tihtavy of Che t:heolo0ical ^tmxnavy 
 
 PRINCETON . NEW JERSEY 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 Samuel Agnew 
 
 "By 
 
 — ms/— 
 
LECTURES 
 
 ON 
 
 ^\)t principles; 
 
 OF 
 
 U N IT A R I A N I S M. 
 
 By J. S. HYNDMAN, 
 
 MimSlEIi OF THE USITARIAN CHAPEL, ALMVICFC 
 
 TIaVra ^oKi/nci^eTs. Paul. 
 
 " I desire ouly to have things fairly represented as they really arc; 
 no evidence smothered or stifled on either side. Let every reader see 
 what may be justly pleaded here or there, and no more; and then let 
 it be left to his impartial judgment after a full view of the case. Mis- 
 representation will do a good cause harm, and will not be long of service 
 to a bad one." — Dr. Waterlatul. 
 
 ALNWICK: 
 
 PRINTED AKD SOLD BY W- DAVISON^ 
 
 Sold also by C. Fox & Co., D. Eaton, and R. Hunter, London, and by 
 other Booksellers. 
 
 1824. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 With regard to the major part of mankind, traditionary 
 prejudices and early associations have a predominant influ- 
 ence, imparting a tincture to every object, and leaving 
 traces on every conclusion. The mind may frequently 
 rise above them, discard them, despise them, and leave 
 them at an infinite distance; but it is still held by the fine 
 and invisible threads of its antiquated feelings and opinions, 
 which, whenever its vigour relaxes, pull it back into the 
 limits from which it had burst away in the plenitude of 
 its power. It is pleasing, however, to observe, that the 
 active powers of intellect are always engaged in some 
 point which interests the mind, and that even over long- 
 established and much-revered principles it will cast the 
 eye of scrutiny as a matter of course. On every contro- 
 vertible subject there is a certain train of doubts, difficul- 
 ties, and objections, wh;/>h nnfhJng hnt utter ignorance 
 can suppress ; and would candour on every occasion pursue 
 its course in fair argumentation, what acceleration might 
 be given to the march of truth I 
 
 All error is the consequence of narrow and partial views, 
 and can be removed only by having a question presented 
 in all its possible bearings, or, in other words, by unlimited 
 discussion. It is only by the unrestrained exercise of our 
 faculties that we can hope to attain correct opinions, and our 
 success in every subject will essentially depend upon the 
 completeness of examination. '' Two sorts of learned men 
 there are," says Bishop Berkeley. " One who candidly 
 seek truth by rational means. These are never averse to 
 have their principles looked into and examined by the test 
 of reason. Another sort there is who learn by rote a set 
 of principles and a way of thinking which happen to be in 
 vogue. These betray themselves by their anger and sur- 
 prise, whenever their opinions are freely canvassed." 
 
IV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The persecution of private antipathy and public odium 
 too much prevails. Deviations from established opinions 
 are regarded by the indiscriminating with as much horror 
 as flagrant violations of morality. In the ordinary ranks 
 of men, where exploded prejudices often linger for ages, 
 this is scarcely to be wondered at ; but it is unaccountable 
 to witness the prevalence of the same spirit in the republic 
 of letters ; to see mistake in speculation pursued with all 
 the warmth of moral indignation. He who believes an 
 opinion on the authority of others, who has taken no pains 
 to investigate its claims to credibility, nor weighed the 
 objections to the evidence on which it rests, is lauded for 
 his acquiescence ; while obloquy from every side is too 
 often heaped on those who have minutely searched into 
 the subject, and been led to an opposite conclusion, t 
 
 It is, however, one great source of satisfaction to reflect 
 that reproach and invective must now in most cases con- 
 tent tliat selfish bigotry which in a former age would have 
 had recourse to more formidable weapons. What I most 
 lament is not the fulminations of party-spirited men, but 
 their endeavours to misrepresent our principles and argu- 
 ments ; tind that a syafpm tHat wn« embraced by Newton 
 and Locke, and by many of the most enlightened divines 
 both of the established church and among dissenters, is in 
 this place almost wholly unknown. Would men act a 
 rational and candid part, they would acquaint themselves 
 with the nature and evidence of Unitarianism more than 
 seems in general to be the case. All that we want is an 
 examination of arguments, which, in our opinion, have 
 never yet been refuted. 
 
 The following form but a small proportion of a Course 
 of Lectures delivered here during the winter of 1822,3. 
 Several others on the Person of Christ, and on Atonement 
 and the Mediation of Christ, are reserved for a future 
 voccasion. 
 
 [ See " Essays on the Formation and Publication of Opinions." 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. 
 
 Acts xxviir. 9.2. ^-But ive desire to hear of thee what 
 thou thinkest : for as concerning this sect, we know 
 that every where it is spoken against. 9 
 
 LECTURE IL 
 
 ON THE USE OF REASON IN RELIGION. 
 
 1 Thessalonians V. 21 — Prove all things. 18 
 
 LECTURE IIL 
 trinitarianism contradictory to reason. 
 1 Timothy ii. 5 — There is one God, and one mediator 
 between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 28 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 general considerations. 
 Isaiah xxxv. S.'^The wayfaring men, though fools, 
 shall not err therein. 43. 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 THE PBRSONAL UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 Deuteron. VI. 4.— TAe Lord our God is one Lord. 58 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 THE FATHER THE ONLY TRUE GOD. 
 
 1 Corinthians yiii. G.^^To us there is but one Godj 
 the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him i. 
 
y, CONTENTS. 
 
 and o?ie Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all thittgs^ 
 and we by him. 65 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 THE FATHER THE EXCLUSIVE OBJECT OF WORSHIP. 
 
 John xvi. 23. — In that day ye shall ask me nothing. 
 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall 
 ask the Father in viy name, he will give it you. 7& 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 
 
 Rev. III. \^.—The beginning of the creation of God. 89 
 LECTURE IX. 
 
 ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 
 
 Rev. III. 1 4. — The beginning of the creation of God. 100 
 LECTURE X. 
 
 ON THE LOGOS. 
 
 John i. 1 — 17 In the beginning was the Word, and the 
 
 Word was with God, and the Word was God, Sfc. 1 06 
 
 LECTURE XI. 
 
 ON THE LOGOS. 
 
 John i. 1 — 17- — In the beginning was the Word, and the 
 Word was with God, and the Word was God, S^c. 121 
 
 LECTURE XII. 
 
 on the first chapter of HEBREWS. 
 
 Hebrews i. 1 — \^.^^God, who at sundry times, and in 
 divers ma7iners, spake in time past unto the fathers 
 by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto 
 us by his Son, S^c- 12^ 
 
LECTURES 
 
 ON 
 
 Clje prtnciples of (Dmitartanism. 
 
 INTEODUCTOKY LECTUKE. 
 
 Acts xxviii. 22. 
 But rve desire to hear of thee what thou thmkest : for 
 as concerning this sect, rve know that every where 
 it is spoken against. 
 
 Christianity for many years after its first introduction 
 was tlie object of detestation. It was decidedly opposed 
 to the prejudices and predispositions of Jew and Gentile, 
 and directly hostile to the vices of both. In its nature 
 and design it was congenial to none of those long-estab- 
 lished and fonelly-cherished notions of political glory which 
 had been associated with the name of Messiah by the 
 former; and its doctrines presented nothing that suited 
 that high-towering and infinitude-grasping spirit of specu- 
 lation which distinguished the systems of the Jatter. 
 
 The mean circumstances and ignominious death of our 
 
 religion's Founder, the illiterate character of his disciples, 
 
 and the wide contrariety of his precepts to many of the 
 
 darling passions and indulged propensities of human na- 
 
 A 
 
10 fNTRObUCTORY LECTURE. 
 
 ture^ were considered as evidences of its fanatical character 
 too strong to be counterbalanced by any opposite proof. 
 Not countenanced by the honourable^ the learned, and the 
 powerful, it was esteemed a system fit only for little 
 and vulgar minds, the dream of the mad devotees of 
 superstition, or the offspring of imposture and presump- 
 tion. And it was no doubt unhesitatingly thought that 
 it would quickly fall into that degradation and insignificance 
 from which it was conceived to have sprung. Mankind 
 were then as they are now — more inclined to adhere 
 blindly and tenaciously to the dictates of their ancestors, 
 and indolently to yield to the swaying impulse of early 
 attachments, and to pronounce with dogmatism, rashness, 
 and fury, upon that which waged war with their settled 
 principles and unfounded opinions, than seriously, calmly, 
 and impartially to examine the merits of a propounded 
 system, or allow themselves to weigh the evidence that 
 could be brought forward in its defence. 
 
 With regard to no denomination of the Christian world 
 at the present day can the description of the treatment 
 that Christianity met with at its first establishment be 
 applied with so much truth, as to that sect under the 
 standard of which we range ourselves. "Bigotry ceases 
 to be odious so long as it confines its hostility to us." 
 Our principles and our characters are branded with every 
 epithet that implies presumption and impiety. 
 
 Many, however, as our enemies are ; rude and severe 
 as are their attacks ; we do by no means wish to ward 
 them off by any compromise of our principles, or by any 
 endeavour to shew that they mistake the extent of the 
 difference that subsists between our sentiments and theirs. 
 This v/ould, indeed, be dastardly, dishonest, puerile, and 
 vain. It certainly does appear evident that the systems 
 do oppose one another as to the proper object of religious 
 worship, supreme love, adoration, gratitude, and praise; 
 and each presents a different view of the character and 
 government of God, the capacities, the duties, and the 
 hopes of man. They are, in some great respects, different 
 religions. 
 
INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. 11 
 
 That our doctrines should be warmly and firmly opposed, 
 is only what a sense of duty in Trinitarians naturally 
 prompts to and demands. But surely it must appear rational 
 and incumbent that we should give a mutual examination to 
 the systems we respectively hold, especially as the points 
 between us are of such acknowledgedly vast and unspeak- 
 able importance. What can be the foundation of a differ- 
 ence so very great as that upon which we stand ? The 
 question is one which the singularity of the circumstance 
 naturally suggests ; and sound reason can never scowl at 
 that course of investigation which might lead to a satis- 
 factory solution of it. 
 
 Christianity once appeared to Paul in the same light 
 that Unitarianism does to many at this moment. Now, 
 however, his prepossessions are gone, and the voice of 
 prejudice is hushed. Now he is as fully convinced of Chris- 
 tianity's truth as he had been of its falsehood. What then 
 can be more evident than this, that under certain states 
 of mind truth may seem its antipode, and a confidence be 
 manifested as to the correctness of perceptions that are 
 really false? The mind, like the external eye, which 
 must be in a healthful condition for the proper discharge 
 of its functions, should be devoid of every thing that may 
 tinge with an imaginary deceitful hue the objects subjected 
 to its inspection. 
 
 And if, under the direction of sound reason, you are 
 not determined as much as possible to divest yourselves 
 of sectarian prejudgments and likings, in your attempts 
 to discover real Christianity, you are certainly no lovers 
 of truth, no friends to the interests of man, no regard- 
 ers of Heaven's authority. Moreover, if you set out 
 with a determination to receive nothing but what shall 
 accord with your own present views of things, you are 
 likely to receive no real good, and perhaps much harm. 
 You may meet with that which contradicts your senti- 
 ments, and these sentiments may be on the side of truth. 
 But if you have such a determination, though your creed 
 may be ri^ht, your faith is wrong, especially if it lead 
 you to uncharitableness to your opponents. On the other 
 
12 INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. 
 
 hand, you may meet with that which contradicts your 
 sentiments; you may reject it with abhorrence^ and in 
 doing so, you may think your heart very much established 
 with grace so as not to be " carried away with every wind 
 of doctrine ;" and all may be but an indication of party 
 spirit or proud conceit, and all may amount to nothing 
 but " being wise in your own eyes." 
 
 From the period of the apostle's conversion till now 
 that we find him addressed as in our text, the venom 
 of malignity had been no doubt abundantly spit upon him. 
 The diabolical monster, persecution, kept his maddened eye 
 fixed upon Christianity's humble disciples, and his weapons 
 whetted and unsheathed for their destruction. The Gen- 
 tile scoffed and the 3evf gnashed his teeth at the mention 
 of Jesus' name. The outcry of imposture in Chris- 
 tianity, and of criminality of character in its espousers, 
 made the world to ring. Some, however, it would appear, 
 had thought that popular representation was not always 
 correct; that the dogmatic charge of ^heresy' was no 
 certain proof of error in those who were accused of it. 
 Observation had probably taught them that a good cause 
 and a bad name are very frequently companions, and 
 wisely they concluded that the only rational method of 
 ascertaining the nature and merits of the apostle's cause 
 was to hear from himself the outlines and the evidences of 
 his system : " We desire to hear of thee, &c." 
 
 " The rage for proselytism is indeed one of the curses of 
 the world." Well-regulated zeal, however, for the pro- 
 pagation of truth is laudable ; and every one who has a 
 just and enlightened view of the character and will of 
 God must esteem it an imperative duty, to use his utmost 
 exertions for the subversion of error, especially if the 
 sentiments he opposes are of a kind naturally fitted to 
 cloud the moral splendour of the attributes of the Deity ; 
 to produce ideas and feelings in the mind that sap the 
 foundations of peace and happiness; or that have a direct 
 or remote tendency to diminish in the soul the love of 
 God, and consequently to annihilate from the mind the 
 grand motives to virtue. 
 
INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. 13 
 
 No\v the tenets of the current theology, we do seriously 
 consider to be very erroneous indeed, and we think they 
 are not calculated to exert a happy influence over the 
 mind. This opinion of ours does by no nneans involve 
 us in what would unquestionably be an unjust and 
 uncharitable judgment, viz. that Trinitarians in general 
 are not men of as great moral worth and real piety as 
 Unitarians. In proportion as pure and pious sentiments 
 are blended with those of an opposite kind, 'the influence 
 of the latter is happily subverted ; and we cannot hesitate 
 to say that in many respects the common theology does 
 not absolutely exclude from its system the benevolence and 
 the justice of the Deity, though we cannot at the same 
 time but think that the manner in which these attributes 
 are viewed divests them of much of their power of sweet 
 attraction, and of much of their fitness to raise in the 
 mind an elevated, sublime, and delightful piety. It is 
 also true that doctrines are seldom fully pursued to their 
 consequences, and the power of naturally good dispositions 
 is not easily destroyed by foreign influence. Thus, not- 
 withstanding the comparatively few instances of the mani- 
 fested pernicious effect of the popular creed, it is our duty 
 as Christians to endeavour to expose the corruptions that 
 prevail, and " to contend earnestly for the faith that (we 
 conceive) was once delivered unto the saints." 
 
 In the present day all honest attempts of a Unitarian 
 to establish what he conceives to be scriptural truth are 
 execrated with hate and fury ; and, in fact, the language 
 of some would lead a plain man, not aware of the mad- 
 ness of party spirit, to suppose that the grand aim of a 
 Unitarian's exertions to disseminate his principles is the 
 overthrow of all religion, and the subversion of the very 
 foundation of virtue. 
 
 It is, however, by no means surprising that such 
 treatment should be ours. It would indeed be more sur- 
 prising if it were not. For when one has deeply imbibed 
 any religious sentiment, belief in which he is' made to 
 conceive as necessary to salvation, so firm a hold does U 
 take of his understanding, so completely associated and 
 A 3 
 
H INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. 
 
 t 
 
 embodied does it become with every other serious thought 
 that passes in his mind, and such a peculiar direction does 
 it give to his view of things, that he is naturally led to 
 identify the rejection of his particular dogma with the 
 abandonment of Christianity itself He cannot express his 
 pity, indignation, and astonishment, at the strange infa- 
 tuation or wicked obstinacy of those who cannot see with 
 his eyes, so as to appreciate the force of the arguments 
 on which his sentiments are founded. This prepossession 
 for his favourite dogma is such as to lead him to find it 
 either in statement or by implication in passages of Scrip- 
 ture where others can find no trace of it, or where it is 
 really contradicted, and in such portions of scripture, the 
 creature of his ungoverned imagination, sober reason at-, 
 tempts in vain to destroy. Of course he thinks himself 
 justified in charging his opponents with being perverters 
 of Heaven's explicit word, perverse disputants of corrupt 
 minds, contemning revelation with a fearless presumption 
 and daring effrontery, and distinguished for every impious 
 and detestable principle of action. 
 
 Be it, however, remembered by you, my Trinitarian 
 brethren, that of the justness of such judgments you must 
 one day answer at the bar of God. Accusations of a 
 nature so serious should, you cannot but know, be brought 
 forward with the utmost caution by one person or body 
 of professing Christians against another ; and the character 
 and conduct of a party should never be pronounced from 
 the supposed manifestation of unbecoming conduct in a 
 few of those who compose it. It should never be forgot- 
 ten that sectarian antipathies and zeal are apt to hurry 
 one into furious, false, and unguarded declamation on very 
 insignificant grounds, but which the operation of such 
 principles magrnfies to an enormous degree. 
 
 I trust you would not, Trinitarian Christians, in your 
 zeal for purity of faith, wish to destroy or even impair 
 those sentiments of piety and benevolence which are the 
 chief objects of commendation in that system you defend^ 
 and to promote which is the grand end of Christianity. 
 In contending for modes of faith, you \yould not wish 
 
INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. 1^ 
 
 to lose firoodness of heart and that warm benevolence 
 without which, though you should give your body to be 
 burned in defence of your creed, you are nothing. But 
 is not charitable judgment of your opponents a most im- 
 portant branch of benevolence ? We think, that innothing 
 have Christians so widely departed from their religion, as 
 in this particular. We read with astonishment and horror 
 the history of the church; and sometimes when we look 
 back on the fires of persecution, and the zeal of Christians 
 in building up walls of separation, and in giving up one 
 another to perdition, we feel as if we were reading the 
 records of an infernal, rather than a heavenly kingdom. 
 An enemy to our religion, if we asked to describe a Chris- 
 tian, would, with some show of reason, depict him as an 
 idolater of his own distinguishing opinions, covered with 
 badges of party, shutting his eyes on the virtues, and his 
 ears on the arguments, of his opponents, arrogating all 
 excellence to his own sect, and all saving power to his 
 own creed ; sheltering under the name of pious zeal the 
 love of domination, the conceit of infallibility, and the 
 spirit of intolerance, and trampling on men's rights, under 
 the pretence of saving their souls. 
 
 VVe can hardly conceive of a plainer obligation on beings 
 of our frail and fallible nature, who are instructed in the 
 duty of candid judgment, than to abstain from condemning 
 men of apparent conscientiousness and sincerity, who are 
 chargeable with no crime but that of differing from us in 
 the inte)prctation of the Scriptures, and differing too, on 
 topics of great and acknowledged obscurity. We are 
 astonished at the hardihood of those, who, with Christ's 
 warnings sounding in their ears, take on them the respon- 
 sibility of making creeds for his church, and cast out 
 professors of virtuous lives for imagined errors — for the 
 guilt of thinking for themselves. We know that zeal for 
 truth is the cover of this usurpation of Christ's prerogative; 
 but we think that zeal for truth, as it is called, is very 
 suspicious, except in men, whose improvements in humility, 
 mildness, and candour, give them a right to hope that 
 thfcir views art more just than those of theirneighbours. 
 
l6 INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. 
 
 We are accustomed to think much of the difficulties 
 attending religious inquiries ; difficulties springing from 
 the slow developement of our minds^ from the power of 
 early impressions, from the state of society, from human 
 authority, from the general neglect of the reasoning powers, 
 from the want of just principles of criticism, and of im- 
 portant helps in interpreting Scripture, and from various 
 other causes. We find that on no subject have men, and 
 even good men, engrafted so many strange conceits, wild 
 theories, and fictions of fancy, as on religion; and remem- 
 bering, as we do, that we ourselves are sharers of the 
 common frailty, we dare not assume infallibility in the 
 treatment of our fellow Christians, or encourage in common 
 Christians, who have little time for investigation, the habit 
 of denouncing and contemning other denominations, per- 
 haps more enlightened and virtuous than their own. 
 Charity, forbearance, a delight in the virtues of different 
 sects, a backwardness to censure and condemn, these are 
 virtues, which, however poorly practised by us, we admire 
 and recommend; and we would rather join ourselves to 
 the church in which they abound, than to any other com- 
 munion, however elated with the belief of its own ortho- 
 doxy, however strict in guarding its creed, however burning 
 with zeal against Imagined error. * As you wish then to 
 obtain the approbation of God, avoid yourselves and 
 discourage in others all that approaches to malignant 
 declamation. Be not among the number of those who 
 speak much about what they know little or nothing, and 
 who ignobly allow themselves to be carried along in the 
 tide of current feeling. Be not of the number of those 
 whose only acquirement is a few unconnected, vague, and 
 flimsy notions of Christianity, which they have taken up 
 without the least examination, because their fathers were 
 content with them, or because they are current and held 
 sacred by the people around. Judge not of the soundness 
 and value of opinions from the countenance and support 
 they generally receive. '' Learn from the best example 
 
 * See Channing's Sermon preached at Baltimore, U. S., May, 1SI9, 
 
INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. 17 
 
 and the highest authority, not to turn a deaf ear to 
 reason, because the many call it heresy." 
 
 And, my Unitarian brethren, knowing that the iriterests 
 of truth are patronized by the Ruler of the moral world, 
 who can remove all obstructions to its progress and render 
 all events subservient to its success, and more triumphant 
 and glorious in their issues than human anticipation could 
 have embraced; knowing that none can stop the career of 
 honest investigation, or say, halt! to the march of intel- 
 lect; convinced that the tyranny of man cannot confine 
 the subtle essence of truth ; that " truth is omnipotent^ 
 and will prevail ;" let us rejoice in the prospect of that 
 glorious era when superstition and error shall be expelled 
 from our mental region ; when truth shall assert her right 
 to universal dominion, and sway a majestic sceptre over 
 the mind of man ; " when Jehovah shall be one, and his 
 name one." 
 
 ^' The sophist may assail and the dogmatist browbeat, 
 the interested may slander and the ignorant condemn ;" 
 but if the flame of serious, solemn inquiry be once well 
 kindled, it will assuredly burn to ashes that fabric of 
 mysticism which has been reared by " the learning of 
 some ages, the ignorance of others, the superstition of 
 weak and the craft of designing men." Meanwhile, " let 
 us await the slow operation of time in extinguishing 
 prejudices which time alone has produced, conscious that 
 bodies of men are peculiarly tenacious of their habits of 
 thinking, and that it is wisely ordained that the conquest 
 achieved by just and enlightened principles should be firn> 
 and durable in proportion to the tardiness of its progress " 
 
LECTUKE II. 
 
 ON THE USE OF REASON IN RELIGION. 
 
 1 Thessalonians v. 21. 
 Prove all things. 
 
 It is obvious that in order to reason with an opponent 
 there must be some common standard of appeal, according 
 to which the course of mutual argumentation may be 
 determined to be either true or false. Some Trinitarians 
 have however denied that we are warranted in rejecting 
 what appears to be absolutely absurd, provided it be 
 communicated to the understanding by divine revelation- 
 That whatever is revealed by God must be true, no 
 rational mind can deny. But that God cannot propose 
 to the belief of his reasonable creatures any thing that 
 is not in consistency with their rational natures, is as 
 undeniable as the other. So that, were it true that 
 Christianity contained in it what is at variance with the 
 conclusions of reason, reason would necessarily conclude 
 Christianity to be false. Can you doubt this ? Let me 
 illustrate. 
 
 Why do you believe in the divine authority of the 
 Christian religion ? Why do you accede to its claims in 
 preference to those of Mahomedanism, for example ? You 
 will immediately reply, that the evidence of the heavenly 
 origin of the one is greater than that of the other; or that 
 there is evidence for the former, while there is none what- 
 ever for the latter. But is not reason here our only judge.^ 
 The proof is brought before its bar, and it pronounces 
 sentence. Now the evidence of a religion is either exter- 
 nal or internal ; in support of Christianity there are both. 
 
ON THE USE OF REASON. 1^ 
 
 The external principally consists in miracles ; the internal 
 chiefly in the agreement of the facts that are stated with 
 what are known, by other means of information, to have 
 really happened; and in the consistency of its statements 
 respecting duly and God, for instance, with what we 
 know of these by natural religion. 
 
 Now in what manner do we ascertain the evidence 
 afforded by miracles ? The reality of these depends upon 
 the testimony of the senses ; but the proof they afford of 
 the truth of the religion which they are produced to attest 
 depends upon a deduction of the understanding, which 
 concludes that God would not overrule or alter the course 
 of nature in attestation of falsehood and imposture. In 
 what manner do we appreciate the force of the evidence 
 arising from the revelation itself .-^ Clearly by a comparison 
 of the statements made as to duty and to God with the 
 universally acknowledged principles of piety and morality 
 and the admitted perfections of the Deity. But since a 
 revelation must be supported by evidence, of which alone 
 reason can judge, and on the judgment formed by which 
 depends our belief or disbelief, it is evident that if there 
 were any thing in the two kinds of offered evidence 
 which was contrary to our natural judgment, we could not 
 embrace the religion. The very circumstance of evidence 
 being offered to substantiate the claims of the religion 
 supposes that we are capable of judging of it, and conse- 
 quently that there are certain fixed principles of reason 
 in us which our constitution forces us to judge by, and 
 by which our judgment on the evidence must necessarily 
 be determined. 
 
 The very veracity of God and the divine original of 
 Christianity, then, are conclusions of reason, and must 
 stand or fall with it. If revelation be at war with this 
 faculty, it subverts itself; for the great question of its 
 truth is left by God to be decided at the bar of reason. 
 Did the former contain any thing contrary to tlie principles 
 of our intelligence, in receiving it we should be doing 
 violence to that reason which its evidences address, and to 
 •which they appeal as their judge ; which, in fact, God has 
 
20 ON THE USE 
 
 given us for the very purpose of judging between tight 
 and wrong;, truth and falsehood. Moreover, is not reason 
 an emanation from the fountain of intelligence as well as 
 revelation? Is not the former the voice of the Almighty 
 within us, as is the latter his voice without us? The 
 dictates of the former can never, therefore, oppose the 
 doctrines of the latter ; otherwise God would do violence 
 to his own workmanship. 
 
 Suppose it possible, then, that miracles were performed 
 to establish the divine authority of a religion that contra- 
 dicted facts, first principles, and indisputable truths, we 
 could not believe it. Because the evidence that miracles 
 afford for the truth of a religion depends upon a deduction 
 of the understanding, and could not therefore counter- 
 balance the evidence arising against it from its opposition 
 to the principles of the same understanding. It is worthy 
 of remark, how nearly the bigot and the sceptic approach. 
 Both would annihilate our confidence in our faculties; 
 both would throw doubt and confusion over every truth. 
 We honour revelation too highly to make it the antagonist 
 of reason, or to believe that it calls us to renounce our 
 highest powers. 
 
 The true inference from the almost endless errors which 
 have darkened theology, is, not that we are to neglect and 
 disparage our powers, but to exert them more patiently, 
 circumspeclly, and uprightly. The worst errors, after all, 
 have sprung up in that church which proscribes reason, 
 and demands from its members implicit faith. The most 
 pernicious doctrines have been the growth of the darkest 
 times, when the general credulity encouraged bad men 
 and enthusiasts to broach their dreams and inventions, and 
 to stifle the faint remonstrances of reason, by the menaces 
 of everlasting perdition. Say what we may, God has 
 given us a rational nature, and will call us to an account 
 for it. We may let it sleep, but we do so at our peril. 
 Revelation is addressed to us as rational beings — -we may 
 wish, in our sloth, that God had given us a system, de- 
 manding no labour of comparing, limiting, and inferring. 
 But such a system would be at variance with the whole 
 
OP REASON IN RELIGION. ^1 
 
 character of a present state ; and it is the part of wisdom 
 to take revelation as it is given to us^, and to interpret it 
 by the help of the faculties which it every where supposes, 
 and on which it is founded. 
 
 To the views now given, an objection is commonly 
 urged from the character of God. We are told, that God 
 being infinitely wiser than men, his discoveries will surpass 
 human reason. In a revelation from such a teacher, we 
 ought to expect propositions which we cannot reconcile 
 with one another, and which may seem to contradict 
 established truths ; and it becomes us not to question or 
 explain them away, but to believe and adore, and to sub- 
 mit our weak and carnal reason to the divine word. To 
 this objection we have two short answers. We say, first, 
 that it is impossible that a teacher of infinite wisdom 
 should expose those whom he would teach, to infinite 
 error. But if once we admit, that propositions which in 
 their literal sense appear plainly repugnant to one another, 
 or to any known truth, are still to be literally understood 
 and received, what possible limit can we set to the belief 
 of contradictions ? What shelter have we from the wildest 
 fanaticism, which can always quote passages, that, in their 
 literal and apparent sense, give support to its extravagan- 
 cies ? How can the Protestant escape from transubstan- 
 tiation, a doctrine most clearly taught us, if the prostration 
 of reason, now contended for, be a duty ? How can we 
 ever hold fast the truth of revelation ? for if one obvious 
 contradiction be true, so may another, and the proposition, 
 that Christianity is false, though involving inconsistency, 
 may still be a verity. In fact, universal scepticism is the 
 natural consequence of tiie prostration of understanding^ 
 for which Trinitarians contend. 
 
 We answer again, that, if God be infinitely wise, he 
 cannot sport with the understandings of his creatures. A 
 wise teacher discovers his wisdom in adapting himself to 
 the cnpacities of his pupils, not in perplexing them with 
 what is unintelligible, not in distressing them with appa- 
 rent contradiction, not in filling them with a sceptical 
 distrust of their powers. An infinitely wise teacher, who 
 
 B 
 
22 ON THE USE 
 
 knows the precise extent of our minds, and the best method 
 of enlightening them, will surpass all other instructors in 
 bringing down truth to our apprehension, and in shewing 
 its loveliness and harmony. We ought, indeed, to expect 
 occasional obscurity in such a book as the Bible, which 
 was written for past and future ages, as well as for the 
 present. But God's wisdom is a pledge, that whatever is 
 necessary for us, and necessary for salvation, is revealed 
 too plainly to be mistaken, and too consistently to be 
 questioned by a sound and upright mind. It is not the 
 mark of wisdom to use an unintelligible phraseology to 
 communicate what is above our capacities, to confuse and 
 unsettle the intellect by appearances of contradiction. 
 We honour our heavenly Teacher too much to ascribe to 
 him such a revelation. A revelation is a gift of light ; 
 it cannot thicken and multiply our perplexities. * 
 
 I shall here produce an instance of the false illustration 
 that has been employed with a view of shewing the pro- 
 priety of believing doctrines that are seen to be absurd. 
 Thus speaks Lord Bacon :— " As we are obliged to obey 
 the divine law, though our will murmur at it ; so we are 
 obliged to believe the word 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." Now the few remarks I have already 
 made are surely sufficient to shew the fallacy of such 
 views. The word of God can contain nothing that 
 shocks our judgment; and the reason why we do not 
 believe in contradictions is not because we have any doubt 
 as to God's rectitude and veracity, but because we know 
 that he cannot lay us under any obligation to believe 
 what he himself has rendered it impossible for us to 
 believe. 
 
 The grand difference between our obligation to obey 
 the divine law, &c. and the supposed obligation we are 
 under of believing contradictions, is this: To give obe- 
 
 • Sec Ghanniug's Sermon pveaclud at Baltimore, U. S.j May, 1819. 
 
