edge, that they should leave out many or most of those terms which are applied to Christ; for they are now under a necessity of explaining away these very terms. What is this but setting up the wisdom of a creature to correct that of God? How important it is for us to know and keep our proper place, giving God all wisdom, power, and glory.

But to return; the equality of Christ with the Father is stated in unequivocal terms in the text, without any intimation of its being derived or conferred; and a derived or conferred equality, as it respects the Godhead, is an absurdity. The doctrine of the verse under consideration is not destitute of support in other parts of the Bible; for the sacred pages are full of the equality of the Son with the Father. Christ is no where represented by the Father, himself, the prophets, or the apostles, as inferior, or in subordination to the eternal God, only as it respects his human nature, and his office as second in accomplishing the great work of redemption.

All the perfections of God are ascribed to Christ with great and equal plainness. He is represented as being infinite in power, knowledge, wisdom, goodness, and truth; and as entirely beyond our comprehension in all things equally with the Father.

Some own that Christ has a derived or delegated equality with the Father, in every thing but eternity; but the equality in duration is as clearly represented in Scripture as the equality in holiness. How often does Christ speak of himself, and how often is he spoken of, as with the Father

from the beginning? He speaks of the glory he had before the world was, which carries us back into eternity. When Paul speaks of Christians being chosen in him before the foundation of the world, we suppose he brings to view the doctrine of eternal election. This being true, I see no reason why the same expression should not prove eternal existence when applied to Christ. Our Redeemer is represented as equal with the Father in the works he has performed, and will perform. Those works that can be performed by none but God, are said to be done by him. We must know God in part at least by his works. Hence Paul says, the invisible things of him, i. c. of God, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead. But all those things, which were made, were created by Christ, and by him they consist. Then suffer me to ask, upon the principle of the apostle's reasoning, whether the eternal power of the Son is not as much seen by creation as that of the Father? The forgiveness of sin, the salvation of the soul, and every other work peculiar to God, is done equally by Christ; consequently he says, my Father worketh hitherto and I work. We are to worship Christ as we worship the Father; and if we do not honor him, we do not honor the Father. But how do we honor and worship the Father? If acceptably, it is in spirit and in truth, believing him to be the self existent independent God. Then in order to obey the command we must honor Christ as seif existent and independent, or we do not honor him as we honor

the Father. Yea the moment it is acknowle lged that we are to pay him divine honor we must own him to be truly God. Good men, or holy angels, have never permitted themselves to receive that honor of which none but God is worthy.

Now let me intreat every can did reader of these remarks to endeavor to think correctly of Christ. Though your faith be ever so strong, if you mistake in the object it will be vain; and you will be found in your sins. Though we may put our confidence in a being we call Jesus Christ; yet if we do not embrace his character as well as name, we shall come short of heaven. If ye believe not that I am he you shall die in your sins. Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits by the Bible, a sure word of prophecy; for there are many false spirits gone out into the earth. You have immortal souls, and will you trust them with any being short of the greatest being in the universe, when you are invited to look unto God and be saved, and assured that beside him there is nme else?

Το close these remarks: Friends, What think ye of Christ? Do not say, we cannot think him equal with the Father, because we cannot comprehend a Trinity in Unity; but remember, that great is the mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh, and that the world by wisdom knew not God. PROBUS.

For the Panoplist.

PLAIN SCRIPTURE READINGS.

No. I..

