upon no general principles, or upon none which can be at all defended. But the same is true of these, as of other passages in scripture. Many readers have been taught from their childhood to associate a certain meaning with certain words and texts in the Bible. This meaning, borrowed from the schools of technical theology, may be altogether erroneous, but it is that which immediately presents itself to their minds. They can hardly avoid considering those expositions of particular passages with which they are so familiar, as the only ones which would occur to an unprejudiced reader. He who would break those associations which they have between certain words and a certain meaning, and substitute the true sense instead of that to which they have been accustomed, appears to them to be doing violence to the language of scripture. We make these remarks, merely for the sake of showing, that the strong impression, which some may feel respecting the meaning of different passages, being the result merely of edu cation and habit, and not founded upon any correct principles of judgment, is of no sort of weight in the present controversy. We may now, then, proceed to answer the question formerly proposed. Certain passages are adduced by Trinitarians, and explained in one sense; we explain the same passages in a different sense. The question is, in what manner it shall be decided which explanation is true, or which is most probable? Now, upon the supposition that the words will bear either meaning, this is a question, which, as we have shown, is to be determined solely by extrinsic considerations; and all those considerations, which we have urged in the former part of the article, bear directly upon the point at issue. Our purpose has been to prove, that the doctrines of Trinitarians were not taught by Christ and his apostles. In so far as we have rendered this probable, we have rendered it probable, that they were not taught by them in any particular passage. All the considerations which we have brought forward, are such as apply directly to the interpretation of every passage which may be adduced. But these considerations are in our minds of so much weight, as to render it certain, that the Trinitarian exposition of every genuine passage of the New Testament is false. Their force can be avoided only in one way, not by proving, positively, that the words will bear a Trinitarian meaning for we have, all along, for the sake of argument, gone upon this supposition-but by proving, negatively, that it is impossible they should have been used in any other than a Trinitarian meaning;-that the words will bear but one sense, and that this is the only sense, which they could have been

intended to express. The latter proposition, when thus stated in express terms, no one, we think, acquainted with criticism, will undertake to maintain in respect to these passages in general, or in respect to any particular passage. If it should be advanced, it may easily be shown to be wholly untenable. But if this be true, and if there be not some gross error in our preceding reasonings, then the controversy, with regard to the Trinitarian exposition of these passages, is already decided. Whatever may be their true sense, the Trinitarian exposition must be false.

It does not indeed follow from this, that the particular meaning, which we, or any Unitarian expositor may assign to a passage, is its true meaning. Because one meaning that has been assigned is certainly false, we cannot conclude that another, which the words will bear, must be that which the author intended. Whether it be, or be not, is to be determined by the general considerations just adverted to, together with such other particular cousiderations, as may specially apply to the passage before us. With regard to some one or more of these passages, a student of the scriptures may, perhaps, hesitate between different Unitarian expositions, without perceiving any sufficient reasons to decide his choice. The case is the same with regard to many other passages of scripture, in examining which we may discover different probable meanings, but cannot confidently determine the true meaning. But however much he may be perplexed in determining the true sense of a passage, this will be no reason for adopting one which may be proved not to be the true sense. He would reason very ill, who, because he could not satisfy himself as to what was meant by our Saviour, when he spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, should adopt on that account the Roman Catholic exposition of his words. If there be any texts adduced by Trinitarians, concerning the true meaning of which the student of the controversy can obtain no satisfaction, he may recollect that these are not the only difficult passages in scripture; that one must have studied with very little, or very great attention, who does not recognize many of a similar character; and that we must not give up what we know, because there is something which we do not know; or sacrifice the clear explicit tenor of all the rest of scripture to the possi ble meaning of some texts which appear to contradict it.

But in all this reasoning, we have gone upon a very liberal supposition, when we have conceded generally that the passages adduced by Trinitarians will BEAR a Trinitarian sense. Of many of these passages, as we have formerly shown, this

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.

66

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 μogon to mean being or nature†) he has contrived to press it again into service. The exact verbal rendering of o pogon Ore is "in the form of God," and of ➜ μogoy draw, “in the form of a servant.” 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.

But

"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. h. 51.)

Yet there is one of human frame,

Jesus arrayed in flesh and blood,
Thinks it no robbery to claun

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 μg in this passage to mean nothing more than condi ion, 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 mogen 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 shou'd only have to choose between this and its more common meaning. Ig 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." these the following may serve as a specimen:

Of

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 a; according to a well known use of sugionopeus, New Series-vol. I. 53