rity of Griesbach; making its incessant appeal, in terms of unqualified generality, and in tones of triumphant confidence, to the text of Griesbach,―the text of Griesbach ;—as if no one could reasonably pretend to know any thing of apostolic doctrine, unless he were familiar with Griesbach ;-as if the whole texture of the New Testament, warp and woof, had, on this subject at least, been thoroughly changed by him ;—as if Scripture and Scripture's laws lay hid in night," till "God "said, Let Griesbach be, and all was light."—Nothing can be more ridiculous than this-Griesbach himself being judge:for they who, with irksome repetition, appeal to his authority, are perfectly aware of the fact, as above stated, that only three, of all the texts in the New Testament usually quoted in support of the proper divinity of Christ, "are at all touched

66

by this high and vaunted authority;" and that of these three there is only one which he appears to have felt entire confidence in setting aside.

Besides censur

But no-says Mr. Yates-this is not true. ing the spirit of my " angry sneer," he "has some fault to find "with my accuracy." There is another text, which I have several times quoted, in different branches of my argument, which is touched by the authority of the eminent critic in question. I frankly admit the inadvertency. I had indeed overlooked the emendation of the passage in question; and cheerfully submit to such measure of censure as the reader may think due for this sin of omission.-But let us examine a little the passage itself. It is Rev. i. 8. " I am Alpha and Omega, the be"ginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which 66 was, and which is to come, the Almighty."-" But," says Mr. Yates, "the verse, as corrected by Griesbach, reads thus: "Iam Alpha and Omega, saith the Lord God, who is, and who "was, and who is to come, the Almighty." "The emendation,”

he adds, "is of considerable importance, because it determines "completely the reference of the passage to God, and not to "Jesus Christ." (Pages 31. 32.)

6

On this statement let the reader observe-1st, In one of the instances in which it is quoted in my Discourses, I have remarked respecting it—" Although I am fully satisfied that "these are the words of Jesus Christ, yet, if any shall insist "that they are spoken by the Father, the argument, it may "be observed, will not, by the admission of this, be at all "weakened. For, since the refusal to acknowledge them as "the words of Christ proceeds upon the principle that the "titles assumed in them belong exclusively to the only true "God, this gives the greater conclusiveness to other passages, "in which it is beyond a doubt that Christ does appropriate 66 some of these titles to himself. In the 17th and 18th verses "of the same chapter, he is introduced as saying to the be"loved disciple: Fear not: I am the first and the last, and "the living one; and I was dead; and behold I am alive for 66 evermore; and have the keys of hell and of death.' And at "the 13th verse of the 22d chapter: I am Alpha and Omega, "the beginning and the end, the first and the last.'" (Discourses, p. 90.)-2dly, If from other passages, and from the tenor of Scripture in general, it be satisfactorily proved that Jesus Christ is truly Jehovah Elohim, the Lord God, and if the connexion in which the words in question stand, and the manner of the writer in other parts of the same book, naturally lead us to apply them to him, Mr. Yates speaks with an excess of confidence, when he affirms that Griesbach's emendation" de"termines completely the reference of the passage to God, and "not to Jesus Christ."" The evidence that this verse is "spoken by our Lord appears to us so strong, that, believing "as we do that Christ is the Lord God, Jehovah Elohim,

"the single circumstance that this is a singular instance in "the New Testament of calling him by the double appellation, "while the simple appellations of which it is composed, are re

66

66

argu

peatedly given him, is not a sufficient reason for our abandoning this opinion; and, retaining it, it follows of course, "that the Griesbachian reading greatly strengthens the "ment from this passage for the Divinity of Christ." *—But 3dly, It will not, I presume, be denied by any Greek scholar, that the words under consideration, as amended by Griesbach, are, without the slightest degree of perversion or overstretching, susceptible of another rendering besides the one given by Mr. Yates. Ayer Kugos, is the most common phrase in the Septuagint for," saith the Lord." Taking it so in its present occurrence, the meaning of the verse will be: "I am Alpha and "Omega, saith the Lord, the God who is, and who was, and "who is to come (that is, the eternal, self-existent God), the Al"mighty." +

