een ae ar eae pep gna) orci Seat ena Tao eeesenrne nor mc gevened coven toe mie een inte Sa = < Sree =, Ser Se ee oer Se > I na? : =< Dear Looe = aan Sonera, < Srna re cir - Sincere eee a ewes Sone 2 - — StSece oe ee TS : ‘ a ae ines we Snare : F cant nasa omn nr ~ + ; Se oo Pe ee a ARY OF PRINCES \ (Jj ™ ¥ ¥ - | ae Pa ede ‘ a BT 115). DigelaoL Drummond, William Hamilton, 1778-1865. The doctrine of the Trinity fanundadn noaither an HY A 7 oH ata? teh es 1s ay ae Lt) ‘ a rata ante Na ie : fa Ay + a | i ‘ | pias eh ‘. ; i ay 1s : an ne aa) + a ne wh me Bi | a ne a Ec y ; i sai ans 7 / a Digitized by the Internet Archive — In 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/doctrineoftrinit0Odrum THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, FOUNDED NEITHER ON SC RIP TURE, REASON AND COMMON SENSE, TRADITION AND THE INFALLIBLE CHURCH: AN ESSAY OCCASIONED BY A LATE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE REV. RICHARD T. P. POPE, AND THE REV. THOMAS MAGUIRE. By WILLIAM HAMILTON DRUMMOND, D.D. “There is ONE God ; and there is none other but he.’—Manrx xii. 32. ** The doctrine of the Trinity appears to me so obviously unscriptural, that I am pretty sure, from my own experience and that of others, that no ene possessed of merely common sense, will fail to find its unscripturality after a methudical study of the Old and New Testaments, unless previously impressed in the early part of his doctrine.” Rammohun life with creeds and forms of speech preparing the way to that Roy’s Final Appeal, p. 354. THIRD EDITION, WiTH CONSIDERABLE ADDITIONS. R. HUNTER, LONDON; HODGES AND SMITH, DUBLIN ; KING AND RIDINGS, CORK} ARCHER, BELFAST. M.DCCC.XXXI. M. GOODWIN, PRINTEK, 29, Denmark-street, Dublin. TO RAMMOHUN ROY, THE LEARNED CHRISTIAN BRAHMIN, WHOSE WRITINGS, DISTINGUISHED AS THEY ARE BY MILDNESS AND STRENGTH, BY A CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORIENTAL LANGUAGES AND OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, ABLY DEFEND AND CONVINCINGLY DEMONSTRATE THE GREAT DOCTRINE OF THE BIBLE, Chat God is One; W. EK. CHANNING, D.D. THE ZEALOUS ADVOCATE OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICA; DIVINE; IN WHOSE WRITINGS ARE BLENDED THE GENTLENESS OF PERSUASION WITH THE ~ ENERGIES OF TRUTH; JUDGMENT WITH TASTE; AND SPLENDID ELOQUENCE OF REASON WITH THE HOLY FERVOURS OF CHRISTIAN PIETY AND LOVE; THIS TRACT iS, WITH GREAT RESPECT, INSCRIBED BY THE . AUTHOR. é As to personality in God—a trinity of persons, I think it the most Sbsurd of all absurdities; and, in my opinion, a man who hath brought himself to believe the popular doctrine of the Trinity, hath done all his work ; for after that there can be nothing hard—nothing inevident ; the more un- intelligible, the more credible; and as this serves the purpose of producing implicit faith in pretended guides, priests will always try to keep it in credit,” R. ROBINSON. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Tur writer of the following Essay divides all Christians inte two denominations, Unitarians and Trinitarians. With their various subdivisions he does not interfere, deeming it enough, at present, to contend for the Supreme Deity of God alone, and be- lieving that every departure from that doctrine, leads to a per- version of the Scriptures, and the adoption of opinions hostile to the religion of the Gospel. He is no follower either of Arius or Socinus, of Price or Priestley; but taking the Scriptures, with Reason and Common SEnsE, as his guides, he adopts whatever doctrine he judges to be true, and rejects whatever he can prove to be false, no matter in what region it is found, nor by what names it is sanctioned. There are learned and pious men in all the great Christian denominations. He is glad to profit, where he can, by the labours of them all; and would rejoice to collect into one focus whatever scattered rays of light may render Gospel truths more clear, whether they emanate from Boston or Calcutta; from Ge- neva or Rome. The more simple the creed of Christians, the more chance of harmony. In proportion as the chords of a musical instrument are multiplied, the difficulty of preserving concord is increased. A. belief in the One only living and true God, and that he is a rich rewarder of those who diligently seek him, and in Jesus Christ his well-beloved Son, that he is the Author of eternal salvation to all who obey him ; commingled with that Charity, which the in- spired Apostle declares to be superior to Faith and Hope, and without which there is no Christianity ; should be a sufficient bond of fraternity and affection, among all who would be followers of Christ, not in name only, but in deed and in truth. Unitarian Christians of other countries, are wisely acting on this conviction. Let their brethren in Ireland follow their example, and quit their disputations about obscure questions, concerning which they can- not come to a perfect agreement 5 and which, therefore, should be deemed of very inferior importance. All who do not embrace the doctrine of the Trinity, are ranked by their opponents in one class; and whether they be Arians or nick-named Socinians, are ‘all alike said to be infected with leprosy and heresy: for, that theological phantom known by the name of Orthodoxy, that hete- rogeneous compound of errors and contradictions, like Popery, ‘deems itself infallible; and makes no distinction among those who ‘separate from its communion. It brands them all with the name * vi of Socinians, though, in truth, there is no Socivianism in Treland, nor any approximation to it, except among those who declaim against it most loudly. But the word “ Socinian” has become an uncharitable term of reproach, and is to the disciples of Calvin and of the Pope, what the term Nazarene was to the Pharisees of old. The same spirit which prompted the words, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ?” and “Look and see, for out of Ga- hilee ariseth no prophet,” has lost no particle of its malignity in the lapse of eighteen hundred years. It is not without the most painful reluctance, that the Author has entered into the stormy region of controversy, for he greatly prefers quiet and the shade. But there are times and occasions when silence would be criminal ; and being considered as denoting either a want of confidence in the truth, or of ability to defend it, might seem to give sanction and currency to error. Of all denominations of Christians in this country, none, except the Society of Friends, is less prone to give offence, than that to which he belongs. Their love of peace has often exposed them to the charge of indifference. Notwithstanding this, they are not in- different. Their zeal, indeed, is seldom displayed in thunder, and lightning, and brimstone-hail; it burns with a calm and steady heat; and may, perhaps, if much excited, be kindled into a blaze. When their tenets are stigmatized as leprosies and soul- destroying heresies, by those who see them only with a “mind diseased,” and “a jaundiced eye,” and through the distorting and discolouring medium of human creeds, they think it their duty to shew that, to the sound vision of reason, and in the clear light of the Gospel, they appear to be the purest and healthiest out-flow- ings of evangelical truth. They have provoked no quarrel, unless their repose be a provocation: and even when wantonly assailed, they war not with men, but with false opinions. For Mr. Pope and Mr. Maguire, the Author entertains no sentimeizts but those of kindness. He admires the zeal and talents of both, and only laments, that they have not been employed in what he would esteem a better cause.—But their controversy has not been un- profitable. In the collision of their arguments, the sparks of divine truth have leaped forth, and formed a bright and radiant glory round the brow of Unitarian Christianity. Though regarded by the one as a leper, and by the other as a heretic, he wishes them health and happiness; and hopes to be recognized at a higher tribunal than theirs, as a worshipper of the true God, and a sincere, though humble follower of Christ. Truth is his object as wellas theirs. Let the candid decide, which of them is farthest from the mark. In a land of liberty all have an equal right to defend their re- ligious opinions ; and it is imperative on the advocate of Truth, when her interests call him forth, to assert his right, and wing a shaft againsterror, wherever it is discovered, whe:her perched upon a mitre, or nestling in the triple crown. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. Tue Author, though anxious to please his Athanasian and Calvinistic readers, finds it to be a task of extreme difficulty. They are dissatisfied with what he has written, because it sets before them some great and important truths, which they have seldom, if ever, heard discussed; and they are dissatisfied because he is silent on some mysterious points of doctrine, of which he is ignorant, and of which he can find nothing revealed in the Word of God. Hard fate!—to offend both by his speech and his silence. As to the arguments hitherto arrayed against the chief doctrine of the Essay, they are thin and vapoury, and of no consistence. When touched by a single spark of truth, like the chymist’s bub- bles of gas, they explode and disappear. One of the Author's chief misdemeanours is the construction of a creed, so simple and so Scriptural, that all can understand it. Would that every creed had been so constructed ! then, instead of being involved in contentions and animosities, which destroy all the kind affections, the Christian world would be at rest, and the religion of the Gospel would be producing its genuine fruits— “ Glory to God in the Highest—on the earth peace, good will tg men.” ‘ Another offence is the attempt to revive some good old doc- trines, which, in this corner of the world, seem to have been almost forgotten. The Dublin “Christian Examiner” says, that the Author “has not even the meagre satisfaction of being original in his statements.” Most true. He lays no claim to originality or invention ; and therefore his readers may enjoy, with him, not the meagre, but the plump, round, and full satis- faction of knowing, that the doctrines contained in these pages, are not the discoveries of a new adventurer in ‘the field of theolo. gical inquiry. They are of much older date than those of Calvin, Athanasius, or Pope Nicholas the First. They are founded on the ROCK OF AGES, and are coeval with the Bible. The Author is farther charged with having taken an argument, without acknowledgment, from Dr. Samuel Clarke, viz. that though Christ were proved by one text of Scripture to be God over all, it would not follow that the Son is consubstantial, and coeternal, and possessed of equal power with the Father. For the same af Vill Apostle who has written this, tells us elsewhere, (1 Cor. xv. 27;) that when he says “all things are put under him, it is manifest that HE is excepted which did put all things under him.” The argument is so extremely obvious that it can scarcely not occur to every mind capable of reasoning on the subject. It has been stated at least a thousand and one times. But the Examiner, throughout, betrays an impatient solicitude to fix a stigma of dishonesty on the Author’s character. Here, however, he will find the usual well-known stratagems of his school of no avail. The Author, so far from having a wish to repel the charge, that he has borrowed it, rejoices that it is now presented to the reader, armed with the sanction of so learned and distinguished a divine as Dr. Samuel Clarke. He writes for a nobler object than literary renown, and cares not if every line in the Essay be traced — to a higher and more creditable authority than his own. Let the Examiner quit his personalities and answer the argument. His attempt, so far, is miserably abortive. It is plain to the common sense of a child, that HE who did pué all things under Christ, must be superior to Christ ;—even the Examiner's understanding, it is presumed, would revolt from the idea of Christ putting all things under the Father. If what is predicated of the one, can- not be predicated of the other, there is no equality. But even though their equality were established, it would not prove them to be coeternal and consubstantial, for equality and identity are not the same. The Apostle, however, does not leave the ques- tion to be thus decided; but, as if to guard his readers from being imposed on by the sophistry of such writers as the Chris- tian Wxaminer, adds, “when all things shall be subdued unto him, (vere xes) even then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” 1 Cor, xv. 28. Let the Examiner quit his sophisms, and answer the argument. v ‘The Examiner and his Athanasian and Calvinistic friends are indignant at our assuming the name of Unitarian Christians, and affirm that they believe in the divine unity as well as we. Be it so. Paul informs us, that in his days “some preached Christ even of envy and strife—of contention and not sincerely. What then (says he)— notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and I will rejoice.” Phil. i. 15,18. So do we, Unitarians, rejoice that the divine unity is acknowledged in any sense.* But let not the disciples of Athanasius, and the Pope, be under any ap- prehension that we shall identify their three persons with our one God. There is an essential difference between us. Our idea of unity has no resemblance to theirs. Ours is a monad—theirs a triad ; ours a mathematical point, theirs a triangle; ours a mon- archy, theirs an aristocracy ; ours a clear simple idea, theirs a * Est quoddam prodire tenus, si non detur ultra, ——— |. ee - 1x dark complexity; or, to give back to the Athanasians a word which they have flung at Unitarians, an “ Artifice.” Their unity resembles the harmony produced by an old monk's treble note, my nurse’s lullaby, and my grandmother's recitative; ours is the voice of nature from her thousand and ten thousand realms, blended with the halleluiahs of Revelation, and ascending in one mighty volume of sound to the throne of the Eternal. The title of Unitarian Christian, therefore, is one to which we have the first and most indisputable claim We hope to see it more extensively embraced, and that those who have received the name of Arians or Socinians, will lay aside such appellations, and assume that of Unitarians, or Bible Christians ; and not cir- cumscribe themselves within a circle drawn by any uninspired mortal whatever, since one is our master, even Christ. Let us stand on a space so broad, that it will include all who believe in the strict unity of Jehovah, and in his only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. When the Author referred to Priestley, he might have known that he was giving an occasion to the orthodox, for repeating the illiberal reflections with which they still continue to assail that great and injured name. Priestley may have fallen into errors, (who has not ?) by trusting more to the fidelity of others, than to his own patient investigation. He was in none as to the fact for which he was quoted. When he did err, his error was that of an Honrst Man. 251. - xi Though the Author has had the misfortune to offend some readers, by the plain Scriptural truths expressed in this Essay, he has the satisfaction of knowing, that he has pleased others, whose judgment he values, and of whose esteem he is proud ; and he hopes to see their numbers greatly inereased. The film, which long obstructed the mental vision of many, is now begin- ning to dissolve away, and a few more rays emitted from the Word of God, will dispel their darkness, and enable them to see Unitarian Christianity in all its beauty and in all its loveliness. Then will they begin to have a true perception of the super- excellence of that religion which came from heaven to be out guide to happiness and salvation. Let the friends of Unitarian, or Bible Christianity, unite, co-operate, and act with energy and zeal ; and their cause, being the cause of REason and ComMON SENSE, of NaTurRE aNp REVELATION, Of the Saviour and of Gop, must eventually triumph. SomME readers may be disposed to ask, why the Author has been so long in reviewing Mr. Carlile’s Book, on what is called “The Deity of Christ.” More, perhaps, will inquire, why it has been thought worth while to notice it at all. The fact is, when it first came before the public, a friend who read it, informed the Author, that it gave up the chief point at issue, and admitted that the doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine of inference, and not of explicit revelation. Satisfied with this admission, the Author sufiered two years to elapse before he. sat down to its perusal ; when being about to prepare a new. edition of his Hssay, he thought it a fit oceasion to examine Mr. C.’s doctrines, and to animadvert on such of them as he should deem erroneous. Though there be little good in disturbing the ashes of the dead, as the principles of Mr. C.’s Book are still advocated, tlie Author thought it a duty which he owed to the cause of truth, to protest against them, as being, in his judgment, a reproach to the age, and in direct hostility to the plainest declarations, both of reason and revelation. “ To do justice to the nicety of our author’s distinctions, stated in Thesis I, requires much metaphysical acuteness ; a common understanding would conceive, that self-existence and supreme authority, compared with a derived existence and Deity, are essential perfections, Pearson (p- 34,) asserts, that the I’ather has communicated his entire essence to the Soni: now, if to be unoriginated, which Pearson most explicit] y admits, be part of the essence of the Father, and of him exclusively, how can he be said to communicate his entire essence to a divine being, whose origination is admitted 2” ** Bull seems substantially to grant all that can be desired, and the point at issue appears to be a logical, and not a theological distinction ; yet that is of more importance than might be imagined, for once grant the metaphysical use of the 7 opeooucioy , and it is employed as a charm to raise such a cloud of unscriptural intricacies, as quite obscures the region of common sense, and - intercepts all prospects of a termination of the controversy.”’ CONTENTS. Page. Sscrion I.—-Origin of the present Controversy—Unitarian Christian’s Belief—Proofs from Scripture of the Divine Unity, - - - 1 Section I].—-What is Trinitarianism ? - - = eh Sretion Il.—The Doctrine of the Trinity not taught in the Scriptures, = . - = - 13 Srcrion 1V.—The Inferiority of Christ to the Father, proved by his own Declarations, EN eR he - 19 Section V.—-The Titles and Epithets given to Christ in the Scriptures, no Proof of his Deity, - -, @ Suction VL—No Proof of the Deity of Christ, to be found in the Epistle to the Philippians, - - 40. Section VII.-No Proof of the Deity of Christ, to be found in 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 John v. 20; nor in John xx. Os 28—xiv. 9, ~ J i re am AS’. SzoT10n VIIL-The Beginning of John’s Gospel, contains no -. Proof of the Deity of Christ, - - dl Srorton IX.—No Proof in Scripture, that Christ is eternal and self-existent, - ~ - - 56 Section X.——No Proof in Scripture, that Christ possessed the Divine Attribute of Omnipresence or Om- niscience, - - - - CRT i 70 Section XL—Christ not the Creator of the Universe—not ) Omnipotent, - ~ é «69 Section XIL.—No Proof in Scripture, that Christ was wor- shipped as the Supreme God, - - 79 Section XIIL.-The Trinity, a Human Invention—a Mystery, and therefore no subject of Christian Belief, - 94 Section XIV.-General Reasons for Rejecting the Doctrine of , the Trinity, IG: Lite 2 - 102 Section XV.—The Superior Excellence, and Cheering Pros- pects of Unitarianism, : ~ - 126 Review of the Rev. James Carlile’s Book, entitled, “ Jesus » Christ, the Great God our Saviour,” - 14) Appendix, - a 2. < -. eA | 73 ‘ C4 101 GE A? poset THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY NOT FOUNDED ON SCRIPTURE. SECTION FIRST. Origin of the present Controversy—Unitarian Christian's Belief—Proofs from Scripture of the Divine Unity. A CONTROVERSY, attractive of much public attention has for some time been carried on between the Rev. Mr. Maguire and the Rev. Mr. Pope; the former an able advocate of the Roman Catholic Church, the latter an eloquent supporter of some of the tenets of the Church established by law, in this country. In the course of the controversy, Mr. Maguire has afhrmed that there are certain doctrines of religion embraced by a con- siderable number of the Protestant denomination, which cannot be successfully maintained without the aid and authority of an Infallible Church. He grounds his opinion on the doctrine of the Trinity, and challenges Mr. Pope to prove against the So- cinian, that that doctrine rests on a Scriptural foundation. ‘“ The ' Socinian’s objections,” he says, “are solid and stubborn. He has REASON and COMMON SENSE on his side. He will quote text against text, enjoying, as he does, the latitude of private judgment, till not a single shred of argument remains.’ In these sentiments of Mr. Maguire, Unitarians (which name is here preferred to that. of Sucinians, for reasons to be afterwards shewn) most cordially concur. They have long felt that they have reason and common sense, as well as Scripture on their side ; and they rejoice that this is acknowledged by a gentleman of Mr, Maguire’s studies and profession. ‘They duly appreciate his admissions as a valuable offering at the shrine of truth: and they pay no empty compliment to Mr. Maguire’s: polemic skill, when they allege that he has entrenched himself in a position from which it will require a more powerful tactician than even Mr. Pope to dislodge him, If the doctrine of the Trinity has A e any foundation at all, it is not in reason, in common sense, nor in Scripture; but in tradition and the authority of an Infallible Church.* A brief review of THE UNITARIANS’ CREED may help the reader to ascertain how far it accords with the principles on which they aflirm it to be founded. With respect to the being and perfections of God, their belief is this: That there is ONE only living and true God—one in the strict and absolute sense of unity—a spirit, simple, uncompounded, indivisible, without parallel or equal—self-existent—immutable—eternal—almighty— omniscient—omnipresent—possessed of wisdom, truth, holiness, goodness, justice, with all other perfections, in their highest possible excellence. They believe that this great being created the hea- vens and the earth, and all things visible and invisible—that he continually presides over every part of the vast universe—that he is good to all, and that his tender mercies are over all his works. They believe that he isa God, not of inextinguishable wrath, but of infinite placability and mercy—that he requires no bloody sacrifice, for, according to Scripture, ‘*the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit—a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise :” Psalm li. 17—that he is the sole object of di- vine worship, and that prayer should be addressed to him alone. The character in which Unitarians delight most to contemplate God is that in which he was contemplated, and in which we are instructed to address him in prayer, by our Blessed Saviour,— that of a FATHER. This contemplation, always hostile to bigotry, and favourable to that universal love which Jesus taught, naturally leads them to regard all mankind as their brethren, whatever be their name, country, complexion, or creed. They believe that God placed man on earth, ina state of probation and trial—endowed him with many noble faculties and powers, of which HE requires a proper use and improvement—that HE is a righteous moral governor, and will reward the virtuous and punish the wicked. They believe that God presides over his intelligent offspring, as the wisest and kindest of parents over a numerous family; that he employs various means, according to UOGREIPe ac ux case err ae RS Ee a EE ais Pee. * Mr, Maguire does not stand alone; nor is he the first who has held the strong post which he now occupies. About one hundred and fifty years ago, some of the most learned Trinitarians confessed, that the doctrine of the Trinity was not founded on the Scriptures, but on the tradition of the Church. The Unitarians were then obliged to maintain, as a previous step to the establishment of their opinions, that «the Scriptures are the only infallible rule whereby to determine religious controversies.” Yates’s Answer to Wardlaw, p. 17. _“* Mr. Chillingworth, in the preface to his book,, quotes Hosius, Gordo- nius, Huntleus, Gretserus, Tannerus, Vega, Possevin, Wiekus, and others, #s SO many witnesses to shew, that in the opinion of the Papists, the mo- dern doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proved either from the Scripture, or the ancients,” Ben Mordecai. Note, p. 187, vol. 1. 3 their different tastes and dispositions, to bless them and to do them good—that the sufferings and deprivations which they have. sometimes to endure, are sent, or permitted, in mercy, to cor~ rect, toreform, to discipline the soul to virtue—that HE educes good from evil, and causes all things to co-operate for the ever- lasting felicity of the righteous. Unitarian Christians believe in the revealed Word of God. They receive the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the sole rule of their faith and practice ; and hold them in such reverence that they never virtually deny their sufliciency by the substitution of creeds and articles of human contrivance. All the articles of their faith they can express in the very words of inspiration ; nor are they ever obliged by the adoption of unscrip- tural tenets to employ an unscriptural phraseology. They believe that ‘all Scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- ness ; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”—2 Tim. iii. 16. Deeming the pure light from heaven sufficient to guide them to all truth, they require no guidance from the dark lantern of tradition, or the erratic wisp- fires of an earth-born theology. They learn from the sacred vo- lume, and they own it with gratitude and joy, that God is love, and that he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to be our instructor, our example, our guide, and ‘the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him.’’—Heb. v. 9. They believe in the divinity of the Son of God, that his character, his mission, his doctrine, his power, his authority, were all divine. In a word, they believe whatsoever is written of him in the inspired volume,—with Paul, that he was the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person—with Peter, that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God—the Messiah, or Spiritual Deliverer of the Jews, foretold by the prophets ; and, as he declared of himself, that he was “the light of the world, the way, the truth, and the life,” that to him the spirit. was given without measure, and that “in him dwelt ail the fulness of the godhead* bodily ;’—Col. ii. 9. or, in other words, that * Godhead, a Scholastic term for Deity ; ‘to be rejected,”’ says Lindsey, *¢ because to common readers it countenances the strange notion of a God consisting of three persons.”’ Bodily in the original caparixws is opposed according to Pierce and Le Clerc, to ororxere rudiments or shudows, in the preceding verse. The apostle, speaking of the ceremonal institutions of the Jews, in the subsequent (17th) verse, says, ‘they are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is of Christ.’’ Col. ii. 9. is a favourite text with the supporters of the doctrine of an Incarnate Deity; though affording it no foundation. The candid reader is requested to ask himself what is meant by the abstract term fulness, and not to confound it with essence, to which it has no reference. ‘The apostle prays for the Ephesians, c. iit, 17, 19. That Christ may dwell in their 4 he was richly and substantially replenished with all spiritual races, and with a full communication of his heavenly Father's will; “that in all things he might have the pre-eminence—for it pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell.”’— Col. i. 18, 19.—** And of his fulness have we ail received.’ — John i. 16. They believe that his morality far surpassed that of every other moral teacher, in purity, in motive, and in extent— that his discourses are heavenly, and that he practised what he taught—that he came to redeem us from all iniquity—to purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works—to turn us from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God ; that in the prosecution of this design, and in obedience to his heavenly Father’s will, he submitted to a life of suffering and deprivation, and at length died upon the cross, to seal by his blood the truth of his doctrine, and by his subsequent resurrec. tion from the grave, and his manifest ascension into heaven, bring” life and immortality to light—that having deprived death of his sting, and the grave of its victory, God exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance and forgiveness of sins, and ordained him to be the judge of all, when God “ will render unto every man according to his deeds: to them who, by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honour, and im- mortality, eternal life; but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath.” —Rom. i. 6, 8. Farther—Unitarians believe that ‘without faith it is impos- sible to please God,’—but ‘as the body without spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also:” that of the Christian graces “faith, hope, and charity, these three, the greatest is charity” — that “love is the fulfilling of the law,” and ‘charity the bond of perfectness’”—and that the true disciple of Christ is to be known not by exclamations of Lord! Lord! but by earnest continued endeavours to do the will of his Father who is in heaven. Such are some of the doctrines which Unitarian Christians generally believe. But they admit no formula of human com- position as their creed. They yield their ‘assent and consent” to the truth of no volume but the Bible—for “the Bible, the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants :” neither do they call any man “master upon earth; for one is our master, even Christ.” In numerous points they agree with their Christian brethren of other denominations ;—in some they differ, not only from them, but, with reciprocal good will, from one another ; and herein is the truly Christian philanthropic tendency of their hearts, by faith, and that they may be filled with all the fulness of God.” What! know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you.”—I1 Cor. vi. 19,+~* Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God,’’—1 John iv. 15. & principles conspicuous. They pronounce no anathema on those who seek the kingdom of God, by a path diverging from that which they choose for themselves ; they only desire that every man may be ‘fully persuaded in his own mind, for to his own master he standeth or falleth,” and “God alone is Lord of the conscience.” They are aware that uniformity of belief in specu- lative questions is, by the very constitution of the human mind, impossible—and though it were possible, not to be desired. Therefore, they “endeavour to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond-of peace :” knowing that ‘there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit: and there are lifferences of administrations, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.”—1 Cor. xi. 4, 6. Instead of shackling the mind and controuling its exercise by the imposition of damnatory creeds, articles and confessions of faith, those impious devices of ecclesiastical tyranny to guard an unrighteous domination, to rob man of his birth-right and defraud the Christian of that holy charter of liberty which was sealed by the Saviour’s blood, they would send it forth free as it was created, in all the might and in all the energy of its powers, illumined by Divine knowledge, and stimulated by immortal love, puissant and indomitable as a spirit of light, ardently and fear- Jessly to pursue the truth to her profoundest depths and loftiest elevations. Unitarian Christians hold as their distinguishing tenet, to which the reader’s attention is now particularly solicited, a belief in the divine unity. This belief they derive not, as has been asserted, ‘from a priori speculations on the incomprehensible nature of the Deity,’’ but from a clear interpretation of the two great volumes of the Almighty, Nature, and Revelation. The one cor- roborates the language of the other. What nature teaches, re- velation does not contradict but confirm. The visible frame of the universe has been well denominated the “elder scripture,”- and it is a work to which the book of Inspiration does not dis- dain to refer. The eternal power and Deity of the one supreme intelligence are clearly seen in the things that are made. ‘* The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord, the heavens declare his glory, and the firmament sheweth forth the work of his hand ;” so that they are without excuse who do not read the volume of nature, and learn from the unity of design apparent in the creation, the unity of the great first cause. Still more inexcusable are they who donot read it in the plain declarations of Scripture. Moses, speaking by the immediate inspiration of heaven, as- serts not only the absolute unity, but the sole unrivalled supre- macy, and the exclusive Deity of Jehovah. His unity, in the solemn annunciation to the people of Israel— «‘ Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is onz Lord—or—Jehovah, our God, is onE Jehowah.’’——Deut. vi. 4. 6 His sole unrivalled supremacy— ‘« Jehovah he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath; there isnone (é e. no one) else,”"—Deut. iv. 39. His exclusive Deity— «« That thou mightest know that Jehovah, he is God; there is none else besides him.’’— Deut. iv. 35. ‘«< 7 am the first, and J am the last, besides me thereis no God. Is there a God besides me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any.’’—Isaiahi, xliv. 6, 8. ««T am the the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel. Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. J, even J, am the Lord, and besides me there is no Saviour.”—Is_ xlii. 3, 10, 11. The prophets teach the same doctrine— “‘ Jehovah shall be King over all the earth, and in that day Jehovah shall be one, and his name one.”’—Zech. xiv. 9. «« Have we not all ong Father? Hath not onr God created us ?”—Mal. ii. 10. Christ and his apostles confirmed the doctrine of Moses, and the prophets. When Jesus was asked by a Scribe, “which is the first commandment of all?’ He replied, “the first of all the commandments 1s— «‘ Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.”’—Mark xii. 29. The Scribe approved of the answer, and said, “‘ Well, Master, thou hast said the truth, ; for there is one God; and there is none other but he.’’—Mark xii, 32. Our Lord in a solemn prayer attests the divine unity, and makes a clear distinction between God and himself. ‘© This is life eternal, that they might know thee the onty trug Gop, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.’—John xvii. 3. The Apostle Paul observes the same distinction. «“ We know ** that there is none other God but One *** to us there is but Onr Gop, the Father—and One Lord Jesus Christ.”——1 Cor. viii. 4, 6. “To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever.” —Romi. xvi. 27. _ There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, One Gop and Father of all, who is above all, and through al}, and in you all.” —Eph. iv. 5, 6. «‘ There is One Gop and One Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.’’—1] Tim, ii. 5. . The absolute Oneness of the Deity is asserted, with the clear- ness and force of demonstration, in these passages of the sacred volume, and in a multitude of others which it would be super fluous to quote. Suflice it to say, that this is the grand and tunda- mental principle of all religion. It corresponds with the conclusi- ons of the most sublime philosophy, and the plainest dictates of inspiration. It was taught, as has been demonstrated, by Moses and the prophets—by Christ and his apostles. It has been adopted by many of the wisest and best of our species—by men who devoted their lives to the study of the Scriptures ; and whose early preju- dices, education, profession, and worldly interest were all arrayed against its reception—by men who have honoured it by the most heroic sacrifices of fortune and ambition—by the greatest philan- 7 thropists, philosophers, poets, and metaphysicians—by Newton, Milton, and Locke: yet, Mr. Pope and the Theologians of his school; tiave no scruple to class those who profess Unitarianism with Deists and Infidels, (why not with Atheists?) and to brand their faith with the name of leprosy, and soul-destroying heresy ! How simple and how grand is the Unitarian’s faith compared with the Trinitarian’s ! When we turn from the one to the other, it is like turning from the contemplation of a beautiful world, when the sun is in the firmament, “ rejoicing in his strength,”’ to the view of asterile and deformed waste, “aland of brim- stone, and Salt, and burning,—of blood, fire, and vapour of smoke,” SECTION SECOND. What is Trinitarianism ? WHAT IS TRINITARIANISM 2? The Scriptures are si- jent. They never present God under any aspect but that of unity. Of a plurality of persons in the Godhead they know nothing. We must therefore turn for information to the “Infal- lible Church,” and to those other churches which, having thrown off her yoke, still adhere to her creeds—from the assembly of the disciples at Jerusalem to the councils of fathers; from Paul, the inspired apostle, to Athanasius, the factious and turbulent ecclesiastic. , The doctrine of the Trinity then, informs us that the Godhead consists of “ three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity ;” *‘God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.” Now, any man, under the influence of such vulgar principles as “reason and common sense,” would conclude that three persons must mean three distinct beings, and consequently that there are three Gods, This, Dr. Sherlock candidly admits, and says “it is plain the persons are perfectly distinct. A person is an intelligent being, and to say there are three divine persons and not three distinct infinite minds, is both heresy and nonsense.”’ Here then is palpable polytheism, from which thus fairly exhibited, even orthodoxy recoils astounded. Doctor South, scandalized by such an admission, from a Doctor of his own church, showers down upon him a torrent of theological vituperation ; and alleges that there is only “ one infinite mind, with three modes, attributes, or offices, manifested under the different states or relations of father, son, and spirit.” Thus the meaning of the word person is explained away; and after the most painful struggles against the conviction of their own minds, that God is one, the most eminent divines are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that the three persons of their imaginary Trinity are not persons, but something else. ‘Tillotson calls them ‘ three differences,”—Burnet “ three 8 diversities,’ —-Secker |‘ three subsistencies,”—others _‘‘ thrée postures !”—Le Clere thought them to be “three distinct cogitations ;’—and that the subject might be explained! by the philosophy of Des Cartes. Some are for a specific, some for a numerical unity, and others for both united, though involving a monstrous contradiction. Waterland speaks of a “ three-fold generation of the son, two antemundane and one in the flesh. The substance of the one person,” he says “ is not the substance of either of the others, but different, however of the same kind or united.” Barrow speaks of “the mutual inexistence of one in all, and allin one.” “ They are joined together,” says ano- ther, “by a perichoresis—and this perichoresis, circumincession or mutual inexistence is made very possible and intelligible by a mutual conscious sensation.” Some divines understand the words person and petsonality in a philosophical sense, others in a political, and a third class ina theological sense. The doctrine of three persons, according to Watts, must be true, “ at least in a political sense, yet cannot amount to so much as a philoso- phical personality, unless we allow a plurality of Gods.” We sometimes find the same Trinitarian Divine confuting himself, for error is always inconsistent, and maintaining in one part of his writings, propositions subversive of those which he has main- tained in another. ‘Thus Bishop Bull, against the Arians, asserts the consubstantiality and coeternity of Christ with the Father : but against the Tritheists and Sabellians, “he argueth the ne- cessity of believing the father to be the fountain, original and principle of the son, and that the son is hence subordinate to the father !”* What is this but Unitarianism ?—We are told of a Ciceronian, a Platonic, an Aristotelian, and a Swedenborgian Trinity, and finally ‘the Trinity of the Mobile, or common people and lazy divines, who content themselves by calling it an inconceivable mystery.’} , . Now, what is this but darkening of counsel by words without knowledge? Which of these contradictory schemes is to be embraced by the man who is determined to depart from the simple truth, that God is one? “ What is there” asks the au- thor of an excellent letter{ on this subject, ‘to guide me through the dark and dreary labyrinth ? Not one solitary ray of light glimmers to direct my path. All is darkness and confusion: the more I read, the more I am confounded. I cannot advance a step, and I end as I began, without being able to find two men or two creeds agreeing in a similar answer to my inquiry: W hat is the Trinity?” Sp EE En Peer eee seen eee en ERS * Nelson’s Life of Bull, p. 303. + Ben Mordecai. ¢ The Doctrine of the Trinity Indefensible, by Edward Taylor, Esq. 9 - Perhaps the light of an Infallible Church might be of use to this importunate inquirer. If we turn to the popular creeds we shall find that they only vender confusion worse confounded, and add a deeper shade to Egyptian darkness. The Athanasian creed, the most accredited standard of the orthodox faith, teaches that “the Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten; the Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten ; the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begot- ten, but proceeding.” ‘In this Trinity none is afore or after other.” But that which is begotten, if language has any meaning, must be posterior to that which begets it; and that which pro- ceeds must be subsequent to the source from which it issues. As the very terms begotten and proceeding cannot be in any way applicable to the Father, they demonstrate an essential difference between Him and every being to whom they can be applied. There is also an essential difference between the Son and the Holy Ghost, for the one is begotten, and the other proceeds ; so that each has a peculiar and distinguishing characteristic. More- ever, both the Athanasian and Nicene creeds contradict the Apostle’s creed, which so far from affirming that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, says that the Son was “conceived by the Holy Ghost :” whereas the Athanasian creed says that “‘the Son is of the Father alone !” Such are the inconsistencies and contradictions of the creeds and articles which we are told we must believe or “perish ever- lastingly!” They not only contradict the Scriptures but them- selves and one another. It would seem that their fabricators, by some signal act of providence, laboured under an insuperable dis- ability of giving them coherence, and that every scheme tending to subvert a belief in the Divine unity, should contain in itself the elements of its own destruction. Horsley, notwithstanding his being regarded as a chief pillar ’ of orthodoxy, took the liberty of differing from the creeds which he subscribed, and supposed that the second person in the Tri- nity was ‘an effect” produced by the first person contemplating - his own perfections! No wonder that Priestley on reading such | e@gri somnia, sick man’s dreams, could “hardly help fancying that: he had got back into the very darkest of the dark ages, or at least that he was reading Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, or Duns Scotus.*” The three persons of the Trinity, after all that is said by the, bishops and archbishops, about diversities and subsistences, * Horsley in his controversy with Priestley, says, it is a contradiction that ‘‘ a part is equal to the whole, or that the same thing, in the same respect, is at the same time, one and many.” _ This he admits that nothing can prove. «‘ No testimony that a contradiction ts, should be allowed to overpower the intuitive conviction that it cannot be.” o Ai B 10 modes and relations, perichoresis and_circumincession, can be contemplated only as “three distinct infinite minds.” The ad- vocates of the doctrine speak of them as such, and assign to each his different province. The father commands, the son obeys, the holy spirit sanctifies. But though they are one God, the first and second persons do not appear to be always influenced by the same principles. It might be expected when such enormous sacrifices as “reason and common sense” are made in support of the doctrine, that it would be consistent in itself—that the three persons being one God, they would act together with per- fect harmony. The Unitarian maintains that God and Christ are one-—one in the sense declared by the Saviour himself—one in affection and design. He never can admit the idea that any difference of mind subsisted between the father and the son on any subject whatsoever, The father speaks by or through the son, and hence the Unitarian receives the precepts and doctrines of Christ as these of God himself. Now for this unity which is rational and scriptural, and most beneficially influential’ on the conduct of men, Trinitarianism sets up another of its own, which is chimerical and full of conflicting imaginations. It re- presents the father and son as actuated by different principles, and on the most important of all subjects, moral virtue—the one as rigorous and inflexibly just, the other as merciful and com- passionate. Here their unity is abolished. An act of disobedi- ence is committed by the first of God’s. intelligent creatures placed upon this earth; and he who ‘“knoweth our frame and remembereth that we are but dust,” filled with ineffable fury, sentences man, and, in him, all his innocent and unconscious posterity, to everlasting perdition! Then had man been irreco- verably lost—but God the Son interferes ; and since nothing less than a ransom of infinite price should atone for the smallest offence against an infinite being, (as theologians tell us—though a a a ae a a ee EAE LAS EID A SE “Now,” asks Dr. Priestley, ‘‘ Wherein does the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity differ from a contradiction as you have defined it? It asserts, in effect, that nothing is wanting to either the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, to constitute each of them truly and properly God; each being equal in eternity and all divine perfections; and yet that these three are not three Gods, but only one God. They are therefore, both one and many in the same respect, viz: in each being perfect God. This is certainly as much a contradiction as to say that Peter, James, and John having each of them every thing that is requisite to constitute a complete man, are yet, all toge- ther, not three men, but only oneman. For the ideas annexed to the words God man, cannot make any difference in the nature of the two propositions. After the council of Nice, there are instances of the doctrine of the T. rinity being explained in this very manner. The fathers of that age being par- ticularly intent on preserving the full equality of the three persons, they en- tirely lost sight of their proper unity. And explain this doctrine as you will, one of these things must ever be sacrificed to the other,”’—Priestley’s. Letters to Horsley, p. 78, Lond, 1815. 1 they have forgotten to shew how a finite creature can merit the inflictions of infinite and eternal wrath,) he offers to pay the price required—to assume a human form and die the death of the cross, that the curse may be annulled. Accordingly the proposal is accepted, and the Father Al- mighty suffers his son, who is equal to himself in majesty and power, to assume the form of an embryo in the virgin’s womb— to be born—to encrease in stature like an ordinary mortal—to appear in the humble condition of a carpenter’s son—to undergo the most cruel sufferings, bodily and mental; and after a life of poverty and pain, and all the bitter feelings of degradation, of which the highest celestial spirit exiled from heaven and ta- bernacled in flesh, may be supposed susceptible—to be accused of blasphemy and sedition, to be mocked, spat on, scourged, nailed to a cross as a malefactor, and raised up before an aston- ished universe—the sacrifice of a son to a father—of a God of superlative benevolence, to the inexorable wrath of an offended Deity*—and all fora single act of disobedience in a frail child of the dust! What an awful and tremendous idea of the father of all, does this doctrine convey! Is this the God whom we are instructed to love with all our hearts? What lesson do we read like this in the heavenly discourses of him who said « What man is there of you, of whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone—or if he ask a fish, will he give him a ser- pent ?”—of him who has so beautifully depicted the Creator as the kindest and most affectionate of parents; whom even the extravagant guilt of his prodigal son could not alienate from his affections—but who “when he was yet a great way off, saw him, and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him.” Our blessed Saviour delighted to appeal to the natural feel- ings of the human heart, to enable us to form just notions of the mercy and beneficence of the universal parent. But priests and theologians, in support of their unscriptural systems, outrage every sentiment of justice and mercy; and hesitate not to ascribe to God such conduct as would horrify them in a mortal like themselves.t ‘Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall aman be more pure than his maker ?” 2 a * See Channing’s admirable Sermon, entitled “ The superior tendency of Unitarianism to form an elevated religious character.”’ It is stated in the larger Catechism joined to the Westminster Confession of Faith, that Christ «‘ felt and bore the weight of God’s wrath.” Q. 49,—‘ and it was requi- site the mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God!” Q. 38. . , + The doctrine that God could not be appeased without an infinite sa- tisfaction, and a bloody sacrifice, is such an atrocious libel on, the character of the beneficent Father of all, that even orthodoxy is beginning to be ashamed to avow itemand to explain it away. It robs God of his glorious : 12 Christ, according to covenant, having paid the infinite rart- som, it might be concluded that the salvation of all men would be secured. But this, as we are told by the disciples of Calvin, would bean egregious mistake, for though the uttermost far- thing has been paid, a large majority of mankind are predes- tinated to hell-fire, by an omnipotent decree which not even — the bloody sacrifice of the Eternal Son of Ged could avert or annul! So that, after all, the benefits of Christ’s death are ex- tended to only a chosen few—the elect—<“ The rest of mankind,” as the Westminster Confession of Faith charitably informs us, (c. iii. 7.) ‘* God was pleased to pass by and ordam them to dis- honour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.” Now it is evident from this scheme, that God the Father and God the Son entertained totally contradictory views of man’s first offence. Though consubstantial they are dissentient, for if they are one in mind, why did not the Son join in the curse, and demand an infinite ransom as well as the Father? Again, by whom was the ransom paid? By God the Son, or by the man Jesus? If by the former, then one person of the Godhead suffered and died to make atonement to another person, and yet both persons are the same God !—This is truly marvellous. ‘On the other hand, if only the human nature of Christ suffered, hhow was the infinite debt discharged ? Moreover—why is God the Holy Ghost passive or neutral in this transaction? Why did not the Third person of the Trinity demand satisfaction as well asthe First? Were his ideas of justice less rigorous, his majesty less offended, or his spirit less vindictive ? These, no doubt, are audacious questions, but those who advocate the free use of Scripture, and the right of private attributes of justice, mercy, forgiveness. It represents him as surpassing in cruelty the legislator whose laws were written in blood. If the natural sentiments of right and wrong in the breast of a heathen poet, rose indig- nant at the dogmas of the Stoics, that all faults are equal, and should be punished with equal rigour, how would he have shrunk with horror from this monstrous Calvinistic heresy ! } _ adsit Regula, peccatis que poenas irroget zquas.”’ Hor. let the punishment be fairly weighed Against the crime.” Si Francis. This is the language of nature, and it is confirmed by revelation, which tells us that God is an equitable judge; that he is merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,” Exod. xxxiv. 