EXAMPLE, I. ACTS XX. 28.

[...].

The warning of the apostle Paul to the presby­ters of the church of Ephesus, which is thus ren­dered in the common english version, ‘Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you over­seers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.’

In the Alexandrian MS. and a few other MSS. instead of [...], which is the most general reading, the word [...] is substituted; but many old MSS. have both words, [...], whereby the text is brought within the construction of the 1st rule, [Page 22]and should be rendered,—"To feed the church of the Lord, even of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Though there is no word in the Greek to cor­respond with this word "even," so as that it might be deemed a literal rendering, yet this english word is frequently used by our translators to ex­press the identity of person, when a copulative, in the greek text, joins a second substantive (i. e. of personal description without an article,) to the former substantive, preceded by an article, agree­able to the first rule, as in Romans, xv. 6. [...] and I. Cor. xv. 24. [...]. both of which are rendered,—"God, even the father," (in­stead of the literal rendering the God and father) that the identity of person may be the more obvious. See also II. Cor. i. 3. [...]. This sentence contains two succes­sive examples of the first rule, and is rendered ‘Bles­sed be God, even the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the father of mercies, and the God of all comfort’ See also James iii. 9. [...] I. Thess. iii. 13. [...]. II. Thess. ii. 16. [...]. Besides these six examples, where­in the word even, in the english version, expresses the the copulative, there are also 13^* other examples of [Page 23]the first rule, in the New Testament: i. e. altoge­ther 19 examples, respecting our heavenly father alone; and therefore the 9 examples of the same mode of expression, produced in this and the fol­lowing pages, respecting the son, and holy spirit, ought certainly to be rendered in a sense suitable to the same uniform rule of construction, to ex­press the identity of persons, because the same mode of grammatical expression is used in them all.

EXAMPLE, No. II. EPHESIANS, v. 5.

— [...]

In the common english version the sentence is rendered "no whoremonger &c." hath any inheri­tance in the kingdom of Christ, and of God. As if two persons had been mentioned in the original text; but as the part of the sentence, above cited, is the generally approved reading of the printed greek copies, and as this reading is confirmed by the Alexandrian MS. and by all other greek MSS. of known authority, it affords an unquestionable proof against the apostacy of the Socinians in their denial of divine honour to our Lord the Christ, or Messiah, who, according to the idiom of the greek Tongue, is in this text expressly entitled [...], "GOD," though the proof does not appear in the english version. Let it be remarked that the two substan­tives [Page 24]of personal description [...] and [...] are joined by the copulative [...], and that the article [...] pre­ceeds the first, and that there is no article before the word [...], whereby, according to the first rule, both titles are necessarily to be applied to one and the same person, and (if literally rendered in eng­lish) should be—"hath not inheritance in the king­of the Christ and God." But this literal rendering does not sufficiently express the necessary doctrine of the greek, that the Christ is also God, and there­fore, to help the english idiom, and to accommodate the rendering more strictly to the true meaning of the greek, the name of Jesu, which is necessary to be understood, might very fairly be inserted in italies, or between hooks, to supply the necessary sense of the greek;—as "in the kingdom of (Jesus) the Christ and God:" or else to be rendered —"in the kingdom of Christ (even) of God"— as recommended in the first example.

EXAMPLE, III. PHILIPIANS iii. 3.

[...].

This is rendered in our common version,—‘For we are the circumcision, which worship God IN the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.’

In the London Polyglott, and many other valu­able [Page 25]editions, the reading is [...], but in the Alexandrian MS. it is [...], which seems to be the true reading; because the other is so unusual an expression, that the generality of translators have forced a construction, which the context itself cannot fairly bear, even if the da­tive case, [...], was admitted to be the true reading, unless another word, the preposition [...], be also added to it before [...], as in John iv. 23. and Rom. viii. 9. where the sense, which they have ap­plied to this text, was really intended; but, without this addition, (as we may fairly judge by those ex­amples) the literal rendering ought to be, ‘We are the circumcision, who worship the spirit God.’ Whereas they have commonly rendered it as if the preposition [...] was really inserted in this text before the dative [...], as in the two examples before cited, viz. "Qui spiritu servimus dec." or ‘Qui spi­ritu colimus Deum’ or as in the Syriac version "Qui deo servimus in spiritu." (fyr.) or as in the common english version, ‘Which worship God in the spirit.’ But there is no such preposition in the greek. The difficulty therefore of rendering the common reading ( [...]) without supposing this addition of EN to be understood before [...], proves that the reading of the Alexandrian MS. in this text is really to be prefered, [...] ^* [Page 26] [...] "who worship the spirit of God," whereby the apostle and Timothy, as an example to the church at Philippi, assert their profession that they pay divine honour to the spirit of God, and that they glory in Christ.

