APPENDIX.

A.

"Puis que nôtre delivrance est nommeé une redemption, il faut que Jesus Christ nous l'ait acquise par quelque rançon qu'il ait donneé pour nous. Or il n'en a donné aucune, si vous ne posez qu'en mourant il a epandu sa vie, et son sang pour nous, et en notre place. Puis apres si cela n'est, pourquoy l'Apôtre dit-il, que c'est par le sang de Christ, que nous avons la remission de nos pechez? Si son sang n'est pas la satisfaction de nos pechez, il est evident qu'il ne sert de rien à nous en obtenir la remission. En ce cas nous l'aurons, non par le sang, ou par la mort de Christ, qui n'y aura rien contribué à ce conte, mais par la seule bonté, soit de Dieu, soit de son Fils. Car de dire, que la remission des pechez est attribué au sang et à la mort du Seigneur, parce qu'en mourant il a scellé la verite de ce qu'i'l avoit presché durant sa vie, c'est evidemment se moquer du monde. Ses miracles avoit aussi confirmé sa doctrine; et neantmoins ny l'Ecriture, ny aucun homme sage n'a jamais dit, que nous ayons la remission de nos pechez par ses miracles, comme S Paul dit icy, et ailleurs souvent, que nous l'avons par son sang, et par sa mort. Joinct que si cette raison avoit lieu, puis que c'est pour sceller cette mesme doctrine, que les Martyrs ont souffert, l'on pourroit aussi dire, que c'est par leur sang, que nous avons la redemption, et la remission des pechez; ce qui ne se lit nulle part. Au contrairé l'Apôtre nie fortement que ny lui ny aucun autre que Christ, ait esté crucifié pour nous. Ces raisons refutent aussi l'autre échapatoire de ces gens, que nous avons le salut par la mort de Jesus Christ, à cause qu'en mourant il nous a donné l'exemple d une patience, et obeissance perfaite. Car a ce conte les Martyrs, dont les souffrances contiennent de semblables enseignemens nous auroient donc sauvez aussi bien que Christ. Joinct que la patience, et l'obeissance font partie de notre sanctification; au lieu que l'Apostre dit, que nous avons en Jesus Christ par son sang la remission de nos pechez, et non simplement la sanctification."-Daillé Sermons sur l'Epitre aux Coloss. I. 195-197.

B.

"C'est chose commune en tous langages de signifier la vie par le sang, et la perte de la vie par l'effusion du sang. Mais le S Esprit employe particulierement cette façon de parler, lors qu'il est question d'une sacrifice. Car en tels sujets le sang de la victime est presque tousiours mis pour la vie, qu'elle perd estant immolée; de façon qu'il ne faut pas treuver estrange que

ces divins auteurs disent le sang de Christ, l'unique agneau du monde, et la tres parfaite hostie, representée par tous les sacrifices anciens, pour signifier la vie, qu'il a épanduë pour nous sur la croix, l'offrant au Pere pour propitiation de nos pechez. C'est icy le grand mistere de l'Evangile, inconnu aux hommes et aux Anges, et qui n'a jamais pû tomber en autre pensée, qu'en celle de la souveraine et infinie sapience de Dieu, que Jesus Christ, le bien aimé du Pere, le Sainct des Saincts ait mis sa vie pour nous, se soit constitué en nôtre place, et ait porté nos pechez en son corps sur le bois, souffrant en sa chair sacrée, et en son ame tres-sainte les peines et les douleurs, que nous meritions, afin de nous en exempter. C'est precisement, ce que nous entendons en disant, qu'il a satisfait pour nous à la justice de Dieu. Et l'Apôtre nous fournit en ces paroles de quoy y conserver cette gloire au Seigneur contre deux sortes d'adversaires; les uns qui nient qu'il y ait satisfait pour nous; les autres, qui l'accordans étendent encore cet honneur à d'autres, voulans qu'il appartienne aussi aux Saints et à nous mesmes. Pour les premiers, ils ne meritent pas d'estre tenus pour Chretiens, puis qu'ils rejettent une verité si clairement, et si souvent preschée dans l'Evangile, confessée par toute l'Eglise, et qui d'ailleurs est la source de nôtre consolation en la vie, et en la mort, et le fondement unique de toutes nos esperances."-Daillé Sermons sur l'Epitre aux Coloss I. 193, 194.

C.

