In reply to the questions, "What can be called mys terious and incomprehensible, if the declaration that God was manifest in the flesh be not so ? What else than mystery, and a great mystery is it, that an infinite nature should be united to a finite nature; God united with a man in such a manner as to become strictly and properly one nature? What is incomprehensible, if this be not, that an omnipresent and eternal Spirit should become flesh, and die on a cross, and though independent and supreme, be exalted and glorified?"-the preacher says,

Such a doctrine must certainly be acknowledged to be a mystery, in the sense commonly affixed to that term; but no such mystery is to be found among the doctrines taught by the apostles; no such mystery is expressed in the passage now before us.

Granting, for a moment, (and I am the more willing to grant it, as it will give me an opportunity of illustrating the language of Scripture,) that the clause in the text, which is generally supposed to be the enunciation of the mystery which Paul calls the mystery of godliness, has come down to us precisely as the apostle originally wrote it,-no such doctrine as the incarnation of one person of a triune Godhead is conveyed by it. The phrase God was manifested in the flesh,' supposing it to be scriptural, would not necessarily imply any more than that the power of God was, in some remarkable manner, displayed in one of the human race. To a reader of the New Testament, duly attentive to the terms in which Jesus, as the inspired Messenger of heaven, and even the apostles whom he commissioned to preach his gospel to all nations, after his death, are spoken of, it conveys no other notion than this, that the doctrine which he delivered had been derived immediately from God, and that the works to which he appealed as an evidence of this, were wrought by the Creator and Governor of the world.-When the timid ruler of the Jews, deeply impressed by the miracles of Jesus, came to him by night, to scrutinize his character, and to gain some better knowledge of his views, he thus addressed him: Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles which thou doest, except God be with him.' To Nicodemus, we may be sure, the language attributed to Paul would not have suggested any mysterious notion. When, happily for the poor distressed widow of Nain, Jesus met her near the gate of her city, following her dead son to the grave, and, having by his word restored him to life, delivered him to his mother, we are told that they who saw what was done, glorified God, saying, A great prophet is risen up amongst us, and God hath visited his people.' These, without doubt, would readily comprehend how God could be manifested in the flesh. Such language would have conveyed no notion of

VOL. XII.

2Q

tures into various languages, which were made from manuscript copies of the original Scriptures, older than any which have come down to our times. And by a diligent perusal of these, learned men can easily discover what the original words in any given passage were in the copy which the translators used. We have, further, the writings of many Christians who lived in successive ages, in different parts of the world, from very nearly the times of the apostles, and which contain such frequent and extended quotations from manuscripts or versions of the New Testament, in their possession, that if the books of the New Testament were by the assistance of these writings, almost entirely replace them. By the united aid of these manuscripts, versions and writings of ancient Christian fathers, it is possible to discover and to correct every error of impor tance which may, by any means, have crept into the original text of the sacred Scriptures.

Now, by such aid we learn, that the term rendered God, in the passage we are now considering, has been improperly substituted for another term by some ancient transcriber, and copied from him by others; and, consequently, that the phrase, God was manifest in flesh, although capable, when considered by itself, as you have seen, of being rationally and scripturally explained, made no part of the apostle's declaration. The passage does not appear in this form in the most ancient and valuable manuscripts. It could not have been seen in this form by the authors of the earliest and the best versions of the New Testament. In the writings of the greater part of the Christian fa thers, also, where the passage is evidently cited, it is not thus cited: not even (which is a fact of the highest importance) where it would have been thought decisive, in respect of some of the points which were subjects of controversy in the earlier ages of the church. There is, on the whole, abundant reason to believe that this clause in the text, as written by the apostle, was no other than this: He who was manifested (or appeared) in flesh:' so that the whole verse will run thus; "And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: He who was manifested in flesh, was justified by the Spirit, seen by angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory! Such a change would appear great and violent, and would, indeed, be so, in our own, or in any other language, or in any version; but the case is very different with respect to the original. A trifling accident, or a slight touch of the pen, might convert the word which is translated by the English term He, into that which is uniformly translated God.

