— oe Fe ere 
 
 THROLORIGAL ssmIMaART, | 
 
 PRIN CED O NEN wae 
 
 ’ 
 DONATION OF 
 
 SAMUEL AGNEW, 
 
 OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 otter as 
 
 a : gee | 
 ae ee Oe | 
 7 7 = ‘ « Wy Ae Genes (ee f= 
 Carlile, James, 1784-15094. | 
 Me eT mt a = ee - 
 [Jesus Christ, the Great oor 
 [ S hr 
 our Saviour 
 
 I 
 Vv Vee SS Nee SS ee US ae SS eee Se 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2022 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 re 
 ’ 
 
 https://archive.org/details/jesuschristgreat0Ocarl 
 
JESUS CHRIST 
 
 GREAT GOD OUR SAVIOUR. 
 
 BEING A VIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE RESPECTING THE 
 DEITY OF THE SON AS CONNECTED WITH THE DEITY OF THE FATHER 
 AND OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 BY THE REV. JAMES CARLILE, 
 
 ONE OF THE MINISTERS OF THE SCOTS’ CHURCH, MARY'S ABBEY, DUBLIN. 
 
 DUBLIN : 
 
 WESTLEY AND TYRRELL, 
 1], LOWER, SACKVILLE STREET. 
 
 1828, 
 
T. I, Wuire, Printer, 149, Abbey-street. 
 
fis 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 Page. 
 
 On THE PRINCIPLES OF REASONING FROM — 
 ScriPTURE Seeeseeeseesesseseeseeenseeneoeeeod 
 
 CHAP. IT. 
 
 Jesus Curist A MAN, AND YET MORE THAN 
 VLAN cadecsse sed cbs concreennesnis ans asbanen sate 56 
 
 CHAP. IIif. 
 DEVISION OF THE (SUBJECT sicasecntccssssese OO 
 CHAP, IV; 
 WHAT IS IMPLIED IN THE MANIFESTATION 
 oF Gop IN CHRIST JESUS .ececees Se. vs 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Jesus CuRIstT DECLARED TO BE GoD ...... 109 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 Tue NaMeE JEHOVAH GIVEN TO JESUS 
 CPT RIS Tie os re cy decce voi aes eet oc 153 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 Tur ATTRIBUTES OF GOD ASCRIBED TO JESUS 168 
 
iv CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 Tue Works or Gop AscrRIBED TO JESUS 
 CHAP. IX, ; 
 DIVINE WORSHIP PAID TO JESUSsesesessceee 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 Tue EXxaLTATION OF CHRIST INCONSIS- 
 TENT WITH HIS BEING A MERE CREA- 
 
 f TURE CHCROCH SETHE HEE SHROHH SCHROCK HOES ETeeoeeeeeee 
 
 CHAP. XI. 
 
 RRECAPITULATIONsescccssesssevecevevseves sesees 
 
 CHAP. XII. 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED: Curist’s MEpI- 
 ATWRTAL ACTING DD Miss 00h nncese see deceeeiuk 
 
 CHAP. XIII. 
 
 Own THE DEITY AND PERSONALITY OF THE 
 Hoty GHOST COC ACHOVewrrvesesesreseseseeeeeeseue 
 
 CHAP. XIV. 
 
 On THE TRINITY OF PERSONS IN THE 
 ( TOD HEAD of nedditin cho ac pte hinch and cdawaaceekesen 
 
 CHAP. XV. 
 
 On THE INFLUENCE oF UNITARIANISM ON 
 THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTER oveseccccces 
 
 ‘CONCLUSION. 
 
 INDEX To TEXTS oF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 Page. 
 
 190 
 
 227 
 
 286 
 
 309 
 
 352 
 
 369 
 
 390 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Tue defence: and. illustration of the 
 doetrine of Scripture respecting the Deity 
 ef the Lord Jesus Christ, and other kin- 
 dred. subjects, the substance of which is 
 contained in the following pages, were 
 oecasioned by the publication of a pam- 
 phlet entitled, ‘“‘ The Doctrine of the 
 Trinity founded neither on Scripture, 
 nor on Reason and Common Sense; but 
 on Tradition and the Infallible Church,” 
 &c. by the Reverend W. H. Drummond, 
 D. D. one of the ministers of -the con- 
 eregation of Strand Street, Dublin. In 
 consequence of the activity with which 
 that. pamphlet was pushed into circulation, 
 together with its dangerous tendency, seve- 
 ral Ministers of different. denominations 
 in this city, and among others, the author, 
 deemed it.to be their duty to endeavour 
 to counteract it from the pulpit. The 
 lectures which he delivered with that 
 
 A 
 
Vi ' PREFACE. 
 
 view, so far from being intended for 
 publication, were intended to supersede 
 the necessity of publishing, as he was 
 exceedingly anxious not to be interrupted 
 in other duties which he felt to be of 
 the highest importance. Circumstances, 
 however, occurred, which it isunnecessary 
 to specify, that seemed. to render it 
 imperative upon him to submit to the 
 interruption, and to offer the substance of 
 his examination of Dr. Drummond’s work 
 
 to the consideration of the public. | 
 _ But, although the present work was 
 occasioned by the publication of the 
 pamphlet alluded to, it is not a mere 
 answer to that pamphlet. The author 
 has followed his own arrangement in 
 laying before his readers the Scripture 
 foundation of the doctrines which he 
 proposes to defend—the grounds on which 
 he himself believes them; and has intro- 
 duced the arguments of Dr. Drummond 
 as objections where they crossed his path. 
 He has viewed the work of Dr. Drummond 
 as the most modern, and one of the ablest 
 expositions of Unitarian doctrine—as 
 embodying, in a condensed form, every 
 thing of importance that has been advanced 
 in support of that doctrine, during the 
 whole period of the existence of the 
 Christian Church. Hehas not drawn a 
 picture of Unitarianism in his own lan- 
 
PREFACE. Vil 
 
 guage, and then criticised that picture ; 
 but he conceives that he has done ample 
 justice to the system which he opposes, 
 by giving it all the advantage of the 
 talents of its most recent, and one, at least, 
 of its most able advocates. Unitarianism 
 is always, in the following pages, permitted 
 to plead its own cause in the language of 
 Dr.-Drummond, in some instances aided 
 by that of Dr. Bruce. 
 
 It is scarcely to be expected that 
 much original matter on such a sub- 
 ject should now be elicited. The author 
 does not publish for the applause of 
 originality, but simply for the purpose of 
 exposing old error in the new dress in 
 which it chooses to present itself. If 
 Unitarians complain of want of novelty 
 in the investigation ; the author has the 
 same reason to complain of want of 
 novelty in the work which he investigates. 
 With most of Dr. Drummond’s critiques 
 on Scripture he is as familiar as with the 
 texts which he criticises. It is only where 
 a new objection is made, that a new 
 answer can reasonably be expected. If 
 Unitarians are satiated with the repetition 
 of our texts; we can most truly say that 
 we are equally so with the repetition of 
 their objections. 
 
 Although, however, the author makes 
 no boast of novelty; yet he has not fol- 
 
Vili PREFACE. 
 
 lowed the method of conducting the 
 investigation adopted by any writer with 
 whom he is acquainted; and he is not 
 without hope that some parts of the 
 glorious subject of which he treats, have 
 been set in a point of view in which some 
 of his readers may not have been accus- 
 tomed to regard them. He would wil- 
 lingly acknowledge every idea or argument 
 which he has intentionally borrowed ; but 
 that the acknowledgment of one part 
 would imply a claim to originality in the 
 rest—a claim which he might not be pre- 
 pared or disposed to establish. Heeannot, 
 however, but own his obligations to the 
 discourses ofthe Rev.Dr.Warpiaw onthe 
 Socinian Controversy,—a work which he 
 has used as a book of reference, to prevent 
 his omitting any thing essential to the 
 subject. In the concluding chapter, many 
 of his readers may also recognize thoughts 
 that they have met with in the excellent 
 letters of the late Rev. ANprew Futter, 
 on the comparative moral tendency of the 
 Calvinistic and Socinian systems. . 
 
 Several subjects are introduced by Dr. 
 Drummond into his publication, which 
 seemed to be of no consequence to the 
 argument, or foreign to the main points 
 at issue, and which therefore the author 
 has not admitted into the body of his 
 
PREFACE. 1X 
 
 work. A few of these he will now take 
 the liberty of noticing. 
 
 The title of the Pamphlet calls for 
 animadversion... It is there asserted that 
 the dectrine of the Trinity is founded on 
 tradition and the ‘infallible church.” To 
 establish this fact, it was incumbent on 
 Dr. Drummond to show that those against 
 whom he reasoned, founded their belief 
 or rested their cause upon tradition, or 
 upon the authority of the church to which 
 he alludes. It is surely soon enough to 
 complain of the authority of tradition, or 
 of the church, when an attempt is made 
 to introduce that authority into the con- 
 troversy. Does he say that it was a 
 doctrine held by the Church of Rome 
 before it was held by the reformers? So 
 was the being of a God; so was the cruci- 
 fixion of Christ. If every doctrine which 
 the reformers retained on their separation 
 from the Church of Rome were pronounced 
 to be held on the authority of that church, 
 the principle would take a wider sweep 
 than Dr. Drummond seems to be aware 
 of. Would he say that the doctrine 
 originated with the Church of Rome, in 
 the sense of its first being suggested by 
 that church? He knows the contrary ; 
 and would contradict himself by such an 
 assertion. He himself traces it to Irenzus 
 
 A 3 
 
xX PREFACE. 
 
 and Justin Martyr, and, from them, as he 
 imagines, to Plato ;—an antiquity that 
 places its origin, even according to his own 
 admission, in aremoter age than the claims 
 of the Church of Rome to infallibility. 
 .Strange to tell, however, it is he, Dr. 
 Drummond himself, who introduces the 
 authority of tradition into the controversy. 
 He gives, as one reason for rejecting the 
 ‘doctrine of the Trinity, that it was 
 ‘unknown to the early Christians. This 
 ‘he states on the authority of Dr. Priestley, 
 who labours to establish that point, in a 
 history of what he calls the early corrup- 
 tions of Christianity. The argument is 
 not worthy of a moment’s attention ; for, 
 if the doctrine be in the Bible, it matters 
 not who, after the apostles, believed or 
 did not believe it. Dr. Priestley’s hypo- 
 thesis, for the establishment of which he 
 wrote what he calls a history, (a kind of 
 writing which, above all others, requires 
 an unbiassed mind ; and which is always 
 regarded as vitiated by the detection of a 
 hypothesis in it), is altogether void of 
 foundation. When the author sat down 
 to the examination of Dr. Priestley’s 
 hypothesis, a single expression betrayed 
 the fallacy of it. One of the Fathers 
 mentions some doctrine heid by the Jews, 
 to which Dr. Priestley adds, ‘ that is, 
 Jewish Christians.” And accordingly his 
 
PREFACE. Xi 
 
 history proceeds upon the principle of 
 confounding Jews with the Jewish con- 
 verts to Christianity. That principle, 
 together with the application of the same 
 system of criticism to the expressions of 
 the primitive Christians, whichis applied 
 by Unitariansto the Scriptures themselves, 
 accounts for nearly all the speciousness of 
 Dr. Priestley’s history of the progress 
 of corruption in the church ;—a work by 
 which, as he exposed his learning to utter 
 contempt, so the author ever must hold, 
 notwithstanding Dr. Drummeond’s high 
 eulogy on his love of truth, that he 
 forfeited all just claim to the character of 
 an honest man. 
 
 - Nothing could have induced Doctor 
 Drummond to aseribe the doctrine of the 
 Trinity to the authority of the Church of 
 Rome, and, fer that purpose, to avail 
 himself of the admission, as he terms 
 it, of Mr. Maguire, but the temptation 
 to expose it to obloquy among Protes- 
 tants, and to excite a host of prejudices 
 against it;—a sort of stratagem more 
 adroit than eandid. ‘To convince’ him 
 how very easy it is to get up an argument 
 of this description, let the following quo- 
 tation from the French Encyclopedie, 
 which the author accidentally met with 
 in turning over the leaves of a beck un- 
 connected with the Unitarian centroversy, 
 
Xi PREFACE, 
 
 suffice. ‘The Unitarians have always 
 - been regarded as Christian divines who 
 ‘had only broken and torn off a few 
 ‘branches of the tree, but still held to 
 ‘the trunk. Whereas they ought to be 
 «looked upon as a sect of philosophers, 
 ‘who, that they might not give too rude 
 * ashock to the religion and opinions, true 
 ‘or false, which were then received, did 
 * not choose openly to avow pure Deisin, 
 ‘and reject verbally and unequivocally, 
 * every sort of revelation ; but who were 
 - continually doing, with respect to the 
 ‘Old and New Testament, what Epi- 
 * curus did with respect to the gods,—ad- 
 ‘mitting them verbally, but destroying 
 ‘them really. In fact, the Unitarians 
 ‘received only so much of the Scripture 
 “as they found conformable to the natu- 
 ‘ral dictates of reason, and what might 
 ‘serve the purpose of propping up and 
 * confirming the system they had em- 
 ‘braced. A man becomes a Protestant : 
 « soon finding out the inconsistency of the 
 ‘ essential principles of Protestantism, he 
 ‘ applies to Socinianism for ‘a solution of 
 ‘his doubts and difficulties, and he be- 
 ‘comes a Socinian. From Socinianism 
 ‘there is but a very slight shade, anda 
 ‘asingle step to take,—and he takes it.’ 
 Doctor Drummond will readily discern 
 how much might be made of such a descrip- 
 
PREFACE, xiii 
 
 tion of Unitarianism, by persons at 
 least as able and as neutral as Mr. Ma- 
 guire. But such arguments ad captandum 
 are utterly unworthy of a serious subject. 
 The ascription of the epithet Infailible to 
 the Church of Rome, by one who does 
 not believe that church to be infalli- 
 ble, on the very title of a book treating of 
 the person of the Deity, is an indication of 
 a levity which is totally misplaced. If the 
 subject deserves any attention, it at least 
 deserves seriousness. 
 
 Another topic introduced into the pam- 
 phlet is the change that is reported to 
 have taken place in the views of Doctor 
 Isaac Watts previous to his death. The 
 opinions of any individual respecting a doc- 
 trine of Scripture are so destitute of im- 
 portance in ascertaining thetruth, that the 
 author had always, without examination, 
 taken it for granted that some cloud might 
 have intervened on the death bed of that 
 eminent individual to obscure his views of 
 the glory of God in the face of Jesus 
 Christ. Thesketch, however, which Dr. 
 Drummond has given of the evidence on 
 which the representation rests, has con- 
 vineed him that the whole is a fabrication. 
 —A mere opinion of Dr. Lardner, who was 
 a zealous Unitarian—extracts of a prayer 
 of Doctor Watts, with which the world 
 is favoured by another Unitarian, without 
 
X1V PREFACE. 
 
 one sentence written by the venerable 
 person himself, are placed in opposition 
 to the testimony of a whole life. Doctor 
 Drummond says, ‘it is much to be la- 
 mented that Doctor Watts’s papers were 
 not preserved or published, that they 
 might have shown how the light of Uni- 
 tarian Christianity first dawned upon his 
 soul.” This is, indeed, much to be la- 
 mented, as it is scarcely to be doubted 
 that these papers would have effectually 
 proved that, in the modern sense of the 
 word, he was no Unitarian. He is not 
 even suspected of doubting the Deity of 
 the Lord Jesus—the doctrine which re- 
 port ascribes to him not being Unitarian, 
 but Sabellian. 
 
 ... The extracts from his prayer, given by 
 Lindsey, bear allthe marks offorgery. They 
 breathe the spirit, they convey the ideas, 
 they urge the arguments, they speak the 
 very language of Lindsey, Priestley, Bel- 
 sham, and other Unitarian writers. The 
 good old man is represented as enter- 
 ing into a regular argument with the 
 Deity, to convince Him, as it would seem, 
 that it would be unreasonable in him to ex- 
 pect that any one should believe the doctrine 
 of the Trinity; and among other topics, 
 there is introduced this, that many men 
 even of learning and piety, had lost them- 
 selyes in mazes in attempting to explain 
 
PREFACE. XV 
 
 that doctrine !!!_ This is quite too gTOss, 
 Doctor Drummond calls it a humble 
 prayer; tothe author it appears one of 
 the most insolent speeches that any man 
 ever conceived of as being addressed to 
 the God of heaven. If Doctor Watts ut- 
 tered such a prayer, he had fallen indeed. 
 
 On Doctor Drummond’s treatment of 
 the Synod of Ulster in his second edi- 
 tion, the author will make but one obser. 
 vation. He conceives that hisbrethren are 
 exceedingly indebted to him for his ani- 
 madversions. That Synod has very gene- 
 rally been spoken of as consisting chiefly 
 of Arians, or other Unitarians. The con- 
 tempt expressed by Dr. Drummond for all 
 of its ministers, except about half a dozen, 
 will tend to redeem their character in the 
 eyes of the public, and to prove how 
 greatly they have been misrepresented. 
 
 The reader’. requested to observe, that, 
 as in the following work, the first person 
 has been used by the author in speaking 
 of himself; the person designated by the 
 words our author, and sometimes the au- 
 thor, is Doctor Drummond, as being the 
 author of the work upon which the ani. 
 madversions are usually made. 
 
 That the Lord may accompany with his 
 blessing this feeble effort to vindicate his 
 sacred Word from misapprehension, is 
 the author’s earnest prayer, and, for its 
 usefulness, his only hope. 
 
ee. ee end 
 
 ote sare ins iyi ei EH oinls, 
 kel cpiees! ee Hella” pani CL i 
 #9800" BEIGE. Aas eats 
 
 4 nee FTE peliaoige: diahabdi 
 j = soe a nih a4 Bas Boy Devine 
 rehood ta 7 ihe : 
 
 sl -S ae ey rete ti saree gs 
 
 dia: Brassed ail: eset. Ph ) 
 getnagatad vlan: Hive chia 
 - et prapnght: ide ne jail Lien paltry’ 4 
 = ai we, cel, oF potsbabenks “thes if 
 cee a epsavee dared (> cee, 
 
 atcha “gen pike sash or sould halt | 
 
 i hie havi rae ath wd * iit 
 
 i abet, Us 
 7 set 8 aes din Sd SESS AO 
 | igen Seek adh tigaba my 
 
 Ua aes 
 
CHAP. I. 
 
 ON THE PRINCIPLES OF REASONING FROM 
 SCRIPTURE. 
 
 IN entering upon the consideration of subjects 
 So incomparably sublime as the manifestation of 
 God to his creatures, and the constitution (to 
 usé an expression of our author) of the divine 
 mind, it is of prime importance to determine the 
 principles upon which we are to reason; and espe- 
 cially to clear our way, by getting rid, if possi- 
 ble, of all false principles of reasoning. This is 
 the more necessary, as I find that the opposite 
 conclusions at which different individuals have 
 arrived in their researches into these subjects, 
 have heen occasioned chiefly by their having 
 adopted different principles of investigation. 
 
 1. Tue very first point that requires to be de- 
 termined, is the authority that is to be attributed 
 to the sacred Scriptures :—whether they are so 
 entirely the dictation of God, as to exempt them 
 from all error, even in the choice of language ; 
 or whether, as is alleged by some, they are a 
 revelation from God only in so loose and general 
 a sense, as to be compatible with their containing 
 seme degree of error, at least-‘some mistakes in 
 the use of words. In the following tractate, 
 [ reason upon the principle of the plenary inspi- 
 ration of the Scriptures—of the ipsissima verba 
 of Scripture, as they originally stood in the 
 
 B 
 
2 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 sacred canon, being the dictation of the Holy 
 Ghost; Jeaving the original reading to be aseer- 
 tained by the ordinary rules of evidenee in suck 
 cases. Nor should I choose to reason with any 
 man, respeeting any doctrine of revelation, who 
 should not proceed upon this principle. With 
 one who denies the plenary inspiration of Scrip- 
 ture, I should reason as with a deist, for the 
 purpose of establishing that point; but E should 
 regard it as a waste of time to attempt to con- 
 vince him of any truth on the authority of Serip- 
 
 ture, when he does not, in fact, admit that 
 authority. 
 
 2. The next point to be determined is the 
 province of reason and common sense in this 
 investigation. 
 
 Now I hold it to be one of the plainest dic- 
 tates of reason, that, if the Scripture be really a 
 revelation from God, its doctrines ought to be 
 received implicitly. The first duty of reason is 
 to ascertain whether the Scriptures be a revela- 
 tion from God, given in words dictated by the 
 Spirit of God. That point being ascertained in 
 the affirmative, the next duty of reason is, to 
 examine the Scripture for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining what is revealed, and of receiving it 
 with the simplicity of a little child. We are 
 but children in understanding, and when the 
 Lord condescends to speak to us as to children, 
 all that our reason has to do is to endeavour to 
 understand what he says. To form previous 
 notions as to what a revelation from God ought 
 to be, to determine from any independent specu- 
 lations or imaginations, what doctrines would be 
 right, or proper, or reasonable, to be true, or to 
 be revealed, is not the use, but the abuse of 
 reason. The reason of man was given him to 
 
Jrom Scripture, 3 
 
 contemplate the works and the word of God as 
 they are; and not to determine what the works 
 
 er the word of God cught to be. And an intim f 
 
 ation of Scripture eught te be received like an 
 ascertained fact in nature, without the least 
 regard to what may appear to us to be reas 
 sonable, or fit, or philosophical, or scientific. 
 
 And this implicit reception of the intimations 
 ef Scripture, is the more urgently required in 
 regard to doctrines purely of revelation. Our 
 author says, that the Unitarian’s creed is derived 
 from a clear interpretation of the two great 
 volumes of the Almighty, nature and revelation. 
 But_on the doctrines under consideration, namel 
 the manifestation of God to his creatures, and the 
 internal constitution of the divine mind, the 
 book of nature says absolutely nothing. If the 
 author imagine that it does, let him prove it; 
 let him produce his evidences from any ascer- 
 tained facts in the natural world, of the manner 
 in which it is fit and right that the Deity should 
 manifest himself to his creatures, and of the 
 nature of the divine mind, and not amuse his 
 readers with confident assertions about reason 
 and sound philosophy. | 
 
 When the modern system of philosophizing was 
 introduced into Europe, and new and extraord- 
 inary facts were beginning to be developed by 
 the mighty engine, the novum organum that was 
 then brought into operation ; many of the reli- 
 gionists of that day attempted to confront them 
 with the language and the doctrines of Scripture. 
 The new opinions respecting the form and rela- 
 tive station of the earth, were pronounced to be 
 impious, contrary to the word of God, and the 
 church ef Rome proceeded against the philoso- 
 phers as heretics and blasphemers. I doubt not 
 that our auther will unhesitatingly condemn the 
 
 AN 
 
A: On the principles of reasoning 
 
 attempts to place the word of God in opposition 
 to the works of God; and will deprecate the 
 introduction of theology to control the search 
 after truth in the natural world. And yet he 
 would introduce the philosophy of the natural 
 world to control and modify the declarations of 
 the Bible. He would say, that this and the 
 other doctrine cannot be taught in the Bible, 
 because it is contrary to the book of nature: 
 just as thé fanatics of the dark ages said that this 
 and the other statement respecting natural objects 
 eannot be true, because it contradicts the asser- 
 tions of Scripture. I doubt not that nature and 
 revelation will be found perfectly to harmonize, 
 when they are both fully understood, but this 
 persuasion ought never to influence us in our 
 examination of either of these books of the 
 Aimighty. All that we have to do is to examine 
 both with patient attention; and we may thus 
 discover how they harmonize with one another ; 
 but to alter or modify either for the purpose of 
 making them harmonize, is to reduce both to 
 the level of our poor imaginations. The author 
 says, that Unitarians cannot believe that any 
 revelation from heaven contradicts reason and 
 common sense. I believe that no revelation 
 from heaven can contradict the reality of things, 
 and that the spiritual world when it is known, 
 will be found equally worthy of the great Creator 
 with the material world. | But whether the 
 reality of things in either will commend itself 
 to the reason of any, or every man, I have no 
 means of knowing, except that the Scripture 
 seems to indicate that its doctrines will appear 
 foolishness to the natural man. | 
 
 A very large proportion of the reasons given 
 by the author of the pamphlet, for rejecting the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, as he expresses himself, 
 
Srom Scripture. 5 
 
 are unsound and worthless; because they are 
 reasons for rejecting it whether it be revealed in 
 Scripture or not. He says, he rejects it, because 
 it is contradictory to reason, because it contra- 
 dicts the simplicity of God, (which simplicity is 
 the dictate of his own imagination, and no part 
 of revelation,) because it is indefinable and 
 incapable of explanation; because it presents a 
 monstrous confused image to the mind. He 
 rejects it on a principle of science, on a principle 
 of affection and duty to the Father of mercies, 
 because he could not love him with all his heart, 
 if his love be divided among three persons: 
 although he is required, on the pain of an ana- 
 thema, to love the Son, and to honour him, even 
 as he honours the Father. He rejects it on a 
 principle of benevolence, because he wishes every 
 one to believe the gospel, and he would remove 
 a difficulty out of their way. This is precisely 
 the principle of the Jesuit missionaries who 
 endeavoured to remove from the gospel every 
 thing that they found to be offensive to the hea- 
 then, and therefore boldly asserted, that Jesus 
 was not crucified,—that the story of his cruci- 
 fixion was a calumny of his enemies. He rejects 
 it, because the most erroneous notions of provi- 
 dence, and infidelity itself had sprung from it, 
 as if infidelity had never sprung from Unitari- 
 anism. He rejects it, because as he alleges 
 on the authority of Dr. Priestly, it was 
 unknown to the primitive Christians. This is 
 an argument, which even if well founded, which 
 it most unquestionably is not, comes very 
 strangely from one who blames the orthodox for 
 receiving their doctrine from the church of Rome. 
 Were the early Christians infallible? He rejects 
 it because, as he conceives, it degrades the 
 Father and dishonours the Son, (that is, his 
 B3 
 
6 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 misconception of it does so:) and he receives 
 the opposite doctrine, because it recommends 
 itself by its simplicity, and needs no tedious 
 ratiocination to explain or support it. Now all 
 these arguments would be equally good reasons 
 for rejecting a doctrine, whether it be revealed 
 in Scripture or not, and if every one of them 
 were well founded, they would not prove that it 
 is not taught in Seripture. They are precisely 
 such arguments as a man would use in opposition 
 to any phenomenon in the material heavens, 
 who, instead of looking to the heavens for the 
 purpose of ascertaining the truth, should shut 
 himself up in his closet and proceed to reason 
 upon what ought to be in the heavens. They 
 are entirely similar, many of them precisely the 
 same, with the arguments which in a former ~ 
 age, were actually urged against the motion of 
 the earth on its axis, and its revolutions round 
 the sun. If arguments of this description be of 
 any weight, they weigh against the divine 
 inspiration of the Scriptures, and accordingly 
 this use has often been made of them: but they 
 are plainly of no avail whatever, to prove what 
 is or is not contained in the Scripture, which 
 must be ascertained solely by a careful examin- 
 ation of the Bible itself, uninfluenced by any 
 such considerations. 
 
 Even if human reason were capable, in an 
 unclouded, uncorrupted state, to determine thus, 
 by @ priori argument, what ought, or ought not 
 to be true respecting the Divine mind, and the 
 manifestations of the Deity, and what ought, or 
 ought not to be revealed on such subjects; in its 
 present darkened, perverted condition it is utterly 
 unqualified for any such speculations, and its 
 wisdom is to receive as a mere babe the simple, 
 unadulterated milk of the word of God. In this 
 
Srom Scripture. vi 
 
 view of the condition of human reason our author 
 will, probably, not agree with me. And yet he 
 incidentally gives views of the utter corruption 
 of the human heart as strong as can well be con- 
 ceived. He asks the question, why, if Unitari- 
 
 anism have so many claims to preference, being 
 the religion of reason, common sense, and the 
 Bible, it has not been more extensively diffused ? 
 And he answers, in the words of our Lord, 
 “This is the condemnation, that light is come 
 into the world, and men loved darkness rather 
 than light, because their deeds are evil.” What ! 
 notwithstanding all the beauty, and simplicity, 
 and purity, and sublimity of this doctrine, is 
 it almost universally rejected, and rejected 
 because men love darkness rather than light, 
 and is the reason of their thus loving darkness 
 that their’deeds are evil? What a deplorable 
 conception must the author have of the moral 
 condition of Christendom! But are the Uni- 
 tarians better than the orthodox? WN 0, In no 
 wise. He tells us that the fathers of the three 
 first centuries, and consequently all the ancient 
 Christian people, for nearly 300 years, till the 
 Council of Nice, were generally Unitarians. 
 But that, in consequence of Arius being loaded 
 with every species of abuse which an intolerant 
 faction could invent, the bishops assembled at 
 Nice, to the number of 318, besides a multitude 
 of presbyters, deacons, and other ecclesiastical 
 persons, who could noteasily be counted, collected 
 from all parts of the world, and who, up till this 
 time, were generally Unitarians, many of whom 
 had suffered torture with constancy under the 
 heathen persecutions, not only renounced their 
 Unitarianism, but agreed in issuing a declaration 
 which they knew to be false, namely, that Trini- 
 tarianism had at all times been the doctrine of 
 
8 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 the Christian church; nay, and encouraged 
 the introduction of force and persecution to con- 
 strain men to renounce the very doctrine which, 
 up till that time, they themselves had held; and 
 further, that the laity followed the decrees of 
 their clergy with so blind a submission, that 
 Trinitarianism, a doctrine till then almost 
 unknown, became the established doctrine of 
 the church; and that Unitarians have ever 
 since been frightened, by the clank of chains 
 and the crackling of faggots, out of their sublime 
 and beautiful doctrine. They who can believe 
 all this cannot be expected to hesitate about any 
 thing that will tend to support their system. 
 But is it possible to conceive of a more degrading 
 pieture of the moral condition of both ancient and 
 modern Unitarians? And truly, with these 
 very low views of the moral condition of mankind, 
 our author should net be too sanguine in his 
 expectations from the powers of reason and 
 common sense. | 
 
 But the utter incapacity of the powers of the 
 human mind for advancing one step farther than 
 the mere ascertaining and arranging of facts, 
 will be most effectually exposed by a cursory 
 glance of the result of its speculations. What 
 has human reason ever done for mankind beyond 
 the observation of facts in nature and in revela- 
 tion? What have its speculations been, but a 
 succession of puerilities and absurdities? It was 
 reason and common sense that discovered that 
 the world was a vast plain supported on the back 
 of an elephant, and that elephant supported on 
 the back of an enormous crab. It was reason 
 and common sense that, in the inanity of its 
 speculations, fixed the earth in the centre of the 
 universe, and wheeled the sun, and moon, and 
 stars in a daily revolution round it; and which 
 
Srom Scripture. g 
 
 then, to account for different phenomena, was 
 forced to invent its crystal spheres, and its other 
 clumsy expedients: (or, to avail myself of the 
 author’s appropriate quotation, ) | 
 
 eto build, rebuild, contrive 
 
 To save appearances, and gird the sphere, _ 
 With centrie and eccentric scribbled o’er, 
 Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb. 
 
 Reason has in one age filled the universe with 
 solid spheres, in another, with vortexes of ether, 
 and in a third it has discovered that there is 
 nothing real in the universe but a succession of 
 ideas, and that all its supposed revolutions exist 
 merely in our own minds. Inshort, a survey of 
 the inventions of reason and common sense even 
 with regard to natural objects, which have each 
 been fashionable in their day, presents an exhibi- 
 tion little superior to the drivellings of insanity. 
 
 And what have the speculations of reason 
 done for religion? Has it not been this boasted 
 faculty that crowded the universe with monstrous 
 gods—monstrous in their forms, but infinitely 
 more so in their mental characters? Was it not 
 reason and common sense that converted the 
 worship of the Creator into orgies of the most 
 detestable pollution aud the most revolting cru- 
 elty? The reason even of Socrates taught him 
 that every man should worship the gods accord- 
 ing to the custom of his own country, however 
 debased and absurd these practices might be ; 
 and led him to give directions that a cock should 
 be sacrificed to Esculapius, a rite that might vie 
 with the Greegrees of the Hottentots. 
 
 What has reason done for the religion of the 
 Bible? The common sense and reason of the 
 Sadducees taught them to reject the existence of 
 angels, and spirits, and the resurrection. The 
 
10 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 reason and common sense of the Gnosties, who 
 were the rational, philosophical Christians of 
 their day, taught them that the material world 
 was created by an evil principle, and that the 
 souls of men were shut up in material bodies 
 contrary to the will of the supreme Deity; and 
 all this for the purpose of accounting for the 
 origin and existence of evil on the most philo- 
 sophical and common sense principles. Common 
 sense and reason are employed to support the 
 tyranny of the Chureh of Rome: for when we 
 refuse to receive her dictates, we are told that 
 we are throwing away our reason; because it is 
 obvious to reason that an infallible living tri- 
 bunal is absolutely necessary in the world, which 
 tribunal is to be found only in the Popes and 
 Councils of the Romish Church. Common 
 sense and reason have on the continent of Europe 
 divested Christianity of all its peculiarities ; 
 have described our Lord as a benevolent enthu- 
 siast, who sacrificed his life to confirm doctrines 
 which, if not true, he at least conceived would be 
 useful; and have engaged Unitarian professors 
 of theology in the enterprize of accounting for 
 every thing recorded in the New Testament, such 
 as the miracles of Jesus, and his resurrection and 
 ascension, without the intervention of any super- 
 natural power. Common sense and reason taught 
 Dr. Geddes, who is quoted by our author as 
 good authority in the interpretation of Scripture, 
 that the saered historians wrote, like other his- 
 torians, from such documents as they could find, 
 and consequently were liable to mistakes: that 
 the commission given to the Israelites to drive 
 out the Canaanites, being contrary to the good- 
 ness of God, is to be regarded as a mere fable; 
 that Moses was an artful demagogue, who took 
 advantage of some convulsion in nature to per- 
 
JSrom Scripture. 11 
 
 suade the people that God was speaking to him; 
 that the Israelites did not pass through the Red 
 Sea, but round the head of it, because the removal 
 of ten or twelve fathoms of water was utterly 
 incredible; and that the pillar of cloud and of 
 fire could be nothing more than some combustible 
 matter carried before the people, perhaps a bunch 
 of burning straw, to direct them in their march 
 What the common sense and reason of our author 
 may lead him to determine on any of these 
 subjects I know not: but it is very probable 
 that, however well he may satisfy himself as to 
 what is reasonable, and fit, and beautiful, his 
 notions will not satisfy, in all points, one other 
 individual on the face of the globe; and that his 
 views of what is fit, and reasonable, and beautiful, 
 will, in a short time, be as much out of fashion 
 as those of the Manichees or the Sadducees. 
 And is it to this boasted reason of man, which 
 has been perpetually losing itself in intricacies 
 _ of its own fabrication, that the standard of the 
 word of God is to be squared and accommodated ? 
 Accommodated to what? To philosophy? To 
 what philosophy? Is it to the philosophy of 
 Confucius, or of Zoroaster, or of Pythagoras, 
 or of Socrates, or of Plato, or of Aristotle, or 
 of Manes the Persian, or of the Gnostics, or of 
 Descartes, or of Malebranche, or of David Hume, 
 or of our author himself? accommodated to a 
 very Proteus, which has never kept the same 
 shape for half a century—to an ever varying 
 succession of the most preposterous and ludicrous 
 contradictions ? ; 
 Are we then to cast away our reason and 
 common sense in regard to religion? Assuredly 
 not. Reason and common sense have their ow, 
 appropriate employment in this, as in all other 
 departments of human knowledge; and all that 
 
12 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 we plead for is, that reason and common sensemay 
 be confined in this, as they now are in all other 
 inquiries after truth, to an investigation and 
 arrangement of facts. The philosophy of Bacon 
 and of Newton does not require men to cast 
 away their reason, because it discountenances 
 unsupported speculations. It merely confines 
 reason and common sense to their own province. 
 Reason is bound by it to receive facts as she 
 finds them, and to reject whatever is not ascer- 
 tained by actual observation. The most acute 
 and subtile and beautiful speculation is not 
 permitted to shake or to modify the minutest 
 fact the truth of which has been attested by com- 
 petent evidence. All the beauty and simplicity 
 of the Newtonian system of astronomy, would 
 not be permitted to shake the credit of the most 
 apparently trivial, but well attested fact, that 
 might seem to be inconsistent with it. And it 
 has been by thus directing reason, and confin- 
 ing it to its proper business, that modern philo- 
 sophy has accomplished all its wonders. 
 
 Now we desire nothing more than that reason 
 and common sense should be restricted by the 
 same rules in regard to religion, as those to 
 which the modern principles of philosophizing 
 have subjected her in every other inquiry after 
 truth. In other departments of knowledge, © 
 these reasons of the author for rejecting Trinita- 
 rianism, which I have enumerated, such as its 
 being contradictory to reason, or contradictory 
 to any other doctrine, its being incapable of 
 explanation, its presenting a monstrous picture 
 to the mind, his reasons from piety and benevo- 
 lence, and from the beauty and simplicity of the 
 opposite opinion, would not have the weight of 
 a feather. A man who should attempt to bring 
 such arguments uto astronomy or chemistry 
 
Jrom Scripture. 13 
 
 would be laughed at, and he would be told that 
 he must establish his facts and opinions, or rebut 
 the facts alleged by others, by avery different 
 strain of investigation. Now all that we desire, 
 is that such arguments should be held in as little 
 esteem in religion, as in any other science—that 
 the phenomena of the Bible should be treated 
 with as much respect as the phenomena of 
 nature, and that no @ priori argument, should 
 be permitted to alter or to modify any intimation 
 of the word of God. If the speculations of 
 reason are not permitted to alter or modify facts 
 discovered in the natura] world, how much less 
 should such speculations he permitted to alter 
 or to modify facts revealed: from the spiritual 
 world, with which we are so much less con- 
 versant? The Scripture is spread before us 
 like the face of the sky, to contemplate, hut not 
 to accommodate to our own notions of fitness 
 and propriety: and he who would have us to 
 listen to representations of what is fit, or 
 reasonable, or sumple, or beautiful, in pleading 
 for the modification of a single sentence of the 
 word of God, is labouring to prolong and to 
 extend the reign of the dark ages in theology. 
 Our thus confining ourselves to 4 simple 
 investigation of the word of God does not imply 
 that every expression is to be understood 
 literally. Figurative language is, doubtless, 
 employed in Scripture, as it is in every human 
 composition, and allowance must be made for 
 it. We have to seek, with simplicity and 
 honesty, what is the mind of the Spirit in the 
 language of Seripture; and here we must he 
 guided by the practice of the sacred writers 
 themselves. But that is a very different opera- 
 tion from the bringing in of speculations drawn 
 from other sources to determine whether an 
 C 
 
14 On the prinaiples of reasoning 
 
 expression is to be understood literally or figur- 
 atively. 
 
 Besides, we must, I think, concede something 
 like common sense principles to the construction 
 of the Biblke,—to suppose at least that the writers 
 of Scripture were not permitted touse language so 
 extravagantly figurative as to outrage all common 
 sense. There are some writers who seem to be 
 so much impressed with the tendeney of orientals 
 to allegory and metaphor, as to imagine that they 
 are incapable of expressing themselves literally 
 on any occasion. I eonfess I have never heard 
 or seen any such figurative language introduced 
 into plain, simple narrative, as some critics 
 conceive to be introduced into the Mosaic history 
 and the Gospels. When a critic attempts to 
 prove that the narrative of our Lord’s ascension 
 to heaven is given in eastern hyperbole and 
 allegory ; and that the facts, simply told, might 
 be, that Jesus went up to the top of the Mount 
 of Olives with his disciples, that a mist falling 
 upon them he left them unseen by them, and 
 went to Damascus, where he afterwards met 
 Paul, and had the dexterity to persuade him to 
 jein his party; he seems to me to suppose that 
 the writer of the narrative was bereft of his rea- 
 son. And so when our author imagines that 
 one inspired writer could address Solomon in 
 such words as these, ‘* Thy throne, O God, is 
 for ever and ever;” that another could apply 
 such epithets to Hezekiah as, ‘*The Wonderful, 
 the Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Father of 
 the future age;” and that a third could eall 
 Jesus Christ, ‘The blood of God,” as being his 
 son, because men sometimes call their kindred 
 their own flesh and blood; while yet Jesus is 
 supposed not to be his son as being one in nature 
 with him, but merely in a figurative sense, as 
 
Jrom Scripture. 15 
 
 his people are sometimes called his children; he 
 seems to me to deny to the writers of the Bible 
 any share of common sense, that he may establish 
 his own. 
 
 My readers will find, therefore, that I shall 
 have continual occasion to appeal to their reason 
 and common sense; not for the purpose of deter- 
 mining what the inspired writers ought to have 
 taught,—what it would have been fit, and right, 
 and simple, and rational for them to teach, but 
 what they actually have taught, what is the 
 meaning of their language. 
 
 We are told, indeed, that we sacrifice reason 
 and common sense when we believe that J esus 
 was God manifest in the flesh. Our answer is, 
 that if the doctrine be taught in Scripture, we 
 make the best and highest use of our reason in 
 discovering it there, and believing it on the 
 testimony of God. We are told that, according 
 to our own admission, we prostrate our reason 
 and common sense. I answer, that we use the 
 word prostrate, not in the medical sense of 
 reducing it to imbecility, as when a physician 
 speaks of the prostration of strength in a patient; 
 but in the religious sense of subjecting it to the 
 teaching of God, prostrating it in adoration of 
 his infinite wisdom, and in implicit submission 
 to his training and tuition. An unlettered 
 peasant who submits to be taught to read, that 
 he may peruse, and endeavour to understand the 
 sacred oracles, does not prostrate his reason in 
 the sense of weakening it, but by subjecting it 
 to the teaching of Scripture he strengthens and 
 invigorates it; although he does not speculate 
 upon what would be beautiful, and simple, and 
 fit, and benevolent in a system of revealed truth. 
 And what is true of a peasant, is equally true of 
 a philosopher. He does not throw away his 
 
16 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 reason when he qualifies himself for reading the 
 Scriptures in their original languages, and when 
 he compares Scripture with Scripture, for the 
 purpose of discovering what is the mind of the 
 Spirit in every sentence of the sacred volume; 
 although he does not presume to sit in judgment 
 on the Scripture, and, from his views of the 
 natural world, infer what would be fit and 
 proper for God to reveal from the spiritual 
 world, or what it would be pious and benevolent 
 in him to believe; but, like the peasant, he 
 exercises and invigorates his reason by subjecting 
 it to the training and discipline of Scripture— 
 he elevates and ennobles it by prostrating it 
 before the authority of Him who condescends te 
 become its instructor. ‘If any man among you 
 seemeth to be wise in this world; let him become 
 a fool, that he may be wise.”* ‘* Whosoever” 
 (be he peasant or philosopher) “shall not receive 
 the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall 
 not enter therein.”+ 
 
 One great cause of the diversity of sentiment 
 that prevails in regard to the contents of the 
 Bible, when compared with the astonishing 
 harmony of sentiment that exists on almost every 
 other subject of human knowledge, seems to be, 
 that theologians have persevered in a system of» 
 ‘inquiry into revealed truth which has long been 
 banished from inquiries into external nature. 
 They have not sat down to the study of the 
 Bible for the mere purpose of ascertaining what 
 it contains, as philosophers have sat down to 
 the study of nature for the mere purpose of 
 eliciting facts. Like the ancient philosophers, 
 they have persevered in forming systems by 
 mixing up the more obvious phenomena of 
 
 * 1 Cor. iii. 18, . + Mark x. 15. 
 
Srom Scripture. 17 
 
 Scripture with their own imaginations. So long 
 as this system of philosophizing was practised, 
 there was as much diversity of opinion on all 
 other subjects as on religion. “The learned world 
 was distributed under different schools of philo- 
 sophy, each distinguished by its own peculiar 
 tenets. Diversities of philosophical sects are now 
 unknown, except in reference to some subjects 
 on which so little has been actually ascertained, 
 that men are led to substitute imagination for 
 fact. The cause of this singular revolution 
 obviously is the change that has been introduced 
 into the mode of prosecuting philosophical 
 inquiries. Had the old system of philosophizing 
 continued, the same, or similar divisions must 
 have continued also. But philosophers are now 
 confined. to an examination and arrangement of 
 facts. They have now a fixed, immoveable 
 Standard, to which their judgments must be 
 conformed—the actual phenomena of nature ; 
 which necessarily brings them into agreement 
 with one another. Let the same system be 
 introduced into religious inquiries,—let. theolo- 
 gians be confined to a simple study of the Bible, 
 for the purpose of ascertaining merely what it 
 contains,—first, what are the original words of 
 inspiration ; secondly, what is the sense intended 
 to be conveyed by these words: let attempts to 
 forestall the interpretation of Scripture, and to 
 bias the judgment in its search, by speculations 
 upon what is to be expected in it—what common 
 sense and reason would approve of, and we may 
 soon expect as much unanimity of opinion upon 
 that as upon any other subject of inquiry. Many 
 may continue to reject the Scripture, but so 
 great a mass of evidence would be accumulated 
 in support of the system of truth revealed, that 
 no one would venture to cast a doubt upon what 
 c 3 
 
18 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 the Bible actually teaches. So long as men 
 seek to conform the Scripture to their own 
 notions of what is fit, and beautiful, and rational, 
 they must be divided: for these notions are 
 different in every different individual. But the 
 Scripture is one thing, one system of truth, and 
 the more we know of it, the more we shall be 
 agreed, and the more we shall discover in it a 
 beauty, and simplicity, and fitness, and sublimity, 
 infinitely transcending our loftiest imaginations. 
 
 3. There is another false principle of reasoning 
 from Scripture, of which abundant use is made 
 in reference to our subject, intimately connected 
 with that misdirection of common sense and 
 reason upon which we have been animadverting, 
 namely, the placing texts of Scripture in opposi- 
 tion to one another, and then pleading that the 
 one neutralizes the other, so that no argument 
 can be founded on either. This practice our 
 author avows. The Rev. Mr. Maguire had said 
 in his discussion with Mr. Pope, manifestly for 
 the purpose of providing an argument in favour 
 of the Church of Rome, that the “ Socinian’s 
 objections are solid and stubborn, that he has 
 reason and common sense on his side, that he 
 will quote text against text, enjoying the latitude 
 of private judgment, till not a single shred of 
 argument remains.” .To this our author adds, 
 ‘In these sentiments of Mr. Maguire Unitarians 
 most cordially concur.”* And accordingly he 
 proceeds freely with this practice, and when a 
 text Is presented to him which he cannot explain 
 on his own principles, he finds what he conceives 
 to be a contradictory text, and then pleads that 
 nothing can be concluded from it. If, for exam- 
 ple, a passage is adduced in which Jesus is 
 expressly called God, he confronts the declaration 
 
 by! Page 1, 
 
Jrom Scripture. 19 
 
 by showing that he is called man; if one text 
 ascribes to him omnipotence, he brings another 
 which represents him as weary with a journey, 
 as a contradiction of it: if one text intimates 
 that there are more persons than one in the 
 _ Godhead, he finds another which declares that 
 there is but one God. 
 
 Now, I ask, is this a respectful treatment of 
 the word of God? Is the Scripture to be repre- 
 sented, by one who professes to approach. it 
 in the character of a disciple, as a mass of 
 irreconcileable contradictions, one part of which 
 must be revoked to make way for the other ? 
 Is not this to represent it as teaching nothing 
 determinately, as being, what some Roman 
 Catholic divines have asserted it to be, a mere 
 “nose of wax,” which may be moulded into 
 any form? Will Unitarians heartily acquiesce 
 in this view of it, which, doubtless, was that 
 which Mr. Maguire intended to give of it? 
 
 T ask again if this principle would be tolerated 
 in any philosophical investigation? A fact is 
 discovered, and announced, and established on 
 sufficient evidence. Some person, however, 
 instead of examining the phenomenon, or the 
 evidence on which it is announced, brings forward 
 some other fact which he conceives to be incon- 
 sistent with it. Would he be listened to? 
 Surely not. He would be told that he must 
 believe both facts if they be established on 
 sufficient evidence. Our author’s method was 
 precisely that by which the Copernican system 
 of astronomy was resisted. Facts apparently 
 contradictory to it: were brought forward in 
 abundance, and, on the credit of these, the evi- 
 dences of it were treated with contempt. All 
 the supposed absurdities of the earth moving with 
 so much rapidity as that system represents were 
 brought in array against it :— 
 
20 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 Ergo, tam celeri tellus si concita motu 
 
 Iret in occasum, &e. 
 
 Ipse etiam volucres tranantes aera leni, 
 
 Lemigio alarum, celeri vertigine terre, 
 
 Abreptas gemerent sylvas, nidosque tenella 
 
 Cum sobole et chara forsan cum conjuge, &c. 
 BucuAnan De Srumra. 
 
 But arguments such as these have long been 
 banished from that, and every other science; 
 and the ability of men to reconcile phenomena is 
 no longer regarded as in any degree the standard 
 of truth. And why is the book of revelation to 
 be treated with less reverence than the book of 
 nature? If there be statements in Scripture 
 that seem to contradict one another, we may, 
 doubtless, use all legitimate means for ascertain- 
 ing whether any alteration has crept into the 
 text, and to ascertain the principle on which the 
 apparent contradictions are to be reconciled. 
 But, if we do not succeed in this, we must not 
 permit the one declaration to obliterate the other. 
 Mahommedan doctors finding irreconcileable 
 contradictions in the Koran, are forced to suppose 
 that in such cases the former declaration is 
 revoked by the latter. But we can admit no 
 such principle in the interpretation of Scripture. 
 Having ascertained the real state of the appa- 
 rently contradictory texts and the obvious mean- 
 ing of them, we must receive them both, whether 
 we can reconcile them or not. If, for example, 
 the Scripture distinctly assert that the Word 
 was God, and that the Word was with God, I 
 must believe both of these propositions, whether 
 I can reconcile them to my satisfaction or not. 
 I must believe that they are capable of being 
 reconciled without destroying the sense of either, 
 and that my inability to reconcile them arises 
 not from any real contradiction in them, but 
 
Jrom Scripture, 21 
 
 from my own ignorance. If the Scripture 
 declare that there is but one God, I must believe 
 the declaration. If it declare that one who is 
 called the Son is God, and distinguished from the 
 Father, who is also declared to he God, I must 
 believe that God is in some respect one, and in 
 some respect two. If, besides the Father and 
 the Son, it reveal another person, whom it calls 
 the Holy Ghost, as God, I must believe that 
 God is in some respect one, and in some respect 
 three. But this appears to me irreconcileable. 
 Be itso: my ability to reconcile such declarations 
 is not the standard of truth. There are some 
 critics who when they find a Hebrew or Greek 
 sentence which they cannot translate, munmediately 
 pronounce it to be unintelligible, and then propose 
 some alteration in the text, to bring it within the 
 limits of their knowledge of these languages. But 
 this is an arrogance that cannot be too strongly 
 condemned. And just so deserving of con- 
 demnation is the presumption of those who would 
 bring down Scripture to the level of their 
 ability to explain it; and who, when they 
 cannot reconcile its different declarations, proceed 
 with unhallowed temerity, to alter the obvious 
 sense of its language. 
 Another modification of this principle is, 
 to deprive texts of Scripture of all meaning, 
 for the purpose of evading their evidence. A 
 notable example of this practice we have in our 
 author’s critique on John i. 1, on which I shall 
 have occasion to animadvert in the sequel. 
 A second instance we have in his critique on 
 Heb. i. 10, in which he attempts to throw a 
 doubt on that passage being part of the address 
 to the Son which commences at verse Sth, 
 although, to a person of common understanding, 
 nothing can be more obvious. He says that the 
 
99 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 connexion of the passage with the preceding’ 
 verses is not clear, that the author’s style is 
 very elliptical, often abstruse, and that it is by 
 no means easy to trace in it an uninterrupted 
 train of thought. Now admitting that there are 
 obscure passages in the writings of Paul, who 
 ever thought of bringing an obscure passage 
 in the writings of any author, as evidence, 
 that plain and simple passages, the meaning of 
 which is obvious on a moment’s inspection, 
 must be obscure also? The whole passage 
 in which the author finds so much difficulty, 
 stands thus, ‘But unto the Son he saith, Thy 
 ** throne, O God, is for ever and ever, a sceptre 
 ** of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom, 
 “thou hast loved righteousness, and hated 
 iniquity; therefore God, thy God hath anointed 
 ** thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 
 “ And, thou, Lord, in the beginning, hast laid 
 ** the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are 
 “ the works of thy hands,” &e.—Now this passage 
 must be obscure indeed, to one who is determined 
 not to see that the latter part commencing with, 
 “Thou Lord,” is quoted as addressed to the 
 Son, as well as the former part; but to any one 
 who is disposed to receive the Scripture as he 
 finds it, nothing can be more simple or obvious. 
 
 Our author insinuates, that our doctrine is 
 }uilt on ambiguous mysterious passages, from 
 which it requires much ingenuity to elicit the 
 sense which we ascribe to them—the meaning 
 of which can be extracted only by adepts in 
 occult theology. For the validity of this asser- 
 tion, I must appeal to those who shall read the 
 subsequent part of this tractate. The truth I 
 believe, they will find to be, that we build 
 nothing whatever on any passage, which is 
 either of doubtful reading, or of doubtful mean~ 
 
JSrom Scripture. 23 
 
 ing. They will find indeed, that the author 
 frequently labours, to prove that texts are 
 obscure, which are as clear as if written with a 
 sun beam; and that texts are ambiguous, which 
 are so precise in their language, that the utmost 
 ingenuity of criticism, has failed to elicit any 
 other meaning out of them, than that which we 
 attribute to them. He will find one passage, 
 which has had five different meanings forced 
 upon it, by Unitarian writers, all of which our 
 author rejects, and proposes, Without a vestige 
 of authority, an alteration in the words, and 
 which even then, will not bear the meaning that 
 he would draw from it. For my part, I should 
 never dream of laying much weight on any 
 signification of a text, but that which is most 
 obvious,—that which would he given to it by 
 persons altogether ignorant of the controversy. 
 In fact, there are few, or no instances, of 
 Unitarian critics even attempting to prove that 
 a text will not bear the meaning in which we 
 understand it, or even, that that meaning is not 
 the most obvious. The utmost effort of such 
 writers usually is, to show that the text is 
 capable of bearing another meaning besides its 
 plain and obvious one, and that too, not unfre- 
 quently, a meaning which no one ever thought 
 of, till the modern agitation of the controversy. 
 They thus force us to appeal to the grammar of 
 the original languages, and to the practice of 
 Greek and Hebrew writers, for the purpose of 
 rebutting their far-fetched whimsical interpreta- 
 tions, and then they complain that our doctrine 
 is founded on the niceties of Greek particles, 
 and the forms of Hebrew phraseology. No! 
 our doctrine is founded on the obvious significa~ 
 tion of the words, and it is they who betake 
 themselves to the minutie of criticism. But 
 
24 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 surely an avowed attempt to prove that a passage 
 is ambiguous which has one plain meaning—an 
 attempt for example to discover another mean- 
 ing in such words as these, ** The Word was 
 with God, and the Word was God,” than that 
 which they ebviously bear, by comparing them 
 with passages in no way connected with them, 
 passages treating of totally different subjects, 
 is to say the least of it a very extraordinary 
 procedure. For the truth of these representa- 
 tions, I must again refer the reader to the 
 following pages. 
 
 The author asks, on our insisting on the plain 
 obvious interpretation of Seripture, why then 
 do ye not believe in the doctrine of Transubstan- 
 tiation? I answer, because there is not a sen- 
 tence in the whole Bible, that gives the slightest 
 countenance to such a doctrine. Jesus does not 
 say, this bread is, or will be, transubstantiated 
 or changed into my body; buat simply, this is 
 my body, after which he calls the bread still 
 bread. To suppose that Jesus changed the 
 bread into his body, by saying, this is my body, 
 is to suppose that he spoke falsely, by saying in 
 reference to the bread, this is my body, when it 
 was not, but only became so, after he had used 
 these words. The words therefore must be 
 understood figuratively. Further I reject the 
 doctrine, because in speaking of the same 
 subject, the eating of his flesh, our Lord himself 
 explains his words figuratively, expressly declar- 
 ing that the flesh profiteth nothing. And still 
 further, I reject the literal interpretation, because 
 the figure is frequently used by our Saviour, 
 as when he says; ‘‘ 1 am the door,” “I am the 
 true vine,” and because it is common in all 
 languages, as when we say in looking on a map, 
 this is England, this is France, this is Dublin, 
 
Jrom Scripture. 25 
 
 &e. Our Lord was when he used the words, 
 instituting an ordinance, which contained a 
 representation of his death, and when he said 
 this is my body, and this is my blood, he most 
 obviously meant, in this representation the bread 
 stands for my body, and the wine for my blood ; 
 just as in explaining the parable of the tares, 
 he said, the field is the world, the seed is the 
 word, the reapers are the angels. Let our 
 author give such reasons as these for his figurative | 
 interpretations, and no one will resist him, who 
 dares to use his own judgment; but let him not 
 compare with these reasons, the critical subtleties 
 by which he would make out a bare possibility, 
 that passages which are luminous as the sun, 
 may perhaps bear another construction. 
 
 But the most daring example, of opposing 
 Scripture to Scripture, I have yet to notice; 
 namely, placing the credibility of one passage 
 in opposition to that of another. 
 
 “ The omniscience of our Lord,” says our author, 
 ‘is inferred from a passage in Jeremiah, and another 
 in the Apocalypse. But we have already heard 
 Christ himself declaring, that he knew not when 
 the day of judgment would arrive; and we would 
 deem his own declaration worthy of more credit than 
 Jeremiah’s, or John’s, even though they had explicitly 
 affirmed what he denies.’* 
 
 ‘Worthy of more credit than Jeremiah’s or 
 John’s!” Does our author really believe that 
 Jeremiah and John « spake as they were moved 
 
 * Page 30 first edition. I cannot find this passage in the 
 second edition. Probably it has been withdrawn in consequence 
 of the animadversions which have been made upon it. The 
 Unitarian congregations in this country, are not yet prepared 
 for such “liberality ;” and will require some further intercourse 
 with the Unitarians of England, and of the Continent of Eu- 
 rope, before they will be able to bear such strong meat, as that 
 one part of Scripture may flatly contradict another, and thereby 
 destroy its credibility, 
 
 D 
 
26 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 by the Holy Ghost ?” According to our author’s 
 own doctrine Jesus himself was only an inspired 
 creature; and would he bring the words of the 
 Spirit of God by the lips of Jesus, to impeach the 
 credibility of the. words of the same Spirit of 
 God by the lips of any other of his servants ? 
 In his haste, indeed, he totally overlooks the 
 fact that the words quoted from the book of 
 Revelation are the words of Jesus himself, as 
 well as-those quoted from the evangelist, Mark. 
 The sole difference is, that the one declaration 
 of Jesus is recorded by Mark, the other by John. 
 And would he employ the words of the blessed 
 Jesus to confront himself? Would he attempt 
 to condemn him out of his own mouth? The 
 English public have been long inured to such 
 Sentiments from Unitarian writers; and may not 
 be so much shocked with a passage of this descrip- 
 tion as I am sure the Irish public must be. But 
 the manifest tendency of an insinuation, that 
 one part of Scripture is more worthy of credit 
 than another, is to produce infidelity: nor ean I 
 conceive how a man who really believes that the 
 whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, 
 should even venture to hint that any part of it 
 could, in any degree, be undeserving of credit, 
 or that one testimony in it could, by any possi- 
 bility, contradict another. To weigh the credi- 
 bility of Jesus against that of his apostles, or 
 the credibility of one inspired writer against that 
 of another, and yet profess to receive the whole 
 Scripture as the word of God, is an inconsistency 
 peculiar, I believe, to modern Unitarians. 
 
 4. Another false principle of reasoning, which 
 might seem scarcely deserving of notice were it 
 not for the abundant use that is made of it, is 
 that of misstating and distorting the doctrine that 
 is opposed. Aman who is really and seriously 
 
Jrom Scripture. - 
 
 Searching after truth will be exceedingly on his 
 guard against this practice ; because he will feel 
 that it exposes him to the mortification of losing 
 his labour, by confuting a doctrine which no one 
 contends for. He will, therefore, endeavour 
 distinctly to understand the doctrine which he 
 proposes to examine, he will take his view of it 
 from the most able and judicious of those who 
 have defended it, he will be anxious to see it in 
 the most favourable light in which it can be 
 placed, lest he should spend his time and his 
 strength in professedly opposing what, after all, 
 may be the truth, or at best in reasoning against 
 @ mere misapprehension of the doctrine that he 
 would explode. A prejudice may be excited or 
 strengthened, or a triumph gained, among those 
 who read only one side of the question, by the 
 refutation of an absurdity which no one maintains; 
 but such a refutation can never convince one who 
 holds the doctrine, because he finds that the 
 arguments do not bear upon his opinions. 
 
 I should be glad that I could acquit our author 
 of the extreme weakness of arguing against mere 
 misconceptions of the doctrines which he pro- 
 poses to impugn. I willingly exculpate him of 
 intentional misrepresentation. No doubt he 
 imagines that we hold the doctrines which he 
 imputes to us, for he cannot but be above the 
 puerility of seeking a momentary triumph among 
 the ignorant and the prejudiced by reasoning 
 against absurdities of his own invention. But 
 he has, at least, been extremely negligent in 
 making himself acquainted with what our senti- 
 ments really are. Instead of looking into authen- 
 tic documents, he seems to have formed his 
 conceptions of our doctrine from reports not 
 Superior to those which represented the primitive 
 Christians as cannibals. 
 
28 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 For example, he argues perpetually as if, by 
 believing in the Divine nature of Christ and of 
 the Holy Spirit, we believed that there were three 
 Gods; and therefore he keeps in constant array, 
 as if against us, those texts which declare the 
 unity of the Godhead: whereas if he had taken 
 the trouble to examine authentic documents of 
 ‘churches that believe that there are three persons 
 in the Godhead, or the writings of persons who 
 are held in any esteem by us, he would have 
 found that theunity of God isalwaysinsisted upon 
 as the very foundation of all religion. The learned 
 author is, indeed, not so ignorant of this as from 
 the first edition of his work we might have 
 imagined; for in his preface to the second edition 
 of it he says, that we affirm that we believe im 
 the divme unity as well as Unitarians, and 
 
 expresses his satisfaction that we do.so, evenif it. , 
 
 be of envy and strife: but he adds, “ Let not 
 the disciples of Athanasius, Calvin, and the Pope 
 be under any apprehension that we shall identify 
 their three persons with our one God. Our 
 unity has no resemblance to theirs. Ours is a 
 monad—theirs isatriad. Ours is a mathematical 
 point—theirs is a triangle.’ And in another 
 passage he says that ‘God is a spirit, simple, 
 uncompounded, indivisible.” Now, to all this 
 we have no objection. We have no desire to 
 have fellowship with him in believing in a unity 
 that may be compared to a monad or mathema- 
 tical point, or in the existence of such a God as 
 he deseribes—a spirit, simple, uncompounded, 
 indivisible, because we do not find any such 
 language used in Scripture in describing the 
 nature of the Deity. We do not indeed compare 
 our God to a triangle, as he does his to a monad 
 or a mathematical point; but we believe that 
 there is one God, and but one, simply because 
 
Jrom Scripture. 29 
 
 the Scriptures say so; and we believe that the 
 Father is God, and that the Son is God, and 
 that the Holy Spirit is God, for the same reason, 
 the Scriptures say so. When, therefore, he 
 designates one of those ministers who saw it to 
 be his duty to animadvert on his pamphlet from 
 the pulpit, “‘ An active and persevering enemy 
 of the great Bible truth, that God is one,” he 
 can mean only that he opposes the doctrine of a 
 unity in the Godhead that may fitly be compared 
 to a monad or a mathematical point, and to this 
 view of his sentiments Iam sure that minister 
 can have no objection. Whether we be followers 
 of Athanasius, and Calvin, and the Pope, or 
 followers of the Bible; and whether our author 
 be a follower of the Bible, or a disciple of 
 Priestley, Belsham, Wakefield, Taylor, Whitby, 
 &c. the reader may be able to form some judgment 
 from the following pages. If he find me quoting 
 the authority of Athanasius, or Calvin, or the 
 Pope in opposition to the Scriptures, I shall not 
 deny the master whom I thus follow; and if he 
 find our author quoting the authority of any of 
 these critics, appealing to their learning, their 
 candour, and their acuteness, as his authority 
 for departing from the obvious meaning of any 
 passage of Scripture, or for altering the words 
 of Scripture, he will be able to determine what 
 master the author serves. 
 
 Again, our author gives a most erroneous and 
 distorted statement of our sentiments respecting 
 the origin of the Gospel. 
 
 “ Trinitarianism,” says he, ‘‘represents the Father 
 and Son as actuated by different principles, and on 
 the most important of all subjects, moral virtue— 
 the one as rigorous and inflexibly just, the other as 
 merciful and compassionate. Here their unity is 
 abolished. An act of disobedience is committed’ by 
 
 D3 
 
30 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 the first of God’s intelligent creatures placed upon 
 this earth ; and ‘he who knoweth our frame, and 
 remembereth that we are dust,’ filled with ineffable 
 fury, sentences man, and, in him, all his innocent 
 and unconscious posterity to everlasting perdition. 
 Thus had man been irrecoverably lost—but God the 
 Son interferes, and since nothing less than a ransom 
 of infinite price should atone for the smallest offence 
 against an infinite Being, he offers to pay the price 
 required, to assume a human form and die the death 
 of the cross, that the curse may be annulled. 
 
 «“ Accordingly the proposal is accepted, and the 
 Father Almighty suffers his Son, who is equal to 
 himself, ** to be born, ** to be nailed to a cross .as 
 a malefactor, ** the sacrifice of a son to a father, ** 
 to the inexorable wrath of an offended Deity. 
 
 ‘Now it is evident from this scheme that God 
 the Father and God the Son entertained totally 
 contradictory views of man’s first offence. Though 
 consubstantial, they are dissentient ; for, if they be 
 of one mind, why did not the Son join in the curse, 
 and demand aninfinite ransom as well as the Father ?”. 
 Page 6. 
 
 “ Unitarianism will not listen for a moment to the 
 common errors by which this bright attribute (viz. 
 mercy) is obscured. It will not hear of a vindictive 
 wrath in God which must be quenched by blood; or 
 of a justice which binds his mercy in an iron chain, 
 until its demands are satisfied to the full. It will 
 not hear that God needs any foreign influence to 
 awaken his mercy.” Page 55. : 
 
 It is quite amusing to observe the seriousness 
 and simplicity with which the Rev. author draws 
 his inference, ‘“*Now it is evident from. this 
 scheme,” &c. as if any one had ever entertained 
 so preposterous and absurd a scheme. Where 
 did he find it? Can he point out any person 
 who has avowed such a scheme? I hope he will 
 believe me, when I assure him I never heard of 
 it or met with it, except in the writings of 
 
Jrom Scripture. 31 
 
 Unitarians. He, I observe, takes it from Chan- 
 ning, and Channing either invented it or got it 
 from some other Unitarian. But is it a dictate 
 of common sense to take his account of the doc- 
 trine which he wishes to explode, not from those 
 who believe it, but from those who oppose it ? 
 How would he treat me, if to obtain a knowledge 
 of his sentiments I should go, not to his own work 
 nor to that of any Unitarian, but to some 
 Calvinist’s representation of them? The con-- 
 Sequence is that all he says respecting this 
 scheme is dissipated in the air; for I will venture 
 to assert that there is not in the empire a person 
 above the intelligence of a school boy. who 
 entertains any such monstrous fiction, or who 
 feels himself affected by his argument. 
 
 We do not believe that the Father is more 
 rigorous or inflexibly just than the Son. We do 
 not believe that the Father was filled with 
 ineffable fury or inexorable wrath against sinful 
 men, and needed to be appeased by the sacrifice 
 of his own Son, or by any “foreign influence.” 
 How is it possible that we could entertain such 
 views of the Father, when we have such texts as 
 these before us, which we never attempt to 
 divert from their obvious meaning? “ God so 
 loved the world that he gave his only begotten Sen, 
 that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, 
 but have everlasting life.”* ‘In this was mani- 
 fest the Love of God toward us, because that God 
 sent his only begotten Son into the world that - 
 we might live through him.” « Herein is Love, 
 not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and 
 sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins, 
 We have seen and do testify that the Father sent 
 the Son to be the Saviour of the world.”+ It is 
 
 * John iii, 16. t 1 John iv. 9, 10, 14. 
 
32 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 an essential part of our tenets that the whole plan 
 of redemption was formed in the eternal counsels 
 of God—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We 
 believe, therefore, that the sacrifice of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ proceeded, not from the immitigable 
 wrath, but from the incomprehensible love of the 
 Father; that the Lord provided for himself a 
 lamb for a burnt-offering; that ‘* God com- 
 mendeth his Love toward us in that while we 
 were yet sinners Christ died for us.’’* 
 
 I do not, indeed, pretend to explain with 
 accuracy wherein lay the necessity for such a 
 sacrifice as the Scripture declares the God of 
 grace and compassion to have made, when he 
 gave up his Son to be “ wounded for our trans- 
 gressions and bruised for our iniquities,” and * to 
 bear our sins on his own body on the tree.” 
 Some, I confess, have gone farther in their 
 attempts to explain that subject than I can 
 accompany them. But I can conceive of such a 
 necessity without adopting the horrible hypo- 
 thesis which our author ascribes to us. I can 
 conceive of the urgent claims of justice upon the 
 Sovereign of the universe, the danger of permit- 
 ting a violation of the law of the universe—that 
 eternal standard of right and wrong, to pass 
 without the condign punishment of the offenders, 
 or some plan adopted to prevent their pardon 
 from being interpreted into a relaxation of that 
 law. I can conceive that while God acted on the 
 benignity of his nature in pardoning sin, he 
 might see it to be necessary to remove all hope 
 of pardon from those who should be disposed to 
 take encouragement from his mercy to tamper 
 with the sacredness of his law. I can conceive 
 that it might be wrong to pardon a criminal 
 
 * Rom. v. 8. 
 
JSrom Scripture. eh) ae 
 
 without such a security to the law; and there- 
 fore, morally speaking, God could not do it, 
 because he cannot dowrong. We have heard of 
 most humane princes placed in circumstances 
 that compelled them to sign the death-warrants 
 of criminals, although they have done so with 
 tears flowing down their cheeks, not because 
 they wanted either compassion or power to 
 pardon them, but because they felt that it would 
 be wrong to pardon them. And I can conceive 
 of a similar moral necessity occurring in the 
 administration of the empire of the universe, 
 that urgently required either the condign punish- 
 ment of the criminals, or some measure that 
 would maintain the authority of the universal 
 law. I do not urge these views dogmatically, 
 but finding an atoning sacrifice clearly revealed 
 in the word of God, and being asked what 
 necessity there was for it, and being charged 
 with representing the Deity as an inexorable 
 tyrant, I reply, that without pretending to 
 unfold all the mysteries of the divine govern- 
 ment, we can easily conceive of a moral neces- 
 sity for such a sacrifice, and of circumstances 
 which would render such sacrifice a manifesta- 
 tion of the most sublime, the most unfathomable 
 love. : 
 
 I would not, however, be understood to offer 
 this as a mere hypothesis which derives no coun- 
 tenance from the word of God. For, although 
 God has not seen fit to explain to us fully and 
 systematically the reasons of his procedure, he 
 has given indications of them that are sufficiently 
 intelligible. When, for example, we find him in 
 one passage of Scripture declaring, that he that 
 justifieth the wicked is an abomination to him,* 
 
 * Prov. xvii, 15, 
 
34: On the principles of reasoning 
 
 and afterwards representing himself as justifying 
 the ungodly,* and declaring that he set forth 
 Christ Jesus to be a propitiation through faith in 
 his blood, that his righteousness might be de~ 
 clared, and that he might be just and the justi- 
 fier of him that believeth in Jesus ;+ the whole 
 seems clearly to indicate, that the sacrifice of 
 Jesus was made for the purpose of furnishing 
 such a vindication of the Divine government— 
 such a security to the divine law, as I have 
 described :—that the whole scheme of salvation 
 by Jesus Christ was a plan by which mercy and 
 truth might meet together, and righteousness 
 and peace might kiss each other.t Indeed the 
 purposes for which our blessed Lord is declared 
 to have suffered, sufficiently indicate the neces- 
 sity that existed for his sufferings if we should be 
 pardoned. For if he suffered, that with hig 
 stripes we might be healed, || that he might bear 
 our sins on his body on the tree,§ that we might 
 be reconciled to God, that through his blood we 
 might have redemption and forgiveness of sins, 
 then it seems very manifest that his sufferings 
 were necessary to our obtaining these mercies. 
 Let it however be remembered, that the fact 
 of Christ’s having suffered as an atoning sacrifice 
 for sin, does by no means rest on our concep- 
 tions of the necessity of sucha sacrifice. That fact 
 rests on the direct, explicit, repeated declarations 
 of Scripture ; and, although the Scripture had not 
 given even the most obscure hint of the necessity 
 that called for such a sacrifice,—although we 
 could form no conception of any purposes to be 
 effected by it in the divine government; still 
 the testimony of Scripture that Jesus suffered 
 
 * Rom. iv. 5. + Rom, iii, 25, 26. { Psalm Ixxxv. 10, 
 qf Isa. Hii, 5. § 1 Peter ii, 24, 9 Col. i, 14 
 
Jrom Scripture. 35 
 
 as a sacrifice for sin, would bind us by the 
 strongest obligations to believe that truth, and 
 to rest upon it for salvation. 
 
 Nearly akin to the sophistry of arguing against 
 a misrepresentation of an opponent’s sentiments, 
 is that of collecting all the absurd and foolish 
 things that weak or presumptuous men may 
 have said in their attempts to defend any doc- 
 trine, and founding upon these nugacities argu- 
 ments against the doctrine itself. We do not 
 deny that men have spoken weakly and pre- 
 sumpiuously on this subject. They have been 
 urged to give explanations which the Scripture 
 does not-give; they have fallen into the snare 
 that was laid for them, and of course such at- 
 tempts at explanation could not “be otherwise 
 than absurd. But their presumption can never 
 affect the truth of the word of God. It may be 
 said that when the advocates of a doctrine are 
 driven to absurdities in their attempts to explain 
 it, they betray the absurdity of the doctrine 
 itself. If there be any weight in this argument 
 it can at least be abundantly retorted. Unita- 
 rians have been driven to as many contradictions 
 and absurdities as ever - their opponents have 
 been. Look at the ancient Unitarians—the 
 Cerinthians, the Ebionites, and the Gnostics 
 with all their endless dreams and fooleries., 
 Look at the modern Unitarians, some believing 
 that Jesus was himself only a created being, and 
 yet that he created all things,—contrary as our 
 author tells us, to clear express declarations of 
 Scripture, that Jehovah made all things, and 
 stretched forth the heavens alone ;—others be- 
 lieving that he was the God revealed to the 
 Jews, the author of all the wonders recorded in 
 the Old Testament, who was worshipped and 
 obeyed under the name Jehovah, and yet that he 
 
36 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 was not the supreme God:—others believing 
 that he was a mere man, the son of Joseph and 
 Mary, and yet that he ought to be worshipped as 
 God—a doctrine which the learned author himself 
 pronounces to be absurd. I have always re- 
 garded the practice of the Italian painters in 
 representing the Trinity by the figure of a trian- 
 gle, as one of the most profane and offensive 
 absurdities into which the weakest and most 
 ignorant abettors of the doctrine have been be- 
 trayed; and yet our author himself has given 
 us the counterpart of this practice, by comparing 
 the unity of God to a monad or a mathematical 
 point. But the truth is, that we trifle with 
 a serious subject when we permit the absurdities 
 into which men may have fallen, to influence our 
 judgment in searching the Scriptures. The 
 Scripture stands forth and speaks for itself. 
 It rejects the assistance of such expositors ; and 
 all that we have to dois, with an humble and 
 teachable spirit, to listen to its own words, and 
 to pray for the grace of God to enable us to un- 
 derstand them. 
 
 5. Still another false principle of reasoning 
 adopted by our author is to draw inferences from 
 what he would have expected to be in Scripture, 
 or insome particular part of it against what is 
 clearly contained in Scripture—to argue that if a 
 doctrine be true, it would have been declared in 
 some particular form, and in some particular 
 
 part of the Bible. 
 
 “¢ Had such a doctrine as the Trinity,” says he, 
 “ constituted any part of the Christian religion, we 
 must believe, on every principle of reason and com- 
 mon sense, that it would have been revealed as 
 clearly, and as much to the satisfaction of every 
 inquirer, as the being of God himself. It would 
 
Srom Scripture. 37 
 
 have formed the leading and most prominent article 
 of revealed religion, run parallel to the first com- 
 mandment, and told us that, besides the great Jeho- 
 vah, whom the Israelites believed to be one being 
 or person, two other persons were to be admitted 
 into the Godhead, equally claiming our adoration, 
 and that it would be a leprosy and a soul-destroying 
 heresy to deny it.”*- And again: “J€ divine wor. 
 ship were to be offered to Christ, is it not marvel- 
 lous that we are not told so expressly, and in terms 
 about whose meaning there can be no dispute ?>— 
 Another divinity beside God being proposed by 
 revelation as an object of worship, it is inconceivable 
 on any principle of common sense, why it is not 
 enjoined in terms at least equally clear as those 
 which enjoin prayer to God supreme.”+ Again: 
 “ If Christ was really God, it is inconceivable why 
 he did not avow it distinctly, and that it was not 
 distinctly taught by the apostles. Strange that his 
 own family and disciples never once suspected him 
 to be the God of Israel !’¢ 
 
 The reader will observe, that besides the par- 
 ticular purpose for which I have now cited these 
 words, they call for animadversion in several 
 other points of view. He speaks of language, 
 the meaning of which could not be disputed, 
 which I believe could not be human language : 
 for Unitarians have proved to us, that there is 
 no language so precise as to save it from dispute. 
 He interlards with his argument a misrepre- 
 sentation of our views, asserting that if the 
 author of the Bible had intended to reveal two 
 Gods he would have done so. But our present 
 object is to animadvert on his principle, that if a 
 doctrine is not repeated as frequently: as we 
 choose to demand, if it be not contained in 
 some part of Scripture where, if it is to be re- 
 
 * Page 9, + Page 51. t Page 10, 
 E 
 
33 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 vealed at all, we insist on finding it, we are war- 
 ranted to neglect or reject such revelation of if 
 as God may have been pleased to give. . 
 
 Now upon what ground does our author de- 
 termine how the supreme Being must reveal any 
 doctrine if he reveal it at all—what prominence 
 he must give to it, in what language he must 
 express it, or in what part of his revelation it 
 must be found? On what ground does he de- 
 termine that God shall not reveal a doctrine 
 gradually, as the world may be able to bear it? 
 Our Lord when he was about to leave the world 
 told his disciples that he had yet many things to 
 say to them, but that he could not then, because 
 they were not able to bear them, and referred 
 them to the teaching of the Holy Spirit.* Now 
 let me suppose that the doctrine of our Lord’s 
 divinity were one of these things, should we be 
 warranted in rejecting it because it were not 
 contained in the Old Testament or the Gospels ? 
 To adopt for a moment even the author’s extra- 
 vagant supposition, that there are two Gods, 
 upon what principle could he determine that 
 they should both be revealed at the same time ? 
 But when there is but one God, and that one 
 God was revealed to the Jews, they were not 
 deceived, but instructed in so far as God saw 
 meet to instruct them, although full and explicit 
 information was not given to them of the nature 
 of that one God as consisting of a plurality of 
 persons ;—especially as they were referred to 
 future teachers who should arise and instruct 
 them further in the mysteries of God. But our 
 author’s principle would prohibit them from 
 receiving any further instruction on that, or 
 indeed on any other subject. It would lead them 
 to cast back with contempt every future revela» 
 
 * John xvi. 12, 13. 
 
From Scripture. 39 
 
 tion, saying, ‘if this had been true it would 
 ave been revealed to our fathers.” Warburton 
 took some pains to show that a future state was 
 not revealed in the books of Moses. Supposing 
 him to have established this point, our author’s 
 principle would warrant us to infer that there is 
 no future state. What indeed is his argument 
 but that of the French Atheists against Christi- 
 anity? “If,” said they, ‘ Christianity were 
 true, we should not be under the necessity of 
 searching for it in any book; it would have been 
 written in the heavens, so that a man could not 
 open his eyes without seeing it.” I doubt not that 
 the author’s indignant answer to such an argu- 
 ment would be, ‘It is written where God has seen 
 fit to write it, and we ought to receive it with 
 thankfulness in the form in which he has been 
 pleased to give it.” So L would answer his argu- 
 ment. The doctrine is written where God has 
 seen fit to write it, and it is our business to 
 receive it without cavil, as he has been pleased 
 to announce it. 
 On the same principle the author reasons res- 
 pecting the attributes of the Deity ascribed to 
 the Redeemer. Thus with regard to the attri- 
 bute of omniscience, he says, ‘‘ When the 
 Scriptures speak of the wisdom and knowledge 
 of Jehovah, it is not in the way of allusion and 
 reference. ‘They do not put us off with two or 
 three ambiguous or mysterious phrases, the 
 meaning of which ean be extracted only by 
 adepts in occult theology. \ But they tell us, 
 plumply, in such terms as carry instantaneous 
 conviction to the heart and mind, that he is per- 
 fect in knowledge and infinite in understand- 
 ing.” * And thenheproceeds to adduce other pas- 
 sages in which the omniscience of Godis explicitly 
 
 * Page 42, 2d Edit. 
 
40 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 taught. Now there would be some semblance 
 of weight in this argument if, as he all along 
 supposes, we held that there are two Gods. But 
 if Jesus was a manifestation in human nature of 
 the same God, who was otherwise manifested in 
 the old dispensation, then all that was necessary 
 was to identify him with the God of Israel; after 
 which all the descriptions given in the Old 
 Testament of the divine attributes, are imme- 
 diately applicable to him. That there is abun- 
 dance in the New Testament for this purpose, 
 will I trust be proved in the sequel. The author 
 might as reasonably infer that the attributes of 
 God form no part of the Gospel, because they 
 are not described with the same fulness and pre- 
 cision in the New Testament as they are in the 
 Old, as that Jesus was not God on that account. 
 Every view of Scripture presses upon us the 
 propriety of receiving it implicitly as it stands, 
 without attempting to dictate what it ought 
 to be. | 7 
 
 6. The appeals which our author and other 
 Unitarian writers make from the New to the 
 Old Testament, call for a few observations on 
 the legitimate principles of reasoning from-one of 
 these parts of Scripture to the other. 
 
 It is manifest on the most cursory inspection 
 of the Bible, that its doctrines are gradually 
 developed; and that every succeeding part of it 
 casts additional light on that which had gone 
 before. The gradual developement of its doc- 
 trines during the many centuries that were occu- 
 pied in completing it, 1s one important evidence 
 of its divine original. This observation is peeu- 
 liarly applicable to the New Testament, as form- 
 ing a sequel to the Old. In that completion of 
 revelation many subjects are clearly explained 
 
Srom Scripture. AY 
 
 which were but obscurely hinted at in the Old 
 Testament. The Gospels and Acts of the Apos- 
 tles add to the historical facts of Scripture, and 
 contain an account of the fulfilment of many 
 of the Old Testament prophecies ; while 
 the Epistles are little more than a commentar 
 on the whole of the historical facts both of the 
 Old and New Testament. One who reads the 
 Old Testament with this inspired authoritative 
 commentary in his hands, will find that every 
 important fact contained in it is explained, 
 or instructions, more or less direct, for the appli- 
 cation of it in the religious system of Scripture 
 (which was fundamentally the same from the 
 beginning) furnished to him. 
 
 From these features of Scripture it seems to be 
 self-evident, that the Old Testament is to be ex- 
 plained by the New; and not the New Testament 
 by the Old. And yet with singular perversion of 
 exposition or elucidation, our authorand other Uni- 
 tarian writers frequently attempt to carry us back 
 from the clearness and precision of the New Tes- 
 tament to the comparative darkness and uncer- 
 tainty of the Old Testament. When two acts 
 of Parliament bear on the same subject, the 
 former is always explained by the latter; but our 
 author wouldinvert this common sense procedure 
 and insist on involving the clearness of the latter 
 in the imperfection and obscurity of the former. 
 
 For example, Matthew in the first chapter of 
 his Gospel says, that the miraculous conception 
 and birth of Jesus took place that the appoint- 
 ment of God, declared by the prophet when he 
 said, ‘* Behold a virgin shall be with child, and 
 shall bring forth a son,” &c. might be accom- 
 plished. As an exposition of this passage, Uni- 
 tarian writers have been in the habit of insisting 
 on a supposed ambiguous meaning in the Hebrew 
 
 E3 
 
42 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 word rendered virgin, asserting that it was 
 applied to any young woman whether married 
 or not; although there is no such ambiguity in the 
 Greek word by which the inspired writer ren- 
 ders it. Our author, however, seems to relin- 
 quish this interpretation, and, on the authority 
 of Rammohun Roy, asserts that by the virgin 
 was meant Jerusalem; which is sometimes figur- 
 atively called a virgin, and which then might be 
 said to be pregnant with Hezekiah.* Hezekiah, 
 however, is not once mentioned or alluded to in 
 the whele prophecy ; and the interpretation rests 
 solely on the poetical imagination of Rammohun 
 Roy. Matthew explains the passage, which else 
 would be very difficult, so much so that the mean- 
 ing of it never seems to have been thought of 
 by any person, Jewish or Christian, till Ram- 
 mohun Roy discovered it, and ascribes to it a 
 most important and significant meaning, worthy 
 of the oracles of God. But the author prefers 
 Rammohun Roy’s explanation of the Hebrew. 
 He tells us that ‘the import of the Greek phrase 
 (that it might be fulfilled) as commonly used by 
 the sacred writers, is no more, as Le Clere (a 
 Unitarian writer) has justly observed, than that 
 such words of any of the prophets may be applied 
 with truth to such an event.” Thus, at one 
 blew, on the sole authority of Le Clere, is the 
 whole record of the fulfilment of prophecy thrown 
 into uncertainty, and we are called upon to 
 relinquish the plain, obvious meaning of such 
 words as these, “That it might be fulfilled,” 
 and reduce them to the sense of a mere poetical 
 or oratorical allusion. The author would have 
 served his cause more effectually by giving 
 examples of this meaning of that phrase, than 
 
 * Page 24, 
 
Jrom Scripture. AS 
 
 by quoting the opinion of Le Clerc, and asserting 
 that it is a just opinion. Here the author is the 
 disciple of Le Clere and Rammohun Roy rather 
 than of the New Testament.* 
 
 Again, the apostle Paul, in commenting on a 
 passage in the book of Psalms,+ expressly tells 
 us that it was addressed to the Son of God. His 
 words are, ** Thy throne, O God, is for ever and 
 ever: asceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of 
 thy kingdom; thou hast loved righteousness, and 
 hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God 
 hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above 
 thy fellows.” This passage would have been 
 quite incomprehensible if the apostle’s explanation 
 of it had not been given. That it should be said 
 to any person, ‘* Thy throne, O God, is for ever 
 and ever,” and yet that, in the same sentence, it 
 should be said to the same person, therefore 
 ‘God, thy God hath anointed thee,” would have 
 been as inexplicable as that other passage to 
 which our Lord alludes, “The Lord said unto 
 my Lord,” &c. were it not for the revelation of 
 him who may indeed be called the “ divine Son 
 of God”—who was God, and yet who was with 
 God. The author asserts, that the psalm is 
 Solomon’s epithalamium, although Solomon 
 is not once mentioned or alluded to in it. 
 He says that the psalm is called in the original 
 “a song of loves.” He should in common 
 fairness have added, that it is in the title onl 
 that it is thus called; and that the titles to the 
 Psalms are regarded by almost all critics, pro- 
 bably by himself, as of no authority whatever; 
 that many of them are comparatively modern, 
 and that no critic or commentator of any note 
 pays attention to the title in explaining any 
 
 * See above, page 29, + Heb. i. Psalm xly, 
 
4A, On the principles of reasoning 
 
 Psalm. He quotes a Dr. Young who had the 
 temerity to change the word God into prince, 
 without one exampleinthe whole Hebrew language 
 to justify him; and thus he would introduce into 
 a sacred hymn in the Old Testament praise ad- 
 dressed to a creature—an anomaly to which there 
 is nothing that bears the most distant resemblance 
 in the whole Bible; and which would have 
 furnished a sanction for the grossest idolatry. 
 All these vain suppositions are at once superseded 
 by the inspired authoritative comment of the 
 apostle, “to the Son he saith, thy throne, O 
 God, is for ever and ever.” When the Lord 
 breaks silence to explain his own word, it 
 becomes us to listen with profound reverence, 
 and to receive his explanation with implicit 
 belief. . 
 
 Again, there is no word of more definite 
 meaning than the Greek word rendered God. | 
 In the singular number it has but one sense 
 in the whole New Testament, namely the one 
 living and true God, except when some word is 
 added to alter the meaning, as ‘‘ Your God Rem- 
 phan. In the plural number like the English word 
 gods, it is applied to the false gods of the hea- 
 then. The Hebrew word rendered God, is as 
 definite in the singular number (that is with a 
 singular construction,) as the Greek or English 
 words, but in the plural, (that is with a plural 
 construction, for the form of the word is always 
 plural,) besides being applied in a bad sense to 
 signify false gods, it is .employed to signify 
 magistrates or judges. From this use of the 
 word as a plural, it is pleaded that as applied to 
 the Messiah, it is ambiguous, and might signify 
 no more, than that he was to be a ruler or judge. 
 But in the New Testament all ambiguity is 
 removed, by the application of the Greek 
 
Jrom Scripture. 45 
 title, “God,” to our blessed Lord in the singular 
 number. Our author however instead of ex- 
 plaining the Old by the New Testament, insists 
 on explaining the New Testament by the Old; 
 and would persuade us, that when the Lord 
 Jesus is called God, even in the New Testament, 
 and without reference to any passage in the 
 Old Testament, it signifies only that he is a 
 ruler or judge, and not that he was as the word 
 uniformly signifies, the only living and true God. 
 
 Yet again, few words can have a more deter- 
 minate signification, than the Greek words that 
 signify, to purchase, to redeem or ransom: and 
 they are repeatedly and unequivocally applied, as 
 descriptive of the means by which the Lord 
 Jesus procured for us salvation. The author 
 however finds, that the Hebrew words rendered 
 buy, redeem, ransom, &e. are, as he conceives, 
 used when there was no purchase or redemption 
 properly so called; namely, to describe the de- 
 liverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, 
 who were redeemed he says, not with silver 
 and gold, but by a mighty and outstretched 
 arm ;” and therefore he would infer, that we 
 are not bought or redeemed by the blood of 
 Christ, but merely delivered by his power. Our 
 author is I conceive in error, when he supposes 
 that the Israelites were not redeemed or pur- 
 chased, in the sense of a ransom or price having 
 been given for them. They were redeemed in 
 Isaac, when Abraham was commanded to sacrifice 
 him, and when he was spared and a ram sub- 
 stituted for him. They were redeemed when 
 Joseph was sold into Egypt, to be the instrument 
 of preserving his father’s house. They were 
 redeemed when the Egyptians and the Canaan- 
 ites were destroyed, that they might be deliv- 
 ered and established in their own land. Thus 
 
46 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 the prophet Isaiah says, “I gave Egypt for thy 
 ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.”* But 
 whatever view may be taken of this does not 
 affect our present argument. Even if it could 
 be shown that the Israelites were not properly 
 speaking ransomed or redeemed—that no one 
 was made to suffer that they might be exalted— 
 that fact would prove only that the Hebrew 
 words were capable of being applied where there 
 was no purchase. But no looseness of signifi- 
 cation in the Hebrew words can affect the pre- 
 cision and clearness of the Greek words. If the 
 Hebrew language had only one word to express 
 two ideas, the Greek language had a word for 
 each of these ideas. And we must bring the 
 obscurity of the Hebrew words to be explained 
 by the precision of the Greek words, and not 
 attempt to involve the Greek in the uncertainty 
 of the Hebrew. 
 
 As our last example of this species of reason- 
 ing which is frequently employed, and which 
 our author fully sanctions,+ 1 would observe 
 that the apostle Paul employs a large portion of 
 his epistle to the Hebrews, besides many allu- 
 sions in his other epistles, to show that the 
 priesthood and sacrifices under the Old Testa- 
 ment dispensation, with all the rites and cere~ 
 monies of the Mosaic law, were but figures or © 
 shadows of heavenly things, intended to serve a 
 temporary purpose, till the real priest should 
 come, and the real sacrifice should be offered. 
 But here again, with the same perversion of 
 interpretation and explanation, Unitarian writers 
 assert, that it is our Lord’s priesthood and sacri- 
 fice which were figurative, and that the priest- 
 hood and sacrifices of the Jews were the only 
 
 ¥ Lea, x1iiS .S, + See page 72 (note.) 
 
Jrom Scripture. 47 
 
 true sacrifices ; although when they are required 
 to explain in what sense they were so, they are 
 under the necessity of betaking themselves to 
 some sort of typical or figurative meaning,of which 
 they can say little, except that no real atonement 
 was offered. Our Lord is thus supposed to be 
 called a priest and a sacrifice, merely by a kind 
 of poetical allusion to those objects with which 
 the Jews were familiar,—he was figuratively a 
 priest in allusion to what was itself figurative. 
 Now it is obvious that this method of appealing 
 from the New to the Old Testament, is calcu- 
 lated to carry us back to the obscurity of the 
 Jewish dispensation, instead of bringing that old 
 dispensation to the light of the Gospel. One of 
 the wise and beneficent arrangements of provi- 
 dence as a preparation for the introduction of 
 the Gospel, was to introduce the Greek language 
 into Judea. The Hebrew language was beauti- 
 fully fitted for the imperfect dispensation which 
 was established by means of it; as it admitted a 
 latitude in the use of words that was favourable 
 to a system of typical poctry and of prophecies, 
 which was not to be fully understood till its 
 accomplishment. But the Greek language is, 
 perhaps, one of the most precise in its words 
 and phrases of any in the world; and to appeal 
 from the precision of the Greek language to the 
 comparative uncertainty of the Hebrew—from 
 the light of the Gospel dispensation to the obscu- 
 rity of the dispensation of types and shadows, is 
 an attempt to persuade us to renounce our 
 privileges and voluntarily to involve ourselves in 
 perplexity. We do not wonder that those who 
 when our Lord appeared on earth were waiting 
 for the consolation of Israel, and even his own 
 apostles were in doubt and darkness respecting 
 the person of the Messiah and the nature of his 
 
48 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 kingdom, having only the Old Testament for 
 their guide: but that men should willingly shut 
 their eyes against the clear light which the 
 New Testament casts upon the Old; that 
 they should prefer groping their way into the 
 Old Testament, without the aid of the inspired 
 commentary upon it which God has vouchsafed 
 to them; and that instead of bringing the Old 
 Testament to the light of the comment, they 
 should seek to plunge the comment itself into 
 the darkness and uncertainty of that very dis- 
 pensation on which it was intended to shed a 
 heavenly illumination, is I am afraid to be ac- 
 counted for only by our author’s own hypothesis, 
 that they love the obscurity better than the 
 light. 
 
 7. Ihave to complain of still another false 
 and unfair principle of reasoning of which our 
 author avails himself, namely, opposing a mere 
 negative proposition to our positive doctrine ; 
 and instead of aitempting to establish some other 
 view of the person of the Son of God in opposi- 
 tion to that which we entertain, contenting him- 
 self with a mere negative—that Jesus Christ is 
 not God. In the preface to his first edition he 
 complains of our ranking all our opponents in one 
 class; and whether they be Arians or nick-named 
 Socinians, declaring them to be all alike infected 
 withleprosy and heresy. After this complaint we 
 should have expected that the author himself 
 would have kept these classes distinct, and espe-~ 
 cially that he would have explicitly declared to 
 which class he himself belongs; but with singu- 
 lar inconsistency he, in the very same preface, 
 tells us that he divides all Christians into two 
 denominations, Unitarians and Trinitarians; and 
 that with their various subdivisions (that is, 
 
Srom ‘Scripture. 49 
 
 whether they be Arians or Socinians) he does 
 not interfere; ‘“ deeming it enough to contend for 
 the supreme Deity of God alone.” And the 
 author, true to his proposal, takes care not to 
 commit himself to any positive opinion respecting 
 the person of the Redeemer, whether he was 
 God, or a mere man, or a created being superior 
 to man. He says, indeed, that the Unitarians 
 believe in the divinity of the Son of God. But 
 this, as it appears, is a mere abuse of language ; 
 for he himself explains it to mean only that his 
 character, his mission, his doctrine, his power, 
 and authority were divine—that Is, they were 
 from God, not that he was in the proper sense 
 of the word a divine person. He tells us that 
 all Unitarians believe in the divinity of the 
 Son of God in this sense, although many whom 
 he includes under that name believe him to be a 
 mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary.* There 
 is, indeed, a strange incoherency in the senti- 
 ments which he ascribes to Unitarians. He 
 gives us their creed, but he afterwards tells us 
 that many of them do not believe it. He Says, 
 for example, that they believe that the supreme 
 God created the heavens and the earth ; but he 
 
 * The practice which Unitarian writers frequently adopt of 
 using words in an arbitrary sense, which they themselves affix 
 to them, cannet be too strongly reprobated. Some profess to 
 believe in the justice of God, but when they explain themseives 
 they understand justice to mean mercy. Many, persons who 
 read our author’s pamphlet were persuaded that he believed the 
 very doctrine which it is his object to oppose; because he calls 
 our Lord the divine Son of God, and says that Unitarians 
 believe in his divinity. And if the language had been used in 
 its usual and proper import, this undoubtedly would have 
 been his meaning. But it appears that he used the word, 
 “divine,” with that sort of licence by which song writers 
 speak of a divine creature, This, however, is to darken, not to 
 elucidate a subject. For in discussing such topics accuracy in 
 the use of words is peculiarly requisite, 
 
 F 
 
50 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 afterwards mentions some among them whe 
 beheve that Jesus created the heavens and the 
 earth, although they do not regard him as the 
 supreme God. He tells us that they believe 
 God the Father to be the sole object of divine 
 worship, and that prayer should be addressed to 
 him alone; yet he afterwards mentions some 
 among them who believe Jesus to be a mere 
 man; while they hold that he ought to be wor- 
 shipped as a god. — 
 
 fam not unaware of the polemical dexterity 
 of thus proposing to defend a mere negative 
 proposition against a positive doctrine, on a sub- 
 gect on which, it is freely admitted, there are 
 difficulties. It is much more easy to pull down 
 than to build up—to ridicule a doctrine than to 
 propose another which cannot be ridiculed. The 
 author knew very well, that, if he had declared 
 any positive opinion respecting the nature and 
 person of the Redeemer, he would not only have 
 deprived himself of the aid of many of the texts 
 which he has quoted in support of his negative 
 proposition, but would have arrayed them against 
 him. It is manifest that if he avow himself 
 to be an Arian, he at once brings himself 
 into opposition, not only with those texts which 
 teach that Jesus was the true God, but also with 
 those texts which declare him to have been a 
 man, and renders it necessary for him to explain 
 how he could be both a man and a being su- 
 perior to man. If he avow himself to be a 
 Socinian, he brings himself into opposition with 
 those texts which indicate that he was more than 
 man, but which yet do not explicitly declare him 
 to be God. 7 
 
 Indeed the whole plausibility and simplicity of 
 his creed, on account of which he so highly | 
 values it, depends upon his omissions. He says 
 
From Scripture. 51 
 
 nothing of the person and nature of Christ, about 
 which the Scripture says so much; nothing of 
 his priesthood and atonement, which occupies 
 neatly a whole book of Scripture; nothing of 
 the Holy Spirit, who he is, or whether, as Dr. 
 Bruce imagines, theré are two Holy Spirits. 
 He appears to be in the condition of those dis. 
 ciples at Ephesus who were baptized only into 
 the baptism of John the Baptist, and who had 
 not so much as heard whether there were any 
 Holy Ghost.* He, of course, omits all mention 
 of the peculiar operations of the Holy Ghost,—his 
 regenerating influences, his sanctifying influences, 
 his comforting influences. With the change of 
 Jesus for Mahommed his creed would he nearly 
 thatofIslam—* There isone God,and Mahommed 
 is his prophet.” The creed of Islam is indeed the 
 more simple of the two. But if he intends that 
 we should regard the Unitarian’s creed with 
 which he furnishes us as containing all that is 
 necessary for a Christian to believe, he should be 
 able to produce a dispensation for the neglect or 
 rejection of every thing else that is revealed jn 
 the Bible. The truth is, that a system of reli- 
 gion, like a system of astronomy, should embrace 
 all the facts, for so long as any remain unac- 
 counted for, the accuracy of the system cannot 
 be relied upon. The author here again reverts 
 to the obsolete method of philosophizing, namely, 
 to buiid systems on the more obvious phenomena 
 of nature, neglecting as trivial, facts, which, 
 although not so prominent, were equally import- 
 ant. He ought to remember that all the old 
 systems of philosophy, in all its branches, were 
 overturned by attending to those apparently 
 minute facts which they had superciliously 
 
 WP INGLR XTX.” Foe 7, 
 
52 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 overlooked: and especially since he himself, in 
 several instances, asserts of single texts that they 
 are sufficient to overturn whole systems of Scrip- 
 ture interpretation ; he should feel himself to be 
 the more bound not to neglect or overlook any 
 declaration of Scripture. The introduction of 
 one article, for example, embodying what the 
 Scripture says respecting the nature and person 
 of the Redeemer, and also of the atonement or 
 reconciliation made by his death; and of another 
 article embodying the various declarations and 
 intimations respecting the Holy Ghost, his 
 nature, and his operations, might, perhaps, lead 
 to a total revolution in his whole creed. 
 
