QAI ,..73 
 
12./ 
 
 ■i 
 
 liiiiliiiililliiii! 
 
 \t^pA 
 
THE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINIT 
 
 Authorized Version of the Scriptures 
 
 DEFENDED, 
 
 IN A LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 THE REV. ROBERT WALLACE, 
 
 Minister of a Congregation of Protestant Dissenters in Chesterfield; 
 
 OCCASIONED BY HIS 
 " PLAIN STATEMENT AND SCRIPTURAL DEFENCE OF 
 
 Ei^c leatiincj I3octrinc<3 of ^anitavianiism/* .Vr, 
 
 BY y 
 
 THE REV. THOMAS HILL, M.A. 
 
 \ icar of Elmton^ Derbyshire. 
 
 " I like not that arrogant theology, whicli ]»resunies to explore 
 what angels desire to look into; and which, failing- in its attempt 
 rejects as absui'd, what it is not able to understand." 
 
 Bishop Watson's Charge, in 1795. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PUBUSHF9 BY F. C. AND J. KIVINGTON, NO. 62, ST. PAUL's CHURCH YARD 
 AND NO. 3, WATERLOO-PLACE, I'ALL-MALL. 
 
 Sold also by Bradley, Chesterfield; Todd, Sheffield j Drewry, Derby 
 and Barnett, Nottingham. 
 
 1820. 
 
o 
 
 W . Wlieclhnnsf', Printfr, 
 Nottihgham. 
 
^ Utiitt 
 
 REV. ROBERT WALLACE. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 XT is not without much rehictance 
 that I am induced to offer to the public the fol-. 
 lowing' Remarks upon your late publication; a 
 reluctance, I trust, in no degree arising- from 
 want of zeal in the defence of Scriptural Truth, 
 but solely from the consciousness of my inability 
 to do justice to so great a cause, I can scai^cely 
 hope, indeed, that any production of mine Avill 
 be read lieyond the neighbourhood in which I re- 
 side. Since howev er my name is, in that neig-h- 
 bourhood, associated with Institutions essentially 
 involving the principles which you discard, and 
 is enrolled among the IMinisters of an Establish- 
 ment preeminently characterized by the doctrines 
 which you impugn; it will not, I trust, be deemed 
 incoasistent with the nia'it unfi^igned regret that 
 the task has beeii uudertakeii by uo abler advocate,. 
 
if I humbly offer a defence of the mode of faith 
 which I profess. Having- avowed my attachment 
 to those Societies, which have for their objects 
 the distribution of the Scriptures, both with and 
 w ithout the formularies of the Church, and the 
 education of the poor in the principles of our 
 establiBhed relig-ion; it is not perhaps unnatural 
 that I should endeavour to repel the attack which 
 yon have made upon every fundamental article of 
 the Christian Faith; that I should vindicate the 
 authority of tliat venerated version, throug-h the 
 medium of wliich the dictates of Inspiration have, 
 from earliest infancy, been conveyed to our minds; 
 that I should offer to the rising" g-eneration some 
 antidote to the seductive influence of opinions, 
 flattering- indeed to the pride of human reason, 
 and maintained with no small plausibility of ar- 
 gument, but involving', as I sincerely believe, 
 the most pernicious errors, and entailing the 
 most awful consequences on all who embrace 
 them. And having solemnly promised, at my 
 ordination, to " be ready with all faithful dili-r 
 pence to banish and drive away all erroneous and 
 strange doctrines, contrary to Gods word,"* from 
 that Church, which "acknowledges the glory of 
 the eternal Trinity, and in tlse power of the divine 
 ma j esty worsh i ps 1 h e U n ity ; " t <^'^^^ ^ better fulfil 
 my engagement than by contributing my humble 
 
 * Ordination of Priests. t Collect for Trinitij Sunday. 
 
share of ability towards the defence and elucida- 
 dation of that mysterious, but niost Scriptural 
 doctrine ? 
 
 Far be it from me to discourage a spirit of li- 
 beral enquiry. " Naturally enough attached to 
 the principles in which I was educated," I am 
 not, I trust, *' a bigot or a slave to them." No 
 sooner shall it be proved that they are contrary to 
 Reason and to Scripture, than I will renounce 
 them as cordially as I now believe them to be true. 
 But I do not think it ** rational" to reject a doc- 
 trine merely because it exceeds my comprehension ; 
 nor does it accord with my notion of *' candour" 
 to load with reproach and suspicion a part of the 
 sacred volume, confessedly authorized by every 
 version and every manuscript extant, merely be- 
 cause it militates against a favourite and precon- 
 ceived theory. 
 
 You complain,* but I think without reason, 
 that Unitarians are treated l)y their opponents 
 with unjust severity; that their "names are cast 
 out as evil;" that, "together with the primi- 
 tive disciples of their Lord, they are a sect every 
 where spoken against." Could I believe that 
 they really bear this character of genuine Chris- 
 tianity, I should think more favourably of the 
 
 * Statement, pp. 5, 6. 
 
6 
 
 principles by which they are distinguished. But 
 it is a character, to which Reason, Experience, 
 and Scripture, oblige me to deny their pretensions. 
 It is a character preeminently affixed to those who 
 maintain, with an earnestness proportioned to 
 their vast importance, those very doctrines which 
 you exclude from your system. It was " Christ 
 crucified^' which was " to the Jews a stumblings 
 block, and to the Greeks foolishness;" and it is the 
 same doctrine, which, to the end of time, will 
 offend the pride and provoke the enmity of man. 
 On the contrary, so congenial to his natural pro- 
 pensities are " the peculiarities of" religious "opi- 
 nion by which Unitarians are distinguished;" so 
 pleasing to his ear are their encomiums on the 
 dignity of his nature, and on the merit and suffi- 
 ciency of his obedience ; that those peculiarities 
 cannot, in the nature of things, expose them to 
 reproach and persecution. Whether the odium 
 under which they lie, if indeed it exists at all, has 
 arisen from any other cause, particularly from 
 their avowed hostility to all national establish- 
 ments,* is a question, which it would be foreign 
 to my present purpose to agitate. 
 
 * Thnt I may not be accused of addiu;^- to " the various mis- 
 jTyjreAV/i.<rt<('<?«A' to which tlie character and opinions of Unitarians, 
 have been exposed," I beg to subjoin some extracts from the. 
 writing's of Dr. Priestley, an author, -.vhom, I beUeve,,they uni- 
 versally admire and venerate. " We are, as it were, laying gun- 
 l^towder, grain by grain, under the old building of erroi- and. 
 
You exult however in the tleelaration, that 
 your " moral conduct is still above suspicion," 
 that your " moral principles have never been ob- 
 scured by the shadow of an insinuation,"* Ra- 
 ther a bold assertion! But what would it ])rove, 
 even were its truth indisputable? Would it au- 
 
 superstition, which a single spark may hereafter inflame, so as 
 to produce an instantaneous explosion." Importance of free 
 Enquiry, p. 40. What Dr. 1*. means by the old huildiny of error 
 and superstition, the context .sufficiently explains. On the im- 
 possibility of supporting- the ecclesiastical constitution, if once a 
 great majority of the people can be made hostile to it ; and on 
 •' the power of small changes in the political state of thing's, to 
 overturn the best compacted establishments," he likewise en- 
 larges with much earnestness and force: ibid. pp. 39, 41, 44. 
 The fittest seasons and best opportunities, for silently working- 
 out the great effects which he here ]»rofesses to hold in view, this 
 writer had before commimicated to his fellow labourer, Mr. Lind- 
 sey, in the dedication of his History of Corruptions, pp. vi. vii. 
 " Wliile the attention of men in power is engrossed by the diffi- 
 culties that more immediately i)ress upon them, the endeavoiU'S 
 of the friends of reformation, in points of doctrine, pass with less 
 notice, and operate without obstruction.''^ Times of public dan- 
 ger and difficulty are thus pointed out, as best suited to lay that 
 train,fwhich was finally to explode with the ruin of the establish- 
 ment. And indeed, at an early period of life, he had even ven- 
 tured to promise himself a more rapid accomplishment of the 
 great object of bis wishes. Speaking- of the establishment, and 
 those abuses which he ascribes to the pi'inciples of the hierarchy, 
 he does not scruple to predict that, in " some general convulsion 
 of the State, some bold hand, secretly impelled by a vengeful pro- 
 vidence, shall sweep down the whole together." View of the 
 Principles und Conduct of the Protestant Dissenters, p. 12. 
 
 * Statement, p. 6. 
 
thorize the conclusion that your religions creed is 
 correct? — None ever questioned the morality of 
 Socrates: but Socrates lived and died in the belief 
 of a plurality of Gods. The morality of Mr. Hume 
 has been loudly celebrated : but Mr. Hume railed 
 at religion almost in the agonies of Death. 
 
 You have favoured us with an account,* which 
 I will suppose to be strictly correct, of the vari- 
 ous classes of Unitarians. The minute points of 
 difference, however, on which they separate from 
 each other, appear to me but of small importance 
 in the argument. If Christ be less than God, it 
 matters little, in my judgment, whether he was 
 a mere man, or had an existence before all worlds. 
 It is clear that all Unitarians are agreed in deny- 
 ing, what it is the object of the following pages 
 to establish, the supreme divinity of our Lord and 
 Sa\iour .Jesus Christ, as well as the personal ex- 
 istence and divine nature of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Before I enter upon the discussion, I have 
 only to offer my fervent prayer, that the under- 
 takino- may be blessed with tlie assistance and 
 direction of Almighty God. 
 
 * Page 7—11. 
 
Remarks on the " Scriptural Proof that there is 
 only one God.'' ^ 
 
 Since the doctrine of the divine Unity forms 
 as essential a part of the Trinitarian's creed as of 
 your own ; I should have had little to remark on 
 your Statement of that Doctrine, had you not 
 asserted that, in respect of the support which it 
 derives from the general tenour of Scripture 
 languag-e, " it differs essentially from that of the 
 Trinity, which," you add, '<■ is not expressly 
 taught in a single passage of Scripture, if we 
 except 1 John v. 7., upon which the writings of 
 Porson and Marsh have stamped the decisive 
 character of forgery;"* and had you not, by im- 
 plication at least, maintained f that the two doc- 
 trines are directly repugnant to each other. 
 
 How will you prove this repugnancy? You 
 are aware that the Apostle speaks J of body, soul, 
 and sjnrit, as constituting the same individual 
 man. If, then, a man may be three in one re- 
 spect, and one in another; do we know so much 
 of God as to assert that it is impossible that some- 
 thing similar, but far superior, and more entire 
 both in the distinction and in the unity, should 
 
 P- 11- t p. 13- X 1 Thess. V. 23, 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 kke place in his incomprehensible nature? We 
 do not say that the Deity is three and one in the 
 same sense; nor do we pretend to explain or 
 comprehend liow God subsists in three Persons, 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but we humbly 
 believe his Testimony concerning himself, and 
 adore his incomprehensible Majesty. 
 
 I am not indeed prepared to say, with Mr. 
 Wardlaw, that " every Text, which affirms the 
 Unity of God, involves an affirmation of the Tri- 
 nity :"§ but this at least I am bold to assert, that 
 every such Text is perfectly consistent with it. 
 Take, for an example, the very first of those pas- 
 sages'which you have adduced in order to prove 
 that " the Deity is strictly and numerically one/' 
 '' Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." 
 Deut. vi. 4. The original words are, Jehovah 
 our Elohim is one Jehovah. Now, Sir, it is 
 well known to every Hebrew Scholar that Elo- 
 him is a plural noim. As such, it is in Scripture 
 applied to the false gods of the Lleathen. Applied 
 therefore in this empJuUical manner to the true 
 God also, it must be considered as remarkably 
 consistent with the doctrine of a plurality of 
 Persons in the Godhead. Indeed, as this mode 
 of expression is adopted in the second Command- 
 ment, and in other passages directly pointed 
 
 § Statement, p. 13. 
 
11 
 
 against polytheism and idolatry, it seems to have 
 been particularly selected in order to show that 
 no pUirality in the true God infringed the Unity, 
 
 Yon say, however, that, if we except 1 John 
 V. 7., the doctrine of the Trinity is " not expressly 
 tang-ht in a single passage of Scripture." Lest 
 so essential an article of our creed should seem 
 to need the support of a disputed text, I will re- 
 sign the passage in St. John's Epistle; although 
 it is thought by Bishop Horsley, and other learn- 
 ed men, that the doubts respecting its authenti- 
 city are the result of *'an over-suttle criticism." 
 The other passages, by which tliis doctrine is 
 fairly established, although perhaps not expressly 
 asserted,* are neither few nor equivocal. To 
 some of the most im})ortant of these I will now 
 beg your attention. 
 
 When our Lord was baptized, the Father, by 
 a voice from Heaven, declared him to be his be- 
 loved Son, and publicly sealed his appointment 
 to the mediatorial office, on which he then so- 
 lemnly entered : and the Holy Spirit descend- 
 
 * If our expressions convey the doctrine of Scripture, witU 
 as much perspicuity and precision as human lang-uage generally 
 admits of; it is mere trifling- to ot)jcct to tlieiii, because they arc. 
 not found in the Bil)le ; for trntlis not words constitute tlie mat- 
 ter of Revelation, and words are only the vehicles of truthi tOi 
 f»ur miuds. 
 
12 
 
 ing visibly, under the emblematic representation 
 of a Dove, lighted upon him ; as through him to 
 be communicated to all his true disciples. Thus 
 the three Persons in the sacred Trinity evidently 
 acted according to the parts sustained by them 
 in the great work of man's salvation. f 
 
 But the form of Christian Baptism is far more 
 conclusive: " Go ye, and teach all nations, bap- 
 tizing them in tlie name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "J By the rite of 
 Baptism men were required to renounce their 
 false gods, and to acknowledge the God of the 
 Bible; from whence the inference is unavoidable, 
 that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are that only 
 and true God. Besides, they were thus to dedi- 
 cate themselves to him, and enter into covenant 
 with him: and this is to be done in the same 
 manner, and therefore in the same sense, to one as 
 to the other of these three Persons. Nothing less 
 tlierefore can be implied than a profession of wor- 
 shipping, believing in, and serving Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost. 
 
 The next passage is the Apostolical benedic- 
 tion : " The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 the love of God, and the communion of the Holy 
 Ghost be with you all."§ This is clearly, if any 
 
 ■]■ Matt. ili. 16, 17. + Matt, xx^'iii, 19. § 2 Cor. xiii. 14. 
 
13 
 
 thing' ran be, an net of adoration, by which the 
 Divinity of each is confessed. Wc arc tluTcfore 
 taught to pray to the Son and Spirit equally with 
 the Father, and to maintain the same dependence 
 upon them for the peculiar ijrace and favour, 
 which in their respective offices they bestow. 
 
 These passag-es have led me to the cordial re- 
 ception of the Trinitarian Doctrine, my notion of 
 which I beg- leave here to state, as it will be per- 
 ceived to influence my interpretation of many 
 Texts, which you adduce in support of your 
 opinions : 
 
 The Sacred Three have perfect union with 
 each other, inasmuch as they are three distinct 
 coequal Persons, each of whom possesses the same 
 undivided essence. The God-man Christ Jesus 
 has perfect union with the Father and with the 
 Holy Ghost, inasmuch as he is the same in per- 
 son witli the second coequal, coeternal, and co- 
 essential Person of the Godhead. The Father 
 doetli the works of the God-man in him, not per- 
 sonally, but by the Holy Ghost. Neither is it the 
 Father, essentially considered, v,ho works the 
 works of Christ by the Holy Ghost, but the Fa- 
 ther considered in his covenant office, as the 
 depositary of the will of the sacred and coequal 
 three. 
 
14 
 
 Bemarks on the " Scriptural Proof that the Father 
 only is the true God.'' 
 Having establislied the doctrine of the divine 
 Unity, a doctrine which every Trinitarian most 
 cordially receives, yon enumerate the following- 
 passages, which, in your judgment, " confine the 
 Godhead solely and exclusively to the Person of 
 the Father." t *' The hour cometh, and now is, 
 when the true worshippers shall worship the Fa- 
 ther in spirit and truth : for the Father seeketh 
 such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they 
 that worship him must worship him in Spirit and 
 in Truth." John iv. 23, 24. '' And this is Life 
 eternal, that they might know thee, the only 
 true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast 
 sent." John xvii. 3. " Grace he unto you, and 
 peace, from God our Father, and from our Lord 
 Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. i. 3. " Though there be 
 that are called gods, whether in heaven or in 
 earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 
 yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of 
 whom are all things, and wc by him." 1 Cor. viii. 
 5, 6. t One God and Father of all, who is above 
 
 f Statement p. 15. 
 
 + The comment oiJcrmne upon this passage is as follows : 
 « Si enini, ut existimant Aiisni, Dons pater solus est Dcus, 
 eadeui consequentia, solus erit Doininus Jesus Christus, et 
 nrc I'ater ei it Doiuinus, nee lilius Deus ; sed absit, ut nou 
 sit, Ytl in Doniiiuitione Deitas, vtl in Deitate DoHunatio. 
 Uitus est Dominiis, et unus est Deiis ; quia patns ct hlu 
 dovainatio, una Divinitas est." Hkivn. Comment, in Ephc&^ 
 iv. 5. 
 
15 
 
 all, and through all, and in yon all." Epli. iv. 6. 
 ♦*For there is one Cod, and one INIediator between 
 God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. ii. 6. 
 