OF REASON IN RELIGION. 23 
 
 dience to the divine law, we do see to be agreeable to 
 reason, and God has established within us a principle of 
 conscience, which irresistibly prompts to obedience. On 
 tile other hand, to believe contradictions, we see to be in 
 opposition to reason. God has implanted within us a 
 principle of intelligence, by the operation of which we are 
 led to believe that he can never contradict himself, or, 
 which is the same thing, can never give us a mental con- 
 stitution, by the laws of which we are necessarily deter- 
 mined to believe some things as true and reject others as 
 false, and then do violence to his own workmanship by 
 requiring us to believe what he himself as our Maker has 
 rendered us incapable of believing. We are able to obey 
 the divine Avill, but we are not able to believe contra- 
 dictions, and we cannot suppose that the Deity can act 
 inconsistently. In the former case, we have from our-^ 
 selves, within ourselves, and as a part of ourselves, the 
 principle which dictates to us the propriety of doing our 
 Maker's will. In the other case, we have from ourselves, 
 within ourselves, and as a part of ourselves, the intuitive 
 perception, that contradictions cannot be true. In the one 
 case, we murmur at that which our reason and conscience 
 should acquiesce in as right and becoming. In the other 
 case, we are shocked at what our reason forces us to be 
 shocked at^of the falsity of which we have irresistible 
 intuitive evidence; and whicli we have also as much 
 ground to reject, as we have to believe that God is con- 
 sistent with himself. 
 
 Lord Bacon thus continues the passage I have quoted : 
 " But the faith imputed to Abraham for righteousness 
 consisted in a particular laughed at by Sarah, who in that 
 respect was an image of the natural reason. And there- 
 fore the more absurd and incredible any divine mystery 
 is, the greater honour we do to God in believing it, and 
 go much the more noble the victory of faith." The object, 
 you see, is to shew that we must believe what our nature 
 necessarily teaches to be false ; and to shew the propriety 
 of this, he adduces as a parallel case that of Abraham 
 giving credence to the express promise of God, that his 
 
24 ON THE USE 
 
 power should alter the course of nature so as that he 
 should have a son. Was Abraham's believing, then, that 
 God could alter the course of nature, which he himself 
 established^ and the stability of which depends on his own 
 sovereign will^, any thing like one's admitting that which 
 his nature teaches him to be an absurdity, and precludes 
 the possibility of his believing? Did the subject of his 
 faith contradict any of the principles of his understand- 
 ing, or that perception of truth and error with which the 
 Almighty who made the promise endued him? The 
 matter of his belief was indeed contrary to his own 
 experience and observation, or, more properly speaking, 
 he only wanted esperience of that which he believed. But 
 surely there is as wide a difference between giving credence 
 to that of which one has not had experience, and believ- 
 ing what is opposed to the dictates of one's intellectual 
 nature, as there is between believing that the course of 
 nature, which indeed is only the agency of an intelligent 
 being, may be changed, or that God cannot falsify his 
 Avord, and becoming firmly persuaded of such a proposition 
 as this being true : ' three and one are identical terms.' 
 
 And with respect to those who would seem to imply 
 that a thing may contradict our reason and yet be true to 
 the understandings of other intelligent beings, I would 
 just observe, that, on this principle of reasoning, all things 
 that we are convinced of may be false. As the Divine 
 Being is true and immutable, in the nature of things it 
 is impossible that any proposition within the compass of 
 thought and evidence which God has rendered it necessary 
 for us to esteem a contradiction can appear to other in- 
 telligent beings in any different light. 
 
 Again, whence originates the conclusion that we must 
 believe contradictions ? Certainly from reason. In admit- 
 ting doctrines contrary to reason from ihs belief that God 
 has revealed them, we are induced to do so by some kind 
 of consideration which appears rational to the mind. The 
 attempt to check ratiocination, or to destroy the authority 
 of reason in matters of religion, can only be made by an 
 effort of reason. Sentiments the most absurd, positions 
 
or REASON IN RELIGION. 25 
 
 the most extravagant, can only be reconciled to any mind 
 because in some point of view it appears rational to admit 
 them. The man who insists most strenuously on faith to 
 the subversion of human reason, thinks that he enforces 
 his injunction upon rational principles. He reasons against 
 using reason — on the propriety and the duty of doing vio- 
 lence to that very judgment which he himself thus uses 
 with the express purpose of shewing that we should 
 admit what is necessarily repugnant to it. Thus docs 
 reason beguile and destroy itself. 
 
 I wish Trinitarians would have the candour to see how 
 ill the charge of abusing reason comes from them. Their 
 whole system is a system of reasoning and inference. 
 It presumptuously attempts to scan the nature and the 
 mode of existence of the Eternal Spirit. It analyses 
 the Deity, as it were — it enters his very essence, pointing 
 out the distinctions in it. The origin of it was the school 
 of Plato, and the indications of its parentage are visible 
 enough. 
 
 A learned defender of orthodoxy J thus attempts to shew 
 the propriety of defending Trinitarianism on the principles 
 of reason and demonstration : — " It is observable that the 
 fathers of the council of Nice brought all their arguments 
 against the Arians from reason and demonstration, and 
 almost never appealed to Scripture; but they were not 
 acquainted with the inductive system, and therefore argued 
 concretely not abstractly. This proves that in the purest 
 times of the church, reason was applied to the subject in 
 the best manner the reasoners could, and if it was so then, 
 may it not be so now ? Upon examination it will be found 
 that almost every one of the arguments used by Athanasius 
 against Arius is taken from reason applied to the subject, 
 but scarcely one from Scripture. Those who deny that 
 reason may be applied to the subject would do well to 
 examine the arguments of the council of Nice as they 
 appear in the Nicene Creed, and the arguments advanced 
 by Athanasius as they appear in the Athanasian Creed 
 
 * Professor Kidd, of Aberdeen. 
 
26 ON THE USE 
 
 The reader will find the proof of all this in Cudworth. 
 Indeed, till the subject be firmly established by reason 
 and demonstration^ those who deny it will never be satis- 
 fied nor silenced. Our efforts will be the more arduous 
 to convince them, as many of those who deny the Trinity 
 are most learned and profound disputants; so that no- 
 thing but the swords, the arrows, and the spears of truth, 
 together with an impregnable coat of mail composed of 
 reason and demonstration, can ward off their powerful 
 and impetuous assaults." 
 
 About one hundred and fifty years ago, some of the 
 most learned Trinitarians confessed that the doctrine of 
 the Trinity was not founded on the Scriptures, but in the 
 tradition of the church. The Unitarians were then obliged 
 to maintain as a previous step to the establishment of their 
 opinions, that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule 
 by which to determine religious controversies. " The 
 Socinians (said they) are of a contrary mind. Hath the 
 Holy Spirit, that is, hath God said it.'' They will believe 
 though all men and angels contradict it. They will always 
 prefer the infinite wisdom of God before the fallible dictates 
 of human or angelic reason." 
 
 The fact is, that the Trinity owes its birth not to any 
 clear passages of Scripture, but to that wild spirit of specula- 
 tion, and that fondness for what is dark and overwhelming, 
 which, not content with simple truth, must have something 
 to amaze and confound the human intellect. In Trinita- 
 rianism do we not see the brother of transubstantiation, 
 that darling of Catholics, for the sake of which every 
 thing was made to look like a contradiction, and none more 
 so than the doctrine of the personal unity of God? 
 
 It was not long after the first promulgation of Chris- 
 tianity that men enlarged their creeds and confessions of 
 faith, made more and more things explicitly necessary to 
 he believed, and under pretence of explaining infallibly, 
 imposed articles muph more intricate to be understood 
 than the Scripture itself, became horridly uncharitable in 
 their censures, and the further they departed from the 
 apostolic form of sound words, the more uncertain and 
 
OF REASON IN RELIGION. 27 
 
 unintelligible their definitions grew. Their taste being 
 characterized by the love of the marvellous and the mys- 
 tical, they paid little regard to the plain and unerring 
 dictates of inspiration, and by the exercise of a singular 
 ingenuity under the influence of Platonic associations, they 
 soon came to see their own illusions stamped with the 
 sacred authority of Heaven. In their delight to astonish 
 and amaze, they dimmed the moral glory of Christianity, 
 made the gospel of Jesus like some of the incomprehensible 
 systems of heathen philosophy — a religion unworthy of 
 God to give or of man to receive. And now, my brethren, 
 that we honestly wish to dismiss from Christianity every 
 thing which has been foisted into it, we are accused of 
 exalting reason above revelation. I wish the history of 
 the church were better known. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 TRINITARIANISM CONTRADICTORY TO 
 REASON. 
 
 1 Timothy ii. 5. 
 
 There is one God, and one tnediator between God and 
 
 m^n, the man Christ Jesus. 
 
 Trinitarians do not deny that the unity of God is the 
 doctrine of Scripture. They do deny, however, his per- 
 sonal unity, or that he is one intelligent being. They 
 maintain that their sentiments are supported by positive 
 assertions of Sacred Writ, and that the adoption of them 
 is necessary to the salvation of mankind; and yet they 
 themselves have engaged in the most violent disputes and 
 entertained the most discordant opinions concerning the 
 Trinity. 
 
 The Sabellians, whose doctrine received the sanction of 
 tlie University of Oxford, maintain that in the Godhead 
 there are not three distinct intelligent agents, but that the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are only modes or relations 
 of God to his creatures. Others who hold the subsistence 
 of something different from unity in the Divine essence, 
 yet maintain that it is impossible for us to comprehend 
 what that something is. One thing they allow, that 
 there cannot be absolutely three distinct persons in the 
 Divine Being, taking these terms in any thing like their 
 usual sense. Others with Bishop Burgess maintain, that 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are persons but not 
 beings, while these' three personal nonentities make one 
 perfect being. Some will have it, that the three persons 
 
TRINITARIANISM CONTRADICTORY. 29 
 
 of the Trinity are only parts of the Divine essence ; while 
 others, with Bishop Gastrell and Dr. Moysey, hold, that 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each individually in- 
 cludes the whole idea of God and something more, while 
 all together they make up one complete God and nothing 
 more. 
 
 Some will have it, that the Son and Holy Spirit are 
 absolutely eternal, unoriginated beings, while Dr. Horsley 
 and his followers affirm, that the Father produced the Son 
 by contemplating his own perfections ; and creeds declare 
 that the former is begotten from the Father, and that the 
 latter proceeds from both. Dr. Watts and Bishop Burnett 
 hold, that the Son and Holy Spirit are created being?, 
 and are Gods only by the indwelling of the Father's 
 Godhead. 
 
 Without attempting to travel through all these meta- 
 physical labyrinths, which would be a task as impracticable 
 as it would be useless, I shall refer only to the real 
 Trinitarian system as contained in the Athanasian Creed. 
 Now this doctrine, we maintain, implies contradictions 
 and absurdities. It involves one of four different conclu- 
 sions. First, that there are more Gods than one; or, 
 second, that three beings and one being are identical ; 
 third, that there can exist more than one infinite being; 
 or, fourth, that none of the persons of the Trinity is 
 infinite. With respect to the first it may be observed, 
 that when it is afllrmed that ' the Father is God, the Sou^ 
 is God, and the Holy Spirit is God,' the term ' God' 
 used in the sentence must be understood in all its occur- 
 rences to express identically the same ideas. Here, then, 
 in the most unequivocal manner it is stated that there are 
 three Sovereigns of the universe, a doctrine which is di- 
 rectly inconsistent with the Christian system. Athanasius 
 does indeed say that though each person in the Trinity is 
 perfect God of himself, there is nevertheless but one God. 
 But the assertion of Athanasius or any one else cannot 
 alter the intuitive perceptions of the human mind ; and 
 nothing certainly can be more evident to any one who 
 attaches meaning to words, than that both proposition^ 
 
so TRINITARIANISM 
 
 cannot be true^ that they are necessarily destructive the 
 one of the other. There is no possible method of escaping 
 from this dilemma without being involved in the second 
 monstrous conclusion, viz. that three and one are identical 
 terms. 
 
 For though it be affirmed that the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost, are not more than one God, but are only 
 persons in the one divine essence ; yet it must be evident, 
 that, unless the word ' person' is used in some extraordi- 
 nary sense, it follows from the statements of Trinitarians^ 
 that three persons constitute one person. A person, ac- 
 cording to Locke and the apprehension of all mankind, is 
 a thinking intelligent being, that can consider itself as 
 itself. A divine person must consequently denote an intel- 
 ligent being, possessed of all the attributes of Deity ; and 
 if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are each a person, 
 the mathematical absurdity is produced— ^of three intelli- 
 gent existences being one intelligent existence. 
 
 Nor does either the third or the fourth conclusion less 
 clearly and obviously flow from the statements of the 
 Trinity given by its advocates. With respect to the 
 former it may be observed, that if the Son, for example, 
 be equal to the Father, he must separately and alone fill 
 all space. Thus we have not only the absurdity that 
 there is a plurality of infinities, but also that the same 
 space is filled and occupied by three beings in all respects 
 the same, and equal each to each ; or else we are necessi- 
 tated to adopt the latter mentioned conclusion, that neither 
 of these persons or beings is omnipresent ; that they are 
 each circumscribed in their existence, and severally occupy 
 their own separate and proper portion of the measureless 
 immensity of space. 
 
 A consequence of the same absurd notion necessarily 
 follows from the statements of the orthodox with respect 
 to the power of God. We ascribe infinite power to the 
 Deity, because the very reasons which prove that such a 
 being must exist, demonstrate with equal force that he 
 must possess inherently in his constitution energies of 
 irresistible might, adequate to the production of every 
 
CONTRADICTORY TO REASON. 31 
 
 possible effect. Now Trinitarianism, by affirming that the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are each almighty, 
 not only maintain the existence of what is unnecessary as 
 well as impossible, but by affirming of the Father that he 
 could not save his erring children from endless misery 
 without the assistance of the Son to atone for their guilt— 
 by affirming of the Son that he could not complete by his 
 vicarious sacrifice the work of their salvation without the 
 sanctifying influence of the Holy Ghost— and of the Holy 
 Ghost, that his sanctifying influence could not have availed 
 for the salvation of men without the interposition of the 
 Son to turn aside by his meritorious death the vengeance- 
 teeming hand of the incensed and inexorable Father— 
 the conclusion is necessarily implied that there was some- 
 thing in the case of each of these persons which they could 
 not do, something to which their powers were not com- 
 petent. Neither of them, on this scheme, is almighty; 
 and if the persons of the Trinity are not separately 
 almighty, the Godhead which they form when united 
 cannot be almighty ; for it were absurd to suppose that 
 one infinitely powerful being could be formed by three 
 beings whose respective and separate powers are finite 
 and limited. 
 
 Trinitarianism also involves the inconsistency of two per- 
 sons besides the Father being infinite in existence, uncreated, 
 and absolutely eternal, o: else it derogates from the per- 
 fection and dignity of the Divine Being. And that it does 
 the latter especially, Unitarians conceive to be very evident 
 indeed. Every notion of God which in any way excludes 
 the self-existence of his being, is defective, and withholds 
 , from him one of his highest and most distinguishing excel- 
 lencies. Now the attribute of self-existence is indeed 
 claimed for one of the persons of the Trinity, the Father ; 
 but it has generally been admitted by those whose notions 
 have placed them highest on the scale of reputed orthodoxy 
 that the Son is in some way indebted to the Fatlier for 
 his existence, it having been maintained by them in lan- 
 guage wholly unintelligible to common minds and clearly 
 self-contradictory, that he is begotten of the Father from 
 
B^ TRINITARIANISM 
 
 everlasting ; whilst the Holy Ghost is said to have derived 
 his being from the Father, or from tlie Father and the 
 Son_, having proceeded from both, according to the received 
 creeds of the churches of the v?est. Now whatever sense 
 is to be put upon the expressions begotten and proceeding, 
 if the words in their theological application have a meaning 
 at all analagous to that which in the ordinary use of them 
 they are understood to convey, they must import a deri- 
 vation of being. They necessarily annihilate the idea of 
 self-existence so far as relates to the two persons who 
 are said respectively to have been begotten and to have 
 proceeded. For whatever the Athanasian Creed may say to 
 the contrary as to ' none of the persons being afore or after 
 the other/ the intuitive perception of every mind will 
 repel the sophistry, and will recognise as incontrovertible 
 the principle, that the being who is generated and the 
 being who proceeds must be subsequent in the order of 
 time to the being by whom the one is generated and from 
 whom the other proceeds. The attribute of self-existence 
 cannot then in the nature of things belong to the Son and 
 the Holy Spirit. Consequently the Godhead of which 
 these two persons, who are confessedly dependant and 
 derived, are essential parts, cannot upon the Trinitarian 
 hypothesis be as a whole self-existent. || 
 
 Can you, my brethren, think it quite right to admit 
 into your creed the notion of ;' begotten God ; a derived 
 infinite essence ; the identity of a Father and a Son ; the 
 possibility of the former not preceding the latter in point 
 of time, and not being superior in dignity to him ; one 
 producing a part of himself, or rather himself absolutely — 
 becoming cause and effect too, and so the copy giving 
 being to the original ; a father being the son of himself, 
 and a son the father of himself.'' Can you, I say, give 
 credence to a system that so obviously involves conse- 
 quences so extravagant and absurd .'' Such a system 
 carries on its front the motto of Plato's philosophy ; and 
 
 |l See " Objections to tlie Doctrine of the Trinity," by Thomas Rec=.. 
 LL. D. F. A. S. London, 1823. 
 
CONTRADICTORY TO REASON. 33 
 
 to those who prefer unintelligible and contradictory jargon 
 to the simplicity of the Apostle's creed, I would only say, 
 leave Unitarians to enjoy their own opinions without 
 molestation, and excuse the weakness of their understand- 
 ings, which not being able to attach distinct ideas to the 
 terms of orthodox propositions, cannot consequently believe 
 them. 
 
 The doctrine of the Trinity, observes a celebrated writer, 
 confounds reason and prompts it to revolt. If there be 
 any visible difficulties, they are those which are contained 
 in that mystery, that three persons really distinct have 
 one and the same essence, and that this essence being the 
 same thing in each person, all the relations that distinguish 
 them may l)e communicated without the communication 
 of the relations which distinguish the persons. If human 
 reason consults herself, she will rise up against these in- 
 conceivable statements; if she pretends to make use of 
 her own light to penetrate them, it will furnish her with 
 arms to overtiirow them. Wherefore in order to believe 
 them she ought to bind herself to stifle all her powers of 
 investigation, and to depress and sink herself under the 
 weight of spiritual authority. § 
 
 We now proceed to examine another branch of ortho- 
 doxy intimately connected with the Trinity^ which is the 
 hypostatic union of the second person of the Trinity with 
 the man Christ Jesus. The opponents of anti-trinitarianism 
 cannot deny that Jesus is frequently spoken of in Scripture 
 as a man, and as distinct from and inferior to the Being 
 wlio is usually spoken of under the name of ' God.' But 
 they maintain also that the names and titles, the attributes, 
 tlie works, and the worship of tiie Father are also given 
 to the Son. Hence they are led to suppose that he was 
 constituted of a nature both human and divine, which 
 constitution of his person took place at his birth of the 
 Virgin Mary, by his taking the manhood into the God- 
 head, or by his taking the human nature into union with 
 his Deity. 
 
 5 Nicolle perpetuite dc la soi, p. US, Ed. 1666. 
 
 c 
 
34 • TRINITARIANISM 
 
 Now we maintain that the hypostatical union involves in 
 it palpable contradictions. It necessarily supposes that 
 the Deity was actually changed in the mode of his sub- 
 sistence; thus destroying the Divine immutability. But 
 as whatever principles militate against any of the acknow- 
 ledged perfections of God, must be false, this must cer- 
 tainly be so. 
 
 The hypostatic union is directly inconsistent with the 
 Divine immensity. For if the presence of God is in- 
 finite, if indee^ there is no point of space in the universe 
 where God is not, how, without contradiction, can it be 
 supposed that he was really in unity of subsistence with 
 the human soul of Jesus ? The consequence that God 
 was more especially present with Christ Jesus than 
 with any other intelligence; that a universally extended 
 being was confined within the boundaries of man's system 
 of intellect ; that the Deity was contracted, bounded, 
 circumscribed, necessarily flows from the hypostatical 
 union ; and as thus destroying the immensity of God, we 
 reject the doctrine. 
 
 Alas ! that ever a system was formed which subverts 
 the adorable attributes of the Godhead, while its professed 
 object is to display them! — that the ingenuity of man 
 ever employed itself in clouding the glory of infinite per- 
 fections, and with the view of magnifying them has stamped 
 mutation on Jehovah's being, and struck out limits to his 
 presence ! 
 
 The hypostatic union is destructive of the spirituality 
 of God. It holds out to us a being who is ^ without body, 
 parts, or passions,' becoming incarnate, uniting himself to 
 and becoming one person with the man Christ Jesus. 
 Even on these grounds alone, we should think ourselves 
 warranted to reject the doctrine of the hypostatical union. 
 There are, however, other considerations tending to shew 
 the falsity of the doctrine, arising from its very nature ; 
 to these therefore we advert. 
 
 Now by the nature of a thing we mean its qualities. 
 To say therefore that Christ possesses both a divine and 
 a human nature, is to say that he possesses both the 
 
CONTRADICTORY TO REASON- 
 
 3*5 
 
 qualities of God and the qualities of man; that the same 
 mind consequently is both created and uncreated, both 
 finite and infinite, both dependent and independent, both 
 changeable and unchangeable, both mortal and immortal, 
 both susceptible of pain and incapable of it, both able to 
 do all things and not able, both acquainted with all things 
 and not acquainted with them. Here is one of the persons 
 of the Trinity united to the person of the ftian ; here there 
 is a person or mind both finite and infinite. Now, to use 
 the words of another in expressing my own sentiments, if 
 it be not certain that such a doctrine as this is false, there 
 is no certainty on any subject. It is in vain to call it a 
 mystery ; it is an absurdity — it is an impossibility. Ac- 
 cording to my ideas of propriety and duty, by assenting 
 to it I should culpably abuse those faculties of understand- 
 ing which God has given me to distinguish between right 
 and wrong, truth and error. 
 
 But the hypostatic union, not content with making one 
 mind both human and divine, makes one person of two 
 persons — the one infinite person of the Trinity and the 
 person of the man Jesus strictly and literally only one 
 subsistence; thus producing the absurdity, that finite 
 may be identified with infinite. The only conceivable 
 method of escaping the absurdity of the first, is to say 
 that Christ's person consisted of more minds than one. 
 This, however, Trinitarians themselves cannot admit. And 
 the only method of removing the inconsistency of the other 
 is to adopt the opinion of the Council of Chalcedon, which 
 was rejected by that of Ephesus, viz. that Christ consisted 
 of two persons. But neither will Trinitarians adopt this 
 plan of averting the absurd consequences of this part of 
 their system; and though they should, it would defeat 
 the purpose which the doctrine of the hypostatic union is 
 intended to answer, viz. to serve as a principle of inter- 
 pretation of what they conceive to be apparently discordant 
 passages of Scripture. How inconsistent are Trinitarians, 
 not only with Scripture but with themselves. While the 
 statements of their doctrine respecting the Trinity imply 
 Jhat three persons constitute but one nature, in the hy- 
 
S6 
 
 TRINITARIANISM 
 
 postatic union we find ftvo natures constituting but one 
 person. 
 
 And with respect to this most strange and confused 
 hypothesis, I now proceed to remark;, in the first place, 
 that it is invefited. It is not stated in any part of Scrip- 
 ture that in the one person of Christ there is a nature 
 both human and divine, though from the diflScalty, appa- 
 rent contradiction, singularity, and importance of the 
 doctrine, we should have expected clearness, precision, 
 and repetition of statement respecting it. This wonderful 
 key is not to be found in all the sacred premises. But 
 did not ' the Word become flesh ?' the Trinitarian will say. 
 Not precisely become so, I reply ; but according to the 
 translation of ginomai in three of its occurrences in the 
 first chapter of John, and according to the general 
 translation of it in John's Gospel, the sentence should run, 
 ' the Word was flesh.' Moreover, who is meant by the 
 Word? I ask. Is it certain Christ is spoken of.? Se- 
 veral eminent defenders of orthodoxy have themselves said 
 not, and have understood the Word to mean, either the 
 eternal reason of the Almighty, or the active commanding 
 power of God displayed in its creating energy. And even 
 though Jesus is meant by the Logos, I cannot see how 
 the passage could prove even his pre-existence, far less 
 his having united himself to the human nature or his 
 having taken the manhood into the Godhead. First, be- 
 cause, as I have already noticed, ' was fiesh' is the most 
 natural rendering of the original. Secondly, because 
 whether egeneto be rendered ^ was made or became,' the 
 sentence would not convey more than is implied in the 
 words of David when he says with respect to mankind in 
 general, that ' man was made a little lower than the 
 angels;' or in the words of the author of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, who speaks of mankind as 'partakers of 
 flesh and blood,' an expression which, like the assertion 
 ' the Word became flesh,' seems to convey the notion 
 of voluntary incarnation, but at the same time does not 
 really express that idea. 
 
 And supposing the expression did prove Christ's having 
 
CONTRADICTORY TO REASON. SJ 
 
 voluntarily assumed a human body, and consequently his 
 pre-existence ; what then ? Would this be a proof of his 
 two natures ? Not at all, but the reverse. For supposing 
 egeneto to be properly rendered ' was made/ this would 
 imply that he was not uncreated in the strictest sense. 
 And whether thy word be rendered ' was made' or 
 ' became,' the claiise would afford no ground for the idea 
 of incarnation, which clearly signifies entering into the 
 flesh, or being in it. The expression would affirm that he 
 was flesh altogether; and if the clause translated either 
 way be understood in the sense of having existed before 
 as one substance, and having subsequently become or been 
 made another, this would convey no other idea than that 
 of transmutation, like that of water being made wine, or 
 stones, bread ; and not at all that of entering into and 
 being in another unchanged, which is proper incarnation. 
 And indeed the supposed assumption of the manhood into 
 tile Godhead is the reverse of the incarnation, which sup- 
 poses the entering of the divine nature into the human, 
 and remaining there incarnate. * The words of John 
 give no support to either notion. Upon what weak and 
 fanciful grounds does the whole superstructure of ortho- 
 doxy rest ! 
 
 Let us now proceed to inquire how far the invention of 
 a hypothesis as a key of interpretation to the Scriptures is 
 consistent with the character of God as our teacher, and 
 with the nature and design of a revelation. In the first 
 place, then, I remark that the giving to mankind a book, 
 which, like the secret despatches of a diplomatist, is full 
 of enigma and obscurity, without the use of a key known 
 only to those who are versed in the art of deciphering, is 
 not in consonance with the veracity of God, because there 
 being no formal intimation in the book iiself that the use 
 of the key is necessary to the right understanding of its 
 meaiung, the reader is led to suppose tiiat the mode to be 
 adopted in order to comprehend its statements is similar 
 to that employed in the study of other books. 
 
 * See "Letters on Unitarianis.n," by anotUcr Bdrriiter. 
 C 3 
 
38 TRINITARIANISM 
 
 Thus at the very commencement of his inquiries and 
 investigations, he is necessarily misled and deceived, and 
 there is nothing that can present itself in his subsequent 
 study of the volume to guide him aright and direct his 
 course of examination ; for the constitution of the book is 
 different from that of any other, and he has no means of 
 ascertaining this. There is no other book to the study of 
 which we proceed upon the idea that we must find out its 
 meaning by trying whether it will accord with this or that 
 hypothesis. All that we think necessary is to understand 
 the language in which it is written, and then to open it 
 and read it. In the same manner we must enter upon the 
 study of the New Testament, presuming, till some good 
 reason is assigned for believing the contrary, that its 
 principal doctrines lie upon its surface, and will be obvious 
 to every unprejudiced reader. 
 
 The character of God as a teacher is farther involved 
 in giving us a book of such singularity, inasmuch as 
 the book claims for itself the character of plainness and 
 simplicity ; it professes also to be a revelation, which im- 
 plies the giving of light, and by its demanding faith in its 
 contents, it naturally leails one to believe the practicability 
 of at once understanding what those contents are. Thus 
 the hypothesis of any subtle principle of interpretation 
 being necessary, makes the Scripture belie itself and de- 
 ceive those who read it. 
 
 The adopting of such a principle can never indeed lead 
 to truth. It fills the mind with a theory which must 
 prevent it from attaining the truth, should the truth be 
 contrary to the theory. It must uniformly and as a matter 
 of course bring the text to the system, and not the system 
 to the text. It cannot say, what does the scripture state 
 on this point or that — what the precise import of these 
 terns — wh^tt the scope of this argument — what the object 
 of this series of observation — what should I think if I had 
 never heard of systems, tJ^is ism or that ? But how can 
 this passage be reconciled with the hypothesis — how may 
 the key be introduced to move along the wards of this 
 intricate lock without a touch of interruption? Thus |£ 
 
CONTRADICTORY TO REASON. 39 
 
 places a hypothesis, previously assumed, above the revela- 
 tion it affects to explain. Every man will necessarily be 
 led in the choice of his hypothesis by his particular preju- 
 dice and likings. These will lead him to find his favourite 
 dogmas where no trace of them exists. 
 
 Again, the necessity of a previously assumed hypothesis 
 as a principle of interpreting Scripture is inconsistent with 
 the goodness of God as our teacher. 1. Because truth 
 must always be more conducive to happiness than error, 
 from which, under the guidance of such a principle, we 
 can never be guarded. 2. Because the examination of the 
 Scripture by the guidance of such a principle must neces- 
 sarily be attended with doubt and perplexity, and certainly 
 freedom from these on a subject like religion, which con- 
 cerns our present and future happiness, is essential to our 
 peace and comfort. 3. Because, if according to Trinita- 
 rians the belief of certain articles be necessary to salvation, 
 and this principle be essential to the right understanding 
 of what those articles are, God has left our salvation 
 at great hazard, we being placed in circumstances in 
 which there are no certain means of arriving at essential 
 truth. Finally, the supposition that the doctrines of Scrip- 
 ture can only be ascertained by the use of a particular 
 hypothesis as a key of interpretation^ is contrary to the 
 very nature and design of revelation, which is a gift of 
 light, and canr.ot, therefore, multiply our perplexities ; 
 which is intended to supersede the use of our judgments 
 so far as the discovery of truths is concerned ; which has 
 for its object the making known of something; not the 
 bewildering of the human mind. 
 
 I now proceed to remark, that, supposing the adoption 
 of a previously assumed hypothesis as a principle of inter- 
 pretation to be in certain cases in itself admissible, it can 
 find no place with respect to the passages connected with 
 the present subject that it is used to explain, because 
 it is unnecessary. By appealing to the sources and rules 
 of j\ist criticism, the Unitarian is able to shew that the 
 few passages which seem at variance with the obvioiis and 
 prominent doctrines of Scripture are perfectly consistent 
 
40 TRINITARIANI5M 
 
 with them. Even with regard to the few passages the Tri-» 
 iiitarian adduces to confound him, he only wishes to have 
 them correctly translated from a correct text, and he 
 receives even them in their obvious and simple meaning, 
 which truly is widely different indeed from the case of 
 Trinitarians. We maintain indeed that the greater number 
 of those passages which they adduce as the foundation of 
 their system are actually inconsistent with that system, 
 and tend directly to support the contrary side of the ques- 
 tion. Once more, we have seen that the hypothesis 
 assumed, viz. the constitution of Christ's person by two 
 distinct natures is absolutely absurd. Supposing then that 
 there are some passages of Scripture that teach inconsistent 
 doctrines, a thing we positively deny, how can they ever 
 be reconciled by what is in itself irreconcilable .'' Can they 
 be helped by a contradiction ? Or for the purpose of re- 
 conciling a few scattered passages, which a just criticism 
 can explain, must we invent a hypothesis inconceivably 
 difficult and involving gross absurdity ? Must we find 
 our way out of a supposed labyrinth by a path that con- 
 ducts us into mazes wholly inextricable ? 
 