 I therefore enter my protest against his nega- 
 tive proposition respecting the person of the 
 Redeemer. On no pretence can it be regarded 
 as a subject of small importance to Christianity. 
 it is manifest that the whole nature of the Gospel 
 must be influenced by the determination of the 
 elementary question, “* Who is Jesus Christ ?” 
 If he be a mere man, and sustained only the 
 character of a prophet, the Gospel is one thing ; 
 if he be God, * Who was manifest in the flesh,” 
 the Gospel is another, and a totally different 
 thing; and if he was neither God nor man, but 
 a created being, of course inferior to God, but 
 greatly superior to man, the Gospel is still dif- 
 ferent from what it would be on either of the 
 two former suppositions. I hold that a man is 
 not qualified to reason upon any doctrine of the 
 Gospel, or to be a teacher of Christianity, till he 
 is prepared to answer these elementary ques- 
 tions of the religion of Jesus, “Who is Jesus 
 Christ? Whence came he? Was he a mere 
 mau? Was he a created angel? Or was he 
 God manifest in human nature? Nor do I think 
 that any man should be greatly offended, if we 
 
Jrom Scripture. 53 
 
 should refuse to him even the appellation of a 
 Christian till he has declared his belief on these 
 elementary points on which the whole nature of 
 the Gospel depends. How can a minister feed 
 his flock with a mere negative on such subjects ? 
 
 “ The hungry sheep look up and are not fed.” 
 
 _And can a Christian congregation be satisfied 
 with a negation of instruction on topics which 
 lie at the very foundation of Christianity ? Could 
 they expect to be acknowledged as Christians if 
 they should betray such a disposition towards the 
 great Founder of our religion, as that they would 
 be satisfied if they could divest him ‘of. that 
 glory which a large proportion of those. who 
 profess to be his disciples conceive to belong to 
 him, without knowing or caring who he was, or 
 whence he came ? 
 
 It will be our own fault if we permit our author 
 to avail himself of his maneeuvre, which indeed 
 Unitarian writers frequently practise, of opposing 
 to our doctrine respecting the person of the 
 Redeemer a mere negative, which embraces m 
 its ample canopy Jews, Mahommedans, Arians, 
 Socinians, and Deists:—all of whom will most 
 heartily concur with him, both in his positive 
 proposition—that there is one God, and also in 
 his negative proposition,—that Jesus Christ is 
 not God. It would be betraying the cause of 
 truth, to permit him thus to shut up from us a 
 multitude of passages ot Scripture, which, it they 
 do not prove the Lord Jesus to be God, make 
 it abundantly evident that he was more than 
 man. I shall therefore, in the first place, meet 
 his negative proposition with this general one, 
 that he is at once a man and more than man. 
 
 F3 
 
54 On the principles of reasoning 
 
 THESE observations will enable the reader to 
 detect a large portion of our author’s fallacious 
 reasoning, and reduce that portion of his work on 
 which we shall have occasion to animadvert 
 particularly within a much narrower compass. 
 The attentive reader of the pamphlet will find 
 the author sometimes speaking of the Scripture 
 as if it were not, except in a very loose sense, 
 given by inspiration of God; especially in one 
 passage which has already been noticed in his 
 first edition, but which has been suppressed in 
 the second. He will find him frequently bring- 
 ing his ideas of what it would be common sense 
 and reason inthe Author of Scripture to reveal, 
 in opposition to what he actually does reveal. 
 He will find him sometimes bringing one passage 
 of Scripture to contradict another, and then 
 claiming the liberty of choosing which of the 
 passages he is to believe, and which he is to get 
 rid of as he best may be able. He will frequently 
 find him building arguments on his own mistate- 
 ments of the doctrine which he opposes, or upon 
 weak and absurd things which its mistaken 
 abettors have said respecting it. He will find 
 him, instead of explaining the Old Testament 
 by the clearer light of the New, attempting to 
 involve the New Testament in the obscurity of 
 the Old. And he will find him throughout his 
 whole performance supporting a mere negative, 
 bending his whole force to cast down one doc- 
 trine, but without any attempt to build up 
 another in its place;—stating strongly all his 
 objections to one view of the subject, but care- 
 fully abstaining from committing himself to any 
 other view of it, and thus enabling us to shew 
 what objections lie against his view of it. And 
 when he finds the author reasoning upon these 
 principles he will, I trust, be convinced that he 
 
SJrom Scripture. 5 
 reasons fallaciously; that his arguments tend, 
 not to light and knowledge, but to darkness and 
 ignorance. 
 
 I would however remind my readers, that, 
 although it is of importance to fix just principles 
 of reasoning from Scripture, yet that no reason- 
 ing, however just, is sufficient of itself to conduct 
 us to a saving and sanctifying knowledge of the 
 truth. A humble and ‘teachable spirit will 
 conduct us further into a knowledge of the 
 mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, than the 
 most accurate and ingenious train of argument. 
 That faith by which we discern the light of 
 divine truth has more analogy to a new sense 
 opened within us, than to the results of a train 
 of reasoning. Spiritual things are concealed 
 from the natural man by the films that cover his 
 eyes. Weare by nature spiritually blind, because 
 sin has blinded our eyes. And we are in the 
 direct way to spiritual illumination, not when Wwe 
 are reasoning, but when, conscious of our blind- 
 ness, we are praying that we may receive our 
 sight. Let me, therefore, entreat my reader, 
 before he proceeds further, to present himself 
 before the throne of grace as a suppliant, to ask 
 mercy of God, and to ask that his eyes may be 
 opened to discern the truth, whatever that truth 
 may be—however opposed to all his preposses- 
 sions and habits of thinking. Let him ask wisdom 
 of Him who giveth to all men liberally, and 
 upbraideth not. For if an affectionate parent, 
 when his child asks of him bread, will not refuse 
 him, nor give him a stone, ‘* How much more 
 will our heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit 
 to them that ask him. Ask and ye shall receive, 
 seek, and ye shall find, knock, and it shall he 
 opened unto you.” 
 
 Gr 
 
CHAP. II. 
 
 JESUS CHRIST A MAN, AND YET MORE THAN 
 MAN. 
 
 insreap of entering directly into the proof 
 that the Lord Jesus was God, I shall devote a 
 few pages to prove in the first instance, that 
 while he was a man, he was more than man ;— 
 partly for the purpose of exposing still further 
 the fallacy to which Unitarian writers frequently 
 betake themselves of supporting a mere negative 
 respecting the person of the Redeemer,—and 
 partly to show how a multitude of texts bear on 
 our doctrine which do not directly assert the 
 divine nature of the Saviour. 
 
 Our author, as has been already observed, 
 does not avow any positive opinion on the subject 
 of the nature and person of the Lord Jesus; yet 
 from some of his expressions [ think it may be 
 collected that he is what is usually termed a 
 Socinian,—that is, he conceives him to have 
 been a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary. 
 Thus, in a passage which has already been 
 alluded to, after quoting the words of Mr. 
 Maguire, that a Socinian’s objections are well 
 founded, he adds—** In these sentiments of Mr. 
 _ Maguire, Unitarians most cordially concur ;”— 
 which I think he could hardly have said, had he 
 not been himself a Socinian. In the same pas- 
 sage he says that he prefers the term Unitarian. 
 
Jesus Christ a Man, Sc. St 
 
 to Socinian, for reasons to be afterwards shewn, 
 Now these reasons so far as I have been able to 
 discover them, do not consist in any difference 
 of opinion from Socinians respecting the nature 
 or person of the Redeemer; but respecting the 
 honour that is due to him. The Socinians, while 
 they held him to be a mere man, yet held that 
 he ought to be worshipped as God; while our 
 author, admitting the Inconsistency of these 
 tenets, holds that he is not to be worshipped ag 
 od. 
 
 Again, I observe that his arguments and in- 
 terpretations of Scripture are chiefly those used 
 and adopted by Socinian writers, some of whom 
 he quotes and recommends with unqualified ap- 
 probation ;—such as Priestly, Belsham, Yeates, 
 Channing, Rammohun Roy, &e.; and I scarce- 
 ly think that he could intréduce the writings of 
 such authors to his readers Without some inti- 
 mation of error in their sentiments, had he not 
 agreed with them in all material points. The 
 choice of the name Unitarian seems to point to 
 the same tenets, as it is a name currently used in 
 England to designate those who believe in the 
 sunple humanity of Christ :—those who believe 
 that he is a being of a higher order than man, yet 
 not God, being called Arians. His identifying 
 himself also with the Unitarians of the Con- 
 tinent of Europe, as he does in passages to be 
 afterwards noticed, who are known to believe 
 generally, not only that our Lord was a mere man, 
 but that he was in some measure a sinful man— 
 an opinion held also by Dr. Priestly whom the 
 author so highly eulogizes, points with sufficient 
 precision to the class of divines with whom he 
 takes his station. 
 
 From these indications I cannot but infer that 
 our author is what is usually called a Socinian— 
 
58 Jesus Christ a Man, 
 
 that he believes in the simple humanity of the 
 Redeemer. Whether with Dr. Priestly he regards 
 him as a sinner I know not: but if he does nof, 
 it might have been reasonably expected that, 
 when he eulogised Dr. Priestly, he would have in- 
 timated his dissent from him on that point. He 
 asserts indeed that there are no Socinians in 
 Ireland, and J should have regarded that asser- 
 tion as decisive of the point that he himself is 
 not a Socinian; but that he furnishes us with 
 a peculiar definition of Socinianism, of which he 
 is certainly to be exculpated, namely, believing 
 in the simple humanity of Christ, and yet wor- 
 shipping him as God. For although I must be- 
 lieve, at least till he explicitly declare himself, 
 that he regards the Saviour as a mere man; yet 
 he does not betray any indication of the solicism 
 of worshipping him as God. 
 
 I have thus bestowed some pains to ascertain 
 our author’s opinions on this point, that my 
 readers may understand what he would have 
 them to believe, when he would persuade them 
 to reject the doctrine that Jesus was the true God 
 manifest in the flesh. 
 
 In proceeding to show, that if the Scripture is 
 to be regarded and treated as the standard of 
 truth, the Lord Jesus was more than man; it is 
 necessary to remind my readers that we, as well 
 as Unitarians, believe that he was and isa man. 
 Our author reasons sometimes as if we did not 
 believe in the humanity of the Redeemer ;—as 
 when he sets in array before us those texts which 
 deelare him to be aman. But these texts are as 
 necessary to our views of the Saviour as they 
 are to his. There were certain sects in ancient 
 times who denied the reality of our Lord’s hu- 
 manity, believing that he was a man in appear- 
 anee only; while others denied his divinity.— 
 
cand yet more than Man. 59 
 
 Now as distinguished from the one class, we hold 
 that Jesus was really and properly man; and as 
 distinguished from the other that he was really 
 and properly God. The articles of the two esta- 
 blishments of England and Scotland are as clear 
 and express on the subject of our Lord’s hu- 
 maiity, as they are upon that of his divinity. — 
 he humanity of the Lord Jesus is indeed essen- 
 tial to the whole system of doctrine laid down in 
 these formularies.. It is in virtue of his being 
 inan that we conceive he was qualified to stand 
 in our room, and bear the punishment due to our 
 sins. It is altogether preposterous therefore to cite 
 passages which declare the humanity of Christ, 
 as if they bore against our doctrine, when they 
 are absolutely necessary to it. | 
 
 On this preliminary part of the subject I do 
 not deem it necessary to enter at great length. 
 It is I confess to me utterly inconceivable how 
 any man can read the New Testament without 
 seeing that the Lord Jesus is represented through- 
 out the whole of it as a being of a higher order 
 than man. That it must be a very difficult task 
 indeed to extract from it any other view of the 
 Redeemer there is a shrewd indication in the 
 fact, that a considerable proportion of those who 
 have emancipated themselves from the dictation 
 of the Council of Nice, and of the Pope, and also 
 of Calvin, or who have never bowed down to 
 these as idols, who are disposed togo as far as their 
 judgment and conscience will permit them in 
 supporting the empire of common sense and rea- 
 son, and whom our author claims as his brethren 
 in the faith, are yet constrained, by an examina- 
 tion of the Scripture itself, to admit that the 
 Lord Jesus is a being of a higher order than 
 man—even of an angelic or superangelic nature, 
 In faet the attempt to reconcile the simple hu- 
 
60 Jesus Christ a Man, 
 
 manity of the Redeemer to the language of the 
 New Testament is of modern origin. No one 
 seems to have imagined it to be possible to do so 
 till about the time of Socinus or afterwards.— 
 That there were persons in the early ages of the 
 church who believed in the simple humanity of 
 the Redeemer is admitted; but they uniformly 
 rejected a large portion of the New Testament. 
 Their followers however in modern times have 
 adopted a different method; and instead of 
 avowedly rejecting any part of the New Testa- 
 ment, they attempt to bend it to their doctrine. 
 And partly by lowering the authority of the 
 whole; partly by converting it into eastern alle- 
 gory and metaphor and poetical allusion to the 
 Old Testament; and partly by ascribing to Greek 
 words a Hebrew signification, with many other 
 expedients of the most ingenious criticism; they 
 have satisfied themselves that it is to be under- 
 stood in a sense totally different from that which 
 its language seems obviously intended to convey. 
 A very large proportion however of those who 
 have emancipated themselves from all their sup- 
 posed prepossessions, still revolt from this system 
 of eriticism. With all their anxiety to bring the 
 Bible into harmony with their ideas of sound 
 philosophy, they feel themselves compelled by 
 the force of evidence, to admit that the Lord 
 Jesus was a supernatural being who visited this 
 earth—a created being indeed, but of the very 
 highest order, and entitled to a worship, if not 
 divine, at least of a more sacred description than 
 might lawfully be addressed to any other crea- 
 ture. Arianism therefore I conceive to be so far 
 an homage to the power of truth from a very 
 important quarter,—a virtual protest on the part 
 of a large proportion of those whom our author 
 claims as his partizans, against his own system of 
 Scripture interpretation. 
 
and yet more than Man. 61 
 
 In proving that, according to the New Testa- 
 ment, the Lord Jesus was more than man, it is 
 difficult to determine where to commence, the 
 evidences are so multifarious. 
 
 Let us glance at what is said respecting his 
 existence before his appearance in this world.— 
 Thus, “ No man hath ascended up to heaven 
 but he that came down from heaven, even the 
 son of man which is in heaven.”* He that 
 cometh from above is above all: he that is of 
 the earth is earthly and speaketh of the earth; 
 he that cometh from heaven is above all.”’+— 
 This passage is part of the testimony of John 
 the Baptist to Jesus. Again, “ For I came 
 down from heaven,” said Jesus, “not to do 
 mine own will but the will of him that. sent 
 me.”t + Not that any man hath seen the 
 Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen 
 the Father.”§ “ What, and if ye shall see 
 the Son of man ascend up where he was be- 
 fore.”|| And now O Father,” said the 
 blessed Jesus in his Intercessory prayer, “ glorify 
 thou me with thine own self, with the glory 
 which I had with thee before the world was.’ 
 The first man is of the earth earthy, the 
 ** second man is the Lord from heaven,” **_ 
 We are told that the word « Lord” does not 
 occur in some manuscripts. Be it so, although 
 Griesbach has decided for the retention of the 
 word, still what can be more obvious than the 
 declaration that he was from heaven. Let this 
 suffice for the present in regard to our Lord’s 
 previous existence. Other passages will after- 
 wards be cited which imply the same fact. But 
 let it be remembered that if he had a conscious 
 
 * John iii. 13. + John iii. 31. ¢ John vi, 38. § John vi. 46. 
 H John vi. 62. § John xvii. 5. ** 1 Cor. xv. 47, 
 
 G 
 
62 Jesus Christ a Man, 
 
 existence before he appeared in the world, he was 
 of another nature than man. 
 
 The emphatic and peculiar manner in which 
 the Lord Jesus is declared to be the Son, the only 
 begotten Son of God, furnishes another class of 
 testimonies to the superiority of his nature. It 
 is admitted that men are in many instances called 
 sous of God, that God promises to be a father 
 to his people, and that they shall be his sons ; 
 nay that the metaphor is carried still farther, and 
 they are said to be heirs of God, joint heirs with 
 Jesus Christ. But it is manifest to one who 
 reads the Scriptures with any degree of atten- 
 tion, that this title is given to the Lord Jesus in 
 a higher and more emphatic sense than that in 
 which it is ever given to any human creature. 
 Our author himself admits that the title was pre- 
 eminently due to the blessed Saviour ;* although 
 he does not explain on what grounds the title 
 was thus due to him. . 
 
 The Scripture frequently presents before us 
 the Great God of heaven and the Lord Jesus as 
 separated from all the universe, and bearing to 
 one another the relation of Father and Son. For 
 example, ‘* But of that day and hour knoweth 
 no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, 
 neither the Son, but the Father.”+ I shall 
 have occasion to refer to this passage in treating 
 a subsequent part of the subject; but what I 
 wish at present the reader to attend to is the 
 gradation marked :—‘ No man, not the angels, 
 neither the Son, but the Father ;’ where the 
 Son is distinguished from man and placed above 
 the angels. Again, “ For God so loved the 
 world that he gave his only begotten Son, &c. 
 For God sent not his Son into the world to con- 
 
 * Page 17, + Mark xiii. 32. 
 
and yet more than Man. 63 
 
 demn the world—The Father loveth the Son 
 and hath given all things into his hand.?*— 
 In this was manifested the love of God toward 
 us, because that God sent his only begotten 
 Son into the world that we might live through 
 him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, 
 but that he loved us, and sent his Son to he 
 the propitiation for our sins. And we have 
 seen and do testify that rir FAvHeER sent THE 
 Son to be the Saviour of the world.”+ In 
 these and many other passages, the Lord J esus 
 is manifestly represented as rue Son of God $in- 
 timating that there is but one Son, as there is but 
 one Father. And that he js called the Son in a 
 higher sense than that in which even the angels 
 can be called so, is manifest, not only from a 
 passage already cited, but from the emphatic 
 question put by the apostle Paul, “ For unto 
 which of the angels said he at any time, Thou 
 art my Son, this day have I begotten thee 2+ 
 here is a remarkable passage to the same 
 effect in the Gospel by John, « My Father 
 worketh hitherto and j work.Ӥ When our 
 Lord spoke thus, the J ews, we are told, sought 
 the more to kill him; because he not only had 
 broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was 
 his Father, making himself equal with God.— 
 On this our author observes that the Jews only 
 
 been its institutor,  « This,” says he, “is the 
 point of equality meant and asserted.” Let this 
 for the present be granted, is it conceivable that 
 mere man should repel such a charge with such 
 an answer. ‘ You charge me with breaking 
 
 * John iii. 16, 17,35. +1 John ty. 9,10, 14. + Heb, i, dD. 
 § John y, 17, 
 
64 - Jesus Christ a Man, 
 
 the Sabbath,—my Father, the God of heaveri, 
 does what he thinks fit on the Sabbath, and I 
 do so likewise.” 
 
 Among texts of this description may be classed 
 Philip. ii. 6.—** Who being in the form of God, 
 thought it not robbery to be equal with God, 
 but made himself of no reputation, and_ took 
 upon him the form of a servant, and was 
 made in the likeness of men, and being found 
 in fashion as a man, he humbled himself,” &c. 
 Now this passage manifestly points to a time 
 before Jesus was made in the likeness of man, 
 before he took upon him the form of a ser- 
 vant, before he had emptied or divested him- 
 self of his glory, when he was in the form 
 of God, and (as we render the expression, } 
 thought it not robbery to be equal with God. 
 This passage, therefore attributes at once @ 
 previous existence, and a very exalted nature 
 to our blessed Lord. The author says,* ‘ The 
 meaning is this—who being in the form of 
 a God, or a person of godlike perfections, did 
 not rapaciously arrogate equality with the su- 
 preme Deity—or more literally, did not me- 
 ditate such an act of rapine or robbery as to 
 place himself on an equality with Jehovah ; 
 but made himself of no reputation,” &c. If 
 shall have occasion to animadvert on our au- 
 thor’s criticism on this passage more fully in the 
 sequel, but in the mean time I would observe, 
 that his view of it places the Lord Jesus far above 
 the rank of humanity. Who indeed could he 
 be, who divested himself of glory to hecome the 
 servant of the Lord, and who could be presented 
 to us asa very pattern of humility because he 
 did not meditate such an act of robbery as to 
 
 * Page 21. 
 
and yet more than Man. 65 
 
 place himself on an equality with the eternal 
 God? This could never be a poor weak child 
 of mortality. 
 
 The works that are ascribed to the Lord 
 Jesus, even adopting the lowest view which ever 
 has been entertained of them by persons who 
 acknowledge the inspiration of the Scriptures, 
 are abundantly sufficient to prove his previous 
 existence and _ his superiority to human nature. 
 Thus, “ By him were all things created that are 
 in heaven and that are in earth, visible and in- 
 visible, whether they be thrones or dominions, 
 or principalities or powers.”* On this passage 
 the author remarks—“ Even granting, according 
 to the high Arian hypothesis, that Christ was the 
 creator of the material frame of nature,” which 
 however he does not grant, for he says it is “ con- 
 trary to the declaration of Jehovah himself— 
 Is. xliv. 24, he was only the agent of omni- 
 potence.”+ To the subject of this agency we 
 shall again have occasion to refer; in the mean 
 time I observe that it is quite impossible to adopt 
 so low a view of this ¢ creation? ascribed to the 
 Redeemer, as to bring it within the limits of the 
 existence and power of a man, who first began 
 to exist in the reign of Augustus Cesar ; without, 
 at the same time, supposing that the apostle was 
 not merely uninspired, but destitute of common 
 understanding. He further adds that his being 
 born proves that he was not self-existent. Be it 
 so for the present, what are we to understand by 
 his being the first born of every creature? Takin 
 even that view of the expression, which would 
 represent the Lord Jesus asa creature, still itgives 
 him an existence before all creatures.— Again, 
 ** By whom also,” (that is the Son) “ He made 
 
 * Col. i. 16, 17. + Page 29, 
 a3 
 
66 Jesus Christ a Man. 
 
 the worlds.” That is, says our author, the zons 
 or ages, not the heavens and the earth. The 
 creation of these ages or worlds however is de- 
 clared, Heb. xi. 3, to be the work of God.— 
 « Through faith we understand that the worlds, 
 aons, were framed by the word of God.” Can 
 the making or framing of these worlds then be the 
 work of a mere man born about 1800 years ago? 
 ‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word 
 was with God, and the Word was God—all 
 things were made by him, and without him 
 was not any thing made that was made.—He 
 was in the world (not @on but kosmos world,) 
 and the world was made by him.” I reserve 
 the consideration of the author’s critique on this 
 passage to a future part of our work; and only 
 observe that those who imagine that such things 
 can be predicated of a mere man, are beyond the 
 reach of argument. 
 
 The importance that is attached to just views 
 of the person of the Redeemer indicates that he 
 was more than man. Jesus asked ** Whom do 
 men say that I the son of man am? And 
 they said, some say that thou art John the 
 Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or 
 one of the prophets. He saith unto them, 
 But whom say ye that I am? And Simon 
 Peter answered and said, thou art the Christ, the 
 Son of the living God. And Jesus answered 
 and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon 
 Bar-jona, &ec.”* Again, Peter confessed ** We 
 believe and are sure that thou art that Christ 
 the Son of the living God.”+ The Ethiopian 
 Eunuch said to Philip, ‘‘ I believe that Jesus 
 Christ is the Son of God,’t and upon this 
 profession Philip baptized him. ‘ Every spirit 
 
 * Matth. xvi. 13, 17. + John vi. 69. $ Acts viii, 37. 
 
and yet more than Man. 67 
 
 that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come 
 in the flesh is of God.” « Who is he that 
 overcometh the world, but he that believeth 
 that Jesus is the Son of God. Whosoever 
 shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God 
 dwelleth in him and he in God.”* The reader 
 will recollect that we are not at present proving 
 that Jesus is God, but merely that he is more than 
 man, which may be inferred from the importance 
 that is attached, in these and similar passages, to 
 just views of his person. Where is there another 
 instance in the whole Bible, of any servant of 
 God attaching any importance to his own pa- 
 rentage or extraction ; or requiring of those who 
 listened to his instructions a profession of their 
 belief as to who he was? Such questions from 
 Peter or Paul as “ Whom do men say that I 
 am? ‘ Whom say ye that Iam?” would be 
 altogether alien from the tenor of Scripture. 
 The same truth may be inferred from the im- 
 portance that is attached to his death. When 
 the efficacy of his mission is spoken of, it is ge- 
 nerally his death, and not his life and teaching, 
 that is referred to. “ He was wounded for our 
 transgressions, he was bruised for our inj- 
 quities; the chastisement of our peace was 
 upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”’+ 
 “¢ Who, his own self, bare our sins in his own 
 hody on the tree, that we being dead to sins 
 should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes 
 ye were healed.”{ Let the reader consider how 
 the apostles bring forward his condescension in 
 dying for us, as the great motive that should 
 bind all his followers, over the whole world, and 
 throughout all ages, to live not to themselves 
 
 * | John iv. 2, v. 5, iv. 15. f Isa. iii, 5. 
 t 1 Peter ii, 24, 
 
68 Jesus Christ a Man, 
 
 but to him—not to follow their own inclinations 
 but to seek to please him in all things, and say 
 if the death of any mere servant of God is 
 placed on the same footing. ‘* Pass the time of 
 your sojourning here in fear, for as much 
 as ye know that ye were not redeemed 
 with corruptible things, as silver and gold; 
 but with the precious blood of Christ.”*— 
 ‘«* And ye are not your own for ye are bought 
 with a price; therefore glorify God in your 
 body and in your spirit which are God’s.”+— 
 “‘ For the love of Christ constraineth us; be- 
 cause we thus judge, that if one died for all, 
 then were all dead; and that he died for all, 
 that they who live should henceforth not live 
 to themselves, but unto him who died for them 
 and rose again.”{ ‘ For scarcely for arighteous 
 man will one die; yet peradventure for a good 
 man some would even dare to die; but God 
 commendeth his love towardus, in that, while we 
 were yet sinners Christ died for us.” § ‘ But 
 God forbid that I should glory, save in the 
 cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” |} But what 
 things were gain to me, those I counted loss’ 
 for Christ? Yea doubtless, and I count all 
 things but loss for Christ—that I may know 
 him, and the power of his resurrection, and 
 the fellowship of his sufferings, being made 
 conformable unto his death.” Now, is it pos- 
 sible that all this importance is ascribed to 
 the death of a mere mortal man? But he 
 died, it is said, to confirm his doctrine. So did 
 Paul, so did Peter; yet their death is not 
 even recorded, but only foretold in Scripture : 
 so did Stephen and James, and so did those mul- 
 
 *) Pet. i. 17, 18,19. + 1 Cor. vi. 19; 20. +2 Cor. v. 14, 15. 
 § Rom.v. 7,8. || Gal. vi, 14° = Phil. iii. 7, 8, 10. 
 
and yet more than Man. 69 
 
 titudes whose sufferings are briefly referred to 
 by the apostle,* «* Who were stoned, sawn 
 asunder, tempted, slain with the sword; who 
 wandered about in sheep skins and goat skins 
 being destitute, afflicted, tormented, of whom 
 the world was not worthy.” But Jesus. rose 
 again from the dead; but so did the daughter of 
 Jairus and the widow’s son of Nain, and Dorcas; 
 and especially so did those Saints who rose with 
 Jesus; but whose resurrection is dismissed in a 
 single sentence. And upon what principle is it 
 that so much importance is attached to the death 
 of a mere man? If Jesus was indeed the “ Lord 
 from heaven,” the reason of this is obvious and 
 perfectly accounted for; but it is utterly inex- 
 plicable on the supposition that he was a mere 
 mortal man. 3 
 
 I might further appeal to the faith and love 
 and obedience that are demanded for the Saviour 
 in proof of his being more than man; but as I 
 shall afterwards have occasion to advert to these 
 topics, I shall omit them for’ the present ; only 
 reminding the reader that all those evidences 
 which prove the Lord Jesus to be the true God, 
 which are afterwards to be adduced, are to be 
 added to those proofs which we have now ad- 
 duced that he was more than man. 
 
 I may probably have dwelt longer on this part 
 _ of the subject than many of my readers may 
 think necessary, especially as it is understood 
 that there are very few persons in this island, 
 who regard the Redeemer as a mere man; and 
 I may be told by our author or his friends, that 
 I have been proving what he does not dispute. 
 I wished however not to take even this preli- 
 minary doctrine for granted; but to entitle 
 
 * Heb, xi. 37. 
 
70 Jesus Christ a Man, 
 
 ‘myself to refer to it as an ascertained established 
 point. And if there be any whom these argu- 
 ments have not convinced that Jesus had a pre- 
 vious existence to his appearing in the world, 
 and that he was more than man, I would 
 earnestly propose to them the consideration of 
 those questions which were put by our Blessed 
 Lord himself to the Pharisees, ‘ What think ye 
 of Christ? Whose son is he? How doth 
 David in spirit call him Lord, saying The 
 Lord said unto my Lord sit thou on my right 
 hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool ? 
 If David then called him Lord, how is he 
 his Son ?”* And I forewarn them that they 
 will obtain no assistance in the understanding 
 of this passage from the editors of the Unitarian 
 version of the New Testament; for although 
 they have copious notes on many other passages, 
 they seem to have been struck as dumb by these 
 questions as the Pharisees, who were not * able 
 to answer him a word.” 
 
 But leaving those who are not convinced to 
 attempt the solution of our Lord’s questions; let 
 us attend, for a few moments, to the havoc which’ 
 the establishment of this fact makes in some of 
 the most eloquent and plausible parts of our 
 author’s performance. Let us consider in what 
 light those must regard it, who, although they 
 are not convinced that Jesus was God, are yet 
 convinced that he was more than man. 
 
 In the first place, the establishment. of this 
 fact lifts the whole subject above the sphere of 
 common sense and reason, and carries it into 
 regions where revelation ‘alone can guide us in 
 our inquiries. That an angel, or the highest 
 spirit of heaven, superior to all angels—one of 
 
 * Mat. xxii, 4245, 
 
and yet more than Man. ve 
 
 whom it could be said, in any conceivable sense, 
 that “he created all things in heaven and in 
 earth, visible and invisible,” should become an 
 infant of days, nursed at the breast, and dandled 
 on the lap of a mortal woman—that he should 
 grow in wisdom and stature, spend a life of 
 thirty or forty years in the world—that he should 
 be arraigned as a malefactor, condemned, and 
 actually crucified, is to me just as mysterious, 
 and in some points of view much more so, than 
 if the God of heaven himself should have sub- 
 mitted to such humiliation. If we are to listen 
 to reason and common sense on this subject, 
 farther than to ascertain by means of them what 
 the Spirit of God has revealed upon it, we must 
 keep within the province of common sense and 
 reason—the scenes of this visible world; and at 
 once adopt the Socinian scheme of reducing our 
 Lord to the rank of a mere mortal. But this 
 we cannot do, and at the same time continue to 
 acknowledge that all Scripture is given by 
 inspiration of God. Socinianism may be philo- 
 sophy, and to all the honour which that name is 
 Supposed to confer, the abettors of that doctrine 
 are heartily welcome; but it is not Christianity, 
 
 Again, the addition of this fact will make a 
 sad inroad on the beautiful simplicity of our 
 author’s creed. For besides saying something 
 of the nature and office of the Holy Spirit, which 
 he has totally omitted, he must now state that. 
 one who dwelt in heaven with the F ather of all— 
 the brightness of his glory, the express image 
 of his person—who created all things, and who 
 upholds all things by the word of his power— 
 who was so high and exalted, that it was a signal 
 proof of humilityin him, that “he didnot meditate 
 such an act of robbery as to seize upon equality 
 with Jehovah,” divested himself of his glory to 
 
"2 Jesus Christ a Man, 
 
 take upon him the form of a servant of God, and 
 to be really his servant; was made in the likeness 
 of men, and was really a man; and, being thus 
 found in fashion as a man, humbled himself, and 
 became obedient to death, even the death of the 
 cross. He must give such reasons as the Scrip- 
 ture gives for this extraordinary humiliation of 
 so exalted a personage. He must, I fear, intro- 
 duce into his system a sacrifice—a bloody sacri- 
 fice ; for if such a being came into the world, as 
 Jesus declares he did, to suffer for us, ‘* To give 
 his life a ransom for many,”* he will find the 
 idea of a sacrifice to be the most simple account 
 that he can give of the transaction. And as he 
 rejects the doctrine that such a sacrifice was 
 necessary to satisfy divine justice, he must find 
 some other account of it, or admit it to be an 
 unexplained mystery. And all these additions 
 will, I fear, in spite of his love of simplicity, 
 require “tedious ratiocination” to explain and 
 support them. 
 
 Still further, the establishment of the fact 
 that Jesus was possessed of a higher nature 
 than the human, overturns all that our author 
 has advanced im opposition to the two natures of 
 Christ. As for example: 
 
 “‘ They (that is, certain creed-makers) inform us, 
 though the Scripture does not, that Christ had two 
 natures, a human and a divine; and that he speaks 
 and acts sometimes in the one, and sometimes in the 
 other nature. This, for a moment, being admitted, 
 we naturally inquire how it is to be ascertained 
 when any of his discourses or actions are to be 
 ascribed to him as God the Son, and when as the 
 man Jesus. Toa plain, unsophisticated reader this is 
 a serious difficulty, dignus vindice nodus, a knot which 
 ean be untied only by the skill of the infallible 
 
 * Matt. xx 28. 
 
and yet more than Man. %3 
 
 church.”* Again, “ We should have supposed from 
 the reading of the Scriptures, ‘Without note or 
 comment,’ that the Saviour’s character presented to 
 us One symmetrical and consistent whole. But this 
 invention affirms that he was not one, but two 
 persons,” (in this our author errs) “and since he 
 does not always speak and act as a whole and entire, 
 he must sometimes have spoken and acted as a 
 part and a fraction.”+ 
 Now all this is rendered nugatory, if he 
 
 acknowledge that the blessed Jesus was a bein 
 of a higher order than man—an angel, or a still 
 more exalted, yet created intelligence. For 
 nothing can be niore clear than that he was real ly 
 and truly a‘man. He is frequently, and most 
 emphatically declared to be so. The title, “Son 
 of man,” is a title as familiar to the reader of 
 Scripture as the title, “ Son of God.” He must 
 therefore have had two natures; and, according 
 to the doctrine which the author would force 
 upon his opponents, he must believe that he was 
 not one, but two persons—an angel and a man 
 united. Now it is natural to expect that, bemg 
 two persons, he should speak sometimes in the 
 one character, and sometimes in the other ; and 
 it is for our author himself now to unloose this 
 knot, and to determine at all times in which 
 character the Saviour speaks. From this diffi- 
 culty he can eseape only by denying the real 
 humanity of the Lord Jesus, in which, [ suppose, 
 he would find few at the present day to follow 
 him. | 
 
 . Yet again, all the difficulty which our author 
 finds in believing that Jesus was God manifest 
 in human nature, founded on his not, as he 
 conceives, declaring himself explicitly to his 
 disciples and to the J ews, and on his never being 
 
 * Page 14. “> Page 15. 
 Hy 
 
(4, Jesus Christ a Man, 
 
 supposed by the Jews to be more than a prophet, 
 equally attaches itself to the doctrine that he 
 was of an angelic or super-angelic nature. For 
 example: 
 
 “ If Christ were really Almighty God, it is incon- 
 ceivable why he did not avow it distinctly, and that 
 it was not as distinctly taught by his apostles. 
 Strange, that his own family and disciples never 
 once suspected him to be. the God of Israel! So 
 far from admitting a thought that would have para- 
 lysed them, and falsified what they were taught in 
 their law, ‘That no man could see the face of God 
 and live,’ Exod. xxxiii. 20.—they lived with him on 
 terms of the most friendly and familiar intercourse. 
 On one occasion Peter rebuked him, Matt. xvi. 22.”* 
 
 The obvious and simple reply to all this is, 
 that Jesus might have his own reasons for not 
 avowing explicitly who he was, one of which 
 might be what the author hints at, ‘ The thought 
 would have paralysed them.” He repeatedly 
 parried the question, which it is as difficult to 
 account for on one supposition as another. A 
 fellow-mortal of royal rank, who should choose 
 to visit his subjects in the garb of a poor man, 
 would receive full credit for having sufficient 
 reasons for not explicitly saying who he was, or 
 for avowing his rank only in so far as he saw fit. 
 But our author cannot conceive why Jesus did 
 not avow his rank, and infers that therefore he 
 was possessed of none. But the reply which the 
 establishment of the fact, that he was a being of 
 higher order than man, enables us to give to our 
 author’s difficulty of conception, is, that Jesus 
 did not avow himself to be an angel or super- 
 angelic being; and that his disciples would have 
 been as much paralysed by the idea that he was 
 an angel as that he was God. Manoah was as 
 
 * Page 10. 
 
and yet more than Man. 15 
 
 much afraid that he would die because he had 
 seen an angel, as if he had seen God himself.* 
 To the same effect. is that which is written in 
 page 39, &e. “Why did not the Jews accuse 
 Christ of having advanced the unheard of claim 
 to the second place in the Godhead, and demanded 
 the same adoration as the Father?” The subject 
 of the adoration paid to him will be treated 
 afterwards; but in the mean time I would ask, 
 in return, Why did not they accuse him of 
 declaring himself to be an angel, of advancing 
 the unheard of claim of being the most exalted 
 created spirit in heaven, and demanding the 
 worship due to so glorious a being? They 
 condemned him for blasphemy because he said, 
 <¢ Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting 
 on the right hand of power, and coming in the 
 clouds of heaven,” and surely they would not 
 have omitted in his accusation, that he had 
 declared himself to have come from the right 
 hand of power, and to be the most exalted crea- 
 ture in the universe. And yet, notwithstanding 
 their silence, we have shown that a lower rank 
 cannot be assigned to him on Seripture authority: 
 and that many of those with whom our author 
 identifies himself, as being Unitarians, concede 
 to him this exalted rank. 
 
 Yet more, all that our author has so eloquently 
 and poetically written about mystery is con- 
 verted into idle declamation—a dream or a 
 reverie, by the establishment of the fact. that 
 Jesus, while he was a man, was at the same 
 time a being of celestial origin and nature. 
 
 “Mystery,” says he, “is a being of magical power 
 in theology, a reconciler of absurdities, and the 
 inseparable companion of priestcraft, fanaticism, and 
 
 * Judges xiii, 3, 5, 21, 22, 
 
16 Jesus Christ a Man, 
 
 superstition. She would willingly be received as a 
 descendant of the skies; but in features, dress, 
 manners, and language, she betrays more of an origin 
 from below. There is no spark of heaven in her 
 eye. She wants the cloudless brow, and the voice 
 of celestial music. Her mantle is a pall; and she 
 wears an amulet of dead men’s bones, &c. Was 
 not MYSTERY the name inscribed on the forehead of 
 the woman in the Revelations,—who was arrayed in 
 purple and scarlet, and drunk with the blood of the 
 saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of 
 Jesus ?”* | 
 Yet, in despite of all the author’s dislike of 
 mystery, how can he avoid admitting mystery 
 into his system, if he believe the Lord Jesus to 
 be a super-human creature—that is, if he be not 
 a Socinian ? For what could be more mysterious 
 than the union of two such natures? What 
 more mysterious than the necessity of it? What 
 more mysterious than the mission of so extra- 
 ordinary a person to this planet? It is indeed 
 not a little surprising to hear a creature sur- 
 rounded with mysteries, who cannot push his 
 inguiries into any branch of science to its ultimate 
 questions, without finding himself involved in 
 the mists of the most inexplicable mysteries— 
 to hear a creature so circumstanced venture 
 to speak thus of the’ mysteries—the ultimate 
 questions in religion. It is not a little daring, 
 in one who protesses to receive the Scripture as 
 a revelation from God, to utter such a rhapsod 
 respecting a word which is applied by the Holy 
 Spirit to the doctrines of Christianity ; - and 
 specifically to the very doctrine which he impugns. 
 ‘But we,” says the apostle Paul, “ speak the 
 wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden 
 wisdom which God ordained before the world 
 
 * Page 42, 42, 
 
and yet more than Man. vi 
 
 unte our glory.” ‘Let aman so account of us 
 as ministers of Christ and stewards of the 
 mysteries of God.”* ‘And without controversy 
 great is the mystery of godliness: God was mani- 
 fest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of 
 angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on 
 in the world, received up into glory.”+ Probably 
 eur author may insist on this passage being 
 rendered, ‘ Which (that is, the mystery) was 
 manifest in the flesh,” and in that form it would 
 still more strikingly expose his temerity in 
 holding up the use of the word mystery to 
 contempt; for then it would be Jesus himself 
 who is called the mystery of godliness, which 
 was ‘manifest in the flesh, justified in the 
 spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, 
 believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 
 
 There is indeed a “ mystery of iniquity’ +t spoken 
 of in Scripture, which our author confounds 
 with the great mystery of godliness. That church 
 which was represented by the woman in the book 
 of the Revelations is called a mystery, not 
 because she had mysteries in her creed, but 
 because she herself was the development of that 
 ‘mystery of iniquity,” which had already begun 
 to work in the days of the apostle Paul. Let 
 the author trace the awful corruption of Christi- 
 anity which is there personified ; let him attempt 
 to explain that deceitful working, by which the 
 doctrines of the Gospel were converted into 
 doctrines of devils—a system of ambition, 
 rapacity, and tyranny, in which Christ with 
 his atonement, his law, and his spirit were 
 withdrawn from practical religion, and sub- 
 stitutions provided in their room; let him 
 
 *) Cor. ii, 7% iv. 1, + 1 Tim. iii,.16, $2 Thess, ii. 7, 
 H$ 
 
78 Jesus Christ a Man, 
 
 attempt to account for the toleration of such 
 corruptions—the permission of the practice 
 of such abominations for so long a period in the 
 name of the blessed Jesus, and the havoc that 
 has been made by them both in the bodies and 
 souls of men; and he will find a better reason 
 for the label, mystTERy, that was written upon 
 her forehead, than that she did not reject what- 
 ever she could not fully explain. 
 
 This easy and rapid demolition of some of 
 our author’s most formidable defences is the 
 natural result of his attempting to build with 
 materials that would not adhere. His troops 
 are easily scattered, because he sought to as- 
 semble under one banner, parties that were at 
 war among themselves. By atte nothing 
 positive respecting the person of the.Redeemer, 
 he imagined that he might combine both Arians 
 and Socinians in one army; and as he could not 
 hope to engage them together in the establish- 
 ment of any positive truth, he proposed to 
 lead them on, under the common name Uni- 
 tarian, to a work of mere destruction. But 
 in this scheme he has totally failed. Arians 
 and Socinians are engaged in a contest that 
 is not so easily composed. They require him 
 to take one side or the other. If he avow 
 himself an Arian, Dr. Priestly, one of his au- 
 thorities, confutes him, by proving with irre- 
 sistible evidence, that Jesus was aman. If he 
 avow himself a Socinian, Dr. Samuel Clarke, 
 and other Arian writers, with whom he would 
 identify himself, overturn his system by proving 
 beyond the power of contradiction, that Jesus 
 had a previous existence to his incarnation, and 
 that he was a being of some high celestial order 
 
 (Dr. Bruce thinks superior to the Holy Spirit,) 
 
and yet more than Man. 49 
 
 sent on a mission to save guilty man by the 
 sacrifice of himself. The consequence of his 
 attempt to combine these two parties is, that 
 one part of his tractate is at war with another, 
 We have shown that if he be an Arian, one 
 portion of his arguments is rendered nugatory ; 
 and we are equally prepared to show, that if he 
 be a Socinian, another portion of his arguments 
 must fall. Hence his performance is like the 
 image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, the feet of 
 which were of iron and clay, that would not 
 coalesce ; and which therefore was easily broken 
 to pleces. 
 
CHAP. III. 
 
 DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 Havin in the two preceding chapters brought 
 forward certain preliminary matters, we are now 
 prepared to enter on our main subject. It may 
 appear somewhat singular to devote a chapter to 
 the mere distribution of our materials; but as 
 either truth or falsehood may be conveyed by 
 the order in which any subject is treated, and 
 as I conceive that injury -has been done by con- 
 founding doctrines that are altogether distinct, 
 (although closely allied,) I feel it to be necessary 
 to devote a few pages to the explanation and vin- 
 dication of the division which I have adopted. 
 
 The Rev. author of the pamphlet on which 
 we are animadverting, proposes to prove that 
 ‘¢ The doctrine of the Trinity is founded neither 
 on Scripture, nor on reason and common sense,” 
 &c. But, in a large proportion of his arguments, 
 he endeavours to prove that the Lord Jesus was 
 not God manifest in the flesh. He takes it for 
 granted that if he can show that the Redeemer 
 be not God, the doctrine of the Trinity must 
 fall of course ; and, by parity of reason, seems to 
 admit that if the Redeemer be God, the doctrine of 
 the Trinity must be admitted. This however is to 
 confound two doctrines thatare essentially distinct. 
 For, on the one hand, it is possible that our 
 Lord might be a manifestation of God in the 
 
Division of the Subject. 81 
 
 flesh, and yet that there might not be three per« 
 sons in the Godhead ; and on the other hand, it 
 might be true that there are three persons in the 
 Godhead, and yet that the Lord Jesus was not 
 God manifest in the flesh. The two doctrines 
 rest on totally different foundations. The intjs 
 mations, on the one hand, that there is a plurality 
 in the one Deity, and that this plurality consists 
 of three persons, furnish no direct evidence that 
 Jesus was God; and, on the other hand, after 
 Jesus has been proved to be God, that fact re« 
 quires to be explained by showing that, in his 
 divine nature, he is a different person from the 
 Father and the Spirit; and even when SO eX« 
 plained it furnishes only one argument for the 
 doctrine of the Trinity.“ To complete the proof, 
 it must further be shown, not only that the Fa- 
 ther is God, which I suppose will be admitted 
 by all parties, but also that the Holy Spirit is 
 God, and is at the same time a distinct person 
 from the Father and the Son:—and then to 
 these facts may be added the indications that 
 there is a plurality of persons in the Deity, and 
 that that plurality consists of three persons. 
 There is another distinction of importance be- 
 ‘tween the two doctrines, namely, that the doc- 
 trine of our Lord’s Divine naturé is a doctrine 
 of direct explicit revelation, repeatedly asserted 
 in the plainest terms, supported and ilustrated 
 im a vast variety of particulars ; whereas that 
 the doctrine of the Trinity is rather a doctrine 
 of inference and of indirect intimation, deduced 
 from what is revealed respecting the Father and 
 the Son and the Holy Ghost, and intimated in the 
 notices of a plurality of persons in the Godhead, 
 in the form of baptism, and in some of the apos- 
 tolic benedictions, than a doctrine directly and 
 explicitly declared. The doctrine of the Trinity 
 
82 Division of the Sulyect. 
 
 is one of the ultimate facts of Christianity which 
 is intimated for the purpose of explaining and 
 accounting for other doctrines, which yet is not 
 itself explained or accounted for. But the doc- 
 trine of our Lord’s divine nature is expressly re- 
 vealed, and also explained and illustrated; and 
 is thus explained and accounted for. partly by 
 the intimation of the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 It is obvious that some doctrine must stand as 
 an ultimate, unexplained fact on which side 
 soever our inquiries are directed; because the 
 explanation of one doctrine requires the mention 
 of others that lie as it were beyond it. This 
 observation is equally true in every other branch 
 of science. All of the sciences have, and must 
 have, their ultimate unexplained facts. As- 
 tronomy, for example, conducts us to the doc- 
 trine of the attraction of gravitation, which 
 must be admitted, although inexplicable, and 
 even in some points of view apparently contrary 
 to reason. If ever that attraction be explained 
 it will be by the discovery or the indication of 
 some other fact, which will then stand as the 
 ultima thule, beyond which enterprize cannot 
 push its researches ; and which must be received 
 unexplained and unaccounted for. Animal 
 physiology conducts us to the agency of the 
 nerves in moving the muscles, which must be 
 yeceived without explanation: for the manner in 
 which the nerve acts on-the muscle, and the man- 
 ner in which the will acts on the nerve, are sub- 
 jects hidden in profoundest mystery. If ever 
 it shall be discovered by what means the nerves 
 fulfil their office, it must be by the discovery or 
 the indications of some other fact, (a fact let us 
 suppose connected with electricity or galvanism, ) 
 and then that new fact must be received unex- 
 plained, and stand as an ultimate fact in physio- 
 
Division of the Subject. 83 
 
 logy. Even pure mathematics are not exempted 
 from obscurity in their extreme questions ; but 
 introduce us into speculations respecting the 
 nature of points, lines, surfaces, and solids, the 
 infinite divisibility of space, &c., and involve us 
 in apparently conflicting demonstrations. 
 
 Now, what is true in all other branches of 
 knowledge is equally true in religion. It too 
 has, and must have its ultimate facts, which are 
 not, and cannot be explained ; unless we could 
 Suppose that we are more capable of discovering 
 and comprehending facts respecting God and our 
 souls, than we are of discovering and compre- 
 hending facts respecting material substances, — 
 One of these ultimate unexplained facts is the 
 doctrine of the Trinity. Had not. this doctrine 
 been intimated, many things revealed respect- 
 ing our blessed Lord and the Holy Spirit would 
 have been totally destitute of explanation :—they 
 would have stood in the place of the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, as the farthest boundaries of Reve- 
 lation on one side. Or, if any explanation of 
 the doctrine of the Trinity were given, and we 
 were capable of comprehending it; then that ex- 
 planation would have involyed the intimation of 
 some further facts respecting the divine mind, 
 which new facts would then have been the ulti- 
 mate unexplained facts of revelation. 
 
 The application which I would make of these 
 observations to our present purpose is, that the | 
 doctrine of our Lord’s divine hature, and that of | 
 the Trinity of persons in the Godhead, should be 
 treated Separately ; that each should be made to 
 stand on its own foundation, or fall for want of | 
 foundation. By treating them together, and 
 _ especially by disposing them after the synthetic 
 method ; namely, first proving the doctrine of the | 
 Trinity, and then proceeding to the doctrine of 
 
$4 Division of the Subject. 
 
 our Lord’s Divine nature, as if the latter de- 
 pended on the former, there is great danger 
 of involving the more explicitly and perfectly 
 revealed doctrine in the obscurity of that which 
 is necessarily less clearly and fully revealed.— 
 The analytical method—namely, proceeding from 
 particulars to generals—from what is more to 
 what is less perfectly known, is the only just 
 method of conducting any investigation. Theo- 
 logians seem to haye imagined that because the 
 whole of religion is contained in the Bible, a 
 perfect acquaintance with which was, as they 
 imagined, within their reach,’ they might lay 
 aside the character of inquirers and adopt that 
 of teachers—they might, as persons thoroughly 
 acquainted with the science which they pro- 
 fessed to teach, ascend at once to the fountain 
 head, commence with the most comprehensive 
 doctrines, such as the nature of the Deity, the 
 divine decrees, the origin of evil, &c., and thence 
 descend to all the particulars comprehended 
 under these general principles. They would how- 
 ever, I conceive, have acted more wisely had they 
 retained the character of inquirers, and had pro- 
 ceeded from what was most clearly revealed to 
 what was less and less so; till, having reached 
 the utmost verge of revelation, they had con- 
 fessed that they could proceed no further—that 
 the truths beyond these were among the secret 
 things that belonged to God, and respecting 
 which they would not venture even to surmise. 
 They would thus have left the field of revela- 
 tion continually open to inquiry; they would 
 have stimulated their pupils to prosecute their 
 research into the book of God, instead of lead- 
 ing them to rest satisfied with the completed 
 system which they had extracted from it; and 
 they would have avoided the danger of involving 
 
Division of the Subject. 85 
 
 their whole system, containing a multitude of 
 most expressly and clearly revealed truths, in all 
 the difficulties of the most obscure parts of it. 
 In the following pages therefore, I aspire to no 
 higher character than that of an inquirer. J 
 offer myself to my readers not as a teacher, 
 but as a fellow disciple—to lay before them the 
 train of inquiry into the word of God by which 
 I have myself arrived at the conclusions, which 
 I have formed. I shall proceed no further than 
 I find ground in the sacred Scripture to support 
 me; and I ask them to accompany me only so 
 far as they themselves can discern their way, and 
 can find a sure and safe footing. I have no in- 
 tention of attempting to walk upon the dark sea 
 that lies beyond the limits of revelation ; if to 
 any of my readers I shall appear to do so, let 
 them consult their own safety by declining to 
 accompany me. Let them not however give up 
 the research, because I may have pursued a 
 route along which they cannot follow. Let 
 them endeavour to find their own way to a per- 
 fect understanding of the truth, looking for the 
 teaching of that good Spirit of God who can 
 make all mysteries plain to them. & 
 In conformity with our proposed method of 
 proceeding from what is most clearly and fully 
 revealed, to that which is less so, I commence 
 with the Redeemer’s being a manifestation of 
 the God of heaven in human nature, and pro- 
 ceed then to consider the Trinity of persons in 
 the Godhead, so far as that doctrine is intimated 
 in the word of God, or may be inferred from 
 other doctrines. And here again I would pause 
 for a moment and implore the protection and 
 guidance and blessing of the Lord, both on the 
 writer and reader, and intreat, that, through 
 I 
 
86 Division of the Subject. 
 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, he would grant to both 
 ameek and humble and teachable spirit, and 
 would open their understandings more and 
 more to the reception of those glorious truths 
 that are able to make them wise unto salvation, 
 through faith that is in Christ Jesus. 
 
CHAP. IV. 
 
 WHAT IS IMPLIED IN THE MANIFESTATION OF 
 GOD IN CHRIST JESUS, 
 
 Iv may perhaps tend to remove some difficul- 
 Ges out of the way of my readers, and prepare 
 them for giving an impartial attention to the 
 words of the sacred record, to consider what is 
 implied in a manifestation of God, and a mani- 
 festation of God in human nature. Much I be- 
 lieve of the reluctance that exists in some minds 
 to admit the divine nature and origin of the 
 blessed Jesus, arises from a total misconception 
 of what is meant by his being a manifestation of 
 God. Our author pronounces the very idea to 
 be “gross and heathenish.”* It would have 
 better served the cause of truth to explain where- 
 in the grossness or the heathenism of the idea 
 lay, than to offer us an unexplained, unsup- 
 ported assertion, leaving us to conjecture the 
 meaning of it. The respectable author claims 
 the character of a philosopher; but surely in 
 attempting to answer a question so deep and 
 abstruse as, What would be the most proper mode 
 or form in which the Deity should manifest him- 
 self to his creatures? it became him to explain 
 and prove his proposition; nor could any prac- 
 tice be less philosophical than a vague oratorical 
 unsupported assertion introduced on such an oc- 
 casion. It appears to me that the idea of gross- 
 
 * Page 33. 
 
88 What is implied in the manifestation 
 
 ness which he connects with our doctrine, has 
 its origin entirely in a misapprehension of it; but 
 this he will be better able to determine when I 
 explain what seems to me to be the just and 
 Scriptural views of it. 
 
 1. In explaining this point it is necessary to 
 remind my readers of the omnipresence of God. 
 The great God of heaven is present with all his 
 creatures, in all places of the universe. He is 
 wholly and equally present every where. We 
 are apt to conceive of the omnipresence of the 
 Deity, as if he were like some subtile material 
 fluid every where diffused, so that one part of 
 him is in one place, and another part in another 
 place. But God is every where present, not in 
 the sense in which a fluid, every where diffused 
 is present wherever it extends to; but in the 
 sense of being wholly, in all the fulness of all his 
 attributes, in every place. He is wholly Here, 
 and he is wholly in the most distant parts of 
 creation at the same moment. He does not exist 
 with reference to place. Our ideas of space and 
 place are derived from the imperfection of our 
 nature. One external object is nearer to us than 
 another; but no object is external to the Deity. 
 Instead of saying that he is in every place, it 
 might perhaps be more correct to say that every 
 place is in the Divine mind, and therefore all 
 equally near to him :—as it is written, “ Jn Him 
 we live and move and have our being.” We 
 may perhaps be enabled to form some more dis- 
 tinct conception of the full and perfect presence 
 of God to all his creatures, by comparing his 
 creatures to the thoughts and imaginations that 
 arise in our own minds. None of these can be 
 said to be farther from us than another, because 
 they are all within the mind itself. So all the 
 
of God in Christ Jesus. 89 
 
 creatures of God throughout the whole universe 
 are, as it were, the creatures of his mind, which 
 live and move and have their being in Him. 
 This is a mode of existence altogether as mys- 
 terious and incomprehensible to us as a plurality 
 of persons in one Divine nature. Yet to suppose 
 that God is present in different places merely’ 
 in the sense of one part of him being present in 
 one place, and another part of him in another, 
 is to suppose him to consist of parts—to ascribe 
 to him a material extension, and is contrary to 
 every thing that is revealed respecting him.— 
 And I am persuaded that the Rev. author will 
 himself at once admit that this view of the om- 
 nipresence of the Deity, incomprehensible as it 
 may appear, is yet the only Scriptural, as well 
 as the only rational or philosophical view of it. 
 It is thus that the Divine Being is capable of 
 giving the most minute and exact attention to all 
 his creatures at the same moment, The attention 
 which he gives to one object does not in the 
 slightest degree impair the attention which he 
 gives to any other object. An animalcule that 
 can scarcely be discerned by the aid of the most 
 powerful microscope is attended to with as much 
 exactness,—its members formed, its instincts de- 
 termined, its food previded, its days or its mo- 
 ments numbered, with as much precision as if 
 there were not another creature in the universe 
 besides itself. And the same minute attention 
 is, at the same moment, given to all creatures in 
 every region of the creation. When a man 
 leaves his country and passes to the most distant 
 regions of the earth, he finds himself surrounded 
 with manifestations of the presence of the same 
 God, to whose presence he was accustomed in 
 his native climate—the same wisdem and power 
 and goodness, the same attention given to every; 
 | pS 
 
90 What is implied in the manifestation 
 
 even the minutest creature; and wherever he 
 goes he may say with Jacob, ‘‘ Surely God is 
 in this place.” If he could pass from this globe 
 to the most distant planet or star, he would find 
 himself still within the embrace of the same God, 
 possessing the same character and attributes, the 
 same infinite skill, the same love of order, the 
 same wisdom, the same goodness, and giving the 
 same minute exact attention to every object.— 
 The manifestations would be different, accom- 
 modated to different circumstances ; but the in- 
 visible being who was manifested in them, would 
 be plainly and obviously, to the eye and the un- 
 derstanding, the same God. 
 
 From this it follows that any manifestation 
 of God in one place, or to any one individnal or 
 class of his creatures, does not imply that he 1s 
 absent from any other place or class of his crea- 
 tures; or that he may not, at the same moment, 
 be manifesting himself to other creatures accord-. 
 ing to their circumstances. For example, the 
 angel who appeared to Joshua, as recorded Jos. 
 v. 13. vi. 2., it is probable was Jehovah himself, 
 manifesting himself in the form of an angel or 
 messenger: for he seems to be the same person 
 who is afterwards called Jehovah; (ch. vi. 2.) 
 and yet Jehovah was doubtless at the same time 
 manifest in the glory that rested on the mercy 
 seat in the Tabernacle, ready to hear and to an- 
 swer the petitions of any humble worshipper 
 who might present himself before that ‘ throne 
 of grace:” although that worshipper would be 
 totally ignorant that the same Jehovah was, at 
 the same moment, made manifest in another 
 form to Joshua. Ido not offer this as an argu- 
 ment, but merely as an illustration of my mean- 
 ing; for I am aware that it may be disputed 
 whether it was Jehovah that appeared at this 
 
of God in Christ Jesus. 91 
 
 time to Joshua. But it is obvious that if God 
 may, consistently with his nature and attributes, 
 manifest himself under any form to any of his 
 creatures, being every where present, he may 
 manifest himself to all of them, or to any num- 
 ber of them, separately or together, at the same 
 moment, and in whatever form may be suited 
 to their circumstances. The eternal Word of 
 God, who was with God, and who was God, 
 whom we believe to have manifested the Deity 
 in human nature, might for example, be con- 
 ducting such a dispensation as his mediatorial 
 kingdom in this planet, and at the same time 
 conducting some dispensation equally minute in 
 its details, marked by the same wisdom and 
 goodness and grace, accompanied with manifes- 
 tations of the same power and the same love, in 
 the most remote regions of the universe. And 
 the attention which he is giving to one class of 
 his creatures here, would not in the slightest 
 degree impair the attention which he may be 
 giving to another class of them in those far dis- 
 tant orbs. Each class, and every individual of 
 each class, would necessarily be attended to with 
 #s much exactness as if there were no other crea- 
 tures in the universe besides, 
 
 2. The subject therefore presented to us for 
 consideration is what particular manifestation 
 of the Deity is, to be regarded as most consistent 
 with any aseertained known facts, or with the 
 character of the Deity. This is a question on 
 which I confess myself altogether incompetent 
 to form any judgment whatever. Common sense, 
 reason, philosophy, &c. seem to me to be struck 
 dumb before such a question. Whether the 
 Deity shall choose to manifest his presence to 
 the senses of his creatures in angelic or in human 
 
92 What is implied in the manifestation 
 
 form, or in a flame of firey or in an audible voice; 
 or whether he shall manifest himself directly to 
 their minds without the intervention of their 
 senses, as in a vision, or a dream, or a trance, 
 is a subject on which I dare not form a conjec- 
 ture. 
 
 Our author pronounces a manifestation of God 
 in human nature to be gross and heathenish. On 
 what grounds is such a sentence thus given forth 
 as ex cathedra ? 
 
 Isit that a manifestation of God by means of mat- 
 ter would have any thing in it of grossness or pol- 
 lution? I know that the ancient Gnostics imagined 
 that matter was in its very nature polluted, and 
 that therefore they consistently ascribed the crea- 
 tion of it, not to God, but to an evil principle— 
 to Satan. But the idea that any grossness oF 
 pollution is attached to matter has long been ba- 
 nished from all sound philosophy, as an ignorant 
 prejudice. Matter is in its nature, so far as we 
 know it, as pure and free from grossness or pol- 
 Jution as spirit. Itis merely a different creature 
 of God, vested with different properties. Dr. 
 Priestly and other philosophers of a similar class 
 will scarcely admit even this, but conceive so 
 highly of the qualities of matter as to verge to- 
 wards the opinion that the mind itself is mate- 
 rial. Ido not recollect hearing of any one ob- 
 jecting, on the score of grossness or pollution, 
 to those manifestations which God made of him- 
 self under the Old Testament dispensation :—as, 
 for example to Moses, in a flame of fire ;* or on 
 Sinai to all the Israelites, in thunder and light- 
 ning and smoke and devouring flame; + or on 
 these and other occasions in an articulate voice, 
 
 * Exod. iii. + Exod. xix, and xx. 
 
of God in Christ Jesus. 93 
 
 or, as in the tabernacle and temple in a cloud.* 
 Yet these were manifestations of himself through 
 the medium of matter. I know not if any one 
 would venture to pronounce the manifestation 
 of God described in Exod, xxiv. 9—11, 16, 17. 
 gross and polluted:—* Then went up Moses 
 and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy 
 ral of the elders of Israel: And they saw the 
 God of Israel and there was under his feet as 
 it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as 
 it were the body of heaven, in its clearness, and 
 upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid 
 not his hand ; also they saw God and did eat and 
 drink.’”—** And the glory of the Lord abode 
 upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six 
 days.—And the sight of the glory of the Lord 
 was like devouring fire on the top of the mount 
 in the eyes of the children of Israel.” Neither 
 do I know that any one has stigmatized that liv- 
 ing voice by which the invisible God bore testi- 
 mony to his well beloved Son on three different 
 occasions,+ as gross and heathenish. Yet these 
 were all manifestations of the Deity to the senses 
 of men, and consequently through a material 
 medium. | 
 
 Is there then any grossness or pollutedness in 
 the human form? A supposition to that effect must 
 be derived from the moral corruption of human 
 nature; for in itself, surely the human form is 
 as pure and free from pollution, as worthy of 
 being used in a manifestation of the Deity, as 
 the appearance of a flame of fire, or the sound 
 of human Janguage, or any other modification 
 of matter. Our author asserts that “no Jew 
 could ever be guilty of entertaining the gross 
 
 * See besides the passages already referred to, Exod, XVi, 
 
 10, xxxiii. 18-23, ] Kings viii. 10, 11, xix, 115. 
 t Mat. iii. 17. xvii. 5. ; John xii, 28, 
 
94 What is implied in the manifestation 
 
 and heathenish idea, that the Almighty had re- 
 vealed himself in a human form, and was come 
 to sojourn among men.” The Jews were fami- 
 liar with manifestations of God to the senses of 
 men; and it would be difficult to discover the 
 greater grossness of one material manifestation 
 of himself than of another. But a manifesta- 
 tion of God in human form could not be so 
 strange a thing as our author seems to imagine. 
 It would appear that, in the intercourse which 
 God held with our first parents in the days of 
 their innocency, he came to them in this form. 
 This is not expressly asserted, but it seems to 
 be implied in the words of Gen. iii. 8. “ They” 
 (Adam and Eve) “ heard the voice of the Lord 
 God walking in the garden in the cool of the 
 day.” By the voice, seems here to be meant the 
 sound of his footsteps; for the word is frequent- 
 ly used for sound in general. There is one une- 
 quivocal instance of the manifestation of God 
 in human form in Gen. xviii. 1, 2. “And the 
 Lord appeared unto him” (Abraham) “in the 
 plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door 
 in the heat of the day. And he lift up his 
 eyes and looked and lo three men stood by 
 him.” One of the these persons, as appears 
 afterwards, was a manifestation of the Deity 
 himself in human form; the other two were 
 angels, whom he sent forward to Sodom. The 
 person with whom Abraham conversed respect- 
 ing the destruction of Sodom—with whom: he 
 interceded in behalf of that guilty people, is called 
 throughout thenarrative, JenovaH; and he spoke 
 as if he had independent authority to do what he 
 thought fit. The two angels who attended on— 
 him seem to have gone on towards Sodom, while 
 THE Lonp, that is Jenovan,* remained with 
 
 * It may be proper to inform the English reader that 
 
oF God in Christ Jesus. 95 
 
 Abraham and came thither at even, And when 
 he who is called the Lorp or Jenovan had done 
 communing with Abraham it is said (verse 33.) 
 “that he went his way,” an expression that seems 
 plainly to indicate that he had assumed a human 
 form in manifesting himself to Abraham. The 
 Lord seems to have appeared to Jacob also in the 
 same form as appears from Gen. xxxii. 24-—30. 
 *¢ And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled 
 a man with him until the breaking of the day. 
 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel ; 
 for I have seen God face to face and my life is 
 preserved,” 
 
 Does it appear strange or incredible that the 
 great God of the universe should thus manifest 
 himself in human form and converse with an 
 of his creatures? Why should it be incredible ? 
 “ The ways of God are not as our ways, nor his 
 thoughts as our thoughts.” When we think of a 
 manifestation of the Deity, we are apt to con- 
 conceive of some brilliant, dazzling, terrific dis- 
 play of what we call majesty. But such concep- 
 tions flow from our carnality. When the Lord 
 sees it to be necessary, he can array himself in 
 terror, as he did on mount Sinai; but when he 
 holds intercourse with his holy, beloved creatures, 
 why should he not assume a'form which is least 
 calculated to alarm them? I cannot conceive of 
 a more beautiful or appropriate manifestation of 
 himself to such creatures than in their own form, 
 speaking to them in their own language, and 
 thus conveying to them by means of symbols 
 with which they were familiar, impressions of 
 
 when the word Lorp is printed in capitals in our authorised 
 version, it represents the word Jovan in the original He. 
 brew ; but that when it is printed,in the small Roman letters, 
 ‘lord,’ or ‘ Lord,’ it represents a word that signifies a ruler or 
 mastereeSee Ps, cx. 1, 
 
96 What is implied in the manifestation 
 
 grace and condescension, and yet of power and 
 authority. The fastidious imaginations of blinded 
 men may take offence at the descriptions which 
 are given of the Deity in the Scripture, by re- 
 ference to the members of the human body; as 
 when it speaks of his eye, his hand, his feet, nay 
 his heart, and his bowels. But this language is 
 adopted in condescension to our weakness ; and 
 why might not the merciful God with the same 
 condescension, and for the same purposes, ac- 
 tually manifest himself to his holy and obedient 
 creatures in that very form by reference to which 
 he directed that he should be described to them ? 
 It may, for ought we know, be a general law in 
 the manifestations of the Deity to his rational 
 and moral creatures, in all regions of the uni- 
 verse, who have not rendered themselves un- 
 worthy of such condescension by sin, that he ap- 
 pear to them as one of themselves ;—their su- 
 perior indeed, their Father and their Lord, but 
 still, gracious and meek and gentle among them, 
 permitting them to approach him even as chil- 
 dren to their father, to pour the expressions of 
 their love into his bosom, and to present to him 
 all their requests. 
 
 But our author asserts that the idea of a 
 manifestation of the Deity in human form is 
 heathenish, as well as gross. He probably here 
 alludes to the ideas of the heathen, that the Gods 
 existed in the form of men and women. Even 
 if these views of Divine manifestations tallied 
 exactly with the notions of the heathen, that cir- 
 cumstance would not prove them to be erroneous. 
 The heathen may have derived their ideas by 
 tradition from Adam and from Abraham. The 
 various forms of heathen idolatry bear the same 
 relation to the Patriarchal religion, transmitted 
 by Noah to his posterity, as the superstitions of 
 
of God in Christ Jesus. 9% 
 
 the Jews bear to the Mosaic dispensation, and 
 as the idolatries of the Church of Rome bear to 
 the Christian dispensation. To argue from the 
 corrupted religion of the heathen, against the re- 
 velation of God given in the earlier parts of the 
 Old Testament, is to follow the example of 
 the French deists, in arguing from the corrup- 
 tions of the Church of Rome, against’ the 
 truth of Christianity, as taught by Jesus and 
 his apostles. 
 
 But the truth is, that the views of the mani- 
 festations of the Deity in human form held out 
 in Scripture, are essentially different from the 
 notions of the heathen respecting the human 
 form of their gods. Their notions were not of 
 a mere manifestation of one supreme God who 
 fills earth and heaven; but of the permanent 
 existence of their gods in human form, alto- 
 gether independently of their manifesting them- 
 selves to mankind. Their gods were a sort of 
 community of men and women; who, when 
 they were present in one place, were absent 
 from all others; who occasionally visited the 
 earth, but whose ordinary place of residence was 
 in some elevated situation above the earth. In 
 their notions of their gods they could find room 
 fer multitudes of them in the universe. The 
 had lords many, and gods many.” But the 
 views held out in Scripture of the manifestations 
 of God were simply manifestations of a being 
 who has no form, who is alike in every place, 
 and who merely makes his existence sensible, 
 according to whatever mode his purposes may 
 demand. His manifestations of himself may be 
 by a voice or sound, they may be by a flame of 
 fire, they may be in a dream or trance, or they 
 may be in a visible human form. 
 
 But the grossness of the conceptions which the 
 
 K 
 
98 What is imphed in the manifestation 
 
 heathen formed of their gods consisted chiefiy im 
 the grossly polluted moral character which they 
 ascribed tothem. Their gods were animated by 
 the most detestable passions, and stained with the 
 most atrocious wickedness. They were, as I have 
 already observed, a community of men and wo- 
 men; and they were such a community living 
 in the most dissolute and abominable practices. 
 Here was a real grossness. Here was what might 
 emphatically be called heathenish. But the ma- 
 nifestations of the Deity recorded in Scripture, 
 although he is represented as making use of a 
 material medium, and sometimes even of the 
 human form, have no speck or stain of sin upon 
 them—no real grossness ; they retain the unity, 
 the universal presence of God, and are vested 
 with such attributes and moral character as is 
 befitting the great Sovereign of the universe. 
 
 We must not however forget that the mani- 
 restation of the Deity, which we helieve to have 
 been given in the Lord Jesus, was not in human. 
 form merely, but in human nature—a human 
 body and soul. : 
 
 With regard to the body of the Lord Jesus, 
 there is nothing more gross in the matter of 
 which a human body is formed, than there is 
 in flame or light, or in air by means of which 
 sound is conveyed. Nor is there any thing 
 less worthy of God in his condescending to in- 
 habit a human body, than in a manifestation of 
 himself dwelling within the curtains of a tent or 
 tabernacle. The human frame is a building of 
 more exquisite beauty and value, than even Solo- 
 mon’s temple, with all the magnificence of its 
 architecture, and all its profusion of gold and 
 costly workmanship. 
 
 But the manifestation of the Deity in Christ 
 Jesus was not merely in a human body, but in 
 
of God in Christ Jesus. 95° 
 
 the characters and attributes of a human soul. 
 in truth no manifestation is made to us of God in 
 a human form, even if we see him in Christ Jesus: 
 for we have never seen the outward form of J eSUS, 
 nor has any description of his appearance been 
 left upon record. All that we know of him is 
 his character as manifested in his acts. He ap- 
 pears to us in the wisdom, the power, the holi- 
 ness, the Justice, the meekness, the gentleness, 
 the condescension, the goodness, the love, and 
 the mercy, that shone forth in his whole deport- 
 ment. And, so far from discovering any thing 
 gross in such a manifestation of the Deity, I con= 
 fess it appears to me to be the most pure and spi- 
 ritual that it is possible to conceive. The Jews 
 were offended with him because’ he was not suf- 
 ficiently terrific in his appearance. Had he come 
 in flaming fire, with the sound of a trumpet, 
 and surrounded with thunderings and lightnings; 
 they would have’ prostrated themselves before 
 him in lowliest adoration. But they could not 
 relish thé spiritual glories which he manifested, 
 in the transcendent beauty and dignity of his 
 character. Yet, O, what a delightful thing it were 
 to know and to be assured, that the meek and 
 lowly Jesus, vested as he was with power to 
 protect his people, and to supply all their wants, 
 but kind, condescending, compassionate, gentle, 
 permitting his disciples to address him, not in- 
 deed with undue familiarity, but without fear, 
 to lean on his bosom, and to tell him their wants 
 and their desires, was no other than a manifese 
 tation of the great God of heaven in human na- 
 ture; and that the dispositions which he exhibit- 
 ed while he was in the world, towards those 
 with whom he associated, were none other than 
 a manifestation of the dispositions of the invisi- 
 ble God towards our poor ruined guilty race. 
 
100 What is implied in the manifestation 
 
 And he who is prepared to admire the manifes- 
 tations of God recorded in the Old Testament 
 in clouds and fire and terrific voices, while he 
 is offended with the more spiritual manifestation 
 that is given of him in the character of the bles- 
 sed Redeemer, is still labouring under the in- 
 fluence of that materialism, from which, with 
 the aid of his philosophy falsely so called, he 
 has been in vain endeavouring to emancipate 
 hunself, 
 
 Does any one ask, how the Deity could so 
 unite himself to the man Christ Jesus that the 
 character manifested by him should be a manifes- 
 tation of the character of the Deity ; I answer that 
 Ido not know. Neither know I how the Deity so 
 united himself to the flaming fire in the bush, or 
 the glory that appeared on mount Sinai, and that 
 rested on the tabernacle, that the movements of 
 these appearances and the voices that issued from 
 them, could be regarded as a manifestation of 
 the character of God. I cannot explain how the 
 human soul is so united to the body, that the 
 acts of the body may be regarded as the acts of 
 the soul; and that the motions and gestures of 
 the body should be a manifestation of the tem- 
 pers and passions of the soul. When I see a 
 man’s eye flash, and his teeth set, I know his 
 soul is angry ; and when I see his face smile, I 
 know that his soul is pleased. But how such 
 drawing and contracting of muscles should carry 
 home to my bosom an instantaneous impression 
 of the feelings or tempers of an immaterial 
 soul, is altogether beyond my comprehension. 
 Nevertheless I have no doubt of the facts. So, 
 although I cannot explain how the divine nature 
 could be so united to the human, that the tempers 
 and dispositions of the man, should be an expres- 
 sion of the character and dispositions of God; I 
 
of God in Christ Jesus. 101 
 
 should never regard my inability to explain such 
 a fact, asa reason for discrediting it, provided 
 it be established by sufficient evidence. All that 
 I expect of my readers at present is, not to per- 
 mit their minds to be shut against evidence, by 
 our confessed inability to explain a fact, that is 
 not more inexplicable than a thousand facts that 
 are believed without hesitation; but to proceed 
 to the examination of the evidence without bias 
 or prejudice against it. 
 
 3. [proceed further to observe, that one of the 
 most formidable prejudices against the Saviour’s 
 being a manifestation of God in human nature 
 arises from his humiliation to suffering and death. 
 Thus our author, alluding to the words of the 
 apostle Paul in Philip. ii. 6. says, ‘* What ideas 
 can they have of the Deity who suppose that he 
 could make himself of no reputation, or divest 
 himself of his glory? The thing is impossible. 
 We might as well suppose that he could cease to 
 exist.”* But the cause of his being offended 
 with this doctrine arises wholly, apprehend, from 
 his mode of conceiving of it, and not from the 
 doctrine itself, properly understood. He obvi- 
 ously imagines, that in making himself of no 
 reputation, God must have descended from his 
 sovereignty of the universe; that a temporary 
 obscuration of his sovereign authority, and of the 
 worship which was paid to him, must have taken 
 place; and, in short, that the Deity, so long as 
 he was thus of no reputation, could not appear 
 in his glory and majesty to any of his creatures 
 throughout the whole universe. But as this 
 could never be, so neither do the Scripture ex- 
 pressions, even when understood as referring to 
 
 * Page 22, 
 K 3 
 
102. What ts implied in the manifestation 
 
 the Deity, imply such a general obscuration of 
 the Divine glory. The whole has reference to 
 the manifestation of himself to mankind—the 
 station which he assumed in his intercourse with 
 men. He condescended to manifest himself to 
 them inalowly guise, divested of the insignia of 
 power and authority, in such a manner that they 
 held him in no reputation. He condescended to 
 appear among them as a servant or subject, 
 manifested himself in their nature, so uniting 
 himself to a bedy and asoul, that the man Christ 
 Jesus was as truly a manifestation of God, as 
 any of those manifestations which he made of 
 himself under the Old Testament dispensation ; 
 while yet it was still of a more lowly external 
 character, so much so “that he was despised 
 and rejected of men.” ‘‘ He came to his own, and 
 his own received him not.” The humiliation of 
 himself might be exhibited in the sight of the 
 whole rational and moral universe; yet it did 
 not affect the relation in which he stood to any 
 of them: it was merely his gracious and condes- 
 cending mode of dealing with a lost and obdu- 
 rate race, for the purpose of recovering them, 
 and regaining their alienated affections. The 
 angels of God witnessed his descent, yet he was 
 not divested of glory in their eyes; for they 
 waited on him with the most profound reverence 
 when he was at the very depth of his voluntary 
 humiliation: and probably there never was a pe- 
 riod in their existence at which he appeared to 
 them more transcendently glorious, than when 
 he was permitting himself to be treated with 
 contempt and outrage by his own wayward fran- 
 tic children. 
 
 I shall endeavour to illustrate this subject a 
 little further by reference to the manifestations 
 of God under the Jewish dispensation. The 
 
 fies 
 
of God in Christ Jesus. 103 
 
 most ordinary manifestation of the Deity under 
 that dispensation, was the appearance of cloud 
 and fire that went before the Israelites in their 
 march trom Egypt, that appeared on the top of 
 mount Sinai, and that afterwards rested on the 
 mercy seat in the tabernacle, and subsequently 
 in thetemple. This seems to have been the same 
 that was made to Moses in the burning bush,. 
 and long after, in vision, to Isaiah and Ezekiel. 
 This manifestation of the Deity was defended 
 from every undue freedom by the most solemn 
 sanctions. When the Deity thus appeared to 
 Moses, he commanded him to stand at a distance, 
 and to put his shoes off his feet. When he ap- 
 peared by this symbol to the people upon mount 
 Sinai, they were forbidden to draw nigh to the 
 mount, or to break through to gaze, on the penalty 
 of instant death. If even a beast should. touch, 
 the mountain it was to be stoned or thrust through 
 with a dart. When afterwards that glory of the 
 Lord took up its residence in the most holy place 
 in the tabernacle, the approach to him was re- 
 stricted to the high priest, and that only once in 
 the year. When Nadab and Abibu, sons of 
 Aaron, presented themselves before the altar 
 of incense with strange fire in their censers, 
 they were instantly devoured by fire that came 
 out from the presence of the Lord. When 
 Korah and his company of Levites presumed to 
 present themselves, uncalled, unauthorised, to 
 officiate as priests before that manifestation of 
 the glory of the Lord, they too were destroyed 
 by fire that came forth from his presence. WH ens 
 in an after age, the ark. was taken by the Phi- 
 listines, they were forced to restore it by plagues 
 that were inflicted upon them; and when the 
 Israelites, on regaining possession of it, ventur- 
 ed only to look into it, they were struck dead 
 
104 What is implied in the manifestation 
 
 to the number of fifty thousand and seventy men. 
 When, on a still later cecasion, David was con- 
 ducting the ark to the place prepared for it, and 
 had for that purpose put it upon a new cart, con- 
 trary as it would seem to the instructions given 
 in the law for conveying it from place to place, 
 and Uzzah put forth his hand to take hold of it 
 because the motion of the cart shook it, the Lord 
 resented Uzzah’s presumption and undue fami- 
 liarity, by smiting him dead to the earth. And 
 when king Uzziah attempted to intrude himself 
 into the priest’s office, by entering the sanctuary in 
 the temple with a censer, for the purpose of burn- 
 ing incense upon the altar that stood before the 
 veil of the Holy of Holies, within which the glo- 
 ry of the Lord rested on the mercy-seat, he was 
 smitten with leprosy and continued a leper till 
 his death. In these instances, the Lord was 
 maintaining the majesty and unapproachable 
 sanctity of his character, by protecting the mani- 
 festations of his presence from liberties and fami- 
 liarities that would have tended, had they not 
 been checked, to grow into contempt. 
 
 Now let me suppose that the Jews had become, 
 at any time, so outrageous in their rebellion 
 against God, as to treat that manifestation of his 
 presence with the most marked contempt—that 
 they had risen up in fury against the tabernacle, 
 that they had penetrated into the most holy place, 
 and, unawed by the mysterious cloud that rest- 
 ed on the mercy-seat, had dragged forth the 
 ark, and had torn it to pieces, and spat upon it, 
 and trampled it under foot,—that they had broken 
 the tables of stone which they found there, and 
 had burnt the budding rod of Aaron, and scat- 
 tered the pot of Manna that was laid up there, 
 and destroyed the book of the law; and let me 
 suppose that God, instead of hurling upon them 
 
of God in Christ Jesus. 105 
 
 the vengeance which their audacious wickedness 
 deserved, had continued to bear with them,—had 
 by his servants intreated them to desist for their 
 own sakes, and warned them of the consequences 
 that must overtake them if they persisted in their 
 rebellion ; and, when they were proceeding to 
 the utmost extremities in their malignant rage, 
 had directed his prophets and priests still to pray 
 for them, for that they knew not what they did; 
 would not this be humbling himself in the sight 
 of all his creatures who were capable of witnes- 
 sing the scene? would it not be making himself 
 of no reputation among his rebelling people, 
 divesting himself of the wonted majesty of his 
 deportment among them, and assuming a most 
 humble guise ? 
 
 Now, this is precisely what we believe he hag 
 done in Christ Jesus; but with this difference, 
 that in Jesus, the manifestation of the presence of 
 the Lord was no inanimate object, which could 
 be treated merely with outward marks of disre- 
 spect, but was incapable of suffering. In Jesus, 
 the manifestation of God was a human soul, and 
 body capable of mental and corporeal anguish—a 
 man, who could be insulted, scourged, murdered. 
 The Lord Jesus came among men manifesting 
 the attributes and character of Jehovah, speaking 
 the words, and doing the works of God. The 
 manifestation of the Deity was in him infinitely 
 more perfect, than in the cloud of glory that 
 dwelt within the curtains of the tabernacle. His 
 body was the true tabernacle which the Lord 
 pitched and not man, and was of more exquisite 
 workmanship than the scarlet and fine linen and 
 gold and embroidery of the Jewish tabernacle ; 
 and his soul was an infinitely more glorious 
 shechinah—an infinitely more perfect image or 
 manifestation of the invisible God, than that 
 
i06 What is implied in the manifestation 
 
 cloud of smoke, or that dazzling brightness, by 
 which his presence was then manifested. But 
 the people did not regard him. ‘ He came to 
 his own, and his own received him not.”?— 
 ‘* He was despised and rejected of men.” They 
 insulted him. They derided him. They scourged 
 him. They spat upon him. They at length 
 crucified him, and mocked him in the agonies of 
 death. And, in the mean while, he bore with their 
 outrages. His disciples suggested to him to calk 
 fire from heaven to consume those who rejected 
 him; but he would not. He stood silent amidst 
 their insults. ‘‘ He gave his back to the smiters, 
 and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair : 
 and hid not his face from shame and spitting.” 
 “‘ He was brought as a lamb to the slaughter, 
 and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb so he 
 opened not his mouth.’ When they were 
 piercing his hands and his feet—driving their 
 iron spikes into these most sensitive parts of his 
 body, that they might lift him up to the mockery 
 of the ferocious multitude, he prayed for them, 
 saying—“ Father forgive them, for they know 
 not what they do.” 
 
 If this was indeed, as the centurion pronounced 
 him to be, “* The Son of God,” one in nature 
 with the Deity, as every son is of the same na- 
 ture with his father; if he was God manifest in 
 the flesh, was it not a manifestation of God 
 placing himself in a situation in which his crea- 
 tures held him in no estimation, divesting him- 
 self for a moment of the glory of his power, and 
 his authority to protect himself from insolence 
 and contempt, and of that royal state which be- 
 longs to him as the Sovereign of the universe ? 
 And yet is there any thing gross or heathenish 
 in this? Is there any thing in it more difficult 
 to comprehend than in his permitting men to 
 
of God in Christ Jesus, 107 
 
 trample his law and authority under foot, and 
 to perpetrate the most detestable crimes in his 
 sight, without instantly sweeping them away in 
 his indignation? Is there not rather here, every 
 feature of the most gracious forbearance and 
 condescension—of a compassion and love that 
 pass all understanding ? 
 
 Our author affects to be shocked at the idea 
 of the death of God. . “ The Unitarian,” says 
 he, * dares not venture to suppose it; for the 
 death and burial of God would be a most revolt- 
 ing idea.” * But does he really imagine that 
 any man ever entertained so preposterous a no- 
 tion? We know that in death, even the soul of 
 man does not die. ‘The dust returns to the earth 
 as it was, and the spirit returns unto God who 
 gave it.” No one ever thinks of the death and 
 burial of the soul; and how could any person 
 be so absurd as to imagine the death and burial of 
 the Deity. Does the author say that then it was 
 only the man Christ Jesus that died. I ask is 
 it only the body that dies, because itis the body 
 only that is buried? Is not the soul involved in 
 the death of the man as well as the body ?—We 
 know that the Deity cannot suffer pain, neither 
 can the mere body of man. We know that 
 the Deity cannot die nor be buried nor corrupt 
 in the grave, neither can the soul of man, Yet 
 we know that both the body and the soul of man 
 are involved in the sentence of death that is exe- 
 cuted on man. So the Deity was morally in- 
 volved in the death of the Lord Jesus. The in- 
 sult was offered to him ; the blow was aimed at 
 him; and the forbearance and humility in sub- 
 
 mitting to such an outrage were manifested by 
 him. : 
 
 * Page 37, 
 
108 What is implied in the manifestation §c. 
 
 O that men, instead of cavilling at these asto- 
 nishing displays of the condescension and love 
 of the Great God, even to the most guilty of his 
 creatures, would be persuaded to look and 
 wonder, and adore; and to cast themselves into 
 the arms of a parent, who pours forth all the 
 tenderness of his affection to allure them back to 
 his home and his bosom. But if they shall ne- 
 glect such manifestations of goodness and mercy 
 —if they shall despise this sacrifice which has 
 been made for sin; what can they expect but a 
 certain fearful looking for of judgment, and their 
 portion in that fiery indignation which shall de- 
 your the adversaries. 
 
 Wer have however hitherto been taking it for 
 granted, that the Blessed Jesus was God mani- 
 fest in the flesh; and have been only explain- 
 ing what we should understand by such a mani- 
 festation of God. We have yet to examine the 
 Scriptures to find whether Jesus was really God 
 manifest in the flesh; and all that I have ex- 
 pected to accomplish by the explanations given 
 in this chapter, is to remove such prejudices as 
 might prevent my readers from attending to the 
 intimations of Scripture with teachableness and 
 candour, 
 
CHAP. V. 
 
 JESUS CHRIST DECLARED TO BE GOD. 
 
 WE now come to the direct examination of 
 Scripture, for the purpose of discovering what the 
 Spirit of God has revealed, respecting the per- 
 son of the Lord Jesus, | 
 
 And I shall introduce this department of our 
 work by conceding, that if the Divine nature of 
 the Blessed Jesus were intimated in but one or 
 two insulated texts; if these intimations were 
 altogether unsupported by corresponding inti- 
 mations respecting him; if, in every other view 
 given of him, he appeared as a mere man, or 
 superior to man, but still a creature ; I should be 
 disposed, at least if it were possible on any fair 
 principle of criticism, to understand these one or 
 two insulated passages which seemed to declare 
 him to be God, in some figurative sense. For if 
 it be true that the Lord Jesus was indeed God 
 manifested in the flesh, it may be expected that 
 so wonderful an event as the manifestation of 
 God in human nature, nay as a peor despised 
 man, will be more fully developed than by a bare 
 intimation of it. But if L find in Scripture not 
 only explicit intimations that J esus was God ap- 
 pearing in the garb of humanity ; but that these 
 intimations are supported in a great variety of 
 particulars ; that names, titles, attributes and 
 
 L 
 
110 Jesus Christ declared to be Ged. 
 
 works of God are ascribed to him; that a wor- 
 ship and service are claimed for him, which, un- 
 less he were God, would be rank idolatry, I 
 cannot refrain from receiving the fact thus so 
 plainly revealed, without relinquishing my belief 
 of the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures. 
 
 Is Jesus Christ really called Gop? If he be 
 so even ina single instance, it is extraordinary in 
 a book which so strongly condemns idolatry— 
 in the only book in the world from which we 
 could learn the evil of idolatry. It is pleaded 
 that the word God is used in an inferior sense, 
 namely, to signify judges or magistrates. But 
 ‘there must be some distinction in the use of the 
 word when it is employed in this inferior sense, 
 else it might be inferred that no God is revealed 
 in the Bible, but merely magistrates. The 
 truth is, that there is no more difficulty in 
 determining when the Hebrew word is used in 
 its supreme or subordinate sense, than in deter- 
 mining when our word Lord signifies the su- 
 preme God or some officer in the state. If any 
 man speak of the Lords, or of Lord so and s0, 
 adding some title, or of the learned or noble Lord, 
 no one imagines that he speaks of the great God ; 
 but if he. say simply ‘ Zhe Lord,’ especially if it 
 he in connexion with a religious subject, every one 
 «hohears him instantly understands that hespeaks 
 of the Creator. The supposed ambiguity of the 
 Hebrew word is in fact nothing, no one is ever 
 in doubt about the application of it. With re- 
 gard to the Greek word rendered God, used in 
 the New Testament, there is no ambiguity what- 
 ever attached to it. When itis used plurally, or 
 when a specific title is annexed to it, like our 
 own word God, it is employed to designate the 
 false gods of the heathen. But the appellation, 
 Gop, without such limitation or explanation, 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 111 
 
 whether with or without the article, is never 
 used in any sense but one, and that is to desig- 
 nate the supreme, eternal God. Nor is there a 
 single instance in the whole New Testament of 
 that title being given to any mere man or angel, 
 unless our Blessed Lord be so. No individual 
 apostle, or prophet, or king, or judge is ever dis- 
 tinguished by that title; but it is most sacrediy 
 appropriated to the one living and true God. It 
 occurs upwards of 1500 times in the New Testa- 
 ment, in all of which its signification is perfectly 
 uniform. 
 
 Is then this. title given to the Lord Jesus 
 Christ? I must refer the reader for an answer 
 to the following passages of Scripture, with the 
 observations upon them :— 
 
 “In the beginning was the Word, and the 
 Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
 And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among 
 us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the 
 only begotten of the Father, full of grace and 
 truth.”* Nothing can be more express than this. 
 That by the Word is meant Jesus, in his original 
 nature, before he ‘ came down from heaven,’ is 
 manifest; because it is said that the Word was 
 made flesh and dweltamong us. Then it is said 
 of that Word, that he was with God, and that 
 he was God. This is the plain import of the 
 words requiring no ingenuity to discover it.— 
 Nor does our author, or any other Unitarian 
 writer pretend that they will not bear this sense ; 
 although some of them have, with much inge- 
 nuity, attempted to prove that they may possibly 
 be capable of another sense. Let us now see 
 what our author says respecting this passage. 
 
 * John i. 1. 14. 
 
112 Jesus Christ declared to be Ged. 
 
 “ Waiving any discussion relative to the different 
 senses of the term beginning ; or to the absence of 
 the Greek article before @<o¢ ( Theos,) he (the au- 
 thor) thinks the verse may be clearly understood on 
 Unitarian principles, without any difficulty. By 
 ‘the word,’ or Aoyos (logos) he understands, with 
 many able and learned expositors, the divine wisdom, 
 an essential attribute of Deity, here personified by 
 the Evangelist, as by Solomon in the book of Pro- 
 verbs, where she is introduced, saying, ‘ The Lord 
 possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his 
 works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from 
 the beginning, or ever the earth was—I was by him 
 as one brought up with him. —Prov. viii. 22, 23, 30. 
 John affirms that the logos, or wisdom existed from 
 the beginning—or from all eternity, that it dwelt 
 with God; nay, that it was God himself; that all 
 things (all things probably relative to the Christian 
 dispensation) were done by or through its influence. 
 It is displayed in all the works of creation, and in 
 all the communications of grace, but eminently so in 
 the person, character, and ministry of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ. “The word became flesh.” The 
 wisdom of the most High, spake by the mouth of 
 man. The Evangelist no where affirms that the 
 eternal God became incarnate; or if he does—it is 
 where he says, ‘ If we love one another God dwel- 
 leth in us.—1 John iv. 12. -This is just as strong a 
 text in proof that God becomes incarnate in every 
 pious man, as any in all revelation, that he was 
 incarnate in the person of our Lord. Other attri- 
 butes, besides wisdom, are spoken of in a similar style’ 
 in the sacred writers, and particularly in John.— 
 Thus it is written God is love—God is truth—God 
 is light, i. e. knowledge, omniscience. We might con- 
 vert each of these propositions, after the manner of 
 John, and say, love is God—truth is God—light 
 is God, with as much propriety as he says the Word 
 was God. But who would dream of making each of 
 these attributes a person distinct from the great 
 Being, to whom alone they inherently belong? Of 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 113 
 
 each of them also it might be predicated, as well as 
 of the ‘ Word,’ that it became flesh—for each of 
 them was equally manifested in the actions and dis- 
 courses of our Saviour. But to attribute personality 
 to the Word; and then to affirm that the person 
 meant is Christ, and that Christ was God, and with 
 God, forms a proposition rather too profound to be 
 fathomed by the line and the plummet of a common 
 understanding. If to render it less unfathomable, it 
 be affirmed that by any one of the Gods is meant 
 God the Son, and by the other, God the Father, the 
 Unitarian demands such reasons for this explana- 
 tion as ought td satisfy a reader of common sense, 
 who is ignorant of Cabbalistic philosophy, and when 
 such reasons are given, he will insist farther on 
 knowing by what principle, one part of revelation 
 is made to overthrow another: and wherefore the 
 first verse of St. John is interpreted in such a way, 
 as to contradict the positive declaration of Jehovah 
 himself, that with him there is no God. ‘ Z, even J, am 
 he, and there is no God with me.’—Deuter. xxxii. 
 39.; neither is there any God besides him. ‘ The 
 Lord he is God; there is none else besides him.”— 
 iv. 35. “Is there a God besides me? Yea there 
 is no God; I KNow not any.’—Is. xliv. 8.* 
 
 Our author claims some credit for waiving 
 any discussion respecting the different senses of 
 the term beginning and also of the title God ; for 
 his language in his first edition is, ‘* Waiving 
 any advantage that he might derive from a criti- 
 cal investigation,” &c. But the fact is that he 
 here alludes to an interpretation of the whole 
 text totally inconsistent with that which he has 
 adopted; and he has of course selected that 
 which seemed to him the just one. The other 
 interpretation is adopted by Dr. Bruce, who 
 feels no difficulty in‘applying the passage to our 
 
 * Page 42, 44, Ed, 2d 
 L 3 
 
114 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 Lord. ‘ TheWord was God,” was says he, ‘a ce- 
 lestial being, and was with God in the beginning.” 
 Here he understands the word God, on its first 
 occurrence in an inferior sense, to designate a 
 creature, and on its second occurrence, in its 
 highest sense, to designate the Creator. And 
 of course he takes a limited view of the term 
 beginning. Our author however asserts that by 
 “the Word,” John did not mean a person, but 
 the attribute of wisdom in the Deity; that by 
 God in both occurrences, is meant the supreme 
 God: and demands reasons for understanding it _ 
 of God the Son in the one case, and of God the 
 Father in the other. By the phrase in the be- 
 ginning he understands from eternity; because 
 the wisdom of God must necessarily have been 
 with him from eternity. We may therefore 
 leave Dr. Bruce’s interpretation in the hands of 
 Dr. Drummond. In doing so however, I shall to 
 Dr. Drummond@’s questions add another, namely, 
 can Dr. Bruce find another instance in the whole 
 of the New Testament of the title God, in the sin- 
 gular number, being used to designateany creature, 
 without the addition of such a limitation as 
 clearly marks the meaning of the inspired writer? 
 <The God of this world,” “ Your God Rem- 
 phan,” ‘ Gods many,” &c. are not cases in point. 
 The word God is there limited by the terms with 
 which it is connected. The English word God 
 may be applied in the same manner. The gods 
 of the heathen, the god Jupiter, &c. are common 
 phrases; and yet would any one misunderstand 
 the meaning of the assertion, ‘ Christ is God.’ 
 To say, Christ is a God, would be to assert that 
 he is a false deity, one among a number. The 
 absence of the article in Greek has no such force 
 as the addition of the indefinite article in English, 
 which is. the word ‘ one’ nearly in its original 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 115 
 
 form, and implies that there are others 
 besides that which is mentioned. The ab- 
 sence of the Greek article merely determines 
 that it is the predicate, and not the subject 
 of the proposition, and therefore precludes 
 the inversion which our author proposes on 
 other passages. Doctor Bruce refers to the 
 phrase, ‘see I. have made thee a god to Pha- 
 raoh.”* But this also is limited by the addition 
 of the words ‘ to Pharaoh,’ and would perhaps 
 be better rendered, “‘ See I have made thee God 
 to Pharaoh ;” there being no article in the He- 
 brew having the force of our indefinite article : 
 and it is explained in a previous passage referring 
 _ to the same arrangement, “ He (i.e. Aaron) shall 
 be to thee instead of a mouth ; and thou shalt be 
 to him instead ‘of God.”+ That cause must be 
 desperate which is content to grasp at straws 
 such as these. 
 