 Why may not " God" or *' the Father" in all 
 these passages express a Person, who represents 
 the simple and absolute divine Essence ; whilst 
 ** the Lord" or " Lord Jesus Christ" represents a 
 Person, who, whilst he is coequal with the Father 
 and the Holy Ghost, in the Unity of the divine 
 Essence, possesses also a nature which he holds in 
 strict union with his divine nature ; the combi- 
 nation of which two natures constitutes a Person, 
 essentially inferior, who also bears relations which 
 form another and distinct ground of inferiority ? 
 
 - ♦ » 
 
 Remarks on the " Scriplural Proof of the Simple 
 Humanity of Jesus Christy and of his inferi- 
 ority to tlie Father,'' 
 
 It is a common, but not a very honourable ar- 
 tifice, in controversial warfare, by giving- a par- 
 tial statement of an adversary's opinion, to make 
 it appear inconsistent both with Scripture and 
 with itself. Thus, in the preceding discussion, 
 your reasoning might lead an inexperienced 
 reader to conclude that a believer in the Trinita- 
 rian Doctrine necessarily rejected that of the Di- 
 
16 
 
 vine Unity. An instance of similar unfairness 
 will appear in the Chapter on which we are 
 now entering. From the pains whicli you take 
 to establish the proper humanity of Christ, a 
 Truth in which every Trinitarian entirely con- 
 curs, might it not be inferred that those, who 
 maintain his Divinity, so maintain it, as to ex- 
 clude the possibility of his possessing a human, in 
 combination with his divine nature? In proving 
 that Christ was man, you only prove that, which 
 your adversaries fully admit. The point at issue 
 between us is, whether the proofs, which estab- 
 lish his humanity, infringe his true and proper 
 Deity ; whether, while he is on some grounds 
 and in some senses inferior, he is not, at the same 
 time, equal to the Father. But let us proceed to 
 the examination of those passages, from which 
 you infer " the simple humanity of Christ."* 
 
 " There came one running, and kneeled ''.o 
 him, and asked him saying. Good Master, what 
 shall I do, that I may inherit eternal Life? And 
 Jesus said unto him, why callest ^liou me good ? 
 There is none good but one, that is God." 
 Mark x. 17, 18. 
 
 A young Ivuler, evidently ignorant of the cha- 
 racter of Jesus, addressed him by a title, which, 
 
 * Statement, p. 16. 
 
17 
 
 under such misapprehension, was improper; a 
 title, too, which the Jewish Rabbits are said to 
 have affected, and which, on tliat ground also, 
 was likely to call forth our Lord's animadversion; 
 " Why dost thou call me good, whom thou re- 
 gardest only as a propliet sent from God, and 
 dost not look upon to be any more than a mere 
 man ? Thou shouldest remember that none is 
 perfectly good but one glorious and immutable 
 Being, even the ever blessed and eternal God."t 
 
 " If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because 
 I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is 
 greater than I." John xiv. 28. 
 
 The essential nature of Christ, as Christy con- 
 tains inferiority ; because Christ is God-man. 
 The relation also in wliich he stands to the Fa- 
 ther (since he that sent is greater than he that is 
 sent,) furnishes another ground of inferiority. 
 
 *' Ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's." 1 Cor. 
 iii. 23. 
 
 Christ is the ordinance of God, for his glory; 
 and in one view his proj^erty, doing his will and 
 work. 
 
 •}• Doddridg'e. 
 C 
 
18 
 
 *' 1 would have you know that the head of 
 every liian is Christ ; and the head of the woman 
 is the man ; and the head of Christ is God.'* 
 1 Cor. s^i. 3. 
 
 Christ issues from Qo^, m^ refers himself to 
 God. 
 
 YoiiF next appea,! is " to other passages where 
 Jesus is styled the Servant of GOD, and where his 
 wisdom and power are said to have been derived 
 from the Father"* " Behold my servant, whom 
 \ have chosen; my beloved, in whom my Soul is 
 well pleased." Matt. xii. 18. — " When ye have 
 lifted up the Son of Man, then shall ye know that 
 I am, \\<e, and that I do nothing of myself; but as 
 my Father hath taught nie, I speak these things." 
 .John vii. 26. — " For I have not spoken of myself; 
 but the Father which sent me, he gave me a com- 
 mandment, what I should say, and what I should 
 speak : And I know that his commandment is life 
 everlasting. Whatsoever I speak, therefore, even 
 as the Father hath said imto me, so I speak." 
 John xii. 49, 6Q. — " Now they have known that 
 all things, whatsoever thou hast given me, are of 
 thee, ^or \ have given unto them the words 
 which thou gavesf me; and tliej'^ have received 
 them, and have known surely that I came out 
 
 * Statement, p. 17. 
 
19 
 
 from thee, and they have believed that thou didst 
 send me." John xvii. 7, 8.—^" The Son can do 
 nothing' of himself." John v. 19. — '* I can of 
 mine own self do nothing- ; as I hear, I judge : and 
 my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own 
 will, but the will of the Father which hath sent 
 me." V. 30—'* The works which the Father hath 
 given me to finish, bear witness of me, that tlie 
 Father hath sent me." v. 36. 
 
 All which the Lord Jesus Christ did and spoke, 
 he did and spoke in fulfilment of the provisions 
 of an everlasting Covenant, which is referred to 
 the will of the Father personally, as its source. 
 By the ordinances of that Covenant, He took the 
 inferior relation, becoming the Servant, and the 
 Sent of another, even the Father ; and doing all 
 he did, and speaking all he spoke, by a power not 
 his own personally, but belonging to the Holy 
 Ghost personally : which power He received as a 
 gift from the Father ; that power of the Holy 
 Ghost, which he received and exercised, being 
 traced up to the Father's will, as the source of the 
 gift. Hence he is said to have spoken what the 
 Father taught Him, and what the Father said to 
 him : of himself to be able to do nothing; and to 
 work the works which the Father gave him to 
 finish, and enabled him to finish : it being always 
 to be considered, that this submission and subser- 
 viency to the Father does not imply any essential 
 
20 
 
 inferiority, either in Him, or in the Holy Ghost, 
 to the Father ; but an inferiority, which is the 
 result of Covenant transactions, in which they are, 
 severally, equal covenanting- Parties; and of 
 which the ultimate end is the manifestation of 
 that same one divine Essence (in which they are 
 co-eternal together, and co-equal,) in the Person 
 of the Father. 
 
 " Then cometh the end, when he shall have 
 delivered up the kingdom to God, even the 
 Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and 
 all authority and power. And when all things 
 shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son 
 also himself be subject unto him that put all things 
 under him, that God may be all in all." 1 Cor. 
 XV. 24, 28. 
 
 The Empire sustained by the God-man is an 
 empire of time : when time shall be no more, then, 
 although Christ w'\\\ for ever continue to be God- 
 man, the empire will be carried on, not in his 
 Person, but by the Father, as the representative of 
 the sacred Trinity ; no longer by God in human 
 nature, but by God absolutely. 
 
 You proceed to remark, that " passages equally 
 apposite and decisive are adduced by the Unitarian 
 as proofs of Christ's humanity, in ^vhich he is 
 said to have been chosen, appointed, sanctified, 
 
21 
 
 inspired y anointed ^ (jiven, and sent by Goil."* 
 " Behold luy servant whom I have chosen." 
 Matt. xii. 18. — " Who was faithful to him that 
 appointed him." Heb. iii. 2. " Him whom the 
 Father hath sanetified." John x. 36.—*'! uill 
 put my spirit upon him." IMatt. xii. 18. — " Thou 
 hast loved riohteousness, and hated iniquity; 
 therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee 
 with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Heb. 
 i. 9. See also Acts x. 38. " God so loved the 
 world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
 whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, 
 but have everlasting life." John iii. 16. — " As 
 thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I 
 also sent them into the world." John xvii. 18. 
 
 The preceding Statement furnishes the clue 
 to the interpretation of all these passages. Christ 
 is, according to the relations imposed upon, and 
 received by him, in and through the Covenant, 
 one chosen, one appointed, one sanctijied, one who 
 receives the Spirit, one anointed with oil, one sent. 
 
 It is unnecessary that I should cite the passages 
 from which you infer the true and proper huma- 
 nity of Jesus Christ ;t since the Trinitarian not 
 only concurs in that inference, but regards it as 
 
 * Statement p. 18. t Statement p. 19—21, 
 
22 
 
 lyin^ at the foundation of his dearest hopes . * * He 
 took not on Mm the nature of Angelsy and there- 
 fore saved none of them who, for want of a Re- 
 deemer, are reserved in everlasting chains and 
 darkness unto the judgment of the great dag. And 
 Man once fallen had been, as deservedly, so irre- 
 vocably, condemned to the same condition, but 
 that he took upon him the seed of Abraham. For 
 since we are partakers ofjiesh and bloody we could 
 expect no Redemption, but by him who likewise 
 took part of the same. We could look for no Re- 
 deemer, but such a one, who by consanguinity 
 was our brother. And since there is but one 
 Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ 
 Jesus, we cannot be assured that he was the 
 Christ, or is our Jesus, except we be first assured 
 that he was a man. — When therefore we see our 
 Saviour truly suffer, we know his divine essence 
 suffered not, and thence acknowledge the addi- 
 tion of his human nature, as the proper subject of 
 his passion. And from hence we may infallibly 
 conclude, Surely that Mediator between God and 
 Man was truly Man, as we are men, who when 
 he fasted was an hungry, when he travelled was 
 thirsty and weary as we are ; who l>eing grieved 
 wept, being in an agony sweat, being scourged 
 bled, and l^eing crucified died."* 
 
 * Pearson on t1\e Creed pp. 179, Wi.. 
 
23 
 
 In the last place you " infer the superiority 
 of the Father from various passag-es, in which 
 he is literally and emphatically styled the God of 
 
 J€SUS."* 
 
 " And about the ninth hour Jesus cried 
 with a loud voice, saying-, Eli, Eli, lama sabach- 
 thani ? that is to say. My God, My God, why 
 bast thou forsaken me?" Mat. xxvii. 46. — See 
 also Mat. xv. 34. " Go to my brethren, and say 
 unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your 
 Father ; and to my God, and your God." John 
 XX. 17.—" The God and Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, know- 
 eth that I lie not." 2 Cor. xi. 31.— See also 
 Eph. i. 3. Col. i. 3. 1 Pet. i. 3.—" I cease not 
 to give thanks for you, making- mention of yoA 
 in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the Father of Glory, may give you the 
 spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge 
 of him." Eph. i. 16, 17. 
 
 God is, by covenant, the God as well as the 
 Father of the God-man Christ Jesus. From that 
 Covenant he derives his origin and his essence, 
 as Christ, whose essential nature is neither Gk)d- 
 head simply, nor Manhood simply, but Godman- 
 Iwod ; which is, (if I may be allowed the expres- 
 
 * Statement, pp. 21, 22. 
 
24 
 
 sion) a creatnre-nature ; and lie who wears it is 
 a Creature, (Coloss. i. 15. Revel, iii. 14,) and 
 God is his God, even as he is the God of all crea- 
 tures. The relation of Father i s distinct from that 
 of God; it is the peculiar relation, which He, 
 who is the God of Christ, chooses and appoints to 
 himself, that he will bear towards this peculiar 
 creature Christ: and, in him, towards those to 
 whom " he giveth power to become the sons of 
 God, even to them who believe in his name."* 
 
 If you have failed in your Scriptural proof of 
 the simple humanity of Jesus Christ, I think you 
 have been equally unfortunate, not to say disin- 
 genuous, in your citation of human authority. I 
 can scarcely persuade myself to believe that 3 ou 
 intended to represent Lord Bacon as a Disciple of 
 the Unitarian School. Such however is the effect 
 which might probably be produced by your ex- 
 tract from his writing-s, unless it were explained 
 l)y the context, and illustrated by the general 
 character of his Compositions. Having remarked 
 that the concurrence of your adversary in the doc- 
 trine of Christ's humanity *' amounts in fact to 
 r.othino-, since he maintains at tJie same time that 
 .Tesus was perfect God as well as perfect man,"t 
 Y>y^ attempt to expose the absurdity of the Creed 
 hy the following observations: " He (i. e. the 
 
 * John i. 12. t 'Statement p. 22. 
 
25 
 
 Adoersary of the Unitarian) believes, as Lord 
 Bacon ^ith characteristic force and acnteness 
 observCvS, three to be one, and one to be three; 
 a Father not to be older than his Son, a Son to 
 be eqnal with his Father," &c. From these 
 words, which are extracted from a work entitled 
 Characteristics of a belieuing Christiany in Para- 
 doxes and seeming- Contradictions y a reader un- 
 acquainted with Lord Bacon's opinions might in- 
 fer, that it was his object to prove the Trinitarian 
 Hypothesis to be false, by proving it to be absurd. 
 With what fairness such a conclusion would be 
 drawn, let the first of these characteristics (the 
 second and third of which you have cited) de- 
 termine. 
 
 1. " A Christian is one, who believes such 
 things as his Reason cannot comprehend ; hopes 
 for things he never saw ; and laboui's for what he 
 knows he shall not obtain. Yet, in the issue, his 
 belief appears not to he false ; his hopes makes him 
 not ashamed ; his labor is not in vain." 
 
 2. " He (i.e. the Christian) believes three to 
 be one," &c. 
 
 Lest the meaning" of this celebrated writer 
 should still be deemed equivocal, let it be illustrat- 
 ed by another passage, in which you muijt,! think, 
 discover not only the " characteristic force and 
 
 D 
 
26 
 
 acuteness" of the author, but the submission of a. 
 great and vigorous understanding to the most 
 obscure and unintelligible dictates of divine Re- 
 velation. The prerogative of God extends over 
 the whole man, and reaches both to his will and 
 his reason ; so that man must absolutely renounce 
 himself and submit to God : and therefore, as we 
 are obliged to obey the divine law, though our will 
 murmur against it ; so are we obliged to believe 
 the ovord of God, though our reason be shocked 
 at it. For if we should believe only such things 
 as are agreeable to our Reason, we assent to the 
 matter, and not to the author : which is no more 
 than we do to a suspected witness. But the 
 faith imputed to Abraham ybr righteousness, con- 
 sisted in a particular, laughed at by Sarah; who, 
 in that respect, was an Image of the natural Rea- 
 son. And therefore, themoie absurd and incredi- 
 hie any mystery is, tJie plater honour we do to 
 God in believing it, and so much the more noble 
 tJte victory of faith.' '■\ 
 
 The Rhapsody which occupies a part of your 
 23rd and 24th pages, as it contains no argument, 
 requires no reply. I proceed therefore to notice 
 your observations on the violence that is offered 
 to our Reason by believing in the union of the 
 
 f Bacon de augm. Scient. Sec- xxviii. § 2- 
 
27 
 
 divine and human natures in the person of 
 Christ.t 
 
 Even if it were granted that the doctrine is 
 as unreasonable as you desire to represent it, your 
 argument would consist only in opposing human 
 probability to the positive declarations of the di- 
 vine word. But I scruple not to say, that, far 
 from being contrary to reason, this doctrine is 
 strictly consonant to it. And in reply to your 
 enquiry, whether " our Salvation could not have 
 been accomplished but by the condescension and 
 humiliation of Deity itself; m hether man could 
 not have been reconciled to his Maker but by the 
 Crucifixion and Death of the eternal Judge of all 
 the Earth?" J I should say, that, although it 
 might be presumptuous to assert, that the Al- 
 mighty could have devised no other method of 
 deliverance for his creatures, we have abundant 
 cause to admire the fitness of that which he has 
 appointed. Indeed it is a method which seems 
 to be rendered necessary by the infinite holiness 
 and justice of God, and the intrinsic evil and 
 desert of sin. It woidd evidently be inconsistent 
 with the glory of God's attributes, that he should 
 show mercy to the sinner, without at the same 
 time exhibiting his justice in the punishment of 
 
 \ Statement, p. 2^ + p. 25. 
 
28 
 
 sin. How then shall sin be remitted ? " Without 
 slietlding' of blood," suys the Scripture, "is no 
 remission."* Who shall be the victim? No 
 created Being, of whatever dignity or excellence, 
 would suffice : because none could adequately ex-r 
 hibit the ^>i/^?<^7e justice and holiness of God. The 
 Eternal Son of the Father therefore said, " Lo / 
 come to do thy will, O God."t 
 
 Ag^in : <* if satisfaction was to be made to 
 divine justice for the sins of men by vicarious 
 obedience and vicarious sufferings, in such a way 
 (and in no other way it could be consistent with 
 divine wisdom) as might attach the pardoned 
 offender to , God's service upon a principle of love 
 and gratitude ; it \vas essential to this plan, that 
 God himself should take a principal part in all 
 that his Justice required to be done and suffered, 
 to make room for his mercy ; and the divine na- 
 ture itself being incapable of suffering, it was 
 necessary to the scheme of pardon, that the God- 
 head should condescend to unite to itself the na- 
 ture capable." 
 
 For suppose tliat some inferior Being, either 
 a perfect man, or an incarnate angel, had been 
 able to pay the forfeit for us : and *' suppose that 
 the forfeit had been paid by a person thus dis- 
 
 i= lleb. ix. 22, f P^ ^1- 7, 8. Heb. x. 7. 
 
