cia SS Se 
 
 OF THE 
 
 THEOLOGICAL SeMINARY, 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. |e 
 
 DON A TION oe De 
 
 SAMUEL AGNEW, 
 
 OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 Late Fa ael sictl 
 
 Pie eOOs LOkD 
 
 Confessions of a member of t! 
 Church of England | 
 
THE 
 
 CONFESSIONS 
 
 OF 
 
 A MEMBER 
 
 OF 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
yf 
 
 ET SS BRE 
 
 at 
 
 oe 
 
 . y 
 
 Hoe Me Oe heat MI 
 
 a oh 
 
 Ue 
 
 ; 
 
 gle 
 Rad sy 
 a 
 
THE 
 
 CONFESSIONS 
 
 OF 
 
 A MEMBER 
 
 or ¥ 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 
 
 OCCASIONED BY 
 
 A LABORIOUS EXAMINATION 
 
 OF THE CELEBRATED 
 
 WORK OF THE LATE REV. WILLIAM JONES, 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 « THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF A TRINITY.” 
 
 AND ALSO, 
 
 A BRIEF ESSAY ON SOCINIANISM. 
 
 LONDON : 
 MARSH AND MILLER, OXFORD STREET. 
 
 MDCCCXXX. 
 
sa : : te oe aie gas 4 
 aes - - Ey AF ne ee ae eres ie." 
 oe 2 “ 
 
 Peis 
 
 —< 
 
 ee ee 
 
 oe bogs pre 
 
 lias 
 
 cay 
 
 shi 
 
 wry teibitedsin l* 
 sill T os Ms, 10h bal ed po ege 
 
 ie it wy 
 
 — ainieps: ¢ ‘wed sat oe pre: itis, 
 
 Bes at! Cee YLMm Neat rtet gd ag och tad, 
 £4 obi th & ‘be guile: oily. ylito. er) Pad 
 ft Sposa ie op detudstt a. 3 dish - 
 i 3 ate Pine Fai: ot aig Yo erm oa 
 
 *. 
 
 ee 
 
 Fp on 
 i 
 a 3, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 pa Ae * Ale 
 
 Tue name of an Individual who is. far 
 advanced in years, and now known only to 
 a very limited circle of friends, can have no 
 influence with the Christian world in recom- 
 mending a serious perusal of the following 
 pages. Yet it seems to be proper that the 
 author of such a work should declare him- 
 self, and that some apology be offered for 
 its publication :—this shall be briefly done 
 without regard to the charge of egotism. 
 
 I am a member of the Church of England, 
 because, take it for all in all, I believe it to 
 be the best Church of the present day. I 
 am, however, of William Law’s opinion, 
 that the purest Christian Church now exist- 
 ing, is only the vestige of a better thing. 
 Still, it is natural to a person of a serious 
 turn of mind, to wish that he might rightly 
 understand, and entirely believe, every im- 
 portant article of doctrine professed by the 
 Church. of which he is a member: it was 
 
v1 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 decidedly the case with me. I had been in 
 the habit of reading the Holy Scriptures the 
 ereater part of my life, and I seldom opened 
 the book without meeting some passages 
 which appeared to me to be directly opposed 
 to the doctrine of the Trinity, in the way in 
 which that doctrine is. set forth in the 
 Athanasian and Nicene Creeds. This was 
 a cause of grief to me for many years. I 
 eagerly read every book I could meet with, © 
 written in defence of these creeds, and most 
 scrupulously shunned the writings of. those 
 who controverted them. In the course of 
 my researches, I sometimes met with argu- 
 ments, managed with such address and 
 ability as made a strong impression on my 
 mind, in favour of the doctrine ;. but, on my 
 return to the Bible, these impressions were 
 constantly effaced. For one text or expres- 
 sion, from which the doctrine could, in any 
 possible way be inferred, 1 met with ten, 
 which, in my humble judgment, pointedly 
 and unequivocally denied it. I was at 
 length informed, that the Rev. Mr. Jones, 
 of Nayland, had published a work which 
 set the matter at rest ;—that he had incon- 
 trovertibly proved the doctrine to be scrip- 
 
INTRODUCTION. Vil 
 
 tural. I immediately procured his “ Catholic 
 “ Doctrine of a Trinity,” and read it with 
 attention. It did not appear to me to be 
 by any means satisfactory: I could not but 
 suspect that he had dealt unfairly with the 
 Holy Scriptures. I resolved to take the 
 first convenient opportunity of setting about 
 a minute examination of every text he had 
 quoted, and every argument he had ad- 
 vanced. I foresaw that this would be a 
 laborious task, requiring much time, and, as 
 far as possible, an abstraction from every 
 other pursuit. 
 
 Many years passed over before I found a 
 fit opportunity for the undertaking: it was 
 not till the winter of 1825, when confined 
 by ill health, that I commenced my task. 
 
 I considered the matter to be of so much 
 importance to my own peace of mind, that, 
 for more than two years, it was principally, 
 I may almost say exclusively, the subject of 
 my meditations, and the object of my in- 
 quiry. I made the Sacred Scriptures my 
 guide, and wholly unassisted (excepting only 
 by the comments of writers deemed ortho- 
 dox) I laboured through the work. 
 
 No one can hesitate to give Mr. Jones 
 
Vill ‘INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the credit of sincerity and good intentions ; 
 yet I cannot but think he has injured, rather 
 than supported his cause. This appeared to 
 me to be so obviously the case, that, when 
 I had gone through his work, I doubted if 
 if were proper to give my Confessions in the 
 form of a review of it; for it might be said, 
 that the doctrine must not be condemned 
 because it had been injudiciously stated, 
 and weakly defended by Mr. Jones. But 
 on farther consideration, as the book has 
 strangely obtained a considerable degree of 
 celebrity, and moreover, as it. afforded me 
 the opportunity of bringing forward a power- 
 ful body of Scriptural evidence, I thought 
 it might as well remain in that form. 
 . That the sentiments of an individual who 
 has no pretensions to the character of a man 
 of learning, will be considered only con- 
 temptible by writers esteemed orthodox, 
 may be fully expected at the present time; 
 yet I confidently predict that, before half a 
 century passes over, the doctrine stated in 
 these pages will be generally, if not unani- 
 mously confessed throughout this kingdom. 
 It may fairly be asked, upon what grounds 
 I hazard so bold a prediction? In the first 
 
INTRODUCTION. 1X 
 
 place, a surprising expansion of the human 
 intellect, within the last thirty years (espe- 
 cially in our own country) has been noticed 
 by every discerning person. | 
 
 Men are beginning to emancipate their 
 minds from the trammels imposed upon 
 them by great names, and are disposed to 
 compare authorities, and to judge for them- 
 selves. Secondly, though we have frequent 
 proof of great depravity and impiety among 
 the very ignorant classes, Christianity is 
 more seriously, and more generally inquired 
 into, by the better-informed part, than it had 
 hitherto been ; we may therefore hope for a 
 rapid progress in true Christian knowledge. 
 Thirdly, the Greek language is now more 
 generally studied than it had been in former 
 times. This is very important; for it has 
 been admitted, by many orthodox Divines, 
 that our present translation of the New 
 Testament (though probably the best ex- 
 tant) is incorrect in several places ; and not 
 a few of the inaccuracies will be found to 
 affect the awful subject which I have ven- 
 tured to discuss. Lastly, I feel perfectly 
 satistied that the doctrine here stated, is 
 
x INTRODUCTION. 
 
 that which was taught by our blessed Lord 
 
 and his Apostles. 
 JOHN SHAW. 
 
 Bath, 4th December, 1827. 
 
 en ee 
 
 P. S.—A new edition of Mr. Jones's works 
 having recently gone through the press— 
 ‘“ The Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity,” to 
 be sold separately at a low price, the publi- 
 cation of this work seems to be rendered 
 opportune at the present time. 
 
 J.S. 
 
 Bath, 22nd March, 1830. 
 
ty t sg : S % 
 
 sal 5 i 4 
 Ue A ee toe es ¢< 
 WS oa aainieg yc : 
 
 i or + * 
 . oF ’ a he 
 . by { » ait 
 r A x ¥ 7 ‘ 
 
 WG 
 ii ry 
 é S - 
 
 - 
 * 
 
 G5: 
 
 > 
 
 Tat Se vk, Os 
 Dt ee to 
 = La eh a 
 ie Thar , ‘ Ui a’ >esh 
 Fhe | a rey am te , eee Side pak % f , 
 ' t “eh, ¥ sy ot y ANS Ri € hy . 
 ; La a 4 5 ¥ ¥ F 
 Sid a's ae Leh + a Hogh acl waa oy 
 ; PS t as 4 ho “ye a ah ¥ ee hi 
 gr A ee 2 P idee . ss ala 
 ay 8 A TOM eee et one F Uk. % 
 - ie a * af ey yah Tie 6 errr 
 SOL BE OL Wh 
 : ’ +e ohne P 
 pe Mar : * Ae wh) , ’ 
 a sf bene, £ 2 a» ; 
 
 ra™ 
 
 . 
 
 ie 
 
 ae 
 
 ar a2 P 5 
 
 ple elie te oie on * 
 Pasa, o 
 
 Pe at 
 
N.B.—To distinguish the texts quoted by Mr. 
 Jones from those produced on the opposite side, 
 the chapters from which the former are taken are 
 marked in numerical letters, the latter in figures, 
 thus :_-Mr. Jonres’s—“ Isa. VIII. 13 ;” the oppo- 
 site“ Matt. 21. 42.” The words printed in 
 CAPITALS are so marked by Mr. JONES, to 
 show that the stress of the comparison lies im 
 those words. The pages set down in the margin 
 refer to the first volume of Mr. JONES'S entire 
 works, published in the year 1801. Mr. JonES 
 heads his quotations from the Holy Scriptures, m 
 numerical progression ; they are noted in the same 
 manner in the following pages. 
 
CONFESSIONS, &c. 
 
 Tur first section is entitled * THE DIVINITY  (p.1, 
 OF CHRIST.” 
 
 The word Divinity, as it is here used, requires 
 adefinition. Had it been limited to the Scriptural 
 account of it, I should not offer a word against it; 
 but when I see that Mr. Jones asserts the co- 
 equality of the Son with the Almighty Father, 
 and that his power and dominion were inherent 
 in himself, and underived, I must appeal to the 
 Holy Scriptures. 
 
 Mr. Jones commences with the following 
 texts:— 
 
 ay 
 * Sanctify THE Lorp oF Hosts HIMSELF, and Isa. viii. 13, 
 “let Him be your fear, and let Him be your “ae 
 “* dread: and HE shall be for a Sanctuary ; but 
 ‘* fora STONE OF STUMBLING, and for a Rock 
 “* OF OFFENCE to both houses of Israel.” 
 ‘** The stone which the builders disallowed, the 1 Peter ii. 7, 
 
 ““same is made the head of the corner, and a 
 B 
 
(p. 2.) 
 
 2 
 
 “« STONE OF STUMBLING, AND A ROCK OF 
 “ OFFENCE.” 
 
 These two passages are brought together with 
 the view of proving that the “Stone of stumbling 
 « ond Rock of offence,” mentioned in the first 
 text, is applied to Christ in the second, * therefore,” 
 says Mr. Jones, “ Christ is the LoRD OF Hosts 
 « HIMSELF.” 
 
 Now, at the 28th ch. 16th v. of Isaiah, we 
 read, “ Thus saith the Lord God, behold J fay in 
 « Sion for a foundation, @ stone, a tried stone, a 
 precious corner stone,” &c. That this refers to 
 the stone mentioned in Mr. Jones’s first text, is 
 shown in Matt. 21. 42; Acts 4. 11; Rom. 9. 33; 
 and in the chapter from which Mr. Jones's second 
 text is taken; and is declared ¢o have been lad 
 by the Lorp or Hosts, by whom this stone was 
 «“ made the head of the corner,” “ According to 
 “ the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ 
 “ Jesus our Lord.” (Ephes. 3. 11.) If Mr. Jones 
 had fairly quoted the whole passage from which 
 he took his second text, it would have refuted his 
 argument ; for it is there affirmed that this stone 
 was “ chosen of God.” (1 Pet. 2. 4.) Our Lord him- 
 self declares, in no fewer than thirty texts, in the 
 Gospel of St. John alone, that he was send by the 
 Father. At the Sth ch. 42nd v., the words are very 
 emphatical. “I proceeded forth, and came from 
 “ Gop: neither came I of myself, but he sent me.” 
 Much more might be adduced to prove that this 
 
3 
 
 stone was laid by the Almighty Father, the Lord 
 of Hosts, and therefore if Mr. Jones’s argument 
 proves any doctrine, it is that of Sabellius, con- 
 founding the persons of the Father and the 
 Son. 
 
 This practice (which Mr. Jones and some other 
 writers constantly adopt) of bringing detached 
 sentences from distant parts of the Scriptures, 
 and joining them together, is often mischievous : 
 —the most absurd doctrines may appear to 
 be proved by it; and the Bible is brought into 
 contempt, by frequently making it seem to con- 
 tradict itself. A multitude of passages in the 
 New Testament unequivocally deny the doctrine 
 of co-equality, and declare the superior power and 
 dignity of the Almighty Father. Mr. Jones, and 
 many other writers who are deemed orthodox, argue 
 that these texts apply to Christ in his human nature, 
 in which the Athanasian creed confesses him to 
 be inferior to the Father, but “ equal to the 
 “Father as. touching his Godhead.” This notion is 
 irreconcileable with very many expressions used 
 by our Lord and his Apostles. The words I have 
 quoted from St. John’s Gospel, “Neither came I 
 “ of myself, but ke sent me,” evidently refer to 
 our Lord’s pre-existent state, when he was in the 
 fulness of “the glory which he had with the 
 “ Father before the world was;” and, I conceive, 
 explicitly deny the doctrine of co-equality. 
 
 Mr. Jones’s next quotation is :— 
 
(p. 2, 8.) 
 
 Isa. vi. 5. 
 
 John xu. 41. 
 
 IT. 
 
 “ Mine eyes have SEEN the King, the LORD oF 
 * Hosts.” 
 
 “ These things said Esaius, when ‘_he saw His 
 * (Christ's) glory, and spake of Him.” 
 
 He reasons thus:—The person whom Esaius 
 saw, is the Lord of Hosts; but St. John says it 
 was Christ's glory which he saw, “ therefore,” 
 says Mr. Jones, “ Jesus is the Lorp oF Hosts.” 
 
 The same conclusion had been drawn before, 
 by Dr. Whitby, in the days of his early judg- 
 ment; though, if we may credit his biographers, 
 he repented of it with an aching heart, in the latter 
 years of his life. Of his writings, after he had 
 given up his early opinions, I have never read a 
 line. 
 
 Mr. Jones concludes that it was Christ's glory 
 which is spoken of by St. John, whilst some 
 other Commentators consider that it was the 
 glory of the Father. Admitting Mr. Jones’s con- 
 struction, the glory of both might have been 
 shown to the Prophet, in his vision; but it by no 
 means proves identity or co-equality. Here again 
 is an instance of the injury inflicted on Christianity 
 by Mr. Jones’s method. ‘The Prophet says, 
 « Mine eyes have seen the Lord of Hosts.” St. 
 John says, “ No man hath seen God at any time.” 
 (John 1.18.) This plainly shows that the words 
 in the first text are not to be taken literally. ‘The 
 
5 
 
 language used by the holy prophets of old, in 
 
 their descriptions of visions and raptures, was 
 
 probably well understood by their contemporaries ; 
 
 but to us, at this day, the matter is frequently 
 
 beyond our comprehension, and the language 
 unintelligible; therefore, to rest a doctrine upon 
 any expressions used on these occasions, endangers 
 religion by making it appear absurd. 
 
 Til, 
 
 “ Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and 
 “‘ his Redeemer the Lorp oF Hosts, 1 AM THE 
 “ FIRST, and I am THE LAST, and BESIDES ME 
 *“* there is No Gop.” 
 
 “ I (Jesus) am Alpha and Omega, the begin- 
 “ning and the end; THE FIRST and THE 
 SPWAST.? 
 
 From these two texts Mr. Jones draws the 
 following conclusion :—“ There is no God but him, 
 ** who is the first and the last; but Jesus is the 
 ‘« first and the last; therefore, besides Jesus 
 “ there is no other God.” 
 
 Now, how is a plain unlearned Christian to 
 understand this? He would probably ask, Is not 
 the Father God?—Our blessed Lord frequently 
 declares him to be his God. It is declared no 
 fewer than four times in the 3rd ch. 12th v. of this 
 very book of Revelation, from which Mr. Jones 
 quotes. The book itself commences with these 
 words :—** The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which 
 
 (p. 3.) 
 
 Isa. xliv. 6. 
 
 Rev. xxii. 
 13. 
 
6 
 
 “ God gave unto him.” Here is a difficulty at 
 the very outset, which, if we allow our understand- 
 ing to have any exercise, it is impossible to get 
 over, consistently with Mr. Jones’s argument. 
 Upon the first of the texts now quoted it is un- 
 necessary to make any comment :—it agrees with 
 the whole tenor of the Bible. Without dwelling 
 upon the acknowledged difficulty which often 
 arises from the remoteness of the antecedent from 
 the relative, in the sacred writings, I may remark 
 upon the second text, that the same appellation 
 may be occasionally used in reference both to the 
 Father and the Son, without implying co-equality. 
 The title of Lords, and even of Gods, is given 
 to Angels and to men several times in the Scrip- 
 tures. The dignity and majesty of Christ is 
 expressed in strong language throughout the 
 Apocalypse, but it is nowhere affirmed that he 
 is equal with the Father: the contrary is clearly 
 implied in many passages. At the 2nd ch. 26th 
 and 27th v., we read, —* He that overcometh and 
 “ keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I 
 * give power over the nations,” &c; and conclud- 
 ing with these words, “even as I received of my 
 «© Father.” Unless a passage can be found, de- 
 clarative of co-equality and underived power, this 
 text of itself must be conclusive. 
 
 In the merciful work of man’s redemption, 
 Christ, “ through faith in his blood,” is the “ Alpha 
 “and Omega ;” “ the Author and Finisher of our 
 
7 
 “ faith;” “ The first and the last :” “In this was 
 “ manifested the love of Gop towards us; be- 
 “ cause that Gop sent his only-begotien Son into 
 “ the world that we might live through him.” 
 (1 John 4. 9.) 
 IV. 
 
 “T, even I, am the Lorp, and BESIDES ME 
 “ there is no SAVIOUR.” 
 © Our Lorp and Saviour JEsuS CHRIST.” 
 
 The words Lord and Saviour, occur in both of 
 these texts; in the first they are applied to the 
 Father, and in the second to the Son, and there- 
 fore Mr. Jones conceives that the doctrine of co- 
 equality is established. He says, “ The argument 
 * drawn from these texts will be equally con- 
 “ vincing, whichever way it be taken. Jesus 
 “ Christ is a Saviour, therefore he is Jehovah the 
 «“ Tord: Jesus Christ is Jehovah, therefore he is 
 “ the Saviour!” If we follow Mr. Jones’s system, 
 we shall have need to be extremely circumspect 
 in our mode of expression. No orthodox writer 
 would deny that Jehovah is the Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, if we say Jehovah 
 is Christ, and Christ is Jehovah, it is ortho- 
 dox: but if we say the Father is the Son, 
 and the Son is the Father, which (though Mr. 
 Jones would deny it) is, in truth, the very same 
 thing, it is heresy as well as nonsense. 
 
 The two texts quoted by Mr. Jones are easily 
 understood if we read them in simplicity ; but his 
 
 (p. 4.) 
 
 Isa. xl. 11. 
 
 2 Pet. i. 18. 
 
(p. 5.) 
 
 (p. 5.) 
 Rev. xxii. 
 6. 
 
 Ibid. verse 
 16. 
 
 S 
 
 notions make the whole Bible unintelligible. The 
 Almighty Father is declared to be the Creator of 
 the world, yet it is said, that the world was made 
 by Christ. Again, the Father hath said, “Thou 
 “ shalt know that I the Lord am thy Saviour and 
 “ thy Redeemer ;” yet of Christ it is said, that 
 “ He is the Saviour of the world,’ and that he 
 hath “ Redeemed us to God by his blood.” Both 
 originated in the power and love of God, and were 
 accomplished through the ministration of his ever- 
 blessed Son. — It is distressing to find a man of Mr. 
 Jones’s learning and piety, closing his comments 
 upon these two texts with a garbled and misap- 
 plied quotation from Phil. II. 9. The text, if 
 he had quoted fairly, would have been decidedly 
 against him, for it runs thus :—* Wherefore God 
 “ also hath highly exalied him and given him 
 “‘ a name which is above every name,” &c. ‘The 
 Apostle concludes with these words :— That 
 “* every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ 
 * is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Wow 
 either co-equality or underived power can be proved 
 from this passage, is to me inconceivable. 
 
 Ve 
 
 “ The Lorpd Gop or THE HoLy PrRopHETS 
 SENT HIS ANGEL to show unto his servants the 
 things that must shortly be done.” 
 
 “ I, JESus, HAVE SENT MINE ANGEL, to 
 testify unto you these things in the Churches.” 
 
 a“ 
 “ 
 
 Ral 
 nn 
 
 ێ 
 
9 
 
 “ Therefore,” says Mr. Jones, “ Jesus is the 
 “ Lord God of the holy prophets.” 
 
 I humbly conceive that Mr. Jones is not war- 
 ranted in the use which he has made of the second 
 of these texts. The word Ayyedos, translated 
 Angel, literally signifies Messenger, and is so 
 rendered in many texts, as it evidently ought to 
 have been in this place. The meaning of the 
 passage clearly, is ‘I, Jesus, send my Messenger 
 ‘(my beloved disciple), to testify to you (the 
 ‘ Churches) these things which have been re- 
 ‘ vealed to him. This message was sent by 
 our Lord, he being the head of the Church, as 
 saith St. Paul—“ The God of our Lord Jesus 
 “ Christ, the Father of glory,’—“ hath put all 
 things under his feet, and gave him to be head 
 “over all things to the church.” (Ephes. 1. 
 * 17. 22.) And in another place, “ The head 
 of every man is Christ; and the head of the 
 “ woman is the man; and the head of Christ is 
 * God.” (1 Cor. 11. 3.) 
 
 VI. 
 
 ** And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet 
 * of THE HIGHEST: for thou shalt GO BEFORE 
 THE FACE of the LORD, TO PREPARE HIS 
 “ WAYS.” 
 
 “ 
 ns 
 
 “ Behold, I send my messenger BEFORE THY 
 FACE TO PREPARE THY WAY before thee.” 
 Mr. Jones conceives, that by these two texts 
 
 ww 
 “ 
 
 (p. 6, 7.) 
 Luke i. 76. 
 
 Matt. xi. 10. 
 
10 
 
 Christ is proved to be “ The ord and the 
 “ Highest.” Several other learned Expositors 
 profess to be of the same opinion, especially Bishop 
 Horsley, who says, “ The latter text proves that 
 “* Christ was no other than the Jehovah of the 
 * Old Testament.” Now, the text itself was 
 quoted by our Lord, from Malachi (3 ch. 1 v.), 
 where a distinction is clearly made between Je- 
 hovah and Christ. . He is there styled “ the 
 “ Messenger of the Covenant” ¢o be sent by 
 Jehovah. “ Behold, he shall come, saith the Lord 
 “ of Hosts.” Surely, we ought to consider well 
 before we yield our assent to a most important 
 and awful doctrine merely from these strained 
 inferences, when we see a multitude of plain texts 
 unequivocally opposed to it. I might fill several 
 sheets with a transcript of such texts; for the 
 present it will be sufficient to quote from John 
 14. 31:—“ Asthe Father gave me commandment, 
 * even sol do;” and from 17. 7, 8, of the same 
 Evangelist—* Now they have known that all 
 “ things whatsoever thou hast given me are of 
 “ thee.’ —“ For I have given unto them the words 
 “ which thou gavest me; and they have received 
 “ them, and have known surely that I came out 
 “from thee, and they have believed that thou 
 « didst send me.” ‘These are the words of our 
 Lord Christ: do they not make a marked dis- 
 tinction between himself and Jehovah ? 
 
il 
 
 Vil. 
 
 (p. 6.) 
 
 “ And many of the children of Israel shall he Luke i. 16, 
 
 n~ 
 n 
 
 turn to the LORD THEIR GoD, and he shall go 
 before HM.” 
 
 “ He that cometh AFTER ME is mightier than I.” 
 Mr. Jones argues that these texts prove “ Christ 
 to be the Lord God of the children of Israel.” 
 The first is quoted again, from Malachi (4. 6), 
 and I think it is clear that the pronoun Him, at 
 the conclusion, refers to “ the Sun of Righteous- 
 “ ness,” mentioned by the Prophet at the 2nd 
 verse of the same chapter. The second text is 
 quite foreign to the subject. 
 
 I have remarked that several writers have 
 laboured to identify ous Lord Christ with the 
 God of Israel, the Jehovah of the Old Testament. 
 Now, the parable delivered in the 21st ch. of 
 Matthew, and also in the 12th of Mark and 20th 
 of Luke, completely refutes this idea. That He 
 who “ planted the vineyard and hedged it round 
 * about,” is Jehovah, the God of Israel, cannot be 
 questioned. Having sent divers servants (the 
 prophets) without effect, and “ having yet one 
 “ Son, his well-beloved, he sent zm also last 
 “ unto them, saying, they willreverence My Son.” 
 Unless, then, the Father and the Son are declared 
 to be one and the same person, it is impossible to 
 reconcile this with the notion of these writers. 
 
 n 
 n 
 
 n 
 ’ n 
 
 17. 
 
 Matt. i. 11. 
 
(p. 7.) 
 
 Matt. xi. 10. 
 
 Mal. iii. 1. 
 
 12 
 
 It must be granted, that it is dangerous to ground 
 doctrines upon such expressions as are occasionally 
 used in parables; but «ve may be satisfied that 
 our Lord would cautiously avoid any kind of 
 language, even in a parable, that might tend to 
 mislead his hearers upon a fundamental article of 
 doctrine. 
 VIIl. 
 
 Mr. Jones now repeats a text which he had 
 given at Article VI :— 
 
 “ Behold, I send My messenger before THY 
 “ face, to prepare THY way before THEE.” | 
 
 “ Behold, I send my messenger to prepare the 
 “© way before ME.” 
 
 From these two texts, Mr. Jones draws the 
 following conclusion :—‘“ Though Christ be a dif- 
 “ ferent person, yet he is one and the same God 
 “‘ with the Father.” 
 
 The remarks made on the two last articles, I 
 conceive, fully prove not only the distinction be- 
 tween the Father and the Son, but also the 
 superior power and dignity of the Father, in- 
 asmuch as it is plain that he who sends is greater 
 than the person who is sent by him. The text 
 from Matthew is no way inconsistent with this. 
 Our Lord Christ pointed out the true way of the 
 Father, by whom he was sent; and therefore, to 
 prepare the way of Christ, was preparing the way 
 of the Father. 
 
IX. (p. 8.) 
 * They TEMPTED and provoked the Most Ps. Ixxviii. 
 “ Hicn Gop.” 543 
 * Neither let us TEMPT CHRIST, as some of 1 Cor.x. 9. 
 * them also tempted.” x 
 * In the former text,” saith Mr. Jones, “ the 
 “ person tempted is called the Most High God, 
 “ in the latter he is called Christ; therefore 
 “ Christ is the Most High God.” 
 Both texts refer to the rebellious conduct of the 
 Israelites in the wilderness. Upon this occasion, we 
 read in the 23rd ch. 20th and 21st v. of Exodus, 
 the following words :—“ Behold, I send an Angel 
 ** before thee to keep thee in the way.”——“ Beware 
 “ of him, and obey his voice: provoke him not, 
 ** for he will not pardon your transgressions: for 
 “my name is im him.” Commentators are 
 generally agreed in the opinion, that the Angel 
 of God’s presence, here mentioned, was our Lord 
 Christ; and to tempt him, thus announced, was 
 to tempt the Most High God. In the chapter 
 following that from which Mr. Jones’s second text 
 is taken, the Apostle affirms that “the head of 
 “ Christ is God.” (1 Cor. 11. 3.) 
 
 X. (p. 9.) 
 ‘¢ He that hath the Bride, is THE BRIDE- Johniii. 29. 
 “* GROOM” (meaning Christ). | 
 “ But, according to the Prophet,” says Mr. 
 
Isa. liv. 5. 
 
 (p. 10.) 
 
 John xx. 28, 
 
 14 
 
 Jones, “ Thy Maker is thy HusBAND, the LorRD 
 “ oF Hosts is his name.” 
 
 ‘The manner in which Mr. Jones uses the Holy 
 Scriptures, makes it a distressing task to follow 
 him through his arguments. The texts he has 
 here quoted have no connection with each other, 
 nor are they, in any way, to his purpose. ‘The 
 first was spoken by the Baptist, to acknowledge 
 his inferiority to Christ ; the other was prophetic 
 of the adoption of the Gentiles. The Hebrew 
 plurals used in this text, from Isaiah, will be 
 noticed hereafter. 
 
 Mr. Jones, in this place, quotes several passages 
 of Scripture, showing that the title of Shepherd is | 
 given both to the Father and the Son, which, he 
 contends, “ shows Christ to be upon an equality 
 * with God the Father.” -1n this way he might 
 have shown some of God’s creatures to be upon 
 an equality with their Maker ; for instance, Cyrus 
 has the same title given to him in the 44th ch. 
 28th v. of Isaiah. 
 
 Mr. Jones now proceeds to quote some single 
 texts, which he considers so plain as to make 
 parallels unnecessary ; it may, however, be useful 
 to compare his texts with some others. 
 
 XI. 
 
 * And Thomas answered and said, My Lorp 
 “ AND MY GOD.” 
 I find there has been some controversy regard- 
 
15 
 
 ing this exclamation. To my mind, it appears 
 clear that Thomas now conceived a different idea 
 of his Lord’s character from that which he had 
 before entertained. But the words cannot be so 
 construed as to be made declarative of our Lord’s 
 co-equality with the Almighty Father: the con- 
 trary is declared by our Lord himself as well as 
 by his Apostles, throughout the New Testa- 
 ment. , 
 
 _ It must be admitted, that the beloved disciple 
 would carefully avoid any expressions that might 
 appear derogatory to the character and dignity of 
 his blessed Master; yet he has recorded the fol- 
 lowing words, spoken by our Lord himself to 
 Mary Magdalene, after his resurrection—“ Go to 
 ** my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto 
 *“ my Father and your Father, and to my God 
 “and your God.” (John 20.17.) St. Paul, 
 in the 10th ch. 9th v. of his Epistle to the 
 Romans, says, “If thou shalt confess with thy 
 “ mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe. in 
 “ thine heart that God hath raised him from 
 “ the dead, thou shalt be saved.” “ This,” he 
 says, “is the word of faith which we preach.” 
 That Christ was raised from the dead, by the 
 power of the Almighty Father, is plainly affirmed 
 more than twenty times in the New Testament; 
 yet, to support the. doctrine of co-equality, many 
 writers make no scruple of denying it, some say- 
 ing he was raised by. his own underived power, 
 
Ep. 1s) 
 
 Rom. ix. 5. 
 
 16 
 
 and others, by the Holy Spirit, or third person of 
 the Trinity ! 
 XII. | 
 
 * Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Curist 
 “ (came) who is over all, Gop BLESSED FOR 
 “ EVER.” | 
 
 This text is strongly insisted upon by Athanasian 
 writers, as proving the supreme Divinity of our 
 Lord ; but a different turn has, I find, been given 
 to the concluding words by some commentators. 
 May not this difference of opinion arise from a 
 misconstruction of the text on all sides? It is 
 well known that St. Paul frequently expresses his 
 sentiments by way of ellipsis, that is, by omitting 
 words which must be supplied in order to make 
 out the sense of the passage. This appears to me 
 to be the case in the text now quoted; I will, 
 therefore, though with much diffidence, attempt 
 an exposition of it. In the first place, I must beg 
 that the text be read without the word “ came,” 
 which is not in the original. The Apostle, after 
 expressing his deep solicitude for his brethren, the 
 Jews, proceeds in his courteous manner to recount 
 the marks of Divine favour, and the high privileges 
 that were conferred upon them ; “ To whom per- 
 ** taineth the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the 
 “ giving of the law, the service and the promises.” 
 Then at the 5th verse, “ Whose are the Father’s, 
 “ and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ 
 “ who is over all” these; for their duration was 
 
17 
 
 limited, and only preparatory to his coming :—He, 
 to whom the title “God” is given in Holy 
 Scripture, is “ blessed, for ever ;” of his kingdom 
 there shall be no end. 
 
 I may be mistaken, but to my understanding 
 this appears to be the meaning of the words: 
 * Christ, who is over all.” That the title God 
 is given in Scripture to our blessed Lord, cannot, 
 I think, be denied ; but that of “ God over ali” 
 is no where ascribed to him. ; 
 
 The same idea seems to be expressed, though 
 in other words, in the 7th chapter of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews. After showing that “ the Law 
 “ made nothing perfect,” but was only “ the 
 “ bringing in of a better hope;” the Apostle, at 
 the 28th v., says—“ For the Law maketh men 
 
 “ High Priests which have infirmity, but the 
 
 “ word of the oath, which was since the Law, 
 “ maketh the Son, who is consecrated for 
 “ evermore.” 
 
 XIII. 
 
 ** Through the righteousness of ouR Gop and 
 “ Saviour Jesus CuRistT.” So Mr. Jones consi- 
 ders the text ought to have been translated. In 
 our version, it stands “ God and our Saviour 
 “ Jesus Christ.” 
 
 It appears that this, and another text referred 
 to by Mr. Jones (2nd ch. 13th v. of the Epistle to 
 Titus), may bear the construction which he con- 
 tends for: but it cannot be reasonably supposed, 
 
 a 
 
 (p. 11.) 
 l Pets 12: ¥; 
 
(p. 13.) 
 2 Cor. v. 19. 
 
 John xiv. 11. 
 
 18 
 
 that these two texts were purposely made by the 
 writers to differ from the expressions used in 
 every other part of the epistles; in the course of 
 which, the name of God and of Christ occur, I 
 believe, more than fifty times in the same sentence, 
 and, where they so occur, are invariably applied to 
 the Father and the Son. In this sense, the words 
 are used in both the epistles mentioned above. In 
 the verse immediately following Mr. Jones’s quota- 
 tion from St. Peter, we read his salutation, “ Grace 
 “ and peace be multiplied unto you through the 
 “ knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” 
 And in the epistle to Titus, St. Paul’s expression 
 is, “ Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father, 
 « andthe Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.” (Tit. 1. 
 4.) It is unnecessary to multiply quotations : I con- 
 ceive that the passages here selected, coming from 
 the pens of the two Apostles, whose authority 
 Mr. Jones claims, are conclusive upon the point. 
 
 Mr. Jones now desires that the two following 
 texts may be compared. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 “ Gop was in CHRIST, reconciling the world to 
 ‘© HIMSELF.” 
 XV. 
 “ [ am in the Father, and the Father IN ME.” 
 Mr. Jones’s reasoning upon his first text, appears 
 to me to be completely Sabellian: he makes the 
 person ¢o whom, and the person by whom, we are 
 
19 
 
 reconciled, to be one and the same. He conti- 
 nually perplexes himself and his readers with in- 
 complete or unfair quotations. ‘The passage begins 
 thus: “ All things are of God, who hath recon- 
 “ciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ.’ Can 
 words be more plain? That the latter text 
 has no reference to person, substance, essence, &c. 
 but to the gift of the Spirit, is perfectly clear 
 from the passage which follows it. At the 20th v. 
 we read, “ At that day ye shall know that I am 
 “im my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” 
 “ And again, at the 17th ch. Qist. v., That they 
 “all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and 
 “I in thee; that they also may be one in us.” 
 To use this text in Mr. Jones’s way, would 
 absolutely go to incorporate the Apostles into the 
 Trinity ! 
 XVI. 
 
 “We are ambassadors for CHRIST, as though 
 “ Gop did BESEECH you by us: we PRAY you 
 “ in CHRIST’S STEAD, be ye reconciled to Gop.” 
 This text appears to me to be decidedly opposed 
 to the doctrine Mr. Jones means to support. By 
 the name of God, the Apostle clearly refers to the 
 Father, who hath reconciled us to himself by our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Mr. Jones’s argument is very 
 strange. He says, “ The interchanging of the 
 ““ names of God and Christ, shows the same per- 
 “son to be entitled to both.” Now, admitting 
 that the title God may be applied to Christ, it 
 
 (p. 15.) 
 2 Cor. v. 20. 
 
(p. 16.) 
 1 Johnv. 20. 
 
 20 
 
 does not follow, that the name of Christ may 
 be applied to the Father. The very next verse 
 overthrows Mr. Jones’s argument, for the Apostle 
 continues thus, God made him “to be sin (that is 
 “a sin-offering) for us.” 
 
 XVII. 
 
 ‘* Weare in him, that is true (even), in his Son 
 ‘¢ Jesus CHRIST: THIS IS the TRUE GOD, and 
 ** eternal life.” 
 
 Expositors differ in opinion upon the concluding 
 words of this text, some supposing the pronoun 
 this relates to the proximate antecedent, “ Jesus 
 “ Christ,” others to the more remote one, “ God.” 
 For my own part, I cannot but think that the 
 passage has been generally misunderstood, and 
 that it is purely declarative of the fulfilment of 
 our Lord’s promise to the Apostles, that he would 
 enlighten their understandings, and guide them 
 into all truth, by his Holy Spirit, after his depar- 
 ture from them. At the 14th ch. 18th and 20th v. of 
 St. John’s Gospel, our Lord saith, “ I will not leave 
 “ you comfortless, L will come to you.” Then 
 follow the words which I quoted before: “ At 
 “ that day ye shall know, that I am in the Father, 
 “ and ye in me, and I in you.” 
 
 Mr. Jones ought, in fairness, to have given the 
 whole passage, it stands thus: “ We know that 
 “ the Son of God is come, and hath given us 
 “ an understanding, that we may know Him that 
 
21 
 
 “ ts true ; and we are in Him that is true, in his 
 “ Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and 
 * eternal life.” 
 
 The word “ even,” inserted in our version, and 
 which materially affects the sense of the passage, 
 is not in the original. The meaning, I conceive, 
 is,—‘* We are in his Son Jesus Christ, and therefore 
 ‘we know, and are in Him that is true (the 
 « Father) according to our Lord’s promise.’ 
 
 At the 11th verse of this same chapter, the A pos- 
 tle saith, “ This is the record, that God hath 
 “ given to us eternal life, and this life is in His 
 “Son.” And at the 17th ch. 3rd v. of the Gospel 
 by the same Evangelist, he records the words of 
 our blessed Saviour: “ And this is fe eternal, 
 “ that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE 
 *“ Gop, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.” 
 From these parallels in the writings of St. John, I 
 humbly conceive that the concluding words in the 
 text quoted by Mr. Jones, refer to the Almighty 
 Father. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 “ Beware lest any man spoil you through philo- 
 sophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, 
 after the rudiments of the world, and not after 
 Curist: for IN HIM DWELLETH ALL THE 
 FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY.” 
 
 It would have been happy for the world if 
 teachers in the Christian Church had all along 
 attended to the wholesome advice given here by 
 
 a 
 “ 
 
 n~ 
 n~ 
 
 wn 
 tay 
 
 ~~ 
 o 
 
 (p. 16.) 
 Col. ii. 8, 9. 
 