EVERY person, who is in any degree acquainted with what is

passing in the literary and religious world, must have observed, that much is said, by those who call themselves liberal Christians, of the inaccuracy of the common translation of the Bible, and of the corrections, which the modern advancements in biblical literature have authorized critics to introduce into the sacred text. From the confident tone which is sometimes assumed on this subject, the unlearned Christian would be led to imagine, that half his Bible, at least, is to be wrested from him. Very possibly he would not expect to retain so much as half; for when he should happen to converse with a liberal teacher, he would find that nearly all the great doctrines of Christianity, as he used to consider them, were to be cut up by the roots, on the ground that the passages commonly adduced to support them, are either interpolations of the text, or false translations. If his liberal teacher should happen to be one of those full grown giants of liberality, who are at least ten times more learned, wise, candid, and charitable, than any other men on the face of the globe, the poor inquirer would find his favorite doctrines put down with such an air of conscious superiority, and the sup porters of them treated as such a set of knaves and dupes, that he would be tempted, in the height of his amazement, to exclaim, What a fool I am! and What fools have all the world been till this liberal age! It he was afterwards told by a person in whom he had some confidence, that no important doctrine was banished from the Scriptures, in consequence of any warrantable alteration of the text, still the

image of the above described giant would disturb his imagination. All his religious views would be unsettled. Instead of finding himself on the firm ground of Scripture, as heretofore, he would discover every thing, on which he placed his feet, give way; and would shudder at the thought of sinking in a quagmire without a bottom and without a shore.

Were it possible, I should greatly desire, that every Christian in this country might know the exact truth, with respect to the degree of credit which is due to every portion of the word of God, as it now stands in our English Bibles. But this is not possible without a miracle, which we have no reason to expect. It has occurred to me, however, that some fair specimens of the proposed corrections of the text, and of our translation, might be so exhibited, as to give unlearned Christians a just view of the safety with which they may rely on the Bible, as it is now possessed by them. For this purpose, I propose to write a series of papers, under the title of Plain Scripture Readings, to be continued in the Panoplist, occasionally, as I have leisure, if they promise to be useful. My plan is to begin the New Testament, take one or two chapters at a time, and exhibit, in as plain and brief a manner as practicable, the following things:

1. All the various readings, faithfully translated, which Griesbach ventured to propose as alterations of the text.

2. Emendations of our translation, with the reasons for them. 3. A recapitulation of the principal doctrines taught in each VoL. V. New Series.

chapter, with a notice of the effect which the proposed alterations would have in regard to those doctrines.

4. Such miscellaneous observations as may be suggested in the prosecution of the above plan.

It will be recollected, that Griesbach has uniformly received the warmest encomiums of the liberal party, for his judg ment, fidelity, and accuracy. Though I by no means admit, that his decisions, or those of any other man, are infallible, yet it may be useful to examine what would be the text of Scripture, if Griesbach were allowed to be the sole judge, and if his sentence were to be binding on all future critics and all succeeding generations. If, ter all the praise which he has received from the liberal party, it shall appear, that he leaves the Scriptures as they were, in all the great articles of faith and practice, with what propriety can that party be forever talking of forgeries and interpolations?

As to the improvements in our translation, which I shall venture to suggest, they will not be very numerous. This translation is preferable, on many accounts, to any new translation which could be made, in the present state of the Christian world. Improvements may, however, be introduced. Much the greater part of such improvements, are needed, I apprehend, in consequence of the changes which two centuries have produced in the meaning of a considerable num. ber of English words, and by no means on account of the original faults of the common version,

Under the head of doctrines, Į

45

shall include the principal things which we are taught; whether they are parts of the theory of the Gospel, or facts, which were intended to convey important instruction. The primary and proper sense of the word doctrine is instruction; and, in this sense, the passages of Scripture which give a historical display of the Divine government, and those which enjoin what are commonly called the duties of religion, are as really fraught with doctrine, as the passages which it is the custom to call doctrinal by way of eminence.

It need hardly be said, that in such an attempt as this, it will be utterly unsuitable as well as impracticable, to give the reasons why I suppose a particular doctrine to be taught in a particular passage. To do this, would be to write an elaborate commentary on the Scriptures, which could not be admitted into a periodical publication. I shall only state, and as briefly as possible, the principal things which appear to me to be taught in the passages under consideration. The reader will judge for himself whether these things are taught or not.

