THE 
 
 CHRISTIAN VERITY STATED 
 
 IN REPLY TO 
 
 A UNITARIAN. 
 
 "til 
 
 BY 
 
 WALTER CHAMBERLAIN, M.A., 
 
 INCUMBENT OF ST. JOHN S, BOLTON-LE-MOORS. 
 
 Author of 
 NOTES OX THE RESTORATION AND CONVERSION OF ISRAEL,' 
 " ISAIAH'S CALL TO ENGLAND," 
 „ ETC., ETC. 
 
 "Baptizing them into the name of The Father, of The Son, and of The 
 Holy Ghost."— Matt, xxviii. 19. 
 
 "And Thomas answered, and said unto him, My Lord and My God." — 
 John xx. 28. 
 
 " No man can say that Jesus is The Lord, but by The Holy Ghost." — 
 1 Cor. xii. 3. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 WERTHEIM, MACINTOSH, AND HUNT, 
 
 24, Paternoster Row, 
 
 and 23, holles street, cavendish square. 
 
 1861. 
 

 If there be amy unscriptural thought in this book, I ask God 
 
 TO PARDON IT. 
 
 IF ANY UNCHARITABLE WORD, I BEG MAN TO FORGET IT. 
 
 If any saving truth, I pray God to accept and bless it. 
 
 ^77 1 - k/ 
 "Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, 
 and honour, and power, and might, be unto our god, for ever 
 and ever." — Rev. vii. 12. 
 
TO 
 
 JOHN HORROCKS AINSWORTH, ESQ., 
 
 OF 
 
 HALLIWELL, LANCASHIRE. 
 
 My dear Sir, 
 
 Some time since you sent me a little book by Dr. Beard, of 
 Manchester, entitled " Reasons for being a Unitarian," and requested me 
 to answer it ; the expense being, with your wonted liberality in a good 
 cause, borne entirely by yourself, but left, without limit, to my own dis- 
 cretion. The work I now send you is intended as some sort of compliance 
 with your wishes. 
 
 Upon consideration, it seemed desirable not to occupy ourselves in 
 replying merely to Dr. Beard, but to take the opportunity of sending out 
 an easy volume, stating Christian, i. e., Trinitarian, truth as opposed to 
 Unitarian error, in as plain and as concise a manner as we could. 
 
 Many of Dr. Beard's boasted reasons for being a Unitarian we might 
 have handed over justly to Trinitarian religion ; as, e. g., we might 
 have said, Trinitarianism is intelligible, real, reasonable, true, positive, 
 permanent, etc. ; but we shall both agree that on this solemn subject, 
 affecting (as it does) the salvation of our immortal souls, appeal ought 
 not to be to the erring powers of the unaided human mind, but to the 
 inspired declarations of God's "Word, studied by minds praying for the 
 teaching of The Holy Ghost. 
 
 I am too well acquainted with your own scholarship, and habit of 
 patient and critical reading, not to feel it unnecessary to do more than 
 mention the abstruse, and erudite, nature of many parts of the subject 
 we have undertaken. And I feel assured you will be pleased that, while 
 striving to place this book upon a sound, and substantial, foundation, 
 I have thrown aside to the utmost all technical expressions, and hyper- 
 critical, and elaborate, references ; and have written it in the simplest 
 style I could command. 
 
Such as it is, I place it in your hands with the earnest prayer 
 that your bounty may he accepted; and that many helievers, Avho read 
 this work, may be confirmed in the profession of their holy faith ; 
 many waverers be strengthened against the error it assails ; and, if so 
 great a blessing may be hoped for, many Unitarians rescued from their 
 delusions. Incomplete it necessarily must he ; though not, on that 
 account, insufficient. But its faults (and there will be many) are 
 entirely my own: still, I earnestly hope that the feeling, and spirit, 
 with which it has been written, are such as become "the doctrine of 
 God our Saviour," which it would be as painful to you as to myself 
 to dishonour by any want of that " charity which is the bond of per- 
 fectness." 
 
 Allow me to remain, 
 
 My dear Sir, 
 Very faithfully, and obediently, 
 Yours, 
 
 "Walter Chamberlain. 
 
 Bolton-le- Moors, Dec. 26tk, 1860. 
 
AS TO 
 
 THE ARTICLES AND THE CREEDS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 On Sunday, November 4, I860, Dr. Vaughan, late Head Master 
 of Harrow, read himself in as Vicar of Doncaster ; and spake as 
 follows : — 
 
 " It is now not far from half a century since those Articles have 
 been read aloud in the parish church; and I can well believe 
 that many of you may never have had your attention called to 
 them — perhaps you may never have read them carefully in the 
 whole course of your lives. I would call upon you, then, to 
 listen to them, and to follow them with all your care as I read 
 them to you to-day. It is not my intention to slur them over. 
 On the contrary, I would give full force and emphasis to them, 
 believing them, as I do, to be carefully drawn from Holy Scrip- 
 ture, and to contain a body of Divine truth always seasonable 
 and sometimes too much disregarded. I do not look upon this 
 as a wearisome form, nor, indeed^ as a form at all. In the 
 appointment of your minister you have had no voice. It is not 
 the usual practice of our Church to look to the congregation 
 either for the nomination or for the approval of the nomination 
 of their parochial minister. All the more necessary is it that 
 every precaution should be taken for your being satisfied of the 
 
 b 
 
VI ARTICLES AND CREEDS OF THE 
 
 correctness of his doctrine. You have a right to be assured, and 
 you can be so only from his own lips, that he is in heart as well as 
 in profession a minister of your own beloved church. That is 
 one reason why I am required to-day to perform the whole of 
 the service myself, and to add to that performance of the service 
 the reading of the Articles of the Church, with an express and 
 solemn declaration of my assent and consent to them. Dry and 
 formal statements of abstract truth are not the usual, nor are 
 they the proper staple of sermons. Dogmatic teaching, as it is 
 called — the enunciation of Christian doctrine in the form of posi- 
 iv e and detailed statement — is not much in fashion among us, 
 perhaps almost too little so, since out of it must grow all Chris- 
 tian practice, and no part of it can be omitted systematically in 
 our teaching without injury, in some respect more or less im- 
 portant, to the Christian life of our hearers. Therefore, I would 
 bid you to accept with thankfulness the necessity which to-day 
 is laid upon you of hearing the doctrines of Christianity drawn 
 out with something of precision into something of detail. Let 
 me remind you that they who, though dead, yet speak in these 
 formularies of our church, were men — though the authority of 
 particular parts may be doubtful — who, living in troublous times, 
 knew the importance better than we do of correct or incorrect 
 expression in the things of God, and proved their sincerity, in 
 many well-known and memorable instances, by sealing their 
 testimony with their blood. Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, with 
 many others — fathers of the English Church they are rightly 
 called — speak to us in these articles from a martyr's grave. Let 
 us not think lightly of doctrines, whether in their substance or 
 in their expression, for which living men, men of talent, and 
 learning, and piety, and occupying places of power and emolu- 
 ment in the forefront of the church, loved not their lives unto the 
 death. Observe, too, as you listen, how carefully the phrase- 
 
CHURCH OF ENGLAND. VU 
 
 ology of these Articles is kept within the actual words of Holy- 
 Scripture. Some of those which might, perhaps, provoke doubts 
 or differences of opinion — I will instance the 17th — are, if you 
 examine them, little more than verses of Scripture lightly strung 
 together by a few clauses of human connections and, whatever 
 may be the meaning of the passages of Scripture from which 
 they are taken, such, and no other — not more difficult, not more 
 ambiguous — will be their meaning here in the Article which 
 embodies them. Remember, also, in hearing them, that almost 
 ■every one, if not literally every one, of these Articles, even if it 
 is not so now, was once the negation of some existing error ; not 
 a mere imagination of what it might be necessary to counteract, 
 but founded upon an actual experience of that necessity ; a pro- 
 test against something which might be advanced on the side of 
 heterodoxy and false religion, even because it had already been 
 so advanced, and had wrought some serious breach in the unity 
 and in the completeness of the faith once delivered to the saints. 
 And if in any respect the doctrines here stated do not suit the 
 feeling or the taste of the age in which our lot is cast — if there 
 be any obsolete expressions, or (which is more important) any de- 
 tails which may seem to favour a tone of opinion with which some 
 of us have little sympathy, because we have witnessed more than 
 the Reformers knew of its possible abuse — let us not forget that 
 we are now within two years of completing the third century, the 
 full tale of 300 years, since this compendium of doctrine was 
 finally ratified — much more than that time since it was drawn 
 up : let us approach it with the reverence, as well as the in- 
 dulgence due to great antiquity, and only pray to God to make 
 us one-half as wise, one-half as holy, or one-half as self- 
 denying and self-devoted as were those illustrious men to whose 
 studies, prayers, and toils we owe this bulwark of a Christian 
 faith, and a protestant church. Listen to it as the faith in which 
 
Viii ARTICLES AND CREEDS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 you may be thankful to live and to die ; listen to it as that 
 faith in which it will be the constant endeavour of him who is 
 now set over you in The Lord to instruct you week by week, 
 and to live and to die himself." 
 
 Note.— Much of what Dr. Vaughan has so admirably 
 said respecting the articles of the church 
 of England may be said with equal — if pos- 
 sible, WITH MORE — JUSTICE OF THE CREEDS SHE 
 HAS ADOPTED AS HER OWN; BY WHICH I MEAN 
 
 those called the Apostles', the Nicene, and 
 St. Athanasius', as enjoined in the eighth Ar- 
 ticle. May the time never arrive when the 
 people of England shall be ignorant of, or 
 indifferent to, those creeeds. 
 
 W. C. 
 

 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Introduction . 
 
 p. xi — XXV111. 
 
 — Eeason and Faith 
 
 — The Existence and Attributes of God 
 
 . — The Angel with the Patriarchs . 
 
 . — The Angel with Moses and the Judges 
 
 . — The Son with David and the Prophets 
 
 . — The Son with the Prophets 
 
 , — The Deity of The Holy Ghost 
 
 — The Personality of The Holy Ghost 
 
 — The predicted Incarnation 
 
 — The Son of God 
 
 . — The Son of Man 
 
 . — The Subordination 
 
 , — Atonement 
 
 . — Messlih Crucified 
 
 , — Christ in Glory 
 
 , — Pentecost 
 
 —Necessary to Salvation 
 
 page 
 1 
 
 20 
 
 37 
 
 51 
 
 68 
 
 83 
 
 97 
 112 
 135 
 162 
 184 
 196 
 221 
 237 
 251 
 279 
 305 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 I trust we may reckon among other means of improving her 
 social and intellectual condition, which have of late years distin- 
 guished Manchester, the progress also of " true religion and 
 virtue." She is possessed of an active, energetic, and thriving 
 church ; and among her ministers of various Trinitarian deno- 
 minations are many most distinguished men ; some remarkable 
 for persevering, parochial assiduity ; some for excellent powers 
 of pulpit eloquence ; some for their erudition. And on this 
 very account should I have hesitated to undertake the present 
 task, had I not been requested to do so. 
 
 One peculiar credit which Dr. Beard claims for Unitarianism 
 is the expansiveness of its views, and its complete unsectarian 
 character ; and he also aggrandizes to himself and co-reli- 
 gionists an unusual degree of Christian charity. " Think and 
 let think, is its motto. This true Christian principle it could 
 not recognize did it hold that salvation was by any form of opinion" 
 p. 59. "This divinely authorised latitude of thought guarantees 
 a corresponding largeness of heart, which makes intolerance im- 
 possible," p. 61. Scripture, however, reminds us in many places 
 that such a charity as this is not Christian ; but without stopping 
 to point out more particularly that the writer here asserts, in 
 effect, that every man may go to heaven his own way, no 
 matter what religious opinions he may entertain ; without dwel- 
 ling on the fact that this boasted ** largeness of heart" may 
 
Xll INTRODUCTION. 
 
 prove, in the issue, to have been any thing but goodness of 
 heart, we might have expected from such a writer more forbear- 
 ance towards the members of Trinitarian communions. With 
 such loose sentiments avowed it is painful to record the tone in 
 which he speaks of others. All who are not Unitarians, though 
 he admits that many Unitarians differ from himself, are in his 
 opinion remaining " deaf to a religious revival in which Reason 
 and Scripture are to be honoured, rather than passion;" p. ix. : 
 they " have been brought up in the orthodox system — have 
 been taught to avoid free discussion" p. 1 : they hold "a man- 
 made system," "a tradition handed down from ancient creed- 
 makers" p. 10: their intellects are "cabined, cribbed, and con- 
 fined by a narrow creed, that finds religion chiefly in the 
 bended knee, the serious countenance, and the mortified heart; 
 that, fearing to go wrong, can hardly go right ; that, dreading 
 heresy, misses the portal to truth ; and, intent mainly on avoid- 
 ing the way to death, has no energy left for walking in the path of 
 life," p. 45. Such sentiments, expressed in contemptuous com- 
 miseration of others, are unworthy of any candid writer, and 
 certainly ought not to secure him a more patient hearing from 
 his fellow-townsmen; nor will they give them much con- 
 fidence in the soundness of a cause so defended. Who is likely 
 to agree with him when insinuating, that all ministers and 
 serious believers, of all Trinitarian denominations, are mere 
 victims of formulas ; blind professors of belief in ambiguous, 
 and doubtful creeds ; held in terror to their system by threats 
 of eternal woe, dwarfed and stunted in their minds 1 Surely 
 he cannot suppose that many thousands of Gospel preachers, 
 and many ten thousands of educated believers in their preach- 
 ings, are scattered throughout these favoured isles : of equal 
 mental power with his own, and some of greater ; of equal edu- 
 cation with himself, and some of more extended ; of equal attain- 
 
INTRODUCTION. xill 
 
 ments, and some of far superior ; only to be, after all, the crea- 
 tures of delusion, and subjects of melancholy pity to their friends. 
 We should be justified in harder words than merely remarking 
 that such a style is enough to create distrust in the writing that 
 contains it. 
 
 Dr. Beard descants with much admiration upon the various 
 kinds of Unitarians, and enumerates four classes, among whom 
 he says, (p. 5) that "in relation to the person of Christ, diver- 
 sities prevail;" and, considering the subject of their specula- 
 tions, we should not have been surprised if he had counted 
 forty. But of these four, he observes they are agreed " that 
 'The Son of God' is not God the Son," p. 7: and again 
 that " the denial of The Trinity, the denial of The Trinity of 
 the authorised statements of the notion ; that is, the denial 
 of The Trinity of the creeds, especially of the Athanasian creed 
 — the creed sanctioned alike by age and numbers — that makes 
 the distinction between a Trinitarian and a Unitarian," p. 36. 
 So that Unitarianism may be safely treated in its most general 
 form as that distortion of Christian verity which denies the 
 deity of Christ; however great, or exalted in any sense, its 
 votaries may otherwise allow him to be. In short, the. denial 
 of Christ's deity is the generic mark of Unitarians. And, in 
 whatever degree the deity of our Blessed Redeemer be estab- 
 lished, in that same degree Unitarianism is refuted. That is the 
 pole-star of Christianity. 
 
 Of course, when any one finds fault with creeds we must 
 deal with him as with others who have done so — leave him at 
 liberty to make a creed of his own. For, as has been well 
 observed, the dispute among men respecting creeds is not so 
 much about creed-making as creed-7nakers ; and every man is 
 likely to be content if left to put together one for himself. 
 Thus, in justice it must be noted, Dr. Beard delivers one of his 
 
XIV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 own. At page 8 he says, " I believe that the following proposi- 
 tions would be generally acknowledged by them (viz., Unitarians) 
 as comprising the fundamentals of the Gospel : — 
 
 1. There is one God the Father, and none other but He. 
 
 2. There is one Lord Jesus Christ, who came divinely com- 
 
 missioned, to lead men to duty and to God. 
 
 3. There is one Spirit of God, comforting and sanctifying all 
 
 Christ's faithful disciples. 
 
 4. There is one true Church, comprising all, of every denomi- 
 
 nation, who live holily in Christ Jesus. 
 
 5. There is one bond of Christian unity, the bond of peace, 
 
 and therefore the bond of mutual toleration. 
 
 6. There is one final abode of the spirits of just men made 
 
 perfect, the home of The Heavenly Father." 
 Let this profession of faith, or creed (for it is such, though it may 
 shrink from the name) be examined by the extracts previously 
 given to define Unitarianism and its fatal deficiency on points 
 essential to Christianity may be seen at once. Art. 2 asserts 
 not the deity, but the manhood of Jesus, which may mean, and 
 we know does mean (according to Dr. Beard), that he was the 
 son naturally begotten of Joseph and of Mary ; i. e., mere man. 
 Art. 3 asserts not that "The Holy Spirit" is God; and Art. 4 
 assumes that though not believing the fundamental doctrines of 
 revealed religion, yet men may live without them holily in Christ 
 Jesus, and as members of the true church. Only let us contrast 
 with this what he terms, at page 87, " the earliest form of what 
 is now called the Apostles' creed; in other words, the earliest 
 confession of the primitive church," which, " after the simple ac- 
 knowledgment of The Lord Jesus Christ, in which was implicitly 
 contained all true Christianity," was 
 
 The Creed of the Church of Alexandria in Egypt : 
 " I believe in the only true God, The Father, The Almighty ; 
 
INTRODUCTION. XV 
 
 and in His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour ; 
 and in the Holy Ghost, the life-giver. ," Or, again, part of 
 
 The Creed of the Roman Church (commonly called Apostles') : 
 " I believe in God Almighty ; and in Jesus Christ His Son, the 
 only-begotten, who was born of the Holy Spirit, and of Mary the 
 Virgin." Or, again, part of 
 
 The Oriental Creed: 
 
 " I believe in one God, The Father Almighty ; and in one 
 Lord Jesus Christ, His only Son, who was born of The Holy 
 Spirit, and of the Virgin Mary." 
 
 And we see at a glance how completely he is contradicted on 
 that great article of all, viz., the deity of Jesus. For with Uni- 
 tarians he is Son of God only as his Christian followers are 
 made sons too, though he in a greater degree. But in these 
 creeds His real nature as God is marked by the term " the only- 
 begotten Son," and as born "of The Holy Spirit and of the 
 Virgin Mary ; " the primitive churches always believing that His 
 miraculous conception by The Holy Ghost implied His deity, and 
 always understanding the word monogenes, or only-begotten, as of 
 the eternal essence of deity with The Father. " God of God, 
 Very God of Very God." And, although Dr. Beard denies that 
 these creeds represent the first and simplest form in which faith 
 was professed in Jesus, yet plain minds will consider it a weighty 
 fact that these three creeds, cited by himself, each of which he 
 admits to be a form of " the earliest confession of the primitive 
 church," are so decisive upon — that great stumbling-block of all 
 to Unitarians — the deity of Jesus. Plain minds, I say, will feel 
 the weight, the overpowering weight, of this fact admitted by 
 himself, that the earliest churches confessed their faith in 
 Jesus as " the only-begotten Son " of God ; and will conclude 
 that, according to these creeds, the very essence of Unitarianism 
 is adverse to the faith of the primitive church. A fact to plain 
 
XVI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 minds weightier still when we remember that the great mass of 
 Christendom, whatever their differences on other points, has 
 united in this respect in accepting these creeds ; a fact weightier 
 still when they reflect that even now we can trace them to the 
 Holy Bible. 
 
 However, we are not concerned to battle about creeds. They 
 are, at the best, but imperfect indices to truth, for which, in its 
 entirety, we must seek elsewhere. Nor did the Christian church 
 ever esteem them more. They are but pass-words in this dreary 
 world to show to what corps the soldier of the cross belongs, 
 though in such particular most useful. They are the register of 
 the vessel vouching through faithful mariners for the honesty of 
 its voyage through the seas of life. No doubt we entertain 
 the deepest reverence for the creeds commonly called " The 
 Apostles','' " The Nicene," and " St. Athanasius," in reference to 
 which, and to the last as much as either, no worse can be said than 
 may also be said of the Holy Bible itself, that in imperfect lan- 
 guage it endeavours to define the things of God. For all human 
 language is imperfect in the things of God, and is adopted by 
 Him only in condescension to the littleness of man. We are 
 not concerned to defend creeds ; but will cast them all aside, 
 and take, as the sole pedestal of faith— the Holy Bible. Let 
 us hear him speak about the Bible : — " My religion comes 
 from God. As I receive it from no brother man, so I have 
 not devised it myself. To me religion is, from first to last, a 
 revelation," p. 9. " If you will not have the God of the Bible 
 for your God, you run the risk of denying God altogether, or of 
 confounding The Creator with the works of His hands," p. 37. 
 " The Bible has been the study of my life. I am fully satisfied 
 that the Bible is a Unitarian book. I have no doubt whatever, 
 but the fullest assurance, that the mind of The Spirit of God, as 
 declared in the Sacred Scriptures, is unreservedly, fully, and 
 
INTRODUCTION. XVil 
 
 clearly in agreement with the substance of what is termed 
 Unitarianism," p. 57. So far as the Holy Bible is honoured by 
 these extracts, we cordially accept them. The writer has a clear 
 perception of one great use and purport of Revelation ; viz., as 
 an ultimate and arbitrary standard of appeal, beyond which lies 
 no other, in all questions between man and his Creator. To 
 that announcement, however fatal to his opinions, we must ask 
 permission to hold him. We strike away, then, all consideration 
 of creeds, and ecclesiastical formulas, all forms " congenial with 
 (its own) logical and systematising tendencies and habits;" we 
 will not concern ourselves with " the phraseology of the schools 
 and the decision of the creeds;" for there lie's the Holy Word 
 in both its Testaments, and unto that, and that alone, we go for 
 the doctrines of our faith. 
 
 But what does Dr. Beard mean by " The Bible," "The Sacred 
 Scriptures?" That he has peculiar views of his own is clear, 
 for he says, at p. 19, " Of notions it (the Bible) knows nothing. 
 Opinions it never enjoins. Speculation is wholly foreign to its 
 spirit." "With essences, and modes of being, it (the Bible) 
 never deals," where we perceive instantly that he is in error. 
 For with God's essence, and mode of being, the Bible deals ; with 
 angelic essences, and modes of being, the Bible deals; with 
 man's essence, and mode of being, present and future, the Bible 
 deals. With such modes of being the Bible deals ; partially, 
 though not completely. But, once more, what does he mean 
 by the Holy Bible ? I perceive that, in a note at p. 24, he refers 
 to a book or pamphlet, entitled " A revised English Bible the 
 want of the Church," and hints elsewhere at improving (for 
 Unitarian purposes) our Authorised Version. There also lies 
 before me the fourth edition, published in 1817, by the Unitarian 
 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, of "An improved 
 version of the New Testament, upon the basis of Archbishop 
 
xviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Newcome's new translation, with a corrected text, and with 
 notes, critical and explanatory ; " but also without names to 
 give us any idea of the competency of its authors. As for this 
 insertion of Archbishop Newcome's name, I may at once (with- 
 out particular reference to Dr. Newcome) warn the reader of a 
 matter upon which I shall abundantly convince him, that he must 
 never be surprised when he finds a Unitarian authority referring 
 to ministers of the Church. Though the probabilities are he will 
 perceive, upon examination, inaccuracies of reference demanding 
 serious attention. But, since Dr. Beard himself, all through 
 his book, uses our Authorised Version; and since, notwith- 
 standing all the assaults made upon it; some even by ill- 
 advised members of the Church; the great mass of critics, 
 recommended by their learning, has pronounced, and still con- 
 tinues to pronounce, in favour of that version ; and since, above 
 all, there are before us the two Testaments in their proper 
 tongues ; I shall cleave to that version, and to them, believing 
 that none better can be found. 
 
 For, surely, when he appeals to the Holy Bible he must mean 
 the whole Bible, and is prepared to deal with it as delivered 
 to Moses and the Prophets, to the Evangelists, and the Apostles. 
 But, if so, it is worthy of remark that, whereas he delights to 
 inform us, "Unitarianism in the shape, first of patriarchal mono- 
 theism, then of Mosaic monotheism, and then of Christian 
 monotheism, is the instrument designed and employed by God 
 for working out the highest good of his intelligent creation;" 
 whereas, in other words, he claims Moses, and the Prophets, and 
 their people as Unitarians in his own sense, he certainly ignores 
 the fact, that a mighty means of proving the pre-existence in 
 deity of Messiah may easily be traced out from the Jewish Bible : 
 a pre-existence, and deity, of which Israelites themselves were 
 by no means ignorant ; and in which, as indeed also in the doc- 
 
INTRODUCTION. XIX. 
 
 trine of Trinity, in their best days we have reason for concluding 
 they were believers ; and yet (like Evangelists, and Apostles, and 
 other Trinitarians) were, of course, monotheists. It will be 
 found, when we look closely into this part of the subject, that 
 the numerous references of the New Testament to the Old, and 
 Messiah's claims based upon them, are satisfied by nothing less 
 than his deity. 
 
 It would appear that, if we desire to secure Dr. Beard's 
 esteem, we cannot be too energetic or persevering in the use 
 we make of the Holy Bible. It has been the study of his 
 life. But can he deny that, if the Bible serve one great and 
 characteristic purpose more than another, it is to carry us far 
 out of, and beyond, the legitimate domains of reason? Surely 
 its especial, its Divine power and authority, its very essence as 
 a book inspired of God, is to make known to imperfect, falter- 
 ing, man things eternal and divine, to which reason is not com- 
 petent to conduct him. Not that it does, or can, convince him 
 of such in opposition to, or in violation of, reason ; for that 
 would be for God to deny Himself ; but to make him know such 
 things thus, that while he is conscious reason assents to their 
 possibility, he also feels its insufficiency to enfold them. This 
 most important character of revelation, I would submit, he has 
 forgotten ; and proceeds to deify reason. Thus he says, " I shall 
 divide what I have to advance under a number of heads, termed 
 reasons ; these it is which make me a Unitarian. Here I am held 
 fast bound by necessity. Pressed by these considerations, I can do 
 no other than be a Unitarian," p. 17. " Bid me wait, and mean- 
 while worship and serve, but do not threaten me with woe because 
 I declare that dark which is dark to me," p. 28. " But this I may 
 declare, that, as a general principle, Unitarianism recognises the 
 laws of reason, as the laws of God. This recognition pervades 
 Unitarianism. Religion itself is only the highest reason. Truth 
 
XX INTRODUCTION. 
 
 in reason is truth in religion. He that is nearest to reason is 
 nearest to God, and so has the best, and purest, religion," p. 29. 
 " Indeed to declare that a being is, in any sense, properly three 
 and one, is to make a statement which conveys no meaning to 
 my mind, because it takes that being out of the class of known 
 existences, and makes him sui generis, that is, the sole of his 
 kind. Of a being, however, who is sole of his kind no man 
 can know anything." p. 22. 
 
 I venture to say, that these extracts cannot be sustained from 
 Holy Scripture. Their characteristic feature is, that they as- 
 sume to level down to man's natural capacity the infinite things 
 of God. They make human reason the standard of belief; and 
 imply, indeed, all but affirm, that whatever cannot be understood, 
 cannot be believed in ; an idea which every day's experience is 
 sufficient to refute. Dr. Beard, and Unitarians who accept him, 
 fall into this serious self-contradiction : in one page he sets up 
 a standard of faith beyond appeal, viz., the Holy Bible ; and, 
 in the next, a second, viz., human reason. But, more than that, 
 he is (unintentionally I believe) both illogical, and unfair. The 
 Bible threatens no man " with woe because he declares that 
 dark which is dark to him;" but with woe unless he bow with 
 humble adoration, and cease to have " a heart that is haughty, 
 and an eye that is lofty; cease to exercise himself in great 
 matters, or in things too high for him." What means he by 
 the strange assertion, that to make a statement which takes 
 " a being out of the class of known existences, and makes him 
 sui generis, i. e., sole of his kind," conveys no meaning to the mind ? 
 Let us consider. Incorporeal spirits are beings out of the known 
 class of existences; are we to suppose that to talk of them con- 
 veys no meaning to Dr. Beard's mind? " God is a Spirit," and 
 sole of His kind ; to talk of Him, does it convey no meaning to 
 his mind ? Such an argument, were it sound, must reduce us 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXI 
 
 to Atheism. But happily, young men, it is not sound. The 
 Bible may describe The Lord God of Hosts as a being sole of 
 His kind, and yet be to poor man perfectly intelligible. 
 
 This is, it seems to me, wonderfully mistaken; but the fol- 
 lowing is more so : "Asa general principle, Unitarianism recog- 
 nises the laws of reason as the laws of God," — "Religion itself 
 is only the highest reason," — "He that is nearest to reason is 
 nearest to God." It is painful to read this. Dr. Beard asserts 
 that " the laws of reason are the laws of God." Of course he 
 must mean at least perfect reason. And, alas ! with whom shall 
 that be found? But, even then, the statement is erroneous. 
 He might have said that "the laws of God are laws of rea- 
 son;" but when he says "the laws of reason are the laws of 
 God," he makes human reason the exact measure of God's 
 laws. He makes the finite co-extensive with the infinite. 
 Whereas we know that there may be, there must be, a multitude 
 of laws emanating from The Mind Divine to which human rea- 
 son can never attain. Again, " Religion itself is only the highest 
 reason;" yes, as far as we can follow it. But something more; 
 infinitely beyond. " Only the highest reason ;" this is incorrect. 
 The word ' only ' should be omitted ; for revealed religion may, 
 and does, far transcend the highest reason ; he might, perhaps, 
 have said, "Religion is the highest reason ;" but is wrong indeed 
 when he adds " Truth in reason is truth in religion." For all the 
 sciences are based on indestructible truth ; and yet all may be 
 known, and exercised, by Atheists the most demoralised. From 
 Memphis to Athens the thickest darkness in true religion has 
 been proved compatible with highly cultivated reason ; and the 
 archives of all historic kingdoms shew that " truth in reason " 
 has been displayed in fields of thought most abhorrent to " truth 
 in religion." There is sound reason in hell. Oh ! that Dr. Beard 
 had but borne in mind his own declaration, at p. 13, " We may, 
 
xxii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 or we may not be able, we may be more or less unable, to ex- 
 plain the manner in which God bestows light and salvation on 
 men through His Son. The question of How? always difficult, 
 is specially difficult in religion." We require no stronger, or 
 more wholesome, admission than this, if conscientiously ad- 
 hered to. 
 
 We will next consider the Unitarian view of man's moral con- 
 dition, as expressed by Dr. Beard ; in other words, we will 
 enquire what he believes respecting sin and its consequences. 
 " Sin, in consequence, must be destroyed ; but the sinner may 
 be saved, ' even though as by fire.' In a word, as the 
 universal Father, He aims at universal good, and so makes 
 His dealings corrective, remedial, and restorative. It is not 
 that He punishes the less, but that He punishes with effect, and 
 He punishes with that effect which a father cannot, as a father, 
 help entertaining, cherishing, and pursuing. But an Almighty 
 Father must succeed in the end He proposes to Himself, else He 
 is not Almighty. The partial prevalence of evil, in the final 
 issue, not only robs God of His paternal character ; but, if it 
 does not dethrone the Deity, places another divinity by His side, 
 almost as powerful, if not more powerful, than Himself," p. 7. 
 What shall we say to this language? The writer assumes a 
 certain knowledge of what The Almighty Father has proposed 
 to Himself to do ; and virtually claims to be a judge of what 
 that should be ; he enthrones himself the arbiter of the con- 
 sequences of what he is pleased to term " the partial prevalence 
 of evil in the final issue." Let us take a few more extracts : 
 " The God who made the worlds reveals himself through Jesus, 
 in order to destroy evil, and to bring all men in holiness, aiid 
 true happiness to himself. Such is my faith and hope ; and such 
 is the faith, and hope, of every Unitarian," p. 9. " These things 
 are true. They are true because they are God's realities. They 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxiti 
 
 are known to be true to all to whom they are practically known 
 — known to be true as certainly, and as fully, as our instinctive 
 impulses are known to be true, as our highest law is known to be 
 true, as moral obligations are known to be true," p. 31. Once 
 more, " In consequence the Gospel is ' the power of salvation,' and 
 Christ is 'our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption;' this 
 He is not by imputation, but by God's grace, and our own act. 
 The latter is as necessary as the former. Even God cannot give un- 
 less man is willing to receive^ p. 42. Alas ! was Saul of Tarsus 
 willing to receive when Christ, his God in glory, struck him blind 
 on the road to Damascus, and gave him Gospel light ! Dr. Beard 
 breaks away from schools, and we will not use scholastic terms. 
 It shall be enough for us to dis-own the "natural aptitude," 
 the " instinctive impulses," the "will to receive," the "own act," 
 which he maintains to be necessary to the reception of the grace 
 of God. 
 
