»ISU,J|,„I|J.,,|, >,.IU i.t; !■ :.■ ■ WW mk'n ^nRV of pkinccto^ "^^OLDGICM St*^ •y3'75 185-3. A SEQUEL TO A VINDICATION OF UNITARIANISM; • IN REPLY TO DR. WARDLAJV S TREATISE ENTITLED, " UNITAR[ANISM INCAPABLE OF VINDICATION." BY THE AUTHOR OF THE "VINDICATION." ^econlr lEtiition. Stndy the best and highest things that are, But of tliyself an humble thought retain. Cast down thyself, and only strive to raise The glory of thy Maker's sacred name : Use all thy powers, that blessed Power to praise, Wliicli gives thee power to be, and use tlie same. Sir John Davief, I LONDON : Printed for the Author ; SOLD BY DAVID EATON, 187, HIGH HOLBORN J ROBINSONS, LIVERPOOL) J. BELCHER, BIRMINGHAM; J. BRASH AND CO., GLASGOW; AND R. IRELAMD, 58, SOUTH BRIDGE, EDINBURGH. PRICK THREE SHILLINGS. 1822. Printed by Gcurob Smallfielu, Hackney. ADVERTISEMENT ^cconD ^t)Uion, A NEW Edition of the following work having been called for, I have the satisfaction of presenting it to the public with a few slight alterations, and with the omission of some paragraphs, which ap- peared less important than the rest. To one subject it is necessary for rae now to advert, although I cannot do it without pain and deep regret. This is the conduct of my opponent, Mr. (now Dr.) Wardlaw. It is more than eight years since our controversy commenced, and 1 have uniformly spoken of him with every expression of esteem and respect, which I thought suitable to his talents and character. This he has returned, not only with frequent contumely, but with a charge of " wilful and de- liberate misrepresentation ;" and although I have, in Part III. Chap. IV. of the following work, completely justified myself from this ac- cusation, and have likewise, in the Advertisement to the Second Edition of my " Vindication of Unitarianisni," published more than four years ago, observed, that " I still looked to Dr. Wardlaw, as a man of honour and integrity," to correct his statements, he has ob- served a total silence. Although unconscious of any feeling adverse to his true honour and happiness, I wish to inform him, that I esteem my character as valuable as my life, and that 1 do not make much difference in point of turpitude between the roan who attacks the one, and him who traduces the other. Indeed every one will perceive, tiiat such behaviour as Dr. Wardlaw's must put a stop to all intercourse or respectful consideration on the part of such per- sons as have a regard to moral character 5 and this notice of it is evidently incumbent upon me as his opponent, since the force of all that I have written on my side of the controversy would be lost, if he could succeed in destroying my reputation for veracity. Let him not conclude however, that my sentiments towards hirn are unalter- able. Let him retract the charge, which he has kept for six years hanging over me, and which nevertheless, I am certain, he does not believe ; and let him do what his conscience must inform him that he ought to do, in regard to tlie other mis-statements and inaccura- cies, which he has committed. Then, but not till then, I shall be able to respect him as an honest man. In the mean time, I leave it to the attentive and impartial reader to judge between us. JAMES YATES. Bmn'mgham, Sept. 17, 1822. ERRATA. Page 35, last line, for * word,' read ivords. 44, line 14, for * p. 41,' read p. 33. 83, Note, for • also,' read always. Sold by the same Booksellers, A Vindication of Unitarianism, in reply to Dr. Wardlaw's Dis- courses on the Socinian Controversy. By James Yates, M. A. Second Edition, 1818, price 8*. In the press, by the same Author, Discourses on the Effects of drinking Spirituous and other In- toxicating Liquors. Second Edition, 12mo., 1*. Also preparing for publication, The Scriptural Meaning of the Title " Saviour" as applied to our Lord ; a Sermon preached July 28th, 1822, at the Annual Meeting of the Scottish Unitarian Association. CONTENTS. — ♦ — IxTKODUCTlpN. PART I. Chap. Page I. Manner of conducting the controversy 1 The investigation requires a calm rather than impassioned state of mind 2 — 5 Mr. WardLiu's Discourses were directed against all Uni- tarians • 6 II. The Author's reasons for defending only the general prin- ciples of Unitarianism • 7 Advantages of the constitution of Unitarian congregations as including both Arians and Socinians 9 The term Unitarian not intended to signify, that Trinita- rians believe in three Gods 11 III. Mr. Wardlaw charged all Unitarians with denying the In- spiration of the Scriptures 12 Dr. Priestley's language on the subject disapproved 13 His character illustrated by a quotation from Pindar • • • • ib. Use of Griesbach's text 14 His faith in the Divinity of Christ ib. IV. Mysteries understood by many Trinitarians as equivalent to Absurdities 15 Unitarians receive whatever is contained in Divine Revelation 18 Mr. W. used the word " Mystery" to denote propositions, to the terms of which distinct ideas are not attached* • • • 19 Sometimes to denote " difficulties" 21 Tendency of his principles to Universal Scepticism 22 Necessity of individual judgment ' 24 PART II. I. Propriety of adopting the plain, obvious, and prominent sense of Scripture 25 An opposite plan pursued by Mr. Wardlavv 26 Impropriety of employing a previously assumed hypothesis in order to detect the meaning of the Scriptures 28 Especially such an hypothesis as that cliosen byMr.Wardlaw 3 J II. The argument from John xvii. 5, unanswered 32 Use of DIA to denote the instrumental cause 33 Examination of passage?, in which Mr. Wardlaw supposes it to denote the primary cause • ih. VI CONTKNTS, Chap. Page Statements of the Lexicons 40 Authority of Origen 41 Ancient versions • 43 Mr. Wardlaw's apparent indifference about the accuracy of his quotations from the New Testament ib. Meaning of HYPO 44 Remainder of Mr. Wardlaw's animadversions on the Second Part of the " Vindication" 45 PART III. I. The reader cautioned against resentment and disdain.... 47 Brief view of the controversy on the nature and meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the evidence requisite to prove it 48 II. Mr. Wardlaw's objection to the argument for the unity of God from the light of nature 53 Proofs that the Plural Number is used in Hebrew to ex- press eminence 54 The use of us and our no proof of a plurality of persons in the Deity • • • ; 60 III. On the list of all the passages, regarded as containing full and direct assertions of aTrinity of Persons in the Godhead 62 Further remarks on Isaiah xxxiv. 16 63 ■ xlviii. 16 64 on Matt, xxviii, 1 9 ib. on 2 Cor, xiii. 14 G7 on Rev. i. 4 70 fIV. The doctrine of Christ's Divine and Human Natures self- contradictory • ib. This follows from the fact stated by Mr. Wardlaw as a proof of the contrary 71 Propriety and correctness of the list of eminent Unitarians 73 Dr. Whitby a Unitarian 75 And Dr. Watts • 77 The production of the list occasioned by Mr.Wardlaw himself 80 Unjust treatment of Unitarians, and inevitable progress of truth :•• 81 V. Grounds of the interpretation in its lower sense of the title "god,'' when applied to .Tesus 82 Causes of the resentment of the Jews when he said " / and my Father arc onCj' &c. 83 Propriety of his definition of "■ gods' as " those to whom the word of God came" 86 Additional examples of this use of the term* • • 88 The general principle, on which the Unitarian interpreta- tion of the term, when applied to Jesus, is vindicated. • 90 CONTENTS. Vll Chap. Page Isaiah ix. Ct 9 1 Mr. W'ardlaw's cliai«ie against Origeii and Eusebius of being ignorant of CJreek 92 MiddletoTi on the Greek Article y.'i Isaiah vii. 1 4, and Romans ix. .5 95 IJohn V.20 97 Supposed instances of the application of the title "Jeho- vah" to Jesus 98 M. John viii. 58 102 Heb.i.lOj Col. i. 17 103 Rev. i. S, 1 7, xxii. 13 1 04 Virtual presence of Christ with his disciples 105 His endowments as Judge of mankind lOG VII. Mr. Wardlaw's hypothesis of the two natures formerly combated 1 08 His limitation of the power and knowledge of God. •• • 16. VIII, Jesus the Angel who refused worship from John in the Revelation 110 Character and authority of Grotius, and of Le Clerc« • • • 112 Passages which speak of Christians as call'mg on the name of the Lord 114 Praise and petition addressed to Jesus solely out of regard to his exaltation by the Father 116 IX. Proper translation of Phil. ii. 6 118 Mr. AVardlaw's defence of his " general considerations" accompanied by a misrepresentation, which illustrates their impropriety 1 22 His account of Mr, Belsham's tract 123 Dr. Magee's assertion that that tract was published by the entire body of English Unitarians, &c. ib. X. Prevalence of Unitarianism in the Primitive Church •••• 125 Reports of the Scotch Unitarian Association «... 126 Obstacles to the progress of Unitarianism ib. Unitarians not inferior in moral and religious attainments to Calvinists 1 28 But ought to be greatly superior to them 1 29 Exhorted to self-examination, and to greater constancy and zeal in the duties of the Christian life - • • ib. INTRODUCTION. My object in the following work will be. Firsts to correct the in- accuracies, which I have been enabled to discover in my " Vindica- tion of Unitarianism," by the perusal of Mr, Wardlaw's Reply 5 and. Secondly, to defend the statements and reasonings, which I have advanced, where they appear to me to be partially represented, or unjustly attacked, by ray opponent. I make no pretension to secu- rity from errors 5 I am so far from feeling any unwillingness to ac- knowledge those, which I have been able to detect, that I think it my duty to bring them prominently into view, as the only means of atoning for my inadvertency, and preventing others from being mis- led by my want of information ; and I esteem it a great advantage to myself and to my readers, that the endeavours of an ardent, acute, and able disputant, to destroy the reputation and expose the falla- cies of my work, are likely to leave few errors unnoticed, and may thus be made subservient to what ought to be our only object, the attainment of Truth. But, whilst I am disposed to consider myself as under obligations to my adversary for making me sensible of the mistakes, into which I have fallen, I cannot avoid perceiving, that they are few and insignificant, compared with the great body of evidence, which remains unaffected. Unitarianism still stands like a mighty and majestic tower, to which all the efforts of its innumera- ble assailants cannot communicate even the slightest vibration. To its sacred and immortal interests I again devote myself, humbly im- ploring the Father of Lights, that, having called me in the course of his Providence to guard this honourable post, he would endue me with wisdom to discern, honesty to avow, and courage to maintain His Truth ) that he would guai'd my spirit from dictating any ex- pressions, unsuitable to the gracefulness, and purity, and dignity, of so sublime a theme ; and imbue my mind with that uniform temper of adoring submission to himself, and of tender affection to mankind,, which is the genuine result of a firm faith in ONE GOD, the bene- volent FATHER of his creatures. PART I. I DIVIDE this work into Three Parts, corresponding in the nature of their contents with the First, Second, and Third Parts of my former Volume. Tlie first part will consist of Observations, relat- ing to the Investigation and Evidence of Religious Truth. CHAPTER I. The acrimony of theological contests has been one of the principal means, by which the professors of Christianity have contributed to bring it into disrepute. It was my anxious desire to avoid this com- mon and disgraceful error. I wished to do all that lay in my power towards furnishing, in the controversy between Mr. Wardlaw and myself, the pleasing and edifying spectacle of two men, attached to their respective systems, giving one another credit for honesty and sincerity, defending their opposite opinions with clearness, with accuracy, and with strength of argument, but at the same time maintaining a spirit of candour and conciliation, and regarding one another with the sentiments of benevolence and esteem. Indaenced by such motives, I often expressed, with an undisguised freedom, my admiration of the talents and virtues of my opponent ; and, at the close of my volume, I declared my renunciation of every hostile feeling, and ventured to designate him as no longer my adversary, but " my friend." The correctness of this expression is called into question by Mr. Wardlaw, and combated by a consideration of the degree of intimacy and cordiality which is necessary to constitute B true friendship, * I can only reply, that the expression proceeded from the fulness of my heart ; that it was not intended to bear a critical investigation ; that it is sufficient to ask, in such cases. Is the emotion of the mind innocent and commendable ? and that, when the heart glows with a good feeling, the want of perfect accu- racy in the langn.age which it dictates, ought to be pardoned. But Mr. Wardlaw observes, that, although 1 have complimented him strongly and generously, I have brought against him various charges, the truth of which would render him unworthy of my esteem, or the esteem of any one else. I am not desirous of proving that my animadversions were never too severe ; they certainly were so, if they were in any instance more harsh than was absolutely requisite for the vindication of the truth. But it is probable, that my opponent and his partisans, being personally interested, may over-rate their keenness ; and it is evident, that they present a far more oflfensive aspect, when ranged by Mr. Wardlaw into a formida- ble phalanx, than when scattered through the volume from which he has collected them, and introduced in relation to particular parts of the argument. In several instances, as we shall notice hereafter, the truth of my charges is acknowledged by Mr, Wardlaw, and in many others, he has passed them over without attempting a refuta- tion. I still think, that they were in general well-founded j and yet I do not perceive, that I did wrong in regarding my opponent as an estimable man. Even great and good minds are liable to be betray- ed, in the heat of disputation, into false and uncandid statements. I never suspected Mr. Wardlaw, as he has accused me, of wilful and deliberate falsehood ; but, knowing his ardent and impetuous zeal in the cause he had espoused, I conceived him to be hurried into bitter- ness and misrepresentation, which in his more sober moments he would disapprove. A-s the best nvethod of avoiding such indecencies, and as an ob- vious and necessary precaution in the pursuit of truth, I have recom- jnended, that, in discussing the evidence of religious doctrines. * Unit. Incap. of Vindication, pp.. 1, 2. f ancy , feeling , and passion, should be suppressed, and i\\e judgment preserved as cool and clear as possible. * On tins ground I have condemned the eloquent declamation and fervent pleading, which Mr. Wardlaw has employed through a large part of his Discourses, in place of the simple statement of facts and arguments. I have main- tained, that such glowing appeals can only serve to confirm the mind in its preconceived opinions, whether true or false, and ought not to be employed^ until the conlroversif is terminated, when the passions may properly aid the understanding in applying to practice the truths, which have been ascertained. To this Mr. Wardlaw replies, that the controversy was terminated in his own tnind.f The question is, AA'as it terminated in the minds of his hearers ? Mr. Wardlaw's Discourses are composed upon the supposition, that it was not. His volume is professedly a work of investigation ; not designed to enforce the discharge of duty upon ascertained principles, but to inform the understanding concerning the evidences of disputed doctrines, and thus to assist in guiding it to the reception of the truth. Accordingly, in concluding his series of Discourses, he says, " My sole object has been to vindicate and establish important scrip- tural truth." This object was doxibtless deserving of all the atten- tion he could bestow upon it. But he ought to have kept it distinct from the other object of "persuading men," by exciting in them feelings and desires upon the presumption that the truth was already established. By neglecting this important distinction, Mr. Wardlaw, as it appeared to me, greatly diminished the value of his Discourses to all readers who might go to them with a desire to judge of the truth of his doctrines, and not with a resolution to be confirmed in the belief of them. I have already given it as my opinion, that, in the ordinary dis- courses delivered for the edification of his flock, a preacher ought to take his doctrines for granted, and to adopt, in the application of them to practice, an affectionate, fervent, and animated strain. But in sermons preached, or books published, simply for the purpose • Vind. of Unitarianisni, pp. 3, 4, 36, 37, 245.. t Unit. lucap. of Vindicaliou, p. y. of instruction, especially if they be upon subjects iu themselves highly interesting, and therefore not requiring any embellishraent to excite attention, but every caution to prevent the riseof turbulent passions, I still maintain, that the style of the reasoner and the critic ought to be adopted, — a style, calm, correct, deliberate, and dignified. The person who enters upon such a discussion, ought to avoid either the feeling, or the expression, of astonishment, scorn, or dis- gust, and, in writing, the vulgar appendage of frequent notes of admiration. By omitting the latter, Mr. Wardlaw has in the volume now under review evinced his usual good sense ; but upon the former point he still adheres to his previous habits. He does not appear to discern, that, in sustaining the character which he has asi- Sumed in this controversy, he stands in a very different situation from the man, who is addressing a jury in a court of law, or a crowd at a popular election. In these cases, tones of surprise, expres- sions of pity, exaggerated statements, ludicrous portraits, and men- tal reservations, may be expected ; the avowed intention of each ora- tor being, as such affairs are usually transacted, to bring his hearers over to his own side of the question, whether true or false. But, when a man comes before the public, as Mr. Wardlaw has done, * solemnly declaring, that TRUTH is the simple and exclusive aim of his Inquirv, he ought to be the first object of his own astonish- ment and pity, if he attempts to rouse the ardent feelings and secta- rian antipathies of his readers, instead of simply endeavouring to instruct their understandings by the serious, dispassionate, and impartial examination of the evidence, which is produced on each side of the disputed question. Another consideration, which has often seriously impressed my own mind, is this : Many persons, observing that ray opponent and I, although presumed to be acquainted with the original languages of the Scriptures, and to enjoy every requisite for discovering their signification, are, nevertheless, unable to agree between ourselves upon their most important and fundamental doctrines, will be dis- posed to infer, that the Scriptures themselves are full of obscurity, • Discourse?, p. 99. and that that cannot be a Revelation from God, the very import of which it appears so difficult to determine. This conclusion may be false : — it is false. But it will be regarded by many as certainly true. Ought not we, then, who conduct the discussion, to be most deeply affected by that awful responsibility which appears to involve, not tlie interests of Orthodoxy or Unitarianism merely, but the acknowledgment of the divine origin of Christianity itself? In such a situation, I feel it to be incumbent upon nic to retract, as quickly and as publicly as possible, every error into which I have •fallen : to make every just and reasonable concession, however unfa- vourable to the consistency and stability of my own opinions j in translating any passage of Scripture, to give the e.vact sense of the original words, although, taken by themselves, they should appear to present the most formidable objection to Unitarianism, or even to Christianity ; and, through the whole investigation, to labour to free my mind from every prejudice and false seduction, to suppress every emotion of pride, resentment, or party-spirit, and to preserve a single eye to truth, duty, and the approbation of God. I have charged Mr. Wardlavv with employing, in the defence of his doctrines, " a kind of management and generalship, which a votary of truth would scorn." I have said, that in various instances he has represented the proofs which he has brought forward, as an example of what he might adduce, although he had nearly or entirely exliausted his store ; and I have specified six cases particularly."