.■^ 
 
/^ - 'i_ 
 
 iZyja.c^'^ 
 
 A^ zjr 
 
 ^ ^.., 1 ^.^^^ ^*# t"* ^ 
 
 J THEOLOGICAL SEMINAKY, | 
 
 ^^ Princeton, N. J- *. 
 
 I CV/*'^', Di-vision.... \ 
 
 e Shelf) SecUBO .-|- 
 
 D Book, ■ _^\ 
 
 .o 
 
UNITARIANISM 
 
 INCAPABLE OF VINDICATION 
 
 A REPLY 
 
 THE REV. JAMES YATES'S 
 
 VINDICATION OF UNITARIANISM. 
 
 BY RALPH WARDLAW, 
 
 AUTHOR OF THE "■ DISCOURSES ON THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSV,' 
 WHICH OCCASIONED THE " VINDICATION." 
 
 " Admoneri nos decet, ut docilitate, magis quam acumine, in istam 
 
 questionem incumbere, curae sit." — Calvin. 
 " The MEEK He will guide in judgment, the meek wiU He teach his way." 
 
 PSAI.. SKV. 0. 
 
 ANDOVER : 
 
 PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE BY MARK NEWMAN. 
 
 FLAGG AND GOULD. ...printers., 
 1817. 
 
TO 
 
 WILLIAM WARDLAW, Esq. 
 
 Dear and Honoured Sir, 
 
 I FEEL peculiar satisfaction in inscribing this 
 Volume to you, without your privacy, as a slight 
 acknowledgment of obligations, which, I am fully 
 sensible, can never be discharged. To you, under 
 Divine Providence, I am indebted, for all that a son 
 can owe to an affectionate and pious father : — espe- 
 cially, for the inestimable blessing of early religious 
 instruction, imparted with tender solicitude, sanctified 
 by fervent prayer, and recommended by the force of 
 consistent example. During a long and checquered 
 pilgrimage, you have oft experienced the cheering 
 influence of those blessed truths, which, in this and a 
 former Volume, I have endeavoured to defend ; — and 
 have been enabled, ^Mvithout rebuke," to exemplify 
 their practical efficacy, in the faithful discharge of all 
 the personal and relative duties of public and private 
 life. 
 
May the God whom you have served from child- 
 hood to age, gladden the evening of your days with 
 "the light of his countenance!" — and, when the hour 
 shall arrive, — may it yet be distant ! — that shall close 
 llie period of your residence on earth, receive you, in 
 peace and triumph, to that celestial home, which has 
 so long been the goal of your hopes and desires, 
 where the sorrows of time shall give place to the 
 unmingled joys of eternity ! 
 
 With every sentiment of filial reverence and> 
 love — I am, 
 
 Dear and honoured Sir, 
 
 Your dutiful Son, 
 
 and humble Servant, 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This Reply has swelled in its progress to a degree which I 
 did not anticipate. There are few things, indeed, to which 
 ihe phrase " crescit eundo'''' is more strongly applicable, thanr 
 to a defensive work in theological controversy : — and, besides 
 the extension of the work itself, various engagements and cir- 
 cumstances, in the detail of which the public could have no 
 interest, have contributed to delay its appearance so unex- 
 pectedly long. — My wish being to make it a final answer, and, 
 as far as possible, to preclude the necessity, on my part, of any 
 prolongation of the discussion, I resolved, some time after hav- 
 ing begun, to allow myself freer scope than I had originally in- 
 tended ; conceiving that it would not be justice, either to myself 
 or to my subject, to omit illustrations or reasonings, which 
 might, in any material degree, contribute to the elucidation and 
 settlement^of the questions at issue. An assertion may be made 
 in a single sentence, which it may require pages to refute i 
 while the brevity and imposing confidence with which it is 
 made, may increase, instead of lessening, the necessity for its 
 refutation. But the ground on which I would chiefly rest, in 
 vindicating this amplitude of discussion, is, the paramount impor- 
 tance of the questions themseolve.''. and the infinite magnitude of 
 
the consequences dependent upon their just decision ; — a con- 
 sideration, surely, which ought to be sufficient to secure an at- 
 tentive examination to arguments even much more extended. 
 
 Not that I consider the perusal and examination of compli- 
 cated critical disquisitions as necessary to enable any reader to 
 resolve these questions for himself, in an enlightened and satis- 
 factory manner, from the word of God. To use an expression 
 of my opponent, in his Sermon on the duly and manner of de- 
 ciding religious controversies, — " On questions so important and 
 fundamental, the language of revelation cannot be ambiguous :" 
 and neither, on the same principle, can it be dark, and difficult to 
 be understood. " To the poor the gospel is preached :" — and 
 the holy Scriptures, like the preaching of our Lord and his apos- 
 tles, are adapted, in their phraseology, not to the learned few, 
 but to the unlearned many ; — not to " the wise and prudent," 
 but to " babes." The way of salvation, as might, a priori, have 
 been presumed, is made known there with so much plainness, 
 that " the way-faring man, though a fool, shall not err therein." 
 But, when attempts are made, by the pride of philosophy, mis- 
 named theology, to pervert these Scriptures from their obvious 
 and simple meaning, and to make the common people jealous 
 and distrustful, on the most momentous subjects, of that transla- 
 tion of the Bible, in which they have been accustomed to confide, 
 as a faithful exhibition of the mind of God ; when Unitarian 
 geographers endeavour, by the discovery of false readings, false 
 renderings, and false interpretations, to lay down a map of the 
 way to heaven, entirely different from the one which is thez^e so 
 distincdy delineated : — it becomes an imperious duty, rightly to 
 appreciate the pretensions of those, who are thus " confident that 
 they themselves are guides of the blind, lights of them who are 
 in darkness, instructors of the foolish, and teachers of babes ;" 
 
Vll 
 
 to expose, as far as we are able, the unsoundness of their spe- 
 cious criticisms, and the fallacy of their high-minded reasonings ; 
 that, by this means, the faith of the steadfast may be confirmed, 
 the confidence of the wavering restored, and those reclaimed 
 from their wanderings, who may unhappily, have been induced 
 to forsake " the good and the right way." 
 
 The last of the " Discourses on the principal points of the 
 Socinian Controversy," closed in the following terms : " If it 
 shall be found that these objects," (namely, the glory of God, 
 and the eternal interests of men) " which are in their nature 
 inseparable, have been, in the smallest degree, promoted ; — that 
 the faith of God's people has been strengthened, or the minds of 
 the wavering settled ; — that, in any one instance, the gainsayer 
 has been convinced, or the careless sinner awakened, and ' turn- 
 ed from the error of his way ;' — I shall consider my reward as 
 obtained, and my labour as infinitely more than compensated." 
 It has aflforded me sincere gratification, I trust from higher and 
 purer principles than those of a merely selfish nature, to learn, 
 from different quarters, that my labour has not, in these respects, 
 been entirely fruitless. — Among the accounts of this description, 
 not the least pleasing has been from the other side of the Atlan- 
 tic, In America, particularly in the State of Massachusetts, the 
 same controversy has, of late, been exciting unusual attention. 
 During its progress, a copy of the " Discourses" having been 
 carried out from this country by an American minister, a large 
 edition was published in Andover ; which, I am given to hope, 
 has not been without some small service to the cause of Christ. 
 It was followed, on the part of the Unitarians, by the republica- 
 tion of Mr. Yates' " Vindication," with Notes, and an Appendix. 
 The letters conveying these notices, (which were from eminent 
 ministers of the gospel, although personally strangers to myself, 
 
and which pleasingly indicate the effect of the " one faith" in 
 knitting the hearts of strangers, however distant, in the bonds of 
 Christian affection) — were accompanied with copies of the vari- 
 ous publications which had then issued from the American press, 
 in the course of the recent controversy. As this volume is likely 
 to reach the same quarter, it may not be improper to say, that at 
 first I felt inclined to take some notice, in an Appendix or oth- 
 erwise, of the contents of these publications. But, besides the 
 propriety of confining myself, as much as possible, to the field 
 which my own adversary had marked out for me, as well as of 
 avoiding longer delay in the publication of this reply, want of 
 leisure prevented me from giving them a deliberate examination ; 
 nor did there appear, indeed, to be any sufficient call for enter- 
 ing the lists among the Transadantic combatants. The arena 
 is already well occupied. There are hearts there burning with 
 unquenchable love to the Divine Redeemer, associated with un- 
 derstandings fully adequate to do justice to their zeal. We 
 heartily bid them " God speed." And, although they should 
 be grieved there, as we have been here, by seeing some " de- 
 part from the faith :" yet " those who are approved will be 
 made the more manifest," and the truth, which is mighty, shall 
 ultimately prevail. 
 
 In the course of this work, I have occasionally referred, 
 with approbation, to " Strictures on Mr. Yates' Vindication of 
 Unitarianism," by the Rev. John Brown of Biggar. These 
 Strictures are very creditable to the critical talents of their 
 author; although, from the peculiar form in which they are 
 written, (having been originally intended " as an article in one 
 of the periodical journals,") they are necessarily limited, and, in 
 some measure desultory. There is in a. few parts of them, a 
 degree of sarcastic asperity, which will be condemned by some, 
 
and, perhaps, justified by others ; and which I am myself timid 
 to censure, because, in the composition of the following work, 
 the trial of temper has at times been such, as to render it not 
 improbable, that, in spite of my introductory remarks, and good 
 resolutions, on the spirit of controversy, Mr. Brown may find 
 some occasion for retorting upon me, with the proverb, " Physi- 
 cian, heal thyself." I should very gladly have allowed these 
 Strictures, together with the Reviews (some of them long and 
 able) to which this controversy has given rise, to liave sufficed 
 as antidotes to the poison of Unitarian error, in Mr. Yates' 
 work, and, desisting from my labour, have devoted my time to 
 other departments of study : — but, having publicly taken up the 
 cause, I felt that I should leave a sting in my conscience, if I 
 did not attempt, with the same publicity, to meet the reasonings 
 of my opponent with a more full and formal refutation; and by 
 this means, as well as by additional evidence, to settle still more 
 firmly on the solid basis of Scripture testimony, those doctrines, 
 which Christians have been accustomed to consider as the essen- 
 tial articles of revealed truth. 
 
 The favourable reception experienced by the " Discourses," 
 has inspired a diffident hope, that the present volume may not 
 be altogether unacceptable to the Christian public, or unaccom- 
 panied with the blessing of God. Without that blessing, I am 
 deeply convinced, every expectation of good must be frustrated: 
 — and no one who has read the epistles of Paul, and imbibed 
 any portion of his spirit, will charge me with enthusiasm, in. 
 requesting, in order to its success, and to the success of all simi- 
 lar efforts, the prayers of my Christian brethren. 
 
 In a foot note, page 29th of this volume, a reference is made 
 to note A. at the end. It was my intention to have inserted 
 there some particulars relative to the theological sentiments of 
 
Dr. Isaac Watts. To avoid, however, the awkward appearance 
 of a solitary note, (having found no particular occasion for more) 
 I now prefer making a reference to the pamphlet from which 
 these particulars should have been extracted. It is entitled, — 
 " Dr. Watts no Socinian ; a Refutation of the Testimony of Dr. 
 Lardner, as brought foinvard in the Rev. T. Belsham's Memoirg 
 of the late Rev. Theophilus Lindsay, ' That Dr. Watts' last 
 sentiments were completely Unitarian.' In a series of letters to 
 the Rev. Joseph Smith, of Manchester. By Samuel Palmer. — 
 * Your glorying is not good.' 1 Cor. v. 6. London, 1813." 
 
 I commend this work, like the former, " to the blessing of 
 God, and to the candid judgment of men." 
 
 R. W. 
 
 Glasgow, June 24, 181d. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Observations on various Topics of Preliminary Discussion, 
 Chap. I. - - - - - Page 12 
 
 Chap. II. 
 Chap. III. 
 Chap. IV. 
 
 24 
 36 
 45 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Defence of the Reasonings in support of the Trinity, and 
 
 of the Divinity of Christ, against the Animadversions 
 of Mr, Yates. 
 
 Chap. I. - . - - . . 62 
 
 Chap. II. - - - - - - 74 
 
 Chap. Ill, - - - - - -. 96 
 
 Chap. IV - 112 
 
 Chap. V. - - - - - - 120 
 
 Chap. VI. - - - - - - I74 
 
 Chap. VII. - - - . - - . 194 
 
 Chap. VIII. - - - - - - 213 
 
 Chap. IX. - - r - - - 236 
 
PART in. 
 
 Examination of the more direct Evidence adduced by Mr, 
 Yates, in support of the Principles of Unitarianism. 
 
 Chap. I. 257 
 
 Chap. II. - - - 276 
 
 Chap. Ill 295 
 
 Chap. IV. Containing additional proofs from Scripture of 
 
 the Divinity of Christ, - - - 309 
 
 Chap. V. Concluding Remarks, - - - '321 
 
PART I. 
 
 OBSERVATIONS ON VARIOUS TOPICS OF PRELIMINARY 
 DISCUSSION. 
 
 CHAPTER L 
 
 Towards the close of his " Vindication of Unitarianism,'* 
 Mr. Yates represents the " instances of carelessness, indiscretion, 
 and misrepresentation, which abound in Mr. Wardlaw's Volume, 
 and which he has been under the necessity of noticing, as suffi- 
 cient wholly to destroy its credit in the apprehension of all impar- 
 tial judges.'''^ — 1 will not venture, in "putting on my harness," to 
 boast myself," as Mr. Yates has thus done in " putting it off." 
 Depending, however, on Divine assistance, I address myself 
 anew, with no diminution of courage, to " this great argument." 
 1 shall examine my opponent's work with all the freedom which 
 a regard to truth requires ; and shall then leave the decision be- 
 twixt us to those '■'■ impartial judges''"' to whom he has made his 
 confident appeal. 
 
 It must be a matter of very small consequence to the public, 
 how Mr. Yates and his opponent stand affected towards each other-, 
 whether they live in habits of intimate friendship, or merely on 
 terms of mutual good will. From some expressions used in Mr. 
 Yates' " Vindication," his readers might be led to suppose the for^ 
 mer to be the case ; for in various instances, in the course of his 
 work, he strongly expresses his regard, and, with the emphasis of 
 Italics, closes his volume by "joyfully erasing from the tablet of 
 his memory every feeling of hostility, and wishing to behave 
 henceforth toward his opponent, his friend, as his moral and intel- 
 lectual excellencies prompt his esteem." (Page 291.) When 
 Mr. Yates thus expresses his wishes respecting his behaviour 
 to his friend " henceforth,^'' his reader may naturally be disposed 
 
14 
 
 lO inquire, in what manner he has behaved towards him in this 
 controversy. And in seeking, in Mr. Yates' book, an answer to 
 this inquiry, he will find some things, I fear, hardly quite consist- 
 ent with that cordial union of spirit, which is generally and justly 
 understood to belong to the essence of tvue friendship. He will 
 occasionally feel cause for considerable surprise ; and may be- 
 gin, perhaps, to suspect that surely Mr. Yates uses this term, as 
 Unitarians do so many others, in a sense of his own. What sort 
 o{ esteem and friendship must these be ? he will say to himself. 
 This author certainly does not treat his esteemed friend very gra- 
 ciously. He compliments him, it is true, and compliments him 
 strongly and generously. But his eulogies seem to be more than 
 neutralized, when he charges this friend of his with management, 
 and generalship, and manosuvriiig, of various unworthy kinds ; — 
 with the artful expedients, and low tricks, of a nibbling adversary ; 
 — w'lih. cont^imely, Oind petulance, and positiveness, and dogmatism ^ 
 as well as with ignorance, and carelessness, and bitter misrepre- 
 sentation, and overheated zeal ; — when he honours him with a 
 place among " crows, and chatteri?ig jays,''"' in their impertinent 
 pursuit of the bird of Jove ; — and speaks of the '■'■feeble, diminu- 
 tive accents of our worthy author ^^ in terms which could hardly 
 be used without a certain scornful elevation of the upper lip, not 
 extremely desirable in the countenance of a friend. — I am quite 
 aware, however, of the different lights in which the same expres- 
 sions will appear to a friend of the cause that is defended, and to 
 an enemy. Where the former finds no groimd of complaint in 
 an author's general manner, but rather, perhaps, an excess of 
 forbearance and gentleness, the latter will quickly discover the 
 clearest symptoms of virulent animosity and insolent self-suffi- 
 ciency. Certain words and phrases will be severely censured 
 by the latter, as incontestable evidences of such tempers of mind ; 
 while by the former they will be justified and commended, as in- 
 dicating no more than that the writer is not indiflerent to the 
 cause he has espoused, but, as he ought to be, " zealously affect- 
 ed in a good thing." It was certainly my wish to avoid the 
 evils of which my adversary has so heavily accused me. In this 
 wish it is possible I may have failed : yet I honestly declare I am 
 not sensible of the failure ; at least to any thing like the extent of 
 
the indictment ; nor, so tar as I have had access to know the 
 public voice, have my readers in general concurred in the accu- 
 sations. 
 
 It may appear to some, perhaps, hardly generous, to bring 
 these harshnesses forward into such prominent notice, after Mr. 
 Yates has declared, towards the conclusion of his reply, the 
 " special gratification it will afford him to expunge any expres- 
 sions which appear disrespectful to Mr. Wardlaw." (P. 291.) 
 But the truth is, I cannot persuade myself that Mr. Yates was 
 not sensible of something disrespectful in such expressions as 
 those which have just been quoted. And surely, if he was, the 
 spirit, which would have been gratified by expunging them from 
 the printed volume, should have previously gratified itself, 
 by expunging them from the manuscript. This procedure is 
 certainly much more like sincerity, than first to show the public, by 
 offensive personalities, what smart things we can say, and then 
 to bow at the close, and protest our readiness to cancel them. I 
 have a similar observation to make respecting the severe accusa- 
 tions in Mr. Yates' letter to me, published at the end of his book. 
 He says himself respecting that letter, " Some of the expressions 
 in it are certainly harsh. I used them, that he might see the full 
 extent of my accusations against him, and because / alviays think 
 it proper to speak of another in severer language to himself than to 
 any one e/se." (P. 291.) Mr. Yates, then, intended this letter 
 for myself , and for no one else? So, upon the principle which 
 he states (an exceedingly good one) it ought to have been. But 
 so it was not, Mr. Yates, while using these confessedly harsh 
 expressions, " because he thought it proper to speak of another 
 in severer terms to himself than to any one else," was, at the 
 very moment, writing for the public, and avows his intention of 
 saying to the world all that he was saying to myself: — " P. S. I 
 shall probably prefix this letter to my Reply, that, if any disa- 
 greeable consequences do ensue from this controversy, the pub- 
 lic may see that I am not chargeable with them." 
 
 Could I plead guilty to all the charges of my opponent, I 
 should pronounce myself unworthy of AzV esteem, or of the esteem 
 of any one else : and, what is of infinitely greater consequence 
 than the forfeiture of the regard of men, I should feel myself ex« 
 
16 
 
 posed to the frown of an offended Master. I know it is his com- 
 mand, that " the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gen- 
 tle unto all men ; patient, in meekness instructing those that op- 
 pose themselves." To this command — (a command to which he 
 who was " meek and lowly in heart" himself set the example of 
 perfect conformity) — it is my desire, by his grace, to adhere, in 
 inward feeling, and in outward act and expression. If the vio- 
 lation of it be necessary to writing with spirit, let me rank with 
 the dullest of the dull. I am no advocate for that facile complai- 
 sance, and simpering insipidity, which knows not how to be firm ; 
 which assumes a style between assent and denial, that can scarce- 
 ly be known for the one or for the other ; which minces truth, redu- 
 ces and accommodates important differences, smiles when it ought 
 to frown, and makes its courteous obeisance when it should stand 
 erect in all the dignity of unbending decision. — But there is per- 
 fect harmony between decision and gentleness. If there were 
 not, it were impossible that both should be commanded. We 
 are in general, I fear, too little sensible of the sin that is commit- 
 ted by speaking or writing, whether against one another, or 
 against the common enemies of our faith, under the influence of 
 such tempers of mind, and in such a style and manner, as are 
 inconsistent with the precepts and example of our " meek and 
 lowly" Master. We are not suflSciendy jealous of the deceitful- 
 ness of our hearts. We write with passion, and flatter ourselves 
 that we arc writing with becoming zeal. We indulge ourselves 
 freely in violent invective, pointed sarcasm, and contemptuous 
 ridicule, and, according to one of the most common modes of 
 self-deception, that of giving gentle names to ungentle things, we 
 call this writing with spirit. — Nay, such is our inconsistency, such 
 our insensibility to our own failings, such our readiness to act 
 the part of extractors of motes from the eyes of others, without 
 being conscious of the beams that are in our own ; that, in the 
 very act of pronouncing our censure on another's fault, we are 
 sometimes guilty, and that in a more flagrant degree, of the very 
 fault which we are censuring. In reproving bitterness and viru- 
 lence, we show the gall of our own hearts : we reprobate self- 
 sufficiency and pride, in the very spirit of proud self-sufliciency : 
 vve are dogmatical in exposing dogmatism : we laugh to scorn 
 
17 
 
 the claims of infallibility, and we ourselves are never in the 
 wrong : we swell with secret self-conceit, while we are admon- 
 ishing others " not to think of themselves more highly than they 
 ought to think :" we conceive our adversary sets himself too 
 high ; we bring him down ; but we are so pleased with ourselves 
 for the feat, that we mount the throne from which we have dis- 
 lodged him, and look around, ex cathedra, for admiration and 
 homage. 
 
 That ignorance should be exposed, that sophistry should be 
 detected, that artful reasonings should be refuted, malicious mis- 
 representations placed in their true light, and lofty and imposing 
 pretensions sunk to their proper level ; all this is very right and 
 very necessary. But should not the truth of the gospel be main- 
 tained in the spirit of the gospel ? Should we not implore the 
 grace of Christ, that we may show less of ourselves, and more 
 of our Master ? Shall we willingly incur his frown, to please 
 the corrupt likings of our fellow creatures ? Shall we sacrifice 
 his gracious smile for the laugh of the world ; and " court a grin, 
 when we should woo a soul ?" While we establish the truth of 
 his doctrine, shall we give a false and mischievous exhibition of 
 its nature, and of its influence on the heart ? Shall we encourage 
 our fellow Christians in thinking lightly of tempers which they 
 ought to dread and to deprecate, in considering questions rela- 
 tive to the fundamental articles of divine truth, rather as party 
 distinctions, than as affecting the glory of Christ and the salva- 
 tion of sinners ? And, with regard to the adversaries of the truth 
 themselves, shall we allow ourselves to forget that they too have 
 souls, immortal souls at stake, and, instead of keeping steadily 
 in view, their spiritual and eternal profit, their conviction and 
 conversion to God, instead of seeking to satisfy their judgments 
 by a clear and argumentative manifestation of the truth, and to 
 win them to the acknowledgment of it by affectionate persuasion, 
 shall we bring upon ourselves the deep criminality of rather do- 
 ing what is in our power to harden them in opposition, by rous- 
 ing into jealous exercise all the feelings of eager hostility ; mak- 
 ing them parties with ourselves in a personal quarrel ; and en- 
 couraging, what of all things we ought to discountenance, a com- 
 bat for victory instead of a controversy for truth ? 
 
18 
 
 It is my earnest prayer that the Holy Spirit may enable me 
 to " keep my heart with all diligence," while engaged in defend- 
 ing the truth of the important doctrines revealed by his inspira- 
 tion ; and preserve me from every expression that would either 
 indicate an improper temper in my own breast, or excite such a 
 temper in the breast of any one of my readers. 
 
 I should reckon it a waste of time, to repel, by any lengthen- 
 ed defence, the charges before alluded to, which Mr. Yates has, 
 either directly or indirectly, brought against my manner of con- 
 ducting the controversy. The light in which these charges will 
 be viewed by the reader will, I am quite aware, coiTespond with 
 the predisposition of his mind, and the side which he has taken 
 (if he has taken any) on the question under discussion. I must 
 be allowed, however, a few brief remarks. 
 
 In his introduction, Mr. Yates thus expresses himself. (Page 
 4.) " Mr. Wardlaw affirms solemnly, that his only object is 
 TRUTH ; and doubtless the defence of the Calvinistic doctrines, 
 which he believes to be true, was his only object. But there is 
 a wide difference between defending a particular system, pre- 
 viously assumed as true, and pursuing truth independently of 
 system ; a difference which will materially affect the manner in 
 which a man states his own arguments, and views the arguments 
 of others. Mr. Wardlaw's whole style and language in this con- 
 troversy show, that he has never put his mind into that state of 
 calm and impartial deliberation, which is necessary to collect 
 and arrange the proofs on either side, and to judge in favour of 
 which the evidence preponderates." 
 
 In this, and some other parts of his Reply, Mr. Yates seems 
 to proceed on the modest supposition, that at the time of prepar- 
 ing my Discourses the subject was quite new to me ; that I had 
 only then entered on the investigation of the truth of those doc- 
 trines, which, for ten years before, I had been preaching to oth- 
 ers as the doctrines of the word of God. If this be disavowed 
 by him ; if he be ready to admit, that the Discourses may be an 
 exhibition not of the process of investigation by which the writer 
 first arrived at his conviction of the truth which he defends, but 
 of the grounds on which a long established conviction rested ; 
 then is he vrry inconsistent with himself. For in a subsequent 
 
19 
 
 page (42) we find him saying, at the close of a passage similarin 
 its nature to the former, — " But although this kind of indifference 
 is absolutely necessary in the investigation of religious truth, yet, 
 when the truth is once discovered, when the controversy is ter- 
 minated, then let fervent enthusiasm apply the theory to practice ; 
 then let generous, unabated zeal employ the weapons of divine 
 truth to subdue the powers of sin and darkness ; then let the elo- 
 quent tongue express all the tender and kind emotions of the 
 bleeding heart ; then adopt the penetrating, all powerful rhetoric 
 of Paul, ' I have told you before, and now tell you even weep- 
 ing.'" 
 
 When Mr. Yates here speaks of " the controversy being ter^ 
 minuted,'''' he certainly cannot mean to condemn all preaching of 
 the fervent and animating kind which he so eloquently describes, 
 till such time as the said controversy shall be finally settled to 
 the satisfaction of all parties, till either Unitarians on the one 
 hand, or Trinitarians on the other, shall come to be universally- 
 convinced of their errors, and shall consequently cease their op- 
 position. If this be his meaning, it is not easy to predict the 
 time at which we shall be justified in proceeding to our practical 
 application. Our zeal, I fear, must be repressed, our eloquence 
 tongue-tacked, and our hearts kept in an ice house, for an indefin- 
 ite, and, in all probability, a long period. He must mean, " when 
 the truth is once discovered" to our own personal satisfaction, 
 " when the controversy is terminated" in our ozvn minds, in con- 
 sequence of fair and deliberate investigation. And if this be 
 his meaning, I have just endeavoured to do, to the best of my 
 ability, the very thing, to which my adversary, with so much 
 propriety, and emphasis, and eloquence of expression, has o-iven 
 his hearty sanction. Which of the two convictions, Mr. Yates* 
 or mine, is founded on the most deliberate and impartial inves^ 
 ligation, it must be left to the reader, from a comparison of our 
 respective reasonings, to decide. 
 
 I could not read without a smile, Mr. Yates' smart remarks 
 on my unfortunate points of admiration.. From what he says of 
 my " frequent use" of them, in their " single, double, and treble 
 form," (! !! !!!) his reader, if he had not previously perused my 
 Volume, would expect, on his looking into it, to find them '- h-i^t 
 
20 
 
 /m^" in every page, '• like quills upon the fretful porcupine :*' 
 as numerous, and obtrusively remarkable, as breaks and dashes 
 in the pages of my uncle Toby. I shall leave it to the reader, if 
 he choose to be at the trouble, to turn over 440 pages, and as- 
 certain the number of times that the double and treble notes of 
 admiration occur. Possibly he may find half a dozen of the for- 
 mer, and half as many of the latter. As to single points of ad- 
 miration, I have always understood them to be intended for use, 
 and the employment of them in writing to be as legitimate, as 
 that of the inflexions and intonations of the voice in speaking. 
 But with these, indeed, Mr. Yates seems as seriously offended as 
 with the other. I can only assure him, that the " tones of aston- 
 ishment,'''' of which he complains, were as far as possible from 
 being " affected.'^'' The astonishment expressed in them was, 
 bona Jide, felt. There may, possibly, be some advantage in that 
 unvarying monotony, which leaves our hearers at full liberty to 
 guess, whether the state of our minds be satisfaction or disgust, 
 indiflerence or surprise ; yet, on the whole, I am disposed to 
 think the ordinary rule preferable, that the looks and tones of 
 the speaker should correspond with his predominant feelings. 
 And I cannot well account for Mr. Yates' having felt so sore under 
 these " tones of astonishment," and prickly " bristles of admira- 
 tion," (a misnomer indeed on the present occasion, as it was any 
 thing but admiration they were intended to indicate,) on any other 
 supposition, than that of a secret consciousness of there being in 
 truth some little cause for the wonder which they were intended 
 to express. 
 
 There are two other species of " management and gejicral- 
 ship'''' and ^'- manauvring^^ such as "a votary of truth would 
 scorn," which are laid to my charge in Mr. Yates' introduction. 
 The first is my " making the best use" of the " very few proofs'''' 
 which I had to adduce, " bringing them forward different times, 
 dwelling upon them at great length, turning them about, and 
 showing them in the most pleasing variety of lights ;" and my 
 professing to bring forward a specimen, and to proceed on the 
 principle of selection, when I have nearly or entirely exhausted 
 my store. That I endeavoured to make the best use of the proofs 
 which I did adduce. ] need not surely hesitate to admit. 1 should 
 
21 
 
 have been a recreant to my cause had I failed to do so : but 
 whether it has been done in the manner described by Mr. Yates, 
 I must leave it to the candid reader of my Discourses to judge. 
 The falsity of the latter part of the above charge is well enough 
 known to every one who knows any thing at all of the subject j 
 and I trust it will be sufficiently apparent to all my readers, be- 
 fore I have done with these remarks, that the stock of proofs is 
 not quite exhausted, and that even Mr. Yates has unwittingly 
 supplied a little to it himself. 
 
 The second manceuvre is thus described. (P. 5.) " Instead of 
 presenting a fair and full view of the Unitarian system in its 
 leading principles, and general aspects, he makes it his object 
 to bring into notice every thing absurd or dangerous that was ev- 
 er written by a Unitarian." This is a serious charge : and I 
 distinctly deny its truth. We shall afterwards see the extensive 
 sense in which Mr. Yates is pleased to use the appellation Uni- 
 tarians, I was writing, however, against Socinians. In expos- 
 ing what I deemed their errors, I took my extracts not from the 
 writings of any contemptible scribblers, but from those of the 
 " chief men of their synagogue." For where shall those, who 
 are not themselves initiated, discover the distinguishing senti- 
 ments of the party, if not by reference to such men as Lardner 
 and Priestley, and Lindsay and Belsham, and the Editors of the 
 Improved Version of the New Testament ? 1 know not what 
 those'" wzmor fojo/cs" may be to which Mr. Yates refers as op- 
 posed to the " few great principles" of Unitarianism ; or what 
 he means by " sentiments of individual Authors," to which " the 
 great body would refuse their sanction." Particular sentiments 
 of individuals, I may have occasionally introduced, to exemplify 
 the tendency of the general principles of their party. But, Mr. 
 Yates himself being judge, wherever he has given any thing like 
 an enumeration of them, I have directed my attack fully and fair- 
 ly against these general principles themselves ; and I challenge 
 him to the proof of the " low trick^^ he is pleased to ascribe to 
 me, the trick of a ^^ nibbling adversary ^^ who "gravely refutes 
 the fancies, mistakes, or hasty conclusions of individual writers, 
 instead of considering the brbad principles espoused by the 
 whole party.-' 
 
 1 
 
S3 
 
 But of this imputation Mr. Yates has brought forward one 
 proof. Let us examine it a little. If all his evidence should be 
 like it, the reply will not be difficult. " Indeed," says he, 
 " through zeal to collect all the ofiensive matter to be found in 
 Unitarian publications, he has in one instance, at least as the 
 passage will be applied by his readers, violated fact." I beg 
 particular attention to the qualifying clause here, " at least as the 
 passage will be applied by his readers,'''^ It seems to indicate, 
 that the writer was not very sure of his ground : that he could 
 hardly so apply the passage himself. No, indeed, he could not. 
 Mr. Yates possesses common sense. And I am bold to say that 
 no reader, not entirely destitute of this precious commodity, 
 could possibly interpret the passage as he supposes all my rea- 
 ders certainly must. " After some very excellent remarks," con- 
 tinues Mr. Yates, "on the impropriety of indulging a presumptu- 
 ous rashness in the pursuit of truth, he quotes a passage from the 
 Appendix to the Life of Pricsdey, showing with what indifference 
 this fearless temerity enables a man to contemplate the conclu- 
 sion that there is no God. If he had turned to the title-page of 
 the Volume, and page iv. of the preface, he would have seen that 
 the Author, whose words he has quoted roithout mentioning any 
 name except that of Priestley, was Mr. Thomas Cooper, Presi- 
 dent judge of the fourth district of Pennsylvania ; and if he had 
 made the inquiry which became him before producing this pas- 
 sage as an illustration of the spirit cherished by Unitarians, he 
 would have learned, that Judge Cooper is not a Unitarian." By 
 the clause which is printed in Italics, I understand Mr. Yates to 
 mean (and he has been so understood by others) that, from my 
 having mentioned no name except that of Dr. Priestley, the un- 
 wary reader might be led to associate the words quoted with his 
 name, and to affix to him the stigma contained in the note. But 
 this is truly surprising. As die note referred to is short, I shall 
 quote it at length. " The following striking and affecting in- 
 stance of the sangfroid with which this spirit enables a man to 
 suppose and to contemplate even the conclusion that there is 
 no God, is taken from No. 4. of the Appendix to the Memoirs of 
 Dr. Priesdey, vol. i. p. 423. Spc&king of the doctrine of equiv- 
 ocal or spontaneous generation, in ccxtain species of plants and 
 
as 
 
 animals, as maintained by Dr. Darwin and impugned by Dr. 
 Priestley, the latter of whom considered it as a direct introduc- 
 tion to atheism, the writer says : ' I do not see the certain ten- 
 dency of this opinion to atheism ; for this property of spontane- 
 ous production may have been originally communicated under 
 certain circumstances, as well as any of the other properties of 
 organized or unorganized matter ; and the one and the other may 
 be equally necessary parts of the pre-established order of things* 
 But if it do lead to Atheism, what then ? There can 
 be no crime in following truth wherever it leads ; and I think we 
 have sufficient reason to believe, that the result of truth must be 
 more beneficial to mankind than error.' " Such, reader, is the 
 note. Is there any obscurity in it ? " The waiter says,'''^ respect- 
 ing a doctrine which was " impugned by Dr. Priestley^ as being 
 a direct introduction to atheism,'*'' — " / do not see the certain ten- 
 dency of this opinion to atheism :''^ that is, (is it not?) I do not 
 see that this sentiment and apprehension of Dr. Priestley are well 
 founded. Can this '''■writer,'''' then, be Dr. Priestley himself ? 
 Mr. Yates, like others of his sect, is in general willing enough to 
 pay insinuating compliments to the understandings of his readers. 
 As to my readers, he seems to have forgotten, on the present oc- 
 casion, that they had understanding at all. For surely that rea- 
 der " must have a most uncommon skull," a skull over which Drs. 
 Gall and Spurzheim would search in vain for the organs of pen- 
 etration, who could for a moment suppose, that Dr. Priestley, 
 whom the end of one sentence had represented as impugning a 
 particular doctrine on account of its direct tendency to atheism, 
 should be '-'■the writer,'''' who, in the beginning of the next, says, 
 "/ do not perceive this tendency at alW'' I think I might almost 
 venture here on a point of admiration. I can solemnly assure 
 Mr. Yates that I had looked at the title-page, and absolutely 
 knew, while I was writing, that the person whose sentiment I 
 quoted was Judge Cooper of Pennsylvania. But really the pos- 
 sibility of such a mistake, as he supposes to be not only likely 
 but almost certain, never once entered my mind, till he suggest- 
 ed it ; nor do I believe in it yet. And, were Mr. Yates to assure 
 me that he knew instances of its having occurred, my inference 
 
S4 
 
 would be, not want of clearness in the note, but want of clearness 
 somewhere else. As for Judge Cooper not being a Unitarian, 
 " whatsoever he was, it makcth no matter to me." I had no ref- 
 erence, while writing that note, either to Unitarianism or Trinita- 
 rianism, but simply to the tendency of that spirit of arrogant self- 
 sufficiency, on which I had been commenting in the text. Of this 
 the sentiment quoted in the note is, without controversy, what I 
 have termed it, " a striking and affecting instance." The spirit 
 of it is the spirit of infidelity : and whether Judge Cooper was a 
 Trinitarian infidel, or a Unitarian infidel, or 
 
 " A smart free-thinker, all things in an hour," 
 
 was a matter of little consequence in itself, and totally irrelative 
 to the object of the note. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Mr. Yates has accused me of management and generalship, 
 ] will not retort the charge. There is one thing, however, for 
 which I have felt it difficult to account, consistently with that 
 manly openness and decision which I should have expected of 
 him ; I mean the impossibility of discovering from, his book, what 
 his own sentiments are. What he is not, he leaves us at no loss 
 to find out. He is not a Trinitarian. It may be alleged that 
 this negative position necessarily implies the opposite positive, 
 He is a Unitarian. True. But what, according to Mr. Yates, 
 is a Unitarian ? Still the only answer which his book furnishes 
 to this question is. It is not a Trinitarian : for under the appel- 
 lation Unitarian he includes all the varieties of sentiment from 
 the highest Arianism to the lowest Socinianism ; and if, between 
 these two extreme points (inclusive) you ask me the question, 
 What is Mr. Yates '/ I frankly answer. So far as his book in- 
 forms me, I cannot tell. Now why is this ? Is Mr. Yates pre- 
 pared to ,say, that he does not think the Scriptures have at all de- 
 
25 
 
 cided, whether Jesus was a superangelic Being, created before 
 all worlds, the instrument of the creation of all other beings, an 
 inferior God ; or a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, fal- 
 lible and peccable like other men ? Does he think this wide dif- 
 ference on so interesting a subject, of so little consequence as to 
 render it not worth while for the Divine Being, in revealing his 
 truth to his creatures, to be at all explicit about it ? If so, I 
 think he entertains very unworthy thoughts of Divine revelation. 
 If, again, he intended by this proceeding to straiten the bond of 
 brotherhood between his Arian and Socinian friends, I fear, in 
 that cage, that his attempt to please every body will end in pleas- 
 ing nobody ; and that most, if not all, both of Socinians and 
 Arians, will be dissatisfied with what they will consider as a com- 
 promise of important truth. Or has his object been to afford 
 himself more convenient scope in his argument ? Whether this 
 was his design or not, it is not for me to say ; but every reader 
 of his book must have perceived how frequently it has served 
 this purpose. By allowing himself this extensive range, when- 
 ever he feels a text pinch him on the Socinian hypothesis of the 
 mere manhood of Christ, he has recourse to the Arian view of 
 his pre-existence and superangelic nature ; and if in either he 
 can find any thing like an answer to the argument for his divini- 
 ty, he is satisfied. 
 
 It is not on account of any increased difficulty given to the 
 general argument by this mode of procedure, that I complain 
 of it : for the Arian hypothesis is not more tenable, on scriptu- 
 ral ground, than the Socinian ; and every proof of the supreme 
 divinity of Christ militates with the same force and conclusive- 
 ness against the one as against the other. I feel no more appre- 
 hension at encountering Mr. Yates in his Arian than in his So- 
 cinian armour. But when a man takes the field, he ought, I 
 think, openly to appear what he really is. If Mr. Yates be- 
 lieves Jesus Christ to have been a mere man, why has he not 
 said so ? If he believes him to have been a superangelic creature 
 existing before all worlds, why has he not said so ? I am satis- 
 fied, indeed, that if the supreme divinity of the Saviour is deni- 
 ed, it is a matter of comparatively small consequence what rank 
 
S6 
 
 we assign to him in the scale of created existence. *• The glo- 
 rious gospel of the blessed God " is as effectually subverted, the 
 solid basis of my hopes as a sinner as thoroughly undermined, 
 by the Arian hypothesis as by the Socinian ; by the scheme of 
 Clarke as by that of Priestley and Belsham. Between these 
 two, however, viewed in relation to each other, there is surely 
 a very wide difference ; the former considering Jesus as a kind 
 of subordinate Deity, possessed of every divine attribute, ex- 
 cept self-existence and independence, and the proper object of 
 a certain undefined but inferior species of worship ; the latter 
 pronouncing him a mere mortal man, in all respects like other 
 men : the former admitting, in words at least, the doctrine of 
 atonement; the latter proscribing and ridiculing every thing of the 
 kind. Is Mr. Yates still " halting between these two opinions ?" 
 Probably not. But, for reasons unexplained in his work, and 
 best known to himself,* he has judged it proper to leave these 
 differences out of view. " Another principle," says he, (p. 8.) 
 " which I have laid down for myself, is to vindicate those doc- 
 ti'ines alone, in maintaining which all Unitarians are agreed, with- 
 out entering into the discussion of those subordinate questions, 
 concerning which they differ among themselves." " This meth- 
 od," adds he, " is not only necessary in a work which professes 
 to be a Vindication of Unitarianism : but it has the advantage 
 of greatly abridging the labour both for myself and for my read- 
 ers." Now, although I think it would have been more consis- 
 tent with manly openness, to have explicitly avowed his own 
 views of the person of Christ, and defended them accordingly ; 
 yet I am perfectly willing that he should make a virtue of this 
 supposed necessity, and that he should enjoy the advantage of 
 
 * Since vvritinc; this, I have perused a paper of Mr. Yates' iu the Monthlj 
 Repository, sent me for that purpose by himself, in which he assigns his reasons 
 for employing the designation Unitarian with so much latitude. I saw nothing 
 in that paper that induced me to make any alteration on what I had previously 
 written ; because that which I complaiaof here, is, not his extensive applica- 
 tion of this term, which is a matter in itself of no consequence, and which Mr. 
 Yates and his friends may be left to adjust among themselves to their mntual sat- 
 isfaction ; but it is his keeping his readers throughout his book utterly in the 
 dark as to what description nf Unitarian he himself is. 
 
87 
 
 •' abridged labour,'^^ and along with it the additional convenience 
 already alluded to, of more extensive scope for evasion, by spring- 
 ing to every point that may best answer his purpose, between 
 Uie highest Arianism and the lowest Socinianism. 
 
 Mr. Yates and his friends are far from being agreed as to the 
 extent of meaning which should be attached to the appellation by 
 which they are pleased to distinguish themselves. But it is not 
 worth while to contend about a name. It has often been obser- 
 ved, that those who arrogate to themselves the exclusive title of 
 Unitarians, design to convey by it the tacit insinuation that Trin- 
 itarians deny the Divine Unity. Let us not trouble ourselves, 
 however, about the designation they have assumed : but, while 
 we reject the charge which it implies, and which, in spite of all 
 our explicit disavowals, we may still expect to be pertinacious- 
 ly persisted in, let us give them their favourite appellation, at- 
 taching to it the only sense which, in strict fairness, it should be 
 considered as bearing ; not that we deny the Divine Unity (for 
 as to this essential article of faith we are Unitarians as well as 
 they) but that they deny the Divine Trinity.* Antitrinitarians is 
 their correct designation ; but we call them Unitarians, on the 
 same principle as (in a case of infinitely inferior importance in- 
 deed, but precisely similar in kind) we give the title of Baptists 
 to those of our Christian brethren whose proper denomination is. 
 Antipcedobaptists, We are Baptists as well as they ; but we 
 frankly give them the name they have chosen to themselves, not- 
 withstanding that on their part it conveys a reflection against the 
 propriety of our own practice. 
 
 There is another advantage, indeed, which I had almost over- 
 looked, derived by Mr. Yates, from his comprehensive accepta- 
 tion of the term Unitarian. It enables him to enlarge consider- 
 ably his list of worthies. That list the reader may find in page 
 
 * The following does credit to the candour of the writer : " Unitarian is not 
 opposed to Tritheist or Polytheist : it does not denote a believer in one God, as 
 contradistinguished from a believer in three Gods, or in more Gods than one. It 
 is opposed to Trinitarian ; Tri-uni-tarian only, and signifies a believer in, and 
 a worshipper of, one God in one person, as contradistinguished from a believer 
 in, and a worshipper of, one God in three persons." From " Plea for Unita- 
 rian dissentersj" as quoted in the Monthly Repository for August, 1815, p. 480: 
 
<38 . 
 
 180 of the •• Vindicaiion." Although Mr. Yates professes that 
 he " presents this hst of illustrious and venerated names, not 
 for the sake of an empty boast, nor to decide the question in dis- 
 pute by great human authorities, but simply to counteract the 
 false impression which Mr. Wardlaw's treatment of Unitarian 
 divines is adapted to produce ;" yet it cannot fail to strike the 
 considerate reader, what an anxiety there is to swell the list, not 
 only by including Sabellians, Arians, Semiarians, and Socinians 
 in all their variety of degrees, but by pressing into the service 
 every one, in whose writings any thing is to be found that could 
 attach to them the slightest suspicion of their verging towards a 
 doubt of the ordinary doctrine of the Trinity. It is generally 
 understood that the sentiments of the excellent and venerable 
 Dr. Isaac Watts tended in his latter years towards Sabellian- 
 ism : but how would he have been horrified to have seen his 
 name enrolled with the names of those who degrade to the rank 
 of a mere fellow mortal that blessed Redeemer, who was the ob- 
 ject of his constant adoration, and who utterly deny that atone- 
 ment on which all his hopes for eternity were founded, as well 
 as the very existence of that Holy Spirit, to whose " quicken- 
 ing powers" he OAved his spiritual life, and whose sacred and 
 melting influences purified and warmed his heart, and tuned his 
 harp to praise. Who, that was not bent on giving his system 
 popularity and eclat, would ever have thought of classing to- 
 gether in the same theological list, the names of Dr. Isaac 
 Watts, and Dr. Joseph Prij:stley ? If ever there existed 
 two men, antipodes in religious sentiment and religious feeling, 
 these are the two. Dr. Watts's prayer on the subject of the 
 Trinity is usually referred to by Unitarians, in support of the 
 pro})riety of their classification of his name. That prayer is a 
 most impressive and interesting one. It shows us a mind, a 
 great mind, labouring with the vast importance of the subject 
 about which it is engaged, humbly distrustful of its own faculties, 
 feelingly alive to the danger of self-deception, tremblingly ap- 
 prehensive of the smallest error, breathing desires intensely ear- 
 nest after the discovery of truth, and glowing with a pure and 
 fervent devotion kindled bv a live coal from the altar of God. I 
 
29 
 
 apprehend, if the spirit, by which this remarkable effusion of a 
 pious soul is characterized, were more universally prevalent, we 
 should have still fewer of the followers of PriesUey than even 
 the few he has unhappily found. The heart by which it was 
 dictated had not a constitution for " the frigid zone of Chris- 
 tianity."* 
 
 Although the theological sentiments of Dr. Whitby were cer- 
 tainly in some points very different from those of Dr. Watts, yet 
 the whole tenor of his works justifies us in questioning his right 
 (in the Irish sense of the term — See Miss Edgeworth) to the 
 place assigned him in the Unitarian brotherhood : if a brother- 
 hood that may be called, of which the members are so strangely 
 heterogeneous in their sentiments ; some of them with hardly a 
 feature that bears the slightest mark of family likeness ; and some 
 who, were they to rise from the dead, and chance to see Mr. 
 Yates' list, would disown the relation with a frown of indignant 
 astonishment, or Avith a sigh of heart-breaking grief, that any- 
 thing whatever should have been said or written by them, capa- 
 ble of being so perverted as to bring their names into such a 
 catalogue. 
 
 I feel no particular anxiety to define the precise boundaries of 
 agreement and difference between the various writers enumerat- 
 ed as the friends of Unitarianism. There are others of them, I 
 am very sure, besides the two mentioned, that would not have 
 been much better pleased than they with the classification. It 
 is not, however, a very honourable means of giving authority and 
 weight to a cause, to muster a host of imposing names. And 
 this is done with a peculiarly bad grace by those who set them- 
 selves forward as of all men the warmest advocates of unshack- 
 led inquiry and liberty of thought, the sworn foes of prejudice, 
 and of all subjection to human dictation. Mr. Yates is well a- 
 ware, what a mighty army of " illustrious and venerated names" 
 could be set in array on the opposite side, and that without pres- 
 sing into the ranks any that belong to the camp of the enemy. 
 
 * The prayer may be found among " Fragments of Time," at the end of 
 Vol. IX. of the last edition of the Doctor's Works. But see Note A, at the, 
 end of this Treatise. 
 
30 
 
 Ii is Vain to say, that such names are not enumerated with the 
 intention of giving weight to the sentiments which they support- 
 ed. The thing cannot be done without such intention. That 
 Mr. Yates felt a secret conscious elation of mind in the list he 
 had made out, an inward self-gratulation in mentally appending 
 his own name to so honourable a roll, and a desire to give a cer- 
 tain dignity and respectability to the cause he was defending, his 
 manner of expressing himself will not allow me to doubt. Now, 
 I am far from wishing to detract from the merits of Unitarian 
 writers. Let all of them have their due proportion of credit, for 
 their attainments in various erudition, and foi- the services which 
 they may have rendered to Christianity by their able defences of 
 its general truth, on the ground of external evidence : and let it 
 be frankly admitted, that the credit of some of them will, in both 
 respects, stand eminently high. But, notwithstanding the indig- 
 nant disdain which the observation formerly excited in the breast 
 of Mr. Yates, I must repeat it, as an important truth, that a wri- 
 ter may most ably and successfully illustrate and establish the ex- 
 ternal evidences of Christianity, and yet entertain notions gross- 
 ly and fundamentally erroneous of what Christianity is. Nay, the 
 service v/hich he renders in its general defence may sometimes be 
 more than counterbalanced by the mischief which his efforts on 
 the other hand produce, or tend to produce, in undermining the 
 truth taught by the inspired apostks, depriving the religion of 
 Christ of all its most essential peculiarities, robbing it of whatev- 
 er entides it to the name of Gospel, or good news to a guilty and 
 perishing world. 
 
 " Whether the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures," says Mr. 
 Yates, " be a doctrine of the Christian religion, is one of those 
 questions, upon which Unitarians are divided in opinion. It 
 would therefore be inconsistent with my present design to enter 
 into the discussion. But it is totally foreign from the inquirj" 
 concerning the Trinity of persons in the Godhead, and the Di- 
 vinity and atonement of Christ. When Unitarians endeavour to 
 show, that the Scriptures do not contain these doctrines, they al- 
 ways suppose their Divine authority." (Page 19.) 
 
 They " ahoays suppose their Dhine authority.'''' For a few in- 
 
81 
 
 stances of the manner in which the Divine authority of the Scrip, 
 tures is " supposed?'' by the writers in question, the reader is re- 
 fen-ed to my sixth discourse, " on the test of truth in matters of 
 religion." With these instances, however, Mr. Yates is not well 
 pleased. They are, he alleges, a very partial selection. Yet 
 Mr. Yates knew well enough, that the selection is taken fronj 
 that pai-ticular description of writers, against whose tenets my 
 Discourses were chiefly and avowedly directed. These were 
 not the Arians, but the Socinians, And truly the laxity o^ their 
 views respecting the plenary inspiration and universal authority 
 of the Scriptures, is a matter of such flagrant and lamentable no- 
 toriety, that I feel no anxiety to defend myself on this head, 
 against the charge of misrepresentation, to any who are at all ac- 
 quainted with their writings. It is against the spirit and views 
 of the more modern Socinians that it is especially needful to warn 
 the public. If the sentiments of the ancient men of the sect 
 were not so loose and licentious, on the subject in question, as 
 those of its more modern leaders, this only shows, that Socinian- 
 ism has been going on, agreeably to its natural tendency, from 
 bad to worse, and increases the necessity for putting the unwa- 
 ry on their guard. In bi-inging forward his evidence of the re- 
 gard paid to the Scriptures by Unitarians, Mr. Yates produce* 
 nothing from those moderns whose works supplied the examples 
 of the contrary, which have been the occasion of awakening his 
 jealousy on this point. He does not attempt their vindication 
 from the charge brought against them ; but only denies that it 
 is justly made against the Unitarians as a body; and complains 
 of my partiality, in referring to two or three individuals, and 
 omitting to mention others whose sentiments and language were 
 different. "What, then, are the notable instances produced by 
 Mr. Yates of the sacred veneration of Unitarians for the Iloh 
 Scriptures ? 
 
 " ' The Bible, the Bible, the Bible onlv, is the religion 
 OF Protestants,' that great maxim which Protestants have so 
 often repeated with a noble indignation in reply to the preten- 
 sions of the church of Rome, is found in the writings of the in- 
 genuous and high-minded Chillingworth, who having, in the etiv 
 
'S2 
 
 \y part of his liie, wavered, with a modest caution, between dif- 
 ferent rehgious sentiments, at length settled in the doctrines of 
 Socinianism." 
 
 It is not worth while to inquire, at what time of his life, wheth- 
 er before or after he had "settled in the doctrines of Socinian- 
 ism," Chillingworth wrote this famous sentence. For in truth, 
 excellent as it is, when considered as directed against the pre- 
 tensions of the church of Rome, it is nothing to the purpose for 
 which Mr. Yates adduces it. It is a sentiment to which Dr. 
 Priestley or Mr. Belsham, with all their low estimate of the in- 
 spiration and authority of the Scriptures, would have put their 
 signatures Avith as much readiness as Chillingworth himself, or 
 any Protestant in the kingdom. For to what more, after all, 
 does the sentence amount, than an explicit disavowal, in opposi- 
 tion to the Romish church, of the authority of its traditions, and 
 the decrees of its Ecclesiastical councils ? It expresses a senti- 
 ment, therefore, common to all Protestants as such ; but it ascer- 
 tains nothing as to the views of any class of Protestants by whom 
 it may be adopted and used, respecting the plenary inspiration 
 ind universal authority of the Bible. 
 
 I have not at present the means of examining into the circum- 
 stances of the case referred to by Mr. Yates, of " some of the 
 raost learned Trinitarians, about one hundred and fifty years 
 ago, having confessed that the doctrine of the Trinity was not 
 founded on the Scriptures, but on the traditions of the Church." 
 But first of all, of the fact, as thus stated, I avow myself in- 
 credulous. Secondly, If ani/ Trinitarians made such a -conces- 
 sion, they were fools for their pains, and traitors to their cause ; 
 and the Unitarians were clearly right, when they maintained, 
 as a previous step to the establishment of their opinions, that 
 ' * the Scriptures are the only infallible rule whereby to determine 
 religious controversies," and when they declared their resolution 
 ro " prefer the infinite wisdom of God before the fallible dictates 
 of human or angelic reason." Thirdly, This is only, after all, 
 an appeal to Scripture in opposition to tradition, and does not, 
 in the least degree, any more than the preceding maxim of Chil- 
 lingworth, secure the Scriptures themselves from licentious free- 
 
38 
 
 doms in the application of these principles to practice ; such 
 freedoms as those which form " the broadest, foulest blot" in the 
 theological and critical reputation of so many modern writers of 
 the same school. In finding the answer to the question, " Hath 
 the Scripture, that is, hath God said it ?" there is still ample 
 room left for the discovery of interpolations and false readings, 
 and for all the ingenuity of misinterpretation and evasion. The 
 language, however, as used by Socinians, is certainly a curious 
 and somewhat interesting relic. Reason does not appear here 
 in so presumptuous an attitude and office as have since been as- 
 signed to her, enthroned as she has been as supreme and final 
 arbitress of the dictates of Infinite Wisdom, to receive, reject, 
 or question, as seemeth good in her sight. The expressions 
 have certainly more of the general cast of Trinitarianism. But 
 let us recollect, " ^Tis a hundred andjifty years since.^'^ 
 
 With regard to the beautiful and impressive saying of Locke, 
 respecting the Holy Scriptm-e, as having God for its Au- 
 thor ; SALVATION FOR ITS END *, and TRUTH WITHOUT ANY 
 
 MIXTURE OF ERROR FOR ITS MATTER ;" far be it from me to 
 detract from its real excellence. Let the sentiment of this great 
 philosopher of the human understanding have its full impression 
 on the mind of every reader. But was Mr. Locke a Socinian ? 
 That he teaches doctrines inconsistent with " the gospel of the 
 GRACE of God," as delivered in its simplicity by the inspired 
 apostles, I am deeply concerned at being obliged to think. But 
 of his Socinianism the proof remains to be produced. It may 
 be deemed arrogant and presumptuous, to speak in these terms 
 of a man so eminent as Locke. But, admitting the claim made in 
 his behalf to a high rank among men of genius and exalted pow- 
 ers, this does not oblige me even to approve all his philosophy ; 
 and far less does it bind me to receive his theology. I cannot 
 forget him who said, " I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven 
 and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and 
 prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes : even so Father, 
 for so it seemed good in thy sight." 
 
 Mr. Yates next pays his tribute of respect, on account of 
 their exemplary regard to the Scriptures, to Dr. Jebb, the 
 
34 
 
 Duke of Grafton, the Editors of the Improved Version of the 
 New Testament, and Dr. John Taylor ; whom, for the pres- 
 ent, I shall leave to the judgment of the reader ; and then clo- 
 ses the chapter with a defence and eulogy of " the honoured, 
 injured name of Dr. Priestley." 
 
 From the place in which this defence and eulogy are introdu- 
 ced, it was naturally to be expected, that the sacredness of the 
 Doctor's regard to the volume of Divine truth should have been 
 the principal topic of his panegyrist's praise, and his vindica- 
 tion from every charge of the contrary, the chief object of his 
 zealous defender ; that he should have appeared in Mr. Yates' 
 ei7ro?,6ytx as a decided asserter of its inspiration, and of the deci- 
 siveness of its authority above all the " fallible dictates of human 
 or angelic reason ;" sitting at the feet of Jesus, with the humble, 
 docile spirit of a little child ; subjecting his understanding, with- 
 out gainsaying, to the instruction of heaven ; acknowledging the 
 scripture writers as " holy men of God, who spake as they were 
 moved by the Holy Spirit," and as therefore, on every rational 
 principle, entitled to the entire deference of their readers. But 
 no. Nothing like this is at all attempted. He is eulogized 
 where I had never blamed him ; defended where I had never at- 
 tacked him ; arid left exposed in the only point in which any 
 fault had been found with him. Never surely was defence,^ in 
 this respect, worse conducted, and never was eulogy more gratu- 
 itous and uncalled for. Dr. Priestley was amiable in his char- 
 acter, gentle in his manners, cheerful, kind, and instructive in his 
 conversation. I have not denied him any of these excellencies. 
 Neither have I questioned the eminence and versatility of his tal- 
 ents, the extent and variety of his acquirements, the " wonderful 
 activity and energy of his mind, his open frankness and simplici- 
 ty in the expression of his thoughts," nor the unwearied perse- 
 verance of his investigations. I have neither " depreciated his 
 attainments," nor " ridiculed his talents," nor " vilified his mor- 
 als." According to Mr. Yates, however, I have " treated him 
 throughout my volume with marked disrespect, and in one pas- 
 sage animadverted on him ' in the severest terms of reprehen^ 
 sion: " (P. 25.) 
 
3d 
 
 The Italics contain my own phrase. It belonged to Mr. Yates 
 to show that such terms of reprehension were undeserved and 
 misapphed, in the particular case in which I conceived they 
 would have been justified. That the reader may judge of this 
 for himself, I have only to refer him tn the passages in my Dis- 
 courses alluded to by Mr. Yates. When he has read the ex- 
 tracts from Dr. Priestley, which are there adduced, he will, I ap- 
 prehend, see sufficient reason to agree with me in thinking, as I 
 still do, that the writer of them would have been more consistent, 
 had he avowed himself a Deist ; and that, so far as respects the 
 authority of revelation (the only authority by which the points 
 in question can be decided), " there is nothing to bind his con- 
 science, nothing to convince his judgment ; and that, having no 
 common ground on which it is at all possible to determine the 
 controversy, we must consequendy, and of necessity, have done 
 with him." Mr. Yates, in a quotation which he introduces from 
 Dr. Parr, grants it to be right, that Dr. Priestley should be 
 " confuted where he is mistaken ; exposed where he is superfi- 
 cial ; repressed where he is dogmatical ; and rebuked where he 
 is censorious." Have I, in any thing that I have said, exceed- 
 ed this license ? I am conscious to myself that I have " set down 
 naught in malice," and, in matters of such infinite importance, I 
 do not wish " in aught to extenuate." If Mr. Yates reckons 
 those of Dr. Priesdey's views which I have endeavoured to ex- 
 pose, amongst the " trivial errors of sentiment or expression 
 which may be selected from his hundred publications," and " in 
 petulant attacks upon which they, who have not sufficient vigour 
 of intellect to comprehend what is truly important in his doc- 
 trines, exhaust their strength," I have only to say, that in my 
 opinion he estimates them, I had almost said infinitely, too light- 
 ly. I am bold enough to think— (most frankly and strongly ad- 
 mitting the Doctor's vast superiority in talents, and in variety 
 and extent of attainments,) yet — I am bold enough to think, that 
 on such points, even "a chattering jay'''' .(to use Mr. Yates' po' 
 lite comparison) is a sufficient match for this " bird of Jove," 
 with all the terrors of his beak, and talons, and forked thunder- 
 bolt : or, to change the allusion ; that against this Goliath ot 
 
the Socinian host, the sling and the stone, seconded by Him who 
 was David's help, are weapons of sufficient power, even although 
 "<Ae staff of his spear be like a weaver'' s beam f and although 
 too, as on the present occasion, " one bearing a shield goes before 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 As I have no wish to lengthen out this Reply, either by en- 
 larging on ground on which my adversary and myself are agreed, 
 or by seizing, with hypercritical captiousness, on every minute 
 point of difference, and every thing that is not expressed in the 
 ipsissima verba which I might myself have chosen, I shall make 
 no remarks on the general principles laid down in Mr. Yates' 
 third chapter, " on the proper method of ascertaining the sense 
 of Scripture." So far as relates to the simple statement of prin- 
 ciples and rules, his observations on the three points treated of 
 in the chapter — >" the correctness of the Greek text ; the mode 
 of translating it into English ; and the mode of interpreting that 
 translation ;" are such as cannot be found fault with, but ought 
 to be impressed on the minds of all especially who are desirous 
 of discharging their duty with fidelity as interpreters of the word 
 of God to others. To the entire contents of the chapter,-howev- 
 er, 1 cannot give my unqualified approbation. 
 
 In the course of it Mr. Yates bestows a well-merited tribute of 
 applause on Professor Griesbach, and his edition of the Greek 
 New Testament. Every scholar, although he may not adopt all 
 the results of this eminent critic's learned and laborious research- 
 es, will yet most heartily unite in grateful commendation ; as 
 well as in the compliment paid by Mr. Yates, in a previous chap- 
 ter, to the Duke of Grafton, for his exemplary munificence, in 
 defraying the expenses necessary to render the labours of the 
 critic accessible to the religious public. The correctness of the 
 
37 
 
 general principles of that particular classification of manuscripts 
 which Griesbach has employed as the ground-work of all his 
 critical emendations of the received Text, has, indeed, lately 
 been called into question, by a competitor of no contemptible 
 name in similar researches ;* and so far as I am able to judge, 
 not without grounds that are more than plausible. Dr. Lau- 
 rence illustrates the difterence between Griesbach's principle of 
 classification and his own, by an application of both to the dis- 
 puted text in 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; where his own produces a conclu- 
 sion precisely the reverse of that which had been yielded by 
 Griesbach's. It were the height of unpardonable presumption 
 in me to intrude into a field of discussion, in which men so emi- 
 nent in Biblical learning differ in their decisions, and which I 
 have neither ability nor opportunity to explore. It is not in the 
 least degree necessary to my argument, that the authority of 
 Griesbach should be shaken. Without expressing any convic- 
 tion that he was right in the conclusion to which he had come 
 with regard to the principal disputed texts on the subject of our 
 Lord's Divinity, I formerly proceeded on the supposition of his 
 being so ; for the sake of showing that these texts were not at 
 all indispensable to the solid foundation of the orthodox faith. I 
 wish still to occupy the same ground. Before proceeding, how- 
 ever, to notice Mr. Yates' strictures both on my spirit and accu- 
 racy respecting these texts, I must beg the reader's particular at- 
 tention, to the effect produced on the mind of Griesbach himself, 
 by those alterations which he felt himself constrained in con- 
 science to adopt, by those canons of criticism, according to 
 which his inquiries were directed, and his decisions formed. 
 Considering the deservedly high opinion which Mr. Yates ex- 
 presses of the judgment and candour of this eminent critic, the 
 following most explicit and solemn declaration will surely be 
 weighed by him with becoming seriousness. " Interim uni ta- 
 men dogmati, eique palmario, doctrinae scilicet de vera Jesu 
 Christi divinitate, nonnihil a me detractum esse videri posset 
 
 * Dr. Richard Laurence in a Tract entitled " Remarks on the SystematicaJ 
 Classification oi^ Manuscript-; adopted by Griesbach in his Edition of the Greek 
 Testament." 
 
 6 
 
38 
 
 nonnullis qui non solum locum ilium celebralissimum 1 Joh. v. 7. 
 e textu ejectum, verum ctiam lectionem vulgarem loci 1 Tim. iii. 
 16. (ut et Act. XX. 28.) dubitationi subjectam et lectorum arbi- 
 Irio permissam, invenient. Quare, ut iniquas suspiciones omnes, 
 quantum in me est, araoliar, et hominibus malevolis calumniandi 
 ansam prajripiam, primum publice projlteor atque Deum tesfor, neu- 
 tiquam mc de veritate istius dogmatis dubitare. Atque sunt pro- 
 fecto tarn nmlta et luculenta argumenta et scrrpturce. loca, quibus 
 vera deitas Christi vindicatur, ut ego quidem inlelligere vix pos- 
 sem, quomodo, concessa scripturae sacra divina auctoritate, et 
 admissis justis interpretandi regulis, dogma hoc in dubium a quo- 
 quam vocari possit."* " Meantime it may appear to some per- 
 sons that 1 have not a little impaired the evidence of one doc- 
 trine, and one loo of prime excellence, the doctrine I mean of 
 the proper divinity of Jesus Christ, when they find not only the 
 celebrated passage, 1 John v. 7. thrown gut of the text, but also 
 the received reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. (as well as of Acts xx. 
 28.) brought into doubt, and left to the judgment of the reader. 
 Wherefore, that, as far as possible, I may remove all unfair sur- 
 mises, and deprive ill-disposed men of every handle for calum- 
 ny, I first of all publicly declare, and take God to witness, that I 
 entertain no doubt whatever respecting the truth of that doctrine. 
 And indeed the arguments and passages of Scripture by which 
 the proper deity of Christ is established, are so numerous and so 
 clear, that I am truly at a loss to conceive, how any person, 
 granting the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, and adopt- 
 ing just rules of interpretation, can call this doctrine into ques- 
 tion." 
 
 Sue!), then, was the value at which these reductions of evi- 
 dence wei-e appreciated in the mind of this critic himself, who 
 was not indeed, by any means, the first to question the genuine- 
 ness of the passages referred to in the above quotation, but to 
 whose authority in setting them aside so much deference has been 
 paid by the literary world in general, and especially, as might 
 have been expected, by those of the Unitarian school. I feel 
 
 * Quarrel in Laurence's Remarka on Grieabach'e Systematical Classification 
 of Manuscripts, pages 3, 4, 
 
39 
 
 highly gratified, in having it thus in my power to confirm the 
 ground on which I proceeded in all my former reasonings, by a 
 declaration from such a quarter, so full, so solemn, and so decid- 
 ed. 
 
 In speaking of the perpetual appeal of Unitarians to the au- 
 thority of Griesbach, by which ignorant readers might naturally 
 be led to conceive that Grlesbach's New Testament was some- 
 thing entirely difierent from the one they were accustomed to 
 use, I particularly stated, with a view to prevent any such mis- 
 taken conception, that there were only three texts relative to the 
 great question of our blessed Lord's divinity which Griesbach 
 had set aside ; viz. 1 John v. 7. as an interpolation, and 1 Tim, 
 iii. 16. and Acts xx. 28. as erroneous readings ; and that, as I 
 had declined insisting on these texts, to show that I did not con- 
 sider my cause as at all requiring their aid, there was not one of 
 all the passages which I had adduced that was " in the slightest 
 degree touched by this high and vaunted authority.^'' 
 
 Mr. Yates objects both to the spirit and the accuracy of this 
 passage. In the previous part of the sentence, I had admitted 
 the text of Griesbach to be " on all hands acknowledged the 
 most perfect." But the acknowledgment, says my opponent, is 
 accompanied " with an angry sneer, which shows that he ill en- 
 dures to see the implicit deference paid to the decisions of 
 Griesbach by competent judges of all parties, and will never 
 forgive him, lor having, in obstinate conformity to his stupid 
 rules, thrown down three main pillars of the Trinitarian sys- 
 tem." While I am perfectly confident, that no candid reader of 
 my work will discover in it any such anxious concern about 
 these disputed passages, any such deadly resentment at finding 
 my judgment compelled to relinquish them (which, in truth, I 
 am far from being ready, with regard to all of them at least, to 
 do) as will justify the sarcastic severity of this remark ; I must, 
 at the same time, assure Mr. Yates, that he is entirely mistaken 
 as to the object of what he is pleased to term ray " arigry sneer.^^ 
 I am not going to assert the perfect purity of the feeling which 
 dictated the expression under censure. But, instead of being 
 directed towards Griesbach, the immediate objects of it were 
 
40 
 
 Mr. Yates himself and his brethren ; and it chiefly consisted, I 
 honestly confess, of indignant disdain of that provoking, yet 
 pitiful disingenuousness, which is forever, in the ears of the 
 uninformed, vaunting of the authority of Griesbach; making its 
 incessant appeal, in terms of unqualified generality, and in tones 
 of triumphant confidence, to the text of Griesbach; the text of 
 Griesbach ; as if no one could reasonably pretend to know any 
 thing of apostolic doctrine, unless he were familiar with Gries- 
 bach ; as if the whole texture of the New Testament, warp and 
 woof, had, on this subject at least, been thoroughly changed by 
 him ; as if " Scripture and Scripture's laws lay hid in night," 
 till " God said. Let Griesbach be, and all was light." Noth- 
 ing can be more ridiculous than this — Griesbach himself being 
 judge : for they w^ho, w^ith irksome repetition, appeal to his au- 
 thority, are perfectly aware of the fact, as above stated, that 
 only three, of all the texts in the New Testament usually quot- 
 ed in support of the proper divinity of Christ, " are at all touch- 
 ed by this high and vaunted authority :" and that of these three 
 there is only one which he appears to have felt entire confidence 
 in setting aside. 
 
 But no, says Mr. Yates, this is not true. Besides censur- 
 ing the spirit of my " angry sneer," he " has some fault to 
 find with my accuracy.'^ There is another text, which I have 
 several times quoted, in different branches of my argument, 
 which is touched by the authority of the eminent critic in ques- 
 tion. 1 frankly admit the inadvertency. I had indeed over- 
 looked the emendation of the passage in question ; and cheer- 
 fully submit to such measure of censure as the reader may think 
 due for this sin of omission. But let us examine a little the 
 passage itself. It is Rev. i. 8. " I am Alpha and Omega, the 
 beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which 
 was, and which is to come, the Almighty." " But," says Mr. 
 Yates, " the verse, as corrected by Griesbach, reads thus : I 
 am Alpha and Omega, saith the. Lord God, who is, and who 
 was, and who is to come, the Almighty." " The emendation," 
 he adds, " is of considerable importance, because it determines 
 completely the reference of the passage to God, and not to Je- 
 sus Christ," (Page 36.) 
 
41 
 
 On this statement let the reader observe, ist. In one of the 
 instances in which it is quoted in my Discourses, I have remark- 
 ed respecting it, " Ahhough I am fully satisfied that these arc 
 the words of Jesus Christ, yet, if any shall insist that they are 
 spoken by the Father, the argument, it may be observed, will 
 not, by the admission of this, be at all weakened. For, since 
 the refusal to acknowledge them as the words of Christ pro- 
 ceeds upon the principle that the titles assumed in them belong 
 exclusively to the only true God, this gives the greater conclu- 
 siveness to other passages, in which it is beyond a doubt that 
 Christ does appropriate some of these titles to himself. In the 
 17th and 18th verses of the same chapter, he is introduced as 
 saying to the beloved disciple : ' Fear not : I am the first and 
 the last, and the living one ; and I was dead ; and behold I am 
 alive for evermore ; and have the keys of hell and of death.^ 
 And at the 13th verse of the 22d chapter : ' I am Alpha and 
 Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.' " 
 (Discourses, p. 85.) 2dly, If from other passages, and from 
 the tenor of Scripture in general, it be satisfactorily proved that 
 Jesus Christ is truly Jehovah Elohim, the Lord God, and if the 
 connexion in which the words in question stand, and the man- 
 ner of the writer in other parts of the same book, naturally lead 
 us to apply them to him, Mr. Yates speaks with an excess of 
 confidence, when he affirms that Griesbach's emendation " de- 
 termines completely the reference of the passage to God, and 
 not to Jesus Christ." " The evidence that this verse is spoken 
 by our Lord appears to us so strong, that, believing as we do 
 that Christ is the Lord God, Jehovah Elohim, the single cir- 
 cumstance that this is a singular instance in the New Testament 
 of calling him by the double appellation, while the simple ap- 
 pellations of which it is composed, are repeatedly given him, is 
 not a sufficient reason for our abandoning this opinion ; and, re- 
 taining it, it follows of course, that the Griesbachian reading 
 greatly strengthens the argument from this passage for the Di- 
 vinity of Christ."* But 3c//y, It will- not, I presume, be deni- 
 
 * Strictures on Mr. Yates' Vindication of Unitarianism, ^c by Jolm Brown, 
 JVIinister of the Associate Congregation, Biggar. 
 
ed by any Greek scliolar, that the words under consideraiioH, 
 as amended by Griesbach, arc, without the slightest degree ol 
 perversion or overstretching, susceptible of another rendering 
 besides the one given by Mr. Yates. Atyft Kv^io?, is the most 
 common phrase in the Sepluagint for, " saith the Lord.^^ Tak- 
 ing it so in its present occurrence, the meaning of the verse will 
 be : "I am Alpha and Omega, saith the Lord, the God zvho is, 
 and 7vho was, and who is to come (that is, the eternal, self-exis- 
 tent God,) the Almighty.*'* 
 
 Another instance of inaccuracy is, my having said, that to 
 no one of the three passages before alluded to had I referred in 
 proof of the doctrine which it had been my object to establish ; 
 whereas the fact is, that I had quoted 1 Tim. iii. 16. " God 
 was manifested in the flesh," amongst my specimens of the 
 " current language of the New Testament," and that I twice 
 use the phrase incidentally, once with inverted commas, and 
 once without them. That in two instances I should have used 
 this expression incidentally, not in the way of proof (for one of 
 the instances is in the Discourse on atonement,) but simply as a 
 convenient phrase, suited to express my idea, will not, I ap- 
 prehend, appear to the reader a very astonishing circumstance. 
 And as to the quotation of the text among the specimens of the 
 current language of the New Testament, the fact, to be sure, 
 is as stated, and it is very simply accounted for. In Note C. 
 at the end of my Discourses, the following statement is made : 
 " When this discourse was delivered, 1 Tim. iii. 16. was in- 
 troduced in this place, and the following remarks made upon it :" 
 then, having given the remarks, " I was induced to omit this 
 passage in the printed discourse, not by a decided conviction 
 that these remarks were destitute of force ; but because I was 
 desirous of having it to say, that I had built no part of my ar- 
 gument on any passage which eminent critics had pronounced of 
 doubtful authority." When this text, with the discussion of it, 
 was left out of the discourse where it had been formally introdu- 
 ced, it ought at the same time to have been expunged from the 
 
 * Ey<y tifjLi TO A kcci ra ft, Aeyf/ xv^ioi, o ©fo? o m, Kcti o r,v,xctt o epy^O" 
 
43 
 
 list of passages adduced as proving the current language of the 
 New Testament, in a former discourse. This, in the progress 
 of the volume through the press, was, by an unlucky oversight, 
 omitted. This omission is " the head and front of my oflend- 
 ing ;" and I am concerned that the printing of the second edi- 
 tion had proceeded too far before it was perceived, to admit of 
 the erazure in it. 
 
 There are cases, in which we find it impossible to avoid un- 
 derstanding language according to the known sentiments and 
 practice of those by whom it is used. A rule of interpretation, 
 consequently, may in itself be quite unexceptionable, and may 
 yet be expressed in terms so general and unqualified (perhaps 
 unavoidably so), as to be capable of the most licentious latitude 
 of application. Thus, among the directions laid down by Mr. 
 Yates to be followed in fixing the true sense of a passage of 
 Scripture, who can deny that " in numberless instances the words 
 of Scripture are to be understood figuratively .^" and consequent- 
 ly, that " where we meet with a passage which, if literally ex- 
 plained, woidd be a manifest violation of common sense, or c?i- 
 rectly contradict what is asserted in other parts of the Bible, we 
 must conclude that the zvords are not to be taken in their primary 
 acceptation.''^ But there is a wide difference between approving 
 the rule, and approving the Unitarian application of it. Who. 
 that knows any thing of the latter, can fail to be jealous of the 
 phrases '■^figurative language''^ and " common sense''"' when used 
 by a Unitarian ? Every one that is at all acquainted with this 
 controversy must be well aware, what a Unitarian has in mind, 
 when he speaks of " violations of common sfnse." And as to 
 ^^ figurative languMge,'''' it is one of the chief of those " besoms 
 of destruction" with which they vainly attempt to " sweep 
 away" the foundations of our hope. They resolve into figure 
 the most important dictates of the sacred volume : and with all 
 their boasted attachment to " common sense'''' theology, they im- 
 pute figures to the sacred writers, which, inspiration out of the 
 question, no man possessing common sense would ever have 
 used. The rule, therefore, is, in itself, one of essential utility ; 
 but the Unitarian application of it to practice, is licentious and 
 
juischievoub in the extreme. " The law is good, if a man use 
 it lawfully." 
 
 I am precluded tlie use of points of admiration ; but the in- 
 telligent reader, I should fancy, will be disposed to supply a 
 triad of them, when he finds Mr. Yates censuring Trinitarians 
 for their non adherence to those " severe and unaccommodating 
 rules'^'' of interpretation which he has laid down. This from a 
 Unitarian ! Mr. Yates must excuse me ; but I really could not 
 read the charge without a smile. The unaccommodating severi- 
 ty of himself and his brethren, in their adherence to the legiti- 
 mate rules of criticism and interpretation, forcibly reminds me 
 of a saying of Dr. Samuel Johnson, to some person who was 
 contending for a degree of latitudinarianism in ecclesiastical 
 polity, to which he was an avowed enemy ; " Sir, you are a 
 higot to laxjiess.'''' 
 
 But what is the particular deviation from adherence to rule 
 with which Trinitarians are charged ? " Instead of having re- 
 course to these severe and unaccommodating rules," says Mr. 
 Yates, " it is very common with Trinitarians to adopt, without 
 further inquiry, any explanations which excite their feelings, 
 and please their fancy." The accusation is suflkiently severe ; 
 and I am myself specially included in the indictment. " To 
 this convenient and captivating, but licentious and unprincipled, 
 method of interpretation, Mr. Wardlaw has in many instances 
 given the sanction of his example, not considering, that the 
 meaning which appears to him grand, and interesting, and even 
 obvious, may thus strike his mind only because it falls in with 
 his preconceived opinions." (Page 40.) If the reader will do 
 me the favour to look again (if he has looked before) into my 
 second Discourse, from page 45 to 55, he will lind a specimen 
 of that sort of interpretation which Mr. Yates here so heavily 
 censures. Others possibly he may recollect. When he has 
 looked at the passage referred to, 1 must leave it to himself to 
 judge between us, whether I have there made my appeal to the 
 fancy, and not to the understanding / whether my inferences arc 
 those of a person, who is " seeking for something to rouse the 
 feelings, and amuse the imagination, in proportion as it oflcnds 
 
•15 
 
 the judgment." I cannot concede this point. My own heart, I 
 trust, as well as the hearts of multitudes besides, has derived 
 any spiritual warmth which it possesses (would that it possessed 
 more !) from the blessed word of God ; and not the word of 
 God a factitious fire from the false fervour of a previously heat- 
 ed spirit. The hearts of the inspired penmen, kindled, from the 
 altar of Jehovah, dictated " thoughts that breathe," in " words 
 that burn ;" and are we to feel all fearful and apprehensive, lest 
 we catch the flame, which the communication of these was in- 
 tended — if any thing was intended by it at all — to excite in our 
 bosoms ? Mr. Yates will not deny, that if " the meaning which 
 appears to me grand and interesting, and even obvious, may so 
 strike my mind, only because it falls in with my preconceived 
 opinions," it is possible, that his own preconceived opinions 
 may occasion his being unawed by the grandeur, insensible to 
 the interest, and blind to the obviousness, of that meaning. 
 And, fully satisfied as I am, that the meanings which Mr. Yates 
 and his friends are so anxious to explode, are the source of the 
 purest, the happiest, the most elevated, and the most practical 
 feelings of the renewed soul, even of all those feelings which 
 are peculiarly Christian, I cannot but pity those, who immerse 
 these passages of the divine word in the freezing mixture of a 
 cold and heartless philosophy, or who play upon them the ether 
 of a refined and spurious criticism, till they have cooled them 
 down to the very zero of infidelity. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Mr. Yatf.s' Chapter on Mysteries appears to me a very 
 mysterious chapter : I mean, it is something difficult to be ac- 
 counted for, that he should have written it. In the first place, it 
 contains a good deal of matter that is equally irrelevant and 
 common-place : 2c?/j/, It is full o£ the confounding of things 
 that difie;?, and of consequent sophistical reasonings : and, last- 
 ly, it annuls itself, by containing admissions of all that we want. 
 
46 
 
 1 shall endeavour to make good each of these positions. 
 
 1st. The-chapter contains a good deal of matter that is equal- 
 ly irrelevant and common-place. 
 
 I refer here particularly to all that part of the chapter, in 
 which Mr. Yates " explains the use of the term (mystery) in the 
 New Testament :" of the whole of which it may well be said, 
 " Who knoweth not such things as these ?" 
 
 The word " Mystery,'''' says Mr. Yates, is " there employed in 
 a sense widely different from those given to it by modern Trini- 
 tarians-" P. 53. Such language is apt to produce a very false 
 impression on the reader's mind — as if modern Trinitarians, 
 aware that the peculiar acceptation of the term mystery, in the 
 New Testament, was unfavourable to their system, had been dis- 
 posed to set it aside, and to affix to it, as there used, a more con- 
 venient sense. But this is not true. There is no dispute about 
 the ordinary sense of the word M^vo-Tm^iov, in the New Testament. 
 The discussion of this point has not the slightest connexion with 
 the argument ; and, although I am far from saying that it has 
 been introduced with that view, yet the only end it can answer, 
 is, to dazzle and mislead the ignorant, by a useless show of learn- 
 ing. The thoughtless and unwary reader is led to conclude, that 
 Mr. Yates' opponent has intentionally kept out of view the New- 
 Testament mcdining o[ Mystery ; that /A/^ meaning must surely 
 be the only right one in a Scripture controversy ; — and, conse- 
 quently, that according to this meaning only, is it proper or in- 
 cumbent to believe in mysteries. But this is entirely an illusion. 
 There is no debate about the propriety, or the duty, of believing 
 " things that were for a time unknown, but are now revealed." 
 The question is about the belief of mysteries, in the ordinary 
 sense of the term. It is in this sense that the word is used, when 
 Unitarians object to the articles of the Trinitarian faith, on the 
 ground of their mysteriousness. The controversy is not about 
 names, but about things. Let the sense of mystery in the New 
 Testament writings be what it may, will the particular use of the 
 term there at all prove, that there actually is nothing in any of 
 the doctrines revealed that is mysterious in the common accep- 
 tation of it ? Is not the simple matter of inquiry, whether we 
 
47 
 
 are called to believe mysteries in this sense of the word, — thatis^ 
 to believe things that are " difficult to he ujiderstood, or incompre' 
 hensible .*"' If this be the simple state of the question, why per- 
 plex the minds of our readers, by a parade of common-place 
 learning about uses of terms that are extraneous to the contro- 
 versy ? If J were to be told, that by something which I had said, 
 Mr. Yates had been greatly offended, — I should be apt to under- 
 stand the word offended in its common acceptation, as meaning 
 that my opponent was greatly displeased. Suppose, then, that, 
 instead of humbly considering whether there existed any just 
 ground for his displeasure, I should entertain my informer with a 
 critical disquisition on the meaning of the terms offence and of- 
 fend, in the Kew Testament, and insist upon it that Mr. Yates 
 was not, and could not be, offended, unless he had been stumbledy 
 and made to sin ; might I not justly be told, " This is drivelling : 
 you know well enough that this is not the sense in which the 
 word was used by me." I call by the same name all disserta- 
 tions about terms, when we already know zoell enough their un- 
 derstood and established meaning on the subject under discussion^ 
 The meaning of terms cannot alter the nature of things. 
 
 It would be inconsistent with the spirit of these observations, 
 to enter into any examination of what Mr. Yates has written on 
 the New Testament use of the word mystery, I shall therefore 
 dismiss this part of the chapter under review with one remark. 
 " The mysteries of the Christian religion," he says, " are the 
 secrets which were unknown to mankind until Jesus Christ came 
 to reveal or discover them. But, being revealed, they are found 
 to be plain and consistent truths, and contain nothing which is 
 either difficult to be understood, or apparently absurd." (P. 54.) 
 How will this be made to comport with the declaration of the in- 
 spired apostle Peter, respecting the writings of his fellow-apos- 
 tle Paul, and the other Scriptures ? — " Even as our beloved 
 brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath 
 written unto you : As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of 
 these things ; in which * are some things hard to be understood, 
 
 * Rather, perhaps, «' among which ;" f v eh is the received reading, and the 
 
48 
 
 which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do aU 
 so the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction."* 
 
 2dly. This chapter is full of the confounding of things which 
 differ, and of consequent sophistical reasonings. 
 
 " We believe in revelation," says Mr. Yates, (P. 44.) " be- 
 cause the evidences which show it to be from God, far outweigh 
 the objections which may be brought to evince its earthly ori- 
 gin. But supposing its doctrines to be irrational, this single cir- 
 cumstance would annul the whole body of evidence in its favour, 
 and prove that it is not revelation." The truth of this, as a hy- 
 pothetical proposition, (which the expression " supposing its doc- 
 trines to be irrational " implies it to be,) I am not disposed to 
 question. The inquiry, however, immediately suggests itself, 
 How are the doctrines of any pretended revelation to be proved 
 irrational ? It is very manifest, that the reason of any individ- 
 ual man can never be assumed as the standard of reason for 
 mankind in general, and still less of reason in the abstract. — 
 " The term mystery hath a relative sense, and implies a respect 
 to that person's understanding to whom a thing is mysterious. 
 It will appear from hence, that a doctrine is so far to any man 
 mysterious, as he cannot, or does not, comprehend it. And if a 
 mysterious doctrine be therefore false, these consequences will 
 follow : That the knowledge of the most ignorant person is the 
 standard of truth ; that there can be no real difference in men's 
 intellectual attainments ; and no real progress made in knowl- 
 edge. For if every mysterious doctrine be false, and if every 
 doctrine not comprehended by the most ignorant person be to 
 him mysterious ; then every such doctrine is false. It follows, 
 that all truth is by him comprehended, i. e. that his understand- 
 ing is the mcafAire of truth ; that no one man can be really more 
 knowing than another ; and no man really more knowing at one 
 time than another. So fruitful is one absurdity of many more."t 
 
 reading preferred by Criesbach, although «<? is marked by him in the margin 
 with a strong note of probability. If the received reading be retained, oif cannot 
 agree with «T«rTeAc«/5, but with TonT^yv ; in which case, it seems more natural 
 to render fv, among. 
 
 * 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16. 
 + The Mysteries of the Christian Religion credible — a Sermon preached before 
 
49 
 
 That, then, may be pronounced irrational by a Socinian, which 
 may not appear so to a Trinitarian : who, in this case, is to de- 
 cide ? Could we ourselves construct a brain that should con- 
 centrate all the individual rationalities of the species, we might 
 then possess an oracular standard of the reason of mankind. 
 Yet, even if we had within the reach of our appeal this extract- 
 ed essence of all human minds, there might still be articles of 
 faith above its reach, although not coyitrary to its dictates : and, 
 as an intellect so vast, would, we may presume, be proportion- 
 ally humble, it would not reject the claims of a professed reve- 
 lation from God, because in some points it might find its com- 
 prehension baffled. 
 
 " Accordingly," Mr. Yates adds, " those authors who have 
 stated the evidence of the Christian faith have, in general, laid 
 it down as an axiom, that even miracles cannot establish a doc- 
 trine which is in itself absurd, which is contrary to known facts, 
 to the fundamental articles of natural religion, or to other doc- 
 trines of the same pretended revelation." An axiom is a self- 
 evident proposition, requiring no proof, but perceived intuitive- 
 ly to be true. An axiom, the proposition now stated must be 
 acknowledged to be. But it is in every respect a merely hypo- 
 thetical axiom. First of all, it assumes our having previously 
 ascertained and defined, what is " in itself absurd," what are 
 " known facts," Avhat are the " fundamental articles of natural 
 religion," and what are " the other doctrines of the same pre- 
 tended revelation." But more than this — It supposes a case 
 which can never possibly be realized — I mean the case of real 
 miracles (that is, " works such as no man can do, except God be 
 roith him,'^'') of such miracles being wrought in confirmation of a 
 doctrine of the description specified. But if there be any thing 
 whatever of which we are warranted to affirm, that it is " in it- 
 self absurd,'''' it seems to me to be this. I would rather state il 
 as an axiom, that, supposing the reality of the miracles clearly 
 ascertained, the doctrine attested by them must be true. Mira- 
 cles are the seal of Heaven appended to the statements which 
 
 the University of Oxford, at St. Mary's, ou Sunday. October 2l8t, 172-2. By 
 John Conybeare, M. A. &c. 
 
50 
 
 they accompany : they are " God bearing witness ;" and He 
 can bear witness to nothing but truth. If, therefore, on the other 
 hand, falsehood, absurdity, and contradiction, were made out 
 to be the qualities of any doctrine — to say that " miracles them- 
 selves would not prove it," is only to introduce the useless sup- 
 position of a greater falsehood, absurdity, and contradiction, 
 than itself 5 a supposition, of which all right notions of the mor- 
 al character of God forbid the admission for a moment. The 
 proper inference is, that miracles cannot be wrought in its sup- 
 port ; and that any which have been pretended to be wrought, 
 have not been real, but only apparent. So that, if we are con- 
 vinced that the Scriptures are a Divine revelation, — fully ascer- 
 tained to be such by clear, and indisputable miraculous evidence / 
 even the above-supposed intellectual representative of our species, 
 and standard of its rationality, would certainly pronounce it un- 
 reasonable not to bow, with implicit assent, to its plain and in- 
 fallible decisions ; inasmuch as nothing which such a revelation 
 contains can be contrary to reason in general, although it may be 
 expected that some things in it should be beyond the range of 
 comprehension embraced by the reason of men. 
 
