Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

OBSERVATIONS.

10. Every one knows that all words printed in Italic characters in the common version of the Bible are supplied, without any warrant from the original text. As it is inconsistent both with reason and revelation to suppose that an infinite, immortal, and omnipresent being could die," the pronoun he, in the verse treated of, will necessarily stand for the Son of God, mentioned in the eighth verse of the same chapter.*

11. It is contended that here the pronoun this relates to the immediate antecedent, Jesus Christ; and, therefore, that the Saviour is denominated "the true God." But this conclusion we hesitate not to pronounce bold and unwarrantable. Grammatical nicety is, indeed, favourable to the common interpretation; and the particle even, improperly supplied by the royal translators, lends its feeble support to the same cause: but the great truth, that the Father only is the true God, is too clearly and prominently marked out in the passage to be unperceived by the discerning eye. Two beings are distinctly mentioned; namely, "He that is true," or "the true God," and "his Son Jesus Christ," who was commissioned by "the only true God the Father"a to impart to mankind a practical knowledge of his character and designs.

[ocr errors]

Respecting the rule in Grammar, that the pronoun refers to the proximate antecedent, it may be observed, that, in perusing the sentiments of any author, we at once reject the application of the rule, when his language, thus interpreted, conveys ideas different from those which he obviously designs to communicate. Now, there is strong reason for believing the passage under examination to be of this nature. If the pronoun this belonged to the words Jesus Christ, it would follow that the apostle either intimates the existence of a duality of true Gods, or exhibits Christ as both the true God, and the Son of the true Godin other words, the Son of himself: but these conclusions are repugnant equally to enlightened reason and Sacred Scripture," and should therefore be rejected without hesitation. The pronoun is found to relate to the remote antecedent in many places of the New Testament;' in one of which, according to the grammatical construction of the words, our Lord is termed "a deceiver and an antichrist;" these expressions being preceded by the demonstrative this, and immediately following the clause, "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."c

If, however, any doubt should exist respecting the proper application of the last clause of the verse, 1 John v. 20, we would request the reader's particular attention to the fact, that the beloved disciple in his Gospel represents the Son of God himself solemnly recognising the sole, absolute Supremacy of the Father, in that beautiful prayer which he uttered shortly before leaving the world: "FATHER, this is life eternal, to know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."d

SECT. III. ON THE PECULIAR USE OF THE GREEK ARTICLE IN TIT. ii. 13, AND OTHER TEXTS, ADDUCED TO PROVE THE DEITY OF CHRIST.

Critical Citations in support of Trinitarianism.

When the copulative xa connects two nouns of the same case [viz, nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities good or ill] if the article 6, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle.-Granville Sharp's Canon.

[ocr errors]

Eph. v. 5.-If this text had no relation to any disputed point, and were judged of solely by the common law of Greek construction, no person would ever have contested the propriety, or rather the necessity, of considering the two concluding nouns as referring to one and the same object.-Smith.

2 Thess. i. 12. et al.-Where designations of God and Christ occur, united by the copulative conjunction,

when the article is prefixed to the first and not repeated before the second, they must be referred to one and the same person. This is the constant usage of the New Testament writers.-Smith.

Titus ii. 13. It is more than probable, that our translators intended them to be understood as equivalent to "the glorious appearing of Jesus Christ, the great God and our Saviour;" for, if they be understood otherwise, they are unquestionably a misinterpretation. To avoid all ambiguity, and to express the precise sense of the original, they ought to be rendered, "the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ."-Wardlaw.

We are obliged to construe it so, unless we would violate the determinate use of the language, the constant practice of the sacred writers, and the evidence arising from the uniform testimony of the Christian Fathers to whom the language of the New Testament was vernacular.-Smith.

2 Pet. i. 1.-There cannot be a doubt, that, according to the established principles of Greek construction, this ["of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ "] is their only just translation.-Wardlaw.

Had this been a case in which theological controversy was not concerned, it is morally certain, that no person would ever have disputed the construction.-Smith.

Critical Citations favourable to Unitarianism.

The construction specified in the Canon usually, if not universally, marks a close connection between the things or persons signified, or their common dependence on what is denoted by the governing word; but it does nothing more: the nature of that connection or dependence is a mere matter of inference. ....The construction simply marks unity of RELATION, or joint connection; and in no way implies identity of PERSON, which, if real, is a matter of inference, derived from other considerations.-Carpenter.

It appears, by comparing the rule with its exceptions and limitations, that it, in fact, amounts to nothing more than this; that when substantives, adjectives, or participles, are connected together by a copulative or copulatives, if the first have the article, it is to be omitted before those which follow, when they relate to the same person or thing; and is to be inserted, when they relate to different persons or things, EXCEPT when this fact is sufficiently determined by some other circumstance. The same rule exists respecting the use of the definite article in English.-Norton.

