generally intelligible as the editors of this new version, I must have leave to premise, that it is somewhat a harder task to bring forward ancient facts and ancient records, in support of the venerable writings in question, than to modernize them for common reading by a suppression of all the testimony to be drawn from the records of antiquity."

Nares' "Remarks on the Version of the New Testament, edited by the Unitarians."

No. IV.

ON JOHN i. 1. AND ROMANS ix. 5.

In his Critical Reflections on the "Unitarian Version," Dr. Laurence observes, " Among the various modes which have been adopted for the improvement of the received text, attempts, it is observed, have been made to correct it by critical conjecture. Upon this subject the following remarks occur: This is a remedy which ought never to be applied but with the utmost caution, especially as we are furnished with so many helps for correcting the text from manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers. This caution is doubly necessary, when the proposed emendation affects a text which is of great importance in theological controversy, as the judgment of the critic will naturally be biassed in favour of his own opinions. It ought perhaps to be laid down as a general rule, that the received text is in no case to be altered by critical, or at least by theological conjecture, how ingenious and plausible soever.'

"So far the reasoning is correct, and perfectly conformable with the established maxims of the most eminent critics: but what follows? nevertheless (it is added,) there is no reason why critical conjecture should be entirely excluded from the New Testament, any more than from the works of any other

ancient author; and some very plausible conjectures of no inconsiderable importance have been suggested by men of great learning and sagacity, which, to say the least, merit very attentive consideration. See particularly John i. 1. vi. 4, and Rom. ix. 5';' and a reference is made to Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. c. 10. Here is a manifest qualification of the preceding remark. Whatsoever ambiguity then may be supposed to exist in the idea of a general rule, which is universal in its application, it is certain that the authors of the new version only mean, by so expressing themselves, a rule which is in most cases to be observed, but which may in some be violated; and, by way of distinctly pointing out the nature of their exception, they refer to John i. 1. vi. 4. and Rom. ix. 5. The second reference indeed is not very important; but the first and third relate to theological conjectures, inimical to the doctrine of Christ's divinity. The first consists in the substitution of Θεοῦ for Θεός, in the clause καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, and the second in reading wv i for & wv, in the passage o wv ɛñì TaVTūv Oεòs, so as by this transposition to render its sense, ' of whom was God, who is over all;' necessarily precluding the interpretation usually affixed to these words. What then is their distinction? The general rule, which in no case admits theological conjecture, how ingenious and plausible soever it be, ought not, it seems, to stand in the way of any unauthorized emendations of the sacred text favourable to the Unitarian hypothesis: but do they mean to extend the same indulgent hypothesis to Trinitarian criticisms? Or do they conceive that it is only the judgment of the Trinitarian critic which is likely to be biassed by individual opinion?

"But in corroboration of what they advance, they refer the reader to Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. c. 10. In this chapter, which is entitled, Conjectural Emendations of the Greek Testament,' and upon which their whole reasoning, one might suppose, was founded, it is singular that Michaelis reprobates in the strongest terms all theological conjecture whatsoever, and that for this obvious reason, because a theologian, whose business it is to form his whole system of faith and manners from the Bible, cannot with propriety as

s" Introduction, pp. 18, 19."

sume previously any system of theology, by which he may regulate the sacred text, but must adopt that text which is confirmed by original documents, and thence deduce his theological system. Nor is this all. In direct opposition to the sentiments of those who quote him, and in the beginning of that very chapter to which they refer, he thus unequivocally expresses himself: 'It must be evident to every man, that the New Testament would be a very uncertain rule of life and manners, and indeed WHOLLY UNFIT TO BE USED AS A STANDARD OF RELIGION, if it were allowable, as is the practice of several Socinians, to apply critical conjecture in order to establish the tenets of our own party: For instance; if, in order to free ourselves from a superstitious doctrine, on the supposition that the divinity of Christ is ungrounded, we were at liberty to change, without any authority, Oɛos nv ó Λόγος, John i. 1, into Θεου ην ὁ Λόγος, and ὁ ων επι παντων Θεος, Rom. ix. 5, into ❀v ỏ ɛπi πavrov →ɛos, the Bible would become so very uncertain, that every man might believe or disbelieve, as best suited his own principles u.'

