EXAMPLE, I. ACTS XX. 28.

[...].

The warning of the apoſtle Paul to the preſby⯑ters of the church of Epheſus, which is thus ren⯑dered in the common engliſh verſion, ‘Take heed therefore unto yourſelves, and to all the flock over which the holy Ghoſt hath made you over⯑ſeers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchaſed with his own blood.’

In the Alexandrian MS. and a few other MSS. inſtead of [...], which is the moſt general reading, the word [...] is ſubſtituted; but many old MSS. have both words, [...], whereby the text is brought within the conſtruction of the 1ſt rule, [22]and ſhould be rendered,—"To feed the church of the Lord, even of God, which he hath purchaſed with his own blood."

Though there is no word in the Greek to cor⯑reſpond with this word "even," ſo as that it might be deemed a literal rendering, yet this engliſh word is frequently uſed by our tranſlators to ex⯑preſs the identity of perſon, when a copulative, in the greek text, joins a ſecond ſubſtantive (i. e. of perſonal deſcription without an article,) to the former ſubſtantive, preceded by an article, agree⯑able to the firſt rule, as in Romans, xv. 6. [...] and I. Cor. xv. 24. [...]. both of which are rendered,—"God, even the father," (in⯑ſtead of the literal rendering the God and father) that the identity of perſon may be the more obvious. See alſo II. Cor. i. 3. [...]. This ſentence contains two ſucceſ⯑ſive examples of the firſt rule, and is rendered ‘Bleſ⯑ſed be God, even the father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, the father of mercies, and the God of all comfort’ See alſo James iii. 9. [...] I. Theſſ. iii. 13. [...]. II. Theſſ. ii. 16. [...]. Beſides theſe ſix examples, where⯑in the word even, in the engliſh verſion, expreſſes the the copulative, there are alſo 13^* other examples of [23]the firſt rule, in the New Teſtament: i. e. altoge⯑ther 19 examples, reſpecting our heavenly father alone; and therefore the 9 examples of the ſame mode of expreſſion, produced in this and the fol⯑lowing pages, reſpecting the ſon, and holy ſpirit, ought certainly to be rendered in a ſenſe ſuitable to the ſame uniform rule of conſtruction, to ex⯑preſs the identity of perſons, becauſe the ſame mode of grammatical expreſſion is uſed in them all.

EXAMPLE, No. II. EPHESIANS, v. 5.

— [...]

In the common engliſh verſion the ſentence is rendered "no whoremonger &c." hath any inheri⯑tance in the kingdom of Chriſt, and of God. As if two perſons had been mentioned in the original text; but as the part of the ſentence, above cited, is the generally approved reading of the printed greek copies, and as this reading is confirmed by the Alexandrian MS. and by all other greek MSS. of known authority, it affords an unqueſtionable proof againſt the apoſtacy of the Socinians in their denial of divine honour to our Lord the Chriſt, or Meſſiah, who, according to the idiom of the greek Tongue, is in this text expreſsly entitled [...], "GOD," though the proof does not appear in the engliſh verſion. Let it be remarked that the two ſubſtan⯑tives [24]of perſonal deſcription [...] and [...] are joined by the copulative [...], and that the article [...] pre⯑ceeds the firſt, and that there is no article before the word [...], whereby, according to the firſt rule, both titles are neceſſarily to be applied to one and the ſame perſon, and (if literally rendered in eng⯑liſh) ſhould be—"hath not inheritance in the king⯑of the Chriſt and God." But this literal rendering does not ſufficiently expreſs the neceſſary doctrine of the greek, that the Chriſt is alſo God, and there⯑fore, to help the engliſh idiom, and to accommodate the rendering more ſtrictly to the true meaning of the greek, the name of Jeſu, which is neceſſary to be underſtood, might very fairly be inſerted in italies, or between hooks, to ſupply the neceſſary ſenſe of the greek;—as "in the kingdom of (Jeſus) the Chriſt and God:" or elſe to be rendered —"in the kingdom of Chriſt (even) of God"— as recommended in the firſt example.