* These cases Mr. VVardlaw has omitted to notice. He has merely denied the general charge ; and, after having promised f " various additional proofs," has shown that he might have produced more arguments to establish the single doctrine of the divinity of Christ, J a fact, which I was not so ignorant of the subject as to call in question. My accusation stands uurefuted ; and, even if it had been expressed in those terms, to which Mr. Wardlavv has accommodated hisi. reply, I should still think that he had offered an exaggerated • Vmd. of Unharianisin, pp. 4, 5, 139, 144, 158, 167, 189, 202. f See Advertisement to the Second Edition of his Discoursef* X Unit, of Incap. of Vind. pp. 364—378- statement of the strength of his cause in professing to pursue a PLAN OF sKLECTioNj when the evidence which he passed over was so much less in amount than that which he employed; Perhaps my language was unnecessarily offensive, when I accused Mr. Wardlaw of endeavouring to render Unitarianism odions, " by bringing into notice every thing absurd or dangerous that was ever written by a Unitarian." But I am not satisfied with his reply, that he was writing against Socinians, and, in exposing their sentiments, took his extracts from their principal writers. * The general strain even of Socinian f authors is exceedingly opposite to the spirit of the passages which Mr. Wardlaw has cited. But the fact is, that his Discourses, though entitled " Discourses on the Socinian Con- troversy," are directed against all Unitarians. They contain a defence of the Trinitarian doctrine in opposition to Arians as well as Socinians, and the sentiments of the former are repeatedly con- demned as equally unscriptural with the opinions of the latter. In conducting this general attack, Mr. Wardlaw has selected some of their boldest conjectures from the two writers | among Socinians, who have probably pushed to the greatest extreme their departure from the orthodox standard, and he has represented these as the doctrines held by the great body of the Unitarians. If he was writing, as he asserts that he was, " against Socinians" he ought to have aimed simply at the subversion of Socinianism 3 if against Unitarians, he ought not to have confounded their doctrines with the peculiarities of Socinianism, and certainly not with sentiments received by a small number even among Socinians. § • Unit, of Incap. of Vind. p. 11. t I use the term Socinian to denote all Unitarians who deny the pre-exist- ence of Christ. In this sense the word is commonly understood, and seems to be uniformly employed by Mr. Wardlaw. If the reader prefer Humanitarian^ or any other term, he may substitute it in place of Socinian wherever the latter occurs. X Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham. See Discourses, pp. 166—172, &c, &c. § Although it is ray intention to say little or nothing upon the temper and spirit in wliich Mr. Wardlaw has composed his last publication, I must not With respect to the remark of Judge ('ooper, I am satisfied, if it be understood by our readers, that it tvas not the remark of a Unitarian. Previously to the explanation which has now taken place, there can be little doubt that the contrary opinion would be suggested by the circumstances in which it was introduced by Mr. Wardlaw. 4 CHAPTER II. Our author repeatedly expresses his opinion, that, besides vindi- cating the general principles of Unitarianism, which was the object of ray work, I ought also to have explained in it my own particular sentiments respecting the person of Christ* " Mr. Yates," says he, " has accused me of management and generalship. I 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 j I mean the impossibility of discovering from his book, what his own sentiments are." — To have stated my own particular opinions would have been open and manly. — Why ?— Of course, because they would have been liable to be attacked. Now this was precisely the thing I wished to avoid. I was employed in writing a "Vindication of Unitarianism." omit to notice his repetition of the very same species of misrepresentation of which I complained in his Discourses. In the work now under review, if not in the former, he certainly professes to write, not against Sociniaus merely, but against Unitarians in general. He nevertheless persists in bringing forward a great variety of obnoxious opinions as the principles of Unitarianism, although they have been held bi/ a small number only among the Sociniaus. See Unit. Incap. of Vindication, pp. 380, 383, 391, 392, 395, 404. If Unitarianism were such a system as is here represented, never would I have written in its vindica- tion. But every candid inquirer will probably regard it as a considerable jire- sumption in favour of the doctrine, which I have vindicated, that Mr. Wardlaw should have recourse to such a method of bringing it into disrepute. • Unit. Incap. of Vind. pp. 15—18, 199, 201, 229, 267. To its evidences I wished the attention of the public to be directed, perfectly confident, as I am still, that a conviction of its truth would arise in many readers from a careful and dispassionate perusal of the controversy ; I had observed the disposition in Mr. Wardlaw'a party, (strikingly manifested by their publication of a trifling pam- phlet of Extracts from Dr, Magee,) to draw off the minds of inquirers from the great questions in debate, and to occupy them with frivo- lous discussions upon minute points of doctrine, maintained by a few Unitarians, represented as the tenets of the whole body, and thus calculated to preserve the fabric of orthodoxy by inviting to themselves the assaults which might occasion its speedy demolition ; and I had not a doubt, that if I simply declared my opinion upon any minor topic, I should be dragged into a tedious and unprofitable dispute upon it to the neglect of my proper and avowed object. The design of my volume being the .defence of Unitarianism, 1 was careful not only to admit into it no sentiment which I do not myself fully believe, but also to admit no general doctrine, and no expli- cation of any particular passage, to which every Unitarian of every degree of deviation from the orthodox faith might not give his assent. None of my interpretations from Scripture are adapted to the diS' tinciivc peculiarities either of Arianism or Socinianism. Mr. Ward- law's assertion is therefore utterly false, that " whenever I have found myself pinched by a text on the Socinian hypothesis of the mere manhood of Christ, I have had recourse to the Arian view of his pre-existence." At the same time, his conclusions are equally unjustifiable, that I " consider it as a matter of little or no conse- quence, whether Jesus was the first and most exalted of creatures, or a mere man, the offspring of Joseph and Mary," and that I ''regard the Scriptures as leaving this point quite unsettled." Upon all proper occasions, I freely state either my opinions or my doubts. But I shall not sacrifice the opportunity of bringing into discussion the great principles of Unitarianism for the purpose of obtaining the praise of " manly openness and decision." Mr. Wardlaw further expresses his apprehension, that " my at- tempt to please every body will end in pleasing no body ; and that most, if not all, both of Socinians and Arians, will be dissatisfied 9 vvitli what llioy \\\\\ consider as a compromise of important tnitli." I solemnly assure Mr. VVardlaw, that I wrote my work, " not as pleasing men, but God who trieth the heart." Nevertheless, through his blessing, and the candid indulgence of my readers, it has been received on both sides of the Atlantic with an approbation far exceeding any hopes which I could have ventured to indulge; and one of the circumstances, upon which this approbation has been chiefly grounded, is the omission of all doctrines except the general principles of Unitarianisui. Indeed it was impossible for me, in defending the opinions of Unitarians, to employ any other method. Among them Arinns and Socinians, and even Arian and Socinian ministers, arc continually meeting together as members of the same congregations ; and in every part of the world where they exist, they are, I believe, accus- tomed to unite in all the works of Christian faith and charity. Did I not confidently expect, 1 should earnestly hope and desire, that they may never separate into distinct denominations. Many express precepts of the New Testament, * and the whole spirit of the gospel, require us to avoid divisions. They are disgraceful to Christianity ; they tend to prevent the exercise of the pious and benevolent affections ; among Trinitarians they have unhappily produced the most bitter animosity and cruel persecution. Let those, who worship one God, the Father, and serve one master, the Lord Jesus Christ, be for ever united by one spirit of devotion and love. The great purpose, for which we meet together as members of religious societies, is to perform Divine worship. It is therefore evidently necessary, that we be agreed respecting the object, to whom our worship is addressed. Hence we are unavoidably con- strained to separate from our Christian brethren of Trinitarian sen- timents, preserving, however, the respect due to the talents, the piety, and the virtues, which we observe among them, wishing them the blessing of God in. every good work, desirous of their advance- • See Rom. xii. 16, xiv. 1, xv. 7, >:vi. 17 ; 1 Cor. i. 10—1:5, iii. 3— 2:{, xii. 12 —31 ; 2C(>i. xiii. 11 ; Gal. v. \?,—2{\, &f. &c. &c. 10 raent in knowledge and in holiness, and praying that by the serious and impartial study of the Holy Scriptures they may be brought tO' the exclusive worship of the One True God. Conscientious Unita- rians cannot possibly perform the duties of social worship in places, where supreme adoration is paid to two persons, whom they do not believe to be God. In them such a practice would be idolatry, and a profanation of the Sabbath, But, having separated from Trinita- i-ians, and being agreed that tub Father is the being, whom men ought to worship, they are under no necessity to separate any further. Whilst Unitarians, notwithstanding their differences of opinion upon minor topics, maintain the spirit of unity and mutual affection^ they may avoid contracting a careless indifference to truth. Indeed, their constitution furnishes them with singular advantages in pur- suing it, because a change of sentiment, founded upon inquiry, is not attended with a painful separation from former religious con- nexions : and while, by uniting as worshippers of the Father only, they are free from those impediments to further investigation, which would arise from a subdivision into parties, they have every oppor- tunity of assisting one another by friendly discussion and the mutual communication of their sentiments. Although no man of an impartial and inquiring mind need long remain in doubt concerning the truth or falsehood of the doctrine of the Trinity, it is much more difficult to decide between the systems, avowed by dlff'erent descriptions of Unitarians 5 especially for those who cannot study the Scriptures in their original languages. A person so situated may argue, " I find abundant proof in the Scrip- tures, that the Father is the Only True God, and that Jesus Christ is a created, subordinate, and dependant being j but I cannot so easily determine in my own mind every question which has been raised respecting his nature, person, and offi^ce. Upon the one side I observe men of great candour, learning, and piety, such as Doctors Clarke, Price, and Taylor, who think that tl^ Scriptures assert the pre-e.iistence of our Saviour, I observe othets, such as Dr. Lard- ner. Dr. Priestley, and Mr. Lindsey, who maintain, that the New Testament represents him to ha^e been uriginalli/ n man. Were li 1 to be guided by the general tenor of the Now Testament, 1 should probably adopt the latter opinion, because I find the Sacred AN'riters continually ascribing to Jesus the ordinary actions, feelings, and appearance of a human being. But I find particular passages, which it is difficult to interpret in consistency with this supposition ; which bear at least the semblance of Arianism ; and upon the expli- cation of which Socinians themselves are not agreed, I am at a loss to arrive at a decided opinion, and think it better to remain a little longer in doubt than to form a judgment precipitately." vSupposing a man in this state, — a state very likely to occur to the most candid and reflecting minds, ought the Unitarians, who deviate either more or less from the standard of orthodoxy, to exclude such a one from their religious societies, until he has made up his opinion upon these points ? Ought they to endeavour to bring him over to a party by such a hasty determination, and such a tumultuous contest of his thoughts and feelings, as must be in the highest degree unfavourable to the discovery of truth ? Or ought they not rather to preserve that constitution of their religious societies, which may invite and assist him to apply for the habitual consolation and improvement of his mind those great truths, upon which his belief is already fixed, while he proceeds to investigate with due caution the various points upon which it is more difficult to arrive at a certain conclusion ? In fine, if it be desirable, as doubtless it is, that we should all entertain correct views respecting the Person of Christ, it is yet more desirable that we should maintain the spirit and temper of the Gospel ; and the liberal principles upon which our societies are at present formed, appear far more conducive to the attainment of both of these im- portant ends, than a division into distinct denominations would be to the attainment of cither. In that part of his work which has called forth the preceding observations, Mr. Wardlaw affirms, "that those who arrogate to themselves the exclusive title of Unitarians, design to convey by it the tacit insinuation that Trinitarians deny the Divine unity." — Far from it. AVhen our opponents call themselves Trinitarians, they do not mean to intimate that they believe in three Gods ; nor, when we call ourselves Unitarians, do we intend that term to signify that ^2 we believe in one God. The former terra was first in use, having been adopted by the Trinitarians themselves to express their belief, that there are Three Persons in the Godhead. Tlie latter was in- vented as a correlative appellation to designate those who believe, that there is in the Godhead only one person. If any Unitarians employ the term as Mr. Wardlaw asserts that all of them do, they mistake its correct meaning ; and, when professed Trinitarians main- tain, as is sometimes the case, that they are Unitarians, they either attribute to the name a sense which does not belong to it, or concede the very point in debate, namely, that there is but one Person in the Godhead. CHAPTER III. Mb. Wardlaw in his former work, (especially in his Sixth Dis- course,) gave what appeared to me a most false and injurious repre- sentation of the regard paid to the Sacred Scriptures by Unitarians, and thus compelled me to write a Chapter, stating facts, which would present a fairer view of their conduct and sentiments upon this subject. To the accuracy of my remarks he is unable to offer any objection. But, instead of acknowledging the injustice of his former assertions, he now says, that his accusations were only intended for the Soc'mians, especially those of modern times.* Had this been the case, I should not have thought it incumbent upon me to refute them, although I believe they would be untenable, even as applied to Socinians. But Mr. Wardlaw in his Discourses gene- rally, and in his Discourse " on the Test of Truth" particularly, was opposing not only Socinians, but Unitarians of every variety of sen- timent. " It is extremely dijSicult," says he,t " to maintain a pro- cess of scriptural reasoning with the adversaries of the Divinity and Atonement of Christ, because the notions which they entertain respecting the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures are so very vague and undefined." Thus does Mr. Wardlaw set out with a charge * Unit, hicap. of Vind. p. 23. f P. 160". 13 against the whole body of Unitarians. " Of this," he proceeds to say in the next sentence, " I must lay before you two or three instances." The examples, which he quotes, are from Dr. Ppiestley and Mr. Bclsham, the former of whom he introduces as " one of the most eiuincut writers," and the latter " as a leading author," among those who deny the Divinity of Christ, adding that, " althougli all the writers of this class may not express themselves with the same decidedness, and reject, in terms equally unqualified, the inspiration of the Sacred Volume, yet they are all characterized by a similar laxity of principle on this important point." The reader may now judge, whether Mr. Wardlaw's charges were not directed against Unitarians generally, and whether I had not ground to accuse him * of availing himself of the latitude of inquiry and freedom of expres- sion prevalent among them, in order to bring forward the sentiments of individual writers as a representation of the principles of the whole party. Of the language and sentiments of Dr. Priestley, contained in the passages which Mr, Wardlaw has quoted, I strongly disapprove j and I have no doubt, that my sentiments are those of the great mass of Unitarians. But I hope I shall always be far more abhorrent from the spirit of virulence, malignity, and persecution, of which he was the object. This spirit would be almost unavoidably excited in many of Mr. Wardlaw's readers by the quotation of the most objec- tionable passages from the Doctor's writings, unaccompanied by any notice of his various and extraordinary excellencies, both as a philo- sopher and as a man. My remarks upon his character were intended to supply this deficiency, and have fully answered their end. In contemplating Dr. Priestley's eminent abilities as a literary, scien- tific, and theological writer, and the vehement opposition which he experienced, I recollected a passage of Pindar, upon my quotation of which Mr. Wardlaw grounds the remark, that I have " honoured him with a place amongst crows and chattering jays, in their imper- tinent pursuit of the bird of Jove." t I should have hoped his self- knowledge might have enabled him to discover, that the quotation • Vindication of Uuit. pp. 5, 6. f Unit. lucap. of Viiid. pp. 2, 2y. 14 was tiol designed for liim^ as his talents appear to be of a different kind from those, which are there designated. The Greek poet ex- presses a very important and philosophical distinction between the man of original invention, (o •nroXXa ei^ax; " And, in the next sentence, he applies this general principle to the particular doctrine, which he is treating as a mystery, and expresses himself as follows : " 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 irreconcileable contradiction ; but so long as ive do not pretend to know, or to say, HOW they are one, and no-w they are three," (that is, in what SKXSE they are one, and in what sense they are three 3 J or in other words, so long as we do not pretend to annex any distinct IDEAS TO THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSITION,) " to prOVC that WC 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," he proceeds, " which is to be proved contrary to reason ? Upon the supposition made, tve cannot tell : it is something which ice do not knoiv ; OF the nature and circumstances of which we are LEFT IN TOTAL IGNORANCE." § In Other parts of his Discourses, where Mr. Wardlaw is obviating the objections of those who say that his doctrines are mysteries, unreasonable and therefore incredible, he allows that they are indeed Mysteries, because no clear conception, or distinct idea, can be con- veyed to the mind of any man, respecting the import of the terms in which they are expressed. * Discourses, p. 20. t P. 23. \ In his last work, Mr. Wardlaw employs this exact language : " I believe, that in one setise Deity is One, and that in some other sense Deity is Three." Unit, of hicap. of Vind. p. 59. § Pp. 11,34,35. If the impartial reader will attentively consider the passages of Mr. Wardlaw's Discourses, to which I have now referred, he will be at no loss to perceive, that my definition of a Mystery, (namely, as a Proposition, to the terms of which no distinct ideas are annexed J is the only definition, which is accommodated to the tenor of his reasoning. I nevertheless allow^ that there is, in all that he has written upon this subject, a great want of consistency, clearness, and precision, and that expressions might be quoted, which would lead to a different explication of the term. Thus he asks, * whether we ought to refuse to admit " mysteries" in religion, when we find innumerable " difficulties" in the study of nature ? As if by " a mystery" he only intended to denote what we are accustomed to call " a d'ljficulty.'' A large portion of what Mr. Wardlaw has said might lead us to define a mystery to be a Fact, ivhich tee believe upon competent evidence, although ice do not perceive its conformity with other facts. He says, for instance. We may believe that a thing is, without pretending to know now it is. By this he must either intend, that we may admit the truth of a proposition without under- standing the terms, in which it is expressed, that is, believe that a thing is, without pretending to know in ivhat sense it is ; or he must mean, that we may believe a fact, without knowing how to reconcile it to other facts, or how to account for it upon previously admitted principles. Understood in either of these senses, Mr. Wardlaw's remark is undoubtedly just. But it is only when taken in the former sense, that it appears to have any connexion with his general argument. If taken in the latter sense, a different tiain of reasoning would apply. When we admit a fact without perceiving its conformity with other facts, tee attach distinct ideas to all the terms employed. That joant of conformity, which constitutes the difficulty, must always appear an objection to the reality of the fact, which we receive as true. The fact must be established by other evidence, sufficient to over- weigh the objection. As the want of conformity may vary in degree, the evidence opposed to it must always be greater in the same • Di.icourses, pp, 25, 26. 