29 
 
 tiiict and separate tVoui tlie Codlieadj \\ luit ef- 
 fect would liave been protliiced, by a pardon so 
 obtained, in the mind of a pardoned offender? 
 I sav, no doubt, i'or an unexpected deliverance 
 from impending- \ cngeance, — love for the Person, 
 man or angel, who had wrought the deliverance, 
 — remorse, that his crimes had involved another's 
 innocence in misery : l)ut certainly no attachment 
 to the service of the Sovereign. The Deliverer 
 might have been loved : but the Being^ whose 
 justice exacted the satisfaction would have re- 
 mained the object of mere fear, unmixed with 
 love, or rather of fear mixed with aversion. 
 Pardon thus obtained never could have iuHamed 
 the repentant sinner's bosom with that love of 
 God, which alone can qualify an intelligent 
 Creature for the enjoyment of the Creator's pre- 
 sence. This could only be effected by the won- 
 derful Scheme in which Mercy and Truth are 
 made to kiss each other j when the same God, 
 who in one person exacts the punishment, in ano- 
 ther, himself svistaius it ; and thus makes his own 
 mercy pay the satisfaction to his own Justice.''* 
 
 *' This," you say, " nray be the Christianity 
 of Athanasius, of Calvin, and of numbers besides, 
 whom fashion or prejudice has moulded into a 
 
 * Horsley'ii Sermons, Vul. I. pji. '.07, 172. 
 
30 
 
 conformity with their opinions."* A noble spe- 
 cimen, traly, of Unitarian candour ! Condescend, 
 Sir, to believe that there are those, who, with 
 opinions completely opposite to your own, can 
 say, " We believe these thing's, not because 
 others have believed them before us, but because 
 we have been at the pains of examining' the sub- 
 ject for ourselves. "t — " But, be assured," you 
 add, ** it is not the Christianity of the new Tes- 
 tament. "J That it is not only the Christianity 
 of the New Testament, but the doctrine of the 
 whole Bible, I hope in my next chapter to de- 
 monstrate. 
 
 You profess yourself unable to discover, *' if 
 Christ were every thing which orthodoxy repre- 
 sents him, in what the efficacy of his example 
 would consist. "§ The difficulty arises from con- 
 founding the two natures of our Redeemer, which 
 subsist, in strict union indeed, but in perfect dis- 
 tinctness from each other. Although God and 
 man l)e one Christ ; he is " one, not by confusion 
 of substance, but by unity of person. "|| 
 
 In support, however, of your opinion, you 
 appeal to the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand 
 of the Father, which, you argue must be regarded 
 
 * Statement, p. 25. f p. 43. J p. 25. § ibid. 
 
 n Athcjimiun Creed. 
 
as the reward of liis piety and virtue ; since, on 
 the supposition, that " he was only exalted to a 
 state of dignity which he had enjoyed before his 
 appearance in the flesh, his followers ^vould have 
 derived from his example hut little encourage- 
 ment to a life of persevering- holiness. "f You 
 altoo-ether mistake the ground of Christian encou- 
 ragement. The Trinitarian does not look for his 
 eternal g-lorification to the exactness of his own 
 resemblance to the Lord Jesns Christ. Whilst 
 he sees, in his Saviour's perfect character and 
 conduct, as a man, the prototype which he en- 
 deavours to fill np, though with a full conscious- 
 ness that he shall ever come short of it, his hopes 
 are founded npon the infinite value of his righte- 
 ousness and sacrifice, as an infinite person, the 
 co-equal of God the Father, and of God the 
 Spirit. 
 
 There is this unfairness in your argument, 
 that you graft Unitarian views upon Trinitarian 
 principles. You reason, as an Unitarian, upon 
 the efficacy of Christ's example, and then endea- 
 vour to deduce an absurdity from the Trinitarian 
 Hypothesis, as combined with Unitarian views. 
 You take an Unitarian view of Christ's example, 
 on the supposition that he is what the Trinitarian 
 believes him to be. 
 
 * Statemejit , ]>. 27. 
 
32 
 
 Tr'umi piling' in the persuasion, that you have 
 shown the general tenour of Scripture to be in 
 direct opposition to the doctrines of Christ's pro- 
 per Deity and Equality with the Father, you 
 acknowledge that '' the Gospel of John has by 
 manv been considered as an exception to this 
 Stateinent."t To obviate, however, the impres- 
 sion, which such an acknowledgment mig-ht 
 produce, you afTirm that "the passages, which 
 ^ive most strength to this opinion are directly 
 opposed to the general tenour of the Gospel, and 
 the express assertions of our Lord himself." J 
 The former part of this Statement I defy you to 
 prove : to the latter I have replied in the former 
 part of this chapter, where I sho\ved that you 
 took an erroneous view of the assertions made by 
 our Lord in St. .John's Gospel. 
 
 You remark, ho^vevcr, that "the Evangelist, 
 in assigning his own motives for the composition 
 of his Gospel, makes no allusion whatever to the 
 doctrine of our Lord's Divinity:" that " he pro- 
 fesses, on the other hand, to have w ritten it with 
 a view to confirm the testimony of the other 
 Evan<»'elists, tliat he was a great prophet, sent to 
 teach mankind the way of eternal life."§ 
 
 This is i/onr interpretation of John xx. 30, 31. 
 " Many other signs truly did Jesus in the pre- 
 
 \ Stalemcjii p. 28. | il.iil. § iliid. 
 
33 
 
 sence of his disciples, which are not written ill 
 this book: but these are written that ye might 
 believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
 God, and that, believing", ye might have life 
 
 throao'h his name." Will you tell us what 
 
 Christ means? Is not Christ that complex Being^ 
 God-man, to whose person it was essential that 
 there should be a combination of the true and 
 pro])er Godhead with the manhood? When, 
 therefore, St. John calls him the Christ, the mys- 
 tery of his person, and therefore his proper God- 
 head, is implied. — The expression. Son of Gody 
 may admit of some variety in its interpretation : 
 it must l)e allowed sometimes to mean one hroufjht 
 into this relation to God by His holy will and ap- 
 pointment; and may be applied in this sense to 
 the Lord Jesus Christ himself, as that Person who 
 was consfitutcd a Son l^y the covenant transac- 
 tions of past eternity. Nor would I rest the very 
 and eternal Godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ 
 upon this single title, which, in common with 
 Son of many appe;»rs to have been a distinguish- 
 ing title of the Messiah, or Christ.* There seems, 
 however, a propriety in considering it as distinc- 
 
 * See Luke xxii. 69, 70., where It is evident that " Son qf 
 God," and " Son of M?.n," arc interchan;^eab!e expressions. 
 " Hereafter shall the Son of Min sit on the right hand of the 
 power of God. Then said they al), Art thou then the Son of 
 GodP And he said iinlo them. Ye say that 1 am."' Both ex- 
 
34 
 
 tire of his Godheacl, in that, according- to the in- 
 terpretation of the learned Bishop Horsley, it 
 especially denotes that person of the sacred Trin- 
 ity, who was to take the manhood into God; and 
 is therefore indicative of his manhood rather than 
 of his Godhead, though it implies both. 
 
 To your positive assertions, relating* princi- 
 pdly to the Gospel of St. John, I have little 
 to reply, since tliey are totally unsupported 
 by proof. It may he 7/0?/?' opinion^ though I 
 know not on what authority that opinion is 
 founded, that for the few incidents of our Sa- 
 viour's life, whic]i that Evangelist has recorded, 
 A\ e are indebted to " the fondness and partiality 
 of friendship."* " By i\\e rules of" nhat you 
 consider " sound interpretation," it may be true 
 that "he has recorded no fact," that "he has 
 preserved no discourse," that "he has permitted 
 no observation to escape him, from which it can 
 be inferred, that the nature of Jesus was superior 
 to that of man."t It may perhaps be correctly 
 stated according- to the " improved version" of 
 
 pressimis;, tlierefore, denotpd Clirist, v. 67. Who then is Christ? 
 Accov(]ini>- to our Lcrd's own v.'ords (Matt. xxii. 43.) he must b^ 
 David's Jiorrl. But, "if David call him Lord, how is he his 
 Son/''" Here the miion of the tvro natures in Christ is imphed. 
 If hr- ".vere a mere man, David could not call him Lord- 
 
 * Statement, p. 29. f p. 30, 
 
35 
 
 St. John's Gospel, though it no where appearsj in 
 the received translation, that " Cod called" 
 Jesus "his best beloved Son," made him "the 
 chosen representative of his Mill to mankind," 
 and constituted him *' his sole representative and 
 vice-gerent upon earth."* It may be your pre- 
 conceived notion that, if the Divinity of Christ 
 Avere a Scriptural doctrine, " it would have been 
 enforced in terms too obvious and unequivocal to 
 admit of doubt. "f In short the whole is resolv- 
 able into your undertaking- to say how the sacred 
 writer, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, 
 should have expressed himself, if he had intended 
 to convey certain truths; which truths arc con- 
 veyed, according' to all fairness of interpretation, 
 thoug-h you deny that they are. 
 
 In conclusion, you venture to assure us that, 
 if we w ill " employ the reason which God has 
 given "us. Revelation will then cease to be a mys- 
 tery." J If we emj^loy our reason, in the Unitarian 
 sense of that phrase y that is, if we exclude from 
 our creed whatever exceeds our comprehension, 
 and reject as absurd, all that our Understand- 
 ings cannot penetrate ; it is certain that Revela- 
 tion will then cease to be, what its author has 
 declared it to be, " the mystery of his w ill,"§ the 
 hicklen w isdom,"|| " the w isdoin of God in a mys^ 
 tery;'% " the great mystery of Godliness."** 
 
 ♦p. 30. f ibi.l. +p. 31. §E|)I.. i.y, 
 
 ||l Cor, ii. 7. ^ ibid. ** \ Tim. iii. Ki, 
 
36 
 
 Scriptural Proof of the Divinity of Christ. 
 
 I had, I confess, expected to find in a refence 
 of Unitarianism some notice of tliose niimerous 
 arguments by which, in the judgment of a large 
 majority of Christians, the contrary doctrine is 
 established . This, however, seems to have formed 
 no part of your plan. You duel! at great length ' 
 on those passages, which appear to ti vour your 
 own system, and then dispose of the rest of Scrip- 
 ture in one sweeping sentence, the whole of which 
 I i)eg to transcribe. " Looking, then, at the 
 <(^neral tenouv of the Gospel history, as well as 
 the history ar.d writings of the Apostles, what do 
 we find to countenance tlie doctrines of Christ's 
 proper Deity and Equality with the Father? 
 Nothing, UteraUy nothing, hut a few false 
 readiiKjs and misiranskUions, with a passage here 
 and there, nhkh, by remote inferences and far 
 fetched analoyics, is made to speak a language 
 favourable to these doctrines.''* 
 
 In taking up this challenge, equal, I think, 
 in boldness, to any that can be found in the an- 
 nals of controversy, I have only to premise that, 
 although I cannot consent to give np the " false 
 
 * Statement, p. 28. 
 
87 
 
 reading's and mistranslations" of the most dis- 
 tinguished critics and interpreters, for the " cor- 
 rected text" and " improved version" of an 
 anonymous committee of obscure Unitarians ; 
 yet this I will venture to promise, that, in my 
 endeavour to establish on Scriptural grounds the 
 doctrine of our Lord's Divinity, I will have re- 
 course neither to " remote inferences" nor '*far 
 fetched analogies ;" my appeal being made ex- 
 clusively to the literal construction and obvious 
 meaning of the sacred writings. 
 
 I would begin with observing that a strong 
 presumptive evidence of the Divinity of Christ 
 arises from the appellation, by which he is dis- 
 tinguished as the Son of God: an appellation 
 admitting', as I have already allowed, some va- 
 riety of interpretation, but, in many passages, 
 evidently distinctive of the true and proper God- 
 head of him, to whom it is applied. It was, as 
 you are aware, given to him by the An(jel who 
 predicted his miraculous incai'nation. It was 
 confirmed, not only by a voice from heaven, but 
 by the reluctant testimony of the Spirits of dark- 
 ness. It \\ as frequently assumed by Christ himself 
 and was construed by his enemies into a blasphe- 
 mous usurpation of the honour that belongs to 
 God only, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon 
 thee, and the power of the Highest sliall oversha- 
 dow thee : therefore that holy thing which shall 
 
38 
 
 be born of thee shall be called the Son of God^ 
 Luke i. 35. — ** This is my beloved /Sow, in whom 
 I am well pleased." Matt. iii. 17. xvii. 5. — 
 " Devils came out of many, crying- out and say- 
 ing, Thou art Christ, the Son of God.'" Luke 
 iv. 41. — *' Jesus answered them, My Father 
 worketh hitherto and I work : therefore the Jews 
 
 soug^ht the more to kill him, because he had 
 
 said that God was his Father , making himself 
 equal with God.'' John v. 17, 18. — '< Jesus said 
 unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 
 He answered and said. Who is he Lord, that I 
 should believe on him? And Jesus said unto 
 him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that 
 talketh with thee. And he said. Lord, 1 believe. 
 And he worshipped him.'' John ix. 35 — -38. 
 
 From the name, which carries with it the low- 
 est degree of evidence, we proceed to the more 
 positive testimonies of Scripture. And our atten- 
 tion is, in the first place,, naturally directed to 
 those passages, in which the preexislence of Christ, 
 not as a created Being of the highest eminence, 
 but as the Maker and Preserver of the Universe, 
 is aiBnned by himself and his Apostles. ** In the 
 hefjinulRfj was the Word, and the Word \vas with 
 Goil, and the Word was God. The same was in 
 the beginning with God. All thin(/s were made 
 hy him; and without him was not any thin<>' 
 made, that was made. And the Word was made 
 
39 
 
 flesh," Sec. John i. 1, 2, 3, 14. — " I came down 
 from heaven ; I proceeded forth and came from 
 Go(\.— Before Ahraham was, I am. — Nomnn liath 
 ascended u]) to heaven, but he that came dotvn 
 from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in 
 heaven. — Ye are from l)eneath, I am /row ahove. 
 Ye are of tliis world, I am not of this world. — 
 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend 
 up where he iras before P — I came forth from the 
 Father, and am come into the world. Again, I 
 leave the world, and o^o to the Father. — Hlorify 
 thou me witli the glory which I had witli thee 
 before the worhl ivas."" John iii. 13. vi. 38, 62. 
 viii. 23, 42, 58. xvi. 28. — " Ye know the grace 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was 
 rich, yet for your sakcs he became poor, that ye 
 through his poverty might be rich." 2 Cor. viii. 9. 
 — " Let this mind be in you, uhich was also in 
 Christ Jesus ; who being in the form of God 
 thought it not robbery to be equal with God ; 
 but made himself of no leputation,* and took 
 upon him the form of a servant, and was made 
 in the likeness of men : and being' found in fashion 
 a.s a man, he humbled himself, and became obe- 
 dient unto death, even the death of the cross." 
 Phil. ii. 5 — 8. — " By him were all things cre- 
 ated, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, 
 risible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or 
 
 * iscvroi tKuufft, literally, A« emptied himself. 
 
40 
 
 dominions, or principalities, or powers. All 
 things were created by him, and for him; and 
 he is before all things, and by him all things 
 consist." Col. i. 16, 17. . 
 
 I will not affirm, because I cannot prove, that 
 Christ appeared on earth previously to his incar- 
 nation. But, in illustration of the preceding 
 remarks, I may be allowed to state it as the 
 opinion of many learned men, that all the dispen- 
 sations of God, relating to mankind, from the 
 first dawn of revelation, have been uniformly 
 carried on in the person of his Son ; who has 
 appeared under the several characters by which 
 he is described in Scripture, as the circumstances 
 of men required in the different ages of the world. 
 Of the numerous arguments by which this opi- 
 nion is supported, I will select a few of the most 
 striking and satisfactory. Jehovah revealed him- 
 self to Moses under the awful and mysterious 
 distinction, I am that lam* Christ asHinned a 
 similar appellation, when, claiming a priority of 
 existence to Aln-aham, he said, ** Before Abraham 
 was, I AM."t — Again : when the Jews had nuir- 
 mured for want of water, Jehovah encouraged 
 his servant with the following assurance, " Be- 
 hold, I will stand before thee upon the rock in 
 Horeb, and thou shalt smite the rock; and there 
 
 *Exotl. iii. 14 "t John viii. 68. 
 
41 
 
 shall come water out of it, that tlie people may 
 drink. 4ik1 Moses did so in the sight of the 
 elders of Israel."* St. Paul, in express allusion 
 to that event, declares that ''they drank of that 
 spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock 
 was Christ.'' '\ — The same Apostle, to deter his 
 Corinthian converts from the imitation of the 
 disobedient Israelites, reminds them of the fiery 
 serpents sent by Jehovah for the punishment of 
 that ung'ratefnl people : " Neither," says he, *' let 
 US tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, 
 and were destroyed of serpents. "J — The prophet 
 Isaiah describes, in a sublime }mssag-e,§ the glory 
 o{ Jehovah, which he was permitted to behold. 
 St. John, in an unquestionable reference to that 
 transaction, says that Prophet, " saw Christ's 
 Glory and spake of him:"i| for " no man hath 
 seen God at any time : the only-begotten Son, 
 which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath 
 declared him."5[ 
 
 But we have also the "more sure word of 
 prophecy:" let us enquire then under what 
 character the jNIessiah was to appear, agreealily 
 to the writings of those holy "men of God," who 
 " spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."** 
 
 * JExod. xvii. 6. 1 1 Cor. x. 4. + Numb. xxi. 6. 1 Cor. x. 9. 
 § Isa. vi. 1 — 4. II John xii. 41. f\ i. 18. ** 2 Pet. i. 21. 
 
 F 
 
4i 
 
 Was he foretold as a divine Being, or as a ttiei'e 
 hian, or as one, in whose person the two natures 
 should be mysteriously combined ? 
 
