[] or [] be the true reading in two clauses is, "Seen by the mes this place. All the old versions sengers (that is, apostles,) taken have it, qui or quod. And all the up with glory." Dr. Benson ancient fathers, though the copies renders the latter clause, "Was of many of them have it now in gloriously received, i. e. had a the text itself [eis, Deus,] yet glorious spread and reception*.' from the tenour of their comments Is this " downright nonsense?” upon it, and from their never or will the clergyman charge the citing it in the Arian controversy, apostle John with downright it appears they always read it qui nonsense," when he says in his or quad till the time of Macedo- own name and in that of the rest nius under the Emperor Anasta- of the apostles, "That which was sius, in the beginning of the sixth from the beginning, which we have century:" and who cites Dr. heard, which we have seen with Mil as saying, "No one that our eyes, which we have looked I know, of all the Catholic fa- upon, and our hands have handled thers, who professedly collected of the word of life; for the life all the texts of scripture in proof was manifested, and we have of Christ's divinity, ever alledge seen it." Or, is it" downright this text, before the year 380. nonsense to say, that a mystery Gregory Nyssen first of all, &c." "was taken up with glory," or Has the clergyman never seen was gloriously received?" But Dr. Benson on the passage, or Sir as the clergyman rests the proof Isaac Newton's letter, before refer- of the true reading upon the sense red to? If he has not seen any of or nonsense which the different them, it appears that he knows readings will produce, let us see nothing about the controversy. what sense the reading he contends® for will produce. "God" he says, was seen of the messen gers." What could the apostle refer to in this assertion? Did he mean to contradict the apostle John, who says, "No man (edus, no one) hath seen God at any timet," or the apostle Paul's own assertion in this very epistle, where, speaking of God, he "Who only says, hath immortallity—whom no man hath seen, or can see ?" Again, "God was preached unto the But he says, "That a mystery Gentiles." Was the mission of was seen of angels, and received the apostles to preach God, or to up into glory, is to my own com- preach the mystery of godliness? prehension down-right nonsense." The whole New Testament will Mr. Wakefield's rendering of the decide, that it was the latter and

But the clergyman objects to and & as the true reading, "inas-much," he says, "as they alike produce nonsense." In support of the proposed reading, I gave the translation of the passage by that learned and laborious critic, Air. Gilbert Wakefield. Has he "produced grammatical nonsense?" The clergyman has not ventured to charge him with it, or to allude to that translation, though he had it before him.

แ

was

not the former. The same may , as 1 John i. 3. John i. 4. 46. be said of the following clause, iii. 26. 34. Mat. xix. 29. Rom. "God was believed on in the ii. 2. 3. Wetstein. For 805 εpaworld. " The last clause "God vegwe, perhaps Xisos Savaтwy, received up into glory," and for weŋ alyexos, read wees is, if possible, more irreconcileable aros roois. R. Bentley. ap. Wetwith any principle of reason or stein. The different attestations revelation. We might ask, what of eye-witnesses concerning 02 is meant by God's being received in the Alexandrian MS. (some up into glory? By whom was he affirming the former letter to be received up, &c. &c.? If this, some O) are accounted for at then be the true reading of the last by Professor Wetstein, who passage, I will venture to say there discovered that the cross stroke is not any thing in the New in it, which was discerned by Testament either to explain or some, was no other than the midto justify any one of the assertions dle stroke of the E in ETEEBEI. of the apostle in this text. AN, 1 Tim. vi. 3. written on the

