The passages referred to, are these: Acts 20. 28; 1 Cor. 15. 47; Eph. 3. 9, 19; 1 Tim. 3. 16; 1 John 2. 16; 1 John 5. 7, and 5. 20; Jude, verse 25; Rev. 1. 11.

1 John, 5. 7, is the most vulnerable of any of the passages that have been mentioned; and yet, as we have seen, the evidence of its authenticity is great. But the unremitting efforts of the Anti-Trinitarians to prove the above passages to be spurious readings, show the hostility of their hearts to the doctrines which they contain, as they stand in our translation. The end which they have to answer by effecting the death of these Divine witnesses, is such, that we may justly stand in doubt of their impartiality as Biblical critics. It is not my design, at present, to enter into an examination of the merits of the above list of passages; but merely to show the engagedness of our opponents to overthrow the doctrines which appear to be "the Alpha and Omega" of the Holy Scriptures. They would not have bestowed so much labor in trying to prove the spuriousness of such parts of Scripture, unless they had assumed the opinion previously, that the doctrine of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Atonement, and the Personality of the Holy Ghost, are unreasonable doctrines. Taking this course, however, is not speaking according "to the law and the testimony," independent of the passages in question.

But, when the plea of interpolation fails them in supporting their cause, the next alternative is,

2. The charge of mistranslation. They have endeavored to place the following list of passages in that predicament. I shall place them in the order in which they appear in the writings of the Rev. T. Lindsey:-Isa. 9. 6, and 53. 8; Jer. 23. 6; Hos. 1. 7; Zech. 12. 10, & 13. 7; Matth. 12. 31; John 1, to the close of the 14th verse; John 1. 15, & 10. 18; John 3. 18, & 5. 18; John 6. 23,

and 8.58; John 18. 3, and 17. 24; Acts 13. 26, and 4. 27, 30; Acts 3. 14, 15, and 7. 59; Acts 9. 14, 21.; 1 Cor. 1. 2; Acts 18. 29, and 20. 28; Rom. 1. 3, 20; Rom. 9. 5; 1 Cor. 2. 14, and 10. 9; Gal. 4. 7, and 4. 32; Col. 2. 9; Phil. 2. 5, 6, 7, 8; Heb. 1. 2, 5, 6; John 3. 16, 18; Heb. 1. 8, and 2. 14, 16; 1 John 1. 12, 3.

4

No trespass, my hearers, shall be committed on your patience, by stating the reasons which are assigned for varying from our translation, in this list of passages. Some of them, however, are very extraordinary. Those who desire to see the matter investigated, are cheerfully referred to the Sermons of the Rev. R. Wardlaw, on the Socinian controversy. A number of the texts stated above, are ably defended by that eloquent and learned writer.' All that I have now in view, is simply to show the perseverance and determination of the Anti-Trinitarian writers, in opposing the common doctrines of the Bible. When writers set out with the ardent desire of finding interpolations and mistranslations, we have great reason to be on our guard in relation to the result of their researches. No man would be willing to venture his life in the hands of a juror, if he knew him to be an enemy, whatever good opinion he might have of the extent of his learning, and the soundness of his judgment. People of reading must know that the Anti-Trinitarian authors differ greatly among themselves, as well as from other writers, in their criticisms on, and translations of the Scriptures. But the plea of mistranslation is one way in which they are endeavoring to effect an escape from Trinitarian doctrines; and that is all that I wish to prove at present.

In many passages, however, which relate to the doctrines in question, this subterfuge wholly fails them; and, therefore,

3. They have recourse to the plan of giving any mean

C c

ig to a text that it will possibly bear, rather than to allow it to stand in such a light as would afford support to the doctrines they are opposing. They have invented no less than five different ways of translating and construing Rom. 9.5; which reads, in our translation, "Whose are the Father's, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." To enter into a view of the different methods they have taken to manage this text, is not designed; for the variety shows the difficulty in which they are involved, and their fixed determination to escape at any rate. Men who will have recourse to such means of defence, cannot be safely followed in their criticisms. Giving any meaning to a passage that it will possibly bear, in opposition to its literal and obvious import, is taking for granted the point in debate. The thing is not admissible on any other ground but this, that Trinitarian doctrine is an absurdity. It is not very ingenuous, however, to claim the victory by begging the question.

