because, as Dr. Clarke observes, No. 289," the word God generally stands for the Father;' and the same words are repeated in the next verse in a construction which determines the sense without any ambiguity. "Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord:" v TIbe γνωσει τ8 Θε8 και Ιησ8 τ8 κυρι8 ήμων. Το which may added, that two manuscripts and the Syriac version, instead of 8, God,' read Kup18,' Lord.'

XII. 1 John iii. 16. "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us." The word 8,' of God,' has the authority of one manuscript only, and that of little note, of the Vulgate version, and of the Complutensian edition. It is unquestionably spurious, and is left out of Griesbach's corrected text, and of Archbishop Newcome's, Mr. Wakefield's, and the Improved versions.

XIII. 1 John v. 20. "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him, that is true: and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Christ Jesus. THIS (OUTCS) is the true God and eternal Life."

"To paraphrase this of true religion," says Dr. Doddridge, in his note upon the text, "is quite enervating the force of Scripture, and taking a liberty with plain words by no means to be allowed. It is an argument of the deity of Christ, which almost all who have written in its defence