22 
 
 the Apostle. ‘To their disregard of it may be 
 traced the origin of those dissentions, persecutions, 
 and bitter animosities that have disgraced the 
 name of Christianity ever since the second cen- 
 tury. But it is the concluding passage that con- 
 cerns the subject in hand. 
 
 I have never met with a satisfactory exposition 
 of this text; and the expression, as it stands in our 
 version, is certainly ambiguous. ‘The conjunction 
 for, shows that the words are connected with the 
 caution St. Paul had given. The Platonic philo- 
 sophy (which not long afterwards became mixed 
 with Christianity) had already began to taint the 
 minds of some Christian Converts, and the Apostle 
 exhorts the Colossians to beware of it; telling 
 them that in Christ Jesus was the fulness of the 
 Godhead; meaning, as I humbly conceive, the 
 fulness of all that God had seen fit to reveal to 
 mankind concerning himself, as opposed to the 
 fanciful notions of the Platonists or Pythagoreans. 
 The words which immediately follow—* and ye 
 “ are complete in him” (Christ) seem to support 
 this exposition. The word cwpelimws, translated 
 bodily, as it occurs here, would, I conceive, have 
 been more correctly rendered by effectually, or in 
 full bodily form ; as in modern phrase we would 
 say, ‘ In him is the whole body of Divinity.’ “Be 
 this as it may, the words cannot be understood 
 ‘as declarative of our Lord’s co-equality with the 
 Father, for in the preceding chapter, at the 19th v., 
 
23 
 
 the Apostle, after setting forth the dignity and 
 majesty of our Lord’s character, added, as if to 
 prevent such an erroneous idea—“ For tt pleased 
 “ the Father that in him should all, fulness dwell.” 
 This is the doctrine taught by our Lord himself, 
 as in John 14. 10O—“ The Father that dwelleth 
 “ inme, He doeth the works.” And again, “The 
 “ Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things 
 “ ito his hand,” saith the Baptist. (John 3. 35.) 
 
 XIX. 
 
 “ The Worp was Gop.” 
 
 Mr. Jones quotes these four words without com- 
 
 ment. 
 When we compare the opening of St. John’s 
 Gospel with very many. other passages in his 
 writings, I think it must be admitted that his 
 manner of expression is extremely ambiguous and 
 difficult. If we take the four words, quoted by 
 Mr. Jones, in their literal sense, they would seem 
 to be directly opposed to a multitude of texts from 
 the pen of the same Evangelist. 
 
 It is generally believed (as affirmed by ancient 
 writers) that St. John published his Gospel with 
 the design of refuting the heresies of the Gnostics, 
 Cerinthians, and other sects; some of whom 
 denied the pre-existence of our blessed Lord, 
 whilst others contended that he did not come in 
 the flesh, but was man only in appearance, and 
 
 (p. 17.) 
 John i. 1. 
 
24 
 
 consequently incapable of suffering pain at his 
 crucifixion. | 
 
 St. John’s proem is evidently pointed against 
 these errors: to declare our Lord’s pre-existence 
 and incarnation, was plainly his object. That the 
 Son is the beloved of God, and most high in the . 
 glory of the Father, the Scripture teaches us to 
 believe; but his identity, or co-equality with the 
 Father, is nowhere affirmed, but on the contrary is 
 positively denied. For the present, one single pas- 
 sage from the Gospel of this same Evangelist 
 (St. John) will be sufficient. He has recorded the 
 last, most highly-interesting, discourse which our 
 Lord held with the Apostles before his decease. — 
 
 Among many other affectionate and consoling 
 expressions, we find the following: “If ye loved 
 “ me ye would rejoice, because I said I go unto 
 “ the Father, for my Father is greater than I” 
 (John 14, 28.) Itis argued that this was said in 
 reference to his human nature; but it is hard to 
 believe that our Lord would make this declaration 
 in such unqualified terms, and upon a point so im- 
 portant, if he had intended that it should be so 
 understood. The whole tenor of the Gospel and 
 Epistles deny the doctrine of co-equality, as I 
 humbly conceive the texts I have already quoted 
 fully prove; I therefore believe that this declara- 
 * tion of our Lord is to be taken in the plain unli- 
 mited sense of the words. 
 
25 
 XX, (p. 17.) 
 
 * For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is Isa. ix. 6. 
 “ given, and the government shall be upon his 
 “ shoulder: and his name shall be called Won- 
 * derful, Counsellor, the MIGHTY GOD, the EVER- 
 “ LASTING FATHER.” 
 
 Various explications of this text have been 
 attempted. As we have it in our version (and is 
 quoted by Mr. Jones without comment), it makes 
 the Son and the Everlasting Father to be one and 
 the same; a sufficient reason why we should not 
 take it literally, nor rest any point of doctrine upon 
 it. In the 3rd ch. 16th v. of St. John’s Gospel, 
 we have an explanation of the first clause, from 
 the- mouth of our Lord himself, “ God so loved 
 “ the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son.” 
 The government was laid upon his shoulder by the 
 Almighty Father, who thus gave him to the world. 
 There is nothing in the text to support the doc- 
 trine of co-equality; but on the contrary, it 
 ascribes the merciful plan of man’s redemption to 
 the love of the Father, accomplished by the incar- 
 nation, ministry, and sufferings of his ever-blessed 
 Son, who was given by Him. 
 
 XXI. Ve 17.) 
 
 “ This is the name whereby he shall be called, Jer. xxiii. 6. 
 the Lord (JEHovaAn) our righteousness.” * 
 
 Mr. Jones has inserted the word Jehovah in 
 a parenthesis, in which he is supported by a mar- | 
 
 % RES Lite. ra ahglas SO ie Lfccrcls pf fperccectes 
 
 4 
 
 bpp" Lio br ctes (O04 
 
 4 44 ‘ 
 pe Ae Sed py er Pe of, few waver ate a AREF | 7 
 f As a for Jet. Ib OF Y 
 | Jehovah Loca Mere ) cope. JUV CCEP EFF LPF eEL Fa F 
 zx ; ra ; ¢ 
 eye. Fr dd Ait 
 
26 
 
 ginal note in the Bible, though it is not in the 
 text. There has been, I find, much disputation upon 
 the subject of this awful name, which I have no 
 desire of entering into. Weare told that the 
 word Lord (Kupios) in the New Testament is an 
 equivalent term when applied to our blessed 
 Saviour. This, I conceive, cannot be admitted; 
 for we find the Apostles and others addressing 
 him by that title at a time when they had no idea 
 of his Divine character. | 
 
 We seldom meet with a text in the Bible which 
 seems to give any countenance to this doctrine of 
 the co-equality of our Lord with the Almighty 
 Father, but is preceded or immediately followed by 
 a plain denial of it. Thus the verse preceding 
 Mr. Jones’s last quotation, “‘ Behold the days come, 
 “ saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a 
 “ righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and 
 ‘* prosper, and shall execute gudgment and justice 
 “ in the earth.” Here we find that this Branch, 
 “ the Lord our righteousness,” was raised and 
 commissioned by Jehovah, agreeably with the 
 declaration of our Lord himself: “ Zhe Father 
 “ judgeth no man, but hath committed all judg- 
 “ ment to the Son.” (John 5. 22.) And St. Peter, 
 “ It is he which was ordained of God, to be the 
 “ Judge of quick and dead.” (Acts 10. 42.) 
 
 The manner in which this doctrine of the co- 
 equality, or identity (for it often amounts to the 
 latter) of the Father and the Son is frequently stated, 
 
27 
 
 cannot but be greatly injurious to Christianity. 
 Mr. Jones, in the conclusion of his work, speaking 
 of our Lord, says, ‘‘ Though he suffered, died, and 
 “* was pierced upon the cross, and redeemed us by 
 ‘* his blood, yet that blood was the blood of God; 
 “ and upon his cross Jehovah was pierced !” Can 
 it be a matter of wonder that we have Deists 
 among us ? 
 XXII. 
 
 “ The LORD ALONE shall be EXALTED in that 
 “ day, and the IDOLS he shall utterly abolish.” 
 
 It is hard to conceive how this text can support 
 Mr. Jones’s doctrine. He gives a note upon it, by 
 no means to the purpose, from Wogan’s “ Essay on 
 the Lessons,” but makes no comment himself. 
 
 XXITI. 
 
 “ Tam Alpha and Omega, the beginning and 
 ‘© the ending, saith the LoRD, which is, and which 
 “* was, and which is to come, the ALMIGHTY.” 
 
 Expositors, esteemed orthodox, have differed in 
 opinion regarding this text; some contending that 
 the words are spoken of the Father, others of the 
 Son. At the 4th v. of the same chapter the words 
 are unquestionably applied to the Father, and to 
 him only. After a benediction, a doxology, and 
 an assurance that Christ will come in glory, the 
 Apostle opens his prophetic work by repeating the 
 same words; I therefore humbly conceive that they 
 refer to the same Almighty Being. It has been 
 
 (p. 135.) 
 
 (p. 18.) 
 
 Isa. 11. 17, 
 18. 
 
 (p. 19.) 
 Rev. i. 8. 
 
28 
 
 held by several commentators that the term 
 Almighty, is in Scripture appropriated to the 
 Father only; and it is acknowledged that the 
 earliest ecclesiastical writers were of that opinion *. 
 For my own part, I wish to be instructed wholly 
 by the Sacred Scriptures. The word (Almighty) 
 occurs nine times in the New Testament (as at 
 foot +), and I think that, on a careful examination 
 of these passages, it will clearly appear, that in 
 every instance it refers to the Father. In the 
 21st ch. 22nd v. of this book of Revelation, the 
 Almighty is expressly distinguished from our Lord 
 Christ thus, “The Lord God Almighty and the 
 “ Lamb are the Temple.” 
 
 I have searched the Scriptures more particularly 
 for the application of this word (Almighty) because 
 Mr. Jones lays great stress upon it. 
 
 Mr. Jones now goes on to quote texts of Scrip- 
 ture, which he says “have been abused by the 
 « Arians to support their heresy;” and he professes 
 “ to give some of every sort.” 
 
 I know nothing of the persons to whom Mr. 
 Jones alludes, nor have I ever read a line of their 
 writings. The sixth Article of our Church says, 
 and I am satisfied that it says truly—“ Holy 
 “ Scripture containeth all things necessary to sal- 
 “ vation ;” from that alone I wish to receive in- 
 
 * See Doppripcx’s Fam. Expos. on Rev. 1. 8. 
 
 +2 Cor. 6. 1Bayney. 1. Oe uae Liat 3) 1p. ks eae 
 and 14; 19.15; and 21. 22. | 
 
29 
 
 struction in matters of faith and practice. To 
 follow Mr. Jones through all the texts and argu- 
 ments with which he has furnished his opponents 
 is unnecessary : I must confess, if they have no- 
 thing more to say for themselves than he has said 
 for them, they must appear to be very stupid 
 people. There is, however, a glaring unfairness in 
 his method of quoting the texts, and stating the 
 arguments which he says they use: two or three 
 instances will suffice to prove this. The texts 
 which he accuses these Heretics of abusing he 
 marks thus. 
 | | XXXII. 
 
 “ To us there is but ONE GoD, the FATHER.” 
 
 To this half text Mr. Jones opposes one which 
 he had before quoted. 
 
 “ My Lorp and my Gop.” 
 
 If he had given the whole of the heretical text, 
 he would have found it no easy matter to contend 
 with it, for it stands thus: ‘ To us there is but ove 
 “ God, the Father, of whom are all things; and 
 “ one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, 
 ** and we by him.” ‘These words are so plain and 
 intelligible, that it appears strange how they could 
 be misunderstood. But Mr. Jones says, that “ one 
 “ God the Father, is here the name of a nature, 
 “ under which Christ himself, as God, is also com- 
 “ prehended ;” though the text expressly distin- 
 guishes Christ as one Lord, from one God the 
 Father. 
 
 (p. 35.) 
 + 1 Cor. viii. 
 
 John xx. 28. 
 
(p. 36.) 
 
 | Matt. xxiii. 
 9, 
 
 Ibid. 10. 
 
 30 
 
 If writers are allowed the privilege of putting 
 their own construction upon the plain expressions of 
 Scripture, we can have no such thing as a standard 
 of orthodoxy, for every one will expound according 
 to his pre-conceived notions. As the text from the 
 20th ch. of St.John occurred before, itis unnecessary 
 to notice it here. 
 
 XXXIV. 
 
 “ Callno man your Father upon earth: for ONE 
 * is YOUR FATHER which is in heaven.” 
 
 To which Mr. Jones opposes the succeeding 
 verse, “ Neither be ye called Masters: for ONE is 
 “ your MASTER, even CHRIST.” ‘To which he 
 pieces from John III. 13—“ which is in heaven.” 
 
 It may be remarked that the whole of this 23rd 
 chapter of St. Matthew is employed in exposing 
 and reproving the doctrine and habits of the 
 Scribes and Pharisees, those false Teachers, who 
 *¢ made the word of God of none effect through 
 “ their tradition.” (Mark 7. 13.) 
 
 Now, the word translated Master is Kabyyyrys, 
 a Teacher, and it ought to have been so rendered, 
 as it is in every Latin translation I have seen ; 
 yet Mr. Jones insists strongly upon the word Master, 
 as one, among the highest titles and perfections, 
 ascribed to the Second Person of the Trinity ; and 
 boasts of a victory over his opponents. ‘The mean- 
 ing of the text, when taken in connection with the 
 whole discourse, is obviously this, ‘Let none of 
 ‘ these (the Scribes and Pharisees) be called 
 
31 
 * Teacher, but learn of Christ.” After much 
 strained and unsatisfactory reasoning, Mr. Jones 
 quotes from Rev. XXI. 7—“* He that overcometh 
 ‘* shall inherit all things, and I will be His Gon, 
 “and he shall be my Son.” And he affirms 
 that these words “ Christ says of himself.” The 
 same thing has been asserted by other writers; 
 but Dr. Doddridge has the honesty to make the 
 following admission—“ As the Lamb and He that 
 ** sat upon the throne have been mentioned as dis- 
 ** tinct throughout the whole book, I am ready to 
 ‘* understand the Father as the person here spoken 
 “* of*.” No one who will read the whole book of 
 Revelation with an unprejudiced mind, can under- 
 stand the passage in any other sense. I will notice 
 but one other of those texts which Mr. Jones brings 
 forward with the view of exposing the heresy of 
 his opponents. | 
 XXXIX. 
 
 “ But when he saith all things are put under 
 “ him, it is manifest that Hz 1s EXCEPTED which 
 “ did put all things under him.” “ And when all 
 “ things shall be SUBDUED UNTO HIM.” 
 
 Here again, Mr. Jones quotes just as much of 
 the text as suits his own purpose, and drops it, as 
 he has done before, in the middle of a sentence, 
 opposing to it the following text. 
 
 “ We look for THE Saviour, the Lord JEsus 
 
 * See Dopprincr’s Fam. Expos. on Rev. 21. 7. 
 
 (p. 42.) 
 
 +1 Cor. xv. 
 al, 28. 
 
 (p. 43.) 
 Phil. iii. 20, 
 ay 
 
a2 
 
 «* OpRIsT: who is ABLE even to SUBDUE ALL 
 ‘« ~HINGs to HIMSELF.” 
 
 I again declare that I know nothing of these 
 Heretics, against whom Mr. Jones writes; but I 
 must say that he injures his own cause by the mani- 
 fest and gross unfairness of his dealing with them. 
 Surely they would give the whole of the first- 
 quoted text, which is continued thus :—‘“ When all 
 “ things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the 
 « Son also himself be subject unto Him that put 
 « all things under him, that GoD may be all 
 “in all.” 
 
 I have read many ingenious comments, written 
 with the view of explaining away the force of this 
 last passage; but if words have any meaning, 
 nothing can be more clear than that St. Paul's 
 doctrine differed widely from that of these writers. 
 I must, however, give the argument which Mr. 
 Jones draws from the two texts. He says— 
 « As Christ is man, all things are subdued to him 
 “ by another ; as Christ is God, he himself is 
 « that other, and able to subdue all things to HiM- 
 « sp_F!” Surely, a man must be greatly under 
 the influence of prejudice before he can admit 
 such reasoning ! 
 
 Mr, Jones here closes his controversy with his 
 heretical opponents, and proposes to bring for- 
 ward further Scriptural proofs of the truth of his 
 doctrine. With this view he quotes the following 
 text :-— 
 
3d 
 
 | oe) ORL. 
 
 * Denying the ONLY LoRD Gop, and our 
 “ Lorp Jesus Curist.” 
 
 He then gives the passage as it stands in 
 the Greek :— 
 
 Tov wovov decroryy Ocov ua Kugioy yuwoy Iyoey Xeicov. 
 
 The argument he draws from this text is pre- 
 cisely of the same description as that which he 
 advanced in Article XIII. He says, “ As there 
 “is no article before Kugov, the first and second 
 “comma are both meant of the same person ;” 
 and he concludes with these words, “ There is 
 “* one only Supreme Governor, therefore Christ 
 “< as he.” 
 
 I remarked before, that where the name of God 
 and of Christ occur in the same sentence, they are 
 invariably applied to the Father and the Son, 
 throughout the New Testament. This same St. 
 Jude opens his Epistle (only three verses before 
 that which Mr. Jones bas quoted) with these 
 words—* Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and 
 ** brother of James, to them that are sanctified 
 “ by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus 
 “ Christ ;’ thus plainly marking a distinction 
 between God and Christ. If the Apostle had 
 meant to proclaim so important and awful a 
 doctrine as that our Lord was equal with the 
 Almighty Father, or,.as Mr. Jones states it, “ the 
 “ one only supreme Governor,” can it be believed 
 that he would leave it to be discovered by a nice 
 
 D 
 
 (p. 45.) 
 Jude 4. 
 
(p. 46.) 
 Jude 24, 25. 
 
 Ephes.v. 27. 
 
 34 
 
 and disputable point of grammar? Our Lord 
 and his Apostles repeatedly deny such doctrine. 
 
 XLI. 
 
 “ UNTO HIM that is able to PRESENT you 
 faultless before the presence of HIS GLORY—to 
 the ONLY WISE Gop our SAVIOUR.” 
 « That Her (Christ) might PRESENT it to 
 “ HIMSELF a glorious Church.” 
 “Tt is the only wise God,” saith Mr. Jones, 
 who is able to present us before the presence of 
 his glory ; but Christ is to present us in glory 
 to Himself, therefore he is the only wise God.” 
 It is distressing to see a most awful subject 
 treated in this manner. An attentive reader of 
 the New Testament will be satisfied that the 
 words only wise God, or God only wise, are in 
 no instance applied to any other being than 
 the Almighty Father. St. Paul concludes his 
 Epistle to the Romans with the followmg doxo- 
 logy: “To God only wise, he glory through 
 « Jesus Christ.” But Mr. Jones says, “ Christ is 
 the only wise God.” s 
 In the chapter from which the second text is 
 taken, St. Paul treats of Christ and his Church, 
 under the figure of husband-and wife; and 
 “ Christ will place near to himself” (for this is 
 the meaning of the words) “ his true Church, as a 
 ‘ chaste and glorious Bride.” ‘This accords with 
 our Lord’s affectionate aspiration (John 17. 24), 
 
 ¢ 
 
 n 
 
 ‘6 
 
 nn 
 
 w 
 La 
 
 ~ 
 n 
 
 nn 
 an 
 
30 
 
 “ Father, I will that they also whom thou hast 
 “ given me, be with me where I am, that they 
 “ may behold my glory which thou hast given me.” 
 
 There’is nothing in the two texts brought for- 
 ward here by Mr. Jones, to justify the inference 
 he draws. 
 
 The two following texts are now given without  (p. 48.) 
 comment :— | 
 
 XLII. 
 
 “The dispensation of the Grace of God, which Ephes. iii. . 
 “is given me to you-ward; how that By REvr- ~** 
 “ LATION HE (God) made known unto me the 
 “imysteryi2? 7:5 
 
 “I neither received it of man, neither was Gal. i. 12. 
 “ I taught it, but By THE REVELATION of 
 * JEsuS CHRIST.” | 
 
 The object of this quotation is to show that the 
 revelation of God, mentioned in the first text, is 
 called the revelation of Christ in the second. 
 
 He must bea strange sort of Christian who 
 would deny that the revelation of Christ is the 
 revelation of God. “ He whom God hath sent 
 “speaketh the words of God,” saith the Baptist. 
 (John 3. 34.) 
 
 XLII. 
 
 “THOU, even THOU ONLY KNOWEST the eae Vill. 
 “ Hearts of all the children of men.” 
 
 “ All the Churches’ shall know that I AM HE Rev. ii. 23. 
 ‘* which ‘searcheth the reins and HEARTS.” 
 
 Mr. Jones remarks, that to know ‘the hearts of 
 
36 
 
 men, is the privilege of God only ; but the second 
 text proves that “ This God is Christ.” It ap- 
 pears to me, that Mr. Jones, and other writers, 
 continually run into error by not bearing in 
 mind the repeated declarations of our Lord, 
 that his power was derived from the Almighty 
 Father. The passage from which the second text 
 is taken, concludes with these words: “ Even as I 
 “ received of my Father.” St. Paul, in his Epistle 
 to the Ephesians (1st ch., 17th and 22nd v.), says, 
 «* The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father 
 “ of clory, hath put all things under his feet, and 
 «“ gave him to be the head over all things to the 
 «“ Church.” Surely, then, it is requisite that he © 
 should be endued with power to search and to 
 know the hearts of those who profess to be mem- 
 bers of his Church. 
 
 It is remarkable, that when our Lord speaks of 
 his possessing any of those attributes which seem 
 to belong to underived omnipotence, he frequently 
 prevents such an idea, by declaring that his power 
 was derived from the Father. Speaking of his 
 human life, he says, “ I have power to lay it down, 
 «¢ and I have power to take it again,” but immedi- 
 ately adds, “ This commandment have I received 
 « of my Father.” (John 10. 18.) Again, “ I 
 “ give unto them eternal life, and they shall 
 * never perish, neither shall any pluck them out 
 “ of my hand. My Father which gave them me 
 « js greater than all.” (John 10. 28, 29.) And 
 
Oo” 
 
 again, “ Thou hast given him power over all 
 » “ flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many 
 “ as thou hast given him.” (John 17. 2.) These, 
 and many other passages of the same import, make 
 Mr. Jones’s texts intelligible and rational ; but, in 
 the way he has brought them together, they are 
 perplexing, and often appear contradictory. 
 
 XLIV. | (p. 49.) 
 
 “ Exceeding great and precious promises; that 2 Pet. i, 4. 
 “ by these ye might be PARTAKERS of the DIVINE 
 “ NATURE.” | 
 “ For we are made PARTAKERS of CHRIST, if Heb. iii. 14. 
 we hold the beginning of our confidence (in the 
 precious promises of God) stedfast unto the end.” 
 Mr. Jones reasons thus: “ What St. Peter 
 ** proposes, as the end of our hope, is to be par- 
 “ takers of the Divine nature ; but this, according 
 “to St. Paul, is to be partakers of Christ,— 
 “ therefore Christ is 22, or of; the Divine nature.” 
 This conclusion, I suppose, would hardly be 
 denied by Mr. Jones’s opponents; but it by no 
 means follows that Christ is equal with the Al- 
 mighty Father; or, as Mr. Jones continues to 
 affirm, that “ He is the same Almighty God who 
 “ declared to Abraham, I am thy shield and 
 “ exceeding great reward.” 
 Now, St. Paul says of those who are true 
 Christians, that they are “ Heirs of God, and joint 
 
(p. 53.) 
 
 Isai. xlv. 23. 
 
 (p. 54.) 
 Ephes. iv. 8. 
 
 38 
 
 “ Heirs with Christ.” (Rom. 8.17.) And again, 
 “ Ifason, then an heir of God through Christ.” - 
 (Gal. 4. 7.) | 
 
 After commenting upon his two texts, Mr. Jones 
 goes into an elaborate defence of the “ Catholic 
 ** Homoousian doctrine ;’ but, as the term is 
 unscriptural, and the idea far beyond my compre- 
 hension, I shall not venture to meddle with it. 
 
 The next argument advanced by Mr. Jones 
 appears to me to savour so much of levity, that I 
 shall not make any farther remark upon it. 
 
 XLV. 
 
 He says, “ It is arule laid down by St. Paul, 
 “ that GoD swears by HiMsEtF for this reason, 
 “ because he can swear by no GREATER.” (Heb. 
 VI. 13.) “ But Christ has sworn by himself.” 
 
 “ T have sworn by MyseELF, that unto me 
 “every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” 
 This passage he applies to Christ, from Rom. 
 XIV. 11, and concludes thus—*“ Christ has there- 
 ** fore sworn by HIMSELF: so that if the Apostle’s 
 « rule be applied, he must for this reason be Gop, 
 “ and there can be no GREATER!” | 
 
 Surely this is not entitled to a reply. 
 
 XLVI. 
 
 “ When HE (Christ) ascended up on high, HE 
 “ Jed captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.” 
 
39 
 
 “ Yet,” says Mr. Jones. ‘‘ the Scripture here 
 referred to, expressly affirms the person who 
 ascended, &c., to be the Lord God.” 
 
 As proof, he quotes the following passage :— 
 
 “ The chariots of GoD are twenty thousand, 
 even thousands of Angels: the LORD is among 
 them as in Sinai, in the holy place. THoU 
 hast ascended on high, 'THou hast led withee ty 
 captive.” 
 
 That the Psalmist speaks of Jehovah in the 
 latter text, and St. Paul of Christ in the former, 
 is unquestionable. Dr. Doddridge remarks, that 
 “ The Apostle beautifully accommodates the 
 “* words to the triumph of an ascending Saviour.” 
 This habit of accommodating expressions in the 
 Old Testament to circumstances under the New, 
 
 nw 
 a 
 
 a“ 
 nn 
 
 n~ 
 an 
 
 a 
 nm 
 
 nn 
 n 
 
 wn“ 
 an 
 
 is usual with St. Paul, and by no means proves. 
 
 identity. 
 
 Mr. Jones has given no proof of his skill, in 
 referring his readers to the 4th ch. of Ephesians: 
 for if the whole of his doctrine be not plainly 
 denied, from the 4th to the 13th verse, we can no 
 longer hope to know the meaning of words. (See 
 p. 143.) 
 
 It is painful to read the conclusion which Mr. 
 Jones draws from the texts he brings forward in 
 the three following articles; for they are profes- 
 sedly used for the purpose of proving that Jehovah, 
 the living God, was pierced and died upon the 
 cross ! 
 
 Ps. Ixviii. 
 17, 18. 
 
 (p. 54.) 
 
Heb. ix. 20. 
 
 [bid. ver. 16. 
 
 Rev. v. 9. 
 
 40 
 
 i ‘it XLVIL. 
 
 “This is the blood of the TESTAMENT which 
 “ Gop hath enjoined you.” 
 
 “Where a TESTAMENT is, there must also 
 “of necessity be the DEATH of the TESTATOR.” 
 
 Mr. Jones thus argues :—-“ The Yestator must 
 “ die, but God is the Testator:”’ it follows that 
 God must die; and he affirms that the man who 
 did die, was also God the Testator ! 
 
 I would ask any man of common sense to read 
 this 9th ch. of Hebrews, and to judge if any such. 
 meaning can possibly be wrung from it. The 
 texts are unfairly brought together; a practice 
 which Mr. Jones lays to the charge of his op- 
 ponents, and severely condemns. 
 
 The next text is strangely chosen. 
 
 | XLVIII. | 
 
 » “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to 
 “ GOD BY THY BLOOD.” | 
 ~ This, Mr. Jones observes, refers to Christ’s hu- 
 manity, but adds, “ In another place it is imputed 
 “ to his Devinity,” and quotes from Acts XX. 28: 
 “ Feed the Church of God, which he hath pur- 
 ** chased with His OWN BLOOD.” 
 
 _ It is admitted by several orthodox sitedal that. 
 many ancient manuscripts have it “ the Church 
 *€ of Christ,” or “ the Church of the Lord.” 
 
 «Pyle says, “The best copies have it the Chur ch- 
 “ of the Lord, rs Kves.” 
 
41 
 
 It is distressing to see the Holy Scriptures 
 garbled for the purpose of supporting a doctrine. 
 In the first Epistle of St. John (3. 16), we read, 
 as it stands in our version—‘* Hereby perceive we 
 ** the love of God, because he laid down his life 
 for us.” But the words “ of God” are foisted 
 in; they are not in the original. It is true they 
 are marked as words supplied, but still it misleads 
 honest, unlearned readers of the Bible. 
 
 In further support of his hypothesis, Mr. Jones 
 now quotes,— 
 
 XLIX. 
 
 “In that day, saith THE LorD, they shall look 
 “on ME whom they have pierced.”—*“ But, ac- 
 “ cording to the Evangelist St. John,” says Mr. 
 Jones, “ this Scripture saith, | 
 
 “ ¢ They shall look on H1m (Christ) whom they 
 *" © have ‘pierced.’ ” 
 
 Bishop Beveridge maintains, that the words 
 in Zechariah “ were spoken by Christ.” But 
 Mr. Jones affirms, that “As it stands in the 
 “ Prophet, the Lord Jehovah was to be pierced !” 
 And he adds, “ Unless the man Christ, who 
 “ hung upon the cross, was also the Lord 
 “ Jehovah, the Evangelist is found to be a false 
 “ witness.” | 
 
 To this bold assertion but one short reply oc- 
 
 curs to my mind, and I think I must be supported 
 in it by every pious and rational Christian, namely, 
 _ Lt ts impossible. 
 
 Mr. Jones closes this first section of his work 
 
 (p. 56.) 
 
 Zech. xii. 
 4, 10. 
 
 John xix. 
 
Phil. i. 10. 
 
 2 Pet. 1. 12. 
 
 Isai. xl. 10. 
 
 Rev.xxi.12. 
 
 42 
 
 with the two following couplets without com- 
 ment. 
 | Lis 
 “That ye may be sincere and without offence 
 “ till the Day of CHRIST.” ) 
 “ Looking for and hasting to the coming of the 
 “ Day of Gop.” | | 
 LI. 
 ‘* Behold the Lorp Gop will comr, His 
 REWARD IS WITH HIM.” 
 “ Behold I (Jesus) COME quickly, and My 
 REWARD IS WITH ME.” 
 That the great and awful day of judgment is 
 called the day of God the Father, and also the 
 day of Christ, is easily reconciled. . The sentence 
 which will be pronounced. by our Lord Jesus will 
 be the sentence of God. One short text will 
 sufficiently explain the matter. ‘‘ fe hath ap- 
 ‘* pointed a day, in the which He will judge the 
 ‘«* world in righteousness, by that man whom he 
 ‘* hath ordained.” (Acts 17. 31.) 
 
 n 
 nn 
 
 an 
 n 
 
 I have now gone through the first head of 
 Mr. Jones’s work, and truly I have found it.a dis- 
 tressing task; for the manner in which he. has: 
 made use of the Holy Scriptures, and the method 
 of his reasoning, compelled me to meet him with 
 arguments which seemed as if. I were labouring to 
 lower the dignity of our blessed Lord... ar be it 
 from my heart to conceive a thought derogatory 
 to the character of that ever-blessed Being through 
 
43 
 
 whose infinite merits, sufferings, and intercession, I 
 entirely look, with humble hope, for the forgive- 
 ness of my sins, and for acceptance at the awful 
 day of account. Yet I dare not confess my assent 
 to the doctrine which pronounces the equality of © 
 the Son with the Almighty Father, because our 
 Lord himself, as well as his Apostles, have repeat- 
 edly, and in the most clear and express terms, 
 taught a different kind of doctrine. .'To quote all 
 the texts (in addition to those already noticed) 
 which declare that our Lord’s power and authority 
 were derived from his Almighty Father, would 
 be tedious: the following may suffice. 
 
 At the 6th ch. 38th v. of St. John’s Gospel, we 
 read our Lord’s declaration—“ I came down from 
 “¢ Heaven, xot to do mine own will, but the will 
 “* of him that sent me.’ Could any expression 
 be more plain? It cannot be argued that this 
 _ refers merely to our Lord’s humanity, for it evi- 
 dently points to his pre-existent state, before he 
 took the human nature upon him. At the 57th v. 
 of the same chapter, our Lord saith, ‘‘'The Living 
 ‘* Father hath sent me, and J live by the Father.” 
 And again, at the 10th ch. 25th v., ‘‘ The works 
 “* that Ido an my Lather’s name, they bear witness 
 ‘* of me.” When the Disciples went into Galilee, 
 after our Lord’s Resurrection, as recorded by’ St. 
 Matthew (28. 18), ‘‘ Jesus came and spake unto 
 ‘* them, ‘saying, All power 2s given unio. me, in 
 ** heaven and in earth.” And at the 22nd ch. 29th v. 
 
A4 
 
 of St. Luke, our Lord saith—‘‘ I appoint unto 
 “« you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed 
 “© unto me.” 
 
 These declarations from the mouth of our Lord 
 himself, and many others to the same effect, in my 
 humble judgment, most plainly deny the doctrine 
 of co-equality and underived power. 
 
 St. Peter, speaking of our Lord (Acts 2. 29), 
 saith—‘‘ Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of 
 ‘© God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and 
 ‘« sions, which God did by him.” St. Paul, in his 
 Epistle to the Ephesians (1. 17), mentions his 
 prayer, ‘* That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 *‘ the Father of glory, may give unto you the 
 ‘© spirit of wisdom and revelation, in the know-. 
 “* ledge of him.” Then follows a plain denial of 
 co-equality and underived power. (See 20th, 21st, 
 and 22nd verses.) In the first Epistle of the same 
 Apostle to the Corinthians, the third chapter 
 concludes with these words :—“ All are youtr’s, 
 “ and ye are Christ’s, and Christ 1s God’s.” 
 
 These, and very many other passages of Scrip- 
 ture, ascribe, as I before observed, the stupendous 
 scheme of man’s redemption to the Almighty 
 Father’s love and mercy towards his unworthy 
 creatures, and the completion of it to the adorable 
 goodness of our ever-blessed Lord, in devoting 
 himself to the will of his Heavenly Father. 
 
 Mr. Jones has properly omitted a text which, 
 as we have it in our translation, misleads many 
 
45 
 
 honest, unlearned Christians; I mean that in the 
 2nd ch. 6th v. of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Phillip- 
 pians—“ Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of 
 “ God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
 ‘© God.” That this translation is mcorrect, is ad- 
 mitted by Bishop Bull, Dr. Whitby, Dr. Doddridge, 
 and many other writers esteemed orthodox: it is 
 admitted even by Mr. Parkhurst, who was a 
 decided and zealous Trinitarian. He allows that 
 the words :cz Oew, rendered “ equal with God,” 
 are incorrectly translated, and that the proper Greek 
 phrase for “ equal with God,” is :cov rw Osw, as in 
 John 5.18. Yet some other writers, and those 
 high in the Church, insist upon the text, as it 
 stands in our version, in its full literal sense; not 
 considering how fearful a thing it is to pronounce 
 any other Being equal in majesty and glory with 
 the Omnipotent Jehovah ! 
 
 Errors are commonly productive of opposite 
 extremes ; and it cannot be doubted that this 
 daring word co-equality, has made many Soci- 
 nians. Now, if we deny the pre-existence of the 
 Lord Jesus, and consider that his merits and suf- 
 ferings can be of no avail to us, we must look 
 upon the Bible as only deceiving us: we give up 
 our best hopes, and we, who have the Gospel of 
 Christ open before us, must die in our sins. 
 
 Such persons would do well to consider whether 
 they do not despise, and refuse, the intercession of 
 
46 
 
 our blessed Lord, who gives believers inexpressible 
 comfort in these words—‘‘ Neither pray °I for 
 «« these (his Apostles) alone, but for. them also 
 ‘¢ which shall believe on me through their word.” 
 (John 17. 20.) Now, if we believe in Christ, we 
 must believe in him-as he is set forth through the 
 word of the Apostles; and there is nothing more 
 clearly declared in their word than the’ pre- 
 existence of our Lord Jesus, and the inestimable 
 benefits offered to mankind through him. 
 
 For many years I have studied the writings of 
 these holy men with the best faculties of my mind, 
 and thence I learn, that though it is impossible the 
 Almighty Father can have an equal, yet hath he 
 said of Christ, ‘‘ This is‘my beloved Son,” and 
 hath declared him to be entitled to the worship of 
 Angels. I believe it to be ‘a true saying, and 
 «© worthy of all men to be received, that Christ 
 «© Jesus came into the world to save: sinners.” 
 (1st Tim. 1.15.) J endeavour to lift up my heart in 
 fervent love and thankfulness, for his gracious 
 invitation—** Come unto me all ye that labour 
 ‘and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” 
 (Matt. 11. 28.) ‘* I believe that he will come to 
 <“ be’ our Judge ;” and I pray’ him, as: did his 
 Apostles, to increase my faith, and to grant, that 
 in all assaults of my spiritual’enemy, and in my 
 struggles against the evil-dispositions of my nature, 
 his grace may be sufficient for me. I believe that, 
 
47 
 
 ‘For in that he himself hath suffered, being 
 ** tempted, he is able to succour them that are 
 ** tempted.” (Heb. 2. 18.) And therefore I 
 think I cannot err in praying him to afford me 
 this succour. 
 
 Upon this point I give merely my own con- 
 fession : I presume not to dictate to others. ‘* Let 
 ** every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” 
 It must be admitted, that he who worships the 
 Father, in spirit and in truth, through the me- 
 diation of his ever-blessed Son, cannot be wrong. 
 
 It is objected, that, to deny the perfect co- 
 equality of the Father and the Son, is to acknow- 
 ledge two objects of worship, and, therefore, 
 amounts to a confession of two Gods, a greater 
 and a lesser; that it savours of the latreia and 
 douleia of the Church of Rome, &c. To all this 
 I might make a short reply, namely, I learn my 
 doctrines from the Bible. But we find that the 
 most able, learned, and orthodox writers, acknow- 
 ledge that the doctrine of co-equality was denied 
 in the primitive Church, and was never introduced 
 as an article of faith till after the council of Nice. 
 Upon this point I shall appeal only to the au- 
 thority of Dr. Thomas Randolph, Archdeacon of 
 Oxford, and President of Corpus Christi College. 
 As a divine, he was confessedly one of the most 
 accomplished scholars of his day, and considered a 
 powerful defender of the orthodox faith. From 
 
48 
 
 his work, entitled ‘“‘ A Vindication of the Doc- 
 ‘* trine of the Trinity,’ I extract the following 
 passages :— 
 
 “ The Son is, by all ancient writers, held to be, 
 ** in some sense, inferior to the Father; and that 
 « even with regard to his Divine nature.” (1st 
 Part, page 21.) 
 
 At p. 12, 2nd Part, Dr. Randolph repeats the 
 same words, adding, “ The title of Son imports a 
 “ distinction from, and some kind of subordination 
 “ to, the Father.” 
 
 At p. 13, 3rd Part, he gives the following ex- 
 tract from the works of Dr. Cudworth :—“ Athana- 
 ** sius rightly appeals to the tradition of the 
 ‘* ancient Church, for the Eternity and Divinity 
 ** of the Son of God, but not for such an absolute 
 * co-equality of him with the Father as would 
 ‘“* exclude all dependence, subordination, and in- 
 “¢ feriority.” | 
 
 Dr. Randolph concludes thus:—‘ I cannot 
 ** think that such a kind of absolute co-equality 
 ** was ever seriously maintained by any reputed 
 ‘* orthodox writer.” And he quotes various 
 ancient authors, confessing “a subordination in 
 ** the three Hypostases*.” 
 