 " Let it be remembered, then," says Mr. Yates, (the " f^en" 
 refers to my assent to the important proposition which he is so 
 anxious that his readers should keep in mind) — " Let it be re- 
 membered, then, that even the clearest declarations of the 
 Scriptures would not authorize us to believe in mysteries, if mys- 
 teries be propositions which directly contradict first principles, 
 known facts, or indisputable truths." (P. 46.) Let this be re- 
 membered, by all means. Let it be recorded as an axiom. If 
 mysteries be such propositions — they should not be believed. 
 This is tolerably clear. " It needs no seer to tell us that, Ho- 
 ratio ;" that we should not believe what is contrary to knozm 
 facts and indisputable truths — i. e. that we should not believe 
 known falsehoods : No, not even " t/" they were asserted in 
 the Scriptures themselves. This is another notable " ?/." It is 
 perfectly true, however, that if this " i/"" were not a mere if, 
 but a matter of fact, instead of the Scriptures warranting the 
 reception of such mysteries, such mysteries would warrant the 
 
01 
 
 rejection of the Scriptures. But " let it be remembered,'''' that 
 we know of no person who understands the word mystery in this 
 sense- — and that we do not believe the Bible to contain any mys- 
 teries of this sort. 
 
 " But besides being applied to doctrines which are understood 
 and seen to be absurd, the term mystery is also used, to denote 
 those which cannot be understood, and which, therefore, with- 
 out the testimony of revelation, cannot possibly be proved to be 
 either false or reasonable. In this sense the word appears to be 
 employed by Mr. Wardlaw. He defines a mystery to be ' some- 
 thing that is either difficult to be understood, or entirely incompre- 
 hensible,^ I propose the following definition, as more exact, 
 and also better accommodated to the general tenor of Mr. Ward- 
 law's reasoning and language : Jl mystery is a proposition, to the 
 terms of zohich no distinct ideas are annexed.'''' (P. 45.) 
 
 That those doctrines which are denominated mysteries by 
 Trinitarians " are understood and seen to be absurd" by Uni- 
 tarians, we know : but who they are who apply the word tnyste- 
 ries to doctrines which are " understood and seen to be absm-d" 
 by themselves, we do not know. In the ear of a Unitarian a 
 mystery and an absurdity may sound as synonymous. Most read- 
 ers, however, will be able to discern a difference between them. 
 
 I should have been much obliged to Mr. Yates for his kind 
 intention to make my definition and my reasoning more consist- 
 ent with each other, and, by improving the former, to give 
 greater force and conclusiveness to the latter : but " timeo Da- 
 naos.'''' I felt it difficult at first to understand, what my oppo- 
 nent could intend by his proposed alteration of the definition. 
 It seems to transfer the mystery from the subject of the proposi- 
 tion, to the terms of it ; and yet it depends on a very simple 
 circumstance, whether his definition be not, after all, the very 
 same with mine. The circumstance is, whether by " the terms'''' 
 of the mysterious proposition, he means the terms taken abstract- 
 ly, or the terms as applied to the particular subject of the propo- 
 sition. If the latter be his meaning, his definition and mine are 
 perfectly the same. For it is all one whether you say the mys- 
 tery is in the subject of the proposition, or in the terms considered 
 
6;a 
 
 toith reference to that auhject. From the illustrations which Mr* 
 Yates presents of his meaning, it should seem that when he 
 speaks of " affixing no distinct ideas to the terms of the proposi- 
 tion,'''' he means the terms taken abstractly. " A man," says he, 
 " may announce to me something in an unknown tongue ; and. 
 being assured of his general veracity, I may believe that he 
 speaks the truth, and give my assent. Or a person may enun- 
 ciate a proposition having a relation to the doctrine of porisms, 
 the philosophy of Kant, or some other subject foreign to my 
 studies ; and knowing him to be well informed on the subject, 1 
 may be convinced that his assertion is true, without connecting 
 any ideas with the terms employed." And again : " I may af- 
 firm, for example, in the hearing of a man ignorant of mathe- 
 matics, that the ellipse is one of the conic sections. To these 
 words he annexes no distinct conceptions. The proposition is 
 to him a mystery." But the cases are not parallel. In the 
 proposition " God is one and three,'''' — what is announced is nei- 
 their in an unknown tongue, nor are the terma themselves at all 
 unintelligible, or even obscure. The mystery is, beyond ques- 
 tion, in the subject ; or, which is the same thing, it is in the 
 terms, as applied to the subject. In a word, if Mr. Yates means 
 that the mystery lies in the terms themselves of the proposition, 
 he means what is evidendy not true : if he means, that the mys- 
 tery lies in the terms, as applied to the particular subject, he 
 makes a distinction without a difference j for this is perfecdy the 
 same with its lying in the subject itself. What is it which pre- 
 vents our affixing distinct ideas to the terms of the proposition, 
 but the mysterious nature of its subject ? 
 
 Under the present particular, I must offer a few remarks on 
 Mr. Yates' three observations relative to mysterious proposi- 
 tions. 
 
 " In the first place," he observes, " it appears scarcely pos- 
 sible, that a blind assent to an unintelligible proposition can be 
 of any use in the regulation of the conduct, the amendment of 
 the heart, or the alleviation of distress." 
 
 Does Mr. Yates mean by this to affirm, that we can derive 
 no profit, and no comfort or satisfaction, from the assm-ance that 
 
53 
 
 any thing is, unless we can distinctly comprehend hozv it is ■' 
 Unless he means this, he means nothing to the purpose : and if 
 he does mean this, he means what is, in innumerable instances, 
 obviously false. I have no distinct conception of the nature or 
 the principle of gravitation : yet the doctrine of gravitation is a 
 very useful, and a very comfortable doctrine. The doctrine of 
 the omnipresence of God involves in it difficulties which I am 
 unable to explain : but am I to banish the sacred and salutary 
 awe, and to renounce the peace, and confidence, and joy, which 
 the faith of his omnipresence is fitted to inspire, because I can- 
 not clearly comprehend how it is that the infinite Being is pres- 
 ent, in the full possession and exercise of all his infinite attri- 
 butes, in every part of space, in every successive moment of 
 time ? 
 
 Referring to my observations " on the unavoidable difficulty 
 of conceiving the manner of the Divine existence," Mr. Yates 
 says, that " whatever force is attributed to them, it must be al- 
 lowed, that there is great force in the following remarks of one 
 of the best Divines whose works enrich the English library. 
 ' If,' observes Dr. James Foster, ' you say that you cannot ac- 
 count for the manner of God's creating the world, or for the 
 manner in which he exists every where, of the general resurrec- 
 tion, and the like, I answer. It is no part of your religion 
 
 TO ACCOUNT FOR IT. WhERE THE MYSTERY BEGINS, RELIG- 
 ION ENDS. Mysteries yield neither pleasure nor profit,' " &:c. 
 
 Here we have a celebrated, and, among Unitarians, a favour- 
 ite maxim, blazoned in all the emphasis of capitals : and when 
 this capital maxim is taken by itself, it wears, no doubt, a very 
 forbidding aspect towards every thing mysterious in religion. It 
 seems to affirm, without qualification, that religion and mystery 
 are incompatible. But taken in its connexion, and with Dr. 
 Foster's own explanations, I am so far from being dissatisfied 
 with it, that I am perfectly ready to adopt it, as a just expres- 
 sion of my own sentiments. " If you cannot account," says 
 the Doctor, " for the manner of God's creating the world, or 
 for the manner in which he exists every where, of the general 
 resurrection, and fhc like, I answer, 1 1 is no part of your relig- 
 
54 
 
 ion to account for it.'>'> Perfectly right. But is it no part of the 
 man's religion to believe the fads, that God created the world, 
 that he exists every where, and that there is to be a general res- 
 urrection, — although of creation out of nothing, of infinite pres- 
 ence, and of the identity of the resurrection body, his ideas may 
 be extremely indistinct, and perplexed with many difficulties ? 
 Where is it, in this case, that " mystery begins ?" It is at 
 the mode or manner of the facts. But this is precisely what is 
 not revealed. To say, therefore, that " where mystery begins, 
 religion ends," is neither more nor less than to say that " where 
 WHAT IS NOT REVEALED begins, RELIGION ENDS :" a maxim, 
 certainly, which no Trinitarian will feel any disposition to con- 
 trovert. " We have no great objection," says Mr. Brown, " to 
 apply the quotation to the Trinity, which Mr. Yates introduces 
 with so absurdly exaggerated praise on its author, Dr. Foster. 
 ' If you say, that you cannot account for the manner of the ex- 
 istence of the one Divinity in Trinity, I answer, it is no part of 
 your religion to account for it. W here mystery (i. e. unreveal- 
 ed mystery) begins, (which is equivalent to, where revelation 
 ends) religion ends.' " * 
 
 " Mysteries," adds Dr. Foster, as quoted by Mr. Yates, 
 " yield neither pleasure nor profit. For as with respect^to the 
 works of nature, all our pleasure arises from the perception of 
 beauty, harmony, and usefulness ; and however we may imag- 
 ine innumerable secret beauties, which we have not discovered, 
 yet, till they are knozon, they aftbrd no real satisfaction, nor can 
 we reap any advantage from them ; 'tis just the same with res- 
 pect to mysteries in religion ; we can neither be delighted nor 
 profited by them, because we do not understand them. The 
 utmost that can be said is, that we are confounded and puzzled. 
 And is there any pleasure in that, or any advantage merely in 
 being in the dark, and having no ideas .^" 
 
 Here there seems to be strange confusion. To take again Dr. 
 Foster's own cases : Can we derive neither delight nor profit 
 from the belief of God's having created the world, fiom the be- 
 lief of the Divine omnipresence, or from the belief of the gen- 
 
 ' Strictures, &c. page 24. 
 
55 
 
 €ral resurrection, without being able to comprehend the manner 
 of these things ? If these are matters in which the fact is be- 
 lieved, while the manner of it is not comprehended, are they not 
 " mysteries in religion'''' in the very same sense, although not, 
 perhaps, to the same degree, in which the doctrine of the Trin- 
 ity is a " mystery in religion ?" with respect to which, the case 
 is perfectly alike, the fact being declared, while the manner of 
 it remains an undiscovered and incomprehensible secret. In 
 neither case does the pleasure or profit arise from " being in the 
 dark, and having no ideas,'''' but from that w^hich we knoxv, and 
 of which we hai^e ideas ; that is, from the fact, which is reveal- 
 ed, not from the manner of it, which is not revealed. 
 
 Mr. Yates' second general observation is, " that, if an ir- 
 comprehensible proposition be inculcated in Scripture as an ar- 
 ticle of implicit faith, it must be delivered in the very terms of 
 the proposition.'''' 
 
 Ah ! here I seem to perceive something like a reason for my 
 antagonist's desire to substitute a new definition of mystery, and 
 to transfer the incomprehensibility from the subject of the pro- 
 position to its terms. If the terms themselves are unintelligible, 
 Mr. Yates is clearly right ; for in that case it would be impossi- 
 ble for us to substitute other terms, with any degree of certain 
 assurance that we were enunciating the same doctrine. The 
 man who knows not at all the meaning of the words Ellipse, Co- 
 nic, and Sections, would in vain attempt to convey, in other 
 terms than those in which it has been announced to himself, the 
 proposition that " An Ellipse is one of the Conic Sectio7is ;" he 
 must satisfy himself with repeating the ipsissima verba. 
 
 But in application to our subject of controversy, the observa- 
 tion seems to me unworthy of my opponent's good sense. The 
 terms themselves here are not unintelligible. And although 
 " reasoning" may be " out of the question," with any view to 
 explain the manner of the existence of a Trinity in unity, reas- 
 oning (I mean " reasoning from the Scriptures^'') may be far 
 from being out of the question, in proaf of the revealed facts^ 
 that God is one, and yet that the father is God, that the Son is 
 God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. Respecting the manner 
 
00 
 
 in which Doity is at once One and Three, there is no proposition 
 whatever presented to us in the Bible, to he the object of our faith; 
 no proposition, — nothing which we are called to believe, with 
 regard to that in zohich the mystery properly lies. But this leads 
 me to 
 
 Mr. Yates' third observation, Avhich is expressed in the form 
 of a question : " We may ask respecting propositions, to the 
 terms of which Ave annex no distinct concepitions, is it proper to 
 give to such propositions the name oi Revelation .^''^ 
 
 I really expected Mr. Yates would have shown himself above 
 having recourse to this trite and puerile objection. There never 
 was a more complete instance o( playing with words. How often 
 must we be obliged to repeat, that all that we affirm to be reveal- 
 ed is the fact ; and that the fact alone is, therefore, the object of 
 our faith : that the plain answer to the question, so often put to 
 us. How can a thing be revealed, and yet mysterious ? — is, " the 
 truth of the proposition is revealed ; the manner how 'tis true, is 
 not revealed." * " We think it evident," says Mr. Yates, " that 
 subjects which we cannot miderstand or comprehend, to us are 
 not revealed.'''' But are there no subjects (for the mystery after 
 all, it seems, lies in the subject) — are there no subjects which we 
 do not comprehend as to their manner or modus, while yeJ, they 
 are perfectly well known to us as facts ? Mr. Yates is a believer, 
 I presume, in the existence of substance ; in the reality of animal 
 life j in the law of gravitation ; in the connexion of body and 
 mind. But can Mr. Yates inform us what substance is ; what 
 the principle of animal life is ; what the nature of the power of 
 gravity is ; or how body and mind are united ? 
 
 It is affirmed by Mr. Yates (p. 51.) " Mr. Wardlaw intimates 
 (page 19.) that if we make it a rule to understand the terms of a 
 proposition before believing it, we must abandon some of the 
 fundamental truths even of natural religion." And from this al- 
 leged sentiment of mine the most fearful results are conjured up 
 to the apprehensions of the pious mind : the whole fabric of re- 
 ligion totters ; its very foundations are in danger of giving way ; 
 
 * Conybeare's Sermon on Mysteries, formerly quoted. 
 
57 
 
 and a basis is laid for a system of universal scepticism. To lay 
 these unreal phantoms, and calm the perturbed spirits of the rea- 
 der, it may be enough to notice, that / have said no such thing as 
 that which is here imputed to me. My words are : " If the mys- 
 terious nature of the doctrine in question be a sufficient reason 
 for its rejection, then may this reason be, with safety, generaliz- 
 ed, and reduced to a principle of universal application. The 
 principle will be : every thing that is mysterious and incompre- 
 hensible ought to he disbelieved. Supposing, then, for a moment, 
 the correctness of this principle, let us see what will become of 
 some of the fundamental truths of natural religion." Such is the 
 passage which Mr. Yates translates into — " if we make it a rule 
 to understand the terms of a proposition before believing it, we 
 must abandon some of the fundamental truths even of natural re- 
 ligion." But what is in reality said ? that if we make it a rule, 
 that before assenting to the truth of any proposition we must not 
 merely understand the terms in which it is expressed, but compre- 
 hend clearly the nature of the thing itself which the proposition 
 affirms ; the rule will more than bring into doubt some of the fun- 
 dam.ental truths of natural religion. The instance which I have 
 adduced in illustration, is that of the Divine omnipresence ,• about 
 which enough will come to be said in a future part of this work. 
 I now refer it to the reader, whether the sentiment thus express- 
 ed gave any just occasion for Mr. Yates' entering his "joro/esi," 
 in terms of severe and sweeping censure, " against those desolat- 
 ing pleas for religious mystery, which tend to sap the foundation of 
 all human knowledge, and to introduce an irksome scepticism on 
 every subject.'''' (P. 51,) Nothing, indeed, can be more unfortu- 
 nate than representing the sentiment in question as tending to 
 scepticism. For it is the opposite sentiment that is the very 
 principle and basis of scepticism ; if it be proper to apply the 
 term basis to a system of doubts. It is the sentiment that noth- 
 ing is to be believed that we do not fully comprehend ; it is this 
 sentiment that leads to the scepticism which Mr. Yates so feel- 
 ingly deprecates. It is this that unsettles the mind, and throws 
 it loose from all sure belief and stable principle. There are so 
 many things the nature of which is beyond the apprehension of 
 
58 
 
 our limited faculties ; so few, indeed, about which puzzling diffi- 
 culties may not be started, that such a sentiment must necessari- 
 ly leave us very little to believe. It is somewhat curious, that 
 while Mr. Yates represents my views on the subject of mysteries 
 in religion, as calculated to " introduce an irksome scepticism on 
 every subject," I happen to have mentioned, in the very context 
 of the passage which he quotes ; or rather which he garbles and 
 mistranslates ; their tendency to universal scepticism as one of 
 the evils of the sentiments which I was opposing. " Incalcula- 
 ble mischief has arisen from men's aspiring at knowledge beyond 
 the reach of their own, or of any finite powers, and beyond the 
 limits of the Divine declarations. Yet the attempt to compre- 
 hend the mode in which the Divine unity subsists in three per- 
 sons, is certainly not more foolish, than it is to refuse credence 
 to the fact, because it exceeds our comprehension. He who 
 does so, on such a subject as this, must either, as we have seen, 
 be guilty of the most palpable and glaring inconsistencies, or 
 else the limits of his belief must be narrow indeed. There is 
 hardly a point, in fact, at which a man of this description can con- 
 sistently stop, short of universal scepticism,'^'' (Discourses, p. 23.) 
 The reader is left to judge, whether an humble readiness in the 
 mind, to receive as true, on sufficient evidence, what yet it can- 
 not comprehend, be a disposition likely to involve it in endless 
 uncertainty and hesitation; whether /a«7A is the direct road to 
 scepticism; belief ihe high way to doubt. 1 might safely, indeed 
 leave the respective tendencies of the Unitarian and the ortho- 
 dox system, in this particular, to the decision of fact. On which 
 side is it that the greatest measure is to be found of afree-t-hink- 
 ing (I use the word in malam partem) and sceptical turn of mind ? 
 Mr. Yates adopted his own definition of mystery in preference 
 to mine, because it was " better accommodated to the tenor of my 
 reasonings.'''' Erratum — for tenor read subversion. So, I doubt 
 not, Mr. Yates thought it. He has substituted his own definition 
 for mine ; and has made it mine, by inserting it in my argument 
 where mine should have stood. He has " made his opponent 
 say what he would have him say, and then reasoned from his 
 own misrepresentation,"* doing what lay iu his power to make 
 * Brown's Strictures, p. 23. 
 
d9 
 
 jne argue inconclusively, and to fasten on me sentiments widely 
 diiferent from those which my language expresses. His making 
 me deny, without qualification, the propriety of " making it a rule 
 to understand the tcrrns of a proposition before believing it," 
 arose from his having, " without leave asked or obtained," fath- 
 ered his own definition upon me. For where is the proposition, 
 of which I have denied the necessity of understanding the terms 
 before believing it ? He has pointed out none ; and that for a 
 very good reason, because there is none. There are proposi- 
 tions relative to the fact of the Trinity ; and the terms used ia 
 these, as declarative of the fact, are understood. But there is not 
 (as I have already noticed) any proposition in the Scriptures, rel- 
 ative to that which toe do not comprehend, namely, the mode of the 
 fact. There is nothing on this point which we are called to be- 
 lieve. There is no room, therefore, for the " rule" of " under- 
 standing the terms of a proposition before believing it ;" for 
 there is no proposition to be believed ; no terms to be under- 
 stood, 
 
 3dly. I might perhaps have spared the reader the trouble of 
 going through the preceding reasonings, by placing my third oh- 
 servation frst : The chapter is futile and useless in the argu- 
 ment ; because it admits all that I should reckon it necessary to 
 plead for. 
 
 Thus, (p. 51.) "I have already stated the fact, which it would 
 be the height of presumption to deny, that concerning every 
 class of beings there are truths, clear to superiour intelligences, 
 though seen indistinctly, or not at all, by us." If " concerning 
 every class of beings ;" most of all, surely, concerning the first 
 and highest of beings. How will Mr. Yates prove, that the 
 mode of the Divine existence may not be one of that description 
 of truths to which he refers ? — ^that superiour intelligences may 
 have some clearer knowledge of it ; and that such knowledge we 
 ourselves may attain, in the higher state of our future existence ? 
 — that " what we know not now, we shall know hereafter .^" Per- 
 haps, indeed, it may not be so ; for thg mode of the Divine sub- 
 sistence, may, for aught we can tell, be beyond the grasp of all 
 finite intelligence : but still it may be ."o ; and this is enough — 
 
60 
 
 enough to silence the "presumption" that would refuse assent 
 to an incomprehensible proposition (incomprehensible in its mat' 
 ter, not unintelligible in Us terms) on such a subject. 
 
 Thus again : " Notwithstanding, therefore, the apparent force 
 of these observations, 1 would still maintain an humble convic- 
 tion, that my understanding is weak and deceitful ; and hence I 
 am prepared to admit the truth of any unintelligible proposition, 
 which is supported by the authority of Scripture." (P. 51.) And 
 again : " On all these subjects truths may be enunciated, so far 
 as human language is adapted to convey them, which to inferior 
 minds will appear difficult to be conceived, or entirely incompre- 
 hensible. Nothing, therefore, can be more unreasonable, than 
 absolutely to deny a proposition because we attach no distinct 
 conceptions to the terms in which it is expressed." (P. 45 and 
 46.) 
 
 Now, first of all here, what does Mr. Yates mean by assenting 
 to the truth of an unintelligible proposition — i. e. of a proposition 
 to the terms of which he affixes no conceptions, or no distinct con- 
 ceptions ? What is it, in this case, that he really believes ? It 
 is evidently nothing expressed in the proposition itself. There is 
 a very material difference between believing that a particular 
 proposition contains some truth or other, and believing the truth 
 which the proposition contains. The former only is what a man 
 believes, when a proposition is uttered to him in an unknoion 
 tongue ; or, if he be entirely ignorant of mathematics, when he 
 hears it said by a mathematician, that " an ellipse is one of the 
 conic sections.^^ Such alone could be our belief with regard to 
 the Trinity, if the terms in which the doctrine is expressed were 
 unintelligible. But " there is a vast diflerence between unintel- 
 ligible and incomprehensible. That is, strictly speaking, unintel- 
 ligible, concerning which wc can frame ?io ideas ; and that only 
 incomprehensible concerning which our ideas are imperfect. It is 
 plain, therefore, that a doctrine may be intelligible, and yet in- 
 comj)rehensible." * Is Mr. Yates, then, prepared to give his as- 
 sent to what is unintelligible, and determined to withhold it from 
 what is incomprehensible ? — to admit the truth of propositions 
 * Conybeare's Sermon. 
 
61 
 
 whose terms he does not understand, and (o deny the truth of 
 propositions, which affirm a fact in terms perfectly clear and in- 
 telligibh, and which only leave unexplained the maniier of the 
 fact ? to yield his assent to what is not revealed at all (for that 
 certainly is not at all revealed, which is expressed in terms 
 that cannot be understood,) and to refuse his assent to what 
 h partially revealed, because it is not revealed more fully ; when, 
 for aught we know, the reason of the limitation may have been 
 the impossibility of any thing further being so expressed as to 
 bring it within the apprehension of the human faculties ? I can- 
 not suppose he will be so inconsistent. To the inquiry. On what 
 grounds our assent should be yielded to mysterious propositions ? 
 he answers, with great propriety — that " our belief must arise 
 solely from implicit reliance upon the authority which declares 
 them." I need not hesitate to say, that it is on this ground I am 
 a believer in the doctrine of the Trinity. I believe that in one 
 sense Deity is One, and that in some other sense Deity is Three. 
 I believe it simply on the authority of God, who declares it in his 
 word ; and I durst not withhold my assent from the fact, that it 
 is so, because he has not been pleased to tell me the inode of the 
 fact, or how it is so. 
 
 To the above quotations, the following may be added : " A 
 prophet who proves his Divine commission by miracles, may an- 
 nounce a doctrine in terms, to which I annex no distinct concep- 
 tions ; yet I may believe that the prophet does, that angels and 
 superior spirits may, that I myself may, in a more advanced stage 
 of my existence 5 in deference, therefore, to his Divine authority, I 
 would yield my humble and entire assent.'''' (P. 46.) Now the 
 concessions made in these various extracts, of the propriety of 
 believing even unintelligible propositions on the authority of the 
 sacred records, being applicable, a fortiori, to partially revealed 
 truths, appear to me to nullify the whole chapter about myster- 
 ies, converting it into a mere logomachy — a useless verbal dis- 
 pute. 
 
PART II. 
 
 DEFENCE OP' THE REASONINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE TRINITY, 
 AND OF THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, AGAINST THE ANIMAD- 
 VERSIONS OF MR. YATES. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 J HAVE now done with preliminary topics : and if any of 
 my readers shall think that on those of them which are of a per- 
 sonal nature I have detained him too long, I have only to assure 
 him for his comfort, that I have left unsaid a good deal of what 
 I once intended to say. I conceive it to be not merely natural 
 and pardonable, but, on various and important grounds, obligO' 
 tory on every man, and especially on every man who occupies a 
 station of public usefulness, to vindicate himself from misrepre- 
 sentations and aspersions. But I trust I shall never be left to 
 place myself and my cause on any thing like the same level in 
 the scale of importance. Let what will of the mire of contro- 
 versial disparagement adhere to me, I shall consider myself 
 richly recompensed, if I shall, in any measure, succeed in clear- 
 ing the cause of God and truth. 
 
 I have a slight objection to offer against the manner in which 
 Mr. Yates announces the division of his subject, in the second 
 and third parts of his work. In the former, be proposes to 
 state the opinions and arguments of Unitarians ; and in the lat- 
 ter, to consider the objections by which I have endeavoured to. 
 invalidate them. I demur at this. Trinitarians are not to be 
 placed on the inferior ground of objectors ; as if the opposite 
 system were the generally received one, and theirs the excep- 
 tion. Their views are the views of ninety-nine hundredths of 
 TV-hat is called the Christian world. Their opponents are the 
 dissenters from the prevailing faith. They therefore are the ob- 
 jectors : they are the assailants. Trinitarians arc entitled to 
 
63 
 
 'Consider themselves in full possession of the field of Scripture^ 
 till this little band of enemies shall succeed in dispossessing 
 them. To some of my readers this may appear a circumstance 
 of trivial moment. I have no wish to attach more importance to 
 it than it deserves. But I must insist on the presumption being 
 decidedly against so very small a minority of the professed be- 
 lievers and investigators of the Bible ; nor do I feel at all inclin- 
 ed to allow to those whom I consider as enemies of the truth of 
 Ood, any higher ground than they are entitled to occupy. 
 
 Although I have closed my remarks on preliminary topics, I 
 still find in my way a great deal of matter, that is entirely irrel- 
 evant to the points immediately in dispute. 
 
 Of Mr. Yates' Second Part, the first chapter is entitled — 
 *' The Evidence for the Unity of God from the Light of Na- 
 ture ;" and the second — " The Evidences for the Unity of God 
 from the Testimony of the Scriptures." These are very good. 
 And as we are not less desirous than Mr. Yates to establish the 
 doctrine of the Divine unity, we are obliged to him for the con- 
 cise and perspicuous view of the argument on this topic, espe- 
 cially in the former of these two chapters. Of the provokingly 
 disingenuous representation given by Mr. Yates, in a subse- 
 quent part of his volume, of my reasonings relative to the unity 
 of God, I shall have occasion to speak afterwards. 
 
 I pass over, in the mean time, the statements of Unitarian 
 doctrine, and the reasonings used in support of them, contain- 
 ed in the remaining chapters of Part II ; and proceed immedi- 
 ately to Part III, in which Mr. Yates professes to state the 
 views, and to answer the arguments, of Trinitarians. How far 
 he has done either, will by and by appear. 
 
 When we consider the powerful propensity which mankind 
 have always discovered, to intrude into what has been left se- 
 cret, and to exercise their ingenuity in attempts to explain what 
 is beyond the reach of their capacities, it will not surely appear 
 wonderful, that different opinions should have been formed, and 
 different theories, and principles of .explication, adopted, on 
 such a doctrine as that of the Trinity. These varieties have af- 
 forded a handle to its adversaries, of which they have shown, as 
 
64 
 
 might have been-^xpccted, abundant readniess to lake advan- 
 tage. They are also, without doubt, fitted to stumble sincere 
 and serious inquirers. Of such inquirers I request the particu- 
 lar attention to the remarks which follow. 
 
 The varieties of opinion on this subject are reduced by Mr. 
 Yates to three general heads. I have no particular objections 
 to make to his classification. I have already, with sufficient dis- 
 tinctness, avowed myself to belong to the class Avhich he places 
 third in order, consisting of those who consider " the subject as 
 so completely removed beyond the view of the human under- 
 standing, that it is impossible for us to form upon it any clear or 
 accurate conceptions." I have made this avowal in the follow- 
 ing, among other passages : " Of the precise import of the term 
 personality, as applied to a distinction in the Divine essence, or 
 of the peculiar nature and mode of that distinction, 1 shall not 
 presume to attempt conveying to your minds any clear concep- 
 tion. I cannot impart to you what 1 do not possess myself: and, 
 convinced as I am that such conception cannot be attained by 
 any, it had been well, I think, if such attempts at explanation, 
 by comparisons from nature and otherwise, had never been 
 made. They have afforded to the enemies of the doctrine much 
 unnecessary occasion for unhallowed burlesque and blasphemy. 
 The Scriptures simply assure us of the fact : of the mode of the 
 fact they offer no explanation. And where the Bible is silent, it 
 becomes us to be silent also ; for when, in such cases, we ven- 
 ture to speak, we can only ' darken counsel by words without 
 knowledge.'* The fact, and not the manner of it, being that 
 which is revealed, is the proper and only object of our" faith. 
 We believe that it is so ; but how it is so, we are not ashamed to 
 say we do not presume even to conjecture."* 
 
 Mr. Yates may call this " an elusive representation of the 
 doctrine," and hold me up to ridicule, as " striving to render 
 the doctrine of the Trinity invulnerable by reducing it to a shad- 
 ow." I cannot help this. I have no desire to go farther, on 
 this or any other subject, than my Bible carries me. Explana- 
 tion of the doctrine of the Trinity is the incessant demand of 
 * Discourse I. page 11. 
 
65 
 
 Unitarians,; and an acknowledgment, fifty times repeated, that 
 you do not pretend to explain, produces no abatement in the ur- 
 gency of the demand. But the demand is a most unreasonable 
 one ; and every attempt to satisfy it is foolish. For my own 
 part, I am perfectly resigned to be the object of Unitarian pity 
 for my weakness, in humbly submitting to the limits of Divine 
 instruction, in believing the fact, as testified in the Oracles of 
 Truth, and leaving the mode of the fact among the " secret 
 things that belong unto the Lord," — concealed in that " light 
 to which no man can approach." 
 
 I most readily admit (for how can it be otherwise ?) that on 
 this and on all similar subjects, it is difficult to select, on every 
 occasion, such terms as cannot be perverted, and made to as- 
 sume the appearance of inconsistency, by an acute and subtle 
 disputant. I am not, however, sensible that any thing in my 
 volume is really at variance with the sentiments of the above ex- 
 tract. When a man has once stated the sense in which he em- 
 ploys any particular term, he is certainly entitled to be under- 
 stood accordingly, in his subsequent use of it on the same sub- 
 ject. In the preceding quotation from my first Discourse, it is 
 explicitly declared, that when the terms person and personality 
 are used, I would not be understood as pretending to any pre- 
 cise and definite conception of the nature of that distinction in 
 Deity which these terms import. Was it, then, an unreasona- 
 ble expectation, that my readers should carry this declaration 
 along with them, through the remainder of my volume ; that 
 when the same terms are used again, they should be understood 
 with the qualification previously affixed to them ; that when I 
 speak of the persons in Deity as distinct, I should not be inter- 
 preted as pretending to comprehend clearly hozo they are distinct ? 
 A generous disputant would certainly have felt himself bound to 
 proceed on this reasonable principle. Yet, because I have not 
 been perpetually repeating my explanation, Mr. Yates has 
 thought fit to represent me as " through more than the latter half 
 of my volume, treating the distinction of persons in the God- 
 head as a clear and intelligible doctrine ;" and he strives, in 
 this wav, to set the latter half at variance with the former. 
 
66 
 
 This attempt to convict me of inconsistency and contradiction, 
 is connected with an endeavour to fix upon me the usual charge 
 of tritheism. The former, indeed, is involved in the latter, and 
 forms part of the disingenuous means by which the charge is sup. 
 ported. It would have been very foolish in me, to expect to 
 pass a Unitarian inquisition, without having this hackneyed libel 
 preferred against me. Let us see how Mr. Yates goes to work 
 in finding ground for it. 
 
 The first ground he finds, he makes for himself, by introduc- 
 ing a statement of the doctrine of the Trinity which is not mine. 
 Finding it somewhat difficult, I presume, to attack me directly 
 on the favourite charge of believing in three Gods ; disappoint- 
 ed at not being able to select any passage from my Discourses 
 sufficiently gross and revolting to the reader's mind ; he brings 
 in a quotation from Dr. Sherlock, possessing this quality in 
 a degree quite to his satisfaction, — a quotation containing a 
 statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, such as he per- 
 fectly well knows I never could adopt ; no, nor one in hund- 
 reds, I am bold to say, of the Trinitarian body : and then he 
 tries to make out that my sentiments are the same in substance, 
 although different in expression. I say, tries to make out. For 
 what is his proof? " Mr. Wardlaw," says he, " is no less ex- 
 plicit than Dr. Sherlock, in maintaining that the three persons 
 in the Godhead are distinct.^'' The whole weight of evidence by 
 which he seeks to identify me with Dr. Sherlock, consists in 
 my having used the term persons, and applied to these persons 
 the epithet distinct, to which he gives the emphasis of Italics. 
 But was not Mr. Yates perfectly aware, that, in using" these 
 terms, I had explicitly disavowed all pretension to understand- 
 ing the nature of the distinction which is expressed by them ? 
 and that therefore I considered all attempts at explanation, and 
 all such language as that of Dr. Sherlock, to be the height of 
 presumption, originating in self-sufficiency, and terminating in 
 self-contradiction ? I am explicit in maintaining the persons in 
 Deity to be distinct. And what then ? Is there any inconsisten- 
 cy in using this epithet, to distinguish my views from Sabellian- 
 ism, and yet meaning by the use of it no more, than that in the 
 
67 
 
 unity of the Godhead there is a distinction, which, while I be- 
 lieve it to exist, I cannot pretend to explain or to comprehend ? 
 itemarks of a similar kind will apply to my use of the term 
 person. I have employed it in compliance with established us- 
 age, and because I do not know that another could be devised 
 more appropriate. But of its precise import, as applied to a dis- 
 tinction in the Divine essence, I have professed my own incom- 
 petency, and my conviction of the incompetency of others, to 
 form any clear conception. But Mr. Yates alleges, that the 
 whole of the latter part of my volume is at variance with this 
 profession. " In his Discourse," says he, " on the Divinity and' 
 Personality of the Holy Spirit, he gives a most clear, ample, and 
 correct account of the signification of the term person, ' What,' 
 says he, ' do we mean by a person ? By a person we mean that 
 which possesses personal properties,^ " &;c. Such, in truth, is the 
 amount of the "clear, ample, and correct account" of the signi- 
 fication of the term person : for as to the quotation afterwards in- 
 troduced by me from Paley, the design of it is not at all to enu- 
 merate the particular properties, or kinds of properties, of which 
 the possession is essential to personality ; but merely to confirm 
 the position, that the only possible proof of personality, is the 
 proof of the possession of personal properties : which end it an- 
 swers, by showing, that in the department of natural religion, we 
 do not, and cannot, prove the personality of Deity from any 
 knowledge we possess of his essence, but solely from the indica- 
 tions abounding in the works of nature, of certain properties pos- 
 sessed by their Author, from which his personality is necessarily 
 inferred. When, after defining a person to be that which pos- 
 sesses personal properties, I proceed to show that, in the Scrip- 
 tures, properties confessedly of this nature are ascribed to the 
 Holy Spirit, the inference certainly is intended to be, that the 
 Holy Spirit, as possessing these properties, must be a person^ 
 But does this imply my understanding, or pretending to under- 
 stand, how the Holy Spirit subsists in personal distinction from 
 the Father and the Son ? — in zohat manner personal properties 
 are possessed and exercised by each ? — which is the same thing 
 as, what the nature, of the distinction is ? The question is, Ara 
 
68 
 
 personal properties ascribed to the Father, to the Son, and to the 
 Holy Spirit, in such a way as to indicate a distinction in the uni- 
 ty of the Godhead ? I have affirmed, and endeavoured to prove, 
 that they are. But further I have not presumed to go ; because 
 the volume of Revelation goes no further. Mr. Yates, therefore, 
 would have spared his laboured attempt ; an attempt which, I 
 have no doubt, he himself thought peculiarly happy ; to set in 
 pointed contrast the first and second parts of my volume, had he 
 only done, what justice and generosity alike required of him ; 
 had he taken along with him the qualifying explanation which I 
 had given at the outset, and which I certainly intended should 
 accompany to the close my use of the terms distinct, subsistences, 
 persons and personality, in their application to Deity. 
 
 In the same connexion, in Mr. Yates' Reply, there occurs an 
 instance of misrepresentation, which I hardly know whether to 
 ascribe to carelessness or to design. After having endeavoured 
 to fasten on me the view of Dr. Sherlock, as to the Holy Spirit 
 being a distinct mind, or intelligent Being, he proceeds to say, 
 " That he " (Mr. W.) '• holds the same doctrine concerning the 
 second person is equally manifest. He assigns as a reason for 
 not proving Jesus Christ to be a person, that his personality, in 
 the sense in which the term personality is applied to the Holy Spir- 
 it, was never disputed.* When, therefore, he calls the second of 
 the three distinct subsistences a person, he means, that that sub- 
 sistence is a distinct mind, or intelligent being.'''' (Page 140.) 
 
 Now either Mr. Yates was nodding when he penned this, or 
 he felt himself sadly pinched for proof, and calculated largely 
 on the stupidity of his readers. The most effectual way to 
 show this, will be to give at length the paragraph from which his 
 garbled quotation is taken. " In the more direct discussion of 
 this subject, I shall begin with the evidence of personality. To 
 some of you this may, perhaps, appear preposterous. But by 
 the proof of personality, on the present occasion, is meant, it 
 should be observed, the proof that the Holy Spirit is a person at 
 all. On our former subject, there was no necessity for our lead- 
 ing a proof of this nature ; the personality of Jesus Christ, in 
 * The Italics are Mr. Yates'. 
 
this sense of the term,* having never been disputed. The only 
 question on that subject was, not whether he was a person, but 
 whether he was a person in the Godhead. But in the argument 
 now before us, the case is otherwise. The Holy Spirit is not 
 considered, at least in general, by the opponents of his Divinity, 
 as a creature, possessing distinct personal existence ; but as a 
 quality, a power, an influence. In this case, therefore, the proof 
 of personality is an important and essential step towards the 
 proof of his Divinity. And, indeed, in many instances, the 
 evidence of the former will be found to involve in it a proof of 
 the latter." (Discourses, pages 270 and 271.) 
 
 The meaning of this does not seem to be very obscure. The 
 personality of Jesus Christ, apart from his Divinity, Unitarians 
 never have questioned. He has never been considered, like the 
 Holy Spirit, as a mere influence, or energy, or attribute. No 
 proof of his personality therefore, was necessary, prior to the de- 
 monstration of his Divinity. When I say, that " by the proof of 
 personality on the present occasion is meant the proof that the 
 Holy Spirit is a person at all ;" and then subjoin, that the per- 
 sonality of Jesus Christ in this sense of the term has never been 
 disputed ; and add still further, that " the only question on that 
 subject, (the personality of Christ,) was, not whether he was a 
 person, but whether he was a person in the Godhead ;" if my 
 meaning is not plain, I am at a loss to make it plainer. It obvi- 
 ously is, that the mere personality of Jesus Christ, the simple 
 question whether he be a person at all, apart altogether from the 
 doctrine of his Divinity, has never been disputed ? Well : and 
 what does ray interpreter make me say ? He first of all labours 
 to show, that the term personality, as applied by me to the Holy 
 Spirit, means nothing less than his being one of three distinct, in' 
 finite, intelligent minds. And then, to show that I consider Jesus 
 Christ, " the second of the three subsistences,''^ in the same light, 
 he represents me as saying, that his personality, " in the sense in 
 which the term personality is applied to the Holy Spirit, was nev- 
 er DISPUTED." That is, when I speak of Unitarians as never 
 having disputed the personality of Jesus Christ, Mr. Yates makes 
 * The words alluded to by Mr. Yates. 
 10 
 
70 
 
 me say, that they never have disputed his personality, as one of 
 the three distinct subsistences in the Godhead ! — nay more ; that 
 they never have disputed his being a person in the Godhead, ev- 
 en according to tlie explanation of Dr. Sherlock himself, as a dis- 
 tinct, infinite, intelligent Mind, or Being! — for this is the sense^ 
 in which he affirms, the term person is applied by me to the Ho- 
 ly Spirit. Such is the "generalship" by which Mr. Yates en- 
 deavours to identify my sentiments with those of Dr. Sherlock. 
 
 It may not be improper for me, once for all, to state in this 
 place, a little more fully, what it is which the Scriptures require 
 us to believe respecting the doctrine of the Trinity. And I 
 shall avail myself of the language of two other writers, who 
 have expressed themselves with that modest discretion, which is 
 so becoming in creatures on all such subjects ; but which is gall- 
 ing to the adversaries of the doctrine, because it does not fur- 
 nish them with grounds sufficiently gross and palpable, to enable 
 them to shock and horrify the minds of their readers, by bur- 
 lesque, and ridicule, and bold unqualified asservations of the 
 nonsense and absurdity of Trinitarianism : — 
 
 " The word Trinity,'^'' says Dean Swift, " is indeed not in 
 Scripture ; but was a term of art, invented in the earlier times, 
 to express the doctrine by a single word, for the sake of brevity 
 and convenience. The doctrine, then, as delivered in Holy 
 Scripture, though not exactly in the same words, is very short, 
 and amounts only to this : that the Father, the Son, and the Ho- 
 ly Ghost are each of them God, and yet there is but one God. 
 For, as to the word person, when we say there are three per- 
 sons, and as to those other explanations in the Athanasian 
 Creed, this day read to you, (whether composed by Athanasius 
 or not) they were taken up three hundred years after Christ, to 
 expound this doctrine ; and I will tell you on what occasion — " 
 &;c. — " Cod commands us to believe there is a union and there 
 is a distinction : but what that union or what that distinction is, 
 all mankind are equally ignorant ; and must continue so, at least 
 till the day of judgment, without some new revelation. There- 
 fore I shall again repeat the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is pos- 
 itively affirmed in Scripture : that God is there expressed in 
 
71 
 
 three different names,, as Father, as Son, and as Holy Ghost ; 
 that each of these is God, and that there is but one God. But 
 this union and distinction are a mystery utterly unknown to man- 
 kind. This is enough for any good Christian to believe, on this 
 great article, without ever inquiring any farther. And this can 
 be contrary to no man's reason, although the knowledge of it is 
 hid from him." — " From what hath been said, it is manifest that 
 God did never command us to believe, nor his servants to preach, 
 any doctrine which is contrary to the reason he hath been pleas- 
 ed to endue us with ; but for his own wise ends hath thought fit 
 to conceal from us the nature of the thing he commands, thereby 
 to try our faith and obedience, and increase our dependence on 
 him. It is highly probable, that if God should please to reveal 
 unto us this great mystery of the Trinity, or some other myste- 
 ries in our holy religion, we should not be able to understand 
 them, unless he should at the same time think fit to bestow on us 
 some new powers or faculties of the mind, which we want at 
 present, and which are reserved till the resurrection to life eter- 
 nal. For ' now,' as the Apostle says, ' we see through a glass 
 darkly, but then face to face.' Reason itself is true and just ; 
 but the reason of every particular man is weak and wavering, 
 perpetually swayed or turned by his interests, his passions, or 
 his vices."* 
 
 " The doctrine of what is called the Trinity," says the late 
 Rev. Mr. Venn, Rector of Clapham, " concisely stated, is this : 
 that although there is only one God, this God is revealed to 
 man as subsisting under three distinct names or persons, the Fa.- 
 ther, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are yet, in a sense to us 
 mysterious and inscrutable, but one God." — " It is true that, on 
 this subject, some persons may have spoken rashly and unwar- 
 rantably, in representing the three persons to be so absolutely 
 distinct, as to be, in all respects, three difterent Beings," &c. — 
 " The precise nature of the distinction here implied is not des-^ 
 cribed in Scripture, nor perhaps is it conceivable by fallen man. 
 It has, indeed, been agreed to express this distinction by the 
 term ''person ;' and this term is perhaps as eligible as any other, 
 
 * Swift's /rerniOD on the Trinity ; Works, Vol. II. old edition. 
 
7& 
 
 while it is understood not to convey any real idea of the nature 
 of this distinction, but merely to affirm that it exists, and is not 
 confined to a distinction of mere tides or attributes."—" It may 
 be asked, What, then, do we in fact believe as to the Divine na- 
 ture ? I answer, we believe that one and the same God is three, 
 in a sense which Ave are able neither to express nor comprehend." 
 — " Such, indeed, is the obscurity in which the Divine nature is 
 necessarily involved, that it matters little what terms are employ- 
 ed by us to describe it. Change the terms ; yet the obscurity 
 remains. They would either have no meaning affixed to them, 
 or be understood in precisely the same sense with those employ- 
 ed for the same purpose before. Had the very terms employed 
 by us to express the doctrine of the Trinity been employed in 
 Scripture, the revelation of the doctrine itself would not have 
 been more distinct or intelligible. Language could not have 
 made that distinct, which we have not the faculties to compre- 
 hend." — " You are required to believe, that these three terms, 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are all applied in 
 Scripture to the one Supreme God ; that all the actions, offices, 
 attributes, which are ascribed to any of these names, are plainly 
 attributed to, and do truly belong to one and the same Divine 
 nature ; that there are such frequent and evident assertions in 
 Scripture of the unity of God, and yet such plain distinctions 
 signified by the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as imply 
 both a perfect unity of nature, and yet a distinction in the God- 
 head ; and that this distinction, whatever it may be, is not the 
 same with that which we conceive between the attributes of God, 
 nor a mere distinction of name, office, or relation ; but some oth- 
 er distinction, of which we have but a confused conception, and 
 which we can express by no particular language. A more ac- 
 curate acquaintance with spiritual beings, and especially with 
 the nature of God, might develop the mysterious parts of this 
 doctrine. Till then, we profess our faith in them only as mys- 
 teries."* 
 
 1 am not sensible that there is any thing in my volume incon- 
 sistent with the modesty of such statements as these. If Mr. 
 
 •* Venn''B PoBthumous Sermons, Vol. I. Sermon VIII. 
 
73 
 
 Yates chooses still to say, this is " rendering the doctrine invul- 
 nerable by reducing it to a shadow," he is extremely welcome. 
 If it be but a Scripture shadow, " seen as in a mirror, darkly," 
 it has all the substance which the Divine Author of the Bible has 
 thought fit to give it, and therefore all that, in our present state, 
 we dare wish it to have. Nothing delights Unitarians more than 
 when they prevail with Trinitarians to go beyond the limits of 
 the Bible, and to try their wits in attempts to explain by fanciful 
 comparisons, or to demonstrate by metaphysical argumentation, 
 the doctrine of the Trinity. If Mr. Yates, then, will insist for 
 explanations of what I have admitted to be inexplicable, he may. 
 I shall follow the advice of the king of Israel, " Answer him 
 not ;" at least till I have acquired, what it is my prayer to be en- 
 abled to avoid, a little more of Unitarian presumption. In the 
 passage before quoted from my first Discourse, I have expressly 
 condemned all such speculations, as worse than unprofitable. 
 The following sentences from a subsequent part of the same Dis- 
 course, are of a similar complexion : " Were we to say, that the 
 persons of the Godhead are one and three in the same sense, we 
 should evidently affirm what is contrary to reason ; because such 
 a proposition would involve in the very terms of it an irrecon- 
 cilable contradiction. But so long as we do not pretend to know 
 or to say, how they are one and how they are three : to prove 
 that we assert what is contrary to reason, when we affirm that 
 they are both, is, from the very nature of the thing, impossible. 
 For what is it which is to be proved contrary to reason ? Up- 
 on the supposition made, 2oe cannot tell : it is something which 
 we do not know ; of the nature and circumstances of which we 
 are left in total ignorance. The truth is, we are lost, complete- 
 ly lost, whenever we begin, in any view of it whatever, to think 
 about the divine essence. We can form no more distinct con- 
 ception of a Being that never began to exist, or of a Being that 
 is every where present, and yet is wholly nowhere, than we can 
 of one essence, in which there are, and have been from eternity, 
 three distinct subsistences."* 
 
 Mr. Yates, as a generous and manly disputant, ovght. as I 
 * Discourse I. p. 22. 
 
74 
 
 have already said, to have carried these qualifying explanations 
 along with him, in interpreting the remainder of my Volume. 
 Instead of this he has introduced another writer; he has attempt- 
 ed, by such perverse interpretations of my words as have been 
 noticed, fo make me chargeable with all the grossness and pre- 
 sumption of that writer ; whose modes of expression I am so far 
 from being disposed to adopt and to defend, that 1 consider them 
 as in the highest degree indiscreet and unwarrantable, as (in the 
 phraseology of the law) " travelling beyond the record ;" — I 
 should have said being wise above what is written, were it not 
 that I should have appeared to fall into the common error, of 
 quoting, as from the Bible, words which it does not contain. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Having found such disingenuousness in the statement of our 
 sentiments themselves, we need not be surprised, if we discover 
 similar want of fairness in the comments on the evidence by which 
 they are supported. 
 
 To these comments Mr. Yates proceeds in the beginning of 
 the second chapter of his Second Part ; and he commences them 
 with the following most surprising sentence : — 
 
 I. " In the first place, he" (Mr. Wardlaw) " objects to the 
 proof of the unity of God derived from the appearances of the 
 material creation." 
 
 This is one of the many parts of Mr. Yates' work at which I 
 felt the difficulty of repressing the risings of indignation. I could 
 scarcely conceive it possible, that Mr. Yates seriously believed 
 what he here affirms. — Did he really think, that, in my remarks 
 on the part of the subject referred to, it was my object to invali- 
 date the doctrine of the Divine Unity^ for the sake of establishing 
 that of the Trinity ? If he did, then he must also have thought, 
 that I, as well as himself, consider the two doctrines as inconsist- 
 ont with each other, contrary to my own express and fx'equentJy 
 
75 
 
 ffepeated declaration ; — for which courtesy let the reader deter- 
 mine the extent of my obligation. But did not Mr. Yates know 
 that o?ie object of my first Discourse was to assert and prove the 
 unity of God ; although the general design of the series of Dis- 
 courses rendered it unnecessary to enlarge on the argument in 
 support of it ? I have said in the Discourse referred to : " What- 
 ever may be the views we entertain as to the extent of natural 
 evidence in support of the unity of the Godhead, there can be no 
 doubt that this doctrine forms one of the first and fundamental 
 truths of Divine revelation. It is in many places of the inspired 
 volume distinctly and plainly affirmed ; and it appears pervad- 
 ing the whole, as one of those great leading principles, to which 
 it owes the peculiarity of its general complexion, and to which 
 all the subordinate parts of the system bear a constant reference:" 
 — " That the unity of God is a leading doctrine of the Scriptures, 
 and that this doctrine is pointedly affirmed in the text, as an ad- 
 monition to the Israelites against the Polytheism of the surround- 
 ing nations, I need not, I apprehend, take time to prove :" — 
 " The unity of the Godhead is proclaimed in the text in terms 
 fitted to impress the vast importance of the doctrine on the minds 
 of the Israelites," &;c. 
 
 Now, suppose I had " objected to the proof of the unity of 
 God derived from the appearances of the material creation," I 
 have at least most decidedly declared my belief both of its reality 
 and importance as an article of revelation. Does Mr. Yates, 
 then, think his friend, his dear friend, capable of the abominable 
 hypocrisy of endeavouring to strengthen the argument for the 
 Trinity at the expense of the evidence for the Unity ? and that 
 too, at the very moment that he is affirming his belief of the lat- 
 ter as decidedly as his conviction of the former ? I am free to 
 say, that if I saw the doctrine of the Trinity to be inconsistent 
 with the Divine unity, I should feel the necessity of renouncing 
 the former for the security of the latter. But I fear I must, along 
 with it, renounce those Scriptures, in which I am satisfied it is so 
 clearly taught ; and which are established to be a revelation 
 from heaven by so " many infallible proofs." 
 
 With regard to the argument for the Divine unity drawn from 
 
the appearances of the material creation, my object, in the few 
 cursory remarks allotted to it, was merely to show, in rather an 
 incidental Avay, that it was not without its difficulties ; and espe- 
 cially, that, however conclusive it might be as handled by phi- 
 losophers, it was, on different accounts, more recondite, and re- 
 mote from common apprehension, than the proof from nature of 
 the existence a.nd perfections of Deity. Mr. Yates' illustration of 
 the argument, however excellent, might yet be added to the ex- 
 tract I have given from Dr. Paley in my first Note (A.) in con- 
 firmation of the justice of this observation. I stated among oth- 
 er things, in just hinting the difficulties attending this argument, 
 that harmony of design, even when fully established, does not 
 necessarily and at once warrant the inference of only one design- 
 er ; because " unity of counsel may subsist among a plurality of 
 counsellors." Of Dr. Paley, from whom this limitation of the 
 argument was taken, Mr. Yates says : " With respect to Dr. Pa- 
 ley, it should be recollected, that he was (at least professedly) a 
 Trinitarian. His system of Christian faith would incHne him to 
 consider uniformity of plan as proving only unity of design main- 
 tained by three designers. He therefore carries the argument 
 no further than to the proof of unity of counsel." (P. 147.) — 
 Having adopted Dr. Paley's view of the argument, I of course 
 feel myself involved in all this. Let us see what its plain mean- 
 ing is : — it means, 
 
 1. That we are secretly convinced in our own minds, that the 
 doctrine of the Trinity cannot, after all, be maintained, in con- 
 sistency with that of the Divine unity. This is false. 
 
 2. That, being much more strongly attached to the former of 
 these doctrines than to the latter, we feel no great scruple at sur- 
 rendering, or purposely weakening, the evidence of the latter, 
 for the sake of supporting the former. " He therefore,^'' says Mr. 
 Yates, " carries the argument no further than to the proof of uni- 
 ty of counsel." This is equally false. 
 
 3. That we profess to believe both the doctrine of the Unity, 
 and the doctrine of the Trinity, to be express articles of the 
 Christian revelation ; and yet our system of Christian faith in- 
 clines us to doubt and to deny the former, and to question^ and 
 
limit, and invalidate, those proofs from nature by which it il 
 confirmed. 
 
 4. Dr. Paley was a Trinitarian, " at least professedly.'^'' It is 
 here insinuated, that his profession of Trinitarian principles was 
 of at least doubtful sincerity. Be it so. It is very likely the 
 suspicion is not entirely without foundation. Yet, one should 
 think, it would require a person to be a very warm friend indeed 
 to Trinitarian principles (on the sxipposltion of their being at va- 
 riance with the" Divine unity) before he would, for the sake of 
 them, intentionally introduce confusion and dubiety into any of 
 the arguments for the fundamental doctrine of the unity of God. 
 
 5. After all, Mr. Yates has said nothing to show the incor- 
 rectness of Dr. Paley's view of the argument. Is it not true, that 
 unity of counsel may subsist among a plurality of counsellors ? 
 Is it not, then, true also, that from the simple consideration of 
 unity of design, it is impossible to infer, with conclusive certain- 
 ty, the existence and operation of one designer ? Mr. Yates an- 
 swers such questions, by substituting an argument of a totally 
 different description ; namely " the competence of one omnipo- 
 tent and infinite Designer to produce every effect which is dis- 
 cernible throughout the universe," connected with " the princi- 
 ple, that no more causes ought to be supposed than are necessa- 
 ry to account for the effects." 
 
 Now, supposing this ground of reasoning unobjectionable, still 
 my remark would be well founded, that it is recondite, and far 
 from obvious and palpable to the great majority of mankind. 
 But further ; though we may be able, from other considerations, 
 to show the absurdity of supposing the existence of more than 
 one infinite and Almighty Being ; I am not sure, how far the in- 
 ference is warrantable from this consideration alone, — viz. the 
 sufficiency of one such Being to account for all discernible effects. 
 The power of one man is sufficient to account for the existence of 
 a watch. Yet we know we should be wide of the truth, were we 
 to conclude that one such agent only was employed in the pro- 
 duction of it. And numberless, indeed, among mankind, are 
 the instances of such harmony of design and of effect, while there 
 is a plurality of designers and efficient agents. How, then, is 
 11 
 
78 
 
 the mind, and especially the untutored mind, that is a stranger 
 to the reasonings of philosophy, to infer with certainty, the exist- 
 ence of only one almighty Agent, merely from the circumstance 
 of one only being necessary to account for existing effects ? 
 
 The remarks under this last particular are introduced merely 
 by the way. They belong to the doctrine of the Divine unity / 
 with that of the Trinity they really have no connexion. Mr. 
 Yates may allege what he pleases about my system of Christian 
 faith inclining me to consider uniformity of plan as proving only 
 unity of design, maintained " by three designers :" but I feel 
 myself entitled to be believed, both by Mr. Yates and by every 
 other person, when I assure him, that when, in writing my ob- 
 servations on the proofs from nature of the unity of God, I intro- 
 duced Dr. Paley's qualification of the argument derived from 
 harmony of design, I had no thought of the doctrine of the Trin- 
 ity in my mind ; that the possibility never once entered my im- 
 agination, of Mr. Yates, or any other reader, mistaking or per- 
 verting my remarks on this point, in the manner he has done ; 
 that I am as firm a believer in the unity of God as Mr. Yates 
 himself; that I hold, in connexion with this, the doctrine of a 
 threefold distinction in the Divine essence, because the inspired 
 records assure me of its existence ; that, while I cannot pretend 
 to explain hozo this distinction subsists, and how it is consistent 
 with unity, I believe, on the authority which affirms both, that 
 there is no contradiction between them, and reckon it quite 
 enough, that, from the nature of the case, as one entirely beyond 
 the comprehension of our minds, such contradiction can never be 
 proved. 
 
 Mr. Yates next proceeds to the argument in support of a 
 plurality of persons in the Godhead, from the plural termination 
 of Alcim, Adnim, and other Hebrew names for God. 
 
 The force of this argument should be viewed as arising ra- 
 ther from the combined eftect of the diflcrent considerations 
 which I have so briefly touched upon. Mr. Yates takes them 
 one by one, makes a distinct and formal argument for me out of 
 each of them, discusses them in this insulated state, so as to pre- 
 vent the reader from observing the support which they mutually 
 afford to each other. 
 
79 
 
 Let us take his remarks, however, as they stand. 
 He first of all thinks it necessary, formally to acquit me of 
 any intention to burlesque the Scriptures, in giving as a " trans- 
 lation" or " version" of my text, " Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our 
 Gods (Aleim) is one Jehovah." Now, surely Mr. Yates could 
 hardly fail to be aware, that I never meant to propose this as a 
 preferable translation or version of this and similar passages ; but 
 used the term Gods in the plural, for no other purpose than to 
 show to the eye of the mere English reader, that the Hebrew 
 Aleim was in that number. I had originally written it, and per- 
 haps it would have been better to have kept it so ; " Jehovah, 
 our Aleim (Gods) is one Jehovah." 
 
 Mr. Yates goes on to observe — " 1 . First, if the plural ter- 
 mination of Aleim, &c. indicates plurality at all, it denotes not 
 only a plurality of persons or subsistences, but a plurality of 
 Gods ; for on this supposition, Mr. Wardlaw's translation is un- 
 doubtedly correct, ' Jehovah, our Gods.'' But this, I presume, 
 is more than even Trinitarians will be disposed to admit." (P. 
 148.) 
 
 Yes, indeed. It is more, certainly, than even Trinitarians, 
 with all their voracious credulity, are disposed to admit. My 
 very first remark on the text was in these words : " Unifi/ and 
 plurality are both here asserted ; and the plurality is emphatically 
 declared to be consistent zuith the unity.'''' (P. 11.) The unity is 
 not disputed. It is affirmed in the Scriptures : it is pointedly as- 
 serted in the very text on which the observations are founded : 
 it is alike maintained by Trinitarians and Unitarians. The on- 
 ly inference that can be drawn, if any is to be drawn at all, from 
 the plural name for God, is, that this unity is a unity of such a 
 nature as admits distinction ; that God is one, but that, at the 
 same time, there is a plurality in the Godhead. The text itself, 
 in which the Divine unity is so peremptorily affirmed, necessari- 
 ly precludes all inference beyond this. 
 
 2. Mr. Yates next quotes a rule, as " resolving the whole 
 mystery," from " that useful book the Hebrew Grammar." The 
 rule quoted in this tone of sarcastic triumph is : — " Words that 
 express dominion, dignity, majesty, are commonly put in the 
 plural." 
 
80 
 
 On this I observe, 1st. The rule, supposing it to be one, is, 
 beyond all doubt, stated in terms by far too general. If it were 
 a rule of any thing like common application, one should expect 
 to find it in all the Hebrew Grammars. Now, although I find it 
 in Wilson, and in Robertson, I do not find it in Parkhurst, nor 
 in Pike, nor in an anonymous grammar used by the teacher from 
 whom I got the rudiments of the language. This appears some- 
 what strange as to a common rule of Syntax. 
 
 2dly. All the instances adduced of the application of this 
 rule, in which the reference is to Jehovah, must be set aside as 
 not at all in point. It is from these that we derive our evidence : 
 and therefore, to bring forward these, as exemplifications of a 
 rule, which is alleged to subvert this evidence, is to beg the 
 question in dispute. The rule, if established, must be establish- 
 ed from other cases. Now the particular words enumerated by 
 Wilson are, Aleim, Gods, Adnim, Lords, Bolim, Hnsbands^ 
 Masters : and the exemplification of the rule which he adduces, 
 is Isa. liv. 5. " For thy Maker (Heb. Makers) is thy Husband 
 (Heb. Husbands) Jehovah (God) of hosts is his name," «S^c. — 
 one of the very passages on which we ground our inference ; 
 and which, therefore, can never go to disprove that inference, 
 until it has been otherwise shown, that the phraseology is com- 
 mon in Hebrew syntax, and that there is nothing at all peculiar 
 in the case of its application to Jehovah. The remark applies 
 to all passages similarly circumstanced. 
 
 3dly. If the rule were one of common application, we might 
 reasonably expect to find frequent instances of all the words 
 mentioned by Wilson occurring in the plural, with a singular ap- 
 plication. Yet the only instances of Bol, when it signifies a 
 husband, (and indeed of any of the different Hebrew words so 
 translated in our common version.) occurring in the plural, are, 
 so far as I have been able to discover, two in number, viz. Isa. 
 liv. 5. already quoted, and Jer, xxxi. 32. ; in both of which, it 
 is rather singular, the application happens to be to Jehovah. As 
 to the same word, when used to signify a master or oxoner, the in- 
 stance's of its occurrence, when considered as exemplifications 
 of dominion, dignity, and majesty, are somewhat cnri'^n?. It is 
 
81 
 
 applied, Exod. xxi. 28. xxii. 11. to the " owner^^ of an ox, or 
 an ass, or a sheep ; and in Isa. i. 3. to the " master''' of an ass : 
 in which places it is in the plural number. I am not sure that 
 the plural form of it occurs in this acceptation any where else. 
 There is a high degree, no doubt, of dominion^ dignity, and ma- 
 jesty, in being the proprietor of an ox, or an ass, or a sheep ; a 
 degree eminently worthy of a departure from the ordinary estab- 
 lished principles of language to express it. I should think it, 
 for my own part, more simple and reasonable to conclude, that 
 since, throughout the context of the passages referred to, the 
 word, when not in construction rvith the pronoun suffix, is in the 
 singular number, and only assumes an apparently plural form, 
 when in such construction, (a variation not readily accounted for 
 on the principles of the rule in question ; the dom,inion of the 
 master over his ox or his ass, and his dignity as its possessor, 
 continuing the same) — either that Boli is used as a singular form 
 of the noun, when in these circumstances of regimen.* or that 
 owner in the singular, and owners in the plural, are used promis- 
 cuously, because an ox, or an ass, or a sheep, may be the prop- 
 erty either of one owner, or of more than one. 
 
 4thly. With respect to the word Adkxm, to which Mr. Yates 
 confines his examples of the rule ; it is, first of all, to be notic- 
 ed, that in no one of the instances which are adduced by him, 
 does it occur in its full plural form, Adnim. It is, in every one 
 of them, in a state of regimen with some pronominal affix, and 
 
 * Gousset, in his Commentarii Lingua Ebraicce (to Avhich my attention has 
 been directed since writing the above), in a long and ingenious defence of the 
 argument for a plurality of persons in the Godhead from the plural form of Elo- 
 him, expresses, I observe, a similar opinion : — " Nam ad id," says he, " alle- 
 gantur dictiones Boli, Adoni, constructas sic aut cum afSxis ; sed dubitari potest 
 annon sint verc singulares, quibus ^ ex proprio quodam ingenio (ut pra?positioni 
 Sn ■'Sn) accrescat : (quod etiam infra ita se habere ostendatur :) hie autem, 
 nullum de nominis Aleim pluralitate dubium est." — Gussetii Comm. Ling. Ebr. 
 p. 51. Amstel. 1702. Wilson himself (p. 152 of his grammar) mentions the 
 words for Father, Brother, and Father-in-law, as assuming Yot before the affix- 
 es; raN thy Father, his vnx Brother, H'an her Father-in-law. May not Bol 
 be another instance of the same kind ? In a nofe, too, page 264, he says, " Yot 
 is often added to prepositions and adverbs, enphonia causa.^^ May not this he 
 the case with other words besides ? 
 
8S 
 
 appears in the form of Adm. I am not quite such a Tyro as to 
 be ignorant that the mem of the plural termination is dropt in 
 such circumstances. But I find Adni considered by some He- 
 brew grammarians as a form of this noun in the singular num- 
 ber. 
 
 Thus, Parkhurst : " 9. ' postfixed is formative in some nouns, 
 both substantive, as 'ans, (Adni) Lord, nD fruit; and adjective," 
 &;c. Thus, too. Pike : " pnx, px, onx, (Adni) a Master, a Lord, 
 a Sustainer." Allix, also, in his " Judgment of the Jewish 
 Church against the Unitarians," (a scarce, and, in some respects, 
 a valuable work) says : " This notion of plurality must have 
 sunk deep into the minds of the Jews, seeing they have constant- 
 ly read the word Jehovah, which is singular, with the vowels of 
 the word Adonai, which is plural, instead of Adoni, which is sin- 
 gular.^^ (Page 132.) See also, for the opinion of another 
 learned Hebrean, the preceding J^ote. 
 
 The only instance in which I find Adnim in its complete and 
 decidedly plural form, and yet translated by the singular (with 
 exception of those which relate to Jehovah), occurs in 1 Kings 
 xxi. 17. " These have no master^'''' (Heb. masters :) in which 
 case, although the expression refers to the fall of Ahab, we yet 
 should not feel as if the sense were very palpably violated, as 
 to the state to which his fall reduced the people, although the 
 plural had been retained in the translation. 
 
 5thly. Had the rule in question been a commoyi idiom of the 
 language, we might very reasonably have expected to find it in 
 application, in the case of such words as King, Prince, Ruler, 
 and many others of a similar description, which convey the ideas 
 of dominion, dignity, and majesty, surely much more impressive- 
 ly than the word used for the owner or master of an ox or an 
 ass. No such instances, however, are adduced. 
 
 6thly. While the commormess of this rule or idiom is far from 
 being established by the facts in the practice of the language, I 
 almost wonder that it should not : because it appears to me, that 
 an idiom of this kind would find an origin so natural, in the very 
 circumstance of the name of the One God in three persons hav- 
 ing a plural form. In him are concentrated all the ideas we can 
 
form, and infinitely more, of dominion, dignity, and majesty. 
 And, in these circumstances, it might have been highly natural 
 for the Hebrews, to give a plural termination to other words in 
 their language, expressive of similar qualities and attributes. 
 
 3. The last observation is applicable, with particular force, 
 to the case oi false Gods. It is surely not at all a surprising 
 thing, that when the plural name has been applied to the true 
 God, it should be used also in application to the idols of the 
 heathen. There is nothing more wonderful in the name being 
 so used in the plural form, than in its being so used at all. The 
 same principle which accounts for the name God being given to 
 heathen Deities at all, will equally well account for its being 
 given to them in the particular form in which it is applied to the 
 true God. " We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and 
 that there is no other God but one." Yet the name of God is 
 given to them in the Scriptures, in accommodation to the false 
 conceptions and customary phraseology of their deluded wor- 
 shippers. We never think of inferring that idols in general pos- 
 sess divinity, from their being called Gods ; and neither do we 
 infer, on the same principle, plurality in the particular idol, from 
 the plural name of the One God being used in speaking of it. 
 The circumstance of the plural name being applied to individu- 
 al idols, does not, therefore, by any means " show the futility''^ 
 of the reasoning against which Mr. Yates argues ; because, if 
 the name was first given to the true God, and then transferred in 
 its application to false Gods, the cause of its assuming the plu- 
 ral form in its primary application, may, after all, have been 
 what we allege, the threefold distinction in the Divine Unity. 
 And, if these remarks be well founded, the reason which ac- 
 counts for the use of the plural name of God, when a false De- 
 ity is spoken of, will, of course, account also for the occurrence, 
 on such occasions, of any peculiarities of syntactical phraseolo- 
 gy which arise out of it. 
 
 4. Mr. Yates mentions, that many of the most learned Trin- 
 itarians have rejected the argument from the plural form of the 
 name of God. Who these many are, I am not at present very 
 careful to inquire. The argument may be a tolerably sound one 
 
8l! 
 
 after all ; even altliough Calvin himself should have questioned 
 it. " That celebrated man," says Mr. Yates, " had too much 
 learning, and too much sense, to build his system on such a san- 
 dy foundation." The answer to this is, So have we. We do 
 not build our system on this foundation. It is only one consid- 
 eration among many, which mutually derive and communicate 
 strength to one another. Even if Mr. Yates should make out 
 this to be sand, we have abundance of solid rock besides. With 
 respect to learning (that is, Hebrew learning — the only descrip- 
 tion of learning that has to do with the case) we have higher au- 
 thorities on our side than Calvin. 
 
 The following is the conclusion to which Gousset draws his 
 argument, in the learned work before referred to : " Ex his se- 
 quitur pluralem de Deo locutionem proprie ac in tota vi sua su- 
 mendam, ut idiomatis Ebraicae linguas obtemperetur ; ideoque fa- 
 tendum esse illam pluralitatem in Deo disertissime et validissime 
 asseri." Comm. Ling. Ebr. p. 52. — " From these considera- 
 tions it follows, that the plural form of speech concerning God, 
 is to be taken strictly and in its full force, if we would comply 
 with the idiom of the Hebrew tongue ; and that therefore it ought 
 to be acknowledged, that by this phraseology, plurality in Deity 
 is most distinctly and strongly affirmed." — In the same connex- 
 ion he expresses himself in these remarkable words — " At in- 
 quis, pluralitati isti obstat Dei natura. Ego, contra, qui scis ? 
 plus valet locutio Dei qui scit, quam ratiocinatio tua, qui nes- 
 cis. Regeris, sunt aliae causas pluralis locutionis. Ego repono, 
 propria et naturalis ejus causa est rerum insignitarum pluralitas : 
 ex ea venire solet plm-alis forma nominis, nee efficaciori modo il- 
 ia indicari potuisset quam locutione ista et diserta et solenni. 
 Omnis ergo humilis verbi Dei discipulus, quid ille dicat, bona 
 fide, excipere studcns acquiescat." Ibid. p. 52. " But you 
 will say, This plurality is inconsistent with the nature of God. I 
 ask, in return. How do you know that ? The declaration of 
 God, who knows, is of more weight than your reasoning, who do 
 
 not /cmna. There are other causes, j^ou retort, of a plural form 
 of speech. I answer, its proper and natural cause is plurality in 
 the things signilled. It is from this that the plural form of a noun 
 
85 
 
 usually arises ; nor could it have been indicated in a manner 
 more effectual than by this description of phrase, at once elegant 
 and consistent with use. Let every humble learner, therefore, 
 of the word of God, settle it in his mind, to receive, in sincerity 
 and truth, whatever he may dictate." 
 
 Kennicott himself, that master in Hebrew literature, main- 
 tains the validity of our argument. In mentioning the facts res- 
 pecting the construction of Aleim, when used as the name of the 
 true God, I took for granted the correctness of the ordinary state- 
 ment, that it is sometimes connected with plural verbs, as well as 
 with plural adjectives and pronouns. In the following passage, 
 Kennicott denies the accuracy of this statement, and places the 
 argument in a dift'erent and interesting light : — '' Marsilius Fici- 
 nus, qui etiam medio sec. 15. floruit, in tractatu dc Christiana re- 
 ligione, cap. 30. ait — se in disputationibus adversus Judceos trans- 
 latione LXX» Interpretum libenier uti, zit cos egrcgiis illustrium 
 Judceorum armis convinceret. Hujus viri annotatio, quam statim 
 proferemus, respicit rem considcratione dignissimam, quamvis 
 earn ipse leviter attigerit. Est autem ha3C — Jungitur nomen Dei 
 plurale verbo plurali in Reg, lib. 2. ' Qiice est gens, ut populus 
 Israel ; propter quam ivix Deus.' Veritas Heb. dicit iverunt 
 Dii. Dicere debuisset, tria dari loca in quibus rer6?tm iwxnc plu- 
 rale est, licet ibi nominativus Aleim de uno vero Deo certissime 
 intelligendus sit. Tria loca sunt Gen. xx. 13.', xxxv. 7. ; ct 2 
 Sam. vii. 23. Notatu quidem dignum est, banc differentiam fere 
 semper observari ; scilicet, quando plurale hoc nomen Aleim de 
 falsis diis usurpatur, verbum ipsi annexum plurale est; et quan- 
 do de Deo adhibetur, verbum est singulare. Argumentum vero 
 hac diflerentia nixum, sospius adhibitum ad probandam pluralita- 
 tern, et tamen unitatem, in Numine Divino, non valet concluse, 
 nisi verba, in unum omnia, hoc modo annexa, singidaria vel nunc 
 sint, vel olim fuerint. Turn enim denique, quando probatum est, 
 banc regulam scribendi, prorsus peculiarem, ab omnibus Scrip- 
 toribus Divinis, et in singulis exemplis observari — tum denique, 
 inquam, argumentum inde petes firmum, atque (uti videtur) mini- 
 me refellendum. Momenti igitur baud levis est, si notetur, tria 
 verba, hujus regulse exceptiones, pro certo esse eorrupta : quum 
 12 
 
86 
 
 liorum duo priora ab omnibus, quotquot reperiri potuerunt, Pen- 
 tatcuchi Samaritani cxemplis corriguntur ; tertiumque corrigitur 
 a loco parallelo in ipso textu Hebraico 1 Chron. xvii. 21." — 
 " Marsilius Ficinus, who also flourished in the middle of the 15th 
 century, in a treatise on the Christian religion, chap. 30th, says, 
 that in disputing against the Jews, he made liberal use of the 
 translation of the Seventy, that he might overcome them with the 
 excellent weapons of eminent countrymen of their own. The 
 remark of this writer, which we are about to notice, respects a 
 matter highly worthy of consideration, although- he himself has 
 touched it but lightly. It is this — In the 2d Book of Kings" (in 
 our Bibles the 2d Book of Samuel,) " the plural name of God is 
 joined to a plural verb — ' What nation is like the people Israel, for 
 which God went, &c.' — in the original Hebrew, Gods went. 
 He ought to have said, that three passages are adduced, in which 
 the verb is noio in the plural number, although in all of them the 
 nominative Aleim is, without controversy, to be understood of 
 the one true God. The three passages are, Gen. xx. 13. ; xxxv. 
 7. ; and 2 Sam. vii. 23. It is well deserving of notice, that the 
 following distinction is almost invariably observed : namely^ 
 when this plural name Aleim is used to signify false Gods, the 
 verb connected with it is plural ; but when it is a designation of 
 God himself, the verb is singidar. But the argument which rests 
 on this distinction, frequently adduced to prove plurality and yet 
 tmity in the Godhead, is not conclusively valid, unless all the 
 verbs, without exception, which are so connected, either now are 
 singular, or were so originally. Then, however, when it has 
 been shown, that this rule of writing, so entirely peculiar, ~is ob- 
 served by all the sacred penmen, and in every instance ; then, I 
 say, you will obtain from the circumstance an argument, well 
 founded, and, as it seems to me, incapable of refutation. It is, 
 therefore, of no small consequence to observe, that the three 
 verbs, in the cases of exception to this rule, are unquestionably 
 corrupt readings ; the two former being corrected by all the cop- 
 ies which have yet been discovered of the Samaritan Pentateuch ; 
 and the third by the parallel passage in the Hebrew text itself. 1 
 Chron. xvii. 21." (Dissert. Gener. p. 48. §. 100.) 
 
87 
 
 Mr. Yates, with a contemptuous appeal to " those who have 
 learned Hebrew," is pleased to school me for speaking of the 
 plural name for God, and of certain constructions connected with 
 it, as anomalies, or irregularities. (Page 152.) Does Mr. Yates, 
 then, deny the existence of any principles of general grammar ? 
 If their existence is admitted, then peculiar idioms, even although 
 uniform in their use in the particular language where they occur, 
 are, with reference to such principles, in strict propriety of 
 speech, anomalous or irregular. And it becomes a matter of cu- 
 rious and sometimes interesting speculation, to trace such idioms 
 to their respective origins. Even if Mr. Yates had made it out 
 that the constructions in question were agreeable to a uniform 
 rule of Hebrew syntax, they would still be deviations from the 
 principles of general gi*immar, and, in this view, anomalous. But 
 we have seen that, so far from the rule which he quotes be- 
 ing uniform, he has not made it out to be even common : so that 
 I am still warranted to say, that in Hebrew syntax itself the con- 
 structions in question are anomalies, or irregularities. In the lat- 
 ter of the two instances, indeed, in which he finds fault with me 
 for so calling them, he fully admits that they are, after all, what 
 he had just before denied them to be : — 
 
 " In the third place," says he, " Mr. Wardlaw argues for a 
 plurality of persons in the Godhead, from the construction of the 
 Hebrew names for God with verbs, sometimes in the singular 
 number, and sometimes in the plural. This construction he calls 
 an anomaly or irregularity. But those who have learned Hebrew 
 know, that, when a plural noun is used to denote a single object 
 (which is the case in various instances) the verb is sometimes put 
 in the plural, out of regard merely to the plural termination of the 
 noun." (P. 152.) — This is curious. He had before quoted with 
 triumph the rule — " Nouns that express dominion, dignity, majes- 
 ty, are commonly put in the plural." Now, we know that the oc- 
 currence, in the Hebrew Scriptures, of words expressive of such 
 qualities, is very frequent : — yet here, in lieu of his common rule, 
 we have the reduced and quaUfied phr-aseology ; " it is the case 
 in various instances, '''' And with respect to the construction of 
 such nouns with verbs in the plural, he says — " the verb is somC' 
 
88 
 
 fimcs put in the '• plural, out of regard merely to the plural ter- 
 mination of the noun." Now surely that which is done only in 
 various instances, and sometimes, is admitted to be a deviation 
 from the customary practice, or established usages of the lan- 
 guage ; — that is, to be an anomaly or irregularity/. 
 
 I now come to Mr. Yates' strictures on the passages in which 
 Deity is represented as speaking of himself in the plural num- 
 ber : — Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" — Let 
 us go down, and there confound their language :" — " Whom shall 
 I send, and who will go for us .^" 
 
 My first remark here is, that Calvin, that " celebrated man," 
 had neither so much learning, nor so much sense as to reject the 
 argument for the Trinity derived from these. " Scio," says he, 
 " multis nasutis ludibrio esse, quod ex verbis Mosis personarum 
 distinctionem elicimus, ubi Deum sic loquentem inducit, Faciam- 
 us hominem ad imaginem nostram. Vident tamen pii lectores 
 quam frigide et inepte hoc velut colloquium induceret Moses, ni- 
 si subessent in uno Deo plures personae. Jam qnos alloquitur 
 pater, certum est fuisse increatos : nihil vero increatum excepto 
 ipso Deo, et quidem uno, &c."* " I am aware that our inferring 
 a distinction of persons from the words of Moses, when he intro- 
 duces God as saying, ' Let us make man in our image,' has^been 
 matter of mockery to many scofters. The pious reader, howev- 
 er, will be sensible how tamely and inappropriately this would 
 be introduced by Moses in the form of conversation, unless there 
 subsisted a plurality of persons in tiic one God. Those whom 
 the Father now addresses were without doubt uncreated ; — but 
 nothing is uncreated excepting God, and God is one," &c. 
 
 My next observation is, that when Mr. Yates represents us 
 as setting these three texts in opposition to the " thousands and 
 tens of thousands" of passages, which, by the use of singular 
 pronouns, imply the unity of God, he forgets, or rather tries to 
 make his reader forget, that we see no opposition between the 
 thousands and the three : — that we consider the distinction im- 
 plied in the three to be a distinction perfectly consistent with the 
 unity implied in the thousands ; and that wc arc as decided 
 /fiends to the latter as to the former. 
 
 ♦ Institutes, B. I. €h. 13. Sect. 24. 
 
89 
 
 Mr. Yates says, in another part of his work, (p. 67.) — "When 
 God appears to Abraham, he thus speaks (Gen. xvii. 1, 2.)'/ 
 am the Almighty God ; walk before me and be thou perfect : and 
 I will make my covenant between me and thee? To represent 
 the address of more persons than one, the following language 
 would have been employed ; We are the Almighty God (or Al- 
 mighty Gods) ; walk before us, and be thou perfect ; and we will 
 make oivr covenant between us and thee." But this supposed 
 language is precisely parallel to the language under discussion. 
 We say that such language in the three passages in question does 
 imply plurality of persons ; while at the same time, the unity of 
 God being so decidedly a doctrine of the same Book, we con- 
 clude that this plurality must (although in a way inexplicable by 
 us) be consistent with unity. But what does Mr. Yates ? He 
 states the language which 7oould be used if a plurality of persons 
 were intended ; and yet, when such language is used, he refuses 
 to admit that it has any reference to plurality at all, and endeav- 
 ours to explain it as the language of majesty. But alas ! if this 
 same language of majesty be also the language which would have 
 been used, if three persons (by which Mr. Yates means three 
 gods) had been intended ; what a cloud would in that case have 
 been thrown over the evidence for the fundamental article of the 
 Divine unity, if the language of majesty had been uniformly em- 
 ployed by the Great Supreme ! 
 
 In opposition to the Unitarian explanation of the three texts 
 above quoted, I had alleged, in the first place, that " it is not 
 consistent with fact, that the Supreme Being is ever represented 
 in the Scriptures as using this particular style ;" that is, the plu- 
 ral number as the language of majesty. " By this assertion," 
 says Mr. Yates, " he (Mr. W.) only takes for granted the thing 
 to be proved." (Page 155.) If the three passages themselves 
 be considered as included in the assertion, Mr. Yates is perfect- 
 ly correct ; and I frankly admit the inadvertent inaccuracy of 
 my expression. It is still true, however, that all the rest of the 
 Bible is against the interpretation of these three passages as the 
 language of majesty : for it is still true, that no other instances 
 of this style of expression occur, and especially in those " most 
 
.yo 
 
 bublime and solemn portions of Holy Writ, in which the Divine 
 Majesty of heaven and earth is introduced as speaking ;" where, 
 surely, if any where, we might have expected to find it. The 
 arguments, therefore, on this point, in a comparative view, stand 
 thus : JVe can bring forward a multitude of passages from other 
 parts of Scripture, which agree in proving that the Son and the 
 Holy Spirit are God as well as the Father : that is, that there is 
 in the Divine unity a distinction or plurality of persons : and 
 we think it reasonable, to consider the particular expressions in 
 question as arising also from the existence of this distinction, 
 and as corroborative proofs of its reality. Our opponents, on 
 the contrary, interpret these expressions as the language of ma- 
 jesty ; but they can produce no other passages throughout the 
 Scriptures, not even in those parts of them where it might most 
 naturally be expected, in which the blessed God employs this 
 style. Let the reader, then, determine between the two sides 
 of the case. 
 
 I had said, in the second place, that " this was not, in point 
 of fact, the style of the kings of the earth themselves in the time 
 of Moses ; and that no instance of it could be produced from 
 the whole Bible." 
 
 In opposition to the latter part of this assertion, Mr. Yates 
 produces the examples of Rehoboam, of Artaxerxes, of Christ, 
 and of Paul. With regard to Paul, it is sufficient to observe, 
 that when he uses the plural pronouns. We, us, our, in " express- 
 ing his own feelings and condition," he may naturally be sup- 
 posed to include fellow-labourers as participating in those feel- 
 ings and in that condition ; such fellow-labourers as those whom 
 he frequently associates with himself at the commencement of 
 his letters: "Paul, and Sosthenes," 1 Cor. i. 1. : " Paul and 
 Timothy," 2 Cor. i. 1. : "Paul and Timotheus," Phil. i. 1. : 
 "Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus," 1 Thess. i. 1. : 2 Thess. 
 i. 1. kc. 
 
 As to the instance adduced of Jesus Christ using the style in 
 question, viz. John iii. 11. " fFe speak that which we know, and 
 testify that which rve have seen, and ye receive not our witness ;" 
 it is far from being a clear and decisive one. When Christ, in 
 
91 
 
 this same sentence, addresses an individual by the pronoun ye, 
 evidently including others along with Nicodemus, is it perfectly 
 certain that in using the pronoun we, he does not include others 
 along with himself ? Some accordingly understand him as asso- 
 ciating with his own the testimony of the Baptist : others con- 
 ceive that he includes the testimony of the Father and of the 
 Spirit: (compare John viii. 18.: xv. 26.:) while others still, 
 think it more simple and natural to interpret the language as that 
 of authority.* Something forcible might be said in support of 
 each of these explanations : and, at the risk of having prejudice 
 imputed to me as the source of my indecision, I profess myself 
 at a loss to determine which of them should have the preference. 
 
 Mr. Yates' commentary on the case of Rehoboam appears to 
 me quite inconsistent with the character of that foolish and self- 
 willed prince, as developed by his conduct. In consulting the 
 old men, he uses the singular number : " How do ye advise 
 that / may answer this people ?" — " But when he consults the 
 young men," says Mr. Yates, " he assumes a higher tone, and 
 says, ' What counsel give ye, that we may answer this people V " 
 Now it seems to me, on the contrary, that Rehoboam was aware 
 of the prudence of these aged counsellors of his father, and had 
 a pretty shrewd guess of the kind of advice he was likely to get 
 from them. He did not like the old greybeards, and contemned 
 the moderation of their counsels. He had more of the imperi- 
 ous self-will, than of the modest diffidence of youth. It is nat- 
 ural, therefore, to suppose, that, if he was stately to either, it 
 should have been to these old men. With his young compan- 
 ions, who were brought up with him, with whom he was in hab- 
 its of intimacy, who knew his character, and were aware what 
 kind of advice would be most agreeable, — he probably, instead 
 of assuming " a higher tone,'''' assumed the style of familiarity, 
 associating them with himself, and speaking of the answer he 
 should give the people, as given by the^n as well as by himself, 
 because given by their counseL The reader may judge for him- 
 self between the two views. 
 
 The only remaining instance is that of jirtaxerxes, Ezra iv. 
 18. " The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read 
 * See Doddridge, Not, in loc. 
 
9^ 
 
 before me." Although it is a circumstance somewhat singular 
 that the Royal style should be assumed and relinquished within 
 the compass of this short sentence, I shall admit this to be a sol- 
 itary instance in the Bible, of the plural number being used by 
 a king, when speaking in his own person ; and shall give up, as 
 thus far too unqualified, the assertion, that no one instance of 
 this was to be found in the Scriptures. Here is one Valcat 
 quantum valere potest. 
 
 Unfortunately, however, for Mr. Yates, Artaxerxes did not 
 live in the days of Moses ; and therefore my other assertion 
 " that the plural style was not the style of the kings of the earth 
 in his time," which is the one immediately in point to the pres- 
 ent argument, stands entirely unaffected by the instance. On 
 this assertion, indeed, Mr. Yates attempts to make himself witty 
 at my expense. But his wit falls very harmless — telum imbelk^ 
 sine ictu. My documents, as both he and every other reader 
 were 'perfectly aware, are the writings of Moses himself. If the 
 style was then in use, it might be expected we should find some 
 traces of it there. But nothing of the kind is discoverable ; 
 and yet this writer is supposed to ascribe the words in question 
 to Jehovah, on the principle of the plural style being the custo- 
 mary style of majesty ; and even to introduce him as- using 
 them, when there was not a king or a human being in existence on 
 the earth. 
 
 Mr. Yates closes his observations on these three passages in 
 the following words : — " It is agreeable to the established usa- 
 ges of speech, for a single person to employ the plural pronouns, 
 we, us, our, in order to denote his dignity and authority, whereas 
 there is no rule, according to which several persons can speak 
 of themselves by the use of the singular pronouns, /, me, my. 
 Let die considerate and serious inquirer, therefore, make his 
 choice ; whether he will yield to the authority of thousands and 
 tens of thousands of passages, which teach that God is only one 
 person, and understand the three exceptions to the general lan- 
 guage of the Scriptures as phrases employed to denote the ma- 
 jesty of the speaker ; or whether he will, on the other hand, ad- 
 here to the literal meaning of these three passages, and consG- 
 
93 
 
 quently set at defiance those thousands and tens of thousands of 
 other passages, which cannot, by any rules of grammar, or ca- 
 nons of criticism, be reconciled to the orthodox doctrine of a 
 plurality of persons in the Godhead." (Page 157.) 
 
 This is, no doubt, " the language of majesty :" but it wants 
 a quality infinitely better, the quality of " simplicity and godly 
 sincerity." How often must Mr. Yates be reminded, that the 
 Divine unity is as essential an article of the " orthodox" faith, 
 as of its opposite ? Forget what he may, he never forgets to 
 forget this. The serious inquirer need not " set at defiance'''' the 
 thousands of passages, which assert or imj)ly the unity of God. 
 God forbid that he should ! The denial of that doctrine would 
 be an error of still more alarming magnitude, than the denial of 
 the distinction of persons in the Godhead. According to the 
 principles before laid down, he may hold both doctrines, as mat- 
 ters of Divine revelation, without pretending to comprehend the 
 manner of their consistency. If our views of the Bible be just, 
 the unity of God is not rightly held, unless it be held as a unity 
 that consists with, and involves a threefold distinction ; and, on 
 the other hand, the doctrine of this distinction is essentially per- 
 verted, unless it be held in inseparable connexion with the Di- 
 vine unity. 
 