 But leaving Dr. Bruce’s interpretation to the 
 decision of his brother Unitarian, let us attend 
 to the interpretation which our author proposes. 
 
 In the first place he asserts that the passage 
 does not relate to our Lord, but that John com- 
 mences his history of Jesus with a poetical per- 
 sonification of the Divine attribute of wisdom.— 
 As the most effectual refutation of this hypothesis, 
 
 ‘I would recommend to my readers to peruse at- 
 tentively the whole of the first chapter of the Gos- 
 pel by John, keeping in mind that they are read- 
 ing the introduction to a history of our Lord in 
 prose, marked by unusual simplicity of diction. 
 *¢ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
 was with God. And the Word was God: the 
 same was in the beginning with God. All 
 things were made by him, and without him 
 was not any thing made that was made: in 
 
 * Exod, vii. 1, t Exod. iv. 16. 
 
116 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 him was life, and the life was the light of men. 
 That was the true light, which lighteth every 
 man that cometh into the world. He was in 
 the world, and the world was made by him, and 
 the world knew him not. He came unto his 
 own and his own received him not. And the 
 Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and 
 we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only be- 
 gotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.— 
 John bare witness of him and cried, saying, 
 This was he of whom I spake. He that 
 cometh after me is preferred before me; for 
 he was before me: and of his fulness have all 
 ave received, and grace for grace. For the 
 law was given by Moses, but grace and truth 
 came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God 
 at any time; the only begotten Son, which is 
 in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared 
 him.”* It is surely not wonderful that Dr. 
 Bruce and the authors of the Unitarian version 
 of the New Testament, with I believe almost all 
 Unitarian writers, should, on the perusal of such 
 declarations as these, admit that by “the Word,” 
 is meant Jesus Christ. Our author should cer- 
 tainly feel himself bound to give an explanation 
 of all these expressions, and of others in the 
 same chapter, before he can reasonably expect 
 that any one should adopt his hypothesis that 
 by the Word, is not meant Jesus Christ. 
 
 Our author says that by the term, “ Word,” 
 he understands the Divine attribute of wisdom. 
 Can he produce a single instance in the whole 
 Scripture of the use of the word logos in this 
 sense, or a single instance in the Septuagint of the 
 Greck word logos employed to translate the He- 
 brew word which is used to express the Divine 
 
 * Johni. 1, 4, 9—11, 14—18. 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. iT 
 
 attribute of wisdom? How can he expect that 
 we should admit a meaning ascribed to.a word, of 
 which he does not furnish us with one solitary 
 example ? 
 
 He refers us to the poetical description of Wis- 
 dom in Prov. viii. There, however, the word 
 used in the Septuagint is not logos but sophia. 
 It is not improbable that, in this personification of 
 Wisdom, there may be a reference to the Lord 
 Jesus; that is, that Jesus as a divine person may 
 be described, or at least alluded to in the per- 
 sonification. Making every allowance for the 
 bold figures admitted into lyric poetry, not 
 merely in the east, but in all regions of the 
 earth, it is difficult to conceive how some of the 
 expressions used by Solomon are applicable to a 
 mere attribute. For example— When he pre- 
 pared the heavens I was there; then was I by 
 him, as one brought up with him, and I was 
 daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 
 rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and 
 my delights were with the sons of men.’* T 
 would not assert that, in the bold spirit of lyric 
 poetry, such language might not be used with 
 regard to a Divine attribute; but to imagine 
 that any writer of a simple prese narrative, 
 should commence his narrative with a personifi- 
 cation which it is difficult to conceive of being 
 admitted into the loftiest flights of poetical 
 composition, and that in such a personification 
 a word should be employed in a sense of which 
 there is not a single example in the whole 
 Scripture, is an outrage on all legitimate cri- 
 ticism. 
 
 But this meaning of the word logos is adopted, 
 not only in the absence of any example of its 
 
 MP PLOV. Ville lem, 31. 
 
118 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 bearing such a meaning, but in opposition to the 
 unequivocal use of it by this apostle, as a title 
 of our blessed Lord. ‘And I saw heaven 
 opened, and behold a white horse; and he that 
 sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and 
 in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 
 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his 
 head were many crowns; and he had a name 
 written that no man knew but he himself. And 
 he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood; 
 and his name is called, the Word of God.”* 
 With the remainder of our author’s criticism 
 it will not be necessary to detain the reader long. 
 Having thus satisfied himself that the word 
 logos signifies the attribute of wisdom; he next 
 tells us, that that attribute is displayed “in all 
 the works of creation, and in all the communica- 
 tions of grace, but eminently so in the person, 
 character and ministry of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ:” which, I suppose, is his explanation 
 of the expressions, “ All things were made by 
 him, and without him was not any thing made 
 that was made. In him was life, and the life 
 was the light of men. He was in the world, 
 and the world was made by him, and the world 
 knew him not. He came to his own, and his 
 own received, him not.” By the Word being 
 made flesh, he understands, ‘* The wisdom of the 
 most High, spake by the mouth of man,” and 
 referring to 1John iv. 12., “if welove one another 
 God dwelleth in us,” he asserts that this is Just as 
 strong a text in proof that God becomes incarnate 
 in every pious man, as any in all revelation, that 
 he was incarnate in the person of our Lord. It 
 is however no where said in Scripture, with 
 reference to any individual, that God was made 
 
 * Rey. xix. 11—13. 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 119 
 
 flesh by dwelling in him. Nor does this text 
 offer any explanation of a Divine attribute being 
 made flesh, which is a form of expression unheard 
 of, and, as a manner of stating the simple truth, 
 that the wisdom of God spoke by a prophet, is 
 as forced and unnatural as can well be conceived. 
 The Divine wisdom spoke by all the prophets 
 and apostles; and yet of none of them is it said, 
 that it was made flesh in them. Besides, if by 
 “the Word” is not meant the Lord Jesns, where 
 does our author find the reference to Jesus at 
 all ? 
 
 Let us however suppose these difficulties got 
 over, and this point conceded, and what then ? 
 What of, “The Word was God?” Why, then, 
 our author goes on to tell us that this apostle 
 elsewhere says, “God is love, God is truth, 
 God is light; and that he might have said, 
 (although he does not) God is wisdom.” Well, 
 suppose him to have said so, and what next? 
 Why, in the next place, he might have said, 
 (although he does not) love is God, truth is 
 God, light is God, and consequently he might 
 also have said, wisdom is God; and this he adds, 
 would have been in his own style; although 
 there is neither in his writings, nor in any other 
 part of Scripture a proposition so monstrous. 
 ‘We might convert,” says he, “each of these 
 ‘propositions, after the manner of John, and say, 
 love is God, &c. with as much propriety,” 
 (mark his words) ‘as he” (speaking as. he 
 was moved by the Holy Ghost) “says the 
 Word was God.” It so happens however 
 that these sentences are not capable of this 
 inyersion. The Greek language, more precise 
 in this than ours, determines, by the use of 
 the article, which noun is the subject, and 
 which is the predicate of the proposition.— 
 
120 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 But this difficulty surmounted, we are still only 
 at the proposition, “‘ Wisdom is God ;” whereas 
 that of the Evangelist is, “‘ The Word was God.” 
 Our author gives us no reason for the change of 
 the past into the present tense, which, in the 
 statement of a truth such as that, God is wise, 
 would be -very extraordinary. He however 
 informs us in another passage, on the authority 
 of Wakefield, that the peculiar use of the present 
 tense for the past, is to imply determination and 
 certainty; and, by parity of reason, I should 
 suppose, that the use of the past for the present, 
 is to imply indetermination and uncertainty : 
 so that, after this laborious journey, we have 
 at last reached the conclusion, that wisdom iS, 
 but with indetermination and uncertainty, God. 
 And this our author calls explaining a text on 
 Unitarian principles. To arrive at this inter- 
 pretation, if interpretation that can be called 
 which reduces the passage to as unmeaning a 
 succession of propositions as can well be con- 
 ceived, and to which there is nothing that bears 
 any resemblance in the whole Bible; we must 
 receive, not one, but successively seven of 
 the most extravagant suppositions which have 
 ever been resorted to in cases of the utmost 
 emergency. ‘In the beginning was wisdom, 
 and wisdom was with God, and wisdom is God.” 
 Let the author distinctly state the difference of 
 sense between these two last propositions— 
 ** wisdom was with God, and wisdom is God,” 
 or acknowledge that he conceives the apostle to 
 have written an unmeaning tautology. 
 
 The latter part of the criticism is founded on 
 fallacies which have already been exposed, 
 namely, first, that “the plummet of a common 
 understanding” is the standard of truth, so that 
 whatever it cannot “fathom” must be false : and, 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 12] 
 
 secondly, that by believing Jesus to be God, and 
 with God, we believe that there are two Gods. 
 It also implies that we conceive that by the word 
 God, on its first oecurrence, is meant God the 
 Father, and on its second occurrence, God the 
 Son. This however is not at all necessary, 
 although instances of such changes in the use of 
 words sometimes occur; as doubtless Dr. Bruce 
 will be prepared to convince our author, since 
 he not only believes that such a change takes 
 place here, but also supposes that in the one case 
 the word is used in its proper sense, God 
 Almighty, and in the other in an inferior sense, 
 to signify merely a celestial being. Bat let it be 
 remembered, that the word God is not a proper 
 name, but a title denoting the dignity, character 
 and station, if I may so speak, of the Supreme 
 Being. It may be compared to our word, King, 
 not the name of the individual who holds that 
 office; but the name of his rank and station. 
 When therefore ‘it is said that the * Word was 
 God,” the meaning is, that the Word possessed 
 the dignity, character and station of God. Ac 
 if it were, “The Word was King.” And when 
 it is said the ** Word was with God,” the plirase 
 signifies that, in another point of view, the Word 
 was with one who possessed that dignity, cha- 
 racter and station. The passages of Scripture 
 referred to at the conclusion of the criticism 
 would be pertinent, if we pretended that there 
 was a second God besides the supreme God ; or 
 if it could be shown that they are spoken by God 
 the Father with reference to the Son: But per- 
 haps it may be shown in the sequel, that these 
 declarations, namely, that there is no God with 
 God, that there is none besides him; are made 
 respecting the Son, regarded asthe manifestation 
 of the invisible Jehovah to his creatures, 
 M 
 
122 Jesus Christ declared to be Ged. 
 
 I hold therefore that the plain and obvious 
 meaning of the words of this text, namely that 
 the Saviour was from eternity with God, and 
 was God, stands, after the scrutiny of eighteen 
 centuries, and after all that the most ingenious 
 and learned men have been able to invent. or 
 discover tothe contrary, absolutely untouched. 
 
 The next text to which I would call the reader’s 
 attention is Rom. ix. 5. ‘* Whose are the fathers, 
 and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ 
 came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.— 
 Amen.” Nothing can be more express or dis- 
 tinct than this, *‘ Christ, who is over all, God 
 blessed for ever.” And here again no Unitarian 
 writer has ventured to assert that these words 
 will not bear the translation here given of them, 
 or even that this is not the most obvious and 
 natural sense of them. The utmost that is at- 
 tempted is to show that they are capable of 
 another translation; although what that other 
 translation is, or ought to be, they are by no 
 means agreed. This passage has heen a most 
 perplexing one to Unitarian writers. No less 
 than five different meanings have been succes-~ 
 sively proposed and abandoned by them. Some 
 would read, ** Of whom by natural descent the 
 Christ came. God who is over all be blessed 
 for ever.” Others would say, ‘‘ Whose are the 
 fathers, and of whom the Christ came, who is 
 above them all. God be blessed for ever.”— 
 Others would say, ‘“‘ Of whom the Christ came, 
 who is over all things. God be blessed for ever.” 
 But these translations which would make the 
 latter clause an insulated ascription of blessed- 
 ness to God, have been found to. be untenable ; 
 because there is no instance in the New Testa- 
 ment, or in the Greek translation of the Qld Tes-~ 
 
 EO 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 123 
 
 tament of an ascription of blessedness to God in 
 the form observed in the words of this text,— 
 that in such a sense it would not be grammati- 
 cal.* Others would therefore read, * Of whom 
 the Christ came, who is as God over all blessed 
 for ever ;”—thus introduciig the word as into the 
 text, without a shadow of authority. The change 
 of the words, “ as concerning the flesh,” into 
 “ by natural descent,” is an unwarrantable 
 iberty, and divests the latter part of the sentence 
 of its obvious antithetic form. The apostle, in 
 stating it to be one of the privileges of the Jews, 
 that of them was the Messiah, guards his ex- 
 pression by intimating that he was of them only 
 in an inferior sense, as concerning the flesh: for 
 that he was, in his original nature, God over 2)! 
 blessed for ever. 
 
 With none of these interpretations is our au- 
 thor satisfied, as appears by the following cri- 
 tique. 
 
 *“ One text, Rom. ix. 5. Of whom as concerning 
 the flesh, &c. is supposed to afford ample proof, that 
 one, at least, of the foregoing titles, is applied to 
 Christ. But this is a text which, in the opinion of 
 
 * Our author I observe in a note appended to his second 
 Edition, asserts that this criticism is shown, to be not worth 
 the paper on which it is written by a single text from the Sep- 
 
 tuagint—Ps. Ixviii. 19. “ Grabii Septu. Yar. EZ 20.” What! 
 a criticism, which ascertains the import of a Greek form of 
 phraseology of very frequent occurrence, with a single exception, 
 not worth the paper on which it is written! ‘This is a strange 
 judgment from a Scripture critic. On examination however 
 it will be found that the alleged exception is no exception what- 
 ever. Itis not the expression of a desire that God may be 
 blessed ; but a declaration that God is blessed ; or rather a title 
 given to God,—the Lord, the blessed God. Besides in the pas- 
 sage in Rom, ix. the word theos has not the article, whereas in 
 Ps. Ixviii. the article is prefixed. And the want of the article, 
 as has been proved By Middleton and others, determines the last 
 clause of the verse, “ who is over all, God blessed for ever,” to 
 be predicated of Christ, who had been mentioned just before. 
 The passage however in the Ixx. does not correspond with the 
 Hebrew, and is manifestly corrupt, 
 
[24 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 the most learned critics, admits of a very different 
 interpretation. The ascription, in this solitary. in- 
 stance, of a title to Christ, which is given to him 
 no where else, and which belongs peculiarly to the 
 Father, naturally leads us to suspect an erroneous 
 reading. Grotius informs us (ex Syro) that ancient 
 copies had not the word God—but ran thus 6 wy 
 ETL TaVT ay EUAOYHTOS, which reading, he observes, 
 iS more consistent with Paul’s style, for when 
 he speaks of Father and Son together, he terms the 
 former God and the latter Lord. He farther re- 
 marks that according to Erasmus, this was the read- 
 ing of the old copies of Cyprian, and that it -was 
 tallowed both by Hilary and Chrysostome. Hence 
 there is sufficient reason to conclude that there has 
 been some corruption or dislocation of the words in 
 the text ; and we are led still more strongly to this 
 conclusion by the subject itself. It seems strange 
 that the apostle, in enumerating to the Jews their 
 peculiar privileges, should omit the greatest of all, 
 that of having God himself, in a special manner for 
 their king, and supreme legislator. It has accord- 
 ingly been suggested that the transposition of two 
 little words* 6 ay to wy 6, the participle now be- 
 coming the genitive plural of a pronoun, the same 
 as that which precedes it, will probably restore the 
 original reading ; supply the omission which has been 
 remarked; complete a noble climax agreeable to 
 the apostle’s style of composition, and certainly add 
 great force and beauty to the passage. It will then 
 read in connexion with the preceding verse, thus: 
 —The Israelites whose is the adoption, and the glory, 
 and the eovenants and the giving of the law, and 
 the service of God, and the promises, whose are the 
 Fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ 
 came, whose is the God over all blessed for ever.’+ 
 
 * This is not a fair statement of the alteration proposed, be- 
 cause the aspirates, marked by small commas, are in ancient 
 manuscripts expressed by letters. The author imagines that, 
 in every manuscript extant, the letters HONHO have been 
 converted into HOON which is incredible, especially as the 
 sense is totally altered by the change. + Page 24. 
 
 — ee a. 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 125 
 
 _ In a note our author informs us that Whitb 
 and Taylor of Norwich, have each the merit of 
 making the same ingenious criticism, nearly at 
 the same time. They it seems however borrowed 
 it from Crellius or Slichtingius, Socinian writers : 
 and eur author here, again presents himself as 
 the disciple of these most learned critics ; by con- 
 senting, on their suggestion, to alter the words 
 of the sacred record, and to ascribe a meaning to 
 this passage of Scripture which never seems to 
 have entered into the mind of any Christian 
 writer for 1600 years. 
 
 But let us examine the arguments by which 
 this proposed alteration of the words of Scrip- 
 ture is vindicated. He tells us that Grotius, 
 a Unitarian writer, found some manuscripts of 
 the Syriac translation, (as I understand him, )* 
 Jn which the word God, in this text, is omitted, 
 in all probability by the mistake of one copyist, 
 and by the others following him; and that the 
 same Grotius further says that Erasmus, Says, 
 that Cyprian and Hilary and Chrysostome read 
 this text without the word God. Well, let it be 
 supposed that we receive this hearsay evidence, 
 at second or third hand, and believe that the 
 word God was omitted in some ancient Copies ; 
 although it now appears in every manuscript 
 extant, and in every translation, not excepting 
 the Syriac. Does he then propose that we should 
 omit the word God. Not at all, that would ruin 
 his criticism. He only pleads that such varia- 
 tions show that there has been some dislocation 
 
 * Our author has certainly fallen into some inadvertency in 
 his note appended to his second Edition. He says ** Grotius 
 did not confine his observation to one version, for he Says veteres 
 codices.” But codex does not signify version, but copy or 
 manuscript ; and our author must have meant one manuscript, 
 and not one version. 
 
 M3 
 
126 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 in the words of the text. And this inference he 
 strengthens by noticing some trifling variations 
 in the previous part of the verse, such as may be 
 found in manuscripts, or fathers, or versions, or 
 single copies of versions, in almost every verse 
 of the New Testament. Having thus reduced the 
 text to chaos—resolved it into its elements, he 
 proceeds to make it up again according to his 
 own taste: and the only variation in the words, 
 affecting the sense, which the author brings for- - 
 ward, he himself will not adopt. 3 
 But his interpretation is abandoned as un- 
 tenable by Belsham, a Unitarian writer, not 
 at all scrupulous about the liberties which he 
 takes with the sacred text. He says of it, ** This 
 conjecture, ingenious and even probable as it is, 
 not being supported by a single manuscript, ver- 
 sion or authority, cannot be admitted into the 
 text.” Yet he is extremely unwilling to part 
 with it, for he adds—‘ But one may almost be- 
 lieve that. the present reading might. be owing 
 to an inadyertency in one of the earliest trans- 
 cribers, if not the apostle’s own amanuensis.” 
 The translators of the Unitarian version of the 
 New Testament mention this alteration of the 
 text, in a note, with much approbation ; but have 
 not dared to insert it in the text. Whether Bel- 
 sham’s conscience. became afterwards more 
 seared, as our author seems to intimate in his 
 second edition, so that he became capable of 
 adopting an alteration in the words of Scripture, 
 which he had formerly felt himself compelled to 
 abandon, I know not; but it is manifest that his 
 first judgment, however reluctantly pronounced, 
 was the judgment of truth and soberness,—that 
 
 * Belsham’s free Enquiry, page 224, as quoted by Dr. Ward- 
 law. 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God, 127 
 
 the alteration “ cannot he admitted, not being 
 Supported by a single manuscript, version or 
 authority.” 
 
 It is besides necessary to remark, that, to esta- 
 blish this alteration in the words of the text, 
 another transposition must take place besides 
 that of the * two little words’—( Is it not a 
 little one?”) It is admitted that the apostle is 
 summing up the privileges of the Jews, and ac- 
 cordingly introduces the last particular by the 
 conjunction and. “ Who are Israelites, to whom 
 pertaineth the adoption, &e. whose are the fa- 
 thers, and of whom Christ came.” But if the 
 next clause is to be added to the particulars of 
 the Jewish privileges, the word and must be 
 transposed from where it stands to the beginning 
 of the following clause thus, “ Whose are the 
 fathers, of whom Christ came, and whose is over 
 all God blessed for ever.” It may be added that 
 in a prose sentence, the latter clause is forced 
 and unnatural. Had this been the meaning of 
 it, the word God, would have been placed before 
 the words, over all. “ Whose is God over all,” 
 not, Whose is over all God. 
 
 With regard to our author’s plea of a noble 
 climax, arotundity of conclusion, and so forth, it 
 is rendered, to use one of his own expressions, 
 not worth the paper it is written upon by a 
 single text. ‘* Is he the God of the Jews only ? 
 Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes of the Gen- 
 tiles also.”* To which may be added another— 
 ‘“‘ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what 
 profit is there of cireumcision?. Much every 
 way; chiefly, because that unto them were com- 
 mitted the oracles of God.”+ How did not the 
 apostle mention here that which our Unitarian 
 
 * Rom, iii. 29, } Rom. tii. ¥, 2. 
 
128 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 friends would persuade us was the chief privilege 
 of the Jews, that to them belonged God over all ? 
 With regard to any peculiar sense in which he 
 was the God of the Jews, it is included in the 
 particulars mentioned by the apostle, ‘ To 
 them pertained the adoption, and the glory and 
 the covenants, and the giving of the law, and 
 the service of God, and the promises; that to 
 them belonged the fathers, and of them as con- 
 cerning the flesh Christ came.” After this 
 enumeration of particulars, the addition that 
 God belonged to them, would either have been 
 a statement of error, a contradiction of what the 
 apostle had previously asserted in this very 
 epistle,—that God was the God of the Gentiles 
 as well as of the Jews; or it would have been 
 an unmeaning tautology: and nothing can be 
 more alien from “ the apostle’s style of compo- 
 sition,” than, for the sake of a noble climax, and 
 a rotundity of conclusion, to promulgate error, 
 er to write nonsense. Besides, the sentence has 
 2 much nobler climax and rotundity as it stands. > 
 It states as the last and highest privilege of the 
 Jews, that among them should arise that glorious 
 personage, who should be the manifestation of 
 the blessed God to guilty ruined men for their 
 salvation. According to the critical taste of our 
 author and Mr. Wakefield, the apostle is made 
 to notice in regular succession the Jewish privi- 
 leges, except that he places last, that which na- 
 turally would have been mentioned first ; namely 
 that God was their God, and that to them conse- 
 quently belonged the adoption, and the glory, 
 and the covenants, and the giving of the law.— 
 But the apostle commencing with their original 
 privilege—their adoption as the children of God, 
 enumerates those privileges that followed,—the 
 glory of God made manifest among them, the 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 129 
 
 covenants established with them, the law given, 
 the service of God appointed, the promises ad- 
 dressed to them, the fathers—the prophets aris- 
 ing among them, till he comes to the last and 
 greatest of all—the manifestation of the great 
 God among them, in human nature—a more glo- 
 rious manifestation than that which was made 
 to their fathers in the brightest periods of their 
 history. After Christ came, God was no longer, 
 in any sense, peculiarly their God; and the men- 
 tion of their ancient privilege after the coming 
 of Christ, when it had ceased to exist, would be 
 most unnatural. The proper reply however to 
 the proposal to alter the words of the Bible is 
 still as before, “it cannot be admitted, because it 
 rests on no authority.” , 
 
 I observe that, in his second edition, our au- 
 thor has provided a reserve in the event of his 
 readers revolting from his proposed unauthorised, 
 and unhallowed mutilation of the words of in- 
 spiration. ‘* Supposing the original text not to 
 be corrupted,” says he, ‘ the passage may be ren- 
 dered thus: “God who is over all be blessed 
 for ever.”* «“* Supposing !” On what a slender 
 thread the faith of a Unitarian hangs? In re- 
 gard to this passage of Scripture it is suspended 
 _ by two suppositions—one, that the text is cor- 
 rupted, which has no evidence to sustain it, that 
 would support the weight of a straw; the other, 
 that the text is not corrupted, which, in the au- 
 thor’s opinion, has a still feebler support. For 
 although he brings forward this translation, it is 
 manifest that he prefers to it his proposed mu- 
 tilation of the text. He cannot therefore have 
 much confidence in it; and we have already 
 seen that it is utterly unworthy of confidence, 
 
 * Page 28, Ed. 2d, 
 
1380 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 being a violation of the uniform practice of the 
 Greek language. 
 
 Here then we have, I conceive, found another 
 instance of the ascription of the title God, nay, 
 and ‘* God over all blessed for ever” to the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, on which the .Unitarian crucible 
 has made no impression whatever. 
 
 Another passage commented on by our author 
 is Heb. 1. 8, 9.—*‘* But unto the Son he saith, 
 thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a 
 sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy 
 kingdom: thou hast loved righteousness and 
 hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, 
 hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness 
 above thy fellows.” This passage needs no com- 
 ment :—it is as clear and express. as language 
 ean be. To the Son he (God) saith, thy throne 
 O God is for ever and ever, &c. 
 
 The author’s comment is as follows. 
 
 “Even the address of the Father to the Son in 
 the 8th and 9th verses, demonstrates the superiority 
 of the former. This address is borrowed from the 
 xlv. Psalm, and was originally a part of Solomon’s 
 Kpithalamium, on his marriage with Pharaoh’s 
 daughter; and a small portion of this “ Song of 
 loves,” as it is entitled in the original, is, in this 
 chapter of the Hebrews, very properly accommo- 
 dated to Christ, who, as well as Solomon, was a Son 
 or descendant of David. If the words were appli- 
 cable to Solomon, much more were they applicable 
 to Christ, for “ behold a greater than Solomon is 
 here.” They are thus rendered by Doctor Young, a 
 scholar and divine, not less distinguished by pro- 
 found erudition than by elegance of taste. ‘ Thy 
 throne, O Price, is for ever and ever, a sceptre of 
 rjghteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom,’ &e. 
 
 ‘‘ However just and appropriate the application 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. Ist 
 
 of these verses to Christ, they can have none to the 
 Eternal and Almighty ONE. He cannot be ap- 
 pointed to any office s—appointment implies a 
 greater and a less; he cannot be made the agent of 
 any other---he cannot be anointed---and he can 
 have no fellows,”* 
 
 The whole of this critique is marked by a 
 temerity that. is absolutely appalling. In ‘the 
 first place, there is not a shadow of evidence 
 that the Psalm was ever addressed to Solomon. 
 The name of Solomon is not once mentioned in it. 
 Even if it were called “a Song of loves,” in the 
 original of the Psalm, that would not prove 
 that it had any connexion with Solomon. But 
 it is called so only in the title, and these titles 
 are held in so little esteem as to he omitted in 
 some editions of the Bible. In the second place, 
 the inspired apostle expressly declares that it is 
 an address of God to the Son of God; and the 
 author himself admits that it is an address of the 
 Father to the Son. “‘ Fyen the address,” says 
 he, ‘* of the Father to the Son.” How he can 
 reconcile this admission with its being an ad- 
 dress to Solomon, accommodated to Christ by the 
 apostle, is to me utterly incomprehensible.— 
 Whose address to Solomon? Is it the address 
 of Almighty God to him? Or is the author of 
 the Psalm to be compared to God the Father, 
 as Solomon is to Christ? In the third place, to 
 suppose these words addressed to Solomon, is to 
 charge the Old Testament Seriptures with an 
 act of as gross idolatry as can he conceived,— 
 Who would for a moment hesitate to address 
 these words to the supreme God? And shall it 
 be asserted, in the teeth of an inspired apostle’s 
 explanation of them, that they were addressed to 
 Solomon? Surely if such words as these might 
 
 * Page 26, and Ed. 2d, page 31. 
 
132 Jesus. Christ declared to be Ged. 
 
 be addressed to Solomon without idolatry, any 
 language of adoration might be addressed to 
 Jesus, ‘‘for a greater than Solomon is here.”— 
 How with such a Scriptural example before him, 
 could the author represent any man who worships 
 Jesus as guilty of idolatry ? With regard to the 
 translation given by Dr. Young, whom the au-~ 
 thor, of course, eulogizes as a man of taste and 
 jearning, it is most audacious. It is ascribing 
 to a word, which occurs more than two thousand 
 times in the Old Testament, a sense which it 
 does not bear in one single instance; and ap- 
 plying it in a manner of which there is not a 
 single example. It is a translation too, directly 
 opposed to that of the apostle, who renders the 
 word which Dr. Young renders prince by the 
 Greek word, Theos (God) ; a word which occurs 
 above 1500 times, in the New Testament, but not 
 once in the sense of prince, nor is it once given 
 as a title to any individual creature. ~ 
 
 We have thus three indisputable instances, 
 (for although they are all disputed, yet on 
 grounds so pitiably frivolous, that I cannot re- 
 gard them as even disputable,) of the title God 
 given to the Saviour in the New Testament. 
 
 And here I would observe that these passages 
 ought to be regarded as determining the sense 
 of many other passages, in which the same title 
 is given to the Redeemer, if they be interpre- 
 tated according to the plain obvious meaning of 
 the words; although the ingenuity of criticism 
 may discover another sense, which, with some 
 constraint, they may be made to bear. <A doc- 
 trine may be very distinctly declared, although 
 not in words of that sort of legal accuracy, which 
 absolutely precludes the possibility of another 
 interpretation. All such passages Unitarian 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 133 
 
 writers have been in the custom of claiming as 
 an easy conquest, simply on the ground that the 
 common interpretation of them favoured doc- 
 trines, which they pronounce to be inconsistent 
 with common sense and reason. I must take 
 the liberty however of appealing from their com- 
 mon sense, to that of the sacred penmen, and to 
 the plain obvious meaning of the words em- 
 ployed by them ; and especially I must maintain, 
 that the meaning of such passages is to be deter- 
 mined by those passages in which all the learn- 
 ing and ingenuity of criticism has discovered no 
 ambiguity. 
 
 As I conceive this observation to be important 
 to the interests of Biblical criticism, I shall il- 
 lustrate it by a parallel example. Unitarians 
 very generally, like the ancient Sadducees, 
 deny the existence of such a being as Satan, 
 and of evil spirits; and the instances of de- 
 moniac possession so frequently mentioned in the 
 New Testament, they explain as figurative lan- 
 guage, (that universal solvent of all difficulties, ) 
 and conceive that they were nothing more than 
 natural diseases; that the Jews imagined that 
 they were possessed of evil spirits, and that 
 Jesus did not choose to undeceive them, but left 
 them under the bondage of this terrific imagina- 
 tion; nay even countenanced it, by pretending 
 to hold conversation with the evil spirits, and to 
 cast them out, when in fact he was only healing 
 the diseases under which the afilicted persons 
 laboured. I might leave this interpretation to 
 that indignation which must be excited in the 
 bosom of every honest man, who feels even a 
 common respect for the character of the blessed 
 Jesus, when he hears such an imputation east 
 upon him, as that he could avail himself of a most 
 pernicious and distressing popular superstition, 
 
134 Jesus Christ declared to be Ged. 
 
 to exalt his own reputation. But, independently 
 of this consideration, if a single passage can be 
 produced, which positively and absolutely deter- 
 mines that there was a real demoniac possession, 
 that single’ passage ought manifestly to be held 
 as determining the sense of all the other state- 
 ments of demoniac possession. For instance, the 
 narrative of the demons that besought and ob- 
 tained liberty from Jesus to enter into the herd 
 of swine* is precisely such a passage. No ra- 
 tional account has ever been given of the natural 
 disease with which 2000 swine were so suddenly 
 seized, which could have impelled them to run 
 headlong down the steep into the lake where 
 they perished. Nor has any account been given 
 of the conversation which our Lord carried on 
 with the unclean spirits. In other cases it would 
 be said, that he conversed with the man who 
 _imagined himself possessed of devils ; but m this 
 case it would be difficult to show how the man 
 entered into the swine. Accordingly the Uni- 
 tarian translators of the New Testament, al- 
 though they attempt explanations of other cases 
 of demoniac possession, are altogether silent on 
 this—a sufficient proof, that, up till the com- 
 mencement of the nineteenth century, no expla- 
 nation of this narrative consistently with the 
 principle that demoniac possessions were only 
 natural diseases had been thought of ; or at least 
 none that could, with any prospect of success, 
 be laid before the British public. Now this pas- 
 sage ought obviously to be regarded as determin- 
 ing the meaning of all other passages in which 
 demoniac possession is mentioned, to imply a 
 real possession of evil spirits; and it would be 
 an abuse of criticism te assert that this is the 
 
 # Mark v, I1. 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 135 
 
 only passage in which demoniac possession is 
 mentioned, merely on the ground that other pas- 
 sages which seemed to assert the same fact might 
 possibly be otherwise explained. 
 
 Now, (to apply this principle to our proper 
 subject,) we find a multitude of passages in the 
 New Testament, in which the title God seems at 
 least to be given to the Saviour. It is pleaded 
 however that these passages may be understood in 
 some other sense. But if we find even one pas- 
 sage, much more if we find three, from which 
 all the ingenuity of man, exercised for perhaps 
 fifteen or sixteen centuries, has not been able to 
 extract any other sense, then surely, these ought 
 to be regarded as determining the sense of all 
 the others: and it would be a most gross abuse 
 of criticism to assert, that these are the only 
 passages in which that title is given to the Re- 
 deemer, merely because it is conceived that the 
 others may be disputed. 
 
 I should not have considered it necessary to 
 press this topic so urgently, were it not that 
 Unitarian writers are in the constant practice of 
 objecting to the doctrine of the Divine nature of 
 the Redeemer, the small number of passages 
 in which it is taught. The number of passages, 
 if they be understood in their most obvious 
 sense, that sense in which persons uninterested 
 in the controversy would certainly understand 
 them, is very great; but it is not to be expected, 
 that, in every passage in which a doctrine is 
 stated, the language should be of that precise, 
 guarded, as it were, legal description, which 
 is framed for the purpose of precluding dispute. 
 If one or two passages be thus precise and deter- 
 minate, the rest should be interpreted by them. 
 Not that we wish any passage to be wrested from 
 its obvious meaning, upon any such considera- 
 
136 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 tions; but merely that its obvious meaning should 
 be preferred to any other, even although it should 
 state a doctrine that appears to be mysterious.— 
 The doctrine being explicitly taught elsewhere, 
 these ought to be regarded as so many confirma- 
 tions of it. ' 
 
 I now therefore proceed to bring forward 
 some of those passages which I have had in view 
 in these observations. 
 
 The first which I shall notice furnishes a very 
 happy exemplification of the principle which | 
 have been endeavouring to establish. 1 John v. 
 20,—** And we know that the Son of God is 
 come, and hath given us an understanding, that 
 we may know him that is true, and we are m 
 him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ ; 
 this is the true God, and eternal life.” Here, 
 according to the obvious interpretation of the 
 words, Jesus is called, ‘the true God and eter- 
 nal life.’ But it is urged by Unitarian critics, 
 that the word, ° this’—‘ this is the true God,’ 
 may refer, not to Jesus Christ, who is the im- 
 mediate antecedent, but to the words, ‘ Aim that 
 is true,’ which oceur before the name ‘ Jesus 
 Christ.’ And it is not denied that imstances 
 may be found of a relative pronoun referring, 
 not to the immediate, but to a prior antecedent. 
 It will however be admitted that this is a loose 
 and unusual mode of writing. Very few in- 
 stances of it have been produced from the New 
 Testament. In the common and ordinary ac- 
 ceptation of the words, Jesus Christ is here 
 called the true God. And that this is the just 
 interpretation is confirmed by the consideration, 
 that the title God is unequivocally given to our 
 blessed Lord in other passages; and also by rea- 
 sons drawn from this passage itself. The latter 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 137 
 
 part of this title, “ Eternal life,” it is admitted, 
 ‘belongs to the Lord Jesus, and is given to him 
 at the commencement of this epistle, chap. i. 2. 
 ‘* For the life was manifested, and we have seen 
 it, and bear witness, and show unto you that 
 eternal life which was with the Father, and was 
 manifested to us.” What then could be more 
 unnatural than that, in the clause, “ This is the 
 true God, and eternal life,” the words ‘eternal 
 life’ should be explained as referring to Christ, 
 who had just been mentioned, and the words, 
 “the true God,’ as referring to ‘ Him that is 
 true,’ who had been previously mentioned. 
 ‘And this interpretation is rendered still more 
 out of place by the words which follow, which 
 are an exhortation to shun idolatry. Is it to be 
 imagined, that, with this subject in his eye, the 
 apostle should express himself so unguardedly, 
 that his words, taken in their most obvious mean- 
 ing, would bea sanction of idolatry,—which they 
 certainly would be, if Jesus were not God ? 
 
 Another passage is commented upon by our 
 author, which may be noticed under this head, 
 namely, Is. ix. 6.—*¢ For unto us a child is born, 
 unto us a son is given; and the government 
 ‘shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall 
 be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty 
 God, The Everlasting Father, the Prince of 
 Peace.” Our author’s critique on this passage 
 is as follows. 
 
 “ Trinitarians rest great weight on another pas- 
 sage of Isaiah ix. 6, applied by that prophet to 
 Huzextan, ‘ Unto us a child is born, &c. “The 
 words everlasting Father,’ says Dr- Clarke, (an 
 Arian) ‘are very ill rendered; for it is absurd 
 to say of the Son that he is the everlasting Father, 
 
 N 3 
 
138 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 the Father of himself. The phrase ought to be 
 rendered the Father or Lord of the age to come. — 
 This is well, and it might be added, that no prophet 
 could affirm of the Father, meaning God, that. he 
 had ever been a child or was born. But on what 
 authority, save that of orthodox divines, are they 
 applied to Ciirist at all? They may certainly be 
 used as descriptive of the character of him who was 
 so truly the Prince of Peace---but nothing was 
 farther from the mind of the prophet who wrote 
 them than such a reference. They were applied by 
 him to the son of Ahaz, whom he names Immanuel. 
 Such lofty hyperbolical epithets are perfectly in ac- 
 cordance with the style of Oriental description ;— 
 particularly prophetic and poetical description.— 
 Moreover it was customary with the Jews to give 
 names to individuals expressive of some event or cir- 
 eumstance oftheir lives; and suchnames were frequent- 
 ly associated with that of God, in a manner which 
 may excite the surprise of those who have thought the 
 title of Immanuel, when applied to Christ, demon- 
 strative of his Deity. Thus Hezekiah signifies 
 ‘‘ God my strength.”---Israel, “ Prince of God.”--- 
 Elijah, “ God the Lord; or the strong Lord.”--- 
 Elisha, “ Salvation of God; or God that saves.” .-- 
 Jotham, ‘ Perfection of the Lord.”---Ishmael, “ God 
 who hears.”---Lemuel, ‘“‘ God with them.’ The 
 word Immanuel, therefore, though it belonged, ex- 
 clusively to Christ, which it did not, yields no sup- 
 port to the cause for which it is adduced as an auxi- 
 liary. Even the term Jehovah, the peculiar name 
 of God, is applied as an appellation to others, with- 
 out establishmg any argument for asserting, the 
 Deity of those to whom such names are given. “ In 
 those days, shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem 
 shall dwell safely ; and this is the name wherewith 
 she shall be called JEHuvAH ouR RigHTEOUSNEss.” 
 Jer. xxxill. 16. In the English version, the word 
 Jehovah is rendered Lord in this and other pas- 
 sages. ‘ And Moses built an altar, and called the 
 name ef it Jehovah Nissi; or JeHovau my Ban- 
 NER. —Exod. xvii. 15. It is fortunate that some 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 139 
 
 sect has not hitherto arisen, maintaining the Deity 
 of Jerusalem, or of the altar of Moses, from the au- 
 thority of the passages just mentioned.”* 
 
 Here our author, with his usual confidence, as- 
 serts that this text was applied by the prophet 
 to Hezekiah ; and asks on what authority, save 
 that of orthodox divines, is it applied to Christ 
 at all. I might ask in return on what authority, 
 save his own and that of Rammohun Roy, it is 
 applied to Hezekiah, who is not once mentioned 
 in the whole of that prophecy. But I shall rather 
 give the authority on which we apply it to 
 Christ. Our first authority is that of the Evan- 
 gelist Matthew, who applies the words of a pre- 
 ceding verse of the same prophecy to the Mes- 
 siah. ‘ The land of Zebulon, and the land of 
 Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jor- 
 dan, Galilee of the Gentiles : the people which sat 
 in darkness saw great light; and to them which 
 sat in the region and shadow of death light is 
 sprung up.”+ Another authority we have in 
 Paul, who applies a verse of a following chapter, 
 which is manifestly part of the same pro- 
 phecy, to the Redeemer.—“ And again Esaias 
 saith, There shall bea root of J esse, and he that 
 shall rise to reign over the Gentiles ; in him shall 
 the Gentiles trust.”{ The whole description of 
 peace and security given in that eleventh chap- 
 ter of the prophecies of Isaiah is applicable 
 only to the Redeemer’s reign. Now if two pas- 
 sages in the same prophetical poem, one of them 
 in immediate connexion with the passage in 
 question, be applied, on the authority of the 
 same Spirit who dictated them, to J esus, surely 
 it follows, that the passage itself is to be applied 
 
 * Page 23. t+ Matth. iv. 15, 16, compared with Is, ix, ] wie 
 { Rom. xv. 12, compared with Is. xl. 1, 10, 
 
140 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 to the Redeemer also. We cannot put the au- 
 thority of our. author and Rammohun Roy in 
 competition with this. 
 
 We have another reason for applying these 
 words of Isaiah to the Redeemer, namely, that, 
 without idolatry, they could not be applied to 
 any one else. To be the mighty God, the Father 
 of the everlasting age, the Prince of Peace, to 
 have his praises celebrated in a prophetic song, 
 and at the same time, to be born, and to be given 
 asa Son, are characteristics which belong ex- 
 clusively and peculiarly to the Lord Jesus. 
 
 Our author replies to this by a catalogue of 
 names given to persons and to inanimate objects, 
 ‘n which the name of God is introduced; and 
 by a peculiar, and as I conceive, a false transla- 
 tion of these names. Those who know any 
 thing of the Hebrew language are well aware 
 that the omission of the substantive verb is, in 
 its different persons and numbers, especially 
 where brevity is studied as in names, is an 
 idiom that occurs in almost every page of the 
 Hebrew Bible. Yet our author, regardless of 
 this idiom, translates the names as if the titles 
 of God, nay and the incommunicable name Je- 
 hovah, had been given to a creature; which he 
 must be aware was as foreign as possible from 
 the intention of those who gave the names.— 
 Thus he translates the name Hezekiah, *‘ God 
 my strength,’ as if Hezekiah had been addressed 
 as God—the strength of him who sonamed him: 
 instead of “ God is my strength,” a name ex- 
 pressive of trust in God. Elijah, he renders 
 ‘ God the Lord,” as if a mortal had been ad- 
 dressed by these names, instead of ‘“ Jehovah is 
 God,” or “ Strong is Jehovah.” Jotham, he 
 renders *“* Perfection of the Lord,” instead of 
 Jehovah is perfection. Ishmael, he renders, 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be Ged. 141 
 
 “God who hears,” an absolutely false transla- 
 tion, as there is nothing in the name correspond- 
 ing to the relative who, being simply, “ God will 
 hear.” Jehovah nissi, he renders JEHOVAH MY 
 Banner, instead of “ Jehovah is my banner ;” 
 and Jehovah Tsidkenu, ‘ Jehovah our righteous- 
 ness,” instead of Jehovah is our righteousness,” 
 aname peculiarly appropriate to Jerusalem in 
 her restored and regenerated state, as descrip- 
 tive of the sentiments of her inhabitants, that 
 then the mercy of Jehovah would be acknow- 
 ledged as supplying the place of their righteous- 
 ness, in their pardon and acceptance with God. 
 These names were manifestly given as expres- 
 sions of piety towards God. The honour was 
 intended, not for the person to whom the name 
 was given, but for God, after whom the person 
 or thing was named. But what analogy is there 
 between names given in such a spirit, and for 
 such a purpose, and a number of epithets, heaped 
 upon an individual in a prophetic poem, as des- 
 criptive of his personal power and majesty. The 
 former names were literally given to the persons 
 or things distinguished by them; Hezekiah, 
 ‘ God is my strength,’ was the name by which 
 that king was designated ; but the epithets used 
 _ In this text were never given to him as names— 
 he is never in the whole Bible called, the Won- 
 derful, or the Counsellor, or the Mighty God, or 
 the Everlasting Father, or the Prince of Peace. 
 If these titles he given to him, they are given as 
 descriptive of his own glory and majesty, and 
 the prophetic poem must be regarded as a hymn 
 of praise addressed to Hezekiah, than which 
 nothing can be more abhorrent to the spirit, pre- 
 cepts, and practice of the sacred writers. __ 
 The author tells us that such lofty hyperboli- 
 eal epithets are perfectly in accordance with the 
 
142 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 style of Oriental description, particularly pro- 
 phetic and poetical description. I am fully 
 aware that heathen poets, in their profane and 
 idolatrous adulation of the great, have made very 
 free use of such epithets; it was also very na- 
 tural for Rammohun Roy, a partially enlight- 
 ened heathen, with very inadequate views of the 
 sacredness and authority of our Scriptures, and 
 with many of his Hindoo predilections in full 
 force, to draw a parallel between the word of 
 God, and the blasphemous poetry to which he 
 has been accustomed.* But what are we to think 
 of the recognized Pastor of a professingly Chris- 
 tian congregation, giving his sanction to such a 
 parallel, and admitting that an inspired prophet 
 inight describe the yet unknown son of a most 
 wicked king, as the Mighty God, the Father of 
 eternity to come, the Prince of Peace? Surely 
 if Solomon might, consistently with the prin- 
 ciples of Scripture, be addressed in such lan- 
 guage as this, ‘* Thy throne O God is for ever 
 and ever,” and if Hezekiah might be foretold as 
 “the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the 
 Prince of Peace,” who was about to arise, there 
 is no guard whatever in the Bible against the most 
 flagrant idolatry, being paid to personsin authority. 
 Either the divine honours that were paid to the 
 
 * Rammohun Roy’s Christianity has not, I understand, in- 
 duced him to relinquish his distinction of Caste, or to associate 
 with Christians, otherwise than as lying under the pollution in 
 which Hindooism plunges the whole race, with the exception of 
 its own votaries. So long however as a man adheres practically 
 to this presumptuous dogma of any modification of heathenism, 
 he is no Christian. He is cleaving to an imaginary purity 
 which Christianity repudiates as vile and delusive, and he is 
 branding those with impurity whom Christianity declares to be 
 holy. He must take his side more decisively before he can be 
 recognized as a Christian commentator. At present he is only 
 attempting to reconcile the new light which he has imbibed 
 from the Scriptures, to the pride of his heathen assumptions. 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 143 
 
 Roman emperors, in the most detestable periods 
 of their history, were justified and sanctioned by 
 these examples, or the inspired penmen are 
 found guilty by our author of the most palpable 
 and wicked idolatry. 
 
 Similar observations are made on another pas- 
 sage, Is. vil, 14.—“ Therefore the Lord himself 
 shall give you a sign; behold a virgin shall con- 
 ceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name 
 Immanuel.” The author’s comment on this pas- 
 sage stands thus, 
 
 ““ The passage in Matth. i. 23. is this—« Behold 
 a virgin,” &c. Louth says that these words did not 
 primarily apply to Christ, and Rammohun Roy has 
 most clearly shown that they were applied by Isaiah 
 vii. 14. “ to Hezekiah the son of Ahaz, figuratively 
 designated as the son of the virgin, the daughter of 
 Zion, to wit, Jerusalem foretold by the prophet, as 
 the deliverer of the city from the hands of its ene- 
 mies, though its utter destruction was then threat- 
 ened by the kings of Syria and Israel.” Orthodox 
 writers, in the interpretation of the text, observes 
 the same learned author, have « entirely disregarded 
 the original Scripture, the context, and the historical 
 facts. It should be rendered not a virgin, but THE 
 . virgin, viz. The virgin daughter of Zion, the city of 
 Jerusalem. Thus Isaiah xxiii, 12 :--- Thou shalt 
 no more rejoice, QO thou oppressed virgin, daugh- 
 ter of Zion.” xxxvii. 22.---« The virgin, the daugh- 
 ter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to 
 scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath Shaken her 
 head at thee.”---Jer. xiv. 17.“ Let mine eyes run 
 down with tears night and day, and let them not 
 cease; for the virgin daughter of my people is 
 broken with a great breach.” The Evangelist Mat- 
 thew applies Is. vii. 14. by way of accommodation 
 to Christ---“ The son of Ahaz, and the Saviour re- 
 sembling each other, in each being the means, at 
 
144 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 different periods, though in different senses, of esta- 
 blishing the throne of the house of David.”* 
 
 Certainly of all writers that I have ever met 
 with, our author has least reason to complain of 
 any person bending to human authority. His 
 dexterity in discovering human authorities. to 
 which he may yield himself with the most pro- 
 found submission, is quite extraordinary. It 
 would seem as if he durst not move a step, with- 
 out the sanction of some most learned and able 
 and candid expositor to lean upon, or at least the 
 admission of some ‘ learned Trinitarian’ to cer- 
 tify to him that he is right. Here we have the 
 authorities of Louth and Rammohun Roy for an 
 interpretation of Scripture, to whom are added 
 in his second edition, Dr. Campbell of Aber- 
 deen. Upon the authority of all these learned 
 men he asserts, that the virgin spoken of by the 
 prophet Isaiah was Jerusalem; who, in a totally 
 different poem, unconnected with the one from 
 which the text is taken, is called a virgin. In 
 opposition to this I might quote other prophecies 
 in which Jerusalem is called a harlot. 
 
 But against all these authorities I place 
 that of the Evangelist Matthew—‘“ Now all this 
 was done, that it might be fulfilled which was 
 spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, ‘‘ Be- 
 hold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring 
 forth a son, and they shall call his name Em- 
 manuel, which being interpreted is, God with 
 us.’+ It is true, Louth admits that these words 
 might net primarily apply to Christ. In_ that 
 supposition he may be correct, because I doubt 
 not that many of these prophecies had re- 
 ference to a fulfilment, primary in point of time, to 
 
 * Page 22. + Mat. i. 23. 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God: 145 
 
 their great and ultimate fulfilment. Louth does 
 not however deny that their chief and proper 
 fulfilment was in Christ Jesus: on the coutrary, 
 his whole comment is founded on this principle. 
 Rammohun Roy, asit appears, asserts that, in ap- 
 plying these words to Christ, we disregard the 
 original Scripture. I ask, is the Gospel of Mat- 
 thew original Scripture or not? We derive our 
 explanation from him, and it is he, not we, that 
 must be charged with overlooking the original 
 Scripture. But our author asserts, that the words 
 of Isaiah are applied, only by way of accommo- 
 dation, to our Lord, by the Evangelist Matthew. 
 And Rammohun Roy appeals to Dr. Campbell, 
 who renders the passage, “In all this, what the 
 Lord had spoken by the prophet was verified,” 
 and who, in a note, supports this rendering by re- 
 ferring to Mat. ii. 15. a quotation from Hos. xi. 
 l., where the Evangelist applies a passage to 
 Jesus which the prophet spoke of the Israelites, 
 as being more emphatically applicable to the Sa- 
 viour. Although Dr. Campbell, being a minis- 
 ter of the Church of Scotland, must no doubt be 
 ranked as a Trinitarian; yet I apprehend that 
 those who know his writings will not be disposed 
 to view his criticism as an admission, but as an 
 _ attack. His reputation stands high for learning 
 and acuteness ; but certainly not for orthodoxy. 
 I conceive that the note in question is calculated, 
 not to instruct, but to mislead his readers. It 
 confounds different forms in which the Old Tes. 
 tament Scripture is quoted in the New Testa- 
 ment. It is possible, although by no means cer- 
 tain, that when it is said simply, “then was ful- 
 filled the saying,” &c. a mere application of the 
 language may be meant; but when it is’ said 
 ‘ that any thing was done that it might be fulfilled,’ 
 it always implies that the prophecy was a pre- 
 oO 
 
146 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 diction of the event alluded to. Whitby, a com~ 
 mentator whom no one will accuse of enthu- 
 siasm, nor of want of learning, says, respecting 
 the passage Mat. ii. 15.—‘‘ These words ean im- 
 port no less than that the ealling of Christ out 
 of Egypt was by God intended as a completion 
 of these words; and that till he was called 
 thence, they had not their full and ultimate com- 
 pletion.” We cannot consent to abandon the 
 plain obvious meaning of language, on the au- 
 thority, either of the mistaken or insidious ad- 
 missions of men professing orthodoxy, or on that 
 of the confident assertions of Unitarians. Let 
 the Rev. author bring forward clear unequivocal 
 examples, from the New Testament, of so singular 
 a departure from the usage of language, and we 
 shall attend to his representations ; but we must 
 have firmer ground to tread upon, than the opi- 
 nions of Le Clere, or Dr. Campbell, or Rammo- 
 hun Roy. 
 
 But our author argues that even if the name 
 were given to Christ, it would not be an evi- 
 dence of his Divinity, because the same name 1s 
 given to others, and may be translated, ‘ God és 
 with us.’ I can find no evidence that it is given 
 to any others. I have no doubt whatever that 
 +n Is. Vili. 8. Where the prophet says, respecting 
 the enemies of Israel, “‘ They shall fill the 
 breadth of thy Jand O Immanuel,” he speaks of 
 God whose land peculiarly that was—that land 
 which should be honoured as the place where 
 God should peculiarly manifest himself as wh 
 his people. ‘The name was never actually given 
 to Hezekiah, and even if it had been given to 
 him, that would not have lowered its import as. 
 given to our Lord. It might as well be argued 
 that the name Jesus did not point him out as a 
 Saviour, because that name was borne by many 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 147 
 
 others. But the Evangelist declares that he was 
 called Jesus, because he should save his people 
 from their sins. So he is called Emmanuel, as 
 descriptive of his relation to us, as being ‘* God 
 with us.” That the Hebrew words may be ren- 
 dered, ‘ God is with us,’ is true ; and I am glad 
 that the author has recollected this fact, as it will 
 throw light on some of the other names which 
 he has rendered without the verb is 3 but in this 
 case, the name cannot be so translated, because 
 the Evangelist Matthew has translated it other- 
 Wise, and informed us on authority, that, in this 
 instance, as applied to Jesus, it signifies not ‘God 
 as with us,’ but ‘Gop wir vs.’ 
 
 Another passage, that falls under considera- 
 tion at present, is 1] Tim. iii. 16.—* And with- 
 out controversy great is the mystery of godliness : 
 God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the 
 spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, 
 believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 
 There can be no reasonable doubt that this pas- 
 sage refers to the Lord J esus, nor do I re- 
 member having seen this application of it dis- 
 puted. It contains an epitome of his history, 
 and is applicable to no one else. 
 
 There is however an important variation in 
 the reading of this verse in different manuscripts. 
 A large proportion of them, and these of most 
 value, instead of the word God, have the word 
 who,— Whe was manifest in the flesh ;” and 
 one or two of small authority have which— 
 “Which (i, e. mystery) was manifest,” &c,.— 
 Against the last reading there are strong objec- 
 tions; in the first place there is little authority 
 for it; in the next place, it would render the 
 sentence unintelligible, (for what could be made 
 of a mystery being seen of angels and received up 
 
148 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 into glory?) : while yet it is a reading that 
 might very readily be introduced by mistake, 
 for the noun immediately preceding being mys- 
 tery, it was very natural for a hasty transeriber, 
 not attending to the general import of the sen- 
 tence, to make the relative agree with the noun 
 last rehearsed. In the present state of the evi- 
 dence, therefore, the word who, is pointed out as 
 the genuine reading. But to whom does this 
 relative, who, refer? The reply is very obvious, 
 to the word God in the previous verse. ‘ The 
 church of the living God, the pillar and ground 
 of the truth (and without controversy the mystery 
 of godliness is great,) who was manifest in the 
 flesh,” &c. According to this reading, as wel! 
 as the common reading, therefore, the Lord 
 Jesus is here again called God. Unitarian 
 writers, after insisting on the reading who, in- 
 sist further on rendering the word he who, and 
 produce some instances in which the word who 
 is so to be understood. Itis admitted that, where 
 there is-no antecedent, the Greek relative, as 
 well as our own relative, must be understood in 
 some such sense. 
 
 “© Who makes the Almighty his resort.” 
 
 That is, he who, or whosoever, does so. But these 
 instances are as rare in Greek as in English ; 
 and to render a relative thus, when an antecedent 
 exists perfectly agreeing with it, is surely doing 
 violence to the language. I hold that this pas- 
 sage also, therefore, understood according to the 
 obvious import of the words, gives the title God 
 to the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 There is a class of passages which, in the ori- 
 ginal language speak the same sense; although 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 149 
 
 im our English translation they seem to wear 
 different aspect. It is a general rule in the 
 Greek language, that when two personal nouns 
 (not proper names, but such as denote character, 
 relation, or dignity) of the same case, are con- 
 nected with the copulative kai (and) if the former 
 have the definite article, and the latter have 
 not, they both relate to the same person. Thus, 2 
 Cor. i. 3.—** Blessed be God, even the Father of 
 our Lord,” &c. here because, in the original 
 Greek, the word Father has not the article, it 
 designates, the same person with the word God: 
 and the whole would be better rendered— 
 *¢ Blessed be he who is the God and Father of our 
 Lord,” &c.- Again, Phil. iv. 20.—<'Now unto 
 God and our Father,” &e. Here again, the 
 word Father not having in the original the ar- 
 ticle, the meaning is, “ Now unto him who is 
 our God and Father.” 
 
 Now, according to this constant practice of the 
 language, the following, amongst other passages, 
 should be interpreted. Eph. y. verse 5—‘ No 
 idolater hath any inheritance in the kingdom of 
 Christ and of God.” ‘The word God wants the 
 article, while the word Christ has it; and there- 
 fore the sentence should be understood thus— 
 . “ No idolater hath any inheritance in the king- 
 
 dom of him who is the Christ and God.” Tit. 
 i. 13.—“ The glorious appearing of the great 
 God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ.” Here the 
 word Saviour wants the article, while the word 
 God has it; and therefore the passage should be 
 rendered, “ The glorious appearing of our great 
 God and Saviour, Jesus Christ ;’ and it was so 
 rendered in the older English translations,— 
 There is, besides, another obvious reason for un- 
 derstanding both the words, God and Saviour, as 
 referring to Jesus Christ, namely, that, if by 
 
 : o3. 
 
150 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 God, we are to understand the Father —the King 
 eternal, immortal and invisible, it would contain 
 an intimation of the appearing of God the 
 Father, which is no where intimated in Serip- 
 ture; but which, on the contrary, seems to be 
 inconsistent with some of its declarations. Still 
 again, 2 Pet. i, 1—‘ Through the righteousness 
 of God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ.” Here 
 also, for the same reason, namely, that the word 
 Saviour has not the article, while the word God 
 has it, the passage should be rendered, ‘“‘ Through 
 the righteousness of our God and Saviour—Jesus 
 Christ.” The same form of expression occurs 
 with the word Lord, in verse 11 of the same 
 chapter, and is thus rendered, ‘* The everlast- 
 ing kingdom of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus 
 Christ.” 
 
 The last passage of this description which I 
 shall notice is Jude 4, “‘ Denying the only Lord 
 God and our Lord Jesus Christ.” According 
 to the above rule the proper rendering is— 
 ‘¢ Denying our only master, God, and Lord, 
 Jesus Christ.” A preponderance of authorities 
 omit the word God in this passage, and Gries- 
 bach decides against its bemg retained in the 
 text; but our author insists on its remaiming 
 because, if it were rejected, the word degrorgs 
 (despotes) master would be given to Christ, which 
 he strongly resists. His critique is an admirable 
 specimen of Unitarian argument. 
 
 « Parkhurst, “says he,” would willingly apply to 
 Christ rov wovoy Ascrolyy, in Jude 4, “ denying the 
 only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” He 
 thinks that the want of the article roy (ton) before. 
 Kugiv (Kurion), shows that Jesus Christ is there 
 styled the only Lord ; but he is refuted by Grotius 
 and Woltzogenius.” 
 
Jesus Christ declared to be God. 151 
 
 * Parkhurst thinks,’ says he, ‘ when the rule 
 is as well established as any in the Greek lan- 
 guage, But he is ‘refuted by Grotius and 
 Woltzogenius.’ Our author would have writ- 
 ten more to the purpose if, instead of the names 
 of these learned and able critics, he had given us 
 their arguments; for he may not find us so much 
 disposed tamely to follow, ‘able and learned and 
 candid critics,’ as he. But he proceeds— 
 
 “ Or if, with several MSS. we omit the word 
 Oz (God), altogether, the application to Christ 
 will be still more evident. No doubt. But since 
 the meaning is perfectly clear, since no good reason 
 can be assigned for any change, since our version of 
 it is, as Whitby affirms” (another great name, ) “with- 
 Out any exception,” since it is in perfect harmony 
 with the great doctrine of Scripture, that God alone 
 is Deity supreme, and, above all, since it most 
 clearly marks the distinction, which no Christian 
 should ever forget, between the only Lord God, and 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, the Unitarian desires that 
 the text may not be mutilated.’* 
 
 Our author here, with the utmost gravity, as- 
 serts that a preponderance of authorities against 
 a reading is no good reason for rejecting it; 
 and pronounces that Griesbach, whose authority 
 he eagerly catches at when it tends to counten- 
 ance him, had no good authority for throwing 
 the word into the margin. The explanation of 
 the whole criticism is, that wherever any parti- 
 cular reading tends to support Unitarian doc- 
 trine, however slender the authority for it, or 
 even if it be destitute of all authorit » it is to be 
 adopted. With such a principle of criticism, it 
 is extraordinary that our author does not 
 
 * Page 29, Ed. 2d 
 
152 Jesus Christ declared to be God. 
 
 find some stronger defence of his opinions; for to 
 him who determines, not that his opinions shall 
 bend to evidence, but that all evidence shall bend 
 to his opinions, nothing should be difficult. 
 
 In regard to this text, as the authorities do 
 net greatly preponderate, he may take his choice. 
 Fither Christ is here called God, or a title which 
 the author claims as exclusively belonging to 
 God, is most decisively given to Christ. 
 
 In all of these instances, according to the or- 
 dinary rules of Greek syntax, our Blessed Lord 
 is designated by the title God: and that too, with- 
 out any reference to the inferior sense in which 
 the Hebrew word rendered God bears in some 
 few instances. And several indisputable instances 
 of this title given to him having been produced, 
 there can be no reason why these passages should 
 be drawn aside from their direct and natural 
 
 meaning. 
 
CHAP. VI. 
 
 THE NAME JEHOVAH GIVEN TO JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 Havine proved that the appellation God is 
 given to the Redeemer in its highest sense, I 
 proceed now to prove that the name JruovayH 
 is given to him. The difference between the 
 force of the words God and Jehovah is, that God 
 is an appellative, expressing the divine nature, 
 character, and, if I may so speak, station of the 
 Deity; whereas Jehovah is the proper name 
 which God has adopted, for the purpose of dis- 
 tinguishing himself from the false gods of the 
 heathen. The word God may be compared to 
 the word king—a title descriptive of the rank, 
 power, office, &c. of the person who bears it; 
 the word Jehovah may be compared to the proper 
 name of any individual king, as George the 
 Fourth. The title God is therefore given to de- 
 signate false gods, always however with sufficient 
 intimation that they are false; but the name Je- 
 hovah is never given to any but the one living 
 and true God. Accordingly this name is claimed 
 by God as his own peculiar name. Thus Exod. 
 iv. 5.— That they may believe that Jenovan, 
 God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the 
 God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath ap- 
 peared unto thee.” Again, chap. vi. 2, 3, “ And 
 God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am 
 
154 The name Jehovah 
 
 Jenovau: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto 
 Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Al- 
 mighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not 
 known to them.” Again, Ps. Ixxxii., 18— 
 ‘¢ That men may know that thou, whose name 
 alone is JunHovAH, art the most high over all 
 the earth.” 
 
 Now if we find this proper name given, again 
 and again, to the Blessed Jesus in addition to the 
 title God, is it possible to conceive of a more de- 
 terminate intimation that Jesus is indeed the 
 God of Abrahzm and Isaac and Jacob, and who 
 appeared to Moses? Suppose that an individual 
 should appear in any provincial town in the em- 
 pire, about whose person there were some mys- 
 tery or uncertainty, and that it were asserted of 
 him that he was THE Kine; there would be 
 very little doubt of the meaning of the person 
 who made such an assertion. Still however, as 
 the word king is only an appellative, some sha- 
 dow of doubt might rest upon his meaning. But 
 if he should add, George the Fourth, it is im- 
 possible to conceive how he could express him- 
 self with more unequivocal precision. Now we 
 have found that the Lord Jesus Christ is most 
 distinctly declared in the Scripture to be God. 
 This seems a very decisive answer to the ques- 
 tion, Who is he? But if we shall find that the 
 proper name Jehovah is also given to him; it is 
 difficult to imagine a more definite answer. 
 
 Before adducing passages in which the name 
 Jehovah is given to the Lord Jesus, it is neces- 
 sary to observe that the Hebrew name Jehovah 
 no where occurs in the New Testament. When 
 passages from the Old Testament, in which it 
 stands, are translated into Greek in the New 
 Testament, it is always rendered by the Greek 
 word xugis (hurios) Lord. But this word ku- 
 
given to Jesus Christ. 155 
 
 rios, like the English word lord, has various sig~ 
 nifications. Sometimes it signifies little more 
 than sir or master, sometimes proprietor, and 
 sometimes it is a title of rank. Used in a reli- 
 gious sense, it is a title frequently given to God. 
 It is admitted on all hands that it is given in a 
 religious sense, and with the same exclusive 
 aspect, to Jesus Christ, as it is given to God.— 
 He, as well as God, is in a multitude of instances 
 called, Tux Lorp. This itself is a very extra- 
 ordinary fact; and unless he be God, is an am- 
 biguity, that, to use our author’s illustration, 
 would much more urgently require the Interpo- 
 sition of the infallible church, than any ambi- 
 guity of language occasioned by the two na- 
 tures of the Redeemer. Let any English reader 
 consider what the import would be of his calling 
 any man, ‘Tur Lorp, with reference to the gal. 
 vation of his soul, and his religious duties; and 
 he will be able to Judge of the import of such an 
 appellation given to the Lord Jesus: for there 
 is no greater ambiguity attached to the use of 
 the word in Greek, than there is in English. 
 
 But as there is the same ambiguity in the use 
 of the word Lord in Greek as in English, I shall 
 rest nothing upon that title being addressed to 
 Jesus, especially when it was bestowed on him 
 im his presence, as an expression of respect. [ 
 shall admit that, in such cases, it might signify — 
 no more than sir or master. But there are pas- 
 sages in the Old Testament containing the name 
 Jehovah, which are quoted in the New, and ex- 
 pressly applied to our Lord ; and in these cases, 
 even if there were no others, the name Jruo- 
 VAH is given to Jesus. 
 
 One such passage is commented upon by our 
 author, with which we shall commence. It is a 
 quotation from Ps. cii. in Heb. i. 10—19,— 
 
156 The name Jehovah 
 
 “«¢ Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foun- 
 dation of the earth; and the heavens are. the 
 works of thine hands: They shall perish, but thou 
 remainest: and they all shall wax old as doth a 
 garment, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them 
 up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the 
 same, and thy years shall not fail.” Here, it is 
 manifest, that the Greek word hurios (lord) cor- 
 responds to the Hebrew word Jehovah; for the 
 person addressed in the Psalm is throughout de- 
 signated by this name. It is no less manifest, 
 that these words are asserted by the apostle 
 to be addressed to the Son of God. They form 
 part of that address to the Son which commences 
 at the Sth verse. Our author, however, thus 
 comments upon this text. 
 
 «¢<¢ These words, he’ (Mr. Pope,) ‘ says are ap- 
 plied to Christ. How they are applied he does not 
 inform us, and therefore we are left to guess. If 
 they are to be considered as a continuation of the 
 address of the Father to the Son, then does one 
 eternal being tell another eternal being, the palpable 
 truism, that his years shall not fail. Reason and 
 common sense cannot discover any meaning or ob- 
 ject in this. If the passage be supposed an address 
 to Christ, by the author of the epistle, what is the 
 proof that it is to him, and not to the Father him- 
 self, to whom it was originally addressed? The 
 connexion of the passage with the preceding verses 
 is not clear. The author's style is very elliptical, 
 often abstruse; and it is by no means easy to trace 
 in itan uninterrupted current of thought. Notwith- 
 standing, some circumstances lead us to conclude 
 decidedly, that the verses are addressed by the au- 
 thor to Jehovah, as they were originally addressed 
 in the Psalm from which they are borrowed. Their 
 object in the Psalm was to confirm the truth, “ that 
 the children of thy servants shall continue, and thew 
 seed shall be established before thee.” Witha similar 
 view are they cited here, to prove from the per- 
 
gwen to Jesus Christ. 157 
 
 manence and immutability of the eternal onr, the 
 durable nature of the spiritual kingdom which he 
 established by the agency of the Son. What He- 
 brew, and the Epistle is to Hebrews, could pos- 
 sibly suppose them applicable to any one but his own 
 Jehovah, the Father everlasting, who, in the be- 
 ginning created the heavens and the earth—who 
 stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth 
 abroad the earth by himself—Is. xliv. 24. < Emlyn,’ 
 (more candid critics) ‘ observes that this, though 
 a new citation, is not prefaced with, and to the Son 
 he saith, as v. 8., or with an again, as v. 5, 6, and 
 ii. 13., but barely, and thou Lord. Now the God 
 last mentioned was Christ’s God who had anointed 
 him ; and the author thereupon, addressing himself 
 to this God, breaks out into the celebration of his 
 power, and especially of his unchangeable duration — 
 The same learned divine! ! proceeds to show that 
 no one ancient writer ever applied the words to 
 Christ, during the first three centuries ; and that Dr. 
 Waterland does not pretend that they were ever so 
 applied till the fourth or fifth. The verses which 
 precede the passage in question, show as clearly as 
 language ‘can well express, the inferiority and su- 
 bordination of Christ. They tell us that God hath 
 spoken by him, and of course he is God’s agent or 
 minister, whom he hath appointed heir of all things 
 —by whom he hath made the fons, or ages, not 
 the worlds, composing the material system, as some 
 erroneously imagine, but the dispensations of his 
 word; a truth of some importance for us to under- 
 stand.”* 
 
 Our author’s first object, the reader will ob- 
 serve, is to throw darkness and uncertainty upon 
 a passage which is as clear as sun shine. “Unto 
 the Son he saith, Thy throne O God is for ever 
 and ever, and Thou Lord in the beginning,” &e. 
 First, he does not know to whom the words are 
 
 * Page 30, Ed. 2d. 
 P 
 
158 The name Jehovah 
 
 addressed, or by whom they are addressed; al- 
 though the apostle expressly says that ‘ God, 
 who, at sundry times and in divers manners 
 spake to the prophets,’ spoke these words to the 
 Son. Then ‘the connexion of the passage is 
 not clear,’ &c. It must be darkness itself to one 
 who is predetermined not to see that the Son of 
 God is addressed in it. Nay, but more, ‘ Rea- 
 son and common sense can discover no meaning 
 or object in them, viewed as an address from the 
 Father to the Son.” That is, the author, who is 
 predetermined to see no meaning or object in 
 them under that view, can discover none. In 
 that case, says he, * One eternal being would 
 be telling another eternal being, the palpable 
 truism, that his years shall not fail.’ It is dis-+ 
 tressing to transcribe such language. No! the 
 eternal God tells ws, in the form ef an address 
 to his Son, dictated to one of his servants, for 
 our perusal, that the Son is eternal, and that his 
 years shall not fail. But further, we are 
 told that Emlyn, a learned divine, observes 
 that the second passage is not introduced by 
 the same words, unto the Son he saith, (although 
 nothing would have been more unnatural) ; 
 nor even by the word again, as in some other 
 passages. The reader will discover the fu- 
 tility of this observation, by turning to the 
 third chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, 
 where he will find quotations from seven dif- 
 ferent portions of the Old Testament, follow- 
 ing one another, without any such separate in- 
 troductions, it is written, or again, or even the 
 word and. But the same ‘ learned divine’ pro- 
 ceeds to show that no ancient writer ever applied 
 the words to Christ during the first three cen- 
 turies. And what if no uninspired writer ever 
 mentioned them; would their silence overturn the 
 apostle’s assertion that they are addressed to 
 
given to Jesus Christ. 159 
 
 Christ? Our author has no objection to tradi= 
 tion when he thinks he can derive any counten- 
 ance from it. 
 
 Our author further observes, that the object 
 of the words in the Psalm is to confirm this de- 
 elaration, “ The children of thy servants shall 
 continue, and their seed shall be established be- 
 fore thee.” It is asserted in the Psalm that so 
 it shall be; but not as a logical deduction from 
 the words of the text; from which indeed that 
 promise could never be inferred, or even derive 
 confirmation. ‘* With a similar view,” says he, 
 ‘are they cited here to prove from the perma- 
 nence and immutability of the eternal onx, the 
 durable nature of the spiritual kingdom.” Not 
 a syllable is said of the kingdom of the Re- 
 deemer in the whole passage. The subject be- 
 fore the miud of the apostle was the glory of his 
 nature and person; not the glory of his king- 
 dom, or the security of his subjects. He is com- 
 paring him with the angels, to show how much 
 more glorious he is than they. He makes the 
 comparison before he introduces these quotations, 
 and he recurs to it immediately afterwards. 
 
 In one point I most cordially concur with the 
 author, that no Hebrew could possibly have sup- 
 _ posed these words applicable to any one but his 
 own Jehovah, the Father everlasting; from which 
 i infer, that the apostle Paul most explicitly taught 
 the Hebrews, that the Son of God, the Lord 
 Jesus, was that Jehovah, that Father everlast- 
 ing, manifesting himself to the world in human 
 nature. 
 
 The latter part of the critique, which is a 
 mere petitio principii—a taking for granted the 
 point at issue, (the author’s system employed, as 
 if it had been previously proved, to set aside the 
 yery facts on which any Scriptural system must 
 
160 The name Jehovah 
 
 be founded) will be considered in a subsequent 
 chapter. 
 
 Having thus produced one clear, unequivocal 
 instance, in which the proper name JEHOVAH is 
 given to the Redeemer, I shall do little more 
 than cite a few more instances of the same des- 
 cription. 
 
 In Isaiah vi. 1—5. we thus read—“ In the 
 year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord 
 sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and 
 his train filled the temple. Above it stood the 
 seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain 
 he covered his face, and with twain he covered 
 his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one 
 cried to another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is 
 the Lorp (Jehovah) of hosts: the whole earth 
 is full of his glory. And the posts of the door 
 moved at the voice of him that cried, and the 
 house was filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe 
 is me! for I am undone; because I am a man 
 of unclean lips, aad I dwell in the midst of a 
 people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen 
 the King, the Lorp (Jehovah) of hosts.” Now 
 when we compare this assertion of Isaiah, that 
 his eyes had seen the King, Jehovah of hosts, 
 with the assertion of the evangelist John, that 
 ** No man hath seen God at any time,” but that, 
 *‘ the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom 
 of the Father, he hath declared him ;”’* it seems 
 difficult to reconcile the two passages without 
 believing, that the person whom Isaiah saw was 
 the Lord Jesus, the only begotten of the Father, 
 who was God, and the manifestation of God to 
 man. But all doubt on this head will be re- 
 moved, if we find this very evangelist asserting 
 
 * John i. 18. 
 
given to Jesus Christ. 161 
 
 that it was the Lord Jesus whom Isaiah saw.— 
 Let the reader then turn to John xii. 37, 41, 42. 
 ** But though he had done so many miracles 
 befere them, yet they believed not on him.— 
 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, 
 and spake of him ; nevertheless among the chief 
 rulers also many believed on him.” No one can 
 for a moment doubt that the evangelist here 
 speaks of Jesus. But what does he refer to 
 when he says that Esaias saw his glory? He 
 himself determines that point by referring to 
 certain things which Esaias said on the occasion. 
 ** He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened 
 their heart; that they should not see with their 
 eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be 
 converted, and I should heal them.” Now if the 
 reader will return to Is. vi. 10. he will find, that 
 these words were spoken at the time when Isaiah 
 saw the glory of Jenovau of hosts. The evan- 
 gelist gives the sense with some variation of the 
 language; but there is no other passage in the 
 prophecies of Isaiah, nor indeed in the whole of 
 the Old Testament, to which he can be supposed 
 to refer. It is scarcely possible to conceive, 
 therefore, of a more indubitable instance of the 
 name and character of JEHOovAI being given to 
 our Blessed Lord than this. 
 
 Again, Is. xlv. 23.— I have ¢worn by my- 
 self, the word is gone out of my mouth in righ- 
 teousness, and shall not return, That unto me 
 every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” 
 That it is Jenovau who here speaks there can- 
 not bea moment’s, doubt. He is expressly called 
 so m versé 21. Let this then be compared with 
 Rom. xiv. 10,:44,/12.,5 For we shall all stand be- 
 fore the judgment seat of Curist:—for it is 
 written, as I live saith the Lorp, every knee 
 
 P.3 : 
 
162 The name Jehovah 
 
 shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess 
 to God—So then every one of us shall give 
 account of himself to God.” Here the word 
 Lorp manifestly corresponds to the name JEHO- 
 vAH; and Jesus is in this passage called both 
 “ehovah and God. 
 
 Again, Is. xl. 3.—‘* The voice of him that 
 crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of 
 the Lord (Jenovan): make straight in the de- 
 sert a high-way for our God.” * These words, 
 John the Baptist asserts, respected his mission. 
 He said ‘“‘ I am the voice of one crying in the 
 wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, 
 as said the prophet Esaias.”* Now whose way 
 was John the Baptist sent to prepare? Can 
 airy one hesitate to answer,—The way of Jesus. 
 He himself returns this answer—“ Ye your- 
 selves,” said he, ‘‘ bear me witness that I said, 
 Tam not the Christ, but that I am sent before 
 him.” Christ theretore is that JeHovaH whose 
 way John was sent to prepare. 
 
 Again, Exod. xvii. 2,7.—** And Moses said un- 
 to them Why chide ye with me ? Wherefore do ye 
 temptthe Lorn? (Jehovah)--“ Because they temp- 
 ted the Lorp (Jehovah,) saying, Is the Lorp 
 among us or not.” And Ps. xxviii. 18, 56.— 
 «¢ And they tempted God in their heart by ask- 
 ing meat for their lust.” ‘* Yet they tempted 
 and provoked the most high God.” It was God, 
 then, the most high God, who in the Psalm from 
 which the two last passages have been trans- 
 cribed, is repeatedly called Jehovah. Now let 
 us look to the New Testament explanation of 
 these transactions. 1 Cor. x. 9.—* Neither let 
 us tempt Curisv, as some of them also tempted, 
 
 * John i. 23. Mat. iii. 3. 
 
given to Jesus Christ. 163 
 
 and were destroyed of serpents.” It is manifest 
 that the apostle here represents the Israclites as 
 having tempted Christ in the wilderness; who 
 in the Old Testament is called God and Jeho- 
 vah. Or if Unitarians insist on supplying the 
 word God after the word tempted, instead of the 
 word him reterring to Christ; still the passage 
 would make the sins of Christians a tempting of 
 Christ, even since the removal of his bodily pre- 
 sence from the world, in the same sense in which 
 the sins of theIsraelites in the wilderness were 
 a tempting of Jehovah. 
 
 Still further, in Ps. ]. 1—6. it is declared that 
 the Mighty God, even Jenovan, will come in 
 great glory to judge his people, for that he js 
 Judge himself. Now, in the New Testament, we 
 are again and again informed, that it is the Lord 
 Jesus who is to come with thousands of angels 
 to judge the world. Nor is there any intimation 
 of God the Father coming or appearing for that 
 purpose. On the contrary, it is intimated, as 
 we have already seen, that the invisible God is 
 manifested only by the only begotten Son of the 
 Father. In this passage therefore in Ps. 1. we 
 must manifestly understand the coming of the 
 Lord Jesus to be foretold, who is called God 
 and Jehovah. And in that remarkable passage, 
 _In which the apostle Jude quotes a prophecy of 
 Enoch, that the Lord was about to come with 
 ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment, 
 we must understand on the one hand, according 
 to the doctrine of the Old Testament, the Lorp 
 JrnovaH, the Mighty God; and according to 
 the explanation furnished by the New Testament, 
 the Lory Jesus Christ. 
 
 Under this head the number of passages which 
 ean be brought forward is necessarily limited, 
 
164 The name Jehovah 
 
 because, in consequence of the different significa- 
 tions of the word Kurios, (lord), it is necessary 
 to confine ourselves to quotations from the Old 
 Testament, in which the name Jehovah occurs. 
 But, from the nature of these quotations, it is evi- 
 dent that the word Kurios, (lord), applied to the 
 Lord Jesus, ought frequently to be understood in 
 the very highest sense which it is eapable of bear- 
 ing. Wherever it is used in a manner in which it 
 might with propriety be understood to refer to 
 God; it ought surely to be regarded as stand- 
 ing in the place of the name JEHovaH. For 
 example, when the Lord of glory* is spoken of, 
 or, the Lord our Saviour,+ or when it 1s said— 
 ‘The Lord will come with thousands of his 
 saints,” ** Blessed are the dead who die in the 
 Lord,’t i. e. as explained by the apostle, ‘ the 
 dead in Christ,Ӥ the word Lord should be re- 
 garded as the representation of the name Jehovah. 
 These are forms of speaking that are frequently 
 used in reference to the supreme God. Such 
 titles as the God of glory, The Father of glory, 
 God our Saviour, as frequently occur, as The 
 Lord of glory, and The Lord our Saviour ; and 
 surely nothing but the most pertinacious ad- 
 herence to a system, would imduce any one to 
 interpret the word Lord, in these titles, in an in- 
 ferior sense, only when they may be determined 
 by the context to be applied to the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. Unitarian writers may make light of 
 the title, * the Lord’ being given to Christ; but, 
 for my part, -when I consider how familiar that 
 title is, as a title of God Almighty; how totally 
 alien it is from the style of Scripture, to denomi- 
 nate any creature, in a> religious” sense, * The 
 
 * 1'Cor. ii. 8. ft Tit. i'4.°'2' Pets i FL i} Rev. xiv. 13. 
 § 1 Thesssiv. 16. © . 
 
given to Jesus Christ. 165 
 
 Lord ;’ when I reflect, that, among the titles 
 given to God, are to be found the God of glory, 
 and God our Saviour ; when I further remember, 
 that the word Lord is used in the New Testa- 
 ment as a translation of the name JEHOVAH; 
 I cannot but regard such titles as “* The Lord,” 
 used absolutely, and in a religious sense, or 
 ** The Lord of glory,” or “ The Lord our Saviour,” 
 and others of a similar description, in which the 
 word Lord occurs, as being assertions of the su- 
 preme Deity of the Redeemer, as unequivocal as 
 could be devised. Such a title as The Lord, or 
 the Lord of giory, or the Lord our Saviour, given 
 to Paul or Peter, or to any of the apostles or pro- 
 phets, or any of the kings of Judah, convey to 
 my mind the impression of as gross idolatry, as 
 the awful title used by some members of the 
 Church of Rome, ‘“‘ Our Lord God the Pope.” 
 As our author quotes the example of heathen 
 poets in justification of such a ‘ lofty hyperboli- 
 eal,’ title as ‘ The Mighty God, being given to 
 king Hezekiah ; it might not be beneath his re- 
 gard to justify the application of such titles as 
 those mentioned above, to the Saviour, by the ex- 
 ample of ‘ the infallible church.” 
 
 It is further manifest, that when the New Tes- 
 tament determines any instance of the use of the 
 “name Jehovah in the Old Testament, to be an 
 application of it to the Messiah, wherever we 
 find the same name given to the same person, 
 we must regard it as a continuation of the appli- 
 cation of the name Jehovah to the Messiah.— 
 For example the latter part of Psalm cii. is de- 
 termined by the New Testament to be an ad- 
 dress to the Messiah; from which it obviously 
 follows, that, as the former part of it refers to 
 the same person, who is repeatedly named Je- 
 hovah, these also ought to be regarded as in- 
 
166 The name Jehovah 
 
 stances of this name being given to the Messiali. 
 Again, we have found that the vision of the glory 
 of the Lord of Hosts, which Isaiah saw, has 
 been determined by the New Testament to have 
 been a vision of the glory of the Lord Jesus; 
 from which it follows, that, wherever the same 
 person is spoken of throughout the prophecy, we 
 must understand that it is Jesus who is spoken 
 of. The application of this principle would go 
 far towards establishing the point, that the person 
 who was revealed to the Jews, under the name 
 Jehovah, was none other than the Messiah, ap- 
 pearing as the manifestation of the invisible God 
 to his creatures, conducting that introductory 
 dispensation for the edifying of his church. 
 
 I conclude this part of the subject by adducing 
 a passage in which both the titles God and Lord 
 are addressed to Jesus, in the very highest sense 
 of which they are capable—‘ Then saith he to 
 Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold 
 my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and 
 thrust it into my side; and be not faithless but 
 believing. And Thomas answered and said un- 
 to him, My Lord and my God.”* The explana- 
 tion which Unitarians give of these words is, 
 that they were a mere exclamation of surprise :— 
 that Thomas did not address them to Jesus; 
 but, turning from him, addressed himself, in his 
 astonishment, to God. But what says the evan- 
 gelist ? ‘ Thomas answered and said unto him, 
 {Jesus), my Lord and my God.” And our Lord 
 received these words as an expression of the 
 faith of Thomas. The other disciples had told 
 him that they had seen the Lord. Thomas de- 
 clared that he would not believe unless he saw 
 _ and felt the prints of the nails in his hands, and 
 
 * John xx, 27, 28, 
 
given to Jesus Christ. 167 
 
 the wound in his side. Jesus gave him this sa- 
 tisfaction; and had Thomas then said, ‘ My Lord,’ 
 there would haye been no dispute about. his 
 meaning. His words would have been under- 
 stood to convey an expression of his conviction 
 of the truth of Christ’s resurrection. But be- 
 cause he adds, ‘ My God,’ Unitarian writers 
 would persuade us, that he does not express his 
 conyiction, but his astonishment. Jesus, however, 
 has determined the matter otherwise, by receiv- 
 ing the words of Thomas as the expression of his 
 belief. « Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because 
 thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed 
 are they who have not seen, and yet have be- 
 lieved.” , 
 
CHAP. VII. 
 
 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD ASCRIBED TO 
 JESUS, 
 
 Tue ascription of the peculiar title and name 
 of the Deity, God and Lord, or Jehovah, to the 
 Redeemer, in so many instances, ought to place 
 the question of his Divine nature beyond dis- 
 pute. It is not necessary to show that any, 
 much less all, of the attributes of God are speci- 
 fically ascribed to him. Because if he be God and 
 Jehovah, it follows as a matter of course that 
 all the attributes of God are his attributes. Our 
 author shows that the attributes of Deity are 
 ascribed to God in the Old Testament, in a much 
 greater variety of expression, than we can find 
 in the New Testament, in ascribing them speci- 
 fically to Jesus; and from this circumstance he 
 infers the inferiority of Jesus to the God re- 
 vealed in the Old Testament. There would be 
 some force, although not much, in this mode of 
 reasoning, if Jesus were set up as a different, but 
 equal being to the God of the Jews. But our 
 object is to prove that he is the same being, ma- 
 nifested in human nature. All therefore that is 
 necessary is to be able to identify him with the 
 God of the Old Testament. The great object 
 of the Old Testament is to make us thoroughly 
 acquainted with the character of that one, in- 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 169 
 
 visible, eternal God, who made us, and who is 
 our sovereign ruler; and all the attributes which 
 it describes him as possessing, it connects with 
 those manifestations which he gave of himself to 
 Adam and Abraham and his posterity, especially 
 in that visible glory which, ‘dwelt between the 
 cherubims.’ The New Testament merely con- 
 nects these attributes with the man Christ Jesus, 
 intimating however, that it was not the man 
 Christ Jesus that possessed them, but the invi- 
 sible God dwelling in him. The same caution 
 is given respecting the manifestation of God in 
 the Shechinah or glory in the Tabernacle.— 
 Whilst God is described as dwelling there, or 
 there manifesting himself to his people, he is, at 
 the same time, described as filling heaven and 
 earth with his invisible presence. And no intel- 
 ligent Israelite could imagine that it was the 
 cloud, or the flame of fire that possessed the at- 
 tributes ascribed to the Deity ; but the invisible 
 God, who manifested himself by these visible 
 things. Just so, the man Christ Jesus was only 
 the outward means by which the Deity chose to 
 manifest his presence; but it was the invisible 
 Deity united to the man, who possessed the at- 
 tributes of Deity. It is quite preposterous there- 
 fore to expect, that the attributes of the Deity 
 should be described, in the New Testament, as 
 fully as they had been described in the Old Tes- 
 tament, merely for the purpose of connecting 
 them with the Lord Jesus Christ. All that was 
 necessary, was to identify the Saviour with the 
 manifestation of the Deity to the Jews. This 
 the Scripture does, as we have already proved, 
 by giving him the same title, Gop, and the 
 same name, JEHOVAH; we have now to show 
 that it ascribes the same attributes and works 
 to him. 
 6 
 
170: The attributes of God 
 
 INDEPENDENT ETERNAL EXISTENCE. 
 
 God alone is described in the Old Testament 
 as possessing independent, eternal existence, and 
 we shall find the same attribute ascribed to the 
 Lord Jesus sometimes in nearly the same terms. 
 
 Thus John i. 1, 2.—** In the beginning was 
 the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
 Word was God: the same was in the beginning 
 with God.” The application of this passage to 
 Jesus has already been vindicated.* That by 
 the term beginning is meant from eternity, is 
 rendered manifest by what follows—“ All things 
 were made by him, and without him was not 
 any thing made that was made.” That he had 
 an independent existence is in effect asserted in 
 verse 4th, ‘“* In him was life; and the life was 
 the light of men.” This connected with the de-~ 
 claration, that he was God, can imply nothing 
 less than an independent existence. 
 
 Again, Col. i. 1'7.—* And he,” (that is the 
 Son who is called the image of the invisible God, 
 v. 15,) ‘*is before all things, and by him all 
 things consist.” This at once declares his cter- 
 nity and his self existence. 
 
 Again, Micah. v, 2.—“ But thou Bethlehem 
 Ephratah, though thou be little among the thou- 
 sands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come 
 forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; 
 whose goings forth have been from of old, from 
 everlasting.” This passage is applied to the Sa- 
 viour by the chief priests and scribes in their 
 answer to Herod’s: question,+ and must be re- 
 garded as an unbiassed answer, as it was given 
 betore they had contracted any of their preju- 
 
 * See chap. vi. above. + Mat. ii. 6. 
 
- ascribed to Jesus. 7 
 
 dices against the Lord Jesus. _ And this applica- 
 tion of it is confirmed by our Lord. himself— 
 John vii. 42.—“ Hath not the Scripture said 
 that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and 
 out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was.” 
 There is noe other passage in the Old Testament 
 but that which has been cited from the prophe- 
 cies of Micah, in which it is foretold that the 
 Messiah was to be of Bethlehem. 
 
 Again, Rev. i. 17.—** And he” (i. e. one like 
 the Son of man, v. 13.) “ laid his right hand upon 
 me, saying unto me, Fear not, Iam the first and 
 the last.” ii. 8.—** And unto the angel of the 
 church in Smyrna write; These things saith the 
 first and the last, which was dead, and is alive.” 
 xxi. 13.—“ I am Alpha and Omega, the begin- 
 ning and the end, the first and the last.” 
 
 This is a form in which the eternal existence 
 of God is repeatedly declared in the Scriptures. 
 Thus, Is. xii. 4.—‘* Who hath wrought and 
 done it, callmg the generations from the begin- 
 ning? I the Lorp (JEHovaH) the first and 
 with the last, am he.”  xliv. 6.—* Thus saith 
 the Lorp (JrHovan) the King of Israel, and 
 his Redeemer the Lorp (JEHovaH) of Hosts, I 
 am the first, and I am the last; and besides me 
 there is no God.” And Rev. i. 8.—** J] am 
 Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end- 
 ing, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, 
 and which is to come, the Almighty.” I have 
 httle doubt that the last quotation are the words 
 of the Lord Jesus, who is spoken of in the pre- 
 ceding verse ; but as, for very obvious reasons, 
 _ Unitarians ascribe them to God, who had been 
 previously mentioned, I shall not dispute the 
 point. According even to this view of them, 
 they characterized God by the very same lan- 
 guage, by which the Redeemer is characterized. 
 
i72 The attributes of God 
 “He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning’ 
 
 and the ending.” Also, Rev. xxi. 6.— And he” 
 (he that sat upon the throne, v. 5.) ‘“ said unto 
 me, it is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the be- 
 ginning and the end.” 
 
 It seems to me very extraordinary that our au- 
 thor, while he admits that the passage transcribed 
 above from Rev. xxii. 13. contains the language 
 of the Redeemer, he, at the same time, asserts 
 that the Redeemer is the angel mentioned v: 8, 
 9., who forbade John to worship him. This 
 would be very wonderful, inasmuch as Jesus at 
 all times received that description of worship 
 which was here offered to him, without scruple. 
 When we produce instances of Christ receiving 
 such worship, Unitarians tell us it was merely a 
 civil respect ; and yet they would here persuade us 
 that Jesus refused that civil respect, and directed 
 the apostle to pay his civil respect to God.— 
 Surely they cannot imagine that the apostle pro- 
 posed to offer divine worship to an angel. 
 
 This seems to me to be one of the most des- 
 perate plunges, to save a hopeless cause, that has 
 ever heen attempted. Nothing can be more re- 
 volting than the supposition, that a created an- 
 gel should adopt a style of language in describ- 
 ing himself, which the Creator of heaven and 
 earth employed to describe his own eternity :— 
 “tam Alpha and Omega, the beginning and 
 the end.” Nor is there the slightest necessity 
 for adopting so extravagant a hypothesis. The 
 «ugel who declined the worship offered to him 
 hy John, was that angel who is introduced chap. 
 xxi. 9.— And there came unto me one of the 
 seven angels which had the seven vials full of 
 the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, 
 come hither, and I will show thee the bride, the 
 Lamb’s wife.” By the Lamb is most assuredly 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 173 
 
 meant the Lord Jesus. This angel therefore 
 was not the Lord Jesus. But that the Lord Jesus 
 had become the speaker before the words of chap. 
 xxii. 13. is manifest from verse 16.—‘ I Jesus. 
 have sent mine angel to testify unto you these 
 things in the churches ;”—alluding, without 
 doubt, to the angel who had been sent to show 
 to John the bride the Lamb’s wife, the heavenly 
 Jerusalem. A change of speaker therefore plainly 
 takes place at or before the 12th verse, “ And 
 behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, 
 to give every man according as his work shall 
 be;” for this is a declaration that never could 
 be made by a messenger, who describes himself 
 to the apostle John, (verse 9.) as, “his fellow- 
 servant, and of his brethren the prophets, and of 
 them which keep the sayings of this book.” The 
 description which the Redeemer gives of himself 
 at the commencement of the book runs in the 
 same stram—‘ I am Alpha and Omega, the first 
 and the last.”* ‘ Behold I come quickly.”}+-— 
 “<I will give to every one of you according to 
 your works.”{ It was quite natural that Jesus 
 should conclude the ‘ revelation’ with the same 
 description of himself with which he had com- 
 menced it; but can any hypothesis be imagined 
 _mere monstrous than that Jesus, who, through- 
 out the whole book, is described as the Lamb, 
 who redeemed men by his blood, who received 
 the worship and praises of all the angels, the 
 source of light and happiness to the Heavenly 
 Jerusalem, should be the same with one of those 
 seven angels, who held the seven vials full of the 
 seven last plagues. ? 
 
 Our author attempts to lower the import of 
 
 #- Rev..is 11 V7 i758, +. Tey. i1.°5;51G. citi) 11, 
 t Rev, ii, 23, see also verses 5, 10, 16, 17, 22, 23, 28, &. 
 
 0 3 
 
174 The attributes of God 
 
 the phrase “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the 
 beginning and the ending,” by comparing it to 
 the expression, Heb. xii. 2.—< The author and 
 finisher of our faith.” What he expects to gain 
 by this I know not. Does this character—* the 
 author and finisher of our faith’—necessarily be- 
 long to a creature, a mere man? if it be of 
 similar import with, “I am the Alpha and 
 Omega, the first and the last,” to which it has 
 a similarity in sound, if not in sense, and if to 
 be ‘the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last,’ 
 be an attribute of Deity, would it not follow that 
 to be ‘ the author and finisher of faith,’ must be 
 an attribute of Deity also? And this I am sure 
 is the fact. To ac..nowledge any mere man, or 
 any mere creature, as ‘the author and finisher 
 of our faith,’ would be an act of as gross impiety 
 and idolatry, as to acknowledge him as “ The 
 Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end- 
 ing, which is and which was and which is to 
 come, the Almighty.” 
 
