written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God."

XLIV. The zeal of the Jews for the name of God is well known. How then can we account for St. Thomas's addressing himself on a most remarkable occasion in these words to Christ, "My Lord, and my God!" (St. John xx. 28.) We cannot sufficiently account for it otherwise, than by saying, that even to this Apostle, who was far from being credulous, the Resurrection appeared to be, as it certainly was, an incontestable proof that our Lord was, what he had asserted himself to be, in nature Divine. But if Divine in nature, then God.

XLV. To what extent the meaning of any word, or clause, is to be restricted, must be determined by the consideration of parallel passages and collateral circumstances. When our Lord replied, "It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve;" (St. Matt. iv. 10.) he had in view the command in Deuteronomy. But the command in Deuteronomy, and many other similar injunctions throughout the sacred Books of the Old Testament, import this; "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only, in exclusion of all heathen gods represented by molten and carved images, the works of human hands." That our Lord did not mean to exclude the worship of himself is clear from the sequel. For, he admitted religious worship to be paid him: he bade us honour himself as we honour the Father. And for this reason; Honour to him redounds to the glory of God the Father, because their divinity is one.

XLVI. The acceptation of gorxvvt must be determined by the context. On some occasions it is used to express the act of prostration, as a mark by which Orientals paid outward respect: on others, it is applied to express the same act accompanied with an ins ward sense of devotion, and therefore intended as a token of religious worship. When according to the Septuagint, Moses says in Exodus ii. 8. "All these thy servants shall come unto me and #goomuroso us, the word is to be understood and rendered, as our English versions have understood and rendered it, "shall bow themselves down to me:" not in token of religious wor ship; but as a mark of respect. For neither could Moses mean to intimate, nor in itself was the circumstance such as might in any degree be expected to happen, that the Egyptian servants of Pharaoh, who were gross idolaters, and who detested the Israelites, should ever mean to worship Moses, though they prostrated themselves before him. "Bow themselves down" to him, as to a man whom they feared, they naturally might, in the hope of softening his resentment and prevailing on him to interpose for averting evil: but that they should intend to worship him as a God is inconceivable, because irreconcileable with Egyptian ideas. But, when, after our Lord had exercised command over the Elements, which at his word obeyed him, his disciples govσav avr (St. Matt. xiv. 33.) and accompanied their external act with this confession, "Of a truth thou art the Son of God!" when, after they had seen

an open manifestation of our Lord's divine glory at his ascension, the disciples were προσκυνήσαντες αυτῷ, before they returned to Jerusalem (St. Luke xxiv. 52.) there can be no more doubt that they meant religious worship, than that St. Stephen meant actually to pray unto Christ, when in his dying moments he called on his Saviour, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit!" (Acts vii. 59.)

XLVII. Never after their return from captivity in Babylon, did the Jews relapse into idolatry. They held it in abhorrence. When therefore they offered to our Lord religious service, his disciples must have been convinced his nature was divine, on account of which it could not be idolatrous to adore him.

XLVIII. Some of the writings contained in the New Testament were denied to be genuine in the first instance; but were allowed to be such on subsequent consideration. Two conclusions may be drawn from this fact: "The primitive Christians scrupu lously examined before they admitted Writings to be of authority:" and, "When once Writings had been admitted to be of authority, all doubts of their pretensions and characters must have been com pletely removed."

XLIX. The Books of the New Testament, as now received, were cited as Canonical by writers in the first four Centuries of the Christian era. The several writers, who from time to time cited them, lived much nearer the periods at which the respective Books were composed, and thence had means of obtaining more accurate information with regard to circumstances of external testimony, which established the authenticity of every Book, than can have been possessed by later inquirers. Devoutly therefore it is to be prayed, that the Canonical Scriptures, which have stood so many centuries unaltered, may never be sacrificed to any specious reasoning, or fanciful conjecture, or bold assertion of modern criticism; because in this particular branch modern criticism does not rest on ground so sure and strong as ancient Christian knowledge.

L. The Epistles contain the doctrines of the Apostles. Their doctrines we believe to be true, on account of the power with which they were endued to work miracles. The certainty of their mira. cles is demonstrated, not only by historical testimony, but by the effects produced in making converts from heathenism.

