supposition is not true. They contain declarations and expressions, on which no meaning can be put, which is not altogether inconsistent, as it seems to us, with the doctrines they are brought to establish. Some of the passages last referred to, do, indeed, at the same time, contain other expressions, which, considered alone, admit a sense favourable to the Trinitarian doctrine that Christ is God; and there are a few texts which will bear such a meaning throughout. We shall not undertake to give a general explanation of them, for they have already been often explained, and the Unitarian expositions may be found in books sufficiently common. But we shall endeavour to afford some assistance to our readers, who are not familiar with the controversy, by stating several heads or classes, to which we think the proofs from scripture, which have been principally urged by Trinitarians in modern times, may be referred; and under each head, shall remark upon one or two texts which have been most insisted upon, or which may seem to present most difficulty. I. To the first class, we may refer interpolated or corrupted passages. Such as Acts xx. 28, where in the common version we find these words: "to feed the church of GOD, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Instead of "the church of God," the true reading is "the church of the Lord." 1 Tim. iii. 10. "God was manifest in the flesh;" where instead of us (God,) the true reading is either: (which,) or is (who, or he who.) And the famous text of the three heavenly witnesses, 1 John v. 7. This text was formerly considered as the strong hold of the Trinitarian system. The value attached to it, as a proof passage, may be estimated from the obstinacy with which it was long retained, so that it even now keeps its place in the editions of the common version; from the lingering glances which are still cast toward it by such writers as Middleton ;* from the pertinacity with which the more ignorant class of controversialists continue to quote it; and from the ill will which is manifested toward Griesbach, on account of his having freed the text of his New Testament from this interpolation, and the other corruptions which we have mentioned. II. Passages relating to Christ which have been mistranslated. To this class belongs Phil. ii. 5. seqq. Here the common version makes the apostle say of Christ, that he "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." This has *The author of the Doctrine of the Greek Article. See his note on the text. been considered as a decisive argument, that Christ is God; though it seems, at first sight, a mere absurdity, to say of any being, that "he thought it not robbery to be equal with himself." Perhaps no text, however, has been more frequently quoted, or referred to.* It is now conceded that the passage is incorrectly rendered. But Professor Stuart, though he allows this, still thinks the text of too much value to be given up; and by retaining a part of the old mistranslation (supposing to denote equality, instead of likeness) and substituting a new one instead of that which is lost (understanding μg to mean being or nature†) he has contrived to press it again into service. The exact verbal rendering of » μogøy Oiov is “in the form of God," and of μogoy dyλy, “in the form of a servant." But as neither of these phrases correspond to our common modes of expression, they can hardly convey any distinct meaning to most readers. In a translation of the passage, it would be better therefore to substitute equivalent, but more intelligible phrases. The following translation, we believe, fully conveys the sense of the original. "Let the same dispositions [of humility and benevolence] be in you which were in Jesus Christ; who being the image of God, did not think his likeness to God, a thing to be eagerly retained, but lowered himself, and took the appearance of a ser * Thus Dr. Watts says in one of his hymns (B. II. b. 51.) Yet there is one of human frame, A full equality with God. Their glory shines with equal beains, &c. # In his translation of the passage, Professor Stuart indeed renders this word, "condition;" but as he afterward (p. 96) insists, in reference to this passage, that it means nature" or "being," we suppose he must consider the word, condition as synonymous with the two latter. This is not quite conformable to common usage; and with regard to this particular passage, there has been a wide distinction made between them. Elsner (in his Observationes Sacra) after observing, that the Socinians with Grotius and Le Clerc understand go in this passage to mean nothing more than condition, undertakes to show, in opposition to them, that it means nature, essence, internal form. After examining the authorities quoted by Elsner and Schleusner, we are not quite satisfied that go ever has this latter meaning in profane writers. But we are fully satisfied, that it never has this meaning in the Greek of the Septuagint and New Testament. If such were the case, we should only have to choose between this and its more common meaning. It is used sometimes to denote equality, and sometimes likeness. The reasons which determine us to adopt the latter signification in the present passage, are sufficiently obvious. vant, and became like men ;* and being† in the common condition of a man, he humbled himself, and submitted to death, even the death of the cross.' We believe, that the original passage affords no more proof of the Trinity, than the translation which we have just given. Christ was in the form of God, or was the image of God, on account of the authority delegated to him as the messenger of God to men, the divine power committed to him of performing miracles; and because as an instructer he spoke in the name of God, as he was taught by God. Yet notwithstanding he bore this high character, he was not eager to assume it for the sake of any personal distinction, rank, or splendour, or to obtain any other personal gratification. He lowered himself to the condition of common men; lived in similar circumstances to theirs, and submitted to similar deprivations, and sufferings. When it is affirmed, that he took the appearance of a servant, these words are illustrated by what is said by our Saviour himself, in inculcating, like the apostle, the virtue of humility, with the same reference, as is here made, to his own example : "The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister." It is in imitation of this example, that he directs him who would be greatest among his disciples, to become the servant of all. To the class of mistranslated