It may be proper to enumerate here the different classes of various readings, which Griesbach distinguishes by different marks. -They are as follows:

1. Words which he removes from the text into the margin, and in the place of which he puts other words, supposed by him to give the genuine reading. Con

The text taken by Griesbach is

the Elzevir edition of the Greek Testament, printed in 1624, with which our translation and niest modevn translations generally agree.

cerning this class he expresses no doubt. I shall designate the particular cases thus: for [here I shall print in Italic the words removed from the text;] read [here I shall print in Italic the words inserted in the text in the place of the words removed.] Example: Matt: iii, 8, for fruits meet read fruit meet.

2. Words which Griesbach banishes from the text, as undoubtedly spurious. These I shall designate thus: om. [here the words deemed spurious will be printed in Italic; and the meaning of the designation is, that these words, according to the opinion of Griesbach, are to be omitted, or dropped, from the English text.] English text. Example: Matt. viii, 25, om. his. The true reading of the verse here cited will be, after this correction, And the disciples, &c.

S. Words probably to be omit. ted; but not so certainly, as that Griesbach would venture to remove them from the text. These will be marked by printing them in Italic after the letters p. o., signifying that the words thus printed are probably to be omitted. Example: Matt x, 29, p. o. on the ground.

4. Words which are missing in some copies of the Scriptures, but the omission of which is less probable than that of the preceding class. These words will be printed in Italics after the letters 1. p.; signifying that the words thus printed are less prob. ably to be omitted. Example: Matt. x, 23, 1. p. for.

5. Words omitted in some copies, but which, in the opinion of Griesbach, are not to be omit. ted. As this critic is decidedly of opinion that the text ought not

to be altered in these cases, I shall take no notice of them.

6. Words which have crept into the text in some copies; but which, as Griesbach supposes, are by no means to be admitted. Of these I shall take no notice for the reason stated under the preceding class.

7. Words which are not destitute of all appearance of claim to be added to the text; but which, in Griesbach's opinion, are still not to be approved. I shall take no notice of these for the same

reason.

8. Words placed in the margin as nearly or quite equal, or perhaps preferable, to the common reading; though Griesbach chooses to retain the commen reading in the text. These I shall designate by first printing in Italic the words proposed; then the letters n. e.; and lastly the words of our text. Example: Matt. xxiv, 18, garment, n. e. clothes; signifying that, in this passage, the singular, garment, is supported by authority nearly equal to that of the plural garments, or clothes.

9. Words placed in the margin, as not to be despised, and as worthy of further examination, but yet as inferior to the common reading. No notice will be taken of these for the reason above stated.

10. & 11. Words removed from the text into the margin; which, nevertheless, can be defended by some arguments more or less specious, but, in Griesbach's judgment, not conclusive. In these cases, I shall designate the degrees of probability thus: in the first instance, that is, the class which can be defended, by the more specious arguments, I

shall place the letters m. s. before the words of our common version, (printed in Italic,) and then, after the word read, shall place, in Italic likewise, the words which Griesbach has substituted. Example: Matt. xvii, 5, for m. s. a bright cloud, read a cloud of light; signifying that instead of our common reading, a bright cloud, which can be defended by some arguments of the more specious character, Griesbach is decidedly of opinion, that a cloud of light is the true reading. In the second instance, that is, the class which can be defended by the less specious arguments, I shall use the letters 1. s. Example: Matt. xxi, 30, for 1. s. second read other; signifying that instead of our common reading, second, which can be defended by some arguments of the less specious character, Griesbach is decidedly of opinion, that other is the true reading.

12. Words added by Griesbach to the text; not, however, without some doubt. To these I shall prefix the letters a. G. signifying that the words thus distinguished are, in Griesbach's judgment, to be added to the text. Example: Matt. xxiii, 23, a. G. but before these ought ye &c.

These are all the various readings, which Griesbach has distinguished by a specific mark. He has cited, in his margin, others, which relate either to a different punctuation, or are of such a description that he thought proper to note them, though they are clearly, in his opinion, to be rejected.

In many cases it will happen, that the various reading is of such a nature that it cannot be