 With regard to that remarkable text. Gen. iii. 22. which I 
 cannot but consider as belonging to the same class with the oth- 
 er three, Mr. Yates disjoins it from them, and adopts a different 
 principle of solution for the difliculty which it presents to his 
 system : — 
 
 " Behold the man is become as one of us, to knoio good and 
 evil.^^ 
 
 On this text, Mr. Yates thus writes : — " The expression onk 
 OF us evidently alludes to more persons, or intelligent beings, 
 than one. But to prove that they were persons in the Godhead 
 is impossible. The only attribute which they are affirmed to 
 possess is the knowledge of good and evil. If, therefore, it be 
 conceded, that there are any intelligent beings, inferior to the su- 
 preme Deity, who resemble man in the capacity of distinguish- 
 ing between good and evil, to them, wr may reasonably supposo; 
 13 
 
94 
 
 the allusion wus laade. That there are such beings is evident, 
 among other passages, from the 5th verse of this chapter, which 
 accords remarkably with that under review, and directly points 
 to its true interpretation ; ' In the day ye eat thereof, then your 
 eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as Gods, (or angels) know- 
 ing good and evil,'' The assertion, therefore, ' the man is be- 
 come as one of «s,' signifies, not that the man was become like 
 one of the persons in the Godhead ; but that he was become like 
 one of the persons in the heavenly host, resembling them in the 
 knowledge of good and evil." (Pages 157, 158.) 
 
 On this singular passage I observe, 
 
 1st. It is here admitted (for how indeed could it be denied ?) 
 that these words imply the idea of plwality ; and that they are 
 incapable of being interpreted on the principle adopted for the 
 three former texts, as being the language of majesty, used by one 
 person. 
 
 2dly. The introduction, in this way, of a different principle 
 of interpretation, is arbitrary in the extreme. The same per- 
 sons who are represented as saying, " Let us make man,'''' ought, 
 on all reasonable principles of exposition, to be understood as 
 also speaking here — " Behold the man is become as one of us." 
 If the Creator speaks in the plural at the form.ation of man, why 
 not the Lawgiver and Governor at the fall of man ? That sys- 
 tem is surely suspicious, which obliges its supporters to have re- 
 course to two different expedients, or grounds of solution, for 
 the same phraseology, in the same context, and used by the 
 same speaker. 
 
 3dly. I appeal to the common sense and to the piety of my 
 readers, whether it be natural, or consistent with right impres- 
 sions of the majesty of the Divine Being, to suppose him thus 
 placing himself on a footing with his creatures ; taking them in 
 along with himself, as belonging to the same class or description 
 of beings ; speaking to his angels, in terms of familiarity, as if 
 he were only primus inter pares : — " as one of us !" 
 
 4thly. While the circumstance of Mr. Yates' adducing a proof 
 from the context of the existence of angels, lets us into a secret 
 of his creed, in which, I believe, he differs from some of his bro- 
 
95 
 
 thren ; I mean the belief that there are such spiritual beings ; — - 
 not only is the proof itself invalid, but the text from which it is 
 drawn, so far from supporting his views as to Jehovah's includ- 
 ing these spirits with himself, by the plural pronoun, is decisive 
 in favour of the opposite. The text is — " the serpent said unto 
 the woman, ye shall not surely die : for God doth know, that in 
 the day ye eat thereof then your eyes shall be opened, and ye 
 shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." So our translation 
 stands. But there seems to be no propriety in rendering the 
 same word (the name of God) in the singular number, and in its 
 supreme sense, in i\\e former part of the verse, and in the plural 
 number, and inferior sense, in the latter. In my mind it admits 
 of no doubt, that the true translation of the Devil's words is, 
 " God doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes 
 shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and 
 evil." This gives the temptation all its force, and all its malig- 
 nity ; and at the same time preserves the same word (and a lead- 
 ing word too) from shifting its meaning in the same short sen- 
 tence : a principle of grammar from which hardly any plea short 
 of necessity can justify a deviation. Mr. Yates could not be ig- 
 norant that different critics and expositors^ had assigned this 
 meaning to the word. I had given the translation myself, (al- 
 though without any comment) in my first Discourse, within a 
 few pages of the passage on which he was commenting. It is 
 one which, I think, must commend itself to Mr. Yates' own judg- 
 ment, if he allows his judgment its free and unbiassed exercise. 
 And if it be well founded, then we have only to compare the ex- 
 pression " ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil," with 
 the expression, " behold the man is become as one or us, to 
 know good and evil," to determine irrefragably the validity 
 of the argument derived from the latter, for a plurality of per- 
 sons in the Divine unity. The two expressions, occurring in 
 the narrative of the same event, are correlatives ; — and ought to 
 be interpreted as having the same reference, and the same ex- 
 tent of meaning. According to the interpretation just given, this 
 is strictly the case. According to the other interpretation, it is far 
 from being so. The temptation itself is, " ye shall be as gods,^"* 
 
96 
 
 (or angels ;) the supreme God not being at all included : — but i/i 
 the record of the success and effect of the temptation, He is in- 
 cluded. He does not then address his angels, and say, " the 
 man is become as one of you ;" which would have accorded with 
 the language of the temptation, if Aleim meant angels ; but he 
 goes beyond the extent of the temptation, — by including Himself : 
 " the man is become as one of us." 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Mr. Yates goes on, in Chapter III. of Part III. to examine 
 the evidence for a Trinity of persons in the Godhead. 
 
 The first thing that strikes us here is what 1 must, however 
 reluctantly, call by its proper appellation, a piece of shameful 
 imposition on the inattentive and simple reader, arrayed too in 
 all the pomp, and impressed with all the emphasis, of capitals : 
 " In order that we may judge," says Mr. Yates, " whether the 
 Scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity is such as this 
 tase seems to demand, it will be advisable to collect together in- 
 to one view, all the passages which are commonly supposed to 
 contain it." Then follows : 
 
 " A LIST OF ALL THE PASSAGES OF THE OlD AND NeW 
 
 Testament, which assert, in terms more or less direct 
 
 AND express, that IN THE UNITY OF THE GoDHEAD THERJE 
 ARE THREE DISTINCT SUBSISTENCES OR PERSONS, THE FaTHER, 
 
 THE Son, AND THE HoLY SpiRiT." (Page 160.) 
 
 Subjoined to this title, which is, of course, intended to have, 
 in the minds of the inconsiderate, all the effect of a pillory for the 
 "hapless Trinitarians, there are no fewer than seven texts ! I have 
 called this a shameful imposition. 1 should rather have called it 
 an attempt at imposition : for he must be ignorant indeed of his Bi- 
 ble, and of the state of this controversy, with whom it can succeed. 
 With every person possessed of the slightest knowledge of eith- 
 er, it must be utterly impotent. Did Mr. Yates feel no " compunc- 
 
97 
 
 -lious visitings''^ while he wrote this ? Did no blush of secret 
 shame suffuse his countenance ? Did he venture to indulge a 
 self-complacent satisfaction in the felicity and originality of the 
 thought, and in fancying how it might take with his readers ? I 
 pity him if he did. 
 
 Mr. Yates has given (p. 65.) a list of passages asserting the 
 Divine unity. Were any person to ask " Are these all ? he 
 could instantly confront the inquiry with thotisands and tens of 
 thousands,'''^ that teach the same doctrine by implication. On 
 the same principle, I have said : " The argument in support of 
 the doctrine of the Trinity is not, by any means, completed, when 
 those passages of Scripture have been adduced, in which that 
 doctrine is asserted or implied in its full extent ; in which, that 
 is, all the three persons of the Godhead are introduced together. 
 The proofs of the divinity of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, form 
 distinct portions of the same body of evidence ; all bearing di- 
 rectly on the same great general truth." (P. 29.) The justice 
 of this observation, Mr. Yates himself fully admits. After quot- 
 ing it, he says, (p. 159.) " I agree with him, that all the passages 
 which contain evidence of the divinity of Christ and of the Holy 
 Spirit bear upon the subject. For if Jesus Christ and the Holy 
 Spirit be two intelligent beings,* each distinct from God the Fa- 
 ther, and if each of them be proved to be infinite in all perfec- 
 tions, it will necessarily follow, that there exist three infinite and 
 all-perfect minds, or, in other words, three persons in the God- 
 head." This is a distinct admission (although in such terms as 
 might be expected from a Unitarian) of the pertinence to the es- 
 tablishment of the Trinity of all the proofs of the Divinity of 
 Christ and of the Spirit. But what he immediately subjoins is 
 truly surprising. " It would, however, be impossible," says he, 
 " to reconcile this fact, supposing it proved, with a belief in one 
 God only ;" (very true, according to his statement of the fact ;) 
 " nor ought we to be satisfied with any attempts to establish a 
 doctrine so obscure and so important as that of the Trinity, mere- 
 
 * It would be endless to be commenting, every time I quote such passages, 
 on Mr. Yates' phraseology, which is uniformly and studiedly framed to convej" 
 to his reader's mind an erroneous conception of our sonlimentB, 
 
98 
 
 ly by showing that the Scriptures assert, in separate places, the 
 Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, as well as the Divin- 
 ity of the Father." Here is self-contradiction with a witness. 
 In the sentences first quoted, the proof under consideration is dis- 
 tinctly admitted to be valid and conclusive : if it can be brought 
 and substantiated, " it will necessarily follow,'''' says Mr. Yates, 
 " that there are three persons in the Godhead." Yet in the sen- 
 tences of the same paragraph last quoted, it is as distinctly deni- 
 ed that it is a kind of proof with which we should at all be " sat- 
 isjied.^^ That is, we should not be satisfied with evidence from 
 which the conclusion will necessarily follow. 
 
 But the reason why we should not be satisfied is a very won- 
 derful one. Although we should succeed in proving, from the 
 testimony of the Scriptures, that the Father is God, that the Son 
 is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, we must not, it seems, 
 believe, or at least, we are not bound to believe it to be so, be- 
 cause, forsooth, the proofs are in " separate " places of the Bible ! 
 Who is this that presumes thus to dictate to the Infinitely Wise 
 the precise manner in which he must communicate instruction, 
 before his creatures are obliged to receive it, and to be satisfied 
 with it ? Let Mr. Yates apply his own excellent remark, in an- 
 other part of his volume : " if we study the Scriptures witll true 
 humility and piety : we shall be thankful for every portion of 
 God's word as it is, and endeavour to improve it wisely." 
 
 Had Mr. Yates, then, been so ingenuous, as to give a true 
 list of passages in support of the Trinity, it ought, even upon his 
 own showing, to have consisted, not only of the texts wliich as- 
 sert the doctrine fully, introducing formally all the three persons ; 
 but of all those which are adduced as proofs of the supreme Di- 
 vinity of the Son and the Spirit. Let him present such a list ; 
 and while (as might be expected) there may be some of them fan- 
 ciful and inconclusive, we shall not be fearful of his appeal to the 
 " candid reader," to " peruse the list, and seriously ask himself, 
 whether the passages here brought together, would at once strike 
 the mind of an unprejudiced inquirer with a conviction, that the 
 doctrine of three persons in the Godhead is laid down in the Ho- 
 ly Scriptures." 
 
99 
 
 Mr. Yates arranges his seven texts in the order in which they 
 occur in the Bible. In this way, it so happens, that the two with 
 which he begins are passages which were introduced by me at 
 the close of my ninth Discourse, after having gone through all the 
 evidence I had thought it necessary to adduce in support of the 
 Divinity of Christ and of the Spirit. The two passages are Num. 
 vi. 23 — 26, and Isa. vi. 3. 
 
 " With respect to the two first passages on the list," says Mr. 
 Yates, (the benediction pronounced by the Hebrew priests, and 
 the solemn praise uttered by the Seraphim) " Mr. Wardlaw only 
 produces them as containing ' a tacit reference to the Trinity of 
 persons in the Godhead.' But how was it possible that this ta- 
 cit reference could be perceived before the doctrine was clearly 
 declared ? Can we imagine a more preposterous inversion of 
 ideas and evidences, than that which is attributed to the Author 
 of revelation, by supposing the references to a doctrine to come 
 first in order, and the explicit statement of it afterwards ? How- 
 ever Trinitarians may surmount this difficulty, they must remem- 
 ber, that an allusion to a doctrine is not a proof of it." (Pages 
 161, 162.) 
 
 There is an art in giving a greater degree of prominence to 
 an argument than it was thought entitled to by the opponent who 
 adduced it ; in making it appear in the light of a principal, when 
 it was only brought forward as an accessory, and with an ex- 
 pressly specified conditional probability. I know not whether I 
 am to reckon this a specimen of Mr. Yates' generalship or not. 
 If it was so meant, it is by no means a master-stroke. He sure- 
 ly ought to have noticed the place and the maimer of my intro- 
 ducing the text in question. My words are : " When such pas- 
 sages as our text," (viz. Matthew xxviii. 19.) " and the two on 
 which I have now been commenting" (viz. 1 Cor. xiii. 14. and 
 Rev. i. 4, 5.) " are considered, it becomes more than probable, 
 that in the threefold benediction enjoined by Jehovah himself to 
 be pronounced on the people of Israel, by the priests under the 
 law, there was a tacit reference to the Trinity of persons in the 
 Godhead : ' The Lord bless thee, and keep thee ; the Lord 
 mako his face shino upon thee, and V-f^ gjracious to thoe : the 
 
100 
 
 Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace !* 
 and also, that same glorious doctrine is recognised in the solemn 
 and impressive language of angelic adoration : ' Holy, Holy, 
 Holy, Lord God Almighty ! the whole earth is full of his glory.' " 
 (Page 293.) Now Mr. Yates (although in terms abundantly wa- 
 ry) admits almost as much when he adds to the sentences quoted 
 above : " If the doctrine of the Trinity were previously estab- 
 lished, we might perhaps not irrationally presume, that the three 
 persons in the Godhead were referred to in the threefold praise 
 and benediction : but we cannot make such an application until 
 we know that there are three persons in the Godhead." (P. 162.) 
 The reader, therefore, is at liberty to form his own judgment of 
 the mass of other evidence in support of the doctrine of three 
 persons in the Godhead ; and then to interpret the phraseology 
 of these texts, either as containing a tacit reference to that doc- 
 trine, or as designed only to give intensity to the sentiment, just 
 as he may find his mind affected by the evidence. 
 
 But tacit reference 1 How, says Mr. Yates, can this be ? His 
 reasoning in the above extract, considering its feebleness, is cer- 
 tainly couched in terms of sufficient confidence. It ought to be 
 enough to remind Mr. Yates ; it will be enough, I presume, to 
 remind my readers, that the whole of the ancient Mosaic econo- 
 my was just a system of tacit references, or comparatively ob- 
 scure allusions, to doctrines which were afterwards to be more 
 fully developed. 
 
 With respect to Isa. xxxiv. IG. and Isa. xlviii. 48. Mr. 
 Yates " cannot conjecture what my arguments from them could 
 be, and therefore cannot answer them." I shall not pretend to 
 divine the cause of his inability to conjecture ; but shall only 
 say negatively, that I do not believe it to have been any obtuse- 
 ncss of intellect. " I shall only remark," he says, " concerning 
 the former of these passages, that the pronoun my, which he has 
 printed in small capitals, and upon which therefore, 1 presume, 
 his argument depends, as it appears to me, has nothing corres- 
 ponding to it in the original Hebrew." It so happens, howev- 
 er, that it has all that corresponds to it in the original Hebrew, 
 in every instance, so far as I have observed, in which the phrase 
 
101 
 
 ** my mouth?"* occurs. It is the common form of the phrase in 
 that language. And Mr. Yates, as one of " those who have 
 learned Hebrew,'^'* ought to have known this, and known the rea- 
 son of it. With respect to Isa. Ixviii. 16. let the reader consult 
 the passage with its context. He will find a greater than the 
 prophet evidently the speaker : and yet He speaks of himself as 
 sent by Jehovah, and by the Spirit of Jehovah. And although 
 Mr. Yates alleges that " the expression ' God hath sent me' can- 
 not, without an almost profane violation of common sense, be 
 considered as the speech of God himself," the reader will be at 
 no loss for a solution of this difficulty, at no loss to account for a 
 Divine person being sent^ when he recollects, that Jesus, though 
 in the form of God, took upon him the form of a servant ; and 
 that in the prophecies, in innumerable instances, he both speaks, 
 and is spoken of, in this capacity. 
 
 Matth. xxviii. 19. I am disposed to admit, that my language, 
 in affirming that this passage necessarily implies an act of wor- 
 ship, was too strong and unqualified. That it does, I still have 
 no doubt. But I am satisfied that this arises, in a considerable 
 degree, fi'om my views of the nature of the ordinance of baptism, 
 along with my previous conviction of the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Mr. Yates, however, reasons as if the whole strength of my 
 argument from the passage arose from this consideration alone : 
 — " Does the expression ' to be baptized into a person or thing, 
 or into the name of a person or thing,' sjgnify that that object or 
 thing is made an object of worship, or only that it is made a sub- 
 ject of faith ? The former interpretation is advanced by Mr. 
 Wardlaw, and rests upon his unsupported assertion, — &c." (page 
 164); — as if I excluded from my interpretation of the passage 
 all idea oi profession of faith ; which does not seem very neces- 
 sarily to follow, from my saying that the initiatory rite of bap- 
 tism, prescribed in these words, '■'■involves in it''"' an act of solemn 
 worship. Indeed, so far is my argument from resting either sole- 
 ly or chiefly upon this circumstance, that when the passage is 
 introduced by me the first time (which is in my first Discourse 
 among the proofs of the Trinity in general) I have no^ so much 
 as alluded to this view of it. ' 
 
 14 
 
102 
 
 111 his comments on the text, Mr. Yates has tailed just in the 
 point which it was most essential to his argument that he should 
 prove. He produces no instance of the name of a thing being used 
 as a phrase for the thing itself, " The name of a person," he says, 
 "is an expression often used to signify the person himself;" and 
 he produces one example from the 20th Psalm ; along with in- 
 stances, in which " baptized iyito Christ,'''' and " baptized into the 
 name of Christ,'''' are used as parallels. — But no example, alas ! 
 of the name of an influence, or energy, or operation, used for 
 the influence, energy, or operation itself. And, failing in this, 
 he fails f»iz>c/i/. The question stands unanswered, " What are 
 we to make of the phrase, ' the name of the Holy Spirit,'' if the 
 Holy Spirit means an attribute, or a power, or influence ?" Or, 
 if it signify miracles and spiritxial gifts, what parallel shall we 
 find to such phraseology as the name of miracles and spiritual 
 gifts, for the miracles and spiritual gifts themselves ? — May I re- 
 quest the reader, after perusing Mr. Yates' strictures, to read 
 again pages 15 — 18, and 266 — 269, of my former volume, and 
 judge for himself, how far, after allowing the slight deduction 
 which I have myself made above, the reasoning is at all invali- 
 dated. 
 
 Mr. Yates makes the meaning of the appointed formula to be, 
 "go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them as a 
 testimony of their belief in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit:" (P. 166.) and afterwards he approves the view given 
 from the baptismal service of the English Church, which he thus 
 sums up: — "The Catechumen, before being immersed in, water, 
 avowed his faith in the doctrines of the Christian religion, first, 
 concerning the Father, secondly, concerning the Son, and third- 
 ly, concerning the Holy Spirit." (P. 168>) — He then concludes 
 his remarks on the passage in these words : " If therefore, Mr. 
 Wardlaw would have taken the trouble to inquire into the ap- 
 plication of the phraseology in the other parts of Scripture, and 
 into the sense attributed to the words by all the primitive Chris- 
 tians, he might have spared his ridicule of Dr. Lardner's most 
 excellent paraphrase of this passage." (Page 168.) Dr. Lard- 
 ner's paraphrase {^repeated in a note : — '-Go ye, therefore, into 
 
103 
 
 all the world, and teach or disciple all nations, baptizing them 
 into the profession of faith in, and an obligation to obey, the 
 doctrine taught by Christ, with authority from God the Father, 
 and confirmed by the Holy Ghost." Now it is a little curious 
 to observe, that, while Mr. Yates in his own paraphrase, makes 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in the text, the subjects 
 of the faith professed in baptism, and expresses his agreement in 
 this with Whitby, and Tillotson, and the English Catechism ; the 
 most excellent paraphrase of Dr. Lardner does no such thing, but 
 is constructed on a totally different principle. There is nothing 
 in it about being baptized into the faith of the doctrine conccrw 
 ing the Father, and concerning the Son, and concerning the Holy 
 Spirit ; but of the doctrine taught by the Son (whatever the sub- 
 jects of it might be) with authority from the Father, and confirm- 
 ed by the Holy Spirit. The Son here is not at all introduced as 
 the subject of the faith himself, but as the teacher of the doctrine 
 which is the subject of faith ; the Father, in like manner, is not 
 a subject of faith, but the source of authority ; nor is the Holy 
 Spirit a subject of faith, but the witness (or rather the evidence) 
 of the doctrine taught. These two paraphrases, therefore, are 
 far from being alike. Yet Mr. Yates takes it for granted, that ii 
 1 had well considered the former, I could not but have admitted 
 the excellence of the latter. 
 
 The truth is, the instances adduced by Mr. Yates, to show 
 the sense in which the words were understood by Trinitarian 
 commentators, and by primitive Christians, viz. as meaning a 
 profession of faith in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy 
 Spirit, are perfectly consistent with their holding this faith in the 
 Father, Son, and Spirit, as faith in one God, subsisting in three 
 persons. And Dr. Lardner's paraphrase, is a paraphrase which 
 no one of those to whom Mr. Yates makes reference — neither 
 Whitby, nor Tillotson, nor the Church of England, nor the prim- 
 itive Christians, would have at all admitted : the interpretations 
 quoted from them by Mr. Yates are entirely different. 
 
 In a note, page 164, Mr. Yates refers to Schleusner, and 
 says, " This immensely learned critic, though a Trinitarian 
 adopts the interpretation of Matth. xxviii. 19. which I have de- 
 
101 
 
 fended." The \vords of the critic, under ^dTTi^a, are — '• /Satrr/- 
 ^eiv cig re ovoft.c<, rov irxrpor,-^ &LC. h. e. baptismi rilu obstringere ali- 
 quem, doctrinas dc Deo, Messia, et Spiritu Sancto, a Christo 
 ipso et per apostolos traditae, ut legitur Matth. xxviii. 19." — 
 and, under ovojmx,, — " ^oi7rrt<!^tit m ro mopLU, rov TTxrpoi &IC. pro f<5 rot 
 vccrt^a &c. But it is mere trifling to bring the authority of this 
 " immensely learned critic" against me, when the explanation 
 which he " adopts" is one which I have never denied. Schleus- 
 ner believed the Holy Spirit to be a person in the Godhead, and 
 therefore, when he speaks of being baptized into the name of the 
 Father, the Son, and the Spirit, as equivalent to being baptized 
 into the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, he speaks correctly. 
 But this " immensely learned critic" had, as Mr. Yates says of 
 Calvin, too much learning, and too much sense, to speak of be- 
 ing baptized into the name of influence, or energy, or miracles. 
 Besides, who ever denied that the form of baptism included, and 
 chiefly included, the idea of initiation into the Christian faith— 
 into the faith of the doctrine concerning the Father, and the Son, 
 and the Holy Spirit ? I certainly never thought of denying this. 
 Nor do I yet see the inconsistency of holding this view, and con- 
 sidering the form, at the same time, as involving an act of solemn 
 worship. But 1 complain of Mr. Yates, that he has expended 
 the whole of his reasoning against this latter idea, as if the ar- 
 gument from the passage depended upon it alone. He saw, no 
 doubt, that this was the weakest point of attack, and, like a skil- 
 ful general, he brought his troops to bear upon it. But unfortu- 
 nately, it is a point of attack, which, even when it has been 
 gained, aflbrds no entrance into the citadel. 
 
 On 2 Cor. xiii. 14. Mr. Yates says, (p. 169.) " Paul only 
 expresses, in one sentence, three devout wishes for his fellow 
 Christians, one relating to the favour of Christ, the other to the 
 love of God, and the third to thcjr participation in spiritual 
 blessings." 
 
 On this passage, I must take the liberty of transcribing a 
 paragraph or two from my eleventh Discourse, which Mr. Yates 
 has overlooked : — 
 
 " Two inquiries, then, present themselves on this part of the 
 
105 
 
 subject : — What is meant by ' having the Spirit of Christ ?' — 
 and, What is the legitimate scriptural evidence of the posses- 
 sion ? 
 
 " In answer to the first of these inquiries, it may be observ- 
 ed, that our ' having the Spirit of Christ' is obviously of equiva- 
 lent import with his ' dwelling in us.'' The simple comparison 
 of the preceding clause of the verse with the latter, which forms 
 our text, is sufficient to show this : ' But ye are not in the flesh, 
 but in the Spirit : if so be that the Spirit of God dzcell in you : 
 now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ' — (the same Spirit, 
 observe, called the Spirit of God in the one clause, and the Spirit 
 of Christ in the other) — ' if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,' 
 (that is, dzoelling in him) ' he is none of his.' Similar expres- 
 sions are not uncommon in the New Testament. ' Know ye not 
 that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwclleth 
 in you ?^* — ' What ! know ye not that your body is the temple of 
 the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of God ?'t — ' I 
 will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, 
 that he may abide with you forever: even the Spirit of truth, 
 whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither 
 knoweth him t but ye know him ; for he dzvellcth with you, and 
 shall he in you.^X 
 
 " Such expressions (especially those last quoted, from the lips 
 of Jesus himself) serve to throw a clear and simple light on an 
 apostolic phrase, to which I had occasion formerly to refer, in 
 proof of the Divinity and Personality of the Spirit — ' the com- 
 munion of the Holy GAosi.'§ The idea expressed by the word 
 communion, — or fellowship — accords precisely with that convey- 
 ed by our Saviour's words — ' that he may abide with yo\t^^ — ' he 
 dwelleth with you,'' — ' he shall be in yoxi.'' The apostle wishes, 
 in behalf of the Corinthian believers, the fulfilment of this gra- 
 cious promise of their Lord. It is the same word that is used,|| 
 when Christians are described as having fellowship with the Fa- 
 ther, and with the Son : ' That which. we have seen and heard 
 declare we unto you, that ye also may have fcllozoship with us : 
 
 * 1 Cor. iii. 16. t 1 Cor. vi. 19. t John xiv, 16, 17. 
 
 i 2 Cor. xiii. 13. I| Koiimit*, 
 
106 
 
 and truly ouv felloTvsfvp is with the Father, and with his Son Je- 
 sus Christ.'* And in using this language, John seems evidently 
 to have had in mind the words of his Master, as recorded by him- 
 self, in the same Discourse with those formerly quoted in refer- 
 ence to the Holy Spirit, and in immediate connexion with them : 
 ' Jesus answered, and said unto him. 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.^ "t 
 
 In these various passages, from the gospel and first epistle of 
 John, we have brought before us " the grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy 
 Spirit." Jesus himself, although about to leave his disciples, 
 declares that he would still be with them in the intimate fellow- 
 ship of mutual love. In this he associates himself with his Fa- 
 ther, in terms which we cannot suppose a mere created messen- 
 ger of God to have used, without the most oflensive presump- 
 tion : " He shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and 
 WE will come unto him, and make our abode with him." And 
 in language precisely similar, he promises the Holy Spirit, as 
 another comforter, who was to come to them, to abide with them, 
 to dwell with them, to he in them. 
 
 " ' The communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all,' im- 
 plies," says Mr. Yates, (p. 171.) " that the Holy Spirit does not, 
 in this instance, signify God, or any /)e7-5on. What can possibly 
 be intended by the communion of God ? Is God divided ? Can 
 vic partake of God, or oi diWy person ? No; but we may partake 
 of powers, energies, and influences ; we may enjoy a communioa 
 of spiritual gifts.'''' — We may enjoy a communion of gifts with 
 persons : but a. participation of a person is an idea which cannot 
 enter the mind." But the Apostle Paul was not so scrupulous. 
 He speaks of Christians as " being made partakers of CAm^" 
 Here is participation ofapcison; and the phrase surely express- 
 ed an idea that was in his own mind, and was intended to "en- 
 ter the minds'''' of those to whom he wrote. The expression is 
 never imagined to disprove the personality of Jesus Christ: nei- 
 iher therefore does the other expression (however confidently 
 *■ 1 John i. 3. + Joha xiv. 23, 
 
107 
 
 and scornfully Mr. Yates may affirm it) disprove the personality 
 of the Holy Spirit. For, supposing " the communion of the Ho- 
 ly Spirit" to mean a participation oi Divine influenc&s, these in- 
 fluences may still be the influences of the Holy Spirit, just as 
 being '■'■partakers of Christ'''' signifies enjoying a participation, 
 not of himself personally, but of the eflccts of his mediation. 
 
 With regard to Mr. Yates' parallel passage^ which he seems 
 to consider as so incontrovertible a proof that the text in question 
 contains no evidence of the Divinity of Christ and of the Spirit; 
 namely the conclusion of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians ; 
 he first writes the verses thus — " The grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ be with you all ; my love be with you all in Christ Jesus ;" 
 and then he thus comments : " Here we find coupled together in 
 the same manner ' the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,' and ' the 
 love ofPauL^ If therefore the conclusion of the second epistle, in 
 which Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit, are mentioned in 
 conjunction, proves the divinity of Jesus Christ and of the Holy 
 Spirit, the conclusion of the Jirst epistle, in which Paul is in like 
 manner associated with Jesus Christ, proves the divinity of 
 Paul." — This is, no doubt very smart ; and a Socinian may 
 possibly think it very conclusive ; — a perfect Q. E. D. But 
 for my own part, I do not feel at all surprised that Mr. Yates 
 should, on this occasion, have complained of his being " expected 
 to bring a passage of Scripture to refute every criticism of his 
 opponent, however groundless and unreasonable," when (to use 
 a courteous expression of his own) he felt himself obliged to 
 have recourse to such " egregious trijling.^^ But what more 
 could he do, than produce the best he could find, and make the 
 best of it ? This he certainly has done. By the substitution 
 of a semicolon for a period, he contrives to bring the " grace of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ " and the " love of Paul " into as close 
 contact as possible, thus to give the two passages the nearer re- 
 semblance ; — and then adds, " Here we see the grace of Christ 
 and the love of Paul coupled together in the same manner,''^ 
 Yes ; as nearly in the same manner, as", by this little manoeuvre 
 of the semicolon, could well be managed. But, in spite of all the 
 arts of punctuation — " The grace of ovx Lord Jesus Christ ht- 
 
108 
 
 with you" — "My love be with you all in Christ Jesus," will re- 
 main two distinct sentences, and in this respect can never be par- 
 allel with the other. They are pointed as distinct sentences by 
 Griesbach, and in every version, I presume, except that of Mr. 
 Yates. — But there is another respect in which the parallel nec- 
 .essarily fails, to the entire prostration of Mr. Yates' confident 
 conclusion. — When Paul says, " My love be with you all in 
 Christ Jesus," he cannot be considered as uttering a prayer, or 
 even as expressing a wish or desire. His words relate to feel- 
 ings of which he was at the moment conscious in his own bosom, 
 and contain a declaration of his affectionate regard and attach- 
 ment to the believers at Corinth. This discrepancy in the sense 
 renders the separation of the sentences still more complete, and 
 the connecting virtue of the semicolon the more inefficient, in the 
 attempt to unite them. In the other case on the contrary, there 
 is evidently the utterance of a wish, a desire, a prayer, — of 07ie 
 prayer, in oue sentence, consisting of th-ee distinct yet connected 
 parts. It may gratify the reader, to hear the comment of Faus- 
 tus Socinus himself on this alleged parallel ; which, after 1 had 
 written the foregoing remarks, I found in his Disputation with 
 Francis Davidis on the invocation of Christ. His opponent had 
 said, in the same style with Mr. Yates : " Imo et ipsum Pauluni 
 nos invocare oportet, contra mentem et voluntatem ipsius, qui 
 sibi talem tribui honorem noluit : 1 enim Cor. xvi. inquit, chari- 
 tas mea sit cum omnibus vobis." To this Socinus (who, al- 
 though holding Jesus Christ to be a mere man, most strangely 
 argued, not for the duty indeed, but for the liberty of Christians 
 to invoke or pray to him, on principles which we may hereafter 
 notice) — to this Socinus replies : — " In illis vero, Charitas mea 
 sit cum omnibus vobis in Christo Jcsu, reponis ex tuo sensu ver- 
 bum sit. In textu enim legitur, Charitas mea cum omnibus vobis 
 in Christo Jesu. Vcresimilius vero multum videtur, subaudicn- 
 dum esse hoc loco verbum Est, quam Sit ; ut sit sensus — Dili go 
 vos omncs in Christo Jesu; id est, (ut explicat auctor eruditissi- 
 marum illarum litteralium annotationum in Novo Testamento a 
 Roberto Steph. anno 1545 Lutetijc edito, sen mavis in Bibliis 
 Vatal)li) Diligo vos omnes propter Christum, vel quod Christi 
 
109 
 
 sitis. Qui sensus est planissimus et apposifissimus. Quod si 
 verbura sit subaudias, vix conveniens sententia elici inde pote- 
 nt ; nisi dicimus, Paulum precare ut ament se mutuo in Christo 
 Jesu, ea charitate qua ipse prasditus erat."* " But in tliose 
 words ' my love be with you all in Christ Jesus,'' you must 
 throw out from your interpretation the verb be. For in the 
 original text we read simply, ' my love with you all in Christ 
 Jesus :' and it seems much more likely that is should be applied, 
 than be, so as to make the sense ' / love you all in Christ Jesus ;' 
 that is, / love you all for Christ'' s sake, or, because ye are Christ^s; 
 which is a sense most simple and apposite. Whereas, if you 
 supply the verb be, it is not easy to make out a suitable mean- 
 ing, unless we suppose Paul to pray, that they might mutually 
 love one another, with the same aflcction wherewith he himself 
 was inspired." 
 
 I further refer the reader to what I have before written in my 
 Discourses— pages 16, 17; 120; 139, 140; 290— 293, &c. ;— 
 and then, let Mr. Yates' parallel have all the weight in his mind 
 to which he may think it entided. 
 
 Mr. Yates disposes of the next passage. Rev. i. 4, 5. with 
 greater brevity, but, if possible, with still worse success. I 
 had said on this passage, that " ' the seven Spirits of God ' is 
 evidently an emblematical expression for the Holy Spirit." — 
 Who the "many eminent Trinitarian critics" may be, who "are 
 of a contrary opinion," I do not reckon it needful to inquire. 
 But when Mr. Yates, on such an occasion, urges against me 
 my own objection to many Unitarian interpretations of Scrip- 
 ture ; namely, that the language is, on this supposition, " unnat- 
 ural and affected," there is a variety of considerations of which 
 he seems entirely to lose sight : — 
 
 1st. The Book of Revelation is full of emblematical repre- 
 sentations ; — and, in a book, expressly constructed on this prin- 
 ciple, such language is so far from being unnatural, that we rea- 
 sonably expect to find it, and should be sensible of a kind of in- 
 congruity were it otherwise. The same consideration sufficiently 
 
 * De Jesu Christi Invocatione Disputatio, &c. &c. Secimda Editio Ra- 
 €Oviae 1626— page fj2. 
 
 1.5 
 
no 
 
 accounts for the seven spirits being " before the throne ;" which, 
 without indicating inferiority of nature, does signify, that, in the 
 economy of redemption, the Holy Spirit, in the exercise of all 
 his various influences, proceeds Irom Him that silteth on the 
 throne, and from the Lamb. 
 
 2dly. Not only does the number seven frequently indicate 
 fulness -dwdi perfection j but the correspondence between the seven. 
 churches, and the seveyi angels of these churches, with the seven 
 Spirits of God, imparts (as I have observed on the pjassage in 
 my Discourses, although Mr. Yates has not thought the circum- 
 stance worthy of notice) a peculiar beauty and interest to the 
 emblem, as significant of the " fulness and sufficiency of his 
 influences for the supply of the seven churches, (and, by ob- 
 viously intended inference, of all his churches) with all needful 
 grace." 
 
 3dly. Whatever Mr. Yates makes of the " seven spirits,"^^ 
 there must, at any rate, be a figurative or emblematical represen- 
 tation. That Divine influence should be denominated " the 
 seven spirits before the throne," does not seem to be a vast deal 
 more simple and natural, than the sense which Mr. Yates rejects 
 as unnatural and affected. 
 
 4thly. When Mr. Yates asks (p. 172) " If St. John meant 
 to express a wish of favour from the Holy Spirit, why does he 
 not say so," in plain terms ? we answer, If he did not mean this, 
 then what did he mean ? He most certainly does express a wish 
 (or a desire or prayer) in behalf of the churches, for " grace and 
 peace to them, from the seven spirits before God's throne." 
 What then are these seven spirits ? are they, as usual, the Di- 
 vine influence ? If they be, then observe, in the frst place, we 
 have in the passage a wish or prayer for the same blessings, 
 from a person, from an influence or influences, and from another 
 person. This may seem natural enough to Mr. Yates. It does 
 not seem so to me. In the second place, this interpretation iden- 
 tifies the second part of the prayer with the first. According to 
 Mr. Yates on a former text, " the communion of the Holy Spirit 
 be with you," means, " may you ail share the gift?, and manifest 
 ^he dispositions, which arise from the extraordinary influence of 
 
in 
 
 God upon the members of the Christian church." Now, if, in 
 the passage before us, " the seven spirits before the throne'* 
 signify also the Divine influence, or " the extraordinary influence 
 of God upon the members of the Christian church," then we ar^ 
 tempted to ask. In what possible manner could grace and peace 
 be to them from Him who is, and who was, and who is to come," 
 that is, from God the eternal Father, otherwise than by his influ- 
 ence upon them ? The second part of the prayer becomes, on 
 this hypothesis, a mere repetition of the first. In the <AzVc? place, 
 the truth is, that this text is still more obviously conclusive in 
 our favour than the former. In the former, the expressions were 
 varied ; — the grace of Christ, the love of God, the communion of 
 the Spirit : but in this, the same blessings of" grace and peace" 
 are specified, and they are desired or prayed for, in the same 
 form,yrom the Father, and /rom the Spirit, and yVom the Son. 
 
 5thly. Mr. Yates seems to have feh the difficulty of this pas- 
 sage. Unfortunately for his own consistency, while, in the 
 eighth chapter of his second part, he labours hard to prove, 
 that whenever* the phrase " Holy Spirit" is used in a personal 
 acceptation, it means " the one true God, the Father ;" and 
 that, in its other occurrences, it signifies the Divine influence, 
 either simply, or under the figure of personification ; he appears 
 to have been sensible that neither of these senses would do here, 
 and yet that, after all, it must mean a person ; for he closes his 
 brief comment on the text in these most unexpected, and, on his 
 principles, unaccountable terms : " Lasdy, allowing it to be as 
 evident as Mr. Wardlaw asserts, that the Holy Spirit is meant 
 by the seven spirits before the throne of God, a wish of favour 
 from the Holy Spirit, and from Jesus Christ, would only denote 
 that they have the power of bestowing that favour ; a power, as 
 we learn from other parts of Scripture, conferred upon them by 
 God the Father." Here we find Mr. Yates " learning from 
 other parts of Scripture,''^ that the Holy Spirit is, equally with 
 Jesus Christ, a person, receiving from God the Father power to 
 bestow certain favours and gifts. Truth jvill sometimes force a 
 way for itself, and be out. Let Mr. Yates only "learn from the 
 Scriptures," further, that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are. 
 
H2 
 
 without inferiority of nature, represented as receiving such pow- 
 er officially, in the economy of grace, and he will be " not far 
 from the kingdom of God." 
 
 Some of my readers may think that I have dwelt too long on 
 these passages. My apology is, that as our faith on all such 
 subjects must rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, I was de- 
 sirous, once for all, of confirming my former exposition of them^ 
 and rescuing them from misinterpretation and sophistry. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. . 
 
 I WISH to finish the consideration of Mr. Yates' replies, be- 
 fore going on to the more direct reasonings adduced by him in 
 support of his system. Pursuing this plan, 1 come now to his 
 statement of the orthodox doctrine respecting the person of 
 Christ. 
 
 "Before we begin," says he, (p. 174.) "to examine the 
 evidence for the orthodox opinion concerning the natojre of 
 Christ, it is necessary to know what that opinion is. Nothing 
 could indicate greater irreverence for a question of such vast 
 importance, than to argue and dispute, without even under- 
 standing what we wish to prove. It is, therefore, matter of no 
 small satisfaction, that Mr. Wardlaw's statements are clear and 
 intelligible." — They are clear and intelligible ! Yet in the next 
 page, Mr. Yates takes care most thoroughly to misunderstand 
 them. I wish, from my heart, that this were all ; but I have a 
 heavier charge to bring against him, — the charge of wilful and 
 deliberate misrepresentation ; — a charge, which he has not left, in 
 this instance, to be made out by inference ; but of which he has 
 directly convicted himself. The charge, I admit, is a serious 
 one. Now, then, for the proof of it : — 
 
 " By the nature of any thing," says Mr. Yates, " we always 
 mean its qualities. When, therefore, it is said that Jesus Christ 
 possesses both a Divine and a human nature, it must be meant 
 
113 
 
 that he possesses both the qualities of God, and the quahties of 
 man. But if we consider what these quahties are, we perceive 
 them to be totally incompatible with one another. The qualities 
 of God are eternity.) independence^ immutability, entire and perpet- 
 ual exemption from pain and death, omniscience and omnipotence. 
 The qualities of man are derived existence, dependence, liability 
 to change, to suffering, and to dissolution, comparative weakness 
 and ignorance. To maintain, therefore, that the same mind is 
 indued both with a Divine and a human nature, is to maintain 
 that the same mind is both created and uncreated, both finite and 
 infinite, both dependent and independent, both changeable and un- 
 changeable, both mortal and immortal, both susceptible of pain and 
 incapable of it, both able to do all things and not able, both ac- 
 quainted with all things and not acquainted with them, both igno- 
 rant of certain subjects and possessed of the most intimate knowl- 
 edge of them. If it be not certain that such a doctrine as this is 
 false, there is no certainty on any subject. It is vain to call it a 
 mystery : it is an absurdity, it is an impossibility. According to 
 my ideas of propriety and duty, by assenting to it, I should cul- 
 pably abuse those faculties of understanding, which have been 
 given me to be employed in distinguishing between right and 
 wrong, truth and error. According to the maxims laid down as 
 the guides of our inquiry, and acknowledged by Mr. Wardlaw as 
 fundamental principles, this doctrine could not be established 
 even by the clearest declarations of the Scriptures. For the 
 testimony of the Scriptures would not prove it to be true : on 
 the contrary, its occurrence in the Scriptures would prove them 
 to be false." (Pages 175, 176.) 
 
 Now in all this I have the happiness of most entirely and cor- 
 dially agreeing with my opponent. If the orthodox doctrine be 
 what he here represents it, let it be rejected and proscribed as 
 it deserves, and branded with every epithet that implies impiety 
 and folly. But it is not so. And, what is more, Mr. Yates 
 knows it is not so ; and knew it at the moment when he was 
 sketching and filling up this most hideous picture. Whether 
 any Trinitarian has sat to him for the portrait I know not : — if 
 any one has, we deny the family likeness ; — we do not recognise 
 
114 
 
 8 single feature of consanguinity. But the truth is, Mr. Yates 
 on this occasion, for reasons best known to himself, preferred the 
 pencil of the caricaturist to that of the faithful portrait paiiUpr, 
 and he has certainly shown with what dexterity he can wield it. 
 — Having finished his picture, he exhibits it to the public as the 
 object of their disgust and aversion. But on the painter must 
 alight the indignation and the scorn of every one who is capable 
 of comparing the portrait with the professed original. " Is it 
 like ? — Like whom ?" it has no prototype in nature. It is the 
 monstrous production of a malicious fancy. 
 
 But I am forgetting ths proof of my charge. It is not far 
 off. — In the account given by Mr Yates, in the latter part of his 
 work, of the origin and progress of the Trinitarian error, he says, 
 (pp. 281, 282.) " In 431 another council was held at Ephesus, in 
 which it was voted that the two natures of Christ make but one 
 person; and in 451, another was held at Chalcedon, to determine, 
 that notwithstanding their personal w/it'on, the Divine and human nc- 
 tures of Christ continue distinct. Thus the doctrine was gradually 
 brought to the state in which it has been since received by the reputed 
 orthodox.'''' — Mr. Yates then was perfectly aware, that in the sys- 
 tem of the " reputed orthodox,''"' the Divine and human natures in 
 the person of Christ, continue " distinct ;" that is, (as the word is 
 explained by themselves in this connexion) that they are united but 
 not confounded ; that the peculiar properties of the former are not 
 communicated to the latter, nor those of the latter to the former; 
 — that the union " did not consist in the transmutation of the 
 Divine into the human nature, or in the blending of the one with 
 the other; but in the assumption of the human nature into a 
 close and mysterious conjunction with the Divine, which produ- 
 ced no alteration in either, but united them, in a manner to us 
 incomprehensible, as one principle of operation in the accom- 
 plishment of redemption."* Mr. Yates knew this. He could 
 not but know it ; for it is most distinctly and carefully stated 
 in the confessions and creeds of the Protestant churches. Why, 
 then, has Mr. Yates, in the above extract, sacrificed truth for 
 the sake of pointed antithesis ? Why has he given there a statc- 
 * Sermons by the Rev. John Dick, D. D. just published, Sermoa III. P. 63. 
 
115 
 
 ment of the views of his opponents diametrically opposite to 
 what he knew to be the views they hold ? He has enumerated 
 the properties of God, and the properties of man ; and then, in- 
 stead of keeping them distinct, he has represented the system of 
 Trinitarians as ascribing these opposite and incompatible pro- 
 perties to the same mind : as if they held the doctrine of the hu- 
 man sold of Jesus possessing the attributes of his Divine nature, 
 or his Divine nature the qualities of his human soid. — Mr. Yates 
 has accused me of " bitter misrepresentation,^^ I leave it with 
 the reader to judge, whether, " having searched all my stuff," 
 he has been able to produce any thing comparable to this. — It 
 became Mr. Yates to take up our doctrine as it really is ; — to 
 prove it absurd and contradictory if he was able '. — but, instead 
 of this, he has framed a doctrine for us, and tried to make his 
 thoughdess and ignorant reader (for it could succeed with no 
 other) gape with astonishment and horror at the creature of his 
 own imagination. He has laid on his blows lustily ; but they 
 light on a shadow. No Trinitarian can feel them. The only 
 wound they inflict, is making the heart bleed, in pity for the man 
 who could act so unworthy a part. 
 
 That Mr. Yates was fully conscious at the time, that the 
 view he was giving was a false one, appears pretty clear even 
 from some parts of the context of the strange extract quoted 
 above. In the conclusion of that extract, he says : " According 
 to the maxims laid down as the guides of our inquiry, and ac- 
 knowledged by Mr. Wardlaw as fundamental principles, this 
 doctrine could not be established even by the clearest declara- 
 tions of the Scriptures. For the testimony of the Scriptures 
 would not prove it to be true ; on the contrary, its occurrence in 
 the Scriptures would prove them to be false." Yet in the next 
 paragraph on the same page, he thus expresses himself: " Nev- 
 ertheless, if we find in the Scriptures the unintelligible proposi- 
 tion, that ' in the person of Christ Jesus, a Divine was united 
 with a human nature,' or if this assertion be uttered in these 
 terms, and declared to express a truth, by an accredited prophet, 
 we shall give our implicit assent, presuming that it is understood 
 bv the prophet who pronounces, the apostle who writes, or the 
 
116 
 
 God who dictates it." Now, what is this but to say, If ths 
 Trinitarian doctrine be asserted in the Scriptures, we will believe 
 it ? Is Mr. Yates then prepared to give " implicit assent'''' to a 
 proposition, " the occurrence of which in the Scriptures would 
 be suificient to prove them false ?" It does not belong to me to 
 make out his consistency. I presume, however, that we must 
 apply the former of these two passages to the Trinitarian doc- 
 trine, as Mr, Yates found it convenient to represent it ; (in which 
 case I have already expressed my concurrence with him in all he 
 can say of its absurdity) — and the latter to the same doctrine, as 
 he knew it in reality to be held. 
 
 Before proceeding to Mr. Yates' observations on the Scrip- 
 ture evidence of this point, I shall take this opportunity of offer- 
 ing a few remarks on the philosophy of the case. I had said, 
 (Discourses, pages 32, 33.) " How that which is infinite can be 
 united with that which is finite ; the infinite nature of Deity with 
 the finite nature of a creature ; of a mortal man ; is at once ad- 
 mitted to be beyond our comprehension. But let us see here, 
 as in the former case, whether there be not, in some of the Di- 
 vine perfections, of the existence of which we are accustomed to 
 speak without even the slightest measure of doubt, something 
 quite as incomprehensible ; felt to be so, whenever we attempt 
 to make it the subject of fixed thought, or of distinct conception, 
 I refer to the same attribute of Deity, from which I took my il- 
 lustration formerly. We ascribe omnipresence to God. We say 
 that God is here. But how, I ask, is he here ? How can that 
 which is infinite be here ? What is the nature of that connexion, 
 which subsists between a Being who is infinite, whose existence 
 is boundless, and any particular limited portion of space ? As 
 soon as our opponents have answered this question, we shall be 
 able, I think, to answer theirs. What is the nature of the connex- 
 ion between the infinite nature of Deity, and the finite nature of 
 ' the man Christ Jesus V The principle which afibrds a satis- 
 factory answer to the one, will afford an answer equally satis- 
 factory to the other. That is, they are both alike unanswerable : 
 for I do not introduce the one case, as furnishing any explanation 
 of the other, so as to render it more easily comprehensible \ but 
 
117 
 
 only to show, how apt we are, in one instance, hastily to assume 
 impossibility and contradiction, while in another, in which the 
 difficuhy is equally great, we are accustomed to speak as if we 
 were not sensible that there exists any dilficulty at all." 
 
 Of this reasoning Mr. Yates takes no notice on this particu* 
 lar subject. To similar reasoning on another subject, he does 
 refer, (page 52.) in the following terms : — " As an example of 
 his maxim, that we cannot always understand even the funda- 
 mental truths of natural religion, Mr. Wardlaw produces the at- 
 tribute of omnipresence. He affirms, that we use the expression 
 ' God is here,' and say, ' that he is at the same moment equally 
 present in the remotest part of the universe,' without annexing 
 to these words any distinct ideas. ' Have we,' he asks, 'ever en- 
 deavoured to analyze the conceptions which these modes of expres- 
 sion appear to convey ? Is God,'' he continues, ' a spiritual .sub- 
 stance, infinitely extended? Against this notion of infinite exten- 
 sion there have been advanced powerful, perhaps insurmounta- 
 ble, objections : and the truth is, that, if we imagine we possess 
 any conception at all of the mode of the Divine omnipresence 
 and omniscience, we really deceive ourselves.' Thus Mr. Ward- 
 law appears to me to renounce his belief in the Divine omni- 
 presence. Theologians, in treating upon this subject, have 
 made a distinction between the virtual and the actual omnipres- 
 ence of God. His virtual omnipresence is the attribute by which 
 he is able to produce effects in every part of space. His actual 
 omnipresence is the extension of his substance through every part 
 of space. The former Mr. Wardlaw appears to allow, but to 
 deny the latter. But in the latter, as well as the former, all 
 sound Theists believe : The notion of a spiritual substance infi- 
 nitely extended, is too vast to be fully embraced by our under- 
 standings. It is, however, a clear and distinct idea, nor is there 
 any force in the objections urged against it." 
 
 " Nor is there any force in the objections urged against itJ'^ — 
 In this summary and easy way does. Mr. Yates sometimes get 
 over objections. He thinks it enough to say, he sees no force 
 in them. There may, however, be some force in them notwith- 
 standing. I reckon it necessary to remind the reader, that sv,ch 
 1 6 
 
118 
 
 queries as the following are intended merely to show, how utter- 
 ly incomprehensible this matter is by our limited faculties ; and 
 that the dilFiculty of comprehending it does not arise only from 
 the vastness of the idea. J premise this observation, lest he 
 should think such queries hardly consistent with the awful sa- 
 credness of whatever relates to the nature and perfections of 
 Deity. 
 
 In once conversing with Mr. Yates on the same subject, he 
 said, he saw no difficulty in it, — that the spiritual substance of 
 Deity pervaded space, just as air jiUed a i-oom. Now, in the 
 first place, I ask, does this give us any idea at all of what the 
 spiritual essence or substance of Deity is ? Air is a fluid, pos- 
 sessing the properties of weight and elasticity, and susceptible 
 of condensation and rarefaction. We cannot surely for a mo- 
 ment associate such ideas with the pure spirituality of the God- 
 head. I ask again, on the supposition of an infinitely extended 
 substance, must not a part be in one place, and a part in another ? 
 a part only of God in heaven, and a part on earth ? Then, if 
 this spiritual substance be thus divisible, a part here and a part 
 there, must we not also have a part of the Divine knowledge and 
 power in one place, and a part in another ? Or, if this be ob- 
 jected to, and it be alleged that divine attributes are incapable 
 of subdivision ; then, is every point of the extended substance of 
 Deity possessed of infinite perfections? — every point omniscient 
 and omnipotent ? — every point possessed of equal power and 
 intelligence with the whole ? Describe a sphere, of whatever 
 dimensions you please, from a foot diameter to a thousand leagues, 
 (for they bear the very same proportion to infinitude ;) — I ask. Is 
 God there? Is he entirely there ? Or is it a part only of God, 
 — a portion of his infinitely extended substance that is there ? — 
 Mr. Yates possibly may profess to be greatly shocked by ques- 
 tions such as these. 1 do not wonder that he should. I am 
 shocked by them myself. Yet there is no impiety, in asking 
 questions which make us to feel our weakness and incompetency 
 on such subjects : no impiety, in thus impressing on men's 
 minds, that they cannot by searching find out God. The imme- 
 diate bearing of the questions on the particular point in hand. 
 
119 
 
 will be sufficiently obvious to every discerning reader. I still 
 insist upon it, that there is nothing more incomprehensible in the 
 idea of the divine nature being associated with the human in the 
 person of Jesus Christ, than there is in the idea of the infinite God 
 being present in any limited portion of space. If a Socinian shall 
 say, How can it be, that the infinite nature of God should be 
 united with the finite and limited nature of a man ? I freely an- 
 swer, I cannot tell : but I meet the question with another, and 
 ask again. How can it be, that the infinite nature of Deity should 
 be present in every point of space ? — should be present, in the 
 full exercise of all its infinite perfections, withi« the little area 
 bounded by the walls of the room in which I sit ? I still insist 
 upon it, that, when Socinians shall have found an answer to the 
 latter question, they will have furnished us with a principle on 
 which to answer the former : and that the circumstance of the 
 former being beyond our comprehension, is no more a sufficient 
 reason for disbelieving it, than the same circumstance of incom- 
 prehensibility in the latter. Its being altogether inconceivable 
 by us, " is no more a proof against its being fact, than" (to use 
 the words of Dr. Guyse on another, but similar subject) " the 
 inconceivableness of the manner how the whole Divine Being 
 and all its essential attributes, are always at once entirely in 
 heaven, and on earth too, is a proof against God's omnipresence. 
 Though such omnipresence may seem impossible to us, yet we 
 must allow it to be real, it being the most monstrous and absurd 
 notion of God to suppose, that only a part of God, a part of his 
 Being, a part of his attributes, is in heaven, and another part of 
 God is on earth. And if we must believe the puzzling incompre- 
 hensible in one case, why should we startle at it, and for that reu' 
 son alone reject it in the other /""-^ It has often been remarked, 
 that a child may ask questions, which the shrewdest philosopher 
 shall be unable to answer. And there is no subject on which 
 this is more true, than the nature and perfections of God. 
 
 * Guyse's Sermons on the Constitution of the person of Christ, and the Divin- 
 ity of the Holy Spirit : page 245, Glasgov/ edition, 1790. 
 
130 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Of a very considerable proportion of Mr. Yates' reasonings 
 on the passages of Scripture adduced in support of our Lord's 
 Divinity, I might satisfy myself with saying, that they have been 
 answered by anticipation in the work to which he professes to 
 reply. The vindication of this scriptural evidence, however, 
 from the objections by which he has attempted to invalidate it, 
 is a matter of so much importance, that, v/hile I shall study bre- 
 vity in my remarks as far as the case will admit, I must be ex- 
 cxised for taking all the scope which it may seem to require. It 
 shall be my endeavour to adhere as strictly as possible to what 
 is immediately connected with the argument. To enter at large 
 on points, which are introduced in the way of incidental illustra- 
 tion, but which do not enter into the pith and marrow of the 
 controversy, (although a number of such points had been mark- 
 ed for animadversion in the perusal of Mr. Yates' book) would 
 carry me beyond all due bounds, and would at the same time, 
 only perplex the reader, and impede his progress to a satisfac- 
 tory conclusion. 
 
 Mr. Yates finds fault with what I have said respecting the 
 " current language of the New Testament." — " It is worse than 
 useless," he says, " to bring forward not twice as many verses as 
 the New Testament contains books, and to say that these- are a 
 specimen of its ^current language,' although they have been gen- 
 erally regarded as the capital proofs of the doctrine in question." 
 (Page 178.) It is enough to say, in reply to this, that the cur- 
 rent langiaage of any book, on any particular subject, can only 
 mean its language when that particular subject is spoken of, or 
 alluded to. When we speak of the current language of the New 
 Testament on the subject of our blessed Lord's Divinity, we 
 mean, that, in many instances, his Divinity is plainly and explic- 
 itly declared, as well as that it is interwoven with the scheme of 
 doctrine, and with the general texture of the phraseology. 
 
In Chapter V. of Part III. Mr. Yates examines " the passa- 
 ges in which the peculiar titles of Deity are supposed to be 
 ascribed to Jesus Christ." 
 
 " First. Mr. Wardlaw maintains," says he, " that the 'names 
 AND TITLES belonging exclusively to the true God, are in the Scrip- 
 tures ascribed to Jesus Christ. He informs his readers, that, 
 ' agreeably to the plan of selection which he has prescribed to 
 himself,' he will confine their attention to two of these, viz. God 
 and Jehovah. He seems to forget, that, even by his own subse- 
 quent concessions, 'God' is not a name which belongs ' exclu- 
 sively' to the Supreme Being." (Page 182.) It is not a very aus- 
 picious circumstance for a reasoner, when the first step he takes 
 in his argument is a quibble. Mr. Yates was surely quite well 
 aware, that when I mentioned the names God and Jehovah, I 
 meant the former (as I have always said) in its proper, or its 
 highest acceptation. There was no ^^ forgetting''^ in the case. 
 My expressions throughout, are such as to keep the sense in 
 which the name is understood, constantly present to the reader's 
 mind. 
 
 Of the inferior sense of the name Aleim — God — Mr. Yates 
 produces from the Old Testament Scriptures seventeen instances. 
 This number, however, may be very considerably reduced. — On 
 Gen. iii. 5. see pages 94, 93, of this volume. — Exod. vii. 1. " 1 
 have made thee a God to Pharaoh," — means, " I have made 
 thee God to Pharaoh ;" its import being evidently the same with 
 that of the 16th verse of the fourth chapter of the same book, 
 where God says to Moses respecting Aaroti, " He shall be to 
 thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of 
 God.'''' — Exod. XV. 11. " Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among 
 the GODS." In this passage, as in many others, idols are called 
 gods, agreeably to the appellation given them by their deluded 
 worshippers. The comparison is between the only living and 
 true God, and the false gods of the heathen ;— a comparison 
 very often made in the Holy Scriptures. — Exod. xxi. 6. " Then 
 his master shall bring him unto the VwJges," literally " unto the 
 €ODS." But is this clearly right ? Parkhurst says—" Then his 
 master shall bring him to the Aleim, i. e. to Jehovah Aleim, to 
 
132 
 
 the door of the sacred tabernacle. So the LXX. a-foj r« Kpini^iof 
 rov ©few, to the tribunal of God.''^ See Lex. on the word Aleim. 
 The same dubiety attaches to Exod. xxii. 8, 9. where the very 
 same phraseology occurs, and where the Seventy render it in the 
 same way, — Exod. xxii. 28. " Thou shall not revile the Gods, 
 nor curse the ruler of thy people." In introducing this as an 
 instance of the inferior sense of the name Aleim, it is taken- for 
 granted, that " the ruler of thy people,'''' is explanatory of " the 
 gods.''^ But we ask with Parkhurst, " Why should not Aleim 
 here retain its usual meaning, and the text be understood as 
 nearly parallel to that of Saint Peter, 1 Ep. ii. 17. 'Fear God, 
 honour the king?'''''' — Dent. x. 17. Psal. xcvii. 9. In these 
 passages it is used of the idols, or false gods of the heathen — to 
 all of which the infinite superiority of Jehovah is emphatically 
 affirmed. — 1 Sam. ii. 25. " U one man sin against another, the 
 judge (literally, the God) shall judge him." The comment of 
 Parkhurst is : — " ' If man sin against man, the Aleim'' (i. e. God) 
 * shall judge him : but if a man sin against Jehovah, who shall 
 intreat for him ?' Is not this very good sense, and much to the 
 purpose ?" — Psal. Ixxxii. 1 . " God standeth in the congregation 
 of the mighty ; he judgeth among the gods." " The Aleim stand 
 in the congregation of God, (i. e. in the assembly of Israel ; 
 compare Numb. xvi. 3: xx. 4 : Josh. xxii. 16.) in the midst 
 (of this congregation namely) the Aleim will judge, or judgeth. 
 So Symmachus, 'o ©^05 xetrfo-rj] iv wvoS'ai &£ov (in coetu Dei, Hie- 
 ron.) ev f^sc-oft) ©eo5 fcpivm.^^ Parkhurst. — In these instances, then, 
 it is at least dubious, whether they are at all to Mr. Yates' -pur- 
 pose. — There remain 1 Sam. xxviii. 13. where the name is ap- 
 plied to Samuel ; " I saw gods (or a God) ascending out of the 
 earth : — Psal. Ixxxviii. 6. " I said ye are gods ;" where it sig- 
 nifies magistrates, the Jewish rulers : — Psal. viii. 5. " Thou hast 
 made him a little lower than the angels," literally, " than the 
 gods ;" where it is used for created angels, as we learn from the 
 quotation of the words by the apostle, Heb. ii. 6 : — Psal. xcvii. 
 7. " Worship him, all ye gods ;" which the same inspired writer 
 teaches us to interpret in the same way. — I feel myself, there- 
 fore, slill warranted in affirming, that the clear and decisive in- 
 
123 
 
 stances of the inferior sense of God, are few in number, as well 
 as of a kind that can never mislead the most careless reader. 
 
 But, in proof of the fact that the term God is used in an infe- 
 rior sense, " Unitarians," says Mr. Yates, " appeal to no less 
 an authority than that of Jesus Christ himself, who affirms that 
 in the Scriptures those persons are called gods, unto whom the word 
 of God came, John x. 35." He then adduces the seventeen pas- 
 sages which have just been noticed, as instances in illustration of 
 our Lord's words. Having done this, he proceeds in the follow- 
 ing terms : " Here are seventeen cases (and I think it probable 
 that there are more) of the use of the word God in the sense af- 
 fixed to it by our Saviour. It is therefore undeniable, that the 
 name may be given, agreeably to the practice of the sacred 
 writers, to all persons, whether angels, prophets, or judges, to 
 zvhom the word of God comes, or, zoho are authorized, commission- 
 ed, and inspired to declare the will of God to mankind. In this 
 sense all Unitarians admit and maintain, that Jesus Christ was a 
 God. The mere application to him of this title consequently 
 proves nothing. As a learned Unitarian author observes, ' The 
 question is not, whether Christ is called God in Scripture, for 
 that is undeniable ; but in what sense the word is to be under- 
 stood.'* The established principles of criticism require, that 
 we should prefer that interpretation, which is agreeable to the 
 clear and universally acknowledged doctrine of the Scriptures, 
 before that which is contrary to any known truth, or which is 
 attended with any considerable difficulties. Since, therefore, it 
 is a fact, about which there is among Christians no dispute, that 
 Jesus was a person ' unto whom the word of God came ;' since 
 we know, that he vindicated the application to himself of the title 
 God, taken in this sense (John x. 34, 33.) ; and since we do not 
 know, until it be proved, that the title belongs to him in any 
 other sense ; we ought thus to understand it, wherever we find it 
 applied to in the sacred Scriptures, unless there be some par- 
 ticular circumstances in the mode of application, which point him 
 
 * H. Taylor's Considerations on Ancient and Modem Creed?, compared, p. 
 124. 
 
121 
 
 out as THE SUPREME GoD, THE ONE LIVING AND TRUE GoD, THE 
 
 God of gods, or the God who is above all." (Pages 183, 
 184.) 
 
 As the passage, John x. 34, 35, is the great support on which 
 Mr. Yates here places his reasoning, — the fulcrum on which the 
 whole power of his argument turns, the destruction of which will 
 render the power inefficient ; it will be necessary to enter some- 
 what fully into the consideration of its true meaning. 
 
 Our blessed Lord had just used, in conversation with the 
 Jews, the following remarkable words : " My sheep hear my 
 voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto 
 them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any 
 one pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me 
 is greater than all ; and no one is able to pluck them out of my 
 Father's hand. I and my Father are one." — The eflect of these 
 words was, the exasperation of the Jews, so that " they took up 
 stones again to stone him. Jesus answered. Many good works 
 have I showed you from my father : for which of those works do 
 ye stone me ? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good 
 work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that 
 thou, being a man, makest thyself God." To this our Saviour 
 made the following reply : — " 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 blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God ? If I do 
 not the works of my Father, believe me not : But if I do, though 
 ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye may know and be- 
 lieve, that the Father is in me, and I in him." — The effect of 
 this reply was, that " they sought again to take him." John x. 
 27—39. 
 
 On this remarkable passage, I oiler to the reader the follow- 
 ing observations : 
 
 1 . It is surely a very singular thing, on the Unitarian hypo- 
 thesis of Jesus being a mere human prophet, that his language 
 alone, of all the prophets by whom " God, at sundry times, and 
 in divers manners, had spoken," should ever have misled the 
 
hearers of it into the conception of his claiming equality with 
 God. In the case of Jesus, this took place on various occasions; 
 and, so far as we learn, no such mistake was ever fallen into in 
 the case of any other prophet whatsoever. How should this 
 greatest of the "teachers sent from God" have been so peculiarly 
 unfortunate in his forms of speech ? — Exalt him as highly as you 
 please ; still there must have been an infinite distance between him 
 and the Most high that gave him his commission : so that on the 
 Arian and the Socinian hypotheses the difficulty alike remains. 
 
 2. It is not only singular that he alone should have used lan- 
 guage that produced this impression ;— it is, if possible, still 
 more singular, that, when the impression had been made, he nev- 
 er, in any instance, contradicted it in terms so explicit as effec- 
 tually to remove it from the minds of his hearers. Even on this 
 occasion, to which Unitarians appeal with so much confidence, 
 whatever explanation we may give of the language of his answer 
 to the charge of blasphemy, the fact is clear, that it was language 
 which did not effectually take off, if indeed it at all diminished, 
 the impression which his former words had produced. Notwith- 
 standing his reply, they "still sought to take him ; but he escap- 
 ed out of their hands." — In attending to the language itself, we 
 shall see that it was neither fitted, nor could be intended, to re- 
 move the conception they had formed : — but at present, I take 
 the fact alone that it did not produce this effect ; and I ask, first, 
 Could any thing be more easy than to give a plain and distinct 
 denial of the charge that he '■'•made himself God P'^—aind, second- 
 ly, this being the easiest thing imaginable, is it for a moment to 
 be conceived, that, on the supposition of the falsehood of the 
 charge, it should not have been done — and done with perempto- 
 ry decision, in terms that could not be mistaken ? A mere human 
 prophet is charged with having claimed equality with the God 
 that sent him — with " making himself God :" and this prophet, 
 instead of being anxious to disown the imputation in explicit terms, 
 and to erase from the minds of his hearers, every vestige of an im- 
 pression so foul and so false, continues to employ, in his reply to 
 the charge, language of equivalent, or even (let it be supposed) 
 of ambiguous import, and leaves the impression as he found it ' 
 17 
 
1S6 
 
 —Unitarians, may enlogize the character of Jesus Christ: — but 
 a supposition such as this must shock the mind of every consid- 
 erate reader, as in fact attaching such a stain to it as " all Ocean's 
 waters" could not wash out.* 
 
 3. The question, then, is, Does Jesus, in this reply, disavow 
 the interpretation put" upon his words by the Jews, and declare 
 himself the So)i of God in the same sense in which they were 
 called gods " to whom the word of God came ?" — In answer 
 to this question, let it he observed, in addition to the preceding 
 general remarks — 
 
 1st. In the passage quoted — Psalm Ixxxii. 6. " I said, Ye 
 are gods," the persons addressed are not prophets, — nor in any 
 one of the instances adduced by Mr. Yates is it to prophets that 
 the name is applied. They are the Jewish rulers ; the Judges 
 of Israel. These are the persons to whom "the word of God 
 came ;" or, as Bishop Pearce explains the phrase, " with whom 
 the judgment of God was :" — they had their commission to govern 
 Israel according to the divine law, being especially appointed 
 by Jehovah, as his representatives, and as types of his anointed. 
 
 2dly. What Mr. Yates says of Christ " vindicating the appli- 
 cation to himself of the title God" in this passage, is not true. 
 It is not this title that he here takes to himself. He vindicates his 
 calling himself " the Son of God,'''' from the circumstance of the 
 Jewish rulers having been called " gods " in the language of 
 ancient inspiration. The passage, therefore, whatever might be 
 the ground on which the title gods was applied to them, furnishes 
 no proof of the application of this title, in the same inferior and 
 subordinate sense, to Christ ; since this is not at all the designa- 
 tion to which he here asserts his right. In this view, it is no- 
 thing to Mr. Yates' purpose. 
 
 3dly. When Jesus says " I and my Father are one," the 
 preceding context explains his meaning to be, one in purpose and 
 in po7oer. No one was able to pluck the sheep out o{ his hand ; 
 and no one was able to pluck them out of the Father^s hand : 
 and the reason assigned for this is, that he and his Father were 
 one — i. e. one in will and afieclion, and purpose, and one in the 
 
 * See further on this subject, Discourses on the Socinian Controversy, pages 
 96, 97. 
 
possession of power to accomplish that purpose : — power alike 
 superior, in himself as in the Father, to all the power of crea- 
 tures that could oppose it. This unity of purpose and power, 
 expressed in such terms, justifies the inference to unity of na- 
 ture : — or else, imity of nature is the thing directly expressed, 
 as accounting for the possession and exercise of equal power. 
 So the Jews, we have seen, understood him. And can we for 
 an instant suppose, that by such strong and pointed language, 
 he meant no more than a merely official connexion with the 
 Father, and the possession of a title to the appellation " Son of 
 God'''' in a sense entirely the same in kind with that in which 
 Jewish magistrates were called " gods .^" On such a supposi- 
 tion, the previous language is most unaccountable. It is such 
 as seems hardly susceptible of any consistent interpretation, short 
 of that which the Jews put upon it ; such as no prophet of God 
 ever used before him ; and rvhy such terms should have been 
 employed to express a claim so simple, and so very far below 
 what they seemed to express, it belongs to Unitarians to show. 
 
 4. Let us try, then, if we can find the true meaning of the re- 
 ply of our Lord to the charge of blasphemy. 
 
 1st. Some have conceived that Jesus here reasons on the as- 
 sumption that the Jews were right in viewing him as no more than 
 a man, — not admitting this, but supposing it ; and then, having 
 taken them on their own ground, putting it to them, how they 
 could convict him of blasphemy in calling himself the Son of God, 
 when they knew that mere men, the Judges of Israel, had been 
 called in their own Scriptures by the appellation " gods, and 
 children — or Sons — of the Most High.''''* — This has too much of 
 the appearance at least of evasion. 
 
 2dly. The more common interpretation is derived from the 
 typical character sustained by those rulers Vfho receive in the 
 passage quoted, the title oi gods. That title, it is alleged, be- 
 longed to them on account of their typical relation to the Messiah. 
 He was to be in reality what they were typically called. Their 
 designation foreshadowed the true dignity of Him whom they 
 represented : and, as " the Scripture cannot be falsified," the 
 * See Poole's Annotations. 
 
meaning of the designation required to be fulfilled, by the Anh- 
 iype possessing in reality, what the Type possessed only in name. 
 He, therefore, could not be justly charged with blasphemy, for 
 claiming to himself that Divine dignity which had been pre-inti- 
 mated in this typical designation.* 
 
 3dly. The true point of our Lord's answer appears to me to 
 be somewhat different. It is to be found, I think, in the authori- 
 ty being the same for his applying to himself the title Son of Gody 
 in a sense implying equality with the Father, with that which 
 had given the title of gods to the Jewish rulers. 
 
 In the first place, it is very obvious that there could be no 
 blasphemy in the case, if, in assuming a title and mode of speech 
 which implied his equality with the Father that sent him, he in- 
 timated only what was true ; i. e. if he really was more than man, 
 — The reference, then, is first to the authority of the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures. These called the Jewish rulers gods ; and 
 " the Scripture cannot be broken," that is, the language of these 
 inspired records cannot be excepted against. But these Scrip- 
 tures warranted him, as Messiah, to use a title implying equality 
 with the Father ; for they had represented him as a person who 
 was to sustain this high dignity. Thus in Psalm ii. 8 : ex. 1 : 
 Isa. ix. 6 : with vii. 14 : Psalm xlv. 6 : Jer. xxiii. 6. «Src. — How, 
 
 * See Scott, Guj'se, and others, on the passage. The following explanation, 
 suggested by a learned, critical friend, while these pages were passing through 
 the press, is somewhat different from either of those mentioned. I introduce it 
 here, because, in such circumstances, it becomes me to be diffident of my own 
 judgment. The question for the reader to determine will be, in what way the 
 argument of our Lord is most fully and consistently brought out ? — " In Psalm 
 Ixxxii. 6. I am inclined to think that Christ is the spealcer ; that he owns he 
 had called Judges of Israel ' sons of God,'' as types of Messiah ; that he, however, 
 disowns the * assembly of the wicked which was to enclose him,' which he pro- 
 phetically addresses, ajid predicts their rejection and fall. — The argument in 
 John X. I think is — If Ae (the prophetic Messiah) called his types ' Gods, or sons 
 of God,'' (and the language of Scripture ye cannot condemn) do ye charge with 
 blasphemy ' him Avhom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world,' (the 
 Messiah now come, and approved among you by miracles, &c. to be the same 
 that spoke in the Psalms) because he applies the same language to himself {the 
 Antitype^ ?" In this explanation, as in the second of those given in the text, it 
 js understood, that the Antitype possessed a claim to the titles in question in ^ 
 higher seruc than the Type. 
 
129 
 
 then, could he be justly charged with blasphemy, if the Scripture 
 cannot be broken, and he used no higher title, no title of higher 
 import, than the Scripture, which they acknowledged to be the 
 word of God, assigned to the Messiah ? There could be no 
 blasphemy in using Scriptural appellations in their Scriptural 
 sense, in speaking of himself in terms perfecdy in unison with the 
 representations of prophecy. 
 
 In the second place, he had presented abundant and most de- 
 cisive evidence that " the Father had sanctified and sent him into 
 the world," i. e. had set him apart to his high office, and given 
 him his commission. Now in mentioning this so particularly 
 here, the sentiment which he intended to express, does not seem 
 to be, that the Father's having sanctified and sent him into the 
 world, entitled him to the appellation Son of God, but rather, that 
 it entitled him to credit in the representations he gave of himself. 
 His commission from the Father, established by so " many infal- 
 lible proofs," placed his word, in point of authority, on a level 
 with the testimony of their own inspired records. He, whom 
 " the Father had sanctified and sent into the world," instead of 
 being charged with blasphemy, ought to have been believed in 
 what he said of himself, on the evidence of his Divine commis- 
 sion. If they admitted, that " the Scripture could not be brok- 
 en," that, being of divine authority, its language was not to be 
 excepted against, they ought also to have admitted that his lan- 
 guage respecting himself was not to be excepted against, seeing 
 his declarations were proved to be of Divine authority, — proved 
 to be the declarations of one whom " the Father had sanctified 
 and sent into the world," by evidence even more abundant and 
 irrefragable than that on which they received the Old Testament 
 Scriptures. On this principle, he is not to be considered as at 
 all reducing the high import of the title by which he called him- 
 self, and of what he had said respecting his union with the Fa- 
 ther, but as admitting that the sense in which his hearers had un- 
 derstood him was the right sense, and disserting, on the ground 
 of his Divine commission, his title to confidence and to belief. 
 
 In the third place, in full consistency with this view of his 
 words, we find him immediately appealing to the evidence by 
 
130 
 
 which his Divine mission was established ; and making this ap- 
 peal, with a particular reference to what he had just said of him- 
 self: — " If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not ; but 
 if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works ; that ye may 
 know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him,'''' Do 
 not these words mean, in the connexion in which they stand — 
 " that ye mayiknow and believe, that what I have just said of 
 myself, which has incensed you thus against me, is true ? that 
 ' I and my Father are' indeed ' one ?' " His words had been 
 interpreted in a sense which, if he was a mere created messen- 
 ger of God, must have been infinitely offensive to his mind. Yet 
 he thus affirms the truth of them in terms of equivalent import ; 
 terms which confirmed the misunderstanding, and maintained the 
 zealous fury of his hearers : — '' Therefore^ i. e. on account of 
 what he had last said, which they perceived to be nothing differ- 
 ent in meaning from what he had said before, — " therefore they 
 sought again to take him." Surely had the Jews understood 
 him (as Unitarians insist he ought to be understood) as entirely 
 disclaiming their inference, they would not thus instantly have 
 offered violence to him again, such as made it necessary that he 
 should " escape out of their hands." 
 
 I cannot but consider the particular connexion in which the 
 words — " that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, 
 and I in him,'''' are here introduced, as an evidence that we do 
 not misinterpret such phraseology, when we number it among 
 the proofs of the Saviour's Divinity. This is a point, however, 
 on which a few additional remarks may be necessary. 
 
 The passage usually adduced in opposition to this inference, 
 is John xvii. 21. " That they all may be one, as thou. Father, 
 art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us ; that 
 the world may believe that thou hast sent me." It is argued 
 from this passage, that the union declared to subsist between 
 Christ and the Father, is no other in kind than the union of his 
 people with himself, and with the Father, and with one another. 
 But before this conslusion be admitted, let the following things 
 be considered — 
 
 First. There are tzoo meanings of which the language of the 
 
131 
 
 passage is equally susceptible. It may express sameness, or it 
 may express only similarity or resemblance. We must adopt the 
 one most consistent with the tenor of the Scriptures. Before we 
 adopt the Jirst, and consider it as expressing the sameness of the 
 union between the Father and the Son, with the union of the peo- 
 ple of God in the Son and in the Father, we must set aside all 
 the mass of evidence by which Jesus Christ is proved to be God, 
 equal with the Father, and therefore one with him in a higher 
 sense. 
 
 Secondly. It is no uncommon thing to use the language of com- 
 parison, when we mean to intimate resemblance, only in so far 
 as the compared objects admit of resemblance. Were I, for exam- 
 ple, to say, respecting two very intimate friends, that they are 
 one, as a husband and his wife are one, it would not, I presume, 
 be difficult to understand, that the specialties of the conjugal 
 union were not included in the comparison : nor would any person 
 be so foolish as to infer, that the one union was not at all differ- 
 ent in kind, but only in degree, from the other. The idea ex- 
 pressed, every one would perceive to be, that there subsisted be- 
 tween these friends a unity of affection, of feeling and desire, of 
 interests and enjoyments, like that which distinguishes the closest 
 and tenderest of earthly connexions. So in the case before us. 
 There may subsist a unity of essence between the Father and the 
 Son, and yet this may not be in the contemplation of the speak- 
 er ; but only a unity of mind, and heart, and counsel, and joy, 
 between the people of God and their Father and Redeemer, and 
 one another, resembling that perfect unity of pure and everlast- 
 ing love, of holy purpose, and of infinite, and necessary, and im- 
 mutable happiness, which subsists among the Three who are 
 One. 
 
 Thirdly. The preceding observations go no farther than to 
 show, that the Unitarian inference from the words of Christ's in- 
 tercessory prayer, is not a valid one. But we may go a step be- 
 yond this. The language appears to me to be such as it is diffi- 
 cult to conceive any human prophet, or any mere creature, to 
 have used. It is language, on this supposition, of strange and 
 unexampled familiarity. — " That they also may be one in ns :'' 
 
13S 
 
 — " that they may be one, even as we are one." Surely our 
 minds must revolt from the idea of a mere human prophet thus fa- 
 miliarly associating himself with the Most High. We can hard- 
 ly imagine, indeed, any creature, feeling his infinite distance, to 
 express himself thus to the Great Supreme, in those terms of 
 easy intimacy which characterize the intercourse of equals. A 
 similar observation was before made on John xiv. 23. I know 
 not how it may aftect the reader's mind. On my own, I confess, 
 it presses with great force. Should this be imputed to prejudice, 
 I cannot help it. I hope it has a higher and purer source ; some 
 small measure of that sentiment of " reverence and godly fear," 
 that awful sense of distance, which, instead of diminishing, must in- 
 crease in the direct ratio of the elevation and holiness of the crea- 
 ture by whom it is felt. I consider the language of this passage 
 as parallel to Gen. i. 26. " Let us make man :" Gen. iii. 22. 
 " Behold the man is become as one of us :" Gen. xi. 7. " Let 
 us go down, and their confound their language :" and Isa. vi. 8. 
 " Who will go for us ?" 
 
 We have thus seen that the passage, John x. 34, 35, to which 
 Mr. Yates so repeatedly and confidently refers, instead of war- 
 ranting his conclusion that wherever we find the name G&d ap- 
 plied to Jesus Christ, it ought to be understood in its inferior 
 sense, as meaning " one to whom the word of God came," is it- 
 self a powerful evidence of the contrary. An exception, indeed, 
 is made by Mr. Yates hypothetically, — " xinless their be some 
 particular circumstances in the mode of application, which point 
 him out as the supreme God, the one living and true God, 
 THE God of Gods, or the God who is above all." But the 
 manner in which certain texts answering to this description are 
 disposed of, when they are brought forward, will satisfy every 
 one acquainted with this controversy, that, be the " circumstan- 
 ces of the application of the name," or the epithets accompany- 
 ing it, what they may, no passage will be left without some at- 
 tempt to invalidate and destroy its evidence in support of the ob- 
 noxious truth. 
 
 An instance of the justice of this remark occurs immediately 
 in Mr. Yates' strictures on Isa. vii. 14. " Behold a virgin shall 
 
133 
 
 conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel :"- 
 and Isa. ix. 6 : — " For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is 
 given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his 
 name shall be called — the mighty God :" — the two first texts 
 on which he proceeds to comment. Respecting these he thus 
 writes : — " If, as I have shown above, the title God belong- 
 ed to all 'unto whom the word of God came,' these two passages 
 would present no obstacle to our belief in the Unitarian doctrine, 
 even though it were certain that, in each instance, the original 
 text is uncorrupted, the English translation correct, and the de- 
 signations 'Immanuel' and 'mighty God' really intended to be 
 descriptive of the nature of Christ. These titles would only 
 convey the same ideas which were expressed by the inhabitants 
 of Jerusalem, when they exclaimed, ' a great prophet is risen 
 up among us; and by the two disciples (Luke xxiv. 19.) who 
 described Jesus of Nazareth as ' a prophet mighty in deed and 
 word.'" (Page 185.) 
 
 According to this comment, " Immanuel," even supposing it 
 a designation descriptive of Christ's person, " would only convey 
 the idea" of "a God with us," — that is, " a Prophet with 
 us :" — and the title " mighty God," on the same supposition, 
 would naturally convey the same idea, of " a mighty Prophet." 
 — The appellations " would only convey these ideas.^^ To a mind 
 predisposed to admit the ideas by attachment to Unitarian prin- 
 ciples, it is possible enough they might. But I ask the reader, 
 whether Mr. Yates has made out a sufficiently strong case, re- 
 specting the application of the name of God to the prophets, to 
 warrant his making this assertion with so much easy confidence ? 
 His venturing such an assertion makes me very hopeless of his 
 conviction : because, even if it were shown that such designa- 
 tions as " the supreme God, the one living and true God, the God 
 of Gods, or the God who is above all,''"' are given to Jesus Christ, 
 it might, with equally good reason, be alleged, that such designa- 
 tions should be considered as given to him in virtue of his com- 
 mission, as one " authorized, and inspired to declare the will of 
 God to mankind,'''' appearing, therefore, as his representative, and, 
 in this capacity, bearing his names and epithets of dignity. This 
 18 
 
134 
 
 (however unreasonable) would be very much of a piece with the 
 remark, that, eVen if all critical difficulties were removed from 
 the latter of the two passages " just quoted, still, at the very ut- 
 most, the application of the title '■mighty Go(P to Jesus of Naza- 
 reth would only prove him to be a person ' unto whom the word 
 of God came.' " 
 
 With respect to Isa. vii. 14. compared with Matth. i. 22, 23. 
 I shall only remark, 
 
 In the first place, that it would be uncandid to question the 
 justice of Mr. Yates' observation relative to the " singular man- 
 ner in which proper names were formed and applied by the an- 
 cient Hebrews ;" — that " it was common among them to give to 
 their children names, which were in reality short sentences, ex- 
 pressive of some Divine favour, conferred at the time of the child's 
 birth." — Of this he produces an instance or two ; and others 
 will occur to every mind familiar with the Old Testament records. 
 In the second place, on this ground, I frankly admit, that the 
 mere circumstance of the Messiah being called by this name, 
 (Immanuel) would not of itself, in absence of other evidence, be. 
 at all a conclusive proof of his Divine dignity. — That it does im- 
 ply his possessing this dignity, I entertain no doubt ; — but, tak- 
 ing it by itself, I should find difficulty in proving it. From the 
 peculiar circumstances in which the prophecy is introduced, and 
 the length of discussion to which a full consideration of these 
 would necessarily lead, I formerly declined any cirticism on the 
 passage ; and I am disposed to follow the same course still. 
 For a distinct and satisfactory elucidation of the prophecy ,-I may 
 refer the reader to Mr. Ewing's Essays addressed to Jews on 
 the authority, scope, and consummation, of the law and the 
 prophets, Vol. II. pages 6 — 16. — I shall satisfy myself with one 
 observation only, the truth of which must be obvious to every 
 reader of the entire prophecy, from chap. vii. 1. to chap. xi. 7. 
 that the child named " Immanuel" in chap. vii. 14. is the same 
 with the " child born" and " Son given," whose name, in chap. 
 ix. 6. is called — " the Miohty God ;" so that if the latter ap- 
 pellation can be shown to express his divinity, this alone should 
 go far to settle the true meaning of the former. 
 
i3d 
 
 1. I had remarked (Discourses, p. 86.) that "the phrase in 
 ihe original, as well as in our translation, is precisely the same 
 with that which occurs in verse 21st of the tenth chapter of the 
 same book : ' The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Ja- 
 cob, unto THE MIGHTY GoD.' And there can be no doubt, that 
 it is a characteristic designation of the true God, in which, by 
 the attribute of omnipotence, he is distinguished from the idols of 
 the heathen, which could ' neither do good nor do evil ; which 
 were all vanity, and their work of nought.' " Of this parallel pas- 
 sage, and its force in the argument, the only notice taken by Mr. 
 Yates, is : — " To illustrate the sense in which the title ' mighty 
 God' is applied," (viz. in Isa. ix. 6.) " he compares it with Isa, 
 X. 21. where the same phrase occurs : ' The remnant shall re- 
 turn, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.' " P. 
 185. This is all. It is sufficiently summary ; but to readers 
 who seek for argument, not, I should think, very satisfactory. 
 
 2. In a subsequent part of this work, when the same passage 
 occurs as a proof of Christ's almighty power, he makes two re- 
 marks upon it, in addition to those he had offered before : name- 
 ly, that " the doctrine to be proved is, not that our Saviour was 
 MIGHTY, (for this is granted,) but that he was ALL-mighty, that 
 his will was irresistible, and his power underived, unlimited, and 
 independent :" and — " that the epithet mighty, upon which the 
 argument depends, is applied in more than a hundred passages 
 of the Old Testament to mere human beings. (See Taylor's 
 Concord, v. geber.)" 
 
 To these two remarks, one remark shall suffice in reply ; and 
 it is one in which, as in some others, I have been anticipated by 
 Mr. Brown : — " We have only to say, in reply, that the ' force of 
 the argument' does not lie in the word geber simply, but in the 
 compound epithet geber al, ' the mighty God.' Even Mr. 
 Yates would be ashamed to say he had proved that the latter of 
 these words is not in the text. If he could have brought forward 
 a passage of Scripture, in which the compound appellation was 
 given to a mere human being, it would indeed have answered 
 his purpose." Strictures, p. 59. To this it may be added, that, 
 in certain connexions and associations, the inferior word may 
 
136 
 
 have all the force of the superior. Thus, Jehovah is, on differ- 
 ent occasions, called by Isaiah, the mighty One of Israel. The 
 word generally used on these occasions, is one, which, like ge- 
 BER, is frequently applied to creatures. Yet, in such connex- 
 ions, it has all the force of the higher word AL-mighty. Al- 
 though, however, Jesus Christ were denominated the " mighty 
 One of Israel,'''' as, in the text under discussion, he is called " the 
 mighty God,^^ we might upon the same principle on which Mr. 
 Yates' remarks on this text proceed, be met with a reference to 
 " Taylor's Concordance, v. aber," and a statement of the num- 
 ber of times in which the word is applied to " mere human be- 
 ings," or to brute animals. 
 
 3. It is worse than trifling to conjure up all the difficulties 
 and conjectures that have ever been started about a text, unless 
 these are such as really to affect our own convictions relative to 
 its correctness or to its meaning. Mr. Yates represents this text 
 as " produced by the ignorant with the most triumphant and un- 
 reflecting confidence ;" and then he brings forward, without be- 
 ing so ^^presumptuous " as to attempt to settle any of them, his 
 list of difficulties and conjectures : — " Whether al be a genuine 
 part of the Hebrew t€xt ;" — does Mr. Yates himself doubt this ? 
 — " Whether, supposing it genuine, it should not be translated a 
 ' RULER,' since this is a very common acceptation of the term ;" 
 but where are the instances of al signifying a ruler? and especial- 
 ly, where is the instance of the phrase al geber for "a mighty 
 Ruler?'''' does Mr. Yates himself doubt, after comparing it with Is. 
 X. 21 . whether " mighty God'''' be the correct and legitimate trans- 
 lation ? — " Whether the tides contained in the verse were not in- 
 tended to describe, at least according to their primary significa- 
 tion, the character of Hezekiah, or some other distinguished per- 
 son, born at the time when the prophecy was uttered ;" does 
 Mr. Yates himself think this possible — after comparing, as he 
 surely must have done, Isa. vii. 14. with Matth. i. 23. Isa. ix. 1, 
 2. with Matth. iv. 14—16. and Isa. ix. 7, with Luke i. 32, 33 ? 
 Will he indeed adopt this Jewish way of solving difficulties re- 
 specting the prophetic descriptions of the Christ? It is not 
 at olJ wonderful, that every method should have been taken t© 
 
437 
 
 bring doubt and uncertainty on such a passage ; a passage which 
 contains, in the minds not merely of " the ignorant and unreflect- 
 ing," so clear and decisive a proof of the Saviour's supreme 
 Godhead ; which " asserts in the clearest and strongest manner 
 of which language is capable, his real incarnation, his essential 
 divinity, and his mediatorial kingdom and glory." Ewing's Es- 
 says, &c. Vol. II. p. 16. 
 
