gene

different from his own, respecting the genuineness of the reading, e. I will not attempt to weigh them here; as I feel no desire to press into my service, witnesses of a character at all dubious. I admit the great desert of Griesbach, in his critical edition of the New Testament. I believe he was a man, who would not willingly, or consciously misrepresent either facts or arguments, for, or against any reading. But the work which he undertook, was too great to be accomplished by one person, or even by one whole ration of critics. Dr. Laurence, in his Essay upon the clas sification of manuscripts by Griesbach, has rendered it more than propable, that Griesbach's account of facts is not unfrequently very erroneous, (not through design, but from human infirmity:) and that the principles, by which he estimated the value of Manuscripts, and of course the genuineness of particular readings, are fundamentally erroneous. And since I am on this subject, I may take the liberty to state, (what seems to be so little known among us,) that Griesbach is not the only recent editor of a critical Testament, to which the great body of critics attach importance. The celebrated Matthäi, whom Middleton calls the best Greek scholar that ever edited a Greek Testament, published at Riga, (between A. D. 1782-1788,) a critical Testament, of 12 vols., which approaches much nearer to the Textus Receptus, than the edition of Griesbach, with whom he is at variance. Eichhorn, (after giving a high character of this edition of Matthäi, and noticing, that in his maxims respecting the formation of the New Testament text, the editor differs very much from Gresbach and others,) says, that "for a long time he had followed the middle path between the two parties." [Bib-liothek. Band ii. St. 2. s. 411.]

The whole system of classifying Manuscripts, which lies at the very foundation of all Griesbach's decisions in regard to the text, is rejected by Matthäi as worthless; and Dr. Laurence has, in the Essay above mentioned, made an attack upon the same classification, which renders questionable the principles of it; at least the application of those principles, as made by Griesbach.

Professor Knapp, of Halle, has also published a Greek Testament, the text of which is independent of Griesbach's although it approximates to it. This edition is esteemed,

for its punctuation, order of words, accentuation and spirituation; and has great currency.

. I acknowledge this is digression. But it may be useful to those, who are in the habit of attributing so much weight to Griesbach's decisions, to know that they are far from being uncontroverted, by many of the best critics among his own countrymen. I know of no Commentator of note, who has made Griesbach's text his basis, except Paulus; and he has re-examined all his decisions.

To return however to our subject: we do not want, and feel no disposition to use, either of the texts referred to above as proof texts, in the question before us.

There is another class of texts, which I have not hith. erto mentioned, because the certainty of their meaning is commonly thought to be less capable of demonstration, than that of others which I have produced. I refer to such texts, as Ephes. v. 5. "The kingdom of Christ and God." Titus ii. 13. "Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearance of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ." 2 Tim. iv. 1. "I adjure you before God, even Jesus Christ, who will judge the quick and the dead at his appearance and kingdom.' 2 Pet. i. 1....." of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ."

The translation of these texts here proposed is altogeth er in conformity to the Greek idiom. Middleton (on the article) thinks it absolutely essential to it. For although pro per names and abstract nouns, in such a connexion as e and x8 here, may take the article before the first noun, and omit it it before the second, and yet designate different things and persons; yet if words, which are attributives, omit the article in such a case, they exhibit evidence that they are to be connected with a preceding noun, and are the predicates of it, and not significant of something separate. E. g. in the first case; Eph. v. 5, "the kingdom of Christ and God," according to this rule, would mean, of Christ who is God." In the second instance, Tit. ii. 13, the meaning is, "of the great God, who is our Saviour," &c.

Mr. Wordsworth, a few years since, instituted a most laborious investigation of the Greek Fathers, to see whether the idiom which respects the article here was prevalent in heir writings; and whether they ever understood more than one person to be designated by such expressions. The

result I will give in his own words. (P. 132.) "I have ob served more, I am persuaded, than a thousand instances of the formé Xeros mi dies (Eph. v. 5;) some hundreds of instancesof pisy as Isos was swing, (Tit. ii. 13;) and not fewer than several thousands, of the form os xas carne, (2. Pet. i. 1;) while in no single case, have I seen, where the sense could be determined, any one of them used, but only of one person.”

After all, if there were no other evidence of the Divinity of Christ in the New Testament, than what depends solely on these texts, one might perhaps hesitate concerning the subject. But when I consider, that the method of translating here proposed, is perfectly conformable to the Greek idiom, and must be adopted in various other passages, (e. g. Rom. xv. 6. Eph. v. 20. James i. 27,) and if adopted in these, will give them a sense conformable to that of other parts of the sacred volume: I confess the evidence which these passages afford, if not decisive, at least confirmns in no small degree, the testimony of other texts. Specially in this case, in regard to the text in Titus: for where is the appearing of God the Father ever spoken of by the New Testament writers? It is Christ who appeared to execute vengeance upon the Jewish nation; who will appear at the judgment. Yet here, the appearance of the great God is mentioned; of the Great God and Saviour; for so I cannot but believe, the text is fairly to be construed. Can this great God be any other than Christ himself?