 Moreover, there arises this important question : Would 
 the application of this singular hypothesis as a principle 
 of interpretation, after all, answer its purpose, supposing 
 it to be necessary and just, and in all respects admissible? 
 I confidently say it would not. I found my assertion, in 
 the first place, upon ti;ese plain principles. 1. That a 
 nature is a mere abstraction, of which nothing active can 
 be predicated. I have already said that by the nature of 
 a thing we mean its qualities. To affirm then, for exam- 
 ple, that when it is said of Christ that he prayed to his 
 Heavenly Father, we are to understand that his human 
 nature only supplicated Heaven, &c. is to speak downright 
 jionsense, it being to say that the qualities of a being, 
 instead of the being himself, did this or that. 2. That 
 different and inconsistent things cannot be predicated of 
 the same existence at the same time. For instance, we 
 find Jesus asserting, that of the day and hour of final 
 judgment no one knew, '''no, not the angels in heaven, 
 
CONTRADICTORY TO REASON. 4-1 
 
 neither the Son, but the Father." Now unless Jesus had 
 actually two minds, which no one admits, how could he 
 be acquainted with an event and ignorant of it at the 
 same time? 3. The supposition of the divine nature is 
 unnecessary, because it answered no purpose. We read, 
 for example, that an angel strengthened Christ in the 
 garden of Gethsemane. But had he possessed divinity 
 in conjunction with humanity, such assistance would have 
 been wholly unnecessary. 4. Because Christ is spoken of 
 as inferior to and distinct from God, and as a man even 
 when he is spoken of confessedly in his highest character, 
 and in reference to what Trinitarians suppose to be appli- 
 cable to his divine nature, or to his divine nature and his 
 human toi^ether. Take, for example, one of the passages 
 adduced, " of that day, &c." Here Jesus is spoken of in 
 that character in which he ranked above the angels in 
 heaven, which was certainly his highest, and also in the 
 capacity of the Son of God, which is supposed to denote 
 his divine nature, and yet he was not omniscient. 
 
 5. Because, granting his pre-existence, the passages un- 
 derstood to prove it plainly state or imply that before he 
 had any human nature or sustained the office of mediator, 
 he was distinct from and inferior to God. For instance, 
 Jesus is usually understood to assert his pre-existence in 
 these words of John xvii. 5. '^ Glorify me, &c." But we 
 have only to consult ver. 22. in order to be convinced that 
 supposing he had glory really before the world began, 
 that glory was even then given him. The phrases " I came 
 out from thee, I proceeded forth and came from God," 
 and such like, supposing they prove the pre-existence of 
 Christ, prove him also to have been in his pre-existent 
 state an inferior being. The word ' God ' is applied to 
 one person. There being but one God, he who came out 
 from the one God, cannot himself be that being to whom 
 in the sentence the appellation «^God' is exclusively given. 
 And to '^come out' from a place (for heaven is supposed) is 
 not the act of a being who is every where equally present. 
 
 6. Because in those passages where he is spoken of as 
 an inferior being, personal pronouns are used in relation to 
 
42 TRINITARIANISM CONTRADICTORY. 
 
 him. Thus, '' My Father is greater than /" implies that 
 Christ is speaking of himself as a person. The pronoun 
 / implies this. Now whether Christ had two natures or 
 ten, he confessedly formed but one person. Therefore the 
 assertion before us is this, that the Father is greater than 
 the Son considered in his whole person. 
 
 7. Because the sense and connexion of many of the texts 
 which state his inferiority, and the correlation of the pro- 
 positions contained in them to others in which personality 
 is confessedly implied, shew undeniably that Jesus is spo- 
 ken of and considered as a whole person. Take, for ex- 
 ample, 1 Cor. XV. " Then cometh the end, when he shall 
 have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father^ 
 then shall the Son also himself be subject to him who hath 
 put all things under him, that God may be all in all." 
 Here the Father meaning a person, the Son must be spoken 
 of considered as a person also. Personal actions are attri- 
 buted to him also. The term ' God' is restricted to one 
 being in distinction from ' the Son of God,* and there 
 being but one Jehovah, he who is afterwards spoken of 
 cannot be God also. 
 
 And finally I remark, that although these considerations 
 did not manifest the inutility of the assumed hypothesis as 
 a principle of interpretation, nevertheless, it could serve 
 no purpose, because to none of the grand branches of the 
 evidence of Unitarianism can it possibly apply, as I shall 
 soon have occasion to shew. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 Isaiah xxxv. 8. 
 The wayfaring merit though fools y shall not err therein. 
 
 Before proceeding-, my brethren, to prove the truth of 
 our sentiments from Scripture, I shall suggest some general 
 considerations, which I believe sufficient of themselves to 
 shew the erroneousness of the orthodox system. 
 
 It is certainly rational to conclude that so stupendous 
 and singularly important a doctrine as the Trinity should 
 be clearly revealed in the book which alone can make it 
 known. We shall then, in the first place, turn our atten- 
 tion to the five books of Moses, to see if the Deity of 
 Christ is to be discovered there. The only declaration of 
 Moses that appears to have reference to Christ is the 
 following: " A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up 
 unto you, like unto me, &c." Does this predict the won- 
 derful event of God taking on him the nature of m^n for 
 our salvation ? But had such an event been to happen, is 
 it not highly reasonable to think that Moses would have 
 been commissioned to foretell it ? Was not his dispensa- 
 tion intended to usher in the more spiritual one of Christ ? 
 Was it not intended to prepare the church for the Messiah's 
 appearance? And was it not typical in some measure of 
 the glories of the age that was to come.'* Under what 
 institute, then, could we have more rationally looked for 
 some striking figurative displays of the glory of the God- 
 man Messiah, or some express intimations of the supreme 
 majesty of him to the bringing in of whose kingdom that 
 dispensation was subservient? 
 
44 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 Under the antediluvian age, the only promise given to 
 mankind supposed to have relation to the redemption from 
 the evils of the fall, is that which God uttered to Adam, 
 •' The seed of the woman, &c." But had the incarnation 
 of Jehovah the Son been the hitended means of accom- 
 plishing our salvation, is it not highly probable that God 
 would have given some knowledge of it to our first parents? 
 and yet who can say that in these words there is the 
 slightest intimation of any thing of the kind? 
 
 Under the patriarchal age we find a sim.ilar deficiency 
 of information on the subject. And is not all this exceed- 
 ingly strange and unaccountable ? 
 
 We advance then to the prophets, and here our wonder 
 is raised very much. The most minute, and perhaps the 
 only full and complete prophecy of Christ is in Isaiah liii. 
 and do you find any thing of Christ's Godhead and com- 
 pound nature there? Not at all. " The man of sorrows' 
 is the only appellation given to him. The relation he was 
 to sustain with regard to our salvation is distinctly and 
 beautifully stated. But as, according to Trinitarians, he 
 could have done nothing for us had he not been God as 
 well as man, how can it be accounted for on any principle 
 that on such an occasion as this, when the subject required 
 the introduction of his Deity and his twofold nature, that the 
 prophet should not even have alluded to these in the most 
 distant manner, but have spoken of the Messiah's perform- 
 ing his part in the economy of grace under the exclusive 
 character of v^an ? As to the other prophets, it is not 
 contended that there are above a few scattered passages to 
 be found in them that have any reference to his divine 
 nature. Those passages, v.e are firmly convinced, have 
 not the meaning that Trinitarians attach to them, and 
 several of the most learned Trinitarians, both at home and 
 abroad, have candidly allowed this. Some of them, indeed, 
 are at complete variance with the doctrine of Christ's 
 Deity. To advert to this, however, belongs not to the 
 present argument, which is founded merely on the con- 
 fessedly few intimations that are given of the common 
 theology. 
 
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 45 
 
 Surely an event that held so prominent and special 
 a place in the divine intentions, and to which all the 
 three dispensations preceding Christianity were only 
 preparatory, had it been known, would have been the 
 frequent theme and most rapturous topic of Moses and the 
 prophets. Is it at all consistent with the truth of the 
 doctrine, that in all the prophetic strains confessedly almost 
 nothing should be said on the incarnation of God Jehovah? 
 Can we suppose it possible that this overwhelming wonder, 
 Jehovah in human nature for the salvation of the world, 
 the grand the only foundation of human hope for eternity, 
 should not have inspired and have been the burden of their 
 song, and that their faith in this inconceivably singular 
 event should not have frequently burst forth in the effu- 
 sions of wonder, love, and praise ? Upon this we should 
 have thought they would have with delight and ecstacy 
 expatiated unceasingly — upon this expended all the lan- 
 guage of loftiness and sublimity of which they were pos- 
 sessed. But no. On other subjects they do dwell in warm 
 and animated strain, and upon the work and salvation of 
 the Messiah they are not deficient in elevated and tri- 
 umphant praise ; but not once are their compositions 
 inflamed with what, had they known of it, must have 
 highly exalted them — the Deity of Jesus Christ. On this 
 they are silent. 
 
 Go forward next to the Nev/ Testament, where all 
 must be clear and effulgent. The Gospel of Matthew 
 was for about thirty years after Christ the only one in 
 existence. The writer must have intended it as an inde- 
 pendent history of the doctrines of Jesus, and no other 
 means of information on those subjects existed. And how 
 many passages in it are thought to have any reference to 
 the Deity of Christ ? Only two, from which it is con- 
 tended that it may be inferred, while it is directly opposed 
 by the general tenor of the whole. Now here is a Gospel 
 professing to contain a record of the principles of Christian 
 faith — professing to teach the doctrines of Christianity ; 
 the Deily of Jesus is supposed to be the soul and substance, 
 the very foundation stone of the Christian religion ; and 
 
 D 
 
45 GENERAL CONSIDfiRATIONSf. 
 
 yet what is the information we have on the subject? 
 Suppose that a modern Trinitarian wrote a history of 
 Christianity for the use of some heathen tribe who had no 
 other means of knowing the truths of our religion, would 
 he, think you, neglect stating the doctrines of the Trinity, 
 the compound nature of Christ, and other points con- 
 nected with them ? 
 
 It is remarkable also that in the Gospel of Mark there 
 is only one passage claimed by Trinitarians ; and in that 
 of Luke there are only two. Here, then, is a most singu- 
 lar case. Three of the Messiah's disciples write an account 
 of the doctrines he taught respecting the terms of our 
 acceptance with God — belief in the supreme divinity of 
 Christ is the condition of salvation, and these Gospels are 
 ushered into the world for the purpose of teaching men- 
 all that is necessary to be believed, each independently 
 professing to give all saving knowledge ; and yet it seems 
 they contain confessedly nothing on the grand points of 
 Christian doctrine, except a few incidental detached pas- 
 sages, from which the details of orthodoxy can be deduced. 
 Is this not a plain and decisive proof that the Deity of 
 ^Tesus was a doctrine totally ui'.known to the writers, and 
 consequently that Jesus never taught any thing of the kind 
 respecting himself? And since these Gospels were indited 
 under the divine inspiration, how much stronger does the 
 argument become. How should God have allowed them 
 to neglect that very part of the teaching of Jesus which 
 was of the greatest importance to all generations, for whom 
 the books were designed ? 
 
 Even in the Gospel of John, which was probably writ- 
 ten to supply the d. nciencies of tlie other Gospels, there 
 are not avowedly above a few passages that Trinitarians 
 can bring into their service. The sun of the Gospel fir- 
 mament does not shine even here, though John wrote his 
 Gospel to supply the light which the others failed to 
 communicate. I shall hereafter shew tiiat tlie few pas- 
 sages adduced in support of orthodoxy from that Gospel 
 are not only insufficient to prove it, but that they are all 
 reconcilable with the gencr;?! tenor of Scripture, as it re- 
 
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS- 
 
 47 
 
 lates to the sentiments maintained by us; that some ot 
 them may be brought with greater reason into the service 
 of our cause, and are absolutely inconsistent with any 
 other. ■ I shall also shew not only that the general voice 
 of Revelation supports Unitarianism, and that our doctrines 
 are stated in the very terms ; but also that in many dif- 
 ferent points of view the erroneousness of the current 
 theology may be deduced, while in various classes of pas- 
 sages it is directly contradicted. 
 
 We next advert to the preaching of the Apostles, in 
 which, if the Deity of Christ and the Trinity be doctrines of 
 Christianity, we shall find them blazing forth in meridian 
 splendour. Only examine, then, the sermon of Peter preach- 
 ed on the day of Pentecost, and those of Paul on various 
 occasions. See Acts ii. 22—37. iH. 12—23. iv. 10. v. 29- 
 X. 34—44'. xiii. 32—42. xiv. 11—17- xvii. 22—32. xviii. 
 4—7. xxiv. 14—25. xxvi. 22—24. Now Peter and 
 Paul must have Known what Christianity was, and is 
 there any thing in their discourses that has the smallest 
 connexion with that popular faith which is now preached.^ 
 Do the Trinitarian missionaries among the heathen preach 
 in the manner Paul and Peter did.? Are they content 
 with stating simply that ' Jesus was a man sent to bless 
 mankind by turning them from iniquity,' that he was 
 raised from the dead as a pledge of our future life, and 
 that he was appointed the judge of the world ? Do they 
 not press upon the attention of their auditors the doctrine 
 of Christ's Godhead, his wonderful incarnation and the 
 grand purposes of it? Do they not make these topics 
 the beginning and the end of their sermons ? Do they not 
 dwell upon them with the most solemn and pathetic emo- 
 tions } Do they not earnestly beseech the heathen tribes 
 to acquiesce in the plan of salvation accomplished by the 
 second person of the Trinity, and threaten them with 
 damnation if they reject their Trinitarian dogmas ? All 
 this is a decisive proof that they believe their system 
 to be true ; and so, by parity of reason, Paul, Peter, and 
 Philip's not having preached a system similar to theirs, is 
 ^n equal proof that they had no knowledge and no belief 
 
'"^B GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 of such a system. The Apostles preached no God but 
 the Father ; and unless we suppose they were unfaithful 
 to their trusty how can that be the Gospel which is com- 
 monly preached among us ? This difficulty, no Trinitarian 
 that T know of has ever attempted to soke, and I am 
 confidently persuaded no one can. 
 
 Let us next look into the Gospel Epistles. The state 
 of the case with respect to them is as follows. In the 
 Epistles addressed to the Thessalonians and the Galatians, 
 and in those of Philemon, James, and 2d Timothy, it is 
 not pretended that there is a single passage that supports 
 the orthodox opinions. And in the rest it is not contend- 
 ed that there are more than a few incidental scattered 
 passages that countenance those doctrines. An obscure 
 inference favours them in one Epistle, and a text or two 
 are claimed for them in another, but nothing more. Among 
 those Epistles, I of course include those addressed to the 
 Romans and the Hebrews. The former is the only one 
 that contains a methodical and systematic account of the 
 principles of Christian faith ; and in it how many texts 
 are there that have been adduced as favourable to Trinita- 
 rianism ? Merely two, and these wholly of an incidental 
 occurrence. It is much the same in the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, though there, as the value and importance of 
 Christ's death are dwelt on, we should naturally have ex- 
 pected that account of the economy of redemption in which, 
 according to the current theology, the Deity of Christ 
 enters as an essential article, and from which the value of 
 his death is absurdly conceived to arise. 
 
 Suppose a Christian were writing an epistle to a heathen 
 nation with the view of giving them a definite and compre- 
 hensive view of the Christian religion, would he just 
 incidentally allude to its grand and essential doctrines? 
 Would he not, on the contrary, give a distinct, precise, 
 and perspicuous account of the person of Christ as consti- 
 tuted both of God and man ? Would he not dwell on the 
 incarnation ? Would he not make this the foundation stone 
 of all his spiritual structure ? Would he not place it in 
 vtirious lights ? Would he not expatiate at large on the 
 
OfiNERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 49 
 
 infinite condescension and glory of Inonianuel, and endea- 
 vour by every possible means in his power to produce I'aith 
 in the mysterious principles of his creed? That tliis is 
 not the case in the New Testament Epistles, tome of 
 wliich are addressed to large bodies of Christians and 
 dwell at great length on the doctrines Unitarians exclu- 
 sively receive, which, if the orthodox system be correct, 
 are of little importance compared with the others that are 
 neglected, is to me a clear and indisputable proof that 
 ihose doctrines were unknown to the Apostles. 
 
 There is one additional circumstance that of itself bears 
 very strongly indeed against the truth of the orthodox 
 opinions. It is the acknowledged want of a single passage 
 in all Scripture together that ilales the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, or tiie incarnation and compound nature of Christ. 
 In no passage is it said that there are three equal infinite 
 beings, eacli possessed of the attributes of Deity, and yet 
 constituting one God. In no passage is it said tiiat Jesus 
 took the human nature into union with the divine, and 
 that both made one person. 
 
 Now, that God would communicate to the world doc- 
 trines like these, so strange, so difficult, so incomprehensible, 
 no apparently contradictory, and, at the same time, so 
 unutterably important, — in a manner so indirect and ob- 
 scure, so cold and unprotected^ in such s^cmiUness and 
 seeming inconsistency of statement, in fine, in a manner 
 so unbecoming the nature of the suljject and its infinite 
 moment, is so contrary to every idea we can form of what 
 is fit, and reasonable, and prop^ir, anc^ so opposed to the 
 best ideas we can form of the wisdoai and gooJness of the 
 Author of revelation, tiiat no one, I believe, who weighs 
 the matter impartially can see any reason whatever to 
 suppose tliat it could ever have been the will of God that 
 we should receive the mysteries of orthodoxy as c^ential 
 truths. 
 
 The Bible was intended to suit every diversity of inteU 
 leclual capacity. Its truths were designed tq come within 
 the cognizance of the savage as well as of the sage, within 
 the embrace of t!)e uncultivated peasant's Uiiderstandini; 
 
50 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 AS well as the grasp of those who by habits of mental 
 application and the energy of innate powers of intellect 
 are able to understand subjects of depth and difficulty. 
 The principle^ you are aware, on which we found the pre- 
 sent argument is this, that a doctrine of so much import- 
 ance as the Trinity must be stated with great plainness 
 and perspicuity, guarded with great care, and that it 
 must be both with great frequency. The Trinity, then, 
 to say less than could be said, is a most abstruse and 
 most incomprehensible tenet. It confessedly baffles re- 
 search, mocks investigation, and devours human thought. 
 It bids defiance to the most strenuous efforts of the migh- 
 tiest and most gigantic mind, ranking among the inscruta- 
 bilities of the universe, and in the highest classr of the 
 wonders of infinitude. It is allowed too that revelation is 
 the only foundation upon which our faith in this mystery 
 can be built. In proportion to its obscurity is the danger 
 of mistaking it, and according to the measure in which 
 this is the case should be the precision and the frequency 
 with which it is made known. 
 
 The inconsistency of the claims of Trinitarians will 
 appear much more striking, wiien we contrast the nature 
 and extent of the alleged evidence for Trinitarianism with 
 the manner in which those very doctrines are revealed, 
 the acknowledged truth of which creates the difficulty of 
 believing the others that Unitarians reject ; which also 
 are not only discoverable by the light of nature, and 
 perfectly reasonable, simple, and obvious in themselves, 
 hut which it would be absurd to deny. Take, for instance, 
 the existence and unity of God, the Deity of the Father, 
 and the humanity and inferiority of Jesus Christ. The 
 former are embraced by the understanding from the 
 contemplation of the works and ways of God after the 
 shortest course of the plainest reasoning, and the authority 
 of the conclusions from the premises afforded in nature 
 appears stamped before the eye of the mind with little 
 less than the decision and incontrovertibleness of intui- 
 tion. The premises are few and simple, the conclusion 
 js evident. 
 
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 51 
 
 The case is altogether different as it respects our means 
 of ascertaining the truth and existence of the Trinity. 
 Now in proportion to the number and the nature of the 
 sources of information and the grounds of belief which we 
 have for the being and unity of God, and which we have 
 not for the peculiar constitution of Deity for which Trini- 
 tarians contend, should be the degree of plainness and 
 commanding force and perspicuity which attends the reve- 
 lation of each. To satisfy and convince us of the existence 
 of the Great Original and of his unity, He himself has 
 made a simple process of argumentation go on in our minds, 
 which directly ends in the conclusion, that he is, and that 
 he is one. By the operation of the principles of reason 
 he has established in our mental constitution, we arrive at 
 the belief of his existence and unity, and we cannot but 
 rest in it with the utmost confidence and satisfaction; we 
 clearly see that to adopt any other hypothesis than that 
 to which we are thus led would be most irrational and 
 inconsistent. Now the declaration of Scripture being the 
 sole and exclusive authority upon which any one professes 
 to found hi3 belief of the Trinity, and it seeming to con- 
 tradict not only the very nature of things, but what are 
 acknowledged to be first principles of natural religion, and 
 the plainest testimonies to tlie divine tmity which arc 
 contained in the same sacred word, the case is altogether 
 different as it respects it and the doctrines of orthodoxy. 
 
 The clearness and frtquency, I repeat, with which the 
 Bible states these respective doctrines must correspond to 
 the nature and degree of evidence in support of each with 
 which nature and reason furnish us. Now, we may 
 learn the existence of a Supreme Intelligence and his 
 unity by induction from the works of creation ; from the 
 data which observation and experience supply, we may 
 arrive at the utmost satisfaction respecting his existence 
 and unity. The proofs of these are easy and plain to the 
 meanest capacity; we have demonstrnt'on of their trutii 
 independently of revelation, and to resist their authority is 
 impossible; and yet he has been pleased to make them 
 known by revelation in the most explicit and repeated 
 
52 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 manner. How much more plainly and how much more fre- 
 quently, then, must not be the statements of that doctrme 
 which is so apparently contradictory and absurd, so mys- 
 terious and unfathomable, which has so much appearance 
 of opposition to the doctrines of natural religion and the 
 explicit annunciations of the Divine unity, and concerning 
 which we have no other means of information or sources 
 of knowledge than the Scriptures. Shice the former are 
 revealed to us in terms very clear and unequivocal, are we 
 not reasonably led to conclude that God's intimations of 
 his mode of subsistence in Trinity and Unity will be very 
 much more clear, express, and frequent. 
 
 Is it not reasonable to expect that the New Testame.nt 
 would guard us against the danger of rejecting tiie Trinity ? 
 The doctrine looks like an absurdity to any mind. There 
 is much in the very nature of it which bears with peculiar 
 force against the probability of its being believed ; it is 
 but natural to reject it. The mind finds it altogether out 
 of the sphere of compreheubion, and opjjosed to all that 
 comes within the bounds of possibility. Might we not 
 then have expected that something should be said on the 
 nature of it, and in defence of its consistency with reason; 
 something calculated to shew us that it is not, as we sup- 
 pose, a contradiction. Shoukl we not have been frequently 
 and solemnly warned of the impropriety of alleging Its 
 opposition to reason as a ground of objection to it ? Siiould 
 we not have had numerous reasons assigned to shew the 
 folly and the inconsistency of such a conduct of the 
 understanding? Should we not have been reminded of 
 the weakness and futility of the human mind, and its total 
 incom})etency to judge of propositions connected in any 
 way with the nature of the Infinite.'' Should not our anti- 
 cipated objections have been met by the replication, that 
 many difliculties and incomprehensibilities are contained 
 in nature, and from this consideration should we not have 
 been called upon to hush our doubts and to check our 
 hoarings ? and would not the dangerous consequences of 
 rejecting the Trinity have been pointed out in the rTip"st 
 f.erious nnd solemn manner? 
 
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 53 
 
 Further, let us take into view the nature of the doctrine 
 of the Father's Deity with the intimations that are given 
 of it by Christ, compared with the nature of the doctrine 
 of the Deity of Jesus and the kind and degree of evidence 
 upon which it is conceived to be founded. Now the bodily 
 form of Jesus, his being subject to the feelings and suffer- 
 ings of humanity, his mode of life, his habit of speaking 
 of himself as a man, as a being distinct from God and 
 wholly inferior to him, his various indications of a sense of 
 dependance upon his Father, his attributing to him all his 
 knowledge, authority, and powers, his ascribing to the 
 Father the names and titles, the perfections, works, and 
 worship of the Deity, must all have impressed the minds 
 of the Jews with the notion that he was nothing else than 
 wl;at his usual declarations concerning himself clearly im- 
 plied. 
 
 They believed in the exclusive Deity of the Father, and 
 the language of Christ was in perfect unison with their 
 ideas. Now, though the Deity of the Father, and Christ's 
 humanity and his real inferiority to God, are doctrines 
 which needed no confirmation, Christ nevertheless used 
 language which would be certainly understood to state and 
 imply the truth of these, how much more fitted should his 
 language have been to convey to their minds the notion of 
 his Deity also, of which they had never dreamed. Should 
 not his language have been cast into the monld of this 
 doctrine? Should not his intimations of his being God 
 have at least been as frequent as are those respecting the 
 Deity of the Father? ' God the Son' would have been as 
 familiar a phrase with him and his apostles as ' God the 
 Father ;' the assertion of his necessary equality with Je- 
 hovah as frequent as are those which imply his subordi- 
 nation; and his claims to unity of essence with the Deity 
 as numerous as those declarations which would seem to 
 imply, in correspondence with the notions of the Jews, 
 that God is personally one, and that he himself was of the 
 nature of man. And in the New Testament in general 
 should the ascription to him of the names and titles, the 
 nttributes, works, and worship of the true God have been 
 
54 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 usual and express, as is the ascription of these to the 
 Father. . 
 
 The Jews could not conceive that two natures could 
 constitute but one being; that one mind or person could 
 be constituted of two minds, or that the same mind or 
 person could possess both the qualities of man and the per- 
 fections of God. They knew nothing of the mysterious 
 economy in which one divine person becomes the servant 
 of another divine person, while at the same time these 
 persons are equal in majesty ; nor could they comprehend 
 how these persons subsisting in equality could yet be one, 
 supposing any thing in our Lord's discourses had given 
 rise to such problems. 
 
 How much care, therefore, should have been taken to 
 counteract the influence of his general language respecting 
 himself, to explain the possibility of his being God as 
 well as man, to obviate the objections and to ward off the 
 danger of prejudice ? But no indications do we find of any 
 such concern having been shewn ; — a clear and simple 
 proof that he wished his language to be understood without 
 modification, that he neither made himself God nor wished 
 to be so regarded. 
 
 Christianity, it must be remembered, was planted and 
 grew up amidst sharp-sighted enemies, who overlooked no 
 objectionable part of the system, and who must have fas- 
 tened with great earnestness on a doctrine involving such 
 apparent contradictions as the Trinity. We cannot con- 
 ceive an opinion against which the Jews, who prided 
 themselves on their adherence to God's unity, would have 
 raised an equal clamour. Now, how happens it, that in 
 the apostolic writings, which relate so much to objections 
 against Christianity and to the controversies which grew 
 out of this religion, not one word is said, implyhig that 
 objections were brought against the Gospel from the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity ; not one word is uttered in its defence 
 and explanation ; not a word to rescue it from reproach 
 and mistake? This argument has almost the force of de- 
 monstration. We are persuaded, that had three divine 
 persons been announced by tiie first preachers of Chrjs^ 
 
TiENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 55 
 
 tianity, all equal, and all infinite, one of whom was the 
 very Jesus who had lately died on a cross, this peculiarity 
 of Christianity would have almost absorbed every other, 
 and the great labour of the apostles would have been to 
 repel the continual assaults which it would have awakened. 
 But the fact is, that not a whisper of objection to Chris- 
 tianity, on that account, reaches our ears from the apostolic 
 age. In the epistles we see not a trace of controversy 
 called forth by the Trinity, t 
 
 Further, it is allowed that during the life of Christ, his 
 disciples were ignorant of his Deity, and it may be true 
 as is contended, that, after the descent of the Holy 
 Spirit upon them, their minds became enlightened with 
 the knowledge of his character. But that no change 
 of sentiment took place in them on this point, I think 
 evident from the following general considerations. Sup- 
 posing that they became believers in the Deity of their 
 master, could tiie discovery of this most extraordinary 
 fact beam upon their minds without an overwhelming 
 amazement.'' When first the conviction of it entered their 
 minds, must it not have absorbed all their faculties in 
 astonishment and awe? When they came to discover that 
 a being who had every appearance and property of a man • 
 with whom they had always associated as such; whom 
 they had seen hungry and athirst ; whose weary steps, as 
 he travelled from place to place on the business of bene- 
 volence, they had often accompanied; whose slumbers 
 they had watched, and to the wants of whose nature they 
 had often ministered; when they came to discover that 
 this being was not what he appeared, and what they had 
 hitherto supposed ; that he was not a man, but the self- 
 existent and immortal God, — what a moment must that 
 have been ! What amazement, what awe, must have 
 seized them! With what sensations must ihey ever after 
 have contemplated him ! With what reverence must (hey 
 have approached him ! When in future thev saw him 
 kneeling down to pray; when they watched" him wrapt 
 
 t See Dr. Clianning'* Sermon, A«. 
 
56 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 in devotion,' — how must they have looked one upon the 
 other ! How must that extraordinary situation, for that 
 most extraordinary being, have impressed their minds ! Is 
 it possible that it should never have caused a single expres- 
 sion of surprise to escape them ? Or that, when they were 
 commissioned by this wonderful personage, to disclose 
 these astonishing facts to the world, they should never 
 speak of tlie error into which they at first fell ; of the 
 manner in which it was removed; of the sensations that 
 overwhelmed them on the discovery of the stupendous 
 truth ; that, on the contrary,, they should continue to 
 speak to him, and of him, as if none of these things had 
 ever happened ; that they should represent him in all 
 manner of situations but that one which must have been 
 infinitely more memorable and interesting to them than 
 any other, and should give him all manner of high and 
 dignified appellations, but that one which is the most 
 exalted of all, and the most descriptive of his nature ? 
 The terra God-man, essential to the hypothesis that Jesus 
 Christ possesses a human and divine nature, was invented 
 as soon as the doctrine was conceived ; but being altoge- 
 ther absent from the minds of the writers of the New 
 Testament, the term which is descriptive of it is no where 
 to be found in their records of his life and doctrine. :{: 
 
 On the supposition that the sentiments of the disciples 
 underwent the change contended for, how strangely does 
 their conduct appear when compared with that of Paul 
 and Cornelius after they became converts to the belief of 
 the Messiahship of Jesus. How minutely do they describe 
 the particular circumstances which led to their conversion, 
 and how unhesitatingly do they speak of their former sen- 
 timents and the revolution that their views had undergone ! 
 
 Again, it is observable that Christ never corrected the 
 notions of his disciples respecting his nature. Their 
 erroneous conceptions concerning the doctrine of the resur- 
 rection, the nature of his kingdom, and the ends of his 
 death, he distinctly noticed, and attempted to remove; 
 
 f See Dr. T- S. Smith's Appeal in behalf of Unitarian Christians. 
 
GfeNERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 5? 
 
 but what were these things in importance compared with 
 the knowledge of his Deity, which, according to Trinita- 
 rians, lies at the very foundation of all saving truth. His 
 not having given the most distant hint of their being mis- 
 taken in their apprehensions respecting his person and 
 dignity, is a clear and obvious proof that in regarding 
 him as a man they did rightly. 
 
 Further, it is maintained by Protestants that the errors 
 and corruptions of the Romish church, for instance, are 
 foretold very particularly. But our faith, if wrong, must 
 be a fundamental error, — not only bad, but fatal. And 
 that no prediction of the rise of our sentiments under the 
 character of error is to be found in the Old or New Tes- 
 tament, seems a proof that they are falsely regarded as 
 erroneous or dangerous. There is, moreover, a prophecy 
 of Scripture, which, we conceive, cannot have its due 
 accomplishment till Unitarianism generally prevail, " And 
 the Lord shall be King over all the earth : in that day 
 shall there be one Lord, and his name one." 
 
 Nothing, I think, can be plainer than that belief in 
 Jesus as ' God the Son' is not stated as the condition of 
 salvation. All that is necessary is faith in Christ as the 
 Messiah. Thus, " If thou shalt confess with thy mouth 
 the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God 
 hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." And 
 the professed object of John in writing his Gospel is ex- 
 pressly stated to be " That men might believe that Jesus 
 is the Christ, the Son of God." || 
 
 The doctrine of the Trinity is indeed from its nature 
 impossible to be believed, and cannot therefore be a reve- 
 lation from God. What we can form no conceptions of, 
 we cannot, in the very nature of things, believe; where 
 there are no ideas, there can be no such thing as belief. 
 Faith is an act of the understanding, and must have 
 intelligible propositions for its basis. 
 
 See Locke on this point in his work on Paul's Epistles. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 THE PERSONAL UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 Deuteronomy vi. 4. 
 The Lord our God is one Lord. 
 