 How these admissions can be made to comport 
 with the Athanasian Creed, is hard to be imagined : 
 
 * These extracts are taken from the Ist Edition of the 
 ** Vindication,” printed at Oxford, 1754. 
 
49 
 
 they seem, however, to remove those objections 
 that are urged against the view I have been led to 
 take of the subject, from my study of the Holy 
 Scriptures. 
 
 It is surprising to see the glaring contradictions 
 which are to be found in the writings of different 
 Divines, when they treat of the awful subject. of | 
 the Trinity. Mr. Jones (p. 61) insists upon the 
 doctrine of absolute co-equality, “ not under any 
 ‘* restrictions and limitations, which,” he adds, 
 ‘* common reason, instructed by the Scripture, 
 ** disclaims and abhors, as an inlet to all sorts of 
 ‘* idolatry.” Here, then, we see the learned 
 Archdeacon, supported by a host of early writers, 
 confessing a doctrine which Mr. Jones affirms 
 ‘is an inlet to all sorts of idolatry!” Again, 
 Our Church, in “ The proper preface upon the 
 «© Feast of Trinity,” confesses “That which we 
 ‘* believe of the glory of the Father, the same we 
 ** are to believe of the Son, and of the Holy 
 ‘“‘ Ghost, without any difference or inequality.” 
 Whilst the learned Dr. Hales thus speaks of the ° 
 Almighty Father, “God, the fountain of all 
 ‘* wisdom, sovereignty, power, immortality, and 
 ** goodness; which in all other Beings, even in 
 «* the Son himself, are derived from the Father.” 
 Very many more of such contradictory passages 
 might be produced. 
 
 I shall conclude my confessions regarding this 
 
 BD 
 
50 
 
 first head of Mr. Jones’s work, by again declaring, 
 that my hopes of salvation rest wholly upon the 
 Lord Jesus Christ :—that I am perfectly satisfied 
 ‘* there is none other name under heaven given 
 ‘* among men, whereby we must be saved;” and 
 that my earnest and heartfelt desire is, that my 
 last breath may be spent in uttering the prayer 
 of the first Christian Martyr, “ Lord Jesus, receive 
 «© my Spirit.”.—Amen. Amen. 
 
SECTION. ITI. 
 
 THE Second Section of Mr. Jones’s work is 
 entitled,—“ THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY 
 “ GHOST.” 
 
 I perceive, by Mr. Jones’s arguments, that the 
 persons whose doctrine he opposes, confess the 
 personality of the’ Holy Spirit, but deny his 
 Divinity. This appears to me to be very strange. 
 For myself, I confess that if it could be proved 
 from the Scriptures, that the term fHoly Spirit, 
 so frequently mentioned there, means a Being, or 
 person distinct from the Father and the Son, I 
 should feel no difficulty in acknowledging his 
 Divine character; for without controversy the 
 same operations are frequently ascribed to this 
 Spirit as those effected by the Father and the 
 Son. 
 
 I searched the Scriptures many years, for a 
 proof of this personality, and that too with an 
 earnest desire to discover it; but without success, 
 My researches, though aided by orthodox Com- 
 mentators, have led me to believe that the notion 
 is erroneous. 
 
o2 
 
 As it may prevent the necessity of repetition, I 
 will, before I enter on an examination of Mr. 
 Jones’s arguments, briefly state a few of those 
 passages of Scripture which have led me to enter- 
 tain the opinion I have confessed. 
 
 In the first place, I must be permitted, whether 
 in quoting texts of Scripture, or in argument, to 
 use the Scriptural words Holy Spirit instead of 
 Holy Ghost, as it is translated eighty-six times 
 in our version, whilst the proper term Spirit is 
 given only seven times. The deviation is the 
 more remarkable, because it is not uniformly 
 carried through the translation. ‘This Saxon: 
 word Ghost conveys, to vulgar minds, somewhat 
 more of a personal idea than that of Spirit; and 
 as sound frequently supersedes sense, | am _per- 
 suaded that it has weight with the unreflecting 
 part of the world. 
 
 At the last interview which the Apostles had 
 with our Lord, before his decease, the promise of 
 the Holy Spirit was given. The beloved Disciple 
 narrates the occurrences of that melancholy even- 
 ing in the most beautiful and affecting manner. 
 Our Lord, having shown his Apostles that it was 
 necessary he should depart from them, among 
 many other consolatory and affectionate expres- 
 sions, said, “ I will pray the Father, and He shall 
 “«* give you. another Comforter (Ilegaxayros) that 
 ‘he may abide with you forever.” (John 14. 16.) 
 The word Paraclete has other significations 
 
Dd 
 
 besides that of Comforter, and I humbly con- 
 ceive it might, in this place, have been more 
 correctly rendered Monitor or Guide. At the 
 18th v. our Lord saith, “I will not leave you 
 “* comfortless (ogPavss) I will come to you.” This 
 could not be understood as coming personally, but 
 by his Holy Spirit, the Paraclete. The meaning 
 evidently is, “I will not leave you as orphans, 
 “without a Guide or Instructor, I will come to 
 “you.” It cannot be imagined that it ever 
 entered into the minds of the Apostles, that a 
 Person was to come down from Heaven, as our 
 Lord had done, and that this Divine Person was 
 to accompany them in their labours ;—the whole 
 narrative plainly shows that it was to be purely a 
 spiritual energy operating upon their minds and 
 affections, and even enabling them to work 
 miracles in proof of the Divine authority by which 
 they were commissioned. These operations of 
 the Holy Spirit are expressed, both in the Scrip- 
 tures and in the Liturgy of the Established Church, 
 by the word Inspiration. 
 
 The question, then, is brought into a narrow 
 compass, viz., Who is the Author and Giver of this 
 spiritual monitor and guide ?—Is this inspiration 
 the gift of the Almighty Father, through his ever-- 
 blessed Son, or is there a third Person in the 
 Godhead, who confers it on those who are worthy ? 
 I have searched the Scriptures for a declaration 
 of this third Person, but could never find a hint 
 
o4 
 
 of any other Giver of the Spirit besides the Father 
 and the Son. 
 
 When our Lord forewarned his Apostles of the 
 opposition they must experience, and that they 
 would be delivered up to councils, &c., he desires 
 them to ‘* take no thought beforehand, neither do 
 ‘* ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given 
 ‘* you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not 
 “* ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit.” (Mark 
 13.11.) In the parallel place (Luke 12. 12) it 
 stands thus :—‘‘ For the Holy Spirit shall teach 
 ‘€ you in that same hour what ye ought to say.” 
 If these texts be taken without a reference to any 
 other passage they seem to favour the idea of 
 personality: but in Luke 21.14, 15, it stands, 
 ** Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to medi- 
 ‘** tate beforehand, what ye shall answer; for I 
 ** will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all 
 “ your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay, 
 ‘« nor resist.” In Matt. 10. 20, it is given thus: 
 ‘« For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of 
 «< your Father which speaketh in you.” These 
 passages, taken in connection, appear to me, plainly 
 to show that the Holy Spirit is the gift of our 
 Lord Jesus, by the power which he derived from 
 his Heavenly Father. Immediately before our 
 Lord’s ascension, as recorded by St. Luke (24. 49), 
 he said to the Apostles, ‘ Behold, I send the 
 ** promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye 
 ‘‘ in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued 
 
59 
 
 ‘“* with power from on high.” Accordingly, when 
 they were assembled on the day of Pentecost, they 
 were filled with the Holy Spirit, and were en- 
 abled to speak in. divers tongues. Upon this 
 occasion, St. Peter spake thus to the multitude 
 (Acts 2. 32, 33), “ This Jesus hath God raised up, 
 ‘* whereof we are all witnesses. ‘Therefore being 
 ‘« by the right hand of God exalted, and having 
 ‘« recewed of the Father the promise of the 
 « Holy Spirit, He hath shed forth this which ye 
 ** now see and hear.” 
 
 At the 18th ch. 20th v. of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 
 we read our Lord’s words, “ Where two or three 
 ‘** are gathered together in my name, there am I 
 ‘‘ in the midst of them.” And at the 14th ch. 
 23rd v. of St. John, “If a man love me, he will 
 ‘* keep my words: and my Father will love him, 
 ‘© and We will come unto him, and make our 
 ‘* abode with him.” Here is no intimation of a 
 third- Person, as the Dispenser of Spiritual gifts. 
 When the promise of the Holy Spirit was given to 
 the Apostles, our Lord added “ that he may abide 
 ‘* with you for ever.” Now, the last words spoken 
 by our Lord before his ascension, as recorded by. 
 St. Matthew (28. 20) were—“ Lo, I am with you 
 «* alway, even unto the end of the world.” Not 
 to multiply texts, I will only add the following 
 from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (4. 6)— 
 “ God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into 
 ** your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” 
 
(p. 58.) 
 
 John iii. 6. 
 
 1 Johnv. 4. 
 
 o6 
 
 That the Spirit mentioned: in these, and many 
 other texts, is the promised Paraclete, cannot, I 
 believe, be disputed, and I am unable to discover a 
 hint of a third Person, as the source and giver 
 of it. | 
 
 Having now stated a few of the passages of 
 Scripture, from which I have formed my opinion, 
 and proposed the important question, “ Who is 
 “ the Author and Giver of the Holy Spirit ?” I 
 will endeavour to do justice to Mr. Jones’s reason- 
 ing. His plan is, to show that the same acts are 
 ascribed to God and to the Spirit, and thence he 
 concludes that the Spirit is a Divine Person, equal 
 with God. His first quotation is given in the 
 following manner. oh ee 
 
 I. 
 
 To yeyevvypevov EK ra Ilvevpetos. ‘That which 
 * is BORN of the SPIRIT.” 
 
 To yeyevvypevoy EK 7s @es.  Whatsoever is 
 “ BORN OF GOD.” | 
 
 Upon these two short sentences, taken from 
 different parts of the Scriptures, Mr. Jones observes 
 that “the same individual act of Divine Grace is 
 “ ascribed, without the change of a single letter, 
 “ to God and to the Spirit;” and therefore he 
 infers that the Spzrit is comprehended in the 
 Divine nature, equally with God. But his texts 
 afford no proof of the personality of the Spirit. 
 That which is born of the Spirit of God must, 
 of course, be born of God. In the verse imme- 
 
57 
 
 diately preceding this first text, we read, “ Except 
 * aman be born of Water, and of the Spirit, he 
 “ cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Here 
 the “same act of Divine Grace” is ascribed to 
 Water, and to the Spirit; therefore, according to 
 Mr. Jones’s mode of reasoning, Water must be 
 comprehended in the Divine nature. 
 
 This, I conceive, is sufficient to show the weak- 
 ness of the argument grounded on the two detached 
 sentences. 
 
 II. 
 
 “ The Hoty Guost said, separate ME Barna- 
 “bas and Saul, for the work whereunto I HAVE 
 * CALLED THEM.” 
 
 “ No man taketh this honour to himself, zi he 
 “ that is CALLED of Gop.” 
 
 The object here, is the same as that of the last 
 quotation ; namely, to show that “the Scripture 
 “‘ makes no distinction between God and the 
 ‘* Spirit.” 
 
 In this, I believe Mr. Jones is right. As in the 
 former texts, that which is born of the Spirit of 
 God is born of God; so in these, he that is sepa- 
 rated, or called by the Spirit of God, is “ called of 
 ** God.” 
 
 The manner in which it was suggested to the 
 minds of the Prophets and Teachers of Antioch by 
 the Holy Spirit, that Barnabas and Saul were fit 
 persons to be sent on the important mission to 
 the Gentiles, it is impossible for us to know. 
 
 (p. 59.) 
 
 Acts xiii. 2. 
 
 Heb. v. 4. 
 
(p. 59, 60.) 
 
 Matt. 1x. 38, 
 
 Acts xiii, 4, 
 
 58 
 
 Mr. Jones himself, would hardly venture to say, 
 that the third Person of the Trinity stood by, and 
 in an audible voice said, “ separate me Barnabas,” 
 &c. In whatever way the instruction was given, 
 whether by a voice or an internal suggestion, the 
 text affords no proof of a third Person in the 
 Deity, as the Instructor. 
 
 iil. 
 
 ‘« PRAY ye therefore the LORD OF THE Har- 
 ‘* vEstT, that he will send forth labourers into his 
 ** harvest.” 
 
 ‘«* So they being SENT FORTH BY THE Hoy 
 “© GHOST.” 
 
 By these two texts, Mr. Jones says, “ The Holy 
 ‘* Ghost is proved to be the Lord of the harvest, 
 ‘© to whom Christ himself has directed us to 
 ‘© PRAY.” 
 
 That our Lord pointed to his Heavenly Father 
 by the title of “ Lord of the harvest,” would, I 
 believe, be admitted by every one but Mr. Jones. 
 I have consulted several orthodox Expositors, and 
 have never met with an expression of doubt sip 
 the subject. 
 
 At the 15th ch. Ist v. of St. John’s Goxpbly our 
 Lord saith, “ I am the true Vine, and my Father is 
 ‘* the Husbandman ;” which seems to be the same 
 thing expressed in other terms. Again—“ Every 
 ‘ plant which my Heavenly Father hath not 
 ‘* planted, shall be rooted up.” (Matt. 15.13.) We 
 
59 
 
 find nothing in these texts concerning a third 
 person. 
 Mr. Jones would not deny that St. Paul was 
 qualified for the office of a ‘ Labourer in the 
 ‘* harvest,” by the Holy Spirit; yet the Apostle 
 says, “ I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath 
 ** enabled me, for that He counted me faithful, 
 “© nutting me into the ministry.” (1 Tim. 1. 12.) 
 St. Peter, speaking of his visit to Cornelius (Acts 
 11. 17), said, “ Forasmuch then as God gave them 
 ° the like gift as he did unto us,” &c. This gift 
 was the Holy Spirit; which he said “ fell on them, 
 ‘** as on us at the beginning.” In these, and many 
 other texts, the Holy Spirit is declared to be the 
 gift of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ; and 
 under the guidance of this Paraclete, Barnabas 
 and Saul were “sent forth,” as stated in Mr. 
 Jones’s second text. | 
 IV. (p. 60, 61.) 
 «© And it was revealed to him By the HOLY Luke ii, 26. 
 “< GuHosT, that he should not see death before he 
 ‘© had seen the Lord’s Christ.” 
 “¢ And he BLESSED GOD, and said, LORD now Ibid. 28, 29. 
 ‘< lettest thou thy servant depart in peace accord- 
 ‘* ing to THY WORD.” 
 On these texts Mr. Jones makes the following 
 remark :— This word was the word of the Holy 
 ‘© Ghost, who is God and Lord, to be blessed and 
 praised.” 
 In the verse preceding the first of these texts it 
 
(p. 61.) 
 John xiv. 17. 
 
 1 Cor. xiv. 
 Po. 
 
 2Tim. 11. 16, 
 
 2 Pet.i. 21. 
 
 60 
 
 is said, that Simeon was just and devout. Now, 
 it is affirmed by the Apostles (Acts 5. 32), that 
 “ God hath given the Holy Spirit to them that 
 “« obey him.” The Almighty having, by his Holy 
 Spirit, revealed to this just and devout man, that 
 he should live to see the Lord’s anointed, the good 
 Simeon blessed the Almighty for it. This is the 
 whole meaning of the two texts now produced. 
 
 Mr. Jones now gives the two following couplets 
 without comment. | 
 
 V. 
 
 ‘© He (the Sprrit of truth) dwelleth with you, 
 and shall be in you.” . 
 «* GOD 18 IN You of a truth.” 
 
 a 
 “~ 
 
 VI. 
 
 «¢ All Scripture is given by INSPIRATION OF 
 “* Gop.” | 
 
 «© Holy men of God, spake as they were MOVED 
 *« By the HoLy GuHost.” 
 
 The Holy Spirit of God is given to holy men, 
 as noticed in the last article. Surely, there is 
 nothing in these texts to prove the existence of a 
 third Person, as the giver of the Spirit. When 
 the Apostle says, “ God is in you of a truth,” it is 
 plain that he means by his Holy Spirit, which is 
 continually declared to be the g7ft of the Father or 
 the Son. St. Paul thus opens his epistle to the 
 Hebrews, “ God, who at sundry times, and in 
 « divers manners, spake in times past to the 
 
61 
 
 ‘* Fathers, by the Prophets, hath in these last 
 “* days spoken unto us by his Son.” The Pro- 
 phets spake by the Father of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, who by his Holy Spirit suggested to their 
 minds the substance of their discourses. ‘There is 
 no intimation of a third Person. 
 
 VII. 
 
 ‘* It is written in the Prophets, and they shall 
 be all TAUGHT of GOD.” 
 
 ‘* Not in the words which man’s wisdom 
 teacheth, but which the HonLty GHosT 
 ‘* TEACHETH.” 
 
 ** This latter verse,” says Mr. Jones, “ would 
 prove the Holy Ghost to be God, by itself.” 
 Now, the discourse from which it is taken, 
 plainly declares that this teaching is of God. At 
 the 10th v. the Apostle says, “ God hath revealed 
 “them to us by his Spirit.” Mr. Jones deals 
 
 ~ 
 ny 
 
 nm” 
 n 
 
 nn 
 rn 
 
 very unfairly with the Scriptures ; he gives but a 
 part of his first text ; it is continued thus: “ Every 
 ‘¢ man therefore, that hath heard end hath learned 
 «* of the Father, cometh unto me.’ 
 
 In his epistle to the Philippians (1. 19), St. 
 Paul terms it, “ the supply of the Spirit of Jesus 
 ‘© Christ.” It is the self-same Spirit ; but neither 
 in Mr. Jones’s texts, nor any where else in the 
 Bible, is a third Person declared to be the giver 
 of it. 
 
 (p. 62.) 
 John vi. 45. 
 I Cor: 15153. 
 
(p. 62.) 
 Acts v. 3. 
 
 Ibid. ver. 4. 
 
 62 
 
 VIII. 
 
 «* Why hath Satan filled thine heart to LI& to 
 ‘* the HoLy GHostT ?” 
 
 «* Thou hast not LIED unto men, but unto 
 «* GoD.” : 
 
 The object here is the same as in the preceding 
 texts, vix. to show that lying to the Holy Spirit in 
 the first, is called lying to God in the second. In 
 the preceding chapter, at the 8th verse, we read that 
 Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit. ‘The ques- 
 tion then still recurs—By whom was the Apostle 
 thus filled with the Spirit ? the beloved Disciple 
 saith, ‘‘ Hereby we know that He (the Father of 
 «© our Lord Jesus Christ) abideth in us, by the 
 ‘© Spirit which He hath given us.” (1 John 3. 24.) 
 And St. Paul, in his epistle to Titus (3. 6,) speak- 
 ing of the Holy Spirit, saith, “ Which He (the 
 «¢ Father) shed on us abundantly through Jesus 
 «© Christ our Saviour.” The Apostles were largely 
 gifted with the Spirit, and thus commissioned, 
 might be considered as God’s vice-gerents ; lying 
 to them therefore, was, in effect, lying to God. 
 St. Paul expresses the same idea in his first epistle 
 to the Thessalonians (4. 8). “ He therefore that 
 ‘© despiseth, despiseth not man but God, who hath 
 « also given unto us his Holy Spirit.” 
 
 There is no difficulty in understanding these 
 texts, unless we create one, by supposing a third 
 Person as the giver of the Spirit. 
 
63 
 
 IX. 
 ** Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then 
 have we confidence toward Gon.” 
 «© And hereby we know that HE abideth in us, 
 by THE Spirit which he hath given us.” 
 ‘© The Apostle’s reasoning,’ says Mr. Jones, 
 is this: The Spirit abideth in us, and hereby 
 we know that He (God) abideth in us.” 
 This is trifling with a serious subject. The 
 Apostle is speaking of the Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ (see v. 23), and it is plainly declared 
 that “ He hath given the Spirit.” 
 
 * 
 nN 
 
 Nn 
 n 
 
 n~ 
 n 
 
 ~ 
 n 
 
 >a 
 
 ‘“¢ The TEMPLE OF GOD is holy, which temple 
 ** are YE.” 
 
 ** Know ye not that YOUR BODIEs are the 
 ‘* TEMPLE of the HoLy Guost ?” | 
 
 I have copied these texts, merely because Mr. 
 Jones. ought to have the advantage of all the 
 Scriptural authority he can urge. The argument 
 he would draw from them (for he gives no com- 
 ment) has been, I conceive, sufficiently answered. 
 I cannot, however, but notice his continued unfair- 
 ness. His first text is introduced by these words, 
 *« The Spirit of God dwelleth in you.” Can the 
 Spirit of God, as the words are used here, be pos- 
 sibly understood to mean a third Person in the 
 Deity, equal in majesty and glory with the 
 
 (p. 64.) 
 1 John iii.21. 
 
 Ibid. ver. 24. 
 
 (p. 65.) 
 1 Cor. i. 17. 
 
 Ibid. vi. 19. 
 
(p. 65.) 
 Matt. iv. 1. 
 
 Luke xi. 2. 
 4, 
 
 64 
 
 Almighty Father? The second text concludes 
 thus: “ The Holy Spirit which ye have of God.” 
 In both texts the Spirit is shown to be the g7/t of 
 God. 
 
 XI. 
 
 ‘© Then was Jesus LED up BY THE SPIRIT to 
 ‘* be TEMPTED, &c. | 
 
 <«; Our FaTHER which art in Heaven. LEAD 
 «© us not into TEMPTATION. . 
 
 I must say, I have never met with any thing 
 more strange and objectionable than Mr. Jones's 
 comment on the two passages now quoted. He 
 tells us that this petition in the Lord’s Prayer, 
 though it commences with the words “ Our 
 «© Father,’ is “ addressed to the Person of the 
 ‘ Holy Spirit ;? for “ Our Father which is in 
 «¢ Heaven would not lead us into temptation ; it 
 ‘ being needless and absurd to pray that God 
 «« would not do what by the necessity of his 
 ‘ nature it is impossible for him to do.” “ But 
 «« when Jesus was tempted, the leading him into 
 ‘< temptation, was the act of the Holy. Spirit.” 
 We therefore pray to Him to spare us. 
 
 What a heathenish kind of Trinity does Mr. 
 Jones here present to his readers! He describes 
 the first Person as not merely unwilling, but in his 
 nature incapable. of leading us into temptation. 
 The third Person, by his. statement, is both able 
 
 ny 
 
 wn 
 
 * 
 
65 
 
 and willing. Thus making the first and third 
 Persons of his Trinity to be of different natures 
 and dispositions! ‘The second Person, being the 
 “Patient in the trying scene, differs from both! If 
 this be not tritheism, I know not the meaning of 
 the word. O lovely, rational, heart-soothing Chris- 
 tianity ! how cruelly is thy sweet simplicity cor- 
 rupted and abused! What a mass of confusion 
 does this good man make of that best of Heaven’s 
 gifts—the Gospel of Christ ! 
 
 XII. 
 
 “* Blessed be Gop, even the God of ALL com- 
 ‘“SRORT.” | 
 
 Mr. Jones has thought proper to mutilate this 
 text, and to comment upon it accordingly. He 
 argues very unreasonably, with the view of proving 
 that “ the God of all comfort” must be the Com- 
 Jorter, that is, the “ Holy Spirit, a Person in the 
 “unity of God.” He proceeds—* If there be a 
 ‘“* God distinct from him who claims that title, 
 then he is not the Comforter, but one of two: 
 and two Divine Comforters, like two Almighties, 
 ‘© would make two Gods; which is not a principle 
 ‘* of Christianity, but of heathen idolatry.” 
 
 Now the text itself shows that it is not the 
 Holy Spirit that is here meant, for it stands thus: 
 ‘* Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord 
 ‘“* Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the 
 
 F 
 
 ce 
 
 ee 
 
 (p. 66.) 
 2 Cor. i. 3 
 
(p. 68.) 
 
 1 Cor. ii. 11. 
 
 66 
 ¢¢ God of all comfort.” Then, according to Mr. 
 
 Jones’s system, there are 7wo Comforters. Does 
 he not here accuse his Church of idolatry ? 
 
 XIL 
 
 « For what man knoweth the things of a man 
 ‘© save the Sprrit of a man which is IN HIM ? 
 ‘¢ Even so, the things of Gop knoweth none 
 «* (gdec) but the SPIRIT OF GoD.” 
 
 This text has been strongly insisted upon by 
 other writers as well as by Mr. J ones, to prove 
 the co-essentiality of the Holy Spirit. Now, 
 -¢ we admit the Holy Spirit to be a Person 
 distinct from the Father and the Son, the text 
 absolutely excludes two Persons of the Trinity 
 from the knowledge of the things of God! ‘‘ The 
 «« things of God knoweth none” (sds, not one) 
 put the Holy Ghost—the third Person of the 
 Trinity! Mr. Jones has inserted the Greek word 
 injudiciously, for it makes the weakness of his 
 argument more obvious. The Apostle’s reasoning 
 is simply this: As the things of a man are known 
 to him only by the thinking principle, or spirit in 
 him, so in like manner the things of God are 
 known to himself by that spirit, or attribute of 
 omniscience which he alone possesses. There 
 ‘s no kind of allusion toa third Person in the 
 
 text. 
 
67 
 
 MLV: (p. 69.) ° 
 
 “ The THINGS OF Gop knoweth no man.” 1 Cor. ii. 11. 
 “ But the natural man receiveth not the Ibid. ver. 14. 
 “* THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF Gop.” 
 The first of these scraps is picked out of the 
 middle of Mr. Jones’s preceding text. This, how- 
 ever, is of no consequence, for neither of the 
 passages have any connection with his subject. 
 The meaning is as clear as the light of day, 
 namely: The mind of the natural or worldly 
 man is so averse from spiritual instruction, that 
 he cannot receive or comprehend it; such things 
 are “foolishness unto him.” Mr. Jones Says, 
 ‘* The Scripture makes no distinction, further 
 ** than that of personality, between God and 
 “ the Spirit of God.” But where is this per 
 sonality expressed? There is nothing of the kind 
 to be discovered in either of the texts. 
 
 XV. (p. 70.) 
 
 ‘* Thou shalt not TEMpr the Lord thy Gop.” — Matt. iv. 7. 
 “* How is it that ye have agreed to TEMPT the Acts y. 9, 
 ‘* SPIRIT OF THE LORD ?” 
 These two texts are precisely to the same pur- 
 pose as those given in Article VIII., where Mr. 
 Jones’s argument is answered. The only dif- 
 ference is in the words “lie to the Holy Spirit,” 
 in the former, and “ tempt the Spirit of the Lord,” 
 in the latter. 
 
(p. 71.) 
 Gen. vi. 3. 
 
 (p. 71.) 
 
 Luke xi. 20. 
 
 Matt. xii. 28. 
 
 68 
 
 XVI. 
 
 “ And the Lorp said, My Sprriv shall not 
 “ always strive with man.” 
 
 “ This,” says Mr. Jones, “is called, in 1 Pet. 
 «© III. 20, the long suffering of God.” 
 
 It is unnecessary to notice the different con- 
 structions that have been put upon the passage in 
 St. Peter’s Epistle, from which Mr. Jones quotes a 
 few words. The Divine grace, or the assistance 
 of the Holy Spirit, is offered to all who will pro- 
 perly seek it; but if it be resisted, or quenched, 
 it cannot be expected that it will always strive 
 with man. Surely it is a violent straining of the 
 text from Genesis, to suppose that the words My 
 Spirit, as they are there used, mean another 
 Person, equal in power and Spee with the ra 
 oysalh Father ! 
 
 XVII. 
 
 « If I with the FINGER of GoD cast out 
 “ devils.” 
 
 Mr. Jones observes that “the parallel place in 
 «© St. Matthew’s Gospel has it thus:’—“ If I 
 ‘* with the Spirit of Gop cast out devils.” 
 
 Mr. Jones’s arguments from the texts he selects, 
 are frequently so unreasonable as to make it dif- 
 ficult to reply to them with seriousness. He could 
 not easily have brought two texts together more 
 unfit for his purpose. If the Evangelists had 
 understood that the “ Spirit of God” meant a 
 
69 
 
 third Person, equal with the Almighty Father, 
 it cannot be believed that St. Luke would have 
 designated that Being by so irreverent a phrase 
 as the finger of God, Aauvlrw Ox! 
 
 We continually meet with such expressions as 
 ‘* the hand of God,” ‘‘ the arm of God,” “ the 
 «© power of God,” &c. &c.; they all mean the 
 same thing, but none of. them point, in any way, 
 to a third Person in the Godhead. Mr. Jones 
 will not admit that our Lord’s power of working 
 miracles was derived even from the Father, but 
 maintains that the power was underived, and in- 
 herent in himself; yet by the use he makes of 
 the text from Matthew, it appears that the aid of 
 the third Person was necessary upon this occasion. 
 He says, that the miracle “was the act of the 
 “* Spirit, therefore the Spirit is God himself.” 
 The text, like many others, is unintelligible so 
 long as we retain the idea of the Spirit’s per- 
 sonality. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 ‘* The hand of the LorD Gop fell there upon 
 “© me—and HE (the Lord God) put forth the 
 ‘© form of an hand, and took me by a lock of 
 ‘© mine head, and the Spirit lifted me up,” &c. 
 
 Mr. Jones reasons thus :—“ The name of the 
 ‘« Lord God and the name of the Spirit do both 
 ‘* belong to the same Person, therefore the SPIRIT 
 ‘* is the Lorp Gon.” . 
 
 That the name of the Spirit and the name of 
 
 (We see) 
 Ezek. viii. 1. 
 
(p. 73.) 
 
 Acts iv. 24, 
 25. 
 
 70 
 
 the Lord do both belong to the same Person 
 cannot be disputed, because it is the Spirit of the 
 Lord. But there are many other names which do 
 equally belong to the Lord, as noticed in the last 
 article; Mr. Jones would not say that these names 
 constitute so many Persons in the Deity. In the 
 present instance, “the hand of the Lord” might 
 as reasonably be considered a distinct Person. 
 
 It must be recollected that the Prophet is re- 
 lating a vision, not an actual occurrence. The 
 expressions in the text are precisely of the same 
 import as those used by St. John in the Apocalypse, 
 ——‘* IT was in the Spirit,” “He carried me away 
 ‘© in the Spirit,’ &c. Ezekiel is declaring the 
 judgments which the Almighty had denounced 
 against the Israelites for their idolatry, concluding 
 with these words:— They shall know that | 
 ‘© am the Lord,” therefore Mr. Jones’s doctrine 
 of plurality in the Deity, instead of being sup- 
 ported, is rather denied. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 ‘‘ They lifted up their voice to GoD with one 
 ‘¢ accord, and said, LorD, thou art GoD which 
 ‘© hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all 
 ‘that therein is: WHo by the mouth of thy 
 ‘© servant DAVID hast said,” &c. 
 
 Mr. Jones affirms that “the terms Lorp and 
 «© Gop are here used to express the Divinity of 
 “ the Hoty Guost;” and, to prove it, quotes 
 
71 
 
 St. Peter, “ The Hoty GHost spake by the 
 ‘© mouth of DAVID.” 
 
 Nothing can be more clear than that the 
 words Lord and God, in the texts now quoted, are 
 applied to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 for it is continued thus:—‘ Of a truth against 
 “ thy Holy Child Jesus, whom thou _ hast 
 «© anointed,” &c. — 
 
 The Almighty Father endued the Prophets of 
 old with his Holy Spirit, and therefore it is in 
 some parts of Scripture said, ‘‘ God (the Father of 
 ‘* our Lord Jesus Christ) spake unto the Fathers 
 ‘* by the Prophets.” (Heb. 1. 1.) In others, 
 ‘* Holy men spake as they were moved by the 
 « Holy Spirit. (2 Pet. 1. 21.) And again, ‘‘ By 
 ‘« the Spirit of Christ which was in them.” 
 (1 Pet. 1.11.) All these expressions refer to the 
 self-same Spirit; but, if we divest our minds of 
 prejudice, we shall find no intimation of a third 
 Person as the giver of it. 
 
 Mr. Jones, in continuation, reasons thus :—‘‘ It 
 ‘* was the Lorp Gop oF ISRAEL who SPAKE 
 «* by the mouth of his holy Prophets (Luke I. 68, 
 «* 70), but then it is written—Well spaKkE the 
 «* Hoty Guost by Esaias the Prophet” (Acts 
 XXVIII. 25), therefore the Holy Ghost is the 
 « Lorp Gop of Israel.” 
 
 It is truly surprising to see how a man of learn- 
 ing could thus suffer his prejudice to stifle his 
 understanding. The very passage which he 
 
(p. 74.) 
 
 Ps. exxxix. 
 
 (p. 74.) 
 Luke 1. 32. 
 
 72 
 
 quotes from St. Luke refutes his argument, for it 
 runs thus: ‘‘ Zacharias was filled with the Holy 
 ‘* Spirit, and prophesied, saying, Blessed be the 
 ‘* Lord God of israel.” Thus, the text, instead 
 of identifying, makes a marked distinction between 
 the Holy Spirit and the Lord God of Israel, the 
 giver of the Spirit. 
 
 XX. 
 
 ‘‘ Whither shall I go from THY SPIRIT? or 
 ‘‘ whither shall I go from thy presence? If I 
 ‘* ascend up into Heaven, ‘THOU art there.” 
 
 Mr. Jones remarks, that ‘‘ The terms Thou and 
 “« Thy Spirit are equivalent.” As the words are 
 used in this place, I believe he is right; but at 
 the same time I cannot think that the expression 
 Thy Spirit, refers to any other Being than the 
 Almighty Father, the Fountain of Spirit. If the 
 words Thy Spirit could be proved to signify 
 another person, the same argument must prove 
 Thy Presence to be another person also. Such 
 expressions as Thy presence, Thy Spirit, Thy 
 power, Thy might, &c., &c., are frequent in the 
 Scriptures, and are synonimous terms. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 “ He shall be great, and shall be called the Son 
 “ of the HIGHEST.” 
 
 I dare not trust my pen to follow Mr. Jones 
 minutely through his comment upon this text. 
 
i) 
 
 However well it might have been intended, I am 
 constrained to say that his method of treating the 
 subject is highly injurious to Christianity. A 
 young Student could hardly read his: exposition 
 without being reminded of some of the grossest 
 legends of heathen mythology. Mr. Jones argues 
 with the view of proving that the Holy Ghost, or 
 third Person of the Trinity, is the Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, concluding with these words : 
 “ Therefore the Holy Ghost is God and the 
 “ Highest.’ Now, the Holy Scriptures, as well 
 as the Creeds and Liturgy of our Church, declare 
 the Almighty Being, or, as Mr. Jones would say, 
 the first Person of the Trinity, to be the Father of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ; yet, here, to support his 
 argument, Mr. Jones affirms, that the third Person 
 is his Father. O, what a mass of confusion and 
 contradiction does this doctrine make of the whole 
 system of Christianity ! 
 
 The incarnation of our Lord, is a mystery far 
 beyond our comprehension. St. Luke uses the 
 words Holy Spirit, and Power of the Highest, as 
 expressive of the same thing; and they are so 
 used in various parts of the Bible. All that we 
 can know, or ought to presume to explain of the 
 matter, is expressed by St. John in this short 
 sentence—“ The Word was made Flesh.” The 
 plain, humble Christian, who has not allowed his 
 mind to be distracted by theological subtleties, 
 will carefully abstain from rash or revolting specu- 
 
 & 
 
{p. 10; 76.) 
 
 74 
 
 lations, regarding the manner of our Lord’s 
 incarnation; but will rest satisfied, under this 
 reflection, that HE who, by his Almighty power, 
 created the first Adam, could find no difficulty in 
 giving a human body to the last, in whatever way 
 was best suited to his merciful purpose. 
 
 XXII. 
 
 Mr. Jones here refers to the 6th ch. of Isaiah, 
 where, he observes, ‘‘ The Prophet tells us he saw 
 ‘ the Lorp oF Hosts, and heard the voice of 
 ‘* the LORD, SAYING, Go tell this people, hear 
 «* ye indeed but understand not. Yet, in the 
 « XXVIII. of Acts, these very words are de- 
 clared to have been spoken by the HoLy 
 Guost; therefore the Hoty GuostT is the 
 Lorp oF Hosts.” 
 
 This is only a repetition of a former argument, 
 and can be answered only as it was before—that 
 whatever was dictated by the Holy Spirit was 
 dictated by.the Lord of Hosts, the giver of that 
 Spirit. It may not be improper, however, to re- 
 mark, that the passage quoted from Isaiah, in the 
 28th ch. of Acts, is mentioned in no fewer than 
 five other places in the New Testament*, and the 
 Holy Ghost is not even named in any one of them. 
 This, I conceive, would not have been the case, if 
 
 A 
 ”~ 
 
 on 
 nm 
 
 Laat 
 ”~ 
 
 * Matt. 13. 14; Mark 4. 12; Luke 8. 10; John 12. 40; 
 and Rom. 11. 8. 4 
 
75 
 
 the Evangelists had entertained the opinion so 
 confidently avowed by Mr. Jones. 
 
 Here Mr. Jones closes his Scriptural evidence 
 with the following observation :—*“ The article of 
 “* the Holy Ghost’s supreme and absolute Divinity 
 ** being now established in the plainest terms, I 
 ‘* shall proceed to answer, from the Scripture, the 
 ‘* objections usually made against it from thence.” 
 
 And here I may say, as I did before, that if 
 these objectors have nothing more to say for 
 themselves than Mr. Jones has said for them, 
 they must, indeed, be very stupid people. He 
 marks the heretical texts as he did in the former 
 section, thus +. 
 
 XXIII. (p. 76.) 
 
 “ There is NONE good but ONE, that is Gop.” + Matt. xix. 
 
 Mr. Jones argues, that, in the One who is said ma 
 to be good, three persons are signified; and, to 
 prove that the Holy Ghost is mcluded, he quotes 
 from the 143rd Psalm,—“ THy SPirir Is GOOD.” 
 
 The Spirit then being good, and none good but 
 God, the Spirit must be God, “ even the only true 
 ‘“* and Supreme God !” 
 Surely, this kind of logic requires no answer. 
 The text itself cannot be properly advanced in 
 support of either side of the question. The ex- 
 pression was used in consequence of the style in 
 which the Ruler addressed our Lord—Asdacxere 
 ayate——“* Good, or excellent Teacher.” This was 
 the style in which the Jewish Rabbins were ad- 
 
(p. 78.) 
 + Matt. iii. 
 16. 
 
 76 
 
 dressed, and our. Lord, who took frequent occasion 
 to reprove the Jewish teachers for their corrupt- 
 ness, replied in the words quoted, which, I 
 conceive, had no other meaning than this—* The 
 “only good and perfect Teacher is God.” Be 
 this as it may, Mr. Jones has certainly gained 
 nothing by his argument. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 “ The Spirit oF God.” 
 
 Mr. Jones quotes this as a text urged by his 
 opponents. “ The Spirit,” say they, “ is not God, 
 “ because he is only the Spirit of God.” —_ But he 
 undertakes to prove that the Spirit of Jehovah is 
 Jehovah himself, and with this view he quotes 
 from Judges XV. 14—‘‘ The spirit of Jehovah 
 ‘* CAME upon Samson.” ‘* Yet,” continues Mr. 
 Jones, ‘‘ at ch. XVI. 20, it is said that Jehovah 
 “< himself DEPARTED from him;” and he thus 
 concludes—‘‘ Till it can be shown that the person 
 ‘“ who came upon him was one, and the person 
 “ who departed was another, it is undeniable 
 ‘* that the Spirit, though said to be or Jehovah, 
 ‘¢ is strictly and properly Jehovah himself !” 
 