EXAMPLE, III. PHILIPIANS iii. 3.

[...].

This is rendered in our common verſion,—‘For we are the circumciſion, which worſhip God IN the ſpirit, and rejoice in Chriſt Jeſus, and have no confidence in the fleſh.’

In the London Polyglott, and many other valu⯑able [25]editions, the reading is [...], but in the Alexandrian MS. it is [...], which ſeems to be the true reading; becauſe the other is ſo unuſual an expreſſion, that the generality of tranſlators have forced a conſtruction, which the context itſelf cannot fairly bear, even if the da⯑tive caſe, [...], was admitted to be the true reading, unleſs another word, the prepoſition [...], be alſo added to it before [...], as in John iv. 23. and Rom. viii. 9. where the ſenſe, which they have ap⯑plied to this text, was really intended; but, without this addition, (as we may fairly judge by thoſe ex⯑amples) the literal rendering ought to be, ‘We are the circumciſion, who worſhip the ſpirit God.’ Whereas they have commonly rendered it as if the prepoſition [...] was really inſerted in this text before the dative [...], as in the two examples before cited, viz. "Qui ſpiritu ſervimus dec." or ‘Qui ſpi⯑ritu colimus Deum’ or as in the Syriac verſion "Qui deo ſervimus in ſpiritu." (fyr.) or as in the common engliſh verſion, ‘Which worſhip God in the ſpirit.’ But there is no ſuch prepoſition in the greek. The difficulty therefore of rendering the common reading ( [...]) without ſuppoſing this addition of EN to be underſtood before [...], proves that the reading of the Alexandrian MS. in this text is really to be prefered, [...] ^* [26] [...] "who worſhip the ſpirit of God," whereby the apoſtle and Timothy, as an example to the church at Philippi, aſſert their profeſſion that they pay divine honour to the ſpirit of God, and that they glory in Chriſt.

EXAMPLE, IV. 11. THESS. i. 12.

[...].

This, in the common engliſh verſion, is render⯑ed (very erroneouſly) as if two diſtinct perſons were mentioned, viz. "according to the grace of our God, and the Lord Jeſus Chriſt." But if two diſtinct perſons had really been intended to be expreſſed as (by innumerable examples of the grammatical conſtruction of ſentences for the accurate diſtinc⯑tion of perſons peculiar to the greek tongue, uſed in the greek teſtament, from which the preceeding rules were formed) may be demonſtrated, the arti⯑cle would have been repeated (according to the ſixth rule) after the copulative and before the ſe⯑cond ſubſtantive [...]. For it is manifeſt that the [27]inſertion of the comma, in ſome greek copies, after [...], is a modern interpolation; becauſe the expe⯑dient of breaking ſentences into ſmall diviſions or particles by commas, to preſerve the neceſſary diſ⯑tinctions, was not anciently uſed (nor likely to have been uſed) by the ancient writers of the greek tongue, who were accuſtomed to much more accurate diſtinctions in their various pecu⯑liar modes of grammatical expreſſion, ſpecified in the ſix preceding rules.

Whole ſentences are, indeed, diſtinguiſhed in the oldeſt greek MSS. by a ſingle point placed at their end, ſometimes towards the top of the line, ſometimes in the middle, and ſometimes towards the bottom; but apparently no diſtinction of time has been intended by any of theſe three different modes of placing the point, for they are all placed indiſcriminately to the moſt obvious and full ter⯑mination of ſentences; and therefore we may be aſſured that, in all theſe three different modes of placing them, they were originally intended only as periods to conclude the ſentences; ſo that when we find them in the place of commas, to diſtinguiſh merely the parts or particles of a ſentence, there is great reaſon to ſuſpect that they have been the ad⯑ditions of later times.

In the Alexandrian MS. the text before us is awkwardly divided by one of theſe points, placed after the word [...], which point, for the reaſon [28]before given, muſt neceſſarily be deemed a period, and which did not exiſt in the original text of the ſacred penman.