 Let us next hear what he says of the doctrines of the Trini- 
 tarian communions, or what he prefers to call " The Common 
 Theology." " In the Orthodox churches salvation is often 
 escape from hell, escape from the wrath of God, escape from 
 punishment," p. 41. "The common theology removes the 
 punishment of sin, or leaves the sinner to suffer for sin. The 
 last is a wretched issue, especially when the fate awaits the 
 great majority of God's so-called children. The former closes, 
 but does not heal the wound. This is its best effect, as seen 
 from the orthodox point of view," p. 50.. He almost descends 
 to materialism. "Orthodoxy is dualistic as well as Trinitarian. 
 With it matter is something, if not independent of God yet 
 unpenetrable to God. Borrowing the old Greek idea of a certain 
 primaeval stuff out of which God is fabled to have made the 
 world, it recognises in nature a sort of inferior divinity, and so is 
 the source of the scepticism, w r hich deifies human generalisations 
 under the name of laws." 
 
XXIV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Of a truth, it is not so ; Trinitarian doctrine as to the 
 creation of the worlds, viewed in this respect, is thus stated by 
 St. Paul : — " Through faith we understand that the worlds were 
 framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were 
 not made of things which do appear." Heb. xi. 3. However, a 
 little more of similar tendency. He says at p. 77, — " In that uni- 
 verse all forces are divine, all tendencies are divine, all results are 
 divine, when regarded in their origin, aim, and final issue. The 
 laws of nature, then, are God in action. Consequently, whatever 
 is natural is good:" or again, on sin, " Consequently sin is diso- 
 bedience to your highest law. That law is conscience — conscience 
 is God's working in man's soul. If then, you obey conscience, 
 you obey God ; and so are at one not with yourself alone, but 
 with your Creator." p. 78. 
 
 Now, were these statements correct, the whole business would 
 resolve itself into this simple question : Are the orthodox 
 opinions ; is the common theology, as thus described, according 
 to the word of God ? — a standard of truth which Dr. Beard 
 professes to venerate as much as we. But they are not correct. 
 Thus, as before of reason, so here of conscience, he maintains it 
 to be the standard of moral duty, — " Conscience is God working 
 in man's soul. If, then, you obey conscience you obey God." 
 But conscience in man, like reason in man, is a variable quantity, 
 as variable as the mental capacities, condition, and education of 
 men. And it will never do to set up as a standard of moral duty 
 a variable influence ; for then the discharge of moral duty must 
 needs be as variable as that influence ; and what is immorality in 
 one ceases to be immorality in another, and thus we have no 
 means of fixing guilt. Indeed, some have maintained that con- 
 science is not natural to man ; but a mere creature of education. 
 And without being detained to prove the contrary, we may ob- 
 serve that such disputed ground will not suffice for erecting the 
 the banner of moral obligation; and that, in a multitude of cases, 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXV 
 
 we should be sorely puzzled to prove that even educated men 
 have any consciences at all. Consequently it cannot be true that 
 " sin is disobedience to your highest law. That law is conscience." 
 
 But the real test of such sentiments is Holy Scripture. " The 
 Bible has been the study of my life. I am fully satisfied that 
 the Bible is a Unitarian book," p. 57. Again, " If you feel dis- 
 posed to turn away from the matter, do not, I earnestly beg you, 
 declare finally against Unitarianism until you have carefully 
 studied the Sacred Scriptures, in order to learn what God offers 
 to teach you therein," p. 97. I implore the reader, to adopt, 
 with prayer, this good advice ; and on this occasion let us use 
 the Unitarian Testament. 
 
 Dr. Beard complains of the orthodox churches that, with them, 
 salvation is " escape from hell, escape from the wrath of God, 
 escape from punishment," p. 41. The Unitarian Testament says, 
 " And to look for His Son from heaven, whom he raised from 
 the dead, even Jesus, who delivereth us from the punishment 
 which is to come," 1 Thess. i. 9 ; and then in a note to the word 
 punishment, "Greek anger." So that salvation, according to 
 the Unitarian Testament, is deliverance by Christ from Punish- 
 ment, or anger ; i. e., the wrath to come. 
 
 Dr. Beard complains that the common theology " removes the 
 punishment of sin, or leaves the sinner to suffer for ever." 
 The Unitarian Testament says, " And these shall go away into 
 everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life" 
 Matt. xxv. 46. Where it is clear that the word punishment 
 answers to the word life ; and that in each sentence the word 
 "everlasting" is co-extensive, and means duration without end ; 
 so that as the righteous have eternal life, the wicked have eter- 
 nal punishment. 
 
 Dr. Beard complains that in orthodoxy, Satan, " like God, has 
 his kingdom and ministers. Between God and Satan there is 
 perpetual war," p. 76. The Unitarian Testament says, " Be sober, 
 
XXVI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 be watchful ; your adversary, the false accuser, walketh about 
 as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour ; whom resist 
 steadfast in the faith, etc., 1 Peter v. 8 ; and then in notes to 
 "false accuser," "devil," — your slanderous adversary; knowing 
 very well that Satan means adversary, and devil means slanderer, 
 or false accuser. 
 
 Next let us hear what he says about " Atonement." " If, under 
 these circumstances, I have failed, / trust for acceptance to the 
 mercy of The Heavenly Father, assured that what He requires is 
 not so much that His children should absolutely see as He sees, 
 but that they should try to make His view of eternal realities 
 theirs," p. 3. " And, as The Father sent The Son to be The 
 Saviour of the world, so is The Son the gift, and not the cause of 
 The Father's love. Consequently, salvation is properly of grace, 
 and not of purchase ; and redemption is unprompted and uncon- 
 ditioned rescue, and not the satisfaction either of God Himself, 
 or God's law," p. 7. "The agony He then underwent at such 
 guilt, such weakness, such degradation far exceeded His bodily 
 pains — racking, and tearing, and destroying though they were ; 
 and constituted the price which, of His own accord, He paid for 
 us and our redemption ; yea, for the redemption of the very men 
 who were imbruing their hands in His innocent blood. — 1 Tim. 
 ii. 6," p. 49. Once more, " You argue that you want an expiatory 
 sacrifice, by which God may be reconciled to you ; and I reply 
 that the death of Christ is God's propitiation, designed to conquer 
 sin, and reconcile you to Himself," p. 81. Why, yes ! so it is; 
 but then it is God's Christ ; — " our God, and His Christ," Rev. 
 xi. 15, and not man's Christ. In fact, the statement is true in 
 one sense ; but, in another, involves an error. Similarly of two 
 out of the other three ; which two in reality contradict each 
 other. Thus, he observes, that " The Son is the gift and not the 
 cause of The Father's love." But may He not be both? both the 
 gift and the cause ? Holy Scripture says He is. Thus, again 
 
INTRODUCTION". XXV11 
 
 he says, " Salvation is properly of grace, and not of purchase, and 
 redemption is unprompted, unconditioned rescue, and not the 
 satisfaction either of God Himself, or God's law." But may it 
 not be of grace, and yet of purchase ? Holy Scripture says it is. 
 But at least let him not contradict himself as he does : telling us 
 in one line that " salvation is not of purchase" and " redemption 
 is not the satisfaction of God Himself, or God's law ;" and in the 
 next (speaking of the mysterious and ineffable sufferings of 
 Christ) that they " constituted the price which, of His own accord, 
 He paid for us and our redemption." So then salvation, or re- 
 demption, is of price, or of purchase, viz., bought, according to 
 him, by the sufferings of Jesus, at one moment; and not of pur- 
 chase, at another. 
 
 And here in truth is the right answer to his other statement : 
 Jesus is the "unspeakable gift" — "the gift of God" — of His 
 Father's love to sinners ; and yet, by His self-sacrifice the cause 
 that such love can pardon. Salvation is of grace unmerited to us, 
 who pay nothing ; through the blood of Jesus, who paid all. 
 He bought ; to us it is given. But to Scripture alone must we 
 look for the real answer. The Unitarian Testament says, 
 " Know ye not that your body is the temple of The Holy Spirit 
 which is in you, which ye have from God 1 Nor are ye your own, 
 for ye have been bought with a price," 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20. Again, 
 " Knowing that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as 
 with silver and gold, from your vain behaviour delivered down by 
 your fathers ; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a spotless 
 and unblemished lamb, who was foreknown indeed before the 
 foundation of the world, but was manifested in these last times 
 for your sake, who by Him believe in God that raised Him from 
 the dead, and gave Him glory ; so that your faith and glory are 
 in God," 1 Pet. i. 19. Thus much in reply as to purchase, re- 
 demption, price. And yet salvation is of gift, or grace. For 
 God Himself devised and promulgated the plan ; He devised the 
 
XXV111 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 way : it is of grace, free grace, and yet it is not " unconditioned 
 rescue." Thus the Unitarian Testament — "For God hath so 
 loved the world, that He hath given His only Son" — here is the 
 gift of grace — " that every one who believeth in Him may not 
 perish, but have everlasting life " — there is the condition. John 
 iii. 16. 
 
 I cannot induce myself to send out this book without some 
 word of Christian love to my Unitarian brethren. Far be it 
 from one of my limited knowledge and experience to suppose 
 that I can express a thought new, or unknown to them. I have 
 written a word or two for the edification (as I hope) of those 
 who are drawn unto views similar to my own ; but feel that I 
 would meet, and hold counsel with, Unitarians in the spirit of 
 our Master, and beseech them to honour Him as The Lord God 
 their Redeemer ; as I wish to do myself. How many superior 
 and accomplished minds are found among them! How much 
 they have read ! How deeply thought ! But, as I prize my 
 soul's eternal safety, I dare not becloud the deity of Jesus ; nor 
 forget the transcendent and terrible glory of Him, from whose 
 sanctifying power alone, The Holy Ghost, come light and holi- 
 ness and everlasting life. What stern experience, what strug- 
 gles of thought, what constraining discipline, are found in a 
 ministry extending over more than one-third of a century I can 
 partly imagine, but do not know. It would ill become me to 
 speak unfriendly, or arrogantly, to such an one. Rather I 
 entreat; and close this chapter with an earnest and humble 
 prayer that in each and all of us God's blessed name may be 
 magnified, whether it be in life or in death, through Jesus Christ 
 our Lord. 
 
CHRISTIAN VERITY STATED, 
 
 ETC., ETC. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 REASON AND FAITH. 
 
 T is a proof of The Creator's considerate love to 
 sinners, that not only the duties, but even the 
 most mysterious doctrines of religion are, to a 
 great extent, so made known, as to enlist man's 
 natural reason in their support. No doubt 
 it might have been anticipated with much pro- 
 bability, that such would be the case; because, reason being, 
 next to faith, God's highest gift to man, and that which, in fact, 
 is the distinctive characteristic of his family, it could hardly be 
 supposed that The Almighty would demand from him the dis- 
 charge of any duties, or belief in any doctrines, which did not, in 
 some very sensible degree, commend themselves to the approba- 
 tion of his mind. 
 
 Hence we find that, in God's word, continual ap- 
 peals are made to our understandings. Those who 
 accept His laws as the foundation of national 
 policy, and the rule of their social life, are as- 
 sured they will be distinguished from other nations as " a wise 
 and understanding people :' n "the fear of The Lord" is deno- 
 minated wisdom, 2 and "to depart from evil" is understanding: 
 the despisers of The Lord are characteristically denounced as 
 "fools," and especially they who receive not God's doctrines as 
 revealed ; it is the fool who " says in his heart, There is no God : " 3 
 the law of The Lord is described as " making wise the simple : " 4 
 God takes His people gently aside, and entreats permission 
 to reason with them, " Come now, and let us reason together, 
 
 Word of God 
 appeals to our 
 understandings 
 
 Deut. iy. 6. 
 
 2 Job xxviii. 28. 
 
 Ps, xiv. 1. 
 
 4 Ps. xix. 7. 
 
2 REASON AND FAITH. 
 
 saitli The Lord:" 1 we are exhorted to "sing praises with under- 
 standing:" 2 and, passing into the pages of the New Testament, 
 are encouraged "in understanding to be men:" 3 and to "present 
 our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is 
 our reasonable service." 4 
 
 Yet while we are thus soothed and encouraged, 
 But God's word an( j q 0( j strives to lure us, as it were, to Himself, 
 
 CO)) ttri )) s* )}) )i oh 
 
 that is beyond by adopting our modes of thought, and revealing 
 
 the power of Himself conformably to the laws of our minds ; 
 man s mind. , ., ■ _ , TT : , n , TT . , .,, 
 
 while He adapts Himself, and His word, with 
 
 completeness to the requirements of our nature, which He alone 
 (as its Creator) perfectly understands ; we may in all reason expect 
 that much which is partially revealed to us shall lie, in other parts, 
 far beyond our comprehensions. For surely, if Revelation con T 
 tained nothing more than man can fathom, one clear proof would 
 be av anting that it was divine. For a book, which uninspired man 
 could fully understand, man so uninspired may well be sus- 
 pected to have written. Let it not be supposed a contradiction, 
 that articles of belief should be called matters of Revelation, 
 which in the same breath are affirmed to be wrapped in mystery. 
 The Israelites were deeply conscious of the presence of God, 
 though either in a pillar of cloud, or a flame of fire. 5 There is no 
 contradiction; for we know from common experience that enough 
 may be made known, in strictest consonance with reason, to 
 make us confident of the reality of much more to which we 
 cannot attain: much more to which if we could attain, we should 
 find it also in most perfect accordance with reason. A credit to 
 the unknown which it is quite rational to give by anticipation, 
 in consequence of the reasonableness of what we do know. St. 
 Paul, though he saw through a glass darkly, 6 saw rays of glory 
 enough to beget, though he could not understand, implicit delight 
 in the source of glory beyond; and to cause him exultation in the 
 thought that then he should see "face to face:" his knowledge 
 "in part" now made him sure he could never be disappointed 
 then, when he should know even as he was known. Just as the 
 discoveries of reason amid the wonders of material creation are 
 allowed, though limited, to extend so far that the observer is 
 
 1 Isaiah i. 18. 2 Ps. xlvii. 7. 3 1 Cor. xiv. 20. 
 
 4 Rom. xii. 1. 5 Exod. xiii. 21. a 1 Cor. xiii. 12. 
 
REASON AND FAITH. 3 
 
 convinced that unlimited fields far away are as fair and wonderful, 
 or more so, than all he perceives. Whether we cite the chymist, 
 or the astronomer, or those who delight in the revelations of the 
 microscope, all agree in their testimony; and encourage us from 
 what we know to reason up to more ; and to come to this conclu- 
 sion that, since our wonder is so often excited, and our wildest 
 fancies so far transcended by the truths we know, we need not 
 doubt but that there are mysterious affinities, inconceivable orders 
 of worlds, and wonders of organic life, which, though "eye hath 
 not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of 
 man," 1 are nevertheless in perfect accordance with reason, 
 although in their structure we now comprehend them not. Indeed 
 sometimes we may flit away into the unsubstantial world, and 
 arrive at a similar conclusion. Among the poets we dare not 
 trust ourselves; but even painters have conceptions which 
 transcend their powers to depict; and dreamers, whether by 
 night or by day, have held communion with imagination, and 
 been conscious of thoughts, which no powers of language could 
 adequately express. We may try to imagine, but who shall 
 describe, what St. Paul's mental exercise was when caught up 
 into the third heaven, and hearing words — mark, rational words — 
 "which it is not lawful for a man to utter." 2 There are, then, 
 some divine truths, reducible to human speech, which man 
 supernaturally sustained may hear and understand; but which 
 it is not permitted common mortals to know. Such reflections 
 upon the worlds of matter and of thought continually remind 
 man how limited is the range of his knowledge! In other words, 
 how inferior and limited is the order of that reason, which never- 
 theless constitutes him — man! and, no doubt, was designed to do 
 so. But, if so as regards the material world, and those depart- 
 i ments of thought which have respect to man's intellectual nature, 
 , how much more so, how much more reasonably so, as regards 
 the unseen and spiritual concerns of eternity ? If the cause, and 
 nature, and mode, of man's own existence be to him an unfathom- 
 able mystery (as it is), how much more reasonably so the cause, 
 and nature, and mode, of The Almighty's? 
 
 Exception has been taken against Trinitarian doctrine upon its 
 
 1 1 Cor. ii. 9. * 2 Cor. xii. 4. 
 
4 REASON AND FAITH. 
 
 own acknowledgment, that it involves mysteries; and incorrect- 
 ness has been charged upon us for the very use of that word. We 
 are referred to our dictionaries for the meaning of it, and reminded 
 that what is a revelation cannot also be a mystery. This proceeds 
 from a misconception, or error, of our opponents. A revelation 
 may be partial, or complete ; a system of doctrines partially 
 made known, partially kept obscure. God may look out of the 
 cloud, 1 yet still keep in it. And the very first use of the word 
 which stands for reveal, viz., to uncover that which is usually 
 concealed, 2 implies that while somewhat is made plain by the 
 revelation, a somewhat else involves a mystery not understood. 
 And as for that word "mystery," used several times in the New 
 Testament, 3 we know it is derived from the secrets made known 
 to the initiated at certain Grecian festivals ; 4 and, if we knew also 
 what these secrets were, we should be able to decide whether the 
 information then given to such initiated was partial or complete ; 
 but we do not. And if, as has been learnedly supposed, the doc- 
 trine of One Great and Holy Creator, as opposed to the common 
 polytheism of the Greeks, was the secret imparted : then we know 
 the mystery so revealed, was revealed only in part, as His nature, 
 and attributes, and will towards man, was to all Greeks, as to 
 the Athenians, a hidden truth ; for He still remained to them 
 "The Unknown God." "The mystery which was kept secret 
 since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the 
 Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of 
 the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience 
 of faith," 5 was the mystery of salvation through the blood 
 of Jesus, so long obscurely typified by sacrifices; and made 
 known by the appearance of Jesus as the Son of God. But we 
 need not dispute about the matter; as matter of fact, Unitarians 
 as well as ourselves do profess belief in mystery, in a partial 
 revelation; the knowledge we have of the One Most? High God 
 is mysterious; the revelation made of Him but partial; or as He 
 expressed it to Moses, " I will take away mine hand, and thou 
 shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen." 6 This 
 manifestation of The Most High, is good and sufficient, as far as 
 it goes; but it is only partial. Similarly of Trinitarian doctrine. 
 
 1 Exod. xiv. 24. 2 Levit. xviii. 6. 
 
 3 Rom. xi. 25; Matt. xiii. 11; 1 Cor. ii. 7—10. 
 
 4 The Eleusinicm 5 Rom. xvi. 25. 6 Exod. xxxiii, 23. 
 
REASON AND FAITH. 5 
 
 And, if Unitarians deny this, they claim to see more than Moses; 
 
 also more than St. Paul, who now knew only in part. 1 But to 
 
 tell us that where mystery begins religion ends ; or that belief in 
 
 mysteries can have no beneficial effect upon the heart or conduct; 
 
 is to assume the whole matter : for it may be, that God has 
 
 covenanted certain blessings upon condition of humble belief in 
 
 those very mysteries. 
 
 We must carefully distinguish between statements 
 
 Distinction beyond reason, and others which are contrary to 
 
 between things . « , ... -.. . 
 
 beyond reason it- Of the one class inspiration supplies us with 
 
 and things con- numerous examples, even about the present 
 condition, and future prospects of the human 
 race ; of the other, with not one. For that the inspired word 
 should demand our acquiescence in assertions beyond reason is no 
 objection against it ; such are only unexpected extensions of the 
 fields of wonder. But, as God is the author of man's reason it 
 were possibly, not certainly, a denial of his own work, of Him- 
 self, to require submission from us in opposition to reason. Not 
 certainly ; for language which may seem to violate our rational 
 convictions, may do so only because we do not rightly compre- 
 hend its force, or because we mistake its application. We know 
 it to be true in the common intercourse of man with man that 
 language beyond the faculties of persons addressed is never- 
 theless not contrary to those faculties, but may be most strictly 
 correct and rational. Perspicuity of language depends often 
 upon the mental clearness of the person spoken to; its rational 
 symmetry upon the mental powers of the speaker. A beautiful 
 landscape may be clear as sunlight can make it, and full of har- 
 mony in its parts and colours ; but its beauties, and its harmony, 
 however extensive in reality, are limited to observation in exact 
 proportion to the visual powers of the observer. We gaze 
 towards the heavens, and sight penetrates various distances into 
 space, in exact proportion to the powers of its possessor. We 
 contemplate the deep mysteries of Deity with various results 
 according to the greater, or less, spiritual eyesight which God 
 has given ; and according to the greater or less power in each of 
 us so sanctified, and accepted, by our God. Mr. Yates, indeed, 
 whose " Vindication of Unitarianism in reply to Dr. Wardlaw," is 
 
 1 1 Cor. xiii. 12. 
 
6 AM) FAITH. 
 
 considered the standard defence among them, objed 
 to belief in mysteries, and defining a myderyto be "a proposition 
 to the terms of which no distind ideas are annexed," maintains 
 tli.it we cannot reason abort racb propo ad that, 
 
 if acquiesa ace in a mystery be demanded from as, as an artw 
 faith, it must be in certain fixed terms — the very terms of the propo- 
 
 I reasoning, bni especially reasoning bj infen 
 in hi^ opinion, out of the question regarding them, I confess my- 
 
 of Mr. ^ ates* definition of a wys- 
 t<r</. ;i^ also the sonndness of his consequent observations. I- a 
 tery "a proposition to die term- of which no distind idea is 
 annexed .' " I am told that Jesus ";^ "the only-Jntgotten of the 
 Fat in r.iull of grace and t rut li ; "- here is possibly a great mysfc 
 hut. in w hate \ er sense J< gotu n of God, I h.-i\ e .-it h a ii one 
 
 distind idea, vis., that he was not begotten in racha sense a- that 
 in which "Abraham begat Isaac" I knou this from extranet 
 considerations, affecting the nature and existence of I ) < 1 1 \ ; i 
 from revealed truth, regarding that nature ande: a God's 
 
 bolj word; and, for aught that appears to the contrary, having 
 one idea I nw) ha\e one thousand ideas affecting that mysterious 
 proposition that Christ is the only-begotten of die Father. Similar 
 thoughts I themselves upon various figurative statements 
 
 contained in the Holy Bible. Thus, take the myttertOUt and 
 
 figurative description of heaven contained in the Revelation; 
 I know not what heaven i — that glorious place is wrapped in 
 mystery: but I do know it is not built ot jasper and tare 
 stones. Nay, more; though I know not what it is in actual 
 verity, in literal truth. I have certain distinct < of its cha- 
 racter for holiness, and all else that implies perfect felicity. 
 Then, again, as to demanding the vi rj i» rms of the proposition, 
 in which the mystery is stated; and asserting that we cannot res 
 npon mysteries bj inferences; I must reallj ask leave to differ. 
 Thus, supposing the following distind proposition be not in the 
 original text of Scripture— "For there are three that hare record 
 in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holj Ghost ; and th< 
 three :in on< : "* yet, rarely, if 1 find in other scripture- the 
 i of the se thn e plainly ass* in d ; or the names, attri- 
 butes, powers, worship due to Deitj a; with the 
 
 51. 15. 
 
 3 B . L6. * 1 J> ha v. 7. 
 
RJBABOK AND PA1TH. 7 
 
 unity of thai Deity also plainly asserted ; I may infer that in some 
 sense, perhaps to be discovered by further search, each of them 
 
 I rod, and yet tli;it there is bul one God- To say thai we nave 
 no id( ias aboul three in one, equal in $ubstance f yet but one, would 
 be certainly incorrect; for (though the illustratioi] ma) eem 
 lijrhtj Holy Scripture tells as "a threefold cord is nol quickly 
 broken." 1 [shall have occasion in the course of this little book to 
 shem more than once that it bas pleased God to give us very 
 distinct ideas aboui mytteriea, bul nol complete ideas. "There 
 are mysteries in the works of nature, as well as in the word of 
 God; and it i y to believe both as one. We do not mean by 
 
 mysteries, positions altogether unintelligible, or thai carry no idea 
 al all with them; ire do not mean onsen ed characters or empty 
 sounds, bul we mean propositions contained in general term . 
 which convey as general ideas, not descending to particulars. 
 The ideas are cleat enough ;i far as they go; only they do not 
 reach for enough to satisfy curiosity.-'* But, even if we bad no 
 distim I ideas, although we could nol then rea jon about them, (for 
 gross man might as well profess to stand upon nothing,) yet we 
 mighl receive them without reasoning, and be honoured m -u<h 
 submission. Is it possible thai a Unitarian believes nothing but 
 who t he can reason aboui I We know that, as between man and 
 man, implicil acquiescence in terms not understood, bul confided 
 in, may be honourable and riot degrading; not silly, bul n< - 
 sary to one's own saf< ty; nol injurious, bul full of benefil to the 
 confider, i. e. (in Christian phraseology) to the believer, shall a 
 man thus be forced to confide in man, and yet that very man 
 dare rebel againsl believing God in matters which man cannot 
 understand ! It were irrational to do 10. 
 
 Accordingly, that same word of God which, by the gracious- 
 . ithor, continually appeals to our understanding i,and 
 to woo our sympathies; which speaks to us in mosl ph 
 i/i language so simple that even a fool may understand; con- 
 tinually warns us thai there are objects into which it is nol per- 
 mitted man Should dive: "the seeret things belong unto the Lord 
 
 our God :" :; there is wisdom too excellent for as; "such know- 
 ledge is too wonderful for me, I cannot attain to it; " 4 we are 
 
 1 Eccles. iv. Yl. 2 Isaiah xxxv. 8. 
 
 "' D< .'. • -iv. 2U. < I'-. ev XX j x . G. 
 
 * W fthoD ctrine of the Holy Trinity, p. 18. 
 
8 REASON AND FAITH. 
 
 solemnly charged to refrain our souls, and not to exercise our- 
 selves in great matters, nor in things too high for us ; 1 The Lord 
 God Himself to such effect administers rebuke to Job ; 2 and St. 
 Paul, speaking of God's mysterious dealings with men, exclaims 
 " Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of 
 God ! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past 
 finding out." 3 That word of God warns us that there are re- 
 velations possible beyond this world, and at a future time re- 
 ceivable by man, which were he permitted to know at present, 
 he must die. It assures us in a manner not to be misunderstood, 
 that there are subjects connected with our present condition, 
 which can be made known to us noAV only by figure : for that, 
 while figurative announcements, though incomplete, are quite 
 sufficient for our present purpose, and capable so far of being 
 actually understood, the clear manifestation of the realities, 
 though such realities are indispensable to man's salvation, would 
 be more than our powers of mind, or faculties of body, could 
 sustain. So that even to men most inspired of The Holy Ghost, 
 whether to Moses, 4 or to Isaiah, 5 or to Ezekiel, 6 or to John, 7 in- 
 complete but sufficient ideas of the real were rationally conveyed 
 by mysterious, and symbolical, appearances ; and yet even they, 
 incomplete as such symbols (like all symbols) were, could not 
 endure ; but were fain to fall down as dead. There is a glare of 
 the sun which strikes to maniacy ; there is a calm, soft, stealthy 
 light of the lesser orb which distracts to lunacy : the sun may 
 smite by day and the moon by night ; 8 there may be an effort of 
 thought, a depth of emotion, which shall burst the golden cord for 
 the rest of earthly life. 
 
 This paper will try to explain, from the Word of 
 relatiomZf ^°^' wnat are the proper relations of reason and 
 Reason and faith : and what, according to the same word, are 
 Faith. t -^ e p ecu ij ar su bjects which claim the proper exer- 
 
 cise of either. The simplest division of the fields in which 
 these two noble properties of our nature, viz. understanding and 
 belief — in other words, reason and faith — can be exercised, is the 
 seen and the unseen. But, with this most important difference in 
 
 1 Ps. oxxxi. 1. 2 Job xxxviii. and xxxix. 
 
 3 Eom. xi. 33. 4 Exodus iii. 6. 5 Isaiah vi. 5. 
 
 6 Ezek. i. 28. 7 John i. 17. 8 Psalms cxxi. 6. 
 
REASON AND FAITH. 9 
 
 the grandeur of the two ; that, while reason, exercised on that 
 which is visible and all which the visible suggests, is continually 
 humbled by a sense of its own incapacity to follow any further the 
 lines of thought of which it perceives a part; faith — the far nobler 
 of the two, — receiving from revelation ideas which it is conscious 
 proceed from a source much higher than man, becomes at the 
 same time convinced of the dignity of its own birth by the felt, 
 though unseen, glories of that which it contemplates; suggesting 
 to it conception of glories greater still to be manifested at a 
 future time. The sure and natural end of reason is to become 
 paralysed by its own exertions — " Hitherto shalt thou come and 
 no further." l The sure and proper destiny of faith is to stretch 
 away without limit, stronger still by increasing exercise : stronger 
 than the eagle it becomes more vigorous by the supernatural 
 rarity of the atmosphere through which it soars. St. Paul 
 appears to have surveyed and marked off for us the respective 
 domains of reason and of faith. That of reason is suggested 
 when he says, " For the invisible things of Him from the creation 
 of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things 
 that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead ; " 2 and that 
 of faith, when he says, " Now faith is the substance of things 
 hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." 3 The material crea- 
 tion, and all connected with it ; man, and every consideration affect- 
 ing his present condition; are the proper objects of natural reason 
 unaided by a revelation; the right exercise of which reason is, as 
 St. Paul suggested, to lead us up to the true God. Whence it hap- 
 pens that reason also enters into spiritual matters, into things un- 
 seen, into man's future prospects so far as the visible creation, and 
 man's present condition, suggest reflection upon them. But it is 
 immediately observable how plainly the apostle defines its limita- 
 tion in such respects; for those very attributes of Deity which are 
 to man of the greatest, indeed of eternal, importance are those 
 which unprompted, natural, reason gives him (so hints St. Paul) 
 no power to discern. He goes no further than to assure us that 
 certain invisible attributes of the Deity, viz., His eternal power 
 and Godhead — may be discovered from the things which are 
 seen; so that, on those particular attributes, men are left without 
 excuse for having fallen into, or for indulging, the abominations 
 
 1 Job xxxviii. 11. 8 Kom. i. 20. 3 Heb. xi. 1. 
 
10 REASON AXD FAITH. 
 
 of image-worship. But of such other attributes as His perfect 
 goodness, mercy, and truth ; or in what way such attributes in 
 perfection can, or can be best, manifested towards men ; of such 
 matters unprompted, natural, reason can take no hold apart from 
 revelation. Of God's holiness and consequent hatred of sin, 
 of His pity for sinners and His means of reconciliation to them, 
 of His pardon and of life eternal ; also of His mode of existence, 
 i. e. of what man would call His nature — St. Paul intimates that 
 unprompted, natural, reason is not competent to make disco- 
 veries. Nay, cannot receive them, if unassisted, even when 
 discoveries are made for it ; " the natural man receiveth not the 
 things of the Spirit of God : for they are foolishness unto him : 
 neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 
 Let Unitarians hear ! Even of man himself man's knowledge is 
 but partial and incomplete ; so much so that not only the spirit- 
 ual, but the bodily, things of man involve such mysteries, are 
 chequered with such anomalies, are so influenced by unascer- 
 tained causes, and affected (sometimes hopelessly) by results 
 which could not be foreseen, or calculated, that both in body and 
 soul the conditions of his own existence are for the more part 
 undiscovered mysteries to him ; and man himself makes proud 
 man feel, and subside under the consciousness of, the very 
 inferior powers of his own unassisted natural reason. 
 
