written, (for, be it remembered, the Gnostic sects sprung from a mixture of Jewish, Pagan, and Christian principles,) that Christ made the EONS themselves.

Dr. Pye Smith (ii. 198) shews also various ways in which aiones may be properly rendered worlds, without my expla nation. Mr. R. is assuredly wrong in his adoption of Belsham's version. Second-hand ignorance is not worth the trouble of its exhibition. But Mr. R. thinks differently.

(2.) The mongrel version Mr. R. has given (p. 16) of Col. í. 13-18, he must know is not satisfactory to any oneleast of all to a defender of the R. V. It is beneath him to pervert Scripture for the sake of a factious opposition to what he cannot set aside. Let him refer to Waterland's Sermons ii. 58-in which Sermon many more of Mr. R's conundrums were resolved 136 years since. Mr. R. mentions EN AUTO and DI' AUTO: and says they may mean in him, and by or through him, and "what then?" Is that not what I assert all along? But why does he omit EIS AUTON "for him." Ah! why? Because, say, if he allows creation was made for Christ, he must allow it was by or through him: and that he won't allowno, not "though one rose from the dead" to assure him of it. This may answer his objection to Heb. ii. 10, also. But, I am all in the dark about Mr. R.'s Greek.

(3.) He asks me, if I am serious about Heb. i. 10, &c. Why not? the subject, surely, is solemn enough! But he should have asked, was St. Paul serious? for it is St. Paul who applies David's words, so as to make Christ the creator.

(4.) Mr. R., of course, objects to our version of Heb. i. 8, "Thy Throne, O God," &c. He would say, "God is Thy Throne," &c. Now, in reply, it may be observed, that though God is light, i. e., the source of illumination-God is a rock, i. e., firm and everlasting-God cannot be a Throne, which implies the seat of dominion. If so, since He, who sits on the Throne, is greater than the Thone; therefore, as the Throne in this case is God, He, the Son, who sits upon it, is greater than God, i. e., than God the Father! "Is this satisfactory" to Mr. R.? "To what, indeed, may system lead?" Who now "degrades the Father?"-(See Reply, p. 18.)

(5.) As for Ex. vii. 1. Surely Mr. R. must have confounded, in his head, what Belsham says (p. 303) about a noun used for a "pronoun," and what he says (p. 305) about Elohim, (two different things). Belsham and Wilson quote many other passages besides Ex. vii. 1. It was very sly in Mr. R. to pick out that. But all of them have been answered

by Smith, i. 361, &c., who tells us, under the head of Ex. vii. 1, that Belsham never looked at the references, but copied them, with the very error of the figures, from Schlictingius!! People who know Hebrew well, do not talk so flippantly of Grammars and Bibles! But, as it is right to correct error, Alehim implies in this place, that Moses was to be as Alehim, or, in the place of Alehim, as the interpreter or legate of Alehim, to the Pharaoh, even as Aaron was to be interpreter to Moses. No doubt Mr. R. applies 2 Cor. v. 20 to himself, when he mounts the rostrum in Hill street. Why might not Moses, then, be "instead" of Alehim to the Pharaoh, as he was to Aaron, (Ex. iv. 16)? The texts Ex. xxi. 6, xxii. 8, 9, have nothing to do with the word in question; Judges xiii. 22, is not applied to "an angel," (as Wilson says, p. 88,) but to God. The conduct of Manoah, when he saw the angel of Jehovah, Jehovah and Adoni; (see for mer verses,) was very different to what it was when he saw Alehim. Let Mr. R. read the whole chapter in the original. What he can possibly mean by Jehovah not being in the plural, even "Hebrew Grammars" cannot tell us.

He has, evidently, notwithstanding his "Hebrew Grammar!" blundered in the dark against the two Jehovahs, Belsham talks about, p. 302, and which I have considered in appendix, No. 1,-as for the pronoun, he must have mistaken the word prefix, or something of the sort,―he knows best.