 Adopting the maxim which applies to all reasonings 
 from effects to causes, viz. that no more causes ought to 
 be acknowledged than are sufficient to account for the 
 effects, we come to the conclusion, from the light of na- 
 ture, that the universe was formed by one Supreme Power. 
 Without entering into the details which would be necessary 
 to make out this inference, I shall advance to the evidence 
 of the unity of God which is to be found in Scripture. 
 To reveal, establish, and propagate this tenet, to which, 
 however sublime and rational, men have in all ages evinced 
 a strong aversion, was the grand end proposed to be ac- 
 complished by the Hebrew prophets. 
 
 It would be endless to quote all the passages that 
 might be adduced to prove the Divine unity ; they are 
 innumerable. The following are a specimen. '' I am God, 
 and there is no god with me," Deut. xxxii. S^. " To 
 whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the 
 Holy One," Isaiah xl. 25. " I am God, and there is 
 none else ; I am God, and there is none like me," Isaiah 
 xlvi. 9- In these passages, as in every other in which 
 the Almighty speaks of himself or is spoken of, his unity 
 as one individual person is denoted by the use of singular 
 pronouns. The word ' God,' which occurs in those pas- 
 sages, does not denote a collection of intelligent agents, 
 but one existence in the natural and only intelligible sense 
 of the word. And as those texts declare that there is no 
 
THE PERSONAL UNITY OF GOD. 59 
 
 Other God than the Being who excludes all from that 
 character but himself, Unitarianism is proved to be the 
 doctrine of Scripture. 
 
 The Jews, who were made the depositaries of God's 
 Word, and to whom he would certainly address himself 
 in a language they could understand, could have no idea 
 that by the appellation ' God' was meant three distinct 
 persons subsisting in unity of essence, or that singular 
 pronouns were used to denote a plurality of persons. How 
 could they understand that God's unity was a quite differ- 
 ent thing from the unity of other intelligent beings ? What 
 other idea than that of unity could have been attached to 
 the current language which Jehovah used concerning him- 
 self without an express admonition } And where is that 
 intimation to be found ? 
 
 We find also that Jesus Christ himself speaks of Jehovah 
 as one being, and affirms, in the language of the Old 
 Testament, that there is no other than he. Now what 
 effect was such language fitted to have upon the minds 
 of the Jews, to whom he certainly wished to be intelligible? 
 Could they imagine that the appellation ' God,' which he 
 was constantly in the habit of applying to his Father in 
 distinction from himself, was ever used by him to denote 
 himself.^ Certainly not. By the appellation ' God,' he was 
 universally understood to mean the Father ; and yet he 
 continually uses language similar to that we have quoted, 
 in which we have seen it unequivocally affirmed that God 
 is one being, and in which also all other beings are ex- 
 cluded from Deity in the very terms. 
 
 Thus, as when Jesus says " There is one God, and there 
 is no other but he," or quotes any language of similar 
 import from the Old Testament, the term '^God' must be 
 understood to signify the Father ; so the declaration of 
 Christ in these words is a statement of the exclusive Deity 
 of the Father. We cannot suppose that the meaning of 
 the term ' God,' as used by Jesus, was different from that 
 which it bears in the Old Testament. In the latter it 
 cannot mean three persons in unity, while it is used by 
 Jesus to signify the Father. Hence every passage in the 
 
60 THE PERSONAL UNITY OP GOD. 
 
 Old Testament in which it is declared that there is one 
 God, or that God is one, is a decided proof of Unitarianism. 
 And as the meaning of personal pronouns as used by 
 Christ, when applied to the Father, and as employed in 
 the Old Testament by Jehovah when speaking of himself, 
 must also be the same ; in every declaration of God in 
 which singular pronouns are used by him there is a clear 
 and pointed confirmation of our opinions. Thus again, as 
 when Christ declares " There is one God, and none other 
 but he" the pronoun he, being used in reference to the 
 Father, denotes one individual being ; so when it is said, 
 ^' I am God, and there is none besides me — To whom will 
 ye liken me, or shall / be equal, saith the Holy One ;" 
 the pronouns / and me imply that one being is spoken of. 
 
 Moreover, there are many passages of Scripture directly 
 implying that it was the Father, and not the Son also, 
 who uttered those declarations of the Old Testament that 
 so clearly assert the exclusive Deity of the being who 
 speaks. For instance, Christ declares, John viii. 54, " It 
 is my Father that honoureth me ; of whom ye say, that 
 he is your God." The same conclusion may be drawn 
 from Heb. i. 1, 2, where it is said, " God, who spake in 
 time past unlo the fathers by the prophets, hath in these 
 last days spoken unto us by his Son." For God, who spake 
 to the fathers by the prophets, being the person who hath 
 spoken to us by his Son, he cannot be the Son. t Since, 
 then, the Father was the author of such passages as Deut. 
 xxxii. 39. Isai. xl. 25. xlvi. 9- and our text, it necessarily 
 follows that none but the Father is Jehovah. Indeed, 
 this must appear evident from almost every passage in the 
 Old Testament in which Jehovah is represented as speak- 
 ing of himself or as being addressed by others. 
 
 With, Trinitarians, however, all these forcible considera- 
 tions are ineffectual, as long as they conceive their mys- 
 ticism to be supported even by a single passage. Accord- 
 ingly, in opposition to the tens of thousands of passages in 
 which God is spoken of as one person, the language he is 
 
 t Dr. Macknight. 
 
THE PERSONAL UNITY OF GOD. Ol 
 
 represented as having used when about to create man, is 
 adduced as a proof that in the one essence of Deity there 
 is a plurality of subsistences. Thus the passage runs : — 
 ^' Let \is make man in our image, after our likeness," or 
 more literally, " We will make man in our image." 
 
 The true explanation of this is to be found in the prac- 
 tice which has prevailed in all nations with which we are 
 acquainted, of persons of majesty and power speaking of 
 themselves in the plural number. "Given at our palace," 
 " it is our pleasure," are common expressions of kings in 
 their proclamations, &c. Thus Rehoboam speaks to the 
 young men of whom he asked counsel, 1 Kings xii. 9- 
 See also the letter of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, Ezra 
 iv. 18. Christ also speaks of himself in the plural number, 
 and Paul's common expressions respecting himself run in 
 this style. 
 
 If, therefore, we consider how common throughout the 
 world has been the use of plural pronouns to express the 
 dignity and authority of the speaker, is it surprising that 
 God should have used this language on an cccasicn or two, 
 especially on one which was so eminently to display his 
 moral and natural perfections as the creation of man. To 
 this it has be«n objected, that were such language that of 
 majesty, it would have been frequently used, and on such 
 occasions as the promulgation of the law, in which Jehovah 
 acted in the dignity of lawgiver. To this we answer, that 
 this form of expression was purposely avoided in order to 
 preserve the great doctrine of the unity of God as one 
 person from the possibility of misapprehension ; and we 
 retort thus: Why, if the doctrine of the plurality of the 
 Divine Being be truth, is the intimation of it confined to 
 a passage or two, when the general strain of the Old 
 Testament language so clearly seems in direct contradic- 
 tion to it ? 
 
 It is urged, however, that it is reasonable to suppose 
 that the language, " We will make man in our image," 
 was addressed to the same beings to whom Jehovah said 
 on the fall of Adam, " Behold the man is become as one 
 of us, to know good and evil," But this supposition is not 
 
 E3 
 
C)2 THE PERSONAL UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 necessary, and cannot be sliewu to be so. Further, there 
 is this reason for understaruliiig the one to have been 
 addressed to beings distinct from God, and the other not : 
 We know that inferior beings possess the knowledge of 
 good and evil, whereas we have no evidence that God 
 employed any assistants in the work of creation. On the 
 contrary, his own declaration on the subject runs thus : 
 " I am he that stretched forth the heavens alone, and that 
 formed the earth by myself." And supposing this and 
 similar passages did not prove the point, and that we 
 maintained the language "■ Let us make man, &c." was 
 addressed to angels, what could Trinitarians consistently 
 urge against it ? The notion of God's having created the 
 world by means of instrumental agents is not contrary to 
 reason. * The language would not imply more than that 
 God endowed tlem with the power of fashioning matter 
 into its present form, and that as his instruments he ad- 
 dressed them to call that power into exercise. 
 
 Moreover, it is said, " God made man in his image." 
 Now, if the plural pronouns us and our indicate a plurality 
 of persons in the Godhead, because they are plural, then 
 / and 7}ie imply one person, because they are singular. 
 To say the one relates to the Divine Being in his distinc- 
 tions and the others considered in his unity, is to interpret 
 according to the disputed principles of theology, taking for 
 granted the thing to be proved. It is to take the pronouns 
 us and tve as implying plurality on an undisputed princi- 
 ple of grammar, but not to take the singular pronouns 
 / and me as implying one person, though such is the 
 meaning of tiiem on the same principle also. It is to sup- 
 pose that a plurality of persons may speak both in the 
 singular and the plural, contrary to all usage, and to 
 overlook the correct account that can be given of the use 
 of plural pronouns by an individual. 
 
 It is further said, that by the plural Elohim, in the 
 declaration of the tempter, " Ye shall be as gods," we 
 jire not to understand angels, but God himself; and that 
 
 * Pr- Paley. 
 
THE PERSONAL UNITY OF GOD. 63 
 
 the language, " Behold, the man is become as one of us, 
 to know good and evil/' and that uttered by the tempter 
 being correlatives, we are to understand by the Elohim 
 mentioned in the proposal of the serpentine seducer, the 
 Deity in his distinction of plurality. 
 
 In opposition to this conclusion be it observed, that 
 if Elohim means the Supreme God, and denotes a plu- 
 rality of subsistences in the Godhead, it proves also 
 plurality of Gods, while the expression ^one of us,' 
 understood in the Trinitarian sense, implies precisely 
 the same. Unless angels are understood by Elohim, an 
 appellation which is not unfrequently given them in the 
 Old Testament and by which the Jews were accustom- 
 ed to denominate them, it must be supposed that the 
 object of ambition held up by the tempter to our parents 
 was likeness to the Supreme. But could this have been 
 that which overcame the virtue of our first parents ? Could 
 their judgment have been so perverted as to be led to 
 suppose that they could become as the Supreme in any 
 point of excellence? Would they not have considered 
 such a thing as most impious and extravagant? And we 
 may suppose that the tempter was too wise to use such 
 nnlikely means to accomplish iiis purpose as setting before 
 them the prospect of obtaining so singular an object. We 
 may rather suppose that the object of allurement was the 
 prospect of arriving to the likeness of the next order of 
 beings above themselves; and this was a much greater 
 temptation than the other could have been. 
 
 Allowing that Elohim signifies God, and not angels, this 
 would only suppose that the tempter had represented this 
 knowledge as possessed by the Supreme, in order to give 
 the more pompous view of its excellence, and by this 
 means insinuating that, by the possession of it. Eve should 
 become like him ; or it might only suppose that the ser- 
 pent had misrepresented it as knowledge peculiar to the 
 Deity, in order to exaggerate its value in her estimation, 
 Moreover, the correlation of the phrases we are considering 
 is not quite evident, because the latter may be rendered^ 
 
64 THE PERSONAL UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 " Behold;, the man who was or hath been like one of 
 us, now knowing good and evil." 
 
 It has been further objected that it is inconsistent with 
 the majesty of God to include his creatures with himself, 
 (speaking as if he had been only primus inter pares), 
 which, on the supposition that the words "^ Behold, &c." 
 were addressed to angels, it follows that he did. This 
 does not appear, I think ; for the only common ground in 
 which he includes them with himself is that of knowing 
 good and evil, and the language does not exalt angels so 
 much as the Trinitarian view of it exalts man. According 
 to it the persons of the Trinity address one another 
 in language which would seem to imply that man had 
 become superior to all creatures, that the knowledge of 
 good and evil had so elevated him in the scale of intelli- 
 gence, that he could not be compared to any being but 
 the Deity. 
 
LECTURE VL 
 
 THE FATHER THE ONLY TRUE GOD. 
 
 1 Corinthians viii. 6. 
 To us there is hut one God, the Father, of whom are all 
 things, and we in him ; and one Lofd Jesus Christ, 
 by whom are all things, and we by him. 
 
 Without adverting to the occasion on which these words 
 were written by the Apostle, I proceed to remark that 
 the passage has always been esteemed by us an evident 
 and decisive proof of the exclusive Deity of the Father. 
 To make our argument plain to the meanest capacity, I 
 shall adopt the simplest illustration of it imaginable. 
 
 Suppose, then, I should say to you, " To us Britons 
 there is one king," would not my assertion distinctly imply 
 that there was no other king of Britain but one? and if I 
 should immediately afterwards mention some other per- 
 sonage, would it not be obvious that by that personage I 
 did not mean the one British king of whom I had just 
 spoken ? Suppose again that I should say, " To us Bri- 
 tons there is one king, George tiie Fourth," would it not 
 be implied in my language that there was no other king 
 of Britain than he? and if I should immediately afterwards 
 name some other official personage, would it not be clear 
 that by that personage I did not mean the one king, 
 George the Fourth? When the Apostle declares, there- 
 fore, that to us Christians there is one God, the Father, 
 is it not as clear as sunbeam that he implies that the one 
 Lord, Jesus Christ, is not God, and that there is no other 
 God besides the Father ? 
 
06 THE FATHER 
 
 The fourth verse thus concludes : " We know that 
 there is none other God but one." Suppose again that 
 I should address you thus : '' There is no other king of 
 Britain but one/' and afterwards assert, '^ To us Britons 
 there is one king, George the Fourth/' would it not be 
 evident that by the one king in the latter case, I meant 
 the personage to whom I referred in the former? If then 
 I should immediately afterwards begin to speak of some 
 other person of dignity, would it not be obvious that the 
 latter personage was not the one king besides whom I had 
 said there was no other ? 
 
 When the Apostle says, ver. 4, " There is none other 
 God but one," and afterwards, ver. 6, '' To us there is 
 but one God, the Father/' is it not incontestibly certain 
 that he teaches the exclusive Deity of the Father. His 
 speaking immediately afterwards of any other person could 
 not therefore be understood as implying that that person 
 was the one God, the Father, besides whom he had said 
 there was no other. 
 
 But ingenuity has not been deficient in her exertions to 
 shew the possibility of maintaining Clirist's supreme divi- 
 nity in consistency with this passage of Scripture ; and it 
 has actually been adduced as a proof of that doctrine. 
 Thus the argument runs : " When the Apostle says, ver. 5, 
 ' Though there be that are called gods, as there be gods 
 many, and lords many/ it is obvious that ' the gods many 
 and lords many' are both included in the more general 
 and comprehensive phrase ' gods many.' The same sup- 
 posed beings which he first calls by the simple appellation 
 ' gods/ he distributes under the appellations ' gods and 
 lords.' The ^ lords many,' then, belonged to the number 
 of the heathen deities as well as the ' gods many/ and 
 as the Apostle's object was to shew that the Deity 
 should receive supreme homage and worship, and to the 
 gods many and lords many of the heathen, he opposes 
 not merely God the Father, but the one Lord Jesus 
 Christ, therefore the one Lord Jesus Christ is God as 
 well as the Father, and is entitled to the worship belong-* 
 jng to Deity/' 
 
tHE ONLY TRUE GOD- Sf 
 
 This is plausible at first sight, but it is certainly nothing 
 more. Supposing that the Apostle, in distributing the gods 
 into two classes, had designated each by an appellation 
 which, though peculiar to itself, was not in one instance 
 more descriptive of Deity than in the other, we might have 
 been led to understand that both the classes of distribution 
 ranked in the heathen mythology as divine beings or go(^. 
 But when in his supposed distribution of '^gods* into two 
 distinct classes, he confines to one of these classes the 
 appellation that he had given to the one general class, 
 it clearly appears that there was no distribution in the 
 case, and consequently that those alone ranked in the 
 order of proper heathen deities, to whom he exclusively 
 gives the name of ' gods/ His confining the general ap- 
 pellation *^ gods' in his subsequent specification to one class 
 of beings shews that by that class he meant exclusively 
 those whom he had mentioned under the same name. 
 
 And is not the very circumstance of the Apostle's 
 speaking of the gods and lords under the specific names by 
 which they had been known, a clear and obvious proof 
 that he spoke of them in the capacities which they were 
 understood respectively to hold ? Now we are informed by 
 Hesiod, Plato, Plutarch, and other heathen authors, that 
 their gods were superior to their lords. " The gods were 
 their celestial and sovereign deities; the lords were the 
 deified souls of worthy men, their Baalims and presidents 
 of earthly things, their agents and mediators between the 
 sovereign gods and men." t 
 
 The parallel the Apostle draws between the lords of the 
 heathen and the one Lord Jesus Christ, requires us to 
 understand, therefore, that the latter is perfectly distinct 
 in nature and personality from the one God, and wholly 
 inferior to him ; that ho )s the agent and mediator of God 
 the Father. 
 
 Accordingly the capacity sustai^ied by them in the 
 Christian dispensation is denoted by the respective appli- 
 cation of prepositions which have different meanings^ 
 
 I Dr. Samuel Clarke. 
 
68 THE FATHJER 
 
 " One God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we 
 for him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are 
 all things, and we through him." All this is simple when 
 the Father and the one Lord are considered according to 
 the relative dignity and offices of the gods and the lords 
 of the heathen. And nothing can be plainer than that dia 
 universally signifies instrumentality of operation, while 
 the prepositions applied to the Father denote original 
 power and agency in the matter with respect to which they 
 are used. In the application of these different prepositions, 
 we see a clear and precise distinction made between the 
 one God and the one Lord, such a distinction as the pa- 
 rallel of the Apostle exactly required, and such a distinction 
 as cannot be made to comport with the idea that the 
 Father and Christ are considered as of the same dignity 
 and dominion. 
 
 It is therefore wholly unfounded to say that the propo- 
 sition, " There is none other God but one," must be con- 
 sidered as identified in the reasoning of the Apostle with 
 the simple proposition, '' To us there is but one God, the 
 Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ." And even sup- 
 posing that under the general term *^ gods' he includes the 
 Mords' of the heathen, might not the Apostle be supposed 
 to have done so, merely because in the language of the 
 heathen they could be called or were actually called so 
 in an inferior sense. But the parallel he draws between 
 the ' gods many and lords many,' considered in their re- 
 lative dignity, (which was that of inferiority in the lords 
 and superiority in the gods), and the one God and the 
 one Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the prepositions used to 
 denote their respective capacities in the heathen institute 
 and the subsequent distinction of them by the appellations 
 that were respectively given to them by the heathen to 
 distinguish the one class or rank from the other, all decid- 
 edly shew that the Apostle spoke of the one God the 
 Father as the only supreme God. 
 
 He may have mentioned the ' gods' first and generally, 
 because it was his principal object to shew that there was 
 only one God to Christians. This being his main object. 
 
tHE ONLY TRUE GOD. 69 
 
 the parallel between the gods many of the heathen and 
 the one God would naturally enough come forth first in 
 his statement. Or he may have mentioned the ' gods many* 
 in the first place, because being supreme, they would first 
 strike his mind, or because the ' lords' would be under- 
 stood from the mention of the gods, every god having had 
 a lord as his mediator and agent. 
 
 It is further objected, that Christ being the Lord, if we 
 do not allow his lordship or dominion to be one with that of 
 the Father, we have more than one Lord. But this is merely 
 assuming the point in dispute. The whole parallel and 
 the application of the preposition dia, with respect to 
 Christ, make it certain that though he is indeed the Lord, 
 yet he is the one subordinate Lord. And the objection 
 might be thus retorted : Since the lordship of the Father 
 is confessedly absolute, if the dominion of Christ be the 
 same, we have certainly two absolute Lords. 
 
 Some of the ancient fathers argued, that as the Apostle 
 by saying, * there is one Lord,' cannot be reasonably sup- 
 posed to exclude the Father from being also the Lord of 
 Christians ; so neither, by saying, ' there is one God, the 
 Father,' ought he to be supposed to exclude Jesus Christ 
 from being also the God of Christians. But this either 
 takes for granted tTie thing to be proved ; or else proceeds 
 on the principle which one would adopt were he to say, 
 the king is not excluded from the dominion and authority 
 of the mayor; therefore the mayor's authority and power 
 are equal to those of the sovereign. 
 
 The exclusive Deity of the Father appears therefore 
 to be proved from this passage in the most clear and dis- 
 tinct manner; and we look not in vain for passages fully 
 as explicit and determinate on the point. Let us advert 
 to Ephes. iv. 4 — 6, " There is one Lord, one faith, one 
 baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and 
 through all, and in you all." Now, as when it is said, 
 ' there is one faith and one baptism,' it is implied that the 
 one faith is not the one baptism, nor the one baptism the 
 one faith ; so when it is said, ' there is one Lord,' and 
 afterwards, ' one God and Father of all/ it is as distinctly 
 
 F 
 
70 THE PATHEil 
 
 implied that the one Lord is not the one God of all, nof 
 the one God the one Lord. They are as perfectly distinct 
 as words can convey distinct ideas. The appellation ^ God ' 
 is given to one person, and there being but one God on 
 any scheme, the Father must alone be he. 
 
 Moreover, is it not very plain indeed, that among those 
 respecting whom it is said, ^ the Father is above,' the one 
 Lord is included? And is this any thing more or less 
 than that which the common phraseology of the New 
 Testament justifies, which speaks of God as ^* the God 
 and Father of Jesus Christ our Lord ; a phrase clearly 
 implying that in the same sense of superiority, (and not 
 with relation to any incomprehensible mode of eternal gene- 
 ration), Jehovah is called the Father of Jesus in which he 
 is called his God ; an assertion that cannot be made plainer 
 than by our Lord's declaration to Mary, before his ascen- 
 sion, " I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and 
 to my God, and your God." Indeed, when we attempt 
 to prove the Father to be the only God, we have in the 
 very name by which he is designated what marks and 
 brands with the name of invention all the metaphysical 
 conceits of ^begotten, not made,' ^ being of one substance 
 with the Father, &c.' and at once determines the absolute 
 superiority of the God of Jesus. 
 
 But as I wish to prove rather than to declaim, I shall 
 leave the picture to the admiration of those who love what 
 is most mysterious and contradictory, and go on to observe 
 that we have a clear and distinct declaration of the exclu- 
 sive Godhead of the Father in the introduction to Christ's 
 intercessory prayer, which runs thus : " This is life eternal 
 to know thee the only true God, and Jesus to be the Christ, 
 whom thou hast sent." It has indeed been said that he is 
 here denominated 'the 07ily true God' in distinction from 
 all false gods — to the exclusion of those " whom the false 
 persuasion of the Gentiles had introduced." But this is a 
 mere supposition, to evade a plain and disagreeable conse- 
 quence. Besides, the evasion will not prove effectual; for 
 in the very same sentence in which Jesus states the gloxious 
 advantage that would attend faith in his mission, the 
 
THE ONLY TRUE GOD. 71 
 
 only character in which he represents it as necessary that 
 he should be known is that of the Christ, a capacity that 
 distinguishes him from the Being whose Christ he is, and 
 a capacity which Jehovah can never be supposed to hold, 
 whether considered as forming part of the whole person of 
 Jesus or as considered abstractly, which, however, we 
 have seen, cannot be the case, since a nature cannot be 
 said to hold any office or do any action whatever. 
 
 Indeed, though the possibility of God's sustaining such 
 an office of inferiority could not be controverted on any 
 ground, still as it is held by Trinitarians, that to possess 
 the divine as well as the human nature is necessary for the 
 Christ in order to the discharge of the part he has to act 
 in the economy of salvation, we may ask, why is not be- 
 lief in the divine part of his constitution represented as 
 necessary to salvation? As the Christ it is supposed that 
 he is' God and man ; why then are not both these particu- 
 lars specified as the subjects of faith in a summary, as this 
 is, of those articles the belief of which is necessary to 
 human salvation. Moreover, Jesus in this passage ad- 
 dresses the Father in prayer; so that unless we are pre- 
 pared to admit that the character of the true God may be 
 ascribed to more than one being, and that one person may 
 address another and yet not be a totally distinct person, 
 we must acknowledge the strength of the passage in favour 
 of the doctrine that it would certainly convey to a mind 
 unacquainted with orthodoxy. Nothing can be plainer 
 than that the distinction here made by the word ' only' 
 is between Jesus as the messenger of God, and God who 
 sent him; and at the very least it may be said, that whe- 
 ther or not the word ^only' had reference to the heathen 
 deities, it tacitly and effectually excludes Jesus himself 
 from the rank of the Sovereign of the world. 
 
 The only passage in which it is supposed to be affirmed 
 that the appellation ^ true God' is applied to Jesus, is 
 1 John V. 2D. But, in the first place, supposing that the 
 sense of the passage shewed Jesus Christ to be the imme- 
 diate antecedent, we might understand that the pronoun 
 Ihis or he referred to the remote antecedent in the same 
 
7^ THE FATHER 
 
 manner as in 2 John 7^ especially as they both occur in 
 the same author. 2. The sense of the passage leads us to 
 understand God to be the proper antecedent; for as the 
 first occurrence of the phrase 'him that is true* certainly 
 refers to God the Father, so, according to the structure of 
 the words, the second occurrence of it must also refer to 
 him. 3. To suppose that the first occurrence of it refers 
 to God, which no one can deny, and that the second refers 
 to Christ, is to make the Apostle affirm that the Son of 
 God has given us an understanding to know him that is 
 true (or God), and then to apply the same phrase to Jesus, 
 who came to give us an understanding to know the being 
 whom he had distinguished and described as " him that is 
 true." 
 
 The ambiguity arising from the use of the word 'even* 
 has no foundation ; for it is not in the original, and the 
 preposition that follows may be understood in the sense of 
 ' through,' which indeed it might equally well be rendered. 
 Dr. Clarke understood the pronoun 'this* to refer to the 
 knowledge of the true God communicated by the Son. 
 " This knowledge is the knowledge of the true God and of 
 eternal life." 
 
 And indeed, supposing Jesus to be the subject of the 
 last sentence for another reason than those already assigned, 
 the passage would not prove that he is called the true 
 God ; for as when it is said, "he is the eternal life,*' the 
 meaning is only that he is the way to, or the way to the 
 knowledge of, eternal life ; so when it is said that Jesus is 
 the true God, the meaning could only be, that he is the 
 way to, or the way to the knowledge of, the true God. 
 This is a sentiment in exact accordance with all those 
 Scriptures that represent Christ only as the medium by 
 which we arrive at the knowledge and enjoyment of eter- 
 nal life. Such as, '' I am the way, the truth, and the life." 
 " God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in or 
 through his Son." '' Eternal life is the gift of God, 
 through our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 The exclusive Deity of the Father is also stated in the 
 very terms in the following passages ,• " They sing the 
 
THE ONLY TRUE GOD. 73 
 
 song of Moses and of the Lamb, saying, Great and mar- 
 vellous are thy works. Lord God Almighty ; just and true 
 are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear 
 thee, O Lord, and glorify t!iy name ? for thou only art 
 holy," Rev. xv. 3, 4. '' The only Lord God, and our 
 Lord Jesus Christ," Jude 4. " To the only wise God our 
 Saviour, be glory and majesty," Jude 25. Many copies 
 read "through Jesus Christ," and the term God is re-' 
 stricted to the Father in the former verse. '' To the only 
 wise God, be glory through Jesus Christ," Rom. xvi. 27- 
 " But of that day, and that hour, knoweth no man, no, 
 not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but 
 the Father," Mark xiii. 32. 
 
 It has been observed with respect to the last passage, 
 that no one can deny that ignorance of the minutest part 
 of the plan of providence is as inconsistent with the nature 
 of the Deity as ignorance of the whole ; and that he could 
 not be God to whom every atom in the boundless immen- 
 sity of space, and every moment in the endless duration 
 of eternity, are not perfectly known. They who maintain 
 that Jesus Christ is Supreme God, must surely mean, if 
 words have meaning, that in his mind were concentrated 
 all the infinite attributes of Deity. But what can more 
 directly and clearly refute this supposition than our Savi- 
 our's express declaration, that there were, in the eternal 
 counsels of the Father, a day and an hour that he knew 
 not, or that were in fact hidden from him ? Can we sup- 
 pose for a moment that he who made this open declaration 
 either regarded himself as the omniscient God, or wished 
 to be so regarded ? 
 
 I am well aware, however, that the maintainers of the 
 doctrine in question have made an attempt, no doiibt from 
 the best and purest motives, to give this passage an inter- 
 pretation corresponding with their general views. This 
 attempt we are now to examine. 
 
 It is said that when our blessed Lord imputes to himself 
 imperfection, or any thing that implies it, we are to regard 
 him as speaking, not of his divine, but of his human nature. 
 A» a human being, they say, he was ignorant of many 
 
 F 3 
 
74 THE FATHER 
 
 things, though as God he was omniscient. Jesus Christ, 
 the man, might not know what Jesus Christ, the second 
 person of the Godhead, did. The remarks respecting the 
 doctrine of the two natures of Christ, considered in itself 
 and as a principle of interpretation, are, in ray opinion, 
 more than sufficient to shew the utter groundlessness, in- 
 consistency, and absurdity of any interpretation of any 
 part of Scripture, upon the foundation of that doctrine. 
 But the following remarks of an admirable writer * are so 
 very pertinent to the subject, and so clearly stated, that I 
 cannot help quoting them. 
 
 " Are we to understand that the divine and human na» 
 ture, in the person of our Saviour, were perfectly distinct, — 
 so much so that there were subjects on which they held 
 no communication, and were variously informed? Are we 
 to understand that those same organs of speech, of which 
 the divine nature made use at one time, to proclaim its 
 omniscience, were employed by the human nature at 
 another, to declare the imperfection of its knowledge? 
 Are we to understand, in short, that two different beings, 
 a perfect and an imperfect, a finite and an infinite, occupied 
 the same body ; and spoke and acted, at different times, 
 in a different and inconsistent manner ? Is this the doctrine 
 which we are required to receive as the doctrine of Scrip- 
 ture ? — and must we, at the same time, believe that these 
 natures, thus distinct and unconnected both in word and 
 deed, were nevertheless so perfectly united as to form one 
 indivisible person, one perfect deified man ? Surely an 
 opinion so monstrous, so made up of direct contradictions, 
 cannot have the sanction of the Word of Truth. If the 
 mind of Jesus was owe, and this is not disputed, it could 
 not, at the same time, have been informed and uninformed 
 upon the same subject ; — the same idea could not, at the 
 same moment, have been present to and absent from it. 
 
 *' Our Lord's assertion is, that he knew not the day and 
 hour. Shall we then suppose him to mean, that though 
 
 * Dr. Joseph Hutton, in his Sermon entitled " Omniscience the Attribute 
 of the Father ofily." 
 
THE ONLY TRUE GOD. 75 
 
 he did know it as the Deity, he did not know il as man ; 
 or, in other words, that the particular portion of his nature 
 which was human was not the source of his knowledge ? 
 What is this but to ascribe to our blessed master words 
 which, if explained by him, would have been found to 
 contain nothing better, even upon the Trinitarian hypo- 
 thesis, than a flat and unprofitable truism ; and which^ 
 unexplained, could be regarded in no other light than as a 
 mere equivocation. Let it be remembered, as a fair and 
 legitimate, though I must think it will appear a startling 
 consequence of this mode of interpretation, — that our Lord 
 might, consistently with his character and with truth, have 
 denied in one place, in terms as strong and direct as he 
 affirmed in another, — saying / knorv, one moment, and / 
 know not, as confidently, the next,— his knowledge of the 
 human heart, of the circumstances of his own approaching 
 death, of the destruction of Jerusalem, of the general re- 
 surrection and judgment, in short, of every thing which, 
 as a mere man, he could not have known. Those whose 
 minds revolt against such a theory and such a consequence, 
 and who would not put an equivocation into the mouth of 
 him who was " the truth," as well as '^ the way and the 
 life," will probably agree with me, that Jesus would not 
 have professed himself ignorant of that which iie really 
 knew, in any character or nature whatsoever, whether 
 human or divine " 
 
LECTURE VIL 
 
 THE FATHER THE EXCLUSIVE OBJECT 
 OF WORSHIP. 
 