back

In reply to the mere conjecture page, which appeared of the clergyman" that O, in the through the vellum as written on Alexandrian MS. (of which MS. the O, when held up separately he himself is probably as pro to the light, but was not visible foundly iguorant, as he professes when laid flat on the next leaf.” himself to be of any such read. What ignoramuses must all the ing as, which was manifested) learned men I have referred to, and was originally 2, the abbreviat- all the ancients who, before the ed mode of writing OEOE," but fifth century, read, which was that by the hand of time the cen- manifested, have been! that they tral mark of the theta has been could not discover what our learnmiraculously obliterated without ed divine has discovered, that that injuring the circle, (a very pro- reading ' qavsgwn as well as bable conjecture!) I shall add is spavacw" produced down. the following observations on the right nonsense, and therefore could passage from, "Conjectural not be the true reading, though Emendations on the New Testa- supported by the authority of ment," (I believe by Bowyer) every Greek copy during the four printed 1763. ("pungin Ecs first centuries. But we must εφανερώθη) ὁ εφανερώθη was the not allow him the whole of the reading of all the MSS. before the merit of this discovery, for it seems fifth century, as Sir Isaac Newton some wiseacre made it in the hath shewn. Let. to Le Clerc. fifth or sixth century, and boldly Many interpreters at first refer- changed 6 into Sɛos. red to μusagio which precedes; "if" says Archbp. Newcome*, but observing that a mystery could "we read is, he who, we have a not be received up into glory, construction like Mar. iv. 25. they connected to be the sub- Luke viii. 18. Rom. viii. 32." ject of what follows: THAT But had his Lordship consulted. WHICH was manifested in the our learned clergyman he would flesh, was justified by the spirit, have told him that that could not

be the true reading, for "it produced downright nonsense."

Of what I advanced to shew that Trinitarianism was the spirit of antichrist he has not cited a sentence, or offered a word to refute it; the truth of it therefore remains uncontroverted.

6

But-we must come to something I have supposed more important. an ellipsis: here this proud, blustering champion takes his stand, brandishing his sword with an air of defiance; but the reader will presently see whether a sing and a stone will not bring him to the ground, and turn his insulting triumph into confusion and shame.

16

says,

that

Acis xx. 28. I make some observations on the passage as it stands, and also observe that inThe passage is such a masterstead of the church of God," piece of criticism and argument some of the ancient versions read, that I will not injure the learned the church of the Lord," and divine by omitting any part of it; the Syriac, which is of the highest it is as follows: By the assistantiquity and authority, reads, ance however of a convenient "the church of the Messiah." ellipsis, or some similar contriv All this the clergyman has ance, a Socinian will persuade thought it most prudent to pass himself, whatever he may do over without any observation. others, that a text means the very The reason of which will be ob- reverse of what unlettered Chrisvious to the reader if he will take tians would suppose it to mean. the trouble of referring to the In support of his ellipsis, he adduces 1 John iii. 5, and passage*. He asserts, indeed, that, "The the only antecedent to he was answer which J. M. gives to Acts manifested is the father in verse xx. 28, is a mere quibble." AI: but the Father, even accordreply which the most ignorant ing to the Trinitarian scheme was blockhead could easily make to not manifested; therefore he must the most profound argument that be referred to Christ, though he is ever came from the pen of man. not mentioned in the context. Ile then makes a very wise appeal deny that the antecedent to he was to any man, whether the words manifested is the Father. This of the present translation do not passage is exactly parallel to that stand as they do, and to account in Acts. In both, God is the for the expression, "The blood antecedent: both consequently of God," he has recourse to his prove Christ to be God." That usual unsupported subterfuge, the texts are parallel is admitted, that "God and man being one and that that verse refers to Christ Christ, the blood of Christ, al- is also admitted; but the clergythough the blood of the man Jesus, man denies that an ellipsis is ne(and consequently not the blood cessary to make out that applicaof God, as he says the text asserts tion, and affirms that the anteit to be) is styled the blood of cedent to he was manifested, God." Archbishop Newcome's v. 5, is God, and that that God is rendering is "The church of the not the Father. Here we are at Lord, &c."

• M. Repos 1807, page 236.

I

lianism.