 Now, as Mr. Jones has not proved that any 
 person either came upon Samson or departed 
 
 from him, he has given himself a great deal of 
 
 trouble to no purpose. The passage from the 
 15th ch. of Judges he has quoted unfairly, as he 
 does frequently: it stands thus—* The Spirit of 
 
7 
 
 “ the Lord came mightily upon him.’ He has 
 suppressed the word mightily ; it does not well 
 accord with the notion of a person, for it shows 
 that the Spirit is given in greater or less degree, 
 according to the will of the Giver. It would not 
 be easy to find an argument more directly opposed 
 to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit’s personality 
 than this, which Mr. Jones has urged in support 
 of his supreme Divinity. 
 
 XXV. (p- 79.) 
 
 “ Gop also bearing them witness with—gifts of + Heb. ii. 4. 
 “ the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.” 
 
 Mr. Jones gives this text as one pleaded by his 
 opponents, to prove that the Holy Ghost is sub- 
 servient to the will of another, and therefore can- 
 not be the supreme and true God. But he 
 proposes to prove that this is an error, and even 
 blasphemy, for that these gifts are the gifts of the 
 Spirit himself, and not of another; and with this 
 view he quotes— 
 
 “ All these worketh that one and the self-same \ Cor. xii. 
 “ Spirit, dividing to every man severally as HE A 
 “ (even he himself) WILLETH.” 
 
 These two texts, in the way Mr. Jones has 
 used them, contradict each other in plain broad 
 terms; whereas, if fairly read, they are perfectly 
 consistent. An attentive perusal of the whole 
 chapter, from which Mr. Jones takes his second 
 text, must convince an unprejudiced. reader (not- 
 
78 
 
 withstanding any grammatical cavil) that the 
 pronoun /f7e relates to “ God, who worketh all in 
 « all,’ and by whom “ the manifestation of the 
 “ Spirit 7s given to every man to profit withal.” 
 (v. 6, 7.) 
 
 The Holy Spirit was divided among the Teach- 
 ers of the primitive Church, according to the wise 
 design of God, the Giver of it, as is shown at the 
 28th v. of the same chapter: ‘‘ Gop hath set 
 ‘© some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily 
 «© Prophets, thirdly Teachers,” &c. It may be 
 observed, too, that the word pegcuos, translated 
 gifts in the first text, ought to have been dis- 
 tributions, which perfectly accords with the con- 
 struction I have put on the two texts. But the 
 word is extremely unfavourable to the notion of 
 the Spirit’s personality, it being impossible that a 
 person could be distributed among the members 
 of the Church. 
 
 Grievous have been the dissentions, and fright- 
 ful the conflicts, which this Athanasian doctrine has 
 occasioned! Among other points, the procession 
 of the Holy Spirit became the subject of furious 
 debate in the fifth century, and caused a schism 
 between the eastern and western churches; the 
 former maintaining that he proceeds from the 
 Father only,—the latter, from both the Father 
 and the Son. This disagreement continues to 
 this day, between the Greek Church and that of 
 Rome. Mr. Jones seems at length to have settled 
 
79 
 
 the matter, -by affirming, that he proceeds from 
 himself, “ even as he himself willeth.” 
 
 Mr. Jones quotes but one other text, as pleaded 
 by the party whom he opposes. 
 
 XXVI. (p. 80.) 
 
 “* The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us.” + Rom. viii. 
 
 *‘ It is argued,” says Mr. Jones, ‘‘ that the a 
 ‘* Spirit is not God, because he maketh tnter- 
 ** cession with God, and God, as it is imagined, 
 ** cannot zntercede with himself; but it is wicked 
 ‘* and false to say that he cannot, for God recon- 
 ** ciled the world TO HIMSELF, and it was done 
 ** by Intercession !”’ 
 
 As the text itself will occur in another place, it 
 is unnecessary to comment upon it here. (See p. 93.) 
 
 To Mr. Jones’s argument, I will only oppose 
 the opinion of a learned prelate, Bishop Tomline. 
 He says, ‘‘ Intercession is not an act which can be 
 ‘* attributed to God the Father, neither can he be 
 ‘* said to intercede for us, according to the power 
 «* which is in him*.” 
 
 Our modern Fathers, like those of old, fre- 
 quently contradict each other, when they treat of 
 this doctrine. It must be observed, that the 
 intercession mentioned in the text is supposed. to- 
 be the act of the third Person in the Trinity ; 
 then, according to Bishop. Tomline, one of the 
 
 * Elements.of Christian Theology, Vol. Il. p. 281. 2nd Edit.. 
 
No. 1. 
 
 10. 
 
 SO 
 
 Persons possesses a power which another is 
 devoid of ! It appears to me, that every argu- 
 ment urged as proof of the Spirit’s personality 
 leads to some difficulty of this kind. 
 
 I have now gone through Mr. Jones’s argu- 
 ments in proof of “ the supreme and absolute 
 “ Divinity of the Holy Spirit,” and I must say, 
 his labours cannot tend to raise his reputation in 
 the estimation of attentive and reflecting readers. 
 Whilst he professes to have established the pomt 
 in the plainest terms, he has by no means made it 
 clear that this Spirit is a Person, and the third 
 Person of a Trinity. 
 
 The arguments and Scriptural texts which I 
 have met with in the writings of Divines, to prove 
 that the Holy Spirit is a Person in the Godhead, 
 and not a mere energy operating upon the mind, 
 are the following :— 
 
 He is called another Comforter, promised to be 
 sent to the Apostles after our Lord’s departure. 
 He is said to teach all things. 
 
 To bring all things to remembrance. 
 
 To guide into all truth. 
 
 To show things to come. 
 
 To convince the world of sin, of righteous- 
 ness, &c. . 
 
 To search all things, even the deep things of God. 
 
 To change men into the image of Christ. 
 
 He is declared to be eternal. 
 
 To have raised Christ from the dead. 
 
Si 
 
 To make intercession for Saints. 
 
 He commissions to the work of the Ministry. 
 
 He may be grieved. 
 
 Blasphemy against him is declared to be un- 
 pardonable. 
 
 This list contains all that I recollect to have 
 heard or read, as proofs of the Holy Spirit’s’ per- 
 sonality and supreme Divinity. I have arranged 
 the heads so as to afford facility in remarking 
 upon them; and will now quote the Scriptural 
 texts upon which the several positions are founded. 
 
 The first six relate to our Lord’s promise. that 
 he would send to the Apostles a Spiritual guide 
 and Instructor, after his departure from them. 
 
 He is called in Scripture, another Comforter. 
 
 This is founded on the following text :— 
 
 “ I will pray the Father, and He shall give you 
 ‘““ another Comforter, that he may abide with you 
 © for ever.” 
 
 Here it is plainly declared that this Comforter, 
 or rather Monitor, is given by the Father. 1 
 have inserted the text in this place, because it is 
 one of those constantly urged as a proof of the 
 personality of the Holy Spirit. Having remarked 
 upon it at the opening of this section, it is un- 
 necessary to add any thing farther here. 
 
 He is said to teach all things. 
 
 | and 
 To bring all things to remembrance. 
 
 No, 11. 
 12. 
 13. 
 14, 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Johnxiv. 16, 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 a 
 Ve 
 
 ‘* But the Comforter, (which is) the Holy Johnxiv. 26. 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 «© Ghost, whom the Father will send m my 
 «© name, he shall teach you all things, and bring 
 «* all things to your remembrance whatsoever I 
 «* have said unto you.” 
 
 I remarked before that the Apostles could not 
 have expected that the assistance thus promised 
 to them, was to be afforded by a person whom 
 they were to see, and with whom they were to 
 converse; the Acts and the Epistles plainly show 
 that it was a light shed upon their minds, and this 
 light is, in the text now’ quoted, again declared 
 to be given by the Father, in the name of, or 
 through, his ever-blessed Son. Whether this il- 
 luminating principle emanates immediately from 
 the source of light, or is infused into the mind by a 
 subordinate spirit, it is, I conceive, impossible for 
 us to know, and therefore it seems to be a question 
 which cannot “ tend to Godly edifying.” When 
 I see that our Lord encourages us to hope that 
 his “ Heavenly Father will give the Holy 
 «© Spirit to them that ask him,” (Luke 11. .13,) 
 I find it hard to believe that a third Person, as the 
 Dispenser of this gift, is meant by the term Holy 
 Spirit. The Scriptures lead us to believe that 
 ministering Spirits are employed in effecting the 
 merciful purposes of the Most High, but I cannot 
 find any proof of the kind of personality ascribed 
 to the Holy Spirit by Mr. Jones and other writers 
 deemed orthodox. . 
 
 The 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters of St. John’s 
 
85 
 
 Gospel contain expressions more favourable to 
 the doctrine of the individual personality of the 
 Holy Spirit than any others in the Bible; yet, 
 upon an attentive perusal of them, I cannot think 
 that the notion of a third Person in the Deity can 
 possibly be inferred. I am persuaded that the 
 frequent use of the pronoun HE (exeivos) in these 
 chapters, in reference to the Spirit, has great in- 
 fluence on the minds of readers in general. The 
 effect, I believe, would have been very different, 
 if, instead of “ He shall teach you,” it had been 
 written “ Zhe same shall teach you;” as it is, for 
 instance, in the 12th ch. 48th v. of St: John:-— 
 “The word that I have spoken, the same (exervog) 
 ** shall judge him,” &c. In the 17th ch. 27th v. of 
 St. Matthew, the same pronoun is applied to the 
 piece of money which our Lord desired Matthew 
 to pay to the collector of tribute, “ That (ensivog 
 ** take and give unto them.” 
 
 This pronoun is used with considerable latitude 
 in the Scriptures. Mr. Parkhurst, in his Greek 
 Lexicon to the New Testament, gives the follow- 
 ing definition of exéivoc :—“ That there, as we say; 
 ** or as the French, celui-la;” this he adds to its 
 literal meaning, HE. | 
 
 The unphilosophical system, of giving genders 
 to inanimate things in other languages, but ra- 
 tionally excluded from our own, sometimes oc- 
 casions a degree of ambiguity in translation. And 
 here it is important to remark, that the word 
 
84 
 
 Paraclete (Tagunryros), translated Comforter is, in 
 the Greek, a masculine noun, and Spirit (IIvevue) 
 neuter: therefore, the rules of grammar make it 
 necessary that the masculine article and pronoun 
 be used in reference to the former. On the other 
 hand, where Sprrit is clearly the antecedent, we 
 find the neuter pronoun used, as in John 7. 39, 
 ‘¢ He spake of the Spirit which they should re- 
 © ceive;”? in Rom. 8. 16—*“ The Spirit itself 
 «* beareth witness ;” and in other texts. Now it 
 will be found, upon a careful examination of the 
 three chapters I have mentioned, that in every 
 instance where the masculine article and pro- 
 noun are used, the Paraclete is either the ex- 
 ‘pressed or obviously implied antecedent. ‘The 
 26th v. of the 15th ch., as it is given in our 
 version, seems to be an exception, but this is oc- 
 casioned by a deviation from the original. The 
 text, as we have it, stands thus :—* When the 
 «« Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you 
 «* from the Father, (even) the Spirit of truth 
 ‘‘ which proceedeth from the Father, fe shall 
 ‘© testify of me.” Now, in the Greek text, the 
 words, “ the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from 
 ‘© the Father,” arein a parenthesis. This is omitted 
 in our translation, and the word even is inserted. 
 before “ the Spirit,” though not in the original, 
 which seems to make the Spzrzt the proper ante- 
 cedent instead of the Paraclete, as it obviously is 
 in the Greek. 
 
85 
 
 If we found our creed upon articles and pro- 
 nouns, we may give personality to very many 
 things ; for instance, in Mark 13. 28, we read— 
 “* Now learn a parable of the fig-tree: when Her 
 ‘** branch is yet tender,” &c. In Matt. 26. 52— 
 ‘* Put up thy sword again into Hs place ;” and 
 many other expressions of the same kind. 
 
 I have dwelt more particularly upon the use of 
 the pronoun personal in these passages in St. 
 John’s Gospel, because I well remember the time 
 when I clung to it myself, as affording some sup- 
 port to the Athanasian doctrine. 
 
 I cannot see that any thing concerning a third 
 Person in the Deity can be inferred from the ope- 
 rations of the Spirit, mentioned in the text last 
 quoted. 
 
 He is said to guide into all truth. 
 
 and 
 
 To show things to come. 
 
 ‘* Howbeit, when he the Spirit of truth is come, 
 ‘* he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not 
 ** speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, 
 * (that) shall he speak: and he will show you 
 ** things to come.” 
 
 Here, again, it is clear that the personal pro- 
 nouns are the relatives of Paraclete, named at the 
 
 an 
 
 beginning of the passage (v. 7); and it has been 
 noticed, that the words, “ the Spirit of truth,” are 
 -1n some manuscripts placed in a parenthesis. 
 
 The first clause, “ the guide into all truth,” 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 Se 
 
 John xvi. 13. 
 
86 
 
 comes under the observations I made on the pre- 
 ceding text. The next passage, “ he shall not 
 ‘* speak of himself,” &c., is equally ambiguous, 
 whether it be considered as referring to a person or 
 to inspiration. 
 
 That a Being said to be equal with the Al- 
 mighty Father should not speak of himself, but 
 merely report whatsoever he might hear, is an 
 idea that cannot be admitted; it is plain, therefore, 
 that the words cannot be taken in their literal 
 sense. ae 2a 
 
 The most plausible exposition I have met with 
 is to the following effect:—This Spiritual guide 
 will not suggest any new doctrine to your minds, 
 but will refresh your memories, and confirm the 
 truth of that which you have heard from me; and 
 will also enable you to foresee such things as may | 
 be necessary for the furtherance of the important 
 work committed to your charge. 
 
 There are many passages in the writings of St. 
 John which appear to be incompatible with the 
 idea of a third Person as the Paraclete or In- 
 structor. ‘This Spiritual guide is repeatedly de- 
 clared to be given by the Father or the Son. 
 
 Our Lord, speaking of this “Spirit of truth,” 
 says, “ He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you ;” 
 and immediately adds—* I will not leave you 
 ‘* comfortless (or orphans), I will come to you.” 
 (John 14.17, 18.) And at the 6th v.—* I am the 
 ** way, the truth, and the life; zo man cometh 
 
87 
 
 «* unio the Father but by mx.” In the first 
 Epistle of St. John (2. 27) we read—* The anoint- 
 “ing which ye have recewed of him (Christ) 
 ** abideth in you, and ye need not that any man 
 “‘ teach you; but the same anointing, teacheth 
 “ you of all things, and is truth.” Again, at the 
 3rd ch, 24th v. “ Hereby we know that he (Christ) 
 ‘‘ abideth in us, by ‘the Spirit which he hath 
 «* given Us.” 
 
 That the anointing here mentioned means Spi- 
 ritual light cannot be disputed, and this anointing 
 is declared to be the act of our Lord Christ. We 
 find nothing in these texts to support the doctrine 
 of a third Person as the source and dispenser of 
 Spiritual assistance; on the contrary, it seems to be 
 clearly denied. . 
 
 It is declared that the Comforter will convince 
 the world of sin, &c. 
 
 ‘* When he is come, he will reprove the world 
 of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment.” 
 
 The meaning of the words, “ He will reprove,” 
 or rather, “ he will convince the world of sin,” &c. 
 is explained in the three succeeding verses. The 
 question is, by whom was this conviction to be 
 wrought? Was it to be effected by a third Per- 
 son in the Deity, or by the ministry of the Apostles, 
 endued with the assistance our Lord had promised 
 them? The same Apostle who penned the text 
 has answered the question, by affirming that it was 
 
 ee 
 
 No. 6. 
 
 John xvi. 8. 
 
No. 7. 
 ‘1 Cor. 11. 10. 
 
 88 
 by the anointing received of Christ, and that by 
 Etim this Spirit is given. 
 
 The Spirit is said to search all things, &c. 
 
 ‘« For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the 
 “« deep things of God.” 
 
 The meaning of the whole passage evidently is, 
 Man cannot search into these deep things merely by 
 his natural abilities, but, as expressed at the begin- 
 ning of the verse, “ God hath revealed them unto 
 us by his Spirit.” Is it not plainly stated here, that 
 the Spirit is the gift of God ?. When Peter confessed 
 his Master to be “ the Christ, the Son of the living 
 «« God,” was this revealed to him by a third 
 Person in the Godhead? No, our Lord replied, 
 “ Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, 
 “ but my Father which is in heaven.” It was 
 revealed to the Apostle by the Spirit shed on him 
 by the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. St. Paul 
 says to the Ephesians (1. 17, 18), that he ceases 
 not to pray, “ That the God of our Lord Jesus 
 ‘“« Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you 
 ‘* the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the know- 
 ‘* ledge of him,” &c. That this spirit of wisdom 
 and revelation in the knowledge of God is the 
 Paraclete promised by our Lord, which was to 
 «* teach all things, and to show them (the Apos- 
 ‘* tles) plainly of the Father,” is too obvious to 
 admit of a doubt; and it is here affirmed by St. 
 Paul, as it constantly is throughout the New Tes- 
 
89 
 
 tament, to be given by the Father, through his 
 ever-blessed Son. If the Apostles had believed 
 these spiritual gifts to have been dispensed by a 
 third Person in the Deity, surely they would have 
 declared it in plain terms; but nothing of the kind 
 is to be met with in any of their Epistles. 
 
 The Spirit is said to change men into the 
 image of Christ. 
 
 « But we all with open face beholding as in a 
 ‘« glass, the glory of the Lord, are changed into 
 “ the same image, from glory to glory, even as by 
 “ the Spirit of the Lord.” 
 
 The ‘constant practice of straining texts of 
 Scripture, and the frequent mis-application of them, 
 to prove the personality and supreme Divinity of 
 the Holy Spirit, could hardly fail to create a 
 doubt of the doctrine in the mind of a thinking 
 man, however strongly he might be disposed to 
 believe it. | 
 
 There is no difficulty in the text now quoted, 
 unless we make one, by supposing that the Apostle 
 pointed to a third Person in the words—“ the 
 ‘© Spirit of the Lord,” when in truth there is not 
 an expression in the whole Epistle that has any 
 allusion to such a notion. The subject treated in 
 this chapter is one which St. Paul frequently de- 
 scants upon in his Epistles. His reasoning goes to 
 prove the superiority of the Christian Dispensation 
 over the Levitical; or, as he expresses it, of the 
 spirit over the letter. He shows that the vail 
 
 No. 8. 
 
 2 Cor. ui. 18. 
 
Heb. ix. 14. 
 
 90 
 
 still remained upon the hearts and minds of the 
 Jews, “ when Moses is read,” but that the spirit 
 of the Gospel is so plain and consolatory that 
 Christians may look into it as into a mirror, and, 
 by conforming to its precepts, will find, as it were, 
 the image of Christ reflected upon themselves. 
 
 The text, so far from proving the existence of a 
 third Person as the Spzvi¢ here spoken of, plainly 
 denies it; for it is introduced by the words, 
 * Now the Lord (Christ) is that Spirit.” I have 
 inserted the word Christ, though it does not 
 appear in the text; but that it refers to our Lord 
 Jesus is perfectly clear, and is admitted by every 
 Expositor I have met with, Mr. Jones only ex- 
 cepted: that he has misconstrued and misapplied 
 the text, will be shown hereafter. (See p. 133.) 
 
 The Spirit is declared to be eternal. | 
 
 The personality of the Holy Spirit, and his co- 
 eternity with the Almighty Father, are supposed 
 to be proved by the following text :— 
 
 ‘¢ How much more shall the blood of Christ, 
 ‘‘ who, through the eternal Spirit, offered him- 
 ‘* self without spot to God, purge your conscience.” 
 
 Surely, a man must have strong prepossessions 
 before he can persuade himself that the words 
 “ through the eternal Spirit,” as they are used 
 here, point to a third Person. 
 
 Without dwelling upon the acknowledged fact, 
 that many ancient manuscripts, as well as the 
 Vulgate, have it not eternal hut Holy Spirit, I 
 
91 
 
 would appeal to common sense whether the text, 
 when compared with other parts of the same A pos- 
 tle’s writings, can possibly refer to a person 
 distinct from the Almighty Father. An atten- 
 tive perusal of the Gospels and Epistles must 
 convince any unprejudiced person that the mean- 
 ing is-—through the Spirit which was given 
 without measure to our Lord, by which he worked 
 miracles, had power to lay down his life and ¢ake 
 it again, offered himself without spot a‘ sacrifice 
 for the sins of the world, &c.; and which spirit 
 and power our Lord himself repeatedly declared 
 he derived from his Heavenly Father. The use 
 that is made of this text robs our Lord of the 
 merit of his voluntary sacrifice, and ascribes the 
 blessed work of man’s redemption to a third 
 Person in the Deity ! 
 
 St. John has recorded the following words of 
 our Lord :—*‘ Gop so loved the world, that He 
 ** gave -his only-begotten Son, that whosoever 
 ‘* believeth in him should not perish, but have 
 ‘* everlasting life.” (John 3. 16.) Here is no 
 intimation of a third Person; it agrees with the 
 whole tenour of the Gospel, and gives more comfort 
 and satisfaction to the mind than all the argu- 
 ments I have ever heard or read in support of the 
 Athanasian doctrine. 
 
 The next Scriptural authority, alleged as a 
 proof of the Holy Spirit’s Divinity, is very strange. 
 
No. 10. 
 
 1 Pet. ii. 18. 
 
 92 
 
 The Spirit is said to have raised Christ from 
 
 ‘eheldénd' 
 
 «© For Christ also hath once suffered, being put 
 *« to death in the flesh, but co by the 
 «© Spirit.” 
 
 The purpose for which this text is here used, 
 makes the Holy Scripture appear again to contra- 
 dict itself; for it is positively affirmed, in more 
 than twenty places in the New Testament, that 
 our Lord was raised by the power of the Almighty 
 Father. 
 
 The resurrection of our Saviour has ever been 
 considered a most important article of Christian 
 faith. It was the completion of the stupendous 
 work for which he came into the world. It 
 showed that the sacrifice he had offered was 
 accepted of the Almighty Father, and it was the 
 earnest of our own resurrection. St. Paul, in his 
 first Epistle to the Corinthians (15.15. 17), says, 
 “© We have testified of Gop that HE raised up 
 «© Christ : whom he raised not up, if so be that the 
 ‘* dead rise not.” And again, “ If Christ be not 
 ‘* raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your 
 ‘© sins.” We see, then, that this quickening, or 
 raising from the dead, was the end and consum- 
 mation of all that our Lord did and suffered for us 
 on earth. Now, as the use which is made of the 
 former text goes to prove that the sacrifice offered 
 by our Lord was the work of the third Person in 
 
93 
 
 the Trinity, so the present one ascribes this con- 
 summation to the same third Person! Would to 
 God that Christians, instead of being guided by 
 human authority, would learn their doctrines in 
 the Bible! 
 
 The Spirit is said to make intercession for 
 Saints. 
 
 “ The Spirit itself maketh intercession for 
 ‘* us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 
 *« And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what 
 ** is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh 
 ** intercession for the Saints, according to the will 
 ‘* of God.” 
 
 Mr. Jones quoted this text as one urged by his 
 opponents, and it is briefly noticed at Article 
 XXVI.; but being insisted upon by other writers 
 as a proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit, it 
 may be proper here to examine it. 
 
 The text seems to have somewhat perplexed 
 learned. Expositors; for, taken literally, as it 
 stands in our version, it makes the third Person 
 interfere with the office of the second! Though 
 they do not use these very words, it is precisely the 
 meaning of their comments: they are, therefore, 
 obliged to confess that it is not intercession which 
 is here meant, but an excitement of fervency in 
 prayer. Here they are evidently right ; but then 
 a third Person is not necessarily implied. On the 
 other hand, the expression is urged as a cogent 
 proof of the personality of the Spirit; for, say they, 
 
 No. 11. 
 
 Rom. viii. 
 26, 27. 
 
94 
 
 intercession is a personal act, the Spirit makes 
 intercession, therefore the Holy Spirit is a Person. 
 Thus, to support a doctrine, a¢ 7s intercession; to 
 be rid of a difficulty, ¢¢ 7s not intercession*! ‘The 
 translation of the text seems to have been at- 
 tended with some difficulty. It is remarkable, 
 that the very same words (Deovypx ra rvevpeeros), 
 translated “‘ the mind of the Spirit,” are, at the 
 6th v. of the same chapter, rendered “ spiritually 
 “ minded.” Now, admitting that in the Greek 
 idiom the same words often bear a different 
 meaning, the text would certainly be much more 
 intelligible if it had been so translated here. ‘The 
 passage then might be paraphrased thus :—‘ He 
 ‘ that searcheth the hearts knoweth the mind of 
 ‘ those who earnestly seek the aid of his Holy 
 * Spirit, and to them he grants this aid; not only 
 ‘ suggesting proper objects in their supplications, 
 * but exciting a fervency which cannot be ex- 
 * pressed in words, but breaks out from the heart 
 ‘ with sighs and groans, in prayers of intercession 
 * for the Saints: that is, for the preachers of the 
 Gospel, who were everywhere opposed and perse- 
 cuted. I am the more inclined to believe that 
 this is the meaning of the text, because these 
 prayers of intercession are repeatedly desired of 
 the churches by St. Paul; for instance, to the 
 
 * See Bishops Beveridge, Hall, Tomline, Dr. Whitby, Bur- 
 kitt, and other Commentators upon this text. | 
 
95 
 
 Ephesians (6. 18, 19), “ Praying always with all 
 ‘¢ prayer and. supplication 7 the Spirit, and 
 ‘«« watching thereunto with all perseverance and 
 ‘* supplication for all Saints, and for me, that 
 ‘** utterance may be given unto me, that I may 
 ‘© open my mouth boldly :” adding, that for this 
 cause he was ‘‘an ambassador in bonds.” And to 
 the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 5. 25), “ Brethren, 
 «* pray for us ;” and, at the 19th v., “ Quench not 
 “* the Spirit.” 
 
 I can discover no intimation of a third Person 
 in the Deity in any of these passages, nor in any 
 other, when fairly examined, in the whole Bible. 
 
 If the words, ‘‘ He that searcheth the hearts 
 ‘© knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit,” were 
 expressed in plain language, according to the 
 Athanasian idea, the passage would stand thus :-— 
 ** The first Person of the Trinity knoweth what 
 ** is the mind of the third Person, by searching 
 ** his heart!” This, I conceive, plainly shows 
 that the word Spirit, in the text, cannot mean a 
 person in the Godhead. 
 
 The Holy Ghost commissions to the work of 
 the Ministry. 
 
 ‘* Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the 
 ** flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made 
 ** you overseers.” 
 
 Let us compare these words with some other 
 expressions in the various discourses of the same 
 Apostle. 
 
 No. 12. 
 
 Acts xx. 28, 
 
96 
 
 To the Corinthians, he says—“ By the grace 
 ‘of God I am what I am; I laboured more 
 ‘* abundantly than they all: yet. not I, but the 
 ‘¢ grace of God which was, with me.”, (1 Cor. 
 15. 10.) And to the Ephesians (3. 6,'7)—** The 
 ‘« Gospel, whereof I was made a Minister, accord- 
 ‘* ing to the gift of the grace of God.” 
 
 Here the grace of God is evidently equivalent 
 to the Holy Spirit, named in the text from the 
 Acts: there is no allusion to a third Person. 
 Again, the same Apostle acknowledges his minis- 
 terial office to have been conferred upon him by 
 our Lord Christ. “I thank Christ. Jesus our 
 ‘¢ Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted 
 “me faithful, putting me into the ministry.” 
 (1,Tim. 1.,12.) sigh 
 
 This is perfectly consistent: the Almighty Fa- 
 ther “ hath put all things under his feet, and gave 
 ‘‘ him to be the head over all things to the 
 «« Church.” (Ephes. 1. 22.) 
 
 It must be allowed that commissioning to the 
 work of the ministry 1s a highly-important office, 
 committed to him who is made the head over all 
 things to the Church. Now, in the way this text 
 is used, our Lord is superseded as head of the 
 Church, and the third Person of the Trinity in- 
 vested with the authority originally given to Him! 
 
 Thus does this Athanasian doctrine continually 
 turn the whole Scriptures of the New. Testament 
 into confusion and contradiction. 
 
97 
 
 The Holy Spirit may be grieved. 
 
 His personality is supposed to be proved by the 
 following text :-— 
 
 “And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, 
 ‘* whereby ye are sealed unto the day of re- 
 ‘© demption.” | 
 
 This text also occasions some perplexity to 
 writers, for it is agreed on all hands that the word 
 grieve is not to be taken literally, it being impos- 
 sible that the Divine Being could be grieved ; yet 
 we find it urged, in its literal sense, as proof of 
 the Holy Spirit’s personality. The 7th, 11th, and 
 12th verses of the same chapter clearly ascribe to 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, the gift of this Spirit. 
 ‘“ But to every one of us is given grace according 
 ‘“* to the measure of the gift of Christ.’—* And 
 ‘* he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and 
 ** some Evangelists,” &c.—* For the perfecting 
 “* of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry,” &c. 
 It appears plainly, I conceive, that this gift of 
 Christ, is that same Holy Spirit which the Apostle 
 cautions" the Ephesians not to grieve, or quench, 
 as he elsewhere expresses it. 
 
 According to the Athanasian scheme, the terms 
 Holy Spirtt and third Person of the Trinity, 
 are synonymous. It must be admitted, then, 
 that no text of Scripture can fairly be brought 
 forward as proof of the Holy Spirit’s personality, 
 unless these terms may be interchanged without 
 
 H 
 
 No. 13. 
 
 Ephes. iv. 
 50. 
 
98 
 
 destroying the ‘sense of the passage. St. Paul 
 speaks of the same Spirit when he uses the words 
 grieve and quench. Now how absurd would the 
 latter expression appear, if it were written “ Quench 
 «* not the third Person of the Trinity !” 
 
 I feel it painful to be compelled to state the 
 matter in this way, because it seems to savour of 
 sarcasm; but when the Holy Scripture is misused 
 
 ‘for the purpose of supporting a doctrine, it is diffi- 
 
 cult to employ ordinary language in exposing so 
 
 ‘baneful a practice. 
 
 No. 14. 
 Matt. xi. 31. 
 
 The last alleged proof of the Holy Spirit’s per- 
 sonality in the list I have set down, is— 
 
 «* Blasphemy against him is declared to be un- 
 «© pardonable.” 
 
 _ ¢© All manner of blasphemy shall be forgivenun to 
 «¢ men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit 
 «¢ ghall not be forgiven unto men.” 
 
 I believe no Expositor has ventured to explain 
 the blasphemy here mentioned, as against the 
 person of the Holy Spirit: the narrative itself 
 forbids such an idea. Our Lord had worked a 
 notable miracle in the sight of many persons, 
 clearly proving that he was endued with the 
 Spirit of his Heavenly Father ; for so it is stated 
 in the 17th and 18th verses of the same chapter, 
 showing that in our Lord was fulfilled the pro- 
 phecy of Esaias—“ My beloved, in whom my soul 
 «© ig well pleased, I will put my Spurit upon him.” 
 
99 
 
 But the Pharisees imputed the miracle to the 
 power of “ Beelzebub, the prince of devils,” which 
 drew the indignant answer from our Lord. 
 
 That the text cannot, be fairly urged in proof of 
 the Holy Spirit’s personality is obvious, for it would 
 set the third Person above the Father and the 
 Son. “ Au manner of blasphemy may be for- 
 ‘* given excepting only the blasphemy against 
 “‘ the Holy Spirit.” This surely is conclusive 
 against the use which is made of the text. 
 
 Archbishop Secker refers to the texts stated at 
 foot, as proofs of the personality of the Holy 
 Spirit, and of his being the Dispenser of spiritual 
 gifts. Upon a careful examination of these texts, 
 I could discover no proof of personality. In 
 my humble judgment, the contrary is proved by 
 every one of them, excepting only that from’ the 
 2nd ch. 7th v. of Revelation; and to make that 
 answer the Archbishop’s purpose, it must be 
 strained out of the obvious-meaning which the 
 word Spirit bears in other parts of the same 
 book: | cis i 
 
 I cannot but think that the rule which I have 
 proposed for determining whether or not a text of 
 Scripture may be justly urged. in proof of this 
 personality, is fair and unobjectionable. If these 
 
 * Gen. yi. 3. 2 Kings ii. 9. Zech. vii. 12. 
 xli. 38. 1 Chron. xii. 18. Rev. i. 10. 
 Numb, xi. 25, 26. 2 Chron. xv. 1. et py 
 XXiv. 2, Nehem. ix. 30, iv. 2 
 
 1 Sam. x. 10. Ezek. i 2. 
 
100 
 
 texts were submitted to that touchstone—that is, if 
 the words Third Person of the Trinity were substi- 
 tuted for Spirit, it would turn them into nonsense : 
 and if the experiment were fairly tried, I believe 
 the same effect would be produced on the greater 
 part of the texts which have been advanced in 
 support of the Athanasian doctrine. I have 
 thought it proper, however, to give Archbishop 
 Secker’s list, coming from so high authority. 
 
 I have now endeavoured to supply that which 
 Mr. Jones had omitted, namely, to bring forward 
 such passages of Scripture as have been commonly 
 used as proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit. 
 If I have omitted any that have been usually quoted 
 for that purpose, or treated those I have noticed 
 unfairly, I can conscientiously say it was not by 
 design. 
 
 I have truly affirmed, that I searched the Scrip- 
 ture sedulously for many years, in the hope of find- 
 ing some satisfactory proof of this personality ; 
 but I could never find a passage that plainly de- 
 clared it, whilst a number met my eye in which 
 the notion of a Person, applied to the Spzr7t, would 
 be grossly absurd. Nothing of the kind is proved 
 by those texts in which the Holy Spirit is per- 
 sonified, as, “ The Holy Spirit said, separate me 
 ‘© Barnabas and Saul.” Well spake the Holy 
 © Spirit by Esaias,” &c.—Such personification of 
 gifts, virtues, attributes, &c., are common through- 
 out the Bible. Wisdom, Grace, the Law, &c., 
 
101 
 
 are personified in terms quite as strong as any that 
 are used in reference to the Spirit. Grace is 
 mentioned more than fifty times in the New 
 Testament, precisely in the same sense as that in 
 which the Holy Spirit is named ; and is frequently 
 personified in the same way. In the first chapter 
 of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, he express- 
 es his thankfulness for the Divine goodness, in 
 adopting Believers, as children, by Jesus Christ, 
 adding, at the 6th verse, “'To the praise of the 
 ‘* glory of his Grace.” In no part of the Bible 
 is the Spirit personified and deified in language 
 so strong. Many instances of this kind of per- 
 sonification might be adduced, whilst the Holy 
 Spirit is very frequently mentioned in a manner 
 that precludes the idea of personality. To quote 
 the various texts wherein this incompatibility is 
 obvious would be a tedious task; indeed Bishop 
 Tomline, in his able and guarded defence of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, confesses that the ex- 
 pression (Holy Spirit) “is sometimes used to 
 ‘* sionify an attribute, an energy, operation, 
 “* quality, or power of God*.” 
 
 It is hard to believe, that the term Holy Spirit 
 should in some parts of the Scriptures signify a 
 Person equal with the Almighty Father, and in 
 other parts merely a spiritual energy shed upon 
 the human mind! In truth, the Bible is plain 
 
 * Elements of Christian Theology, Vol. I1., p. 186, 2nd Edit. 
 
102 
 
 and intelligible so long as we give the latter mean- 
 ing to the term, but if we consider it as signifying 
 a Person distinct from the Father and the Son, 
 all is confusion and difficulty—sometimes absurdity. 
 
 In what part of the Bible is it declared that the 
 Spirit is the gift of a third Person? ‘This I have 
 never been able to discover ;—on the contrary, it 
 is again and again unequivocally stated to be the 
 gift of the Almighty Father, and obtained through 
 the merits and intercession of his ever-blessed Son. 
 Indeed, our Church seems to betray not only a 
 considerable degree of diffidence upon this point, 
 but also a strange inconsistency between the creeds 
 and the prayers. The former confess the Spirit 
 to be a Person equal with the Father, and to be 
 «© the Lord and giver of life;” and he is declared, 
 by eminent Divines, to be the Dispenser: of 
 spiritual gifts. If he be the giver of these spiritual 
 blessings, why is not £Ze more especially suppli- 
 cated to bestow them? But we find the Mather 
 invoked, throughout the Liturgy, to grant “the 
 ‘* inspiration of his Holy Spirit.” There is but 
 one short sentence of prayer addressed to the Third 
 Person, and even that does not petition for spiri- 
 tual assistance. In these prayers for the gift of 
 the Spirit, the compilers of our Liturgy adhered 
 to the doctrine of the Bible. 5t. Peter, speaking 
 of the Gentile converts, says, “Gop, which 
 ‘* knoweth the hearts, giving them the Holy 
 ‘* Spirit, even as unto us.” (Acts 15. 8.) 
 
103 
 
 It has been argued that visible objects, as the 
 appearance of a Dove descending upon our Saviour 
 at his baptism, and the “ cloven tongues like as of 
 ‘* fire,’ which sat upon each of the Apostles on 
 the day of Pentecost, prove the personality of the 
 Holy Spirit; but this can have no weight on a 
 reflecting mind. The Almighty condescended to 
 give a sensible evidence of his favour upon many 
 occasions, during the earlier stages of the Mosaic 
 dispensation, and the like evidences were granted 
 during the ministry of our Lord and his Apostles, 
 when in the Divine wisdom it was seen to be 
 necessary; but these supernatural appearances 
 afford no proof of a third Person in the Deity. 
 
 To suppose that the Almighty Being came down 
 from Heaven in the form of a Dove, or of lumin- 
 
 ous tongues, is an idea too gross and heathenish | 
 
 to be admitted for a moment; and unless we sup- 
 pose this, nothing to the purpose is proved by 
 these miraculous appearances. | 
 
 The method to which Mr. Jones and other 
 writers resort, for proof of the personality and 
 Divinity of the Holy Spirit, appears to me to be 
 extremely fallacious. By quoting a text of Scrip- 
 ture which ascribes to the Spirit of God a certain 
 effect or operation, and another text ascribing the 
 same kind of operation to God himself; they ima- 
 gine they have proved the existence of two Persons 
 in the Godhead. 
 
 Now, if in the Roman history we read of the 
 
 fot , 
 - Rs el 
 : eS 
 he ee oS 
 
104 
 
 surprising effects produced by the eloquence of 
 Cicero, and in other parts of the book see the same 
 effects ascribed to Cicero himself, are we to suppose 
 that Cicero consisted of two persons, one of his 
 own proper name and the other that of Elo- 
 quence? 1 trust there is nothing profane or 
 irreverent in this comparison: I know no other 
 way of expressing my idea of these arguments. 
 
 Mr. Jones seems not to have been aware of the 
 strange doctrines which might be supported by his 
 method of using the Holy Scriptures. To give but 
 one example (and many might be given), we read, 
 in the 12th ch. Ist v. of the first book of Samuel, 
 the following words :—‘ And Samuel said unto all 
 ‘© Israel, Behold, J have hearkened unto your voice 
 ‘* in all that ye said unto De, and have made a 
 «¢ king over you.” But in other places, it is said 
 that it was Jehovah who hearkened unto their 
 voice, and made a king over them. Now, by Mr. 
 Jones’s method, Samuel is absolutely declared to be 
 Jehovah. 
 