 To these passages may be added, John viii. 
 58.—** Before Abraham was, lam.’ I do not 
 mean to rest any argument on the expression J 
 am, taken by itself. It occurs repeatedly in this 
 chapter, and is translated I am he. N either shall 
 I argue from its supposed reference to the name 
 by which Jehovah revealed himself to Moses, I 
 Tam tHar I am. It seems to me very pro- 
 bable that there was such a reference, but I dare . 
 not found an argument on that probability.— 
 But the point to which I would call the reader’s 
 attention is the singular combination of past and 
 present time. Before Abraham was, I am.— 
 Our author asserts on the authority of Grotius, 
 another Unitarian, that the present is put for the 
 past, Zam, for I was; and then that J was will 
 signify only I was the person appointed in the 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 1%5 
 
 counsels of God before Abraham. This is a ver 
 summary and easy method of getting over a dif- 
 ficulty. One Unitarian asserts that J am stands 
 for Z was, and then other Unitarians, with 
 many commendations of his learning, talent, can- 
 dour, &c. quote him as authority in all time 
 coming. How is it that no examples are given 
 of this supposed substitution of present for past 
 time? That there are instances in which time 
 is indifferent, and in which, probably, Greek 
 writers would express by a past tense, what in 
 English would be expressed by a present, may 
 be admitted. But to suppose that a present 
 tense should be used in Greek, in which that 
 language itself required a past tense, is a sup- 
 position that would throw all language into con- 
 fusion. How could a judge take the deposition 
 of a witness, if he were allowed to change pre- 
 sent into past, and past into present, as might 
 suit his conveniency? It is true also that pro- 
 phets, in describing scenes that were not to be 
 accomplished till a future age, often describe 
 them as. present. The reason is manifest, the 
 scenes were made present to them, as they are 
 to the Divine mind, and they describéd them ac- 
 cordingly. Perhaps they themselves were not 
 _ aware that they were describing future events. 
 
 But can any example be found of a sacred 
 writer’s fixing a definite past time, before which 
 he asserts a certain event took place, and using 
 a present tense in his assertion. Can any ex- 
 ample be found in Greek, or any other lan- 
 guage which has a distinction of tenses, of 
 such a declaration as this, ‘ Before Solomon 
 was, Abraham is.’ 
 
 Besides, even if we could be persuaded, that 
 _ the declaration of Jesus might be rendered, 
 
 “* Before Abraham was, I was,” we are conducted 
 
\'76 The attributes of God 
 
 to a proposition that asserts an existence of 
 nearly 2000 years. This is answered by assert- 
 ing that he might intend to say, that before 
 Abraham. was, he existed in the prescience and 
 pre-determination of God. But so did John the 
 Baptist, and Peter, and Paul, so does every 
 man. Jesus had been asked, “Thou art not 
 yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?” 
 and he answered, ‘ Before Abraham was I am.” 
 Had the people understood him to mean that 
 before Abraham was, he was foreknown and 
 predestinated of God, they would have been 
 more disposed to laugh at his evasion of their 
 question, than to be angry with him. But they 
 manifestly understood him to assert, that he was 
 in actual existence before Abraham, and had 
 continued till that time. 
 
 Nor is it to be overlooked, that, while this 
 extraordinary form of expression is peculiar to 
 Jesus, it is not the only instance in which he 
 used it. Thus we find him saying, John iii, 13. 
 ‘¢ And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but 
 he that came down from heaven, even the Son 
 of man which is in heaven.” 
 
 UNCHANGEABLENESS. 
 
 The attribute of unchangeableness is ascribed 
 to the Saviour, in a passage which we have 
 already vindicated as referring to him, Heb. i. 
 11, 12. “They shall perish, but thou remainest, 
 and they shall all wax old as doth a garment; 
 and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and 
 they shall be changed, but thou art the same, 
 and thy years shall not fail.” No Israelite, as 
 our author well observes, could corceive of any 
 other being described in these words, than “his 
 own Jehoyah;” but here they are employed to 
 
ascribed to Jesus. Vig 
 
 describe the glory of the Son, who is therefore 
 the Jehovah of the Israelites. 
 
 Again, chap. xiii. 8, * Jesus Christ, the same 
 yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.” These 
 words are so express, that we may well wonder at 
 the hardihood that should attempt to extract any 
 other sense from them, than that which they 
 obviously convey. Nothing, however, is too 
 formidable for Unitarian criticsto dashat. The 
 Unitarian version says, in a note, “ Jesus Christ, 
 that is, the evangelical doctrine delivered by 
 Christ and his apostles.” Here, the name Jesus 
 Christ is first supposed to include the apostles, 
 and then the whole are transformed into the 
 doctrine taught by them. But even this does 
 not satisfy these critics; and therefore with the 
 help of a few additional words they make it, 
 * Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and to-day, 
 will also be the same for ever.” What might 
 not be accomplished by such a system ? 
 
 Our author simply asserts that this text “is 
 not intended to teach us any thing about the 
 person of our Lord.” Why? “ Because it is 
 found amidst a series of moral instructions, and 
 forms part of an exhortation to be steadfast in the 
 faith.” This really is beneath criticism: that 
 the obvious sense of the words of Scripture 
 should be set aside, because the author cannot 
 see the connexion of them with the context. 
 Any one, who looks at the passage with an 
 unprejudiced eye, will see at once the bearing of 
 these words, ‘* Remember them which have the 
 rule over you, who have spoken unto you the 
 word of God: whose faith follow, considering 
 the end of their conversation, Jesus Christ, the 
 same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.” The 
 apostle reminds the Hebrews of the unchangeable- 
 ness of the Saviour, when he exhorts them to fol- 
 
i78 The attributes of God 
 
 low the faith of those who had closed their career 
 by martyrdom. Although many who had the rule 
 over them had been removed, yet Jesus abideth 
 for ever. It is because he is the same yesterday, 
 to-day, and for ever, that we can trust him for 
 the fulfilment of his promises. 
 
 The sense which our author gives to the words 
 is, as usual, figurative; and also, as usual, on 
 the authority of some notable critic, or rather the 
 admission of some notable Trinitarian. Dr. 
 Whitby, he tells us, puts this gloss on the 
 words, “Jesus Christ, who, both as to his 
 doctrines and his promises, is the same yesterday, 
 to-day, and for ever.” Dr. Whitby, it is to be 
 remarked, is said to have abjured his opinions 
 respecting the doctrine of the divine nature of 
 the Redeemer, and thereby became popular 
 among Unitarians. He never was esteemed by 
 Evangelical Christians as sound in the faith. 
 He went out from them, because he never was 
 of them. He was however a learned and able 
 man; and, in matters of fact and criticism, his 
 commentary is highly useful. His gloss on this 
 passage is manifestly imperfect, for the apostle 
 is not contrasting the doctrine of Christ with that 
 of the former guides of the Hebrews, but the 
 permanency and unchangeableness of his exist~ 
 ence with the mutability of all earthly teachers. 
 Yet, even admitting his explanation to contain all 
 that the apostle meant, it is very obvious that, 
 if Jesus be unchangeable as to the fulfilment of 
 his promises, he must be equally unchangeable 
 in his being, his power, his purposes, his love, 
 his faithfulness—in short, in all those attributes 
 which are necessary to secure the fulfilment of 
 
 promises, in the most remote periods of future 
 existence, | 
 
} { 
 
 ascribed to Jesus. 179 
 
 OMNIPRESENCE. 
 
 One passage in which omnipresence is ascribed 
 to the Redeemer, is commented on by our 
 author, as if it were the only passage to that 
 effect; Matt. xviii. 20. % For where two or three 
 are gathered together in my name, there am I 
 in the midst of them:” to which we may add 
 Matt. xxviii, 19, 20. “Go ye therefore, and 
 teach all nations, baptizing in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; 
 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
 have commanded you: and lo, Iam with you 
 alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” 
 The comment is as follows; ! 
 
 “If Christ be possessed of that attribute in the 
 sense in which it is ascribed to the Deity, it had 
 been superfluous to say that he would be present 
 with two or three who were assembled for a 
 particular purpose—when, by the very necessity of 
 his nature, he must be present at all times, and on 
 all occasions, not with his disciples only, but with 
 Jews and Gentiles.”* 
 
 The direct reply to this is, that similar decla- 
 rations are made respecting God in the Old 
 Testament. ‘In all places where I record my 
 name I will come unto thee, and I will bless © 
 thee.”+ ‘ For thus saith the high and lofty one, 
 { dwell in the high and holy place, with him also 
 that is of a contrite and humble spirit.” Accord- 
 ing to our author’s judgment, these, and similar 
 declarations are superfluous, because God is in 
 every place, and they may therefore be blotted 
 from the Bible. But, is it not by such passages 
 that the omnipresence of God is taught in Serip- 
 ture? And is it not thus that the omnipresence 
 
 * Page 28, or 2d Edit. page 34. + Exod, xx, 24, 
 
180 The attributes of God 
 
 of Christ is to be taught also? But our author 
 proceeds, 
 
 “To understand the expression literally involves 
 one of two great errors, either that Christ did not 
 ascend to heaven, but still remains on earth; or 
 that he descends from heaven really and corporeally, 
 whenever two or three are gathered together in his 
 name. Moreover it contains a virtual denial that in 
 heaven, his dwelling place, he presides over his 
 church and people; though God anointed him with 
 the Holy Spirit and with power; and gives up one 
 of the strongest arguments against the real presence 
 of Christ in the Eucharist; a concession for which 
 Mr. Maguire will, no doubt, be grateful.” 
 
 Can any thing be conceived more puerile than 
 all this? The omnipresence of Christ involves 
 nothing whatever about his either ascending to 
 heaven, or descending from it corporeally; but 
 simply that he is present with his people in the 
 same sense in which the God of Abraham, and 
 Isaac, and Jacob promised to be with those who 
 worshipped him according to his appointment. 
 Neither is it a virtual denial that heaven is his 
 dwelling place. When Solomon said, in his 
 beautiful prayer at the dedication of the temple, 
 ‘*And will God in very deed dwell with man 
 upon the earth?” so far from intending any 
 denial that heaven was his dwelling place, he 
 said, in almost the same breath, that the heaven 
 of heavens could not contain him. Nor is there 
 here any concession respecting the corporeal 
 presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If Jesus 
 was a manifestation of God in human nature, 
 his being every where present does not imply 
 that his human nature is every where present, 
 any more than the omnipresence of the Deity 
 implies that the Shechinah, or ancient symbol of 
 the Divine presence, is every where present. 
 
 Our author therefore pleads, as usual, for a 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 18] 
 
 metaphorical presence, on the authority of great 
 critics. ) 
 
 . “Our Lord,” says he, “makes no claim to ubi- 
 quity ; nor are his words intended to convey any 
 idea of his being personally, but virtually present. 
 Adesse alicui dicitur qui ei favet auxiliumque prebet. 
 ( He is said to be present to any one who befriends him, 
 and affords him assistance.) This is the observation 
 of Grotius; who further observes, that our Lord’s 
 declaration is very similar to a declaration of the 
 Jews, ‘Where two sit discoursing concerning the 
 law, the Shechinah, or symbol of the divine presence, 
 is among them.’ ” a 
 
 But even admitting this virtual presence, how 
 could Jesus befriend every two or three of his 
 disciples met together in his name, and afford 
 them assistance, if he were not really present 
 with them, to witness them, and to act on 
 their behalf? The Jewish saying quoted by 
 Grotius is a very beautiful illustration of our 
 doctrine, for which I feel myself much indebted 
 to our author. It is an expression of their faith 
 in the real presence of that God, who manifested 
 himself to their fathers in the Shechinah; and is 
 perfectly parallel with the faith which every two 
 or three disciples of Christ, met together in his 
 name, are called to exercise in the real presence 
 -of the same God, who was manifested in the 
 man Christ Jesus. 
 
 Another passage, in which the omnipresence 
 of, Christ is distinctly taught, we have in John, 
 xiv. 23. “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.” “ We will come.” Who? The Father 
 and the Lord Jesus Christ. Surely, if there be 
 meaning in language, the meaning of this is, 
 that Jesus Christ will come and abide with those 
 that love him, in the same sense in which God 
 
 : R 
 
1s2 The attributes of God 
 
 the Father will be with them. Nor can this be 
 reterred toa future state, for the declaration 1s 
 in answer to a question put by Judas, (not 
 Iscariot) “ Lord, how is it that thou wilt mani- 
 fest thyself unto us, and not unto the world 2” 
 The answer is, that the Father and Jesus would 
 come to those that love the Lord Jesus, and 
 manifest themselves to them, by dwelling in 
 them and blessing them. / bine 
 
 To break the force of such passages as these, 
 and to induce us to cast away the strength and 
 comfort which the Lord Jesus provides fer us, 
 in the assurance that he is always present with 
 us, we are reminded that it is said, ‘ They 
 have Moses and the prophets, let them hear 
 them ;” and again, that it is said of Abel— 
 ‘That he, being dead, yet speaketh;” and we 
 are asked if Moses and the prophets and Abel. 
 were omnipresent. This is a sort of quibbling 
 that is altogether unworthy of a sacred subject. 
 ‘Moses and the prophets,” is, by one of the 
 most common figures of speech, used to express 
 the writings cf Moses and the prophets, which 
 were present with them, and ts thus explained 
 by our Lord himself, John v. 45—47. Abel 
 also, being dead, yet speaketh in the record that is 
 left of his history, which was also really present 
 with them. But is there any thing here that 
 ean be compared with the declaration of Jesus, 
 that he would be present with his disciples, to 
 procure for them whatever they should agree in. 
 asking ? da 
 
 We are reminded also of the language of the 
 apostle Paul, “1 verily, as absent in. body, 
 but present in spirit, have judged ‘already. 
 as though I were present.”* A cause of gross - 
 
 : * 1 Cot. €.5o% 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 183 
 
 scandal had occurred in the Corinthian church, 
 and the apostle exhorts that church to expel the 
 offender: and he tells the Corinthians that, 
 although he could not be personally present with 
 them, yet that they had his full consent and 
 authority, nay, injunction, as an inspired apostle, 
 to inflict the sentence of excommunication on the 
 person who had occasioned the scandal: that he 
 would thus be present in spirit or mind with 
 them, in this particular instance, although he 
 was personally absent. But can this be seriously 
 compared with the general declaration of Jesus, 
 when he was about to ascend to heaven, “Lo, I 
 am with you always to the end of the world ?” 
 Another passage of a similar description is 
 alluded to, Col. ii. 5. “Though I be absent in 
 the flesh, yet 2m I with you in the spirit, joying 
 and beholdins your order, and the steadfastness 
 of your faith in Christ.” The apostle here 
 intimates that although they had never seen him 
 personally, (v. 1.) and although he was still 
 personally absent, yet that, in thought and affec- 
 tion, he was with them, rejoicing in the order 
 and steadfastness which he knew to exist among 
 them. This is a form of speech that could not 
 deceive, and I believe never did deceive any 
 one. But the declarations respecting the presence 
 of the Lord Jesus to his people in all ages, 
 especially when combined with the other divine 
 attributes ascrived to him, and the promises 
 made by him, could not but persuade, and in 
 point of fact have persuaded multitudes, who 
 have testified the sincerity of their faith, by 
 bearing torture and death rather than compro- 
 mise it, that Jesus was really, although not 
 corporeally present with them at all times. 
 Perhaps the most effectual method of exposing 
 the fallacy of the mode of reasoning adopted by 
 
184 The attributes of God 
 
 our author on this subject, is to show that his 
 arguments equally affect the omnipresence of 
 him whom he acknowledges as God, He brings 
 forward several sublime passages of the Oid 
 Testament, in which the omnipresence of God 
 is described in “the lofty and glowing style” of 
 sacred poetry. But how easy would it be, for 
 a man who had persuaded himself that the real 
 omnipresence of God is contrary to reason and 
 common sense, by adopting our author’s system 
 of criticism, to get rid of all these descriptions. 
 He would commence by pleading, that much 
 allowance must be made for the hyperbolical 
 style of oriental poetry. If, he might say, the 
 orientals could use figures so extravagant, in plain 
 prose, as our author ascribes to them, what 
 might not be expected from their poetical com- 
 positions? He might then proceed to shovy, 
 that nothing more was meant by these deserip- 
 tions, than a virtual ommipresence of Deity, 
 namely, that he was every where present by his 
 law and his authority, as a king is said to be - 
 present over: all jhis dominions, to maintain 
 order and protect his people from injury. Am 
 not I a God at hand, saith Jehovah, and not 
 a God afar off?” That.is, he would say, my 
 law and authority are at hand to every one to 
 punish his disobedience; as is explained in the 
 next clause, “Can any one hide himself in secret 
 places, so that I shall not see him?” That is, 
 ean any one elude the vengeance of my law? 
 ‘Do not I fill the heavens and the earth?” By 
 the earth, he would say, is meant the land of 
 Judea, and by the heavens, the church; so that 
 the meaning of this is, that his law and authority 
 extended throughout the land of Judea, both in 
 regard to its civil and ecclesiastical institutions. 
 “Jf they dig down to the grave, thence shall my 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 185 
 
 hand take them; if they climb up to heaven, 
 thence will I bring them down.” This, he 
 would say, is a key to the whole mystery. It 
 is equivalent to the common proverb, that kings 
 have long arms. Any eastern prince would use 
 this language, without meaning any thing more 
 by it, than that no man who incurred his dis- 
 pleasure could escape his vengeance. 
 
 It is quite unnecessary to pursue such a mode 
 of commenting on Scripture. The author must 
 see, that a very little ingenuity would enable 
 any one to reply to any conceivable statement 
 of the omnipresence of God, by arguments of 
 precisely the same. nature—texts of the same 
 description, with those which he employs to 
 combat the evidence for the omnipresence of the 
 Redeemer. The language in which the attribute 
 of omnipresence is specifically ascribed to the 
 Lord Jesus, in the New Testament, although 
 not so lofty and glowing as the poctical descrip- 
 tions of the Old Testament, being simple 
 declarations in prose, is not the less satisfactory. 
 
 OMNISCIENCE. 
 
 The attribute of omniscience is frequently 
 ascribed to the Saviour. Thus, Rev. ii. 23. ‘I 
 (Jesus) am he which searcheth the reins and 
 hearts.” These are the very words in which 
 the omniscience of Jehovah is asserted. Thus, 
 1 Kings vili. 39. “For thou, even thou only,” 
 says Solomon in his prayer to Jehovah, “knowest 
 the hearts of all the children ofmen.” 1 Chron. 
 xxvill. 9. For the Lord searcheth all hearts, 
 and understandeth all the imaginations of the 
 thoughts.” Psalm vii. 9. “For the righteous 
 God trieth the hearts and reins.” Prov. xvii. 3. 
 ‘The fining pot is for silver, and the furnace 
 
 rR 3 
 
186 The attributes of God 
 
 for gold: but the Lorp trieth the hearts.” Jer. 
 xi, 20. “But, O Lord of hosts, that judgest 
 righteously, that triest the reins and the heart.” 
 And chap. xvii. 10. “I, the Lorn, search the 
 heart; I try the reins, even to give every man 
 according to his ways.” Nothing, therefore, 
 can be more manifest than, that, by the phrase, 
 trying or searching the heart and reins, is meant 
 thoroughly and perfectly knowing the immost 
 thoughts of man; and that it is the attribute of 
 God only, thus to know what is in man. Now, I 
 cannot conceive of a more perfect identification 
 than that which Christ makes of himself with 
 God, in his words which have been quoted.— 
 Jeremiah writes, “1, JEHovAH, search the heart; 
 I try the reins, even to give to every man accord- 
 ing to his ways.” The Lord Jesus says, “J am he 
 which searcheth the reins and hearts,” (intimat- 
 ing that there is but one who does so) ‘and I will 
 give to every one of you according to your 
 works.” 
 
 Onr author says, this is a “ striking instance 
 of the summary mode in which orthodoxy rushes 
 to her conclusions. It is quite enough that the 
 same thing be affirmed of two beings to constitute 
 their identity, though their characters.and offices 
 are perfectly distinct. God searches the heart, 
 and Christ searches the heart, therefore they 
 are the same.”* But this is a palpable misre- 
 presentation of the argument. Fools as we may 
 be esteemed, none of us would be so absurd as 
 to reason thus, “God exists, and man exists, 
 therefore man is God.” Our argument is, that 
 it is the prerogative of God_ only to search the 
 heart and try the reins, and again and again 
 declared to be his prerogative; and therefore, 
 
 * Page 41, 2d Edit. 
 
ascribed to Jésus. 187 
 
 that, when Jesus claims this prerogative, he 
 identifies himself with God. 
 
 He adds, “Every examinator, in a judicial 
 capacity, searches the heart of the accused.” 
 Not in the Sevipture sense of the phrase, which 
 signifies perfectly and thoroughly knowing the 
 secrets of the heart. And I believe that a judge, 
 whom the author should announce as one who 
 could search the hearts and try the reins of 
 persons accused at his bar, would be regarded 
 as a very extraordinary personage ; or our author 
 would be regarded as having spoken very ab- 
 surdly and impiously respecting him. » 
 
 He further observes, that some of the ancient 
 prophets were endowed with faculties for dis- 
 cerning the secret springs of action, through the 
 thickest veil of hypocrisy—that Ahijah knew 
 the thoughts. of Jeroboam’s wife, Elisha the 
 thoughts. of Gehazi, &c. It is, doubtless, true, 
 that God has revealed particular thoughts of 
 certain individuals to his servants; but can the 
 author find a single instance of any prophet or 
 apostle who knew all the thoughts of any one 
 man, or of all the men with whom they had 
 intercourse? Or can he find in the whole Bible 
 any individual judge, or king, or prophet, or 
 apostle, of whom it is said generally, and without 
 limitation, that he could search the hearts and 
 try the reins? And if not, why quibble about 
 the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, being revealed 
 to Daniel, and the hypocrisy of Ananias and 
 Sapphira revealed to Peter ? 
 
 This declaration respecting our Lord’s omni- 
 science is in perfect conformity with other 
 intimations respecting him. Thus, John ii, 24, 
 25. “But Jesus did not commit himself unto 
 them, because he knew all men; and needed not 
 
188 The attributes of God 
 
 that any should testify of man; for he knew 
 what was in man.” Could these assertions be 
 made respecting any mere man? Again, Matt. 
 xii. 25. “And Jesus knew their thoughts.” . To 
 the same effect, Luke vi. 8. Again, John vi. 
 61. “Jesus knew in himself that his disciples 
 murmured.” We have a beautiful exemplification 
 of the practical use of the doctrine of our Lord’s 
 omniscience, in the appeal which Peter made to 
 it.. Jesus said to him, once, and again, and a 
 third time, ‘Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou 
 me?” © Peter, remembering his sad fall, was 
 grieved because Jesus said to him the third time, 
 ‘Lovest thou me ?” and answered, “ Lord, 
 thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I 
 love thee.’* What more’ beautiful, or more 
 appropriate appeal could any one make to the 
 God of heaven than this, “‘ Lorn, thou knowest 
 all things, thou knowest that I love thee?” Or 
 who, without the most palpable idolatry, could 
 address such language to a fellow-creature ? 
 The apostle Paul says, “If any man love not 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.” 
 And, amidst the evil surmisings or accusations 
 of the world, even under the recollection of 
 imperfections, and falls into sin that bore the 
 appearance of a denial of the Saviour, we can, 
 blessed be the Lord, appeal, like Peter, to his 
 perfect knowledge of our hearts, and still say, 
 ‘Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest 
 that we love thee.” 
 
 The only other remark of our author’s on 
 this topic, deserving of notice, is his citing the 
 text, Mark xiii. 32., which shall be considered 
 in a future chapter. 
 
 * John xxi, L517. 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 1s9 
 
 OMNIPOTENCE. 
 
 ‘The omnipotence of Christ is to be inferred 
 chiefly from the works that are ascribed to him, 
 which will form the subject of the next chapter. 
 But we have seen that he is called by the prophet 
 Isaiah, “The mighty God,” a title which mani- 
 festly implies omnipotence. 
 
 I wovxtp observe, in conclusion, that the 
 possession of any one of these.attributes would 
 prove our Lord to be the true God. For no one, 
 besides God, possesses eternal, independent 
 existence, or unchangeableness, or omnipresence, 
 or omniscience, or omnipotence. And it would 
 be very extraordinary if any one of these atiri- 
 butes, even in a single passage, were ascribed to 
 any creature, in a book which is so peremptory 
 on the subject of idolatry. But how incredible 
 is it that, not one, but each of these attributes 
 separately, and that, not in one, but several 
 passages, should be ascribed to Jesus in the 
 plainest, broadest terms, frequently in the very 
 language in which the same attribute is ascribed 
 to the Deity, if it were intended to exhibit him 
 as nothing more than a man, or a created angel ¢ 
 And when, to the ascription of each of these 
 attributes, is added the title God, nay, and the 
 proper name JEHovaH, again and : cain given 
 to him, nothing, it would seem, but the most 
 determined incredulity could prevent any one 
 from acknowledging him, as “The true God 
 and eternal life.” 
 
CHAP. VII 
 THE WORKS OF GOD ASCRIBED TO JESUS. 
 
 Tue attributes of God are made known 
 chiefly by the works which are ascribed to him 
 in the sacred Seriptures, The first sentence of 
 the Bible, “In the beginning God created the. 
 heavens and the earth,” speaks volumes respect- 
 ing the eternity, the power and the wisdom of 
 the Deity. So all the divine attributes ascribed 
 to the Redeemer will receive new confirmation, 
 if we find works ascribed to him, to the per- 
 formance of which these attributes are absolute- 
 ly essential. 
 
 THE CREATION OF ALL THINGS. 
 
 The creation of all things is ascribed to the 
 Redeemer, in that passage which we have al- 
 ready vindicated from our author’s attempt. to 
 make it speak, not of Christ, but of a Divine 
 attribute. John i. 3.—< All things were made 
 by him, and withont him was not any thing 
 made that was made.” Our author would render 
 this, “ All things were done by or through its 
 (wisdom’s) influence.” He would farther confine 
 all things, to all things relative to the Christian 
 dispensation, because, says he, quoting the Uni- 
 tarian version, the word eysvero (egeneto), trans- 
 
dhe works of God, &c. 19] 
 
 lated made in the common version, will not ad- 
 mit of the sense of create as referring to the ma- 
 terial system ; yuoues (ginomai) occurs upwards 
 of seven hundred times in the New Testament, 
 but never in this sense. Had our author ex- 
 amined the foundation of this statement, he 
 would have felt himself compelled to qualify. it. 
 This word is used Jamies iii. 9.—* Men that are 
 made, (gegonotas) after the image of Ged ;” thus 
 corresponding to the werd create in the Old 
 Testament. Again, Heb, xi. 3.— The things 
 which are seen were not made (gegonenai) of thin es 
 which do appear.” In the lxx. Greek it is fre- 
 quently employed to translate the Hebrew word 
 rendered create. Thus, Gen. ii. 4., When they 
 (i. e. the heavens and the earth) were created” 
 (egeneio.) Exod. xxxiv. 10., ‘‘ Which have not 
 been done (Heb. created) in all the earth.” Is. 
 xIvii. 7, “ They are ereated. now, and not 
 from the beginning.” In the passage transcribed 
 above from the beok of Genesis, the word is 
 used to express the production or creation of the 
 heavens and the earth: and it is beeause this 
 book contains a history of. creation, that it is 
 called in the Greek Genesis. Even in this very 
 chapter, in which the Unitarian translators would 
 lower the signification of the word, it occurs in 
 a passage in which it must refer to creation.— 
 Our author and they would render verse 3d— 
 “all things were done by him;” but in verse 
 10th the same word oceurs again, where this ren- 
 dering will not do—* The world, (osmos not 
 @on) was made by him.” Hew would it sound 
 to say, “The world was done by him?’ The 
 truth is, that. the word is one of a higher des- 
 cription than the werd usually rendered to create. 
 It signifies to produce, to bring into existence ; 
 and furnishes a more vivid idea of bringing 
 
192 The works of God 
 
 out of nothing, than even the words rendered 
 to make or to create. 
 
 But we may pass this objection, and produce 
 a passage in which the word ktizo (I create) is 
 used. Col. i. 16.—*‘ For by him (the Son) all 
 things were created, that are in heaven, and that 
 are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they 
 be thrones or dominions, or principalities or 
 powers, all things were created by him, and for 
 him.” Our author’s comment is as follows. 
 
 ‘¢ The author thinks it might be shown from the 
 context, that the moral and religious, not the physi- 
 cal creation, is to be understood here; that new 
 creation which was effected by the introduction 
 of the Gospel, both in the civil and ecclesiastical po- 
 lities of the Jews. In the language of Scripture, 
 and particularly in that of the prophets, the terms 
 earth and heaven are employed to represent these 
 two states. The apostle tells us, in a preceding 
 verse, that “ we have been delivered from the power 
 of darkness and translated into the kingdom of his 
 
 God's) dear Son, whom he denominates the image 
 of the invisible God, the first born of every crea- , 
 ture ;’ for, or because, in «v (not by) him were all 
 things relative to the Gospel dispensation created or 
 constituted anew. : 
 
 «« Observe he does not speak of Christ as the pro- 
 phets speak of Jehovah. He does not say, as Moses 
 says of the Father Almighty, that ‘in the begin- 
 ning he created the heavens and the earth.’ Nor 
 with David, ‘that the heavens were made by his 
 word, and all the host of them by the breath of his 
 mouth; that he hath prepared the light and the sun, 
 and telleth the number of the stars.’ Nor with Job, 
 that ‘he hangeth the earth upon nothing, that he 
 maketh Arcturus, Orion, and the Pleiades, and that 
 the pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at 
 his reproof.’ Nor with Isaiah, ‘that he sitteth upon 
 the circle of the earth, and stretcheth out the hea- 
 vens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent 
 to dwell in; that he has measured the waters in the 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 193 
 
 hellow of his hand, and meted out heaven with 
 the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth 
 in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, 
 and the hills in a balance.’ Nor with Jeremiah, 
 ‘that he has made the earth, the man and the beast © 
 that are upon the ground, by his great power; that 
 he giveth the sun for a light by day and the ordi- 
 nances of the moon and stars fora light by night..— 
 Nor with Nahum, ‘that he hath his way in the whirl- 
 wind, and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust 
 of his feet. The apostle makes no such declara- 
 tions of Christ, but he says, “ that in him were all 
 things created that are in heaven and that are in 
 earth ;’ and then he intimates what we are to un- 
 derstand by all things, not the sun and stars, and 
 man and beast, but states and conditions of things 
 —thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers. 
 
 “The words, < all things,’ are of frequent occur- 
 rence in Scripture, and their meaning must be 
 limited by their connexion. The Psalmist in his 
 beautiful eulogy on man, says—‘ God hath put all 
 things under his feet,” meaning that he has given 
 him extensive power over both animate and inani- 
 mate nature. Paul says, (Phil. iv. 13.,) ‘I can do ali 
 things through Christ which strengtheneth me,’ mean- 
 ing, that he can bear all afflictions and reverses of 
 fortune with patience and content. Again he in- 
 forms us, (Eph. i. 22.,) ‘That God has given Christ 
 to be head over all things to the Church,’ and (in 
 Heb i. 3.,) ‘That he upholds all things by the 
 word of his power; thus affirming that Christ 
 orders or conducts the whole of the Gospel dispen- 
 sation, by virtue of the authority imparted to him 
 by the Almighty.”* 
 
 On this critique I request the readers atten- 
 tion to the few following following observations. 
 
 1. Our author’s first object is to lower the 
 sense of the words earth and heaven, to the 
 civil and ecclesiastical polities of the Jews. He 
 
 * Page 37, Ed. 2d. 
 Ss 
 
194 The works of God 
 
 asserts that in the language of Scripture, and 
 particularly the prophets, the terms earth and 
 heaven are employed to represent these two states. 
 It is true, that in some of those prophecies, 
 which are conveyed in a kind of hieroglyphic 
 language, that they might not be fully understood 
 till the event explained them, it is supposed by 
 some commentators, that, by heaven, is meant the 
 church, and by the earth the civil state, This 
 however is by no means certain. But to at- 
 tempt to explain the historical and didactic 
 parts of the New Testament, by the darkest of 
 the prophecies, is an operation highly charac- 
 teristic of Unitarian criticism. No better me- 
 thod eould be adopted for converting the whole 
 Bible into a book of hieroglyphics, from which 
 common sense and reason might be at liberty to 
 select their own tenets, 
 
 2. The author never seems to have considered 
 that by lowering the meaning of the words earth 
 and heaven in this passage, he lays the founda- 
 tion for lowering them also in the passages by 
 which he would prove that all things were 
 created by God. He tells us that, in the lan- 
 guage of Scripture, and particularly in that of the 
 prophets, these terms signify the ecclesiastical 
 and political states of the Jews. And then he 
 cites passages from these very prophets, in which 
 he would have us to understand the same words 
 literally. But what is the reply to this? If by 
 heaven and earth we are to understand ecclesias- 
 tical and civil polity any where, it must be in 
 these passages from the prophets. Thus, ‘ In 
 the beginning God created the heavens and the 
 earth,” i.e. he arranged the ecclesiastical and 
 ‘civil polity of the Jews. ‘ The heavens were 
 made by his word,” i. e. he arranged the eccle- 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 195 
 
 siastical polity of the Jews by his word, and 
 “all the host of them by the breath of his 
 mouth ;” i. e. he appointed the various ministers 
 and officers of it. ‘ He hath prepared the light 
 and the sun, and telleth the number of the stars,” 
 i.e, he appointed the king, who, in prophetical 
 language, is described as the sun, with his in- 
 ferior princes, the stars. ‘ He hangeth the earth 
 upon nothing,” i. e. the civil polity of the Jews 
 was formed out of nothing, and depends upon 
 no other civil polity. He maketh Arcturus, 
 Orion, and Pleiades: these must be some parti- 
 cular offices with which we are now unacquaint- 
 ed. ‘The pillars of heaven tremble and are 
 astonished at his reproof.” That is, the chief 
 authorities in the church are under his controul : 
 and, as we are told by Paul, (Gal. ii. 9.,) that 
 ‘ James, Cephas, and John seemed to be pillars,’ 
 this may be a prediction of some reproof which 
 they were to receiye; and accordingly, we find 
 that these apostles particularly were reproved by 
 Jesus—James and John, when they suggested to 
 him to call down fire from heaven upon the Sa- 
 maritans; and Peter, when he would have per- 
 suaded him not to submit to crucifixion. The 
 same description of running comment may ob- 
 viously be caliod through all the passages quoted 
 by our author, 
 
 3. The criticism on the preposition « (in) is 
 very far from being candid. When our author 
 said ev (in) (not by,) he ought, in common fair- 
 ness, to have mentioned that this preposition is 
 frequently used in the sense of by. Thus, Luke 
 iv. 1.—** And was led by (cv) the Spirit into the 
 wilderness.” The same sense is expressed by 
 Matthew, by the preposition ivo. Acts xx. 19.— 
 «Temptations which befel me by (<v) the lying 
 
196 The works of God 
 
 in wait of the Jews.” Mat. ix. 34.—“ He casteth 
 out’ Devils through (<) by the prince of the 
 Devils.” Mark xii. 36.—‘“* For David himself 
 said by (<v) the Holy Ghost.” Acts iv. 9.— 
 “ By (vy) what means he is made whole.” Mat. 
 xvii. 21.—* This kind goeth not out but by (<v) 
 prayer and fasting.” Mark xiv. 1.—‘* How they 
 might take him by (<v) eraft.”* He ought also 
 to have told his readers, that, in this very pas- 
 sage, the word dia (through) is used as equiva- 
 lent to « (in). ‘ All things were created by 
 him’—not «, as in the preceding clause, but da 
 (through, ) as the cause or agent. The reader 
 therefore must not suppose that the translation 
 ** created by him,” is an erroneous or even un- 
 usual translation. | 
 
 4. Our author, as we have already remarked, 
 quotes many expressions from the Old Testa- 
 ment, descriptive of the power of God, which, 
 he says, the apostle does not use with regard to 
 the Lord Jesus. It is true that the apostle does 
 not transcribe into this one text a large portion 
 of the Old Testament. There is little or no 
 poetry in the New Testament; and therefore 
 poetical description is not to be expected. But 
 it says in plain prose, That * by the Word, who 
 was made flesh, all things were made; that with- 
 out him was not any thing made that was made.” 
 That ‘the world was made by him.” ‘That by 
 him were all things created that are in heaven 
 and that are in earth visible and invisible,” and 
 that he ‘in the beginning laid the foundation 
 of the earth, and that the heavens are the works 
 of his hands.” And this ought surely to be ac- 
 
 * See Schleusner’s lexicon, where other passages to the same 
 effect are mentioned. 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 197 
 
 counted — sufficient for the ascription of one 
 work to the Redeemer, in a book in which 
 brevity is so much studied as the New Testa- 
 ment, and which treats of so great a variety of 
 subjects. 
 
 5. Our author totally omits inhis comment, two 
 most important and emphatic words of the text, 
 namely, visible and invisible. What is the import 
 of these words? . Where are the visible thrones 
 and dominions, and principalities and powers, 
 which Christ created? To explain these of the 
 petty governments of Judea, would be absolutely 
 ludicrous. To explain them of the governments 
 of the whole world, would be to acknowledge 
 the Redeemer as the God of Providence at least, 
 if not of Creation. And where are the invisible 
 thrones and dominions, and principalities and 
 powers? Are they to be understood of eccle- 
 slastical officers on earth? How then are they 
 invisible? and how would such offices accord 
 with our author’s ideas of the constitution of the 
 chureh ? Are they in heaven? What more 
 dignified station can be given to the Saviour 
 than the creator of all such ranks and dignities, 
 both in heaven and on earth? How could he 
 more emphatically be declared to be the God of 
 Providence ? 
 
 I conceive however that by all things visible in 
 heaven and in earth, must be meant all material 
 things; and that by all-invisible things in hea- 
 ven and earth must be meant all spiritual things, 
 For this is the distinction between visible and 
 invisible things as explained by this apostle him- 
 self, 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18., “ For our light afflic- 
 tion, which is but for a moment, worketh for us 
 a far more exceeding and eternal weight of 
 glory; while we look not at the things which 
 
 s3 
 
198 The works of God 
 
 are seen, but at things which are not seen; for the 
 things which are scen are temporal ; but the things 
 which are not seen are eternal.”* There is no 
 instance in the whole Bible of a moral creation: 
 or renovation, or of the institution of mere of- 
 fices, being described by such language as, the 
 creation of all things in heaven and on earth, 
 visible, as well as invisible. 
 
 The thrones, dominions and principalities and 
 powers mentioned, seem to be connected parti- 
 cularly with the word invisible, as these are 
 terms frequently employed to describe angelic 
 natures, good as well as evil. Thus, Rom. viii. 
 38.— Neither angels nor principalities nor 
 powers.” Eph. vi. 12.—‘“ For we wrestle not 
 against flesh and blood but against principalities, 
 against powers, against the rulers of the dark- 
 ness of this world.” Eph. 1. 20, 21.—“ He raised 
 him from the dead, and set him at his own right 
 hand in heavenly places, far above all princi- 
 ‘pality 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.” There are 
 other passages to the same effect. 
 
 6. We admit that the words all things are to 
 be interpreted by their connexion. And what 
 is their connexion here? Is it possible to con- 
 ceive of a more extensive connexion—* All 
 things in heaven and on earth visible and in- 
 visible.” What conceivable thing can be ex- 
 empted from this description? And yet the 
 creation of all these things is ascribed to the 
 
 Lord Jesus. 
 Our author has, as in a former instance, a re- 
 
 * See also Rom. i. 20., and Heb. xi. 3. 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 199 
 
 serve at hand, to cover his retreat at least, in the 
 event of his finding the interpretation of this pas= 
 sage which he offers, untenable. This, as in the 
 former instance, betrays his want of confidence 
 in it. ; 
 
 ‘‘ Even granting,” says he, “ that Christ was the 
 creator of the material frame of nature, he was only 
 the agent of omnipotence. The very verse preced- 
 ing the passage quoted, to prove him possessed of 
 that attribute, demonstrates the contrary. It deno- 
 minates him the image of the invisible God—the 
 first born of every creature. The wmage—therefore 
 not the reality—6orn, therefore not self-existent— 
 consequently dependent—therefore not omnipo- 
 tent.” 
 
 On the subject of Christ, acting as the agent 
 of omnipotence, I shall have occasion in a future 
 chapter to offer some observations: | shall there- 
 fore omit it for the present. 
 
 Our author pleads that, because Jesus is said 
 to he the image of God, he could not he really 
 God. From this it would follow that his being 
 ‘¢¢ made in the likeness of men,” and being “ found 
 in fashion as a man,”* must imply that he was 
 not really aman. This inference however does 
 not follow in either case. His being the image 
 of God signifies, that he is to us the manifesta~ 
 tion or representation of God. “ No man hath 
 seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who 
 is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared 
 him.”’+ 
 
 He further infers from the expression ‘ first 
 born,’ that being born, he must be dependent.— 
 Even if the word, rendered first born, implied 
 that he was really born, this would not follow ; 
 for, in that case, the word must be used in some 
 figurative sense, denoting his connexion with the 
 
 * Phil. ii, 8, + John i. 18, 
 
200 The works of God 
 
 Father, which necessarily is as much beyond our 
 comprehension, as the emanation of the soul of 
 Adam from the Creator, when he breathed into his 
 nostrils the breath of life. But it is obvious that © 
 Jesus cannot be called the jirst born of every -. 
 creature, in the sense of being the first progeny 
 of every creature. And the phrase, ‘first born of 
 every creature,’ I apprehend, will not bear the 
 signification of, born before every creature.— 
 The first born of any one signifies, not his elder 
 brother, but his first born child. The first born 
 of Jacob was, not Esau his elder brother, nor is 
 he ever called so, but Reuben his eldest son.— 
 The word rendered jirst born was in common 
 use among the Jews to signify the Lord or pro- 
 prictor ; because the first born son was heir or 
 Lord of the family property. The Jewish 
 Rabbins, Michaelis tells us, use the word in this 
 sense even when, speaking of God. They call 
 even God the first born of the world; expressing 
 thereby that he is Lord or proprietor of the 
 world. So Jesus is here called first born of 
 every creature, because he is the Lord or pro- 
 prietor of every creature, “the heir of all 
 things.” * : 
 I would conclude this long critique upon this 
 passage of Scripture, by simply asking the ques- 
 
 * Heb. i. 2. Another interpretation of the word rendered 
 
 Jirst ‘born, © CWTOTOX0S, has been proposed, which claims 
 respect from the names that have countenanced it, namely, Isi- 
 dore, a native Greek, Erasmus, and Michaelis; who understand 
 it actively, not first born, but first producer. This interpretation 
 requires merely the change of the accent, and as accents were 
 not used in the ancient manuscripts, involves no change in the 
 text. The words would then be—‘ The first producer Bf 
 every creature, for by him all things were created,” &c. There 
 are, however, strong objections to this rendering, and although 
 it has been adopted by good commentators, I prefer that which 
 is given above. 
 
 * 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 201 
 
 tion, whether any Unitarian, not knowing who was 
 specifically alluded to in the words of this text, 
 would hesitate for a moment to understand them 
 as referring to Almighty God? ‘“ For by him were 
 all things created that are in heaven and that are 
 in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be 
 thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers: 
 all things were created by him and for him: and 
 he is before all things, and by him all things con- 
 sist.” JI ask whether their consciences would 
 not revolt from the thought of using such lan- 
 guage respecting Moses, through whose mini- 
 strations the Jewish civil and ecclesiastical polity 
 was really established; or Paul, by whom the 
 Gentile churches were first constituted? The 
 words seem to me to set forth the true the omni- 
 potent God, as clearly as it is in the power of 
 language to express. 
 
 Other passages in which the work of creation 
 is ascribed to the Redeemer, have already been 
 alluded to. John i. 10.—** The world” (osmos, 
 not eon,) “was made by him.” Heb. i. 10.— 
 *¢ Thou Lord, in the beginning hast laid the 
 foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the 
 works of thy hands.” The application of these 
 words to the Saviour has already been vindi- 
 eated. Does our author object to one passage 
 that the proper term create is not used in it, we 
 offer him a passage, Col. i. 16., in which that 
 word is used. Does he object that there it is 
 only, all things in heaven and earth, and not 
 the heavens and the earth themselves, we pro- 
 duce to him another passage, Heb. i. 10., in 
 which the creation of the heavens and the earth 
 are most distinctly ascribed to Jesus. If this 
 will not satisfy him, we can but pray that his 
 eyes may be opened to the truth. 
 
202 ’ The works of God 
 
 PROVIDENCE. 
 
 Not only is the Redeemer asserted to have 
 created all things, but to sustain and control 
 and regulate all things. Thus, Col. i. 17.—‘ By 
 him all things” (all things that are in heaven 
 and that are in earth visible and invisible) 
 “ consist.” _ Heb. i. 3.—‘¢ Who (i. e. the Son) 
 being the brightness of lis glory and the express 
 image of his person, and upholding all things by 
 the word of his power,” &c. Mat. xxviii. 18, 19, 
 20—* All power is given unto me in heaven 
 and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all 
 nations, and, lo, I am with you always even 
 unto the end of the world.” 1 Cor. xv. 24, 
 25, 26—‘* When he (Christ) shall have put 
 down all rule and all authority and power.— 
 For he must reign till he hath put all enemies 
 under his feet. The last enemy shall be des- 
 troyed—death.” Eph. i. 22. —*‘* And he” (the 
 God of our Lord Jesus Christ) “ hath put all 
 things under his feet and gave him to be the 
 head over all things to the church.” The sense 
 in which Christ derives this authority from God, 
 the Father of glory, will be considered in a fu- 
 ture chapter: what is here to be noticed is, that 
 the government of all things is committed to 
 him for the advancement of his church. Rev. 
 i. and iii. throughout—“ Remember whence 
 thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first 
 works: or else, J,” (Jesus previously described), 
 ‘* will come unto thee quickly, and will remove 
 thy candlestick out of his place, except thou re- 
 pent.” “¢ Notwithstanding JZ have a few things 
 against thee, because thou sufferest that woman 
 Jezebel, to teach and seduce my servants. Be- 
 hold J will cast her into a bed and them that 
 
ascribed to Jesus, 203 
 
 commit adultery with her into great tribulation, 
 except they repent of their deeds. And J will 
 kill her children with death, and all the churches 
 shail know, that J am he that searcheth the reins 
 and hearts, and J will give unto every one of you 
 according to your works.” « If, therefore, thou 
 - shalt not watch, Z will come on thee as a thief, 
 and thou shalt not know what hour J will come 
 upon thee.” ‘Behold J will make them of the 
 synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews and 
 are not, but do lie: Behold Z will make them 
 to come and worship before thy feet, and to know 
 that J have loved thee.” “ 7 know thy works, 
 that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou 
 wert cold or hot. So then, because thou art 
 lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, Z will spue 
 thee out of my mouth.” “ As many as I love 
 Z rebuke and chasten, be zealous therefore and 
 repent.” Now, I ask, could God himself as- 
 sume a more authoritative tone in addressing the 
 ehurches than Christ here does in his own name ? 
 Many of the threatenings contained in these 
 verses, particularly that of removing the candle- 
 stick of one of the Asiatie churches out of its 
 place, that is, taking from it the ordinances of 
 the Gospel, so that it should cease from being a 
 church,. have already been accomplished. And 
 how have these threats been accomplished ? By 
 arrangements of divine providence. By the ir- 
 ruptions of foreign invaders, and other means 
 which are at the command and disposal of no 
 one but the God of Providence. It would be 
 difficult to imagine more express terms in which 
 the direction of providential events. could be 
 claimed by the Redeemer, than this general as- 
 sertion, in reference to the churches, or rather in 
 reference to all mankind—*« Ag many as J love 
 £ rebuke and chasten,” 
 
204 The works of God 
 
 JUDGMENT, 
 
 The judgment of the world, and the render- 
 ing to every man according to his deeds, are fre- 
 quently claimed by God as his exclusive prero- 
 gatives. Deut. xxxii. 36.—“ For the Lorn (Je- 
 hovah) shall judge his people.” 1 Sam. ii. 10. 
 —‘* The Lorp (Jehovah) shall judge the ends 
 of the earth.” Chron. xvi. 33.—‘ Then shall 
 the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of 
 the Lorp (Jehovah) because he cometh to judge 
 the earth.” Ps. 1.3, 4., “ Our God shall come 
 and shall not ‘keep silence: a fire shall devour 
 before him, and it shall be very tempestuous 
 round about him. He shall call to the heavens 
 from above, and to the earth, that he may judge 
 his people.” Ps. xevi. 12, 13.—‘* Then shall all 
 the trees of the wood rejoice before the Lorp 
 (Jehovah) : for he cometh to judge the earth: he 
 shall judge the world with righteousness, and 
 the people with his truth.” xeviii. 8, 9.—** Let 
 the hills be joyful together before the Lorn (Je- 
 hovah) for he cometh to judge the earth: with 
 righteousness shall he judge the world, and the 
 people with equity.” 
 
 Now, let these passages be compared with the 
 following, which are but a selection from many 
 of the same description. Mat. xvi. 27.—*“ For 
 the son of man shall come in the glory of his 
 Father, with Ais angels; and then he shall reward 
 every man according to his works.” xxv. 31, 
 32.——‘* When the Son of man shall come in his 
 glory, and all the holy angels with him, then 
 shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and be- 
 ' fore him shall be gathered all nations, and he 
 shall separate them one from another, as a shep- 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 205 
 
 herd divideth his sheep from the goats,” &.— 
 xxvi. 64.—* I, (Jesus,) say unto you, hereafter 
 shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right 
 hand of power, and coming in the clouds of hea- 
 ven.” John v. 22.— For the Father judgeth 
 no man, but hath committed all judgment unto 
 the Son: that all men should honour the Son 
 even as they honour the Father.” 2 Cor. v. 10. 
 —‘ For we must all appear before the judgment 
 seat of Christ: that every one may receive the 
 things done in his body, according to that he 
 hath done, whether it be good or bad.” 2 Thess. 
 i. 7—** When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed 
 from heaven with is mighty angels, in flaming 
 fire, taking vengeance on them that know not 
 God—who shall be punished with everlasting 
 destruction from the presence cf the Lord,”— 
 (What Lord?) “and from the giory of his 
 power.”. Rev. i. 7—“ Behold he cometh wit! 
 clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they 
 also which pierced him.” 
 
 Let Unitarians consider these two classes 
 of sacred texts, the one class from the Old 
 Testament, describing God and Jehovah as 
 coming to Judgment, and the other class from 
 the New Testament, describing the Lord Jesus 
 as coming for the same purpose, and with 
 the same insignia of majesty ; and then let them 
 say whether the following passages belong 
 to Jehovah or to Jesus. ‘* The Lord himself 
 shall descend from heaven with a shout, with 
 the voice of the arch-angel, and with the trump of 
 God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then 
 we which are alive and remain, shall be caught 
 up together with them in the clouds, to meet the 
 - Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with 
 the Lord.”* ** For we know him that hath said 
 
 * J Thess. iy. 16, 17. 
 T 
 
206 The works of God 
 
 vengeance belongeth to me, I will recompense 
 saith the Lord. And again, the Lord shall 
 judge his people.”* « As I live saith the Lord, 
 every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue 
 shall confess to God. So then, every one of us 
 shall give eccount of himself to God.”+ “ Be- 
 hold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his 
 saints, to execute Judgment upon all.” I think 
 I may appeal to the candour of Unitarians to 
 admit, that they would find some difficulty in 
 determining whether the word Lord, in these 
 passages, was intended to designate the eternal 
 God, or the Lord Jesus; and that different in- 
 dividuals of them might determine differently :— 
 some applying the word Lord to God, and others 
 applying the same word, in the same instances 
 of its occurrence, to the Lord Jesus Christ.— 
 And I would ask them further, is it conceivable 
 that the great God of heaven, and any of his 
 creatures should be spoken of in Scripture, in 
 reference to an event of such paramount im- 
 portance as the judging of the world, in terms so 
 perfectly alike, that it is impossible to determine 
 when we are to understand them of the Creator, 
 and when of the creature ? 
 
 RAISING OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS FROM THE 
 DEAD. 
 
 John ii. 19—** Jesus answered and said unto 
 them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I 
 will raise it up—He spake of the temple of his 
 body.” Our Lord here claims a power so utterly 
 out of the sphere of any creature’s power, that 
 were there not another passage in the Scripture 
 to the same effect, we could not but regard him 
 
 * Heb. x, 30. + Rom. xiv. 11, 12, ¢ Jude 14, 15. 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 207 
 
 as using a language which God alone could use 
 with truth. x. 17—‘ Therefore doth my Father 
 love me, because I lay down my life that I 
 might take it again. No man taketh it from me, 
 but I lay it down of myself. I have power to 
 lay it down, and I have power to take it 
 again. This commandment have I received of 
 my Father.’ He had power in himself—the 
 commandment he received from his Father.— 
 The import of the latter clause shall be con- 
 sidered afterwards. John v. 28, 29—* For the 
 hour is coming, in the which all that are in the 
 graves shall hear his,” (the Son of man’s) 
 ** voice, and shall come forth, they that have 
 done good unto the resurrection of life, and they 
 that have done evil unto the resurrection of dam- 
 nation.” xi. 25—* Jesus said unto her (Mar- 
 tha) Jam the resurrection and the life; he that 
 believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall 
 he live.” 1 Cor. xv. 22. 45—* For as in” (rather 
 by) “ Adam all die, even so in” (rather by) 
 ** Christ shall all be made alive.” 
 
 It is manifest that these all are works peculiar 
 to God Almighty, and could not be effected but 
 by the exercise of Divine attributes. The ex- 
 planation that is given of the ascription of such 
 works as these to the Redeemer is, that he acted 
 only as the agent of omnipotence, by a delegated 
 power and authority. It is not denied that he 
 acted as the representative of the Deity in all his 
 works—as the manifestation of the invisible God 
 to his creatures: and that, in those works which 
 are connected with the recovery of mankind, or 
 the condemnation of the wicked, he acted as the 
 servant of God: which will be more fully ex- 
 plained in a future chapter. 
 
 But, in the mean time, let us for a moment 
 consider the nature of the works that are dele- 
 
208 Lhe works of God 
 
 gated to Jesus. Delegated authority cannot con- 
 fer qualifications: and if the qualifications re- 
 quisite for the work that is delegated are om- 
 nipotence, omniscience, and the other attributes 
 of the Deity, it is in vain to speak of such works 
 being delegated to a mere creature. He who is 
 delegated must previously be in possession of the 
 qualifications necessary for executing the works 
 Intrusted to him; and when these works are 
 creation, providence, the government of the 
 world, the exercise of all power in heaven and 
 in earth, the raising of the dead, the judging of 
 the world—works which the Lord God Al- 
 mighty repeatedly challenges as peculiarly his 
 own, the delegated person must be in possession 
 of Divine attributes. What folly would it be to 
 speak of a mere man delegated to ereate the 
 universe, to try the reins and search the hearts 
 of all men, so as to judge the world, and to bring 
 every work into judgment with every secret 
 thing, whether it be good or whether it he evil ? 
 And, if it be absurd to suppose such works, to 
 ke delegated to a mere man, it must be equally 
 absurd to suppose them to be intrusted to any 
 creature. : 
 
 But, it may be asked, could not God commu- 
 nicate power and qualifications for such werks ? 
 I answer, there are powers which, like the name 
 Jehovah, are incommunicable; and that such 
 are the attributes of the Deity. To suppose that 
 God could communicate such attributes as om- 
 nipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, is to 
 Suppose that he could convert a creature into 
 the Creator. Can any thing be more revolting to 
 that very common sense to which we are re- 
 quired to accommodate the Scripture, than an 
 almighty, omnipresent, omniscient creature ?— 
 Or, what is the same in other words, two om- 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 209 
 
 nipresent almighty beings, and yet the one a 
 ereature, and dependent on the other ?* 
 
 I conclude therefore that, as the Lord Jesus 
 was delegated to the fulfilment of these works— 
 that, as God made the worlds by him, governs 
 them by him, and will judge his rational and 
 moral creatures by him, he must be in possession 
 of attributes competent to the fulfilment of these 
 works—that is, he must be God, as he is ex- 
 plicitly declared to be. There are two senses in 
 which he is the agent or representative or dele- 
 gate of the Deity. The first is, that it is by 
 him, as one of the persons of the Godhead, that 
 the invisible God_is manifested to the universe. 
 That eternal Jehovah—Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit, a spiritual being “ who only hath im- 
 mortality, dwelleth in light which no man can 
 approach unto, and no man hath seen or can see 
 him.” But he is made manifest to the universe, 
 in all the glory of his attributes, by the Son, by 
 whom all things were created, that are in hea- 
 ven and that are in earth, visible and invisible. 
 And Jesus, the Word of God, made flesh, made 
 in the likeness of man, is delegated to his me- 
 diatorial work, for the manifestation of God to 
 this guilty world, for the recovery to himself 
 of an innumerable company of all kindreds, 
 tongues, and nations, and for executing vengeance 
 on all who persist in their rebellion against the 
 government of Jehovah. ‘ The Father judgeth 
 no man, but hath committed all judgment to the 
 Son; and hath given him authority to execute 
 judgment also, because he is the Son of man.” 
 
 * J have made frequent use of Dr. Wardlaw’s work on the 
 Socinian controversy ; but I cannot help particularly acknow- 
 ledging my obligation to him for these thoughts respecting dele- 
 gated authority. 
 
 T 3 
 
210 Lhe works of God 
 
 THERE are still several passages of Scripture, 
 descriptive of the dignity of the Saviour, which 
 seem to be altogether inconsistent with his being 
 # mere creature, but which do not fall under any 
 of the heads which we have been considering.— 
 Some of these I shall notice here. 
 
 Col. ii. 9—“For in him” ( Christ) ‘“dwelleth all 
 the fulness of the Godhead bedily.”. The God- 
 head is the highest possible word to designate 
 the eternalinvisible Jehovah. Is it conceivable 
 that all the fulness ef the Godhead could be 
 said to dwell in any creature bodily? Our 
 author remarks on this passage, In a note, as 
 follows. 
 
 Col. ii. 9, is a favourite text with the supporters 
 ef the doctrine of an incarnate Deity, though afford- 
 ing it no foundation. The candid reader is re- 
 quested to ask himself what is meant by the abstract 
 term fulness, and not to confound it with essence, to 
 which it has no reference. The apostle prays for 
 the Ephesians, c. iii. 17, 19, That Christ may dwell 
 in their hearts by faith, and that they may be filled 
 with all the fulness of God. « What, know ye not 
 that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, 
 which is in you.”—] Cor. vi. 19. Whosoever shall 
 confess that Jesus is the Son of God, Ged dwelleth 
 in him and he in God.”—1 John iy. 15.% 
 
 It would be difficult to find a more perfect 
 example of mistaking sound for sense, a fault 
 which our author lays to our charge, than this 
 criticism. One text says that in Jesus dwells 
 all the fulness of the Godhead or Deity ; and 
 our author adduces as parallel to this, the Ephe- 
 sians being filled with all the fulness of God.— 
 He might as well confound a vessel filled from 
 the fulness of the ocean, or as full as the ocean, 
 
 * Page 3, 2d Edit. 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 21] 
 
 and a vessel containing all the fulness of the 
 ocean. In the one case the apostle refers to the 
 capacities of the human soul, and prays that it 
 may be filled full with all holy gifts and graces, 
 In the other he refers to the source from which 
 we have to draw our gifts and graces, Jesus 
 Christ ; and tells us, that we can never exhaust 
 his stores, for that in him dwells all the fulness 
 of God :—we have the ocean to go to for sup- 
 plies, which can never be exhausted, That this 
 is the sense of the apostle when he speaks of 
 Christ’s fulness, is manifest from the use that is 
 made of it. For the verse that follows says— 
 ‘« And ye are complete,” (literally filled, the word 
 is the same,) in” (or by) “him.” Why? Be-- 
 cause the fulness of the Godhead is in him. Again, 
 Col. i. 19—* For it pleased the Father that ID, 4: 
 him should all fulness dwell.” What application ~ 
 is made of this? That there is full and perfect 
 redemption for those who were alienated from 
 God and far off.* To the same effect, John i. 
 16—** And of his fulness have all we received, 
 and grace for grace.” Nothing can be more 
 evident, therefore, than that, when the Scrip- 
 ture speaks of men being filled with the fulness 
 of God, it refers to the necessities or capacities 
 of men being replenished—filled from the ful- 
 ness of God: and that, when it speaks of the 
 fulness of Christ, it refers to the source from 
 which we are to draw our supplies. And when, 
 in this view, it is said that in him dwells all the 
 fulness of the Godhead bodily, it is an expres- 
 sion which cannot, without the most flagrant im- 
 piety, be used of any creature. 
 
 Another passage we have, Heb. i. 1—4, ‘* God 
 who at sundry times, and in divers manners, 
 
 * See the following verses. ~ 
 
212 The works of God 
 
 spake in time past unto the fathers by thie 
 prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto 
 us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir 
 of all things, by whom also he made_ the 
 worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, 
 and the express image of his person, and up- 
 holding all things by the word of his power, 
 when he had by himself purged our sins, sat 
 down on the right hand of the Majesty on 
 High: being so much better than the angels, 
 as he hath, by inheritance, obtained a more ex- 
 cellent name than they.” 
 
 Our author’s remarks upon this passage are as 
 follow. 
 
 “ When the author of the epistle to the Hebrews 
 terms our Saviour, ‘ The brightness of God’s 
 glory, and the express image of his person,’ he 
 uses two familiar illustrations to exalt our ideas of 
 his dignity and excellence. The one is taken from 
 the reflected splendour of a luminous body viz, the 
 Shechinah ; the other from the art of stamping im- 
 pressions on wax or metal. Christ is to God as a 
 parhelion, or reflection of the sun is to the sun it- 
 self; or as a beam of light to the everlasting foun- 
 tain of day whence it issues; and as the likeness, on 
 a coin or medal, to the monarch whom it represents. 
 These are illustrations which can be understood and 
 valued, till creed-makers throw over the one the 
 dark cloud of their comments ; and tarnish and ob- 
 scure both the image and superscription of the other 
 with the canker of their metaphysics.’* 
 
 Our author forgets, that he himself is creed- 
 maker to the whole Unitarian body. He says 
 that the apostle uses two familiar illustrations to 
 exalt our ideas of the dignity and excellence of 
 the Saviour. Is it in the style, or agreeably to 
 the principles of Scripture, for the purpose of 
 
 * Page 45, Ed. 2d. 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 213 
 
 exalting a creature in the estimation of his fel- 
 low-creatures, to declare him to be “ the bright- 
 ness of God’s glory, the express image of his 
 person?” These are ‘ lofty hyperbolical epi- 
 thets,’ that would require some better coun- 
 tenance than even the supposed title given to 
 Hezekiah—the Mighty God. | 
 
 ** The one,” says he, ‘is taken from the re- 
 flected splendour of a luminous body, viz. the 
 Shechinah.” Can he find a single example of 
 such an expression as the brightness of the 
 glory of any luminous object, meaning not its 
 own brightness, but the brightness of a reflexion 
 of it? Or does he conceive that the beautiful 
 manifestation of the attributes of God in the life 
 and acts of the Lord Jesus, to be so inferior to 
 the dazzling appearance of a flame of fire, or a 
 bright cloud, as to be described only as its re- 
 flexion? Jesus, at his transfiguration, exhibited 
 the very appearance of the Shechinah; and does 
 our author regard the dazzling brightness which 
 he then assumed, as a superior manifestation of 
 majesty, to the loveliness of his spiritual charac- 
 ter? Rather, our Lord is compared to the She- 
 chinah itself, by the brightness of which the 
 Lord impressed those who witnessed it with 
 some conception of his glory, and not the re- 
 flexion of it. Jesus was as superior to the She- 
 chinah, as the Gospel is to the Jewish dispensa- 
 tion. 
 
 But again, “he is asa beam of light to the ever- 
 lasting fountain of day from whence it flows.”— 
 Can the author find us an example of such an 
 expression as, the brightness of the glory of the 
 sun, signifying only, a single beam from the sun. 
 Even this would be too high a description to 
 give of any creature—that he was a beam from 
 the glory of God. It would be to make him the 
 
214 The works of God 
 
 same in nature with the Deity, although dif- 
 ferent in degree of glory. The author, however, 
 seems in this to be nearer the truth. The com- 
 parison is not to one beam of the sun, but to the 
 whole power of his beams, the very “ brightness. _ 
 of his glory.” And Jesus is thus to God, what 
 the beams are to the sun; that by which its 
 glory is manifested, and its light and heat, and 
 vivifying, fructifying, influences are diffused. 
 
 The comparison of the image of a monarch on 
 a coin or medal, falls infinitely short of the 
 apostle’s terms—‘ express image of his person,’ 
 or substance. These words convey the idea of a 
 perfect exemplar,: or delineation of the original. 
 It is more in the sense in which the countenance 
 is the image of the mind. ‘The substance of the 
 Deity is invisible, and incomprehensible. We 
 could no. more form any conception of it, than 
 we could of the mind of man, without the aid of 
 his bodily form, features, gestures, &c., which 
 are to us the image of his soul. So the Lord 
 Jesus, being the brightness of the glory of God, 
 is to us the outward visible image or manifesta- 
 tion of his inward invisible nature. 
 
 The words of the following clause, “ and up- 
 holding all things by the word of his power,” 
 can, by no ingenuity of criticism, be reduced 
 within such limits, as that they might without 
 idolatry be applied to any creature. He who 
 ean read this first chapter of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, without being at least shaken in his 
 persuasion, that Jesus is only a creature, I fear 
 would not be convinced ‘ even if one should rise 
 from the dead.” 
 
 _ The next passage of Scripture, of the descrip- 
 tion which we are now considering, to which I 
 shall direct the reader’s attention is Philip. ii. 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 215 
 
 5—8, “Let this mind be in you, which was 
 also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of 
 God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
 God; but made himself of no reputation, and 
 took upon him the form of a servant, and was 
 made in the likeness of men, and being found in 
 fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and be- 
 came obedient unto death, even the death of the 
 cross.” 
 
 We have already adverted to this passage in 
 two former chapters.* We have seen that, even 
 according to the very lowest sense in which the 
 words can be understood, they necessarily imply 
 that Jesus had an existence and station in hea- 
 ven, before he appeared on earth, and a nature 
 superior to humanity. We have also seen that 
 our author’s objection to God’s making himself 
 of no reputation, was founded on a total misap- 
 prehension of what these words imply :—not the 
 divesting of the Deity, even for a moment, of 
 any portion of the glory that belongs to him; 
 but merely his manifesting himself to men, in a 
 form in which they held him in no reputation. 
 He was held in no reputation by the Jews, when 
 they rejected him as their king, when they pre- 
 ferred the worship and service of idols, when 
 they neglected the worship of his temple, and 
 permitted it, as in the days of Ahaz and Ma- 
 nasseh, to become waste and filled with rub- 
 bish and filth; and he is'made of no reputation in 
 the present day, by those who despise his laws, 
 neglect his worship, profane his Sabbaths and 
 his name: so when he presented himself to the 
 world, in the form of the meek and lowly Jesus, 
 the world held him in no reputation, they ‘ saw 
 no beauty in him that they should desire him,’ 
 
 * See pages 64 and 101 above. 
 
216 Lhe works of God 
 
 and ‘he was despised and rejected of men.’ And, 
 in Jesus Christ, he is still held in no reputation 
 by every man “ who hath trodden under foot 
 the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of 
 the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an 
 unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the 
 Spirit of grace ;”* and therefore, such a one 
 shall be visited with much sorer punishment, 
 than ‘he that despised Moses’ law,” and ‘ died 
 without mercy.” 
 
 Since however our author’s critique on this 
 passage, especially in his second edition, is ela- 
 borate, it seems necessary to attend to it a little 
 move at length. It is as follows. 
 
 “ Hew texts are quoted more frequently in sup- 
 port of Christ’s imagined equality to God than Phil. 
 ii. 6—“ Who being in the form of God” &e.—a 
 verse which, rightly translated, has a meaning totally 
 different from that assigned to it by Trinitarianism. 
 The apostle’s object is to inculcate humility and be- 
 nevolence by the example of Jesus. ‘ Let nothing,’ 
 says he ‘be done through strife and vain glory ; 
 but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other bet- 
 ter than themselves. Look not every man on his 
 own things, but on the things of others. Let this 
 mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, 
 being in the form of God, thought it not robbery 
 to be equal with God, but made himself of no re- 
 putation, and took upon him the form of a ser- 
 vant,’ &e. 
 
 “« Being in the form of God no more implies that 
 he was really God, than being in the form of a slave 
 implies that he was really a slave. The one phrase 
 is opposed to the other, and each means that Christ 
 was in a certain state of similitude. In his virtues 
 of benevolence and wisdom, and in the power and 
 authority with which he was invested by his hea- 
 venly Father, he bore a similitude to the Deity ; 
 
 * Heb. x. 28, 29. 
 
ascribed to Jesus. QN7 
 
 and, notwithstanding his glorious and godlike per- 
 fections, such was his humility that he would not 
 assume even the name of a God, though so much 
 better entitled to that appellation than Moses, and 
 all the other Jewish legislators to whom it was 
 given. He thought of no such act of spoliation and 
 robbery c&eruyov, as, by the assumption of divine 
 honours, to place himself on an equality with Jeho- 
 vah. Bur he emptied, or divested himself even of 
 the honours which he might have justly claimed and 
 enjoyed; declaring that he came not to seek his 
 own glory, but the glory of him by whom he was 
 deputed. He humbled himself from the similitude 
 of a God, to the similitude of a slave—and in this 
 condition ministered unte his Disciples, even unto 
 the washing of their feet—nay more, being in the 
 likeness of men, and in condition as a man i.e. 
 *‘ with all the contingencies of human nature,’* for 
 he was in all points tempted like as we are, yet 
 without sin, became obedient unto death, even the 
 death of the cross. “ Wherefore, or for which rea- 
 son, God also hath highly exalted him,” &c. 
 
 “ This is a most beautiful and affecting lesson on 
 humility, and an admirable illustration of the truth 
 of our Lord’s doctrine, that he who humbleth him- 
 self shall be exalted. The meaning is perspicuous 
 throughout, and in perfect conformity with the 
 apostle’s design. But if we understand the passage 
 in the Trinitarian sense, we shall see that it per- 
 verts his meaning, and contradicts his design alto- 
 gether. Let us see. “ Who being in the form of 
 God,” i. e. as Trinitarians understand the ex- 
 pression, “ being the supreme God,” did not think 
 it any act of rapine or robbery to be equal with 
 God. He deemed it a fair legitimate, and unques- 
 tionable right, to place himself on a perfect equality 
 with Jehovah, that is, with himself, which is abso- 
 lute nonsense. But emptied himself of his glory. — 
 Here the disjunctive particle 6ué expresses no op- 
 
 * Wakefield, 
 U 
 
218 The works of God 
 
 position, though both the meaning and the expres- 
 sion are highly antithetical.* From this mode of 
 interpretation, it would appear that the apostle was 
 exhorting the Philippians, not to be humble, but 
 ambitious !””+ 
 
 The remainder of the criticism has in part, 
 been already considered ; and in part, namely, 
 that which respects Christ’s exaltation, will be 
 considered in a future chapter. On what has 
 been transcribed above, the following obser- 
 vations are submitted to the reader. 
 
 The plausibility of this criticism depends 
 greatly on the total overlooking of one important 
 step in the descent of the Saviour into the valley 
 of humiliation :—** He was made in the likeness 
 of men.” It is obvious, from the bare reading 
 of the text, that the apostle, beginning with a 
 statement of the original glory of the Redeemer, 
 traces regularly downward the successive steps 
 of his humiliation, till his death on the cross.— 
 Now his being made in the likeness of man, is 
 
 * Here is given a note, which is too long for insertion. It 
 is an illustration by Wakefield, of the force of the word but, re- 
 garded as a disjunctive particle. One example must suffice— 
 “ The healthy need not a physician.» By no means; it were 
 useless to affirm it. Who then? The contrary to these.—-- 
 ** Bur the sick.” So Jesus Christ did not think his resemblance 
 to God, a thing greedily to be asserted; nur the contrary to 
 this, he emptied himself of it. 
 
 The answer to this critique on @AAG, (alla,) but, is that 
 it is both a conjunctive and disjunctive particle, as any lexicon 
 or grammar will inform the reader. It signifies merely another 
 thing, and that other thing may be either of the same, or of a 
 different kind from that which was mentioned before. Jesus 
 being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal 
 with God. But, or notwithstanding this high dignity, he made 
 himself of no reputation, &c. Surely our author will not pre- 
 tend that there is any fault, in point of grammatical construc- 
 tion, in such a sentence as this, ‘ Jesus is God but he humbled 
 himself.’ 
 
 + Page 21, Ed. 2d. 
 
‘ascribed | to Jesus. 219 
 
 posterior to his emptying or divesting himself of 
 his glory, and taking upon him the form of a 
 servant. Whereas, by our author’s interpreta- 
 tion, the apostle is supposed, first to describe 
 his condition as a servant in the world, and 
 afterwards to state that he was made in the like- 
 ness of man :—a dislocation of the passage which 
 is totally inadmissible. , : 
 
 Our author had good reason for omitting 
 this statement that Jesus was made in the 
 likeness of man; for it would have rendered 
 nugatory his explanation of the phrase, being in 
 the form of God. * This,’ says he, ‘no more 
 implies that he was really God, than his being in 
 the form of a servant implies that he was really 
 a slave :’ he ought in justice to have added, ‘or 
 his being made in the likeness of men, and being 
 found in fashion as a man, implied that he was 
 really aman.’ But this he durst not add, be- 
 cause it would have overturned his whole hypo- 
 thesis; and therefore he prudently omits all 
 notice of Christ’s being made in the likeness of 
 men. Nothing however can be more obvious, 
 than that he cannot infer from the phrase, the 
 Jorm of God, that Jesus was not really God; 
 without at the same time inferring from the 
 phrases, likeness of man, and fashioned as a man, 
 that Jesus was not really aman. The expres- 
 sion, form of God, is much nearer to the nature 
 or reality of God, than likeness of man is to the 
 nature or reality of man. 
 
 These two points being determined, the au- 
 thor’s hypothesis falls to pieces. He must now 
 explain how Jesus was in the form of a servant 
 before he was made in the likeness of men: and 
 he must admit, either that Jesus was really 
 God, or that he was not really man. And, 
 when he proceeds to explain the passage on 
 
220 The works of God 
 
 these simple principles, he will find that his eri- 
 tique must be a second time, (it has already been 
 once) altogether new modelled. 
 
 These however are not the only flaws in our 
 author’s criticism. The antithetic form of the 
 sentence, as our author conceives of it, is, that 
 Jesus had some resemblance of the Deity, but 
 that he did not arrogate to himself that resem- 
 blanee ; or, as Wakefield expresses it, did not 
 greedily assert his resemblance to God, but di- 
 vested himself of it. Now, wherein doneistae that 
 similitude or resemblance of God? Our author 
 tells us, ‘‘ In his virtues of benevolence and wis- 
 dom, and in the authority with which he was 
 invested by his Father.” Did he then divest 
 himself of that benevolence and wisdom, and of. 
 that authority with which his Father intrusted 
 him? hat will hardly be pretended. But our 
 author again explains, “ he emptied or divested 
 himself” (not of any thing with which he was 
 really invested) * but of the honours which he 
 might have justly claimed and enjoyed.” That 
 is, he emptied or divested himself of honours 
 w Wohi he never enjoyed, or even claimed, but 
 which he might have claimed and enjoyed. 
 
 And what were these honours which Jesus 
 might justly have claimed and enjoyed? Would 
 the reader believe it? Divine honours. ‘% He 
 thought of no such act of spoliation or robbery,” 
 Says our author, ‘as, by the assumption of Di- 
 vine honours, to place himself on an equality 
 with Jehovah. And. in all this, let it be re- 
 membered, Jesus is held up as a pattern of hu- 
 mility. Although he was more worthy of the 
 appellation a God than Moses, yet he did not 
 assert it, or claim Divine honours. Did then 
 Moses assert that title; or is Moses to be re- 
 garded as a pattern of humility, because he did 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 291 
 
 not claim Divine honours? And can any crea- 
 ture be held up as a very model of humility, 
 merely because he is not guilty of the most atro- 
 cious act of presumption, assuming Divine 
 honours, and placing himself on a footing of 
 equality with the eternal God ? 
 
 But the fact is, that Jesus did assert what was 
 understood by those who heard him to bea Divine 
 title, although Moses did not. God, indeed said 
 to Moses, “I have made thee God to Pharaoh ir 
 wliich is elsewhere explained to mean, “ I have 
 put thee in the place of God to Pharaoh, that is 
 to deliver my messages to him.” But Jesus said, 
 “if he called them gods to whom the word of God 
 came, how say ye of him whom the Father hath 
 sanctified and sent into the world, thou blas- 
 phemest because I said, I am the Son of God.” 
 To say that he was the Son of God the Jews re- 
 garded as arrogating to himself a Divine title. — 
 “We have a law,” said they, “and by that law 
 he ought to die, because he made himself the 
 Son of God.” Itis true they were familiar with 
 the phrases, children of God, sons of God, (as 
 we ourselves are,) and yet they did, (as we also 
 should,) regard it as blasphemy in any mere 
 man to say, ‘** I am the Son of God.” 
 
 The power of words must be learnt from their 
 application, and not from their etymology. In 
 our own language, for example, to call a man 
 a lord, or te speak of the Lords, is an every da 
 occurrence ; and yet for a man to say, ‘I am the 
 Lord,” would be regarded as the most revolting 
 blasphemy. We can speak of gods, in reference 
 to the gods of the heathen; by an intermediate 
 reference to the same imaginary beings, men 
 sometimes say that they were among the gods, 
 (alluding to the higher galleries of a place of 
 public amusement), who would be horror-struck 
 
 U3 
 
222 The works of God 
 
 by hearing any one say “ Jam God.” So although 
 the Jews might not have been offended by our 
 Lord’s saying that he was one of the sons or 
 children of God, a form of phraseology to which 
 they were accustomed; yet they could not but 
 be startled when he said, ‘Z am the Son of God: 
 a title which never was assumed by any, even 
 the most renowned of their ancestors. 
 Our author’s explanation of this text therefore 
 is absurd and monstrous in every part of it. 
 While, of course, I hold our author to be a 
 competent expositor of his own views; I must 
 protest against his being recognized as an expo- 
 sitor of ours. What he ealls Trinitarianism, is 
 his own crude, or purposely distorted carica- 
 ture of the opinions of those who believe in the 
 Divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.— _ 
 He might, to as much purpose, draw from his 
 imagination a picture of Luther or Calvin, and 
 then ridicule them because their heads were too 
 large, or their legs too short. Let it be remem- 
 bered that the word God is an appellative and 
 not a proper name; although, in consequence of 
 there being but one God, it has the force of a 
 proper name. The word hing is an appellative 
 also, expressive of a certain rank and station im 
 society ; yet, in any kingdom, the words the king 
 have the power of a proper name, in designating 
 a particular individual. When then the apostle 
 says that Jesus was in the form of God, he in- 
 forms us that, before he commenced his pro- 
 gress of humiliation, which ended with his 
 death on the cross, he was manifested in the 
 glory and majesty of God. The word joggn 
 (form), does not properly signify likeness or 
 similitude, but the cutward appearance of any 
 thing, as distinguished from its internal nature 
 —that which is manifest of it to others. It is 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 223 
 
 thus so identified with the thing itself, that 
 the form of a thing is sometimes used to denote 
 the inward nature or essence of it; and this 
 very expression, form of God, is used by Plato 
 to express the nature or essence of the Deity.* 
 By the Saviour’s being in the form of God, then, 
 we understand that he was really God, and 
 was manifested as God, that is held, in the 
 face of the universe, the rank, character, and 
 station, of the supreme being—creator and 
 governor of all things. And, being in that 
 condition, he accounted it no robbery to be 
 treated as God, to receive the praise and 
 adoration due to the King eternal, immortal, 
 and invisible, whom he manifested. Or did not 
 esteem it a booty or prey, a thing which he had 
 acquired, for so the phrase sometimes means, 
 but a thing which was his by inherent right, and 
 of which, (although he might, as respected any 
 class of his creatures, lay it aside,) he could 
 never be deprived.+ | 
 
 But—or notwithstanding his being in this ex- 
 alted station, he nevertheless made himself of no 
 reputation, literally, emptied himself—divested 
 himself of something that he possessed, not of 
 what he might have possessed, namely, in re- 
 gard to man, of the outward majesty and splen- 
 dour of his supreme station as Lord of all, and 
 took on him the form of a servant or minister of 
 the Divine will; undertaking a certain office for 
 the recovery of fallen-man, and the manifesta- 
 tion of the Divine glory. It was in this cha- 
 racter that he condescended to manifest himself 
 in human form to Abraham, and in a flame of 
 fire to Moses, and that he stooped to become the 
 
 * See Schleusner’s lexicon. + This is Chrysostome’s expla~ 
 nation of the phrase, who was a native Greek. 
 
224 The works of God 
 
 civil governor of a particular nation. But this 
 was not all, he was made in the likeness of man, 
 that is, bearing the outward form of man, and 
 submitting to the ‘‘ contingencies of human na- 
 ture,” he was really a man. He thus, in his 
 manifestation of himself, laid aside even the 
 flaming fire, the thunder and the lightning, with 
 which his appearance on Sinai was accompanied, 
 the pestilences and plagues with which he chas- 
 tized his people and punished their enemies, and 
 the mysterious darkness in which he dwelt in 
 the Holy of Holies; and appeared as a man 
 among them, one of their kindred, of the house 
 and lineage of David. Nay more, he further 
 humbled himself, he did not appear as a sove- 
 reign, a great and powerful prince, but as a pri- 
 vate individual under the law, a poor and 
 despised man; and to crown the whole, sub- 
 mitted to death,—that death which the lowest 
 and vilest criminals were made to suffer. 
 
 In all this we have a history of the Redeemer 
 in perfect conformity with the rest of Scripture, 
 in perfect consistency with itself, free from those 
 dislocations of the text, and those monstrous and 
 revolting hypotheses, which mark the Unitarian 
 interpretation of it. And the whole together 
 leads us irresistibly up to the supreme Divinity 
 of the Lord Jesus. Who could he be, in whom 
 it was a manifestation of humility, to become a 
 servant of God, to do his will? Who could he 
 be, in whom it was humility to be made in the 
 likeness of man, and to subject himself to “ all 
 the contingencies of human nature ?” Was it not 
 one who might have done otherwise, and if so, 
 must it not have been he, whose alone it is to 
 determine in what form or nature he may choose 
 to manifest himself? Strange expression of hu- 
 mility which Unitarians ascribed to a mere man, 
 
ascribed to Jesus. 2295 
 
 or to a mere creature, that he should become a 
 servant of God, that he should appear in human 
 nature, and that he should not arrogate to him- 
 self Divine honours, or place himself on a foot- 
 ing of equality with the Deity ! 
 
 But we should not do justice to this subject, if 
 we did not observe, that the lesson inculcated by 
 the apostle, is not abstract humility ; but that par- 
 ticular exercise of humility by which we are led 
 to pay a kind, affectionate, respectful, attention 
 to the wants of others. It is an argument simi- 
 Jar to that which he uses to induce the members 
 of the Corinthian church to abstain from meats 
 offered to idols for the sake of weak brethren, 
 although they might conceive it to be lawful to 
 partake of them, when they paid no respect to 
 the idol. He shows them that he abstained from 
 many rights and privileges which, as an apostle, 
 he was vested with, and might have exercised, 
 lest he should hinder the progress of the Gospel. 
 He became all things to ail men that he might 
 gain some.* So here he inculeates upon the 
 Philippians, a kind, considerate, attention to the 
 wants of their brethren, by reminding them what 
 the Lord Jesus submitted to for the purpose of 
 saving perishing sinners. It is the same argu- 
 ment which the beloved apostle uses, when he 
 says, ‘ Hereby perceive we the love of God,” 
 (rather of Christ,) ** because he laid down his life 
 for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for 
 the brethren.’’* 
 
 The last text of the description under consi- 
 deration which I shall notice is Heb. ii. 16— 
 “¢ For verily he took not on him the nature of 
 angels ; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” 
 
 #1 Cor, ix, + 1 John iii, 16. 
 
226 The works of God &c. 
 
 The number of words in Italics, in this version, 
 indicate that it is not a just one, which is freely 
 admitted. The Unitarian version renders the 
 text, *“* For indeed Christ helpeth not angels; 
 but he helpeth the seed of Abraham.” In this 
 rendering, at least in substance, I am disposed 
 to acquiesce. It is literally, ‘* for he taketh not 
 hold of angels; but he taketh hold of the seed 
 of Abraham.” The words rendered, ¢o take hold 
 of, however, properly signifies, to take hold of, 
 for the purpose of helping or strengthening.— 
 Acquiescing therefore in the rendering of the 
 Unitarian version, I simply ask the question, 
 who is Jesus that he might take hold of angels 
 to help them, but does not; and who chooses in 
 preference, (o take hold of and help the seed of 
 Abraham? Must he not be superior to angels 
 if it were in his power to help them? And if 
 80, I ask again, who is he? +6 
 
CHAP. IX. 
 
 DIVINE WORSHIP PAID TO JESUS. 
 
 I proceed now to bring forward certain evi- 
 dences of a moral nature, that Jesus was none 
 other than the true God, manifest in the flesh ; 
 that a prominence is given to him, a worship 
 and reverence claimed for him, utterly incon- 
 sistent, on the principles of Scripture itself, 
 with his being a mere creature, however highly 
 exalted. This argument is founded upon a truth 
 which is not only explicitly declared, but which 
 is involved in almost every doctrine of Scripture, 
 and which forms the basis of much that our au- 
 thor and other Unitarian writers advance in 
 opposition to the Divine nature of the Redeemer, 
 namely, that God will not give his glory to ano- 
 ther, that it is contrary to his will to give any 
 part of that honour to any creature which be- 
 longs exclusively to him. “This truth being ad- 
 mitted, if we can show that the peculiar honour 
 and reverence that are due to God are given to 
 Christ—that the worship, the faith, the love, the 
 obedience, which are due to God, and to be paid 
 only to God, are demanded for Christ, given to 
 him by the inspired servants of God, and ac- 
 cepted by him, it surely follows that Christ is 
 not different from that God who is the exclusive 
 object of all divine worship and obedience; but 
 is one with him; and that, when our adoration, 
 
228 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 our faith, our love, our obedience, and our hope, 
 are directed to Christ, they are directed to God 
 who dwells in him. 
 
 I commence with the worship that is demand- 
 ed for Christ in the Scripture, paid to him by 
 the inspired and approved servants of God, and 
 accepted by him. 
 
 This is a part of the subject which is laboured 
 by our author with great care. He devotes ten 
 pages of his publication to it. His statements 
 are too long to be inserted here in full; nor is it 
 necessary that they should, because I shall not 
 feel it necessary to dispute many of them. It 
 appears to me that almost every thing that he 
 has advanced might be admitted, without, in 
 the slightest degree, affecting the general argu- 
 ‘ment. 
 
 He commences with an assertion, blazoned in 
 capital letters, that ‘‘ Divine honours were not 
 paid to Christ ;” which, however, he immediately 
 modifies, by adding, in the smaller type, “ by 
 any of his cotemporaries upon earth.” But the 
 whole proposition, including this addition, is 
 very different from the first part of it, taken by 
 itself; for it might be true that Divine honours 
 were not paid to Jesus on earth, because his 
 rank was unknown, while yet they have been 
 paid to him since he ascended to heaven. Our 
 author then, agreeably to the sense of the two 
 parts of the proposition taken together, proceeds 
 to show, that the honour or worship that were 
 paid to the Lord Jesus while he was on earth, 
 was merely that description of worship which 
 was due to an illustrious prophet, and not to a Di- 
 vine being. He argues that, if Divine worship 
 were to be paid to Christ, it would be explicitly 
 inculcated, and in terms, about the meaning of 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 229’ 
 
 which there could be no dispute. ‘ Another 
 Deity,” says he, ‘* besides God, being proposed 
 by revelation as an object of worship, it is in- 
 conceivable on any principle of common sense, 
 why it is not enjoined in terms at least equally 
 clear as those which enjoin prayer to God su- 
 preme.” He pleads that, “ this argument de- 
 rives considerable force from the reflexion, that 
 the Gospel was designed for the poor and the 
 illiterate, as well as for men of education ;”’ and 
 that ‘‘ no man of plain understanding will ever 
 find that it is his duty to pray to any being but 
 ‘the Father Almighty.” He reminds us that 
 ** Our Lord was instant in prayer to ¢ his 
 Father and our Father, to his God and our 
 God.’” He asserts that Christ even forbade 
 that prayers should be made to him saying, ‘in 
 that day,’ ** viz. in the time of his highest exal- 
 tation,” ‘ ye shall ask me nothing,’ and. asserts, 
 that Jesus was that angel who would not permit 
 the apostle John to worship him, as mentioned 
 in the book of Revelations. He then notices 
 the case of Stephen, his observations on which 
 I shall transcribe at length before I conclude.— 
 He pleads that the peculiar terms ascriptive of 
 religious homage to Jehovah are not applied to the 
 Son, and specifies dive (aineo) I praise, rurgeun 
 (latreuo) IL serve, and ceCoyas (sebomat) I wor- 
 ship or adore, as never applied to the Lord 
 Jesus. He further pleads that the Jews never 
 charged our Lord with claiming Divine worship, 
 which they surely would have done, if they could 
 have substantiated such an accusation ; and that 
 the apostles were never accused of the introduc- 
 tion of any new or strange worship.* 
 
 Here our author still insists upon language, 
 
 * Page 28, or 2d Edit. page 34 
 x 
 
230 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 ‘the meaning of which cannot be disputed ;’ to 
 which requisition we must still reply, that, after 
 the specimens which we have had of disputing 
 the meaning of language, we may fairly assert 
 that he demands what he himself intentionally 
 renders impossible. Upon the principles of eri- 
 ticism adopted by him, I will undertake to dis- 
 pute the meaning of any language, on any sub-- 
 ject, that he may choose to produce; and none 
 more easily than those passages of Scripture on 
 which he builds his own system. He still rea- 
 sons as if we set up Jesus as another God be- 
 sides God the Father, whereas our doctrine is, 
 that God, the Father of the universe, was mani- 
 fest in him. His assertion that Jesus, on any 
 occasion, forbade worship being paid to him, is 
 altogether groundless. The only instances which 
 he produces are John xvi. 23—“ In that day ye 
 snall ask me nothing.” In the first place, the 
 words are not a command but a prediction. 
 Secondly, thaé day, does not refer to Christ’s 
 highest exeltation, but to his resurrection, or to the 
 descent of the Holy Spirit, which had been 
 spoken of in verse 13th, and which seems to be 
 that which our Lord refers to when he speaks 
 of his seeing them again, ‘ in a little while ’— 
 And, thirdly, by, “asking him,” hoth Whitby and 
 Campbell, our author’s favourite commentators, 
 at least among Trinitarians, understand putting 
 questions to him, in which sense the same word 
 is twice used in this chapter, (verses 13th and 
 19th) ; and the meanimg may be, that then they 
 would have no need to put questions to him to 
 solve their doubts, they themselves being fully 
 instructed by the Holy Spirit. The word ren- 
 dered ask in the following clause of the verse— 
 ‘ Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father,’ is a dif- 
 ferent word. It is to be observed, however, that 
 our Lord distinguishes between ‘ asking him,’ 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 231 
 
 _ and asking the Father in ‘his name” When he 
 says, ye shall ask me nothing, he immediatel 
 adds, ‘* Whatscever ye shall ask the Father in my 
 name, he will give it you.” And our Lord’s mean- 
 ing may be, that they should make no request 
 to lim as separate from the F ather, because 
 they should then know to ask the Father as ma- 
 nifest in him. I should be glad to learn from 
 vur author, or any other Unitarian, what is 
 meant by asking of God inthe name of Christ : 
 and how he reconciles such a direction for 
 prayer to reason and common sense, on his own 
 principles. 
 
 The strange hypothesis, that the angel who 
 would not permit John to worship him wus 
 the Lord Jesus, we have already considered.*— 
 I may, I presume take it for granted, that these 
 are the only passages in the whole Bible in which 
 there is even the appearance of any prohibition 
 to worship the Redeemer; or at least that these 
 are the strongest which the author could pro- 
 duce :—this removes one obstacle out of our 
 way. 3 
 
 But on the general strain of our author’s ar- 
 gument respecting the worship of the Redeemer, 
 I offer the following remarks. 
 
 I. Even if it could be satisfactorily proved 
 that no divine worship was ever offered to our 
 blessed Lord, either while he was corporeally in 
 the world, or after his ascension to heaven— 
 that no such worship is demanded for him 2s 
 distinguished from the Father and the Holy 
 Spirit, these circumstances would not even tend 
 to prove that he is not one of the persons of the 
 
 Godhead. The proper object of our ordinary 
 
 * See Pages 172 and 173, above. 
 
232 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 worship might be God in his unity, consisting of 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and not any 
 one of the persons of the Godhead as distin- 
 guished from the others. And I believe the 
 truth to be, that the proper object of ordinary 
 worship, both under the Old and under the New 
 Testament dispensations, is the one living God, 
 who fills heaven and earth with his presence, 
 existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ma- 
 nifested under the Old Testament, in the She- 
 chinah, or glory of the Lord that rested on the 
 mercy seat in the most holy place, and manifest- 
 ed under the New Testament, in Jesus Christ. 
 I do not conceive, however, that this form of 
 worship is so exclusive, as absolutely to preclude 
 divine worship being paid to the Father, or to the 
 Son, or to the Holy Ghost, separately ; for I think 
 that there are unequivecal instances of such 
 worship to be found in the word of God: but 
 the general practice of Scripture seems to indi- 
 cate, that, in ordinary worship, we should ad- 
 dress the Deity in his unity, manifested to us as, 
 in Christ Jesus, reconciling the world to him- 
 self, not imputing to men their trespasses. I 
 confess that I have ever disliked the use of the 
 word Trinity in prayer to God, as not being 2 
 name whereby God reveals himself to us, and 
 as savouring of scholastic theology. 
 
 Perhaps it may be thought an objection to this 
 . view of the subject, that we are directed to ad- 
 dress God in prayer as our Father; and that, 
 therefore, God the Father, as distinguished from 
 the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is the proper ob- 
 ject of worship. But this objection, which our 
 author seems at least to press by his constantly 
 speaking of the Father as distinguished from 
 Jesus Christ, when he means the supreme God, 
 is founded on a mere misapplication of the name 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 233 
 
 Father. When God the Father, as distinguish- 
 ed from the Son, and the Spirit, and as one of 
 the persons of the Godhead, is spoken of, it is 
 not as our Father, but as he, who, within the 
 Deity, bears that name—the Father, in relation 
 to the Son in his Divine nature, and the Spirit. 
 When God is spoken of as ou Father, we are, I 
 conceive, to understand simply the Deity —the 
 invisible eternal God, without reference to a dis~ 
 tinction of persons in the Godhead. It is very 
 singular that some who believe that there are 
 three persons in the Godhead, feel difficulty in 
 conceiving that the title Father should be given 
 to Christ, who is called the Son of God; and 
 some have found difficulty on this ground in be- 
 lieving that Isaiah could ascribe to him the title 
 of the “everlasting Father,” or “ Father of the 
 everlasting age.” But surely there is no incon- 
 sistency in a person bearing the relation of son 
 to one, and of father to another. Jesus might 
 stand in the relation of son to God, and in that 
 of father to the whole human race. When there- 
 fore we look to God as our Father, we are not 
 to direct our attention to one person of the God- 
 head—to him who bears the name of Father in 
 reference to the Son and the Spirit; but simply 
 to the one living, eternal, invisible Deity. Our 
 blessed Lord himself may frequently be regarded 
 as using the word Father in the same sense, 
 especially in praying to him. He then spoke as 
 a creature—a man, and was setting us an ex- 
 ample of devotion ; and there appears to me no- 
 thing inconsistent with his divine nature, in his” 
 addressing himself, under such circumstances, to 
 the invisible God, whom he manifested to the 
 world, as the Father of the universe, and espe- 
 cially as his God and Father. | 
 
 xo 
 
234 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 2. When the Lord Jesus was on earth, in 
 human nature, his claiming and receiving the 
 ordinary worship paid to the Deity, having 
 incense and sacrifices offered to him, would 
 have been altogether unsuitable to his condition, 
 and inconsistent with the nature of that new 
 dispensation which he purposed to introduce. 
 Jesus had then, as regarded men, divested 
 himself of-his glory; he had descended from his 
 throne to the condition of a servant or subject, 
 and, instead of holding the ostensible station of 
 legislator, and administrator of the law, had. 
 placed himself under the law, and exposed 
 himself to the penalties incurred by the sinful 
 family with whom he had identified himself. 
 To demand, under such circumstances, that the 
 ordinary worship of the Deity, the homage, the 
 royal honours with which his people greeted his 
 Presence: and acknowledged his authority, should ~ 
 
 e paid to him, would have been as incongruous, 
 as it would be in a monarch, who chose to visit 
 any city. in his dominions in the character of a 
 private person, to demand the public salutations 
 by which the reyal official presence is recognized 
 and announced. Besides, Jesus came to change 
 the form in which the Deity had, till then, been 
 worshipped. The Jews had worshipped him, as 
 peculiarly present in their temple; towards that 
 holy place they always turned when they 
 addressed him in prayer or praise; and it was 
 before the sanctuary that the sacrifices were 
 offered, and the incense burnt. Jesus purposed 
 to draw off their attention from any particular 
 spot on earth, as the place which the Lord chose 
 should he peculiarlyregarded as his dwelling-place, 
 and to direct their thoughts to heaven. “The 
 hour cometh,” said he to the woman of Samaria, 
 *‘when ye shall, neither in this mountain, nor 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 235 
 
 yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.” And 
 he taught his disciples to say, ‘Our Father 
 which art in heaven.” His object therefore was 
 to lift their thoughts above this world, to that 
 invisible world into which they were soon to be 
 removed; and it would have been destructive of 
 his own purpose, in drawing off their attention 
 from the temple, merely to fix it upon his own 
 local presence among them. 
 