22 proportion, in order that the fact may be credible. It is the business of philosophy, by a further investigation and more minute corapa- risoHj to discover that conformity, which we do not at present perceive, and which, if ascertained, would increase the evidence of all the facts, remove the difficulty, and clear up the mystery. But when the want of conformity amounts in its degree to a direct contra- diction, it cannot be counterbalanced by any evidence whatsoever, and it is to be concluded, that at least one of the alleged facts is fake. In this case the difficulty passes into an absurdity. It becomes a Mystery according to the Jirst sense, which has been noticed in the discussion of this subject. The third sense of the term Mystery, which I have considered in my "Vindication," is the meaning annexed to it in the New Testa- ment. The relevancy of this explanation is obvious ; and its impor- tance must be equally apparent to all who think with me, that great numbers of professed Christians are entirely ignorant upon the subject, and accustomed to consider the occurrence of the term " Mystery" in the New Testament as a reason for believing every doctrine, pro- posed to them by the clergy under the same name. Although Mr. Wardlaw complains of my conduct as ungenerous in undertaking to illustrate this sense of the term at all, he fully assents to the accu- racy of my explanation. Against what I have written he has ad- vanced but one objection. I have asserted, that the mysteries, or secrets, revealed by Jesus Christ in the gospel, which upon exami- nation we find to be such simple and intelligible facts as the Resurrection of the dead, and the Conversion of the Gentiles, con- tain nothing, which is difficult to he understood. " How," asks Mr. Wardlaw,* " will this be made to comport with the declaration of the inspired Apostle Peter," that in tlie Christian religion there are " some things hard to be understood ?" — By reflecting, that the things " hard to be understood" are perfectly distinct from the disclosed secrets. I remarked in my Vindication, f that the sentiments often ad- vanced by Trinitarians in defending their doctrines against the * Unit. Incap. of Vindication, p. 43. f Pp. 44 — 47. 23 objections of Reason tend to ITniversal Sccpticisai. I then referred to Mr. Hume's " Dialogues on Natural Religion," as containing a demonstration, that Orthodoxy and Infidelity are erected upon the very same basis, namely, the general uncertainty of the deductions formed by the human understanding, and the more than ordinary indistinctness of our ideas upon matters of religion. I shall now quote in his own words the fundamental principles of another distinguished advocate of Scepticism.* The reader may compare them with the principles, which are avowed by Mr. Wardlaw, and which he cannot but avow, while he undertakes to defend Trinita- rianism. " A liational iaith," says Mr. Henry Dodwell, Jun., "is always precarious ; for what reason first established, the same reason must ever have the power to repeal j" and, " If a man is to be held only by his own reasonings, what is this but stamping an equal mark of necessary truth upon a thousand opposite opinions ?" CChristlanity not founded on yirgument, pp. 26, 44.) " How," says Mr. Wardlaw, " are the doctrines of any pretended Revelation to be proved irrational ? It is very manifest, that the reason of any individual man can never be assumed as the standard of reason for mankind in general, and still less of reason in the abstract." " That may be pronounced irrational by a Socinian, which may not appear so to a Trinitarian : who in this case is to decide ?" (Unitarianism Incapable of l^ indication, p. 44.) Thus do the opposers of Unita- rianism and of Christianity necessarily assume the very same ground. " But," says Mr. Wardlaw, " nothing can be more unfortunate than representing the sentiment in question as tending to Scepti- cism. For it is the opposite sentiment, that is the very principle and basis of Scepticism, — the sentiment, that nothing is to be believed ivhich we do not fully comprehend^ Undoubtedly 5 scepticism will follow from this principle as certainly as from the opposite assump- • That such expres-sions are far from being confined to this particular Author, may be .seen by consulting the ver\- just and valuable observations of Mr. Dugald Stewart in his Dissertation prefi.ved to the Supplement of the Encyclopedia Britannica, pp. 78, J'd. 24 tion, that we cannot comprehend any thing. To each of these false maxims we may apply the description, which Mr. AVardlaw has given of one of them only, " It is this that unsettles the mind, and throws it loose from all sure belief and stable principle." We can- not in any case believe, if we suppose, either that the evidence is insufficient, or that our minds are incapable of estimating the EVIDENCE. Our minds are, as we well know, liable to be misled in various ways from the attainment of truth. Let us therefore guard against the sources of error. Let us be aware of the force of preju- dice and passion, worldly interest and sensual appetite. Let us, if we have leisure and opportunity, study what the ablest philosophers have written upon the right conduct of the human understanding, the various modes of investigating truth, and the different kinds of evidence upon which belief may be established. The fact is indis- putable, that lohatever opinions a man holds are formed in his own mind and by his own mind. His own judgment he always does, and always must follow, in drawing inferences from what he sees with his eyes, in assenting to what he hears with his ears, and even in submitting to Authority, whether Human or Divine. In reply therefore to Mr. Wardlaw's queries above cited, I answer, that upon every question each individual must "decide" for himself j that to each individual his own reason is tlie ultimate " standard" of truth > and that each man, in estimating the evidence even of Divine Reve- lation, must depend upon his privfite judgment to determine whether it is possible, that the doctrines contained in it can be true. **^But in all this," it will be objected, " he is liable to fall into errors." — Undoubtedly ; into errors, many and dangerous. Let him therefore proceed with caution. Let him not cease to reason : for that is impossible ; even then he would be reasoning against the use of reason. Let him only be solicitous to reason modestly, carefully, dispassionately, and justly. PART H. CHAPTER I. The serious believer in the Gospel, who wishes to ascertain what arc its real doctrines, having informed himself respecting the proper rules and aids for understanding the sense of the Scriptures, will take the Bible into his hands, and open it to find what it declares, without having his mind prepossessed with any set of opinions serving as a system of interpretation, or being anxious to know whether it contains the sentiments of any particular sect. This course I have endeavoured to pursue for my private satisfaction ; and, in writing my " Vindication of Unitarianism," I wished to recommend it to the practice of my readers. Having settled the most important preliminary questions, I collected from the New Testament a great variety of passages, which in general required no comment, and which I arranged under different heads, as not merely proving, but plainly stating, certain doctrines. These doctrines I expressed as much as possible in the very words of Scripture ; and I had no doubt, (as I have none hitherto,) that all readers, sub- mitting upon these subjects to the authority of the Scriptures alone, would readily admit them, because it would be evident to every such inquirer^ that to deny the truth of these doctrines is to deny the truth of Scripture. Thinking the declarations of the New Testa- ment abundantly clear and intelligible without the use of any theological system to be '^ applied as the key of interpretation" * I took little notice of their bearing upon the opposite sides of the controversy, but left them to make their own impression upon • \V;utll:ivv, Unit. Iiicap. p. 359. E 26 the mind of every candid inquirer. I acknowledge the charge, which Mr. Wardlaw repeatedly brings against me. In all these statements, I was " careful to leave out of sight the double view of the person of Christ maintained by Trinitarians." With that " dbuble view " I had then no concern. The question, which I wished every reader to determine in the first place, was not Whether the language of the Scriptures is conformable to thisj)opular doctrine ? but What does the New Testament teach concerning the Person of Christ, when its words are taken in their plain and obvious sense ? Mr. Wardlaw can- not deny, that, thus understood, they assert with incessant repetition and in the clearest terms, that he was distinct from God, sent by Him, and inferior to Him ; that he acted as the delegate and servant of the Father, who is the Only True God 3 and that he received from Him all his knowledge and his power. But Mr. Wardlaw is not willing, that our readers should for a mo- ment contemplate these doctrines except in connection with certain others, which he thinks are declared upon the same authority. Hence he maintains, that to every text, which asserts them, we ought to append an explanation, bringing the other doctrines into view as mo- difications of their meaning. He thus gives a new face to the whole Bible, and remarks truly enough,* that it is " in vain " for me to be bringing forward " hundreds of plain Scripture testimonies," when they may all be viewed in a light totally different from that in which they appear upon the first aspect, and be easily reduced to a con- sistency with the doctrines which I oppose. The Scriptures, for ex- ample, assert that " there is one God" and Mr. Wardlaw does not deny,t that, if taken in their obvious meaning, these words would suggest a belief in one person only as God : but, holding that the Scriptures in other passages teach a plurality of persons in the God- head, he maintains that " every text, which afl&rms the Divine unity, must be interpreted as meaning that God is one indeed, but one ac- cording to the peculiar modification of Unity ivhich belongs to Deity " and hence he draws the strange conclusion, that "every text, which * Unit. Iiicap. of Viiid. pp. 338, 339. t 'bid. p. 303. 27 afljnns the Unity of God, inru/rr.t an (i()lrnmtion of thr Trin'/ti/." I have produoed multitudes of passages from the New Testament, whieh teach in the clearest manner, (hat the one true God is t/ic Father, and Mr. Wardlaw appears to agree with me in thinking, that, if these passages were taken in their obvious meaning, they would suggest a belief, that the Father, regarded as one Person, is the only true God : but, in order to make them conformable to the Trinitarian doctrine, — a doctrine presumed to rest upon the same authority, he resolves the simple and obvious meaning of the title " Father" into two dif- ferent significations, supposing it sometimes to denote " the One SH2)reme," and sometimes one of the three Persons, who are suppo- sed to constitute the One Supreme. Between these two senses he makes his choice according to the circumstances of each particular case, and by this invention contrives to reconcile the assertions of Scripture, that " the Father is the only true God," and that the " Father sent the Son," u ith the orthodox tenet, that the Son is God equal to the Father. Again, the Evangelists in various in- stances inform us, that Jesus Christ worshipped the Father ; and this Mr. Wardlaw is willing to admit * provided it be understood with his explanatory supplement, that " the vian Christ Jesus, worshipped the Father." Our Lord also asserted in plain terms, that " he did not know the day of judgment." Mr. Wardlaw seems to allow,i- tliat, if the doctrine of his two-fold nature be not previously brought into view^, this text must be considered " as in direct terms asserting the limited extent of his knowledge j" but he maintains, that, having assumed that doctrine beforehand, we must interpret this passage in consistency with it, and understand our Saviour's assertion as signi- fying only, that " the time of judgment was not among the things communicated to him as the commissioned messenger of the Father." Jesus asserts absolutely, that he did not know it : Mr. Wardlaw cor- rects his assertion into he did not know it by communication. Yet this is the man, who is often blaming the Unitarians for " perverting the Scriptures from their obvious and simple meaning," + annexing to Uuit. lucap. of ViiiU. p. oil- t lljiil. !•• 323. J Ibid, preface, p. viii. every expression "a Socinian gloss/' and "forcing the Bible by racks and screws and all the instruments of torture" to speak a language agreeable to their system. How strikingly does Mr. Wardlaw's me- thod of explanation illustrate the conclusion, at which the pious and learned Dr. Whitby arrived towards the end of a life devoted to the study of the Scriptures ; " In fine, this doctrine (meaning the Tri- nity) seems to burlesque the Holy Scriptures, or to give them an un- couth and absurd sense, from the beginning of the gospel to the end of the epistles."* In following this plan, Mr. Wardlaw has proceeded upon a princi- ple, the adoption of which deserves particular attention, because it forms a striking feature of distinction between the modes, in which the Scriptures are studied by the Unitarians, and by their opponents. The former, as I have already endeavoured to explain, go to the Scriptures, without the assumption of any previous hypothesis, to find what they plainly declare : the latter begin by assuming a parti- cular system, which they apply to the Scriptures as to the standard of truth, and which they profess themselves willing to abandon, if they find upon a comparison, that the Scriptures do not suit it. Upon the propriety and excellence of the latter method Mr. Wardlaw re- peatedly insists, and he calls it " the principle of Trinitarian inter- pretation." f The system, which he assumes for the purpose stated, is the doctrine, that the supposed second Person in the Trinity was united to the man Christ Jesus so as to form one person, retaining the Divine in conjunction with the Human Nature, and acting in the capacity of Mediator between God and men. He argues, that this doctrine ought to be received as true, because, if we assume it as an hypothesis, we find that it accords in a very wonderful manner with all the declarations of Scripture, however seemingly opposite, which relate to the person of Christ. 1. To this method of interpretation I object, that on its very first * Whitby's Last Thoughts ou the Trinity, p. 51. t Discourses on the Sociniau Controversy, pp. 45—47, 184—186 ; Unit. Incap. of Vind. pp. 177, 178, 237, 318, 332—339, 359—364. 29 aspect it appears most strange and unwarrantable. It is a method never adopted in interpreting any other writings. It is a bold affront to Holy Scripture, representing the word of God, given for the in- struction of all mankind, as full of enigma and obscurity, not intelli- gible to the man, who goes to it with a pure, open, and candid mind j but, like the secret dispatches of a diplomatist, requiring the use of a " KEY " known only to those who are versed in the art of decypher- ing. There is no other book iu existence, to the study of which we proceed with an idea, that we must find out its meaning by trying whether it accords with this, or that, or the other hypothesis j all that we think necessary is to understand the language, in which it is written, and then to open it and read it. In the same spirit we ought to enter upon the study of the New Testament, presuming, until some good reason is assigned for believing the contrary, that its principal doctrines lie upon its surface, and will be obvious to every unprejudiced reader, 2. To Mr. Wardlaw'splan of determining the import of the Scriptures by trying whether they will accord with a previously assumed hypo- thesis, I also object, that almost every man, who adopts this method of interpretation, will inevitably be guided in the choice of his hypo- thesis by his particular prejudices, interests, and attachments; that these will lead him to discover his doctrines where no trace of them exists, and to interpret the language of Scripture not by any rules of grammar or canons of criticism, but according to the inventions of his fancy and the dictates of his own will ; and that, as fondness for his system will always have greater sway than reverence for the Scriptures, he will finally be prepared to adhere to the former, though by relinquishing the latter, Mr. Venn, a late distinguished advocate of Trinitarianism, from whom Mr. Wardlaw * quotes with great ap- probation a statement of that doctrine, pursued the study of the Scrip- tures with a belief in the Trinity as his guide, and, always more at- tached to his system than to the Scriptures, declared that, if the doc- trine of the Trinity should be proved false, " he ivould burn his Bi- * Uuit. Incap. of Vind. p. 72. 30 ble," A follower of the late Joanna Soutlicott formed his religious faith upon the same general plan, only assuming a different hypothe- sis ; there can be little doubt, that he perceived in the Scriptures as clear and decisive proofs of all her assertions as Mr. Venn discovered of the doctrine of the Trinity, and, when her death overthrew his opi- nions, he adopted the very same resolution, that " he ivould hum his Bible" What indeed is the cause of the endless diversity of senti- ment among Christians, all of whom profess to follow the same guide, the Holy Scriptures, except that almost every man applies himself to the study of them with his judgment and affections pre- engaged in favour of some particular system ; and how can it be hoped, that the sacred authors should ever be rightly understood, the truth discovered, and any general uniformity of sentiment begin to prevail, until men are willing to apply themselves to the perusal of the Scriptures with minds divested of prejudice, and to judge of the doctrines contained in them from those plain and reiterated declarations, which admit of no doubt or hesitation as to their meaning ? We have seen what is the particular hypothesis, which Mr. Ward- law has adopted as his principle of interpretation. May we be per- mitted to ask, how was he induced to fix upon it ? Did he, like the industrious Kepler, when investigating the Law of the Planetary Revolutions, try one hypothesis after another in long succession, until at length he discovered a happy principle, agreeing to his in- expressible delight with all the appearances, which were to be ex- plained and reconciled ? No, No. The system which he has applied to the interpretation of the Scriptures, was early taught to him by an " affectionate and pious Father 3" it was " imparted with tender solicitude j"* it was always regarded by him as the doctrine " of ninety-nine hundredths of what is called the Christian world," and therefore " presumed" to be true.f These, beyond all question, are the circumstances, which have put Mr. Wardlaw in possession of his highly valued " key, which fits all the wards of this seemingly intricate lock." % * Unit. Iiicap. of Viiid. Dedication. t Ibid. p. 62, + Discourses, p. 47. 