6. IT says, “ Let the wicked forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man _ his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and unto our God, for he will abundantly pardon,” Isaiah, lv, 7% 13 judgment, will excuse them. The only mode of preventing their repetition, as Mr. Maguire will candidly admit, is quiet submission to the authority of an Infallible Church. SECTION THIRD. The Doctrine of the Trinity not taught in the Scriptures. Revelation was given to man, by the mercy of an ever blessed God, to lead to virtue, happiness, and immortality; not to per- plex and confound with such questions as that under discussion. Being intended for universal benefit, for the Barbarian as_ well as the Greek, for the Gentile as well as the Jew, it teaches all that is necessary to be known as instrumental to salvation, in perspicuous language, and leaves no doctrine of vital importance in obscurity. It has been well observed that “the gospel is full in telling us what isto be done, sparing of what we are to be- lieve.” Its articles of belief are few, and these few intelligible to the rude andignorant. Its radical truth is, that God is one— This truth which is so simple, and so easily comprehended, it re- peats again and again, and fences it round with such barriers as exclude every imagination that would vitiate its simplicity. It utters not a syllable of three persons, one in substance, equal in power and glory. ‘¢God the Son,” and “God the Holy Ghost,” are phrases no where to be found in the sacred writings—nor the Incarnate God—nor the Tri-une God—nor the God-man. Such epithets and barbarous compounds, applied to the Deity, are redolent of heathen superstition. They have no affinity to the pure and simple language of Inspiration. They were never used by the Apostles in all their preaching, either to Jew or Gentile, though now so frequently resounded from many a po- pular pulpit, falsely reputed orthodox. Had such a doctrine as the Trinity constituted any part of the Christian Religion, we must believe, on every principle of reason and common sense, that it would have been revealed as clearly, and as much to the satisfaction of every inquirer, as the being of God himself. Nay, it required stronger evidence, and more ample illustration. We can acquire some knowledge of God by the light of nature, and therefore it was less necessary to insist on that subject ; but we derive from nature no intimation whatever of a Trinity, and therefore it must be presumed that a revelation from God would have dwelt with force, and at considerable length, in in- _culcating and explaining a doctrine so novel: and we are jus- tified in holding this opinion by our certainty that the gospel does insist, with copiousness and perspicuity, on every necessary topic of belief, and most of all on such doctrines as are of most utility. For instance, as nature affords but a glimpse of a future state, and as a belief in this doctrine, has an almost unbounded 14 influence on the conduct and happiness of man, the gospel, in every page, brings it before us with all the evidence of its reality, and all the power of its fears, its hopes and consolations. But of the Trinity it says nothing, though a doctrine so stupendous and so utterly destitute of foundation in nature and reason, de- manded, for its reception, the whole weight of inspired authority. It is inconsistent with every just view of Divine revelation to suppose that it would dwell on topics of minor interest, and pass by those of the greatest unnoticed. Nay, more, as the doc- trine of the Trinity is not only unsupported by nature, but sub- versive of the first great truth of the Jewish religion, it demanded ten-fold weight of evidence to set the old doctrine aside, and make room for the introduction of the new. ‘The new doctrine, therefore, would have been proclaimed in a style suited to its dignity—preached in the streets, and shouted from the house tops—argued in the school, and thundered forth in the synagogue, established by miracles for the satisfaction of the multitude, and demonstrated with power for the conviction of the learned. An object so weighty would not have been based on an epithet or exclamation, nor left to pendulate by the spider-thread of an inference. The useof the Greek article, or Hebrew plural, the precise meaning of an obscure word, or ambiguous phrase, or the admission or rejection of a text stamped with the brand of in- terpolation, would have had little influence in a question of such magnitude. That which was intended to illuminate the world, would not, in contradiction to a declaration of the Saviour, have been hid “undera bushel,”? but presented to us in a volume of light, and made to shine upon us like the sun in his brightness, that all might see and understand. In a word, had the Doctrine of the Trinity been a revelation from heaven, it is but reasonable to suppose that it would have formed the leading and most pro-- minent article of revealed religion, run parallel to the first com- mandment, and told us that besides the great Jehovah, whom the Israelites believed to be one being, or person, two other per- sons were to be admitted into the Godhead, equally claiming our adoration; and that it would be “a leprosy and a soul- destroying heresy” to deny it. But our Blessed Saviour taught a different lesson. ‘ This is life eternal,” said he, “that they might know thee the ONLY True God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.’—John xvii. 3. If Christ were really Almighty God, it is inconceivable why he did not avow it distinctly ; and that it was not as distinctly taught by the Apostles. Strange, that his own family and dis- ciples never once suspected him to be the God of Israel! So far from admitting a thought that would have paralysed them, and falsified what they were taught in their law, “that no man could see the face of God and live.”—Exod. xxxiii. 20,—they lived with him on terms of the most friendly and familiar inter- course. On one occasion, Peter rebuked him.—Mat. xvi. 22. 15 It may be alleged by Mr. Pope, that the disciples, apostles, and all who had the best opportunities of contemplating our Lord, entertained erroneous opinions of him, (yet Peter was in no error when he said, ‘thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God,”) and that it was not till after his resurrection, ascension, and the effusion of the Holy Spirit, that their minds were en- larged to form a true conception of his character. Well, what was their opinion then? Did they suppose him to be the Eter- nal God? Never. When they were busily occupied in laying the foundation of the Christian Church among both Jews and Gentiles, they declared that Christ was the chief corner stone in the edifice ; but that the Almighty was the supreme architect. In all their preaching, as recorded in their «“ Acts,” they never made the Deity of Christ the theme of a single discourse. They spoke of him as he had spoken of himself—as deputed by the Father to rescue man from the bondage of sin and death. But they never spoke of the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father— nor of three persons in one God. The Jews vanquished as their prejudices were, by arguments deduced from their own Scrip- tures, and corroborated by miracles, would not have endured such language. Nor can it be contended that the Apostles, from fear of the Jews,* suppressed any truth which it was their duty to reveal, much less a truth of such paramount importance, The Jews did not require to be instructed in the nature of the Deity—they had learned from the writings of Moses and the prophets, that he is one, all powerful, wise, and good ; and it was never so much as hinted to them by the Saviour, that their notions of God were erroneous. The points, therefore, on which the Apostles insisted to them, were the Messiah-ship of Christ, obedience to his precepts, faith in his doctrines, the re- surrection and judgment. The Gentiles who were universally corrupted by Polytheism, did require to be taught a pure theology; and in Paul’s discourse to the Athenians we have a most edify- ing specimen of the mode in which they were addressed. Having seen an altar dedicated to the unknown God, the Apostle takes occasion to expatiate on the being and character of the God who is made known by revelation —and his discourse throughout is most decidedly Unitarian. He speaks of the great Creator of the World, the Lord of Heaven and Earth—of his having made of one blood all nations of men, who, according to the saying of one of their own poets, are “his offspring ;” that he is not to be represented by images of gold, silver, or stone, for as he is a TR AUR Tea RS er ae aT NE a a EEA * The author has somewhere read that Athanasius imputes it to the Apostles’ fears of the Jews, that they did not preach the Deity of Christ, The true reason was, that they knew no such fiction. To allege that men, who were prepared at all times, to die for the truth, dared not to advocate any doctrine essential to salvation, even before their most infuriated enemies, is to slander their character, i6 spirit, he must be contemplated by the spiritual part of man; that being infinitely beneficient, he connived at their past igno- rance, but now commanded them to repent, to depart from their idolatry, to worship and obey the great J ehovah alone. Togive efficacy to his admonition, he then speaks of the great topics never neglected by the Apostles, resurrection, and judgment— declaring unto them that God had appointed a day in which he would “judge the world, in righteousness, by that MAN whom he had ordained,” and that he had given the most incontestible proof of this truth, by having already raised him from the dead.* —Acts, xvii. All this discourse was highly beautiful and instructive. _ It con- tained nothing but what “reason and common sense” could approve and adopt. The only circumstance about which his hearers felt distrust, was the resurrection. But what would have. been their thoughts, had the Apostle, after having revealed to them the true God—brought them down from the elevation to which he had raised them, and alleged that the Almighty Creator, of whom he had just declared that “he dwelleth not in temples made with hands’—that he whom “the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain,” was cradled in a manger, and after a life of suffering, was put to death upon a cross? Would they REE eee ae een ean oar AM Te * It is argued by Burgh who wrote, against Lindsey’s Apology, a book which he was pleased to entitle a ‘‘ Scriptural Confutation,” that because Paul preached Jesus to the Athenians, they said, he seemed to be a setter. forth of strange Gods, Acts, xvii. 18. Here, upon a call to explain him- self and answer the charge of setting forth strange Gods, in having preached- Jesus, he avows that he whom he had preached was that God whom they knew not, (the unknown God) but worshipped ignorantly: but he had preached Jesus ; therefore Jesus Christ was that God hitherto unknown to them, and one with the Father.” Such is a specimen of the miserable and contemptible sophistry of a man who thought he could confute Lindsey! He makes strange Gods (or fo- reign demons) and unknown God, relate to the same person, ignorant or forgetful that the word rendered Gods is Beeseeovsoy which, in general, if not in every other instance, in the common version of the Scriptures, is ren- dered Devils. The Athenians were so much addicted to the fear and worship of these Devils or Demons, that Paul charged them with being Derosdouseoverrepxs too superstitious— more literally, too fearful of Demons. The foreign De- mons of which he seemed to be a setter-forth,’’ were Jesus and dnastasis, i.e. Resurrection, and it would be as consistent to assert of Anastasis as of ' Jesus, that she was the unknown God. What analogy there is, either gram- matical or physical, between “foreign Demons” plural, and the “ unknown God” singular, such writers as Burgh may determine. This confuter of Lindsey says, “I thank God and my pious parents for it, that with my nurse’s milk I did imbibe the doctrine (of the Trinity) which I now main- tain; and at the same time, I imbibed a belief, that grass was green, that fire was hot, that snow was cold, and that two and two make four.”” Pro- digious! What pity that he did not add to these liberal scientific attain- ments, the belief that one is one, and that three are three 4 . 17 not have supposed the Apostle to be amusing them with some idle tale for which they had a parallel in their fables of the birth and sepulchre of Cretan Jove ? It is clearly demonstrable then from the records extant of the preaching of the Apostles, that they did not teach the doctrine of the Trinity to the Jews. It is equally demonstrable that they taught Unitarianism to the Gentiles—that faith which the elo- quent reformers of the nineteenth century stigmatize as a “le. prosy, and a soul-destroying heresy.” In the writings as well as the preaching of the Apostles, we find many passages strongly expressive of their belief in the di- vine unity—not one in which the holders of that doctrine are censured, as they must inevitably have been, if their doctrine were erroneous. The Apostle John combats the errors of the Gnosties and condemns the Churches of Asia, for various lapses and defections from the truth. But no where is any condem- nation either direct or implied attached to Unitarianism. How should it? The inspired writers were all Unitarians, and knew no more of the tritheistic hypothesis than of the Pope’s infallibi- lity. The Apostle Paul spoke not only his own sentiments but those of his Brethren, when he affirmed that the “head of Christ is God.” But of all the sacred authors John is the most copious in attesting the Supreme Deity of God, aud shewing the derived existence, and derived miraculous powers of Christ. If one Apostle might claim pre-eminence above the rest, as the advocate of the divine unity, John would have a fair claim to be entitled the Apostle of Unitarianism.* As the doctrine of the Trinity is no where taught in the Serip- tures, it is 7vferred by Trinitarians ; and some of its ablest advo- cates admit that it is altogether a doctrine of inference. They cannot find it in Matthew—nor in Mark—nor in Luke—nor in Jobn—nor in Paul—nor in Peter—nor in James—nor in Jude—but they give us to understand that there are certain hints and expressions in the one and in the other, from a judicious combination of which it may be extracted, by a little knowledge of the dialectics of theology. The Scrip- tures, we suppose, contain its elements as the alphabet. con. tains the elements of the mysterious éefragrammaton! The picture is in the colours of the painter's pallet, and requires only to. be transferred to the canvas! The statue which may “en- chant the world,” and claim its idolatry, lies in the marble block, * Sce this most satisfactorily proved by the Rev. W. J. Fox, in his letter to the Rev. Dr. Blomfield, now Bishop of London, entitled “The Apostle John 4 Unitarian.” The Bishop is to be commended for his prudence in’ not attempting am answer to so powerful and eloquent an antagonist. His — silence may be deemed a sufficient concession, though it would be more magnanimous to declare himself vanquished.—-See also “the Apostle Paul a Unitarian,” by the Rev. B, Mardon, Cc 1S and asks but the chisel of some Phidias or Praxitelés to rescue it from concealment! The golden calf of Aaron had its compo- nent parts, its membra disjecta, in the ear-rings of the wives and -of the sons and daughters of Israel. It required but’ the blast of the furnace, and the graving tool of the artist to fashion them into a four-footed idol. Thus, from a skilful amalgamation of heathenish inventions.and traditions, with certain garbled extracts from Scripture, do the advocates of Athanasianism form a triplicate object of worship, and with their predecessors in the wilderness of old, exclaim, “These be thy Gods, O Israel!” But why a triplicate object? Ah! there is a great mystery in the number ¢hree, and, as heathen mythology will teach us, it has many an ancient hereditary claim to respect. But on what par- ticular passages of Scripture the doctrine of the Athanasian Trinity is founded, the reader who has nothing but revelation for his guide, cannot easily discover; for though it often speaks of the Holy One, and the Blessed One, it never speaks of the holy three, nor the blessed three. The advocates of the doc- trine refer us to the Saviour’s command, to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,* and after informing us that to baptize in the name of a person, is to ascribe Supreme Deity to that person, a statement which at once makes Moses the Supreme Deity,+ they ask in atone of conscious triumph, “Is not the Father one—is not the Son one—and is not the Holy Ghost one—and are not three ones—three ?”’ We answer— unquestionably. And ask in return—three what ?—Gods ?—No. That would be polytheism. Names of the same God? No. That would confound the persons and plunge usin what Athanasi- ans would call the ‘‘damnable heresy” of Sabellianism—Persons ? Yes.—And the three persons are one God? Yes.—Then is each person but the third part of the one God. This divides the essence and robs God of his simplicity. Again, we are referred to 1 John, v. '7—a text universally rejected as an inter- polation by learned and honest eritics. But, admitting it as genuine, it could give no more support than the former text, to the doctrine of three in one. The connexion would lead us to conclude, that the three witnesses were one only in testimony. Of essence it says nothing—it insinuates nothing. The same principles of inference which deduce a Trinity from these verses might deduce an Enneity, or nine in one, from Rev. i. 4, 5— and we might ask, is not “he which was, and which is, and which is to come,” one ?—And are not the ‘seven spirits be- fore the throne,”’ seven ?—and is not ‘‘ Jesus Christ the faithful witness,” one? 1+ 7 +129. This doctrine may be sup- ported by 1 Tim. v. 21. ‘‘I charge thee before. Ged, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Elect Angels.” What angels? The * Mat. xxviii. 19. +1 Cor, x. 2 19 seven spirits of John, forsooth. Thus is the doctrine of Jolin confirmed by that of Paul. It has the high sanction also of Burgh, who says, that he « may possibly surprise Mr, Lindsey, by an assurance that these seven spirits are God.” It is, no doubt, a very surprising assurance! but, he continues, “this is a position very easily explained to the man who remembers that ‘ Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” The seven spirits are the eyes of the Lamb—(they were God just now,) and the Lamb is Jesus Christ himself.” But Christ is God—and there- fore he which was, and is, and is to come,—the seven spirits and Jesus Christ are one God! Thus is the doctrine of an Enneity proved by genuine orthodox inference. Let not the courteous reader object to the term Lnneity, on account of its novelty. That of Zrinity was as novel many years after the first dispensation of the gospel. ‘Lhe one word—the one doctrine, is as scriptural as the other; and the Hnneity wants nothing but a little aid from tradition, the Infallible Church, and the Synod of Ulster, to fix it on as stable and permanent a foundation as tue Trinity. SECTION FOURTH. The inferiority of Christ to the Father proved by his own declarations. | Mr. Pope has quoted the long list of texts usually employed in this controversy, to shew that Christ possessed all the at- tributes of the Supreme Deity. A similar task has been re- peatedly executed by men whose erudition and critical ingenuity were fully equal te those of Mr. Pope, but with a success similar to that of the architects of the tower of Babel. Many of the texts quoted, are irrelevant and misunderstood. It woald be a labour more tedious than difficult, to shew that none of them, when rightly interpreted, yields any support to the doctrine of three persons in one God. Mr. Maguire’s assertion could be amply verified, that every text in support of the doctrine, could be confronted by another, till not a shred of argument remained. The New Testament is redundant in passages proving the su- premacy of the Father, and the subordination of the Son. The very ideas of Father and Son imply superiority in the one— inferiority in the other. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, in fact, admit this, though it is denied by the “ Article,” which affirms that the three persons are of one substance, power, and eternity. They admit that Christ was begotten of the Father, and thus contradict the coeternity and coequality which the ar- ticle asserts. The words of the second article of the Church of England “begotten from everlasting of the Father,” are nonsense, for they involve two ideas which destroy each other— 20 that which is begotten is not self-existent, therefore not eternal— that which is eternal is self-existent, therefore not begotten. So . little consistency is there in the creeds and ‘articles of man’s in- véntion. So difficult it is to put a total extinguisher on the truth, that God is one { Again, as reason and common sense tell us that a father must exist before a son can be begotten, so must he who commands be greater than he who obeys; the bestower is superior to the receiver; the sender to him who is sent; and he who prescribes a task, to him by whom it is executed. Now Christ is repre- serited in the Scriptures as in all things subordinate to the Fa- ther. He declares his own inferiority, and so strongly and so frequently disclaims the ascription to himself of the attributes that belong to Jehovah alone, that it is really a matter of aston- ishment how any one can entertain a doubt on the question. He affirms the supremacy of the Father in terms the most explicit, undeniable, and unqualified. ‘¢ My Father is greater than all.’’—John, x. 29. Consequently greater than the Son—and that there may be no: doubt of this, he says again, «© My Father is greater than 1.”—-John, xiv. 28. He declares that the same great being who is our God and Father, is also his God and Father. . « Tascend unto my Father and your Father: and to my God and your God.” —John, xx. 17. He deniés independant and underived existence when, he say 85 <¢ [ live by the Father.”—John, vi. 57. | He denies that he is inherently and underivably possessed of any power whatsoever ; and he does this with a solemn repeated asseveration. “‘ Verily, verily, [ say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do.’”’--John, v. 19. “To sit on my right-hand and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.”’—Mat. xx. 23. He affirms that he is not omniscient— «« OF that day, and that hour, knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven; neither the Son, but the Father.”—Mark, xiii. 32.* Ne ee per i ne ee a ea eT Te * This is a most distressing text to Trinitarians. In vain haye they tor- tured invention and falsified the meaning of the Greek text, to escape a conclusion which is fatal to their scheme. One informs us that the verb osdey here signifies maketh known, though no instance of its having such a meaning occurs in the whole compass of Greek learning. Admit, it how- ever, for a moment, and mark the consequence. « That day and that hour no man muketh known, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only maketh known.” This is a direct contradiction of the Saviour’s meaning, to avoid which, it is proposed by other expounders, to supply the words ‘in his official capacity,’ or ‘in his human nature,” 21 lal He refuses to be called good in the sense of infinitely be-) nevolent. ao | “ There is none good but ONE, that is God.”"—Mat. xix, 1%, He ascribes his mission and his works to his Father. ‘© The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me that the Father hath senr Mg.”’—-John, v. 36+ "He acknowledges that his power of exercising judgment is bestowed upon him by the Father. , «© The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son.”’—John, v. 22. He affirms that his doctrine did not originate with himself. ' «& My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether £ speak of myself.”—-John, vii. 16, 1%. He denies that he came of himself. . “ Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am; and J am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true whom ye know not,’”’—John vii. 28. He denies that he eame to do his own will. | ‘© T seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.’’— John, v. 30. Or, that he sought his own glory. ‘‘ T seek not mine own glory—there is one (viz: God) that seeketh and judgeth.’’—-John, viii. 50. Or, that he is himself the ultimate end and object of our faith. «He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me,”—John, xii. 44, 4 e. not so much on me, as on him who sent me. He makes it a less heinous offence to speak against himself than against the Holy Spirit, which is a clear acknowledgment of his inferiority. _ Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him ; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be for- given him,” — Mat, xii. 32. After his resurrection he says, that all his power is the gift of his Heavenly Father. ¢ All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”’—Mat, xxviii. 18, The texts that speak a similar language are almost innumer- able, and all so piain and intelligible, that their meaning is never disputed. How then avoid the conclusion to which they irresistibly compel? How maintain a doctrine by which that conclusion is utterly subverted ? Certain creed-makers and In- pen Lelgs ee LET poeese lene a ee Soe SGA aa Teens Dene memeliln for which addition, even if it did not convert solemn truth into impious, folly, they have no more authority, than for writing a new gospel. But this is notall. Audi fucinus majoris abolle. In order to parallel and neu- tralize the force of this vexatious text, they have actually quoted Hosea viii. 4. “* They have made princes, and I (Jehovah) knew it not:” as it this was an expression of ignorance and not of disapproval—and in their anxiety to secure a point, have been contented to rob Jehovah .of his Omniscience ! ze fallible Churches will inform us. They have inventions of their own which could never be found out by minds uninitiated in their mysteries. They inform us, though Scripture does not, that Christ had two natures, a human and a divine ; and that he speaks and acts sometimes in the one, and sometimes in the other nature. This, for a moment, being admitted, we natu- rally enquire, how is it to be ascertained when any of his dis- courses or actions are to be ascribed to him as God the Son, and when as the man Jesus? Toa plain and unsophisticated reader this is a serious difficulty, dignus vindice nodus, a knot which can be untied only bythe skill of the ‘“ Infallible Church.” By what rule Protestants are guided in this inquiry, or whe- ther they have any rule, the writer must confess ignorance. The learned Rammohun Roy,* a name which there will be occasion often to mention in the sequel of this essay, has expressed a wish to be furnished with a list enumerating those expressions which are made in one and in the other capacity, with autho- rities for the distinction. What authorities should he expect but those of tradition and an Infallible Church? The list, perhaps, might be furnished, but it would scarcely yield the satisfaction which he seems to require—since one clause of the same text, as he has himself remarked and illustrated, would require to be spoken by the divine, and another by the human nature; and_ even the same clause might have to be understood as spoken sometimes by the one and sometimes by the other, as it chanced so suit the argument of the polemic or expounder. A principle of conformity to the creed which they have brought from the nursery or college, is the only rule, as far as the Unitarian can discover, which Trinitarians employ in making the distinction. This is the touchstone by which every text must be proved. . * An Indian Brahmin, who from a diligent perusal of the Sacred Scrip- tures, has become a convert to Christianity, and whose intimate and most: accurately critical knowledge of oriental customs and languages eminently | qualifies him both to understand and explain the inspired volume. His work entitled ‘‘ The precepts of Jesus, the guide to peace and happiness,” with his first, second, and final appeal to the Christian public, in reply to Dr. Marshman of Serampore, should be in the hands of all lovers of truth. It might have been expected that such a convert would have been welcomed with delight by every disciple of Jesus; but his love of truth preventing him from embracing certain * peculiar doctrines’? which, with all his cri-. . tical acumen, he could not find in the Bible; he became as much an ob- — ject of obloquy tothe ‘‘ Orthodox,”’ in the East, as his Unitarian brethren are inthe West. His editor, at length, refused to publish his works, and he was under the necessity of purchasing types and a printing press, to have them printed beneath his own immediate inspectien. Happily for the cause of genuine Christianity, they have reached the shores of Great Britain, and the *‘ Isle of Saints,” and while paper, ink, and type, remain, they will net perish ; though some ardent proselyters decry them, and say their author is no Christian. ‘Thus did their Jewish brethren of old declare of Christ, that he was a Samaritan and had a devil! an NA Te 23 They cover the pure gold of gospel truth with the base alloy of human invention, stamp it with the image and superscription of Athanasius or Calvin, and circulate it as the true evangelical coin. When our blessed Saviour says, “I dive by the Fa- ther,’—they exclaim, this is spoken in his human. nature! When he says, ‘‘My Father and I are one,” though it is clear as the sun, that he means one in the Unitarian sense; they imme- diately call out, here is a proof of the coexistence, coeternity, and consubstantiality of God and Christ! Mr. Pope adopts this mode of explanation, and alleges that “those. passages which affirm the son’s inferiority were not spoken of him whole and entire, but refer to his human nature, and mediatorial cha- racter; and that this view of the subject alone, harmonizes the seemingly contradictory descriptions which the Scriptures give of the Messiah.” ; Such vague and unfounded notions as this may content those who can ‘prostrate the understanding ;” but reason and common sense must protest against them. Can it be imagined that a distinction of such importance to the right interpretation of Scripture, should be sought for in them in vain? By admitting it as necessary to explain certain fancied contradictions, we are involved in ten-fold difficulties, from which we cannot be extri- cated, even by the power of an Infallible Church. While is aims, on the one hand, to exalt the Saviour to Supreme Deity, it degrades him, on the other, beneath the level of an honest and true man. It grants the Unitarian more than he either asks or will accept. It strips part of our Lord’s declarations of their sacred influence, by representing them as spoken of himself in the nature of a common uninspired mortal; whereas the Uni« tarian receives them all as coming from the inspiration of the Almighty. Nor is this all. It involves more awful consequences. We should have supposed from reading the Scriptures, “without note or comment.” that the Saviour’s character presented to us one symmetrical and consistent whole. But this invention affirms that he was not one but two persons; and since he did not al- ways speak and act as a whole and entire, he must sometimes have spoken and acted as a part and a fraction. What he was ignorant of as a man, he knew as God. Each character had its peculiar language and mode of acting; and that which was utterly false, ascoming from the one, was demonstratively true as coming from the other. He is, and he is not, omnipotent, and omniscient. He tells a female petitioner, that what she asks is not his to give—and notwithstanding, it is his to give! He can- not do what is requested of him, and yet it is perfectly in his power! What havoc does such a fancy make of the character of him who was full of grace and truth; who always acted with such perfect candour, and who branded hypocrites with his se- verest indignation? Let those who advocate the doctrine abide the consequence. | 24 Such, it seems, is the only way to harmonize. the discordancies of a system which has neither reason nor Scripture for its sup- port. Were Unitarians to bave recourse to any such miserable expedients what a clamour would be raised? What epithets of abuse—what charges of blasphemy would be reverberated through the synods and convocations of orthodoxy ! The dread sounds of heretics —lepers—infidels—atheists—denters of the God that bought them, would be thundered in their ears: and all this for their adherence to the plain and unequivocal language of Scripture ! We understand the Saviours words in the sense which we believe they were intended to:convey, and it would excite our special wonder, were we not accustomed to it, to witness the irreverence and disrespect with which they are treated by the upholders of Trinitarianism. These, seem to make it their uniform practise to contradict the plainest declarations of our Lord, as if they had taken part with the Scribes and Pha- risees of old, and were determined to fix on him the very im- putations which he repelled. When he says, “ My Father is reater than I”—they virtually tell him that he utters a false- hood, for they know well that he is equal to the Father in all respects. When he denies that he knows when the day of judg- ment) will arrive, they affirm that he knows it full well, and only imposes upon them by an equivocation. When he says, ‘Ti is not mine to give,” they exclaim, this is only an ingenious mode of escaping from jmportunity, for though he cannot give in his assumed character, he can give all things in his real one ! When he speaks of himself as of ‘aman who told the truth which he had heard of God,” they say he is a man only in out- ward shew, but in reality the Omnipotent Jehovah ! Thus, with the intention, as in charity we suppose, of exalting the Sa- viour, they heap upon him the greatest dishonour. They make him equivocate, dissemble, and falsity, and impute to him such: a mode of speaking and acting, as they would be ashamed. to impute to any man of common integrity. These enormities Unitarians avoid, by adhering to the plain meaning of Scripture. They feel assured that the Saviour did not equivecate, nor practise any species of deception. They cannot find a single text which leads to such a horrible suspi- cion ; neither are they able to discover any such contradictory views of his character and conduct as would lay them under the riecessity of having recourse to Platonic inventions to reconcile them. They cannot “ entangle him in his talk”—nor refuse to’ him the testimony which was given by his enemies, ‘‘ Master, we know that thou art true, and:teachest. the way of God in truth; neither catest thou for any man, for thou regardest not the person of men.’”’—Mat. xxii. 16. They contemplate our Lord not as: a mysterious and ambiguous being, acting a double part, and paltering with language in a double sense, meaning one thing and expressing another—but as one being, sustaining one & 25 character, a beautiful, harmonious and consistent whole—with- out guile—of spotless purity, and unimpeachable rectitude, whe spoke as inspired’ by the spirit of trath, and acted, in all respects, as became the Son of God, deputed with the high commission to instruct and reform the world; to leave us an example that we should follow his steps, and live and die for ur salvation. . SECTION. FIFTH. The Titles and Epithets given to Christ in the Scriptures, no aera proof of his Deity. Mr. Pope infers the Deity of Christ from certain titles and epithets given to him in the Scriptures: “the expression, Son of God,” says he, “conveyed to the Jewish teachers and people the idea, that the person assuming the title asserted an equality with God.” Where did Mr. Pope learn this? What is the proof? The appellation was too familiar, and too frequently as- cribed to pious men to convey any such idea. Adam is de- nominated the Son of God.—Luke, iii. 38. Israel is the Son of God. Thus saith the Lord, “Israel is my Son, even my first born.”—Exod. iv. 22. David is the Son of God. —Psalm, Ixxxix, 26, 27. - Solomon is the Son of God.— -2 Samuel, vii. 14.1 Chron. xxii. 10. «As many as received him,” says Jobn, (i. 12, 13.) “to them gave he power to be- ‘come the Sons of God, even to them that believe on his name ; ‘which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the fiesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.’’* «Do all things,” says St. Paul, (Philip, ii. 14, 15,) ** without murmurings and disputings ; that ye may be blameless and harmless, the Sons of God, without rebuke.” And again, “ As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the Sons of God.” All Christians are not only Sons but “ Heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.’—Rom. vit. 14, 17. That the title was pre-eminently due to the Blessed Saviour, is cheerfully admitted—but it was his own assumption of it, it ‘seems, that caused the Jews to understand it in a peculiar sense. Entertaining, as they did, such exalted notions of the Supreme Jehovah, it is utterly incredible that they had annexed to the title “Son of God,” any such idea as that he who claimed it, asserted an equality with him, in the unlimited sense contended for by Mr. Pope—nor will the account of the transaction on which he founds his opinion, yield it any valid support.—-Let us examine. While Jesus was walking, in Solomon’s porch, the Ue “ * “Can you produce a stronger or more explicit declaration of the di- vine generation of Christ than this is, taken literally, of the divine genera-~ tion of believers? { am ,convinced you cannot, and yet they were not divine persons.” ‘ The Apostle John an Unitarian.” Rigen” ”y dD 96 Jews came and asked him, to declare explicitly if he were the Christ 2. Our Lord answered, that he had told them before,— referred them, as he had referred the messengers from John the Baptist, to his miraculous works, accounted. for their unbelief, and declared of his own- sheep, that he will give them eternal life. «They shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” Why? Because, “ My Father which GAVE them me is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.” God’s omnipotence is the guarantee of my possession. “I and my Father are one ;’— John x. 30. & one thing,* not one intelligent being; one, not in essence, for to this there is not the slightest allusion, but one as to the particular point menticned; unanimous as to the se-~ curity and salvation of the disciples —When he had ended his discourse, the Jews took up stones to stone him, not merely for uttering the words, ‘J and my Father are one,’ for to the Jews they conveyed no idea of Christ’s. claiming substantial identity with God—nor had any man yet been so absurd as to draw from a declaration of unity of purpose, a declaration of unity of es- sence—but as they themselves affirmed for “ blasphemy,” ge- nerally ; and specifically, because ‘thou being a man makes$ thyself God.” (Elohim.+) By making himself God, they meant Pe As Lick SM Se So ee Se re ee ee erat stat re ee? ee CL ee * Newcome. Campbell. Cappe.° Une seule chose—Le Clere. Une meme chose.—Port Royal, Simon & Saci. See Slichtingius & Wolzogenius in loc. “They did not understand verse 50, of an essential union, or of any ‘union implying equality, for if they had, it would have been a far more plau- sible foundation for the accusation than that which they seleeted.”’—Fox. The meaning is fully developed in John c. xvii. v. 20, 23, * Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me, through their word ; that they all may be ONE gy, as thou, Father, art in me, and Lin thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou ‘hast sentme. And the glory which thou gavest me, I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one, I in them and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved THEM, as thou hast loved me. “ T have planted,’” says Paul, 1 Cor. iii. 6, 8.“ Apollos watered. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one” —“ The muititude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.’-—Acts, iv. 82. We being many are one bread and one body ; for we are all partakers of that one body.”""—1 Cor. x. 17. ‘Admitting the much disputed text, 1 Jolm v. 7. ef the three heavenly wit- nesses to be genuine, it must be interpreted in a similar sense. + The holy angels are styled Gods. ‘¢ Thou hast made him a little lower Me-clohim than the Gods.”—Ps. viii. 5. _. Also judges and rulers. ‘* Thou shalt not revile the Gods,”’—(or judges and rulers.)—Exod. xxii. 28. ‘ God standeth iu the Congregation of the Mighty, he judgeth among the Gods, I have said, ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High.” — Psalm, Ixxxii. 1, 6. See also ‘Exod. xxi. 6. : . ol a iF _ The ambassadors and prophets of God were also called Gods. ‘* And the Lord said unto Moses, see, I have made thee Elokim, a God to Pha- yaoh,”’*=-Exod, yii. 1, * Thou shalt be to him instead of God.”’—iy.. 16, 27 tbat he had “assumed a divine authority without warrant?’ *-— not that he had pretended to be the infinite Jehovah. _Even his calumniators would have been ashamed ef having such a mean- ing fixed en their expressions. Bat that their meaning was what has been just stated, and that the Saviour understood them in that sense, is clear as demonstration, from his reply. He founds it on an argument taken from their own Scriptures, and shews that if be had made himself God, er Elohim, in the sense in which that term was applied to Moses, and the Jewish prophets, judges, and legislaters, he would have been perfectly justifiable, for he spoke and acted by a warrant ef divine autho- rity as well as they. “Is it not written in your law,”’ said he, *«* Ye are Gods? (Eiohim.) If he called them Gods (Elohim,) to whom the word ef God came, (and the Scriptures cannot ‘be breken,) say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and SENT into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said, | am” — What? net that Iam God (Elohim) but “the Son of God? Hence, it is apparent that it was on his assumption of this title that they greunded their charge ef blasphemy; and net on his thhaving made any pretensions te the name and character of Je- hovah. He then proceeds to justify his claims te the title which he did assume, and preposes an infallible test by which a judg- ment might be formed of their validity. “If I do not the works of my Fether believe me not. Butif I do, though ye believe mot me, believe the works, that ye may know, and believe, that the Father isin me, and I in him.”+ Asto the Jews confounding the Son with the Father, and supposing that Christ’s assumption of the former name, im- plied an assemptien of the name and honours of Jehovah, and an identity of essence, it is totally devoid of scriptural evidence. dn the passege which has just been under consideration, it ap- pears that Christ, so far from adopting even the appellative name of Liohim, much less that of Jehovah, designates himself by the inferier title of Son; a title which no Jew could ever be so preposterous as to identify with that ef Father. _. The Jews, en another eccasion, understeod Christ as making himself equal with God. Let us consider this. - Our Lord had performed 2 miraculous cure on the sabbath- day. This the Jews resented.as a violation of the fourth com~ mandment, and seught to slay him. Jesus seeing their intended violence, justified what he had done, by pleading divine authority, saying, ‘ My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,’ —John, v. 17, My Father conducts the beneficent operations of his providence on the sabbath, as well as on other days, and I, by his special au- * Cappe. + “ Compare John xiv. 10, 11; where this union is said to consist in speak- ang the words, and doing the works of the Father,’—Nxwvome. 28 thority do those works of mercy which hé has commissioned ime to perform. This plea only incensed them the more ; and they sought to kill him, because, as they affirmed, ‘he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also, that God was his Father, making himself equal with (like) God.” Now, gentle reader, observe, this is not the sentiment of the Evangelist, but a ca- lumny of the Jews—for Christ neither broke the Sabbath nor claimed equality with the Father.* It was only in their wicked imaginations that he had done either. The — hypocrites who charged «the Lord of the sabbath,” with breaking it, because he had healed an infirm man, had no scruple to take their ox, or their ass, to watering, on that day ; nor had they any objec- tion to exalt themselves above God, by “teaching for doctrines the commandments of nien.’ Notivithstanding their perversity, however, our Lord condescended to answer and repel their calumny. He commenced a Jong address, by a solemn declara- tion, equivalent to a direct positive contradic tion of their asser- tions. ‘“ Verily, verily, Tsay unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.’ The Son ee ginates nothing—so far from claiming equality with the Father, he only follows his example. This he repeats again in the 30th verse, “I can of mine own self do nothing.” Then he speaks of the Father as in every respect his superior. It is the Father who sheweth him all things—that commits all judgment to the Son—that sends him—gives him to have life in himself—gives him authority to execute judgment—assigns to him the task which he has to perform. So far from affording the least ground for the charge that he pretended to be equal with God, he thrice declares, in the same reply, that he was sent by the Father’: ; and that he sought not his own will, but the will of him by whom he was deputed. The Jews, in detiance of their prejudice and malevolence, appear to have been overcome by the force of truth, and tacitly to have admitted that their charge was unten- able; for they made no reply, but suffered him 8 depart un- molested. Let us now, for the sake of argument, admit that the words « making himself equal with God,” contain the sentiment of the Evangelist, as well as of the Jews: What, let us enquire, was the nature, or extent of the equality which, in this case, they may have supposed the Saviour to claim? Was it unlimited, and unqualified? Did it imply that the Son was consubstantial and coeternal with the everlasting Father ? Nothing hke it. No Jew ever maintained so preposterous an idea, nor is there *<< Wee Joannes per mimesin, et ex illorum, non ex sua sententia lo- quitur. Nam reipsa nec sabbatum solvit, nec seipsum Deo equalem fecit.”’ Slichtingius, in log. Calumniam capitalem ei struebant,—Grotius. 89 even the shadow of an argument for it in all the sacred volume, They were exasperated at the Saviour for claiming a peculiar relationship to God, by stiling him sds» his own Father, as if be had excluded them, or deemed them unworthy of being reckoned in the same degree of affinity—and also for assuming a privi- lege to do works of mercy on the sabbath-day, equally as it he had been its institutor. This was the only point of equality or similitude which even they could charge the Saviour with assuming. As for metaphysical ideas about consubstantiality and coeternity, the Jews knew nothing about them—and if they had, our Lord, in the very first sentence of his reply, would have exposed theirfolly. ‘ Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Fa- ther do.”* . The Jews, with all their malevolent and persecuting spirit, never thought that Christ assumed equality with God, in the sense alleged by Trinitarianism. Even when they brought him before Caiaphas, and made the strongest accusation they could, was it that he had pretended to be in all respects equal to the omnipotent Jehovah? No such thing. They accused him of saying, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days:” a figurative way in which he had spoken of his resurrection. Then the high priest adjured him by the living God, to declare whether he were the Son of God? Can any one imagine that in this solemn adjuration, which preserves: the distinction between the living God and the Son, so remarkably, the high priest had any idea that Christ had either assumed, or would assume the character of the Supreme Deity? His object was to ascertain whether he had named himself the Christ or the Messiah; and our Lord, as became him, replied in the affirma- tive. His declaring himself to be the Messiah was deemed blasphemy; not his assumption of the character of Deity, for this he never did assume—nor did the Jews when they brought him before Pilate, urge against him any such accusation. They said, “we have alaw, by which law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” Observe—this charge was made before a heathen,’ whose Polytheistic religion would have led him to consider this as no great offence, and the Jews could not be ignorant: of a fact so notorious. Many among the Romans, were denominated Sons of Gods, by the flattery of poets, and the gratitude of their friends and admirers. Why then did the Jews prefer a charge which had no criminality in the eyes of a Roman, if they could, with any plausibility, bring forward the more grievous accusation of his assuming the character of Su- preme Deity? It is not contended, indeed, that even this would have made any very unfavourable impression on Pilate; but it * « Comparatio est sumpta a discipulo qui magistrum sibi preeuntem dili- genter intuetur, ut imitari possit,’—Grotius. “30 would have exasperated the multitude still more ; and it is cvit- wvary to all experience, to suppose they would omit the greater and insist on the less offence. Their law to which they appealed, was directed against blasphemy in general. ‘He, that blas- phemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death ; and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.’—Ley, xxiv. 16. ‘They had also a law, (Deut. xviii. 20.) for putting a false pro- phet to death; much more, for executing the same sentence on any one making a false claim to the character and office of their Messiah. But they had no law against the specific crime of pretending to be the Almighty Jehovah. They never contem- plated the possibility of such an extravagance, But they thought the assumption of any authority from heaven was blasphemy, and for this they accused him. This accusation failing, they charged him with a political crime, and succeeded. It.is lamentable that any man of Mr. Pope’s talents and learns ing should hazard such an assertion as the following: “If the Redeemer were not God, then did he suffer himself to remain under a charge of blasphemy—then did he, by his words, both incur the guilt of wilfully contributing towards his own cruci- fixion, and justify his murderers in putting him to death as a blasphemer.”’ ‘Whether the Redeemer was God, or not, he did not repel their last charge of blasphemy. He was consistent throughout, in maintaining that he was the character which he was perse- cuted for assuming. But he was not God; for this he most clearly and decidedly denied. He was the Son of God; for this he as decidedly asserted, before the people, before Caiaphas, and before Pilate. The assumption of this title, as claiming a peculiar interest with heaven, and the honour of being the Messiah, was deemed blasphemy by the Jews; and this charge he never refuted. Even so, he did not die the death of a blasphemer, which the law of Moses decreed to be by stoning, but the death of a political malefactor, by crucifixion, on a false charge of sedition, and by the sentence of a Roman governor. Even when he hung on the cross, and his enemies gave vent to the full torrent of their reproaches, and upbraided him with all the offences, of which, in justification of their own cruelty, they wished to make him appear guilty, that of having assumed the name and character of Jehovah was not among them. Mr. Pope thinks that the name EMMANUEL, which signifies God with us, proves the Supreme Deity of Christ. The passage in Mat. i. 23, is this:—‘ Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is, God with us.’’ Bishop Lowth says, that these words did not primarily apply to Christ ; and Rammohun Roy has clearly shewn that they were applied by Isaiah, vii. 14,—“to Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, figuratively de- signated as the son of The Virgin, the daughter of Zion, to wit, 3] Jerusalem, foretold by the prophet, as the deliverer of the city from the hands of its enemies, though its utter destruction was then threatened by the kings of Syria and Israel. Orthodox writers, in the interpretation of the text in Isaiah,” observes the same learned author, “have entirely disregarded the original Serip- ture, the context, and the historical facts.” It should be ren- dered not “a virgin,” but THE virgin, viz: “ The virgin daughter of Zion, the city of Jerusalem, ts pregnant, and is bearing a Son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.”? In accordance with this version, it is translated by Bishop Lowth, with the definite article, and in the present tense, thus, ‘Behold, rue Virgin conceiveth and beareth a Son.” The prophets, in their figu- rative language, often call Jerusalem, the Daughter of Zion, and the Virgin*—thus, Isaiah, xxxvii. 