issue, and here unfortunately his is here transferred to Jesus Christ. “God and man being one Christ," But what does it signify what bewill afford him no assistance. But comes of the honour and worship let us examine his exposition of of the only true God, provided this passage, he has given it at the divinity and supreme worship large, as follows. "Behold, what of Jesus Christ be but maintained; manner of love the Father hath be seeing, according to the clergyman's stowed upon us, that we should be system, we owe all our obligations called the sons of God.” That is, to Jesus, and but for him, his says the clergyman, of Christ, of God would have consigned us all God the Son "Therefore the to everlasting perdition! To what world knoweth us not, because it will Trinitarianism lead! But it know not him: (viz. God)" not is gone; one of the relative dis. God the Father; but God the tinctions in the Deity is done Son. "Beloved, now are we the away; there is no Father in the sons of God;" that is, of God Godhead distinct from the Son, the Son, and to follow the reason in whom both the characters are ing of the apostle, "If sons, then united, and of course that also of heirs, heirs of God the Son, and Holy Spirit, so that the clergyjoint heirs with Jesus Christ of man in endeavouring to support God the Son." If in this passage the doctrine of the Trinity has the phrase "sons of God" means reasoned himself into rank Šabelthe sons of Jesus Christ, as the clergyman asserts, no reason can Having taken a review of the be assigned why the same phrase, clergyman's interpretation of this in every other place where it oc- passage, let the reader judge whecurs, should not have the same ther either the word father or God meaning. Jesus Christ, then, and in v. 1, 2. can possibly be the not the God of our Lord Jesus antecedent to he was manifested Christ, is the father of Christians, to take away our sins; and wheand consequently the father of ther we are not under the necessity Christ himself also, for he ex- of supposing an ellipsis in v. 5. and pressly says to his disciples "I reading he, Christ, was manifested; ascend to my Father and to your and that the same ellipsis is neFather, to my God and to your cessary to be supposed in v. 16, God." Again, when our Lord and Acts xx. 28. if the present taught his disciples to pray, saying reading of that text is retained ; "Our Father," by father, upon and that consequently neither of the clergyman's hypothesis, he those texts proves Christ to must have meant himself. What God. a bold attack is this upon the "From Col. i. 15-17. (says paternal character of the God of the clergyman) I had asserted that our Lord Jesus Christ! That Christ was the pre-existent Crecharacter with all the grace and ator of the universe.” This is not all the mercy connected with and true, his words are, "The New arising out of it, as also all the Testament writers assert," which worship and reverence due to him, is a very different thing from his

* See M. Repos. 1807, p. 69.

asserting. What he may choose to things; and put the passage intoassert is of no consequence; what language suited to that idea, and they assert is of infinite import- then see whether that can be its ance. Were I inclined to it, I meaning. "He (the word) was could play upon the clergyman's the maker of all things, and withword assert in this connexion, as out him (the maker of it) was not he has done upon my using the one thing made, that was made.” word demonstrated, and retort, Admirable sense! worthy of the "The framers of systems are very learning of the clergyman, and of apt to fancy that to be asserted by the system he is endeavouring to the New Testament writers which support. they wish to establish." That the New Testament writers have not asserted any thing like what the clergyman says they assert is fully proved by his own explanation.

"Perhaps J. M. (says the clergyman) may be assisted in his inquiries by comparing together the beginning of Genesis and the beginning of St. John's gospel. Moses teaches us that the world was created by Jehovah. St. John assures us that all things were made by the Word, that he was in the world, and the world was made by him."

What a daring misquo-
Moses says, Elohim

"This assertion," he adds, "J. M. denies on the ground, that the words pre-existent Creator, and universe do not occur in the text." I deny that Jesus Christ is any where styled the Creator of the universe; or that the term Creator is ever applied to him; tation!" and I appeal to any one whether created; but the clergyman can Paul's enumeration in that text easily transmute Elohim or Adon, can be applied to the universe. or, perhaps, any other word, into His words are, not he created Jehovah, and then assert that all things; but," By him were all those words are the words of the things created-whether thrones sacred writers when they manior dominions, or principalities or festly are not. But in this transpowers." Are these expressions sy mutation there is no small degre nonymous with the term universe?" of sophistry." He is comparI shall refer the reader to the ing the beginning of Genesis with observations of Mr. Belsham on the beginning of John, and would the beginning of John's gospel, in evidently insinuate by changing his most excellent letter to Mr. Moses's word Elohim into JehoCarpenter, contained in the same vah that, not the true Jehovah of number of the Repository with the Old Testament but, his fictitithe letter of the clergyman. In ous Jehovah, the Messenger, which the letter which he has promised, he says is Christ, was the Creator we shall no doubt have as lucid of all things. For this purpose an exposition of the passage in also, finding in John i. 10. "The the Colossians, which I will not world was made by him," to anticipate. Let us, however, make the comparison more comsuppose (as the clergyman does) plete, he changes the words of that John, ch. i. 3. is describing Muses, "The heavens and the the Word, as the Maker of all earth," into " the world." I will

See M. Repos. vol. 11. p. 591.-Ed,