In our examination of this Verfion we meet with many paffages in which particular care feems to be taken to speak of our Saviour as A Son of God, because the article before vios happens to be omitted. Now this looks like ftratagem. It must be intended to imply fomething; that our Saviour, for inftance, is to be confidered as only figuratively, and not actually, a or the Son of God; like thofe, in fhort, to whom the Word of God came, [Pfalm lxxxii. 6.] or the faithful and elect children of the Gospel, [John‍i. 12.] But not to infift here upon the particular circumftances of dif tinction, furely if he is even once declared upon proper authority to be 8 vids T8 8, (and he certainly is fo, upon the greateft, as the Verfion fufficiently expreffes, Luke xxii. 70, 71. and note ‡) or å viòs Tä Euλoyle, Mark xiv. 62, The omiffion of the article in other places does by no means tend to do away the peculiarity of his filiation*, and yet though in the two paffages juft referred to the Editors plainly acknowledge that our Lord fully confeffed himself to be "THE SON of GOD," and "THE SON of the BLESSED God;" yet in John xix. 7. they reject Archbishop Newcome's infertion of the definite article, and make the charge of the Jews to be no more, than that he made himself A Son of GOD, which, in any other fenfe than the one we contend for, could not have amounted to blafphemy..

They once indeed venture to call him (as vios Oes, without the article,) A Son of A God; that is, of Jupiter or Mercury, or Sommonocodom the God of Siam perhaps; however, to be fair with them, it is certainly only put into the mouth of the Roman Centurion; and though we conceive that this officer was not unacquainted with the charge of blafphemy under which he fuffered, yet we fhall not further notice it at prefent, except to obferve, that as Grotius remarks, it is at leaft a proof that he thought him as much a God as Hercules, Efculapius, &c. The Editors however should at least be confiftent, but they are not fot; they omit

or

* That the mere omiffion of the article is not of the impor tance the Editors feem difpofed to infer may appear from the fol lowing paffage of Ignatius. Ἐν Ιησὺ χῳ τῷ κατὰ σάρκα ἐκ γένους Δαβιδ τῷ υἱῷ Ανθρώπε καὶ υἱῷ Θεῦ. How ftrange and how contrary to the writer's intention would it be to render it, " In Jefus Chrift, the Son of a Man and a Son of a God."

+ In one page they exprefsly render it THE Son of God where the article is omitted in the original, and A Son of God where it

occurs.

or infert both the definite and indefinite article as they choose, and this both in regard to the title of Son of God and Son of Man, both of which we think defignate the Meffiah.. Thus in regard to the latter they infert the definite article before "Averos in that particular paffage, John v. 27 *, which Chryfoftom thought of fo much moment as to propofe a new reading. For, fays he, if according to this paffage, authority to execute judgment was given to him merely as man, that is, as A Son of MAN, (for the articles are omitted,) a like authority might be given to any man or all men; he proposes therefore to make the paufe after "judgment," and then to proceed, Because he is A Son of Man wonder not; that is, wonder not that fuch a power should be given to a Son of Man, because he is in fact much more, For," the hour cometh, in the which all that are in the graves fhall hear his voice, &c."-Now if this reafoning is right, and it has certainly been approved by very eminent fcholars †, and even the Syriac Verfion favours it, we are bound to conclude, that the Son of Man is as emphatical as the Son of God, and both of them particularly appropriate to the Meffiah, who is both the Son of God, xal on in a moft peculiar and fingular manner, and the Son of Man in the fame way, xal oxy, and fingularly foretold as fuch by the prophet Daniel. These things therefore require to be attended to. If the omiffion of the article is of importance, the infertion of it is of importance alfo. If the omiffion of it directs us to interpret the paffage generally, the infertion of it must direct us to interpret it suQarms. If our Saviour is but once pronounced to be the Son of God, & vids tõ Oeỡ, then he certainly is fo emphatically, and in the fame manner as ̈ó vids Tỡ 'Avôρúπ8, he must be man in a peculiar fenfe. There appears therefore to be nothing gained by this fcrupulous attention to the articles on the part of the Editors. If Chrift

occurs, Luke iv. 3. and 9. Grotius and Beza indeed incline to think it should be read without the article in the laft paffage, but principally because it is omitted in the former.

