which should not be neglected, in an impartial examination of Scripture evidence, on the present topic.

Christ, commends him for having seen and believed. The evidence that he believed was contained in the expression under examination; for, before uttering this expression, he is

There are two reasons here why (ὁ ἀληθινος 9tos) the true God, may be referred to Christ. 1. The grammatical construction favours it: Christ is the immediate antecedent. I grant that pronouns sometimes relate to a more remote antecedent; but cases of this nature stand on the ground of necessity, not of common grammatical usage. What doubt can there be, that John could, without scruple, call the Logos the true God ( &λntivos Dios,) whom he had before asserted to be God and to have created all things?

But, secondly, my principal reason for referring the true God (¿ ààntivos sos) to Christ, is the other adjunct which stands with it: "This is the true God, and the ETERNAL LIFE.” How familiar is this language with John, as applied to Christ! "In him (that is, Christ) was LIFE-this LIFE was the light of men-giving LIFE to the world-the bread of LIFE—my words are spirit and LIFE-I am the way, the truth, and the LIFE-the Logos of LIFE. This LIFE (Christ) was manifested, and we have seen it, and do testify to you and declare the ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us," (1 John, i. 2.) Now, as I cannot find any instance in John's writings, in which the appellation of LIFE and eternal LIFE is bestowed upon the Father, to designate him as the author of spiritual and eternal life, and as this occurs so frequently in John's writings, as applied to Christ-the laws of exegesis compel me here to accord in my exposition with the common laws of grammar, and to construe both indivos 90s, and Zwn awries (or, as some manuscripts, more consonantly with Greek idiom, read an in vios,) both of Christ. If the true God then be not really divine, who is?

John, xx. 28. "And Thomas answered, and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

I have three reasons for adducing this text. 1. There is no satisfactory proof that it is an exclamation of surprise or astonishment. No phrase of this kind, by which the Jews were accustomed to express surprise and astonishment, has yet been produced; and there is no evidence that such a phrase, with the sense alleged, belongs to this language. 2. The Evangelist tells us, that Thomas addressed himself to Jesus, and said to him, is άuTW; he did not merely exclaim. 3. The commendation, which the Saviour immediately bestows upon Thomas, serves chiefly to defend the meaning that I attach to the verse.

then, that the expression was a mere exclamation, what evidence was it to the mind of Jesus, or could it be to the minds of others, that he admitted the claims of the Saviour of men, to the character which was connected with this office? What more proof of real ¦ belief can be found in such an exclamation, if it be truly one, that we can find that men are Christians, when they repeat, as is very common on occasions of surprise or delight, the name of Christ by way of exclamation? But if we admit that the words of Thomas were the proper evidence and expression of that belief, for which the Saviour commended him, (and I do not see how we can fairly avoid this) then we must admit that he will commend us for believing that he is both Lord and God Κύριος και Θεός, unless we adopt the notable expedient of Schlichting, who avers that Lord is to be referred to Christ, and God to the Father; which latter, he thinks, Thomas spoke, after some interval of time had elapsed.

I pass over several passages where our common text applies the name of God to Christ; e. g. Acts, xx. 28, and 1 Tim. iii. 16. In regard to this latter text, however, it appears to me a plain case, that the authorities which Griesbach himself has adduced, would fairly lead to a decision different from his own, respecting the genuineness of the reading, esos. 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 generation of critics. Dr Laurence, in his Essay upon the Classification of Manuscripts by Griesbach, has rendered it more than probable 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 (A. D. 1782-1788) a critical Testament, of twelve volumes, 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 to this edition of Matthäi, and noticing that, in his maxims respecting the formation of the New Testament text, the editor differs very much from Griesbach and others) says, that "for a long time he had followed the middle path between the two parties." [Bibliothek. 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 on 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. The 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 reexamined 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 hitherto 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 altogether in conformity to the Greek idiom. Middleton (on the article) thinks it absolutely essential to it: For, although proper names and abstract nouns, in such a connection as es and Xpres here, may take the article before the first noun, and omit 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 their 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 observed more, I am persuaded, than a thousand instances of the form, & Xeros xas Osos (Christ and God, Eph. v. 5;) some hundreds of instances of syas esos nas owing (the great God and Saviour, Tit. ii. 13;) and not fewer than several thousands of the form

esos nas owing (God and Saviour, 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 confirms 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 appellation of God, with adjuncts that shew 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 ir. 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 (i pogon esov,) he did not eagerly retain his divine condition, but assumed the station or condition of a servant, (μορφήν δουλου.) 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. 'Agrayuos, translated robbery, does not seem here to signify an act of robbery, but res rapta, or rather, figuratively res avide diripienda et vindicanda,—that is, something which is eagerly to be seized and appropriated. (See Schleusner and Storr, in locum.) Moreover, agways, which our translators have placed next to the verb nyngaro, does not, by the rules of syntax, belong there. The Greek syntax would place the words thus, as to their sense,—ουκ ήγησατο το είναι ίσα θέω [κατα] άρπαYHOV, literally, "he regarded not the being equal to God (as) grayμov, 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 grayμov here, as designating the action of robbery; and that ουκ ήγησατο το είναι ίσα θεω ἁρπαγμον can never be proved to mean, "He thought not of the robbery or being equal with God." The verb Яynaro is not susceptible of such a meaning as thought not of,—that is, 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 bux hynsate grayμov, 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,—ον ΤΟΝ ἁρπαγμον ἡγήσατο ΤΟΥ είναι ίσα Even then, yneare 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.

Θεω.