See Smith's remark on 2 Thess. i. 12, p. 268.

Titus ii. 13, I apprehend, contains a refutation of the doctrine in the strictness contended for. It would prove, that the blessed hope and the appearance of God are identical; for I cannot consider the insertion of the adjective managíav, blessed, as altering the case. It is true that they both relate to the same object, and have a close connection: so are God and Christ closely connected in the work of human redemption; but this does not prove their identity.-Mardon.

The whole force of the proof depends upon the definitive article, which may be inserted or omitted before the two nouns in the Greek without affecting the sense; or the article prefixed to one may be common to both.-Milton.

Titus ii. 13. 2 Peter i. 1.-When I consider the subject without reference either to my own or any other system, my opinion upon these two passages is, that the common translation of them is preferable, although the other mode of rendering them does not violate any rule of syntax.-Yates.

For other quotations, see Appendix, p. 268.

SECT. III. ON THE PECULIAR USE OF THE GREEK ARTICLE IN TIT. ii. 13, AND OTHER TEXTS, ADDUCED TO PROVE THE DEITY OF CHRIST.

OBSERVATIONS.

Among the bitter complaints preferred against Unitarians, their translating passages differently from those in the Authorised Version is regarded by many as a crime of no ordinary magnitude. But such persons would have more of the spirit of Christian charity, if they would reflect that this practice is not peculiar to their opponents, being found nearly to an equal extent amongst professed Trinitarians; of which, examples may be seen in various portions of this work. Yet, surely nothing can be more obvious than the absurdity and unfairness of charging those with irreverence for the word of God, who endeavour to possess it in that pure state in which it existed, when it flowed from the lips of Jesus, and proceeded from the hands of the apostles.

These reflections arise from considering that a few passages in the Epistles are translated by some learned men in such a manner as to make the word God, which is contained in them, a name belonging to Jesus Christ. The reason assigned for this application is, that the word God is immediately connected with other titles undoubtedly applied to our Lord, and that the Greek article, being used only once in such sentences, points out the necessity of understanding all the names and epithets to belong to one person only. In reply to this argument for the Deity of Christ, Unitarians deny the necessity of such an interpretation of the original; conceiving, with many of their opponents, that the phraseology is ambiguous. To use the language of a learned orthodox writer (Professor STUART), they "do not trust the Greek Article as being the depository of arguments, in a case of such magnitude as this. In almost all cases, IT MUST BE A SLENDER SUPPORT FOR ANY CONCLUSION; but here especially it is not worthy of the trust which so many have reposed in it." In the same cautious spirit MILTON remarks: "Surely what is proposed as an object of belief, especially in a matter involving a primary article of faith, ought not to be ... hunted out by careful research from among articles and particles; nor elicited by dint of ingenuity, like the answers of an oracle, from sentences of dark or equivocal meaning; but should be susceptible of abundant proof from the clearest sources." As, then, the passages under consideration are of an ambiguous nature, we deem it advisable to interpret them in accordance with the general tenor of Scripture, and with the incontrovertible sentiments of the writers who employed the questionable phraseology. Having, in a former part of this work, produced clear and copious evidence that God and Christ are distinct beings, and that the Father only is God, in the highest signification of the term, we feel ourselves perfectly justified in adopting that interpretation of the disputed passages which is given by Unitarians.

ALLEGED PROOFS.

1. Eph. v. 5: The kingdom of Christ and of God.

the kingdom of Christ, even of God.-Sharp. the kingdom of Christ and God.-Stuart. the kingdom of [him who is] the Christ and God. -Smith, Carlile, Bagot.

the kingdom of the anointed [teacher] of God.Wakefield (from the Ethiopic and Arabic versions),

who refers to Luke ii. 26; ix. 20.

the kingdom of the Messiah and of God.-Norton. See Appendix, No. I. page 268.

2. 2 Thess. i. 12: That the name

of our Lord Jesus Christ be glomay rified, ... according to the grace of our God, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

of Jesus Christ, our God and Lord.-Sharp.

of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.-Burgess, Smith, Bagot.

of our God and [our] Lord Jesus Christ.-Wakefield. of our God and of [our] Lord Jesus Christ.-Imp. Ver. of our God and of [the] Lord Jesus Christ.-Carpenter.

See Appendix, No. I. page 268.

3. See 1 Tim. v. 21. before Jesus Christ, the God and Lord.-Sharp. before the God and Lord Jesus Christ.-Smith. before God and Lord Jesus Christ.-Eyre. presence of God, and of [the Lord] J. C.-Imp. Ver. 4. See 2 Tim. iv. 1.

before Jesus Christ, the God and Lord.-Sharp. before God and Jesus Christ.-Griesbach, Carpenter. See Appendix, No. I. page 268.