 John i. 1. "The Word was God." On this passage I 
 might simply request the reader to re-peruse my former observa- 
 tions upon it, and to ask himself, in candour, how many of them 
 Mr. Yates has fairly met. I cannot afford to be repeating the 
 same things : it would both swell my reply beyond all proper 
 bounds, and be an imposition besides on the possessors of my 
 former volume. Let it therefore be remembered, that what is 
 710Z0 said must be taken in connexion with what has been said ; 
 my present object being only to notice Mr. Yates' own criticisms, 
 and his objections to mine. 
 
 1. Mr. Yates admits, that "the 7-ules of criticism'''' lead to 
 the translation of the last clause of the verse — " the Word was a 
 God.'''' This is an admission of some consequence, because it 
 confines the field of argument, fixing us dwvn to one point, name- 
 ly, whether the word God be here used in '\i?, proper or its inferior 
 sense. 
 
 2. Mr. Yates remarks — " We are assured by abundant and 
 irrefragable proofs, both that the term God is used in Scripture 
 to signify ' any person that is authorized, commissioned, and in- 
 spired to declare the will of Jehovah to mankind,' and also that 
 our Lord Jesus Christ was such a person. This explanation of 
 the passage, therefore, is free from every objection. On the con- 
 trary, we do not know that Jesus Christ was Jehovah, and con- 
 sequently we are not justified in understanding the phrase as im- 
 plying such a doctrine." P. 190. These "abundant and irre- 
 fragable proofs " have before been considered; and we have seen 
 the use made by our Lord of the appellation " gods'''' being given 
 to those " unto whom the word of God came," in repelling from 
 himself the charge of blasphemy. To the last sentence of the 
 preceding extract, I think it quite enough to reply, that we do 
 
138 
 
 know that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, from proofs certainly not 
 less " numerous and irrefragable" than those produced for the 
 inferior sense of God ; of which the chief, John x. 37. we have 
 seen to be a convincing evidence of the very doctrine which it is 
 brought to refute. 
 
 3. Mr. Yates introduces Origen and Eusebius, " most illus- 
 trious and learned men, who used the Greek language as their 
 vernacular tongue," as giving their judgment in favour of the 
 inferior sense of ©eos, on account of the absence of the definite 
 article. He produces the following quotation in a note: " S«<?(y5 
 
 i'e TTuptc-Tv) ole<; t/j ;j» (scilicCt i Aoyec,') sTrtirvvctfrrav I^th kxi Xcyat ' K««< 
 Oioi i}9 Ao-yo?"' ^vvctf^evoi yec,^ eiTrsiv, ' K»i 'O ©ee; jjv o Aayoj,' /tttra t;)5 
 Tov ci^6^ov TT^oa-SijK^i^ CI ys £» x«< Tctvrov iiyeiro, tov wocre^cc civxi xmi tov 
 i/Jov, ayrov n etvxi tov Aoyov tov cti ttxvtuv ©£ov." &C. thcit is, " The 
 
 Evangelist has clearly shown what is the nature of the Word, by 
 subjoining, ' And the Word was a God ;'' although he might have 
 said, ' And the Word was God,' with the addition of the article, 
 if he had thought that the Father and the Son were one and the 
 same, and that the Word is God over all." Euseb. de Eccles. 
 Theol. L. II. c. 17. " From the argument of the venerable Fa- 
 ther in this passage, it is plain that he perceived no violation of 
 the rules of syntax in the addition of the article ; and upon a 
 matter of this kind it is impossible that he could be mistaken. 
 The observations of Origen, in his commentary on John, are 
 precisely to the same purpose. They are too long to quote j 
 but may be seen in De la Rue's edition. Vol. IV. pp. 50, 51." 
 
 Taking for granted the correctness both of the quotation and 
 the commentary, and without consulting the originals of Origen 
 and Eusebius at all, I find enough in Mr. Yates to confute his 
 own reference. One should have expected, that, having brought 
 forward these " most illustrious and learned men" with all the 
 pomp of courtly ceremony, pronouncing not merely my opinion, 
 but even Dr. Middlcton's, and, by consequence, that of all the 
 scholars who agree with him, to " be in opposition to them, not 
 worth a rush ;" he would hardly have felt quite at liberty to dis- 
 sent from these high authorities himself, and to relinquish their 
 decision for his own. Yet this, strange as it may seem, he has 
 
139 
 
 certainly done. In the quotation from Eusebius, as above tran- 
 scribed from Mr. Yates's note, that writer says, that if the Evan- 
 gelist had wished to express the sentiment which we allege he 
 has expressed, he would have said " 'o GEOS 'hn 'o Aoros." 
 This, is the phrase, which, according to Eusebius, would have 
 expressed our sentiment without ambiguity. Well : and does 
 Mr. Yates acquiesce in his decision ? Quite the contrary. " The 
 sentiment ' the Word was a god,'''' says he, " could not be ex- 
 pressed in any other way than that employed by the Evangelist 
 {^toi siv h Aoyog;) whcreas the sentiment ' the Word was God,' 
 might have baen expressed without ambiguity by the introduc- 
 tion of the article (thus, d Aoyo? «v o ^eog ;) and this arrangement 
 would have been indisputably correct and grammatical." P. 192. 
 Eusebius' unambiguous expression, then, for " the Word was 
 God,^^ is " 'o ©EOS HN 'o Aoros ; but Mr. Yates' is precisely 
 the reverse, " 'o Aoros hn 'o ©eos." Now both of these 
 cannot be right. Yet, in quoting the authority of Eusebius, Mr. 
 Yates affirms it was " impossible he could be mistaken ;" and 
 when he gives his own way of it, he is equally confident, that it 
 is " indisputably correct and grammatical.'''' In the cause " Ori- 
 gen and Eusebius, versus Middleton and Wardlaw," Judge 
 Yates pronounces the following verdict : " Mr. Wardlaw's asser- 
 tions, and even Dr. Middleton's, are not worth a rush : the mere 
 names of Origen and Eusebius will be sufficient, in the ears of 
 all who have the slightest tincture of theological learning, to 
 drown at once the feeble, diminutive accents of our worthy au- 
 thor." P. 191. What, then, are we to say, when the cause 
 comes to be " Origen and Eusebius, versus Mr. Yates himself ?" 
 Must we pronounce the same verdict ? The truth is, if any fur- 
 ther evidence were wanting to show that neither of the two for- 
 mer is free from ambiguity, we have it in the fact of Eusebius 
 pronouncing the one to be so, and Mr. Yates the other. Both 
 forms are convertible ; and so is every form constructed on the 
 same principle. The sense, in such cases, remains to be deter- 
 mined by the connexion. 
 
 4. As the clause stands in the original, it is not convertible, 
 even on Mr Yates' own admission, according to " the just rules 
 
140 
 
 of criticism :" (See Obs. 1.)— and, having now before us IV[i% 
 Yates' own example for the deadly sin of difiering from Origen 
 and Eusebius, we still maintain, that the Evangelist has express- 
 ed the sentiment, " the Word was God" in true grammatical 
 
 form and, with regard to the question whether GEOS is to be 
 
 understood in its proper or in its inferior sense, it should be de- 
 termined by these two considerations ;—Jlrst, that, even in its 
 proper and highest sense, it ought, in the circumstances of con- 
 struction in which it here stands, to be without the article ; and, 
 secondly, that it is used without the article, to signify the su- 
 preme God, four times within the first eighteen verses of this 
 very chapter.* 
 
 5. 1 shall close my remarks on this text with the judgment of 
 a writer, whom Mr. Yates holds in high and deserved reputation, 
 I mean Griesbach. We have formerly seen, how explicit his 
 testimony is in favour of the Divinity of Christ being a plain and 
 incontrovertible doctrine of the Bible ; his language is not less 
 explicit on the particular text now before us : It is introduced, 
 indeed, as a specimen of the " loca multa et luculenta" to which 
 he refers : " In primis locus ille Joh. i. 1,2, 3. tarn perspicuus 
 est, atque omnibus exccptionibus major, ut neque interpretum neque 
 criticorum audacibus conatibus unquam everti atque veritatis de- 
 fensoribus eripi possit." — " That passage in particular, John i, 
 1 — 3, is so clear, and so much above all exception, that it never 
 can be overthrown, and wrested from the defenders of the truth, 
 by the daring attempts of either commentators or critics." 
 
 Mr. Yates' comment on the address of Thomas to Christ, 
 John XX. 28. is one of the most extraordinary in his volume. 
 " Leaving every reader," says he, " at full liberty to judge for 
 himself" — (a liberty which we certainly wish every reader to 
 use, and entertain no apprehension of the result) — " and retain- 
 ing the right of changing my opinion, if at any future time I shall 
 see fit ;" we hope that subsequent reflection may bring hira 
 
 * An instance, in wliich God is the predicate of the proposition, and wlierelhe 
 article is accordingly aiva7iting, occurs in 1 Kings xviii. 24. in the LXX. which 
 may illustrate the case before us; ttett tcrrcti 'O ©£02 05 uv cTrxaovrT) ev Trvpi^ 
 OT'TOS ©£02- " And the God that answereth by fire, he shall be God." 
 
141 
 
 nearer the truth) — " I only remark upon this passage, without 
 stating all my reasons, that these words appear to me to have 
 been addressed by Thomas to Christy and may be justly consid- 
 ered, both as an exclamation, expressive of his wonder and de- 
 light, and also as a confession that Jesus was his Lord and his 
 God." P. 194. This is candid; and the concession is one of 
 considerable importance. For, if the words be addressed to 
 Christ, and contain " a confession that Jesus was his Lord and 
 his God," there ought to he no difficulty or hesitation in drawing 
 the inference. But alas ! what will not attachment to a system 
 effect in warping the judgment ? Mark the remainder of Mr. 
 Yates' commentary : '• But it is needless to dispute, that, when 
 Thomas addressed Jesus as his Lord, or Master, and his God, 
 he might mean only, that Jesus was his inspired instructor in 
 matters of religion. Agreeably, therefore, to the principles which 
 have been before stated, his words ought to be understood ac- 
 cording to this simple and reasonable interpretation." — " It is 
 needless to dispute'^'' this. It is needless indeed. For the com- 
 mentator who can be satisfied with it must himself be hardly sus- 
 ceptible of conviction ; and my readers, I hope, have more un- 
 derstanding and freedom from prejudice than to be misled by it. 
 According to this " simple and reasonable interpretation," not 
 only is that taken for granted which has never been proved, that 
 " a god^^ was a usual synonyme for a prophet or inspired religious 
 instructor ; but the appellation given by Thomas to Christ is no 
 higher than the disciples in general might have given to himself. 
 He too was one " to whom the word of God came ;" and so were 
 the other apostles and prophets of the New Testament church : 
 and if " my God''^ means no more than " my inspired religious 
 instructor," they were all alike entitled to the same appellation. 
 Let parallel cases, then, be produced, of prophets and apostles 
 being thus addressed, and wc will be satisfied. Every man must 
 judge for himself of simplicity and reasonableness ; but till this is 
 done, I must be allov/ed to consider it as the very opposite of 
 both, as an unexampled and arbitrary departure from the estab- 
 lished meaning of words, betraying a system lamentably pressed 
 for support. If any reader is prepared to admit, that who'x 
 
i4s 
 
 Thomas, addressing Jesus, said, " my Lord and my God," 
 he meant no more than " my Master and inspired instructor ;" 
 there is not much at which he will need to stop : he must be 
 tolerably well initiated already in the thorough-going principles 
 of Unitarianism, if he has come to consider this as a " simple and 
 '•easonable interpretation.'''' 
 
 Rom. ix. 5. " Of whoni, as concerning the flesh, Christ came ; 
 
 who is OVER ALL GoD BLESSED FOR EVER." 
 
 " If there were any evidence," says Mr. Yates, " that this 
 translation is correct, here would be a case in point : the words 
 of the apostle would present a clear and valid argument for the 
 supreme divinity of Jesus Christ." P. 195. — All that we have to 
 do, then, with regard to this text, is to establish the correctness 
 of the translation. — Mr. Yates is of opinion that " the utmost 
 that can be said to vindicate this rendering is, that it does not 
 violate the rules of grammar, or the idioms of the Greek lan- 
 guage, and therefore may possibly be the true translation :" — and 
 the reasons which he assigns for preferring the translation of the 
 latter words of the verse as a doxology, " God, who is over all, 
 be blessed for ever !" — " appear to him to have so much weight, 
 that if he were not checked by a regard to the opinion of those 
 learned men, who have embraced difierent views, he would con- 
 sider the passage as scarcely even ambiguous .'^'^ Here, then, we 
 are entirely at issue : and, referring the reader to what I have 
 before written in support of the established translation, I shall 
 now offer a few brief strictures on those " reasons,'''' which Mr. 
 Yates considers as so cogent. 
 
 " 1st. Because such ascriptions of praise are very frequent 
 in the Old and New Testaments, and in all Jewish compositions." 
 — I do not recollect these " very frequent^'' instances of such ab- 
 rupt ascriptions of praise at the close of sentences as are suppos- 
 ed in the Unitarian translation of this verse. At all events, 
 they are nothing like so frequent as the texts which affirm or im- 
 ply our Lord's supreme divinity : — so that even on this ground, 
 — a calculation of probability from the comparative number of 
 texts on either side, proceeding on the assumption that the phras- 
 eology of the verse is equally capable of the one translation 
 
143 
 
 or of the other, — we should not feel ourselves at all at a dis- 
 advantage. — But the proper consiruction of the words in the text, 
 is the very point in controversy ; and with this the mere fre- 
 quency or infrequency of ascriptions of praise, has obviously no 
 connexion ; unless it could be shown, that such ascriptions of 
 praise are usually expressed in the same manner as here. 
 
 " 2dly. Because they almost uniformly loant the substantive 
 verb {ic-ru or eivi) as in this instance." — Suppose it so ; what 
 then ? What does this prove, except that the mere absence of the 
 verb does not disqualify the sentence from being considered as a 
 doxology? and who ever said that it did? — Further; Is there any 
 thing at all wanting in the verse on our interpretation ? While 
 the absence of the substantive verb may accord with the usual 
 practice in doxologies, does this, or does the absence or the pres- 
 ence of any other word in the sentence, in any degree disqualify 
 it from bearing the ordinary translation ? We shall find Mr. Yates. 
 in his sixth reason, resting on one solitary instance of exception 
 from an otherwise universal practice ; and yet here he rests on a 
 practice as " almost uniform'''' while the exceptions to it are 
 more numerous : — See 1 Kings x, 9 : 2 Chron. ix. 8 : Psal. cxiii. 
 2. If he thinks one exception of avail against others, how far 
 should three go against himself? But even that one vvc shall af- 
 terwards see to be more than dubious. 
 
 " 3d. Because the periphrasis here used as a name of Deity, 
 ' THE God who is above all,' (c m enri TToivrm ©eaj) or phrases 
 almost exactly the same with it, (such as o stti Trecvrm Geog, and 
 o iTTs TTxtri ©eo5) are expressions of perpetual occurrence in Greek 
 writings upon religious subjects, which are universally understood 
 as designations of the supremo Deity, and are employed to dis- 
 tinguish him from all the beings to whom the name (.^sas) God 
 was applied in a subordinate sense." — But what is this to the 
 purpose ? Is the circumstance that " the God zuho is above aW is 
 an appellation uniformly appropriated to the supreme Deity, in 
 distinction from all other beings, to be considered as any reason 
 why it should not be applied to Jesus Christ ? The reader will 
 at once perceive, that it cannot be so considered, without hav- 
 ing first begged the question. We admit what is stated as to the 
 
144 
 
 'pcculiariixj of ihc designation, and rejoice in ihc admission ; be- 
 cause it is this very circumstance that renders the text so deci- 
 sive a proof of the doctrine which we maintain. This third rea- 
 son, therefore, is a mere assumption of the very point which 
 should have been proved: an assumption of the Unitarian 
 dogma that Jesus Christ is not the supreme God. 
 
 "4th. Because, in all such ascriptions of praise, the words '■for 
 ever,^ or the equivalent expressions, if introduced at all, are plac- 
 ed at the end of the sentence^ as in this example." — This, truly, 
 is making the most of it. Was there any likelihood of the words 
 '''■for ever'''' being placed any where else than at the end of the 
 sentence, on the supposition of our rendering being the right 
 one ? If not, this can be no ground of preference to the other; 
 — and it is mere trifling to mention it. 
 
 " 5th. Because the position of these words at the end of the 
 sentence, naturally, though not necessarily, draws the partici- 
 ple {evXoynToi) Blessed, which they qualify, to the same quarter.''^ 
 — This must be settled by an appeal to facts. Among the 
 doxologies in the Old Testament Scriptures, in which the words 
 '■^ for ezjer," or equivalent phrases, occur, I do not find any in- 
 stance of this drawing of the participle to the end of the sentence. 
 See, in the LXX. 1 Chron. xvi. 36 : Psal. xli. 13 : Ixxii. 19 : cvi, 
 48. And when no parallel cases can be produced, in the ordi- 
 nary practice of the language, we are not satisfied with Mr. 
 Yates' admission that this " drawing'''' is not necessary ; we can- 
 not concede to him that it is even natural. Mr. Yates may/«n- 
 ey it to be so. But no phrase can with any propriety be de- 
 nominated natural, unless it corresponds with the customary 
 usage of the language in which it occurs. The idioms of one 
 language must not be made the standard of what is natural or 
 unnatural in another. 
 
 "6th. Because, in Psalm Ixviii. 19. (Kt/^/05 J ©eo? ivMy^Toi) 
 the participle is placed in the latter part of the sentence by the Sep- 
 tuagint translators, contrary to the assertion of Dr. Whitby in 
 his commentary." Dr. Whitby's assertion is : — " The phrase 
 occurs twenty times in the Old Testament, but in every place 
 yAov^ra^ gocs before, and the article is annexed to the word ©tes." 
 
145 
 
 To this assertion Mr. Yates, like others, has discovered one ex- 
 ception. We have found him, above, in his second reason, rest- 
 ing his conclusion on the general form of the doxologies in scrip- 
 ture, as " almost uniformly wanting the substantive verb." I 
 have referred to three exceptions to this : and it does not seem 
 very consistent, as has been already hinted, for Mr. Yates to rest 
 there on the general practice, in opposition to three exceptions; 
 and then here to question the validity of our argument from a 
 practice, to the uniformity of which he can produce no exception 
 but one. — But I go farther. I think it is more than doubtful, 
 whether, after all, this exception will stand. In the LXX. the 
 18th and 19th verses of Psalm Ixviii. stand thus : 18. Av«te«« £/« 
 
 UTTitSovira rov KXTccc-Kiivua-xi. 19. Kvpio? o &101; evA«y«ro5, ivXoyKTOi tcv- 
 
 ^loi iif^s^otv y.oiP tiitepxv, K. T. A. Without attempting a translation of 
 these '.vords, which it would not be very easy to give, I request 
 the attention of the English reader to the verses as they stand in 
 his own Bible : — " 18. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast 
 led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men, yea for 
 the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them. 
 19. Blessed be the Lord who daily loadeth us with his benefits, 
 &c." In the original Hebrew, the words aTiSx n% correspond- 
 ing to Ki/f/es, ©£85 in the beginning of ver. 19. in the LXX. are 
 the concluding words of verse 18. and are rendered in the estab- 
 lished version accordingly, " that the Lord God might dwell 
 among them." In the LXX. these words have been transferred, 
 at the expense of sense and syntax, from the end of the 18th to 
 the beginning of the 19th verse; and this has given rise to the 
 insulated and anomalous phrase ktpios 'o ©eos etaofhtos, 
 in the beginning of the latter. There seems good reason, there- 
 fore, for thinking that this is only an instance (and it does not 
 stand alone) of confusion and anomaly in the Septuagint version, 
 and that the proper doxoiogy begins with the second evMynreg inverse 
 19. EyAoy«Tfl5 Kvpteg «. t. A ; which brings this case into agreement 
 with the established practice of the language, and, in so far as the 
 phraseology of the Scriptures is concerned, renders it invariable. 
 " 7th, Because although the participle comes Jirst in every 
 
446 
 
 other instance, a sufficient reason for its being so placed, may, 
 in almost all these cases, be assigned, viz. that the name of God 
 is connected by the relative pronoun i'os) with one or more claus- 
 es, the interposition of which would remove the participle to too 
 great a distance from its noun, if it were thrown back to the end 
 of the sentence." The answer to this is obvious. 1st. There 
 is a considerable number of cases, in which there are no such 
 subsequent clauses, yet the arrangement is still the same. If it 
 were indeed on account of these clauses that the participle is 
 thrown to the beginning, how comes it to be still thrown to the 
 beginning when no such reason exists ? 2dly. When such clauses 
 do exist, connected with the noun by the relative pronoun, there 
 is no necessity for the participle, on the supposition of its following 
 the noun, following also the clauses which describe or qualify the 
 noun, and being thrown to the end of the sentence. There is an- 
 other arrangement, which produces neither obscurity nor inele- 
 gance. The participle mayfolloro the noun, and yet precede the 
 relative, and the clause or clauses connected with it. This may- 
 be illustrated by the following instance, in which the use of the 
 substantive verb with the participle makes no difference as to 
 
 the principle : — I Kings X. 9. Fsvoito Kvpioi o Gsog <rov evXoytifAfVee, 
 e« ^hXriTtv ev cot SovDcti <ri tTsrt B-^ovov Is-^aajA* x. r. A. which SuitS equal- 
 ly well the idiom of our own language : — " Let the Lord thy 
 God be blessed, w^HO delighted in thee to set thee on the throne 
 of Israel," &c. In the circumstances, then, described by Mr. 
 Yates, the participle may, in this manner, come after its noun, 
 without being at all " removed to too great a distance from- it." 
 These circumstances, therefore, cannot be the true reason for its 
 being placed before it. 
 
 Sucli are the grounds which appear to Mr. Yates " to have 
 so much weight" as to render the passage '•'•scarcely even ambigu- 
 ous.'*'^ The reader must judge of them for himself. To me they 
 appear weak and flimsy in the extreme : and in such a case as 
 this, weakness on the one side of the argument is so much addi- 
 tional power on the other. 
 
 But Mr. Yates proceeds : — " Further, where the opinions of 
 fhc writer are unknown, the best method of ascertaining the sense 
 
147 
 
 of a dubious expression is, to inquire how it was understood by 
 those persons to whom he directly wrote. In the present case, we 
 have unusual advantages for the determination of this question." 
 P. 197. " These unusual advantages" consist of a quotation from 
 the epistle of Clemens Romanus to the church at Corinth : — 
 " From them came all the priests and Levites, who minister at 
 the altar of God ; from him (Jacob) as concerning the flesh came 
 the Lord Jesus (f| avrov i Kv^iof i^tov^ to Kxrat, e-x^xrX') from him 
 came kings, and rulers, and leaders, in the line of Judah." A 
 Unitarian must surely feel his resources to be very scanty, when, 
 with all due formality, he introduces this quotation as " aftbrding 
 unusual advantages." I may be told that " there are none so 
 blind as those who will not see." I can't help it. I certainly 
 do not see that there is any " clear allusion'''' in the words of 
 Clement to the passage before us. It is a sentence which any 
 person might have written, without having the most distant 
 thought of the passage in his mind. And, even if the allusion 
 were as clear as Mr. Yates thinks it, the inference from the al- 
 lusion is merely presumptive ; and the alternative of the pre- 
 sumption is, whether it was natural for a writer, in alluding to a 
 particular sentence, to allude to it in zohole or in part : a ques- 
 tion, as to which, (considering the endless variety of circum- 
 stances by which a writer's mind may at the moment be influenc- 
 ed) we are surely most incompetent judges. 
 
 Mr. Yates further refers to " many of the most eminent chris- 
 tian writers of the first four centuries." I make no pretensions 
 to intimacy with the fathers ; nor do I feel any particular anxiety 
 to cultivate it. A question which we cannot determine for our- 
 selves from the Bible, will be but poorly determined by a refer- 
 ence to them. While Mr. Yates, following Wetstein, makes con- 
 fident appeal to '■'■many'''' of them, on one side of the question : Dr. 
 Whitby on the other, asserts, " that the reading we follow is cer- 
 tainly the true reading, because it has the general consent omni- 
 um ferme patrum, of almost all the fathers, who have thus cited 
 it from the second to the sixth century :" and then he enumerates 
 his authorities. I leave it to those who choose to be at the 
 trouble, to balance these accounts. As the fathers difter from 
 
148 
 
 one another, and .sometimes, 1 fear, hardly agree with themselves-; 
 I see little good to be got by reference on disputed points to their 
 authority. 
 
 Mr. Yates concludes his strictures on this passage in the fol- 
 lowing terms : — " The various evidences, which I have here 
 brought together, to determine the true method of translating thi* 
 verse, leave in my mind not the smallest doubt, that instead of 
 ' WHO IS OVER ALL GoD BLESSED FOR EVER,' the translation ought 
 to be, ' God who is over all be blessed for ever.' If this 
 is the meaning of Si. Paul, how bold, how rash, are Mr. Ward- 
 law's animadversions. He affirms, that the clause, so translated, 
 is ' deprived of all force and meaning whatever,' and ' converted 
 into a useless and unnatural pleonasm, which adds weakness in- 
 stead of strength and propriety to the expression and the senti- 
 ment." P. 199. 
 
 Now, in the first place, this is absolutely false ; and Mr. 
 Yates, in writing this paragraph, must have been guilty of the 
 most inexcusable carelessness. Of " the clause so translated" 
 I have said no such thing as, with the charge of " boldness and 
 rashness of animadversion," he here imputes to me. The words 
 which Mr. Yates quotes were used by me with exclusive refer- 
 ence to the phrase " as concerning thejlesh.''^ They stand thus : 
 " But besides these considerations as to the construction of the 
 words in the original, there is something in the antithetical form 
 of the sentence, which clearly indicates the same thing, and con- 
 firms, if such confirmation were necessary, the common transla- 
 tion. I allude, as you will perceive, to the jihrase ' according to 
 thejlesh.'' Is not this expression evidently intended to distin- 
 guish what he was thus, from what he was otherzvise ? Does it 
 not immediately suggest the question ' What was he else ? What 
 was he not according to thejlesh ?'' The ordinary translation of 
 the phrase in question conveys the precise meaning of the origin- 
 al : — ^ as concerning thejlesh^'' that is, '^ as far as respects the 
 flesh,'' or ' as to his human nature ;' which is thus contrasted with 
 that higher view of his person, according to which he was the 
 possessor of underived and independent existence. Remove 
 from the words this idea of antithesis, and you deprive them of 
 
149 
 
 all force and meaning whatever : you convert them into a use- 
 less and unnatural pleonasm, which adds weakness, instead ot 
 strength and propriety to the expression and the sentiment." — 
 This reasoning Mr. Yates has thought proper to pass unnoticed. 
 In a Note, indeed, he refers to a subsequent remark of mine, con- 
 demnatory of the translation of the clause in the " Improved Ver- 
 sion of the New Testament," where it is rendered, " hy natural 
 disccnt.''^ Speaking of the extract from Clement, quoted above, 
 he says : " The expression icxtx rov UvSxv, ' in the line of Judah,' 
 in the last clause, assists to explain to kxtx s-xpKx, ' as concerning 
 the Jlesh,^ in the second clause ; and, so far as I can judge, justi- 
 fies the translation ' by iiatural descent,'' which is given in the 
 Improved Version. Mr. Wardlaw, however, affirms, that to un- 
 derstand the expression in this sense, is taking ' a most arbitrary 
 freedom with the words themselves, which is utterly inadmissible 
 and deserving of the severest reprehension.' " (Page 198.) 
 
 Will Mr. Yates venture to stake his credit as a Greek scho- 
 lar on the soundness of this criticism ? Ho knows too well, I 
 should think, the effect of the prepositive article in such phrases. 
 — " To y.xrcc a-ctpKce. — Act. Apost. ii. 30. Quantum ad carnem atti' 
 net.'''' Vigerus. — " Interdum t« absolute ponitur, et vertendum 
 est quantum ad, ad illud quod attinet, nempe, Rom. ix. 5. ro x-ara 
 o-oi^ycec, nempe quoad humanam ejus naturam." Schleusner. — 
 
 " Rom. ix. 5. TO icxrcc a-a^KX, for X.XTX to kxtx tx^kx pc?'?.***) ^'^ ^^^' 
 
 pect of the jiesh.'''' — Parkhurst. 
 
 The reasoning, then, from the antithetical form of the sen- 
 tence, stands in all its force. — Acts ii. 30. referred to by Vige- 
 rus, furnishes a strong confirmation of it : — " Therefore, being 
 a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath 
 to him, that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh 
 (to X.XTX G-x^Kx) he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne." 
 What is the meaning of the phrase here ? If Jesus possessed 
 no other nature than the ordinary nature of a man, was it not 
 enough to say that he was to be of the -fruit of David's loins ? 
 How could he spring from the loins of David otherv-ise than 
 after the flesh ? Why, then, the qualifying clause — Mi respect 
 of the flesh ? unless it was intended to exclude a higher nature, 
 70 
 
150 
 
 which Cnteied into the constitution of his person, but accord' 
 ins to which he was not descended of David — not his Son, but 
 his Lord. — On this principle, it appears to me that the occur- 
 rence of the phrase — e| uvrov i Kv^ioi Ititrovi TO K.ATA SAFKA — in 
 the extract from Clement, is a much stronger evidence in sup- 
 port of the Trinitarian view of the person of Christ, as held by 
 that Father, than any fancied allusion to Rom. ix. 5. without 
 quoting the part of the verse which directly affirms his divinity, 
 can furnish against it. 
 
 " Wherever that phrase ' according to the Jlesh* occurs, it 
 implies some other aspect under which the thing or person may 
 be contemplated. Paul had other brethren besides those who 
 were sprung by natural descent from Abraham (Rom. ix. 3.); — 
 there was another Israel, besides that distinguished by the name 
 on account of fleshly birth (1 Cor. x. 18.); — Christ might be 
 viewed in another aspect than according to his descent from Da- 
 vid (Acts ii. 30.); — and finally, there were other masters than 
 masters according to the flesh (Eph. iv. 5.); else this form of 
 expression could not, in the passages referred to, with propriety 
 have been used.""^ 
 
 It is truly surprising to hear Mr. Yates assert (page 196.) 
 that " the utmost that can be said to vindicate this rendering" 
 (the rendering in our English Bibles) "is, that it does not violate 
 the rules of grammar or the idioms of the Greek language, and 
 iheveiovc may possibly be the true translation." This, I say. 
 is truly surprising. The ordinary translation is admitted to be 
 unobjectionable on the ground of grammar or of idiom : And, in- 
 deed, supposing the Apostle to have meant to say, what we 
 affirm he did mean to say, it is just the manner in which we 
 
 * " Ubicunque enim locutio ilia y.ctTx <rxpi(.a reperitur, indicatur simul alia 
 rei aut personje facies, quse considerari potest. Paulus alios habuerit ct.S'iXtpovi 
 quam hos Abrahamo oriundos ; alius sit Israelis populus quam is tantummodo 
 qui propter natales hoc nomine insignitur ; alio intuitu possit considerari 
 Christus, quam quatenus natales ejus ex Davide repctuntur ; alii denique sint 
 y.v^iti quam »aT« c-a^jca, necesse est, si L.C.L. (Rom. ix. 3. 1 Cor. x. 18. 
 Acts ii. 30.) "et Eph. vi. 5. ea loquendi forma usurpari potest," Hermann? 
 Royaards, Diatribe de divinitate Jcsu Christi vera. P. 139. 
 
151 
 
 should have expected him to express it.* — But this is a great 
 deal more than can be said for the Unitarian version. Mr. 
 Yates "has no doubt" (p. 196.) "that a person familiarly ac- 
 quainted with the Greek, and free from any previous bias to the 
 Trinitarian doctrine, would without hesitation understand the 
 last clause 05 an abrupt ascription of praise to the God who is 
 above alL^^ And yet he is obliged to admit, that the words, so 
 interpreted, are differently arranged from what is the uniform 
 practice in the Old and New Testament Scriptures, with one sol- 
 itary/ exception, and even that one, we have seen, more than 
 doubtful. On what reasonable principles of cirticism, then, can 
 it be affirmed of one translation thatTt " may possibly be the true 
 one," and that this is " the utmost that can he saicP'' for it, al- 
 though it is admitted to be cjuite consistent with syntax and with 
 idiom ; while the preference is given to another, in which the 
 idiom, or customary practice of the language, is acknowledged 
 to be violated ? 
 
 In concluding my remarks on this text, I adopt, with Dr. 
 Middleton, the words of Michaelis : — " I for niy part sincerely 
 believe, that Paul here delivers the same doctrine of the divinity 
 of Christ, which is elsewhere unquestionably maintained in the 
 New Testament." 
 
 . The next passage which Mr. Yates, with other Unitarians, 
 endeavours to set aside from the list of proofs of our Lord's di- 
 vinity, is Heb. i. 8. " But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O 
 God, is for ever and ever." 
 
 1. It is amusing to observe, how Mr. Yates puffs off his high 
 
 * " Illud ut ad neminem nisi ad Christum potest referri. Id docet ipsa 
 loquendi forma : ea enim permiitatur cum altera o? ec-ri, Ita Rom. i. 25. dicitur 
 Tov xT/FstvTa 05 £o-r<v f^Aoy^jTs? en revg uiwv»i : sed 2Cor. ii. 31. o 9-toi — o 
 A»» evMytiToi £<? ret/5 «<»»«5 : et usurpatur, quum plura de eo dicuntur de quo 
 sermoerat; ita Joh. i. 18. o juavayev^s viog o m eii rev oceXvov tov «-«rfo5, 
 et Joh.iii. 13. o vloi rov xtfi^uTrov o m sv t&» ov^cevitj, adeoqueeade re dubilari 
 plane nequit : eo minus, quoniam illud antegressum to kcctx trx^jcx Christum 
 certa quadam in ratione collocat, et manifesto docet, eumalio etiam intuitu con-. 
 siderari posse." Royaards, Diatribe, &c, P. 138. 
 
15^ 
 
 authorities against nie, accusing me of the most impudent etiron- 
 tery, in venturing to bring any charge against them, and then, 
 
 " With hesitation admirably slow," 
 
 humbly presumes to ditier from them himself. We have had one 
 instance of this. Here we have another. — " Grotius, Dr. Samuel 
 Clarke, and Mr. Pierce, with many other learned men, have re- 
 marked," it seems, " that this passage may, with equal propriety, 
 be translated, ' God is thy throne forever and ever.' " Now, 
 the propriety of a translation of any phrase must be estimated 
 by various considerations ; such as, its consistency with the 
 grammar and idiom of the language /rom which the translation is 
 made ; its consistency with the grammar and idiom of the lan- 
 guage into which the translation is made ; and its consistency 
 with the connexion and scope of the passage where the phrase 
 occurs. The learned men who prefer the translation "God is 
 thy throne," had, no doubt, all these considerations present to 
 their minds in giving the preference. Mr. Yates, however, in 
 opposition to Grotius, and Dr. Clarke, and Mr. Pierce, and all 
 the other eminent men to whom he refers, " is inclined to prefer 
 the common translation " on account of " the want of a parallel 
 form of expression.'*'' Were these "most learned and respected 
 Theologians that ever wrote" not aware of this want? 
 
 2. By " the want of a parallel form of expression," we are 
 not, I presume, to understand him as meaning, the want of a 
 parallel form of Greek construction. For he says, " there is no 
 disputing the observation of the learned men above referr£d to, 
 that the original may, with equal grammatical propriety, be trans- 
 lated ' God is thy throne ,•' " and he brings forward two instances, 
 which have "come in his v/ay incidentally while writing his 
 treatise," requesting me " to say as to them how the article got 
 into the predicate of the proposition." The passages are. Rev. 
 
 XIX. IQ. ^ yet^ i^et^Tv^ix rev lijcav ca-ri to "XVtvfAct. tth 7rpe^iiT£iXi : and 
 
 1 Cor. xi. 3. TirccvTOi uvopoi i x.(^a?iii o Xpie-roi io-Ti, Mr. Yates " ad- 
 vises any of his readers who thinks that he understands Greek, 
 to lool; at these passages ; and then," says he, " he may consult 
 Dr. Middlcton and the Eclectic Review, if he pleases.''^ P. 200. 
 
153 
 
 It may be worth the reader's while to consult Dr. Middleton, not- 
 withstanding this contemptuous sneer. He will there find the 
 former of these two texts classed among convertible propositions, 
 which he elsewhere defines to be " such, that of either term taken 
 as the subject the other may be affirmed as the predicate."* As 
 to the latter text, (which is part of a verse) it is somewhat re- 
 markable, that the very same verse furnishes two instances of the 
 general rule that the predicate of the proposition should be an- 
 arthrous : — " x£(p<«A>j S'e yvvdiKOi o uvti^ icicpecX-^ St X^ierrov o Gco^."^^ On 
 that clause, which is considered as in opposition to the rule, Dr. 
 Middleton's Note is as follows : — " V. 3. Trcfiroi xvipoi » Ke0ccx>)' 
 We have not here a real, though an apparent, breach ol the rule 
 of regimen : for Trxvroi otvdpa? is equivalent to rov avJ'^os, using the 
 article in the hypothetic or inclusive sense. Besides, Travroi rav 
 uvS^oi would have a different meaning. The next >i.t<p<x.Ki) wants 
 the article, which could not be admitted."! 
 
 3. Should it be alleged that the text in question, understand- 
 ing o ©£«5 to be in the nominative case, may be a convertible pro- 
 position too, we answer, No. Mr. Wakefield, indeed, seems to 
 have thought that it might. He translates the words, with Uni- 
 tarians in general, 'i God is thy throne for ever and ever :" but in 
 his History of Early Opinions, to which, in his note on the text, 
 he refers the reader, he subjoins ; — " Or, perhaps. Thy throne is 
 the everlasting God.'''' Without insisting on the absurdity of the 
 translation " the everlasting God,''' which is sufficiently exposed 
 in Dr. Middleton's remarks on the text ; I observe, that, if the 
 Unitarian rendering, " God is thy throne,'''' is justified on the 
 principle of ellipsis, the meaning of the phrase being '• God is 
 the stability of thy throne," what will become of the ellipsis when 
 the arrangement of the words is reversed ? Had it been a meta- 
 phor, such a reversal might possibly have been made without 
 producing any material alteration of the sense. But a metaphor 
 it is not pretended to be : and surely " Thy throne is God,'''' for, 
 Thy throne is established or supported by God, is something still 
 
 * Middleton on the Greek Art. page 674, and page 77. 
 i Il:)id. page 47C. 
 
154 
 
 farther beyond the range of common sense than the other. It 
 cannot be said, that it is more'entirely without parallel ^ for no 
 expression can have fewer parallels than none at all. 
 
 4. That the phrase " God is thy throne'''' for " God is the sup- 
 porter of thy throne" is without a parallel, is admitted, we have 
 5een, by Mr. Yates ; and on this ground he prefers the common 
 translation. I should have, therefore, spared my remarks on that 
 ■which he gives up^ had it not been for the severity of his observa- 
 tions on my '■'■unhesitating dogmatism,'''' in presuming to say a word 
 against the high authorities by whom it was sanctioned. In al- 
 lowing that B €>eoi is here in the vocative case, and that the clause 
 is rightly translated " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,'''' 
 Mr. Yates agrees with Wetstein, who also assigns the same rea- 
 son for approving the common version : — " Quinam," says he, 
 " ita interpretantur, Deus est thronus tuus, i. e. Deus fulcit et 
 erigit thronum tibi. Isto vero scnsu cum nusquam scriptura hac 
 phrasi utatur, simplicius multo est intelligere vocem Deus in casu 
 vocandi : O Deus, Dei Filius, thronus tuus est a seculo in secu- 
 lum, rcgnabis asternum. Luc. i. 32, 33. Thren. v. 19." — 
 " Some interpret thus : — God is thy throne, i. e. God stablishes 
 and upholds thy throne. But as the Scripture no where employs 
 this phrase in such a sense, it is much more simple to understand 
 the word God in the vocative case : O God, Son of God, thy 
 throne is from generation to generation, thou shalt reign for ev- 
 er." Luke i. 32, 33. Lament, v. 19.* This critic, indeed, not 
 only considers it as in the vocative here, but conceives that, in 
 the subsequent part of the quotation, where o Oeoi occurs twice, 
 and is rendered " God even thy God,'''' it should, in the first of 
 these occurrences of it, be rendered in the vocative too. His 
 words are : — " o ©£05] Prius vocandi casu iterum intelligendum 
 est, ut commatc 8. Cum enim in eo sit Paulus, ut honorem et 
 dignitatem Christi adserat, magis consentaneum est, ut Dei no- 
 men illi hie tribui credamus,"— " God] In its first occurrence in 
 this verse is again to be understood in the vocative case, as in 
 verse 8. For since in it the object of Paul is to assert the hon- 
 our and dignity of Christ, it is more consistent to consider the name 
 * Wetslein's Greek Tcstaraenl, Notes on the Text. 
 
155 
 
 of God as here given to him."* According to Wetstein, there- 
 fore, the wliole would stand thus : — " 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, O God, thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of 
 gladness above thy fellows." 
 
 5. But it seems the words " unto the Son he saith,''^ do not 
 denote an address to the Son. " I shall have occasion," says 
 Mr. Yates, " in the latter part of this chapter to show, that the 
 words with which the quotation is introduced ' unto the Son he 
 saith,^ do not denote an address to the Son." P. 200. This 
 observation, as appears from the latter part of the chapter, is 
 founded on the circumstance, that the preposition rendered "ww- 
 <o' (nPOS) often signifies with reference to, or concerning, and 
 that it is used in this sense in the preceding verse, where it is 
 rendered " of the angels," that is, " concerning the angels he 
 saith." These observations are accompanied with the following 
 formal statement : — " Without fear of being contradicted by any 
 accurate scholar, I affirm, that the exact sense and only allowa- 
 ble translation, of the inspired author's words is as follows : — 
 Kas< jttfv JTfos Tof? ccyyeXtvz 
 
 Verse 7. And, on the one hand, concerning the angels, 
 
 Aeyet 
 
 he saith, who maketh his angels spirits, &c. 
 
 At ^poi T«v viov 
 
 "Verse 8. But on the other hand, concerning the Son," d:c. 
 Page 212.t 
 
 * Ibid, 
 t In a note, Mr. Yates had gone so far as to express a doubt, '• whether s-^o? 
 is ever used to denote an address to any one, this being signified by the dative 
 case without any preposition." Subsequent examination, however, suggested 
 possibly by Mr. Brown's remarks on that note, in his " Strictures," has convinc- 
 ed him of his mistake ; and he has candidly acknowledged it by inserting, on the 
 back of the title-page of his Sermon on " the duty and manner of deciding the 
 principal religious controversies," the following notandum, along with two or 
 three other "inaccuracies of statement in his 'Vindication of Unitarianiem,' 
 which he takes that opportunity of correcting :"— -" P. 197. erase the J^ote. Sec 
 Schlcusner, V. n^o5. No. 2." 
 
15G 
 
 Now, granting all this with the utmost readiness, what is it 
 to the purpose, as to the present quotation ? Nothing can be 
 more futile than this formal appeal to all accurate schjolars, about 
 the " exact sense and only allowable translation" of the words 
 with which the quotation is introduced. For what, after all, 
 shall we make of the quotation itself? It bears the form of an 
 address ; " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever ;" and, 
 translate ^^05 in any way you please, an address it will inevita- 
 bly remain. Nothing else can be made of it. The translation 
 of the preposition cannot alter the nature of the thing. It is an 
 address ; — -and an address to the Son. 
 
 6. " At present," adds Mr. Yates, " the only question to be 
 determined is, whether the word ' God' is here to be understood 
 in its highest sense, as denoting the supreme Divinity, or in its 
 inferior sense, as signifying a person authorised, commissioned, 
 and inspired to declare the will of God to mankind. In order to 
 remove every doubt upon this subject, it appears only necessa- 
 ry to bring forward the entire quotation." — Having done this, he 
 proceeds • — " Can the all-perfect Jehovah be anointed ? Can 
 any thing be imparted to him, or his eternal glory receive any 
 increase 1 Is there any being in existence who can be called 
 HIS GOD ? Can the God who is supreme over all have a superior? 
 — Either these questions must be answered in the affirmative, to 
 the subversion of piety, as well as common sense, or it must be 
 conceded, that the invocation 'O God' is to be understood 
 according to the inferior sense of the name." Pages 200, 201c 
 
 We have, first of all, in this singular passage, the admission, 
 that the Avords quoted by the apostle are an address to the Son ; 
 so that, in as far as this quotation is concerned, the criticisms on 
 the import of nros have no application whatever. How little 
 they have to the quotation which follows it, we shall afterwards 
 
 see. But further : we have here a remarkable instance of 
 
 what is a common practice with our author. He states, in 
 terms of the utmost confidence, difficulties attending the inter- 
 pretations of Trinitarians : difficulties involving, according to 
 him, " the sulnersion of piety and common sense," without 
 ever so much as adverting, any more than if he never had heard 
 
157 
 
 of such a thing, to the great principle of their system, by which 
 such ditTicuIties are solved — I mean, the double view of the per- 
 son and character of Christ, — as being God in our nature, and 
 as sustaining the voluntarily assumed relation of a servant of the 
 Godhead, fulfilling a work, and receiving his mediatorial domin- 
 ion in reward of it. " Ita et de Christo," says Calvin, " Scrip- 
 tures loquuntur: attribuunt illi interdum quse ad humanitatem 
 singulariter referri oporteat : interdum qua? divinitati peculiariter 
 competant : nonnunquam qua? utramque naturam complectantur, 
 neutri seorsum satis convcniant. Atque istam quidem duplicis 
 natures conjunctionem, quce in Christo subest, tanta religione 
 exprimunt, ut eas quandoque inter sc communicent ; qui tropus 
 veteribus «Jr«vjft)^« ;4o/Kyv;« dictus est." Instit. p. 123. — " So al- 
 so the Scriptures speak of Christ : sometimes ascribing to him 
 properties which belong exclusively to the human nature ; some- 
 times such as are peculiar to the Divine ; and, occasionally, such 
 as embrace both, not being sufficiently appropriate to either of 
 them by itself. And, indeed, that union of two natures, which 
 subsists in Christ, they express with so much scrupulosity, that 
 they even at times impute, reciprocally, the properties of the one 
 to the other ; — a figure of speech, which is called by the ancients 
 ihi»<jLxruv Koivuitcc. — communion of properties." — Let the reader 
 assume the correctness of this principle, and he will find no diffi- 
 culty in conceiving, how Christ should be addressed as possess- 
 ing the Divine nature, and yet, in the character of Mediator, and 
 in the form of a servant, as anointed ^ as having the Father for 
 his God ; and as receiving " dominion, and glory, and a king- 
 dom." From this single consideration, he may appreciate the 
 value of Mr. Yates' confident assertion, that, in order to remove- 
 every doubt" that the name God is to be understood in the infe- 
 rior sense, " it is only necessary to bring forward the entire 
 quotation." 
 
 1 John V. 20. " 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 in him that is true."" even in his Son Jesus 
 Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." 
 
 Of Mr. Yates' strictures on this text too (which is the text a\ 
 31 
 
15S 
 
 my Discourses on the Divinity of Christ), 1 might simply say 
 ** answered hy anticipation.'''' The extreme confidence of his as- 
 sertions, however, which is here, as in some other cases, in the 
 inverse ratio of the strength of his argument, renders a few re- 
 marks necessary. 
 
 1. On the question whether the pronoun " this'''' refers to the 
 near or to the remote antecedent, Mr. Yates first tries to get a 
 near antecedent more suitable than the existing one to the Uni- 
 tarian hypothesis, by observing, that Griesbach marks as douht- 
 ful the words " Jesus Christ.'''' " Now," says he, " if these 
 words be omitted, the nearest antecedent is the w^ord {avrtv) '•his,'^ 
 which refers to Gorf," (P. 202.)— Had Mr. Yates felt perfect 
 confidence in the validity of his subsequent principle of interpre- 
 tation, by which the pronoun is made to refer to the remote ante- 
 cedent, he would hardly, I should think, have condescended to 
 notice this. For, in the first place, Griesbach not only does not 
 reject the words ^'^ Jesus Christ''^ from the text, (which of itself 
 should have been enough to prevent Mr. Yates from founding 
 any thing on their " uncertainty") — he is so far from rejecting 
 them, that the particular mark, which he affixes to them, is one 
 which implies, ihsit had they been absent from the received text, he 
 would have inserted them as having been ommitted ; only marking 
 them with a certain sign, to indicate to the reader that this had 
 been done, from a preponderance of evidence in their favour. 
 In the second place, their omission would, after all, make no dif- 
 ference whatever in the argument. The words would run thus, 
 — " and we are in him that is true, even in his Son. Tkis is 
 the true God, and eternal life :" — x,xi i/neti, sc-^ev ev rep uxvihvuj 
 EN T£2 Tl'fl ATTOI- OT'TOS io-ri o ct>^>,6tvoi Gsoi, >c.r.X AYTOT, 
 
 Mr. Yates alleges, thus becomes the immediate antecedent to 
 OY'tos : and, no doubt in point of mere local j^osition so it is. 
 But let the reader judge, how low he reduces himself in the ar- 
 gument, when he chooses for his antecedent the most unemphatic 
 word in the whole preceding sentence — the he that is involved 
 in the possessive his. I am fully persuaded, that, even on the 
 supposition made, any reader, free from prejudice, will consider 
 Ti2 ri'9 ATTOT as still the immediate antecedent. — I am not sur- 
 
159 
 
 prised that Mr. Yates should have taken no notice of the second 
 of the cases mentioned by me as justifying the reference of the 
 demonstrative pronoun to the remote antecedent ; — namely, 
 " when the immediate antecedent holds no prominent place in 
 the sentence, but is introduced only incidentally, the remote 
 being obviously the chief subject, having the entire, or greatly 
 preponderating emphasis, in the mind of the writer." Discour- 
 ses, p. 36. — He could not well question the correctness of the 
 rule ; but it would certainly have ill comported with this criti- 
 cism of his. 
 
 T\\G first of the two cases mentioned by me, of warrantable 
 exception to the general rule of connecting the demonstrative 
 pronoun with the immediate antecedent, was — " when obvious 
 and indisputable necessity requires the contrary ;" and on this 
 I observed as follows : — " But in the instance in om* text, no 
 such necessity can be pleaded, except on the previous assump- 
 tion of the certainty that Jesus Christ is not the true God. Were 
 this antecedendy demonstrated, it might justify a deviation from 
 ordinary practice. But to proceed on such an assumption, is to 
 beg the question in dispute." Now, what says Mr. Yates to 
 this ? Why, with the utmost calmness and confidence, without 
 so much as deigning to notice the observation, he just proceeds 
 on this very assumption. He first of all refers to those passages 
 (two of which I had noticed in a note, as usually adduced by 
 Unitarians,) namely, 2 John 7. Acts iv. 11. vii. 19. dwelling 
 particularly on the first of them, — " Many deceivers are entered 
 into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the 
 flesh. This is a deceiver and an i^ntichrist." He then goes on 
 thus : — " But, replies Mr. Wardlaw, the sense of these passages 
 is clear ; because, by supposing the pronoun to refer to the near 
 antecedent, you make the Scriptures speak nonsense. True, my 
 dear friend ; and so do you, when you assert that ' this is the 
 true God"* means ' Jesus Christ is the true God.' A person, not 
 previously instructed in the doctrines oflTrinitarianism, would at 
 the first glance perceive this sentiment to be so false and absurd, 
 that he would immediately refer the pronoun to the more remote 
 antecedent, forming an instantaneous judgment, that the Apostle 
 
160 
 
 (iid not intend to represent Jesus Christ as ' the true God'' any 
 more than to describe him as ' a deceiver and an Antichrist.'' The 
 primitive Christians, who were equally strangers to both of these 
 impossibilities, would without hesitation refer the pronoun to the 
 more remote antecedent in both cases alike. I maintain, there- 
 fore, with Mr. Belsham, that the cases are ' similar f though by 
 so doing I incur that most unreasonable charge which you have 
 directed against him, of want of candour." Pages 202, 203. 
 
 Here we have a tissue of abundantly bold assumptions^ without 
 one pennyweight of argument. — We have, in the first place, the 
 assumption, that we Trinitarians, in making the Scriptures afRrm 
 Jesus Christ to be God, make them affirm as great nonsense as 
 if we should make them affirm Jesus Christ to be a deceiver and 
 an Antichrist. This of itself is a tolerably fair specimen of Uni- 
 tarian confidence. But further : whatever be Mr. Yates' ideas 
 of sense and nonsense, the question is a simple matter-of-fact one : 
 Do the Scriptures affirm Jesus Christ to be God — or do they not? 
 The foregoing assumption, therefore, implies another, namely, 
 that there is just as much evidence in the Bible that Jesus Christ 
 is " a deceiver and an Antichrist," as there is that Jesus Christ 
 is God. Now, is this Mr. Yates' bona fide conviction ? I can- 
 not believe that it is : because, before I can believe it, I must 
 not only suppose him destitute of all candour, but bereft also of 
 understanding, or given up to " strong delusion." Judging from 
 the volume before me, I do not, I must honestly say, reckon can- 
 dour among the cardinal virtues of his character ; but of under- 
 standing, I know that he has been endowed with more than an 
 ©rdinary share. May God dispose him, on this occasion, to make 
 a proper use of it ! But we have not yet done with his assump- 
 tions. He assumes still further, that the primitive Christians 
 (that is, the Christians to whom John wrote, the Christians of 
 apostolic times) were as entire strangers to the doctrine of Jesus 
 Christ being the true God, as they were to the self-contradictory 
 absurdity of his being a deceiver and an Antichrist. 1 say, he 
 assumes this ; for he does no more than barely assert it ; and the 
 assertion, like what precedes, is a mere begging of the question 
 ■;n dispute. Yet, instead of saying as he ought to have said. 
 
161 
 
 *' To beg I am ashamed," he does it with all possible composure 
 and nonchalance^ without the slightest symptom of " confusion oi 
 face." 
 
 " The second argument," says Mr. Yates, " advanced to 
 prove that the person here asserted to be ' the true God' is Jesus 
 Christ, is, that the same God is also called ' Cicrna/ /;/<?.' The 
 expression will be allowed by all to be figurative* It means, that 
 the person so called was the giver, or the promise); of eternal 
 life. It is maintained by Unitarians, as a great and leading 
 principle of their system, that all the blessings communicated to 
 mankind through Jesus Christ originate in the wisdom and good- 
 ness of the one true God. Agreeably to this general maxim, they 
 assert, that the Father promises and gives eternal life thro^igh 
 Jesus Christ. The Father, therefore, is properly ' the eternal 
 life :' Jesus Christ is also ' the eternal life,' but in an inferior 
 sense. Hence St. Paul observes, that ' eternal life is the gift of 
 God THROUGH Jesus Christ our Lord.' " Page 203. 
 
 I cannot be filling up my pages by transcribing long para- 
 graphs from my former volume. If the reader will take the 
 trouble of looking over page 38th of that volume, he will at once 
 perceive, that, in the extract just made, Mr. Yates has thought 
 proper entirely to evade my argument ; which is derived from a 
 comparison of the text in question with the opening of the Epis- 
 tle. He does not so much as look near it ; although it is men- 
 tioned by me as " the circumstance which in my mind placed 
 the matter beyond dispute." — What reason Mr. Yates might 
 have for this, I leave the reader to conjecture. I leave him also 
 to compare for himself any remaining reasonings on this text ; 
 as I dread the imputation of repetition and tediousness. 
 
 For the same cause, I must decline entering into any enlarg- 
 ed additional discussion of the particular usage of the Greek lan- 
 guage respecting the definite article, on which the argument for 
 our Lord's divinity is founded, which is deduced from such pas- 
 sages as Tit. ii. 13. and 2 Pet. i. 1. I shall dismiss this part of 
 the subject v/ith two or three brief observations. 
 
 1. Mr. Yates wraps up the argument in terms of such vague 
 generality, as pretty clearly to show, that he felt himself at a 
 
162J 
 
 loss for any passages of the same construction with those in 
 question, to confront with them, as evidences that they ought to 
 be, or at least might be, rendered according to the common ver- 
 sion : " We find in the New Testament," says he, " numerous 
 passages, in which God and our Lord Jesus Christ are mentioned 
 in conjunction. While they resemble one another in this one 
 circumstance, they differ in an endless variety of ways respecting 
 
 THE USE OR THE OMISSION, and alsO THE ARRANGEMENT of articles, 
 
 pronouns, and adjectives. Owing to these irregularities, some of 
 them are, considered by themselves, ambiguous. But others can 
 only be translated in such a manner as to make a clear arid 
 marked distinction between God and our Lord Jesus Christ. I 
 conceive, that the unambiguous examples ought to serve as our 
 guides towards the just interpretation of those passages in which 
 the sense is not fixed by the grammatical construction. " For 
 these reasons, the received translation ought to be followed in 
 the passages in question, even though no regard were paid to the 
 doctrines of the Divine unity and the inferiority of Jesus Christ." 
 Pages 205, 206. Now, Mr. Yates would have done more to his 
 purpose, had he produced a few texts, in which the construction, 
 with regard to the use of the article, is the same as in Tit. ii. 13. 
 and 2 Pet. i. 1. while they contain, notwithstanding, " a clear 
 and marked distinction between God and our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 Whatever varieties he may find in the use, omission, and ar- 
 rangement of articles, pronouns, and adjectives, unless he can 
 bring forward indisputable instances of the kind I have describ- 
 ed, these varieties (which, however, with respect to the article, 
 I do not believe to be endless as he represents them) can avail 
 him nothing. In the verse immediately following 2 Pet. i. 1. 
 there is a marked distinction between " God'''' and " Jesus our 
 Lord :" but it is worthy of notice, that the construction is chang- 
 ed. In the first verse, we have, " £v hx^ieervvT) rov &e6v nuMv xat 
 "ZtuTit^oi lijirov X^i<rrov ;" in the second, " ev fxiyvaicrit rov ©ssf, x«/ 
 
 \na-ov TQv Kv^to-j ij^fvv." On the other hand, the precisely parallel 
 construction, adduced by me from the eleventh verse of the same 
 chapter, and rendered by our English translators agreeably to 
 the principles of syntax contended for, is left by Mr. Yates un- 
 
16S 
 
 noticed. In both verse 1st and verse 11th, the position of the 
 pronoun ^ftwv (our) appears to me to render the received transla- 
 tion quite unaccountable. Had the words been rov ©£«« x«i i^ar^- 
 f05 'j5;M,w» inTov x^iTTov, we should still have maintained, even from. 
 this arrangement, the validity of our argument. But the case is 
 still more decisive from the real order of the words, rov ©f«t> 
 'HMnN Kcci ZuTij^oi Itjo-ov x^ta-rev. Surely, on all the principles of 
 Greek construction, the possessive pronoun belongs here, in the 
 first instance, to rov ©few. To disjoin it from rov Oeov, which pre- 
 cedes, and connect it with k»i S^tsj^oj 'n/^av, which follows, as our 
 translators have done, is, I should think, without a parallel. It 
 must belong to rov Qiev ; and if it does, it must belong also to 
 SwTjjf ej 'i!f4,uv : for any instance of the phrase nv &eov ^i^m xxt Xa- 
 rij^oi lr,Tev x^ierov, meaning " of ovK God, and the Savioui- Jesm 
 Christ,'''' is, I j^resume, as little to be found as the other. 
 
 2. With regard to Tit. ii. 13. Mr. Yates ought to have ad- 
 duced not only texts of the same construction, yet requiring a 
 different translation from that maintained in our argument : but 
 also instances of the appearing of the Father being mentioned in 
 Scriptures as the object of Christian hope, along with the appear- 
 ing of Jesus Christ. 
 
 3. With regard to Mr. Belsham, the particular part of his 
 strictures on this subject, to which I applied the strong epithet 
 of " shamefully disingenuous,'''' was solely that in which he makes 
 the supposition of the controversy on the great doctrine of our 
 Lord's divinity being " reduced to //iu."— Mr. Belsham could 
 not but be aware that such language was nothing better than 
 empty gasconade ; and that those against whom he thus writes 
 were as far as possible from bringing forward their criticisms 
 on the use of the article, from any consciousness felt by them of 
 their necessity to the support of their system, in consequence of 
 the failure of other arguments.— On this ground, I am not dispos- 
 ed to think the remarks on Mr. Belsham in Note E. overstrain- 
 ed. If any of my readers, however, shall reckon them unduly 
 severe, I am quite contented to class Mr. Belsham's language 
 among those " strong statements, or perhaps oz^fr-statements, 
 to which every man is liable, in defending his own side of an in- 
 teresting question," 
 
104 
 
 Havino- made these brief remarks, 1 leave the reader to re-- 
 peruse my observations on this class of texts, in Discourse III. ; 
 to compare them with those of Mr. Yates ; to consult also, if he 
 has the opportunity, my references in Note E. along with those 
 of Mr. Yates and Mr. Belsham ; and, with his Greek Testament 
 before him, to form his own judgment. 
 
 I proceed to Mr, Yates' animadversions on the instances in 
 which the name Jehovah is given to Christ. 
 
 He admits, that, " in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, 
 Jehovah is used as the peculiar and appropriate name of the 
 one supreme God." — In this case, therefore, there is not as there 
 was in the foi'mer, any inferior sense of the name : — all that we 
 have to do is, to ascertain the fact, that the name is given to Je- 
 sus Christ. 
 
 Mr. Yates, as before, is determined not to be satisfied with 
 any testimony on this point produced from the Bible, unless it 
 be expressed in ihc dived ipsissima verba oi his own dictation. 
 — " Instead of direct scripture testimonies,''^ he says, " Mr Ward- 
 law only brings forv/ard remote deductions, formed by the com- 
 parison of one set of passages with another." We might reply," 
 he immediately adds, " that arguments so complicated are not 
 the proper kind of evidence to establish such an awful, stupen- 
 dous, and infinitely important doctrine." (P. 208.)— It belongs to 
 the reader to judge, how far the instances thus characterized as 
 " remote deductions,''^ and " complicated arguments,'''' deserve to 
 be so denominated. To me they appear, on the contrary, to be 
 such as the simplest and most untutored mind must be able in- 
 stantly to apprehend. " A person is called Jehovah in the Old 
 Testament. Tlie passage in which this person is spoken of is, 
 in the New Testament, expressly referred to Christ : therefore 
 ho is Jehovah. To be deduction at all, we can conceive nothing 
 further from being rewoie."* 
 
 The first instance of the application of the name Jehovah to 
 Jesus Christ, and which Mr. Yates classes among remote deduc- 
 tions, is found in a comparison of Luke i. 16, 17. with Isa. xl. 3. 
 John i. 23. Matth. iii. 3. John iii. 28. John i. 31. and Mai. iii. 1. : 
 * Brown's Strictures, p. 55. 
 
160 
 
 for the illustration of which I refer the reader to pages 73— 
 75, of my former volume. Let us see for a moment the remote- 
 ness of the deduction, the complexity of the argument, in this in- 
 stance. The prophets predict the coming of One, to whom they 
 give the name of Jehovah : They call him, at the same time, 
 " the Lord whom the people sought," — " the Messenger of the 
 Covenant, in whom they delighted ;" and they testify that he 
 should come to " his temple." It is also predicted, that a mes- 
 senger should go before him, to prepare his zvay. In due time, 
 John the Baptist makes his appearance ; and he comes in the 
 character of a precursor, di preparer of the way. That he is the 
 person referred to by Isaiah and Malachi, is admitted. He, then, 
 before whom — before whose face — John the Baptist came, is, 
 '■^ the Lord, the Messenger of the Covenant,^'' the object of Jewish 
 expectation, who was to come to " his temple," the temple of 
 Jehovah. Now, John came to introduce the Christ — to pre- 
 pare for his " manifestation to Israel.'''' John i. 31. He speaks 
 of himself as " sent before him,'''' John iii. 28 ; and of Jesus under 
 the emphatic designation, " He that cometh after me :" and it is 
 remarkable how the terms in which he speaks of Christ accord 
 with the elevated and Divine appellations previously given him 
 by the prophets : — " This is he of whom I said, after me cometh 
 a man who is preferred before me ; for he was before me." John 
 i. 30. I am aware that the words on v^wroi f^ov «v «Sz:c. have been 
 proposed to be rendered " for he was my chief'' or " my superi- 
 or.'''' But, without disputing the possibility of the words bearing 
 this rendering, it is most unnatural to suppose John to have used 
 the past tense, if such was his meaning : — " He is preferred before 
 me, for he zoas my superior." The use of this tense fixes the 
 phrase to the meaning given it by our translators ; and then we 
 have, in John's words, a clear and striking declaration of the 
 pre-existence of Christ. He came after John ; and yet he was 
 before him : a pointed, and obviously designed antithesis. In all 
 this there is perfect harmony. Jesus Christ is the person before 
 whom, before whose face the predicted messenger is sent : He is 
 " the Lord, the Messenger of the Covenant, who was to come to 
 his temple" — " Je/ioraA, whose way was to be prepared." ]*■ 
 22 
 
166 
 
 appeal to the impartial reader, if this be a " remote deduction,''''' 
 or a " complicated argument.^'' Mr. Yates alleges, that the prin- 
 ciple of my argument is " that it is impossible for the same thing 
 to he asserted in Scripture concerning two different beings.'''' P. 
 210. He shows thus how logically he can generalize, and, by 
 " remote deduction,'''' infer a universal principle from a particular 
 case, as if it could not be made out, in that particular case, that the 
 thing asserted is asserted of the same person under different ap- 
 pellations, unless the universal impossibility stated in his general 
 principle is admitted, that in no case can the same things be af- 
 firmed of two different beings. 
 
 On this ground however, Mr. Yates thus reasons : — " The 
 argument may be thus summed up. John went before Jehovah ; 
 and John went before Christ ; therefore Christ is Jehovah. — 
 1 Sam. ii. 12. ' The sotis o/"Eli zoere sons q/" Belial ;' therefore 
 Eli was Belial. Exod. xx. 2. and Deut. v. 6. He who brought 
 the Israelites out of Egypt was Jehovah : but, by Exod. xxxii. 7, 
 sxxiii. 1. He zuho brought the Israelites o^lt of Egypt was Mos'ES ; 
 therefore MoSes was Jehovah. Such are the endless absurdities 
 which would be derived from the Scriptures by proceeding upon 
 the principle of Mr. Wardlaw's argument, that it is impossible for 
 the same thing to be affirmed in Scripture concerning two different 
 beings:'' P. 210. 
 
 I have said, " Mr. Yates reasons :" But I believe I have 
 used a wrong word. There are some things which are so very 
 unreasonable, that it is difficult to show them to be so. There 
 is the same difficulty in refuting a self-evident absurdity as there 
 is in demonstrating a self evident truth. If the reader is con- 
 vinced by Mr. Yates' wit, (in Avhich, if there is any salt, it Avants 
 the Attic poignancy) I cannot help him. I shall only say in the 
 words of Mr. Brown, — " It is almost unnecessary to remark, that 
 the true principle of Mr. Wardlaw's argument is, and it is strange 
 that his opponent did not perceive it, that if it is plainly said in the 
 New Testament that Jesus Christ is the person mentioned in a 
 particular passage of Old Testament Scripture, the name used in 
 that passage properly belongs to him." (Strictures, p. 56.) — 
 Whether it be not ^^ plainly said in the J^ezo Testament^'' tliat 
 
Jesus Christ was the person before whose face, according to 
 the prophets, the messenger was to be sent, to prepare his way ; 
 and whether the various designations and names by which that 
 person was prophetically distinguished, and Jehovah among the 
 rest, do not fairly and evidently belong to him, I leave the reader 
 to judge. The figurative nature of the language used by some 
 of the prophets, on which Mr. Yates enlarges, in pages 210 — 212, 
 has nothing whatever to do with the argument. 
 
 The next passage is Heb. i. 10. "And, thou, Lord, in the 
 beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth ; and the heavens 
 are the works of thine hands." 
 
 With regard to this passage, Mr. Yates makes the following 
 important admissions : — " 1 shall grant to Mr. Wardlaw, that the 
 word Lord ought here to be considered as equivalent to Jeho- 
 vah ; nor am I disposed to consider this passage as a sudden 
 apostrophe to God, because, although this interpretation is very 
 suitable to the idiom of our language, I know of nothing parallel 
 to it in the Scriptures. The only question, therefore, is, whether 
 this quotation was intended by the writer as an address to Christ.''^ 
 P. 211. 
 
 I am satisfied that the question should stand as thus stated. 
 The sole reason assigned by Mr. Yates for not understanding 
 the words as, in the application of them by the apostle, an ad- 
 dress to the Son, is what I have already noticed, page 155, with re- 
 gard to the meaning of the pre})osition nros in verse 8. Taking 
 my observations on that criticism of Mr. Yates along with him, 
 let the reader now remark : 
 
 1. The former quotation, as was then noticed, in whatever 
 way you render npos, is an address to the Son, and can be no- 
 thing else. It is admitted to be so by Mr. Yates, who translates 
 it, " Thy throne, O God," calls it an " invocation,'''' and contends 
 that in this invocation of the Son, God is used in its inferior sense. 
 Such is the ground he takes as to the frst address. 
 
 Now, the second quotation is an address too. Is " Lord," then, 
 to be also taken in its inferior sense ? No. Mr. Yates admits that 
 it means Jehovah. He says, the words are an " address to 
 Jehovah referring to the government of Christ." P. 234. Mr. 
 
168 
 
 Yates shows us in this, how well he can at times satisfy himself 
 with a " remote deduction.^'* The words of the quotation, under 
 the form of an address to Jehovah, contain no more than a sim- 
 ple declaration of his power in the creation of heaven and earth, 
 of his immufabilili/, and his eternal existence. To the government 
 of Christ there is, in the zvords themselves, no sort of reference, 
 direct or remote. Socinian ingenuity has framed a reference, by 
 connecting the power, and immutability, and eternity of Jehovah 
 with the perpetuity of the reign of Christ ; and this they think 
 quite natural and easy. But it is bringing out of the passage 
 what is not in it. The reference is entirely gratuitous. It is 
 truly a " remote deduction.'''' But besides, such an interpretation 
 deprives the passage of all peculiarity of application to the apos- 
 tle's purpose. His purpose is, to show the superiority of Christ 
 to angels. But, unless the words quoted are considered as ad- 
 dressed to Christ, what are they to this purpose ? How is a de- 
 claration that Jehovah created the heavens and the earth, that 
 he is immutable, and everlasting, to be made to bear upon this 
 point ? For my own part, I can see nothing in the words, on 
 this interpretation, to prevent them being prefaced with " con- 
 cerning the angels he saith,''^ with just as much propriety as " con- 
 cerning the Son he saith.''"' 
 
 Mr. Yates adopts the ordinary Unitarian method of setting 
 aside that most plain and convincing proof of Jesus being Je- 
 hovah, derived from comparing Isa. vi. 1 — 5. with John xii, 
 37 — 41. He may, if he please, call it a " remote deduction'''^ by 
 which this proof is obtained. I still deny, as before, that it is a 
 deduction at all. It is as plain and pointed a declaration as the 
 Evangelist could have made, that the glory of Jehovah, seen 
 by the prophet, on the occasion referred to, was the glory of 
 Christ. " He saw his glory," says the Evangelist, " and spake 
 of him." Let the reader look at Isa. vi. and he will find in it a 
 description of the glory which, on the occasion referred to, the 
 prophet saw. But, according to Mr. Yates and his brethren, the 
 glory, which the Evangelist says Isaiah saw, was not at all the 
 glory which Isaiah describes as having been seen by him, but 
 somplhing entirely different ;— and something too, it is remarka- 
 
169 
 
 ble, of which there is no mention whatever made in the whole oi 
 the vision there recorded. " He contemplated," sa3^s Mr. Yates, 
 " the future glory of Christ displayed in the performance of mir- 
 acles." This, it seems, was the glory which he " saiu," — i. e. 
 which he '■'■ fores aio.'''' Yet of this glory no notice is taken by 
 the prophet in the passage : — not a word is said about it. 
 
 Can any thing, then, be more arbitrary than this ? Isaiah 
 tells us of the glory which he saw, — viz. the glory of Jehovah ; 
 and the Evangelist says, " These things said Esaias when ho 
 saw his glory.'''' Yet we must not suppose the glory mentioned 
 in the two passages to be the same ; but the glory mentioned by 
 John to be something entirely different ; and glory too, which 
 the prophet does not in the passage represent himself as having 
 seen at all! — Yet these are the interpreters of Scripture, who 
 reprimand us for our " remote deductions;" who represent us as 
 " contriving to deduce an argument" for the divinity of Jesus 
 from " a mysterious and far-fetched interpretation of the Evan- 
 gelist's words. I pity the man who, on weighing the comparative 
 claims of the two interpretations, can satisfy himself with pro- 
 nouncing ours a '■'• patched-up argument,'''' and giving it the go-by 
 with a constrained admission that " certainly the coincidences are 
 a little remarkable, but that they afford not the shadow of a proof 
 that Jesus is Jehovah." — I repeat, with increased confidence, 
 that " there is no evading the inference which the comparison of 
 these passages forces upon our minds." 
 
 Mr. Yates' translation of Jer. xxiii. 6, " This is the name 
 whereby he shall be called, Jehovah is our prosperity," seems 
 a very unaccountable one. That '■'• righteousness'''' is the usual, 
 and the proper, rendering of the word which he translates '■'■pros- 
 perity,'''' is beyond question. Indeed, I know not of any instance 
 in Avhich it has the signification he annexes to it. Blayney trans- 
 lates the verse — " And this is the name by which Jehovah shall 
 call him, " our righteousness ;" and he apologizes, on the 
 ground of his obligation to faithfulness as_ a critic, for the offence 
 which might be taken by some, at being deprived of this proof 
 of the divinity of Christ. There is more plausibility in this ver- 
 sion. Yet there does not appear to be any sufficient ground for 
 
170 
 
 departing from the ordinary translation. '- Jehovah our righ- 
 teousness," is an appellation which precisely corresponds with 
 the phraseology of other passages — such as, for example, Isa. 
 xlv. 24, 25. " Surely shall one say, In Jehovah have I righ- 
 teousness : In Jehovah shall all the seed of Israel be justi- 
 fied, and shall glory :" And the established version of the text 
 seems to be quite as consistent as the other with the syntax and 
 idiom of the Hebrew language. 
 
 With respect to the parallel passage in chap, xxxiii. 16. 
 *'This is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our 
 Righteousness," the mere English reader will observe that the 
 words " is the name^^ are supplementary. The verse is trans- 
 lated by Blayney, in consistency with his view of chap, xxiii. 6. 
 " And this is he whom Jehovah shall call our righteousness." 
 He says, the pronominal affix, (rendered she in our version) is 
 not the feminine affix, but the masculine in the Chaldee form. 
 Assuming this as correct, the words might be rendered, (and, as 
 the same person is spoken of in both passages, under the same 
 titles, it seems reasonable to harmonize them, when it can be 
 done so simply) — " This is he whom they shall call (or who 
 shall be called) Jehovah our Righteousness." Others, however, 
 considering the pronominal affix as feminine, would render the 
 words — " This person who shall call her, is " Jehovah our Righ- 
 teousness." — " It is generally agreed," says Dr. Guyse, " that 
 this" (viz. the ordinary version) " is a very odd translation of 
 that text, which ought to be rendered, ' He who shall call her, 
 is Jehovah our Righteousness.' And so the Lord, or Jehovah, 
 our Righteousness, is descriptive of Christ by that name, which 
 it was said in the 23d chapter he should be called by."* If, 
 however, after all, the common version shall by any be retained^ 
 the meaning will be, on comparing it with chap, xxiii. 6, — that 
 the grand characteristic distinction of the church of God is, that 
 all his constituent members trust and glory in Him who is there 
 named " Jehovah their righteousness ;" that the doctrine of 
 justification by the righteousness of Jehovah in the human na- 
 
 * Sermons on the Divinity of Christ : Sermon III. near the end. 
 
171 
 
 ture, is a fundamental article in its constitution, in the charter of 
 its privileges antl hopes ; that " Jehovah our righteousness" 
 is the song and the boast of all the followers of the Captain of 
 Salvation, the motto on the banners of the church militant ; — 
 banners which shall at length be suspended in the temple above, 
 retaining their appropriate inscription, when the warfare of the 
 church shall terminate in everlasting peace. 
 
 With regard to Zech. xiii. 7. " Awake, O sword, against my 
 Shepherd, and against the man that is mv Fellow, saith Je- 
 hovah OF hosts :" I am fully convinced myself, notwithstand- 
 ing the authorities produced by Newcome to the contrary, that 
 the passage refers to the sufferings of Christ, and to their conse- 
 quences as to the nation of the Jews, and the true Israel : — and 
 that the proper sense of the appellation " my fellow" is, " the 
 companion, equal, compeer, of the Lord of hosts 5 the Son of the 
 Father ; the ' Word that was with God, and was God ;' "* — 
 the same Shepherd" who is called " the Lord God," in Isa. 
 xl. 9 — 11. But as the word translated " Fe//ozo," is one which 
 does not of itself necessarily imply equality, it might be difficult, 
 on grounds merely critical, derived from the phraseology of the 
 text itself, to establish the justice of this interpretation to the 
 satisfaction of those, who are not previously convinced of the 
 great and blessed truth for which I am contending. Mr. Yates 
 says, that, " to produce this passage as one in which ' the name 
 Jehovah is directly given to Jesus of Nazareth,' proves nothing 
 but the exigency of the case." (P. 213.) — But the case is as 
 far as can be imagined from being a case of exigency ; and 
 therefore, although I have seen nothing to shake my established 
 opinion of the object and import of the text, I feel no solicitude 
 lo press it, and shall leave it to the judgment of the reader. 
 
 For similar reasons, I have omitted Zech. xi.12,13. in the enu- 
 meration of passages in the 2tZ edition of my Discourses. The pas- 
 sage, with its application by the evangelist Matthew,! (chapter 
 
 * Scott's commentary on the text. - 
 t The words of the Evangelist are : " Then was fulfilled that which was 
 spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of sil- 
 ver, the price of hija that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did 
 
17^ 
 
 xxvii. 9, 10.) is, in various respects, obscure and difficult. New- 
 come says, on the words ^ a goodly price that I have been priz- 
 at by them :' Jehovah calls the price of his prophet his own 
 price ; and commands that it should not be accepted, but given 
 to another ; — and to the potter, to foreshadow the transaction re- 
 lated Matth. xxvii. 7." (Minor Prophets, Note on the text.) — 
 But might not Jehovah call the price his own price for a differ- 
 ent reason than its being the price of his prophet ? — the price 
 paid, on the occasion referred to by the prophet, being intended 
 to foreshadow the payment of the same price afterwards, for the 
 life of the Son of God ; for Jehovah, when he appeared for their 
 salvation, in the person of Jesus Christ ? 
 
 The argument derived from the comparison of Rom. xiv. 10, 
 11. with Isa. xlv. 23. stands in its full force, unaffected by Mr. 
 Yates' Unitarian gloss. Let any reader peruse the verses in 
 Rom. xiv. with the preceding context. He will there find that 
 
 value, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." With 
 the difficulty as to the name of the prophet, for which different solutions sufficient- 
 ly satisfactory have been proposed, we have at present nothing to do. Neither 
 is it my intention to discuss the various observations of critics and commentators, 
 made with the view of bringing the quotation in the Evangelist to a correspond- 
 ence with the words of Zechariah. I merely wish to suggest for consideration a 
 thought that has occurred to me respecting the verse in Matthew, which may 
 not, after all, be new. May not those words in the verse, which are not to be 
 found in the prophet, and from which one of the chief difficulties relative to the 
 quotation arises, be intended by the sacred historian, not as a part of the quota- 
 tion, but as a parenthetical explanation of his oivn ? On this supposition the 
 Terse would stand as follows : " Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by 
 Zechariah tlie propiiet, saying, ' And they took the thirty pieces of silver' — (the 
 price of him that was valued, whom they of the cluldren of Israel did value) — 
 ' and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.' " In the pa- 
 renthesis, the historian makes a general reference to the transaction related by 
 the prophet. The quotation will then be, " they took the thirty pieces of sil- 
 ver, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me :" — between 
 which and the words of the prophet, the difference is not very wide : " And I 
 took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the 
 Lord." The substitution of i^aicti. for eSunxv would nearly complete the har- 
 mony. But for tliis, although it has a place among the various readings, the 
 -authority does not appear at all sufficient. For another view of the passage, I 
 "rofer the reader to Dr. Campbell's translation of the Gospels. 
 
Christ is the master whom Christians serve ; the Lord, ta 
 whom they live, and to whom they die, in opposition to living 
 and dying to themselves — whose they are in life and in death, and 
 to whom they must render their final account. To impress on 
 their minds the remembrance that this Lord is not a mere man, 
 — a mere fellow-creature like themselves ; having reminded them 
 that " we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ," 
 he quotes, in proof of this, Isa. xlv. But the whole force of the 
 argument, and appropriateness of the quotation, depend on the 
 circumstance of the speaker in that passage being the same with 
 Christ. The speaker speaks in his own person : " As / live — 
 every knee shall bow to me," «S:c. Now, unless this be Christ, 
 what evidence at all does the passage contain, that we are to 
 stand before his judgment-seat ? — " The whole force of the apos- 
 tle's argument," says Dr. Guyse, " stands on this, that it was the 
 Son, inclusively at least, who ' swore by himself,' or, ' as I live,' 
 ' every knee shall bow to me,' &c. For if we suppose it to be 
 the Father, exclusive of the Son, who said, ' I sware by myself,' 
 or ' as I live,' every knee shall bow to me,' &c. this would have 
 been so far from proving, as the apostle intends and argues, that 
 ' we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ,' that it 
 would have proved just the contrary ; because Christ is not that 
 God who there sware by himself, and consequently not that God, 
 whom by that oath we are obliged to stand before, and bow the 
 knee, and confess to. But if Christ is that God who there ' sware 
 that every knee should bow, and every tongue confess to him,' 
 then the proof is cogent and unanswerable, that we all shall stand 
 before his judgment-seat."* 
 
 On 1 Cor. i. 30, 31. compared with Isa. xlv. 25. Mr. Yates 
 simply says, " That the title Lord is here equivalent to Jehovah, 
 is evident from the passage of Isaiah alluded to by the apostle, 
 Isa. xlv. 25. The meaning evidently is, that men should glory 
 in God, by whom Christ has been made unto them wisdom, and 
 righteousness, and sajictif cation, and redemption,'^'' Page 217, 
 But this is not by any means so very clear. Christ is, in the 
 30th verse, designated as our " righteousness,'''' (which, as distin- 
 
 * Sermons on the Deity of Christ, frermon Ilf. 
 '33 
 
174) 
 
 guished from sanctification, means om- justification ;" — The pas- 
 sage in Isaiah says, " In the Lord (Jehovah) shall all the seed 
 of Israel be justified." Christ, then, is " Jehovah, in whom 
 all the seed of Israel are justified, and in whom they glory." 
 The application of the title " my Lord," in Psal. ex. 1. to 
 Christ, made by Christ himself, and particularly noticed by me, 
 in closing this branch of the subject, Mr. Yates passes over suh 
 silentio. He must either have/t7< it too much for him, or thought 
 it too little. The Pharisees of old were in the former predica- 
 ment. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 In Chapter VI. Mr. Yates examines " the passages in 
 tvhich the peculiar attributes of Deity are supposed to 
 SE ascribed to Christ," 
 
 1. Eternal existence. 
 
 His remarks on the passages adduced under this particulaiv 
 strikingly shew the imbecility of his cause. 
 
 John viii. 58. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abra- 
 ham was, I am." No attempt is made to invalidate my reason- 
 ing* on this text. "Mr. Wardlaw remarks," says Mr. Yates, 
 " concerning this passage, ' Our Lord expressly affirms, that he 
 existed before Abraham.' The truth of his observation will be 
 admitted probably by all Unitarians who believe in the pre-ex- 
 istence of Christ." Page 218. Is Mr. Yates himself, then, one 
 of these ? He does not say. The words of Jesus must mean 
 something. What then does he understand to be their meaning ? 
 He does not tell us. And such is his way. When he thinks he 
 can make any text to comport with the simple manhood of Christ, 
 he tries it. When he feels himself pinched by any text on this 
 hypothesis, he takes refuge behind that of his prc-cxistence, as 
 the first of creatures. We are left thus to conclude, that Mr. 
 Yates considers it as a matter of little or no consequence, wheth- 
 er Jesus was the first and most exalted of creatures, or a mere 
 
175 
 
 man, the offspring of Joseph and Mary; and the Scriptures a& 
 leaving this point quite unsettled. No matter what he be, it 
 should seem, provided it can be shown, that he is not God. 
 
 " After sounding his shrill clarion," Mr. Yates continues, 
 " through three pages, over the Socinian expositors, he observes, 
 The idea, which has often been suggested, is far from being des- 
 titute of probability, that there was in our Lord's words an allu- 
 sion, perceived by the Jews, and rendered, perhaps, emphatical 
 by his manner, to the words of God to Moses, ' I am that I am.^ 
 As our Author here expresses himself with becoming hesitation 
 and modesty, I only wonder that he has introduced this passage 
 among the ' direct and immediate proofs of our Lord's divinity." 
 P. 218. This is partial quotation. The circumstance on which 
 the probability is chiefly grounded is left out of view. The Jews 
 conceived our Lord, in using the words, to be guilty of blasphe- 
 my. This is clear from their taking up stones to stone him. But 
 there was no blasphemy in calling himself the Messiah ; nor any 
 blasphemy in the simple affirmation of his pre-existence as a 
 creature. The blasphemy, on this, as on other occasions, con- 
 sisted in that " he being a man made himself God.'''' And when 
 we recollect, that he spoke to them in their own language ; that 
 they had the look, and emphasis, and manner of the speaker, to 
 enable them to understand his meaning ; and that our blessed 
 Lord did not at all undeceive them, which every idea we can 
 form of his character constrains us to think he must have done, 
 had he perceived them to be actuated by a mistake so gross, and 
 so unutterably revolting to his heart ; we have the strongest rea- 
 son to believe, that they were right in their interpretation of his 
 words, although wrong in accounting them blasphemous. 
 
 Heb. i. 10. Mr. Yates briefly repeats the view of this text 
 which we have already considered, pages 167, 168. 
 
 Col. i. 17. "In the 15th verse of this chapter," Mr. Yates 
 observes, " Christ is called ' the first-born of every creature,' 
 which is a direct testimony that he was not an eternal, but a 
 created being. Nor is this assertion contradicted by the phrase 
 • he is before all things.' For even if we suppose it to mean, 
 not ' he ?>,' but ' he was before all things.' and if we were to grant 
 
176 
 
 that ' if/or€ all things' signifies pre-existence in time, and not 
 pre-eminence in dignity, still it could only signify, that he existed 
 before all things except himself and God. It proves, therefore, 
 at the very utmost, nothing more than our Lord's existence be- 
 fore the creation of the universe." P. 219. 
 
 Here is the same indecision as before. We have in this text, 
 it seems, a direct testimony that Christ is not an eternal but a 
 created being. But, if it be at all a direct testimony against his 
 eternal existence, it must be as direct a testimony /or his jore-ex- 
 istence ; his existence before all other creatures. We ask again, 
 then. Does Mr. Yates believe this testimony 1 But we ask in 
 vain. Cautus horrescit. He sets out upon the principle of never 
 saying what he thinks Christ is, but only showing what he is not. 
 And, to do him justice, he keeps it up. 
 
 But let us examine his positions. And, to take the last first : 
 Although it were granted, it seems, that " before all things'''^ sig- 
 nifies pre-existence in time, and not pre-eminence in dignity, still 
 it could only signify " that he existed before all things, except 
 himself and God." I shall not dispute the position implied in these 
 words, that no being can exist before himself. But if the words 
 " before all things " have any specific meaning at all, they must 
 mean, " before all created things ;" in which case, they exclude 
 the person spoken of from being himself a creature. If he were 
 of the number of created things himself, he could not be " before 
 all things,^'' for the very reason contained in the indisputable 
 proposition that he could not exist before himself. Of no being 
 but an wncreated being can it, with strict propriety, be said" that 
 he is " before all created things.'^'' 
 
 But in the expression, " the first-born of every creature,''"' in 
 verse 15th, we have, it is alleged, " a direct testimony that he 
 was not an eternal but a created being." — The phrase 'r^ororox.oi 
 vxa-m KTta-ioii; appears here however, most naturally to mean the 
 supremacy to which he is exalted, as the " appointed Heir of 
 all things," — the " Lord of all ;" which the Heir is described 
 to be, Gal. iv. 1. — In Psalm Ixxxix. 27, Jehovah, speaking of 
 the Messiah, says, " Also I will make him my first-born, higher 
 than the kings of the earth ;" of which the meaning is, that he 
 
would invest liim with pre-eminent dignity and authority, '• put- 
 ting all things under his feet/' — This agrees well with the sub- 
 sequent context in the epistle : — " And he is the head of the bo- 
 dy, the church ; vt-ho is the beginning, the first born from the 
 dead ; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence ;" — as 
 it does also with Heb. i. 2, 3. where Jesus is spoken of as 
 " Heir of all things,^'' and at the same time as "the brightness of 
 (the Father's) glory, and the express image of his person ;" just 
 as in Col. i. 15. he is called " the image of the invisible God," 
 and " the first-born of the whole creation." — Schleusner says, 
 " Christus vocatur Tr^^ToroKOi Trxa-ng KTia-BUi, princeps et dominus 
 omnium rerum creatarum :" — and Parkhurst : " Christ is called, 
 Col. i. 15. n^wTorojcos %-oiinii y-TKreui, the First-begotten, or First- 
 born of the zohole creation, because he was begotten to be heir 
 and Lord of all things ; (comp. Heb. i. 2, 8. Acts. x. 36.) 
 and in all things, or over all persons, to have the pre-eminence. 
 (Comp. Psal. Ixxxix. 27.) And because all things were cre- 
 ated Eis ccvTov, FOR him, as well as Si' avrov^ by him, in the same 
 view he is styled absolutely ton 7r^6>roTox,ov, the First-born, 
 Heb. i. 6." 
 
 Rev. i. 8. ; i. 17. ; xxii. 13. — On these three passages I refer 
 the reader back to pages 40 — 42. 
 
 Having repeated Griesbach's version of the first of these 
 texts — " saith the Lord God," instead of " saith the Lord,'^^ JVIr. 
 Yates here says : — " Since St. John attributes these words to the 
 Supreme God, they cannot prove any thing respecting Jesus 
 Christ.'''' — If the reader is prepared to allow to Mr. Yates' bare 
 assertions the force of conclusive proofs, he may be satisfied with 
 this begging of the question. 
 