 But the spiritual concerns of man, and those attributes of 
 Deity which denote His Graciousness, are the very subjects 
 upon which it is most important man should be particularly 
 informed. And so it follows that one of the earliest lessons, 
 most clearly learned, in the assays of reason ; and one of the 
 truths first recorded by the inspired writer when glancing at 
 what we call Natural Theology, or the search after God from His 
 works in nature; is the insufficiency, in respects most vitally 
 important to ourselves, of that very reason which we are never- 
 theless permitted, and encouraged, to exercise ; and of which vain 
 man brags so loudly. Men are apt to forget, especially in these 
 days of free thought and extended knowledge, how much reason 
 is indebted for her clearsightedness, and strength, to that very 
 revelation upon whose domains she so immodestly intrudes ; but 
 
 1 1 Cor. ii. 14. 
 
REASON AND FAITH. 11 
 
 to judge of her awkwardness and incapacity in matters of godly 
 truth we should follow her actions before Christ was heard of 
 among the Gentiles, and there leave her. Even the unity of God 
 in which Unitarians believe as devoutly as we do (but not more 
 so) is not discoverable, and was not discovered, by reason ; for 
 harmony of design, and unity of purpose, are no proofs of unity 
 in the workman. And to tell us that because One almighty 
 mind is sufficient for the production of all things, so that by con- 
 ceiving more (which we do not) we violate the established laws 
 of reasoning by conceiving more causes than are adequate to the 
 effects, is nothing to the purpose. For to say that any thing 
 may be done in such and such a way is no proof that, therefore, 
 it must be so done : and to say that the universe must have been 
 so created, because it might have been, is indeed to travel beyond 
 our sphere, and to make reason pronounce upon the mode of Deity, 
 which she is not competent to do. For the truth that the 
 universe is not the work of a number of beings acting in concert, 
 but that there is only one Designer and Maker of all things, we 
 are still dependent, and probably on earth must ever remain so, 
 on the Creator's own testimony, in the inspired writings. 
 
 _, Nor is it only the insufficiency of reason which 
 
 Reason not -^ " . . " . . 
 
 only insuffi- kt. FauJ thus exhibits ; he stigmatises its depravity 
 
 dent, but also also. For in the same passage that marks the right 
 field for reason's exercise, he leaves us to reflect on, 
 and (if possible) account for, the fact that even to its own proper 
 end reason is become so insufficient, and so depraved, that man 
 in his flights has dropped, like an infected bird, into the Pontine 
 Marsh of image-worship ; from which sound reason was calcu- 
 lated to preserve him. Even if we leave for a moment the things 
 of God, and man's spiritual concerns, and contemplate the exer- 
 cise of reason on things visible as affecting ourselves, we easily 
 discern the same insufficiency and depravity : and the much 
 which we can understand tends to produce in our minds the 
 deep apprehension that there is much more which we cannot. 
 Every step in the path of solid knowledge, whether by the study 
 of men or of books or of nature, is attended with difficulty, and 
 marked by incompleteness : and the mind's progress is checked 
 and thwarted; the inquirer halts and staggers; under the instinc- 
 
12 REASON AND FAITH. 
 
 tive consciousness of the immense deal which needs explanation, 
 but is not explained, as he proceeds. Like an anxious general 
 he may see his road to the strong-holds of wisdom, but feels 
 uneasy at the forces on his flanks. The routine of books has 
 made many a blockhead to be renowned, because he had not 
 genius enough to be drawn aside by the wider plains of thought 
 which enchanted others. St. Paul intimates to us the insufficiency 
 of reason to discover the most gracious attributes of God; and 
 Job had ages before done the same — " Canst thou bv searching 
 find out God? " J But the same St. Paul was also permitted to 
 record that natural reason, while gathering consciousness of its 
 own insufficiency, could also attain intelligent conviction of the 
 value and adorable nature of that which lies beyond its power. 
 Else why did the wise, and reasoning, Greeks rear an altar " To 
 the unknown God?" 2 So that rational man, like reasoning 
 Greeks, though convinced of the insufficiency of his reason, may 
 nevertheless consistently with his rational character, assert it to 
 be rational to worship still : even where he does not know. 
 
 But the insufficiency and depravity of reason are discovered, 
 not only by its ineffectual efforts to trace the mysteries of Deity, 
 and by its deficient acquirements in the contemplation of nature, 
 but also more distinctly if possible, and certainly in a more humi- 
 liating manner, by its inability to grapple with the best earthly 
 interests of man. So that man at large, even rational man, even 
 most rational man, may, in regard to his highest, because eternal, 
 interests, be truly described as a maniac, or an idiot, not able in 
 such respects to take care of himself. If not, whence the records 
 of vice and appalling crimes, which number among the guilty 
 not only the most ignorant, and debased, and violent, but in many 
 cases the most refined, most cultivated, and most thoughtful of 
 men ? If not, whence the perpetual pleas of derangement of 
 mind for those who are nevertheless, in a degree forced upon 
 man's admission, sane ? Why did not reason protect a Webster, 
 or Eugene Aram '! Why did not reason take better care of 
 Hobbes, and Bolingbroke, and Shaftesbury, and Chesterfield, and 
 Byron, and a host of other geniuses who might be named ? This 
 
 1 Job xi. 7. 8 Acts xvii. 23. 
 
REASON AND FAITH. 13 
 
 degraded condition of sane man's mind, or reasoning powers, our 
 blessed Lord has graciously pointed out, and warned us against, 
 clearly, though by figure — " The light of the body is the eye ; 
 if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of 
 light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of 
 darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how 
 great is that darkness I" 1 For the word eye put reason; for body 
 put soul : and then you have the real force of the passage ; and 
 the truth so stated is indeed evident to the commonest observa- 
 tion. Nothing is more clearly seen than this obscurity of reason, 
 and of conscience, in the majority of persons. Yet if man cannot 
 by reason understand, and manage, himself ; how much less shall 
 .he by reason comprehend God ? If he be unable by reason to 
 define the cause and nature of his own being, or to regulate 
 consistently his own actions, how much less by reason to com- 
 prehend the nature, and operations, of God ? Reason and 
 reflection appear to have convinced us that we are beings com- 
 posed of body and- of mind ; of matter and of spirit ; but we 
 cannot tell how these two mingle into one. That they most com- 
 monly co-operate we know ; but that they can, and do, act 
 severally and apart at times we have good reason to believe : 
 and this conviction that man himself is a spirit capable of opera- 
 tion either with or without a palpable medium may give him 
 sound reason for anticipating the existence of other spirits either 
 disembodied or otherwise ; while the vast difference which he 
 observes between the mental powers of different men, may 
 suggest the existence of spirits of orders diverse from, and 
 superior to, his own. The fact that he cannot comprehend the 
 nature of his own existence may lead him to expect he will not 
 be able to understand theirs ; and that some union, to him inex- 
 plicable, does exist between his own body and soul may prepare 
 him to believe that other spirits may exist in other bodies utterly 
 beyond his powers to imagine : and that even the Great Spirit 
 may, if He so please, unite Himself to matter and so become 
 visible to material eyes for purposes of His own ; though man, 
 who can rationally conceive the possibility, may still be unable 
 to comprehend the mode. This once admitted (and what 
 
 1 Matt. vi. 22. 
 
14 REASON AND FAITH. 
 
 reasonable man will venture to deny it) then rational man is left 
 
 utterly incompetent to judge what shall, or shall not be, the 
 
 mode or state in which Deity may see fit to reveal Himself. 
 
 The great fact that reason, and (we may add) 
 
 Variation in conscience — which is reason exercised in the per- 
 the deqrees of D . , , , • , , • 
 
 reason forbids ception ot right and wrong — are so variable in 
 
 its being a men, as well as so incomplete and so depraved, 
 
 truth™ anc ^ a f ter a ^ so dependent for their developement 
 
 upon external circumstances, sheAvs that reason 
 never could have been intended, and is not adapted, to be the 
 standard of knowledge and duty in man's relation to his God. 
 For in the conflicts of mind, to which of all minds shall we look 
 with the certainty it is right ? Or what man, or body of men, 
 ever yet possessed reason in perfection ? or had the power, or 
 opportunity, of convincing others of the same ? We aeed, in- 
 deed, an infallible guide ; are Unitarians prepared to deny it in 
 the Pontiff, but to claim it for reason ? Surely not ; the varie- 
 ties of monastic life scarcely exceed the differences of Unita- 
 rians. 1 God must be perfect; and the standard of duty to Him 
 must be perfect also ; therefore imperfect reason, so variable in 
 power and degree, cannot be that standard. Besides which it is 
 matter of historical truth that the vast majority of men in all 
 ages and all nations have been fatally influenced by what is 
 irrational and absurd ; while the more favoured few have shewn 
 enough by their actions that the spots of disease on them are so 
 numerous as to make others suspect the healthy constitution of 
 their minds. All have lived to serve divers lusts and passions, 
 to their own palpable loss : and not all the wisdom of their more 
 rational associates has been able to restrain, or to reclaim them ; 
 while, in matters relating purely to the knowledge and service of 
 the Creator, their tendency has always been to degeneracy, not- 
 withstanding every effort (some made under Divine direction) to 
 prevent them. It would be mere pedantry to attempt, and 
 language would fail, to describe the folly and madness, whether 
 
 1 The following are some of the names under which, in one form or other, 
 the Unitarian, or (as it used to be called) the GW-denying heresy has been 
 known in the Church — Cerinthians, Ebionites, Theodotians, Artemonians, 
 Samosatians, A>ians, Socinians, Unitarians; from John the Evangelist's 
 days until our own. 
 
'V 
 
 REASON AND FAITH. 
 
 of individuals or of nations ; nor can it be needful to do so, for 
 history secures from all reflecting minds a tacit plea of guilty to 
 the indictment. Since, then, reason is so variable in the best of 
 men, and so insufficient and depraved in all, and since we are self- 
 convinced of this by plain and repeated observation extended 
 from one to another throughout all time, it is manifest we need 
 some other, some constant, some certain and unimpeachable, 
 standard of truth and duty. And this has been found by general 
 consent, among all Christians, in the inspired pages of a Revela- 
 tion : which revelation is embraced by reason in part ; in entirety, 
 by faith. 
 
 But it is really too bad of men after being forced 
 
 The Hohi Scrip- , -. ., ,, ™ • D j. -l ■ 
 
 tures,acknowledged to admlt tne insufficiency of their own powers, 
 
 by Unitarians to and their absolute dependence for right know- 
 fn/tl Stmdard of ledge upon a revelation, to undertake to decide 
 by those very same powers what shall be the 
 nature of a revelation, and the extent to which it shall proceed. Of 
 all irrational conduct such conduct is as irrational as any. Clearly, 
 if convinced that revelation is needed, and that such revelation 
 can be made, the first question which meets us as to any thing 
 professing to be a revelation is — Is this a revelation, or is it not 1 
 And if, upon fair consideration of evidence, we are forced to 
 admit that it is, then we are bound in all reason to receive it 
 without appeal. But, aiter having accepted it as revelation, then 
 to cavil at its contents and turn them topsy-turvy and degrade 
 them to the test of mere man's insufficient and depraved reason, 
 is one moment to crave for a king superior to reason, and the next 
 to croak that any but reason is our king. This is just the way 
 in which some, who still call themselves Christians, have treated 
 the Holy Bible ; they have acknowledged the necessity of reve- 
 lation, they have admitted that the Holy Bible is that revelation, 
 they have come to the Holy Bible, and, failing to measure it with 
 their own depraved and insufficient reason, have perverted or 
 rejected it in such respects as it transcended their comprehensions. 
 Mere reason fails : but faith is intended to carry us beyond reason. 
 Reason and Faith are like Elisha and Elijah. They walk toge- 
 ther a very long way, and take sweet counsel of things divine, — 
 when suddenly Faith mounts to heaven, borne along with the fire 
 of love, and leaves poor reason gaping in wonder upon the earth ; 
 
16 REASON AND FAITH. 
 
 because he does not understand. Happy he who knows it is but 
 reason, and turns again like Elisha to duty and contentment. A 
 clever Rationalist, or Unitarian, would he be who should tell 
 us how it happened Elijah went up ! 
 
 Unitarians accept the Holy Bible as the standard of truth. 
 " When the divine origin of the Jewish and Christian religions 
 has been proved by rational evidence, any doctrine, which is 
 shewn by a just interpretation of the Scriptures to be contained 
 in those religions, ought to be received as indisputably true." l 
 And moreover by the " The Scriptures " they understand that 
 same book, or collection of books, that Canon of Scriptures, 
 which we term the Holy Bible, as delivered in its original tongues. 
 Nor have they any version, or translation of such Scriptures, 
 which they prefer among themselves to the authorised version 
 as followed by us. They do indeed rather plume them- 
 selves that "certain individuals of the Unitarian persuasion" 
 attempted an improved version of the New Testament, but still 
 it was an attempt by "individuals; " and for public purposes 
 they acknowledge and appeal to the authorised version : but 
 curiously enough they are in a perpetual state of fuss, and ex- 
 citement, and struggle to alter the authorised version, and to 
 change " the text." As for the authorised version, increasing 
 years, and extended criticism, have only brought increasing tes- 
 timony to its beauty and correctness in the main ; and as to sug- 
 gested alterations in it, or " the text " itself, how singular it is 
 that so many alterations should seem to be required just in those 
 particular verses which happen to strike the Unitarians hardest ! 
 However, they accept the Holy Bible as the basis of discussion ; 
 and they are right. This is the only safe and proper standing 
 ground. Creeds may be of use to us as summaries of doctrine, 
 but of none to us for the purpose of meeting adversaries : except 
 it be to prove the antiquity of certain doctrines believed in by our- 
 selves. Creeds may be made venerable by time, and be of almost 
 apostolical substance and simplicity ; but their origin is human, 
 not divine; they claim no inspiration; "to the law, and to the 
 testimony : if they speak not according to this word, it is because 
 there is no light in them." 2 
 
 1 Yates' Vindication of Unitarianism, pp. 8 and 18. 
 * Isaiah viii. 20. 
 
REASON AND FAITH. 17 
 
 We should especially remember that the peculiar 
 
 The doctrines d oc trines of Christianity, those which constitute its 
 
 of Christianity * ' 
 
 are especially essential difference from other religions at various 
 
 doctrines of times adopted by men, are articles of Faith. The 
 vulgar quality of reason it calls into exercise in com- 
 mon with other systems ; but simple, childlike, trustfulness is its 
 own. Thus, if we select a few doctrines usually acknowledged by 
 Christians as necessary to salvation, we immediately notice they 
 are articles of Faith. Items of professed conviction which, indeed, 
 reason may explain and justify to a great extent; but which are re- 
 ceived, as God demands they shall be received if acceptably, by 
 the lively action of faith alone. Of such a nature are the doc- 
 trine of man's moral ruin, in Christian phrase original sin; the 
 doctrine of God's pardon through the atoning blood of Jesus, the 
 difficulties of which to the natural mind are not diminished by 
 subtle disputations about His person ; the doctrine of sanctifica- 
 tion by God's Holy Spirit, as to the difficulties of which a similar 
 observation may be made ; for whether we believe that He, the 
 Holy Ghost, is a person or an influence, the idea of man's moral 
 recovery to perfection in the final result can only be embraced 
 by faith. But why do we speak of morality 1 Such a term may 
 be sufficient for the flights of reason, and may answer well 
 enough for those who reject all revelation, as it has answered 
 well enough for heathen before ; but faith takes us far beyond 
 morality, far beyond a perfection which (if attained) were suitable 
 only for man's condition here •, and speaks to us of a holiness 
 which transcends morality more than natural light the artificial, 
 more than the pure aether, far above, the misty exhalations which 
 touch on earth, more than the impalpable and never-dying spirit 
 the gross tenement of mould in which it is entangled. Faith 
 speaks to us of the holiness of love, and holds out motives for 
 action which the gross character of carnal reasoning cannot 
 appreciate, nor understand. Take away faith, and there is no 
 salvation. Faith, not reason, persuades us of the joys of heaven. 
 Faith, not reason, finds unceasing occupation for eternal souls. 
 Faith, not reason, enables us to anticipate a presence of God, 
 which shall be "fulness of joy;" and to conceive with intel- 
 ligence a state of being where are "pleasures for evermore :" ; 
 
 1 Ps. xvi. 11. 
 c 
 
18 • REASON AND FAITH. 
 
 while, "we look not upon the things which are seen, but 
 upon the things which are not seen ; for the things which are 
 seen are temporal; the things which are not seen are eternal." 1 
 Take away faith, and you have barked religion ; thenceforth it 
 becomes the prey of all noisome insects of man's vain imagina- 
 tion, and perishes by the cold airs of selfishness, and pride. 
 Not, know and believe is the exhortation ; but, believe and know is 
 the promise : and " If any man will do his will, he shall know of 
 the doctrine whether it be of God," 2 or whether Christ spake it 
 of Himself, merely as a man. 
 
 „ .. . , Nor dare we forget, in closing this chapter, that 
 
 Hyiirif uc(( tot— 
 
 derstanding faith insures a degree of understanding to which 
 
 given from natural reason is a perfect stranger ; so that not 
 only is it heavenly in its own origin, but draws 
 after it from above an understanding, which is divine. Faith 
 teaches a man to distrust himself; and throws open the abode 
 of infinite wisdom, giving the Christian powers of observation, for 
 which the instruments furnished him by reason are not sufficient. 
 Neither must we engage in this discussion without putting upon 
 record our deep conviction that the things of God cannot be 
 received but by the teaching of God, and that only by the exer- 
 cise of humble faith can we obtain that Comforter, who shall 
 teach us all things necessary to salvation ; 3 that Jesus is still 
 He, who opens His disciples' understandings to understand the 
 Scriptures ; 4 and that like our great and blessed Master ; 5 or like 
 David, 6 the beloved type ; we still need to be made, and can be 
 made, of " quick understanding in the fear of the Lord ;" so that 
 by God's grace, the denseness of natural reason is removed, like 
 the scales from St. Paul's blind eyes, 7 and Faith may be said to 
 be the parent of Christian reason, as every cause precedes, 
 and is author of, its effect. These reflections indicate the manner 
 in which reason should be exercised on the word of God. It 
 should be reason with prayer. Interpreting the word in its fair 
 and natural sense, according to the idioms, and grammatical 
 constructions, of the languages in which it has been conveyed ; 
 and, comparing Scripture with Scripture, take Scripture alone as 
 
 1 2 Cor. iv. 18. 2 John vii. 17. 
 
 3 John xiv. 26. * Luke xxiv. 45. 5 Isai. xi. 3. 
 
 6 Ps. cxix. 97—104 7 Acts ix. 18. 
 
REASON AND FAITH. 19 
 
 the basis for its belief. But it may call in the records of anti- 
 quity to confirm, and sanction, its own conclusions. If this 
 course be pursued, we shall find that no doctrine is more cer- 
 tainly laid down in God's word than the doctrine of the Holy 
 Trinity. 
 
 That doctrine may be thus stated : — 
 
 1. There is but One God. 
 
 2. He has revealed Himself, as God the Father, as God the 
 
 Son, as God the Holy Ghost. 
 
 3. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God. 
 
 4. They are but One God. 
 
 The reader will remember we have only to prove from Scrip- 
 ture the fact that God is so revealed ; not the mode in which He 
 exists, as so revealed. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE EXISTENCE AND ATTR3BUTES OF COD. 
 
 ORMERLY there were Atheists. They may be 
 briefly described as a class of persons that 
 became renowned for their credulity. For, in 
 one astounding article, they received, without 
 any evidence at all, a more inconceivable wonder 
 than all Christian doctrines contained, nponthe 
 best. That article may be thus stated : they professed to believe 
 that all this universe of worlds, with all its manifest fitness of 
 means to their ends ; with all its symmetrical beauty ; with all 
 its harmony of arrangement and order ; with all its regulated 
 motions, its active energy, and life ; came into being, and con- 
 tinues in systematic operation, without the agency of any in- 
 telligent designer. In short, had no Creator. So that, smce He 
 who made all things (if, indeed, they were made) must be God, 
 Atheists denied nnblushingly that there was any God. We must 
 not suppose that this atheism proceeded really, and entirely, from 
 an error of the head; or that Atheists felt comfort and confidence 
 in the infidelity they professed ; the Psalmist has traced such 
 aberrations to their proper source, " The fool hath said in his 
 heart, There is no God." l It is when the heart rebels against 
 some part of revealed religion, and nurses its rebellion, that the 
 head becomes perverse as well, and man stumbles on darkly into 
 infidelity, partial or complete. Of course Atheists involved their 
 opinions in a voluminous covering of very hard words, and affected 
 a profundity which set at nought "the foolishness of preaching;" 3 
 but they were successfully met by the advocates of truth, even 
 
 i Psalm xiv. 1. 
 
 ICor. 
 
THE EXISTENCE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 21 
 
 upon the ground they had themselves chosen to take up. 
 And, especially, they received one sufficient answer, enough for 
 our present purpose ; viz., that man cannot conceive of anything 
 material as self-existent. He naturally understands that all 
 sensible objects in the material creation are, in their existence 
 and operation, so many causes and effects accurately replying to 
 each other : in his mode of thought, speech, and action, he pro- 
 ceeds instinctively upon such conviction ; and, therefore, it is in 
 violence to his nature to tell him that the material universe had 
 no Creator. Tell a man that " all things w ere made," 1 and he 
 instantly accepts the assertion : add that " He who built all 
 things is God; " 2 and reason replies, He who made all things 
 must be Almighty, and therefore God. So that the statement, 
 " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," 3 is in 
 absolute accordance with man's instincts and reason : he assents 
 to it easily, and as matter of course. But tell a man tha! the 
 heavens and the earth were never made ; and. you startle him 
 with an absurdity, opposed to his habitual observation. 
 
 The Atheist was proved irrational by this one simple argument 
 — that the unbelief he professed involved more credulity than 
 acceptance of the most incomprehensible doctrines of Christi- 
 anity. The Infidel professing to believe nothing, in fact believed 
 more than God required of him. A similar argument applies 
 against infidelity, even when partial. And we shall see that 
 the Unitarian rejecting Christian doctrines, because incompre- 
 hensible, involves himself in greater difficulty than their accept- 
 ance would entail. So that one after another the distinctive 
 principles of revealed truth are foregone ; and the Unitarian 
 stands forth a deist at the best ; but such a deist as accepts 
 neither the God of Christians, nor of Jews. 
 
 The same incapacity which prevents man from 
 rtZ^sVtial conceiving of any material thing as self-existent, 
 attributes of disqualifies him also from forming any ideas, 
 ^ r0 "" proper to man's own nature, of the existence of 
 
 God. By His works man may know Him ; but in His first essence 
 man cannot comprehend Him. God must needs be self-existent ; 
 and man conceives of nothing existing without a cause. He can 
 
 1 John i. 3. 2 Heb. iii. 4. 3 Gen. i. 1. 
 
22 THE EXISTENCE AND 
 
 realise no idea of self-existence ; and, therefore, is under a 
 natural incapacity for attaining any correct ideas of the nature, 
 or mode, of God's existence. He is absolutely dependent for 
 any such knowledge upon whatever information God may see fit 
 to give him. That the maker of all things must be God seems 
 natural to man, and capable of being understood : but what God 
 is, is not. With the knowledge of God's existence he must stop ; 
 in what way He exists man cannot comprehend. Nor even 
 is it possible that he can receive a revelation of that mystery : 
 for a being so little, and finite, in his intelligence as man, cannot 
 intellectually contain the infinity of God : that which compre- 
 hends must be co-extensive, at the very least, with that which it 
 receives. Thus the essential attributes of Deity, which men 
 acknowledge must needs be infinite, are entirely apart from, and 
 cannot be grasped by, the reason of man. He cannot define 
 infinity ; nor conceive of omniscience ; nor explain omnipresence ; 
 nor sustain the idea of eternity ; and hence it follows that even 
 the unity of God, which is one of His essential attributes (since 
 infinity must needs be one and indivisible) evades any effort of 
 human reason to detain it. If we ask ourselves — What is God's 
 essential unity? We can give no sufficient, or satisfactory, 
 answer. To suppose that God's essential unity is capable of 
 expression by that unity which man attaches to numbers is 
 absurd ; for that would be to undertake an expression of infinity 
 by its first element an unit. If Unitarians are provided with a 
 definition of God's essential unity, taken from holy writ, we 
 shall be glad to see it ; and are prepared to abide by it. But if 
 holy writ contains no such definition, (and they know it does not) 
 then we must decline permitting them to define it for us ; for 
 that would be to concede they possess a power of stating by 
 reason that which reason herself assures us is of necessity far 
 beyond her powers. 
 
 Having once admitted (as we must) that God's infinity is in- 
 comprehensible, we have closed the question ; His essential unity, 
 which is infinity, is incomprehensible also : and we, in effect, 
 admit ourselves to be bound to worship Him under whatever 
 mode He may see fit to make His existence known. Hence such 
 expressions as, " The Lord our God is one Lord ; 1 or, " Well 
 
 1 Deut. vi. 4. 
 
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 23 
 
 Master, thou hast said the truth ; for there is one God ; and 
 there is none other but He," 1 must be interpreted of the revealed 
 truth as opposed to heathen polytheism ; and are not to be held 
 as defining the essential unity of Deity. They define nothing;, 
 but that God is one, as opposed to many ; and leave open the 
 question, what that oneness is ? To interpret them as opposed 
 to other revelations of Himself, which God has made in the one 
 book that contains them, is violently to prejudice the question. 
 We might tell a heathen, the Bible is one book ; and we should 
 tell the truth, for it is a glorious unity of doctrine : but, in 
 another sense, it is many books, and we should also tell the 
 truth in saying so. So to know God as one, by no means defines 
 the nature of His unity. Let us once admit that the unity of 
 God is only such unity as is revealed, to be partially explained 
 and denned as to its mode by further statements, and one great 
 bugbear attached by Unitarians to the doctrine of the Holy 
 Trinity, is removed. But mentally to attach the notion of nume- 
 rical oneness to the idea of Deity (which is what Unitarians do) 
 is not only absurd as defining the infinite by the finite, so mea- 
 suring God's essence by man's skull; butis, moreover, travelling 
 out of the record, touching on something beside the business, by 
 inwardly deciding on a subject, of which it has been before 
 admitted we can know nothing naturally and antecedently. 
 
 Still such unity, and certain other essential attributes of Deity 
 are distinctly asserted in Holy Scripture ; all of them equally in- 
 comprehensible by man. With equal reason to be received 
 though incomprehensible, or with equal reason to be disputed 
 because incomprehensible, Where by essential attributes we 
 mean those which attach to the very nature of Deity, irrespective 
 of any relationship He may reveal of Himself towards man. 
 Thus His unity and eternity ; " Thus saith the High and Lofty 
 One, that inhabiteth eternity :" 2 His immutability : "The Father 
 of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turn- 
 ing :" 3 His omniscience : "All things are naked and opened unto 
 Him with whom we have to do :" 4 His omnipresence ; " God, who 
 filleth all in all:" 5 His almightiness : "With God all things are 
 possible:" 6 His wisdom : " By my wisdom have I done it, for I 
 
 i Mark xii. 32. 8 Isaiah lvii. 15. 3 James i. 17. * Heb. iv. 13. 
 
 5 Ephes. i. 23. 6 Mark x. 27. 
 
24 THE EXISTENCE AND 
 
 am prudent." 1 These little extracts of Scripture are merely taken 
 for the purpose of fixing certain admitted Christian views of 
 Deity upon the reader's mind : the same truths may be found in 
 various forms scattered plenteously throughout the Holy Bible. 
 But of all of them it may be observed that they assert essential 
 attributes of God, possessed by Him in infinite perfection ; and 
 are, as such, equally removed from the comprehension of man ; so 
 that, should we attempt to define any one of them, we must fail. 
 Thus we may, if we please, say that wisdom is the power of selec- 
 ting with certainty the means best for their end ; but what the end, 
 or purpose, to which God's infinite wisdom shall conduct Him 
 ■we are utterly incompetent to determine. What sort of mind is 
 that which knows everything man can by no means understand. 
 Let him begin to define omnipresence, and he loses himself at 
 once in a wretched maze of virtual and real ; and ask him why 
 he distinguishes between virtual omnipresence, and real omni- 
 presence ? and he cannot tell you. Similarly, should he attempt 
 to define God's unity. Nay : more still : he finds no such defi- 
 nition in the pages of revelation ; nor any such exhibition of 
 unity as will forbid his saying that The Father, The Son, and The 
 Holy Ghost, are one. When we say an attribute is infinite, we 
 acknowledge it to be, therefore, incomprehensible : and God's 
 unity must needs comprise all His attributes ; and is therefore 
 incomprehensible. But between two incomprehensible doctrines 
 the human mind can draw no distinction for preference. And if 
 incomprehensibility be an objection against Trinitarian doctrine 
 it is equally so against Unitarian. The Trinity and Unity being 
 equally incomprehensible. The Unitarian error lies, in this par- 
 ticular, in supposing that finite numbers can express infinite 
 essence. Wherever it is asserted that God is one, that oneness 
 has some specific meaning explained by the context ; such that 
 we may see that God is truly one in the sense there specified, but 
 any abstract definition of that oneness, which characterises His 
 essence the Holy Bible has not. Thus whether we consult the 
 Old Testament, or the New, the revealed unity of God is unity 
 of essence and attributes as opposed to the idolatrous polytheism 
 of heathens. So Moses — " Hear, O Israel : The Lord our God is 
 
 1 Isa. x. 13. 
 
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 25 
 
 one Lord i" 1 so Isaiah : " Is there a God beside me ? yea, there 
 is no God ; I know not any. They that make a graven image," 2 
 etc. The very spirit of the first commandment. In which sense, 
 also, the Scribe " There is one God ; and there is none other but 
 He;" 3 or, St. Paul, "We know that an idol is nothing in the 
 world, and that there is none other God but one. For though 
 there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as 
 there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but 
 one God, The Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him ; 
 and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and Ave by 
 Him." 4 Where St. Paul, in true Hebraistic sense, first lays down 
 the unity of God, in the only sense in which the word of God 
 defines it — viz. unity as opposed to heathen idolatrous poly- 
 theism ; and then asserts His relation as Father to Him, by 
 whom the manifestation of Godhead has been made to man ; but 
 without prejudicing, or touching in the least, the question of The 
 Lord's pre-existence and Deity. Just as our blessed Lord had 
 done before — " And this is life eternal that they might know 
 thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent ;" 5 
 viz. thee as the only true God, and me as the manifestation of 
 that Godhead before men : but our blessed Lord trenches not 
 there on the mighty truth He presently announces — " And now, 
 
 Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which 
 
 1 had with thee before the world was." 6 In each case the essential 
 Deity of The Father is asserted; and the manifestation of that 
 Deity in manhood by The Son : without any assertion, either for 
 or against, that Son's pre-existent divine essence. 
 
 m7 . , The " eternal power and Godhead " of The Almighty 
 
 lJ)P PSS^)?t'l€to 
 
 holiness and Creator being admitted, because He is such Creator, 
 benevolence of it would seem that in all other respects His exis- 
 tence, and attributes, are enclosed in mystery im- 
 penetrable to man. I have just now spoken of those His 
 attributes, which we termed essential as belonging necessarily to 
 Deity apart from His relationship to man. But the same 
 inexplicable mysteriousness may be with equal truth asserted 
 of such attributes as, when manifested, have special reference to 
 
 1 Deut. vi, 4. 2 Isa. xliv. 8 ; xlv. 6; xlvi. 9. 3 Markxii. 32. 
 
 4 1 Cor. viii. 4. 5 John xvii 3. 6 John xvii. 5. 
 
