presumed to be in the hands of every scholar attentive to the grounds of his faith. His ample Note leaves little to be desired: but for the sake of the most numerous and not less respectable class of readers, who have not had the opportunity of pursuing critical studies, it may be right to abstract the chief heads of the question.

The variations of copies in the principal clause of this passage are these: 1. The church of God. 2. - of Christ. of the Lord God. 4. of the God and Lord. 5.

3.

of the Lord and God. 6. of the Lord.

1. Church of God. In addition to the celebrated Vatican MS. which will presently be mentioned, this is the reading of seven Greek manuscripts certain, and of about ten more, as is inferred with probability from the silence of those who have collated them. Of these the majority are notorious for inaccuracies and unauthorized alterations, and none possess an antiquity earlier than the eleventh century: their authority is, of course, very little; or, more accurately speaking, it is none at all, except so far as they are the transcripts of more ancient books. To these observations, however, an important exception must be made. The MS. No. 1209, in the papal library, written in the 5th or 6th century, and usually called by way of eminence the Vatican Manuscript, has this reading. But so few protestants have been permitted to examine this valuable copy, that our information concerning it is by no means sufficient to rest a satisfactory opinion upon. Some maintain that EOT is the production of a later hand, and that evidence is discernible of an obliterated word KTPIOT Lord, underneath. Heinrichs in Acta Apost. vol. ii. p. 400: his authority is Gabler's Neu Theologisch Journal, 1799, vol. iv. p. 409. Of Versions, this is the reading of the Philoxenian Syriac, which was made at the beginning of the sixth century; but Lord is put in the margin: and of the Latin Vulgate, as it now exists, but some of the more ancient manuscripts of that version have Lord. It appears also in Epiphanius and Ambrose, both of whom lived at the close of the fourth century; and in some of the later fathers.

2. Church of Christ. This is the reading of the old Syriac, of which however, one MS. is affirmed by Adler to have God; but he has not said what or where this MS. is. Possibly his

mind may have been misled by the recollection of the Philoxenian or he may refer to a Lectionary, books of which kind are more liable than others to alterations by officiating ministers and transcribers. It is found also in the Arabic published by Erpenius, which is a translation from the Syriac. Origen, probably (for the allusion is ambiguous,) and two or three later fathers, seem to countenance this reading.

3. Church of the Lord God. One manuscript of the twelfth century; and the Arabic of Walton's Polyglott, which is not probably older than the thirteenth century.

4. Church of the God and Lord. One manuscript, transcribed in the 16th century from one written in 1293.

5. Church of the Lord and God. One manuscript in capital letters (a mark of antiquity), attributed to the ninth century; and forty-six of lower dates. The Sclavonic Version, made in the ninth century. None of the fathers.

6. Church of the Lord. Of manuscripts, all the most ancient, the most valuable, and those derived from different and independent sources; viz. the Alexandrian of the fourth and sixth century; the Ephrem, of the seventh, at the lowest, but probably much older; the Cambridge or Beza's, of the fifth or sixth, and Archbishop Laud's, designated by Mill No. 3, of the seventh or eighth century. Besides this remarkable consent of all the chief authorities, six of the junior class of Greek manuscripts belonging to the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, have this reading. Of Versions, the Coptic-Memphitic, probably of the third century, the Coptic-Sahidic, believed to be of equal if not greater antiquity; the Armenian, made A.D. 410; and the old Italic or Latin, as in the Cambridge manuscript, and as published by Sabatier. The Æthiopic, of the fourth cent. has been pleaded for the common reading; but its evidence is indecisive, as the same word is used for both Lord and God. Of the Fathers, this reading is supported by Irenæus, the author of the work called the Apostolic Constitutions, Eusebius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, and many others.

A passage in Athanasius seems to shew that the present common reading was unknown to him. Οὐδαμοῦ δὲ αἷμα Θεοῦ Είχα σαρκὸς παραδεδώκασιν αἱ γραφαί, ἢ Θεὸν διὰ σαρκὸς παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα Αρειανῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα τολμήματα. "The scriptures have

nowhere given the expression, blood of God, as separate from the flesh [i. e. the human nature,] or that God through the flesh suffered and rose again: such expressions are the daring attempts of Arians." Contra Apollinarium, lib. ii. sect. 14. Op. ed. Par. 1698, vol. i. pag. 951.