 When, however, he was about to leave the 
 world, he directed them to offer up their petitions 
 to the Father, that is, to the invisible God, in 
 his name; adding, that hitherto they had asked 
 _ nothing in his name. In this, and in his direc- 
 tion to come to the Father through or by him, he 
 instructs us to worship in a manner perfectly 
 analogous to the manner in which the Jews 
 worshipped Jehovah their God. They offered 
 their worship to that God, who, under the 
 outward manifestation of a flame of fire, or 
 a cloud of glory, had been the God of their 
 fathers ; who had taken up his visible residence 
 in their tabernacle, and afterwards in their 
 tempie; and who, although his presence was not, 
 since the Babylonish captivity, manifested by 
 any outward symbol, still assured them that, 
 when they worshipped towards that temple 
 where he had placed his name, he would meet 
 with them and bless them. They therefore 
 worshipped towards the temple at Jerusalem, as 
 _ the only way of access that they had to the God 
 who fills heaven and earth with his presence. 
 But Jesus, for Jerusalem, substituted heaven ; 
 and for the temple, he substituted himself: he 
 combining in- his own person all that was, 
 represented by the sacrifices, the priests, the 
 incense, the golden candlestick, the table of 
 shew-bread, the ark of the covenant, the tables 
 
236 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 of the law, the rod of Aaron, the pot of manna, 
 and the cloud of glory or Shechinah, that dwelt 
 in the midst of these symbols. And now, that he 
 has ascended to heaven, he calls upon all who 
 would draw near to God, to look to him as that 
 temple in which the Deity dwells and is mani- 
 fested. When an Israelite was at a distance 
 from his native land, he was directed, in 
 addressing his prayer to God, to turn his face 
 towards Jerusalem; and so we, strangers and 
 pilgrims in a foreign land, are direeted to look 
 to Jerusalem above, where Jesus is, the true 
 temple of God, ‘the brightness of the Father’s 
 glory, and the express image of his person.’ 
 ‘“*No man,” said he, ‘cometh to the Father but 
 by me;” and therefore, that we may approach 
 the invisible God with an acceptable worsbip, 
 we must look towards Christ, and to God as 
 manifest in him. I still feel anxious to know 
 what Unitarians precisely understand by praying 
 in the the name of Christ, by giving glory to 
 God through Christ ; especially as they actually 
 make use of these forms of speech in prayer ; 
 and therefore cannot say that all they understand 
 by them is, that they are to pray according to 
 Christ’s instructions. | 
 3. We have already identified the Lord Jesus 
 with that great Being who, under the Old 
 Testament dispensation, was worshipped under 
 the title Gop and the name JeHovau; by proving 
 that these very designations are given to him 
 in Scripture; that passages of the Old Testament 
 which referred to the God of Israel, are applied, 
 in the New Testament, to the Lord Jesus; that 
 the same attributes, and the same works are 
 ascribed to him; from which it manifestly follows 
 that praise, and service, and adoration—worship, 
 in the highest, and most sacred sense of that 
 
Divine worship patd to Jesus. 237 
 
 word, were paid to him. I do not conceive, 
 however, that that worship was paid to the Son. 
 _ as distinguished from the Father and the Spirit ; 
 but that it was paid to the one living God, the 
 Father of the universe, revealed by a plural 
 title, and manifested by the Son, in the visible 
 glory of the tabernacle or temple. “ No man 
 hath seen God at any time; the only begotten 
 _ Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath 
 declared him.” : 
 
 In the further observations, therefore, that I 
 have to make respecting: the divine worship of 
 the Redeemer, as sanctioned by the Scriptures, 
 I would not be understood as attempting to 
 prove, that the Son, as distinguished from the 
 Father and the Holy Spirit, is the proper object 
 of our ordinary worship, except in this yiew that, 
 as the mediator between God and man, he is 
 the only means of access that we have to the 
 invisible, omnipresent God: but merely that 
 such acts of worship are recorded as addressed 
 to him, sanctioned and demanded on his behalf, 
 as could not be paid to him, if he be a mere 
 creature, without idolatry ; and which, therefore, 
 strengthen our argument that he was and is 
 more than a creature, even the true God mani- 
 fested in our nature. Let me suppose that any 
 one should undertake to prove, that the great 
 being who was manifested to Moses in the 
 burning bush, and to the Israelites in the taber- 
 -nacle, was the same God who is described as 
 filling heaven and earth with his presence, he 
 would be under the necessity of producing 
 precisely such passages from the Old Testament 
 Scriptures, as those which we produce from. 
 the New Testament, to identify the Lord Jesus 
 with the God of Israel; and would be exposed, 
 in every step of his progress, to the same species 
 
238 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 of criticism, the same counterbalancing texts, 
 the same alleged ambiguity of language, and the 
 same supposed dictates of reason and common 
 Sense, as are employed against us. All those 
 magnificent descriptions of the attributes of the 
 Deity, scattered throughout the Old Testament, 
 would be of no avail to a person engaged in such 
 an argument. He must produce texts, in which 
 these attributes are specifically, and particularly 
 connected with the manifested presence of God 
 in the Shechinah; and these he might find not 
 to be very numerous. And when he had pro- 
 duced his texts, he would be charged, as we are, 
 with resting his opinion on mutilated passages of 
 doubtful interpretation; and descriptions of him 
 who was peculiarly the God and King of Israel, 
 who visibly dwelt among that people, would be 
 demanded as sublime and as expressive, as the 
 descriptions which can be produced of the 
 “King eternal, immortal, and invisible,” the 
 God of the universe. Yet, if he could find texts, 
 which doubtless he could, sufficient to identify 
 the God of Israel with the God of the universe, 
 if he could show that he is revealed under the 
 Same names and appellations, that the same 
 attributes and the same works are ascribed to 
 him, and that a worship is paid to him, which 
 could not, without idolatry, be paid to any but 
 the supreme God, he ought surely to be regarded 
 as having established his position, that the God 
 manifested in the Shechinah, and the God that 
 fills heaven and earth are the same God. And 
 this is all that can reasonably be required of us, 
 in proving the Divine nature of the Saviour, — 
 Rot a repetition of all that is said of God in the 
 Scripture, specifically applied to him, but 
 merely texts sufficient to identify him with the 
 God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob.— 
 
t 
 
 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 239 
 
 It is with this view then, that, in addition to 
 what has already been advanced, I proceed to 
 show that a worship, which would be branded 
 by the Scripture as idolatrous, if paid to a 
 creature, is, by the sanction ef that Scripture, 
 paid to the Redeemer. 
 
 To establish this point, it is necessary to 
 fix upon certain acts of worship that the Scrip- 
 ture brands as idolatrous; and to show, that 
 these very acts of worship are paid to the 
 Redeemer. I shall confine my observations to 
 two practices or descriptions of idolatry. 
 
 I. The first of those descriptions of idolatry, 
 to which I have intimated my purpose of calling 
 the reader’s attention, 1s the worship of absent 
 persons or Inanimate objects. Any act of 
 respect, or reverence, or worship, paid to an 
 inanimate object, or to an imaginary person, or 
 to one who, although he had a real existence, is 
 now deceased, and gone into the world of spirits, 
 is, by the principles and declarations of the 
 word of God, held to be idolatrous. It matters 
 not what the outward mark of respect or reve- 
 renee may be—whether bowing the knee, or 
 kissing the hand, or preferring petitions, or any 
 other token of reverence; it is sufficient to 
 constitute idolatry, that any such acts are 
 addressed to an insensible object, or to an imagin- 
 ary or absent person, especially a person so 
 totally absent as to be in the separate state of the 
 
 dead. Thus kissing the hand to the sun or the 
 moon is by Job declared to be idolatry, and a 
 virtual denial of God that is above.* Bowing 
 the knee to an inanimate or imaginary being is 
 branded as idolatry, 1 Kings xix. 18, and 
 
 * Job xxxi, 26—28, 
 
240 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 elsewhere. Several acts of idolatry are specified 
 by the prophet Ezekiel, in the eighth chapter of 
 his prophecies. Thus, vy. 11, burning incense 
 is SO stigmatized; v. 14, weeping for Tammuz, 
 which was an annual commemoration of an 
 imaginary or. deceased person; and y. 16, pros- 
 tration, or doing obeisance to the sun, are placed 
 upon the same footing. In Jer. vii. 18. we read, 
 ** The children gather wood, the fathers kindle 
 the fire, and the women knead their dough, to 
 make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour 
 out drink-offerings unto other gods,” and all of 
 these are regarded as equally engaged in 
 idolatry. 
 
 Now it would be downright trifling, to attempt 
 to justify any of these practices, by showing 
 that they might not be intended as acts of divine 
 worship properly so called, and to attempt to 
 distinguish between worshipping and praising, 
 adoring, or serving, or any other words by 
 which reverence or respect are expressed. It is 
 thus that the Church of Rome endeavours to 
 justify her worship of saints and angels. She 
 does not, she says, pay to saints or angels 
 latria—that worship that is properly due to God; 
 but only dulia—an inferior description of wor- 
 ship. But this distinction is utterly futile, so 
 long as she pays any description of obeisance 
 or reverence to persons who have passed into 
 the world of spirits. Our author, however, in 
 this matter, very closely follows the example of 
 ‘the infallible church,” by attaching much 
 importance to a similar distinction. He cannot 
 find the datria, or the ainesis, or the sebasis, but 
 only the dulia and the proskunésis paid to Jesus. 
 But the condemnation of idolatry in the sacred 
 Scriptures is not, by any means, confined to 
 these words. It is just as idolatrous to offer 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 241 
 
 obeisance, under the form of bowing the knee 
 or kissing the hand, to an absent or insensible 
 object, calling upon it, making cakes in honour 
 of it, as praising it, or burning incense to it, or 
 offering sacrifice to it. 
 
 It would also be trifling with the subject, to 
 attempt to distinguish between a worship paid 
 to objects which are known to be inanimate, 
 such as the heavenly bodies, and the worship 
 paid to imaginary persons, or to real persons, 
 but who have passed from this world into the 
 world of spirits. Many of the gods of the 
 heathen were deified men and women. Such 
 tokens of reverence offered to Enoch after his 
 translation, or to Moses after his death, would 
 manifestly have been as idolatrous, as if they 
 had been offered to imaginary beings, or to the 
 host of heaven. 
 
 And the ground of this Scripture principle is 
 sufficiently obvious. To address such expressions 
 of respect and reverence to inanimate objects, or 
 absent persons, is in effect to ascribe to them 
 the attributes of Deity. To bow down to an 
 absent, especially a deceased person, or to his 
 image, to kiss the hand to him, to make 
 petitions to him, is to suppose him present, 
 capable of witnessing the worshipper, and of 
 knowing the import of his address. When the 
 Church of Rome directs prayers to be addressed 
 to the Virgin Mary, or to any saint or angel, in 
 all parts of the world, on the same day, she 
 manifestly ascribes to the Virgin Mary, or to 
 that saint or angel, the attributes of omnipresence 
 and omniscience. 
 
 Now if we find a warrant in Scripture for any 
 token of reverence or respect being addressed 
 to the Lord Jesus, since he has passed into the 
 world of spirits, if we find that he is called 
 
 Y 
 
242 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 upon, petitions offered to him, his praises cele- 
 brated, his works commemorated in acts of 
 religious worship, surely it will follow, that he 
 is not treated as a creature, but as a divine 
 person, possessing the attributes of ubiquity and 
 omniscience. 
 
 Of acts of worship addressed to the Saviour, 
 falling under this head, I notice the following: 
 
 1. In @& great number of passages, the saints 
 are described as persons who call upon Christ, 
 or upon the name of Christ. ‘This is an expression 
 that is frequently used, in the Old Testament, 
 to express the worship of Jehovah. Thus, Gen. 
 iv. 26—‘“ Then began men to call upon the 
 name of the Lorp” (Jehovah): xu. 8—* And 
 there he” (Abraham) ‘“ builded an altar unto the 
 Lorp Jehovah, and called upon the name of the 
 Lorp” (Jehovah): xiii. 4—*‘* And there Abram 
 called on the name of the Lorp” (Jehovah). 
 And so in the New Testament,—Rom. x. 12, 
 13—‘‘For the same Lord over all is rich unto 
 all that call wpon him; for whosoever shall call 
 upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” 
 Acts ii. 21—*“ And it shall come to pass, that 
 whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord 
 shall be saved.” Who is meant by the Lord in 
 these passages? I have no doubt that it is the 
 Lord Jesus Christ; but, as this may be disputed, 
 let us suppose that it is Jehovah, the invisible 
 God; it will then follow that this expression, 
 calling upon, is used in the New, as well as the 
 Old Testament, to express the addressing of 
 prayer to God. 
 
 We now turn to Acts ix. 10—21—*“ And 
 to him,” (Ananias) ‘said the Lord in a vision, 
 Ananias. And he said, behold I am here, Lord. 
 And the Lord said unto him, arise, and go into 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 243 
 
 the street which is called straight, and inquire | 
 for one called Saul of Tarsus: for, behold, he 
 prayeth. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I 
 have heard by many of this man, how much evil 
 he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: and 
 here he hath authority from the chief priests to 
 bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord 
 said unto him, go thy way.—And Ananias 
 went his way, and entered into the house; and 
 putting his hands on him said, brother Saul, 
 the Lord hath sent me—Jesus, who appeared to 
 thee in the way as thou camest, that thou 
 mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with 
 the Holy Ghost.—Then was Saul certain days 
 with the disciples which were at Damascus; 
 and straightway he preached Christ in the 
 synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But 
 all that heard him were amazed, and said, is 
 not this he that destroyed them which called on 
 this name in Jerusalem?” In this passage it is 
 obvious that by the Lord so frequently mentioned 
 is meant Jesus, and that ‘‘the saints” are 
 repeatedly described as persons who called upon 
 the name of that Lord. Again, 1 Cor. 1. 2. 
 ‘ Paul—unto the church of God which is at 
 Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ 
 Jesus, called to be saints, with all that, in 
 every place, call upon the name of Jesus Christ 
 our Lord, both theirs and ours.” 
 
 To break the force of such passages as these, 
 the editors of the Unitarian version render these 
 two latter passages, called by the name, or call 
 themselves after the name of Jesus. Why then do 
 they not render the former passages, Rom. x. 
 10-13. and Acts ix. 21, in the same manner ? 
 The form of words is precisely the same, yet 
 these translators render them, call upon the name 
 of the Lord. The only reason that can be given 
 
? 
 
 244, Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 for this difference is, that, in the former passages, 
 the Lord Jesus is not expressly mentioned, so 
 that they conceive that by the word Lord they 
 may insist on Almighty God being understood ; 
 whereas, in the latter passages, they are com- 
 pelled to see that Jesus is meant, and therefore, 
 to evade the obvious conclusion, they adopt a 
 mis-translation. I say a mis-translation, for 
 the form of words is that which is uniformly 
 employed, ‘both in the New Testament, and in 
 the LXX. Old Testament, to express calling 
 upon; and that too in passages where the sense of, 
 cailing by the name of, cannot possibly be intended. 
 he construction employed in these instances is 
 incapable of bearing the sense which the Unitarian 
 translators affix to it; nor have they produced a 
 single example to that effect; but content them- 
 selves with addueing the opinion of one of the 
 least scrupulous of their own party.* Besides, 
 nothing could be farther from the intention of 
 
 2 ° ° e ° ig 
 
 * When £7/%GA£6) (epikaleo) signifies to invoke or address in 
 prayer, it is construed with an accusative—Thus, ‘ge gy gqrj= 
 AUACONTOL TO GVO &e. who shall invoke the name, Acts ii. 21. 
 When it signifies, to give a name to, itis construed with the 
 same case after as before it. Thus, ‘0g exinaAndy Lov0rT0s, 
 who was called Justus, Acts i. 23., and Toy exixaAoumevoy 
 
 (OXURWT Vy who was called Iscariot, Luke xxii. 3. And when 
 it signifies to call by the name of, it is construed with the prepo- 
 
 . e 2 . Ad = Rig 2 4 YX 
 sition €7l, er with a dative. Thus, 2 6ug erimexAnroas To 
 
 > 3 b} . . 
 OVO/LH (MOU EF HUTOUS upon whom my name is called, i, e. who 
 are called by my name, Acts xy. 17., or TUVTES O00! ExInE@ 
 
 ANNVT OE TY GVOULETI LOU. All, as many as are called by my 
 name, Isa. xliii. 7. Sep. The forms of expression are as dis- 
 tinct as the English forms, Call uvon the name of, and Call ny 
 the name of ; and before persons pretending to the sacred and 
 most important office of translators of the word of God, take 
 upon themselves to confound these forms, they ought to produce 
 examples of that confusion; and also to show, that they have 
 rightly acted upon the ambiguity, if any such exist, in the spe- 
 cific passages where it occurs. 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 245 
 
 the apostle than to designate as saints, or to 
 pour forth his blessings indiscriminately on all 
 who might call themselves by the name of Christ : 
 
 but only those who called upon the name of the 
 Lord in sincerity and truth. 
 
 But we are under no necessity of disputing 
 about the meaning of particular expressions. 
 Let us attend to facts, and we shall find that 
 Jesus actually has been called upon, since he 
 left the world. Thus, 1 Thess. iii. 11—13— 
 ** Now God himself and our Father and our Lord 
 Jesus Christ direct our way to you, and the Lord 
 make you to increase and abound in love,” &e. 
 Here is a prayer to the Father andthe Son in 
 the same sentence. Again, 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17., 
 ** Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God 
 even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath 
 given us everlasting consolation, and good hope 
 through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish 
 you in every good word and work.” Here again 
 the Lord Jesus is associated in the same prayer 
 with the Father. Again, 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9— 
 ** For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that 
 it might depart from me. And he said unto me, 
 my grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength 
 is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly 
 therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, 
 that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” 
 What Lord was it to whom the apostle addressed 
 himself in his distress? Common sense and 
 - reason would say, that Zord who said to him, 
 
 “‘ My strength is made perfect in weakness,” 
 and whose power the apostle expected to rest 
 upon him; and that Lord was Christ. If our 
 author imagine that any other Lord is here 
 meant, nothing surely, but the despised authority 
 of an ‘infallible church,” could determine that 
 point for him. 
 
 | ¥ 3 
 
246 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 The forms of benediction used by the apostles 
 are examples of the same description of divine 
 worship. Eph. vi. 23—“ Peace be to the _ 
 brethren, and love with faith, from God the 
 Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” 9 Cor. 
 xii. 14—** The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and the love of God, and the communion of the 
 Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.” Could 
 a Unitarian make use of this prayer? Or this, 
 2 John 3—“ Grace be with you, mercy, and 
 peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord 
 Jesus Christ the Son of the F ather, in truth 
 and love ?” | 
 
 But there is one signal instance of an eminent 
 and inspired servant of Christ, calling upon him, 
 on which our author animadverts. It is that of 
 Stephen, as recorded in Acts vii, 54—G60— 
 “When they” (that is, the council, see ch. vi. 
 12—15.) “heard these things,” (the things 
 which Stephen had said) *“*they were cut to the 
 heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. 
 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked 
 up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of 
 God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of 
 God, and said, behold I see the heavens opened, 
 and the Son of man standing on the right hand 
 of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, 
 and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with 
 one accord, and cast him out of the city, and 
 stoned him.”—“ And they stoned Stephen, 
 calling upon God,” (rather upon Jesus) “and- 
 saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he 
 kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, 
 Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And 
 when he had said this he fell asleep.” 
 
 Stephen here seems to have seen at once the 
 ancient manifestation of God, called the ‘ glory 
 of God,’ and the New Testament manifestation of 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 247 
 
 him, namely, in the man Christ Jesus; and 
 Jesus standing on the right hand—in the place 
 of activity, as the agent of the Divine will. Tt 
 was thus that God seems to have manifested 
 himself also to the apostle Paul, on the way to 
 Damascus. The glory of the Lord, or the 
 Shechinah, shone round about him, at the same 
 time that the Lord Jesus called to him. The 
 same manifestations were given at the trans- 
 figuration of the Redeemer, when the bright 
 cloud of the Shechinah, or Divine glory, over- 
 shadowed him and the apostles, and at the same 
 time he himself assumed the same dazzling 
 appearance, and Moses and Elias, the two most 
 eminent servants under the law, addressed 
 themselves to him, speaking to him in his glory 
 face to face. So here Stephen, with a view of 
 the glory of God before him, addressed his 
 prayer to the Lord Jesus, as that manifestation 
 of God to which it was his privilege to approach. 
 
 Our author’s comment on this narrative is as 
 follows: 
 
 “Great stress has been laid on the invocation of 
 Stephen in his last moments, as if it were an 
 infallible rule to which we were commanded to 
 conform. But to what does it amount? The 
 ideas which Stephen had formed of our Lord, were 
 not. such as would justify an act of adoration, as 
 appears from the account which he himself gives of 
 his vision.—‘ Behold I see the heavens opened, and 
 the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.’ 
 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon (God is not 
 in the original) and saying, ‘Lord Jesus, receive 
 my spirit.” Nothing could be more natural than 
 such an invocation to the Saviour whom he saw, or 
 had just seen. But what example can it be to us, 
 unless we should be placed in similar circumstances, 
 and” gratified with a similar vision ? Christ, not 
 
248 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 Stephen, is the example for us to follow, and Christ 
 always prayed to the Father. 
 
 «The conduct of Stephen has furnished the 
 Socinians with an argument for praying to Christ. 
 Hence, of course, the Unitarian disclaims the 
 appellation of Socinian.”* 
 
 This case of Stephen is so decided a sanction 
 to the worship of the Redeemer, that, as our 
 author informs us, even the older Socinians, 
 notwithstanding their anxiety to reduce the 
 Saviour, in all respects, to the condition of a 
 mere man, could not bring it within their system ; 
 but felt themselves under the necessity of 
 admitting the propriety of worshipping the 
 Saviour as a God, while they believed him to 
 be onlya man. Modern Unitarians, however, 
 are not so scrupulous. Pleas have been invented, 
 or rather have been raised to importance, since 
 the days of Socinus, to which he and his fol- 
 lowers could pay no attention. The whole 
 matter is now got over in the most easy manner 
 possible; and Stephen’s conduct is represented 
 as perfectly natural, even on the hypothesis that 
 he believed the Redeemer to be a mere man. 
 Let us examine these pleas. I would however 
 commence with observing that no one infers, from 
 Stephen’s invocation of Jesus, who had been the 
 Lord from heaven, and who now was the Lord in 
 heaven, that he is the ordinary object of worship, 
 as distinguished from the Father. All that is 
 inferred from it is, that if Christ were a mere 
 creature, such an address could not have been 
 made to him under any circumstances, without 
 incurring the guilt of idolatry. Our author 
 observes that this can be no example to us, unless 
 we were placed in similar circumstances, that 
 
 « Page 53, Ed. 2d, 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 249 
 
 Christ, not Stephen, is our example, and that 
 Christ always prayed to the Father. Granting 
 all this, still Stephen’s conduct is an example 
 to us, if we were placed in similar circumstances ; 
 and Stephen’s conduct was a prayer of a most 
 solemn nature addressed to the Lord Jesus. 
 When our author says that Christ is our example 
 in prayer, it is singular that he does not stop to 
 consider whether we be in the same circumstances 
 with him. Jesus, a pure and holy being, 
 unstained by sin, prayed to the Father doubtless, 
 prayed in his own name, and that too in a strain 
 that no sinful man would dare to imitate. 
 “Mather,” said he on one occasion, J will that 
 they also, whom thou hast given me, be with 
 me where Iam; that they may behold my glory 
 which thou hast given me.’* And on another 
 oceasion he said, ‘“‘ Father, Ithank thee that 
 thou hast heard me: and I knew that thou 
 hearest me always; but, because of the people 
 that stand by I said it, that they may believe 
 that thou hast sent me.”+ But Jesus taught us 
 to pray differently from him, because our 
 circumstances are different from his. He taught 
 us to pray, “forgive us our trespasses,” a petition 
 which the Saviour never offered. He taught us 
 to pray, not in our own name, but in his. And 
 here Stephen, a poor, helpless, dying sinner, 
 follows his directions, and calls upon Christ, 
 that is, upon God in Christ Jesus, in the hour 
 of his extremity. 
 
 And what were those circumstances in which 
 Stephen was placed, that are supposed to jus- 
 tify such a prayer to him. “ He saw,” it is 
 said, “‘ or had just seen the Lord Jesus.” The 
 vision was in the council chamber. When 
 
 * John xvii, 24, + John xi. 41, 42, 
 
250 Divine worship paid io Jesus. 
 
 Stephen announced it, the assembly ran upon 
 him, and dragged him, not only out of the coun- 
 cil chamber, but out of the city; and there is no 
 intimation of the vision having followed him; 
 so that when he prayed to Christ, he, in all pro- 
 bability, did not see him. Our author adds a 
 saving clause, ‘ or had just seen him;’ but this 
 makes the matter no better. Hf the heaven 
 was now closed, and Stephen, when he was 
 dragged out of the city, saw nothing but the 
 usual face of the sky, his having previously seen 
 a vision, could form no reason for addressing a 
 beg in another world, who was not then visible 
 to him. | | 
 Even admitting that the vision followed 
 Stephen to the place of his martyrdom, (which 
 is most improbable) still what was presented to 
 him in vision? Jesus Christ, not on earth, but 
 in heaven, not as a fellow-creature, standing be- 
 side him, to whom he could address a common 
 request, but in a situation in which he could be 
 addressed only in prayer, as an omniscient om- 
 nipresent being. And accordingly what were 
 the petitions that Stephen preferred to him ?— 
 “ Lord Jesus receive my spirit—Lord lay not 
 this sin to their charge.” These are the same 
 petitions, nearly in the same language, which 
 Jesus addressed to his Father, at the time of his 
 crucifixion. ‘ Father, into thy hands I com- 
 mend my Spirit.” “ Father, forgive them, they 
 know not what they do.” And is it possible to 
 conceive that Stephen should address petitions to 
 a fellow-creature, which Jesus addressed to the 
 most high Ged? Was this following the ex- 
 ample of Christ? Suppose that Jesus, being a 
 fellow mortal, had been standing by him on 
 earth, could he have turned away from God, the 
 hearer of prayer, after having just seen his glory, 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 251 
 
 to say to that fellow creature, “ Lord receive 
 my spirit—Lord lay not this sin to their charge ?” 
 Could a creature receive the spirit of a dying 
 man; or could a creature have blotted out the 
 sin of his murderers? The supposition is too 
 shocking to be entertained for a single moment. 
 
 It is obvious, therefore, that we have approved 
 examples in Scripture, of calling upon, or pray- 
 ing to Christ, since his ascension to heayen.— 
 And if we would have the folly of such prayers 
 on the supposition that Jesus is only a creature, 
 vividly exposed, we have but to turn to the ad- 
 dress of Elijah to the prophets of Baal, when 
 they were calling upon the name of their God, 
 1 Kings xviii. 21—29. “ They called on the name 
 of Baal from morningeven till noon saying, O Baal 
 hear us.” ‘ And it came to pass at noon that 
 Elijah mocked them, and said, cry aloud: for 
 he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursu- 
 ing, or he is in a journey; or peradventure he 
 sleepeth, and must be awaked.” I ask any can-~ 
 did man whether these sarcasms be not strictly 
 applicable to any one who calls upon the name 
 of Christ, if ke be not omnipresent and omnis- 
 cient? Yet inspired apostles called upon him, and - 
 urged others to do so. Stephen called upon him, 
 as the Lord in heaven, and Christians generally 
 were distinguished by the inspired penmen, as 
 persons who called on the name of the Lord 
 Jesus. Let any one, conversant with the prin- 
 ciples of Scripture, imagine what would be im- 
 plied in the early Christians having addressed 
 such prayers as were addressed to Jesus in hea- 
 ven, to Peter, or Paul, or any of the apostles 
 after their decease; or what would be implied in 
 Christians being described as persons who call 
 upon the names of Peter or Paul; and he will 
 at once feel how irreconcileable to Scripture 
 
252 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 principles it is, that Jesus, if he were but a crea- 
 ture, should be addressed in any form, after his 
 ascension to heaven. 
 
 2. Another description of worship, which falls 
 under the general head, of doing obeisance or re- 
 verence to a person who has passed into the 
 world of spirits, is commemorating such persons 
 by religious observances. There is no instance 
 in the whole Bible of an ordinance established in 
 commemoration of any individual or the acts of 
 any individual, but the acts of God only.— 
 There is no such thing as a commemoration of 
 Moses, or of any of his acts; or of David, or of 
 Solomon, or of Peter, or of Paul, or of any of 
 the servants of God. The chief commemorative 
 acts under the law, were the Sabbath, in me- 
 mory of God’s having created the world; and 
 the Passover, in memory of his having delivered 
 the Israelites from the oppression of the Egyp- 
 tians. 
 
 Now there are two commemorations of Jesus 
 under the Gospel, parallel to these two great 
 commemorations under the law. 
 
 The first of these is the assembling of Chris- 
 _tians on the first day of the week, and calling it 
 the Lord’s day ; both of which things are done 
 in commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus 
 from the dead. This is declared to have been an 
 act of Christ himself. «“ Destroy this temple,” 
 said he, ‘¢ and in three days J will raise it up.” 
 It is true that it is said also to be the work of 
 God, and of the Spirit of God; but that only 
 proves how perfectly synonymous it is, in the 
 language of Scripture, to say that any act was 
 done by God, or to say that it was done by 
 Christ. The Sabbath, I have said, was insti- 
 tuted in commemoration of the creation of tho 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 253 
 
 world in six days. It has been so far altered, 
 under the Christian dispensation, by the example 
 of the apostles, as at least to add to the comme- 
 moration of the creation a commemoration of 
 the Redeemer. Nay, the change of the day of 
 commemoration from the last, to the first day of 
 the week, seems to intimate, that the event 
 which we are now to regard as chiefly comme- 
 morated in the Christian Sabbath, is, not the 
 creation of the world, but Christ’s rising from 
 the dead. Is it possible to conceive of a higher 
 homage being paid to the Redeemer, than, that 
 a commemoration, which had been observed for 
 about fourthousand years in honour of God, should 
 have been changed in honour of Jesus; or to ima- 
 gine a more perfect blending of the worship paid 
 to him, with that which is paid to God? We 
 are not thus taught to forget God on the Sab- 
 bath, that we may remember Christ; but we are 
 taught to remember God in Christ, as the Sa- 
 viour of sinners, rather than God, as the Creator 
 of the world. 
 
 Another act of commemoration, inculcated 
 upon Christians is, the celebration of the 
 Lord’s Supper. This ordinance was insti- 
 tuted by Jesus himself, in memorial of his 
 sufferings and death,—in memorial of himself 
 specifically. ‘ This do,” said he, ‘“‘in remem- 
 brance of me.” ‘This ordinance takes the place, 
 in the Christian Church, of the Passover in the 
 Jewish, which was a commemoration of the in- 
 terposition of God, for the deliverance of his 
 people trom the bondage o1 Lyypr. If Christ 
 be a mere creature, and eran to any pee of 
 respect paid to him, having been removed be- 
 yond the sphere of witnessing such acts, this or- 
 dinance would be as absurd as the weeping of. 
 the women for Tammuz. 
 
 Z 
 
254 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 I have heard this ordinance explained, as an 
 institution similar to the common practice, of 
 commemorating illustrious individuals, after 
 their departure from the scenes of their achieve- 
 ments. But this is again to measure the book 
 of God by the absurd and idolatrous practices of 
 the world. I hold that all such commemorations 
 of persons who are insensible to them, have a 
 tendency to idolatry ; and that a large propor- 
 tion of the-idolatry of the Pagan and corrupted 
 Christian world, originated in such practices.— 
 Men commemorated, and heaped expressions of 
 respect upon deceased persons, till they persuad- 
 ed themselves that their expressions of respect 
 reached them in their separate state, and afforded 
 them satisfaction. I believe that they would 
 produce the same effects, still if they were not 
 confronted with the light of Christian revelation; 
 and that, notwithstanding that light, they may 
 yet introduce some species of paganism into 
 these islands. Some of these commemorations, 
 particularly that of Shakespeare at Avon, have 
 already approximated very near indeed to pagan 
 worship. I held that, when such commemora- 
 tions are accompanied with religions worship, 
 they are always acts of idolatry; not only without 
 countenance in the word of Ged, but directly 
 opposed to it. It is pleaded that the worship 
 offered in such commemorations is not offered to 
 the deceased person who is commemorated, but 
 to God. But I should really be at some loss to 
 determine, whether it were more profane and 
 idolatrous to offer some sort of worship to a de- 
 ceased human creature, or to engage in the wor- 
 ship of God, not directly in honour of God him- 
 self, but in honour of one of his creatures; so 
 that, at the very moment when the worshipper is 
 apparently addressing his worship to God, his 
 thoughts are called off in another direction, to 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 258 
 
 the creature in honour of whom that very wor- 
 ship of God is performed. For my part I should 
 conceive the latter description of idolatry to be 
 the worst of the two. 
 
 But the commemoration of Christ in the 
 Lord’s Supper is an act of most solemn religious 
 worship. It has in it, not indeed a sacrifice, but 
 the representation of a sacrifice. It comes in 
 the place of one of the most prominent religious 
 observances of the Old Testament Church; 
 and whether the worship be regarded as paid 
 to God, or to Christ Jesus, still, the observ- 
 ance of the ordinance being a commemoration 
 of Jesus, it is most palpable idolatry in those 
 who believe him to be a mere creature, altogether 
 different from that God to whom worship is of- 
 fered in it, and insensible of the respect and re- 
 verence that is paid to his memory. And the 
 only principle on which the ordinance can be re- 
 conciled to the Scripture laws respecting Divine 
 worship, is, that Jesus was God manifest in the 
 flesh, and that the religious worship implied in 
 it, is offered to God in Christ. 
 
 IJ. Another description of idolatry, (accord- 
 ing to the principles of Scripture,) is to do 
 obeisance to any creature, whether rational or 
 irrational, whether present or absent, as ascrib- 
 ing to that creature any work of God. Here 
 again, it matters not what the outward expres- 
 sion of obeisance or worship may be, or by what 
 name it may be called; it is sufficient to con- 
 stitute it idolatry, that it ascribes to a creature 
 the glory of what was done by the Creator.— 
 When, for example, Satan tempted our blessed 
 Lord to do him obeisance for all the kingdoms 
 of the world, he did not make use of any of 
 those particular words to which our author at- 
 taches so much importance. He used the com- 
 
256 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 mon term for worship or obeisanee (proshunesis). 
 But, when Jesus answered him, he said—* It is 
 written thou shalt worship (proskuneseis) the 
 Lord thy God, and him culy shalt thou serve 
 (latreuseis )”’*—thus using the word datria, or 
 religious service; and thereby intimating, that 
 any act of obeisance or worship would, under 
 such circumstances, (being an acknowledgment 
 of power in Satan over the kingdoms of the 
 world) be equivalent to religious service, and 
 consequently would be idolatry. Suppose, for 
 example, that the Israelites, after passing through 
 the Red Sea, had immediately fallen down be- 
 fore Moses, had given him thanks, had done him 
 obeisance or worship for their deliverance, and 
 had called him their Saviour, would they not 
 have been guilty of idolatry? And if Moses 
 had received such obeisance, would he not have 
 been guilty of accepting an honour which was 
 due to God only? What would it have availed 
 that he and they should have attempted to ex- 
 cuse themselves by saying, that the worship 
 which they offered, and which he accepted, was 
 not properly religious worship; that it was by 
 no means meant as latria, or sebasis, or ainesis ; 
 that it was only proskunesis or dulia? Would 
 the plea have been admitted? Certainly not.— 
 They would have been held guilty of idolatry, 
 in ascribing to him a deliverance which God 
 himself had achieved for them; and he of pro- 
 _ fane arrogance, in accepting a worship which was 
 due only to God. 
 
 Now I ask, wherein would have been the dif- 
 ference, in point of principle, between the 
 Israelites thus doing obeisance to Moses as their 
 deliverer from Pharaoh and from the waves of 
 the sea, and the following instances of obeisance 
 
 * Luke iv. 8. 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 257 
 
 paid to the Lord Jesus. Mat. xiv. 22—25, 32, 
 33—“ And straightway Jesus constrained his 
 disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him 
 to the ether side, while he sent the multitudes 
 away. But the ship was now in the midst of 
 the sea, tossed with the waves, for the wind was 
 contrary. And, in the fourth watch of the night, 
 Jesus went unto them walking on the sea.— 
 And when they,” (Jesus and Peter,) ‘ were 
 come into the ship, the wind ceased. Then they 
 that were in the ship came and worshipped him, 
 saying, of a truth, thou art the Son of God,”— 
 Again, Luke v. 4. 11.—After Jesus had directed 
 Peter to cast forth his net, and Peter, with his 
 companions, had obtained an astonishing draught 
 of fishes, Peter ‘‘ fell down at Jesus’ knees say- 
 ing, Depart from me for I am a sinful man, O 
 Lord.” Is it possible to conceive of a more de- 
 cisive recognition of Jesus as the author of the 
 miracle, or of a deeper expression of self-abase- 
 ment under a sense of the immediate presence 
 of God? Job, under a similar impression, said, 
 ‘¢ [ have heard of thee with the hearing of the 
 ear; but now mine eye seeth thee: wherefore I 
 abhor myself in dust and ashes.”* And Isaiah, 
 when he saw the glory of Jehovah, said— 
 * Woe is me, for 1am undone; because I am 
 a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst 
 of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have 
 seen the King, Jehovah of Hosts.” And here 
 Peter, upon his knees, says, ‘Depart from me for 
 Tam a sinfulman, O Lord.” Yet Jesus did not 
 check Peter’s humble expression of reverence in 
 recognizing him as the author of the miracle; 
 but said to him, ‘‘ Fear not, from henceforth 
 thou shalt catch men.” <A similar instance oc-~ 
 
 * Job xiii. 5, 6. 
 73 
 
258 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 curs in the conduct of the man who received his 
 sight from Jesus. When he was cast out of the 
 Synagogue, in consequence of the testimony 
 which he bore to Jesus, and when Jesus found him, 
 he said to him, “ Dost thou believe on the Son of 
 God?” He answered and said, ‘* whois he Lord, 
 that I might believe on him?” And Jesus said 
 unto him, ‘* Thou hast both seen him, and it is 
 he that talketh with thee.” And he said, ‘“ Lord 
 I believe, and he worshipped him.” It is of 
 little consequence to determine what view the 
 man had of the sense in whieh Jesus called him- 
 self the Son of God, he manifestly worshipped 
 him, as the person who had delivered him from 
 that deep darkness in which he had spent the 
 whole previous part of his life; and Jesus re- 
 ceived the honour of that great work, without 
 saying one word of God, as of another Being, 
 to whom, according to the Unitarian doctrine, the 
 whole honour was due. In like manner Stephen 
 recognized Jesus by his worship and his prayer 
 to him, as one who could receive his departing 
 spirit. In perfect accordance with these ex- 
 amples is our Lord’s declaration—“ That all 
 men should honour the Son, even as they honour 
 the Father.’ Why? ‘ Because the Father 
 judgeth no man, but hath committed all judg- 
 ment unto the Son.” Here it is declared that 
 Jesus is to be honoured even as the Father is 
 honoured, on this ground, that he is the judge 
 of the world. It is true that he is the judge of 
 the world by the appointment of the Father; 
 but there is no instance in the whole Bible, 
 of any direction to honour any servant as the 
 Father is honoured, on account of any work 
 that might have been intrusted to him to accom- 
 plish. Such language applied to any prophet or 
 apostle would be an inculcation of idolatry ; and 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 259 
 
 can be justified, as applied to Jesus, only on the 
 principle, that Jesus, although a servant, was 
 not a mere servant, but had an inherent right 
 to the glory of all the works done by him. 
 
 The style in which our Lord constantly 
 wrought his miracles would have been, I con- 
 ceive, utterly inconsistent with his duty to God, 
 had he been a mere creature or servant. He 
 permitted people to come to him, to follow him, 
 to call upon him; as if the power of working 
 miracles, or of refusing to work, rested entirely 
 with himself. Can any one who is acquainted 
 with the principles of Scripture, imagine that 
 Peter or Paul would have permitted, in connec- 
 tion with their working miracles, such a scene 
 as the following, Mat. xv. 21—28., ‘ Then 
 Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts 
 of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of 
 Canaan came out of the same coasts and cried 
 unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, 
 thou Son of David, my daughter is greviously 
 vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a 
 word. And his disciples came and besought 
 him, saying, Send her way, for she crieth after us. 
 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto 
 the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came 
 she and worshipped him, saying, Lord help me. ~ 
 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take 
 the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.— 
 And she said, truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of 
 the crumbs which fall from their master’s table. 
 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O wo- 
 man great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as 
 thou wilt.” Here is earnest prayer on the part 
 of the woman, a temporary refusal to hear her 
 on the part of Jesus, for the purpose of drawing 
 forth the expression of her faith in his greatness 
 
260 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 and his power, and the miracle at length wrought 
 without one syllable having been said, either on 
 the part of the woman or of Jesus, respecting 
 the great God who alone could grant her 
 petition, and who, having granted it, was alone 
 entitled to thanks and praise on account of it. 
 How different all this was from the conduct of 
 Joseph or Moses before Pharaoh, or Daniel 
 before Nebuchadnezzar! Could any of the 
 prophets or apostles have acted as in the following 
 instance? Matt. ix. 27—30. “ And when Jesus 
 departed thence, two blind men followed him, 
 erying, and saying, thou Son of David have 
 mercy on us. And when he was come into the 
 house, the blind men came to him; and Jesus 
 saith unto them, believe ye that I am able to do 
 this? They said unto him, yea, Lord. Then 
 touched he their eyes, saying, according to your 
 faith be it unto you.” Whatfaith? That Jesus 
 wasable todoit. ‘And their eyes were opened.” 
 
 When Moses, or any of the ancient prophets 
 wrought miracles, they wrought them in the 
 name of the Lord. They took the utmost care 
 to let it be distinctly known that the power did 
 not reside in them; but that it was in God, and 
 came directly from God, and that they merely 
 announced the purpose of God to work the 
 miracle. Our author says, “As to the mere 
 exertion of physical power, so far as its display 
 may seem calculated to produce a belief of high 
 supernatural agency, our Lord did not stand 
 alone among the prophets of God.” [I answer, 
 that he did stand alone in the personal exercise 
 of that power. He is as distinct from them in 
 the manner in which he exercised his power, as 
 God himself was distinct from them. Jesus 
 wrought his miracles in his own name ; and he 
 intimated that he was able to work them. On 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 261 
 
 one occasion he prayed when he was about to 
 work a miracle, but he said that it was only for 
 the sake of those that stood by. Our author 
 says, “ That Moses cleft the billows of the Red 
 Sea, and led the Israelites in triumph through 
 the heart of the deep, before the pursuing host 
 of Pharaoh.” He would do well to look at that 
 history more attentively. It was not Moses, 
 but God, who, by an east wind, dried up the 
 Red Sea. It was not Moses, but God, who, 
 by a pillar of cloud and of fire, led the Israelites 
 through the heart of the sea. Moses indeed 
 stretched out his rod, when the sea was to be 
 divided, and when it was to flow into its bed 
 for the destruction of Pharaoh; but it was by the 
 immediate command of God: and it was God, 
 not Moses, who received the homage and the 
 honour due to that stupendous work. He says, 
 if Christ raised the dead, so did Elisha, and so 
 did Paul. But Elisha prayed to the Lord, and 
 so did Peter when he raised Tabitha; and thus 
 removed all ambiguity as to the source whence 
 the power came. With regard to Paul’s raising 
 Eutychus, he merely declared, when he embraced 
 him, that his life was in him; from which, itwould 
 seem, that he was only apparently dead. Our au- 
 thor says, further, that J oshua said, in the sight 
 of Israel, “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon ; 
 and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon.” But 
 he omits to say that Joshua previously spoke or 
 prayed to the Lord on that day, who authorized 
 or directed him to give that command; and that 
 it is afterwards said, that “there was no day 
 before it, or after it, that the Lord hearkened to 
 the voice ofaman.”* Weare thus unequivocally 
 told, and Israel was told at the time, that it 
 was the Lord, and not Joshua, who wrought 
 
 * Jos. x. 12—14 
 
262 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 the miracle. But Jesus frequently wrought 
 miracles without any such open acknowledgment 
 of God. He frequently commanded, in his own 
 name, and left the spectators to infer that the 
 power resided in himself, that he himself was 
 able to do these works, and that it was entirely 
 at his own option to interpose or to withhold his 
 miraculous power. Moses, in one instance, 
 spoke as if the power had resided in him, and 
 had been at~his own disposal. When he was 
 directed to smite the rock that it might give 
 forth water to the people, instead of glorifying 
 the Lord, he said, « Hear, now, ye rebels, 
 must we fetch you water out of this rock ?”* 
 But what was the consequence? God did not 
 indeed disappoint the people on account of the 
 sin of his servant. He gave the water, as he 
 had declared he would, when he directed Moses 
 to smite the rock. But he resented the pre- 
 sumption of his servant, by declaring that he 
 should never enter into the promised land: nor 
 would any intreaty induce him to alter that 
 determination. And Moses died in the wilder- 
 ness, because ‘the spake unadvisedly with his 
 lips.” 7 
 ait there is a still more remarkable feature 
 of the miracles wrought under the New Testa- 
 ment. The apostles wrought their miracles in 
 the name of Jesus. They would have shuddered 
 at the impiety of permitting any one, for a 
 moment, to imagine that they performed their 
 mighty works in virtue of any power that resided 
 in them; and they constantly mentioned the name 
 of Jesus, after he had left the world, as that 
 mighty name which controlled all the laws of 
 nature. When Peter and John gave strength 
 
 * Num. xx. 10. 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 263 
 
 to the impotent man at the beautiful gate of the 
 temple, they spake in the name of Jesus. Acts 
 iii. 6—*S Then Peter said, silver and gold have I 
 none ; but such as I have give I thee: in the name 
 of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.” 
 And when they saw the people gazing on them, 
 as if they were ascribing to them the merit of 
 this wonderful work, they said, verses 12—16. 
 ‘Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or 
 why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by 
 our own power or holiness we had made this 
 man to walk? The God of Abraham, and of 
 Isaac, and of Jacob, the Ged of our fathers 
 hath glorified his Son Jesus;—and his name, 
 through faith in his name, hath made this man 
 strong.” Here the apostles placed themselves 
 on a totally different footing from the Lord Jesus, 
 with regard to the working of miracles. They 
 wrought no miracle in their own name, nor 
 did any one, after they had gone to their rest 
 and their reward, work miracles in their name; 
 but they wrought their miracles in the name of - 
 Jesus. They received no glory from their 
 miracles; on the contrary, they abjured all the 
 glory of them, and directed the people to the 
 Lord Jesus, as the person to whom the glory 
 belonged. They declared that it was his name, 
 and by faith in his name, that the miracle had 
 been performed. They indeed refer the power 
 to God,—< The God of Abraham, and Isaac, 
 and Jacob,” said they, “hath glorified his Son 
 Jesus.” But still the very object of the miracle 
 is stated to be the glorifying of the Lord Jesus, 
 which would be altogether foreign to the 
 principles of Scripture, if Jesus were a mere 
 creature. No miracle is ever said to have been 
 wrought for the glory of any mere man; more 
 especially if that man has been removed from 
 
264. Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 this world into the world of spirits. That the 
 power by which the man Christ Jesus wrought 
 his miracles, and by which miracles were 
 wrought in his name, was from God, is doubtless 
 true; as will be more fully explained and 
 illustrated in a future chapter: but still, while 
 the apostles abjured all honour to themselves, 
 as if it would have been presumption and impiety 
 to accept of it, they gave the honour to Jesus— 
 they wrought the miracle in his name, and 
 ascribed it to the power of his name, and they 
 declared that God glorified his Son in the 
 miracle. | 
 
 But when Jesns wrought miracles he used no 
 such precaution as that which was used by the’ 
 aposties. He simply commanded, and it stood 
 fast; and, when homage was paid to him as the 
 author of the miracle, he received it. Now, is 
 it conceivable that Jesus, who was more feelingly 
 alive to the honour of his. Father than any 
 prophet or apostle, who was to set before the 
 whole world an example of perfect sanctity—of 
 the perfect fulfilment of duty, should manifest 
 less anxiety about the glory of God than any of 
 his own disciples? Our author says, that the 
 argument founded on our Lord’s receiving such 
 worship as the apostles refused is invalid, 
 hecause our Lord tells us of a servant who, being 
 unable to discharge a debt, fell down at his 
 master’s feet and worshipped him. ‘The 
 master,” he adds, ‘did not reject the worship, 
 and therefore, according to the Trinitarian mode 
 of making clear ‘logical solutions,’ the master 
 received divine honours, and should be adored 
 as God.”* But this is a fine illustration of the 
 ‘summary mode in which” Unitarianism “rushes 
 
 * Page 50, Ed, 2d. 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 265 
 
 to her conclusions.’ He has omitted more than 
 one element of the demonstration. It dees not 
 follow that, because any one receives divine 
 honours, he is tobe acknowledged and adored 
 as God. Our author should first have proved 
 that the master was represented by our Lord as 
 infallible, and then his having received divine 
 honours would have proved him to be God. 
 He further infers that, because the same word, 
 worship, is used to describe the obeisance which 
 the servant paid to his master, which is used to 
 describe the obeisance which Jesus received, and 
 his apostles declined, the same worship was 
 offered in both cases. But here also he rushes 
 towards his conclusion without clearing his way 
 to it. The worship which Jesus received, and 
 which his apostles refused, was an obeisance by 
 which the glory of some work of God was 
 ascribed to him or tothem. Itdoes not appear that 
 any of the servants of God would have refused an 
 ordinary cbeisance; but neither Peter nor Paul, 
 nor any servant of Christ, would ever have 
 consented to receive an obeisance which implied 
 an ascription of honour to them, on account of 
 any miraculous work that they had performed. 
 This species of honour, however, Jesus never 
 refused; he was worshipped as the author of the 
 deliverances which he wrought; he received that 
 worship; he thus permitted himself to be 
 worshipped as God; he was infallible, and 
 therefore he is God. 
 
 I hold that the title, Saviour, in the absolute, 
 emphatic manner in which it is given to the 
 Lord Jesus, and that too in a religious sense, 
 with reference to the salvation of the soul, is a 
 title which could not, without idolatry, be given 
 to any creature. Nor is there a single instance 
 in Scripture of that title being given to any 
 
 2A 
 
266 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 mere man, or any created being. It is a title 
 which God repeatedly claims as exclusively his 
 own. Thus, Psalm evi. 21—‘* They forgat God 
 their Saviour.” Isa. xl. 3, 11—* For lam 
 the Lorp thy God, the holy one of Israel, thy 
 Saviour. I, even I am Jehovah, and besides 
 me thereisno Saviour.” Isa. xlv. 21, 22. “ There 
 is no Ged else besides me; a just Ged anda 
 Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto 
 me and be ye saved, ali the ends of the earth.” 
 Hos. xii. 4—‘ Thou shalt know no Ged but 
 me: for there isno Saviour besides me.” Need 
 I say that this title, Saviour, is given to the 
 Lord Jesus in the New Testament, and that it 
 is given to no one else? It is indeed one of 
 the most common titles by which he is designated: 
 and it is given to him in the very highest sense 
 in which it can be given, namely, as saving us 
 from our sins—saving our souls from perdition. 
 The Lord Jehovah proclaims himself in the Old 
 Testament as the Saviour, the onty Saviour; 
 and says, ‘look unto me, all the ends of the earth, 
 and be ye saved.” And Jesus, in the New 
 Testament, is emphatically and exclusively called 
 the SaviouR, and we are directed to come to 
 him, to believe on him, to look to him, (the 
 same direction that is given by Isaiah with 
 reference to God) to “look for his merey.”* 
 Let any one recollect that the title, Saviour, 
 is the appropriate and peculiar title of Christ in 
 the New Testament, so that even our author 
 speaks of the blessed Saviour, without explana- 
 tion, as referring, not to God, but to the Lord 
 Jesus; that no prophet, or apostle, or minister 
 of religion, nor any created being is ever in the 
 whole Bible called THE Saviour, and then let 
 
 * Jude 21. 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 267 
 
 him read the following words of Jude: “To the 
 only wise God our Saviour, be glory, and 
 majesty, dominion, and power, both now and 
 ever. Amen.”* Again, lask, is it conceivable 
 that in a book, one great object of which is to 
 abolish idolatry, there should be such a confusion 
 of these all-important titles—rur Lorp and THE 
 Saviour, that it is impessible to say, with any 
 degree ef certainty, when the supreme God, and 
 when a mere man, or a mere creature, is desig- 
 nated by them? I feel myself obliged to come 
 to the conclusion, which I express without one 
 spark of animosity or unkind feeling, but as the 
 necessary result of these principles which ap- 
 pear to me to be the principles of Scripture, 
 that, when our author, or any one else, gives 
 this title of the Saviour—the blessed Saviour, to 
 the Lord Jesus, believing him, at the same 
 time, to be a mere creature, he is guilty of 
 idolatry. He is ascribing the glory of the sal« 
 vation of souls to a er eature ; although the God 
 of heaven, again and agai, declares that he is 
 the only Saviour, and that there is none else be-~ 
 sides him. 
 
 Our author asserts that the Lord Jesus no 
 where receives praise, as expressed by the word 
 aineo, for any of his works. In this I conceive 
 he is in error. For when the people conducted 
 him in triumph to Jerusalem, and the children 
 were erying out in the temple, ‘¢ Hosanna to 
 the Son of David,” Jesus himself applied to 
 them the words of the eighth Psalm, * Out of 
 the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast 
 perfected a3 ’(ainon). But the ‘application of 
 a word is of little moment, when it ean be shown, 
 that, in fact, praise is frequently addressed to 
 
 * Jude 25. 
 
268 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 the Lord Jesus. Thus, Psalm Ixviii. 18. ‘Thou 
 hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity 
 captive, theu hast received gifts for men, yea, 
 for the rebellious also, that the Lorp God might 
 dwell among them.” This Psalm is unguestion- 
 ably a hymn of praise to the God of Israel. It 
 commences with the very words which Moses 
 used in the wilderness, ‘‘ When the ark set 
 forward :” * Let God arise, let his enemies be 
 scattered: Jet them also that hate him flee 
 before him.”* And the whole of the Psalm is 
 a celebration of the mighty works of the Lord, 
 which had been previously wrought in the 
 deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, and 
 which were yet to be wrought in their behalf. 
 Now the apostle Paul quotes these words as being 
 addressed to Christ, and he quotes them, not 
 in the way of allusion or accommodation, for 
 he founds an argument upon them so understood. 
 Eph. iv. 8—11—*“ Wherefore he saith, when he, 
 ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, 
 and gave giftsuntomen. Now that he ascended, 
 what is it but that he also descended first into 
 the lower parts of the earth? He that descended 
 is the same also that ascended up far above all 
 heavens, that he might fill all things; and he 
 gave some apostles, and some prophets,” &c. 
 Again, Psalm xlv. 6—*‘Thy throne, O God, 
 is for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom 
 is a right sceptre.” Who would for a moment 
 hesitate to address these words in praise to the 
 King of heaven? Who would dare to address 
 them to any one else? And yet we find these 
 words applied by the apostle Paul to the Son; 
 and the application admitted by our author. 
 Heb. i. S—* Unto the Son he saith, thy throne, 
 
 * Psalm Ixviii. 1. Numb. x. 3. 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 269 
 
 O God, is for ever and ever; asceptre of righteous- 
 ness is the seeptre of thy kingdom.” Still again, 
 Psalm: cii. 25—27. “Of old hast thou laid the 
 foundation of the earth, and the heavens are 
 the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but 
 thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old 
 like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change 
 them, and they shall be changed: but thou art 
 the same, and thy years shall have no end.’’ 
 This, our author not only admits, but asserts, 
 is an address to Jehovah; and a more sublime 
 address can scarcely be conceived. Yet, we 
 have already seen, that even this hymn of praise 
 the apostle Paul declares to have been also 
 addressed to the Son. Heb. i. 10—12. Yet 
 again, Rev. 1. 5, 6—“ Untohim that loved us, and 
 washed us from our sins in his own blood, and 
 hath made us kings and priests unto God and his 
 Father,” (i. e. to him who is his God and Father) 
 ¢¢ to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. 
 Amen.” Here is the praise of our salvation 
 addressed to the Redeemer. Nor can our author 
 allege that it may be God who is addressed, and 
 that, by his own blood, may be meant his own 
 son; as he does respecting another passage, in 
 which this expression is used. This strange 
 hypothesis is altogether excluded here, because 
 Jesus is celebrated for making us kings and 
 priests to his God and father. The hymn of 
 praise therefore is addressed, not to the Father, 
 but to the Son. . 
 
 I conclude the enumeration of these ascriptions 
 of praise to the Redeemer, with that glorious 
 scene which is described, Rev. v. 8—14. “The 
 four living creatures and four-and-twenty elders 
 fell down before the Lamb, having every one of 
 them harps, and golden vials full of odours, 
 which are the prayers of saints. “And they sung 
 
 2a3 
 
270 Divine worship paid to Jesus. 
 
 a new song, saying, thou art worthy to take 
 the book, and to open the seals thereof; for 
 thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God 
 by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, 
 and people, and nation; and hast made us unto 
 our God kings and priests: and we shall reign 
 on the earth. And I beheld, and I heard the 
 voice of many angels round about the throne, 
 and the living creatures, and the elders: and 
 the number of them was ten thousand times ten 
 thousand, and thousands of thousands; saying, 
 with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb that 
 was slain to receive power, and riches, and 
 wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, 
 and blessing.’ And every creature which is in 
 heaven, and on the earth, and under the 
 earth, and such as are in the sea, and all 
 that are in them, heard I saying, ‘Blessing, 
 znd honour, and glory, and power be unto 
 hum thet sitteth upon the throne, and unto 
 the Lamb for ever and ever..’” Those who 
 can imagme that such adoration and praise 
 may, without idolatry, be addressed to a creature, 
 surely ought to feel no scruple about singing the 
 praises of Jesus in their worshipping assemblies. 
 It is pleaded that this scene is a vision, and that 
 ihe homage here described is paid by emblemati- 
 cal persons to an emblematical representation of 
 the Saviour. Our author can scarcely avail 
 himself of this plea, as he has attempted to 
 produce, from the same vision, an example of 
 the Lord Jesus declining an expression of ordinary 
 homage, paid to him by his own apostle. 
 Besides, if the vision is emblematical, what do 
 its emblems import? They must mean some- 
 thing, else they would not be introduced into 
 the book of God. Now, I put it to the candour 
 of Unitarians to say, whether, if they do not 
 
Divine worship paid to Jesus. 271 
 
 teach the lawfulness of worshipping the Lord 
 Jesus, they are not calculated to mislead. Let 
 it be supposed that such a scene were described 
 in an allegory, or fictitious vision or dream, 
 written by any Trinitarian, without authority 
 from Seripture, I ask whether they would not 
 assert that he was attempting to elevate the 
 Saviour, in the estimation of his readers, to a 
 station infinitely higher than the Scripture 
 assigned to him; and that by associating him, 
 even in an allegory or vision, in the same 
 universal hymn of praise with Jehovah that 
 sitteth upon the throne, he was guilty of most 
 daring presumption? Yet this scene was ex- 
 hibited by the Holy Spirit of God to an 
 apostle, and described for our instruction,.under 
 the impulse and direction of inspiration; and it 
 would be extremely difficult to extract any other 
 meaning from it, than, that it represents the 
 whole creation worshipping, adoring, praising 
 him who was “brought as a Lamb to the 
 slaughter, and who, asa sheep before her 
 shearers is dumb, opened not his mouth’—*“ the 
 
 Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the 
 world.” 
 
CHAP. X. 
 
 THE EXALTATION OF CHRIST INCONSISTENT 
 WITH HIS BEING A MERE CREATURE. 
 
 Let us now lay aside verbal criticism, and 
 compare the great fundamental, practical, prin- 
 ciples of Seripture, with the declarations respect- 
 ing the glory and exaltation of the Saviour, and 
 the duties required of his people towards him, 
 and we shall find new ground to believe that he 
 is more than a creature, even the omniscient, 
 omnipresent, omnipotent God. 
 
 If there be one doctrine more prominent in 
 Scripture than another, it is that the Lord God 
 alone is to be exalted in our adoration, our faith, 
 our hope, our obedience, and in our gratitude 
 for our temporal and spiritual mercies; that all 
 good is to be viewed as coming from him ; that 
 him, and him only we are to serve; that his law 
 is to be the rule of our conduct; that his favour 
 is to be the object of our highest desire; that 
 his presence and love are to be the sources of 
 our enjoyment, now and for ever. All creatures 
 are treated but as his servants—‘ ministers of 
 his that do his pleasure.’ Various offices and 
 orders, in subordination to one another, are ap- 
 pointed, for the regulation of his subjects ; and we 
 are required to be in subjection to such autho- 
 rluies as are established by him: but all these 
 
The exaltation of Christ, &c. 273 
 
 subordinate authorities are continually repre- 
 sented as having been established, not for the 
 glory of those who are appointed to exercise 
 them, but fer his glory, and the benefit of those 
 who are made subject to them. There is nothing 
 in Scripture of the nature of an arrangement for 
 exalting any creature, and giving him glory in 
 the sight of others of his fellow creatures.— 
 Moses, for example, was not employed to com- 
 mand the Israelites in their march out of Egypt 
 to the land of promise, for his own glory or exal- 
 tation. Moses was merely a minister or servant, 
 appointed toa certain duty, for the benefit of 
 those who were committed to his care, and for 
 the glory of God. Joshua was not appointed to 
 lead them against the Canaanites, that he might 
 obtain honour and renown; but merely that he 
 might fulfil a certain service to God and his re- 
 deemed people. And so, in the Christian church, 
 Peter and Paul, James and John, and the other 
 apostles, were not appointed to the apostle- 
 ship, that they might receive glory and honour 
 from the church, but that they might be ser- 
 vants of the church; agreeably to the scale of 
 rank established by our Lord—‘ He that is 
 greatest must be the servant of all.’ 
 
 _ Accordingly we find no honour conferred on 
 any servant of God after he was removed from 
 the world. While these holy men were in the 
 world, they were entitled to honour for their 
 Master’s sake, and they might reasonably expect 
 _to enjoy a share of the affections of those among 
 whom they laboured so diligently and so faith- 
 fully, partly for their work’s sake, and partly 
 in conformity with the general law respecting 
 the love of our neighbours, and with the Christian 
 commandment to love the brethren. But no 
 honour is appointed for them since their decease. 
 
274 The exaltation of Christ inconsistent 
 
 There is no such thing in the whole word of 
 God as a command to love, or respect, or honour 
 Abraham, or Moses, or Joshua, or David, or 
 Solomon, or Peter, or Paul, after they had left 
 the world. The latter apostle says, that it 
 appeared to him, as if “* God had set forth the 
 apostles last, as it were appointed to death,” 
 that “‘they were made a spectacle unto the 
 world, and to angels and to men; and were 
 made as the filth of the earth—the off-scouring 
 of all things.” This was their honour while 
 they were in the world, and when they died no 
 honour was provided for their memory, no 
 token of respect was to be paid to them, no rite 
 or ordinance to preserve a grateful recollection 
 of their labours, The Virgin Mary says, in her 
 hymn of gratitude, that all generations should 
 call her blessed, because she was to he the 
 mother of the Messiah according to the flesh: 
 but there is no act of reverence, no expression 
 of love or veneration appointed to be paid to 
 her, either during her life on earth, or after her | 
 decease. 
 
 And im all this, while the Scripture is dia- 
 metrically opposed to the propensities and 
 practices of men, who are ever prone to institute, 
 in one form or another, commemorations of the 
 illustrious dead, and to inculcate love and respect 
 for their memory, it is beautifully consistent 
 with itself. To love any person, supposes that 
 that person knows that we love him, and that 
 he is in a condition to return our affection by a 
 corresponding love. To require us to love any 
 person, therefore, who is separated from us by 
 the gulf that separates the invisible from the 
 visible world, would have been to declare that 
 person present with us, conscious of our affee- 
 tion, and capable of requiting it. To regulate 
 
with his being a mere creature. 275 
 
 our conduct by what we suppose would be 
 acceptable to a deceased person, is an act of 
 worship, similar to kissing the hand, or bowing 
 the knee to him. To present such departed 
 persons before our minds as objects of gratitude 
 and obedience, to seek to please them, or to 
 avoid offending them, is to suppose them to be 
 present, and it is to ascribe to them that 
 description of invisible presence and influence, 
 which, as a motive to love and obedience, 
 cannot, without at least extreme danger of 
 idolatry, if not actual idolatry, be attributed to 
 any other than to God. There is, therefore, 
 no command to love or respect any being in the 
 world of spirits but God only. With regard to 
 loving or respecting the memory of any one, it 
 is natural to the human mind to remember with 
 affection those whom we have loved during their 
 lives; and, when not abused, may be regarded not 
 only as a harmless, but even as an amiable feeling. 
 Butit is pertinent to say, that there is no command 
 or direction for it in the word of God. And one 
 reason in all probability is, that any such 
 command or direction would have laid the 
 foundation for an inference, that deceased 
 persons are conscious of our feelings towards 
 them, and would have led to endless superstitions 
 and abuses. God does not require of us so 
 hopeless, so unprofitable, and, I may say, so 
 impracticable a task, as to love these who can 
 know nothing of our love to them, and who are 
 therefore incapable of requiting it with a return 
 of affection. There are, therefore, but two 
 commands respecting love—the one is, to love 
 the Lord God with all our heart, and soul, and 
 strength, and mind; the other is, to love our 
 neighbours as ourselves. But, when a person 
 has passed into the world of spirits, he has 
 ceased to be our neighbour, and therefore ceases 
 
276 The exaltation of Christ inconsistent 
 
 to be included in this law. Although we are 
 told that angels are sent forth to minister to 
 those who are heirs of salvation, and although, 
 therefore, we have reason to believe that they 
 are sometimes at least present with us; yet, as 
 we have no knowledge of them individually, as 
 we have no means of knowing whether they are 
 acquainted with any particular part of our 
 conduct or our feelings, or whether they are 
 capable of returning any gratitude or affection 
 that we should feel for them, there is no injunc- 
 tion or encouragement in Scripture to love ange!s, 
 or to do them any obeisance or reverence. 
 
 But how very differently the Lord Jesus is 
 treated in the whole of the New Testament I 
 need scarcely describe at length. 
 
 In the first place, all things, and especially 
 the Christian dispensation, are made subservient 
 to his glory. After the enumeration ofall things 
 in_heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, 
 whether they be thrones, or dominions, or 
 principalities, or powers, as created by him, in 
 Col. i. 16, it is added, “‘ And for him.” All 
 things were created, not only by him, but for 
 him. Now it matters not what interpretation 
 may be put on the words, all things. Imaintain 
 that if any thing was created for him, more 
 especially if, what is described in such compre- 
 hensive and magnificent terms as, ‘ All things 
 in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, 
 thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers,” 
 were created for him, a glory is ascribed to him 
 which, on the supposition of his being a mere 
 creature, is in direct opposition to the great 
 practical principles and uniform tenour of the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 The whole Christian dispensation seems to be 
 
 ee 
 
with his being a mere creature. 277 
 
 a scheme for advancing the glory of the Saviour. 
 His undertaking our salvation is ascribed to his 
 spontaneous compassion, that selected sinners of 
 the human race, while it rejected angels. All 
 power and authority in heaven and in earth is 
 committed into his hands. All the laws of 
 nature are made to testify to his majesty. 
 Every thing is represented as glorious and 
 dignified in proportion to the closeness of its 
 relation to him. The second temple is more 
 glorious than the first, because, although the 
 ark of the covenant and the Shechinah were 
 not granted to the second, yet Jesus was to 
 appear init. John the Baptist 1s declared to be 
 greater than all the prophets, yea, more than a 
 prophet, because he was the immediate harbinger 
 of the Saviour. Angels announced his birth 
 with songs of joy. Jesus is the only Lorp of 
 his people, no one is to be called master but 
 he. Angels frequently appeared ministering to 
 him, and Moses and Elias, at his transfiguration, 
 were sent from heaven to do him honour, At 
 his death the sun was darkened, the rocks rent, 
 graves were opened, the vail of the temple was 
 rent in twain. Hymns of praise had been 
 prepared for centuries to celebrate the victory 
 achieved by his death, and his ascension to 
 heaven. Now he is represented as reigning in 
 heaven, controlling and regulating all things 
 for his body, the church. In the rite of baptism, 
 by which members are received as disciples in 
 his name, he is associated with the Father 
 Almighty and the eternal Spirit. 
 
 He is the only mediator between God and 
 man. No man can come to the Father but by 
 him. He is placed, as it were, between the 
 whole human race and the eternal, invisible 
 God; so that whosoever would come to Ged, 
 
 2B 
 
278 The exaltation of Christ inconsistent 
 
 to offer their adorations, te prefer their petitions, 
 to look for all necessary blessings, must come 
 to God in him; even as the Israelites were 
 required to present themselves before the She- 
 chinah, with their offerings and their worship. 
 For God is, in him, reconciling the world to 
 himself; and has treasured up in him every 
 good gift,—even all the fulness of the Godhead, 
 that we, by coming to him, ‘may receive out 
 of his fulness, even grace for grace.” He is to 
 judge the quick and the dead ; nay, and what is 
 still more decisive, the awards of that day are 
 to be determined by personal attachment to him, 
 or neglect of him. The king will say to those 
 on his right hand, *‘ Come, ye blessed of my 
 Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you 
 from the foundation of the world; for I was 
 hungry, and ye gave me meat, I was thirsty, 
 and ye gave me drink,—inasmuch as ye did it 
 unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye 
 did it unto me. And he shall say to those on 
 his left hand, depart from me, ye cursed, into 
 everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his 
 angels: for I was hungry, and ye gave me no 
 meat, I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 
 inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of 
 these, my brethren, ye did it not to me.” Thus 
 is he set at the right hand of God, ‘‘ 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 thus he shall “reign till he hath 
 put all his enemies under his feet ;” ** For God 
 hath highly exalted him, and hath given him a 
 name which is above every name, that at the 
 name of Jesus every knee should bow, of beings — 
 in heaven, of beings on earth, and of beings 
 under the earth, and that every tongue should 
 confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory 
 
with his being a mere creature. 279 
 
 of God the Father.” And the consummation of 
 the glory of the Redeemer is, as we have seen, 
 the whole assembled creation, ascribing to him 
 the honour of the salvation of his people, and 
 associating him in the same hymu of praise with 
 the great Creator. 
 
 It is true, that all this exaltation of the Lord 
 Jesus is said to be to the glory of God-—the 
 Father of all. But where is there another 
 sustanee in the whole Seriptare of the glory of 
 God and the glory of a creature being so 
 identified, that the more highly the creature 1s 
 exalted above other creatures, the more is God 
 glorified? ‘The very reverse of this rule is the 
 principle acted upon with regard to all other 
 persons. Every ereature must be humbled, 
 that God may be exalted. Even the chosen 
 servants of Christ must be laid low as in the 
 dust,—must become as nothing, that the Lord 
 alone may be glorified. But Jesus is exalted, 
 that God may he glorified. very knee is to be 
 made to bow to him, of beings in heaven, or 
 on earth, or under the earth, and all this to the 
 
 glory of God the Father. 
 
 In the second place, in perfect consistency with 
 this high exaltation of the Saviour, are the com- 
 mands and directions given to us respecting him. 
 Ele is to be the object of our faith; we are to look 
 to him for salvation, to believe in him, assured 
 that, as our Saviour, he hath abolished death, 
 hath brought life and immortality to light, and 
 -< able to save to the uttermost all that come to 
 God by him. We are to seek to know him, and 
 the knowledge of him is put on a footing of 
 equality with the knowledge of God, as having 
 n it eternal life; ‘‘ This,” said he, ‘‘is life 
 eternal, that they might know thee, the only 
 
“80 The exaltation of Christ inconsistent 
 
 true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast 
 sent.”* And the apostle Paul says, ‘I count 
 all things but loss, that I may win Christ,— 
 that I may know him.”+ We are directed to 
 look to him for strength in every time of diffi- 
 culty, and to expect that his strength will be 
 perfected in our weakness. Nay, we are 
 exhorted to look for his mercy, and we are told 
 that it is by his grace or favour that we are 
 saved. Let any one, who has obtained @ com- 
 petent knowledge of Scripture, imagine the grace 
 or favour, the compassion or mercy of Moses, 
 or Paul, or Peter, or of any other deceased 
 servant of Christ, to be spoken of, and he wil] 
 at once discern how utterly incongruous such 
 language is to the condition of a creature. Let - 
 any one imagine Peter, instead of Jesus, in 
 approaching Jerusalem, to have wept over that 
 city, and to have said, «“O Jerusalem! Jeru- 
 salem! thou that killest the prophets, and 
 stonest them which are sent unto thee, how 
 often would Y” (Peter) “have gathered thy 
 children together, even as a hen gathereth her 
 chickens under her wings, and ye would not ;” 
 and the presumption of such language in the 
 mouth of a creature becomes strikingly apparent. 
 The image of a hen gathering her chickens 
 under her wings, is the same image under which 
 the God of Israel represents the tender care 
 which he exercises over his people.t Jesus in 
 these words plainly identifies himself with that 
 God, who, while the inhabitants of Jerusalem 
 were persecuting and murdering his servants, 
 was continually calling to them to return to 
 him, that he might not execute his vengeance 
 
 * John xvii, 3, + Philip. iii,8—10. 4 Deut. xxxii. 11. 
 
 Psalm xci, 4, 
 
with his being a mere creature. 281 
 
 upon them, but might cover them, by his 
 overshadowing power, from the enemies that 
 were rising up against them on every side. 
 
 We are commanded to love the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. While, as has been already observed, 
 there is not m the whole Bible a command or 
 direction to love any servant of God, however 
 eminent, after his departure from this visible 
 world, the love of Jesus is required under the 
 same sanctions with the love of God himself. 
 ‘Jf any man,” says the apostle, “love not the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, let him be. anathema 
 maran-atha.”* What more could be said in 
 requiring love to God? And Christians are 
 expected to love him even while he is unseen. 
 ‘¢ Whom,” says the apostle Peter, “having not 
 seen, ye love.”+ The only expression in the 
 Bible that bears any resemblance to this, is in 
 reference to the invisible God—* He that loveth 
 not his brother whom he hath seen, how can 
 he love God whom he hath not seen.” + 
 
 We are to testify our love to Christ by 
 keeping his commandments. The great incite- 
 ment to the fulfilment of all moral duties held 
 out in the New Testament is personal attachment 
 to the Redeemer. His love to us, in giving 
 himself for us, is the motive continually pre- 
 sented to us to live, not for ourselves, but for 
 him. His love in dying for us, we are told, 
 shouid make us willing even “to lay down our 
 lives for the brethren.” Now I confess I cannot 
 conceive of any one placed more perfectly on a 
 footing with God, than the law of God being 
 called his law and his commandments; and 
 that, not merely in the sense of his having been 
 employed to promulgate the law, as the Jewish 
 
 * 1 Cor. xvi. 22. + 1 Peter i. 8. ¢ 1 John iy. 20. 
 2B 3 
 
282 The exaltation of Christ inconsistent 
 
 law issometimes called thelaw of Moses; nor ever 
 in the sense of his being employed to administer 
 the law, and to bestow its rewards, and inflict its 
 punishments, (even that being an office which 
 could never be executed without Divine attri- 
 butes); but in the still higher sense, of his 
 being held up as containing in himself the great 
 motives to obedience, and thus treated as the 
 very fountain of authority. We are further 
 required, as. a testimony of our love to him, te 
 commemorate him. Every Lord’s-day we are 
 reminded of his resurrection; and reminded, 
 too, that that was an event of more importance to 
 us than the creation of the world. We are 
 commanded to commemorate his death from time 
 to time, in an act of solemn religious worship. 
 Where, again, I ask, is any such expression of 
 respect directed to be paid to any servant of 
 God? And what more distinct recognition 
 could we have of his omniscience and omnipre- 
 sence? Where shall we find such a solecism in 
 the word of God, as a direction to commemorate 
 a person, who, we are, at the same time, taught 
 to believe, is altogether insensible of the respect 
 that we are paying to him? ih 
 In perfect and beautiful conformity ‘with 
 these commands to love the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 we are. taught that he loves us. «He that 
 loveth me,” saith he, “shall be loved of m 
 Father, and I will love him, and will manifest 
 myself to him.” ‘If a man love me, hé will 
 keep my words, and my Father will love him, 
 and we will come to him, and make our abode 
 with him.”* Is there an angel in heaven that 
 dares to use such language—to place his loye 
 and the love of the eternal Jehovah on an equal 
 
 * John xiv, 21, 23. 
 
with his being a mere creature. 283 
 
 footing; and to include that glorious Being, 
 before whom he prostrates himself in lowliest 
 adoration, in the same pronoun, wk, and the 
 same promise, ‘* WE will come to him?” It is 
 impossible. We are further informed that, 
 having ‘‘a great high-priest, that is passed into 
 the heavens, Jesus the Son of God—we have 
 not an high-priest which cannot be touched 
 with the feeling of our infirmities.”* These 
 declarations, that Jesus is still with his people, 
 and still loves them, are necessary to vindicate 
 and explain the commands given to us to love 
 and to commemorate him. 
 
 Still further, we are directed to look forward 
 to the prospect of seeing the Redeemer in his 
 glory, and enjoying his love for ever, as to the 
 great consummation of our hopes. ‘ Father,” 
 said he, “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: for thou lovedst me before the foundation 
 of the world.”+ ‘To him,” says he again, 
 ‘that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in 
 my throne, even as I also overcame, and am 
 set down with my Father on histhrone.”{ The 
 very glory of the heavenly Jerusalem is repre- 
 sented as consisting in the presence of God and 
 the Lamb. ‘ The Lamb which is in the midst 
 of the throne shall feed them,” (those that 
 ‘have washed their robes, and made them 
 white in the blood of the Lamb”) “and shall 
 ‘lead them unto living fountains of waters: and 
 God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” || 
 There shall be no temple in that heavenly 
 Jerusalem, ‘For the Lord God Almighty and 
 the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city 
 
 * Heb. iv. 14, 15. + John xvii, 24. + Rey, iii, 21, 
 | Rev. vii. 14, 17, 
 
284 The exaltalion of Christ inconsistent 
 
 had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to 
 shine in it; for the glory of God did lighten 
 it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.” «* And 
 there shall be no more curse; but the throne of 
 God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his 
 servants shall serve him, and they shall see his 
 face, and his name shall be in their foreheads.’’* 
 
 Now what is all this but deifying the Lord 
 Jesus—setting him forth as God to the world 
 and tothe church? A whole dispensation, in 
 which the eternal happiness or misery of myriads 
 of immortal creatures is involved, rendered 
 subservient to his glory; and myriadsofredeemed, 
 purified, glorified spirits taught to look up to 
 him as their Saviour and Lord, the fountain of 
 their hopes, the object of their faith, and love, 
 and obedience, and the source of their eternal 
 happiness. 
 
 It is true, that in all this he is associated with 
 the King eternal, immortal, and invisible. Tt 
 is true, that it is upon his union with the Father 
 of all—the God who fills heaven and earth with 
 his presence, that all his glory depends. We 
 know that it is not the man Christ Jesus that is 
 thus the object of all our hopes; but that it is 
 God as manifested in the man Christ Jesus, 
 We do not believe that a God is thus set up to 
 be worshipped along with the supreme God; and 
 yet separate from him; but we believe that God 
 is to be worshipped, that he is to be the object 
 of our faith and love, as manifest in Christ 
 Jesus ;—that, in short, to use the apostle’s 
 language, we are to sce “the glory of God in 
 the face of Jesus Christ ;” that “we all, with 
 open face, beholding, as in a glass, the glory of 
 the Lord,” May be “changed into the same image 
 
 * Rey, xxi, Bey ake Xxii. 3; 4, 
 
with his being a mere creature. 285 
 
 from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of 
 the Lord.’’* 
 
 But still, Jesus Christ being thus “the 
 brightness of the Father’s glory—the express 
 image of his person,” was “‘ God manifest in the 
 flesh.” And itis only in virtue of his possessing 
 the nature, and character, and attributes of 
 God, that he could, now that he is unseen,” 
 ever be presented to us as an object of faith, 
 and love, and obedience, and the very consum- 
 mation of our hopes. If Jesus were a mere 
 creature, he could never have been permitted 
 to intercept and concentrate upon his own 
 person the regards of the chosen and sanctified 
 people of God. The noble spirit of man was 
 not made to be the servant of a servant. Its 
 dignity is, that it acts under the immediate eye 
 and authority of God himself. It is the offspring 
 of God, and, in its original holy condition, or 
 its regenerated and sanctified condition, it as 
 naturally aspires to the God who made it, as 
 the flame rises upward. Convince any soul of 
 man that Jesus is but a creature, and it could 
 never be satisfied with his presence, or with the 
 view of his glory. It would still pant after the 
 manifested presence of the eternal Jehovah. 
 Like Moses, it would still say, ‘‘ Lord, show 
 me thy glory,” or, like Philip, “ Lord, show us 
 the Father, and it sufficeth us.” But the answer 
 must still be that which our Lord gave to Philip, 
 ** He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” 
 ‘*No man hath seen God at any time, the only 
 begotten Son, that is in the bosom of the Father, 
 he hath revealed him.” Jesus is “the brightness 
 of the Father’s glory,” and therefore, in him, 
 we shall see all that can be made visible of the 
 eternal, invisible God. 
 
 * 2 Coriv. 6. iii. 18, 
 
CHAP. XI. 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Brrore we pass from that part of our subject 
 with which we have for some time been occupied, 
 it will be proper to cast our eye back on the 
 progress that we have made. 
 
 Having cleared our way, by laying down and 
 establishing the principles on which we should 
 proceed, we commeneed our advance by showing 
 that Jesus was more than a mere man. And 
 nere I must remind the reader, that, in estab- 
 lishing that point, I referred chiefly to texts 
 which did not directly bear upon his being the 
 true God. Ihave now, therefore, to recommend 
 to him, to add to the passages of Scripture then 
 adduced, those which have since been adduced 
 to prove that Jesus is God; and to consider 
 whether it be possible that, after all the glorious 
 things which are spoken of the Saviour, he 
 should, according to the Scripture account of 
 him, be nothing more than a mere man, who 
 had no existence before he appeared in the 
 world as Jesus of Nazareth. For the fact that 
 Jesus was more than man, bears as directly 
 against our author’s whole system, as the fact 
 that he was God. 
 
 In proceeding to prove that Jesus “is the 
 true God and eternal life,” we considered what 
 is to be understood by a manifestation of God in 
 
Recapitulation. 2817 
 
 human nature, and compared such a manifesta- 
 tion of thesupreme Being, with the manifestations 
 of him under the Old Testament dispensation, 
 in the Shechinah of the Jewish tabernacle and 
 temple. And we found reason to determine, 
 that human nature—a human soul and body— 
 the holy feelings and benevolent affections of a 
 man in the highest state of moral purity, 
 furnished a much more perfect, more expressive, 
 more instructive, and more spiritual manifesta- 
 tion of the invisible God, than a flame of fire, 
 or any dazzling brightness could furnish. 
 
 We then proceeded to show that the Lord 
 Jesus Christ is, in very many particulars, 
 identified in Scripture with the God of the Israel- 
 ites, who dwelt among them by the visible mani- 
 festations of his presence. And we took oceasion 
 to. observe, that, if any one were required to 
 identify the God of Israel, with the God who is 
 described in the Old Testament as the God of 
 the universe, he would be obliged to have 
 recourse to the same description of evidence— 
 
 “that he would be limited to the same description 
 of texts, and would have to encounter the same 
 system of criticism, the same objections from 
 apparently contradictory texts, and from supposed 
 dictates of reason and common sense ;—1in short, 
 that his whole argument would necessarily 
 assume nearly the same form with that, by which 
 we are under the necessity of identifying the 
 
 Lord Jesus with the God of Israel. 
 
 We then found that the same titles and names 
 are given to Jesus that are given to the God of 
 Isracl. That the Hebrew title God is given to 
 Jesus, although it is given to no other individual, 
 without such limitations as evince that it is a 
 false god that is meant.* That the proper name 
 
 * When God said to Moses, “ I have made thee a God to 
 
288 tecapitulation. 
 
 Jehovah is given to him, and to no one else. 
 That he, as well as the God of Israel, is called 
 THE Lorp, and the Kine or kines and Lorp 
 of Lorvs, titles which, in that absolute manner, 
 and as expressing dominion over the whole 
 church, or the whole world, are never given to 
 any other person. | 
 
 We found, further, that the peculiar characters 
 and attributes, and works which are ascribed to 
 the God of Israel, are ascribed to the Lord 
 Jesus. ‘ 1,” said the God of Israel, ‘‘am the 
 first and the last:’—‘“‘I” said Jesus, “am the 
 Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last.” 
 The God of Israel promises to be with his people 
 at all times, and especially when they presented 
 themselves at the place where he had recorded 
 his name ;—Jesus says, “Lo, I am with you 
 alway, even to the end of the world;” and, 
 ‘¢ Wherever two or three are met together in my 
 name, there am [I in the midst of them.” The 
 God of Israel created the heavens and the earth, 
 and ail things that are therein ;—Jesus ‘ laid 
 the foundations of the earth, and the heavens 
 are the works of his hands;” he “ created all 
 things that are in heaven and in earth, visible 
 and invisible.” The God of Israel raised the 
 Lord Jesus from the dead; Jesus raised himself 
 from the dead. The God of Israel declares that 
 ‘he is the only Saviour, and invites all the ends 
 of the earth to look to him for salvation ;—the 
 Lord Jesus is THE Saviour, and his name is 
 the only name by which we can be saved, and 
 we are directed to look for hismerey. The God 
 of Israel is the Redeemer of his people, who 
 bought them ;—Jesus is THE REDEEMER, who 
 purchased his people by his own blood. The 
 
 Pharaoh,” he did not give the appellation God to him; but 
 merely intimated that he was to be instead of God, in declaring 
 to Pharaoh the Divine will. 
 
Recapitulation. 289 
 
 God of Israel is called the holy One of Israel ;— 
 Jesus is the holy one and the just, whom the 
 Jews denied. The God of Israelis the shepherd 
 of his people;—the Lord Jesus is the good 
 shepherd; nor is there any shepherd over all the 
 flock but he. The God of Israel is he who alone 
 ean build up his church ;—Jesus said, “ On this 
 rock J will build my church, and the gates of 
 hell shall not prevail against it.” The God of 
 Israel declares that our salvation flows from his 
 grace, and mercy, and love, and compassion ;— 
 our salvation flows also from the grace of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, from his mercy, and love, 
 and compassion. The God of Israel reveals 
 himself as the judge of all the earth, and declares 
 that he will come with flaming fire, surrounded 
 by his angels, to judge the world in righteous- 
 ness, and to render to every one according to 
 his deeds ;—Jesus says, ‘the Father judgeth no 
 man, but hath committed all judgment to the 
 Son ;’ and that it is he who is to come, with 
 power and great glory, to judge the quick and 
 the dead, and to render to every one according 
 to his deeds. The God of Israel declares that, 
 at the judgment of the great day, he will give 
 command to gather his saints together, who have 
 made a covenant with him by sacrifice ;—the 
 Lord Jesus will assemble at his right hand all 
 who have attached themselves to him by faith in 
 his sacrifice, and who have testified their 
 attachment to him, by their love and kindness 
 to his disciples. The God of Israel is the light 
 of his people—“ The Lord,” says the Psalmist, 
 ‘Sis my light and my salvation ;’—Jesus is the 
 light of the world and of the church. The glory 
 of the invisible God was manifested in the 
 Shechinah, which was called the glory of God ;— 
 the glory of God is manifested in the face of 
 2C 
 
290 fRtecapitulation. 
 
 Jesus Christ, and he is called “the brightness 
 of the Father’ s glory, and the express image of 
 his person.” The Shechinah, or symbol of the 
 Divine presence, was a dazzling light, or a bright 
 cloud ;—the Lord Jesus assumed, at his trans- 
 figuration, that very appearance, in the sight of 
 three of his apostles, as before three competent 
 witnesses, for the very purpose, it would seem, 
 of personally identifying him with that glory 
 of God which appeared to their fathers ; but as 
 he was then living among men, in fashion as 
 a man, they were commanded not to divulge 
 what they had seen, till his permanent exal- 
 tation to his glory. The presence of the Lord 
 Jehovah is to be the joy of his people in the 
 heavenly state, and his redeemed people shall be 
 satisfied when they behold his glory ;—it is the 
 presence of Christ, and the beholding the glory 
 of Christ, that is set before the people of God, 
 as the consummation of their hopes. The 
 Lord Jehovah, that sitteth on the throne, is the 
 light and the temple of the new Jerusalem ;— 
 the Lamb is the light thereof, and the temple 
 thereof. And, to crown this identity, several 
 passages of Scripture which, in the Old Testa- 
 ment, refer to the God of Israel, or are addressed 
 to him, are in the New Testament declared to 
 refer to Christ, or to be addressed to Christ. 
 
 In perfect conformity with this identity of the 
 names, titles, character, attributes, works, offices, 
 manifestations of God and of Christ, are the 
 duties that are required of us. Weare to believe 
 in, trust to, rely upon God;—we are to believe in, 
 trust to, rely upon Christ: to look to God for 
 his mercy ;—to look for the mercy of Christ: 
 to love the unseen God;—to love the unseen 
 Christ: to obey God and keep his command- 
 ments ;—to obey Christ and keep Ais command~ 
 
Recapitulation. 294 
 
 ments: to do all things from love to God; —te 
 do all things from love to Christ—te live, not to 
 ourselves, but to him, because he died for us. 
 The ancient church commemorated the work of 
 God in the creation, by the weekly Sabbath ;— 
 the Christian church, while it does not lose 
 sight of creation, by the change of the day, 
 directs her attextion more particularly to the 
 work of Christ in hisresurrection. The ancient 
 church in the passover commemorated the work 
 of God in her deliverance from Egypt ;—the 
 Christian church in the Lord’s supper commem-~ 
 orates the work of Christ in her deliverance 
 from the bondage of sin and Satan, by his death 
 for “ Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” — 
 The ancient servants of God were distinguished 
 from the whole world, as persons who called on 
 the name of Jehovah ;—Christians are distin- 
 guished from the whole world, as persons who 
 call en the name of Christ. And, finally, we 
 have the example of the redeemed in heaven, for 
 associating God who sitteth on the throne, 
 and the Lamb that was slain, in the same hymn 
 of praise. 
 
 In all these points there is a perfect identity 
 of the Saviour with God supreme; and let not 
 our author, or any other Unitarian, accuse us of 
 rushing to a summary conclusion, by merely 
 bringing forward particulars that are predicated 
 both of God and of Christ, and then inferring 
 that they are the same. Our argument is, that 
 all those particulars which have been enumerated 
 are peculiar to God, that not one of them can 
 be predicated of any mere servant of God, and 
 that feey could not be predicated of Christ if he 
 were not the true God. For example, it is never 
 said in Scripture, and could not be said without 
 falsehood or idolatry, of Abraham, or of Moses, 
 
292 Recapitulation. 
 
 or of Paul, or of Peter, that he is God, or @ 
 God, (without such a limitation as to show that, 
 in a particular transaction, he was made to stand 
 instead of God) ; or that he is Jehovah; or that 
 he created the heavens and the earth in any 
 sense whatsoever; or that he is, especially since 
 his death, THE Lory, or the Lord of lords and 
 King of kings; or that he is with his disciples 
 wherever they meet in his name; or that he is 
 THE Saviour, or the RepEEMER, or the HoLy 
 ONE; or that he is the shepherd of the church, 
 or the Judge of the world; or that he is the 
 brightness of the glory of God. Nor did every 
 any of these servants of God assume the very 
 appearance of the Shechinah. Nor is it ever 
 held out to the people of God as a promise, that 
 they shall see the glory of any of these servants 
 of the Lord, or that any, or all of them shall be 
 the light, and glory, and temple of the new 
 Jerusalem. Neither are we commanded to 
 believe in, or trust to, any of these good men, or 
 to love them, since their decease, or to com- 
 memorate them, or to do any thing to please 
 them, much less to regulate our whole lives 
 with a view to their glory; nor are we to call 
 upon their names, or sing hymns to their praise. 
 In all these respects the Redeemer stands 
 absolutely alone among men. It would be 
 nothing short of profanity and blasphemy to 
 treat any mere manas Jesus is treated; and yet 
 in ali these things he is identified with God, and 
 treated as God is treated. If, therefore, Christ 
 be not God, it must follow, that there are two 
 beings, the one the Creator, the other a creature, 
 who, in all the particulars that have been 
 enumerated, are placed on the same footing, 
 whom we are to regard equally as God, and to 
 whom we are to conduct ourselves as it becomes 
 
Recapitulation. 293 
 
 us to do to God only. And nothing can be 
 more revolting to common sense, or to the 
 principles and precepts of Scripture, the great 
 fundamental doctrine of which is, that there is 
 but.one, the living and true God, who alone is 
 vested with divine attributes, who alone does the 
 works of God, and who alone is to be revered 
 and loved aud worshipped and served as God, 
 than such a confounding of any creature with 
 the revelation of the most high God. 
 
 We have had occasion to examine the criti- 
 cisms, by which it is attempted to turn away 
 many of the passages of Seripture, which thus 
 identify the Lord Jesus with the God of Israel, 
 from their proper and obvious meaning. We 
 have had occasion to animadvert on the Uni- 
 tarian system of criticism generally; and have 
 more than once observed that the adoption of 
 it would throw all language into uncertainty, 
 and render it impossible to teach any doctrine, 
 by any forms of expression, however precise.— __ 
 We have in one or two instances observed that, 
 if it were applied to the Old Testament Serip- 
 ture, it would reduce the most sublime descrip- 
 tions of the majesty of the one living God to 
 bombastic poetry—hyperbolical descriptions of 
 the greatness of human rulers. 
 
 Perhaps it may tend still more to put the 
 public on their guard against the Unitarian prin- 
 ciples of criticism, to exhibit somewhat more 
 fully the tendency of it. Perhaps it may in-_ 
 duce our author himself, and other Unitarians 
 who may have been led to sanction it without 
 looking forward to its consequences, to pause 
 and consider what they do, before they deter- 
 mine to persevere in the use of it. | 
 
 Let us, for this purpose, suppose an adversary: 
 of the Bible and of Christianity, to read the 
 
 2c3 
 
294 Recapitulation. 
 
 work of our author, or any other work in which 
 
 the same system of criticism is adopted. He 
 
 has frequently found that one of the strongest 
 arguments for the Divine inspiration of the 
 
 Bible, and one which has given him most 
 trouble, is the sublime and most rational system 
 of religion which is taught in it. He has been 
 
 perplexed, but not convinced by this fact, and 
 has been in search of some means of breaking 
 the force of that argument. He finds, from the 
 writings of our author, that a great part of the 
 
 Bible is written in figurative and hyperbolical 
 
 language, after the manner of Oriental poetry, 
 
 which is to be corrected by reason and common 
 
 sense; that many of the sublimest phrases may 
 
 be much lowered by little variations in the read- 
 
 ing, or by finding different acceptations in which 
 
 the same word is sometimes used; and that the 
 
 authority of some parts of it are disputed even by 
 
 professing Christians. In short, he conceives 
 
 the idea, that, by bringing text against text, he 
 
 may so confound the doctrine apparently taught 
 in Scripture, that not one shred of the argument 
 
 which has given him so much trouble would re-- 
 main. He therefore takes up the Bible, and 
 
 proposes, with the help of our author’s admis- 
 
 sions and example, boldly to prove that no such 
 
 system of religion as has been attributed to it, is 
 
 contained in it; that all that is valuable im it, 
 
 has been the discovery of certain able and acute 
 
 philesophers in more modern times, who have 
 grafted their discoveries upon the Jewish Serip- 
 tures, as the most convenient vehicle for their 
 
 purpose. ’ ' 
 
 E shall leave the reader to imagine all that an_ 
 ingenious man, with such an object in view, 
 might say in praise of the learning, and talent, 
 and candour of that class of Biblical critics,’ of 
 
Recapitulation. 295 
 
 whose principles and admissions he meant to 
 avail himself. I shall leave it to every person's 
 own taste to supply all that our Deist might 
 handsomely concede to the respectability and 
 acuteness of our author—his amiable temper, 
 his indefatigable research, as a preparation for 
 availing himself of his writings to attack Chris- 
 tianity :—how he would represent him, and the 
 class of religionists with whom he is connected, 
 as the only persons among Christians who are 
 worthy the notice of a philosopher for a single 
 moment; and how that, although he could not 
 fully coincide with him in all his opinions; yet 
 he had often attended his preaching, and had 
 been delighted with his elegant moral disquisi- 
 tions. This necessary preparation being made, 
 he commences his argument as follows. 
 
 ‘It has been usually imagined that the He- 
 ‘brew Scriptures teach that there is one, and 
 ‘ only one supreme God,—a spiritual being, every 
 where present, omnipotent, eternal, and un- 
 changeable: and some have conceived that the 
 existence of such a doctrine, which even a phi- 
 losophical Theist must acknowledge to be sub- 
 lime and rational, in a book of so great anti- 
 quity, and written among so contemptible a 
 people as the Jews, is a satisfactory evidence 
 of a supernatural origin. 
 
 ‘ But before we rush to so hasty a conclusion, 
 it may be well to pause, and consider whether 
 any such doctrine is really taught in that book. 
 It would appear, from the accurate and learned 
 investigations of the latest and ablest critics,— 
 critics too who profess to believe in the Divine 
 inspiration of the Bible, that no such doctrine 
 ‘is contained in it. The Reverend and learned 
 ¢ Dr. Drummond, who, although an adversary to 
 ‘rational Theism, is, nevertheless, an honour to 
 
 “ 
 
 OA ER TO EN EH CH 
 
 QO A ae TALS 
 
 tay 
 
296 Recapitulation. 
 
 6 
 ¢ 
 4 
 ¢ 
 6 
 ¢ 
 
 a 
 
 Die ON ON OF i ON NN ee ey a ee ee 
 
 By OS OR OO NS Oe AN, eae 
 
 his profession, has demonstrated that by the 
 term which is usually rendered God in the En- 
 glish translation of the Bible, is meant the le- 
 gislators and magistrates of the Jews. He 
 
 finds that that title was given to Moses and all 
 
 the other Jewish legislators ;* and furnishes 
 several instances of individual legislators or 
 kings among them, being addressed by that 
 title. He proves that Solomon, in a poem, 
 written on the occasion of his marriage, is ad- 
 dressed thus—-“*‘ Thy throne O God is for ever 
 and ever:” and even mentions a dignitary of 
 the church of England who translated these 
 words—** Thy throne O prince is for ever and 
 ever.” He states also and confirms his state- 
 ment by the high authority of Rammohun 
 Roy; who, being himself an oriental, may well 
 be supposed to be familiar with the style of 
 oriental poetry, that another prince, Hezekiah, 
 was called, in a poem, written in his praise by 
 Isaiah, “* The mighty God.” The same learn- 
 ed and ingenious author insists that, in the New 
 Testament, Jesus Christ, whom he yet believes 
 to have been a mere man, has the same title 
 given to him. 
 