 According to Mr. Yates, " when the Almighty is said to be 
 ' the first and the last,' the meaning is, that he is contemporary 
 with the earliest and the latest events in that chain of causes and 
 eflfects, by which he accomplishes his stupendous counsels. 
 This remark is beautifully adapted to the series of occurrences 
 referred to by the prophet Isaiah. It appears equally suitable 
 at the commencement of a prophetical narration of the successes 
 /ind calamities which were appointed by thf^ Almighty for the 
 
178 
 
 Christian church." Page 220. In the passage referred to, 
 however, in the jDrophecies of Isaiah, Jehovah applies the. epi- 
 thets to himself, in distinguishing himself from the false gods of 
 the heathen ; and they are evidently intended to describe him 
 as, in opposition to these " Vanities," the living and eternal 
 God. The prophet Jeremiah contrasts Jehovah with idols in 
 the following terms ; and if the reader will compare with then! 
 the language of Isaiah in the passages referred to, especially 
 chap, xlviii. 12, 13. he will at once perceive their parallelism 
 and equipollence : — " But the Lord (Jehovah) is the true God, 
 he is THE LIVING God, and an everlasting King : — thus shall 
 ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the earth and 
 the heavens, even they shall perish from the earth, and from 
 under these heavens. He hath made the earth by his power, he 
 hath established the world by his wisdom, he hath stretched out 
 the heavens by his discretion ;" Jer. x. 10 — 12. — The following 
 exposition of the* language in Isaiah xli. 4. is as just as it is ele- 
 gant : — " Ego Jehovah primus et cum ultimis idem sum.] Attri- 
 butum est veri Dei insigne, quod in sequentibus non semel 
 repetitur. Sensus utique est, non esse se Deum nuper natum, 
 cujusmodi debantur Dei inferioris ordinis ex hypothesi genti- 
 um ; sed esse Deum etii'iov, ceternum, cujus existentia naturse 
 essentiseque suae summa perfectione involvitur; omnium rerum 
 causam et principium ; omnis alterius existentise ac substantias 
 tasin ac fundamcntum ; nunquam ortum, nunquam interiturum." 
 — " This is a glorious attribute of the true God, which is after- 
 wards more than once repeated. The meaning clearly is,~that 
 he is not a God lately come into existence, like the gods of in- 
 ferior rank, according to the heathen mythology; but that he is 
 the eternal God, uii'iov, whose very existence is involved in the 
 absolute perfection of his nature and essence ; the cause and or- 
 igin of all things ; the basis and foundation of every other exis- 
 tence and substance; without beginning, — without end." 
 
 When the same epithets are given to Jesus Christ, they ought 
 surely to be understood in the same sense. That the expression 
 " / am THE FIRST," should mean " I am contemporary with the 
 earliest events of the Christian dispensation," is a specimen of 
 
179 
 
 Socinian ingenuity ; but it furnishes evidence of nothing else, 
 " I am the first,'''' suggests the question, " the first of what ? — of 
 creatures ?''"' It cannot mean this when applied io Jehovah ; and 
 neither, on principles of fair interpretation can it mean this when 
 applied to Christ. " I am the first," — is, " 1 am the first or 
 Beings." 
 
 It is difficult to repress indignation at the singular disingen- 
 uousness of such a remark as the following. Speaking of the 
 two passages, Rev. i. 17, 18. and Rev. xxii. 13, Mr. Yates 
 says, " In both cases, the application of the words ' first and 
 last' to our Lord, is so guarded as to exclude the idea of his su- 
 preme Divinity. In the first chapter, after being described as 
 ' the first and the last,' he is immediately stated to have died. 
 This shows, that he is not the Being who alone hath immortali- 
 ty." Page 221. With such obstinate determination does Mr. 
 Yates persist in forgetting the simple principle, that the same 
 person, possessing two natures, may speak of himself, nay cannot 
 but speak of himself in terms that will seem contradictory, if the 
 distinction of natures is not kept in view. It so happens, how- 
 ever, that in this passage of the first chapter, Jesus applies to 
 himself a third epithet, which fixes the meaning of the other two, 
 and renders still more striking and conclusive the correspond- 
 ence between what is thus said of him, and what is said of Je- 
 hovah in the Old Testament Scriptures, as before referred to: 
 " I am the first and the last, and the living one," {lya eif*.i <j 
 jTfwrcs, KKt ec-^xroi, KC6t 'o ZJ2N. This shows " that He is the Be- 
 ing who alone hath immortality.''^ Rev. xxii. 13, will come to be 
 noticed afterwards. 
 
 II. Almighty power. 
 
 On the appellation " Mighty God" given to Christ, In Isa. 
 ix. 6. the reader is referred to pages 132 — 137. 
 
 Rev. i. 8. " The Almighty." 
 
 " If any credit," says Mr. Yates, " is due to the assertion of 
 the sacred writer, these were the words of ' the Lord God,'' and 
 not of Jesus Christ.^'' This is Mr. Yatee' favourite style of logic 
 —begging the question. We simply answer, that, giving all 
 f^redit to the assertion of the sacved writer, aiid to Gricsbach'.« 
 
180 
 
 version of his language, we believe these words to be the words 
 of the Lord God, and yet the words of Jesus Christ notwithstand- 
 ing. 
 
 Those who wish to judge of the correctness of Mr. Yates' 
 assertion, about its being " generally agreed by the fathers of 
 the first four centuries, that the word {frccvTOK^uru^) here translat- 
 ed Almighty, is the peculiar designation of the Father,'^'' (p. 222.) 
 may consult the works that have been written, to ascertain the 
 opinions of the early fathers. For my own part, as I have no 
 idea of settling such a question by an appeal to the fathers, or 
 founding my faith in " the wisdom of men ;" — I satisfy myself 
 with repeating on this text what I have before said in my Dis- 
 courses ; and the observations made upon it in former parts of 
 this Treatise will add force, it is presumed, to the conclusion : 
 " The connexion in which the words stand, and the manner of 
 the writer in other parts of the same book, concur to show, that 
 Jesus is the speaker. And even if it were otherwise, the clear 
 and frequent application of a part of these expressions to Christ 
 is sufficient to justify us in the application of the whole. He 
 who is ' the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the 
 first and the last,' ' the Living One,' we may be well assured is 
 also THE Almighty." Pages 86, 87. As Mr. Yates, however^ 
 has occasionally appealed to Origen, the reader is presented 
 with the following sentence from that celebrated father, as his 
 opinion of the passage under discussion. I give it as it is intro- 
 duced by Jones, on the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity : — 
 
 " Origen, who certainly was no Arian, though often repre- 
 sented as such by some who would be pleased to have the vote 
 of so celebrated a genius, has the following observation : " Ut 
 autem unam et eandem omnipotentiam Patris et Filii esse cog- 
 noscas, sicut unus atque idem est cum Patre Deus et Dominus, 
 audi hoc modo Joanncm in Apocalypsi dicentem : Haec dicit 
 Dominus Dcus qui est, et qui erat, et qui venturus est, omnipo- 
 tens. Qui enim venturus est omnipotens, quis est alius nisi 
 Christus /" " Now, that you may know the omnipotence of the 
 Father and the Son to be one and the same, as he is one and the 
 same God and Lord with the Father, hear what St. John has 
 
181 
 
 said in the Revelation. ' These things saith the Lord, who is, 
 and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.' For wlio is 
 the Ahnighty that is to come but Christ ?"* 
 
 On Pliil. iii. 21. after quoting my words, that " such lan- 
 guage cannot with propriety be used respecting any being who 
 is not possessed of omnipotence," Mr. Yates says : — " The rea- 
 der must make his choice between this unsupported assertion, and 
 the declarations of Paul in other parts of his epistles, that the 
 same God who raised Jesus from the dead, will also raise man- 
 kind, through the instnimcntality of Jesus, and that it is God 
 who shall put all things under his feet ; (2 Cor. iv. 14. 1 Cor. xv. 
 27.)" But the judicious reader will perceive, that it is only on 
 Unitarian principles that he requires to make any choice in the 
 case. A choice supposes the cases stated to be incompatible 
 with each other. But, on Trinitarian principles, there is no in- 
 consistency between the Father raising up the dead " by Jesus''"' 
 as Mediator, and the Mediator himself being, at the same time, 
 possessed of Divine power. 
 
 " I have formerly observed," Mr. Yates concludes, " that 
 the question respecting the power of Christ is, whether it belong- 
 ed to him originally by his own Divine nature, or whether it 
 was conferred upon him by a superior. By producing in order 
 all the passages in the New Testament which relate to the pow- 
 er of Christ, 1 proved the Unitarian doctrine, that it was given. 
 Mr. Wardlaw has not even attempted to prove the contrary." 
 (Page 223.) 
 
 It would not be very reasonable in Mr. Yates, to expect me 
 to argue against myself. That poa;€r tugs conferred upon Christy 
 is not with us a matter of question. It is a necessary part of 
 what we conceive to be the Scripture scheme of redemption, that, 
 having finished his work, he was, in his mediatorial capacity, in- 
 vested with " all power in heaven and in earth." We see no 
 inconsistency between this, and his, at the same time, possessing 
 the inherent power of Deity. We reckon the admission of both 
 these views the only principle, on which the consistency and 
 
 * Jones on the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, page 12th, 8th edition. 
 24 
 
18a 
 
 harmony ot the language of the Scriptures respecting Christ can 
 possibly be maintained. / may say, with truth, that Mr. Yates 
 *■'■ has not even attempted to prove the contrary; for this general 
 principle, which it would have been most of all to his purpose 
 to undermine, he has, throughout his work, left untouched. But 
 more of this, when we come to notice Mr. Yates' ideas about de- 
 rived and communicated power. I only further observe at pres- 
 ent, that his assertion, " Mr. Wardlaw has not even attempted 
 to prove the contrary^'''' must have looked, when he saw it fairly 
 down upon his paper, very much like — something that should 
 have made him blush, and blot it out. Whatever success Mr. 
 Yates may think he has had, in proving the attempt abortive, he 
 knew that the attempt had been made ; that I had brought for- 
 ward direct proofs of Christ's possessing inherent Divine power, 
 as " the mighty God,''"' " the Almighty ;" and that all the evi- 
 dences of his Supreme Divinity together were proofs of the same 
 thing. 
 
 3. Omnipresence. 
 
 Mr. Yates' strictures ou this part of the subject, form one of 
 the most curious " morsels of criticism" in his volume. The 
 passages on which he animadverts are so plain, that he may run 
 who reads them. Let us see how he contrives to involve them 
 in obscurit}'. 
 
 1. "In treating of omnipresence as an attribute of Christy 
 Mr. Wardlaw seems to have forgotten, that he has no distinct 
 conception of it as an attribute of God. So far as can be infer- 
 red from his language, he believes only in the virtual omnipres- 
 ence of God, or in his power of producing eiiects in every part 
 of space. In the same sense, I presume, he understands the 
 doctrine of the omnipresence of Christ. If so, he is not far from 
 Scripture truth." P. 223. 
 
 On the subject of the Divine omnipresence, enough has al- 
 ready been said ; and I had not at all '■^forgotten'''' it, when I 
 wrote of the omnipresence of Christ. Without resuming the 
 subject before discussed, I have now only to ask. Is Mr. Yates a 
 believer in the virtual omnipresence of Jesus F The expressions 
 just quoted nearly imply as much : and we arc justified in the 
 
183 
 
 conclusion by what he afterwards adds. He considers the words 
 of Christ, Matth. xxviii. 20. and xviii. 20. when " properly un- 
 derstood,'''' as " a promise that, wherever any of his disciples 
 assembled to offer up their prayers to God, or in whatever part 
 of the earth they were employed in the service of the gospel. 
 Jesus would accomplish their requests, and supply them with all 
 requisite encouragement and support :" P. 223. and again (on 
 the former passage) " as an assurance that, during their whole 
 ministry, Jesus would watch over them with a tender guardian- 
 ship and aifection, and that his care would extend to them in ev- 
 ery place, preserving them from the dangers to which they would 
 be exposed, and enabling them to exhibit the miracles by which 
 the truth of their preaching would be irresistibly conhrmed." P. 
 225. Readmits that it was CAm/'s pow^r that '■'■ wrought with 
 the apostles, " confirming their word by signs following." One 
 should think that such concessions go far towards an admission 
 that Jesus Christ is God. I have been accustomed to consider 
 omnipresence, whether virtual or actual — (in supposing that 1 dis- 
 believe the latter, Mr. Yates is mistaken) — as being one of the 
 distinguishing perfections of Deity. It is sufficiently obvious, 
 even from its appellation, that virtual omnipresence is, in regard, 
 to the effects resulting from it, the same thing with actual omni- 
 presence ; that the possession of the latter communicates to the 
 Being who possesses it no greater measure of knozvledge, or of 
 power, than is implied in the possession of the former. Yet a 
 mere man, it seems, may be made to possess the former, al- 
 though not the latter ; that is, a mere man may become God in 
 knowledge and in power, only not in extension. Mr. Yates may 
 say what he will about mysteries : but this is a mystery ; and a 
 pretty considerable one too. He indeed alleges, that " this vir- 
 tual presence is merely the exercise of power.'''' But in so saying, 
 he only blinds his reader. The virtual presence, of which he 
 speaks, implies an unerring knowledge of all that is passing in 
 every part of the world at the same instant, and the power of 
 producing effects in every part of the world at the same instant 5 
 and this, too, in the case of Christ, at immeasurable distances 
 from the place where the Being exists by whom the knowledge 
 
184 
 
 and power are possessed. This, I repeat, is one of the mysteries 
 of U mtarianism ; and it certainly is as near an approach to the 
 doctrine of the union of the divine with the human nature in the 
 person of Christ, as we can w ell conceive Unitarianism to make. 
 
 Mr. Yates may allege, that he does not argue from Christ's 
 virtual om?w'-presence, but only for his virtual presence with his 
 disciples in every part of this world. But, if we can conceive of 
 a creature, although at an immeasurable distance, as present, in 
 the exercise of know^ledge and power, every successive instant, 
 in every part of this world where there is a believer in his name ; 
 we have only to suppose the capacities of this creature further 
 expanded, to produce what, on Mr. Yates' principles, will not at 
 least involve a contradiction, a creature, virtually omnipresent 
 and actually omniscient and omnipotent. 
 
 Further : It is curious to observe, how Mr. Yates contrives to 
 make the two parallel passages, Exod. xx. 24. and Matth. xviii. 
 20. comport with his system. Of the former (" in all places 
 where I record my name, / will come unto thee, and I will bless 
 thee,") he says, " It is evident, that this expression describes 
 only a virtual omnipresence. A spirit, extended through all 
 space, and present every moment in every part of it, cannot with 
 any propriety be said to come to a person." P. 224. But in 
 the latter there is nothing about coming. The phrase is — 
 " where two or three are gathered together in my name, ' there 
 AM I in the midst of them.'" Yet according to Mr. Yates, this 
 too must mean only virtual presence ; for it is Christ that speaks. 
 Where, then, shall we find the phrase for actual omnipresence ? 
 It is surely not less incongruous for a creature, whose existence is 
 limited to one spot, to speak of his being with his people in every 
 place, than for the Infinite Spirit to speak of his coming to his 
 people in every place. It is, therefore, singular, that ihe former 
 should be the phrase used by Jesus, and the /aZ/cr by Jehovah. 
 Had the case been reversed ; had Christ used to his disciples the 
 words of Jehovah to Israel, and Jehovah to Israel the words of 
 Christ to his disciples, the former would no doubt have been in- 
 terpreted of Christ's coming to his people, in the exercise of the 
 power conferred on him to bless them ; while the latter woulcl^ 
 
185 
 
 without hesitation, have been understood of the actual omnipres- 
 ence of the infinite God. So Jesuitical are the'pnnciples of Uni- 
 tarian exposition. Mr. Yates says, justly, that our Lord " hav- 
 ing," in tlic preceding verse, "assured his disciples of the fulfil- 
 ment of their united petitions to heaven, assigns a reason why 
 their request should be granted ; ' for where two or three are 
 gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.'" 
 (P. 224.) But two questions immediately suggest themselves : 
 — The first is. How comes it, that Jesus should use such an ex- 
 pression as " there am I in the midst of them,'''' to signify, not his 
 being present with them at all, but simply his possessing power 
 to confer blessings upon them ? And the second is, Does his 
 ^'-poxver of co7if erring the blessings for which they prayed," form, 
 exclusively, the only possible reason for their requests being grant- 
 ed ? Does not the reason hold equally good, when v^'e unite with 
 his power of conferring blessings, the assurance of his preseiice 
 with them, to hear their petitions, to know their circumstances 
 and wants, and to accomplish their desires ? If the reason, so 
 far from being weakened, is strengthened by this interpretation, 
 and the interpretation itself accords with the plain and obvious 
 meaning of the words " there am 1," &c. is it not the one which 
 ought to be preferred ? I believe, after all, I might have left 
 the reader simply to compare the two passages, Exod. xx. 24. 
 and Matth. xviii. 20 ; and to say, whether they are not " equally 
 clear declarations of omnipresence ;" whether " the reasoning 
 which would set aside the one, would not as efiectually invalidate 
 the other ;" and whether " any being could make either the one 
 or the other, but a being who was present in all places, and who 
 knew all things." Discourses, p. 87. 
 
 4. Omniscience. 
 
 The strong language which I have used on the evidence of 
 this attribute belonging to Christ, Mr. Yates characterizes as 
 " bold assertion.^'' But after all that he has said, I think the sim- 
 ple re-statement of my argument might be sufficient to show that 
 my language is not more decided than the case warrants. 
 The argument stands thus -.—From 1 Kings viii. 39. " Thou, 
 even thou onlv. knowest the hearts of all the children of men ;" 
 
18G 
 
 and Jer. xvii. 10. ''The heart is deceitful above all things, and 
 desperately wicked ; who can know it ? I Jehovah search the 
 heart, I try the reins ; even to give every man according to his 
 ways, and according to the fruit of his doings ;" the inference is 
 undeniable, and it is one which accords with all our accustomed 
 thoughts of God, that this perfect knowledge of the hearts of 
 men is his peculiar prerogative. But in Rev. ii. 23. Jesus Christ 
 quotes the words of the latter passage in application to himself: 
 — " All the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the 
 reins and the hearts ; and I will give unto every one of you ac- 
 cording to your works." May I not, then, say again, — " If this 
 be not a direct and unqualified claim of a peculiar Divine pre- 
 rogative, there is no meaning in human language ; and to search 
 the Scriptures for clear and satisfactory knowledge, must be a 
 vain and fruitless task ?" 
 
 To this I had added : — " Even if he had simply said, ' all the 
 churches shall know that I search the reins and the hearts,' this 
 of itself would have been enough for the argument ; because the 
 passages above cited, do most emphatically appropriate the 
 searching of the heart to God alone. But the terms in which he 
 expresses himself are much more definite. They evidently pro- 
 ceed upon the express assumption that this is the exclusive pre- 
 rogative of ONE BEING ONLY. They agree with, and confirm, 
 the appropriation to God of the universal and extensive know- 
 ledge of the heart, so distinctly marked in the former passages : 
 'AH the churches shall know' (not merely ' that / search,^ but) 
 ' that I AM HE THAT SEARCHETH the rcigus and the hearts.*"" 
 
 On this remark, Mr. Yates offers the following strictures : — 
 " But he also insists upon the expression ' / am he that searcheth,'' 
 as more expressive than the simpler phrase ' / search.^ His ar- 
 gument proceeds from inattention to the following circumstances. 
 The want of the present tense in Hebrew verbs is supplied by 
 the participle, following the pronoun, agreeing with it in number 
 and person, and having sometimes the definite article prefixed. 
 From the HebrcAv, this construction has been transferred into 
 the Greek of the Septuagint and of the New Testament. For 
 example : the expression ' / am he that came'' (it should be com- 
 
187 
 
 eth) ' out of the army' {Eyu uf^i d »%»<> tK rm 5r«f£,tt?oA-«) 1 Sam. iv. 
 16. means only ' / come out of the army.' In like manner ' / am 
 he that searcheth ' {Eyu eif^i o e^svmv) signifies nothing more than 
 ' / search'' {eyu e^ewu). This form of expression is what critics 
 call a Hebraism ; and no book in the whole New Testament has 
 so many Hebraisms as the Apocalypse (Marsh's Michaelis, ch. 
 xxxiii. §. 6.) It would in my opinion have been better if the 
 authors of the common translation, like the editors of the improv- 
 ed version, had accommodated the words of Jesus to the idiom 
 of the English language. This would have prevented Mr. 
 Wardlaw's remark, that the terms ascribed to our Lord ' evi- 
 dently proceed upon the express assumption, that this is the ex- 
 clusive prerogative of one being only.'' " (Pages 227, 228.) 
 
 It might be enough to say, in reply to all this, what Mr. 
 Brown has said before me, that because Rev. ii. 23. is " thus 
 obviously an exact translation of a passage in Jer. xvii. 10, 
 where the words are used as expressing something peculiar to 
 Jehovah, the expression is more emphatic than if it had been in 
 the ordinary Greek idiom." (Strictures, p. 59.) But I must go 
 farther. Mr. Yates has done nothing to his purpose, when he 
 has merely shown that the mode of expression in question ac- 
 cords with an idiom of the Hebrew language, unless he had, at 
 the same time, shown, that it is not consistent with the ordinary 
 idiom of the Greek language. Now this he has not done. Whea 
 any feature of character, or circumstance of conduct, is pecidiar 
 to one individual, it is far from being an uncommon Greek idioin 
 to introduce this peculiarity by a participle preceded by the dcfi' 
 nite article, as a descriptive designation of the individual to whom 
 it belongs ; and it then becomes equivalent to his name. — " Idem 
 valet participium," (the idem refers to what precedes, which re- 
 gards the effect of the article with an appellative, as marking out 
 a person) — " Idem valet participium, Hebrsorum more,* nominis 
 loco positum cum articulo : e. g. o t» sSvix-x y^K^^a?, Stephamis, 
 qui supra dicitur e6vtr.oy^tt<po(i' o vcmtrxi t« A«>vyo-/«£x«, Nonnus Pan- 
 opolitamis, cujus libb. 48. DionysiancHn titulo Greece extant : AXs^- 
 
 * This phrase seems here to mean no more thaa that the Greek idiom in. 
 this particular corresponds with the Hebrew, 
 
188 
 
 ecvS'^tvi ptiTiifi rot, cpariKct rrxi^cci;' Achilles Tcifliis qiii 8 libr. lusit clc 
 Clitophontis ct Leusippcs amoribus : o t* (iovxeXixx ypx-^ct^^ Theo- 
 critus : ret Kv^rpix y^x^cti; (scilicet £?rjj, vcl TTotyiy-XTcc) Stasimxis^ « 
 mv TTccr^iSct KvTT^iei' o ttu^k^wv, Diabolus,'''' Vigerus de Idiotismis 
 Grsecis, page 13, Glasgow edition, 1813. On this principle, 1 
 feel myself warranted to contend, that, as we are previously 
 aware that the searching of the heart is one of God's peculiar 
 prerogatives, the phrase o cpcwm vs^p^evi scxi xx^S'txi is a descriptive 
 DESIGNATION of THE DiviNE Being, and that the assertion eyo 
 tii^t'O EPETN12N vf^fflfs KXt Kec§hxi is equivalent to " I AM Jeho- 
 -VAH." 
 
 " It may also be observed," says Mr. Yates, " in reply to 
 Mr. Wardlaw's arguments from this passage, that, although Solo- 
 mon, at the dedication of the temple, (1 Kings viii. 39.) addressed 
 Jehovah as alone acquainted with the hearts of men, this does 
 not contradict the supposition, that in consequence of the all-wise 
 procedures of the Deity subsequent to that period, Christ will, 
 at the day of general judgment, be endued with ail the knowledge 
 of men's thoughts and dispositions, which is necessary to the 
 discharge of his office." (Page 228.) 
 
 According to this curious remark, Solomon, it seems, in the 
 language quoted, did not mean at all to express any exclusive 
 attribute or prerogative of Jehovah, but merely that this knowl- 
 edge of all hearts was peculiar to him at that time. What was 
 the case, however, at the time of the dedication of the temple, 
 may not be the case " at the day of general Judgment /" — How 
 cautious are the words that follow ! — Christ will be endued with 
 all the knowledge ofmenh thoughts and dispositions which is neces- 
 sary to the discharge of his office,^^ If the reader is blinded by 
 this, he is surely willing to be so. There is a very obvious dif- 
 ference between judging, and merely pronouncing sentence, and 
 between "the necessary qualifications for each respectively. Any 
 creature, so far as appears, — an angel for example, — might do 
 the latter, supposing the judgments already decided. But what 
 is implied in " all the knowledge of men's thoughts and disposi- 
 tions necessary to qualify for the office" of Judge? Certainly 
 nothing short of a complete and unerring acquaintance with all 
 
184) 
 
 the thoughts of all the countless millions of mankind, that shall 
 have existed from the beginning to the end of time ; — with all 
 the dispositions and desires, permanent or momentary, of all 
 their hearts ; — and with all the most secret motives of all their 
 words and all their actions. If the reader can suppose such 
 knowledge to be communicated to a creature, he is prepared for 
 being a Unitarian : but let him not despise the humble believer 
 in mysteries. Yet unless knowledge to the extent described be; 
 communicated, the possessor of it maybe iitted io pronounce sen- 
 tence, but cannot be qualified to determine, with the unerring 
 precision inseparable from our ideas of the final judgment, the 
 sentences to be pronounced. 
 
 If our interpretation of Rev. ii. 23. has, as I think, been de- 
 cidedly established ; — it will put beyond cavil the meaning of 
 John ii. 24, 25. — " He knew all men, and needed not that any 
 should testify to him of man ; for he knew what was in man.'^ 
 These words Mr. Yates considers as expressing " a profound 
 and intimate knowledge of human nature," which was " absolute- 
 ly necessary to the character of Christ as a moral and religious 
 instructor," and in which " he was transcendently eminent." — A 
 plain reader, however, whose mind is unsophisticated by preju- 
 dice, will recollect, that no other moral and religious instructor, 
 sent by God to men, is ever spoken of in terms at all like these ; 
 and that the terms themselves plainly express a universal and 
 intuitive acquaintance with all the secrets of men's hearts. 
 
 " According to his own account," adds Mr. Yates, " it was 
 imparted to him by the Father. P. II. chap, vi." — But in P. II. 
 chap. vi. of his work, to which he thus refers, he has adduced no 
 evidence whatever of such knowledge as is here described hav- 
 ing been represented by Jesus as imparted to him, — but merely 
 of the doctrine taught by him having been delivered agreeably to 
 a commission from the Father. 
 
 Mr. Yates speaks with mighty confidence of the force of the 
 argument from the words of Peter to Clirist, " Lord, thou know- 
 est all things," (John xxi. 17.) being " entirely destroyed by the 
 application of the very same language to Christians in general 
 by the author of this gospel, 1 John ii. 20. ' Ye have an unction 
 from the Holy One, and ye know all things.' " (P. 229.) 
 25 
 
190 
 
 But the meaning of words and phrases depends greatly on 
 the connexion in which they occur. A very slender portion of 
 acumen is requisite, to discover the essential difference between 
 the passages thus quoted as parallel. Every reader may at once 
 perceive, that, in the latter, John is speaking of the full and ex- 
 perimental acquaintance with the doctrine of the gospel possessed 
 by those whom he addresses, in distinction from apostates, who 
 had gone out from the society of Christians because they were 
 not of them, and in distinction from antichristian opposers of the 
 truth. He adds accordingly, (intimating his confidence in them, 
 that their knowledge of the truth was such, in its heavenly origin 
 in its extent and correctness, and in its inward operation, as ef- 
 fectually to secure them against seduction) — "These things have 
 1 written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the 
 anointing, which ye have received of him, abideth in you ; and 
 ye need not that any man teach you ; but as the same anointing 
 teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as 
 it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." 
 
 But what shall we say of the other case ? Mr. Yates affirms, 
 that in both cases, " the knoroledge of all things means only a 
 very extensive and various knowledge.^'' But how will such a 
 view as this suit Peter's argument ? " Lord," says he, " thou 
 knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love thee ;" — 
 
 1st. Here is one thing which Peter was confident his Master 
 knew ; and his assurance that he knew this thing is founded in 
 his assurance that he knew all things. But, without noticing 
 for the present the nature of the one thing spoken of, unless" the 
 term all be here used in its universal sense, the inference of 
 the apostle is a complete non-sequitur, and his confidence rests 
 on no solid ground. How foolishly would the venerable peni- 
 tent reason, on Mr. Yates' exposition of his words ; " Lord, thy 
 knowledge is very various and extensive j therefore thou know- 
 est that I love thee." 
 
 But, 2dly. Mr. Yates (whether designedly or not I cannot 
 tell) has taken no notice of the particular description of knowledge 
 to which Peter more immediately refers : — " Lord, thou knowest 
 all things ; thou knowest that I love thee.'''* While the terms us- 
 
191 
 
 ed by the apostle, connected with the nature of his argument, 
 convey an unqualified ascription of omniscience, his own case 
 shows, that he had a more especial reference to his knozoledge of 
 the secrets of all hearts. If this was not implied, never were 
 words more nugatory. His appeal respects the state of his own 
 heart : — external evidence was against his professions ; — strong 
 grounds existed for suspecting their sincerity ; — these grounds 
 were impressed on his remembrance, and the reasonableness of 
 the suspicion more than insinuated, in the threefold repetition of 
 the question, " Lovest thou me ?" with a look and emphasis no 
 doubt, which at once wrung his heart with remorse, and melted 
 it to tenderness. — In this state of mind, to whom but to the 
 Searcher of all hearts, — to what knowledge short of omniscience, 
 could he make his confident appeal ? — I am not fond of the par- 
 aphrastic mode of exposition. The following paraphrase of the 
 words by Dr. Guyse, however, seems to convey very correctly 
 their irue import : — " Lord, 1 know there is no deceiving thee, 
 who art fully acquair.ted with all things, even to the m.ost secret 
 dispositions of the heart : but my great comfort is, that, how justly 
 soever I may suspect myself, and deserve to be suspected by thee 
 and others, thine omniscient eye sees the principle of love which 
 is in my soul towards thee, and the uprightness of my appeal to 
 thee about it." 
 
 The reader, then, must be very weak, who is misled by the 
 mere similarity, or even sameness, of phraseology, in circumstan- 
 ces so totally difterent, or by Mr. Yates' formal reference to 
 Schleusner's Lexicon, for the needless establishment of what ev- 
 ery body knows, that the word " aW is in numerous instances 
 used to signify a very great number and variety. 
 
 Mr. Yates is much displeased with me for having affirmed, 
 in substance, that all that the Socinians have to say in support 
 of their peculiar versions of disputed texts (that is, of texts which 
 they find it necessary to dispute) is, " not that the new rendering 
 is more consistent with the rules of syatax, or with the ordinary 
 usage of the original language, than the old ; but only that the 
 words are capable of bearing it, — that it is possible for them to 
 be so translated." " If the cause of orthodoxy," says he, " re- 
 
192 
 
 quires to be supported by such assertions as these, no honest 
 man will engage in its defence." (Page 229.) — I have re-con- 
 sidered the assertions ; — I have compared them anew with the 
 specimens of Unitarian criticism to which they refer ; — and tak- 
 inty into account the nature of these criticisms, the general 
 agreement of translators and critics against them, the dissigree- 
 ment, in some instances, of Unitarians themselves, as to the pro- 
 per alteration of the received version, and, in general, the 7iega- 
 tive kind of style in which they treat these texts, — I have been 
 tempted to say, like the Roman governor, "What 1 have written, 
 I have written." — Mr. Yates, however, declares, (and I must 
 believe him,) that " it is his deliberate opinion" (an opinion in 
 which, he says, " all Unitarians, who think themselves capable 
 of understanding the original, will probably agree with him) that, 
 in the very few instances in which they depart from the common 
 translation, they think their versions at least equally fair, natural, 
 and obvious with those of Trinitarians." (P. 229.) — This dec- 
 laration I am bound to believe, and, at any rate as far as respects 
 Mr. Yates himself, do believe. It obliges me to take other 
 ground, and to marvel at the illustration which it furnishes of the 
 influence of prejudice and attachment to system in biassing^even 
 a sound and enlightened judgment. 
 
 My wonder is not diminished by the following closing senten- 
 ces of the chapter : " Since we find the doctrines of the strict 
 unity of God, the inferiority of Jesus Christ, and the derivation 
 of his knowledge and power, clearly asserted in many hundred 
 passages of Scripture ; and since we think the doctrines of the 
 Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, as now held by the orthodox, 
 both absurd in themselves, and contrary to the general tenor and 
 plain language of the Bible; we should be justified in rendering 
 four or five difficult passages in any allowable manner, which 
 made them consistent with our primary and indisputable princi- 
 ples. The fact, however, is, that we are not reduced to this ne- 
 cessity." (Page 230.) — These sentences, I say, do not abate 
 my wonder : — because I cannot help thinking, that the " necessi- 
 «y," actually felt and operating, has led to the adoption of the 
 principle of criticism here avowed. It is a principle, which, to 
 
193 
 
 say the least, requires to be guarded, and applied to practice, 
 with very great jealousy indeed. Of this Mr. Yates seems to 
 have been sensible : for the principle is here very cautiously 
 stated. It is confined to the " rendering o{ four or five difficult 
 passages," as if this were the whole extent of embarrassment 
 and difficulty which the Unitarian system had to clear away ; 
 whereas the principle is as directly applicable to the interpreta- 
 tion of multitudes of other passages, as it is to the translation of 
 these. The "many hundred plain passages of Scripture," indeed, 
 which are here opposed to four or five difficult ones, assert what 
 all Trinitarians hold, as a part of their system, namely, " the 
 strict unity of God, the inferiority of Jesus Christ, and the deri- 
 vation of his knowledge and power." The proper interpretation 
 of these passages leaves, on their system, no difficulty in the in- 
 terpretation of the smaller number. The difficulty exists on 
 Socinian principles : it exists to a vastly greater extent than 
 '■^ foxir orfive"*"* passages ; and the principle which is here vindi- 
 cated in the rendering of these four or five in any allozvable man- 
 ner, is actually applied both in the translation and interpretation 
 of many more than these, in a way which will be considered as 
 allowable only by those who are strongly sensible that the natu- 
 ral rendering, and obvious explanation, of such passages, would 
 overturn their system* 
 
194: 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 3Ir. Yates' strictures on " the passages in which the pecu- 
 liar WORKS OF God are supposed to be ascribed to Jesus 
 Christ," come next in order. 
 
 The strong presumptive argument which, in introducing the 
 discussion of this part of my subject, 1 had drawn from the pe- 
 culiar manner in which Jesus performed some of his miracles, I 
 should wish the reader to re-peruse, as I have given it myself, 
 Discourses, pages 95 — 98 5 Mr. Yates' '•^condensed statement'^'' 
 of it being far from calculated to make a fair impression of its 
 nature and force. Supposing the reader to have thus refreshed 
 his memory, let him now listen to Mr. Yates. — " The arguments 
 which I have here presented in a condensed form, appear to me 
 the most ingenious and eloquent pieces of reasoning in Mr. 
 Wardlaw's volume. But deplorable is the condition of that tot- 
 tering system, whose advocates, instead of relying on plain and 
 positive declarations of Scripture, are obliged to prop it up by 
 far-fetched inferences, and by imaginary hints and allusions : 
 and it is curious and entertaining to observe how Reason, which 
 is discarded and turned out of doors, whenever her evidence is 
 unfavourable to the popular system, is called up again to the tri- 
 bunal, and treated with all possible respect, when it is conceived 
 that she can serve the cause of orthodoxy, even by suggesting 
 the most faint and distant analogies." (Page 232.) 
 
 On this most singular paragraph, I offer the following brief 
 remarks : 
 
 1st. If the argument here ridiculed has nothing more to re- 
 commend it than mere ingenuity and eloquence, let it be at once 
 rejected. 
 
 2dly. But, if Mr. Yates means to impress the reader with the 
 conviction, that these "pieces of reasoning" are really, on the 
 whole, the best, the most forcible, on the point in support of which 
 they arc adduced, I again say, Timeo Danaos, Although I 
 
199 
 
 think the argument possesses force, and considerable forCe too, 
 yet, in the scale of comparative importance and conclusiveness, 
 I am far from giving it this pre-eminence. I feel jealous of all 
 such compliments. They glitter on the hilt of a sword. The 
 commendation bestowed on an argument of this nature, seems 
 intended to operate, in the reader's mind, as a deduction from 
 the value of all the rest. 
 
 3dly. The insinuation that we do " not rely on plain and 
 positive declarations of Scripture, ^^ is contrary to truth ; and Mr. 
 Yates' language here, when he talks of the " deplorable condi- 
 tion of our system," and of our being " obliged to prop it up by 
 far-fetched inferences, and imaginary hints and allusions," is 
 quite of a piece with that of Mr. Belsham, when he speaks of the 
 controversy on our side being " reduced^'' to the argument from 
 the use of the definite article ; and it merits the same reprehen- 
 sion. As to the argument itself in question, the reader must be 
 left to form his own judgment whether it deserves to be ranked 
 among ^^far-fetched inferences, and imaginary hints and allu- 
 sions.^^ 
 
 4thly. The sarcasm about " Reason," which was intended 
 no doubt to bite, is a very harmless one. I shall leave ijie read- 
 er to feel for its fangs ; merely remarking, that the only occasion 
 on which we feel disposed to turn Reason out of doors is when, 
 in the plenitude of her pride and presumption, she attempts, with 
 the aid of her Unitarian adherents, to do the same by Revelation : 
 and then we are of opinion that she well deserves this summary 
 justice. 
 
 I must transcribe another paragraph from Mr. Yates, on ac- 
 count of the sentence with which it concludes : — " I might bid 
 adieu to this argument without any farther observations. But 
 the charge of ' presumptuous impiety' has been brought against 
 the holy and hunible Jesus : he is said to have claimed for him- 
 self, as his original possession, an unlimited control over the ma- 
 terial and moral world. Let the reader call to mind those 
 solemn, explicit, and often repeated declarations, which were 
 formerly brought forward, (Part II. ch. 7. §. 2.) and by which 
 our Lord absolutely disclaimed the possession of inherent power. 
 
196 
 
 saying, that of himself \\e could do nothing, and that the Father, 
 dwelling in him, did the works. I confess, that his express as- 
 sertions, when put into the balance with the eloquent and inge- 
 nious pleadings of one whose talents and virtues I highly esteem, 
 weigh more in my mind than the waters of the ocean, when 
 placed in comparison with the drop that hangs upon the bucket." 
 (Pages 232, 233.) 
 
 And so unquestionably thoy should. The only fault of the 
 comparison is, that it is not sufficiently strong. All the " plead- 
 ings" of man, however "ingenious and eloquent," w^hen opposed 
 to a simple '■'• express assertion " of the " faithful witness" must be 
 infinitely less than nothing. But the charge which is here im- 
 plied, of my framing eloquent and ingenious pleadings, in oppo- 
 sition to the " solemn, explicit, and frequently repeated declara- 
 tions" of my Lord and master, is a very serious one indeed. 
 Accursed be the pleading, — avaSti^M ee-ra — with all its ingenuity 
 and eloquence, that would contradict his words, or impute to 
 him the impiety of claiming an equality with God, which he did 
 not possess ! But if, on the other hand, his inferiority was the 
 official inferiority of a relation to the Father which he had vol- 
 untarily assumed, and was thus perfectly consistent, as-we be- 
 lieve it to have been, with his possessing, at the same time, the 
 power and majesty of underived Godhead, then equally accursed 
 be the reasonings that would rob him of his essential dignity and 
 glory ! When we come to examine a little the part of Mr. Yates' 
 book to which he here so confidently refers, we shall have occa- 
 sion to touch particularly on this important general question. 
 
 The proofs of the creation of all things being ascribed 
 to Jesus Christ, Mr. Yates meets by a reference to a former part 
 of his work, in which, he says, he had shown that in every pas- 
 sage which can possibly be interpreted as attributing the work 
 of creation to Jesus, the idea is expressed of his executing this 
 work as a subordinate agent, a mere instrument, inferior to Je- 
 hovah." (P. 234.) — Having made this confident reference, he 
 dismisses the whole in the following strain of happy irony. — 
 " Three of these passages, (John i. 3, 10 : Col. i. 16, 1 7.) togeth- 
 er with the words quoted in Hebrews i. 10, as referring to the 
 
197 
 
 government of Christ, though adflressed to Jehovah, form the 
 ground work of such severe and triumphant criticism, extending 
 through ten pages, as will make the hapless Unitarians smart so 
 long as Mr. Wardlaw's critical celebrity shall endure." (Page 
 234.) — May I request of my reader to re-peruse those ten pages 
 (98 — 108.) which are thus so briefly and so wittily despatched ? 
 I fear not the comparison of the reasoning which they contain 
 with that of Mr. Yates in t'ue pages of his volume referred to (94 
 — 100) by any reader, lettered or unlettered. 
 
 When Mr. Yates states my aflirmation that the Scri[)turc& 
 " give no countenance to the idea of his executing this work as a 
 subordinate agent, a mere instrument, inferior to Jehovah," he 
 takes no notice of the grounds on which it is made. I must there- 
 fore repeat them : 
 
 " I have only to add, on this part of the subject, that while 
 creation is thus repeatedly, and in the plainest terms, ascribed 
 to Jesus Christ, the Scriptures give no countenance to the idea 
 of his executing this work, as a subordinate agent, a mere in- 
 strument inferior to Jehovah. — The very terms, indeed, in some 
 of the passages already quoted, themselves preclude every such 
 supposition. They are universal. The creator of all things, of 
 all created beings, cannot be himself a creature ; — cannot, there- 
 fore, be, in any sense, or in any respect, an inferior agent to the 
 Supreme God. He who is not a creature must be God : and God 
 is ONE. This idea is strongly confirmed by such expressions as 
 the following in the prophecies of Isaiah : — ' Hearken unto me, 
 O Jacob and Israel, my called : I am he ; I am the first, I also 
 am the last. My hand also hath laid the foundations of the earth, 
 and my right hand hath spanned the heavens ;' Thus saith 3q- 
 hovah thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb ; I 
 am Jehovah, that maketh all things ; that stretcheth forth the 
 heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.' " 
 
 It is somewhat curious, that, in the^ former part of his work, 
 after having finished his critical strictures on the difterent pas- 
 sages, Mr. Yates expresses himself in these terms : " The Greek 
 words employed in these passages, cannot bear to be interpreted 
 so as to ascribe to our Lord the creation of thp material world by 
 2fi 
 
his own uiicotmuunicated omnipotence. They directly contra- 
 dict the notion, that Christ stretched out the heavens alone, and 
 made the world by himself:'' (Page 98.) In this it is plainly im- 
 plied, that if it had been said of Christ that he " stretched out the 
 heavens alone, and made the world by himself,''^ it would have jus- 
 tified the conclusion that no other was employed in the work along 
 with Awn. Do not the words, then, when used by Jehovah, im- 
 ply that no other besides Jehovah was employed in the work of 
 creation ? and if Jesus Christ be not Jehovah, do they not con- 
 sequently express what is 7iot true ? 
 
 Let me now examine a little the strictures themselves. I be- 
 gin with observing, that here, as in all other places, we are left 
 in the same mysterious uncertainty about Mr. Yates' own senti- 
 ments : — " The question to be determined," says he, " is. Whe- 
 ther, supposing that our Saviour created the material universe, he 
 accomplished this undertaking by his own inherent, underived, 
 and unaided omnipotence, or whether he was employed and em- 
 powered to fulfil the counsels of a superior." (Page 234.) — " I 
 have already stated, that many Unitarians altogether deny the 
 existence of Christ previously to his conception in the womb of 
 his mother ; but that many others agree with the orthodox Chris- 
 tians in asserting, that he lived before his incarnation in a state 
 of glory, and was employed by the Deity as an instrument in cre- 
 ating the material world. The determination of these lesser dif- 
 ferences does not belong to our present inquiry : they are to be 
 settled among Unitarians by their own amicable discussions. — 
 The question now'bcfore us is, Whether, granting the pre-exist- 
 ence of Christ, he enjoyed before his incarnation underived pow- 
 er." (Page 93.) — " But the passages which represent Jesus as 
 the Creator- of the material world, also suppose the exercise of 
 power previously to his incarnation. These passages are deci- 
 sively favourable to the Unitarian doctrine, that, if Jesus was 
 concerned in the formation of the heavens and the earth, he was 
 only employed as an instrument in the hands of God his Father." 
 (Page 94.) But whether Mr, Yates is a believer in the existence 
 of Christ before all worlds, and his being their instrumental crea- 
 tor, or not, 1 am not so much in the secret sfs to inform the curi- 
 
199 
 
 ous inquirer, — although I strongly suspect the negative to be the 
 truth. 
 
 Mr. Yates' critical strictures on the text in question relate 
 almost entirely to the proper meaning of the Greek prepositions 
 AiA and 'yno. This therefore, it becomes especially necessary 
 to investigate. 
 
 Having quoted John i. 3,10: Col. i. 16 : Heb. i. 2 : he says, 
 " These passages, as I have now quoted them from the common 
 translation of the A'ea; Testament, leave it undecided, whether 
 Christ created all things by his own underived, and independent, 
 authority, or merely as an instrument directed by the Supreme 
 Being. In the Greek original, there is no such ambiguity. The 
 preposition AlA, in these passages translated by, does not sig- 
 nify 6^ any one as an original caiise, (for this sense is expressed 
 by a different preposition, 'rno) but it denotes through any 
 THING AS AN iNSTRUNENT. For the sakc of illustration, I shall 
 take the first example of the occurrence of AiA in the New Tes- 
 tament : Matth. i. 22. ' Now all this was done, that it might be 
 fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet,' or, more 
 accurately, ' which ^vas spoken by the Lord through the prophet.' 
 In the first place, the preposition 'ino, by, points out the Lord 
 as the original author of the communication ; and in the second 
 place, the preposition AIA, thij,ough, represents the prophet as 
 the medium, through whom this communication was conveyed to 
 mankind. The same distinction is accurately observed in all 
 cases (and they are very numerous) in which the New Testa- 
 ment writers produce quotations from the prophets of the Old.. 
 They never introduce a prophecy by saying, that it was uttered 
 THROUGH the Lord, {3icc rov Kv^iov) and they very seldom, if ever, 
 say, that it was delivered by the prophet (e)^« rov tt^oiPtitov) ; but 
 through the prophet, and by the Lord. 
 
 The preposition AIA, followed either by a genitive or an accu- 
 sative case, occurs in the New Testament about 630 times. It 
 is used to denote the cedent cause of the production of an effect, 
 (of course governing, in these instances, the genitive) about 290 
 times. I have examined all the passages where it is found. I have 
 observed, that its general application, when used to point out an ef- 
 
200 
 
 licient cause, is to represent, not the primary^ but the secondary 
 or instrumental cause. This sense of the word seems, indeed, 
 to arise naturally from its original acceptation. It properly sig- 
 nifies motion through a place. Hence it has been transferred, by 
 an obvious process, to the way or method by passing through 
 Tvhich any object is attained, or the instrument by means of which 
 any end is accomplished." (Pages 95, 96.) — After having refer- 
 red to his favourite authorities, Origen and Eusebius, he proceeds 
 as follows : 
 
 " For these reasons, I think myself authorized to assert, that 
 when a New Testament writer employs the preposition AIA to 
 point out the cause of any effect, he means the instrumental^ and 
 refers to some other being, either expressly mentioned or con- 
 templated, who is considered as ihe first or original cause. What, 
 then, is the real import of the passages before cited, on the sup- 
 position that they refer to the creation of the material universe ? 
 John i. 3. ' All things were made through Christ as an instru- 
 ment, but by God as their original contriver.' — Ver. 10. 'The 
 world was made through Christ as a subordinate agent. ^ The 
 passage from Colossians has the same import, ' All things were 
 created through him ;' (tx ttxvtx AV uvtov tcai m uvtov eKTio-Txr) 
 and the passage from Hebrews, ' By whom He made the worlds,' 
 can only signify, if it relates to <he creation of the material uni- 
 verse at all, that God made the stars and planets through the in- 
 strumentality of Jesus Christ. The Greek words employed in 
 these passages, cannot bear to be interpreted so as to ascribe to 
 our Lord the creation of the material world by his own uncom- 
 municated cmnipotcncc. They directly contradict the notion, 
 that Christ stretched out the heavens alone, and made the world 
 by himself. They clearly imply, w^helher they be supposed to 
 refer to the formation of the earth out of ciiaos, or to the RE-for- 
 mation of its inhabitants through the influence of the gospel, that 
 Jesus Christ was only an instrument in the work, and not a prin- 
 cipal." Pages 97, 98. 
 
 On these statements, (which I have given at such length, be- 
 cause I would not sQcm to garble, or to shrink from them) I ob- 
 serve — 
 
301 
 
 1st. It is sufficiently well known to every Greek scholar, that 
 AlA with the genitive case, signifies the efficient came, whether 
 primary or secondary, principal or instrumental. See Hedericus, 
 Schleusner, Parkhurst, Stockiiis. 
 
 2dly. The same is the case with the preposition 'ino. See 
 the same authorities. 
 
 3dly. Mr. Yates, in a note, refers to one passage, as tiie only 
 one presenting much difficuhy against the universality of his rule 
 respecting the use of AIA ; and, in the close of the note, he hints 
 at the possibility of his opponent's bringing forward perhaps as 
 many as txoo or three. The critical reader may consult the fol- 
 lowing passages, if his previous acquaintance with the established 
 use of this preposition in the Greek language does not supersede 
 the necessity of this trouble. Matth. xviii. 7 : xxvi. 24 : Mark 
 xiv. 21 : Luke xxii, 22 : Acts xii. 9 : xix. 26 :* Rom. iii. 27 : 
 V. 12 : vi. 4 : xi. 36 :t 1 Cor. i. 9 : xii. 8. (compared with ver. 
 9. where the expression is varied, sv being used, and with ver. 
 11.) 2 Cor. i. 19: Heb. ii. 3. (where the reader will observe, 
 that AlA and 'rno are both used, the former of the Lord, and the 
 latter oHiis apostles ; so that here we have an instance either of 
 AlA being the tmmediate, or of 'rno being the mediate cause) 
 Heb. ii. 10 : (a very decisive passage) Heb. vii. 21 : xiii. 11 : 
 1 Pet. ii. 14. I am much mistaken if more instances than these 
 eighteen might not be adduced, of AIA signifying 7iot the instru- 
 mental, but \.\\e primary efficient cause. 
 
 4thly. It is admitted, that AlA is more naturally employed to 
 denote the instrumental cause than 'tno ; and that this is rightly 
 accounted for from the original signification of the former, as 
 given by Mr. Yates. We do not so readily associate with the 
 latter the idea of medium. As AlA, however, frequently signifies 
 the primary cause, so is 'rno sometimes used for the secondary. 
 
 * The liands might seem at first view to be the inslrumental cause. The con- 
 nexion shows, however, that the phrase ^^ by hands'''' means by human agency, 
 which in this case was direct, without subordinate instrumentality. 
 
 t Mr. Yates says there is strong evidence of otto being the true reading, and 
 refers for this to Griesbach. Yet the evidence was not such as to induce Grics.- 
 bach even to mark it as doftbffi4. 
 
^0^ 
 
 In the following places it is used as to God's speaking by the 
 prophets, Matth. ii. 17 : iii. 3 : xxvii. 35 : Mark xiii. 14. 
 
 5thly. If, as Mr. Yates alleges, the idea of any thing being 
 done " by any one as an original cause,'''' and not merely through 
 any thing as an instrument, be properly expressed by *rno, 
 (which certainly is the general case) then the miraculous works 
 performed by Jesus, which required, for their accomplishment, 
 the exercise of Divine power, were done by him, not as a mere 
 instrument, but by his own immediate agency. It is this preposi- 
 tion that is used when these works are spoken of as done by Mm : 
 Luke V. 15 ; ix. 7 ; xiii. 17 ; xxiii. 8. See also Phil. iii. 12.-^ 
 If'rno means the original or primary cause, then Jesus was not 
 the mere instrument or medium of the cures wrought, but their 
 " original author,'''' effecting them by his own power. Assuming 
 Mr. Yates' style, we might say, these mighty works are not rep- 
 resented as done AV uvrov, through him, but 'rn' xvrou, by him. 
 Thus Mr. Yates, in fixing the signification of 'rno to the prima- 
 ry efficient cause, has forged a weapon against himself. If he 
 refuses to admit the inference drawn in the present case, he must 
 then admit, that these are additional instances of 'yno denoting, 
 in opposition to his too unqualified hypothesis, the secondary or 
 instrumental cause. 
 
 6thly. As to the critical authority of Origen and Eusebius, 
 we have had enough of it. We have seen Mr. Yates, on a for- 
 mer occasion, parading this authority, and then presuming to 
 dissent from it himself; whence I infer, that, notwithstanding his 
 reiterated eulogy of these fathers — of Origen, " who lived in the 
 beginning of the third century, who wrote in Greek, than whom 
 none of the ancient fathers was more learned, more honest, or 
 more industrious," and of Eusebius " the learned, accurate, and 
 laborious author, to whom, among the ancients, the Christian 
 world is chiefly indebted for the testimonies to the genuineness of 
 the New Testament writings, and who could not possibly be mis- 
 taken about the common meaning of two prepositions which he us- 
 ed daily and hourly in conversation and in books ;" that, notwith- 
 standing all this, he would have done the same again had it suit- 
 ed his purpose. As for Origen, we have seen also how strongly 
 
he affirms the equality of the Son with the Father/* Either, tlieii, 
 the inferiority implied in the words quoted from his writings by 
 Mr. Yates, must be of an official kind, (a circumstance to be de- 
 termined by their connexion, which I have not the opportunity to 
 consuh) or else he flatly contradicts himself: and if so, I do not 
 well comprehend the "Aonesf^" of the good old father; and, 
 not comprehending his honesty, I can have little dependance on 
 his '* learning^ however great it may have been.t 
 
 7thly. On Col. i. 16. Mr. Yates says—" In the longest, andj 
 as it is commonly imagined, the clearest of these passages, (that 
 from Colossians) sufficient evidence is presented, to enable the 
 mere English reader to determine, whether, in the creation of 
 the material universe, Christ displayed underived glory. After 
 stating the fact, that all things were created through him, the 
 apostle assigns the caitse of this fact, in the following terms : 
 ' For it pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dzvelW 
 It appears, that the reason, why Christ was employed in the work 
 of creation, was, that such was the pleasure of the Father, and 
 that the Father bestowed upon him a full participation of his 
 power and glory." P. 98. 
 
 On this I have to observe, in ihe first place. That, in the words 
 quoted as assigning the cause of " all things having been created 
 through him," — the words " the Father,'''' are supplementary. — ! 
 Secondly, That, granting the propriety of the supplement, (for I 
 think it is a fair and natural one) the verse does not (as a care- 
 less reader of Mr. Yates would suppose) immediately follow the 
 one which ascribes to him the creation of all things. There 
 intervenes the declaration of his being " the head of his body the 
 church, the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all 
 things he might have the pre-eminence." And in this his me- 
 diatorial capacity, as the Head of authority and influence in hi& 
 church, all fulness is represented as dwelling in him, by the 
 
 * See pages 180, 181. 
 t Mr. Yates speaks in verj con/ident terms of Origcn's honesty. I feel no sat •• 
 i;3faction in seeing his credit, or that of any other man, at all shaken ; nor does 
 my argument in the smallest degree require it. The reader, however, may, ii 
 he please, consult on this subject Bishop Horsley's Controversial Tracts, Part \l 
 chap. i. pages 391 — 400 and Disquisition V. pages 534 — 548. 
 
20* 
 
 pleasure of the Father, consistently with the whole representatiori. 
 of the scheme of redemption. — And, lastly^ — What does Mr. 
 Yates mean when he says, that " the Father hcstorced upon him 
 a full participation of his power and glory ?" — Does he mean to 
 say, that the power of creating out of nothing was communicated 
 to this subordinate agent, himself a creature? And by a "/m// 
 participation''^ of this power does he mean that it was imparted 
 fully — in all its extent ? I cannot, indeed, conceive, for my own 
 part, that, if creative power was imparted at all, it could be im- 
 parted otherwise than in all its fulness. The power of creating 
 an atom is the same with the power of creating the universe — and 
 the power of creating the universe must be infinite power ; oth- 
 erwise, as creation must be limited, we never can have evidence 
 of the creator's possessing such power. If creative power be 
 capable of transference or communication to a creature, I can 
 conceive of nothing else which may not ; and must look on him 
 who can believe in this fancy, as a believer in the possibility of 
 the communication of all Divine perfections ; an idea which 
 would startle even a Trinitarian, with all his insatiable appetite 
 for mystery. 
 
 " Why might not the power of self subsistence,^^ says Dr. 
 Priestley, " be imparted to another, as well as that of creating 
 6ut of nothing .^" — " He must have lost his reason," says Allix, 
 " who imagines, that God can make a creature capable of creat- 
 ing the universe. Grant this, and by what character will you 
 distinguish the creature from the Creator ? By what right, then, 
 could God appropriate, as he doth very often in the Old Testament, 
 the work of the world's creation to himself, excluding any other 
 from having to do in it but himself? Why should God, upon this 
 score, forbid the giving worship to the creature, which is due to 
 the Creator ? The Arians, who worship Jesus Christ, though 
 they esteem him a creature, and the Papists who swallow whole 
 the doctrine of iransubstantiation ; they may teach in their schools 
 that a creature may be enabled by God to become a creator ! 
 But for us, who deny that any thing but God is to be adored, we 
 reject all such vain conceits, of a creature being any way capa- 
 ble to receive the infinite power of a creator."* 
 
 * Jlidf^ment of the Jowisli Cluircb, kr. pages 193, 104. 
 
SOS 
 
 With regard to the government of the world and the pinal 
 JUDGMENT, Mr. Yates begins his observations by complaining, 
 that I should have represented Unitarians, without distinction, 
 as " doubting or denying that Jesus Christ is appointed to exe- 
 cute these offices at all." — Although it is not exactly true, that 1 
 have quoted from Mr. Belsham only, as Mr. Yates alleges, — for, 
 in a note, expressions to the same purpose with those of Mr. 
 Belsham are quoted from Mr. Lindsay ; yet I freely admit, that 
 my language ought to have been qualified. This, I presume, is 
 one of those lesser differences, which are to be settled among Uni- 
 tarians by their own amicable discussions," 
 
 Considering Mr. Yates, then, as granting that the dominion of 
 the world and the final judgment are, according to the Scriptures, 
 assigned to Jesus Christ, let us see how he treats the argument 
 thence derived for his " omniscience, omnipotence, and indepen- 
 dence,"^^ 
 
 " In a former part of this treatise," says he, " I have stated 
 and defended the Unitarian doctrine concerning the judgment of 
 mankind through Jesus Christ, which is, that he is empowered 
 and ordained to execute these exalted offices by the one true 
 God. He himself asserted, that ' the Father gave him authority 
 to execute judgment,'' and various explicit declarations of Scrip- 
 ture agree with the doctrine of Paul, that he is ' ordained by God 
 to be the judge of quick and dead.' These clear assertions we. 
 believe ; they are not the deductions of human reason ; they are 
 authoritatively taught to mankind in the Scriptures of truth ; Mr. 
 Wardlaw does not call diem in question." (Page 235.) 
 
 No, indeed. So far from calling them in question, I have said, 
 in the passage referred to, that " those who maintain this view of 
 his person and character (i. e. who consider him as a ' Divine 
 Mediator'') acknowledge such delegation, as an essential article 
 of their scheme. Believing him to be represented in the Scrip- 
 tures as voluntarily assuming the form, and acting in the capaci- 
 ty, of a servant, they are not startled at finding this representa- 
 tion consistently supported throughout." — And it is curious to 
 observe, how cautiously Mr. Yates avoids grappling with this 
 great general principle of the double view of the person and cha- 
 37 
 
206 
 
 iacter of Christ, held by Trinitarians, as the principle, and the 
 only satisfactory principle, of harmony, between seemingly dis- 
 cordant passages, 
 
 1 had argued besides, that " delegation cannot confer any abil- 
 ity for the discharge of the functions of the office delegated ;" that 
 *' it may bestow title and right ; but it can communicate no capa- 
 city, no actual qualification :" that " it is vain, therefore, to talk 
 of delegation ; for, if Jesus Christ be hideed Lord of all, and 
 Judge of all, the only question is, what are the qualifications 
 essential to the Being who governs, and who is to judge the world ? 
 and to this question I answer, without fear of contradiction by 
 any reasonable and unprejudiced mind, Omniscience, Omnipo- 
 tence, and Independence :" — that, if such qualities must be pos- 
 sessed by the Governor and Judge of the world, they must, from 
 their nature, be original, and inherent, being entirely unsuscepti- 
 ble of transference or communication,'''' (Discourse IV. page 1 12.) 
 
 On this argument Mr. Yates expresses himself in the follow- 
 ing terms : — " This argument relates to a subject the most sublime 
 and awful, and far removed from our knowledge and experience. 
 I fear, therefore, to maintain my side of the question in the same 
 dogmatical terms, in which Mr. Wardlaw maintains his.. But 
 with a conviction, that the Scriptures alone can afford us informa- 
 tion on this subject, and with great reluctance to argue the point 
 at all on the grounds of mere human reason, I shall venture to 
 say, that the qualifications of omniscience, omnipotence, and in- 
 dependence, do not appear to me essential to the office of the del- 
 egated Governor and Judge of mankind. I do not see any rea- 
 son why the power of such a personage should extend beyond the 
 world over which he presides, or why his knowledge should com- 
 prehend the actions, characters, and deserts, not only of those 
 who come before his tribunal, but of all intelligent beings who 
 have existed in other regions of space, and in other periods of 
 eternity. So far as I can judge, the power and knowledge of such 
 an exalted person may rationally be supposed to be not only 
 limited, but also derived and dependent. It is only requisite, that 
 he possesses the knowledge and power essential to the execution 
 of his office ; hoio he possesses them, whether by his own nature. 
 
S07 
 
 or by derivation from the Almighty and Omniscient God, appears 
 to be of no moment. I conceive, therefore, that no valid objec- 
 tion can be brought, from the improbability of the doctrine in the 
 view of unprejudiced reason, against the plain and obvious sense 
 of those passages of Scripture which describe the offices of Christ 
 in his exalted state, and represent him as discharging them in 
 subordination to God the Father." (Page 236.) 
 
 There are parts of this paragraph, which can hardly fail to 
 force a smile ;— but its general effect is, to settle both mind and 
 countenance, in the gravity of serious thought. It is true, that 
 the subject is " sublime and awful, and far removed from our 
 knowledge and experience." Yet who can forbear smiling, when 
 he hears a Unitarian, with so much timid caution, and lowly re- 
 serve, expressing his " great reluctance''^ " to argue this point on 
 the ground of reason?''^ When a rational Christian speaks 
 thus, we may be well assured that he is sensible of his ground 
 being insecure ; that he feels a secret consciousness, that the ver- 
 dict of Reason must be against him, and, in spite of all the high 
 compliments he pays her at other times, blushes on this occasion, 
 to look his patroness full in the face. On points not less " awful 
 and sublime" and still farther " removed" than this " from our 
 knowledge and experience," Mr. Yates and his brethren can 
 argue with abundant freedom, and dogmatize, on what they con- 
 ceive to be rational principles, with the most confident tone of 
 decision : so that (to use Mr. Yates' own expressions a page or 
 two before, mutatis mutandis,) " it is truly curious and entertain- 
 ing to observe, how Reason, who is called up to the tribunal, and 
 treated with all possible respect, when it is conceived that she 
 can serve the cause of heterodoxy, is discarded, and turned out 
 of doors, whenever her evidence is unfavorable to the Unitarian 
 system." 
 
 When we attend for a moment to the nature of the sentiment 
 which Mr. Yates " ventures'''' to advance, we will not be much 
 surprised at his " reluctance'''' to submit it -to the decision q/"" mere 
 human reason.^'' 
 
 Let it be admitted, then, that " the power and knowledge of 
 the judge of the world need not be supposed to extend beyond 
 
SOS 
 
 the world over which he presides ;" we have formerly seen, what 
 the extent of this knowledge must be ; that it must comprehend 
 a perfect and unerring acquaintance with all the thoughts and 
 words and actions, in all their endless variety of circumstances, 
 of every individual person of all the numberless generations of 
 mankind that shall have existed from the beginning to the end of 
 time ; and in every successive moment of the existence of each. 
 The question, then, is. Is it possible that this knowledge can be- 
 long to any being, and that being not be God? When we infer 
 from the works of creation which we see, that their Maker is m- 
 Jinitc in wisdom, our data are limited, yet our inference is unlim- 
 ited. Is it, then, admitted to be fair, to conclude from a part to 
 the whole ? from what we see and know of the universe to the 
 universe itself? and then, from an efiect which must, from the 
 nature of the thing, be limited, to deduce the ?/nlimited, or infinite., 
 wisdom of the cause ? If it be, then I ask further ; — If any be- 
 ing is admitted to possess the knowledge of mankind which has 
 just been described, are we not warranted to proceed on the 
 same established principle of reasoning, and from this measure 
 of knowledge to infer, that it cannot stop here ; that it must ex- 
 tend further ? Are not our data as good, in this case, as in the 
 former ? In both, we are supposed to know to a limited extent ; 
 and if, in the one case, an unlimited inference be warrantable, so 
 must it also be in the other : and, on the other hand, if the Gov- 
 ernor and Judge may possess the knowledge described, and, 
 after all, his knowledge be limited, I see not how the consequence 
 can be evaded, that the Former of all things may have pro- 
 duced all the striking proofs of wisdom in the universe, and after 
 all, his wisdom be limited. 
 
 But further : Mr. Yates takes no notice of the government 
 of the world. He confines his reasoning to the exercise o{ judg- 
 ment. If our argument required additional strength, it finds it 
 here. No person, who at all considers what the government of 
 this world is, can for a moment suppose it conducted by any 
 other than an omniscient Being, without forfeiting his claim to the 
 possession of understanding. Apart entirely from what relates 
 ^o the movements and variations of the material world, the gov- 
 
ernment oi mankind implies an incessant and ^ntire acquaintance 
 with all the thoughts, and words, and actions, of all the millions 
 of men in every part of the globe, every successive moment of 
 time ; together with the sovereign and universal command of 
 whatever can contribute to aftect the volitions of intelligent crea- 
 tures ; an infallible previous knowledge of the effects which the 
 occurrence of particular circumstances, or the suggestion of par- 
 ticular views, will produce on the will of every individual. The 
 multitude of mankind is so great ; the variety of character among 
 them so endless ; their connexions, and interests, so prodigiously 
 diversified ; their desires and volitions so incessantly crossing 
 and interfering ; great and small events are so involved in one 
 another, so linked together, in an infinite diversity of ways, as 
 reciprocal causes and effects ; that we are utterly lost in our 
 attempts to form any conception of such a control, even with the 
 full conviction upon our minds, of its being the control of an om- 
 niscient Being. But, to suppose this government conducted by 
 a mere creature, in the exercise of derived, and limited, and de- 
 pendent knowledge and power ! — the reader will pardon me for 
 not saying all that I think of such a supposition. I presume, 
 however, I may safely repeat, that he must be " sadly pressed by 
 his system " who is reduced to the necessity of making and de- 
 fending it. 
 
 The judgment of the world supposes its previous government. 
 To fit the Being, who is to occupy the Throne, for discriminate 
 judgment, all the affairs of mankind must have been under his 
 constant notice and superintendence. Characters cannot be 
 judged, apart from the circumstances by which they have been 
 formed ; and these arc, beyond all conception, diversified and 
 minute. ^^ Every tcorA;" is to be "brought into judgment, with 
 every secret thing whether good or evil." This comprehends all 
 the thoughts, and words, and actions, of every individual of the 
 human race ; in connexion, of course, with all their attendant 
 circumstances. And all this is to be the work oi a fellow crea- 
 ture ! Reader, you may wonder if you please, — I do not, — at the 
 unwonted tone of timid and cautious diffidence which Mr. Yates 
 assumes on this subject. It need nnt, surely, be surprising, that 
 
210 
 
 he " feared to maintain his side of the question in dogmatical 
 terms." On the peculiarities of Trinitarianism he could pro- 
 nounce with dogmatism enough : — " If it be not certain that such 
 a doctrine is false, there is no certainty in any subject. It is 
 vain to call it a mystery. It is an absurdity, it is an impossibili- 
 ty." The reader is at liberty, if he chooses, to apply these ex- 
 pressions to the doctrine of a created Governor and Judge of the 
 world. At any rate, never more let the smile of derision be seen 
 on the countenance of Mr. Yates at the simple believer in myslt- 
 ries. 
 
 But Mr. Yates, in declining to " argue ^'' the point '= on the 
 ground of reason," professes to make his appeal to the testimony 
 of Scripture, as " alone able to afford us information on this sub- 
 ject." And what testimony, then, does he adduce ? a testimony 
 to the possibility/, or to the fact, (which would imply the possibil- 
 ity) of a creature conducting the government of the world, and 
 the final judgment ? No such thing. All th&t he pretends to 
 prove is, that the authority of Christ is delegated, which no one 
 denies ; and he begs all that remains of the question. He makes 
 no attempt to disprove the Trinitarian hypothesis, that this dele- 
 gation arises from the official character of Mediator voluntarily 
 assumed by our blessed Lord ; a character in which the Scrip- 
 tures, as we affirm, declare him to possess the Divine as well as 
 the human nature : a union which, we further affirm, could alone 
 qualify him for the government and judgment of the world ; and 
 ivhich is therefore proved by this fact, among other evidences 
 direct and indirect, that the government and judgment of the 
 world are actually committed into his hands. 
 
 In note G. after showing, by a quotation from Mr. Belsham, 
 how strongly he felt the difficulty arising from the final judgment 
 being ascribed to Jesus Christ, I expressed myself as follows : — 
 "Divest the Judge of his Divine Majesty; and you render it 
 impossible to feel, in anticipating our appearance before him, 
 that trembling awe which the thought of the future judgment 
 ought always to inspire. We do not feel as if satisfied with his 
 decisions. The necessity of instant unquestioning submission, 
 under which the mind sinks in the contemplation of a Divine 
 
31 i 
 
 Judge, ceases to impress it. We begin immediately to think 
 of possible errors, and of appeal to higher authority." Having 
 quoted these sentences, Mr. Yates comments on them in the fol- 
 lowing very solemn terms : — " To my mind nothing can be more 
 shocking than these expressions. For who but the most proud, 
 profane, and hardened wretch, can imagine his appearance be- 
 fore the judgment-seat of Christ without a trembling awe, and 
 'begin immediately to think of possible errors, and of appeal to 
 higher authority V I have so good an opinion of the author of 
 these dreadful, and, I trust, hasty sentences, as to believe, that, if 
 it shall please God to spare his useful life, and to relieve his 
 mind from that heavy load of prejudice under which it labours, 
 he will tremble even at the idea of having employed such lan- 
 guage, and will submit to have his actions tried and his destiny 
 pronounced by any Being, whom God shall have appointed to 
 be his Judge." (P. 237.) 
 
 It is my prayer that my own mind, and the minds of others, 
 may be more and more deeply impressed with the prospect of 
 the awful solemnities of the " day of God." And God forbid 
 that any expressions of mine should have an opposite tendency ! 
 In the sentences quoted, it was my object, not formally to assign 
 " reasons why it was requisite that the delegated Judge of man- 
 kind, as well as the Being who confers upon him his commission 
 and authority should be in his own nature nothing inferior to the 
 Supreme God ;" (Yates, page 237.) but to state what I appre- 
 hended to be a simple matter of fact, dnid a natural and unavoidable 
 feeling of the human mind, on the supposition of a merely human 
 or created Judge. If, indeed, this Judge were to be no Juda^e 
 but a mere pronouncer of Sentences dictated by the Supreme Je- 
 hovah, the case might be different : but if this creature is to be, 
 bona fide, in the true and proper sense of the term, the Judge of 
 mankind, I still conceive, notwithstanding the horror with which 
 the renewed avowal of it may fill the mind of my opponent, that 
 some such feeling as that which I have described is unavoidable ; 
 and for this plain reason, that our minds revolt from the absurdi- 
 ty of any knowledge short of omniscience forming a sufficient 
 qualification ior infallihh judgment ; and this omniscience, wf 
 
know, cannot be possessed by a creature. The sentences in my 
 note immediately preceding those quoted, will satisfy the reader 
 that such was my meaning : — " ' Jesus and his apostle,' says Mr. 
 Belsham, ' do not appear to have felt any difficulty in the ap- 
 pointment of a human being to the office of universal Judge.' — 
 True : and the obvious reason is, that the human Being of whom 
 they speak possessed, at the same time, a higher nature than the 
 human. There is no accounting for it otherwise. For the sup- 
 position of a mere man like ourselves executing the office of uni- 
 versal Judge, is one so monstrous, so contradictory to every idea 
 we can form of what is Jit, and reasonable, and possible, as to re- 
 quire for its admission a larger portion of credulity than that 
 which Mr. Belsham and his friends affect to despise. The diffi- 
 culty is not removed by the supposition of any powers, however 
 enlarged, in whatever way acquired, whether gradually, or by 
 communication for the purpose, if they are still powers, as they 
 must be, limited to the capacity of a being merely human. I 
 should even apply the same remark to the most exalted of creat- 
 ed natures." I have only to add, that, considering the connexion 
 in which the imputation occurs, it might perhaps have been pru- 
 dent in Mr. Yates, for his own sake, to have avoided saying any 
 thing about " loads of prejudice ;" that I am sincerely obliged to 
 him, however, for his good wishes, and return them to himself, 
 with earnest and heart- felt prayers, that " God may give him re- 
 pentance to the acknowledgment of the truth." 
 
^13 
 
 CHAPTER Vni, 
 
 I COME now briefly to examiae Mr. Yates' scrictures on those 
 passages in wiiich Supreme Worship is given to Christ. 
 
 On the instances of homage paid to Jesus on earth, I satisfied 
 myself with the following general remark : — " In some of these 
 instances, as must strike every reader of the Gospel histciy. 
 there is so strong a resemblance, so very near an approach, to 
 Divine worship, that we should have expected a creature, actuat- 
 ed by such principles as were formerly described, tenderly alive 
 to a sense of his infinite inferiority, and jealous of the glory of 
 the God that sent him, to have said, on such occasions, as the 
 apostle Peter did to Cornelius — ' Stand up, I myself also am a 
 man ;' or as the angel to John, when he fell at his feet to wor- 
 ship him ; — ' See thou do it not ; worship God.' But in the life 
 of Christ, as recorded by the evangelists, nothing of this kind is 
 to be found. He accepts all the homage that is offered to him, 
 without a hint of its impropriety, or the slightest monitory inti- 
 mation of his equality in nature with the persons by whom it is 
 paid." 
 
 Mr. Yates' observations, under ihejirst particular of his re- 
 ply to this remark, do not appear to be at all to the purpose. 
 That our blessed Lord frequently directed the minds of the peo- 
 ple to the Supreme Jehovah, the Father, as having sent and com- 
 missioned him, is true. How could it be otherwise ? Who 
 denies that, in the capacity in which he appeared in the world, 
 he was sent, and commissioned, and had received his authority and 
 power ; and that it was necessary that he should substantiate this 
 by sufficient evidence ? But, to assert that he claimed and re- 
 ceived honour onlij as the ambassador of the Supreme God, is 
 to beg the question ; for the evidence adduced of the assertion h 
 founded on a very questionable Unitarian commentary on our 
 Lord's words, "that all men should honour the Son. n<i (\]^n\ •-. 
 78 
 
S14 
 
 t^a) h Mr. Vales, because) *■' they honour the Father ; he that hon- 
 oureth not the Son honoureth not the Father that sent him." — 
 The particular cases of the homage in question still remain un- 
 touched. What Jesus said on other occasions will not show the 
 •' expectation^^ mentioned in my remark to be otherwise than "rea- 
 sonahW'' in these. Mr. Yates indeed says, — " We do not know 
 that homage was ever offered to him without a higher reference 
 to God, and that he accepted it without a hint of its impropriety." 
 But we do know the simple facts stated in the history ; that he 
 did receive the external homage there related to have been paid 
 to him, without any such " hint of its impropriety" as was given, 
 on similar occasions, by other ambassadors of God, human, and 
 even angelic. 
 
 Mr. Yates' second observation in reply, is, that, in his opin- 
 ion, " the angel^ whose conduct Mr. Wardlaw contrasts with that 
 of Jesus, 7aas Jesus himself:''^ and in three full pages he assigns 
 his reasons, for this opinion. 
 
 No considerate reader will feel any surprise at Mr. Yates^ 
 anxiety to establish this opinion ; because, were it well founded, 
 the passagas in question would contain an express refusal, on the 
 part of Jesus, of the worship due to God. — But, to show the false- 
 hood of the opinion, it is not at all necessary to travel through 
 the whole book of Revelation. The refutation of it is nearer at 
 hand. I submit to the reader the following remarks ; which, I 
 trust, will convince him, not only of the futility of the opinion ad- 
 vanced by Mr. Yates, but of his want of prudent generalship, in 
 bringing these passages into such prominent notice. 
 
 At two distinct times, it appears, John offered worship to an 
 angel ; and the angel, on both occasions, declined the honour. In 
 terms nearly the same. In both of these instances, the context af- 
 fords the most distinct information that the angel was 7iot Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 i . In the beginning of chap, xviith, John tells us, " there came 
 one of the seven angels who had the seven vials, and talked with 
 me." — It requires only to read forward thence to chap. xix. 10. 
 to satisfy any person, that this was the angel before whom John 
 fell down to worship. It surely will not be said that the Lord 
 Jesus was " one of the seven angels zoho had the seven vials.^' 
 
S15 
 
 2. This angel, when John falls down at his feet to worship him, 
 :jays, "See thou do it not: I am thy fellow-servant, and (the fel- 
 low-servant) of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus ;'^ 
 or, " I am a fellow-servant with thee, and with thy brethren that 
 have the testimony of Jesus." Now, although Jesus, in his state 
 of humiliation on earth, is called the servant of God, he is no 
 where else in Scripture, even in reference to that period, called a 
 /e//oaj-servant with the apostles and prophets : — far less is he so 
 called when exalted to glory in heaven. There his language is, 
 " I am the first and the last, and the living One ; and I was 
 dead ; and behold I am alive for evermore, and have the keys of 
 hell and of death." Is this the same person who is supposed to 
 say, "I am « fellow -servant with thee and with thy brethren ?" 
 On the contrary, the apostles are frequently styled the servants of 
 Jesus Christ. And the mode of expression used by the angel, 
 " T am a fellow-servant with thee, and with thy brethren who 
 have the testimony of Jesus,'''' seems, with sufficient clearness, to 
 show, that he means to describe himself as an associate with 
 John and his brethren, in the service of Jesus himself. 
 
 3. Immediately on John's offering worship to the angel, and 
 bis refusing it, — heaven is seen opened, and the sublime vis- 
 ion is exhibited to the view of the entranced prophet, of Him who 
 was called " Faithful and True," " the Word of God," " the 
 King of kings and Lord of lords." — Here is Jesus in all the ma- 
 jesty of dominion and power. Is this still the angel, that was 
 John's fellow-servant, and that had just been showing him the 
 preceding visions ? Is this one of the seven angels that had the 
 seven vials ? 
 
 4. The same thing is not less clear respecting the second in- 
 stance. — In chap. xxi. 9. the same expression occurs as at the 
 beginning of chap, xviith, " And there came unto me one of the 
 seven angels who had the seven vials, full of the seven last plagues, 
 and talked with me, saying" — &c. And here also, reading for- 
 ward, marking particularly verses 10, 15^ 17, of chap. xxi. and 
 verse 1. of chap, xxii, will be sufficient to convince the reader 
 that this is the angel (whether the same, or another of the seven, 
 is not clear) before whom John prostrated himself to ^yor5hip, and 
 who refused the homage, as before. 
 
216 
 
 5. The difficulty, arising from the subsequent context, is sim' 
 ply the difficulty which is so often to be found in the prophetic 
 writings, produced by the suddenness of the transition from one 
 person to another, as the speaker, without any premonition of the 
 change. If this difficulty is far from being peculiar to this pas- 
 sage, it cannot surely be allowed to overcome the plain and de- 
 cisive proofs that the angel before mentioned was, in both instan- 
 ces, another than Jesus Christ. — The note of Grotius, (whom Mr. 
 Yates will admit to be an impartial authority) as quoted by Mr. 
 Brown, expresses the general opinion, and, as I think, the just 
 one. " Sequitur hie dialogus inter Dominum Jesum et Johan- 
 nem, non appositis personarum nominibus, sed quas facile ex ver- 
 bis subintelliguntur. Hie loqui incipit Jesus. Simile habes Esa. 
 vii. xxxvii. xlviii. Jer. v. viii. ix. xv. xxii." — " Here" (that is 
 at the tenth verse) " there follows a conversation between the 
 Lord Jesus and John, in which the names of the parties are not 
 mentioned, but may easily be understood from their words, — 
 Here Jesus begins to speak. Parallel cases may be found in Isa, 
 vii. xxxvii. xlviii. Jer. v. viii. ix. xv. xxii." — If the reader will 
 peruse the chapters thus referred to, he will be at no loss to dis- 
 cover in them the parallel instances of sudden change of speaker. 
 
 6. In chapter i. 1,2. the Book is entided — " The Revelation 
 of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his ser- 
 vants the things which must shortly come to pass : and he sent 
 and signified it by his angel unto his servant John." 
 
 Mr. Yates thinks that he who " sent and signified it" is God, 
 And " his angel" Jesus. ^^ In the original,''^ he says, if-not in 
 the translation, " the words ' he sent and signified it,'' appear to 
 refer to God rather than Jesus." I can see nothing in the origi- 
 nal to prevent the words referring to Jesus as their antecedent, 
 with equal propriety as to God. I would not be positive, as it is 
 a matter about which commentators diflfer ; but it seems to me 
 more natural to connect them with Jesus. The meaning seems 
 to be, that " God gave this revelation to Jesus, to show unto his 
 servants ;" and that he, as the great medium of Divine commu- 
 nications to men, fulfilled the commission, " sending and signify- 
 ing it by his angel to his servant John." This view appears to 
 
S17 
 
 receive strong confirmation from the language of chap. xxii. 16. 
 " / Jesus have sent mine angel, to show unto you these things in 
 the churches.^^ — Mr. Yates thinks the angel, or messenger, here 
 is John ; and so, I observe, does Doddridge, I would be far 
 from denying the possibility of this being right, especially as 
 John is said to have " borne witness of the word of God, and of 
 the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of those things which he saw :" 
 but it appears to me greatly more probable that it is otherwise, 
 and that John should be included in the pronoun you; — " to tes- 
 tify unto you these things in the churches." As this, however, 
 does not seem a certain case, I am disposed rather to decline the 
 argument for the Divinity of Jesus Christ drawn by some ft"om a 
 comparison of chap. xxii. 6. with ver. 16. the more especially, 
 as it is very conceivable, that the same person may be the mes- 
 senger both of Him who bears the supreme authority, and of an 
 inferior invested with his commission. If a royal ambassador were 
 vested with power to appoint, in particular cases, a deputy to act 
 for him, that deputy might, without impropriety, be considered, 
 and denominated, at once the messenger of the king, and the 
 messenger of the ambassador acting by the king's authority. But, 
 7. Error is never consistent. If Mr. Yates were right in 
 thinking the angel who refused worship from the apostle, to be 
 Jesus himself, alas ! for the principle on which Socinians are ac- 
 customed to explain other instances of zoorship offered to Jesus ; 
 a principle which Mr. Yates himself has adopted and reasoned 
 upon. The address of Stephen to Jesus, Unitarians tell us, when 
 he actually saw him, does not authorize us to oifer prayers to him, 
 now that he is invisible : and they offer the same objection to our 
 inferences from such passages as 2 Cor. xii. 7 — 9 ; which they 
 try to reconcile with their system, by alleging the probability 
 that Jesus was at the time, actually, or at least in vision, present 
 with the aposde. To this principle Mr. Yates has given his sanc- 
 tion, in his remarks on both these cases of prayer to Jesus. (Pages 
 249, 250.) — But could cither of these cases be a case of more dis- 
 tinct visible presence, than the case in the Revelation, on the sup- 
 position of Jesus being the angel ? The principle itself furnishes 
 but a poor and pitiful refuge : — as if •' th^ merp circumstance of 
 
318 
 
 being visible could impart to a mere creature a transient divinity,, 
 and a momentary title to divine honours — a divinity and a title 
 lasting only while the vision lasts." — But, poor and pitiful as it 
 is, this notion of Mr. Yates, about Jesus being the angel who so 
 peremtorily refused the worship of his fellow-servant, sweeps il, 
 clean away. So that, after all, by what he labours so hard to 
 establish, he would lose at least as much as he could gain. 
 
 Lasdy. The notion that Jesus was the angel who refused the 
 worship offered by John, is opposed by all the other evidence of 
 his being the proper object of worship, and by the whole mass 
 of proofs that he is the true God. 
 
 I proceed to Mr. Yates' strictures on the instances of wor- 
 ship addressed to him. 
 
 On the words of Thomas to Christ, John xx. 28, Mr. Yates 
 repeats, shortly, the view he had given before ; that " my Lord 
 and my God'''' means " my master and my inspired instructor in 
 religion and virtue.'''' The reader, I presume, will readily ex- 
 cuse my saying no more of this ; and indeed, for my opponent's 
 sake, the less, I think, that is said about it the better. See pp. 
 141, 142. 
 
 With regard to that class of passages, which, in the common 
 translation, contain the phrase " calling on the name of the Lord,"*^ 
 Mr. Yates opens his attack in the following terms : " From our 
 author's confident language it is evident, that he saw through 
 this subject in an instant by a glance of inspiration. I am less 
 highly favoured. I have spent a whole day in examining all the 
 passages where the word (eviy-ccXiof^at,) translated ' to call-npon,'^ 
 occurs, carefully comparing the Hebrew, the Greek, and the 
 English. In the evening, I rest from my labour, with a persua- 
 sion that much may be said on each side of the question, and, 
 instead of being able to form a very decided opinion, I am in- 
 clined to consider this as one of the difficulties left in revelation, 
 for the purpose of inculcating humility and candour." Page 243. 
 
 Astonishing ! This is estimating the virtues of humility and 
 candour at a high rate indeed. The difficulty thus left in reve- 
 lation cannot respect merely the critical meaning of a Greek 
 verb ; it must lie in the question itself which is affected by the 
 
S19 
 
 determination of the true and proper import of the verb. So 
 that, for the sake of inculcating the virtues of humility and can- 
 dour, the readers of revelation are to be left, it seems, in uncer- 
 tainty, and at a loss to ascertain, whether Divine worship be due 
 to Christ, or whether, in offering it, they are guilty of idolatry. 
 The Divine Author of the Bible purposely employs language 
 calculated to keep his creatures in the dark, respecting one of 
 the most important questions that revelation could decide, that, 
 in the exercise of humility and mutual candour, they might make 
 idolatry a matter of forbearance. This, I confess, is quite a new 
 view of the matter. I only wonder that, if Mr. Yates thought it 
 a just one, he did not apply it more extensively : — to Rom. ix. 
 .5. for example : — The words, he might have said, are so arrang- 
 ed that they may be taken either way : This is " one of the diffi- 
 culties left in revelation for the purpose of inculcating humility 
 and candour." So of John i, 1 . The word, he might have al- 
 leged, might be rendered equally well either God, or a God : — 
 and this is " one of the difficulties left in revelation for the pur- 
 pose of inculcating humility and candour." And so of other 
 passages. Now I not only am satisfied that there is no such 
 difficulty in determining this question, but that, on a question of 
 this nature, there can be no such difficulty. I am no friend to 
 the practice of predetermining in our own minds what a revela- 
 tion from Heaven must contain. But it is surely not going too 
 far to say, that it would be inconsistent with every idea we can 
 form of the nature and design of such a revelation, to leave 
 those, to whom it is addressed, purposely, at a loss to determine 
 who is the proper object of religious worship. 
 
 I make no pretensions to " glances of inspiration.^'' Nor am 
 I, on the other hand, at all surprised at either the length or the 
 fruidessness of Mr. Yates' laborious search, or at his resting 
 in the evening from his hard day's work, satisfied with Sir Rog- 
 er de Coverly's sage conclusion that " much may be said on both 
 sides.^^ The truth is, he was searching for what was not to be 
 found, while, at the same time, he was anxious to find it, and re- 
 luctant to give up his investigation without some discovery. He 
 was seeking after other instances, to support the Unitarian ver- 
 
sion of the passages in question. But, having all day " soughL 
 witness and found none," he is obliged to content himself by ta- 
 king up the passages themselves on the general principles of 
 Greek grammar. 
 
 Let us see, then, how he disposes of them. 
 
 1. Rom. X. 11 — 13. If the reader will look at my remarks 
 on this passage, and then at those of Mr. Yates, he will at once 
 perceive, that my opponent has taken care to overlook entirely 
 the very point and pith of the reasoning. It is incapable of rea- 
 sonable dispute, that Christ is meant when it is said in v. 11. 
 "whosoever ie/ierei/i on him shall not be ashamed." It is equal- 
 ly indisputable, that Christ is meant when it is afterwards said, 
 in V. 14. " How then shall they call on him in wJiom they have not 
 believed?''^ And it irresistibly follows, that Christ is "^Ae Lord'''' 
 in the intermediate verses. " The Lord Jesus Christ,'''' in v. 9. 
 is " the same Lord over aW in verse 12th. Christ indeed, is 
 the subject throughout the whole passage. To this Mr. Yates 
 simply replies, — '^ The train of St. PauPs reasoning, affords no 
 ground to believe that he makes mention of the worship of Christ.''' 
 But he has said nothing to prove his assertion ; and the best re- 
 futation of it will be the reading of verses 8 — 14. of the chapter 
 where the words occur. 
 
 With regard to the remaining passages (viz. Acts ix. 14, 21 : 
 xxii. 16: 1 Cor. i. 2.) Mr. Yates says — " It is not disputed 
 that these passages may be so translated" (that is as they are ia 
 our common version) " without any oflence against critical pro- 
 priety. But it is also certain, that the original words may equal- 
 ly well, as far as respects grammar, be translated thus : ' And 
 here he hath authority from the chief priest to bind all that are 
 called by thy name ;' ' Is not this he who destroyed them that 
 are called by this name in Jerusalem ?' ' Arise, and be baptized, 
 and wash away thy sins, taking upon thyself his navie :' ' To 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 are 
 called by the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.'' ''^ (Pages 244, 245.) 
 He then alleges, in substance, that these passages, being equally 
 susceptible of the one translation or the other, make nothing for 
 
221 
 
 either side, but may with propriety be understood according as 
 our minds are previously satisfied upon other grounds. 
 