22:— The virgin, the Daughter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the Daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee.”—Thus, Jeremiah, xiv. 17. “Let mine eyes run down with tears night and day, and let them not cease; for the virgin daughter of my people is broken with a great breach.” And again, xvill. 13, “Thus saith Jehovah, * * The virgin of Israel hath done a very horrible thing.”—Amos, v. 2. The virgin of Israel is fallen. She shall no more rise; she is for- saken upon her land;. there is none to raise her up.” . The original word virgin, in the passage under consideration, has before it the emphatic or definite particle 7, ha, which incon- testibly fixes its meaning: and it can be shewn by numerous in- stances, that the word tn, harah, rendered in our translation shall conceive, should be is with child. “'Tamar hath played the hatlot, and she is (harah) with child.”—Gen. xxxvili. 24. «And the angel of the Lord said unto her, (Hagar) behold, thou art (harah) with child.”’—Gen. xvi. 11. “If men. strive and burt a woman with child,’ (harah) Exod. xxi. 22. The Evangelist Matthew, quotes Isaiah, not from the original He- brew, but from the Septuagint translation, which is here incorrect. But it answers his purpose, which is merely to apply it by way of accommodation+ to Christ—‘‘the son of Ahaz and the Sa- viour resembling each other, in each being. the means, at differ- TiFirote Wt Jake ti Sh one CBPEk EI! SRG A SUE TID Tien lt etal TO a ae * It is also called ‘ barren,’’—Isaiah, liv. 1. “a captive Daughter,”— lii, 2—and a “ Harlot,”—Ezek, xvi. 35. : , T “ Accommodations are passages of the Old Testament which are adapted by writers of the New Testament, to an occurrence that happened in their time, on account of correspondence and similitude. These are: not pro- phecies, though they are sometimes said to be fulfilled ; for any thing may be said to be fulfilled: when it can be pertinently applied. ‘This method of explaining Scripture by accommodation, will enable us to solve some of the greatest difficulties relating to the prophecies,’’—Horne’s Introduction to the critical study of the Scriptures. Vol. 11. p. 438 32 eit periods, though in different senses, of establishing the throne of the house of David.’’* ath ta All this, indeed, must appear most evident to any one who will take the trouble of turning to the seventh chapter of Isaiah, and examining the subject with candour. Ahaz, king of Judah, be- ing thrown into consternation by the confederated arms of Rezin, king of Syria, aud Pekah, king of Israel; the prophet comes to promise him safety, and desires him to ask a sign of his ap- proaching deliverance. Ahaz declines this, saying, ‘I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.” Then the prophet replies, the Lord himself shall give you a sign: and repeats. the words al- ready quoted, with this addition: ‘ Butter and honey shall he eat that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest, shall be forsaken of both her kings.” The prophecy as applied to Hezekiah,t the Im- manuel meant by the prophet, is clear and satisfactory. But it is badly rendered in our common translation, ‘There is no mean- ing in saying, “ butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good,” as if knowledge were to be the consequence of such food. That he may know, should be when. he shall know.t At this age he shall eat butter and honey, the emblems of peace and. plenty; for, even before he shall arrive at years of discretion, the land shall be freed of her oppressors. Here was a sign that could be seen and understood. But what “sign,” or consolation would it have been to Ahaz, terrified as he was by the approach of a powerful enemy, and the anticipated loss of his throne and life, to be told that a ° - * Because Rammohun Roy had the honesty to give the above explanation, which is the only one that has sense, and can stand the test of fair criticism, he was accused by the Rev. Editor who opposed him, of having~ blasphemed the word of God. He says, with great innocence, that he did not expect such an accusation from the editor! and to acquit himself of the charge re- fers to the translation of the four Gospels, by Dr. Campbeil, a celebrated Trinitarian writer, in whose notes that learned divine says, ‘* Thus, Mat. ii. 15, a declaration from the prophet Hosea, xi..1, which God made in relation to the people of Israel whom he had long before called from Egypt, is applied by the historian allusively to Jesus Christ, where all that is meant is, that with equal truth, or rather with much greater energy of signification, God might now say, I have recalled my Son out of Egypt. Indeed the import of the Greek phrase (that it might be fulfilled) as commonly used by the sacred writers, isno more, as Le Clere has justly observed, than that such words of any of the prophets may be applied with truth ‘to such an event.” - + Marshman says, the child could not be Hezekiah. But he founds his observation on amis-translation of the Hebrew, and is triumphantly con- futed by Rammohun Roy, who understands Hebrew indeed. It did apply to Hezekiah, not as a child that had yet to be conceived, but as a child with which the virgin city was actually pregnant. + Lowth, 33 Virgin, viz: Mary would conceive and bear a Son, above seven hundred years after he should be gathered to his fathers? - A similar sign was given to the prophet himself, as we read in the next chapter. The prophetess bare a son. “Then said the Lord to me, call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz, (2. e. Haste to the spoil, quick to the prey.*) for before the child shall have knowledge to ery, my Father and my Mother, the riches of Damascus, and the spoil of Samaria, shall be taken away before the king of Assyria,” viii. 3, 4. He then proceeds to say, in the name ot the Lord, that because the people refused the waters of Shiloah, meaning terms of peace, the king of Assyria would come up, as a torrent, against them, and “the stretching eut of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land; O Immanuel,” v. 8. What is meant here? Will any orthodox critic affirm, that the prophet apostrophises Christ? If there be, let him enjoy his fancy—to deprive him of it would be cruel—and he might exclaim with ene of his old classic ac- aquaintances :— j Pol me occidistis, amici, Non: servastis, ait; cui sic extorta voluptas, Et. demptus per vim mentis gratissimus error. Tok. Ah! cruel friends! he cried, Us this to save me? Better far have died, Than thus be robb’d of pleasure-so refined, Lhe dear delusion of a raptured mind. FRANCIS. ‘The word Immanuel occurs again in 10th verse, but there i ts translated “God is with us.” Trinitarians rest great weight on another passage of Isaiah, ix. 6, applied by that prophet to Hezekiah also, ‘Unto usa child is bern—unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulders: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince ef Peace.” «The words Everlasting Father,” says Dr. Clarke, “are very ill rendered ; for it is absurd to say of the Son, that he is the Everlasting Father, the Father of himself. The phrase ought to be translated—the Father, or Lord of the age to come.” This is well, and it might be added, that no prophet could affirm of the Father, meaning God, that he had ever been a-child, or was born. But on what authority, save that of or- thodox divines, are they applied to Christ at all? They may certainly be used as descriptive of the character of him who was so truly the Prince. of Peace—but nothing was farther from the mind of the prophet who wrote them than such a reference. They were applied by him to the same son of Ahaz, whom he names oS eS et RAR OR she's Sal adh bys * Lowth. B 34 Ymmatuel. Such lofty hyperbolical epithets are perfectly in accordance with the style of oriental description, particalarly prophetic and poetical deseription. Moreover it was customary with the Jews to give names to individuals expressive of some ‘event or circumstance of their lives: and such names were fre- quently associated with that of God, in a manner which may excite the surprise of those who have thought the title of Imma- nuel, when applied to Christ, demonstrative of his Deity. Thus Hezekiah signifies “*God my strength.’—Israel, “ Prince of God2’'—Elijah, “God the Lord :” or the strong Lord.— Elisha, é Salvation of God; or, God that saves.”—Jotham, ‘“ Perfection of the Lord.”—Ishmael, “ God who hears.’——Lemucl, ‘“ God with them.” The word Immanuel, therefore, even if it belonged exclusively to Christ, which it did not, yields no support to the cause for which it is adduced as an auxiliary. As to the appellation Jesovah, there is no place in the sacred volume by which it can be clearly shewn that our Lord Jesus Christ was ever so denominated—and even if there were, H- would be no argument for bis Deity; since it is an appellation shared in common by argels, by men, and by places. ‘The angel of the Lord who appeared to Moses it the bush, -is called Je- hovah.—Exod. iii. 2, 3, 4. The sons of Seth ealled themselves by the name of Jehoval.#—-Gen. iv: 26. Abraham named the place where he caught the ram, Jehovah jireh —Gen. xxii. 140 Moses built an altar and called the name of it Jehovah-nisst.— Exod. xvii. 15. Gideon built an altar unto the Lord and called it. Jehovah-shalom.—Jud. vi. 24. ‘The city to be possessed by the tribes of Israel was to be JIchovah-shammal.—Ezek.. x\viit. 35.+ The text Jer. xxiii. 6. “This is his name whereby he shall be called, the Lord (Jeliovah) our righteousness,” is sup- posed, by the orthodox; clearly to establish the Deity of Christ, though in fact it has no more reference to Christ, than to William the Fourth, King of Great Britain and Ireland. Every reader of ordinary intelligence, who will read it in the connexion qwhere it stands, will find that it must apply to some temporal yuler, and not to him whose kingdom is not of this world. ‘The iext states, that he of whom the prophecy is written, ‘¢ shalk reign and prosper, and shall exeeute judgment and justice on the eatthe? Our Lord, on the contzaty, so far from reigning and prospering, was a man of sorrows, who had not where to lay his head. Instead of executing judgment and justice ; he asked the young man who wished him to arbitrate between him and his brother, ‘ who made ine a judge or a divider over you? > —_~ Pera sacelesancalence ieee ee aay Oe TN LY PO Pater - * See Calmet’s Dictionary. = ik Tt is fortunate,” says Rammohun Roy, that some sect has noé hitherto arisen, maintaining the Deity of Jerusalem, or of the altar of Moses, from the authority of the passages just mentioned,” 34 Luke xii. 14,° “Li his days,” says the fext, “Jadah shall be saved, and Isvael shall dwell safely.”’. But so far are these words from applying to Israel in. the days of Christ, that it was then she filled up the measure of her iniquity, and laid a train to the mine which blew her to pieces, The prophecy applies to Zerub- babel; “son of Salathiel, of the royal race of David; to whose care Cyrus committed the sacred’ vessels of the temple when the Jews returned from captivity; why laid the foundations of the temple, and restored the worship of the Lerd, and the usual sacrifices.” The same prophecy is repeated in the 33d chapter, 15, 16 verses of the same prophet—but that part of it, which has attracted most special attention, is not here applied te a man, but to the city of Jerusalem. «This is the name wherewith sue shall be called, Jehovah our righteousness.’ — Dr. Blaney, who has favoured the world with a new and much esteemed translation of Jeremiah, renders ec. xxiii, 6, thas, “This is the name by whieh Jehovah shall call him, our righteousness.’ ‘I doubt not,” says he, in a note, “but . Some persons will be offended with me for depriving them . by this translation,* of a fayourite argument for proving the divinity of our Saviour from the Old Testament. But I cannoé . help it.” Itis tobe wished, that all translators and commentators were under the same kind of moral necessity, and that they could not help publishing the truth in defiance ‘of orthodoxy and the fear of giving offence. Let them fear God,—be valiant for the truth, and not inelude themselves in the condemnation of those false prophets that “speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord—which think to cause my people to forget my, name by their dreams, which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal,”—Jer. xxiii. 16, 27. Since Mr, Pope thinks a name, or title, of so much importance, ° it may be well for him to consider, how many titles are given to the Father which are never applied to the Son. The Father is termed the King eternal, immortal, invisible, incorruptible >. the. only wise, living, and true God; the blessed and glorious Potentate, who only hath immortality; the one who alone is - good. None of all these titles is given to Christ in the Scrip- tures.—Neither is he denominated the High God—the highest— the mighty one—the blessed—the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob—the God of Glory—God who quickeneth, or giveth life—God our Saviour—the Majesty on high—Ascaerys, ’ or Sovereign Lord. Nor is the designation “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” equivalent to the term Jehovah, ever once ascribed to the Lamb, though mentioned so frequently in the “SRF azai aprender reer ered ore sec ae tte “The proper appli¢ation of the prophecy deprives them still more effectually, 36 nook of Revelation. ‘These titles belong exclusively to the Fa- ther, as does also Ievrexperap Almighty. This name is given to the Father alone, not only in Scripture, but in all creeds—for truth will sometimes assert her right, and triumph in spite of alk the inventions of man to suppress or conceal it. One text, Rom. ix. v. 5. ‘Of whom, as concerning the flesh; Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever,’ —Amen ;— is supposed to afford ample proof, that one, at least, of the fore- going titles, is applied to Christ. Bat this is a text which, in the opinion of the most learned critics, admits of a very different interpretation. ‘The ascription, in this solitary instance, of a title to Christ, which is given to him no where else, and which be- longs peculiarly te the Father, naturally leads us to suspect an erroneous reading. Grotius informs us, (Ex Syro) that ancient copies had not the word God—but ran thus, 0 wy sat qwavrar svaoyates which reading, he observes, is more consistent with Paul’s style; for when he speaks of Father and Son together, he terms the former God, and the latter Lord. He farther re- marks that according to Erasmus, this was the reading of the old copies of Cyprian, and that i was followed both by Hilary and Chrysostom. Hence. there is sufficient reason to conclude that there has been some corruption or dislocation of words in: the text; and we are led still more strongly to this conclusion by the subject itself. It seems strange that the Apostle, in enu- merating to the Jews their peculiar privileges, should omit the greatest of all, that of having God himself, in a-speeial manner, for their king, and supreme legislator, the Ged of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. It has aceording}y been suggested that the: transposition of two little words ¢ a» to ov e,* the participle now becoming the genitive plural of a pronoun, the same as that which twice precedes it, will probably restore the original reading ; supply the omission which has been remarked ; complete a noble _ climax agreeable to the Apostle’s style of composition, and cer- tainly add great force and beauty to the passage. It will then read in connexion with the preceding verse, thus: Who are Israelites, of whom was the adoption of Sons, and the glory, and the covenants, and: the institution of the law, and: the service, und the promises. ' Seah act, 5 sae an A aL SN Mai ch hail As a A * Slitchtingius, Whitby, and Taylor, approve of this asa conjectural read- ing. ‘A similar construction oecurs in Callimachus Yyy, ss ATA. 73. See Belsham in loe.—-Dr. Clarke and other learned critics say that the words, as they stand at present, are of ‘‘ ambiguous construction,” and may be rendered, ‘* God, who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen.” Ram- mohun Roy considers it as a pious ejaculation, and observes, that “ it was customary with Jewish writers, to address some abrupt exclamations to God, pee treating of other subjects, and for proof refers us to Psalms Ixxxix. 2. civ. 3d. TNC Lee LiF a | . 3 37 Of whom were the Fathers ; of whom was the Christ according to the flesh; of whom. was God, who is over all, blessed for evermore. Amen. | ** Where,” asks Wakefield, who has given us this version, * shall we find a more striking selection of the principal circum- stances, (one great source of the sublime) or a more just and majestic gradation >What ? Is it possible then, that Paul, him- selt a Jew and proud of his descent, in enumerating the ex- clusive privileges of the Jewish nation, and setting forth the vast superiority, which their Theoeratic polity gave them over the communities of the earth; is it possible, I say, that he should overlook their pre-eminent distinction, the very characteristic of their constitution—that is, the peculiar relation in which they stood to their king Jehovah? He was their God, and they were his people; he was their Father, and they were the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty—Such an omission is equally incredible and unaccountable. | Supposing the original text not to be corrupted, the passage may be rendered thus: ‘¢ God who is over all; or He, who. is God over all, be blessed for ever, Amen. The words 6 evarsynres THE BLESSED are applied so exclusively to the Father, that the High Priest when interrogating our Saviour, did not employ the word God, but said, «Art thou the Christ, the Son of THE Blessed.”-—Mark, xiv. 61. The word blessed is used in praising the Father, or as an epithet peculiarly his own ;—Luke, i. 68.— Rom. i. 25.—2 Cor. i. 3. and xi. 31. Also in Ephes i. 3. and 1 Peter, i. 3. but in not a single instance is it applied to Christ in all the New Testament. In four of the places re- ferred to, the Greek ezzw be is understood—and accordingly our English version has the word be printed in Italics, to indicate that it is supplied. We are led by a principle of fair criticism, to conclude that the last clause of the verse under discussion, sup- posing it to contain the ipsissima verba, the very words which the Apostle wrote, should be translated with the aid of the same supplementary verb. Some critics allege that the Amen at the end of the verse, proves the last clause of it to be a doxology ; similar to that which occurs in the 25th v. of the Ist chap. and elsewhere. Whiston observes truly, that there is no instance of such a doxology to any but God the Father in all Scripture. Hopton Haynes says, that the grammar, and the style, and the sense of the whole New Testament is against the Tritheists in this place; and he might have added, in every other place. Had the words been intended to apply to Christ, they would have been 0; ers instead of 6 wy. Forso the Apostle “uses the re- lative o;.—Rom. i. 25, and three times just before this passage, re- ferring his readers to the Israelites of whom he had been speaking.” But laying aside Greek criticism, though the farther it is pursued, the more it betrays the weakness of the supports on which Trinitarianism leans, let us fora moment, attend to another 38° argument which may be deémed of superior force. It is put to the good sense of the reader to consider, whether it is at all pro- bable that the Apostle in writing to the Jews, endeavouring to overcome their prejudices and reconcile them to the Christian dispensation, would designate as the Supreme Deity, a person who came to them in the flesh, or by natural descent. Would he call a descendant of the house of David—the everlasting Father? —a crucified man—-the ever-blessed God? Even sup posing the doctrine to be as true, as we contend that it is false, is it consonant to his usual mode of introducing an obnoxious subject, to bring it forward in a style that to a Jew would be so offensive ? Is it in such a mode that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews exalts Christ above Moses, and the other angels or inspired messengers of God? So great a master of the art of persuasion would have ‘said nothing about natural descent, had he wished to inculeate a belief that the Messiah was Je= hovah. The very idea would have exasperated the Jews, and crushed the whole structure of the Apostle’s reasoning. As for the usual subterfuge, that Christ had two natures, and that the expression, ‘as concerning the flesh,” intimates this, we might as well be teld that Paul had two natures, since he speaks only two verses before, this, (v. 3.) ofhis own * kinsmen according to the flesh.” But where it is applied, (v. 5.)°to Christ, the xara coexd has the article vo before it, and the use of this, it seems, is to remind us that Christ hada higher nature! Of what prodigious importance are articles to the arcana of the- ology! Dr. Carpenter justly observes, that “the employment of the article here is obviously founded on the fact, that Jesus was of the Israelites as to natural descent only, and that as te spiritual descent he was the Son of God—that he had his com- mission, his doctrine, and his miraculous powers by immediate communication from his God and Father.”* Even admitting the common version to be im all respects, cor- rect, it would not prove the Son consubstantial and coeternal, and possessed of equal power with the Father; for the same Apostle who has written this, tells us elsewhere, 1 Cor. xv. 27, that when he says all things, ux is excepted who did put all things under him. Parkhurst contends against Dr. Clarke, that another ‘of’ the foregoing epithets, viz: Asoxrorus is applied to Christ, and says that the master of the house spoken of in 2 Tim. fi. 21. may * « Those persons manifest little regard to truth and candour who assert that the Unitarians (or Socinians as they are pleased to term us) maintain that Jesus was a mere man. We believe with the Apostle Paul, that as to na- ture, Jesus was a man, descended from Dayid, put that as to the divine communications of knowledge and power which God made to him for purposes the most important, he was the Son of God; and as such we revere his authority, and own his claims upon our implicit and submissive obedience,” —-Dr. Carpenter, 39 wiost naturally be referred to him.—The Lord, or master of any house, was so denominated, and Christ uses the word in con. junction with oss in that sense—Mat. x. 25. But no one is termed Assxorgs, in the supreme and absolute sense, but Jehovah alone. Nor can the author find that our Lord is ever accosted by this title, even in a subordinate sense; for his authority over the disciples was not that of the master of a house over his slaves, but of an instructor over his pupils. When Peter If, Ep. ii. 1. speaks. of “false teachers, bringing in damnable heresies, and denying the Lerd Ast#ornqy that bought them;? - Parkhurst refers us, to learn who he is, to Gal. iii. 19. and to the Hyming Elders in Rev. v. 9. Whitby thinks it most rea. sonable to interpret it of God the Father, and as we profess to adopt what is most reasonable, we do not choose to follow the direction of the learned lexicographer in this matter, especially as he could have referred us to texts much more in point, which would inform us who he is without any ambiguity. We learn from Deut. xxxii. 6. that it was the Everlasting Jehovah whoa bought them. ‘Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise? Is not he thy Father, that hath bought thee?” And from Exod, xv. 16. “that it was Jehovah who purchased his people Israel.” See also Cor. vi. 19, 20. Parkhurst would willingly apply to Christ #ov povey Atoworgy in Jude, 4, “denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” He thinks that the want.of the article zoy before Kugioy shews that Jesus Christ is there styled the only Lord; but he is refuted by Grotius and Woltzogenius ; or, if, says he, with several MSS. we omit the word @sy God, altogether, the application to Christ will be still more evident. No doubt. But since the meaning is perfectly clear, since no good reason can be assigned for any change, since our version of it, as Whitby affirms, “is without any exception,” since it is in perfect harmony with the great doctrine of Scripture, that God alone is Deity supreme, and, above all, since it most clearly marks the distinction which no Christian should ever forget, between the only Lord God, and our Lord Jésus Christ, the Unitarian desires that the text may not be mutilated. Whien any two objects are declared to be in all respects similar and equal, whatever can be predicated of the one, can also be predicated of the other. Their properties, qualities, appearaltices must be all alike, insomuch that no difference can exist betweor them. A single adjunct belonging to the one and and not to the other, destroys their equality. Now let us apply this argu- ment to the question before us. It has been just shewn that certain titles and epithets are given to the Father Almighty, which are never given to the Son. On the other hand, certain titles and epithets are given to the Son, the ascription of which to the Father would confound every believer whose belief does mot- extend as far as that: of the Patripassians, who maintained % 40 that the Father himself suffered on the cross; ox of Gregory Nyssen, who said, that there was ‘a whole Father in a whole Son, anda whole Son in a whole Fatler2? The titles which our Saviour gave himself were Ke9nyyru; guide, director, or teacher.— Kgs; Lord—Asdacxados instructor or master—“a man that hath told you the truth.’—John, viii. 40. The Son of God, and the Son of man. — The last is the appellation by which he de- signates himself when speaking of kis coming in all his glory, with the celestial hierarchies, to judge the world. See Mat. xvi. 27, and xxvi. 64. None of these titles is ever given to the Fa- ther. Itcannot be predicated of him that he is the Son, the Son of man, nor the Son of God, nor the receiver, nor the sent, nor the well-beloved, nor the only begotten, nor he thatis in the bosom of the Father, nor the great Prophet, nor. he which was dead and is alive, nor the sanctified and ordained, nor a high- priest in things pertaining to God, nor a mediator, nor an inter= cessor, nor the Messiah, the anointed, or the Christ. Ged does all things by his own sovereign will—his own undivided autho- rity. Christ does nothing but in obedience to the will of him who sent him. With what consistency then, can it possibly be maintained that those two Beings are one and the same, whose attributes and offices are so exceedingly distinct, and whose grand characteristics are so far from being reciprocal, that the very idea of ascribing to the one, those. which belong to the other, puts reason to the blush, and «shocks all common sense rid SECTION SIXTH. No proof of the Deity of Christ to be found in the Epistle to the Philippians. Few texts are quoted more frequently in support of Christ's imagined equality to God, and consequently subjected to the ordeal of more rigorous criticisra than Philip, ii. 6. “« Who being in the Sorm of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with Go “oe a verse which rightly translated and properly understood, has a meaning totally different from that assigned to it by Trinitarians. The Apostle’s object is to inculcate humility and benevolence by the example of Jesus. “* Let nothing, says he, be done through strife or vain glory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus : who being in the form of God, thought it net robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled him- self, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”” The tritheists contend that the phrase, being in the Jorm of God, means being really and essentially Jehovah! They might 4l With equal good sense and meaning contend, that when the Prophet describes the carpenter with his rule and line, his plane and compasses, shaping a piece of timber, “after the figure of a man, according to the beauty ofa man,” he makes a real human being: or that when the Apostle declares of some hypocrites, that they have the “form of godliness,” he means the sub» Stance of all piety and virtue, though he adds in the next clause, “denying the power thereof.” In no other connexion, would they betray such a total disregard to sense as to confound the sha- dow with the substance, or the reflection with the object that re~ flects. But the word “ being,” varaevay, they affirm, implies that Christ was, by his original nature, in the form of God. Before they rest in this conclusion, let them answer Dr. Car= penter’s question, “Did the Apostle mean to represent himself as, by his original nature, ‘ zealous towards God,’ when he says, (Acts xxii. 3.) Cnrarns uraexayv tov Osov? To what hollow and miserable expedients are they obliged to have recourse? As to the word weg?_ form, Parkhurst renders it owéward appearance ; and he has the honesty to say that, in his apprehension, it does not in this place refer to Christ being real and essential Jehovah. To what then does it refer? Not as the sturdy tritheist afirms, to essence ; nor as the anthropomorphist might, with equal veason, affirm, to outward shape ; but to his divinely delegated powers, in the exercise of which, for the benefit of others, he manifested a disposition truly godlike. Being in the form of God no more implies that he was really God, than being in the form of a slave implies that he was really a slave. The one phrase is opposed to the other, and each means that Christ was in a certain state of similitude. In the power and authority with which he was invested by his heavenly Father, and in the mode in which he employed them for the temporal and eternal good of mankind, he bore a striking resemblance to the Deity.* In his simple and precarious mode of life, in his deprivations and _ sufferings, he resembled one in the condition of a slave. Had he been so disposed, he might have reigned as a king, and, triumphed as a God. But such was his humility, that he did not assuine even the name Elohim, though so much better entitled to that ap- pellation than Moses and all the other Jewish legislators to whom it was given. He had none of that pride of heart which led the Babylonian potentate to boast, «I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I willbe like the Most High.” He thought his similitude to God, his o vcs woe Siw, a phrase evidently pa- * It was the belief of a heathen philosopher, that in no respect could men approach so near to the Gods, as in giving health to the sick. Neque enim ulla alia re homines proprius ad Deos accedunt, quam salutem homi- nibus dando. Cic.—How closely to God then did he approximate, who went about doing good, and healing all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease among the people ? EF 42 rallel to peop, was no prey (mgxaypcov)* or spoil, like the booty taken in war, a prize won and seized by his own right hand, but a gift or trust committed to him by the giver of all. So far, therefore, from making an ostentatious display of his similitude to God, much less of claiming equality with Jehovah, he emp- tied or divested himself, on numerous occasions, of the use of the power which he possessed, and rejected the honours which were proposed to him, and which he might have justly claimed and enjoyed; declaring that he came not to seek his own glory, but the glory of him by whom he was deputed. In- stead of accepting the kingdoms of the world, which were offered to him by the Tempter—-or oceupying the throne of David, when the people would have made him their kng— or calling down twelve legions of angels to destroy his enemies— or retaining that bright resemblance to an inhabitant of heaven, in which he appeared at his transfiguration,—he lived a life of poverty, “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” He humbled himself from the similitude of a God to the similitude of a slave—and in this station ministered unto his disciples, even unto the washing of their feet—being among them as one that serveth. Nay, more—he was made—or, more simply, being, eysvoee'os, in the likeness of men, evteoray of common men—and being found, i.e. being, in fashion, or in external guise and condition as an ordinary} man, and ‘“ with all the contingencies of human nature,” for he was, in all points, tempted like as we are, yet Pe ee a eT COE Sy OE UT ne ne a * The word copararypeoy is of rare Occurrence in classical authors. Grotius: says it is a Syriac phrase, and he quotes a Syriac litany, in which John the Baptist objects to baptize Christ, saying in Syriac, as translated by Grotius, non assumam rapinam, I will not take the spoil, meaning, I will not be guilty of such a predatory, or robber-like act, as to assume the honour of bap- tizing one so much my superior, “ Christ glorified not himself to be made an high-priest,”"— Heb. v. 5, is an expression of similar import. He received the appointment to that office as an honour, not as a right or spoil, quasi honori, non prede.”—Sariust. Non habuit prede loco simi- Jitudinem cum Deo. h. e, non ea, qua poterat uti majestate divina, cupide autendum esse existimavit ; seu, non semper eam fecit conspicuam, interdum ab- stinuit ab ea.——Scutzusner. How the words were understood by early writers may be learned from the 5th book and 2nd. chap. of the Church History of Eusebius, ‘‘ The ancient fathers, both Latin and Greek,” says Whiston, ‘never interpret Phil. ii. 6, to mean an equality of the Son to the Father—Novatian says, “he, therefore, though he was in the form of God, did not make himself equal to God, (non est rapinam arbitratus “equalem se deo esse, ) for though he yemembered he was God of God the Fa- ther, he never compared himself to God the Father, being mindful that he was of his Father, and that he had this because his Father gave it him.” ‘Suppose the equality contended for, established, it would make two dis- tinct independent beings, for equality is not identity. See Priestley’s Cor- ruptions of Christianity. + The candid Dr. Price objects to the application of the epithet ordinary, But surely he could not require to be told that cov gems does mean a com- mon or ordinary man, and that it is so used in the Septuagint and contrasted. 43 without sin, he submitted to the most cruel and humiliating in- dignities, to be tried asa perverter of the people, to be mocked, buifetted, scourged, spat upon, and, finally, he became obedient to the servile and ignominious death of the cross. What constitution of mind does it require to believe that all this is predicated, by an inspired Apostle, of the ever-living, ever-blessed, Omnipotent Jehovah? Wherefore do they who hold such a belief, speak with pity or contempt of those who believe in the incarnations of Bramah and Vishnu ? ‘**Q judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason.” The Apostle having shewn the great humility and cende- scension of our Lord, next proceeds to shew how those virtues were rewarded. ‘ Wherefore,” says he, ¢.e, in consequence of his great humility and obedience, God also hath highly, or ex- ceedingly, exalted him, and given him, or kindly bestowed upon him, a name which is above every name, that at (eg in) the name of Jesus every knee should bow *** and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, ¢o the glory of God the Father. This is a most beautiful and affecting lesson on humility, and an admirable illustration of the truth of our Lord’s doctrine, that he who humbleth himself shall be exalted. The meaning is perspicuous throughout, and in perfect conformity with the Apostle’s design. But if we understand the passage, in the Trinitarian sense, we shall find that it perverts his meaning, contradicts his design, and turns the whole passage into absolute nonsense. Let us see. “ Who being in the form of God,” 7. e. as Trinitarians understand the expression, being the Supreme God; did not think it any act of rapine or robbery to be equal with the Supreme God ! Christ, being Jehovah, deemed it his fair, legitimate, and unquestionable, right, to place himself on a perfect equality with Jehovah !—From this mode of interpretation, it would appear that the Apostle was exhorting the Philippians SUN ie ahr ad ert ee nT with cere. In Isaiah, ii. 9. aevtearres, TN, denotes « mean man, and yng, WIN, @ man of elevated rank, ‘‘and the mean man, (cevSeazros) bowed down, and the great man humbled himself” stamevady cevne. See Schleusner, and Dr. Carpenter’s “ Uniturianism the Doctrine of the Gospel.” The very argument of the Apostle required that he should speak of Christ as aevdearros and not as ane. * It is natural,” says Dr. Price, “ to ask here, when did Christ divest himself of the power of working miracles. The gospel history tells us, he retained it to the laste? But who affirms that he divested himself of the power 2 The humility of Christ appeared in refraining from the exercise of the power which he did possess. Had he not possessed, and had he not retained the power, it would be absurd to propose him as an example of humility. I can find nothing in the whole passage that either requires or indicates the truth of the Arian hypothesis, 44 not to be humble, but ambitious! Bur thinking such equality no robbery, he made himself of no reputation. Here the dis- junctive particle dut expresses no opposition, though both the meaning and expression are highly antithetical.* Christ being the Supreme God, emptied himself of his glory, and was made ‘in the likeness of men, and in consequence of his incarnation, | abasement and crucifixion exalted him the Supreme God, viz: himself, and gave him a name, which is above every name; that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ who is the Su- preme God, is Lord, that is the Supreme God, to the glory of God the Father, that is of the same Supreme God!} — Assuredly no one who will lay aside human systems ‘of theo- logy, and suffer himself to be guided by a single spark of reason; can suppose the Apostle capable of expressing aught that leads to such incomparable absurdity. In vain do the Tritheists en- deavour to give a consistent explanation of the passage on their principles, though they torture language and eall to their aid the new unscriptural revelation of the two natures. What idea have they of the “High and lofty one that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is holy,” that he can make himself of no reputation or divest himself of his glory? The thing is impossible. We might as well suppose he could cease to exist. ‘I, saith the Lord of hosts, am Jehovah—I change not.’—Mal. iii. 6. *¢ To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal saith the holy onr.’—Is, xl. 25. “I am Jehovah, and there is none else; there is no God besides me.’—Is. xlv. 5. Again, it is stated of Christ, that in consequence of his obedience, ‘God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name.” How can this_be predi- cated of the Omnipotent? To whom is he who rules in the ee ee * Slanintuag that. Christ possessed the Diviae: attri bute of Omnipresence or Omaniscience. ee That the infinite, self-existent Jehovah, whose presence. fills the boundless universe, became incarnate in the person ofa man, and lived upwards of thirty years in the condition of an humble Galilean, till he allowed himself to:be crucified as a malefactor, and ascended into heaven in the same corporeal form in which as aman, he, the ever-blessed, ever-living God, had ‘suffered and expired—this is, indeed, a doctrine so tr emendously stupendous, that we’ are at some loss to: conceive by what omnipotent force, of evidence its credibility could’ be established. With more: facility could ‘we imagine the whole unfathomable ocean to: be; contained: in’ a lady’s. thimble, or all the: orbs which ‘compose, the solar system. revolving: in the tiny sphere’ of a. nut:shell—. Did revelation propose for our adoption, any doctrine so marvel-. lous, we should: ‘naturally expect with it some proof,: or positive assertion, at least, of its truth, especially ‘as it! * teaches us, at, 63 considerable length, and with great variety of proofs and iffus- trations, doctrines ‘much less difficult: of credence. But it would seem that the belief of our Athanasian worthies, is ala ‘ways in the inverse ratio of the evidence; and when a dectrine becomes altogether absurd and impossible, to adopt and believe it, is the most sublime exercise of their faith ! | eteiy What is the proof that Christ was Omnipresent? As usual, we. discover that it is inferred. And from what? From a - text and ahalf of Matthew! viz. “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am Tin the midst of them.’’ xviii. 20. ; “ And, lo, I'am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” XXVvili, 20, . - To understand these texts literally involves one of two great errors, either. that Christ did not ascend to heaven,. but still remains on earth; or that he descends from heaven really and corporally, whenever two or three are gathered together in his name. Moreover, it contains a virtual denial, that in heaven his dwelling-place, he presides over his church and people, with such power and efficacy as. take away the necessity of personal manifestations, and gives up one of the strongest arguments against the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, a conces- sion for which the infallible church would, no doubt, be grateful. ) | | Orthodox commentators on the former text, give an empha- tic sense to Am J, and affirm that it refers to Christ’s divine presence at all times and in all places. A short time ‘ago, they referred “Z Am,’’ to his selfsexistence, and we shall not be surprised if we find them referring it again to any of the other attributes. When we object that it would be super- fluous for Christ te say, that he would be present with “two or three,” if by the very necessity of his nature, ‘he must be present at. all times, and on all occasions, not with his disciples only, but with Jews and Gentiles; we are told, in contradiction: to the preceding orthodox statement, that the words refer, not. to his general, but his special presence, the particular object of which is to intercede for them to the Father! : But, in fact, our Lord makes no claim to personal or essential ubiquity... Some modern critics have concurred with Chrysostom, and other ancient Fathers, in thinking that the words were li- mited in their application to the Apostles, and had a special reference to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were to be com- municated. to them after our Lord’s. departure. They | are, however, capable of a more extensise application, and they seem _ to convey an important truth to the disciples of all ages. Our Lord, had been speaking of offences and of the conduct to be observed towards an offending brother—he is thence led ‘to make unanimity a condition of their success in prayers “If two of you shall agree on earth, as touching any thing they ‘64 shalkask, it shall be-done -for them ef my Father which. is in heaven.” The reason of this promise is annexed. |.“ For where two orthree are«gathered together in my mame, (or; as my ge- muine disciples,) there -am J,”. not personally, not essentially ; the disciples were not so absurd as. to understand him in either sense, but virtually—in that harmony, union, and Christian spirit, which characterise. their conduct and dictate, their . petitions. _ Their prayers ascend accepted to the throne, and you may confidently trust, that what they ask shall be done for them of my Father, as surely as if I. myself were the petitioner,* and present inthe midst of them. e panty Here the courteous reader is requested to enquire how. were the words understood by the Apostles? How did Peter, in particular, understand them ? . Peter was:a man of ardent tem- perament, all alive to every. thing novel and surprising. Here then was something to excite the admiration of the most phleg- matic mind, if it was what: Trinitarians represent it ;- but Peter, - instead» of betraying the least emotion, or appearing to suspect » that he-stood face to face before the -Omnipresent God, in’the “person of his master, an idea that would have confounded and ‘overwhelmed: him, cooly draws nearer: to Christ, to ask a ques- tion relative to the subject on which he had been discoursing.. . In the text Matt. xxviii. 20. instead of end of the world, we should read end, or consummation of the age, viz. of the Jewish dispensation, which terminated with the destruction of the tem- ple. Until that period, Christ was present with his Apostles, in the special manner of which he gave them intimation when he declared that he would not’ leave them comfortiess, but that he would come to them again.’ ‘ These things’ have I spoken ‘unto you,” said he, ‘being yet present with you,” intimating that he was about to be absent from them ;: and to console'them, added, “the Comforter, which is the Holy: Spirit,, whem the «Father will send i my name, he shall teach you all: things, and: brig all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”” After his ascension into heaven, he came to them no more personally ; but the influence of the Holy Spirit which in- spired them to preach, and enabled them to work miracles, sup- plied his place, and ratified his promise. He who could pray to the Father, with a certainty of being heard, for twelve. legions of angels, might well promise to be wiih his disciples, or to * Adesse alicui dicitur qui ei favet, auxiliumque prabet. We who favours and assists another, is said to be present with him. Grotius; who makes this observation, says, that our Lord’s declaration is very similar to a saying of the Jews, “ Where two sit discoursing concerning the law, the Shekinah, or symbol of the divine presence, is among them.’”’ A metaphorical mode of expressing the approbation with which they were regarded by heaven, when engaged in such pious topics of conversation. ; , 65 impart to them all needful aid, without laying claim te that ~Omnipresence, which is an attribute of the Supreme Deity alone. eit rk -w ) Christ may stili be said te be virtually present in every assem- ‘bly congregated for Christian devotion. In sooth, he is present “by his ministers, says Calvin: revera adest per suos sinistros. But he is present only on the condition that they assemble ix ‘his name, with motives, objects, hopes, and wishes al! in unison ‘with the spirit of Christianity. For “¢fany man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his.—Rem, viii. 9. With bim Christ ts not present, Nor can any one who does not participate in the same exalted views of the Father of all, and the same phi- Janthropic affections, which appeared in the thoughts, and wrought in the actions of ovr blessed Lord, be a true «disciple, though his professions be eloquent as if they flowed from ‘the tongue of an angel, and his faith so ardent that it weuld lead him ‘ to give his bedy te be burned.” “When Abrakam replied to the rich man, Luke, xvi. 29. “‘ They have Moses and the Prophets; Jet them hear them.” Did he mean to affirm that they were omnipresent ? ;: - Or did the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews intend any similar intimation of Abel, when he wrote that by faith, he, “being dead, yet speaketh ?”—Heb. xi. 4. | ~ Would Paul have us to understand that he was possessed of ubiquity, when he wrote to the Corinthians? I, v. 3, “I, ve- tily, as absent in body, but present in Spirit, have judged al- ready, as though 1 were present.” Or when he wrote to the Colossians? ii. 5. “Though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the Spirit, joying and beholding your order and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.’ | ah Ud How do the Scriptures speak of the emnipresence: of «the Deity ? Do they impart a knowledge of it in a few doubtful expressions ? are we obliged to take one or two clauses of a text, and stretch them on a theological rack, to extort from them a confession, false as it is reluctant? Ne. But they announce to us the truth which they have to impart, voluntarily, and with a clearness, a copiousness, and a decision worthy of a revelation from the Most High. They speak with a sublimity that sur- passes the conception of the uninspired, and, at the same time, with a simplicity that is understood by children. Hear So- LOMON, _ “ Will God, indeed, dwell on the earth? Beold, the heaven, and heayen of heavens cannot contain thee.”’ 1 Kings, vill. 27, bans Or Jenemian, xxiii. 23, 24. Am Ta Ged at hand, saith Jenovan, And not a God afar off? Can any one hide himself in secret places So that I shall not see him? saith Jzenovan, I 66 The heavens and the earth Yo not I fill? saith Jenovan.* Or Amos, ix. 2: If they dig down to the grave, » “Thence shall mine hand take them : If they climb up to heaven, Thence will I bring them down.} Or Davin, Ps. cxxxix. 7, 12: ‘Whither can I go from thy spirit, Or whither can I flee from thy presence ? Tf I climb the heavens thou art there ; Tf I make a bed of the abyss, behold thou art there also; If I lift my wings towards the morning, . Or dwell beyond the bounds of the sea, Even there shall thy hand lead me, And thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, surely darkness will cover me; Even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee, But the night shineth as the day ; As is the darkness, so is the light.’’} - Such is the lofty and glowing style in which the Scriptures speak of the Omnipresence of Jehovah. The traths here re- vealed are readily admitted by the mind of man, for they cor- respond. with all that reason, in her most sublime livestigations, teaches. If affirmed of any other being whatsoever, we should expect them to be taught not only with equal, but with superior force and perspicuity. But where is our Lord spoken of in a style which has any parallel to the passages quoted? = Instead of receiving the evidence required of a doctrine so stupendous, we are referred to the fragment of a text, which not only ad- mits, but demands, an interpretation that affords no support: to the doctrine. ay As to the question of our Lord's Omniscrence, it has been already settled by himself with all the clearness which any reasonable enquirer can wish. He informed the disciples after iis resurrection, that “the times and the seasons, the Father hath put in his own power.”— Acts, 1.7. Meaning by the times and seasons, as the context shews, a knowledge of futurity. | On another occasion, as we have already seen, (p. 20—note,) he declared that he knew not when the day of judgment would arrive; and this single declaration furnishes an: unanswerable argument, which every suckling in the knowledge of Divine~ truth, may wield to the utter confusion of all the sophistry that — would invest the Saviour with omniscience. And here we cannot refrain from once more expressing our wonder at the » Blayney’s translation. + Newcome’s translation. } Dy, Young’s translation. 67 ilisrespect with which the disciples of Athanasius treat the Janguage and the character of the Saviour, by their irreverent contradiction of his words, and_ their unrighteous attempts, abortive as they are unscriptural, to rob Jehovah of his glory, by ascribing to another, those attributes which belong to him- self alone, To prove their contradiction of the Saviour well- founded, ‘in the present instance, they quote Jeremiah, xvii. 9, 10, where Jehovah is represented as saying, ‘The heart is de- ceitful above all things, and desperately wicked ; who can know ?* I, Jehovah, search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.’ Then they find in the Apocalypse, ii. 23, Christ represented as saying, “all the churches shali know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.” These passages, they affirm, directly identify the Saviour with the heart-searching God. — Such is another striking instance of the summary mode in which orthodoxy rushes to her conclusidns. It is quite enough that the same thing be affirmed of two beings to constitute their identity, though their characters and offices are perfectly distinct. God searches the heart, and Christ searches the heart, therefore, they are the same! But every examinator, in’a jadicial capacity, searches the heart of the accused ; and though no eye, but the eye of God supreme, can perfectly see the secret workings of the human heart, there are many to whom he has given such faculties of discernment that they can detect the springs of action, through the thickest veil of hypecrisy. Some of the prophets were thus remarkably endowed. Abyah knew the thoughts’ of Jerobioam’s wife.—] Kings, xiv. 5, 6. Went not the heart of Elisha with Gehazito detect his falsehood and avarice 2 and did he not tell the king of Israel the words spoken in the bed-chamber of the king of Assyria ?—2 Kings, v.25, 26, vi. 12. When the prophet fixed his countenance stedfastly on Hazael, he read not only what was: passing in his soul, but the long catalogue of crimes which he was about to commit, viii. 11, 12. Daniel knew, by experience, that there is a God in heaven that’ revealeth secrets, when he told the thoughts that came into the mind of Nebuchadnezzar on his bed.—Dan. ii. 28, 29. Peter also knew the thoughts of Ananias and Sapphira, when he convicted them of lying not unto men, but unto God.