 ‘This explains the whole difficulty. The 
 Jews having risen up against the Egyptians, 
 whose slaves they were, and having effected 
 their escape from that country, appear to have 
 established a sort of republic, under the go- 
 vernment of magistrates chosen for hfe. The 
 able and artful leaders, who had conducted 
 them out of Egypt, and who had contrived to foil 
 the attempts of the Egyptian army to recover 
 them, procured histories and poems to be written, 
 in which, according to the lofty hyperbolical 
 style of the orientals, were described the power — 
 
 * Page 21, Ed, 2d, 
 
Recapitulation. 297 
 
 ‘and vigilance of their government. For ex- 
 ‘ample, it is asserted that these legislators, ° in 
 ‘the beginning created the heavens and the 
 “earth.” This however was not so revolting a 
 ‘statement as might at first sight be supposed ; 
 ‘for the Reverend author to whom we are so 
 “much indebted, has shown that the heavens and 
 ‘the earth meant, in the language of these 
 ‘writers, the ecclesiastical and civil polities of 
 ‘the Jews. The people therefore were taught, 
 ‘in those high sounding words, that their civil 
 ‘and ecclesiastical constitution originated in the 
 ‘ wisdom of their rulers. The remainder of the 
 ‘ description of what has usually been supposed 
 ‘to be an account of the creation of the world, 
 ‘may be explained in the same manner. The 
 ‘ dividing the waters above from those beneath, 
 ‘and collecting the waters together, so that the 
 *‘ dry land appeared, may signify the draining of 
 ‘marshes, and thus freeing the country from 
 ‘unwholesome damps. The clothing of the 
 ‘ earth with vegitation, was the encouragement 
 ‘of agriculture. The peopling of the seas with 
 ‘ fishes was the encouragement of fisheries. The 
 ‘sun was the chief civil, and the moon the chief 
 ‘ecclesiastical authority, the stars the inferior 
 ‘governors. The creating of cattle, &c., the en- 
 ‘ riching the country with flocks and herds: and 
 ‘the making of man out of the dust, signified 
 ‘merely converting a waste uninhabited country 
 ‘by wise regulations, into a well peopled king- 
 ‘dom. ‘Rerhaps the reader may be startled by 
 ‘such explanations, but I assure him that the 
 ‘ very learhed Christian author to whom I have 
 ‘ alluded, shows that this style was quite familiar 
 ‘to the Jews; for that even in the New Testa- 
 ‘ment, a part of the Bible written at so much 
 ‘ later a period, it is asserted that Jesus Christ, a 
 
298 Recapitulation. 
 
 nan Ww n Aa Aa Hn KH A & Cn etn Bon eon OPO A A. A ee i Os a NUN ONO na 
 
 na NN 
 
 an 
 
 ¢ 
 6 
 
 G 
 
 man who lived inthe days of Augustus Cesar, 
 ‘‘made the world,” and ‘ created all things 
 in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible,” 
 and proves that all that was meant by that lan- 
 guage was, that he made some changes in the 
 Jewish civil and ecclesiastical constitution. 
 
 ‘ In the same strain, attributes are ascribed to 
 the Jewish government, which at first sight, 
 appear to be the attributes of God; but which 
 our candid and ingenious author admits may 
 all be otherwise explained. Thus, eternal 
 existence seems to be ascribed to their magis- 
 trates; but that signifies no more than that the 
 government never dies. The power of the 
 state is that supreme person who is said to 
 inhabit eternity; that is, it is that one source 
 of authority which existed from the beginning 
 of the Jewish state, and was to continue to the 
 end of it. For it can easily be proved, that the 
 word rendered eternity frequently signifies a li- 
 mited, aithough very long period. The very 
 learned and candid Doctor Bruce admits that 
 eternal punishment signifies punishment only 
 for a very long time; and Doctor Drummond 
 shows us that the words, “ yesterday, to-day, 
 and for ever,” applied to Christ, mean no more 
 than that his doctrines and promises, having 
 been committed to writing, can never change, 
 but must remain always the same. 
 
 ‘ Omnipresence appears to be ascribed to the 
 Jewish magistracy; but, here again, our 
 learned and able author proves that only a 
 virtual presence is meant; for that the very 
 same things are said of Moses, of Christ, of 
 Paul, and of others who were mere men.— 
 Thus when in one of those lofty hyperbolical 
 poems it is said— 
 
Recapitulation. 299 
 
 ‘¢ Whither can I go from thy spirit, 
 ** Or whither can I flee from thy presence ? 
 “‘ If I climb the heavens, thou art there; 
 ‘“‘ If I make my bed in the abyss, behold thou 
 art there ; 
 “If I lift my wings towards the morning, 
 ** Or dwell beyond the bounds of the sea, 
 ‘** Even there shall thy hand lead me, 
 “* And thy right hand shall hold me. 
 ‘If f say surely the darkness shall cover me ; 
 ‘“* Even the night shall be light about me. 
 *¢ Yea the darkness hideth not from thee, 
 ** But the light shineth as the day ; 
 «¢ As is the darkness, 
 “© So is the light.” 
 ‘ All that we are to understand is a highly 
 ‘ figurative and glowing description of the virtual 
 ‘ubiquity and power of the government. The 
 ‘Jewish poets thus attempted to impress upon 
 ‘the minds of the people, that it was impossible 
 ‘ to resist or escape from the authority of their 
 ‘rulers. In perfect harmony with this, Solomon 
 * says— 
 ‘‘ Curse not the king, no not in thy thought ; 
 ‘*-And curse not the rich, (or powerful) m thy 
 bed-chamber ; 
 *‘ For a bird of the air shall carry the voice, 
 ‘“‘ And that which hath wings shall tell the 
 matter.” . : 
 ‘ Some of these poets, who were manifestly in 
 * the pay of their rulers, describe them as omni- 
 ‘potent, creating every thing, doing every thing, 
 ‘ having all power in their hands, whom no other 
 ‘ Gods, that is, no other rulers or princes, could 
 ‘resist. But our author shows that similar 
 ‘ things are said of Christ; such for example, as 
 ‘that all power in heaven and in earth was in 
 ‘his hands, that all things are put under his 
 
800 ; Recapitulation. 
 
 ‘ feet, that he can raise the dead, nay, that he is 
 ‘the resurrection and the life; when nothing 
 ‘more is intended than that he is the head of 
 ‘the Christian religion, being the chief pro- 
 
 -* phet of it, and having a certain authority over 
 ‘ the church, 
 
 ‘ Omniscience also is ascribed to the Jewish 
 ‘legislators, in highly coloured figurative dic- 
 ‘tion. For example, in an ode to their constitu- 
 ‘ tion, one of the poets says—** Thou, even thou 
 only knowest the hearts of all the children of 
 men.” This seems very strong language ; 
 but our learned and indefatigable author shows, 
 and confirms his opinion by that of Lindsey, 
 one of the most acute scholars of the age, that, 
 although similar language is used respecting 
 Jesus Christ, although it is said of him that he 
 searches the hearts and tries the reins of men, 
 and that he knows what is in man; yet that he 
 possessed no omniscience, but merely was gift- 
 ed with peculiar acuteness in detecting hypo- 
 crisy, and knew well the heresies which were 
 harboured in one particular church.* There 
 are however other singular expressions, by which 
 the general knowledge of the Jewish legislators 
 was described. One of their poets says— 
 ‘SHe,” or rather, ‘ that which,” (alluding 
 still to the government) ‘ planted the ear, 
 shall it not hear; that which formed the eye, 
 shall it not see.” One should imagine from 
 this, that the Jewish poets ascribed the very 
 formation of the human body to their magis- 
 trates. But this is too absurd a supposition to 
 be entertained. Common sense and reason 
 could see no object to be gained by such extra- 
 ‘vagance. We must therefore look for some 
 
 -“ 
 
 * Page 41, Ed. 2d, 
 
Recapitulation. 301 
 
 ‘ other meaning. Nor shall we have far to look. 
 ‘The word tix rendered ecr, signifies also a 
 * balance, and the word py rendered eye signifies 
 ‘also a fountain. Hence it is obvious that what 
 ‘the poet meant was, that the government ad- 
 ‘ justed the weights and measures used in Judea ; 
 * and that they also planned and constructed the 
 ‘ wells and fountains ; all of which perfectly har- 
 ‘monizes with their having collected together 
 ‘ the water that was mingled with the earth, by 
 ‘ draining the lands, as formerly noticed. Now, 
 ‘as the poet was illustrating the ubiquity of the 
 ‘ government, and its knowledge of the state of 
 ‘every district of country and of every family, 
 ‘he, with admirable skill, selects the fountains of 
 ‘water which were necessarily scattered over 
 * the face of the land, and the balances which 
 * were used in every family, as indications that 
 ‘the knowledge and power of the government 
 ‘ pervaded every place. Hence it is evident that 
 ‘ the passage should be rendered— ! 
 
 ‘¢ That which planted (or fixed unchangeably) 
 
 the weights or balances, 
 ‘<¢ Shall it not hear ? 
 ‘* That which constructed the fountains (or 
 wells), 
 
 6 Shall it not see ? 
 
 ‘'To a person unaccustomed to the style of 
 ‘the Bible, this interpretation may seem some- 
 ¢‘ what forced or unnatural; but if he will turn 
 * to our author’s critique on the first five verses 
 ‘of the Gospel by John, which he will find in 
 ‘pages 42d and 43d of the 2d edition of his 
 ¢ learned work, he will be satisfied that this ex- 
 ‘ planation perfectly accords with the general 
 ‘ strain of the Bible. ‘sist 
 
 ‘Still further to impress the minds of the 
 people -with Pes for their government, 
 
 D 
 
302 Lecapitulation. 
 
 ‘and fear of its displeasure, the Hebrew poets 
 ‘employed all their powers of expression to des- 
 ‘ cribe the visitations of their judges to different 
 ‘ parts of the country, for the administration of 
 ‘justice. They speak of their going forth witha 
 ‘ numerous attendance of angels or messengers— 
 ‘the forces of the state, with sound of trumpet, 
 ‘and flaming fire. From the latter expression, 
 ‘one might almost suspect that they were ac- 
 ‘ quainted with the use of artillery. It would 
 ‘ however be resting too much on an incidental, 
 + and obviously figurative form of expression, to 
 + infer from it that so philosophical a discovery had 
 ‘been made at so early an age, andamong sucha 
 ¢ people; —although it must be admitted that it has 
 ¢ been known for a very long period in China. 
 ‘It is not, however, improbable that the rulers 
 ‘ of the nation were acquainted with some means 
 ‘ of making explosions, which they used for the 
 é purpose of striking terror into the people when 
 ‘they went on their judicial circuits. That no- 
 ‘ thing more than the ordinary administration of 
 6 the law of the land was intended, and not the 
 ¢ judging of men by the laws of morality, which 
 ¢ take cognizance of the private conduct of indi- 
 ‘ viduals, and even of their affections and desires 
 ‘and designs, is manifest from this fact, that it 
 ‘is declared that Christ will come to judgment, 
 ‘ withthe very same insignia ofauthority; although 
 ‘ our learned author proves that he is a mere man, 
 ¢ not vested withomniscience, an attribute which 
 ‘is manifestly necessary, in order to judge men 
 ‘ by the moral law. 
 
 ‘ But the most artful and extraordinary expe- 
 ‘dient employed by the rulers of this singular 
 ‘ people, for the purpose of keeping continually 
 ‘ before them the authority and power of the law, 
 ‘ was to contrive a species of . worship to be paid 
 
Recapitulation. 303 
 
 © to the constitution. While other nations were 
 ‘ worshipping images of former rulers or of ima- 
 ‘ ginary beings, thesecrafiy andshrewd legislators, 
 ‘ made a chest, covered it with gold, placed in it 
 ‘a copy of the fundamental principles of the law 
 ‘ engraved on stone; on the top of this chest they 
 ‘made a seat or throne which they called a mer- 
 ‘cy scat; they then erected a magnificent tent 
 ‘ or tabernacle, while they were journeying from 
 ‘ Egypt to Canaan and establishing themselves 
 ‘there, but which, after they were permanently 
 © settled, was exchanged for a noble temple or 
 ‘palace. There they deposited this chest accom- 
 ‘panied with a rod, the emblem of authority, 
 ‘and a pot of some description of food, such as 
 * they had fed upon in their journey, as an em- 
 *hblem of the plenty to be expected by submit- 
 ‘ting to regular government. These matters 
 ‘ being arranged, they made the people come to 
 ‘the tent or temple and do obeisance and pre- 
 ‘sent offerings. ‘Three times a year was every 
 ©male arrived at maturity obliged to appear 
 ‘and do obeisance to these symbols of govern- 
 ‘ment. There also, they, from time to time, 
 * slaughtered cattle; which was intended to 
 ‘teach the people that, if they transgressed the 
 ‘law, they would be slaughtered in the same 
 ‘same manner without mercy. When their 
 “government changed to a monarchy, David, 
 ‘one of the first of their kings, who was also 
 ‘ himself'a poet and musician, and who knewhow 
 * to turn these accomplishments to good account, 
 ‘ composed hymns inpraise of the Gods or legisla- 
 ‘tors; and appointed a multitude of persons to 
 ‘ sing them continually before the tent in which 
 ‘ the emblems of government were deposited, ac- 
 * companied with all the various musical instru- 
 * ments then known. 
 
304 Recapitulation. 
 
 ‘It is but just to observe, that the Reverend 
 ‘and worthy gentleman of whose learned ex- 
 ‘ planations of the Bible, we have availed our- 
 ‘selves, does not draw the same inferences from 
 ‘it which have been drawn above. It appears 
 ‘to him to be a dictate of common sense and rea- 
 ‘son, that the Bible should teach that there is 
 ‘one God, an invisible eternal being, really ves- 
 ‘ted with those attributes, which are figuratively 
 ‘ ascribed to the Jewish magistracy. And there- 
 ‘fore he, in these things, understands the Bi- 
 ‘ble literally. But what can be more inconsis- 
 ‘ tent? he tells us, forexample, thatin thelanguage 
 ‘of the prophets heaven and earth signity the 
 ‘ civil and ecclesiastical polities of the Jews; that 
 “ God signifies the Jewish legislators and magis- 
 ‘ trates; and yethe quotes passages from these very 
 ‘ prophets, and these passages confessedly poeti- 
 ‘cal and figurative, and insists on the words, 
 ‘ the heavens and the earth, being understood liter- 
 ‘ally of the material heavens and earth, and on 
 ‘the word Ged being understood of the supreme 
 ‘being. If he would have us believe that these 
 ‘ doctrines are in the Bible, let him point them 
 ‘out to us in language, the meaning of which 
 ‘cannot be disputed; but let him not seek to 
 ‘amuse us with language which, by his own 
 ‘showing, is ambiguous. We do not deny 
 ‘the reasonableness of the doctrine that there 
 ‘is a supreme being; but what can be more 
 ‘ preposterous than to suppose that so rude a 
 ‘people, living in so rude «an age, should 
 ‘have made a progress in that most abstruse 
 ‘and difficult of all speculations, the bemg 
 ‘and attributes of one supreme God, to which 
 ‘the most renowned sages of Greece and Rome 
 ‘never attained? It is much more rational to 
 ‘ conclude, that, as the Jews were in the habit ot 
 
fecapitulation. 305 
 
 ‘calling their legislators Gods, these only are 
 “meant throughout the whole book, and that the 
 ‘lofty descriptions which are given of them are 
 “to be explained figuratively, in the manner 
 ‘which it has been attempted above.’ 
 
 But I must not pursue this strain of mock 
 criticism further. It seems to me to follow so 
 directly and naturally from our author’s premi- 
 ses, and must appear so plausible to those who 
 have been accustomed to his style of comment- 
 ing on Scripture, that I fear lest some one whom 
 he has (I amsure inadvertently) led up to the 
 brink of infidelity, should be induced to plunge 
 into the gulf that yawns before him. Nor are 
 these criticisms, ludicrous as they may appear, 
 in any respect more absurd than many criticisms 
 which have seriously been drawn from the same 
 horrible system. The criticisms current among 
 the Unitarians of the Continent of Europe, about 
 whose hallelujahs our author writes very eloquent- 
 ly, are too blasphemous to be transcribed here: 
 and such as I trust, he himself would reject with 
 abhorrence, if they were proposed tohim. But 
 where lies the mischief? Obviously in those prin- 
 ciples of criticism which, like the sweep of an 
 inchanters wand, would convert that book, which, 
 to a simple minded reader, who understands the 
 language in its usual sense, and receives with 
 faith the information expressed by it, conveys 
 sucha flood of light, so many glorious concep- 
 tions of the great Jehovah ; that book which is 
 the very source of all information respecting 
 God, from which Deism itself derives whatever 
 is rational or sublime in its speculations; that 
 book which is the only antidote to idolatry, and 
 which has banished idolatry from among every 
 people who have perused it ;—the mischief lies, [ 
 
 2D 3 
 
306 Recapitulation. 
 
 say, in principles of criticism which could convert 
 even such a book into a system of the most de- 
 testable state policy, of the most debasing idola- 
 try that has ever been practised, idolatry com- 
 bined with absolute atheism. 
 
 And let not the reader imagine that such a 
 transformation of the Bible implies that there is a 
 peculiar ambiguity and uncertainty in its language. 
 No human language, no forms of expression, could 
 bear the application of the same principles of 
 criticism. Grant to me the same latitude of in- 
 terpretation, permit me to avail myself of all the 
 writings in verse and prose in the English lan- 
 guage, all the odd anomalous uses that have 
 been made of words in all sciences and arts, and 
 I will undertake to find any subject in any book 
 whatever. A system of astronomy might. be 
 converted by such principles of criticism, into a 
 system of theology. The history of a nation 
 might be allegorized into a book of heathen my- 
 thology. The most precise legal documents 
 might be turned to utter confusion; mathema- 
 tical demonstrations might be transformed into 
 fables and allegories:—in short nothing could 
 stand before it. It argues no ambiguity there- 
 fore in the Bible that, with such a range of dis- 
 covery as that of which our author avails him- 
 self—not only all the senses in which all words 
 may have been used, but all variations in the 
 reading, all mistakes of transcribers, all mis- 
 translations, all poetical forms of expression 
 transplanted into prose narratives or discourses 
 or epistles, he may find pleas for altering the 
 obvious meaning of any text. 
 
 And what barrier does he raise up to with- 
 stand a flood of iniquity which his system of eri- 
 ticism would let in, to sweep away every vestige 
 of revelation? Reason and common sense ! !— 
 
 eae 
 
Recapitulation. 207 
 
 He would have it laid down as a fundamental 
 maxim that every thing in Scripture must be 
 conformable to reason and common sense. Thus 
 whatever any man may deem rational, what- 
 ever he conceives to be the common sense view 
 of any subject, he is to find in the Bible. If one 
 man’s reason and common sense tell him that 
 there is a God, he may find a God revealed in 
 the Bible; but if another man’s reason and com- 
 mon sense tell him that the only God is the go- 
 vernment of the country, he can, by the help of 
 our author’s system, find that no God is revealed 
 but legislators and magistrates. If one man 
 think that it is rational and proper that God should 
 know all things, even the secrets of the heart, he 
 will find countenance in the Bible for that idea; 
 but if another man’s nursery education hasled him 
 to suppose, that it is a much more dignified view 
 of the Deity, to conceive of him as exercising a sort 
 of general superintendence over great events, but 
 as being too much occupied with weighty con- 
 cerns to attend to the affairs of individuals, he 
 has only to explain what is said of the omni- 
 presence and omniscience of God, as figurative 
 descriptions of a virtual omnipresence and om- 
 niscience, such as that which our author sup- 
 poses to be ascribed to Jesus or to Moses or te 
 Paul. If one man imagine that is just and pro- 
 per that there should be a day of judgment and 
 final retribution, he may find such a day ex- 
 pressly declared; but if another do not like the 
 idea of such a reckoning, he has only to convert 
 all that is said about it to poetry and allegory, 
 and to imagine that it all refers to the judicial 
 investigations of the Jewish magistrates, or to 
 the coming of God by his providence to destroy 
 the city of Jerusalem. In short the whole system 
 is calculated to prostrate the word of God before 
 
308 Recapitulation. 
 
 the reason or the prejudices of man, to divest it 
 of all authority, and to leave every man at li- 
 berty to find in it whatever religious doctrines 
 may be most suited to his taste. 
 
 And where lies the cure for all this mischief ? 
 Thanks be to God it is not far from us. It con- 
 sists in feading the Scriptures under a sense of 
 our ignorance, and with the teachableness of 
 little children ; in understanding the words and 
 phrases according to their usual meaning, in the 
 connexion in which they stand; in conceding to 
 the sacred writers, that their inspiration did not 
 deprive them of common sense and judgment, or 
 induce them to mingle their prose narratives and 
 instructions with the most extravagant flights of 
 oriental poetry; in understanding them rather as 
 expressing great ideas in simple language, when 
 their simple language actually does convey great 
 ideas, than poor and mean ideas in hyperbolical 
 bombastic language; in reading the Bible, as 
 we read any other book which treats of a sub- 
 ject of which we are totally ignorant, but on 
 which we desire information, yet with a still 
 ileeper sense of our ignorance, and of the supe- 
 riority of our instructors, than we feel in perus- 
 ing any human compilation; in receiving with 
 faith the loftiest and most abstruse of its decla- 
 rations, as a child receives information which 
 it cannot fully comprehend from its parents or 
 teachers ; and, above all, in habitual and earnest 
 prayer to that God who dictated the Scripture, 
 to open our understandings to its spiritual mean- 
 ing, to open our hearts to receive it in the love 
 of it, and to render it effectual for our conver~ 
 sion and edification. These are the natural 
 barriers against the threatening deluge of fanci- 
 ful and sceptical interpretations of Scripture.— 
 To remove these and to erect reason and com- 
 
Recapitulation. 109 
 
 mon sense in their place, is to stretch a cob- 
 web as a defence from the force of a tempest.— 
 He who reads the Bible in the humble and 
 teachable spirit that becomes him; and who 
 confines himself within the bounds of legiti- 
 mate criticism, will not fail to understand it 
 aright; and he who shall do so, I most firmly 
 believe, whatever he may be at present, will 
 not long be a Unitarian. 
 
CHAP. XII. 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED: CHRIST’S MEDIATORIAL 
 KINGDOM. 
 
 We have, in our progress, considered our au- 
 thor’s objections to our interpretation of those 
 passages of Scripture on which the Deity of the 
 Lord Jesus is established; and also his objec- 
 tions to that doctrine from its being, as he al- 
 leges absurd, gross, and heathenish. We have 
 yet to consider those passages of Scripture which 
 he adduces in opposition to the doctrine itself. 
 These passages consist of declarations of Christ’s 
 inferiority to the Father, or of statements in 
 which such an inferiority is implied. Before we 
 examine such texts separately, it will be neces- 
 sary to take a brief view of the nature of Christ’s 
 mediatorial kingdom. 
 
 1. The concurring testimony of many pas- 
 sages of Scripture, both in the Old and New 
 Testament, represent the Lord Jesus as a king 
 or ruler. This is the uniform tenor of revela- 
 tion respecting him. When he was first an- 
 nounced to the world it was as the seed of the 
 woman who should bruise the head of the ser- 
 pent; that is, as is afterwards explained, who, as 
 # conqueror, should triumph over Satan and his 
 angels. The Psalmist, in the second Psalm, thus 
 
 at 
 
Olyjections answered: Christ’s, §c. 31% 
 
 declares his royal office in the name of Jehovah, 
 “‘ Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of 
 Zion. I will declare the decree, the Lorp hath 
 said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have 
 I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give 
 thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the 
 uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession :” 
 —which words are applied by the apostle Paul 
 to the Saviour.* In another Psalm the Son, as 
 we have already seen, is thus addressed—** Thy 
 throne O God is for ever and ever, the sceptre 
 of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.”{ And he 
 himself, when he was asked by Pilate whether 
 he were the king of the Jews, answered, ‘ Thou 
 sayest it,” but added ** My kingdom is not of 
 this world: if my kingdom were of this world, 
 then would my servants fight, that I should not 
 be delivered to the Jews: but now is my king~ 
 dom not from hence.’ | 
 With regard to the extent of his kingdom, in 
 addition to what the Psalmist says of the hea- 
 then and the uttermost parts of the earth being 
 included in it, we read in the prophecies of 
 Daniel as follows—* I saw in the night visions, 
 and, behold, one like the Son of man came with 
 the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient 
 of days, and they brought him near before him. 
 And there was given him dominion, and glory, 
 and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and lan- 
 guages, should serve him: his dominion is an. 
 everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, 
 and his kingdom that which shall not be de- 
 stroyed.”§ Jesus himself says, ‘ All power is 
 given to me in heaven and in earth;’|| and the 
 
 * Acts xiii. 33. + Psalm xlv. 6. Heb.i. 8. ©  } John 
 xviii. 33-——37, Luke xxiii. 3. § Dan, vii. 13, 14, 
 | Mat. xxviii, 18, 
 
312 Oljections answered : Christ's 
 
 apostle Paul declares that God his Father 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 hath put all things under 
 his feet, and gave him to be the head over all 
 things to the church which is his body, the ful- 
 ness of him that filleth all in all.”’* 
 
 With regard to the plenitude of his authority 
 within his kingdom, we learn that he subdues all 
 enemies, all rebels against his authority. ‘These 
 he breaks with a rod of iron and shall dash them 
 in pieces like a potter’s vessel ;”+—that he must 
 reign till he hath put all his enemies under his 
 feet.t He buildshis church bestowing and with- 
 drawing spiritual privileges as he sees fit, visit- 
 ing his people with chastisements, or sending to 
 them ease and temporal prosperity acording to his 
 pleasure.§ He saves his people, for he is the 
 Saviour, and makes them kings and priests to 
 Ged, and seats them with himself on his throne, 
 as he is set down with his Father on -his throne. 
 He is the sole judge of the world: for, ‘the Father 
 judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment 
 unto the Son” and hath given him authority to 
 execute judgment also because he is the Son of 
 man ;|! he searches the heart and, as a king, he 
 will sit in judgment, and give to every one accor- 
 ding to his deeds. And all the honour and glory 
 of conducting this mediatorial kingdom is given 
 to Jesus. ‘* God hath highly exalted him, and 
 given him a name whichis above every name, 
 that, atthe name of Jesus every knee should 
 bow, of beings in heaven, of beings on earth, and 
 
 # Eph. i. 20-—23. + Ps. ii. 9. 47. Cor. xv. 25. + § See 
 Rev. ii. and iii. passim. |] John, v. 22. 23, 27. 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. 313 
 
 of beings under the earth, and every tongue con- 
 fess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”* To him the 
 church ascribes glory and dominion, for ever and 
 ever, because he loved his people and wash- 
 ed them from their sins in his blood. And 
 every creature in heaven and in earth, and under 
 the earth, and such as are in the sea are represen- 
 ted as associating him in the same hymn of praise 
 with Jehovah ;—* saying, Blessing, and honour, 
 and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth 
 upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and 
 ever.’’+ 
 
 From all these intimations, and much more 
 that might beadduced to the same effect, it is ob- 
 vious, that, the sole government of this world, 
 and every department of creation connected with 
 it, has been committed to the Son of God, who 
 is also the Son of man, to govern it as his pecu- 
 liar kingdom, and conduct all its affairs to one 
 great and glorious result. This kingdom of the 
 Redeemer is usually called his mediatorial king- 
 dom, or that kingdom which he administers as 
 the only mediator between God and man. 
 
 2. This mediatorial kingdom of the Saviour is, 
 in some points of view, inferior to God’s general 
 government of the universe. 
 
 It is for example inferior in regard to duration. 
 The Soyereignty of God is from everlasting to 
 everlasting; but Christ’s mediatorial kingdom 
 had a beginning. It commenced with the his- 
 tory of man. And it is also, at least in some 
 respects, to have an end. Thus it is said 1 Cor. 
 xv. 24. ‘* Then cometh the end” (that is after the 
 resurrection) ‘* when he shall have delivered up 
 the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he 
 
 * Phil. ii. 9,11, + Rev. i, 5. 6, and vy. 13, 
 poh G 
 
314 Olyections answered : Christ's 
 
 shall have put down all rule and all authority and 
 power ; for he must reign till he hath put all ene- 
 mies under his feet.—And when all things shall 
 be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also be 
 subject unto him that put all things under him, 
 tbat God may be all in all.” To reconcile this 
 with what is said in other passages respecting the 
 eternity of Christ’s kingdom, a distinetion is 
 probably te be made. In his mediatorial king- 
 dom, as at present exercised, all things are com- 
 mitted into his hands for bringing his people out 
 from the world, controlling and subduing their 
 cnemies, correcting and chastising them when 
 they wander from him, and finally putting down 
 all opposition to him and to them. But these 
 ends being fulfilled, the number of the elect be- 
 ing accomplished, all enemies being subdued, all 
 danger being removed, he will resign that general 
 sovereignty which he at present exercises into 
 the hands of the one living, spiritual, eternal God; 
 but he will continue to reign overhis own redeem- 
 ed and sanctified people, still as the man Christ 
 Jesus, who was dead and is alive again, and still 
 the manifestation of God to them. 
 
 Again, the mediatorial kingdom of the Redeem- 
 er, is inferior to the universal kingdom of the Fa- 
 ther of all, in extent. The sovereignty of the 
 Deity extends to the whole universe, whereas the 
 mediatorial kingdom of Christ is limited to this 
 world, and to those creatures that are connected 
 with it, or have influence over its affairs. Those 
 good angels that are sent forth to minister to them 
 who are heirs of salvation are under the direction 
 of the Saviour ; while Satan and his emissaries are 
 now controlled, and will hereafter be judged and 
 punished by him. How far his mediatorial sove- 
 reignty extends into other regions of creation we 
 are not informed. The influence of the Sun and 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. 315 
 
 of the moon on the state of the world doubtless is 
 regulated by him; for all things are upheld by 
 the word of his power, and generally it may be 
 stated that nothing can affect any part of his king- 
 dom, but under his direction. 
 
 3. The mediaterial kingdom of Christ is not 
 only, in these points of view, inferior to the uni- 
 versal kingdom or sovereignty of the Deity ; but 
 it is subordinate to it. It was established for the 
 purpose of promoting the well-being of God’s 
 universal kingdom. It was intended to furnish 
 a peculiar display of the Divine character and 
 attributes. It exhibits on a limited, but intensely 
 brilliant field, the love of God to his moral and 
 immortal creatures, his mode of dealing with 
 them, the principles on which they may expect 
 to be treated by him, the change which any taint 
 of sin occasions in their condition with respect 
 te him, and the impossibility, without a sacri- 
 fice and a humiliation on his part, to which he 
 could never be expected to stoop a second time, 
 of recovering them from its consequences. It 
 brings all the attributes of the Deity—his jus- 
 tice, his mercy, his tender love of his creatures, 
 his love of holiness and hatred of all pollution, 
 his condescension, his magnanimity, his wisdom, 
 his power—all the effulgence of his glory, into 
 one concentrated focus, and reflects them back 
 on the universe with inconceivable splendour. 
 
 It may be compared in this respect with the 
 
 Jewish theocracy, as related to the general go- 
 vernment of this world. The Jewish common- 
 wealth was limited both in duration and extent, 
 within very narrow bounds, when compared 
 with the whole race of mankind and their his- 
 tory. From Moses, when the law was given, 
 and the Israelites were first erected into a body 
 
316 Olyections answered : Christ’s 
 
 politic, till Nebuchadnezzar, when they ceased 
 for ever to be an independent nation, governed 
 wholly by their own laws, the whole period is 
 only about eight hundred years. And even the 
 more extensive periods, from Moses till the second 
 destruction of Jerusalem, or from Abraham till 
 that event, form but a small portion of the pro- 
 bable duration of the world. And in point of 
 extent, the Jewish kingdom bore scarcely an as- 
 signable proportion to the rest of the habitable 
 globe. The whole scene of the history of the 
 {sraelites, from Egypt to Canaan, oceupies but 
 a mere speck on a map or globe of the world.— 
 And the Jewish kingdom was intended to be 
 subservient to the general government of man- 
 kind. The Israelites were not selected and in- 
 stalled in all their privileges, for their own sake; 
 but for the sake of all mankind. Their laws 
 and observances and their whole history were 
 intended to be a manifestation of the power and 
 majesty of God, of his care over his people, the 
 principles on which he governs the world, the 
 duties which he requires of men, the manner in 
 which he rewards or punishes them, his treat- 
 ment of his own and their enemies, exhibited on 
 a limited scale, in a central part of the world, 
 like a picture hung up in the sight of all, for the 
 instruction of all. 
 
 Such is the Redeemer’s mediatorial kingdom 
 in the great universe. It is limited in its extent, 
 and in some points of view in its duration; but 
 it is, as it were, a small Theocracy, a very She- 
 _ chinah exhibited for the information and warn- 
 ing and encouragement of the countless myriads 
 of God’s rational and moral creation. 
 
 And the kingdom of the Redeemer is inferior 
 to the general government of the universe in 
 another point of view. It was established by 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. 317 
 
 him who governs the universe—the eternal, in- 
 visible, incomprehensible Jehovah, for the mani- 
 festation of his own glory. It was not given 
 to the Mediator, or taken by him, for his glory 
 as Mediator, but for the glory of Him who rules 
 over all. In this respect also it was similar to 
 the Jewish polity. That dispensation was in- 
 tended to display the glory of God, not merely 
 as the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob— 
 the God of the tribes of Israel; but as the God 
 of the whole human race. So the mediatorial 
 kingdom of Christ was established, not as a se- 
 parate kingdom by Christ, for his own glory ; 
 but by the eternal Father of all for his glory.— 
 And therefore it is again and again declared, 
 
 that, in all that Jesus did and does in the admi- 
 nistration of his kingdom, he acted with the con- 
 currence of the Father, and with a view to his 
 glory. When he took our nature, it was doing 
 the will of his Father. ‘* Then said he, Lo, I 
 come to do thy will O God.* And again he 
 said, ‘“* I came down from heaven not to do 
 mine own will” (only) * but the will of him 
 that sent me.”+ Again, “ I do nothing of my- 
 self, but as my Father hath taught me,” (as the 
 whole matter has been arranged in the eternal 
 counsels of heaven,) ‘ I speak these things.” t— 
 There are many other passages of similar import. 
 In short, there is the utmost care taken in Scrip- 
 ture, that the mediatorial kingdom should not be 
 viewed as separate from the general govern- 
 ment of the universe, but as connected with it, 
 and forming part of it :—as not established ulti- 
 mately for the glory of the Mediator; but, 
 through him, for the glory of the God of the 
 universe: and that, in all that Jesus did; he 
 
 * Heb, x. 5-—9. + John vi. 38, t John viii, 28, 
 
318 Objections answered: Christ's 
 
 should be represented as acting in concurrence 
 with the Father of all, for the fulfilment of his 
 decrees and the manifestation of his glory. 
 
 4. The Lord Jesus Christ, as Mediator, and 
 as conducting his mediatorial kingdom, is mani- 
 festly to be distinguished, and is distinguished in 
 Scripture, from the Sovereign of the universe. 
 As Mediator, he is inferior to the Sovereign of 
 the universe. He is a servant, (having taken 
 on him the form or condition of a servant,) en- 
 gaged in a peculiar service, subordinate to the 
 general government of the universe. In_ his 
 person he was inferior to God: for, when the 
 Worpb, who was ‘ with God,’ and who ‘ was 
 God,’ ‘was made flesh,’ and was ‘ found m 
 fashion as aman,’ he descended to the condition 
 of a created being. That one person, Jesus, the 
 Mediator between God and man, who combined 
 in his person the Divine and human nature, was 
 inferior to the invisible eternal Deity, as unallied 
 to any creature. He was a person formed by 
 the will and wisdom of God, for a particular end 
 connected with his universal government ;—he 
 had therefore a beginning,—that is, there was 
 no person uniting in himself the nature of God 
 and man from eternity; and the person so con- 
 stituted was necessarily inferior to him who, im 
 this sense, created him. And the Lord Jesus, 
 thus constituted, was inferior to the Father of all, 
 not only as to his person, but as to his office. — 
 He was appointed, delegated, sent to the fulfil- 
 ment of it. He was Mediator between God and 
 man; but not an independent Mediator, nor a 
 Mediator provided by man; but a Mediator pro- 
 vided by the mercy and wisdom and power of 
 God. When Isaac was about to be sacrificed, 
 the Lord arrested the stroke of death, and pro- 
 
— Mediatorial kingdom. 319 
 
 vided for himself a lamb for a burnt-offering.— 
 So when man was about to suffer the sentence 
 of the Divine law which he had incurred, the 
 great Sovereign of the universe stayed the exe- 
 cution of the sentence, and provided another 
 victim, even that Lamb of God that taketh 
 away the sin of the world, as a substitute. 
 
 5. It is necessary to distinguish those arrange-~ 
 ments which fall under the mediatorial kingdom 
 of Christ, and which are made by him as Me- 
 diator, from those which are merely connected 
 with it, but which belong to the general govern- 
 ment of the universe. For example, the esta- 
 blishment of Christ?s mediatorial kingdom ma- 
 nifestly does not fall under the administration 
 of that kingdom; but under the administration 
 of the universal kingdom. This is self evident. 
 The establishment of the Jewish polity is not to 
 be regarded as part of the administration of that 
 government; but as belonging to the general 
 government of the world. And so it is with 
 Christ’s mediatorial kingdom. 
 
 _ Again, the duration of the mediatorial king- 
 dom, and the conclusion of it in the sense which 
 has already been explained, do not fall under 
 the administration of that kingdom itself, but 
 under the administration of the universal sove- 
 reignty of God. This also is necessary and self 
 evident. The conclusion of the Jewish polity, 
 as well as the commencement of it, is to be re- 
 _garded not asan act of the administration of that 
 kingdom, but as a measure adopted in the ad- 
 ministration of the government of the world. 
 
 Yet, again, those effects of the mediatorial 
 kingdom of Christ which are to continue after it 
 has been delivered up to the Father, are to be 
 regarded as determined in the eternal counsels 
 
320 Objections answered; Christ’s 
 
 of God. These form the great purposes for 
 which the mediatorial kingdom was established. 
 Thus the number of those who are to be saved 
 by means of it, and the particular individuals 
 who are to be saved, form part of the objects 
 contemplated by the establishment of the media- 
 torial kingdom itself, and therefore the deter- 
 mining of these points does not fall within the 
 administration of that kingdom. Accordingly, 
 our Blessed Lord speaks of all those who are to 
 be saved by him, as being given to him. “ Fa- 
 ther,” said he, “ glorify thy Son, that thy Son 
 also may glorify thee: as thou hast given him 
 power over all flesh that he should give eternal 
 life to as many as thou hast given him? “1 
 pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for 
 them which thou hast given me; for they are 
 thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are 
 mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I 
 am no more in the world; but these are in the 
 world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep 
 through thine own name those whom thou hast 
 geen me, that they may be one as we are.— 
 While I was with them in the world, I kept 
 them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I 
 have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son 
 of perdition ; that the Scripture might be ful- 
 filled.’’* 
 
 Stil further, it would appear, that the selec- 
 tion of individuals to occupy stations of peculiar 
 eminence in Christ’s kingdom is also a matter 
 predetermined in the eternal counsels of God.— 
 This is in perfect consistency with’ the principle, 
 that all effects that are to continue after the me- 
 diatorial kingdom has been delivered up to the 
 Pather, belong to the universal kingdom of the 
 
 * John xvii, 1, 2, 9-12. 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. 321 
 
 Father. For, from the parable of the servants 
 to whom talents, and also of those to whom 
 pounds were entrusted, it would appear that 
 those servants of Christ, who have been eminent 
 in this world, will continue to hold stations of 
 eminence in the world to come. This clearly 
 explains a passage to which our author attaches 
 much importance ;—namely, Mat. xx. 23—** To 
 sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine 
 to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it 
 is prepared of my Father.” There are several 
 words introduced into this translation of the 
 text, which have nothing corresponding to them 
 in the original. The words rendered literally 
 stand thus—* To sit on my right hand, and on 
 my left, is not mine to give, but to whom it is 
 prepared of my Father.” The words, 2 shall 
 be given to them, are supplied by the translators 
 of the authorised version, and are therefore 
 printed in italics. The meaning obviously is, 
 that the determining those who are to sit on his 
 right hand and en his left—to occupy the most 
 prominent stations in his kingdom, does not be- 
 long to the administration of his kingdom, being 
 already determined in the counsels of eternity ; 
 but that he will bestow that dignity upon those 
 who are thus appointed to receive it. Our au- 
 thor in quoting this passage, takes no notice of 
 the interpolation which has been pointed out, 
 although he had read at least one book which 
 states it. Now it must for ever be impossible 
 for those to arrive at the truth, who adhere to 
 errors of so palpable a description as this, when 
 they are pointed out to them. Again, Tam con- 
 strained to remark, that he who determines to 
 accommodate all evidence to his opinions, instead 
 of accommodating his opinions to evidence, must 
 . expect to live in error. 
 
322 Olyjections answered : Christ's 
 
 6. I have further to observe, that, although the 
 mediatorial kingdom of the Redeemer is inferior 
 to the great kingdom of the universe, and 
 subordinate to it; yet that the administration of 
 it equally required the exercise of Divine attri- 
 butes. The government exercised by the Lord 
 Jesus implied, as we have seen, making every 
 thing within its range subservient to it, —govern- 
 
 :. ing the whole moral visible world, and the whole 
 
 spiritual world, in so far as it is connected with 
 the history and condition of man. It implies di- 
 recting the good angels in their services, con- 
 trolling baffling and ultimately punishing the 
 fallen angels. It implies building up the church, 
 discerning the thoughts and intents of the hearts 
 of all men, raising men from the dead, judg- 
 ing the quick and the dead, and rendering to 
 every man according to his deeds, bringing his 
 redeemed people into the mansions provided for 
 them, and casting the wicked into that lake of 
 fire which is prepared for them. N ow, although 
 all these operations are on a limited scale when 
 compared withthe universe; yet they, equally 
 with the government of the universe, require the 
 attributes of Deity to conduct them. The go- 
 vernment of the Israelites—the administering of 
 the Old Testament dispensation—the conducting 
 of that people from Egypt to Canaan, the effecting 
 of all those wonders that were done in the wil- 
 derness, although confined to a mere point, when 
 compared with the globe of the world, and among 
 a people whose numbers were trivial when com- 
 pared with the myriads of the world’s inhabitants; 
 yet as much required the exercise of divine attri. 
 butes, as the government of the world does. And 
 no one who believes the Mosaic narrative ima- 
 gines that the miracles which le records could 
 have been performed by any power inferior to 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. 323 
 
 that of God. So the Mediatorial kingdom of the 
 Redeemer, although limited, in its extent, to a 
 mere point of space, and, in its duration, to amo- 
 ment of time, when brought mto comparison 
 with even what is known of the universe, and 
 with eternity ; yet as much required the attributes 
 of the Deity to conduct the administration of it, 
 as the universal kingdom of the Father of all. 
 The same attributes are necessary to create a fly, 
 as to create auniverse; and, if Jesus had not been 
 vested with divine attributes, he would not have 
 been fitted to govern his Mediatorial kingdom, 
 comparatively limited as it is, or to conduct all its 
 affairs to their destined and glorious consumma- 
 tion. 
 
 Besides, in the conducting of that kingdom, 
 Jesus places himself before his people as God, 
 draws their attention towards himself, requires 
 them to trust in him, to love him, to obey him, 
 as their sovereign lord and king, and to call upon 
 him for help in every time of need. And this 
 would have been demanding of them idolatry, if 
 he were not vested with an inherent right to 
 their worship and love and obedience. He m- 
 deed tells them of God his Father, from whom he 
 came, in obedience to whom, and in concurrence 
 with whom, he acted in every thing that he did; 
 yet, it is not by directing them to believe and love 
 and serve his God and Father as separate from 
 himself, that he connects his kingdom with the 
 universal kingdom of the Father. He did not 
 act, asall the inspired servants of God, in all ages 
 of the world acted. They directed the attention 
 of men away from themselves to God, as to a to- 
 tally different being. They demanded no ho- 
 nours to be paid to them, on the principle, that 
 whosoever honoured them, honoured God. On 
 
324 Oljections answered :- Christ’ s 
 
 the contrary, they declined honour when it was 
 offered to them, lest it should interfere with the 
 honour that was due to God or to the Redeemer. 
 When indeed the Church became corrupt, another 
 language on this point began to be used ; and the 
 ‘Pope and clergy of the church of Rome, began to 
 demand every imaginable honour and obedience 
 to be paid to them, under the pretence that, by 
 honouring the church, men would be honouring 
 Christ; and from this very principle grew that 
 horrible tyranny that was exercised over the 
 minds and bodies and property of men. But it 
 was not so from the beginning. No such lan- 
 guage is to be heard from the lips ot the apostles. 
 While they humbled themselves that Jesus might 
 be exalted; Jesus himself connected his kingdom 
 with God’s universal kingdom by setting forth his 
 personal connection with the Father. He acted 
 upon that very principle, (because he was entitled 
 to do so), which was afterwards, presumptuously 
 and without warrant, adopted by the hierarchy of 
 Rome, and which, thus feloniously assumed by 
 them, was the source of so many abominations ;— 
 namely to inculcate, that, when his disciples 
 honoured him, they honoured the Father ; when 
 they came to him, they came to the Father; when 
 they saw him they saw the Father; when they 
 loved him, they loved the Father ; and when they 
 oheyed him, they obeyed the Father, So that un- 
 less Jesus be the true God in his own person—the 
 manifestation of God to the world, and especially 
 to the clvurch, he, like the Hierarchy of Rome, 
 intercepts the glory and honour that is due to 
 God, and concentrates all honour and obedience 
 upon himself. 
 
 In truth, although the mediatorial kingdom of 
 the Redeemer must be regarded as inferior to 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. 325 
 
 the general kingdom of the universe, and subor- 
 dinate to its interests; it is, nevertheless, we 
 have reason to believe, incomparably the most 
 glorious and important department of that‘ uni- 
 versal kingdom. It is a subordinate government 
 of peculiar sanctity,—a display of the perfections 
 of the Deity of peculiar excellency and import- 
 ance. Itis to the universe what the theocracy 
 of Israel was to the world. That little common~ 
 ‘wealth, limited as it was in extent and duration, 
 was the very temple of the world; where the 
 worship of Jehovah was conducted according to 
 his will; where his character was peculiarly dis- 
 played; and towards which the eyes of all man- 
 kind, if they had felt any desire to know the 
 true God, would naturally have been turned.— 
 So the mediatorial kingdom of the Redeemer is 
 the holy city, the temple, the very sanctuary of 
 the universe. It embodies in one glorious ma- 
 nifestation all truth necessary to be known re- 
 specting the moral attributes of the supreme So- 
 vereign and Father of all. It elevates conspi- 
 cuously in the sight of the universe the Divine 
 law, that eternal standard of right and wrong— 
 its requirements, and its sanctions. It exhibits 
 the Deity as supporting the claims of that law 
 by the weight of his authority, the terrors of his 
 power, the promises of his favour, and the influ- 
 ence of his example. It brings into beautiful 
 combination his strict unbending rectitude in 
 his public capacity as a Sovereign, engaged by 
 his own character to maintain the law of the 
 universe; and his tenderness and compassion in 
 his private capacity, as the Father of his rational 
 and moral family. It includes in it an exposure 
 of the hideous nature of sin, its polluting, de- 
 grading, destroying effects, its contagious and 
 contaminating influence. It shows how low 
 2F 
 
326 Objections answered: Christ's 
 
 even the God of heaven could stoop, to save his 
 seduced and ruined children from the horror of 
 their condition, to win them back to his bosom, 
 and to restore them to the original purity and 
 loveliness of their character. It displays the 
 wretchedness and the fatal consequences of being 
 separated for ever from the Father of mercy and 
 love ; and the blessedness—the cheerful praises, 
 the willing obedience, the never fading joy of 
 the holy and beloved members of his family.— 
 And it lays open all the wisdom, the mingled 
 tenderness, and severity of his dealings with his 
 people, to reclaim them from their sins, to purify 
 their hearts, to lead them in the narrow path of 
 righteousness, to prevent them from wandering 
 out of the way, to restore them when they 
 may have been led astray, to stimulate and en- 
 courage them till he has brought them in safety 
 to the abodes of peace and security which he has 
 prepared for them. The mediatorial kingdom of 
 the Redeemer thus furnishes manifestations of 
 the Deity of a peculiar character, which can be 
 found in no other department of his universal 
 dominion. It is a temple reared to the honour 
 of the Most High God, constructed of the most 
 precious materials; and, enlightened with the 
 glory of the Lord and of the Lamb, it will form 
 a very Shechinah of glory, the radiance of which 
 will penetrate to the remotest regions of the uni- 
 verse. And towards that sacred spot will all 
 the holy creatures of God turn to contemplate 
 there the Divine perfections. Angels desire to 
 look into those operations which are connected 
 with the constructing of it. And there the re- 
 deemed people of the Lord, raised by his grace 
 to be ‘a chosen generation, a royal Priesthood, 
 a holy nation, a peculiar people,’ will ¢ serve 
 the Lord day and night in his temple, as ‘ kings 
 
 ee ee 3 
 
 Se llr 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. BP 
 
 and priests unto God, and thus will they be 
 seated with Jesus on his throne even as he is 
 seated with the Father on his throne.* O the 
 breadth and length, and depth and height of the 
 love of Christ which passeth knowledge !— 
 Surely eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor heart 
 conceived the things which God hath prepared 
 for them that love him, which he has revealed 
 to us as through a glass darkly, and given us 
 to know in part by his holy Spirit. 
 
 Lrt us now consider those passages of Scrip- 
 ture which speak of the Saviour as inferior to 
 God, in connexion with these views of the me- 
 diatorial kingdom, and of the Saviour as Media- 
 tor. One of these, on which our author com- 
 ments, we have in 1 Cor. xv. 24—28. “ Then 
 cometh the end, when he shall have delivered 
 up the kingdom to God even the Father ; when 
 he shall have put down all rule, and all autho- 
 rity and power. For he must reign till he hath 
 
 ut all enemies under his feet. The last enemy 
 that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put 
 all things under his feet. But when he saith, 
 all things are put under him, it is manifest that 
 he is excepted which did put all things under 
 him. And whenall 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.” Our author’s comment 
 runs thus. 
 
 _ « Can the subordination and subjection of Christ, 
 in his highest state of future glorified existence, be 
 expressed in terms more strong and distinct? It 
 would almost seem that the apostle had some in- 
 spired anticipation of the attempts that would be 
 
 *)} Peter iad. ' Reviwial Sen i. 6a oul 21, 
 
328 Oljections answered: Christ’s 
 
 made, ina future corrupt state of the church, te 
 identify the Son with the Father; and that he had 
 taken particular pains to express the supreme domi- 
 nion of God alone, in such a manner as to prevent 
 the possibility of their succeeding for a moment.— 
 ‘© The head of the woman is the man, and the head 
 of Christ is God.”—1 Cor. xi. 3.”* | 
 
 The only explanation which this requires, 
 after the explanations that have already been 
 given is, that by God we are to understand, 
 not the Father, as distinguished from the Word 
 and the Spirit, but the eternal incomprehensible 
 God, as the Sovereign and Father of the uni- 
 verse, as distinguished from the Son as Mediator, 
 and Sovereign of his mediatorial kingdom. The 
 words in verse 24th—*‘* When he shall have de- 
 livered up the kingdom to God even the Father,” 
 would be rendered more agreeably to the ori- 
 ginal thus—‘* When he shall have delivered up 
 the kingdom to him who is God and Father.”— 
 Now what is to be inferred from this passage, 
 after all that our author so confidently advances, 
 but that, when the mediatorial kingdom is com- 
 pleted, and the purposes of it fulfilled, it shall 
 be delivered up to the Sovereign of the universe, 
 and shall, as it were, merge into the general go- 
 vernment of the universe, that God—the one in- 
 visible eternal God, may be all in all, and his 
 universal empire all in all. Then there shall be 
 no particular kingdom committed into the hands 
 of the Son, and administered wholly by him.— 
 As the temporary theocracy of the Israelites, 
 having fulfilled its object, merged, at the coming 
 of the Lord Jesus, into the general government 
 of the world, the Gospel being then offered on a 
 footing of perfect equality to all: so the media- 
 
 % 
 
 * Page 29, or Ed. 2d, page 39. 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. 329 
 
 torial kingdom of the Redeemer, when all ad-. 
 verse rule and authority are put down, the mo- 
 mentary stain of sin is purged from the face of 
 the universe, and the purposes of that dispensa- 
 tion are thus completed, shall merge into the 
 universal kingdom ;—the redeemed people of God 
 shall require no other law than the common law, 
 if I may so speak, of the empire, and no other 
 Sovereign than the invisible God. ‘ At that 
 day,” says Jesus, (probably referring to the 
 close of his mediatorial work,) ‘‘I do not say 
 that I will pray to the Father for you, for the 
 Father himself loveth you, because ye have 
 loved me, and have believed that [came out from 
 God.”* | 
 
 Yet it would appear that Jesus will still con- 
 tinue to dwell in his human nature among his 
 redeemed people. His soul is by its nature 1m- 
 mortal, his body has become so since his resur- 
 rection, and still united to Ged, he will be the 
 manifestation of God to his people, feeding them 
 as his flock, and leading them to living foun- 
 tains of waters. But he shall no longer control 
 and govern all things so as to render them sub- 
 servient to the building of his church; and he 
 will dwell among his saints, as he did among his 
 apostles, rather to fill them with delight by his 
 presence, and to lead them by his example, than 
 to rule over them as their king. And in that 
 condescending station, as the man Christ Jesus, 
 he shall be subject to the Sovereign of all, his 
 whole conduct regulated by the same law with 
 that of his people; and he and they, as one living 
 temple, subservient to the well-being of the uni- 
 versal dominion of the Father of all. This is a 
 sense of the passage in perfect harmony with 
 
 * John xvi. 26, 27. 
 2EF3 
 
330 Objections answered : Christ’s 
 
 the Divine nature of the Redeemer ; and every 
 expression in it, according to this sense, derives 
 light and glory from that doctrine. 
 
 But, according to the Unitarjan doctrine that 
 the Son is a mere creature, perhaps a mere 
 man, this passage manifestly implies that there 
 is one. creature in the universe, who now 
 reigns as a Sovereign, and who is not sub- 
 ject to God. For it says, ‘when all things 
 shall be subdued unto him,’ and ‘ when he 
 shall have delivered up the kingdom to God 
 even the Father, then shall the Son also be sub- 
 ject to him who put all things under him.’ It 
 thus looks forward to a future day when the Son 
 is to be suljected (for so the word literally is) to 
 God, implying that now he is not subjected to 
 him. This is intelligible, and appears conform- 
 able to other declarations of Scripture where we 
 are informed that he is God united to human 
 nature, and in that capacity, vested with abso- 
 lute authority within the bounds of his own 
 kingdom—that the Father judgeth no man, but 
 hath committed all judgment to him; but it is 
 inconceivable on the supposition of Christ’s being 
 a mere creature. Nor can the passage he inter- 
 preted to signify that, as the Son is now in sub- 
 jection to the Father, so when he reaches his 
 highest glory, he will still be subject to him.— 
 For he has even now reached his highest dignity. 
 Even now he is seated with the Father on his 
 throne, and is already set at the right hand of 
 God ‘in the heavenly places, far above all prin- 
 cipality, 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.’ Even 
 now all things are put under his feet.* But the 
 
 * Rev. iii, 21. Eph, i. 20—22, 
 
 —_ es 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. 331 
 
 passage refers to his resigning the kingdom, 
 when its end shall have been accomplished in 
 the subjugation and destruction of all enemies ; 
 and tells us that, when the Son has resigned his. 
 kingdom, he shall retire, as it were, to the rank > 
 of a subject, and thus be subjected to him who 
 delegated to him the administration of his king- 
 dom, that God may then be all in all. This 
 passage, therefore, cannot be explained on Uni- 
 tarian principles, without diverting it from its 
 obvious and proper meaning. ‘The text append- 
 ed to the comment on that which we have been 
 considering, namely—‘ The head of Christ is 
 God,” requires no explanation. The Christ, or 
 Messiah, derived all his dignity and glory and 
 authority from his being a manifestation of the 
 
 Deity. 
 
 Another passage of a similar description is 
 Phil. ii. 9—11. “© Wherefore,” (i. e. because he 
 humbled himself as described) ‘* God also hath 
 highly exalted him, and given him a name which 
 is above every name: that, at the name of 
 Jesus, every knee should bow, of beings in hea- 
 ven, of beings on earth, and of beings under the 
 earth; and that every tongue should confess that 
 Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the 
 Father.” Our author’s comment is— 
 
 « Again, it is stated of Christ, Phil. ii. 8, 9, that, 
 in consequence of his obedience, “ God hath highly 
 exalted him, and given him a name.” How can this 
 be predicated of the omnipotent? To whom is he 
 who rules in the armies of heaven, and among the 
 ‘nhabitants of the earth obedient? To what, or by 
 whom can the eternal one be exalted? Away with 
 the most anti-Scripturai, most unhallowed imagina- 
 tion! ‘ Thine, O Jehovah, is the greatness, and 
 the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the 
 
332 Objections answered: Christ's 
 
 majesty, for all that is in the heaven and in the 
 earth is thine. Thine is the kingdom, O Jehovah, 
 and thou art exalted as head above all.’—1 Chron. 
 xxix. 1].’’* 
 
 Pity it is that our author should have 
 wasted so much indignation on a doctrine which 
 no one entertains. Who ever imagined that 
 God—the creator and governor of the universe, 
 could be obedient to any one else, or could be 
 exalted to any higher station? ‘The passage 
 plainly refers to the mediatorial person and 
 work of Christ; and the doctrine is, that, in con- 
 sequence of the manifestation which he, by that 
 work, and the administration of his limited and 
 temporary kingdom, gives of the glory of God, 
 he should, still as the man Christ Jesus, be highly 
 exalted, even to the wonder and gratitude and 
 adoration, not merely of the subjects of his me- 
 diatorial kingdom—his own redeemed people, 
 but of the whole universe; and that, in honour- 
 ing and worshipping him, the whole universe 
 would be honouring and worshipping the Father. 
 And the fulfilment of this declaration we haye 
 represented to us in the glorious vision of Joka, 
 recorded in Rev. v. where the whole creation 
 is assembled to worship and glorify him that 
 sitteth on the throne and the Lamb that was 
 slain. 
 
 But, on Unitarian principles, how can such 
 passages as these be reconciled to the great prac- 
 tical principles and precepts of Scripture, and 
 to the uniform tenor of its doctrine? How 
 could any creature thus deserve to be placed at 
 the head of the universe—exhibited to the ad- 
 miration and worship of all the intelligent off- 
 spring of God, and all heaven made to ring with 
 
 * Page 23, Ed. 2d. 
 
 ~~ oe 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. 333 
 
 his praise, because he had humbled himself to 
 become a servant, and to be made in the like- 
 ness of men, subjecting himself to the contin- 
 gencies of human nature, and submitting even 
 to death? How can such glory be given to a 
 mere creature, without teaching the universe 
 idolatry? How could such a dispensation as 
 the Gospel be thus made subservient to the ele- 
 vation of a creature to so giddy a height, with~ 
 out encroaching on the prerogative of the Deity, 
 and contradicting the testimony of God respect~ 
 ing himself that he is a jealous God, and will 
 not give his glory to another? If Jesus were a 
 mere man, wherein lay the distinction between 
 his voluntary humiliation and sufferings, and the 
 voluntary humiliation and sufferings of Paul; 
 that Jesus should, on account of his humiliation, 
 be exhibited as an object of faith and love and 
 obedience to the church in all ages, and of ad- 
 miration and worship to the whole universe ; 
 while no elevation over other men, no glory, no 
 love, no admiration or worship should be al- 
 lotted to Paul, as the reward of his disinterest- 
 edness ? 
 
 The other passages to which our author re- 
 fers in his general objections to the Divinity of 
 the Redeemer are these. 
 
 John vi. 57—* I live by the Father.” In 
 these words, ‘ he denies,” says our author, ‘ in- 
 dependent and underived existence.” To which 
 he adds a reference to John v. 26—“ For as 
 the Father hath life in himself; so hath he 
 given to the Son to have life in himself.”— 
 In these passages the Son denies an existence 
 unconnected with the Father—an _ existence 
 which does not flow from the Father. This 
 
334 Objections answered: Christ's 
 
 might be true even with regard to his Divine 
 nature; but it is manifest that he refers to his 
 mediatorial person, which he derived from the 
 power and wisdom of the Sovereign Lord of all. 
 He came forth from the Father, and came into 
 the world, as the Shechinah did, to be a mani- 
 festation of God to the world; and he has life 
 in himself, as a source of life to others, even as 
 the Father hath life in himself. 
 
 John v. 19, * Verily verily I say unto you, the- 
 Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth 
 the Father do.” ‘ He denies,” says our author, 
 quoting these words, ‘that he is inherently and 
 underivably possessed of any power whatsoever ; 
 and he does this with a solemn repeated assevera- 
 tion.” He adds a reference to verse 30-—‘ I 
 can of mine own self do nothing.” He ought 
 in justice to have added from verse 19—‘* What 
 things soever he” (the Father) “ doeth, these 
 also doeth the Son likewise.” And also from 
 verse 21—“ For as the Father raiseth up the 
 dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son 
 quickeneth whom he will.” These latter pas- 
 sages would have provided an antidote to the 
 poison of the inferences drawn from the former 
 passages. The words still refer to Christ’s me- 
 diatorial person and character. As Mediator he 
 acts, as we have seen, in a subordinate capacity 
 to the supreme God and his universal govern- 
 ment, and does nothing independently of God; 
 while yet, in his mediatorial kingdom, he exer- 
 cises the power and authority of God. 
 
 Mark xiii, 832—“ But of that day and that 
 hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which 
 are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” 
 This is the only passage of Scripture in which 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. . 335 
 
 I now find any difficulty. Our author of course 
 presses it with all his eloquence, and recurs to it 
 again and again. ‘* He,” (i. e. Jesus) “ af- 
 firms,” says he, (page 13,*) ‘that he is not om- 
 niscient,” quoting this passage. Again, he says, 
 (page 42*)—* Our Lord himself declared, as we 
 have already seen, that he knew not when the 
 day of judgment would arrive; and this single 
 declaration furnishes an unanswerable argument, 
 which every suckling in the knowledge of Di- 
 vine truth may wield to the utter confusion of 
 all the sophistry that would invest the Saviour 
 with omniscience.” Again, in page 16,* he says, 
 alluding to explanations of this passage given 
 by Trinitarians, ‘“‘ What he” (Jesus) “ was ig- 
 norant of as man, he knew as God. Or agree- 
 ably to a more novel hypothesis, he acted in a 
 double capacity, a private and a public; and 
 knew and could perform many things in the one, 
 which in the other he had to declare were be- 
 yond his knowledge and power! Wherefore do 
 Protestants who hold such inventions blame the 
 Jesuits?” In his first edition, the importance 
 of this text swells so much on his imagina- 
 tion, that he declares boldly, that he would deem 
 it more worthy of credit, as being a declaration 
 of Jesus himself, than any declaration of Jere- 
 miah or of John, even though they had expli- 
 eitly affirmed what he denies.+ This daring in- 
 sinuation however, he has, as we have already 
 _ observed, suppressed in his second edition. 
 
 I have acknowledged that this passage in- 
 volves in it peculiar dificulty. Grant to me, 
 however, that latitude of interpretation which 
 our author exercises, and all difficulty would 
 vanish in a moment. I should then have a 
 
 * Second edition. + Page 30. 
 
336 Oljections answered: Christ's 
 
 choice of interpretations. I might in the first 
 place bring forward a similar expression used by 
 the God of Israel. Hosea viii. 4—‘“ They have 
 set up kings, but not by me; they have made 
 princes, and I knew it not.” Before the author 
 speak so exultingly about Jesuits, &c. let him 
 give an explanation of this passage. I appre- 
 hend he will find himself under the necessity of 
 adopting that very principle which he treats 
 with so much contempt; namely, that, although 
 God knew well that the Israelites had set up 
 princes, yet he did not know it officially, he was 
 not informed of or made acquainted with it, and 
 therefore speaks of himself as ignorant of it.— 
 Were I to adopt the principles of Unitarian cri- 
 ticism, I should press this passage as a full and 
 satisfactory solution of the difhiculty, which 
 does not leave a ‘shred of argument’ to the 
 objection. But in the second place I might 
 propose a different translation, and, for 
 knoweth, read maketh known; and for this I 
 might plead Hebrew idiom, and the example 
 of Paul, who said, I knew nothing among you 
 but Jesus Christ and him crucified: meaning 
 that he made known to them nothing else.— 
 Or I might plead for its being understood as 
 intimating that Jesus had nothing to do with the 
 time appointed for the judging of the world— 
 that it did not fall within the province of his 
 ‘mediatorial government to determine that day. 
 fn this sense he declares he will say to those 
 who would address him as Lord, but who do not 
 keep his commandments—*“ I know you not, I 
 never knew you,” that is, I have nothing to do 
 with you, and never had. Or in the third place, 
 I might dispute the reading, and for this plead 
 the testimony of St. Ambrose, who lived prior to 
 the age of any manuscripts now extant, and 
 
Mediaiorial kingdom. 337 
 
 who asserts that the words neither the Son did 
 not occur in the copies of Mark with which he 
 was acquainted; and adds, that these words 
 were foisted into some copies by the Arians; 
 and I might further plead that, in a fragment of 
 Mark, edited by Dobrowski at Prague, these 
 words do not occur ; all of which circumstances, 
 I might observe, show that there is at least some 
 dislocation in the text; and this I might further 
 confirm by remarking that St. Matthew in quot- 
 ing our Lord’s language on this very occasion, 
 has not the words neither the Son. 1 might 
 therefore plead that if the words are not to be 
 rejected, a very slight alteration ‘in two little 
 words’ would bring this passage into perfect con- 
 formity with every other intimation of Scripture 
 respecting the Saviour, and propose to read 
 “¢ knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are 
 in heaven, Bur the Son and the Father.” And 
 I might remark that the sentence has a much 
 finer rotundity by this reading, and that it is more 
 in the style of Scripture to say the Son and the 
 father, than to say, not the Son but the Father.* 
 Or finally, 1 might boldly set the authority of 
 Matthew against that of Mark, and plead that, 
 as Matthew was an apostle, and a personal at- 
 tendant on our Lord, while Mark was not an 
 apostle, and is generally understood to have 
 written his Gospel on the report of St. Peter, 
 Matthew ought to be believed rather than Mark. 
 _In short, there is no one argument by which 
 our author has attempted to divert any passage 
 of Scripture from its obvious and proper mean- 
 ing, which might not be employed in explaining 
 away this very text on which he builds so much. 
 
 * See our author’s criticism on Rom. ix. 5. page 27, Ed. 2d. 
 2G 
 
338 Objections answered : Christ's 
 
 But God forbid that I should handle the word 
 of God thus presumptuously. The passage 
 stands in all manuscripts now extant, it is ren- 
 dered in our version according to the ordinary 
 use of the language, Mark was directed by the 
 Spirit of God as well as Matthew, and the 
 two Evangelists do not contradict one another, 
 and therefore we must receive the text as it 
 stands. 
 
 Shall I then, following again the example of 
 Unitarian critics, on the authority of this one 
 passage, as it were, read backward the whole of 
 Scripture, and endeavour to extract a sense from 
 its plainest and simplest declarations which they 
 will not yield without torture, nay, and which 
 all the ingenuity of critical torture has failed to 
 -elicit? Shall I, because Jesus said on one occa- 
 sion, ‘ of that day and hour knoweth no. man, 
 no, not the angels in heaven, neither the Son, - 
 but the Father,’ infer, contrary to the evidence 
 of my senses, that Jesus is not called God nor 
 Jehovah, that the attributes and works of God 
 are not ascribed to him, and that Divine worship 
 is not paid to him? Again I say, God forbid 
 that I should act thus presumptuously with the 
 word of the living God! | 
 
 What then? I adhere to the principle which 
 [ laid down in an early chapter of this work.— 
 I believe both sides of the apparent contradic- 
 tion, and wait for more light to enable me to re- 
 concile them. I believe that there is some sense 
 in which Jesus does not. or did not know of that 
 day and hour of which he spoke, and yet that in 
 another sense he is God and Jehovah, vested 
 with the attributes of Deity, and of course om- 
 niscient. Does any one ask me how I can re- 
 concile these apparent contradictions? I tell 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. 339 
 
 him honestly, that I have not yet seen them re« 
 conciled in a manner satisfactory to my own 
 mind. But to reject or explain away the plain 
 obvious meaning of other passages of Scripture, 
 because I know not on what principles they are 
 to be reconciled to this, and that too respecting 
 so high aud incomprehensible a subject as the 
 nature of the Deity, would seem to me to be 
 putting out my eyes because some little cloud 
 intercepts my view in one particular direction: 
 plunging into darkness in search of light; mea- 
 suring the word of God by the standard of my 
 errmg judgment; and exalting my own reason, 
 with all its imperfections, above the infallible 
 dictates of inspiration. 
 
 Suffer me for a moment to suppose that sub- 
 sequent discoveries of manuscripts not yet 
 brought to light, should prove the words neither 
 the Son to be what Ambrose asserts they are, an 
 interpolation; and how awful would prove the 
 error of having altered or modified the meaning 
 of other passages of Scripture on the sole au- 
 thority of this text. Such a supposition ought 
 obviously to have no weight whatever in induc- 
 ing us to reject, or even to suspend our judg- 
 ment respecting the authenticity of the text it- 
 self, which a prodigious preponderance of evi- 
 dence entitles to be regarded as a genuine part 
 of Seripture. But it should put us on our guard 
 against wielding this, or any other text, to cut 
 and mangle other plain intimations in the word 
 of God. Many a man has encouraged himself 
 in infidelity by expressions in some copies of 
 Scripture, which subsequent investigations have 
 proved to be of no higher importance than the 
 error of a copyist, or the mistake of a printer’s 
 
 Doy. 
 
340 Olyections answered : Christ's 
 
 Another passage is Mat. xix. 16, 1'7—*‘* And 
 behold one came and said unto him, Good Mas- 
 ter, what good thing shall I do, that I may have 
 eternal life? And he said unto him, Why 
 callest thou me good? There is none good but 
 one, that is God.” Our author, alluding to this 
 passage, says, ‘* He” (Jesus) ‘* refuses to be 
 called good, in the sense of infinitely benevolent.” 
 This is as very a straw as any drowning man 
 ever caught at. Where is there a syllable about 
 ‘infinitely benevolent ” A strange attribute to 
 ascribe to the Deity. ‘ Infinitely well wishing !’ 
 Or where is there a refusal of the epithet good 
 in any sense. So far as the mere question put 
 by our Lord is concerned, it might imply, either 
 that our Lord was good and therefore Ged ; or 
 that he was not good and therefore not God.— 
 Accordingly it has been used by some as an in- 
 stance of Christ’s insinuating that he was God. 
 And certainly there is incomparably stronger 
 reason for understanding him in this sense, than 
 in the opposite. For Jesus is called the Holy 
 one of God, the Holy one and the just, and it 
 would be very extraordinary, if after ail that is 
 said of his goodness, he should decline such an 
 address as “ Good Master.” Surely it is much 
 more in accordance with every thing that we 
 learn of the holiness of Jésus to suppose him to 
 say, ‘* Why callest thon me good? Do you 
 know that I am good, although there is none 
 good but God;” than to suppose him to say, 
 “* Why callest thou me good? I am not good, 
 and do not deserve to be called Good Master.” 
 The probability however is, that there has been 
 a slight variation of the reading, as a prepon- 
 derance of authorities gives the passage instead 
 of, “ Why callest thou. me good?” Why 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. 341 
 
 speakest thou to me concerning good?” This 
 is another example of our author’s making evi- ~ 
 dence bend to his opinions; for he could not but 
 know that Griesbach has decided in favour of 
 the alteration from the eommon reading. 
 
 Our author goes on to observe, adducing pas- 
 sages of Scripture in proof of the truth of his 
 observations, which it is unnecessary to tran- 
 scribe, as we do not dispute them, that Jesus 
 aseribes his mission and works to his Father, 
 and that he acknowledges that his power to exe- 
 cute judgment is bestowed on him by his Father. ° 
 Jesus does not merely acknowledge, but states 
 and asserts this, as an essential part of his doe- 
 trine. Does any one find difficulty in conceiv- 
 ing that Jesus should be called the servant of 
 the Lord, sent forth by him; while yet he him- 
 self is God in his own nature. Let such a one 
 remember that the Shechinah, or glorious sym- 
 bol of the Divine presence, which appeared to 
 Moses in the bush, is called an angel of the 
 Lord,* sent forth from God, as Jesus came out 
 from the Father, to manifest him to the world, 
 and that too at the very moment when a voice 
 came from it saying, “I am the God of thy 
 Father, the God of Abraham, and the God of 
 Isaae, and the God of Jacob. Iam ruatr I au— 
 Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel I 
 AM hath sent me unto you.”+ Surely then he 
 need not wonder that Jesus should be called a 
 servant or messenger of the Lord, sent forth 
 from his presence, while yet he is God over all 
 blessed for ever. Further, our author observes, 
 that Jesus affirms, that his doctrine did not ori- 
 ginate with himself, that he did not come of him- 
 self, that he came not to do his own will, or to 
 
 * Acts vii. 30. + Exod. iii. 4, 6, 14, 
 26383 | 
 
342 Olyections answered : Christ’ s 
 
 seek his own glory. All of which amounts to 
 this, that his whole doctrine respecting God and 
 himself and mankind, originated in the counsels 
 of God, and was sanctioned or confirmed by 
 God whom he manifested; that his will was not 
 his own merely, but also the will of the Father, 
 and that the whole end and purpose of all his Me- 
 diatorial work was the advancement of the glory 
 of Jehovah. Further, “ Jesus,” says he, * is 
 not himself the ultimate end and object of our 
 faith.” Our faith in Christ is faith in God, be- 
 - cause it is faith in the invisible God, from whom 
 he came forth, and whom he represented. We 
 look not to the man Christ Jesus; but to God 
 as manifested in the man Christ Jesus; for it is 
 in Christ that Ged is reconciling the world to 
 himself, not imputing to men their trespasses. . 
 
 There are yet two passages of Seripture which 
 deserve separate attention. One is John xiv. 
 28—** if ye loved me ye, would rejoice, because 
 I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is 
 greater than I.” In another passage, an apostle 
 says that Jesus thought it uot robbery to be 
 equal with God; in this Jesus says, my Father 
 is greater than I. Now how are these ap- 
 parent contradicticnus to be reconeiled ? Shall we 
 pronounce either of the passages uuworthy of 
 credit? Shall we deliberately attempt, by con- 
 strained and unnatural criticism, to force a 
 meaning en either of them which it will not 
 bear. ‘This is the method adopted by Unitarians. 
 They would make one of the passages give way 
 to the other; and of course permit that to retain 
 its authority and its proper meaning which best 
 suited their own views. But we cannot take 
 such liberties with the word of God. We must 
 rather believe both sides of the apparent contra- 
 
Medatorial kingdom. 343 
 
 diction, and reconcile them afterwards as we 
 best can; or confess our inability to reconcile 
 them. We must believe that there is a sense in 
 which Jesus is equal with God, because the Serip- 
 ture says so; and a sense also in which his Fa- 
 ther is greater than he, for the same reason— 
 the Scripture says so. But these statements do 
 not in fact present any insuperable difficulty.— 
 On the one hand Jesus is equal with the Father, 
 in his original nature, as the Word who was 
 with God, and who was God: and he was equal 
 with God in the honour and worship that are 
 paid to him. And, on the other hand, the Word 
 became inferior to the Father, when he was made 
 flesh, and took on him the form of a servant.— 
 As Mediator his person originated in time, and 
 was formed by the power of God; and his king- 
 dom and his office were subordinate to the king- 
 dom of the Sovereign Lord of all creation. In 
 this view, our Blessed Lord, even if we suppose 
 him to refer to his highest glory as Mediator, 
 and not to his lowly condition of suffering hu- 
 manity, was inferior to the Father. 
 
 But let us look at this extraordinary declara- 
 tion a little more narrowly. Jesus, apparently 
 2 poor man, who had wrought miracles indeed, 
 but who, according to our author’s hypothesis, 
 had never pretended to any higher station than 
 that of a prophet; and who was never once 
 suspected of. possessing any higher character, 
 declares to his disciples, with the utmost solem- 
 nity, on the eve of his death, and for the pur- 
 pose of consoling them in the view of that event, 
 that his Father—the great God of heaven and 
 earth, who rules among the inhabitants of this 
 world, and in the most remote regions of the 
 universe, is greater than he. What would rea- 
 
344 Olyections answered : Christ's 
 
 son and common sense infer from such a de- 
 claration from any poor and humble man, any 
 mere man, ‘J am not so great as Almighty 
 God,” but that he must be insane? But sucha 
 declaration from Jesus, when his glory was just 
 about to open upon his disciples by his resurrec- 
 tion from the dead, was manifestly intended to 
 convey to their minds some infinitely more_ ex- 
 alted idea than his outward condition indicated, 
 of his nature and his rank. I confess that it 
 appears to me, that such an extraordinary de- 
 claration, made in such circumstances, bears all 
 the appearance of having been made for the very 
 purpose of leading the disciples to bring him into 
 comparison with the God of their fathers—that 
 Jesus availed bimself of the inferiority of his 
 mediatorial person and character to the supreme 
 God, to compare himself with God in a manner 
 that was least likely to shock them, and thus to 
 prepare them for the reception of the truth 
 which was about to be unfolded —namely, that, 
 although he was in one sense inferior to the Fa- 
 ther, and in subjection to him, yet that, in ano- 
 ther sense, he was indeed God manifest in the 
 fiesh. . 
 
 The remaining passage of Scripture to which 
 I alluded as demanding attention, is John x. 
 33—36, “ The Jews answered him, saying, For 
 a good work we stone thee not; but for blas- 
 phemy; and because that thou, being a man, 
 makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, 
 Is it not written in your law, I said ye are 
 gods? If he called them gods unto whom the 
 word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be 
 broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath 
 sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blas- 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. 345 
 
 phemest; because [ said, I am the Son of God.” 
 This passage, I confess, was at one time, to me 
 the most difficult in the whole Scripture, and 
 held out the strongest temptation to doubt the 
 Divine nature of the Redeemer. Jesus was 
 charged with making or representing himself as 
 God: and he repelled the charge by showing 
 that, in the Old Testament Scripture, the word 
 God, or rather gods, was employed in an in- 
 ferior sense, to designate magistrates or rulers 
 —persons to whom the word of God was sent. 
 Now it appeared to me that this explanation, 
 given by our Lord, would have been uneandid, 
 if he, at the same time, claimed the title God in 
 a superior sense; and as I could not imagine the 
 Saviour to incur any such charge as want-of 
 candour, 1 might, but for the mercy of God, 
 have been tempted, on the authority of this pas- 
 sage, to embark in the ruinous enterprise of en- 
 deavouring to lower and explain away the mul- 
 titude of passages in which Jesus is held forth 
 as God manifest in the flesh. I thank God that 
 he prevented me from listening to the pride of 
 my own understanding; for I have since ob- 
 tained such views of this text, and of the rest of 
 Seripture, as have removed all difficulty from 
 my own mind on the subject. Even if this text 
 should be regarded as modifying the application 
 of the title God to the Saviour, it determines 
 nothing positive respecting him, but merely de- 
 prives us of one argument in support of his Di- 
 vinity. It could not modify the application of 
 the proper name Jehovah to him, nor the aserip- 
 tion to him of the attributes, works, and wor- 
 ship of the Deity. But this text dees not mo- 
 dify the application of the titie God, or the Son 
 of God, to the Lord Jesus. My error was in 
 viewing the text as an explanation, whereas it 
 
846 Olyections answered: Christ's 
 
 was a mere legal defence, used, with perfect 
 fairness by our Lord, to arrest the Jews in their 
 purpose of stoning him. Our Lord at this time 
 treated the Jews, as he was accustomed to treat 
 those who came to him ina cavilling, perverse 
 spirit. He did not give them explanations, but 
 he confounded and silenced them. It was thus 
 that he treated the Pharisees, when they ac- 
 cused him of’ casting out devils, by Beelzebub, 
 the prince of the devils. By whom, said he, do 
 
 our children cast them out,—they shall be your 
 judges. It was thus that he treated those who 
 asked him, for the purpose of ensnaring him, by 
 what authority he acted. He asked them, in 
 reply, whether the authority of John the Bap- 
 tist was of heaven or of men, knowing that they 
 could not answer him, and thus placed them in 
 the very dilemma in which they intended to 
 place him. It was thus that he treated those 
 who attempted to entrap him by insidious ques- 
 tions. He asked them of the Messiah, whose 
 son he was, and, if the Son of David, how David 
 could call him Lord; and left them in the per- 
 plexity in which that question involved them.— 
 So when the Jews were making a malignant use 
 of his calling himself the Son of God, to stone 
 him for blasphemy, as he had made himself God; 
 he cites a passage from the book of Psalms as 
 his defence. He shows them an instanee, in 
 which those to whom the word of God came are 
 called Gods, and infers therefore that they had 
 no right to charge him with blasphemy, even if 
 he had called himself a god in that inferior 
 sense, and much less when he said only, ‘Iam 
 the Son of God.’ His answer was manifestly 
 an argument ad hominem; which, like every 
 such argument, was intended rather to silence 
 than inform: and it is not to be understood as, 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. B47 
 
 in any degree, limiting or modifying the sense 
 in which he was entitled to the appellation God. 
 After using such an argument he might, without 
 any disingenuity, have explained in private to 
 his disciples,—that although he had used this 
 passage of the Old Testament as a legal defence 
 against persecutors, who would only have been 
 the more enraged, if he had told them the whole 
 truth; yet that he was entitled to the appella- 
 tien God, in a much higher sense than that in 
 which it was applied to judges and rulers to 
 whom the word of God came. Whether he gave 
 any such explanation we are not informed ;— 
 probably he did not, as the time was not yet 
 come for disclosing the glories of his nature and 
 character, even to his disciples. He had then 
 many things to say which even they could not 
 yet bear, and which he left to be revealed by his 
 Spirit. And if it be true that his apostles, after 
 his resurrection from the dead, spoke as they 
 were moved by the Holy Ghost, the true and 
 proper Deity of the Redeemer was one of these 
 things which the Holy Spirit had it in charge to 
 disclose; for, as we have seen, it is fully and 
 unequivocally declared by them. 
 
 Some persons have found greater difficulty in 
 our Lord’s praying to God, as connected with 
 his being God in his own nature, than in any 
 particular text of Scripture. It has appeared to 
 them that Christ’s praying, under such circum- 
 stances, were as though he was praying to him- 
 self. 
 
 But it is manifest that his praying to the Fa- 
 ther—the invisible God, necessarily resulted 
 from his having taken upon him the nature of a 
 creature. In that nature he was a creature—a 
 
348 Objections answered: Christ's 
 
 man; and it is not to be imagined that he would 
 have set the pernicious example of a man living 
 without prayer, without devotion—an atheist. If 
 therefore it was expedient that he should be 
 made in the likeness of men, it became neces- 
 sary that he should pray. He was, as a man, 
 under the Jaw in all respects, it became him to 
 fulfil all righteousness, and that he could not 
 have done without prayer. | 
 
 Again, it was by prayer that Jesus evinced 
 his connexion with heaven. It was by prayer 
 that he connected his acts, while he was in the 
 world, with the general government of the great 
 Creator. When he conducted the government 
 of the Israelites under the form of the Shechi- 
 nah, he connected that limited Theocracy with 
 the universal empire of the invisible God, by 
 causing his heralds the prophets, to declare that 
 he, the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, 
 was the God who filled heaven and earth with 
 his presence, who created the orbs on high, and 
 brought out their host by number. But when 
 he appeared as a subject, a man under the law, 
 he manifested, by prayer, his connexion with 
 the invisible Deity, whom he represented. It 
 was thus that he showed that in all that he did, 
 he acted in concert with the God of heaven—by 
 his will, and for his glory. But he, in one sig- 
 nal instance, intimated, what no creature could 
 do without, the utmost arrogance, that he prayed, 
 not because he needed to do so, but because of 
 the people that stood by, that they might believe 
 that God had sent him.* 
 
 Yet again, Jesus came into the world, partly 
 to set an example of perfect holiness to mankind, 
 
 * John xi. 42. 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. 349 
 
 in human nature, and accommodated to the con- 
 dition of men. He was at once a manifestation 
 of the character of God, in a form level to their 
 comprehension, and a pattern of moral excel. 
 lency as a man. He combined in his own per 
 son all those beauties of character, that belong to 
 the great Creator and Governor of the universe, 
 with those peculiar beauties of character that 
 helong to the holiest and loveliest of the creatures, 
 
 He displayed all the majesty, the authority, the 
 retiring dignity that was becoming the Deity. 
 Even when he was in the world, living as a poor 
 man in the midst of his disciples, there was a 
 certain elevation of deportment, an air of com- 
 mand, a certain degree of reserve, that effec- 
 tually repressed any undue familiarity, even in 
 those who enjoyed the nearest and tenderest 
 access to him. We can plainly see that his dis- 
 ciples were, to a certain degree, awed by. him ; 
 and that, especially when they were conscious of 
 any thing weak or improper in their feelings or 
 conduct, they were afraid to put questions to 
 him. Poor and lowly as he was, he lived among 
 them as a monarch in a state of retirement would 
 live among a few of his subjects ;—or rather he 
 appears as a loved, but revered father among his 
 children. Even his benefits were dispensed with 
 the freedom and munificence of one who had all 
 things at his sovereign disposal. 
 
 But while the character of Jesus possessed all 
 ‘the moral beauties that belong to the supreme 
 ruler of all ; it glowed also with the lowler graces 
 that become the creature—all the humility, the 
 devotion, the resignation to the will of God, the 
 dependence on his favour for comfort, the sub- 
 mission to his law, the zeal for his glory, that 
 form the beauty and perfection of 
 
 2H 
 
 the character 
 
350 Objections answered: Christ’s 
 
 of a holy creature. Some have confined their 
 attention so exclusively to our Lord’s example, 
 as to imagine that it was chiefly for the purpose 
 of setting forth such an example that his life is 
 recorded. ‘The Rev. Dr. Bruce carries this se 
 far as to assert, that Jesus passed through every 
 stage of human life ; hecause, without this, ‘he 
 could not exhibit a complete and perfect example 
 to men, in every period of their being; nor ac- 
 commodate his instructions to every circum- 
 stance and condition.’ It is thus that men draw 
 pictures of what is in the Bible from their own 
 imaginations, instead of locking at their exemplar. 
 Our Lord set no example of old age, nor is there 
 any recorded example of childhood, and very little 
 of youth. He furnishes no example as a hus- 
 band, or as a father, or as a servant, or asa 
 person engaged in the ordinary and generally 
 necessary avocations of men. He set before us 
 the example of a holy creature indeed ; but it 
 was a creature, I may almost say, in the abstract, 
 apart from the specialties and individualities of 
 human life. To have presented himself to the 
 world in these specific relations might have added 
 precision to his example as a creature; but it 
 would have been destructive ef the still higher 
 object of his life, the manifestation of the cha- 
 racter of Jehovah. Yet it was a beautiful model 
 of the moral perfection of a creature. And thus, 
 by a wonderful exertion of Divine skill, there is 
 made to concentrate upon the Lord Jesus every 
 conceivable moral excellency. He at onee ex- 
 hibits, in a form suited to our understanding, 
 the character of the Deity ; and holds up before 
 us a perfect example of that spirit and de- 
 meanour which are becoming in us, as his crea- 
 tures and subjects. Now, with this end in view, 
 
Mediatorial kingdom. 35] 
 
 an example of prayer was absolutely necessary 
 to his character ;—for a creature without prayer, 
 would have been, not merely an imperfect, but a 
 deformed and distorted model. 
 
CHAP. XITTf. 
 
 ON THE DEITY AND PERSONALITY OF THE 
 HOLY GHOST. 
 
 — 
 
 Our attention has hitherto been directed ex- 
 clusively to the person and dignity of the Lord 
 Jesus, whom we have viewed as a manifesta- 
 tion of the God of the universe—the God of 
 Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in human nature, 
 without attending to any distinetion of persons 
 in the Godhead. To understand what the Serip- 
 ture teaches on that subject, it is necessary, as 
 our next step, to attend to what it reveals respect- 
 ing the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Our author, as we have already observed, in 
 his Unitarian creed, observes prefound silence 
 respecting the Holy Spirit. And when we con- 
 sider how much the Seripture speaks of the 
 Spirit of God—the Holy Spirit, and how much 
 the author seems to dissent from the opinions of 
 some other Unitarians on that subject, we are 
 wgain warranted in asserting, that the apparent 
 simplicity of his system arises wholly from his 
 omitting a large portion of revealed truth; that 
 it is, therefore, as defective as a system of astro- 
 nomy, or any other branch of physics, which 
 should take no account of a large proportion of 
 the phenomena which it professed to systematize; 
 and that, although he gives it as the system of 
 Unitarians, it is one on which perhaps net ane- 
 ther Unitarian jn the world would adopt as his 
 
On the Deity and personality &c. 353 
 
 own. It is scarcely to be conceived that there 
 are many who, in an abstract of their view of 
 Seripture doctrine, would consent to omit all 
 mention of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 There is a singular discrepancy between our 
 author’s opinion on this subject, and that of the 
 Rev. Dr. Bruce. Our author infers that the 
 Holy Ghost was superier to the Saviour, because 
 any sins against the Saviour might be forgiven, 
 whereas the sin against the Holy Ghost was 
 never to be forgiven.* Dr. Bruce, on the other 
 hand, infers that the Holy Ghost is inferior to 
 the Saviour, because the Saviour said he would 
 send him, and because he who is sent, he con- 
 ceives, must be inferior to him who sends him. 
 We might reasonably expect that these two Uni- 
 tarians, (if Dr. Bruce will accept of. that desig- 
 nation,) would.determine this important point 
 between themselves, before either of them should 
 venture to give to the world the creed of Uni- 
 tarians. 
 
 It is obvious, on a moment’s inspection, that 
 neither of these inferences have in them a shadow 
 of validity. With regard to our author’s, it 
 would prove that the Holy Spirit is superior to 
 God ; because Jesus says, * all manner of sin and 
 blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the 
 blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be 
 forgiven unto men.”+ Now, against whom is 
 sin and blasphemy committed, but against God ? 
 _ Therefore it is a less heinous sin to blaspheme 
 God than to blaspheme the Holy Spirit; and- 
 therefore the Holy Spirit is superior to God.— 
 Our author is prepared, we must suppose, to 
 
 * Page 14, Ed, 2d, Jesus, he says, ‘“‘ makes it a less heinous 
 offence to speak against himself than against the Holy Spirit, 
 which is a clear acknowledgment of his inferiority.” ; 
 
 + Mat. xii. 31, 
 
 a Hy o 
 
354 On the Deity and personality 
 
 carry out his principle, and to infer, that, be- 
 vause they who reject the Gospel of Jesus are 
 declared to be worthy cf much sorer pu- 
 nishment than those who violated the law that 
 came forth directly from Ged in the wilderness, 
 Jesus is greater than God: and that, because it 
 is said that it shall be more tolerable for the in- 
 habitants of Sodom and Gomorrah than for those 
 who rejected our Saviour’s ministry, Jesus was 
 greater than that God against whom the inha- 
 bitants of Sodom and Gomorrah sinned, and 
 who executed his vengeance upon them. Per- 
 haps he will say, that those who rejected the 
 Saviour enjoyed greater advantages than either 
 the ancient Israelites or the inhabitants of Sodom 
 and Gomorrah, and therefore deserve heavier 
 punishment. In this he would be orthodox; 
 and this is precisely the reason why those who 
 blaspheme the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven, 
 while those who blaspheme the Father or the 
 Son may—they enjoy greater advantages, they 
 sin against clearer light; they not only reject a 
 written law and proclamation of mercy addressed 
 to the outward eye and ear; but they despise a 
 practical evidence of the power of God, actually 
 manifested in the conversion of sinners, and 
 perhaps even an inward experience of the work 
 of God in striving with their corruptions and 
 drawing them to the Saviour. They thus reject 
 the /ast evidence that can be granted, thedast means 
 that are provided for their recovery, and there- 
 fore they must perish. It is only a superiority, 
 or greater maturity of operation that is to be in- 
 ferred from the difference that is made between 
 the sin against the Holy Ghost and any sin 
 against the Son of God, and not a superiority of 
 nature or authority. 
 
 With regard to Dr. Bruce’s inference, it is 
 
of the Holy Ghosé. 355 
 ejually invalid. It does not necessarily follow, 
 that one sent is inferior to him who sends him. 
 An inferior may sometimes send a superior. A ser- 
 vant undertakes a business which he cannot ac- 
 complish, and he sends his master to complete it. 
 in a government composed of ministers who are 
 on a footing of perfect equality, it argues no in- 
 feriority that any one is sent to attend to what 
 falls within his own department. The minister 
 for foreign affairs finds something of a domestic 
 nature that requires attention, and, without ar- 
 rogating any superiority, he sends the home mi- 
 nister to attend to it. Let no one imagine that 
 I here intend to compare the Godhead to such a 
 government. If any one do so, he will misun- 
 derstand me: all that I intend is to show the fal- 
 lacy of the principle, that he who sends any one 
 must necessarily be the superior of the person 
 whom he sends. Jesus having accomplished his 
 part in the great work of saving sinners, return- 
 ed to his Father, and having precured the gift of 
 
 the Tloly Ghost to be hestowed on mankind, he,, fhthas, 
 sends him forth to complete his part of the same of howe. 
 
 great beneficent operation. 
 
 Dr. Bruce’s opinion respecting the Holy Ghost 
 is, at least for the present day, somewhat extra- 
 ordinary. He imagines that the expression 
 Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is to be taken in two 
 different acceptations ;—the one as a name of the 
 supreme God, the Father of all, or some energy 
 or mode of his operation ; the other as the name 
 of acreature, inferior to the Lord J esus; and 
 who was promised and sent forth by him after 
 his ascension, particularly on the day of Pente- 
 cost. A summary of his views, in his own lan- 
 guage, is as follows. 
 
 “ It must be confessed, that the usual meaning of 
 the Holy Ghost or Spirit, and of the Spirit of the 
 
 ie 
 
h 
 
 356 On the Deity and personality 
 
 Lord, and other synonymous appellations, both in 
 the Old and New Testaments, is, the Divine influ- 
 ence exerted in a particular manner, and fer special 
 purposes; but, in some texts, it will hardly bear 
 this construction. The Holy Spirit seems to be 
 described by our Lord, as a separate being, distinct 
 from the Father; as a person sent by Christ after 
 his ascension, and not having been with them be- 
 fore; not speaking of himself, but only what he 
 heard, and receiving powers that belonged to 
 Jesus, and were derived through him from the Al- 
 mighty. ! 
 
 «“ This account appears inconsistent with his 
 being, either au integral part of the Divine essence, 
 or merely an exertion of Divine wisdom. It agrees 
 better with the supposition of his being a separate 
 intelligence; in subservience to Christ, occupied in 
 forwarding the work of Salvation, after his depar- 
 ture. Perhaps*this difference may be best accom- 
 modated by admitting, that the phrase has each of 
 these meanings, in different parts of Scripture ; and 
 that this Divine influence has sometimes been com- 
 municated by a spiritual agent.”* 
 
 This respectable author is evidently groping 
 his way in the dark as to this subject, for his 
 language is full of uncertainty and hesitation.— 
 He is quite in error in supposing that the reason 
 why writers in defence of what is usually deno- 
 minated the Trinity pay less attention to prove 
 the Deity of the Holy Spirit than of the Son, is, 
 that if they are not able to establish the Deity 
 of the Son, they know it would be in vain to 
 contend for the Deity of the Holy Spirit. The 
 reason of their not dwelling much on the Deity 
 of the Holy Spirit is, that it is not usually dis- 
 puted. When Dr. Bruce published his sermons, 
 we were quite astonished that any one in the 
 nineteenth century held the opinion, that, by the 
 
 * Bruce’s Sermons on the Study of the Bible, &e. page 119. 
 
of the Holy Ghost. 357 
 
 Holy Spirit, is not at all times meant, in some 
 sense, the supreme God. Writers on this sub- 
 ject, therefore, directed their chief efforts to 
 prove, not the Deity of the Holy Spirit, but 
 (that which Dr. Bruce concedes), his distinct 
 personality. Dr. Drummond, on the other hand, 
 although he does not, so far as I have observed, 
 express himself definitely on the subject, 
 seems, from his inferring that Jesus is inferior 
 to the Holy Spirit, together with his making no 
 distinction in the acceptation in which that title 
 is to be understood, to believe, that by the Holy 
 Spirit or Holy Ghost is always meant the one 
 supreme God. 
 
 In the present state of the public mind, there- 
 fore, it may be expedient, in the Jirst place, 
 briefly to show that the Holy Spirit who des- 
 cended on the apostles at the day of Pentecost, 
 is the same being who was revealed under that 
 name or others synonymous from the beginning; 
 and that he is in some view, the eternal God : 
 and, in the second place, that he is a distinct per- 
 son from God the Father and the Son. 
 
 Our first topic is, that the Holy Ghost is God. 
 The first annunciation that we have of the 
 Spirit of God, is in the first sentence of the Bible. 
 ** In the beginning God created the heavens and 
 the earth: and the earth was without form and 
 void; and darkness was upon the face of the 
 deep; and the Spirit of God moved upon the 
 face of the waters.” From that first annuncia- 
 tion of him we can trace his operations through- 
 out the whole of Scripture. Job tells us, ‘that 
 God, by his Spirit, garnished the heavens; and 
 that the Spirit of God made him.* The Spirit 
 
 * Job xxxvi. 13... xxxili, 4, 
 
358 On the Deity and personality 
 
 of God was the author of prophecy. The Spirit 
 of the Lord rested on the seventy elders and they 
 prophesied. Moses said, “ Would te God that all 
 the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the 
 Lord would put his Spirit upon them.*” The 
 Spirit of the Lerd came upon Balaam, upon 
 Saul, upon the messengers of Saul, and upon 
 David and they prophesied.+ ‘ Holy men of 
 old,” the apostle Peter tells us, ‘* spake as they 
 were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 
 
 The Holy Spirit was the author of sanctifiea- 
 tion and comfort. “ I,” said Jehovah by the 
 prophet Ezekiel, “ will put my Spirit within 
 you, and cause you te walk in my statutes, and 
 ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”{— 
 *‘ Cast me not away from thy presence,” says 
 the psalmist, “and take not thy Holy Spirit 
 from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy sal- 
 vation, and uphold me with thy free: Spirit.Ӥ 
 
 The Holy Spirit was the author of those sig- 
 nal powers and qualifications, hy which many of 
 the Old Testament saints were distinguished.— 
 The persons who were employed in construct- 
 ing the tabernacle, and all the sacred vestments 
 and utensils connected with it, were qualified 
 for their various works by the Holy Spirit. j— 
 The Spirit of God instructed and supported the 
 elders of Isracl who were appointed to assist 
 Moses in the administration of justice to the 
 people.{ Joshua was qualified to govern Israel 
 by the Spirit of the Lord.** The Spirit of the 
 Lord came upon Othniel, and he judged and 
 made war: and also upon Gideon and Jephthah 
 and Sampson and David: impelling, instruet- 
 
 * Num. xi. 25, 29. + Num. xxiv. 2. 1 Sam. x7 
 xix 20. 2 Sam, xxiii. 2. ¢ Ezek. xxxvi 27. xi, 19—20. 
 § Ps. lie 11, 7ER. { Exed, xxxi-"l—23, gq Num. xi. 
 
 Lys ** Num. xxvii, 18. Deut, xxxiv. 9. 
 
of the Holy Ghost. 359 
 
 ing, and enabling them to accomplish all the 
 wonderful achievements that are recorded of 
 them. These are but a mere specimen of what 
 is said of the Holy Spirit’s operations under 
 the Old Testament dispensation. The bare enu- 
 meration of all the passages in which he is men- 
 tioned would occupy a very large space. 
 