 In concluding my confessions upon this subject, 
 I must recur to the remark I made at the beginning 
 of the section, namely, that when our Lord gave 
 the Apostles the promise of another Guide and 
 Monitor, to teach them all things after his de- 
 parture, it was not personal, but spiritual and 
 mental assistance they were led to expect; and 
 that the matter may be submitted to this plain 
 question, Who is declared to be the giver of this 
 
 ee eee ee” | 
 
105 
 
 spiritual guide ?—In my humble judgment, a plain 
 and satisfactory answer is given in the very words 
 of the promise—“ I will pray the FATHER, and 
 “ He shall give you another Comforter.” (John 
 14.16.) Ican find nothing in the New Testament 
 that contradicts, or that even renders in any degree 
 equivocal, the words here quoted. The promised 
 Paraclete is repeatedly declared to be the gift of the 
 Almighty Father, through his ever-blessed Son ; 
 a third Person is nowhere named as the Giver. 
 
SECTION IIL. 
 
 THE Third Section of Mr. Jones’s work is 
 entitled,—* THE PLURALITY AND TRI- 
 “ NITY OF PERSONS.” 
 
 I confess that the word plurality, as it occurs 
 here, has, to me, a heathenish sound. 
 
 Mr. Jones commences with the argument which 
 has constantly been used in support of the doctrine 
 
 of a plurality of Persons in the Godhead, namely, © 
 
 the use of the plural noun Zlohim, applied to the 
 Creator in many parts of the Old Testament, and 
 especially in the books of Moses. It appears that 
 the words Bara Elohim, that is, the Gods 
 created, occur more than thirty times in the 
 Mosaical record of the creation; and Jehovah 
 Elohim, the Lord thy Gods, above a hundred 
 times in the Law. This noun plural is usually 
 constructed with verbs and pronouns of the siz- 
 gular number; and from this peculiar mode of 
 expression both the plurality and unity of the 
 Godhead has been inferred. 
 
 Of the explanations attempted by Jews, Arians, 
 &c., of this irregularity in grammatical construction 
 
107 
 
 I know nothing, excepting such as have been 
 stated by opposing writers, with the view of 
 exposing their fallacy; and therefore, I suppose, . 
 were not given in the most favourable manner. 
 
 Be this as it may, it appears strange that the 
 argument should be so strongly and so frequently 
 insisted. upon, since it is given up as untenable, even 
 by orthodox Divines. , Bishop Heber, in his able 
 course of the Bampton Lectures, seems to doubt 
 whether it has not been prejudicial rather than 
 serviceable to the cause of orthodoxy; and, in a 
 note, admits that it may be “ an eastern expression 
 showing that the same style is 
 used in the old Scriptures, as a mark of respect 
 towards persons of exalted rank and dignity*. 
 
 It is truly surprising that a doctrine of such 
 awful importance should be built upon, or even 
 
 > 
 
 “ of reverence ; 
 
 supposed to derive strength from, so weak a founda- 
 tion. If the arguments founded on the use of these 
 Hebrew plurals could be in any degree supported 
 by other passages in the writings of Moses and the 
 Prophets, the inference would be greatly strength- 
 ened. If, on the contrary, we meet with passages 
 utterly incompatible with such inference, the argu- 
 ment, though urged by so many writers, must fall 
 to the ground. | 
 
 If we venture to found doctrines upon particular 
 words or phrases, as they stand in the original text 
 
 * Heser’s Bampton Lectures, pp. 197, 198, 2nd Edit. 
 
Deut. 4. 35. 
 
 Ibid. 6. 4. 
 
 Deut. 32.39. 
 
 Isa. 44. 8. 
 
 108 
 
 of the Old Testament, we shall be in danger of 
 falling into grievous errors. For instance, a Poly- 
 theist might plead such expressions as “ God of 
 “ Gods,” “ Lord of Lords,” “ Great is our God 
 “* above all Gods,” and such like, as a proof of a 
 plurality of Deities, differing in dignity and power. 
 It must be admitted, then, that a passage ought to 
 be clear and unequivocal before we consider it as 
 giving support to the most important and awful 
 article of our faith. Let us hear, then, how Moses, 
 in language that cannot be misunderstood, instructs 
 his people. | 
 
 “‘ Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest 
 “ know that the Lord HE is Gop; there is none 
 “ else beside Him.” 
 
 “ Hear, O Israel, the Lord ‘our God is ONE 
 “ Lord.” 
 
 It appears that the word translated God, in this 
 last text, is in the Hebrew given in the plural 
 number; and therefore the text has been much 
 insisted on by several writers, and some of great 
 name, as a proof of plurality ; but it will be satis- 
 factorily shown hereafter, that this is altogether 
 erroneous. (See p. 111.) 
 
 Hear Moses again. 
 
 ** See now that Iam HE, and there is no God 
 “ with ME.” 
 
 And the Prophets. 
 
 “Ts there a God beside ME? Yea there is no 
 “ God; I know not any.” 
 
 OE 
 
109 
 
 ‘ Tam the Lord, and there is none else, there Isa. 45. 5. 
 is no God beside ME.” : 
 “ Have we not all one Father? Hath not one Mal. 2. 10. 
 God created us ?” 
 After all that has been urged on the ground of 
 the noun plural, it is hard to reconcile these pas- 
 sages, and a multitude of others to the same effect, 
 _ with the idea of a plurality of Persons in the God- 
 head. | 
 
 It must be admitted, that the knowledge of the 
 Being who is worshipped, is the fundamental point 
 in religion. Moses surely would not have allowed 
 the people under his care to be in ignorance on 
 this head. If he had held the doctrine of three 
 persons in the Deity he would have declared it to 
 them in the plainest terms; we might reasonably 
 expect to find it reiterated throughout the Penta- 
 teuch ; but in no part of these writings do we 
 meet with such doctrine. There are writers who 
 labour with the view of making it appear, that this 
 doctrine of the Trinity was originally revealed to 
 the Jews, and entirely believed by them; but that 
 in process of time it became neglected and for- 
 gotten! This is altogether incredible. It cannot 
 be believed that God’s peculiar people, “ to whom 
 ‘“ were committed the oracles of God,” and who 
 were so scrupulously correct in their records, espe- 
 cially of all religious and judicial matters ; I say, it 
 cannot be imagined that they could suffer the pri- 
 
 “~ 
 nn 
 
 nw 
 nw 
 
110 
 
 mary article of their religion to be lost and for- 
 gotten. 
 
 Incredible as this must appear to every reflecting 
 mind, it is rendered still more so by the laboured 
 arguments of some writers, to show that though 
 the doctrine was lost among the Jews, it: was 
 retained m the Gentile kingdoms ; having been, as 
 they suppose, handed down by tradition from the 
 Patriarchs ! | . 
 
 It is perfectly clear that the Jews knew nothing 
 of such doctrine at the time our blessed Lord 
 appeared among them. ‘Supposing, then, so incre- 
 dible a thing as that the only people on earth to 
 whom a right knowledge of God had been revealed 
 had forgotten the chief article of their religion, it 
 cannot be doubted that our Lord and his Apostles 
 would have been especially careful to restore it. 
 and that they would, in the most plain and clear 
 language, have taught the doctrine of three Persons 
 in the Godhead. Let us inquire, then, if this doc- 
 trine was delivered in the Gospel. 
 
 It may be remarked, in the first place, that 
 though our Lord severely reproves the Scribes and 
 Pharisees, for having corrupted “ the word of 
 * God,” and of “ making it of none effect through 
 “ their tradition,” (Mark 7. 13,) he never once ac- 
 cuses them, nor their fathers, of having allowed 
 the doctrine of three Persons in the Godhead to 
 be forgotten and lost. This, though only a nega- 
 
111 
 
 tive argument, is certainly a very powerful one, 
 when the importance of the doctrine is taken into 
 consideration. But there appears to be abundance 
 of positive proof that the notion of plurality in the 
 Deity is utterly denied in our Lord’s discourses. 
 When one of the Scribes applied to him, asking, 
 “ Which is the first commandment of all ?” Jesus 
 answered, “ Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is 
 “ one Lord” (Kueios 6 Oeog yuav Kugioc eg ecu). 
 ‘“‘ And thou shalt love the Lord thy God (Kugiov rov 
 * @cov cg) with all thy heart,” &c. ‘The Scribe con- 
 fessed the truth of this doctrine, saying, “ Mor there 
 ‘“* as one God (or: eg ect Oeos), and there is none 
 ** other du¢HE; and to love HIM with all the heart, 
 “ &c., is better than all whole burnt offerings.” 
 
 It is evident, from the narrative, that our Lord 
 conceived a good opinion of this Scribe, and as the 
 words he had used completely denied a plurality 
 in the Godhead, it cannot be imagined that our 
 Lord would have allowed him to continue in error 
 upon so important a point, if it had been the true 
 but forgotten doctrine. But how different was the 
 result! “ When Jesus saw that he answered 
 “ discreetly, he said unto him, thou art not far 
 “ from the kingdom of God.” (Mark 12. 29 to 34.) 
 
 It is important to remark, that our Lord an- 
 swered the question of this Scribe by a quotation 
 from the 6th ch. 4th v. of Dueteronomy. Now, 
 Archbishop Secker, Dr. Wells, and other writers, 
 urge this very text as a proof of both plurality 
 
(p. 89.) 
 
 112 
 
 and unity in the Deity ; because, say they, 
 the word translated Lord is in the Hebrew sin- 
 gular, and God plural. But it cannot be believed 
 that our Lord would misquote a text of Scripture 
 
 in a way that could not fail to mislead his hearers 
 
 upon a fundamental point of doctrine. We find 
 no plural used in the quotation ; the word God, as 
 well as Lord, is given in the singular number. 
 Again, when our Lord was “ led up of the Spirit 
 ** into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil” 
 (as related in the 4th ch. of Matthew and 4th of 
 Luke), Satan offered him all the kingdoms of the © 
 world if he would fall down and worship him. 
 Upon this oceasion, our Lord answered again from 
 the Mosaical Scriptures—‘ Then saith Jesus unto 
 ** him, get thee hence, Satan, for it is written, thou 
 ‘« shalt worship the Lord thy God (Kug:ov rov Qeov 
 ‘« gg), and Him only shalt thou serve.” We find 
 no plural here, nor do we see any such thing in 
 the multitude of texts wherein our Lord mentions 
 the Supreme Being. 
 
 In my humble judgment, this fact alone is 
 abundantly sufficient to overthrow all the laboured 
 and ingenious arguments that have been grounded 
 upon the use of the plural noun L£/ohim. 
 
 After having insisted, in the usual manner, upon 
 the importance of the Hebrew noun plural, 
 Mr. Jones proceeds to quote Scriptural expressions, 
 as proof of a plurality of Persons in the Deity. 
 His first text 1s— | 
 
115 
 
 “And Gop said let Us make man in Our Gen. i. 26. 
 
 image, after Our likeness.” 
 
 ‘* No sensible reason,” says Mr. Jones, “ can be 
 ‘ given why God should speak of himself in the 
 ‘ plural number, unless he consists of more per- 
 
 “* sons than one.” 
 
 But that God did thus speak of himself, is a 
 gratuitous assumption. The early Fathers, as 
 well as such modern Expositors as I have met 
 with, consider these words as having been ad- 
 dressed by ‘the Almighty Father to his beloved 
 Son, “ by whom he made the worlds.” (Heb. 1. 2.) 
 T his is fully stated in the Epistle ascribed to 
 Barnabas. It was the opinion of Epiphanius, 
 Chrysostom, Athanasius, and other ancient writers ; 
 and of Archbishop Wake, Bishop Pearson, and 
 others among the moderns. Enough has been 
 already said, to show the insufficiency of such 
 texts to prove a plurality of co-equal Persons in 
 the Godhead. 
 
 The eight succeeding texts, brought forward by 
 Mr. Jones as proofs of plurality, are all urged upon 
 the same principle of nouns, pronouns, verbs, &c., in 
 reference to the Supreme Being: they are con- 
 tained in pages 89 to 102 of the first volume of 
 his entire works. It is unnecessary to follow him 
 step by step through his quotations and arguments, 
 as they could only be met by the same kind of 
 Scriptural authority which has been already pro- 
 duced, and which, I conceive, is conclusive on the 
 
 I 
 
 Cé 
 
(p. 96.) 
 
 Eccles. xii. 1. 
 
 (p. 102.) 
 
 114 
 
 subject of these Hebrew plurals. As a specimen, 
 however, of Mr. Jones’s texts, I will give the 
 followmg :— 
 
 «* Remember thy Creator in the days of thy 
 «© youth.” 
 
 Here Mr. Jones observes that the Hebrew word 
 is in the plural number, ¢hy Creators, which, he 
 conceives, “ is no way strange, when we can prove 
 ‘© so easily that the world, and all men in it, were 
 “« ereated by a Trinity.” : 
 
 How can this peculiarity in the Hebrew man- 
 ner of expression be admitted as a proof of plurality 
 in the Deity, when we see that our blessed Lord 
 never once mentions the Supreme Being but in the 
 singular number ? 
 
 The form of prayer which our Lord has left us, 
 opens with the words, “ Our Father which art in 
 “¢ Heaven.” If Creators were the proper word, 
 Fathers would be the proper word also. 
 
 In the prosecution of this part of his work, 
 Mr. Jones gives his plural words in the original 
 Hebrew. Are we to ground our faith in a most 
 awful doctrine, upon the mere grammatical con- 
 struction of words in this obsolete language, in 
 direct opposition to numberless plain and intelli- 
 gible passages in other parts of the Old, and 
 throughout the New Testament ? Mr. Jones 
 conceives that from this kind of authority he has 
 completely established the proof of an indefinite 
 plurality in the Deity; and he goes on to show 
 
115 
 
 that this plurality is confined to a Trinity. The 
 arguments he draws from his texts appear to me 
 to be extremely weak. 
 
 If the Scriptural passages I have brought for- 
 ward, and the conclusions I have deduced, regard- 
 ing the personality of the Holy Spirit, can be con- 
 sidered just, it must appear to be an unnecessary 
 task to enter upon the subject. of a Trinity of co- 
 equal Persons in the Deity: I will, however, notice 
 Mr. Jones’s method of reasoning. His first text is 
 as follows :— 
 
 ‘* By the Worp of the Lorp were the heavens 
 made: and all the host of them by the BreatH 
 “ (Heb. Spirit) of his mouth.” 
 
 Mr. Jones conceives that a Trinity of Persons is 
 here declared. He avers that “ the Breath, or 
 ‘* Spirit, of the Lord’s mouth, does undoubtedly 
 “mean the third Person of the Trinity’ And 
 he reminds his readers that, “ Christ communicated 
 “ the Holy Ghost to his Disciples by breathing on 
 ‘© them!” 
 
 Truly this is a strange method. of treating a 
 most awful subject. Could any reasonable man 
 discover the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons from 
 this or any such text? Nothing is more common 
 in the Psalms and Prophets than the repetition of 
 an idea in somewhat different language. The 
 very same thing is expressed at the 9th verse of 
 the chapter from which Mr. Jones quotes—* For 
 
 a4 
 
 (p. 102.) 
 
 Ps, xxxiii. 6. 
 
(p. 106.) 
 
 Numb. vi. 
 24, 25, 26. 
 
 116 
 
 ‘* he spake, and it was done: he commanded, and 
 « it stood fast.” These expressions are purely 
 acknowledgments of the omnipotence of the 
 Great Creator. Dr. Hammond’s exposition of 
 Mr. Jones’s text is as follows :—‘“ The meaning is, 
 ‘© that the whole body of the heavens, and all that 
 ‘<< ig in them, were created by the bare speaking 
 ‘© of his word, commanding that they should have 
 «¢ a being.” This is intelligible language ; but, 
 according to Mr. Jones’s explanation, a fourth 
 Person might be introduced, under the title of 
 Power. ‘He hath made the earth by his power.” 
 (Jer. 10. 12.) Again, “ Ah, Lord! Thou hast 
 ‘© made the heaven and the earth by thy great 
 << nower.” (Ibid. 32.17.) The wildest doctrine 
 that ever entered into the mind of man might be 
 supported by Mr. Jones’s method of using the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 The benediction mentioned in the sixth chapter 
 of the book of Numbers is strongly insisted upon 
 by Mr. Jones, as a proof of a Trinity of Persons. 
 
 «© The Lorp bless thee and keep thee.” 
 
 ‘© The Lorp make his face to shine upon thee, 
 «* and be gracious unto thee.” 
 
 ‘© The Lorp lift up his countenance upon thee, 
 ‘© and give thee peace.” 
 
 Mr. Jones has taken great pains, and others 
 have done the same, to fit these three blessings to 
 the three Persons of the Trinity; but 1 cannot 
 
117 
 
 think that they have done it in a manner that 
 could be in any degree satisfactory to a person of a 
 serious and inquiring turn of mind. 
 
 To suppose that the Deity consists of three 
 Persons, each of whom has an office peculiar to 
 himself, and each bestowing a particular grace, 
 savours strongly of Pagan Tritheism, and seems to 
 be derogatory to the honour of the “ Father of 
 ‘« lights,” “ from whom cometh down every good 
 “ and every perfect gift.”. (James 1. 17.) 
 
 If Moses meant to set forth the doctrine of three 
 Persons in the Godhead, it cannot be imagined 
 that he would have delivered it by this obscure 
 kind of insinuation. In no part of the Mosaical 
 
 writings is such a doctrine declared, whilst a vast 
 
 number of passages are directly opposed to it. 
 Will it be said, that the subject was of too awful 
 a nature to allow an explanation in plain and dis- 
 tinct terms? Such an argument would be more 
 reasonable than those commonly urged. But then, 
 what shall we say of the Athanasian creed, where 
 the matter is treated with as little reverence as if 
 it described nothing more than a Roman trium- 
 virate. 
 The next text quoted by Mr. Jones is more to 
 his purpose, though he gives no comment upon it. 
 “ Baptizing them in the name of the FATHER, 
 “ and of the Son, and of the HoLy GHostT.” 
 This is certainly the strongest, I believe I may say 
 the only, genuine text that can be fairly advanced tn 
 
 (p. 108.) 
 
 Matt. xxviii. 
 19. 
 
118 
 
 defence of the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons. 
 If our Lord had added the words, “ Three Per- 
 “ sons and one God,” as does our Church, I should 
 bow with perfect submission, though in opposition 
 to so many other texts. Had our Lord intended 
 to restore a true but forgotten doctrine, it cannot 
 reasonably be doubted that he would have added 
 these words; and that he would have declared 
 the doctrine in the plainest terms, in the course of 
 his instructions to his Disciples. Nothing of the 
 kind is to be met with in any of his discourses ; on 
 the contrary, very many of his expressions: are 
 irreconcileable with such an idea. 
 
 The form of the commission thus given to the 
 Apostles, regarding baptism, is certainly very re- 
 markable, and calls for deep investigation and 
 reflection. Long, very long, did it dwell with me, 
 though I continually met with passages in the 
 Bible which seemed to be directly opposed to the 
 use that is made of it. 
 
 What can a poor frail mortal, conscious of his 
 lack of wisdom, do but carefully to examine the 
 word of God; to compare one part with another, 
 to meditate deeply upon it, with an earnest desire 
 to arrive at the truth, and to implore the Father 
 of Lights to guide him by his Holy Spirit in the 
 inquiry. This method I have for many years 
 endeavoured most anxiously and devoutly to pur- 
 sue : the result has been, a clear conviction that the 
 words delivered in this remarkable text were not 
 
119 
 
 intended to be an initiation into the doctrine of a 
 Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. I have before 
 remarked, that, supposing so incredible a thing as 
 that the Jews had lost or forgotten the fundamen- 
 tal article of their religion as it had been originally 
 delivered to them, our Lord and his Apostles 
 would have taken especial care to restore it in the 
 most clear and unequivocal terms. | Now the text 
 quoted by Mr. Jones is far more favourable to the 
 doctrine of a Trinity of Persons than any other, or 
 all others, in the whole Bible, and yet it is given 
 only by St. Matthew; it is not mentioned, nor 
 even alluded to in any way, by any one of the 
 other Evangelists or Apostles. This is surely a 
 strong presumptive proof that it was not consi- 
 dered by them as declarative of a most important | 
 doctrine, which till that time had been unknown 
 to them. It is remarkable, also, that no instance is 
 recorded of the Apostles having baptized im the 
 manner stated in the text, though six or more 
 cases are particularly mentioned, and all in the 
 name of the Lord Jesus only. Much has been 
 said by polemical writers, with the view of making 
 it appear that they used the form stated by St. 
 Matthew, but they have by no means proved it. 
 
 An objector would here be apt to exclaim— 
 ‘ What ! are we to discard the name of the Father 
 ‘ and the Holy Ghost in baptism, in open defiance 
 ‘ of our Lord’s instructions ?” 
 
 This is not necessary; the words may be re- 
 
(p. 108.) 
 
 2 Thess, tii. 
 2. 
 
 120 
 
 tained, though it does not appear that they were 
 
 used by the Apostles; but still a third Person in 
 the Deity is not necessarily implied. 
 
 The aid of the Holy Spirit of God is plainly 
 declared in the Scriptures to be needful in our 
 Christian warfare, and we are assured that it will 
 not be withheld from us, if we seek it properly ; 
 but we find nothing regarding a third Person as 
 the giver of it. 
 
 Mr. Jones now brings forward the following 
 text :— , | 
 
 “ The Lorp direct your hearts into the love of 
 * Gop, and into the patient waiting for CuristT.” 
 
 Mr. Jones concludes that “the Lord” here men: 
 tioned is the Holy Ghost, and consequently that 
 three Persons are named. But this he has assumed 
 without any authority. He is not supported by 
 the use of the word Lord throughout St. Paul’s 
 Epistles, nor by the exposition of any orthodox 
 writer I have ever consulted. It is considered by 
 some Commentators that the concluding words, 
 translated in our version “the patient waiting for 
 “ Christ,” (urojmovyy rs Xecls,) would have been 
 more correctly rendered “ the patience of Christ.” 
 The meaning of the text appears to be ‘ May the 
 ‘ Lord (Christ) direct your hearts into the love of 
 ‘ God, and into that patience which he himself 
 * maintained through all his trials.’ The Apostle 
 had shortly before been speaking of their “ patience 
 “and faith, in all their persecutions and tribula- 
 
 a 
 
121 
 
 “ tions ;’ (ch. 1.4.) and this seems to be a prayer 
 for grace, to keep them in that patient endurance, 
 even after the example of Christ. There is nothing 
 in the text to justify the notion of a third Person. 
 
 Mr. Jones’s next text is as follows :— 
 
 “ The grace of our Lorp JEsus CHRIST, and 
 *“ the love of Gop, and the communion of the 
 “ Hoty Guost.”) | 
 
 Mr. Jones observes, that “ In this and the fore- 
 “ going text, the order of the Persons is different 
 * from that in Matt. XXVIII. 19.” 
 
 As St. Paul was a lover of order, this seems 
 somewhat strange. But even this is turned into 
 an argument in support of the Catholic doctrine, 
 as it is lightly and trippingly set forth in the Atha- 
 nasian creed. ‘In this Trinity none is afore or 
 * after other.” The text is strongly insisted upon 
 by many other Divines, as well as by Mr. Jones ; 
 especially by Bishops Burnet and Beveridge, Mr. 
 Burkitt, and Dr. Whitby in his early writings. 
 These affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is 
 sufficiently declared by this text alone. But this 
 cannot be admitted, unless we suppose that the 
 Holy Spirit is a Person distinct from the Father 
 and the Son, which cannot be proved by the Holy 
 Scriptures. | Indeed, I cannot but think that the 
 text itself denies such personality. That the 
 word xowwvie, translated communion, would have 
 been more correctly rendered the participation, or 
 partaking of the Holy Spirit appears to be obvious. 
 
 (p. 108.) 
 2 Cor. xiii. 
 14, 
 
(p. 109.) 
 1 John v. 7. 
 
 122 
 
 The verb, in its various inflections and compounds, 
 is translated no fewer than ten times (as noted at 
 foot *) in the sense of partaking of. 'The same 
 Apostle, whose words Mr. Jones quotes, in his 
 Epistle to the Hebrews (ch. 6. v. 4.) speaks of 
 those who were “ made partakers of the Holy 
 “ Spirit ;” and at the 2nd ch. 4th v. of the same 
 Epistle, he says, “ God also bearing them witness 
 * with distributions (wegicwoss, translated g2fts) of 
 “ the Holy Spirit.” | 7 
 Such expressions (and there are many of the 
 same kind) cannot consist with the notion of a 
 Person. In his Epistle to the Ephesians (1. 3), 
 the Apostle again says, “ Blessed be the God and 
 “ Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath 
 “ blessed us with all spiritual blessings.” It cannot 
 be doubted that the spzrztual blessings here spoken 
 of mean the distributions of the Holy Spirit ; and 
 the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is declared to 
 be the Dispenser of it. 
 Mr. Jones ventures to quote the following text:— 
 « ‘There are THREE that bear record in Heaven, 
 “ the FATHER, the WorD, and the HoLy GuHostT.” 
 This text has undergone a minute and laborious 
 investigation of late years; and I conceive that no 
 unprejudiced man, who has read the controversial 
 writings that have been published upon the subject, 
 
 * Matt. 23.30; Rom. 15.27; 1 Cor. 9.23; 1 Tim. 5. 22; 
 Heb. 2.143 1 Pet. 4.13; Zbid. 5.15 2 Pet. 1.4; 2 Johnv. 
 11; and Rev. 18. 4. 
 
123 
 
 can entertain a doubt of its spuriousness*. Mr. 
 Jones, however, insists upon it with great earnest- 
 ness; whilst Bishop Tomline, in his far more able 
 defence of the doctrine of the Trimity, honestly 
 gives it up in these words :—* I must own that, 
 * after an attentive consideration of the contro- 
 *“* versy relative to that passage, I am convinced 
 * that it is spurious +.” 
 
 It is unnecessary to make any remarks upon the 
 text itself; but I cannot pass over an extremely 
 unfair argument, used by Mr. Jones and other 
 writers in support of it. 
 
 Mr. Jones says, “ The sense is not perfect with- 
 ** out it, there being a contrast of three witnesses 
 ‘*¢ in heaven to three upon earth.” Now this con- 
 trast is effected by the interpolated words, and the 
 connection made by garbling the succeeding verse ; 
 for neither the conjunction “ And,’ at the begin- 
 ning of the 8th verse, nor the words “ on earth,” 
 were in the original. ‘Thus is the forgery hela 
 in proof of genuineness ! 
 
 The last text quoted by Mr. nidlien in this third 
 section of his -work, is the following :— iM 
 
 ** And one cried unto another and said, Holy, 
 * Horty, Houy, is the LorpD oF Hosts.” 
 
 Mr. Jones conceives that the thrice-uttered 
 word Holy, is a proof of a Trinity of Persons, and 
 
 * This subject is briefly but ably discussed in the Quarterly 
 Review, No. 65, published in December 1825. 
 + Elements of Christian Theology, Vol. Il., p. 90, 2nd Edit. 
 
 (p. 112.) 
 
 Isa. vi. 3. 
 
124 
 
 says, “ That the Seraphim did really celebrate all 
 “the three Persons of the Godhead upon: this 
 “ occasion is no conjecture; but a point capable 
 “ of the clearest demonstration.” 
 
 That the Almighty Father was celebrated, he 
 proves from the 5th v. of the same chapter, where 
 the Prophet says, “ Mine eyes have seen the King, 
 “ the Lord of Hosts.” The presence of the Son, 
 he says, is proved from John XII. 41—* These 
 “ things said Esaias, when he saw his (Christ’s) 
 * glory, and spake of him.” | 
 
 Dr. Clarke, it seems, contended that it was the 
 glory of the Father only which Esaias saw ; but this 
 Mr. Jones positively denies. Without entering into 
 this controversy, but admitting that it was the glory 
 of Christ which is meant by the text in St. John’s 
 Gospel, the Prophet, in his vision, might have been 
 permitted to witness the glory which our blessed 
 Lord had with his Almighty Father before the 
 world was; but this proves neither co-equality, 
 nor a Trinity of Persons in the Deity. 
 
 As a proof, however, of the presence of the 
 third Person upon this occasion; Mr. Jones quotes 
 from Acts XXVIII. 25—* Well spake the Holy 
 “ Ghost by Esaias the Prophet, saying.” » “Then 
 * follow,” continues Mr. Jones, “ the words which 
 “ the Prophet affirms to have been spoken. by 
 “ the Lord of Hosts ;” consequently the Holy 
 Ghost was adored by the Seraphim, and is the 
 Lord of Hosts. This latter text had been used 
 
125 
 
 before, by Mr. Jones, to prove the Divinity of the 
 Holy Ghost. In reply, I referred to five other 
 places in the New Testament, where the text was 
 mentioned, and the Holy Ghost not even named 
 in any one of them. Now, if the Sacred Penmen 
 had believed that the words were dictated by a 
 third Person in the Godhead, equal in power and 
 glory with the Almighty Father, can it be con- 
 ceived that they would thus pass over his name, 
 leaving it entirely unnoticed? To my plain un-' 
 derstanding it is altogether incredible. Yet Mr. 
 Jones imagines that he has proved to a demonstra- 
 tion, that each of the three Persons is “ one and 
 “ the same Lord of Hosts !” 
 
 Mr. Jones accuses his opponents of appealing 
 only to the New Testament, whilst he himself, in 
 this third chapter, scarcely ventures to meddle 
 with it, but draws his conclusions from texts in 
 the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets. 
 
 Now. the Jews have always had these writings 
 before them, and it may be reasonably concluded, 
 that their learned Rabbins and Teachers were as 
 well qualified to understand their own language as 
 any man of the present day can possibly be: how, 
 then, did it happen that they were unable to dis- 
 cover this doctrine of a Trinity of Persons in their 
 own Scriptures ? 
 
 The stupidity thus imputed to the Jewish 
 Doctors is greatly exaggerated, if we suppose that 
 
126 
 
 the doctrine had been originally revealed to them, 
 and suffered to sink into oblivion. 
 
 The frequent appeals to the supposed opinions 
 of the early Fathers, which we meet with in the 
 writings of those Divines who support the Athana- 
 sian doctrine, seem to show that there is a want 
 of sufficient evidence in the Holy Scriptures. 
 Amongst other passages quoted from these au- 
 thorities, two doxologies, said to have been delivered 
 by the Apostolical Fathers, Polycarp and Ignatius, 
 as their dying words, have been insisted upon with 
 much eagerness. The way in which these 
 doxologies have been handed down to us, to say 
 the least of it, cannot but excite a very strong sus- 
 picion of their genuineness. It is stated that they 
 were recorded by some pious persons, who were 
 witnesses of the cruel martyrdom of these holy 
 men. | 
 Now, both Polycarp and Ignatius were dis- 
 ciples of St. John; but St. John himself has no- 
 where taught the doctrine of three Persons in the 
 Deity, though, if he had held that doctrine, it can- 
 not be believed that he would have neglected to 
 declare it. So far as negative evidence can be 
 admitted, it has been shown that such an idea 
 never entered into the mind of the Apostle. 
 
 In concluding my remarks upon this third 
 chapter of Mr. Jones’s work, I have only again to 
 declare, that if the Athanasian doctrine were 
 
127 
 
 clearly set forth in any part of the Holy Scriptures, 
 I would not allow my reason to have any influence 
 over my faith. I would receive it as a truth which it 
 would be presumptuous to investigate too curious- 
 ly, with the limited powers of human intellect: 
 but I conceive I have shown that it is denied in 
 those Scriptures, and therefore I dare not confess 
 it upon human authority. 
 
(p. 118.) 
 
 Ps. xxxili. 6. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 Tur Fourth and last Chapter of Mr. Jones's 
 work is on—“* THE TRINITY IN UNITY.” 
 
 Regarding the unity of the Deity I believe all. 
 sects of Christians are agreed, though they may 
 differ in opinion upon the question, whether that 
 unity be confined to one, or consist of a plurality 
 of Persons. 
 
 The arguments which Mr. Jones draws from his 
 texts in this chapter are all founded on the same 
 assumed principle, namely, that the Holy Spirit is 
 a Person in the Godhead, and distinct from the 
 Father and the Son; which, I humbly conceive, I 
 have proved to be unscriptural. 
 
 Having gone fully into this subject in my 
 remarks upon the second chapter of Mr. Jones's 
 work, it is unnecessary to follow him through 
 every step of this, his concluding Section; to 
 notice a few of his arguments will be sufficient. 
 
 By his first quotation he professes to prove that 
 the “ Trinity in unity is the One Lord, the 
 “ Creator of the world.” 
 
 « By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens 
 
129 
 
 * 
 “~ 
 
 made, and all the host of them by the Breath 
 (Heb. Spirit) of his mouth.” 
 Mr. Jones says—* The whole Trinity therefore 
 
 n 
 nw 
 
 a“ 
 “ 
 
 “ Lord, for it is written,” 
 
 ~“ Tam the Lord that maketh all things, that 
 “ stretcheth forth the Heavens ALONE, that 
 “ spreadeth abroad the earth By Myse.r.” 
 
 _ © Therefore,” adds Mr. Jones, “ the Mather with 
 “his Word and Spirit, are the alone Lord and 
 “ Creator of all things.” 
 
 Now, if we admit his exposition of the first of 
 these texts, it must be flatly contradicted by the 
 second ; which, indeed, is frequently: eer case in 
 the course of his work. 
 
 Mr. Jones had used his text from the Psalms in 
 the preceding chapter, affirming that the words 
 “ Breath (or Spirit) of his mouth, does undoubtedly 
 “ mean the third Person of the Trinity ;” and I 
 conceive I clearly proved that he had mistaken the 
 meaning of the text. (See p.115.) I understand 
 that the Hebrew word Ruach, like the Greek 
 Pneuma, means breath as well as Spirit ; but Mr. 
 Jones chose the meaning that best suited his pur- 
 pose, though differing entirely from the exposition 
 ‘of other writers. Our translation is obviously cor- 
 rect; it is purely a declaration of the omnipotence 
 of the Great Creator; and has nothing on earth to 
 do with Mr. Jones’s subject. 
 ~ By his next quotation, Mr. Jones purposes to 
 
 K 
 
 created the world: yet this Trinity is but One . 
 
 Isa. xliv. 24. 
 
 (p. 119.) 
 
130 
 
 show that the name Jehovah is given to each of 
 the three Persons, and yet that there is One alone 
 whose name is Jehovah ! 
 Deut. vi. 4. “ The Lord our God is ONE JEHOVAH,” 
 “ and again,” 
 Pig: lati « Thou, whose name ALONE is J EHOVAH, art 
 i “ the most high over all the earth.” 
 « Yet,” says Mr. Jones, “ Christ is Jehovah.” 
 Jer. xxiii.6. . “ This is the name whereby he shall be called 
 « JEHOVAH, our Righteousness.” 
 Mr. Jones continues—* So is the Spirit also,” 
 and to prove this, quotes the following text :— 
 Ezek. viii. « The Lord JEHOVAH put forth the form of 
 ahi “an hand and took me; and the Sprriv lifted 
 BRC,” 
 tk ot really appear, to any reasonable person, 
 that Mr. Jones laboured to throw the Holy Scrip- 
 tures into ridicules by bringing together texts that 
 seem flatly to contradict each other. In the way 
 he has used these passages, all the reasoning in the 
 world would be unable to reduce them to any 
 kind of agreement. The text from Ezekiel had 
 been used by Mr. Jones in his second chapter, and 
 a meaning given to the words which few besides 
 himself could have discovered. The Prophet is 
 relating a vision, and there is not a word in the 
 whole narrative that has any kind of connection 
 with Mr. Jones’s argument. 
 I feel no inclination to. meddle with the contra. 
 yersies which Mr. Jones notices, regarding the 
 
13! 
 
 awful name Jehovah. It is enough for me to 
 know that there is One alone whose name. is 
 Jehovah.» This I learn from the plain declarations, 
 and from the whole tenour of the Bible; and if a 
 text be produced, and so used as to appear declara- 
 tive of another, whose name is Jehovah (in the 
 highest signification of that awful name), I am 
 confident that such text is distorted, and a meaning 
 given to it which never entered into the mind of 
 the writer. . 
 
 The next article, Mr. Jones heads thus :— 
 
 “ The Trinity in Unity is the Lord, absolutely 
 ‘so called; in Hebrew, Adonai: in Greek, 
 o KugiGe;” and he quotes— | 
 
 “ The same Lorp over all is rich unto all tha 
 
 call upon him.” 
 
 “A Saviour, which is Christ the Lorp.” 
 
 “ For who hath known the mind of the Lorp; 
 or who hath been his Counsellor.” : 
 
 Mr. Jones has here brought together three sén- 
 tences from different parts of the New Testament, 
 in each of which the word Lord occurs; and he 
 considers that he has thereby proved the existence 
 of three Persons in the Godhead, each of whom is 
 Lord; yet, as the Athanasian creed has it—* N6t 
 “ three Lords, but one Lord.” ! 
 
 It has been remarked, that the title Lord, as 
 well as Adonai, is used in great latitude in the 
 Scriptures, and is applied not only to Angels but 
 even to men, er, 
 
 n~ 
 nw 
 
 wa 
 La 
 
 “~ 
 wn 
 
 € 
 
 “ 
 
 (p. 120.) 
 
 Rom. x. 12, 
 
 Luke ii. 11. 
 Rom. xi. 34. 
 
132 i“ 
 
 Commentators are not agreed in opinion upon 
 the first of these texts, some supposing that the 
 word Lord refers to the Father, others to the Son. 
 Admitting, with Mr. Jones, that it refers to the 
 Almighty Father, it by no means follows that the 
 title (Lord) applied to our Saviour in the second 
 text places him upon an equality with Zim who 
 alone is Jehovah. 'The third text, from the 11th 
 ch. of Romans, is quoted by St. Paul from the 
 AOth ch. 13th v. of Isaiah, where the word Lord 
 clearly refers to the Father ; and is so considered 
 by Dr. Waterland, W. Lowth, and every commen- 
 tator I have consulted, excepting Mr. Jones: he 
 affirms that it means the Holy Ghost, the third 
 Person of the Trinity. By way of proving this, 
 he refers to Isaiah, whence the text was quoted. by 
 the Apostle, and which text is directly opposed to 
 his construction! He farther appeals to 2 Cor. 
 III. 17—* Now the Lord is that Spirit,” by which 
 he conceives that his point is unanswerably proved. 
 This last text is briefly noticed in page 90; but as 
 Mr. Jones strongly insists upon it in this place, it 
 may be proper to examine it more particularly. 
 
