"God." Again, Part of the complex idea "which goes with the word God, is, that his ha"bitation is sublime, and his dwelling not with "the flesh, Dan. ii. 11; this part of the idea is "applicable to angels or to saints, and therefore "they may thus far be reputed Gods, and are "sometimes so styled in Scripture, or in ecclesi"astical writers. Another part of the complex ❝ idea of God is giving orders from above and pub"lishing commands from heaven; this was in some "sense applicable to Moses, who is therefore called "a God unto Pharaoh, not as being properly God, " but instead of God in that instance or in that "resembling circumstance.-Dominion goes along "with the idea of God, or is a part of it, and "therefore kings, princes, or magistrates, resem"bling God in that respect, may, by like figure "of speech, be called Gods; not properly, but

by way of allusion, and in regard to some im"perfect resemblance which they bear to God, in "some particular respects, and this is all." He afterwards says, "The Scripture notion of God, "is, A sovereign Ruler, an ALMIGHTY Protector, 66 an OMNISCIENT and OMNIPRESENT Governor ; "an ETERNAL, IMMUTABLE, ALL-SUFFICIENT "CREATOR, Preserver, and Protector. Whatever "falls short of this is not properly, in the Scrip"ture notion, God; but is only so called by way "of figure, as before explained."

In all this I most cordially agree; and as the Scriptures expressly assert that Jesus is not OM

See above p. 107-109.

NISCIENT, and that he is not ALMIGHTY, and as they also afford no adequate proof that he is omnipresent, eternal, or immutable P, I maintain that he is not properly, in the Scripture notion, God," and that his being called God only proves that he was "instead of God in" some "instance or in" some "resembling circumstance."-In the particular passage under consideration, it seems to me perfectly evident that the Apostle, who speaks of him as the Word of God, (that is, the Declarer of His will,) calls him God for the very same reason for which Moses is so denominated by God himself, because he was the Representative of God, authorized by Him to declare His will.

13.] John x. 33. Because thou, being a Man, makest thyself God.'-On this unfounded charge of blasphemy, unfounded both as to fact and as to the inference from the supposed fact, see p. 3.

14.] John xx. 28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.'-If Thomas not only spoke these words in reply to Jesus, but also called him his Lord and his God, it still remains to be considered in what sense the Apostle applied this appellation to his risen Lord. I regard myself as authorized by scriptural evidence to assert, that in the mouth of a Jewish disciple, (unless it can be shown from other considerations that he believed Jesus to be really and properly God,) these words imply no more, than that he

PI shall show in the third section of this chapter, that the very small number of passages from which it is inferred that these attributes were possessed by our Saviour, prove no such thing.

was now convinced of his divine authority. That this was all that Thomas could mean, I think evident for the following reasons: 1. Before our Lord's resurrection, it is clear from the whole tenor of the Gospels, that the disciples knew nothing of any superior nature being possessed by Jesus 2. His resurrection proved nothing more than had been proved by his miracles, &c. viz. that he was the Son of God: 3. Thomas's incredulity respected the fact of the resurrection, and this only (see vs. 25. 27.): 4. The circumstances in which Thomas thus addressed Jesus, must have convinced him that Jesus was really a man, had he doubted on that head before: 5. The supernatural knowledge which Jesus manifested on this occasion, and which must have forcibly struck the mind of his unbelieving disciple, he had manifested on several occasions, during his public ministry, without leading his disciples to the inference that he was properly God.-From these considerations, in connexion with what has been observed respecting the scriptural use of the appellation God, I infer, that Thomas, (if he applied the appellation to Jesus,) could mean no more, than that Jesus had in truth spoken and acted with the authority of God, that he now no longer doubted that he came from God as if he had said, "I again own thee as my Master; I again acknowledge that in truth thou camest forth from God, and spakest the words of God." See John x. 35.

15.] Acts xx. 28. To feed the Church" of

See No. 12, and p. 62. note (h), and p. 72.

God" which he hath purchased with his own blood.'-Luke certainly wrote of the Lord.' Griesbach unhesitatingly rejects Deco of God, and reads Tou xupiou of the Lord; and says, that on the evidence for the latter reading, he could not do otherwise.