The intention of the tranſcriber or interpolator by adding this point to the text (for it cannot juſtly be attributed to the original writer) has been probably to make a diſtinction of perſons; as if two perſons had been named in the text inſtead of one, in like manner as the comma is added after the word God, in the engliſh verſion, without any authority.

But the neceſſary grammatical conſtruction of the whole ſentence taken together detects the in⯑terpolator, and demonſtrates the abſurdity of ſup⯑poſing, that any ſuch point ever exiſted in the ori⯑ginal text, becauſe the words, which are ſevered by the ſuppoſititious period, cannot form a grammati⯑cal ſentence (according to the ordinary modes of expreſſion uſed in the greek tongue) by themſelves alone; ſo that the obvious ſenſe of the context demonſtrates their neceſſary connection with the preceding words in one entire ſentence; and de⯑monſtrates alſo, at the ſame time, the ignorance and fallacy of the interpolator, who attempted to make two ſentences of it by inſerting a full period.

If literally rendered, it ought to be—‘according to the grace of the God and Lord of us Jeſus Chriſt;’ but, more in the idiom of our own language, it might be juſtly rendered, ‘according to the grace of [29]Jeſus Chriſt our God and Lord.’ In either way the neceſſary doctrine of our Lord's divine nature, manifeſtly intended to be expreſſed in the original, is duly retained in the propoſed verſion.

EXAMPLE, V. 1. TIM. V. 21.

[...]. &c.

This, in the common engliſh verſion, is rendered —‘I charge (thee) before God and the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and the elect angels, that thou obſerve theſe things, &c.’

The word [...] is omitted in the Alexandrian MS. which, however, agrees in every other parti⯑cular; for no points whatever are inſerted between the ſubſtantives; ſo that we have the teſtimony even of this MS. for a clear declaration that Jeſus is God, as well as Lord; and after the next copu⯑lative, which connects the mention of different Perſons according to the ſixth rule, the adverb [...] (before) though not expreſsly repeated is plainly to be underſtood, as—'I charge' (thee) 'before the God and Lord' "Jeſus" (or rather 'before Jeſus the God and Lord, and' (before) ‘the elect angels, that thou obſerve theſe things.’ Thus far the teſtimony of the Alexandrian MS. But, accord⯑ing to the commonly received text of the greek, it ought to be rendered, in the engliſh idiom,—‘I charge (thee) before Jeſus Chriſt the GOD and LORD, and’ (before) the elect angels, &c.

EXAMPLE, VI. 11. TIM. iv. 1.

[...] &c.

In the common engliſh verſion this is rendered ‘I charge (thee) therefore before God, and the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, who ſhall judge the quick and the dead, &c.’