EXAMPLE, IV. 11. THESS. i. 12.

[...].

This, in the common english version, is render­ed (very erroneously) as if two distinct persons were mentioned, viz. "according to the grace of our God, and the Lord Jesus Christ." But if two distinct persons had really been intended to be expressed as (by innumerable examples of the grammatical construction of sentences for the accurate distinc­tion of persons peculiar to the greek tongue, used in the greek testament, from which the preceeding rules were formed) may be demonstrated, the arti­cle would have been repeated (according to the sixth rule) after the copulative and before the se­cond substantive [...]. For it is manifest that the [Page 27]insertion of the comma, in some greek copies, after [...], is a modern interpolation; because the expe­dient of breaking sentences into small divisions or particles by commas, to preserve the necessary dis­tinctions, was not anciently used (nor likely to have been used) by the ancient writers of the greek tongue, who were accustomed to much more accurate distinctions in their various pecu­liar modes of grammatical expression, specified in the six preceding rules.

Whole sentences are, indeed, distinguished in the oldest greek MSS. by a single point placed at their end, sometimes towards the top of the line, sometimes in the middle, and sometimes towards the bottom; but apparently no distinction of time has been intended by any of these three different modes of placing the point, for they are all placed indiscriminately to the most obvious and full ter­mination of sentences; and therefore we may be assured that, in all these three different modes of placing them, they were originally intended only as periods to conclude the sentences; so that when we find them in the place of commas, to distinguish merely the parts or particles of a sentence, there is great reason to suspect that they have been the ad­ditions of later times.

In the Alexandrian MS. the text before us is awkwardly divided by one of these points, placed after the word [...], which point, for the reason [Page 28]before given, must necessarily be deemed a period, and which did not exist in the original text of the sacred penman.

The intention of the transcriber or interpolator by adding this point to the text (for it cannot justly be attributed to the original writer) has been probably to make a distinction of persons; as if two persons had been named in the text instead of one, in like manner as the comma is added after the word God, in the english version, without any authority.

But the necessary grammatical construction of the whole sentence taken together detects the in­terpolator, and demonstrates the absurdity of sup­posing, that any such point ever existed in the ori­ginal text, because the words, which are severed by the supposititious period, cannot form a grammati­cal sentence (according to the ordinary modes of expression used in the greek tongue) by themselves alone; so that the obvious sense of the context demonstrates their necessary connection with the preceding words in one entire sentence; and de­monstrates also, at the same time, the ignorance and fallacy of the interpolator, who attempted to make two sentences of it by inserting a full period.

If literally rendered, it ought to be—‘according to the grace of the God and Lord of us Jesus Christ;’ but, more in the idiom of our own language, it might be justly rendered, ‘according to the grace of [Page 29]Jesus Christ our God and Lord.’ In either way the necessary doctrine of our Lord's divine nature, manifestly intended to be expressed in the original, is duly retained in the proposed version.

EXAMPLE, V. 1. TIM. V. 21.

[...]. &c.

This, in the common english version, is rendered —‘I charge (thee) before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things, &c.’

The word [...] is omitted in the Alexandrian MS. which, however, agrees in every other parti­cular; for no points whatever are inserted between the substantives; so that we have the testimony even of this MS. for a clear declaration that Jesus is God, as well as Lord; and after the next copu­lative, which connects the mention of different Persons according to the sixth rule, the adverb [...] (before) though not expressly repeated is plainly to be understood, as—'I charge' (thee) 'before the God and Lord' "Jesus" (or rather 'before Jesus the God and Lord, and' (before) ‘the elect angels, that thou observe these things.’ Thus far the testimony of the Alexandrian MS. But, accord­ing to the commonly received text of the greek, it ought to be rendered, in the english idiom,—‘I charge (thee) before Jesus Christ the GOD and LORD, and’ (before) the elect angels, &c.

EXAMPLE, VI. 11. TIM. iv. 1.

[...] &c.

In the common english version this is rendered ‘I charge (thee) therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead, &c.’

