sentative) of the Invisible God (Col. i, 15), and, consequently, not God himself*.

In reading the Scriptures, it is absolutely ne

*It should be mentioned that the text, "God was mani"fest in the flesh," has been disputed, as to the authenticity of the first word, by Sir Isaac Newton and others. Dr. Priestley says (Illustrations of certain Scripture Passages, p. 38), "Sir Isaac Newton has fully demonstrated, that, in "the original, this text was not, God was manifest in the "flesh, but who was manifest in the flesh; and a very small "alteration in the manner of writing Greek is sufficient for "that purpose. The oldest Manuscript in the world, which "I have examined myself, has been manifestly altered from "the one to the other, as appears by the difference in the "colour of the Ink." In addition to this, an unbiassed reader would consider the words which follow in 1 Tim. iii, 16, and judge whether it be probable that the apostle could mean to say that God himself was received up into Glory, &c.

The 1 John v, 20, has been selected by some to shew, that Jesus Christ is there said to be the true God; notwithstanding the same Jesus Christ solemnly declares (John xvii, 3), that the FATHER is the Only true God. The words in 1 John v, 20, this is the true God, must, therefore, necessarily refer to the Father (as many have observed):For, if the Son be the true God, then who is the Father? How many True Gods have we? Christ declares, that the Father is the ONLY true God; and the Apostle, say some men, asserts, that Jesus Christ (the Father's Messenger) is the true God also. Behold the force of Prejudice, which would set Christ and his Apostles at variance with each

cessary for us to make great allowances for the free and bold effusions of the Eastern Idiom;

other!-Compare 1 John v, 20, with John vii, 28, 29; viii, 26, 27; wherein, He that is true, or the true God, is again most evidently distinguished from His Son and Ambassador.

If Christ be GOD, in the complete sense of the word, the true God of the Scriptures; he must then be his own God, and also his own Father; for there is no other true God, than the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, spoken of in the Bible; as Dr. Priestley has well observed, in his Letters to Dr. Geddes, 1787.

Three or four other Controverted passages, which have been perpetually cited to confirm the Notion, that Christ is God, may as well be noticed here. Philipp. ii, 6, which, as it stands in our present Version, is a direct Contradiction to Christ's own words, my Father is greater than I. It should have been translated,—Who being in the form of God (i. e. being invested with divine Powers), " did not eagerly aspire, " or covet to be honoured as God," But made himself of no reputation, &c. Ver. 10, should rather have been rendered,

-“ That in (not at) the name of Jesus every knee should bow," &c. (The Gr. is ev, in), which agrees with the directions of Christ himself (John xvi, 23, and elsewhere); viz. that we should pray, or bow in his Name (to the Father), confessing that he is Lord (saith St. Paul), to the Glory of God the Father.

Rom. ix, 5. It has been shewn by several judicious Writers (of different sentiments concerning Christ), that this text, supposing the passage to be entirely genuine, might have been rendered with propriety, in this `manner (making a proper pause after the words, Christ came); God,

otherwise we, who are much unused to them, shall often be apt to confound the Deity with his Agents. When St. Paul says to the Galatians, that “the Churches of Judea Glorified

who is over all, be blessed for ever. Amen. Or thus, of whom Christ came, who is over all: God be blessed for ever. Amen. To assert that Christ is The GoD over All, was held to be rash and heretical, in the early times of the Church; which shews that the Apostle's meaning was not understood then, as it now often is. Indeed, "the word, God, is wanting in "this passage, in Many of the most ancient MSS."-Dr. Clarke.

Heb. i, 8. Some of the most learned maintain, that the words here, might have been properly rendered;-Unto the Son, he saith, God is (or God will be) thy throne for ever and ever (alluding to the Firmness of Christ's Kingdom): and certainly this construction agrees greatly better with the Context. This passage is a citation from Psalm xlv, 6, and the original Hebrew (according to Dr. Clarke), will also admit of the translation here inserted. However, if this should not be allowed, we must conclude, that Christ, in the text (Heb. i, 8), is called a God in the Inferior Sense; because of what immediately follows, viz.-Therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee, &c.

We shall just observe concerning Isa. ix, 6, that, in our English Translation, the Son is called The everlasting Father (instead of the Father of the future Age, i. e. the Gospel Age)! and this glaring Absurdity has held its place in our Bibles for almost two hundred years. The latter part of this passage (ver. 6) appears, however, to have been strangely diversified, long before it came into the hands of our Translators.

“God in him” (Gal. i, 22, 24), we cannot, indeed, be in any danger, from the Expression, of mistaking the Apostle for God: but if Christ had happened to have made use of the same words* (or those of Moses, Deut. xi, 14, 15), if we may judge from long experience, they certainly would have been insisted on, as a clear evidence of his proper Divinity, and as a Precedent of his right to all the honours of Religious Worship.

It would be mere repetition to dwell longer on the foregoing, and the like texts, some of which have been produced to favour the Athanasian hypothesis, since they have been so often and so fully explained, and shewn to countenance no such Doctrine. And indeed how is it possible they should? how can we reasonably or consci

*He, indeed, did make use of much the same words with St. Paul,-God is glorified in him (in the son of man).John xiii, 31. And a great deal, no doubt, has been built on such expressions, without considering that they are figu rative, or allusive, as has been just shewn above, by the instance in St. Paul; and, most probably, refer to the Glory which would redound to God, and also to His Ministers, from the perfect Obedience of Christ, even unto Death, in the cause of Truth; and from the consequent propagation of the Gospel.

*

entiously believe, that the Apostles, in their writings, could mean, in the least, to falsify their chief and clearest Precept; or that our great Master should overthrow, by his own discourses, the very first Principles he declares he was expressly sent to confirm or inculcate? namely, the belief of ONE God, and his merciful Salvation of Mankind by his Messiah*.

Clear as these articles of our faith appear, the opinions which have been, and still are, entertained of the Person of our Redeemer, are, unhappily, as various and inconsistent as upon any subject whatsoever: some persisting, in defiance of the plainest evidence, to affirm that he must be Almighty God himself; which utterly destroys the possibility of his being the long promised Messenger of the Covenant, the Mediator, &c.; and flatly opposes his own express declara

"It stands upon record in his gospel, as the sum thereof, "that he taught the worship of the Lord God (of heaven and "earth) and of him only;-and that to know him the only "true God, and Jesus Christ whom he sent, was eternal life."Bishop Chandler's Defence of Christianity from the Prophecies, second edition, p. 301.

Those mysterious Doctrines, which have been sometimes called the Distinguishing Doctrines of Christianity, do not, in fact, appear to belong to it.