"Thus corrected, the passage may be explained as follows: Great is the mystery of godliness. He, who was manifest in the flesh; that is, who dwelt among men, humbled himself, and submitted to the sufferings incident to human life;—was justified by the spirit;* was vindicated in declaring himself to be the Messiah sent from God, by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which he possessed in so high a degree, and which were conferred so abundantly on many of his followers;-was seen of angels, or messengers;t of those persons, who were to be the messengers of the gospel, and to bear

89,) 'have who or which. And all the ancient fathers, though the copies of many of them have it now in the text itself εos, God; yet from the tenor of their comments upon it, and from their never citing it in the Arian controversy, it appears that they always read it is, who, or i, which.' See Improv. Vers. fourth edition, note. Also, Sir Isaac Newton's Letter to Le Clerc.

* Rosenmuller has remarked, that spirit here may signify the christian doctrine, as in other places. In this case it would mean, that the nature of this doctrine, and its success among men,, justify Christ in professing himself to be the Son of God. Rosenmul. in loc. et Schleusn. in verb. VEUμ. 17.

"The proper rendering is by, and not in the spirit, as the context plainly indicates. By a Hebraism, ɛ is put for dia per. Vorstius de Hebrais. cap. xiv. § 4.

"The same word which is here rendered angels, is often translated messengers, which is evidently its meaning in this place. John the Baptist is called an angel or messenger. Luke'vii. 27. 'Behold, I send my messenger (ayyεdov μov, my angel,) before thy face.' ix. 52. Jesus 'sent messengers (ayyλovs, angels) before his face; and they went and entered into a city of Samaria to make ready for him.' On this part of the text, Macknight remarks as follows,-Was seen of angeis, that is, of the apostles, and of the other witnesses, who were appointed to publish and testify his resurrection to the world.' Aliis ayyɛλo hoc loco sunt apostoli; illis enim Christus in vitam redux sæpius apparuit, ut essent testes resurrectionis. Rosenmul."

witness to the truth of his resurrection;-was preached to the Gentiles; his religion was promulgated among all nations, Gentiles as well as Jews;—was believed on in the world; his doctrine was embraced, and he was believed to be the Messiah;-was received up in glory; his ascension was marked with circumstances of glory.* "The sense of the text will be the same, if the present reading be retained, provided the word God be considered a title of Christ, in a sense in which we have already seen it is frequently used. But if you suppose this title to denote the Supreme Being, it will be impossible to give any consistent or rational explanation of the passage. How can the eternal God, who is every where present, be said to reside in the human body? The being, who is here mentioned, had been raised from the dead; but how can such language be applied to the living God, 'who only hath immortality? How could the Almighty Father, 'who dwelleth in light inaccessible,' be 'received up in glory? Such are the inconsistences of this text, if you attempt to interpret it on the supposition, that the being of whom it speaks is the Supreme God. And since those authorities, by which we determine the true reading of any part of scripture, do not warrant such a supposition, and the sense of the text is decidedly against it, why should it be admitted?".

[Letters on the Episcopal Church.

<<* The original is ev do¿n, in, or with glory. Receptus est in gloria, id est cum gloria, seu gloriose, per Hebraismum in pro cum posito. Crellii Comment. Tom. ii. p. 19."

To Correspondents and Subscribers.

Some of our late subscribers, probably, have not received all the former numbers of this work, according to their request. The demand has been so much beyond our expectation, that every copy of these numbers has already been called for. A new edition will be immediately put to press, and every subscriber will be supplied with the work from the beginning.

We take this opportunity of repeating to our correspondents, that every thing sent for publication in this work must be submitted to the discretion of its Editors. We should like articles from any party, as we first suggested, written with good temper, and calculated to promote fair and useful discussion. But we disclaim all obligation to publish articles of this description. We must be allowed in all cases to judge for ourselves. We state this explicitly, that we may no longer be subjected to the imputation of inconsistency, or unfairness.

* We remind our agents and subscribers, that the subscriptions for the first year, according to our proposals, is due at the date of this number. We desire them to forward the amount as soon as possible to WILLIAM READ, of Baltimore, Treasurer of the Baltimore Unitarian Society.

It may not be improper for us to state; that we have considerably more than complied with our part of the engagement. We promised thirty-six pages monthly. Our numbers have thus far averaged forty-eight pages.

SOME of our readers may recollect to have seen, in a former number, [II. p. 84] a few observations on an article in the Episcopal Magazine, purporting to be remarks on a Review of the Rev. J. Sparks' Letters on the Episcopal Church. To these observations a reply has been made by the writer of that article. He professes to come forward "with great reluctance" to this duty, but "in deference to the opinion of judicious friends, something, it seems, was expected to be said on the subject." We are glad his friends had a sufficient sense of justice to prompt them to this advice; but we regret, on his account as well as theirs, that he has not succeeded in making out a better vindication.

He was charged with reviewing, criticising, and censuring a book, which he had never seen. To this charge he pleads guilty; for he not only testifies, that he "had never read these boasted Letters," but assures us, in the exuberance of his candour and frankness, that he "never will read" them. This must be allowed to be very explicit, but it only aggravates the offence. The truth is, he spoke of the book in very abusive terms; professed to make extracts which it does not contain; charged it with maintaining sentiments directly contrary

to those, which are actually found in it; and, what is still more indefensible, gave his readers to understand throughout his strictures, that he was intimately acquainted with the work. And when he undertakes to vindicate himself, what does he say? Why, nothing more, in truth, than that our charges are just.

In his zeal for self-defence, however, he is betrayed into an assertion, which can be so immediately proved incorrect, that we can hardly realize its having been sanctioned by an editor of the Episcopal Magazine. "Specimens of phrases, absurd and unintelligible," says he, "occupy the greatest part of the forty-second page of the Review, and the whole is marked as a part of Mr. Sparks' Letters."*, Whoever wilt look at the page here cited will find, that explicit reference is made at full length to the Protestant Dissenter's Catechism, without the remotest allusion to Mr. Sparks' Letters. This would not appear so very extraordinary, had we not noticed the same misrepresentation in our former remarks. In the present instance, instead of being acknowledged, or explained, it is repeated.

He adds further, "that he had said Mr. Sparks, or his reviewer, or both, have misrepresented the discipline and services of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and endeavoured to throw ridicule upon her most solemn ordinances and he says so still." Here, it will be seen, he reiterates the same charge as at first, even after confessing, that he has no knowledge of the work, against which he brings the heavy accusation of misrepresenting the discipline, and ridiculing the solemn

*The reference here is to the Baltimore Edition of the Review of Sparks' Letters. It corresponds with page 315 of the Christian Disciple for July and August, 1820.