In the greek of this text, as it is commonly printed, the article [...] is repeated before [...], which, so far, affords an excuse for the present english version in placing the comma after the word God, to denote two distinct persons, according to the sixth rule; but in the Alexandrian MS. and several other old copies the article [...] is not repeated after the copulative before [...], so that the expression is exactly similar to the declaration of our Lord's divine nature by the same apostle in the preced­ing example, viz. I. Tim. v. 21. In some printed editions the word [...] is also omitted, but in the Geneva edition of 1620, with Scaliger's Notes, the word [...] is inserted, and the article [...] omitted, whereby the title [...] (God) must necessarily be construed in such a manner that it may be clearly understood in all versions to be expressly applied to Christ, as it really is in the original. The tran­scriber or interpolator of the Alexandrian MS. however, being aware of this doctrine, has endea­voured to pervert it, by adding a full period after [Page 31]the word [...] as [...]. But this period is unquestionably supposititious, because the words before and after the period are not two distinct sentences, but obviously, portions only of one entire sentence, which must ne­cessarily be construed together, according to the ordinary rules of expression in the greek tongue, as I have remarked on a preceding example, whereby a second substantive of personal descrip­tion, without an article before it, joined by a copu­lative to a preceding substantive of the like na­ture, and in the same case, with an article before it, must necessarily denote a farther description of the same person, expressed by the first substantive, (whenever there is an article before the first sub­stantive and none before the second) so that the insertion of the period in the Alexandrian MS. af­ter [...] is utterly vain, because the copulative suffici­ently proves the connection of the two substantives in one clear sentence, and the omission of the article before the second substantive induces the necessity of applying the same grammatical construction whereby alone the due distinction of persons is so peculiarly maintained in the greek tongue, and not by points. The text should therefore be rendered, —‘I charge (thee) therefore, before the God and Lord Jesus Christ, &c.’ or rather (to render the doctrine more obvious in the english idiom)—‘I charge (thee) therefore, before Jesus Christ the God and Lord, who shall judge the quick and [Page 32]the dead, &c.’ And thus the texts in the two last examples will perfectly accord as the uniform ex­pressions of the same apostle, asserting, in both, the divinity of his Lord and Saviour, by whom he had been personally summoned to bear his testimony to the gentiles, as being an eye and ear witness of his glorious majesty.

Our Socinian Sadducees, who have impiously en­tituled our Lord "a mere man," and "nothing but a man," and simple human nature, will not be able to digest this necessary doctrine, until they humble themselves to receive instructions from the holy scriptures.

EXAMPLE, VII. TIT. ii. 13.

— [...].

The present version of these words, in the eng­lish testament, is—‘Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ This text (though the next in order, according to the usual mode of arranging the books of the new testament) has al­ready been produced as the second example in the preceding letter. I have since however examined the Alexandrian MS. and find that it agrees exactly with the above citation of this text, except that a point has been added in the MS. after the word [...] [Page 33]or [...]. On which it is necessary to observe that the same remarks are obviously applicable to this super­fluous and absurd addition of the point, or period, that I have made on the texts, II. Thess. i. 12. and II. Tim. iv. 1. in the fourth and sixth examples of this tract. For as the proper effect and purposes of periods is to separate words into distinct sentences, it is obvious that the words, which follow the suppo­sititious period in this text, are incapable of a gram­matical construction without reference to the preceding words, connected by the copulative; and therefore the note of separation (a period) cannot possibly have been intended by the inspired writer. This testimony therefore of the sacred text in fa­vour of the necessary doctrine of our Lord's divine nature ought not to be withheld from the mere en­glish reader.

I am persuaded that our modern Socinians would not have made so much clamour about the necessity of a new translation, had they been aware that a more close and literal rendering of the ori­ginal text (even in passages which had escaped their calumnious charges of corruption, and their arrogant attempts at imaginary correction) must necessarily cut up their favourite system by the roots.

The text in question, if the truth of the original be duly regarded, must inevitably be rendered, ‘Expecting the blessed hope and appearance of the [Page 34]glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.’

EXAMPLE, VIII. II. PET. i. 1.

— [...].

Which in the common english version, is thus imperfectly rendered,—‘through the righteousness of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’

This text, though the eighth in order, according to the proper order of the books, was the first ex­ample cited in my letter; and I have only to re­mark farther, that the Alexandrian MS. perfectly agrees with the present common approved reading of the greek text. In Dr Woide's printed copy of the said MS. there is a point inserted after the word [...], which is not in the MS. but that is manifestly a merely accidental typographical er­ror.

The Rev. Mr Cruttwell has remarked (in his useful edition of the english bible with Bishop Wilson's notes) that the words rendered in our present version, viz.—‘of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ’ were rendered—‘of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’ in the versions of Wiclif, Cover­dale, Mathews, Cranmer, in the Bishops (bible) (the) Geneva, (the) Rhemish, (bibles) and by Dod­dridge, Westley, Scattergood, and Purver; which is altogether a noble testimony of both ancient and modern times against the Socinian impiety. The eng­lish [Page 35]reader should undoubtedly be informed of the true meaning of these words in a proper english idiom, as,—‘Through the righteousness of Jesus Christ our God and Saviour:’—which is agreeable to a literal rendering into latin by the late learned Dr Thomas Mangey, prebendary of Durham, viz. —"Jesu Christi Dei et servatoris nostri."