81 3. May wc furtlior inquire, whence lias arisen the intricacy of the lock ? — It was adapted to the complex structure of the key. Yes ; the lock was fashioned after the pattern of the key, and not the key according to the model of the lock. The language of the New Tes- tament, relating to the Person of Christ, was clear, simple, and con- sistent 3 but it was first altered, then trans/afcd, and last of all interpreted by men, whose views upon the subject were full of ap- parent contradiction. They imparted to the Scriptures some portion of that obscurity, which eminently distinguished their own system. They caused them, in a considerable number of passages, to reflect its image J and now Mr. ^\'ardlaw, who has been accustomed from his childiiood to the very same views, looks upon it as a most won- derful and transporting coincidence, that his system should corre- spond with the language of the vulgar translation, 4. If we examine the nature of this key more minutely, we find it to be of such a construction, that it cannot possibly open the avenues to truth ; it seems only adapted to conduct into the regions of wild fancy, appalling perplexity, and interminable error. The doctrine, assumed as an hypothesis, implies numerous con- tradictions. Being false in itself, it cannot possibly accord with the just interpretation of a religion, proceeding from the God of truth. 5. But, happily for mankind, no such perplexing instrument is requisite to unlock the casket, which contains the pearl of great price. It is not confined under a lock of almost hopeless intricacy ; it is not confined under any lock at all. It is always open, always resplendent, always accessible. The true sense of the Scriptures is simple, plain, and obvious : but it appears so onli/ to the Unitarian. He adopts the sentiments, which he finds repeatedly and clearly stated in them, because he devotes himself to the perusal with few prepossessions. He finds in the common translation a few passages at variance with the obvious and prominent doctrines; but, by ap- pealing to the sources and rules of just criticism, he is able with ease and satisfaction to remove the inconsistency. Even with re- gard to the few passages, which the Triuitaiian adduces to confound 32 liiiUj lie only asks to have them correetly translated front a correct text, and he receives even them " in their obvious and simple MEANING," CHAPrER II. In the Seventh Chapter (Part II.) of my '' Vindication/' I have brought together the various passages in the New Testament, which relate to the power of Christ. I have shown, that these expressions do not leave it undecided, whether the power of Christ belonged to him by his own original nature, or whether it was communicated by, and exercised in subjection to, a superior j but that they all assert, as if with one voice, the Unitarian doctrine, that the power of Christ was given to him. Upon all these passages however Mr. Wardlaw puts the Trinitarian gloss, that it was only given to him as Media- tor, or with respect to his Human Nature ; to which I must object as a perversion of their plain and obvious meaning, which ought on no account to be allowed, until the distinction of the Divine and Human Natures in our Saviour has been established. I divided the passages, which relate to the Power of Christ, into three classes j First, those which, on the supposition of his pre-exist- ence, (a doctrine not universally received by Unitarians,) refer to the period prior to his birth of the Virgin Mary ; Secondly, those which describe the exercise of his power during his ministry upon this earth ; and Thirdly, those which relate to his present glorified state. Under the First head, the first passage, which I produced, was the prayer of Jesus, " And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self, with the glory ivhich I had ivith thee before the world loas^ * I remai-ked, that the only circumstance requisite to prove the Unita- rian doctrine, is established by the subsequent expressions in the * John xvii. 5. 33 same prayer, in uliich onr liOrd (lcscri[)es this glory as given (o h'mi by the Father * Upon the supposition of liis pre-cxistencc, wliicli is an essential tenet of orthodoxy, this passage is completely deci- sive of his wferiority , not only because that inferiority is asserted in clear and express terms, but because in this case Trinitarians can- not have recourse to their usual refuge, the hypothesis of a Divine united with a Human Nature. Even the wonder-working " princi- ple of Trinitarian interpretation" cannot explain how derived glory could belong to the Son, before he was incarnate. Mr. Wardlaw has been obliged to pass by this argument without the slightest notice. I have next brought forward four passages, usually considered as proving, that Jesus Christ during his pre-existent state was em- ployed in the creation of the world. I have shown, that the terms chosen by the sacred writers describe our Saviour as acting, not by independant authority, but as the instrument of a Superior ; and that they not only assert the Unitarian doctrine in their obvious and simple meaning, but by excluding all possible reference to mediato- rial inferiority. My argument is founded upon a distinction between two Greek prepositions, (HYPO and DIA,) and Mr. Wardlaw's ob- servations imply a clear concession, that, if this distinction be just, the argument is conclusive. I have asserted,t that " when a New Testament writer employs the preposition DIA (with a genitive case) to point out the cause of any effect, he means the instrumental cause, and refers to some other being, either expressly mentioned, or contemplated, who is considered as the ^rst or original cause." To refute this statement Mr. Wardlaw j produces eighteen pas- sages of the New Testament, in which he supposes DIA to be em- ployed for the purpose of " pointing out the cause of an effect," and yet to denote " the Jirst or original cause." I shall endeavour to show, that of all these passages only one, which I have noticed in my " Vindication," presents any opposition to my statement. They are as follows : Matt, xviii. 7 : "^ It must needs be that offences come j biit woe • John xvW. 22, 24. t Vindication of Unitarianisin, p. 86. : Unit, Incap. of Vinci, pp. 2.31, 2.32. F 34 to that mail;, by whom (properly through whom. Si' o'v) the offence Cometh." — " It must needs be!' — Who imposed the necessity? Un- doubtedly, the Almighty Creator and Governor of the universe. " Nevertheless," * it is added, " woe to that man, through whom (as his instrument) the offence cometh." Such is the clear import of our Saviour's words, implying a view of the constitution of the moral world, which is in unison with the most correct philosophy as well as with the uniform tenor of the Scriptures, but which is lost under the looseness of our common translation.! That such a pas- sage should be brought forward by a professed Christian, and above all by a professed Calvinist, as an instance of the original cause being denoted by the preposition in question is truly surprising. Matt. xxvi. 24 ; Mark xiv. 21 ; Luke xxii. 22 ; " Woe unto that man, by lohom (properly, through whom, V ov) the Son of Man is betrayed." — Was Judas also an " original cause" ? Was then the salvation of the world by the death of Christ left to depend upon the uncontrolled power and discretion of an insignificant mortal ? The Scriptures teach a very contrary doctrine. He was " betrayed by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge o/"God," and " through ivicked hands," (lia xit§uv avo/*wv,) as the instruments of God, was " crucified and slain." Acts ii. 23. Bearing in mind the true sense of the preposition DIA we clearly see the way, in which our Saviour was enabled to foretell this event, and the entire consistency of all that he says, especially as his words are recorded by the Evangelist Luke, " And truly the Son of Man goeth, as it was determined, (i. e. t This " looseness" is to a certain extent unavoidable, since the English pre- position THROUGH, though the nearest to AIA which our language supplies, is not now sufficiently precise in its signification, and does not always suggest that reference to a prior cause, which AIA in the circumstances under consideration uniformly includes. Scott and IVakefield however, in their versions of St. Mat- thew's Gospel, employ the word through ; and the only way of conveying the full sense of the Greek preposition seems to be to translate it " through," but to add in each case an explanatory periphrasis, or rather to inform the reader, that he must bear in his mind the idea of mediation or instrumentality and the reference lo a prior cause. 35 determined by tlic supreme jiovver and wisdom of God;) ncvcrtlic- less (irXriv) woe unto that man, tliiougli whom (as the instrument of God) he is betrayed." Acts xii. 9: " And he (Peter) went and followed him, (i. c. the angclj and wist not that it was true, \\liich was done by the angel." The correct translation is " tiirougu the angel,'' (5(a tov ayyiKov^ representing him as the subordinate agent of' the Lord, in which cha- racter he is described, ver. 7, where he is called " An angel of the Lord." From the following verses likewise it appears, that Peter considered him as merely an instrument in the hands of a superior. For^ " when he was come to himself, he said, ' Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me (i. e. the Lord through the histrumentality of his angel hath de- livered me) out of the hand of Herod." Ver. 1 1. See also ver. 17, which equally contradicts Mr. Wardlaw's position, that the angel was X)ae, primary agent in this transaction. Acts xix. 26 : " They be no Gods, which are made ivith hatids," (8«a xsjpa'v,) literally, " through hands," which, as Mr. AVardlaAV appears to have had an indistinct suspicion^* are the instruments of those who employ them. Rom. iii. 27 : " Where is boasting then ? It is excluded . By what law? (properly, through what law ?) Of Works ? Nay; but by the law of faith;" (literally, through the law of faith;) — " The law of faith" is represented as the means, through which, in subor- dination to the will of the Supreme Disposer of all events, " boast- ing is excluded;" agreeably to which view God is described in the whole context, as the original author of the redemption and justifi- cation of sinners. Rom. V. 12 : " By one man (literally, through one man) sin enter- ed into the world, and death bxj %\x\" (properly, through sin). Here again we have cause to wonder, that a Christian, and especially a Cal- vinist, should ever consider sin and death as entering into the world independantly of the appointment of God. The clear meaning of the Apostle's word is, that sin entered into the world f/y the decree of * I'agc 2;i2, Note. 36 God THROUGH ONE MAN AS HIS INSTRUMENT, and (Icatll THROUGH sin. Rom. vi. 4 : " Therefore we are buried with hira bt/ baptism, (pro- perly, THROUGH baptism, as the means, or instrument of burying,) into death : that like as Clirist was raised np from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life," The literal translation is, " Through the gi^ory of the Father," meaning- the glorious potver * of the Father, agreeing with the uni- form doctrine of the New Testament respecting the efficient cause of our Saviour's resurrection, and illustrated by the parallel expression used by the same Apostle, 1 Cor. vi. 14 : " God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own poiver," literally, " THROUGH his own poiver," because God employs " his own power" as the instrument, by which he effects his purposes. Rom. xi, 36 : " Of him, and through him, (Si' avrov,) and to him are all things j to whom be glory for ever." — DIA is not here in- tended " to point out the cause of any effect." It is used in its original acceptation, as denoting motion through a place, and cor- responds in this particular with the two other prepositions (ef, out of, ox from, and £<«, to) which precede and follow it, and both of which originally signify motion in space. The description of God, given by the Apostle in these words, is, that all things proceed from him, go through him, and end in him. It is one out of the various views of the imagination, and forms of human speech, employed in Scripture to represent, as far as language can, the absolute dominion, the om- nipresence, and the universal providence of the Divinity. In the sublime language of our own poets, he is " First, last, midst, and without end." Milton, Paradise Lost, v. 165. " He fills, he bounds, connects, and equals all." Pope, Essar/ on Man, I. 280. " From thee, great God, we spring, to thee we tend, Path, motive, guide, original and end." Dr. Johnson's Rambler, No. VII. * See Schleusuer, v. 8o^>j, No. 6, a. 87 TIjis view of the nature of the Deity would be the more readily com- prehendcd by those to whom Paul was writing, and who lived at Rome, the Metropolis of the then civilized world, because it was perfectly familiar among all the heathen philosophers, who believed in the ex- istence of a Supreme God. It was a maxim of the Orphic theology, that " God is the beginning, middle, and end of all things," and we find the Roman emperor, Marcus Antoninus, addressing Nature, the Supreme Deity of the Stoics, in these remarkable words, " All things are from thee, all things are in thee, all things are to thee."* Supposing the expression " through him,'' adopted by the Apos- tle to mean only that God is the efficient cause, it loses its propriety in the connection, in which it is introduced, and the whole passage is stripped of its force and beauty. But let the Metaphor, implied in the associated phrases («f avrov and £) " by" instead of (§»') " Mrowo^A" is considerable 5 and, although it has not " induced Gries- bach even to mark the latter as doubtful," yet we ought to bear in * Auton. Med. IV. 23. See Gataker's notes upon this passage, and upon Lib. ii. § 3. and Lib. xii. § 26. Also Cudworth's Intellectual System, B. i. Ch. iv. § 17, 18, 32. Eschenbach de Poesi Orphic^, pp. 40, 68—74, 136—148, and Hermanni Orphica, pp. 447, 457, 460. t Dr. (now Bishop) Marsh, Letters to Travis, p. 257. 3B mind, that Griesbach was so exceedingly cautious in departing from the text of Elzevir, then Received, that the masters of criticism in future times will probably see reason to make further emendations upon the text of Griesbach.* It is likewise worthy of notice in this particular case, that an error might have arisen the more easily, because each of the various readings (AI and T*) consists only of two letters. 1 Cor. xii, 8: " To one is given by the spirit the word of wis- dom." — The literal translation is " through the spirit," represent- ing the spirit as the means, by employing which God gave " the word of wisdom" to the first disciples. In the next verse, as Mr. Ward- law remarks, " the expression is varied, EN being used." This pre- position is often employed, as well as DIA and HYPO, to denote the Efficient Cause. But its import is more general. It does not deter- mine that cause to be either primary or instrumental. 2 Cor. i. 19: "For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus" &c. — The proper translation is, " through us, even through me and Silvanus and Timotheus.''' The Apostle Paul, when engaged in preaching the Gospel, always considered himself, agreeably to the representation here given, as the servant and instrument of a su- perior. Heb. ii. 3: " How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salva- tion, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord" literally " through the Lord." A reference is indicated to a prior cause, and might have been fully expressed thus ; " which at first began to be spoken (or declared) by God through the Lord." The use of the preposition DIA, and not HYPO, AettrxmwQS " the Lord" to signify here Jesus Christ, and not the Father, Heb. ii. 10: "It became him, for whom are all things, and by «;//om (literally, through whom) are all things." — "A very decisive passage," says Mr. Wardlaw. So it would be, if it could be proved, that DIA is here employed to represent God as the efficient cause of * This was fully expected by Griesbach hlmseir. Sec his Prolegomena, Sec- tion II. pp. 51, 52, of the Loudon impression. 39 all things. But there is no necessity for this supposition. In the preceding clause, translated " for ir/tom," DIA is followed by the accusative case, in wliich circumstauces it usually denotes the final cause.* Here therefore it signifies the knd aimed at in all things, or to which all things tend, and corresponds to the last clause of the passage formerly discussed, Romans xi, 3G, " to him are all things." Hence I conceive, especially considering how familiar this view was to the minds of the ancients, that the Writer to the Hebrews, al- though he states the idea less distinctly, intends by the same metaphor to represent all things as passing through God^ and to him as their end. Heb. vii. 21: "Those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath, di/ (properly, through) him that said unto fmore correctly, with respect to) him, " The Lord sware, and will not re- pent. Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec." — The quotation, here introduced, "The Lord sware," &c. is the 4th verse of the cxth Psalm. We know from the testimony of our Saviour, (Matt. xxii. 43,) as well as from other sources of informa- tion, that the writer of this psalm was David, who consequently must have been the person intended by the words, Sssi» bly make out the contrariety ?"* Presuming to urge the discussion a little further, I observe, " You just now explained yourself as meaning by ' the Unity of the God- head,' that the order of events in the universe is entirely directed by the will and agency of one simple and undivided Mind." " I did." " But you asserted that there have existed from all eternity in the unity of the Godhead three Persons, and you have explained yourself as meaning by a Person an Intelligent Agent, Your doctrine appears therefore to imply, that three distinct Intelligent Agents form one simple and undivided Mind, which is a direct contradiction." " I have explicitly declared," answers Mr. Wardlaw, " that when I used the term ' person,' and others employed in the proposition, I would ndt be understood as pretending to any precise and definite conception of the nature of that distinction in Deity, which these terms import. Was it an unreasonable expectation, that you should carry this declaration along with you through the remainder of our discussion, and that, when the same terms were used again, they should be used with the qualification previously affixed to them ? A generous disputant would certainly have felt himself bound to pro- ceed on this reasonable principle.'t " You said, that when you asserted the unity of God, you meant that all things are made by the power of one Designer. But you also asserted, that in the unity of God there are three persons, and that by a 'person you mean 'that which can contrive or design.* Does not your doctrine then imply, that three Designers arc one Designer?" • Discourses, p. 23. t Unit. lucap. of Viiid. p. 65. 62 " I employed the term ' person ' in compliance with established usage, and because I do not know that another can be devised more appropriate. But of its precise import^ as applied to a distinction in the Divine essence, I have professed my own incompetency and my conviction of the incompetency of others, to form any clear con- ception. Justice and generosity alike required, that you should have taken along with you the qualifying explanation, which I gave in the outset, and which I certainly intended should accompany to the close of our discussion ray use of the terms distinct, subsistences, persons, 2iX\& personality , in their application to Deity."