I am aware of the Unitarian reading in this place—1 Tim. iii. 15, 16 -(ôs, He who), instead of (eòs, God). But to say nothing of the preponderating evidence in favour of the common Greek text (which it may be noted Archbishop Newcome adopts), the grammatical difficulty of making the relative os stand independently of any antecedent, is very great. To begin the sentence and paragraph with Και ὁμολογουμένως, and to have ôs without an antecedent, appears entirely contrary to reason, and the construction of the passage: and it seems indispensable to find an expressed antecedent. Which is the more likely to be that antecedent; the abstract neuter noun, or the agreeing, and personal noun,-the mystery, or the Living God? If, however, the Church belongs to Christ, and He is over all, God blessed for ever, what advantage to the cause of Unitarian theology is gained by the substitution? Upon the subject of this text, I would beg attention to Dr. J. P. Smith's elaborate Dissertation, vol. iii. pp. 321, &c. and to his note (H.) pp. 354, &c. It may be observed that Scholz reads with the admitted Greek text còs.

D.

The Father is called Jehovah ;-so is the Son: Is. xl. 3: The Father is called God;;-so is the Son: John i. 1; Acts xx. 28. The Father is Alpha and Omega;-so is the Son: Is. xli. 4; xliv. 6; Rev. 8. 17. Is the Father

-

eternal?-so is the Son: Is. ix. 6; Micah. v. 2; Rev. i. 8. The Father is omnipresent ;-so is the Son: Matt. xviii. 20. The Father is omniscient ;so is the Son: John xxi. 17. Did the Father make all things?—so did the Son: John i. 3; Colos. i. 16; Heb. i. 2. Is the Father to be honoured?— such honour must the Son have also: John v. 23. Well, then, might He not think it robbery to be equal with God. On this subject, I would particularly recommend "Jones's Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity," a book, which, in a very small compass, has proved the existence and equality of three Persons in the Divine Unity, "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual." -1 Cor. ii. 13.

E.

Have we a body?-so had He: Heb. x. 5. 10. Have we flesh and blood?-so had He: Heb. ii. 14. Have we hands and feet?-so had He: Luke xxiv. 39. Have we a soul?-so had He: Matt. xxvi. 38. Are we hungered?—so was He : Matt. iv. 2. Are we weary?--so was He: John iv. 6. Heavy and sorrowful?-so was He: Mark xiv. 33. Do we grow in stature and knowledge?-so did He: Luke ii. 52. Do we die?-He also gave up the ghost: John x. 30. Thus was He, in all points, tempted like unto ourselves, yet without sin: Heb. ii. 17; iv. 15. Well then may He be called the Man, Christ Jesus: 1 Tim. ii. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 21; and Christ Jesus, the Son of Man: Matt, xxvi. 2.

F.

The word μopon, translated "form" in our version, may, perhaps, as Dr. J. P. Smith has observed, be unexceptionably expressed by the phrase, the characteristics of God. Schleusner, accordingly, gives this as the secondary sense of the word :-"Ipsa natura et essentia alicujus rei, i. e. φύσις et οὐσία. In this sense it was understood by the Greek Fathers : Ἡ μορφὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ ταὐτον τῇ οὐσία πάντως εστίν. “The form of God is the same as his essence."-Greg Nyssen. And again :Ἡ μορφὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ φύσις νοεῖται Θεοῦ.

signifies the same as the nature of God."-Theodoret.

"The form of God

Dr. Smith's Treatise

on this passage well deserves attention.-Scripture Testimony to the Messiah. Vol. II. pp. 356, &c.

G.

Eikov, a perfect and exact resemblance, so far as the nature of the subject in any given case admits. Thus, 1 Cor. xi. 7, the man ἀνήρ is

called the image and glory of God, on account of his conjugal dominion. The Levitical law is said to have had only "a shadow, and not the very image (aʊTηv TηV eikóva) of spiritual blessings." Heb. x. 1. Holiness in believers is described as a conformity to the image of God, and of Christ. Col. iii. 10. 2 Cor. iii. 18. Rom. viii. 28. This expresses the same as in Heb. i. 2-He "is the brightness of his glory." He hath equally the same properties and perfections as the Father.-Dr. J. P. Smith. Vol. III. p. 297. IIρWтÓTOKOS, not merely ❝ the first begotten of every creature ;" but "the begotten antecedently to all creation.”—Bishop Sandford's Works. Vol. I. p. 165. "All things are created for Him,”—an undeniable proof of his Divinity, and that supreme worship is due to Him; since it is clearly due from the creature to Him, for whose service and glory that creature is made.