 The following predictions, indisputably re- 
 lating to the Messiah, can be explained on no 
 other supposition than that of his possessing a 
 divine nature. " Thy throne, O God, is for 
 ever and ever : the Sceptre of thy kingdom is a 
 right Sceptre." Ps. xlv. 6. Heb. i. 8.—.*' The 
 Lord said unto my I^ird, Sit thou on my right 
 hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." 
 Ps. ex. 1. I^Iati. xxii. 44. Mark xii. 36. Luke 
 XX. 4'3. Acls ii. 35. Heb. i. 13.—*' Behold, a 
 virgin shall conceit e and bear a son, and shall 
 call his name Emmanuel" (God with us) Isa. 
 vii. 14. Matt. i. 23.—" unto us a child is born, 
 iuito us a son is given, and the government shall 
 be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be 
 called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty GoD, 
 the Everlasting FATHER,the Prince of Peace." 
 Isa. ix. 6. — "The voice of one crying in the 
 wilderness, Prepare ye the May of the Lord, 
 make straight in the desert a highway for our 
 God. Lift up thy voice, be not afraid, say 
 unto the cities of .ludah. Behold your God." 
 x\. 3, 9. — " Behold, your GoD will come and 
 save you : then the eyes of the blind shall be open- 
 ed, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped ; 
 thfeli shall the lame man leap as an hart, and 
 the tongue of the dumb shall sing," xxxv. 5. 
 
43 
 
 Matt. xi. 2 — 6. — ^" This is his name M'hereby he 
 shall be called, The Lord our righteousness." 
 Jer. xxiii. 6. — " One like the Son of man came 
 with the clouds of heaven ; and there was g'iven 
 him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that 
 all people, nations, and languages should serA e 
 him : his dominion is an everlasting dominion, 
 which shall not pass away, and his kingdom 
 that which shall not be destroyed." Dan. vii. 
 13, 14. Matt. xxiv. 30.—" But thou, Bethlehem 
 Ephratah, though thou be little among the thou- 
 sands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come 
 forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel ; whose 
 goings forth have been from of old, from everlast- 
 ing. Mic. V. 2. Matt. ii. 6.—" Thus saith the 
 Lord, 1 will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem." 
 Zech. viii. 3. — " The Lord, whom ye seek, 
 shall suddenly come to his temple." Mal.iii. 1. 
 
 But, while these pi'ophetical declarations con- 
 vey the fullest assurance, that the expected Re- 
 deemer of Israel was to be a divine person ; it is 
 most important to observe, that there are others, 
 in which his human nature is with equal clear- 
 ness described. Although he was to be Emma- 
 nuel, God with us, he was at the same time to 
 be " a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." 
 He was to be '< wounded for our transgressions, 
 and bruised for our iniquities ;" to be **led as ft, 
 lamb to the slaughter," to be " taken from prison 
 
44 
 
 and from judgment," and to be "cut off out of 
 
 the land of the living"."* 
 
 Since therefore those, unerring oracles of holy 
 writ have plainly declared that an union of the 
 divine and human natures should constitute the 
 Christ ; if Jesus be no more than man, he an- 
 swers not to this prediction, and consequently is 
 not the true Messiah. 
 
 Bearing- then in mind these prophetical decla- 
 rations, let us extend our enquiry to the Gospel: 
 let us see whether in the life and character of 
 Jesas Christ we can discover such marks of a di- 
 vine as well as of a human nature, as will justify 
 the conclusion that it is he, " to whom give all 
 the Prophets witness. "t 
 
 His miraculous incarnation^ an event foretold 
 by prophets, announced by an Angel, recorded 
 by inspired historians, and attested by the nonder- 
 ful transactions of his life, is, of itself, a satisfac- 
 tory proof of the union of two natures in his 
 person. 
 
 The same truth is most firmly established by 
 the astonishing series of miracles which he per- 
 formed : tor although miracles, abstractedly con- 
 
 * Isa. liii. 5, 7, 8. f Acts. x. 43. 
 
45 
 
 sidered, are notlujig- more than the credentials 
 of a divine k'g-ation, yet those of Christ were 
 such as to prove the Deity of his person. The 
 evident line of distinction between Jesus and all 
 other workers of miracles is such as we sl;oald 
 expect to find between the actions of a Lord and 
 those of his servants. They wrought miracles to 
 shew by whose authority they acted; Jesus, to 
 manifest his own.* 
 
 Christ, on some occasions, forgave the sins of 
 those, whose bodily maladies he removed. " He 
 said to the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be for- 
 g"iven thce."t I ask, uith the Jews, "Who 
 can forgive sins, but God only?" Yet this pre- 
 rog-ative of Deity, Christ frequently assumed and 
 exercised. He pardoned the sinner, who washed 
 his feet in the house of the Pharisee. J He for- 
 gave the woman, who w^as taken in adultery. § 
 He cancelled the sins of the penitent thief. || Are 
 these the deeds of a mere man ? Was it ever 
 known that any prophet or messenger from God 
 acted thus ? Would such conduct and such lan- 
 
 * John ii. 11. — Dr. Sherlock remarks, on the miracle re- 
 corded in 3Iatt. viii. 2, 3., that when our Lord said, " I mill, be 
 thou clean," and the leper was imnieinately cleansed, his divi- 
 nity shone forth more brightly, than if he had commanded all 
 the powers above visibly to assist him." 
 
 t Mark ii. v. % Luke vii. 48. 
 
 § John viii. 11. 11 Luke xxiii. 43. 
 
46 
 
 guage as this comport with the meek and unas-s 
 piving^ temper of Jesus? Would God himself, 
 the great and jealous Lord, uho " will not give 
 bis glory to another," have sanctioned so daring* 
 an encroachment upon his name and authority ? 
 
 Christ not only wrought miracles himself, 
 but also conferred sui>ernatural powers on his 
 disciples, who exercised them in his name, and 
 ascribed their whole success to his authority. " In 
 the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and 
 walk." Acts iii. 6. — " Eneas, Jesus Christ mak- 
 eth thee whole." ix. 34.—" I command thee, in 
 tbe name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, to come 
 out of her." xvi. 18.. — " Why look ye so earnestly 
 on us, as though by our own power or holiness we 
 had made this man to walk?" iii. 12.—" Be it 
 knoMii unto you all, that by the name of Jesus 
 Christ of Nazareth does this man stand here be- 
 fore you whole." iv. 10. 
 
 The discourses of our Lord, whether we re- 
 g-ard the manner or the substance of them, afford 
 an important testimony to the doctrine of his. 
 Deity. 
 
 The prophets introduced their message with 
 solemnly declaring in whose , name it was deli- 
 vered; " Thus saith //je iord." Jesus issued his. 
 precepts in a tone of personal authority ; " Be-^ 
 
47 
 
 hold, / say unto yon." — " Come unto me, all 
 ye that travail and arc heavy laden, and / will 
 g-ive you rest." Mat xi. 28. — " Him thatcometh 
 unto me / will in no wise cast out." John vi. 37. 
 
 But, if the manner of our Lord's discourses 
 is such as to indicate the dignity of his person ; 
 how much more decisive is the testimony which 
 arises from the substance of them ! What un- 
 equalled sublimity is there in the following de- 
 clarations : " In this place is one greater than the 
 temple." Matt. xii. 6. — " The Son of man is 
 Lord even of the Sabbath day." v. 8. — " I am 
 the living bread, which came down from heaven. 
 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for 
 ever ; and the bread, which I shall give, is my 
 flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.'* 
 John vi. 51. — *' If any man thirst, let him come 
 unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me 
 (as the Scripture saith) out of his belly shall flow 
 rivers of living water." vii. 37, 38. And when 
 we hear the same person declare that he is " the 
 resurrection and the life;" that he possesses the 
 supreme power of " raising the dead," and Anally 
 determining- the fate of the whole human race ; 
 that " the hour is coming, when all that are in 
 their graves shall hear Aw voice and come forth ;" 
 and that the rewards of the faithful and the 
 punishments of the disobedient will entirely re- 
 sult from his determination ; surely we are con- 
 
48 
 
 strained to acknowledg-e that " never man spake 
 like this man!" In short, let us only suppose 
 that the Divine Being" was to descend from hea- 
 ven, and to live and converse with mankind, as 
 Christ did ; what greater evidence could we de- 
 sire, in proof of his Deity, than that which our 
 Lord gave, in the spirit and wisdom with which 
 he uniformly spoke ? 
 
 I would, in the next place, appeal to the 
 divine attributes of Jesus Christ. 
 
 His omnipresence is asserted by himself in the 
 plainest langaage. " Where two or three are 
 g-athered together in my name, there am I in the 
 midst of them." Matt, xviii. 20. — " If any man 
 love me, my Father will love him, and we will 
 come unto him, and make our abode with him." 
 .Tohn xiv. 23. — ^" Lo, I am with you alway, even 
 unto the end of the world." Matt, xxviii. 20. 
 
 The high attribute of omniscience is ascribed 
 to him ; and in a great variety of instances he 
 proved himself most justly entitled to it. He 
 perceived the woman in the throng, who had 
 touched him.* He knew that Lazarus was dead, 
 before he proceeded to Bethany. f By a look upon 
 Peter he convinced him that he was acquainted 
 
 * Luke viii. 46. t «'"'*" ^^- 14. 
 
49 
 
 -with his treachery ;* by a word to his Disciples, 
 he showed liimself to be no strang-er to their in- 
 tentions. f It was the exercise of this perfection, 
 which produced conviction in the mind of Na- 
 thanael ;| which caused an Apostle to Exclaim, 
 " Lord, thou knon-est all things, thou knowest 
 that I love thee ;"§ and which fully justified the 
 following declarations of the sacred historians. 
 ** Jesus knew their thoughts." Matt. ix. 4. — 
 xii. 25. — Luke v. 22. vi. 8. ix. 47. xi. 17.— 
 " jfesus knew that they were desirous to ask him." 
 .John xvi. 19. — " He knew all men, and needed 
 not that any should testify of man: for he knew 
 what was in man." ii. 25. — " Jesus knew from 
 the beginning who they were that believed not, 
 and who should betray him." vi. 64. 
 
 His eternity may be inferred from what has 
 already been advanced. He *' whose goings forth 
 were from everlasting," he, who had glory with 
 the Father before the world was, he, without 
 whom was not any thing made that was made, 
 must have been himself without '* beofinnins" of 
 days or end of life." But the title by which he 
 revealed himself to his beloved disciple, places 
 the matter beyond dispute ; " I am Alpha and 
 Omega, the first and the last." Rev. i. 8, 11. 
 
 * Luke xxii. 61. + Luke ix. 46. 
 
 ■j John i. 47 — 19. § John xxi. 17. 
 
 G 
 
Indeed, we may ask, what attribute of Deity 
 is there, which the Scriptures do not expressly 
 apply to the Lord Jesus Christ ? Is not he ?'m- 
 mutahle, who is " the same yesterday, to-day, 
 and for ever" ?* Is not he omnipotent, by whom 
 " all thing's Mere made,"t and by whom all 
 thinsfs consist ;J: who "upholdeth all thing's by 
 the word of his power, "§ and who is ** able to 
 subdue all things to himself. |1" 
 
 Having' spoken, in my last Chapter, of the 
 fdonemc'ut avd saiiy,factiGnof the Cross, as imply- 
 jng the Deity of Christ, it only remains that I 
 advert to the concluding' scenes of his Ministry ; 
 his resurrection, \ih final commission to his disci- 
 pics, liis triumphal ascension into heaven, and his 
 promised return, as the supi^eme Judc/e of quick and 
 dead, at the last day. 
 
 He had said, " Destroy this temple, and in 
 three days / will build it up. But he spake of 
 the temple of his body. When therefore he was 
 risen from the dead, his disciples remembered 
 tliat he said this unto them."^ 
 
 Behold him, after this, dismissing his few 
 followei-s, and tliose of the lowest and most ig- 
 
 * Heh. xiii, 8. t John i. 3. % Col. i. 17. 
 
 ^ Hob. i. 3. II Pliil iii. 11. H John ii. 19— '21 • 
 
51 
 
 noraiit of the people, to the conversion of tho 
 world ;* assuring them of his constant presence 
 and protection ;t breatliing on thcni, and im- 
 parting to them the influence of the Holy Chost.J 
 giving them power over unclean spirits, and 
 ability to work all kinds of miracles ;§ behoUL 
 him, having in a solemn and authoritative man- 
 ner, bestow ed his benediction upon them, carried 
 up into heaven, in the presence of his disciples ;|| 
 and say whether these things are explicable upon 
 any other supposition than that of the absolute 
 Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Bear also in your recollection the high office 
 which he will sustain, as the Judge of men, 
 M'hen he will " sit upon the throne of his glQry,"5[ 
 attended with an innumerable train of Angels ** 
 when all who are in their graves shall come forth 
 Ut his voice,tt and heaven and earth shall flee 
 away at his presence ;{ J and say whether the 
 appearance of Jehovah could have been described 
 in a manner more completely sublime and nia«r, 
 nificent. 
 
 To reconcile such descriptions with a belief 
 in the simple humanity of Jesus, is impossible. 
 
 * Mat*, xxviu. 19, -j- v. 20. + Jolm xx. 22. 
 
 I Mark. xvi. 17, 18, [| Luke xxIt. 51 . m Matt. xxv. 31 .. 
 
 ** mvk viU.. 38.. tt John y. 2l8. XX Rev. xx. I L 
 
52 
 
 To suppose that the graves should give up their 
 dead at the voice of a man : that Anoels should 
 attend his train, and heaven and earth pass away 
 at his presence ; to imagine that a mere glorified 
 man should be appointed the supreme arbiter of 
 the everlasting' late of millions ; that he should 
 be able to read the heart, and know the exact 
 motive of every action ; to distinguish real from 
 imintentional guilt, and to determine, with per- 
 fect justice, the several portions of \^\\ ard or pu- 
 nishment due to every individual ; is surely not 
 less repugnant to reason, than to the plainest 
 declarations of Scripture. 
 
 To the important doctrine which I am labour- 
 ing to establish, the Apostles of our Lord bear a 
 most decisive and unequivocal testimony. The 
 Baptist thus declares the dignity of his person. 
 " He it is, who coming after me is preferred be- 
 fore me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy 
 to unloose."* The incredulous Thomas, con- 
 vinced at length of the reality of his Master's 
 resurrection, exclaimed, " My Lord, and my 
 God !"t To him the holy Martyr Stephen recom- 
 mended his departing soul, *' Lord Jesus receive 
 my spirit. "J St. Paul, who had the Gospel by 
 the immediate revelation of Jesus Christ, delares 
 him to be " God over all, blessed for ever;"§ in 
 
 * John i. 27^ -f John xx. 28. J Acts vii, 59. § Rom. ix. 5. 
 
63 
 
 %vhom " dwellelh all tlio fulness of the Gotlliead 
 bodily."* Now if it was the object of these lioly 
 men to recover their fellow -creatures IVov/ idola- 
 try to the worship of tlie true God, and if idola- 
 try consists in worshipping' such as by nature are 
 no g-ods; what shall we think of the texts here 
 adduced, on the supposition that Christ is not 
 God? or what shall we say to St. John's conclu- 
 sion of his first Epistle, when, having mentioned 
 Jesus Christ, he adds, "This person ( oi/ror ) is the 
 true God, and eternal life. Little children, keep 
 yourselves from idols. "f 
 
 Surely then I may, in conclusion, adopt your 
 own words, and say, " No comment is required 
 to elucidate passages like these. They speak a 
 language which sophistry itself is unable to per- 
 vert."{ It is however well known that sophistry 
 has attempted to pervert them. Let the success 
 of the attempt be estimated by the following spe- 
 cimens of Socinian interpretation. To elude the 
 obvious inference to be drawn from the words of 
 the Psalmist and of the Apostle, " Thy throne, 
 O God, is for ever and ever," it has been said 
 that the passage may be rendered, " God is thy 
 throne for ever and ever." To set aside the con- 
 fession of St. Thomas, " My Lord and my God," 
 
 ♦Cvl. ii. 9. + 1 John V. 20,21. 
 
 t Statement, p, 15. 
 
M 
 
 his words are interpreted as being merely a pro- 
 fane exclamation of surprise. To evade the de^ 
 cisive testimony of the Apostle, who says, that, of 
 the patriarchs, " as concerning the flesh, Christ 
 eame, who is over all, God blessed for ever," it 
 has been proposed to render the latter clause, 
 " God be blessed for ever. Amen." And lastly, 
 St. Stephen's dying address to Christ has been 
 considered as the language of a man, in an ecstacy 
 of devotion, or in the agonies of death, and there-* 
 fore not of much weight in the argument. 
 
 These comments of the Socinians require no 
 comment from me. I will only remark that to 
 my own mind there is no proof of the Deity of 
 Christ more convincing, than, that which arises, 
 from the absurdities into which its most able OP-s. 
 posers have been driven.. 
 
 Remarks on the " Seriptural Proof that the Holi/f 
 Spirit is not an Intelligent Being clisiinQt from 
 God the Father.'/' 
 
 I have some hesitation in allowing that ** the 
 terms Holy Spirit and Spirii of God are admit -. 
 ted to be svnonvmous, both bv the Trinitarian 
 
ij'> 
 
 and the Unitarian."* Thoy are used with some 
 variety of application. ^^ e more nsnnlly, when 
 we speak of the divine Spirit as a Person^ call 
 him ihe Holy Ghost, or the Holy Spirit, or tlie 
 Spirit; and I am not aware that we ever distin- 
 gnish him personally as the Spirit of God. AVhen 
 that phrase is adopted, it is generally in refer- 
 ence to his operations. The expressions therefore 
 are not interchangeable. 
 