— Acts, v. 4. The - knowledge of men’s thoughts possessed by the Prophets and rape lS ee Ra ence a ame a itt ps * The heart is wily above all things ; It is even past all hope ; who can know it ?——Briayney. This is a favourite text with the Calvinists, by whom it is grossly mise. understood and misapplied to support their infernal doctrine of man’s total and innate depravity. OS Apostles, was communicated to them by the Almighty; and so was that possessed by Christ as guardian of the churches, and the judge of mankind. It is expressly declared, at the beginning of the book of Revelation, that it is ‘the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God Gave unto him,” and this is quite sufficient to overturn all the arguments that are found im any part of it, in support of the grand orthodex fiction. It is added that i6 was given him “to shew his servants things which must shortly come to pass.” This, therefore, as Lindsey observes, “limits his knowledge to the particular subjects specified in. the book. When he says that he searches the hearts, he alludes particu~ larly to the faculty he had received of deteeting, in the church of Thyatira, the concealed principles and misdeeds of certain false teachers, whom he designates by the appellation of Je~ zebel, who corrupted Israel by her lewd and idolatrous prac-. tices.”**—The same person who says, “I am he that searcheth,” says also in the first chapter, 18v. “I am he that liveth and was DEAD.” But who dares to affirm this of the living Ged, though this is the conclusion which those who identify him whe searches the heart, in Rev. ii. 23, with Jehovah, can by no pos- sibility evade ? Again, we are told that Christ must be omniscient, for Peter « sail unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things.” But the evan- gelist who records this, applies the very same expression to alk faithful disciples, “ Ye have an unctien from the Holy One, and ye know all things.” —\ Ep. i. 20. Are all faithfal disci- ples therefore, omniscient? Did the woman of Tekoah beheve, or mean to affirm, that David was omniscient, when admiring his penetration, she said, “my Lord is wise according to the wisdom of an angel of God, toknow all things that are in the earth,”—2 Sam. xiv. 20. The Jews were not so extravagant as to take in a literal sense, the hyperbolical language of sur- prise and admiration. They thought their prophets might pos- sess a high degree of supernatural knowledge without ceasing to be men, or being invested with the attributes of Jehovah. Thus when the woman who was a sinner, washed the Saviour’s feet with her tears, the Pharisee said; within himself, ‘this man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what man- ner of woman this is that toucheth him.”—Luke, vii. 39. When our Lord told the Samaritan woman, some incidents of her life, she said, ‘‘ Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.” She after- wards said to the men of the city, ‘‘come, see @ man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? A very important. question, which, coupled with the first part of her speech, shews clearly what opinions were then entertained of the Christ with respect to his nature. Neither Samaritan tree enet or R ° . - . 39> _* Lindsey’s examination of Rebinson’s * Plea. 69 hoi Jew hatboured an idea that he was to be essentially one with the Father. They believed, and they believed truly, that omniscience is an attribute of none but God Supreme.* ‘* Thou, even thou oNLy,’” says Solomon, ‘‘knowest the hearts of all the children of men.”—1 Kings, viii. 39. When the Scriptures speak of the wisdom and knowledge of Jehovah, it is not in the way of allusion and inference. They do not put us off with two or three ambiguous or mysterious phrases, the meaning of which can be extracted only by adepts in occult theology. But they tell us plumply, in such terms as carry instantaneous con- viction to the heart and mind, that he is ‘perfect in knowledge and infinite in understanding.” The Psalmist, in a noble appeal to the natural reason of man, asks, “he that planted the ear, shall he not hear? Hethat formed the eye, shall he not see? He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know ?”—Psalm, xciv. 9. ‘O Lord, thou hast searched me and known me. Thou knowest my downesitting and mise uprising: Thou un- derstandest my thoughts afar off. Thou compassest my path, and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou know- est it altogether.”—Ps. cxxxix. 2, 4. Such is the copious and perspicuous style in which the Scrip- tures speak of the omniscience of Jehovah, They take care also to inform us that his knowledge is not given nor derived. ‘‘ Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his coun- sellor, hath taught him.. With whom took HE counsel, and who instructed Him and taught him in the path of. judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of un- derstanding ?”—Is. x]. 13, 14. SECTION ELEVENTH. Christ not the Creator of the Universe—not Omnipotent. The attribute of OMNIPOTENCE, like that of omniscience, was disclaimed by the Saviour. As there were certain events of which he declared that he knew not when they were to happen; so were there certain acts which he confessed his inability to perform. Notwithstanding, they who admire what they are pleased to call a “ triplicity in the Godhead,” are fond of as- cribing to him omnipotence, but with no more success than they ascribe to him omniscience and omnipresence. To prove this point, they allege that Christ was the Creator of the physical system of the universe, and thence infer that he must be Almighty. * See “ Ommiscience an attribute of the Father only’—an excellent dis- course by the Rev. Dr. Hutton of Leeds: and “ Christ’s knowledge of all things,” by the Rey, Edw. Higginson, Jun, of Hull, 70 Supposing, for a moment, this statement capable of being verified, must it not appear very strange and unaccountable, that Christ himself, in all his numerous discourses both to friends and foes, never made the slightest allusion to his having such power— never did he drop a hint that might lead the disciples to sus- pect they were conversing face to face, with the Creator Al- mighty of heaven and earth. Frequently did he take images and illustrations from the works of nature-~but he referred all the beauty and glory of those works to the Father. If he speaks of the sun and the shower, it is the Father, he declares, that causes the one to shine, and the other to descend. If he speaks of the flowers of the field, it is the Father who clothes them— if of the birds of the air, the Father feeds them. We repeat it then, that we deem it most marvellous, if Cliist were the Creator, that he should not only drop no bint of it, but that he should ascribe all to the Father: and that three of the Evangelists who have recorded his history, have been so silent on the subject, that its most orthodox supporters cannot extort from them one syllable in their behalf. But, they find it written in John, i. 10, xoopeos Os aevrov eyevsvo which rendered literally means, the world, through him, was. Was what? Jade, says the Trinitarian. We contradict the assertion, and affirm that, in this place, syevere does not signify made originally, or out of nothing created—nor, though used above 700 times in the New Testament, can any one decisive instance* be adduced in which it must bear that signification.. We admit, indeed, it has been so rendered by able Unitarian, as well as Trinita- rian, Writers, in the 3d verse, in connexion with the logos; but if, in that connexion, such rendering be true, it only furnishes a reason for objecting to it here, since the Apostle after telling us _ that ‘all things were made by him (or it) and without him (or it) was not any thing made that was made,” would scarcely sink into the anticlimax and tautology of informing us that the world was made by him. The phrase is manifestly ellip- tical, and the ellipsis is to be supplied by something in the’ context. ‘The preceding verse says, ‘That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” It is then stated, that he, viz: the true light, was in the world—and the world, through him, was. Was what? we ask again, and we think the intelligent and unprejudiced reader, will reply enlightened. Such ellipses are frequent in Scripture.t Thus, * Simpson thinks there are two, James, iii, 9— Heb. iv. 3. ‘* It does not appear to Dr. Carpenter, that either of these cases is fully in point.” With him we agree. + Thus i in Matt. xxv. 13, ‘ Watch therefore; for ye know neither the day nor the hour.’’ Here the sentence in Griesbach, and in the Douay ‘Testament, closes. IVherein the son of man cometh——was added by some one to fill up the ellipsis, and thence it crept into the text, The next verse, begins 71 the Apostle Paul in reply to the Roman captain, (Acts, xxii. 28.) said, “But I was born.” (ya ds xa yeysvyeos) The ellipsis is supplied by the word free inserted in the translation. This is good sense; but the ellipsis would be more correctly filled by the words a Roman citizen, for they are obviously in reply to the question in the 27th verse, art thou a Roman? as well as to the captain’s declaration that he had purchased his freedom with a great sum.* | | The word xospos world,+ Simpson remarks, occurs of- tener in John than in any other of the sacred writers—about seventy-eight times in his Gospel, and twenty-four times in his Epistles, and yet it is applied in only two instances to original creation. In the verse under consideration, it occurs three times, and once in the verse immediately preceding. If it means the world in a physical sense, that is, the material system; then must we understand the passage thus, “‘He was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the material system. He wasin the material system, and the material sys- tem was made by him, and the material system knew him not.” This, like many a similar clinking concatenation of words, may, tinkle sweetly in the ears of orthodoxy, but it sounds in the ears of reason and common sense not unlike what is y-cleped non- sense. Can either knowledge or ignorance be attributed to Sas aie eee cee EE, 20S a lS ees oot 2G Navin any of aia “for the kingdom of heaven is, as a man travelling.’ Here all the words in Italics are supplied, for they have no representative in the original, and’ the translator has been obliged to go back to the beginning of the chapter, no fewer than thirteen verses, for words to complete the sense. In the 17th yerse of the same chapter, we read, ‘he that had received two, he also gained other two.” Two what? The reader must look to the foregoing verse for an answer—had received is the translator’s, not the evangelist’s. In Heb. iii. 16. We read, ‘he took not on him the nature of angels,’ and in If ‘Thess. ii. 3. * Let no man deceive you by any means ; for that day shall” not come, except, &c.’ The words in Italics here, and generally throughout the common version, are inserted as necessary to render clear the sense. When such writers, therefore, as Dr. Wardlaw, express surprise at the, word enlightened not being expressed in John i. 10, but left to be supplied from the preceding verse, they only betray ignorance of scriptural phraseology. | The Doctor, as quoted by Dr. Carpenter, observes that “there are not a few unnecessary, and there are some injurious supplements in our ordinary English version.” True. Thus in Acts, vii. 59, the word God is thrust in . where it is not wanted—and in John, viii. 58, he is wanting, though: the sense absolutely requires it. But in neither case have the interests. of or- : thodoxy been overlooked. We are glad to receive the above acknowledg- ment from a Calvinistic divine. 1t shews the necessity of having a new version, or the old one revised and corrected. * See Dr. Carpenter’s ‘ Unitarianism the Doctrine of the Gospel.” t “ The term zocze05, world, is often used by Christ, as it was natural it should be, concerning the body of the Jewish people. By Paul, the same term is used concerning the Jewish dispensation.”—-Gal. iv. 3.—Coloss. ii. 8, 20.—Cappe. No intelligent reader can require to be told in what nu- merous Senses it is used in our vernacular language, 72 that which is inanimate? What object could the Evangelist have in telling us that the Creator of the world was in the world? Could he be out of it? Or, was Apostolical authority necessary to confirm so indubitable a truth? He came to his own, and his own received him-not. The creator of the material system, came to his own! What a hideous bathos!. What egre- gious folly! The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof ; the world, and they that dwell therein: for he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.” | Let us now turn from the inconsistencies and tortuosities of Trinitarian expounders, and see whether a Unitarian expo- sition does not do more justice tothe sentiments of the inspired author. The true light, was in the world, among mankind—or,, more particularly, among the Jewish people—and the world through him was, mankind were enlightened by the beams of his heavenly truth—but, notwithstanding, the world knew him not, mankind did not duly acknowledge and appreciate him as the true light, which the Father of all had sent to illuminate their minds, and purify their hearts. He came to his own, and his own received him not. He appeared among his own country- men, in their towns and villages, their streets, and their syna- gogues, with tidings of joy, and promises of immortality, but far from prizing him and his doctrines, as became them, they ungratefully rejected both. All, however, were not. se perverse. . But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God. | Here, if we. mistake not, there is something that can be un- derstood. Let the judicious reader determine whether this plain explanation:is not more worthy of acceptance, and more in accordance with the simplicity of gospel truth, than the strained and perplexing incongruities of what is falsely called the « orthodox” doctrine. ks The CREATIVE AND OMNIPOTENT POWER of Christ is inferred from an ill- translated and worse understood text of Coloss.i. 16,17. « By him (ev avrw in him) were all things created that are in heaven, and, that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or domi- nions, or principalities, or powers ; all things were created by him, (d” auroy through him) and for (¢5 to) him ; and he is before all things, and by (¢y in) him all (these) things consist.” These words, as they stand insulated, may, certainly, to a su- perficial reader, appear to convey the meaning attached to them by dogmatic theologists.. But if any one will take due pains to acquire a knowledge of the language of Scripture, and consider the context of the passage, he will discover that the moral and religious, not the physical, creation, must be understood here; that great change which was effected, by the introduction of the gospel, both in the civil and ecclesiastical polities of the Jews. In the language of Scripture, and particularly in that of the Prophets, the terms earth and heaven are employed to represent 73 these two states.’ Tlius, in is..Ixv. 17, 18. Jehovah is introduced saying, “Behold, I. create. new heavens and a new earth—L create Jevusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.” The Apostle adopts. the ideas, and the language of the prophets, and speaks of the new dispensation as of a new creation. “If any man be in Christ, he isa new creature; old things are passed away ; behold, all things ave become new. Aud all things are of God, who hath reconciled:us to himself by Jesus Christ.” 2 Cor. v. 17, 18. Tyrwhitt;* in’ his brief bat very comprehensive Essay, entitled, An Explanation of St. Paul’s Doctrine, concerning the Creation of All Things by Jesus Christ,” justly observes, that - The term created is frequently used by St. Paul, as well as by the writers ~of the Old Testament, in a figurative, or secondary sense, in which it sig- _nifies not to give being, or to bring into existence, but to confer benefits and privileges, or to place in a new and more advantageous state of being. The Apostle tells the Ephesians, ‘ That they are the workmanship of God, created ‘by him in Christ Jesus, unto good works ; that they who, in their Gentile state, were formerly afar off from God, are.now brought nigh unto him by Christ, who hath made both Jews and Gentiles one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between them, that he might create of twain one new aman, which new man is also said to be created in holiness and righteousness, _after the image of God who created him.’ Eph. ii. 10—17 3 iv. 24;°Col. iii. 10. . Here is plain mention of a creation, distinct, not only from that by which the keavens and earth were made, but from that also by which the Jews had before been created the people of God ; and in opposition to the latter of these; it is called ‘the new creation, in the same manner that the covenant of God with all mankind, through the mediation of Christ is called the new covenant, in opposition to the former covenant which God had before made with the children of Israel, by the mediation of Moses.”’ In a.verse preceding the. passage under consideration, the Apostle informs us, ‘ that we have been delivered from the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of his (God's) dear Son,” whom he denominates the imageof the invisible God, the first born of every creature (aeons xticeas of the whole creation.) For as Adam was the first created. man in the old physical creation, so was Christ the first created, or the first born, in the new moral crea- tion.. ‘The power of darkness, from which we have been delivered, ___* A: short, biographical sketch prefixed to the essay, informs us, that tlie Rev. Robert Tyrwhitt was a Fellow of Jesus’ College, Cambridge, and grand- son of the learned and pious Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London. On the deli- berate conviction of his mind, that God the Father is the sole object of religions worship, he resigned his fellowship, gave up all hope of preferment, and lived cheerfully on 4 very narrow income, till by the death of his brother, Clerk to the House of Commons, he came into possession of a property, which enabled him to act up.te the dictates of a generous heart. He was the friend of the late Bishops Law and Watson, and, more intimately, of the amiable and accomplished Dr. John Jebb, who has testified of him, that “ his ‘character may be justly said to be above all praise. His strong abilities, vextensive learning, strict integrity, and most amiable manners, united with cool judgment, and determined resolution, would reflect lustre on the most distinguished station.’’ He breathed his last on the 25th of April, 1817. K 74 is not a physical, but a spiritual power; the kingdom into which we have been translated, is not an earthly, but a heavenly state. The Apostle is evidently highly figurative throughout.~ That by such expressions as ¢hings that are in heaven, and things that are in earth, he does not mean the material frame of the universe is evident, from the 20 v. of this very chapter, in which he states, that God by Christ “reconciled all things (2. e. all men) to him- self ; by him, Isay, whether they be things in earth, or things in hea- ven,” (. e. whether they be Jews or Gentiles.) Will any orthodox man affirm, that the Apostle here means that God reconciled the sun, moon, and stars unto himself? By things visible and in- visible, he intends the external state of the evangelized world, and the unseen felicities and exalted honours of its members, whether they be represented by thrones, of which the Saviour himself gave intimation, when he told the disciples that they should sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel; or dominions, or principalities, or powers, to the possession of which, men annex their highest conceptions of happiness. All this new spiritual state was created through the agency of Christ, and for his peculiar glory. He is before, or superior to all its other agents, and in him all the various arrangements of its constitution subsist.* The Apostle continuing to rise in his ideas, (it is never his habit to sink,) says, Heis the head of the body, the church: an expres- sion, which at once conveys to us in what sense we are to under- stand his previous figurative language—then he adds, who is the beginning, viz. of this new moral creation, and the first born from the dead ; appellations which can by no means be given to the omnipotent, ever-living Jehovah: that ix all things connected with this new creation, he might have the pre-eminence ; for it _ pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell. | Dr. Doddridge, with other commentators of his school, is in- dignant at the application of Col. i. 16, 1'7, to “ the new creation in a spiritual sense.” Yet the spiritual sense is the noblest and best. ‘The letter killeth, but the spirit maketh alive.” But though the Doctor, in this place, prefers the material and carnal sense, because it is best suited to his system, when he meets with principalities and powers, again, in ii. 15 of the very same epistle, he begins to spzritualize, and would have us, by those ex- pressions to understand ‘our spiritual enemies, and especially the formidable spirit of darkness.”” In a riote also to Rom, viii. 38, he quotes Elsner as authority for understanding by principalities (aexes) magistrates, (magistracies, ) and refers us to Titus iii. 1, where it occurs in a sense indubitably similar. Does the Apostle Paul speak of physical or metaphysical existences, in that sub- * Lindsey and others think the Apostle makes particular allusion to the oriental hierarchy or demonology, a belief of which had begun to prevail among the Jews. 49 lime declaration, in which he personifies death and life, and prin- cipalities and powers, and height and depth, and things present, and things to come? Rom. viii. 38,39. No one, we presume, could be preposterons as to answer the former. Wherefore then be so preposterous as to infer from similar expressions elsewhere, that Christ. was the Creator, in contradiction to the Scriptures, which affirm that this appellation belongs only to Jehovah ? How would it sink our ideas of the grandeur and majesty of the Omnipotent, to suppose he could have any partner or coadjutor in the work of creation! We challenge our adversaries to pro- duce a single text to justify such supposition. We defy them to mek any one instance, in which it is asserted of Christ, as of ehovah, in the commencement of the Bible, that in the beginning he created (x42, sresmew Sept.) the heavens and the earth. Or in which any inspired Apostle has applied to bim such lan- guage as Paul applied to that God whom he revealed, on Mars’ hill, to the men of Athens; the God that made (o wosyzas) the world and all things therein—the Lord of heaven and earth, who hath made sxosos) of one blood all nations of men, Acts xvii. 26—26 ; or addressed him in such terms as the primitive dis- ciples addressed Jehovah, when they said, “ Lord, thou art God, which hast made (¢ wesmee;) heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is.” Acts iv. 24. Until such Scriptural proof be placed before us, to convict us of error, we beg to be excused for adhering to the original faith, and believing with Moses and the prophets, with the Apostles and primitive disciples, and the framers of the creed called the Apostles’, that God the Father Almighty is the maker of heaven and earth, ae It may be here objected, that in Heb. i. 2, it is stated that God by him made the werids rovs aswves sxomoev: —true, the worlds. The word, however, which we demand is not worlds, but heaven, earth, and sea. The Jews knew nothing of any world but one ; and the word here rendered world, as we have had cccasion to remark before, p. 57, does not mean the globe of earth, or the visible frame of nature, but the age, or dispensation, in the plural, ages, which, according to the Hebrew idiom, is used as the singular for the sake of emphasis and particularity. It means here the new dispensation, which was communicated through Christ; and it is perfectly accordant with the context, that the author should speak of the new dispensation, which it was his object to magnify and recommend, and not of the material creation with which his subject has no manner of connexion. _ In a subsequent part of the Epistle, (iii. 2,) it is expressly af- firmed, that God made Christ* t# wosmoayr: evtoy. This, in our * Whiston informs us, on the authority of Philastrius, De Heret. c. 41. That in the fourth century, this doctrine was reckoned so heterodox, that, in some places, the Epistle was seldom read in public, partly out of the dread of such an expression—a striking proof how it was understood, 76 common version, is rendered appointed ; but every one knows that the literal rendering is made; and the same verb is so rendered in Acts ii. 36, “Let all the house of Israel know as- suredly, that God hath made, exomes, that same Jesus, whem ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” But whether the word be translated appointed or made, it is, in either case, conclusive in favour of the Unitarian. The appointer and the maker are the same ; and he who appointed or made Jesus to be Lord and Christ, must be his superior and Creator. | | _ Every reader who will take the least pains to examine and re- flect, will perceive, that the style of the Apostle, in speaking of the new creation, is very different from that employed by Moses and the Prophets, and by himself, in speaking of the physical creation, They say nothing about principalities and powers, thrones and dominions; nor does the Apostle speak of Christ as the prophets speak of Jehovah. He does not say as David says of the Father Almighty, that “the heavens were made by his word, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth :”—nor as Job, that “he hangeth the earth upon nothmg—that he maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and that the pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his reproof:”—nor as Isaiah, that ‘¢he has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with a span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance :’—nor as Jeremiah, that “he has made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground by his great power; that he giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night :’—nor as Nahum, that “he hath his way in the whirl- wind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet :’—nor as Paul, that ‘‘he made the world and all things therein—that he is Lord of heaven and earth, and giveth to all, life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men; and that in him we live, and move, and have our being.” The Apostle makes no such declaration of Christ. But even granting, which we do not, that, in the physical sense, and in the greatest latitude in which the words can be understood, the all things in Col. i. 16, were made by him, and not 7m him, it would not follow that by him were created the heavens and the earth themselves, unless it were previously proved that the things contained are the same as the container—that the furniture is the house, the cargo is the vessel, and the jewel the casket; for the words are not the heavens and the earth, but ad! things that are 72 heaven, and that are 77 earth. With small attention has he read the Scriptures, who has not learned that the words all things are of very frequent occurrence, and that their meaning must be limited by their connexion. The Psalmist, in his beautiful eulogy on man, says, ‘ God hath put all things under his feet.” Is man therefore omnipotent? Ne. The meaning is, that God has given 77 him extensive power over both animate and ‘inanimate nature. Paul says, “I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me.” Is Paul therefore omnipotent? No. The meaning is, that he can bear all afflictions and reverses of fortune with patience. Again, he informs us, that God has given Christ to be head over all things to the church; and that he upholds all things by the word of his power. “Is Christ therefore omnipotent ? No. The Apostle affirms no more, than that Christ orders or conducts “the whole of the Gospel dispensation, by virtue of the authority ‘imparted to him by the Almighty, He acts in subordination to the Father. * He that built all things (in the widest sense) is God.” Even granting that Christ was the Creator of the material frame of nature, which we confidently deny, as contradictory to the ‘most unequivocal declarations of Scripture, he was only the agent of omnipotence. The verse preceding the passage quoted to prove him possessed of that attribute, demonstrates the contrary. It ‘denominates him ‘ the «mage of the invisible God—the first born ‘of every creature.’ The image, therefore not the reality—dorn, therefore not self-existent—a creature, therefore not the Creator, ‘consequently dependent, therefore not omnipotent. ‘In support of the doctrine here impugned, Phil. iii. 21, has ‘been also quoted :— | | “« The Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.” Bib. __ A common reader who has no system to support, would sup- pose that the ascription of a body, though a glorious body, to Christ ; and the declaration that the bodies of the righteous shall ‘be fashioned like his, should effectually preclude all ideas of con- founding him with Jehovah, who is a Spirit, and to whom there can be no corporeal similitude. More sublime was the idea of God in him who wrote,— ‘* All are but parts of one stupendous whole Whose body nature is, and God the soul.” But the words, subdue all things, sound like an ascription, of omnipotence, and to some writers, that is enough both for pre- mises and conclusion! The power attributed to Christ, however, is not infinite nor underived, but limited to a particular object, and delegated to him by the Father Almighty, till the final, con- summation, when death shall be destroyed, and all the just ‘shall be raised incorruptible and immortal. A parallel passage occurs in the xv. 27 of Ist Cor. “He (viz. God) hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest, that ie is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, (even) then shall the Son also himself be subject. unto him that .put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” Can the subordination and subjection of Christ, in, his highest state of future glorified existence, be expressed in terms 78 more. strong and ‘distinct:? It would. almost seem that. the - Apostle had some inspired anticipation of the attempts that would be made, in a fature corrupt. state of the church, to identify the Son with the Father; and that he had taken. particular pains to express the supreme dominion of God alone, in sucha manner as to prevent the possibility of their succeeding for a moment, ‘* The head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.” 1st Cor. xi. 3. ayn aS gt Some orthodox writers think the miracles wrought by our ‘Saviour an ample proof of his omnipotence; and they dwell on them with peculiar energy, as if they were fully demonstrative of his being the Almighty himself, though it is evident from our Lord’s own words, that his wonderful works were only the tests of his. ‘divine mission.* | They also discover in the style of his language, a similarity to that which is ascribed to Jehovah. . Thus, God said, ‘let there be light, and there was light.” Christ touched a leper and said, ‘‘ I will; be thou clean; and immediately his Jeprosy was cleansed.’ Mat. viii. 3.. Hence they argue, that the. Creator of light, and the healer of the leper, must have been the same individual being. But here again, they only afford evidence of their bad reasoning. The people who saw our Lord’s miracles performed, never reasoned thus. The same chapter which re-. cords the cure of the leper, tells us of another miracle still more calculated to. excite astonishment. Being asleep, on board of a vessel, he was roused by the cry of the disciples, ‘‘ Lord, save us—we perish! And he saith unto them, why are ye fearful, O. ye of little faith? Then he arose and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.’ This was one of the most stupendous miracles wrought by our Lord; and it may well be supposed that if any thing could create, in those who beheld it, the belief of a. present Almighty power, it would be an act like this. But how did they reason upon it? Was it in the style of modern orthodoxy? They were not so stultified. They only “‘ marvelled, saying, what manner of MAN is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!” As to the mere exertion of phy- sical power, so far as its display may seem calculated to produce a belief of high supernatural agency, our Lord did not stand alone among the prophets of God. If he commanded the stormy winds and waves to be still, Moses cleft the billows of the red sea, and led the Israelites in triumph through the heart of the deep, before ‘« Though our modern writers do endeavour to prove from the miracles our Saviour did, that he was the same supreme God with the Father, yet Christ himself doth only use them to prove, that he was sent by the Father, and had commission from him to deliver this message to the world; as is’ evident from these words, John v. 36; for the works which the Father hath’ given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the: Father hath sent me.’’"—Wuursy's Last Thoughts. ~ . i 79 ‘the pursuing liost of Pharaoh. If he raised the dead, so did Elisha, so did Peter, and so did Paul. If Christ said to the fig. tree, ‘‘ Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward, for ever: Joshua said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon ; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.” Our Lord declared to the Apostles, “verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do, shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto my father.” John xiv. 12. If with seven loaves and a few little fishes, Christ fed four thousand men, besides women and children; Elisha caused the widow’s barrel of meal not to waste, and her cruise of oil not to fail. If Christ mounted the skies in serene majesty till a cloud received him out of the sight of the disciples; Elijah, with the chariot of Israel and the horses of fire, went up by a whirlwind into heaven. Our Lord, therefore, did not prove, himself to be the Omnipotent by the miracles which he wrought, nor was it in the exercise of physical power that his superiority to other prophets: consisted ; but in what was infinitely more important, the moral. beauty, dignity, and sinless perfection of his character. In this respect he stood above them all, unrivalled and alone. In this respect he bore the untarnished image of the Invisible God. But he gave frequent sufficient indications that he was not God Supreme. He was tempted by Satan—he hungered—he wept—he prayed. But Jehovah cannot be tempted by Satan, since he could annihilate him by a breath ; he cannot hunger, for he has no corporeal ap- petite ;—he cannot weep, for though most compassionate and merciful, he is far superior to those sensibilities which characterise human nature ;—neither can he pray since he has no superior, but reigns the Sovereign, undisputed Lord of all. The beloved Disciple tells us, that Jesus being wearted with his journey, sat by Jacob's well, John iv. 6. But “hast thou not known, hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?” Is. xl. 28, SECTION TWELFTH. No Proof in Scripture that Christ was worshipped as the Supreme God. | The advocates of “ Zhe Triplicity” affirm, that divine honours were paid to Christ, and thence they infer once more, that Christ was the supreme Deity. . Negatur, We deny that divine honours were ever paid to Christ by any of his contemporaries upon earth; nor have all those who affirm it been able to establish it by any satisfactory proof ; though there is no position in divinity, which they have so strongly arrayed their forces to maintain. To a mere English reader who does not take pains to ascertain the exact meaning of SO words, jit may appear. otherwise from.those passages of the New Testament, in which Christ is said to: have-been worshipped. But let him pause to enquire into the proper signification of this word, and he will find that in all:cases, except where it is joined with the name of God, it means the act of paying respect, homage, obeisance, such as was and still continues in the east, to be paid to kings and men of distinction, by those of inferior rank.. In this sense, and it is not yet obsolete, the words ** worship” and « - and that they are taught another ? Would it not be: Wise to re-* ° form the language of the catechism, and make it, if possible, de- clare what is the real belief of the church, on so important a subject ? | Seamer +: It seems strange and paradoxical, that those who are so ready to adduce arguments from men’s ignorance, should assume sueh> superiority of knowledge and. discernment, in speaking of doc- trines avowedly inexplicable and incomprehensible. — Strange, ' that he who cannot tell by what imperceptible ties his body and > , b kN 00 or emerapame neces 2 * Rammohun Roy’s Final Appeal, p. 380, 101 soul are united, shall yet speak, with perfect confidence, of the union of two natures in Christ, a subject of which the Scriptures say nothing! That he who knows not the essence of his own mind shall, notwithstanding, dogmatize about consubstantialities in the Godhead, and its composition of persons, contrary to the clearest deductions of reason, and the plainest declarations of Scripture that God is one! Strangest of all, that he should, with perfect complacency, solemnly declare, in his religious services, that whosoever does not believe his inexplicable creed, must perish everlastingly ! | Mr. Pope accuses Unitarians of reasoning from a priori spe- culations on the character of the Deity. How justly might it be retorted on Mr. Pope, that he forms his ideas of God from creeds and theological systems, which are founded neither on reason nor Scripture; nay; that are contrary to all that the bles- sed Saviour has taught us of his paternal, gracious, and benig- nant nature ? The Unitarian cannot believe that any revelation from heaven’ contradicts reason and common sense. It is from the exercise of reason, in the first place, that he admits the truth of revelation at all; and this being once admitted, he adopts from it those doctrines which it clearly teaches. He interprets its language by the aid of the understanding which God has given him; re- ceives with gratitude and cheerfulness all the discoveries which it makes of the divine perfections, of the way to felicity, and the life’ to come. He rejoices to find its doctrines accord so much with the dictates of reason, though far beyond her own unassisted’ efforts to discover. But, if any tenet be proposed for his adop~ tion, which contradicts all those natural principles of thought and judgment which God has bestowed, he must pause. The inspira~ tion of the Almighty gives understanding as well as revelation, to man. Both are his gifts; and the one is not intended to super- sede, but to enlighten, direct, and aid the exercise of the other. “ Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit,” is a good maxim in theology, as well as in other subjects. To the Unitarian the Scriptures appear in perfect harmony with all the conclusions of reason on religious topics; and to imagine otherwise, would be a reflection on the wisdom of the Creator. When, therefore, any article of faith is proposed for his adoption, irreconcileable to: reason, he contends, that it has not Scripture for its basis. He admits that its incomprehensibility may be no just ground of re-. jection ; but its self-contradiction, or opposition to somé demon- strable tenet of true religion, may. Though an angel were to preach the doctrine of three in one, the Unitarian could not— durst not receive it, till such angel produced his commission from heaven—confirmed its truth by miracles—and so proved that he was authorised to abrogate the first commandment given by’ Moses, and corroborated by the Son of God himself, who eame ““ not to destroy, but to fulfil.” . 102 SECTION FOURTEENTH. General Reasons for Rejecting the Doctrine of the Trinity. THE UNITARIAN REJECTS THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, not because it is beyond, but because it is contradictory to reason, as much as transubstantiation. The Apostle Paul tells us (Rom. i. 20,) That the invisible things of God from the creation of the world; even his eternal power and Godhead, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. But the existence of three persons in one’ God was never clearly, nor even dimly seen in any of the works of creation. They all exhibit proofs that the supreme omnipotent contriver and fabricator is ONE. | The Unitarian REyEcTs the doctrine of the Trinity, because. as Priestley has justly observed, “There is no fact in nature, nor any one purpose in morals, which are the object and end of all religion, that requires it.” He REJECTS it, because it subverts the fundamental principle of revealed, as well as of natural religion. “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord,” a truth con- firmed by the blessed Saviour, who, when solicited by the Tempter to worship him, replied, “'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and HIM ONLY shalt thou serve.” In vain do the advocates of the Trinity contend, that the unity of design apparent in the creation, argues unity of counsel and notof cause. This is a.sophism and a salvo for a plurality of persons in the Godhead, unworthy even of Paley, whose words are re-echoed by shallow critics, and whose principles, however closely they “ symbolize” with those of orthodoxy, are not always consonant to gospel integrity and truth. Paley should have learned better of the honest Unitarian Lardner, to whom his “ Evidences” are so much indebted ; and in a chapter on the Divine Unity, he ought not to have introduced an observation calculated to mislead the unreflecting, without giving it a proper explanation. But to aim a blow at natural re- ligion, seems preferable with many to the admission of a principle by which the doctrine of the Trinity must be overturned, Paley’s observation is exactly such as would become a heathen, anxious to open the gates of heaven for the re-admission of the mytholo- gical councils of the Dii majores et minores ; though even a_ heathen might be brought to allow there is ONE SUPREME, the Father of gods and men. Now for the argument :—the author affirms, that the unity of design apparent in the creation, declares the unity of the great first cause ; nay, that the unity of all such designs, whether it be our own solar system, or any other in the expanse of the universe, which could be formed only by omnipo- tence, leads to the same conclusion. There may be millions of subordinate causes, but all must be tnder the controul of one 105 directing mind, to which none can be equal, and from which all power must be derived. For suppose, with the Manichzans of old, and with such semi-Christians as invest the devil with the attributes of Deity, that there are two omnipotent beings, the one good, and the other evil; each might exhibit proofs of almighty power—the one in creating, the other in destroying; but we should behold no beauty and harmony, under the government of two such rival potentates. Suppose both of them, however, to be as good and wise as they are powerful, might they not act in perfect concert, and exhibit in their works all the order which we admire in the world around us? Granted. But is it not plain, even to a demonstration, that if ene of two beings has as much power as the other, neither of them is omnipotent? The sum total of power is divided between them;—each is deficient by a half, and being so deficient cannot be the great first cause of all. The great first cause can have no rival—no equal—no counsellor. “ With whom took he counsel?” asks the Prophet Isaiah, as if indignant at the thoughts of that plurality of persons, which it is the misfortune of so many to hear advocated in place of the plain Scriptural truth, that God is one. “Who hath stood in the counsel of the Lord?” asks Jeremiah, xxiii. 18.—“« Who,” re- iterates Paul, “hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath. been his counsellor ?” Rom. xi. 34. Instead, therefore, of making concessions, of which the Polytheist and Atheist may take an unhappy advantage, it would be more wise of such “ examiners,“ as are really Christian, to symbolize with the Apostle Paul, and say, “To us there is but one God ;” and leave it to the disciples of Vigilius Thapsitanus, the supposed author of the notorious creed ascribed to Athanasius, to expatiate on a plurality of persons. It has been laid down by one, from whom. few will have the hardihood to dissent, that in the investigation of nature, two causes are never to be admitted, where one will suffice. If one self-existent, all-powerful being, be a cause adequate to the crea- tion of the universe, it is unnecessary and unphilosophical to admit two. ‘Therefore, God is one; and thus does true philosophy* * Not the “insaniens sapientia’? condemned by Horace, nor the g&-oPo5 coPie of Greg, Naz. but that which is cultivated by such minds as Newton’s and Milton’s. How charming is divine Philosophy ! . Not harsh and crabbed as dull fools suppose, But musical as is Apollo’s lute, And a perpetual feast of nectar’d sweets, Where no crude surfeit reigns. Mi1to0n’s Comus. This is that true philosophy, which “looks through nature up to nature's God," and through Scripture to the glorious perfection of the eternal ONE; 104 symbolize with the Scriptures in proclaiming the unity of God, that philosophy which, like wisdom, cometh from above, though so much decried by the advocates of “ old wives’ fables,” and of that spurious philosophy which the gospel condemns and classes with “ vain deceit, the tradition of men, and the rudiments of the world.” Col. ii. 8. : _» The Unitarian resects the doctrine of the Trinity, because it contradicts all that we are taught, and all that we are capable of comprehending of the infinite perfections of Jehovah. It con- tradicts his Self-Ewistence, by identifying him with Christ, whom it ac- knowledges to be begotten : | His Immensity, by confining in a human form, him whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain: # His Simplicity, by representing him as compounded of three persons : His Spirituality, by making him incarnate : His Invisibility, for he was seen: His Immutability, for he was in the form of a slave : His Impassibility, for he suffered : His Immortality, for he died : * His Omnipotence, for there were things not his to give : | His Omniscience, for some things he did not know : Consequently, it denies the infinite perfection of all the other at- tributes of Deity. For, if any being falls short of infinitude in any one: perfection; he falls short in all. Our Lord positively afirmed, that none is good but oNE, and that is God—if none supremely good, then none supremely wise—none supremely just. In vain do the defenders of the Trinity try to escape the force of this argument, by the clumsy invention of the “ two- natures ;” an invention which, like that of transubstantiation, seems designed to try the extent of human credulity, and which, as has been already shewn, would bring such impeachments on the character of our Lord as the Unitarian shudders to express. He REJECTS it, because it confounds attributes with persons—- qualities with substance—humanity with deity. It materializes our ideas of the eternal mind; and by teaching, that it can be essentially connected with corporeal forms, yields an easy intro- duction to image-worship. Hence we need not be surprised, if the great majority of those who embrace the doctrine of the Tri- a i a ne Nn ce ne the opposite of that wisdom which springs from below, which is characterised by an Apostle as “ earthly, sensual, devilish ;’’ and which, instead of pre- senting to the mind ‘a perpetual feast of nectar’d sweets” set before it the everlasting crambe repetitia, the horny indigestib!e husks of the tive Calvinistic points. How long will men suffer their understanding to be “m)ekhed, in- sulted, and abused ?”’ 105 nity, have statues, waxen figures and pictures, not only of God the Son, but of God the Father, and of God the Holy Ghost.*’ If we can once be persuaded, that the infinitely great and glo- rious Being, who fills immensity, appeared ‘as a man to men, ‘little farther persuasion can be wanting to mduce a belief, that he may be represented by images of gold, of silver, and of stone, contrary to the Apostle Paul’s declaration to the Athenians. The transition from the reality to the similitude is easy and na- ‘tural; and that worship which is due to God only, may be trans- ferred to the sculptured or painted representative. ‘Wherefore the Israelites were forbidden to have any image : “Take ye, therefore, good heed unto yourselves, for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire, lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure.” Deut. iv. 15, 16. he Prophet Isaiah asks, “'To whom will ye liken God ?—or what likeness will ye compare unto him?” xl. 18. Trinitarianism answers, I will compare the immortal, the eternal, the invisible, the intan- gible, and impassible Spirit, to him who, after his resurrection from the dead: said to ‘Thomas, “ Reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side.” John xx. 27; and to his disciples, “« Be- hold my hands and my feet that it is 1 myself; handle me and see; fora spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” Luke xxiy. 39. mo He REJECTs it, because it is undefinable and incapable of ex- planation, as is clearly testified by those who have written upon it most-learnedly. 'Pheir treatises and volumes, composed with the avowed object of proving and elucidating the doctrine, present us only with a chaos of unintelligibilities, insomuch that it re- quires some effort of faith to believe, that their authors understood. themselves. _ In worshipping the Trinity, “they worship they know not what,” even by their own confession.+ He REJECTS it, because, so far as the Scriptures are concerned, it is altogether a doctrine of inference. Were such a doctrine true, it is reasonable to suppose, that they would teach it clearly and distinctly ; and that whole pages would be occupied in its explanation. Instead of this, a number of texts is collected together from various quarters, distorted from the meaning which they convey in their proper situation, and are made, by their new location, to speak a language not their own. They are stitched together like the Sibyl’s scattered leaves; a process by which the most anti-scriptural doctrines have been often found and taught _ * The author has read, that beggars go about the streets of Lisbon seeking alms, with a drum, a bagpipe, and an image, or picture of the Holy Sptrit ! _t “ Every attempt that has been made to explain the doctrine of the. Trinity, Iscruple not to call an insult on the common sense of mankind,” — Priester. Heo sg m O 106 -in the language of the Bible.* But even this process fails, wher applied to the doctrine of the Trinity. The language of Holy Writ, though flowing through the impure conduit of an. orthodox translation, refuses to be further contaminated by being made a channel of conveyance, to a doctrine which can be spoken of only in the style of its inventors. New words and new ideas must be coined and added to mutilated texts, and dismembered. fragments of Scripture. But there can be no amalgamation of such heterogenous elements. The gold of mepyraiien has no af- finity to the earth and iron of orthodoxy. hen subjected to the fiery test, it separates from the base alloy, and flows forth, pure and resplendent, and bearing the superscription originally stamped upon it by heaven—Gop Is ONE. | According to the mode in which Trinitarianism draws her con~ ‘clusions, Moses may be proved to be God; nay, man may be proved to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Thus, says Paul, “I can do all things; therefore, he is almighty. Again, he says, “ Though I am absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit.” Col. ii. 5; therefore, he is possessed of ubi- quity. ‘Ye have an unction from the holy One, and know all things,” says John—1 Ep. ii. 20 ; therefore, they were omniscient! Q. E. D.+ * This is precisely the process which was followed by the Athanasians at the Council of Nice. ‘ They collected together the passages which repre- sent the divinity of the Son of God, and observed, that taken together they amounted to a proof of his being of the same substance with the Father.”— Mitner’s History of the Church, vol. ii. p. 59. It would be curious;to know all the particular texts collected on this oceasion, because it is thought that some texts have been pressed into the service since, which the good fathers either overlooked, or did not understand. It would also be interesting to know what portion of the proof, each of the texts supplied. They would be found on examination, methinks, like a collection of negatives to make an affirmative, oer of fallibilities to form an infallibility. <‘ John the Baptist is satd to have gone before Jehoyah, and to have gone before Christ, and this Mr. Wardlaw gravely offers as a proof that Christ is Jehovah ;” im answer to which, Mr. Yates, in his Vindieation of Unitarianism, p. 194, furnishes us with the following very apposite illustrations :—“ Tt ap- pears by Exod. xx. 2— Deut. v. 6, that he who brought the Israelites out of Egypt, was Jehovah ; and by Exod, xxxii. 