Thus much for the texts, which bestow on Christ the ap pellation of God, with adjuncts that show in what sense the word God must be understood, according to the common rules of interpreting language. I must now

II. Examine another class, which attribute to Christ equality with God, or that power and dignity or honour, which belong to God.

I use the phrase equality with God, after the example of the apostle, in the text to be immediately examined. I know, at the same time, it is a phrase that leads, if any are so disposed to logomachy. What I mean by it, is explained by the words which immediately follow it.

Phil. ii. 5-8. " Let the same mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus; who being in the condition of God did not regard his equality with God as an object of solicitous desire, but humbled himself, (assumed an inferior or humble

station,) taking the condition of a servant, being made after the similitude of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he exhibited his humility by obedience, even to the death of the cross."

Such is the rendering, which, after laborious examination, I am persuaded the Greek of this passage not only admits, but demands. I will state my reasons, for dissenting from the common method, in which either Trinitarians or Unitarians have translated it.

Our common Version runs thus, "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but humbled himself, &c. This Version seems to render nugatory, or at least irrelevant, a part of the Apostle's reasoning in the passage. He is enforcing the principle of Christian humility, upon the Philippians. In order to urge this in the most effectual manner, he proposes to them the example of Christ; "let the same mind be in you which was in Christ." What was this? It was manifested by the fact, that though essentially divine,' he did not eagerly retain his divine condition, but assumed the station or condition of a servant,2 Here the relevancy of his reasoning is sufficiently plain. But how was it any proof or example of humility, that he did not think it robbery to be equal with God?

Besides, the Greek will not fairly bear this construction. · Aayμtranslated robbery, does not seem here to signify an act of robbery, but res rapta, or rather, figuratively res avide diripienda et vindicanda; i. e. something which is eagerly to be seized and appropriated. Moreover grays, which our translators have placed next to the verb ηγήσατο, does not by the rules of Syntax belong there. The Greek Syntax would place the words thus, as to their sense; or to sivoi lon Deni [ar] ágyμs; literally," he regarded not the being equal to God (as) gray, as a thing to be greedily sought or appropriated.

For these reasons I cannot believe that our common Version gives the sense of the passage. And for similar reasons, I feel compelled to reject the Version, so common among some Unitarians; "He did not think of the robbery of being equal with God." The objections to it are, that it translates grayμ here as designating the action of rob

1 mol Pn Dev. 2 μoßfnr dovλov. 3 (See Schleusner and Storr, in locum.)

lery: and that ooν ηγήσατο το είναι ισα θεω άρπαγμον can never be proved to mean, "He thought not of the robbery or being equal with God." The verb year is not susceptible of such a meaning as thought not of; i. e. did not aspire to, imagine, form expectations of, &c. In its primary sense it signifies to lead, to be pre-eminent, &c.; in its secondary sense to esteem, judge, regard, repute, &c. To render y gay, he did not think of the robbery, would therefore be violating the obvious principles of the Greek language. To justify in any measure such a version, the passage must run thus, * ΤΟΝ άρπαγμον ηγησατο ΤΟΥ είναι ισα ια. Even then ηγησατο could not be rendered, thought not of. The word does not permit this sense. And as no ancient Manuscript or Version has given a hint of such a form of the text, it seems to be placed beyond fair debate, that the translation now in question cannot be admitted.

2.

Both our translators and Unitarians appear, generally, to have mistaken the import of the word μορφή in this passage. On the one hand, gen does not seem to me at all parallelwith the brightness, and express image which are applied to the Son in Heb. i. 3. These words designate the glory of the incarnate Messiah, who had appeared "in these last days," and spoken to men. They express the same view of Christ which John gives, (i. 14.) when he says, "We beheld his (Christ's) glory, verily the glory of the only begotten of the Father: and this glory was seen after the

Word became flesh and dwelt among us.' Comparison then of mogen

with these passages, will not ascertain its meaning; for to Christ belonged the menu, before he humbled himself and took upon him the form of a servant. In occupying, indeed, the condition of a servant, (if I may so express the Greek εκένωσε σεαυτον, consisted his humiliation.

A fair examination of gen, either generally or in special relation to the passage before us, will end, as I must believein the conviction, that the word is not unfrequently synonymous with ques (nature) and I (being.) The proofs which Schleusner has offered of this are sufficient. But the proof of what it means in the passage before us, is too plain to be easily mistaken. If you say, means only a