26 THE EXISTENCE AND 
 
 mankind. Tims none are more frequently, and plainly, declared 
 concerning Him than the holiness, and goodness, of all His doings. 
 His holiness ; "Thus saith The High and Lofty One, that inha- 
 biteth eternity, whose name is Holy:" 1 or again " Be ye there- 
 fore holy, for I am holy :" 2 His goodness " God is love : and he 
 that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him:" 3 to 
 which an abundance of passages similar may be found : and yet, 
 without revelation, how could man attain to any certain, and 
 rational, conviction of such attributes ? We, who live in a state 
 ' of society which has so long been illuminated more or less dis- 
 tinctly by the brightness of revealed truth, are scarcely competent 
 to answer such a question dispassionately. We should always 
 remember that the unbelief of Atheists, and of Unitarians, is 
 each of them an assault upon revealed truth, bringing cruelly 
 against it the operation of a reason which, though perverted, is 
 already enlarged and refined by the very revelation they assail ; 
 reason like a depraved child turning with hideous curses upon 
 his mother. But, such revelation apart, all observation of man- 
 kind tends to convince us, that men could never have arrived 
 with certainty at an assurance of the holiness, and goodness, of The 
 Creator. The Israelites alone, and in contrast with neighbouring 
 nations, possessed that knowledge ; and they received it, as an 
 article of faith, by especial revelation of God. But as to other 
 people, from the most scientific of Egyptians to the most 
 degraded, because cursed, sons of Canaan, wherever their re- 
 ligion has been searched into, the knowledge of one holy, just, 
 and gracious, God formed no part of it. Indeed this is the very 
 knowledge which St. Paul informs us the depravity of man hated 
 to retain ; i and the condition in which all such fallen nations 
 have continued, apart from the revelation of Judaism and 
 Christianity, convinces us that, having once lost that knowledge, 
 unaided man is not competent to re-attain it. The most they 
 seem to have done is to have deified certain properties of good- 
 ness, and justice, as traceable by certain dictates of their own 
 nature ; which, after all, are selfish in their exercise, and insuffi- 
 cient to suggest the beauty of an intrinsic goodness delighting in 
 its existence for its own goodness' sake; incapable of any additions 
 
 1 Isa. Mi. 15. - 1 Pet. i. 16. 3 1 John iv. 16. 
 
 4 Rom. i. 28. 
 
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 27 
 
 being made to it ; or of advantages to be gained to itself by its 
 exercise. This last is God's goodness ; the virtue which is its 
 own reward, and is exercised to that end, is man's. And, more- 
 over, this goodness, which man has symbolised, and evilly wor- 
 shipped too, was imperfect goodness illustrated by men avowedly 
 imperfect. 
 
 Perhaps it may be possible, by the contemplation of certain 
 properties in our own human nature, to arrive at the conclusion 
 that holiness is good for its own sake, and therefore to be loved 
 as much as its opposite should be abhorred : perhaps the neces- 
 sary tendency of sin is, by vitiation, to degrade men mentally and 
 physically ; and eventually to destroy both individuals and 
 nations : perhaps from such considerations it is possible to con- 
 ceive that goodness, being really adapted to man's nature in its 
 most perfect intellectual, and physical, condition, the author or 
 creator of that nature which thrives in goodness, must have been 
 truly good Himself: but all these are only possible conjectures, 
 admitting not of absolute, and undeniable, certainty. For it is 
 clear that, without arriving at any knowledge of the true and 
 holy God, and in a state of society most criminal in the main, 
 certain nations, both of ancient and modern times, have arrived 
 at a condition of superficial cultivation and dignity such as to 
 afford satisfaction to the dullest Atheist ; and certain individuals 
 among their people have, by mere effort of reason, stood out 
 from the mass as so singular, and remarkable, for their morality, 
 as to give some sort of reason for the Unitarian to aver that 
 man needs no external power of spiritual regeneration to be 
 exerted for his moral elevation ; nor any atonement to be offered 
 up for his reconciliation to an offended God. But such examples 
 were few indeed : and, by very contrast, threw back the impure 
 masses into deeper shame. What would be thought in these 
 days of a man who expected to be immortalised for his morality ? 
 It would seem, then, that conviction of the beauty of natural 
 goodness ; i.e. morality ; even such conviction as to lead to its 
 earnest cultivation among some people ; by no means conducts 
 us with certainty to the idea of the holiness, and love, of the 
 Creator. Moreover such instances of moral taste, and energy 
 have, wherever found at all, been so few as never to exercis i a 
 leavening influence upon the mass. Evil, in hideous forms, has 
 
28 THE EXISTENCE AND 
 
 ever frighted and disturbed the life of man ; and such evil as, to 
 natural vision, appeared to overbear the good. The long pro- 
 cess of thought by which man becomes convinced that even out 
 of evil good may be evolved ; and that the stinking carcase of 
 corrupt society may still hold honey; that long process of 
 thought is not natural and heathen ; but revealed and Christian ; 
 and, for its sanction in reason, is after all thrown forward to 
 future promises of exceeding good in a world to come. 
 
 Besides, even such reflections carried to their utmost touch 
 only part of the question ; for, if the Creator be especially holy 
 and benevolent, how and why does evil exist at all ? Has reason, 
 after four thousand years of education and reflection, settled this 
 question? or is the Unitarian prepared to explain it? and to 
 show us how that, notwithstanding these attributes of God, His 
 holiness and love are clear to reason, apart from revelation ? 
 or, which is closer to the purpose, how such attributes so known 
 to him, as to others, from revelation, are received and believed 
 in by him, because in accordance with universal observation, 
 and the reasoning faculty of his mind ? Not so. The Unitarian 
 believes in the essential holiness and love of God, because it is 
 revealed, not because he sees and understands it. On the con- 
 trary, every day's observation is against it, and mere reason 
 drops him short ; and the Unitarian must often be tempted, like 
 others, to call God's holiness and love in question ; but he be- 
 lieves in them, because he is told of them ; and looks forward to a 
 world where all seeming irregularities shall be cleared away, and 
 the " light affliction, which is but for a moment, work a far more 
 exceeding and eternal weight of glory." l And, thus believing, he 
 can show us no good reason why he should not similarly be- 
 lieve in other mysteries — such as the Holy Trinity — because he 
 is told of them. May God's blessing be with him, that he may do 
 so. Let not the Unitarian say that holiness is reasonable, and 
 that, therefore, he by reason accepts the announcement of God's 
 holiness. This will not meet the case. Holiness is reasonable ; 
 when a man sees far enough : which he rarely does : unconverted 
 man, never. Is holiness always clear immediately to reason? 
 Does not carnal reason sometimes determine in favour of sin ? 
 Is there not a doctrine of chances, which may sometimes render 
 
 1 2 Cor. iv. 17. 
 
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 29 
 
 it probably safe, and so far, immediately advantageous to do 
 evil? Is not the real certainty of good in virtuous conduct a 
 final certainty, i.e., a certainty which has regard to God's promise 
 in the future, and the end ? Besides, the question still remains 
 to the Unitarian, as to ourselves, How, and why, does evil exist 
 at all? And what we require him to tell us, is — How far does 
 reason carry him in reply to it ? and how far is he dependent, for 
 such reply, upon faith ? — In which answer freely given, we main- 
 tain that faith, poor, despised faith, must carry the palm, and 
 not reason ; and that, therefore, it may be reasonable of Unita- 
 rians, in other matters, to let such faith bear off the prize, and 
 not to hop along upon reason, like some wretched cripple, upon 
 a fractured crutch ; who would be ridiculous, were he not 
 afflicted. 
 
 The holiness and love of God are articles of faith, not of reason; 
 though, so far as we can follow them, they are strictly in ac- 
 cordance with reason ; there is, however, a point concerning even 
 them, beyond which reason cannot go. Similarly of Trinita- 
 rianism — the mode of God's existence by what is termed, 
 "Trinity in Unity " is an article of faith, not of reason; though, 
 so far as we can follow them by reason, the statements of Scrip- 
 ture on this head are clear, and strictly rational ; there is, how- 
 ever, a point concerning it, too, beyond which reason cannot go. 
 An incapacity necessary to man's nature, or order of his being, 
 which ought no more to prejudice his acceptance of that great 
 doctrine, than it ought his belief in other incomprehensible attri- 
 butes of God. 
 
 The justice Thus far of those attributes of Deity which per- 
 mercy, and tain to His essence ; pertain also to Him as Crea- 
 ' J tor and Governor of the world. Let us turn to 
 
 those which define the relation He is pleased to announce Him- 
 self as sustaining towards rebellious and fallen man. Incompe- 
 tent as we are to answer that tremendous question — Why has 
 man fallen? we are equally incompetent to reply to the others — 
 What shall be the consequences of his fall ? and — How shall he 
 be recovered and reconciled to his God ? What natural power has 
 man to note, and define God's justice, God's mercy, God's truth? 
 And yet, being once defined for us, and in so far as they are de- 
 fined, it is wonderful with what readiness and facility reason 
 
SO THE EXISTENCE AND 
 
 accepts tliem with approbation. That mystery of man's fall re- 
 duces (for us) to its first element, the mystery of the existence of 
 evil ; the fall being the root from which all evil branches out. 
 So that, when we speak of man as fallen, we assert an impene- 
 trable mystery, plain, however, as a matter of fact to observation, 
 and undeniable; which has brought into the world all moral and 
 physical evil and all its fatal consequences. I have called man's 
 fall an undeniable mystery, and it is so ; for we know, not merely 
 suppose, that man has fallen, and yet cannot explain the fact. I 
 say we know he has fallen ; not only that we know he is now 
 sinful, but also that such sinfulness is the brand of a fallen state, 
 as truly as the mark of Cain upon his forehead ; and that, there- 
 fore, man in his proper nature was not once so. Else what 
 mean our ideas of re-formation ? that re-creation of the beauteous 
 moral form ? Man is a noble edifice in ruins ; the complete 
 plans of which reason has placed in our hands. "Whatsoever 
 things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things 
 are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of 
 good report ; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, 
 think on these things." l Man knows, society proclaims, Wisdom 
 uttereth her voice at the corner of every street, 2 that there are 
 such things. We can no more doubt what man was intended to 
 be, than we can doubt that he was intended to exist free of pain, 
 and in good health. As natural evil is a proof that man's health 
 and comfort are broken up, so moral evil is proof that his cha- 
 racter, previously sound, is now destroyed. Man was intended, 
 morally and physically, to be good. Did, then, He who created 
 him not succeed in His intentions ? All will reply, that being 
 God, He must have succeeded ; but if so, then man was created 
 in a state of which we now perceive only the ruins ; and, there- 
 fore, man has fallen. Thus it is we can reason up from nature 
 to nature's God. Not from man's nature, or the condition of 
 the earthly creation, as they are, but as they were manifestly 
 intended to be ; and, in imagination completing their original 
 design, argue for the goodness and love of their designer. 
 
 That evil has a positive existence, and is such not merely by 
 comparison of one condition with another, we know. 3 Evil 
 
 1 Philipp. iv. 8. 2 Prow i. 21. 
 
 3 Mark yii. 21 ; Gal. v. 21 ; Col. iii. 8 ; Ephes. iv. 31. 
 
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 31 
 
 thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, 
 wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, 
 foolishness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, 
 wrath, strife, sedition, heresies, envyings, anger, malice, bit- 
 terness, lying, drunkenness, revellings, and such like, — all these 
 are in themselves positive evils we know, and that the con- 
 sequences they entail are ruinous ; that they enweave themselves 
 into the very constitution of the man, that they become inten- 
 sified by indulgence, and perpetuate their existence within him, 
 so that man becomes increasingly, with his days, the opposite of 
 "holy, just, and good." 1 Ail this we know ; and, moreover, that 
 reason can devise no means of complete deliverance and recovery. 
 He that is born under any part of such spiritual affliction (and 
 what man is not ?) can no more deliver his own soul, than the 
 leper of old could cure himself. Yet, under such circumstances, 
 how can man expect to receive, or, if received, how could he en- 
 joy the favour of a perfect and holy God? Is there no balm in 
 Gilead ? no means of reconciliation? We know that all revela- 
 tion is to this end, and to no other. God has not revealed Him- 
 self to gratify the curiosity of man, nor to incite him to daring 
 speculations about His mode of existence, nor to make him 
 wise and understanding in hidden wonders of physical science, 
 but merely to show him, how a man can be just with God. 3 
 And revelation on this head goes just so far as to enable men to 
 receive with a certain degree of intelligence, the articles of faith 
 appointed as means for their reconcilement. To this end alone 
 the attributes of Deity are made known in Holy Scripture ; from 
 this point of view, viz : as sinners needing reconciliation, we are 
 taught to regard them ; and are not able, nor permitted, to 
 entertain abstract considerations of their nature. God's Al- 
 mightiness, Omnipresence, Unity, are declared in the fact, not ex- 
 plained in the mode ; declared in the fact just in such manner and 
 degree as to know and to receive them is indispensable to man's 
 salvation, i.e., to his being reconciled. In the same sense, and to 
 the same end, His holiness and love; and to the same, Wis justice, 
 mercy, and truth. Man himself is not able from any elevated 
 sphere, to take so general and comprehensive a view of the con- 
 dition of all his fellows at all times everywhere, as to be assured 
 
 i Eom. vii. 12. * Job ix. 2. 
 

 32 THE EXISTENCE AND 
 
 by reason that God is just, and merciful, and true. On the contrary, 
 facts so startle him within his own limited range of vision, that 
 he is sometimes at a loss to know how God can be so con- 
 sistently with what he sees. But he takes these attributes of 
 Deity, as he does others, upon trust ; so far as he can follow 
 them, they are likely, and deserving of belief; but he acknow- 
 ledges that, upon the whole, they elude his capacity to trace 
 them ; so that, even to the most devout mind, the justice, truth, 
 and mercy of God are but articles of faith. And, more than this, 
 the reasonableness of faith in this particular becomes manifest, 
 because the scale upon which that justice, mercy, and truth have 
 to be exercised is so vast in extent, that man shrinks away with 
 consciousness of imbecility, aware he possesses no natural 
 power to determine in what manner they should be adjusted. 
 God's justice Now, to man's perception, whatever taints an 
 
 mercy and truth i mm ortal soul is as imperishable as the soul itself : 
 
 to man disposed . 
 
 by certain con- that stamp of sin, so far as man can tell, can never 
 
 ditions. "kg effaced. In man's experience it never is : to 
 
 man's exertion it never yields. Let the soul be ever so much 
 improved, by what means soever, and there is still a hidden mine 
 of sin ready to flash out only let the proper fuse be applied ; the 
 sparkle of iniquity gleams even in the eye of death. Oh ! 
 wretched men that we are ! who shall deliver us ? 1 Reason 
 gives no reply ; revelation does. Man is wholly incompetent to 
 devise the way. God alone knows how he can be just, yet the 
 justifier of sinners. 2 Rescue from sin is to the very last an act 
 of stupendous mercy, and almighty power; He alone can re- 
 form the soul, who first made it ; and to Him alone, who works 
 the miracle, we must be content to leave the conditions upon 
 which He will do so. Unprepared, man has no right to clamour 
 for salvation, even if he had the will ; which he has not. But if 
 prepared, then the mode of preparation must be enjoined by 
 Him, who confers the salvation. The most specific revelation, 
 which God has made of Himself to man is to this very end : 3 
 " And Jehovah descended in the cloud, and stood with him 
 there, and proclaimed the name of Jehovah. And Jehovah 
 passed by before him, and proclaimed, Jehovah, Jehovah ; the 
 
 1 Rom. vii. 24. 2 Rom. iii. 26. 
 
 3 Exod. xxxiv. 5. 
 
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 33 
 
 merciful, and gracious, God : long-suffering, and abundant in 
 goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving 
 iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means 
 clear the guilty ; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the 
 children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and 
 to the fourth generation :" — where man is distinctly held respon- 
 sible for sin ; but at the same time an eternal distinction is 
 made between man and man ; and the inquiries suggested — Who 
 are they whose iniquity is forgiven ? and, why ? and who are 
 the guilty to be by no means cleared ? and, wherefore ? What 
 is God's mercy and long-suffering? What are God's goodness, 
 justice, and truth ; which thus separate between man and man ; 
 and upon what conditions shewn ? 
 
 That mere repentance cannot of itself entitle us to be pardoned 
 is clear to reason; for the majesty of violated law cannot be 
 vindicated by the sorrow of the offender. Men themselves pro- 
 ceed upon a far different principle from that. Besides such 
 sorrow may be traced rather to fear of the punishment, than to 
 hatred of the offence ; and so has nothing reformatory about it. 
 But the holiness of Deity requires corresponding holiness in 
 those it accepts with favour ; and such purification of the cha- 
 racter cannot be acquired by efforts of volition ; the correctness 
 of the future, if attained, cannot clear away the foulness of the 
 past. God sits as the absolute dispenser of justice, and mercy, 
 to the sons of men. He reveals Himself as discriminating 
 between persons ; but upon what conditions ? seeing that all are 
 so infected by sin, that any distinction between the fatality of the 
 disease in this one or that one is impossible. Who are they who 
 shall receive the cure ? who are they to be pronounced clean ? 
 From such considerations proceed the scriptural doctrine of the 
 atonement ; and the promise of spiritual regeneration ; and all 
 other promises attached to it. God's mercy, justice, and truih — as 
 between man and man — are conditional ; and all such conditions 
 hinge upon the doctrine of atonement. God shews mercy to one 
 as clean, and excludes another as unholy ; He vindicates His jus- 
 tice in accepting one, and rejecting the other ; He establishes 
 the truth of His promises by blessing one, and thrusting out the 
 other : not because there is any original, and intrinsic difference 
 between the two, entitling one to pardon and salvation, and de- 
 
 D 
 
34 THE EXISTENCE AND 
 
 stroying the other : but because in the one case the conditions of the 
 mercy, the justice, and the truth, are complied with; in the other 
 neglected, or disdained. Thus, then, God's justice, mercy, and 
 truth, are attributes of Him illustrated to man by certain condi- 
 tions absolutely enjoined ; and are not to be explained by any 
 opinion, derivable from man himself, apart from those conditions; 
 which conditions are stated in one sentence — the institution of 
 atonement. Of which more as we proceed; but all concerning 
 which is wrapped in profoundest mystery. Hence, I say, in 
 whatever respects we contemplate the attributes of Deity, all 
 are incomprehensible to man ; and being so incomprehensible, 
 may be — if one, so all — equally demurred to by man. To Uni- 
 tarian man they are incomprehensible, as much as to ourselves ; 
 and, to whatever extent the Unitarian accepts our God, he 
 accepts a God of mystery ; and abandons to a vast extent the 
 authority of his reason. 
 
 But do Unitarians accept our God ? It is a painful thing to 
 say ; but it is true. Unitarians do not accept our God. If I 
 may so speak, they are not even Christian Deists ; nor do they 
 accept even The God of the Jews. Our God is indeed a God of 
 perfect holiness, truth, wisdom, justice, mercy, and love : but 
 then the character, or meaning, of these attributes are all deter- 
 mined (as we maintain) by the great conditional article of recon- 
 ciliation, which we call atonement : such attributes of our God 
 are all manifested to man through the condition upon which 
 man is received back again into favor. So that if the conditions 
 which illustrate them be rejected, the attributes so illustrated are 
 rejected ; and, consequently, God's mercy according to us is not 
 God's mercy according to the Unitarian ; nor His justice, nor 
 His truth, nor His love ; nor, in a word, His salvation. Now 
 Unitarians do reject the doctrine of the atonement ; in other 
 words the condition, upon which we believe salvation is assured. 
 " The Unitarians generally believe that Jesus, having exercised 
 His public ministry for the space of a year, and perhaps a little 
 more, suffered death publicly upon the cross, not to appease the 
 wrath of God, not as a satisfaction to divine justice, not to ex- 
 hibit the evil of sin, nor in any sense whatever to make an 
 atonement for it ; for this doctrine in every sense, and according 
 to every explanation, they explode as irrational, unscriptural, 
 
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 35 
 
 and derogatory from the Divine perfections ; but as a martyr to 
 the truth, and as a necessary preliminary to his resurrection." 1 
 So that the atonement being thus rejected, the mode in which 
 God's mercy, justice, and truth, towards man is defined by them 
 is necessarily different from that in which we regard them our- 
 selves ; and "their rock is not our Rock ; " 2 Unitarians themselves 
 being the judges. 
 
 Neither do Unitarians receive The God of the Jews. It is of 
 course for the Jews to discover what sense their sacrifices, and 
 the intercessory prayers of their High Priest, had other than as 
 explained by Christians. It is for them to shew, contrary to St. 
 Paul, that most learned Jew, how the blood of bulls, and of goats, 
 and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean could take away 
 sin ; but it is a fact, admitting of no contradiction, that the doc- 
 trine of atonement is originally Jewish ; and that the mercy, long- 
 suffering, pardoning love, goodness, and truth, of The Lord God of 
 Israel thus proclaimed, as I have shewn, on Sinai, were con- 
 ditional upon the atoning sacrifices, and intercessory prayer, 
 appointed under the Levitical economy ; and these being impos- 
 sible to Unitarians, and rejected by them even were they possible, 
 of course The God of Jews is rejected also; as we have just 
 shewn they do reject The God of Christians. 
 _. . . But there are diversities of Unitarians, as well 
 
 Jj IV6VS1 f lP*i OT 
 
 Unitarians 'as as °f Trinitarians : and it is desirable at once to 
 well as of Tri- note against what phase of the Unitarian doc- 
 trine these pages are directed ; as well as to state 
 the view of Trinitarianism they undertake to support. Generally 
 it may be said that every phase of Unitarianism involves cer- 
 tainly the denial of The Deity of Christ : thus Mr. Yates, 3 
 " Although Unitarians differ among themselves concerning the 
 miraculous conception, and pre-existence, of Christ ; some re- 
 jecting, and others believing these tenets ; yet, they all deny 
 that He was The Eternal God, and those of them who believe that 
 He created the material world, nevertheless conceive that in the 
 execution of this work, He was only employed as the instrument 
 in the hands of The Deity, and unite with other Unitarians in 
 maintaining that He was not possessed of underived wisdom, and 
 
 1 Belsham's Calm Enquiry, p. 292. 2 Deut. xxxii. 31. 
 
 3 Yindic. p. 65. 
 
36 THE EXISTENCE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 
 
 independent power." Thus, then, two grand divisions of Unita- 
 rians are suggested to us: 1. Those who, like Mr. Bel sham, 1 
 deny the pre-existence of Christ in every sense, and maintain 
 He was mere man — the son of Joseph and Mary. 2. Those who, 
 like Mr. Yates, admit some sort of pre-existence of Christ, which 
 they cannot define : but both of whom deny His proper Deity. 
 So that our leading object will be to set forth the pre-existent 
 Divine nature, the proper Deity of Christ ; and, further, the proper 
 Deity also of The Holy Ghost. 
 
 And as regards the particular view of Trinitarianism we maintain : 
 it is just that xvhich confines itself strictly to the leaves of reve- 
 lation; and stubbornly refuses to go beyond it. No doubt the 
 introduction of certain terms not suggested in the pages of Holy 
 Writ was intended by certain learned men to facilitate the recep- 
 tion of the truth ; but it has thrown them open to the charge of 
 starting Itypotheses for the purpose of explaining the nature of 
 The Trinity : or the mode in which The Trinity in Unity exists. 
 We shall earnestly strive to do nothing of the sort ; we have no 
 wish to be wise beyond what is revealed ; nor to attempt to ex- 
 plain in any degree that Divine Essence, which is, to man, neces- 
 sarily inexplicable. Proving from Holy Scripture that The 
 Father is God, The Son is God, and The Holy Ghost is God ; and 
 yet they are not three Gods, but one God ; we shall accept the 
 doctrine in humble simplicity — however stupid it may appear 
 to do so, with the deep conviction, based upon reason, that 
 much which is foolishness to man is consummate wisdom in the 
 mind of God. 
 
 1 Calm Enquiry, p. 291. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 THE ANCEL WITH THE PATRIARCHS. 
 
 HE way of salvation, like the character of Deity, 
 has ever been one and unchangeable. The means 
 of reconciliation, like truth itself, the same since 
 Adam fell until now. The will and plans of 
 The Almighty can never have varied, 1 nor has 
 He ever revealed Himself in manners diverse, 
 and contradictory. Such as He was to Abel, He was to Moses ; 
 such to Malachi, such to St. John. God's designs towards man 
 in the great scheme of redemption may have been progressively 
 developed, but essentially they must ever have been like that 
 Blessed Redeemer, whose eternal and everlasting glory we cele- 
 brate, — "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." 2 The God 
 of Israel must also be The God of Christians ; or else Christians 
 know not God. And although we may well expect that the New 
 Testament, being, in spirit and intent, identical with the Old, would 
 nevertheless be plainer in its terms, and more extended in the 
 views laid open to man; yet it would indeed be strange if it were 
 supposed to contain doctrines of which no traces were discover- 
 able in the Old. Such, could it really be proved a fact, would 
 afford a very strong presumptive argument against the truth of 
 the doctrines so supposed to be derived from the New Testament 
 alone. T say a presumptive argument, for it would not be more ; 
 conclusive and convincing, stringent and compulsory, it could 
 not be : because we perceive that, on other subjects, the New 
 Testament speaks to us in terms, and to an extent, to which the 
 Old is quite a stranger : and that certain essential, and funda- 
 mental, doctrines of salvation have been made known to us with 
 
 1 James i. 17. 
 
 2 Heb. xiii. 8. 
 
38 THE ANGEL WITH THE PATRIARCHS. 
 
 a distinctness increasing in clearness from the days of Abraham 
 to those of his Redeemer. Still, it would be a presumptive argu- 
 ment : and if, for example, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, 
 was deducible by Christians from their New Testament alone, 
 and if it could be truthfully asserted that no trace of the same 
 doctrine could be detected in the Old, it would be no more than 
 natural to suspect that possibly Christians were on that head 
 mistaken. 
 
 , _ The justice and importance of these views have 
 Unsound ad- . -1-1-11 m • , • i i 
 
 missions made Deen overlooked by some Christians ; and unsound 
 
 by Trinitari- admissions have been made by them on this part 
 of the subject; so that it has been observed that 
 the feeble advocacy of some Trinitarians has tended only to con- 
 firm the errors of their opponents. For because some sort of 
 plurality in The One Jehovah was more and more inculcated only 
 as time rolled on ; and additions to divine revelation in the time 
 of Moses and the prophets, each by new methods, multiplied the 
 proof of the fact ; so that the light of the New Testament on this 
 subject seemed by its very brilliancy to obscure the illumination 
 of the Old ; many firm believers in the fundamental doctrine of 
 the Holy Trinity have fallen into the mistake of supposing that 
 our only clear authority for this article of faith is the New Tes- 
 tament ; and they have almost gone so far as to admit that the 
 doctrine of plurality in The One Jehovah (whatever it may im- 
 port) had hardly been thought of before the era of Christianity, 
 We do not say that such an admission, even if sound, would be 
 fatal to the doctrine ; but it would be hurtful and dangerous, 
 because attenuating the faith ; but, more than that, it would be 
 unscriptural, and therefore untrue. The Lord God of Israel, 
 and He alone, is The God of Christians : and He ever revealed 
 Himself to the patriarchs, as one essence with plurality. Profiting 
 by the ignorance, or indiscretion, here alluded to, of some be- 
 lievers in The Triune God, those who deny (because none can 
 understand) the doctrine of The Holy Trinity have erroneously 
 supposed that the entire question might be safely reduced to the 
 assertion — that the ancient Scriptures taught the Israelites to 
 worship none but Jehovah ; that Jehovah is strictly One j and 
 that to worship any other beside Him, who sent Messiah, is to 
 transgress against the first commandment — Thou shalt have none 
 
THE ANGEL WITH THE PATRIARCHS. 39 
 
 other gods but Me. But such an idea assumes the nature of 
 Jehovah at once ; assumes that God's expression of Unity must 
 be in accordance with our own of Oneness ; which at once 
 attempts to bring the Divine Unity under our distinctions 1 about 
 numerical and specific contrived for expressing only things finite : 
 and takes the question for judgment into the arbitrary court of 
 the human mind, without reference to the terms in which the 
 Unity of God has been declared ; or the modes (which may be 
 more significant than terms) in which such Unity has been illus- 
 trated, and so made known. And we shall shew that from the 
 earliest days this One Jehovah, one and revealed as such in one 
 sense, was still One, yet revealed in plurality, in another. And, 
 more than that, that the high and holy Name, the incommuni- 
 cable name Jehovah was the especial title of Deity, as manifested 
 in divers ways and holding communication in divers manners 
 with man; was the name of Him, whom sons of Israel call 
 Messiah, but Christians call Christ. 
 
 Upon this subject of admissions by Trinitarians, I would 
 briefly refer to a work 2 of which Unitarians are very proud, en- 
 titled " Wilson's Concessions of Trinitarians ; " which consists of 
 extracts, critical and otherwise, selected from various so-called 
 Trinitarian divines ; but some of whom are foreign divines of 
 doubtful verity ; some English divines known to have degenera- 
 ted from the truth ; some, excellent divines making no " con- 
 cessions," but explaining texts not necessary to, nor involving, 
 the solemn doctrine under discussion. Who would have expec- 
 ted in one page, viz. p. 300, to have found two eminent arch- 
 prelates, viz. Tillotson and Sumner, quoted as making concessions 
 hostile to The Holy Trinity ? Two things are plain — that these 
 "concessions" are taken, in some respects, from those whose 
 authority is worth nothing ; and, in other respects, from those 
 whose authority, however respectable, is notoriously opposed to 
 Unitarians. The collection is, therefore, conducted upon a false 
 principle ; and it gives one a lively idea of a broker's shop of 
 second hand goods ; where is some sound property indeed ; but 
 withal so much rubbish, and so dirtily disposed, that the mind 
 
 1 See Waterland's Doct, of Holy Trin. p. 99, on Numerical Essence, 
 2 Wilson's Concessions ; Manchester : 1842, 
 
40 THE ANGEL WITH THE PATRIARCHS. 
 
 loses confidence ; and, impressed with the clear perception of 
 
 rubbish, cannot venture to select any article at all. That book 
 
 has established a righteous claim to be disposed of by fire. But 
 
 supposing all the authorities referred to were sound upon all the 
 
 verses quoted, what then? If, out of any number of texts cited, 
 
 half of them be relinquished by one advocate or another, may 
 
 not the other half be enough for conviction of offenders ? The 
 
 gentleman who has been so industrious in collecting what he 
 
 calls " Concessions of Trinitarians " would have done himself, 
 
 and others, more good by studying their agreements. 
 
