God, was not in this text as it came from the hands of St. Paul. For the most ancient manuscripts read either o which, or os, he that: and the versions of the greatest antiquity also read o or os, as do the Fathers, for at least four or five centuries after Christ, as Sir Isaac Newton has fully shewn, in a most learned and elaborate dissertation upon this passage, from which I shall give the following extract.

"With the ancienter versions agree the writers, both Greeks and Latins. For they in all their discourses to prove the Deity of the Son, never allege this text, (as I can find,) as they would all have done; (and some of them frequently,) had they read, 'God was manifest in the flesh,' and, there fore, they read o. Tertullian (adversus praxeam) and Cyprian, (adversus Judeos,) industriously cite all the places, where Christ is called God: but have nothing of this-Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, the Bishops of the Council of Sardica, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria; and amongst the Latins, Hilary, Lucifer, Jerome, Ambrose, Austin, Phœbadius, Victorinus Afer, Faustinus Diaconus, Pope Leo the Great, Arnobius Junior, Cerealis, Vigilius Tapsensis, Fulgentius, wrote all of them in the fourth and fifth centuries, for the Deity of the Son, and incarnation of God; and some of them largely, and in several tracts; and yet I cannot find that they ever allege this text to prove it. In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy, it never came into play; though now, that those disputes are over, they, that read, God was manifest in the flesh,' think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business. The churches, therefore, of those ages, were absolute strangers to this reading. For, on the contrary, their writers, as often as they have occa sion to cite the reading then in use, discover that it was o. For though they cite it not to prove the Deity of the Son, yet, in their commentaries, and sometimes in their other discourses, they produce it, &c. ” *

In several of the Fathers, the word 0805 has been since their time inserted into the text itself in their works; but as Dr. Clark remarks, and Sir Isaac Newton has proved, it appears from the tenor of their commentaries that it was not

* Two letters of Sir Isaac Newton to Mr. Le Clerc, p. 85, 86. J. Payne, London, 1754.

originally so. Dr. Clark also observes, that," of the two passages cited to the contrary by the learned Dr. Mills, in his Appendix; that from Justin Martyr, does not prove he did, but rather that he did not, read it feos; and that from Athanasius, is out of a book acknowledged to be spurious. -And in the days of Julian, when that Emperor asserted that neither Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor Paul, ever ventured to style Christ, God; ' 'tis plain from Cyril's answer, to this assertion of Julian, that even at that time the word Jes was not found in this text." * The true reading of this place, therefore, appears to be either, Great is the mys tery of Godliness, which was manifest in the flesh,' &c. (if o is adopted ;) or, he that was manifest in the flesh,' &c. (if og is followed :) + We now proceed to the consideration of other objections.

* Dr. Clark's works, vol. 4. p. 47, 48, Lond. 1738.

+ The manuscripts which read either os, or, are the Ephrem, Clermont, Codex Augiensis, C. Boernerianus, and another. In the judg ment of Wetstein, and others, the Alexandrine manuscript also formerly read in the same manner, but has been changed into 10s by some unknown hand: but Bowyer has started some doubts on this subject. The Vulgate, both Syriac versions, the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions, also read either os, or o. On the other hand, there are upwards of fifty manuscripts, (with the Arabic version,) that read Soos. But as none of them are older than the tenth century, and some of them later, they cannot be opposed to the reading of the ancient MS. the oldest and best versions; and the unanimous consent of the primitive church for five centuries after Christ. See Wetstein, Griesbach, Dr. Clark, Dr. Benson, and Bowyer, in loco; also Sir Isaac Newton's letters, &c. quoted above.

Since the first edition of these Discourses, in 1784, the Christian world is indebted to the learned Dr. Woide, for a fac similie of the Alexandrine Manuscript. Dr. Woide has inserted Jeos in the text; and gives his judgment in favour of it. The opinion of so great a scholar is undoubtedly entitled to some regard; as well as the judgments of Grabe, Mill, Wotton, and Berriman, whom he quotes and refers to. Upon reading that part of his learned preface which relates to this subject, I found his arguments so plausible, that I had almost said; "surely, [Bos paxipwen] God was manifest' is the original reading of the Alexandrine MS. in this place." But upon re-perusing the letter of Bowyer's ingenious correspondent, which I had not looked into for some years, I found my former doubts return. This writer differs from Wetstein in some things, but does not join with those who consider eos as the true reading. I shall here give his concluding observations. "Upon the whole there is no affirming at present how this MS. read that is, whether OC or C. But upon comparing C in the same page with the word here written, I am firmly of opinion that they were never the

1 Tim. vi. 13 to 16. 'I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; that thou keep this commandment without spot unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords: who only hath immortality dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.'

It is perfectly clear and evident, from the construction of this passage, that it is the Father, and not Jesus Christ, that is here styled, the blessed and only potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords:' and who will shew, or cause Jesus Christ to appear at the general judgment. The Father is described as one 'whom no man hath seen, nor can see: ' but this would not be true of Jesus Christ, who was seen by many in this world, and after his ascension, by Stephen and Paul: and who will be seen, or shewn, to the whole world at the last day. It is, therefore, surprising, that any should have mistaken this place so far as to apply the peculiar characters of the Father to Jesus Christ.