* " You are now losing your temper : and without calmness of judg- ment on both sides I am of opinion, that a prolongation of our dis- cussion would be both useless and indecorous." Such appears to me to be the exact state of the controversy, as it has been carried on between Mr. Wardlaw and myself, respecting the nature of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the evidence requisite to prove it, which are the subjects discussed in the First Chapter of my Third Part. With the agility of the most expert equestrian he leaps from one position to another, so that it is impossible to find him maintaining any fixed opinion. By this elusive rapidity he convinces many of his readers, that a man may hold the doctrine of three per- sons in one God, and not forfeit his claim to the character of a ra- tional Christian. But every one, whose eye-sight is moderately acute and clearj and who will attend to the swift rotation of Mr Wardlaw's principles, will perceive that his proposition must either meaUj that three Intelligent Agents are one Intelligent Agent, or have no distinct meaning at all ; that, if it means that three Intelli- gent Agents are one Intelligent Agent, it is a direct contradiction, and therefore ought not to be assented to, although it were contained in the Scriptures j and that^ if it convey to us no distinct meaning, we ought not to receive it as sanctioned by the authority of Scrip- ture, unless we find it stated in the very terms, in which it is an- nounced by Mr. Wardlaw as a part of Divine revelation. * Unit. Incap. of Viiid. pp. 67, 68. 53 Mr, W'ardlaw finds great fault with inc for " having ciuleavourod to fasten on him the view of Dr. Sherlock as to the Holy Spirit being a distinct Mind, or Intelligent Being."* He however him- self calls the Holy Spirit " an JntclUgcnt Agent," and maintains that it is dislinct.f But he objects repeatedly to the use of the word " Being-." J I have always thought, that to de is to ea'ist, and that evei-y thing which exists is a Being. Indeed, language supplies no other term more general and extensive in its application. The word "Agent" is included under it. Every Agent is a Being, inasmuch as every thing which acts, exists. Every " Intelligent Agent" must therefore be an " Intelligent Being }" and Mr. Ward- law's explanation is even more particular than Dr. Sherlock's, to which he objects as " gross and revolting." § CHAPTER II. I PROCEED to consider Mr. Wardlaw's objections to ray account of the evidence for a plurality of Persons in the Godhead. 1 . "In the first place," as I have asserted, || " Mr. Wardlaw objects to the proof of the Unity of God derived from the appear- ances of the material creation. He denies, that these appearances prove the existence of ' only one Designer,' since ' unity of counsel may subsist among a plurality of counsellors.' ' I have expressly stated,^ that " by the Unity of God, Unitarians do not understand merely a unity of counsel, or that there is no dis- traction of plans, or opposition of inclinations, manifested by the course of nature." According to the sense, therefore, in which ivc understand the Unity of God, Mr. Wardlaw denies that it can be * Unit. lucap. of Viiiil. p. 68. t Discourses, p. 286. X Unit. Incap. of Viud. pp. 104, 325, 331, 360. § Ibid. p. 66, II Vind. of Unitarianism, p. 133. H Ibid. p. 51. 54 proved from the liglit of nature at all. To prove a mere unity of counsel, we consider as upon this subject proving nothing. Tlic argument only advances as far as the premises^ and stops short of the conclusion. I have endeavoured in my chapter " On the Evi- dence for the Unity of God from the Light of Nature," to go beyond the point at which Dr. Paley and Mr. Wardlaw stop, and to carry forward the mind of the reader to the inference, that the universe is and always has been subject to but one Intelligent Being. Differing so materially from Mr. Wardlaw, it would have been improper to have left the difference unnoticed 5 nor can I see any just cause for his " surprise" and " indignation."* His representa- tion appears evidently favourable to the reception of Trinitarianism, mine to the establishment of Unitarianism. Mr. Wardlaw had asserted, that the inconclusiveness of the argu- ment from the light of nature was " admitted by the best writers on Natural Theology :" f mentioning, however, no other author except Paley. Although I have signified my curiosity to know who the other writers are, Mr. Wardlaw observes a total silence. II. " In the second place, Mr. Wardlaw argues a plurality of Persons in the Godhead from the plural termination of ALEIM, ADONIM, and other Hebrew names for God." To this argument I replied, first, that " if the plural termination indicates plurality at all, it denotes a plurality of Gods." Mr. Wardlaw answers, " The only 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 of distinction." J — " If any is to be drawn nt all !" Does Mr. Wardlaw then concede, that this argument authorizes no certain conclusion ? It is at any rate certain, that no such inference as that here proposed can be drawn. It is a general rule in all languages, and constitutes the proper dis- tinction between the singular and plural sense of nouns, that, if a noun singular denotes a single being of any kind, the same noun, put into the plural, denotes (plures, i. ej two or more beings 0/ the • Unit, liicap. of Viud, pp. 76—81. f Discourses, p. 9. J Unit. Iiicap. of Vind. p. 82. 55 same hind. Tlicrc is no rule of Hebrew rirammar l)y wliich the plural number can Ijc understood to denote what Mr. Wardlaw calls a " plurality consistent with unity," or " unity of such a nature as admits distinction." Unless, therefore, we understand the plural termination of ALEIM as denoting a plurallti) of Gods, wc must interpret it upon the only other principle, which is sanctioned by the usages of the Hebrew language, namely, as expressing eminence, or (to borrow the words of Wilson) " dominion, dignity, majesty." In opposition to this explanation, however, Mr. Wardlaw argues at great length. The following observations may suffice as an answer to his remarks. 1. " The only instances," says Mr. Wardlaw, " of BOL, when it signifies a husfjand, 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.""^ In the latter of these passages, " it is rather singular," the substantive BOL does not occur at all, but the verb BOLTI, (First person sing. Preter tense,) which is pro- perly translated in our common version, " I was an husband." If, in a case where he professes to have used some diligence, Mr. Wardlaw cannot distinguish between a noun and a verb, he ought at least to be extremely cautious and diffident in opposing the decisions of all the most celebrated orientalists. 2. Mr. Wardlaw however thinks otherwise. " The rule, (quoted from Wilson,) supposing it to be one, is, beyond all doubt, stated in terras 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 1 find it in Wilson and in Robertson, 1 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," f Mr. Wardlaw's description of the last of the three Grammars to which he appeals, proceeds upon one out of these two suppositions ; either, that all the world knows who taught him Hebrew, and what » Unit. lucap. of Vind. p. 84. t Ibid. p. 83. 56 grammar his teacher used, or that the grammar is so insignificant, that scarcely any one would have recognized it from the statement of its proper title. The mention of this " anonymous grammar" may however serve to introduce us into the secret of Mr. Ward- law's incompetency upon these subjects. Inferior teachers are often fond of using trifling novelties in grammar instead of employing the MASTERS of the language, and their suitableness to the defence of such a doctrine as the Trinity is frequently their chief recommen- dation. Leaving Mr, Wardlaw among the Pikes and the Parkhursts, I shall quote a fuller exemplification of the rule than I have before given from Masclef, (Vol, I. p. 289,) whose grammar during nearly a century has been held in the highest reputation. " Observandum multa nomina verfe phiralia, et a nomine singular! descendentia, sumi nihilominus singulariter, jungique adjectivis, pronominibus, ac personis verborum singularibus. Talia sunt D'n'^K, D'ji«, D'^rs, mnna, mnnn, mDDn> &c, D'n'?« «^l n>ty«11 Genesis i. 1 : In principio creavit Deus. Nin D>tt>^p D'n'7« '3 Josh. xxiv. 19, et alibi j ad verbum Quia D'ti sancti ipse est, id est. Quia Deus sanctus ipse est. VJT« iltt>« ^^D 2 Reg. xix. 4 : Rex Assur Dominus ejus, ad verbum, Domini ejus, nnv vhv^ DJ Exod. xxi. 29 : Etiam Dominus ejus morietur. "jTini mnna «J ^«iy Job xii. 7 : Interroga nunc jumentum, et docebit te. rtnO rtnJl niDDn Prov. ix. 1 : Sapientia cedificavit domum suam. nn nianni Ps. Ixxviii. 15 : In abysso magna. mn' (n»an, mss.) nu onps nvn!? Jer. xxix. 26 : Ut sis pns- fectus domus Domini. — Aiunt Grammatici id fieri ad denotandaui rerum istarum magnitudinera et excellentiam." A still greater variety of instances may be found in the " Essays on the Language of Scripture," by the late learned and accurate Mr, Simpson of Bath, (London, 1812,) Essay VL ; " A Sketch of the different modes in which the Hebrews express a great degree, or the superlative degree," pp, 491, 492, and Addenda, p. xxiii. The interpretations are in English. The author quotes from Selden, one of the most distinguished Hebraists, the remark that among the Jews especially, the plural number " is used of one person only, as 67 a mark of greatness." This Mel)raisin is not uncommon in the Greek of the New Testament. Thus a Sabbath is called a S.\n- BATUS, to express its sanctity. (See Matt. xii. 1, and Rosen- MCLLER AD LOCUM.) The explanation upon this principle of the well-known phrase " Urim and Thuwmim," may be interesting to the English reader. " The judgment of the high-priest," observes Dk. Samuel Chandler, " was called Urim and Thummim, liohts AND PERFECTIONS, perfectly clear, precise, and full ; the plural number being frequently used in the Oriental Languages to denote the excellency and perfection of any thing." (Life of David, Vol. L p. 8.) The reader who wishes for further testimonies to the existence of this rule in Hebrew, may find ample satisfaction by consulting the following authorities : Pagnini Thesaurus Linguae Sanctac, v. TihvK, p. 106, and Institutiones Hebraicae, L. ii. C. iv. p. 79 ; Cas- telli Lexicon Heptaglotton, v. jn^ j Simonis Lexicon Hebrai- cum, V. mV« J J, D. Michaelis Suppleraenta ad Lex. Hebraica, \'ol, L p. 88 ; RonERTSON, Gram. Hebraea, L, iv. C. i. Ed. 2nda, p. 294 ; BuxTORFii Thes. Grammaticus Linguae Sanctae Heb. L. ii. C. ii. p. 326, Ed. 6ta, Basiliae, 1663 ; Guarini Gram. Heb. p. 476 j ScHROEDERi Institutioucs ad fundam. Ling. Heb. Reg. C. § 25 j Storrii Observ, ad analog, et syntax. Heb. pp. 97 — 99 ; Glassii Philologia Sacra, Canon, xxiv. xxv. and Dathe ad loc. j Grotius on Rom. xii. 1 ; Le Clerc on Joshua xxiv. 19, and Prov. xxvii. 18 ; RosENMULLER (the voungcr) on Gen. xxiv. 9, and Isa. xix. 4 ; Bishop Chaxdler's Defence of Christianity, 2nd Edition, p. 77 , Note. 3. Immediately after the remarks, above noticed, on the occur- rence of the word BOL, in the sense of a husband, Mr. Wardlaw adds the following : " As to the same word, when used to signify a master or owner, the instances of its occurrence, when considered as exemplifications of dominion, dignity, and majesty, are somewhat curious. It is 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." I 58 The real state of the case is this. In Exod. xxi. 28, BOL does not occur in the plural, but in the singular. In three passages, how- ever, of this chapter, (vers. 29, 34, 36,) and in four passages of the next chapter, (vers. 10, 11, 13, 14, in the English, 11, 12, 14, 15,) it occurs in the plui*al, and is translated " owner" as if it were sin- gular. I am averse to repeat my former charge of " carelessness," because in the volume before me I have such frequent and lamentable proofs, that it only incites to resentment, but not to accuracy and diligence. 4. Mr, Wardlaw advances the supposition, that in these chapters BOL in the singular, and BOLIM in the plural, may be used pro- miscuously, because the ox, ass, or sheep, might " be the property either of one owner, or of more than one.'' To vindicate the common translation, and to prove that BOLIM denotes but one oivner, it is only necessary to observe, that it is joined with a verb singular. See in the Hebrew, Exod. xxi. 29, 36 ; xxii. 11. 5. The word ADNIM, in what Mr. Wardlaw calls " its complete and decidedly plural form," occurs in the Hebrew Bible at least seven times. In three of these passages (Deut. x. 1 7 3 Psalm cxxxvi. 3 J Isa. xxvi. 13,) it is plural in sense, as well as in termi- nation, and in the common version is properly translated " Lords!' In Isa. xix. 4, ( " The Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord, and a fierce king shall rule over them,") it is certain that ADNIM means one person only, because it is united to an adjective, (translated " cruel,") which is in the singular number, find because it is explained by the phrase, "" a fierce king," in the latter versicle. In 1 Kings xxii. 17, and 2 Chron. xviii. \Q, (" These have no master,") although the circumstances are not so decisive respecting the singular sense of ADNIM as in the last in- stance, yet, as " the expression refers to the fall of Ahab," it is almost impossible to understand it in any other sense. Lastly, ADNIM occurs in the passage so often quoted in proof of the Tri- nity, Mai. i. 6 : " If I be a master, where is my fear ?" Such are the facts. In one instance ADNIM is applied to Jehovah, and in three to a single individual among the human race. These numbers Mr. Wardlaw has reversed, CI i^^tst not say through carelessness or ignorance,) so as to make the representation more favourable to liis purpose. " TnK only ixstanck/' says he,* "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," (he intended I Kings xxii. 17,) " These have no master, Heb. masters." 6. We come to Mr. Wardlaw's last resource, which is a conjec- ture, supported by the authority of the learned Gousset, that where the final M is wanting, as is usually the case, the pronominal affix being subjoined, the Jod may be paragogic. In reply to this conjecture, I observe, in the first place, that the doctrine of the Scriptures must be determined by appealing to the established principles of grammar, drawn up without reference to any theological system, as exact descriptions of those languages, in which the Scriptures are written. But an argument is particu- larly suspicious, when " a long and ingenious defence," such as that of Gousset, is necessary to prove its consistency with the principles of grammar. Further, this supposition cannot affect the General Rule respect- ing the use of the Plural Number to denote eminence, because it does not at all apply to feminine nouns, whose plural ends in UT, or OTH, and of which we have an example in the word BEHE- MOTH, (Job xl. 15,) literally Beasts, meaning a single beast of great distinction. Lastly, this conjecture tends to annihilate the argument, which il is brought to support. In the passage (Isa. liv. 5,) where BOL is applied to the Supreme Being, it is followed by the pronominal affix, as well as in the passages where it denotes the owner of an ox, an ass, or a sheep. If the final Jod be supposed to be added " euphonicB causa," for the sake of the better sound, in the latter cases, why may we not be consistent, and interpret it so in the former ? By having recourse to such conjectures, Mr, Wardlaw may, no doubt, abridge the number of examples which illustrate and establish the General Rule j but in exactly the same proportion he • Unit. Incap. of Vmd. p. 86. 60 abridges the cases of the application of decidedly plural names to the Supreme Being. III. Mr. Wardlaw in his Discourses further argued " for a plu- rality 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." In his present work, * he appears to re- tract this argument on the authority of Kennicott, who maintains that the three instances of plural verbs annexed to the name of God are " unquestionably corrupt readings." IV. In the fourth place, Mr. Wardlaw referred to three passages, in which the plural pronouns us and our are used to represent God speaking of himself. He represented these and similar expressions as " utterly unaccountable," except on the supposition of a plurality of Persons in the Godhead. f But in the work now before us, % he appears to consider them in no higher a view than as " corrobora- tive proofs," supposing the doctrine to be previously established by other evidence. He admits that his reasoning in opposition to the Unitarian explication of these passages as containing the language of majesty, was in more than one particular inaccurate ; and he grants, (what he before d»enied,) that the Scriptures contain an ex- ample of an earthly king employing the same mode of expression. He objects however, that no other examples can be produced of the Divine Majesty employing this style. But, supposing they could be produced, would not these be interpreted by Mr. Wardlaw upon exactly the same principle, and a demand be made for other examples without end ? Mr. Wardlaw had asserted in the most positive manner, that the use of plural pronouns to express majesty, though customary in all subsequent times, " was not however the style of the kings of the earth in the age of Moses.'" I inquired, what documents were in his possession, by which he could establish this assertion ? He replies. The writings of Moses himself. Is then the absence of the style in • Unit. Incap. of Vind. pp. 89 — 91. t Discourses, p. 12. X Unit. Incap. of Vind. p. 95. the small number of examples, contained in the writings of Moses, a proof that it was never used at all in his time ? I must be permitted to repeat what I have said already, that, in the absence of more com- plete information upon the subject, " we must judge from the evi- dence that now lies before us, and presume, that the kings of the earth occasionally used in that age the same style, which we know them to have used in all ages, with which we are more familiarly ac- quainted," To a considerable portion of my remarks upon these passages, Mr* AVardlaw has offered no reply. Among the rest I observed, that by bringing forward these passages, Mr. Wardlaw acknowledged, that the number of Persons in the Godhead is indicated by the personal pronouns employed in speaking of the Godhead ; that he ought con- sequently to admit, that the almost perpetual use of singular pro- nouns denotes that God is one Persson onli/ ; and that, although a single person may employ plural pronouns to express his dignity and authority, there is no rule, by which a plurality of persons can em- ploy, in speaking of themselves, pronouns of the singular number. To this observation Mr. Wardlaw replies by charging me with arro- gance and impiety,* which I presume he would not have done, if he could have invented any argument t\\st.t would have been satisfactory even to his own mind. V. Lastly, Mr. Wardlaw argued from the expression, " The man is become as one of us" Believing in the existence of Angels, (as I apprehend, notwith- standing Mr. Wardlaw's insinuation to the contrary, that all other Unitarians do,) I interpreted this sentence as addressed to them, and referred to the 5th verse of the same Chapter, " Ye shall be as gods," in support of my explanation. Mr. Wardlaw however main- tains, that this passage is "decisive in favour of the opposite." To prove his point, he argues, that the translation ought to be " Ye shall be as God," and appeals to my own judgment for the propriety of this version. I am of opinion, that different persons will under- Uiiit. Incap. of Vind. p. 99. 62 stand this passage differently according to the interpretation, which they adopt of the other expression "one ofusi' They., who under- stand this phrase to mean one of the three Persons in the Trinity, will translate with Mr. Wardlavv " Ye shall be as God." Those on the other hand, who think with me, that " one of us " means one of the heavenly host, will adhere to the common version, which is in it- self perfectly correct. Mr. Wardlaw's strong language upon the decisiveness of the last text was perhaps suggested by the fear of appearing to give up the whole of the proofs considered in this chapter. He seems still to consider this passage as sufficient by itself to prove a plurality of Per- sons in the Godhead. The others he thinks may be interpreted as referring to such a plurality, if it be proved by previous evidence. But, although he does not now maintain, that any one of them taken singly presents evidence in proof of his doctrine, yet he thinks that a power- ful argument arises from viewing them in combination, * which is to imagine, that a positive quantity may be formed by adding up a co- lumn of cyphers. CHAPTER III. Since a very erroneous impression is likely to be produced upon the mind respecting the amount of that evidence, which is magnified in appearance by being discussed at^reat length and diffused through a long succession of pages, I thought it proper before entering upon a critical investigation of each text, to bring together into one view, (as I had done with regard to the proofs of my own tenets,) all the passages alleged as direct proofs of a Trinity of Co-equal Persons in the Godhead. That Mr. Wardlaw should be greatly incensed at my representation, gives me no surprise, and occasions me but little * Unit. Incap. of Vind. p. 81. 