In the greek of this text, as it is commonly printed, the article [...] is repeated before [...], which, ſo far, affords an excuſe for the preſent engliſh verſion in placing the comma after the word God, to denote two diſtinct perſons, according to the ſixth rule; but in the Alexandrian MS. and ſeveral other old copies the article [...] is not repeated after the copulative before [...], ſo that the expreſſion is exactly ſimilar to the declaration of our Lord's divine nature by the ſame apoſtle in the preced⯑ing example, viz. I. Tim. v. 21. In ſome printed editions the word [...] is alſo omitted, but in the Geneva edition of 1620, with Scaliger's Notes, the word [...] is inſerted, and the article [...] omitted, whereby the title [...] (God) muſt neceſſarily be conſtrued in ſuch a manner that it may be clearly underſtood in all verſions to be expresſly applied to Chriſt, as it really is in the original. The tran⯑ſcriber or interpolator of the Alexandrian MS. however, being aware of this doctrine, has endea⯑voured to pervert it, by adding a full period after [31]the word [...] as [...]. But this period is unqueſtionably ſuppoſititious, becauſe the words before and after the period are not two diſtinct ſentences, but obviouſly, portions only of one entire ſentence, which muſt ne⯑ceſſarily be conſtrued together, according to the ordinary rules of expreſſion in the greek tongue, as I have remarked on a preceding example, whereby a ſecond ſubſtantive of perſonal deſcrip⯑tion, without an article before it, joined by a copu⯑lative to a preceding ſubſtantive of the like na⯑ture, and in the ſame caſe, with an article before it, muſt neceſſarily denote a farther deſcription of the ſame perſon, expreſſed by the firſt ſubſtantive, (whenever there is an article before the firſt ſub⯑ſtantive and none before the ſecond) ſo that the inſertion of the period in the Alexandrian MS. af⯑ter [...] is utterly vain, becauſe the copulative ſuffici⯑ently proves the connection of the two ſubſtantives in one clear ſentence, and the omiſſion of the article before the ſecond ſubſtantive induces the neceſſity of applying the ſame grammatical conſtruction whereby alone the due diſtinction of perſons is ſo peculiarly maintained in the greek tongue, and not by points. The text ſhould therefore be rendered, —‘I charge (thee) therefore, before the God and Lord Jeſus Chriſt, &c.’ or rather (to render the doctrine more obvious in the engliſh idiom)—‘I charge (thee) therefore, before Jeſus Chriſt the God and Lord, who ſhall judge the quick and [32]the dead, &c.’ And thus the texts in the two laſt examples will perfectly accord as the uniform ex⯑preſſions of the ſame apoſtle, aſſerting, in both, the divinity of his Lord and Saviour, by whom he had been perſonally ſummoned to bear his teſtimony to the gentiles, as being an eye and ear witneſs of his glorious majeſty.

Our Socinian Sadducees, who have impiouſly en⯑tituled our Lord "a mere man," and "nothing but a man," and ſimple human nature, will not be able to digeſt this neceſſary doctrine, until they humble themſelves to receive inſtructions from the holy ſcriptures.

EXAMPLE, VII. TIT. ii. 13.

— [...].

The preſent verſion of theſe words, in the eng⯑liſh teſtament, is—‘Looking for that bleſſed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt.’ This text (though the next in order, according to the uſual mode of arranging the books of the new teſtament) has al⯑ready been produced as the ſecond example in the preceding letter. I have ſince however examined the Alexandrian MS. and find that it agrees exactly with the above citation of this text, except that a point has been added in the MS. after the word [...] [33]or [...]. On which it is neceſſary to obſerve that the ſame remarks are obviouſly applicable to this ſuper⯑fluous and abſurd addition of the point, or period, that I have made on the texts, II. Theſſ. i. 12. and II. Tim. iv. 1. in the fourth and ſixth examples of this tract. For as the proper effect and purpoſes of periods is to ſeparate words into diſtinct ſentences, it is obvious that the words, which follow the ſuppo⯑ſititious period in this text, are incapable of a gram⯑matical conſtruction without reference to the preceding words, connected by the copulative; and therefore the note of ſeparation (a period) cannot poſſibly have been intended by the inſpired writer. This teſtimony therefore of the ſacred text in fa⯑vour of the neceſſary doctrine of our Lord's divine nature ought not to be withheld from the mere en⯑gliſh reader.

I am perſuaded that our modern Socinians would not have made ſo much clamour about the neceſſity of a new tranſlation, had they been aware that a more cloſe and literal rendering of the ori⯑ginal text (even in paſſages which had eſcaped their calumnious charges of corruption, and their arrogant attempts at imaginary correction) muſt neceſſarily cut up their favourite ſyſtem by the roots.

The text in queſtion, if the truth of the original be duly regarded, muſt inevitably be rendered, ‘Expecting the bleſſed hope and appearance of the [34]glory of our great God and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt.’

EXAMPLE, VIII. II. PET. i. 1.

— [...].

Which in the common engliſh verſion, is thus imperfectly rendered,—‘through the righteouſneſs of God, and our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt.’