 - The Apostle, in this epistle, is setting forth the 
 superiority of the Gospel Dispensation over that of 
 the Law. At the 6th v. he says—“ The letter 
 * (that is, the Law) killeth, but the Spirit giveth 
 “ jife;” agreeably with our Lord’s: words (John 
 6. 63), “It is the Spirit that | quickeneth—the 
 “ words that I speak unto you, they are “Spire, 
 
— 133 
 
 “ and they are Life.”. The Apostle goes on to 
 show the greater value of the ministration of the 
 Spirit, concluding with the words quoted by Mr. 
 Jones,—* Now the Lord is that Spirit ;” that is, 
 the Lord Jesus, to whom the Law, in its whole 
 economy, pointed. Christ is the Spirit of that 
 Law of which St. Paul had been speaking. That 
 this is the meaning of the text is so plain that a 
 child could hardly mistake it :—it is so explained’ 
 by Bishop Fell, Dean Stanhope, Macknight, 
 Burkitt, Pyle, Doddridge, and every expositor I 
 have met with. Mr. Jones proceeds to impart the 
 following information :—‘“ It was from the authority 
 “ of these words, ‘ The Lord is the Spirit, added 
 “ to those of v. 6, ‘ The Spirit giveth life, that 
 “ the Council of Nice borrowed the following 
 “ clause of its creed—‘ I believe in the Holy 
 “« § Ghost, the LORD and GIvER OF LIFE.’” 
 ' The clause was not borrowed at the Council of 
 Nice, but at the Council of Constantinople, which 
 was held more than fifty years afterwards. This 
 is of little consequence: taking the matter upon 
 Mr. Jones’s statement, nothing on earth can be 
 more obvious than that the clause was adopted 
 under a palpable misconstruction of Holy Scrip- 
 ture. The Spirit that giveth life is the spiritual 
 Gospel of Christ, named by the Apostle in contra- 
 distinction to the letter of the Law; and Christ is 
 the Giver of this spirit of life. “In him was hfe, 
 “ and the life was the light of men.” (John 1. 4.) 
 
134 
 
 Again, “Iam come that they might have Uife, 
 “ and that they might have it more abundantly.” 
 (John 10. 10.) And again, in his prayer to his 
 Almighty Father, “ As thou hast given him power 
 “over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to 
 “as many as thou hast given him.” (John 17.2.) 
 And the beloved Disciple, in his first Epistle 
 (5. 11, 12.) “ God hath given to us eternal life, 
 “ and this life is in his Son—he that hath the 
 Son hath fe.” | 
 
 Thus we find, that, through the ignite mercy 
 of the Almighty Father, our ever-blessed: Lord is 
 plamly declared to be the Lord and Giver of life ; 
 but Mr. Jones, in accordance with the Nicene 
 creed, would rob our Lord of this grace, and 
 ascribe it to a third Person, who is not even dis- 
 tinctly named, as a Person, throughout the whole 
 Bible. 
 | St. Peter, speaking of our Lord: before the 
 Jewish council, affirmed that “ there is none other 
 “* name under Heaven given among men whereby 
 ‘“* we must be saved.” (Acts 4 121) 
 
 Now, it does appear to me, that Mr. Jones, here, 
 and in. other parts of his book, introduces another: 
 name whereby we must be saved ; for if there be 
 a third Person. in the Godhead, who is te Lord: 
 and Giver of life, it is by him: we must obtain 
 life. Surely it behoves the ministers. of the 
 Church of Christ to consider: well; how awful’ a 
 thing it is. to preach any other Gospel than that 
 
135 
 
 which was preached by our Lord and _ his 
 Apostles. ape 
 
 I am satisfied that an immense majority of the 
 Laity, especially of the educated part, and I have 
 reason to believe not a few even of the Clergy, 
 most heartily regret the admission of any other 
 ereed into the Liturgy of our Church than that 
 called the Apostles’, the great antiquity of which 
 is universally acknowledged. This creed, after 
 confessing belief in the Almighty Father and his 
 ever-blessed Son, proceeds to the Holy Spirit, the 
 Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the 
 forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, 
 and the life everlasting. Here the Holy Spirit, so 
 far from being declared a Person in the Godhead, 
 is classed with other good gifts from the Father of 
 lights. This creed presumes not to define, or 
 enter with any freedom into, the awful subject 
 now called the “ Doctrine of the Trinity,” but 
 leaves it, as it was in the primitiwe Church, to 
 every man to gain his knowledge of the Being 
 whom he worships, from an attentive study of the 
 Holy Scriptures. 
 
 Mr. Jones quotes the following texts :— 
 
 “ T myself serve the Law of Gop.” 
 
 “ Fulfil the Law of CHRiIsT.” 
 _ © The Law of the Spirit of Life.” 
 _ From these three short expressions, picked out 
 of their respective sentences, and each containing 
 the word Law, Mr. Jones considers that he has 
 
 (p. 123.) 
 Rom. vil. 25. 
 Gal. vi. 2. 
 
Jamesiy, 12. 
 
 136 
 
 proved the existence of three Persons in the Ged- 
 head; and, to prove the wnzfy, quotes, “ There is 
 “ ONE LAWGIVER, who is able to save and to 
 “* destroy.”—“ Therefore,” he adds,“ these THREE 
 aa N EX ) npr wiki 
 _ No remark is necessary on the two first texts: 
 every, Christian will. allow that. the law of 
 Christ is the law of God;. but Mr. Jones has 
 pressed the, third into his service unfairly. . St. 
 Paul’s discourse in that chapter is precisely the 
 same.as that noticed in the last article from 
 1 Cor.; 3:17 ;..and; like it, is utterly devoid of an 
 expression pointing to a third Person. That 
 the law of the Spirit of life means the spiritual 
 Gospel of Christ contrasted with the Levitical 
 law is perfectly clear. Mr. Jones, as he :has 
 frequently done in the course of his work, sup- 
 presses the concluding part of his text, which ex- 
 plains the words he has quoted; it stands thus: 
 ‘‘ For the law of the Spirit of life ix Christ Jesus 
 “hath made me free from the law of sin and 
 “death.” That is, from the Law of Moses, which 
 could not release from the punishment due to 
 sin; for, as saith the same Apostle, “It is not 
 “ possible that the blood of bulls ‘and goats should 
 “ take away sin.” (Heb. 10. 14.). The law of the 
 Spirit of life in Christ Jesus not only procures for.us 
 the pardon of sins past, but, if heartily embraced, 
 overpowers the propensity to sin for the future... 
 
 In stating some of his texts, Mr. Jones stoops ta 
 
137 
 
 an unfair sort of contrivance, which is very dis- 
 tressing to an ingenuous mind, when the subject is 
 of such awful importance. His usual method is 
 that of bringing forward, from different parts of the 
 Scripture, three texts, in which the name of the 
 Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit occur, 
 and from these he conceives that a Trinity of 
 Persons in the Godhead is proved. An instance 
 of this kind of unfairness is noticeable in his man- 
 ner of giving the following texts :— 
 
 * ‘Truly our FELLOWSHIP is with the FatHER. 
 Gr. Kowavwe.” 
 
 “ And with his Son Jesus Curisv.” 
 
 “ The FELLowsHrr (Kowove) of the Hony 
 “ GuHosT be with you all.” | 
 
 In the way he has given the two first passages, 
 they would appear to be used as corroborative 
 texts, brought forward according to his usual 
 method, when, on the contrary, they are but one 
 sentence, and that one clearly opposed to the doc- 
 trine he maintains. The text’ stands thus— 
 “ Truly our fellowship is with the Father and 
 “ with his Son Jesus Christ.” The Apostle seems 
 not to have conceived the idea of a third Person, 
 The third text from 2 Cor. is decidedly against 
 Mr. Jones’s argument. The Greek word, which 
 in our version is translated communion, he has 
 altered to fellowship, to make it agree with the 
 same word in the two preceding texts. Having 
 remarked upon the Greek word Kovave in p. 121, 
 
 (p. 130.) 
 1 Johni. 8. 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 2 Cor. xiii. 
 14. 
 
138 
 
 it is unnecessary to add anything farther here. 
 The meaning of the text is obviously, “ The par- 
 “ ticipation of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” 
 St. Paul, in another Epistle, terms it, “ The sup- 
 “ ply of the Spirit of Christ.” (Phil. 1. 19.) 
 
 To follow Mr. Jones throughout the remaining 
 part of this chapter would be useless as well as 
 tedious; it would be only a repetition of the same 
 kind of argument and the same Scriptural refuta- 
 tion. I must acknowledge that it would be unfair 
 to form a judgment of the doctrine he professes 
 from his defence of it; for if any reasonable man 
 would examine his book with the labour and 
 attention which I have bestowed upon i1t—though 
 he were ever so zealous. a Trinitarian before—I 
 am much mistaken if it would not, at least, shake 
 his faith in the doctrine. 
 
 Independently of his failure with regard to his 
 subject, I cannot but consider Mr. Jones’s book to 
 be extremely dangerous. ‘There are many men of 
 good understanding and extensive general inform- 
 ation who are yet by no means well versed in the 
 Holy Scriptures. .I conceive it impossible for a 
 man of this description to read the work without 
 feeling contempt for the Bible. Weak as his 
 arguments are, I should not have allowed myself 
 to speak of them in this way if they had been 
 urged by Mr. Jones in a tone and temper that bore 
 any resemblance of Christian charity. 
 
 Mr. Jones's method of selecting scraps from 
 
139 
 
 different parts of the Scriptures and joining them 
 together, makes the Bible appear to be a tissue of 
 self-contradiction from beginning to end. Now, if 
 attentively read, with an unprejudiced mind, and 
 comparing texts with their parallels, we shall find 
 the doctrines stated in the various parts of the 
 Scriptures to be perfectly consistent and intelligible. 
 It must be confessed that there are some passages 
 im the Old Testament which no man, at the 
 present day, can satisfactorily explain; but when 
 all circumstances are taken into consideration, the 
 only ground for surprise will be that it is capable 
 ofa translation so plain, in the general, as that 
 which we possess. It contains an immense fund 
 of sublime and edifying matter, and bears the 
 evident marks of Divine inspiration. But, not- 
 withstanding Mr. Jones’s preference of these 
 ancient Scriptures for his purpose, it is to the. 
 preaching of our blessed Lord and his Apostles: 
 we must look for instruction in doctrine if we 
 wish to keep clear of error. 
 
 It is ingeniously remarked by Mr. eh that: 
 when, at the transfiguration of our Lord, Moses. 
 and Elias disappeared, a voice was heard: by the: 
 three Apostles, saying—*“ This is my beloved Son, 
 * Hear Him ;” which seems to imply that. the 
 writings of Moses andthe Prophets were then. to 
 be superseded: by the preaching of our Lord. And’ 
 this idea is confirmed in many: parts: of the Gospel 
 and Epistles, especially in the writings of St. Paul. 
 
140 
 
 I therefore consider that I must gain instruction in 
 doctrine from the New Testament. When in that 
 book I find a multitude of texts to the same effect 
 as the following, I feel it impossible to confess the 
 doctrine set forth in the Athanasian creed :— 
 
 - I will, in the first place, repeat the words of our 
 Lord himself—* This is life eternal, that they 
 “ may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus 
 Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17. 3.) 
 Not true Gods, but in the singular number (aaydivov 
 ev), as our Lord invariably speaks of the Supreme 
 Being. 
 
 ' [have read many ingenious arguments in the 
 writings of eminent Divines, used with the view of 
 explaining away the obvious meaning of this text ; 
 but until they can preduce another, plainly af- 
 firming that the Deity consists of three Persons, 
 it will be impossible to invalidate so clear a state- 
 ment of this fundamental article of Christian 
 doctrine. . 7 
 
 When our Saviour speaks of the future state, 
 and of the day of judgment, he mentions the 
 Father and himself, but never gives the slightest 
 hint of a third Person, though he frequently speaks 
 of the Angels. For instance—* Whosoever shall 
 *‘ be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall 
 “ the Son of Man be ashamed, when he shall come 
 “ in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the 
 “ Holy Angels.” (Luke 9. 26.) 
 
 Can it be believed that our Lord, upon these 
 
141 
 occasions, would mention the Angels and omit 
 the name of a third Person, affirmed to be equal 
 with the Almighty Father? Surely this is 
 incredible. 
 
 St. John is considered to be more doctrinal 
 than any other of the Evangelists, and therefore I 
 have quoted largely from his writings. It is re- 
 markable that in his Gospel the Almighty Father 
 and the Son are mentioned in the same sentence 
 more than a hundred times without any kind of 
 notice of a third Person. The same thing may 
 be found eighteen times in his Epistles, and up- 
 wards of thirty times in the Book of Revelation. 
 In his first Epistle (2. 22), we find these words— 
 “ He is antichrist that denieth the Father and 
 “ the Son.” And this he states (at the 24th v.) 
 to be the doctrine which the Church had “ heard 
 “ from the beginning.” It is in the writings of 
 St. John we would more particularly look for 
 information upon this awful point; but when we 
 find the Father and the Son so frequently men- 
 tioned by him without the slightest allusion to a 
 third Person, it is hard to believe that he con- 
 sidered the promised Paraclete as one of three co- 
 equal Persons in the Deity. | (‘i 
 This invariable silence regarding a third Petia 
 is observable in the writings of the other Apostles 
 as well as in those of St. John. In the thirteen 
 Epistles of St. Paul, his salutation in every one is, 
 “ Grace and peace unto you from God the Father 
 
142 
 
 * and the Lord Jesus Christ.” | St. Peter says, 
 “ Grace and peace be multiplied unto you, through 
 “ the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” 
 St. James styles himself, “ A servant of God and 
 * of the Lord Jesus Christ.” St. John’s salutation 
 is, “ Grace be with you, mercy and peace from 
 ‘ God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus 
 * Christ, the Son of the Father” (2 John, 3rd verse) ; 
 and at the 9th v. he says, “ He that abideth in the 
 “ doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and 
 * the Son.” St. Jude addresses his Epistle, “ ‘To 
 “them that are sanctified by God the Ants 
 «and preserved in Jesus Christ.” 
 
 Surely if these inspired penmen had held the 
 doctrine of three co-equal Persons in the Godhead, 
 they would not in these, and in an immense 
 number of other passages, have wholly omitted 
 the name of the third Person. 
 
 If we may judge from the writings of St. Paul, 
 I confidently say that he did not hold the doctrine 
 confessed in the Athanasian creed. To quote 
 every text in which a denial of this doctrine is 
 either unequivocally expressed, or may be clearly 
 inferred, would be tedious ; I will, however, bring 
 forward a few. of them. I will, in the first place, 
 repeat a text which I had quoted before, and this 
 I do without scruple, because Mr. Jones, as well 
 as other writers, continually do the same thing. 
 In his first. Epistle to the Corinthians (8. 6), he 
 says—“ To us there is but ONE GOD THE 
 
143 
 
 4 FATHER, of whom are all things, and we in 
 “ him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are 
 * all things and we by him.” 
 
 He must. be an able sophist who nai bring 
 this passage to any kind of agreement with. the 
 Athanasian creed. Let us hear St. Paul again. 
 In the 4th ch. of his Epistle to the Ephesians 
 (5th and 6th y. ), he says, ** One Lord, one Faith, 
 “ one Baptism; ONE Gop, AND FATHER OF 
 “ ALL, who ts above all, and through all, and in 
 “ you all.—(7th v.) But unto every one of us is 
 given grace, according to the measure of the 
 « gift of Christ.—(11th and 12thv.) And he gave 
 “ some, Apostles : and some, Prophets: and some, 
 Evangelists: and some, Pastors, and Teachers ; 
 for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of 
 “ the ministry, for the edifying of the body of 
 “ Christ.” 
 
 I say again, that if there be any meaning in 
 words, the whole of Mr. Jones’s doctrine is here 
 explicitly denied. The Almighty Father is de- 
 clared to be the one only Supreme God, and his 
 ever-blessed Son the one only Mediator.. The 
 Holy Spirit, so far from being declared a Person 
 in the Godhead, is stated to be the gift of Christ. 
 That this gift, “for the perfecting of the ote 
 and qualifying “ for the work of the ministry,” 
 the promised Paraclete, is unquestionable, ~ 
 accords with our Lord’s words—“ Lo, J am uuth 
 
 66 
 
 ge 
 
144 
 
 ‘you alway, even unto the end of the world, 
 (Matt. 28. 20.) 
 
 We are told, in the Athanasian creed, that if 
 we desire to be saved, before all things it is ne- 
 cessary that we hold the doctrine of three co- 
 equal Persons in the Godhead; and that unless 
 “we do keep it whole and undefiled, without 
 “ doubt we shall perish everlastingly.” If this 
 be true at the present time, it was equally true in 
 the days of St. Paul. Now, if he had held this 
 doctrine as indispensably necessary to salvation, it 
 cannot be doubted that he would have impressed 
 it most powerfully on the mind of his youthful 
 disciple Timothy, when he was giving him in- 
 structions in order to qualify him for the work of 
 the ministry. Let us see, then, how he stated 
 this. doctrine. He tells his Disciple, that ‘God 
 ““ would have all men to be saved, and to come to 
 “. the knowledge of the truth. Yor there is ONE 
 “ Gop, and One Mediator between God and 
 “ men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim. 2. 4, 5.) 
 
 I have never met with an exposition that 
 could rob this passage of its plain and obvious 
 signification. of 
 
 The Apostle’s adjuration to Timothy is also very 
 remarkable :—* I charge thee before God, and the 
 “ Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect Angels.” (1'Tim: 
 5.21.) And in his Second Epistle (4. 1)—“ I charge 
 “ thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ.” 
 
 \ 
 
145 
 
 We find not a word about this awful doctrine, 
 the belief of which is now said to be above all 
 things necessary to our salvation; on the con- 
 trary, a denial of it seems to be clearly implied. 
 
 When this same Apostle preached to the Philo- 
 sophers at Athens (as related in the 17th ch. of 
 Acts), his professed object was to “ declare unto 
 “ them that God whom they ignorantly wor- 
 * shipped.” Now, if he had held the doctrine of 
 three Persons in the Godhead, is it to be believed 
 that he would have withheld so important an 
 article of Christian faith from them upon. this 
 occasion? The notion of a plurality in the Deity, 
 so far from being offensive to these Philosophers, 
 would have been received with complacency, and 
 would have induced them to listen to the Preacher 
 with favourable prepossessions, because it would 
 have agreed with their own notions. But St. 
 Paul had too high a regard for truth to descend 
 to any kind of compromise for the sake of making 
 converts. He spoke only of the Great Creator, 
 and of Him whom he had ordained to judge the 
 world in righteousness. O what +a world of dis- 
 sention, of bitter animosity, and of bloodshed 
 would have been spared, if the successors’ of this 
 Apostle had, in every stage of the Church; fol- 
 lowed. his example! 
 
 Nothing can be more clear than that St. Paul 
 professed the: worship of the one only Supreme 
 Gop, through’ the one only Mediator, our Lord 
 
 1 
 
146 
 
 Jesus Christ. The following are a few of the 
 many passages in his writings which plainly show 
 that this was his doctrine :— — 
 
 ‘© Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to 
 God and the Father through him.” (Col. 3. 17.) 
 ‘* 1 thank my God through Jesus Christ for 
 you all.” (Rom. 1. 8.) 
 
 ‘© By him (Jesus), therefore, let us offer the 
 sacrifice of praise to God continually.” (Heb. 
 13. 15.) | | 
 
 It is remarkable, that many of those Divines 
 who have supported the Athanasian doctrine ap- 
 pear to have been impressed with feelings hard 
 to be reconciled with it. For instance, Bishop 
 Newton says, “ The true Christian worship is the 
 ‘* worship of the one only God, through the one 
 «© only Mediator between God and men, the man 
 “‘ Christ Jesus.” This is Scriptural Christianity. 
 
 Mr. Jones would say, that by the name God 
 three Persons are meant; but the Bible says 
 not so. ’ 
 
 In the Apocalypse, there are two datdllintis 
 (5. 13, and 7. 10), both ascribed to “ Him that 
 ** sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb.” 
 The Apostle ‘is still silent regarding a third Per- 
 son. In their eagerness to discover this, some 
 Expositors of great name wish to make it appear 
 that the ‘ Seven Spirits which are before the 
 “ throne” (mentioned in the Ist ch. 4th v.) mean 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 oN “ 
 “ a 
 
 = 
 2 
 
147 
 
 the Holy Ghost; but surely this is a strained and 
 unnatural construction put upon the expression: 
 indeed the manner in which the seven Spirits are 
 afterwards mentioned seems plainly to confute that 
 idea. At the 5th ch. 6th v., it is said—‘* In the 
 “* midst of the Elders stood a Lamb, as it had 
 ‘* been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, 
 “* which are the seven Spirits of God.” Without 
 offering violence to common sense, no one could 
 say that these seven Spirits signify a Person equal 
 in power and glory with ‘* Him that sitteth upon 
 ‘* the throne.” : | 
 
 We have been too much in the habit of allowing 
 our understandings to crouch to the authority of 
 great names, instead of reading the Bible for our- 
 selves. Venerable Bede has been quoted, and said 
 to be just and forcible, on the meaning of the 
 seven Spirits. That Bede was a good and pious 
 man will not be denied, and, considering the 
 period in which he wrote, it must be also admitted 
 that he was a man of superior attainments; but 
 we cannot safely allow our judgment to be guided 
 by an Author who was educated in an age of 
 darkness and superstition, and especially upon a 
 subject which affords a wide range to the ima- 
 gination. 
 
 If we divest our minds of the impression 
 stamped upon them by human authority, and have 
 the courage to read the Bible and judge for our- 
 selves, we shall find that the few ambiguous texts 
 
148 
 
 from which an inference favourable to the Atha- 
 nasian doctrine has been forced, have no weight 
 whatever when opposed to the multitude of plain 
 and intelligible passages which clearly deny such 
 doctrine. 
 
 I would ask any candid man this simple ques- 
 tion. Supposing that he had never heard of this 
 doctrine, could he have discovered it in the Bible ? 
 For myself, I can confidently say that I might 
 have devoted my whole life to the study of that 
 blessed book without ever making the discovery. 
 
 I know not how the minds of other persons may 
 be affected in their religious exercises ; but, speak- 
 ing from my own experience, I declare that 
 during several years, while I endeavoured to bring 
 my mind into assent with the doctrine confessed 
 in the Athanasian creed, I felt an inexpressible 
 unhappiness and distraction. All the ingenious 
 arguments I heard or read failed of affording me 
 complete satisfaction, especially when I turned to 
 the Bible. But now, when I endeavour to raise 
 my voice to the Father of Mercies, through the 
 mediation of his beloved Son, I feel a comfort and 
 ease of conscience that were strangers to me in 
 the former case. 
 
 Whether or not Mr. Jones’s book has ever been 
 regularly reviewed, is a matter of which I am in 
 total ignorance. In general terms I know it has 
 been highly extolled, but this was only because it 
 had not been fairly examined. It exhibits a me- 
 
149 
 
 lancholy proof of the weakness of the hum an mind 
 even when it is fraught with scholastic learning. 
 I have, however, sought for arguments in support 
 of his doctrine in the works of much more able 
 defenders of it, but I met with nothing that could 
 abide the touchstone of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 A masterly work has-recently been published 
 by The Rev. Thomas Hartwell Horne, entitled : 
 The Scripture doctrine of the Trinity, briefly 
 stated and defended. Mr. Horne has given, in a 
 concentrated and well-arranged form, almost every 
 text and argument I have ever met with in de- 
 fence of his doctrine. I cannot but think, how- 
 ever, that he has failed entirely in claiming 
 Scriptural support. I do not recollect any thing 
 urged from that source, which I have not, as I 
 conceive, fully refuted from the Scripture itself. 
 Mr. Horne insists strongly upon the authority of 
 the early Fathers, and gives (as is usual with the 
 defenders of his doctrine) copious extracts from 
 their writings. I do not profess to be thoroughly 
 acquainted with the works of these Fathers, but I 
 have read enough to convince me that if any man, 
 whose principles were not fully settled, would de- 
 vote his time to the study of their works, with the 
 view of receiving instruction from them, he would 
 presently be at a loss to ascertain the nature of his 
 own faith: he would be unable to decidé in his 
 mind, whether he were a Platonist, a Christian, or 
 a Deist; but I think it probable that the con- 
 
150 
 
 clusion of his studies would leave him strongly 
 iticlined to the latter character. The authority of 
 these Fathers has been appealed to by Arians and 
 Trinitarians, by Calvinists and Arminians, by 
 Roman Catholics and Protestants; and by every one 
 with a show of support to his own cause! Are 
 we to seek doctrinal instruction from such writings, 
 when the Gospel of Christ is open before us ? 
 We are far better qualified at the present day to 
 form a correct judgment of the true meaning of 
 that blessed book, than were any of those Fathers, 
 the contemporaries of the Apostles only excepted. 
 Our minds are not cramped by endeavours to make 
 the pure and simple doctrines of Christianity meet 
 those of Plato or Aristotle; neither are we obliged 
 to dissemble, from a dread of the secular arm. 
 
 No one can read the history of the Christian 
 Church without perceiving how soon the Fathers 
 forsook the clear and rational doctrines taught by 
 our Lord and his Apostles, and adulterated them 
 with the principles of human philosophy. 
 
 Dr. Mosheim, in his History of the Church, 
 during the second century, says—‘ Nothing is 
 ‘““ more manifest than this truth, that the noble 
 “simplicity and dignity of religion were sadly 
 “corrupted in many places, when the philoso- 
 “‘ phers blended their opinions with its pure 
 ‘“‘ doctrines.” And the learned translator of 
 Mosheim’s work, Dr. Archibald Maclaine, in a 
 note, says—“ The coalition between Platonism 
 
151 
 
 6é 
 
 and Christianity, in the second and third cen- 
 ““ turies, is a fact too fully proved to be rendered 
 “ dubious by mere affirmations.” From the 
 period of this unhappy coalition we _ find -con- 
 tinual dissentions, and cruel persecutions in the 
 Christian Church: Bishop opposing Bishop, and 
 Council opposing Council. In short, nothing can 
 be more obvious, than that the foundation of all 
 those corruptions and superstitions which have 
 so shamefully disfigured the beautiful face of 
 Christianity, was laid in the second and third 
 centuries, by those persons whom we are taught 
 to dignify with the venerable title of Early 
 Fathers! The language in which they reviled, 
 and the vindictive temper in which they perse- 
 cuted each other, sufficiently show that “they 
 “ knew not what manner of spirit they were of.” 
 Now there is not any one Christian virtue more 
 earnestly enjoined by our blessed Lord than that 
 of brotherly love. “ A new commandment I give 
 “unto you, that ye love one another.” (John 
 13. 34.) Again, “ This is my commandment, 
 “ that ye love one another.” Our Lord commands 
 that this principle of Jove may be extended even 
 to our enemies, (Matt. 15. 44.) 
 
 The beloved Disciple affirms that—“ He that 
 “ dwelleth in Jove dwelleth in God, and God in 
 “ him.” (1 John 4, 16.) And again—* If any 
 “man say I love God and hateth his brother, he 
 “is a liar.” (Ibid. v. 20.) The Christian virtue 
 
152 
 
 of brotherly love was deeply: eyelet! in the heart 
 of this amiable Apostle. 
 
 » Itas related, that in his extreme old age, when 
 -he was so feeble as to be obliged to be carried to 
 ‘the different places where the brethren assembled, 
 and unable to deliver a lengthened discourse, he 
 constantly pronounced the following short sentence: 
 —‘ My dear children, love one another.” On 
 being asked why he only repeated the same thing, 
 he replied—* Nothing else is needful.” He thought 
 that every good disposition would: follow that of 
 brotherly love. This amiable temper prevailed 
 also in the breasts of St. John’s Disciples, of which 
 some striking proofs might be adduced. 
 
 If we turn to the third and fourth centuries, 
 which some of our Theologians do not scruple to 
 pronounce “The purest ages of the Christian 
 “ Church*,” instead of brotherly love, we find 
 envy, hatred, malice, and all manner of un- 
 charitableness. When the simple and_ rational 
 doctrine of the Gospel was dismissed, pray! 
 love fled with it. 
 
 St. Paul tells the Galatians that “The fruit of 
 “\ the Sprrit is love, peace, long-suffering, gentle- 
 “ ness,” &c. (Gal. 5. 22.) And our blessed Lord 
 said—“ By this shall all men know that ye are 
 ““ my Disciples, if ye have love one to another.” 
 
 *See BisHor Tomuinr’s Elements of Christian Theology, 
 Vol. II. p, 88, 2nd Edit. 
 
153 
 
 (John 13. 35.) Judging then of the tree by its 
 Jruit, it cannot be believed that these Fathers, as 
 they are called, were under the guidance of the 
 Holy Spirit, neither could they be Anown as: Dis- 
 ciples of the mild, forbearing, love-promoting 
 Jesus: yet upon the authority of such men are 
 we required to confess .a most awful doctrine, 
 which is denied in the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 My remarks upon the writings of these Fathers 
 are meant to apply only to such parts as are doc- 
 trinal and controversial: in other respects, much 
 good and edifying matter may be found in their 
 works. It must be admitted, that the sentiments 
 of those Apostolical Fathers, Clement of Rome, 
 Polycarp, and Ignatius, were entitled to our 
 highest respect, if we could depend on the genuine- 
 ness of such remains of their writings as have 
 come down to us: but when we find (for I believe 
 it is now completely proved) that even the Holy 
 Scripture has been garbled and interpolated, to 
 support a doctrine, we may. reasonably suspect 
 that the writings of these Fathers have not es- 
 caped from depravation; especially as it is ad- 
 mitted, by Ecclesiastical historians, that nothing 
 was more common in the third century than the 
 forging of great. and venerable names, and send- 
 ing forth works as their productions. Indeed, it is 
 acknowledged by learned and judicious critics, that 
 passages are to be found in the writings ascribed 
 to the Apostolical Fathers which could not possibly 
 
154 
 
 have been written in their days; and that there is 
 sufficient proof of such corruption and interpolation, 
 as to make it difficult to distinguish what is 
 genuine from what is false. 
 
 Happily for the cause of truth, a kind Provi- 
 dence disposed the hearts of many good and pious 
 Christians, in the second century, to disperse a 
 considerable number of copies of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures over various parts of the world, and caused 
 them to be translated into the languages of the 
 countries whither they were sent; it was therefore 
 impossible to corrupt, or interpolate them all ; but 
 the writings of individuals, being confined to a 
 few hands, might easily be altered to suit a parti- 
 cular purpose. 
 
 So long as students in Div inity learn their doc- 
 trines from these reputed Fathers,—so long as 
 Tutors at our Universities continue ‘‘ teaching for 
 ‘* doctrines the commandments of men,” we must 
 despair of seeing Christianity restored to its primi- 
 tive purity. : | 
 
 Our Church confesses that “ Holy Scripture con- 
 “ taineth all things necessary to salvation.” It is 
 obvious, then, that students preparing themselves 
 for the Church ought to draw their stream of 
 knowledge from that pure fountain. It is there 
 that their theological studies ought to be begun, 
 continued, and ended. Let them study the Scrip- 
 tures, especially the New Testament, za the original 
 text, comparing doctrinal passages with their paral- 
 
155 
 
 lels, and looking carefully how words or terms are 
 used throughout the whole of the Gospels and 
 Epistles; let them pursue this method diligently, 
 and they would soon become their own best Expo- 
 sitors. , | 
 
 After such a process, and an attentive study of 
 Ecclesiastical history, I believe they would read 
 the works of the Fathers, as well as some of our 
 modern Commentators, with very little feeling of 
 respect. ! 
 
 It may be a matter of wonder with many people, 
 how it has happened that so many pious and 
 learned Divines have declared their full belief of 
 the Athanasian doctrine, if it be not scriptural. 
 But the same question may be asked regarding the 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation. That doctrine has 
 been entirely believed, and strenuously defended, 
 by many learned and pious men, for more than six 
 hundred years past. The effect in both cases 
 may be traced to the same cause. Our Church 
 having declared the Athanasian doctrine to be a 
 fundamental article of faith (as the Church of 
 Rome has done in the other case) young men 
 cannot be ordained unless they subscribe to it; 
 and as the doctrine (like that of Transubstantiation) 
 is more assailable than any other, the greatest 
 pains are taken to establish the belief of it upon 
 the mind of the student, by putting into his hands 
 the works of learned and eloquent men who have 
 laboured in its defence. 
 
156 
 
 Now, every one who has attended to the educa- 
 tion of youth must have noticed the powerful 
 influence which great names have upon the minds 
 of young students, and the fixed and lasting im- 
 pression they make. Errors in doctrine, therefore, 
 arise from the study of Theology from human 
 authority instead of Divine. 
 
 Such eloquence has been employed in endea- 
 vouring to make the Athanasian doctrine square 
 with the Holy Scriptures, and so powerful the 
 effect of early impressions, that if a Clergyman 
 were asked where he learned that doctrine, he 
 would probably say, ‘from the Bible” The Ro- 
 manist would say the same thing of Transubstan- 
 tiation. And if we cull out detached scraps of 
 Scripture, without attending to the context, or 
 general scope of the discourse (as Mr. Jones and 
 other writers have done), the supporter of Transub- 
 stantiation would have more to say in defence of 
 that doctrine, absurd as it is, than can be urged in 
 favour of the Athanasian creed; for he might 
 quote such texts as these: “ This is my body.” 
 “ Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and 
 “ drink his blood, ye have no life in you;” and 
 other expressions of a like nature: but in no part 
 of the Bible is it declared that the Supreme Being 
 consists of three Persons. © 
 
 It may be remarked, too, that the Lateran 
 Council, -under Pope Innocent III., by whose de- 
 cree this absurd doctrine was pronounced a true 
 
157 
 
 and orthodox article of faith, was attended by 
 upwards of four hundred Bishops ; a much greater 
 number than is said to have attended at the Coun- 
 cil of Nice. And besides these, there was, at the 
 Council of the Lateran, an almost innumerable 
 host of inferior Clergy. 
 
 Many of the corruptions and superstitions which, 
 from time to time, have been dragged into the 
 Christian Church, though they were imposed upon 
 the minds of a credulous people in an age of dark- 
 ness, are yet so strange and absurd as to excite 
 surprise ; but that a doctrine which is not merely 
 unsupported, but absolutely denied in the Holy 
 Scriptures, and is at the same time repugnant to 
 man’s reason, should be retained in this enlightened 
 country, and to this pre-eminently enlightened 
 period, is a moral phenomenon which nothing but 
 experience could render credible. 
 
 We seem even now to have arrived only at that 
 state of spiritual twilight mentioned in the 14th 
 ch. of Zechariah, not perfect day, but yet not night; 
 the light not clear, but yet not dark. This, how- 
 ever, is followed by a cheering prophecy. “ It 
 “ shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall 
 *“ be light.”—-* And the Lord shall be King over 
 “ all the earth: in that day there shall be ONE 
 « Lorp and his NAME ONE.” 
 
 I entirely believe that the day is not far distant; 
 when this important matter will be rightly under- 
 
158 
 
 stood, and the true Scriptural doctrine be generally 
 received throughout this kingdom. 
 
 Mr. Horne, speaking of the Athanasian doc- 
 trine, says—‘ Remove it, and the whole fabric 
 “ of Christianity falls.” Had he used the word 
 retain instead of remove, he would have been 
 much more correct. 
 
 Many well- “meaning persons soiiales be apt to 
 reply to my arguments, somewhat in the following 
 manner :— 
 
 ‘ The doctrine confessed in the Athanasian and 
 ‘ Nicene creeds has been preached in the esta- 
 ‘ blished Church of this kingdom ever since the 
 Reformation. It has been urged as a primary 
 article of Christian faith, and has been conti- 
 nually impressed upon the minds of the hearers 
 ‘ with every argument that learning and genius 
 * could supply: the belief of it has been declared 
 ‘ indispensably necessary to salvation. If the people 
 ‘ were now told that this doctrine is, at last, found 
 ‘ to be unscriptural and erroneous, it might rea- 
 ‘ sonably be expected that they would entertain, 
 ‘ at least, a doubt of every other article of Chris- 
 ‘ tian faith; and not only the Church, but 
 ‘ Christianity itself would be in danger of a com- 
 ‘ plete overthrow: we might expect to see Deism 
 ‘ prevail generally. How cruel a task would be 
 ‘ imposed upon the Clergy, if they were required 
 to get into their pulpits and tell their hearers 
 
 a 
 
 wn 
 
 ay 
 
 “ 
 
159 
 
 “ 
 
 that they must no longer believe the doctrine 
 which had been preached to them all their lives ! 
 Even admitting that the doctrine is not fully sup- 
 ported by the Holy Scriptures, we know that we 
 shall be judged by an All-merciful Being, who 
 will not condemn any one for an error which 
 originated in his education and not in his will. 
 What injury, then, can arise from the continued 
 preaching of this doctrine ?’ 
 
 a a a a ~~ nn Cay 
 
 " 
 
 I say, after this manner many well-meaning men 
 would be apt toreason. It might be replied, that 
 a formal denial of the doctrine would be highly 
 improper, perhaps dangerous; neither would it be 
 possible to force the Clergy publicly to deny the 
 principles which they had so long laboured to in- 
 culcate ; and which, from their early education, it 
 is reasonable to suppose they did conscientiously 
 preach. It would be only necessary to restore the 
 matter to the state in which, we are told, it stood 
 in the primitive Church ; that is, not to presume to 
 enter with freedom and particularity into a subject 
 which is, confessedly, above the comprehension of 
 the human mind, but to leave every man to form 
 -his judgment from a careful study of Holy Scrip- 
 ture. If such a reformation were managed with 
 prudence and judgment, I am satisfied, that so far 
 from encouraging Deism, it would speedily produce 
 the good fruits of Christianity—unity, brotherly 
 love, and improved morality. But the precepts of 
 Christianity can never have their proper effect 
 
160 
 
 while its doctrines are made to appear absurd. I 
 conclude, that few people can believe that an All- 
 merciful Judge will condemn, and punish any one 
 for an error in judgment, which was purely acci- 
 dental, being the effect of education ; but the con- 
 cluding question which I have proposed, namely : 
 What injury can arise from the continued preach- 
 ing of the Athanasian doctrine ? is most highly 
 important. 
 
 Immense injury has already arisen from it; and 
 that injury will rapidly and fearfully increase, unless 
 the cause be removed by the Church. 
 
 From many conversations which have occasion- 
 ally passed in my hearing, I am persuaded that 
 nine in ten of the educated part of the Laity look 
 upon the Athanasian creed just as men of educa- 
 tion in the Romish religion do upon ‘Transubstan- 
 tiation, that is, as a gross absurdity. Few men 
 have leisure, or inclination, to set about.a laborious 
 research into the Holy Scriptures, in order to 
 satisfy their minds whether or not the doctrine be 
 declared therein; and when the mind opens to a 
 conviction of its absurdity, a doubt (to say the 
 least of it) is entertained of the truth of Chris- 
 tianity itself. This is the case, not only on the 
 continent of Europe, but toa great extent among 
 ourselves. - 
 
 The Clergy are not aware é how widely this kind 
 of scepticism prevails at the present day. Good 
 breeding imposes restraint upon a man of education. 
 
161 
 
 To argue with a clergyman in opposition to a doc-’ 
 trine which he regularly confesses in his Church;: 
 would be an ungracious task. The truth is, that’ 
 this Athanasian creed is a canker worm, Showing’ 
 the vitals of Christianity. il 
 
 When any doctrine is introduced into religion 
 which common sense shows to be absurd, a deadly 
 wound is inflicted upon religion itself. It is well 
 remarked by Bishop Hoadley, that “ When infide- 
 “ lity is making its efforts, it is ever seen to draw’ 
 * its main strength from the extravagancies and 
 “* weaknesses of Christians, and not from the de- 
 “ clarations of Christ or his Apostles.” bo 
 
 If Christianity had been preserved in the usta 
 intelligible, and rational form, in which it was 
 originally given to the world, its fitness fér pro- 
 moting the happiness of man in this life, as well as 
 pointing out the way to a better hereafter, would 
 have been so obvious, that it must have spread 
 over the whole earth before this time: the name of 
 Mahomet would have been unknown to us. 
 