It is well understood, that the Anti-Trinitarians, very generally, deny the account which the evangelists give of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ. Mr. Wardlaw says, this is done," in defiance of all versions, and of all manuscripts, as well as of all the critics, and among the rest, Griesbach himself." He adds, "Is it possible to avoid a suspicion-is it a breach of charity to entertain it— that there must have been, in the minds of those who reject these chapters, a secret wish to find them spurious? a predisposition to lend a willing ear to whatever could be adduced, with even the remotest semblance of plausibility, to bring them into discredit ?" The fact is this, the chapters alluded to, cannot be made to accord with the simple humanity of Christ; and, therefore, they must be given up at all events.

If the whole Bible were as express on the

subject, as the chapters and passages in question, it would, of course, be entirely renounced on this principle. No man can prove the doctrines in debate, to people who have previously assumed the belief that they are an impossibility. Every thing that appears to support them, must, therefore, be removed on some calculation or other. But, surely, that is refusing to abide by the decision of the Scriptures, and making our own reason the test of truth and falsehood. Concerning one of the five ways, which they have invented, of rendering Rom. 9. 5, Mr. Belsham says, conjecture, ingenious, and even probable as it is, not being supported by a single manuscript, version, or authority whatever, cannot be admitted into the text. But one may almost believe that the present reading might be owing to an inadvertence in one of the earliest transcribers, if not in the apostle's own amanuensis!!" See Belsham's Calm Enquiry, page 224.

"This

This course is evading an equivocal, but unpleasant text, at any rate! There is no possibility of standing before such reasoners! People who see the beauty and importance of Trinitarian doctrines, must be greatly shocked in seeing such liberty taken with the Oracles of God. But when interpolation, mistranslation, and every other method of evasion, fails, our opponents have recourse,

It

4. To the open denial of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. This is, confessedly, a strong assertion; but it may be very easily supported, from the express sayings of some of the most eminent Anti-Trinitarian authors. is said by St. Paul, that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God;" but the reverse of this is boldly maintained by Dr. Priestley, who was one of the most distinguished Anti-Trinitarians of his age. He says, in his letters to a philosophical unbeliever, "Not that I consider the books of Scripture as inspired, and on that account

entitled to respect. If you wish to know what, in my opinion, a Christian is bound to believe with respect to the Scriptures, I answer, that the books which are universally received as authentic, are to be considered as faithful records of past transactions. No Christian is answerable for more than this. The writers of Scripture were men, and therefore fallible; but all that we have to do with them, is in the character of historians, and witnesses of what they heard and saw. Of course, their credibility is to be estimated like that of other historians, viz. from the circumstances in which they wrote, or with respect to their opportunities of knowing the truth of what they relate, and the biases to which they might be subject. Like all other historians, they were liable to mistakes; and with respect to their reasoning, we are fully at liberty to judge of it, as well as that of any other men, by a due consideration of the propositions they advance, and the arguments they allege."

In a communication to Dr. Price, on this subject, he says, "Neither I, nor I presume yourself, believe implicitly every thing that is advanced by any writer in the Old or New Testament." In relation to all the sacred writers, he says to that gentleman, "I believe them to have been men, and consequently fallible, and liable to mistake with respect to things to which they had not given much attention, or concerning which they had not the means of exact information; which I take to be the case with respect to the account which Moses has given of the creation and fall of man."

In another part of his writings, he charges Moses with giving us "a lame account" of these things. Some of the British reviewers ascribed this saying concerning Moses, to the Dr.'s "magnanimity ;” that is, his independence and elevation of mind. That the thing was bold, must be ad