passages, are, we think, likewise to be referred several, where, in the common version, mention is made of "calling on the name of Christ." Of these the following may serve as a specimen: 1 Cor. i. 2. "Unto the church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." Of the last words, we believe, that one or the other of the following renderings is correct: With all who in every place take upon themselves the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Or, With all who in every place are called by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. The words will bear either rendering; and it is not worth while to discuss in this place which is most probable. To be called by the name of a person, in the sense of belonging to, or being devoted to that person, is a phrase of common occur * Literally, "becoming in the likeness of men:" a Hebraism. † Eugnous equivalent to av; according to a well known use of wgionopas. New Series-vol. I. 53 rence in the scriptures. Similar passages to that just quoted are to be explained in a similar manner. Under this head, are likewise to be placed those passages, which, on account of the omission of the Greek article, have been so translated as to apply to Christ the title of God. These we believe to be correctly rendered in the common version.* III. Passages relating to God which have been incorrectly applied to Christ. Under this head we place the conclusion of Rom. ix. 5. "Whose are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." The last clause, we believe, is improperly referred to Christ. The words may be pointed, and rendered in the following manner: "And of whom was Christ according to the flesh. May he who is over all, God, be blessed forever." The objection to this explanation and rendering is, that in other similar expressions in scripture, the word, Blessed, always commences the sentence, as is common in English. The answer to this is, that it is to God as the author and head of the Jewish dispensation, as over all those things just mentioned, that St. Paul utters this expression of devout acknowledgement; and that the reference to God, considered under this particular character, would be lost by any different arrangement of the words. If the word answering to Blessed were to commence the sentence, the effect in the Greek would be the same as in the following rendering of what would then be the arrangement; blessed be God who is over all, forever and ever; which would be a mere general ascription of praise to God, as presiding over the universe; and not a particular expression of gratitude to him, as the author and bead of the Jewish dispensation. ‡ * The able tract of the Rev. Calvin Winstanley, containing a satisfactory defence of the common rendering, will shortly be republished, being now in the press of Hilliard and Metcalf, Cambridge. That is "by natural descent." With regard to this phrase, concerning which a difficulty has been raised, see its use in the third verse of this chapter; my kinsmen according to the flesh," i. e. by natural relationship; and in the 8th verse, "the children according to the flesh," i. e. by natural descent. Observe likewise the very common uses of the phrase elsewhere. We may observe that the mode of constructing the passage given above, is not that on which Professor Stuart particularly remarks, and which he attributes to a Professor Justi, though it was long ago proposed by Locke. But there is another mode of understanding the passage, which is not liable to any objection on the ground of an unusual construction. It is well known, that the present pointing of the New Testament is of no authority, a fact indeed which we have just implied. Let any one now turn to the passage in his Greek Testament, and put a dot at the top of the line (equivalent to a colon or semicolon) after raga, and a comma after war, and he will perceive that the following meaning immediately results. "He who is (or was) over all is God blessed forever." In commenting on this passage, Professor Stuart has taken what he says about "Greek usage" from Middleton's note upon the text, in his work concerning the Greek Article; and has, at the same time, fallen into a considerable mistake from not rightly apprehending what he found in that author. In consequence of some slight obscurity in the manner in which Middleton expresses himself, Professor Stuart has been led to believe, that Wetstein proposed a conjectural reading of the words in question, for the sake of avoiding the Trinitarian sense, and he thus writes in consequence: "Wetstein's conjecture, that it should be read, is not any more fortunate. Such a mode of expression, as a, all relating to the same subject, is repugnant to Greek usage. Besides, this conjecture, like that of Schlichting, not only violates the integrity of the text, but assigns the article to es, and omits it before Tes; which is surely inadmissible."-Stuart's Letters, p. 79. The case is extremely different from what Professor Stuart supposes. Wetstein offers no conjecture upon the verse. What he says is, that "if St. Paul had meant to express the sense which some [i. e. the orthodox] suppose, he would rather have written wir! HAVTOV,' x. T. x. Wetstein gives certain words, which he thinks St. Paul would have used if he had intended to express himself, as Trinitarians suppose that he does; and Professor Stuart believes these words a conjecture, made for the purpose of avoiding the Trinitarian exposition. We do not comprehend what meaning he imagined that they would bear, when he wrote under this impression. With Wetstein's New Testament, which Professor Stuart thus quotes at second hand, and quotes incorrectly, a professed theological critic should have been better acquainted. Of this work, Bishop Marsh says, in one of his controversial tracts, "Every man, who is at all conversant with philological inquiries, knows that Wetstein's notes to the Greek Testament contain a very copious collection of passages from Greek authors, made in order to illustrate the meaning of words in the Greek Testament; and that when a question arises about the meaning of a word in the Greek Testament, it is as usual to recur to the examples collected by Wetstein, as it is to the examples in Johnson's Dictionary, when the meaning of au English word is disputed." Illustrations of his hypothesis, &c. Appendix, sect. II. We should not have been tempted to make these and some other of our remarks, if it had not appeared to us, that there was in Professor Stuart's pamphlet a little too much ostentation of learning; and if he had not in |