And yet in their notes, give the true reading as adopted even by Mr. Wakefield. How much has been thought to depend on the omiffion of the article here, may be seen in Bishop Bull's Prim. et Apoft. Trad. Ch. vi. §§ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23. The infertion of the definite and rejection of the indefinite article is curious enough.

+ Sce Erafmus in loco, and Bull. Prin, et Apoft. Trad. Cap. vi. $316, 17, &c.

is the Son of God and the Son of Man, he must be a Son of God and a Son of Man; but the converfe will not hold good as a Son of God, and a Son of Man, he loses that diftinction which, upon the teftimony of Prophets, Evangelifts. and Apoftles, is peculiarly and fingularly appropriate to the Meffiah. Throughout the whole of the New Tefta ment he is continually spoken of as the Son of Man, and as the Son of God, fo emphatically as to leave no doubt but that after fome manner or other, to us unknown at prefent, he partook of both natures. We have thought it right to notice these things, because, without entering into an exami nation of every paffage where. the cafe applies, we feel war ranted in declaring, that there appears to be an obvious intention on the art of the new commentators to confound thefe matters; by putting the indefinite article before Son when applied to our Saviour without the article in the origi nal, and not unfrequently inferting the definite article where the terms "Son of God" are applied to fubordinate beings, though the text does not warrant it, as Romans viii. 16. Gal. iii. 16. We do not deny that they have the counte hance of the received version for the infertion in the two pallages just cited, nor do we intend wholly to object to it, though it would be more correct to have omitted it in both verfions; but fince the Editors do not fcruple to mark it as an interpolation by printing it in Italics, and are fo ready to take advantage of every omiffion of the article when our Saviour is fpoken of, we feel it our duty to warn the public of the trap laid for them. To show the distinction that fhould be preferved, we would refer, for inftance, to Galatians iv. 4, 5, 6, 7, where the fonfhip of the elect is declared to be a mere matter of adoption through Chrift, who is (with an emphafis not improperly expreffed in the received text). declared to be 5 vios aula, God's own Son*, fent forth from him

to

*It is curious to fee how the unlearned may be misled by préjudiced tranflators. Nothing feems farther from the intention of the facted writers than to defcribe our Saviour as an adopted Son of God; in this paffage he feems directly and moft emphatically! to be diftinguished from thofe who were to be adopted through him. Yet in the 1ft of Hebrews, ver. 4, 5, where it is exprefsly. faid in the Greek that Chrift inherited a more excellent name than the angels, and this is, enforced by a reference to the Pfalms, where it is faid of the Meffiah, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." The prefent Editors fupprefs the term exampovoμnxarg

to be born into the world, of a woman, under the law, that those that were under the law might obtain την ψιοθεσίαν, " adop tion," to be vios, Sons, diaxpise, through Chrift. This may entitle them indeed to address God as A6Cx, Father, but not to call him, as Chrift does, walepa idov, his OWN PROPER Father. For this is undoubtedly the true fenfe of idov (and the Jews must have underftood it fo. See Doddridge, F. Ex.. befides note (c.) p. 508. vol. 1.) To explain the fubfequent term Gov in the fame verfe, the force of which is also loft in the present Verfion, fee John v. 18.

