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 Ethiopic, of the fourth century, has been pleaded for the common reading: but its evidence is indecisive, as the same word is used for both Lord and God, but Scholz inclines to the belief that the Greek manuscript from which it was derived read Lord, on account of its affinity to the Armenian and Coptic Versions. 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 is deserving of attention. Ovcaμou dé Οὐδαμοῦ αἷμα Θεοῦ είχα σαρκὸς παραδεδώκασιν αἱ γραφαί, ἤ 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. p. 951. But upon this passage it is highly proper to cite the remarks of an eminent scholar. "In the Greek of Athanasius it is thus, &c.—which means in English-The Scriptures nowhere speak of the blood of God without flesh; i. e. without adding something which implies the incarnation of God; nor of God suffering and rising again without flesh: they are Arians who venture to use such expressions.- -This work of Athanasius was written against the Apollinarian heretics, who nearly resembled the Sabellians and Patripassians, and held that God, not as united to man, but in his own unmixed essential Deity, suffered on the cross and died. Athanasius therefore asserts, in this book, that the Scriptures never speak of Jesus suffering as God, but in his human nature; or, that the Scriptures never speak of the blood of God without mentioning or implying his flesh:' and in the very next sentence he goes on to say; But the holy Scriptures, speaking of God in the flesh, and of the flesh of God when he became man, do mention the blood and sufferings, and resurrection of the body of God: ai dè ȧyíai ypapai ἐν σαρκὶ Θεοῦ, καὶ σαρκὸς Θεοῦ ἀνθρώπου γενομένου, αἷμα καὶ πάθος καὶ ἀνάστασιν κηρύττουσι σώματος Θεοῦ himself quotes the passage from Acts expressly reads the church of God." Burton's Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ. Oxford, 1826, pp. 19, 20, or sec. ed. pp. 20-22.

6

I may add that Athanasius xx. 28, more than once, and The late Reg. Div. Prof. Dr.

With respect to this learned and valuable author's concluding observation, I beg leave to remark that we cannot place absolute confidence in the readings of the Bible-texts, in copies and editions of the Fathers, unless they are included in the writer's comment or reasoning; for those texts have been often altered by transcribers or editors to a conformity with the received readings. In the only passage of Athanasius, besides the one under consideration, to which the Index of the Benedictine edition directs, (vol. i. p. 653,) though the reading God is in the text, the Editors inform us that one MS. has Lord, and that the readings collected by Felckmann from others present Christ.

Nearly all the modern editors decide in favour of the last reading, the church of the Lord; except Dr. Scholz, who adheres to the common reading, THE CHURCH OF GOD. The high integrity and impartiality of his critical character forbid any suspicion of his being unconsciously biassed in favour of the Vulgate, the authorized version of his communion. One cannot but feel disappointed that he only shows his decision by his text (τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἢν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου — and restricts his Note to a naked recital of the authorities for each reading. In a case so interesting he should have indulged us with a few paragraphs of disquisition. It seems to me that, according to his own leading principle, he ought to have given the preference to the fifth reading. No doubt he had his reasons for not giving that preference, and this thought the more excites a desire to know the grounds of his decision. But probably we may regard the essence of them as having been recorded six years before, with blunt brevity: which is all the notice that he takes of the question in the annotation upon his vernacular version: "For the words the church of God, are many manuscripts; for the church of the Lord, many others, and likewise for the church of the Lord and God; and they make no material difference in the meaning. The reading the church of God, is that of the most and best manuscripts, and of many versions and Fathers; so that it is probably the true reading, and thus this passage contains an express declaration on the part of the apostle, that Christ is God."

The reader will observe that Dr. S. coincides with Griesbach and all the best editors in the latter words of the text. Some, on the admission of the common reading, have taken refuge in the supposition of an ellipsis of vioù thus, the church of God, which he hath acquired by the blood of his own Son. It is sufficient to reply that such an arbitrary ellipsis is without authority or example in the

66

scriptural Greek, or any other. The pious and learned Hermann Olshausen, in a work published before Scholz's second volume, says, 'By the common reading, not only is the appellation God applied to Christ, but the commutation of natures (the Monophysite error) would appear to be justified.-But, according to the critical authorities, it is not possible to maintain the genuineness of that reading.The readings, Lord God and Christ, do not require attention, as they have manifestly arisen out of the others. To the preponderating weight of critical authorities, the circumstance comes in addition, that, if Kupiov be laid as the original reading, that of Oɛou may be easily accounted for; but not inversely. The phrase church of the Lord occurs nowhere else; while church of God is very frequent: whence transcribers would be likely to prefer the more known expression to that which was quite unusual, without reflecting upon the following word, the blood. That this connexion of God and blood is not in the style of the apostles, is very plain; for similar expressions are nowhere found in the N. T." Biblischer Comm. N. T、 vol. ii. p. 818. Königsberg, 1834.

I must acknowledge, that to me the preponderance of evidence appears 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 costly manuscript, (which he would very naturally incline to regard as a paragon of correctness also ;) and the reading would come to be supported by ingenious The third, fourth, and fifth would be produced by copyists who wished to combine two readings; a process which though uncritical, was by no means unexampled. Thus on the admission of the last, 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 seems impossible to account for the second and sixth without violent and improbable suppositions. In particular, it is difficult to imagine, if Oɛou were the primitive reading, that Kupiou should have been introduced into the most ancient and independently derived authorities, recollecting, however, the important exception of the Vatican; and yet that the Fathers of the first four centuries, and

reasons.

every document of Ecclesiastical History, should have been silent upon so signal an innovation.

In the revised English Translation ascribed to Mr. Granville Penn, (London, 1836,) the reading God, and the version adverted to in a former part of this Note, are adopted: "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock over which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with the blood of his own [Son.]"

CHAP. II.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLE JOHN.

SECTION 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.-III. 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 and Mr. Belsham's interpretations 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 yivoua.-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."

66

66

"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.

66

“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