63 uneasiness. If it be fatal to his system, the fault is not mine. I have only given a plain statement of the real fact. Mr. Wardlaw complains, that I ought to have introduced into this catalogue all the passages, which are supposed to prove separately the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Do these passages then correspond to the description, by which I professed to be guided in drawing up the catalogue ? Do they " contain" the doctrine of the Trinity ? I en- titled my catalogue "" A list of all the passages of the Old and New Testament, tvhkh assert, in terms more or less direct and express, that in the Unity of the Godhead there are three distinct Subsistences or Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Hofy Spirit." Mr. Ward- law has not shown, that the list is incomplete. He has not produced another passage from the whole Bible, v\ hich could have been added to it as containing a statement of the doctrine of the Trinity. To this list I subjoined Mr. Wardlaw's own concession, that the leading articles of the Christian Revelation, of which he supposes the Trinity to be one, must be " plainly stated," taught in clear, explicit, and de- terminate language, in the books which contain the records of that Revelation. Mr. Wardlaw has not retracted this concession. In re- ference to this maxim I asked, "■ Where is the passage, which, if pre- sented to any person, not previously trained up and instructed in the doctrine, would suggest to his mind the notion of three distinct agents, equal and infinite in every Divine perfection ?" To this ques- tion Mr. Wardlaw for an obvious reason makes no reply. But, un- til he shall either produce such a passage, or prove the fallacy of the principle, which he has laid down, he ought by his own showing to renounce the doctrine of the Trinity as indefensible. In Isa. xxxiv. 16, I have objected to the translation " my mouth" as not authorized by the original. Lowth, Stock, and Dodson all translate the passage, " the mouth of Jehovah hath given the com- mand" Lowth's Note is as follows ; " For «in, five MSS. (three ancient) read mn', and another is so corrected. So likewise LXX." A reading, supported by considerable evidence, (see Kennicott, De Rossi, and Rosenmuller ad locum,) is this, " For his mouth hath given the command." But there is no sufficient reason to doubt, that the true representation of the original words of the prophet is 64 that given by Lowtli, Stock, and Dodson, and which would in all probability have been given by the learned authors of the common version, if they had had access to the various sources of information, which have been placed within our reach in the course of the last two hundred years. Mr. Wardlaw's comment upon Isa. xlviii. 16, is as follows j "^ 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," * — In the context it is evident, that Jehovah is the speaker ; but nothing opposes the supposition, that in this verse " the prophet Isaiah," as I have said before, " speaks in his own person," Being on the point of solemnly calling his apostate countrymen to re- pentance and obedience, see the two next verses,) he in the first place demands their serious attention, and declares his authority as the inspired messenger of God, " And now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me 5" and he then addresses his countrymen, " Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer," &c. We find the Prophet Jeremiah in the same circumstances adopting a similar course ; Jer, xxvi. 12, 13 : " The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that ye have heard. Therefore now amend your ways," &c. Mr. Dodson's Note upon the passage in Isaiah is this ; " The words seem not to be the words of Christ, but of the Prophet, as the Chaldee understands them, inserting before them, 'Dixit Propheta.' This interpretation is strongly con- firmed by Zech, vii, 12." The Prophet is also supposed to be the speaker by Le Clerc, Dathe, and Rosenmuller, The words of the last-mentioned critic are, " Ait igitur vates, se ab initio, cum vati- cinari coepit, egisse verbis non obscuris et implexis, aut in recessu et latebris, ut gentium oracula assolent, sed palam et apertfe. Quod sanfe non auderet, nisi afflatus esset ab eo, qui nee fallere alios, neque ipse uUo modo possit falli." We now come to a passage, (Matt, xxviii, 19,) which has been • Unit. lucap. of Viiid, p. 109. 65 commonly rpgarded as one of the main supports of the Trinitarian (loi'trine, Imt which, even l)y Mr. Wardlaw's account, is giving way. iMr. Wardlaw's argument from this passage jjrocceded upon the Supposition, that to be baptized into the naiue of auj/ being implies, that that being is made the object of Supreme icor.ship. I have shown that the expression only implies, that such a being is made the subject of faith ; and from a variety of concurring circumstances, but chiefly from examining the language of the Scriptures in other passages, I have endeavoured to prove, that the command to " bap- tize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,'' was a direction to administer baptism as a testimont/ of faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As the first step in my explanation of the passage, I observed, that "the name'' of a person is an expression often used to signify the person himself, serving only for a title of respect, as when we say in English " the King's majesty," * and that the same meaning would consequently have been conveyed, if our Lord's words had been, " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Spirit." But Mr. Wardlaw objects, that I have produced no example of " the name" of a thing being used as a phrase for the thing itself, and that I have thus left the question unanswered, " What are we to make of the phrase ' name of the Holy Spirit,' if the Holy Spirit means an attribute, or a power, or influence r" t This objection evidently tends no furtiier than to prove the per- sonality, and not the Divinity, of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless I * III niakhig this remark I liad in view tlie obseivati^u of Scluiltens, who de- rives Dtt> from the Arabic verb nou;, to be high, elevated, eminent ; and also the occasional use of the word in Hebrew to signify distinction or renow?i in tlie abstract. According to this view, the remarkable expression in Rev. xi. 3, " Tlierc were slain seven thousand names of men," means " There were slain seven thotisand eminent men." The English word " name" does not appear to me at all suited to convey the force of the Hebrew Dt:^ in the circnmstance.s under consideration, since the intention of riic word is to express tlie sanrtilij, greatness, or excellence of the .subject, to which it is applied. t Uuh. Incap. of Vind. p. 110. K 66 admit, that to render my proof of the Unitarian interpretation of the passage absolutely complete, I ought to have added such an example as Mr. Wardlaw requires. 1 find one in Jer. xxxiii, 9 : " And it {Jerusalem) shall be to me a name of joy, (that is, an exceeding joy,) a praise, and an honour before all the nations of the earth." The expression " his holy name," which occurs 1 Chron. xvi. 35, xxix, 16 ; Psalm ciii. 1, and in several other places, is literally " the name of his holiness," that is, the name of the holiness-, or the transcendant holiness, of the great Supreme. In the same manner our grammars and lexicons demand that we resolve the phrase " his GLORIOUS name," which is literally " the name of the glory of God." " The name of the Spirit of God," supposing his Spirit to mean his Influence, would not be a more extraordinary phrase than " the name of his Kingdom." But the latter was extremely common among the Jews. It was a custom with them, as often as the High-priest pronounced the name of God in the sanctuary, to utter this ascription of praise, " Blessed be the na?ne of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever." * But the most striking exemplifica- tion of this periphrasis, as applied to things, is the fact stated by Schoettgen, t that " the Samaritans circumcised their converts into the ng,me of Mount Gerizim." Here we have an example of " the name" of a thing meaning the thing itself, and it occurs in the ac- count of that initiatory rite, practised by the Samaritans, which corresponded to the rite of Baptism among Christians. What can be the meaning of circumcising proselytes " i7ito the name of Mount Gerizim" but circumcising them in testimony of their faith in Mount Gerizim, as the place where the worship of the true God was to be performed ? In support of my interpretation of the word " 7iame" as denoting not only persons, but things, I may quote the opinions of Schleusner and Suicer. It is interpreted by the former " Ipsa persona et res, quae aliquo nomine insignitur ;" and by the latter it is said to be used " pro re et persona." Mr. Wardlaw commences his additional remarks upon the text under consideration with the following words : " I am disposed to * Hammond on Rora. i.x. 5, f See Ncwcome on Matt, xxviii. 19- 67 admit, that my language in atliiiiiiiig that this passage nccessarili/ implies an act of worship, was too strong anxl nnqnalificd. That it does I still have no doubt. But I am satisfied that this arises, in a considerable degree, from my views of the nature of the ordinance of baptism, along with vuj previous conviction of the doctrine of the Trinity."* This is a clear and candid admission, that to a person not previously convinced upon other grounds, this passage would pre- sent no satisfactory evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity. In iiis subsequent observations also Mr. Wardlaw signifies his assent to my interpretation of the formula as denoting that converts should be baptized in testimony of their belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But he observes, that this iiiterpretatioti is " con- sistent with their holding this faith in the Father, Son, and Spirit, as faith in one God, subsisting in three Persons." This 1 have not denied. I have however maintained, and, I think, fully proved, that the words of our Lord afford no evidence of a Trinity of co-equal Persons in the Godhead, although, if the doctrine of the Trinity were previously established, we should of course understand the words " Father," " Son," and " Holy Ghost," as names of the three €9-equal Persons. I could not expect that Mr. Wardlaw should notice every argument, which I advance in support of ray interpretations of Scripture, and am therefore satisfied that he should pass them by, as he repeatedly docs, without either assent or objection. But I did expect, that he would avoid gross misrepresentation. In commenting upon 2 Cor. xiii. 14, I observed that the " phrase * Coimnunion of the Holy Spirit' implies, that 'the Holy Spirit' does not in this instance signify God or any per- son." t Mr. Wardlaw represents me as " affirming confidently and scornfully, that the expression disproves the personality of the Holy Spirit," X that is, disproves that the phrase ''Holy Spirit" denotes a person in any instance. The assertion, which I have made is sup- ported by the remark, that " we may enjoy a communion of gifts * Uuit. lucap. of Viiid. p. lO'J. f Viiid. ol Uait. p. 156. I Unit. Incap. of Viiid. p. lUi. 68 WiTti persons ; but a participation of a person Is an idea, which can- not enter the mind." Mr. Wardlavv observes in reply, that St. Paul " speaks of Christians as ' being made partakers of' Christ.' "• 1 answer that St. Paul (or rather, the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, for the expression occurs nowhere except in Heb. iii. 14) here uses a metonymy, and that "partakers of Christ' means par- takers of the INSTRUCTIONS, ENDOWMENTS, and SUFFERINGS of Christ. To employ the language of my former remark, "partakers of Christ" implies, that the word " Christ' does not in this instance signify Christ himself, or any person ; for we cannot possibly /;«?•- take of a person, although we may partake of powers, influences, and gifts. The phrase is illustrated by Eph. iii. 6 j Col. i. 12 ; Heb. iii. 1, vi. 4, xii. 10 j 1 Pet. iv. 13 ; 2 Pet. i. 4 ; where Christians are said to be "partakers of the promise of God in Christ," "partakers of the sufferings of Christ," "partakers of the holy spirit," "parta- kers of the inheritance of the saints in light," "partakers of the hea- venly calling," "partakers of the holiness of God," and "partakers of the Divine nature." In support of his views of the Apostolic benediction, Mr. Ward- law quotes a long passage from his llth Discourse, (p. 343,) which he says I had " overlooked." On the contrary, I had referred to it particularly,* and in different parts of my work had stated what I conceived to be the true explanation of almost every passage of scripture contained in it. There Js indeed only one of these pas- sages, in which the language is at all similar to the phrase under consideration. It is 1 John i. 3. " That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have felloivship tvith us : and truly our felloivship is tvith the Father and tvith his Son Jesus Christ." The word {Kotvuvta) translated "fellowship" signifies lite- rally a partaking, a participation, a communion. By the last term it is rendered in 2 Cor. xiii. 1 4, and so it ought to have been ren- dered here. The meaning is, " We declare unto you that which we have seen and heard, in order that you may partake with us, flitc- * Vindicalioii, p. 154. 09 rallij, have jtartitipation or cowiniinion with us,) in the holy desires and exalted views which we entertain : and truly wc partake in these views and desires with God himself and with his Son Jesus Christ." The description here given of Christians strikingly agrees with that above quoted from the Apostle Peter, in which he calls them " partakers of a Divine nature." In employing this language, the Apostles " associate" themselves and their fellow-believers with God and with Jesus Christ. Yet Mr. Wardlaw maintains, that, when our Saviour " associates himself with his Father" in the words, "we will come unto him, and make our abode with him," he is chargeable, if he be a mere created messenger of God, with " the most offensive presumption." In reply to Mr. Wardlaw's argument from the cottpling together in the Apostolic benediction of " the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ" and " the love of God," I referred to the conclusion of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where St. Paul says, " The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. My love be with you in Christ Jesus." Mr. ^V'ardlaw's severe and reiterated censures of my accidental substitution of a semicolon for a period in quoting this passage, remind me of the description of a certain character by the prince of modern critics, when he says, " A sophist abhors me- diocrity J he must always say the greatest thing, and make a tide and a flood, though it be but in a basin of vvater."* But as there seems to be some reason to maintain with Socinus, (as quoted by Mr. Wardlaw,) that the latter of these two sentences ought to be translated, not " My love he" but " My love is with you all ia Christ Jesus," I leave the reader at liberty, if he sees fit, to cancel the whole paragraph, in which I have quoted and applied the pas- sage. Still my principal observation remains unrefuted. I have conceded, that the benediction of the Apostle may reasonably be understood as including a petition. But I have added, and added without receiving any answer, " To whom is this petition ad- dressed? By all who entertain just views of Scripture truth, it is addressed to the one true God, our Heavenly Father, who is able to * Bcutky's Dissertation on Phalari:>, p. 00. 70 do for us above all that we can ask or think. We may therefore reasonably consider the words of the Apostle as implying not only a benevolent wish, but also a devout prayer to the Father of mercies, that the disciples at Corinth might enjoy the favourable regards of the Lord Jesus Christ, the head of the Church ; that they might continue to be approved and beloved by God ; and that they might possess, in common with the whole body of Christians, a portion of the holy spirit." Upon the last passage in the list, (Rev. i. 4, 5,) Mr. Wardlaw had said, " that ' the seven spirits of God' is evidently an emblema- tical expression for the Holy Spirit." In the work now before us he produces the reason for this assertion, which he expresses by asking, " If St. John did not mean this, then what did he mean ?" I answer by transcribing the note of Archbishop Newcome upon the passage j " The seven spirits. See ver. 20, iii. 1, iv. 5, v. 6, viii. 2, 6, xv. 1, 6, 7, xvi. 1, xvii. 1, xxi. 9. They seem to be those seven ministering spirits, whom St. John saw discharging separate offices in subsequent revelations made to him." Mr. Wardlaw is in great triumphj because I have spoken of the Holy Spirit as " a person, receiving from God the Father power to bestow certain favours and gifts." My statement was evidently hypothetical. This was indicated with sufficient clearness by the introductory clause of the sentence, " Alloiving it to be as evident as Mr. JVardlaiv asserts." CHAPTER IV. Before considering the evidence for the Supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ, I have endeavoured to settle the previous question, whether this doctrine is such as can be proved by the testimony of the Scriptures. With this view I considered what is implied in the assertion^ (supposing the terms of it to be intelligible,) that " in the 71 person of Christ there existed a union of the Divine and human natures." I observed, (Vindication, p. KiO,) that " l)y the 'nature of any tiling 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 that he possesses both the qualitiks of God, and the QUAMTiES o/' man. But, if we consider what these qualities are, we perceive them to be totally incompatible with one another." I have then stated and contrasted these qualities, and have thus endeavoured to prove that the doctrine, which asserts their union in one person, is utterly absurd and self- contradictory, and therefore incapable of being proved even by the clearest declarations of the Scriptures. After (pioting the passage at full length, Mr. AVardlaw remarks, " In all this I have the happiness of most entirely and cordially agreeing v\ ith 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." * — In order to prove, that I have misrepre- sented, and " wilfully and deliberately" misrepresented, the ortho- dox doctrine, Mr. Wardlavv alleges a fact, which I knew and had stated, but which, instead of proving the charge brought against me, appears to me now, as it did then, to be the very circumstance, which justifies my representation. The fact is this ; that, according to the orthodox doctrine, as finally determined at the Council of • Unit. Iiicap. of Vind. pp. 124, 125. — The opinions, which 1 liave stated as to tlie best of my knowlc(lg2 inchided in the doctrine of Christ's Divine and liunian naltiies, are hcie reprobated by Mr. Wardlaw in tlie strongest terms as d'lsgndmg and Jiideous, " the monstrous production of a malicious fancy." But, in a subsequent part of the same volume, (p. 243,) he himself calls them " the peculiarities of Trinitariunism." " On the peculiarities of Trinitarianism," says he, " Mr. Yates could pronounce with dogmatism enough ;" and iu proof of tliis assertion, lie immediately quotes my remarks on the incredibility of the opinions now brought under review. n Chalccdon, tlie Divine and human natures in the person of (Ihrist continue "■ distinct,'^ that is, " not confounded,'' the Divine not being transmuted into the human nature, nor the one blended with tlie other.