 The first arg-nment, by which you endeavour 
 to disprove the personality of the Holy Spirit, is 
 founded on the assumption that as " it is common 
 for the sacred writers to employ ihe Spirit of a 
 person to denote a person himself^' so the analogy 
 of language would lead us to infer that God and 
 the Spirit of God are likewise one and the same 
 person, t 
 
 Granting the premises to be correct, grant- 
 ing, for instance, that the spirit of Moses and 
 MosesX are substantially the same expression, the 
 one declaring the man generally, and the other 
 a part of the man, the seat and source of his feel- 
 ings and actions, does it therefore follow that the 
 Spirit of God and God are one person ; God be- 
 ing the whole substance, and his Spirit a part of 
 that whole? — It migrht be maintained that the 
 
 T ■ ■■' ' - ■ I ■ ■ ■ h ■ fc 
 
 « StatemeMt, p. :U. t pp. .12, 33 I Ps. cvi. 33. 43. 
 
56 
 
 fomi of expression Spirit of G^ot/ universally de- 
 notes the agency, rather than the jjersonaliti/, of 
 that Spirit; declaring' him as employed in his 
 operations within, or upon other substances rather 
 than t]ie whole operating substance. But espe- 
 cially in the passage, from which your conclusion 
 is drawn, it will be found, upon examination, 
 that it clearly denotes such operation of the Per- 
 son, and not the Person himself. " What man 
 knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of 
 man which is in him ? even so the things of God 
 knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now 
 we have received, not the spirit of the world, 
 but the spirit which is of God;" &c. 1 Cor. 
 ii. 11, 12. The comparison therefore is not be- 
 tween the Spirit of God, jjersonalli/, and God, or 
 the Father, himself, but between the Father, per- 
 sonally, and the Spirit, as given to his people. 
 The Spirit, as imparted to the people of God, in 
 his gifts and operations, may be to God, what 
 the Spirit of a man is to the man, without at all 
 affecting the distinct personality of the Spirit and 
 of the Father. 
 
 It will be found that there is a distinction in 
 the form of expression used by the sacred writers 
 when they express the Spirit personally, and 
 when they express the Spirit as bestowed in his 
 agency upon, and within other substances. Or, 
 to speak more conformably to your views and 
 
57 
 
 adinissious, there are two distinct forms of ex^ 
 pressiou, under which the Spirit is exliibited. 
 Sometimes he is spoken of with the article, and 
 with or without other adjuncts ; sometimes he is 
 spoken of witltout the article. In the former of 
 these modes of expression it will be found upon 
 examination that the Spirit, as imparted^ i. e. 
 in his g^ifts and operations, is generally pointed 
 out ; in the latter, the Spirit in his distinct per- 
 sonalifi/. Thus it is in the passage and chapter 
 here referred to. In the verse more immediately 
 under consideration, the Spirit is spoken of, as 
 imparted to the people of God, to mtviAx ru Qm. In 
 the 13th verse of the same chapter the Spirit is 
 spoken of personally, Uuktois irnv{j,xro! «y/a. This pas- 
 sage, therefore, when thus correctly considered 
 as to its proi)er meaning, furnishes no objection 
 to the personality of the Holy Spirit. Besides 
 that, if there were not this marked distinction in 
 the use of the terms, which furnishes an unques- 
 tionable difference, (the qualities or operations 
 of a Person being manifestly distinguishable from 
 the Person himself) it would at last be a most 
 unjust inference from the passage adduced, to say 
 that it disproves the personality of the Holy 
 Ghost, and represents him only as a part or pro- 
 perty of the one divine Person. An illustration 
 
 which it clearly is, and only such— an illustration 
 of a truth is not a declaration of truth. The re- 
 
 n 
 
58 
 
 ktion between God the Holy Ghost and God the 
 Father might be expressed by a reference to the 
 relation which subsists between a man's spirit 
 and the whole man, without implying a decla- 
 ration that the Holy Ghost is to the Father what 
 a man's spirit is to himself, and that only. 
 
 The passage to which you next appeal, is 
 Matt. xii. 28. " If I cast out Devils hy the Spi- 
 rit of God, then the kingdom of God is come 
 unto you." And "that the Spirit of God here 
 signifies the po?ver of God, or God himself, is" 
 in your opinion " clearh/ manifest from the paral- 
 lel place in Luke's Gospel. * If I with the finc/er 
 of God cast out Devils, no doubt the kingdom 
 of God is come upon you.' Luke xi. 20."*— 
 "Whether it is that" my "mental vision is ob- 
 scured, or whether" I " wilftdly shut my eyes 
 against the light of truth," I cannot take upon 
 myself to pronounce : but to me it is far from 
 being '' clearly manifest'" how the fwyer of God 
 can be made to signify God himself ' 
 
 I have, in a former chapter, remarked that 
 all which the Lord Jesns Christ did and was en- 
 a.bled to sufFer,he did and was enabled to suffer by 
 tlie Holy Ghost. Thus, he cast out Devils by the 
 Holy Ghost; not by the Holy Ghost personally, but 
 
 ♦ Slutcment, p. 34. 
 
59 
 
 by that energy of the Holy Ghost, which he, by 
 covenant, administered and exercised. Bearing 
 in mind this distinction, I find no difficulty in 
 reconciling^ the two passao^es in the Gospels of St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke, ^vhere the Spirit of God 
 and the Jin(/er (or power) of 6W appear to be con- 
 vertible terms; by the Spirit of Godheing meant, 
 not the Sipir'it personally but, the Spirit in action. 
 The Spirit in action is the power of the Father. 
 
 The words of the Psalmist, Ps. li. 11. " Cast 
 me not away from thy presence, and take not 
 thy Holy Spirit from me,"* contain two distinct 
 petitions. Presence and Spirit do not mean the 
 same thing. David implores that God \vould 
 not cast him out from the manifestation of his 
 favour ; the j)resence of God meaning his mani^ 
 fested favour. God is spoken of as a man, who 
 is specially present in some places and not in 
 others ; and his manifested favour is vouchsafed 
 in special acts and exercises of communion. 
 
 In Ps. cxxxix. 7. *' Whither shall I go from 
 thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy pre- 
 sence ?"t I should very much question any refer- 
 ence to personal distinctions of the Godhead. 
 God is spoken of after the manner of men. And, 
 in this manner of speaking, his spirit represents 
 
 * Statement, p. 34. + ibid. 
 
that faculty of the divine Being", wiiei^by lie m 
 conscions to the objects around him, and his pre^ 
 86nce is hut another Way of representing- this. — 
 A hundred passages of this kind prove nothing-. 
 It does not follow, because the Spirit of God is 
 spoken of, without reference to personal distinc* 
 tions, that therefore there is no Holy Ghost. 
 
 I have next to notice your explanation of St. 
 Peter's address to Ananias, and the bold assertion 
 at the close of it, that " the distinct personality 
 of the Holy Spirit is a doctrine of mere human 
 invention, baseless and visionary as the dreaUi of 
 the enthusiast."* 
 
 A conclusion, Sir, far too lafg-e for the pre- 
 mises, if those premises were correct. Nothing 
 can be more obvious, than that, upon the face of 
 the passag-e Acts v. 3, 4., the Holy Ghost is re- 
 presented as a Person, and that Person expressly 
 called God. " Why hath Satan filled thine heart 
 to lie to THE Holy Ghost ? Thou hast not lied 
 tiUtO nien, but unto God." Will you explain 
 with what propriety it could be said of an attri- 
 bute^ or quality, or faculty of God, Thou hast^ 
 lied to it : Thou hast lied to the mind of God, 
 Thou hast lied to the wisdom of God, Thou hast 
 lied to the goodness of God, Thou hast lied to the 
 
 *I). 35. 
 
61 
 
 power of C(xl. Is this a mode of expi*ession, 
 which common sense will admit ? If the real 
 meanino-, then, hv the obvious meaning-, we 
 have in this passage, what the Trinitarians have 
 always maintained, a decisive testimony to the 
 |>ersonality and divinity of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 You ^\ould disprove this testimony by refer- 
 \i\cr to other passag'es of Scripture, from which 
 you infer that we need not consider the Holy 
 Ghost as a Person, and a divine Person, here. 
 Rather a strang-e method of interpreting' a pas- 
 sage of Scripture ; which should stand upon its 
 ^wn plain and obvious construction and context. 
 But let OS examine the passages. " It is not ye 
 that speak, hwt the Holy Ghost.''' Markxiii. 11. 
 — " It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your 
 Father, which speaketh in you." Matt. x. 20. 
 Now, Sir, what is the amount of the parallel, 
 which you would institute? Who maintains 
 that the person of the Holy Ghost was here in- 
 tended by the evangelists ? It is the Holy Ghost, 
 by his energy, which spoke in the disciples of 
 Christ; and that Holy Ghost, thus speaking, is 
 fitly called the Spirit of the Father, as he is that 
 Spirit, of which the Father, according to the pro- 
 visions of the everlasting covenant, bestows the 
 
62 
 
 You hatr« bestowed much pains in proving-, 
 !>y numerous quotations from Scripture,* that 
 '< the term Holy Spirit is frequently employed 
 by the sacred writers to denote the effect as well 
 as the efficient cause ; the manifestation of divine 
 power, as well as divine power itself'' Why, Sir, 
 all this argumentation does but confirm the view 
 I have already maintained, that in many passages 
 of Scripture the Holy Ghost is decidedly spoken of, 
 not with reference to his distinct personality ab- 
 solutely, but with reference to his agency; the 
 Person at work, and not the Person in his es- 
 sence ; an acting or manifesting of his Deity, or 
 an act or effect produced by his Deity, not his 
 Deity, or the substance of his Deity, itself. This, 
 1 suppose, is what you mean by the distinction 
 you are here setting forth : and I am obliged to 
 vou for your representation, inasmuch as you 
 confirm that very distinction, which I have my- 
 self instituted, and furnish me with an answer 
 to some objections which, without this view, 
 might perhaps be substantiated against the Trini* 
 tarian hypothesis. 
 
 The whole amount of the objection is that, in 
 many places, the Holy Ghost is not spoken of as 
 a distinct divine person, and therefore is not a 
 divine person ; though there be places, in which 
 
 * pp. 35, 36< 
 
63 
 
 he must he a divine person. Granting-, to the. 
 full, the demand which you make to have the 
 Holy Ghost considered in many passages as re- 
 presenting' an energy of the Godhead, it does not 
 therefore follow that there are no passages of 
 Scripture, in which he cannot be considered as 
 such energy, but must be regarded as a distinct, 
 divine, personal agent. 
 
 I concur with you in considering that the 
 promise of the Spirit* is not the promise of the 
 personal residence of the Holy Ghost, but the pro- 
 mise of his operations; and that, under the title 
 of Paraclete, Spirit of Truth, &c. is conveyed 
 not the declaration of his personal presence, but 
 of his various and truly divine operations.f But 
 all this proves nothing" against the reality of his 
 
 * John xiv. XV. xvi. The Holy Ghost, as promised and 
 Touchsafed to the Apostles and to the Church, is called the pro- 
 mise of the Father, and said to be sent by the Father in Christ's 
 name, with reference to those provisions of the everlasting cove- 
 nant, by Avhich the Father, as the great origin and spring of 
 divine operation, (He being that person to \\hom all the actings of 
 the Godhead, in fulfilment of covenant engagements, are referred, 
 as the source ofnlll) has from everlasting promised and sworn to 
 give the Holy Ghost in his energies to his church and people, 
 for the sake of, and by the administration of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ: the Holy Ghost, as a distinct and co-equal Person, har- 
 iug covenanted to exert his energies under this form, and by this 
 el>aunel of administration. 
 
 + Statement, pp. 37, 38, 
 
61 
 
 distinct personal subsistence, but rather proves 
 that there must l>e sucli a distinct personal sub- 
 sistence ; otherwise such operations should not 
 be declared to proceed from him as their source. 
 Such subsistence, which may be inferred from, 
 and seems necessarily to be implied in, the as- 
 cription of such performances to such a source, is 
 distinctly and positively proved by direct testi-- 
 monies of Scripture, which can bear no other 
 fair and logical interpretation than that which 
 represents him as a distinct, co-equal, co-eternal, 
 co-essential Person of the Godhead. 
 
 On the subject of personification,'^ we may 
 remark, as before, that tlie conclusion is too large 
 for the premises. Doubtless Sin, Death, &c. are 
 personified in Scripture ; and doubtless the ener" 
 {jies of the Spirit are personified in Scripture. 
 But does it therefore follow that the Spirit, from 
 which those energies proceed, is no more a real 
 Person than Sin and Death are real Persons? 
 The energies themselves may be no more real 
 persons tljan Sin and Death ; but the Source, 
 from which those energies proceed, must be a 
 living and personal source. : 
 
 I beg to conclude these observations with an 
 extract from the wi'itings of the celebrated Dr. 
 
 . * Statement p. 39. 
 
65 
 
 Owen. ** If a wise and honest man should tell 
 you that in a certain country, where he has been, 
 there is an excellent uovernor, who wisely dis- 
 charg-es the duties of his office ; who hears causes, 
 distributes justice, and comforts the distressed,— 
 would you not believe that he intended by this 
 description, a righteous, wise, intelligent per- 
 son ?— What else could any man living imagine? 
 But now suppose that a stranger, or person of 
 suspicious character, should come and say that 
 the former information was indeed true, but that 
 no man or person was intended, but the sun or 
 the wind, which, by their benign influences, 
 rendered the country fruitful and temperate, and 
 disposed the inhabitants to mutual kindness; and, 
 therefore, that the whole description of a gover- 
 nor was n\cTc\y Jifjurative ;— must you not con- 
 clude, either that the first person was a notorious 
 trifler, or that your latter informer, whose vera- 
 city you had reason to suspect, had endeavoured 
 to abuse both him and you? It is exactly thus 
 in the case before us. The Scripture tells us that 
 the Holy Ghost governs the Church; appoints 
 overseers of it, — discerns and judges all things, — 
 comforts the faint, — strengthens the weak, — is 
 grieved and provoked by sin ; and that, in these 
 and many other affairs he orders and disposes all 
 thinofs accordina: to his own will. Can any man 
 credit this testimony, and conceive otherwise of 
 the Spirit, than as a holy, wise, intelligent per^ 
 
son? Now while we are under the power of 
 these apprehensions, there come to us some men, 
 whom we have just cause to suspect, and they 
 tell us that what the Scripture says of the Holy 
 Spirit is indeed true, but that no such person is 
 intended by these expressions, — ^but only a quality, 
 or influence of divine power, which doth all these 
 things Jic/ui^ativeli/ ; that he has a will figuratively, 
 and understanding figuratively, — is sinned against 
 figuratively, and so of all that is said of him. 
 Now, what can any man, not bereft of natural 
 reason, as well as spiritual light, conclude, but 
 either that the Scripture designed to draw him 
 into fatal errors, or that those who impose such 
 a sense upon it are corrupt seducers, who would 
 rob him of his faith and comforts ? Such will 
 they at last appear to be."* 
 
 tSvripiural Proof that the Holy Ghost is a Person. 
 
 I will now proceed to lay before you some 
 evidences of the personality of the Holy Ghost ; 
 with only this postulate, that, if such language 
 be uniformly used in the Scriptures concerning 
 
 *" Ojvavs Pneu7nataloffia, B. i. Chap. 3. 
 
67 
 
 the Holy Spirit, as in all other cases would con- 
 vey to our minds the ideas oi personality and per- 
 sonal agency, I may be allowed to draw the 
 conclusion, that the Holy Ghost is a personal 
 agent. 
 
 I would first appeal to the testimony which 
 is borne to this truth by our Lord himself. " I 
 will pray the Father, and he shall give you ano- 
 ther Comforter, that he may abide with you for 
 ever; even the Spirit of truth." — "The Comforter, 
 which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father shall 
 send in my name. He shall teach you all things.'* 
 John xiv. 16, 17, 26. — In the passage last quoted, 
 and in several others, especially in those that 
 follow, the personal pronoun (txeivoj^ is used. 
 " When the Comforter is come, — even the Spirit 
 of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He 
 shall testify of me." — " When He cometh, he 
 shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever He 
 shall hear, that shall he speak." — " Jfe shall glo- 
 rify me ; for he shall receive of mine, and shall 
 shew it unto you." John xv. 20. xvi. 7 — 15. 
 Now, I will only ask, do not the ordinary rules 
 of language restrict the use of the personal pi^o- 
 7ioun to a personal agent? And, if any words can 
 convey the idea of personal agency, is not that 
 idea most clearly conveyed by those which occur 
 in the preceding sentences, viz. being sent, coin- 
 
6S' 
 
 ing, testifying^ receiving, shewing^ teaching, hear^ 
 ing, and speaking P 
 
 Our Lord's description of the imp «rclonable 
 fein decidedly ascertains the personality of the 
 Holy Ghost. " All sins shall be forgiven unto 
 the sons of men, and blasphemies, wherewithso- 
 ever they shall blaspheme. But he that shall 
 blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, hath never 
 forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damna- 
 tion." Mark iii. 28, 29.— For how can it be 
 supposed that a sin, committed against a ijuality 
 or attribute of the Deity, should be irremissible, 
 while against the Deity himself all manner of sin 
 and blasphemy should be capable of forgiveness? 
 Sin against God must include sin against any of 
 his attributes, as the greater proportion includes 
 the less: and, consequently, if there be a crime, 
 into which a man may fall, against the Holy 
 Ghost, beyond the reach of pardon, while, at 
 the same time, all manner of sins and blasphemies 
 against God may be remitted; the Holy Ghost 
 must be a person, distinct from God the Father. 
 