This text, though the eighth in order, according to the proper order of the books, was the firſt ex⯑ample cited in my letter; and I have only to re⯑mark farther, that the Alexandrian MS. perfectly agrees with the preſent common approved reading of the greek text. In Dr Woide's printed copy of the ſaid MS. there is a point inſerted after the word [...], which is not in the MS. but that is manifeſtly a merely accidental typographical er⯑ror.

The Rev. Mr Cruttwell has remarked (in his uſeful edition of the engliſh bible with Biſhop Wilſon's notes) that the words rendered in our preſent verſion, viz.—‘of God and our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt’ were rendered—‘of our God and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt’ in the verſions of Wiclif, Cover⯑dale, Mathews, Cranmer, in the Biſhops (bible) (the) Geneva, (the) Rhemiſh, (bibles) and by Dod⯑dridge, Weſtley, Scattergood, and Purver; which is altogether a noble teſtimony of both ancient and modern times againſt the Socinian impiety. The eng⯑liſh [35]reader ſhould undoubtedly be informed of the true meaning of theſe words in a proper engliſh idiom, as,—‘Through the righteouſneſs of Jeſus Chriſt our God and Saviour:’—which is agreeable to a literal rendering into latin by the late learned Dr Thomas Mangey, prebendary of Durham, viz. —"Jeſu Chriſti Dei et ſervatoris noſtri."

EXAMPLE, IX. JUDE, iv.

— [...].

This, in the common engliſh verſion, is imper⯑fectly rendered,—‘and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt.’

I made a tranſcript of this text, ſeveral years ago, from the Alexandrian MS. which I copied or ra⯑ther drew, letter by letter, in ſize and ſhape as exactly as the eye could diſcern. In this tranſcript the word [...] is omitted, as in the MS. but I did not, at that time, perceive that there was any point or mark after the word [...], and I was there⯑fore, much ſurprized, afterwards, in comparing the ſaid tranſcript, with the elegant edition of my late very worthy and reſpectable friend the Rev. Dr Woide (who printed a copy of the new teſta⯑ment from the Alexandrian MS. with new types in imitation of the letters of the MS.) to find that he had inſerted a point, in his new edition, after the [36]word [...]. I was very conſident that I could not diſcern any ſuch point, when I examined the MS. and yet, as I entertained the higheſt reſpect and eſteem for the veracity and accuracy of Dr Woide (of which he was, indeed, truly worthy) it was neceſſary to have this matter properly ex⯑plained; and I was rendered perfectly aware by Dr Velthuſen's account of his examining an an⯑cient MS. that the feint lines and marks in the very old MSS. are liable to bear different appear⯑ances, according to the different degrees of light in which they are ſeen.

I therefore took the firſt opportunity, afterwards, of going once more to examine the MS. and on a more cloſe inſpection, I perceived, indeed, the feint mark which occaſioned Dr Woide's inſertion of the period, in his edition; but being afterwards aſſiſted by the worthy librarian the Rev. Mr Har⯑per, in a ſtill more attentive and accurate exami⯑nation of the mark with a magnifying glaſs, I was ſatisfied that it had not been intended for a period, but only for a ſhort line of connection, becauſe it is nearly three times as long as it is broad.

