the introduction of Christianity. Was J. M. ignorant of this gloss, or was he ashamed of it? I charitably incline to hope the latter. Respecting such an interpretation, I think it quite sufficient to say, credat Judæus Apella.

J. M. however, with his usual dogmatical peremptoriness asserts, that there is nothing in the New Testament like Christ's being equal with God the Father. In proof that there was something like it, I adduced Phil. ii. 6. On this text then we are at issue. And here, in opposition to J. M. I will venture to maintain that our present translation is the right one. 1.-So far from opposing the design of the apostle, it exactly coincides with it. He is enforcing humility, and he enforces it by the wonderful example of Christ's humility. Though our Saviour was in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God; yet, so great was his humility, that he emptied himself of his former glory, and took upon him the form of a servant. If he then thus humbled himself, how much more should such poor sinful creatures as ye are. Let this mind, this humility, be in you, which was in Christ Jesus. Such is the drift of the apostle's argument, and a most powerful one it is: but had he argued as J. M. would make him do, he would indeed have merited Dr. Priestley's appellation of an inconclusive reasoner. 2.-What J. M. says of there being only one God, and therefore that he cannot be equal to himself, and so forth, is nothing but his old hackneyed expedient of begging the question. As I have already in my former letter noticed this device, I think it superfluous to say any thing more. 3.-His adducing Christ's assertion of his inferiority to his Father, is an argument of much the same cogency as his former grave attempt to prove the humanity of our Lord. While, on the authority of John xiv. 28, we believe his inferiority to the Father in one point of view; so, on the authority of Phil. ii. 6, we believe his equality with the Father in another point. As for J. M.'s "probably true rendering" of this latter passage, it would verily puzzle the whole society of schoolmasters to elicit such a meaning from the original. I have vainly endeavoured to discover the Greek words, which J. M. transmutes into "was not tenacious of retaining that likeness to God." Woe would have been to me when a school-boy, had I been guilty of any such transmutation! The exact literal translation of the passage is as follows:-" Who, being in the form of God, did not account the being equal with God, (or the being as God, viz. on the same footing as God), a robbery." The apostle uses to adverbially, as it is used by the best Greek writers. Thus, to pro

duce a single instance, Homer remarks of Castor and Pollux,τίμην δε λελογχασιν ισα θεοισιν, they have obtained honour equally with the gods, or as the gods; that is to say, they are so honoured as to be placed on the same footing as the gods. Odyss. xi. 303. But the most portentous part of J. M.'s criticism remains yet to be considered, a part even more portentous than his "probably true rendering" of an agarμor salo by was not tenacious of retaining. He has discovered a various reading in the text, which is indeed of the first-rate importance, "The word agnaux," says he, " does not mean robbery, but a prize, something in a person's possession that is esteemed valuable and not readily to be parted with." True; but in every copy of the Greek Testament which it has been my fate to see, the apostle uses the word ἁρπαγμος, not ἁρπαγμα. Now, although ἁρπαγμα signifies prey or booty, that which is procured by rapine; gayus, the word employed by the apostle, signifies robbery, the act of procuring that prey or booty. J. M. may consult Scapula, Hederic, and Parkhurst. Thus, after having at once misquoted and mistranslated the apostle, J. M. triumphantly remarks, "How admirably does such a rendering (viz. his own) coincide with the design of the apostle, and how forcibly must it strike every intelligent mind, as conveying the real meaning of the passage! So far then is the passage, properly translated, from supporting what this writer (to wit myself) would infer from it, that it directly opposes it!" Surely we live in an annus mirabilis of criticism, no less than of politics, But, unless I greatly mistake, the text in question not only proves the equality of Christ with the Father, but likewise (what indeed necessarily follows from such equality) his proper divinity. Christ is said to be in the form of God, and to take upon himself the form of a servant. Now, if the taking upon him the form of a servant denote his becoming a man in the lowest order of society, his being in the form of God must, by every analogy of language, denote his being God: for what right has J. M. to understand the two evidently parallel and contrasted phrases, the form of God and the form of a servant, differently?

He complains grievously of my altering and misrepresenting the common translation, not citing its real expressions, and adducing as its assertions what it no where contains. It is true, I have said that Christ was the pre-existent creator of the universe, when the apostle only asserts that all things were created by him, and that he is before all things: but few, except J. M. will therefore say that I have adduced as the assertions of the New Testament, what it no where contains. As for altering

and misrepresenting the common translation, I am content to follow J. M. at a very humble distance. I can boast no such alteration of it as his famous "probably true rendering" of Phil. ii. 6; nor any misrepresentation of it equal to his misrepresenting the apostle as using the word ἁρπαγμα, when he uses ἁρπαγμος, a word of quite a different meaning.