 In the same strain the revelation of the Holy 
 Spirit is continued in the New Testament. It 
 was He who formed the Saviour’s body in the 
 womb of the virgin.* The soul of Jesus was 
 endowed with all holy graces and gifts by the 
 Holy Spirit. It was foretold by the prophet 
 Isaiah that “the Spirit of the Lord? was to 
 “rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and 
 understanding, the Spirit of counsel and 
 might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the 
 fear of the Lord.”+ When he was about to 
 enter upon his public ministry, at his baptism, 
 the Holy Ghost descended like a dove, and 
 lighted upon him; and when he commenced his 
 public instructions, he quoted another passage 
 from the prophecies of Isaiah applying it to him- 
 self —* The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, be- 
 eause lie hath ancinted me to preach the Gos- 
 pel to the poor.”{ God gave not the Spirit by 
 measure to him. He wrought miracles by the 
 Spirit of God. “If 1,” said he, “ cast out 
 devils by the Spirit of God.” “ Through the 
 eternal Spirit,” he offered himself without spot 
 to God; and through the power of the Spirit of 
 God he rose from the dead.§ 
 
 The Spirit also was with the apostles, to com- 
 fort them, to teach them all things, and to bring 
 all things to their remembrance whatsoever 
 Jesus had said to them, to support and inspire 
 
 * Mat. i. 18—20. t.1s. xi, 2, t Luke iv. 18, 
 § Heb. ix, 14, 1 Pet. iii, 18, 
 
360 On the Deity and personality 
 
 them in answering their persecutors; fer it was 
 not they who speke, but the Spirit of God who 
 was in them. 
 
 Just as it was under the Old dispensation, so 
 it continued under the New; the Holy Spirit 
 was the author of prophecy. Agabus prophesied, 
 saying, ‘Thus saith the Spirit.” Paul also 
 prophesied, saying, “The Spirit speaketh ex- 
 pressly that in the latter days some shall depart 
 from the faith’: and John was in the Spirit 
 when he saw the prophetical visions described 
 in the Apocalypse. And, as under the Old Tes- 
 tament, men were endowed by the Spirit of God 
 with useful gifts, so it was under the New Tes- 
 tament. As Bezaleel and Aholiab were qualified 
 by the Spirit of God for constructing the taber- 
 nacle with allits utensils of service; so the apostles 
 and early disciples were endowed with various 
 gifts to qualify them for building the spiritual 
 temple of the Lord. It was He who communi- 
 cated the gift of tongues at the day of Pentecost. 
 ‘¢'To one was given, by the Spirit, the word of 
 
 wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by 
 the same Spirit; to another faith by the same 
 Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the 
 same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; 
 to another prophecy; to another discerning of 
 spirits ; to another divers kinds of tongues; to 
 another interpretation of tongues.” And thus 
 there were ‘‘ set some in the church, first apostles, 
 secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that 
 miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, govern- 
 ments, diversities of tongues ;’’—all the work of 
 the self-same Spirit who divided to every man 
 severally as he chose.* It is by the Spirit that 
 Christians are born again and sanctified. They 
 
 * See 1 Cor, xii. throughout. 
 
 4 
 Se ee we ae 
 
 —— SO 
 
of the Holy Ghost 361 
 
 that are saved are saved by the washing of re- 
 generation and renewing of the Holy Ghost.— 
 They are led by the Spirit, and walk according 
 to the Spirit, and the fruit of the Spirit in them 
 is, ‘love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, 
 goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.’ The 
 Spirit of God helpeth the infirmities of the 
 saints, and makes intercession for them; and it 
 is by the Spirit of God that our mortal bodies 
 are to be quickened.* | 
 Thus, from the very commencement of Serip- 
 ture to its conclusion, there is an incessant re- 
 velation of the operations of the Spirit of God. 
 And a moment’s reflection might, I think, 
 convince any person, that the distinction made 
 by Dr. Bruce, between that Holy Spirit whose 
 coming was promised by the Redeemer, and who 
 descended on the apostles at the day of Pente- 
 cost, and that Spirit of God or Holy Spirit who 
 is spoken of in the Old Testament, is altogether 
 groundless. The same names are given to him 
 which were given from the beginning—the 
 Spirit, the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghest, and the 
 Spirit of God. The same operations are ascrib- 
 ed to him under the New as under the Old Tes- 
 tament. He was still the author of comfort and 
 joy, still the inspirer of prophecy, still the 
 bestower of extraordinary gifts, still the agent 
 in regenerating and purifying the heart.-— 
 And, as to any imaginary difference that may 
 be founded en his being sent from heaven, the 
 very same language is used of the Spirit of God 
 revealed in the Old Testament. ‘Thou sendest 
 forth thy Spirit,” says the psalmist, ‘and they 
 are created.”+ ‘ Thus saith the Lord,” by the 
 
 * See Rom. viii. and Gal. v. t Psalm civ. 30, 
 
 21 
 
382 On the Deity and personality 
 
 prophet Isaiah, ‘I will pour my Spirit upon thy 
 seed.”* How perfectly is the Holy Ghost, 
 spoken of in the New Testament, identified with 
 that Spirit of the Lord who inspired the ancient 
 prophets, by the declaration of the apostie Peter, 
 that *“* Holy men of old spake as they were 
 moved by the Holy Ghost.” It is impossible to 
 distinguish between that Spirit of Ged who is 
 revealed in the Old Testament, who formed 
 our Lord’s body in the womb, who des- 
 cended upon him at his baptism, by whom 
 he cast out devils, and by whom he was rais- 
 ed from the dead; and that Holy Ghost 
 whom he promised to the disciples as a com- 
 forter, who descended upon them at the day of 
 Pentecost, enabling them to speak with tongues, 
 and filling their hearts with peace and comfort : 
 or to distinguish between the Holy Ghost who 
 descended on the day of Pentecost, and that 
 Holy Spirit spoken of by the apostle Paul as the 
 bestower of all miraculous gifts, who dwelt in 
 the early disciples a spirit of wisdom and under- 
 standing, the author of sanctification, by whom 
 Christians are led, and by whom they toe are to 
 be raised from the dead. There are diversities 
 of gifts, but the same Spirit. All these worketh 
 that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to — 
 every man severally as he will. This will be 
 further confirmed, when I observe further, that 
 
 It must also be evident that this one Hely 
 Spirit or Holy Ghost must, in some sense, be the 
 supreme God. ‘The works that are ascribed to 
 him evince him to be God: for it is utterly im- 
 conceivable that any power short of the power of 
 God, should accomplish these works. Accord- 
 ingly he is explicitly called God. Peter said to 
 
 * Isa, xliv, 3.) Joel si, 28. 
 
of the Holy Ghost. 363 
 
 Ananias, “ Why hath Satan filled thine heart 
 to lie to the Holy Ghost—thou hast not hed te 
 men; but unto God.* Again, 1 Cor. i. 16— 
 “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, 
 and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you.”— 
 Whe should dwell in the temple of God, but God 
 himself? Accordingly, a few paragraphs after- 
 wards in the same epistle, the apostle says— 
 <¢ Know ye not that your body is the temple of 
 the Holy Ghost, which is in you.” And again, 
 (2 Cor. vi. 16.)—* Ye are the temple of the liv- 
 ing God.” ; 
 
 The attributes also and the works of God are 
 ascribed to the Spirit of God. He is the eternal 
 Spirit.- He is omnipresent. “ Whither,” says 
 the Psalmist, ‘shall I go from thy Spirit oh oer 
 He is omniscient. Thus 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11—‘* The 
 Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things 
 of God. For what man knoweth the things of 
 a man, save the Spirit of a man which is in him? 
 even so the things of God knoweth no man, but 
 the Spirit of God.” In this remarkable passage, 
 the Spirit is represented as holding a place in the 
 Deity, that may, in some respect, be compared 
 to the place which the spirit of a man holds in 
 the man; and even the deep impenetrable things 
 of God are represented as known to him. And 
 so the prophet Isaiah says (ch. xl. 13)—‘ Who 
 hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being 
 his counsellor hath taught him.” He is omni- 
 potent; for he was the agent or power.by which 
 our Lord and his apostles wrought miracles.— 
 _ «For J will not dare to speak,” says the apostle 
 Paul, “of any of those things which Christ 
 hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles 
 obedient, by word and deed, through mighty 
 
 * Acts v. 3, 4 + Heb. ix. 1& 
 
364 On the Deity and personality 
 
 signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of 
 Ged.”’* He is good. “ Thy Spirit is good,”— 
 says the Psalmist, Ps. exltii. 10. We have al- 
 ready seen that works peculiar to Deity are 
 ascribed to him. Sometimes we find the very 
 same operations ascribed to the Father and the 
 Son and the Spirit. Thus God—the Father of 
 ali, created all things, The Son created all things 
 that are in heaven and on earth, and the Spirit 
 garnished the heavens, made man, and the crea- 
 tures that are en the face of the earth. The 
 Father raised Christ from the dead, the Son 
 raised himself from the dead, the Spirit raised 
 him from the dead. The Father will raise all 
 men frem the dead, The Son is the resurrection 
 and the life, and will raise the dead, and the 
 Spirit, who dwells in the saints, is to raise them 
 from the dead. The Father is the only Saviour, 
 Phe Son is the Saviour, and the Hely Spirit 
 saves by the washing of regeneration. - Accord- 
 ingly the Spirit is associated with the Father and 
 the Son in the same acts of worship. ‘“ The 
 grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and 
 the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you 
 all.’+ And also in the form of baptism, which 
 is a solemn act of worship, “ Baptize in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and ofthe 
 Holy Ghost.” From all these intimations, re- 
 specting the Spirit of the Lord, which are very 
 briefly stated, and which might be easily en- 
 larged to a great extent by a more copious re- 
 ference to Scripture, it is very evident that he is 
 in some sense, either as a mode of operation, or 
 as a Divine person, the supreme God. 
 
 I now, as our second proposed topic, adduce 
 
 * Rom. xy. 18, 19, 2 Cor. xiii. 14, 
 
of the Holy Ghost. 365 
 
 those intimations which indicate that the Holy 
 Spirit is not a mere influence of God, or mode 
 of his operation, but a distinct person. 
 
 And on this point I might almost rest satis- 
 fied with the words of Dr. Bruce—‘“ The Holy 
 Spirit,” says he, “seems to be described by our 
 Lord as a separate being, distinct from the Fa- 
 ther; as a person sent by Christ after his ascen- 
 sion, and not having been with them before; 
 not speaking of himself, but only what he heard, 
 and receiving powers that belonged to Jesus, 
 and were derived through him from the Al- 
 mighty.” There is some mixture here of the 
 author’s own with the words of sacred writ ; yet 
 they will remind the reader of things that are 
 said of the Holy Ghost, which manifestly imply 
 that he is a person. He is indeed uniformly 
 treated in Seripture as a person, by the continual 
 ascription to him of personal qualities and acts. 
 He is represented as having a will, intimating 
 his will, bestowing gifts according to his will, as 
 hearing, knowing, searching, forbidding, &c.— 
 We read of the mind of the Spirit, the power of 
 the Spirit, the dove of the Spirit, the name of the 
 Holy Ghest. We learn that he may be resisted, 
 grieved, blasphemed, tempted or tried, as God is 
 said to be tempted, by the disobedience or insen- 
 sibility of those whom he addresses. The fol- 
 lowing, among many other passages, seem to be 
 decisive of his distinct personality. John xvi. 
 13 ‘¢ 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.” Acts xiii. 2, 4. “ As they 
 ministered unto the Lord and fasted, the Holy 
 Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for 
 the work whereunto I have called them. So 
 
 213 
 
366 On the Deity-and personality 
 
 they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost de- 
 parted unto Seleucia.” xv. 28—* For it seem- 
 ed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay 
 upon you no greater burden than these neces- 
 sary things.” xvi. 6, 7—‘* Now when they had 
 gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, 
 and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach 
 the word in Asia, after they were come to 
 Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but 
 the Spirit suffered them not.” Is it to be sup- 
 posed that eriental figures of speech should be 
 used in expressing these plain homely transac- 
 tions and directions? Matthew xii. 31, 32— . 
 ** Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin 
 and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but 
 the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not 
 be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh 
 a word against the Son of man, it shall be for- 
 given him; but whosoever speaketh against the 
 Holy Ghest, it shall not be forgiven him, neither 
 in this world, neither in the world to come.” Here 
 a distinction is made between all other blasphemy, 
 including blasphemy against the Father, as well 
 as against the Son, and the blasphemy against 
 the Holy Ghost; and surely, according to eur 
 author’s own argument from this passage, he 
 cannot but admit that he is represented as a 
 different person from both the Father and the 
 Son. , | 
 The reply to all this is, as usual, figurative 
 language—oriental poetry. We are reminded 
 that there are many personifications of inani- 
 mate objects in the sacred volume. Thus wis- 
 dom is personified in Prov. viii. The Sun is 
 said toruna race, the earth to mourn, the vai- 
 leys to sing. When we observe that the Spirit 
 is said to bear testimony; we are reminded that 
 a pillar or heap of stones is said to bear testi- 
 
of the Holy Ghost. 267 
 
 mony: When we say that the Spirit is said to 
 speak; we are.told that the Scriptures are said 
 to speak; and when we remark that he is re- 
 presented as exercising his will or choice; we, 
 are reminded that it is said, ‘ the wind bloweth 
 where it listeth.’ 
 
 This is another specimen of that species of 
 criticism which would reduce the Scripture to a 
 chaos, that every man may be at liberty to select 
 a system of religion out of it, suited to his own 
 taste; and the tendency of which has, I trust, 
 been already sufficiently exposed. What secu- 
 rity have we, according to this mode of setting 
 text against text, that God himself the Father of 
 all, or that Christ is a person? There is scarcely 
 a personal act ascribed either to the Redeemer 
 or to the invisible God, to.which there might 
 not be found some parallel, in poetical deserip- 
 tions of inanimate objects. Let any one for 
 example start the hypothesis that Jesus was a 
 nere figurative personage, as Satan is supposed 
 to be,—the one a personification of good, the 
 other of evil, and all of these texts will be equally 
 available to him. 
 
 But it is pleaded that the Holy Ghost is 
 sometimes spoken of ina manner in which a 
 person could not properly be spoken of. That 
 he is said to be shed forth, poured out, to fall 
 upon men. It is true the Holy Spirit is some- 
 times spoken of figuratively, as God and Christ 
 and man are. Ged is called a tower, a shield, 
 a sun, a rock. Christ is called a vine, a 
 doer, a shepherd, a rock, and bread or manna. 
 Man is called a worm, and we are assured by 
 Isaiah that the people is grass. ‘The apostle 
 speaks of putting on Christ, of Christ being form- 
 ed within the disciples, of their bemg rooted and 
 built up in Christ. And yet does any one think 
 
368 On the Deity and personality, &c. 
 
 of employing these texts to divest God or Christ 
 of their personality. . 
 
 There is in fact no ambiguity. The rule sug- 
 gested by Dr. Wardlaw is the rule of common 
 sense,' and is perfectly satisfactory. The usual 
 tenor of Scripture in speaking of any being, 
 especially in prose, will always determine whe- 
 ther it isa person or not: and the figurative lan-~ 
 guage will always appear as the exception.— 
 How, for example, are we to determine that the 
 Scripture does not (like the ancient idolatry of 
 Kegypt, and the present idolatry of India, with 
 respect to the rivers Nile and Ganges,) teach: 
 that the river Jordan was a person; although 
 that river is addressed, as if it were a person in 
 Ps. exiv., and although the pride of Jordan is 
 spoken of by the prophet Zechariah.* Mani- 
 festly from this, that in the usual tenor of Scrip- 
 ture language, it is spoken of as an inanimate 
 object. And how are we to determine that the 
 Lord Jesus was really a person, although he is 
 called a vine and a door, and although the 
 apostle speaks of putting on Christ, and of being 
 rooted and built up in him? For the same reason, 
 that the Seripture usually speaks of him as a 
 person. So we determine that the Holy Ghost 
 is a person; because, although he is sometimes 
 figuratively spoken of, yet in the general tenor 
 of Scripture, he is spoken of as a person, and 
 personal qualifications and acts are ascribed to - 
 him. 
 
 Thus the doctrine of Scripture respecting the 
 Holy Ghost undoubtedly is,-that he is God, 
 bearing the name, invested with the attributes, 
 and doing the works of God‘ and yet that he 
 has a distinet personality, both from the Father 
 and the Son. 
 
 * Zech, xi. 3, 
 
CHAP. Suv. 
 
 4, 
 ON THE TRINITY OF PERSONS IN THE 
 GODHEAD. 
 
 We have now come to the limit of explicit x 
 
 revelation, and are entering upon,the region of 
 reasoning andinference. We havé'been hitherto 
 employed in eliciting the facts,of Scripture, and 
 ascertaining and proving thesé facts, in opposi- 
 tion, both to misrepresentations of them, and to 
 obiections laid against their existence in the 
 
 word of God :—we now proceed to deduce an | 
 
 inference from these facts. I admit therefore 
 that we have not the same clear light to conduct 
 us which we have hitherto enjoyed. I admit 
 that a doctrine of inference ought never to be 
 placed on a footing of equality with a doctrine of 
 direct and explicit revelation. It is very obvious 
 that, in so far as our belief of any doctrine 
 is the result of inference, it is not an exer- 
 cise of faith in the testimony of God, but in 
 the accuracy of our own reasoning Ik Yet every 
 truth that can be elicited from Scripture, and 
 
 even every probable conjecture that can be de- 
 
 duced from its facts, are interesting and ought 
 not to be cast contemptuously away. ‘That the 
 Lord Jesus was a manifestation in the flesh to 
 the world of the invisible Ged, and that the re- 
 cord of his life on earth, which we possess in the 
 
 gh AR ea 
 
. 
 
 ! 
 
 % 
 
 370 On the Trinity of persons 
 
 Gospels, is a record of the acts of God in our 
 nature, I hold to be a doctrine of direct, explicit 
 and repeated revelation, of the truth of which I 
 cannot doubt, without doubting the inspiration 
 of the Scriptures. Phat the Holy Spirit is the 
 supreme invisible God, manifested in his acts, 
 seems to me also to he a doctrine of express and 
 explicit revelation. #That the Holy Spirit is a 
 distinct person from the Father and the Son, 
 seems to be removed one step from a direct ex- 
 plicit revelation<by the necessity of previously 
 determining that a being capable of willing 
 choosing, designing, commanding, forbidding, of 
 loving, being displeased or grieved, and other 
 particulars of a similar nature, is to be regarded 
 as a person. A That there are three persons in 
 
 i the Godhead is a second remove from explicit 
 
 a 
 
 direct revelation ;A because after defining what 
 we mean by a person, and finding that the Fa- 
 ther is thus determined to be a person, and also 
 the Son and the Spirit, while yet we believe 
 that there is only one God, we infer from the 
 whole, that there are three persons in one God. 
 
 It is exceedingly probable \that this statement 
 may not appear satisfactory to many of my or- 
 thodox friends, who perhaps may expect that I 
 should follow an example which is too generally 
 given,—of becoming confident in assertion in 
 proportion to my want of evidence. But that I 
 cannot do. J will be as confident as f believe 
 the Scriptu¥e warrants me; but I will not con- 
 sent explicitly to assert what is not explicitly as~ 
 serted in the word of God. 
 
 I therefore proceed to this subject, with the 
 caution and diffidence which becomes a man 
 who feels that he depends partly on his own im- 
 perfect powers of intellect to guide him. We 
 have passed the last lamp that has been lighted 
 
in the Godhead. 371 
 
 up to direct our way. We may proceed a few 
 steps further, aided by the light which shines be- 
 hind us; but if we attempt to ‘proceed far, we 
 shall, as many others have done, lose ourselves 
 ~ In the thick darkness. : 
 
 The reader may be surprised when I say, that 
 the chief difficulty which I feel in determining 
 whether, from eternity, there has been a distine- 
 tion of persons in the Godhead, is to ascertain 
 
 that there has been such a distinet personality — 
 
 from the beginning, between the Father and the 
 Son. That Jesus, as Mediator between God 
 and man, a person constituted of the Divine and 
 human nature, is a distinct person from the God 
 who sanctified or separated him and sent him 
 into the world, there can be no doubt whatever. 
 But was the Divine nature of the Redeemer 
 
 from eternity a distinct person from the Fa-~ 
 
 ther ? 
 
 lt is admitted by the most orthodox theolo- 
 gians, that, by the appellation Father, we are 
 frequently to understand, not one person in the 
 Godhead, but the one invisible God, as the Father 
 
 of his moral offspring. But is the appellation Fa- 
 
 ther, as applied to God, ever to be understood in 
 any other sense ? 
 
 Again, some theologians who believe that 
 there are three persons in the Godhead, conceive 
 that the appellation Son is given to the Re- 
 deemer, only in his mediatorial person and cha- 
 racter. ‘hey say that his being begotten is fix- 
 ed to a certain time,— This day have I begot- 
 ten thee.”* They conceive therefore that the 
 proper name of that person of the Godhead who 
 took upon him human nature was, not the Son of 
 God, but the Word or Logos, which became the 
 
 * Psalm ii. 7. 
 
 pn 
 ¥, 7 
 
372 On the Trinity of persons 
 
 Son, by becoming Mediator and assuming our 
 nature. They plead that, by this view of the 
 Sonship of Christ, all the difficulties are avoided 
 which are connected with the idea of an eternal 
 generation, and the objection to an equality of 
 the Word with the Father, arising out of his 
 having only a derived being from the Father ;— 
 an objection however on which much more 
 weight has been laid than it can bear. Of this 
 opinion was Ridgley, as expressed in his lectures 
 on the larger catechism of the Westminster Di- 
 vines. Dr Wardlaw seems to lean to the same 
 view of the Sonship of Christ. His words are— 
 
 «* While I am thus firmly convinced, that the 
 Scriptures are incapable of any fair and consistent 
 explanation, without the admission of the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, I entertain strong doubts about the 
 correctness of the notion, commonly received, of 
 what is called the eternal procession,” (rather genera- 
 tion, as referring to the Son,) “ of the Son from the 
 Father, and of the Spirit from the Father and the 
 Son, in the essence of Deity. This, I have long 
 been disposed to think, is entering into the mode of 
 the Divine subsistence, farther than the Scriptures 
 authorize us to do. All that we are taught in them, 
 on the subject of procession, appears to be,—that, 
 while the three persons have existed from eternity, 
 equal, and mutually independent, in the Divine unity, _ 
 in @ manner which it is vain for us to attempt to 
 comprehend; it has pleased this one Jehovah,—Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Spirit,—in revealing to man- 
 kind the scheme of redeeming mercy, to inform us, 
 that, while each acts his part voluntarily, (the three 
 persons being one in counsel by the same necessity 
 which unites them in essence,) yet the Son is to be 
 considered as sent by the Father, and the Spirit as 
 sent by the Father and the Son :—the Father repre- 
 senting the Godhead, in the constitution of the plan, 
 as it has been disclosed to us.” 
 
 In a note, Doctor Wardlaw adds—‘ I intended 
 
an the Godhead. 373. 
 
 introduced a separate discourse on the true mean- 
 ing of the title Son of God, as given to Jesus Christ. 
 As difference of opinion, however, exists on this 
 subject, amongst those who agree in holding the 
 essential article of his supreme Divinity, I after- 
 wards relinquished the intention. When my object 
 was to defend a vital doctrine of Christianity against 
 those who oppose it, I thought it better to shun any 
 dispute with those who maintain it, about the mere 
 import of a name.’* 
 
 It appears to me that much may be said in 
 support of this view of the Sonship of the Re- 
 deemer; although there are also strong objec- 
 tions against it. 
 
 But it is manifest that, if it were ascertained 
 that the title Son of God is given to Christ, only 
 in virtue of his having become Mediator between 
 God and man, or in virtue of his having as- 
 sumed our nature, that evidence by which it 
 could be proved, that he was from eternity a 
 distinct person from the Father, is very much 
 curtailed. 
 
 But, after deducting the full value of ail these 
 considerations, there appears to me to remain 
 sufficient evidence, that, while Jesus Christ was 
 Ged from eternity, he was also a distinct person 
 from the Father. Were there no other passage 
 in the Bible but the beginning of the Gospel by 
 John, it would, I think, establish that point.— 
 ‘* In the beginning” (that is, before the creation 
 of all things, which is mentioned afterwards, ) 
 -* was the Word, and the Word was with God, 
 and the Word was God. The same was in the 
 beginning with God. And the Word was made 
 flesh,” &e. LTrequire nothing more than so ex- 
 plicit a declaration to satisfy me, that the Word 
 
 * Wardlaw’s Discourses, p. 305. 
 2% 
 
314 Ona the Trinity of persons 
 
 was at once God, and with God; and that the 
 person called the Word was afterwards made 
 flesh, and dwelt among men as the Lord Jesus 
 Christ,who came forth from the Father and came 
 santo the world. The words of our Lord himself 
 in prayer, scems almost equally decisive. “O Fa- 
 ther glorify thou me with thine own self with the 
 glory which I had with thee before the world was.”* 
 
 But further, it has been shown that the Holy 
 Spirit is God, and yet is a distinet person from 
 the Father; and, as the distinction between the 
 Father and the Son is placed on the same foot- 
 ing with the distinction between the Father and 
 the Spirit, it seems to follow necessarily, that 
 the Son is a distinct person also. Thus in the 
 form of Baptism—* In the name of the Father ; 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The 
 Holy Ghost is a distinct person from the Father, 
 and surely it would be very unnatural to inter- 
 pret the Son as only another name for the Fa- 
 ther manifest in the flesh. And.so the benedic- 
 tion—* The graee of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 the love of God, and the communion of the Holy 
 Ghost.” Here again the Holy Ghost was from 
 eternity a distinct person from the Father, for 
 he is the eternal Spirit through whom Jesus of- 
 fered himself to God; from which it surely fol- 
 lows that the Son is also distinct. 
 
 But still further, a plurality of persons in the : 
 Godhead has been intimated from the com- 
 mencement of revelation, and from time to time, 
 throughout the whole course of it. The Hebrew 
 title God is a plural word, not merely in form, 
 but often in construction as applied to God.— 
 Nor is this the only title that is given to God in 
 a plural form. Thus, Eccles. xii. 1— “ Remem- 
 
 * John xvii. 2. 
 
im the Godhead. 347% 
 
 ber now thy Creator.” The word is creator's.— 
 is. liv. 5—‘* Thy maker is thy husband :” —The 
 word is makers. Again, Mal. 1. 6—*“< If Ibe a 
 master” :—zasters. Prov. ix. 10—*‘ The fear of 
 Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom, and the 
 knowledge of the holy” (holy ones, the word be- 
 ang plural) ‘ is understanding.” 
 
 In reply to this argument eur author quotes 
 Rammohun Roy, who says that these plural 
 forms of speech, will by no means answer the 
 Trinitarian’s purpose, for they would only “im- 
 ply a plurality of Gods, without determining 
 whether their number were three or three hun~ 
 dred, without. specifying their persons.” With 
 regard to a plerality of Gods, that is corrected 
 by the declarations that God is one; and our 
 principles will not permit us to place one part 
 of Scripture against another, and infer that be- 
 cause God is plural he cannot be one, or because 
 he is one he cannot be plural; but we infer from 
 these apparently contradictory intimations, that 
 he is in some sense ove, and in some sense more 
 than one. ‘With regard to these plural forms not 
 specifying the number of persons, we have only 
 to say that we do not pretend to deduce the 
 number three from these expressions. All that 
 we infer is, that, as the words are plural, they 
 must signify more than one. 
 
 The author observes that Rammohun Roy, has, 
 from his knowledge of eriental languages, a right 
 to speak with decision. Unitarians make the 
 most of one another’s authority. Rammohun 
 Roy knows of course one or more of the lan- 
 guages of India, and therefore he must be versant 
 in ancient Hebrew. Rammohun Roy 1s familiar 
 with the profane adulatory style of pagan poets, 
 and therefore he must be well acquainted with 
 the style of those men who ‘spake as they were 
 
376 On the Trinity of persons 
 moved by the Holy Ghost.’ The truth I believe 
 
 is, that Rammohun Roy obtained more of his at- 
 guments from the writings of Unitarian theolo- 
 
 ians, to which he could find access in the 
 ibraries of certain European clergymen in Cal- 
 cutta, and who seem to have been at some pains 
 with him, than from his knowledge of Hebrew. 
 The quotation given above is, if we may believe 
 our author in his first edition, borrowed from 
 Dr. Geddes, a Roman Catholic Divine, and we 
 have already found him quoting Dr. Camp- 
 bell. Rammohun Roy’s illustration of this 
 point acertains two important facts; the jirst 
 is, that he is extremely ignorant of Hebrew 
 idiom: the second is, that no fair instance of 
 such plural forms of speech can be found in the 
 Hebrew Scriptures; and that therefore, as ap- 
 plied to individuals, they are utterly repugnant 
 to Hebrew idiom. His illustrations are Exod. 
 xxi 4—* If his masters,” (that is the master of 
 a slave,) *‘ have given him a wife;’’ verse 6— 
 ‘* Then his (the slave’s) ‘‘ masters shall bring 
 him to the judges.” Now surely Rammohun 
 Roy does not pretend that the plural word mas- 
 ters is here used as an expression of respect, when 
 no particular master is meant. Had he been ac- 
 quainted with Hebrew idiom, he would have 
 known that a plural word thus used where a sin- 
 gular might be expected, indicates a distribu- 
 tive meaning. The meaning therefore 1s that 
 every master of a slave in such circumstances 
 shall act thus. The same remarks are applicable 
 to the next instance, Exod. xxi. 29——“‘ But if the 
 ox were wont to push, and it has been testified 
 to his owners :’—every such ox its own owner. 
 His next illustration is another instance of the 
 plural form of speech used by Jehovah, and is 
 therefore a confirmation of our doctrine. Is. vi. 
 
in the Godhead. 377 
 
 8—“ Whom shall J send? And who will go 
 for us?” Let Rammohun Roy find any indi- 
 vidual man er master, called men or masters; 
 and he will at least hit his mark; but Jet him 
 not adduce an abstract law about masters, and 
 then tell us that the plural is used as an expres- 
 sion ef respect, when no particular master is al- 
 luded to. Even the oriental poets are not, I 
 should suppose, so prodigal of their respect, as to 
 lavish it upon abstract titles. | 
 But these plural forms are, in several instances, 
 used by Jehovah himself, in a manner which 
 obliges us to understand them plurally. Gen. 
 i. 26—‘* And God said let ws make man after 
 our image.” We cannot suppose that Ged would 
 adopt this form of speech without reason, or 
 for the mere sake of lofty language. But if there 
 be any who can suppose God to use the form we 
 and our, merely for J and me, let him turn to 
 Gen. il. 22—** And the Lord God said, Behold 
 the man is become as onze of us.” IT must main- ° 
 tain that a book which so strenuously resists 
 every approach to idolatry, or to a plurality of 
 Gods, would never have contained such forms of 
 expression, had there not been some sense in 
 which there is a plurality in the one Jehovah. 
 Agreeably to the various intimations of a plu- 
 rality of persons in the Deity, the three persons 
 who are each separately treated as God, are fre- 
 quently brought before us at the same time.— 
 Thus, at the baptism of Jesus, Mat. iii. 16, 17, 
 ** And Jesus, when he was baptised, went up 
 straight-way out of the water: and, lo, the hea- 
 vens were opened unto him, and he saw the 
 Spirit ef God descending like a dove and light- 
 ing upon him: and lo, a voice from heaven say~ 
 ing, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
 pleased.” Here the Father and the Spirit, each 
 2kK3 
 
378 On the Trinity of persons 
 
 in his own manner, are found testifying to the 
 Son, on his entrance on his public ministry.— 
 Again, John xiv. 16, 17—* And [I will pray the 
 Father and he will give you another comforter 
 —even the Spirit of truth:” verse 26—‘“ The 
 comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the 
 Father will send in my name:” xv. 26—* But 
 when the Comforter is come, whom I will send 
 unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of 
 truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he 
 shall testify of me.” In all these passages the 
 three persons are distinguished by personal at- 
 tributes and acts, they are marked as by the per- 
 sonal pronouns, I, Thou, and He; while yet 
 each of them is spoken of and treated as God— 
 vested with the attributes of God, and doing the 
 works of God. To these passages are to be 
 added the form of baptism, and the Apostolic 
 benediction, formerly alluded to. We conclude 
 therefore that these three are one God. 
 
 Our author strongly contends against this in- 
 ference, on the ground of its being unphilosophi- 
 cal. But, while we would ourselves avoid supply- 
 ing the want of evidence by confidence of asser- 
 tion, we must take heed not to permit ourselves 
 to be led astray by the confident assertions of 
 others. 
 
 Our author, for example, asserts, without the 
 shadow of a reason, that God is a simple, uncom- 
 pounded, indivisible Spirit, and compares his 
 unity to a monad or a mathematical point. This 
 is precisely in the style of the ancient philoso- 
 phers, who pretended to dive into the secrets of 
 nature, who pronounced certain substances to be 
 simple or elementary, out of which all others 
 were formed, and who had all the objects of hu- 
 man knowledge arranged under their proper 
 
in the Godhead. 379 
 
 heads, so that reasoning might be conducted 
 by syllogisms, from generals, which were de-~ 
 termined by the authority of the philosopher, to 
 particulars. Air was pronounced to be a simple 
 uncompounded substance, merely, as it would 
 seem, because it is invisible. Water also was 
 one of their simples, because it is transparent. 
 This all passed for the profundity of their re- 
 searches; but modern investigation has proved it 
 tohave been only the profundity of their ignorance. 
 And such, unquestionably, will every assertion 
 respecting the nature of the Deity prove to be, 
 that isnot founded on his own declarations ; and 
 he no where says that he is a simple uncom- 
 pounded, indivisible spirit. 
 
 We have no experience of simple beings.—Al- 
 mostevery substance with which weare acquainted 
 has been proved to becompound, or probably is so. 
 We know not if such a mode of existence is pos- 
 sible. We know not if our own souls are simple, 
 uncompounded spirits. Let the author explain 
 to us what he would mean by a complex or 
 compounded spirit, (for if he knows what it is 
 for a spirit to be simple and uncompounded, he 
 must know what it is for it to be compounded, ) 
 and we may be able to form some judgment of 
 the meaning of his assertion. But till he do 
 this, he might as well speak to us in an unknown 
 tongue. . 
 
 Our author further pronounces, that three per- 
 sons are no more necessary to the constitution of 
 one God, than three souls are to the, constitution 
 of one man. Where did he obtain his informa- 
 tion? It is not in the Bible? Was it revealed 
 to him? Or has he by searching found out God, 
 has he found out the Almighty to perfection, 
 that he should speak so confidently as to what is, 
 
380 On the Trinity of persons 
 
 or what is not, necessary to the constitution of the 
 Deity ? 
 
 He further asserts that the doctrine of a plu- 
 rality of persons in the Godhead is inconsistent 
 with philosophy. Well, and what then? Is 
 philosophy so certain, so infallible, so unchange- 
 able a thing, that the truth of an intimation in 
 the inspired word of God is to be determined by 
 its dictum, Let the author tell us what, and 
 whose philosophy he alludes to. We may thus 
 find that it is contrary to the opinion of Hart- 
 ley, or Malebranche, or Priestley, or Hume, or 
 Reid, or Stuart, or Brown; and to the weight 
 of their censure we may endeavour to resign 
 ourselves as well as we can; but let him not at- 
 tempt to frighten us with the terrors of an ab- 
 stract word. 
 
 But we have certain philosophical principles 
 specified, with which the doctrine is incon- 
 sistent. It is inconsistent with the simplest 
 axioms of arithmetic—that three is not one, and 
 one is not three. By this use of arithmetic it 
 might be demonstrated that we have two kings. 
 For our one king is formed of two distinct beings, 
 «material body and an immaterial soul, united to- 
 gether in a manner altogether mysterious to us. 
 Further, a king is a being: and two beings can- 
 not be one being, nor one being two beings, 
 ergo, we have two kings.—Q. E. D. Again I 
 have to express my hope that no one will ac- 
 cuse me of comparing the different persons of 
 the Godhead, to the human soul and body ; for 
 nothing is further from my intention. | All that 
 I mean is to show that our author’s argument is 
 a mere play upon words. 
 
 Another philosophical principle, which is im-- 
 pressed into this service is, that the unity of de- 
 
in the Godhead. 381 
 
 sign apparent in the universe, proves unity of 
 cause, and therefore that there cannot be three 
 persons in the Godhead. But in the first place, 
 our author has forgotten to prove that unity of 
 design ; nor can he prove it, in such a manner 
 as to warrant him to found an argument upon it, 
 against even the obscurest intimation of the 
 Bible. We can ascertain unity of design 
 only in that portion of the universe that falls 
 under our observation. Of those remote portions 
 of the universe which lie beyond the sphere of 
 our research, we are totally ignorant ; and there~ 
 fore cannot argue upon them. I believe, on the 
 testimony of Scripture, that the same unity of design 
 must extend all over the universe: but, without 
 the Scripture, I am no more capable of arguing 
 upon universal unity of design, than an animal- 
 cule shut up in one of the books of the library 
 of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, is capable of 
 reasoning upon the unity of design discernible in 
 the whole of that edfice. And, in the next place, 
 Paley’s remark, in spite of all the author’s scold- 
 ing animadversions, * is quite unanswerable ;— 
 that unity of design can prove only unity of 
 counsel, not unity of cause ; and for this plain 
 reason that unity of counsel would produce pre- 
 cisely the same effects with unity of cause. if 
 the three persons of the Godhead he perfectly 
 united in counsel, then the unity of design dis- 
 cernible in that portion of the universe which 
 falls under our observation, could never prove 
 that there are not three persons in the Godhead. 
 - [In short, it is quite self-evident, that unity of 
 design, even when established, can never prove 
 any thing further than unity of design ;—how- 
 ever that unity of ‘design may have been ef- 
 fected. 
 
 * Page 64, Ed, 2d. 
 
382 On the Trinity of persons 
 
 Yet again, our author endeavours, but with 
 no better success, to draw another philosophical 
 maxim into this controversy. ‘ It has been laid 
 down,” says he, ‘by one from whom few will 
 have the hardihood to dissent, that, in the inves- 
 tigation of nature, two causes are never to be ad~ 
 mitted where one will suffice. If one self-exist- 
 ent, all-powerful being, be a cause adequate to 
 the creationof the universe, it is unnecessary, 
 and unphilosophical to admit two. Therefore 
 God is ene,” &e.* This is a safe rule ‘in the 
 investigation of nature,’ when the cause is not 
 known. In such cases we ought not to conjec- 
 ture more causes than are necessary. But to 
 apply it to cases where the actual cause is known, 
 or can be ascertained, would lead to the grossest 
 absurdities, Two men are charged with mur- 
 der; who would listen to counsel arguing 
 that one must be innocent, because one was 
 strong enough to effect. the crime? We see ten 
 men lifting a weight, which we afterwards find 
 might have been lifted by five men; and there- 
 fore, contrary to the evidence of our senses, we 
 must infer by this rule, that only five men were 
 engaged in lifting it. If we had no intimation 
 of different persons in the Godhead, and if all 
 effects eould be accounted for by the agency of 
 only one person, then surely, we should not be 
 at liberty to conjecture that there are three; but 
 the most obscure intimation from the Deity him- 
 self, that, in point of fact, there are three per- 
 sons in the Godhead, is quite sufficient to set 
 aside a rule which is applicable only to cases of 
 conjecture. Unitarianism therefore, so far from 
 being true to sound philosophy, as our author 
 asserts, only hears the report of philosophical 
 
 * Page 65. 
 
in the Godhead. 383 
 
 principles which she does not ‘understand, and 
 attempts to apply them, where no truly phi- 
 losophical mind would ever dream of applying 
 them. | 
 Besides, how does our author know that one 
 person in the Godhead is capable of producing 
 all the effects that exist? Is he so thoroughly 
 versant in all effects, natural and moral, as to be 
 able to pronounce what cause is sufficient for 
 their production? He no doubt thinks himself 
 safe in having omnipotence to recur to. But 
 there may be effects which omnipotence itself 
 cannot produce. I would speak with the utmost 
 diffidence, not even as offering a conjecture, but 
 merely as replying by a supposition to what [con- 
 eeive to be a presumptuous argument, when [ 
 ask, what provision does his idea of a simple un- 
 compounded spirit make for the exexcise of the 
 moral attributes of the Deity, independently of 
 creatures? For example, it is said that God is 
 love ; by which nothing less can be inferred, than. 
 that love, in its principle, and in its exercise, 1s es- 
 sential to the Deity. Now our author’s system 
 represents the Deity as dependent on creatures, 
 called out of nothing for the exercise of this af- 
 fection; whereas the Scripture seems to point 
 to a time when, before the existence of all crea- 
 tures, the love of the Father was directed to a 
 being who, in the book of Proverbs, is named 
 Wisdom, and who also rejoiced before him.— 
 And the Scripture farther represents all the love 
 of the Father to his creatures, as being an ex~ 
 tension of that eternal love, with which he re- 
 garded his only begotten Son, to those whom the 
 Son has created andredeemed. Again I say, that 
 I would by no means be understood as asserting 
 that these things are so; but merely, that, for 
 ought our author knows, they may be so; and 
 
384. On the Trinity of persons 
 
 therefore, that he would act more wisely in not 
 taking it for granted that all possible effects may 
 be accounted for by the existence of one simple, 
 uncompounded, although omnipotent spirit. 
 
 But the chief offence against philosophy which 
 our author charges upon the doctrine of three per- 
 sons in the Godhead is, that it is mysterious, in- 
 comprehensible, &c. To this topic he recurs 
 perpetually ; and places it in every imaginable 
 light.* The reply to this is obvious—that, if 
 
 * The following passage is quoted by him from ‘an able 
 work,’ written by the Rey. Dr. W. Robertson. It is sur- 
 prising that mankind should suffer themselves to be mocked, 
 abused, and insulted, by certain dealers in hard words, who, 
 when they are driven, by men of spirit !!! out of every 
 other fort, retire to the impregnable one of mystery, where 
 they find themselves secure, and impudently defy all the attacks 
 of human understanding and common sense. Like the philo- 
 sophers of old, who, when they were puzzled to account for any 
 phenomenon in nature, resolved it easily by the convenient term 
 of occutt Quattry,” It is incomparably more surprising that 
 any one able man should write such palpable nonsense, and that 
 another able man should countenance him in doing so. Did 
 Dr. Robertson, or does our author imagine that he can account 
 for any phenomenon of nature, otherwise than by resolving it 
 into an occult quality 2 How does he account for a stone’s falling 
 tothe ground? He ascribes it to the attraction of gravitation.: 
 But what is the attraction of gravitation? A mere name :—and 
 what does he add to his knowledge by giving ita name? Just 
 nothing. The only difference between him afd the ancient 
 philosophers is, that they confessed their ignorance, by calling 
 the quality occult or secret, whereas he gives a name to an 
 effect, of the cause of which he is equally ignorant, and then 
 uses the name as if it made him acquainted with the cause.— 
 The superiority of modern to ancient philosophy consists, not 
 in a more accurate knowledge of causes, but in a more extended 
 knowledge of effects. Of causes we are now as ignorant as the 
 Academics, the Peripatetics, or the Stoics. The words of our 
 modern nomenclature, such as gravitation, electricity, voltaism, 
 &c. &c, are names merely of different classes of facts, or at most 
 names of unknown causes, like algebraical signs for unknown 
 quantities. And the utmost that we can intend by ascribing 
 any effect to gravitation or electricity is, that it proceeds from 
 the same cause with certain other effects, that cause being totally 
 unknown, Our author must submit to mysteries. 
 
in the Gedhead. 8385 - 
 
 we reject every thing that we cannot account 
 for, or that involves us in difficulties and con- 
 tradictions when we attempt to explain it, we 
 must reject as false, almost every operation in 
 nature; for we can account for none. This ob- 
 vious refutation of the objection Mr. Pope used : 
 and what is our author’s reply? ‘ Mr. Pope,” 
 says he, “seems not to have considered that there 
 can be any difference between a physical fact, 
 and a theological mystery. I cannot tell how 
 soul and body are united. But that they are 
 united, every creature possessing a rational soul 
 intuitively knows. How they are united is ano- 
 ther question. The growth of a blade of grass is 
 inexplicable. Most true. That it does grow, how- 
 ever, noone doubts. But what has all this to do 
 with the question under consideration? Prove 
 the fact, and it will not be disputed.”* This, 
 with all deference to our author, is not meeting, 
 but evading Mr. Pope’s argument. The ques- 
 tion is not whether the fact is proved cr not, 
 but whether its being incomprehensible is to be 
 held a valid reason for rejecting it. Whether 
 the fact be a doctrine of Scripture or a pheno- 
 menon of nature, is not of the slightest conse- 
 quence to this question. We hold that the fact 
 of a Trinity of persons may be proved from the 
 declarations of Scripture; but we admit that we 
 cannot comprehend how that fact should exist— 
 that it may, for ought we know, require another 
 sense or faculty to enable us to form any con- 
 ception of a distinction of persons in the God- 
 head, and yet of the unity of the Godhead. Our 
 author says its being incomprehensible is a suf- 
 ficient reason for rejecting it. We reply, that, on 
 that principle, we ought to reject the facts of the 
 union of the soul and body, or of the growth of 
 Page 61. Ed, 2. 
 21 
 
386 On the Trinity of persons 
 
 2 blade of grass; although our consciousness or 
 our senses testify to these facts; because we can- 
 not comprehend how the soul is united to the 
 body, mor how the grass grows. Our author 
 then starts aside, and says, prove the fact and it 
 will not be disputed. We reply, that we have 
 proved the fact from the Scriptures, but that he 
 will not believe it, because it is incomprehensible ; 
 while yet he will believe the fact that the soul 
 and body are united, although that is equally in- 
 comprehensible. 
 
 To strengthen this argument, our author gives 
 us a catalogue of the various hypotheses which 
 different individuals have imvented to account 
 for the fact of the Trinity, or to explainit. But 
 how easy would it be to match these with the 
 various hypotheses which have been adopted by 
 philosophers, ancient and modern, to account for 
 the phenomena of nature? I need but hint 
 at mons and atoms and monads and erystal 
 spheres and vortexes, &c. &c. &c., to convince 
 the author that I should have no want of ma« 
 terials. 
 
 Perhaps, however, a more apt illustration than 
 that which is suggested by Mr. Pope might be 
 found. Let us take the great invisible power of 
 the attraction of gravitation. It is as well an 
 established fact as any in all philosophy, that all 
 matter hitherto known gravitates, or tends to 
 approach other matter, according to acertain law, 
 by a force proportioned to its quantity. Now, 
 what is the cause of this? Sir Isaac Newton 
 distinctly admits, that, to suppose one piece of 
 matter to act on another, without immediate or 
 mediate contact, 1s not only above reason, but 
 contrary to reason. In a letter to Dr. Bentley 
 he has these words, ‘ That gravity should be 
 innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that 
 one body may act upon another at a distance, 
 
if the Godhead. 38% 
 
 through a vacuum, without the mediation of any 
 thing else, by and through which their action 
 and force may be conveyed from one to another, 
 is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no 
 man who had, in philosophical matters, a com- 
 petent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. 
 Gravity must be caused by an agent, acting con- 
 stantly according to certain laws, &c.” 
 Agreeably to this doctrine, he endeavours to 
 form some conception of such an agent; and 
 thus expresses himself upon it in a letter to the 
 
 Hon. Mr. Boyle. 
 
 ‘¢ 1, I suppose that there is diffused through 
 all places an etherial substance, capable of con- 
 traction and delation, strongly elastic, and, in a 
 word, much like air in all respects, but far more 
 subtile. | 
 
 *<¢ 4. When two bodies, moving towards one 
 another, come near together, I suppose the ether 
 between them to grow rarer than before, and the 
 spaces of its graduated rarity to extend farther 
 from the superficies of the two bodies, towards 
 one another: and this by reason of the ether 
 cannot move and play up and down so freely in 
 the strait passage between the bodies, as it 
 would before they eame so close together. 
 
 “5, Now from the 4th supposition it follows, 
 that, when two bodies, approaching one another, 
 come so near together as to make the ether be- 
 tween them begin to rarify, they will begin to 
 have a reluctance from being brought so near to- 
 gether, and endeavour to recede from one ano- 
 ther, which reluctance and endeavour will in. 
 crease as they come nearer together, because 
 
 * J omit part of the hypothesis. Enough is retained to ena- 
 ble the reader to form some idea of it, which is all that is ne- 
 cessary for my purpose. 
 
388 On the Trinity of persons 
 
 thereby they cause the adjacent ether to rarify 
 more and more: but; at length, when they come 
 so near together, that the excess of pressure of 
 the external ether which is between them is so 
 great as to overcome the reluctance which the 
 bodies have from being brought together, then 
 will that excess .of pressure drive them with 
 violence together, and make them adhere strongly 
 to one another,” &ec. &e. . 
 
 All this-is further illustrated by a diagram, 
 and by much more explanation to the same effect. 
 This is the theory to which even Sirlsaae New- 
 ton, when he conceived himself obliged to give 
 some account of the cause of gravitation, had to 
 resort, for the purpose of avoiding what he felt 
 to be an absurdity, namely, that two bodies could 
 act upon each other from a distance, without some 
 medium of communication. And this theory may 
 well vie with the most ridiculous of those, into 
 which even able men have been betrayed, by a 
 similar imaginary necessity of attempting to ex- 
 plain the distinction of persons in the Godhead. 
 _ But I have not yet done with Sir Isaae’s 
 theory. From what is quoted from him above, 
 he supposes gravitation to be caused by the pres- 
 sure of a certain ether, which becoming more 
 rare on those sides of the different approximating 
 bodies which are towards each other, these bodies 
 are pressed upon by the denser ether on the other 
 sides. But no trace of the existence of any sueh 
 fluid can be found.—The planets seem to pass on 
 their way without being at all impeded by it. La 
 Place in his Mechaniques Celestes makes no allow- 
 ance for any retardation oceasioned by it. To this 
 it is answered, that it may be so subtile that it 
 passes through the pores of the planetary globes, 
 as light passes through glass. But then comes 
 another question, namely, if it thus pass through 
 
in the Godhead. 389 
 
 the pores of the planets, how can it press upon 
 them, or put them in motion? It would he very 
 long before light shining through glass would 
 set it in motion. Other philosophers, perplexed 
 with these vain speculations, and who may be 
 compared to the lazy divines mentioned by our 
 author, resolve the whole into a mystery; and 
 assert, that bodies are drawn together by the im- 
 mediate impulse of the Deity,—that it is his ex- 
 clusive prerogative to act independently of any 
 medium. 
 
 But let it be observed, that, in the midst of 
 all these conflicting and absurd disputes, no one 
 thinks of rejecting the fact that bodies gravitate 
 towards one another, according to certain laws. 
 No one adduces the futility of Sir Isaac New-, 
 ton’s theory respecting the cause of gravitation, as 
 a reason for casting doubt upon the fact, or law, or 
 principle of gravitation itself. But our author. 
 to be consistent with himself, ought boldly to 
 step forward, and deny the doctrine of gravita- 
 tion, and give, as his reason, the absurd theories 
 which have been formed respecting it, and that 
 too, even by the great philosopher whe discovered 
 it. Till he do so, I must maintain that he at- 
 tempts to introduce mto the investigation of the 
 phenomena of the highest and noblest revelation 
 which the Deity has given of himself—the sa- 
 cred Scriptures; a rule which he dares not, as 
 he values his character as a man of sense, intro- 
 duce into the investigation of the phenomena of 
 the elder, but inferior revelation,—the material 
 aniverse. 
 
 ad Oa 
 
CHAP. XV. 
 
 ON THE INFLUENCE OF UNITARIANISM ON THE 
 RELIGIOUS CHARACTER. 
 
 THE principles upon which those Christians 
 who regard faith as the great means of salvation, 
 are anxiously concerned for the universal disse~ 
 mination and reception of their own views of the 
 Gospel, are frequently misunderstood and mis- 
 represented.. The author of the work on which 
 principally we have been animadverting, ex- 
 presses himseli thus on that subject : 
 
 “ Will it be believed in an age to come, that 
 there are orators in this our day, who class inyin- 
 cible error with presumptuous transgression ; and 
 modestly affirm, that, if after the most painful and 
 sincere investigation of the truth, we have the mis- 
 fortune to adopt an erroneous belief, i. e. a belief 
 different from that which they advocate, we have 
 nothing to expect but headlong precipitation into the 
 fiery gulf, 
 
 There to converse with everlasting groans 
 Unurespited, unpitied, unreprieved, 
 Ages of hopeless end? 
 
 Hard fate of involuntar "y oe ance! Such was not 
 the spirit of him who prayed, ‘ lather, forgive them, 
 for they know not what the y do.” 
 
On the Influence of Unitarianism, &c. 391 
 
 It is surely not unreasonable to ask our author 
 where he found such sentiments expressed. 
 What orator of the present day has used the 
 language here attributed to him? Mr. Pope 
 seems to be referred to; but l believe it would be 
 very difiicult to produce any such expressions or 
 sentiments from the writings or crations of that - 
 gentleman. Is it philosophical, is it just, is it 
 a dictate of common sense, in any man, to put 
 his own language into the lips of those whose 
 opinions he would impugn? Our author may 
 conceive that such sentiments may be deduced 
 from language that Mr. Pope has used; but I 
 apprehend that no man would feel more indig- 
 nant than he himself would, if any of his op- 
 ponents should substitute for his expressed opi- 
 nions, whatever they conceive might be inferred 
 from them. In very few instances, does our 
 author state the opinions of his opponents in 
 their own language: but usually resorts to his 
 own conception of them, or that of some other 
 Unitarian. This of itself furnishes strong: pre- 
 sumptive evidence that his cause is indefensible. 
 
 We do not believe (I speak confidently for Mr. 
 Pope, and all who entertain similar views of the 
 Gospel, as well as for myself) that a man, who, 
 after the most painful and sincere investigation 
 of truth, has the misfortune to adopt an erro- 
 neous belief, is to be condemned to everlasting 
 perdition for his involuntary ignorance. 
 
 For, in the first place, we do not believe that 
 any such person can remain in ignorance. It is 
 the express promise of God, that “if any man 
 will do” (i. e. is inclined or disposed to do éay srg 
 Seay vow) “the willof God, he shall know of the 
 doctrine of Christ.”* Jesus said to those Jews 
 
 * John vii. 17, 
 
392 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 who believed on him, “If ye continue in my 
 word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye 
 shall know the truth, and the truth shall make 
 you free.*” He declares also that the Holy 
 Spirit, whose office it is to lead the disciples to 
 all truth, shall be given to every one who asks 
 his influences.+ If any man, therefore, live in 
 ignorance of the truth, it is because he has not 
 sought it, or has not sought with a disposition 
 to do the will of God. It is because he has never 
 availed himself of the offer that is made to him 
 of the gift of the Holy Spirit to ask him of God : 
 for if he had sought, he would have found ; if 
 he had asked, he would have received. By 
 these promises and declarations of the Redeemer 
 the matter is brought to this short issue,— 
 whosoever asks receives: if therefore any man 
 has not received, it-is because he has not asked, 
 or asked amiss. Shall any one pronounce this 
 judgment to be illiberal, as ascribing to those 
 who are in ignorance, wilful, presumptuous 
 ignorance? My reply is very simple. The 
 illiberality, if there be any, is not mine; I 
 merely judge as the Scripture directs me ;— 
 “Let God be true, but every man a har.” 
 When any man, by his conduct or temper, or 
 by his total blindness to the truths of Chris- 
 tianity, makes it evident that he has not obtained 
 the gifts of the Holy Spirit to enlighten and. 
 to sanctify him; we are not to charge God 
 with having been unfaithful to his promises, and 
 with falsifying his own declarations ; but we are 
 to infer that the man is not disposed to do the 
 will of Ged, or that he does not continue in the 
 word of Christ, or that he has never asked of 
 God the influences of his Holy Spirit, and thus 
 
 * John viii. 31, 32. + Luke xi, 9—13. 3 
 
on the religious character. 393 
 
 has never brought himself within the sphere of 
 the promise. 
 
 And, in the second place when any are repre- 
 sented in Scripture, as being destroyed for lack 
 of knowledge,* we do net believe that they are 
 condemned for their ignorance, except in so far 
 as their ignorance was wilful and presumptuous. - 
 We believe that men will be condemned only for 
 their sins. But when they perish for lack of 
 knowledge, it is for lack of that which 1s neces- 
 sary to save them from the consequences of their 
 sins. Men are, by the corrupt state of their hearts, 
 and their violations of the law of God, already 
 outcast from his presence, and exposed, like crimi- 
 nals under sentence of death, to the sentence of 
 his law. He has been graciously pleased to pro- 
 vide means, through the mission of his Son into 
 the world, for restoring them to himself, and 
 delivering them from their condemnation; but 
 they who lack knowledge do not possess these 
 means of safety. Wherever the Bible is within 
 their reach, or the substance of it preached to 
 them, they have received the offer of these 
 means, but they have refused to apply them. A 
 man who dies of a disease for which there is an 
 antidote, dies, not by want of the antidote, but 
 by the power of his disease; and the want of 
 the antidote is, only, in a figurative or nega- 
 tive sense, the cause of his death. So a man who 
 is destroyed for lack of knowledge, is destroyed, 
 not by the want of the Gospel, but by his sins; 
 he is not punished fpr his ignorance of the Gospel, 
 (unless he presumptuously and wilfully put it 
 away from him); but he is punished for his sins; 
 although the Gospel, if he had received it, would 
 have saved him from that punishment. 
 
 * Hosea iy. 6. 
 
394 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 Let not Unitarians therefore accuse us of want 
 of charity, when we endeavour to persuade them 
 toreceive as absol utely necessary to their salvation, 
 what we conceive to be the genuineGospel. We 
 are only seeking to persuade them to receive a 
 medicine which we believe to be absolutely ne- 
 cessary to their cure. We do not regard them as 
 lying under any more deadly or more disgraceful 
 disease, than that which we attribute to ourselves. 
 The whole difference that we put between our 
 condition and theirs is, that we believe, that, 
 through the grace of God, we have found a re- 
 medy of which they are hitherto destitute. We 
 have experienced the efficacy of the remedy. 
 We do not pretend to be perfectly cured by it,— 
 to be perfectly freed from all sin: but we feel 
 that our disease is arrested, that the total para- 
 lysis in our nature under which we lay is giving 
 way. We feel that, by coming to the Saviour, 
 our eyes have been opened to the spiritual glo- 
 ries of his revelation; that our ears, which were 
 deaf to his word, have been unstopped, and that 
 we now can hear his voice; that our tongue, 
 which was dumb in his praise, can now, although 
 perhaps with but stammering accents, tell of 
 what the Lord has done for our souls; and that 
 our feet and our hands, which were feeble and 
 motionless in his service, are now capable of 
 some little exertion. We regard these symp- 
 toms of recovery as sufficient evidence that we 
 are in possession of the genuine antidote, and 
 look forward with confidence to our perfect re- 
 storation. We sce all the symptoms of that di- 
 sease, under the power of which we were pe- 
 rishing, still visible on Unitarians; and there- 
 fore we earnestly desire to persuade them, to 
 come to the same physician, and to apply the 
 same remedy which is operating so great a cure 
 
on the religious character. 395 
 
 upon ourselves. We tell them that if they do 
 not reeeive and apply the same remedy, they 
 must perish, not as a punishment for their 
 not agreeing in opinion with us; but as the 
 necessary effect of the moral pestilence with 
 which they, in common with all mankind, have 
 been infected. 
 
 It is very probable that Unitarians may not 
 be much better satisfied with these sentiments, “ 
 than with those which our author ascribes to 
 Mr. Pope: and they may be disposed to think 
 me very presumptuous for supposing that I am 
 in a better state than they. But I cannot help 
 thew displeasure. I cannot help feeling that 
 ‘ whereas I was blind, now I see.’ I cannot help 
 believing that they are still blind, when I see 
 them attempting to grope their way as in dark- 
 ness. It would be no want of charity in Barti- 
 meus, after he had received his own sight, to 
 endeavour to send every blind man he met to 
 the Saviour. Some, perhaps, who had been 
 born blind might not believe that he enjoyed any 
 sense of which they were destitute, and might 
 be very angry with him for imagining that he 
 could discern any thing that they could not 
 equally discern. But he could only regret their 
 unbelief. Nothing that they could say, possibly 
 could persuade him out of his own conscious- 
 ness, that, whereas he was blind, now he saw. 
 
 But [ do not conceive that our author has any 
 right to complain of want of charity or libera- 
 lity in our treating all Unitarians as still blind, 
 and lying under the influence of their original 
 corruption. He himself scruples not to tell us, 
 that the reason why we are not Unitarians is, 
 that we love darkness rather than light; and 
 that the reason why we love darkness rather 
 
396 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 than light is, that our deeds are evil.* This is 
 plain dealing, and plain dealing is above all 
 things necessary in treating such a subject.’ I 
 feel no displeasure whatever with our author for 
 such a statement. If he believed that we loved 
 darkness rather than light; and that our pre- 
 ference for the darkness arose from certain secret 
 sins, which would be exposed by our coming to 
 the light of Unitarianism, it was just and pro- 
 per that he should warn us to flee from the 
 wrath to-come, That must be a_ spurious 
 liberality which would induce any man to see 
 another perish, without informing him of his 
 danger, and showing him how he might escape. 
 Liberality in fact has nothing to de with the 
 question. We may be liberal of what is our 
 own; but the truth is God’s, and with that we 
 have no right to tamper. The only question with 
 us ought to be, not what is liberal or illiberal; 
 but what is true or what is false. 
 
 If Unitarianism be not the Gospel itself, but the 
 substitution of something else, it is not to be 
 supposed that it will produce the same practical 
 efects with the genuine Gospel. And that it is 
 net the Gospel, but a spurious philosophy partly 
 drawn from the Scriptures, and partly founded 
 on imagination, afew observations, in addition to 
 what has been already advanced, will I think 
 render abundantly evident. | 
 
 First. Unitarians do not offer their worship 
 and obedience to the God revealed in the Scrip- 
 ture; but substitute an abstract, philosophical con- 
 ception of a God, nominally pessessing some of 
 the same attributes, yet, in nature and character, 
 altogether different from the God of the Bible. 
 During the existence of the Mosaic dispensation, 
 the only means which the world possessed of 
 
 * Page 89 Edit. 2. 
 
on the religious character. 397 
 
 becoming well acquainted with the character 
 of the one living and true God, were the mani- 
 festations which he gave of it in his dealings 
 with the Israelites. They could indeed have 
 learned his eternal power and Godhead from his 
 works, had they given suitable attention to 
 them; but they could have formed but a very 
 vague and imperfect. conception of his moral 
 character—of his character as a sovereign and 
 legislator, any otherwise than by studying it 
 in the government which he exercised over his 
 chosen people. Those ancient philosophers who 
 attempted to form conceptions of the Deity, 
 painted him as some vast indescribable first cause, 
 destitute of every thing that could be called mo- 
 val character. The conception that Socrates 
 formed of a God went no further than a great, 
 universal, but vague and indeterminate princi- 
 ple or being, who could scarcely be called a per- 
 son, or be said to be possessed of any character ; 
 who took no interest in human affairs, who re- 
 quired no exclusive worship, and who administer- 
 ed no law. But the great God, by condescend- 
 ing personally to administer the government of 
 the Israelites, by giving them a law, and sup- 
 porting its authority by his power to punish or 
 reward, by determining the penalties to be attach- 
 ed to particular transgressions, by superintend- 
 ing for a time the administration of that law, and 
 giving directions respecting the treatment of 
 particular criminals, has furnished us with the 
 means of forming most distinct conceptions of 
 his character as a legislator and a sovereign, and 
 of the principles on which he conducts the so- 
 vereignty of the universe. He has there taught 
 us precisely what is to be understood by his jus- 
 tice, as combined with his mercy; in what 
 circumstances he may be expected to execute 
 2M 
 
398 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 ‘justice without mercy; and in what circum- 
 stances he may be expected to supersede the 
 claims of justice, and to pardon the oiiender. 
 Wethere finda distinct, well defined, personal 
 character, combining in itself all that i is admi~ 
 rable and excellent in the character of a seve- 
 reign. We see there asovereignty exercised with 
 an exclusive regard to the weil being of the peo- 
 ple, without such weakness as would tend to 
 encourage offences, and yet with such tender- 
 ness and gentleness as always offered encourage~ 
 ment to the penitent to return and find mer cy. 
 We find there a character of the Divinesevereignty 
 essentially different from that which Unitarians 
 usually draw of it. They cannot speak of the 
 wrath or fury of God but with contempt; but 
 the Bible makes no scruple of applying such 
 words to the Deity; and of representing him as 
 ordering, or with his own hand inflicting the 
 most awful executions, when the ends of public 
 justice, or the well being of his people required 
 Chores Unitarians would represent the God 
 who is revealed in the Gospel, as a totally dif- 
 ferent being from the God revealed in the Old 
 Testament. But they cannot surely imagine 
 
 that the unchanges uble God has changed his - 
 
 moral character. That he appears in a light 
 somewhat different under the Gospel, from that 
 in which he appeared under the law, is very 
 true; for the Gospel is a dispensation of mercy 
 to sinners—-a scheme for saving those who were 
 lost by being exposed to the sentence of the law— 
 as I shall notice more at length immediately : 
 but those who reject the Gospel, who do not 
 avail themselves of its merciful provisions, may 
 rest assured that they will find the great God 
 to be precisely such a sovereign as he is repre- 
 sented to be under the Mosaic dispensation. 
 
 es 
 
on the religious character. 399 
 
 Nor is the dispensation of the Gospel so widely dif- 
 ferent from that of the Mosaic lawas Unitarians 
 would represent it. For, on the one hand, much 
 of the grace and compassion and tenderness of 
 the Gespel appears under the law. The kind- 
 ness and condescension of God to Abraham, to 
 Moses, to David, and to many others, are not 
 exceeded by any thing that we read of in the New 
 Testament. And, on the other hand, much of 
 the just severity of the law is to be found in the 
 New Testament. We find, even there, men ad- 
 dressed by our Lord himself, as serpents and 
 a generation of vipers, who could not escape the 
 damnation of hell.. We find there declarations, 
 that it shall be more tolerable for the inhabitants 
 of Sedem and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, 
 than fer those who enjeyed, but rejected the Sa- 
 viour’s ministry. We find there the threatening 
 held out that ‘if we sin wilfully after that we 
 have received the knowledge of the truth, there 
 remaineth no more sacrifice for sins; but a cer- 
 tain fearful looking-for of judgment, and fiery 
 indignation which shall deveur the adversaries,” 
 with express reference to the execution of justice 
 under the Mosaie law, and the inference drawn, 
 that he must be worthy of “ much sorer punish- 
 ment” ‘who hath trodden under foot the Son 
 of God, and hath counted the blood of the co- 
 venant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy 
 thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of 
 gvace.”’* God, asa sovereign, possesses precise- 
 ly the same character now that he manifested 
 under the Mosaic law; and the mercy provided 
 in the Gospel is precisely that which was mani- 
 fested to Abraham, and Isaac, and. Jacob, 
 and Moses, and David, and others of his ser- 
 vants under the ancient dispensation. 
 
 * Heb x, 26—31. 
 
4.00 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 Under the Christian dispensation, the Lord 
 has been pleased to come still nearer to us than 
 under the Mosaic dispensation. He does not 
 manifest his presence under the form of a de- 
 vouring fire, or a bright dazzling light, and ex~ 
 hibit his character merely in his public acts as 
 a sovereign. In Jesus Christ he permits us to 
 see, not merely his official, but his personal and, 
 if IT may be allowed the expression, his private 
 character. In Jesus he has laid aside his insignia 
 of royalty, the formality of communicating with 
 us by a messenger, and speaking to us, like Jo- 
 seph to his brethren, by aninterpreter. We are 
 permitted, under the Gospel, to enter into the 
 chamber of the King of kings, to see him in the 
 midst of his own family,—to witness his benig- 
 nity, his humility, his love to his children, his 
 tender and indulgent deportment among them, 
 yet mingled with a certain dignity and re- 
 serve, that was just sufficient to excite their deep 
 veneration. Jesus is tous, as if the God who spoke 
 to Moses from the midst of the burning bush, 
 and who, under the appearance of devouring 
 flame, governed the Israelites, had laid aside for 
 a time his awful distance and majesty, had con- 
 versed freely with many of the people, relieving 
 their wants, comforting these who mourned,: 
 and expressing sorrow for those whom the law 
 necessarily doomed to die. Jesus is to us infi- 
 nitely more than all this. He is a more perfect, 
 a more glorious a Shechinah, a brighter and more 
 spiritual glory of the Lord; not only thus con- 
 versing familiarly with the people, but becoming 
 as one of themselves, subject to the law, weep- 
 ing with human eyes over human miseries, 
 stretching out human hands to relieve the 
 wretched, visiting on human feet the home of the 
 widow and the fatherless, 
 
on the religious character. 401 
 
 But all Unitarians, reject these manifestations 
 given of the character of the Deity in the life and 
 actionsof the Lord Jesus. They cannot conceive of 
 the Godof heaven so humbling himself. Yet sure- 
 ly the most surprising act of humiliation was his 
 manifesting himself under the appearance of a 
 flame of fire, and administering, in hisown person, 
 the government of the Israelites. Let any man 
 reflect upon the minute space which the globe 
 of the world eccupies in the universe, let him 
 then look at a globe of the earth, and opserve 
 what a mere speck the country occupied by the 
 Israelites appears upon it, and then let him say, 
 whether it was not a more astonishing conde- 
 scension in the Ged of the universe, to ofiiciate 
 as the civil ruler of that people, manifesting 
 himself to them in a bright dazzling light, than 
 it was, merely to change the form under which 
 he manifested himself, and, instead of ap- 
 pearing as a bright splendour, to appear as a 
 human creature. The greatest and most asto- 
 nishing act of our Lord’s condescension was his 
 taking upon himself the form of a servant, to 
 undertake the superintendence of any dispensa- 
 tion on behalf of man. His actually assuming 
 human nature was doubtless a great additional 
 act of condescension: yet the stoop was not so 
 great from being the King of Israel, to the con- 
 dition of the man Christ Jesus; as the stoop 
 from being the God, not only of the whole earth, 
 but of the whole universe, to the condition 
 of the King of Israel, dwelling, under the form 
 of a bright cloud, in a moveable tabernacle, or 
 in a house made with human hands. Deists 
 have imagined that either of these manifesta- 
 tions of God was too extraordinary to be be- 
 lieved ; yet even their philosophy—their mathe- 
 matical demonstrations, might convince them, 
 
 2M2 
 
402 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 that it could be no greater condescension in the 
 Deity to manifest himself to the most minute ani- 
 malcules that the mind can conceive of, than to 
 manifest himself to creatures as great as the great- 
 est of the heavenly bodies, or as geat as all of them 
 combined in one. For, if the Deity be infinite, alk 
 magnitude bears the same proportion to him—all 
 sinks to equal insignificance. Their argument 
 therefore, if it can becalledargument, would prove 
 that it is impossible for the Deity to manifest 
 himself to any of his creatures, under any form ; 
 or, what amounts to the same thing, that it is 
 incredible that he should ever have done so :— 
 than which conclusion nothing could be more 
 presumptuous or more irrational. 
 
 Yet, by arguments such as these, do, not only 
 Deists, but Unitarians deprive themselves of 
 those precise, well defined conceptions of the le- 
 gislative and moral character of the great God 
 
 which the Scripture affords; and prefer their 
 
 own vague indefinite conceptions of some great 
 first cause—some simple, uncompounded, in- 
 divisible spirit, vested with certain attributes 
 conceived of in the abstract, but with a moral 
 character, and with principles of government, 
 altogether unsettled and indeterminate. Instead 
 of coming to the God of the Bible, and receiy- 
 ing him as he is revealed there, they select such 
 of the materials provided in the Scriptures as 
 commend themselves to their own philosophy, 
 and out of them fashion a Ged for themselves. 
 They thus err in regard to the very object of 
 worship and obedience. They do net look to 
 that individual person, possessing a distinct, de- 
 fined character, acting upon certain principles, 
 who is revealed in the Scriptures, as their God, 
 and the object of their love and obedience ; but 
 they look to an abstract philosophical concep 
 
on the religious character. 403 
 
 of the Deity, to whom they ascribe precisely 
 such a character as suits that system of religion 
 which they imagine to be most rational. 
 
 Secondly. Unitarians, as it appears from the 
 work of our author, are totally ‘ out of the way,’ 
 with regard to the very nature and intent of the 
 mission of the Saviour, and of the whole Gospel 
 dispensation. In the abstract which he has 
 given us of the creed of Unitarians, he has not 
 said one syllable of men being guilty, or in 
 danger, or of any means being provided for 
 saving them from danger. He speaks of salva- 
 tion, and of the Saviour; but he does not say 
 from what men are to be saved. He tells us 
 that Unitarians believe that “ God placed man 
 on the earth in a state of probation and trial,— 
 endowed him with many noble faculties and 
 powers, of which HE requires the proper use and 
 improvement; that HE is a righteous moral 
 governor, and will reward the virtuous, and 
 punish the wicked.” All this is very well for 
 those who are conscious of no sin; for if God be 
 a righteous judge, he will judge according to the 
 law; and those who have not violated the law 
 will be pronounced just, and rewarded. But 
 what provision is there for those who have vio- 
 lated the law, and who are conscious that if they 
 be tried by the law, particularly as explained by 
 our Lord in his sermon on the mount, they must 
 be condemned. I can find nothing in our 
 author’s creed on this subject, connected with 
 the Gospel of Christ. His creed says that 
 God is a being of “infinite placability and mercy, 
 who requires no bloody sacrifices,” to appease 
 his wrath. But he adds, that the sacrifices of 
 God are a broken spirit; and that a broken and 
 contrite heart he will not despise. What is the 
 
404 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 meaning of all this? God is infinitely placable, 
 will he then punish no one? That our author 
 cannot suppose, for he says that he will punish 
 the wicked; nay, and he seems to intimate that 
 he requires ‘a broken and contrite heart” in 
 those who have sinned. What does he mean by 
 a broken'spirit, aud a broken and contrite heart ? 
 If they mean any thing, they must mean a spirit 
 deeply and solemnly affected on account of sin— 
 like the poor publican’s, who could not lift up 
 his eyes to heaven, but smote upon his breast, 
 and said, “God be merciful to me, a sinner 3” 
 or like that of the woman who was a sinner, 
 who bathed the feet of our Lord with her tears, 
 and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Is 
 ench a broken and contrite heart necessary fos 
 all men? If not, what is necessary for thase 
 who have sinned? God is infinitely placable ; 
 but something is necessary to move him to 
 compassion, else he would not punish the 
 wicked; and is that something, the sacrifices of 
 a broken and contrite heart? Iso, I apprehend 
 ‘+t would be difficult to find a single individual 
 im our author’s whole congregation, or in the 
 whole Unitarian body, who couid be saved, on 
 these terms. I never yet met with an indi- 
 vidual, who was really humbied on account of 
 sin—deeply and solemnly penitent,—who could 
 he said, without the utmost extravagance of 
 language, to be broken-hearted under a sense of 
 guilt, who yet could remain a Unitarian for a 
 single hour. | And the probability is, that, if 
 our author found such a person among his 
 people, he would strongly suspect that he was 
 becoming a fanatic, and perhaps pronounce him 
 to be tinged with insanity. | 
 But let us suppose that our author is permitted 
 to rule it so, that God, in the administration of 
 
on the religious character. 405 
 
 his law, is to pardon every penitent sinner, and 
 none else; are we to understand him as teaching, 
 that, however wicked a man may be during the 
 whole of his life, if he be but distressed and 
 broken-hearted on account of his sins when he 
 comes to die, he is, as a matter of course, to be 
 pardoned? This, I suspect, would sound too 
 like an approach to his notions of Calvinism for 
 him to believe. How, indeed, could a law be 
 administered on any such principle, as, that a 
 man, who has, not merely in one instance, 
 violated it, but who, during his whole life, 
 has been employed in perpetrating the very 
 mischief which it is the object of the law to 
 prevent; and who, when he is detected, convicted, 
 condemned, brought to the foot of the gibbet, is 
 terrified, distressed, broken-hearted, should be, 
 as a matter of course, set at liberty? If this be 
 not the Unitarian view of the mode in which 
 God will deal with sinners, what then? Is God 
 determined to resist the tears and cries of those 
 who are really penitent, even at the last hour ¢ 
 And is the weeping, contrite, broken-hearted, 
 imploring sinner to be cast, without mercy, into 
 hell? How, in that case, could God be described 
 as infinitely placable ? 
 
 Let the author say distinctly what comfort he 
 could offer to a dying sinner, supposing him to 
 have lived a life of sin. A Unitarian minister 
 was, as I have learned, at one time candidate 
 for the Presbyterian chaplainship of Newgate. 
 How would he have conducted himself, had he 
 been called to attend a criminal to the place of 
 execution? Would he have told him plainly 
 that there was no hope for him; or would he 
 have permitted him to suppose that, however 
 wicked he might have been, if he were only sorry 
 for his sin, he would be saved by the mercy of 
 
406 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 God? I believe that Unitarian ministers are 
 not very uniform in their practice in such cases. 
 It have heard of one declining to visit a member of 
 his own congregation on his death-bed; and giving 
 as a reason, that it could be of no use, that the 
 man had lived in wickedness, and it was not to 
 be supposed that he could be pardoned, now that 
 he had come todie. [have met with an instance 
 of an opposite description, in which a Unitarian 
 minister was called to visit a young man who 
 had enjoyed, but misused a religious education, 
 and who, when he came to his death-bed, fell 
 into extreme terror on account of his sin, and 
 the account that he was going to render to God. 
 The minister endeavoured to comfort him by 
 telling him, that he should not take such things 
 so serlously to heart, that youth would have 
 its indiscretions, and that God was good, and 
 gracious, and merciful, and would not be 
 rigorous upon him;—or words to that effect. 
 He then, I think, prayed with him, and left 
 him; and, although the young man continued 
 to live in his immediate neighbourhood for many 
 weeks, he never again visited him. 
 
 I do not mean to state either of these modes 
 of treating dying sinners as universal among 
 Unitarians. They are indeed contradictory ; 
 and he who could adopt the one could scarcely, 
 on principle at least, adopt. the other. But I 
 should be glad to know what is their principle 
 on the subject; how, for example, our author, 
 or any other Unitarian minister, would conduct 
 himself as chaplain of a Lock hospital, or of a 
 criminal prison. Whether he would deprive 
 the wretched wanderers of all hope, and tell 
 them plainly, that nothing could then save them 
 from perdition ; or whether he would, by giving 
 them encouragement, permit the others to sup- 
 
 oo ee 
 
on the religious character. 40% 
 
 pose, that, however wicked they might be during 
 their lives, if they were distressed on account of 
 their sin when they came to die, they would be 
 surely pardoned ? 
 
 These are questions of inconceivable import- 
 ance. They are not confined to the treatment 
 of criminals or other abandoned persons. ‘They 
 refer to the condition of all who have lived in 
 sin of any description, whether disreputable in 
 the eyes ef the world, or not. They may be 
 slighted by those who are whole-hearted on the 
 subject of sin, who feel little or no uneasiness 
 about it; but, when aman approaches his dis- 
 solution, and his sins rise up on his recollection, 
 such questions assume an importance which no 
 tongue can express. It is not sufficient to tell 
 2 man whose apprehensions are excited on that 
 subject, that God is good and merciful. It 
 furnishes but little consolation to a man who is 
 about to be put on trial for his life, for a crime 
 of which he knows himself to be guilty, that 
 he will be tried by a just and humane judge. 
 The question which he feels to be important is, 
 whether there isany definite ground to hope that 
 the sentence of the law may be set aside. So, 
 when a man who is conscious of guilt, feels that 
 heis going to take his station at the bar of divine 
 judgment, he must know something more to 
 support him than an assurance that his Judge 1s 
 just and compassionate. He must know whether 
 there is any ground, and what ground there is 
 to hope, that the sentence of the law, whieh is 
 ‘plainly written in the Bible, and which he 1s 
 conscious that he has incurred, will not be 
 executed upon him. 
 
 Our author, by connecting no specific means 
 of saving men from the condemnation due to 
 their guilt with the mission of the Saviour ; nay, 
 
408 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 by omitting all mention of the guilt of man, 
 proves, to the conviction of any mere infant 
 divine knowledge, that he has totally mistaken 
 the nature and end of the Gospel dispensation. 
 The Gospel is a restorative dispensation. It 
 views men as in danger, and it comes to save 
 them. It views them as guilty, it comes to 
 proclaim pardon: it views them as defiled, it 
 comes to purify them: it views them as alien- 
 ated from God, it. comes to reconcile them. to 
 God. The Messiah was to be called Jesus, 
 because he should save his people from their 
 sins. He himself tells us that he came “to seek 
 and to save them that were lost.” The apostle 
 Paul says, that “ Jesus gave himself for us, that 
 he might redeem us from iniquity, and purify us 
 to himself, a peculiar people, zealous of good 
 works ;’*—thus intimating, that we were in 
 bondage to iniquity, and were defiled by it. 
 Jesus said that he came to call, not the righteous, 
 but sinners to repentance. This was addressed 
 to the Pharisees, and he did not by any means 
 intend to concede to them that they were righ- 
 teous ; for, en other occasions, he bears testi- 
 mony against their wickedness. But he thus 
 intimated te them, that he came for the purpose 
 of saving sinners,—that his business was with 
 sinners, and, therefore, that if they were righte- 
 ous, they did not fall within the objects of his 
 mission. He said to them also, “the whole need 
 not a physician, but they that are sick.” Here 
 again, he did not intend to teach them that they 
 had no need of a spiritual physician; but merely 
 to intimate, that he came iato the world as a 
 physician goes to an hospital —for the sake of 
 those that are sick; and that if they were not 
 
 * §6Titus ii. 14. 
 
on the religious character. 4.09 
 
 sick, he had nothing to do with them, nor they 
 with him. 
 
 Accordingly, in describing the effects of the 
 Gospel dispensation on those who believe it 
 and profit by it, the inspired writers always 
 state them as a deliverance from the guilt and 
 consequences of sin already incurred. “ There 
 is now,” says the apostle Paul, “no condemna- 
 tion to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk 
 not after the flesh but after the Spirit.”* Again, 
 Eph. ii. 1—6. “ And you hath he quickened 
 who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein, 
 in time past, ye walked according to the course 
 of this world, according to the prince of the 
 power of the air, the spirit that now worketh 
 in the children of disobedience: among whom 
 also we ail had our conversation in times past, - 
 in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires 
 of the flesh and of the mind; and were by na- 
 ture the children of wrath, even as others. But 
 God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love 
 wherewith he loved us, even when we were 
 dead in sins, hath quickened us together with 
 Christ, (by grace ye are saved) and hath raised 
 us up together, and made us sit together in hea- 
 venly places in Christ Jesus.” Yet again, Rom. 
 iii. 9—10. *“ What then, are we better than they” 
 (i. e. we Jews than they Gentiles), “no, in no 
 wise; for we have before proved both Jews and 
 Gentiles, that they are all under sin, as it is 
 written, there is none righteous, no, not one:” ver. 
 93.96, * For all have sinned, and come short 
 of the glory of God; being justified freely by 
 his grace, through the redemption that is in 
 Christ Jesus ; whom God hath set forth to be a 
 propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare 
 
 * Rom. viii. 1. 
 
 2N 
 
410 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 his righteousness for the remission of sins that 
 are past, through the forbearance of God; to 
 declare I say, his righteousness; that he might 
 be just, and the justifier of him that believeth 
 in Jesus.” But to cite all the passages of the 
 New Testament which evince the Gospel te 
 be a restorative dispensation, would be to trans- 
 cribe a large portion of the whole book. 
 
 Yet, not one word of this is said in our au- 
 thor’s creed, nor of any thing in the condition 
 of man that required restoration. He says, 
 quoting in part the words of our blessed Lord 
 himself, that, *“* God so loved the world, that 
 he gave his only begotten Son ;” for what pur- 
 pese ?—** to be our instructor,” says he, * our 
 example and our guide.” But the purpose ex- 
 pressed by our Lord himself is—‘ that whoso 
 ever believeth in him should not perish but have 
 everlasting hife:” and ke proceeds in the same 
 strain to add, ‘* For God sent not. his Son into 
 the world to condemn the world; but that the 
 world through him might be saved. He that 
 believeth on him is not condemned; but he thaé 
 believeih not is condemned already, because he hath 
 not believed in the name of the only begotten 
 Son of God.”* And John the Baptist says, as 
 recorded in the same chapter “‘ He that believ- 
 eth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that | 
 believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the 
 wrath of God abideth on him.’+ Nothing can 
 more decisively prove that our author’s view of 
 the purpose for which God sent his only begot- 
 ten Son into the world, is absolutely irrecon- 
 cileable with our Lord’s own view of it, than 
 that he could not make use of our Lord’s own 
 words in stating it; but that, after quoting half 
 
 * Jo, iii, 16—18, + ib. v. 36. 
 
on the religious character. 4}1 
 
 a sentence, he found himself under the neces- 
 sity of substituting for the remainder, language 
 of his own. 
 
 Our author’s total silence respecting the work 
 of the Holy Spirit, in renewing and changing 
 the heart of man, indicates the same mistake as 
 to the very end and nature of the Gospel. A 
 thousand years before our Lord’s coming into 
 the world, a psalm was composed to. celebrate 
 his ascension to heaven; in which it is said, 
 that, on ascending up on high, he had received 
 gifts for men, yea even for the rebellious, that 
 the Lord God might dwell among them.* These 
 words are, by the authority of inspiration, ap- 
 plied to the ascension of Jesus to heaven, and 
 the gift of the ifoly Spirit whom he shed forth 
 upon his discipies.+ And Jesus himself declar- 
 ed, that the object of his going to heaven was 
 the sending forth of the Holy Spirit, who should 
 more than make up to his disciples the loss of 
 his visible presence among them. ‘* Neverthe- 
 less,” said he, “ I tell yeu the truth: it is expe- 
 dient for you that I go away; for if I go not 
 away, the Comforter will not come unto you, 
 but if I depart, I will send him unto you.’ 
 With regard to the importance of the Spirit’s 
 influences, the apostle Paul says, that we are 
 “« saved by the washing of regeneration and re- 
 newing of the Holy Ghost.Ӥ And, in perfect 
 conformity with this, Jesus himself tells us, that 
 except a man—that is any man, be born again, 
 he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. And 
 ‘it is manifestly in reference to the same opera- 
 tion, that the apostle Paul says again, “ For in 
 Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any 
 
 * Ps. Ixviii. 18, + Eph. iv. 8—12. 
 ¢ Jo. xvi. 7. § Tit. tii; 5; 
 
412 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 thing, nor uncireumcision, but a new creature:”” 
 And again, ‘ If any man be in Christ, he is a new 
 creature.”+ The influences of the Spirit of Ged : 
 therefore, in renewing and sanetifying our na- 
 ture, form an integral, and an essential part of the 
 Gospel dispensation, in its capacity of a restorative 
 dispensation ; and the omission of all mention of 
 them—of the Holy Spirit himself, and of that pol- 
 lutedness of the heart, to purify which calls for 
 his interposition is, I conceive, another indica~ 
 tion, that our author and other Unitarians have 
 totally mistaken the very nature and object of 
 Christianity. He says, indeed, that Jesus came 
 to turn us from darkness to light, and from the 
 power of Satan to God: and, to one uninitiated 
 in the mysteries of Unitarianism, (for it too has 
 its mysteries) these words would seem to imply 
 that all mankind are in darkness, and lying 
 under the power of Satan. But these tenets are 
 strenuously denied by most, if not by all Unita- 
 rians. Most of them deny even the existence 
 of such a being as Satan, and imagine that he 
 is only a sort of personification of evil—especi- 
 ally of the malignant passions. Our author 
 gives no explanation of what he conceives to be 
 meant by the language which he quotes; or of 
 what it implies respecting the state of mankind. 
 But, judging of his sentiments from those of 
 the greater part of Unitarians, which he war- 
 rants us to do by identifying himself with them 
 all, he understands nothing more by these words 
 than that Jesus came to enlighten men by his in- 
 structions, and to teach them how to overcome 
 -any bad passions or tempers by which they might 
 be enticed or hurried on to evil. IT have no in- 
 tention whatever of misrepresenting him, and 
 
 * Gal vi. 15, + 2.Cor. v. 1%, 
 
on the religious character. 443 
 
 would much rather that he had explained his 
 own views of the state of mankind, than that he 
 should have obliged us, by his silence, to infer 
 them from other parts of his system, and from 
 the published sentiments of those with whom he 
 identifies himself. | : 
 
 I am constrained, therefore, to conclude, that 
 our author, and those who receive his instruc- 
 tions, as affording just views of Scripture doc- 
 trine, are totally astray in their conceptions of 
 the nature of Christianity. They are thinking 
 of a scheme for rewarding the righteous and 
 punishing the wicked ; but the Gospel commences 
 with declaring that there is none righteous, no, 
 not one; and therefore, that there is none, inde- 
 pendently of the pardoning mercy of the Gospel 
 itself, to be rewarded,—no, not one. ‘That God 
 would punish those who violate the law of his 
 empire, and reward those, if there were any, 
 who have uniformly obeyed it, is most true, al- 
 together independently of the coming of Jesus 
 into the world. But the Gospel comes to men 
 as guilty, to save them from the sentence of the 
 law, which they have all, without exception, 
 incurred; it comes to them as corrupt and pol- 
 luted, to purify them, and fit them for the pre- 
 sence of the Lord in heaven. 
 
 _ Thirdly. There is still another radical error 
 in the Unitarian system, which may be regarded 
 as partly the cause, and partly the effect, of 
 those which we have been considering, and 
 which casts a blighting, withering effect on the 
 whole of their religious character—namely, that 
 they have no adequate conception of the evil of 
 sin, and the danger resulting from it. They are 
 prone to speak of it as an error, a frailty, an 
 infirmity, which God is, in some sense, bound 
 
ALA, On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 by his very character, to overlook and pardon; 
 and in this view of sin, our author, both by his 
 own language, and by his quotations, seems to 
 concur. Here, again, we much require definite 
 explanations. Does our author regard the crimes 
 of murder, robbery, incest, or adultery, as mere 
 frailties, or errors, which God will necessarily, 
 in virtue of the infinite placability of his cha- 
 racter, pardon and overlook? That ground he 
 will hardly take. Would he, then, regard Sab- 
 bath-breaking or blasphemy, cursing and swear- 
 ing, as such mere errors, peceadillos, as will be 
 passed by without. strict scrutiny or severe pu- 
 nishment? This is not the judgment which 
 God himself has pronounced respecting these 
 sins. In the Jewish code of laws, which was 
 framed by God for the very purpose of making 
 us acquainted with his character as a legisla- 
 tor, and in which we have what may surely 
 be regarded as his own estimate of the com- 
 parative demerit of crimes, he has annexed the 
 same punishment to blasphemy and Sabbath- 
 breaking, as to murder and adultery ; namely, 
 the punishment of death. Nay, and when per- 
 sons were found guilty of these crimes, and the 
 cases were remitted to him for his determina- 
 tion, he directed that both the Sabbath-breaker 
 and the blasphemer, should be stoned to death, 
 without mercy; which sentence was executed 
 accordingly. So much importance did he at~- 
 tach to the observance of the Sabbath, that the 
 utter ruin of the kingdom of Judah, or its ex- 
 altation to the highest prosperity, was made to 
 depend on the nation persevering in their viola- 
 tions of the Sabbath, or repenting of them and re- 
 linquishing them.* Even under the Gospel, the 
 
 * Jer, xvii, 19—27. 
 
on the religious character. ALS 
 
 only sin that is declared to be unpardonable, is 
 blasphemy—the blasphemy against the Holy 
 Ghost. : 
 
 Sin is a transgression of the law of God—the 
 law of the universe, the eternal standard of right 
 and wrong; which God is, by his character, en- 
 gaged to maintain in all its purity, with all his 
 power to punish or reward. After all that our 
 author and other. Unitarians say respecting the 
 frailties and infirmities of man, they will scarcely 
 ascribe the origin of any kind or degree of moral 
 evil to God. God, we are told, made man up- 
 right: he made him fallible indeed, but with 
 no propensity or passion that necessarily drew 
 him into a violation of the divine law. The 
 punishment which God annexed to the violation 
 of his law, was death. As if for the very pur- 
 pose of showing us, that the demerit of sin con- 
 sists, not in the mischief that may be done by it 
 to society, but simply in the disobedience which 
 it implies to the divine command, he selected 
 as simple a test of obedience as can be conceived — 
 the refraining from eating a certain fruit. Man 
 transgressed that law ;—he was immediately ex- 
 pelled from the garden of Eden, subjected to 
 hard labour, and condemned to die. His pos- 
 terity have inherited the same expulsion from 
 Eden, the same hard labour, and the same sen- 
 tence of death. But although Adam’s act of dis- 
 obedience may appear a trivial offence to those 
 who do not consider it, yet a little reflection will 
 render it evident that it contained in it the seeds 
 of allsin. It was ingratitude. God had, of his 
 free hounty, given to him every thing that could 
 be conducive to his happiness; yet he would 
 not refrain from that one fruit which God had 
 reserved for his own purposes. It was dishonesty; 
 —he took what was not-his own. It was breach 
 
416 On the influence of Unitarranism 
 
 of trust ;—he was placed in the garden, to keep 
 and to dress it; and he availed himself of the con- 
 fidence placed in him, to take what God had told 
 him was to be reserved. It was redbedlion ;—he 
 knowingly put forth his hand to do what God 
 had prohibited. It was inéemperance j—Eve saw 
 that the tree was good for food and pleasant to 
 the eyes, and she did eat, and gave to her hus- 
 band also, and he did eat. It was ambition ;— 
 they imagined that they were to become as gods, 
 knowing good and evil. It was charging God 
 with falsehood;—God had said, in the day that 
 thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die. Had Adam 
 believed that declaration, he would as soon have 
 eaten of the most deadly poison as of that fruit. 
 But the serpent said ye shall not surely die, and 
 Adam believed the serpent rather than God, and 
 proved this by the overt act of eating of the fruit. 
 Now, every sin, even that which seems to us 
 most trivial, includes in it all these black ingre- 
 dients, and sometimes others,—such as cruelty, 
 or disregard of the well-being of our fellow-crea- 
 tures in addition. And is it reason or common 
 sense that would represent even the slightest 
 taint of such detestable dispositions, as mere 
 frailties or errors; not only deserving of little 
 or no punishment, but forming no just ground 
 of expulsion or exclusion from the Divine pre- 
 sence ? 
 
 This is not the judgment which men pronounce 
 when their own conyeniency or honour is con- 
 cerned. They make no scruple in doing their 
 utmost even to annihilate those who encroach 
 upon the comforts of society. Does our author 
 say, that [am comparing the character of God 
 to that of imperfect fallible man? Task, does 
 he coneeive it to be an imperfection in legisla- 
 tors to annex fevere penalties to their laws, and 
 
on the religious character. ALY 
 
 to execute them? I ask, if he would commend 
 a legislator who should be so infinitely placable— 
 so tender-hearted to criminals, as to pardon them 
 as often as they expressed sorrow, and asked for- 
 giveness? Would he not say that such a per- 
 son was not fitted to be a legislator; and that his 
 mistaken leniency to transgressors, was cruelty 
 to his obedient subjects ? And why regard that 
 as a perfection in the Deity, which would be re- 
 garded as a blemish anda fault in any human le- 
 gislator? He accuses us of ascribing to God 
 such conduct as would horrify us in a mortal like 
 ourselves? In one point of view, this accusation 
 is true. God is the proprietor of the lives of all 
 men, and may do what he pleases with his own. 
 We should view with horror a man putting to 
 death one individual of his fellow-creatures, 
 while we feel no horror in hearing of God sweep- 
 ing off, by famines and pestilences, whole nations. 
 We should feel horror m any man depriving a 
 single individual of the means of religious in- 
 struction; wile we feel no horror in God’s 
 punishing the backshding of Churches, by ‘ re- 
 moving their candlestick out of its place,’ and 
 leaving them in darkness. But, taking into view 
 the whole of the moral empire ‘of God, his cha- 
 racter as a legislator is precisely that which we 
 should regard as the perfection of a human legis- 
 lator.’ We view him as having enacted a law 
 absolutely perfect, fitted to every conceivable 
 case, affixing no penalty too severe ; and therefore, 
 as maintaining the integrity of that law. It may 
 frequently be a virtue in a human Sovereign to 
 depart from the sentence of a human law, be- 
 cause the law itself may be unjust; but no such 
 case can occur in administering the law of God, 
 because his law is absolutely perfect. 
 But let us look again at the practice of the 
 
418 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 most virtuous society. Let me suppose a 
 community living in perfect virtue, upright, 
 kind, generous, pure, peaceful, (to say nothing 
 of davonenle ; and let me suppose one of them to 
 be detected in a theft ;—what a total change is 
 produced in his condition !—his character lost, 
 his friends compelled, by a regard to their own 
 character, to expel him from among them:—he 
 has flien, and so fallen that hé can never rise 
 to what he was; he has brought a stain on 
 himself which can never be wholly obliterated. 
 There is one case, in which a single fall pro- 
 duces an effect that forcibly illustrates the con- 
 sequences of sin; namely, a female, in virtuous 
 and polished society, losing her character. What 
 a total, irretrieveable fall! What an instant, 
 and irremediable ruin! Even mercy itself, al- 
 though it will not injure the wretched victim of 
 guilt; although it may pity, and provide for her 
 even a comfortable subsistence, yet does not re- 
 ceive her into confidence, and place her in her for- 
 mer condition. Ifsucha person be restored to some 
 measure of respect, it is not till after she has 
 given unequivocal proofs of a heart really broken — 
 and contrite under a sense of her degradation. 
 If she fall asecond time, she is cast off absolutely 
 for ever; and I suppose even our author, not- 
 withstanding his admiration of infinite placabi- 
 lity, would “scarcely recommend to a husband, 
 or a father, or to brothers and sisters, to receive 
 2 female into the bosom of their family, who 
 once anda second time, had given herself up to 
 infam 
 Now, no such fall can appear so degrading and 
 hateful in the eyes of the most virtuous society, 
 as any fall whatever into sin must appear in the — 
 ight of God, and of his holy family above. And 
 itt Is to be expected, that a God of infinite purity 
 
on the religious character. 419 
 
 shall, from the mere placability of his character, 
 receive into the bosom of his family, one who 
 has fallen, not onee or twice, but who has been 
 living a life which, when tried by the standard 
 of his law, must be pronounced a life of the 
 grossest pollution; and that, teo, without any 
 provision for maintaining the standard of moral 
 rectitude, or protecting the other members of 
 his family from the contagion of sin? 
 
