armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, obedient? To what, or by whom can he be exalted? Away with the most unscriptural, most unhallowed imagination!

"It is he that sitteth on the circle of the earth;
And the inhabitants are to Him as grasshoppers:
That extendeth the heavens, as a thin veil;
And spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."

LOWTH'S ISAIAH, xl. 22.

"Thine, O Jehovah, is the greatness and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty; for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine. Thine is the kingdom, O Jehovah, and thou art exalted as head above all."-1 Chron. xxix. 11.

SECTION SEVENTH.

No proof of the Deity of Christ to be found in 1 Tim. iii. 16. 1 John, v. 20. nor in John, xx. 28. xiv. 9.

Another text which claims our attention as being deemed by some, of great importance in this discussion, is to be found in 1 Tim. iii. 16.

"Without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

All Biblical critics know, or ought to know, that the word God, os, in the original, of this verse, is rejected by the most eminent scholars as a corruption, and particularly by Griesbach, who instead of os reads os, and alleges that the critical rules by which he corrected the text required such a reading. "Postulabant enim hoc leges critica *** quas doctissimi critici suo assensu comprobarunt. Sir Isaac Newton, in the second of his Letters to Le Clerc, affirms that all the churches, for the first 400 or 500 years, and the authors of all the ancient versions, Jerome, as well as the rest, read " great is the mystery of godliness which was manifested in the flesh." He farther informs us that Hincmarus, who lived above 800 years ago, states the fact out of Liberatus, that Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, was banished by the emperor Anastasius, for falsifying the text of the gospels; quoniam falsavit evangelia. In the above text he changed the Greek letter O into, and thus the word which before was OZ (he who) became C the abbreviation of EOZ God. But the original text, Newton says, was not OZ but O, and as the corruption lay in a letter, it was the more easily spread abroad in the Greek MSS. than the testimony of the three in heaven, in the Latin ones." He mentions a great number of the most distinguished advocates of Athanasianism, but cannot find one who quotes this text, to prove his doctrine, "and in all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy, it never came into play." This statement is corroborated by Whiston,

who observes that "this text so agreeable to the Athanasians was yet so far from being taken in an Athanasian sense by the ancients, that as Dr. Mill himself, with great surprise, observes, it was not once cited by the Athanasians against the Arians, till A.D. 380, by Gregory Nyssen. Nor is it certain that it was even in Nyssen's own book, much less that it was in St. Paul's text itself, as some of the most inquisitive persons do find upon examination."

Suppose we were for a moment to gratify the modern Athanasian, and admit, contrary to the most approved rules of criticism, and to universal testimony, that "God manifest in the flesh," is the true reading, what will he gain by the admission? Will he have the hardihood to affirm that it will favour his Doctrine of the Trinity? The Unitarian finds nothing in the expression but what he can receive in perfect consistency with his principles. He believes that God is every where "manifest." That the Spirit of God

"Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze,

Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees."

And, if a couplet may be added,

Spake by the Prophets, by the Saviour taught,
And warmed and brightened in the deeds he wrought.

God was
"manifest in the flesh," when Jesus cast out devils
by the finger of God; and well might the people who heard his
heavenly discourses, and witnessed his miraculous deeds, say
"a great Prophet hath risen up," and that by sending such a Pro-
phet "God hath visited his people." But that God assumed
a real, corporeal, visible, and tangible, form, is a supposition to be
paralleled only by some of the old incarnations of Jupiter. How
can they who have read that God is a spirit, that he fills the
heavens and the earth, and that the heaven and the heaven of
heavens cannot contain him, believe that he was tabernacled
in a pavilion of human clay-that the King of heaven who sitteth
on the throne of his holiness, and all whose works are truth,
was "justified in the spirit,"—that he who is clothed with honour
and majesty, who hath prepared his throne in the heavens, and
whose kingdom ruleth over all-was "received up into glory?"
Shame on such carnal, impious imaginations!

With the former text may be classed another which suffers much from modern Athanasian persecution.

"We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are (s) in him that is true by or through his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and

eternal life."-1 John, v. 20.

whom the Son of God

"This is the true God." Who? He hath given us an understanding that we may know. claims the Tritheist-it is the Son of God himself.

Nay, ex-
For this

refers to the immediate antecedent which is Jesus Christ.-And to whom does this refer in the following text?-2 John, 7.

61

Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti-christ."

Who is a deceiver and an anti-christ? The tritheist, if he follows any consistent principle of interpretation should answer Jesus Christ, for he is the immediate antecedent. But any one though superficially acquainted with the Scriptures, must know that the pronoun and relative frequently refer not to the prox imate, but the remote antecedent, as in the present instance. See also, John, vi. 50. 1 John, ii. 22. Acts. i. 22. We must be guided by sense and reason, not by mere rules of grammatical arrangement. It requires no aid from syntax to learn that by him that is true, we must understand the only living and true God. This, our Saviour himself renders perfectly plain, when he says, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”—John, xvii. 3. The Apostle, most probably, had this sentiment in his remembrance, when he wrote the words on which we are commenting. They are in fact but an elliptical expres. sion of the same thought. We maintain then, that the words this is the true God and eternal life, refer solely to God, the Father who has revealed the life to come by our Lord Jesus Christ. The distinction between the Father and the Son is clearly marked in the verse itself; and it is paying a poor compliment to the judgment of an inspired Apostle, to suppose that he would say of Christ that he was the Son of God, and the true God, in the same sentence, and affirm that the one came to give us an understanding of the other, if both were identically

one.