"Could these writers have possibly read the preceding passage when they made their appeal to the authority of Michaelis? If they had, they must surely have perceived that Michaelis is directly against them; and that the very conjectural emendations, originally proposed by the Socinian theorists, Crell and Schlichting, which they particularly notice as suggested by men of great learning and sagacity, and as meriting, to say the least, very attentive consideration, he directly censures, in the most pointed terms, and expressly brings forward to illustrate the position, that theological conjecture is never admissible. If, conscious of opposing an established maxim, which ought in no instance to be violated, they wished to shelter themselves from the storm of critical reproof, the gabardine of Michaelis was, most unfortunately, selected indeed as a place of refuge.

"To the passage which I have just quoted, from the first section of the chapter referred to, I will add one or two more from the last section of the same chapter, in order to place the opinion of Michaelis in a still clearer point of view. ‹ Thẻ

"Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 413."

" "Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 387."

only plausible argument which an advocate for theological conjecture might use, not so much indeed to convince himself of the justice of his cause, as to perplex his opponents, is the following; namely, that the New Testament has been so corrupted by the ruling party, which calls itself orthodox, that the genuine doctrine of Christ and his Apostles is no longer to be found in it. But there is not the least room for a suspicion of this kind, as we have so great a number of manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writings, in which the New Testament is quoted, of every age and every country*.' And in proof of his assertion, among other things, he remarks, that the passages which afforded the most perplexity to the members of the ruling Church are still extant in manuscripts, versions, and editions of the New Testament; whereas the spurious passage, 1 John v. 7, though the orthodox seem to think it of the utmost importance, has never had the good fortune to find admittance into any Greek manuscript, or ancient version.' If the compilers of this introduction, who, not only in the instance before me, but in almost every page, refer to the writings of Michaelis, will not admit the validity of the argument in the preceding extracts, they may, perhaps, feel the force of the following powerful appeal to Unitarian consistency: 'As critical conjectures,' observes the same author, have been principally made by those who, in the language of the church, are termed heretics, I will invent one or two examples of the same kind in the name of the orthodox, and ask those of the opposite party, whether they would admit them as lawful conjectures. For instance, suppose I should alter ὅτι ὁ πατηρ μου μείζων μου εστι, John xiv. 18, to ὅτι ὁ πατηρ μου εστι, Οι ὅτι ὁ πατηρ μου ζων μEY EσTLY, in order to be freed from a text that implies an inequality between the Father and the Son; or, if I should read 1 John v. 20, in the following manner, ouros i vios eσtiv ỏ aλnOvos Oɛos, in order to shew more distinctly the divinity of Christ, I think the heterodox would exclaim, he is either extremely ignorant, or, by having recourse to such miserable artifices, acknowledges the badness of his cause. But the heterodox, as well as the orthodox, must appear before the

"Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 418."

impartial tribunal of criticism, where there is no respect to persons, and where it is not allowed for one party to take greater liberties than the other.' As it is impossible to expose their reasoning more strongly than the critic himself has done, to whom they appeal for support; and that even in the very chapter which they quote, I shall add nothing more upon the subject, but leave them to enjoy, as they can, the testimony of Michaelis."

Laurence's "Critical Reflections upon some important Misrepresentations contained in the Unitarian Version of the New Testament.”

"God forbid that I should be wilfully ludicrous upon such a subject; but so very strange do the comments of modern Unitarians appear to me, when pretending to expound matters according to the Jewish phraseology, they would insist upon it, that the Unitarian sense of the Proem of St. John's Gospel must have been so obvious from the first, as that none could mistake it, that I could scarcely express what I feel upon the subject, otherwise than by contrasting the above simple paraphrase, in which I have substituted the Angelus Redemptor for the Logos, with the perplexed account of matters as explained by the Unitarians.

"We may then fairly suppose their paraphrase to run thus: Ev apyn nv o Aoyos, 'in the beginning was the word.' By the beginning, I, by no means, intend the beginning of the creation, or of all things; but merely the beginning of the Gospel dispensation. I do not specify this to be my meaning, because I conclude you will perceive it, though I know well enough, that I express myself exactly as though I did mean it, and that another beginning must be present to your minds, when the world was made, by the Logos or Word of God: however, I certainly do not mean this; I mean to make no sort of allusion to any thing you may happen to know, or have previously heard, of the Logos or Word of God, by whom the world was made: but I mean merely to give this appellation to Jesus Christ, a man like myself, because he was commissioned to reveal the Word of God, (that is, in Greek, the Aóyos,) to mankind: it is what grammarians and rhetori

"Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 415."