 Mr. Yates produces a list of passages from the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures, in which persons arc said to be " called by the 
 name of the Lord,^'' prefacing the list with the remark, To be call- 
 ed by the name of a person., is a phrase of very frequent occur- 
 rence in the Scriptures. It signifies to belong to that person.'^'' — 
 It is very unnecessary to go through these passages, because 
 Mr. Yates himself has been so good as to deprive them of all 
 their force in the present argument, by adding, at the close of the 
 list — " Although in these examples the form of expression in 
 the Greek is diflerent, the sense appears to be the same as in the 
 passages which I am now endeavouring to illustrate." But if 
 '''■the form of expression in the Greek is different,'''' they are nothing 
 at all to the purpose, unless the reader chooses to be satisfied 
 with " the sense appearing'^'' to Mr. Yates " to be the same.'''' 
 
 The case, then, stands thus : — The phrase used in the paS' 
 sages in question is the customary phrase in Scripture, for invok- 
 ing, or calling upon the name of the Lord : — whereas in every in- 
 stance in which being called by the name of the Lord is clearly 
 intended, the phraseology employed is different. There is, there- 
 fore, every reason to conclude, that, in the instances in dispute, 
 had it been the intention of the writers to express the idea of " be- 
 ing called by the name of the Lord,^^ their phraseology would not 
 have been what it is. 
 
 The only instance which Mr. Yates has produced in favour of 
 the Unitarian rendering, is one from the epistle of Clement to the 
 Corinthians : — " May the God who surveys all things, the Sove- 
 reign of spirits, and the Lord of all flesh, who hath chosen the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and us in him to be a peculiar people, give to 
 every soul who is called by his glorious and holy name, faith, fear, 
 peace, patience, &c." The expression is " Savi Trxa-vi -^Pv^^vi iiri- 
 x£x;A»)jtt£v»i T« fjLiyit'Xar^iTctc, kcci ayiov ovofcx etvTov :'' and Mr. Yates re- 
 marks in a note, that " «5r/x£x;k;};tte»»i in the passive voice, instead 
 of eTFiKCiXovf^iyn, which might be either passive or middle, determines 
 the sense of the verb." — In the frst place, however, the case 
 would have been more in point, had the precise words of the pas- 
 29 
 
sages in debate been used, and, at the same time, obviously and 
 certainly in the sense of being called by the name of the Lord, &lc. 
 In the second place, the words, give to every one who is called by 
 his glorious and holy name,''^ do not seem, from the structure of 
 the sentence, to refer, in this instance, to Christ at all, but to 
 " thp God who surveys all things, the sovereign of spirits, and 
 the Lord of all flesh." Yet Mr. Yates draws from this passage 
 of Clement the following inference : " we know, therefore, that 
 ' to be called by the name q/ Christ' was a designation employed 
 in the apostolic age to denote the profession of the Christian reli' 
 gion.^^ — Thirdly, there is much more decisive evidence of the 
 early Christians having worshipped Christ, than there is of this 
 designation having been so employed in the apostolic age. — And, 
 lastly, the case before us seems to be one instance among many 
 of the justice of the charge brought against Unitarians in general, 
 at which Mr. Yates felt so peculiarly indignant ; namely, of their 
 being satisfied if they can only make it out, on evidence howev- 
 er slender, that a passage will bear to be rendered in a way con- 
 sistent with their system. It is easy, indeed, to say, " it is cer- 
 tain that the original words may equally well, as far as respects 
 grammar, be translated thus." But when the matter stands as 
 has been stated above, with regard to the general practice of the 
 Greek language, and especially of the sacred writers, the expres- 
 sion should make him who uses it blush. 
 
 There is one general observation which I have here to make, 
 respecting the manner in which Mr. Yates endeavours to explain 
 tlie remaining passages on this subject. In all the instances in 
 which God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, are introduced 
 together, the great general principle of his reply is, that though 
 both are thus addressed, the one is addressed as the supreme 
 God, and the other as performing the same actions, or bestowing 
 the same blessings, in subordination to the Father, and by means 
 of power and knowledge communicated from him." But when 
 he comes to passages in which Jesus alone is addressed, (as in 
 2 Cor. xii. 7, — 9. and Acts vii. 59, 60.) he is bereft of this con- 
 venient principle, and constrained to acknowledge that " he is 
 not able, completely to his own satisfaction, to reconcile these 
 
instances of the invocation of Jesus with those numerous and 
 clear directions, which represent the Father as the only proper 
 object of religious adoration." (Page 251.) Now, seriously, 
 ought not such instances as these, in which Jesus stands alone. 
 as the object of immediate invocation and prayer, to have led 
 Mr. Yates to suspect the soundness of his principle, and to con- 
 clude, that, in the cases in which Jesus is joined with the Father, 
 he is just as much the object of true and proper worship, as when 
 he is addressed by himself? 
 
 But apart from this, let the reader look at those passages 
 again, in which Jesus is united with the Father ; let him look, 
 for example, at 1 Thess. iii. 11 — 13. and at 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17 i 
 and let him consult whatever measure of common sense he may 
 possess (and a very small measure will do) to determine whether 
 these passages do not contain prayers. To allege that they are 
 not invocations, but devout wishes, is mere trifling, and only shows 
 the weakness of the cause which obliges its advocates to have 
 recourse to so poor a subterfuge. We do not look for direct 
 apostrophes to the object of supplication in a letter : but what is 
 here expressed by the apostle, in the form of a wish, is, beyond 
 all reasonable question, a supplicatory aspiration to the throne of 
 Divine grace, in behalf of those to whom he is writing, and con- 
 tains an intimation to them, of what his prayers were for them in 
 his more secret devotions. The blessings which are desired in 
 these passages, are such as it belongs to God alone to bestow : 
 and they are desired alike from God the Father and the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 In the latter of the two passages, I had remarked, the evi- 
 dence is particularly strong from the circumstance of Jesus being 
 Tpwt first in the order of address. — "Are we to suppose that a 
 mere man, or even the most exalted of creatures, is here asso- 
 ciated with the most High God, in a solemn prayer for the com- 
 munication of comfort and stability to the Christians at Thessa- 
 lonica ? and not only associated with liim, but, in the order of 
 address, put before him P''^ On this Mr. Yates observes : — " Mr. 
 Wardlaw endeavours to confirm his argument by remarking that 
 Christ is ' not only associated with God, but, in the order of ad' 
 
2S4i 
 
 dress, put before him.^^ He makes the same observation upon 
 another passage, 2 Cor. xiii. 14. where also Christ is mentioned 
 in the order of the sentence before God. This argument at the 
 utmost rests on very dubious ground. It is the idiom of the 
 English language, when a verb has more than one nominative, to 
 place that lirst which is the highest in dignity and eminence. 
 In Latin the rule is the reverse ; the most important object being 
 mentioned last. Whether there be any established practice upon 
 this subject in Greek, I must confess myself at present unable to 
 say ; but I do not take Mr. Wardlaw's rule upon trust." P. 248. 
 It is with the Greek practice we have at present to do. And 
 as to this, i should think Mr. Yates need not have gone beyond 
 the limits of the very argument he was at the time discussing, to 
 have sufficiently satisfied himself. On his principles, Jesus Christ 
 is a created being, and not merely in official relation, but in nature, 
 inferior and subordinate to the Father ^ as a creature, indeed, in- 
 Jiniteli/ inferior. This being supposed the case, if the ^^ estab- 
 lished practice^^ in Greek were the same as what Mr. Yates states 
 it to be in Latin, it would follow inevitably, that he would inva- 
 riably be placed j^r5/. But how stands the fact ? He is almost 
 always last, having only in two or three instances the preced- 
 ence. Here, then, on Mr. Yates'' own principles, are strong data, 
 within the bounds of the very question under discussion, to de- 
 cide the point as to Greek practice, on which he professes him- 
 self at a loss. Let him not attempt to turn the attack, by saying, 
 If such be the case, then you grant the inferiority of Christ to the 
 Father, as proved by the circumstance of his being placed almost 
 always the second in order. On Trinitarian principles, there is 
 no difficulty in accounting for 'this. In the scheme of redemp- 
 tion, Jesus appears as Mediator, sent by the Father, making 
 atonement to the Father, accepted and glorified by the Father. 
 By sinners in their addresses at the throne of grace, it is natural 
 to suppose, and in itself right and unavoidable, that God the 
 Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ should be contemplated, as 
 they are revealed in this scheme ; this scheme being itself the 
 ground on which sinners come to God. But the official relations 
 subsisting between the Father and the Son in the scheme of re. 
 
demption, are not inconsistent with cqnality of nature ; so that, 
 while, on account of the former, we naturally expect what is 
 the customary order, the latter keeps us from being at all star- 
 tled, or stumbled, by that order being occasionally reversed. But 
 supposing, on the contrary, such inferiority of nature sis the Uni- 
 tarian system maintains to exist, — then, whether the established 
 practice in Greek be to give the precedency to the supreme or 
 to the subordinate, it will be alike difficult to account, in a case 
 such as the present, for the practice being (as it is in more in- 
 stances than one) directly violated. 
 
 Mr. Yates is pleased to add, with his usual felicity and point; 
 — " Besides, I cannot see how this observation is applicable to 
 prove the Trinitarian doctrine. For, although it cannot be de- 
 nied, that Christ is often put before God the Father in the offec- 
 iio7is of his worshippers, I never knew that his superiority to the 
 Father was a doctrine taught by systematic theologians.^^ (P^gG 
 248.) For an answer to the unworthy sneer in the beginning of 
 this last sentence, I refer the reader to my former volume. Pages 
 251, 252. As to the latter part of the sentence, I shall only say, 
 that if Mr. Yates ^'■cannot see" how the observation respecting 
 the priority of Christ in the order of address " is applicable to 
 prove the Trinitarian doctrine," unless Trinitarians hold his 
 " superiority to the Father,'''' he only furnishes an illustration of 
 the old proverb, that " none are so blind as those who will not 
 5£e." Let him try his penetration (or rather his candour ; for 
 though he sometimes zoill not see, he is not without penetration) 
 on the following simple statement : — Trinitarians account for the 
 Father being usually mentioned frst, from the official relations 
 between the Father and the Son in the plan of redemption : they 
 account for Jesus Christ being sometimes first, from the consider- 
 ation of his equality in nature with the Father. 
 
 " Mr. WardlaAv," says Mr. Yates, " is, as usual, very unfor- 
 tunate in his minuter criticisms. He observes, with respect to 
 the former of the two passages, that ' the Lord'' in the 12th verse 
 is evidently the Lord Jesus Christ, Griesbach, however, has 
 marked this word doiibtful. If it be omitted, the passage will 
 read thus : — ' .Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord 
 
2S6 
 
 Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you, and make you lo increase 
 and abound in love one toward another,' &lc. The various ex- 
 amples of inattention to the correctness of the Greek text which 
 I have observed, constrain me to think, that Mr. Wardlaw has 
 made his bold assertions (p. 146.) concerning Griesbach's emen- 
 dations, without taking the trouble to examine whether they were 
 true or false." (P. 248.) 
 
 I speak most calmly and deliberately, when I say, that I con- 
 sider this as worse than contemptible ; as containing in it that 
 sin against the claims of candour which consists in catching at a 
 circumstance, than which it is scarcely possible to imagine one 
 more trivial, with a view to throw general discredit, in the mind 
 of the unlearned and inconsiderate reader, on the critical accura- 
 cy of an opponent. I do not, in this case, as in one instance 
 formerly noticed, plead guilty of even the slightest degree of in- 
 attention. 
 
 Let the reader observe, 1st, Mr. Yates says Griesbach has 
 marked " the Lord''"' in verse 12 " as doubtful ;''^ but he has not 
 said, what he ought to have said, that the mark affixed to the 
 words is that which denotes the slightest degree of dubiety which 
 ihe critic thought it worth his while to mark at all. * 2dly, I pro- 
 
 * <' := indicat probabilem omissionem, neque lamen ideo certam, ut nullus 
 dubilationi locus supersit. (Si verba hoc sigao notata abessent a textu, nos ea 
 admisissemus in textum, prasfixo -}-.) 
 
 " — prasfigitur vocabulis, quorum omissio minus est probabilis. (Si verbum 
 cui hoc signum adposuimus abesset a textu, nos reposuissemus illud, adjecto ^.) 
 
 " -^ adpingitur iis verbis quae probabiliter textui adjicienda sunt. (Si lege- 
 rentur in vulgari textu, nos ea signo — notassemus.)" 
 
 " = signifies probaWc omission, but not so certain as to leave no room for 
 doubt. If the words so marked had been out of the received text, we should 
 have inserted them, prefixing -|-. 
 
 " — is prefixed to words of whose omission the probability is less. If the 
 word to which this mark is affixed had been absent from the text, we should 
 have restored it, subjoining ^. 
 
 " -jH" is placed at those words, as to which there is a probability that thej 
 should be added to the text. Had they been previously in it, we should have 
 distinguished them by the mark — ." 
 
 It is by tlie mark — tliat o xv^toi is distinguished as <' doubtful^^ in the pas» 
 sage in question. 
 
eeeded, and considered myself entitled to proceed, upon the 
 principle, that whatever Griesbach retained was Griesbach's 
 text ; and should have thought it mere trifling, to have noticed, 
 with particular remark, every word to which there might attach 
 the slightest shade of doubt. Conceiving this great critic infin- 
 itely better qualified to weigh the claims of different readings 
 than myself, 1 assumed, in the whole course of my Volume, that 
 what he retained in the text there existed sufficient reason for 
 retaining. So that the want of due submission to the authority 
 of Griesbach lies, not with me, but with my opponent, who thus, 
 when it suits him, can argue on the supposition of words being 
 spurious, which he has seen more than sufficient reason to retain. 
 I say more than sufficient : for the reader will perceive, from the 
 explanation of the marks given in the note, that less reason 
 would have satisfied him, for keeping them in the text, and even 
 for inserting them had they been wanting. — But, 3dly — " //'it" 
 (the word xv^ioi) " be omitted," says Mr. Yates, " the passage 
 will read thus : ' Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you, and make you to increase 
 and abound in love one toward another.' " &c. " Most thinking" 
 reader, do you perceive any material difference as to the argur 
 ment from this omission ? 
 
 Mr. Yates " is not disposed to dissent" from the view given 
 of the apostolic benedictions, as brief praters for the Divine bless- 
 ing on the churches and individuals to whom they are addressed, 
 because although, " properly speaking, they imply only benevolent 
 wishes,'''^ yet "almost every wish of a habitually pious man includes 
 a prayer." He observes, however, that " in every instance of such 
 benedictions, a marked distinction is made between ' God the Fa* 
 ther,^ who is the only true God, and ' the Lord Jesus Christ ;' who, 
 according to the doctrine stated in other parts of Scripture, exer- 
 cises his functions, as the guardian and benefactor of the Chris- 
 tian church, in subjection to God, and by means of qualifications 
 imparted from him." (P. 249.) But in this observation it is, as 
 usual, assumed without proof, that the distinction between the 
 Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, is the distinction between 
 the fn/e God and a mere crmture commissioned and qualified 
 by him. 
 
2. Cor. xii. 7 — 9. Mr. Yates admits that Christ is here the 
 person whom the apostle besought ; and that this is consequent- 
 ly a " clear instance of an earnest supplication for aid, addressed 
 to Jesus." — But something or other must be said, to evade the 
 inference, or to diminish its force. " It is to be observed," says 
 Mr. Yates, " that, when addressed, he makes a reply in distinct 
 terms, saying to Paul, ' My grace is sufficient for thee, for my 
 strength is made perfect in weakness.' This renders it proba- 
 ble, that, when Paul besought him, he was present with the apos- 
 tle, either in vision, or personally." — Well ; — let this be suppos- 
 ed, and what then ? It is still to Christ that he addresses his sup- 
 plication for deliverance ; — it is Christ that does deliver him ; — 
 it is the power of Christ in which he glories. Unitarians tell us, 
 that, in our veneration and love lor Christ, we forget what is due 
 to the Father. But truly, if Christ was not God, there is, in this 
 thrice-repeated prayer of the apostle, something which it will not 
 be easy to vindicate from the charge of idolatrous forgelfulness 
 of the Father Almighty. — But the mere circumstance of a reply 
 being made " in distinct terms" by " the Lord" to bis servant, 
 affords no conclusive evidence of his presence with him at the 
 time, either personally or in vision. The inspired communica- 
 tions made to the holy prophets are almost always introduced in 
 similar tez'ms — " The Lord said unto mc," — " The word of the 
 Lord came unto mc," &;c.; while there is no reason to suppose 
 either personal or visionary appearance. The answer was, in 
 all probability, imparted to his mind, by revelation, in a way of 
 which we, who have had no experience of it, can form no distinct 
 conception. — He besought the Lord thrice. Was it in vision, 
 each of the three times ? Did the apostle just catch the opportuni- 
 ties afforded by Jesus appearing to him, to present his prayer to 
 him, — while, at other times, he prayed to the Father, and never 
 to Christ ? Did he before, and in the intervals, pray to the Fath- 
 er ; and, not succeeding, seize the occasion of presenting his 
 suit to the Son, — a fellow-creature who had influence with God ? 
 Or rather, is not this instance of prayer, addressed to Jesus alone, 
 in perfect harmony with the other passages, in which he is ad- 
 dressed in conjvDciion zcith the Father/' 
 
In Mr. Yates' remarks both on this passage and on the case 
 of Stephen, Acts vii. 59. there appears an interesting struggle 
 between attachment to a system, and the dictates of candour and 
 common sense. Having entered at large into the case of Ste- 
 phen in my Discourses, I do not wish to trouble my reader with 
 a mere repetition of what was there said, to which Mr. Yates at- 
 tempts no reply. He merely states, and slates in a very hesitat- 
 ing way, like one who felt his ground unstable, what other Uni- 
 tarians have stated with greater confidence before him ; without 
 deigning (shall I say, or venturing ?) to take any notice of what 
 has been urged in reply. 
 
 Two things, however, are remarkable. First of all, it is ut- 
 terly vain for Trinitarians to maintain any argument that Christ 
 is God, from his being the object of prayer : — They may spare 
 themselves the trouble, at least in as far as respects any prospect 
 of convincing Mr. Yates. For he has found out, and avows, 
 that " the example of this dying martyr, even if it authorised us 
 to pray to Christ, affords no proof of his supreme divinity." — 
 (Page 251.) — So that we may succeed in proving that Jesus Christ 
 is the proper object of prayer and supplication — even to us — even 
 when not appearing in vision — and yet, after all, fail in proving 
 him to be any thing more than a creature " appointed and em- 
 powered by God to direct the affairs of his church, and to guard 
 the lives and preserve the souls of his servants." (Page 251.) 
 Does Mr. Yates, then, agree with Socinus, in thinking Christ « 
 mere man, and yet a proper object of invocation ? — Or does he 
 agree with Dr. Clarke and the high Arians ? — Adhuc in dubio est. 
 He is as fearful as ever, of any one finding out what he is ; and, 
 like a certain fish, the use he makes of his ink is to render him- 
 self undiscoverable. 
 
 He further says, " with respect to the second ejaculation. 
 " ' Lord, lay not this sin to their charge,'' it was probably ad- 
 dressed to God, the Judge of all, to whom the expiring saint ap- 
 pears previously and deliberately to have diverted his attention 
 in the solemn act of kneeling down." (Page 251.) Now, can 
 any thing be conceived more arbitrary than this ? Mr. Yates 
 says it is •' probable/'\ But it can appear so only to a mind pre- 
 
!e30 
 
 judiced to a very uncommon degree, by the influence of parly 
 sentiments. Can it be possible, that Mr. Yates should scruple 
 to admit that the dying martyr would address a prayer for the 
 forgiveness of his enemies, to the same gracious Redeemer into 
 whose hands he solemnly commits his own departing spirit? In- 
 deed, if the simple reading of the verses does not at once show 
 the reader how hardly pressed Mr. Yates must have felt himselfj, 
 when he had recourse to a supposition so groundless and gratui- 
 tous as this, no reasoning whatever would, I fear, convince him 
 of it. 
 
 I should reckon the mind of my opponent, in these circum- 
 stances, an utterly hopeless subject, were it not for the admission 
 which immediately follows, of his not being satisfied with his own 
 reasonings, respecting both this and the preceding instance of 
 the invocation of Jesus ,: — an admission of which, notice has al- 
 ready been taken. 
 
 We now come to the sublime vision in the fifth chapter of the 
 Revelation, " in which," as Mr. Yates expresses himself, " all 
 rational creatures are represented attributing common honours to 
 God, and to Jesus." (Page 252.) 
 
 " It is not true, as Mr. Wardlaw asserts, (page 125,) that he 
 ' is represented as occupying the same throne with the EternaW 
 On the contrary, while God sits upon the throne^ in token of his 
 supremacy, (see chapter iv. 2,8 — 11. v. 1, 7, 13.) Christ, the 
 Lamb, stands in the middle space hetrveen the throne and the el- 
 ders^ and afterwards goes up to take the book out of the hand of 
 Him that sits on the throne. See ver. 6, 7." (Page 253.) 
 
 Candour requires me to say, after repeated examination of 
 the phrases employed in recording the vision, that, were we to 
 confine our attention to it alone, this observation must be acknowl- 
 edged correct. The same phraseology is applied, in chapter iv. 
 6. to " the four living creatures :" — " In the midst of the throne^ 
 and round about the throne were four living creatures, full of 
 eyes before and behind ;" which Doddridge renders, giving the 
 obvious sense, " in the middle of the space between the throne, 
 and the circle about the throne." — When applied, in chap. v. 6, 
 to the Lamb, — " I beheld, and lo, in the midst of th^ throne, and 
 
^1 
 
 of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood 
 a Lamb as it had been slain," — it is, I observe, generally consid- 
 ered by commentators as meaning " in the middle space between 
 the throne and the four living creatures." — See Doddridge, 
 Guyse, Scott, &:c. According to this interpretation, Jesus ap- 
 pears in the vision in his mediatorial capacity, as '* the Lamb of 
 God, that taketh away the sin of the world," and as holding a rel- 
 ative position corresponding to this view of his character ; — hav- 
 ing been himself the Divine High Priest, and the piacular Vic- 
 tim. — But there are other passages in which Jesus, the Lamb, is 
 plainly and unequivocally described as " occupying the same 
 throne with the Eternal:" chapter iii. 21 : vii. 15 — 17: xxii. 
 1 , 3. These texts clearly represent God and the Lamb, as oc- 
 cupying the same throne ; — and it arose from my having such 
 passages in my mind at the time, that I was naturally led to in- 
 terpret the expression "m the midst of the throne'^'' in this vision, 
 as of the same import. 
 
 There are two ways of answering the argument derived from 
 the ascription of the same adoration and praise to God and to the 
 Lamb. — The one is, by alleging, " that this is entirely a ' a vision- 
 ary scene :' " — that " the homage is paid to a symbolical repre- 
 sentation of Christ, by symbolical persons, as visibly present 
 with him : and that this cannot justify the actual worship of 
 Christ, when he is not visible." — This I have particularly notic- 
 ed in my Discourses, and I trust, sufficiently exposed its absur- 
 dity. From his entire silence respecting it, Mr. Yates may be 
 considered, I presume, as giving it up. He confines himself to 
 the other ground, which is certainly more rational and plausi- 
 ble. — He states it in the following terms : — 
 
 " But it is argued, that, since God and Christ receive, in this 
 instance, the same tribute of praise, they must be equal in eterni- 
 ty, in power, and in glory. Indeed those who maintain the su- 
 preme divinity of Christ, commonly represent it as a circumstance 
 of great moment, whenever he is mentioned in conjunction with 
 the Father, and in the same or similar terms with him. It will 
 therefore be proper to consider more particularly, what inferen- 
 ces follow from the application of the same language in the same 
 
S33 
 
 sentence to Almighty God, and to some other being. The fol- 
 lowing passages may serve the purpose. Exod. xiv. 31. 'And 
 the people feared Jehovah, and believed J ehovah, and his servant 
 Moses. 1. Sam. xii. 18. ' And all the people greatly feared Je- 
 hovah and Samuel.^ 1. Chron. xxix. 20. 'And all the congre- 
 gation blessed Jehovah, God of their fathers, and bowed down 
 their heads, and worshipped Jehovah and the King.^ 2 Chron. 
 xxxi. 8. ' And when Hezekiah and the princes came, and saw 
 the heaps, they blessed Jehovah, and his people Israel,'' Acts xv. 
 28. ' It seemed good to the Holy Spirit (that is, to God) and to 
 us.^ 1 Thess. ii. 10. ' Fe are witnesses, and God.'' — In these 
 passages, the one true God is ' associated' with his creatures as 
 the object of faith, fear, worship, and blessing, and is mentioned 
 in ' connexion' with them, as ' giving counsel and bearing wit- 
 ness.'' " (Page 254.) 
 
 One of the passages here referred to I have considered in my 
 'Discourses — viz. 1 Chron. xxix. 20. And the general pj-inciple 
 of the answer to it is perfectly applicable to all the rest. In 
 every one of these cases, " a general word is used, in its general 
 or indefinite sense," and we feel no difficulty in regard to any of 
 them, in assigning to the word, though applied to two objects in 
 the same sentence, its " different modifications of meaning.'* 
 But, " in the case to which these are adduced as parallels, we 
 have the very same act of worship, expressed in the very same 
 words, addressed equally ' to Him that sitteth upon the throne, 
 and to the Lamb.' " (Discourse IV. p. 127.) 
 
 When we read the vision, and hear 
 
 *' The whole creation join in one 
 
 " To bless the sacred name 
 *' Of Him who sits upon the throne, 
 
 " And to adore the Lamb ;" 
 
 we ask, with astonishment at those w^ho would forbid us, Is this 
 not a being whom we are warranted and bound to worship and 
 adore ? Must xae confine our adoration, our sacred acts of reli- 
 gious homage, to " Him that sitteth on the throne,'''' and exclude 
 " the Lamb .^" Or, if we may unite his name with that of the 
 Father in our ascriptions of glory and honour, and blessing, and 
 
powev, what is the kind, and what the measure, of homage, which 
 we are to consider ourselves as paying to him ? Has a book, of 
 which one of the leading designs is to proscribe, and finally to 
 abolish, all idolatry, represented the whole creation as uniting in 
 one solemn act of adoration to God and to the Lamb ; and, by 
 this very representation, called upon iis, who are a part of the 
 creation of God, to adore and honour the Lamb in the very same 
 terms in which we adore and honour the Father ; while at the 
 same time it commands us to keep at an infinite distance from 
 every approach to the worship of any creature, enjoining us to 
 " worship the Lord our God, and to serve him only ?" Unitari- 
 ans, Mr. Yates tells us, " are sometimes heard in their churches 
 on earth, to join the adoring throngs above, in 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 :' " (P. 253.) and sometimes, too, it is to be presumed, 
 joining with the whole creation in saying " Blessing, and honour, 
 and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth on the throne, 
 and to the Lamb for ever and ever !" Who the Unitarians are, 
 who thus sometimes join the adoring throngs above, in them- 
 selves adoring the Lamb, Mr. Yates does not say. Does he 
 mean all descriptions of Unitarians, according to his extended 
 application of the term, from the high Arian to the low Socinian ? 
 Dg they address their adorations to the Lamb, or do they only 
 express their sentiments of him ? If they address their adora- 
 tions to him, what is this adoration ? It is not often, I presume, 
 that such adoration of the Lamb is heard among them ; and when 
 it is, there must surely be many inward fears and jealousies, and 
 misgivings of mind, lest they should be ascribing to this fellow 
 creature a greater proportion of the devotion of their hearts than 
 what is his due. I have often, for my own part, admired the 
 wisdom of the blessed God, as displayed in the scheme of re- 
 demption, in this respect among many others, that, while it is 
 impossible, considering the vast extent of the obligations of sin- 
 ners to the Redeemer, by whose mediation it is that they are 
 restored to the " life " that lies in " God's favour," and to 
 all the blessings of everlasting salvation ; while it is impossi- 
 
S34 
 
 ble, considering the incalculable magnitude of these blessings, 
 so infinitely transcending all that they can ever be the instru- 
 ments of conveying to one another, that they should not feel, if 
 he to whom they were under these obligations were a mere fel- 
 low creature, a danger of dividing their hearts between him and 
 God ; that, in these circumstances, the constitution of his person 
 should be such, as to allow full scope to all the glowing ardour 
 of gratitude ; leaving us at liberty to " pour out our hearts before 
 him" with unrestrained emotion, without the hazard of any ap- 
 proximation to idolatrous feeling ; so that, with perfect freedom 
 from every such perplexing and painful apprehension, we may 
 " honour the Son even as we honour the Father.'^'' 
 
 With regard to the other two passages afterwards quoted by 
 Mr. Yates, viz. 1 Tim. vi. 21. "I charge thee before God, and 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe 
 these things." And 1 Sam. xxv. 32, 33. " And David said to 
 Abigail, Blessed be Jehovah God of Israel, who sent thee this 
 day to meet me ; and blessed be thy advice, and blessed be 
 thou." Mr. Yates' mode of reasoning is rather a curious one. 
 He supposes a substitution, in the former, oi'-'- the Holy Spirit'''' for 
 " <Ae elect angels,'''' and, in the latter, of the '■'■Son'''' and"<Ae 
 Holy Spirit'''' for " thy advice'''' and " thouf and then, with sa- 
 tirical irony, makes out of them, for the Trinitarians, two " capi- 
 tal and convincing proofs of the doctrine of the Trinity." It is 
 very likely, that Trinitarians might have considered such passa- 
 ges as additional proofs of their doctrine ; and they would 
 have had good reason for doing so. Mr. Yates' argument stands 
 thus : — There is just as much ground from the passages, as they 
 actually stand, to conclude that " the elect angels " are God, and 
 that David and David'' s advice are God, as there would have been 
 ground, had they stood as Mr, Yates supposes them, to conclude 
 from tiiem that the Son and the Holy Spirit are God. But, in 
 order to render this fair, and to make the Trinitarians look as 
 foolish as Mr. Yates intended they should, the following ought to 
 have been the state of the case : — There should not only have 
 been no other evidence besides these passages, that the Son and 
 'he Holy Spirit arc God, equal with the Father; but. on the con- 
 
trary, as much evidence that they are not God, as there is that 
 angels, and David, and David's advice, are not God. We may 
 be perfectly warranted to interpret a text in agreement with a 
 multitude of others, while we should not be warranted to interpret 
 it in opposition to all others. — But, after all, our argument is not 
 founded on the mere connexion of " God and the Lamb" in the 
 same sentence, as Mr. Yates represents it, but on the peculiar 
 circumstances of that connexion ; and, if the reader wishes to 
 know what these are, I have only to request of him to read over 
 again the fifth chapter of the revelation. 
 
 Mr. Yates concludes this chapter, by endeavouring to illus- 
 trate the sense of the sacred writers, in uniting God the Father 
 and the Lord Jesus Christ in their ascriptions of glory and 
 praise, by "the manner in which Mahommedans"(to whom Uni- 
 tarians have always shown a warm side,) " associate their pro-- 
 phet with the Almighty." He quotes the following " lofty lan- 
 guage of praise and supplication ;"— Praise be unto the Almigh- 
 ty God, and unto our Lord his prophet Mahommed, whose pro- 
 tection and mercy we crave, and resign ourselves to his holy 
 will." — This language of the followers of the false prophet 
 " proves," says Mr. Yates, " that a person may be conceived to 
 be infinitely inferior to God as his creature and his dependent, 
 and yet, in consideration of the power and glory to which God 
 has raised him, he may be praised, and even petitioned, in con- 
 nexion with his Creator and the Creator of all." No doubt the 
 language proves, that this " may be conceived.'''^ But does it 
 prove that they who so conceive, conceive rightly ? Is it a right 
 conception, that a person " infinitely inferior'''' in nature to 
 the great God, and, with whatever power and glory invested,. 
 still infinitely inferior, should be associated with " his Cre- 
 ator and the Creator of all," as the object of the same 
 praise and supplication ? Because the votaries of the Koran 
 have presumed thus impiously and inconsistently to associate 
 the name of their false prophet with the name of the Almigh- 
 ty, in their acts of homage and devotion, must we impute the 
 same impiety, and the same, or much greater inconsistency, 
 to those " holy men of God who spake as they were moved hx 
 
the Holy Spirit ;" on whom the gifts of inspiration were confer^ 
 red, with the express design of exposing, and bearing down, and 
 finally subverting, all idolatry — called so emphatically in Scrip- 
 ture " that abominable thing which God hates ?" If I might 
 venture a probable conjecture, as to the origin of the Mahom- 
 etan practice, I should suppose it to have arisen from the very 
 circumstance of the name of Jesus being so associated in the 
 Holy Scriptures. Finding this the case, and assuming his being 
 no more than a prophet, they have exalted their own prophet to 
 the place which the Bible gives to Christ, impiously honouring 
 him with the same high and sacred associations. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 In Chapter IX. Mr. Yates examines " the remaining argo"- 
 MENTS produced by Mr. Wardlaw, to prove the supreme divinity 
 of Jesus Christ," that he " may do full justice to the evidence of 
 the Trinitarian doctrine, and omit none of its prominent and pal- 
 pable evidences." Page 257. 
 
 John X. 30. On this text see pages 1 23 — 1 30 of this volume. 
 
 Phil. ii. 6. " Who, being in the form of God, thought it not 
 robbery to be equal with God." 
 
 Mr. Yates declares himself " satisfied, after attending care- 
 fully to the ingenious argumentation by which Hammond, and a 
 few others have attempted to justify this translation, that it can- 
 not possibly be deduced out of the original words of St. Paul ;" 
 and that " the literal translation of them is, ' Who, being in the 
 form of God, did not esteem it a prey to be as God.' " — " Since," 
 he adds, " there is an evident necessity for some supplement in 
 the last clause, and the substantive verb (eivxi) " to 6f," is sel- 
 dom used in the New Testament to denote 7nere existence, we 
 may properly insert the word honoured^ and read ' to be honoured 
 as God.'' The meaning of the apostle may be thus expressed ; 
 ver. 5 — 8. Imitate the condescension and benevolence of Jesus 
 
337 
 
 Christ, who, although he resembled God in the possession of ex- 
 traordinary power and wisdom, did not grasp at divine honours, 
 but humbled himself to the performance of servile offices, and, 
 in obedience to the will of his Father, submitted unto death, 
 even the painful and ignominious death of the cross." (Pages 
 259, 260.) 
 
 I embrace the present opportunity of stating my views of 
 this passage a little more fully than it seemed proper to do in a 
 public discourse. 
 
 1. Mr. Yates' interpretation of "being in the form of God,'''' 
 is the same with that of Unitarians in general : — Jesus " resem- 
 bled God in the possession of extraordinary power and wisdom." 
 — " He did not grasp at divine honours,'''' must mean, that he did 
 not pervert the power with which he was endowed to the purpose 
 of his own aggrandizement and glory ; that he did not, that is 
 contravene, in the exertion of that power, the end of his mission. 
 This, then, proceeds on the supposition odhe possibility at least 
 of his having done otherwise ; — on the supposition of divine 
 power having been placed so entirely at his discretion, that he 
 might, had he been so inclined, have used it for his own honour 
 in opposition to the honour of him that sent him. Let this sup- 
 position, then, be fairly examined. We cannot allow it to be 
 qualified by any condition ; as of the Almighty withdrazving the 
 communicated power, should any symptom have appeared of an 
 impious inclination to pervert it. For in that case, it w^as not at 
 his discretion, any more than at the discretion of other prophets. 
 And if the supposition be not thus qualified, how gross is the 
 absurdity which it involves ! — the power of God placp'^. at the 
 discretion of a creature, v/ho has it in his option, whether it shall 
 be employed for the Divine purposes, or against them. The 
 possibility of the latter is clearly involved in the Unitarian hy- 
 pothesis : and if this be hypothetically possible, we are warranted, 
 for argument's sake, to suppose it realized ; — in which case, we 
 shall have a creature wielding Almigbty power against the Al- 
 mighty ; — the infinite God absolutely outwitted by the agent to 
 whose discretion he has transferred his power! 
 
 2. Though " resembling God" " he did not esteem it a prey 
 
238 
 
 to be as God." 1 have no particular objection to Mr. Yates' 
 explanatory supplement, — " to be honoured as God." — " He ap- 
 proves of my translation ' to be on an eqv.alitij with God,' and 
 admires the remarks by which I have vindicated it :" — now cer- 
 tainly to be " on an equality with God?'' means, to be on an equal- 
 ity with him as to the honour and the homage due to him from 
 his creatures. — But it will not be very easy to reconcile the 
 sentiment that Christ "did not esteem it a prey to be honoured as 
 God,''"' with his own explicit declaration, " 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 : 
 he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that 
 sent him ;" John v. 22, 23. — When Mr. Yates, indeed, quotes 
 this passage, (page 239,) he accompanies it with this comment ; 
 " that all men should honour the Son, as (that is, because) they 
 honour the Father." But a Unitarian " that js" is not of suffi- 
 cient authority to command immediate acquiescence, and to si- 
 lence every suspicion that the original word (Kxeai) is to be un- 
 derstood in its more direct and proper meaning, which is, in the 
 same, — or, in like manner as : — " sicut, prout, velut.^'' Heder. 
 Lex. 
 
 3. I think it appears from the frequency with which the 
 Scripture speaks of Christ as a servant, receiving and executing 
 a commission, &;c. that his taking upon him " ihe form of a ser- 
 vant,'^'' means, agreeably to this prevailing phraseology of Scrip- 
 ture, his voluntarily assuming this relation to the Father, — his 
 actually beeoming a servant — appearing among men in this char- 
 acter or capacity : in which case " the form of God''"' must have 
 a corresponding signification, and mean his existing in the char- 
 acter or capacity of Deity. This view receives further confirm- 
 ation from the other phrase here used, " he was made in the 
 /iA:ewess of men," which very obviously means his becoming in 
 reality a man. Compare Rom. viii. 4. 
 
 4. It is sufficiently clear that his " being" (or subsisting, 
 u?r«f%«v) " in the form of God''"' stands here in contrast with his 
 " taking, or assuming, ihe form of a servant,'^'' He subsisted, 
 then, " in the form of God," previously to his assuming " the 
 
form of a servant." When, then, did he assume the form of a 
 servant i* If he was a mere man, it is not easy to say either when 
 or how. Indeed, if he was a mere man, or a mere creature, how- 
 ever exahed, it is difficult to conceive how he could at all, with 
 propriety, be said to assume the form of a servant. No creature 
 can properly be said to assume, or take upon himself, the station, 
 or work, which the supreme God is pleased expressly to assign 
 to him. But if he subsisted previously as God, he took the form 
 of a servant when he " was made in the likeness of me?i," and 
 came to accomplish a work given him to do. 
 
 5. In admitting that 4crx ieai means " on an equality with God,"*^ 
 Mr. Yates dissents fi-om the more common Unitarian interpreta- 
 tion, which makes this phrase correspond to ^a^^"?! ®eov, and both 
 to signify resemblance to God, viz. in the possession of miraculous 
 powers : " Who, being in the form of God, did not eagerly grasp 
 at the resemblance to God." Improved Version. The explan- 
 ation in the notes is, " Who, being invested with extraordinary 
 miraculous powers, did not make an ostentatious display of these 
 powers : or, if the second clause should be translated, with the 
 public version, ' he thought it not robbery to be as God' the sense 
 would be, he did not regard it as an act of injustice to exert up- 
 on proper occasions his miraculous powers." Such an exposi- 
 tion sufficiently exposes itself. Mr. Yates does not adopt it ; 
 and my present business is with him. He interprets indeed, 
 " being in the form of God,'''' as signifying that Jesus resembled 
 God in the possession of miraculous powers ; but the subsequent 
 clause he explains of his not founding upon these powers a claim 
 to equality with God ; his not, as he expresses it, grasping at 
 Divine honours." 
 
 6. No instance has yet been produced of the original word 
 u^TTxyf^oi signifying a prey ^ or a spoil. The only instance I have 
 heard of being ever insisted on as parallel, is one, not of apTrxyfMf^ 
 but of u^TTxy/^x. And, however similar the words may appear, 
 the precise ditference between them is-, as every Greek scholar 
 knows, that the latter signifies a prey, or plunder, the former the 
 act of preying, or plundering. " 'A^7reiyf4,x, quod raptum est, ra- 
 pina preeda rapta. — 'ApTrxyinoi, ipsa rapiendi actio, raptue." He-- 
 
S40 
 
 der. Lex. The F'rench translation seems to me to convey the 
 true sense : — "Lequcl etant en forme de Dieu, n' a point regarde 
 (comme) une usurpation d' etre egal a Dieu :" — " Did not ac- 
 count it an act of usurpation to be equal with God." 
 
 It has been objected that uxxx^ rendered " 6?i<," denotes op- 
 position between the ideas expressed in the two clauses which it 
 separates ; and that such a construction as " he possessed equal- 
 ity with God," hut " emptied himself," or " made himself of no 
 reputation," is unnatural and imperfect ; whereas " he did not 
 esteem it a prey to be as God," — " he did not grasp at divine 
 honours," expresses something which he viight have done, and 
 did not, which is naturally and properly opposed, by the word 
 hut, to what he actually did, " He did not grasp at divine hon- 
 ours, hut'''' on the contrary — "divested himself," &:c. The an- 
 swer to this is obvious and simple. The word axxx, rendered 
 hut, has not unfrcquently the signification oi yet ; and it has this 
 meaning, it would appear, oftener in the writings of Paul than in 
 any other parts of the New Testament : — " aaaa. Conjunctio, 
 tarn inter copulativas quam inter adversativas a grammaticis nu- 
 merata : — " 7. tamen, sed tamen. John xvi. 20. 1 Cor. iv. 15 : 
 viii. 6 : ix. 2, 12 : 2 Cor. xiii. 4. Col. ii. 5." &c. Schleusner. 
 Understanding it in this sense here, the meaning is complete, 
 and the construction natural : — " Who, being in the form of God, 
 thought it not robbery to be equal with God ; yet made himself 
 of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant:" i. e. 
 although possessing the high dignity of equal honour with God, 
 he, notwithstanding, divested himself of it, assuming the form of 
 a servant." 
 
 8. It has been further objected, that if the two clauses, trans- 
 lated " being in the form of God,'''' and " thought it not robbery to 
 he equal loith God,''"' (fv f*iop<p7i Oeov u7rocpx«>>v, and «% u^Txyf^ov nyi^Txlt 
 TO ttmi iTce. Gsai,) had been both intended to express the previous 
 dignity of Christ, the construction would have been diflerent ; 
 
 that instead OI 05 cv fM^(pvi Qeov vttx^^uv, evx, afTayttav ifyTjfrxTo to io-x 
 sivai ©ffti. xXXx c)C£V6)Tiv ixvrov WC should have had, og ev ft.'ip(pt] €>eev 
 virxpxti'V, *«' ov^ iiyv'^x/^evci upjrx'yf^.ov to itx tivxi Geai, cKsvaTcv 'exvrer 
 
 or, in English, instead of " Who, being in the form of God. 
 
S41 
 
 thought it not robhery to be equal with God ; yet divested him- 
 self," &c. we should have had, " Who, being in the form of God, 
 and not thinking it robbery to be equal with God, divested him- 
 self," &LC. The objection has been sanctioned by some Trinita- 
 rian critics : " The error of the common version seems to have 
 arisen from the translators considering the ivhole sixth verse as 
 the catascue of the protasis in the fifth ; a construction which 
 would have required a copulative, and a second participle ; thus, 
 y,xi ovx u^TTxy/Mv ityija-xi^svai x, r. ;i. To any One who impartially 
 considers the words, it will appear evident, that the catascue 
 lies in the words ev (A,o^<pvi Qeov uttx^x'^v, and that the apodosis then 
 immediately commences."* At the hazard of being charged 
 with partiality, I must say, that I see no sufficient ground for 
 this criticism. We may fancy that the construction proposed to 
 be substituted for the common one would be more elegant, per- 
 haps more customary ; but to affirm that it is required, is too 
 much. If «AA« be rendered "3/e/," the ordinary contruction ap- 
 pears to me to be perfectly consistent with Greek idiom ; and 
 what is more, to bring out, with greater force and emphasis, the 
 sentiment of the apostle, than the other : because, by the use of 
 a particle, expressly employed for the purpose, it fixes the notice 
 of the reader more forcibly to the act of gracious condescension, 
 which it is the special object of the apostle to recommend to at- 
 tention and to imitation. 
 
 Let the English reader compare the two in his own lan- 
 guage : — " Who being in the form of God, and not accounting it 
 robbery to be equal with God, made himself of no reputation, 
 and took upon him die form of a servant :" — " W^ho, being in the 
 form of God, did not account it robbery to be equal with God 5 
 yet made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form 
 of a servant." — Although the sentiment expressed in both these 
 sentences is the same, does not the particle "?/e<" in the latter, 
 fasten the attention of the mind more forcibly on the idea of tran- 
 sition from one state to another, and the gracious condescension 
 therein displayed ? 
 
 9. The following (which is nearly the same with that given 
 by Mr. Nares) appears to be a literal version of the original 
 * Eccl. Rev. Vol. V. Part I. p. 336. 
 
242 
 
 words : — " Who, subsisting in the form of God, did not reckon it 
 robbery to be on an equality with God ; yet emptied himself, 
 assuming the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of 
 men : — and, having been found in fashion as a man, humbled 
 himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the 
 cross." — In which description, the following things are express- 
 ed : — 1st. The previous divine dignity of Jesus — " who, subsist- 
 ing in the form of God, did not reckon it robbery to be on an 
 equality with God :" — 2dly. His voluntary exinanition, as divines 
 have sometimes styled it — "yet emptied himself:" — 3dly. A 
 statement of that wherein this emptying consisted — "he emptied 
 himself, assuming the form of a servant, being made in the like- 
 ness of men : — 4thly. His voluntary humiliation of himself, after 
 assuming the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness 
 of men:" — "having been found in fashion as a man, he hum- 
 bled himself:" — And lastly, wherein this humiliation consisted, 
 " he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the 
 death of the cross."* 
 
 10. Nothing is easier than to slur over difficulties by means 
 of a jmraphrase, conceived in such general terms as to elude 
 them. This Mr. Yates has, in the present instance, notoriously 
 done. A pharaphrase, such as he has given, has a very impos- 
 ing effect on the minds of careless readers. They see a senti- 
 ment, neatly expressed, and to all appearance tolerably appro- 
 priate to the apostle's purpose ; and they think it does vastly 
 well. But every considerate reader will observe, how niuch of 
 what the apostle says is entirely omitted in the paraphrase, and 
 how completely the point of his phraseology is blunted, and all 
 the difficulty which it presents to the Unitarian system thus easi- 
 ly and pleasantly evaded. 
 
 * The original words are, — *Oi iv /m.o^^>j Oiov uttx^x'^^i o^Z <</"r<«'y|i«»v 
 iiyvjirctro to iivcti icroc ©f^, «A/' tctvrot iKevuo-e^ iLop<p>iv SovXov XxQuv^ ev ofjLoi- 
 afAxri ci)i6pU7ruv ycvof^evoi' kcci o-^t^fActTi iupehig uc, otvO^uTTOi, eTXTreivuirev 
 ixvrev^ ytvofA-evog oTTHKOoi |M.f%f < Sccvxrav^ Sxvxrev Se o-txv^ov. I am inclined 
 to think, that our EngHsh word capacity/, in its signification of " state, condition, 
 character," expresses what the apostle meant here by f^o^(p7t. It would be reck- 
 oned too bold, however, to substitute it for ^^ form'''' in a translation. 
 
11. The truth is, this passage, like many others, affords a 
 striking illustration of the unexampled and arbitrary manner 
 in which words and phrases are treated by Unitarians. — I do 
 not refer to their rendering " ovx tiyvrxro «^7racyjM,ov," he did esteem 
 it a prey ;" for this is the phrase in their translation, for which 
 most at least may be said. But what shall wc say of " being 
 made in the likeness of men^''^ signifying his being made, not in 
 the likeness oi the human race, or kind, but his being made in the 
 likeness of common and ordinary mortals ? and then, " being 
 found in fashion as a man,''"' must be understood in the same man- 
 ner. 
 
 The language used respecting Samson, is commonly referred 
 to by Unitarians as supporting this interpretation. The follow- 
 ing is the note of the " Improved Version," on the phrase " in 
 the likeness of men :" " Of common and ordinary mortals. See 
 Ml'. Lindsey, ibid. Christ, invested with miraculous powers, 
 was in the form of God ; but, declining to use them for his own 
 personal advantage, he appeared like any other frail and weak 
 mortal. So Judges xvi. 7. Sampson says, 'If they bind me, I 
 shall be weak, and be as a man ;' i. e. as our translators very 
 properly supply the word, ' as another man.' " I should not 
 think this worthy of serious notice, except as a farther exempli- 
 fication, not only of the slenderness, but the unfairness, of the 
 shifts of Unitarian criticism. In the passage referred to, Sam- 
 son says, " Then shall I be weak, and shall be aixn nnNO ;" 
 which may either simply signify, "as one of mankind p^ or it 
 may be understood with an emphasis — " as one man," — of 
 which the meaning will be sufficiently plain. The Philistines 
 had found to their cost, that, while possessed of his extraordina- 
 ry power, he was ipse agmen ; the might of a numerous host be- 
 ing concentrated in his single arm. But when that forsook him, 
 he became as a single man. The expression is the same in verse 
 11th; and in the 17th verse it is varied. He there says, "I 
 shall become weak, and shall be onxn Sdd, " as any man," 
 or " as every man," or " as all men,''"' The criticism, then, is 
 unfair." But besides this — in what way was it that Samson 
 became as other men ? It was by the loss of that in which he 
 
S44 
 
 had before excelled other men ; by the loss of his supernatural 
 strength \ by his " becoming weak." But when did Jesus become 
 as other men in this way ? He was " in the form of God," say 
 the Unitarians, by the possession of miraculous powers. Was 
 he, then, " made in the likeness of men" by being divested of 
 these powers ? This alone could assimilate his case to that of 
 Samson. Yet when was he thus divested of his power? — or 
 when did he voluntarily resign it ? Never, certainly. — But he 
 did not " use it for his own personal advantage." Of the sup- 
 position involved in this of the possibility of his having done 
 otherwise, enough has been said formerly. I have now only to 
 ask the reader, if he thinks it a simple and reasonable interpreta- 
 tion, according to which " being made in the likeness of men,'''* 
 and '■'•found in fashion as a man,'''' are the phrases used to signify 
 that he did not employ his miraculous poxoers to his own personal 
 advantage ? I suppose Mr. Yates was not very well satisfi- 
 ed with this sort of interpretation, the one generally adopted by 
 his brethren ; for in his paraphrase he has taken the easier me- 
 thod of omitting the phrases altogether. 
 
 1 2. Notwithstanding all that Mr. Yates has said, my conclud- 
 ing objection against the Unitarian exposition, " he did not es- 
 teem it a prey to be as God,'''* seems to me to remain in full force ; 
 namely, the absurdity of supposing it to be held up as " the pecu- 
 liar subject of our admiration and astonishment — the example, 
 which, of all examples, we are most sedulously to imitate, — that 
 a creature, a man, possessing, by Divine conmiunicatioa, a singu- 
 lar portion of miraculous power and wisdom, did not pervert 
 these high endowments to his own selfish ends ! that he was not 
 guilty of the most heaven-daring presumption and impiety ! that 
 he absolutely did not so abuse the gifts bestowed upon him, as 
 to enter into a kind of competition for glory with that Supreme 
 Being from whom he dei-ived his wisdom and his power ! Is 
 this," I have asked, — " can this be — the singular virtue, which 
 we are called to admire and to imitate, as the brightest model oi 
 excellence that ever was exhibited on earth ?" Mr. Yates pro- 
 nounces this one o{ i\\Q fiimsicst objections in my volume ; and is 
 farther pleased to characterize it as " idle rant.'''' He represents 
 
S45 
 
 it as founded on a partial view of the text : " ^t. Paul," says he, 
 " in order to give a lively representation of the benevolent con- 
 descension of Christ, draws a contrast between the conduct which 
 one of his transcendent power and dignity might have adopted, 
 (ver. 6.) and the humble conduct which Jesus did adopt, (ver. 7, 
 8.) Mr. Wardlaw takes one clause of the sentence, viz. the 6th 
 verse, apart from the rest ; and, thus confining the attention of 
 his readers to the former part of the contrast, he asks — ' Is it 
 then to be the peculiar subject of admiration and astonishment, 
 &;c. ;' " and after quoting a part of what I have cited above, he 
 adds : " thus he runs on to the bottom of the page ; and I doubt 
 not that m.any of his thoughtless readers, who prefer this idle 
 rant to the simplicity that is in Christ, will acclaim to his criti- 
 cisms. But to perceive their extreme futility, it is only necessa- 
 ry to read the sentence throughout, so as to bring into notice the 
 contrast, which it describes with beautiful and simple eloquence." 
 Pages 260, 261. 
 
 Well : the apostle, it seems, in this passage contrasts what 
 Jesus might have done, but did not, with that which he actuality 
 did. And what was the line of conduct which " one of his tran- 
 scendent power and dignity might have adopted,^'' but which Je- 
 sus did not adopt ? Mr. Yates tells us in his paraphrase : " he 
 did not grasp at divine honours.^'' Is not this, then, a part at 
 least of the wonderful example of " benevolent condescension" 
 recommended to imitation ? that he did not thus " grasp at di- 
 vine honours ?" that he did not advance a claim to equality with 
 GodP^ that he did not prostitute the highest gifts of Heaven — - 
 gifts never conferred on another besides himself — by making 
 them the foundation of a blasphemous requisition for himself of 
 the honours peculiar to Deity ? — that he did not, like another 
 Devil, and a worse one than the first, announce himself on a 
 level with the Most High, set himself at the head of a new re- 
 bellion, and, by turning communicated omnipotence — (for what 
 power short of omnipotence could accomplish the works which he 
 wrought ?) — by turning communicated omnipotence against the 
 God that had committed it to his discretion, impiously attempt 
 to " divide heaven against itself?" Thi'=. i' •''"'^ms. i'? the vfgrr' 
 3<3 
 
246 
 
 live part of Christ's example. This is what he tnight have done^ 
 and did not do. I have fallen into a little more " rant :" whether 
 it be " idle" or not, the reader must judge. But 1 must say 
 more. Is it true that Jesus did not thus claim equality with God? 
 Let us not forget, that, if he was a mere creature, to have done 
 so would have been the very acme of impiety — the extreme 
 point of wickedness, beyond which we cannot conceive a crea- 
 ture to go. Yet my views lead me to the conviction, that, if 
 Jesus was a mere human prophet, it will be no easy matter to 
 clear him of this fearful imputation. By Unitarians themselves, 
 it cannot be questioned, that, on different occasions, as has be^ 
 fore been remarked, he used expressions respecting himself, 
 which led his hearers to pronounce him guilty of the blasphemy 
 of " making himself equal loith God,^^ and of, " though a man, 
 making himself God.''^ And as little can it be questioned, that, 
 in whatever way his replies may be explained, he never did use 
 language (easy as it would have been for him to do so) that 
 fairly took off this impression from their minds : although, if he 
 was no more than " a holy man of God," " his soul and all that 
 was within him" must have been stirred up by the charge to 
 indignant grief, and unutterable loathing. It is to my mind an 
 additional ground of conviction, that the Unitarian rendering — 
 " he did not esteem it a prey to be as God,''^ is not a just one ; that 
 it does not appear to be consistent with fact. 
 
 13. " It must be remembered also," adds Mr. Yates (page 
 261.) "that Mr. Wardlaw's charge of 'unnatural and vapid 
 lameness' fixes itself upon the inspired apostle, and not' upon 
 those who give the exact translation, and only admissible mean- 
 ing of his words ?" 
 
 Here, again, is the favourite style of petitio. It is modestly 
 assumed, that the Unitarians give " the exact translation, and on- 
 ly admissible exposition of the apostle's words." But the truth 
 of the case is, that the " charge of unnatural and vapid lame- 
 ness" does not fix itself on the apostle ; but forms one (and a 
 strong one too) of the collateral evidences, that the Unitarian 
 version is not the exact translation, and is not the only admissi- 
 ble exposition of his words. 
 
S47 
 
 In the first of roy discourses on the Divinity of Christ, I dweh 
 at some length on certain general considerations, in which his di- 
 vine dignity is evidently and strongly implied; certain views, 
 which, on any other supposition, are utterly bereft of all their 
 force and propriety, and appear altogether unnatural and unac- 
 countable." (Page 45.) These were — 1. The view given in 
 the Scriptures of the love of God, as displayed in the mission, or 
 gift, of Jesus Christ : — 2. The representations given in the New 
 Testament of the astonishing condescension and love of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ himself: — 3. The depth of interest, the warmth of 
 admiring transport and adoring gratitude, with which the contem- 
 plation of this subject inspired the hearts of the New Testament 
 writers : — 4. The account given in the New Testament of the 
 exaltation of Jesus at the right hand of God : — 5. The high 
 claims of Jesus on the love and obedience of all his followers. 
 These views Mr. Yates has left to the close, and has despatched 
 them with sufficient brevity, and in a manner not likely, I think, 
 to take off much of their impression from the mind of the consid- 
 erate reader. " Although such arguments as these," he says, 
 " in the way in which Mr. Wardlaw has illustrated them, afford 
 a fine field for eloquent declamation, and are well adapted to ex- 
 cite the wonder, applause, and sympathy, of a listening crowd, 
 they are altogether out of place in a work of scriptural investi- 
 gation." (Page 261.)— If the declamation referred to has in it 
 any portion of eloquence, I am fully satisfied it has more of argu- 
 ment. There is such a thing as argumentative declamation ; and 
 it seemed to me the only suitable style for proofs of the kind in 
 question. Why such proofs should be condemned as " altogeth- 
 er out of place in a work of scriptural investigation," 1 have yet 
 to learn. In such a work, we are surely intitled to take up the 
 representations of things which the Scriptures give us, and to 
 contemplate them in their manifest tendency and design. If the 
 representations now under review were not designed to stir up 
 into exercise the warmest feelings of the soul ; if they were not 
 designed to make " our hearts burn within us ;" then the writers 
 have shown wonderful ignorance of the constitution of the human 
 mind, and have, besides, most unhappily caught a riame them- 
 
a48 
 
 selves which it was not at all their intention to communicate t» 
 others. " While they muse, the fire burns, and then they speak 
 with their tongues." But in our musings on the same topics, 
 we must be ail jealous of the least approach to warmth, and 
 must handle them with all the icy coldness of speculative argu- 
 mentation. I am dissatified with Mr. Yates for uniformly associ- 
 ating, in his statements on this subject, '■'-fancy^ and feelii^g.''^ 
 That the " sallies of fancy should be checked," that '•'■ imagina- 
 tion's airy wing" should be " repressed," is perfectly right. 
 But there is a wide difference between repressing flighty fancy, 
 and repressing legitimate feeling ; between checking the aerial 
 rovings of mere imagination, and checking the just emotions of 
 " wonder, love, and praise." But where lies the charge of 
 fancy ? I have given the representations of Scripture in Scrip- 
 ture language. The fancy, then, must be found in the interpre- 
 tation and application of that language. But on this, the reader 
 must be left to decide. May I be permitted to entreat his re- 
 newed attention to this part of the argument in my Discourses. 
 I frankly avow, that if there be one part of my volume towards 
 which 1 feel a greater partiality than another, it is the il- 
 lustration of these general considerations, (Pages 45 — 55. I 
 reckon the argument which they contain, in itself sufficient, 
 I had almost said to decide the question ; at any rate suf- 
 ficient to communicate the very highest degree of previous 
 verisimilitude to all the more direct proofs which follow. If the 
 feeling which these illustrations breathe shall be thought by any 
 to be more than the case will justify, I have to say for- myself, 
 that, so far from being satisfied of this, I only lament its dispro- 
 portionate inferiority. I am quite aware, that the warmth will 
 be deemed excessive by all within the polar circle of Socinian- 
 ism : where the inhabitants love to shiver amidst their eternal 
 snows, and where all is apprehension and alarm when the ther- 
 mometer of devotional feeling threatens to rise above the point 
 of freezing. I am satisfied, that the religious afiectioQS should 
 have their origin In an enlightened understanding. Enthusiasm 
 is heal without light ; or the movement of the passions in a de- 
 gree disproportionate to the illumination of the mind, or to the 
 
S49 
 
 magnitude of the subject it contemplates. But, at the same time, 
 I know not what religion is, without feeling ; and the question 
 now is, are the representations given in those " general consid- 
 erations " against which Mr. Yates has thought good to enter 
 his decided protest^'''' — scriptural ? If they are, they are not in 
 their nature calculated to move, and to move powerfully, the 
 affections and passions of the human soul ? Did not the contem- 
 plation of them produce this effect upon the writers themselves ? 
 Have not they given indulgence to the emotions of a glowing 
 heart, in communicating to others the truths which so " effectu- 
 ally wrought" in their own bosoms ? And was it not their in- 
 tention, or rather the intention of the Holy Spirit, under whose 
 influence they wrote, that their readers should not merely per- 
 ceive their meaning in the truths which they expressed, but catch 
 the same holy ardour which these truths kindled within them 
 while they wrote ? If so, why are such " general considerations" 
 to be proscribed, as " altogether out of place in a work of scrip- 
 tural investigation .^" Is it not a presumption against any sys- 
 tem, that its advocates appear so jealous of emotions which the 
 sacred writers themselves indulged ? that the views which they 
 entertain of the same points, instead of kindling the fervour of 
 devotional feeling, serve rather to " freeze the genial current of 
 the soul," and oblige them to exert all their ingenuity, in finding 
 out plausible reasons for their anti-devotional coolness, and the 
 phlegmatic temperament of their boasted rationality ? 
 
 After entering his protest against the method of arguing in 
 question, and observing, that " if the deity of Christ be not 
 taught in explicit terms, mere general considerations can be of no 
 avail to prove it," Mr. Yates adds a few other remarks, " in re- 
 ply to this part of Mr. Wardlaw's publication." 
 
 These, however, are very brief. They are, in a great mea- 
 sure, confined to the frst of the^i^e general considerations. And 
 I really do not think it very necessary, to spend the time and 
 try the patience of my readers by proving it unscriptural, in es- 
 timating the love of God manifested in (he mission of Christ, to 
 leave out of accoimt the original dignity of the person sent, and to 
 <:onfine our thoughts to " the merciful and beneficent ends to be 
 
S50 
 
 accomplished in sending him ;" especially when we consider, 
 how these ends are reduced and lowered by the system of Uni- 
 tarian exposition. Neither do I feel it needful, to show at any 
 length how entirely unsatisfactory it is, to account for the attach- 
 ment of the primitive Christians to their crucified Master, and for 
 all its glowing and practical expressions, by comparing it to the 
 veneration displayed, in subsequent times, to the memory of the 
 martyrs. Whence sprung that veneration ? Did it not arise 
 from the relation of these holy men to Jesus Christ, the great object 
 of Christian gratitude, and from the invincible love which they 
 shewed to him, by enduring tortures and sacrificing their lives in 
 his cause ? The martyrs themselves, and those who venerated 
 their memories, viewed him in a higher character than that of a 
 mere fellow martyr, who had evinced his sincerity, by submitting 
 to death rather than retract his testimony. His blood was the 
 blood of atonement ; of the great expiatory sacrifice ; of " the 
 Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." And it 
 was faith in his blood, as an accepted propitiation, that sustained 
 the martyrs, while they nobly suffered their own to be shed ; 
 parting cheerfully with life, even when the death which deprived 
 them of it was inflicted by excruciating agonies, because the 
 haters of their Master would not suffer them to retain it, except 
 on the condition of renouncing his cross, and forswearing their 
 fealty to his name. Mr. Yates is of opinion that the respect and 
 veneration shown to the memories of the martyrs was the same 
 In kind with that shown by the apostles and early Christians to 
 the name and memory of Jesus, only lower in degree; that Jesus 
 was viewed by them simply as a martyr of a higher order ; the 
 principal difi'ercnce being, that he was the '■^author'''' (i. e. the 
 first messenger to mankind) of that doctrine, for their adherence 
 to which the subsequent martyrs bled. But no. Could these 
 holy men have been made sensible that the veneration paid to 
 them rested on similar grounds with that paid to their blessed 
 Redeemer and Lord, it would have stirred their very bones in the 
 graves at which their votaries assembled. Regard to the memo- 
 ries of these witnesses to the truth, degenerated into a supersti- 
 tious, idolatrous, and nonsensical veneration for broken pieces of 
 
atone and wood, for sacred dust and " canonized bones," and all 
 the holy relics of martyrology. While we would avoid this 
 stupid extreme, we should also deprecate running into its oppo- 
 site. Not to revere the names of those who have bled for Christ, 
 who " have not counted their lives dear unto themselves ;" not to 
 consecrate them in our memories, and embalm them in the affec- 
 tions of our hearts, were surely to forfeit every claim to Chris- 
 tian sensibility. But still, this reverence must be different, not 
 only in degree, but in kind, from the reverence which we feel and 
 cherish towards the name of that Redeemer, whose body was 
 broken and whose blood was shed for us. When we take our 
 seats at his table, do we " remem&er Aim" merely as the great 
 proto-martyr in the cause of Christian truth ? Is he not brought 
 before our contemplation in a more sublime and peculiar char- 
 acter ? as atoning on the cross for the sins of a guilty world ? 
 Yes ; and it was this view of the cross that animated the martyrs 
 themselves in the trial of fire, and the baptism of blood. It was 
 the remembrance of his "cup of trembling" that took the bitter- 
 ness out of theirs. It was his sprinkled blood that allayed the 
 fury of the devouring flames. It was " peace with God through 
 Jesus Christ our Lord ;" it was acceptance through the merits of 
 his obedience and sacrifice, that elevated their souls to all the tri- 
 umph of hope, at the cross, the gibbet, and the stake. Shall we 
 honour, then, with the same kind of veneration, the Saviour and the 
 saved ? the believer and the object of his faith ? the martyr and the 
 martyr's Lord ? the expiring saint, and the living Redeemer to 
 whom he commends his departing spirit ? No : the glory of Christ 
 is his own, and can never be shared with an other. In contemplat- 
 ing the cruel deaths of the martyrs, we admire the firmness of 
 faith, the fervour of love, and the sublimity of self-devotion ; but 
 still we say, and we are animated by their example to say, " God 
 forbid that we should glory, save in the cross op the Lord 
 Jesus Christ !" We revere the names of the martyrs ; but 
 there is " one name alone, under heaven, given among men, by 
 which we must be saved." — At the stake of the martyr we view, 
 with wondering interest, the energy of holy principle, and 
 breathe a prayer for the mantle of Elijah ; but at the cross of 
 
25^ 
 
 Christ, we smi(e upon our breasts, and say, "God be propitious 
 to me a sinner!" We are abased to dust, and elevated to hope ; 
 we trust and we adore. 
 
 I shall finish this part of my reply, with an observation or 
 two in vindication of the statement and reasoning contained in 
 one of my Notes, (K.) relative to the rejection by Unitarians of 
 the introductory chapters of the Gospel of Matthew on the au- 
 thority of the Ebionites. I am the more disposed to do this, from 
 the circumstance that Mr. Brown, in his Strictures, has expressed 
 his opinion that to the charge of having misrepresented Mr. Bel- 
 sham, I must, so far as he sees, plead guilty. Mr. Brown, how- 
 ever, having subsequently read Mr. Belsham's tract, so far qual- 
 ifies this opinion in a note that I persuade myself the following 
 brief remarks Avill at once satisfy him, that I have been guilty of 
 no misrepresentation of Mr. Belsham, but have supported plain 
 truth by conclusive reasoning. 
 
 " The editors of the ' Improved version,' " says Mr. Yates. 
 have expressed strong doubts, whether the account of the con- 
 ception, birth, and childhood of Christ, (Matth. i. 17 — ii.) be a 
 genuine portion of St. Matthew's Gospel. Among other argu- 
 ments, they bring forward this consideration, that the whole pas- 
 sage was wanting in the copies used by the Ebionites, or ancient 
 Hebrew Christians. Dr. Magee replies, that the Ebionites also 
 rejected the three last Gospels and the Episdes of Paul ; and 
 that, if the Editors of the ' Improved Version' attribute any 
 weight to their evidence concerning the passage in question, they 
 ' ought to receive their testimony throughout,' and reject all the 
 New Testament except St. Matthew.' Mr. Belsham answers 
 (Address, p. 8, 9.) that it may be perfectly proper to pay regard 
 to the testimony of the Ebionites when it concurs with other 
 facts and probabilities, although their evidence ought to be de- 
 cidedly rejected, when it is disproved by clear and certain con- 
 siderations of an opposite tendency ; just as we assent without 
 hesitation to Livy's account of the battle of Cannae, which is 
 confirmed by other historians, although we utterly disbelieve the 
 assertion of the same author that an ox spoke, because this story 
 is unsupported by any concurring evidence. Thus Mr. Bel- 
 
^53 
 
 3ham argues from a comparison of the testimony of Livy witli 
 the Testimony of the Ebionites. Mr. Wardlaw (Note K.) repre- 
 sents him as comparing Livy with St. Matthew. Although Mr. 
 Belsham's tract contains no such words and no such sentiment, 
 Mr. Wardlaw introduces the following passage, among others 
 correctly cited, in the form of a quotation from that pamphlet 5 
 * The Evangelist Matthew relates that Jesus of Nazareth died on 
 a cross, and I believe him. The same Evangelist Matthew relates 
 that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin ; and I believe him 
 not.' This account of the argument is accompanied with charges 
 against Mr. Belsham, of ' bitterness and violence,' ' the most 
 evasive sophistry,' ' obvious and flagrant inconsistency,' ' slily 
 shifting his ground,' ' levity and impiety,' ' parade and unwar- 
 rantable presumption.' Upon such grounds, and in such lan- 
 guage, has Mr. Wardlaw undertaken to censure a man, who is 
 greatly his superior in years, in talents, in learning, and in ce- 
 lebrity ; who, in his lucid and vigorous writings, though he ap- 
 pears admirably qualified to repress blustering bigotry and pre- 
 suming ignorance, always respects sincerity of intention and a 
 good moral character; and who is, in the highest d.-^gree, esti- 
 mable, for the urbanity of his manners, the integrity of his prin- 
 ciples, and the candour and benevolence of his heart." Pages 
 267, 268. 
 
 How, then, stands the case ? 
 
 1st. Mr. Belsham, like most other Unitarians, professes to re- 
 ject these chapters on the authority of the Ebionites, But these 
 same Ebionites rejected the three other Gospels, and the Epistles 
 of Paul, which, notwithstanding, Mr. Belsham retains. 2dly. It is 
 not, then, simply the authority of the Ebionites that is the ground 
 of the rejection of the chapters in question ; for this authority, 
 takeyi by itself, is not stronger against these chapters, than against 
 the other repudiated parts of the New Testament. It must be 
 something else. 3dly. And so Mr. Belsham tells us it is : — " In 
 the one case," says he, " I see reason to concur with them, and 
 in the other to differ from them ; and 1 believe that I have good 
 grounds for the discrimination." So also Mr. Yates : " Mr. 
 Belsham answers, that it may be perfectly proper to pay regard 
 33 
 
^54 
 
 io the testimony of the Ebionites, when it concurs with other 
 facts and probabilities, ahhough their evidence ought to be deci- 
 dedly rejected, when it is disproved by clear and certain consid- 
 erations of an opposite tendency." What, then, are these " rea- 
 sons'''' — these '■^ good grounds, ^^ — these ^^ other facts and proba- 
 bilities .^" What, in short, is the something else that gives the de- 
 cisive preponderance to the authority of the Ebionites in the one 
 case, and which nullifies that authority in the other ? Is there 
 any other authority, in this instance, concurring with that of the 
 Ebionites ? No ; all manuscripts and versions extant, all critical 
 authority whatsoever, is on the other side. What, then, is this 
 something ? Mr. Belsham disbelieves the testimony of Livy when 
 he relates that an ox spoke ; and he disbelieves the authority of 
 the Ebionites when they reject the Gospels of Mark, Luke and 
 John : he believes Livy, when he relates the battle of Cannae; and 
 he believes the Ebionites, when they reject the introductory chap- 
 ters of Matthew. Are these, then, really the points of his compari- 
 son ? Is the rejection by the Ebionites of the three last Gospels 
 and Paul's Epistles, the unnatural and incredible prodigy ? — and 
 their rejection of the introductory chapters of the first Gospel 
 the natural and credible historical fact ? That will neyer do. 
 What is there that is prodigious or miraculous in the mere fact 
 of the Ebionites discarding the three Gospels and Paul's Epis- 
 tles, any more than in their discarding the introductory chapters 
 of Matthew ? There is no kinil of historical or critical evidence 
 for the genuineness of the former, that does not exist, in the same 
 extent, for the genuineness of the latter. Where, then," is the 
 monstrurn horrendiun to be found, which Mr. Belsham places on 
 a level with the speaking ox ? Will Mr. Belsham deny, or Mr. 
 Yates for him, that when he introduced Livy's speaking ox, he 
 had in. his eye, as its parallel, the prodigy of the incarnation ; 
 and that he considered both as alike deserving of instantaneous 
 and unhesitating rejection 1 — that the mysterious, and consequent- 
 ly, obnoxious, nature of the contents of the chapters themselves, is 
 the real reason why he thinks fit to concur with the Ebionites in 
 their rejection of them ? But if it be so, then it is not true, that 
 Mr. Belsham " argues from a comparison of the testimony of 
 
25b 
 
 Livy with the testimony of the Ebionites.''^ There is no prodigif 
 in the testimony of the Ebionites. The prodigy is in Matthew's 
 narrative. And the language used by Mr. Belsham, clearly shows, 
 that his comparison is between Livy and Matthew. He says, 
 " only let him permit us to exercise a little common sense in judg- 
 ing of a report, and discriminate what is worthy of belief from 
 what appears to be incredible in the works of the same author." 
 Were the Ebionites authors ? In short, nothing will convince me 
 that I have done Mr. Belsham wrong in the note referred to, but 
 iiis own explicit declaration, that when he introduced Livy's 
 speaking ox, he had not at all in his mind the story of the incarna- 
 tion, or miraculous conception, as the ground of his concurrence 
 with the Ebionites, in rejecting from the Canon the introductory 
 chapters of Matthew's Gospel. 
 
 But, according to Mr. Yates, I have, on this subject, been 
 guilty of a crime for which, were the charge well founded, I 
 should deserve to be " gibbeted in irons," as a v.arning and a ter- 
 ror to future controvertists, " to deter them from committing the 
 like crime in all time coming." The crime is, in plain English, 
 forgery ; endeavouring to pass upon the public as Mr. Belsham's 
 what Mr. Belsham never wrote. "Although Mr. Belsham's 
 Tract," says he, " contains no such words, and no such senti- 
 ment, Mr. Wardlaw introduces the following passage among oth- 
 ers correctly cited, in the form of a quotation from that pamphlet: 
 ' The Evangelist Matthew relates, that Jesus of Nazareth died on 
 a cross ; and I believe him. The same Evangelist Matthew re- 
 lates that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin ; and I believe 
 him not.' " Did Mr. Yates seriously think, that I designed to 
 represent these words as a quotation from Mr. Belsham's pam- 
 phlet ? Did he indeed reckon me capable of such base artifice ^ 
 of such atrocious villany ? I cannot call it by a better name. In 
 point of principle, or rather of want of principle, it is just as crim- 
 inal to attempt to pass a sentiment as another's when we know 
 we have made it for him, as to pass a. promissory note as anoth- 
 er's, when we know we have made it for him. I feel when I 
 think of such a charge, certain inward risings of the pride of in- 
 dignant scorn, which a disciple of Jesus should rather seek tore- 
 
256 
 
 press. — Mr. Yates might have perceived, that the quotations, in 
 the same note, are all printed with inverted commas down the 
 margin of the page, while the words in question have such com- 
 mas only at the beginning ayid end. These marks were used, 
 merely to distinguish the words from the rest of the page, as be- 
 ing something stipposed to be said. The manner in which they 
 are introduced, as a parallel to Mr. Belsham's own words about 
 Livy, might have shown this to any manof ordinary judgment or 
 ordinary ingenuousness : — The connexion in the note is as fol- 
 lows : " From its being recorded in Livy's history that an ox 
 spoke, he (Mr. Belsham) never thinks of inferring that this pas- 
 sage was not written by Livy himself. No ; he only says : ' Livy 
 relates, that Hannibal crossed the Alps, and beat the Romans at 
 Cannae ; and I believe him. The same Livy relates that an ox 
 spoke ; but / believe him not,"* Very well. We have no objec- 
 tioa to his saying, provided he does not insist that our faith shall 
 be regulated by his. ' The Evangelist Matthew relates, that Je- 
 sus of Nazareth died on a cross ; and I believe him. The same 
 Evangelist Matthew relates, that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a 
 virgin ; but I believe him not.' — Let this writer, by all means, 
 'exercise a little common sense in judging of a report, and discrim- 
 inate what is worthy of belief from what appears to be incredi- 
 ble in the works of the same author."* But let him not, wherever 
 he finds any thing which he may be pleased to deem incredible, 
 unwarrantably and presumptuously conclude, that it forms no 
 part of what the author wrote.'''' — Now, did Mr. Yates not perceive 
 that the words which he has represented me as endeavouring to 
 pass for Mr. Belsham's were merely hypothetical ? If he did not, 
 what had become of his wits ? If he did, what had become of his 
 candour ? The absence of the latter I must believe to have been 
 the defect, because I cannot believe that Mr. Yates really thought 
 me guilty of the wretched and contemptible baseness he has im- 
 puted to me. — If ever I shall write again on the Unitarian con- 
 troversy, which, however is not very likely to be the case, I 
 shall certainly take better care both of my points of admiration^ 
 PLU^ my inverted commas. 
 
paut III. 
 
 EXAMINATION OP THE MORE DIRECT EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY MR, 
 YATES, IN SUPPORT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF UNITARIANISM. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Agreeably to the order I have prescribed to myself, I now 
 go back to Part 11. of Mr. Yates' Vindication, to consider the 
 arguments which he there brings forward in support of Unitarian 
 principles, relative to the unity of God and the subordination of 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 Before entering on the particular examination of these, it is 
 of importance to observe, in general, that all evidence is irrele- 
 vant and inadmissible, that does not immediately relate to what 
 are, strictly and properly, the peculiarities of Unitarianism, — the 
 precise points of difference. To set about proving the divine uni- 
 ty, for example, is to do a service to Trinitarians as well as to 
 Unitarians. It is an article of faith which is held by both ; and 
 the former will be as highly gratified as the latter, by the excel- 
 lence and conclusiveness of the reasoning by which it is estab- 
 lished. There may be some diversity of opinion respecting the 
 degree of certainty with which the doctrine may be learned by 
 the light of nature ; but in the doctrine itself, that God is one, 
 as a doctrine fully certified by revelation, and according with 
 every principle of enlightened reason, there is a perfect agree- 
 ment. The harmony on this point between my opponent and 
 myself, will most satisfactorily appear from a comparison of our 
 respective language. — " But whatever may be the views we en- 
 tertain, as to the extent of natural evidence in support of the 
 unity of the Godhead ; there can be no doubt, that this doctrine 
 forms one of the first and fundamental truths of divine revelation. 
 
258 
 
 It is, in many places of the inspired volume, distinctly and plain- 
 ly affirmed ; and it appears pervading the whole, as one of those 
 great leading principles, to which it owes the peculiarity of its 
 general complexion, and to which all the subordinate parts of 
 the system bear a constant reference," Discourses, page 9. 
 — '• Notwithstanding the proof of the unity of God afforded by 
 the harmonious correspondence of parts in the material creation, 
 it is probable that this doctrine would have been unknown, or 
 little regarded, if it had not been taught to mankind by the clear 
 and authoritative voice of divine revelation. In almost every 
 page of the Bible it shines with incomparable lustre. To reveal, 
 establish, and propagate this tenet, to which, however sublime 
 and rational, men have, in all ages, evinced a strong disinclina- 
 tion, was the great end proposed to be accomplished by the in- 
 spiration of the Hebrew prophets, and by the splendid series of 
 miracles recorded in the Old Testament. To promulgate the 
 same great truth among heathen nations, and ultimately to effect 
 its universal reception in the world, appears to have been one of 
 the principal purposes which God designed to answer by the 
 mission of our Lord Jesus Christ." Vindication, page 65. — 
 Whatever difference might arise between us upon an explanation 
 of the terms of the last sentence, it is obvious, that in the senti- 
 ment that the unity of God is an important truth, and a leading 
 doctrine of revelation, we are one. What, then, is the precise 
 point at issue ? It is simply this. Both parties hold the unity 
 of God. But Trinitarians maintain that, according to the Scrip- 
 tures, this unity is, in a way which is not explained, and which 
 they do not therefore pretend to understand, consistent with per- 
 sonal distinction. Unitarians deny that any such distinction of 
 persons is taught in the Scriptures. The point, therefore, which 
 it behoves them to establish is, not the unity of God, but simply 
 the inconsistency of this unity with the personal distinction for 
 which Trinitarians contend; or, in other words, that this doctrine 
 of personal distinction has no place in the word of God. All 
 argument and discussion that are not confined to this one pointy 
 are entirely irrelevant to the question. 
 
 As evidence of the unity of God is not evidence of Unitarian- 
 
S59 
 
 ism, T shall pass by Mr. Yates' two chapters, " on the evidence 
 for this doctrine from the light of nature, and from the testimony 
 of the Scriptures," with a single remark : In the latter of these 
 chapters, he says, (page 66.) " The word God does not denote a 
 collection of persons, or a council of intelligent agents : it signi- 
 fies simply one person, or intelligent agent. Consequently every 
 text, which affirms that there is but one God, implies that there 
 is but one person in the Godhead." But is this argument ? Is 
 it not just the old style ofpetitio principii ? Does not the ques- 
 tion still recur. What is the kind of unity which such texts affirm ? 
 Is it unity involving distinction, or is it not ? If it can be proved 
 that, according to the testimony of the Scriptures, there is a dis- 
 tinction in the divine unity, then it will follow that, so far from 
 Mr. Yates' statement being just, every text which affirms the di- 
 vine unity must be interpreted, in consistency with this doctrine, 
 as meaning that God is one indeed — but one, according to the 
 peculiar modijication of unity which belongs to Deity : a unity, as 
 it should seem from his own word, different from that which can 
 be predicated of any of his creatures, and of which the precise 
 nature is by us incomprehensible. Supposing this were estab- 
 lished, (and it is just the point which it should have been Mr. 
 Yates' business to disprove,) every text that .dTirms the unity of 
 God will involve an affirmation of the Trinity ; because, on this 
 supposition, a unity involving a three fold personal distinction is 
 THE unity which pertains to the Godhead. No other unity can 
 belong to God, than that which does belong to him ; and that 
 which does belong to him must be essential to his nature. He 
 cannot possibly be other than he is. 
 
 I pass on to the third chapter of Mr. Yates' Second Part, 
 entided " Evidence that the Father is the only true 
 God." 
 
 Mr. Yates here proceeds on the assumption of his having 
 made out, to the satisfaction of the reader, the doctrine of his 
 former chapter : " Having thus shown,'-' says he, " from the 
 clear light of nature, confirmed by the ample testimony of reve- 
 lation, that all created things were produced by the power, and 
 are directed by the providence of one Infinite Mind, or Person. 
 
260 
 
 1 proceed to establish another distinguishing article of the Uni- 
 tarian creed, viz. that this one person is the same, who is re- 
 peatedly called in Scripture the Father, and consequently that 
 THE Father is the only true God." Page 69. 
 
 Now, suppose it granted (and there are few Trinitarians, it 
 is presumed, who will be disposed to question it) that the appel- 
 lation " the Father" is, in various instances, used, in the 
 Scriptures, as a designation simply of the Deity, the God- 
 head, the one Supreme. If Mr. Yates had previously estab- 
 lished the point, that God is one, without personal distinction, then 
 it would certainly have followed, that the Father, in all its oc- 
 currences, meant God in this, the Unitarian view of his nature. 
 But until this point has been established, the mere employment 
 of this appellation can be a proof of nothing ; — because, when 
 used as a designation of the One Supreme, it may just as well 
 signify the One Supreme, subsisting in th7-ee persons, as the One 
 Supreme subsisting in one person : — that is, it may just as well 
 mean God in the Trinitarian, as God in the Unitarian, view of 
 his nature. In this view of the matter, Mr. Yates might have 
 multiplied his hundred passages by another hundred, without 
 having, after all, produced a single proof of his point. He would 
 have proved abundantly, that " the Father'''' is an appellation of 
 the One only God, the Supreme Deity ; but he would not have 
 proved at all, that in this One only God, the Supreme Deity, 
 there existed no distinction of persons. 
 
 But further ; in many, perhaps in by far the greater number, 
 of the passages in which the appellation " the Father^'' occurs, it 
 is an appellation of distinction from the So7i ; to whom there is 
 either an expressed, or an obviously implied, reference. This 
 is the case in a large proportion of Mr. Yates' hundred texts. 
 To adduce such texts as proofs that the Father alone is God, to 
 the exclusion of the Son, is the easiest no doubt, but hardly the 
 most satisfactory way of settling the controversy — the way which 
 we have found Mr. Yates so often adopting — that of taking for 
 granted the thing to be proved. A text may be a proof that the 
 Father is God, without being a proof at all that the Son is not 
 God. But unless it be a proof of the latter position, it is nothing 
 
261 
 
 to the purpose ; — it is a proof of what nobody disputes. Instan- 
 ces of the Father being an appellation of the Supreme Divinitt/, 
 can never be proofs that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not es- 
 sentially included in the Divinity so denominated : — and, on the 
 other hand, instances of the designation the Father, used in ex- 
 press or implied distinction from the Son, may be proofs that the 
 Father is God, but cannot be proofs that the Son is not God. 
 
 But I must go still a step further. While the hundred texts 
 adduced, as they all belong to one class or description, all come 
 under the same general observation ; — there are some of them 
 which, I think, my opponent has been particularly unfortunate 
 for himself in bringing forward to notice. There is nothing I 
 should more earnestly desire, than the reader's attentive perusal 
 of Mr. Yates' hundred texts. I shall select a few of the kind to 
 which 1 refer. 
 
 The nrst on his list is Malth. xi. 27, with its parallel, Luke 
 X. 22. " All things are delivered unto me of my Father ; and no 
 man (more properly no one) knoweth the Son but the Father, 
 neither knoweth anyone the Father save the Son, and he to 
 whomsoever the Son will reveal him." But, if Jesus was a mere 
 human prophet, this is surely very singular and unaccountable 
 language. The Father and the Son are here represented as 
 having, reciprocally, a full and immediate knowledge of each 
 other, of which no one else is possessed. The mode of expres- 
 sion leads us to conceive of the knowledge which the Father 
 has of the Son, as being the same in kind and in degree with 
 that which the Son has of the Father ; no full and immediate 
 knowledge of either being possessed by any other being. — 
 *' The meaning is," say the Editors of the Improved Version, 
 " that no one but the Father can fully comprehend the object and 
 extent of the Son's commission ; and no one but the Son com- 
 prehends the counsels and designs of the Father with respect to 
 the instruction and reformation of mankind." But why is the 
 knowledge of the Father to be intcrprcted-as meaning the knowl- 
 edge of a particular part of his counsels, and not the knowledge of 
 HIMSELF ? The latter is surely its most natural import, and it is 
 supported by such parallel passages as John i. 18, " No man 
 
halh seen God at any time ; the only-begolten Son, who is in the 
 bosom of the Father, he hath declared him :" — John vi. 46. 
 " Not tliat any man hath seen the Father, save he who is of God, 
 he hath seen the Father."* What was there, we may further 
 ask, in the idea of a human prophet, commissioned to teach to 
 mankind the certainty of a future state, and the necessity of a life 
 of virtue to the attainment of happiness in that state, what was 
 there in this idea that rendered it so peculiarly wonderful, so en- 
 tirely above created conception ; as incomprehensible by any 
 besides Jehovah, as the nature of Jehovah himself? The difficulty 
 here does not consist merely in this prophet placing his know- 
 ledge of God on an equality with God^s knowledge of him / but 
 in his representing ^^m5e//' and the M?^m7e JcAoDaA as reciprocal- 
 ly, and equally, the objects of knowledge to each other, in a sense 
 that excludes all other beings, on both sides alike, from any par- 
 ticipation in it. Again : — the knowledge of the Son, ascribed to 
 the Father, and the knowledge of the Father ascribed to the Son, 
 
 * *' To see the Father refers not to a perception of the divine presence and 
 glory. The external symbols and pledges of Jehovah's existence and favour were 
 afforded to his servants from the beginning of the world. In this way he was 
 seen by the patriarchs, by Moses, by the prophets, and by all the people of Is- 
 rael in the wilderness at Sinai, &c. Nor does the phrase to see the Father, relate 
 to tlie direct communications of the Divine mind and will to his servants. God, 
 had ' at sundry times, and in divers manners, spoken in time past to the fathers 
 by the prophets,' who were denominated Seers, on account of the discoveries with 
 which they were favoured by the Almighty. The infallible Spirit of inspiration 
 illuminated their minds ; dictating to their faithful tongues and pens, as the liv- 
 ing Oracles of God. In this sense, the apostles saiv God, and revealed his mind, 
 more fully than their Divine Master did by his personal ministry, John xvi, 12 — 
 15. — To see God must, therefore, here intend a contemplation of Deity in his own, 
 immediate proper nature : — to see him in the direct mode of his infinite existence, 
 as the eternal I AM : — to view him, independently of any medium of time, place, 
 or creatures. Neither man, nor angel, nor any finite intelligence, ever did or can 
 thits see, i. e. comprehend the unlimited essence of Jehovah ; for 'who by search- 
 ing can find out God ? who can find out the Almighty unto perfection .'" The Son 
 of God sees the Father, and the Fatiier sees and knows himself. This knowl- 
 edge is essentially different from the knowledge of all creatures ; and consequent- 
 ly must be the exclusive possession and prerogative of God. The Divine Being, 
 though incomprehensible to all others, perfectly knows himself; and the Son 
 claims reciprocal knowledge with the Father." See a paper signed ' Figlinus* 
 in the Evangelical Magazine for May 1816. 
 
are, by the comment of the improved Version, perfectly identifi- 
 ed. To know " the counsels and designs of the Father respect- 
 ing the instruction and reformation of mankind," is the very same 
 thing, (especially on Unitarian principles as to the work of 
 Christ) with knowing " the object and extent of the Son's com- 
 mission." 
 
 John V. 23. " That all men should honour the Son, even as 
 they honour the Father." Already noticed, pages 237, 238. 
 
 John xiv. 8 — 10. " Philip saith unto him. Lord, show us the 
 Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him. Have I been 
 So long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip ? 
 He that hath seen me hath seen the Father ? and how sayest 
 thou, then, Show us the Father ? Believest thou not that I am in 
 the Father, and the Father in me ? the words that I speak unto 
 you, I speak not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, 
 he doeth the works." 
 