Titus ii. 13. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ. The Greek words επιφανειαν της δόξης το μεγάλου Eou, should have been rendered, 'the appearance of the glory of the great God,' and then it would have appeared, that Jesus Christ is not here called 'the great God;' but that it is only affirmed that a representation, or appearance of the glory of the great God; viz. the Father, shall attend Christ

same. There are two signs to discover Jeos by The line through the theta, and the line above. If they were both here originally, why should they be inked over again? Or if of one them, why should that be meddled with? If neither of them, the reason of the correction is plain. There is no instance, I believe, to be found in the whole book besides, of two such omissions relative to this word, and very few of one omission. This deserves to be attended to. Such is the result of my own inspection. Others of better eyes, I confess, than mine, still insist that the old strokes are discernible through the new ones. But if the old

strokes were so plain at first, as to continue visible to this time through the gross medium of the imposed coverings, I cannot possibly conceive what could induce any modern corrector to retouch them, or meddle with them." Conjectures on the New Testament: London 1772.

U

when he comes to judgment. And this is agreeable to what our Lord himself tells us, Luke ix. 26. The son of man shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy Angels.' See also 2 Thes. i. 7 to 10. It is beyond a doubt, therefore, that it is the Father that is in this place styled the great God,'

Heb. i. 2, 3. God who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds: who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,' &c. Jesus Christ, or the Son, is in this place plainly distinguished from the Father, who is styled God absolutely. God is also declared to have appointed the Son, heir of all things; ' and in ver. 4. of this chapter, the Son is said to have been made so much better than the Angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they:' which expressions are only applicable to a dependent being, and by no means compatible with proper Godhead. Indeed the drift of this whole chapter, and the following one, is to prove the superior excellence of Christ to Angels, which, if Christ had been God, would have been so much needless labour in the au thor of this epistle. For every person must have perceived at once, that the Deity, the creator of Angels, and all other beings, was infinitely superior to his own creatures It is here said, that d'ou, by or through whom: viz. by the Son also God made the worlds.' Admitting the propriety of this translation, and applying it to the original creation, it will only prove that the Son was an inferior agent under the one true God in the formation of the world. See p. 207. and Dis. IX. p. 161, 162.

The original word asuvas, however, signifies more properly ages, than worlds, agreeably to the remark of a great critic, whose words I shall here transcribe. "The word αιώνας, which we render worlds, does not signify the heavens and the earth, and all things in them, but it means properly ages, or certain periods of time, in which such and such things were done or to be done. Such were the patriarchal; that of the law; that of the Messiah; that of the Antediluvians; that of the four great empires, which the

prophet Daniel spoke of. These were properly alwvas, ages. It does not follow from the words of this passage, that the Apostle here intended to speak of Christ's making all' things. Nor is there any one instance in the New Testa ment where more than this seems to be meant by this word. Thus Col. i. 26. The mystery which hath been hid from ages and generations, but now is made manifest to his saints,' is the true explication of what St. Paul said, Eph. iii. 9. 6 was hid in God (not from the beginning of the world,' as we render it, but) anо Twν alwvwv, from the ages. And so Eph. iii. 11. what we render, his eternal purpose, κατα πρόθεσιν των αιώνων, is, 6 according to his purpose, or disposition of the ages. Vid. Heb. xi. 3.' According to this explanation of the word awvas, the pas sage will stand thus, by whom also he (God) made the ages;' which some will understand of all the different dis. pensations of providence, and periods of time since the creation; and others restrict to those ages that followed the gospel, (viz. the age to come, of which Christ was the Father, or author) according as they either admit or reject the pre-existence of Christ. Grotius remarks here, "It appears to me that 's in this place, may be rightly taken for dov, for whom, &c.'-But what recommends this inter pretation greatly to me, is, that the author of this epistle, writing to the Hebrews, seems to allude to an old saying amongst them, viz. that the world was made for the Mes siah."

+ If the criticism of this learned writer is admitted, the true rendering of the place will be this, for whom God made the ages,' that is, he arranged and disposed all the different periods of time, with a view to his Son, the Mes. siah, and in order to introduce that age, or more perfect dispensation, of which he was to be the author.

The Son is also affirmed to be here, απαύγασμα της δόξης και χαρακτηρ της υποστάσεως αυτού) a ray of his (God's) glory, and the very image or impression of his substance: which expression is so far from affording any ground, for

* Dr. Sykes in loco.

+ "Videtur d'ov hic recte accipi posse pro d' or propter quem, &e.. -Ideo autem hæc interpretatio hoc loco maxime mihi se probat, quia ad Hebræos scribens videtur respicere ad dictum vetus Hebræorum, propter Messiam conditum esse mundum, Grotius in loc.