...

5. Titus ii. 13: Looking for the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. apparitionem gloriæ.-Calvin. adventum gloriæ. - Beza. the appearing of the glory.- Racovian Catechism, S. Clarke, Abauzit, Belsham, &c.

of the great God, even our Saviour J. C.-A. Clarke, of our great God and Saviour J. C.-Hammond, Sharp, Dwight, Burgess, Wardlaw, Valpy, &c. of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ. -Racovian Catechism, S. Clarke, Wakefield, Carpenter, Belsham, Mardon, Imp. Ver.

See Appendix, No. I. page 268.

6. James i. 1: James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes, &c.

a servant of [our, or the] God and Lord Jesus Christ.-Smith.

See Appendix, No. I. page 268.

[blocks in formation]

b 1 Thess. i. 1: Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians, [which is] in GOD THE FATHER, and [in] the Lord Jesus Christ. -2 Thess. ii. 16: Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and GOD, EVEN OUR FATHER, who hath loved us, and hath given [us] everlasting consolation, and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you.-See 1 Thess. i. 3, 9, 10; ii. 14; iii. 2, 11–13; iv. 1—3, 14, 16; v. 9, 18, 23. 2 Thess. i. 1, 2, 7, 8; iii. 5.

....

c 1 Tim. i. 1, 2: Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of GoD OUR SAVIOUR, and Christ Jesus. Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from GOD OUR FATHER, and Jesus Christ our Lord. (G.) Chap. ii. 5: ONE GOD, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.-See 1 Tim. vi. 13. 2 Tim. i. 1,2,8-10.

d Titus i. 4: Grace, mercy, [and] peace from GOD THE FATHER, and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour (comp. ver. 1-3). Chap. iii. 4-6: The kindness and love of GOD OUR SAVIOUR toward man appeared . by the renewing of the holy spirit, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

e Luke ix.26: The Son of man.. shall come in his own glory, and [in his] Father's, and of the holy angels. - See Matt. xvi. 27. 2 Thess. i. 7-10. et al.

f James ii. 1: The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c. Chap. iii. 9: Therewith bless we GOD, EVEN THE Father.

g Jamesii.19: Thou believest that there is ONE GOD: thou doest well. Acts ii. 36: GOD hath made that same Jesus... both Lord and Christ,-See 1 Cor. viii, 6.

OBSERVATIONS.

1. By taking the context as a criterion to judge of the sense of this passage, we can have little hesitation in affirming, that our Saviour is not here called God. In the second verse of the same chapter, and in the last verse of the preceding one" (both of which are immediately connected with the text under consideration), we find God and Christ spoken of in such a manner as to leave no room for doubt, that the intention of the apostle was to restrict the appellation God to a Being distinct from, and superior to Christ.

2. Exclusively of this text, the word God is not once applied to Jesus Christ in the Epistles to the Thessalonian church, though it is used upwards of fifty times. Wherever in these compositions the names of God and Christ occur together, there are they mentioned so as to denote the existence of two distinct minds. Now, 2 Thess. i. 12 being a passage which, according to the admission even of Dr. J. PYE SMITH, may not "necessarily be construed of one and the same person," is it not preferable to render it, as our translators have done, in conformity with the writer's express sentiments contained in the same epistles? and is not this the very manner in which the Thessalonians would understand the passage?

с

3, 4. In the rendering of these texts, as in those of Nos. 1 and 2, the royal translators seem, very properly, to have been influenced by the general style of St. Paul; than whom a better guide they could not have chosen. It may be observed, that, supposing the Received Text of these passages to be genuines the translation of them, as found in the Authorized Version, is generally adopted by Trinitarians, as well as by Unitarians.

5. In the Epistle to Titus, from which this passage is taken, St. Paul mentions two Saviours: one of whom, having underived authority, he styles God, the Father; and the other, who came in his Father's name, he denominates the Lord, Jesus Christ.d As, therefore, the apostle carefully distinguishes between his divine Master and the almighty Father, we think ourselves fully warranted in believing, that, in this doubtful text, he refers to "the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." It is highly probable, that the writer adverted to the language of our Lord himself, who declared to his disciples that he would come in his own glory, and in the glory of his Father,

6. In no other passage of St. James's Epistle do the words God and Lord occur together. It is, however, certain that he terms Jesus Christ, Lord; and the Father, God f-language simply expressive of Unitarianism: but it is not certain that he calls Jesus God, and it is well known that he says nothing of the Trinity. The Unitarian interpretation of the passage treated of is, therefore, undoubtedly the most probable.

T

« ÎnapoiContinuă »