were afterwards transcribed, such marginal notes were sometimes drawn into the text, by the ignorance or carelessness of the transcribers. Besides these two sources of error, there was a third of a far more dangerous kind. Impious men, for the sake of upholding their systems of human invention, have dared to interpolate and to alter the Scriptures of Almighty God, and these impious frauds, though now sufficiently known, are persevered in even to the present day. Instances of these falsifications will be given, in the process of the discussion in which we are engaged.

The means which we possess of arriving at a correct knowledge of what the true reading of the original text was are three:

First, copies of the Greek Testament in manuscript. Of these upwards of four hundred and fifty have come down to us, some of them containing the whole New Testament, while others contain only one or more of the books of which it is composed. These copies are more or less valuable, in proportion as they are of an earlier or later date.

Secondly, versions of the sacred Scriptures in different languages, made at an early day. Among these translations, the Syriac and those in the old Egyptian languages are supposed to be of the highest antiquity.

Thirdly, we have the comments made by the early Christian writers on different portions of the New Testament, and from these we discover how they read certain texts in the copies which they used.

When the first printed editions of the Greek Testament appeared, the means for biblical research were by no means such as we now possess. The art of printing 'was then, as it were, only in its infancy. The means of communication between country and country, and even between

different parts of the same country, were difficult and expensive, and many of the most valuable manuscripts which now adorn the public libraries, were then scattered over Europe and unknown. Hence the first editors had but very imperfect materials from which to make their editions, and these editions necessarily partook of the imperfections of the manuscripts to which the editors could have access.

From the appearance of the Elzevier edition in 1624, little or nothing appears to have been done to correct the received text, until A. D. 1707, when Dr. John Mill published an edition of the Greek Testament, to which he attached various readings to the number of about thirty thousand. This publication produced for a moment a strong sensation in the Christian world. It was feared, that the discovery of such a great number of various readings, must necessarily impair the value and certainty of that revelation on which our best hopes are founded. But on a nearer view the effect was found to be directly the reverse. It was seen that the great mass of all these various readings consisted of mere verbal alterations. That very few of them changed the meaning of any passage, and that of all the doctrines received by the Christian world, not a single one was affected by the discoveries of Mill and his successors, with the exception of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Mill was followed A. D. 1710, by Ludolph Kuster, and A. D. 1734 by John Albert Bengel of Tubingen, and A. D. 1751, 1752, appeared the celebrated work of John James Wetstein, which forms even yet a kind of standard in saered criticism.

Valuable as the labours of these learned men had been, in elucidating the true knowledge of the Scriptures; yet none of them had undertaken to give us a corrected edition of the text.

That

great work was left for John James Griesbach, a German scholar of profound learning and unimpeachable integrity, who in 1775 and 1777, published an edition of the Greek Testament, and in 1796 and 1806 a second edition much enlarged and improved. This learned man may be said to have devoted his life to biblical research. In his second edition he availed himself of the labours of Matthæi, Alter, Birch, and other eminent philologists, and to his indefatigable exertions, we are indebted for having restored to us the word of God, in nearly its pristine purity.

As Griesbach made it a rule, not to admit of any deviations from the received text, except in cases where the evidence in favour of such deviation greatly preponderated over that which exists for the common reading, we have the certainty, that no alterations were made by him, but such as were imperiously required by the most ancient and authentic manuscripts and versions.

The Greek Testament of Griesbach has, we believe, been adopted as a standard work in almost every Protestant University, both in America and Europe. Why the received text should continue in common use in our families, and in the worship of the Sanctuary, when a more pure and perfect copy of the Scriptures is attainable, is a question which we will not undertake to answer.

The Trinitarian Proof Texts.

WHILST the results to which the study of the Scriptures has led us, are perfectly satisfactory to our minds, and whilst both our understandings and our hearts rest on them with the most intimate conviction of their truth, we are not unmindful, that other men, equally sincere with ourselves, have believed that those Scriptures contain sufficient proofs for the doctrine of the Trinity.The inquiry on which we have entered would therefore be evidently incomplete, without an examination of those proofs, which Trinitarians allege in support of their tenets; and to that examination we propose to devote the present number.

As far as we know, Trinitarians do not pretend that their system is supported by any general view of the gospel history. Neither do they pretend that there are any passages in Scripture in which the doctrine of the Trinity is expressly taught.But they rest it on certain isolated texts, from which they think that the proper deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the divinity, and distinct personality of the Holy Spirit, can be clearly inferred. These texts we shall now examine. In doing so however, we shall follow the rule heretofore adopted, of merely selecting the most prominent, because, if we can shew that these fail to prove the dogma in support of which they are brought forward, the minor ones must fail with

them.

We naturally commence with the proof texts taken from the Old Testament.

THE three texts which are most relied on by Trinitarians, are:

ISA. VII. 14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

ISA. IX. 6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful; Counsellor; the mighty God; the eyerlasting Father; the Prince of Peace."

Jer. xxiii. 5, 6, "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his day Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is the name whereby he shall be called: the Lord our righteousness."

If

HERE we would, in the first place, beg the reader to observe, that the terms Trinity and proper Deity of Christ, in proof of which these texts are alleged, are no where mentioned in them. therefore, these texts give any support to these dogmas, it is not directly, but indirectly, and by way of inference. It is said that in these passages Christ is clearly spoken of. But where is the proof of this? His name is no where mentioned in them. But say our antagonists, the Prophets use language here which is totally inapplicable to a created being, and can therefore only apply to Christ. Now to this reasoning we have two objections. The first is, that we do not think that men, living in these western countries, in a matter of fact age, and only accustomed to the use of matter of fact languages, are very competent and safe judges, to decide how a Hebrew Prophet should or should not express himself, in announcing the