ઈં

(6.) Mr. R. denies after Belsham p. 262, "The term Son of God or Messiah is by the Jews supposed to be synonymous with God." Let him carefully read the Bishop of London's Tradition of the Promise,-Pye Smith ii. p. 46-57, and refer to Job x. 33, and Faber on the Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, vol ii. Appendix, Numb, iv. iii, iv, No. 10. Let him refer also to the Apochrypha, where in the second book of Esdras, (which is considered to have been written, or interpolated, by Cerinthus, one of the fathers of the Unitarian faith, and, on that account, ought to have more than antiquity to recommend it to Mr. R.); The Son of God whom the saints confessed in the world," crowns them "because they confessed the name of God" (ii. 39-4). Moreover, Bishop Pearson (Creed p. 117, fol. ed.) shews, that the Jews were constantly taught in the Chaldee paraphrases which were read in the synagogue, that the Logos of 1 John i, the Son of God, or Messiah, was God the Creator. Nay Philo Judæus actually calls the Logos a second God, thereby offending against the same doctrine as Mr. R., but in a different and better manner. Again,

Jer. xxxiii. 15, 16, is a text, as interpreted by the Jews, which assigns to the Messiah the title of Jehovah, and which is put out of doubt by Jer. xxiii, 6, which the Jews say also, proves the Messiah to be Jehovah, The passages from the Rabbins where this is distinctly declared, are quoted at length, in the original, by Pearson, p. 149, to which Mr, R, would do himself no harm by referring, that is, if truth be his object.

(7.) No doubt, "the man Moses was meek:" but the words man Moses, as I wrote them do not imply what Mr. R. means. Had I put "the" in italics, they might. The fact is, I wrote the review in bed suffering under blisters and excruciating illness, and did not, as I ought, put man Moses between brackets, or in some such way mark the sense so as not to be mistaken, But I repeat "man Moses" and "man John" do not occur, so used, in the Bible: I quoted the Greek text, and if Mr. R. will turn to it, he will see there is no article before "man Christ Jesus" 1 Tim. ii. 5, but in the Septuagint version, Numb, xii. 3, there is an article, "ho," prefixed to "anthropos," This makes all the' difference. The words "the man Moses," designate a given individual out of "countless multitudes" of the same race; the same as "the man Rowntree" would, out of "countless multitudes" of his race; but the phrase "MAN CHRIST JESUS," de signates the office of a solitary individual. Mr. R.'s joy 66 yes, there is," is that of a child finding a bird's nest: only, he finds instead, a mare's nest, and, unfortunately, with all the eggs addled!

(8.) "WE recommend a re-perusal of Acts vii. 38." Mr. R. may assure us, "it is Moses and NOT Christ who is spoken "of by St. Stephen!" But I can assure Mr. R. BOTH are spoken of. "This is he which was in the wilderness with THE ANGEL (JEHOVAH) who spake with him.”

66

will tell us next, ONE and ONE do NOT make Two.

Mr. R.

(9.) The remarks about servant I have mentioned elsewhere (p. 26 note).

(10.) I come now to Mr. R.'s Greek again,

In John i. 3, the verb (GINOMAI) IS NEVER USED IN "THE NEW TESTAMENT in the sense to create, and it occurs "more than 700 times" (p. 16).

66

"John i. 10, the word (GINOMAI) is NEVER USED in the sense to create" (p. 17). Why, this repetition? because the same repetition occurs in Belsham: he says, "the verb ginomai must be strained to a sense different from that in "which it is understood in any other passage of the New Tes

66

"tament, though it occurs there upwards of 700 times," (p. 296)—" secondly, because the verb ginomai NEVER sigNIFIES TO CREATE" (p. 37). And this is repeated in the Improved Version (in loc.) word for word. Dr. Smith, quoting numerous examples from the New Testament, has already pointed out (vol. 2,p. 523) that, either these assertions of Mr. Belsham arise from ignorance of Greek, or they are employed to deceive those who are ignorant; for, as he properly observes, if ginomai does not mean "TO CREATE, certainly means TO BE CREATED; and, therefore, denying the active sense, (and saying nothing of the middle or passive) is either the proof of ignorance, or what is worse, insincerity.