* Now, if the Divine and the human natures had been supposed to be altered and blended, so as to form a mlved nature between the Divine and the human, the doctrine might not have been self-contradictory ; for the new properties, formed by the mutual communication, might exist in one and the same person. But this view is decidedly rejected by the orthodox ; and the precise circumstance, which constitutes the absurdity of their doctrine, is, that they represent the Divine and human natures, though belonging to one person, as remaining distiin'ct, and not blended or con- founded. Mr. Wardlaw, in speaking of my argument, says, " He has enumerated the properties of God and the properties of man ; and then, instead of keeping them distinct, he has represented the system of Trinitarians as ascribing these opposite and incompatible pro- perties to the satne mind!' — Does Mr. Wardlaw then believe, that the one person of Christ includes more minds than one ? If one person involves not only one mind, but even more, how little merited were his censures against me f for representing the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead as implying the supposition of three minds ! Mr. Wardlaw proceeds j — " as if they held the doctrine of the human soul of Jesus possessing the attributes of his Divine nature, or his Divine nntttre the qualities of his human souH" Here is • Dr. Barrow explahis the determination of the Council of Chalcedon by saying, that tlie Divine and luiman natures were iniited in the person of our Lord, Acrvyx^'^^i) " Without conimixtion or confusion, for tliiit would induce a third nature different from both, such as results from the composition or con- teniperation of the elements into a mixed body ; so that he should be neither God nor man, but I know not what other kind of being, without any ground or aulhority to be supposed, that would destroy, diminisli, or alter tbe properties belonging to eacli." — Exposition of tlie Creed, Works, Vol. I. p. 525. t Unit. Incaj). of Viud. pp. 65 — 75. 73 strange confusion, '"' the Divine nature" not being distinguished from the Person, to whom that natiiio bohmgs. Mr. Wardlaw has avowed his " entire and cordial agreement" with that part of my work, in which I have defined tlie " nature" of a thing to mean its qualities. Let the reader therefore substitute the word " qualities" in place of " nature" in the sentence just quoted, and then let him, if he can, make out of it any sense at all. Perhaps Mr. Wardlaw meant to have said, " as if they held the doctrine of the human soul of Jesus possessing the attributes of his Divine person, or his Divine person the qualities of his human soul." If this was his meaning, he adheres to the decree of the Council of Chalcedon by rejecting that of the Council of Ephesus, which determined that the two opposite natures belong to one person only. If Mr. Wardlaw maintains, that Jesus Christ not only possesses two distinct natures, but consists also of two distinct persons, a Divine and a human, his doctrine may escape the imputation of absurdity, but it must equally resign the character of orthodoxy. In the argument now considered, 1 have proceeded upon the sup- position, that the terms, in which the doctrine is stated, are intel- ligible. After dismissing it, I considered in my former work the supposition, that its terms are 7iot intelligible. * Here a different train of reasoning is of course adopted. Agreeably to the principles repeatedly stated, I have said, that, if I could find in the Scriptures tb(f unintelligible proposition, that " in the person of Christ a Divine is united with a human nature," expressed in these terms, I should, in submission to the authority by which it is declared, believe it to contain a truth. Mr. Wardlaw has confounded together the two cases, and represented my observations respecting the latter, as if they were intended to be applied to the former, f In the latter part of the Chapter, to which these remarks refer, I combated Mr. Wardlaw's representation of the doctrine of the Divi- nity of Christ as supported by numerous passages of Scripture, which have been supposed to teach that doctrine by all translators * Vind. of Unit. p. 161. t Unit. Incap. of Vind. p. 127. 74 and conimentalors in all countnes and all ages, tvhh the exception of thcrvery feu-', who have denied the doctrine altogether. I entreat Mr. Wardlavv to ask himself, whether the principle of integrity did not require that he should retract this statement. Instead of so doing, he only objects to the list of eminent Unitarians, the pro- duction of which he had forced upon me, First, as inaccurate in point of fact, and Secondly, as " an attempt to give authority and weight to my cause by mustering a host of imposing names." * The first charge is stated in these terms ; " It cannot fail to strike the considerate reader, what an anxiety there is to swell the list, not only by including Sabellians, Arians, Senii-arians, 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." Of the " anxiety" here described, I was never conscious ; and as it includes simple names without any remarks annexed, the reader, who is " struck," as Mr. Wardlavv represents, can only experience such an impression from the influence of his own fancy. The list manifests, says Mr. Wardlaw, " an anxiety to include SahelUans, Arians, Semi-arians, and Socinians, in all their variety of degrees." I ask, JVhere are the Sabellians ? I know of none. Again, fFho are the Semi-arians ? I have, I believe, included )io other except Dr. Samuel Clarke, who, as is evident from his celebrated " Scrip- ture Doctrine of the Trinity,'' would have assented, had he lived in the present day, to every tenet and probably to every interpretation of Scripture contained in my " ^Vindication of Unitarianism." Was I not right in including both Arians, and Socinians, who equally assert the principles, which I was employed in defending ? I have not introduced the name of an individual, whom I could not prove by clear and decisive evidence to have been, at least during the latter part of his life, a Unitarian in the sense, in which I have always used the term, and in which I was under the necessity of * Uuit. lucap. of Vind. pp. 19—22. 75 Qsiug it in replying to a representation worded so as to cast con- tempt not npon Socinians only, l)ut upon all who have denied the Supreme Divinity of Christ. Besides this general charge, Mr. Wardlaw has specified two names as particularly improper to be introduced into a catalogue of Uni- tarians. These are Dr. JVIutbij and Dr. fratts. Of the former Mr. Wardlaw asserts, that " the w/iolc tenor of his «'or^,« justifies us in questioning his riglit to the place assigned him in the Unitarian brotherhood." Perhaps Mr. Wardlaw never heard, that Dr. Whitby towards tiic end of his life renounced the Trinitarian doctrine, which he had before defended, and wrote a solemn retractation of his errors under the following title : " 'T2TEPAI P0NTIAE2 j or. The Last Thoughts of Dr. Whitby, containing his correction of several passages in his Commentary on the New Testament 5 London, 1727." In the Preface he expresses himself in these adn\irable and edifying terms : " All other notions of the word Person besides the plain and obvious one, signifying a real and intelligent agent, have been al- ready so excellently baffled and learnedly confuted, (sec Dr. Clarke, Mr. Jackson, and other-!,) that I own I am not able to resist the shining evidence of truth : nor am I ashamed to confess my former Mistakes and Errors in these matters after such strong and irre- sistible conviction, seeing, Humanum est crrare. All men are liable to error. And, as upon this principle I cannot but think it the most gross hypocrisy after such conviction to persist in a mistake, so without question it is the greatest abuse of humility and free- thinking to attribute such open and ingenuous acknowledgments to a wavering judgment or levity of mind." Then, after quoting the examples of Cyprian and Austin, he proceeds : " And this my Retractation, or change of my opinion, after all my former endeavours to assert and establish a contrary doctrine, deserves the more to be considered, because it proceeds (and indeed can proceed) front me for no other reason, but purely from the strong and irresistible convictions, which are now upon me, that / wa^ mistaken. Notiiing, I say, but the love of truth can be sup- 7« posed to extort such a Retractation from me, who, having already lived so long beyond the common period of life, can have nothing else to do but to prepare for my great change, and in order there- unto to make my peace with God and my own conscience before I die. To this purpose I solemnly appeal to the Searcher of hearts, and call God to witness, whether I have hastily or rashly departed from the common opinion, or rather, whether I have not deliberately and calmly vieighed the arguments on both sides drawn from scrip- ture and authority ?" Again ; " If I have erred in changing my opinion, I desire it may be ob- served, that my error hath neither prejudice, nor secular views to support it ; and that my mistake, if such it will be reputed, hath been all along attended with constant prayers to the Throne of grace, and what hath always appeared to me to be the strongest reason and most undeniable evidence. And even yet, if any will be so kind, as in the spirit of meekness to answer the arguments I have produced to justify my change, if it please God to give me the same degree of Health and Soundness of mind, which by his blessing and goodness I now enjoy, I promise sincerely to consider them, and to act suitably to the strength of the argument. But, if such an answer is attempted with angry invectives and haughty sophistry, aiming to be wise above what is written, I must say, Mevuf^ev axnte^ sa-jXEv, i. e. / mtcst remain in my present sentiments, having in this short treatise seriously considered all that I had said in my ' Com- mentary' to the contrary, and fully answered the most considerable places I had then produced for confirmation of the doctrines 1 there too hastily endeavoured to establish." From the latter part of this Preface it is evident, that Dr. Whitby intended to publish the work before his death. He died in 1726. It was published the year following " by his express order." It consists of a defence of the general principles of Unitarianism ; and, as a circumstance which strongly justifies me in introducing the name of Whitby as I did, I may remark, that I have met with no other work, which in its general scope and object so much coincides with ray own " Vindication of Unitarianism." 77 Dr. Whitby's publications were forty-one in number. With all of these Mr. AVardlaw ought to have been in some degree acciuaintcd^ in order to be qualified to make the assertion which lie has ad- vanced, that Dr. Whitby's orthodoxy is proved " by the whole tenor of his writings." In the catalogue of them I observe a great variety of works, which, judging from their Titles, I have no doubt, oppose the sentiments, by maintaining which the Orthodox differ from Uni- tarians. Such for example is " A Sermon proving, that Reason is to be our Guide in the choice of our Religion, and that nothing ought to be admitted as an article of Faith, ivhich is repugnant to the com- mon principles of Reason, or is uninteHigible to the Human Under- standing ; with an Appendi.v in f'indication of it ; London, 1714." Respecting the last sentiments of Dr. Watts we liave not equally minute information, because the papers, which he had written to explain " his new thoughts concerning the person of Christ, and their great importance," were destroyed soon after his death by his Executors. Some curious particulars relating to this transaction may be seen in Mr. Belsham's Life of Lindsey. But to prove, that Dr. Watts was during the latter years of his life a decided Unitarian, in the sense in which I have always used the term, I appeal to the same authority, to which Mr. Wardlaw has himself referred. * The late Mr. Samuel Palmer, minister of an Independent Con- gregation at Hackney, published in 1 785 Johnsons Life of JVatts, with Additions, among which is a dissertation entitled " An authen- tic account of his last sentiments on the Tritiity." Mr. Palmer says, (Preface, p. iv.) that the doctrine of the Trinity " employed his thoughts and his pen more than any other disputed point in theo- logy 3" that " in the younger part of life he seemed to embrace the doctrine as it had been commonly stated, and had no objection to the usual modes of expression in relation to itj" but that " as it was not his character to take any thing upon trust, he indulged a freedom of inquiry with respect to this subject of debate as well as every other, and the consequence was, he saw reason to alter his * Unit. Incap. of Viiid. Fictiicc, ji. xiii. 78 views concerning it" (p. 44) ; that " within about two years of his dissolution he published the result of his inquiries" in two works entitled " Useful and important Questions concerning Jesus Christ the Son of God,'' and " The Glory of Christ as God-man displayed'' (p. 54) ; that these works were " the product of that part of his life, when his powers of mind and body wei-e in full vigour" (p. 58) ; that he appears in them to reject the doctrine of the Trinity as held by Athanasians, maintaining the perfect simplicity of the Divine nature (p. 95) ; that he believed God to be One Infinite Being, the same who is often characterized in Scripture as the Father, and Jesus Christ to be another being or person, in himself inferior to the Father and derived from him (p. 1 24) ; that his idea of the Divi- nity of Christ was, that " the Godhead, the Deity itself, personally distinguished as the Father, was united to the man Christ Jesus, in consequence of which union, or indwelling of the Godhead, lie became properly God 3" and, (p. 62,) tliat with respect to the Holy Spirit, " he did not hold the common notion of his real personality as distinct from the Father, but supposed it to mean the Divine power or influence, or God himself as exerting his influence." The zeal of Trinitarians to maintain the orthodoxy of Dr. Watts probably arises in a considerable degree from their use of his Psalms and Hymns in public worship. They ought however to be informed, that the Doctor himself afterwards disapproved of the inconsiderate expressions suggested in his early youth, when, to use his own ex- pression, * " he believed in scholastic orthodoxy," and would have corrected his devotional poetry, had not the pecuniary interest of the Bookseller opposed a revisal. The following conversation u{)on the subject is recorded by Mr. Palmer (p. 28) : " Mr. Grove remarked to the Doctor, that several of the Hymns • Dr. Watts employed this expression in spealung of liis " Christian Doctrine of the Trinity" which Mr. Wardlaw quotes in terms of great respect ; Dis- comses, p. 41. "When I wrote the booli," says Dr. Watts, " / believed in SCHOLASTIC ORTHODOXY ; and yet now I would argue," &c. &c. Correspondence between the Rev. Dr. Isaac Watts and the Rev. iMartia Tomkins concerning the worship of the Holy Spirit, &c., London, 1803, p. 24. 79 laid llie stress of our rcdoinption on the compassion of Clirist latlicj- Jlian Oil tlic love of Cod, and expressed his wisli, that he would alter them ill this respeet, and make them more conformable to the scrip- ture doctrine. The Doctor replied, tliat he should be glad to do it, but it was out of his power, for he had parted with the copy, and the Bookseller would not suffer any such alteration." In an " Ap--- pendlv' to the above-mentioned work, (London, 1791,) Mr. Palmer also informs us, that, when urged by Mr. Tomkins, an Arian mi- nister, to declare publicly his disapprobation of the Doxologies, which he had composed to the Holy Spirit as a distinct person from the Father, Dr. Watts wrote the following reply : * " I freely an- swer, I wish some things were corrected. But the question with me is this : as I wrote them in sincerity at that time, is it not more for the edification of Christians and the glory of Cod, to let them stand, than to ruin the usefulness of the whole book by correcting them now, and perhaps bring further and false suspicions on ray present opinions ? Besides, 1 might tell you, that, of all the books I have written, that particular copy is not mine. I sold it for a trifle to Mr. Lawrence near thirty years ago, and his posterity make money of it to this day J and I can scarce claim a right to make anv alte- ration in the book, which would injure the sale of it." This was written about ten years before the death of Dr. Watts. Much more copious evidence, if necessary, might be produced to prove, that Dr. A¥atts in the latter part of his life was a Unitarian, that is, (for in this sense I have always used the term,) that he firmly held the simple unity of Cod as one person, maintained that one person to be the same, who in the Scriptures is repeatedly called the Father, regarded " the Holy Spirit " as either another name for the Father, or as his injtuence and energy, and considered Jesus Christ, though intimately united with him, as distinct from him, created by him, and ivholly dependant upon him. If I have shown, that I was accurate in point of fact, when I in- • The passaire may likewise be seen in tlie " Correspondence" referred to in the last Note, p. 31. 8Q troduced the names of Watts and VVliitby into the list of eminent Unitarians, it will not surely be objected, that they held these sen- timents only during the latter part of their lives. Their last thoughts, formed after the most attentive, serious, and deliberate study, must be considered as the sentiments, which they have sanc- tioned by their approbation : and it must strike every one as a con- siderable presumption in favour of Unitarianism, that men so able and so upright as Dr. Whitby, Dr. Watts, and Mr. Robert Robinson, who had gained from the world the highe.. 147. 86 of God came," I doubt whether there is another example of their being called " Children of the Most High,'' or " Sons of God," so that our Saviour was restricted to the use of the very passage which he quoted, in order that he might at once vindicate himself from the unjust accusation of the Jews, and illustrate the grace and truth, which he came to introduce. — But could any thing have been more easy than to give a plain and distinct denial of the charge, that he made himself God ?* He did give such a denial. It was clearly implied in the argument by which he justified himself. They were exasperated, because he had called God " his Father" thus placing himself, as they conceived, on an equality with the Supreme Being. Had he really been God equally with the Father, he would not have shrunk from the avowal of it ; but he vindicates himself upon a different plea, viz. that in the Scriptures those persons are called " gods," and " sons of God," to whom the word of God comes ; and being one of those so favoured and distinguished, he maintains that he was right in calling God " his Father." His argument was not only decisive in reply to the cavil of the Jews, but should con- vince all who believe him to have been incapable of timidly concealing the truth, that he was not the Supreme God. Mr. Wardlaw objects to this interpretation, that the persons addressed in the passage, which our Saviour quoted, were not pro- phets, but '* the Jewish rulers, the judges of Israel." f But Jesus Christ, considered mei'ely as a Jew, who lived at the beginning of the Christian fera, was incomparably better qualified to describe the inferior signification of the term " god" than any of us ; and as one, to whom " God gave the Spirit without measure," I believe him to have been free from the possibility of deception. He says that " the scripture calls those ' gods,' to whom the word of God comes." That Prophets are included under this designation is allowed by Mr. Wardlaw. " The inspired communications made to the holy Prophets," says he in a subsequent part of his volume, " are almost always introduced in similar terms, ' The Lord said unto me,' ' The word of the Lord came unto me.' "| The circum- * Unit. Incap. of Vmd. p. 139. f Ibid. p. 140. ♦ ibid. p. 265. 