 John xvi. 23. 
 In that day ye shall ask me ?wlhing. Verily, verily, I 
 say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask ike Father in 
 my name, he will give it you. 
 
 Worship constituting the most solemn service we can 
 render to the Great Creator and Governor of the worlds 
 and Christianity professing to teach us ail that concerns 
 our duty towards him, the rule by which we should direct 
 our homage must be laid down very explicitly indeed;, and 
 so we find it to Jae. The text, the very text, my brethren, 
 proves that our sentiments as Unitarians with respect to 
 the proper object of religious worship are correct— wholly 
 and undeniably correct. Let orthodox ingenuity be called 
 into exercise, as it frequently is on other points, and what 
 can it do to overthrow the firm foundation on which our 
 principles rest.^ Speaking of the day in which he was to 
 ascend to heaven, Jesus in the most express terms declares 
 to his disciples, "^ In that day ye shall ask me nothing ; 
 whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will 
 give it you." We regulate our worship according to this 
 rule. We are therefore right, and of course the multitude 
 must be wrong in worshiping him who thus to his disciples 
 declares that when removed from the sphere of sensible 
 communication, they should ask him nothing. Where is 
 iJjere an express command to worship Jesus, as there is 
 h^re an injunction not to worship him ? 
 
THE FATHER, &C. 77 
 
 But this is not all. Who are declared by Jesus to 
 be the true worshipers ? Hear his own explicit words : 
 " The true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit 
 and in truth ; for the Father seeketh such to worship him." 
 Were there no other passage in the whole Bible, which 
 authorizes the Unitarians to restrict their worship to the 
 Father only, this would be abundantly sufficient. It most 
 authoritatively and solemnly commands them, if they 
 would be considered true worshipers, to pay their adoration 
 to no other person or being. By what fatality does it 
 happen, that serious and inquiring Christians never think 
 of this passage ; or if they do think of it, by what means 
 do they evade its force } What sense do they affix to it ? 
 If those are the true worshipers who worship the Father, 
 how can they be so who worship two other beings besides 
 the Father } Those who worship ' the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Ghost, three persons in one God,' are never 
 in the Scriptures said to be the true worshipers. Those 
 who worship the Father only are. The worshiper of one 
 God, in one person, has, therefore, the express and solemn 
 declaration of Jesus Christ, that he is the true worshiper. 
 All other persons whatsoever are destitute of this high 
 and decisive authority ! 
 
 But there are many other passages equally striking and 
 authoritative that bear directly upon this subject. Such 
 is the Lord's prayer itself^ given by Jesus Christ for the 
 very purpose of teaching his disciples how to pray. The 
 occasion to which we owe this model of authorized and 
 acceptable worship, is so peculiar, and makes so directly 
 in favour of the worshiper of one God in one person, that 
 had he had the framing of circumstances which should for 
 ever decide the matter as he wished it, by the highest 
 authority, and in the most perfect manner, it is impossible 
 to conceive how he could have caused any others to hap- 
 pen, which would have been so conclusive. The disciples 
 of our Lord, as if apprehensive that they might not have 
 been in the habit of praying aright, or, believing that their 
 divine Master might pour some fresh light upon their 
 minds; or, convinced that he would graciously remove 
 
78 THE FATHER THE 
 
 their errors if they were wrongs and establish them in the 
 truth if they were right, with humility and earnestness^ 
 asked his counsel and direction. They appear, too, to 
 have been deeply and solemnly impressed with his own 
 manner of addressing the universal Parent ; and they were 
 convinced that no one was so well qualified to instruct 
 them in the proper performance of this most important 
 duty. ^'^ And it came to pass, (says the sacred historian), 
 that as he was praying in a ceriain place, when he ceased, 
 one of the disciples said unto him. Lord, teach us to pray, 
 as John also taught his disciples ; and he said unto them. 
 When ye pray, say. Our Father which art in heaven, 
 hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, for thine is 
 the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever. Amen." 
 
 Now, I not only say that Christians have a right to 
 regulate their worship according to this perfect pattern of 
 prayer, but I affirm that it is their solemn and indispensa- 
 ble duty to do so. If ever the commands of Jesus Christ 
 were authoritative ; if ever his directions were complete, 
 they must be conceived to be so in this instance ; — for it 
 regards an act the most important upon which he could 
 convey instruction, and the most intimately connected with 
 the great object of his mission. If, however, the general 
 practice of Christians in the present day be right, this ex- 
 ample of prayer, instead of being a perfect pattern of it, 
 is exceedingly defective. It directs the mind to one object, 
 one person, one being alone ; and to this one object, person, 
 or being, it gives the name of Father. This, therefore, 
 was a most direct and complete confirmation of the great 
 peculiarity of the Unitarian doctrine. 
 
 It was a most direct and complete confirmation of the 
 general practice of our Lord's disciples, who, in common 
 with all Jews, were in the habit of praying to one God in 
 one person ; for that the Jews were acquainted with the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, and that they paid their adorations 
 to a Triune God, no one pretends to believe, this doctrine 
 being always spoken of as one of the peculiarities of the 
 4l!hristian system. 
 
 fJerC; then, are a number of persons, who had always 
 
EXCLUSIVE OBJECT OF WORSHIP. 7!? 
 
 been in the habit of praying to one God in one person^, 
 assembled around a Being who was come into the world 
 on purpose to instruct them in every thing that concerns 
 the Deity. According to the common notion, they had 
 been in the habit of believing a great error, and of acting 
 exceedingly wrong ; for, if it be proper to worship the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, three equal persons 
 in one undivided essence, — the worship of one of these 
 persons, of the Father only, must be a great error. With 
 the earnestness of sincerity, they beseech their divine in- 
 structor to open their minds to the perception of the truth; 
 and, indeed, to enlighten them on this very subject was 
 one great object of his coming into the world. What then 
 does he do in answer to their request ? Does he avail him- 
 self of this opportunity to remove their error ? Does he 
 tell them that they have done well to ask him, for that 
 they have all along been addressing their adorations not to 
 the proper object of worship, but to only a part of that 
 object ? Does he say, " You have been in the habit of 
 praying to the Father only. This is wrong, for there 
 are three equal persons in the Godhead, who demand 
 alike the homage of your hearts. There are the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; it is your duty to worship 
 each." Does he command them, when ye pray, say, — 
 " O God the Father of Heaven, have mercy upon us — O 
 God the Son, redeemer of the world, have mercy upon us 
 — O God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father 
 and the Son, have mercy upon us — O holy, blessed, and 
 glorious Trinity, three Persons and one God, have mercy 
 upon us." Does he enjoin them \o urge their petitions by 
 such pleas as the following ? '• By the mystery of thy 
 holy incarnation ; by thy holy nativity and circumci.^ijon ; 
 by thy baptism, fasting, and temptation ; by thine agony 
 and bloody sweat ; by thy cross and passion ; by thy pre- 
 cious death and burial ; by thy glorious resurrection and 
 ascension ; and by the coming of the Holy Ghost." We 
 know who has commanded us thus to pray ; but we know 
 that it is not Jesus Christ. Happily, his own words are 
 placed upon record, and they are : " When ye pray say. 
 
80 THE FATHER THE 
 
 Our Father which art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name, 
 thy kingdom come, thy will be done, thine is the kingdom,'* 
 i&c. We follow his direction ; we conceive that we are 
 bound to do so ; we think that we are likely to be led into 
 misconception in opinion, and error in practice, by follow- 
 ing any other guide ; and because this is our belief, and 
 because we act in conformity to it, we are denounced as 
 heretics. 
 
 Is it possible that, if Jesus Christ knew that it was proper 
 and necessary for his diciples to pray to three Persons in one 
 God, and that to teach them this was one great object for 
 which he came into the world, he would never tell them 
 so ; would he allow such an opportunity as the present to 
 escape, without disclosing to them this momentous truth, 
 and would never, that we know of, avail himself of any 
 other occasion to do so ? Even supposing, what can never 
 be proved, that his disciples were already fully instructed 
 in the doctrine of the Trinity, it is evident that they were not 
 satisfied with regard to the manner in which they ought to 
 worship it. They were, at least, not sure that they ought 
 to say, ^'^ O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three Per- 
 sons in one God." They had never been in the habit of 
 using such a formulary ; and they were not yet convinced 
 that it was their duty to do so. They apply therefore to 
 their master for instruction ; and instead of directing them 
 to pray after this new mode, he commands them to employ 
 the language to which they had always been accustomed ; 
 for every person knows that the words of the Lord's Prayer 
 are a selection from the liturgy in common use among 
 the Jews in the days of our Lord. 
 
 When the diciples of our Lord perceiving that he was 
 in the daily habit of praying to the Father, and to no other 
 person or being ; when this was the practice to which they 
 themselves were always accustomed ; when they expressly 
 asked him if this practice were right, and he assured them 
 it was, by directing them to continue the use of the com- 
 mon language, — could they possibly believe that they were 
 to worship two other persons besides the one invocated in 
 the fbrm prescribed.^ Could they conceive that Jesus 
 
feXCLUSIVE OBJECT OF WORSHIP. 81 
 
 Christ himself was one of those other persons ? He 
 whose most humble and devout addresses to the Father 
 they so often Witnessed, could they imagine that this very 
 Being was the Father, or an essential part of the Father ; 
 If so, to whom could they suppose his devotions were 
 addressed? Could they imagine it was God praying to 
 God. X 
 
 The form of prayer prescribed by our Lord is sanctioned 
 as a model of worship by everi/ passage of Scripture that 
 inculcates the duty of prayer ; and the authority of Uni- 
 tarianism is also confirmed by eVery instance that the New 
 Testament affords of worship being offered. As to the 
 first, see Rom. xv. 6. Ephes. v. 20. Col. i. 12. & iii. I7. 
 And as to the second, see Ephes. iii* 14. Col. i. 3. 
 
 The very circumstance of our being commanded to 
 worship God in the name of Christ, is a distinct and direct 
 intimation that Christ himself is not to be worshiped. 
 Tn all the varied statements of Trinitarianism, I have 
 found nothing that has been adduced to disprove this con- 
 clusion, and how is it possible that any thing could be, as 
 long as language has a specific meaning? Moreover, are 
 not the words of Christ in our text, " Whatsoever ye shall 
 ask the Father in my name," placed in direct opposition 
 to putting up petitions to himself, and used iu distinction 
 from offering up prayer to the Father? 
 
 In what single instance do we find our Lord addressing 
 his prayer in the manner of modern Christians, to a second 
 or a third person of the Godhead ? In what passage does 
 he address ' God the Son,' or ' God the Holy Spirit,* or 
 the *^ Triune Deity, three persons in one God?' Yet 
 surely, if the human nature could speak and act apart from 
 the divine, (which Trinitarians maintain as an essential 
 part of their system, and by means of which alone they 
 attempt to reconcile the circumstance of Jesus offering 
 prayer with his supposed independence of power), we 
 should, upon the Trinitarian hypothesis, have had at least 
 some, if not many, such instances. Our great examplar 
 
 t See Dr. T. S. Smith'a Appeal in behalf of Unitarian Christian*; 
 
82 THE FATHER THE 
 
 would not have left us, as many modern Christians seem 
 to think he has done, imperfect models of devotion. He 
 would not have addressed the ' first person' only, to the 
 exclusion of the second and the third, though co-equal, 
 co-essential, and eternal. He would not have allowed his 
 followers to be more full and perfect in their devotions 
 than himself. He would have furnished, both by precept 
 and example, an unanswerable justification of the practice 
 of those who address him in his supposed divine nature 
 through a long series of petitions, saying, " Good Lord, 
 we beseech thee to hear us." Thus using the very epithet 
 which he certainly rejected. 
 
 Let the serious Christian consider how far he is justified 
 in framing his devout addresses to his God, without clear 
 and distinct authority from Scripture, and upon a model 
 altogether different from that which Jesus Christ and his 
 Apostles have furnished j in disregarding that plain injunc- 
 tion of our Lord, upon which there is so much reason to 
 believe that his first followers acted : " In that day ye 
 shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you. 
 Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will 
 give it you." 
 
 Further, to worship two beings alike, we must entertain 
 towards each the same degree of grateful, loving, and 
 adoring sentiments. But this, according to the represen- 
 tations that are given in Trinitarianism of their respective 
 characters, is impossible. The peculiar offices ascribed to 
 Christ by the popular theology make him the most attrac- 
 tive person in the Godhead. The Father is the depositary 
 of the justice, the vindicator of the right, the avenger of 
 the laws, of the Divinity. The Son, the brightness of the 
 divine mercy, stands between the incensed Deity and guilty 
 humanity, exposes his meek head to the storms and his 
 compassionate breast to the sword of the divine justice, 
 carries our whole load of punishment, satisfies the jus- 
 tice and bears the strokes of the vengeance-teeming hand 
 of the Father, while his own justice is not satisfied. To 
 the Son, therefore, it is that we owe salvation, and by no 
 means to him who exacts for our iniquities a full and 
 
EXCLUSIVE OBJECT OF WORSHIP- 83 
 
 fearful payment. Supposing, however, that, according to 
 the common theology, we owe to the Father our salvation 
 in some sense, still the Son must be the supreme object of 
 our affection — to him our greatest gratitude and our most 
 fervent praise are certainly due. How is it possible, then, 
 that we can give the same degree of pious worship to the 
 Father that we must give to the Son ? And, if not, it is 
 impossible we can be commanded to worship both as God; 
 for to God who is the Father supreme worship is due. 
 
 If Jesus be worshiped, he must be so, considered as a 
 person. On the Trinitarian hypothesis, his person is con- 
 stituted of a human nature as well as a divine. But as a 
 nature is a mere abstraction, it is impossible for us to wor- 
 ship his divine nature without at the same time worshiping 
 the human. The supposition, therefore, that we must 
 worship Jesus, necessarily produces the idea that his hu- 
 man nature as well as his divine is to be worshiped ; that 
 his humanity is to be deified ; that a creature is to receive 
 the adoration of the universe. These arguments have 
 never yet been shewn to be fallacious, and undoubtedly 
 they never can. 
 
 But you will conceive that there are certainly some 
 reasons adduced in justification of the practice of worship- 
 ing Jesus. There are no doubt a few, and these we shall 
 now examine. — The case of Stephen has been alleged as 
 an example of the worship of Christ. But it must be re- 
 marked that, before offering up prayer, Christ appeared 
 to him in vision ; and there is every reason to suppose 
 that when Stephen offered up his petition, he either con^ 
 ceived that Jesus was in sonoe manner present with liim, 
 or that he saw Jesus as formerly. Now, there is a very 
 wide difference between offering up petitions to a present 
 being, and to one that is not so. 2. It was in the character 
 of '" the Son of man standing on the right hand of God," 
 that Stephen addressed Jesus ; for in that character Stephen 
 describes him in his account of the vision. It was there- 
 fore as a being distinct from God, and obviously inferior 
 to him, that Stephen regarded Jesus in addressing him. 
 3. The difference of the posture assumed by Stephen when 
 
84 THE FATHER THE 
 
 he addresses God, clearly indicates that supreme worship 
 was not intended in his former address to Jesus ; and the 
 different kind of petition he put up to God, supposes that 
 he regarded Jesus as an inferior being. 4. If this instance 
 prove any thing, it proves too much ; for if it countenance 
 the propriety of giving supreme worship to Jesus, it affords 
 also a precedent for making him a dislmct object of wor- 
 ship^-for prayin*^ to him apart from the first and the 
 third persons of Trinity. 
 
 It has been further said that there are some instances 
 in which Jesus is represented as receiving worship from 
 the Jews while he was on earth. A more weak and pre- 
 posterous idea cannot well be imagined. They who 
 urge this seem not to be aware of the latitude of meankig 
 in which the Greek word proskujieo is employed- See, 
 for example, Dan. ii. 46. Gen. xxiii. 7^ 12. 
 
 The word, in the instances alleged, is in fact the one 
 most commonly used to denote that respect and veneration 
 which men are accustomed to render to their superiors. 
 Had Christ permitted himself to be treated as an object 
 of religious worship, and that in a public manner too, it 
 would not have been overlooked by the scribes and phari- 
 sees. On this ground they would not have failed to con- 
 demn him as an enemy to the most fundamental principle 
 of the law, the worship of the one God. Their total 
 silence on this point proves that they did not consider the 
 worship he received as of the same kind with that due to 
 God. The words leitourgeo, latreuo, sehomai, and proS' 
 euchomai, are never applied as expressive of the worship 
 that was on any occasion given to Jesus ; but universally 
 to that which was given to the Father. 
 
 The only other argument for the worship of Christ is 
 drawn from the use of the word epikaleomai in conjunction 
 with the phrase ^ the name of Jesus,' as in Acts ix. 14. 
 xxii. l6. 1 Cor. i. 2. 2 Tim. ii. 22. Now, all these pas- 
 sages might with equal propriety be rendered ^ that call 
 themselves by; that take upon themselves the name of 
 Christ ; or that call the name of Jesus upon them.' These 
 are precisely the same in meaning. The phrase from itg 
 
EXCLUSIVE OBJECT OP WORSHIP. 85 
 
 frequent occurrence appears to have been a common and 
 well understood form of expression. It occurs frequently 
 in the midst of historical narrative^ wiiere the writer is 
 simply stating a fact or designating a class or profession 
 of persons, and where those who profess the name of Christ 
 would have equally well comported with the drift of the 
 passages. 
 
 According to a very common form of Hebrew phrase- 
 ology, the being or person who assumes a peculiar property 
 in any thing is represented as calling it by or giving it a 
 
 name. Thus in Isai. xliii. 1. xlix. 1. Gen. xxvi. 18 
 
 22. Isai. ivi. .5. Ixv. 15. And as the being who claimed 
 a peculiar property in any thing was said to give it a 
 name ; so the thing possessed was frequently said to be 
 called by the name of the possessor. Thus Israel, the 
 ark, the temple, are all said to be called by the name of 
 the possessor. Of this form of speech the examples are 
 very numerous. Deut. xxviii. 10. 2 Sam. vi. 2. Isai. iv. 
 1. Gen. xlviii. l6. Acts xv. 17* James iv. 7. &c. In 
 exact conformity with this phraseology, he who makes 
 himself the possession, ranges himself under the standard, 
 devotes himself to the cause and service of another, is said 
 to call himself by that person's name, or perhaps to invoke 
 his name as the name by which he would be called. Of 
 this we have a remarkable instance in Isai. xliv. 5, *' One 
 shall say, I am the Lord's; and another shall call himself 
 l)y (according to the Septuagint shall call upon) the name 
 of Jacob ; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto 
 the Lord, and call himself by the name of Israel." 
 
 It is hardly necessary to observe that the Hebrew word 
 translated boesetai, in the first clause of the verse, may 
 be rendered with equal if not greater propriety as it is in 
 innumerable other passages by the Greek verb epikaleomai, 
 in which class the parallelism to the class of texts referred 
 to in the New Testament would have been as exact as 
 possible. It cannot surely be supposed that the prophet 
 intended or that the writer of the Greek version understood 
 him to speak of any one who should worship Jacob in 
 Israel. Compare Gen. xlviii. I6. 
 
 G iJ 
 
S6 THE FATHER THE 
 
 That calling upon the name of Christ does not imply 
 any devout communion with him, or address of prayer to 
 him, may be deduced from the very form of expression 
 employed in Acts ix. 21, " destroyed them who called on 
 this name." Surely if these auditors of Paul meant to 
 describe the disciples as worshiping Jesus, the expression 
 would not have been " which called on this name," but 
 rather, ' on this Jesus,' or at least, ' on the name of Jesus/ 
 We may speak of invoking or assuming a name, but hardly 
 of worshiping it. Paul says, " I appeal before Festus," 
 literally, " I invoke or call upon him." Here doubtless a 
 species of invocation is intended ; but it is that of an absent 
 person, and implies no more than the acknowledgment of 
 his authority and a desire to await his decision : " I stand 
 at Cesar's judgment-seat — I invoke his name as that of 
 my lawful judge." Why may not Christians be said to 
 invoke the name of their Lord and master in a somewhat 
 similar sense — to acknowledge his authority and await his 
 final decision in religious matters, as they do that of the 
 supreme civil magistrate in civil affairs? t 
 
 That the phrase ^' calling upon the name of the Lord " 
 bears the sense we give it, was the opinion of the learned 
 Schleusner, himself a Trinitarian. Dr. Hammond, with 
 whom Locke agrees, says that epikaleisthai signifies to be 
 called by the name of Jesus as by a surname, marking the 
 peculiar union which subsists between believers and Christ, 
 as of a spouse with her husband, and of a slave with his 
 master, who is called by his master's name. Whether we 
 adopt the passive or middle sense, the words still convey 
 the same meaning ; for, as Schleusner remarks, the for- 
 mulary epikaleidhai onoma unusually signifies to profess 
 some certain person's religion. The difference in the mid- 
 dle and the passive use of the verb is of no consequence. 
 
 Among the various senses enumerated by Dr. Clarke, 
 in which this phrase is used, only one implies direct invo- 
 cation. Dr. Hammond, speaking of the word generally 
 it) the New Testament, says expressly that epikakisthni 
 
 t See Dr. Huttoii's Sfermon? 
 
EXCLUSIVE OBJECT OF WORSHIP. 87 
 
 signifies to be named or surnamefl, Matth. x. 3. Luke 
 xxii. 3. Acts i. 23. iv. 36. and in other places, in which 
 it has a passive and not an active signification. 
 
 The use of cognomina to epikalcomai is common both 
 in Xenophon and Lucian. The conjunction of epikalcomai 
 with onoma in the sense of religious subjection or allegi- 
 ance, is an idiom which seems to have been imported into 
 the Greek from the Hebrew, and to have been adopted by 
 the Apostle from the Septuagint. 
 
 We have further objections to the doctrine of Christ's 
 Deity, drawn from its practical influence. We regard it 
 as unfavourable to devotion, by dividing and distracting 
 the mind in its communion with God. It is a great excel- 
 lence of the doctrine of God's unity, that it offers to us 
 ONE OBJECT of supreme homage, adoration, and love, one 
 infinite Father, one Being of Beings, one original and foun- 
 tain, to whom we may refer all good, on whom all our 
 powers and affections may be concentrated, and whose 
 lovely and venerable nature may pervade all our thoughts. 
 True piety, when directed to an undivided Deity, has a 
 chasteness, a singleness, most favourable to religious awe 
 and love. Now the Trinity sets before us three dis- 
 tinct objects of supreme adoration ; three infinite persons^ 
 having equal claims on our hearts ; three divine agents, 
 performing differetit offices, and to be acknowledged and 
 worshiped in different relations. And is it possible, we 
 ask, that the weak and limited mind of man can attach it- 
 self to these with the same power and joy, as to one in^niie 
 Father, the only First Cause, in whom all the blessings of 
 nature and redemption meet, as their centre and source ? 
 Must not devotion be distracted by the equal and rival 
 claims of three equal persons? and must not the worship 
 ot the conscientious, consistent Christian be disturbed by 
 apprehension, lest he withhold from one or another of 
 these, his due portion of homage ? 
 
 We also think that the doctrine of the Trinity injures 
 devotion, not only by joining to the Father other objects of 
 worship, but by taking from the Father the supreme affec- 
 fiQn, which is his due, and transferring it to the Son. Thi? 
 
88 THE FATHER, &C. 
 
 is a most important view. That Jesus Christ, if exalted 
 into the infinite Divinity, should be more interesting than 
 the Father, is precisely what might be expected from his- 
 tory, and from the principles of human nature. Men 
 want an object of worship like themselves, and the great 
 secret of idolatry lies in this propensity. A God clothed 
 in our form, and feeling our wants and £orrows, speaks to 
 our weak nature more strongly, than a Father in heaven, 
 a pure spirit, invisible, and unapproachable, save by the re- 
 flecting and purified mind. We believe too, that this wor- 
 ship, though attractive, is not most fitted to spiritualize the 
 mind ; that it awakens human transport, rather than that 
 deep veneration of the moral perfections of God, which is 
 the essence of piety .f Indeed, the indivisibility of thought 
 will not permit us to pray freely to more than one object 
 at the same time ; the very attempt to divide the attention 
 ronfuses it. 
 
 ' f See Dr. Chanuine'? Sermon, &c. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 
 
 Revelation hi. 14. 
 The beginning of the creation of God, 
 
 There is no book in the New Testament which, in my 
 apprehension, contains in it stronger evidence of the truth 
 of the great principles of Anti-Trinitarianism than the 
 Apocalypse. Every new perusal of it affords me fresh 
 matter of wonder that Trinitarian ingenuity should ever 
 have professed itself adequate to the task of finding 
 support to its dogmas in this part of Scripture, or of re- 
 conciling with its peculiarities the numerous clear and dis- 
 tinct intimations of the personal unity of God and the 
 peerless majesty of the Father which run through the 
 whole of it. 
 
 Considering the character of the Apocalypse, it may 
 with the utmost propriety be affirmed, that had the Deity 
 of Jesus been the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, as 
 it is strangely enough supposed to be, we should have 
 found it blazing forth in this book in the most splendid 
 manner imaginable. There, if any where, we should have 
 found the glory of Christ's person as God-man depicted 
 in the most lofty, august, and impressive manner — illumi- 
 nating almost every page with its effulgent splendour, 
 bespangling every leaf with its beauteous attractions, and 
 from its transcendent, dazzling, and overwhelming gran- 
 deiu* and majesty, totally eclipsing the glory of all the 
 characters of the visions set forth to our view. 
 
 That the representations of the glory of the person of 
 Christ, given in this portion of Scripture, are of a descripi 
 
90 LECTURE ON THE 
 
 tion much more elevated and sublime than those of the 
 other characters introduced into the scenes, is certainly 
 true. But instead of its having been the design of the 
 Revelation to exhibit Jesus to view in the character of the 
 Infinite God, the uniform and formal manner in which 
 all the addresses to the churches are introduced by Christ 
 with the mention of his inferior, finite character and capa- 
 city, naturally leads us to suppose that in forming these 
 prefaces he had in view the errors concerning his person 
 that were soon to make their appearance in the church ; 
 that the several introductions to the letters were intended 
 to afford a positive voice against such errors when they 
 should arise. 
 
 These prefatory statements of the Apocalypse, together 
 with the general tenour of those parts in any way connected 
 with the subject, appear to me to afford as complete evi- 
 dence for the unrivaled Majesty of God the Father as 
 can possibly be conceived. What, my brethren, have 
 Trinitarians upon which to build their most singular con- 
 clusions ? Nothing more than a few scattered passages of 
 the Old and New Testaments, thought by them to ascribe 
 to Jesus the names and titles, the attributes, the works, 
 and the worship of the Supreme. These form no promi- 
 nent or essential part of the subject with which they stand 
 connected. It was not the exclusive or the special and 
 direct purpose of the writer to state the doctrine supposed 
 by Trinitarians to be conveyed by them, and though the 
 expressions were understood in a different sense from that 
 which Trinitarians attach to them, the general sentiments 
 and ideas of the passages in connexion with which they 
 occur would not appear to be either incoherent or incom- 
 plete ; either more or less than the writer meant directly 
 to convey by the words. 
 
 The case is altogether different as it respects those pas- 
 sages which either state or from which it may be inferred 
 that the Father alone is God, and that Jesus is a being 
 distinct from and inferior to him. In the book before us 
 we find one continued string of passages that either state 
 or clearly and directly warrant the inference that Jesus is 
 
BOOK OF REVELATION. 91 
 
 not Jehovah. We find the names and titles of Deity ; the 
 attributes, the v/orks, and the worship, belonging to the 
 true God, given to one being in distinction from another 
 being called ' the Lamb,' and the argument from this in 
 favour of our peculiar sentiments is very much strengthen- 
 ed by some circumstances that attend the application of 
 these, to the one in distinction from the other. 
 
 In their acclamations and ascriptions of praise, it seems 
 to have been the grand aim and prominent object of some 
 of the characters of the visions to delineate the highest glo- 
 ries of Christ as well as of the Father ; and we nevertheless 
 find that almost all they appropriate to Christ is incon- 
 sistent with the infinite perfection and absolute supremacy 
 of Deity, and of a cast and complexion different from that 
 which they appropriate to the Father, and wholly inferior 
 to it. These positions we shall make good by the follow- 
 ing review of those parts of the book of Revelation that 
 have any connexion with the point. 
 
 First, then, you will observe that the titles God, Lord, 
 and Lord God, are given to the Father in distinction 
 from the Son. 
 
 Out of thirteen I shall adduce merely four passages in 
 which this appears: chap. xxi. 22. xix. 6, ?. xv. 3, 4. 
 In each of these instances the Father is distinguished also 
 from the Son by the ascription to him of the attribute of 
 omnipotence, and in one of them by that also of infinite 
 holiness. In it the occurrence is very peculiar, because 
 the titles and attributes of Deity are not merely given to 
 the Father in distinction from the Son, but are ascribed to 
 the Father by the Son himself in conjunction with Moses 
 the ancient legislator of the Jewe. The circumstance of 
 the titles and attributes of Deity being ascribed to one 
 person, is a plain proof that no other person is what the 
 appropriation of these titles and attributes shew that per- 
 son to be to whom they are applied, because the notion of 
 a plurality of supreme divinities is opposed to the conclu- 
 sions of reason and the dictates of Revelation, and because 
 no reason can be assigned why, especially in such a part 
 of Scripture as that we are considering, the Son should 
 
^2 LECTURE ON THfe 
 
 not be set before our view in the same glorious light as 
 that in which the Father is, were he indeed one with the 
 Father or in personality equal to him. 
 
 The circumstance of the titles and the attributes of 
 Deity being given to the Father in distinction from the 
 Son, affords an additional species of argument for the ex- 
 clusive Deity of the Father. Both of these kinds of evi- 
 dence we have in the already mentioned passages, but in 
 the last (chap. xv. 3.) there is another and a still more 
 powerful kind of proof of the inferiority of Jesus Christ to 
 the Father. 
 
 Had we found the Father addressed in the language of 
 that passage by Moses only, this of itself would have been 
 a plain ascription to the Father exclusively of perfection 
 which is distinctive of Godhead; and this would have 
 proved in the very terms the exclusive Deity of the Father. 
 But when the ascription is by the Son himself, does he 
 not in the very words exclude himself from the possession 
 of infinite holiness? Does he not do so as much as Moses 
 did, who tuned along with him the hymn of praise which 
 so sublimely employed their tongues ? Can the attributes 
 ascribed and the titles given, be appropriated also to him 
 who is the Lamb, and who under that distinctive character 
 joins with Moses in calling the object of their praise " The 
 Lord God Almighty, and the onlt^ holy." Surely the 
 Lamb was not in any sense the very same being with— 
 surely he was not in any sense equal in glory to him 
 whom he thus joins with Moses in praising? No, my 
 brethren ; Jesus never claimed Deity at all. What were 
 his words to the lawyer who styled him '^ good master?' 
 Do they not contain a clear and manifest intimation of the 
 truth we are proving ? " Why callest thou me good ? 
 there is none good but one, that is God." 
 
