*

dicate their entrance into the world with a view to the accomplishment of their mission, since they could not have come in any other way. Many of the Socinians, feeling the pressure of the difficulty presented by the idiom in its obvious and exclusive reference to the appearance of our Lord in human nature, and its implication of his pre-existence and the possibility of his being manifested in a different manner, endeavour to elude it by rendering the words iv oaoxi in an instrumental sense, and interpreting the whole phrase of the revelation which God hath made known through the medium of weak and mortal men, i. e. the apostles. But to this it is sufficient to reply, that such an interpretation is perfectly repugnant to the usus loquendi of the New Testament; there not being a single passage in which the phrase is used in this sense.

According to the received reading of the passage, which we have shewn to be that established by a vast preponderance of external evidence, the doctrine which it teaches is almost verbally the same that is taught by John, in the first chapter of his Gospel, and in the beginning of his first Epistle :

Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.

Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο.

Τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν.

"God was manifested in the flesh."

"The Word was God;-and the Word assumed humanity." "That Eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us."

1 Tim. 3: 16. John 1: 1, 14. 1 John 1: 1—3.

2. The person and claims of the Redeemer not having been recognized by the Jews during the period of his corporeal so

* " Is the phrase 'to come in the flesh' no more than equivalent to the word 'to come?' Are the words 'in the flesh' mere expletives? If they are not expletives, what is their import, but to limit the sense of the word to come to some particular manner of coming? This limitation either presumes a possibility of other ways of coming, or it is nugatory. But was it possible for a mere man to come otherwise than in the flesh? Nothing can be more decisive for my purpose than this comparison which you have suggested, between the word 'to come,' which is general, and the phrase 'to come in the flesh,' which is specific." Bp. Horsley's Letters in Reply to Priestley, p. 112.

journ (v rais nuéqαis τns σαoxo's αvrou, Heb. 5: 7); but, on the contrary, vilified and misrepresented, Isaiah 3: 3, 4; it was necessary, that the dignity of the one, and the validity of the other, should be vindicated-which the apostle declares to have been done when ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. The word δικαιόω not only signifies to acquit or absolve from punishment, but also to do justice to one's character, by acknowledging and declaring him to be free from all imputation of blame. Thus wisdom is said to be justified, Matt. 11: 19, and God himself, Rom. 3: 4. Michaelis proposes, that it should be rendered "suffered capital punishment;" and by introducing a different punctuation, attempts to shew, that the passage may be translated thus: "God was manifested; suffered death in the flesh; appeared in the spirit to the angels," etc. But to this mode of interpretation, it may justly be objected, that no such idea as that of punishment is found to attach to dixatów in N. T. Greek; and that the connecting of ἐδικαιώθη with ἐν σαρκί, which precedes, and not with Ev vεvμate, which follows it, destroys the harmonious structure of the verse; all the other verbs being placed before and not after the substantives to which they belong.-The phrase ἐν πνεύματι occurring, as it does here, in contrast with ἐν σαρκί, necessarily means its opposite, according to the established antithetical relation of oάos and vεuua, Rom. 1: 4. 1 Pet. 3: 18; and partially Heb. 9: 14; so that, if the one signify the state or condition of humanity in which he appeared during the period of his (xévoors) humiliation, the other must signify that state in which he existed after his resurrection, and in which he now exists, with special reference to the glorious manifestations of his spiritual, superhuman and divine nature, with which his glorified body is for ever and indissolubly united. This vindication (dixaiwois) was effected by his victory over death and the curse, to which the Jews had condemned him; his exaltation to the right hand of the Father; and the effusion of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. Had he not been what he professed he was, such stupendous effects would not have followed; his predictions would have remained unfulfilled, and his cause and character would have been overwhelmed with utter confusion.

3. We remark, that ὤφθη cannot be referred to μυστήριον; nor can ayyélois be interpreted of the apostles. This will appear, when it is taken into consideration, that gavɛgów and yvwpisw are the verbs elsewhere used by the apostle, when speaking of the revelation of a mystery; and that oлroμaι is never VOL. II. No. 5.

7

employed, except to denote either external physical vision, or that by which one spiritual being apprehends or discovers another. It is never applied to any thing that is not the subject of conscious existence. With respect to the term ayyɛlos, we observe, that though, like the Hebrew, it signifies a human messenger, as well as one of that superior and spiritual race of beings who are employed by Jehovah in administering the affairs. of his empire, there does not appear sufficient ground for departing, in our interpretation of it in this place, from the current usage of the New Testament, according to which the distinctive terms ayyɛlo and άnóorolor are used with marked discrimination of the celestial messengers who are appointed to minister to the heirs of salvation, and the primary and inspired agents who were selected by our Saviour to lay the foundation of his spiritual temple.

