deny themselves the blessings of life and endure voluntary penance, as some Catholics explain the passage? You will say not. Does it mean those who mourn for their sins, as many Protestant commentators tell us? I think otherwise. The purpose of our Saviour was, I believe, simply to announce, that his religion brought blessed consolation to all who mourned. 'Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth.' So the next words are rendered in the Common Verson. J will not go over the different meanings that have been assigned to them, but will only ask my reader, if he have not particularly attended to the subject, in what sense, he has understood them? The rendering should be, Blessed are the mild, for they shall inherit the land; that is, the promised land.' The passage cannot be understood without attention to the conceptions of the Jews. They believed, that if they obeyed God, they should remain in possession of the 'promised land;' if they disobeyed him, that they should be removed from it, and scattered among other nations. Hence, 'the inheriting of the land' was in their minds but another name for the enjoying of God's favor. In this associated and figurative sense the terms were used by Christ. His meaning was, literally, Blessed are the mild, for they shall enjoy the favor of God. In the Psalm (xxxvii. 11.) from which he borrowed the words, they are, probably, to be understood literally. These examples may serve in some measure to show, that it is not always easy to determine the meaning even of passages which may seem at first view to present little difficulty. If, therefore, we may hesitate about the true sense of those quoted by Trinitarians, this circumstance will afford no ground for hesitation in rejecting the Trinitarian sense. We must not assign an absurd meaning to a passage, because we are unable to satisfy ourselves about the meaning intended. He would reason very ill, who, because he was unable to satisfy himself as to what was meant by our Saviour, when he spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, should, on that account, adopt the Roman Catholic exposition of his words. In what follows, I shall confine my remarks to passages of the New Testament. If the doctrines of Trinitarians were not taught by Christ and his Apostles, it would be a superfluous labour to examine the passages of the Old Testament, which : have been represented as containing indications of them There are arguments so futile that one may be excused from remarking upon them. At the present day, it can hardly be necessary to prove, that the writer of the first chapters of Genesis was not a Trinitarian or that there is no evidence for the doctrine in the words of Isaiah, (vi. 3.) 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts;' though according to Dr. William Lowth, a standard commentator on the Prophets, The Christian church hath always thought that the doctrine of the blessed Trinity was implied in this repetition.' Another expositor of equal note, Bishop Patrick, tells us, that' many of the ancient Fathers think there is a plain intimation of the Trinity in these words, 'The Lord our God is one Lord;'' yet it cannot be expected that one should go into an explanation of this proposition, for the sake of removing any difficulty in comprehending it. The passage of the Old Testament which is most relied upon by Trinitarians, is found in Isaiah ix. 6. It has been often explained. There is, I think, no evidence that it relates to Christ; and if it do, the common version of it is incorrect. It may be thus rendered: For unto us a child is born, Unto us a son is given; And the government shall be upon his shoulder; Counsellor, mighty potentate, Everlasting Father, prince of peace.'* I proceed then to remark upon the principal passages adduced by Trinitarians professedly from the New Testament in support of their doctrines; and in doing so shall distribute them into several different classes, according to the different errors which have led to their misuse. The sources of misinterpretation and mistake will thus appear, and in regard to the texts of less importance which I shall omit to notice, it will in general be easy to determine to what head they are to be referred and in what manner understood. * I quote the translation given by the Rev. George R. Noyes in his Sermon upon Isaiah ix. 6. lately published, and refer to the same discourse for its explanation and defence. I do so the more readily, as it gives me an opportunity of expressing my respect for that able and accurate scholar, and my strong interest in those labors by which he is contributing so much toward a better understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. CLASS I. To the first class we may refer Interpolated and Corrupted Passages. Such are the following. Acts xx. 28. Here 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.' I Timothy iii. 16. 'GOD was manifested in the flesh." The reading Theos (God) is spurious; but it has been doubted whether we should read os (who or he who) or o (which.) 