H.

I am aware that Unitarians object. to the words, TOû côυ in this verse, and would read the passage, ποιμαινειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν του κυριον ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ του ιδίου ἅιματος, " Το feed the Church of the Lord," upon the authority of Griesbach. It is hoped to escape the peculiar force of this passage, by the general name, "Lord," instead of the peculiar term, "God." But, not to speak of critical Editions of the Greek Testament, since the time of Griesbach, a contribution has been made to the criticism of the New Testament, which, it may well be hoped, leaves us little more to expect or desire, in an edition of the Greek Testament, by Dr. J. M. A. Scholz. He comparatively impugns the authority of the MSS. on which Griesbach principally relied, and, with the late Archbishop Lawrence, gives precedence to that class of MSS. which flowed from Palestine and Asia Minor, through the Greek Churches, as more pure than that which had taken its course through Egypt. He has unhesitatingly written Tou coû, and does not seem to think it necessary to enter into the dispute; but simply shows his decision by his text. In annotating, indeed, on his own vernacular version, he says,-"For the words, the Church of God are many manuscripts; for the Church of the Lord, are many others: and likewise for the Church of the Lord and God, and they make no material difference in the meaning. The reading, the Church of God is that of the most and best MSS. and many versions and Fathers: so that it is probably the true reading. And thus this passage contains an express declaration, on the part of the Apostle, that Christ is God." Other readings have been discovered in other MSS. but all to the same effect; or rather some speaking even more decidedly than our own version, if decision may be measured by repetition of titles, each bespeaking absolute Godhead. The passage of Athanasius referred to in the notes to the Improved Version, has been translated by an eminent scholar (the late Dr. Burton), in a manner effectually

removing the idea of any horror said to have been felt by that great champion of the faith towards the common reading. Athanasius himself quotes the passage more than once, and expressly reads the Church of God.

But, suppose it actually to be the Church of the Lord: What is gained to the cause of Unitarianism by the change? The term Lord, (kúptos) when simply used without any limiting adjunct in the Scriptural Greek, denotes the Supreme Being. It is the word regularly employed by the Septuagint to translate the names ADONAI and JEHOVAH. The Alexandrian Jews had a superstitious dread of writing the name of God; and put kúpios not as a translation, but as a mark or sign, every one readily understanding for what it really stood. This word, however, we find thus put in the form of an unqualified, and unequalled preference throughout the Acts of the Apostles, and the New Testament generally, when the circumstances of the connexion require us to understand it of the Lord Jesus Christ,

If the words του κύριου be read instead of του Θεόν, and it be understood that the latter reading would be more favourable to the Deity of Christ than the former, we must acknowledge it to have the same force in other passages where it occurs in connexion with the Lord Jesus Christ. John i. 1. Rom. ix. 5. Tit. ii. 13. 1 John v. 20. Our Lord emphatically calls the Church, His Church,-Matt. xvi. 18. Here it is either the Church of the Lord, or the Church of God. St. Paul terms it the Church of God,-1 Tim. iii. 5. The Church of the Living God, who is the Saviour of all men-1 Tim. iv. 10.

“Mr. Wakefield contends strenuously for reading côu, and not kupiov. He afterwards effects his escape from the consequence, by proposing two of the most extraordinary criticisms that were ever ventured by a Greek scholar. Tov idiov apatos, he renders, not his own blood, but his own son, because a man's son may be said to be his own blood; and, therefore, the Son of God may be expressed by God's own blood; an expression, which had it been used of God the Father by a Trinitarian, in defence of his doctrine, would have subjected him to Mr. Wakefield's ineffable contempt. He suggests also another mode, that of translating the words 'by the blood of his own,' supplying the word (son) διὰ του ιδίου ἅιματος.”

See Dr. J. P. Smith, III. 24, 57. Professor Nares' Remarks on the Improved Version, pp. 219-221. Abp. Magee, II. 435. Coleridge's Table-Talk, pp. 259, 260.

I.

"I have ever wondered, and still do wonder at the peevishness, or rather pathetical profaneness of men who scoff at those sacred passages in our Liturgy, By thine agony and bloody sweat; by thy cross and passion, &c. Good Lord deliver us :' as if they had more alliance with spells and forms of conjuring, than with the spirit of prayer, or true devotion. Cer