 That God is One there is no dispute. What Israel 
 
 The TJmty of believed on this head we believe ; all Christians 
 
 the Godhead 
 
 not disputed, believe. The divergence is here — that some of us, 
 
 aware that Jews have degenerated from the faith 
 of their fathers, have left their company who crucified Jesus; 
 others prefer remaining with them. The Unity of God is a subject 
 upon which we are all agreed ; and the first distinct, and protest- 
 ing, assertion of that great truth was made by Moses, when re- 
 capitulating the law five hundred years after God's covenant 
 with Abraham ; " Hear, O Israel : The Lord our God is One 
 Lord." 1 We need not care to ring changes on the words, as some 
 have essayed ; the truth thus declared in the authorised version 
 is manifestly, the Unity of Jehovah ; and we shall ever keep as 
 close as possible to that version, merely adopting sometimes the 
 proper word Jehovah instead of its translation Lord. But, 
 while accepting to the full this grand announcement, (which must 
 have thrilled through Israel more than the trump of Jubilee,) it 
 behoves us not to forget its peculiar, and intended, point and 
 purpose. I have called it a protesting assertion of The Unity ; 
 and maintain it was intended as a protest of twofold application : 
 a protest against the abominations of Egyptian idolatry ; but 
 also a protest against a possible misconception of the Israelites. 
 The words, in which this announcement of the Unity was con- 
 veyed, were a protest against Egyptian and other such idolatry 
 to the end of time, but were never intended either to alter, or to 
 prejudge, the mode under which The Most High had seen fit, or 
 might, to reveal His existence. In short this Mosaic assertion 
 
 1 Deut. vi. 4. 
 
THE ANGEL WITH THE PATRIARCHS. 
 
 of The Unity, true enough in itself and cordially ac 
 Trinitarians, does not touch in the least upon the doctrine 
 Holy Trinity, as that doctrine is understood by them to 
 been revealed ; and, not the least important, to have been re- 
 corded by that very Moses. The Deity, therefore, of The One 
 Great and Almighty Father we need not discuss ; enough has 
 been said upon this in the preceding chapter. 
 
 We must never overlook the order of the sacred books. In- 
 spired (as I believe) in each word to the utmost ; they are also 
 inspired in the order of their conception. Now when Moses 
 exclaimed, "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is One Jehovah," 
 he had already been made to place upon irreversible record cer- 
 tain manifestations of Deity, which involving a kind of plurality, 
 might have led the unwary, or the godless, among them to forget, 
 or to deny, in future times The Unity. For I proceed to shew 
 that from Moses to Malachi a certain plurality was enjoined. 
 And — mark this fact — it is of small importance to this division 
 of the subject whether it extend to plurality in the sense of two, 
 or of three ; or whether plurality in the sense of two be more 
 clearly stated than in that of three. Once plurality proved in 
 any sense, and the fatal charm of Anti-trinitarianism is dis- 
 pelled ; the alliance upon which they plume themselves with 
 Jews is proved to be based upon misconception ; and their system, 
 which would mount to heaven as impiously but less solidly than 
 Babel, is burst asunder like a waterspout by the artillery of 
 truth. I shall shew that The One God was manifested in plura- 
 lity : that Jehovah was Christ : that the revelation of The Third 
 in The Holy Trinity was real, though limited ; and that Israel 
 from the days of Moses to those of Jesus, was aware of, and be- 
 lieved in, such plurality ; and that their denial of it now is, in 
 fact, the result of progressive degeneracy from ancestral truth. 
 But let it be again and again premised, and by the reader most 
 cautiously remembered, that in using such terms as unity, trinity, 
 plurality, essence, persons, characters, distinctions, or whatever other 
 terms any other writer may prefer, we none of us pretend to 
 have discovered language which can accurately, or adequately, 
 express the subject. Moses' language, though inspired, is not 
 competent to express it. But some language, though infantile 
 and lisping, to express such thoughts however imperfectly, man 
 
42 THE ANGEL WITH THE PATRIARCHS. 
 
 must have ; and we do but follow the suggestions of Holy Writ 
 which speaks to us of the things of God, not in language which 
 reaches their infinite perfection (for what words that man can 
 utter can do so ?) but in words best suited to man's own limited 
 capacity. God descends to converse with men, and adopts their 
 patois. Strange that they, who reject The Holy Trinity, should 
 object to our terms ; we care nothing about terms ; let them find 
 us better, if they can; but if not (and they decline the task) let 
 them try to grasp our ideas, and meet us candidly on the open 
 page of God's word. 
 
 There is a series of patriarchal manifestations of 
 of Jehovah Jehovah, which may be ranged under the title 
 
 " The Angel of Jehovah : " some would have us 
 read it "The Angel Jehovah." But I reject the suggestion; and 
 must insist upon holding the Jews to teach us on this matter. 
 By the most ancient commentary they possess, one which they 
 consider all but inspired, they have fixed to read it " The Angel 
 of Jehovah ; " and to that reading I adhere. I shall shew that 
 this " The Angel of Jehovah" is also Jehovah ; is worshipped as 
 Jehovah ; is Israel's Messiah ; is the Christian's Christ; is "The 
 Lord God of Israel, who dwelleth between the cherubim." I 
 know how Trinitarian advocates have faltered here ; because 
 commenting on isolated passages, and not tracing the manifesta- 
 tions of " The Angel of Jehovah " from the first to the last, they 
 have debilitated the argument ; and conceiving it weak in this 
 place or in that, have not realised the strength of the whole. I 
 propose to follow " The Angel " from Moses to Malachi ; and so- 
 licit especial attention to an argument unanswerable— whether by 
 Jew or by Christian. Indeed, the Jews shall be our teachers. I 
 have alluded to their most ancient commentary; 1 for the system 
 of marks by which they have fixed the sounds of words, and con- 
 structions of sentences, and adhesion of paragraphs, is, in effect, 
 a commentary : the most ancient and important possessed either 
 by Jews or Christians. Some Jews attribute its origin to Ezra, 
 under inspiration ; other Jews fix it to periods much later ; but 
 they agree in treating it with profoundest submission. On this 
 subject, therefore, of « The Angel of Jehovah," and upon some 
 
 J Of course I mean the Masora, 
 
THE ANGEL WITH THE PATRIARCHS. 43 
 
 others touching The Deity of Messiah, we cannot do better than 
 learn of Jews. Moreover in this phrase " The Angel of Jehovah" 
 there can be no doubt about the meaning of the word angel : 
 it means a messenger, viz., one sent by another. The question is 
 what sort, or order, of an angel is alluded to in the phrase : and 
 that question can be answered only by the contexts cited. 
 
 It is beautifully suggestive of the real nature of " The Angel 
 of Jehovah," that His first manifestation was to a mother in 
 sorrow; to " Hagar, Sarai's maid." "The Angel of Jehovah 
 found her by a fountain of water," and commanding her to return 
 with submission to her mistress, declared, " I will multiply thy 
 seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude." 
 Hagar 1 knew, and asserted, that God had spoken to her ; " and 
 she called the name of Jehovah, who spake unto her, Thou God, 
 my seer." It is clear that he who spake to Hagar is called " The 
 Angel of Jehovah ; " and also called " Jehovah" by Moses ; it is 
 also plain that he was called God by Hagar; a title which 
 Moses records, as he does that of Jehovah, with assent and ap- 
 probation. The question is — Could this Being called The Angel 
 receive the titles of God and of Jehovah, and make in his own 
 name a promise possible to Jehovah alone ; if he were not 
 actually Jehovah ? and could Moses, inspired of God, have so 
 recorded the event, had he not known and shewed that " The 
 Angel" spoken of was Jehovah ? We shall reply distinctly pre- 
 sently. Meanwhile it is also clear, that " The Angel of Jehovah" 
 was one sent by Jehovah; so that if " The Angel of Jehovah " be 
 also Jehovah, it is clear that being sent by Jehovah we have an 
 indication of two Beings, each called Jehovah ; one sending, the 
 other sent ; and that these two must not be confounded. More- 
 over it is clear that, (assuming for the present The Angel to be 
 really Jehovah) that of the two, Jehovah who sends, and Jehovah 
 the sent, the second as so sent is officially subordinate to the first ; 
 and the question arises, does this subordination imply inequality ? 
 To which, reason gives a clear answer (to be elaborated in the 
 course of this book), viz., that official subordination implies no 
 inequality ; for in ten thousand cases, every day occurring, the 
 official subordinate is continually equal, or even superior, to 
 
 1 Gen. xyi. 7. 
 
44 THE AXGEL WITH THE PATRIARCHS. 
 
 him under "whom he acts. And this observation is of the greater 
 force when the subordination is of one's own will and choice. I 
 shall only add, on this first manifestation of The Axgel to 
 Hagar, that the name given to the well " The Well of Him that 
 liveth, my seer : " by the uses of the word rendered that llveth 
 indicates essential life in The Axgel, so seen by her. 
 
 When Hagar l was eventually dismissed by Abraham, she and 
 Ishmael were near perishing by thirst in the wilderness — when, 
 " God heard the voice of the lad ; and The Angel of God once 
 more called to Hagar out of heaven ; and God opened her eyes ; 
 and God was with the lad ; but he was The Angel of God who 
 made the promise " / will make him a great nation," etc. From 
 which the argument is similar, and not less clear, than from the 
 first appearance to Hagar ; but there is this significant change 
 in the terms : he who is called Jehovah, and The Axgel of 
 Jehovah in the first case is called God, and The Axgel of God 
 in the second. There is no misunderstanding what is meant; 
 while the identity of the promise in each case proves that, in 
 each, The Axgel who made the promise is the same : and that 
 promise none, but Deity, could fulfil. 
 
 But, twenty years later, The Axgel of Jehovah appeared to 
 Abraham. 2 How naturally we connect the narratives together 
 by this title The Axgel of Jehovah ! God did tempt Abra- 
 ham ; and God did order Abraham to sacrifice his son to Him ; 
 but " The Angel of Jehovah " declares, "now I know that thou 
 fearest God, because thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only 
 son from Me;" so that the sacrifice ordered by God to Himself 
 was a sacrifice to The Axgel of Jehovah : and because made, 
 as commanded, "The Angel of Jehovah" accepts the sacrifice, 
 and records that unchanging promise which God confirmed with 
 an oath swearing by Himself, because He could swear by no 
 greater. 3 I wish this fact of the sacrifice actuallv made to The 
 Axgel of Jehovah, to be specially borne in mind ; being an 
 ostensible act of worship ; and an indication of the very essence of 
 all sacrifices, but especially of atoning sacrifices, afterwards 
 offered up by Israel under the Levitical covenant. 1 The question 
 
 1 Gen. xxi. 19. 2 Gen. xxii. 11. 
 
 3 Gen. xxii. 16; and Heb. vi. 13. 4 Lev. i. 4, etc. 
 
THE ANGEL WITH THE PATRIARCHS. 45 
 
 is — Could a sacrifice undeniably intended for Jehovah, be said 
 to be offered up to The Angel of Jehovah ? Could The 
 Angel of Jehovah profess to accept that sacrifice if lie were 
 not himself Jehovah ? We shall answer distinctly by and by. 
 Let us continue to trace the appearance of " The Angel of 
 Jehovah." 
 
 " Jacob went towards Haran j 1 and he lighted upon a certain 
 place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set ; and 
 he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, 
 and laid down in that place to sleep. And he dreamed, and 
 behold a ladder set up upon the earth, and the top of it reached 
 to heaven ; and behold the angels of God ascending and descend- 
 ing upon it. And behold Jehovah stood above it and said." — 
 Let us stop here to note distinctly : Jacob's vision is of the 
 created angels, ascending and descending, doing God's work from 
 heaven to earth : but above stands Jehovah : there is no room 
 for mistake — created angels are here distinguished from their 
 Jehovah and Creator ; and Jehovah said " I am Jehovah, the 
 God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac, the land 
 whereon thou liest to thee will I give it, and to thy seed," etc. 
 Now if we can prove that this Jehovah, who stood above, and 
 under whose direction the created angels were ministering, was 
 The Angel of Jehovah already mentioned as appearing to 
 Hagar and to Abraham, no doubt can longer remain that The 
 Angel of Jehovah is no created angel, but Jehovah the God 
 of Abraham, and of Isaac. What Jacob felt we know — " Surely 
 Jehovah is in this place, and I knew it not," etc. — and Jacob 
 vowed a vow, etc. — "then Jehovah shall be my God." And 
 >we know he called the name of the place Beth-el ; and the God of 
 Bethel was always Jacob's God. Twenty years after Jacob tells 
 his vision, thus, " The Angel of God spake unto me in a dream, 
 and said, I am the God of Bethel where thou anointed the pillar, 
 etc. So that the "God of Bethel" is " The Angel of God," is Je- 
 hovah who stood above the ladder distinguished from the created 
 angels. Jacob never forgat the covenant which Jehovah, 
 "The Angel of God," made with him at Bethel; and, seventy- 
 one years after, he describes it thus, — taught of God he was 
 
 1 Gen. xxviii. 10. 
 
46 THE ANGEL WITH THE PATRIARCHS. 
 
 about to bless bis favourite son Josepb's children : prescience 
 was in him ; he could not err ; God spake in him. 1 " God before 
 whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, The God which 
 fed me all my life long unto this day ; THE Angel which re- 
 deemed me from all evil, bless the lads," etc. There is no 
 eluding it ; inspired of The Holy Ghost, Jacob fixes those words, 
 The Angel, to be a title of God, The God of Abraham and of 
 Isaac : to be a title of The God of Bethel : of The God of the cove- 
 nant there made by him : a title of Jehovah who stood above, the 
 created angels ministering to Him ; the well known Angel of 
 Jehovah, who appeared first to Hagar, afterwards to Abraham. 
 
 Moreover Jacob's allusion to The Angel as The God of Isaac is 
 of vast importance, for it fixes to The Angel the only appearance 
 of God 2 made to Isaac — " I will give thee these countries, and I 
 will perform the oath which I sware to Abraham thy father," 
 etc. So that the oath which we know from Moses and from 
 St. Paul, was made by Him who could swear by no greater ; was 
 also made by Him, The Angel, The Sent, who redeemed Jacob 
 from all evil. 
 
 The conclusion is (thus far) that, The Lord God of Israel, The 
 God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, was undoubtedly mani- 
 fested as Jehovah, and as The Angel of Jehovah, in other 
 words as Jehovah sending, and as Jehovah sent— unless it can be 
 shown that any created, and deputed angel, can accept the title 
 of God, can make promises in his own name which none but 
 God can fulfil, can accept the sacrifices of God, can hear and 
 answer the prayers offered to God. I wish it again to be parti- 
 cularly noticed that Abraham sacrificed to The Angel, and Jacob 
 prayed to The Angel : these are ostensible, recorded, acts — in 
 descriptive words we might possibly be mistaken, but in acts of 
 worship, supreme worship, hardly so. So Abraham sacrificed to 
 The Angel, so Jacob prayed to The Angel ; and if The Angel 
 was not God, or was in any sense less than God, Abraham and 
 Jacob were idolaters. Further, we are well acquainted from 
 other parts of Holy Writ, with the character and offices of angels, 
 had Moses himself not distinguished them (as he does) from The 
 Angel. We know their mode of communicating with men in the 
 name of God ; as, e.g., Gabriel to Daniel, 3 or the same Gabri< 
 1 Gen. xlviii. 15. 2 Gen. xxvi. 2. 3 Dan viii. lf>. 
 
THE ANGEL WITH THE PATRIARCHS. 47 
 
 to Zacharias and to Mary, 1 or the angels to Zechariah the pro- 
 phet ; 2 we know that they refuse all worship, 3 and by contrast 
 command us to worship God ; and, all Scripture searched 
 through, we shall fail to account for the title assumed, the 
 promises made by, and the sacrifice and prayer offered to, The 
 Angel of Jehovah mentioned by Moses, upon the supposition 
 that he was any other, or less than, Jehovah Himself. Further 
 we may search the Hebrew scriptures all through, and that 
 language will fail to discover to us any idiom, or law of expres- 
 sion, by which a created angel is permitted in the name of 
 Jehovah to make promises as from himself, to assume the in- 
 communicable name himself, to accept sacrifice and prayer himself: 
 if there be any instances, let Unitarians produce them. So that I 
 answer now distinctly the questions previously suggested, — no 
 Hebrew idiom will account for, or justify, Moses' way of speaking 
 about The Angel of Jehovah, except he be equal to Jehovah 
 Himself. We conclude, then, that The Angel of Jehovah is 
 also Jehovah ; if so, plurality of some sort in Deity is proved — 
 Jehovah sending, and Jehovah sent ; plurality, with distinction 
 and subordination of office ; plurality, with asserted equality ; 
 plurality, with asserted unity : but as to any form in which Deity 
 so appeared to the Patriarchs, there is, at present, no sign. 
 
 Yet once Jacob wrestled with a man. 41 Moses says distinctly 
 " And Jacob was left alone ; and there wrestled a man with him 
 until the breaking of the day :" Jacob prevailed, and refused to 
 let him go " unless thou bless me." He held him, talked with 
 him in his own native tongue, and received from him the name 
 of Israel ; because, as the man said, he had prevailed in wrest- 
 ling with God ; and, refusing to utter his name, he blessed 
 Jacob there. " And Jacob called the name of the place Peni-el: 
 for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." 
 The whole tone of the narrative, Jacob's demand to be blessed, 
 his not being allowed to know the name, his receiving a new 
 title, his wonder that he survived the event, all forbid our sup- 
 posing that any created being, either man or angel, here wrestled 
 with Jacob. Jacob believed that he had wrestled with God, in 
 
 1 Luke i. 19. 2 Zech. ii. 3. 3 Rev. xxii. 9. 
 
 4 Gen. xxxii. 24. 
 
48 THE ANGEL WITH THE PATRIARCHS. 
 
 the likeness of man ; with God incarnate ; with God, invested 
 with a frame physically weaker than his own ; who was this God- 
 man ? We shall see presently that this idea of God-Incarnate 
 was, probably, not new to Jacob. But who was this God-man ? 
 More than one thousand years after Hosea, 1 speaking by the 
 Holy Ghost, and teaching backslidden Israel the true doctrine 
 of their fathers, thus alludes to Jacob's struggle at Peniel : " By 
 his strength he had power with God ; yea, he had power over 
 The Angel, and prevailed ; he wept, and made supplication unto 
 him : he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us ; even 
 The Lord God of Hosts ; Jehovah is his memorial." Theman 
 with whom Jacob wrestled was The Angel, The God of 
 Bethel ; The Lord God of Hosts : Jehovah is his memorial. 
 But, admitting it to be proved, that The Angel of Jehovah is 
 Jehovah, and that all the consequences we suppose follow from 
 the proof, how does this enable us to trace The Deity of Christ? 
 This question will be answered by every page as we proceed ; 
 but let Malachi 2 answer for the present. " Behold, I will send 
 my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me : and The 
 Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even 
 The Angel of the Covenant whom ye delight in : behold, he shall 
 come, saith Jehovah of Hosts." No Jew dares deny that this re- 
 fers to his Messiah, whom we call Christ; so that Christ is The An- 
 gel of the Covenant (viz. of the covenant which God made with 
 their fathers) and Christ is here called both The Angel and The 
 Lord : and, as such, is made equal to, if not identified with, The 
 Jehovah of Hosts, who speaks by Malachi. The actual word 
 used by Malachi is Ha-adon — viz. the singular of Adonai, with the 
 article ; which in Hebrew always means The Lord, as equivalent 
 with Jehovah. 
 
 Jacob was, as we have shewn, familiarised with the 
 
 Jehovah ^ ea Q ^ q Q( j ma( j e ma nifest by manhood to man, 
 
 incarnate. / 
 
 and so were his sons after him by the prophets. 
 
 The idea of God visiting man in the flesh is not a " heathenish 
 
 idea " as it has been termed, 3 but a Jewish ; nay — a heavenly : 
 
 and Jacob had no doubt first heard of it through Abraham. 
 
 1 Hos. xii. 4. 
 
 2 Mai. iii. 1. I regret to see this place sadly misquoted at p. 194, of 
 
 Mr. Yates' Vind. of Unit. 
 
 3 Yates' Yindic. Unit. p. 88. 
 
THE ANGEL WITH THE PATRIARCHS. 49 
 
 Sixty years before Jacob wrestled with that man at Peniel 
 Abraham was seated " in the tent door in the heat of the day 
 . . . and lo ! three men stood oy him ; and when he saw them he 
 ran to meet them by the tent door, and bowed himself toward 
 the ground, " and addressed one of them as " My Lord." Now 
 there is nothing wonderful in addressing a man as " My Lord :" 
 but why did the great doctors of Israel mark 1 this title, so used 
 by Abraham to the man who stood before him, as KODESH, holy ? 
 why did they mark it as a word that indicated the presence of 
 Jehovah ? nay more, of Jehovah Incarnate ? When the Jews say 
 " My Lord " to any mere man they call him Adoni; when they 
 give him the plural title of eminence they call him Adonai ; but 
 when they give the human title to God they call Him Adonai. 2 
 Let no unlettered reader suspect these distinctions are too finely 
 drawn : the words are quite distinct in the Hebrew; and the use of 
 Adonai as a title for The Lord God of Israel so notorious that one 
 prophet uses it in connexion with Jehovah no fewer than two 
 hundred and fifteen times. Adonai-Jehovah is Ezekiel's peculiar 
 title for The Lord God. So that although it is true that plural ter- 
 minations in Elohirn, and Adonim are no proofs of Deity ; yet this 
 use of Adonai is such : and the proper meaning of that Adonai 
 is God-as-Man : that was its first, its Pentateuchal, its peculiar, 
 sense. Now why the Jews have so marked the narrative before 
 us is clear : the seeming man who stood before Abraham 3 with 
 two others was God, as the narrative tells us : He said " / will 
 return unto thee according to the time of life :" and "Jehovah 
 said, Wherefore did Sarah laugh ? Is any thing too hard for 
 Jehovah ? At the time appointed I," etc. 
 
 To impress this particular matter of the incarnation of Deity 
 in Abraham's time, and the remarks I have made upon that title 
 Adonai upon the reader's mind, as also to give him a lively opinion 
 of the exact value of" Wilson's Concessions of Trinitarians," I 
 supply an extract from that book — " Adonai, with Kamets (long 
 a) is the name of God . . . But as Abraham asks permission 
 from his guest to wash his feet, it is incredible that he should 
 have known immediately that He whom he addressed was, not a 
 
 1 See margin Heb. Bib. 
 2 Mr. Yates seems not to have known this, or, at least, not to have noticed 
 it. See Vinci. Unit. p. 133. 3 Gen. xviii. 13. 
 
 E 
 
50 THE ANGEL WITH THE PATRIARCHS. 
 
 man, but God. I therefore think that the true reading is Adoni 
 with a Kherik (long I)." Sclndz. 1 That is — As it stands in the 
 Hebreiv Bible the title is God's; but as I think the narrative incre- 
 dible, I will alter the title to man's. But how then about the re- 
 mark Kodesh, Holy, in the margin? And here I will add that 
 none of the " concessions " gathered by Mr. Wilson upon the 
 passages hitherto considered touch the argument I have ad- 
 vanced upon The Angel of Jehovah. The commentaries quoted 
 when bearing on the subject are shockingly frivolous. Take 
 Dr. Wells on Gen. xvi. 7 — 13, " I see no reason for this angel to 
 have been the said divine person, nothing in the circumstances of 
 the transaction being of such importance as to be worthy of his own 
 appearing." Thus Dr. Wells' opinion of the importance of the 
 matter determines his view of what could only be settled by 
 collation of Scripture: 2 viz. of the manner in which God did, 
 and should have operated on the occasion referred to. 
 
 Similar remarks to those I have made above respecting 
 Adonai might be added upon the appearance to Lot 3 ; they 
 are, however, unnecessary. Those who choose can refer to 
 Gesenius' lliesaurus, or HebreAV Dictionary, p. 328 ; and see 
 there all about Adonai well worked out. Gesenius will tell 
 them, 1. That the word always means God in the Pentateuch; 
 and such is its ancient, and primitive use : 2. That the Masorets, 
 or Jewish Commentators, specify this in 134 places : 3. That in 
 certain formulas it is always used in addressing prayers to God : 
 4. That this word stands for God in more homely, as well as in 
 more sublime, passages ; and especially in later Hebrew. 
 
 The truth of these remarks will appear very clearly as we 
 proceed : meanwhile let us take a prayer from Daniel. — "Adonai 
 hear ! Adonai forgive ! Adonai hasten and do ! Defer not for 
 thine own sake, O my God ! " 4 
 
 1 Wilson's Concessions, p. 111. 8 Ibid, p. 108. 
 
 3 Gen. xix. 18. * Daniel ix. 19. 
 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 THE ANGEL WITH MOSES AND THE JUDGES. 
 
 HE unity and perfect attributes of The Lord God 
 being still borne in mind, another mode, and 
 series, of manifestations demand consideration ; 
 by which we shall be able to trace the presence 
 of Him The Angel of Jehovah, The Sent One, 
 The Messiah, The Christ, all through the history 
 of Israel, as the true presence of Jehovah with His people, as 
 The Lord God of Israel that dwelleth between The Cherubim. And 
 the peculiar feature of this series of manifestations is that they 
 all tended, like incarnation previously exhibited, 1 to assign to The 
 Lord God a local habitation for the purposes of worship ; in 
 other words, in such respects as betokened His converse with 
 man. A very early event in Abraham's life was the ratification 
 of the covenant by an oath, and by sacrifice ; when the " smoking 
 furnace and burning lamp " passed through the pieces, 2 and sym- 
 bolised the presence of Him, who condescended tb swear by Him- 
 self unto Abraham. This was, in fact, the earliest instance of 
 Jehovah's actual presence by smoke and by fire, i. e. by mystery 
 and by knowledge, by faith and by reason, grant d to man ; and 
 was afterwards continued in the pillar of cloud mingled with fire, 
 which led and protected Israel through the wilderness ; in The 
 Shechinah which entered into and dwelt in the Tabernacle; 
 which sanctified and habited the Temple; which, whether in 
 tabernacle or temple, at Shiloh or at Salem, dwelt upon the 
 mercy-seat between The Cherubim : and by means of which 
 
 See p. id supra. 
 
 2 Gen. xv. 17. 
 
52 THE ANGEL WITH 
 
 we can trace, beyond safe contradiction, the presence of Jehovah 
 The Angel, or Jehovah's Angel, as The Lord God of Israel. 
 The Anqel in E.F.C. Rosenmuller l commenting upon The Angel's 
 the bush of appearance to Hagar is so good as to say "The 
 Angel or Messenger of Jehovah is in ver. 13 called 
 Jehovah ; terms which in these books are used as interchangeable, 
 and signify that visible symbol by which The Deity manifested 
 Himself to men ;" and then he refers to The Angel in the bush. 
 This admission is all we could desire. But we must observe that 
 when The Angel so appeared to Hagar and to Abraham there was 
 recordedno visible symbol; when he appeared to Jacob it was not by 
 any denned symbol, but as Jehovah above waited on by angels : 
 when Abraham sacrificed, and Jacob prayed, to The Angel it was 
 not to a symbol ; for that would have been idolatry, as bad as 
 Egyptian, or Grecian, or Papal : nor was The Angel accompanied 
 by any symbol until he appeared in the burning bush. In which 
 narrative Moses carefully separates between the bush which 
 burned, and Him who called out of the midst of it : viz. between 
 the symbol, and The Angel who was symbolised. 2 "The Angel 
 of The Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst 
 of a bush," . . . . " and when Jehovah saw that he turned to see, 
 God called unto him out of the midst of the bush.". ..." More- 
 over He said, I am The God of thy father, The God of Abraham, 
 The God of Isaac, and The God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face 
 for he was afraid to look upon God." He, who thus appeared 
 to Moses, was The Angel of whom he had previously spoken in 
 his book which we call Genesis; and, continuing his history, 
 refers to him as one already mentioned. So that those words, 
 The Angel, became thenceforward a recognised title for the ac- 
 companying God of Israel, and for Messiah or Christ ; 3 thus, 
 " Mine Angel shall go before thee ; " thus, "The Angel of His 
 presence saved them; " thus, " The Angel of the Covenant," whom 
 Jews should delight in, came suddenly to His own temple. And 
 this title, The Angel, was the cause of Messiah's being spoken of 
 elsewhere 4 as The Sent ; (which, indeed, is the meaning of the 
 title ;) in passages to which I shall hereafter refer. 
 
 1 Wilson's Concessions, p. 108. 
 
 2 Exod. iii. 1. 3 Exod. xxiii. 23 ; Isaiah lxiii. 9 ; Mai. iii. 1. 
 
 4 Isaiah xlviii. 16 ; Zech. ii. 11. 
 
MOSES AND THE JUDGES. 53 
 
 The Anael f - ^ Moses' narrative of events transpiring between 
 mally takes the The Angel's appearance in the bush, and the 
 Utle Jehovah as people's coming out of Egypt, is carried on in the 
 name of the same angel, as God : but before the 
 delivery from Egypt the title Jehovah was formally claimed and 
 promulgated as His own. 1 " God spake unto Moses, and said 
 unto him, I am Jehovah : and I appeared unto Abraham, unto 
 Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by My 
 name Jehovah was I not known to them." And this passage, 
 which has caused trouble to many commentators, is easily ex- 
 plained by noticing that The Angel of Jehovah is previously 
 mentioned only twice 2 by the name Jehovah ; once to Abraham 
 and once to Jacob : but that He afterwards adopted the name 
 El-Shaddai, The Almighty God, 3 which they also employed when 
 speaking of Him: take one example, " God Almighty (El-Shaddai) 
 appeared unto me at Luz, and blessed me," says Jacob. Thus, 
 though The Angel assumed only twice the incommunicable name 
 Jehovah, He left those patriarchs no doubt of His real character 
 by calling Himself, though sent, The Almighty God. The diffi- 
 culty lies in the seeming contradiction between the statement 
 " By My name Jehovah was I not known unto them," and the 
 notorious fact that such name was commonly used, especially by 
 Abraham. The solution is, that a distinction in Deity was taught 
 to the patriarchs. He who was the sent, viz., The Angel, and in 
 that sense appeared officially subordinate, assumed a distinct 
 name, El-Shaddai, The Almighty God ; giving that of Jehovah 
 to Him, who sent Him. 4 And Abraham, in his subsequent use 5 
 of the name Jehovah ; and the others, in the use 6 of El-Shaddai 
 had respect to such applications of the two several names. That 
 The Angel who appeared to Jacob at Luz was El-Shaddai The 
 Almighty God, he says; 7 also Moses says 8 he was Jehovah. 
 That The Angel who appeared in the bush to Moses is the same 
 is manifest ; 9 and to Moses He declares that He was known to 
 the fathers as The Almighty God ; but that henceforward He 
 
 1 Exod. vi. 2. 2 Gen. xv. 7, and Gen. xxviii. 13. 
 
 3 Gen. xvii. 1, and xxxv. 11 ; xxviii. 3, and xlviii. 3. 
 
 4 Gen. xviii. 14, 19, and xxii. 16. 
 
 5 Gen. xxi. 33, xxii. 14, and xxiv. 3. 6 Gen. xxviii 3, and xlviii. 3. 
 
 7 Gen. xlviii. 3. 8 Gen. xxviii. 13. 9 Exod. iii. 2, 6. 
 
54 THE ANGEL WITH 
 
 assumes the title Jehovah, as His own. Either way, absolute 
 
 divinity is claimed ; and yet The Sent must be distinct from The 
 
 Sender. 
 