EXAMPLE, IX. JUDE, iv.

— [...].

This, in the common english version, is imper­fectly rendered,—‘and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’

I made a transcript of this text, several years ago, from the Alexandrian MS. which I copied or ra­ther drew, letter by letter, in size and shape as exactly as the eye could discern. In this transcript the word [...] is omitted, as in the MS. but I did not, at that time, perceive that there was any point or mark after the word [...], and I was there­fore, much surprized, afterwards, in comparing the said transcript, with the elegant edition of my late very worthy and respectable friend the Rev. Dr Woide (who printed a copy of the new testa­ment from the Alexandrian MS. with new types in imitation of the letters of the MS.) to find that he had inserted a point, in his new edition, after the [Page 36]word [...]. I was very consident that I could not discern any such point, when I examined the MS. and yet, as I entertained the highest respect and esteem for the veracity and accuracy of Dr Woide (of which he was, indeed, truly worthy) it was necessary to have this matter properly ex­plained; and I was rendered perfectly aware by Dr Velthusen's account of his examining an an­cient MS. that the feint lines and marks in the very old MSS. are liable to bear different appear­ances, according to the different degrees of light in which they are seen.

I therefore took the first opportunity, afterwards, of going once more to examine the MS. and on a more close inspection, I perceived, indeed, the feint mark which occasioned Dr Woide's insertion of the period, in his edition; but being afterwards assisted by the worthy librarian the Rev. Mr Har­per, in a still more attentive and accurate exami­nation of the mark with a magnifying glass, I was satisfied that it had not been intended for a period, but only for a short line of connection, because it is nearly three times as long as it is broad.

But if any person, from the authority of Dr Woide's edition, should be still inclined to suppose that it is really a point, I must request them care­fully to consider what I have before remarked on the fourth, sixth and seventh examples in this tract, respecting the addition of points in greek manu­icripts; [Page 37]and also, concerning the more accurate modes of Grammatical distinction in the greek tongue, which rendered the smalier points, or par­ticles of time (such as semicolons and commas) abso­lutely unnecessary in the greek scripture; and, in addition thereto, let him observe, particularly on the text before us, that a point in that place, after [...] (in the middle of the sentence, between the accusative noun and verb) is utterly inconsutent with grammar and common sense; and though the word [...], has been omitted in the Alexandrian MS. (perhaps for the same reason that some men would wish to prove the insertion of the point after [...]) yet, happily, neither of these altera­tions would at all affect, or injure the manifest testimony of the apostle Jude, to Christ's almighty power and divinity, for—‘the only potentate and Lord of us Jesus Christ,’ is equivalent to a full declaration of Christ's Divinity, as well as of his almighty power; and with respect to the insertion of the supposed point, they must perceive, if they duly consider the text, that the words [...] and [...] cannot (consistently with the necessary gram­matical sense of the greek, and the usual modes of expression, or idiom of that language) be separated either by points or construction, so as to be applied to two different persons, because the article is not repeated after the copulative, before [...]: so that Christ alone, was unquestionably that—"only poten­tate," [Page 38]or sovereign Lord, who was denied by the lascivious persons, against whom the apostle Jude bore testimony of their reprobacy, and of their having denied the Lord who had redeemed them. Dr Hammond's rendering of the text before us, may, therefore, be conscientiously maintained, viz. "and our only master God and Lord Jesus Christ," making (says he)—"those three the several attri­butes of Jesus Christ." But as the doctor has been pleased to add, that—‘This interpretation proceeds upon that way of punctuation, which is ordinarily retained in our copies, there being no comma after [...],’ I am obliged to protest against that reason, for the other reasons already given; and to insist, that the grammatical construction of the greek text is, of itself, our sufficient and best warrant to justify that literal rendering.

But the applying to Christ this supreme title, —"the only potentate God" (and, also in a former text, the supreme title of—"the great God") may perhaps induce some persons to conceive that this grammatical system of construction, if admitted as a rule, for all texts, in which the same mode of expression renders it applicable, will sometimes prove rather too much, and may be liable to fa­vour a modern sect of Unitarians, who have adopt­ed the Sabellian notions of the late Baron Swe­denborg, and who assert, that—‘Jesus Christ is the only God;’ that is, they understand this in so [Page 39]peculiar a sense, that they do not seem properly to acknowledge the personality of the holy spirit, any more than a very opposite sect of Unitartans do, the modern Socinians, who impiously assert (in the opposite extreme to that the of Swedenborgians) that ‘Jesus Christ was a mere man, and nothing but a man,’ according to one of their teachers, and —"simple human nature," according to another: and some of them have even presumed to charge the members of the church of England with ido­latry, ^* because they pay the divine honour that is [Page 40]due to their Lord and Saviour; and to the holy spirit, their —"other comforter."