"I hope I shall not be thought to descend into particulars too minute, or in any manner improper, for this time or place, if I endeavour to satisfy the minds of my unlearned readers, by explaining to them how this important difference between the text as it now stands, and as I have just asserted it ought to stand,

might arise. Figure, then, to yourselves, a small word composed of two letters, exactly similar to the capital letters 0 and C of the English alphabet. You will then have the exact representation of a Greek word as it is found in ancient Greek inanuscripts, which, translated into English, would be who, or He who. Suppose, now, that by accident or design, any transcriber should place a dot or a very small horizontal line in the middle of the O; this would be a very slight change in the form of the word, and might easily take place, but it would make a momentous change in the meaning of the passage. For we have thus the two letters which, in almost all ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, exhibit the contracted form of the word which signifies God. To render this form perfect, a very small line above the letters is necessary; and as it easily might, so it certainly would be added, when the letter O had undergone the change supposed, either through design or accident. Such is the change which I suppose to have taken place in this passage, four or five hundred years after the days of the apostles; and hence has been derived the declaration, falsely attributed to the apostle, that God was manifest in flesh.'"Pp. 19-24.

It may not be known to all our readers that the great Sir Isaac Newton wrote a letter to M. Le Clerc, afterwards published, to prove that the common reading of the text is corrupt, and that the true reading is which (i. e. which mystery) was manifest, &c.

In his sermon before referred to, Dr. Lardner seems to be balanced between the received reading God, and that defended by Sir Isaac Newton, which; but he shews that "which soever of these two readings we follow, the meaning is much the same." "Suppose the subject here spoken of be the mystery of godliness: it is known and believed by all Christians, that the doctrine of the gospel was manifested to, and among men, by Jesus Christ and his apostles: yet it was justified by the Spirit, confirmed by miracles wrought by Christ himself, and by his apostles, and others afterwards: seen of angels, beheld by them with ready approbation, and with surprise and wonder: preached to the Gentiles, as well as Jens believed on in

:

the world, received by men of all characters in all nations: received up into glory, gloriously exalted, greatly honoured and magnified by that reception, and by its effects in the hearts and lives of men. Suppose this to be said of God:

* The progress of the corruption would be this: OC, who, or He who; COC, God.

it is also true and received by all Christians in general. There was an especial presence, and most extraordinary manifestation of the Divine Being in the human nature, or person of Jesus Christ, who is therefore called 'Emmanuel," or God with us.' The divine authority of Jesus was justified by the Spirit, by many miraculous works, and by a very plentiful effusion of the Holy Ghost upon such as believed in him. He was seen and ministered to by angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and finally, received up into glory in heaven."*

Mr. Wellbeloved interprets the max

Mr. Wellbeloved interprets the manifestation in the flesh, of Christ's appearing in a humble condition and a suffering and mortal nature; and he considers the being seen of angels to refer to our Lord's being so often seen of the angels of the churches, the messengers of his word, the apostles, after his resurrection, whose personal acquaintance with him was necessary to make their testimony to his being raised from the dead complete.

Religious Observance of Christmas Day.

SIR, November 17, 1826. I AM a Protestant Dissenter, but not an advocate for universal and indiscriminate nonconformity. My opinions are far wide of the Thirty-nine Articles; yet I can see some good thing in the Church of England, and where I see good I wish to follow it. On one point of this description I wish to say a few words to your readers.

The religious observance of Christmas Day was strongly objected to by the old Nonconformists, as it is by the Presbyterians of Scotland to this day. That observance was in their time compulsory, and therefore resistance was necessary to maintain the rights of conscience. Superstition too was largely mixed up with the celebration, and to protest against the superstition it might have been expedient to drop the celebration altogether the very name Christmas, or Christ's mass, shews the origin of the festival.

But now that force is no longer applied to conscience, and that much at least of the superstition connected with the observance has been done away, it is worth while to inquire whether the Dissenters, and particularly the Unitarian Dissenters, may not innocently, safely and profitably

* Works, X. 489, 490.