LI. Missionaries of modern times are deficient neither in ability, nor zeal, nor piety: yet the converts they make bear no proportion to the numbers whom the Apostles converted. The reason is this, Missionaries cannot produce immediate effect by working miracles. The Apostles did produce such effect by working miracles; and by thus giving visible proof of their divine mission to preach the Gospel, they converted Thousands, who yet through the influence of the word only preached, and unaccompanied with any extraordinary demonstrations of more than usual power, would probably never have renounced heathenism.

LII. Reflection on any subject presents to the mind certain ideas on that subject. Repetition and continuance of such reflection

'fix those ideas. Ideas thus formed and fixed are often indelible, and they often so predominate as to shew themselves prominent on all suitable occasions. Consistency of sentiment produces consistency of language: the words perhaps may vary, but the general meaning of the expression will in effect be the same, when we de, liver our thoughts on the same subject. The "xaxayatia" of Socrates continually recurred to the good Xenophon. The sores of our Lord was ever present to the mind of the sublime St. Paul, and impressed it so forcibly, that he labours for words sufficiently strong to convey adequately the conceptions he had formed. Hence these passages; "Who is over all, God blessed forever." (Rom. ix. 5.) "The Lord of Glory." (1 Cor. ii. 8.) "Who being in the form of God." (Phil. ii. 6.) "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Col. ii. 9.) "God was manifest in the flesh." (1 Tim, iii. 16.) The brightness of his (God's) glory, and express image of his person." (Heb. i. 3.) All which passages are by the Apostle used in reference to our Lord.

LIII. Our common Version of the New Testament ren, ders the words of Rom. ix, 5, in terms corresponding with the Original, as they were read in Manuscripts received by the interpreters, and since defended by Mill. In this, as on many other occasions, our Translators gave proof of their fidelity, and shewed they had a right sense of the manner in which they were to give an interpretation of Scripture for Public Use, They were bound to give a Literal Translation. "Literal Translations (says Michaelis) are those, in which it it proposed to express the original text verbatim, notwithstanding the obscurity of many Phrases, and the inelegance of many Constructions, in the language into which the book is translated. It is expedient that the Translations, which are intended for the public use of the whole Church, should be of this kind. For in these the Translator should presume as little aş possible to obtrude his Interpretation, if it be in the least exceptionable, upon a whole Church; for he is a man, and subject to error. If he doth not render verbatim certain Phrases, which admit of more than one Sense, he delivers, instead of the word of God, an arbitrary Interpretation of his own, which may chance to be false. The same consideration obliges the Translator to render all Ambiguities in the Original Text, if possible, by words equally ambiguous, in order to leave to his reader the Choice of that Sense which appears to him most probable. It is folly in Translations of this kind to study ele gance of style, and so incur the hazard of laying before the Church a doubtful exposition instead of the pure word of God. For as public Translations of this kind must be kept in use for some centuries, without an alteration, and as the taste of a language varies with almost every generation of men, those beauties of style are soon decay. ed." Michaelis's Introduct. Lectures to H. Script. sect. 73, Translated by Butler in 1761.

These remarks are just, and should be observed by those, who at any time hereafter may be employed to revise our Translation of the Scripture. With all deference, let another hint be suggested. Such

persons would do well to take our Common Translation as their standard, and make very little farther alteration, than merely substi tuting words more modern, for some that in the course of Centuries have changed their meaning.

LIV. The commonly received reading of Rom. ix. 5, is this ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστος το καλα σαρκα, ο ων επι πανίων Θεος ευλογηλος εις τες αιώνας. Not to know the efforts which have been made, sometimes to transpose, sometimes to new punctuate, and sometimes to alter, the words in this passage, would betray great ignorance. Not to acknowledge the fact would be a degree of dissimulation. But to change the reading on the ground of any one argument hitherto adduced from the days of Erasmus, or Crellius, down to the present moment, would be an act of weak concession. The passage in question corresponds with St. Paul's ideas expressed in his Epistles to the Colossians, to Timothy, to the Hebrews; to the Philippians ii. 9, to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xv. 27. And it is difficult to conceive what point would be gained with respect to Doctrine and St. Paul's ideas of Christ's divinity, even if this passage were totally expunged, when there are so many other explicit declarations of the Apostle's sentiments on that important subject.