Rom. ix. 5, has been already considered in No. 5. 16.] 1 Tim. iii. 16. "God" was manifested in the flesh.'-In this text, the word eos, in all probability, did not come from the pen of the Apostle, who wrote either is he who, or, which referring

The Eclectic Reviewers (March, 1809) whose opinion cannot be supposed to be warped by Unitarianism (except indeed from it,) after a summary of the evidence, say, “On "seriously weighing all the evidence, every impartial mind, "we conceive, will admit that the last," viz. the Lord, "has "the fairest claim to acceptance as the genuine reading."

The Eclectic Reviewers, though they admit is to be the genuine reading, consider this rendering of it as unauthorized; and following Cramer, refer the relative to do in vs. 15, thus; "Which is the church of the living GOD (the pillar and sup66 port of the truth, and confessedly great, is the mystery of godliness) who was manifested," &c. A writer in the Christian Observer (June, 1809) speaks of this parenthetical rendering as harsh: if any one however choose to adopt it, because it supports (in appearance) the doctrine of incarnation, thus far may be allowed him, that it is a practicable rendering; but it cannot be allowed that it is in any degree unjustifiable to render is be who. It is perfectly accordant with the idiom of the N. T. as the following passages (adduced by Primitivus in the Monthly Repository, June, 1809,) abundantly prove: John iii. 34. Ov yag ameseider & Deos, for HE WHOM God hath sent; Rom. xv. 21. Οἷς ουκ αναγγελη περι αυτου οψονται και οἱ ουκ ακηκοασι συνήσουσι, THEY to WHOM he was not spoken of shall see; and THEY WHO have not heard shall understand; 1 John iv. 6. Ος ουκ έσιν εκ του θεου ουκ ακουει ήμων, HE WHO is not of God heareth not us-I bear a willing testimony to the abilities often displayed in the critique on the Improved Version in the Eclectic Review; I consider the Author of it as having rendered, by his arguments and statements respect

jects 5 from the text, and reads ¿s, maintaining that this change is required by those laws of criticism by which he had formed his text, and which had been approved by the most learned critics.Upon Griesbach's reading, the passage may be thus interpreted. "Confessedly great is the mystery of

ing the common text and version, an important service to the cause of scriptura! knowledge, the mo e useful because out of the reach of suspicion; and I trust that what he has said will greatly contribute to remove from the minds of persons of his own sentiments those widely prevalent prejudices respecting the common text and version which are almost as injurious as they are unfounded: but I must add, that in several instances he has totally forgotten the impartiality of the critic, in his zeal for his own theological system, and, without adequare examination, has given an unjust verdict. The present passage affords full proof of this. He asserts that the passages adduced by Archb. Newcome, in justification of the rendering he who was manifested,' are irrelevant, because, in them, is is followed by a particle, as rɛ, ye, dn, av, gag, which it is not in 1 Tim iii. 16. These passages are Mark iv. 25. Luke viii. 18. Rom. viii. 32; and in the first is occurs twice in the sense ascribed to it, without a particle, xas is oux sxe xæs δ έχει αρθήσεται απ' αυτού, And HE WHO hath not, even THAT WHICH he hath shall be taken from him. The Critic may indeed have been misled by the 'Os yag av sxy at the beginning of the verse; but a person more anxious about truth than about system, would have read the whole. The fact is, that is used like the qui of the Romans, though less frequently, without an antecedent; and as to those cases in which it is followed by a particle, unless that particle affects the sense of the relative, (as it is admitted that av does,) they are just as much in point as those in which it is alone.-Some of those who have not access to the Monthly Repository, will perhaps be glad to have the following unexceptionable instances noted, in which is used (either in the masculine or in the neuter) without an antecedent. Mark. ix. 40. xiii. 37. xiv. 8. John i. 46. iv. 18. Rom. ii, 23. vii. 15. viii. 24. (also 29.) I Cor. X. 20. 2 Cor. xi. 17; and if any peruse the original with a view to this question, they will find many more.