 ^ God' and ' the Lamb* are used as distinctive epithets 
 in every part of the work. How, if these titles be equally 
 applicable to the Father and the Son, the former should 
 be confined to the Father and the latter to Jesus, is cer- 
 tainly a singular circumstance; a circumstance of itself 
 sufficient to shew that the one is exclusively what he is 
 
BOOK OF REVELATION. 93 
 
 exclusively denominated, ' God.' The superiority of the 
 Father to the Son is also manifest from those passages 
 which represent God as sitting upon the throne, in dis* 
 tinction from the Lamb, who is said to be merely in the 
 tlirone, or, as the expression means, in the middle space 
 between the throne and the elders. To this purpose see 
 chap. V. 6, 7, IS. vi. 16. vii. 9, 10, 15—17. The ex- 
 pression ' upon the throne* is no doubt figurative; but it 
 is evidently meant to denote a state of supreme majesty, 
 unrivaled glory, and absolute dominion. Now the cir- 
 cumstance of the Father only being represented as sitting 
 upon the throne, is a plain proof that the Son does not 
 possess a unity of essence with the Father, or an equality 
 of perfection and dominion with him. Because, had the 
 Son been the compeer of Jehovah the Father, he certainly 
 would have been represented as occupying the same station 
 of dignity as the Father. But more than this, the dignity 
 denoted by the phrase 'sitting upon the throne' is not 
 only exclusively represented as belonging to the Father, 
 but appears clearly to be ascribed to the Father by 
 way of distinguishing him from the Son, who is repre- 
 sented as merely ' in the midst of the throne ;' a plain and 
 obvious indication of the unrivaled majesty of the one, and 
 the subordination and inferiority of the other. 
 
 It is indeed true that the throne is once called "the 
 throne of God and the Lamb." What then ? The station 
 of the Lamb was certainly within the floor and footstool 
 of the throne, which is represented in the description as 
 bounded by a circle or an emerald. The Lamb occupies 
 the same throne indeed as the Father, but his station is 
 beneath that of the Father ; he does not occupy the same 
 part of the throne with the Father; he does not sit upon 
 it, which the Father does. And perceiving this marked 
 difference, you cannot think, I should suppose, that the 
 mere occupation of the same throne, or sitting in the mid- 
 dle space between the throne and the elders, is a circum- 
 stance that tends in the least degree to prove the Deity 
 of Christ. 
 
94 LECTURE ON THE 
 
 Lest, however, this should enter your conceptions, let 
 me tellvyou tliat though indeed the occupying of the sta- 
 tion denoted by ' sitting in the midst of the throne' must 
 be honourable and f;;lorious in a very high degree, yet not 
 so much so, after all, as to lead us to conceive of Jesus as 
 sustaining an office and exalted to a dignity which no 
 other intelligence appears in. For from chap. iv. 6. & v. 
 6. it appears distinctly enough that there were more than 
 Jesus in the midst of the throne. The elders, whomsoever 
 they are intended to represent, sat along with him in the 
 floor of the throne. Moreover, how^ or by what means did 
 Christ reach that kind of dignity which is thus denoted ? 
 Hear his own account of the matter: "He that over- 
 cometh shall sit with me in my throne, even as I also 
 overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." 
 From whon), I ask, could such expressions proceed.^ 
 From none but a benig who in consequence, and solely in 
 consequence, of having done his duty, was rewarded by 
 that Superior whose commands he obeyed. It was on 
 earth that Jesus fought his victory. It was not, therefore, 
 till after he was on earth that he was admitted to sit 
 within the precincts of Jehovah's throne. Had he been 
 the God of the universe, could he have been exalted ; 
 could he have been subjected to temptation; could he 
 have *^ overcome .f*' Surely no. Had he been the Infinite 
 God, having had an eternal and inherent right to sit upon 
 the throne of universal government, could his being exalted 
 to sit upon that throne (supposing it were said that he had 
 been so) have been attributed to his having '^ overcome?' 
 
 Further, I ask, does Jesus give to his followers the pro- 
 mise of being raised to sit upon the throne of the Almighty, 
 of becoming colleagues and assessors of Deity, of being 
 exalted to an equality with himself or with God ? Yet 
 this must be implied in the passage I have quoted, if 
 'sitting in the throne' does not denote a state of dignity 
 subordinate to that of Jehovah. 
 
 In furlher establishment of my position respecting the 
 evidence of Unitarianism that is to be found in the Apoca- 
 lypse, I rcnaark that in several parts of it, God is worshiped 
 
BOOK OF REVELATION. 9*^ 
 
 ati jlistinguished from the Lamb, who is merely praised in 
 conjunciioii with the Almighty. See chap. iv. 11. vii. 11, 
 12. xi. 15, 16. V. 13, 14. 
 
 Now the very circumstance of worship being confined 
 to the Father, is sufficient to shew ihat Christ is not that 
 being to whom worship is due, because no reason can be 
 assigned why, if Jesus be equally entitled to supreme 
 worship with the Father, that worship should not be given 
 to the Son as well as to the Father, and because there 
 cannot be more objects of supreme worship thin one. But, 
 besides this, God is worsiiiped to distniguish him from the 
 Lamb, who is only praised. It has, however, been con- 
 tended by Trinitarians that the circumstance of Christ's 
 being praised in the same terms with God warrants the 
 inference that he is praised on equal grounds with his 
 Father, and that he is consequently God. It is true indeed 
 that " blessing, and glory, and honour, and praise," are 
 ascribed both to God and to the Lamb, and to the latter 
 as well as to the former this tribute was due ; for we are 
 elsewhere informed that Christ is raised to this pre-eminence 
 as a reward of his conduct as the Messiah. The praise 
 of the celestial choir is therefore quite consistent with the 
 principles and sentiments of Unitarians. 
 
 But may not the same terms be used in an inferior 
 sense as applied to Christ ? " Blessing, and honour, and 
 glory, and power," admit of degrees, and may therefore 
 be applied to two objects in the same sentence with differ- 
 ent modifications of meaning. If " all Israel greatly feared 
 before the Lord and Samuel," as in 1 Sam. xii. 18. — if 
 all Israel " bowed down their heads, and worshiped Jeho- 
 vah and the king," as in 1 Chron. xxix. 20 — if Hezekiah 
 and certain princes " blessed Jehovah and his people 
 Israel," as in 2 Chron. xxxi. 8. — if David said to Abigail, 
 '' Blessed be Jehovah, God of Israel, who sent thee this 
 day to meet me ; and blessed be thy advice, and blessed 
 be thou," as in 1 Sam. xxv. 32, 3S. — and yet Samuel, the 
 king, the people, Israel, and Abigail, be inferior to Jeho- 
 vah } may not " blessing, and honour, and glory, and 
 power," be ascribed in the same sentence " to him that 
 
96 LECTURE ON THE 
 
 sitteth upon the throne and to the Lamb/' and yet the 
 Laflib be inferior to him that sitteth upon the throne. 
 
 The very appellation by which the Father is distin- 
 guished in the ascriptions of praise, and which is applied 
 throughout the book to him only, is evidently designed to 
 imply his superiority, and indicates therefore, on the part 
 of the celestial choirs, an express acknowledgment of his 
 claims to a profounder homage. We may express feelings 
 of the same kind by the same words, but they are always 
 understood to vary in intensity as their objects Bre more 
 or less calculated to excite them. Moreover, if one being 
 only is worshiped, which we have already seen to be the 
 case, he alone must be praised in the character of God ; 
 the other therefore receives the homage of the song upon very 
 different accounts from those on which the other receives 
 it, and in a very inferior degree. Worship is not merel}' 
 praise. Worship is given only to God. 
 
 It is not unworthy of remark also, that both the pas- 
 sages which represent Jesus as receiving praise are followed 
 by a representation of the characters of the vision " wor- 
 shiping God," — not merely ascribing '' salvation, and 
 glory, and power," as in the previous ascription to God 
 and to the Lamb, but worshiping, ^~--not God and the 
 Lamb, as in the song of praise, but God only; a circum- 
 stance that strikingly indicates the difference of character 
 in which each is regarded, and the difference of the nature 
 and degree of homage given to the Father from that given 
 to the Son. 
 
 In chap. XV. 3. we have seen that Jesus himself joins 
 in the anthem of praise to God the Father, whom he de- 
 nominates " the only holy." He cannot therefore be the 
 very being whom he joins with Moses in praising. He 
 who united with Moses the man in tuning a hymn of 
 praise to the Lord God Almighty, could not himself be 
 entitled to praise equal either in kind or in degree to that 
 which he and Moses were employed in rendering. 
 
 The ascriptions of praise, moreover, while only few in 
 number to the Son, are numerous to the Father. Before 
 God also the characters of the vision are represented as 
 
BOOK OP REVELATION. 97 
 
 ''falling on their faces — casting their crowns — covering 
 their faces with their wings — resting not day nor night 
 fro.'Ti the work of praise," sounding aloud their nallelujahs, 
 all clearlv indicative of their sense of the unequaled majesty 
 of him whom they exclusively addressed, and before whom 
 they stood in adoring wonder. 
 
 Finally, on this part of our subject I may remark, that 
 to any one who candidly reads from ver. 8 to li of chap, 
 xxii. it must appear that Jesus himself was the angel who 
 refused the worship that John was about to give him. 
 And, at any rate, the answer of the angel (who, if not Je* 
 sus, was his messenger, and as such might be supposed to 
 claim for him all the honour that was his due) is a plain 
 and evident presumptive proof that Jesus was not entitled 
 to religious worship. " Worship God," — not God and 
 the Lamb, observe. 
 
 Are we wrong then, my brethren, in refusing to call 
 Jesus the Omnipotent God .-^ Are we wrong in refusing to 
 place Jesus on the throne of the Eternal? Are we wrong 
 in refusing to give Jesus that supreme worship which 
 Heaven's intelligences never gave him, and which to all 
 appearance he absolutely refused? Lofty indeed are their 
 strains of praise; but to the God of the Lamb is their 
 worship confined. While under the consciousness of no- 
 thingness they bow before uncreated excellence, .ind with 
 overwhelming admiration and transport they cast tiieir 
 crowns before the throne, they speak of and praise him 
 who is now worshiped as God Almighty, in the character 
 of the Lamb who shed his blood to make a cleansing of sin. 
 High indeed was his excellence when he was upon earth ! 
 higher now it must be when he is in heaven ! But in the 
 light of underived and boundless perfection, finite goodness 
 and finite glory must dwindle behind the shade. 
 
 I declare there is no honour given by the powers of 
 upper Zion to Jesus Christ our Lord, which we do not 
 account it our privilege, our honour, and our duty to give 
 him. Ready always are our tongues to publish forth liis 
 excellency, aud to sound his praise. " Worthy, worthy, 
 16 the Lamb," are words which find a responsive echo in 
 il 3 
 
98 , LECTURE ON THE 
 
 our inmost souls. The glories of his character^ his tri-! 
 umphs, and his reigu, we do sincerely admire, and we 
 rejoice in the prospect of ascribing to our victorious and 
 mighty Redeemer " salvation, and glory, and honour, and 
 power." 
 
 His highest happiness arose from doing his Father's 
 will, and to do that will in obedience to him as the am-» 
 bassador of the Everlasting, under the sanctions and prin-. 
 ciples of his Gospel, is to honour him in the highest 
 manner he ever claimed, or which God, his God, ever 
 commanded or does authorize us to do. And, O how 
 happy would it be to behold those whose zeal for his 
 Godhead flows like an impetuous torrent, acting towards 
 him in the way that the belief of his mere Messiahship 
 ought to dictate. 
 
 Though at the notion of his Deity we do certainly 
 spurn, we would nevertheless ever speak of his holy life ; 
 of that moral glory which encircled his career in this 
 thoughtless and maddened world, and which shining around 
 him with a dazzling and a matchless radiance, distinguished 
 him as the most dignified and most worthy of the race. 
 Touched would we be with admiring sympathy in the 
 agonies of that death which confirmed the everlasting co- 
 venant, and that seized the Saviour only that he might 
 shew to the race of Adam the " power of an endless life," 
 We would revere and obey his excellent mandates; we 
 would copy his illustrious example; we would rejoice in 
 his mighty powers, in his celestial glory, and in his future 
 coming. 
 
 Do we, my brethren, look forward in joyful anticipation 
 to the felicities of Zion ? Jesus is embodied in the thought. 
 With every view of the world to come that elevates the 
 soul in solemnity and joy, Jesus is associated. Are we to 
 exult in the beatific presence of the Lord of sabaoth ? 
 Are we to join in the acclamations of the multitudes that 
 fill the mansions of unceasing bliss? Are we to soar aloft 
 in the sublimity of adoration in concert with the higher 
 strains gf thQse august intelligences that encompass the 
 litertjaFs throne, and make heaven s arches ring with their 
 
BOOK OF REVELATION. ()9 
 
 enraptured swells of holy joy ? The bliss and glory of 
 the whole will secondarily arise from Jesus. Upon his 
 diadem of beauty will we not gaze — the meridian splen- 
 dour of Ids countenance will we not admire ? He will 
 lead the human and angelic hosts; he will conduct us in 
 our blissful career ; he will be an object of our harmoni- 
 ous praise. 
 
 Compared indeed with the glory of infinite perfection, 
 the excellence of creatures must ever be nothing — must 
 be as the feeble glimmerings of a taper compared with the 
 blaze of the ruler of the day. And though seraphim can- 
 not speak forth half Jehovah's praise, and though therefore 
 our most lofty hymns cannot reach the majesty of his 
 attributes ; though as the great source of all that is great 
 and worthy to be adored, he does claim and must receive 
 our most mighty, our divinest bursts and songs of hal- 
 lelujah; yet it is his will that to Jesus, his Son, we should 
 raise our notes of admiration, in accent loud, in Isarmony 
 delightful ; so that the excellence of the Lamb, as well as 
 the peerless glories of his God, shall for ever swell the 
 tone of our celestial melody. 
 
 Ultimately, however, shall we be praising Him who 
 made our Saviour what he is; from whom all his dignity, 
 his power, and his glory proceeded. ^' Every tongue shall 
 indeed confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," only however 
 ^' to the glory of God the Father." 
 
LECTURE IX. 
 
 ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 
 
 Revelation hi. 14. 
 The beginning of the creation of God. 
 
 Having already seen that the names and titles and the 
 worship belonging to Deity are given to the Father 
 throughout this book, and not only are confined to him, 
 hut given to him in distinction from the Lamb, when 
 Christ is spoken of confessedly in his highest character, 
 whatsoever it be, and consequently in that capacity in 
 which, according to the principles of Trinitarianism, they 
 might have been applied. And having seen also that the 
 attributes of omnipotence and infinite holiness are thus 
 given to the Father alone, I now proceed to remark that 
 the Father is frequently distinguished from the Lamb by 
 the ascription to him of the attribute of eternal existence. 
 He is the being '' who liveth for ever and ever — wiio is, 
 and who was, and who is to come." 
 
 It has indeed been said that it is Jesus who speaketli 
 thus in chap. i. 8, '' I am Alpha and Omega, the begin- 
 ing and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, which was, 
 and which is to come, the Almighty," and against the ana- 
 logy of the whole book, in which the perfections of eternity 
 and almighty power are always given to the Father in dis- 
 tinction from the Son, it has been contended from this sin- 
 gle passage that Christ is the Almighty and Eternal Jelio- 
 vaii. But certainly against a mere supposition it must he 
 abundantly sufficient to satisfy any candid mind on the sub- 
 ject to reply, that as in every other passage in Revelation 
 fn which the attributes of eternity and omnipotence and the 
 
BOOK OF REVELATION. 101 
 
 title * Lord God' occur, they are confined in their application 
 tD God in distinction from the Lamb, it must naturally be 
 supposed that in this verse God the Father is the speaker. 
 It has further been argued that as the terms ' Alpha and 
 Omega* are applied to Gcd, they miist denote something 
 exclusively applicable to Deity, and that consequently when 
 used by Christ in reference to himself, he asserts his abso- 
 lute eternity of existence. To this it cannot but be sufficient 
 to reply, that there are many terms and epithets applied 
 to God that are also applied to men. Tha Father may 
 be ' the Alpha and Omega,' and Jesus may be also, and 
 yet the former only may be God. If indeed the words 
 ' Alpha and Omega' did really import eternal being, the 
 case would be different. But that they do not denote this, 
 is obvious from the following considerations. 1. The words 
 are evidently figurative. Taken literally they would state 
 that Jesus was the first and last letters of the Greek alpha- 
 bet. The other phrase which is synonymous with Alpha 
 and Omega, viz. ' the first and the last, the beginning and 
 the end,' would make God to have had a beginning or to have 
 originally commenced existence, and would imply that both 
 God and Christ will have an end or termination of being, 
 that all creation shall cease to be, and that finally the cre- 
 ator and Christ will do the same. Taken literally, instead 
 of conveying the idea of eternal being, they convey the 
 reverse. 
 
 2. The connexion in which the use of the phrase ' Alpha 
 and Omega' occurs in chap. i. 8. is sufficient to shew that 
 Trinitarians mistake its meaning. The verse runs thus, 
 *' I am Alpha and Omega, saith he who is, and who was, 
 and who is to come," Now if the expression 'Alpha and 
 Omega' imply the same idea as the following phrase, * who 
 18, who was, and who is to come,' which does certainly 
 denote eternity of existence, is there not a singular tau- 
 tology in the declaration ? And will not the sentence be 
 made to run thus.? '',1 am the Eternal, saith the Lord 
 who is the Eternal." 
 
 3. It is worthy of remark that the expression 'Alpha 
 and Omega' is never used in the language of ascription tq 
 
102 LECTURE ON THE 
 
 God in all the book of Revelat'on. When the characters 
 of the visions ascribe eternal existence to Jehovah, it is 
 always by the use of the phrases, ' who is^ who was, and 
 who is to come — who livetii for ever and ever.' This is 
 a circumstance which, on the supposition that ' Alpha and 
 Omega' denote eternal existence, cannot be accounted for. 
 It cannot be shewn how in the language of ascription to 
 God, the expressions ' who is, wi)o was, and who is to 
 come,' and ' who liveth for ever and ever,' are always 
 used to denote his eternal existence, and yet that the 
 phrase 'Alpha and Omega,' which is never thus applied, 
 is also expressive of eternal existence. 
 
 Expressions of similar import with 'Alpha and Omega' 
 are applied to God in several parts of the prophecy of 
 Isaiah relating to the deliverance of the Jews from cap- 
 tivity by means of Cyrus and the Persians. These pas- 
 sages, as has been observed by an eminent Trinitarian, 
 are intended to denote tlie superintending providence of 
 God, which comprehends the past, the present, and the 
 future. He is contemporary with the earliest and the 
 latest events in that chain of causes and effects by which 
 he accomplishes his stupendous counsels. When applied 
 to Jesus, the meaning plainly is, that he is contemporary 
 with the earliest and the latest events in that dispensation 
 over which he is ordained by the Almighty to preside. 
 Jesus is the institutor of the Christian dispensation, and 
 he will be the fir:isher of it. He is the " author and the 
 finisher of our faith." 
 
 It has been contended also that in chap. iii. 2. Jesus 
 challenges to himself the attribute of omniscience when he 
 says, " I am he that searcheth the hearts and trieth the 
 reins of the children of men." But do not the very first 
 words of the book distinctly imply that his knowledge is 
 limited and derived } ^' The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 
 which God gave unto him," the subjects of this book are 
 denominated ; which v/ould not be the case if Jesus had 
 possessed in himself the attribute of omniscience, or the 
 knowledge of every thing in the universe, whether past, 
 present, or future, 
 
BOOK OF REVELATION. ] OS 
 
 It is very evident from the passage tliat Christ's know- 
 ledge of the human heart is connected with his office as 
 judge, and is the necessary qualification for it. Is it not 
 the universal doctrine of Scripture that he is judge by 
 delegation and divine authority ? And is it not lience ra- 
 tional to suppose that the necessary qualifications were 
 imparted to him .'' If he had not an originyl and sovereign 
 right to the office of judge ; if it he evident that his sus- 
 taining the ofljce of judge is a part of that exaltation 
 which is the reward of his services and labours ; it is 
 equally clear that the qualifications tar that office are 
 finite and limited, since omniscience cannot exist but in 
 conjunction with sovereign and underivtd digruty, domi- 
 nion, and authority, which Christ's are not. If he is judge 
 by appointment, by the will and authority of God, he is 
 qualified for the office by the power of God. 
 
 The verse preceding the words we are considering dis- 
 tinctly implies that all his autliority as the governor and 
 judge of the world is derived from the independent Jehovah. 
 " To him that overcometh will I give power over the na- 
 tions, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, &c. even 
 as I received power from my Father." Now if he received 
 the power of this dominion over the nations, why not also 
 tiie power of searching the hearts.'* If he was not pos- 
 sessed of absolute authority, neither was he possessed of 
 omniscience ; for the one cannot be the attribute of a being 
 who has not the other. If he received one thing from 
 God, he must have received all ; but God can receive 
 nothing from another. If he could not give power by his 
 own pleasure, neither could he search the hearts by his 
 own power of searching. 
 
 It is said, however, that the power of searching the 
 hearts cannot be imparted, and that as Christ possesses it, 
 he is infinite in his nature. But by what principle of 
 reasoning can the power of searching the hearts of this 
 world's race be identified with absolute omniscience ? Ts 
 our world any thing but a speck in the vast and immea- 
 surable immensity of the dominions of the Eternal .?* And 
 does the supposition that Jesus is qualified to judge tl e 
 
104 LECTURE ON THE 
 
 world, imply any thing more than that God imparts to his 
 Son an inconceivably small portion of his own knowledge? 
 Was not Elisba empowered to know the heart and the 
 thoughts of Gehazi when at a distance from him^ and also 
 to know what the king of Assyria did even in his bed- 
 chamber? And the same Great Being who thus enabled 
 him to know the thoughts of two persons could unques- 
 tionably have enabled him to know the thoughts of as 
 many others as he pleased ; nay, if such was his sovereign 
 will, of the whole human race. And cannot the Almighty 
 enable the blessed Saviour in a glorified state, with all his 
 mental powers enlarged and improved beyond all we can 
 conceive, to know the thoughts and read the hearts of the 
 whole human race, if this should be necessary to qualify 
 him to pass sentence upon every one of them either at the 
 same time or within a given space of longer or shorter 
 duration, as shall appear best to his wisdom. To deny 
 this, is to rob God of his power with the view of exalting 
 his knowledge. 
 
 Can a man do this ? or, can a man do that ? is not the 
 question. But can God enable Jesus to perform the work 
 of judgment ? And who is he that can have the pre- 
 sumption and confidence to say, no? 
 
 How is it, I may ask, that persons who believe in the 
 existence of a malignant beh)g of the most extensive powers 
 and, so far as this globe is concerned, of almost absolute 
 ubiquity — of an indweller and corrupter, if not a searcher 
 of hearts — of a created author of sin and misery — should 
 yet find so much difficulty in conceiving the existence of a 
 created Son of God, invested by him, for the highest and 
 most benevolent purposes, with power and authority to 
 administer justice and judgment in his name among men ? 
 
 The inferiority of Jesus to his Father is repeatedly 
 stated in chap. iii. 12. where Jesus speaks of the Father 
 as his God, which he is also called in the introduction to 
 the book. In some parts, Christ is denominated '*^the 
 Word of God," in others " the Christ of God," and the 
 ^' Son of man ;" and his common designation is that of 
 '' the Lamb." 
 
BOOK OP REVELATION. 105 
 
 Upon the whole, then, upon what side of the question 
 does the evidence of this book bear ? How is it, I ask, 
 that the titles, the attributes, the works, and the worship 
 of Jehovah are given to the Father, yet not to the Son ; 
 but to the Father in distinction from the Son; that in his 
 highest character not one of them is given him, though 
 they are given to the Father ? 
 
 If distinction of being and the relations of superior and 
 inferior can be inferred from one being called " the Word, 
 the Christ, the Lamb of God, and the Son of man," and 
 another, '^ the Lord, God, and the Lord God ;" by one 
 being said '^ to live for ever and ever," and addressed as 
 " he who is, who was, and who is to come," and the other 
 being spoken of as '' he that liveth, and rvas dead, and is 
 alive for evermore ;" by one being called, as in our text, 
 " the chief of the creation of God," a designation clearly 
 implying that he is one of that creation, and by the 
 other being said to have " created all things ;" by one be- 
 ing called *^Uhe Almighty," and its being said with respect 
 to the other that '' he received power of the Father;" by 
 one only being worshiped in distinction from the other, 
 and by the other ; by one being addressed by the other as 
 " the only holy ;" by one being represented as sitting on 
 the throne, and the other in the middle space between the 
 throne and the elders; by one being called the God of 
 another, and that by the other ; by one being represented 
 as supreme in glory, and the other as being exalted by the 
 Father as tlie reward of his obedience; — then is Unita- 
 rianism the doctrine of the Gospel. 
 
 It may also be observed, that no mention is made in 
 this book of the third person in the Trinity. Nothing is 
 said of his condescension and love ; no glory is given him, 
 neither worship nor praise. If he be God, if an intelligent 
 being at all, how is it that he does not rank in such declara- 
 tions as this? " I will confess his name before my Father 
 and his holy angels." Indeed the truth is, that there are 
 not above three or four detached passages throughout all 
 the Scriptures that can be brought forward to countenance 
 the doctrine of the Deity of the Holy Spirit. 
 I 
 
LECTURE X. 
 
 ON THE LOGOS 
 
 John i. 1 — 17, 
 
 In the beginning rvas the Word, and the Word wai 
 
 rvilh God, and the Word rvas God, 8^c^ 
 
 It appears that this introduction of John's Gospel was 
 written in opposition to the Gnostics, a sect, or rather a 
 multitude of sects, who, having learned to blend the prin- 
 ciples of philosophy with the doctrines of Plato, formed a 
 system most repugnant to the simplicity of Christian faith. 
 The foundation of the Gnostic system was the incorrigible 
 depravity of matter. Upon this principle they made a 
 total separation between the material and the spiritual 
 world. Accounting it impossible to educe out of matter 
 any thing good, they held that the Supreme Being, who 
 presided over the innumerable spirits that were emanations 
 from himself, did not make this earth; but that a spirit, 
 very far removed in character and in rank from the Su- 
 preme, formed matter into that order which constitutes 
 the world, and gave life to the different creatures that 
 inhabit the earth. They held that this spirit was the ruler 
 of the creatures he had made, and they considered men, 
 whose souls he imprisoned in earthly tabernacles, as ex- 
 periencing under his dominion the misery which necessarily 
 arose from their connexion with matter, and as totally 
 estranged from the knowledge of the true God. 
 
 Most of the later sects of the Gnostics rejected every 
 part of the Jewish law, because the books of Moses gave a 
 view of the creation inconsistent with their system. But 
 some of the earlier sects, consisting of Alexandrian Jews, 
 
ON THE LOGOS. 10? 
 
 incorporated a respect for the law with the principles of 
 their system. They considered the old dispensation as 
 granted by the Demiourgos, the maker of the world. They 
 held him to be incapable, from his want of power, of 
 delivering those who received it, from the thraldom of 
 matter; and they looked for a more glorious messenger 
 whom the compassion of the Supreme Being was to send 
 for tlie purpose of emancipating the human race. 
 
 Those Gnostics who embraced Christianity regarded 
 the Christ as this messenger, an exalted Aeon, who, being 
 in some manner united to the man Jesus, put an end to 
 the dominion of the Demiourgos, and restored the souls 
 of men to communion with God. To this Demiourgos 
 the Christian Gnostics gave the name of Logos. And as 
 'Christ' was understood from the beginning of our Lord's 
 ministry to be equivalent to the Jewish name Messiah, 
 there came to be in their system a direct opposition be- 
 tween Christ and Logos. Logos was the maker of the 
 world ; Christ was the Aeon sent to destroy the tyranny 
 of Logos. 
 
 We have authority for saying that the general principles 
 of the Gnostic system were openly taught by Cerinthus 
 before the publication of the Gospel of John. The autho- 
 rity is that of Irenaeus, one of the fathers who lived in the 
 second century, who had in his youth heard Polycarp the 
 disciple of John, and who retained in his memory till 
 death the discourses of Polycarp. Tiiere are yet extant 
 of the works of Irenaeus four books. In one place of that 
 work he says that Cerinthus taught in Asia that the world 
 was not made by the Supreme, but by a certain power 
 very far removed from the Sovereign of the universe, and 
 ignorant of his nature. In another place he says, John 
 wished by his Gospel to extirpate the errors of Cerinthus, 
 " and that he might shew that there is one God who made 
 all things by his Word." And with the same view, John 
 wrote his Gospel : '^ These are written that ye might be- 
 lieve that Jesus is the Christ;" that is, that Jesus and the 
 Christ are not distinct beings — the one a man, the other 
 an Aeon. 
 
108 ON THE LOGOS. 
 
 Though the Evangelist does not mention the name of 
 Cerinthus, it was necessary, in laying down the positions 
 that were to meet his errors^ to adopt some of his words, 
 because the Christians of those days could not so readily 
 have applied the statement of the Apostle to the refutation 
 of those doctrines which Cerinthus was spreading among 
 them. And as the chief of those terms ' Logos/ which 
 he thus applied to a vicious spirit, was equivalent to a 
 phrase in common use among the Jews, and had been just 
 used by Philo, a learned Jew from Alexandria, in some 
 books which he published before our Saviour's death, and 
 had probably been borrowed by the Cerinthians; John, 
 by his use of Logos, rescues it from the use of Cerinthus, 
 and restores it to a sense corresponding to the dignity of 
 the Jewish phrase. 
 
 You will perceive from this induction the fitness with 
 which the Evangelist introduces the word Logos in this 
 proem, although it had not been used by the other Evan- 
 gelists who wrote before the errors of Cerinthus. 
 
 Before proceeding to ascertain the precise import of the 
 passage, I shall give that translation of the words which 
 I conceive to be most natural and correct. " The Word 
 was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and 
 God was the word. All things were through it, and 
 without it nothing was that was. In it was life, and the 
 life was the light of men. And the light .shineth in dark- 
 ness j and the darkness overspread or admitted it not. It 
 was in the world, and the world was through it, and the 
 world knew it not, &c." 
 
 This translation is an exact rendering of the original, 
 and is the translation adopted in WickliflFe's Bible, in the 
 old English translation authorized by Henry VI 1 1., and 
 by Luther in his German translation ; also by Dr. Lard- 
 ner. Dr. Priestley, Mr. Wakefield, &c. 
 
 The Cerinthians supposed that Logos was a distinct being 
 from the Supreme, and not God himself considered in the 
 energy of his power, the sense attached by the Jews to the 
 phrase, * the word of the Lord.* John, by saying that ' God 
 was the Word,' teaches them that the Logos was not, as 
 
ON THE LOGOS. 109 
 
 they supposed, an intelligent being. The Cerinthians fur- 
 ther supposed that the Logos was the supreme artificer of 
 the world. To overthrow this notion, John informs them 
 that all things were merely through the Word ; that the 
 Word was merely the instrument in creation. And as this 
 Word was declared to be God, ascribing the creation of all 
 things to the Word as an instrument, was but a peculiar 
 mode of informing them that all things were created by 
 God himself, as the supreme architect. Thus their notions 
 of matter and the Creator of it were overturned. 
 
 According to the Gnostics, the Christ, the light of the 
 world, came into the territory of another to emancipate 
 men from the tyranny of their maker. And in opposition 
 to this idea it is that John speaks of the Word as having 
 ^' come into its own." In some of the systems of the 
 Gnostics, the ' only begotten and Logos' were different 
 Aeons. Here it is implied that there is no real distinction 
 between them ; that, indeed, Jesus Christ who was flesh, 
 a proper human being, was the real Word and the only- 
 begotten of the Father. 
 
 It may appear rather strange that God should be re^ 
 presented as an attribute, and as being that which is 
 afterwards represented as the medium of creation, and 
 that personal actions are attributed to the Word. But, as 
 to the latter, when we consider how common the use of 
 the figure of personification was at the time this Gospel 
 was written, and that it was the cou'^tant custom of the 
 Jews to personify the Word, by which they meant Jeho- 
 vah considered in his authority, commanding or creating 
 power and energy, the mode of speech here adopted seems 
 just what w£ might have expected it. The same obser- 
 vation serves to remove all difficulty from the first noticed 
 particular ; for God may be spoken of as doing this or that 
 by means of any of those attributes which the performance 
 of the specific work calls more especially into exercise ; 
 while it is at the same time clear that tiiose attributes are 
 not instruments abstractly considered or viewed apart from 
 the voluntary mind in which they inhere, and which is pf 
 course the real cause and the only proper agent. 
 