99

it

But these identical assertions of Belsham have been actually refuted; and Mr. Rowntree is perfectly welcome to the benefit of the lesson his master on that occasion received.

"It is worthy of observation, how much these annotators in"crease in boldness of assertion, as they advance," says the author of a criticism of the Improved Version,' (Q, R. i.332) ;

at first, they are content to affirm, that Ginomai never bears "this signification in the New Testament, but afterwards "roundly assure us, that it NO WHERE admits of this sense.' He then points out a passage in Justin Martyr, who says, "di "ou ouranos kai ge kai pasa egeneto ktisis. By whom hea66 ven, and earth, and the whole creation (every creature) was "made." In the Septuagint, Gen. i. 3, phos egeneto is used for and there was light.' How light was, without having been made, none but the illuminati can discover. But, to crown all, the very verb Ginomai occurs in Heb, xi, 3, in the very sense of Creation. And Waterland (Sermons, p. 48) quotes Justin Martyr, Dial. p. 331.-Athenagoras, p. 38.-Tertullian Contra Prax. p. 504.-Irenæus, p. 315.-Novatian, ch, 13, to shew that these fathers, who lived in the very time of the pretended first Unitarians, actually inferred from these passages of St. John, [Panta di' autou egeneto,' and 'Ho'kosmos di' auto egeneto,] that Christ was the CREATOR,

Mr. Belsham, with an assurance altogether his own, (Calm Enquiry p. 32 note 12) says, that this rendering, "all things "were made by him" and "the world was made by him," has "perhaps more than any thing contributed to establish in the "minds of the UNLEARNED the Trinitarian or Arian hypothesis concerning our Saviour, viz. that he was the Crea"tor and Former of the material universe." The UNLEARNED in this case are Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenæus, &c. who

66

denied the doctrines Mr. R. traces up to the unlearned coeval with the Apostles (see above, p. 20). Mr. B. considers, it seems, ALL unlearned, but himself. But I will believe the "unlearned" Fathers, before the learned Father Belsham. A friend reminds me, that Coleridge, in his Aids to Reflection, p. 18, has the following passage, which I transcribe, to shew, that the unlearned in Greek must include Aristophanes, "the Reviewer of Athens." "The Greek word egeneto "unites in itself the two senses of began to exist, and was "made to exist. It exemplifies the force of the middle voice, "in distinction from the verb reflex. In answer to a note, in "John i. 2, in the Unitarian Version of the New Testament, "I think it worth noticing, that the same word is used in the very same sense, by Aristophanes, in that famous parody the Cosmogonies of the Mythic poets, or the creation of "the finite, in the comedy of the Birds.

66

66

66

on

Nor can any one who knows the definition Aristotle gives of Kosmos, viz., the system of the visible creation, heaven and earth, &c., doubt the doctrine.

Having shewn, that the objections to this text, are untenable (for the possibility of Ginomai, meaning to be created, is sufficient in one of even 700 instances,)-here we may rest our defence, that the Unitarian hypothesis, viz., that Christ was NOT GOD, is contradictory to the Scriptures.

But, again, under John i. 10, Mr. R. says, "the word (DIA) "with a genitive case, MAY also express a final cause." If I understand this criticism aright, it means, that di' autou ought to be rendered not BY HIM, but "with a view to him." Now, Matthiæ tells us, dia, with a genitive, signifies through, i. e., by means of, with the assistance of, PER, e. g. di' eautou, by himself, without external aid," (Gr. Gr. vol. 2, p. 889, 2 580, b. & p. 565, Obs. 1), and that when it stands "with an accusative case, then, it signifies on account of, as the Latin propter" (p. 890-2). But, as Matthia is only one of the first authorities in Greek, Mr. R., of course, will not think much of his criticisms. So let us go to Belsham again, who, for once in his life, Mr. R. would be gladly quit of. Mr. B. is criticising Heb. i. 2, one of our disputed texts (See No. 1.) The passage there, is," di ou kai tous aionas epoieesen" ("by whom also he made the worlds"). Mr. B. objects to the by whom,' saying, it ought to be for whom, or with a view to whom," &c., because "it is contrary to the usual con

L