 _,, . , . Henceforward then, at least under Moses, The 
 
 The Angel in 
 
 the pillar of Angel announces himself as I he Lord God 
 
 cloudy fire. Almighty, The Jehovah, the guide and abiding 
 deliverer of Israel. Accordingly when Moses led the tribes out 
 of Egypt they were guided by a pillar of cloud, mingled with 
 fire. The flame of this by day was paled by the sun, and the cloud 
 operated as their protection in chief; but by night the flame 
 burst through the cloud in brilliancy, and acted as a lamp to 
 guide them. This pillar of mingled cloud and fire was a symbol, 
 if we please ; but is also carefully distinguished from Him whose 
 presence it indicated, The Almighty Saviour who had rescued 
 them from Egypt. Thus, at the very moment they passed 
 through the sea, he took station in the rear to trouble the Egyp- 
 tians, and is called at that time The Angel of God ; 1 but yet, a few 
 verses on, " In the morning watch Jehovah looked unto the host 
 of the Egyptians, throvgh the pillar of fire and of cloud, and 
 troubled the host of the Egyptians." We must note how care- 
 fully the symbol is distinguished from Him whose presence it 
 symbolised ; and yet how certainly that presence is identified 
 with the symbol itself, and the actual spot it occupied. The 
 effect of this, unknown to the patriarchs except by the incar- 
 nations at Mamreh and Peniel, was gradually to prepare the way 
 for the idea of Deity embodied, and so locally present with His 
 people. Moses distinctly tells us that The Angel in the pillar 
 was Jehovah, as indeed the assurance at the bush had prepared 
 him to believe ; hence whithersoever we trace this pillar, through 
 the wilderness with the tabernacle, we trace the presence of The 
 Angel Jehovah ; and Moses, in his beautiful song, 3 in terms 
 consistent with this idea of local presence, this embodiment 
 (though not by incarnation) by smoke and by fire, celebrates him, 
 The Angel, no fewer than ten times by the name Jehovah; and 
 once by a new name, viz., that of Jah. Two verses in that song 
 are of the greatest importance to our subject. First for marking 
 that name Jah (now used for the first time 3 ) for which we shall 
 
 1 Exod. xiv. 19, 24. 2 Exod. xv. 
 
 3 Exod. xv. 2. 
 
MOSES AMD THE JUDGES. 55 
 
 have important use. " J ah is my strength and song, and He is 
 become my salvation : He is my God, and I will prepare Him an 
 habitation ; my fathers God, and I will exalt Him. " Next 1 by the 
 use of Adonai, before alluded to, that he, who first received this 
 title, when appearing God-as-man, was peculiarly the object of 
 praise in this song, and that His habitation or sanctuary was the 
 subject of Moses' cheerful predictions : "Thou shalt bring them 
 in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the 
 place, O Jehovah, which Thou hast made for Thee to dwell in, 
 in the Sanctuary, O Adonai, which Thy hands have established. 
 Jehovah shall reign for ever and ever." 
 
 I want these several facts to be observed : 1. That The Angel 
 Jehovah, out of the cloud, overthrew the Egyptians. 2. That 
 Moses sings this thanksgiving to Him. 3. That He is through- 
 out celebrated as Jehovah. 4. That He is also called Jah and 
 Adonai. 5. That this Jah, or Adonai, is Jehovah. 6. That He 
 is called The God of Israel's fathers. We shall see the use of this 
 particularly by and by; indeed, I should have thought some 
 use of it might have been seen already. 
 
 Further we notice that the result of this earliest manifestation 
 of The Angel to Moses was, among others, the adoption by Him 
 of two new names ; one, Jah as noted above ; the other, / am 
 that I am, or briefly I AM ; as expressive of unchanging and 
 eternal existence. 3 : The attempted gloss "I will be what I will 
 be," is really beneath notice ; to any one who understands the 
 use of the Hebrew future, or (as Lee calls it) present tense. 
 
 This Angel, this Jehovah, this Jah, led Israel 
 
 CoLiTmlule thus t0 Sinai ' and there Proposed to enter into 
 by The Any el covenant with them, as He had already done 
 
 fet2hJso d with Abraham tneir father ; ttat is, by renew- 
 ing and re-ratifying that covenant He proposed 
 that they should claim through Abraham, as heirs. This is the 
 Sinaitic covenant, called by St. Paul, the first Testament, 3 or, 
 again, the Old Testament ; 4 and the parties to it are Jehovah on 
 the one side, and the people Israel on the other. But if it be en- 
 quired — Who is meant by Jehovah ? the answer must be, first, 
 
 1 Exod. xv. 17. 2 Exod. iii. 14. 
 
 3 Heb. ix. 15. 4 Heb. viii. 13 ; 2 Cor. iii. 14. 
 
56 THE ANGEL WITH 
 
 from what has gone before, Jehovah's Angel ; and second, from 
 what follows, Jehovah and Jehovah's Angel, viz : The One 
 Sending, and The One Sent. For that the Sinaitic Covenant was 
 made also with Jehovah who Sent, is clear from the following pas- 
 sage: 1 " Behold, I send an Angel, (the Jews at Alexandria, three 
 hundred years before Christ, translated here, 'My Angel') before 
 thee to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place 
 which I have prepared. Beware of Him, and obey His voice ; 
 provoke Him not : for i/e will not pardon your transgressions : for My 
 
 name is in Him Mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring 
 
 thee," etc. This solemn warning deserves peculiar attention. The 
 reader will observe how completely any idea that The Angel was 
 a symbol is excluded. He was a person. Provoke him not, etc., 
 for he will not pardon, etc. Such is the warning. It was afterwards 
 referred to in a prediction of The Son, as such, viz : in the second 
 Psalm, and cannot be interpreted consistently with Holy Scrip- 
 ture, as if referable to any created angel. " Who can forgive 
 sins but God 2 alone?" He never deputed that gracious office 
 yet to any created being, man or angel ; but to The Angel, His 
 Angel, who went with Israel. In fact, this very passage, con- 
 trasted with another now to be quoted, enables us convincingly 
 to distinguish between The Angel, known as Jehovah's Angel, 
 and any created, though angelic messenger. When Israel first 
 apostatized by worshipping a symbol, 3 viz : the golden calf, 
 (" These be thy gods, Israel," etc.,) he denounced them for 
 the offence by saying, "I will send an angel before thee, and I 
 will drive out, 4 etc., for I will not go up in the midst of thee, for 
 thou art a stiff-necked people, lest I consume thee in the way." 
 Here was an angel to be sent with an apostatizing people, but 
 Jehovah Himself would not go with them. How marked the 
 contrast with the former declaration, " Mine Angel shall go be- 
 fore thee, my name is in Him; He will not pardon," etc. Ac- 
 cordingly Moses well understood that now a created angel was 
 meant ; if I may so say, a mere ordinary guide ; and Moses made 
 it an occasion of especial supplication for the people, and could not 
 be comforted until the sentence was reversed, and the coveted bles- 
 sing once more vouchsafed by the promised return of The Angel, 
 
 1 Exod. xxiii. 20. 2 Luke v. 21. 
 
 3 Exod. xxxii. 8. 4 Exod. xxxiii. 2, 14. 
 
MOSES AND THE JUDGES. 57 
 
 viz : The Angel of the Covenant. " My presence shall go with 
 thee, and I will give thee rest. And he said unto Him, If Thy pre- 
 sence go not, carry us not up hence." Thus clearly is the contrast 
 drawn by Moses between Him, The Angel, The Angel of The 
 Sinaitic Covenant, The Angel of Jehovah's presence ; and any created 
 angel whatever. To these illustrations in the Mosaic history we 
 must refer for the meaning: of Isaiah's verse : 1 "In all their afflic- 
 tion he was afflicted, and The Angel of his presence saved them ; " 
 and Malachi's : 2 " The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come 
 to His temple ; even The Angel of The Covenant, whom ye delight 
 in." The Jews -were taught that The Angel of the Sinaitic cove- 
 nant, The Angel of Jehovah's presence, was no created angel ; but 
 that well-known Angel who appeared to Jacob at Bethel, and 
 redeemed him from all evil ; that very Jehovah, their Messiah, 
 their Christ, whom in Malachi's days they were expecting, and 
 who was suddenly to come, and did so come, to His temple. 
 
 The Sinaitic Covenant thus made, and The Angel 
 
 Jehovah, or The e p/ ie Covenant thus identified, let us trace the 
 Angel in the „ „ . ,- ~ , , 
 
 Tabernacle. presence of the same Angel in the labernacle. 
 
 Moses, shut away for forty days from all inter- 
 course with the people, heard on the top of Sinai, this divine 
 command ; 3 " Let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell 
 among them. . . . There will I meet with thee, and I will commune 
 with thee from above the mercy-seat" Mark these last words — 
 from above the mercy-seat. This announcement, promise, and in- 
 junction, must (of necessity) refer to The Angel of Jehovah's 
 presence; in other words, to him, by means of whom Jehovah's 
 veritable presence was signified, and of whom it had already been 
 said — Beware of Him ! and, My presence shall go with thee. And 
 wherever we trace the mercy-seat, there we trace His presence, viz : 
 into the interior of the tabernacle, into the holy of holies, above 
 the ark of the covenant, upon the mercy-seat, between the Cheru- 
 bim — and we behold The Angel of Jehovah's presence, to whom 
 Hezekiah prayed 4 — " O Lord God of Israel, which dwellest 
 between the cherubims." This tabernacle thus prepared was for 
 the worship of Him, The Lord God of Israel, whose presence, as 
 
 1 Isai. lxiii. 9. 2 Mai. hi. 1. 
 
 3 Exod. xxr. 8, 22. 4 2 Kings xix. 15. 
 
58 THE ANGEL WITH 
 
 The Divine Conductor, had already been promised on the first 
 part in the Covenant. And as the speaker here is known to 
 have been that same person, by His commanding the tabernacle 
 to be made for His own use, it is clear to us at once, that this, 
 and all subsequent manifestations, to Moses or to Israel, in con- 
 nexion with that tabernacle were made, and were known at the 
 time to be made by Him, Israel's Guide and Saviour, The Angel of 
 Jehovah, or Jehovah's Angel, Jehovah, The Sent; who, as 
 so sent, is in such sense subordinate to another, also called 
 Jehovah ; and whom, so sent, Christians are' wont to call The 
 Second in The Holy Trinity. Wherever the ark and mercy-seat 
 were throughout the Jewish dispensation, there was HE. But 
 Israel's regarding Him as The Angel, or messenger, implied the 
 existence, to their knowledge, of another, by whom He was so 
 commissioned. And the book of Genesis, penned in the wilder- 
 ness, and taught to all the people, strengthened their belief in 
 some sort of mysterious plurality in The God of their fathers ; 
 which, unless it should degenerate into the multiplication of 
 gods (to which Egyptians and other people were so prone) ren- 
 dered necessary that well-known proclamation : " Hear, O Israel, 
 Jehovah our God is One Jehovah; " and thus the divine unity 
 was maintained. That was the central beacon of Israelitish 
 truth ; but, along with it, God manifested Himself in plurality 
 from the first ; and The Unity, iv'ith The Plurality, was received 
 then, as it must be now, not from authority of reason, but as an 
 article of implicit faith, drawn entirely from the statements of 
 inspired revelation. 
 
 ^ „ „ , Some apology is due for having ventured in (what 
 
 Defence of the 
 
 above interpre- ^ s called) the present state of theological learning, to 
 
 tations. revive and so totally reassert the old interpretation 
 
 of these Scriptures concerning the appearances of The Angel. 
 Of course it is some comfort to be told 1 that our best commen- 
 tators, and old divines ; that many of the Christian fathers, and 
 ancient Jewish Rabbis; that most commentators of former ages; 
 explain the above Scriptures concerning The Angel, as we do, 
 viz ; by reference to Messiah, whom we call Christ. Of course, 
 we know they did ; and these are very comfortable and important 
 admissions. But if modern doctors have discovered some new 
 
 1 Wilson's Concessions, p. 127, etc. 
 
MOSES AND THE JUDGES. 59 
 
 idiom of the Hebrew language, or some new and divine principle 
 of interpretation, which proves such Christian fathers and Jewish 
 Rabbis to be wrong, we would rather be with the moderns than 
 among the ancients. But have they? I confess I sometimes 
 think that there may he fashions in theological teachings, or pub- 
 lic preachings ; as much as in the cut of one's coat. I sometimes 
 have suspected it is possible, even in religion, to put on a pro- 
 found look, to knit one's brow, and take dignified strides, for the 
 purpose of being known as the learned doctor, or the celebrated 
 preacher. There must be a little piquancy in preaching in these 
 days, or the preacher and the congregation fear they are getting 
 too common, and out of the ton. Still I will dare to say in 
 regard to certain modern commentaries on the above Scriptures, 
 that I cannot put them down without acknowledging a painful 
 conviction that Holy Scripture has been evaded by the commen- 
 tators. I do not say intentionally evaded, but evaded by a 
 necessity of erroneous views, and that their comments do not 
 come up to the vigor of the sacred language, nor meet the re- 
 quirements of its idioms. Thus, when we are told, 1 in reference 
 to The Angel, that — "Though, as regards his person, he was an 
 angel, yet he represented the majesty and authority of God, and 
 spoke not in his own name, but in that of The Deity ; " or again — 
 " God is said to speak, act, command, threaten, when any mes- 
 senger, whether angel or prophet, speaks and acts in His name ; " 
 — or again, " All which words were pronounced by an angel, but 
 are true, not of the angel, but of God, whom he represented. So 
 a herald reads a proclamation in the king's name and words, 
 as if the king himself was speaking." Such remarks are futile, 
 for we have shown, that The Angel acted deliberately in His 
 own name, and in His own right, assuming the highest name and 
 attributes of God, besides other particulars, to which I shall 
 soon call attention. 
 
 One gentleman 3 quarrels with the translation The Angel 
 of Jehovah, and maintains it ought to have been an Angel of 
 Jehovah, because there is no definite article in the Hebrew. But 
 he is wrong ; the definite article was not required ; the addition 
 of the proper name supplies the definiteness required. Perhaps 
 
 1 Wilson's Concessions, p. 126, etc. * Wilson's Concessions, p. 127, etc. 
 
60 THE ANGEL WITH 
 
 it would have been better to have rendered it Jehovah's Angel : 
 but ' an angel of The Lord,' in these places would have been 
 wrong. Thus if I wished to say Gideon's Messenger, no definite 
 article is needed; or take another case " The Angel of The Lord 
 was by the threshing-floor of Araunah, the Jebusite." No article 
 is used, nor required ; yet ' An Angel of The Lord ' would have 
 been wrong ; it means ' The Angel ' of the narrative ; and the 
 character, or dignity, of The Angel alluded to must always be 
 determined by the context. Again " The Angel of The Lord smote 
 the Assyrians ;" that is, The Angel so deputed; but no article 
 was required, nor stands in the context. Moreover these gentle- 
 men not only err in their criticisms ; but also in their reasoning ; 
 or make admissions fatal to their own views. Thus because it 
 is said — " God, who spake unto the fathers in time past by the pro- 
 phets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son;" 
 therefore (such is the inference they draw) He did not speak be- 
 fore by His Son; therefore The Angel cannot be His Son. St. 
 Paul's statement is this, that as God spake in time past by the pro- 
 phets, so in the same sense He hath now spoken by His Son ; viz. 
 as abiding in the flesh ; which certainly He did not before ; or again — 
 on, "I send an Angel before thee " — "in our language My providence 
 shall be over you; for this Angel was God present, and acting for them 
 in His ownperson." — That is all we require. Ihave already referred 
 to E. F. C. Rosenmuller, who also assures us, 1 that " Herder, by 
 arguments not at all contemptible, endeavours to prove that 
 every symbol, or visible thing, under which the invisible God 
 appeared is called an Angel, Messenger, or Legate of Jehovah." — 
 But when He appeared to Hagar there was no visible symbol; and 
 when He appeared to Jacob at Luz, it was as Jehovah in glory; 
 waited on by Angels. Nor is it on record by what means conscious- 
 ness of the presence was produced in these two cases. But indeed 
 one might write a volume to point out their errors, and fallacies; 
 let us look to the requirements of the case. 2 
 
 Grotius tells us — on " And God spake all these words — J am 
 Jehovah thy God," etc. — " On this account The Angel who 
 announced the law says — 'I Jehovah ' — (he should have written 
 'I am Jehovah' — which is the force of the place, and would 
 instantly have stopped him) — language employed by others who 
 
 \ "Wilson's Concessions, p. 133. 
 2 I shall refer to Stephen's allusion, in Act. 7. 30, at the end of this chapter. 
 
MOSES AND THE JUDGES. 61 
 
 were commissioned by The Deity on great occasions, and who per- 
 mitted themselves to be addressed in a similar manner." I deny 
 this, and ask for the examples ; having studied every passage 
 referred to. These are the requirements we want filled out for 
 the purpose of overturning our explanation. It must be proved 
 that the Hebrew language permits an angel, or messenger, of 
 the Lord : 1. To say that he is The Almighty God, and Jehovah.: 
 2. To make in his own name promises possible only to Deity ; 3. 
 To accept sacrifices in his own person, which were intended for The 
 Deity : 4. To hear and answer, in his own name and person, 
 prayer addressed to The Deity. These requirements can never 
 be met, by any quotations of verses, or cited idioms, from the 
 Hebrew Scriptures. But whoever wishes to note how untrust- 
 worthy Grotius is on these matters can refer to Bishop Bull's 
 Defence of the Nicene Creed, vol. 1., pp. 28, 29. 
 
 Furthermore the pre-eminence of Jehovah's Angel in the 
 passages referred to is made peculiarly manifest. At Luz, or 
 Bethel, He appeared as Jehovah in glory with the created angels 
 ministering before Him ; and, though we can well understand 
 that what an angel does, God does : yet we cannot understand 
 how inspired Jacob should call God, The Angel ; unless in that 
 character of The Angel he was God. Yet this he does ; and 
 moreover gives him this official title " My redeemer " — " God — 
 The Angel, my redeemer," using an official, and characteristic, 
 word ; found only once before, 1 and that in the same sense : viz., 
 in Job — " I know that my redeemer liveth," etc. Moreover the 
 pre-eminence of The Angel, Jehovah's Angel, above all created 
 angels is clear from the place in Exodus ; where when a created 
 angel was to be sent with Israel, Moses supplicated and en- 
 treated for The Angel of Jehovah's presence. But in fact, 
 Malachi settles the business ; he says Ha-Adon — viz., The Lord 
 in flesh ; " The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His 
 temple ; even The Messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight 
 in." Where we notice that having no proper name after the 
 word Messenger, or Angel, the definite article is used : so that it 
 stands most definitely "The Angel of the covenant" — and 
 Messiah, or Christ, is thus declared to be The Angel of old, 
 
 1 I consider it settled that the book of Job must be dated sometime between 
 Abraham and Moses : xvhoever threw it into its present shape. 
 
62 THE ANGEL WITH 
 
 Jehovah's Angel, The Angel of the Levitical covenant. Bishop 
 Patrick indeed informs us here that Christ was " The Angel of 
 the covenant ;" but seems to imply that it means the Christian 
 covenant; " For," says he, " so he was at his incarnation ;" but 
 did Jews delight in Messiah as The Angel of the Christian cove- 
 nant 1 We must read it in the sense in which they delighted 
 in The Angel, viz., as The Angel of their own covenant. 
 Thus far in my defence, to which I will add a solemn wish — 
 Would to God The Church were carried back to the days of the 
 earliest fathers ; and that We were spared the slipshod theology 
 of present times ! There were giants in the earth in those days. 
 The Anqel in The similarity in the messages conveyed by The 
 the time of the Angel to Hagar and the Patriarchs ; Adz., as to 
 ^' t the increase and duration of the children of Ish- 
 
 mael and of Isaac, enabled us to infer the identity of The Angel 
 on each occasion ; while the close continuity of his manifes- 
 tations to the Patriarchs as heads of the Israelitish people, and 
 his subsequent appearance to Moses as the appointed leader 
 and law-giver of such people, enable us to conclude with confi- 
 dence upon that identity. There was but one Angel so employed; 
 who is, therefore, known, and was ever known, as The Angel ; viz., 
 TheAngelof that covenant which God made with Moses. And thus 
 the real question raised was as to the order, class, or nature 
 of that Angel. This we have answered from the facts that he 
 acted as Jehovah, claimed to be Jehovah, and was worshipped 
 and prayed to as Jehovah, and that therefore he was Jehovah; 
 and we traced Him to the mercy-seat between The Cherubim. 
 This being done, other appearances (if any) of the same Angel, 
 as, for instance, in the time of Joshua and the Judges, become 
 of only secondary importance. Still they have their use, and 
 we shall very briefly notice them. 
 
 That the appearance to Joshua 1 was of the same Angel may be 
 inferred from the identity of the language he used with that he 
 also addressed to Moses — " And the captain of The Lord's host 
 said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot ; for the 
 place whereon thou standest is holy." Bishop Patrick 2 has 
 adopted the modern Jews' opinion of this passage, and supposed 
 this Angel was Michael the Archangel, because (as he supposes) 
 
 1 Joshua v. 15. 8 Patrick's Commentary, on Exod. xxiii. 10. 
 
MOSES AND THE JUDGES. 63 
 
 he is called " The captain of The Lord's host;" at Dan. x. 13, 21, 
 and because he, Bishop Patrick, assumes that Michael the Arch- 
 angel is the Michael mentioned more than once by Daniel. But 
 there is the best reason for concluding that the name Michael is 
 given in Daniel to Messiah Himself as the future great deliverer 
 of His people Israel, see Dan. x. 21, and xii. 1 ; and that, on 
 that very account, Messiah is there, in effect, called The Captain 
 of Jehovah's host — a name of mighty significance to Joshua 
 (whose name of course was Jesus) as himself the captain of The 
 Lord's host at the time this ' Captain of Jehovah's host ' appeared 
 to him. Joshua, or Jesus, was himself a type of the real Cap- 
 tain of The Lord's host, of the real Michael, Jesus or Joshua: 
 whom the Jews expected as Messiah, and we call Christ. The 
 fact that there is also an archangel called Michael is no reason 
 why Messiah, The Angel of Jehovah, should not be called so 
 too. Joshua, and Hosea, and Joshua the son of Josedek, all 
 bore names belonging to Messiah ; and the giving of a name 
 implying one of Messiah's offices, whether it be so given to 
 angel or to man, does not attribute to either identity of character, 
 or the properties of His Deity. There is notably, however, 
 this peculiarity in The Angel's appeal ance to Joshua — that 
 he who was embodied in the bush to Moses, was incarnated as 
 a man 1 to Joshua : each visible appearance answering the 
 purpose of locality. 
 
 Now as to the appearances to Gideon, 2 and to Manoah : 3 the 
 reader will observe the translation is sometimes " An Angel of 
 The Lord," sometimes " The Angel of The Lord." I shall only 
 say, I take it cheerfully just as it stands ; but that in every case 
 the same w r ords are used, and that in every case it ought to have 
 been translated definitely " The Angel of The Lord :" the charac- 
 ter of that Angel being left to be determined from the narratives. 
 And as to the appearance made to Gideon, the real character of 
 The Angel is determined by the folio whig verse — " And when 
 Gideon perceived he was an Angel of The Lord, Gideon said, 
 Alas, O Lord God ! for because I have seen an Angel of The 
 Lord face to face.*' These words were addressed to The Angel 
 himself, and are remarkable on this account — they contain one 
 of the earliest uses of the title Adonai- Jehovah, afterwards so 
 habitually used by Ezekiel, which is in- fact the title of God-as- 
 man. "Alas! Adonai- Jehovah ! for I have seen Malach- Jehovah 
 
 1 Joshua v. 2 Judges vi. 22. 3 Judges xiii. 15. 
 
64 THE ANGEL WITH 
 
 face to face." To see an angel face to face was no cause for 
 fearing death : angels had been often seen face to face. 1 But to 
 see Jehovah face to face was so ; and so it was to see Malach- 
 Jehovah, as Jehovah. Accordingly Jehovah replies to him: 
 " Peace be unto thee ; fear not ; thou shalt not die." Adonai- 
 Jehovah and Malach-Jehovah are one and the same : the first title 
 being of Jehovah, as man : the second being of Jehovah, as Sent. 
 Next as regards the appearance to Manoah, the expression is 
 still the same, and is carefully translated "The Angel of The 
 Lord :" and the divine character of The Angel is manifest from 
 the allusion to Peniel — " Why askest thou after my name seeing 
 it is secret?" Michael's name was no secret, Gabriel's name was 
 no secret — no created angel's name was mysteriously secret — 
 but this Angel, " The Angel of Jehovah" had always a name 
 which no man knew. 2 Again the character of this Angel is mani- 
 fest from a second studied allusion to Peniel, " We shall surely 
 die, because we have seen God," But the particular use of 
 Manoah's narrative is this — to observe that, until the last, The 
 Angel of The Lord preserved himself unknown as such from 
 Manoah and his wife ; and being regarded by them merely as an 
 angel, reminded them they must sacrifice only to The Lord; — "If 
 thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto The Lord." 
 It was not until the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar 
 that The Angel announced his real character as " he ascended 
 in the flame of the altar" — then the truth flashed upon Manoah, 
 and his wife — and they "fell on their faces to the ground." 
 These incidents are not necessary to my subject ; enough, that 
 we have traced " The Angel of Jehovah " to the mercy-seat : to 
 Him all sacrifices and all prayers were offered ; in His favor was 
 life : He was the abiding manifestation of God to Israel : it was 
 through Him, Jehovah was worshipped : and He was known as 
 Jehovah The Angel: but I have just noted such incidents in the 
 time of Joshua and the Judges, that none may suppose I have 
 overlooked them ; or that they militated at all with my views of 
 The Angel previously advanced : also to mark the mode in 
 which the presence of The Angel of Jehovah was continually 
 signalised among Israel even down to the time of Samuel and the 
 kings ; and to point out this general deduction that, by such 
 narratives, the important idea of Deity Incarnate was continually 
 1 Gen. xxxii. 1. 8 Rev. xix. 12. 
 
MOSES AND THE JUDGES. 65 
 
 maintained among the sons of Israel ; and their minds prepared 
 for those specific prophecies of God Incarnate, to which I shall 
 refer in the next chapter. The incarnation of Deity was from 
 the earliest days a Hebrew sentiment. 
 
 Now, should any desire to strengthen their conviction that the 
 manner in which The Angel of Jehovah addressed the patriarchs 
 and Moses, is such as to prove him no created angel, let him refer 
 to and study the angelic ministrations made to Ezekiel, to Daniel, 
 to Zechariah, and to John : as well as to Zacharias and to 
 Mary, and I cannot doubt he will be thoroughly satisfied. 
 
 I wish the reader particularly to know, and to re- 
 
 (Jo)lCl (Hi 1)1(1 VB~ 
 
 marks on the member, that the explanation given in these two 
 two preceding chapters of The Angel with the Patriarchs, and 
 
 cJl((7)t€TS 
 
 with Moses and the Judges, is not novel, nor the 
 peculiar interpretation of a few modern commentators. Were 
 such the fact we might well hesitate to repeat it with confidence. 
 But it is not so. On the contrary, that objectionable character 
 belongs, rather, to the views of those who reject it. The inter- 
 pretation here given is supported by the earliest fathers of the 
 Church ; and is also in accordance with the traditions of the 
 ancient Jews. We labour, in these days, under this great dis- 
 advantage ; that the works of such writers are possessed by few ; 
 and are not easily procurable for reference. But Bishop Bui J, 
 in his Defence of the Nicene Creed, has done in this respect all 
 that a candid mind can require ; and whoever wishes to see the 
 opinions of the earliest Christian divines on this point quoted, 
 explained, and justified, can refer to his work. 1 I merely add a 
 short quotation from Bull himself: "From these things, how- 
 ever, it is clear that what the primitive fathers taught concerning 
 the appearances of The Word, or Son of God, to the patriarchs 
 and saints under the Old Testament, were no vain imaginations 
 of their own, but derived from the very teaching of the Apostles. 
 There is this further (which I put before the reader as especially 
 useful for him to observe) that neither were the apostles of Christ 
 the first to teach these truths, but that they derived them from 
 the ancient cabala or tradition of the Jews ; or, at least, that 
 
 1 Def.Nic. Or., Vol. I., pp. 16—35, and Vol. 2, pp. 597— 60t, Ed. 1852 
 Library of Any. Oath. Theology. 
 
 F 
 
66 THE ANGEL WITH 
 
 those things which the apostles were taught on this subject by 
 the inspiration of The Holy Ghost, agree well with that tradition." 
 Our purpose in reasserting such views has been to convince 
 the reader that from the first days of covenant "with Abraham 
 until the closing of prophecy by Malachi, all manifestations of 
 The Lord God to Israel were made by means of Him whom 
 Moses terms The Angel ; whom Hosea, one of the first of the 
 line of prophets, teaches Israel to refer to by such name ; and 
 whom Malachi, the last of the prophets, 1 declares to be the same 
 as Israel's Messiah, our Christ. Moreover, that Hosea distinctly 
 states 2 that He, who in human form wrestled with Jacob, was 
 The Angel continually mentioned by Moses : so that the incar- 
 nation of Deity occasionally manifested to the Patriarchs, and to 
 Joshua, and at the time of the Judges, was of the same mysteri- 
 ous Being who appeared in the burning bush, and was symbo- 
 lised by the cloudy fiery pillar; and that Jehovah was his name 
 and memorial ; and that he it was who appeared for Israel be- 
 tween the Cherubims ; and in whom and through whom The 
 Lord God was sacrificed to, and worshipped there. But the 
 stress of the argument, proved clearly by the place in Exodus, 3 
 lies in the fact that He, who is thus called The Angel, was really 
 such, viz. a distinct messenger: was not merely a symbolical 
 manifestation of Jehovah's presence ; and, in such sense, 
 Jehovah's Angel : but was a real, and veritable, messenger : 
 viz. one sent by Jehovah, and that His presence, as such messen- 
 ger of Jehovah, it was which was granted at times by incarna- 
 tion, and afterwards by the Shechinah, for purposes of providential 
 guidance to individuals, and to the nation. Hence being such a 
 messenger : and known as one such distinctively, viz. as The 
 Angel ; and being called Jehovah's Angel, and also himself 
 called Jehovah, and Jah, and Adonai, and The Almighty God ; 
 being also, in other ways which we pointed out, distinctly sepa- 
 rated from all created angels ; and actually depicted as Jehovah 
 ministered to by them, this Angel, Jehovah's Angel, The 
 Angel, is one and the same great and mysterious Being, called 
 The Almighty God, Jehovah, etc., and sacrificed and prayed to 
 as such ; and, therefore, is Himself in His own name and right, 
 
 Mai. hi. 1. 2 Hos. xii. 4. 3 Exod. xxiii. 20—23. 
 
MOSES AND THE JUDGES. 67 
 
 Jehovah, The Almighty God. But, if so, then we have distinct 
 manifestations in Moses and the Judges of two mysterious Beings : 
 viz. Jehovah, who sent The Angel; and The Angel Jehovah who 
 was sent : and Malachi fixes our Christian faith, that these two 
 are God The Father, and God The Son, by assuring us that 
 The Angel was The Angel of the Covenant, Israel's Messiah, 
 our Christ. In what sense we understand Jehovah to have 
 been locally present, and to have been fully manifested, in The 
 Angel Jehovah, we shall notice at the end of the next chapter. 
 
 Some of the ancient Jews conceived the idea that two were 
 present in the burning bush, viz. God, and an angel ; but this 
 would appear to be a gratuitous supposition, neither supported 
 by the letter of Scripture, nor by scriptural analogy ; and still, 
 does not contravene the Christian view that God, who was so 
 admitted to be present by the Jews, was He whom Christians 
 term The Son. Bishop Bull conceives that this is the force of 
 Stephen's allusion, " There appeared to him in the wilderness of 
 Mount Sina an angel of The Lord in a flame of fire in a bush." 
 Let me, however, be permitted to observe that St. Luke seems 
 to represent Stephen as quoting (which was then usual) from the 
 Seventy's version of the Pentateuch. The Hebrew phrase, without 
 the article, Jehovah's Angel is rendered by them either with or 
 without the Greek article. Thus Judges vi. 22. " Alas Lord 
 God because I have seen The Angel of the Lord face to face," 
 with the article : but Judges xiii. 21. "Then Manoah knew that 
 he was The Lord's Angel," without the article : " And Manoah 
 said to his wife, we shall surely die ; for we have seen God." In 
 each case the same Angel, no ordinary Angel, was recognized to 
 the same effect : but in one place the Seventy use the article ; in 
 the other not. In Exod. iii. 2, they do not ; and Stephen, accord- 
 ingly so quotes them, and then adds in explanation — The Lord's 
 voice reached him — "lam The God," etc. 1 Compare also Acts 
 vii. 38. Stephen's authority is, certainly, not against the interpre- 
 tation ; but, if any thing, decisive for it. And as for such places 
 as " the law was ordained by angels," 2 and other such objections, 
 see Bishop Bull as above referred to. No doubt, created Angels 
 ministered at such times unto The Angel. 
 