87 stance, stated by liiin, that the Jewish rulerx are called '* gods," docs not militate against the correctness of the definition. The Jewish rulers, the judges of Israel, were also persons, " to whom the word of God came," and it was for this reason that they were called " gods" and " children of the Most High." At the first appointment of the Seventy Elders to be the assistants of Moses in the administration of the Law, (Numbers xi.) God said, " I will take of the spirit, which is upon thee, and will put it upon them," The sacred history repre- sents the qualifications of Joshua to succeed Moses by describing him as " a man, in whom was the spirit of God," and we are informed, that after the death of Moses, " the Lord spake unto Joshua," giving him similar commands and directions. The Judges^ who judged Israel after the death of Joshua, are repeatedly described as having similar endowments, and the same was the case with Saul, David, and the race of Kings. It was as a sr/mbol of the elusion of the spirit, that rulers upon entering on their office were anointed by having oil, •which was the emblem of richness, poured over them. If then the Jewish rulers were persons, " to whom the word of God came," or who, as I have explained the phrase, " were authorized, commissioned, and inspired, to declare the w ill of God to mankind," we see the per- fect aptitude of the quotation to our Saviour's purpose, and we can- not reasonably doubt, that he intended to claim to himself the titles of " a god" and " a son of God" in the same sense, in which they are given to the prophets, and also in that passage to the Judges of Israel. Since Mr. Wardlaw allows, that the term " god " is sometimes used in an inferior sense, there was no reason, why he should be anxious to reduce the number of instances. The examples, which remain by his own concession, ai-e amply sufficient for our purpose. I cannot however admit the justice of the criticisms, by which he en- deavours to set the rest aside. Some of them appear to me to do great violence to the sense. Thus, in Deut. x. ] 7, Jehovah is called God of Gods, that is, according to Mr. frardlaivs explanation, * * Unit. Incap, of Vind. p. 135, SB God of Idols, or, as he ought to have explained it in consistency with the uniform force of this species of superlative, Idol of Idols, or the greatest of Idols. Even supposing the word " God " to be used here in two different senses, and to signify, that Jehovah is, in the highest sense of the word, God of Idols, the absurdity is scarcely abated, the praise consisting only in declaring, that the Supreme Creator and Governor of the Universe rules over Idols, that he is " infinitely superior " to non-entities, or to stocks and stones. The title " God op Gods " is followed by the similar title *' Lord of Lords:'' — " Jehovah, your God, is God of gods, and Lord of lords." Are not the expressions parallel, and to be interpreted upon the same principle ? But, if " God of Gods " signifies God of Idols, what is meant by " Lord of Lords ?" Submitting these remarks to Mr. Wardlaw's candid consideration, 1 shall only say, that the word " god," applied metaphorically to Jehovah, is in this passage to be considered as equivalent to the word " king," kings being called gods, because they were regarded as persons, ** to whom the word of God came." The title, by which Moses designates the Almighty, is there- fore precisely equivalent to that employed by the apostle Paul, (1 Tim. vi- J5,) where he calls the Supreme Being "King of kings and Lord of lords." The description is intended to represent Jeho'^ vah superior in power and dominion to all kings and lords, as they are superior to all their subjects, I might object upon equally strong grounds to others of Mr. Ward- law's criticisms on the instances, which I have produced, of the in- ferior sense of the term " god." Among all the passages to which he makes exceptions, there is only one where I see reason to allow the force of his remarks. This is 1 Sam.ii. 25, which ought perhaps to be translated, as Mr. Wardlaw proposes, " If one man sin against another, Gorf shall judge him." To make amends for this defalca- tion, (supposing it to be required,) I beg to add the following pas- sages to my former collection of instances, in which " those are called gods, to whom the word of God came." Joshua xxii, 22. " The Lord, God of Gods, the Lord, God of Gods, he knoweth." 1 Chron. xxiv. 5. " The governors of the sanctuary, and the go- 89 vernors of the gods, were of the sons of Eloazar, and of the sons of Ithaniar." The supplement given in the common version, " of the h&uae of God," is totally unauthorized by the original. The gods, here spoken of, were the Priests and the Prophets, so called because they were favoured with a portion of Divine inspiration. See Gro- tius ad loc, and Blayney on Jeremiah xx, 1 . Ps, 1. 1. " The God of Gods, even Jehovah hath spoken." In our common version, the expression is, " The mighty God ;" an accommodation to the English idiom, which is not objectionable, if it be borne iu mind, that the word " god'' must still be understood in its inferior sense, and the phrase regarded as equivalent to "the mighty kingy Psa. Ixxxix. G. " The heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Lord ; thy faithfulness also (shall be praised) in the congregation of the saints." Ver. 7. For who in the heavens can be compared unto Jehovah ? who among the sons of the gods can be likened unto Jehovah ?" The reader will observe the parallelism of the clauses in these two verses. *' The sons of the gods," mentioned in the latter clause of the seventh verse, are the princes, the priests, the prophets, and other favoured individuals, who composed " the congregation of the saints," men- tioned in the latter clause of the sirth verse. Ps. xcv. 3. " For Jehovah is a great God, and a great king over all gods," i, c. over all the princes of the earth, not surely over molten images, which were only " wind and confusion." (Isa. xli. 29.) Ps. cxxxv. 5. " For I know, that Jehovah is great, and that our Lord is above all gods." Ps. cxxxvi. 2, 3. " O give thanks unto the God of gods, (that is, unto the greatest of gods, the mighty king;) for his mercy eudureth for ever. O give thanks unto the Lord of lords, (that is, unto the mightiest of lords,) for his mercy endureth for ever." Ps. cxxxriii. 1. I will praise thee with my whole heart ; Before the gods will I sing praise unto thee;" that is, I will praise thee before the assembly of the priests and the prophets, the saints and the anointed princes. Isa. xli. 23. " Shew the things that arc to conic hereafter, that we 90 may know that ye are gods," that is, inspired prophets. The persons addressed were the priests of the heathen ; see vers. 21 — 29. The additional remarks now offered will, I trust, suffice as a reply to all that Mr. Wardlaw has written upon the inferior sense of the terra " god," and our Saviour's application of it to himself. Mr. Wardlaw, I must repeat, has not attempted to subvert the general principle, which I have laid down as our proper guide to the sense of passages, which are in themselves ambiguous. That principle however is one of universal application, and universally applied in the study of all books except the Bible. I shall illustrate this by an example, which, I hope, Mr. Wardlaw will not censure for " im- piety," though it be from the works of a heathen. In Plutarch's Essay on the Means of preserving Health, we find a passage, which may be literally translated, " They say, that the drain of the Phcenix, (tov £y>i£(paKov tov ^omyiO(;,) being extremely sweet, causes the head- ache." In this sense the words are rendered by Poole,* and by the French translator, Amiot : f so they were probably understood by Erasmus, f and the same idea, (though corrected in his Notes,) is expressed in the Latin version of Xylander.J But the same words may, in perfect consistency with grammar, be translated so as to denote an article of diet in Eastern countries, called " the cahhage of the palm-tree i^ and this is not only a much more rational idea, but, as we learn from Xenophon, Theophrastus, and Pliny the Na- tural Historian, it was familiar to the minds of the ancients before the time of Plutarch. All the more recent commentators have ac- cordingly adopted '*' this simple and reasonable interpretation," In reading the classics, we are happily free not only from the trammels of Subscription to Articles, requiring us to construe them agreeably * " Though the brains of the bird they call a Phoenix be very sweet, yet they say they'l cause the head-ache." Plutarch's Morals, translated by several hands, London, 1691, Vol. I. p. 322. t Jortin's Life of Erasmus, Vol. II. pp. 229, 230. X Plutarchi Opera, Gul. Xylandro Interprete, Francof. 1620, Vol. II. p. 133 ; Annot. p. 6. 91 to a certain system, but from the heavy chains of prejudice and the seductions of interest. Here therefore wc ask no " key o/interpre-' tation," except the knowledge of the hmguagc, the use of a correct text, the dictates of our own judgment and common sense, and the established rules of sound criticism. Were we equally free from every false bias in the study of the Scriptures, we should be at no loss, with respect to those passages where our Lord is simply called by the ambiguous term " god," to determine, whether they prove him to have been the Almighty Jehovah, or describe him as a person commissioned and inspired to declare the will of Jehovah to man- kind ; that is, whether, supposing the Deity of Christ not yet proved by other evidence, we ought to establish upon these ambiguous pas- sages a doctrine allowed to be most mysterious and incomprehen- sible, or to adopt a sense, consistent with what we already know to be the doctrine of the Scriptures. Before dismissing these passages, I wish to offer a few remarks merely in my own vindication, not that I am solicitous for the good opinion of the public on my own account, but because I think it re- quisite to the support of the great cause, in defending which I have been " counted worthy to suffer shame." Upon Isa. ix. 6, Mr. Wardlaw asks, whether I am myself sen- sible of the difficulties, which I have said are noticed by the most eminent critics. I certainly am. For the reason, which I have as- signed, I have some doubt whether AL be a genuine part of the Hebrew text. To prove that this word sometimes signifies a ruler, which I never before knew to be questioned, it is sufficient to recur to the foregoing part of this chapter : but those who wish for addi- tional evidence may consult Le Clerc on Ps. xxix. 1, Rosexmuller on Isa. ix. 6, Taylor's Concordance, Castell's Lexicon, v. ?'*<, and the other lexicons as usual. I think also that some considera- tion is due to the opinion of those learned critics. Christian as well as "" Jewish," (see Rosenmuller,) who refer the passage to Heze- kiah 5 nor ought it to be concealed, that some of the most eminent Trinitarian commentators, among whom are Grotius and Le Clerc, 92 separate AL from GEBER, and connect it with the preceding cla«se> translating the phrase " a consulter of God." Mr. Wardlaw maintains, that although the words GEBER and AL, (mighty and GodJ taken singly, would neither of them prove the Supreme Divinity of the person, to whom they were applied, yet, when they occur together, they form a title, which is decisive of the question, because belonging only to the One True God. But the occurrence of the expression AL GEBER, as a name of the Deity, in a single instance only, is far from being sufficient to esta- blish Mr. Wardlaw's assertion, " There can be no doubt, that this is a characteristic designation of the True God." John i. 1. — Mr. Wardlaw does not deny, that the original may with perfect propriety, so far as respects grammar, be translated " the TVord was a god-" and, except that he quotes the opinion of Griesbach, the whole amount of his observations is, that the word THEOS may be here understood in its highest sense, if the Deity of Christ he previously established on other evidence. To this remark every Unitarian will readily assent. Though by no means necessary to the support of my argument, I thought it proper to vindicate Origen and Eusebius from the charge, brought against them by Mr. Wardlaw, of "" an ignorance of the ordinary rules of Greek syntax." On this occasion I departed from the usual spirit of my remarks, because I thought that presumption ought not to be passed over wholly without notice, and because I could not conceive of greater presumption than that of the Minister of Albion Street Chapel, Glasgow, who only knows Greek imper- fectly from having learnt it at school or at college, in bringing such an accusation against Origen, the Catechist of Alexandria, and Euse- bius, the Bishop of Csesarea, who spoke and wrote in Greek all their lives, and to whom during more than a thousand years the whole Christian world has been under the most important obligations. I was however totally free from every such sensation as Mr, Wardlaw, judging probably of my feelings from his own, has imputed to me. * * Unit. Incap. of Viiid. p. 2. 93 May I inform him, that to indulge " scorn" and " indignnut dis- dain" upon any occasion, docs not seem to me consistent with that religion, which reqnires us to put away pride, anger, malice, and all uncharitahlcness. But Mr. Wardlaw asserts, that I have presumed to differ from the same authorities myself, and so positive and triunipliant is his lan- guage, that his readers, of whom not one in ten will read what I am writing in reply, will in general yield their humble and undoubting assent. The fact is simply this : Euscbius (not as Mr. Wardlaw represents both Or'igen and Eusebius) has said, that a certain sen- timent might have been properly expressed by the words, 'o ©so? ■>)i/ Xoyos- I have said, that they might have been properly expressed by the same words arranged thus, 'O Xvyci; -/jv o 0£o- ; w hich is exactly the same thing as if Eusebius had said, " Sweet is tlie breath of morn," and 1 had said, *' The breath of morn is sweet." I asserted that the arrangement, which I gave, was " indisputably correct and grammatical." I now say the same of that given by Eusebius, and ask. Where is the opposition between us ? John XX. 28. — My explanation, though treated with levity by Mr. Wardlaw, stands good, until some valid objection is brought against the general principle, upon which it is founded. Heb. i. 8. — In making a icw observations respecting the Greek Article solely with a view of doing justice to the insulted characters of Grotius, Clarke, and Peirce, I have said that the reader may con- sult Dr. Middleton's work on the Article, " if he pleases.''' I do not wish to plunge again into that quagmire. I once read the book with attention. I saw that its first principles were erroneous, the original design and nature of the Definite Article being entirely mis- apprehended. 1 observed likewise, that the author had examined every passage of the New Testament in reference to his system, and had found, as was to be expected, innumerable examples which seemed to oppose it ; but that, as the fundamental principle of the system was in the highest degree abstruse and intricate, it was easy to frame some very abstruse and intricate reason for each exception, and that by the extreme obscurity of the whole doctrine these rea- sons were tolerably shielded from liability to refutation. I likewise 94 read a masterly subversion of the doctrine in the Monthly Review^ (N. S. Vol. LXII.) and I have never been able to learn^ that the book is esteemed as a work of solid and valuable information by any emi- nent scholar, with the exception of such as Dr, Burgess, whose better judgment is absorbed in zeal for orthodoxy. Such being my opinion, formed with care and deliberation, I did not see the pro- priety of burthening my memory with any of the endless rules and exceptions to rules, with reasons for the rules and the exceptions, which, if I rightly recollect, fill more than six hundred octavo pages. Hence the two instances, which I had quoted,* of the use of the Article in the predicate of a proposition, turn out to be provided for by Dr. Middleton under the head of Convertible Propositions. It is fortunate for me, that Dr. Middleton did not go through the Septua- gint as well as the Greek Testament. The former furnishes " a parallel form of Greek construction," which may determine in a moment what could only be settled by an attempt to read and un- derstand Middleton in a month. 1 shall place the two passages in parallel lines, that the reader may observe their similarity. The object is to prove, that Heb. i. 8 may with perfect propriety, so far as respects the grammatical construction, be translated " God is th^ throne for ever." Ps. Ixxiii. 26. 'H />i£p«? [j^ov o 0£O? ei<; rov aiuva, Heb. i. 8. 'O ^§ovoi; <70v o 0£o? £1? rov aiuva. If the former signifies " God is my portion for ever" the latter may, without violating grammar, be translated " God is thy throne for ever." Thus does it still appear to me that Grotius, Clarke, and Peirce were correct in the remark, which induced Mr, Wardlaw to charge them with ignorance of Greek. I have never expressed any diflfer- ence of opinion from them. On the contrary, I have said, that " there is no disputing the truth of their observation." Yet we find Mr. Wardlaw, in reference to what I have said on this subject. * Viiid. of Unit. p. 185. 95 adopting the following language : " It Is amnsing to observe, liovv Mr. Yates puffs off his high authorities against mo, and then, " * With hesitation admirably slow,' humbly presumes to differ from them himself." We proceed to the consideration of tlic passages. In which I have given it as my opinion, that the title " God" is not applied to Jesus at all. Isa. vii. 14. — Mr. Wardlaw commends the justice of my observa- tions on the nature and use of Hebrew proper names, and candidly concedes, that the application of the title Emanuel to our Saviour is not a proof oi his Divinity. " I frankly admit," says he,* " that the mere circumstance of the Messiah being called by this name would not of Itself, In absence of other evidence, be at all a conclu- sive proof of his Divine dignity." Rom. Ix. 5. — I have translated the last clause, " God who is over ail be blessed for ever." I have endeavoured to show, that the lan- guage of the original Is in every respect suitable to express this sense. I know of no other combination of Greek words, which would have been equally clear and unambiguous, and at the same time conformal>le to the usages of Scripture language. On the other hand, the sense given in the common translation might have been expressed without ambiguity and in the style of the Greek of the New Testament, thus : 'Ovto<; ta-rtv b £7r< itavruv 0£o? evXo'j/'/jto? £»? tov I have asserted, " that such ascriptions of praise as that, which I suppose to be uttered in this instance, are very frequent in the • Unit. Incap. of Vind. p. 150. ■f- Or it mie^ht have been, o,j ta-Tiv b eitt iiavruv, &c. It is remarkable, that Dr. John Wallis, while contending for the Supreme Divinity of Christ, main- tains that wv ought not to be translated, " who is," but " he that is." His words are, " What we render * who is,' is in the Greek not o? stti, but o uv, * he that is.' " See his Third Letter on the Trinity, p. 57, Note ; his Fifth Letter, p. 11; his Three Sermons, p. 75 ; and " Observations on Dr. Wallis's Four Letters," p. 19. 96 writings of tlie OH and New Testament, and hi all Jewish compo- sitions." Mr. Wardlaw says, he does not recollect them; and then, instead of proceeding to ascertain, whether his memory is accurate, he immediately adds, " At all events, they are nothing like so frequent as the texts, which affirm or imply our Lord's Supreme Divinity." / recollect being struck with the frequency of such as- criptions in all the Rabbinical books, which 1 ever saw ; and with regard to the Scriptures, I recollect, that a great number of in- stances, perhaps forty or fifty, are brought together in Kircher's Concordance under the word il")2. In the clause under consideration, every word is placed in the situation, which we should expect it to occupy in order to express the sense, which I have defended. In the first place, the uniform practice of the Sacred Writers decides, that the words f? tov aiuva, "for ever,'' must come^it the end of the sentence. In the second place, evXoyviroi;, " blessed" ought to come immediately before them, because they qualify its signification, and because, if it were not so placed, a different sense would be conveyed, viz. " Blessed be God, who is for ever over all," — at least the meaning would be ambiguous, as may be seen in the corresponding English, " Blessed be God WHO IS OVER ALL FOR EVER," * Hencc it would follow, in the third place, that 'O uv eiti vavtuv 0m?, " God who is over all,'' which Mr. Wardlaw admits f to have been one of the established and pe- culiar designations of the Supreme Deity, must form the commence- ment of the sentence. The Substantive Verb, according to the usual practice, being omitted, the sentence would stand exactly as we find it in the writings of Paul, 'O uy eitt rxavvwv 0£o$ evXoyvjTO? £