7—xxxili. 1, that he who brought the Israelites out of Egypt was Moses—therefore, Moses was Jehovah. It appears also by 1 Sam. ii. 12, that the same persons are called the sons of Eli, and the sons of Belial , therefore, Eli was Belial.” “‘ Would not this be deemed most wretched reasoning, if employed for any other purpose than to prove the doctrine of the Trinity? What should we say to an astronomer, who should seriously argue in like manner :—the roo revolves round the sun, but the moon revolves round the earth ; there- fore, the earth is the sun;—the sun turns upon its own axis—the earth turns upon its own axis; therefore, also the earth is the sun ;—Jupiter re- volves round the sun, and the earth revolves round the sun ; therefore, the earth is Jupiter !”"— Letters to a Protestant Divine, in Defence of Unitarianism,, by another Barrister, pp. 138, 139, . 107 ~ He rrsects it, because all the proofs of it, singly and col- lectively, have not the strength of the first commandment. — Tri- nitarianism betrays the weakness of her cause, by having recourse to such auxiliaries as certain idiomatic phrases and grammatical constructions, which in the judgment of the most learned scholars, do not contain the meaning she would extract from them. For instance, she finds in a Hebrew plural,* the three persons of her Godhead, a discovery, which to this day has escaped the know- ledge of the Hebrew people, who might be supposed to know the latent virtues of their own language as well as any modern theo- logian; and when she might as well find in it the thirty thousand gods of the heathen. If an epithet be twice or thrice repeated te mark the superlative degree, or intensity of thought, she grasps it with eagerness, as if it contained a demonstration of her doc- trine. Moreover, she repeats her few fayourite texts even to satiety, as if they were new arguments; and being wiser in her generation than the children of light, acts on the principle, that repetition and perseverance will supply the place of strength. Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi, sed spe cadendo. By frequent falls, not forceful shock, The drop scoops hollows in the rock, He resects it, because it leads to the most fanciful perver- sions of the word of God, and gives the mind over to a “ strong delusion to believe a lie.” Under the influence of its imagination, even learned, and in other respects, rational divines are led into the most egregious errors in their interpretation of the Scriptures. Thus, they find the three persons of the Trinity in the command ewer by our Saviour to the disciples, to baptize, Mat. xxii. 19, though it says riot a syllable of three persons, but simply enjoins to baptize into the name of the Father, i. e. to initiate them, * « Were we even to disregard totally the idiom of the Hebrew, Arabic, and of almost all Asiatic languages in which the plural number is often used. for the singular, to express the respect due to the person denoted by the noun; and to understand the term ‘ our image,’’ and our likeness,”’ found in Gen. i. 26, as conveying a plural meaning, the quotation would by no means answer the Trinitarian’s purpose ; for the verse, in that case, would imply a plurality of Guds, without determining whether their number was three or three hundred without specifying their persons. }’ This was written by one, whose knowledge of Oriental languages givee him a right to speak with decision, Rammonun Roy. He subjoins the fol- lowing illustrations :—Exodus xxi.:4-—-in the original Hebrew, “ If his masters (meaning his master) have giyen him a wife ;—6, ‘‘ Then his masters (that is, his master) shall bring him to the judges ;”—29, “ But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it has been testified to his owners ;” (that is, his owner.)—Is. vi.. 8, * To whom shall Z send Pam and who will go for us? (that is, for me. } 108 by the rite of baptism, into a profession of belief in the one supreme Being—in the Son, by whom he revealed his will—and in the Holy Ghost, or miraculous agency of the Spirit of God, by which the truth of the Gospel was established. It gives no more countenance to the doctrine of three persons in one God, than to that of three Gods in one person. ‘The latter is as rational and Scriptural as the former; and it is surprising, that no one has maintained it, since nothing could be more easy than to find arguments in its support. Mr. Serle finds the three persons of the Trinity in the very commencement of Genesis :—“ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, * * * * and the Spirit moved on the face of the waters.” “ Here,” says he, “are three persons in one power, viz. the beginning, God and the Spirit.” This is marvellously ingenious and convincing! He ought to have displayed a little more of his ingenuity, and found them in the earth, the form, and the void—and in the darkness, the face and the waters; and the three being thrice announced, who could withstand the force of the triple argument ? Gregory Nyssen thought it typified by Adam, his Son, (which Son P) and Eve. One Rev. Gentleman finds it in the thrice repeated « holy” of Isaiah vi. 3; and another sees an ocular demonstra- tion of it, in the three men whom Abraham entertained in his tent with “cakes of kneaded meal, and a calf, tender and good, of whieh’ they did eat.” Gen. xviii. - Why does he not find a duality in the two angels who befriended Lot, and a Trinity in the three radicals of the Hebrew verb? It has been detected, indeed, in the four letters of the Hebrew of Jehovah mn’, in which the two He’s represent the two natures of Christ! Horsley his discovered it in the “ Watchers and holy ones” of Daniel, and identified Christ with the archangel Michael. But Hut- chinson has shewn more ingenuity than all the rest, for he finds the divine and human natures of Christ in the prayer. of the Psalmist, “Make thy faces (the divine and human united in Christ) to shine upon thy servant.” Ps. xxxi. 16. Should he not also find the mysterious: union of two or three ‘ somewhats,” as Dr. Wallis denominated the three persons of the Trinity, in the 15th verse of the 104th Psalm, where it is said, “That God giveth oil to cause man’s face (in the Hebrew, faces,) to shine ?—and in the countenance of Moses, for when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw him after his deseent from Mount Sinai, behold, the skin of his face (Hebrew, faces) shone ?” Exod. xxxiv. 29,30. Nay, the deep itself (Gen. i. 2,) is repre- sented as having more than one face, for in the original it is eee faces, and not face, and, therefore, let the pluralist. draw is conclusion ; it will afford him as valid an argument for his Trinity as any other plural in the Hebrew language, with the exception of the Cherubim, in whose faces the same profound Hutchinson finds the whole Trinity, with the divine and human natures all congregated together, not, gentle reader, because their 109 faces are three, but because they are four.* He represents thie Cherubim, with wings monn over the mercy-seat, as a simili- tude of the ALEIM, and says, “it. was fit there should be a type of man. taken into the essence, * * * * that the lion and the man became one conjunct purifier, stand on the one side—the bull and the eagle (types of God and the Holy Spirit) stand on the other, giving their mutual assent to the transaction,”+ by which divine justice is to be satisfied. This might appear to be the reverie of some wild enthusiastic imagination; but the learned Parkhurst thinks otherwise, for he says, that the Cherubim “ in the holy of holies, were emblematical of the ever-blessed Trinity, in covenant, to redeem man, by uniting the human nature to the second person.” +. How profound are the arcana of theology! But both Hutchinson and Parkhurst must yield the palm to one, who is a still more profound diver into the bottomless abyss of these mysterious. doctrines ;—let Andronicus M‘Cartan, M.D. be proclaimed victor. Should his infant work, entitled “The Chris- tian-Alphabet,”. reach. the. desired perfection, it is to become a “ classical key of orthodoxy, aud an algebraical confutation of heterodox writings.” . The obstinate Unitarian, who cannot be convinced either by Scripture or logic, must yield to algebra. We may judge what will be the potent effect of this novel applica- tion of the science of unknown quantities, from the admirable use which the author has made of his chymical and anatomical knowledge. He has instituted a comparison between oxygen gas and sanctifying grace; and in the “brain, the little brain, and the oblongated marrow,” finds a parallel to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ! This is all done in sober seriousness, and with the most devoted attachment to the cause of the Roman Catholic Church. : ; He REJECTS it, because it leads to the adoption of notions re- specting the nature of God which expose Christianity to the scorn and: contempt, not only of unbelievers at home, but of Indians, Turks, and Jews abroad. or instance, ‘Trinitarianism does all this by the false meaning which she affixes to the text, Acts xx. 28, “Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which. the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Chureh of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Every reader, whose ideas of the eternal mind are not carnalized, must know-that God being a spirit, and, asis truly stated in the first Article of the Church of England, without body, parts, or passions, he can have no blood. This the Apostle Paul knew well; and it is utterly incredible and impossible, that he could be guilty of the ene * Abstract from the works of John Hutchirson, Fs, P 132, » $eId. p.. 185. . $ Lexicon, Cherub, 110 blasphemy of ascribing an animal nature to Jehovah; or supposing the eternal God to be clothed with a mortal, sanguiferous body. But how ward off the imputation in the present instance? Nothing more easy. Simply by understanding the words just quoted in the rational sense in which they were written, if, indeed, those are the very words which fell from the mouth or the pen of the inspired author. The strongest reasons, and by the ablest critics, have been adduced for reading “ Lord,” instead of God ;* and all objections to the change answered by Griesbach, Nov. Test. vol. ii. p. 112. But the author, so far as his Unitarian doctrine is concerned, has not the smallest objection to the text as it stands; he meets orthodoxy on her own ground. It is stated in the text, that God purchased ;—to this expression there can be no objection, because it harmonizes well with similar expressions in Jewish phraseology. Thus, in texts already quoted, Jehovah is said to have bought, purchased, redeemed, his people Israe}.> “ Grotius says, that in transcribing the Greek MSS. the contracted word + (for Ssov,) might be easily substituted for ys (ypsorov;) that the Apos- tles commonly denominated Christ, Lord, and the Father, God; and that many MSS. read Lord in place of God—*“ et Syrus sic legit qui vertit Christi.”” On the other hand, Whitby says, the common reading is confirmed by the vulgar, Arabic, AXthiopic, by St. Chrysostom and Oecumenius. But in Irenzus, lib. 3, 14, in the Alexandrian MS, and in the Syriac, we read the Church of the Lord ; viz. the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wake- field says, ‘the Syriac, that most ancient, and, indeed, inestimable version, which would be ill exchanged for all the MSS. of the Greek Testament in the universe, renders it the Congregation, or Church of the Messiah, or of Christ.”” Griesbach refers to a great variety of MSS. gives the most decided opinion against the common reading, and declares that it is not supported by ‘any MS. that is rendered respectable by its antiquity, its internal excellence, or the commendation of a competent, uncorrupted judge. He adds, that he is ignorant how it can be defended without a violation of all the rules of criticism. ‘ Quo modo igitur, salvis critic artis legibus, lectio Sex, ut pote omni auctoritate justa destituta defendi queat, equidem haud intelligo.”’ Noy. Test. vol. ii. p. 115. The orthodox Eclectic Review also, for 1809, says, ‘‘ On seriously weighing all the evidence, every impartial mind, we conceive, will admit, that the last (viz. Lord) hag the fairest claim to accept- ance, as the genuine reading.” The Vatican MS, however, which is of high authority, having been carefully examined for a Unitarian critic, is found to have Ssov, and instead of row sdsov crmaros, it has tov ciewros Tov sdsou. The blood of his own, viz. Son.—See Monitum to the beautiful edition of Griesbach, by Richard and Arthur Taylor, London, 1818. + ‘* The metaphorical expressions and symbolical allusions applied to the death of Christ are numerous. The world is said to have been ransomed, redeemed, purchased, and bought. ‘These are terms borrowed from the Old Testament, where they are applied to the deliverance of the Jews from Egyptian bondage. The Apostles adopted these forms of speech from habit, from a wish.to accommodate themselves to the usages of their corres- pondents and disciples ; and from the resemblance that subsisted between the emancipation of the Hebrews, by Moses, and the redemption of the world 111 These are metaphorical expressions, borrowed'-from one of thé most common transactions of life. But let us take care not to pursue the metaphor too far, for such pursuit has led to some of the most monstrous errors connected with religion, Literally speaking, there can be nothing of the nature of a commercial transaction between Jehovah and any other being whatsoever. He can neither give nor receive a price or ransom; for, all things are his, and he giveth us all things freely and gratuitously to enjoy. How then did he buy, redeem, ransom, his people Israel? Not by silver and gold, but by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm— by signs and wonders which he wruught by the hand of Moses, he rescued them from the tyranny of Pharaoh, and freed them from the house of bondage. ‘Thence they became his people, and were bound by the strongest ties of gratitude to serve and obey him, as their Saviour and Redeemer. Thus, also, in a similar way, is God said to have purchased his Church. What was the price paid here ? Blood. What !—his own blood? Yes, un- questionably, u1s own; for it is written, Rom. viii 32, “that he spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.” If Christ be denominated God’s own Son, then was the blood of Christ God’s own—his own peculiar property. The Apostle tells us that we also are God’s.—‘‘ Ye are not your own,” says he. Whose then? God’s. How? Because ye are his by the right of purchase. ‘‘ Ye are bought with a price;’—-God, the ETERNAL FATHER hath purchased, ransomed, redeemed you, from ignorance and sin, from misery and death, by the precious blood of his Son; as he purchased, ransomed, redeemed Israel from the bondage of Egypt, by the rod of Moses. “Therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”” 1 Cor. vi. 20. “ Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.” Ps. xxxiii. 12. Isaiah lviii. 7, says, ‘“‘ Hide not thyself from thine own flesh.’ The expression our own flesh and blood, as applied to relatives and friends, is not unusual.* But who could think or speak so abhorrently from common sense, as to identify the persons of two kinsmen? Erasmus paraphrases the passage well, “*« Goddes own Congregation * * * which God did sette so much store by, that from sin, by Jesus Christ; but literally, these words had no more relation to the one than the other ; for the Israelites were not ransomed nor redeemed. They were rescued by the power of the Almighty, and by the most awful displays of his providence, by the plagues of Egypt, the death of the first- born of the Egyptians, and the overthrow of Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea. The phrases, however, are not to be taken literally in either case.’’ Bruce’s Sermons. * Thus, in Virgil, the bloodless shade of Anchises, apostrophizes Cesar ;—~ Projice tela manu, sanguis meus, JEN, vi, 835. 112 he purchased it by the bloud-shedding of hys onely begottet, Sonne.” Here Scripture and reason beautifully blend, and guard us against the hideous fiction of a suffering, incarnate, wounded, blood-streaming Deity, expiring as a sacrifice to the wrath, or - the justice of a vindictive God, which God was his father, nay, his own essential self! Such an appalling and incredible imagi- nation never entered the mind of an Apostle ;—it surpasses the most extravagant fictions of the heathen poets,* is an indelible stigma to the Christianity that does not repel it, and, in more senses than one, puts to open shame, and crucifies the Son of God afresh. He REJECTS it, because he can find no vestige of it in all the preaching of the Apostles. It is not only reasonable to suppose, but very unreasonable not to suppose, that the topics on which * Homer has been censured for making gods of his heroes, and mortals of his gods; for which heinous impiety he is banished by Plato from his re- public, and. by Pythagoras deomed to the infernal regions. What would those philosophers have thought, had the poet, though privileged to indulge invention, represented Jupiter, his father of gods and men, as not only wounded, like some of his inferior divinities, but crucified, dead and buried ? Eyery reader of such an impious figment, would have instantly exclaimed, incredulus odi! But Homer had too much judgment to impose such a tax even on heathen credulity. Aware that he is trespassing on poetic licence, when he wounds Pallas, he tries to reconcile the reader to his improbable fiction, and preserve his divinity from the degradation of being regarded as a mortal, by informing us, that it was not blood but ichor, which flowed from the wound :— «¢ Pure emanation ! uncorrupted flood ! Unlike our gross, diseased, terrestrial blood ; For not the bread of man their life sustains, Nor wine’s inflaming juice supplies their veins.’’ The Grecian bard puts to shame those orthodox poets, who outrage all judg- ment and taste, all sense of moral rectitude, and all just notions of religion, by such blundering imaginations as the following :— 6e Omnipotence oppressed Did travel in the greatness of its strength ; And everlasting justice lifted up The sword to smite the guiltless Son of God.” In the same delectable chaos of Calvinistic monstrosities, “ Pollock’s Course of Time,’’ we hear of one who . “* Quenched eternal fire with blood divine,” And of others, who ** Enacted creeds of wondrous texture—creeds The Bible never owned, unsanctioned too, And reprobate in heayen.”’ iy 4 Of all which creeds, that of the poem just quoted, may claim due precedence. _ i13 they insisted most strongly, and thought of the most importance, ’ are to be found in the record of their “ Acts,” and in their Epistles. And yet we find in them nothing of those doctrines, which are the everlasting burden of modern evangelical song. Nota syllable of three persons in one God—not a syllable of an infinite satis- faction made to divine justice. Peter, immediately after the ef- fusion of the Holy Spirit, while he was yet glowing under its in- fluence, opened his mouth and taught the Jews those doctrines which he was commissioned. to reveal. And what did he teach them ?—Any thing like the doctrines just noticed ? Nothing. Instead of astounding them with a declaration, which would have stamped him as a lunatic, that they had put to death the second of the immortal three, he stated, that Jesus of Nazareth was “a man approved of God among them, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of them ;” that him they had taken, and by wicked hands had crucified and slain; but God bad raised him from the dead, and had made him Lord and Christ. This was the sum of his doctrine. No Trinity —no two natures—no crucified Jehovah—not a word on which his bitterest enemies could place so impious a misconstruction. For when the high priest reprimanded the Apostles, after their miraculous release from prison, he says, ‘“ Behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s (not this God’s) blood upon us.” Acts v.21. How much more heinous, and how much better adapted to serve the high priest’s purpose, would have been the accusation that they intended to subvert the fundamental principle of the established religion, and introduce a new object of divine worship ? Let us not be told, that the Apostles did not divulge the whole extent of their commission, and that they had traths in store which they found it inexpedient openly to proclaim. This argument is not for Protestants. The Apostles knew little of the art of expediency. Paul declared to the elders of Ephesus, that he « kept back nothing which was pro- fitable unto them ;”? and that he had “not shunned to declare unto them all the counsel of God.” He never taught the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore he did not think it projitable ; he never noticed it in declaring unto them all the counsel of God, there- fore it formed no part of what he was commissioned to reveal he knew nothing of it—how should he, having never heard of such a thing, except, perhaps, in Greek mythology ? When he was converted, the voice from the glory which sur- rounded him, said, not that Iam God the Son—the second per- son in the Godhead—equal and consubstantial with God, but “i am Jesus of Nazareth whom thou persecutest.” When pleading before Agrippa, he said, that he “taught the people none other things but those which the prophets and Moses did say should come ; that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, anil to the Gentiles.” Acts xxvi. 22, 23. How would the cood P il4 Apostle have been amazed and confounded, had any Jew spoken to him of the mysterious ¢hree-in-one, as an article of Christian faith, or accused him of propagating a doctrine, of which he was profoundly ignorant, and which would have peremptorily contra- dicted his declaration, that he taught nothing which was not sanctioned by Moses and the prophets? This argument prostrates the Trinitarian hypothesis, and shews that it must be classed among those inventions with which fathers and councils, in after ages, according to Monsieur Jurieu, immensely improved and beautified the Gospel of Christ. ph. . He REJECTS it, because, instead of depicting religion as an angel of light to be admired for beauty and symmetry, it pre- sents a monstrous and confused image to the mind—forma tri- corporis umbre, shadowy and visionary. Simplicity and unifor- mity contribute essentially to the beauty and perfection of all the works of nature; but Trinitarianism resembles the composi- tion of a bad artist, an incongruous assemblage of. disjointed members, whose junction bears no similitude to any thing in na- ture. ‘Trinifarianism also employs a language singularly gross, indecorous, and unscriptural. Even Calvin condemned her style of devotional address, when he said that the words “ holy, bless- ed, and glorious Trinity, savoured of barbarism.””? She sets up her own standard of doctrine, and asserts that all who do, not. conform to it are heretics and. infidels; nay, that the Son of God himself, if he were not the supreme Deity, must have been an egregious impostor. Remaine accuses the Jews of Atheism, and says, “Chey are without a God, because they have rejected the blessed Trinity of their fathers.” He farther alleges, that. « Tf you deny that Jesus Christ is self-existent and equal with the Father in every perfection aud attribute, you take away the foun. dation of Christianity ; and that it is the most stupid and idolatrous religion, if the author of it (Christ) be not the true God.” Dr. Tucker says, “If Christ be not the great I am, ‘he must have been one of the falsest and vilest of the human race ;” and that if the system opposed to Dr. Tucker's “be really true, the Serip- tures, of course, must be false, and Christ and his. Apostles be ranked among the greatest hypocrites and impostors that ever ap- peared on the face of the earth.” It is much to be wished that such language had died with its authors, or been confined to the bitter controversies of days gone by. But refusing to yield to the growing influence of taste and refinement, to say nothing of higher and nobler influences, it still preserves its place in the schools of orthodox polemics ; and writers of our own days evince that they can be as successful, as they are ambitious, in improving the satanic style of their precursors. We may judge of Mr. Pope’s proficiency, from a specimen already quoted in the thirtieth page. , ‘Another, with whom Mr. Pope will probably agree, declares that unless his intrepretation of Scripture be true, Jesus Christ himself. employed ‘the language of unexampled presumption, and outs. - ——— 115 raged every feeling of fitness and pr opriety.’ ‘* But all must yield the palm to the antagonist of our excellent Brahmin. Not. con- tented with accusing Jesus of prevarication, and of retracting his doctrines for fear of death, he declares that ‘If Jesus were not God, the Apostles, the primitive saints, and the angels of heaven, would be guilty of idolatry, and the eternal Father of encouraging rt!" 4+ The Unitarian shudders as he writes these words—pre- sumptuous as they are unhailowed—false in argument, as impious in assertion. They expose the desperation and folly of an un- tenable cause. Coming, as they do, from those, who are obliged to employ the unseriptural invention of two natures in Christ, to reconcile the manifest contradictions of their system, what must be thought of them, by every reader of good moral taste and _feel- ing ? The spirit of Unitarianism, it is hoped, is widely different from this ;—it says, “ Let God be true, but every man a liar.” Rom. i. 4. What! shall we, with all our passions, pr ejudices, ignorances, and theological hatreds, form a system of opinions, and dare to assert, that if we are not right, the omniscient mind must be wrong } ? “Oht madness, pride, impiety ! 1" Nos though all human interpretations of Scripture, and all our ideas of Christ, should be glaringly false, the perfections of God must be un- blemished and unimpeached. God forbid ! that, under any cir- cumstances, we should admit the possibility that Christianity, is “a stupid and idolatrous religion, and its author an impostor,” and ‘fone of the falsest and vilest of the human race.” God forbid ! though we should lose our belief in its divine origin, that we should ever become so blind in understanding, and. so hard in heart, as not to see and feel the matchless excellence of its pre- cepts. The spotless purity, the unrivalled benevolence, the captivating wisdom of the Redeemer’s character, must challenge the admiration of infidelity herself. Though stripped of the di vinity in which it glistens, its superior br iliancy throws every other character into shade, He REJECTS it on a principle of science :—the ‘first Tesson we learn in arithmetic, is te‘call-one and one, two; and two-and one, ‘three. Theology alone contends that three persons make but one God, as if God alone were not a person, i. e. an intelligent being, by hirusélé” ‘Three units constitute the number three. call it by what name you please ; and the number three being resolved into its Component parte, forms three units. ‘Three persons ‘are no more necessary to the constitution of one God, than to the constitu- tion of one man. The word person occurs very frequently in the : sacred volume, and ie ua the author presumes, in the popular sk oe reese Vediles’ s Answer to Wardlaw, p. 24, a wok well deserving the - perusal-of all who are interested inthe controversy.” > + Rammohun Roy. 116 serse.. Thus, Joseph was a goodly person—Esau, a profatie per- son—Noah, the eighth person ;—we read of a righteous, a vile, & mischievous person, of three-seore and ten persons slain on one stone, and of six-score thousand persons in Nineveh. It is written, that God is no respecter of persons; and again, that if ye have respect to persons—ye commit sin, and are convinced of the Jaw as transgressors. When the Athanasian says, he believes in three persons in one God, according to the common and only in- telligible acceptation of the terms, he seems to the Unitarian to pro- fess belief in four intelligent beings, three of whom he calls per- sons, and one he calls God; so that it is not in a Trinity but in a Quaternity, that his belief is fixed. But our blessed Saviour told us that “God is a spirit,” i. e. one spirit, and not three spirits ; one intelligence, not three intelligences, and in this behef the Unitarian rests. As to the argument which some have. taken from the triangle; namely, as three lines are necessary to form one figure, so are three persons to form one God; we might as well be told that as four limes are necessary to the formation of a square, and five of a pentagon, so are four or five persons necessary to the composition of a quadrangular, er pentagonal divinity. There is no similitude in the objects compared. To make the proof or illustration complete, it should be proved that each of the three lines of a triangle, forms a triangle; and that the three triangles are not three triangles, but one triangle. The ancient heathens shewed more taste when they chose the circle, the most beautiful and perfect of figures, having neither beginning nor end, as an emblem of eternity ;—there was some meaning in this. But when Trinitarianism deduces an argument from the composi- tion of a triangle, she forsakes common sense, and exposes*her imbecility. He REJECTS it on a principle of affection and duty to the Father of mercies. Our Saviour tells us, that we should love God <«‘ with all our heart, and soul, and mind, and strength” i.e. with all the powers and affections of our nature, both moral and in- tellectual. We cannot do this if we divide them among three persons ;—one must be the supreme object of gratitade and love, otherwise our hearts will cease to be perfect with the Lord our God. One is enough to engross all our thoughts and contempla- tions ;—one claims them in the highest degree for himself alone ; for itis written, (Isaiah xlii. 8,) “ 1 am the Lord, that is my name, and my glory will I not give toanother.” There is abundance of testimony to prove, that a belief im the doctrine of the Trinity pro- duces, in many conscientious minds, the most unhappy and inex- plicable confusion ; and though subtle priests and theologians contend, that the three persons are but one God, it is undeniable that each of the persons is denominated God, and worshipped as God, and that their names, characters, and offices, are as distinctly marked, as the names, characters, and offices, of any three in- dividual beings; whence it inevitably follows, that Trinitarianism: 117 is the same as Tritheism. It sets up three objects of adoration, and worships each by peculiar titles and epithets ;, and though its. advocates endeavour, by the most miserable sophistry, to maintain that the three are in essence one, they cannot speak of them but as of three separate existences. ‘Their own language and their. ewn practice confute their theory ;—they neither honour the. ‘« persons” alike, nor pray to them alike. When more than one object of worship is admitted, it commonly happens that the in- ferior usurps the homage which is due to the supreme only. Do not the great majority of Trinitarians honour the Son more than . the Father; and Roman Catholics the Virgin Mary, more than. either; while the Holy Ghost, whose claims are equal, is almost, if not altogether, forgotten, or disregarded? When a saint hap- pens to be a favourite and the fashion, as Thomas-a-Becket of old, he becomes the primary object of devotion. Such is the danger of a divided allegiance, that it may lead from the worship of the true God altogether, and precipitate us into the gulf of superstition and idolatry. | He rrgects it on a principle of benevolence to his fellow- creatures. He wishes, as a believer in the true God, and as a Christian, that the glad tidings of the Gospel may be resounded through the world. Had the true doctrine of the divine unity, taught in the Scriptures; been as zealously advocated as Trini- tarianism has been, we should, at this day, see Christianity more extensively diffused abroad, and its influences more sensibly felt at home. When it was first preached to the heathen nations, as we find in the Acts of the Apostles, that doctrine which is so easy of comprehension, and so admissible by its simplicity into the mind of man, was readily embraced, and conversions rapidly followed. But Trinitarianism has never found a welcome reception among enlightened and reflecting heathens ;—they think their own system of Polytheism as good as any other.* It is absurd to speak to them of a distinction of persons in the Godhead—of subsistences and hypostatic unions, If the most learned polemics, who are : bs ~ * ¢¢ The incarnation of the Deity, is an idea extremely familiar to the native mind (of the Hindoos ;) but idolators, instead of being conciliated and won over by a doctrine so cohsonant with their own, are rather flattered by the close resemblance which they suppose can, in this respect, be traced between Christianity and Hindooism, and are thus confirmed. in their ancient super- stitions.”’ | ails « Connected with the doctrine of the incarnation is that of the Trinity, both of which, while they are retained, will prove insuperable obstacles to the propagation of the Gospel in this country. It is to these that Mussulmans constantly recur in their reasonings against Christianity, and it is upon these that Unitarian Hindoos, or those who have relinquished idolatry on the au- thority of the Vedas, have hitherto grounded all their objections’’— Correspon~ dence relative to the prospects of Christianily, and the means of promoting its re= ception in India.” pp. 81, 82, 118 familiar with the terms, have no clear ideas attached io them $ how is it to be expeeted, that any thinking heathen will be con- verted by them? The learned Brahmin has shewn the vanity of such an expectation with regard to his countrymen. “If Chris- tianity,” says he, “inculcated a doctrine which represents God as consisting of three persons, and appearing sometimes in the human form, at other times in a bodily shape like a dove, ne Hindoo, in my humble opinion, who searches after truth, can conscien- tiously profess it in preference to Hindooism; for that which renders the modern Hindoo system of religion absurd and detest- able, is, that it represents the divine nature, though one, as con- sisting of many persons, capable of assuming different forms for the discharge of different offices.” Even to his mind “the doc- trine of the Trinity appeared quite as objectionable as the Poly- theism of the Hindoos, and presented an insuperable obstacle to his conversion to Christianity, as he found it professed by those with whom he conversed.” Happily, however, he determined to study the Scriptures for himself, and after a long and diligent perusal, he rose with the conviction, that the objectionable doctrine formed no part of their contents, and that the Christian religion was true and divine.* What is the Jew’s first and most invincible objection to Christianity ? The doctrine of the “ three in one.” Were he taught the theology of the Gospel, and shewn that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the same individual being, whom his ancestors worshipped as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, his prejudices might be overcome. Until he be thus instructed, in vain shall we hope for his conversion. He REJECTS it, because in all ecclesiastical bodies in which it is adopted, it is accompanied with a determined spirit of hostility: to the rights and liberties of man. Such bodies, not contented with the quiet enjoyment of their own opinions individually, are restless and indefatigable in forcing them on others, usurping a right of dictation, and like the Pharisees of old, “ they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders,” never remaining satisfied till they have caused them to pass under the yoke, and clothed them in the uniform of slaves or hypocrites. The Synod of Ulster presents us with the most recent illustration of this melancholy fact. Will posterity believe, that in the 27th year of the 19th century, it was moved and carried in said Synod, that “ it is absolutely incumbent on them, for the purpose of vindicating their religious character, as in- dividuals, to declare that they do most firmly hold and ‘believe the doctrine concerning the nature of God, contained in these words of the Westminister Shorter Catechism, that there are three persons tn. the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy * Preface to the “ Precepts of Jesus,” = = ———————— 119 Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory?” Will it be believed, that 117 mi- nisters and 18 elders, to vindicate their religious character ! said they believed this portentous proposition ? If either minister or elder among them understood it, it is “ absolutely incumbent” on him for a farther vindication of his religious character, to come forth and explain it clearly and satisfactorily, that Unitarian Christians may understand it also. As it is wise in all inquiries to begin with simple ideas, before we proceed to combine and make them complex, the first thing required will be accurate de- finitions of the terms, nature, Godhead, person, substance, God. These being clearly defined and made perfectly intelligible even to a Unitarian’s understanding, we may be told, that there are three persons in the Godhead, the Godhead being the container, and the persons. the contained. But says the Unitarian, who is always thrusting forward his teazing common-sense objections, the container and.the contained cannot be the same, more than the earth, the sea, and air, are the same as the ethereal vault which surrounds them. Again; the three persons in the God- head are the same in substance ;—supposing our ideas of sub- stance to be quite clear, how is this part of the proposition to be proved? How many kinds of substance are there ?—for this also must be known before he can conscientiously subscribe the proposition. How is it ascertained that the three persons are of one, and not of two or three different substances? What was made of this subject by the old Homoousians, Homoiousians, and Heteroousians, whose souls, were it not for their superior know- ledge of Greek, we might almost suppose to have transmigrated into the venerable Fathers of the Synod ? Si Isaac Newton, no mean authority, has affirmed, that we know but the superficial qualities even of the bodies with which we are most conversant. Neither by the senses, nor by any reflex act of the mind, can we acquire a knowledge of their substance, much less can we have any idea of the substance of God.* But we live now in the 19th century, and understand metaphysics as well as the old Homoousians, and better than Sir Isaac. The members of the Synod have kept full pace with the “march of mind,” and even preceded it, so that we shall suppose they can give a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. We proceed, then, Db cada ita 2 Pc ot aR RL A aa aE RETA ’ * Corpore omni et figura corporea (Deus) prorsus destituitur ; ideoque videri non potest, nec audiri, nec tangi, nec sub specie rei alicujus corpores coli debet. Ideas habemus attributorum ejus, sed quid sit rei alicujns sub- stantia minime cognoscimus. Videmus tantum corporum figuras et colores, audimus tantum sonos, tangimus tantum superficies externas, olfacimus odores. solos, et gustamus sapores ; intimas substantias nullo sensu, nulla actione reflexa, cognoscimus ; et multo minus ideam habemus substantia Dei.” —Newt. Prin. Math. Lon. 1726, p- 329, 120 to inquire, how can the three persons, who are of one substance, be equal, and yet the same, for equality and identity, as has been elsewhere remarked, are two different things? We can compre- hend how three persons may be equal in power and glory, and form a triumvirate, or a tri-theocracy, but we cannot comprehend how they can either be the same, or how each of them can be omnipotent. It has already been demonstrated, that there cannot be two omnipotent beings, much less can there be three. Again, it is stated, that there are three persons in one God, consequently, one person cannot make one God; and so neither Father, Son. nor Holy Ghost, is God by himself, but each forms a third part of the being so denominated. Notwithstanding, we are told, that each person is God himself, and then there must’ be three Gods ; but this supposition contradicts all that was previously stated, respecting three persons in one God, and this the venerable Fathers of the Synod would brand as a damnable polytheistic heresy. . eed Fathers of the Synod of Ulster, what are we to be- lieve ? Do, in compassion to your weaker brethren, whose con- sciences are tender, explain in intelligible language, the proposition which you think necessary to be adopted for the vindication of your character.* You have given the subject all the mature de- Jiberation which its gravity requires. You can enlighten what is is dark, and simplify what is complex; gifted as you are with genius of no ordinary description, and illumined by that “ wisdom which is from above, which is first pure, and then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy, and of good fruits, without partiality, and without Hypocrisy.” Most reverend, and most sapient fathers, when you give the explanation required, you will vindicate your character and not till then. . He REJECTS it, because he thinks it the greatest of Antichristian heresies. From its adoption have sprung the grossest supersti- tions, the most erroneous notions of providence, and infidelity itself. Mr. Pope and Mr. Maguire accuse each other of opening a door to unbelievers; and each, no doubt, could prove the ee * Mr. Francis Cheynel, in his Book of the Divine Trinity, says, “We may best resemble all that difference which is between the essence of God, and the divine subsistencies, by considering the transcendent affections of the Ens simpliciter, and the attributes of God, who doth infinitely transcend, not only a predicamental substance, but a metaphysical entity ; as the most me- taphysical men, who are sound in the faith, do honestly confess. Concerning the transcendental affections of Ens which are unum verwn bonum, we say, these three affections, and Ens in latitudine, do not make four things really distinct, and yet we say, they are real and positive affections.” This explanation of the mysterious doctrine which the Rev. Synod are de- sirous of having subscribed, is respectfully submitted to the consideration of their heart-probing Committee ; and, if approved, it may be adopted and en- forced, under pain of excommunication from their learned body, a, 121 accusation well-founded. It is a fact, indeed, too notorious to be denied, that many have been led, by the corruptions of Christianity, to renounce it altogether, as the invention of priest-craft, and a system of fraud and delusion. Whereas, had it been presented to their view, not through the distorting medium of creeds, articles, and confessions of faith, but in its genuine beauty, they would have seen and felt its superior excellence, and become its zealous advocates. Did not Unitarianism furnish a sanctuary for con- scientious inquirers of other denominations, the votaries of in- fidelity would be far more numerous, as can be proved by the most incontestible facts. Many who have been disgusted, repelled, and driven to the verge of Deism, by the unscriptural doctrines of some popular systems of belief, will own, with gratitude to God, that they first found out the right way to happiness, to evangelical truth, and the life to come, when they joined in Unitarian worship. Then first the simple majesty of the religion of Christ won their devotion, and established its dominion in their hearts ;—then, for the first time, they saw its celestial beauty revealed, and heard its life-imparting dictates spoken. The hour of their regeneration was come——their darkness was dispelled—the clouds of false doc- trine, which had obstructed their mental vision, rolled away, and left them surrounded with a sudden light from heaven. Then could they contemplate God, not through the spectral gloom of Calvinism, as clothed with vengeance, seated on a burning throne, his face in wrath, and sprinkled with blood; but in the pure radiance of gospel truth, clothed with salvation, seated on a throne of grace, and smiling with infinite benignity, as their friend and father, on all the generations of men ;—their souls felt relieved from an oppressive load—they heard freedom proclaimed to the captive—their chains had dissolved away—their spirits felt light and buoyant—they were emancipated and redeemed—and they exulted in their “ deliverance from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” He REJECTS it, because it was unknown to the primitive Chris- tians; and, as far as he has been able to ascertain, had its origin in Paganism, which early began to incorporate its rites and doc- trines with Christianity. Of all numbers, the number three de- lighted the heathen most, as the whole mythological creeds of Greece and Rome testify.* Horsley says, “The notion of a * « Omnium prope Deorum potestas triplici signo ostendatur; ut, Jovis trifidum fulmen, Neptuni tridens, Plutonis canis triceps : vel quod omnia ternario continentur.”’—Servius in Virg. The government of the universe was divided among three of the Dii ma- jores, but Jupiter was the greatest and best ; and were not the minor deities, both of the supernal and infernal worlds, generally grouped in threes, as the Graces above, and the Fates and the Furies below ?—Did not three female divinities contend for the prize of beauty ?— Were not the Muses three times three ?——And was it not from a three-footed stool that the Sibyl gave her oracular responses ?—But the heathen was neyer guilty of such foolery as to say that three are one, Q 122 Trinity, is found to be a leading principle of all the ancient schools of philosophy.” He speaks of the jomt worship of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, in the Capitol; and of the three mighty Ones in Samothrace, to which they may be traced. The doctritie of the Trinity, he thinks, rather confirmed than discredited by the suffrage of the heathen sages. He did well to seek it in any source, rather than the Bible; though we are not convinced that Samothrace and the Roman Capitol would not have felt dis- honoured by having it imputed tothem. Sure we are, that for any figment so monstrous as the Athanasian Three-in-One, heathenism is explored in vain. We are of opinion, that the doctrine of the divine unity, and of the unrivalled supremacy of the Father, is ‘‘rather confirmed than discredited by the suffrage of the heathen sages,” and of all who gave to Jupiter the epithets Optimus and Maximus, best and greatest. A Roman poet, who knew as much of the Capitol as Horsley, could have taught the orthodox divine a lesson on this subject, and put his false theology to shame :— Quid prius dicam solitis Parentis Laudibus; qui res hominum.ac Deorum, Qui mare et terras, variisque mundum Temperat horis ? Unde nil majus generatur ipso ; Nec viget quicquam simile, aut secundum ; Proximos* illi tamen occupavit Pallas honores. Hor. What nobler than my wonted theme, The praise of Faturr Jove—supreme O’er gods and men—o’er sea and land ; Who guides the various seasons bland ; From whom no power more high Than Jove’s great self, e’er springs to light ; None dike to him in glory bright, No second rules the sky. Yet Wisdom, offspring of his love, Next honours holds to sovereign Jove. - We shall, probably, be told, with a sneer, that this is poetry. Well—what then? We say, so much the better. The Psalms of David are poetry ; so is the Book of Job, and the greater part of the Prophecies; and-some parts of the Pentateuch; “and of the historical books of the Old Testament—and in the New Testa- ment may be found quotations from heathen poets, and fragments of hymns in Anacreontic verse. The heathen poetry which we have quoted, is more worthy of Christianity, than the orthodox prose, which it confutes.. It shews, that a great fundamental truth of religion was better understood by a heathen poet, than * Sed longo tamen intervallo proximos. 123 py a vaunted champion of Athanasianism , and that it is doing foul wrong to “the: Capitol” to impute to it ‘the tremendous doctrine.” ' Athanasius and his followers have an exclusive right to it, and let them enjoy it.: “It is not, however, denied that the first rudiments of a Trinity may be found among the heathen; but itis not the author’s design to. trace it through the dark labyrinths of tradition, contented as he is with knowing that it is not. in the Scriptures. He may observe, however, en passant, that its most eredible source is the philosophy of Plato, though, as Priestley has justly remarked, “It was never imagined that. the three. com- ponent members of his Trinity were equal to each other, or, strictly speaking, one.” Many of the early philosophising Chris- tians were greatly attached to the doctrines of that sage. Irenzus, Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen, all contributed to corrupt the simplicity of the Gospel, by amalgamating it with their Platonic reveries. Some of them imagined they could dis- cover a similarity between certain expressions of the Scripture, and the Trinity of their philosopher. The idea being once sug- gested, was readily embraced, enlarged, moulded into proper form, and, in evil hour, adopted into the household of faith... Hine prima mali labes. Pious frauds were practised to give plausibility to the figment—the meaning of Scripture was perverted—the genuine text corrupted by false readings, and by the introduction of new passages ; among which is that famous one ia 1 John v. 7, now admitted by the most sturdy Trinitarians to be an interpola- tion. Much ingenuity, false reasoning, misapplied talents, mys- tification, and terrorism, have been employed to. prove it to be the legitimate offspring of truth—but in vain ;—it is a corrupt branch of an evil weed, “graffed contrary to. nature” on that heaven- planted tree, “ whose leaves are for the healing of the nations, and its fruit has. been as the apple of discord. to the religion of Jesus. 7 je! He rEsEctTs it, because the whole of its history, as far as he has been able to trace it, betrays its earthly and corrupt nature. It did not spring into existence like a being of celestial birth, full- grown and full-armed 5 but like a certain heathen personage, of far different origin, it was at first small through fear, and did not attain its full growth and proper proportiens for many centuries. * ‘« First small with fear—she swells to wondrous. size, And stalks on earth, and towers above the skies.” Those who had any knowledge at all of Christianity were, at * It has been truly observed in a recent number of the Monthly Repository, that the three creeds of the law-established Church, mark the progress of the Trinity. - The first and most ancient, which is Unrrartan, speaks of God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth; and Jesus Christ our Lord, his only Son. The second makes Christ, God of God ; the third, Jesus Christ, God with God, equal in power and eternity to the Father. 124 first, startled at the idea of ascribing to any being but Jehovali, those attributes which are peculiarly his own, and were still for maintaining his supreme “monarchy.” The title of “the only true God,” which our Lord appropriates to the Father, is never once given to Christ, even by the Post-Nicene Fathers, and the reason taust be, that their understanding revolted at so strong and un- warranted an expression.”* Novatus A. D. 250, is said to be the first who wrote expressly on the Trinity, and his views of it appear similar to those of Origen, and very different from the modern doctrine. Sabellius, an African Bishop, about the middle of the third century, taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are only names and offices of the same person. ‘Then arose various interminable disputes about the words substance and Aypostasis. In a council held at Antioch, A. D. 270, it was pro- posed and rejected by a large majority, that Jesus should be de- creed to be homoousios, of the same essence with God. Instead of that term, the Semiarians adopted another, which differed from it in a single letter, and said, that Jesus was not homoousios, but . homoiousios, i.e. of a like substance. The Iuunomians, in op- position to both, alleged that Christ was heteroousios, or of a sub- stance neither identical nor similar to that of the Father. Each party anathematized the other, of course, and the less they under- stood their own and their opponents dogmas, the more violently did their hostility rage, and in louder and more incessant volleys were their spiritual thunders rolled. The Nicene Fathers, in the first general council held at Nice, A. D. 325, adopted the creed which bears their name; but in its original form it said nothing of the personality of the Holy Spirit.