 1 See Gr. Sept., Exod. iii. 2. 2 Gal. iii. 19. 
 
CHAPTER V, 
 THE SON WITH DAVID AND THE 
 
 HEN Israel arrived at Canaan, the tabernacle, 
 with the ark and mercy-seat, was reared at 
 Shiloh. There, in that place, wa3 the heavenly 
 sanctuary ; and The Angel of the Covenant, 
 sent to tarry with them, was frequently, if not 
 constantly, manifested; seen certainly by the 
 Hig'h Priest once every year 1 in the cloud over the mercy- 
 seat ; His presence was in fact identified with the Ark of the 
 Covenant. 
 
 Bringing the Ark For some seventy or eighty years this ark, 
 
 from Kirjath-Jea- having been captured 2 by the Philistines, but 
 
 restored by them in terror, was kept obscurely 
 
 at Kirjath-Jearim, twenty miles from Shiloh, its proper resting 
 
 place ; and thither David, as one of the earliest acts of his reign, 
 
 resolved to move it. It was on this occasion he wrote, and sang, 
 
 that marvellous Psalm 3 the sixty-eighth : and on this occasion 
 
 for the first time since Moses' days, inspiration taught through 
 
 David the praise of The God of The Ark by His name Jah 
 
 " Extol Him that rideth upon the heavens by His name Jah.' 
 
 I have before * called attention to the fact that, by this name 
 
 Jah, Moses praised The Angel of the pillar of cloud and of fire, 
 
 who brought Israel out of bondage ; and that it is used equiva 
 
 lently to Jehovah : but it is not the same name, i. e. Jah is not 
 
 Jehovah ; though used equivalently : any more than Adonai is 
 
 Jehovah, though used equivalently : nor must we hastily conclude 
 
 that Jah is a poetical abbreviation for Jehovah; for animportanl 
 
 ] Lev. xvi. 2. * 1 Sam. vi. 3 See my Call to England, p. 70. 
 
 4 p. 54 supra. 
 
THE SON WITH DAVID AND THE PROPHETS. 69 
 
 reason. We shall have cause to see it is a distinct name, dis- 
 tinctively used. This sixty-eighth Psalm opens with the exact 
 words Moses was authorised to use whenever the ark set for- 
 ward with the tabernacle in the wilderness l and which was, at 
 such times, addressed to Him the accompanying Angel of 
 Jehovah's presence as at that time manifested to Israel : " Rise 
 up, Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered." And the same 
 psalm, a few verses lower down, contains this commemoration 
 of those journeys from Egypt to Canaan — "Q God! when thou 
 wentest forth before thy people, when thou didst march through 
 the wilderness, the earth shook, the heavens also dropped at the 
 presence of God, even Sinai itself, at the presence of God, The 
 God of Israel." There is no possibility of disputing that this 
 sixty-eighth Psalm extolling Jehovah by His name J ah is pecu- 
 liarly a psalm of praise, directed to God most High ; the very 
 Lord God of Israel: and in the course of it we find the following 
 passage — "The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thou- 
 sands of angels : Jehovah is among them, as in Sinai, in the 
 holy place. Thou hast ascended up on high ; thou has led cap- 
 tivity captive ; thou hast received gifts for men ; yea, for the 
 rebellious also, that The Lord God might dwell among them." 
 No ingenuity of invention can disprove the assertion that this 
 passage is addressed to the same Jah, whom the whole psalm 
 extols ; also that he is here called God, and Jehovah ; also that 
 he is specifically distinguished from the angels who serve Him ; 
 also that David celebrates Him now in His glory, as at Sinai : 
 and that, therefore, this same Jah is The God of Sinai. And 
 that which follows would be inexplicable but for St. Paul, 3 
 " Thou hast ascended up on high ; thou hast led captivity cap- 
 tive ; thou hast received gifts for men." We know from St. Paul's 
 quotation that this refers specifically to Messiah, or Christ : and 
 that, therefore, Christ is the hero of this sixty-eighth Psalm ; He 
 is this Jah, as Moses taught us before ; He is The God of Sinai ; 
 He is Jehovah, The Lord God, among thousands of His angels : 
 is, therefore, no created angel; was also, pre-existent as Jehovah ; 
 was, also, the maker of the Sinaitic Covenant. An effort has been 
 made 3 to elude this argument by saying that St. Paul quotes this 
 
 1 Kumb. x. 35. 8 Ephes. iv. 8. 3 Wilson's Concessions, p. 170. 
 
70 THE SOX WITH 
 
 place from the sixty-eighth Psalm merely byway of what moderns 
 have termed accommodation. I shall not trouble to inquire how 
 far inspired writers are guilty of what is badly called accom- 
 modation ; some accommodations are extremely injudicious; but 
 shall invite the reader to observe that St. Paul's mode of quoting 
 puts the idea of such accommodation entirely aside ; and seems as 
 if purposely designed to refute such an objection. St. Paul 
 alters the psalmist's language ; and makes a specific assertion 
 regarding Christ. "When He ascended up on high, He led captivity 
 captive,'' etc. ; and he adds this commentary — " Now that He as- 
 cended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower 
 parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended 
 far above all heavens, that He might fill all things." St. Paul's 
 mode of quotation, and the comments which he adds, indeed the 
 whole context in that chapter of Ephesians, proves as plainly as 
 anything can be proved, that Christians are to understand the 
 passage referred to in the sixty-eighth Psalm, and, by necessity 
 ot its context, therefore the whole Psalm, of Christ, or Messiah. 
 Hence it follows that the pre-existence of Christ, as Jehovah 
 is asserted. It has, indeed, been argued that pre-existence does 
 not prove Deity. Nor does it, taken abstractedly; for angels 
 were pre-existent to the earth and to man : but taken as alleged 
 of Christ, it does. For Holy Scripture reveals to us but three 
 essences, or modes of intelligent existence ; viz., Deity, Angels, 
 and Man. If, therefore, we know that Christ was pre-existent 
 (as for instance some Unitarians, such as Mr. Yates, 1 admit) but 
 not as an angel, in what sense was He pre-existent, but as God ? 
 For to assert His pre-existence in any other sense is to conceive 
 of Him as some mysterious being, neither God, nor angel, nor 
 man, for which Holy Scripture gives us no authority whatever. 
 In fact the notions of some Unitarians on this head, involve the 
 exercise of imagination and credulity to an extent which Trini- 
 tarians would consider impious, because unscriptural. However, 
 the pre-existence of Christ asserted by St. Paul by means of 
 Psalm sixty-eight is pre-existence as Jehovah, as Jah, as The 
 God of Sixai, as The Lord God among thousands of His created 
 angels. And, before I quit this subject, let me once more beg 
 
 1 Yates' Tindic. p. 81. 
 
If) 
 
 
 DAVID AXD THE PROPHETS. Vv%< / ^ 
 
 the reader to remember that name Jah ; for from David's time it 
 came into habitual use ; his national songs caused that. Ir 
 occurs, e.g., six times in Psalm one hundred and eighteen ; and, 
 in Psalm one hundred and twenty-two, the tribes of Israel are 
 called the tribes of Jah ; and, in all those Psalms where Hallelu- 
 Jah occurs we have the praise of Him, The Angel of Jehovah, 
 The Angel of the Covenant, The God of Sinai, teaching us to 
 anticipate that glorious song above, l when Christ has triumphed 
 — " Hallelu-JAH ! for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth ! " 
 
 Tflwse Glory ^ ne "^ r ^" contmue d in the Tabernacle as David 
 did Isaiah ' placed it, until the days of Solomon, who builded 
 the House : and the consequence, easily to be 
 traced, is that the Glory of J ehovah which filled that house, as 
 Solomon was conducting its 2 dedication, and that glory which 
 continually appeared between the cherubim in the Holy of 
 Holies, was the glory of Him, Messiah, whom David extolled 
 by His name Jah. I shall not enlarge upon this ; but lest any 
 Christian should fear I am mistaken concerning Him whose 
 train filled the temple, shall proceed immediately to the glorious 
 vision of Isaiah. 
 
 That blessed prophet had a vision 3 of the true temple, which 
 Solomon's merely typified; as also of Him, who dwelleth therein. 
 " In the year that King Uzziah died I saw also Jehovah sitting 
 upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. 
 Above it stood the seraphim; each one had six wings ; with twain 
 he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with 
 twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, Holy, Holy, Holy, 
 is The Lord of Hosts ; the whole earth is full of his glory* And 
 the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and 
 the house was filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe is me! for I am 
 undone ; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the 
 midst of a people of unclean lips ; for mine eyes have seen the 
 King, The Lord of Hosts." No one will dispute that Isaiah's 
 vision is of The Most High God; and that the apparition of the 
 house or temple, the smoke, etc., indicated it was a vision of Him 
 who dwelt in Solomon's temple. Whose glory, then, did Isaiah 
 see? Whose glory is this, whom Isaiah calls here, verses 1, 8, 
 1 1 , Adoxai, God-as-man ? 
 
 1 Rev. xix. 1, 3, 6. 2 1 Kings viii. i. 3 Isaiah vi. 1. 
 
72 THE SON WITH 
 
 John, the Evangelist, the Apostle who loves to dwell upon 
 the Deity of Christ, as he did to lean upon His bosom in man- 
 hood ; who, indeed, was especially appealed to by the elders of 
 the Church, to refute Cerinthus one of the earliest Unitarians — 
 St. John refers to this very chapter in Isaiah, to the verses nine 
 and ten especially, and adds x of Jesus, " These things said Esaias, 
 when he saw His glorj' and spake of Him." It was Christ in 
 glory, whose train filled the temple. Again they have tried here 
 also to evade the Scripture. 2 The word saw, say they, sometimes 
 stands for foresaw ! But what then ? the whole question turns 
 upon the Mud of glory. But, if Isaiah the sixth be carefully 
 noted, the reader will perceive it is an isolated chapter ; uncon- 
 nected with what precedes, unconnected with what follows. 
 And, if its contents be examined, they will be found very brief; 
 and consisting but of two parts, viz., verses 1 — 8, which describe 
 the vision; and verses 9 — 13, which contain Israel's sentence of 
 rejection, with an appended promise of eventual pardon. This 
 last part of Isaiah's chapter, St. John had referred to, and adds 
 " These words spake Esaias, when he saw His glory and spake of 
 Him." When, therefore, did Isaiah speak of Jesus ? precisely 
 in that chapter when he spake of Israel's rejection ; and where did 
 he so speak of Jesus 1 precisely in the rest of that chapter where 
 he speaks of no one but Jehovah; and when he so spake of Him, 
 and there, he saw (or foresaw, if you please; though it is a mere 
 subterfuge) the very glory which fills the whole earth ; and was 
 faintly indicated by the majesty of His appearance — whose train 
 with the attendant Seraphim filled the temple. Isaiah, therefore, 
 saw Messiah, or Christ, in glory : receiving supreme, and unspeak- 
 able adoration, from the Seraphim ; saw Him as " The King, 
 Jehovah of Hosts" — The Thrice Holy Lord of Hosts. 
 
 The word Angel as a title traced in former chapters to 
 Christmade Jehovah, The Lord God of Israel; used interchange- 
 Jcnown as ably with such incommunicable name which undoubted- 
 ly indicates Deity ; put in apposition, (as scholars term 
 it,) in other words used synonymously, by Jacob, and by Hosea, 
 with the name itself of God ; intimated with sufficient plainness 
 that He who was so called the Messenger, or The Angel of Jeho- 
 vah, though himself accepting the title and attributes and worship 
 
 1 John xii. 41. * Yates' Vindic. p. 197, 
 
DAVID AND THE PROPHETS. 73 
 
 of Jehovah, was nevertheless in some sense, as so sent, sub- 
 ordinate to Jehovah ; fulfilling a deputed office ; acting in a 
 representative character. True, reason suggested that such 
 subordinate, deputed, and representative, character did by no 
 means necessitate inferiority ; and that, therefore, the equality 
 of essence suggested by His reception of the title, attributes, and 
 worship of Him who sent Him, was not contradictory nor incon- 
 sistent with His being so sent. Yet, as so sent, as The Angel, He 
 might justly be denominated The Second of those two mysterious 
 Beings, to each of whom, and equally, the titles, attributes, and 
 worship of Deity were assigned. Christians must never forget 
 that The Angel, The Sent, The Sent One, is a real and indeed the 
 original title of Christ ; referred to, as I shall shew, continually 
 by the prophets ; and a title to which we ought to refer for the 
 meaning of all those passages in the New Testament, where we 
 are told, whether plainly or by implication, that " The Father sent 
 The Son." But this title, The Sent One, The Angel, contains no 
 intimation of the nature of that relationship which exists and 
 ever existed between the two — Jehovah, who sends ; and 
 Jehovah, who is sent : no intimation of the mode in which 
 Jehovah has been pleased to reveal Himself to man, as so ex- 
 isting. The Unity of God's essence may, indeed, (as we have 
 shewn hi chap. II) be proved from other Scriptures : but the mode 
 in which that unity is preserved is not suggested to us by the 
 revelation of Jehovah, thus distinct, as One Sending and One 
 Sent. 
 
 The first specific intimation of what The Almighty would have 
 us believe respecting the union existing between Himself and 
 His Angel, was conveyed to men by David, under inspiration. 
 To him we are indebted for the first use, and publication, of 
 another name or title for The Angel, which became the peculiar 
 watchword of the Christian faith ; and enables us also by its use 
 in the Old Testament to note the Deity, through the pre-existence, 
 of Christ ; a name entirely capable of correspondence with that 
 of Angel ; but suggestive, which Angel is not, of the identity 
 of essence, and inseparability of relationship, between Jehovah 
 The Angel, and Jehovah who sent Him ; a name also suggestive 
 of subordination without inequality. This title is, Son, My Son, 
 The Son ; in effect, The Son of God, first proclaimed by David in 
 
74 THE SON WITH 
 
 the second Psalm — " I will declare tlie decree : Jehovah hath 
 said unto me— Thou art My Son, to-day have I begotten Thee ; " 
 and again, "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and so ye perish frt.m 
 the way, if His wrath be kindled, yea but a little. Blessed are 
 all they that put their trust in Him." As so much has been 
 written upon this Psalm, but a great deal not to the purpose, let 
 us be careful to bear in mind that our present object is only to 
 enquire— how far the Deity of The Son can be gathered from 
 this Psalm ; and, having done so, to note to what further conclu- 
 sions it may conduct us by and by. That this Psalm does refer 
 to Christ, we know from inspired authority. I subjoin a list 1 of, 
 I believe, all the places in the New Testament, which refer to it, 
 and wish it to be noticed that not one of those references applies 
 the Psalm at all to King David, but only to Christ Jesus. To my 
 own mind that (if it be true, as I think) is a mighty fact, and would 
 make me suspicious of the primary application made by certain 
 learned commentators, Trinitarian and others, to King David; even 
 if a consideration of David's language in the Psalm did not make 
 me consider such primary application not permissible. The very 
 abundance of these New Testament references may intimate to 
 us the importance of the Psalm to our Christian faith. How- 
 ever, since the Psalm does refer to Christ, we need not much 
 concern ourselves with the question, whether it refers primarily 
 to King David, or not ; all we have to do in this respect, is to 
 ascertain in what parts and in what sense it really refers to Christ. 
 Since also we are seeking for proofs of Deity, it may possibly be 
 true that we need not perplex ourselves with speculations as 
 to the mode, or sense, in which this Psalm declares Christ to 
 be God's Son ; whether that word refers to what has been unad- 
 visably termed His "eternal generation," and so dates (so to 
 speak) from all eternity ; or whether it refers to His incarnation, 
 and so refers to His miraculous conception ; or whether it refers 
 to His resurrection, and so dates from that great event. We 
 need not, I think, trouble ourselves just now with these considera- 
 tions, if irrespective of them, we can show that He, who is called 
 The Son, is here spoken of in language otherwise implying 
 Deity ; for then our purpose is answered. And, mark this, if we 
 
 1 Luke iii. 22, iv. 3, 9 ; Acts iv. 25, x. 38, xiii. 33; Eoui. i. 4; Heb. i. 5; 
 v. 5 ; Kev. ii. 26, 27, xii. 25. 
 
DAVID AND THE PROPHETS. 75 
 
 fasten the Deity of The Son upon this Psalm, then the very use 
 of that title, Son (whatever it may mean) suggests for Jehovah, 
 who spake in this Psalm, that other title, Father (whatever 
 it may mean) ; and so two relationships in the Holy Trinity, 
 viz : those of The Father, and The Son (whatever they may 
 mean) are justified, and accounted for, from Holy Scripture, and 
 the Old Testament strikes the chord of truth in such titles for 
 the New. 
 
 Now, its seems to me impossible to read the last verse, and 
 not be convinced that He who is called The Son is represented 
 there as absolute Lord of the way to eternal life ; whose wrath, 
 if kindled yea but a little, leads to eternal perdition. It seems to 
 me impossible to refuse similar force to the words, " Blessed are 
 all they that put their trust in Him." Any one versed in David's 
 Psalms, will kindle with sympathetic memory of a hundred other 
 places, where he reads the words, " Put their trust in Him," as 
 referring to Jehovah. How far the deputed power as absolute 
 Lord of life eternal implies the Deity of Christ, we shall enquire 
 further on. I shall only observe just now — that show me one, 
 upon whose absolute power my eternal salvation depends, and 
 he becomes practically my God ; and makes it folly to quibble 
 about terms. However, the allusion in this last verse, " Lest 
 His wrath be kindled, yea, but a little," "lest He be angry, and 
 so ye perish from the way," is to the journey of Israel through the 
 wilderness, and to the presence of Jehovah's Angel among 
 them — " Beware of Him, provoke Him not," etc., already referred 
 to. Moreover, we must remember that the Psalm would have, 
 at the time of its publication a then present sense for the sons 
 of Israel ; and, though prophetical in reference to the Gentiles, 
 must have had, especially when touching upon revealed doctrinal 
 truth, certain religious comfort for themselves. Its doctrines, if 
 any were contained in it, could not be contradictory to others 
 previously delivered through others — prophets or bards (like 
 Moses, or Miriam, or Deborah) by inspiration. Hence, when a 
 devout Israelite, in David's day, and afterwards, read the 
 twelfth verse, he would feel instantly that some one called The 
 Son; or, as Jehovah was the speaker, Jehovah's Son was made 
 absolute Lord of eternal life, as then revealed ; and also the 
 proper object of a believer's trust ; and that not only Israel, but 
 Gentile powers too, were warned to submit their souls to such 
 
76 THE SON WITH 
 
 absolute authority, and to dread the awful power of His wrath, 
 who held it. Such terrors devout Israelites could not have re- 
 ferred to their King David ; nor, knowing his own devoutness 
 and inspiration as the sweet Psalmist of Israel, could they have 
 conceived him guilty of writing such words about himself. 
 Hence, they never could have referred that title, The Son, 
 to David ; nor have supposed, consistently with previous revela- 
 tion which they possessed, that any other than God, or less than 
 He, had such power over the way of life. For these, and similar 
 reasons, which will creep out as I go along, I reject the thought 
 that this Psalm has any reference to King David. " The sole 
 application 1 of the illustrious prophecy contained in this Psalm 
 to The Messiah was the unquestionable doctrine of the primitive 
 Jewish Church." 
 
 Further, the very construction of verses eleven and twelve 
 implied that He who is mentioned as The Son in verse twelve is 
 called Jehovah in verse eleven. There is the Hebraistic paral- 
 lel, indicative of metrical expression, between these verses : and 
 the phrase " Kiss The Son" in the one answers to " Serve 
 Jehovah" in the other. The mere parallelism of these words 
 as names would not by itself have proved their identity of mean- 
 ing : but when the sentiments joined to either are found to be 
 nicely correspondent to those of the other, the case is altered ; 
 and the parallelism, and identity in force, of the names become 
 conspicuous. Thus the word translated " Kiss" being known, as 
 it was, to indicate servitude and subjection : " Kiss The Son" 
 and " Serve Jehovah" were synonymous in expression of servi- 
 tude. And the rest of the verses, corresponding as they do in 
 spirit and intent — no Jew was ever justified, nor is now, in 
 doubting that Jehovah, in verse eleven, is the correspondent to, 
 and explanation of, The Son, in verse twelve. If so, The Son is, 
 by verse eleven, styled Jehovah. But that Jehovah is also the 
 speaker appears from a previous verse — " Jehovah hath said 
 unto me, Thou art my son." Hence it is plain that Jehovah 
 asserts Sonship in reference to some other, who is himself descri- 
 bed as Jehovah ; and made absolute Lord of the way of life : 
 and consequently (whatever may be the mysterious import of the 
 terms) Jehovah The Father and Jehovah The Son ; or (as Chris- 
 tians say) God The Father, and God The Son, are Scriptural dis- 
 
 1 Dr. Hales, as quoted by D'Oyly and Mant. 
 
DAVID AND THE PROPHETS. 77 
 
 tinctions. It is one thing to scorn, and deride, terms ; and kick, 
 like mules, against what we cannot understand — but a rational 
 mind conducting a calm enquiry will keep one question, the 
 question, before it ; — Does Holy Scripture justify such distinc- 
 tions ? Psalm the second does ; for wherever in any sense there 
 is The Son, there, in a corresponding sense, (whatever that may 
 be,) must be The Father. 
 
 Now a question arises upon the words " unto me." Who is me ? 
 If David was taught, as he was, at verse eleven to give this 
 mysterious name Jehovah, and such absolute powers over the 
 way of life in verse twelve, to The Son, how could he in any way 
 refer to himself at verse seven " Jehovah hath said unto me — 
 Thou art my Son?" But if David did not, and could not, refer 
 in this place to himself, who was it declared the decree — " I will 
 declare the decree : Jehovah hath said unto me, Thou art my 
 Son ?" The me corresponds to the I ; and since David knew he 
 was speaking of One who at that very moment inspired him by 
 The Holy Ghost; and taught him, (probably upon the consumma- 
 tion of his own sovereignty), to exclaim " I (The Son) will declare 
 the decree : Jehovah hath said unto me Thou art my Son," etc., 
 it follows that The Son inspired David to write this Psalm; and 
 the pre-existence of The Son, as Jehovah, and as the word is 
 thus suggested. The verse in effect, reads thus — " I Jehovah The 
 Son will declare the decree : Jehovah my Father hath said unto 
 Me; Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." Phraseology 
 which the New Testament delights in. 
 
 An attempt has been made to get rid of that word begotten : as 
 
 if it meant adopted; or could be explained of David's exaltation 
 
 to the throne of Israel. 1 But the attempt is futile : the word 
 
 employed by David is used either of male ot female in the sense 
 
 of produce, viz. to give being to : to bring into natural existence : 
 
 it is also used under one form in the sense of referring geneolc- 
 
 gically to families ; but not in the sense of raising to a social 
 
 position, as of adopting a child, or constituting a king. And hence 
 
 King David knew very well, it could not refer to him : but to 
 
 The Son, God's Son, in the Psalm specially mentioned as such. 
 
 So that this second Psalm is our first authority for speaking of 
 
 Christ as God's "begotten Son." That He is also the " only- 
 
 begotten," and in what sense " begotten" at all we shall consider 
 
 1 See Gesenius' Thesaur, p. 594, corrected by Lee's Lexicon, p. 257. but 
 search Heb. Concordance. 
 
78 THE SON WITH 
 
 more fully elsewhere ; meanwhile a few observations may be 
 made upon the term God's begotten Son, even here. 
 
 Of course this revelation of The Son had a then present mean- 
 ing for Israel. They were taught by David then to worship one 
 who was called The Son ; and, as such, said to be begotten. And 
 if the Deity of The Son be traceable (as I have shewn it is) from 
 this Psalm in other ways ; then the ancient Trinitarian interpre- 
 tation of the Hebrew word 'To-day' (or this day) — viz., that it 
 stands for indefinite time present, equivalently with " from all 
 eternity" — follows as a consequence. That such interpretation is 
 correct, I have no doubt. But, in a work of this plain kind, prefer 
 arguing in another way : and to reason from the Deity of The Son 
 in verse twelve to the eternally begotten Son in verse seven. In short, 
 I make verse twelve the basis of my argument; and reason upward 
 that The Son is begotten ; not only so, but eternally begotten ; not 
 only so, but, therefore, in such sense, only-begotten; and, as such 
 eternally and only begotten Son, is God The Son. We know that 
 this title, The Son, and its necessary correllative, The Father, 
 with the explanatory term begotten, as applied to deity are but 
 metaphors adopted in condescension to man. But we may be 
 sure that the mode of speech adopted in Scripture is always the 
 best for its intended purpose ; and that, therefore, some ideas, 
 correct and distinct, may be gathered by man from this mysterious 
 nomenclature. God being a spirit, every sense of the word be- 
 gotten as used in relation to Him must be spiritual : and, there- 
 fore, must refer to essence : for deity is all essence. Hence 
 every idea attached to this word begotten so used of deity must 
 refer to the essential nature of The Father and The Son : viz. that 
 as the spirit begotten of man is human ; so the spirit begotten of 
 God is divine. That as finite intelligence is begotten by man ; 
 so infinite intelligence is begotten of God — as that which man 
 begets must be man ; so that which God begets must be God : 
 and this is true even if the term begotten as applied to God be 
 used in reference to incarnation, i.e. transmission through man. 
 To argue for inferiority from the fact of Sonship is absurd ; we 
 might equally well argue for superiority : it being notorious 
 among men that the mere relationship of father and son de- 
 cides neither the one nor the other; the son being as often 
 superior to his father as not. The ideas suggested by the figure 
 
DAVID AND THE PROPHETS. 79 
 
 would seem to be those of equality of essence, viz. the same 
 order of being ; and those of the nearest relationship of honour 
 and affection. But if it be attempted to infer subordination from 
 the fact of sonship, such subordination implies no inferiority ; 
 for, even in nature, we can conceive perfect equality of essence 
 in a father and his son, united to subordination, willing subordi- 
 nation in office on the son's part. We may not be able, and are 
 not, to determine what mysterious mode of existence in Deity is 
 intended by the terms The Father, and The Son ; but we can 
 rationally conceive of Him who is termed The Son as willingly 
 subordinate to The Father, though with perfect equality. Of this 
 subordination, we must speak elsewhere ; meanwhile let us notice 
 this — that of subordination in manhood no difficulty need be made ; 
 and that subordination of the Sonship in Deity, may still be 
 willing, and official, subordination having reference to the infi- 
 nite economy of that unseen kingdom, to which those who love 
 His deity, and they alone, can hope to aspire. He who, for the 
 Father, in the infinite world unseen orders all infinity must needs 
 be infinite ; and if infinite, therefore God ! Solomon has taught 
 us the equally inexplicable nature of the Father, and of the Son 
 — " Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended ? who hath 
 gathered the winds in his fists ? who hath bound the waters in 
 a garment ? who hath established all the ends of the earth 1 
 what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst 
 tell?" 1 
 
 My object in the present chapter is to put before 
 
 Jehovah seated xh Q reader, certain Old Testament Scriptures which 
 at Jehovah s ^ , . 
 
 right hand. we mav read, as if we were Jews, respecting tneir 
 
 Messiah, our Christ, without especially referring 
 
 to His incarnation. Of such other writings in the Hebrew 
 
 prophets, foretelling minutely His coming in the flesh I shall 
 
 collect specimens in another chapter. Our object in those we 
 
 now select is to observe how certainly, even according to 
 
 Jews themselves, he was predicted of as Jehovah. One use of 
 
 Psalm two was to shew that Messiah, of whom King David was 
 
 the type militant, was to be a victorious king upon His throne. 
 
 But as we know very well a subsequent prophet 2 informed the 
 
 1 Prov. xxx. 4. 2 Zech. vi. 13. 
 
80 THE SON WITH 
 
 people He should be both King and Priest upon His throne; and 
 for his first idea of this great truth, Zechariah, led of the Holy 
 Spirit, would refer to David. It was announced obscurely, but 
 certainly, to Israel by King David in the one hundred and tenth 
 Psalm. I proceed to point out that in such Psalm Messiah is 
 specified as Jehovah: and yet that another called also Jehovah 
 is mentioned as exalting Him. The Psalm begins thus— "Jehovah 
 said unto my Lord — Adoni, my Lord in the flesh — Sit thou on my 
 right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." That all 
 this Psalm refers to Christ, or Messiah, and that the Jews knew 
 that, we need only refer to our blessed Lord's conversation with 
 them " What think ye of Messiah? whose son is he?" 1 It is, 
 therefore, Messiah whom David calls Adoni, or Lord in the flesh. 
 Professor Lee, 3 indeed, suspects that the Jews have altered this 
 reading : and that it should be here Adonai — My Lord God in the 
 flesh. Likely enough : when men deny the deity of Jesus, it is 
 surprising how fast they alter the Scriptures. But, if the Jews 
 have done so, one does not see what their unbelief has gained by 
 it; as the following observations will shew; in which I shall 
 take the text just as the Jews decide it should stand. 
 
 David said — "Jehovah said unto Adoni — my Lord in the flesh 
 — David's Lord in the flesh — Sit thou on my right hand," etc. If 
 Messiah be regarded only as a man here, in what sense was he 
 David's Lord ? That was our blessed Saviour's question ; which 
 no man could answer; and which silenced the Jewish disputants 
 for ever. The title Adoni ; my Master, my Lord ; was always, 
 when used by man to man, a title of obeisance and respect : in 
 what sense could David adopt this, consistently with Hebrew 
 principles and idiom, of a man, one of his sons or descendants, 
 not yet born ? No rational answer can be given to this question. 
 If Messiah were mere man, merely David's son, he never was 
 David's Lord, or Master, in the flesh. Hence since David gives 
 him that title by the Spirit of God ; and, therefore, correctly ; 
 something has to be supplied which the reading of the first verse, 
 accepting it thoroughly from the Jews, does not supply. That 
 something is found at verse seven. "The Lord at thy right hand 
 shall wound even kings in the day of his wrath." This verse con- 
 
 1 Matt. xxii. 42. ■ See his Lex. p. 7. 
 
DAVID AND THE PROPHETS. 81 
 
 nected for the Jews, Psalm one hundred and ten with Psalm two : 
 both written about their great King Messiah to come. " Be wise 
 now therefore O ye kings," etc. " Kiss the Son lest he be 
 angry," etc. Now to be placed at Jehovah's right hand is a 
 metaphorical expression for exaltation to great honour ; Jehovah 
 has no right hand. It is a metaphor ; but then this metaphor 
 must be consistently interpreted all through the Psalm : and he 
 whom Jehovah places at His right hand in verse one is the same 
 at the same right hand in verse Jive. Now he at the right hand 
 in verse one is Adoni, David's Lord in the flesh, as we have 
 mentioned ; but he at the right hand in verse five is Adonai, 
 The Lord God in the flesh. Yes ! The Jews have settled it so. 
 There it stands stereotyped. Whom David calls " My Master" 
 at verse one : who was born ages after him, and therefore was 
 never his earthly master ; nor could be, as his son : that same he 
 calls Adonai, i.e. Jehovah, at verse five. This was the expla- 
 nation required to be supplied : He is my Adonai, or Jehovah ; 
 and when arrayed in flesh will be also, in such sense, my Adoni, 
 or master ; and yet, being a descendant from me on his mother's 
 side, he will also be my son. Thus much of Psalm one hundred 
 and ten as read by Jews : who have still the astounding fact to 
 account for, that, contrary to Levitical law appointed them by 
 God, this their King, and Messiah, was also to be their High 
 Priest : " Thou art a priest for ever," etc. Their Messiah is called 
 in their own Scriptures, settled by themselves, Adonai i.e. 
 Jehovah. 
 