But if any perſon, from the authority of Dr Woide's edition, ſhould be ſtill inclined to ſuppoſe that it is really a point, I muſt requeſt them care⯑fully to conſider what I have before remarked on the fourth, ſixth and ſeventh examples in this tract, reſpecting the addition of points in greek manu⯑icripts; [37]and alſo, concerning the more accurate modes of Grammatical diſtinction in the greek tongue, which rendered the ſmalier points, or par⯑ticles of time (ſuch as ſemicolons and commas) abſo⯑lutely unneceſſary in the greek ſcripture; and, in addition thereto, let him obſerve, particularly on the text before us, that a point in that place, after [...] (in the middle of the ſentence, between the accuſative noun and verb) is utterly inconſutent with grammar and common ſenſe; and though the word [...], has been omitted in the Alexandrian MS. (perhaps for the ſame reaſon that ſome men would wiſh to prove the inſertion of the point after [...]) yet, happily, neither of theſe altera⯑tions would at all affect, or injure the manifeſt teſtimony of the apoſtle Jude, to Chriſt's almighty power and divinity, for—‘the only potentate and Lord of us Jeſus Chriſt,’ is equivalent to a full declaration of Chriſt's Divinity, as well as of his almighty power; and with reſpect to the inſertion of the ſuppoſed point, they muſt perceive, if they duly conſider the text, that the words [...] and [...] cannot (conſiſtently with the neceſſary gram⯑matical ſenſe of the greek, and the uſual modes of expreſſion, or idiom of that language) be ſeparated either by points or conſtruction, ſo as to be applied to two different perſons, becauſe the article is not repeated after the copulative, before [...]: ſo that Chriſt alone, was unqueſtionably that—"only poten⯑tate," [38]or ſovereign Lord, who was denied by the laſcivious perſons, againſt whom the apoſtle Jude bore teſtimony of their reprobacy, and of their having denied the Lord who had redeemed them. Dr Hammond's rendering of the text before us, may, therefore, be conſcientiouſly maintained, viz. "and our only maſter God and Lord Jeſus Chriſt," making (ſays he)—"thoſe three the ſeveral attri⯑butes of Jeſus Chriſt." But as the doctor has been pleaſed to add, that—‘This interpretation proceeds upon that way of punctuation, which is ordinarily retained in our copies, there being no comma after [...],’ I am obliged to proteſt againſt that reaſon, for the other reaſons already given; and to inſiſt, that the grammatical conſtruction of the greek text is, of itſelf, our ſufficient and beſt warrant to juſtify that literal rendering.

But the applying to Chriſt this ſupreme title, —"the only potentate God" (and, alſo in a former text, the ſupreme title of—"the great God") may perhaps induce ſome perſons to conceive that this grammatical ſyſtem of conſtruction, if admitted as a rule, for all texts, in which the ſame mode of expreſſion renders it applicable, will ſometimes prove rather too much, and may be liable to fa⯑vour a modern ſect of Unitarians, who have adopt⯑ed the Sabellian notions of the late Baron Swe⯑denborg, and who aſſert, that—‘Jeſus Chriſt is the only God;’ that is, they underſtand this in ſo [39]peculiar a ſenſe, that they do not ſeem properly to acknowledge the perſonality of the holy ſpirit, any more than a very oppoſite ſect of Unitartans do, the modern Socinians, who impiouſly aſſert (in the oppoſite extreme to that the of Swedenborgians) that ‘Jeſus Chriſt was a mere man, and nothing but a man,’ according to one of their teachers, and —"ſimple human nature," according to another: and ſome of them have even preſumed to charge the members of the church of England with ido⯑latry, ^* becauſe they pay the divine honour that is [40]due to their Lord and Saviour; and to the holy ſpirit, their —"other comforter."