+ ‘Ten years only had elapsed, when a council, assembled at J erusalem, decreed in opposition to one of the principal declarations of the Nicene Creed, that Christ is not of the same essence with the Father. The word ousia, or essence, soon became heretical; and. hypostasis was substituted. ' A great dispute sprang up between the Eastern and Western Bishops, the latter contending that there should be three hypostases—the former only one. A council held at Sardica, A. D. 347, resolved that there should be only one both in the East and in the West; but a council at Alexandria, twenty- five years afterwards, decreed, that there should be three. In 364, Apollinaris becoming the leader of a new sect against the Arians, denied that Christ had any occasion for a human soul, and hence . he was charged with maintaining that God suffered on the cross. Prior to this, indeed, Noetus of Smyrna, in the third century, had maintained that the Father united himself to the man Christ, and was born and crucified with him ;—hence, the Patripassians, a sect not yet extinct. Half a century has not elapsed since rl eh eho A i | shee * Ben Mordecai, vol. 1, p. 393. git T See its original form in “ Bulli Opp.” 125 Whitaker alleged, that the Jews crucified the God of the Patriarchs on Mount Calvary; and since his day, some have been heard to assert, that when Christ hung on the Cross, there was no God in heaven! ~ Basil in 370, is said to be the first who taught the full equalit of the Son to the Father—the equal deity of the Holy Ghost wit the Father and Son had not yet been asserted ; but it was decreed in the second general council held at Constantinople, A.D. 381. This new discovery was added to the Nicene Creed—and thus, says Mosheim, “This council gave the finishing touch to what the Council of Nice had left imperfect; and fixed, in a full and determinate manner, the doctrine of three persons in one God.” He appears, however, to have forgotten, says the Rev. Mr. Scott, of Portsmouth, “ That neither the hypostatic union, nor the pro- cession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, as well as from the Fa- ther, had not yet been discovered.” Pope Nicholas the First, A. D. 863, added the words, and the Son (filioque*) to the Nicene Creed. The Eastern Church would not receive this addition, and hence the Greek Trinity is less complete than that of the Roman and Lutheran.” He REJEcTs it, because it degrades the Father,+ and dis- honours the Son. It degrades the Father, by imputing to him _ such conduct as is in opposition to all the sentiments and prin- ciples of right and wrong, which he has himself implanted in the heart of man. It makes the Son his rival, and in generosity of of character, his superior. It dishonours the Son by giving him titles and epithets which he disclaims—representing him as a being which he never affirmed himself to be—and by frequently con- tradicting his own plain and most positive declarations :—“The Son,” said he, “can do nothing of himself.” Nay, says Trinita- rianism, he can do all things by his own sovereign underived power. “ Of that day and of that hour,” says Christ, “ knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” Notwithstanding, replies Trinitarianism, he knows it as well as the Father himself; for he and the Father are one in essence. ‘“ My Father,” says Christ, “is greater thanI.” Here, * “The addition to the Nicene Creed of jfiliogue was projected in the seventh century, and not received by the Latin Church before the ninth,.’’ Jortin’s Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol, iii. p. 62. + “ All the indignities offered to the person of Christ were done to Jehovah, who was joined to that person, and his final sufferings on the cross deno- minated him by the sentence of the law, cursed. Itis false to say this is only- applicable to the humanity of Christ, for none but Jehovah could sustain our execration !”— Abstract of Hutchinson's Works, p. 198. This incomparable Trinitarian says, that “the self-contradicting notion of eternal generation, has confounded the Christian faith more than any other position. "= Id, 223, 126 says Trinitarianism, he speaks not as a “whole and entire," but only as a part of himself; and when he says “I,” we must not under- stand an individual being, as the singular pronoun I, in all other cases, signifies; but two beings, of one of which only, what he utters, can be true; for the other being is equal to the Father in all his atiributes ; and to deny it is an Arian and Socinian leprosy, and a soul-destroying heresy: ! | 1osiin Len SECTION FIFTEENTH. The Superior Excellence, and cheering Prospects of Unitarianism. Tue Unitarian turns with delight from the Trinitarian hypo- thesis, to the contemplation of his own simple and sublime faith. He pants to escape from the dank fogs of a dungeon, from the sepulchral lamp-light, and the sorcerer’s ay to view the ethereal vault, to respire the pure breeze, to hear the voice of nature, and enjoy the warm and cheering light of heaven. His soul feels. emancipated from bondage; and he comes forth rejoicing in the benignant smile of the Father of all. His heart expands and thrills with emotions of love, to the Almighty ONE, his everlasting benefactor and friend. In the scheme of man’s redemption, he beholds a scheme of ineffable love, planned by the great Author of good, and executed by the ministry of his divine Son. He drinks of the waters of salvation, flowing from the living rock, as an emanation from the free grace of God, unmerited and unbought; not as the purchase of a bloody sacrifice, or as_a right extorted, by an infinite price, from inexorable wrath. The supreme ex- altation of the Father, does not diminish the honour and glory which are gratefully acknowledged to be due to the Son. But he believes that he loves and honours the Son most, when he acts most conformably to his precepts. He honours the Son, even as he honours the Father, in receiving his di¢tates as the dictates of God himself. Unitarianism recommends itself by its simplicity. It needs no tedious ratiocination to explain or support it. It does not begin with incomprehensibility, and end with mystery. It can be comprehended by babes, and understood by the illiterate. It’ is among religious creeds, what Newton’s system of the universe is among the systems of other philosophers, The astronomer, who had not read nature truly, was obliged *¢ To build, rebuild, contrive To save appearances, and gird the sphere With centric and eccentric scribbled o’er, Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb!” - , a 127 And for the purposes of astrology, to prescribe ‘« The planetary motions and aspects In sextile, square and trine, and opposit Of noxious efficacy, and when to join — In synod unbenign !” But when the true astronomer, the great hierophant of nature, comes forth to exhibit her temple from a point of view whence it can be fully contemplated, all confusion and irregularity dis- appear. . Unitarianism has no phenomena, for the explanation of which she is obliged to have recourse to invention. She requires no contrivance fo save appearances. But true to the principles of sound philosophy, she does not admit two causes where one will suffice. Her system is consentaneous to. the laws of nature and revelation—simple, as it is grand—harmonious, as it is magnificent. God is the centre from which all beauty and order emanate ; around which, all lights revolve; the great prime mover; the un- wearied dispenser of life and happiness to men, to angels, and every order of animated being. ry The Unitarian is more strongly armed by a single shaft from the armoury of divine truth, than Trinitarianism with all the weapons she can collect from the same store; for in her hands they are powerless, refuse to be wielded in her cause, and turn their edge against her own bosom. As to the triple mail of fathers, councils, and human legislatures, in which she chooses to array herself, it shivers like glass beneath a single stroke of the sword of the spirit; which is the word of God. A. single text, ‘There is ONE God; and there is none other but he,” Mark xii. 32, is fatal to her system. It subverts her councils, and turns her gravest deliberations to folly. Powerful as the pebble from the sling of David, it smites through her forehead, and penetrates her sensorium, | | . Goh | Unitarianism “has a superior tendency to form an elevated religious character.” This has been demonstrated by Channing in a sermon of superlative excellence ;—he observes truly, ‘“* That it promotes piety by presenting to the mind one supreme spirit, to whom all religious homage must be paid—by admitting no divided worship— . by opening the mind to new and ever-enlarging views of God—and_especi- ally by the high place’it assigns to piety in the character and work of Jesus Christ,” ** * * « We deem our views of Jesus Christ more interesting than those of Trinitarianism. We feel that we should lose much by exchanging the distinct character and mild radiance, with which he offers himself.to our minds, for the confused and irreconcileable glories with which that system labours to invest him. According to Unitarianism, he is a being who may be understood—he is one mind—one conscious nature. According to the opposite faith, he is an inconceivable compound of two dissimilar minds— joining in one person a finite and infinite nature—a soul weak and ignorant, and a soul almighty and omniscient ; and is such a being a proper object for human thought and affection ?”’ 128 The same eloquent and powerful writer, shews that it promotes piety, by meeting the wants of man as a sinner, ‘The wants of man may be expressed almost in one word ;—he wants assurances of mercy in his Creator,—he wants pledges that God is love in its purest form; that is, that he has a goodness so disinterested, free, full, strong, and immutable, that the ingratitude, and disobedience of his creatures cannot overcome it. This unconquerable love, which in Scripture is denominated grace, and which waits not for merit to call it forth, but flows out to the most guilty, is the sinner’s only hope, and is fitted to call forth — the most devoted gratitude. Now, this grace, or mercy, of God, which seeks ' the lost, and receives and blesses the returning child, is proclaimed by that faith which we advocate, with a clearness and energy which cannot be sur- passed. Unitarianism will not listen for a moment to the common errors, by which this bright attribute is obscured. It will not hear of a vindictive wrath in God, which must be quenched by blood; or of a justice, which binds his mercy with an iron chain, until its demands are satisfied to the full. _ It will not hear that God needs any foreign influence to awaken his mercy, but teaches that the yearnings of the kindest human parent towards a lost child, are but a faint image of God’s deep and overflowing compassion towards erring man. The essential and unchangeable propensity of the divine mind to forgiveness, the Unitarian beholds shining forth through the whole word of God, and especially in the mission and revelation of Jesus Christ, who lived and died to make manifest the inexhaustible plenitude of divine grace ; and aided by revelation, he sees this attribute of God every where, both around him and within him.” . ae Compared with other systems of divinity, which have been fabricated by general councils, synods, and assemblies of divines, how beautiful, how glorious, how truly evangelical is Unitarianism? Yes; this is the true Gospel of the holy Jesus—the glad tidings which it was worthy of a God of infinite benevolence to inspire, and of the Son of God to preach and proclaim. What is Calvin- ism? A hideous superstition, breathing tidings of wo, and utter- ing curses both loud and deep. While Unitarianism exalts, libe- rates, cheers, and rectifies, and strengthens every moral and every intellectual power—Calvinism debases, enslaves, terrifies, and shakes the mind “ from her propriety.” ‘The one contemplates God as the father universal, and as actuated by parental love to all the children of men—as their bounteous benefactor—their unchangeable friend. ‘The other dreads him asa tyrant, sanguinary, inexorable, and remorseless ; partial in his favour to a chosen few ; merciless, as he is omnipotent, in his ire against the rejected many. ‘GoD Is LOVE,” says Unitarianism.—‘ God is wrath,” says Calvinism, fierce, burning, immitigable wrath. Christ, says Unitarianism, is the good shepherd, who leads his flock to green pastures and living streams—the well-beloved of the Father—the faithful messenger of his mandates—the victor over death and the grave—‘ the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him.” Christ, says Calvinism, is God—the second God of the Trinity, who died a victim to the vengeance of the first God—the Son who was offered up a sacrifice to the infinite wrath of the Father, 129 not for the salvation of all who obey him, but of a few pre» destined to eternal life before the world began, ‘‘ without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them.”* Unitarianism beholds the universe around us, with all its magnificent phenomena, as a demonstration of the. power, wisdom, and goodness of the benignant Parent of all. Calvinism regards the world as a mass of deformed ruins, stamped in all its regions and in all its creatures,—from the highest elevations, to the lowest depths—from the lichen to the cedar—from the gnat and minnow, to the elephant and leviathan,—with a black inde- hible curse, The one regards man as an accountable agent—ac- countable, however, for no transgressions but his own; endowed with reason and conscience, with moral and intellectual powers, with benevolent principles, capable both of thinking and acting virtuously, and of rising to an unlimited degree of improvement and happiness. The other represents him as a mass of inveterate depravity, to the heart’s-core corrupt; in his best thoughts, and in his best actions, vicious ; and, in consequence of Adam’s offence, justly doomed to the torments of perdition. The one approaches God in the confidence of prayer, with’ filial reverence and love, saying as the Saviour taught, “our Faruer ;” and from a heart swelling with veneration and gratitude, pours forth praise and . thanksgiving to the great Bestower, for his free, unpurchased, and unmerited, bounties. The other approaches in the attitude of a coward and a slave; or, as one of the tribe has expressed it, as a condemned criminal, with a halter round bis neck, to vilify human nature before its Creator, as incorrigibly wicked ; and instead of acknowledging and appreciating the free grace and mercies of him, who giveth us all things freely to enjoy, it considers even, the favours reserved for the elected few, as an ungracious boon—a right purchased by the bloody sacrifice of the Son of God. The one comes as the minister. of peace—as.an angel.of salvation, with acts of amnesty, with invocations to repent, with assurances of pardon, with cheering hopes and consolatory promises, with truth, with liberty, with inspirations of immortality and joy. The other comes as a herald of wo—as the high priestess of Moloch, whose vengeance, though once satisfied with blood, still demands new victims ; she comes with scowling visage, lank, lean, and ferocious— with threats and imprecations—with creeds and confessions. of faith—-with heart-probers and inqguisitors, chains, and. slavery. The one would people heaven with thousands and millions of happy spirits from the east and the west, the north and the south— from every tribe. and denomination. ‘The other, having mono- polized the skies for its own little corporation of the elect, de-. lighteth to blow the unquenchable fire, and warm the brimstone bath * Westminster Confession, R 136 to eballition, for all the rest of mankind, on whom it hurls incessan® volleys of sulphurous thunder, and precipitates, in legions upor legions innumerable, to the infernal abyss. Lavish of damnation to others, it cannot always guard its own chosen ones against the terrors of the fiery gulf. ‘The images on which they have gloated during life, haunt them fearfully at the hour of dissolution. That hour which the Unitarian contemplates with pious resignation te the divine will, and with joyous anticipation of celestial bliss, is often regarded by the Calvinist with anguish and despair. His death-bed becomes the scene of inexpressible, inconceivable horrors: One who has witnessed them, and who has a right to speak from having bad ‘ painful demonstration of the mischiefs produced by Calvinism, in the name of Christianity,” says, “ Re- collections of this description are on my mind which ean never be erased. Ihave seen the anxious mother stand by the cradle of her sick and suffering child, and doubt the salvation of her own infant if it expired. I have seen men, who believed that their day of grace was past; that there was no room for repentance left for them upon the earth, and who were, consequently, driven te despondency, to gloom, and to repeated attempts at self-destruc- tion. Ihave stood by the bed-side of the dying and sincere, but not consistent believer in these creeds, and 1 have heard his screams of anguish in the anticipation of a speedy dismission to 4he torment of eternal fires. I have stood by the bed-side of the infidel, and have seen him departing this life, strong in his in fidelity, because he could not believe, that any being, deserving of veneration, would act as orthodoxy told him that God, whose name is love, did.”* Such are the genuine effects of Calvinism: Let its mistaken and’ deluded votaries read and tremble, and as they value their happiness, hasten to abjure their impious, demo- ralizing, heart-rending creeds ;—let them turn to Unitarianism— from darkness to light—-from the power of Satan unto God, and then will they begin to have a just perception of the beauty, and a true feeling of the beatifying power of Gospel truth, As Unitarianism possesses so many incontestible claims to pre- ference, being the religion of reason, common sense, and the Bible, it may be asked why it has not been more extensively diffused 2 We ask, in reply, why is not Christianity in general diffused more widely 2. Why did the ipse diait of Aristotle pre- vail so long in the schools, in defiance of sound philosophy ? Why are the steps of civilization so slow, and the discoveries of science known only to so small a minority of the human race? Why does the genius of despotism continue in so many countries, to crush the rights and liberties of man? Why has tradition been . Speech of the Rev. Mr. Fox, at the Meeting of the British and Foreign . Unitarian Association, held in Manchester, June 1830. 131 80 successfully employed in rendering the commandments of God ineffectual ? And why do those who exalt the supremacy of Scripture, belie their professions by the substitution of unhallowed creeds of human invention? The Reformation was long in making its appearance, and since it has appeared, why did it ever become stationary or retregrade ? In the Synod of Ulster, at this day, its principles are neither acted on, nor understood. “This is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil” As to, Unitarianism, the marvel is, not that it is so confined, but so ex-_ tended, maxgre the multifarious obstacles by which its progress has been obstructed. It is among the ordinances of a probationary state, that virtue shall be opposed by vice, and truth by falsehood. Unitarianism must expect, and should always be prepared to meet the hostilities of Polytheistic creeds. The gods of the Am- monites, Moabites, and Zidonians; Moloch, Mammon, and Belial; Ashtaroth, Chemosh, and Milcom, arrayed themselves against it, among the Jews ; and the passions which those idols represented, have been equally hostile to it among Christians ; the worship of groves and images, under the old dispensation; pride, avarice, ambition, and spiritual wickedness in high places, under the new. It has been obscured—almost buried and lost, beneath a mass of superstition ; argued against by the subtle, crushed by the strong, | and anathematized by the bigoted ; reviled, tortured, and robbed. It is passed by with contempt by the sanctimonious Pharisee, ex- cluded from the wealthy synagogue of the lordly Sadducee, and branded with the names of leprosy, infidelity, deism, and enmity to God.*- But it has always possessed a mind conscious of its own rectitude, and a holy reliance on the eternal One, whose name it delighteth to honour, Its spirit is immortal;—it may be re- pressed, but never extinguished—* persecuted, but not forsaken— * SS AS a LITE AC AA LO LOL * Every man who writes in support of it, may be almost certain of having not only his literary and religious, but his moral character assailed and calumniated by Calvinism. If he escape with being accused simply of want of candour, and not of downright forgery and falsehood, he may deem him- self fortunate. An honest review of any composition of an Unitarian author, by an orthodox critic, would be astrange anomaly in the history of criticism. Let the Eclectic Reviewer, if he dares, answer the challenge of “ the Watchman,” in the Monthly Repository, for November 1830, to discuss the question of the unity and supremacy of the Father. The pages of the Re- pository offer him a fair field for the contest. But will he accept it? We venture to answer, no. And from what cause? Conscious imbecility. Tutius est, igitur, fictis contendere verbis Quam pugnare manu Safer for him to shoot poisoned arrows from his secret den, than to com¢ manfully into the field with the honest weapons of war. 132 east down, but not destroyed.” It may be silenced by clamour, never overcome’ by argument—harassed by Test and Corpora- tion Acts, never deprived of communion with God,—it is driven from courts, and finds an asylum in heaven. ' Unitarians are charged with blindness, obstinacy, leprosy, and. soul-destroying ‘heresy, because they do not follow some of the more popular forms of religion. With equal reason should they be censured for being able “to afford to keep a conscience.” There are Unitarians who, in learning and piety, are not behind the very chiefest of the apostles of Trinitarianism. Their in- tellects are not less acute, nor is their love of truth less sincere Wherefore should hey be attached to error?, What system have. they to support at the expense of the smallest tittle of their in- tegrity? Unitarianism has no patronage ; she is no favourite with _ the titled few, or the fame-bestowing many ; the world, and the world’s law are against her; if she were of the world, and could fashion her doctrines to the depraved public taste—did she excite sensations, instead of inculcating principles, she would be less. calumniated, and more kindly received. She has not even a church, or any thing which the mitred hierarchs of the Jand could properly condescend to call a church; she has only the pure religion of the. Gospel. From this she learns, or should learn, to bear the slights_ and discourtesies to which she is often exposed, and the bitterness, clamour, and wrath, with which she is constantly pursued. In: this she may read of one, “who esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt.” Herein also she may remember to have read of one, who taught the people standing on_ the shore, from a fisherman’s boat; and who, as he sat on the green sward of a mountain-top, beneath the clear blue sky, with the. people congregated around him, delivered a discourse not inferior in beauty, pathos, and sound divinity (in the opinion of some* - judges at least) to the most elaborate, episcopal composition of modern times. The insttuctions of that teacher, she doubts not, were as efficacious as if they had been delivered from the Papal Throne, in full convocation of the clergy; and the devotions of the people as acceptable to the Father of all, as if they had risen from beneath the fretted vault, or been re-echoed through the | long-drawn. aisles of the most magnificent. cathedral. She may remember farther, to have seen it written, that all the disciples of | Jesus were once assembled at Jerusalem in an upper-room ; and may wish to be informed what, at that time, constituted the church of Christ; or if the disciples, haying nothing which their’ cere eter ESE CCIE * Some, not all—for the Saviour’s Sermon on the Mount; appears to others of more sublimated taste, a piece of good morality, indeed, but destitute of what they ean properly call religion; nothing to be compared to their own empyrean rhapsodies ! 133 sacerdotal Mightinesses of the Jewish temple, could properly de- nominate a church, were in the same condition then, as their Unitarian brethren are now. Unitarians lay no claim to infallibility ; but they do with the greatest confidence deny that they are under any temptation whatsoever to tamper with the conscientious dictates of their own minds; unless it be to forsake the principles of their profession, for others which are more popular and fashionable, and whicl may prove more lucrative. There are temptations enough to induce such of them as would aspire to power and place, to abandon their faith; none which the worldly-wise will applaud,: to attach them to it. Those who would proselyte Unitarians have every thing to assist them, except truth and the Gospel. , What but the strongest conviction can bind them to their un- popular belief? Overcome that conviction—prove to their satis- faction that they are in a wrong path, and they will join the many who have entered by the broad gate, and are crowding along the royal high-way. Shew them a religion, with credentials from heaven, more beautiful and more easily comprehended than their. own, more influential on human conduct, and more adapted to the wants, the hopes, the wishes, and all the lofty and holy aspirings of the immortal soul, and be assured, they are not-such enemies: to their own good, as to refuse its adoption. They stand on the: right of private judgment, and this right with them is not-a name, but a reality. Much is said and written now-a-days in behalf of this right, particularly by some of those who are endeavouring to proselyte the Church of Rome. Mr. Maguire seems to contemplate many: of their declarations respecting it as a complete fallacy; for they: allow the right to be exercised only till it leads to the rejection of the Papal authority, and then it must cease. The Church of: Rome herself allows a similar right until you have adopted her: as your spiritual guide, but from that instant your right is no more. Your understanding has performed its office, and is thence:: forth, as some worn-out or hurtful instrument, to be thrown away. You have seen enough, and must quietly submit to have your eyes put out. The process of some of our Reformers is not very dissimilar. They not only allow—they imperatively insist on the frequent perusal of the Scriptures ; but then you must read them with the spectacles of Athanasius or Calvin; or should you hap-_ pen to take a glance with your own eyes, and get more expanded | views of the perfections of God and his divine dispensations, you are immediately stigmatized as a leper and a heretic ;—you must be cut off from “the covenanted mercies of God,” * and doomed * Will it be believed, in an age to come, that there are orators in this our day, who class invincible error with presumptuous transgression; and mo- 134 te dwell for ever in that dire abode, over whose gate ls Written, . Lasciate ogni speranza, vot, che ’ntrate. *¢ All hope abandon ye who enter here.” Mankind, however, are beginning to shew some symptoms of uneasinesss, even under the mitigated yokes of Popery reformed. Having once learned to exercise the rights of free-born men, they will not suffer their minds to be enslaved by the usurped authority of predestinating liberators and Jesuitical saints. © Mr. Pope him- self exhibits some restiveness, and in his curvetings has: shaken off a few of the “Articles” that were too oppressive to be borne. Let him fearlessly dash all his fardels to the ground, ‘and asserting’ the liberty wherewith Christ has made him free, resolve to be: under spiritual servitude to none but to one who said, ‘ that his yoke was easy, and his burden light.” SRT HY There is some hope that this admonition will be followed ;| for Mr. Pope says, “he trusts that the result of his discussion with’ Mr. Maguire may be, that we shall throw the Fathers overboard, and sailing in the ark of the living God, the holy Scriptures, Jaunch out upon the great ocean of religious truth2’* In this. wish, the Unitarian most heartily joins; and along with the Fa~ thers, in order to render the bark light and buoyant, he would throw out their whole offspring, both spurious and legitimate—the’ Westminster Confession of Faith—the Nicene and Athanasian’ Creeds—a thousand folios of Scholastic Divinity and dogmatic: Theology—huge bales of Magazines, falsely entitled Evangelical— all war-denouncing ecclesiastical “Charges’’—reams of declama-" tions against good works—-the sanctimonious cant by which for- tunes and titles, with the “silly women” appended to them, are led captive—the impious declarations of fanatics, that nature is’ under the curse of God ; and the uncharitable invectives against’ their neighbours, misnamed sermons, and headed with the appro- priate text, “Curse ye Meroz—curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof.” Let all such trumpery be “shouldered” and shovelled: out ;—down let it sink, ten thousand fathoms deep !—as long as ; destly affirm, that if after the most painful and sincere investigation of the. truth, we have the misfortune to adopt an erroneous belief; i. e. a belief different from that which they advocate, we have nothing to expect but head- long precipitation into the fiery gulf, | poe “« There to converse with everlasting groans, Unrespited, unpitied, unreprieved, Ages of hopeless end?” - Hard fate of involuntary ignorance! Such was not the spirit of him who prayed, ‘‘ Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” * Discussion, p. 45, ~ 135 if remains on board, it will impede the motion of the vessel, ettt-— barrass the movements of those who should work her, and keep up the continued cry of danger. | Mr. Maguire boasts of an infallible remedy for putting the Unitarian to silence; does he also intimate his mode of applying it, when he says, ‘he would take him by the throat?” If he has sufficient energy in his grasp, this mode would, no doubt, succeed, when the senile babblings of tradition, and the arrogant preten- sions of church authority, would only provoke laughter and con- tempt. But the Unitarian has no apprehension of being so roughly handled, defended as he is, on one side, by reason, Scripture, and common sense; and on the other, by the shield of the British Constitution.” With these allies in the fair field of argument, he dreads not the grasp of any Tritheistic man of Gath, nor the gauntlets of a hundred-handed Briareus of Polytheism. Let Unitarianism profit by the concessions which have been » granted to her, and come forth in her panoply of truth, conquering and to conquer. A new and a brighter era in her history has arrived. Men of learning, piety, and first-rate talents, are begin= ning to exalt their voice most audibly in her behalf. Many erudite divines, who, like Lindsey, Priestley, and Belsham, were early im- bued with Trinitarian principles, have also, like them, overcome the | prejudices of education, and had the magnanimity to turn from lying vanities, to worship and serve the one only living and true God. Her doctrine is making rapid progress in England ; and, ° without boasting of a prophetic spirit, we venture to predict, that it will go-on with accelerating speed ;—let its taeit converts only assume courage to brave the scowl] of orthodoxy, and stand up~ manfully as its advocates. It has passed the Tweed, and in © Scotland is proceeding with firm and steady pace. In Edinburgh it has found a permanent asylum; and in due time, we doubt not, that city will add to her renown, by the adoption of a faith more worthy of her intellectual character, and more accordant to the soul-enlarging truths of inspiration, than the dark and illiberal metaphysics of her popular creed. Glasgow, one of the darkest dens of Calvinism, has been cheered by the celestial hght of Unitarian Christianity. There the Rev. J. Yates has had the glory of proclaiming its truth—of combating successfully, in its behalf, and causing its enemies to quail. There the Rev. G.- Harris is fighting “ the good fight of faith’—foiling the insolence of rampant bigotry, and sending forth his able ‘Christian Pioneers” to prepare the way of truth, and lay a bright and trenchant axe to the roots of the tree of corruption. The sour and melancholy gloom, which a misanthropic creed had spread over the counte- nances of the good people of Glasgow, and which excited the wonder of the celebrated philosopher Reid, when he first com- menced his academical labours in that city, is beginning to be dis- pelled before the beams of a cheering evangelical faith. The holy flame has been kindled in Dundee, and there, we trust, it will 136 burn for ages with increasing splendour. It ‘has flashed upon: Greenock, and we do not despair of its piercing even the dense cloud that hangs over Paisley, and imparting light and joy to those “who ate sitting in darkness, and the shadow of death.” Ireland has felt and owned its influence from north to south ;—intolerance- and persecution have promoted the cause which they conspired, with the Synod of Ulster, to crush. We owe them much for having roused to vigorous. exertion, the spirit of a Montgomery, a.Porter, a Mitchel, an Alexander, a Blakely, and a Glendy. Those pure-minded Christian men, with the other ‘¢ Remon- strants,” must feel happy in their separation from the hypocritical cant, the Pharisaical grimace, and the Presbyterian Popery, which they had so long to endure, while in connexion with the vene- rable Synod. Long may they enjoy the approbation which they have merited and won from the wise and good; with the proud consciousness of having acted as became the disciples of him, who is “the way, the truth, and the life ;” and widely may they extend the hallowed power of those Christian principles, in defence of which they have so heroically stood! Dr. Bruce, of Belfast, has spoken with a force of argument, an elegance of style, and know- ledge of Scripture, worthy the reprobation of Calvinism. Why is Vindex so long silent? He has given us only enough of his racy letters* to stimulate our relish for more. The Rev. W. Porter has served the cause of truth, by strangling the viperous calum- nies which followed him into lis quiet retreat, and by exposing Pharisaical malignity and falsehood, to the merited indignation of every honest man. The Pastor, of Moneyrea, who has long taken his post in the van of Bible Christianity, still continues to present an invincible front to its enemies. The Rev. Mr. Hunter, of Bandon, “on evil times, though fallen,” maintains his post with cheerfulness and intrepidity : and in Cork, a Unitarian Christian Society has been formed under the auspices of a number of ladies and lay gentlemen of high respectability by their rank in society, . but-still higher by their moral and intellectual attainments, by a more generous zeal, and a far more intimate knowledge of Scrip-. ture, than are to be often found in a sacerdotal stole. Long may they flourish, happy, free, and independent ! Dublin could boast of an Emlyn once ; an Emlyn whe, with a courage like that of the ancient martyrs, dared to stand alone and assert his faith, in defiance of cruel persecution, the fine, and the gaol. She could also boast of some illustrious examples of men, who “counted all. things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord,”? a Mather, a Veal, and a Norbury, Fellows of Trinity College, who, with Winter, the Provost, resigned their situations, rather than suffer their consciences to be either SNF ee nn eR aD ne en ET oun-EEESE OLIN DNID IS. * Published in the Christian Pioneer. 137 stretched or curtailed on the Procrustean bed of conformity. She had an Abernethy, a Duchal, a Mears, and a Leland, who were “as the sons of God without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, amongst whom they shone as lights in the world.” In our own time, CATHOLICUS VERUS has spoken with a voice most sweet and eloquent. Would that it were raised again to a higher note, and like a trumpet make the welkin ring! Here, as in Cork, a Unitarian Christian Society has been formed, by the exertion of some individuals, who stand high in the scale of civic respectability, and mental cultivation. They have opened a friendly correspondence with their brethren in England, and established a Repository for such publications as they deem best calculated to promote evangelical truth. ‘They have among them wealth, influence, talent, learning, and high moral integrity ; and these, if liberally and energetically employed in the best and noblest of causes, must eventually succeed in pro- moting their desired object. Let them be only constant and zealous in their endeavours, by frequent meetings, by mutual ex- hortation, by circulating tracts, and encouraging every effort in their behalf, both of the pulpit and the press ; and fear not, that under a gracious Providence, they will be mainly instrumental in advancing the interests of true religion. In proportion as the Scriptures are read and understood, and as men learn to think and judge for themselves, must the reign of superstition and idolatry be brought nearer and nearer to a close. , Abroad, Unitarianism is spreading like the light of heaven, The mountains and vallies of Switzerland are re-echoing her halleluiahs, while Malan and his fanatics are howling a funeral. dirge over the “lifeless carcass” of Calvinism.* The erudite Brahmin in the East has commenced her hosanna to the Son of David, and proclaimed that Jehovah is One. But we must turn ‘to the land beyond the western ocean, to the land of the learned and pious Channing, to see how she can triumph when she has an open arena, and is not opposed by fashion, worldly interests, and thoseinveterate prepossessions of custom’and education, which chain men to Popery and Calvinism in Europe. © Half a century has not elapsed, since she could not boast of more than one con- eregation in that great division of the globe—now she has many ;+ may it soon be all her own! She is rapidly progressing, and scattering wide the good seed of the Word, which, in due season, A OR amet a a i ee Se a Neate »__“ The priestlings of Moloch are loud in their wail, And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal, And the might of grim Calvin smote down by the word, Hath melted as snow at the glance of the Lord.” + A gentleman, just arrived from America, has informed the author, that in Boston alone, there are fourteer congregations of Unitarian Chris- tians—1827, 8 138 “will shoot above all the noxious tares that wouid impede its growth. In that new world, the prejudices of Europe find no appropriate soil. There the religious mind has room to expand, unchecked by the blighting influences of established error. ‘Tlrere Calvinism will cease to east its heart-withering shade, to exhale its azotic effluvia, or encumber the ground with its jagged and ‘poisonous roots. ‘Trinitarianism will be cleared away by the sickle and the hoe of true labourers in the vineyard of the Lord ; for “ every plant,” saith our blessed Saviour, “ which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” It must, therefore,. be extirpated from all Christian ground, and the religion of the ‘Redeemer produce its genuine fruits—“love, joy; peace, long-suffer- + ing, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.” These are the true fruits of Christian principles; and it is written, “by their fruits ye shall know them” There it has been calculatad, that seven-eighths of the Society of Friends have renounced the doctrine of the Trinity.* The “Christians,”+ the Universalists, and the Congregational Unitarians are, every day, becoming more and more numerous; and besides these, there are many who are well known “to cherish our opinions, having drawn them from Scripture, and matured them in their own thoughts, without knowing that they harboured the heresy of Unitarianism.” All North Ameriea is turning to the worship of the only living and true God ;—seon may the tmiversal conversion be complete ! Then shall “the wilderness and solitary place be glad; and the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose ;—it shall blossom ‘abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing * * * * they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God.” ~ ee ay * « Tt may not be generally kaown, that since the beginning of the present eentury, there has sprung up in this country a very numerous sect, who, abjaring all distinctive names, call themselves the Christian Denomination. Originally they were Seceders from the Presbyterian, the Baptist, the Me- thodist bodies ;—of course, they were all nominally Trinitarians, having been cducated in that doctrine. The doctrine, however, was soon canvassed, brought to the test of revelation, and universally rejected, with all its conco- mitant doctrines, as unscriptural. Within 25 years, their growth has been wonderful, particularly in the Western States of the Union, and chiefly among the common people. They have now 500 ministers, from 700 to 1,600 churches, and they number about 200,000 persons, who have embraced their priaciples and doctrines. One of their principal preachers says, ‘ We are, evangelical Unitarians in preaching, and applying the Unitarian doctrine; and it is thts mode of preaching and applying it, which has crowned our labours, with such a rich harvest ; it is this which gives us access to the common people, who constitute the greatest part of our congregations.” ”’»—See an American Tract, entitled « Evangelical Unitarianism adapted to the Poor and Unlearn- ed.” Mon. Rep. Oct. 1830, p. 700. 4 . ‘This is stated on the authority of one of their own body, 2 gentleman of Philadelphia, of known yerecity and candour, now on a visit to Dublin, Noy, 1830. 139 ‘Such intelligence is exhilarating to the friends of true religion at” home. Let them not despair;—the great Reformation has com- menced, and if they will lend their aid, it will go prosperously forward. The authors of the last Reformation only half executed their task. ‘They did much, but more rernains to be done. ‘They did all that could-reasonably be expected of men emerging from midnight shades, and awakening from a profound slumber : but their vision, long habituated to darkness, could not bear the full. radianee of Gospel truth. They still hovered on the confines of their ancient haunts. They wanted the eagle eye and the eagie pinion that could sustain and direct them, in more elevated flights. towards the Sun of Righteousness. It is left to men of the pre- sent and coming age to complete the task which they began ; to. establish the doctrine of the divine unity ; and make the religion of the Bible the only religion in the world.* Let Mr. Pope employ his talents.in promoting this design—disenthral his mind from the spiritual chains by which it has been confined—take more en- larged views of nature—(how can a mind like his admit the mons- trous idea that nature is under the curse of her Creator?) and adopt more expanded sentiments of Providence, and Revelation, and more worthy of the name and profession of him, who has, taught such heart-touching lessons of the inexhaustible benevo- lence of his and our heavenly Father, who feeds-the fowls of the » air, and-clothes the lies of the field; who causes his sun to shine, and his rain to fall, on the unthankful and the evil. Instead of ‘persisting in a fruitless advocacy of the unscriptural doctrine which he has espoused, let him dare to become a champion in the cause of truth. Whitby, Watts,, “Lindsey, Robinson ef Cam- —— —_——— * “ We have been told by the acutest champion of Popery in our own times, that Unitarians are of all Protestants the most consistent, and carry the principles of the Reformation to the fullest extent ;¢ and in this declaration, though intended by its author as the bitterest taunt, we acknowledge a truth, awhile we despise a sneer, ‘The orthodox Protestant, who has come to the contest, expecting an easy triumph over the Catholic, by proving to him how Jittle of his creed is found in Scripture, willbe staggered when the Catholic proves to him in his turn, how little of his own can-_be derived from it. He will find that he can escape from the admission of transubstantiation, only by that plea of figurative language which the Unitarian takes-up to prove, that a great deal of the popular theology is built on figures of speech, never de- signed by those who used them to be taken in a literal sense.” Obstacles to the Diffusion of -Unitarianism. A Sermon, by John Kenrick, M.A. London, 1827. The author recommends this Sermon’to the serious perusal of his readers, as picus, learned, eloguent—and to the friends of ‘Gospel truth, cheering and .consolatory, + The Unitarianism of Watts is disputed. No wonder. The hymns written by him when a young poet, are too full of Calvinism for their author to be easily given up by the advocates of that heart-withering system. Watts would have purged them of their unchristian sentiments; but they had be- come the property of booksellers, who would not suffer their popularity to be at OLS LL LLL ALD AAA a + Lingard’s Tracts, (1826) pp. AQ— 132, 740 bridge, and a host of others, who have written, and written as well as men could write in support of false principles, have at last discovered their error, and with magnanimity to avow it, turned to the worship of the One God. If Mr. Pope and Mr. Maguire would follow their great example, each would win a more perma- nent, and more glorious wreath of triumph, than will ever be gained by the victory of one corruption of Christianity over another. ; a a RE Ee OS SS ae Ah SE a er Et eee Oo St te ce ame RTT injured by stich a purgation. A letter, quoted by the late Rev. and learned Samuel Merivale, of Exeter, to Dr. Priestley at Leeds, exhibits the most authentic account of Dr. Watts’s last sentiments concerning the person of Christ; from which it appears, that in Dr. Larpner’s estimation, Dr. Watts became, in the strict and proper sense of the word “ an Unitarian.” The reader who wishes for further satisfaction, may see a letter of Lardner’s on the subject, in Belsham’s Life of Lindsey, pp. 220, 221. In this letter he states, that “ Dr. Watts’s last thoughts were completely Unitarian.” It is much to be lamented that Dr, Watts’s papers were not preserved and published, that they might have shewn how the light of Unitarian Christianity first dawned upon his soul, and dissipated the dark clouds of Trinitarian pre- judice, by which it had been so long and so darkly enveloped. ‘* The feelings of his humble, pious, and inquisitive mind are beautifully exhibited in that devout address to the Deity, from which Mr. Lindsey has made copious ex- - tracts, of which the following are an interesting specimen .”— ‘«¢ Hadst thou informed me, gracious Father, in any place of thy word, that this divine doctrine is not to be understood by men, and yet they are required to believe it, I would have subdued all my curiosity to faith. But I cannot find that thou hast any where forbid me to understand it, or make these in- quiries. I have, therefore, been long searching into this divine doctrine, that I may pay thee due honour with understanding. Surely, I ought to know the God whom 1 worship, whether he be one pure and simple being, or whether thou art a threefold Deity, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ‘¢ Thou hast called the poor and the ignorant, the mean and the foolish things of this world, to the knowledge of thyself and thy Son. But how can such weak creatures ever take in so strange, so difficult, and so abstruse a doctrine as this, in explication and defence whereof multitudes of men, even men of learning and piety, have lost themselves in infinite subtilties of dis- putes, and endless mazes of darkness? And ean this strange and perplexing notion of three real persons going to make up one true God, be so necessary and so important a part of Christian doctrine, which, in the Old Testament and the New, is represented as so plain and easy even to the meanest under- standing ?’—The Life of the Rev. Isaac Watts, D, D. by Samuel Johnson, L.L.D., with Notes, containing Animadversions and Additions, 1785. Quoted from Belsham’s Life of Lindsey, p. 218. END OF THE ESSAY. REVIEW OF THE REV. JAMES CARLILE'S BOOK, ENTITLED «JESUS CHRIST, THE GREAT GOD OUR SAVIOUR.” Tux first edition of the preceding Essay had scarcely appeared before the public, when it was attacked by a host of polemics, as by a simultaneous impulse, and almost every pulpit in Dublin rang with declamations against the soul-destroying heresy. In the van stood the Rev. James Carlile, one of the Ministers of Mary’s Abbey Meeting-house. Not contented with hurling his eral fulminations against it week after week—he determined to give the fruit of his oratorical labours to the world in the perma- nent form of paper, ink, and type. Great expectation was eX- cited—mighty efforts were made among the orthodox, so called, of his own persuasion, to encourage him in the task—subscrip - tions were received—the work proceeded—the hour of parturition at length arrived— «¢ The mountain laboured and a mouse was born ?”” No—but an overgrown semi-animate nondescript lusus theologia, which expired a few days after its birth, and which it is our busi- ness to dissect for the instruction of students in theological anatomy- This new birth came out, branded with its dogmatical and idol- atrous title, in the shape of a heavy volume, swollen with verbiage and tautology, containing 471 pages, with a preface of xv. In this, our author acknowledges his obligations to Dr. Wardlaw, whose old panoply, dinted and shattered as it was in the conflict with the Unitarian Yates, he is contented to stitch clumsily together, and to buckle on. He acknowledges his obligations to old An- drew Fuller, in whose putrid relics he had been raking in search of materiel to be employed in his soréie against the Unitarians. He ‘«‘damns with faint praise” the Synod of Ulster, and evinces what spirit he is of, by treating as a Unitarian forgery that prayer of 142 Hr. Watts, which the reader may see in the note of our 140th page, and affirming of the virtuous, the learned, and scientific Priestley, that in his history of the Corruptions of Christianity, “« he exposed his learning to utter contempt,” and ‘ forfeited all just claim to the character of an honest man!!!” In order te prepossess his readers with a high idea of his vene- ration for Holy Writ, he informs them, in the commencement of his opus magnum, that he “ reasons on the principle of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures—of the ipsissima verba as they originally stood in the sacred canon.” Now, it would have been benevolent of him to have informed us where those ¢psisstma verba are to be found. Where has the original canon been deposited for so many centuries ?—and by what happy providential dis- covery, has it been placed under the scrutinizing eye of the Minister of Mary’s Abbey? Notwithstanding his pious tenacity of the very words of the inspired Volume, he leaves “ the original reading to be ascertained by the ordinary rules of evidence in such cases ;” and has no objection to yield to a preponderance of authority for the expulsion of a word, (what if it should be the verbaum ipsissimum?) when it is unfavourable to orthodoxy. Accordingly, he tells us of one Ambrose, who lived prior to the age of any MSS. now ex- tant, who affirmed that part of a certain heretical text was an in- terpolation! So much for his ipsissima verba, and the principle on which he reasons. Mr. C. seems to be one of that class of theologians, who think that the more they vilify the works of creation, the more they exalt Revelation, and better prepare a way for their own peculiar tenets. They not only shut their eyes against the clearest dis- plays of divine wisdom and power iu the great volume of nature, but they make the most preposterous assertions in direct contra- diction to the volume of inspiration. Thus, Mr. C. asserts, that, « of the manifestation of God to his creatures, and the énéernal con- stitution of the divine mind the book of nature says absolutely nothing.” What dees any book say of the internal constitution of the divine mind, unless, perchance, some audacious work on the Trinity, which speaks of the substance or essence of God, and pretends to reveal what is communicable to none in earth or heaven? But as for the manifestation of God to his creatures, this is apparent in every region of the universe. ‘© Lo! the poor Indian his untutored mind Sees Ged in clouds, or hears him in the wind.” David affirmed, that the heavens declare the glory ef God; and the Apostle Paul, that his eternal power and deity are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; and yet with these, and a multitude of other passages of Scripture, equally ex- plicit, shall we be told by a Christian divine, inthe 19th century— a star of the first magnitude in the Synod of Ulster, that of the 143 manifestation of God to his creatures the book of nature says ab- solutely nothing ? After such an egregious declaration, we cannot be much srr- prised to find our author attributing to reason aml common sense, the very errora which they detect and expose. “ Reason and com- mon sense,” he says, “ discovered that the world was a vast plain, sustained on the back of an elephant, and that elephant sup- ported on the back of an enormous crab?” We thought it had been a tortoise—but n’importe. What principles have discovered that this was an error? Do the Scriptures teach the true system of the universe 2? — } He asks—“* Was it mot reason and common sense, that converted the worship of the Creator into orgies of the most detestable pollution, and the most revolting cruelty 2”? *:* * * « Common sense and reason are employed to support the Church of Rome”—(indeed !) “¢ On the Continent of Europe they have divested Christianity of all its peculiarities” —(marvellous!) “ They taught Socrates to sacrifice a cock to Nsculapius” (poor Chanticleer !) They taught Dr. Geddes “that the sacred historians wrote like other historians, from such documents as they could find, (dd they write from such documents as they could not find?) and consequently were liable to make mistakes.” All mistakes, tt seems, have been avoided, by their having com- piled their histories from unfound documents ! and left reason and common sense to Socrates and Dr. Geddes—to the Church of ‘Rome, and the disciples of infidelity—to the orgies of the heathen, ‘and the cosmogonists with the * enormous crab !” | But, notwithstanding the mischievous effects of reason and com- mon sense, our author would not discard them. He allows, that they must be admitted, but then he would confine them strictly to an investigation and arrangement of facts. Facts are always of importance; but when they are collected and arranged, should we not be permitted to reason on them, and from particular facts ascend to general principles ; from the effect to the cause— from the creature to the Creator? What is the province of rea~ son? To combine—to compare—to draw conclusions. Any person of common observation and industry, may collect facts : ‘bat it is only he who can reason upon them justly, that knows their value, and applies them to their proper object. After his long tirade against reason and common sense, we are surprised to hear him chanting a palinode in the following strain :— « We must, I think, cdncede something like common sense principles to the construction of the Bible!” And again, ‘‘ My readers will find, that I shall have continual occasion to appeal to their reason and common sense.’ What! to those exploded principles which support the lady in scarlet—that make the earth a plain—fix it on an ‘ enormous crab,” and sacrifice chanticleer ? We agree with our author when he states, that theologians “¢ Have not sat down to the study of the Bible, for the mere purpose of as. certaining what it contains, as philosophers have sat down to the study of 144 nature, for the mere purpose of eliciting facts. Like the ancient philose- phers, they have persevered in forming systems by mixing up the most obvious phenomena of Scripture with their own imaginations !”” This is perfectly true ; and he might have aaded, that not con- tented with forming systems, which set all Scripture at defiance, and are as destitute of reason as he can wish, they have tried to rivet them on the conscience of their brethren, and enforced subscription to them, in violation of Christian liberty and right. They have substituted the unhallowed reveries of ignorance and fanaticism in place of the Bible. They have stamped with the title of orthodox, such crude malevolent compilations as the ‘* Westminster Con- fession,” and imposed it on the world as the oracles of trath. Mr. C. exposes the proficiency he has made in theological studies, when he objects to the practice of confronting one text of Scripture with another. He should know, that it is only by thus confronting them, that we can ascertain the meaning of the very terms in which doctrines are conveyed. He forgets, and his book evinces that he must be subject to frequent lapses of memory, that he had himself, but two pages before, said something approvingly about comparing “ Scripture with Seripture, for the purpose of discovering what is the mind of the Spirit in every sentence of the sacred Volume.” Now, we beg leave to ask, what difference is there between comparing Scripture with Scripture, and con- fronting text to text? ‘If one text,” says he “ intimates, that there are more persons than one in the Godhead, he (the Uni- tarian) finds another which declares, that there is but one God.” Well—how many Gods are there ?—what number, Mr. Carlile, would content you? We are contented with one. We take our stand on the authority of him who-said “there is none other God but one? Confront this text if you can, by any text which says, there are three. Marshal all your tritheistic powers, and bring them up in line, column,, or hollow square, and we will confront them with this single weapon of divine truth, and scatter them like smoke. Our author is under a mistake in saying, that ifa passage be adduced, in which Jesus is expressly called God, we confront the declaration by showing, that he is called man. We cannot find any passage, in which Jesus is expressly called God, unless in a subordinate sense, and that in two or three instances ; nor in which Jehovah is called a man, though we know well where it is expressly affirmed, that ‘‘ God is not a man, neither the son of man ;” and where it is as expressly affirmed, that Jesus was both. We can find no text which affirms, that there is more than one personin the Deity. We interpret what is obscure by the aid of what is clear; and do not, for the sake of supporting an hypothesis, admit one dark or doubtful text to overthrow the bright array of a whole phalanx of Scriptural authorities, by which it is opposed. Did Unitarians endeavour, by one or two garbled expressions, to establish their doctrine of the divineUnity, in Con- 145 tradiction to.a multitude of passages, clearly teaching the doctrine of the Trinity, there might be some reason for complaining, that we endeavour to neutralize one text by another: but the re- verse is notorious; and for one text, which the defenders of the Three-in- One adduce on their side, we can oppose, at least, a hundred: and we have this great advantage, that the texts in favour of the Divine Unity, cannot, by any possibility, be tortured to the side of Trinitarianism ; whereas, there is not a text adduced by Trinitarians, which cannot be explained most satisfactorily to accord with the doctrine of the Divine Unity. It is entertaining to hear our author say, ‘¢ We have no desire to believe in the existence of such a God, as he (the Unitarian) describes a@ spirit, simple, uncompounded, indivisible, because we do not find any such language in Scripture, in deseribing the nature of Deity.” And immediately subjoining :— ** We believe that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, for the Scriptures say so.” Where ?—where ?—Good dear Mr. Carlile, tell us where, and where the three are declared to be in substance one, for verily we ean find no such declaration in the sacred volume; and, in re- turn, we shall inform you where God is denominated a spirit—* a. most pure spirit, without body, parts, or passions,’ * and therefore, as we have stated, simple, uncompounded, indivisible. We are accused of giving an erroneous and distorted statement of the sentiments of Trinitarians. Our author terms it prepos- terous and absurd, and asks, Where did he find it? We reply, in a well-known book called ‘“‘ The Westminster Confession of Faith.” “ Can he point out any person, who has avowed such a scheme?” Yes, Rev. Jamés Carlile, thou art the man. ‘“ J hope he will believe me when I assure him, I never heard of it, or meé with it, except in the writings of Unitarians.” Nay, Rev. Sir, be not so positive in assertion; you must have often seen it, and com- mitted it to memory too, though not exactly in the mitigated language in which we have expressed it, but in the words of that unhallowed book, which you have subscribed, and which teaches, that ‘it was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God ;” i. e. according to your system, that God the Son—the merciful and the meek,—might be sustained under the infinite wrath of God the Father, the merciless and vindictive, The book of heaven teaches, that “‘ God is good unto all, and that his tender mercies are over all his works.’? The book which you have learned teaches, that all mankind, except sume predestinated a eee a a a a a i £ Wesminster Confession. T o 146 handful, are under God’s “ displeasure and curse; so as, we are by nature children of wrath, bond-slaves to Satan, and justly liable to all punishments in this world, and that which is to come ;” ‘which punishments are “ everlasting separation from the comfort- able presence of God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell-fire for ever.” We hope you will recognize these to be the ipssstma verba of your favourite re- pository of theological lore, and that you will do penance, by nine times repeating the ninth commandment, before you again af- firm, that we take our statement from Channing, and that “ Chan- ning either invented, or got it from some other Unitarian.” ‘The book from which the above comfortable passages are extracted, and which you have subscribed, depicts the Father of mercies, by the everlasting decrees of ‘election and reprobation, as. acting a part more cruel and unjust, than aught that has ever been feigned of the spirit of evil himself. We have read of Satan being changed into an angel of light; but that unrighteous book, to which you have fixed your hand, would transform him, whose name is Love, into a sanguinary Moloch: it makes heaven perform the work of hell. No longer needs the devil go about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour: he may retire to his fiery pavilion, and loll at ease on his brimstone couch, since the omnipotent and eternal God himself, according to the doctrine of that impious book, has. predestinated generation after generation—millions of ‘millions of his intelligent creatures, to be born for no parpose, but after a few years’ brief existence on the earth, to descend and ‘people the infernal dominions. Nor is there left to them the ‘slightest chance or possibility of escape; their day of judgment was past, ages before they were born. ‘The devil is sure of his prey; for they are fast bound by the adamantine chain of an eter- nal decree, which the death of the Son of God himself had no efficacy to relax or dissolve. And all for what? For an offence committed some six thousand years ago, when there was but one ‘man on the face of the earth. This the Calvinists call an act of justice forthe glory of God! Horrible impiety! For any parallel to a ductrine that so atrociously outrages every feeling and every principle of justice, to say nothing of benevolence, the archives of history, and the fields of imagination, are explored in vain. _ Shocked by the impiety and blasphemy of the system, which he has subscribed, our author says, “¢ We do not believe, that the Father is more rigorously or inflexibly just than the Son. We do not believe, that the Father was filled with ineffable fury or inexorable wrath against sinful man,” We rejoice to hear this; and hepe that Mr. C. is in a fair way to give up all the other monstrosities of Calvin’s theological code, and embrace the Gospel as the only sure guide to truth and salvation. But we are not sanguine, nor shall we be greatly dis- appointed if our hope: be not fulfilled; for though he promised . 147 to give us “something like” reason and common sense principles, we have received from him as yet not even their shadowy resem- blance. ; As Mr. C. appears to have forgetten his catechism, now mi ri- cordo! perhaps he may be able to call to recollection the follow- ing sentiments, the recent and genuine offspring of the principles laid down in that work :— «“‘ Net the most wretched criminal, chained in the condemned cell of a prison—not the most debased grovelling miscreant, dragged from the impurest sty of profligacy, bears so revolting an aspect in the eyes of the most virtuous member of exalted and polished society, as every child of Adam, till he be regenerated, renewed, purified by the Spirit of the Lord, bears in the eyes .of Him, before whom the heavens are not clean.” * * * Again—‘‘ How utterly incongruous is it—how out of place—how un- seemly for persons in this humiliating condition, who have no means of avoid - ing a public degrading execution, but putting, as it were, the halter round their necks, and availing themselves of an intercessor with their sovereign, to confess their guilt, and to implore his forgiveness ; how incongruous, I say, is it for such persons to feel or to manifest pride !”— (heu quale bathos !) Again—‘The Lord views the whole race, as a king does a rebel army. He takes no cognizance of the diversities of character that may be in such anarmy.” Such are the doctrines of Calvinistic erthedoxy, as taught by the Rev. James Carlile, in a Charity Sermon, delivered in Mary’s Abbey Meeting-house, on the 4th of March, 1&27, and since published ; doctrines so utterly at variance with all that the Serip- tures reveal of the paternal character of the Deity, and his mer- ciful dealings with the children of men—nay, so utterly repugnant to every principle of justice and benevolence, implanted by God himself in the heart of man, that even they who have adopted them can scarcely be persuaded that they are their own, and not Unitarian forgeries constructed to misrepresent them. “In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, This peoplé’s heart is waxed gress, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” Justice, with Calvin and his disciples,-is not a principle of right- eousness in the bosom of the Eternal Sire, but a power similar to the fate of pagan antiquity, stern and inflexible, standing be- hind the throne ef God, greater than he who sitteth thereon, and overruling all his beneficent purposes, to serve the cause of the ‘spirit of evil. But we turn with disgust from the mind-debasing system ; we rush from it as from the dark den of falsehood and cruelty, and turning our eyes to the glorious light of nature and revelation, we read in the volume of each, that the “ Lord is good to all.” We hear the veice of wisdom proclaim, as the sound of celestial music pealing from heaven, and re-echoing round the earth, “The Lord—the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long- suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.” Again, it speaks 148 with trumpet-tongue, “ Hearken unto me, YE MEN OF UNDER- STANDING: far be it from God that he should do wickedness ; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniguity. For the work of a man shal] he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways. Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment.” Mr. Carlile having charged us, on the one hand, with fabricating his own horrible creed, so does he, on the otlier, impute to us certain opinions which we do not Hola: We have no where said, as he alleges, that a manifestation of God in human nature is gross and heathenish ; on the contrary, we believe that there is not an atom of the Prion frame, from the machinery of the heart and brain, to the composition of a hair, that does not manifest the matchless power and wisdom of the Creator. The incarnation of God in the form of a man, is what we believe to be a gross and heathenish notion, Neither is it true, that any Unitarians, so far as we know, maintaining Christ to be aman, worship him as God: Unitarians own no object of worship but the Father. As to those discrepancies of opinion on speculative points, which exist among us, as among all other denominations, they only shew with what beauty and harmony our Christian liberty is enjoyed ; and that we do not make slaves and hypocrites by aiming at a uniformity, which the Papal hierarchy, in all the plenitude of its power, could never effect. _ Qur author, in conformity, we presume, to the example of the heart-probers of his Synod, becomes inquisitorial and asks, ‘‘ Who is Jesus Christ >—whence came he ?—was he a created angel >— or was he Ged manifest in human nature?” To these questions we could give a clear and definite answer in the ipsiss ‘1 2averba of Holy Writ; but it will be time enough for him to receive it, when his own opinion on those points has been fixed. His de- clarations concerning both the Father and the Son, are so ira- tional, so unscriptural, and so full of contradiction, that we find it impossible to determine what may be his belief, either as to the one or the other. Notwithstanding, he is well-pleased with him- self—and in a style of sweet and dignified complacency says, ** Nor do I think that any man should be greatly offended, if we should refuse to him the appellation of a Christian, tiil he declared his belief on those elementary points on which the whole nature of the Gospel depends. How can a minister feed his flock with a mere negative on such a subject ? “ The hungry sheep look up, and are uot fed.” Thank you, Mr. Carlile ; that is a line from Milton's Lycidas— and Milton is a favourite of ours, not less because he was a good Unitarian, than because he was a good poet. He is sais ignorant pastors— _ thas =. lS a a ea 149 ** Blind mouths! that searce themselves know how to hold A sheep hook, or have learned ought else the least That to the faithful herdman’s art belongs ! What recks it them? What need they? They are sped; they have got their lesson in orthodoxy, and have only to chant out the same eternal sizg-song of election, reprobation, satisfac- tion, and the 7hree-in-one ; ** And when they list their lean and flashy songs, Grate on their scrannel pipes of wretched straw. We can fancy that we see the great poet sitting in a certain meet- ing-house, listening to one of those jejune and windy declamations, with which orthodox congregatious are so often ventilated, and which in his poetical language he calls lean and flashy songs, till at last he rises through impatience and indignation, and accost- ing the orator, exclaims, ** Tuy hungry sheep look up and are not fed, But swoll’n with wind and the rank mist they draw, Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread !”* As to Unitarians being greatly offended by Mr. Carlile’s re- fusal to give them the name of Christians, we believe he may set. his mind at ease. Though not without sensibility, they have philo- sophy enough to possess their souls in patience, and will be able to support this calamity without any great feeling of mortification. The next position on which we are obliged to animadvert, sounds to our Unitarian ears somewhat paradoxical. The Old Testament, he affirms, is to be explained by the New, and not the New Testament by the Old. He illustrates this novel rule of Scriptural interpretation by two acts of parliament, of which ‘ the former is always explained by the latter ;” i.e. the more re- cent one gives the proper meaning of whatever terms have be- come obsolete in its predecessor! The language of the 19th century is to reflect light back on that of the 13th!—and the old Irish Brehon laws, which have so long puzzled our most learned antiquaries, by the proper- application of this new canon in law and in criticism, will soon become intelligible to every school-boy ! Hitherto we were of the Apostle’s opinion, that ‘the law is our school-master to bring us unto Christ ;’ but now we are taught that the Gospel is our school-master to bring us unto Moses! Our author illustrates his rule, by a quotation from the 45th Psalm, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever;” which words, he alleges, would be quite incomprehensible if their explanation had not been given in Hebrews i. 8. We refer the reader to what we have said on that Psalm in the text and note, page 58; and in ad- dition maintain here, that the words would have been as well un- derstood, and in their genuine sense, if the epistle to the Hebrews had never been written. They are borrowed by the author of the TSO epistle, and applied to Christ as an accommodation, but it was to Solomon they were primarily addressed. The Psalm is our school-master here, to teach us how they are to be understood ; but Mr. Carlile and the theclogians of his school, by scorning such tuition, deserting their ‘ something like common sense principles,” and applying it altogether to Christ and his Church, turn it into sheer burlesque. What, will they have the kindness to inform us, could the author of the epithalamium mean by apostrophizing Christ a thousand years before he was born, and saying, ‘“ Gird thy sword upon thy thigh’—and—« thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies,” to him who not only never wore any weapon of war, but forbad his disciples to carry even staves ? What was the meaning of saying. to him, whose simple robe was without seam—who was “a man of sorrows,” and had not where to lay his head, ‘ All thy garments smell of myth, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee Jad??? We doubt not, they can give some very mysterious, unintelligible comments on these passages, and on all that the divine poet has so beautifully written of the royal bride in her clothing of needle-work and wrought gold, with the daughter of Tyre, and the maids of honour ; and that they can mystify and stultify to perfection the credulous dupes, who have patience to ead or listen to their homilies. EExpounders, such as they, bring ridicule and contempt on the inspired Volume ;—it is they, who have furnished the model for such burlesque criticisms as that on the tale of Bluebeard, written in the style of their Scriptural com- ments, in the works of the King of Prussia. Such commentators could easily spiritualize the’ history of Tom Thumb, give a re- condite meaning to Cinderella, and apply both to some of their sublime mysteries. A few instances will suffice to shew eff Mr. C.’s qualifications as an expounder of Scripture. He has the candour to acknow- ledge the difficulty, on his scheme, (Unitarians have none on theirs) of Mark xiii. 30——“* Of that day and that hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father ;” but thinks that he can get over it, by adopting the Unitarian latitude of interpretation, and confronting it by a parallel text. Accordingly he says, he might bring forward Hosea viii. 4, «‘ They have made princes, and I (Jehovah) knew it not.” On what principle he would bring forward this text, we cannot tell, persuaded, as we are, that no Unitarian writer could be so pro- foundly ignorant of the Prophet's meaning, or so absurd as to in- stitute a comparison between two texts, so totally irrelevant. His comment on the words of Hosea is truly admirable :— « Although God knew well that the Israelites had set up princes, yet he did not know it officially (officially, proh! puéor.) He was not informed, or made acquainted with it, and therefore speaks of himself as ignorant of it,” Nefas infandum !—See pp. 20, 21, note, | 151 After speaking in such language of the omniscient Jehovah, we eannot be surprised to find him speaking of the Saviour in a style equally repugnant to good sense and good feeling. He says of that passage in John x. 33—36, where our Lord disclaims the ap- pellation of God (Elohim) and styles himself the Son of God, that at one time it was to him the most difficult of any in the Scrip- tures. Where was the difficulty? To those who suffer them. selves to be led solely by the Word of God, it presents none; to those who support the doctrine of the Zhree-in-one, it is insur- mountable. But attend to our author: > ‘It appears to me,” says he, “ that this explanation given by our Lord would have been uncandid, if he at the same time claimed the title of God in # superior sense.” But having a system to support, to that system the Scripture must be forced to bend. Accordingly he cheats his better judg- ment, and has recourse to a legal artifice. _ © My error was in viewing the text as an explanation, whereas it was a mere legal defence, used with perfect fairness by our Lord, to arrest the Jews. in their purpose of stoning him.” A legal defence !—perfect fairness !—miserable subterfuge ! To make him, that feared not man, neither regarded the person of men, as his very enemies testified, condescend to the mean arts of a petty-fogging village lawyer—to practise a contemptible evasion, and all through fear of letting the people know who he really was, Jest he, the omnipotent and immortal God, should be stoned to death ! We do not recollect to have ever seen sny work, that contains such frequent and such positive contradictions of its own state- ments, as that of Mr. Carlile. It refutes in one page the very propositions, which it had endeavoured to demonstrate in another ; and leaves the reader utterly at a loss to know what are the real sentiments of its author, or whether he bas any that can be justly called his own. Of the manifestation of God to his creatures he affirms, that “the book of nature says absolutely nothing.” Presently, how- ever, he refutes himself by saying, «¢ When a man leaves his country, and passes to the most distant regions of the earth, he finds himself surrounded with the manifestations of the pre- sence of the same God, to whose presence he was accustomed in his native climate—the same wisdom, and power, and goodness—the same attention given to every, even the minutest creature ; and wherever he goes, he may say with Jacob, “ Surely God is in this place,” Magna est veritas, et prevalebit ! It has been stated in our Essay, that ‘If such a doctrine as the Trinity constituted any part of the Christian religion, we mnst believe, on every principle of reason and common sense, that it 152 would have been revealed as clearly, and as much to the satisfac- tion of every inquirer, as the being of God himself.’ Our author devotes a whole section of his first chapter to expose the folly and absurdity of such-a position; but presently forgetting whas he has written, he adopts our very sentiments and chants another palin- ode, (non mi ricordo!) and expresses himself like a heretical Unita- tarian thus: “Tf it be true that the Lord Jesus was indeed God manifest in the flesb, it may be expected that so wonderful an event as the manifestation of God in human nature—nay, as a poor despised man, will be more fully developed than by a bare intimation of it.” : Magna est veritas et prevalebit ! Sometimes forgetting that he isa Tritheist, nom mi ricordo! he ‘becomes a Unitarian; and then he unconsciously begins to fulfil his promise of giving us something like reason and common sense. He is shocked, with ourselves, at some Trinitarian opinions, and asks, if Unitarians really imagine that any man ever maintained so preposterous a notion, as the death and burial of God? If none hold such a notion, we again request to be informed, what is the meaning of invoking God the Son, in a solemn act of adoration, by his agony and bloody sweat—his precious death and burial ? He censures us for affirming, that because Christ is called the image of God he could not be the omnipotent Being himself ; yet does he, in the very same paragraph, make an equivalent de- claration, viz. «« His being the image of God signifies, that he is to us the manifestation, or representative of God!” Magna est veritas et prevalebit ! « Tinfer,” says he, “that the Apostle Paul most explicitly taught the Tebrews, that the Son of God, the Lord Jesus, was that everlasting Father manifesting himself to the world in human nature.” But when he wrote this he had fallen into one of his fits of for- getfulness a non mi ricordo, for a few pages before he says, “If by God we are to understand the Father, the King, eternal, immor- tal, and invisible, it would contain an intimation of the appearing of God the Father, which is no where intimated in Scripture, but on the contrary, seems to be inconsistent with some of its declarations.”’ Magna est veritas et prevalebit ! _ : Our author, though eagerly bent on disputing every inch of ground, becomes, notwithstanding, so retrograde in his move- ments, and makes such numerous concessions, that we begin to feel that we owe him alarge debt of gratitude. We have alleged, that the words (Heb. i, 10,) Zhou, Lord, in the beginning, are ad — a dressed to Jehovah; and he concurs with us so far as to say, *‘ No Israelite could conceive of any other bemg described im these words, than his own Jehovah.” And we are prompted to exclain—A Daniel{—A Daniel ! Magna est veritas et prevalebit ! We cannot, however, follow our author in his inference, that the words are here ‘ employed to describe the glory of the Son, who is, therefore, the Jehovah of the Israelites.” In trying to prove this position, he falls into a train of reasoning, if reasoning it may be called, which reasoning is none distinguishable in form, figure, or mode, and which is paraileled only by the same syllogistic pro- cess, by which our unknown friend, “The Barrister,” shews that the earth can be proved to be the sun, (see p. 106.) After affirming that “the mighty God, even Jehovah, will come in great glory to judge his people, for that he is judge himself,” in the very next sentence but one he says, ‘‘ Nor is there any intimation of God the Father coming or appearing for that purpose :” but here he seems to have fallen into a zon mi ricordo, for he had assured us only ten pages before, that «« The name Jehovah is never given to any but the living and true God;” and that “ this name is claimed by God as his own peculiar name.” Whence it inevitably fol- lows, that ifthe Son be Jehovah, God the Father is not the living and true Ged; but if God the Father be the living and true God, the Son cannot be Jehovah. Ufrum horum mavis? But why should our author speak of either Father or Son coming to judgment, since, according to the book which he has subscribed, the day of judgment was past 6000 years ago; and, surely, heis too good a Protestant to attribute to heaven a work of superero- gation ? Our author, notwithstanding the Athanasian prohibition, ac- counts it a mere trifle to “confound the persons;” and also deems it “‘ Very singular, that some who believe there are three persons in the God- head, feel difficulty in conceiving that the title of Father should be given to Christ, who is called the Son of God; * * but there is no inconsistency in a person bearing the relation of son to one, and of a father to another. Jesus might stand in.the relation of Son to Gods and in that of Father to the whole human race.” Where, or in what sense, is Christ denominated a father in the whole Bible? Qur author affirms, that the epithets given to Heze- kiah (Is,ix. 6,) belong to Christ; but we defy him*to point out the chapter and verse in the N. T. in which any one of those epithets, (and in the Septuagint they are seven in number) is, in any one ins stance, applied tohim. He further says, that to denominate Christ the Saviour and not believe him to be the supreme Deity, is idolatry; for “ the Lord Jehovah proclaims himself in the O. T. the only Sa- viour, and Jesus in the N.T. is emphatically and exclusively called the Saviour.” But he evidently falls into a non m7 ~*~” U 154, The Saviour, xar ony, is the Father, and beside him there is, in the superlative sense, no Saviour, But the term, like God, is. appellative, or applied, to many. Thus, in 2 Kings xii. 9, it is stated that, “ The Lord saw the oppression of Israel, because the King of Syria oppressed them, and the Lord gave Israel a Sa~ viour, (probably the'son of Jehoahaz,}so that they went out from: under the hand of the Syrians.” See also Is. xix. 20. Both Jeremiah and Obadiah use it in the plural. Jonathan “ wrought a great Salvation” for the people; and therefore he might have been properly denominated a saviour by the most conscientious Israelite. Christ is termed a Saviour, the Saviour of the world, and our Saviour, but all in subordination to Him who, as the Apostle informs us, ‘exalted him, with his right-hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour.” The distinction between God our Sa- viour, in the highest sense, and Christ our Saviour, in an inferior: sense, is most clearly marked in Titus iii. 4—6: ‘ After that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared— . not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according” to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and re-. newing of the Holy Spirit, which ke shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour.” Here itis evident to the un- derstanding even of a child, that God the Father is the prime mover, the great bestower—and that Christ is the agent by whom he communicates his blessings. The title of Redeemer is equiva- lent to that of Saviour. Now, we beg to ask Mr. C. to whom is that title given in the N.T.? He will guess, we suppose, to Christ 2? No. Tothe Father? Wrong again. ‘To whom then > "Fo Moses? He is the only one in the N. T. who is denominated a Redeemer, rvtparay, Acts vii. 35: But Jehovah is thus deno~ minated in the O. T. and, therefore, according to Mr. C’s logic, Moses is Jehovah; and if Stephen did not believe him to be so,. he was guilty of idolatry in giving him that appellation ! Our author comments at great length on Christ’s being the’ image of God, and observes, «© The substance of the Deity is invisible and ineomprehensible ; we could no more form a conception of it, than we could of the mind of man withoué the aid of his bodily form. features, gestures, &c , which are to us the image of his soul. So the Lord Jesus, being@the brightness of the glory of God, is. to us the outward visible image, or manifestation, of his inward: invisible” nature.” Gentle reader, is not this entertaining ? We hope it will re-" pay you for the honour you have done our pages, in perusing them thus far. And since our learned metaphysical divine, who un- ° derstands and explains the phenomena of mind so Jueidly, assures us that bodily form, features, gestures, &c. are to us the image of the soul, we hope, with all due benevolence for your courtesy, that you are, in form, of faultless symmetry—in features beautiful | as an angel, and in gestures adorned with matchless grace, for - 155 then must your soul be graceful, beautiful, symmetrical. But, alas! for the ugly, the awkward, the deformed, the lame. and the blind; for their souls must be blind, lame, awkward, deformed, and ugly !—Poor Alsop! we were under an error, it seems, in having supposed that the excellency of thy mind compensated for that deformity of face and of person, ascribed to thee by thy biographer. ‘What idea are we to form of the mental qualitica- tions of one who was “ fiat-nosed, hunch-backed, blobber- lipped, a Jong mishapen head, his body crooked all over, big- bellyed, badger-legged, and his complexion so swarthy that he took his name from it, for sop is the same with Avthiop ?” Our quondam acquaintance too, he who sacrificed Chanticleer, though pronounced by the oracle to be the wisest of men, is now demenstrated, by the deformity of his features, to have been no better than a fool’! Hitherto we had supposed, though not un- friendly to phrenological studies, that the connexion of mind with matter was not of so very intimate a nature that the one must necessarily express the character of the other, but that adittle body might ledge a mighty mind; and a soul of incomparable beauty, be the tenant of a decrepid habitation of cay. We had supposed that the similitude of Christ to God ley not in bodily form, vesture, and feature, but in rectitude, eoodness, and truth; that ihe similitude was moral, of which we can have-an idea, and -not physical, of which we can have none. Of what is called the sub- stance of our minds, there can be no image—how much less of the substance of God ? Of our author’s powers, as a logician, a‘critic, and expounder of the Seripture, the reader may form his own estimate from the specimens given. We are next to consider his pretensions to scholarship, of which he gives us a proof in his censure of Dr. Young, who, in his translation of the 45th Psalm, renders the Hebrew Elohim by Prince, {see Essay, p. 58,) in ‘which he was perfectly justifiable, as every one must know, who-has:the slightest pretensions to a knowledge of the original. Parkhurst says, the word signifies princes, rulers, judges.“ I have appointed thee-a God (Elohim) to Pharaoh.” Exod. viii. 1. The Latin translation of the Chaldee «is. principem—ot the Arabic, dominum. Simp. 2 vol. p. 13. “« Elohim tribuitur non tantum Deo vero, ut Gen I, 2, et ii, 4, et sepe alibi, sed etiam ;—1 Idolis, Exod. xxii. 20—Jos. xxiii. 16, et passim alibi ; 2 Angelis bonis, Ps. Ixxxvi. 8—Ps. xevii. 7 ;—3 Hominibus magnis et divi- nis, wt judicibus, magistratibus et prophetis, Exod. xxi, 6; et xxii. 8, 9, 28; I Sam, ii, 25. - Castelli Lexicon. The XXIVth Canen of Grassius de_Philologia sacra, informs us, that the plural number is used by the Hebrgws to denote magnitude and excellence. Pluralis numerus pro singularé wuandoque ponitur, ad denotandam magnitudinem et excellentiam. Thus the largest of quadrupeds is termed behemoth, a word with @ plural termination. Thus, wisdom, in Prov. i. 20, 1s named hocmoth, also a plural. Bellarmine, one of the brightest lumina- ries of the Roman Catholic Church, as quoted by Drusius, con- curs in this opinion of the use of the Hebrew plural, and says, they have the same practice in Italy. ‘“ Quam consuetudinem nos Itali ex parte imitamur, dum viris gravibus non dicimus, tu sed vos; licet unum non multos alleguamur. Cajetanus agrees with Bellarmine, and thinks the connexion of the Hebrew plural with a verb singular, an idiom, and not a grammatical incon- gruity : nulla interveniente grammatice incongruitate. The ap- plication of the plaral form to single-cbjects, is by no means peculiar to the Hebrew. The names of ancient cities are often in the plural, as Athenee, Thebe, Salone. The Latins express darkness by the plural tenebre. The Hebrew of life is a plural noun, and the reader can easily find in his vernacular tongue, lurals which have no singular. The XXVth Canon of Glassius informs us, that appellative nouns, signifying dominion or authority, are used in the plural for the singular. We have quoted R. Roy, as illustrating this canon by two examples, in which the plural masters and owners are used for the singular master and owner, Exod, xxi. 4—6—-19. Mr. Carlile, who, it seems, understands Hebrew better than Drusius, Bellarmine, Cajetanus, and Glassius, assumes the pro- fessor’s chair, and with magisterial authority exclaims, *‘ Surely Ri Roy does not pretend that the plural word masters is here used as an expression of respect, when no particular master is meant. Had he een acquainted with Hebrew idiom, he would have known that a plural word thus used, where a singular might be expected, indieates a distributive meaning.” We hope the unlearned Orientalist will profit by this lesson of his erudite Occidental instructor. Were he at hand, he would, no doubt, make due acknowledgments for this lesson, but as it may be long before it travels to Aurora and the Ganges, we re- turn thanks inhis name; and with deference to the authority of such a magister linguarum as Mr. C. humbly submit, that the word master is in itself a word of respect, independently of its in- dividual application. In some instances it might lose respecta- bility by its connexion with individuals. Owners too, we think, still with due submission, is‘a werd indicative of respect, his pos- sessions being often the only claiv te regard, which a man enjoys. “Let R. Roy,” again vociferates our Orbilius plagosus, “ find any indi- vidual man or master, called men or masters, and he’ will at least hit his mark,” | ‘ Dear Sir, “Tet not the sun go down upon your wrath.” We shall endeavour to find an example for your satisfaction. Open 157 your Bible; tarn to Gen. xxiv. 9—there you may read, “ The servant placed his hand under the thigh of his master, viz. Abra- ham ;” in the original 1.348 Adonaiv, his masters. Does this hit the mark? Again, turn to chapter xl. and there you may find, more than once, Joseph denominated poxt ‘338 lords of the earth. Does this hit the mark? Gird up thy Joins and answer like a man. If Elohim intimates a ériad, why should not Adonim and Baalim be equally significative? But Elobim is repeatedly applied to objects which are strictly singular. To one angel, Jud. xiii. 22; was the angel, like Geryon, tricorporate 2? To one golden calf, Exod. xxxii. 31 ; was the calf three-headed like Cerberus? To Dagon, Jud. xvi. 235; was this beautiful Alohim, with the fish’s tail, a triplicity? To Asbtaroth (a plural noun,) the goddess of the Zidonians, who, by the charms of her ox-head and horns, wooed men to idolatry—to Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, and to Milcom, the god of the children of Ammon, that cannibal divinity, who delighted in the odour of roast infants, 1 Kings xi. 33; to one legislator, Moses, Exod. vil. 1 ; to one Prince, Solomon, Ps. xlv. 6; to one ark, that of the covenant of Jehovab, 1 Sam. iv. 7. - Instances of the plural being used for the singular, both in the Old and the New Testament, are innumerable. Thus, the ark rested on “the mountains,” i. e. on one of the mountains of Ararat. ‘“ He was buried in the cities ;” i. e. one of the cities, of Gilead. ‘ Hananiah, the son of the apothecaries ;” 1. e. of one of the apothecaries. “A foal, the son of she asses;” i. e. of a she ass. ‘ When the disciples saw it, they had indignation ede Os when one of the disciples, viz. Judas, saw it. “ The thieves also; i.e. one of the thieves, ‘‘ cast the same in his teeth.” Again, we find the singular sometimes used for ‘the plural :— «‘ The children of Isracl went up and asked counsel of the Lord, saying, Shall Z (not we) go up again to battle, against the children of Benjamin, my (not our) brother 2” Sometimes the singular and plural are used indiscriminately by the same person in the same sentence. Thus, David said unto Gad, “ / am in a great strait ; let us fall now into the hand of the Lord, for bis mercies are great; and let me not fall into the hand of man,” Here is a fine founda- tion for maintaining, that King David was a ¢riad ; for does he not use the personal pronoun thrice, twice in the singular, and once in the plural, in the same sentence ? Is not the Z one ?—and is not the me another ?—and is not us a third? Here, then, we have the three—singular and plural, plural and singular—three-in- one, and one-in-three ! Q. E. D. What weight should be laid on the grammatical anomalies of the Hebrew language, in founding doctrines upon them, the reader may form a tolerably accurate judgment, fromm what has been of- fered to his consideration ; and still more, from the following ob- servations of Boothroyd, in the preface to his “ Biblia Hebraica.” In the Hebrew language,-— . 158 ‘© The most obvious ‘rules of syntax are often disregarded. “A noun of ‘wnultitude in most languages admits either a singular or plural verb; but surely no correct writer would, in the same sentence, first use one verb in the singular, and then-another in the plural, or vice versa; yet this occurs in the Pentateuch and Historical books. False concord is also frequent. We have plural ‘verbs in construction with nouns singular, and plural nouns with singular adjectives and verbs ; also the-masculine pronominal affixes oc- ‘cur often instead of the feminine,-and nouns feminine are frequently found in construction with verbs of the third person masculine.” Even Calvin thinks, that the plural Elohim (see Gen. 1) affords no foundation for the argument. of three persons in the Godhead, and cautions his readers against such violent glosses. ‘¢ Habetur apud Mosen Elohim, nomen plurelis numeri. Unde colligere solent, hic in Deo notari tres personas ; sed quia parum solida mihi videtur ‘tantz rei probatio, ego in voce non insistam. Quin potius monendi sunt lectores ut sibi a violentis ejusmodi glossis caveant.”—Caxvint Opp. vol. ‘1, p. 2, Amstel. m.pc.Lxx1, . Mr. C. has such an extensive knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek language, that he lays down certain principles concerning them, which no Hebrew or Greek ever heard of before. He in- forms us that when the former had only one word to express twe ideas, the latter had a word for each of those ideas. We wish he had illustrated his assertion by a few examples, and told us the precise Greek words for the Hebrew, Leue, or Jehovah, Jah, Lil, Eloah, Elohim, Ee-shaddai, £il-geber, Adonai, Ejch-asher- geh, &c. in all their acceptations. The word God (£05) he -af- firms, “has but one sense in the whole N. T. viz. the one living ‘and true God, except when some word is added to alter the meaning as “ your God Remphan.” But he makes-arash assertion, which every novice in Scriptural-criticism can shew in an instant to have no foundation. When the people of Melita, seeing Paul unhurt by the viper, which he cast into the fire, said -Seoy evroy ssveet, that he was a God ; did they mean the living and true God, or, as it is properly rendered in our translation, a God? When the flat» terers of Herod shouted Sov day, “it is the voice of (a) God, and not of (a) man,” did they mean the living and true God ? No. The word God is used both in the singular and plural, with the same latitude of meaning in the N. T. asin our own, or any other language ; and we must be led by the general scope or tenor of the passages where it occurs, to mark its true meaning. But - we find we might have spared ourselves the trouble of this criti- cism, since our author, as is his wont, having forgotten, non mi vicordo, what he had so recently affirmed, imforms us, and more than once, for he abounds in tautologies, that “the word-God is an appellative, ** * * and that it may be compared to the word king, a title descriptive of the rank, power, office, &c. of the per-. son who bears it!” With respect to the divine name, the Hebrew is more precise 159 and definite than the Greek. The latter had no incommunicable tetragrammaton like the former, for the supreme object of adora- tion; if they had, Mr. C. will have the goodness to favour the learned world by revealing it. But after all his criticism about the extreme precision of the Greek language, and its power of expressing, by two different words, the two ideas which the Hebrew language, from its poverty, is obliged to express in one, he can find no equivalent for Jehovah, but xvpies, Lord, a word of various meaning and application, and which he admits has the same variety and ambiguity as in English. As for the jargon he has uttered about the article o, 4, co, from which he would deduce a proof of the Trinity, we deem our time and paper too precious to be wasted in its exposure. Will it be credited that the scholar and critic, who has given us such astounding proofs of bis skill in the learned languages, has the modesty to. say of that excellent oriental linguist R. Roy, that “he is extremely ignorant of the Hebrew idiom !!!” In the adoption and handling of general arguments, Mr. C. is even more unfortunate, if possible, than in his expositions of Serip- ture. He acknowledges himself under particular obligations to Dr. Wardlaw for an argument about “delegated authority,” which, he contends, does not confer qualifications ; though Al-. mighty God might delegate his minister to the performance of a task, the delegation cannot give power adequate to its execution. Let us examine this:—in the first place, delegation implies a superior and an inferior: he who delegates must be greater than he who is delegated—the sender than the sent; this might be’ enough to settle the main point in question. This, however, Mr. C. always willing to avail himself of a sophism, will not admit, because a case may occur in which the sent is greater than the » sender; and on this principle the Son might bave sent the Father, as well as the Father the Son!. But in the case which he sup- poses, the inferior is found incompetent to the task ; and when he is said to send his master, he does not act by virtue of any inde- pendent authority; on the contrary, the very act of sending his master in the place of himself, is an acknowledgment of his own ° inferiority ; and when the master goes, it is not as a missionary, but of his own proper and voluntary motion, to execute, by his superior power and personal influence, that which his minister was unable to accomplish. Delegation, says our author, does not confer — power. That depends on circumstances. But why not? Maynot the deputer not only give the deputy instructions, but furnish the means of carrying them into effect ? Not inthe present case, you reply, for omnipotence is the attribute that should be conferred, and this is incommunicable. Incommunicable, say you?—thank you, my good Sir—and therefore it could never be communicated. You admit the truth of our argument in the 14th Section of our Essay, ; that there can be only one Omnipotent. But you affirm that Christ created the world, that creation is the work of almighty. ; 160 power, and therefore Christ is almighty. We deny the premises ; and even if we did grant them, we should deny the conclusion, until it was proved that no power short of omnipotence can create. Though we believe creation to be the peculiar act of the Father Al- mighty, and that he alone “in the beginning created the heavens and the earth,” we see no reason for supposing that he might not confer a limited power of creating on his creature ;—he who gave power to raise the dead, might also give power to create a planet, for a living soul is of more value than a world of inert matter. A power Jess than omnipotent might create a system, and until the negative of this be proved, which is impossible, this argument, for which our author is so much obliged to Wardlaw, is not worth a rush. But it betrays an irreverence for the Scriptures, as heinous as the endeavour is impotent, to conjure up such arguments from the father of lies, in opposition to the numerous declarations of Christ himself, that his power was both limited and derived. A single text tears the whole web of such sophistry into tatters: but we need not quote Scripture, for our author virtually gives up his position, and concedes all for which we contended, when he says, “That the power by which the man Christ Jesus wrought his miracles, and by which miracles were wrought in his name, was from God, is, doubtless, true.” Magna est veritas et prevalebit ! The Rev. W. Bruce, in his observations on Mr. C.’s book, says, that “The most important chapter in it, is the 12th, on Christ’s mediatorial kingdom ; it is pure Arianism from beginning to end.” What will the orthodox say to this? Up, ye drowsy inquisitors !— heart-probers, do your duty !—there is an enemy in the camp—a traitor in the citadel !—your champion of the Trinity rebels against your sovereign oligarchy, and joins the standard of the heretical Arian! Listen‘to his own confession, and haste to guard your immaculate body from the contagion of his heresy :—he has the traitorous audacity to affirm of the second person, whom he denominates Jehovah, the Great God our Saviour, that ‘¢ As mediator, he is inferior to the Sovereign of the universe.” ‘He is a servant, having taken on him the form and condition of a servant; * * in his person he was inferior to God; he descended ta the condition of a created being ; he wasa person formed by the will and wisdom of God for a particular end; he had therefore a beginning ; the Lord Jesus, thus constituted, was in- ferior to the Father of all, not only as to his person, but as to his office.” Thus, we are taught by an orthodox divine, that the immutable God changed his nature—the self-existent, uncreated One, the second of the three co-equals, became a creature and an inferior ! and being joined to a human soul and a human body, he is to con- tinue in that inferior condition, constituting, we suppose, a Trinity in himself, for ever and ever! But, notwithstanding this everlasting — 16} change in the condition of the unchangeable Jehovah, froma highey to a lower sphere, our author has a whole chapter, in which he endeavours to shew that, ‘the exaltation of Christ is inconsistent with his being a mere creature.” He seems to consider exalta- tion not by a “something like common-sense principle,” as ad- vancement from a lower to a higher grade, but by a contrary rule of descent from the higher to a lower; and thus “ Christ, the great God our Saviour,” was exalted more nostratum, or Hi- bernicorum, might our author say, did he not happen to be of Paisley, by becoming an inferior. The unchangeable was ex- alted by being changed—the Almighty, by rendering himself powerless—the Immortal, by being crucified as a slave—and after his resurrection, by being appointed to a station far below his: original state, when he reigned as Jchovah God, the Supreme Ruler of the universe! The kingdom to which he is exalted, our author informs us, is7#ferzor in duration and in extent, to the domi- nion which he possessed before, and is subordinate to the universal kingdom and sovereignty of the Deity; and after all, it is to be * Delivered up to the Sovereign of the universe, and shall, as it were, merge into the general government of the universe, that God, the one in- visible, eternal God, may be all in all, and his universal empire all in all.” Again he says, “ Jesus will still continue to dwell in his human nature among his redeemed people * * and in that condescending station, as the man Christ Jesus, he shall be subject to the Sovereign of all, his whole con- duct regulated by the same law with that of the people; and he and they, as one living temple, subservient to the well-being of the universal dominien of the Father of all.” ' This is almost as pure Unitarianism as we could write ourselves. It is one of the few passages, in which our author gives us “ some- thing like’ common sense. But we are sorry that his unfortu- nate non mi ricordo assails him so frequently, and that he should presently endeavour to confute all his own statements, convert what is intelligible into sheer nonsense, and confound him, who exalts, with him who is exalted, but who, by his own representa- tion, is not exalted, but degraded, In the “ Recapitulation” of his work, our author has a large piece of mockery, founded on his ignorance of prophetic language. His readers should feel obliged to him for the benevolent attempt to enliven the somnolescence of his pages with a little sprinkling of wit. But it is a miserable failure; yet it is entertaining by the very awkwardness of its attempts to succeed ;—the intended smile wriggles into a contortion, and the incipient laugh expires in a sardonic whimper. Our author has great difficulty in suppressing his wrath at our having stated in our first Edition, that we should deem a positive declaration from the mouth of Christ, more worthy of credit than any contradictory declaration of Jeremiah or of John. This he calls a “ daring insinuation ;” and lest his readers should forget it, . X 62 he refreshes their memory by its repetition. Now, what does if spsinuate? ‘That we hold one part of Scripture in higher estima- tion than another. Verily, this is no jnsinnation, but a clear and avowed truth. We do prefer some parts of Scripture to others— Genesis, in some respects, to Leviticus, the Gospels to the Epistles, Matthew to Mark; nay, we prefer some of our Saviour’s discourses to others—one doctrine to another doctrine, one virtue to another virtue, one truth to another truth, andthe ipsississima verba of him who had the word of eternal life, to those of Moses and all the other inspired writers put together. Now, if it should happen, we do not affirm that it does, for our proposition is altogether hypothetical, that Jeremiah or John should, or should seem to teach, or inti- mate that there are three Gods, in contradiction to our Lord’s de- elaration that there is but one, we should, most assuredly, deem our Lord’s declaration more worthy than theirs of all accepta- tion. When one authority must bend to another, it should be the less to the greater—Paul to Christ—he who had the spirit in measure, to-him who had. it without measure. Should there arise “a prophet, or dreamer of dreams,” and teach that there is a. triplicity, er three persons in the Godhead, and though he should support his doctrine by signs and wonders, we should ‘ not fearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you to know, whether ye love the Lord your God, with all your heart, and with alk your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear jhim,-and keep his-commandments, and obey his voice; and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.’ Deut. xii. 3, 4, ~Christ himself ratified this doctrine by his divine sanction and authority = but had he, in opposition to this doctrine, taught éritheism, no Jew could, and no Jew ought to have ever believed in him; and we ourselves should join issue with. the Jew, in saying, that in such a case we should reject him as a false prophet, and consider his doctrine just as contradictory to the erand fundamental principles, both of natural religion and of that which was revealed by Moses and the prophets, as if he had reversed all the com- mandments, and said, Thou shalt kill__thou shalt commit adul- tery; for a true prophet could no more reverse or subvert the first commandment, than the sixth or the seventh. But we rejoice that our Lord came not to destroy, but to fulfil; that he spake with more power and authority than Moses, and that we are emphatically enjoined to hear him ; therefore, we place the highest value on all his divine communications, ‘and. believe he uttered an incontrovertible truth when he said, “My Father is greater than 1”—in every sense greater, We believe that be uttered another truth, which no disciple of his will dispute, when he said, “ I and my Father are one’”—one in the sense which he himself so clearly explains when he prays, that the disciples may be one with him, as he is one with the Father. These are truths which no ecclesiastical authority car’ 163 ever invalidate.—.Should any expressions, even of the Apostle Paul seem to controvert them, we should sappose, either that those expressions did not clearly convey the Apostle’s meaning, or that he wrote from himself, as he informs us, and: we believe him, that he sometimes did, and not from the dictation of the Holy Spirits “‘# speak,” says he, “and not the Lord ;” and again, ‘* that which I speak is not after the Lord, but, as it were, foolishly.” Yea, though an angel from heaven should preach any other Gospel unto us than that which the Saviour preached, we should justify its rejection by Apostolical authority. We could not, with Mr. C. believe two contradictory propositions to be equally true. “Though thrice twelve Apostles should aver that there are three ‘Gods supreme, and yet only one God supremé, we should not trust them ;—we should dishonour the God of truth by supposing that he required us to believe, or profess belief in an absurdity: We regard with scern the Pharisaical pretences of those who aifect to hold in equal estimation, every part of the Sacted Vo Jame, no matter through what channel it may be conveyed} while they contemn and endeavour to set aside its clearest—its most important, and ‘most frequently repeated truths; who call ‘out “te the law and to the testimony !” while they stretch every nerve and sinew in working the machinery of false readings, falsé translation, false punctuation, glosses, interpolations, Hebrew plarals, Greek singulars, and Ao, he, to; and in twisting and tor- turing the plain language of Scripture inte conformity with their creeds—who strain out gnats while they swallow camels, and trample down the simple majesty of the divine Werd, to enthrone and deify their own carnal inferences. With some the Song of So- lomon is the choicest morsel of Scriptute; others * prefer the Book of Revelations; and a third class gratify their appetite for spiritual food by studying the Book of Leviticus. We have been informed ef a fair “ Evangelical,” who has discovered in it all the sublime mysteries of the Athanasian creed! This is not our taste. We think that, by every Christian, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount is more to be prized. Mr. C. himself, we presume, has his favourite passages ; and he may know, at least. he may have read of some orthodox believers, who consider the Epistle of James as an Epistle of straw, straminea, because it so strongly advocates the heretical, though Christian, doctrine of good works. There are certain texts which, with them, are no favourites ; and which they would willingly exclude from the sacred canon, on the authority of ““ Ambrose,” er of Mr. C.’s new detector of in- terpolations, “* Dobrowski at Prague,” or ‘ Doustersnivel,” at the Hartz mountains! We cannot boast of what Professor Bruce calls Mr. Carlile’s ‘enviable faculty,” of believing contra- alictions. We are not gifted with a deglutition wide enough to gulp down dogmas bristled all over with the spinosities of Cal- vinism ;—we cannot bolt hedge-hogs ; they require time for mastication, Even some of the Rev. worthies of Mr. C.’s synod 164 have experienced difficulty in swallowing such morsels, arid “would have found it impossible to get them down, had they not been well lubricated with the essential oil of regiwm donum. We have been informed of one Gentleman, a Reverend, who has been able to bolt Mr. C.’s Book with all its chevaua-de-frise of anti- logies :—whether his mind and conscience have been Jacerated or excoriated by the effort, we know not; but there are spiritual empirics at hand who can assure him, that *¢ The sovereignest thing on earth, Is kirk with donwn, for an inward bruise.” Mr. C’s mode of exercising his “enviable faculty,” is ims genious, though not altogether original. The doctrine of the two natures is of infinite use in the great question. When a difficulty cannot be explained by the one nature, it may by the other; and when both are insufficient, a new character is introduced to cut asunder the Gordian knot. Our author, like the manager of a drama, has an appropriate mask and costume for the Saviour in every emergency, and represents him in as many forms as were assumed by Proteus of old :—at one time he is Jehovah, God supreme overall; at another, he becomes inferior and subordi- nate; now he is the Father everlasting ; anon, the begotten Son ; then a “ poor despised man,” acting withal the part of a cunning man of law, and defeating his enemies by a legal stratagem ! At one time he acts in a public, and at another in a private capa- city; this hour ex officio, and the next a officio ; and this is the mode in which orthodoxy “honours the Son even as it honours the Father.” «© We have now come,” says our author, ‘to the limits of explicit revela~ tion, and are entering upon the region of reasoning and inference,” He honestly admits that, “A doctrine of inferenceought never to be placed on a footing of equality “with a doctrine of direct and explicit revelation; * * and that so far as our belief of any doctrine is the result of inference, it is not an exercise of faith in the testimony of God, but in the accuracy of our own reasoning |” We are rejoiced to find Mr. C. paying such homage to truth, and at last fulfilling his promise to give us something like reason and common sense. He admits, “that the Holy Spirit is a dis- tinct person from the Father and the Son, seems to be removed one step from a direct explicit revelation, * * and that there are ihree persons in the Godhead, is a second remove from explicit direct revelation ;’——-and so after all our ‘‘ bubble, buLble, toil, and trouble,” we have nothing to depend on for the doctrine of the Trinity, but Mr. C.’s inferences, and how logically he can infer, let the reader judge. He honestly acknowledges tbat be- fore he arrives at the doctrine of the Trinity, he has passed ‘the last lamp” of revelation. When he came to the last lamp he should have stopped ; for, as he truly observes, he has thences . forward no light but what shines behind, and that he cannot pro- 165 geed far without being lost in the thick darkness. “ He might have added,” says Professor Bruce, “ that at every step he is i danger of tripping and stumbling in the darkness caused by his own shadow.” Jn danger, quotha? In sooth, at the very first step he tumbles down headlong, and we shall find him presently floundering in the Serbonian bog of infidelity and atheism. We have asserted, on the highest authority, that it is contrary to sound philosophy to ascribe any effect to more causes than are necessary to produce it, and on this principle proceeded to affirm that there is but one efficient cause of all. Our author is in wrath at this declaration—looks big—again assumes the inqui- sitorial chair—brings our unhappy selves to the question, and demands imperatively to know whose philosophy we mean. When his interrogatory 1s answered, then he says, “ we may find that it is contrary to the opinion of Hartley, or Malebranche, or Priestley, or Hume, or Reid, or Stewart, or Brown.” He might have shewn a still further acquaintance with philosophy by ad- ding the names of Sanconiathon, Berosus, Ocellus Lucanus, Yao, Chun, Li-Lao-Kiun, Mango Capac, Kong-Fu-Tse, Ferdinando Mendez Pinto, and all the great philosophers both of ancient and modern times, except the cosmogonists of the ‘ enormous crab 2? and how the good folks of Mary’s Abbey would have been amazed at their pastor's tremendous knowledge of philosophers -and their systems! But ‘ let him not,’ he continues, ‘ attempt to frighten us with the terrors of an abstract word.” Courteous reader, give us leave to assure you, that we were not ‘aware of the ‘abstract word,” philosophy, we presume, having any terrers—we hope :¢ has had none for you; and we positively disclaim all intention of frightening our Rey. interrogator ; while we lament that our use of that “ abstract word” has thrown Jim into such a fit of apprehension as te cause him to write a whole paragraph, which, by its complete unintelligibility, shews ‘put too traly the distraction of his mind. Having affirmed, that “it is inconsistent with the simplest axioms of arithmetic, that three is not one, and one is not three ;” and demonstrated that one king is two kings, his body being one, and his soul another—he should have added, his mind a third,—tbhe paroxysm subsides, he zecovers his tranquillity, and proceeds to argue against the philo- sophical principle laid down in the Essay, viz. that “the unity of design apparent in the creation, argues unity of cause.” He says we have forgotten to prove that unity of design; but this is a mistake ; we did not forget ; we intentionally omitted it, deeming it unnecessary, according to an example approved of by great critics, to begin ab ovo, or to prove what we did not contemplate the possiblility of any one disputing ; neither did we imagine that there could be found in this age of scientific improvement, any one who would manifest a disposition to lead us back to the dark ages, and treat with contempt the sublime principles of Newton's philo- sophy, by placing them ona level with the occult qualities by 166 which the philosophers of old explained every phenomenon, for which they could assign no cause. But it is perfectly consistent, that he who is fond of mystery in religion, should be fond of oc- cult qualities in the study of nature, and that he should consider as “palpable nonsense,’* every attempt to expose the folly of the one and the other. The philosophic poet thought he was a happy man, who could ascertain the causes of things :— Helix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. More happy he, thinks our sage divine, who wraps himself up contentedly in his ignorance, and accounts for every phenomenon more simply by an occult quality. « Of causes,” says he, ‘“ we are now as ignorant as the Academics, the Peripatetics, or the Stoics.” Their occult qualityt was just as good as our gravita- tion, and explained the grand phenomena of nature, as well as Kepler’s laws of motion, and Newton’s Principia! One of those old gentlemen, who said that water rose in a pump, because nature abhors a vacuum, knew as much as he who thinks he knows more, because he ascribes it to the pressure of the atmos- phere. The clown can see through the optic glass as clearly as he who makes it, and satisfy his curiosity by attributing its powers to some magical property, as well as he who, by principles of optical science, leads to such telescopic and microscopic dis- coveries, as enlarge our views of nature and open a wide field of entertaining and instructive investigation in the lower departments of creation. Franklin, he of whom it has been said, in the true spirit of philosophic poetry, that he disarmed Jove of his thunder - belt, and tyrants of their sceptre— | | Jovi eripuit fulmen, sceptrimaque tyrannis, needed not to have been at such pains with his vitreous and ree sinous machinery to delight the world with a new influx of know- ledge, and shew the causes of thunder and lightning, and all the magnificent phenomena of electricity, since our author’s “occult quality” might have been deemed sufficient cause, and equally satisfactory to every one who, like him, is so greatly superior to the dictates of reason and common sense. Priestley and Lavoi- sier too, might have spared themselves the trouble of their ex- periments in chemistry, which have led to so many important discoveries,.and such innumerable benefits to the merchant, the traveller, the mechanic, and the whole race of man. After all, * This is what our author terms that strikingly sensible passage, which we have quoted in a note, p. 98, froma work of Dr. W. Robertson. t “ It was usual with the Peripatetics, when the cause of any phenomenon was demanded, to have recourse to their faculties, or occult qualities, and to say, for instance, that bread, nourished by its nutritive, and senna purged by its purgative ; but it bas been discovered, that this subterfuge was nothing but the disguise of ignorance,’"—Hume’s Dialogues, p. 62, 167 is it not an occult quality which has constructed the steam-en- gine, the rail-way, the diving-bell, the forcing-pump, the safety- lamp, and lighted our streets with gas? Happy occult quality ! + satisfies all doubts—solves all difficulties—makes all improve- ments—explains all phenomena. Happy mystery! that performs in religion, what occult quality performs in philosophy,—it swallows all absurdities—believes all contradietions—extinguishes all reason—perverts all trath—and perpetuates the goklen age of ignorance, fanaticism and priest-craft, Twin sisters ' exclaim the friends of mental darkness and religious slavery, wide be the spread of your dominion !__together may ye reign for ever ! Our author, reluctant to admit any single position which we lay down, though eventually he concedes every thing, disputes the justice of our assumption, that there is unity of design in the universe, and says, <¢ We can ascertain unity of design only tn that portion of the universe that falls under our observation. Of those remote portions of the universe which lie beyond the sphere of our research we are totally ignorant, and cannot therefore argue upon them.” We think we have seen this and similar objections stated with superior force and eloquence elsewhere. It is contended by some sceptics, that the universe being a singular phenomenon, there is nothing with which it can be compared :—there are no analogies to lead us to any conclusion respecting its origin; it may have sprung from chance ; it may have existed from eternity ; jt. may have been the workmanship of a number of bungling attificers ;.our earth may be an animal, or the egg of some su- perior planet ! Unity of design ! Fiddle-faddle! exclaims a cosmogonist of the ‘ crab”-—“ Of those remote portions of the universe which lie beyond the sphere of our research, we are totally ignorant, and cannot therefore argue upon them.’ We have no right even to assume that they sprang from any cause either intelligent or fortuitous! The orthodox divine accords with the sceptical philosopher, and, adopts a principle which precipitates him into atheism 5. be tries, however, to escape from the consequences of his temerity by having recourse to Scrip- ture :— « T believe,” says he, ‘on the testimony of Seripture, that the same unity of design must extend over the universe; but without the Scripture (aud he might have added, with it) I am no more capable ofarguing upon universal unity of design, than an animalcule shut up in one of the books of the library of St Paul s Cathedral, in London, is capable of reasoning upon the unity of design discernible in the whole of that edifice.”” We give Mr. €. all the credit he can wish for the modesty of this declaration ; but we wish to learn from him, what part of Scripture inculeates that doctrine, which, he says, he believes on dts testimony. ‘To us it appears, that unity of design is a philo~ 165 sophic idea, attained by observation and the exercise of reason of the phenomena of nature ;—of that idea the Scriptnres say “absolutely nothing ;” and we cannot but marvel that any one, whose religious system teaches that the world is under the curse of God, that, as the Rev. Edw. Irving states, «‘ he made a pre- sent of it tothe devil,”’ and that it is a chaos of deformed ruins, should be so grossly inconsistent as to maintain, that the Scrip- tures say any thing about unity of design. The Unitarian can infer it fairly and legitimately from his views of Scripture doctrine. Revelation in teaching him that God is one, teaches also, that God’s works must be characterised by their conformity, not only to his attributes of power aud wisdom, but also to his individuality of purpose. From the cause he descends to the effect; but philosophy mounts from the effect to the cause; and seeing an individuality of purpose and contrivance in the works of creation, concludes that their author must be onr. Thus, does true philo- sophy harmonize with revelation, and the one corroborates the conclusions of the other. Since, as Mr. C. affirms, we are so totally ignorant of things which lie beyond the sphere of our research, that we cannot form an argument upon them, we ask, on what principle does he argue when he compares his knowledge of design to that of an animalcule shut up in a book in the library of St. Paul’s Cathedral? Are all the appurtenances of that edifice so perfectly within the sphere of his research that he is justifiable, according to his own doctrine, for reasoning upon them? Has he ascertained that unity of design is ‘‘ discernible in the whole of that edifice ??* Has it a library ? Is there an animalcule shut up in one of the books? Has he subjected that animalcule to the test of microscopie examination ? Has he anatomized it, as we have anatomized his book, to discover whether it has a cerebellum, or is altogether brainless? Has he examined it in logic; or discovered whether it has any knowledge of the various styles of architecture, and whether it prefers the Gothic to the Greek; and above all, whether it has such just notions of art and unity of design, as would merit the approbation of Palladio, Michel Agnolo, and Sir Christopher Wren himself, the architect of the Cathedral? If Mr. C. says that these subjects are ‘out of the sphere of his research,” we again ask him, where- fore, then, does he presume to institute a comparison which may be degrading to the animalcule, and bring its knowledge of design into disrepute ? It is a subject, of which he is so totally ignorant, that, by his own rule, he cannot draw from it any argument. Let him not judge of animalcules by himself; some of them, for aught that he knows to the contrary, might be as capable of teaching a lesson as Solomon’s ant ; some of them may reason as well as certain divines—to reason worse is impossible. If Mr. C.’s animalcule had a particle of intellect it cou/d not mis-~ understand, and if it had a particle of honesty, it would not misre- present, as Mr, C. has done, the question between Mr, Pope and oT 169 onrselves respecting a fuct and its explanation. | We have said, in reference to the Trinity, “prove!the fact and it will not be dis~ puted.” Notwithstanding this, and his quotation of our very swords, he has the matchless effrontery to affirm that we say, ‘‘ its being incomprehensible is a sufficient reason for rejecting it!” He farther asserts, after having distinctly stated that the doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine of inference—that he “has proved the fact from the Scriptures, and that we will not believe it, be- cause tt is incomprehensible.” On the contrary, it is stated in the Essay, (p. 101, and of the second edition, p. 64,) that the Unitarian admits “that the incomprehensibility of a doctrine may be no just ground of objection.” But Mr. C. contends, that he “has proved the fact!” Riswm teneatis, amici? We should as soon believe that he has unsphered a fixed star. Andjhow has he proved it ? By telling us, that tle doctrine of the Trinity is “a doctrine of inference, and of indirect intimation * * * rather than a doctrine directly and explicitly declared.” Proved the fact ! What pity that he had not been born fifteen centuries ago, that his proof might have preserved the Christian world from the contro- versy, in which it has ever since been so unprofitably engaged ? But his proof is of such a subtle and intangible consistence, as not to be seen, felt, or understood by any minds, which are not gifted with his own “enviable faculty.” That which the most eminent divines of the Roman Catholic Church have acknow- ledged to be incapable of any proof by Scripture, or by any thing’ ‘bat tradition and church authority, is now made plain by a disciple of Calvin! That -which the most erudite Protestants have been obliged to abandon to mystery, as impenetrable and inexplicabie, is now demonstrated by the Rev, James Carlile, Minister of the . Scots Church, Mary’s Abbey, Dublin !—Zo, triumphe! We shall expect soon to hear that, by means of his occe/t guality, he has discovered the perpetual motion, the philosopher's stone, and the elixir of life. Proved the fact! He has betrayed the cause which, in a foolish spirit of knight errantry, he came forth to defend. The deepest degradation and hopelessness, in which any cause could be plunged, would be condemnation to such advocacy as that by which the doctrine of the Trinity has been exposed to scorn and ridicule in the pages of the Rev. James Carlile. To accompany our author farther would be superfluous. We have cited enough of his book to enable the reader to form a tolerably just opinion of its merits. Some of our fair and sensitive Unitarian friends will think, perhaps, that we have expressed our- selves strongly on this subject; we admit it, but not more strongly than the subject required. In the cause of great and important truths, we can yield nothing to complaisance ; we make no com- promise with error, especially when it is defended by disingenuous arts, and an ostentatious parade of learning without the reality ; least of all should we feel disposed to be lenient to any antagonist who evinces a reckless disregard for the name and character of individuals infinitely his superiors. What must we think, and what should we say of the writer who, without any just preten- sions to the critic’s chait, says of R. Roy that he is extremely ¥ 170. ignorant of the Hebrew language ?—who, with lordly disdain,. speaks of a Dr. Young—(did he ever hear of one John Milton?)— the learned Bishop of Clonfert, who, as ascholar, was an ornament to his university, and, as a divine, an honour to his church ?—a writer, who defames Unitarians as capable of forging bis own abominable creed, with a view to misrepresent Calvinism, forsooth, that dark anti-christian system, of which no portraiture has yet been presented to the world half so hideous as the original ?*—and who himself commits, to a flagrant degree, the very offence which he condemns ? For how dees he treat Dr, Priestley, that truly Christian divine and excellent philosopher, whose name is em- —balmed in the history of scienee, and which will be remembered » with. gratitude for ages after his calumniators and. persecutors have sunk into oblivion—-Priestley, who stood boldly forward as the champion. of Christianity, and in its defence threw down the cauntlet of defiance to the celebrated author of ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”’—Priestley, of whom it might be truly asserted, that he bad his whele conversation in this world, haere ae * As Dr. Wardlaw is the Magnus Apollo of Mr. €. we recommend to his consideration the following extract from the Christian Pioneer, for De- cember, 1830. It occurs in an article entitled Orthodoxy, and ws advo- cate Dr. Wardlaw, in conflict with the New Testament :—= ‘* One of the most revolting principles of Calvinism, is fully set forth in the discourse of which we are speaking: ‘The delight of God in Christ is manifested in the perdition of those that perish, as well as in the salvation of those that are saved,’ is a proposition which this Divine lays down, and la- vours to establish. There is, in these few words, enough to sink any system whatever. If proved from Scripture, Scripture is thereby disproved ; if a part of Christianity, Christianity is not of God :—but they are, thank God! Calvinism, not the Gospel. The benevolent Jesus is not answerable for so foul a libel on the Creator. Man’s damnation God’s delight! Horrible idea! ‘he God of Jesus delighting in the eternal torments of the vast ma- jority of bis creatures! If this be not blasphemy, it is something worse.—- ‘ Hell shall bear testimony to this,’ viz. God’s delight in Christ, as well as heaven ‘The lesson shall be read for ever by the fires of Tophet, as well as by the light of Paradise.’ And this is said of God, who ‘is love,’ and Christ who was tenderness itself! ‘This said in the 19th century, and men expected to believe it! Surely, this is, now-a-days, wn peu de trop. We-would advise Dr. Wardlaw (and-Mr. C.) to abandon Calvinism, and preach the Gospel, which they would do well to remember, whenever their Calvinistic impressions are too strong for their good sense and bumanity, means § good news’ —‘ glad tidings’—‘ peace on earth’—good will to man’”’ Let us bear no more of Unitarians misrepresenting Calvinism, We can- not deseribe it im any colours more dark, nor in any forms more hideously revolting, than those in which it is pourtrayed by its own advocates. ‘The style employed by Mr. C.1in describing the God of the Calvinists, forms an exact parallel to thatemployed by the Rev. Dr. Buchanan in describing Jug- cernaut, the Moloch of Hindostan. The former says ‘ The Lord (i.e his Lord) views the whole race (of mankind) as a king does a rebel army. He tukes no cognizance of the diversities of character that may be in such an army,” (see p. 147.) Dr. B. says, “ So great a God is this, (Juggernaut) that (on the day of his great feast) the dignity’ of high cast disappears before him. ‘Che great king recognises no distinction of rank among his subjects; all men are equal in his presence.”—(Ind. Researches, Srd Ed. p. 27.) But it is only distinction of rank that Juggernaut does not recognize, and in this there is some justice. ‘Lhe God of Mr. C. takes no cognizance of diversities of — 171 im simplicity and godly sincérity 2?” After affirming of this great philosopher and admirable Christian, that he had exposed iis learning to utter contempt, and forfeited all claims to the character of an honest man, he endeavours to fix upon him the foul imputation of having declared of Christ that he was “a sinful man.”* Now, if Mr. C. has any regard for his own character, he will either prove, or retract this charge. He will prove it, not by inference, as he says he has-proved the Trinity, but by refer- ring us to the book, chapter, page, and the ¢psessisema verba in which Dr. Priestley has made that declaration, or else he will avow that it is a slander, fabricated to injure the reputation, and destroy the influence of a great and a good man’s name. Per- haps, on consideration, he may find that he made a slight mistake in attributing to Dr. Priestley what, some may think, more pro-. perly belongs to his own orthodox friend, the celebrated Rev. E. Irving, who describes the human nature, “ which the Son of Man was clothed upon withal, (as) bristling thick and strong with sin, like the hairs upon the porcupine !” We now take leave of Mr. C. without any personal feeling ef unkindness.. We have spoken of him freely as an author, and as we thought the interests of trath exacted. We have pronounced Cee LR TS LY character, and in this there is such a flagrant disregard to morality and right, as would put the priests of Juggernaut to shame if imputed to their God, and make them rise indignantly to repel the imputation as a slander, The barbarous superstition of Hindostan, sacrifices ehildren * by drowning them or exposing them to sharks and crocodiles.’ The more barbarous superstition of Calvinism, condemns unregenerate children with their parents to “* the most gricvous torments ™m sowl and body, without intermission, in hell- fire, for ever !” and tells us, that ‘ there are thousands of them, not a span long, frying in hell, beiug appointed as vessels of wrath’?—and all for the glory of God! We ourselves, though holding the Gospel of peace and sal- vation in our hands and to our hearts, are denied the name of Christian, sentenced to the same hard fate, and damned “ soul and body in hell-fire for ever,” as heretics and soul destroyers, because we canaot believe such blas- phemous abominations. How long will men, who have the least claim to sense and reason, suffer themselves to be ‘ mocked, insuiled, and abused 2?” * When Dr. Priestley revolted from the principles of Calvinism, in which he had been educated, it is surprising, that in his recoil from its impious dogmas, he was not hurried into infidelity. But determined to follow: the Apostle’s advice to “ prove ali things,” he informs us, that he ‘became a High Arian, next a Low Arian, and in a little time a Socinian of the lowest kind, in which Christ is considered as a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, and naturally as fullibie and’ peccable.” ‘This, as quoted from that chaotic mass of theological trash,- called « Magee on the “Atonement,’’ Is the passage, we presutne, which has furnished such authers as Mr, Carlile, who do not, or ivill not understand it, with a pretence for imputing to Dr, Priestley opinions which he never held nor expressed, We helieve that no | divine in existence would have more cheerfully subscribed to the Apostle’s declarations, that Christ was ‘¢declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead ;”’ and that though he was “in ail points tempted like as we are, yet (was he) with | out sin.’ Do not the most orthodox writers admit, that Christ had a human nature, and was tempted? What constitutes human nature es ie infallibility or impeccability ? A being who, by virtue of his physical con- stitution, is infallible and impeceable, partakes not of the constitution of 172 ence not. more severe than merited and just. ‘lin future confine his Jucubrations to his who can understand them, and tipon bjs book a sent If he act wisely he w own pulpit and to his own people, ask no more questions about the ‘accredited pastors” of other congregations feeding their flock with negatives. But should he have the temerity to come again before the public, he will do well to remember that those principles of reason and common sense, which he has laboured to explode, are likely to become the fashion. The reign of occult qualities is long since past, and that of mystery is hastening to a elose. Unitarian Christianity, the simple and beau- tiful, the heart- dilating, the mind-expanding religion taught by Christ and his Apostles, is prevailing more and more; and all such efforts as his to throw obstacles in its way, and retard its progress, serve only to accumulate its volume, and roll it forward with accelerating speed. ' ON ik ane heer arr en ae Sea We affirm, on the highest authority, that there is none good humanity. God—therefore none infallible—none impeccable but God—none wise but but God. -A being who cannot be temptation, than Mount Atlas in withstanding the breath ofa zephyr, The virtue of Christ Iay in his moral, not in his physical superiority to temptation. Flow could he have been tempted tn all points, or in any point, like as we are; if no part of his constitution was liable to assault? Can the blind be tempted by beauty, or the deaf by a Siren’s song? Where was the merit of his triumph over the tempter, if he was incapable of feeling the charms of am~ bition and glory? If he had not hungered, would the devil, with all his subtlety, have acted so like a simpleton, as to desire him to convert the stones into bread? The gentlemen, who are in such wrath at Priestley for openly expressing what they virtually admit, inform us, on their own au- thority, that Adam was created perfect. How, then, we ask, did-he fall before the very first temptation that assailed him? Oh! he was fallible, — Admirable consistency ! And also peccable ?~It must be granted.. And consequently, that a being may be perfect, and, at the same time, liable to be deceived, and to be tempted to sin, Adam was not only fallible and peccable, but he was actually deceived, and he actually sinned. This cannot be pre- dicated of Christ, the second Adam. He also was tempted. But he did not yield to temptation ; and herein lay one part of his superiority to the first ‘Adam. He was “without sin :’’—this Dr. Priestley would not only admit, but maintain ; and so far from alleging, as Mr. C. says he does, that Christ was ‘asinfub man,’ he would have been among the most strenuous in maintaining that he was altogether sinless, “ holy, harmless, undefiled, sepa- rate from sinners.” A well-known author, whom the orthodox would fondly claim as their own, while he yet stood on the high pinnaele of orthodoxy, eloquently said, “ As the Son of God put on our flesh and blood, so he as- sumed the various powers and properties of human nature—the appetites nd passions of mankind ; he endured hunger and thirst; he had fear and juve, hope, and joy; nor were the more troublesome affections of anger and corrow left out of his constitution; but they were all innocent and holy— (Priestley would have said the same ;) they were never tainted with sin as ours are; they had no corrupt mixtures to defile his soul (Priestley would have said the same ;)—our passions are like water w ith mud at the bottom ; when they are moved, they too frequently raise th e mud and betray their impurity. But the passions of Christ were ever pure; like water from the clearest fountain in a glass of crystal, which, though: it be never so much ‘agitated, is still unpolluted.” Priestleu would have said the same. END OF THE REVIEW: tempted, has no more virtue in resisting APPENDIX. Grotius informs us (Ex Syro) that ancient copies had not the word % God,” in this text of Romans, c. ix. v. 5, and that Erasmus remarks, Cyprian, Hilary, and Chrysostom omit it. ‘In this short statement,” says the Dublin Christian Examiner, (1827) “there are almost as many inaccu- racies as words; Grotius certainly argues, that from its absence in the Syriac, ancient copies must have wanted it; but Dr. Drummond ought to have known that Grotius was mistaken, for that it occurs in that version.” Had it been Dr. D.’s object to ascertain whether it is in the:Syriac version, or to found any criticism on that version in particular, he con- fesses he ought to have known it; or had he affirmed on his own autho- rity, as the Examiner has affirmed of the text, Acts xx. 28, that the Syriac version has the word God, he farther confesses, that he would have justly exposed himself to all those charges of ignorance and precipitancy, or of ‘ critical dishonesty,’ which the Examiner has shewn so much eagerness to advance against him, and which will recoil on the Examiner’s own head, if he fail to produce the Syriac of that text which, he positively asserts, contains ihe disputed word. But Grotius did not confine his observation to one copy, for he says veleres codices; nor did he leave it to rest solely on his own authority. He fortifies his opinion by that of Erasmus, who affirms that Cyprian, Hilary, and Chrysostom, omit the word dyes. From this statement, however, the author did not, by any means, contend for its re- moval, but merely supposed there might be some ‘corruption, or some dislo~ cation of the words from the position in which they originally stood; and this supposition, for it is offered as nothing more, receives countenance from the different situations which the word occupies in different copies, as well as other discrepant readings, to say nothing of the variety of punctua- tions which affect the sense. For instance, some copies omit the xs, and others the to, Instead of gxovloy—one has gaye, and another geyras 3 and 6 wy ews wevrwy is altogether omitted in the /ithiopic version, if Mill informs us truly :—Omittit Zethiop. Mill in loc. Lipsiw 1723, p 350. In- stead of xo 62 wy the Armenian version transposes the words and reads ¢ wy xes. The words 6 APlOTOS To KotH Teepe are also transposed, in another copy, into ro xara Scopus xpioros Cyr. vide Griesbach in loc. Griesbach also has his mark of omission as to $¢0; prefixed to four copies=Cypr. ed. _ Hilar. ed. semele Leo semel, Ephr. ap. Jackson. Ante ¢g¢4 gwavrwy ponunt Syr. Erp. Iren. Text. semel.—2nd Edit. Vol. 11. p. 195. Mill observes of Grotius that he was in an error as to the Syriac, and apologizes for him as became one liberal-minded scholar in speaking of another.* Whitby also contents himself by saying that it was ‘a mistake’ in Grotius. He would have felt’ ashamed to bring a charge against his general accuracy, much less against his critical Lonesty. Such insinuations belong to a modern school of SMaLL Critics, who excel in that ‘index learning which turns no student pale’—-who ‘‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel’”’— SSMU IIDAREN a aac Mad cca foc nN eh DE * Grotianas enim in locum annotationes minus moror, tumultuario nempe congestas quaque non receperant ultimam manum; ut proinde quodnam fuerit in hac re vire maxim iudicium, ex iis colligere non liceat. : 173 who found doctrines on Greek particles, while they neglect not only “thé length and breadth,” but the height and depth of the law and the testimony, and who cultivate criticism, not as a liberal art for the improvement of taste; the developement of truth, and the elucidation of the Sacred. Volume, but as a craft for the fabrication of the fragile weapons with which they are always ready to engage in personal hostilities, and which are but as chaff to the whirl2 wind, before the weighty artillery of Scripture, reason and common sense. The ‘ Christian Examiner,’ with a boldness of assertion, which would call forth whole pages of his censure, if made by a Christian Unitarian, affirms that, in the text under question, ‘‘ the word®‘ God,’ is found in every known -MS. in every ancient version, and in every quotation from every father,” What opinicn does the Examiner entertain of the understanding of his rea- ders, when he makes such an unqualified assertion, in the very sentence fol- Jowing that in which he has written his own confutation, viz. ?—‘ As to Cyprian and Hilary, Erasmus states, that the word God is omitted in oxe place of each writer, but also, that it must bave taken place from the careless- ness of transcribers.” Happy salvo for the Examiner! With what a pitiless and vindictive storm of abuse would he and his school have assaulted Belsham, had he made such an observation? But how did Erasmus know that it was omitted through the carelessness of transcribers? fad he the omniscience of the Ixaminer, to know not only thatit was to be found in every known MS. in every version, and in every quotation of every father; but having this knowledge of its universality, did he also know that it was not universal, but that there were certain copies, or quotations at least, in which it was not to be found, and that the omission must have proceeded from the carelessness of copyists? Verily, his knowledge was great, and of much wider extent than his own consciousness of it would have led him to believe! But Erasmus does not say what the Examiner says for him, that the omission must Aave taken place through carelessness. He has more modesty, and conjectures its possibility, incuria librariorum esse omissum videri potest. ‘* Etiam Chrysos- tomus nullum dat significationem, se, hoc loco, legisse Deus; que vox poterat adjecta videri a studioso quopiam, velut exponente quis esset ille super omnia nimirum Deus.* Nec est quod vociferemur Christum spoliari Divinitate, cum idem dicat periphrasis quod nomen Dei, veluti si quis pro Deo dicat célestium et terrestrium Condiior.” He continues: “ Let those, therefore, be at peace, who, tickled by the love of popularity, are on every occasion ex- citing disturbance, as if the church were about to fall. Whether or not, the word ‘ God’ in this place be omitted, it contributes nothing to the meaning of the text, since the periphrasis (viz. who is over all) expresses the sense more aptly than the solitary name of God.” As to Erasmus’s own opinion, he clearly ascribes the words who is over all, to the Father, by whose kind providence all their religious privileges were conferred on the Jews; concurring with ‘many fathers who deny that the appellation can belong to Christ.”” Multi Patres, qui Christum (sic) appel- lari posse negant (Griesbach.) But like a true son of the church, who had not, as he said of himself, the courage of a martyr, % e. the courage to be burned ; he declares that if she says it ought to be interpreted of the Deity of Christ, she must be obeyed ; but that her decision will bave no influence on heretics, who hear only the Scriptures,” In this opinion of Erasmus the author fully coincides. Whether the word God be retained or omitted is of no consequence as to his doctrine. The words ** he who is over all blessed for ever,”’ designate Jehovah, the everlast- ing Father, as clearly as language can express ; and to give the periphrastic appellation to any other being whatsoever, is to rob Jehovah of his glory. But the author would not wish to part with the word, even if the authorities for retaining it‘were much less numerous and decisive than they are. Mid- dleton’s proof that the reading on Leck’s supposition would have been * Erasmus was under a mistake about Chrysostom.—See Mill and Gficsbach. Im 175 svrAoyntes o Seo; instead of Seog svAoyntos iS shewn to be not wortli the paper on which it is written, bya single text from the Septuagint, Ps. xviii. 19, Kugios 0 Dec evroynros. See Yates’s Vindication of Unitarianism, p. 178, and Grabii Septuaginta Lea, £2. 90. After all this turmoil, it is entertaining to find, that Grotius was right / His words are, Bx Syro, by which he means the authority of the Syrian, viz. Ephrem, who was commonly distinguished by that appellation. “ The learned author of Christian Liberly asserted, in his answer to a late book of Dr. Waterland’s, has largely treated of this text, and has fully cleared Grotius, and directly proved fgom Ephrem the Syrian himself, a great Athanasian, who wrote in the Syrian tongue, and used the Syriac version, that even se late as the fourth century, the word God was wanting therein; for in the Greek version of Ephrem’s Syriac, printed “at Oxford, 1709, as this author truly informs us, in both the citations, or allusions, of Ephrem to this verse, the word God is entirely wanting.?’—See a small work, entitled, Athanasian Forgeries, Impositions, and Interpolations, London, 1736, p. 8. The Examiner, after his cruel triumph over the author’s ‘ ignorance, pre- cipitancy, critical inaccuracy, and critical dishonesty,’ and after making as- sertions which his own pen confutes, observes in a note, that “ Dr. D. is not even accurate in his errors’’—(who is?)—and charges him with affirming what he never said, viz. that the criticism relative to the transposition of the iwo small Greek words was first suggested by Whitby and Taylor. Dr. D. must take the liberty of giving a fiat contradiction to this assertion of the learned Critic. He had not the temerity to say by whom it was first sug- gested, for the plain reason that he did not know. He said that Whitby and Taylor had each the merit of making the same ingenious criticism nearly at the same time. This was stated merely to mark a curious, contempora- neous coincidence of judgment between two eminent divines, the one a Trinitarian, and the other an Arian. The same transposition is said to have been proposed by Crellius, and that it is to be found in Slichtingius the au- thor knows. As to its being “so monstrous that even Belsham would not admit it into his text of the improved version,” the author knew not till he read the learned critic’s note. But this he knows, that Belsham has adopted it in his “ Exposition of the Epistles of Paul the Apostle,” and that he says, “this is most probably the true reading, though it is not authorised by any manuscript version, or ecclesiastical authority.” An honest acknowledg- ‘ment, even the critic will allow, though made by Belsham! ‘The critic ob- serves that the author would, perhaps, “ respect such a man as Wakefield,” and in this observation he is perfectly correct. For Wakefield’s honesty and learning, the author entertains a respect amounting almost to veneration, and thanks the Examiner for furnishing him with an opportunity of quoting the following passage from a work of that distinguished scholar, which is earnestly recommended to the Examiner’s attention :—‘“ There are some very probable reasons for concluding a transposition of two small words to have taken place, and this from the very earliest antiquity. Such an easy and trivial mistake, no one, who considers the weariness of transcribers, can think at all unlikely to have happened. For, observe, upon this extremely slight alteration, the amazing improvement of the passage, the uncommon grandeur of the climax, the pertinency of the argument, the completeness of the paragrapb, and the rotundity of the conclusion.” Mr, Examiner, is pot this a beautiful quota- tion? ead it again and again, that you may see the pertinency of the argu- ment; and lay aside the odiwm theologicum for only two minutes, that you may enjoy ‘‘ the rotundity of the conclusion.” ; The following extract from the same eminent critic, may also be perused with advantage :—speaking of the disputed word God, in Acts xx. 28, he says, * This is one of those unscriptural lexts, which sturdu polemics, of little learning, of less impartiality, and of no shame, are perpetually obtruding on our notice to the deception of common readers, and the disgrace. of ingenuous criticism.” - Before the author concludes this long note, he must give the kind and in- dulgent reader, an amusing specimen of his Examiner’s qualifications for the office, which he has undertaken. _ It is stated in the essay, that the Almighty Jehovah can have no fellows ; and the Examiner, at once to overthrow and confound the author for an assertion so heretical, brings forward the text Zech. xiii. 7, “ Awake, O Sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man who is my fellow, saith Jehovah of Hosts.” Sure enough, it appears from this verse, that the orthodox have an argument to'prove that Jehovah of Hosts hath a fellow, and that this fellow is a man!—a rather startling idea, if we are to understand the term as an equal to him who asks, “ to whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal, saith the Holy One?” Is. xl. 25. But this opinion of orthodoxy, like many of its other opinions, is founded on mere -similarity of sound. The original Hebrew.is immeeth, and does not signify a fellow or equal, but a neighbour ; and it is thus rendered in several places where it occurs in Leviticus, viz. once, vi, 23 once, xvii. 20; twice, XIX. 15, 17; three times, xxv. 14,15; and in the 17th v. it is rendered one unother.* Parkhurst translates it “ neighWour, a member of the same so- ciety ;”” and says, itis applied to the human nature, associated with the di- vine, in the person of Chtist.” Zech. xiii. 7. But this is an idle and absurd fiction, for which there is no authority, except some old wife’s fable. New- come renders the passage thus :—= Awake, O Sword, against my shepherd, And against the MAN who is near unto me, Saith Jehovab, God of Hosts. * The Septuagint renders it g¢° avd ec HOATHY Mess against the man that is my citizen or countryman. Aquila ex: cuePvdAoy wx against the man of the same tribeas me. Symmachus, or avo, TB ANB MS against the man of my people. Theodotion, ex cvdec manosoy avrg against the man who is his neighbour. Junius and Tremellius, Hebrza vox proximum aut amicum sonat, &c, i, e. the word in the original signifies a neighbour or friend.’ ( Lindsey.) The Examiner and critics of his school, seem not to care how they degrade Jehovah, provided they can trace but the ‘‘ shadow of the shade” of an argu- ment in favour of their extravagant and most unscriptural invention, that Christ is the Almighty. How can they—how dare they so horribly profane the Word of God, and make him, whom the Prophet denominates a man, the equal of Jehovah of Hosts? They speak of two natures in Christ. Grant them: still they would not constitute a being the fellow of that Je- ~ hovah, who has but one nature, which has nothing human, but is all divine. Such is an instance of the miserable folly of the system, that would reduce the omnipotent to the condition of a man, founded on a wrong translation, and by critics who are proud of their learning: and yet does the same critic, who is guilty of this, and the other offences, proved against him in this note, ~ speak of Unitarians, as having a shew of learning, without the reality, (of which the Examiner affords such a signal proof) of referring to authors un- examined and untried, (¢o Bishop Bull, for instance,) of a bold contempt of all the rules of legitimate criticism, (borrowed from Griesbach without acknow- ledgment,) and an anxiety only to dazzle uninformed readers, (like the sub- scribers to the Christian Examiner.) The critic, who drew this picture, seems to have sat for his own likeness, and being dissatisfied with the fidelity of the resemblance, he hangs it up for public exhibition, and calls out, Behold a Unitarian / Itis left to the candid reader of this note, “to estimate as he may, the critical accuracy, and the critical honesty of Dr. D,”’ and of the Christian Examiner. * * In all these places, the Septuagint translates it ®ANGIOY. FINIS. Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Libra MANN 1 1012 01020 4 Pz. a , + De ee al ux ath \ BE ed are pa ry i nt Ta Phas Daxpe ae ‘es Use - A \ N fe : ai bot i ve Cy ‘ dy it EN eae eh i wr wy Ne 7) hy: | } i el & mu 'u7 ) a ‘ 1 1 } - ' 7 4 A \ mr, i ara a 1) Fx i> a) So g, | 4 “4 i‘, ‘ wl 7 ‘ f a7 wht Yi y al : ove P _ +1 ot sh ee oe a wt va - fi i of i zi amet } y oh ts ' wageeasetear ates Sere one m aetna Nt =e Nossa Epcmnsenieentencneacack neo = wore eae = See fcmceree eatin pene oap ear NE A rar . : % ss ae 2 ree Laren bau et ae “4 Le “ ioeste eran pe 2 sans “ate a fon seer! maiers ss, oa Paes “ Tore Sayre noe cs : > <= ns ae pow revics z ae 3 : . > Cet rene mre amapenyer : : : : : : Leto one enens ae ts thas eee No eaeclppttny rsa hey