 In the form of baptism appointed by our Lordj 
 «' Go ye and baptize all nations in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy G' host," 
 Matt, xxviii. J 9, if the Father and the Son be 
 persons, the same must also be understood of the 
 Holy Ghost. For, suppose it to be otherwise;^ 
 
69 
 
 nnd how unaccountable is it tliat our Lord should 
 join in tlio same form of Morship, and ^vithout 
 the least intimation of any difference, ino per-* 
 sons, and one attribute; and command his fol- 
 lowers to be dedicated to the joint service of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of an attribute of 
 the Fatiier and the Son ! What adoration can 
 be paid to an attribute ? Does not the very notion 
 of God include his attributes? 
 
 Let us, in the next place, enquire, wiiat is 
 the testimony borne by St. Paul to tliis doctrine. 
 " All these worketh that one, and the self-same 
 Spirit, dividing- to every man severally as he 
 will." 1 Cor. xii. 11. Are wot working , dividing, 
 and willing, personal acts ? or can such teiiiis be 
 used of a mere attribute, consistently with the 
 precision required in religious instructions? — 
 " The Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep 
 things of God." 1 Cor. ii. 10. Here a distinction 
 is clearly expressed between the Spirit, which is 
 said to search, and God, whose deep things are 
 searched. On the supposition that they are one 
 and the same person, the sense would be that the 
 Spirit of God searcheth all things, yea the deep 
 things of himself: which is absurd.- — -"The Spirit 
 maketh intercession for us with groanings which 
 cannot bi- uttered." Rom. viii. 2(j. Here again, 
 mK)n the supposition that the Holy Ghost is not 
 a distinct person in the Godhead, but only au 
 
70 
 
 attribute of the Father, he would be making in- 
 tercession to himself. — " The grace of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the com- 
 munion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." 
 2 Cor. xiii. 14. If personality be supposed, by 
 implication, to be in the Lord Jesus Christ, or 
 in God, for dispensing the blessings here prayed 
 for ; it must, on the same ground, be supposed 
 to be also in the Holy Ghost. Can any one con- 
 ceive that the qualities of grace in Christ, and 
 love in God (which without doubt are personal 
 qualities, inasmuch as they are imparted from 
 one to another) are more properly personal, than 
 the communion^ which is also as directly implored 
 from the Holy Ghost ? Are those qualities [of 
 grace in Christ, and love in God, to be joined 
 with the communion of one, who is himself but 
 an attribute, or quality, or energy, of Christ, and 
 of God ? What is meant by the communion of an 
 attribute ? And how is this communion conveyed, 
 by tlie operation of an attribute, into the hearts of 
 believers ? 
 
 1 should far exceed my limits, if I gave at 
 large the numerous scriptural testimonies to the 
 doctrine of the Holy Spirit's personality. He is 
 siiid to speak expressly,* by Proplieis,^ to Apos- 
 
 * 1 Tim. iv. 1. f 2 Pet. i. 21. 
 
71 
 
 tiesy* and to Chiirches,f He appoints minist€rs,X 
 and sends messeiujcrs.^ He hears nHtness,\\ nnd is 
 appealed to as a ivUnes^.% He is described as 
 possessing- all personal qualities ; such as ^rief'** a 
 mind,ff a 7vill,iX ^"^ power.^^ He is declared 
 capable of being- tempted, ||1| of being- resisted,^5[ 
 of having despite done unto him.*** 
 
 If there is meaning in language, surely these 
 expressions are demonstrative oi personal consci- 
 ousness and identity. If they can be made to 
 bear any other interpretation ; upon the same 
 principles, I conceive, it would be equally easy 
 to do away the plainest doctrines of Scripture. 
 
 It is very possible that, in the variety of 
 testimonies, which bear on this point, some may 
 possess greater weight than others; for indeed 
 of no truth, to be established by collateral evi- 
 dence, can it be supposed that all the testimonies 
 in its favour should be of equal importance. But 
 it must be the fallacy of the whole, and not of 
 any single proposition, or more, that can be 
 deemed sufficient to invalidate the certainty of 
 
 * Acts, xiii, 2. f R^v. ii. 7. J Acts xx. 28. 
 
 § xiii. 4. II Rom. viii. 16. ^ ix. 1. 
 
 ** Eph. ir. 30. ft Rom. viii. 27. tt 1 Cor. xii. 11, 
 
 Vj Rom. XV. 1.3. III! Acts V.9. tlT vii. 51. 
 «** HcIj. X. 29. 
 
72 
 
 "ivhat is here advanced. Allow but one of the 
 proofs to be unanswerable, and that is enoug^h for 
 oar purpose, viz. to prove that the Blessed Spirit 
 is a Person. 
 
 Scriptural Proof that the Holy Ghost is God. 
 
 I beg-in with assuming-, what, I trust, has 
 been proved in the last chapter, that the Holy 
 Ghost is " an Intelligent Being distinct from 
 God the Father." The question then immedi- 
 ately arises, Under what character are we to 
 consider him ? Either he is God, possessing, in 
 a distinction of person, an ineffable unity of the 
 divine nature Avith the Father and the Son ; or 
 lie is the creature of God, and consequently pos- 
 sesses only a derivative and subordinate excel- 
 lence. There is no medium betwixt the two. 
 Whether of the two characters then belongs to 
 him ? Let the question be determined by the 
 titles, the attributes, and the operations, which 
 the Scriptures ascribe to him. 
 
 He is described as "the eternal Spirit,"* a 
 name which carries on the face of it the most 
 
 * llcb. U. 14. 
 
73 
 
 convincing' proof of his Deity. Who is eternal, 
 but " the Hioh and Holy one, that inhabitetli 
 eternity?" He is repeatedly called the holy 
 Spirit, as being- eminently so above all creatures, 
 ^ and as being- the author of all that holiness which 
 they possess. He is disting-uished as the Spirit 
 of hoHnesSy the Spirit of iruth, the Spirit o^ power , 
 the Spirit of life, the Spirit of msdoni and know- 
 ledae. And uhether we are to understand from 
 these appellations that he possesses these perfec- 
 tions in a way of eminence above all creatures, 
 or that he is the grand source, from which they 
 are communicated to otliers, in either sense they 
 completely establish the doctrine of his Deity. 
 
 But what will you say to those passages in 
 which he is expressly called God? Christians 
 are in some places said to be Iwrn of the Spirit ; 
 in others to be born of God.* In lying to the 
 Hob/ Ghost, Ananias lied unto God.f The 
 spiritual gifts, which the Corinthians received, 
 are all declared to be the work of " that one and 
 the self-same Spirit ^ and yet concerning these 
 operations St. Paul as expressly asserts, " It is 
 the same God, which workethall inall."{ — "All 
 Scripture is" said by one Apostle to be " given 
 by inspiration of God^^ and by another it is 
 
 * .Tohn i. 13. iii o, 6, 8. t Acts v. 3, 4 
 
 + 1 Cor. xii. 6, 11. S 2/r'ni- "i- 16. 
 
 K 
 
u 
 
 asserted that " holy men of God spake as they 
 were moved by the Holy Ghosts *~God is de- 
 scribed, in the Book of Leviticus, as promising 
 to dwell with his people : *^ I will set my taber- 
 nacle among you ; and I will walk among you, 
 and will be your God, and ye shall be my peo- 
 ple, "f The accomplishment of this promise is 
 declared by the Apostle : *« Ye are the temple of 
 the living God ; as God hath said, I will dwell 
 in them, and walk among them," &c4 How 
 arxd by whom is this done ? " Know ye not that 
 ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of 
 God dwelleth in you ? for the temple of God are 
 ye."§ If then it was God, who of old promised 
 to dwell in liis people, and thereby to make them 
 Uis temple ; then is the Holy Spirit God ; for it 
 is he, Aiho, according to that promise, thus 
 d\^elleth in them. 
 
 The atirilmies of the Holy Ghost will also 
 lead us to the same conclusion. He is omnipre- 
 sent; for he dwelleth in ail true believers, wher- 
 ever dispersed, or however numerous. (| He is 
 omniscient ; for he " searcheth all things, yea 
 the deep things of God," and no one knoweth 
 Uiem, but he alone ;^ he " teacheth all things," 
 
 «i2P€t. i.21. t Lev. xxvi. 11, 12. t 3 Cor. vi. 16. 
 h i Cor. iii. IC, 17. || vi. 19. % ii. 10, 11 
 
75 
 
 and even " shewetli things to come."* He is 
 omnipotent; for " the Spirit of the Lord is not 
 straitened, "t but " divideth to every man seve- 
 rally as he will. "J 
 
 The operations of the Holy Spirit unequivo- 
 cally attest the same truth : for tliey are such as 
 no finite Person can be competent to perform. 
 Creation itself is ascribed to him. He, in the 
 beginning', " moved upon the face of the deep,"§ 
 to reduce the chaotic mass to order, and to im- 
 pregnate dead matter with life and animation. 
 The amazing- plan of divine providence was laid, 
 and is conducted by him; for, *' who hath di- 
 rected the Spirit of the Lord? or being his 
 counsellor hath taught him ? " || He was the 
 author and giver of all those miraculous and su 
 pernatural poivers, with which any of the human 
 race were ever endued. The Prophets, those 
 " holy men of God, spake as they were moved 
 by the Holy Ghost." By him the Evang-elists, 
 the Apostles, and the primitive believers, were 
 enabled to cast out Devils ; to heal the sick ; to 
 raise the dead ; to speak in languages before un- 
 known, or to interpret the discourses of others. 
 Christ himself was "anointed by the Holy Ghost." 
 to work his beneficent miracles.^ He " cast out 
 
 * Johu xiv. 26. XV. 13. + Micah ii. 7. X I Cor. xii. 11. 
 
 \ Gen. i. 2. \\ Isa. xl. 13. ^ Acts x. 3«. 
 
76 
 
 Devils by the Spirit of God,"* " who was given 
 to him without measure ;"t and "through the 
 Holy Ghost he gave commandment to his Apos- 
 tles. "J Is it possible that^uch can be the agency 
 of a creature ? 
 
 Lastly, the ordinary influences of the Holy 
 Spirit form a distinct and satisfactory proof of 
 his Deity. Who but an almighty agent can pro- 
 duce a new creation in the soul, can restore life 
 to the dead sinner; and more than reinstate him 
 in paradise ; can prepare him for, and conduct 
 him to, the glories of the heavenly uorld? Who 
 but an all-powerful Being can give him strength 
 to subdue his corrupt affections, to keep in vi- 
 gorous exercise his spiritual principles, to fit him 
 for every duty and every trial, to sustain bini in 
 his arduous conflict, and transform perfectly into 
 the image of his God and Saviour ? A creature 
 cannot effect this : and we are assured that the 
 Spirit is the mighty agent. § From these his 
 operations then we can be at no loss to ascertain 
 ^he divine character of the vluthor. 
 
 * Matt. xii. 28. + John iii. 34. X Acts. i. 2. 
 
 § 1 Cor. vi. 11. 2 Cor. iii. 18. 1 Pet. i. 2. 
 
77 
 
 On the Canon of the New Testament. 
 
 I have now to offc r some observations on the 
 attempt which you have made to disprove the 
 authenticity of certain Books in the New Testa- 
 ment. For altliough I would most \\illingly rest 
 the proof of the Trinitarian Doctrines on those 
 parts of the sacred volume, whicli by universal 
 consent are allowed to be genuine, I think it 
 would argue a culpable indifference on a most 
 important question, if I were to pass over in 
 silence an attempt to throw a slur upon any part 
 of the sacred volume. 
 
 I have neither leisure nor opportunity to 
 collate Manuscripts, or to ascertain the compara- 
 tive accuracy of the different editions of the New 
 Testament; much less, to wade through the vo- 
 luminous writings of the early Christian Fathers. 
 AVith yourself, therefore, I must be content to 
 disclaim all pretension to originality, in this 
 part of my Letter, except perhaps in those argu- 
 ments, which are founded on your own admis- 
 sions and palpable misrepresentations. I shall 
 not attempt to combat every erroneous position 
 pr incorrect conclusion, which presents itself in 
 this part of yom- work; but shall select a few of 
 the most prominent, from wiiich the character 
 of the rest may be fairly and easily inferred. 
 
78 
 'i 
 In endeavouring" to bring" under suspicion the 
 
 following" Books of the New Testament, viz. 
 Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, 
 
 James, 2 & 3 John, Revelation; 
 
 you appeal to the evidence of the Apostolical Fa- 
 thers; on which I shall only remark that the 
 references to Scripture in the writings of those 
 authors are far more numerous than you are 
 willing to allow. The following table is trans- 
 cribed iVom the w ork of the Rev. Dr. Magee,* 
 a writer not more distingnished by his profound 
 learning, than by his vmimpeached integrity, 
 in the department of sacred criticism. The re- 
 ferences printed in italics are those which you 
 have suppressed. 
 
 Bama1)as. 
 A. D. 71. 
 
 Clemens Rom. 
 A. D. 96. 
 
 Hermas. 
 A. D. iOO. 
 
 Ignatius. 
 A. D. 107. 
 
 Poly carp. 
 A. D. 108. 
 
 Matthew 
 
 Matthew 
 
 Matthew 
 Mark 
 
 Matthew 
 
 Matthew 
 
 Luke 
 
 Luke 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Acts 
 
 Acts 
 
 Acts 
 
 Acts 
 
 Acts 
 
 Ko7naiis 
 
 Romans 
 
 Romans 
 
 Romans 
 
 Romans, 
 
 1 Cor. 
 
 1 Cor. 
 
 1 Cor. 
 
 1 Cor. 
 
 1 Cor. 
 
 2 Cor. 
 
 2 Cor. 
 
 2 Cor. 
 
 2 Cor. 
 
 2 Cor, 
 
 
 Galat 
 
 (Jalat. 
 
 Gal at 
 
 Gal at 
 
 Ephes. 
 Philip. 
 
 Ephes. 
 Philip. 
 Coloss. 
 
 Ephes. 
 Philip. 
 
 Colas. 
 
 Ephes. 
 Philip. 
 Coloss. 
 
 Ephes. 
 Philip. 
 
 
 
 * Apjicudix to Magee's Discourses on Atonement and Sacri-. 
 fice, p. 478— 481. 
 
79 
 
 Barnabas. 
 A. D. 71. 
 
 Philip. 
 
 2 Tim. 
 
 Hebrci 
 
 I Pet. 
 %Pet. 
 
 Clemens Roin. 
 
 A. D. ac. 
 1 Thcss. 
 
 1 Tim. 
 
 2 Tim. 
 Titus 
 Hebrews 
 James 
 
 1 Pet. 
 
 2 Pet. 
 
 Revelation 
 
 Hermft.s. 
 A. D. 100. 
 
 1 Thc^s. 
 
 2 Tim. 
 
 Hehreivs 
 James 
 1 Pet. 
 ^Pet. 
 
 1 John 
 
 2 John 
 
 3 John 
 Jude 
 
 Ij^atiua. 
 A. D. UI7 
 
 1 Thess. 
 
 2 Tim. 
 
 Titus 
 
 Hebrews 
 
 1 Pet. 
 
 1 John 
 
 3 John 
 
 Pulytarp. 
 A. D. loe. 
 
 1 Thess. 
 
 2 Thess. 
 
 1 Tim. 
 
 2 Tim. 
 
 Hebrews 
 I Pet. 
 1 John 
 
 Jude 
 
 With these testimonies, I am perfectly willing 
 that the authenticity of the " disputed Books'* 
 should rest upon your own admissions and the 
 authority of those whose opinion you appear to 
 hold in high veneration. 
 
 The Epistle to the Hebrews 
 
 Is, as we have seen, referred to by all the Apos- 
 tolical Fathers; and although, according- to Mi- 
 chaelis, it might not be contained in the original 
 Syriac version, it was, in the opinion of that 
 writer, received ^^ shortly afterwards." It was, 
 by your own admission, inserted in the catalogue 
 of Origen,* nor was it excluded from that of 
 
 * Siqtfment, p. 61. 
 
80 
 
 Easebius.* Indeed Lardner, after a full discus- 
 sion oF the subject, concludes in favour of the 
 probability that St. Paul was the author of this 
 Epistle ; and Sykes strenuously contends for the 
 same position. I omit the mention of other 
 critics from a persuasion that the opinion of all, 
 when added to the weight of that advanced by 
 Lardner and by Sykes, can only prove, in the 
 judg-ment of Unitarians, lig-ht as atoms of dust 
 on the preponderating balance. 
 
 The Epistle of St. James. 
 
 / 
 On the authenticity of this Epistle, I am per- 
 fectly satisfied with the following concessions from 
 yourself and the Editors of the Improved Version. 
 ^' I think it Mgldy probable that the Epistle com-' 
 monly ascribed to James is genuine, because it 
 appears to have been known to Clemens Roma- 
 nus, and Hermas, two of the earliest Apostolical 
 Fathers, and because it is found in the canon of 
 the first Syriac New Testament, which is decid- 
 edly the most ancient version of the Christian 
 Scriptures. "t '' It is not unworthy of the Apos- 
 tle, to whom it is generally ascribed. "J 
 
 * ii'latonad, p. 6(j. + p. 44. X p. GO. 
 
81 
 
 The Second Epistle of St. Peter. 
 