 1 S 
 
110 ON THE LOGOS, 
 
 The Scriptures evidently afford some instances of 
 this form of expression. For instance^ " By the word 
 of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of 
 them by the breath of his mouth." " By his spirit he hath 
 garnished the heavens, and his hands have formed the 
 crooked serpent." In the first passage it is evident that 
 ' the breath of his mouth' is synonymous with * his word/ 
 indeed, in both is evidently meant the active command- 
 ing might of God, displayed in its creative energy. As 
 the Scriptures speak of God doing certain things through 
 iiis might, through his power, through the breath of his 
 mouth, through his wisdom, his will, his mercy, and his 
 goodness; so John emphatically declares, in language that 
 would- be well understood at the time it was written, that 
 'f all things were through the Word." As to the identi- 
 fication of the Word with God, it is in the style of many 
 other passages of Scripture, some of which, as in John's 
 Epistles, represent God as light, as love, &c. Since God 
 is thus spoken of, because holiness and benevolence are so 
 inseparable from his nature, as that without them he would 
 not be what he is ; so, in like manner, God is called the 
 Word, because active power, creating energy and might, 
 are essential to his existence. And what foundation is 
 there in all this for the Deity of Jesus, or even for the 
 personality of the Word ? 
 
 The translation I have proposed, which undoubtedly ap- 
 pears to be correct, and which is also according to the order 
 of the words in the original, determines the meaning of 
 the Word to be the power of God, and God himself. This 
 was the meaning attached to it by the Jews, and in their 
 signification of it the Evangelist would certainly use it. 
 It has indeed been affirmed, that by ' the word of the 
 Lord,' the Jews understood an intelligent being, and that 
 Piiilo and the Targums give personal names and ascribe 
 personal actions to the Word. There are certainly a few 
 expressions in the Targums respecting the Word apparently 
 of a personal kind ; but there are also thousands in the 
 Old Testament of a similar kir^d equally strong, which 
 yet confessedly do not imply that the subject spoken of is 
 
ON THE LOGOS. Ill 
 
 a person. We should therefore regard such expressions 
 as imply the Word's personality in the same view as the 
 other, viz. as idioms of the language. For instance, what 
 more than a strong personification can we understand in the 
 following words of the Wisdom of Solomon, which refer 
 to God's judgments in Egypt? " Thine almighty Word 
 leaped down from heaven out of thy royal throne, as a 
 fierce man of war into the midst of a land of destruction, 
 and brought thine unfeigned commandment as a sharp 
 sword, and, standing up, filled all things with death ; and 
 it touched the heavens, but it stood upon the earth." 
 
 We know that the Jews had no revelation respecting 
 the existence of a being distinct from God, called the 
 Word. Whence then could they have derived the know- 
 ledge of such a being? Justin Martyr, in his dialogues 
 with Trypho the Jew, expressly ascribes to him the opinion 
 which he endeavours to refute, that the Messiah would be 
 simply, as to his nature, a man. The early Jewish con- 
 verts thought the same, and so did those among the later 
 Christians, who boldly appealed to antiquity against the 
 confusion introduced into church theology by identifying 
 the Word with the Son of God. The Word, said they, is 
 not the Son of God ; but only an attribute, a faculty, a 
 property of the Divine Nature. It is the man Jesus 
 Christ who became the Son of God by the communication 
 of the Word. 
 
 It is well known, says Dr. Lardner, that in the Chal- 
 dee Paraphrases it is very common to put Mimra Jeho- 
 vah, the Word of the Lord, for Jehovah or God ; and 
 that the Jewish people, more especially those of them who 
 were most zealous for the law and most exempt from 
 foreign and philosophical speculations, used this way of 
 speaking commonly, and by the Word, or the Word of 
 God, understood not a spirit separate from God, but God 
 himself, as St. John does. 
 
 As to Philo's writings, in which the Word is called ' the 
 Son of God, the image of God, the instrument of creation,' 
 there is no evidence that John had ever seen them, neither 
 1$ it certain that Philo did not borrow both his ideas an(^ 
 
J 12 ON THE LOGOS. 
 
 language from the school of Plato. Moreover, sererai 
 very learned Trinitarians have seen cause to believe that 
 Philo had no conception that the Word was an intelligent 
 being; that he considered it was nothing else than the 
 conception formed in the Divine Mind of the work he was 
 to execute. But supposing it could be proved that the 
 Jews did suppose the Word to be an intelligent being, the 
 Evangelist's declaration, that " God was the Word," is 
 inconsistent with their notion. 
 
 I shall here quote the illustration that Dr. Watts has 
 given of the meaning of this passage. 
 
 " The great and blessed God, considered in his own 
 nature, is far superior to all our thoughts, and exalted high 
 above our most raised apprehensions. And because we are 
 not capable of taking in heavenly ideas in their own sub- 
 limest nature, God has been pleased to teach us the hea- 
 venly things that relate to himself, in earthly language ; 
 and by way of analogy to creatures he has let us know 
 something what God is. 
 
 " Among all the creatures that come within the reach 
 of our common and obvious cognizance, human nature is 
 the most perfect ; and, therefore, it has pleased the great 
 and glorious God, by resemblances drawn from ourselves, 
 to accommodate the descriptions of himself to our capacities. 
 When he speaks of his own nature in the language of men, 
 he often uses the names of human parts, and members, and 
 facjilties, to represent his own properties and actions there- 
 by, that he may bring them within the notice of the low- 
 est capacity aiid the meanest understanding among the chil- 
 dren of men. Therefbri? he speaks of his face, to signify 
 the discovery of himself; his eyes to describe his know- 
 ledge ; his heart to describe his thoughts ; his hand and 
 arm to signify his power and activity ; and his mouth to 
 denote his rjesolutions or revelations,. 
 
 " But since in the composition of human nature there 
 are two distinct parts, a soul and a body, and the soul is 
 much thje noliler and more exalted principle, it has also 
 pleased God to rise above corporeal images, and to describe 
 j)iip?.elf, \\\& attributes, properties, power, and operations by 
 
ON THE LOGOS. 113 
 
 way of analogy to a human soul. We know by our own 
 consciousness, or by an inward inspection into ourselves, 
 that our soul or spirit is a being which has understanding, 
 and will, thoughts, inclinations, knowledge, desires, and va- 
 rious powers to move the body. Therefore our Saviour 
 has told us, God is a spirit, and the brightest and sub- 
 limest representations of God in Scripture, are such as 
 bear an analogy and resemblance to the soul of man, or a 
 spiritual, thinking nature. 
 
 '' As the chief faculties of our souls are the mind and 
 will, or rather a power of knowing, and a power of acting, 
 so God seems to have revealed himself to us as endued with 
 two divine faculties, his word or wisdom, and his spirit or 
 efficient power. It is by this word and this spirit, that he 
 is represented in Scripture as managing the great concerns 
 of the creation, providence, redemption and salvation ; and 
 these three, viz. God the Father, his Word and his Spirit, 
 are held forth to us in Scripture as one God, even as the 
 soul of man, his mind and his will, are one spiritual being. 
 Since reason and Scripture agree to teach us the nature of 
 God, and inform us who and what God is by this analogy, 
 I think in our inquiries on this sacred subject, we ought to 
 follow this analogy so far as reason and Scripture allow us. 
 Now it is evident that a human soul, in its nature, is one 
 conscious mind; and it is utterly inconsistent with the 
 nature of it to have two or three distinct conscious princi- 
 ples, or natures, in it, that is, to include two or three dif- 
 ferent conscious beings ; and since we are told that God is 
 one, and God is a spirit, it would be something strange if 
 we must believe that God is two or three spirits." — '^ If 
 there be some distinctions ordifFerences in the Divine nature 
 greater than of relations, modes or attributes, and less than 
 that of substances, I know not what name to give it better 
 than that of divine powers. Let us therefore suppose the 
 great and blessed God to be one infinite spirit, one consci- 
 ous being, who possesses real distinct, or different powers, 
 which in sacred language are called the Word and the 
 Spirit. And though this difference or distinction be not so 
 great as to allow of different consciousnesses, or to make 
 
114 ON THE LOGOS. 
 
 distinct spirits, yet these two powers may be represented 
 in Scripture in a figurative manner^ under distinct personal 
 characters." 
 
 " May not the human mind and the will be represented 
 in a personal manner,, or as distinct personal agents, at 
 least by a figurative way of speaking, though they are but 
 two powers of the same soul ? May I not use such lan- 
 guage as this : ' My mind has laboured hard to find out 
 such a difficulty ; my will is resolutely bent to pursue such 
 a course ?' And many other common expressions there are 
 of the same nature, wherein the mind and will are still 
 more evidently and plainly represented as persons. 
 
 " And since human powers are thus represented as per- 
 sons, why may not the word and the spirit, which are di- 
 vine powers, be thus represented also ? And why may not 
 God be represented as a person transacting his own divine 
 affairs with his Word and his Spirit under personal charac- 
 ters, since a man is often represented as transacting human 
 affairs with his understanding, mind, will, reason, fancy, 
 or conscience, in a personal manner ?" 
 
 " With respect to the term person, since neither Scrip- 
 ture itself applies it to the Word or Spirit, nor the elder 
 nor later writers of the church have confined themselves to 
 the use of this term, I can see no necessity of the confine- 
 ment of ourselves or others to it, when we are speaking of 
 the pure distinctions in the Divine Nature. And when 
 we are endeavouring to explain them in a rational manner, 
 and to form and adjust our clearest ideas of them, I think 
 we may use the term, divine properties, or rather divine 
 powers, for this end. Perhaps this word, powers, comes 
 nearest to the genuine ideas of things, so far as we can 
 apply human words to divine ideas, and this word, powers, 
 makes the distinction greater than properties, and I think 
 it is so much the better. But we have several precedents 
 for the use of both these terms among the ancient writers. 
 " The divine Logos seems to be represented, both in 
 Scripture and in the primitive writers, as much distinct 
 from the Father as the same essence admits of, or as dis- 
 tinct as may be, without being another conscious mind. 
 
ON THE LOGOS. 115 
 
 Now this seems to be something more than a mere attri- 
 bute ; and therefore I call the Logos a divine power ; 
 imitating herein both the ancient Jews and the primitive 
 fathers, who call him frequently Sophia and ^>ous, and 
 Dunamis Theou, and particularly Clemens Alexandrinus, 
 who makes him Patrike iis energeia. But since God and 
 his co-essential Word do not seem to have two distinct 
 consciousnesses, or to be two distinct minds, this eternal 
 Logos can hardly be called a person, in the common and 
 literal sense of the term, as a distinct man or angel, but 
 only in figurative and metaphorical language." 
 
 " The Spirit seems to be another divine power, which 
 may be called the power of efficience ; and although it is 
 sometimes described in Scripture as a personal agent, after 
 the manner of Jewish and eastern writers, yet if we put 
 all the Scriptures relating to this subject together, and 
 view them in a correspondent light, the Spirit of God does 
 not seem to be described as a distinct Spirit from the Fa- 
 ther, or as another conscious mind, but as an eternal, essen- 
 tial power, belonging to the Father, whereby all things are 
 effected." 
 
 '' Thus it appears, that, as outward speech and breath 
 are powers of the human body, as reason and vital activity 
 or efficience are powers of the human soul, so the great 
 God in Scripture has revealed himself to us as a glorious 
 Being, who has two eternal, essential, divine powers, which, 
 in condescension to our weakness, he is pleased to describe 
 by way of analogy to our souls and bodies ; and this he 
 doth by the terms Logos and Pneuma in Greek, and in 
 English, Word and Spirit." t 
 
 I shall conclude this lecture by giving another view of 
 the passage which has been entertained by some. I shall 
 state it in the words of Dr. Lawson, and add his reasons 
 in support of it. 
 
 He maintains that it cannot be the design of the Evan- 
 gelist to treat here of the metaphysical nature and essence 
 
 t See Dr. Watts' TrcaUse, entiilcd, " the Arlaii invited to tJie Ortliodo* 
 *'aith," Tart II. 
 
116 ON THE LOGOS. 
 
 of the Divinity, but of the relation in which he stands to 
 us as the author of our spiritual life ; and that otherwise 
 the context would be without any connexion. He sup- 
 poses that by ' the Word/ the Evangelist means (what is 
 meant by it in all other places of Scripture) the Gospel. 
 His translation of the passage is what I have preferred- 
 The following is his defence of it 
 
 " If there is any weight in the objection urged against 
 this rendering, it appears to me to be altogether in favour 
 of it. For it is usual with St. John, and indeed it is a 
 propriety of style, to omit prefixing the article to the pre- 
 dicate, when the predicate is to be understood in a more 
 genei^al or indejiiiite sense> and to prefix the article, when 
 it is to be taken in a more particular or definite sense- 
 Thus in 1 John i. 6, one of the instances brought to support 
 the objection, God is styled Light, without the article; 
 because it is meant indefinitely, not restricted to any par- 
 ticular object. But let us see how it is circumstanced 
 when the Evangelist uses it definitely, and to signify a 
 particular light, for example, the light of the Gospel. It 
 is used in this definite sense at the 4th verse of chap. i. 
 A still more pertinent example we find at verse 8, " He 
 was not the light," viz. that particular light which en- 
 lightened the world, that is, the Gospel light. Here the 
 article is prefixed, and I believe it is to all predicates 
 throughout this writer, which are under the same circum- 
 stance of definiteness or restriction to a particular object, 
 with Logos, in this case. So that, supposing the Evan- 
 gelist to mean the Gospel, by this word Logos, it is quite 
 agreeable to his style to prefix the article to it. Out of 
 the many instances to this purpose, I shall produce chap. 
 vi. S5, 48, 50, 51, in which texts the article serves to 
 specify or define the word to which it is prefixed, just as 
 the English particle the does, and which for the same 
 reason we use in translating it, viz. " I am the bread." 
 But at the 55th verse of the same chapter, where the 
 predicate is left more indefinite or general, the Greek 
 article is omitted; nor can we prefix the English one in 
 the translation without altering the sense. See also John 
 
ON THE LOGOS. lit 
 
 \rm. 12. & xiv. 6. 1 John v. 1, 5. the two latter of which, 
 according to the objection, should be rendered, ' the 
 Christ is Jesus,' ' the Son is Jesus,' if the last clause 
 of John i. 1. is not capable of any other rendering than, 
 ' the Word was God.' 
 
 " St. John seems to mean no more by these words than 
 to preface his account of the Gospel, which he styles, the 
 Word, with the high original of it. This was, he tells us, 
 from God himself; for that in the beginniup, before it 
 was published to the world, it ' was with God ;' God 
 was the Word, the original author and giver of it. It 
 " was in the beginning with God," lay hid from the foun- 
 dation of the world in the eternal counsels of the Almighty. 
 All was done by him, the whole was from God; and 
 without him was not any thing done of that which has come 
 to pass; that is, every part of the Gospel Dispejisation, 
 published by Jesus Christ, was from God ; and whatever 
 works he wrought in confirmation of it, not one of them 
 was of himself or came to pass without God." 
 
 " But then, it may be thought that, taking ' the 
 Word' in the sense I have given it, viz. for the Gospel 
 itself, it sounds extremely harsh to say that ' God was 
 the Word.' To which I answer, that the harshness ob- 
 jected to, arising from the peculiarity of St. John's phra- 
 seology, will be found to be in favour of the translation 
 which I have offered. For what is more common with 
 this writer than to say of God, that 'he is Irght, or truth, 
 or love.^' And abo of Jesus Christ, that 'he is the way, 
 the trutli, the life,' nay, ' the resurrection ?' To assert 
 that ' God was the Word,' is not more harsh than to say, 
 * God is love.' When St. John thus expresseth himself, 
 he doth not mean to affirm, that God is that very thinir 
 by which he calls him, or that God and love are the same 
 thing. We know very well his meaning is, that God is 
 possessed of that thing or quality whereby he names him, 
 in this instance, of love and good-will to his creatures. 
 
 '' So again, when our Saviour according to this Evan- 
 gelist saith, ' I am the resurrection,' he means not to 
 affirm that he and the resurrection are one and the same 
 K 
 
its ON THE lOOdS. 
 
 thing; but that he is the author of our resurrection to 
 life, some such word being always understood in this kind 
 of phraseology. And therefore when it is here asserted 
 that ' God was the Word/ the meaning is natural and 
 easy, viz. that he was the author or giver of the Word 
 which came by Jesus Christ. 
 
 " Once more, with regard to the harshness of the ex- 
 pression, ' God was the V\'ord.' Is it more harsh than 
 that we liave in the vulgar translation, ^ the Word was 
 God ?' So far from it, that, if we were not Uv^ed to it, 
 (and use will reconcile to any thing), this last would ap- 
 pear intolerably uncouth ; and, even under our present 
 prejudice from custom, will appear strange enough on 
 considering how those other similar phrases sound con- 
 structed as this has been. Reverse these sentences, ' God 
 is love; God is light; Christ is the resurrection;' and 
 read them thus, '^ love is God; light is God; the resur- 
 rection is Christ;' and then say which of these construc- 
 tions sound the most harsh ; or whether the last be capable 
 of any sense being affixed to it. The case is just the same 
 with respect to the expression in the text. Jf our trans- 
 lators had rendered it as they have all the other phrases 
 similar to it, viz. ^ God was the Word,' we should have 
 more easily understood it, and interpreted it in tlie same 
 manner with tiie other texts, viz. God was the author of 
 the Gospel dispensation. 
 
 " But it may be made an objection that this Word is 
 said to have existed ^ in the beginning,' which manner of 
 speaking may seem to be more agreeable to the common 
 interpretation^and to refer to the person of Christ, as the 
 Gospel did not exist till his coming into the world, and 
 therefore had not a being, was not (as is here asserted of 
 the Word) in the begiiming. To which I answer, that 
 nothing is more common with the writers of the New- 
 Testament, than to represent those things as having had 
 existence from the begiiming which were always designed 
 by God fo come to pass and were promised in the prophets. 
 And as this was more especially the case of the Gospel, 
 so we find it represented throughout the Scripture as having 
 
ON THE LOGOS. ^^9 
 
 existed ill the eternal counsels of the Almighty. Hence 
 the expressions which occur in 1 John i. 1, 2. Matth. xxv. 
 34. Ephes. i. 4. 1 Cor. ii. 7- Ephes. iii. 9- 2 Tim. i. 9- 
 Rev. xiii. 8. 
 
 " There is one ohjection more which may be made, 
 and that is, that this is not the only place in which the 
 Word (Logo«) seems to relate to the person of Christ, 
 for that this title is given to him both at the 14th verse 
 of this chapter and also in Rev. xix. 13. 
 
 '' But in bolh those places this title is given him on 
 account of his being the minister of the Word or Gospel 
 to men, and relates not to his dignity in a prior state of 
 existence, but to his office on earth. Thus ' he was clothed 
 with a vesture dipped in blood ;' here is a manifest refer- 
 ijnce to his humanity ; ' and Ins name is called the Word of 
 -God.' So that the man Christ Jesus is here styled ' the 
 Word of God/ as having been the minister and publisher 
 ihereof to men. 
 
 "And this is quite agreeable to what the Evangelist 
 has asserted in the other pa?sage, viz. at the 14th verse 
 of the chapter in which our text is, not indeed according 
 to the present translation, 'the Word was made flesh,' but 
 according to one no less literal and more agreeable to the 
 original. 
 
 '' For by flesh (snrx) is plainly meant (and all agree in 
 it) man. It is equally evident that the word eiieneto, here 
 rendered was made, might, more agreeably to the original, 
 have been rendered became. This verse therefore may be 
 full as literally and more exactly translated thus, viz. 
 ' And flesh, that is, a man, became the Word, and dwelt 
 among us, &c.' As God had before been styled the Word, 
 as being the author of it, so Jesus Christ is here styled 
 the Word, as being the publisher of it. The Evangelist 
 had asserted that God was the original author of the 
 Word; that he did all that was done, properly speaking; 
 that in him was that life, t'.iat word of life, which was 
 the light of men, bringing them to the knowledge of God, 
 whom, before, the world knew not, though he was in the 
 world and the world was made by him. He now tells us^ 
 
120 ON THE LOGOS. 
 
 that it came to pass that the Word of God was published 
 to the world by a man. The Word was still the Word 
 of Godj and not of man : but whereas, in the beginning, 
 it was with God, and no one else, it was now with men, 
 come forth, as it were, from God, and come down from 
 heaven into the world, being committed to a man, the man 
 Christ Jesus, to pjiblish it to the world. Accordingly, 
 becoming the Word, he is said in this same verse to be 
 ' full of grace and truth.' Now this grace and truth of 
 which he was full, can mean nothing else than the Gospel, 
 the Word of God (0 Logos iou Theou), for it is put in 
 opposition to the law. ' The law was given by Moses, 
 but grace and truth,' or true grace, that is, the Gospel, 
 ' came by Jesus Ciirist,' ver. 17- Jesus Christ therefore, 
 at the 14th verse, is not called the Word, with respect to 
 his person in a pre-existent state, but with respect to his 
 office in this ; since the Evangelist is contrasting the law 
 given by Moses with the word which came by Jesus 
 Christ." II 
 
 Indeed, whether we adopt Dr. Dawson's translation, or 
 ' Flesh was the Word or was made the Word,' or ' the 
 Word was flesh or became or was made flesh,' the passage 
 affords no ground for the pre-existence, much less the 
 incarnation or hypostatic union of Christ; and there is one 
 circumstance that may very naturally be taken into view 
 in order to account for the peculiarity of the Evangelist's 
 language ; which is, that as in John's Epistles, so here the 
 Evangelist had in view the error of the Docetae, who main- 
 tained that Christ had no corporeal nature. Or we may 
 suppose that the Evangelist in saying, ^ that the Word 
 was flesh,' or that ' flesh became the Word,* wished to 
 shew that the true Word was not a spiritual Aeon, but a 
 real human being. And possibly he may have intended 
 by the expression also to shew, that since the real Word 
 was of a corporeal nature, matter could not be depraved, 
 as they supposed it to be. 
 
 B See Illustrations of several Texts of Scripture, by B. Dawson, LL. D> 
 gector of Burgh, in Suffolk. 
 
LECTURE XL 
 
 ON THE T. O G O S , 
 
 John i. 1 — 17- 
 
 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was 
 
 with God, and the Word was God, ^-c. 
 
 I SHALL in this lecture, for the sake of argument, change 
 the ground I formerly took ; and, in the first place, allow 
 that ' the Word' liere signifies Jesus Christ; secondly, 
 that the sentence I hare rendered '^ God was the Word' 
 should run according to the order of the common version ; 
 and, I ask, will the passage, after all, prove the Deity of 
 Jesus, or at most any more than his pre-existence and his 
 instrumentality in the creation of the world ? I answer, 
 no; and I proceed to prove it. 
 
 Jesus, then, as Trinitarians do not dispute, is called the 
 Word, becaa.se he was the medium of divine communica- 
 tions to men ; because he declared to us the mind and will 
 of God, as we declare our thoughts to one another bv 
 words. Now, how plain it is that he who is the medium 
 of another's communications is not the verv being whose 
 medium he is; and It is equally obvious that he is inferior 
 to the being whose mediator he is. To deny this, is to 
 maintain the absurdity, that the same things may he af- 
 firmed and not affirmed of the same existence at the same 
 time. The very appellation ' Word,' by which Jesus is 
 here distinguished, is sufficient to demonstrate that he is a 
 distinct being from God, and 8uI)ordinate to him in his 
 operations. And whose Word is he ? — that of God. Here 
 again we perceive him to be distinct from Jehovah; a^ 
 K :i 
 
122 ON THE LOGOS. 
 
 distinct from him as he who bears a certain name is dis- 
 tinct from him who bears it not. 
 
 " The Word was in the beginning." What period is 
 referred to ? The first of time ; for eternity had no begin- 
 ning. The same word taken otherwise, in the Mosaic 
 cosmogony, would produce the doctrine of the eternity of 
 matter, or the absurdity, that God created from eternit)?. 
 Now there is an obvious connexion between the words we 
 are considering and the assertion ' the Word was God.' 
 The assertion is, therefore, that God existed in the begin- 
 ning of time. An important declaration ! That God 
 existed when he must have existed; that God existed in 
 time, when he must have existed from eternity, compre- 
 hending all periods of successive duration in the bound- 
 lessness and immensity of unoriginated existence. 
 
 Further, the declaration that '^ the Word was God' in 
 the beginning of time, is one that does not naturally imply 
 that he was God before the beginning of time, or that he 
 was so afterwards. How different such language from 
 that applied to Jehovah ! With respect to him, it is never 
 merely said thai he rvas, much less that he was merely 
 in the beginning of time, and still less that he was God in 
 the beginning of time ; but that ' he is, and was, and is to 
 come, the Lord God Almighty.' 
 
 '^ The Word was with God." Here is a distinction of 
 being intimated in the very terms. He who is with another 
 is not the same existence with whom he is. Jesuy, then, 
 is a different being from God, and that he is not Jehovah 
 is clear from the appellation ^God' being confined in the 
 sentence to the being with whom he is said to have been. 
 There is one Supreme in the Christian's creed. He then 
 who in a sentence is mentioned in distinction from the one 
 Ood, cannot be that exclusive Deity. The name of God 
 is not given to Jesus. Jesus is therefore not the being to 
 whom the appellation is appropriate. By the circumstance 
 of being with, and by the bearing of the office of the me- 
 dium of divine communications, Jesus is distinguished 
 from God, and cannot therefore be he. 
 
 I? the first person of the Trinity ever called the Word 
 
ox THE LOGOS. )23 
 
 of the second or the third person ? If he is not, the ap- 
 pellation ' Logos' rniist denote in the nature of the person 
 wiio bears it something that is not characteristic of Deity; 
 for all that can be applied to the Deity, could be predi- 
 cated of the first, second, or third persons of Deity. It 
 can at all times be said of Jehovah, that he is infinite, 
 unchangeable, independent, and everlasting. And since 
 the title ' Word' expresses something which cannot be 
 affirmed of all the supposed persons in the Godhead, it 
 expresses something which cannot be affirmed of either. 
 
 Further, let us substitute for the Word, the appellations 
 ' second person' and ' Son,' and from the structure of the 
 sentence, and the application of the terms of it, we will be 
 able to form a judgment of the nature of the system Tri- 
 nitarians suppose it to contain. ' In the beginning was the 
 Son, the second person of the Trinity ; and the Son, the se- 
 cond person, was with the Father^ the first person ; and the 
 Son, the second person, was the Father, the first person !' 
 
 " The Word was God." ' I have made thee God to 
 Pharaoh,' was language used by God to Moses. Why, 
 in the same sense, may not Jesus be God to our world — 
 God in the Christian dispensation .'' And what is there, 
 then, in his being called so ? 
 
 Again, when you find in the Gospel the expression, * I 
 am the resurrection and the life,' do you not think it 
 natural and requisite, in ascertaining the meaning of it, to 
 supply a word, so as to understand the passage as declar- 
 ing that Jesus is the medium or the revealer of resurrection 
 and life. When you meet with the declaration of Christ, 
 ' This is my body,' does not a regard to consistency and 
 rationality in the doctrines of the Gospel require us to 
 supply the word represents, so as to understand the pas- 
 sage as asserting that the bread is a representative of the 
 body of Jesus? On the very same principle, when we 
 meet with the phrase, ' the Word was God,' in order to 
 avoid the grossest absurdity, and to maintain concord 
 among the contents and reason throughout Scripture, we 
 are to understand the assertion as implying that the Worcl 
 represents God or communicates God's will. 
 
J24 ON THE LOGOS. 
 
 The office which is implied in the appellation 'Word' 
 is that of representing God to us as we represent our 
 thoughts to one another by words. And would it not be 
 rational to understand the sentence as stating the same 
 truth which would have been communicated had it been 
 said, ' Jesus is the Word or represented God.' We must 
 consider Jesus as called the Word of God, because he is 
 the expression of the mind of Jehovah, and therefore in 
 the sentence, ' the Word was God/ all that we are most 
 naturally led to understand is, that Jesus is so bright and 
 clear an expression of God's mind, that it was not Jesus 
 so much as God himself that spoke to mankind. This 
 idea is conveyed by Christ in various passages, such as, 
 " He that believeth in me, believeth not in me but in him 
 that sent me." And partly on account of this it is that 
 he is called ' an effulgent ryy of the Father's glory, and 
 the express image of his person.' 
 
 When we consider how strongly the expression in ques- 
 tion is guarded both before and behind ; when we find the 
 Evangelist, immediately before the passage, saying, ' the 
 Word was with God,' and immediately after, ' the same 
 was in the beginning with God,' can we here hesitate for 
 a moment to understand the passage as a generally ex- 
 pressed statement of the office of Christ ? We should 
 think him void of common sense, and wishing to burlesque 
 the Scriptures, who would refuse to give to any other 
 similar expression on another subject, occurring in such a 
 coHuexion, an interpretation in unison with the general 
 tenor arid express statements of the book ia which it was 
 foimd. 
 
 I have now to notice another view of these words, aris- 
 ing from a difffrence in the translation. That proposed 
 is, ' the Word was a god.' This sounds strangely to an 
 English ear; but those who consider how often persons of 
 dignity and exalted character are in the Old Testament 
 Scriptures denominated ' gods,* and who find that in tin's 
 inferior application of Theos, our Saviour affirmed that it 
 ikvould have been justly his, had he claimed it, John x. Sr>, 
 •vil] gee nothing in the assertion of the proem that Jesus 
 
ON THE LOGOS. 125 
 
 was a god, which, on the supposition of his mere Messiah- 
 ship, is in the least singular. The fact is, that it is a 
 strictly proper translation of the orifrinal ; for it is a com- 
 mon rule of Greek grammar, that the want of the article 
 before the noun indicates indefinite reference. 
 
 Origen, Eusebius, and Clemens Alexandrinus, three of 
 the most learned fathers, who spoke the Greek as their 
 vernacular tongue, and who addressed their remarks to 
 persons familiar with that language from their infancy, 
 have remarked with some of the moderns, that the lower 
 sense of Theos in the last clause of the first verse is indi- 
 cated by the want of the definite article. Those who 
 know that the word Theos commonly has the article pre- 
 fixed in the original when the Supreme Being is intended, 
 will not be disposed to deny the propriety of this transla- 
 tion. I have myself adopted another translation, because 
 the words, like many other passages of Greek writers, 
 will equally bear different renderings ; and because the 
 account given by Irenseus of the object of the proem seems 
 to suggest the propriety of taking Logos as the predicate, 
 and Theos as the subject, of the proposition. Nothing, 
 however, can be more evident than this, that had the 
 Evangelist intended to declare the Deity of the Word, he 
 might have done so unequivocally and distinctly by the 
 addition of the article. And it may be remarked, as an 
 evident general proof of the inferiority of Christ, that, 
 while the Father is called God, and that with the article, 
 thousands of times, the Son is not once called God with 
 the article ; and, which is of no consequence in the argu- 
 ment to remark, he is not even called God without the 
 article more than once or twice. 
 
 ^' All things were by him, and without him nothing was 
 that was." Now, in the first place, if Jesus was the 
 absolute creator of this world, the efficient agency of the 
 first and third persons of the Trinity would be excluded. 
 To speak of one subsistence in the Trinity supporting the 
 majesty of the Godhead, while another exerted almighty 
 power in creation, is to contradict Scripture, which, in 
 numerous pl^es represents the Father as " the creator of 
 
126 
 
 ON THE LOGOS. 
 
 the heavens and the earth/' and is to produce perfect dis- 
 tinction of being- between the Father and the Son, which 
 at once destroj^s the unity. 
 
 Further, the preposition dia, here translated bi/, and 
 which occurs nearly three hundred times in the New 
 Testament, universally signifies instrumental agency in 
 distinction from hi/po, wliich almost universally implies 
 primary original operation and causation. Those who 
 wish fully to understand the subject, can find no difficulty 
 in ascertaining the correctness of this remark. Ar.d, on 
 this ground, what can be plainer than that Jesus is n#t 
 possessed of almighty power; that, supposing him to have 
 pre-existed, he was but the agent of God in the produc- 
 tion of the world ; a being, therefore, both distinct from 
 him, and inferior to him. 
 