 I remember a conversation which I had some’ 
 years ago with a professional gentleman, who was’ 
 allowed to be an accomplished scholar, but a pro- 
 fessed Deist. In reply to some arguments which 
 I had used in defence of Christianity, he said there 
 was nothing in the religion of Mahomet so absurd’ 
 as the doctrine which our Church requires its 
 members publicly to confess, and even to acknow- 
 ledge that their eternal happiness is forfeited 
 
 M 
 
162 
 
 unless they believe it, namely, that one zs three, 
 and three is one. I confess I felt greatly embar- 
 rassed and distressed at this saying; for any 
 attempt to reconcile the position with common 
 sense, in the way it is argued by our Divines, 
 would have been unavailing, neither could I con- 
 scientiously have done it. 
 
 If we reflect upon the important duty of sfitud 
 ing the Gospel of Christ over the benighted nations 
 of the earth, our minds will naturally turn to that 
 interesting quarter—our vast possessions in the 
 East. Now it is confessed, by all who are well 
 acquainted with India, that no considerable pro- 
 gress can be made there unless the Brahmins be 
 first converted. Let us suppose, then, that a 
 Christian Missionary proposed to one of these, as a 
 fundamental article of Christian faith, the follow- 
 ing clause in the Athanasian creed—“ The Father 
 ** is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is. 
 ‘* God: and yet they are not three Gods but one 
 ‘© God.” How could it be expected that a man 
 possessed of any portion of intellect would embrace 
 a religion thus recommended to his acceptance ? 
 If such doctrine would be abhorrent to the mind 
 of a Hindoo, what effect must it produce on the 
 immense Mahometan population of those coun- 
 tries? They would consider it blasphemous in 
 the highest degree. Until Christianity be re- 
 stored to its original simplicity and reasonableness, _ 
 no well-grounded hope can be entertained of 
 
163 
 
 spreading it over the world. I have felt it dis- 
 tressing to commit to writing the awful passage 
 quoted above, as.'well as the necessity of using 
 the name of the Supreme Being very frequently 
 in the course’ of my remarks; but, to meet the 
 arguments of controversial writers, I: fount it 
 mene toavoid it. | | 
 We are told that the Jews held the sabe name 
 of the Most High in such awful veneration that 
 they dared not even’to pronounce it, but used the 
 word Tetragrammaton, by which: they meant the 
 awful name of four letters. It might be wished 
 that our Theologians were impressed with: the 
 same feeling. . It is frightful to see the name: of 
 the inconceivably glorious Creator constantly: used 
 with the utmost ils Waste merely to support an 
 argument. » | : et he 
 ‘To return to my main’ inbject: It is diesel 
 ledged that our early Reformers conceded very far 
 upon’ some points with the view of conciliating 
 parties, and thereby of bringing as many as they 
 possibly could within the sist of the: gt 
 reformed Church. ph 
 Some of these concessions hasld been injurious. 
 For instance, it can hardly be doubted ‘that the 
 17th Article; upon predestination, aided by: an 
 evident leaning to the Calvinistic notion, in our 
 translation of the New Testament, has greatly 
 contributed to those sad dissentions. which un- 
 happily prevail within the Church at the present 
 
164 
 
 time. It would have been well if this doctrine, 
 and also that which is the subject of the present 
 essay, had been left untouched. I have heard 
 many well-informed men, who were zealously at- 
 tached to the Church, express their opinion that a 
 Convocation would be highly useful, in order to 
 reform some of the points which were thus con- 
 ceded, the purposes for which such concessions 
 were made having passed away. Our Bishops 
 and Pastors in the Church would act wisely in 
 promoting such a Convocation without delay ; 
 they may possibly see the necessity of the measure 
 when it will be too late: the matter ought to ori- 
 ginate with the Church itself, Among other 
 important objects, a revised translation of the New 
 Testament might be‘determined on. The neces- 
 sity of a corrected translation has been acknow- 
 ledged. by many Prelates and eminent Divines 
 of the Church ; indeed, it must be obvious to every 
 unprejudiced person who will carefully examine 
 our version and compare it with the original. 
 
 Religious subjects are now discussed with a more 
 Christian temper than they were in former times; 
 and it can hardly be doubted, that a Convocation 
 for these purposes might be productive of immense 
 benefit to Christianity in general, and to the esta- 
 blished Church in particular. 
 
 It has also been acknowledged by pious and 
 learned Divines, that our Morning Service, as it 
 now stands (compiled from three distinct services), 
 
 <4 
 
165. 
 
 might be greatly improved. Some alteration. in 
 the arrangement of the Lessons appointed for 
 Sundays, the omission of some of the Psalms, and 
 the obliteration of frequent repetitions, especially 
 of the Lord’s Prayer, would be an obvious im- 
 provement. This might be effected with little 
 labour and without any kind of difficulty, whilst 
 it would tend to lessen the number of seceders 
 from our Church. 
 
 Will it be said that I am an enemy to this 
 Church? Nothing could be more unjust. Next 
 to my love of truth, I have been induced to 
 commit my ‘confessions to writing from my love 
 of this Church, entertaining a faint hope that my 
 labours, even homely as they are, may engage the 
 attention of some of the higher orders of the Clergy, 
 and tend to its advantage. If the moderate alter- 
 ations which I have ventured to suggest were 
 adopted, I believe the service of our Church would 
 come as near to the spirit of Christianity as the 
 state of the world at this day could admit. In 
 saying this, I mean not to throw the slightest re- 
 flection on those pious Dissenters whose form of 
 worship differs from it. | 
 
 If aught else, in the discipline and economy of 
 our National Church, stand in need of reform, I 
 
 cannot but believe that true Christian doctrine 
 would soon induce true Christian x sled and that 
 would set all right. 
 
166 
 
 It must be confessed, that the kind of reforma- 
 tion which I have ventured to suggest, regarding 
 doctrine, would be attended with many and great 
 difficulties. To alter a Liturgy and Articles of 
 Faith, which have been established for three cen- 
 turies, is no light and easy matter. Many other 
 obstacles would stand in the way; but surely the 
 interests of Christianity ought to be paramount to 
 every other consideration. 
 
 I entirely expect that my plain, common-sense 
 mode of reasoning, will be treated with the utmost 
 contempt by our Schoolmen. I: can imagine such 
 exclamations as the following :—‘ What consum- 
 “‘ mate arrogance! An obscure individual, who has 
 never been trained, in any school of Divinity, 
 presumes to dictate to men of profound learning 
 and science.” But be it remembered, I have 
 not pleaded for the introduction of any new doc- 
 trine into the Church; nor even for a formal 
 denial.of any old one. J have merely urged the 
 propriety of stlence upon subjects which are con- 
 fessedly beyond the reach of the human intellect. 
 
 In this, I cannot but believe I should be sup- 
 ported by the greater part of the Clergy, if they 
 would speak their minds freely. The pious and 
 humble-minded Richard Hooker, speaking of the 
 Supreme Being, says, “ He is above and we upon 
 “earth; therefore it behoveth our words to be 
 “ wary and few.” And again, “ Our soundest 
 
 66 
 
 6é 
 
 6é 
 
167 
 
 “ knowledge is to know that we know him not, 
 
 as indeed he is, neither can we know him; and 
 € 
 
 ‘ our safest eloquence concerning him, ts our 
 ‘ silence.” 
 
 “~ 
 
 6 
 
 nm 
 
 n~ 
 
 It is for this solemn and reverential silence only, 
 I plead. But this will not be conceded, so long 
 as the Athanasian doctrine is held to be scriptural. 
 
 I am far from undervaluing sound learning; it 
 is necessary that our Ministers be learned as well 
 as pious; but’ it has been justly observed, that 
 learning ought to be the handmaid, not the 
 arbitress of religion: I am sorry to say, she too 
 often assumes the latter office; and therefore I 
 am not singular in the opinion, that, upon the 
 whole, learning has been injurious rather than 
 serviceable to religion. A proof of this seems to 
 be exhibited in the state of religion among us. at 
 the present time; for whilst scepticism, it is to be 
 feared, prevails with men of finished education, 
 Christianity has certainly gained ground among 
 those of more limited scholastic learning. It will 
 not be denied that Christianity is the same thing 
 at this day that it was when taught by our Lord 
 and his Apostles. Now, one of the characteristics 
 of our Lord’s ministry was expressed in his own 
 words :—‘ The poor have the Gospel preached to 
 “ them.” These had no learning nor science, and 
 yet it appears that they understood our Lord’s 
 preaching perfectly well; and so would the poor 
 
168 
 
 of our own time, if the Gospel were preached to 
 them in its native simplicity. | 
 
 The remark which a late able writer makes 
 upon prophecy, may be justly applied to the whole 
 system of Christianity. He says, “ I believe that 
 “men of plain unsophisticated reason . find it 
 ‘* perfectly intelligible, and that it is only the 
 “ false fastidiousness of an artificial learning 
 ** which puts scruples into our perceptions either 
 “* of its consistency or its sense*.” \ It is obvious, 
 however, that a Minister in a Christian church 
 ought to have, at least, learning enough to enable 
 him to read the New Testament in zs own 
 language, otherwise he must depend upon the 
 jarring and contradictory comments and expo- 
 sitions of his brethren. 
 
 Having now delivered my sentiments, I avow 
 myself open to conviction, if it: can be shown, 
 Jrom the Holy Scriptures, that I have erred; but 
 I enter my protest iia any other kind of 
 authority. : | 
 
 Whether. or not the awful subject of this essay 
 has been treated by any other person in the same 
 manner as that which I have pursued, is a matter 
 of which I am in utter ignorance. If so, it will 
 only show that I am not singular in the judgment 
 I have formed. I solemnly declare, that I have 
 
 _.™ Davison’s Discourses on Prophecy, p..840. 
 
 be 
 
169 
 
 not quoted any one text of Scripture, nor advanced 
 any one argument, that I had ever met with in 
 the writings of any author, the few passages which 
 ‘I have given as quotations only excepted. The 
 whole is the result of an anxious research through’ 
 the Holy Scriptures, and frequent serious medita- 
 tion upon the subject. The task was performed 
 during hours of solitude, and in a state of health 
 which seemed to warn me, almost daily, of the 
 approach of an event which to contemplate would 
 be horrible, if I were writing one sentence that 
 I did not entirely believe to be consistent with the 
 Revealed Word. 
 
 I now conclude, by quoting a passage from a 
 sermon of that pious Prelate, Bishop Taylor :— 
 ““ He who goes about to speak of the mystery 
 “ of the Trinity, and does it by words and names 
 “ of man’s invention ;—talking of essences and 
 “ existences, hypostases and personalities ; priority 
 in co-equalities, and unity in pluralities, may 
 ‘* amuse himself and build a tabernacle in his 
 “ head, and ¢a/k something, he knows not what: 
 “‘ but the good man, who feels the power of the 
 “ Father, and to whom the Son is become 
 “ wisdom, sanctification, and redemption; in 
 “ whose heart the love of the Spirit of God is 
 “ shed abroad ;—this man, though he understands 
 nothing of what is unintelligible, yet he alone 
 ‘* truly understands the Christian doctrine of the 
 * Trinity.” 
 
 6e¢ 
 
170 
 
 Is it possible for the pen or tongue of man to 
 express a more severe censure upon the Athana- 
 sian creed? To Bishop Taylor’s Trinity I could 
 subscribe with all my heart; but I do not scruple 
 to affirm, that the kind of Trimity described in 
 this ruin-working creed is altogether unsupported 
 by the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
A BRIEF ESSAY 
 
 SOCINIANISM. 
 
', 
 
 Suita terdiinivo® bo apne 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Iw the foregoing Essay I have ventured to 
 predict the downfal of the Athanasian doc- 
 trine, and the restoration of pure Christi- 
 anity within half a century. The greatest 
 impediment I can foresee in the way of so 
 desirable an event, is the lamentable and, 
 I fear, increasing prevalence of Socinianism. 
 
 By the term Socinianism, I mean that 
 doctrine which denies the pre-existence of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, and the benefits 
 offered to mankind through his merits, 
 sufferings, and death. Now, to give up the 
 Athanasian doctrine, and adopt this in its 
 stead, is only to exchange one error for an- 
 other equally unscriptural. 
 
 There are many points upon which men 
 may differ without violating the essential 
 principles of Christianity ; but if we con- 
 sider the Lord Jesus to have been no more 
 than an ordinary man, the son of Joseph, 
 and disclaim the offered “ propitiation 
 ‘“ through faith in his blood,” the Bible 
 
celx xiv PREFACE. 
 
 becomes worse than useless: we must look 
 upon it as only buoying us up with false 
 hopes, and leading us astray. 
 
 I have affirmed, and I here solemnly 
 repeat it, that I had never read any Uni- 
 tarian work when I composed my former 
 Essay. Nearly a year had elapsed after I 
 had completed that work before I looked 
 into any Unitarian or Socinian publication. 
 Since that time I have read several works 
 from the pens of the most eminent writers of 
 the latter persuasion. I have generally 
 found them powerful and satisfactory, so 
 far as they oppose the Athanasian doctrine, 
 and treat of the early corruptions of Chris- 
 tianity: but in their defence of the pe- 
 culiar doctrines, which we understand by 
 the term Socinianism, 1 humbly conceive 
 they are weak and unscriptural. If the 
 following pages should convince but an 
 individual, who may have imbibed their 
 notions, of the error, and the danger of 
 such doctrine, I should consider my time 
 to have been well employed. 
 
 Ji S56 
 Bath, 30th June; 1829. | 
 
A BRIEF ESSAY 
 
 SOCINTANISM. 
 
 Iv has been frequently, and truly remarked, 
 that parties engaged in controversy commonly 
 err by running into opposite extremes; and this is 
 more strikingly the case when the subject relates 
 to the doctrines of Christianity. 
 
 Thus, whilst some writers have affirmed that 
 our blessed Lord Jesus Christ is equal in dignity 
 and glory with his Almighty Father, others have 
 held that he had not even a pre-existent state, but 
 that he was an ordinary man,-the son of Joseph 
 and Mary. Others, more strangely still, have con- 
 fessed their belief in the evangelical narrative of 
 the miraculous conception of our Lord, and yet 
 deny that there was any thing super-human in his: 
 person ; and argue that the only benefit we can 
 derive from his ministry, sufferings, and death, is 
 transmitted to us in the excellent system of mora- 
 lity which he taught, and in the example of his 
 spotless and benevolent life. 
 
176 
 
 Amidst these jarring opinions, there is, however, 
 one cheering circumstance, which affords a hope 
 that the truth may at length be elicited; namely, 
 that all parties appeal to the Holy Scriptures as 
 the umpire: upon this appeal let us examine the 
 question in hand. If it can be shown that our 
 Lord’s pre-existence is no where declared in Holy 
 Scripture; nay, if it be not explicitly stated, then it 
 must be confessed that it would be difficult to con- 
 tend with the Socinian. This being a fundamental 
 point in the debate, I must crave indulgence if I 
 appear somewhat prolix in my inquiry into it. 
 
 I propose to be guided solely by the Holy 
 Scriptures, and to use no arguments but such as are 
 obviously deducible from those Scriptures. In the 
 first place, however, I must protest against such 
 objections as are founded upon the plea of interpo- 
 lation, unless such be supported by satisfactory 
 authority. I make this proviso, because some who 
 have endeavoured to refute the doctrine of our 
 Lord’s pre-existence, have found it necessary to 
 expunge the commencement of the Gospels of 
 Matthew and Luke; and this, by their own con- 
 fession, without any warrant or authority from 
 ancient manuscripts. | | 
 
 In setting about my search into the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, I do not eagerly avail myself of the pro- 
 phecies in the Old Testament, because they are 
 liable to cavil; albeit very many of them might 
 be urged with great effect, and have been declared. 
 
177 
 
 to point to the Messiah, by our Lord himself, as 
 weil as his Apostles. 
 
 In entering upon this subject it seems regular to 
 inquire in what manner our Lord was announced 
 by his harbinger, the Baptist. In. the 8rd «ch. 
 11th v. of St.. Matthew’s Gospel, he is thus pro- 
 claimed: “ He that cometh after me is mightier 
 * than I, whose shoes q am not worthy to bear: 
 ‘he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit,” &c. 
 When Jesus came to be baptized, “John forbad 
 “ him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee.” 
 And afterwards—“ Lo, a voice from Heaven, 
 “ saying, this is my beloved’ Son, in’ whom I am 
 “well pleased.” The same is pl one wie Mark 
 1. 11, and Luke 3. 22. | 
 
 Socinians, grasping at an aise in St. Paul's 
 Kpistle to the Philippians (2. 9.)—* Wherefore 
 “God also hath highly exalted him,” &c. argue 
 that our Lord’s glorious state in Heaven was be- 
 stowed upon him wholly in reward of his obedience 
 on earth, and that he did not previously enjoy that 
 glory... Now here a miraculous voice from Heaven 
 proclaims him, the Beloved Son of the Most High, 
 in whom he was well pleased, before our Lord had 
 even entered on his ministry. Is it credible that 
 such language could be addressed to one who was 
 merely the son of an obscure Carpenter ?.; But in 
 the Ist ch. 15th v. of St. John’s Gospel we find a 
 plain declaration of our Lord’s’ pre-existence’ by 
 the Baptist—‘ He that, cometh after me jis 'pre- 
 
 N 
 
178 
 
 “ ferred before me, for he was before me.” ‘Vhis 
 could not have been said either with regard to 
 our Lord’s birth or his ministry, for, in point of 
 time, John was before him in both; it must there- 
 fore refer to our Lord’s pre-existent state. Arch- 
 bishop Newcome thus paraphrases the passage : 
 «“ And justly does my Follower precede me, for 
 “ he existed before me.” Again, the Baptist, 
 speaking of Christ compared with himself, says, 
 “ He that cometh from above is above all; he 
 “ that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of 
 “ theearth; he that cometh from Heaven is above 
 “ all. (John 3. 31.) John here plainly declares 
 himself to be of the earth, an ordinary man; but, 
 as Archbishop Newcome justly observes,  “ If 
 “ coming from above, or from Heaven, meant only 
 “ receiving a Divine commission (as Sccinians 
 “ argue) then John came from above, or from 
 “ Heaven, as well as Jesus.” Surely this plain 
 avowal of the Baptist is a complete refutation 
 of the Socinian argument. | 
 
 . Having now briefly noticed some of the charac- 
 ters by which our Lord is designated by his Fore- 
 runner, let us attend to the words of our Lord 
 himself, and his Apostles. 
 
 The opening of St. John’s Gospel has been con- 
 stantly urged by orthodox writers, in support of 
 the doctrine of our Lord’s supreme. Divinity, 
 ‘whilst Socinians have endeavoured to show that 
 the term Logos was not meant by the Apostle to 
 
179 
 
 apply to Christ. I think it must be admitted, by 
 impartial readers, that St. John’s manner of expres- 
 sion renders the passage éxtremely ambiguous ; so 
 much so, that if there were not other texts from 
 the same writer, by which it may, in some degree, 
 be elucidated, it would be difficult: to estimate the 
 comparative weight of opposing arguments. 
 Various discordant opinions have been stated by 
 Socinian writers regarding the term Logos, or “the 
 “ Word,” as it is used in this proem ; but I think 
 an unprejudiced reader would allow that our Lord 
 is designated by the Apostle. He says—‘* The 
 “ word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us.” 
 (1. 14.) And in his first Epistle (4. 2.) —« Every 
 “ Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come 
 “in the Flesh is of God.” The first verse of his 
 Gospel affirms that “he was in the beginning with 
 “ God ;” and at the 10th: verse—* He was in ‘the 
 * world, and the world was made by him.” That 
 the power by which he made the world, as well as 
 every other power which he exercised, was derived 
 from his Heavenly Father, our Lord: himself fre- 
 quently declares.. He was, as Archbishop Newcomé 
 observes, “‘ the visible Agent and Instrument ;” or 
 as St. Paul, in few but. powerful words, .expresses 
 it—“ By Him God made the worlds.” (Heb. '1: 2. ) 
 And again—* By’ Him were: all. things. created’ 
 “ that are in Heaven and that are in earth,”.&c? 
 (Col. 1.16.) ‘Upon. this last text the Archbishop 
 says—“ Here a proper creation is meant, and not 
 
180 
 
 “ a figurative one to good works.” The only use 
 I mean to make of these passages, is to show that 
 the Scriptures affirm that God made the world by 
 the agency of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and unless 
 he had existed before the world he could not have 
 been engaged in forming it. | 
 
 Upon the opening of the Gospel by St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke, it.is unnecessary to say more than 
 that both of them most explicitly affirm that the 
 conception of. our Lord was miraculous, and that 
 he was not the son of Joseph. In the Ist ch. 
 95th v., St. Matthew, speaking of Joseph and 
 Mary, says, “ He knew her not till she had brought 
 “forth her first-born son; and he called his name 
 « Jesus.” 
 
 The title which our Lord frequently applies to 
 himself of “ Son of Man,” has been often appealed 
 to by Socinian writers; but many texts in the 
 New Testament clearly show that this title does 
 not. declare him to be mere man, the son of 
 Joseph. Our Lord seems. to have adopted it in 
 reference to the expression used. by Daniel (7 eekoe 
 14.) —* Behold one like the Son of man came with 
 « the clouds of Heaven, and came to the Ancient 
 “of days.” —“ And there was given him dominion 
 « and glory, and a kingdom that all people and 
 “ nations and languages should serve him ; his 
 « dominion is an everlasting dominion,” &c. | 
 
 That the title was adopted by our Lord from 
 this passage in Daniel is, 1 think, clear by_his 
 
181 
 
 answer to the High Priest, on the evening before 
 his crucifixion,— Hereafter shall yesee the Son of 
 “ man sitting on the right hand of power, and 
 “ coming in the clouds of Heaven.” (Matt. 26. 64.) 
 
 Here, and in many other texts, at the same 
 time that our Lord assumes the title of “ Son of 
 ‘“ man,” he declares himself to be more than can 
 be conceived of a mere ordinary son of man: for 
 instance :—* The son of man shall send forth his 
 “ Angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom 
 “ all things that offend,” &c. (Matt. 13. 11.) 
 
 When our Lord asked his Disciples—“ Whom 
 “ do men say that I the Son of man am?” and on 
 receiving an answer, asked again :—‘* But whom 
 say ye that 1 am?” Peter answered—* Thou art 
 “ the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Upon 
 this, our Lord said—-“ Flesh and blood hath not 
 “ revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in 
 “ Heaven.” 
 
 Now, if our Lord had been no more than an 
 ordinary man, like the Disciples themselves, it 
 required no inspiration to reply to the question; 
 Peter would have said at once, “ we say that thou 
 “art the son of Joseph and Mary, of Nazareth in 
 “ Galilee.” It appears to my understanding that 
 this passage proclaims our Lord to be more than 
 man. Let us proceed in our examination of this 
 title, “Son of man.” At the 8th ch. 38th v. of St. 
 Mark’s Gospel, we read the words of our Lord— 
 “ Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my 
 
182 
 
 “ words, of him also shall the Son of man be 
 “ ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his 
 “ Father with the holy Angels.” And at the 
 12th ch. 8th and 9th v. of St. Luke—“‘ Whosoever 
 « shall confess me before men, him shall che Son of 
 « man confess before the Angels of God.” Again, 
 at the Ist ch. 51st v. of St John—“ Hereafter ye 
 «shall see Heaven open, and the Angels of God 
 “ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” 
 These are expressions that could not have fallen 
 from ‘the lips of the meek and lowly Jesus if he 
 were no more than an ordinary man. 
 
 Buta most explicit declaration of our Lord’s pre- 
 existence, coupled with the title Son of man, is 
 given in the 3rd ch. 13th v. of St. John’s Gospel— 
 “No man goeth up to Heaven but he who came 
 « down from Heaven, even the Son of man, who 
 “ was in Heaven.” ‘For so the text is translated 
 by Archbishop Newcome, who is supported in it 
 by good authority. Another positive declaration 
 of pre-existence is given in the 6th ch. 62nd v. of 
 St. John—“ What, and if ye shall see the Son of 
 “ man ascend up where he was before?” Many 
 other texts might be quoted; I have selected only 
 a few from each of “io Evangelists, to show that 
 the title “Son of man” is accompanied with ex- 
 pressions which could not possibly be applied to 
 mere man; therefore the words cannot be taken in 
 their ordinary acceptation, and consequently cannot 
 be fairly urged to disprove our Lord’s pre-existence. 
 
183 
 
 I appeal to Archbishop Newcome, rather than to 
 any other authority, because I have observed that 
 Socinian writers frequently refer to his translation 
 of the New Testament. The Archbishop, in a 
 note upon Matt. 8. 20, where the title “Son of 
 “ man” first occurs, says—“‘ This is humble lan- 
 “ guage, and has a latent reference to our Lord's 
 “ pre-existing state.” ! 
 
 Let us now inquire if there be not many pas- 
 sages in the New Testament which plainly declare 
 our Lord’s super-human character. 
 
 I have quoted a passage from the Ist ch. of St. 
 Matthew’s Gospel, which positively affirms that our 
 Lord was not the Son of Joseph. 1 may now 
 notice a corroborative expression in his genealogy 
 ‘of our Lord. He begins thus: —“ Abraham begat 
 “ Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob;” and in this way 
 it is continued down to Joseph; but then he says 
 not Joseph begat Jesus, but “Jacob begat Joseph, 
 “* the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” 
 (Matt. 1. 16.) | cif 
 
 A distinction of the same kind is noticeable in 
 the genealogy given by St. Luke (3. 23.)—* And 
 “ Jesus himself began to be about thirty years 
 “ of age, being (as was supposed) the son of 
 “ Joseph.” Why should the Evangelist say, “as 
 “* was supposed,” if he considered Jesus to be the 
 son of Joseph? 
 
 Socinians object to the translation of av, ws 
 
184 
 
 evouicero, “as was supposed ;” but this is a ground- 
 
 less objection. The words are fairly translated ; 
 and cavil as they may; it is impossible for them to’ 
 find out any other meaning to answer their pur- 
 pose. To say that he was, i the sense of the law, 
 considered to be the son of Joseph amounts to 
 the same thing. Most of the learned Biblical 
 Critics consider that St. Matthew gave the natural, 
 
 and St. Luke the. civil or legal genealogy of 
 Joseph ; but this in no way affects the Pee of 
 our Lord. 
 
 » It has been admitted bie some writers, eanteh 
 
 they supported. the doctrine of our Lord’s pre- 
 existence, that. the title, “Son of God,” cannot 
 
 fairly be urged.as proof of his super-human nature, 
 because the same expression has been used to. 
 others ; yet we find, in the writings of the Evan- 
 
 gelists, that it is applied to our Lord in a far 
 
 different manner from that in which it is given in 
 
 Scripture to any other person. This is very striking 
 
 in the case of Demoniacs. “ Unclean Spirits, when 
 
 “ they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, 
 
 “ saying thou art the Son of God.” (Mark 3. 11.) 
 
 Again, when our Lord went over into the country 
 
 of the Gadarenes, a Demoniac, “* when he saw 
 
 « Jesus afar off,, he ran and worshipped him, and 
 
 * cried with a loud voice and said, What have I 
 
 “ to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most 
 
 “ High God.’ (Mark 5.7.) Several other in- 
 
185 
 
 stances of the like kind are recorded. I say the 
 title, “ Son of God,” was never used in this man- 
 ner towards any other person. 
 
 _ It has been said by the advocates of Socinianism, 
 that St. Luke no where declares the pre-existence 
 and super-human nature of our Lord. This must 
 be the effect either of prejudice or a careless pe- 
 rusal of his writings, for it is obviously implied 
 throughout his whole Gospel. 
 
 _. We may, in the first place, observe the differ- 
 ence he makes between the annunciation to Za- 
 charias and that to Mary. To the former, thus— 
 “ Thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and 
 “ thou shalt call his name John. (Luke 1. 13.) 
 But to Mary—* Behold thou shalt conceive in thy 
 *“ womb, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call his 
 “name Jesus.” To the objection of Mary— 
 “ How shall this be, seeing I know not a man 2” 
 The Angel replied —* The Holy Spirit shall come 
 “upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall 
 “ overshadow thee ; therefore also that Holy Thing 
 ** that shall be born of thee, shall be called the 
 “ Son of God.” We must, then, either deny the 
 truth of Holy Scripture, or confess that Jesus was 
 more than an ordinary man. There are many 
 passages in the narrative given by this Evangelist 
 that are irreconcileable with the notion of the mere 
 humanity of Christ. At the 7th ch. 28th v., our 
 Lord, speaking of the Baptist, says—* Among 
 
186 
 
 “ those that are born of women, there »is not. a 
 “ greater Prophet than John the Baptist.” 
 
 It cannot be supposed that this pre-eminence 
 could be obtained by being only the messenger to 
 prepare the way before another Prophet like the 
 Baptist himself.. Again, at the 11th ch. 31st v.— 
 «“ The Queen of the South came from the utmost 
 “ parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solo- 
 “ mon; and behold, a greater than Solomon: is 
 ‘“ here.” This, again, is language that our Lord 
 would not have used, had he been conscious that 
 he was merely an ordinary man. A decided. re- 
 futation ofthe humanitarian doctrine appears to 
 me to be given by St. Luke at the 10th ch. 22nd v. 
 —<‘* Noman knoweth who the Son is but the 
 «¢ Father, and who the Father is but the Son, and 
 “ he to whom the Son will reveal him.” Now, if 
 our. Lord had been no other than the son of Joseph, 
 there could have been no difficulty in knowing who 
 he was; but here it is declared that he was known 
 only to the Father. So far as St. Luke’s testimony 
 can be relied on, this passage seems to be conclusive: 
 
 Let us now look into the Gospel according to 
 St. John. At the 6th ch. 33rd v. we find our 
 Lord’s plain declaration—* The bread of God is 
 ‘ he (or that) which cometh down from Heaven, 
 “ and giveth ‘life unto’ the world ;” and. at ‘the 
 35th v.—“I am the bread of life.” Again (38th v.), 
 “ I came down, from Heaven, not to do mine own 
 
187 
 
 « will, but the will of him that sent me,” At the 
 8th ch. 42nd v.—“ Jesus said unto them, if God 
 “ were your Father, you would love me, for J 
 “« »roceeded forth and came from God ;” and at 
 the 58th v.—* Before Abraham was, I am.” | 
 
 Now, if the language of the Gospel be in any 
 degree intelligible to plain readers, our Lord’s pre- 
 existence in Heaven is declared in varied style of 
 expression, no fewer than four times, in this narro 
 compass. The last-quoted text is thus paraphrased 
 by Archbishop Newcome :—*“ Before ever Abra- 
 “ham, the person of whom you speak, was born, 
 ‘* I had a real being and existence, in which I 
 ‘“‘ have continued until now.” 
 
 Some learned critics have rendered the pas- 
 sage—“ Before Abraham was, I was.” 
 
 At the last melancholy interview which our 
 Lord had with his Apostles, he was still more 
 explicit upon the point in question than he had 
 been hitherto. Amongst other expressions which 
 clearly pointed to his pre-existence, he said—‘ [ 
 “ came forth from the Father, and am come 
 “* into the world; again I leave the world, and go — 
 “ to the Father.” (John 16. 28.) These words 
 are so plain and unequivocal that no Socinian 
 argument can give them a second meaning. The 
 Apostles thought so; for upon this, “‘ His Disciples 
 “ said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, 
 ‘* and speakest no proverb ;”—— By this we believe 
 “ that thou camest forth from God.” (John 16. 29.) 
 
188 
 
 ‘There are some expressions in this most inter- 
 esting discourse which seem to show that our Lord 
 considered the belief in his pre-existence to be an 
 important article of faith. For instance—* The 
 “ Father himself loveth you because ye have loved 
 “ me,andhave believed that I came out from God.” 
 (John 16. 27.) Again, in a fervent prayer for the 
 Apostles, our Lord saith—* For (o7:) I have given 
 ** unto them the words which thou gavest me, 
 “ and they have received them, and have known 
 “ surely that L came out from thee, and they have 
 “ believed that thou didst send me.” (John 17. 8.) 
 I would not willingly press an argument beyond 
 its fair and reasonable bearing, but I must say it 
 appears to my understanding that the Apostle’s 
 entire belief in our Lord’s pre-existence and hea- 
 venly mission is here pleaded in the way of a 
 recommendation to the Divine favour. At the 
 17th ch. 5th v., we find our Lord exclaiming, “ And 
 “ now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own 
 “ self with the glory which I had with thee before 
 “ the world was.” 
 
 This text is explained by inkchbashop Newcome 
 thus :—‘ With the glory which I had actually 
 “ with thee, not in design and intention.” To 
 argue, as Socinians do, that the glory here spoken 
 of means an anticipated glory, which our Lord was 
 to enjoy after the completion of his ministry on 
 earth, is to violate common sense. It were better 
 to give up the Bible altogether than thus to per- 
 
189 
 
 vert the obvious meaning of its language. At the 
 24th y. of the same chapter, we read our Lord’s 
 words—* For thou lovedst me before the founda- 
 « tion of the world.” Socinians endeavour, by very 
 unfair means, to invalidate the plain declaration 
 contained in this text. ‘They say it means an 
 anticipated love for future and foreseen merit, and 
 that it bears no reference to a Being in existence 
 before our Lord’s abode on earth. With the view 
 of proving this, they appeal to the 13th ch. 8th v. 
 of Revelation, where we find, as it stands in our 
 translation, these words :— The Lamb slain from 
 “ the foundation of the world.’ Now, say they, 
 as this has respect to a future event, so the love 
 mentioned by our Lord relates to a promised 
 future love. I say this is unfair, because they 
 claim support from a book the authenticity of 
 which they deny when any of its numerous texts 
 opposed to their doctrine are brought forward 
 against them. But, in truth, the text in no way 
 serves their purpose, for Dr. Doddridge and Arch- 
 bishop Newcome show unquestionably that the 
 words, “ From the foundation of the world,” are 
 not applied to “ the Lamb that was slain,” but. to 
 the Beast and his idolatrous worshippers. This 
 will be obvious, if we turn to the 17th ch. 8th v., 
 where the same thing is repeated. Archbishop 
 Newcome’s translation of the text is as follows :— 
 « And all that dwelt on the earth worshipped him 
 “ whose name was not written from the founda- 
 
190 
 
 * tion of the world, in the book of Life of the 
 « Lamb that was slain.” 
 
 The expression seems to have been used in the 
 way of distinction from those whose names had 
 been written in the book of Life, but were blotted 
 out for their apostacy : the beast and his worship- 
 pers were all along corrupt; their names were 
 never written in the book at any time, or from the 
 foundation of the world. 
 
 It has been said by some Socinian writers, in the 
 way of objection, that our Lord never spoke plainly 
 concerning his pre-existent state till near the close 
 of his life. But a moment’s reflection will show 
 the necessity of this reserve in the earlier stages 
 of his ministry; for, if his Disciples had been fully 
 aware of his real character, it would have been 
 impossible that they could have maintained the 
 free and familiar converse with him which was 
 requisite for their instruction. This will be ob- 
 vious, when we notice the awful restraint they 
 appear to have felt in his presence after his re- 
 surrection. Indeed, our Lord himself explained 
 the matter when the time arrived in which’ he 
 judged it proper to be more explicit than he had 
 been before—‘ These things I said not unto you 
 “ at the beginning, because I was with you. But 
 “ now I go my way to Him that sent me.” (John 
 16. 4, 5.) yuh 1 
 
 Some writers have laid great stress upon an 
 expression of St. Peter when addressing the multi- 
 
191 
 
 tude on the day of pentecost-—* Jesus of Nazareth, 
 “ @ man approved of God among you.” (Acts 2. 22.) 
 This is urged as a proof that’ Peter considered 
 our Lord to be no more than an ordinary man like 
 himself. But the whole tenour of his speech 
 plainly shows that he believed him to be much 
 more than mere man. He reasoned from the 
 Scriptures, proving that the prophecy of David, 
 though spoken in the first person, pointed to 
 Christ, and not to David himself. He declared 
 the resurrection of our Lord-——“ Whom God raised 
 “ up, having loosed the pains (or bands) of death, 
 “ because tt was not possible that he could be 
 “ holden of wt.” (Acts 2. 24.) He then goes on 
 with the prophecy—“‘ Thou wilt not leave my 
 * soul in hell (or the grave), neither wilt thou | 
 “ suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” (v. 27.) 
 And then, to show that this could not be meant of 
 David but of Christ, he reminds his hearers that 
 *« David is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre 
 * is with us unto this day.” (v.29.) He then 
 states the promise made to David by the Almighty, 
 “ That of the fruit of his loins, according to the 
 “ flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his 
 “ throne” (v. 30), that is, in a religious sense, to 
 inherit universal empire. Peter then goes on to 
 show the vast superiority of Christ over David— 
 ‘“ For David is not ascended into the Heavens; 
 * but he saith himself, the Lord said unto my 
 « Lord, sit thou'on my right hand until I make 
 
192 
 
 “ thy foes thy footstool.” (v. 34, 35.) Can it be 
 imagined that Peter would speak thus of Christ if 
 he believed him to be no more than a man like 
 himself ? ! 
 
 If the word person had dice ised instead of 
 man—and it might as well and as properly have 
 been so—then all this cavil would: have been pre- 
 vented. It cannot be believed that Peter would 
 speak of “ Jesus of Nazareth” as a mere man, in 
 direct contradiction to the clear and positive de- 
 claration which he had heard from the mouth of 
 our Lord himself but a few weeks before. 
 
 This same Apostle, in his First Epistle (1. 11), 
 speaking of the Prophets of old, says—‘ Searching 
 “ what or what manner of time the spirit. of 
 “ Christ which was in them did signify, when it 
 “’ testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and 
 “ the glory that should follow.” It is hard to 
 conceive how the spirit of Christ could be in them 
 unless Christ then existed. ay 
 
 An objection of the same kind is urged ee an 
 expression of St. Paul’s, when he preached to the 
 philosophers at Athens. “ He hath appointed a 
 “ day in the which he will judge the world in right- 
 * eousness by ¢hat man whom he hath ordained.” 
 (Acts 17. 31.) It would be tedious to quote the 
 various passages in the Epistles of » St.’ Paul, 
 whereby this objection is completely overthrown ; 
 two or three will be sufficient. To the Romans 
 (1. 3, 4.) he says— Jesus Christ our Lord, who 
 
198 
 
 “* was made of the seed of David according to the 
 “ flesh, and declared to be the Son of God accord- 
 “ ing to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection 
 ‘* from the dead.” Here, as Archbishop Newcome 
 observes, our Lord’s human descent as the offspring 
 of David is set in opposition to his heavenly cha- 
 racter as the Son of God, and shown to be such by 
 his resurrection from the dead. At the 8th ch. 
 3rd v. of the same epistle we read—* God sending 
 ** his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,” &c. 
 Here again, the Son of God is set in opposition to 
 sinful flesh, that is to mere man. ‘To the Gala- 
 tians he says (4. 4.)—‘* When the fulness of time 
 “was come, God sent forth his Son made of a 
 ““ woman.” Why should the Apostle say, “ made 
 “ (or born) of a woman,” if Christ were no more 
 than an ordinary man? The expression would ap- 
 pear very strange if it were applied to Noah, Abra- 
 ham, Moses, or any of the Prophets. I cannot but 
 think that this text declares the pre-existence, 
 Divine mission, and super-human nature of our 
 Lord. I shall quote but one text more from St. 
 Paul on this point. In his First Epistle to the. 
 Corinthians (15. 47.) speaking of Adam and of 
 Christ, he says—“ The first man is (or was) of 
 “the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord 
 “ from Heaven.” Thus, we see, throughout the 
 Bible, that the words man and Son of man, are 
 almost constantly accompanied with expressions 
 ) 
 
194 
 
 that plainly declare our Lord to be, at the same 
 time, much more than mere man. 
 