 Why is so m irked an exception mtide of this 
 Epistle, which, not to mention other testimonies, 
 is referred to by Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, 
 and Hernias, the three earliest of the Apostolical 
 Fatliers? Lardner, after a detailed examination 
 of the arg-nments alleg-ed against its anthenticity, 
 concludes strongly in favour of it. Of St. Peter's 
 two Epistles he says, ** If we consult them, and 
 endeavour to form a judgment by internal evi- 
 dence, I suppose it will appear very probable, 
 that both are of the same author. And it may 
 »eem somewhat strange, that any of the ancients 
 hesitated about it, who had the two Epistles be- 
 fore them. *** I conclude, therefore, that the 
 two Epistles, generally ascribed to the Apostle 
 Peter, are indeed his. * * * * Certainly these 
 Epistles, and the discourses of Peter recorded in 
 the Acts, together with the effects of them, are 
 monuments of a divine inspiration.^'' History of 
 the Apostles J and. Evanyelisfs, cliap. 19. With 
 respect indeed to the first and third chapters of 
 this Epistle, the Editors express themselves ra- 
 ther doubtfully ; but the second chapter they 
 condemn without reserve, printing it in italics. 
 And yet Lardner, as we have seen, maintained 
 the divine authority of the whole, and Michaelis 
 states what he terms " positive grounds for be- 
 lieving it genuine," Jntrod. Vol. iv. p. 350, &c 
 
 K 
 
The Second and Third Epistles of Sl John. 
 
 The following concession from the Editors of 
 the " Improved Version" is highly important and 
 satisfactory. " They appear to regard these Epis- 
 tles as genuine ; and attribute the circumstance 
 of their having been disputed in and before the 
 time of Eusebius to their brevity, and * to their 
 being addressed to particular persons ;' adding, 
 with Dr. Priestley, that 'both the subjects and 
 the language are so much the same with those of 
 the former Epistle, that there cannot be a doubt 
 of their having the same author.' "* 
 
 The Epistle of St. Jude. 
 
 ^ The Editors of the Improved Version ** seem 
 less inclined to retain this as a genuine part of 
 Scripture, than any book of the New Testa- 
 inent;"t and you profess to " think, with Lardner 
 and many others, that the Epistle of Jude ought 
 not to be regarded as of sufficient authority to 
 establish by itself any doctrine. "| I, with many 
 others, think diiferently: on which side" of the 
 question Lardner is to be ranked, let the following 
 passage determine; "I have been thus prolix in 
 rehearsing the passages of Clement; for they ap~ 
 
 • Statement , p. 60. + p. CI. J p. 44. 
 
dS 
 
 pear to me to be a sufficient proof of the antiquity 
 and genuineness of this Epistle ; or that it rvas 
 writ by Jude, one of Christ's twelve Apostles.'' 
 History of the Apostles and Evangelists^ chap. 20. 
 
 TJie Apocalypse or Book of Revelation. 
 
 The Editors " regard as by no means deficient 
 in external evidence, although disposed to rest 
 the proof of its divine authority, as a book of pro- 
 phecy, chiefly upon the perceived accomplish- 
 ment of the predictions which it contains."* And 
 they add, w^ith much candour, that it cannot 
 be read by any intellig-ent or candid person, 
 ** without his being- convinced that, considering- 
 the age ui which it appeared, none but a person 
 divinely inspired could have written it." 
 
 With admissions so large and satisfactory; 
 even if I possessed the leisure and learning ne- 
 cessary for such an undertaking, I should thmk 
 them wasted in any elaborate attempt to establish, 
 on other evidence, the authenticity of the dis- 
 puted books of the New Testament. 
 
 * Statemtnt, p. Gl, 
 
u 
 
 On the Text of the New Testament. 
 
 The following remarks upon the alterations 
 in the text of the New Testament, proposed by 
 the Editors of the Improved Version, 1 have ex- 
 tracted from the work of the Rev. Dr. Magee, 
 the celebrated Irish Theologian ; because they 
 contain, not only an able exposure of the errors 
 of that version, in general, but also a n ost satis- 
 factory vindication of the introductory chapters 
 in the Gospels of St. Matthew ai.d ISt. Luke; 
 the authenticity of which you have, with much 
 labour, attempted to disprove. 
 
 " This Version is of that convenient latitude 
 that a person may, at the same time, admit its 
 authority ; and yet disbelieve almcst every doc- 
 trine, and every important truth of the Christian 
 Revelation. It is, in short, like the ancient 
 mantle of my country, a covering of such loose 
 and wide dimensions, that the vtearer may turn 
 romid and romid in it, without disturbing its 
 shape, or depriving himself of its shelter. And 
 like that too, it has been used as a disguise to 
 muftle the assassin, and to conceal the dagger. 
 
 The Editors of this work have not, it must 
 be observed, conducted themselves in the publi- 
 cation of it, with that manly b.ldness, which 
 they are at all times so ambitious to put forward 
 
8o 
 
 as their distinguishing characteristic. They 
 have, on tlie contrary, not scrupled to adopt one 
 of those pious frauds^ which they are pleased to 
 consider the ordinary expedients of their ortho- 
 dox opponents. The name of a Bishop of the 
 established Church was calculated to lull suspi- 
 cion, and to contribute to a more extended cir- 
 culation ; and accordingly this " Improved Ver- 
 sion," which they have now sent abroad, they 
 profess to found vpon the basis of Ardilinliop 
 Nervcomes translation of the New Testament; 
 whilst in truth, they adopt no part of that trans- 
 lation, which in any degree shackles them in 
 point of doctrine, but abide by it in such places 
 only as are of a nature perfectly indifferent. 
 They have thus contrived to give a respectable 
 name to their Unitarian blasphemies. They thus 
 hold out deceitful colours to the unwary, and 
 vend their poisons under a false label. 
 
 In the Introduction to the work we are fairly 
 apprized that it has been a principal part of its 
 desian, to " divest the sacred volume of the 
 technical phrases of a systematic theology." 
 That is, in other words, we are told that the 
 great object has been so to render the New Tes- 
 tament, as to empty it of all such expressions, as 
 might give support to any of the received and 
 peculiar doctrines of Christianity. This appears 
 pretty manifestly to be what is here intended : 
 
86 
 
 for, agreeably to this, we find that all those 
 phrases which in any way connect with the un- 
 scriptiual notions of the miraculous conception, 
 the pre-e.vislence, and the clivinlty of Christ, — the 
 personal existence, divine iiature, and gracious in- 
 fluences of the Holy Spirit, — the existence of evil 
 spirits and Angels, &c. are all completely swept 
 away, and nothing left to ns, but what perfectly 
 agrees with Mr. Belsham's idea, — that Christi- 
 anity comprises a good moral system, with in- 
 deed the knov/ledge of this one fact, that a man 
 has risen from the grave. — In the next place we 
 are told, what sufficiently explains how this has 
 been effected. It is stated, that it has not been 
 the inteatioii, *' to exhibit a version critically 
 correct in every minute particular:" and that 
 " verbal criticism had of course not been attend- 
 ed to in the degree that some might wish and 
 expect." Thus we are fairly informed, that 
 certain liberties are to be taken in the transla^ 
 tion, to which the minuteness of verbal criticism 
 might possibly present some impediment. That 
 is, in a work, whose very object is to ascertain 
 the exact meaning of words, tlie exact meaning 
 of words is not to be attended to, lest it might 
 embarrass the freedom of translation, and force 
 upon the translator a sense different from that, 
 which he chooses to assign. Of what nature are 
 those freedoms of translation, which have grown 
 9ut pf the facilities, and are adapted to the ob-. 
 
87 
 
 jects, which the Editors have here planned for 
 themselves, I shall now give a slight specimen. 
 
 The doctrine of the Incarnation is at once 
 thrown off by rejecting from the beginning of 
 the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, the 
 whole of what belongs to the miracnlous birth of 
 om- Lord. This has been done, it mnst be al- 
 lowed, with snfficient boldness : for it is fairly 
 admitted that these portions of the Gospels " are 
 to be found in all the manuscripts and versions 
 now extant." — Now it is actually amusing to 
 observe, what is the leading evidence, by wliich 
 the Editors conceive themselves justified, thus to 
 expunge from the canon of Scripture, what has 
 come supported by the testimony of ail the ma- 
 nuscripts and all the versions. With respect to 
 the passage in St. Matthew, they tell us that the 
 Ebioniles did not read the two first chapters in 
 their copy of his Gospel; and with respect to St. 
 Luke, they tell us that Blarcion, a heretic of the 
 second century, did not admit the two first chap- 
 ters of his. Therefore, it follows, that since the 
 sect of the Ebioniies, and the heretic Marcion of 
 the second century, are against all the manu- 
 scripts and all the versions, it is impossible that 
 these last can be received as true.* The argu- 
 ment is certainly quite intelligible. But let us 
 
 * Statement, p. 86,— f8. 
 
88 
 
 enquire a little about these irrefragable witnesses. 
 And, first, as to these Ebionites, we are informed 
 that their canon of the New Testament rejected 
 the three last Gospels, and all the Epistles of St. 
 Paul. And, next, as to this Marcion, we find 
 that he rejected the Old Testament, and every 
 part of the New, which contained quotations 
 from the Old, and that he used no Gospel but 
 that of St. Luke, expung-ing- from this also what- 
 ever he did not approve : and we are told these 
 thing's too, upon the very authority, on which 
 the Editors build, respecting- the omissions from 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke. — Why, then, have 
 not these admirers of Marcion and the Ebionites 
 received the testimony of such unimpeached wit- 
 nesses tb.roug-hout ? Why have they not on the 
 authority of the latter, rejected all the New Tes- 
 tament except St. Matthew; or, on the authority 
 of the former, rejected the entire of the Old Tes- 
 tament, and all of the New, excepting a part of 
 St. Luke, and some of the Epistles : or, on the 
 authority of both tog-ether, why have they not 
 rejected the whole Bible, both Old and New 
 Testament P — But it seems that these witnesses 
 are to be brought up and turned down at pleasure : 
 they are both good and bad, according as may 
 serve the present purpose. For not only do we 
 find that they are not believed by the party pro- 
 ducing them, in any part of their testimony ex-* 
 ropt that which relates to the beginnings of the 
 
80 
 
 two Gospels; but we find that even in these they 
 are believed, only so far as is convenient : our 
 Editors themselves admitting-, that the Ebionites 
 had mutilated the Gospel of St. Matthew, by 
 taking awaif the genealogy ; that is, by taking- 
 away the first 16 verses of the first chapter. And, 
 therefore, fespecting- these first 16 verses, the 
 Editors reject the testimony of the Ebionites, a« 
 being- convicted of a mutilation of the Gospel; 
 but as to the remaining" verses of the first chapter, 
 and the whole of the second, they hold the testi- 
 mony of these same Ebionites to be g-ood, against 
 all gain-sayers, ag-ainst all manuscripts, and 
 ag-ainst all versions. — All this is put forward ho- 
 nestly and without any attempt at disg-uise : the 
 Ebionite witnesses pronounced, on one side of a 
 leaf, as not credible, from their acknowledg-ed 
 mutilation of the sacred text; and, upon the 
 other side of the same leaf, maintained to be 
 witnesses of such repute, as oug-ht to be relied 
 upon, in opposition to all the manuscripts, and 
 all the versions of the New Testament in the 
 whole world." 
 
 " But that we may form a better judg-ment 
 of the value of this Ebionite testimonv, accordingf 
 to the showing- of its Unitarian abettors, let us 
 attend to a few more particulars on tliis head. 
 The Gospel of the Ebionites began, it is said, 
 with these words. It came to pass in the days 
 
 M 
 
90 
 
 OF Herod King of Judea, that John came 
 BAPTIZING with the baptism of repentance in the 
 river Jordan. This the Editors distinctly state, 
 ill their third note, from the authority of Epiph- 
 anius; whilst, in the very note which precedes, 
 they reject the text of St. Matthew, because it 
 places the birth of Christ before the death of He- 
 rod; which event they contend from Luke iii. 23, 
 must have taken place two years at least before 
 Christ was born.* Thus, the Gospel ascribed to 
 Matthew is spurious, because it fixes the ]>irtli of 
 Christ before the death, of Herod; and yet the 
 Gospel of the Ebionites, which fixes it not less 
 than thirty years before that event, (inasmuch as 
 it represents Herod to be alive at the commence- 
 ment of the Baptist's ministry) is, notwithstand- 
 ing-, to be relied on as a genuine and indisput- 
 able document. — Yet farther, — for the Editors 
 .seem aml)itious to make an overpowering display 
 of the riches of their criticism on the first open- 
 ing of their work, — they inform us, from Epiph- 
 anius, that Corinthus and Carpocrates argued 
 irom the genealogy at the beginning of the Gospel^ 
 that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary; 
 whilst, at the same time, they acquaint us, that 
 the gospel, which was used by Corinthus and 
 (^arpocrates/, w as the Gospel of the Ebionites^ to 
 M hich they admit no genealogy was perfixed, or 
 
 * k'tcttijient, p. 5}<3. 
 
91 ' 
 
 from which (to use their own and Epiphanius'i 
 words) the (jenealofpj was taken away. Tliis, it 
 will be confessed, is making" a tolerably large 
 demand upon the complaisance of the reader; yet 
 there remains still more occasion for his courtesy, 
 if he will travel on amicably with the Editors 
 even through the first two pages of their trans- 
 lation. TYve genealogy appears, in the first view, 
 to be a difficulty in their way, which they have 
 themselves unnecessarily created. The Ebionites 
 they have produced, as their favourite witnesses, 
 to ascertain what was the true and orig-inal g-os- 
 l>el of St. Matthew. But the Ebionites omit the 
 entire of the two first chapters of that Gospel. 
 Why, then, injure their evidence by contending- 
 for the genealogy, which they reject ? Tlie rea- 
 son is plainly assigned. The geneal-ogy, as it 
 stands, may answer the purporse of proving, that 
 Jesus was the offspring of Joseph and Mary : and, 
 accordingly, the Editors apprize us, that Corin- 
 thus and Carpocrates applied it to this use, and 
 hence deduced the mere humanity of Christ. 
 They proceed also to shew the reasonableness of 
 admitting the genealogy to be genuine, on the 
 ground that " it can hardly be supposed that an 
 author writing for the instruction of Hebrew 
 Christians would have omitted to trace the descent 
 of Christ from Abraham and David, upon which 
 they justly laid so great a stress." They then 
 proceed to evince the like reasonableness of dis- 
 
carding all that follows the g-enealogy to the end 
 of the second chapter. " This," they say, 
 "COULD Not have been written hy the author of 
 the (ienealogy, for it contradicts his design, 
 which was to prove that Jesus, being" the son of 
 Joseph, was the descendant of Abraham and 
 David; whereas the design of this narrative is 
 to shew that Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, 
 was not his real father. This account, therefore, 
 of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ, must 
 have been wanting in the copies of Corinthusand 
 Carpocrates, as well as in those of the Ebionites: 
 and, if the geneaJofjy he genuine, the narrative 
 MUST BE spurious." Thus, then, the whole 
 matter is completely arranged. The genealog-y 
 must be genuine, as marking the human descent 
 of Christ from Abraham and David, a thing ex- 
 pected by the Jews : and by all who received it 
 as genuine, the narrative of the miraculous con- 
 ception, as contradicting its design, must be re- 
 jected as spurious. At the same time, lest we 
 should imagine that the force of this reasoning 
 might have operated so powerfully upon those 
 Hebrew Christians who received the genealogy, 
 and maintained the proper humanity of Christ as 
 to induce them to take away the narrative, which 
 so decidedly contradicted the genealogy, in like 
 manner as it is admitted others of them had 
 taken away the genealogy itself, the Editors take 
 care, in the very next note, to assure us that to 
 
tlmt description of Christians " tbe aoconnt of the 
 miraculous conception could not liuve been in 
 any degree unacceptable:"* *^ nor would it,'' they 
 ftdd, ''al all have iniliiated ar/ainsf Ihe doctrine of 
 ihe proper humaniti/ of Christ^f it being- a fact 
 analag-ous to the miraculous birth of Isaac, Sa- 
 muel, and other eminent |>ersons of the Hebrew 
 nation." Thus it appears that the history of the 
 miraculous conception is itself something* mira- 
 culous; for it at the same time contradicts^ and 
 yet does not at all militate against ^ the idea of 
 Christ's human descent." 
 
 " Now perhaps it may be doing no more than 
 justice to these erudite and luminous comment- 
 ators, to bring together into one point of view, 
 the scattered lights, w hich have been here dis- 
 tinctly noticed ; but which cannot fail from their 
 combined brilliancy to shed a brighter glory 
 upon the work which they are designed to il- 
 lustrate. — 1, The Ebionites and Marcion have 
 omitted, in their respective copies of certain por- 
 tions of Scripture, passages, which are undoubt- 
 edly parts of the genuine sacred textj and the 
 former, it is confessed, have actually taken away 
 the genealogy from St. Matthew's Gospel: the 
 proof, therefore, arising from their omission of 
 whatever relates to the miraculous conception of 
 
 ♦ Statement, p. 88. t j*. 10*. 
 
94 
 
 Christ must be received as decisive against that 
 fact, althoug-h it is admitted that the narratives 
 of it, as g-iven by St. Matthew and St. Luke, 
 come attested by every manuscript and every 
 version now extant, without exception. — 2. The 
 Gospel of St, Matthew, as it is conveyed to us at 
 this day by ail the manuscripts and ail the ver- 
 sions, cannot be g-enuine, because it requires us 
 to believe that our Lord was' born before the 
 death of Herod; but we may admit, as unques- 
 tionable, the Gospel of the Ebionites, which pro- 
 nounces Herod to be living at the commencement 
 of the Baptist's ministry, or about the thirtieth 
 year after our Lord's nativity. — Lastly, the 
 narrative of the miraculous conception ascribed 
 to St. Matthew, must have been rejected by all 
 who received the genealogy, as contradicting the 
 design of the genealogy, which was to establish 
 the human descent of Christ; at the same time 
 that it is quite clear, that the fact of the miracu- 
 lous conception couid not at all have militated 
 ao'ainst the doctrine of the proper humanity of 
 Christ, nor consequently have been in any degree 
 unacceptable to those who held that doctrine. — 
 Such are the new views presented at the opening 
 of this Improved Version, which is to set ev^ry 
 thing to rights in the Christian Scriptures." 
 