Another instance of inaccuracy is, my having said, that to no one of the three passages before alluded to had I referred in proof of the doctrine which it had been my object to establish; whereas the fact is, that I had quoted 1 Tim. iii. 16. "God was manifested in the flesh," amongst my specimens of the "current language of the New Testament," and that I twice use the phrase incidentally, once with inverted commas, and once without them. That in two instances I should have used this expression incidentally, not in the way of proof (for one of the instances is in the Discourse on Atone, ment), but simply as a convenient phrase, suited to express

* Strictures on Mr. Yates's Vindication of Unitarianism, &c. by John Brown, Minister of the Associate Congregation, Biggar.

† Εγω ειμι το Α και το Ω, λέγει κυριός, ὁ Θεός ὁ ὤν, καὶ ὁ ην, καὶ ὁ ερχόμενος, ὁ παν

66

66

my idea, will not, I apprehend, appear to the reader a very astonishing circumstance. And as to the quotation of the text among the specimens of the current language of the New Testament, the fact, to be sure, is as stated, and it is very simply accounted for. In Note C. at the end of my Discourses, the following statement is made: "When this discourse was delivered, 1 Tim. iii. 16, was introduced in this place, and "the following remarks made upon it:"-then, having given the remarks—"I was induced to omit this passage in the printed discourse, not by a decided conviction that these "remarks were destitute of force;-but because I was desi"rous of having it to say, that I had built no part of my ar "gument on any passage which eminent critics had pro"nounced of doubtful authority." When this text, with the discussion of it, was left out of the discourse where it had been formally introduced, it ought at the same time to have been expunged from the list of passages adduced as proving the current language of the New Testament, in a former discourse. This, in the progress of the volume through the press, was, by an unlucky oversight, omitted. This omission is "the "head and front of my offending;"-and I am concerned that the printing of the second edition had proceeded too far before it was perceived, to admit of the erazure in it.

There are cases, in which we find it impossible to avoid understanding language according to the known sentiments and practice of those by whom it is used. A rule of interpretation, consequently, may in itself be quite unexceptionable, and may yet be expressed in terms so general and unqualified (perhaps unavoidably so), as to be capable of the most licentious latitude of application. Thus, among the directions laid down by Mr. Yates to be followed in fixing the true sense of a passage of Scripture, who can deny that

"in numberless instances the words of Scripture are to be under"stood figuratively?"-and consequently, that "where we "meet with a passage which, if literally explained, would be a "manifest violation of common sense, or directly contradict what "is asserted in other parts of the Bible, we must conclude that "the words are not to be taken in their primary acceptation.”But there is a wide difference between approving the rule, and approving the Unitarian application of it. Who, that knows any thing of the latter, can fail to be jealous of the phrases "figurative language" and "common sense" when used by a Unitarian? Every one that is at all acquainted with this controversy must be well aware, what a Unitarian has in mind, when he speaks of " violations of common sense." And as to "figurative language," it is one of the chief of those "besoms of destruction" with which they vainly attempt to "sweep away" the foundations of our hope. They resolve into figure the most important dictates of the sacred volume: and with all their boasted attachment to "common sense" theology, they impute figures to the sacred writers, which, inspiration out of the question, no man possessing common sense would ever have used. The rule, therefore, is, in itself, one of essential utility; but the Unitarian application of it to practice, is licentious and mischievous in the extreme. "The "law is good, if a man use it lawfully."

I am precluded the use of points of admiration; but the intelligent reader, I should fancy, will be disposed to supply a triad of them, when he finds Mr. Yates censuring Trinitarians for their non-adherence to those "severe and unaccommodating rules" of interpretation which he has laid down. This from a Unitarian! Mr. Yates must excuse me; but I really could not read the charge without a smile. The unaccom→ modating severity of himself and his brethren, in their adher