 The Seripture.gives no countenance whatever 
 to that simpering sentimentalism, which would 
 present the Deity as incapable, in consequence 
 of extreme tenderness, of executing the sentence 
 of his own law. It deseribes sin, of every kind, 
 as hateful beyond all conception. The deserip- 
 tions given, by the Prophets, of idelatry and its 
 attendant vices, under the figure of conjugal 
 infidelity, are unspeakably revolting.* Even the 
 blessed Jesus, whomsome writers would represent 
 as meek and gentle in such sort, as to be incapable 
 of using severity even of language, could address 
 to the Pharisees such words as these—-** Ye ser- 
 pents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye es- 
 cape the damnation of hell?” Even He télls us 
 of that rich man who, although he was no rob- 
 ber, or murderer, or blasphemer, or adulterer, 
 but who lived for his own gratification, and ne- 
 glected his duty to others, passed from this 
 world into hell, where he lifted up his eyes in 
 torment, and could not obtain even a drop of 
 water to cool histongue. It is He who declares, 
 that it will be more tolerable for the inhabitants 
 of Sodom and Gomorrah, in the day of judg. 
 ment, than for those who enjoyed, but negiected 
 the advantages of his ministry. 
 
 God is, indeed, represented in Scripture, as 
 infinitely mereiful and ready to forgive; but it 
 is not by lessening the demerit of sin, nor by 
 
 * See Ezek. xvi. & xxiii, 
 
420 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 lowering the standard of obedience. He has 
 given us a holy, just, and good law, suited to 
 our nature, which, but for our corrupt propen- 
 sities, we are fully able perfectly to observe. 
 We have violated it; and God has provided a 
 means of deliverance from its sentence; but he 
 has not, in the slightest degree, abated its re- 
 quirements. There is no standard of obedience 
 alluded to in the word of God, but his pure and 
 perfect law. To that we are directed to conform 
 ourselves; and every conceivable motive is held 
 out to induce us, to our very utmost ability, to 
 do so. Aman who lives in the habitual prae- 
 tice of any known sin, has no ground to expect 
 mercy from God. Unitarians imagine, that the 
 provision made for showing mercy, is an abate- 
 ment of the standard of the law,—a sort of in- 
 dulgence to a certain degree of sin, as an una 
 voidable infirmity. But itis absolute blasphemy 
 to talk of God’s indulging men, even in what 
 they might be disposed to regard as the most 
 trivial sin. We might as well speak of a parent 
 being so kind and affectionate as to indulge his 
 children in a propensity to drink poison; or of 
 his lovingly and tenderly indulging them in 
 lying, and stealing, and drunkenness. No, God 
 cannot be indulgent to sin, or to sinners in per- 
 mitting them to sin. Sin 1s that which defiles 
 and destroys men; every taint of it is pollution 
 and degradation, and the more God loves his peo- 
 ple, the more decided will be his measures for re- 
 restraining them from every approach to such 
 contamination. 
 
 Unitarians, then, accuse us of representing 
 God as a tyrant, writing his laws in blood. How 
 can that be, when the very peculiarity of our 
 doctrine is, that he saves us by his free, sove- 
 reign, undeserved grace and merey? They tell 
 ns, that we imagine he would not save us till 
 
on the religious character. 42) 
 
 full satisfaction was made for our sin. Very 
 true; but by whom was the satisfaction made ? 
 By himself. They mix up their doctrine with 
 our’s, and discover absurdity in the combination. 
 They view thesatisfaction made by the Lord Jesus, 
 as made by a creature, and as a ‘ foreign influ- 
 ence,’ supposed to move the great God to mercy ; 
 and then they represent us as believing, that here- 
 fuses to be satisfied, without shedding of blood. 
 But we believe that it was he himself, the Deity, in 
 the person of the Son, that made the satisfaction 
 in our behalf to the violated law—the great 
 principles of his government. If, in this, he de- 
 parted from strict justice, it was only in that 
 noble sense in which a man who makes a great 
 sacrifice for the sake of another, is sometimes 
 said to be unjust tohimself. Nothing, certainly, 
 but the benignity of his own nature, called upon 
 him for such a sacrifice; and we find in that sa- 
 crifice, a standard whereby to measure the love 
 and mercy of our Father in heaven. We do not 
 regard him as showing mercy, by lowering the 
 standard of right and wrong; permitting his 
 children to do with impunity, what he himself 
 has pronounced to be wrong, and indulging them 
 in what he has stigmatised as destructive and 
 degrading to them. But we see him, for the 
 purpose of at once saving them from their guilt 
 and their corruptions, and, at the same time, 
 maintaining the standard of his law, taking the 
 satisfaction of their sins upon himself, descend- 
 ing to their condition, and morally submitting 
 to their deserved punishment. Thus he approves 
 himself just, while yet he justifies the ungodly ; 
 thus, he has provided for the pardon of the 
 offender, without lowering the penalties which 
 he himself had annexed to the violation of his 
 law; and thus he can pardon the sins of his 
 20 
 
422 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 people, without abating one jot, or one tittle of 
 the standard of obedience. 
 
 The scheme which Unitarians have de- 
 vised, according to which, they imagine the 
 Lord is to show mercy to transgressors, is the 
 very worst that can be imagined ;—namely, let- 
 ting down the standard of the law till certain 
 degrees, or certain descriptions of sin shall cease 
 to be included within its denunciations. This 
 system, throws the whole of duty into uncer- 
 tainty; it weakens all the motives to seek after 
 high attainments in holiness; it sets men upon 
 calculating how little religion will be barely sut- 
 ficient to keep them out of hell, and it repre- 
 sents Ged as enacting a law which it would be 
 tyrannical and unjust in him to execute. The 
 Scripture says not one syllable of any abatement 
 whatever in the standard of obedience. On the 
 contrary, our blessed Lord, in his sermon on the 
 mount, of which our author expresses his admi- 
 ration, and which cannot be too greatly admired, 
 raises the standard so high, that there is not a 
 human being on earth who would not be con- 
 demned by it. And yet, without hinting at any 
 abatement or indulgence, he concludes with 
 these formidable words—“ Every one that hear- 
 eth these sayings of mine and doeth them not, 
 shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built 
 his house upon the sand, and the rain descended, 
 and the floods came, and the winds blew, and 
 beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was 
 the fall of it.’* Does the author consent to be 
 tried by the doctrine of that sermon, simply as 
 it stands? I tell him it would be his utter de- 
 struction. He reminds us of the prodigal son, 
 whom, notwithstanding his great delinquency, 
 
 * See Matt. v., vi, & vii. 
 
on the religious character. 423 
 
 his father freely forgave. Very true; and that 
 free mercy of God is all that we rely upon. But 
 let our author and other Unitarians note, that 
 the prodigal son is represented as returning to 
 the standard of obedience in his father’s family. 
 There is nothing intimated of his bringing back 
 with him any of his riotous living, or of his other 
 abominations. Now, the standard of obedience in 
 the family of God, is given by our Lord in his 
 sermon, to which we have alluded. Has our au- 
 thor returned to that standard? Has he left 
 behind him every thing which that sermon de- 
 termines to be sin? If net, let him consider on 
 what ground he expects the reception of the pro- 
 digal son. 
 
 THE consequence of these fatal mistakes into 
 which Unitarians are betrayed in regard to the ob- 
 ject of worship and obedience, respecting their own 
 condition, and the nature and end of the Gospel 
 dispensation; and respecting the demerit of sin, 
 and the standard of obedience, must produce 
 corresponding effects on their religious character. 
 The fall and able manner in which the late ex- 
 cellent Andrew Fuller, has treated the practical 
 defects of the Unitarian system, in his “ Cal- 
 vinistic and Socinian systems examined and 
 compared, as to their moral tendency,” has left 
 little for any subsequent writer to do, besides 
 earnestly recommending that invaluable work 
 to the serious perusal of his readers. Partly, 
 
 however, for the sake of those who have not 
 ~ seen Mr. Fuller’s work, and partly to confirm 
 and apply the principles which we have been en- 
 deavouring to establish, I shall make a few brief 
 observations on what I conceive to be the defects 
 of the religious character of Unitarians. It is 
 
424, On the influence of Unitarianisin 
 
 not by any means my intention to charge them 
 with gross immorality ; or to insinuate, as our 
 author seems to do respecting us, that they are 
 guilty of sins in secret, which, if they were 
 detected, would expose them to disgrace. On 
 the contrary, I conceive them to be a highly re- 
 spectable part of society, many of them exem- 
 plary in the relative duties of life. But, as a 
 body, the withering influence of their system, 
 in intercepting the beams of the Gospel of the 
 grace of God, and leaving them in the coldness 
 and darkness of night, is, I apprehend, suffi- 
 ciently indicated by their religious character ;— 
 and it is to that only, that I would call the at- 
 tention of my readers. In doing so I utterly 
 disavow any hostile feeling towards them. I 
 would address them as a pliysician would a ya- 
 tient whom he would persuade to receive his 
 prescriptions, by pointing out to him the symp- 
 toms of disease. Still they are but symptoms of 
 that spiritual malady with which I, as well as 
 they, have been affected, and from which I make 
 no pretentions to be perfectly freed. I trust, in- 
 deed, that its power is now broken in me; but the 
 vestigesof it are still sufficiently evident to involve 
 me in whatever disgrace may be attached to it. 
 If I place them as prisoners at the bar, I take 
 my station beside them, and claim no other pre- 
 eminence than that, although I am as guilty as 
 they, I have made application for pardon ac- 
 cording to the prescribed directions, and have 
 obtained it; whereas they are hoping to escape 
 after braving the trial, by some undefined relax- 
 ation of the law, either as to its requirements, 
 or its penalties—a hope which will surely prove 
 delusive. 
 
 1. The primary and fundamental sin of human 
 
on the religious character. 425 
 
 nature; namely the pride of the human heart, 
 is not broken by the Unitarian system. Their 
 writings uniformly breathe the pride of intellect. 
 They are impatient of mysteries; that is, of what- 
 ever they do not understand. They will not 
 approach the Scripture with that veneration with 
 which a genuine inquirer after truth approaches 
 the phenomena of nature ;—receiving and trea- 
 suring up every fact that is actually ascertained, 
 however apparently extraordinary; abstaining 
 from pronouncing upon what is not actually as- 
 eertained; and never permitting inferences drawn 
 from facts, or difficulties in reasoning upon them, 
 or inconsistencies to which they seem to lead, to 
 shake their belief of the facts themselves. But 
 they come to the Scripture as the ancient philo- 
 sophers did to the contemplation of the universe. 
 These sages, as they were called, would under- 
 stand every thing. They could tell how the 
 original atoms of matter were combined together 
 to form the world; they could talk fluently about 
 simple and compounded substances; about the 
 purer and finer etherial particles, and the grosser 
 and coarser particles; and, in their own way, 
 they could account for every thing. So, Unita- 
 rians approach the Bible as its superior, to pro- 
 neunce upon what is rational in it, what may 
 be attended to, and what may safely be neglected; 
 what may be received in its obvious meaning, 
 and what must be made, no matter by what cri- 
 tical torture, to speak a different language. 
 
 The Rev. Doctor Bruce, to whose represen- 
 tations some of my readers may be disposed to 
 listen, gives a striking picture of the manner in 
 which Unitarians treat the sacred Scriptures. 
 ‘“‘ The doctrine of the pre-existence,” says he, 
 ** is so clearly and repeatedly declared in various 
 parts of Scripture, em can hardly be con- 
 
 O 
 
+ 
 
 426 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 tested without an undue degree of critical re- 
 finement. Those who deny it, seem to me to 
 be at continual variance with both revelations ; 
 to be continually fencing with the word of God, 
 parrying and warding off the most direct and 
 
 ointed texts.” This is precisely the impression 
 which such writings as that of our author, make 
 upon my mind ;—an interminable warfare with 
 Scripture, waged for the purpose of beating 
 down and silencing its testimony ;—a constant 
 attempt to confront the sacred writers out from 
 their own lips, or from the expressions of one ano- 
 ther. Now, can those who, in such a spirit, ap- 
 proach the sacred word of inspiration, be said 
 to approach it humbly, as enquirers after truth? 
 They assume the tone of persons who have as- 
 certained the truth from some other source, and 
 who, believing the Scripture to have some de- 
 scription of divine authority, come to it to bring 
 it into consistency with their previously deter- 
 mined system, or to borrow from it such assist- 
 ance in completing their system, as it may afford. 
 No one would ever examine the phenomena of 
 nature, for the purpose of determining what they 
 are, or ought to be, according to the dictates of 
 reason or common sense. No one would now 
 attempt to forma system of astronomy or of 
 chymistry, in conformity with what he conceives, 
 in reason and common sense, it ought to be. 
 Philosophers now content themselves with as- 
 certaining the facts of astronomy and chymistry, 
 without the slightest regard to what may be 
 deemed reasonable or unreasonable; and when 
 the facts are ascertained, they arrange them into 
 a systematic form. But they will not permit the 
 system to alter, or modify, or suppress, or re- 
 duce to an unessential, any ascertained fact. 
 The very proposal, therefore, to interpret the 
 
on the religious character. 427 
 
 Scriptures, (not by the aid of reason and com- 
 mon sense, which is legitimate, but) according to 
 the previous determination of reason and com- 
 mon sense, respecting what ought or ought not 
 to be true, is a decided evidence of a proud un- 
 teachable spirit. 
 
 In all his works the Deity chooses to be in- 
 comprehensible. We cannot prosecute our 
 inquiries in any direction, without being con- 
 ducted towards unfathomable mysteries, and 
 inextricable labyrinths. The purpose of thus 
 surrounding our limited field of vision with 
 thick darkness, is doubtless to bring down and 
 subdue the pride of our understanding. When 
 Job had expressed himself irreverently and pre- 
 sumptuously respecting the ways of God to him, 
 God overwhelmed and confounded him, by a 
 reference to the unsearchable mysteries of his 
 works. But Unitarians treat all mysteries, even 
 with regard to the being—the ‘constitution of 
 the Deity’ with contempt ; and, rather than 
 confess Him to be incomprehensible, they at- 
 tempt to bring Him within the grasp of their 
 intellect, by pronouncing him to be a simple, 
 uncompounded, indivisible Spirit, and by compar- 
 ing his unity to a monad or a mathematical point. 
 
 _ The pride of morals is, in Unitarians, as un- 
 broken as their pride of intellect. They can- 
 not but confess themselves to be sinners ; yet ra-. 
 therthan confess themselves to be justly condemn- 
 ed criminals, and cast themselves on the mere 
 compassion and mercy of their judge, they ven- 
 ture to bring down the standard of his law to 
 their own level, that they may have at least 
 some appearance of merit to commend them to 
 his favour. They cannot but feel that the 
 thoughts and desires and purposes of their hearts 
 the working of their passions and tempers, are 
 
428 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 very far from being pure, according to the stan- 
 dard furnished by the Lord Jesus; yet, rather than 
 acknowledge themselvesto be corruptand unclean, 
 they will indulge the frantic expectation, that a 
 God of spotless purity and holiness will, in the 
 administration of his law, make allowances for 
 what they are pleased to call infirmities and 
 frailties, and accept of them on the ground of their 
 hearts being good and upright. Dr. Bruce argues 
 that human nature cannot be corrupted, because, 
 if it were so, men could not regard one ano- 
 ther with respect. How, he asks, could chil- 
 dren respect their parents, or husbands and 
 wives esteem one another, if they all believed one 
 another to be the victims of an innate corrup- 
 tion? The same argument would prove any cri- 
 minal to be innocer:t; for how, if he were guilty, 
 could his wife or children respect him? The in- 
 mates of a lunatic asylum might argue (and 
 many of them would have sufficient acuteness to 
 argue) that it was impossible they could be insane, 
 —for how then could they respect one another? 
 
 Yet there is something strange in our author’s 
 doctrine regarding the corruption of human na- 
 ture. He accounts for the slow progress of 
 Unitarianism in the world, upon the principle, 
 that men love darkness rather than light, and 
 that the passions represented by the gods of the 
 Ammonites, Moabites, and Sidonians—Moloch, 
 Mammon, and Belial, Astaroth, Chemosh, and 
 Milcom are arrayed against it among Christians. 
 I cannot conceive of a picture of more deplora- 
 ble corruption. But the difference between his 
 doctrine and the Seripture doctrine of human 
 depravity is, that, according to his view, only the 
 opponents of Unitarianism are the victims of this 
 corruption. Unitarians themselves inherit ano-~ 
 ther nature, and love the light, and come to the 
 
on the religious character. 429 
 
 light, and are animated with the “ lofty and 
 holy aspirings of the immortal soul.” Thus 
 this very doctrine which is calculated to hum- 
 ble man to the very dust in the sight of his 
 Maker, is converted by them into a foundation’ 
 for self complacency and. “lofty aspirings.” 
 
 2. Unitarianism fails in exciting in the bosoms 
 of its votaries love to God and zeal for his 
 glory. | | 
 Our author speaks indeed, of love to God ; 
 but it is manifestly not love to God as a person, 
 but asa principle or theory. He forms a concep~ 
 tion of a great first cause or universal spirit en- 
 dowed with certain attributes, and falls in love 
 with the magnificent imagination. That he does 
 not love the God of the Bible, nor even his own 
 God, as a child loves a parent, is manifest from 
 this, that he is disposed to palliate offences done 
 against him, and to encourage himself and others 
 in the hope, that they will be regarded but as 
 frailties and errors. He further declares very 
 explicitly, that God would be a tyrant if he were 
 to execute his own law, and not make allow- 
 ances for his frail and erring children. Now all 
 this is a very questionable proof of love, if not 
 a proof of the very reverse. I apprehend that a 
 child would scarcely be said to express much 
 love for a parent, who should manifest a dispo- 
 sition to represent direct acts of disobedience to 
 his parents’ commands, as trivial matters, mere 
 errors, which his parent is bound by his charac- 
 ter to overlook. An affectionate child is rather 
 disposed to magnify such offences, especially when 
 when they have been committed by himself. And, 
 ‘fhe had but refused to lift a pin off the floor when 
 
430 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 he was directed to do so, he would feel no rest 
 till he had acknowledged the guilt of his diso- 
 bedience, and had been reconciled to his parent. 
 An affectionate child would manifest the utmost 
 anxiety to prevent his brothers or sisters from 
 transgressing their father’s will, even in the 
 smallest matter, by pointing out to them the 
 wickedness of disobedience. But the love of 
 Unitarians leads them to palliate all offences, and 
 enables them to confess themselves sinners with 
 as little emotion, as if they were confessing that 
 they had inadvertently violated the etiquette of 
 adrawing room. Unitarians avow that they 
 could not love God, if he were not to make al- 
 lowance for all that they conceive to be unavoid- 
 able infirmities; and boldly declare that they 
 would regard him as unjust and tyrannical, if 
 he should punish them, for what they choose’ to 
 pronounce to be their errors and frailties. This 
 they do even although they may be making no 
 effort to be delivered from these errors and frail- 
 ties, but may, on the contrary, be justifying 
 themselves in the practice of them; and charg- 
 ing those who are aiming at a more exact obe- 
 dience with fanaticism and hypocrisy. These are 
 not the fruits of love, for thus saith the Lord J esus, 
 ‘ifamanlove me, he will keepmy commandments.’ 
 
 But another necessary evidence of love to 
 God, in which Unitarians are wretchedly defi- 
 cient, is earnest desire, accompanied with ac- 
 tive endeavours, to persuade ali men to love 
 and obey their Father in heaven. I donot mean 
 to say that Unitarians, and particularly Unita- 
 rian writers, have manifested no zeal for the ad- 
 vancement of their own party. They have writ- 
 ten and published and circulated, with some 
 activity and liberality, their writings among 
 the members of other Christian communities. 
 
on the religious character. 431. 
 
 But these cannot be called efforts to con- 
 vert men to the obedience of God, for they have 
 been directed to influence persons who are at 
 least as exemplary in their obedience as they. 
 Had they been animated by a sincere love to 
 God, they would have directed their attention 
 to those who are living in. rebellion against 
 Him. But where do we find Unitarians, to any 
 extent, or with any degree of liberality, con- 
 ducting any operation for enlightening and con- 
 verting those who are ignorant of the Gospel, 
 and who are living in the grossest wickedness ? 
 Our author tells Us, that Mahommedans and Jews 
 will never receive Christianity, till we relin- 
 quish our doctrine of the Trinity, which, he 
 says, is the great obstacle to their conversion : 
 and assures us that it is partly for their sakes 
 that he himself relinguishes. it. But if, from 
 pure benevolence to Mahommedans and Jews, he 
 modifies his own belief of what is contained in 
 the Scripture, it would appear that his benevo- 
 lence evaporates | there. How much is it to be 
 lamented that those who conceive themselves 
 so well adapted by their belief to accost Jews 
 and Mahommedans do not make the attempt to 
 gain them over to Christianity! But no, Uni- 
 tarlans may speculate and talk of the conver- 
 sion of unbelievers; but their system paralyses 
 them, and deprives them of all power of exertion. 
 
 Our author draws a beautiful picture of ‘one 
 who taught the people standing on the shore, 
 from a fisherman’s boat: and who, as he sat on 
 the green sward of a mountain’s top, beneath 
 the clear blue sky, with the people congregated 
 around him, delivered a discourse, not inferior 
 in beauty, pathos and sound Divinity, to the 
 most elaborate episcopal compositions of modern 
 times’. (Would to God that he and every 
 
432 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 Unitarian would deeply consider the contents 
 of that discourse, as they bear on their own 
 condition and prospects!) But how comes it 
 to pass that neither he, nor any other Unitarian 
 ever thinks of following this admired example. 
 There are shores and fishermen’s boats as con- 
 venient for the purpose in Ireland as in Galilee ; 
 our mountains are as green, our sky perhaps as 
 blue, and our people as ignorant. Why then will 
 not Unitarians go to our shores and our moun- 
 tains, and congregate the peoplearound them, and 
 give them that instruction whch they so much re- 
 quire? How comes it to pass that that the only 
 examples of preaching under similar circum- 
 stances, in the present day, are to be found 
 among Trinitarian Missionaries? He challenges 
 us to show him a religion more influential on 
 human conduct and he will adopt it. We ac- 
 cept the challenge, and if he will be satisfied, 
 not with theory, but with fact, we appeal to the 
 superior efficacy of that system which he rejects 
 in calling forth the exertions of men to promote 
 the worship and obedience of the God of hea- 
 ven among mankind. I leave to him the full 
 benefit of the obvious retort which may suggest 
 itself to his mind from Mat. xxiii. 15. if he be 
 reckless enough of consequences to make use 
 of it. , 
 
 Our author tells us, that the < spirit of Uni- 
 tarianism has been roused from a lethargy, by 
 the continued cannonade of a hundred theolo- 
 gical batteries levelled against her.’ He must 
 surely admit that she had sunk into most pro- 
 found repose. And after such an admission, I 
 do conceive that he has no right to ascribe the 
 slow progress which it has made among us to 
 our love of darkness rather than light. Let him 
 ascribe it to its just and acknowledged cause— 
 
on the religious character. 433 
 
 the apathy of Unitarians,—the heart-withering 
 tendency of their system. | And what evidence 
 is there that it-is now aroused, but the publica- 
 tion of the author’s own pamphlet, and the 
 anxiety of some of its friends for its circulation ? 
 Where is the exhibition of the Unitarian body, 
 in the compassionate spirit of the Gospel, send- 
 ing a mission to the poor and the ignorant ? She 
 can fight, it appears, and, “ in self defence, is 
 brightening her arms, and sharpening her wea- 
 pons of war.” But she cannot disseminate the 
 Bible, she cannot follow the example of Him 
 who went about, exposed to obloquy and con- 
 tempt, without party-zeal, without ‘contention 
 or fighting, proclaiming the glad tidings of sal- 
 vation to the poor. 
 
 3. The measure adopted by Unitarians for the 
 purpose of finding room for the extension of 
 Divine mercy to themselves, namely, lowering 
 the standard of duty, produces its natural ef. 
 fect in preventing them from making great at- 
 tainments in holiness of life. From the moment 
 that the standard of duty is lowered, men are 
 left destitute of any fixed standard. The Scrip- 
 ture says nothing of any other standard than 
 that of the law of God, as explained by our 
 blessed Lord. They are therefore obliged to 
 imagine some standard for themselves; and, in 
 the absence of every thing else, they betake 
 themselves to the general state of morals and re- 
 ligious practice around them. 
 
 Unitarians therefore are found al Ways to give 
 merely such attention to religious observances, as 
 may be usual in the country or city in which they 
 reside. They never as a body, advance beyond 
 the common practice; but, on the contrary, in 
 consequence of the same accommodating prix 
 
 A 
 
AS4 On the injluence of Unitarianism 
 
 ciple, that the Deity is too good and merciful 
 to require a rigid observance of any standard, 
 they have a perpetual tendency to fall under it. 
 If the common practice is to attend Divine wor- 
 ship twice on the Sabbath, they soon come to 
 one attendance; and, by and by, that is limited to 
 those days only in which neither weather, nor bu- 
 siness, nor pleasure interfere with it. [fit be usual 
 tomaintain family worship, twice a day, they soon 
 come to once aday; as the practice becomes less 
 general, they lead the way in limiting it to once 
 a week, and by and by relinquish it totally. As 
 the common practice sinks, they sink along with 
 it; till, as on the continent of Europe, they 
 can even attend the theatre on the Sabbath. 
 This regular declension from any standard of 
 duty that may be adopted, is usually justified, 
 and even commended, under the strange name 
 of liberality. 
 
 Do Unitarians say that many Trinitarians fall 
 equally rapidly. from. the standard of the word of 
 God? They are well aware that many who, by be- 
 longing to Established and other Churches in 
 which Trinitarianism is professed, are understood 
 to profess that doctrine, neither know nor be- 
 lieve it, and are not influenced. by that or any 
 other religious creed. These are persons who, 
 like Unitarians, follow the fashion of society. 
 And they are equaily aware, that there is ano- 
 ther and totally different class among Trimita- 
 vians, who act under the influence of their re- 
 ligious principles. It is among these therefore, 
 that we are to look for the effects of their doc- 
 trine in forming the character. Now nothing is 
 more common among them, than to find per- 
 sons, upon the sole authority of Scripture, de- 
 parting from the ordinary practice of society, 
 and adopting a higher standard of religious duty. 
 
on the religious character. 435 
 
 But I believe it would be difficult to find a single 
 instance ameng Unitarians of such elevation 
 above the ordinary practice of persons who are 
 barely decent in attention to religious duty. 
 Could our author, for example produce a single 
 family in his whole congregation in which the 
 worship of God is at present held twice every 
 day? Such a practice I apprehend he would 
 now find to be very rare indeed, although at no 
 very distant period, a Presbyterian who did not 
 worship God in his family morning and evening, 
 would not have been regarded by Presbyterians 
 even as a Christian. 
 
 Dr. Priestley admits, that Calvinistiec principles 
 are favourable to devotion, that Calvinists have 
 less apparent conformity to the world than So- 
 cinians, and that they seem to have more of a 
 real principle of religion than they. He admits 
 that there are many Calvinists, not only whose 
 hearts and lives are, in all respects, truly Chris- 
 
 tian, but whose Christian tempers are really pro- 
 moted by their own system. He however parries 
 the inference which ought obviously to be drawn 
 from these admissions, by supposing that Cal- 
 vinists have less, and Socinians more, of a real 
 principle of religion than they seem to have. 
 This is a mode of reasoning by which any con- 
 clusion might be drawn from any given pre- 
 mises. , 
 Dr. Bruce also admits that, “ those who” (as 
 he imagines) ‘‘deny the value of good works, 
 are found habitually to practise them; and are 
 every day detected in indiseriminate acts of cha- 
 yity and mercy. Bigots,” says he, “are bet- 
 ter than their profession; gloriously belie their 
 principles by their practice; and adopt those 
 sentiments as the rule of their conduct which 
 they deny to be the rule of their faith. As those 
 
436 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 who have embraced the purest form of Christi- 
 anity often fall lamentably and shamefully short 
 of the perfection to which they pretend, so they” 
 (Calvinists) “ are better than their profession ;” 
 —and much more to the same effect.* Belsham, 
 confirms this account of Unitarianism by say- 
 ing, that rational Christians are often repre- 
 sented as indifferent to practical religion, and 
 by admitting that there has been some plausible 
 ground for the accusation. + 
 
 Is it possible to imagine a more perverted mode 
 of reasoning than the above? Inquirers after 
 truth, possessing even a moderate share of diffi- 
 dence, when they found that their hypothesis 
 was not confirmed, but confuted by facts, would 
 have been led to doubt at least the truth of the hy- 
 pothesis. The inference which one might have 
 expected Dr. Bruce to draw from the fact, that 
 the practice of Calvinists gives the lie to the 
 principles which he ascribes to them, is, that he 
 did not understand their principles, and must 
 have been in error respecting them. But diffi- 
 dence constitutes no part of the Unitarian sys- 
 tem. Rather than acknowledge even the possi- 
 bility of his not understanding Calvinistic prin- 
 ciples, of which, indeed, he proves himself te 
 he as ignorant as I suppose him to be of the Chi- 
 nese language, he represents a whole body of 
 people, acting in opposition to their belief, and 
 to the very motives by which he imagines them 
 to be influenced. Calvinists, with a ereed which 
 he conceives to be unfavourable to religion and 
 virtue, are eminent for both; while Arians, with 
 a creed fitted to produce an elevated religious 
 character, are yet lamentably and shamefully 
 deficient in what they pretend to! He might as 
 
 * Sermons on the study of the Bible, p. 188. 
 t Serm. on the importance of truth. 
 
on the religious character. 437 
 
 weil tell us that he had discovered, that, from the 
 nature of flame, it ought to point downward; 
 although he could not but admit that it was usu- 
 ally to be found pointing upwards; and that earth 
 and stones had a natural tendency to rise to the 
 higher regions of the atmosphere, although, 
 some how or other, they were usually detected 
 at rest, or tumbling downward. 
 
 Our author, in one passage, betrays so total 
 an ignorance of the practical tendency of the 
 Gospel, that I cannot help quoting it at length. 
 
 “ Many who have been disgusted, repelled, and 
 driven to the verge of Deism, by the unscriptural 
 doctrines of some popular systems of belief, will 
 own, with gratitude to God, that they first found 
 out the right way to happiness, to evangelical truth, 
 and the life to come, when they joined Unitarian 
 worship. Then, first, the simple majesty of the re- 
 ligion of Christ won their devotion, and established 
 its dominion in their hearts. Then, for the first 
 time, they saw its celestial beanty revealed, and 
 heard its life imparting dictates spoken. The hour 
 of their regeneration was come. Their darkness 
 was dispelled. The clouds of false doctrine which had 
 obstructed their mental vision rolled away, and left 
 them surrounded with a sudden light from heaven. 
 Then could they contemplate God, not through the 
 spectral gloom of Calvinism, as clothed with ven- 
 geance, seated on a burning throne, his facein wrath 
 and sprinkled with blood; but m the pure radiance 
 of Gospel truth, clothed with salvation, seated on 
 a throne of grace, and smiling with infinite benig- 
 nity, as their friend and father, on all the genera- 
 tions ofmen. Their souls felt relieved from an oppres- 
 -siveload. They heard freedom proclaimed tothe cap- 
 tive. Their chains had dissolved away. Their spi- 
 rits felt light and buoyant. They were emancipated 
 and redeemed ; and they exulted in their deliverance 
 
 2P3 
 
438 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 from the bondage of corruption into the glorious 
 liberty of the children of God.’* | 
 
 Before we can participate in this, our author’s 
 exultation on the conversion of a Deist to Uni- 
 tarlanism, it would be necessary that we should 
 be informed, in plain language, the change which 
 had actually taken place upon him. What did it 
 amount to? He wasnoslave to Calvinism, and there- 
 fore it was not from that system that he was eman- 
 cipated. What is there in the belief of a Unita- 
 rian which a Deist does not believe, except that 
 the Scriptures are a revelation from heaven ? 
 Many Deists profess tobelievein afuturestate, and 
 aday of judgment, and take the very same views 
 of the benignity of the Deity ¢o all the generations 
 of men, that Unitarians do. The only difference 
 that I can discern is, that the Deist believes 
 them independently of Scripture, while the Uni- 
 tarian finds them to be countenanced by the 
 S:ripture. 
 
 But Imay be reminded, that the person here de- 
 scribed was nota Deist; that he wasa Calvinist, 
 and was only in danger of becoming a Deist. If his 
 view of God coincided with our author’s descrip- 
 tion, he was no Calvinist; else I am utterly ig- 
 norant of what is called Calvinism. We do not 
 view God as clothed in vengeance, seated on a 
 burning throne, with the other concomitants, 
 which are too blasphemous for repetition. We 
 view him as in Jesus Christ, seated on a throne 
 of grace, regarding his children with the ten- 
 derest affection. We cannot, indeed, conceive 
 of him as smiling benignantly on all the genera- 
 tions of men; for he himself tells us that he is angry 
 with the wicked every day, and that he will come 
 with flaming fire to take vengeance on his ene- 
 
 * P. 83, 2d Ed. 
 
on the religious character. 439 
 
 mies; andif tle converted Calvinist do not now 
 believe such declarations, he has been converted 
 only to infidelity. ‘* Knowing,” therefore, with 
 the Apostle, “ the terror of the Lord, we per- 
 suade men.” 
 
 But what does our author mean by ‘ regene- 
 ration,’ and by being ‘ delivered from the bond- 
 age of corruption into the glorious liberty of the 
 sons of God?’ Does he suppose it to be, being 
 delivered from the trammels of some popular be- 
 lief? If so, he egregiously errs. To be rege~ 
 nerated is not, in the language of Scripture, to 
 be changed from one doctrine to another—from 
 Calvinism to Unitarianism, or from Unitarianism 
 to Calvinism. Either of these changes may he 
 made without regeneration, and without deliver- 
 ance. Regeneration is being renewed in the 
 whole man after the image of God, having the 
 corrupt passions and affections subdued, corrupt 
 habits broken off, and the whole soul brought 
 into conformity to the Divine will. The glori- 
 ous liberty of the children of God is not deliyer- 
 ance from the terror of sucha spectre as the au- 
 thor has conjured up—it is deliverance from pride, 
 from guilty passions, from the captivity of Satan, 
 from the bondage of a defiled imagination, and 
 from the trammels of the world’s example and 
 influence—it is, in short, freedom to run in the 
 ways of God’s commandments. And, if our au- 
 thor is in the habit of teaching his people, that 
 they are free with the glorious liberty of the 
 children of God, because they are not Calvinists, 
 he deceives both himself and them. The whole 
 passage, viewed with reference to Calvinism, is 
 a mere parody on Scripture language. 
 
 If Unitarians would permit me, I could tell 
 them, in a few words, the secret of the greater 
 attention to practical religion, and the greater 
 
440 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 zeal for the advancement of the Redeemer’s 
 kingdom, that visibly exist among those who are 
 really influenced by the principles usually called 
 orthodox, than among Unitarians. The /irst 
 reason is, that instead of viewing the Lord God 
 as that grim tyrant which our author paints, we 
 regard him as a God of infinite iuercy, and as 
 having rescued us from the most imminent and 
 awful danger, by taking upon himself the satis- 
 faction which the law of the universe, that we 
 had violated, demanded: and further, that view- 
 ing him as manifested in Christ Jesus, we see 
 in him a character altogether lovely, infinitely 
 deserving of our love and imitation. The se- 
 cond reason is, that we do not lower the standard 
 of duty. We believe that God requires of us 
 perfect conformity to the standard of his law, as 
 explained, in all its extent and spirituality, by 
 the Lord Jesus; and that, although, when we 
 repent of our sin, and turn from it, he is gra- 
 ciously pleased to pardon it through Jesus Christ ; 
 yet, that he is always displeased with sin, that 
 he abhors it, and that therefore we are bound, 
 by every tie of gratitude and of duty, to aim at 
 perfection. We are thus never satisfied with 
 ourselves, as if we had made sufficient attain- 
 ments to save us from perdition; but are conti- 
 nually aspiring after higher attamments; and 
 thus, by aiming higher, we rise higher,—by 
 adopting a more perfect model to copy from, we 
 make a more perfect picture. ‘The third is, that, 
 according to our Lord’s doctrine, we have more 
 operative motives to love and obedience, than 
 Unitarians. We believe that more has been for- 
 given us than they do, and therefore we love 
 more. We confess that we deserved nothing 
 but expulsion from the family of God, and con- 
 demnation to die; and believing ourselves to be 
 
on the religious character. 441 
 
 pardoned by the free mercy of God, experiencing’ 
 in ourselves that we are, in some degree, puri- 
 fied, and becoming fit for the holy and blessed 
 society of heaven, we feel ourselves bound, by 
 the strongest obligations, to live not for our- 
 selves, but for him who died for us. And the 
 last and most direct reason is, that, believing that 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost is offered to us, and 
 will be given if we ask it, we do ask, and we 
 receive the Holy Ghost, who puts life and effi- 
 cacy into all these motives to obedience, enlight- 
 ens our understanding with all spiritual know- 
 ledge, and regenerates our affections; and thus 
 makes us more holy than we, by our utmost 
 exertions, even if, without his influences, we 
 
 were disposed to put forth such exertions, could 
 make ourselves. 
 
 4. One of the surest tests of the spirit of the 
 world, and enmity to Christ, lurking in the 
 heart of any man, is to be found in his contemp- 
 tuous or injurious treatment of the genuine 
 disciples of the Redeemer. There aré but two 
 parties in the world—the children of this world, 
 and the children of light; the saints of God, 
 and the enemies of God: and these parties have 
 been in all ages perfectly distinct, and continue 
 to be so till the present day. The world, almost 
 intuitively, calls the people of God by the 
 Scripture name, saints. This name is, indeed, 
 given to them in contempt; yet it sufficiently 
 marks the opinion of men respecting the nature 
 of at least their outward practice, as more holy 
 than that of the world generally. 
 
 The designation saint, and others of similar 
 import, are not designations given to any par- 
 ticular organised body of Christians. The epi- 
 thet saint, does not mean a Presbyterian, or Epis- 
 
4A2 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 copalian, or Independent; it does not mean 4 
 Calvinist, or Arminian, or Baptist, or Metho- 
 dist, or Moravian; it is neither Churchman nor 
 Dissenter. There are persons in all these deno- 
 minations, who are stigmatised as saixés; and 
 some who are free from that reproach. The 
 characteristics of a saint are entirely personal. 
 The leading features of his character are these— 
 he will not violate the Sabbath, nor frequent 
 places of public amusement, particularly such 
 as the theatre—he is guarded in his language, 
 carefully avoiding all expressions even tending 
 to profanity, or deviating from strict truth—he 
 is punctual and regular in his attendance on 
 publie wership—he takes an interest in all mea- 
 sures for extending the knowledge and practice 
 of religion, whether by the circulation of the 
 Scriptures, or the preaching of the Gospel, or 
 the promotion of religious education; and, as he 
 has opportunity, contributes by his property, or 
 his exertions, or both, to the advancement of 
 such measures—he worships God in his family, 
 with reading the Scriptures and prayer. These 
 are the leading characteristics—the family fea- 
 tures of the saints. I omit mentioning the or- 
 dinary duties of honesty, industry, sobriety, 
 liberality to the poor &e.; not because I suppose 
 that any one bearing the character of a sainé, can 
 be destitute of these virtues; but merely because 
 I suppose him to possess these only in common 
 with others, who are not saints. His distin- 
 guishing characteristics thus refer chiefly to those 
 duties which have God himself for their direct 
 object. 
 
 Let any man, bearing in his ordinary inter- 
 course with the world a fair upright character, 
 conduct himself in the manner which I have 
 just described, and he will acquire the character 
 
on the religious character. 44S 
 
 of a saint: let him conduct himself otherwise— 
 devoting the Sabbath or any part of it to business 
 or amusement, attending the theatre, neglect- 
 ing occasionally public worship on the Lord’s 
 day, neglecting the worship of God in his fami- 
 ly, and, however upright and reputable he may 
 be, the world will say, perhaps intending to 
 commend him, that he is no saint. . 
 
 It is not to be supposed that all who have the 
 character of saints among men, are really saints 
 in thesight of God. There may be, and I doubt 
 not, there are some, perhaps many, who seek 
 to obtain the reputation of being saints for sinis~ 
 ter purposes; and whose sanctified demeanour 
 is mere hypocrisy. Still, the conduct which I 
 have described as characteristic of the saints, 
 being that which the Bible would lead us to 
 expect in those who are really saints, it is mani- 
 fest that the genuine people of God are to be 
 found among those whom. the world stigmatizes 
 and despises as saints. Nothing can be more 
 obvious than that if our Lord were uow in Bri- 
 tain or Ireland, acting as he did in Judea, he 
 would rank among the saints. He went about 
 preaching in the open air, or in synagogues, as 
 he had opportunity; he spent whele nights in 
 prayer; he attended no places of amusement ; 
 he was careful, although not superstitious, in 
 his observance of the Sabbath; he was incessant 
 and faithful in reprehending vice of every de- 
 scription, and in warning the rich of the danger 
 to which their riches exposed them; in short, he 
 had, im the highest degree, those very charac- 
 terestics which would, in the present day, have 
 infalibly procured for him the contemptuous 
 epithet of saint. 
 
 People of the world, fer the purpose of avoid; 
 ing the obvious inference, that, if the saints re- 
 
 \ 
 
Add, On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 semble the Redeemer in their character, they 
 themselves are altogether of another spirit from 
 him,—seek to support their hopes by pronounc- 
 ing those whom they call saints to be hypocrites. 
 And, if they can discover any of them belying 
 their character, by any open or secret wickedness, 
 they are right in branding them as hypocrites. 
 But if they call any of them hypocrites, without 
 evidence of any such misconduct, but merely 
 on account of their more exact attention to reli- 
 gious duties, it is very obvious that, for the 
 very same reason, they would have pronounced 
 our Lord himself, had they witnessed his man- 
 ner of life, to be a hypocrite. The blessed 
 Jesus would, according to that rule, have been 
 a very ring-leader of hypocritical saints. 
 
 Some who are more learned in the Seriptures 
 would represent the saints as corresponding 
 to the Pharisees. The characteristics of the 
 Pharisees were, that, while they made long 
 prayers, they devoured widews houses; that, 
 while they paid tithes of mint, and anise, and 
 cummin, they neglected the weightier matters 
 of the law; and that they substituted the com- 
 mandments of men for the ordinances of God. 
 Now, if the world can discover any man who 
 has the reputation of being a saint, devouring 
 widows’ houses, neglecting the weightier mat- 
 ters of the law, and making void the law ef 
 God by their traditions, they are quite welcome 
 to call him a Pharisee. But let not that man be 
 called a Pharisee who resembles the Pharisees, 
 only in that which was good in them; but 
 who perpetrates none of their wickedness. For, 
 if it were considered a sufficient ground to con- 
 demn a man asa Pharisee, that he is as exact as 
 they were in religious cbservances, while he 
 cannot be accused of any of their rapacity and 
 
on the religious character. 445 
 
 injustice, or of any of their presumptuous addi- 
 tions to the ordinances of the Gospel, our Lord 
 himself would not escape the charge of being a 
 Pharisee. 
 
 But Jesus and his disciples stood forth per- 
 fectly distinct from the speculating, philosophiz- 
 ing Sadducees, who rejected all mysteries, 
 on the one hand; and from the rapacious, 
 sanctimonious, superstitious Pharisees, on the 
 other. And the saints of God, at the pre- 
 sent day, stand forward equally distinguished, 
 on the one side, from philosophizing Christians, 
 who must bring every doctrine of revelation to 
 the bar of their judgment, and reject whatever 
 seems to imply difficulties and apparent contra- 
 dictions which they cannot solve or reconcile; 
 and, on the other, from those who convert re- 
 ligion into a routine of ceremonies and supersti- 
 tious observances of their own invention, and 
 who, under a sanctified demeanour, cloak the 
 most unjust and rapacious practices. The Gos- 
 pel of Jesus is even now, as it was in the days 
 of the apostle, a stumbling block to the super- 
 stitious Jew, and foolishness to the philosophi- 
 eal Greek; but to those who are saved—those 
 who are “called to be saints” and, ** who eall 
 upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,” it is 
 “‘ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”* 
 » The treatment which the saints receive from 
 the world is that which our Lord taught his peo- 
 ple to expect, and which he himself received. 
 They are spoken of by the world, sometimes 
 with contempt, and sometimes with hatred. 
 Their best actions are ascribed, without a sha- 
 dow of proof, to hypocrisy. If any one who has 
 obtained the character of a saint, although it 
 
 * See 1 Cor. i. throughout, 
 
 2Q 
 
446 On the influence of Uniiartanism 
 
 might be by hypocrisy, fall into any open sin; 
 the world rejoices, and sets him forth as a spe- 
 eimen of the character of all the saints, as if 
 they were all equally hypocritical. No other 
 class of persons is thus treated. Our author la- 
 bours to prove that Unitarians are persecuted. 
 But the utmost that he can bring ferward in a 
 tangible shape, is that they are treated with cer- 
 tain discourtesies by other professing Christians, 
 that they are subjected to the Test and Corporation 
 Acts, and that their religion is branded with the 
 names of leprosy, infidelity, deism, and enmity 
 to God. With regard to discourtesies, I do con- 
 fess that Unitarians have had just cause of com- 
 plaint from those who are esteemed, and many 
 of whom I trust really are, saints. Instead of a 
 dispesition to go hand in hand with them m 
 every duty, as far as no compromise of princi- 
 ple is implied, there has been certainly a dis- 
 position, which } conceive to be as unwise as 
 it is unseriptural, to stand aloof from them, to 
 partition them off, and to leave them by them- 
 selves ;—but all this is very different from as- 
 cribing to them hypocrisy and secret immorali- 
 ties. I believe that justice is uniformly done to 
 their character, both by the world and by the 
 saints. With regard to the Test and Corpora- 
 tion Acts, they stand on a footing of equality 
 with all other dissenters from the Establishment; 
 and with regard to the names leprosy, infidelity, 
 &c. being given to their religious system, although 
 railing accusations are decidedly hostile to the spi- 
 ritof the Gospel; yet we must form ajudgment of 
 the nature and tendency of their doctrine, as they 
 do of ours: and surely there is no greater want 
 of charity in our expressing our belief that their 
 system tends to infidelity, and that, as being not 
 the Gospel, but a substitute for it, it does not 
 
on the religious character. AAT 
 
 deliver them from the natural enmity of the car- 
 nal heart to God, and does not set them free, as 
 the Gospel would, from sin and its consequences, 
 than in their expressing their belief that our re- 
 ligion tends to Tritheism andidolatry. But stall, 
 all this is very different from the treatment that 
 Jesusandhisapostlesreceived, and which the sats 
 still receive. Jesus was charged with sedition and 
 blasphemy, and these are charges which are yet 
 constantly broughtagainsthis truedisciples. They 
 are assailed in their moral character. in the first 
 ages of the Church they were charged with canni- 
 balism and the most abandoned profligacy; and 
 they are still called hypocrites—represented as 
 putting on a sanctimonious demeanour, to cloak 
 private wickedness. If one, who like Judas 
 Iscariot, has insinuated himself among them, 
 manifests his real character by some scandalous 
 wickedness, his misconduct is represented - as 
 betraying the genuine character of the whole 
 body. Our author hints at the marriage of a 
 certain missionary to alady of rank, as if some 
 artifice had been practised on his part “to lead her 
 captive;” when not calumny itself ever breathed 
 any suspicion against him: that calumny which, 
 in this hostile world they could not escape, having 
 ventedits malignity only against the equally unot- 
 fending female.* After this gratuitous assault on 
 private character, our author, in the genuine style 
 of the world, generalizes the accusation by the epi- 
 thet, “ Jesuitical Saints.” He further applies the 
 wordsof St. Paul to himselfand his Unitarian bre- 
 thren—* persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down 
 but not destroyed.”+ This is another parody on 
 the word of God. If the author had experienc- 
 ed for but twenty-four hours, a treatment such 
 
 * Page $2. Ed. 2. : + Page 89, Edit. 2. 
 
448 On the influence of Unitarianisnt 
 
 as that which the apostle alludes te in these 
 words, he would scarcely have ventured to ap- 
 ply them to the very comfortable and respectable 
 congregation in which he ministers. ‘ Even,” 
 says the apostle, “to this very hour, we both 
 hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buf- 
 feted, and have no certain dwelling place, and 
 labour, working with our own hands, being re- 
 viled we bless, being defamed we entreat, we 
 are made as the filth of the earth, the offscour- 
 ing of all things unto this day,” He may 
 indeed, as he complains, be “ driven from 
 courts ;” but he “ finds an asylum” from per- 
 secution, in the freedom of his country, if not 
 ‘in heaven.” 
 
 No ingenuity can identify Unitarians with 
 those who are described in the New Testament 
 as the saints, who ‘ called upen the name of the 
 Lord Jesus.’ The very epithet saint is abjured 
 by them, and associated with Jesuitry and hy- 
 pocrisy. And this is of itself, a very signifi- 
 cant indication, that they take their station with 
 the world and not with Christ. Our blessed 
 Lord has left his disciples in the world as his 
 representatives; and they who love the master 
 will love the servant for the master’s sake. 
 Those who love the devotion, the holiness of 
 life, the diligence in disseminaiing the Gospel, 
 in preaching particularly to the poor, will love 
 those who in any degree resemble him. We 
 have shown that these are the persons who till 
 this hour are called saints; for that Jesus himself 
 were he now visibly with us, would undoubtedly 
 come under that despised appellation. But 
 Unitarians are uniformly in opposition to the 
 saints—I do not believe that one single indivi- 
 dual of them bears, in the eye of the world, 
 the character of a saint; but always that of 
 the men of this world, 
 
on the religious character. 449 
 
 Andtheirspiritmay be moreallied toaspiriteven 
 of deadly persecution than they themselves are 
 aware of. Theapostle Paul, alluding to theconduct 
 of Ishmael towards Isaac, says, “as then, he that 
 was born after the flesh persecuted him that was 
 born after the spirit, even so it is now.”*  Ish- 
 mael had merely mocked Isaac; but the apostle 
 saw, in that mockery, the same spirit which 
 was: urging unbelievers to defame, and buffet, 
 and murder the saints. Jesus said to his disci- 
 ples, “men will revile you, and” then ‘* per- 
 secute you;” and, being prevented from perse- 
 cuting you, ‘they shall say all manner of evil 
 against you falsely for my name’s sake.”’+ 
 
 In these countries, we have reason to bless 
 the God of Providence, that no sect or party is 
 permitted to persecute, to any very great extent, 
 the saints of God. But let us look to the con- 
 tinent of Europe, where Unitarians have power 
 in their hands, and what spirit do they manifest? 
 They first attempted to impose silence upon 
 the saints, in regard to the peculiarities of their 
 doctrine; but, finding that they were not obey- 
 ed, they then proceeded to most violent, murder- 
 ous persecution. Ministers have, not merely been 
 disannexed from their charges, but separated 
 from their families, banished from their coun- 
 try, immured in dungeons, and some have re- 
 ecived their crown of martyrdom through the 
 instrumentality of these rational Christians. 
 
 And how does our author look on these scenes 
 ‘of horror of which he cannot be ignorant, inti- 
 mately acquainted as he proves himself to be with 
 the Unitarian hallelujahs which he says are re- 
 echoing through the vallies of Switzerland. We 
 might reasonably have expected that some ex~ 
 
 * Gal, iv. 29. + Matt. v. IL. 
 292 
 
450 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 pression of indignation would have burst from 
 him, in hearing of such atrocious deeds being 
 perpetrated under the name of religion; and that, 
 when he exultedin the hallelujahs of his Unitarian 
 brethren, he would have expressed some distaste 
 for the infernal yells with which they followed 
 their victims. But, no; instead of seeking to 
 call off these bloodhounds, he whoops and _hal- 
 loos to them, by denouncing the objects of their 
 fury as fanatics. What had Malan, the amiable, 
 the pious Malan done, that his sufferings should 
 excite no commiseration? Heis a Trinitarian— 
 he is endeavouring to re-introduce those doc- 
 trines into the church of Geneva, which he con- 
 ceived to be necessary to its spiritual life ;—and 
 that is enough. Our author tells us that *“* Ma- 
 lan and his fanatics are howling a funeral dirge 
 over the lifeless carcass of Calvinism.” . 
 The lifeless carcass of Calvinism! And how 
 came it to be a lifeless carcass? Was it by the 
 bold open assault of Unitarians, wielding the 
 sword of the Spirit? No, but by a practice which 
 our author aseribes to Unitarians from the very 
 earliest ages of their history—signing creeds 
 which they do not believe. The church of Ge- 
 neva was defended from the intrusion of Unita- 
 rians by one of the most precise and determinate 
 Calvinistic creeds in Christendom j—a frail de- 
 fence, indeed, against those who have not ho- 
 nesty enough to be restrained by the solemnity 
 of an oath; yet sufficient to prove, that any 
 Unitarians who were found in it, entered not by 
 the door into the sheepfold, but came in some 
 other way. They thus crept into the church of 
 Geneva. Under the cloak of the Trinitarian 
 creed, they disseminated their Unitarian doc- 
 trine; till, as our author informs us, they con- 
 verted that church into a lifeless carcass. By 
 
on the religious character. 45] 
 
 and by, finding themselves strong, they privately 
 made such alterations in the formularies of the 
 church, as left room for the open admission of 
 Unitarians; and baving thus, from being a life- 
 -less carcass of Calvinism, started into life as a 
 Unitarian living body, what are they doing? 
 —Persecuting the saints of God. 
 
 The measure of expressing an acquiescence in 
 ‘Trinitarian creeds, for the purpose of obtaining 
 or securing places of emolument, is, according 
 to our author’s own statement, as we have just 
 observed, of very old standing—quite, it should 
 seem, an established and recognised practice 
 among Unitarians, He tells us that ‘the Fa- 
 thers of the three first centuries, and conse- 
 quently all the ancient Christian people for 300 
 years P. C., till the Council of Nice, were ge- 
 nerally Unitarians;—that at length came the 
 struggle between Arius and Athanasius, the one 
 loaded with every epithet of abuse which an 
 intolerant and triumphant faction could invent ; 
 the other a falsifier, a forger, and the author of 
 anew system of divinity, whose language, at 
 least, and practices, if not notions, were cer- 
 tainly unknown to the earlier ages of Christia- 
 nity ; that, after various successes on both sides, 
 the latter gained the ascendancy; and the tre 
 mendous doctrine became firmly established by 
 law.” This is the theory by which our author 
 accounts for the historical fact—that the whole, 
 or at least a very large majority of the clergy 
 who composed the Council of Nice, and who were 
 collected from all parts of the Roman empire, de- 
 elared, not only that the doctrine of the Trinity 
 was the doctrine which they held, but that it had 
 been the doctrine of the Church from the days of 
 the Apostles. Although they were Unitarians at 
 heart, they wereinduced by the hard words of Atha~ 
 nasius, and the dread of persecution, to become 
 
452 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 -Trinitarians, and to give their testimony to what 
 they knew to be a falsehood; and what is still 
 more extraordinary, their people, who had no such 
 motives, generally followed their example. This 
 story, if true, would furnish one of the most awful 
 instances of moral delinquency that has ever been 
 exhibited; but happily for the character of the 
 early Christians, it is utterly incredible, and ut 
 terly destitute of foundation in history. It marks, 
 however, how easily our author supposes that a 
 whole body of Unitarians could, for the purpose of 
 avoiding persecution, and retaining their emo- 
 luments, be prevailed upon to acquiesce In a 
 Trinitarian creed. 
 
 If Unitarianism be spreading in the Presbyte- 
 rian Chureh in America, it is by means of the 
 game nefarious practice; for that church strictly 
 requires the signature of a Trinitarian creed. I 
 believe, however, that the very contrary is the 
 fact. It was never able to make way among the 
 Presbyterians. it had begun to advance among 
 the Independents; but is now retrograding ; 
 anda son of the late Doctor Dwight, is now 
 minister of a congregation which formerly was 
 Unitarian; not by signifying his acquiescence 
 +a a Unitarian creed, but by the open, public 
 avowal of Trinitarian doctrine. __ 
 
 That there are four Unitarian congregations 
 among the wealthier inhabitants of Boston may 
 be very true; and yet, there may be very few 
 Unitarians there. I fully agree with our author, 
 however, that numbers are no test of truth. I 
 have no greater faith in_ the infallibility of the 
 people, than in the infallibility of the Pope. But 
 as heseems, 1 think somewhat inconsistently, to 
 make a triumphant display of the extension of 
 Unitarianism, as if that tended to corroborate 
 its truth, I have felt it to be necessary to coun- 
 teract any such effect, by an appeal to facts. 
 
on the religious character. 453 
 
 It is far from being my intention to charge any 
 man, either with persecution, or with signing a 
 creed which he does not believe, who is not person- 
 ally guilty of either. But the latter practice is no- 
 toriously general among Unitarians in all coun- 
 tries, and, if we could believe our author’s re- 
 presentations, in all ages. It was by this prac 
 tice that the Church of England was at one time 
 nearly overrun with Arianism; that Arianism 
 had made large inroads on the Church of Scot- 
 land, and on the Synod of Ulster; and that 
 Unitarianism has converted Protestantism, on 
 the Continent of Europe, into a lifeless carcass 
 of religion. In regard to the former practice, 
 namely, persecution, Unitarianshavealways taken 
 side with the world. When the world has reviled 
 the saints, they have joined in the outery: when 
 it has persecuted the saints, they, like the Sad- 
 ducees, have attempted to bear them down by 
 their ensnaring questions, by denouncing them 
 as fanatics, and by joining forces with the per- 
 seeuting party; and when the world has spoken 
 evil of them falsely, they have given currency 
 to the slanders, and have branded the whole 
 body as Jesuitical or hypocritical. In no instance, 
 that Tam acquainted with, have they publicly 
 and openly espoused the cause of the saints. 
 They have been as uniformly opposed to them as 
 the Sadducees were to Jesus and his Apostles; 
 and they have thereby proved, that they are still 
 of this world. j 
 
 6. [have yet to observe, that Unitarianism 
 tends to lead onward to infidelity. This has 
 been noticed and proved by Fuller, with his 
 usual acuteness; and I have only to add to his 
 observations what may be suggested by the work 
 
454 On the influence of Unitarianisn 
 
 which gave occasion to these inquiries, and also 
 by that of the Rev. Doctor Bruce. 
 Our author represents Unitarianism as a re- 
 fuge for those who would otherwise be infidels. 
 And that there may be persons who prefer Uni- 
 tarianism to infidelity, I doubt not. Some may 
 have got rid of every thing that was distasteful 
 to them in Christianity, by becoming Unitarians ; 
 and have no further motive to fly in the face of 
 the general belief of the country. Others may 
 find Unitarianism a name under which they may 
 hold any opinions they choose, short of an 
 avoweil rejection of the Scriptures. Ifit ranges 
 from high Arianism, to the Neonomianism of the 
 Continent, it leaves ample scope for diversity of 
 sentiment, even on subjects that our author him- 
 self would admit to be essential. On the one 
 side, our author must appear little short of pro- 
 fane to his friend Doctor Bruce, on account of 
 his ‘ being at variance with both revelations, and 
 iencing with the word of God; while, on the 
 other, he would be regarded by his brethren on 
 the Continent, as bordering on fanaticism, in 
 consequence of his treating the miracles of our 
 Lord, and his ascension to heaven, as implying 
 a manifestation of supernatural agency. A per- 
 son of aspeculative mind, therefore, who wishes 
 to be bound by no fixed principles, may have 
 many inducements to become-a Unitarian; for, 
 by that system he is at liberty to bend the Serip- 
 ture to whatever notions may appear to him to 
 be consistent with reason and common sense. 
 But the system leads directly to infidelity. It 
 admits principles of criticism which imply a vir- 
 tual rejection of the divine inspiration of Serip- 
 ture, We have already proved this fact by refe- 
 rence to these principles; but it can be proved 
 also by reference to history. When Unitarian- 
 
on the religious character. ABS 
 
 ism (using the word in the wide sense adopted 
 by our author) was introduced or commended to 
 the British churches by Doctor Samuel Clarke, 
 if was with extreme caution. Every thing was 
 said of the glory and majesty of the Saviour, 
 consistent with his being inferior to Almighty 
 God. He was, not merely an angel, but a super- 
 angelical spirit, of all but infinite perfections; 
 and he was an object of worship, in a certain 
 sense divine; in skort he was every thing but 
 the true God. But he was not a manifestation 
 of God;—he was another being ;—disguise the 
 matter as they might, he was a mere creature; 
 and therefore it became necessary thatevery text in 
 Scripture which represented him as God, should 
 be silenced or diverted to another meaning. And 
 from the moment that this process commenced, a 
 door was opened wide enough to admit the com- 
 ments of the lowest grade of Socinianism: 
 Matters did not long remain on this footing, 
 The able metaphysician who broached the sys- 
 tem, had done his part, and had added to his 
 system the reputation of his own profound 
 reverence for the person of the Saviour. Suc- 
 ceeding Arians, however, took greater liberties 
 with the Saviour’s person. He was no longer a 
 super-angelic being, whose nature was involved 
 in impenetrable mystery; but simply some good 
 angel, who had, in the course of ages, made 
 great improvement in virtue. They thus did 
 their work. Then camea new race who, carry- 
 ing forward the same process, began to look with 
 approbation, to the Socinians of the Continent, 
 at whose system Doctor Clarke and his imme- 
 diate adherents would have shuddered; and 
 who had yet scareely obtained a footing in Eng- 
 land. The learning, and talent, and candour, 
 &e. &e. &e., of these Continental Secinians, be- 
 
4.56 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 came the subjects of high eulogy; and our col- 
 leges and other seminaries of learning, began to 
 indicate the advancement of the opinion, that 
 Jesus was a mere man. Still, however, some- 
 thing was supposed to be mysterious about his 
 person; he was imagined to be a man, not born 
 in the ordinary way of humanity, but having a 
 body and soul miraculously formed for him by 
 the Spirit of God. The churches having been 
 pretty copiously supplied with students enter- 
 taining these sentiments, a new race sprang up, 
 still advancing in the same direction, who be- 
 came impatient of the mysterious formation of 
 our Lord’s body, and conceived it would sim- 
 plify the Gospel very much to suppose him to 
 be a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary. 
 The Scripture was examined anew, and it was 
 found that by a very little further stretching, this 
 mystery also might be thrust out. Still, however, 
 the most profound respect was expressed for the 
 divine authority and inspiration of Scripture, 
 and for the character of the blessed Jesus. But 
 in the progress of this new liberty, (as was to be 
 expected) even the mystery of the inspiration of 
 Scripture, and of the sinless character of Jesus, 
 was felt to be too great a confinement for that 
 freedom of thought which was now regarded as 
 the ‘ glorious liberty of the children of God.’ Mo- 
 dern English Socinians have, therefore, eman- 
 cipated themselves from these trammels also. 
 Doctor Priestley says, that he does not consider 
 the books of Scripture as inspired, but merely 
 as authentic records of the dispensations of God. 
 He professes to believe all the writers, without 
 exception, to have been of the greatest probity, 
 and to have been well informed of every thing of 
 consequence of which they treat; but that, at 
 the same time, he believes them to have been 
 
on the religious character. AB 
 
 men, and consequently fallible, and liable to 
 mistake, with respect to things to which they 
 had not given much attention, or concerning 
 which they had not the means of exact informa- 
 tion. And he is much applauded by some Uni- 
 tarians for magnanimity, in pronouncing the 
 Mosaic history of the fall of man, to be but 
 ‘a lame account” And with regard to the cha- 
 racter of Jesus, he expresses his belief that he 
 too was fallible; and even endeavours to discover 
 upon him some shade, at least, of sin. Still, how- 
 ever, all this is said amidst expressions, (which 
 may deceive those who wish to be deceived, ) of 
 profound respect for the authority of Scripture, 
 and for the character of Jesus. The descent 
 into the shades of death, does not stop even here. 
 The Unitarians on the Continent, in whose pro- 
 gress our author exults, have got rid of all su 
 perstitious reverence for the sacredness of Scrip- 
 ture, and for the character of Jesus. Moses is 
 pronounced to be a demagogue, who took ad- 
 vantage of some peculiar tide in the Red Sea, 
 and of some volcanic eruption, to deceive the 
 people. Jesus is represented as a sort of benevolent 
 enthusiast, who sacrificed his life in a scheme to 
 promote virtue. Professors of theology write 
 books attempting to account for every thing 
 recorded in the New Testament, without the 
 interposition of any miraculous power, and con- 
 sequently without implying any testimony from 
 God. The Unitarianism of the Continent 
 ean scarcely be said to be infidelity disguised. 
 It is infidelity, broadly, openly avowed, un- 
 der the mere name of a Christianity which 
 does not necessarily imply the belief even that 
 such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed, 
 
 In short, I cannot but regard: the first step 
 that is taken in the direction of Unitarianism, 
 
 2k 
 
458 On the infiuence of Unitarianism 
 
 as a step towards infidelity; ‘ for her house in- 
 clineth unto death, and. her paths unto the dead’ 
 And, without one unkind or disrespectful feeling 
 towards those who may have commenced such a 
 career, I would intreat them to look behind and 
 before them; to seek for some distinct view of 
 the direction in which they are advancing, before 
 they determine to proceed farther; and to take 
 warning from the multitudes who, by following 
 out the same course of speculation, have thrown 
 off every. vestige of Christianity. 
 
 Ireland has not yet made the same advance~ 
 ment in this new light and liberty, with the 
 Continent of Europe, or even with England. 
 She is behind England, perhaps twenty or thirty 
 years, and behind the Continent, full half a cen- 
 tury. But the downward course of the system 
 is as apparent in Ireland as it is elsewhere. 
 We have a considerable remnant of Arianism, 
 which has almost disappeared in England, still 
 remaining. Most of the older rational Christians, 
 as they wish to be denominated, are Arians; al- 
 though seareely so high Arians as Dr. Clarke and 
 ‘his immediate adherents; but the younger men 
 indicate a distinct advance towards Socinianism. 
 This progress in the mind of our author, is 
 indicated by his taking no account, in his sys- 
 tem, of the difference between Arianism and 
 English Unitarianism; and by his bringing his 
 authorities, not from the older Arian, but from 
 the more modern Socinian writers. 
 
 The tendency of the whole system, stretching 
 from high Arianism downto thelowestgradeof So- 
 cinianism, towards infidelity, is sufficiently mani- 
 fest in the writings both of our author and of Dr. 
 Bruce. Withregardtoourauthor, hecouldscarcely 
 have mentioned Dr. Priestley—a-writer who, in 
 express terms, denies the inspiration of Scrip- 
 
on the religious character. A59 
 
 ‘ure——with such unbounded approbation as he 
 does, and without putting hisreaderson their guard 
 against the poison of his works, if his own impres- 
 sions of the sacredness and authority.of the Bible 
 had been very deep and influential. The suppeo- 
 sition also which he makes, that J eremiah and 
 John might, in their writings, contradict our 
 blessed Lord, and his declaration that he would 
 deem his words recorded by Mark, more worthy 
 of credit than theirs, is another indication that 
 he has no just conception of what is meant by 
 a writing coming to us stamped with the authe- 
 rity, and containing the testimony of Almighty 
 God. The tendency of our author’s views, how- 
 ever, has been already laid sufficiently open te 
 the reader. | 
 
 But let us turn for a moment to Dr. Bruce, 
 who occupies a higher station on the graduated 
 scale of Unitarianism. This is the more neces- 
 sary, in consequence of the charge which that 
 gentleman brings against Socinians of ‘ fencing 
 with the word of God, and parrying and. ward- 
 ing off its most direct and pointed texts.’ One 
 might expect, from such a charge, that he him- 
 self would treat the Seripture more respectful- 
 ly; but, on the contrary, his treatment of the 
 word of God seems to me still more presump- 
 tuous than that of those whom he condemns. 
 He has not indeed so much fencing with par- 
 teular texts; but this he avoids merely by re- 
 ducing the authority of the whole, and repre- 
 senting whole sections of the Bible as not worth 
 ‘fencing with. 
 
 Some of his directions for studying the word 
 of God are as follow. He attempts to establish 
 the principle, that every thing necessary to sal- 
 vation must be recorded by the evangelists ; 
 hocause it would be highly disrespectful to them 
 
460 On the influence of Unitarianisin 
 
 to suppose, that, while they recorded so many 
 incidents in the life of Christ, and so many su- 
 bordinate points in his discourses, they omitted 
 any material principle of Gospel truth. But may 
 not the same stpposition be made respecting any 
 other book in the New Testament? No! says 
 this author, because the evangelists professed to 
 write an account of Christ’s life and doctrine, 
 and therefore must have included every thing 
 essential that he did or said: and because Jesus 
 must have been made perfectly acquainted by his 
 Father with the whole Gospel. “It is,” says he, 
 ** a strange imagination that our Saviour should 
 leave this world as he found it, ignorant of those 
 essential principles without which they could not 
 be saved.” But all this is as applicable to the 
 Mosaic writings as to the Gospels. How trium- 
 phantly could this he replied to by a Jew? 
 ‘* You say I must believe the Gospels, else I 
 cannot be saved. But it is a strange imagina- 
 tion that God should make a glorious manifes- 
 tation of himself, and instruct his servant Moses 
 to write his will to men, and yet should leave 
 the world as he found it, ignorant of those truths 
 without which they could not be saved.” And 
 the Jew might, in his turn, be answered by an 
 Ishmaelite. ‘You tell us that we must believe 
 the writings of Moses, else we cannot be saved: 
 but it is a strange imagination that our father 
 Abraham, who was called the friend of God, 
 should be left ignorant of any thing that was 
 necessary to salvation.” Does Dr. Bruce reply 
 that the Ishmaelites and the Jews were acquaint- 
 ed with every thing that was necessary for the 
 salvation of men in their day; but that, when 
 more information was given, more knowledge 
 was requisite? This is precisely what we hold 
 respecting the Gospels. They contained, up till 
 
on the religious character. 463 
 
 the time of Jesus, the last revelation of God, 
 and therefore, with the preceding revelations, con- 
 tained all that was then necessary to be known: 
 but they did nothing towards lessening the im- 
 portance of any subsequent revelation. Peter, for 
 example, was declared by eur Lord himself to be 
 plessed, and to be under the teaching of God, al. 
 though almost immediately afterwards he said 
 to Jesus, relative to his submitting to suffering 
 and death, “ that be far from thee Lorc Rims hte 
 the apostle Paul, afterwards says, ‘other foun- 
 dation can no man lay than Jesus Christ and 
 him crucified.” 
 
 Besides, Jesus himself intimates that further 
 revelations were to be given by the Holy Ghost 
 after his departure; and, notwithstanding this 
 author’s notion that the Holy Ghost was infe- 
 rior to Jesus, his communications must be of equal 
 authority, because they come stamped with that 
 of Jesus himself. What does Doctor Bruce re- 
 ply to this? Toa man of less hardihood this would 
 surely be decisive? But he, still undaunted, limits 
 the commission given to the Holy Ghost to mi- 
 nute matters respecting the pastoral office, and 
 the government of churches; and fairly sets aside 
 the authority of all the subsequent writings of 
 Scripture, exvept so far as they treat of the con 
 duct of congregations, the qualifications of eccle~ 
 siastical persons, &c.* But some of the epistles 
 say little or nothing respecting these subjects 
 which Dr. Bruce has prescribed as the sole mat- 
 ters for which they are tobe referred to. What 
 is to be done with these? - * It is not meant,” he 
 says, ‘ that both divisions of the sacred volume” 
 [i.e. the Gospels as the one, and the Acts and Epis- 
 tles as the other] “may not be often applied to on 
 
 * Dr. Bruce’s Sermons, page 44—49. 
 2R2 
 
462 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 the same subject; for you will find doctrinal 
 points and moral duties illustrated in both. But 
 you are never to set up the authority of the dis- 
 ciples against that of the Master; nor consider 
 their writings asthe primary source of know- 
 ledge on doctrinal questions, as. is too often 
 done.”* The meaning of which obviously is, 
 that we are to suspend our belief of any doctri- 
 nal instruction in the Acts or Epistles, till we 
 have ascertained that the same instruction is to 
 be found in the Gospels; and if we do not find 
 it there, we are to pay no attention to it; be- 
 cause that division of Scripture is never to be 
 treated asa primary source of knowledge on doc- 
 trinal subjects. Thus this learned gentleman 
 instructs his hearers and his readers to reduce’a 
 large portion of the New Testament to absolute 
 insignificance. It isnot to be wondered at, that 
 he did not deem it worthy of his attention to 
 fence with its most pointed texts. 
 
 But will Dr. Bruce abide by whatever is con- 
 tained in the Gospels? No, by no means. The 
 same principle which determines that every thing 
 essential must be contained in the Gospels, de- 
 termines that every thing essential must be con- 
 tained in each of the Gospels. This is not my 
 inference but his own, 
 
 “« Hence,” says he, “ we may deduce not only the 
 sufficiency of Scripture in general, but also the suf- 
 ficiency of every evangelist separately, as to funda- 
 mentals ; for if any one of them were deficient in 
 this respect, he would be exposed to all these impu- 
 tations. From this another undeniable inference fol- 
 lows; that no principle, which cannot be directly 
 proved from every one of the evangelists, can be an 
 essential article of faith; for, otherwise, we must 
 
 * Dr. Bruce’s Sermons, p. 50. 
 
on the religious character. 463 
 
 suppose, that some one of them has omitted an es- 
 sential truth. If then, you bein doubt, whether any 
 doctrine be necessary to salvation try it by this 
 test: look for it in the Gospels; and if you do not 
 find it plainly declared zm them all, you may safely 
 conclude, that it is not essential to the plan of re- 
 demption. If any person attempt to impose a spu- 
 rious tenet upon you; require him to prove it in 
 this manner. If he fail, you may be assured, that 
 the point in question is not even an important truth. 
 This I recommend as a sure guide to conduct you 
 through the intricacies of controversy, and prevent 
 
 you from being entangled in the nets of sophis- 
 try’) {,!* 
 
 This ingenious device confines every thing ne- 
 cessary to be known and attended to within most 
 convenient bounds. John, forexample, chiefly oc- 
 cupies his history with what the other evangelists 
 had omitted. They detail more at large what oc- 
 curred in Galilee; while he supplies many of the 
 transactions which took place at Jerusalem. 
 Now, by our author’s rule, nearly all that. oc- 
 curred or that was said in Galilee becomes non- 
 essential or spurious because it 1s not recorded by 
 John; while a large portion of what occurred in 
 Jerusalem, especially every intimationgiven by our 
 Lord himself, in by far the largest portion of his 
 discourses, becomes also non-essential or spurious, 
 because they are omitted by the three other evan- 
 gelists. What then becomes of our Lord’s declara- 
 tion, recorded by Mark only, on which Dr. Drum- 
 mond builds so much, that the Son of Man, in 
 some sense, knoweth not of the day of Judgment ? 
 It is swept away as spurious or non-essential. 
 
 The fundamentals of religion—all that is ne- 
 cessary for salvation being brought into this 
 
 * Dr. Bruce’s Sermons, p. 45. 
 
464 On the influence of Unitarianism 
 
 compendious form, the reader may suppose that 
 Dr. Bruce will surely insist upon the most di- 
 ligent attention, and the most implicit belief 
 and obedience being given to the Gospel thus 
 abridged. In this however he would be very 
 “much deceived. There are other considerations 
 to be attended to. There would still remain in 
 the Gospels, so filtered, some doctrines . which 
 are disputed. With regard to these, he says, 
 ‘¢ perhaps the shortest answer that can be given 
 is, * Let them alone.” Thus every intimation of . 
 God to man is placed at the mercy of any cap- 
 tious, cavilling, sophist, who may choose to 
 dispute it—for as soon as it is disputed, it is to 
 be let alone. One should imagine that this 
 were enough, but, to make security doubly 
 sure, he gives another rule, namely, that as 
 some supernatural truths ‘ are merely specula- 
 tive, and others are calculated to influence our 
 practice, it is evident, that these last are the 
 truths, which are said to belong to us, and to 
 our children.” Thus again, whatever a man may 
 imagine is not calculated to influence his prac- 
 tice, he is taught to regard as not belonging to 
 him or his children.—There is much more to 
 the same purpose but which I forbear to tran- 
 sribe. i 
 
 I put itto any reader of common sense whether 
 it be possible, that aman who writes thus 
 respecting the Scripture, can believe in its 
 divine inspiration The New Testament is 
 divided into two sections, and the authority 
 of the one weighed against that of the other. 
 Apostles are supposed to contradict their Mas- 
 ter and one another; although they all spake 
 as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The 
 fulness. of the Gospels respecting every thing 
 essential is argued, not from the inspiration of 
 
on the religious character. 465 
 
 the evangelists, but from their own private cha- 
 racter. ‘The God of heaven breaks silence to 
 communicate to us certain information; and 
 this author sets himself to subject the attention 
 which we are to give to that information to cer- 
 tain rules of his own devising ; nay, and when any 
 fellow mortal may have disputed the meaning of 
 any part of the communication, he fearlessly 
 encourages men to pay no attention to it. A 
 rule is contrived by which little or no regard is 
 to be paid to any communication from the Deity, 
 unless it be repeated four times ; and even when 
 it is repeated four times, if we cannot discern 
 its practical tendency, we are to treat it as a 
 matter that does not belong to us. 
 
 Is not this the very spirit of infidelity? I know 
 nothing similar to it, in all the theological writ- 
 ings with which I am acquainted, but the quo- 
 tations made by Pascal in his Provincial Letters, 
 from the writings of Jesuits, in which these 
 learned and laborious divines apply themselves 
 to solve this problem, ‘ What is the smallest 
 possible quantum of religion that will be barely 
 sufficient to keep a man out of hell.” It is not 
 my intention to insinuate that either of the two 
 writers, on whom I have been animadvert- 
 ing, are acting under any disguise—that they 
 know themselves to be infidels, while they pro- 
 fess to be Christians. It is surely not neces- 
 sary to have recourse to so frightful a suppo- 
 sition. But it is manifest that they have no ade- 
 quate conception of what it is for the God of 
 heaven to address a communication to his 
 creatures; nor of the attention and profound 
 yeverence to which such a communication 1s 
 entitled. The manner in which they treat 
 the word of God proves them to be absolutely 
 blind to its supernatural glories. If God 
 
466 On the influence of Unitarianism, §c. 
 
 were to address them in a voice from heaveti 
 they would not dare, as one of the gentlemen 
 expresses himself, to fence with his words and 
 attempt to parry his most direct and pointed de- 
 clarations; neither would they dare to encourage 
 those who heard such a voice along with them, to 
 _ pay no attention to any part of his intimations. 
 And the only excuse that can be made for the 
 awfully presumptuous treatment of that book, 
 all of which was dictated by the Holy Ghost, 
 and all of which is profitable for doctrine, for re- 
 proof, for-instruction in righteousness, in which 
 Unitarians indulge, is, thatthey donot know it 
 to be indeed a communication from the Sove- 
 reign of the universe. May the Lord Jesus pray 
 for them—*“ Father forgive them, they know not 
 what they do’! 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 I would, in conclusion, intreat my Unitarian 
 friends to consider, with deep and serious at- 
 tention, what is implied in the eternal, invisi- 
 ble God, opening a communication with us by 
 writing ; sending to us written instructions, con~ 
 taining all information necessary to qualify us 
 for serving him acceptably and enjoying his fa- 
 vour, and written directions for the regulation 
 of our conduct. Surely, it is the first dictate 
 of common sense and reason, that we receive 
 such a communication with profound reverence 
 and implicit credence and submission. Our 
 whole and single aim should be to understand 
 it, that we may believe and obey it. To lay 
 down rules, drawn from other sources, by which 
 we are to determine what, and what only it 
 must contain, and then to bend its language into 
 accordance with this previously determined im- 
 port of it ;—rules, by which one portion of it is 
 declared to be of more authority than another, 
 and by which the greater part of it is determined 
 to be unimportant, is absolutely to withstand 
 the authority of the Sovereign of the universe, 
 and to attempt to limit the right which he poss 
 
468 Conclusion. 
 
 sesses to the attention and obedience of his own 
 creatures. Would to God that I could persuade 
 Unitarians of their need of the influence of the 
 Holy Spirit to open the eyes of their under- 
 standings, that they might obtain even one 
 glimpse of the glory of God, as manifested in 
 the Lord Jesus Christ! Would to God that I 
 could persuade them to call upon that Saviour, 
 as the poor blind men called, and were heard, 
 ‘¢ Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on us !” 
 ‘¢ Lord, that our eyes might be opened!” They 
 would then, indeed, become children of the 
 light; their eye would be single, and their whole 
 body full of light. May the Lord have merey 
 on them, and deliver them, and make them free 
 indeed, with the glorious liberty of his children ! 
 
 To those who already believe the doctrines 
 which I have been endeavouring to defend, I 
 would also address a few words. If you, my 
 brethren, have indeed, been enlightened, by the 
 day star arising in your hearts ;—by the opening 
 of your eyes to discern the spiritual glory of the 
 Gospel of the grace of God, the reasoning in 
 this book is scarcely necessary, either to convince 
 orto confirm you. The only danger to which you 
 were exposed, was a temptation voluntarily to 
 shut your eyes, that you might have the merit of 
 finding your own way blindfold. But if you 
 have been enabled to discern spiritual things 
 with any considerable degree of clearness, you 
 can scarcely be accessible to such a temptation ; 
 and the arguments of such writings as those, on 
 which we have been animadverting, must appear 
 to you like the ingenious sophistry, by which a 
 subtile disputant would attempt to persuade an 
 unlearned man, that every thing around him is 
 mere imagination ;—that there is no light in the 
 sun, nor heat in fire, nor coldinice. The grand 
 
Conclusion. 469 
 
 security that neither Unitarianism, nor any other 
 substitute for the Gospel, can ever prevail against 
 even the weakest among his disciples, is, that 
 the Lord Jesus himself has opened their eyes. 
 They can meet all cavils, with the triumphant 
 reply of the man who was born blind, “ one 
 thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now 
 I see.” ‘ . 
 
 Yet take heed, my brethren, lest ye be de- 
 ceived. Remember that the ultimate and only 
 decided evidence of your being indeed. the disci- 
 ples of Christ is, that you keep his command- 
 ments, and walk as children of light. I do not 
 regard holiness of heart and life as a@ mere evi-. 
 dence of salvation: it is rather to be regarded 
 as salvation itself, advanced just as far as that 
 holiness of heart and life is advanced, and no 
 further. The pardon of sin, and justification in 
 the sight of God, are blessings only preliminary 
 to the perfect renewal of our nature, and of our 
 reunion to the Lord as his children. But. still, 
 holiness of heart and life is the evidence of aecep- 
 tance with Ged. It is the token which God 
 gives us of his favour—the certificate of our 
 acceptance, the pledge of his reconciliation and 
 love, and. the earnest of our inheritance. There 
 are many who profess an orthodox creed, who are 
 still immersed in the deepest darkness. You may 
 be convinced of the errors of Unitarianism, and be 
 zealous for the truth, while yet you are ‘in the gall 
 of bitterness and the bond of iniquity.’ If your 
 religion do not deliver you from the thraldom 
 of sin, it has done nothing for you,, and is spu- 
 rious. A profession of genuine Christianity, 
 so far from tending, in any degree, to extenuate 
 wickedness, aggravates it. I altogether abjure a 
 sentiment expressed by some, that Unitarianism, 
 
 25s 
 
AGO Conclusion. 
 
 or any other error, renders a man more hateful 
 to God than the most profligate wickedness. I 
 believe that the only reason why any man can 
 appear hateful in the sight of God is his sin. 
 Error in doctrine may, indeed, be as fatal as 
 the grossest wickedness ; because it may be the 
 means Of excluding the Gospel, by which alone 
 the sinner can be delivered from sin, and its 
 consequences. And if the error include a wil- 
 ful rejection of the Saviour, resulting from a 
 love of darkness rather than light, it involves 
 init a most determined rebellion against God ;— 
 not however, more determined than the known 
 transgression of any of his commands. And it 
 is the sin—the rebellion, the resistance of 
 the authority of God, that is the efficient 
 cause of the sinner’s destruction :—his ignorance 
 is, only in a negative sense, the cause of it. 
 ‘Take heed, therefore, to yourselves; flee from 
 sin as that abominable thing which God hates, 
 and on account of which, his wrath will be 
 poured out on the wicked; and flee to the Lord 
 Jesus, the Saviour, for refuge. There, and there 
 only, you can be safe. 
 
 Finally, beware of a Pharisaical spirit—a dis- 
 position to say to your neighbour, ‘ stand aside, 
 for I am holier than thou.’ While we ought to 
 to he on our guard against any approach to a com- 
 promise of principle, we ought to manifest a kind 
 and friendly disposition towards all men—a dis- 
 position to unite with them in every good work, 
 in so far as it is possible without actually assenting 
 to error, or assisting in the dissemination of it. I 
 am persuaded that Christians would promote the 
 glory of their God and Father among all who 
 know him not, by regarding gainsayers with less 
 of hostility, and more of tenderness and com- 
 
Conclusion. ANY 
 
 passion than they usually exhibit. To fight an 
 opponent is very different from seeking, in the 
 spirit of leve and meekness, to lead him to the 
 Saviour. 3 | 
 
 May the Lord command his blessing on these 
 endeavours te rescue the communication of his 
 will from misinterpretation; may He pardon 
 and counteract whatever may have been said 
 amiss; may He send forth his Spirit to open 
 the eyes of men that they may behold the 
 glories of the Saviour, and to call multitudes 
 out of darkness into his marvellous light, till 
 the whole earth shall be full of the knowledge 
 of the Lord;—and to His great name be glory 
 for ever and ever! Amen, and amen! 
 
at Ws 
 ep perky 
 
INDEX 
 
 TO THE PRINCIPAL TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE REFERRED 
 TO IN THE PRECEDING PAGES. 
 
 Page. 
 
 an. fi 2Godeass 
 DISS te daetees sitsoee 94, 
 iii. Lh SS rete Sut 
 
 a A a ae 
 
 Seili Chee wat cane hepdbacs hve 
 
 Ree, Ae eee 5 hae 
 
 MVilis Dee esks sesesse -D4Prov. 
 
 Sa a 9 ge Es | Be 95 
 tO er [ ib rh pot! ST ie 341 Isaiah 
 . EV ci itech? <acvs a ae 153 
 
 end ae: nage aa a 
 
 od Mat Rs AP are ae 358 
 ope 0 Td 8 Rig it 9s 74, 
 ANIL IS. Ev Jeb see bv ahi ont anders 268 
 Meh Suse geenes 358 
 
 ‘Dent. xxxii.- 11...)...5.2.. 280 
 
 Ree a tgshss 377 Psalm xevi. 12, 13......... 204 
 
 Page, 
 xeviii, 8, abe eae 204 
 gli 25a Oi encetehoe be Oo 
 C1IVIOUsseees Wiceaee . 361 
 CVis 2 lidedeacesobadape 266 
 oxlitic  LO.s0.% posdas’ OGe 
 Wille eens dap eehes 117 
 KV boots tases 33, 185 
 isk Lewes oles te tesnas ve 160 
 a ye re WN 376 
 vii. 14... we Hl, 143 
 jb Ree Seg Mg yg . 146 
 iessbvep Oss cwctesse dt 
 Bg ne AS rn Metis Ooo 
 
 ltteers esrs ees oe 46 
 
 bP AEC ES a 266 
 xty,.21--23..4 161, 266 
 ERs ee REET OR Me gippek ied » ¥ 
 ie ea Wcawui sth evens ws 186 
 
 a a ee ae Sep 6ea Nate E58 
 TORDUA Ve Loss sds s0es cdeveces  GOlEtek.. xvi xxiliasccts. cote: 419 
 Pr ee ep Seats 6 90!Dan. vii. 13, 14........... 310 
 
 Judges xiii. 3—5, 21—22 75 
 
 viii. Aero aen eas 335 
 Tver te sswestecees LOO 
 
 1 Sam.ii. 10.. bt OOM TOC, Le khSonespnseetarknean, GOs 
 1 Kings viii. 39. ceoe 185| Micah v. 2....00000+ Serge . 170 
 xviii, 21, "29. scanece QOlIMatt. i. 18—20.......0800. 359 
 
 BOGE s SEV 1s. oobe o's 5c aeees 204 a 2a co emee . 143 
 xxviii. 9..... ainsi 185 HA Gra ieviee ere ee 
 
 Teter xl, BO, OL sath enesse Ob Ain Sulih screetint key LOe 
 wba pets 756. sesneiseveudes 371 eet dG Lhe eg oe 
 eae! errs Se gknes een ivi IDidG. BAeeet. 38 ABD 
 
 WADA Uocidcetehigueaese 185 a Wis Wile na ect bieev ee 
 
 ane: 4.3, 130, 268, 310 ix, .27-——80.52.084.2., 200 
 
 a ae 163, 204 
 BOT RaE Es 268, 411 
 Ixxviii, 18.......0... 162 
 Ixxxiii, 18........... 154 
 XCi. Bas TEE ooeus 6 280 
 
 Rees 1 OE oy bs C2 
 Why Bows Foss dite sive 188 
 wm Rly Se eooes 0G 
 xivi22, Soi. neoe 
 Svan ber Qyi thes: S09 
 
INDEX TO TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 . Page. 
 Matt.«.xvi; 18—17%.,......° 66 John 
 OT eke ceaece «- 204 
 MVR, 2 Oveedtesccan ts: L1G 
 mevilt, eee Saineaeel Tan 
 I Os od La aiirns com - 340 
 Ke AZ tS vss. 64h ZQ 
 8g ate) MR fo Og 798 
 SXVL OF) sede rtes. POS 
 XXViii. 1820, 179, 202 
 310, 374 
 Mark v. 2... mS 134, 
 Bae cad Fehrs. ee bas ata G 
 LS, seats 0k 196 
 Xlii, BQ....000s 52.62, 334 
 Pai cae ae! a 196 
 Lake save ieee oo: 195 
 mt Bins cetibenbem@e. “256 
 — 18. = 5a OD 
 Ve BoD ee ioadess < eT. 
 vi iaee Behe de evGa's cS 
 BORAT. Toes cracvetee eves 310! Acts 
 John i, 1, 14....;. OE 11 
 - 1-4, 9-11, 14-18 116 
 So ed 14 ran ete 190 19] 
 - 16... iter ol) 
 - 18... one . 199 
 Si Bg re as $e decade) KOE 
 1132 Oo eae... POG 
 — 24, ee bo 
 ET at es Popes apts 279 Fimacs Oe 
 — 16......0085 Rifle ga Nee 
 — 16,17, 35 bes 2 
 err S$ | 
 iy.+8- 10, 14. a POP soe 63\ Rom. 
 i ie a race shake Lae 
 —_ 19. whies'ess HO 
 y. Py ee aehiect mao 
 ner DP DOy lie wesee SLI 
 mera are erteber ree tes eG 
 —— 28, 29. cssesve. 207 
 Wi, OO ul. bhove ss LO 
 — 38, 46, 62........ 61 
 ele DT oe ulecvsucebsahdac, ODD 
 Wie GIS) t, ocdatins. ASS 
 bem OO. SS cadegesececee OOlT Car 
 Wi FF ake Ud 
 ek erent 5 17] 
 Vil. OBL sy oe Scar ae 
 m— BI, 82.0000. 392 
 
 r 
 
 NEADS Sh Aaecse ren ke 
 Ke hl isiabacedcrt aM 207 
 oo Doe SG a . 344 
 Kis usieuee .. 207 
 ar 41, A208 249 348 
 xii, 373-4250, . 16) 
 xiv. . 16; «175-26:<2.. 377 
 eer -21,- 235568 181] 282 
 waves PE si ceil veactete . 342 
 MV. WGiss ssi Sie eteee eon 
 KVL Fes asia ceed eaves . 41) 
 we 12, 18.5088 eR 
 ma 2B. cccclcees sdis0 ROU 
 me 265 (S70 ee ehes 329. 
 xvii. 1, 2, 9—12,.. 319 
 7 24. s.000000.849 283 
 KVLli. ‘Do-aod  ooedtes 310 
 XX»: 27, 2Bicéitides LOG 
 xxi.-15-17..7ho%. 265 
 lis-Z 1] a cceveus cinaces See 
 ik; 6.1633... orcas . 2008 
 Iv 9. sicveTeeee bediee, shoe 
 Wid: Snel vereebedlece BOO 
 Wii, SOs. éc00% Sevcediee: EL 
 vii. 54—60......... 246 
 Vill) Occ, veces tet. Ube 
 ix. LO—~—Ziswsi. 242 
 ili, : 3S ..ccscusteeeees MOTO 
 KV si WSsshew ive: OOn 
 NUL 65.4 Riantidstes Coe 
 xvii. 21... Ved shoo 
 XX AD. cise eyes kh 
 iii. 9—26 coves 409 
 — 25, 26. scecsee. 2. ae 
 iV. O...veuceuavcinee ae 
 v. 7,8 12032, 68 
 Villu c[eackesbauy ete 409 
 + 2638; 198 361 
 x12, Wan By .. 242 
 4X... Dossasaceetas coke, 122 
 xiv, 10—12.., 161 206 
 EV. lVgicccicselinctis LAO 
 —- 18, 19., + 364 
 cishe PI tS” 243 
 Osta Sic eee 
 ==LO5- Li visas cheers . ooo 
 iil, 1G 6. i ee 
 ome 1S i ocsestbehiccrnc@e de 
 
INDEX TO TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 Page Page, 
 
 WPOsONe AVG) Vocceeccuatecssss seman Lats tin oc cere casee cece L 
 
 vi. 16. eee peperengh Got lets si lA We A eee 
 
 Vi. LOS iia. 68 mm tia: oheeke ier .. 200 
 
 aos eras ce actu paanees | 225 meh cVnneveadlede tasenie d 202 
 
 x. 9 weveonsetess 162 SPM SY sivc.n suis « acs Fauna’ 63 
 
 xii akeiinidees OO -- 8, 9. 43, 130, 268, 310 
 
 BV, Shack daadses ween 20 pny A Po aeepe tee. ek 
 
 = Dd vevedvooens arr Ue o- 10-12... 269 
 
 on 24S. ccvedece Gol sents D2 educa A eked O15 
 
 a eee Pr. Sb Vir Bi css Dk phetaavide: 225 
 
 KVivieasenteee veh ed Lege 147 capsa veasee vat 363 
 
 we - BSc eeeee . 204 pA EER A nae 316 
 
 Sears Fe cl eee hh e'e 149 Sn PO he nck ed ccodkild 399 
 
 iv, U7 AB. eas ves. 197 er Lert sce a Genet rene 206 
 
 Ve Ocak dene es. 205 Sis eaes «hc ee . 174 
 
 OD KS U's Be ee 68 MITE Pisscdace We vo th hoa WF 
 
 Wy cd Olen. saan cce Boal iV et. To 8; seeks pga rh. 281 
 
 xii. 8, 9.. . 245 FW ed 2 Dy pt ge AD oe 68 
 
 xiij. 14. “1246, "364, 374 bag eel Be ol Wie 67 
 
 Gals. vy, Zoe. We. SOL iii, 18., adie 359 
 
 vi 14.8 Bas Mikes ts Ope ete Ler Ves tess, cokecdaes 150 
 
 Fees 1 1a 20), peordt wesc ver 198)? John tii? 16s, 5 8. 225 
 
 | Ss Ee the 311 IV 21S ccrphs cone ee 
 
 =} OMe pp ethetiree 202, 330 — 1 EPRI PAI. 
 
 ae EEE Seagate) 409 meen GAR s Ce veceertes be cae 281 
 
 sR Acts eee Ee? Page 268, 411 Ve Sat cetnccadas 58 sigs 67 
 
 ee EES Non cabana Me « 149 hl STR Lae te set ane 136 
 
 2 oe Wk Cee .. 1982 John -- 3... : . 246 
 
 ser OETA waicigactnan wees « 24 Rate: Ae Pc cceeete ee 
 
 Pee cts, 2732-9 Sey des cove to 214 meric’ Losticaehcaveu. 206 
 
 wiles os < dalasln be Geter +) 64 id LP eh Ae Pg a 266 
 
 BS Ree ah Gy 5 101 Be aD oye slaes wage + oh ac 267 
 
 aon | LS th wake, ool Rey. . 85; 6... cs 269, 312 
 
 TP ES a re 68 Sool Sascn Co steackaeeakan 205 
 
 sreteie- LQ: 93 5.. et. 280 PO RUT ES scchcs elt ¥- 173 
 
 LN hho, Ry eee ae 149 PER OO AVES, ata Lt 202, 311 
 
 Cokie ite 17365. 170,192 => 5,8; 16....171, 173 
 
 202 pany 3 94-4 RY 8 ae 185 
 
 SR age bate staan er elt evan, 327, 330 
 
 Te hs 183 We O—- 1A, coe ruaasae 269 
 
 wk DPR ae. 210 ii imp dre: Or dea Saas ole 
 
 Littes: 18, 1113. sae. oF. 245 Wide LET aces. cece 283 
 
 RV L Occ eeneaites tis 205 Rix? LILI. ark ose 118 
 
 2 Thes. i. 7 detiee, 20D SEOs vane cathe dats 172 
 
 1 Sa ORR. $B 2 TI att DS cc cecvees cage Core 
 
 Be FG. FE. AN aere.. 245 Seelloasiccss ts aes ibid 
 
 Lee eo ocicnn ts 77, 14 ——— 13. ...cecceveces 172 
 Titus ii. 13, 14....,....149, 408 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 I. The Claims of the Roman Catholic Priest- 
 hood investigated, price Is. 6d. 
 
 II. Sermons on Repentance and Fait, 
 with an Appendix, containing a critical examin- 
 ation of the force of the Greek word zicri¢ {faith) 
 price 9s. 
 
 IJI. The Old Doctrine of Faith asserted in 
 opposition to certain modern innovations, in- 
 cluding strictures on Erskine’s Essay on Faith, 
 &c., price 3s. 
 
 IV. The Duties of Protestants and Roman 
 Catholics mutually towards each other, being 
 two discourses, with an appendix, price Is. 6d. 
 
 V. The General Diffusion of Christianity, 
 the Duty of the Churches, a sermon preached 
 before the General Synod of Ulster, price Is. 
 
 VI. The Charity School System examined, 
 as a means of relieving the poor and of educat- 
 ing children, being a sermon preached in the 
 
 Scot’s Churchin Mary’s Abbey, Dublin, price Is. 
 VII. The Apochryphal Controversy summed 
 
 up, and applied to useful purposes; containing 
 suggestions for healing the dissensions that exist 
 among the Friends of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, and for advancing the prosperity 
 and usefulness of that noble Institution, price 
 is. 6d. 
 
; he te 7 a 2 
 dont A pa aes 
 Sue * 4 
 
 a ; te 2 r 
 
 ‘ 
 
 / 
 
 sd A. IE ish es : ? ie AY a 
 Faas PETG YS toyed is Ae > 
 | perry Toe gas a ee Sb 
 
 ‘ 
 , 
 
 vic3 
 - a 
 
 LAG 
 
 i. 
 % 
 }, 
 
 4 ie : 
 ee Pubes 
 eA ae 
 
~ ai .s 
 Lay; 
 q 
 f 
 1 aa | ||| 
 1] 
 \]] 
 | 1] 
 yA ad a 
 yA AT A 
 WIA HHI 
 al 
 | 
 i i 
 | f ~ 
 ; 
 io % 
 ‘a 
 ‘ 
 . f 
 * ~ 
 oi 
 ro 
 4 ; 
 t 
 \ 
 i t 
 = 
 re gs 
 xi: 
 Ke 
 b 
 cee 
 os 
 4 
 = 
 Mg 
 J x 
 oe 
 
 ee 
 
 i] 
 Wai 
 Lal HA