1 John v. 7. The famous text of the three heavenly witnesses. The value that has been formerly attached to this passage, though unquestionably interpolated, may be estimated from the obstinacy with which it has been contended for, from its still retaining its place as genuine in the editions of the Common Version, and even in editions of the original professedly formed on the Text of Griesbach, from the lingering glances cast toward it by such writers as Bishop Middleton, and from the pertinacity with which the more ignorant or bigoted class of controversialists continue to quote and even defend it. After all that has been written concerning these texts, no one of them requires particular notice except that from the first Epistle to Timothy. Of this the true reading and proper explanation are both doubtful. In respect to the reading, the question is, as I have mentioned, between os (who or he who) and o (which). Griesbach gives the preference to the former, but it has been shown, I think, that he is incorrect in the citation of his authorities.* The original reading, I be See Laurence's Remarks upon Griesbach's Classification of Manuscripts, pp. 71-83. According to Griesbach, of the Versions (which as regards this text afford by far the most important evidence to be adduced), the Arabic of the Polyglot, and the Slavonic alone, support the reading Theos; in all the others a pronoun is used, answering to os or to o. That is to say, the Coptic, the Sahidic, and the Philoxenian Syriac in the margin, express the pronoun os; the Vulgate and the older Latin versions, o, quod : and the Peshito or lieve to have been o (which). For this the external evidence, when fairly adjusted, seems greatly to preponderate; and it may have been altered by transcribers first into os, and afterwards into Theos, in consequence of the theological interpretation of the passage, according to which the mystery spoken of was Christ,-an interpretation that appears to have been given it at an early period. But the passage, I believe, has no reference to Christ personally. The words translated mystery of godliness,' as if purposely to obscure the sense, should be rendered the new doctrine of piety,' or 'concerning piety;' and in order to avoid an awkward collocation of words in English, we may connect the epithet 'great,' with the substantives 'pillar and foundation;' an arrangement which, though contrary to the construction of the original, sufficiently expresses the The following rendering, then, I believe, gives the meaning of the Apostle. sense. 'I thus write to you, hoping to come to you shortly; but should I be delayed, that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, that is, the assembly of the living God. Beyond doubt, the great pillar and foundation of the true religion, is the new doctrine concerning piety, which has been made known in human weakness, proved true by divine power, while angels were looking on, which has been proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed in the world, and has obtained a glorious reception.' vulgar Syriac, the Philoxenian Syriac in the text, the Erpenian Arabic, the Ethiopic, and the Armenian, use a pronoun which may be translated indifferently who,' or 'which.' But according to Dr. Laurence, whose statements I see no reason to distrust, the Coptic, the Sahidic, and the Philoxenian versions do not necessarily read os, but most probably o,' and the 'Peshito or vulgar Syriac, the Erpenian Arabic, and the Ethiopic, do not indifferently read os or o, but indisputably o.' 'The Armenian reads neither os nor o, but, in conjunction with the Byzantine text, theos.' Of all these versions, therefore, Griesbach's account is incorrect; and the number and importance of those which favor the reading o, taken in connexion with the fact of its having been, from the first, the reading of the whole Western church, produce a preponderating weight of evidence in its favor. In regard to the Philoxenian version Dr. Laurence, as may appear from what is quoted, expresses himself with some obscurity. But, I presume, his opinion was, that both in the text, and in the margin, it probably reads o. See White's note in his edition of this version. In the beginning of the second chapter of this Epistle, St. Paul speaks earnestly, and at length, of the prayers to be offered by Christians in their public assemblies. The main object of their thus associating together was to excite their feelings of piety by mutual sympathy. Then follow directions respecting the well-ordering of a Christian community or church, and the proper character of its officers; and, in conclusion, the Apostle recurs to the great distinctive character of Christianity, its new doctrine of piety to God, that state of mind which their assemblies were particularly intended to cherish. Thus we have a connected train of thought. But if the conclusion of the passage be explained of the manifestation of Christ, or of God, in the flesh, a new subject is abruptly introduced, having but a remote connexion with what precedes; and one which we perceive no reason for the Apostle's adverting to in this place. CLASS II. Passages relating to Christ which have been mistranslated. To this class belongs Philippians 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 been considered a decisive argument, that Christ is God; though it is an 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.* But it now seems to be generally conceded that the words have been mistranslated. In the verses that follow, the verbal rendering of en morphee theou, is in the form of God,' and that of morpheen doulou, the form of a servant.' But as 6 these phrases do not correspond to our modes of expression, * Thus Dr. Watts in one of his hymns. (Book II. h. 51.) 'Yet there is one of human frame, Jesus arrayed in flesh and blood, A full equality with God. Their glory shines with equal beams,' &c. |