Though despised and rejected by men, who saw no beauty in him, the Lord Jesus was the object of adoring contemplation to the hosts of heaven. During his ministry upon earth, they

"Oft gaz'd, and wonder'd, where at length

This scene of love would end."

And when he was "received up into glory," it was amid their attendant bands, who had received the charge to render to him divine honours. Ps. 68: 17. 97: 6. Heb. 1: 6.

4. The phrases εκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, and ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμo, evidently refer to the apostolic announcements of the gospel, according to the ample latitude of the commission, and the amazing success with which they were accompanied. The sum and substance of their preaching was "Christ crucified," and the divine command which they universally enforced was, that men "should believe in his name.'

5. It must be very obvious, that whatever may plausibly be advanced in favour of the hypothesis, that uvoznotov is the noninative to the verbs ἐφανερώθη, ἐδικαιώθη, ὤφθη, ἐκηρύχθη, and Eriorεvon, nothing can possibly be more harsh than to carry it forward, and make it the nominative to ἀναλήφθη ἐν δόξῃ; and then explain this, with Benson, "Met with a glorious reception." The reception given to the gospel, or, rather, to Christ as the subject of the gospel-testimony, had already been expressed by the verb incorεvon; and the glorious extent of that reception by the phrase ἐν κόσμῳ. Besides, αναλαμβάνομαι is never employed to express the reception given to a doctrine or

testimony, but signifies to be raised on high, received up or back, and is the very word which is used in reference to the ascension of our blessed Lord to heaven, Mark 16: 19. Acts 1:2, 11, 22. Αναλήφθη ἐν δόξῃ in our text, is equivalent to αναληφθεὶς εἰς Tov ovgavov, Acts 1: 11; and the substantive άváλnyes, formed from the same verb, is, in like manner, used to denote the reception of Jesus, after the completion of his work upon earth, into the glory (doğa) which he had with the Father before the world began. Luke 9: 51. John 17: 5.

The principal objection that has been advanced against sós, as the genuine reading of the passage, is founded on the supposed incongruity of combining this word with the concluding proposition, and asserting, that "God was received up into glory;" but the difficulty vanishes the moment it is considered, that after the declaration Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί has been admitted, the mind necessarily associates the idea of the oάgs or human nature with that of the divine, and easily discriminates between what may be predicated of the one, what of the other, and what jointly of both.

We have now brought our critical examination of this important passage to a close. The charge of corruption, alleged by Sir Isaac Newton, we have shewn to be unfounded. The reading, which he contends to have been that originally in the text, and used by the church during the first five centuries, we have seen rejected by Griesbach, and all critics of any note. That adopted by the celebrated German editor, and the "Improved Version" of it, have been proved to be as destitute of solid and sufficient authority, as they are contrary to the idiom of the Greek language, and at variance with some of the first principles of biblical philology and exegesis. And the reading of the received text has been established by a mass of cumulative evidence, derived from the sources to which an appeal is ordinarily made on questions of this nature. While, therefore, the opposers of our Lord's divinity attempt to give eclat to their opinions, by mixing up with the publication of them the name of a great philosopher, it cannot but prove satisfactory to those who have cordially embraced that doctrine, to find that the passage which has been the subject of investigation, so far from suffering any detriment from the most rigid critical scrutiny to which it may be brought, only gains in point of stability and authority, and continues to demand an unhesitating reception of the great mystery which it proclaims: GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.

APPENDIX.

List of Works in which the Subject of the preceding Investigation is discussed, and to which the Reader is referred for further information.

Erasmus.-Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine.
Baronii Annales Ecclesiast.-Ann. 510. ix.

Calovii Biblia Illustrata.

In his note on the passage, the author, at great length, with prodigious learning, and many forcible arguments, refutes the statements of Enjedin, Socinus, Smalcius, and Grotius. The very unceremonious manner in which he treats the last-mentioned writer, has drawn down upon him unmeasured abuse from Socinians, and others who are only half-hearted in their adherence to the peculiar doctrines of the Scripture; but his work is a storehouse of sound Lutheran divinity. It contains the whole of Grotius's Annotations, with able exegetical and polemical commentaries.

Estii Comment. in Epp. Apostol.

This author is of opinion, that the quod of the Vulgate was designed to be understood, not as the neuter relative, but as a determinative conjunction, and that DEUS is to be supplied from the preceding context.

Pearson on the Creed, Art. II. Note 9.

Contains some excellent remarks on the Annotations of Grotius, and the alleged corruption by Macedonius.

Poli Synopsis in loc.

Millii Novum Testamentum Graecum.

An important and interesting note; relating chiefly to the various readings, the story of Liberatus, and the Alexandrian Codex.

Bengelii Novum Testamentum Graecum.

At the close of a lengthened critical note on the passage, Bengel asks: "Quid nisi sós superest?”

Stillingfleet's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity. London 1697. 8vo. pp. 156-164.

Wotton's Clemens Romanus, p. 27.