is frequent with him, omits the use of the verb; yet when it is introduced, grammatical propriety exacts the same tense to "the second man-the Lord from heaven," as to." the first man, of the earth-earthy."* Accordingly in the next verse but one, where the past and the future are contrasted, the verb is introduced in its proper tenses-“ As we have born the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. The want of critical ground for this alleged improvement is the more remarkable, as there are given in the notes variatións, which affect the text in other points; although thought by the editors of variations to rest on insufficient grounds. On the point at issue, the text has been unquestioned.

John, viii. 58. "Before Abraham was, I am." To improve this text, the version renders it"I am he:" for which it pleads the same translation given to the same Greek words† in the twenty-fourth and twenty-eighth verses of the chapter. The truth is, although it is kept out of sight in the notes, that there is nothing in the original answering to "he," in any one of the passagès. In translating the two the last referred to, it was necessary to insert the pronoun, to accommodate to the English idiom: and there could be no mistake, Jesus having been discoursing of himself as the Messiah. But in regard to the text in question, the pronoun destroys all pertinency of the words to the question of the Pharisees" Hast thou seen Abraham?" A much better comment on them may be perceived in the rage of those people;

It has been considered as an improvement of the version, to thrust in the word "heavenly" into this text; although not supported herein, by any of the editors of abbreviations. Mills considers the Greek word (spavos) as a corruption found in some copies, brought in by some transcribers as contrasted with "earthy," in the former clause of the sentence.

who could no longer endure the discourse, but took up stones to cast at the speaker.*

Col. ii. 9." In him, dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead, bodily." The Improvers spare the last very emphatick word; but they have the courage to turn "the godhead" into " the Deity;" evidently accommodating the latter, to a sense in which the other is not used-that of the great agent spoken of personally. The original is not "God," but "godhead." There is a reason given for its rejection: and the amount of the reason, is its not being agreeable to system.

Col. i. 16, 17. All things were created by him and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." The considerations which occur on the whole passage are passed by, and the attention is confined to mistranslation: which is so contrived, as to affect the whole. For creation having been spoken of just before; and having been explained of a change in the moral world; there seems to have occurred a material difficulty in the expression "all things" twice found in the latter part of the passage. But the difficulty is got over, by translating-"all these things." The Greek word, occurring much oftener than an hundred times in the New Testament, sometimes without the article, is in every instance rendered" all things," and admits of no other rendering. Again,

*This is one of the texts, on which the opposite system has never been long satisfied with its own interpretations. Socinus explained it with an allusion to the name of Abraham, which signifies "a father of many nations;" so that before this should be verified, Christ must be: which singular interpretation was thought by the proposer of it to have been divinely conveyed to his mind, in answer to his many prayers for a right understanding of the text. Later followers of the same opinion, have resolved the sentiment into the existence of Christ in the divine decree: which was the interpretation of Dr. Priestley. The improved version has gone beyond them all, as to the extent in which it has set the translation in contrariety to the context.

† Παντα,

Η Θεότητος.

the English words "all these things" are constantly the rendering of the same Greek word, with the addition of another, answering to "these;" except in one place,† where it might have been "all things;" which is more literal. And besides Griesbach puts on the word the mark, expressing his doubt of its being genuine. It is not criticism, but system, which governed in this professed emendation of the common version.

John, iii. 13. "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven." The Improvers were very solicitous to make out, that "to ascend to heaven," means "to search into and understand the counsels of God: for then they thought it would follow, that "to descend from heaven," is to bring and to discover those truths to the world. In order to justify the former of these two positions, they allege, not that the words convey such an idea, according to common usage; but that two authors-Raphelius and Dr. Doddridge -understand them so. To the work of Raphelius, the present writer has not access; bt to his understanding, Dr. Doddridge says no such thing. His exposition is not that the two phrases have the same meaning; but that wherever the ascending to heaven is spoken of, it is with a view to, or for the purpose of, searching into the counsels and truths of God. The sense thus ascribed to this respectable commentator is made the more manifest, by the passages of scripture referred to in his note-Deut. iii. 12; Rom. x. vi, and Pro. xxx. 4. In each of these passages, the object of the ascent is mentioned in connexion with it; and not involved in the very terms, as is insisted on in regard to the present passage.

John, vi. 62. "What and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before." This ascending up means again, according to the version, † Luke, xxiv. 9.

* Παντα ταυτα.

the making of additions to the truths which had been revealed: and all the plea for this, is on the ground laid by the appeal to Raphelius and Doddridge. However respectable the former writer may have been; the latter being so unquestionably; their reputation could never have sanctioned so strange a construction, had they made it. On one of them, and probably on both, it has been erroneously charged.

cr

John, xvii. 5. " Glorify thou me with thyself, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." The version resolves this into the

purpose of the Father, who had reserved the glory for his Son; on which account, the latter is said to have had it with the Father, before the world was. The insufficiency of this construction is here thought glaring on the face of the passage, but may be confirmed by attention to the texts, thought to favour it by the Improvers. First, they cite Luke, xx. 36, 37, 38; presuming a sense which will be rejected, by all who object to the system intended to be thus sustained. Next is Rom. xxix. 30; wherein the calling of things which are not as though they were, refers, not to nations to be brought into being in distant times, but to the quickening of the dead in the person of Abraham, and in reference to the promise of a son. Then they mention the twelfth verse of this chapter. In the common version it is"None of them is lost but the son of perdition." The word "lost" is a good translation; and as such, retained by the version itself, to the same Greek word in the ninth verse of the next chapter-" Of those whom thou gavest me I have lost none." In the latter of these places, the impropriety of changing "lost" for "destroyed," would have been manifest. Therefore they let it stand, but put "destroyed" into the other verse; apparently, because to an English ear it carried the idea of bodily destruction, which had not yet overtaken Judas; who, as is remarked in the notes to the version, was still

living and bargaining to betray his master. But had they suffered a word to remain, which went to the being lost in the sense of unfaithfulness and apostacy, the place would have been irrelevant to the design. There follow references to passages, which have less plea to notice. The management bestowed on the text is constructed on the circumstance, that the future is often spoken of, as if present. But here, after retrospect to the past, there is prospect to the future; and the present stands clearly distinguished from both.

1 John iv. 2. "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God." The version retains the words; but gives them the effect of mistranslation, by a partial statement of the opposition in which they confessedly stand to the opinion of the Gnosticks and the Docetæ. It is alleged in consequence, that "come in the flesh," is synonymous with "a real man." The words comprehend much more: and the fallacy of the reference to the Gnosticks and the Docetæ, may be detected by a statement of the whole of their opinion. To say that these sects believed in the simple humanity of Christ, would be contrary to all the accounts transmitted of them. They believed him to be a superangelick being; but some held him to have been a man only in appearance; and others said, that the heavenly nature appertained to the man Jesus, only from his baptism until the approach of his crucifixion.

Fifth Remark. The principles of criticism, applied to the propitiatory sacrifice, are as unsound as those which governed on the preceding subject.

There will be the less need, to bring under consideration many of the interpretations held to be unsound; as they are generally resolvable into a principle, the errour of which may easily be demonstrated. The principle is, that sacrifice, according to original institution, and as practised under the law, was not for sin strictly speaking. The objections lying against the passages to be produced, will rest principally on the misstatement of this matter. Had the ground been