So that both these sects of prosessed Unitarians (as well as their Unitarian brethern, the Mahome­tans) [Page 41]are, by mistaken notions of the divine unity, seduced from perceiving and acknowledging the declarations throughout the holy scriptures of the unquestionable existence of three divine persons in one only divine nature, or Godhead. The old Ari­ans (though their sect was probably represented by that—"fallen star," which opened the—‘bottom­ess lpit,’ for the emission of the armed locusts of the Arabian heresy, more strictly Unitarians than themselves ^*) allowed, indeed, that Christ was God, [Page 42]yet they supposed him to be so, in an inferior de­gree; [Page 43]by which they unwarily acknowledged a su­perior God, and an inferior God; i. e. more Gods than one, contrary to the true Unitarian doctrine of the primitive churches, which always held and asser­ted the unity of God (like the church of England to this day) as much as they held it necessary to ac­knowledge the three divine persons; both of which doctrines are inevitable and indispensible, while we profess to regulate our faith by the testimonies of the holy scriptures, as handed down to us, with­out presuming to exercise the Socinian expedient of lopping off, or altering (as a supposed corruption or interpolation) every text of scripture that opposes the system or set of notions that we happen to have adopted: And therefore the true Unitarian christian, who acknowledges but one God,—one Jehovah,—one divine nature, ( [...]) or Godhead, and at the same time, nevertheless, is convinced, that three divine persons are really revealed to us, under the title of [Page 44] Jehovah ^* in the old testament; and under the title of [...]—or God, in the new testament; and that the supreme attributes of the DIVINE NATURE are ap­plied to each, in both testaments, will, of course, be aware also, that each of these divine persons must necessarily be—"the great God," and —‘the only potentate’ as there is but—"one God"—one only supreme power, or Godhead.

So that the effect of my grammatical rule, when applied to the two particular texts before men­tioned (viz. Tit. ii. 13. and Jude iv.) will not (in the opinion of such true christians) seem to exceed the truth. ^†

Though the apostle Paul asserted to the Colos­sians (ii. 9.) concerning Christ, that—‘in him dwel­leth ALL the fulness of the Godhead’ ( [...]) "bodily"—( [...],—a term of indisputable per­sonality) yet, surely, this was without the least dis­paragement to the supreme divinity of the almighty father, and of the holy spirit, because they are; also, necessarily included in the same [...], or Godhead, as there is but one God; and, therefore, as—‘it pleased all fuiness to dwell’ in the person of our [Page 45] Lord Jesus, (Col. i. 19) we may more easily compre­hend, why he required—"that all" (men) ‘should honour the son, EVEN AS they honour the father,’ that is, undoubtedly, with supreme honour, [...], EVEN AS, or, according as,—"they honour the father." And our Lord said expressly,—‘He that honoureth not the son’ (that is, according to the measure before declared,—"EVEN AS they honour" or ought to ho­nour, the father) ‘honoureth not the father which hath sent him,’ (John v. 23.) and he also claimed expressly to be glorified with the father himself.—"And now O father" (said he) ‘GLORIFY THOU ME WITH THINE OWNGELF, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was,’ (John xvii. 5.) thereby asserting both his pre-existence and su­preme dignity. Christians therefore, who humbly receive these, and the many other revelations of Christ's divinity, have the less difficulty in acknow­ledging the doctrines of the ancient catholic churches, and the declarations of our creeds. But let all other men likewise, who profess to believe in the name of Christ, earnestly enquire, in the first place, as the first means of progress to the true faith, whe­ther they are really "willing" (for this is given is the true proof of faith— [...]) to conform themselves to the will of God, as revealed in all the most obvious declarations and injunctions of holy scripture, and more particularly to the purity, [Page 46]which is expressly called—"the will of God" viz. the sanctification of their bodies ^* which cannot other­wise be capable of becoming—‘Temples of the holy Ghost;’ an indispensible state both of body and mind for all christians to maintain; for, in that case, they may assuredly rely on God's absolute promise, through Christ, that—‘if any one shall be WILLING to do HIS WILL he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God; or whether I speak’ (said our Lord) "from myself." (John vii. 17.)