 Our Lord frequently affirms that he was sent by 
 the Father. Socinians argue that this is no proof 
 of pre-existence; and they appeai to the Ist ch. 
 6th v. of St. John’s Gospel. ‘* There was a man 
 «< sent from God whose name was Jobn;” there- 
 fore they maintain, that John’s pre-existence is 
 proved as much as Christ's. 
 
 This is a weak argument. If the Scriptures 
 speak of a celestial Being sent immediately from 
 Heaven, and also of a man sent from one part of 
 the earth to another, how can these be expressed 
 but by the word sen/, or some other of the same 
 meaning? Joseph said to his brethren, “It was 
 «« not you that sent me hither, but God.” (Gen. 
 45.8.) And Moses was instructed to say to the 
 Israelites in Egypt, “ I am hath sent me.” (Exod. 
 3.14.) But neither Joseph, Moses, nor John ever 
 said, “I came down from Heaven; not to do mine 
 © own will, but the will of Him that sent me.”—“* I 
 proceeded forth, and came from God.”—“ No 
 “ man goeth up to Heaven but he who came 
 « down from Heaven.”—* What and if ye shall 
 « see the Son of man ascend up where he was 
 “ before.” 
 
 This, and much more to the same effect, our 
 Lord has said concerning himself. Is it not strange, 
 then, to see men of learning, who profess their 
 
 wn 
 nn 
 
— 195 
 
 belief in the Holy Pre resort to so miserable 
 an argument ? 
 
 Men may differ in opinion with regard to the 
 degree of dignity and glory which our Lord had 
 with his Almighty Father before the world was, 
 but we cannot deny his pre-existence, without 
 denying repeated and explicit declarations given in 
 various parts of the N ew Testament. 
  Socinian writers dwell much upon the prophecy 
 delivered to the Israelites by Moses (Deut. 18. 15.) 
 “ The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a 
 “ Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, 
 “ Tike unto me; unto him shall ye  hearken.” 
 From this passage they maintain the doctrine of 
 our Lord’s mere humanity, and that he was declared 
 to be only an ordinary man like Moses himself. 
 The passage is quoted by St. Peter (Acts 3. 22.) 
 upon his giving strength and activity to a man 
 lame from his mother’s womb. Peter averred that 
 the man was made whole “in the name of Jesus 
 ‘““ Christ of Nazareth,” and “ through faith in his 
 “ name.” Was any miracle ever wrought: in the 
 name of Moses? In the course of Peter's address 
 to the people upon this. occasion, he clearly. pro- 
 nounces Jesus to be much more than Moses, or any 
 mere man. He declares» him) to be “ the Son of 
 “ God.”—“ The Holy One.’— The Prince (or 
 “ Author) of life,” that in him “ shall all the kin- 
 « dreds:of the earth be blessed.” This prophecy of 
 Mosesis alsoreferred to by Stephen im his speech 
 
196 
 
 before the Council. (Acts 7. 37.) He died, not in- 
 voking Moses, but praying thus—*“ Lord Jesus, 
 “ recelve my Spirit.” In my humble judgment, 
 the manner in which the prophecy was originally 
 delivered by Moses expresses an acknowledgment 
 that a person infinitely superior to himself would 
 be raised up to complete the work which he had 
 preparatively begun. If he had considered that 
 the doctrines and instructions which he had de- 
 livered to his people were sufficient, why should he 
 speak of another, and say, “ To him shall ye 
 “ hearken ?” He still more emphatically gives 
 the message entrusted to him by the Most High— 
 *« And it shall come to pass, that whoever will not 
 “ hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in 
 “ my name, I will require it of him.” (Deut. 18. 19.) 
 
 Our Lord submitted to be born in an humble 
 sphere of life, in that class which forms the great 
 majority of mankind; he grew up to manhood in 
 the ordinary course,—he conformed to the Jewish 
 rites in the midst of his brethren,—he was subject to 
 the wants and inconveniences common to persons 
 of his earthly condition, and “ was in all points 
 “ tempted like as we are.” | 
 
 In these respects he was like unto Moses, or any 
 other prophet ; but we cannot pronounce him to be 
 mere man, without denying the truth of his own 
 positive assertions. 
 
 The meekness and lowliness of our Lord’s dis- 
 position is acknowledged by all parties. He never 
 
197 
 
 spake of himself as a person superior to the rest of 
 mankind, but when the occasion required it. Such 
 occasions could not but occur frequently, and then 
 he spoke of himself, as certainly no man ever dared 
 to speak ; for instance, “I am the resurrection and 
 “ the life: he that believeth in me though he die 
 “ (Newcome), yet shall-he live.” (John 11. 25.) 
 “ The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead 
 “* shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they 
 ** that hear shalllive. For as the Father hath life 
 *“‘ in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have 
 “ life in himself” (John 5. 25, 26.) “ This is the 
 “ will of Him that sent me, that every one which 
 “ seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have 
 “ everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the 
 “ last day.” (John 6. 40.) “ Many will say tome 
 “ in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied 
 “in thy name?” &c. “ And then will I profess 
 unto them, I never knew you: depart from me 
 “* ye that work iniquity.” (Matt. 7.22, 23.) “ My 
 “ sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they 
 “ follow me, and I give unto them eternal life.” 
 (John 10. 27, 28.) I say, this is language which 
 no man ever dared to use when speaking of him- 
 self; therefore we must either give up the character 
 of humility and candour ascribed to our Lord, or 
 confess that he was more than man. | 
 After reading these texts (and many more of the 
 same import might have been adduced) it is im- 
 possible, without pain and astonishment, to find 
 
198 
 
 Dr. Priestley asserting, that the Jews were taught by 
 their Prophets to expect the Messiah to be “a man 
 “ like themselves,” that our Lord himself “ made 
 “« no other pretensions,” and that the Apostles, 
 ‘* when their minds were most fully enlightened, 
 ‘© after the descent of the Holy Spirit, and to the 
 ‘* latest period of their ministry, contimued to 
 “ sneak of him in the same style* !” The Doctor 
 again (p. 137) asserts, that the Apostles, in the 
 lifetime of our Lord on earth, never regarded him 
 as any other than a man like themselves: and he 
 adds, ‘‘ there is no trace of the Apostles, after their 
 ‘* supernatural illumination, discovering the great 
 «* mistake they had been under with regard to 
 «© this subject.” There was no mistake to be dis- 
 covered, for our Lord had fully convinced them 
 that he was not a man like themselves; but that 
 he cdme down from Heaven, where he existed 
 before. the world was framed, and that he should 
 return thither after his departure from them. Such 
 confident assertions from the pen of a man of 
 acknowledged merit, as a Philosopher, could hardly 
 fail to mislead any person who had not sige 
 studied the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 The glory in which our Lord was reinstated, 
 perhaps still more highly exalted after his ascen- 
 sion from earth, is set forth in strong and glowing 
 language in the writings of the Apostles. St. Paul, 
 
 * Corruptions of Christianity, Vol. I. pp. 2 & 3, 2nd Edit, 
 
199 
 
 in his epistle to the Ephesians (1. 20, 21.), says, 
 God “hath set him at his own right hand in the 
 «© Heavenly places, far above all principality, and 
 © power, and might, and dominion, and every 
 ‘© name that is named, not only in this world but 
 ‘© also in that which is to come.” And St. Peter, 
 in his first Epistle (3. 22.) “ Jesus Christ, who is 
 ** gone into Heaven, and is on the right hand of 
 «© God, Angels and Authorities and Powers being 
 «< made subject unto him.” There are other pas- 
 sages to the same effect. . 
 
 This scriptural account of our Lord’s glorious 
 state after his ascension is, I believe, confessed 
 even by Socinians; but still they contend that he 
 never existed before his appearance on earth, and 
 that his exaltation was granted to him solely in 
 reward of his merits here. The arguments in 
 support of this opinion, I humbly conceive, have 
 been completely refuted by the scriptural authority 
 to which I have appealed. Upon those Scriptures 
 I rest my faith, and consider the m aphysical 
 reasoning of Philosophers to b paratively of 
 little value: yet I cannot deny myself the satisfac- 
 tion of noticing an argument advanced by Dr. 
 Richard Price upon this point, though I shall not 
 copy the whole in his own impressive words. The 
 Doctor observes, that, if we reason from analogy, 
 the sudden exaltation of an ordinary man to such 
 a state of transcendent elory will appear to be 
 impossible. He proceeds thus—“ It contradicts 
 
 we. dan 
 
200 
 
 € 
 
 all that we see or can conceive of God’s works. 
 Do not all Beings rise gradually, one acquisition 
 ‘* laying the foundation for another? What would 
 ‘* you think were you told that a child just born, 
 instead of growing like all other creatures, had 
 started at once into complete manhood, and the 
 government of anempire ?” This, he continues, 
 is nothing compared to the amazing exaltation of a 
 mere man to such a state of transcendent glory 
 and power; Angels being made subject to him,— 
 commissioned to raise the dead, to judge the world, 
 all power given to him in Heaven and earth. And 
 he justly observes, that the inconsistency of the 
 Socinian doctrine appears more palpable, if we 
 consider what the merit was for which a mere man 
 was thus exalted, that of sacrificing his life. in 
 witness to the truth; “a merit by no means 
 ‘* peculiar to him, many other men having done 
 ‘* the same.” In my mind, this one argument 
 infinitely outweighs all the philosophical reasoning 
 I have ever met with on the Socinian side of the 
 question. 
 
 The doctrine of the Atonement made by our 
 blessed Lord has: shared the fate of other doc- 
 trines. Writers of the Calvinistic class have held 
 that the benefit offered to man by our Lord’s sacri- 
 fice is unconditional: that to suppose our conduct, 
 be it ever so virtuous, can have any share in the 
 work of our salvation, is to derogate from the all- 
 sufficient value of the atonement, and is nothing” 
 
 €¢ 
 
 " 
 
 € 
 
 ~ 
 
 € 
 
 €¢ 
 
201 
 
 short of setting ourselves up as our own Saviours. 
 Others have maintained that the .voluntary sacri- 
 fice of his life, however meritorious, was submitted 
 to by our Lord in proof of his sincerity, and with 
 the view of establishing the excellent moral princi- 
 ples which he had inculcated; but that it has 
 nothing more to do with the pardon of our sins 
 than the death of Peter, or Paul, or the many who 
 submitted to death in defence of the truth. That 
 either of these notions could have entered into the 
 mind of any man who had read the Bible is truly 
 astonishing. It would be useless to go into a 
 refutation of the first of these doctrines, because 
 the man who had imbibed such an idea must have 
 steeled his mind against all argument, and made 
 conviction impossible. ‘The whole Bible, and espe- 
 cially the discourses of our Lord, utterly deny such 
 doctrine, conscience also bearing witness against it. 
 The latter opinion calls for more investigation here, 
 being closely connected with the subject of this 
 humble essay. 
 
 Socinian writers eeiniinetily introduce — their 
 arguments by a very unfair statement of the 
 doctrine. They say it exhibits the Almighty 
 Being as an implacable tyrant, whose rage against 
 mankind for their sins could be appeased only by 
 the excruciating death of an innocent and most 
 excellent person. This is such a view of the 
 matter as cannot for a moment be entertained by 
 any man in his senses. Our Lord himself states it 
 
202 
 
 in a very different manner: instead of imputing it 
 to a cruel or revengeful disposition, he ascribes it 
 to a spirit of ineffable love. In his interview with 
 Nicodemus, he says, ‘‘ As Moses lifted up the 
 ‘ serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son 
 ‘« of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in 
 ‘‘ him should not perish, but have eternal life. 
 “ For God so loved the world that he gave his 
 ‘© only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in 
 ‘« him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” 
 (John 3. 14, 15, 16.) Here, our Lord declares 
 that he must be lifted wp, by which he unquestion- 
 ably means at his crucifixion (as it is explained at 
 the 12th ch. 32nd, 33rd v. of St. John); and he 
 affirms that it was so appointed by the Father, in 
 his infinite love towards man. The beloved Dis- 
 ciple was strongly impressed with a sense of: the 
 inexpressible love by which this “‘ offering of the 
 ‘* body of Jesus” (Heb. 10. 10.) was devised. In 
 his first epistle he says, ‘“* Herein is love, not that 
 “* we loved God, but that he loved. us, and sent 
 ‘* his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” 
 
 If we believe the Scriptures, we must then con- 
 fess that the propitiation here mentioned was ef- 
 fected by the sufferings and death to which our 
 Lord voluntarily submitted. In farther proof of 
 this I shall quote a few of the texts wherein the 
 fact is either expressly declared, or evidently re- 
 ferred to. | | 
 
 At the last supper, our Lord, on handing the | 
 
203 
 
 cup to the Disciples, said, “ This is my blood of 
 “ the New Testament, which is shed for many, 
 “ for the remission of sins.” (Matt. 26. 28.— 
 Mark 14. 24.—Luke 22. 20.) 
 
 At the 10th ch. 45th v. of St. Mark, we read 
 the words of our Lord, “The Son of man came 
 “ not to be ministered unto but to minister, and 
 “to give his life a ransom for many.” Our 
 Lord having declared himself the true Shepherd, 
 as stated in the 10th ch. of St. John, said (15th v.) 
 “ Ag the Father knoweth me, even so know I the 
 “ Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep.” 
 At the 12th ch. 27th v. of the same Evangelist, 
 it is related that our Lord, in contemplation of 
 his approaching cruel death, exclaimed—“ Now is 
 “ my soul troubled; and what shall I say ?— 
 “ Father, save me from this hour? But,for this 
 “ cause came I unto this hour.” Again, when 
 Judas came with a multitude to seize Jesus, Peter 
 drew his sword, and smote the servant of the 
 High Priest, our Lord rebuked him, saying he 
 might, by prayer to the Father, obtain the aid of 
 twelve legions of Angels;—adding, “But how 
 “ then shall the Scripture be fulfilled, that thas ¢ 
 « must be ?” (Matt. 26. 54.) 
 
 Having now quoted a few texts from each of 
 the Evangelists, let us look into the Epistles.— 
 At the 4th ch. 25th v. of St. Paul’s Epistle to the 
 Romans, he speaks of Jesus our Lord—“ Who 
 
204 
 
 “ was delivered for our offences, and raised again 
 “« for our justification.” 
 
 “Tn due time Christ died for the int Lider y.” 
 (Romans 5. 6.) 
 
 i Straus we were yet sinners Christ died for 
 resi (LOSVe®.) 
 
 “ Being now justified by kzs blood, we shall be 
 “saved from wrath through him.” (Ib. v. 9.) 
 
 “ Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.” 
 CPCorl SP) 
 
 “ Christ died for our sins according to the 
 “ Scriptures.” (£0. 15. 3.) 
 
 ~ © In whom (Christ) we have shoes tt esl hr duigh 
 “ his blood, the ‘aah label of sins.” (Enphes. 
 75 
 
 “Christ also hath loved us, and hath given 
 “ himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to 
 “ God.” (Ib. 5. 2.) | 
 
 “ He (the Son) when he had by himself purged 
 “our sins, sat down on the right hand of the 
 « Majesty on high.” (Heb. 1. 3.) 
 
 “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, 
 “as silver and gold, from your vain con- 
 “ versation, &c., but with the precious blood of 
 “ Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and with- 
 © out spot.” (1 Pet. 1. 18. 19.) 
 
 “ Who (Christ) his own self bare our sins in his 
 “own body on the’ tree—by whose stripes’ ye 
 “were healed.” (Ib. 2, 24.) 
 
205 
 
 “ The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from 
 all sin.” (1 John 1. 7.) J 
 
 “Unto him that loved us, and washed us 
 * from our sins in his own blood.” &c. (Rev. 1. 5.) 
 
 It may be thought that I have been unnecessarily 
 tedious in bringing forward so great a mass of 
 Scriptural authority ; though the list, copious as it 
 is, might have been much enlarged, I have been 
 thus diffuse, because I have observed that when a 
 strong single text has been urged, Socinians have 
 endeavoured to invalidate it by saying that the 
 expression is merely idiomatical, and does not de- 
 clare the doctrine which, in our language, it 
 literally seems to support. But when the same 
 thing is affirmed in all the variety of expression 
 that language can furnish, surely they cannot all 
 be merely idiomatical or figurative. 
 
 I have hitherto, for the reason which I mentioned, 
 forborne to urge texts from the old Scriptures. 
 There are several, however, which so obviously 
 point to the subject now in hand, that I cannot 
 entirely pass them over unnoticed. 
 
 _ Many passages in the Psalms describe. minutely 
 some of the most striking circumstances attending 
 our Lord’s crucifixion ; but they are so well known | 
 that it is unnecessary to quote them. 
 
 At the 9th ch. 26th v. of the Prophecies. of 
 Daniel, where we first meet with the name 
 Messiah, it is said, “Messiah shall be. cut off, 
 “ but not for himself.” The book of Isaiah is so 
 
206 
 
 replete with a description of our Lord’s character 
 and the events of his life, that. if the antiquity of 
 the book were not proved beyond all doubt, it 
 would be hard: to believe that it had not. been 
 written subsequently. 
 
 At the 28th ch. 16th \v: we read—*“ Thus saith 
 “ the Lord God, behold I lay in Sion, for a 
 * foundation, a Stone, a. trzed Stone, a precious 
 “ corner Stone,” &c. That this tried Stone meant 
 our: Lord Christ, is proved by several passages 
 in the New Testament, and especially in the first 
 Epistle of St. Peter. (2. 4.) In the 53rd chapter 
 we find a wonderfully-minute prophecy. Amongst 
 other passages relating to our Lord, are the 
 following :—‘‘ He was wounded for our transgres- 
 “ sions; he was bruised for our iniquities ;’>— 
 and “ With his stripes we are healed.” 
 
 That. these and. many other passages in 
 the prophetic writings point to Christ, is so 
 perfectly: clear, that it is surprising to find it de- 
 nied by any writer. 
 
 When our Lord, after his seit baie. coiled 
 two of the Disciples ‘on their way to Emmaus (as 
 related in the 24th ch. of Luke) he upbraided them 
 with their slowness “to: believe all that the Pro- 
 “‘ phets have spoken ;” adding,“ Ought not Christ 
 “ to:have suffered these things, and. to enter into 
 “his glory.”. He then expounded the Scriptures 
 concerning himself, from Moses and. all» the 
 Prophets; and obviously with:the view of recon- 
 
207 
 
 ciling their minds ‘to that one point, so clearly 
 foretold, the necessity of the sufferings of Christ. 
 
 Now, appealing to the Scriptures as I proposed, 
 I conceive these two points are unquestionably 
 proved. First, that the sufferings and death of 
 our Lord were fore-appointed by the Almighty 
 Father, in a spirit of inexpressible love to man- 
 kind; and, Secondly, that. the willing sacrifice of 
 his life, made by our blessed Lord, is the ground of 
 hope to the penitent sinner, that his transgressions 
 may be pardoned, and no more remembered. We 
 have every reason to conclude that the benefit. of 
 this merciful “ offering for sin” will not be con- 
 fined to us, who have the Gospel in our hands; 
 but that it will be extended to all who walk up- 
 rightly, according to the measure of light they may 
 have, though they never heard the name of Christ. 
 If the pure moral precepts taught by our Lord, 
 and the example of his spotless life, were the 
 only advantage the world could derive through 
 him, a very small proportion of mankind could be 
 benefited; for it would reach only those who were 
 in possession of his history and teaching ; whereas | 
 St. John affirms that he is the propitiation for the 
 sins of the whole world. 
 
 The Socinian finds it hard to sep ohailel this 
 mode of obtaining pardon with his notion of justice; 
 but. every thing of a spiritual nature appears diffi: 
 cult to a mind accustomed to doubt all things, 
 unless they can be demonstrated by human science. 
 
208 
 
 It cannot be wondered that such men should feel 
 a difficulty in the present case, since one who 
 understood the matter better than any of them, 
 declares it to be a scheme of such transcendent 
 love and mercy as even “the Angels desire to 
 “ look into.” (1 Pet.1.12.) It is asked, could not 
 God forgive sin without demanding so cruel a 
 sacrifice? To this question it is sufficient to re- 
 ply, that God does nothing unnecessarily. The 
 texts I have brought forward, without going any 
 farther, plainly declare that this method of re- 
 storing repentant sinners to the Divine favour, and 
 rendering them spotless in his sight, was ordained 
 in the counsel of the Most High, and - fully ac- 
 complished by that blessed Being, who “ 
 “ down from heaven to do the will of Him who 
 * sent him.” rcs 
 To. cavil at this method of justifying the sinner, 
 and to propose any other for the purpose, appears 
 to be little else than professing to strike out a 
 better plan for the redemption of the world than 
 that which (if we believe the Scriptures) was or- 
 dained in the infinite wisdom and mercy of our 
 God. | | bi 
 The Socinian doctrine appears to me to b 
 calculated to deprive the penitent sinner of his 
 best hope, and to deny even the name of Gospel 
 to the New Covenant; for certainly the moral 
 law is in no degree relaxed, but, on the contrary, 
 is rendered more strict and pure, by the preach- 
 
 came 
 
- 209 
 
 ing of our Lord and his Apostles ; neither are the 
 denunciations of Divine wrath against sinners in — 
 any way softened. If, then, we have no other 
 benefit from our Lord’s ministry, sufferings, and 
 death, than the excellent precepts which he taught, 
 the New Testament, instead of Glad Tidings, 
 can only increase the dread and terror of the 
 sinner, and drive him into despair. Blessed be 
 God! it gives us better prospects. It encourages 
 the penitent to hope that he may be “justified 
 “ freely through the redemption that is in Christ 
 “ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a pro- 
 “ pitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his 
 “ righteousness for the remission of sins that are 
 past, through the forbearance of God.” (Rom. 
 3. 24, 25.) 
 
 Here, as it is throughout the Scriptures, the 
 pardon of sin is stated to be of the free grace of 
 God ; but that pardon is granted through faith in 
 the blood of his ever-blessed Son, which was shed 
 for the remission of sins. 
 
 It is truly distressing to find men of learning, in 
 despite of the Gospel, labouring to bereave us of 
 this “ Anchor of the Soul!” Doctor Priestley, not 
 satisfied with exposing the abuse of the doctrine, 
 says, “The whole doctrine of Atonement, with 
 “ every modification of it, has been a departure 
 “from the primitive and Beaune COERING, of 
 “ Christianity* !” 
 
 66. 
 
 2 Corruptions of Christianity, Vol, 1., p. 146, 2nd Edit. 
 P 
 
210 
 
 Let this bold and confident assertion be tried 
 by the texts which I have brought forward. This 
 writer combats a text which opposes his notion in 
 the way which I have observed Socinians con- 
 stantly resort to; that is, by supposing the words 
 mean something totally different from their plain 
 and obvious sense. ‘The text he refers to is Ephes. 
 4, 32-—“ Forgiving one another, even as God for 
 “ Christ’s sake (or through Christ) hath forgiven 
 “ you.” Here, he says, by the word Christ may 
 be understood the Gospel of Christ. What was 
 
 the blood of the Gospel shed for us? Did the 
 Gospel give its life a ransom for us? Are we to 
 be redeemed with the precious blood of the Gos- 
 pel? Ifthe Doctor had condescended to read only 
 the two verses following his quotation, he would 
 have found the Apostle affirming that our Lord 
 “ hath given himself for us, an offermg and a 
 * sacrifice to God.” (Ephes. 5. 2. 
 
 » Throughout this Section, upon the Atonement, 
 Dr. Priestley seems to proceed upon the idea that 
 the benefit claimed from the sufferings and death 
 of: Christ is considered to be unconditional. This 
 is both unscriptural and irrational. “ Repentance 
 “ from dead works” is strictly enjoined in the first: 
 place;.then may the penitent sinner look for 
 pardon for his past transgressions, through set 
 merits and intercession of his Saviour. 
 
 Upon this point, I would appeal to a test eG 
 affects the heart as well as the head. I would 
 appeal to the feelings and reflections of any man 
 
211 
 
 who has the unhappiness of looking back upon a 
 profligate life, but is brought to a deep sense of the 
 enormity of his transgressions. Let such a man 
 seek comfort from any, or all other means his ima- 
 gination can suggest, he will find no other way by 
 which he could confidently hope to appear spot- 
 less before his Judge. 
 
 It must be confessed, that such feelings as I have 
 described may be delusive, and therefore cannot 
 be admitted as argument; but when these feelings 
 are encouraged and supported by repeated declara- 
 tions in the Holy Scriptures, surely they are 
 entitled to respect. 
 
 Great is the comfort which this blessed Gospel 
 affords to the humble-minded Christian. He feels 
 inexpressible happiness from the assurance it gives 
 of our Lord’s continued solicitude for the salvation 
 of man. : 
 
 The beloved Disciple, in his first epistle, (2. 1, 2.) 
 says—“ If any man sin, we have an Advocate with 
 “ the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; and he 
 is the propitiation for cur sins.” And St. Paul to 
 the Romans (8. 34.)—“ Who is he that con- 
 ** demneth? Is it Christ that died—yea, rather that 
 
 ** is risen again, who is even at the right hand of 
 ‘* God, who also maketh intercession for us 2” 
 And to the Hebrews (7. 25.) —* He (Christ) is able 
 ** to save them to the uttermost that come unto 
 ‘“ God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make 
 ** antercession for them.” And again (9. 24.) “ For 
 
212 
 
 ‘*. Christ is hot entered into the holy places made 
 ‘* with hands, but into Heaven itself, now to appear 
 ‘* in the presence of God for us.” What can be 
 more comforting to the mind of an humble Penitent 
 than the idea of his blessed Lord’s powerful advo- 
 cacy in his behalf? Before our Lord departed 
 from his Disciples he gave them assurance of his 
 care for them in time to come, “I will pray the 
 ‘« Father, and he shall give you another Com- 
 “ forter, that he may abide with you for ever.” 
 (John 14. 16.) Our Lord, moreover, promised his 
 support and guidance to frail man (if faithfully 
 sought) in his state of trial in this world. He re- 
 peatedly encouraged them to look for his assist- 
 ance. ‘ Where two or three are gathered together 
 “© in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” 
 (Matt. 18. 20.) At the last Supper, he said— 
 ‘* T will not leave you comfortless (or orphans), T~ 
 “ will come to you.” (John 14.18.) And his last 
 words, as recorded by St. Matthew (28. 20), were, 
 « Lo, Iam with you alway, even unto the end of 
 « the world.’ The fulfilment of this promise is 
 recognised in several parts of the Scriptures. In 
 the 9th chapter of Acts, it is stated that when 
 Ananias waited upon St. Paul at Damascus, he 
 thus addressed him—‘ Brother Saul, the Lord, 
 ‘* even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way 
 ‘© as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest 
 ‘* receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy 
 ‘« Spirit.” 3 
 
213 
 St. Paul, in his first Epistle to Timothy (1. 12), 
 says—*I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath 
 «© enabled me, for that he abit me. faithful, 
 “ putting me into the ministry.” 
 
 This Apostle seems to have been fully aware of 
 the value of our Lord’s favour and assistance ; 
 many of his prayers and benedictions are ap- 
 plied to Christ; for instance—* Now God him- 
 “« self our Father, and. our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 « direct our way unto you.” (1 Thess. 3. 11.) 
 And in his second epistle to the same Church 
 (2. 16, 17.)—** Now our Lord Jesus Christ him- 
 ‘* self, and God even our Father, who hath loved 
 « ys—comfort your hearts, and establish you in 
 « every good word and work.” To Timothy, he 
 prays—“ The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy 
 _ © Spirit.” (2 Tim. 4. 92.) And his usual bene- 
 diction is— The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 «« be with you all.” These texts, and many others, 
 plainly show that our Lord’s concern for the hap- 
 piness of man did not cease upon his departure 
 from earth, but that he is still engaged in the 
 blessed work of promoting our salvation. If the 
 grace, or favour, of our Lord Jesus Christ were not 
 attainable, it cannot be supposed that an Apostle 
 would pray for it. F 
 
 The Socinian doctrine appears to me to throw 
 discredit upon all the cheering hopes encouraged in 
 the Gospel, and to make “ the Cross of Christ of 
 ‘< no effect.” But this doctrine cannot be sup- 
 
214 
 
 ported without either perverting the most plain and 
 positive declarations of Scripture, or denying their 
 authority. Even to this last resource some of the 
 Socinian writers have been driven, when they have: 
 found it impossible to give a second meaning to a 
 text that clearly contradicted their notions, For 
 instance, In proof of the pre-existence of our 
 blessed Lord, Dr. Price quoted from St. John 
 (6. 62.)—“ If ye shall see the Son of man ascend 
 ‘“* up where he was before.” To this, Dr. Priestley 
 replied—*“ Rather than admit your hypothesis, I 
 “* would suppose the whole verse to be an interpo- 
 *“ lation; or that the old Apostle dictated one 
 “* thing and his amanuensis wrote another.” If 
 we thus suppose any text that stands in opposition 
 to our own notions to be spurious, we may suppose 
 away the truth of every doctrine in the Bible, and 
 each man may make out a religion suited to his 
 own fancy. Dr. Priestley rightly imputes the first 
 corruptions of Christianity to the admixture of 
 human philosophy with it, whilst he himself, by 
 the very same means, endeavours to corrupt the 
 pure and simple doctrines of the Gospel. This 
 philosopher does not scruple to avow himself an 
 absolute materialist : I will quote his own words— 
 ** I think the doctrine of an intermediate state 
 ‘“* can never be effectually extirpated so long as 
 ‘ the belief of a separate soul is retained.” “ But 
 
 €¢ 
 
 n~ 
 
 when, agreeably to the dictates of reason, as 
 well as the testimony of Scripture, rightly un- 
 
 “ 
 
 ¢ 
 
215, 
 
 ‘«< derstood, we shall acquiesce in the opinion that 
 ‘“ man is a homogeneous Being, and that the 
 ‘© powers of sensation and thought belong io the 
 ‘«* brain, asmuch as gravity and magnetism belong 
 “to other arrangements of matier, the whole 
 ‘« fabric of superstition which had been built 
 «< upon the doctrine of a, soul, and of its separate 
 ** conscious state, must fall to the ground*.” So 
 Dr. Priestley here tells us, that both reason and 
 revelation teach us to believe that we have no 
 souls! Now, greater philosophers than even Dr. 
 Priestley have been of a very different opinion. 
 Among the ancients, many have, by the mere 
 light of reason, clearly discovered the existence of 
 the soul, or spiritual part of man, distinct from 
 the body, or material part. But the Doctor says, 
 that Scripture, rightly understood, supports his 
 opinion. Let us look for proof. That the word 
 (Lux) “ Soud” is used in different. senses in the 
 Scriptures is readily admitted; it is the case, both 
 in writing and in conversation, in our own lan- 
 guage at the present day. ‘There are, however, 
 many instances of its being used in the Bible to 
 denote the spiritual, or immortal part of man. 
 Our Lord, after quoting from Exodus (3. 6.)—* I 
 «© am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and 
 «© the God of Jacob,” added—* God is not the God 
 ‘© of the dead, but of the living.” (Matt..22. 32; 
 
 * Corruptions of Christianity, Vol. I., p. 399, 2nd Edit. 
 
216 
 
 Mark 12. 27; Luke 20. 38.) This was said-at a 
 time when the bodies of these Patriarchs had been 
 in their graves not very much short of two thousand 
 years. The narrative plainly shows that our Lord 
 quoted Moses to prove to the Sadducees that their 
 own Scriptures declare the existence of the soul 
 after the death of the body. Again, our Lord 
 saith— Fear not them which kill the body, but 
 ‘‘ are not able to kill the soul; but fear Him 
 “ which is able to kill both soul and body (Wugyy 
 ** KAI cwue) in hell.” (Matt. 10. 28.) | 
 
 The parable of the rich man and Lazarus, 
 related in the 16th ch. of St. Luke, is a direct 
 refutation of Dr. Priestley’s hypothesis. It may -be 
 objected that this was only a parable; but it can- 
 not be believed that our Lord would illustrate an 
 argument by supposing an impossibility. | 
 
 We may remark, too, that St. Stephen’s dying 
 words were—* Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit. 
 (Acts 7. 59.). , 3 
 
 In the epistle to the Romans, St: Paul, in lJan- 
 guage which I believe will. ‘come home. to the 
 heart of every man who has the courage to examine 
 himself fairly, makes a striking distinction between 
 the spiritual and material parts of man. He says, 
 ‘* I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth 
 “* no good thing; for to will is present with me 
 ‘* but how to perform that which is good I find 
 “not. For I delight in the law of God after the 
 “ imward man; but I see another law 1m my men- 
 
a 
 
 ‘ bers warring against the law of my mind, and 
 ‘bringing me into captivity to’ the law of sin, 
 ‘« which is in my members.” (Rom. 7. 18. 22.93.) 
 
 It appears to me, that the existence of two dis- 
 tinct natures in man—one material, the other 
 spiritual—cannot be expressed in stronger terms. 
 What! shall matter say to matter, “'Thou shalt 
 “ not do this thing,” and matter reply, “I am so 
 “ powerfully inclined to it that I cannot obey 2” 
 According ‘to Dr. Priestley’s “ arrangement of 
 “ matter,” here is one part of our organization set 
 in direct and violent opposition to another part! 
 It is hard to conceive by what kind of physiolo-. 
 gical reasoning this difficulty can be explained, so 
 as to make it reconcileable with common sense. 
 
 St. Peter agreed in opinion with St. Paul. He 
 makes a marked distinction between the spi- 
 ritual and the carnal parts of man. In his first 
 epistle (2. 11), he ‘says——“ Dearly beloved, I be- 
 “ seech you, as strangers and pilgrims, abstain 
 “ from fleshly lusts, which war against the SOUL.” 
 Archbishop Newcome explains the words “ stran- 
 “ gers and pilgrims” thus :—‘ Strangers on earth, 
 “and sojourners in the tabernacle of the body.” 
 The same Apostle, in his second epistle (1. 14), 
 says—‘‘ Knowing that I must shortly put off this 
 “ my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ 
 “ hath showed me.” Here the Apostle speaks of 
 the material part, which Dr. Priestley considers to 
 be all in all, as a mere adjunct to be put off, and, 
 
218 
 
 comparatively, of little value. The same idea is 
 expressed by St. Paul to the Philippians, 1. 23, 24. 
 
 Upon this subject I will quote but one authority 
 from: the Old Testament. It is from the pen of 
 one who, in his day, was considered to be a man 
 of extraordinary wisdom, no less a man than So- 
 lomon—*“ Who. knoweth the Spirit of man that 
 “ goeth upward, and the Spirit of the beast that 
 “ goeth downward to the earth ?”) And again— 
 ‘ Then shall the dust return to the earth as it 
 “ was, and. the Spirit.shall return to God who 
 ) gave it.” |(Eccles. 3. 213 and 12. 7.) 
 
 I conceive I have now shown that “ the. testi- 
 “ mony of Scripture” is decidedly opposed to 
 Dr. Priestley’s notion. But he says, “the dictates 
 “ of reason” support’ him. Thisis mere assertion: 
 the dictates of reason are as decidedly against 
 him as is the testimony of Scripture. Reason, 
 without the assistance of Divine revelation, has 
 clearly. discovered the existence of that Spiritual 
 and immortal part of man which we call the Soul. 
 If the Doctor had plainly declared his disbelief. of 
 a future state, and, with some French philosophers, 
 had pronounced “ Death an eternal sleep,” shock- 
 ing as it is, he would have been more consistent: 
 but he professes his belief in the resurrection of 
 the body and a future existence. _ Now, to suppose 
 that our dust shall be mixed with its kindred earth, 
 and dispersed about for thousands of years, and 
 without any relation to a spiritual part shall be 
 
| 29 
 
 re-animated and endowed with immortality, is 
 surely one of the most unreasonable fancies that 
 ever entered into the mind of man: under such 
 an impression it is hard to retain even the idea of 
 personal identity. According to Dr. Priestley’s 
 notion, it would appear that the original creation 
 of man was in no way different from that of ‘the 
 beasts of the field; but the Mosaical record makes 
 a very striking distinction :—“ And the Lord God 
 “ formed man of the dust of the ground, and 
 “ breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, 
 “and man became a living soul.” (Gen. 2. 7.) 
 This is not said of any of the irrational creatures, 
 but man is clearly described as being endued with 
 a Spiritual as well as a material part. That ray 
 of the immortal essence which can never become 
 dormant, was infused into his body by the Great 
 Creator, and is clearly expressed by Moses as the 
 breath of life, emanating immediately from the 
 adorable Fountain of Life. 
 
 I believe it is admitted by all Christians, that 
 the first-created man was so constituted as to be 
 capable of immortality, if he had remained inno- 
 cent; but he sinned, and brought death upon 
 himself and his posterity. The merciful Creator 
 had, in the event of Adam’s transgression, pro- 
 vided the means of a restoration of the body to 
 life, and the re-union of it with the soul. .Thus 
 planned in the infinite wisdom and mercy of 
 Almighty God, it was accomplished in the person 
 
220 
 
 of his ever-blessed. Son, as saith St. Paul—“ For 
 “as in Adam all die, even so in (or through) 
 “ Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15. 22.) 
 Surely, then, it is much more reasonable to believe 
 that the whole man, soul and body, as he was at 
 first created, shall be restored through Christ, than 
 that the mere dust, or material part alone, should 
 be brought to life, and become immortal. 
 
 Dr. Priestley’s theory appears to me to be jase 
 as well as unscriptural. 
 
 I have allowed myself to run into this digression 
 from my main subject, in the hope of showing the 
 danger of yielding up our understandings in mat- 
 ters of religion to the direction of any man, how- 
 ever eminent he may be accounted for skill in 
 particular branches of human science, unless his 
 opinions be supported by the Holy Scriptures: 
 Philosophy, under the guidance of a sound and 
 unprejudiced mind, tends to a conviction of the 
 truth of our holy religion; yet men who devote 
 their time and attention chiefly to experiments 
 upon matter frequently go astray when they treat 
 of spiritual affairs. 
 
 It cannot be denied that Dr. Priestley was an 
 acute and laborious philosopher; but that philo- 
 sophers are not always good theologians is obvious, 
 from the glaring contradictions of each other, 
 which we continually meet with in their writings. 
 Mr. Jones, of Nayland,was also an able philosopher ; 
 yet no two men were ever more. directly opposed 
 
221 
 
 to each other in their religious opinions than he 
 and Dr. Priestley. Let us, then, not say, “ I am 
 ** of Jones,” and “ I am of Priestley :” let us seek 
 instruction at the fountain head—the Holy Scrip- 
 tures : let us say, with Peter, “ Lord, to whom shall 
 “ we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” 
 
 FLINIS., y 
 
 LONDON : 
 PRINTED EY T. BRETTELL, RUPERT STREET, HAYMARKET, 
 
; 
 ae) 
 
 ioe tives aap Wi rf 
 
 4 
 
 ‘ 8 yar “HG i ey, Sbagis om 
 ana ae sy ag 
 
 hit aR haan 
 
_——. 
 
 tA 
 
 Au 
 RE 
 3? 
 
wt 
 
 2 01020 9833 §