Two remaining passages of the New Testament he allows to be cited by me in its real language, and he moreover allows them to relate to Christ; but he denies that they contain any thing like an assertion that Christ is God. The title of King of kings and Lord of lords, seems to me far too high a one to have been everapplied by an inspired writer to a mere man. J.M. allows that it is applied to Christ. But St. John tells us, that it is the title of the Word of God. Therefore J. M. must allow, that the Word of God is Christ. But St. John tells us, that the Word of God is God. Therefore J. M. must either allow, that Christ is God, or deny that Christ is the Word. He allows however, that Christ is the Word. He must allow therefore, that, when St. John says the Word is God, he in fact says Christ is God. Nor is this the only passage, in which Christ is expressly styled God. Isaiah, as we have seen, calls him the mighty God and St. John himself clsewhere says of the Son Jesus Christ, This is the true God. 1 John v. 20. With respect to the other title, which J. M. allows to be a title of Christ, if the passage which contains it were the only one of such a nature in the whole Bible, I would be content to rest my belief in the divinity of Christ upon it alone. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And, being turned, I saw seven golden cau dlesticks, and in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the son of man. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not, I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth and was dead." Rev. i. 8, 11, 12, 13. 17, 18. The voice, that St. John heard, was the voice of the son of man, of him that liveth and was dead; the voice therefore of Christ. St. John consequently heard Christ declare himself to be Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the ending, which was, and which is, and which is to come, the Almighty. Now let any unprejudiced person judge, whether he, who claims such titles, can be a mere man; whether, on the contrary, he must not be the eternal and almighty God. A mere man cannot be both Alpha and Omega, the first and the

last. This is an attribute exclusively and peculiarly belonging to God alone. J. M. may quibble as long as he pleases about an absolute sense and a relative sense: common sense can see plainly that no mere man can be Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. J. M. indeed asserts, that Rev. i. 8, relates to the divine Being, as contradistinguished from Christ. The whole context of the passage, from Rev. i. 7 to verse 18, shews plainly that it relates to Christ, who in scriptural language is constantly styled the Lord. But, even if it be as J. M. would have it, he will not find himself much more at ease. For, in that case, after the apostle has styled (ver. 8.) the divine Being, Alpha and Omega, the begining and the ending, he afterwards similarly styles Christ, Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, (ver. 11. 17). But, if Christ be a mere man, how can he possess the very same attribute of eternity as the divine Being? The wretched quibble of J. M. respecting his relative sense cannot be better exposed, than by asking him, whether he, either in a relative sense or any other sense, could be properly styled Alpha and Omega, the first and the last? If Christ be nothing more than a mere man, common sense can discover no reason, why J. M. myself, or any other man, may not just as properly be called Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, as Christ.

"Thus we see, how futile the attempts of this writer are by any appeals to the New Testament to support the bare humanity of Jesus Christ." His miserable sophistry, his daring misquotation, his gross mistranslations and misrepresentations, make me shrink with disgust from the task of answering his wo last letters. I have perused them, and find them (if possible) worse specimens of criticism than even his two first; always indeed excepting" the probably true rendering" of Phil. ii. 6, and the learned discussion of the meaning of grayua, the word which St. Paul did not use.

CLERIC. DUNELM.

STATEMENT OF MR. STONE'S CASE BY HIMSELF.

To the Editor of the Monthly Repository.
SIR,

I CHEERFULLY embrace a short interval of respiration from the fury of an unjust unfounded, prosecution to gratefully acknowledge your favourable report of my Visitation discourse in the Review-department of your well-conducted Monthly Repository for September, 1806.-Well-conducted, I repeat, be

cause, impartial and unbiassed, you admit as well strictures in its disfavour from your Trinitarian, as testimonies in its favour from your Unitarian correspondents. I stigmatize the prosecution with the epithets unjust and unfounded, because, in my instruction of the people committed to my charge, whether from the pulpit or from the press, I am bound only by two solemn unconditional scriptural engagements, made with my ordaining bishop in " the form and manner of ordering of priests." These, being entered into posterior to the subscription to the articles, release me from all obligation to regard then in this important point, or to give myself the least concern whether the doctrines maintained in my Visitation Discourse be agreeable or disagreeable to certain Theological positions set forth in the 39 articles. The two engagements are the result of two interrogatories put by the ordaining bishop to the candidate for priest's orders, and of the candidate's categorical answers in the affirmative, viz.-The Bishop. "Are you persuaded that the holy scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrines required of necessity for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined out of the said scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge,and to teach nothing as required of necessity to eternal salvation but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the scriptures?" Answer. "I am so persuaded, and have so determined, by God's grace." The Bishop. "Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to God's word." Answer. "I will, the Lord being my helper." See the Church's" form and manner of ordering of priests" as established by law, by the statute of the 13th of Elizabeth. By the first of these engagements, I am enjoined by the ordaining bishop, "out of the scriptures to instruct the people, and to teach nothing as required of necessity to eternal salvation but that which I shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the scripture!" The second engagement brings me under the obligation to " banish and drive away doctrines strange and erroneous, contrary to God's word." My ordaining bishop leaves the 39 articles out of his interrogatories; makes no reservation, no proviso, no stipulation, in their favour. Not a word does he add, which implies on condition, that the doctrines, which you preach, or publish, as being persuaded that they are agreeable to the word of God, be at the same time consonant to "the commandments of men" contained in these articles. He keeps me free from, independent on, unshackled by, them,