 I now proceed, in the last place, to mention that expla- 
 nation of this passage, which supposes thy phrase ezj arche 
 to mean ^ in or at the beginning of the Christian dispensa- 
 tion;' that by ' the Word' is meant Jesus Chtist; that 
 *^ all things' denote all things connected with that dispen- 
 sation ; and that ginomai does not convey the idea of 
 natural creation. 
 
 The grounds of this interpretation are, first, that the 
 phrase ' the beginning,' which occurs very frequently in 
 John's Gospel, is almost always used to denote the begin- 
 ning of the establishment of the Christian religion, and 
 never once the beginning of the creation ; and that as this 
 phrase is used in the introduction of John's Epistles in 
 relation to the same subject, and there must signify in the 
 beginning of the Christian dispensation, it must have the 
 same meaning in the proem of Johti's Gospel. Some who 
 adopt this interpretation have, with Dr. Carpenter, thought 
 it most natural to render the first part of the verse thus: 
 ^^ At the beginning he (viz. Christ) was or became the 
 Word, or the Word was or became so." 
 
 2.» It is held that the Logos must be used here as a 
 designation of Christ, because it is thus employed in the 
 introduction to John's Epistle, and in Rev. xix. \'6, where 
 also the Alexandrian MS. reads Miath been called/ instead 
 
ON THE LOGOS. 127 
 
 of ' is called,' while there is no instance of its signifying 
 a diviae power in the New Testament. 
 
 3. TJje position that '^ all things' mean all things con- 
 nected with the Christian dispensation, is mairitained on 
 this ground, that the expression in John's writings never 
 signifies the material universe; and that when it is spoken 
 of in the Old or the New Testament, it is always under 
 the disirihiition of the heavens, the earth, the sea, &c. as 
 in Acts iv. 24. & xiv. 15. & xvii. 24. Rev. xiv. 7« 
 
 4. That the idea of creation is not contained in the pas- 
 sage, is grounded upon the circumstance that ginomai is 
 not the word which properly expresses natural creation, 
 but really signifies and is universally translated in Joht)'a 
 Gospel, and in the New Testament in general, ^ to do, to 
 transact, to be, to become, or to come to pass.' And with 
 respect to the objection arising from its occurrence in ver. 
 10, in cor.nesion with the word kosmos, it is replied that 
 the sense and connexion of the passage require the supple- 
 ment of the word enlightened, (see Matth. xxiii. 15.) or 
 that the word egenelo is to be taken in the sense of en- 
 lightened, or as denoting a kind of spiritual and intellectual 
 creation, which seems to be the import of the word in ver. 
 13, also in chap. ili. 5, 6, 7^ S, and frequently in the 
 Epistles of Paul. That this is the import of John's words 
 in the passage, is further contended from the meaning of 
 the word kosmos. As it signifies human beings in the 
 latter part of the verse, it must, it is said, have the same 
 meaning in the other, and not tlie material universe. It is 
 conceivfcd also, that the scope of the passage renders the 
 whole of this interpretation necessary. 
 
 This interpretation of the words is not inconsistent with 
 the account which Irenseus gives of the purpose for which 
 they were written. The declaration, Logos sarx egenelo, 
 might have been intended to correct the notion of the 
 Gnostics, that the Word was a celestial Aeon, by whom 
 all things were created. Taken in connexion with ver. 17, 
 the declaration was also fitted to inform them that Christ 
 and Jesus were not distinct beings ; and that Jesus Christ; 
 a real human beng, was the only proper Word. 
 
LECTURE XII. 
 
 ON THE FIRST CHAPTER OF HEBREWS. 
 
 Hebrews i. 1 — 14. 
 God, who al sundry times, and in divers manners, spake 
 in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in 
 these last days spoken unto tis by his Son, ^c. 
 
 Triumphantly as this chapter has been produced io 
 prove the Godhead of Jesus, when fairly examined in all 
 its parts, I am persuaded you will be convinced that it 
 affords the most satisfactory evidence to the contrary. 
 The very first words of it are inconsistent with the notion 
 of Christ's Deity ; for surely nothing can be more evident 
 than that he who is the Son of another, is not the being 
 whose Son he is — is not his Father — is not in dignity and 
 in underivod existence and perfections equal to his Father. 
 The very application of the title *^Son' to Jesus Christ, is 
 clearly demonstrative of his inferiority of nature and 
 attributes to him who is his Father. And were there 
 nothing more on which to ground Anti-Trinitarianism 
 than the appellation * Son of God' being given to the 
 supposed second person of the Trinity, candour and justice 
 would, I think, demand the acknowledgment of its being 
 more than sufficient. 
 
 Nor is this the only argument for the truth of our sys- 
 tem that the very commencement of this chapter affords. 
 "^ God spoke through the prophets,' says the writer, 'God 
 spoke through his Son.' The relation to God here stated 
 to have been sustained by the prophets is that of being the 
 media of divine communications to mankind. They wer** 
 
ON HEBREWS I. 129 
 
 not the primary agents in authoritatively speaking to men ; 
 they were not the authors of their prophecies ; they were 
 but tlie organs of God. As such they acted in a capacity 
 inferior to the Almighty. And does it not thence appear 
 plain and indisputable that Christ is here spoken of in a 
 character and capacity subordinate to God? Is he not 
 compared to the prophets.'' Was he any thing more than 
 Heaven's oracle in revealing to mankind the Gospel of 
 grace ? As the prophets were inferior to the Almighty,, 
 so was he ; as God only spoke through him as he did 
 through them, he was not the absolute or primary author 
 of his doctrines — he spoke, like the prophets, by an author- 
 ity and knowledge that were imparted to him by God. 
 
 This position receives further confirmation, when we 
 consider that God is here distinguished from Jesus by the 
 absolute name of supremacy; and Jesus is distinguished 
 from God as the mediator between him and men, with 
 respect to divine communications. One being is here 
 called God ; that being alone must therefore be what the 
 name denotes ; for there is but one Supreme. If the cir- 
 cumstance of one being bearing this name in this instance, 
 proves that being to be what the name denotes ; surely 
 the circumstance of another's not receiving the name, as 
 certainly proves that he is not God. Especially is this 
 the case when we consider that the Father is here distin- 
 guished from the Son considered of course as a person and 
 not a nature ; and the Son, be it observed also, is spoken 
 of in his highest character and capacity, which, neverthe- 
 less, are evidently inferior and subordinate to God. The 
 Son, then, is as inferior to the Father as he who bears the 
 name of God is superior to him who bears it not — as he 
 who is distinguished from another by an appellation which 
 denotes supremacy is superior to him who has no such 
 appellation given him to denote his nature and his powers. 
 
 The passage goes on, '' Whom he hath appointed heir 
 of all things." In order to understand ^he meaning of 
 these words, it is necessary to remark that 'heir' and 
 'lord' were, in the Roman law, synonymous terms, as is 
 distinctly remarked by Justinian. Accordingly, in refer» 
 
ISO ON HEBREWS I. 
 
 ence to this, Paul says that '^ the heir differeth nothing 
 from a servant, and is under tutors and governors, though 
 he be lord of all." And in reference to the spiritual domi- 
 nion of Christ, we find the Psalmist declaring in the person 
 of the Aln^ighty, " I will make him, my first-born, higher 
 than the kings of the earth/' This expression Jirst'born 
 is equivalent to heir, because tl>e first-born of a family 
 was always the heir of the paternal estate. 
 
 The doctrine, then, taught in this passage is just what 
 is taught in that sentence of the Apostle's, '' God hath 
 made that same Jesus whom ye crucified, both Lord and 
 Christ." But he that is constituted ' the first-born or 
 Lord' of God's spiritual creation; he that is appointed 
 ' heir of all things' in the Christian dispensation, cannot 
 himself be possessed of underived dignity, dominion, and 
 glory. Had he been the Almighty, therefore, heirship or 
 constituted lordship could not have been his; for who 
 could have appointed bim to dignity, or who could have 
 raised him who, in the nature of things, must necessarily 
 be raiseless. He who is " appointed heir of all things," 
 he to whom " all authority is given in heaven and in 
 eartli," must be a creature dependant on the Almighty. 
 Previous to receiving the spiritual dominion, he had it not; 
 after he received it, therefore, it is only his at the pleasure 
 of God, by whom he was " appointed heir of all things." 
 
 " Through whom he made the worlds." It is really 
 curious to observe the confidence with which this passage 
 is brought forward in support of the idea that Jesus not 
 only e^sted before he appeared as a man, but also that he 
 created the material universe. The preposition which 
 is here used in connexion with epoiesen is dia, which 
 universally denotes instrumental agency, by way of dis- 
 tinction from hi/po, which is almost universally used to 
 signify primary or original causation. Supposing, then, 
 that the notion of creation is conveyed by the original of the 
 word translated ^ made,' and supposing also that ' worlds' 
 is a correct translation of the Greek noun which occurs in 
 the passage, what, I ask, would be the doctrine of the 
 words.? Would it be that the Son created the world as 
 
ON HEBREWS I. 131 
 
 an original artificer ? Surely not ; but that God created 
 it by the agency or means of Jesus Christ. 
 
 This verse is parallel in the mode of its phraseology to 
 the first verse. Now, as v^hen it is said, *^ God spake 
 through the Son," the universal doctrine of the New Tes- 
 tament is expressed respecting the source of our Saviour's 
 knowledge, viz. that it was derived from him who is greater 
 than he, and that he was not the original fountain of his 
 communications. So when it is said, "^ God made the 
 worlds through his Son," it is no less clear and no less 
 incontrovertible that all that is attributed to Jesus in the 
 passage is an agency that is secondary and subordinate to 
 that of the Supreme. Indeed, as in the former sentence, 
 so in this, the very form and structure of the phraseology 
 are more than sufficient to determine this point. 
 
 No one ever yet supposed that he who is said to do a 
 thing through another is the very being through whom he 
 does it ; or that when a person is said to do a thing through 
 another, the sense in which they are said to do it is pre- 
 cisely the same. An artist constructs a piece of mechanism. 
 If he employs his servants to do it, we naturally enough 
 say, he did the work through his servants ; whereas, had 
 the work been done by his own hands, it would be said, 
 the work was done by him or he did the work. Not in 
 fact to admit that the words, " through whom also he 
 made the worlds," convey the idea of instrumental agency 
 in the Son, is either to make the sentence perfectly unin- 
 telligible or absurd. Christ, then, did not create the world 
 by his own inherent energy and might, but by power and 
 wisdom that were communicated by God. 
 
 To the objection that creation is a work, the perform- 
 ance of which cannot be predicated of a creature, it might 
 indeed be said, that all that the words necessarily imply, 
 when understood in the sense in which we are at present 
 taking them, is, that Christ disposed and arranged the 
 materials, which God spoke into existence, into that form 
 and order that now constitute the universe; or that he 
 acted as the organ or medium of the Divinity when matter 
 ^as spoken into existence. Be these, however, as they 
 
132 ON HEBREWS I. 
 
 may, the difficulty may be removed, because the foundation 
 of it may be shewn to be weak or unsound. In the first 
 place, the word translated ' made' is not that which denotes 
 absolute creation. It is indeed used in the Septuagint in 
 the cosmogony of Moses ; but, from the whole, it seems 
 more than probable that nothing more is intended by it 
 than the combination of matter into that structure and 
 form in which we now see that part of it that constitutes 
 the world. The word may be fairly and most properly 
 translated constituted or disposed. 
 
 The proper and literal rendering of aiones, translated 
 * worlds,' is ages or dispensations. This is its natural and 
 only proper meaning. It is so translated in almost all its 
 occurrences in the New Testament, and in many instances 
 must be so to make sense and coherency in the sentences 
 with which it stands connected. Why then should it not 
 be so translated here.'* Taking the word in this sense, in 
 which the Apostle almost uniformly uses it in all his 
 Epistles, and which is its strict and natural signification, 
 the passage may be translated, ' through whom he consti- 
 tuted or disposed the ages.' 
 
 The grand object of the writer of the Epistle is to shew 
 the superiority of the Christian dispensation to the Jewish. 
 That dispensation was called one of the ages into which 
 the Jews were accustomed to divide time. He terms the 
 Christian dispensation " the age to come," thus adopting 
 the terms in which that dispensation had been spoken of 
 by the Jews. And now he introduces the comparison 
 between the Mosaic and the Christian ages by the decla- 
 ration that Jesus Christ, a person of dignity and high 
 moral excellence, was the author of the new dispensation ; 
 that by him, as an authorized ambassador of God, the old 
 dispensation was made an end of, and the new one inr 
 stituted; that God, by the medium of Jesus, had now 
 abolished the old ceremonial mode of worship, and had 
 commenced or laid the foundation of a religion which, 
 though not attended with the visible tokens and manifesta- 
 tions of the divine favour, presence, and majesty, was yet 
 more morally glorious in its nature, as being a system in 
 
ON HEBREWS I- 
 
 133 
 
 the doctrines of which, and in the miracles which confirmed 
 them, were discovered and were to be seen shining forth 
 the moral attributes of the Supreme. 
 
 '' Who being the brightness (or an effulgent ray) of hjs 
 glory, and the express image of his person." Do these 
 words declare Jesus Christ to be of the same essence with 
 God ? Surely not. Is brightness the essence or the sub- 
 stance of light > Is it not rather the appearance of it ? Or 
 is a bri^'Jit ray any thing else than an emanation from the 
 fountain of light— any thing but the particular direction 
 of part of the sun's light ? Christ, then, is only a being 
 who shines forth in derived glory. He is not God ; he 
 only displays and manifests the essential and underived 
 glory of the Supreme. 
 
 In the words, '' the express image of his person," which 
 are, like the words in connexion with them, merely 
 figurative, Trinitarians conceive they find foundation for 
 the doctrine of the unity of substance of the Son and 
 the Father; or for the complete communication of the 
 attributes and essence of Deity from the Father to the 
 Son, so as to make the latter in personality an exact re- 
 presentation of the other. On this principle Justin Martyr 
 and other fathers of the Christian church, anxiously de- 
 sirous to make the comparison of Christ to the brightness 
 of the sun comport with the doctrine of his Deity, main- 
 tained that he proceeded from the Father as the light of 
 the sun, without division or separation from him. In like 
 manner, the Nicene Creed speaks of him as being '' light 
 of light," and hence they argue his consubstantiality with 
 the Father, who, they held, produced not another essence 
 or substance in the Son, but communicated the same 
 essence to him. To this it has been well replied, that 
 if Christ had been generated out of the essence of the 
 Father, he must have taken either a part of it, or the 
 whole. But he could not have taken a part of it, because 
 the Divine Essence is indivisible. Neither could he have 
 taken the whole ; for in this case the Father would have 
 ceased to be the Father, and would have become the Son. 
 And again, since the Divine Essence is numerically one, 
 L 3 
 
IS* ON HEBREWS I. 
 
 and therefore incommunicable, this could by no means 
 hare happened. 
 
 We certainly have reason to say, in opposition to those 
 metaphysical dogmas, that he who is the image of another 
 cannot in any sense be the identical being whose image he 
 is ; and that, as there is but one God, he cannot be that 
 God who is the image of that God. He who is distin- 
 guished from him who bears the title God in its absolute 
 sense, can neither be God in essence nor in personality. 
 In saying so, indeed, Trinitarians involve themselves in 
 inextricable difficulties ; for, as the essence and personality 
 make up the complete image of God, Christ, if God, must 
 be the image of his Father's essence or of his Father's 
 personality. But he cannot be the image of his Father's 
 essence ; for this were to assert that the essence of each 
 is different, since to speak of one essence being the image 
 of the same essence, is absurd. 
 
 A passage parallel to this occurs in Col. i. l6, where it 
 is said that Jesus is " the image of the invisible God." 
 The passages, it will be acknowledged, have both reference 
 to the same thing. Now if Jesus is called the image of 
 the invisible God in respect of his essence, what consist- 
 ency is there in the declaration ? The essence of God 
 being necessarily invisible, if Jesus were really God, his 
 essence being indeed that of the Father's, would be as ne- 
 cessarily invisible as the Father's. It is clear also, that 
 Christ cannot be said to be the image of the Father's per- 
 sonality ; for sure it is, that, according to all ideas of 
 common sense, sonship is no image of paternity, nor a 
 being of derived properties an image of underived perfec- 
 tions. 
 
 Jesus, then, it evidently appears, is called " the image 
 of the invisible God," because in him, considered as the 
 teacher of the world, God's moral glories are reflected, as 
 it were. The idea is more plainly expressed by the Apos- 
 tle when he says, " For God who commanded the light to 
 sliine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts to give the 
 light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of 
 ^g«us Christ," 3 Cor. iv. 6, To the manner in which he 
 
ON HEBREWS I. 135 
 
 appeared as the image of God, Christ refers w!\en he said, 
 " He tiiat hath seen me hath seen the Father," and " He 
 that seeth me, seeth him that sent me," John xivr. 9. & 
 xii. 45. These expressions no one can reasonably deny 
 to be figurative. Were they taken literally, they would 
 contradict reason, and oppose Scripture, which declares 
 that " God is invisible, dwelling in that light which is 
 inaccessible and full of glory ;" or they would make the 
 mere body of Christ, which is all that could literally be 
 seen, to be the Father. 
 
 Nothing is more common in the New Testament than 
 the figurative use of the word seoi, which corresponds to 
 the figure * image and brightness.' " The Son can do no- 
 thing of himself, but what he seelh the Father do." " I 
 speak (saith Christ) that which I have seen with my Fa- 
 ther ; and ye do that which ye have seen with your father." 
 " Hereafter ye shall see the angels of God ascending and 
 descending upon the son of rnan," &c. &c. The sense, 
 then, in which the Father was seen in Christ, is not that 
 of beholding an image of the Father's essence or of the 
 Father's personality, but that of beholding the displays of 
 God's wisdom and power. In Jesus we see God in a 
 spiritual or intellectual sense, either as by apprehending 
 the divine authority of his mission, we see the moral glo- 
 ries of the Supreme as they appear in that view of his 
 character and will which Jesus has given us ; or as in 
 seeing the miracles wrought in confirmation of his mission 
 we see the displays of the power of God. We see God 
 manifesting himself in the only possible way in which he 
 can manifest himself to his creatures. 
 
 As the image of God, Jesus displayed by his doctrines 
 and his works the moral and natural perfections of God. 
 In this sense, and in this sense alone, it is that Jesus uses 
 such expressions as we are noticing. Accordingly in re- 
 ference to the revelation of God's will he made to mankind, 
 and using a figure exactly corresponding to that of imase 
 or brightness, Jesus says, " I am come a light into the 
 world, that whosoever belie veth in me should not abide in 
 darkness ;" clearly intimating that the sense in which his 
 
Ti 36 ON HEBREWS I. 
 
 Father was seen was a moral one^ such as corresponded 
 to that in which he was shewn to the world by the exhi- 
 bition of his will, and attributes, and government, and such 
 as is expressed by another declaration of Christ, " If ye 
 had known me, ye should have known my Father also," 
 John xiv. 7, words which, you will observe, occur as the 
 preceding context of the words which we have noticed, 
 and which are evidently synonymous with the concluding 
 sentence, '^'^ ye have seen him." 
 
 Were any thing more necessary to illustrate the sense 
 in which Jesus declared that the Father was seen in him, 
 I should advert to his own formal illustration which was 
 given to Philip, '^ Believest thou not that I am in the Fa- 
 ther, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto 
 you, I speak not of myself; but the Father, that dwelleth 
 in me, he doeth the works ;" that is, the works confirming 
 the truth of the words. From all which it seems clear 
 that Jesus was the image of God, or that in him God was 
 seen, not because the miracles he wrought or the doctrines 
 he taught were the productions of his own deity in unison 
 and co-operation with that of the Father ; not because 
 they were the works and the words of the second person in 
 the Trinity united to the man Jesus. His whole words go to 
 prove, in the most unequivocal manner, that he acted merely 
 as the agent of the Almighty ; and yet in this character and 
 capacity it is in which he implies that he is '' the image of 
 God," or in which it is true that " he who hath seen him 
 hath seen the Father," 
 
 " Upholding all things by the word of his power." The 
 word here translated upholding, might be rendered con- 
 ducting or governing. ' All things' have no doubt an 
 exclusive reference to all things connected with the Chris- 
 tian dispensation, especially its progress and security, and 
 the extension of its blessings. Whose the power is that is 
 spoken of, is not quite clear. It seems to be that of God, 
 and not that of Christ. Supposing, however, that the pow- 
 er is that of Christ, and that upholding sufficiently well 
 fjonveys the meaning of the original, the doctrine of the 
 passage would be no more than this, that Christ by the 
 
ON HEBREWS I- ^^' 
 
 power imparted to him by his Father upheld ail things 
 in the Christian dispensation, so as that under his conduct 
 the blessings of Christianity should be imparted to the 
 world. It seems, I think, decidedly clear that the passage 
 has no reference whatever to the upholding ot the natu- 
 ral universe ; and even though it had, in order to make one 
 part of the passage consistent with the other, we should be 
 necessitated to understand that in continuing to regulate 
 the course of nature he acted merely in the same character 
 in which he is supposed to have disposed the world at tirst, 
 viz. as a secondary agent ; and as the power may even on 
 grammatical principles be referred to God, we have an addn 
 tional reason for so understanding it. 
 
 '' When he had by himself made a cleansing of ou^sms, 
 sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high." What 
 is here implied in the use of the phrase ' by himself, seems 
 to be a natural inquiry. And simple as it is, the answer 
 seems wholly incompatible with the double view that is 
 taken of the person of Christ. The words have some 
 meaning, else they would not have been introduced ; and 
 what meaning can they have that does not naturally in- 
 volve the supposition or the idea that Christ suffered in his 
 whole person } The Epistle represents this cleansing of sin 
 as having been especially accomplished by his death, which 
 confirmed the covenant of everlasting mercy. And this 
 death, according to the import of the words ^ by himself, 
 must have been the death of his whole person. Whatever 
 dionity he possessed, whether two natures or ten, ' by him- 
 self ' includes the whole. But the death of Deity involves 
 inconsistencies and absurdities. As God, therefore, he can- 
 not be spoken of hi the preceding verses. He was rewarded 
 for his meritorious sufferings ; he was exalted by God, 
 and to God's right hand ;— the same himself that is pre- 
 viously spoken of. To say that the human nature was 
 rewarded for the humiliation of the divine, is to speak 
 most inconsistently ; and to suppose that the divine was 
 exalted, is a notion too absurd to enter the mmd. 
 
 '' Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath 
 by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 
 
3 38 ON HEBREWS I. 
 
 It is impossible that the Almighty is he of whom ti»e 
 writer thus speaks. Can the Creator of the universe be 
 once brought into comparison with the very highest of 
 his creatures? Can infinite be compared to finite? More 
 properly may the light of the sun be compared to the feeble 
 glimmering of a taper ; or immensity to a mathema- 
 tical point. To the angels or the messengers of the old 
 dispensation, Christ may be compared ; his glory and 
 his dignity are superior to theirs ; his is a nobler name ; 
 his is a more honourable dominion. To the powers of 
 heaven he may be compared, and as far as concerns the 
 glory and the honour arising from connexion with our 
 world, he is superior to them. But to conceive that God 
 is compared to his creatures is singular in the extreme ! 
 
 '' For unto which of the angels said he at any time, 
 Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ?" The 
 words are quoted from Psalm ii. 7, 8. And certainly 
 nothing can be more evident than that they speak of 
 Jesus in a character wholly inferior to the Supreme, though 
 it be the highest which Christ sustains. " Yet have I set 
 my king upon my holy hill of Zion." Here is appoint- 
 ment to an office. ^^ Jehovah hath said unto me." Here 
 is the one Jehovah (and there are not two) clearly distin- 
 guished from the Son. '^ Ask of me, and I will give thee 
 the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts 
 of the earth for thy possession." Here is perfect inequality 
 intimated; here is a suppliant; and here is therefore one 
 who is distinct from the Supreme God, and is wholly depen- 
 dant on the Almighty. Surely this cannot be God himself 
 that is spoken ^of; surely God cannot ask of himself; 
 surely the second person of Trinity cannot ask a favour of 
 the first. No. " The Lord God will give unto him the 
 throne of his father David," is the language of another psalm. 
 '^ God hath exalted him a spiritual prince and a saviour," 
 is the language of the Apostles. 
 
 '' This day have I begotten thee." No wonder that the 
 doctrine of " eternal sonsliip" is exploded. Surely to main- 
 tain it, is to say that time and eternity are synonymous 
 iferms. An eternal day must first appear to be intelligible 
 
OU HEBREWS r. 139* 
 
 words, or to convey a meaning that is consistent with the 
 dictates of reason, before an eternal sonship can stand- 
 What absurdities do such a singular hypothesis involve ! 
 The plain truth contained in this passage, with respect to 
 the sonship of Christ, is this, that he was the first-begotten 
 from the dead, never to die any more; he was or became 
 this on the day of his resurrection. In this sense the 
 phrase was evidently applied by Paul in Acts xiii. 33. 
 & Heb. V. 5. 
 
 '^ T will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." 
 These words form part of an address of Nathan to David. 
 They promise to Solomon a kingdom to be established for 
 ever; and Christ being understood by the writer to be the 
 antitype of Solomon, the words are applied to him as ex- 
 pressive of his regal dignity. Now, I ask, how the appli- 
 cation of this passage to Christ is consistent with the idea 
 of his being spoken of as God ? Was the circumstance of 
 these words being addressed to Solomon, any proof that 
 Solomon was more than man? If so, how can they prove the 
 antitype more? How do they not naturally prove him to 
 have been in nature the same ? Surely the appellation here 
 given to the antitype, involves the conclusion that the 
 meaning of it when given to the antitype is not more than 
 when it is given to the type. 
 
 '^ And when he bringeth in the first begotten into the 
 world, he sailh. And let all the angels of God worship him." 
 ' Going hence' or ' going out of the world,' Psal. xxix. IS, 
 1 Cor. V. 10, are the common expressions to signify death, 
 and God being said to beget Christ when he raised him 
 from the dead, this may be fitly called a second introduc- 
 tion of him into the world. The words are expressly to be 
 found in the original Hebrew, Deut. xxxii. 43, as they are 
 here cited, and refer to the children of Israel figuratively 
 represented under the character of one being, God's anointed. 
 This being the case, they prove nothing at all respecting 
 the Deity of Christ ; and, instead of shewing that he was 
 entitled to supreme worship, they shew that he was to be 
 worshiped in the same sense in which the children of 
 Israel were. 
 
140 ON HEBREWS t. 
 
 Even allowing that the command or exhortation was 
 given in reference to Christ, still what is proved? The 
 word translated ' worship' generally means nothing more 
 than homage of any kind, profound reverence and respect^ 
 expressed in any particular way. Indeed the very circum- 
 stance of this command to worship Christ being given only 
 when he was brought into the world shews of itself that 
 supreme worship is not meant, for supreme worship, which 
 alone belongs to God, would not only have been given to 
 Jesus when he was raised from the dead, but would have 
 been his from eternity, had he been the Supreme. Had he 
 been naturally entitled to this worship, how was it that 
 lie required the command of another in order to procure 
 it for him ? The command shews of itself, indeed, that 
 he was a distinct being from him who ushered it forth 
 in his behalf; and nothing can be more obvious than that 
 the receiving of this worship is a part of his exaltation ; a 
 circumstance that can have no reference to him whose 
 dignity is unchangeable and infinite. 
 
 ^' Unto the Son he saith. Thy throne, O God, is for 
 ever and ever, a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of 
 thy kingdom." This verse stands digunctively conjoined 
 with the preceding. The verses draw a contrast between 
 the sacredness of the title '^ angel' and that of *^ the Son.' 
 The former verse should be translated, '' Who maketh the 
 winds his messengers, and flames of fire his ministers." The 
 idea of the writer seems to be, that so little sacredness or 
 importance is there in the appellation ' angels,' that it is 
 given to inanimate objects, because they were employed 
 by Jehovah to execute his purposes. Thence he takes 
 occasion to illustrate the dignity of the Son, by shewing 
 that the terms in which he is addressed are such as inti- 
 mate the superiority of the capacity he holds. 
 
 The passage has been translated by some very learned 
 tiivhies, ^'^ God is thy throne," which would convey the 
 idea of God being the support and stability of Christ's 
 throne, in the same figurative maimer in which God is called 
 the shield, the buckler, the hiding place, and the portion of 
 his people. Most certainly the one translation is as war- 
 
ON HEDRF.WS I. 
 
 in 
 
 rantable as the other, but it signifies little in the argument 
 which we adopt. Supposing, therefore, the common trans- 
 lation to be correct, what does the passage prove? No- 
 thing more than it proved with respect to Solomon ; for 
 to him the words were originally addressed, of which any- 
 one who reads the passa'ge throughout will be at once 
 convinced. It is a quotation from Psal. xlv. and can 
 apply to no other than Solomon ; so that, if k prove the 
 Deity of Jesus, it also proves that of Solomon. To those 
 who recollect that the title ' God' is, in the Old Testament, 
 a common designation of persons of power, eminence, and 
 dignity, and that Chriit claimed the application of the 
 title to himself, only in this sense, it will appear not in 
 the least surprising, that Jesus should here be so denomi- 
 nated. And that the name is given him only in its com- 
 mon inferior sense in this place, is as evident as that it is 
 given in its supreme sense to him who anointed Jesus^ 
 For as the God who anointed him is supreme, Jesus wha 
 was anointed cannot be so also, there being confessedly 
 but one Supreme. 
 
 That the term ' God' is applied to Christ in an inferior 
 sense, is as evident as that it is said to be ''his God'^ 
 who anointed him. He who had a God could not have 
 had applied to him the appellation ' God' in the same 
 sense in which it is applied to the Father. Who could 
 impart any thing to Jehovah } Yet Jesus was anointed. 
 To whom could Jehovah render obedience ? Yet Jesus is 
 here said to have been anointed, because of his having 
 loved righteousness and hated iniquity. Who could have 
 been the superior of the Supreme? Yet Jesus is here 
 spoken of as having a God. To whom can the Infinite 
 Sovereign of the world be equaled? Yet Jesus here is 
 said to have ' fellows,' above whom he was anointed. 
 And are not these considerations more than sufficient to 
 prove the subordination of Jesus to the Father. Here he 
 is spoken of, all must admit, in his highest character — 
 considered also of course as a whole person, of which the 
 same things cannot be predicated and not predicated at 
 the same time. 
 
 M 
 
342 ON HEBREWS J. 
 
 ** ThoU;, Lordj hast laid the foundation of the earth.'* 
 The writer implies that Solomon was a type of Jesus> 
 and affirms that the Scripture makes this address in 
 reference to Jesus; as made to Solomon the type, the 
 address had a reference to Jesus the antitype, though not 
 made to Jesus. That the address was made to the Son, 
 is an idea founded on the mistranslation of pros, which 
 being correctly translated of in the former verse, should 
 have been so rendered here. And thus the notion that 
 the address in the tenth verse was made to the Son, ap- 
 pears to be wholly vain. The address was made to the 
 Father concerning or in reference to the Son; and the 
 idea of the writer plainly is, that tlie eternity and immu- 
 tability of Jehovah are a pledge of the perpetuity of the 
 reign of Christ, because he is endowed with his authority 
 and supported in the dignity of his office by the will and 
 decree of Jehovah ; and the perpetuity of his reign is one 
 circumstance that proves his superiority to angels. 
 
 " Now, unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the 
 only wise GoD, be honour and glory for ever and ever. 
 Amen." 
 
 THE END; 
 
 IPrinUd by W. DAVISON, Alnwick.y 
 
I 
 

 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 JMimp^ 
 
 i 
 
 
 : ^.ngggii^ 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 1 i 
 
 1 1 
 
 'i 
 
 ', 
 
 
 i • 
 
 i 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 vr. .r<ii<» 
 
 1 
 
 
 i 
 
 ! i 
 
 
 1 
 
 ! ! 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 ! 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 DEMCC 2&.79- 
 
1a