Both our translators and Unitarians appear, generally, to have mistaken the import of the word on (condition, state) in this passage. On the one hand, μgen does not seem to me at all parallel with the brightness (ravyaqua) and express image (xaganrng) 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 "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 gone with these passages, will not ascertain its meaning; for, to Christ belonged the egon esov (the condition of God,) 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 ixsvos auto,) consisted his humiliation.

says,

A fair examination of μg, either generally or in special relation to the passage before us, will end, as I must believe, in the conviction that the word is not unfrequently synonymous with quis (nature) and ova (being.) The proofs which Schleusner has offered of this are sufficient. (Lex. in voc. μogon.) But the proof of what it means in the passage before us, is too plain to be easily mistaken. If you say pogon eso means only a similitude or resemblance of God in moral qualities, as we speak of Christians resembling God, then I ask whether his humiliation consisted in depressing, or subjecting to a lower state, the moral qualities, which Christ possessed?

Does mogen sou mean, then, a resemblance to God in respect to office, as magistrates are called gods? But, on the supposition that Christ was only a finite being, what office did he lay aside in order to become incarnate? If Christ be only a created being, who were his subjects, and what was his dominion, before his mediatorial kingdom commenced by the event of his incarnation?

But this is not all. If μgn mean only similitude, then what is the sense of the next clause, where Christ is said to have taken upon him the μgøn douào? That he bore merely a

resemblance to a servant-that is, to one who obeys, or is in an humble station; or that he did actually take the condition of one who was in an humble and depressed state, and persevere in it to the very death of the cross? The latter must be admitted, unless we hearken to the doctrine of the Docete, who taught that Christ was a man in appearance only, and not in reality. Η μορφή δούλου, then, means the condition or state of one who is humbled or depressed, and subjected to the command of others, does not mogen 9 mean the state or condition of one who is truly divine? After all, it should be sacredly remembered, that, on such a subject as this, human language (made up of terms formed to express the ideas of finite and mutable beings about finite and mutable objects) is of course incompetent fully to designate the mode of union between the divine and human natures. I must regard the language here, and in all other passages on this awful subject, as only an approximation toward describing what exists in the Divinity, or is done by him - he who was in the condition of God, and equal with God, that is, divine, ixsvos autos, which means, as we translate it, "exinanivit seipsum-made himself of no reputation." Yet how incompetent must these translations be! So far as Christ is the immutable God, he cannot change-that is, he cannot divest himself of his essential perfections. He cannot cease to be omnipotent, omniscient, &c. But he may veil the brightness of his glories for a time by assuming to himself a union with the human nature, and making this the organ through which he displays his perfections during the time of the incarnation. Does the sun cease to shine, are his beams extinguished, when an intervening cloud obscures for a while his lustre? or is the sun in any measure changed?

In reply to a multitude of questions with which you and others can press Trinitarians on this subject, we may ask, Because God is omnipotent, does it follow that the whole of that omnipotence must be every moment exerted? If not, (and who will refuse assent to this?) then why may he not have veiled his glories for a time in the incarnate Saviour, and still retain all his essential perfections unchanged? Is it too much to say that he may have done so? I believe that the text in question decides that he did.

I approach such a subject, however, with solemn awe; and never feel my own weakness and ignorance more intensely than while endeavouring to think upon it. The familiar, I had almost said, irreverential manner in which some speak and write respecting this mystery, is calculated, I freely acknowledge, to excite painful emotions. On the one hand, it would seem, if we are to credit one mode of representation, that the greatest portion of Christ's humiliation consisted in his having

All

renounced and absolutely laid aside his divinity during the time of the incarnation; and that, as God, in this diminished condition, he did actually expire upon the cross. the powers of language are exhausted, in order to shew how great must be the sufferings and condescension of Christ in undergoing such a degradation as this. On the other hand, some who revolt from these mistaken representations, verge to the other extreme. Lest they should degrade the divine nature of Christ, they are so careful to separate the human nature from it, that one is compelled to suppose that the man Jesus had simply a higher degree of inspiration and communion with God than other prophets. The New Testament does not seem to me to justify either of these extremes.

A thousand questions may be raised herea thousand difficulties suggested, which no reflecting man will undertake to answer. The history of past ages exhibits an appalling picture of disputes about the person of Christ - all springing from the denial of facts revealed in the New Testament, or from the unhallowed curiosity of men who desired to know what God has not revealed. The very last age witnessed a dispute in Germany between the theologians of Giessen and Tubingen, whether the humiliation (vs) of Christ consisted "in abstinence from both the direct and reflex use of divine majesty," or in the "occultation of divine majesty," a dispute which agitated the Lutheran Church to the very centre.

The humble inquirer after truth, who once is brought clearly to see the boundaries of human knowledge, will shrink from disputations of such a nature, and pour forth his earnest supplications to God that the simple verities which the Scriptures reveal may be believed on the authority of God; while the manner in which the facts revealed for our credence exist, is left with him "whose ways are unsearchable, and whose judgments are past finding out."

I have used the freedom of letter-writing in this discussion; I can hardly call it digression, as it is so nearly connected with the explanation of the text which I am examining. Will you now permit me to repeat, that the version which would correspond best with the real meaning of the passage in question, must express the following ideas? "Who, being of divine nature or condition, did not eagerly seek to retain his equality with God, but took on himself an humble condition," &c. In this way, and in this only, does the passage appear to be consistent with the Apostle's argument and design, at least appropriate to them; and in this way only can the Greek be fairly and grammatically rendered.

With the passage that has now been considered, seem to me to agree, in general import,

c