 " There are, moreover, certain chronological 
 deductions connected. with some of the foregoing** 
 
95 
 
 obscn'ations, "which I cannot avoid laying before 
 the reader. It has been stated that the Editors 
 contend, that the death of Herod must have taken, 
 place two years at least before Christ was born. 
 Their mode of establisliing- this point is deserving 
 of some detail. It follows, they say, as a neces- 
 sary consequence from the death of Herod being 
 placed (as it is by Lardner) in the year 750, or 
 751 U. C. Lardner, in the part referred to by 
 the Editors, had asserted that " if Herod died in 
 750 U. C, he died three years and nine months 
 before the vulgar Christian era; if at a cer- 
 tain time, before mentioned, in the year 751, 
 then he died about two years and nine months be- 
 fore the said era^' and which is the truth, he 
 professes himself unable to determine. (See 
 Lardner s Worhs, Vol. i. p. 428). Our Editors, 
 referring to Lardner twice upon the same subject, 
 contend peremptorily that Christ " must have 
 BEEX BORN at least two years and nine monthsy 
 and probably three years and nine months, after the 
 death of Herod:'' and thus, in utter disregard 
 of all the arguments by which the vulgar Chris- 
 tian era has been disproved, or rather with an 
 apparent ignorance of the existence of any such 
 arguments, they have at once assumed the vul- 
 gar and the true era of our Lord's nativity to be 
 the same ; and on this assumption, as in itself 
 sufiicient to invalidate the whole story of our 
 Lord's birth as given by St. Matthew, they 
 
96 
 
 build the rejection of that story as an utter fe- 
 brication. They profess at the same time to 
 ground their reasoning on the authority of Lard- 
 ner; whose main object has been to establish thfe 
 direct reverse of their position, — that Christ 
 " must have been born two years at least after 
 the death of Herod;" inasmuch as, with g-reat 
 learning- and sound arg-ument, he has laboured 
 to demonsti'ate the consistency of St. Luke's de- 
 claration respecting" the age of Christ in the 15th 
 of Tiberius, with the narrative of St. Matthew, 
 which places the birth of Christ about two yeai*s 
 before the death of Herod. {Lardner's WorkSf 
 Vol. i. p. 339 — 382). That learned writer, 
 however, in his Appendix concerning the time of 
 Herod's death, has, unfortunately for our Editors, 
 in the passage above referred to, spoken of the 
 vulgar Christian era as posterior to the death of 
 Kerod; and they, substituting', for the vulgar 
 Christian era, the time of Christ's Nativity, have 
 at once inferred the priority of Herod's death to 
 the birth of Christ ; and have adduced the au- 
 thority of Lardner's name in behalf of a position, 
 which Lardiier has most triumphantly over- 
 thrown. * 
 
 To the preceding extract I beg leave to add 
 the argument, by which a learned and living- 
 
 * BIa</cc on Atonement, Vol. ii. p. 419 — 408. 
 
07 
 
 Prelate has, in my opinion, established, beyond 
 the possibility of tiiir arg-unient, tlje anthenticity 
 of St. Matthew's introductory chapters. Bishop 
 Marsh, in his ninth lecture, observes that, if 
 we turn to the second volume of Gricshach's St/m- 
 bol(d Criiicce, we shall find a quotation from the 
 first chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, and a re- 
 ference to the second made by Celsiis the Epicu- 
 rean Philosopher, which quotation and reference 
 are noted by Origeny who wrote in answer to 
 Celsus. Griesbach, he adds, justly remarks, 
 " Hence it is evident that the first two chapters 
 of Matthew were known to Celsus." And with 
 no less justice on his own part, he deduces the 
 following inference ; that, if Celsus, who wrote 
 his celebrated work against the Christians in the 
 time of Marcus Aurelius, and consequently little 
 more than a hundred years after St. Matthew 
 himself wrote, yet found the first two chapters 
 in his manuscript of St. Matthew's Gospel, those 
 chapters must either have been original parts of 
 St. Matthew's Gospel, or they must have been 
 added at a time so little antecedent to the age of 
 Celsus, that a writer so inquisitive, so sagacious, 
 and at the same time so inimical to Christianity, 
 could not have failed to detect the imposture : but 
 that, in this case, he would not have quoted 
 those chapters as parts of St. Matthew's Gospel : 
 and consequently, that the truth must lie in the 
 other part of the dilemma, namely, that those 
 
 N 
 
98 
 
 chapters are authentic. — Course of Lectures, 
 Part ii. pp. 55, 56. 
 
 Having had occasion, to mention Griesbachy 
 I cannot forbear remarking- upon the injustice of 
 introducing" the name of that illustrious critic, 
 in order to g-ive a sanction to opinions which he 
 held in abhorrence,* and to add respectability 
 to a version of the Scriptures, in M'hicli there is 
 the widest departure both from his text, and his 
 rules of criticism. This injustice has been so 
 ably exposed by Dr. Laurence, in his Critical 
 
 * The following observations occur in Griesbach's Pre- 
 facc to tlic Apostolical writings. " Interim iini tamen dogmati, 
 eique palniario, doctrince scilicet de vera Jesu Christi divi- 
 nitate, noiinihil a me detractum esse videri posset nonnullis, 
 qui non solum locum istum celebratissimum, 1 Job. v. 7. 
 e textu ejectum, verum etiam lectionem vulgarem loci, 1 Tim. 
 iii. 16. (ut et Act. xx. 28) dubitationi subjectam, et lectorum 
 arbitrio permissam invenient. Quare, ut iniquas suspiciones 
 omnes, quantum in me est, amoliar, et hominibus malevolis 
 calumniandi ansam praeripiam, ^rvvanni puhlice projiteor atque 
 Deimi tcstor, neutiquam me de veritate istius dogmatis du- 
 bitare : atque sunt profecto tam multa ct hiculenta argiimenta 
 et Scriptiirse loca, qui bus vera Deitas Christo vindicatur, ut 
 ego quidem intelligere vix possem, quomodo, concessa 
 Scripturae sacrse divina auctoritate, et admissis justis inter- 
 pretandi regulis, dogma hoc in dubium a quoquam vocari 
 possit. In primis, locus ille, Job. i. 1, 2, 3, tam perspicwts 
 est alfjnc 07miihus cxceptionihus major, ut neque interpretvm 
 ttcqti£ crtticorum aidacibris conatibns unquam everti, atque 
 verjlatis defcnsoribus eripi possit." 
 
90 
 
 Reflexions upon some important misrepresentations 
 contained in the Unitarian Version, that I must 
 beg leave to transcribe his observations. 
 
 " This production is not what it professes to 
 be, a translation scrupulousl}^ adhering" to the 
 text of Griesbach, '* the most correct which lias 
 hitherto been published ;" but one, in some in- 
 stances, made from a text which exists no where 
 but in the imagination of the Translators : who, 
 although they generally indeed follow Griesbach, 
 yet occasionally innovate even on his innovations." 
 There are " many passages of considerable length 
 undisputed by him, the authenticity of which 
 they represent as extremely dubious. Nor is 
 this all. For, completely in the teeth of an in- 
 timation formally given, that " the words, which, 
 in the judgment of Griesbach should probably, 
 though not certainly, be expunged, are included 
 in brackets," they sometimes take the liberty 
 themselves of expunging words of this descrip- 
 tion, upon the superior decision of their own 
 judgment. Timid, cautious, circumspective, 
 Griesbach weighed over and over again, with 
 anxious solicitude, the credit of a textual vari- 
 ation, experience having taught him wisdom; 
 for he candidly confesses that in his first edition 
 he had admitted several readings into the text, 
 which in his second, uncorroborated by more re- 
 cent collations, he felt himself under the necessity 
 
100 
 
 of removing* to the margin. But they, less ex- 
 act and more intrepid, in passages where he 
 could only discover the appearance of a probable, 
 determine the existence of a certain, omission ; 
 and by an easy dash of the ^Den obliterate them 
 altogether." 
 
 " On one occasion indeed they hazard a bolder 
 step; and, where Griesbach adopts, without ob- 
 servation, the common reading, they, upon the 
 sole authority of the Cambridge manuscript, 
 venture upon a little interpolation, which directly 
 converts an affirmative into a negative sentence. 
 It is recorded of St. John, who visited with St. 
 Peter, the sepulchre of our Lord, when Mary 
 Magdalene had communicated to them her suspi- 
 cions respecting the removal of the body, that, 
 after he had inspected the sepulchre, " he saw 
 and believed."* Now this passage, in direct 
 contradiction to every other manuscript, they 
 render, "he saw and believed not^" adding the 
 following note from Newcome ; " So the Cam- 
 bridge MS. in the Greek, but not in the Latin, 
 translation of it. The following verse assigns a 
 reason for the unbelief of St. John and St. Pe- 
 ter." The precise value of this sort of half au- 
 thority, contradicted by its other half, for the 
 manuscript in question contains a Latin, as well 
 
 * Statement, p. 75. 
 
101 
 
 as a Greek text, it is for them to calculate ami 
 explain ; but as the consistency of the narrative 
 is ur^ed by way of proving" the necessity ot their 
 interpolation, I cannot help remarking- that the 
 common sense of the context, by which alone, I 
 apprehend, the consistency of the narrative can be 
 preserved, requires no such addition. The point 
 applicable to the credence of the Apostle was, not 
 the resurrection of our Saviour, for notliingupon 
 that head had yet been surmised, but evidently 
 the report of Mary Magdalene, that the body had 
 been stolen away. When, therefore, St. John 
 was informed of the circumstance, and examin- 
 ing the sepulchre, perceived the linen clothes, 
 which had wrapped the body, lying on the 
 ground, and the napkin, which had been bound 
 about the head, folded together in a place by 
 itself, can we possibly conjecture that he believ- 
 ed not?'' 
 
 '' Upon the whole, then, it is, I presume, 
 incontrovertible, that they have not uniformly 
 adhered to the text of Griesbach. I do not in- 
 deed dispute their right to deviate from the 
 judgment of that, or any other Critic; but I com- 
 plain of their holding out false colours to tlie pub- 
 lic. If they flattered themselves that they possess- 
 ed talents capable of improving " the most cor- 
 rect text of the original which has hitherto been 
 published," they were doubtless at liberty to have 
 
102 
 
 made the experiment but they should have un- 
 dertaken the task openly and undisg-uisedly. 
 Were they apprehensive, that in such a case 
 their competency might have been questioned, 
 and their presumption censured?" 
 
 " Nor can I take a final leave of the subject, 
 without again alluding to another deception 
 practised upon the general reader. From the 
 style of the title-page, the prolegomenal parade 
 of the Introduction, and the perpetual attempt 
 at manuscript erudition in the notes, he is natu- 
 rally induced to consider the Version as one con- 
 ducted upon principles rigidly critical ; while, in 
 truth, it is nothing more than a mere patchwork 
 translation, solely manufactured to promote the 
 cause of Unitarianism. When a passage occurs, 
 which, in its obvious sense, threatens fatality to 
 the Unitarian Creed, its sting is instantly and 
 ingeniously extracted; what exposition the lan- 
 guage of Scripture can, not what it ought to 
 bear, becomes the object of investigation ; and 
 the context is twisted into subserviency to the. 
 gloss, and not the gloss made consistent with the 
 context. The Translators indeed unreservedly 
 confess, that they have studied " to preclude 
 many sources of error, by divesting the sacred 
 \olume of the technical phrases of a systematic 
 theology;" but they forget to add, that it was 
 oiily m order to supercede one system by another. 
 
103 
 
 It' a clause admits the slig^htest pliability of 
 meaning-, every nerve is strained to give it a 
 peculiar direction. Instead of enquiring-, with 
 Christian simplicity, what really are, they pre- 
 sume with pliilosophical arrogance upon what 
 must he, the doctrines of Scripture ; and substi- 
 tute the deductions of reason for the dictates of 
 revelation. Averse from established opinion, 
 fond of novelty, and vain of singularity, they 
 pride themselves upon a sort of mental insula- 
 tion, and become captivated at every magic 
 touch with the effluent brilliance of their own 
 intellect. The profound researches of the most 
 disting-uished commentators and philolog-ists they 
 either slig'ht or despise, unless convertible by a 
 little dexterity of application to the aggrandize- 
 ment of some favourite theory; and satiate us 
 with the flimsy refinements and loose lucubra- 
 tions of Lindsey, or of Priestley. Immoderately 
 attached to particular doctrines, and deeply pre- 
 judiced against all others, they modify every 
 expression in the text, and every exposition in the 
 notes, to a sense sometimes directly favourable, 
 but never even indirectly unfavourable, to Uni- 
 tarianism; so that, in reality, always indifi*erent, 
 though apparently sometimes anxious, respecting 
 the true philological import of Sciptural lan- 
 guage, and ever restless with the gad-fly of the- 
 ological conceit, they prove themselves to be 
 wholly incapacitated, from a defect, if not of 
 
104 
 
 talent, certainly of temper, for the patient task 
 of critical rumination."* 
 
 I have now executed, with whatever imper- 
 fection, the task which I assig-ned to myself, of 
 replying- to the arg-mwents, by which you would 
 disprove the Trinitarian doctrines ; as well as to 
 those which you have adduced, in support of 
 some proposed alterations in the cancm and text 
 of the New testament. — In refutation of the for- 
 mer, which are founded upon what I conceive 
 to be an erroneous interpretation of certain pas- 
 sages of Scripture, I liave uot only shown that 
 those passages, when correctly considered, are 
 not in reality unfavourable to the orthodox sys- 
 tem, but have quoted a number of others, inex- 
 plicable on any other hypothesis. — In replying to 
 the latter, I have either argued from your own 
 concessions, or cited the authority of eminent 
 critics and theologians, to some of whom^ you 
 have yourself alluded in terms of the highest ve- 
 neration. With them I must leave you to con- 
 tend the point at issue. For myself, 1 beg it 
 may be distinctly understood, that I shall write 
 no more on the subject. 
 
 * Luurence's Critical Reflexions, p. 168 — 177. 
 
105 
 
 Here tlien, Sir, as a controverskdi^t, I take 
 my leave of you. Bear with me, however, if, as 
 a Christian^ I solemnly entreat you to ve-consider 
 those doctrines, of which you have undertaken 
 to be the advocate. Believing', as I do, that 
 there is none other name, under 'heaven, (/iven 
 among men, whereby we can he saved hut the natn& 
 of Christ, that other foundation canfi rto man lay 
 than tJmt is laid, which is Jesus Christ, that he 
 7vho h/ilh the Son hath life, and tie ivho hath itet 
 tiie Sou of God hath not life, that except a man 
 he horn of water and of the Sjnrit, he cannot see 
 tJie kingdom of God; believing, I say, these 
 things, can I behold, with unconcern, a fellow- 
 creature denying' the di^itre natiire of one, and 
 the very existence of another of these sacred per- 
 sons; and presuming, with sacrilegious audacity, 
 to expunge from the inspired volume a part, 
 which every version and every manuscript de- 
 clares to be genuine ? — And when I regard you 
 as the spiritual guide of others, what shall I say? 
 I cannot indeed address you in the language of 
 an Apostle, Take heed to the flock over which the 
 Holy Ghost hath made you an overseer, since you 
 believe not that there is any Holy Ghost ; but I 
 may l)e permitted to remind you of the awful 
 transaotiotts of tha4; day, when ihe Son of Man, 
 whom you have denied to be also the Son of God, 
 shall sit upon the throne of his glory, and shall 
 4iay to you, Give an account of thy st&mard^np. 
 
106 
 
 What will be your feelings in that day, if it 
 shall be found that any of those, who have sur- 
 rendered their belief to your direction, have 
 made Shipwreck of their faith, and have come 
 short of Heaven through the want of that instruc- 
 tion, which would have made them wise unto 
 Salvation ? I beg you to believe that, in offer- 
 ing these remarks to your consideration, I am. 
 actuated by a sincere desire to promote the best 
 interests of yourself and others. Allow me to 
 subscribe myself, in the true spirit of Christian 
 charity, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Your faithful humble Servant, 
 
 THOMAS HILL. 
 
 Whitwell Rectory, 
 Jan. 28, 1880. 
 
 ^N$^* 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 In pages 90 and 91, for Corinthus read Cerinthus. 
 
 W. Wheelhouse, Printer, 
 Nottingham. 
 
ERRATA. 
 P. 11. 1. 12, for " over-suttle" read over-subtk. 
 P. 25. 1. 20, for " hopes" read hope. 
 P. 29. 1. 4, for " I say" read Joy. 
 P. 41. 1. 16, for " Prophet" read the Prophet, 
 P. 49. 1. 5, for " Exclaim" read exclaim, 
 P. 52. 1. 23, for " recommended" read commended. 
 P. 75. 1. 25, after " Holy Ghost" take away the full stop. 
 P. 83. 1. 5, after " Revelation" take away the full stop, 
 P. 102. 1. 1, after '• experiment" add a semicolon. 
 Ibid, last hne, for " supercede" read supersede. 
 
PRINTED IN U.SA