 The words that Christ spoke were not "o/'/wmse//';" — that 
 is, what he taught was not of his own mind, or his own authority 
 only. A part of his doctrine related to himself; — as, for exam- 
 ple, in this very passage. But his testimony with regard to him- 
 self, it was obviously necessary, should have other attestations 
 besides his own. Whatever he roas himself, he must not be the 
 sole witness of it. Compare John v. 31 — 37. To prove, accord- 
 ingly, that the doctrine taught by him was not " of himself ^^ 
 he appeals here, as he does in the passage just referred to, to 
 his miracles, as wrought by the power of the Father — " The 
 Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works :" — that is, he 
 attests the doctrine to be his ; and particularly, attests the truth 
 of what Jesus, on this and on other occasions, affirms concerning 
 himself. What, then, is it which he does affirm in this passage ? 
 that, in knowing him, they knew the Father; that, in seeirig him, 
 they saw the Father, Knowing and seeing do not here mean, 
 understanding what was taught concerning the Father, For Phi- 
 lip's request, ^^ Show iis the Father,''^ did""not express a desire to 
 be taught what God was, but to be favoured with some peculiar 
 manifestation of the divine glory, similar, perhaps, to those vis- 
 ions recorded in some parts of the Old Testament history. It is 
 
S64 
 
 to this request, that Jesus answers, " He that hath sten me hath 
 seen THE Father ; and how sayest thou, then, Show us the Fa- 
 ther ? — And does not this answer imply, that there was in his 
 character, as seen by them, something altogether above what, 
 mere human nature had ever exhibited ? — an untainted purity, 
 and a sublime elevation, such as ought to have impressed all 
 their minds with the conviction ol" his being more than man ? 
 The language contains a reproof for their dulness of apprehen- 
 sion, and slowness of heart to believe. Of the character of 
 Christ, I am satisfied, we can form but very inadequate concep- 
 tions. He was " the brightness of the Father's glory." The 
 perfections of Deity were, in him, exhibited to the view of men, 
 and especially of Philip and his fellow-disciples. And his cha- 
 racter, according to the appeal which he here makes to them, 
 bore upon it the impress of divinity in such a way, as to render 
 them without excuse if they did not perceive and acknowledge it. 
 They " beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the 
 Father." What he adds here, " Believe me, that I am in the Fa- 
 ther, and the Father in me ; or else believe me on account of the 
 works themselves," is the same with what he said to the Jews, 
 John X. 38. in repelling from himself the charge of blasphemy ; 
 and we have seen that it was interpreted, and rightly interpret- 
 ed, by them, as the same in import with the saying on which the 
 charge was founded, " / and my Father are one.''^ 
 
 Gal. i. 1. "Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, 
 but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from 
 the dead." Not more fortunate for Mr. Yates surely, than the 
 texts already noticed : — for, while it is true that Jesus Christ is 
 here distinguished from God the Father, it is no less true, that 
 he is, in the same terms with God the Father, distinguished from 
 men. 
 
 Gal. i. 3. " Grace be unto you, and peace, from God the 
 Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ" — is an instance of 
 Christ being joined with the Father, as the object of supplication 
 for spiritual blessings : — And of the same description arc Eph. 
 vi. 23. 2 Tim. i. 2. Tit. i. 4. 1 Cor. i. 3. 2Cor. i.2. Eph. i. 2. 
 Phil. i. 2. Col. i. 2. 1 Tim. i. 1, 2. Philem. 3. 1 Thcs. i. 1. 
 
S65 
 
 1 Thes. iii. 11. 2Thes. i. 1, 2. In the last two passages, not on- 
 ly are spiritual blessings desired from the Lord Jesus Christ con- 
 jointly with God the Father ; but the church is addressed as " in" 
 the Son, as well as " in" the Father. 
 
 Such are a specimen of Mr. Yates' hundred texts. Let the 
 reader judge, whether they are fitted to " impress every unpre- 
 judiced inquirer with the conviction that the Father alone ought 
 to be the God of Christians.^'' (Page 71.) — The passages he has 
 collected, prove the Father to be the true God ; but they do not 
 at all prove that Jesus Christ is not the true God. So far from 
 this, a number of them contain evidence of the contrary. 
 
 " The opinion of Unitarians upon this subject," adds Mr. 
 Yates, " is further confirmed by all those passages which repre- 
 sent the Father as the proper object of supreme worship.''^ P. 71. 
 But who denies that " the Father is the proper object of supreme 
 worship ?" The question, the sole question, is. Is he the only 
 proper object of such worship? We have before proved the 
 contrary ; and, until the texts adduced in evidence of the worship 
 of THE Son are better answered than they have yet been, we 
 must continue to maintain the contrary. It is rather with a bad 
 grace, indeed, that such a remark is introduced by Mr. Yates, 
 considering the nature of so many of those very texts to which he 
 had just been referring the reader. That " the man Christ Je- 
 sus" worshipped the Father, what Trinitarian questions? In 
 this, as in every thing else imitable by us, he " left us an exam- 
 ple, that we should follow his steps ;" an example which Mr. 
 Yates, with great truth, represents the apostle Paul as imitating 
 and recommending : — " In this respect, as in all others, the apos- 
 tle Paul was a follower of Christ. To give thanks for all things 
 to the Father was his practice, and his precept." But when he 
 adds, " Thus we are authorized by the example and the com- 
 mands of Jesus our Master, and of the apostle Paul, to consider 
 the Father as the only proper object of supreme adoration ; 
 whence we conclude that he is the only God ;" he has forgotten 
 his logic. By inserting the word " only," he has thrown into 
 his conclusion a great deal more than is contained in his premis- 
 es. We have formerly seen, (pages 220 — 228.) how clear the 
 example of Paul is for fhc wor^^hip of the Saviour ; and that one 
 
nm 
 
 of the instances of his practice Mr. Yates himself acknowledges- 
 he cannot explain to his own satisfaction. 
 
 But these hundred texts are preceded by two or three others, 
 which are made to lead the van. They are centurions, — cap- 
 tains of the hundred ; and they deserve to be so distinguished. 
 Seriously, and without a figure, they rank among the most plausi- 
 ble of Unitarian evidences, and are entitled to some more partic- 
 ular consideration. 
 
 The first of them is 1 Cor. Viii. 6. " To us there is but 07ie 
 God, the Father.^'' Mr. Yates quotes this little bit of the text, 
 and satisfies himself with saying, " no language can be more ex- 
 plicit." Let us take the words in their connexion, and then 
 consider what aspect they bear toward his system. — " As con- 
 cerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are ofiered in 
 sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, 
 and that there is no other God but one. For though there be 
 that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be 
 gods many and lords many,) yet to us there is but one God the 
 Father, of whom are all things, and we in him ; and one Lord 
 Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." Verses 
 4—6. 
 
 1 cannot content myself with standing merely on the defensive 
 with regard to this passage ; for I am satisfied that it not only 
 does not oppose the divinity of Christ, but is a strong testimony in 
 its favour ; that the thrust aimed with this weapon may not only 
 be parried, but the weapon itself wrested from the hand of the 
 adversary, and its point fairly turned against himself. To show^ 
 this, let the following series of observations be attended to. 
 
 1st. The subject of the apostle's reasoning is, the lawfulness 
 of eating meats that had been offered in sacrifice to idols. And 
 on this subject, he first of all admits, in verse 4th, the truth of 
 "what the abettors of the practice were disposed to urge in sup- 
 port of its lawfulness, that " an idol is nothing in the world, and 
 that there is no other God but one.^^ 
 
 2dly. He goes on, in verse 5, to state this last proposition 
 more at large. It is still the proposition " that there is no other 
 God but one,'''' that he illustrates and affirms. In verse 4th, he 
 
m 
 
 announces it in general terms ; and then in verses 5th and 6th, 
 proceeds to establish it. How then does he do this ? 
 
 3dly. When he says, in verse 5th, — " though there be that 
 9ire called gods whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods 
 many, and lords many," it is obvious, that the gods mant/, and 
 lords many^ are both included in the more general and compre- 
 hensive phrase, those " called gods whether in heaven or ia 
 ^arth." The same beings, or supposed beings, which he first 
 calls by the single appellation " gods,''^ he distributes under the 
 two appellations of gods and lords. The lords many, then, be- 
 longed to the number of the heathen deities, as well as the gods 
 many. He uses both appellations, that he may include them 
 all ; for by these two appellations the Jews were accustomed, in 
 general, to denominate the divinities of the Gentile nations. 
 
 4thly. If this be the case, then, unless we would deprive; the 
 apostle'b argument of all consistency, we must not consider him 
 as excluding from the claims and honours of deity " the one Lord 
 Jesus Christ.^'' The point to be proved was not, whether there 
 were or were not various beings, of eminent power, in subordi- 
 nation to God ; but whether there were any more than one only, 
 that should receive divine homage and worship. He affirms that 
 there is 07ie only. But hozo does he affirm this ? By opposing 
 to the " gods many, and lords many " of the Gentiles, that is, as 
 we have seen, to the deities of the Gentiles, to those " called 
 gods, whether in heaven or in earth," — by opposing to these, 
 not "one God the Father" only, but " one God the Father, and 
 one Lord Jesus Christ." The proposition, therefore, " There 
 is no other God but one," (which is the proposition to be estab- 
 lished) must be considered as identified in the reasoning, not 
 with the simple proposition " to us there is but one God the Fa- 
 ther," but with the complex proposition, " to us there is one God 
 the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ." The " one Lord Jesu? 
 Christ" is as directly opposed to the idol deities of the heathen 
 as the " one God the Father," is. 
 
 5thly. When the apostle calls ths Father, God, and Jesus 
 Christ, Lord, he makes it, at the same instant, abundantly clear 
 'hat he did not mean to be understood, as if either Chri.tt wa^ 
 
not God, or the Pather not Lord. For, in the very same exclu- 
 sive terms m which he affirms there is " one God the Father,'^'' he 
 also affirms, there is " one Lord Jesus C/tm^" The argument, 
 therefore, which would exclude Jesus Christ from Deity, would 
 equally exclude the Father from Lordship, or dominion. It 
 would subject mankind, or Christians rather, to Jesus Christ 
 alone, to the entire exclusion of the Father. There is no evad- 
 ing this consequence. It is vain to say, that Jesus Christ is 
 Lord in an inferior sense. This will not do. The affirmation 
 that there is " one Lord Jesus Christ,''^ is just as explicit as the 
 affirmation that there is one God the Father : and, if it is alleg- 
 ed that the Father is the Supreme Lord, and Jesus Christ Lord 
 by delegation, then it is not t7'ue that to us there is but one Lord. 
 
 6thly. This view is confirmed by the language here used 
 respecting the " one Lord Jesus Christ." — " To us there is but 
 one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we m him ; 
 and one Lord Jesus Christ, b;y zohom are all things, and we by 
 him ;" all things which are of the Father, are, in their utmost 
 latitude, here affirmed to be bi/ the Lord Jesus Christ ; and that 
 in the very same terms in which, elsewhere, all things are said 
 to be by the Father. Rom. xi. 36. Heb. ii. 10, Sic. 
 
 I conclude, therefore, in the words of an author before refer- 
 red to, and from whom I have, in part, taken this argument : 
 " Itaque hoc dictum divinitati Christi verce non adversatur ; sed 
 multo magis cam commendat et confirmat : docetque simul, 
 etsi dari debet, Patrem esse hx Seov, t% ou rx txvtu, y,xi tmieii ei^ avrev, 
 et Jesum Christum esse ev* Kvptev Si^ ou t« wavT«, >£«< (j,itf/5 '^«' xvrovy 
 unum tamen solummodo esse Deum ; qui non multiplicatur, 
 quanquam divinitatis jus et imperium his binis tribuitur." Ro- 
 yaard's Diatribe, &c. Page 182. " This text, then, is not in 
 opposition to the proper deity of Jesus Christ ; but rather, great- 
 ly favours and establishes it. Its doctrine is, that, admitting the 
 Father to be the ' one God, of whom are all things, and we in 
 him' (or rather, '■for him') and Jesus Christ to be the ' one Lord, 
 by whom are all things, and we by him,' yet there is one God 
 only ; who is not multiplied, although the claims and authority 
 of Godhead are ascribed to both.' 
 
269 
 
 A due attention to the observations made on this passage 
 will leave little difficulty as to the next, Eph. iv. 4 — 6. where 
 the aposde, in enumerating the bonds of Christian unity, says, 
 among other things,-^" there is one Lord,^'' and " one God and 
 Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." 
 
 1. The same observation holds here as on the preceding 
 text, viz. that the argument which would exclude the " one Lord''^ 
 from the claims of Deity, would equally exclude the " one Fa- 
 ther'''' from the claims of Lordship. 
 
 2. The same things that are here said of the Father, are else- 
 where said of the Son. See John iii. 31. Rom. ix. 5. x. 12. 
 Col. i. 17. Heb. i. 3. kc. 
 
 Of these two passages, (1 Cor. viii. 6. and Eph, iv. 4 — 6.) 
 Mr. Yates says, " They require no comment. They declare the 
 truth to be proved, viz. that the one God who is above all, is the 
 Father, in these very words. He, therefore, who derides or 
 denies this Unitarian doctrine, derides or denies the Scripture 
 itself." (Page 69) The reader, I trust, is satisfied, that a little 
 comment is sometimes not amiss ; and that it is possible to deny 
 the Unitarian doctrine, (for as to derision, we do not wish to deal 
 in it) wdthout denying the Scripture itself. 
 
 The third passage which Mr. Yates thus selects for particu- 
 lar notice, is John xvii. 3. " This is life eternal, that they 
 might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thoa 
 hast sent." This text he characterizes as " held deservedly 
 dear by those who advocate the doctrine of the proper unity of 
 God." — Unitarians, it seems, with all their outcry about preju- 
 dice, have their favourite texts, as well as their neighbours : — 
 texts which they " hold dear" for their coincidence with their 
 own opinions. They call themselves " advocates of the doctrine 
 of the proper unity of God." We cannot allow them the title. 
 The proper unity of God, is the unity which really belongs to- 
 him ; the unity which is ascribed to him in his own word. And, 
 whether or not this is a unity in which there subsists distinction, 
 is precisely the question in debate. ' If the Scriptures affirm 
 it to be so, then Trinitarians are the advocates of die proper, 
 that is. of the true, unity of God, — So dear, however, is the tex< 
 3.5 
 
^70 
 
 under notice, that, in a recent Unitarian publication, the writer 
 says : The attention of every serious person should be directed 
 to this passage. It appears to me to be decisive of the whole 
 controversy. It is absolutely incapable of being reconciled to 
 the doctrine of the Trinity."* — On this text, then, let the reader 
 observe • — 
 
 1st. When the Father is addressed as " the true God," and 
 •' the only true God," he is so denominated, in distinction from 
 all false gods, from the idols of the heathen ; to the exclusion of 
 those " quos falsa gentium persuasio introduxerat;"t — "whom 
 the false persuasion of the Gentiles had introduced." To con- 
 firm this, let the reader compare 2 Chron. xv. 3, 8. Jer. x. 10. 
 1 Thes. i. 9. 
 
 2dly. We have formerly seen that, by this very writer, the 
 same title of " the true God,'''' is expressly given to Jesus Christ ; 
 
 * " A Statement of the Principles of Unitarian Christianity, addressed to the 
 inhabitants of Greenock and Port-Glasgow, and to the Friends of Free Inquiry 
 throughout Scotland. — By a Unitarian." Respecting this little work, I have on- 
 ly time to say, that a great proportion of it, especially what regards the unity of 
 God, and the humanity of Jesus Christ, contains proofs of what nobody denies. 
 Let those who, in the cant language of the party, are here denominated " the 
 friends of free inquiry," mark this unfair and illusive mode of arguing. We as- 
 sert that in the unity of God there is a distinction of persons : we are met by proofs 
 of the unity of God. We assert that Jesus Christ v/as God as well as man : we 
 are encountered with multiplied evidences of his humanity. The true points of 
 difference on these subjects (for into other subjects it is not my present business 
 to enter) are thus completely evaded. What will " the friends of free inquiry" 
 think of a book, which professes to guide them to Scriptural truth on these im- 
 portant topics, and yet never so much as adverts to any of those numerous pas- 
 sages of the word of God, on which the doctrines of the Trinity and the su- 
 preme Deity of Christ, are founded, any more than if no such passages had ever 
 been adduced. It is not enough to say, that the work only professes to contain 
 a Statement of Unitarian principles. The object of it is to show that these prin- 
 ciples are scriptural; and it is addressed to the friends of free inquiry. But it is, 
 from the nature of the case, impossible for a Unitarian to prove his principles on 
 these subjects scriptural, except by proving that the principles of Trinitarians 
 are w/tscriptural. It ought to be his business, instead of proving the Uidty of 
 God, to disprove the Trinity ; instead oi' proving Christ's humanity, to disprove 
 liis divinity. If he can do this, he will have done every thing : but till he ha* 
 done this, he has done absolutely nothing, except having deceived his readers. 
 t Grotius, as quoted by Whitby. 
 
S71 
 
 and with the same distinction too from idols. See 1 John v. 20, 
 21 ; compared with chap. i. 1,2; and " Discourses on the So- 
 cinian Controvery," pages 35 — 39; with pages 157 — 161 of 
 this work. We have seen too, the manner in which John speaks 
 of " THE Word" in chapter i. 1 — 3. as well as in other parts of 
 his Gospel history. The Evangelist surely does not contradict 
 himself; and, after having explicitly affirmed in one passage, 
 " the Word was God," exclude him from all the claims of Deity 
 in the other. If, therefore, there be any principle, by the appli- 
 cation of which the language of John xvii. 3. may be explained in 
 consistency with the language of John i. 1 — 3. and of all the oth- 
 er passages which assert the Divinity of Christ, more simply and 
 easily than the language of John i. 1. — 3. and of all these other 
 passages can be reconciled with the Unitarian interpretation of 
 John xvii. 3. ; that principle ought to be adopted. Such a prin- 
 ciple, we are of opinion, is afforded by the official character of 
 Jesus Christ. It is in this character that he here speaks of him- 
 self — " Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.^'' We have before 
 shown, that there is no inconsistency between Jesus possessing 
 Divine dignity, and his being sent, when he is considered as hav- 
 ing voluntarily assumed the official character of Mediator. Now, 
 in this text, the Father is distinguished from all false deities, as 
 " the only true God,^^ and he is distinguished from Jesus Christ, 
 as having " seyit him :" — and the " knowledge" of the character 
 of God, as the God of salvation, and of the person and vv ork of 
 Christ as the Saviour, the Mediator between God and men, is 
 declared to be *' eternal life." 
 
 3dly. A parallel case or two will serve to show the inconclu- 
 siveness of the Unitarian argument. We have already seen that 
 Jesus Christ is called " the true God," as well as the Father, and 
 that therefore by the phrase "the only true God," he cannot intend 
 to exclude himself from the claims and honours of Deity. Speak- 
 ing of " the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ," Paul says, in 
 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16. : " Which in his times He shall show, who is 
 the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord 
 OF Lords ; who oyily hath immortality." Supposing this to 
 refer to the Father, as Unitarians must of course interpret it; 
 
— we know that there is another " potentate," even He who 
 " hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, Kixg op 
 KINGS, AND Lord of lords ;" and that the Lord Jesus is called 
 " the FIRST and the last, and the living one ;" who in the 
 beginning laid the foundations of the earth, and of whose hands 
 the heavens are the workmanship ;" that there is therefore an- 
 other who " hath immortalili/.''^ The word only, then, does not, 
 either when put before " Potentate," or before " immortality," 
 exclude Christ from the possession of these attributes. Again : 
 Solomon says to Jehovah, " Thou only knowest the hearts ol all 
 the children of men ; 1 Kings viii. 39. ; yet Jesus says of him- 
 self, " I am He that searcheth the reins and the hearts ;" Rev. 
 ii. 23. If the exclusive particle 07ily, does not, in this case, 
 although not less explicit, deny to Jesus the attribute of omnis- 
 cience ; neither does the phrase " the only true God," applied 
 to the Father, divest him of his proper divinity. Suppose Jesus 
 to have addressed the Father, as " the blessed and only Poten- 
 tate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, who only hath immor- 
 tality ;" or as the Being " who alone knew- the hearts of all the 
 children of men ;" — these forms of adoration would not, we have 
 seen, have excluded himself from the possession of the same 
 attributes ; for of himself the same things are actually affirmed : 
 —and yet these forms are in effect equivalent to that by which 
 he docs address him — " the only true God." 
 
 Another favourite text which is here particularized by Mr. 
 Yates, is Mark xiii. 32. where our Lord, speaking of the day of 
 judgment, says, " but of that day and that hour knowetli no one, 
 no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the 
 Father." 
 
 It is foolish to talk of such passages as if they contained no 
 difficulty. Let us rather frankly admit the difficulty which the 
 mode of expression involves, and endeavour to weigh it in an 
 even balance. " If any other being besides the Father were 
 God," says Mr. Yates, " he would have known the ^ay of judg- 
 ment. Since, therefore, the Father alone knew this day, it is 
 manifest that He alone is the omniscient God : (page 70.) — and 
 afterwards, wheo the same passage is introduced on another 
 
S73 
 
 branch ©f his subject ; " The Scripture teaches us that the 
 knowledge of Christ was not only derived, but also limited. For 
 he himself asserted, that he did not know the day of general 
 judgment, Mark xiii. 32. The Father, who alone knew this day, 
 must be the only God. The Son, who knew it not, could not be 
 the supreme God, being inferior to him in knowledge." (Page 
 SI.) On these statements I observe, — 
 
 1st. It is admitted, and forms a part of our scheme, that the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, in his official capacity, delivered his instruc- 
 tions to men, according to a commission which he had received. — 
 This idea is expressed in the following, among other passages : 
 " God, Avho, at sundry times, and in divers manners, spoke in 
 times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last 
 days, spoken unto us by his own Son." — " My doctrine is not 
 mine, but his that sent me." — " He that sent me is true ; and I 
 speak to the world those things which I have heard of him." — 
 " For I have not spoken of myself ; but the Father who sent me, 
 he gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I should 
 speak: — and I know that his commandment is life everlasting; 
 whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father said unto me, 
 so I speak."* In this sense we have no objections to saying 
 that his knowledge was derived. He receives his official com- 
 mission : — he is charged with a message he is to deliver. — But 
 then, 
 
 2dly. There are other passages which as plainly describe 
 this same person as the Searcher of hearts, and as knowing all 
 things ; the government and judgment of the world are ascribed 
 to him, to which functions omniscience is requisite ; and all the 
 proofs together of his supreme Deity, are evidences of his pos- 
 sessing this attribute. Here, then, is a solitary text, the only 
 one which Unitarians have been able to produce as, in direct 
 terms, asserting the limited extent of his knowledge. " He did 
 not know," we are forever reminded, " the day of judgment." 
 It will surely be acknowledged a singulaK thing, that this should 
 be the sole limitation. The Governor and Judge of the world 
 
 *^ Heb. i. 1. John vii. 16, viii. 26. xii. 49, 50. 
 
S74 
 
 must of necessity be possessed of infallible prescience. Without 
 this, the administration of affairs could not be managed for an 
 hour. How then are we to limit this prescience ? It seems 
 strange to think, that He who is to conduct the government of 
 mankind, with a view to the final judgment, and who is himself, 
 in the close, to occupy the throne as universal Judge, should be 
 in absolute ignorance of the time when the end was to come. — 
 He himself describes the solemn transactions of that approaching 
 day, when the " Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the 
 holy angels with him, when he shall sit on the throne of his glory, 
 and when all nations shall be gathered together before him." — 
 He tells us, that " the hour is coming, in which all that are in 
 their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that 
 have done good to the resurrection of life, and they that have 
 done evil to the resurrection of condemnation." Yet, according 
 to the Unitarian hypothesis, he did not know any more than man 
 or angel, when these things were to be. Nay, more ; if the final 
 judgment be meant in the text in question, then he gives a pro- 
 phetic view of the general state of the world to the close of its 
 history, yet knows not at all when that close is to arrive ; — he 
 describes himself as prescribing to his servants their respective 
 charges " to occupy till he should come," and yet not merely 
 leaving them in ignorance of the time of his return, but as igno- 
 rant of it himself as they. Such considerations render it proba- 
 ble, a priori, that the ignorance of which he speaks in the text 
 under discussion, was not absolute ; but that he speaks of him- 
 self in his official capacity, and affirms, that the time of the final 
 judgment, the precise period of the duration of the world, did 
 not come within the limits of that commission which he had re- 
 ceived of the Father, — formed no part of his official instructions, 
 as a messenger to mankind. 
 
 3dly. In Acts i. 7. in reply to the question of his apostles, 
 " Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to 
 Israel ?" Jesus says, more generally, " It is not for you to know 
 the times and the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own 
 pouicr." 7\re we hence to infer, that our blessed Lord was un- 
 rtcquaintcd, not merely with the day of judgment, but with the 
 
879 
 
 times and seasons in general ? This is not pretended, and would 
 be contrary to fact ; the very chapter in which the controverted 
 words occur, demonstrating the contrary. But these '• times and 
 seasons" " it was not for them to know,'''' The Father had " put 
 them in his own power." Not that he himself was ignorant of 
 them, and on that account unable to give the information desir- 
 ed 5 but it formed no part of his instructions at that time to make 
 them known. They were secret things which belonged to God. 
 May not our Lord, then, in the passage under controversy, be 
 understood as affirming the same thing with respect to the day of 
 judgment^ which he here affirms respecting " the times and sea" 
 sons'''' in general ? 
 
 4thly. It is plain that if angels had known " that day and 
 that hour," it must have been by communication ; that if men had 
 known it, it must have been by communication. That neither 
 man nor angel knew it, is equivalent to — that God had not com- 
 municated the knowledge of it to them. It is of knowledge re- 
 ceived by communication that our Saviour speaks : and as, in the 
 passages before referred to, and in many others, he is represent- 
 ed, and represents himself, as sustaining an official character, 
 and bearing a commission from the Father to men ; the whole of 
 the difficulty consists in considering him in Mark xiii. 32. as 
 speaking of himself in this, his official capacity, and declaring 
 that the time of the judgment was not among the things commu- 
 nicated to him as the commissioned messenger of the Father; 
 that it was to remain a divine secret.* 
 
 * In these observations, I have taken no notice of the criticism of Dr. Mac- 
 knight, who thinks that the verb oihf has here the force of the Hebrew conjuga- 
 tion Hiphil, and signifies to make to know, or to declare. To avoid the obvious 
 inference, that if " knowcth " means maketh known, when it is used of men and an- 
 gels, and the Son, it must have the same meaning as to the Father ; which would 
 make the text affirm, in opposition to fact, that the Father made knotcn the day 
 of judgment : to avoid this inference, a second " that is " becomes necessary : 
 " none maketh you to know," that is, " none hath poieer to make you know it." 
 So that the verb " to A-no«'," is first made to signify to make known ; and then, 
 to make known means to have power to make knowji. This seems rather too much. 
 Is it not simpler to say at once, that not to know signifies not to have official commiS' 
 siion to make known ? The only parallel case which the Doctor adduces in support. 
 
^6 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 In Ihe beginning of the fourth chapter of his Second Part, 
 Mr. Yates announces three propositions respecting the Lord Je- 
 sus Christ, which in that and the two succeeding chapters he 
 goes on to prove : viz. " that our Lord Jesus Christ was not God, 
 but a distinct Being from him ; that he was inferior and subordi- 
 nate to the Father ; and that he received from the Father all his 
 wisdom and power."—" To these doctrines," he observes, " it is 
 commonly objected, that they lower the dignity of the Saviour. 
 Let the considerate reader bear in mind the maxim acknowledg- 
 ed on all hands, and laid down at the commencement of our in- 
 quiries, that the truth of religious doctrines ought to be tried, not 
 by the standard of our fancies, wishes, and feelings, but by the 
 word of God." (P. 74.) Agreed :— " To the law and to the 
 testimony." 
 
 The first point which he sets himself to prove, is, that " Je- 
 sus Christ is not God, but a distinct Being from him : — " If," says 
 
 of his view, is 1 Cor. ii. 2. where Paul says, *' I determined to know {ei^ivai) noth-^ 
 ing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified ;" i. e. says he, " I determin- 
 ed to make known, to preach nothing among you but Jesus Christ." But al- 
 though this may be considered as the rjj'ect of the verb here, it is the effect rather 
 hy consequence or inference, than by its direct meaning. It can hardly be said with 
 propriety, that " to know nothing," means " to vutke knoicn nothing.!' It is only 
 a strong expression of the apostle's resolution to appear among them, and to preach 
 among them, as if ignorant of every tiling else, but the great subject of his minis- 
 try. He came among them in the character of an apostle of Jesus Christ. As 
 a man, he was acquainted with onany other things ; and he might be under temp- 
 tations to display his knoAvledge. But as an apostle he had one message to de- 
 liver, and he determined, in his o^ciul capacity, to know nothing else than that 
 message. In the same way, " the Son" did not " know''"' the day of judgment. 
 He knew it not in his oflicial capacity, as the commissioned ambassador of heaven 
 to men. It formed no part of the divine communications to him in this character. 
 This view has always appeared to me much more rational and satisfactory, than 
 tliat which is commonly given, tliat he was ignorant of it in his human nuturey 
 although he knew it in his divine : a mode of explanation with whicli, 1 confess, 
 I have never been well satisfied. 
 
^77 
 
 he, " with a sincere desire of arriving at the truth, we apply lo 
 this source of information, (the Scriptures) we, in the first place, 
 observe numerous passages which represent Jesus Christ as a 
 distinct being from God.'''' (P. 74.) Strings of passages are then 
 produced, in which God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 are mentioned together, in evident distinction from each other. 
 And to those quoted, I doubt not, a great many more might have 
 been added. But, suppose them multiplied indefinitely, what is 
 it that is proved by them ? Is it any thing more than this ; that 
 there is such a distinction between God our Fdther, and our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, as admits of their being spoken of as two ? The ad- 
 ducing of such texts as proofs of the Unitarian doctrine, proceeds 
 on the assumption, that in the Trinitarian system there is no such 
 distinction held as could admit of their being so mentioned. But 
 surely Mr. Yates knows, that such an assumption is unfounded. 
 Trinitarians, he is well aware, not only maintain a distinction 
 between the Eternal Father, and the Eternal Word in the 
 nature of Deity ; but also a distinction between the Eternal Fa- 
 ther and the Word made flesh, the Divine Mediator, In so far 
 as he was man, they have no objection to admit the phraseology, 
 that he is a distinct being from God, because the human nature, 
 created, and, as created, dependent, was, and still is, unconfound- 
 ed with the Divine, and can never become a part of the essence 
 of Deity. Nothing, therefore, can be more futile, or less to the 
 purpose, than to bring forward lists of texts which, so far as mere 
 distinction is concerned, are equally explicable on either hypo-- 
 thesis, and which, in this respect, must stand as they are, v.hich- 
 soever hypothesis be established as the true one. If the Father 
 alone were God, and Jesus Christ a mere creature, they must 
 have been mentioned distinctly : but if the Father be a person in 
 Deity, and the Son a person in Deity ; if, in the scheme of re- 
 demption, the Father asserts the claims of the Godhead, and the 
 Incarnate Word is the Mediator between God and men ; they 
 must in that case also, have been mentioned distinctly. All that 
 is needful to the explanation of such texts, is the admission of 
 personal distinction : and as, in the Trinitarian system, such dis- 
 tinction exists, in the senses just mentioned, the recognition o1' 
 36 
 
this distinction in the phraseology of the Scriptures, can never 
 be fairly urged against it. In these circumstances, 1 should think 
 it quite as trilling and irrelevant for me to set about refuting the 
 argument derived from each of these texts separately, as it was 
 for my opponent to bring them forward into the argument at alL 
 They all belong to the same class. They prove dminction : 
 they prove, therefore, what Trinitarians do not deny. They 
 disprove no one Trinitarian sentiment ; and therefore they can- 
 not jorozjc any sentiment that is peculiarly Unitarian, For with 
 regard to precise points of difference, no argument can jorore one 
 side that does not disprove the other. 
 
 But while Mr. Yates adduces these passages as evidences of 
 distinction, and in this view, as we have seen, adduces them to 
 so little purpose, there is another view in which, it seems to me, 
 the enumeration of them is, as in the case considered a little ago,, 
 most unfortunate for his own cause. He brings forward, for in- 
 stance, " seventeen passages,'''' " each of which," according to 
 Unitarian phraseology, " expresses a pious a-nd benevolent wish 
 of favour and assistance from two distinct beings." Several of 
 these passages have been adduced by rhc, in evidence of Jesus 
 Christ being the object of divine worship ; and to the observa- 
 tions made on that branch of the subject, I refer the reader. 
 The texts I allude to, were Eph. vi. 23. 2 John 3. 1 Thess. iii. 
 11.2 Thess. ii. 16. ; and almost all the other thirteen might be 
 added. They are Rom. i. 7. 1 Cor. i. 3. 2 Cor, i. 2. Eph. i. 2. 
 Phil. i. 2. 1 Thess. i. 1. 2 Thess. i. 2. Philem. 3. Gal. i. 3. 
 1 Tim. i. 2. 2 Tim. i. 2. Tit. i. 4. 2 Pet. i. 2. Let th« reader 
 turn to them if he will. It is my wish, indeed, that he should. 
 For I am satisfied, that, if his mind be open to conviction, he will 
 see, in the constant junction of Jesus with the Father, in the- 
 prayers of the apostle for both temporal and spiritual blessings. 
 a much more convincing proof on the Trinitarian side of the 
 question, than the mere circumstance of their being named and 
 spoken of distinctly, can ever be on its opposite ; this circum- 
 stance being alike consistent with both, and incapable, conse- 
 quently, of being evidence on cither. 
 
 Distinction, no doubt, is also implied in those passages, next 
 
S79 
 
 quoted by Mr. Yates, in which worship is addressed, or enjoined, 
 to God, or to the Father, in the name of the Lord Jesus Clirist, 
 But what is this distinction ? It is just the distinction between 
 the Divine Father and the Divine Mediator. Had Mr. Yates at- 
 tempted to show that the Trinitarian view of the mediation of 
 Christ, as the mediation of a divine person in the human nature, 
 is incompatible with the "marked distinction" between this Me- 
 diator, and God, or the Godhead, as the object of worship, which 
 the passages quoted express, he would have attempted something 
 to his purpose ; and had he succeeded, he would have done some- 
 thing to his purpose. This, however, he has neither done nor 
 attempted : and yet, till this is done, nothing is done. We hold, 
 that THE Eternal Word " was made flesh," associating his in- 
 finite glories with the nature of man ; that, by his obedience unto 
 death in the nature he had assumed, he might make sufficient 
 atonement for human guilt, and render the acceptance of sinners, 
 the pardon of their sins, their access to God, and their everlast- 
 ing happiness, consistent with the immutable perfection, and un- 
 sullied honour, of the name, and law, and government, of the 
 Great Supreme. We come, therefore, to the Father, in the name 
 of the Son : we come to the Godhead, — Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit, — in the name of the second person, in his capacity of in- 
 carnate Mediator : we come to the Son himself, as " God over 
 all, blessed forever," on the ground of his own mediation, as 
 " God manifest in the flesh." Till this view is shown to involve 
 absurdity and contradiction, we hold by such passages as those 
 referred to, as most satisfactory exhibitions of the Saviour, as the 
 great medium of the approach of sinners to Deity ; we act agree- 
 ably to the directions, or to the example, which they contain ; 
 and we conceive our view of the Mediator to give to them an 
 energy and an interest of which they are utterly bereft by the 
 self-righteous and frigid scheme of Unitarian theology. For, in 
 what sense Unitarians draw near to God in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, it is not very easy to say. 
 
 " Further," says Mr. Yates, " there are various passages of 
 the New Testament, which assert that Jesus Christ was with God^ 
 (such as John i. 1, 2.) or that God was with him, (such as John 
 
280 
 
 iii. 2. Acts X. 38.) These passages, while they teach that Je- 
 sus was nearly allied to God in his endowments or his office, at 
 the same time prove that he was a distinct being from God.'* 
 (Page 76.) But let him, if he can, fairly refute the Trinitarian 
 explanation of such texts ; without doing this, he does nothing, 
 nay, he does less than nothing. He brings before the mind of 
 his reader texts which bear a most inauspicious aspect on his 
 own cause. I now allude particularly to John i. 1, 2. ; which 
 asserts, not, as Mr. Yates designs to represent it, that Jesus 
 Christ (i, e. the man Christ Jesus) was with God ; but, that the 
 Word, before being made flesh, existed " in the beginning," and 
 was then with God ;" and, in the same breath, with the same la- 
 conic simplicity, that this Word "was God''"' — of which enough 
 has already been said : — the latter affirmation proving his divinity, 
 and the former his personality in the Godhead. 
 
 Mr. Yates illustrates his argument from such passages by a 
 supposed parallel case. " To illustrate this phrase by a simple 
 example : It has been conjectured, that Luke, the Evangelist, 
 was the same man who is called in Paul's Epistles, Sylvanus. 
 We may conceive of the question being settled in the following 
 manner. Suppose we were to find in any part of the New Tes- 
 tament this expression, 'Luke was with Sylvanus;' we should 
 immediately conclude that Luke was not Sylvanus, but a diffe- 
 rent person. In like manner, when we find it asserted, that ' the 
 Word was with God,' or that ' God was with Christ,' we draw 
 the obvious inference, that Jesus Christ was not God, but though 
 favoured with an intimate communion with him, a totally distinct 
 being." (Pages 76, 77.) But this imaginary parallel proceeds 
 on the assumption of there being no difference between the con- 
 stitution of the person of Christ, and that of Luke or Sylvanus ; 
 and of there being no sense in which it could be said that " the 
 Word was with God,''"' except that sense which would imply the 
 same kind of distinction between the Word and God, as between 
 one man and another, which is begging the question ; taking it 
 for granted, either on the one hand, that Jesus was a mere man, 
 which is the thing to be proved ; or, on the other, that the unity 
 of Deity is of the same nature with the unity of a man, whjch i? 
 
281 
 
 also the thing to be proved. As to God being " with Christ,'''' 
 there is no other distinction implied in such expressions, than that 
 which has been already noticed, namely, the distinction between 
 Jesus as the Divine Mediator, in the assumed form of a servant, 
 and the Father, or the Godhead, as giving testimony to his doc- 
 trine and his work. 
 
 The same general remarks apply to those passages in which 
 Jesus is spoken of, as coming from God, and going to God. In- 
 deed, these passages are also unfortunate, at least for the Socin- 
 ian hypothesis. For they seem very clearly to denote a pre-ex' 
 istent state. If coming from God meant, in such connexion, mere- 
 ly having his commission from God, then going to God, should 
 mean his resigning that commission ; but, if this be a forced and 
 unnatural mterpretation of the latter phrase, if it evidently means 
 something local, his going to heaven, represented as the place of 
 the peculiar residence of God, then must his coming from God, his 
 " coming forth from the Father, and coming into the world," have 
 a corresponding signification. It must mean, his having come 
 down from a pre-existent state of heavenly glory. The question 
 is, What was that state ? Was it a state of Divine glory ? The 
 phrases in cjuestion do not imply the contrary ; for God, although 
 infinite, is often spoken of in language, such as, when applied to 
 creatures, indicates change of place ; among other expressions, 
 as coming down. And, seeing an inspired writer teaches us, that 
 the Word's being with God, before he appeared in the likeness 
 of sinful flesh, was not inconsistent with his being Gnd^ neither, 
 surely, are such declarations of his coming from God, and going 
 to God. 
 
 Jesus Christ is called " the image of God,'''' " the image of the 
 invisible God;''"' (2 Cor. iv. 4. Col. i. 15.) "the express image 
 of his person ;" (Heb. i. 3.) and in Phil. ii. 6. is said to have 
 been "m the form of God.''"' " To say any person is the image 
 of himself, or in the form of himself," Mr. Yates alleges, " would 
 be absolute nonsense." But may not Christ be styled the " im- 
 age of the invisible God," because his character, as " the Word 
 made flesh," presents to mankind an embodied exhibition of the 
 perfections of Deity' In one of the passages where he is so d'-- 
 
2S2 
 
 nominated, it is said of him, in terms formeriy discussed, that 
 " all things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, were cre- 
 ated by him, and /or him, and that he is before all things, and 
 that by him all things consist." And, without entering into any 
 critical examination of the precise import of the original terms 
 translated " the express image of his person,'''* it may be sufficient 
 to observe, that, in the same verse, he is represented as " uphold- 
 ing all things by the word of his power." 
 
 On the phraseology of Phil. ii. 6. enough has been said be- 
 fore. 
 
 On the whole, the arguments adduced in this chapter, with a 
 view to prove that Jesus Christ is not God, but a distinct being 
 from him, instead of proving this, prove no more than that he is 
 distinct ; that the Eternal Word, or the Incarnate Mediator, is 
 distinct from the Father. Distinction between the Father and 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, between the Godhead and the Mediator, 
 belongs to both systems. But the distinction affirmed in each, 
 is materially different in kind. It behoved Mr. Yates to show 
 pot only that the language of the passages he has quoted, was 
 consistent with the Unitarian hypothesis, but that it was not con- 
 sistent with the Trijiitarian. But this he has not attempted. 
 And while he has adduced a great many passages which, as proofs 
 of mere distinction, are not at all to his purpose, he has, among 
 tliem, brought forward some, which, in certain other views of 
 them, afford strong evidence of the equality of Clirist with -the 
 Father. 
 
 Before proceeding to examine the contents of Chapter V. en- 
 titled " Evidence that our Lord Jesus Christ is inferior and sub- 
 ordinate to the Father," — I must beg leave to transcribe a para- 
 graph or two from my former volume. 
 
 " But, it may be alleged, there are other passages of Scrip- 
 ture, which speak a very different language from those which 
 have been quoted : — passages, in which Jesus is spoken of asm- 
 ferior to the Father ; as sent by the Father ; as obeying and serv- 
 ing the Father; diS^ receiving a commission, and executing a 
 work given him to do* — All this we at once admit •, with the 
 very same readiness and cordiality, with which we admit his 
 
having been a man. — I address myself at present to those who 
 acknowledge the Scriptures as the word of God ; and who are 
 consequently satisfied that they cannot in reality contradict 
 themselves. To such 1 propose the following simple question : 
 Which of the two views — that which asserts the mere humanitif 
 of Jesus Christ, or that which affirms the union of his kumanitt^ 
 with true and proper divinity afibrds the easiest and most com- 
 plete reconciliation of these apparent contrarieties, and the fair- 
 est solution of the difficulty thence arising ? — Take, in the first 
 place, the system from which the Deity of Christ is entirely ex- 
 cluded. I need not say how superlatively difficult the attempt 
 must be, to bring the host of texts already quoted,- along with: 
 Others of a similar description, to speak a language in accord- 
 ance with this hypothesis. Everyone who is at all acquainted with 
 the subject is av/are, that the attempt has employed, and exhaust- 
 ed, all ti!e possible arts and resources of criticism : with what 
 success, remains afterwards to be seen. Take, on the other hand, 
 the view of the person and work of Christ presented in the fol- 
 lowing; words : — ' 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, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even 
 the death of the cross.'* Suppose, for the present, this trans- 
 lation to be correct, and the ordinary interpretation of the 
 passage to be the just one ; — we have, on this supposition, a 
 double view of the person and character of Christ, which appears 
 instantly to furnish a natural and satisfactory solution of the 
 whole difficulty. If he be, indeed, both God and man, we have 
 no reason, surely, to be greatly astonished, if we find language 
 respecting him, of seemingly opposite complexions, according 
 as he is spoken of under the one, or under the other view, of his 
 person. When we adopt this principle of interpretation, the 
 apparent confusion becomes order and harmony. If, besides, he 
 voluntarily undertook the office of Mediator, and is represented, 
 
 * Pbil. ii. 6—8, 
 
S84 
 
 in the Scriptures, as performing this work in the willingly as- 
 sumed capacity of a servant ; there can be no doubt, that this 
 view of his Mediatorial character and work does, in fact, afford 
 a very easy and consistent interpretation of almost all the pas- 
 sages in which he is spoken of as inferior and subject ; as serving 
 and obeying Jehovah ; and as receiving his reward. On this 
 principle, supposing it just, we cease to wonder at the seeming 
 contrarieties. We perceive them to be merely apparent ; nay, 
 to be such as we had every reason previously to expect. If, 
 then, this be a key which fits all the wards of this seemingly 
 intricate lock, turning among them with hardly a touch of inter- 
 ruption, catching its bolts, and laying open to us, in the easiest 
 and completest manner, the treasures of Divine truth : if this be 
 a principle which, in fact, does produce harmony and consistency 
 in the word of God, while the rejection of it, on the contrary, 
 gives rise to difficulties without number ; is not this, of itself, a 
 strong presumptive evidence that the principle is correct, and 
 well founded ? — 1 shall probably have occasion, in a subsequent 
 Discourse, to touch again on the reasonableness of this principle ; 
 «, principle which might be reduced into a general rule of inter- 
 pretation : — that, of two contending systems, that one ought to be 
 preferred, which not only affords a natural explanation of those 
 texts by which it seems to be itself supported, but, at the same time, 
 furnishes a satisfactory principle of harmony, between these, and 
 those other passages, which have the appearance of countenancing 
 its opposite.^'' Discourse II. pages 42 — 44. 
 
 " My last observation is, that we ought to beware of forming 
 our judgment from detached and insulated passages of the word 
 of God : — that wc should take the Scriptures in their harmony, 
 comparing one part with another, and using them, as much as 
 possible, as self-expositors. You will immediately perceive the par- 
 ticular bearing of this remark, in reference to our present subject. 
 In a former Discourse, I noticed the seeming contrarieties in the 
 Scripture testimony respecting the person of Christ ; and I en- 
 deavoured to point out also the true principle of harmony among 
 them. A single observation or two shall suffice at present, in 
 addition to what was then said. •• Christ.' savs a Unitarian 
 
285 
 
 writer, ' always prayed to this one God, as his God and Fa- 
 ther.' He always spoke of himself as receiving his doctrine and 
 his power from him ; and again and again disclaimed having any 
 power of his own, ' Then answered Jesus, and said unto them. 
 Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of him- 
 self;' John V. 19. ' The words that I speak unto you I speak 
 not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth 
 the works ;' John xiv. 10. ' Go to my brethren, and say unto 
 them, 1 ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and 
 your God ;' John xx. 17. '■It cannot surely be God,'' adds he, 
 ' that uses such language as this.''* Now, without making any 
 particular comment on the language which this writer uses, 
 might I not, on the other side, repeat again the various passages 
 before quoted, in proof of his Divinity, and then say, with at 
 least equal confidence, ' It cannot surely be a mere man, of whom 
 such things are said .^' Here, then, is the question brought into 
 short compass. It comes at once to an issue. Here are two classes 
 of passages, both contained in the same book, — both claiming to 
 have their testimony received, as of the same authority. Here 
 are two bands of witnesses. They all seem to speak in language 
 plain and distinctly intelligible. But they appear to contradict 
 one another. What, then, shall we make of them ? Whether 
 are we to receive the testimony of the one, or that of the other 2 
 Or must we reject that of both ? Or shall we apply scourges, 
 and racks, and screws, and all the instruments of torture, to force 
 from the one, or from the other, a declaration, that they did not 
 at all intend to express what their language seems, beyond all 
 doubt, to convey ? Or, lasdy, is there no principle of reconcil- 
 iation and harmony between their apparently discordant testimo- 
 nies ? Is there no ground on which both may consistently be be- 
 lieved; since both appear to be supported by the very same mea- 
 sure of credible evidence ? Here is the question ; — here, I appre- 
 hend, the one great point on which the whole controversy turns. 
 And in answer to the question, I still affirm, as before, There v> 
 
 * Priestley's History of Early Opinions, Vol. I. p. 10 
 
 37 
 
280 
 
 isuch a principle — there ts such a ground — and besides it there is 
 110 other. It is to be found, as formerly stated, in the double view 
 which is given by the apostle Paul, of the person and official 
 character of Jesus, when he says respecting him, that, ' being in 
 the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God ; 
 but made himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form 
 of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men ; and, being 
 found in fashion as a man, humbled himself, and became obedi- 
 ent unto death, even the death of the cross.' Admit the double 
 view of the person of Christ which is here stated, and the diffi- 
 culty vanishes. The testimony of the different witnesses, 
 elicited without torture, and interpreted without perversion, 
 becomes one testimony. In plain terms, there is, on this prin- 
 ciple — (a principle which, you may possibly think, I am dis- 
 posed to press too often upon your attention, but which really 
 merits repetition on account of the extensiveness of its applica- 
 tion on this subject, the occasion for the use of it, as, from the 
 iia'ture of the case, might have been expected, perpetually recur- 
 ring) — there is, I say, on this principle, hardly a single text that 
 occasions any difficulty to an attentive and ingenuous reader. — 
 On every consideration, then, of fairness and candour, is not this 
 the view which ought to be preferred, by all who are desirous 
 rightly to obey the injunction in the text. Prove all thixgs." 
 Discourse VI. pages 176 — 178. 
 
 I should, perhaps, ask pardon of the reader, for quoting pas- 
 sages of such length, which he may have read before. But the 
 general principle, which they contain, is one of such peculiar 
 importance on the present part of the argument, that I am desir- 
 ous of securing his attention to it, which a mere reference might 
 not do. I have laid, and still lay, much of the stress of the ar- 
 gument upon this principle. Yet, as I formerly noticed, it is a 
 principle against which my opponent has not pointed a single 
 piece of his critical ordnance. He has, in this chapter brought 
 forward lists of passages, in which Jesus Christ is represented as 
 chosen, appointed, sanctified, inspired, anointed, given and sent by 
 God, as receiving and executing a commission, as coming in the 
 Aame of the Lord, as the servant of God. But he has never, 
 
287 
 
 either here or elsewhere, taken any notice, or attempted an); 
 refutation, of the general principle, stated in the paragraphs 1 
 have quoted, on which such passages are explained by Trinita- 
 rians. And, till he has done this, " I am not careful to answer 
 him" further. Let him spoil our key, or prove it a picklock, 
 and then we shall acknowledge our error, and give up the use 
 of it. 
 
 What Mr. Yates has written, in this chapter, on the meaning 
 of the title Son of God, is altogether irrelevant to the point in 
 debate. This is a title about which, in its application to Jesus 
 Christ, there is considerable diversity of opinion, not only be- 
 tween Unitarians and Trinitarians, but amongst Trinitarians 
 themselves. It has been questioned, whether it relates to him 
 in his Divine nature alone, or in his human nature alone, or in 
 the constitution of his person as God and man, connected with 
 his official character as Mediator. The last of these views I am 
 myself inclined to prefer. But as the difference respects a name 
 merely, any one of the views may be held, along with the firm 
 conviction of the supreme divinity of Him who bears it. Mr. 
 Yates reasons on the assumed principle, that this title plainly im- 
 plies inferiority and subordination. But, if the title be consid- 
 ered as belonging to him on account of the peculiar constitution 
 of his Mediatorial person, the idea of inferiority may be admit- 
 ted, on the principles laid down in the preceding quotations ; be- 
 cause, as Mediator,, although uniting the Divine and human na- 
 tures, he had assumed the form of a servant. And, even in oppo- 
 sition to those who consider the title Son of God as expressing 
 the mode of personal distinction in the Divine essence, Mr. Yates 
 may find it difficult to prove that sonship implies inferiority in na^ 
 ture ; inasmuch as a son must be, in nature, essentially the same 
 with his father. That the name or title " Son of God," is a mark 
 pf " blissful and glorious distinction is-evident," says Mr. YateSj 
 " from the manner in which it is applied both to the disciples of 
 Christ, and to our Saviour himself." (Page 81.) But it is no 
 less evident, that the name is applied in an infinitely higher sense 
 to the Saviour himself, than to his disciples. "The author of 
 *he Epistle to the Hebrews," as Mr. Yates afterwards notices, 
 
S88 
 
 '• proves the superiority of Christ to angels, by the evidence oi 
 passages in which he is called by this designation." (P. 84.) — 
 And the connexion in which these proofs arc introduced, suffi- 
 ciently shows the sense in which he understood the designation 
 — " Unto the Son he saith. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and 
 ever." When Jesus spoke of God as his Father, the Jews took 
 tip stones to stone him, because he made himself " equal with 
 God.'''' And, although nothing could have been more easy than 
 distinctly to disavow the inference, and although such disavowal 
 was required by every consideration of piety and truth, he never 
 did disavow it. Mr, Yates has not disproved the justice of 
 the interpretation put by the Jews on our Lord's words ; he has 
 not disproved the propriety of any of the Trinitarian interpreta- 
 tions of the title; for he has neither proved that it implies inferi- 
 ority in nature, nor that the inferiority and subordination which he 
 affirms it does imply, cannot be the inferiority and subordination 
 involved in his voluntary assumption of the human nature, and of 
 the form of a servant. Till he has done both these, the title -Son 
 of God can avail him nothing, but rather, from the connexions in 
 which it is sometimes given to Christ, is all against him. It is 
 in vain, therefore, that Mr. Yates, in this, as in former instances, 
 adduces his proofs hy ff ties and sixties. It is in this way that 
 he fulfils his engagement announced in the prospectus of his book, 
 to establish the inferiority of Christ to the Father by " several 
 hundred plain Scripture testimonies.^^ Any person, acquainted 
 with the controversy, might have anticipated what sort of proofs 
 these were to be ; — proofs of what nobody questions. Wherev- 
 er Mr. Yates finds Jesus called the Son of God, or God called 
 |iis Father, he finds a distinct proof that Jesus is not God. But 
 he establishes no general principle on which these multiplied 
 proofs can be made to tell upon his conclusion. He does not 
 seem to think it at all incumbent upon him, to invalidate the prin- 
 ciples of Trinitarian interpretation ; but argues on, with all cool- 
 ness, deliberation, and confidence, leaving the ignorant reader to 
 wonder what Trinitarians make of these passages, or whether 
 they have not overlooked them altogether. In a case of this 
 kind, to dwell on each passage distinctly, would be an insult to 
 
289 
 
 the reader's understanding. They are all in the same predica- 
 ment. The refutation of one is the refutation of the whole. 
 They are like the Spectator's wooden library ; where, when you 
 touch a single volume, down comes an entire shelf. Mr. Yates 
 takes it for granted,'i\i'Ai the title " Son of God?'' implies inferior- 
 ity and subordination ; and then, understanding this inferiority 
 and subordination in the Unitarian way, he has a host of proofs 
 at his call : — the reader has only to take it for granted on the oth- 
 er side, that the tide " Son of God" implies the equality of Christ 
 with the Father, and the case is immediately reversed : the army 
 of arguments vanishes from the one side, and starts up in hos- 
 tile array on the other. 
 
 On this part of the subject, I cannot but advert to the gratu- 
 lations with which Mr. Yates has hailed me in another part of 
 his volume, in consequence of my having professed doubts re- 
 specting the ordinary doctrine of the eternal generation of the 
 Son from the Father, and the eternal procession of the Spirit 
 from the Father and the Son, in the essence of Deity. He con- 
 siders this candid avowal as " affording a gratifying illustration 
 of the progress of good sense and liberality of sentiment in mat- 
 ters of religion ;" and congratulates me on my freedom from the 
 prison and the rack ; as well as from the shackles of subscription 
 to human articles. For both these species of liberty, — liberty 
 from confinement and torture, and liberty from the trammels of 
 subscription, I desir.L*, along with Mr. Yates, to be duly thankful. 
 The desirableness of the former will be felt and acknowledged 
 alike by all ; of the advantage of the latter, I think I have had 
 the satisfactory proof of personal experience. But in his san- 
 guine hopes of my future progress, I fear Mr. Yates must lay his 
 account with disappointment. The present publication has al- 
 ready, in all probability, lov/ered his expectations ; and they 
 are likely to sink still farther, when I assure him, that, instead of 
 being connected, in its origin, with any doubt as to the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, the principal source of my hesitation respecting 
 the common opinion above mentioned, was a desire to clear that 
 great and fundamental article of my faith from plausitle objec- 
 tion. While we ought never, in complaisance to the pride of 
 
390 
 
 human reason, cither to give up, or to mitigate, those sublime 
 mysteries, confessedly incomprehensible, but which form the ve- 
 ry substance of the gospel ; yet we should beware of adding to 
 them any thing of our own ; and especially when the addition, 
 instead of illustrating and confirming, tends rather to obscure 
 and invalidate, the truth which we are desirous to maintain. 
 Such appeared to me to be the case with regard to the doctrines 
 of eternal generation and eternal procession ; and, on examina- 
 tion, I could not find sufficient ground for them in the holy Scrip- 
 tures. But into the discussion of these topics, 1 feel no inclina- 
 tion to enter. Although I consider the rejection of this explana- 
 tion of the mode of the Divine subsistence as fitted to clear the 
 great point of our blessed Lord's divinity from the most plausi- 
 ble of the objections and cavils of the adversary, — I am quite 
 aware that others are of a contrary opinion ; and from what I 
 know of them, I dare not take it upon me to impute their opinion 
 to mere prejudice. Differing, as 1 do, from such, about the pre- 
 cise import of the title Son of God, we both hold his supreme 
 Divinity, and acknowledge him as the Eternal Word made flesh, 
 to " put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." I have no incli- 
 nation to enter at present into any debate with these brethren, 
 about the meaning of a name, but give them my hand and heart 
 as fellow-disciples of the Divine Saviour. — I must still, therefore, 
 I presume, be content to rank, in my opponent's list, among the 
 professors of ^^ pristine nonsense ;" (for, under this appellation, 1 
 suppose, he will include the doctrine of the Trinity itself, as well 
 as the Nicene and Athanasian explanations of it) — and I feel no 
 desire to be honoured with a difiercnt place. In matters of re- 
 ligious sentiment, I take his scale by the rule of reverse ; and 
 make the lowest point of his graduation the highest of mme. His 
 pristine nonsense is my ancient truth ; — the foundation of my 
 hopes, the source of my joys ; to the defence of which, I trust I 
 shall ever be enabled to consecrate those " powers of reasoning 
 and persuasion," to which, as might have been expected, he has 
 been pleased, on this occasion, to present a little of the incense of 
 his praise. It is certainly my desire to "conform my belief, not to 
 popular opinions, or human creeds, but to the only infallible test — 
 
S9i 
 
 the Word of God." And, while I do this, it is my present convic- 
 tion, that that word must be thoroughly changed, or that I must 
 myself be given up to " strong delusion," before I can renounce 
 the doctrines, which he has assailed. 
 
 But there are two or three texts which Mr. Yates has more 
 particularly specified, as proofs of the inferiority and subordina- 
 tion of Jesus Christ which merit a somewhat closer considera- 
 tion. 
 
 The first of these is John xiv. 28. " My Father is greater 
 than 1 ;" of which Mr. Yates says, — " This testimony is so 
 clear and explicit, that it does not admit of illustration." — 
 (Page 79.) 
 
 Let us notice, however, in the first place, the connexion in 
 which these words stand : — " Ye have heard how I said unto 
 you, I go away, and come again unto you ; if ye loved me, ye 
 would rejoice because I said, I go to the Father ; for my Father 
 is greater than I." In going to the Father, he was going to 
 *^ the joy that was set before him ;" to the " glory that was to 
 follow" all his sufferings; to the reward of his finished work. 
 This reward, this glory, this joy, he was to receive as Mediator, 
 in the capacity of the servant of the Father. He had " taken 
 upon him the form of a servant :" he was just about to " become 
 obedient unto death, even the death of the cross :" and " there- 
 fore God was highly to exalt him." It is in this sense, and in 
 this connexion, that Jesus says, " My Father is greater than I." 
 Even here, therefore, our general principle of interpretation ap- 
 plies. We admit inferiority ; not only the inferiority of the hu- 
 man nature of Jesus, but official inferiority. And the only ques- 
 tion is, whether he is here speaking of himself in his official 
 capacity ? If he is, it is surely not unreasonable to conceive 
 that it is to this inferiority he refers. 
 
 But, secondly ; — It may sound strangely to speak of these 
 words as a proof that he who used them was more than man, and 
 more than a creature. Yet my mind is not a little impressed 
 with the improbability of a mere human prophet, or even a super- 
 angelic Messenger, assuring his fellow men, or his fellow crea- 
 tures, n« of a thing of which they needed to be informed, thaf 
 
S9ie 
 
 God was greater than he ; that he was inferior to the infinite J (,- 
 hovah. We can hardly, I think, suppose a mere prophet, a good 
 man, or any holy creature, to bring himself thus into comparison 
 with his Creator and his God. It is one of the characteristic 
 sentiments of all such creatures, to feel, and to own, their utter in- 
 significance, and absolute nothingness, before the Divine Majesty. 
 Ascend as high as you please in the scale of created existence, you 
 only give additional strength to the improbability in question : 
 for there will still be an infinite disparity between the greatness 
 of God, and the greatness of the most exalted creatures ; and the 
 higher you go, the sentiment referred to must be supposed the 
 more powerfully felt. I can scarcely, therefore, imagine the 
 words to have been used by a merely created Messenger ; nor is 
 there any sense which I can attach to them, without an appre- 
 hension of impiety, but that which refers them to the official, 
 Mediatorial, character, of the Son of God ; as " coming forth 
 from the Father, and coming into the world ;" — " finishing the 
 work given him to do ;" and returning to the Father, to receive 
 his reward, in " fulness of joy, and pleasures for evermore." 
 
 The same general principle of official subordination, without 
 natural inferiority, may? without any difficulty or any direction of 
 mine, be applied by the intelligent reader to 1 Cor. iii. 23. " Ye 
 are Christ's, and Christ is Qodh ;" and to 1 Cor. xi. 3. " The 
 head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the 
 man ; and the head of Christ is God.''^ — " Christ is God's," as 
 being th? Divinely appointed Mediator, all whose work, on earth, 
 and in heaven, has the glory of God for its object. " The head 
 of Christ is God ;" by v/hom he was commissioned and sent, whose 
 will he came to do, who accepted his service, and bestowed his 
 reward. 
 
 Mark x. 17, 18. "There came one running, and kneeled to 
 him, and asked him. Good master, what shall 1 do that I may in- 
 herit eternal life ? And Jesus said unto him. Why callest thou 
 me good ? there is none good but one, that is, God." 
 
 1 have already noticed the lolly of pretending that there are 
 none of the passages brought forward by Unitarians against the 
 divinity of (Jhrist that present any dilficulty. The true state of 
 
293 
 
 the question is, Whether the numerous passages understood by 
 Trinitarians as asserting or implying his supreme Deity, are ca- 
 pable of a fair and consistent interpretation on the supposition 
 of his being a mere creature ? and, on the other hand, whether 
 the passages understood by Unitarians as asserting or implying 
 his being no more than a creature, are capable of such an inter- 
 pretation, on the hypothesis of his being God and man in one 
 person, and sustaining in that one person the official character 
 of Mediator ? 
 
 I am not aware of any passage produced on the Unitarian 
 side of this alternative, that has greater plausibility in it than 
 the one now quoted. In these words, it is alleged, Jesus point- 
 edly disavows supreme Godhead. Let us fairly see, then, how 
 the matter stands. 
 
 1st. The epithet " good'''' is evidently susceptible of a higher 
 and a lower sense. In our Lord's reply to this ruler's question, 
 he takes it in the highest acceptation of which it is susceptible, 
 as signifying absolute unqualified perfection. But it is an epi- 
 thet often applied to men; Matth. v. 45. xii. 35. xxv. 21. Luke 
 xxiii. 50. Acts xi. 24, &c. It is generally understood, too, that 
 the Jewish doctors (whose fondness for flattering titles is, on an- 
 other occasion, exposed and reproved by our Saviour) affected 
 this style of complimentary address. 
 
 2dly. The title, it is sufficiently evident from the result, was 
 not intended by the person who used it, to be understood in any 
 higher sense than -was applicable to a merely human being, — one 
 whom, at the most, he considered as an eminent prophet. 
 
 3dly. It was not, therefore, an address which it was at all 
 possible for any who were present to consider it as blasphemy for 
 Jesus to receive; as implying his making himself God, whom 
 alone he immediately declares in his answer to be good. It 
 could not, from its general use in application to men, be under- 
 stood as expressing any thing beyond mere humanity ; so that 
 there existed no occasion whatever why Jesus, supposing him to 
 have been a mere human prophet, should have declined it, as an 
 address to which the blessed God alone was entitled. His an- 
 swer, therefore, cannot be viewed as an instance of hi§ revolting 
 .S8 
 
294 
 
 irom the ascription to him of a Divine title ; because, from the 
 ordinary use of the epithet, there was no danger, or even possi- 
 bility, of any such conception being formed. It is not easy, in 
 these circumstances, to perceive any reason why Jesus should 
 have given a reply, disclaiming equality with God, as Unitarians 
 interpret his words ; because neither, on the one hand, was the 
 person by whom he was, addressed, ascribing such equality to 
 him ; nor, on the other, was there the remotest possibility of his 
 hearers understanding him to claim such equality in accepting 
 the title by which he was accosted. 
 
 Is the reply of Jesus, then, capable of any natural and con- 
 sistent interpretation, on the supposition of his having been him- 
 self a Divine person ? The two following views of it are sub- 
 mitted to the reader : — 
 
 1 . Our Lord may be understood as framing his reply accord- 
 ing to the viezvs zohich he knew the person by whom he was address- 
 ed to entertain concerning him. There is no reason to suppose, 
 that this ruler viewed our Lord as any thing more than a mere 
 man, — a prophet, — "a teacher" (the appellation he employs) 
 " sent from God." Considered in this light, the words of Christ 
 convey a severe and pointed reproof to those who affected such 
 titles of flattery, and sought " the honour that cometh from men." 
 
 2. He may be considered as inquiring the views of this young 
 man, with regard to him whom he thus so respectfully accosted, 
 " kneeling to him," with an apparently humble acknowledgment 
 of his superior dignity and authority. The reply will then be as 
 if Jesus had said to him : — Why callest thou me good^ None 
 is absolutely good but one, that is God. Do you mean by 
 your address to ascribe this goodness to me ? to acknowledge 
 and honour me in my Divine character ? " I and my Father are 
 one." Dost thou believe this ? Or is your salutation a mere 
 title of flattering courtesy, to be understood as when addressed to 
 your own Rabbles ? 
 
 Let the reader, then, recollect that on other occasions, when 
 Jesus was charged with making himself equal with God, he 
 never disavowed the imputation ; let him keep in mind also the 
 copiQus evidence already produced of his really possessing Di- 
 
295 
 
 vine dignity ; and say, whether the one or the other of these 
 senses, or a combination of both, should not be preferred to that 
 interpretation which, without any good reason arising from the 
 circumstances of the case, sets the words at variance with his 
 conduct on other occasions, and with all the passages which as- 
 sert or imply his divinity ? 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The general principles laid down in the preceding chapter, 
 are, in their full force, applicable to all that Mr. Yates advances in 
 Chapters VI. and VII. of the Second Part of his " Vindication," 
 respecting the wisdom, and knowledge, and power, of Christ, be- 
 ing derived from the Father. 
 
 Mr. Yates thus states the difference between Trinitarians and 
 Unitarians, in answering the ancient question, " Whence hath 
 this man this wisdom and these mighty works ?" — " The Trini- 
 tarians maintain that, as Jesus Christ was really and truly God, 
 he required no communication of knowledge or power from any 
 other being, but was, from all eternity, and by his own nature, 
 infinitely wise, omniscient, and omnipotent. The Unitarians, 
 on the contrary, assert, that he derived his wisdom, his knowl- 
 edge, and his power, from the same Being who brought him into 
 existence, from the one eternal and almighty God, the Father." 
 (Page 88.) But in this statement, he has been as careful as be- 
 fore to leave out of sight the double view of the person of Christ 
 maintained by Trinitarians. Jesus Christ appears, as Mediator, 
 " in the likeness of sinful flesh." In these circumstances, how 
 were those, to whom he made his appearance, to be assured, that 
 he came, that he taught, and that he acted, by divine authority ? 
 How, but by his announcing himself possessed of a commission 
 from the Father, and proving that commission by miraculous 
 works ? This he 4id. He declared that all that lie taught was 
 
according to the commission he had received ; that all that he 
 did was according to the will of Him that sent him ; and he ap- 
 pealed to his miracles, as works which the Father had given 
 him to do, and indications of his sanction and approbatiori. — 
 But what of this ? The great general principle of the distinction 
 of natures, and the official character of Jesus Christ, leaves no 
 difficulty here. This general principle it should have been Mr. 
 Yates' business to overthrow. But, instead of doing this, he has 
 taken one side only of the Trinitarian view of the Saviour's per- 
 son. He states that, as God, Trinitarians consider his knowl- 
 edge and wisdom as eternal and underived ; in which he is right : 
 "but he entirely forgets, that they view him also as man, and, offi- 
 cially, as Mediator; that, in the human nature, all the knowl- 
 edge and wisdom of his human soul must of necessity have been 
 derived ; and that, in his official capacity, he taught and acted 
 bi/ commission, communicating what he had received to commntii- 
 catc, and doing what he had been charged to do. There is sure- 
 ly no great difficulty in making the distinction between a person- 
 al and an official character. An ambassador from a prince, charg- 
 ed with a certain commission, may possess a vast deal of knowl- 
 edge, even of the mind of his sovereign, beyond what is involved 
 in his commission, and he may possess a large measure of gen- 
 eral knowledge besides. Even of the substance of his commis- 
 sion he might have full knowledge in his personal capacity, be- 
 fore he received it in his official. But, as an ambassador, he is 
 charged with a commission. That commission he delivers as 
 from him that sent him. And he who, from the circumstance of 
 this ambassador speaking of his commission in his official lan- 
 guage, should conclude that he could have no knowledge of it cx- 
 cept in his official capacity, and no personal knoxvledgo, no unde- 
 rived acquaintance with any thing else ; would commit the same 
 error with those, who argue, that because Jesus Christ, in his of- 
 ficial capacity (which he had voluntarily assumed,) speaks of 
 himself as delivering what he was commissioned to deliver, there- 
 fore all the knowledge and wisdom he possessed, were, and must 
 have been, derived, and not inherent. The sophism arises from 
 rot distinguishing between Jesus Christ, considered simply as 
 
S97 
 
 God, and Jesus Christ, considered in his official capacity as Me- 
 diator between God and men — the voluntary servant of the God- 
 head. 
 
 Chapter VII. Part II. in Mr. Yates' " Vindication," is one of 
 the most laboured in the volume. Its object is to prove the Uni- 
 tarian doctrine, " concerning the origin of Christ's power, viz. 
 that it was given to him." As might have been expected, a 
 great proportion of the reasoning is characterized by the same 
 species of sophism as the reasoning in proof of the derivation of 
 Christ's wisdom and knowledge. — " To prove that any person is 
 a God, no method can be more direct than to show that he is 
 possessed oi underived and independent power. I conceive, there- 
 fore, that we might reduce the whole question concerning the 
 Deity of Christ within this short compass. Did our Saviour 
 possess his power without having received it from any other be- 
 ing, and did he exert it without being subject to the pleasure and 
 control of any other ? Or were his authority, his glory, and his 
 majesty, conferred upon him by a superior ? The former side of 
 the question is espoused by the Trinitarians, who affirm, that Je- 
 sus Christ was omnipotent from eternity, and by his own nature, 
 and that his power is incapable of any increase as well as of any 
 diminution. The latter opinion is espoused with equal firmness 
 by the Unitarians, who assert, that all the power of Christ was 
 given to him. It is, therefore, my intention in this chapter, by 
 bringing forward all the passages in the New Testament, which 
 relate to the power of Jesus, to enable every reader to decide 
 for himself the principal question at issue, viz. whether the pow- 
 er of Christ was given, or whether it was underived.'''' (Pages 92, 
 S3.) 
 
 In this general statement, it will appear to the intelligent 
 reader, that, as before, the Trinitarian distinction between Christ 
 as God, and Christ in his complex person and official character, 
 as Emmanuel, is kept entirely out of sight. While the Unitarian 
 doctrine is stated to be, that all the power of Christ was given to 
 him — was derived and not inherent — the reader is left to conclude, 
 that Trinitarians deny his having possessed any power of this 
 description — any power, that was. in any sense, given, or deriv- 
 
S9B 
 
 ed ; and that all the power which the Scriptures ascribe to him, 
 is underived and inherent ; than which, as Mr. Yates himself 
 must know, nothing can be farther from truth. ., 
 
 The chapter is divided into three parts : — the first, examining 
 the question of our Lord's independent power " before his birth 
 of the Virgin Mary :'''' — the second, contemplating the exercise 
 of his power during his abode upon earth : — and the third, the 
 exercise of his power subsequently to his ascension to heaven. 
 
 The first part of the inquiry proceeds on the hypothetical 
 assumption of the existence of Christ before his appearance on 
 earth. " The question is, whether, granting the pre-existence of 
 Christy he enjoyed before his incarnation, underived power ? 
 
 Having ah'cady considered the principal passages on this 
 head, namely, those in which the creation of all things is ascrib- 
 ed to Christ, and particularly examined the ground taken by Mr. 
 Yates respecting the import of the prepositions AIA and 'ino, it 
 would be impertinent to resume this discussion ; and I think 
 it quite unnecessary to enlarge it. I refer the reader to my 
 Fourth Discourse, pages 98 — 107, and to pages 280 — 286, of 
 this work, and leave it to himself to judge, whether iVIr. Yates 
 has made good his assertions, " that these passages are decisive- 
 ly favourable to the Unitarian doctrine, that if Jesus was con- 
 cerned in the formation of the heavens and the earth, he was 
 only employed as an instrument in the hands of God his Father:" 
 (page 94.) — and that, " when we direct our view to the first 
 supposed period of our Lord's existence, that preceding his 
 incarnation, we find that every passage in the New Testament 
 which ascribes to him power in that period, ascribes it to him as 
 a being inferior to, and dependent upon, the Father." Pages 
 98, 99. 
 
 Of the exercise of our Lord's power during his abode on 
 earth, Mr. Yates says, — " In the course of his public ministry, he 
 exhibited the astonishing and awful proofs of supernatural power, 
 by giving sight to the blind, and reason to the insane, by healing 
 the sick, raising the dead, and by many other stupendous mira- 
 cles. Here again, the question to be decided is, Whether he 
 performed his mighty acts by underived and independent power, 
 
oi* whether he was enabled and authorized to exhibit them by God 
 the Father ? We may ascertain the truth, partly from the opin- 
 ions of those who saw our Lord's miracles performed, but chiefly 
 from his own clear declarations." Page 99. 
 
 On the argument derived from the manner in which Jesus 
 performed some of his miracles, — I refer the reader to pages 194 
 — 1 96, of this treatise, and shall offer very few additional obser- 
 vations on the way in which this argument is treated in this part 
 of Mr. Yates' work. 
 
 1. The first is, that Mr. Yates renders it necessary to re- 
 mind the reader, that the argument is derived, not from the mir- 
 acles themselves, but from the peculiar maimer in which, in some 
 instances, they were performed. When, therefore, Mr. Yates 
 says, — "The more intelligent and impartial Jews, it appears, con- 
 sidered the miracles of Jesus as a proof, that he was " a teacher 
 come from God," which is the exact light in which they are re- 
 garded by all Unitarians ; — they reasoned, ' No man can do such 
 miracles as Jesus does,' (they did not say, as a Trinitarian 
 would, ' except he be God as well as man,' but) ' except God be 
 with him :' " (page 101.) — when Mr. Yates, I say, speaks thus, 
 he deals unfairly, and ascribes to Trinitarians a mode of reason- 
 ing which they disavow. 
 
 2. The instances adduced by Mr. Yates to show the impres- 
 sion made upon the spectators of our Lord"'s miracles, are not 
 the instances adduced by me, as illustrations of my argument. 
 
 3. With regard to our Lord's disciples, we are not without 
 evidence that, amidst much darkness and confusion of mind, they 
 yet did entertain higher notions of their Master and Lord, than 
 Mr. Yates is willing to admit : we not only find them acknowl- 
 edging him as " the Son of the living God," but one of them 
 calling him " My Lord and my God," and another appealing to 
 his omniscience, as the searcher of hearts, " Lord thou knowest 
 all things ; thou knowest that I love thee." That the miracles 
 of our Lord were never regarded by " the beloved John, the 
 zealous Peter," and the other Apostles, as evincing his proper 
 Deity, is, therefore, a gratis dictxvm. On one occasion, Peter 
 was so overpowered with astonishment and dread by one of our 
 
300 
 
 Saviour's miracles, that lie fell down at his knees, saying, " De* 
 part from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." — " The manner 
 in which Peter appears to have been affected," says Dr. Camp- 
 bell, " and the extraordinary petition he presented to a persoa 
 of whose benevolence and humanity he had been so oft a wit- 
 ness, clearly show, that he discovered in his Master, on this oc- 
 casion, something superior to human, which quite overwhelmed 
 him with awe and fear." 
 
 When, after quoting John xx. 30, 31, Mr. Yates says, " We 
 see that the beloved disciple, who always spoke of his Master in 
 the most glowing terms of admiration and affection, and who 
 wrote his history, when many were disposed to fall away from 
 the faith, in order to prevent their love from, waxing cold, never 
 regarded the miracles of Christ as a proof that he was God, but 
 only as a proof that he was the Messiah, the Son of God,^^ (page 
 102.) — he takes for granted that the title " Son of God?^ does 
 not imply his equality with the Father. The comments of the 
 Evangelist himself, however, on the meaning of the appellation, 
 may, perhaps, be more satisfactory to the reader, than that of 
 Mr. Yates. He will find them in John i. 1 — 3, 10, 14. 1 John 
 i. 1, 2. with v. 20. 
 
 4. While in the minds of the disciples themselves there was 
 such a measure of ignorance and perplexity, so strange a mix- 
 ture of temporal and spiritual notions and expectations, associat- 
 ed with their conviction of his being the Christ, that at times 
 they appear to have been quite confounded, and not to have 
 known well what to think ; we need not surely be much surprised, 
 that the Jewish people in general should have failed to draw the 
 inference, which the manner of his performing his miracles was, 
 on some occasions, fitted to suggest. Their ignorance of their 
 own prophets ; their consequent ignorance of the Old Testament 
 doctrine as to the person, character, and work of the Messiah ; — 
 their rooted prejudices, and worldly-minded desires and hopes ; 
 their blindness, and hardness of heart, in resisting the clearest 
 and most impressive evidence of the validity of his claims, and 
 the truth of his doctrine ; — all prepare us to learn without sur- 
 prise, that his real dignity escaped their dark and rais!;uided 
 
301 
 
 understandings. Considering the state of their minds, it is far 
 from being " doubtless," that " the Jews," even although their 
 " nation had been signalized by the display of miracles during 
 many former ages," were " best able to judge of the nature of 
 the testimony" of miracles. The very reverse was the fact. 
 
 5. Both during our Lord's life, and after his ascension, his 
 apostles, and other ministers, wrought their miracles in his name. 
 It is -difficult to conceive that the twelve, and the seventy, should 
 have been impressed with no higher notions of Jesus than as a 
 fellow-man, or a great prophet, when they said to him, " Lord, 
 even the devils are subject to us through thy name ;" a consider- 
 ation, by the way, which may serve to give further strength to 
 the observations made under the third particular. — Christ says, 
 before his ascension, (Markxvi. 17.) "And these signs shall fol- 
 low them that believe : m my name shall they cast out devils," 
 &;c.; and the Evangelist adds, " They went forth and preached 
 every where, the Lord working with them and confirming 
 the word, by signs following." Ver. 20. These expressions 
 the reader may compare with the following passages, in the 
 Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles : Acts iii. 6, 16. iv. 7, 10. 
 ix. 34. xvi. 18. Rom. xv. 18, &c. — It is surely very remarka- 
 ble, that these mighty works should thus have been done in the 
 name of Jesus ; that he should be spoken of as doing the works ; 
 they the instruments of his power, he the wonder working agent ; 
 so that, in disclaiming any power or holiness of their own, as 
 causing the effects produced, they should have ascribed all to the 
 name and power of Christ ; if, indeed, that name was only tho 
 name of a glorified man. In speaking of the view given by Pe- 
 ter, of the miracles of his Master, in Acts x. 38. and Acts ii. 22. 
 Mr. Yates explains his language as meaning that " in fact ' God 
 did the miracles through him,'' God being the real author of the 
 miracles, and Christ the medium through the instrumentality of 
 whom they were accomplished." (Page 102.) — This is perfect- 
 ly rational, if Jesus was a mere prophet : it places him, as to 
 miraculous power, on the ground which every mere prophet must 
 occupy : but it is hardly consistent with the sentiment held by 
 Mr. Yates, and bv Unitarians in gefieral. of his possessing pn^v- 
 39 
 
er at his own disposal, in a way quite peculiar to himself.— But 
 what shall we make of those passages in which miracles are re- 
 presented, both during his life, and especially after his ascension 
 as done in his name ? Is he a mere instrument or medium when 
 this is the case ? No. The apostles are now the instruments, 
 and they ascribe the power which produced the effect to their 
 exalted Lord. The very place which the father occupied 
 in his miracles, he himself occupies in theirs. So that, substi- 
 tuting Christ for God, and Peter or Paid for Christ, we may 
 adopt Mr. Yates' own words, and say ; " Christ, in fact, did the 
 miracles through his apostle, Christ being the real author of the 
 miracle, and his apostle the medium through whom they were 
 exhibited." 
 
 " Having considered the inferences," says Mr. Yates, deriv- 
 ed from the miracles of Jesus by those who saw them performed, 
 let us, in the second place, inquire what account he himself gave 
 of the power by which he exhibited them." (Page 103.) — Un- 
 der this particular, we have proofs adduced, to which many more 
 might have been added, of what nobody questions ; vizt that 
 the miracles of Jesus were wrought by the power of the Father, 
 and that he himself, in performing them, openly acknowledged 
 that power. It was indispensably necessary that Jesus should 
 appear as having God with him, both in what he taught, and in the 
 "work which he executed. And so much has already been said, 
 respecting the sense in which he was sent and commissioned that 
 this can present no difficulty to the mind of the intelligent and can- 
 did inquirer. I shall only, therefore, further remark, that, even 
 on those occasions when he is considered by Unitarians as most 
 explicitly disclaiming underived power, he used language at the 
 same time, which it is not easy to conceive any mere prophet — 
 any mere creature to have employed. — Let us take for illustra- 
 tion a few verses of that remarkable address of our Lord to the 
 Jews, which is recorded in the fifth chapter of the Gospel by 
 John, from the 17th verse. — The Jews having got information of 
 the cure wrought by Jesus at the pool of Bethesda, " persecut- 
 ed and sought to slay him, because ho had done these things on 
 the Sabbath day." — To the charge of having violated the Sab- 
 
303 
 
 bath, our Lord answered, " 3Iy Father uorketh hitherto, and I 
 work.'''' — His reply is generally understood to signify, that al- 
 though the Divine Father had set apart the seventh day, after 
 finishing the work of creation, as a day of rest from labour, and 
 of holy worship, to be observed by men, in commemoration of the 
 great Creator's glory, — yet that he had continued from the be- 
 ginning till that time, carrying on the affairs of the world, main- 
 taining the universe, and superintending, in the exercise of his 
 wisdom and power, all its complicated concerns, without distinc- 
 tion of one day more than another. He was not bound himself 
 by such institutions as he had appointed for his creatures : that 
 Jesus vindicates himself, in this instance, not on the ground of 
 the merciful nature of the work he had performed, and the con- 
 sistency of such works with the spirit of the laws relative to the 
 Sabbath, but directly from the example of the Father. — But this 
 ground of vindication could hardly, I should think, be good and 
 valid, except on the supposition of the equality of the parties^ 
 It would be rather a singular defence for any mere man to set 
 up in his own behalf for his having performed some work on the 
 Sabbath day, that God himself was engaged on that day, as well 
 as on other days, in managing the affairs of the universe. 
 
 However good and consistent the sense may be which is thus 
 yielded, I am disposed to think that our Lord refers, not to the 
 divine superintendence of creation, but to his own miraculous 
 works. The spirit of his vindication appears to me to be this : 
 — " In all the miraculous works which I have ' hitherto' perform- 
 ed, my Father worketh as well as I. His power has been in 
 exercise as well as mine. Whatever, therefore, will condemn 
 me, will equally condemn God my Father also." 
 
 Whatsoever-view we adopt, it is plain, in the frst place, that 
 the Jews could never, on this, or on other occasions, have ac- 
 cused him of blasphemy, for simply -calling God his Father. 
 They themselves said " We have one Father, even God ;^'' John 
 viii. 41. They must have understood him as claiming this rela- 
 tion in a sense peculiar to himself. And so verse 18th informs 
 us they did : — " They sought the more to kill him. Because he 
 not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God washis 
 
304 
 
 Father," (tcctc^u iaion eXiye rov Geov) making himself equal with 
 God." {iFov setvTov voim r(f> ©ew.) They understood him then to 
 call God his Father, in a sense implying equality with God. The 
 mere phrase "my Father,'''' in verse 17th, might, perhaps, from 
 the use of the possessive pronoun in the singular number, con- 
 vey to their minds an appropriation of God's paternal relation, in 
 a sense peculiar to himself; yet it seems much more probable 
 that they deduced this inference from what he said respecting 
 the Father and himself: which tliey seem to have understood as 
 implying the possessioji and exercise of common pozcer, and of 
 common independence and authority. 
 
 This they condemned as blasphemy. Upon which Jesus 
 " answered them., saying, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son 
 can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do : for 
 what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." 
 Ver. 19. Much depends here on the meaning of the phrase " of 
 himself,'''' The following passages will sufficiently show its 
 meaning to be, that he said nothing and did nothing wj7^om^ com- 
 mission, without authority ; that all that he said and did had the 
 sanction and concurrence of the Father; chap. vii. 17. viii. 28. 
 xii. 49, 50. xiv. 10, &;c. What follows confirms this :—" The 
 Son can do nothing of himself, hut what he seeth the Father do.''* 
 These words cannot surely mean, that he repeats what the Father 
 does before him. They are explained by verse 20th ; — " For 
 the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself 
 doeth : and he will show him greater works than these, that 
 ye may marvel." His miracles, then, were " things which he 
 saw the Father do f" which the Father " rfi J ;" which the Fa- 
 ther " showed him." (Compare as to what he taught, chap. iii. 
 11. viii. 33.) The meaning, therefore, of the 19th verse must 
 be, (seeing these miracles were not first performed by the Fa- 
 ther, and then repeated by the Son) that the Father and he ex- 
 erted, in these miraculous works, a common and concurrent pow- 
 er ^ that he was fully acquainted with the mind and will of the 
 Father, knew whatever he was to do before it was done, and 
 exercised his own power along with the Father's, in performing 
 the same v.-orks. ^\\q principle of this intcrpi\ation extends to 
 
305 
 
 all acts of divine power in creation and providence ; but it is of 
 his miracles tliat he more immediately spealA. 
 
 By the 'f greater ivorks'''' of which Jesus speaks in verse 20th, 
 he seems to have meant especially the raising of the dead to 
 life : — " For,'''' adds he, " as the Father raiseth up the dead, and 
 quickencth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will," 
 The expression is remarkable — " quickeneth whom he will.^'' 
 There must be the will and the pozver of God, in order to the 
 quickening of any. Yet Jesus speaks of himself as possessing a 
 power sufficient for raising the dead, under the control of his own 
 will. I am unable to understand this, unless upon the general 
 principle just now stated, of the will and power of the Father, and 
 the will and power of the Son, concurring in the production of the 
 same effects. But this can be true of no one but a Divine per- 
 son. A creature, in the performance of works which require 
 Divine power, can be nothing more than an instruvient, utterly 
 destitute of such power in himself. 
 
 Let the reader peruse the whole passage, from verse 16th to 
 verse 30th. He will find, that while there is throughout, as was 
 to be expected, constant reference to the mediatorial office and 
 work of the speaker, there is language too, (such as that which 
 has been noticed) which is incapable of any simple and consist- 
 ent explanation, except on the supposition of his possessing, in 
 this capacity, a nature higher than the human. Let our great 
 general principle, of this twofold nature and character of the 
 speaker, be then applied, as the key of interpretation ; and what 
 was felt to be inexplicable in relation to his human nature alone, 
 or to his Divine nature alone, or even to the Divine and human 
 natures together, when considered abstractedly from his official 
 character, becomes harmonious and consistent, when his complex 
 person and mediatorial office are taken into account. 
 
 " The third period of our Lord's existence," says Mr. Yates, 
 " in which I proposed to consider the exercise of his power, is 
 that subsequent to his ascension into heaven. The state to 
 which he has been exalted, is described in the New Testament 
 io the most elevated language, but i«; uniformly represented aa 
 
306 
 
 the gift and the appointment of a superior Being, namely God 
 the Father." (Pag%s 105, 106.) 
 
 Take out the word " JBcmg," and Trinitarians will not object 
 to this statement. " There is no incongruity in the idea of dele- 
 gated authority and dominion, when Jesus is viewed as a Divine 
 Mediator. Those who maintain this view of his person and 
 character, acknowledge such delegation as an essential article 
 of their scheme. Believing him to be represented in the Scrip- 
 tures, as voluntarily assuming the form, and acting in the capaci- 
 ty, of a servant, they are not startled at finding this representa- 
 tion consistently maintained throughout. In perfect harmony, 
 therefore, with this view of his relation to the Father, in the work 
 of redemption, they consider all that he did as done by appoint- 
 ment, and all that he received, in his exaltation to glory, as re- 
 ceived in the form of reward j and the reward they account sin- 
 gularly appropriate, consisting, as it does, in his investiture, as 
 Mediator, with the administration of that branch of the Divine 
 government which has for its immediate object the completion of 
 the glorious effects resulting from the work of salvation which he 
 finished when on earth. Admit the principle of his acting, in 
 the scheme of redeeming mercy, in the voluntarily assumed ca- 
 pacity of a servant, and all is plain : instead of disorder, embar- 
 rassment, and difficulty, we have a perfect plan, not only inter- 
 esting in its design, and glorious in its consequences, but consist- 
 ent and harmonious in all its arrangements ; — ■' well ordered in 
 all things and sure.' " Discourses, page 111. 
 
 On this branch of the subject, I reckon it quite unnecessary 
 to do more than transcribe these few sentences ; referring my 
 readers at the same time, to the subsequent reasonings in the 
 same Discourse, and to various passages in this work. It may 
 be very convenient for a Unitarian to accumulate proofs of the 
 inferiority of Jesus when upon earth, and of the delegation to 
 him of the power which he exercises in heaven. Chapter can 
 thus be added to chapter; and, oil being stated with imposing 
 confidence, and no notice being taken of any other view of the 
 passages, any more than if no other had ever been proposed : 
 both voluminous bulk, and an air of plausibility, may, in this 
 
soy 
 
 way, be easily given to the whole. But there is, throughout, 
 what Lord Bacon calls, I think, an error of the den. * Only one 
 side of the question is presented. The principle of Trinitarian 
 interpretation is left unnoticed ; and the reader, who is ignorant 
 of the controversy, wonders, in this ignorance, how so much can 
 be said. Yet, till the Trinitarian principle of interpretation is 
 fairly met, and successfully combated, nothing whatever is done. 
 If Trinitarians denied that the Lord Jesus possesses delegated 
 power and authoiity, the passages adduced by Mr. Yates would' 
 come against them with irresistible force. But since this is not 
 the case ; since Trinitarians assert his delegated authority, in- 
 stead of denying it, the simple question comes to be, whether 
 they are right in the double view they take of the person of 
 Christ ? whether there be any scriptural foundation for the dis- 
 tinction between his natural and his official power ? whether 
 there be any inconsistency in supposing him to possess, as God, 
 inherent Divine authority, and, in his voluntarily assumed offi- 
 cial character, as Mediator, to be invested with dominion, — to 
 have " all things put under his feet," — to be made " Head over 
 all things to the Church ?" While this view remains unrefuted, 
 the passages, with their comments, may be multiplied into vol- 
 umes instead of chapters, and be, after all, just as valid and con- 
 clusive proofs of the Trinitarian system, as of its opposite. 
 
