together with the ancient versions and writings of the Fathers, a text has been formed by Griesbach, which is by all, who are capable of estimating its value, acknowledged to be the most accurate which has ever been made. This would be a sufficient reason of itself for making a new translation. But there are many other reasons. Since king James's time, the labours of the ablest scholars in Europe have been employed in the various departments of theology. Great light has been thrown upon the sacred writings. The original languages of the Bible are now far better understood, and the researches, which have been industriously made into antiquity, have tended to elucidate the sacred volume. Moreover, vast improvements have been introduced into the philosophy of the human mind; the nature of language has been thoroughly investigated, and important principles of interpretation thence deduced.

But the prejudices of men have enlisted in the defence of our common version. They feel a veneration for it, and are attached to it from habit and association. It is the book which they have heard spoken of with reverence from childhood, and appealed to in support of the most solemn truths; the book, which their fathers for many generations have read, and every part of it is held sacred. Such prejudices we would always treat with the greatest tenderness and delicacy. But they should not be suffered to gain the ascendency of reason and common sense. The same veneration is not due to the words of James's Bible, as to the truths of revelation, and the two should not be confounded.

Is there not reason to fear, that apprehensions for their favourite systems, have caused some good christians to be alarmed by any proposals for a new version? Has it not thus become a party question? And while the zeal

for party is so much greater than the zeal for truth, the merits of the present version will not be fairly canvassed, nor can we ever hope easily to substitute a new and a better one in its place. To a certain extent, it may be desirable, perhaps, that these prejudices and fears should exist. If they retard the progress of truth, they may also prevent the intrusion of error. As a general principle, this may be admitted; but it should yield in extreme cases, like the one in question. Truth

cannot suffer, but much error may be removed. Party feelings should be forgotten, sectarian prejudices suppressed, and every good feeling, principle, and honest intention, should be blended by all parties in a work, which aims only to exhibit the word of God in its proper force and purity.

S. J. M.

Rev. Mr. Campbell's Address on the Trinity and Atonement.

A SMALL work has lately been published in Pittsburgh, by the Rev. John Campbell, of that place, entitled, An Address to professed Christians on the Unity of God, and the Reconciliation made by Jesus Christ. The author manifests an intimate acquaintance with the subjects, which he undertakes to discuss, and sustains his positions by arguments drawn chiefly from the scriptures.

He first examines the doctrine of the trinity, as it is usually received by its advocates, and proves it to be unsupported by the plain sense of the word of God, and opposed to the scripture views of the divine unity. He starts with the following propositions; "1. That the

christian religion is wholly the subject of divine revelation, and to be learned from the scriptures alone. 2. That it is clearly and fully expressed in scripture, and ought to be presented, 'Not in the words, which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.' 3. That the religion, which comes from God, cannot contain contradictions, but is necessarily one whole." Taking these propositions as established, he proceeds to his work.

After having shown how the scriptures speak of the divine unity, and asserted, that the language commonly used by trinitarians to express their doctrine, has no resemblance to any language of the Bible, he asks,

"Shall we be told, that although the expressions themselves are not to be found, yet there are passages from which it [the doctrine] may be inferred? I would ask, does any man think, that if God meant to teach this doctrine, he would not clearly have expressed it, as well as he has done his unity, but have left it to be inferred by partial men, who draw their inferences according to their preconceived opinions? When men are under the necessity of using unscriptural terms to express their ideas, is there not reason to think, that the ideas themselves are as foreign to scripture, as the terms employed are? And is not every such subject condemned by our second proposition?

"Examine the doctrine by this rule. The term trinity is not to be found in the scriptures, nor any term like it. The divine unity, which, as we have seen, is clearly taught in scripture, is directly opposed to the trinity. If the unity is taught, and the trinity not taught; if it also contradicts the unity, ought we not to reject it as condemned by all our three propositions?

Is it said, that the trinity is not opposed to the unity of God, as it respects his essence, but his personality, I ask, what are we to understand by a unity of essence, and division of personality?" p. 6.

The fact here urged is well worthy of observation. Are we to believe, that a fundamental doctrine of scripture can be one, which cannot be defined in the language of scripture? Instead of using the simple lan

guage of revelation, trinitarians have invented a very awkward, and in some cases, a perfectly unintelligible phraseology to express their ideas on this great tenet of their faith; such as, God of God; very God of very God; triune God; light of light; God-man; three persons in one God; two natures in one being; God the Son; God the Holy Ghost; trinity of persons, and unity of essence; trinity in unity, and unity in trinity; hypostatical union; eternal procession; and numerous others quite as extraordinary and unmeaning. Now of the phrases here quoted, not one can be found in the Bible, nor any thing resembling them. Does this argue much for the doctrine, which they are intended to shadow forth? It would seem as if the ingenuity of man had gone to its last extremity, in contriving such combinations of words, as should the most effectually cloud the understanding. They are more like the talismans of magic, than the plain symbols of religious truth. Trinitarians would no doubt think the charge very unjust, should we say they do not go to the Bible for their faith. We make no such charge. But tell us what evidence we can have in their vindication, when we find them so totally abandoning the language of the scriptures, and constructing their creeds in a phraseology as uncouth and contradictory, as it is unscriptural. These remarks need not be confined to the trinity. They will apply, with nearly equal force to many other doctrines, which have been made the burden of human creeds.

On the subject of the supposed two natures of Christ, Mr. Campbell says,

"Let the advocates of two natures produce any one passage where this sentiment is expressed, and then they may urge it upon us; but until they do this, we assert that it is no part of the christian reli

gion. I would urge further, that the language of Jesus, in which it is said his human nature only is meant, is so expressed as necessarily to exclude his possessing any proper deity of his own. I shall here instance two passages as specimens. I can of mine own self do nothing.' Whatever natures he might have possessed surely must be included in the expression mine own self; and when he asserts, that he could do nothing, how dare any one contradict him, and assert quite the contrary? In 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28, we are told, that when the end cometh, then he shall deliver up the kingdom of God, even the Father that the Father hath put all under his feet; but this expression manifestly excludes the subjection of the Father, who did put all things under him; ‘and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.' This is a passage that speaks for itself, and we earnestly entreat our opponents to consider it attentively, and see if they can reconcile it with the possession of an underived Deity by our Lord Jesus Christ.

"Will it be said, that although the expression of two natures is not to be found, yet words to the same effect abound in scripture? I ask, where are these words to the same effect? I ask further, can any man pretend that he can employ terms better fitted to express the idea intended, than God himself?" p. 10.

In this doctrine of two natures, then, we find the same objections, in regard to the language used in describing or defining it, as in the trinity. It has no direct testimony in scripture. It is contradicted in numerous passages; it is contradictory in itself. What can be a plainer contradiction, than to say two beings are one being? If Christ be God and man united, then he consists of two beings, as distinctly as two men. This is equally absurd and impossible. Being implies mind, and all the attributes of mind. Two beings imply two minds; and what man in a state of sanity will talk of the possibility of two minds being at the same time two minds and one mind? It is just as rational to say, that the consciousness of one man is the consciousness of another, or that the will of one is the will of another. The consciousness and nature of Christ were not the