The preponderance of evidence appears to be in favour of the last reading, “the church of the Lord." The second was probably a designed explication. The first might arise from the involuntary association, in the mind of a transcriber, with the phrase which occurs several times in the N. T. the church of God: and when once a copy with this reading, the mode of the origination of which would of course be unknown, had attracted notice, a feeling of predilection would be likely to be excited, especially in the possessor of a fair and very costly manuscript, and the reading would be supported by ingenious reasons. The third, fourth and fifth would be produced by copyists who wished to combine two readings; a process which though sadly uncritical, was by no means unexampled. Thus, on the admission of the last, which a fair estimation of the evidence really obliges us to do, all the others can be accounted for, by suppositions easy and probable in themselves, and known to have been realized in numerous instances. But admitting the first to have been the original reading, it is impossible to account for the second and sixth without violent and improbable suppositions. In particular, it is impossible to imagine, if eo were the primitive reading, that Kupiou should have been introduced into the most ancient and independently derived authorities, recollecting, however, the perplexing exception of the Vatican; and yet that the Fathers of the first four centuries, and every document of Ecclesiastical History, should have been silent upon so signal an innovation.

CHAP. II.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLE JOHN.

SECT. I.

THE INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.

I. The term WORD, a personal appellative.-Probable motive of its being used by the evangelist.-II. Sense of the phrase "in the beginning." -Reasons why it cannot be referred to the commencement of the gospel-dispensation.-Examination of 1 ep. John i. 1-3.-J1I. What union with God is attributed to the Word.-IV. Investigation of the meaning of the phrase, "The Word was God."-Conjecture of Samuel Crellius.-Mr. Cappe's interpretation examined.-The Calm Inquirer's examined.-V. i. Sense of the term "all things."-Reasons against the Unitarian interpretation, and in favour of that generally received.ii. Force of the preposition.-iii. On the sense and use of yivoual. Examination of the Calm Inquirer's assertions.-Comment upon the passage by a philosophic heathen.-VI. The "life," attributed to the Messiah.-VII. His office in the bestowment of divine blessings.-VIII. Meaning of the term "the world:" and the relations and actions of Christ with respect to it.-IX. Assumption of humanity.-Signification of the term "Only-begotten."-His "glory."-X. The Messiah's sole and perfect knowledge of the divine will.-Griesbach's opinion upon the argument from this passage.

"In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

"This [Word] was in the beginning with God.

"All things were by him brought into existence; and without him not one thing was brought into existence that has been brought into existence. Life was in him, and the life was the light of men: the light also shineth in the darkness, though the darkness did not receive it.

"A man was raised up, sent forth from God: his name, John.

This [person] came for the purpose of a testimony, that he might bear his testimony concerning the light, that all may believe through him. He himself was not the light; but [he was] in order that he might bear testimony concerning the light. The light, the true [light], was that which, coming into the world, enlighteneth every man. He was in the world, and the world was brought into existence by him: yet the world did not acknowledge him. He came to his own possessions : yet his own servants received him not: but to those, whosoever [they were that] did receive him, he gave right to become children of God, [as they are those] who believe on his name ; who are born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

"The Word even became flesh: and, full of grace and truth, he made his tabernacle among us; so that we beheld his glory, the glory certainly of the Only-begotten from the Father.

"John bare testimony concerning him, and publicly declared, saying, This is he of whom I said, He that is coming after me was brought into existence before me; assuredly he was prior

to me.

Also, out of his fulness we all have received, even grace upon grace.

"The law indeed has been given through Moses: the grace and the truth were brought through Jesus Christ. No one hath ever beheld God. The Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath fully explained [the divine doctrine.]" John i. 1—18.*

THE Gospel of John is distinguished, by very observable characters, from the compositions of

* The diction of John being more Hebraized than that of any other New Testament writer, I have thought it necessary to use more liberty in translating: but the reader, who has carefully studied the sacred idioms, will perceive that, where the deviation from a verbal rendering seems greatest, it is in order to produce a closer adherence to the sense.

Kat is rendered with some diversity; also, even, though, yet,