 Mr. Yates " closes the evidence for the derivation of Christ's 
 power, and his inferiority to the Father, with the remarkable 
 language of the apostle Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, 
 (chap. 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 authority and power. For 
 he must reign, till he hath put 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 when all things shall be subdued 
 unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him 
 that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.' " 
 — Even of this remarkable passage, I should have no great 
 
308 
 
 objection to adopt Mr. Yates' interpretation, only viewing^ 
 Ciirist in his official capacity, as Mediator : — " The apostle 
 here teaches, not only that all the power at present exercis- 
 ed by our Saviour is conferred upon him by God the Fa- 
 ther, who is said to have ' put all things under his feet,* 
 but that, when the great and benevolent purposes for which 
 he is invested with that power, have been fully answered, and 
 all the designs of his Mediatorial oflice finally accomplished, he 
 will deliver up the kingdom, and resign the authority granted to 
 him." (Page 112.) — Yes: the mediatorial government of Christ 
 is a branch of the great general administration of the Supreme 
 Godhead. When all its important and interesting purposes have 
 been fully and finally accomplished, it shall, of course, cease, 
 and matters shall, thus far, revert to their previous state : — God, 
 that is, THE Godhead, shall be all in all. The expression — 
 " then shall the Son also be subject unto him that put ail things 
 under him," can mean no more than simply the cessation of his 
 mediatorial reign. If it meant any more than this, then it would 
 follow, that the Son is not noxo subject to the Father : an idea 
 which no Unitarian, at least, can consistently maintain ; unless 
 he be ready to maintain that this creature is absolved from sub- 
 jection to the Creator, by an act of the Creator himself, and that 
 a part of the Divine dominions is relinquished to the sovereign, 
 uncontrolled command of such a creature, — left to the mercy of 
 a created, and, therefore, of a mutable, will. 
 
 In these circumstances, the reader is left to judge how far 
 Mr. Yates, without the smallest attempt to invalidate the Trini- 
 tarian principle of interpretation, and before he came to touch a 
 single Trinitarian argument for the divinity of Christ, was war- 
 ranted to use such language as the following : " We have found 
 it to be the uniform doctrine of the New Testament, that, in all 
 these successive states," (i. e. before^ and during, and after, his 
 appearance on earth,) " he is inferior to God the Father, and 
 possesses no power or authority but by derivation from the Fa- 
 ther. If, therefore, there be any truth in Scripture, or any intel- 
 ligible meaning in the words of Christ and his apostles, the Uni- 
 tarian doc'trine is now fully and irrefragably proved, viz. that 
 
all the power by which our Saviour was ever distinguished, did 
 not originally belong to him in his own nature, but was given to 
 him by the only true God, the Father." Pages 112, 113. After 
 this, I think it would have been well for Mr. Yates, to have 
 said as little as possible about confidence and docxMatism. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Some passages in the course of the preceding discussion^ 
 have been referred to by Mr. Yates, respecting which 1 have 
 expressed my opinion, and given my reasons for it, that, so far 
 from being favourable to his system, they contain evidence 
 against it. — In this chapter, I shall enumerate these, referring 
 to the places where they have been previously noticed : — and 
 shall then subjoin a few more testimonies from Scripture, to the 
 doctrine of our Lord's divinity, which were not adduced in my 
 former Volume. 
 
 1. John X. 30— 38.— See pages 123—130. 
 
 2. John xvii. 21.— See pages 130—132. 
 
 3. Matth. xi. 27. with Luke x. 22.— See pages 261—263. 
 
 4. John V. 23.— See pages 263, 264. 
 6. Gal. i. 1.— Page 264. 
 
 6. Gal. i. 3. Eph. vi. 23. 2 Tim. i. 2. Tit. i. 4. 1 Cor. 
 i. 3. 2 Cor. i. 2. Eph. i. 2. Phil. i. 2. Col. i. 2. 1 Tim. 
 i. 1,2. Philem. 3. 1 Thess. i. 1. 2 Thess. iii. 11. 2 Thess. 
 i. 1, 2. — which are classed together under one head, on account 
 of their similarity, but each of which aflbrds a distinct instance 
 of prayer for blessings, either temporal or spiritual, addressed to 
 Jesus equally with the Father. 
 
 7. 1 Cor. viii. 6.— See pages 266—268. 
 
 8. John V. 17— 21.— See pages 302—305. 
 
 It is not because I feel the slightest necessity for additional 
 proofs, that T now go on to bring them forward. I trust I have 
 
310 
 
 succeeded, to the satisfaction of the impartial reader, in firmly 
 establishing the validity of those which were formerly adduced, 
 by proving that, although they may have been touched in two or 
 three trivial points, they are substantially unaffected by any of 
 the exceptions brought against them. My sole object is to show, 
 that what Mr. Yates alleges about our stock of proofs being ex- 
 hausted, is not true ; but that Bible evidences are still in reserve, 
 not less conclusive than the former. I shall not enter, however, 
 into any enlarged illustration of these ; but shall content myself 
 with a few brief remarks upon each, pointing out the light in 
 which they strike my own mind. I shall observe no particular 
 arrangement in bringing them forward. 
 
 1. In Psalm Ixxviii. 18, and 56, it is said of the Israelites in 
 the wilderness : — " They tempted God in their heart, by ask- 
 ing meat for their lust :" — " They tempted and provoked the 
 MOST High God, and kept not his testimonies." In drawing 
 instruction and admonition from their conduct and experience, 
 the apostle Paul says, 1 Cor. x. 9. " Neither let us tempt 
 Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of 
 serpents." — " These texts do both relate to the same rebellious 
 acts of the Israelites in the wilderness. In the former of them, 
 the person whom they tempted is called the most high God: in 
 the latter, he is called Christ : therefore Christ is the most high 
 God}''''* and the sin of tempting Christ, against which Chris- 
 tians are admonished, is the very same, in nature and in guilt, 
 with the sin committed by the Israelites in tempting Jehovah. 
 
 2. Isa. viii. 13, 14. "Sanctify the Lord of Hosts him- 
 self; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread, and 
 He shall be for a sanctuary ; but for a stone of stumbling, and 9. 
 rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel." — " He who was to 
 be a stumbling stone, and a rock of offence, is called by Isaiah, 
 the Lord of Hosts ; and he bids the children of Israel ' sanc- 
 tify'' (honour, worship, and magnify) ' him, and make him their 
 fear and their dread.' — Fear is here put for the object of fear, 
 which is God ; but the apostles Paul and Peter apply this ex- 
 pressly to Christ. Rom. ix. 32, 33. ' They stumbled at ih-- 
 
 '' Jones on the Cath. Poet, of the Trinity, p. 6, 
 
311 
 
 stumbling stone ; as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stum- 
 bling stone, and rock of offence ; and whosoever believeth in 
 him (Christ) shall not be ashamed.' — 1 Pet. ii. 7, 8. ' Unto 
 you, therefore, who believe, he (Jesus Christ) is precious ; but 
 unto them who arc disobedient, the stone which the builders dis- 
 allowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of 
 sfumbling, and a rock of offence, to those who stumble at the word.' 
 Therefore, Jesus Christ is the Lokd of hosts ; is to be sanc^ 
 tifed, {worshipped, and magnified,) and is the true object of reli' 
 giousfear and reverence,''''* 
 
 J3. Psal. xcvii. 7. " Worship him, all ye gods :" — compared 
 with Heb. i. 6. " When he bringeth in his first-begotten into the 
 world, he saith. And let all the angels of God worship him." — -' 
 " That glorious and magnificent description in the ninety-seventh 
 Psalm, is of one, who in several parts of it, is called Jehovah, 
 and worship commanded to be given to him ; ' Worship him all 
 ye gods.' But the apostle says, it was the Son of God who 
 was spoken of in that sacred hymn. Therefore he is Jehovah 
 to whom divine worship is due, and ofzuhom the glorious things in 
 that Psalm are said, proper to none but the true Go</."1 — " If," 
 says Bishop Horsley, " in argument with any of the false teachers 
 of the present day, I were to allege this text of the Psalm in proof 
 of our Lord's divinity, my antagonist would probably reply, that 
 our Lord is not once mentioned in the Psalm ; that the subject of 
 the Psalm is an assertion of the proper divinity of Jehovah, the 
 God of the Israelites, as distinguished from the imaginary deities 
 which the heathen worshipped. This Psalm, therefore, which 
 proposes Jehovah, the God of the Israelites, as the sole object of 
 worship to men and angels, is alleged, he would say, to no pur- 
 pose, in justification of worship paid to another person. And to 
 any one who might know nothing more of the true sense of this 
 passage than may appear in the words taken by themselves, my 
 
 * " A clear display of the Trinity from Divine Revelation ; with an impar- 
 tial examination of some traditions concerning God, in systems contrived by coun- 
 cils, assemblies and synods, and imposed upon mankind as articles of faith, &c. 
 By>. M. a Layman.—London, 1773." , 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
312 
 
 adversary might seem to have the belter in the argument. 1 think 
 I should seem to myself to stand confuted, if I knew no more of 
 the meaning of my text, or rather of the inspired song of which it 
 makes a part, than an inattentive reader might collect from a has- 
 ty view of its general purport. But observe the references on 
 the margin of the Bible, and you will find that a parallel passage 
 occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the first chapter at the 
 sixth verse. Turn to this passage of the Epistle, and there you 
 will find this text of the Plalmist cited by St. Paul to this very 
 purpose, namely, to prove that adoration is due from the blessed 
 angels of God to the only-begotten Son : — for thus he reason? : 
 • When he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world he saith, 
 And let all the angels of God worship him.' The only passage 
 in the Old Testament, as the Hebrew text now stands, is this se- 
 venth verse of the ninety-seventh Psalm. The words of the 
 Psalmist, indeed, are these, ' Worship him, all ye gods.' The 
 apostle, that he might clearly exclude a plurality of gods while 
 he asserts the Godhead of the Son, thinks proper to explain the 
 Psalmist's words by substituting, ' all the angels of God' for ' all 
 the gods.' But it is very evident, that the first-begotten was, in 
 the apostle's judgment, the object of worship propounded by the 
 Psalmist, otherwise these words of the Psalmist, in which he calls 
 upon the angels to worship Jehovah, were alleged to no purpose 
 in proof of the Son's natural pre-eminence above the angels. 
 For either the Son is the object of worship intended by the 
 Psalmist, or the Son himself is to bear a part in the worship so 
 universally enjoined,"* 
 
 4. Isa. liv. 5. " Thy Maker is thy Husband, the Lord (Jeho- 
 vah) of hosts is his name : and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of 
 Israel ; the God of the whole earth shall he be called." — " The 
 Htisband, or Bridegroom, of the church, and her Redeemer, is 
 here called the Lord of hosts, and the God or the whole 
 EARTH. But Jestcs Christ is Husband or Bridegroom, and Re- 
 deemer of the church. — Eph. v. 23. ' The husband is the head 
 of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.' — Rev. xix. 
 
 * Nine Sermons on the nature of the evidence by which the fact of our Lord'p 
 reaurrection is established, and od various other subjects. Pages 228 — 231. 
 
313 
 
 7, ' Let US be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him ; foi' 
 the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his Wife hath made her- 
 self ready.' — Rev. xxi. 9. ' Come hither, and I will show thee 
 the Bride the Lamb's wife.' — Gal. iii. 13. ' Christ hath redeem- 
 ed us from the curse of the law.' — Col. i. 14. ' In whom we have 
 redemption through his blood," &c. — Jesus Christ, therefore, is 
 the Lord of hosts, the God of the whole earth."* 
 
 5. Psal. Ixviii. 17, 18. "The chariots of God are twenty 
 thousand thousands of angels ; Jehovah is among them, as in 
 Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended up on high, thou 
 hast led captivity ca})tive, thou hast received gifts for men." — 
 Eph.iv. 7,8. "But unto every one of us is given grace, according 
 to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith. When 
 he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts 
 unto men." — According to the Psalmist, it was God, Jehovah, 
 that ascended up on high : — according to the apostle, it was 
 Christ. 
 
 6. Zech. xii. 10. " And I" (namely Jehovah) "will pour up- 
 on the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 
 the spirit of grace and of supplication, and they shall look upon 
 me whom they have pierced :" — John xix. 34. " One of the 
 soldiers with a spear pierced his (Christ's) side ; that the Scrip- 
 ture should be fulfilled— ' They shall look on him ichom theij 
 pierced."^ " — Jesus Christ, therefore is Jehovah. 
 
 7. Jude, verses 24, 25. " Now unto him who is able to keep 
 you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence 
 of his glory, with exceeding joy ; to God alone our Saviour, 
 through Jesus Christ our Lord,! be glory and majesty, dominion 
 and power, (as) from eternity, so now, and to eternity. Amen." 
 — That which God the Father is, in these words, represented as 
 able, and alone able, to do, is declared elsewhere to be done by 
 Jesus Christ : — " Christ loved the church, and gave himself for 
 it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water 
 
 * Clear Display of the Trinity, k.c. by A. M. 
 
 •t I follow, in translating this verse, the text of Griesbacli, although the cona- 
 naon yersion would afford an aryuinent still more powerful. 
 
314 
 
 by the word; that he might present it to himself («t/Tos txvruf 
 Griesbach) a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any- 
 such thing, but that it should be holy, and without blemish."— 
 Christ, then, is, in power, and purpose, and operation, one with 
 the Father, and shares with him the glory arising from the final 
 salvation of the church. 
 
 8. The principle which applies to so many passages of the 
 Neio Testament, of Jesus Christ being spoken of under the two 
 characters of a Divine person, and " the Mediator between God 
 and men," the servant of Jehovah, furnishes the most reasonable 
 ground of interpretation for some parts of the Old. Isaiah, chap, 
 L. — The chapter begins with " Thus saith Jehovah ;" and 
 there is not the least intimation of any change of speaker. — The 
 same speaker, so far as appears, who says in the third verse, " I 
 clothe the heavens with blackness, and I make sackcloth, their 
 covering," says, in the sixth, "1 gave my back to the smiters, and 
 my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair : I hid not my face 
 from shame and spitting." — The same speaker, resuming the 
 style of Deity, says of his enemies, in the close of the chapter, 
 " This shall ye have of my hand, ye shall lie down in sorrow :"" 
 ■ — and goes on, in the beginning of the chapter following, to say 
 of Abraham, "I called him alone, and blessed him and increas- 
 ed him." — Suppose this speaker throughout to be Messiah " in 
 the form of God," and Messiah " in the form of a servant, and 
 the likeness of men," and all is simple and harmonious : whereas 
 the supposition of a change of speaker at verse 4th, where the 
 style of inferiority commences, and a change again, where this 
 style ceases, requires very considerable violence; the more espe- 
 cially, as the things that are said in verses 4 — 9. are in many 
 respects inapplicable to the prophet himself, while they are 
 strikingly applicable to the promised Redeemer. 
 
 9. Isaiah xl. 9 — 11. In the preceding verses of the chapter, 
 we have the proclamation of the predicted forerunner of the 
 Messiah : — " The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, 
 Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight in the desert a 
 high-way for our God." The application of these words to 
 Christ wc have formerly considered. But the same person 
 
MB 
 
 whom the forerunner was to announce is the subject of the pro- 
 clamation in the 9lh verse, — " Say unto the cities of Judah, Be- 
 hold YOUR God !" And it is He whose Divine authority and 
 pastoral care are described in the following verses : — " Behold, 
 the Lord God (or the Lord Jehovah) will come with strong 
 hand, and his arm shall rule for him : behold his reward is with 
 him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a 
 shepherd : he shall gather the lambs in his arms, and carry them 
 in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that arc with young." 
 To confirm the reference of these words to Christ, the reader 
 may compare them with Isa. xlix. 8 — 10. Ezek. xxxiv. 23. 
 xxxvii. 24. John x. 11—16. Heb. xiii. 20. 1 Pet. ii. 25. v. 
 4. &c. 
 
 IC. Zech. ii. 8, 9. "For thus saith the Lord of hosts; — 
 " After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations that spoiled 
 you : for he that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye. 
 For behold I will shake my hand upon them, and they shall be 
 a spoil to their servants ; and ye shall know that the Lord of 
 hosts hath sent me." — " The language of this proclamation first 
 claims our attention. The Lord of hosts is the speaker ; (v. 8.) 
 yet he speaks as one that is sent : at the same time he says, ' I 
 will shake my hand upon them ;' — ' by this ye shall know that 
 the Lord of hosts hath sent me.' The language shows, that not 
 the prophet, but he that spake by him, was intended. There 
 are evidently two persons called here ' the Lord of hosts ;' one 
 who is sent, and the other He who sent him : even the Son of 
 God, and the Father who sent him, as his willing Messenger, to 
 be the Saviour of his people. Thus relatively, as well as in his 
 hum.an nature, he condescended to be inferior to the Father, 
 though he claimed to be naturally equal, as one with Him in the 
 unity of the Godhead. And had not the prophet, or rather the 
 Holy Spirit who spake by him, considered the promised Messiah 
 as Jehovah Sabaoth, Immanuel, such language would not have 
 been used ; for it would have had an evident tendency to mislead 
 us. This must necessarily be understood of Christ, who, being 
 God equal with the Father, was sent, as he was Mediator, to 
 dwell in his church."* 
 
 * Scott's ConuneBtary on the place. 
 
316 
 
 11. Matth. xxiii. 37. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou tha? 
 killest the prof*hets, and stonest them who are sent unto thee, 
 how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as 
 a hen gathercth her chickens under her wings, and ye would 
 not !" 
 
 On this passage observe, in the first place ; — it appears irre- 
 sistibly evident, that Jesus refers in it to the preceding history 
 of the Jewish people, and to the whole course of the Divine 
 dealings with them liy the prophets. The expression " how 
 often,'^'' can never, with any propriety, be restricted to the occa- 
 sional warnings of his public ministry, which lasted only three 
 years, and during which Jerusalem was very seldom favoured 
 with his personal presence. The whole context confirms the 
 observation. He had just been reminding them of the conduct 
 of their fathers to the messengers of God, and assuring them that 
 the blood of all the prophets, from Abel to Zacharias, should be 
 required of that generation. He draws the character of Jerusa- 
 lem from her past history, " Thou that killest the prophets, and 
 stonest them that are sent unto thee." It was He that sent these 
 prophets : it was by their monitory voice that he " would have 
 gathered the children of Jerusalem together :" it was the^i that 
 they would not.'''' His language corresponds exacdy with that 
 addressed to them by Jehovah of old : — " They have not heark- 
 ened to my words, saith the Lord, which I sent unto them by 
 my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending ; but ye 
 would not hear, saith the Lord."* 
 
 2dly. In the preceding context, Jesus, having mentioned, in 
 terms of cutting irony, the hypocritical protestations of the Phar- 
 isees of his day, that " if they had lived in the days of their 
 fathers, they would not have been partakers- with them in the 
 blood of the prophets," says to them ; " Wherefore, behold / 
 send unto you, prophets and wise men and scribes ; and some 
 of them ye shall kill and crucify and some of them shall ye 
 scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city 
 to city." What is this but saying : You are vehement in 
 these protestations ; you disavow the bloody deeds of your 
 * Jer. xxix. 19. also chap. vii. 13, 25 — 27. xxv.4— T, &c. 
 
317 
 
 rebellious forefathers : I will put to trial the sincerity of 
 these professions : I will bring you to the test, and let you dis- 
 cover, when you are placed in similar circumstances, whether 
 you are not children of these persecutors, in character, as well 
 as by natural lineage : I, who sent the prophets to your fathers, 
 will send pro])hets also to you ; and your conduct to them will 
 show what is in your hearts, and identify you with your ungodly 
 and cruel progenitors, giving you the opportunity, " ye serpents, 
 ye generation of vipers," to " fill up the measure" of their sins. 
 3dly. These remarks are further confirmed by the resem- 
 blance between the manner in which our Lord expresses him- 
 self, and the st}le of the Old Testament Scriptures in reference 
 to the care and protection of Jehovah. — Ruth ii. 12. "A full 
 reward be given thee of Jehovah, the God of Israel, under whose 
 wings thou art come to trust :" — Psal. xvii. 8. "Hide me under 
 the shadow of thy wings." — Psal. xxxvi. 7. " Therefore dp 
 the sons of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings :" 
 — Psal. Ivii. 1. "In the shadow of thy wings will I make my 
 refuge, until these calamities be overpast :" — Psal. Ixi. 4. " I 
 will trust in the covert of thy wings :" — Psal. xci. 4. " He shall 
 cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shall thou 
 trust. 
 
 4thly, Make the supposition, unreasonable as it is, that our 
 Lord, in this passage, refers only to the period of his own pub- 
 lic ministry ; — then we still ask, what mere human prophet, what 
 mere created messenger, could ever use terms like these, with 
 regard to his own protecting po.wer ? Surely there was no wing 
 but the wing of omnipotence, under which Jerusalem could find 
 security. It was under this wing, without doubt, that Jesus 
 " would have gathered her children." Yet he speaks expressly 
 of his inviting them to himself; oflering them his own protection j 
 stretching forth the wing of his oxm power and grace, to cover 
 them from harm. 
 
 I cannot but consider this passage as containing most con- 
 clusive evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was Jehovah, the 
 God of Israel. I do not think it is capable of a fair and rea- 
 sonable explanation on any other hypothesis. 
 IT 
 
318 
 
 12. Luke xxi. 16. •• For I will give you a mouth and wis- 
 dom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor 
 resist." Let the reader compare with this text, Exod. iv. 11, 
 12. Prov. ii. 6. Jer. i. 9. Acts ii. 4. Jam. i. 5. " In these texts 
 it is declared, that it belongeth to Jehovah alone, to make, or to 
 open man's mouth, or to give wisdom. Yet Jesus, during his 
 lowest humiliation on earth, in the most express and explicit 
 terms, promised to give his disciples ' a mouth and wisdom which 
 none of their adversaries should be able to gainsay or resist.' 
 Such texts are seldom adduced in argumentative discourses on 
 our Lord's deity, or on the doctrine of the Trinity ; but they are 
 of immense importance in these controversies ; and the inference 
 from them cannot so easily be evaded as that may which is dedu- 
 ced from express declarations on these subjects. For the learned 
 and ingenious opponents of these great mysteries of Christianity, 
 have long been employed in searching for some other reading, 
 or some plausible criticism, on these texts, which form appa- 
 rently the grand pillars of our system ; but they are more vulne- 
 rable when the assault is less expected. Most certainly, howev- 
 er, our Lord here promises to perform the work of God, which 
 other Scriptures declare to belong incommunicaWy to him. — 
 Yet the same things are also ascribed to the Holy Spirit : and 
 imbiasscd common sense will show any man what the conclusion 
 must be, according to the sacred oracles."* 
 
 13. Col. iii. 13. "Forbearing one another, and forgiving one 
 another, if any man have a quarrel against any ; even as Christ 
 forgave you, so also do ye." 
 
 Christians are, in these words, exhorted to forgive those by 
 whom they have been injured ; and the exhortation is enforced 
 by the example of Christ in forgiving themselves. But, if there 
 be any propriety in the comparison between Christ's conduci 
 and the conduct recommended, the wrongs forgiven by Christ 
 must be viewed as having been committed against himself. — 
 Now, let us recollect who they were who are here addressed. 
 They were chiefly Gentile converts, who never had any inter- 
 course with the Jewish Messiah, and never, consequently, any 
 '' Scott's Commeotary. 
 
310 
 
 oftportunity of doing him personal injury. Yet the sins, it ap- 
 pears, which these Gentiles had committed previously to their 
 embracing the faith of the gospel, were committed against Christ. 
 He was disobeyed ; — he was dishonom-ed. But how was this 
 possible, unless Christ was the Supreme God, the Creator, Law- 
 giver, and Ruler of the world, of whose authority all sin is the 
 violation ? — To this it is no sufficient reply to allege, that Christ 
 might, in the name of God, communicate the intimation of pardon^ 
 or be himself the instrument of obtaining it : for, on that supposi- 
 tion, the cases stated in the text are very far from being paral- 
 lel ; and those whom Paul exhorts might have replied with truth, 
 that Christ had set no such example, none of them having ever 
 transgressed against him. The whole force and influence of the 
 comparison lies clearly in this, — that, Christ having freely for- 
 given them wrongs so great committed against him, it became 
 them, as his followers, to forgive each other the wrongs commit- 
 ted against themselves. According to the judgment of the Apos- 
 tle, then, Jesus Christ must be He against whom men trespass, 
 even although they have not known him, and have never been 
 blessed with any revelation of the Messiah, the Saviour of the 
 world : — which could not be the case, unless he stood to them in 
 the relation of their God, to whom they were subject and ac- 
 countable as the creatures of his hand."^ 
 
 It was at one time my intention to have entered into some 
 discussion relative to the Angel who appears so frequently in 
 the Old Testament history, and who speaks, and is spoken of, and 
 spoken to, und^r the appellation and character of Jehovah. — 
 This work, however, has already extended so very far beyond 
 my original expectation, that I am now still disposed, as before, 
 to decline entering on this branch of the subject. 
 
 I shall close this chapter with a single general observation. 
 In putting to death " the Lord of glory," the Jews perpetrated a 
 crime of nameless atrocity ; — so clear and so numberless were 
 the evidences which he exhibited of the validity of his claims. — 
 Yet, by the law of Moses, the sin of blasphemy exposed the 
 transgressor to death : and, if Jesus could have been convicted 
 * See Royaards' Diatribe de Divinitate Je^ii Clin«H vera, pages 170— .172. 
 
3^0 
 
 o^'the sin, that law would not only have justified, but would have 
 imperiously required, a capital infliction. Now, if he was a 
 mere creature, and yet " made himself equal with God," he was 
 guilty, and flagrantly guilty too. We know that, on different oc- 
 casions, he expressed himself in such a way, that the Jews thought 
 he did claim this equality with God. Was, this, then, a purely 
 malicious interpretation of his words ? Was there nothing in his 
 mode of speech that was at all fitted to convey any such im- 
 pression to their minds ? If there was not, the guilt was entirely 
 their own. But if there was, then, in proportion as this was the 
 case, their guilt was evidently extenuated. And was not this 
 guilt still further extenuated, if, when they had fallen into the 
 mistake, and brought forward their charge, the imputation, in- 
 stead of being instantly and explicitly disowned and repelled, 
 was met in such terms, as served to confirm, rather than to dis- 
 sipate, the impression of its truth ? When, indeed, we take into 
 view all that Jesus said of himself, we cannot be surprised that 
 the Jews should have understood him as they did ; and the prin- 
 ciples of those who assert him to have been a mere man, or a 
 mere created messenger of God, furnish the most plausible apol- 
 ogy which can be produced, in mitigation of their guilt, in " de- 
 nying the holy One and the just, and killing the prince of life," 
 
331 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 In drawing toward a conclusion of this work, (which, 1 am 
 rather apprehensive, may be no unpleasant prospect to the read- 
 er,) I must again solicit attention to the real magnitude and im- 
 portance of the difference between the doctrines which it de- 
 fends, and those of my opponent and the party to which he 
 belongs. Mr. Yates concludes his introduction in the following 
 terms : — " I think it probable, that the chief effect produced by 
 this controversy will be a conviction, in the mind of candid and 
 sensible judges, that the differences of sentiment between the two 
 contending parties, are much less than is commonly supposed. 
 In perusing the Discourses of my opponent, it has often occurred 
 to me, that his orthodoxy is little more than Unitarianism in a 
 mist ; and if our readers shall still think, that there is any thing 
 real or substantial in those mysterious tenets superadded by Mr. 
 Wardlaw to the plain truths, in holding which we are both 
 agreed, I trust such persons will however acknowledge, that, 
 under the government of a Being infinitely wise and good, it is 
 impossible that the everlasting happiness of mankind should de- 
 pend upon their perception of such dim points and dusky dis- 
 tinctions." (P. 8, 9,) 
 
 Elsewhere, Mr. Yates admires "the powers of reasoning" 
 displayed by his opponent, pronounces his statements "clear and 
 intelligible," and " heartily joins in the universal confession, that 
 the Trinitarian system could not have been more ably defended." 
 Was the paragraph which I have quoted, dictated by a kind 
 anxiety to preserve the brain of his friend from the prejudicial 
 effects from such commendation ? Cerlainly the Trinitarian sys- 
 tem, instead of " ably," must have been most miserably defend- 
 ed, and the statements relative to it must have been any thing 
 but " clear and intelligible," if, after all, the orthodoxy of its 
 defender has appeared little better than " Unitarianism in a 
 mist.'>'> This, by the way, would not, perhaps, have been an 
 
unappropriate title page designation to Mr. Yates' own work \ 
 in which, as we have seen, we are continually enveloped in a 
 mist of negatives, without any distinct and determinate view of 
 what Unitarianism is. The attempt to reduce the magnitude, or 
 to lighten the weight, of the differences between us, is as vain a 
 one as could well be made. They respect all that is essential 
 and fundamental in Christianity. With as much wisdom might 
 you try to unite the poles, or to bring east and west together. 
 It is not at all a case, in which, by mutually explaining, and 
 softening down, the sentiments of the contending parties may be 
 made to meet, or even to approxim.ate. It is mere childish af- 
 fectation of liberality, to talk as if they could. The two systems, 
 which of them soever be the right or the wrong, stand as antipo- 
 des to each other, with the whole world between them. If it be 
 Christianity, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are God, equal 
 wdth the Father, and entitled to supreme adoration and homage ; 
 that man is a fallen, guilty, and depraved creature, and, as such, 
 utterly incapable of obtaining acceptance with God, on the 
 ground of his own obedience, or righteousness ; that the great 
 design of Christ's coming into the world was, to atone for human 
 guilt by the sacrifice of himself; and that his sufferings and 
 death were thus vicarious and expiatory, and his resurrection 
 from the dead the evidence of their efficacy, as well as the pledge 
 of life to all who trust in his finished work ; that the influence of 
 the Divine Spirit is necessary for the illumination of the under- 
 standing in the things of God, and for the renovation and pro- 
 gressive sanctification of the soul ; that the present life is the 
 only period during which sinners of the human race can be 
 brought to " repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord 
 Jesus Christ," and to consequent salvation ; that the good works 
 of believers form no part of the ground of their justification be- 
 fore God, and their enjoyment of eternal life, but, they them- 
 selves being previously "accepted in the Beloved," their works 
 also, springing from a heart renewed by grace, are accepted and 
 approved, as fruits and evidences of that " faith which worketh 
 by love :" if these, and other kindred doctrines, be Christianity, 
 how, in the name of common sense, is it possible, that their op- 
 
posites should be Christianity too ? Is it not infantile weakness, 
 for the abettors of either of these opposite systems to be angry 
 with the supporters of the other, because they decline giving 
 them the appellation of Christians ? Why are we to convert 
 this sacred name into a mere epithet of unmeaning compliment? 
 The inconsistency is equal on both sides. It is just as absurd 
 for Mr. Yates to bestow it on me, as it would be for me to be- 
 stow it on him. If my opponent be a Christian, I am a deluded 
 idolater, miserably deceived in the object of my worship, and 
 the foundation of my hope ! Why should we disguise this mat- 
 ter, and delude ourselves and one another, by taking a name in 
 common, when we have hardly a principle in common 1 I am 
 quite prepared for the ordinary charge of illiberality and narrow- 
 mindedness. But the charge, in such a case, has no foundation 
 in Scripture, or in common sense ; and I therefore disregard it, 
 and cheerfully yield the world's plaudits to those who, so unphi- 
 losophically, as well as so unscripturally, confound under one 
 common term, things so essentially different. 
 
 Mr. Yates speaks in a much more sensible and manly man- 
 ner, in his sermon " On the duty and manner of deciding the 
 more important religious controversies," than in the extract from 
 his " Vindication," which has led to these observations. There 
 we find nothing about the differences of sentiment being " much 
 less than is commonly supposed," or consisting in " dim points, 
 and dusky distinctions," Of the controversy respecting the 
 Trinity, he there says ; — " In its immediate views, it involves no 
 less a question than that concerning the proper object of supreme 
 worship : in its connexions and results, it leads to the most in- 
 teresting and important inquiries respecting the character of 
 God, and the capacities, duties, and hopes of his creatures :" 
 (page 8.) and afterwards : " Ardently interested to discover the 
 import of this Divine revelation, they will esteem it their duty to 
 study the Scriptures seriously, judiciously, and impartially, in 
 order to ascertain whether Jesus Christ has directed men to 
 worship the Father as the only true God, or whether he has also 
 directed them to worship himself and the Holy Spirit, as equal 
 ?o the Father in power and glory. No t-vo opinions can he more 
 
3M 
 
 opposite and disiinct. Upon so important and fundamentai a 
 question, the language of revelation cannot he ambiguous. On 
 whatever side the error lies, it is an error of great magnitude. All 
 these considerations will weigh with the reflecting Christian, to 
 engage him in the diligent and impartial examination of this 
 question." Page 13. 
 
 If it be so, (and I heartily concm- in the sentiment) that " on 
 so important and fundamental a question, the language of reve- 
 lation cannot be ambiguous," does it not follow, and ought not 
 the consequence deeply to impress all our minds, that those, 
 whosoever they be, who differ from revelation, must be wilfully 
 and criminally blind ? What, then, shall we make of the senti- 
 ment, (so prevalent and so well fitted to lull the mind in perilous 
 security) that " under the government of a Being infinitely wise 
 and good, it is impossible that the everlasting happiness of man- 
 kind should depend upon the perception of such dim points and 
 dusky distinctions ?" — Here, too, let Mr. Yates himself furnish 
 the corrective : — "What regard," says he, in his sermon already 
 referred to, " will, at the judgment seat of Christ, be paid to our 
 opinions, considered apart from our dispositions and our prac- 
 tice, we are not, perhaps, very clearly informed. It is certain, 
 however, that the general tenor of the JVew Testament annexes the 
 greatest importance to firmness and purity of faith, as a medium of 
 everlasting salvation: — and, as clear and correct conceptions 
 upon the principal truths of religion contribute greatly, in the 
 present state, to improve the moral character, and to extend the 
 benevolent, and exalt the devotional, afiections, we may reason- 
 ably conclude, that they will also produce a very sensible effect 
 upon our welfare and advancement in the heavenly world.''^ P. 14. 
 Let me then warn my fellow Christians, to beware of every attempt, 
 however imposing and plausible, to seduce their minds into a 
 light estimate of essential truths. Deeply impressed with the ho- 
 liness and justice of God ; the purity and righteousness of his law, 
 in its requirements and in its sanction ; the unutterable malignity 
 and demerit of sin ; and the guilt and helplessness of your state 
 as sinners ; — you have felt your need of such a salvation as the 
 gospel makes known ; a salvation, wrought by a Divine Saviour,^ 
 
3S5 
 
 suited, in its freedom, to your state as unworthy sinners^ and 
 adequate, in its greatness, to the full extent of your guilt ; a sal- 
 vation, in perfect harmony with the demands of the Divine law, 
 " magnifying and making it honourable ;" a salvation, in full 
 accordance with all the attributes of the Divine character, "glori- 
 fying to God in the highest." Let me beseech you, then, " that 
 with purpose of heart ye cleave unto the Lord." — " As ye have 
 received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him ; rooted and 
 built up in him, and stablished in the faith as ye have been taught, 
 abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil 
 you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, 
 after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him 
 dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are com- 
 plete in Him."* While men continue so insensible to the cor- 
 ruption of their nature, and to the extent of their sinfulness and 
 guilt, as to fancy that their good life is to be the ground of their 
 acceptance with God, and their final salvation, it is not to be 
 wondered at, that they should feel no need for an atonement, for 
 the grace of a Divine Saviour, and the enlightening and renew- 
 ing influences of a Divine Spirit. Let a Unitarian once be 
 brought to see himself aright, in the glass of the Divine word, 
 and he will, at the same moment, feel the inadequacy of his sys- 
 tem to the awful exigencies of his situation, and will " flee for 
 refuge, to lay hold upon the hope set before him" in the gospel. 
 In this " Reply," I have purposely confined myself to two 
 leading articles of discussion, namely the Trinity, and the su- 
 preme Divinity of Jesus Christ. — This has arisen, not from 
 any idea that the other points of difterence in this controversy 
 are less susceptible of an easy and solid defence, but from a 
 conviction, that, if these points are admitted to have been satis- 
 factorily established, the admission of the others will follow of 
 course ; — first, because the adoption and application of the same 
 general principles of reasoning, which have been employed in es- 
 tablishing the one, will immediately conduct to the same conclu- 
 sion respecting the other ; and secondly, because there is such a 
 harmonious connexion of parts in the system of Divine truth, and 
 puch a measure at least of the same harmony in the system also of 
 
 ^ Col. ii. 6—w. 
 
 42 
 
B26 
 
 error, that the reciprocal transference, from the one to the other, 
 of any one in the series of differential articles, would immediate- 
 ly introduce confusion and self-contradiction into both ; whereas,, 
 on the other hand, we learn from experience, as well as from the 
 nature of the thing, that if any one of these leading articles of 
 distinction, in either system, be once fairly received into the 
 mind as a part of its creed, the rest, in one shape or another, 
 will follow in its train. The mind that is satisfied of the divinity 
 of Christ, is not likely to resist the same claim on behalf of the 
 Holy Spirit, or to hang long in suspense over the pages of the Bible, 
 respecting the great and fundamental doctrine of atonement. So 
 intimately^ indeed, are these parts of the Christian system inter- 
 woven with each other, that the evidence which directly estab- 
 lishes each, may be fairly considered as bearing indirectly, yet 
 forcibly, on the establishment of the rest. 
 
 I have hitherto declined, and I must still adhere to the same 
 line of procedure, entering on any discussion of the opinions of 
 the Fathers, with a view to ascertain the doctrine of the primitive. 
 or apostolic church. There is nothing in Mr. Yates' chapter on 
 the " prevalence of Unitarianism in the early ages of the Chris- 
 tian church, «S2;c." which is likely to startle, even for a moment, 
 the mind of any reader, who is at all conversant with this branch 
 of the subject. Intelligent readers will be disposed, I think, to 
 consider it as one of the flimsiest portions of his volume, and will 
 only marvel, that, with so very little to say, he should have touch- 
 ed this topic at all ; and still more, that he should have presumed 
 on setding, in two or three pages, a question uhich hadcost oth- 
 er learned men the labour of volumes. — Referring my readers, 
 who may have inclination and patience to prosecute this inqui- 
 ry, to such works as those of Lardncr and Priestley on the one 
 part, and Horslcy and Jamieson on the other, 1 shall dismiss the 
 subject, with two or three brief general remarks. 
 
 Mr. Yates alleges, that " although Mr. Wardlaw declines en- 
 tering upon the question respecting the faith of the primitive 
 Christians, in various parts of his volume he takes it for granted 
 that the early church was Calvinistic, thus clothing his doctrines 
 in the venerable vestments of anlifjuity, and countenancing them 
 
327 
 
 by tlie authority of those who had the best opportunities for re- 
 ceiving them in their unaduUerated simplicity." (Page 259.) — i 
 know not to what particular parts of my volume, my opponent 
 may here refer. My object, all along, has been to show, that the 
 doctrines of the original Apostolic Churches, as these doctrines 
 are laid down in the Scriptures themselves, were not Unita- 
 rian, BUT the contrary. In endeavouring to establish this, 
 I defy Mr. Yates to show that I have taken any thing for grant- 
 ed. I have made my appeal to the Bible ; and, if I have suc- 
 ceeded in making good my point from that source of evidence, I 
 willingly relinquish to other hands (fully confident, however, as to 
 the result) the investigation of the varying opinions of succeed- 
 ing times. The only " venerable vestments of antiquity" in 
 which I feel any desire to clothe my doctrines, are the white 
 robes of apostolic authority : and, instead of searching for my 
 creed among the scanty and uncertain documents of early 
 ecclesiastical history, I wish to go myself, and to conduct my 
 readers, to the only fountain of uncontaminated truth : instead 
 of travelling out of ray way, to consult vague and equivocal 
 oracles, misled by the plausible assurance, that," they had the 
 best opportunities of receiving the doctrines of Christianity in 
 their unadulterated simplicity," I lay my hand on THE BIBLE, 
 and say, Here we have these doctrines, " in their unadulterated 
 simplicity ;" and " on questions so important and fundamental, 
 the language of revelation cannot be ambiguous." 
 
 There is another ground, on which I feel myself justified in 
 letting the inquiry into ecclesiastical antiquity alone. Mr. Yates 
 says respecting it, " This inquiry is, in its results, almost as fa- 
 vourable to Unitarian principles as the examination of the Scrip- 
 tures themselves.'''' (P. 276.) If, therefore, I have succeeded in 
 showing how very unfavourable the latter is, why should I trou- 
 ble myself with the former ? 
 
 " Although, therefore," says Mr. Yates, (page 282) " I con- 
 cede to Mr. Wardlaw, that his doctrine has been supported by 
 all the governments of Christendom since the end of the fifth 
 century, I maintain that this circumstance tells little indeed in 
 its favour." And so do I, most stoutly. I make as little ac- 
 
328 
 
 count of the support of earthly governments to any system of 
 doctrines, as furnishing either evidence or presumption of their 
 truth, as Mr. Yates can possibly do : and, having never made 
 any reference whatever to such authority, I make him welcome 
 to take back his concession, and even (of so little value do I 
 esteem it) to place it, if he can, to the credit of Unitarianism. 
 
 " During the four first ages," adds he, " we have the most 
 abundant evidence that Unitarianism was the only acknowledged 
 form of Christianity." And then, on the credit of this assertion, 
 supported by the flimsy evidence aforesaid, he sets the trump 
 of fame to his lips, and sounds a eulogy of Unitarians, trium- 
 phantly proclaiming the obligations of the whole Christian world 
 to their purity, and faithfulness, and zeal, which, under this false 
 name, is a just and eloquent tribute to the memory of apostles, 
 and primitive Christians, and early martyrs. To them let the 
 reader apply it, with a thankful and admiring heart : — 
 
 ^'To Unitarians, then, we are indebted for the preservation 
 of the gospel, when its very existence was threatened by the 
 fiercest persecution. They were Unitarians, who not only adorn- 
 ed Christianity by their lives, but defended it by their deaths. 
 Without their eflforts and sacrifices, the Scriptures would have 
 been destroyed, the gospel lost. In short, to them, under God, 
 we owe almost all the religion and virtue, which now exists in 
 fhe world. I humbly conceive," adds the enraptured panegyrist, 
 (and his claim on behalf of his party is not certainly extravagant, 
 If all this be true) " I humbly conceive, that these facts should 
 produce, in Christians of every sect, some respect for Unitarian- 
 ism."—" These facts /" " Aye," but, " there's the rub." If 
 these were facts. Unitarians would be entitled to a great deal 
 more than '-'- some respect.'^'' If " Christians of every sect" were 
 convinced that these were '■^ facts,''"' they would be " Christians 
 of every sect" no longer : ihe'w respect for Unitarianism would 
 be such, that they would become Unitarians themselves. But, 
 unfortunately, they have more than their doubts about " these 
 facts,^'' and are disposed to think, that Mr. Yates and his friends 
 would require to make out their point a little better, before they 
 venture to claim for Unitarians all the purity of gospel light, all 
 
329 
 
 the beauty of primitive holiness, all the mighty results of early 
 zeal, and all the crowns of triumphant martyrdom. If such was 
 the character of Unitarianism of old — '" Oh ! how fallen, how 
 changed !" Let " Christians of every sect^' be on their guard : 
 and let them take home to themselves, with the necessary altera- 
 tions, the appropriate admonition addressed by Mr. Yates to 
 "the Unitarians of modern times" — " inciting them to emulate 
 all the great and amiable virtues of these first members of their 
 sect, to guard against a second corruption of their principles, 
 and to maintain, v.ith zeal, sincerity, and mutual affection, that 
 great cause, in which so many thousands of their primitive breth- 
 ren expired." 
 
 Within these few years, the Unitarians have attempted to make 
 an inroad on the educational prejudices and errors of Scotland ; 
 and they have been very active in prosecuting their object. 
 They have instituted " the Scotch Unitarian Christian Associa- 
 tion ;" of which the fourth anniversary has lately (in the begin- 
 ning of last month, May 1816,) been held in this city. Its 
 objects, briefly stated, are, the preservation of correspondence 
 and union among Unitarian Societies ; the pecuniary assistance 
 of such Societies as may require it, for the support of public 
 worship ; the maintenance of Unitarian missionaries ; and the 
 circulation of Unitarian tracts. Were we to take their own ac- 
 counts of the success which has attended their exertions, we 
 should certainly think it had been very considerable. The 
 readers of their annual Reports, however, had better make a little 
 inquiry before they admit into their minds, as facts, those con- 
 ceptions of the numbers and the prospects of the party, which 
 they are carefully framed to produce. Either the writers of 
 them are adepts in that species of quackery, which puffs off the 
 extensive reception experienced by its nostrums, for the encour- 
 agement of others to come forward and buy ; or else, they have 
 very thoroughly learned the Scripture lesson, " not to despise 
 the day of small things." In the Report of the third annual 
 meeting held at Edinburgh in May 1815, we are informed, m<er 
 «/?a, that " delegates were present from Glasgow, Paisley, Car- 
 luke, Dundee, Crieff. Dunfermline. &:c." and that, " besides con- 
 
330 
 
 oregations having been established at Glasgow, Edinburgh, Car- 
 luke, Paisley, and Dundee, there were many friends to the cause 
 at Aberdeen, Arbroath, Blackford, Crieff, Dairy, Falkirk, Galla- 
 shiels, Greenock, Hamilton, Jedburgh, Kilwinning, Kirkaldy, 
 Lanark, Melrose, Newburgh, Perth, Port-Glasgow, Saltcoats, 
 Tillicoultry, kc. kc. The letters from these places were then 
 read. The accounts from most of them were verj^ encouraging, 
 and gave additional motives to the friends of the Institution to 
 proceed in the good work they had begun." 
 
 This is, no doubt, a somewhat formidable list ; and when a 
 person reads of delegates and congregations, and very encouraging 
 accounts, he is apt to be not a little startled. If any reader, 
 however, in guessing at the amount of meaning conveyed by 
 such words, shall be disposed to conjecture, respecting any one 
 of the places enumerated, — '■'■ per adventure there may be fifty 
 found there,''"' he may come down to forty, and thence, perhaps, 
 to thirty, before he reaches the highest number ; and when he 
 has descended to twenty, and to ten, he will not have arrived at 
 the lowest. One of the towns mentioned as having a delegate 
 present, was left, I have been informed, empty of its Unitarian- 
 ism, when the said delegate took his departure to attend the 
 meeting. Invited for this purpose to Edinburgh he complied 
 with the invitation, and appeared there as the representative of 
 — himself! — and gave withal, it may be presumed, a " very en- 
 couraging account" of the progress of Unitarianism in the place 
 •where he had got and given his commission of delegation. In 
 another of these towns, there has been discovered a solitary old 
 woman professing Unitarian principles, who is not acquainted 
 with any " of that way" in the place, besides herself. In more 
 places than one, although they have made several attempts to 
 gain a footing, their success has been so very small, that inquir- 
 ers after them have hardly been able to discover their existence ; 
 from which, (as it is not, in general, their nature, to " blush un- 
 seen,") we may, I presume, infer, that in such places they are 
 not at least in sufficient numbers to keep one another in counte- 
 nance. In several of these stations I have heard of three, in one 
 of five or six, in another of from eight to twelve, in another of 
 
331 
 
 seventeen, in another of twenty ; the largest number of which t 
 have heard in any place is between twenty and thirty, and even 
 this only in one instance ; and some of the persons included in 
 the number, hardly avowed Unitarians, but only " tanquam sus- 
 pecti.^^ The inquiries which have produced such results, have 
 been made at the most considerable of the places enumerated, 
 which it is, perhaps, more than justice to take as a standard for 
 the rest. Double, if you please, the amount in every one of 
 them ; and still, surely, there must be some little quackery, in 
 puffiing them off as " very encouraging accounts." 
 
 I do not mention these things, because 1 think there is no 
 ground for apprehension, or because I am disposed to contemn 
 and set at nought their efforts. No one who knows his own heart, 
 and who believes the Bible account of human nature, will feel 
 confidence in saying, respecting any error whatever, in any giv- 
 en circumstances, that there is no danger of its making progress. 
 *' No human voice," Mr. Yates rejoices, " can say, Halt ! to the 
 march of intellect." But alas ! this is true of its retrograde, as 
 well as of its advancing, march ! " There is a way which seem- 
 eth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." 
 A man may call evil good, and good evil, may put bitter for sweet, 
 and sweet for bitter, may put darkness for light, and light for 
 darkness." The very " light that is in him may be darkness." 
 He may turn his back on the confines of truth, and make hasty 
 and haughty strides into the regions of error, exulting in the con- 
 fidence that " no human voice can say, Halt !" to his progress. 
 There is not, perhaps, a single point of error, to which there is 
 not some corresponding point in the variety of human corrup- 
 tion ; — some principle or passion to which it presents a tempting 
 gratification. One of the great leading tendencies of the Unita- 
 rian system is, the exaltation of man. It flatters the conscious 
 dignity of his nature, by treating as " an old wives'-fable" the 
 doctrine of original depravity. It flatters his pride of intellect, 
 by making Reason the arbitress of the dic-tates of Revelation. — 
 It flatters his pride of self-righteousness, by assuring hira, that 
 his own virtue is to procure his acceptance with God. By de- 
 nying the deity and atonement of Christ, it releases the mind 
 
irom the overwiielming impression of the infinite malignity of siii» 
 By exhibiting " a God all mercy," softening down the " terrors 
 of the Lord," and proclaiming an assurance, that none shall 
 finally perish, but that all shall ultimately arrive at the enjoy- 
 ment of everlasting happiness, it alleviates the sinner's appre- 
 hension of danger, makes him feel more at his ease with God, as 
 a Being whose countenance, instead of the frown of an offended 
 Judge, wears towards all his creatures the smiles of paternal 
 love, and who will not be severe to mark or to punish the frail- 
 ties of his erring children. By denying the existence and influ- 
 ences of the Holy Spirit, it offers incense to the self-sufficiency of 
 man, and to the omnipotence of human resolutions and human 
 efforts, in working out a self-procured salvation. 
 
 If these things be so ;— -if Unitarianism be thus consonant with 
 so many of the principles of corrupt nature, how comes it to pass 
 that it does not meet with a more general reception ? That its 
 converts are comparatively few ; that, with not many exceptions, 
 its preachers proclaim their doctrines to empty pews and echoing 
 Walls; — are matters of uncjucstionable notoriety. Why is it sa? 
 It is all owing, Unitarians will say, to the strength of early pre- 
 judice, to the natural predilection of the human mind for marvels 
 and mysteries, and its consequent aversion to the simplicity of 
 reason and truth. That, in some instances, such causes do ope- 
 rate, it would be unreasonable to deny. That religion is, with 
 too many, a matter of educational prejudice, and not of personal 
 inquiry and personal experience, cannot, alas ! admit of a doubt. 
 And it is equally true, that some minds are fond of mystery, and 
 like every thing the better the more mysterious it can be render- 
 ed. But there are causes, I apprehend, of more extensive and 
 powerful operation. 
 
 The first of these is, the very pretension of Unitarianism to be 
 the doctrine of the Bible, The whole system of its general prin- 
 ciples, and particular tenets, stands so plainly and diametrically 
 opposed to the clearest dictates of the sacred volume, that this of 
 itself is enough to disgust ninety-nine in the hundred of all who 
 are able to read. They shake their heads and say, " No, no ; 
 this will never do. True or false, this is not the doctrine taught 
 
333 
 
 in the Bible : — these men should honestly confess that they did 
 not learn their system there, and either abandon it, or renounce 
 revelation." — " Your system," might a Deist say to a Unita- 
 rian — " Your system is no doubt free of most of the mysterious 
 absurdities of orthodox theology. It is much more rational and 
 manly, and approaches to the simplicity of our own creed. But 
 why impose upon us, and impose upon yourselves, by calling it 
 the system of the Bible ? Your eyes have been opened to see the 
 falsehood and folly of that contradictory jargon, that is received 
 as gospel by simple, or unhappily prejudiced, believers. One 
 reason of our rejecting the pretensions of the Bible as a Divine 
 revelation, is, that it does^ beyond all reasonable question, con- 
 tain the doctrines which you have had the good sense to disa- 
 vow. But, to be consistent, you must go a step farther. Reject 
 the book ; and, giving up all your attempts to torture it into con- 
 sistency with your more rational sentiments, frankly confess, that 
 the doctrines which it contains are enough to sink it, and all its 
 evidences, together." There may be many things in a scheme 
 of doctrine very palatable to human corruption, and, in so far, 
 calculated to procure for it an extensive reception ; while yet 
 there is such a palpable and flagrant opposition between it and 
 the book from which it professes to be taken, as at once to shock 
 the judgment of the great majority of men, cftectually to counter- 
 act their wishes for its truth, (if such they may secretly have 
 formed) and to ensure its general rejection. On this ground, 
 the speculative acquaintance with the contents of the Bible, which 
 pervades Scotland, (even although so extensively heartless and 
 inefficacious) will form one strong barrier to the progress of Uni- 
 tarian principles among its population. 
 
 But beside, there are wants in the condition of mankind^ 
 which Unitarianism does not meet. However reluctant men 
 may be to acknowledge themselves utterly " lost," and " without 
 strength ;" yet there exists a prevailing consciousness of sin, and 
 guilt, and condemnation. The gospel, in its exhibitions of an 
 atoning Mediator, meets this natural feeling. There is an ob- 
 vious congruity between the general idea of such a Saviour, and 
 the secret dictates of conscience in the human breast. In some, 
 43 
 
3^34 
 
 ihese dictates, becoming powerful and awakening, lead the sin- 
 ner, through the blessing of God, to a glad and grateful recep- 
 tion of the free salvation which is offered to him in the gospel. 
 In others, they are repressed and resisted ; the love of sin and of 
 the world maintains the ascendency, and opposes the result to 
 which a consciousness of guilt might otherwise lead. Yet, while 
 sin and the world have the vote of the heart, this vote is given in 
 opposition to certain secret intimations of the judgment. The 
 understanding does not, from conviction, join in the course which 
 the heart pursues, but is only kept at bay ; and such persons, 
 although, from unwillingness to " crucify the flesh with its affec- 
 tions and lusts," they do not embrace the gospel, yet still perceive 
 the harmony between the general idea of a guilty and condemned 
 sinner, and the general idea of a mediating and atoning Saviour, 
 and would consider any thing else than the gospel, as unsuitable 
 and tantalizing. Even those, (and they are not few,) who at- 
 tempt an unscriptural compromise between the freedom of gospel 
 grace, and dependence on their own fancied deservings, refusing, 
 with the air of offended pride, to renounce the latter, while yet, 
 along with them, they are fain to retain the merits of a Saviour, 
 to serve as occasion may require, if, unfortunately, the balance 
 should dip on the wrong side, and the scale of their sins outweigh 
 the scale of their virtues ; even they will be the enemies of a 
 system which entirely sweeps away from them this convenient 
 resource. — And with regard to the immense multitude, the larg- 
 est class of all, who pass through life v/ith the vacuity of thought- 
 less indifference as to all that relates to religion, toiling in the 
 businesses of this world, absorbed by its pleasures, or amusing 
 themselves with its vanities, it is not likely that many of them 
 will put themselves to thp trouble of inquiry. They will pursue 
 their wonted course, leave those whom it may concern to settle 
 religious controversies ; and, with all the magnanimity of infatu- 
 ated folly, let eternity shift for itself. When such persons have 
 been attracted by the novelty and the imposing pretensions of 
 Unitarianism, and have been induced to embrace the profession 
 of its principles, we have heard Christians utter expressions of 
 surpri.'-.e and grief. There is, perhaps, little cause for the latter 
 
335 
 
 leeling ; and there is still less for the former. Why should we 
 be surprised that worldly men should embrace a system, which 
 amalgamates so well with the world, and the adoption of which 
 can hardly be said to imply any transition from one state, or from 
 one course, to another ? And as to grief — we may be grieved, 
 indeed, that they have not embraced better principles, but we 
 can hardly be grieved, surely, that they have not continued what 
 they were. Even the excitement of thought, is, I should think, 
 a favourable point gained. Subsequent consideration may. 
 through the Divine influence, lead them to another mind. 
 
 But it is, above all, to the providence and the grace of God 
 that we must look, for the prevention of the progress of error. — 
 The Unitarians are very boastful of their " day of small things" 
 in Scotland. Long may it continue such ! long, I trust, it shall 
 continue such. It is not of their doctrine that God hath said, 
 " It shall accomplish that which I please, and prosper in the 
 thing whereto I sent it." It is not to their " planting," or to 
 their " watering," that he has promised to " give an increase." 
 They have sown their " handful," not of " corn," but of tares ; 
 and they are looking for a plentiful crop. But " the Lord of the 
 harvest," we trust, will disappoint their expectations. Their 
 seed wants the showers of Divine blessing ; and never, either on 
 the mountains or in the valleys of Caledonia, shall it " shake 
 with prosperous fruit." It shall be " as the grass on the house- 
 tops, which withereth before it groweth up ; wherewith the mower 
 filleth not his hand, nor he that bindeth sheaves, his bosom." 
 
 Far different, however, are the sanguine anticipations of Mr. 
 Yates : — " Considering," says he " the clear, abundant, and un- 
 answerable, evidence to the truth of the Unitarian doctrines, the 
 tolerant and liberal spirit, the diffusion of information upon gen- 
 eral subjects, the habits of inquiry, and the turn for speculation, 
 as well as the usual good sense, which prevail among the middling 
 and lower orders of society throughout Scotland, it appears to 
 me, that the extensive propagation of Unitarian sentiments may 
 reasonably be expected." (Page 292.) The Scottish people, 
 that is, are all that is good, and Unitarianism is all that is good ; 
 therefore Unitarianism must needs find favour in the eyes of the 
 
Scottish people. If, indeed, the evidence to the truth of Uniia- 
 rianism were as " clear, abundant and unanswerable," as Mr. 
 Yates affirms it to be, the excellences ascribed to our country- 
 men would, no doubt, eminently qualify them for discerning and 
 appreciating its force ; but if, as we have endeavoured to show, 
 the evidence be the contrary of all this, the same excellences, 
 happily, will equally well fit them for the detection of its falla- 
 cies, and for estimating the validity of its refutation. 
 
 " The only material cause," in Mr. Yates' judgment, " which 
 is likely to obstruct the progress of Unitarian principles in Scot- 
 land, seems to be this ; that, as many of those who embrace 
 Unitarian principles will be men more disposed to inquire after 
 truth, than to apply it steadily to practice when found, and as 
 the discussion of controverted questions in theology, has a natural 
 tendency to weaken the devotional feelings, the converts to Uni- 
 tarianism may become careless and indifierent about their reli- 
 gious duties, and adopt habits of useless, roving speculation, to 
 the neglect of their hearts and lives." (Page 292.) In what he 
 immediately adds, he is clearly in the right, and is entitled to 
 credit for his candour : " Instead of concealing this formidable 
 evil, it is infinitely wiser to bring it fully into view, so that we 
 may be on our guard against it." But the admission made in 
 the first clause of the preceding extract, is particularly deserving 
 of attention : — " many of those who embrace Unitarian principle Sj 
 will be men more disposed to inquire after truth, than to apply it 
 steadily to practice when found.^^ This singular admission, it is 
 presumed, must be founded either in the nature of the thing, or 
 in past experience. And whether the one, or the other, or both 
 of these, be the ground on which it rests, it seems evidently to 
 imply, that there is something about the Unitarian system which 
 recommends it more to the head of the roving speculatist, than 
 to the heart of the humble and devout inquirer ; to the zoould-be 
 theologian, and the metaphysical amateur, rather than to the 
 man who is " renewed in the spirit of his mind," and desirous to 
 '* perfect holiness in the fear of God." In this view, the admis- 
 sion harmonizes remarkably with the style in which former Unv 
 arian writers have expressed themselves : — 
 
337 
 
 " It cannot be denied," says Dr. Priestley, " that many of those 
 who judge so truly concerning particular tenets in religion, have 
 attained to that cool, unbiassed temper of mind, in consequence 
 of becoming more indilferent to religion in general, and to all the 
 modes and doctrines of it." — " Men who are indifferent to the 
 practice of religion," says Mr. Belsham, " and whose minds, 
 therelbre, are least attached to any set of principles, will ever be 
 the first to see the absurdity of a popular superstition, and to 
 embrace a rational system of faith." — And do not these admis- 
 sions, and that of Mr. Yates, still correspond, in a remarkable 
 manner, with existing facts ? Who are, in general, the converts 
 to Unitarianism ? Do they not still, as when Mr. Fuller pub- 
 lished his comparative view of the Calvinistic and Socinian 
 Systems, consist chiefly of " a speculating sort of people among 
 professing Christians .^" — Where are the hardened sinners whose 
 consciences it has awakened ? Where are the profligates whom 
 it has reclaimed ? Where are the worldlings whom it has spir- 
 itualized ? Where are the Jews, the Deists, the infidels, whom 
 it has brought to the faith and obedience of the truth ? And, 
 even with regafd to those who have, from time to time, gone 
 over to its adherents from the various denominations of profess- 
 ing Christians, what improvement, we may ask, has the transi- 
 tion produced ? Has it increased their humility ? Has it warm- 
 ed and elevated their devotion ? Has it purified their affections 
 from the debasing alloy of the world, and made them more heav- 
 enly-minded ? Has it enlivened their delight in communion with 
 God, and heightened their attachment to the exercises of the' 
 closet, the family, and the sanctuary ? Has it rendered them 
 more thankful in prosperity, more resigned and patient in adver- 
 sity ? Has it enlarged their practical benevolence ;' Has it 
 made them more " fervent in spirit" for the glory of God, and 
 the good of men ? — more " sober, just, holy, temperate ?" — bet- 
 ter husbands and wives ; better parents and children ; better 
 brothers and sisters ; better masters and servants ; better mem- 
 bers of society ; — in a word, better men. than they were before ? 
 — I make my appeal to the consciences of these converts to 
 Unitarianism themselves, and, with all humility and affection. 
 
338 
 
 intreat them to examine themselves, and to compare, in their 
 own experience, the respective tendencies of the system which 
 they have renounced, and of that which they have espous- 
 ed. And I make my appeal, at the same time, to all my fellow 
 Christians who have had any opportunities for personal obser- 
 vation. " Among the various Socinian converts, have we ever 
 been used to hear of any remarkable change of life or behav- 
 iour, which a conversion to their peculiar principles effected ? I 
 hope there are few Calvinistic congregations in the kingdom, but 
 what could point out examples of persons among them, who, at 
 the time of their coming over to their doctrinal principles, came 
 over also from the course of this world, and have ever since lived 
 in newness of life. Can this be said of the generality of Socin- 
 ian congregations ? Those who have had the greatest opportu- 
 nity of observing them, say the contrary. Yea, they add, that 
 the conversion of sinners to a life of holiness, does not appear 
 to be their aim ; that their concern seems to be, to persuade 
 those who, in their account, have too much religion, that less will 
 suffice, rather than to address themselves to the irreligious, to 
 convince them of their defect."*' 
 
 If the efficacy of Unitarianism, as an instrument of moral and 
 spiritual improvement, is to be estimated by the effects which it 
 is seen to produce among ourselves, we shall be at a loss for 
 grounds to account for, or to justify, the recent eagerness of its 
 proselyting spirit. Differences of sentiment, in the opinix)n of 
 niost Unitarians, are of little essential account in the matter of 
 salvation ; and conversion to the principles of Unitarianism, has, 
 it would appear, no such influence upon the converts as to make 
 any material change for the better in their character. Whence 
 then, the active zeal of its friends ? To what is this zeal direct- 
 ed ? What valuable ends do they expect to accomplish by it ? 
 
 * Fuller's " Calvinistic and Socinian Systems examined and compared, as to 
 their Moral Tendency ;" a work which cannot be too often or too strongly re- 
 commended to the attention of the reader ; a work, to which the palm must still 
 be assigned among the productions of its able and lamented author; a work "to 
 which," in the language of Dr. Johnson respecting Lord Lyttleton's observations 
 on the conversion of Paul, Unitarianism " has never yet been able to frame even 
 '1 specious " answer." 
 
Of what mighty consequence is a mere change of sentiment and 
 profession, if the change does not materially, if at all, affect, eith- 
 er the safety or the character of him who undergoes it? Those ." 
 who hold the divinity and atonement of Christ and the doctrine 
 of acceptance with God through his merits and mediation, are 
 consistent in their zeal, because they consider these Scripture 
 truths as essentially connected with the salvation of sinners ; 
 because they can look around on their congregations, and, enu- 
 merating in their minds the various characters who " shall not 
 inherit the kingdom of God," can say with Paul, " Such were 
 some of you ; but ye are vvashed, but ye are sanctified, but ye 
 are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of 
 our God ;" and because they expect the same renovations of heart, 
 and transformations of character, as the result of " the preaching 
 of the cross," in " every kindred, and tongue, and people, and 
 nation." — But where are those trophies of Unitarian success — 
 where those evidences of Divine blessing upon their labours, by 
 which they are incited to " compass sea and land to make one 
 proselyte ?" We cannot allow them to go back for these to 
 apostolic times ; to take for granted the Unitarianism of the 
 primitive church j to claim for their party all the early triumphs 
 of the cross ; and, on this ground, to exult in the anticipation of 
 triumphs yet to come. Unitarianism, according to Mr. Yates, 
 was then " unadulterated ;" that is, as he afterward explains the 
 term, " unincumbered and unobscured by Trinitarian errors." 
 But does not Unitarianism appear, in the system of Mr. Yates 
 and his friends, sufficiently divested of these errors, — sufficiently 
 " unadulterated ?" And, as similar causes, operating upon 
 simliar materials should produce similar effects, might we not 
 reasonably expect to see some of the same results arising 
 from the propagation of unadulterated Unitarianism in our 
 own day, which are alleged to have arisen from it in day* 
 of yore ? The tree must be known by its present fruits. If 
 these fruits are not the same with those which grew of old, we 
 may be assured that Unitarianism is not a slip of the true vine. 
 Wherever that has been plartted, its fruits have been invariably 
 the same. 
 
340 
 
 Mr. Yates -'conbiders Unitarianism as the remedy which In- 
 finite Wisdom has provided for all moral evil ;" and expresses 
 his conviction, that no unbiassed mind can " doubt its sufficiency 
 to accomplish this purpose, when properly understood and ap- 
 plied."* In bringing this estimate of Unitarianism to the test 
 of fact, he iirst of all refers to the wonderful changes produced 
 by it in the state of society, while it was yet unadulterated." 
 But this, as I have just noticed, we consider as more than debat- 
 able ground. We claim it distinctly and decidedly for the op- 
 posite system ; and substantiate our claim by a direct appeal to 
 apostolic testimony in the Scriptures ; the only sure way of as- 
 certaining the doctrines by which the " wonderful changes" in 
 question v/ere really produced. He next appeals to " the bene- 
 fits which its principles have continued to diffuse through the 
 world, even while incumbered and obscured by the addition of 
 Trinitarian errors."! But, in opposition to this, we have two 
 counter appeals. First, to Scripture : If these " Trinitarian 
 errors'*'' have been successfully shown to be Scriptural truths, to 
 them must those benefits be imputed, which Mr. Yates represents 
 them as having impeded, and Unitarianism as having produced 
 in s])ite of their counteracting influence* Secondly, to fact : 
 The benefits referred to by Mr. Yates, are those which have ac- 
 crued to the world from the propagation of Christianity in the ages 
 subsequent to the primitive. Now what, in point of fact, have 
 been the doctrines chiefly insisted upon by those who have fol- 
 lowed the apostles in " turning the world upside down ?" Have 
 they been the points in which Unitarians and Trinitarians are 
 agreed ? Or have they not rather been those on which they are 
 toto corIo at variance ? Have not the depravity, guilt, and con- 
 demnation of mankind, the deity and atonement of the Saviour, 
 justification by grace through faith in his merits and sacrifice, 
 and the enlightening and sanctifying agency of the Divine Spir- 
 it ; have not these, and such as these, been the great themes of 
 preaching, wherever any material effects have been produced on 
 
 * Dedication of Sermon on the duty and manner of deciding religious con- 
 troversies. 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
341 
 
 the personal characters and the social condition of men ? Has 
 it not been that " preaching of the cross" which is, by Unitari- 
 ans, as well as by the philosophers of this world, esteemed fool- 
 ishness, that has all along proved " the power of God unto salva- 
 tion ?" It is silly, indeed, to speak of Unitarianism with the ad- 
 dition of Trinitarian errors ; as if, in their substrata, in their fun- 
 damental articles, the two systems were the same, and the pro- 
 pagation of Trinitarianism were only the propagation of Unita- 
 rianism with the accompaniment of certain erroneous additions ; 
 whereas, in fact, they are so completely dissimilar, as to consti- 
 tute different religions ; and the successful propagation of the 
 one, whichsoever it be, must be the entire subversion of the 
 other. 
 
 But Unitarianism has been disincumbered of these " addi- 
 tional errors," and has been brought to the test of fact and ex- 
 perience, in what its advocates declare to have been its primitive 
 simplicity : and where, we again ask, is any thing resembling 
 ih^ '-'• wonderful changes'''' yi\iic\\ it is so confidently alleged to 
 have effected " in the beginning of the gospel ?" Are its weapons 
 now, as of old, " mighty through God, to the pulling down of 
 strong holds, casting down imaginations, and every high thing 
 that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing 
 into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ ?"* It 
 has as yet, indeed, only been tried at home — in Christian coun- 
 tries. Let it, then, be tried abroad. Carry it far hence unto 
 the heathen. Let active zeal send forth its missionaries to the 
 regions of darkness and of the shadow of death, I will not ask 
 for instantaneous and extensive revolutions in the views and 
 characters of men ; for altars overturned, temples deserted, and 
 bonfires of magical books. These, I should be told, distinguish- 
 ed the days of miraculous evidence. But I will ask, first of all, 
 for the manifestation of apostolic benevolence and apostolic zeal, 
 among those who arrogate to themselves the exclusive possession 
 of apostolic principles, — of the gospel in its original purity and 
 -implirity. Paul's " spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the 
 
 "^ 2 Corinthians x. 
 
 44 
 
M2 
 
 city (Athens) wholly given to idolatry." Let us see some stir- 
 rings of this deep concern for the glory of a dishonoured Deity, 
 and of this melting compassion for the souls of deluded and per- 
 ishing men. Can those principles be the same with Paul's, 
 which allow the professors of them to sit still in listless apathy, 
 while they view a world given to idolatry ? making no attempts 
 themselves to turn men from idols to the living God, and derid- 
 ing, as visionary enthusiasm, the missionary efforts of others ? 
 
 It is useless to ask for the effects of such attempts, while the 
 attempts themselves have not been made. But the preaching of 
 " Christ crucified" — the preaching of a Divine Redeemer, aton- 
 ing for the guilt of men by the sacrifice of himself, has been tried, 
 and has not been tried in vain. The effects produced have been 
 the same in kind, although more limited in their extent, with 
 those which resulted from the labours of the first preachers of 
 the cross. The gospel has been proved " its own witness." It 
 has found a testimony in the consciences, and has opened and 
 entered the hearts of men of every kindred, and tongue, and 
 people, and nation. It has been " the rod of the Redeemer's 
 strength," by which he has established his reign " in the midst 
 of his enemies." At this moment, through the zealous exertions 
 of his servants, who are fighting this " good fight of faith," the 
 people are " falling under him " in willing subjection. Over 
 many of those who were " filled with all unrighteousness, forni- 
 cation, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness ; full of envy, 
 murder, debate, deceit, malignity ; whisperers, backbiters, haters 
 of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil thii>gs, diso- 
 bedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, 
 without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful ; who, knowing 
 the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are wor- 
 thy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them 
 that do them :"* over many such, happily, we have reason to 
 adopt the language of the apostle of the Gentiles, " God be 
 thanked that ye were the servants of sin : but now, being made 
 free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit 
 unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."t Instead of bring- 
 * Romans i. 29—32. + Romaas vi. 17, 22. 
 
343 
 
 ing forward such eftects as these to prove the identity of the 
 Unitarian with the apostolic doctrine. Mr. Yates speaks of his 
 /' witnessing, in the conduct of many of its professors, its admira- 
 ble efficacy to cherish all the noblest and best affections, and to 
 advance human nature toward its highest excellence."* I am 
 not, as may be presumed, personally acquainted with many of 
 the professors of Unitarianism. The character of my opponent 
 himself, I rejoice to say, is one which I have never heard a lip 
 opened to accuse or to slander. I believe it to be, as to moral 
 deportment, highly correct and exemplary. Beyond himself, I 
 would rather be silent ; as I do not wish to point injurious reflec- 
 tions, or to excite invidious comparisons. I leave it to my read- 
 ers, according to the extent of their personal knowledge, and 
 their opportunities of information, to form their own judgment, 
 as to the " admirable efficacy" which is ascribed by Mr. Yates 
 to the Unitarian doctrines. Of the excellent persons to whom 
 he alludes, I know nothing, and shall therefore say nothing ; fur- 
 ther than to observe, that the moral characters of many of the 
 Unitarians, perhaps of some of the best among them, have been 
 formed previously to their embracing the sentiments of that par- 
 ty ; and of such, the excellences, whatever they may be, are 
 not fairly imputable to the influence of their new principles. 
 But even as to them, and as to the body at large to which they 
 have joined themselves, report speaks very falsely, if they be in 
 general distinguished for that godliness, devotion, and spirituality 
 of mind, which stand so prominent in the characters of the saints 
 of holy writ. It were unreasonable, indeed, to expect that it 
 should be otherwise, if what Mr. Yates says be true, that 
 " many of those who embrace Unitarian principles, will be men 
 more disposed to inquire after truth, than to apply it steadily to 
 practice when found." — " If Unitarians," he adds, " in the midst 
 of that joy which often overpowers them upon the first breaking 
 in of the light, be careful not to split upon this rock ; if they be 
 as anxious to improve their hearts, as to inform their understand- 
 ings ; if they not only strive after the attainment of correct ideas, 
 but attend yet more to the cultivation of the devotional, the moral, 
 * Dedication to Sermon, &c. as before. 
 
344 
 
 and the sympathetic feelings, kc. &:c. ; then Unitarianism will 
 assuredly triumph over the united opposition of prejudice, inter- 
 est, and passion ; it is gone forth conquering, and to conquer,'* 
 (Vindication, pages 292, 293.) The admonitions thus tendered 
 are excellent : but the supposition that makes them necessary, 
 does not say much for the spiritual nature, or the regenerating 
 influence, of Unitarianism, What sort of "%A<" must this be, 
 the entrance of which into the mind exposes the heart to the dan- 
 ger of being forgotten ? Of what description is this overpower- 
 ing joy, which is so entirely unconnected with the devotional and 
 the moral feelings, as to produce the imminent hazard of their 
 being overlooked and neglected ? Is it not the joy of a man of 
 science upon a new discovery, rather than the joy of a sinner on 
 finding a Saviour ? The light of the gospel is holy light ; the 
 joy which it inspires, holy joy. The truth as it is in Jesus makes 
 its way to the heart, with gladdening, no doubt, but, at the same 
 time, with humbling and purifying, influence, at the same instant 
 that it enters the understanding. It prostrates the soul in self- 
 abased and grateful adoration. It fills the eyes with the min- 
 gled tears of penitential sorrow, and of sacred and animated de- 
 light, — the " peace of God that passeth all understanding," — 
 " the joy of God's salvation." Instead of leaving the sinner in 
 danger, " in the midst of the joy that overpowers him," of for- 
 getting that he has a heart to be rectified, as well as an under- 
 standing to be enlightened, " the entrance of God's word," while 
 it " givcth light," is the invariable means of " renewing the spirit 
 of the mind," and turning the heart to God. 
 
 But to enlarge on the practical tendencies of the two systems 
 <)i doctrine, would lead me to write another volume ; and the 
 ground has been pre-occupied to incomparably better purpose in 
 the work of Mr. Fuller, before referred to. I shall conclude my 
 remarks on this topic, with two short extracts from that admira- 
 ble publication : — 
 
 " Let us examine more particularly what sort of people they, 
 in general, arc, who are converted to Socinianism. It is an ob- 
 ject worthy of inquiry, whether they appear to be modest, hum- 
 ble, serious Christians ; such as iiave known the plague of their 
 
345 
 
 own hearts ; in whom tribulation hath wrought patience, and pa- 
 tience, experience ; such as know whom they have believed, 
 ajid have learned to count all things but loss for the excellency 
 of the knowledge of Jesus their Lord ; such as, in their investi- 
 gation of sentiments, have been used to mingle earnest and hum- 
 ble prayer, with patient and impartial inquiry ; such, in fine, a's 
 have become as little children in their own eyes ? If they be, it 
 is a circumstance of consequence, not sufficient, indeed, to justify 
 their change of sentiments, but to render that change an object 
 of attention. When persons of this description embrace a new 
 set of principles, it becomes a matter of serious consideration, 
 what could induce them to do so. But if they be not, their case 
 deserves but little regard. When the body of converts to a sys- 
 tem are mere speculatists in religion, men of little or no serious- 
 ness, and who pay no manner of attention to vital and practical 
 religion, it reflects neither honour on the cause they have espous- 
 ed, nor dishonour on that which they have rejected. When we 
 see persons of this stamp go over to the Socinian standard, it 
 does not at all surprise us ; on the contrary, we are ready to say, 
 as the apostle said of the defection of some of the professors of 
 Christianity, in his day, ' They went out from us, but they were 
 not of US.'' " 
 
 "Will Dr. Priestley undertake to prove, that a loose, dissipated, 
 and abandoned life, is a more general thing among the Cahinists, 
 than among their opponents ?■ I am persuaded he will not. He 
 knows that the Calvinists, in general, are far from being a dissi- 
 pated or an abandoned people, and goes about to account for it ; 
 and that in a way that shall reflect no honour upon their princi' 
 pies. ' Our moral conduct (he observes) is not left at the mercy 
 of our opinions ; and the regard to virtue which is kept up by 
 those who maintain the opinions above-mentioned, is owing to 
 the influence of other principles implanted in our nature.'"^ Ad- 
 mitting this to be true, yet one would think the worst principles 
 will, upon the whole, be productive of the worst practices. They 
 whose innate principles of virtue are all employed in counteract- 
 ing the influence of a pernicious system, cannot be cxpcrtcd to 
 * CoDsid. on Diff. Opin. ^ III. 
 
34(5 
 
 form such amiable characters, as where those principles are not 
 only left at liberty to operate, but are aided by a good system. 
 It might, therefore, be expected, I say again, if our principles be 
 what our opponents say they are, that a loose, dissipated, and 
 abandoned life, would be a more general thing among us than 
 among them. 
 
 "1 may be told, that the same thing, if put to us, would be found 
 equally difficult : or that, notwithstanding we contend for the su- 
 perior influence of the Calvinistic system to that of Socinians, 
 yet we should find it difficult to prove, that a loose, dissipated, 
 and abandoned life, is a more general thing among Socinians, 
 than it is among Calvinists. And I allow that I am not sufficient- 
 ly acquainted with the bulk of tiie people of that denomination, 
 to hazard an assertion of this nature. But if what is allowed by 
 their own writers (who ought to know them) may be admitted as 
 evidence, such an assertion might nevertheless be supported. — 
 ' Rational Christians arc often represented (says Mr. Belsham) 
 as indiffi?rent to practical religion.' Nor does he deny the jus- 
 tice of this representation, but admits, though with apparent re- 
 luctance, that ' there has been some plausible ground for the ac- 
 cusation ;' and goes about to account for it, as we have seen in 
 Letter IV. •, in such a way, however, as may reflect no dishonour 
 upon their principles. The same thing is acknowledged by Dr. 
 Priestley, who allows that ' a great number of the Unitarians of 
 the present agis, are only men of good sense, and without, much 
 practical religion ;' and that ' there is a greater apparent confor- 
 mity to the world in them, than is observable in others.' Yet 
 he also goes about to account for these things, as Mr. Belsham 
 does, in such a way as may rejiect no dishonour upon their princi- 
 ples* It is rather extraordinary, that when facts are introduced 
 in favour of the virtue of the general body of the Calvinists, they 
 are not denied, but accounted for in such a way, that their prin- 
 ciples must share none of the honour ; and when facts of an op- 
 posite kind are introduced in proof of the want of virtue among 
 Unitarians, they also are not denied, but accounted for in such a 
 way, that their principles must have none of the (Ziihonour. Cal- 
 vinism, it sorm'?, must be immoral, though Calvinists be virtuous,. 
 
347 
 
 and Socinianism must be amiable, though Socinians be vicious. 
 I shall not inquire whether these very opposite methods of ac- 
 counting for facts be fair or candid. On this, the reader will 
 form his own judgment : it is enough for me that the facts ihem^ 
 selves are allowed."* 
 
 In anticipating the prevalence of Unitarianism in Scotland, 
 Mr. Yates is commendably anxious to " prevent those divi- 
 sions in churches, dissensions in families," and other inciden- 
 tal evils, that are likely, in many cases, to accompany a change 
 of religious sentiment. He deprecates, and all should unite 
 with him here, every attempt to suppress heresy by pei-secuting 
 statutes, (a measure, by the way, which, whatever Bishops may 
 advise, the government of the country has of late laudably shown 
 the very opposite of an inclination to adopt ;) as well as all ig- 
 norant misrepresentation, and angry and terrifying remonstran- 
 ces. And then, with all due formality, and preparatory eulogy, 
 he brings forward his own healing, or rather preventive, meas- 
 ure. The measure, in sooth, is this : — " That the General As- 
 sembly of the Church of Scotland should no longer enforce sub- 
 scription to the Westminister Confession of Faith ; at least, that 
 they should permit exceptions to be made to so much of it as re- 
 lates to the Trinity, and thus allow conscientious Unitarians to 
 become ministers in the Establishment, upon the same footing 
 with Trinitarian candidates." — This measure, gentle reader, is 
 recommended, with all gravity, as " simple, easy, righteous, and 
 conciliatory," and as one " which, after calm and attentive delib- 
 eration, all wise, and most good, men, will cordially approve:" 
 that is, (since all such good men as are at the same time ~mse arc 
 comprehended under the first denomination) which all will ap- 
 prove, except a few weak minded enthusiasts, whose hearts are 
 better than their heads. I have not heard that the hint. Urns 
 modesdy given, has been adopted by any of the wise, that is of 
 the moderate, party in the Establishment ; that any overture has 
 been proposed in any of the Presbyteries or Synods, for trans- 
 mission to the General Assembly ; or that the matter has, in any 
 
 * The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems examined and compared, &c. Sixtli 
 Edition, Letter IV. pages 57, 58, and Letter VI. page? 110—112. 
 
348 
 
 shape, been brought under the notice of that '• venerable Court.' ^ 
 Either the case must be considered as a hopeless one, or there 
 must be less wisdom zx\f[ goodness in the Establishment, than Mr. 
 Yates anticipated. — He seems, indeed, to have better hopes of 
 the Dissenters than of the Church. " If that much respected 
 body," says he, " shall not see fit to pass an act to this effect, I 
 am not without hopes, that the example will be set them by some 
 of the sects of Presbyterian Dissenters, those taking the lead 
 who are most distinguished by their attachment to the Scriptures 
 in preference to creeds of human invention." Does Mr. Yates, 
 then fancy, that the Dissenters are less firmly attached to what 
 they profess to consider as the great and essential articles of the 
 Christian faith, than the clergy and members of the Established 
 Church ? — And is it his opinion, that this attachment is likely to 
 be loose and unsteady, in proportion as Christians are hostile to 
 subscription to " creeds of human invention ?" In both these 
 fancies he will find himself mistaken. The Presbyterian Dissen- 
 ters have been eminently instrumental in preventing the progress 
 of error, and maintaining the purity of gospel doctrine, in Scot- 
 land. And although I dissent from some points of doctrine and 
 modes of expression, in the Confession of Faith to which they 
 profess adherence, and also, on grounds which I need not at pre- 
 sent state, from the propriety of subscription to human creeds at 
 all ; yet, I trust, they will never submit their articles to be mend- 
 ed by these soi-disant rationalists, and accommodated either to 
 the taste or to the conscience of Unitarians. Before this can be 
 done, they must either have become " conscientious Unitarians" 
 themselves, or, which is certainly not much better, have brokcQ 
 terms with conscience altogether, and discarded her sacred au- 
 thority. How absurd to talk of adapting the Scottish Confession 
 of Faith to the conciences of both parties, by " permitting excep- 
 tions to be made to so much of it as relates to the Triniti/.^^ I 
 cannot but think how the metamorphosis would amaze the ven- 
 erable Divines of Westminister, before a conscientious Unitarian 
 could have done with his amendments ! — With regard to the In- 
 dependents and Baptists, who " pursue the principle of making 
 the Bible the only standard of their fuith and practice," although 
 
there has been a great deal too much among them of " strife and 
 debate" and division, about matters of comparatively inferior 
 moment, and although individuals have now and then displayed a 
 spirit of self-conceited speculation, and have " turned away their 
 ears from the truth ;" yet arc they united, and, by the influence 
 of time chastening and softening a disproportionate zeal about 
 smaller matters, they will become more and more united, in at- 
 tachment to the great doctrines that constitute " the glorious 
 GOSPEL of the blessed God ;" and will present a combined 
 front of opposition, wielding, in their holy warfare, " the sword 
 of the Spirit, which is the word of God," against the progress of 
 those, whom, with their views of the Bible, they must necessaril}" 
 consider as " enemies of the cross of Christ." 
 
 I have thus finished my task. I have " examined my oppo- 
 nent's work with all the freedom which a regard to truth re- 
 quires ;" and I now leave the decision betwixt us to those " im- 
 partial judges," to whom he has made " his confident appeal." 
 
 The talents of my opponent are highly respectable ; and so, 
 I believe, are his attainments in classical erudition, in philoso- 
 phy, and in general literature. His own estimate of the value 
 of these, and of certain other qualifications of a more adventitious 
 nature, may be learned from the Note at page 273, of his " Vin- 
 dication," respecting a Sermon published by the Rev. A. Sym- 
 ington of Paisley, on the same text with his own on " the grounds 
 of Unitarian dissent." While he speaks of that gentleman as 
 " possessing many qualifications for great respectability and 
 usefulness in the Christian ministry," he, at the same time, adds, 
 — " He does not seem to have the means, or the habit, of apply- 
 ing to those sources of information, by which alone it is possible 
 to determine the import of disputed passages of Scripture. I 
 humbly conceive, that ministers so situated, while they follow 
 their own judgment in the zealous and faithful use of the other 
 talents, equally important and valuable, with which they are 
 favoured by Providence, ought to leave the emendation of the 
 Greek text, the translation of it into English, and even, to a certain 
 degree, the interpretation of it, when translated, to those persons, 
 45 i 
 
»50 
 
 either among Unitarians or the orthodox, who, by the requisite 
 labour and study, have become intimately acquainted with the 
 original language of Scripture, and who are versed in the impar- 
 tial application of the sound and established principles of Bibli- 
 cal criticism." This, it will be allowed, is quite high enough. 
 With Mr. Symington I have not the pleasure of any personal 
 acquaintance. According to the testimony of others, however, 
 he was a front-rank m.an among his competitors at the Univer- 
 gity : — the sphere of his present labours does not certainly se- 
 clude him from easy access to various sources of aid in the re- 
 searches of Biblical criticism : — and the sermon referred to, dis- 
 covers talents that qualify him to avail himself of such means, 
 and is very far from warranting the supercilious sentence by 
 which Mr. Yates would interdict him this field of labour. How 
 far the judge who has pronounced the interdict, has shown him- 
 self " versed in the impartial application of the sound and estab- 
 lished principles of Biblical criticism," the reader is left to de- 
 termine from the preceding pages. 
 
 So far as I have ever heard, there has been but one opinion 
 respecting the proposal made by my opponent in his letter to 
 me, published at the end of his " Vindication," that I should 
 revise his manuscript, and make my animadversions, in a friend- 
 ly way, in his own pages. That opinion has coincided with my 
 own, as expressed in my answer to his letter : — and il is not 
 likely to undergo any change, when the extent of these animad- 
 versions is now perceived. Judging from the strain of his letter, 
 it would appear that Mr. Yates anticipated nothing at all like 
 this. He seems to have thought, either that his own work was 
 so irresistible, in the clearness and cogency of its reasonings, 
 that it could not fail to carry immediate conviction to the mind 
 of his opponent ; or that the diflerences between us were such, 
 that a few slight mutual explanations might be sufficient for their 
 removal ; — so that we might appear before the public, in a co- 
 partnery Volume, with all the courtly courtesy of reciprocal 
 concessions, and, at the close, in all the harmony of brotherly 
 agreement. I anticipated the reverse of all this, and have not 
 been deceived. 
 
351 
 
 In the prospectus of his " Vindication," my opponent adver- 
 tised the public, that he had spared no pains to make it decisive 
 of the questions under debate : and, at the close of the work 
 itself, besides the vaunting declaration that his exposure of the 
 defects of my former volume " must wholly destroy its credit in 
 the apprehension of all impartial judges," he thus also congrat- 
 ulates himself upon the issue of his labours : — " Every reader 
 will be able, by the cool and dispassionate examination of what 
 I have written, to decide for himself these momentous questions. 
 The impression made upon my own mind by considering the 
 various evidences, which I have brought together, is, that if it 
 be not certain that the commonly received doctrine of the Trini- 
 ty is false, there is an end of all religion, and no certainty upon 
 any subject." (Page 284.) — You, Reader, I hope, are of a dif- 
 ferent mind. 
 
 On the back of the tide page of his Sermon on the decision 
 of religious controversies, Mr. Yates has published the following 
 notice : 
 
 " I take this opportunity of correcting the following inaccu- 
 racies of statement, in my '■Vindication of Unitarianism.'^ They 
 are all that I have yet been able to discover. Any, which may 
 come to my knowledge hereafter, I shall in like manner rectify, 
 as soon as occasion is presented. Those w^ho have copies of the 
 ' Vindication,'' are requested to correct with the pen, as follows t 
 
 "P. 128, line 4th, from bottom ; erase, ' or any person,' and 
 
 " P. 1 30, erase the remarks immediately following John xiv. 
 16, 17. from ' In this passage,' to 'of the address.' For the 
 ground of this emendation, see John iii. 16. 
 
 "P. 180, 1. 14, for 'John Elwall,' read ' Edioard Elwall." 
 
 " P. 212, erase the Note. See Schleusner, ' V. n^es, No. 2." 
 
 If this, as I desire to believe, has i>een the dictate of a truly 
 candid mind, 1 trust that the same candour, upon the perusal of 
 the preceding reasonings, will lead to acknowledgment of errors 
 much more extensive and radical than these. 
 
 END.