No Christian prior to the Council of Nice, appears to have understood this verse in the Trinitarian sense. The Father Almighty alone was universally acknowledged to be the true God, Whiston says,

"The Athanasians shew no citation or interpretation of it in their sense, before the days of Athanasius. Nay, somewhat after his days, his great admirer Ephiphanius, who was incomparably a more honest and learned Athanasian, than he whom he admired, evidently appears to have been an entire stranger to that exposition: having plainly let us know that he had never heard of any text whatsoever that called the Son the true God; though for want of such a text, like a thorough Athanasian, he pretends to prove he might be so called, by consequence of his own making.'

The Athanasians find a similar proof of the Deity of Christ in John, xx. 28.

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, my Lord and my God."

Thomas was a Jew-a believer in the one invisible and immortal God-a disciple of Christ-incredulous-a sceptic who required no less than ocular and palpable proof that the body of Christ had become re-animated and arisen from the dead. Our Lord condescended to give him the proof required, on which

Now, what do we learn from them? The Athanasians would have us believe that this incredulous Apostle who would not credit the testimony of his fellow disciples as to a plain matter of fact, passed in a moment to the belief, of which he had not the least previous hint or conception, that in the crucified Jesus, whose flesh he handled, and whose wounds he felt, he saw, touched and addressed the infinite and incomprehensible Jehovah, whom he had been taught to think no man could see and live! That he whom he had so lately beheld nailed to a cross, and mortally wounded by a Roman spear-was Jehovah of hosts-the Lord God of Israel, who liveth and reigneth for ever and ever! Verily, the credulity of the Athanasians exceeds, the incredulity of Thomas! But the Saviour's address to his disciple sufficiently proves the gross folly "Jesus said unto Thomas, and absurdity of such imaginations. Believed what? because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed." That of which he had previously doubted,-Christ's resurrection. Our Lord continues, "blessed, or happy, (axagi) are they who. have not seen, and yet have believed."-Not seen and yet be. lieved what? Not seen Christ personally, as Thomas had seen There is not him and yet believed that he was actually risen.

occasion he uttered the words just quoted.

the slightest ground for any of the Athanasian whims in the whole passage. Thomas, under the influence of excited and wonderstruck feeling, gave way to his emotion, as was perfectly natural, by apostrophizing God. All men under such impressions, express themselves in language precisely similar. Thus, when Gideon saw that one with whom he had been conversing was an angel of Jehovah-he said, “ Alas, O Lord Jehovah ! for because I have seen an angel of Jehovah, face to face."-Judg. vi. 22. Thus, Jonathan in the ardour of his friendship, "said unto David, O Jehovah God of Israel, when I have sounded my Father, &c."-1 Sam. xx. 12. Had Thomas been capable of embodying all his feelings in words, he might have uttered some 66 my Lord and my God." ejaculations like these, in addition to It is then true! I doubt no longer! Here is proof! I yield O my God, how great is thy power, how wonderful thy deeds! Now, I see, now I believe that thou hast indeed raised from the dead, thy holy child Jesus! That our Saviour understood him thus is evident from his address to the disciple.-Milton refers the words my Lord to Christ, and my God to the Father, who had testified that Christ was his Son, by raising him from the dead. The whole comment of this great genius on the passage before us, is well entitled to the readers serious consideration. He regards the words of Thomas as an abrupt exclamation in an exstacy of wonder, and deems it incredible

to conviction!

"That he should have so quickly understood the hypostatic union of that Accordingly person whose resurrection he had just before disbelieved. the faith of Peter is commended-blessed art thou, Simon-for having only said-thou art the Son of the Living God.-Matt. xvi, 16, 17. The faith of

Thomas, although, as it is commonly explained, it asserts the divinity of Christ in a much more remarkable manner, is so far from being praised, that it is undervalued, and almost reproved.-Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And yet, though the slowness of his belief may have deserved blame, the testimony borne by him to Christ as God, which if the common interpretation be received as true, is clearer than occurs in any other passage, would undoubtedly have met with some commendation; whereas it obtains none whatever."

Our Saviour's declaration to Philip is also frequently advanced by advocates of the Trinity, as a strong proof of their doctrine. But like all their other texts, when weighed in the balance of fair criticism, it will be found wanting. Let us try. Our Lord said unto Thomas,

"I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also; and from henceforth ye know him and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?"-John, xiv. 6, 9.

There are only two ways of understanding these words, literally or figuratively. If we take them literally, they will prove too much, like many other texts, viz. that Christ is the Fatherand the Father of himself! Moreover, they will deny that Jehovah is the invisible king, "whom no man hath seen, nor can see," as he is denominated in 1 Tim. i. 17. vi. 16. and contradict the indisputable truth, "that no man hath seen God at any time." They are to be understood then figuratively, and the meaning is this: Had ye known me, or formed a right judgment of those divine virtues which have been so conspicuous in my words and actions, ye would have acquired a just knowledge of the perfections of God; but from henceforth ye both know him, because I have more fully revealed him; and have seen him, because I have presented his character more closely to your contemplation. Philip, not apprehending his true meaning, said, "shew us the Father and it sufficeth us," our Lord's interrogatory reply conveys some rebuke to Philip's hebetude in misconceiving him so grossly, and in making so extravagant a request. "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." His language now becoming so much more palpably figurative, that even Philip, it is presumed, could not mistake him as intending to convey the idea that he who saw Christ, saw as close a similitude of God as can be presented to the mind of man; even the " express image" of the invisible Jehovah. And to pre

vent all farther possibility of misconception, he adds, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me," in the same sense as Jolm, when he says, "he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him." "The words that I speak unto you, I SPEAK NOT OF MYSELF, but the Father

G