Phil. ii. 6. would have been more justly tranflated, "who, being in the form of God, thought not the being like to God a thing to be gredily seized by him; but emptied himself, taking the form of a fervant, being in the likencfs of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himfelf," &c.-Examination of Robertfon, p. 76. See Le Clerc's Supplement to Hammond.

Heb. i. 8. fhould rather be rendered, "but concerning the fon, he faith, God is thy throne for ever and ever," that is, God is the fupport of thy throne, &c. See Pierce on the Hebrews.

1 Tim. iii. 16. It is doubtful whether we should read "God was manifeft," or, "which was manifest." In our first English version, it is thus rendered, and openli it is a greet facrament of pitee, that thing that was, fchewide in fleische, it is juftified in spirit, it apperide to aungels, it is prechide to hethene men, it is beleeved in the world, it is taken up in glorie." Frend, No. 5.

1 John iii. 16. Most copies, omitting the word God, read this verfe thus, "Herein perceive we love, in that he laid down his life for us." Chriftie's Difcourfes, p. 253. and Benson on the place.

1 John v. 7, 8. fhould read thus, "For there are three that bear record, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one." The words [in heaven, the Father, the word, and the holy ghost, and these three are one, and there are three that bear

witness

witness in earth] have never been proved to be in` ANY greek manuscript, before the invention of printing; nor were ever cited by any of the numerous writers in the whole arian controverfy, concerning the trinity, in the fourth century. In the English bibles in the reign of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. they were printed in a different character, to fignify their being wanting in the original. See Emlyn's Inquiry into the authority of 1 John v. 7. Remarks on Mr. Travis, in Commentaries and effays, vol. i. and Mr. Capel Lofft's Answer to Dr. Knowles.

Rev. i. 11. The words [I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the laft] were probably not written by the author of the book, as they are faid to be wanting in all the best manuscript copies. Examination of Robinfon, p. 27.

Those who wish to see what is faid in vindication of these deviations from our common English translation of the scriptures, may confult the books above referred to. They will find more upon the fame subject in the "Catechrift; or an inquiry into the doctrine of the scriptures concerning the one true God;" price 25. or in the "Sequel to an apology on refigning the vicarage of Catterick :" both by the Rev. Mr. Lindley. Many valuable criticisms will likewise be found in "A defence of the unity of God," by Mr. Clarke, an attorney at Uxbridge.-The unitarian doctrine is fupported in a mafterly manner, in "Difcourfes on the divine unity," by W. Christie, jun.

jun. merchant, of Montrofe, a gentleman who has purfued the courfe of conduct recommended in the above addrefs, conducting the religious fervices of a newly raised fociety, whofe profeffed object is to worship the only one true God.

Should it be faid, that as it is impoffible for unlearned chriftians to judge of the authenticity of a paTage, or of the proper tranflation of it, they ought to trust to our English bible; I would ask why they muft truft to our common verfion rather than to any other? Were the authors of it any thing more than fallible men? Did they excel all other learned perfons in knowledge; or were they more free from prejudice? If not; why may they not confide in other men of learning and integrity as well as in them? That the common tranflation is very imperfect, and that a more correct one is highly defirable, has been repeatedly acknowledged by the most competent judges both in and out of the church.

But though it is out of the power of unlearned christians to decide concerning the propriety of any tranflation of a text, from an acquaintance with the original languages; yet as they are able to perceive what the general strain of fcripture is upon any particular point, they must conclude that the probability is that thofe tranflators are right, who make the fcripture confiftent with itfelf. If an unlearned perfon find, for infance, that the fcripture, uniformly teach us, that there is but one God-that they never cau

tion us against so understanding this, as to exclude a trinity of perfons-that Jefus is ufually fpoken of, as the fon of man-that he uniformly prayed to the Father, as the Being upon whom he entirely depended-is it not natural and reasonable for them to adopt those translations of doubtful texts which do not make fuch texts contradict a variety of plain and unequivocal paffages? If they admit that the scriptures are confiftent with themselves, they muft either do this, or else interpret thofe few texts which seem to be repugnant to the general tenor of fcripture in a different fenfe from what the words feem at firft fight to convey. And indeed this is fometimes neceffary when no disputed doctrine is concerned.