And this feems to be a proper place to examine generally how far the prefent Editors have attended to Mr. Sharp's rule concerning the infertion or omiffion of the definite ar ticle before perfonal, or, as Mr. Middleton terms it, attribu tive nouns. As they appear to be fo obfervant of articles, we ought to find this rule properly exemplified here, if any where, or reafons ftated for deviating from it; for the rule is now too publicly known, and too refpectably fupported *, both by the consent of modern critics and reference to more antient ones, to be wholly difregarded by any biblical critics, much more by any Editors of an improved Verfion of the New Testament. We fhall carefully examine fome of the paffages moft liable to be affected by the neglect of this rule.

The firft we fhall felect is that striking paffage in the 2d ch. of Titus, Mr. Sharp's 7th example of his first rule, Επιφανείαν τῆς δόξης το μεγάλο Θεῖ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησῶ Xps. It was impoffible for us (we are forry to fay) to turn to this paffage without fome fufpicions. We knew that

which marks the inheritance and render εγώ σήμερον γεγεννηκά σε this day I have adopted thee! A more glaring deception and evafion could fcarcely have been attempted. This is perfectly fyftematic, perfectly technical, in the ftyle of Unitarian theology. Some acknowledgment indeed we find in the notes, where we are told, that "the Greek original and Archbishop Newcome are totally against them."-They had no objection to notice the heirship fpoken of in ver. 2. ενέθηκε κληρονομον παλων ; this they render as the received text has it, whom he hath appointed heir of all things. But as they determine the meaning of raw to reach no farther than to the things of the Chriftian difpenfation, they admit the ufual reading, the inheritance of a name above angels, is a different,

matter.

Beza's admirable note upon it, and the corroborating tellimony of the Greek fathers examined by Mr. Wordsworth, give it all the authority we could defire.

See Brit. Crit. xx, 17,

there

E8

there were two things which might tend greatly to interfere with the true fenfe of St. Paul-one, the infertion of the comma after 8, and the other, the repetition of the particle" of,” -two (apparently) very infignificant things, the importance of which indeed can be little understood but by profeffed critics, and yet of fuch importance as to demand the utmoft attention of thofe who would protect the public from mifrepresentations. Upon turning to this Verfion we find both admitted; the comma after Oɛs, and the repetition of the particle" of," as though owrpas was detached from the word preceding. Had not Mr. Sharp written a word about the definite article, this paffage might have been produced as a ftumbling-block to the Unitarians. All tranflators, all commentators, all critics, muft confent to be governed by the uncorrupted text of the original. In this there seems now to be no difficulty. The comma after Oes has no authority to fupport it, even if fome fuch mark is difcernable in antient MSS. it must be grammatically wrong, as Mr. Sharp has fhown. We have two perfonal and defcriptive nouns in the fame cafe connected by the copulative, without any repetition of the article; and we have Яuw common to both. What can be objected to the regular grammatical rendering of this fentence," the glorious appearance of our great God and Saviour Jefus Chrift?" Nothing can reasonably be objected to this; but it can be varied a little; a comma after 8 will feparate it from owenpos, and the particle" of" repeated will feem to begin a new fentence; but we cannot. admit it*. In the Greek there is no comma, and according to the fair idiom of languages, there is no authority for the introduction of the particle" of" before Zwinpos. The words O and owrpis appear to be ftrictly predicated of Jefus Chrift; and to disfigure this reading by a falfe infertion of a comma and a particle, is not to improve but to corrupt the text. After all, the question is better decided, perhaps, by a reference to the term vez, as Beza and Whitby fuggeit. The appearance of the Glory of the great God mult be the Shechinah; must be the vifible Jehovah; must be the Chrift, the Meffiah. The great God, Jehovah in his utmost,

*The following paffage, the conftruction of which is perfectly analogous, the Editors have rendered according to the rule, (2 Peter ii. 20. See alfo 2 Pet. iii. 18. Phil. iv. 20. Gal. i. 4.) Kala ro θέλημα το Θεό και παῖος ήμων, rightly rendered " according to the will of our God and Father." See alfo Ephef. v. 20. 1 Theff. i. 3. iii. 13. 2 Theff. ii. 16.

ineffable