LV. When he applied to our Lord the appellation 5, St. Paul in that term undoubtedly comprised the several attributes which Oso usually imports. Of course he ascribed to our Lord Divine Wisdom. How then is it, that, when speaking of the "Everlasting God," in Rom. xvi. 27, 28, where he confessedly means ther," he should say, "To God only wise?" and in his Epistle to Timothy," the only wise God?" (1 Tim. i. 17.)

the Fa

Two explanations may be given of this. From the context of the passages just cited, St. Paul seems to have had in view a particular instance of divine wisdom and that was, "the salvation of mankind by Christ crucified;" a doctrine, offensive indeed to the Jews, and ridiculed by the Greeks, but to all Christians, "the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Cor. i. 24.) The Apostle's mind was ever full of astonishment and of gratitude, at the mercy thus vouchsafed to all Mankind, and to himself more especially. On various occasions he speaks of it as a stupendous demonstration of such Wisdom, as neither Jews nor Greeks, with all their pretensions, in the smallest degree or at the greatest possible distance were enabled to parallel. They must stand confounded, and acknowledge that all their learning and all their philosophy were but mere folly, when compared with this dispensation; a dispensation which shewed that not Man, but God only was its author. So that St. Paul in these places appears to have called "God only Wise," in opposition to ignorant and inefficient Man.

But farther; neither "povos," nor 66 solus," nor "only," is always taken in a sense so absolute and limited, as to admit not, under modification, any other than the single object to which it is applied. We say "God only is to be feared; God only to be praised; God only to be honoured;" yet we dread Men with fear; we commend Men with praise; we respect Men with honour.

On these and similar occasions, " Only" means "Primarily." in the passage Movy ros, the Apostle is speaking in strictness of speech, and with a view to primary and abstract meaning. The Annotators in Poole give this explanation: "He is said to be the Only Wise, because He is Originally Wise; his Wisdom is of Himself." But it does not thence follow that Divine Wisdom may not also be an attribute of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, communicated by Him who is "Originally Wise." Accordingly St. Paul, when he would shew the high superiority of Christ to Angels, and point out Godhead to be the attribute of Christ, but not of Angels, says to the Colossians, " In whom (q. d. and not in Angels) are hid all the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge." (Col. ii. 3.)

The acceptation in which we are to take povos, as used by St. Paul, will explain the words of our Lord himself in his solemn prayer; "This is life eternal, that they may know Thee the only true God." (St. John xvii. 3.) It is always to be recollected, that neither by himself, nor by the Evangelists, nor by the Apostles, is our Lord styled, "The Father;" but "The Son." The appellation "Father" is applied to Him who (in the words of the Annotators in Poole, 1 Cor. viii. 6.) "is the foundation of the Deity, communicating his divine nature to the other two persons, and of whom are all things;" and who therefore is emphatically called the "Father," that being "a term which signifies the primary cause and author of all things." With Him and from Him the author of all things, "God the Father," existed from eternity "God the Son." The correlative terms "Father" and "Son" convey an idea of Paternity and Filiation. Paternity and Filiation imply identity of nature, but distinction in origin. To this distinction does our Lord refer, when he calls the Father "The only true God." The Father is "The only God," in strictness of speech, because he is the author of Godhead, by whom, says Pearson, p. 323, ed. 1704, "Godhead was communicated to the Son." And he is "The True God," either abstractedly in the same point of view, or relatively in opposition to heathen idolatrous gods.

The explanation of one passage leads to the exposition of another. St. Luke calls Barnabas "a good man." (Acts xi. 24.) And nothing is more common than to say of a person "he is a good man ;" if we mean to commend his excellent virtues. Yet, when the Ruler applied that appellation to our Lord, he received this answer; "Why callest thou me Good?" There is none Good but one, that is God." (St. Matt. xix. 17.) The words of our Lord imply either of these meanings: "All Goodness proceeds originally from God the Father, and therefore in strictness of speech He only is absolutely Good." Or, "Perfect Goodness is the attribute of a Divine Being, and as such you do not acknowledge me."

LVI. The Scriptures tell us David was a keeper of flocks: shall we therefore deny he was a king? They tell us he was a king : shall we therefore deny he was a keeper of flocks? In either case we should decide partially, because we considered not both statements together. Let us apply this illustration. St. Paul, to con