So that both theſe ſects of proſeſſed Unitarians (as well as their Unitarian brethern, the Mahome⯑tans) [41]are, by miſtaken notions of the divine unity, ſeduced from perceiving and acknowledging the declarations throughout the holy ſcriptures of the unqueſtionable exiſtence of three divine perſons in one only divine nature, or Godhead. The old Ari⯑ans (though their ſect was probably repreſented by that—"fallen ſtar," which opened the—‘bottom⯑eſs lpit,’ for the emiſſion of the armed locuſts of the Arabian hereſy, more ſtrictly Unitarians than themſelves ^*) allowed, indeed, that Chriſt was God, [42]yet they ſuppoſed him to be ſo, in an inferior de⯑gree; [43]by which they unwarily acknowledged a ſu⯑perior God, and an inferior God; i. e. more Gods than one, contrary to the true Unitarian doctrine of the primitive churches, which always held and aſſer⯑ted the unity of God (like the church of England to this day) as much as they held it neceſſary to ac⯑knowledge the three divine perſons; both of which doctrines are inevitable and indiſpenſible, while we profeſs to regulate our faith by the teſtimonies of the holy ſcriptures, as handed down to us, with⯑out preſuming to exerciſe the Socinian expedient of lopping off, or altering (as a ſuppoſed corruption or interpolation) every text of ſcripture that oppoſes the ſyſtem or ſet of notions that we happen to have adopted: And therefore the true Unitarian chriſtian, who acknowledges but one God,—one Jehovah,—one divine nature, ( [...]) or Godhead, and at the ſame time, nevertheleſs, is convinced, that three divine perſons are really revealed to us, under the title of [44] Jehovah ^* in the old teſtament; and under the title of [...]—or God, in the new teſtament; and that the ſupreme attributes of the DIVINE NATURE are ap⯑plied to each, in both teſtaments, will, of courſe, be aware alſo, that each of theſe divine perſons muſt neceſſarily be—"the great God," and —‘the only potentate’ as there is but—"one God"—one only ſupreme power, or Godhead.

So that the effect of my grammatical rule, when applied to the two particular texts before men⯑tioned (viz. Tit. ii. 13. and Jude iv.) will not (in the opinion of ſuch true chriſtians) ſeem to exceed the truth. ^†

Though the apoſtle Paul aſſerted to the Coloſ⯑ſians (ii. 9.) concerning Chriſt, that—‘in him dwel⯑leth ALL the fulneſs of the Godhead’ ( [...]) "bodily"—( [...],—a term of indiſputable per⯑ſonality) yet, ſurely, this was without the leaſt diſ⯑paragement to the ſupreme divinity of the almighty father, and of the holy ſpirit, becauſe they are; alſo, neceſſarily included in the ſame [...], or Godhead, as there is but one God; and, therefore, as—‘it pleaſed all fuineſs to dwell’ in the perſon of our [45] Lord Jeſus, (Col. i. 19) we may more eaſily compre⯑hend, why he required—"that all" (men) ‘ſhould honour the ſon, EVEN AS they honour the father,’ that is, undoubtedly, with ſupreme honour, [...], EVEN AS, or, according as,—"they honour the father." And our Lord ſaid expreſsly,—‘He that honoureth not the ſon’ (that is, according to the meaſure before declared,—"EVEN AS they honour" or ought to ho⯑nour, the father) ‘honoureth not the father which hath ſent him,’ (John v. 23.) and he alſo claimed expreſsly to be glorified with the father himſelf.—"And now O father" (ſaid he) ‘GLORIFY THOU ME WITH THINE OWNGELF, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was,’ (John xvii. 5.) thereby aſſerting both his pre-exiſtence and ſu⯑preme dignity. Chriſtians therefore, who humbly receive theſe, and the many other revelations of Chriſt's divinity, have the leſs difficulty in acknow⯑ledging the doctrines of the ancient catholic churches, and the declarations of our creeds. But let all other men likewiſe, who profeſs to believe in the name of Chriſt, earneſtly enquire, in the firſt place, as the firſt means of progreſs to the true faith, whe⯑ther they are really "willing" (for this is given is the true proof of faith— [...]) to conform themſelves to the will of God, as revealed in all the moſt obvious declarations and injunctions of holy ſcripture, and more particularly to the purity, [46]which is expreſsly called—"the will of God" viz. the ſanctification of their bodies ^* which cannot other⯑wiſe be capable of becoming—‘Temples of the holy Ghoſt;’ an indiſpenſible ſtate both of body and mind for all chriſtians to maintain; for, in that caſe, they may aſſuredly rely on God's abſolute promiſe, through Chriſt, that—‘if any one ſhall be WILLING to do HIS WILL he ſhall know of the doctrine whether it be of God; or whether I ſpeak’ (ſaid our Lord) "from myſelf." (John vii. 17.)