expressly designed, to favor the Arian and Unitarian schemes of doctrine. And in further illustration and proof of the position already assumed, that one leading design of Mr. C. in giving to the public his new version, evidently was to give his own new-fangled scheme of salvation, the appearance of being supported by the word of God, some of the interpolations alluded to, I shall now notice more particularly.

As has already been observed in a former part of this work, the sentiments of the Bishop of Bethany in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the supreme and absolute divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ as the second of the three persons in the Godhead, which constitutes the One living and true Jehovah, have become, and especially since his altercation with the Rev. Mr. Jamieson of the Methodist Episcopal church, too well known to admit any longer of any doubt. The passages therefore introduced by Mr. C. into the text of his new version from Thompson's translation, which I shall first notice, are such as were evidently designed to favor his views in relation to that most important doctrine. There are, it is believed, but three instances in the old version of the New Testament, where the word Godhead occurs. The first is Acts 17:29, and the original word thus translated, is THEION, which Dr. Macknight translates "the Deity." His rendering is retained by Mr. C. The second instance in which the word Godhead occurs in our standard version is Rom. 1:20. The original term is THEIOTES, which Dr. Macknight has with the translators of the old version rendered Godhead, which term the Bishop has superseded in his version by the word "Divinity," taken from Thompson. The third instance alluded to is in Col. 2:9. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," which accords with the translations of Macknight and Doddridge, as also the Vulgate. The original word here translated Godhead, is THEOTES, the meaning is so nearly related to, or rather so identical with the original word, similarly rendered in Rom. 1:20, that it would be difficult to assign any sufficient reason

for giving one a different rendering from the other, or for substituting in either, another translation, in place of that found in the old version. Mr. C. nevertheless has, in this instance, as well as in that last mentioned, given the preference to Thompson, and made the text read thus: "Because all the fulness of the deity resides substantially in him." According, then, to his view of these pas sages, he has given the most conspicuous place to the translation of Thompson, as being most deserving of it. But why, let it be asked, does Mr. C. manifest such dislike to the word Godhead? Why does he altogether exclude it from his version? Why, in opposition to the authority of two of his Presbyterian Doctors, does he prefer the rendering of Thompson? It is left to the candid reader to judge, whether it be not because the term Godhead is too emphatic and unequivocal, and savors too much of orthodoxy; because it evidently has an allusion to, and embraces the "three that bear record in heaven.” In plain language, it too clearly refers to the doctrine of the trinity, or that of the triune Jehovah, to suit the views of Mr. C. And what is still more, it too clearly and fully asserts (in Col. 2:9,) the doctrine of the supreme divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, to be retained in the new version. If it should be alleged by Mr. C., that the words " divinity" and "deity," are synonymous with Godhead; the obvious reply would be, why then was not this word, which had so long been sanctioned by usage as well as the best authorities, retained? The truth is, that although the word Godhead, expresses all that is contained in the words divinity and Deity, it expresses more, and is also more unequivocal in its meaning, at least in the view of a high Arian, as well as a modern Unitarian. These ascribe some kind of inferior deity to the Saviour; and admit that he is in some sense Divine. But to admit that he is equal to and one with the Father, that he is one of three persons in the one Godhead, and that in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," (i. e. fully as well as truly) and consequently that he "is over all God blessed forever," would be to "honor the Son" as we honor the

Christ. It excludes, or at least, is designed to exclude the agency of the Holy Spirit in the great work of sanctification, and to lead men to rest upon the efficacy of water to wash away their sin. According to the rendering of Thompson, as thus preferred by Mr. C., we are clearly to understand by the word spirit, the soul of the person sanctified, instead of the Holy Spirit, by whom this good work is begun and performed, until the day of Jesus Christ. Another interpolation, constituting a still more palpable perversion of the sacred text, is found in the epistle of Jude, (ver. 20,) where the rendering of the translators of our standard version, " praying in the Holy Ghost," and that of Dr. Macknight, "praying by the Holy Spirit," are superseded by Mr. C., to make room for the translation of Thompson, which reads thus: "Praying with a holy spirit." According to this rendering, we are not to understand the apostle as directing the saints to pray in or by the Holy Spirit, who, it is declared, helps their infirmities, but as instructing them to pray with a sanctified heart. I am aware that it is pleaded by the author of the new version, as well as others, who, like him, wish as much as possible, to exclude the special agency of the Holy Spirit in bringing a sinner into favor with God, and preparing him for heaven, that in the passages cited, as well as others of a similar character, the Greek article is not prefixed to the word translated spirit, as is the case in Rom. 8:26, and other passages where the Holy Spirit is clearly referred to; and therefore it is said, that inasmuch as the original word (PNEUMA,) has various significations, we are to understand it in those passages where the article is omitted, as referring, not to the Spirit of God, but to the soul of man, the air, or wind, as the case may be. However plausible this argument may appear, it is apprehended to be utterly fallacious. Learned critics, (among whom is Dr. George Campbell, the Magnus Apollo of the Bishop of Bethany,) have shown that this pretended rule of distinction, in relation to the meaning of the word PNEUMA, will not, in many cases, hold or apply. And Dr. Campbell, more