 But Christians may gather much more. Unitarians have tried 
 to evade the argument by saying that the Adonai, Jehovah, at 
 verse five is to be read of the Lord God at the right hand of 
 some king glanced at in verse three — " Thy people shall be 
 willing," etc. In fact they screw a tourniquet round the Psalm, 
 and hack it cruelly to pieces. But this will not do. Christ is The 
 King and The Priest of the Psalm ; and the metaphor at thy right 
 hand must be consistently interpreted throughout ; and whereas 
 Christ is represented at Jehovah's right hand in verse one: 
 Jehovah is, by the Unitarian gloss, placed at Christ's right 
 hand at verse five : the places are interchanged, and the 
 metaphor destroyed: for it is used for Christ's exaltation to 
 honour at verse one, and must be similarly interpreted through- 
 
 G 
 
82 THE SON WITH DAVID AND THE PROPHETS. 
 
 out. What that interpretation is — Christians know. The 
 Psalm foretells Christ's exaltation to glory at the right hand of 
 The Father, after His atoning sufferings — at which time, presen- 
 ting Himself with the marks of sacrifice upon Him — He enters into 
 the holiest of all, 1 our Great High Priest ; " a priest for ever after 
 the order of Melchisedec," reassuming His glory with the Father 
 which, for the work of atonement, He had laid aside for a time. 
 Jehovah in honour at the right hand of the Father before, He then 
 re-assumes His properglory ; and appears as Adonai, or Jehovah 
 at the right hand of the Father again. " And now, O Father, 
 glorify thou me with thine own self — with the glory 2 which I had 
 with thee before the world was." In actual glory as Adonai, 
 therefore, David in spirit called Him, Lord : and His deity is 
 asserted even in the Jewish writings, after all vain efforts to 
 evade its acknowledgment. To Christians the value of this one 
 hundred and tenth Psalm is, that it proves the deity of Christ, as 
 such : viz., after His incarnation, and ascension to the right hand 
 of The Father : then, it is, He becomes most strictly Adonai, 
 God-as-man : Christ in glory. The same title having been given 
 Him predictively all through the Scriptures. 
 
 1 Heb. viii. 1., &c. z John xvii. 5. 
 
THE SON 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 TH THE PROPHETS. 
 
 shall have occasion to refer to Jeremiah, con- 
 cerning the deity of Messiah, in another place ; 
 my next reference at present will be to Ezekiel. 
 The reader will have noticed throughout the 
 foregoing pages how much stress is laid upon 
 the word Adonai as a notorious Jewish name, 
 and equivalent for Jehovah. And to some, whose reading has 
 not extended in that direction, it might seem as if the notation of 
 a word were too fine an element to be relied on. Were that 
 word but very seldom used, or used in doubtful connection, or 
 not provided with illustrative terais, the observation would be 
 worth attention ; but, when the very contrary is the case, is 
 deserving of none ; except to confirm the conclusions already 
 advanced. I have explained at p. 49 supra that the Jews add in 
 certain places, e.g., Gen. xviii. 3, and xix, 18, the marginal note 
 Kodesh, i.e. Holy, to the word, that no reader may doubt its 
 application — and will now add that the original, and proper, 
 use of the word Adonai, tracing it from such first places in the 
 books of Moses, is Jehovah, as appearing in likeness of man; 
 until at last it became an habitual, and notorious, synonym or 
 equivalent for Jehovah : and is used so often, and in such con- 
 nection, that no mistake on this subject can possibly occur. 
 
 Thus in the pages of Ezekiel it is found two hundred 
 
 Christ in glory an( j eighteen times in actual connection with the 
 seen by Ezekiel. * ..-,„„•,.■. 
 
 word Jehovah itself. Ezekiel's characteristic title 
 
 for the Lord God is — Adonai-Jehovah : equivalent 
 
 to Jehovah made known as man. Why is it so always in Ezekiel- 
 
 and only occasionally in other parts of Scripture 1 It is a 
 
 remarkable fact that just as Ezekiel assigns to the Lord God a 
 
84 THE SON WITH THE PROPHETS. 
 
 title characteristic of his own book ; so he is taught to assume 
 to himself also a title, almost peculiar to himself, but certainly 
 not adopted by any prophet before him. Dr. Lightfoot informs 
 us in allusion to Ezekiel's title "Son of Man," that "why 
 Ezekiel, and no other prophet, should have been so often styled 
 thus, has been ascribed to different reasons by different com- 
 mentators," and then tells us it is (in his opinion) a mere 
 Chaldaism equivalent to man: used also, he reminds us, by Daniel 
 at chap. viii. 17. But, with humble respect, Son of Man is not 
 merely a Chaldaism but also a Hebraism ;* and, again, why is 
 Ezekiel, and no other prophet, called Man, according to the 
 doctor and those who agree with him ? It appears to me the 
 doctor only shifts the venue : he wriggles away from one diffi- 
 culty, to be fixed by the other. Why is Ezekiel, I ask, and 
 Ezekiel alone of all the prophets, habitually called Man, when 
 addressed by God? And why does Ezekiel and Ezekiel alone, 
 of all the prophets, habitually call God — Adonai-Jehovah ; 
 i.e. (according to me) Jehovah manifested as man ? It appears 
 to me these two names — Jehovah's and the Prophet's — are cor- 
 relatives appointed by God himself: answering harmoniously, 
 on doctrinal truth, like the two divisions of a celestial choir. Oh ! 
 what sweet music they have since then made in the palaces of 
 heaven ! Thou who art man, yet Ezekiel — God my strength, art 
 taught and sustained by Jehovah, yet Adonai— Lord God 
 manifested as man. But, accepting the suggestion, why is 
 Ezekiel alone, of all the prophets thus called Man ? Because 
 Ezekiel alone, of all the prophets, up to his time, saw God in 
 glory as man. The marvel is not that Daniel, once upon a time 
 in Chaldea has the same title " son of man " applied to him after 
 Ezekiel, for he too had visions of God-as-man ; but the wonder is 
 that it never occurred until Ezekiel's time ; and that such time 
 was when a peculiar idiom could best be adopted to fix a well- 
 known title of Jesus Christ. A distinctive title, peculiar to Him 
 as Messiah, and God-man ; although also a truly idiomatic ex- 
 pression. But I must not anticipate. 
 
 I have already traced the progress of the Jewish idea of God- 
 incarnate ; first to Abraham, then to Lot, then to Jacob at Peniel, 
 
 1 See Psalm viii. 4; Isaiah li. 12, etc. 
 
THE SON WITH THE PROPHETS. 85 
 
 then to Joshua, then to Gideon, then to Manoah : but all these 
 were of God-as-man upon earth. Then we traced the same incar- 
 nation, obscurely hinted, though as in heaven — by the ascension 
 up on high — by the Sonship, a Sonship as Jehovah — by the 
 exaltation as Jehovah in manhood at the right hand of Jehovah, 
 in heavenly places — and as Jehovah in glory seen by Isaiah 
 " sitting upon His throne." Now this vision of Isaiah's though 
 by figure suggestive of the mystery is too figurative to enable us 
 to conclude that Jehovah, as seen by him, appeared as man. 
 We shall never gather that from Isaiah. It is a possibility sug- 
 gested ; nothing more. But, coming to Ezekiel's vision, the 
 idea suggested by Isaiah is so plainly stated as to admit of neither 
 doubt nor contradiction. Ezekiel saw, first of the prophets, 
 God-as-man in supreme heavenly glory. Having described the 
 cherubim, by whose action and presence we identify the visions 
 made to himself and to Isaiah, he proceeds — " And above the 
 firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, 
 as the appearance of a sapphire stone ; and upon the likeness of 
 a throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon 
 it. And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire 
 round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even up- 
 ward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw 
 as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round 
 about. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the 
 day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. 
 This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Jehovah. 
 And xvhen I saw it, I fell upon my face ; and I heard a voice of 
 one that spake," etc. Will any one pretend to say this vision 
 of God-as-man had no significance ? Why now ? and not before ? 
 Christians will remember, by referring to Revelation, 1 that this 
 Ezekiel's is the very selected type for the appearance of Jesus 
 in glory. Why now, and not before ? Except to impress upon 
 Israel's mind the deity of Him their Messiah ; already so fully 
 prophesied of by Isaiah, and by Jeremiah, as to come in the 
 flesh. Why now, and not before? Except to prepare the mind 
 of the captive people to hold fast the faith that Messiah was 
 their God; though Daniel would soon announce specifically by 
 
 i Eev. i. 13—17; and iv. 2—11 with v. 6—14. 
 
S6 THE SON WITH THE PROPHETS. 
 
 name His being cut off in the flesh, but not for Himself. Has this 
 vision of God-as-man no connection with the title Adonai- 
 Jehovah : Nay, nay : let us not say so. The vision pervaded 
 lastingly Ezekiel's prophetical perception : and every time he 
 exclaimed Adonai-Jehovah — Oh Lord God — he reverted to the 
 sight of God-as-Man he had seen at Chebar. 
 
 But what proof have we here that he, Adonat -Jehovah, whom 
 Ezekiel thus saw in supreme glory is The Christ of Christians, 
 whom Trinitarians called The Second of The Holy Trinity? I 
 traced The Angel of Jehovah, The Sent One, as The Lord God, 
 as El-Shaddai, The Almighty God, as Jehovah, as J ah, as The 
 Angel of the Levitical covenant, present in the pillar of fire, and 
 of cloud ; present in the cloud that filled the tabernacle ; present 
 in the cloud upon the ark and the mercy seat — as The Lord God 
 between the Cherubim — present at Shiloh, at Zion, and in the 
 temple at Jerusalem. Now Ezekiel's vision of God-as-man seen 
 first at Chebar, was renewed afterwards — near the banks of 
 the same river. Adonai-Jehovah thus, in vision, consorted 
 with the son of man — Ezekiel — and Ezekiel expressly says 1 
 that the glory he saw afterwards was the same as " at Chebar ; " 
 and was the glory of Him who dwelt upon the mercy-seat be- 
 tween the cherubim, and whose glory filled the house. " Then 
 the glory of Jehovah went up from the cherub, and stood over 
 the threshold of the house ; and the house was filled with the 
 cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of The Lord's 
 glory." Thus the glory of Adonai- Jehovah, of God-as-Man, which 
 Ezekiel saw, was the glory of Him who filled the temple, and 
 dwelt upon the ark above the mercy-seat — Jehovah The Sent, 
 The Angel of Levi's covenant, already traced throughout the 
 books of Moses. Adonai-Jehovah is a title of Messiah, of 
 Christ, of The Angel of the Covenant, whom Jews delight in ; 
 and who came suddenly, as Jesus, to His temple ! Are you sure 
 it is a title of The Angel, The Sent, The Second in The Holy 
 Trinity ? Is it never applied to The One Almighty Father ? Yes ! 
 in such a way as to confirm our argument, and to assert iden- 
 tity of essence of The Son with The Father. It is used about 
 three hundred times in the Hebrew Bible : two hundred and fifteen 
 of these are by Ezekiel ; who addresses it, as I have shewn, to 
 
 1 Ezek. x. 4. 
 
THE SON WITH THE PROPHETS. 87 
 
 The Angel of The Covenant, seen as man in glory : and of the 
 remainder scattered in various parts of the Bible, seldom, I 
 believe, to The Almighty Father ; unless The Son himself be the 
 speaker. Now for The Son to apply unto The Father a title 
 proved from Scripture to be peculiarly His own, does assert, as 
 far as a title can assert, identity of essence; that which is pecu- 
 liarly The Son's is declared also to be The Father's — and the title, 
 so given by The Son, asserts, in its own way, what our Lord after- 
 wards said to Philip 1 "He that hath seen me hath seen the 
 Father ; and how sayest thou then, Shew us The Father ? " 
 However, the stress of our argument lies here — that a title un- 
 equivocally Jehovah's in glory supreme is traced up to Him, The 
 Angel, who dwells between the cherubim ; at such time as when 
 He appeared in glory like a man. On these manifestations of 
 The Son in the Old Testament, a useful book is Christophaneia, 
 by a late dissenting minister, Mr. George Balderston Kidd : a 
 work particularly valuable for its minute and multitudinous 
 Scripture references. 
 
 I shall not detain the reader long upon the mani- 
 JDanieVs festations of Deity granted to Daniel, lest I should 
 
 Visions. k e SU pp 0sec i to introduce subjects of prophetical 
 
 interpretation; but just long enough to note the 
 fact, and also the diversities, of such manifestations. If we 
 turn to Daniel's chapter seven, it is clear at the ninth verse that 
 he had a vision, or manifestation, of one whom he calls The 
 Ancient of days — " I beheld till the thrones were cast down, 
 and The Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as 
 snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool : his throne 
 was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery 
 stream issued and came forth from before him : thousand 
 thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten 
 thousand stood before him : the judgment was set, and the books 
 were opened." If Unitarians would like to interpret this of The 
 Lord Jesus Christ, the Judge, beheld in glory — they are welcome 
 to its plain assertion of Deity : but that they will not do. More- 
 over such interpretation would be incorrect ; and I suppose we 
 shall all agree that this manifestation of The Ancient of days 
 is to be interpreted of The Almighty Father. But then a 
 
 1 John xiv. 9. 
 
88 THE SON WITH THE PROPHETS. 
 
 little lower down, viz, at verse thirteen, Daniel says " I saw in 
 the night visions, and, behold, one like The Son of Man came with 
 the clouds of heaven, and came to The Ancient of days, and 
 they brought him near before him. And there was given him 
 dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations ? 
 and languages, should serve him : his dominion is an everlasting 
 dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which 
 shall not be destroyed." Who is this Son of Man, who came to 
 The Ancient of days? Who is He to whom this everlasting king- 
 dom is given? this spiritual service, or divine worship accorded? 1 
 Who is He thus seen in glory ; yet other than The Ancient 
 of days? Afterwards, viz. at verses 18, 22, 25, and 27, there is 
 one called The Most High : his people, nations, and languages, 
 who take the kingdom, are called saints of The Most High; 
 and whereas it is said, at v. 14, that all people, nations, and 
 languages, shall serve this Son of Man, and that His dominion 
 is an everlasting dominion; the same language is taken up, at 
 ver. 27, of The Most High " whose kingdom is an everlasting 
 kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him." Accor- 
 ding, therefore, to Daniel — he had vision of two, one in deity as 
 The Almighty Father, or Ancient of days ; the other of one 
 like unto The Son of Man : of whom it is said that the saints, 
 kingdom, etc., of The Most High are also his : and equal worship 
 and dominion accorded by the saints to either. 
 
 Manifestly, as one part of the vision is to be interpreted of 
 The Ancient of Days, as then existing in glory : so the other 
 part is to be interpreted of one like the The Son of Man, 
 then existing as in glory. They were visions of Beings, not 
 as to exist at some future time ; but similarly of both, as then 
 existing when Daniel beheld them in glory. But to make this 
 still more certain refer to Daniel's chapter ten ; there, at verse 
 Jive, is another manifestation of Deity as, "a certain man;" 
 " and in the four-and-twentieth day of the first month, as I was 
 by the side of the great river Hiddekel; then I lifted up mine 
 eyes, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were 
 girded with fine gold of Uphaz : his body also was like the beryl, 
 
 1 The manner in which Mr. Belsham endeavours to set aside this place in 
 Daniel is too barefaced and puny, to deserve further notice from a serious 
 mind. See Calm Enquiry, p. 251, 
 
THE SON WITH THE PROPHETS. 89 
 
 and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as 
 lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished 
 brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude." 
 Daniel alone saw the vision ; he calls it a great vision ; there 
 remained no strength in him ; his comeliness was turned into 
 corruption; he retained no strength; he stood trembling, he 
 became dumb. As for the men, his companions, they saw not the 
 vision ; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to 
 hide themselves. One thinks at the moment of St. Paul's 
 vision, on the road to Damascus ; and of his companions who 
 heard a voice, but saw no man. 1 But the truth is there is 
 nothing equal to this recorded manifestation to Daniel in all 
 the Holy Bible. The manifestations to Isaiah, to Ezekiel, to 
 Zechariah, and to Daniel before, did not equal it. But, however, 
 none will venture to deny it was a vision of Deity : no appear- 
 ance of a mere angel ever produced such effects upon a prophet. 
 Nay, more than that ; just before, viz., at ch. viii. 16, Gabriel, 
 that mighty angel who stands in the presence of God, had been 
 in personal attendance upon Daniel to explain another vision ; 
 when, indeed, Daniel did fall into a trance, as usual when receiv- 
 ing these mysterious revelations : but the two descriptions are 
 vastly dissimilar ; and, moreover, that same Gabriel was sent to 
 attend upon Daniel in answer to his prayer at chap, ix, when 
 Daniel upon his second visit fell into no trance at all. The mani- 
 festation in chap. x. is clearly of no angel, but of deity itself. 
 Then putting these manifestations to Daniel, in chapters seven 
 and ten, together, it is clear he had vision of two at least, as then 
 existent in Almighty power — one as The Ancient of Days ; 
 the other, as like The Son of Man. 
 
 Now we understand why Daniel, like Ezekiel ; (these two only 
 of all the prophets) is once, viz., at chap, viii., ver. 17, addressed 
 as "Son of Man." These two, of all the prophets, alone had 
 visions of Jehovah in the likeness of Man ; and the sympathy 
 of deity with manhood was not only indicated to them by such 
 manifestations; but further suggested by the title given them, 
 Son of Man, or Man ; it so being brought to pass that such 
 visions should be granted at the very time when a peculiar 
 
 1 Acts. ix. 7. 
 
90 THE SON WITH THE PROPHETS. 
 
 idiom was best calculated to convey what we shall shew, by and 
 
 by, to be a solemn and mysterious truth affecting the deity, 
 
 and incarnation, of The Son. For to this vision of Daniel we 
 
 should refer for the origin of our Saviour's title ' The Son of 
 
 Man.' 
 
 Of course the title, Angel of Jehovah, implied 
 
 Jehovah The as explained in chapter III. supra, that He to 
 
 Sent, according 1 . \ „-,-*■, 
 
 to Zechariah. whom this title was given, was Sent by Jehovah. 
 
 And we know that, in the NeAV Testament, the 
 fact 1 that "The Father se?it The Son" is insisted on in so peculiar 
 a manner, as to suggest to us that The Sent One may almost be 
 considered another title of The Lord Jesus Christ; just as the heal- 
 ing pool of Siloam, 2 which being interpreted, is Sent, is typical of 
 the same Saviour. In fact, where the New Testament continually 
 reminds us that the Son was Sent, it at the same time tends to 
 remind us that The Son is The Angel of the Old Testament. Have 
 we any trace of similar phraseology in the Prophets ? I shall select 
 Zechariah to answer this question. " For thus saith the Lord of 
 Hosts, After the glory hath He sent me un-to the nations which 
 spoiled you ; for he that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of His 
 eye. For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they 
 shall be a spoil to their servants ; and ye shall know that the Lord 
 of Hosts hath sent me." It is manifest that the speaker, The Lord 
 of Hosts, declares that The Lord of Hosts had sent Him. 
 
 Now it is melancholy to see, by Mr. Belsham, 3 Unitarians driven 
 to try and evade this passage, by interpreting the "sent me" 
 to mean "Me, Zechariah." Says Mr. Belsham, "The prophet 
 here makes an abrupt transition from the person of Jehovah to his 
 own : q.d. You shall know that I am a true prophet." Indeed! 
 let us follow Zechariah further on: "Sing and rejoice, O 
 daughter of Zion ; for lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of 
 thee, saith the Lord. And many nations shall be joined to the Lord 
 on that day, and shall be my people ; and I will dwell in the midst 
 of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me 
 unto thee; and the Lord shall inherit Jerusalem," etc. What 
 this prophecy means specifically, I have explained elsewhere; 
 meanwhile let the reader note it is, at the very least, a prophecy 
 
 1 1 John iv. 14. 8 John ix. 7. s Calm Enquiry, p. 195. 
 
THE SON WITH THE PROPHETS. 91 
 
 of Christ's days, 1 and of the calling of the Gentiles ; " many 
 nations." — at which time He who says He is sent, should dwell in 
 the midst of Jerusalem — and Zechariah cannot possibly be meant, 
 unless Unitarians mean to tell us that Zechariah, the prophet, 
 was alive, and dwelt in Jerusalem, five hundred years after he 
 delivered this prediction. I request the reader especially to bear 
 in mind these places of Zechariah, where Jehovah of Hosts, 
 speaking by the prophet, says that Jehovah of Hosts sent him ; 
 and where Jehovah of Hosts, foretelling His own coming, as Christ 
 or Messiah, to dwell at Jerusalem, says that Jehovah of Hosts, 
 sent Him ; for I shall make a most important use of this place 
 when speaking of the Deity of the Holy Ghost. These words, 
 " Hath sent me," indicate in Zechariah, and elsewhere, the Deity of 
 Christ or Messiah, and are illustrated habitually in the holy 
 Gospels in such places as, " God sent His Son," or, " These have 
 known That thou hast sent me," — quoting all but Zechariah's 
 words ; a and their ultimate reference is to Jesus Christ or Mes- 
 siah as The Angel, or Sent One of Jehovah. 
 
 I shall now conclude these citations of Holy Scrip- 
 ts * chapter ^ uve wn ^ cn have been intended to trace the progres- 
 and concluding sive manifestations of God The Son in the Old Tes- 
 Isorfs manifes- lament > an ^ shall not only summarise this present 
 tation in the chapter, but also try to gather together under one 
 Old Testament. i ns t ruc ti ve aspect the fair results of the last four 
 chapters, which have reference entirely to the deity of The Son. 
 
 The second and one hundred and tenth psalms should be 
 paired for this reason — that the second Psalm speaks of The 
 Messiah, and The Son, interchangeably ; that is, speaks of 
 Christ under both titles specifically as The Messiah and The 
 Son ; and, in its concluding verse, declares in a manner only 
 just short of positive assertion that such Messiah, The Son, is 
 Jehovah : while the one hundred and tenth psalm, admitted both 
 by Jews and Christians, to celebrate the same Messiah, gives 
 Him that extraordinary title Adonai, acknowledged to be 
 equivalent with Jehovah. Hence we know from these two 
 psalms that The Messiah is The Son of God, is also Adonai, or 
 
 1 See my Notes on the Restoration and Conversion of Israel. 
 
 2 See John xvii. 25 ; iii. 18, 21, etc. Study John, especially for the meaning 
 
 of the title, Sent. 
 
92 THE SON WITH THE PROPHETS. 
 
 Jehovah, in the Old Testament. This conclusion is instantly 
 enforced by the citation we made of the sixty-eighth psalm. For 
 whereas the one hundred and tenth psalm gives Messiah the title 
 Adonai, in predictive reference to His exaltation in priesthood 
 at the right hand of God, after sacrifice : the sixty-eighth Psalm 
 speaks, as asserted by the apostle, of His ascension to heaven 
 after death upon the cross ; and celebrates Him by the name of 
 JAH ; which again all admit to be equivalent to Jehovah. And 
 this celebration of Christ by that peculiar title J ah, given to 
 Him alone, brings home to Him all those numerous scriptures 
 of praise where the word Hallelu-Jah occurs, with all the con- 
 texts appertaining to them, and proves by such ascriptions of 
 praise that He who received such praise is God. This conclu- 
 sion that he who receives such praise is God is undeniable, and of 
 course admitted by the Jews : Christians know, from apostolical 
 reference to The Jah of psalm sixty-eight, that such Jah is their 
 Christ. And we can show, and have shown, the Jews from their 
 own Scriptures that such Jah, celebrated by David, (who borrows 
 the name from Moses' song), is The Angel of their covenant, 
 their Messiah. 
 
 Thus having by these titles, Messiah, The Son, Jah, and 
 Adonai, thrown together the psalms above referred to, and 
 shown that they all refer to* one divine person, viz. God The 
 Son; we turn from titles to manifestations of deity, and bring 
 these also home to Christ, The Son ; and by such manifestations 
 trace the road to incarnation, and to all those mysterious truths 
 which such incarnation implies. 
 
 That Daniel saw manifestations of at least two in deity cannot 
 rationally be denied, for one is called distinctively The Ancient 
 of Days ; the other, as distinctively, The Son of Man : and this 
 last is graphically depicted as coming to The Ancient of Days, 
 and receiving from him that everlasting kingdom which we 
 know from Daniel elsewhere depicts the Church of Christ. 
 Who was The Ancient of Days 1 Who was The Son of Man ? 
 Leaving the reader to supply the answer, we proceed to note . 
 that this vision granted to Daniel of The Son of Man, and the 
 correlative title Son of Man, given only once to Daniel, carry 
 us back to the prophet Daniel's contemporary, to whom that 
 title specifically belonged, and who of all the prophets is called 
 
THE SON WITH THE PROPHETS. 93 
 
 such by The Lord in vision — I mean Ezekiel ; and we note that he 
 also had granted him especial manifestation of deity ; if not of two, 
 yet of one. And that there was this peculiarity in the appearance 
 granted to Ezekiel, it was of God in the likeness of man : and 
 that to God so seen Ezekiel of all the prophets, and habitually, 
 gives the title Adonai-Jehovah. Now we have seen from the 
 psalm, one hundred and ten, that Adonai is the title of Christ in 
 glory ; for Jesus Himself claimed that psalm as His own, 1 and 
 the apostle cites it of Christ's priesthood when ascended — the 
 Jews admitting both psalms to be of their Messiah. What if 
 Ezekiel's whole vision, his entire book, and all the proofs and 
 declarations of deity it contains ought to be referred to Messiah, 
 or Christ, as Adonai-Jehovah? Now Isaiah also had his mani- 
 festation of deity, and by comparing the two prophets, Isaiah 
 and Ezekiel, we perceive convincingly that the two manifesta- 
 tions were of one, and the same, Being. May I ask whether the 
 Jews admit or deny that? We know they admit it to the full — 
 then Isaiah and Ezekiel saw the same great Being ; only that to 
 Ezekiel, the later prophet, the manhood form was fully developed 
 which Isaiah had seen but partially — hence Isaiah declares that 
 he saw Jehovah ; but Ezekiel that he saw ^c/W7/-Jehovah. 
 Each saw Jehovah, and the same Jehovah, but Ezekiel saw 
 Jehovah as man. Now Christians know, for the evangelist 
 asserts it, that He whom Isaiah saw was God The Son ; hence 
 to Christians, He whom Ezekiel saw was God The Son; hence 
 God The Son is Ezekiel's Adonai- Jehovah ; and God The Son is 
 Daniel's The Son of Man. And psalms two, sixty-four, and one 
 hundred and ten, are rightly bound up with manifestations of 
 deity made to Isaiah, to Ezekiel, and to Daniel ; and brought 
 home, all of them, to Christ, The Son of God. 
 
 But these manifestations of God in glory, do they localise 
 deity ? or our Blessed Saviour's prayer, " Our father, which art 
 in heaven," does it teach us to localise deity 1 Do we dare to 
 confine, or limit, The Essence ? God forbid ; we have no such 
 vain, impossible, or impious, idea. God is infinite ; and who 
 shall reduce to space, or shorten, Infinity ? But will the Unita- 
 rian be so good as to tell us what is the necessary connection 
 
 1 Luke xx. 39—44 ; Heb. vii. 21 ; and x. 12, 13. 
 
94 THE SON WITH THE PROPHETS. 
 
 of thought with space ? Is there any? Will he be so good as to 
 tell us how The Divine Mind is, or is not, to be associated with 
 space ? These manifestations of God in glory were not of The 
 Essence, but for the Economy ; that is, were not representative 
 of the essence of deity, but for the purpose of His divine economy, 
 or government, towards man. They were for the purpose of 
 producing defined ideas for specific purposes connected with the 
 religious worship and government appointed men. They were, 
 so to speak, the graphical embodiments of the figurative language 
 which Scripture teaches us everywhere to employ in reference 
 to deity — God is in heaven ; God rides upon the wind ; God 
 moves in the clouds ; God's path is in the sea, etc. ; all such 
 expressions convey in various manners ideas of locality ; but who 
 ever supposed that by such terms any limitation, or compression, 
 of The Essence was suggested. But if it be a fact, as it is, that 
 such manifestations in locality, and such significant expressions 
 of locality, are used all through revelation ; and have ever been 
 interpreted when applied to The Father Most High, without 
 the slightest danger, or suspicion, of limiting the Essence ; what 
 sense is there in imagining that Trinitarians do so when they 
 interpret certain such places of The Son ? They hold them, and 
 rightly so, to be manifestations, for economical purposes, of 
 deity through The Son, and of the fact of such Son's deity ; 
 without for one moment intending therein to include, or thereby 
 to localise, or confine, The Son's Essence. A mode of speech, 
 and interpretation, admitted both by Jews and Christians to be 
 sound when applied to God The Father, may also be sound, and 
 admitted to be so, of The Son, if he be really God. But this 
 question — Is he God ? must be answered, as we have answered it, 
 from separate considerations. 
 
 Hence the local manifestations in no way prejudice the deity 
 of The Son : and once that deity proved, all the attributes of 
 deity follow as His own, and cannot be impugned by manifesta- 
 tions in locality. But what were the occasional manifestations 
 of deity by incarnation made to Gideon, to Manoah, to Joshua, to 
 Jacob, to Abraham, but local manifestations to a similar purpose, 
 but of a different order from the embodiments in glory seen by 
 Isaiah, by Ezekiel, and by Daniel ? What else were local mani- 
 festations above the mercy-seat in the Shechinah, by the fiery 
 
THE SON WITH THE PROPHETS. 95 
 
 cloudy pillar, by the burning-bush ? What were these, I ask, 
 but local manifestations all ; similar in kind as to locality, but 
 diverse in order as to appearance or form? And to suppose that 
 by the one, e.g. those on spots of earth, or spaces of air, we 
 limit or confine The Essence, would be as unreasonable as to 
 imagine we do so by the other, e.g. those on spots on the firmament, 
 or spaces in the sky. These local manifestations touch not The 
 Essence, whether they be interpreted of The Father, of The Son, 
 or of The Holy Ghost. But were they all of one and the same 
 Being ? and, if so, do we mean to assert that all customary mani- 
 festations of deity have been made by The Son? It is so : The 
 Father ever sent The Son. In the relations of The Divine 
 Economy it is declared to be so ordered : He by whom the 
 customary manifestations were ever made was The Sent One : 
 and such was His title from the first : The Sent One — The 
 Angel of Jehovah. Let us note it carefully. 
 
 There appear to have been three customary modes by which 
 Deity manifested himself to man ; that by incarnation, that by the 
 fiery-cloud, and that by celestial glory in manhood form ; of these 
 incarnation (all praise be to God) was the first, as it has also 
 been hitherto the last; but the next will be of manhood in 
 celestial glory. The appearance made to Hagar is not de- 
 fined ; but from the fact that The Angel afterwards appeared 
 to Jacob at Peniel, and to Joshua, and to Manoah, and Gideon, 
 as a man, it is probable that he addressed Hagar upon earth, 
 under similar form, in the wilderness. The appearance to 
 Jacob is not defined ; but from the fact that it was an appearance 
 in heaven, and that Jacob also identifies what he saw with The 
 Angel, it is probable he had the first vision of Jehovah as man 
 in glory ; that is the first vision of Adonai-Jehovah. This by 
 the way. But of all the manifestations traced, it may be 
 certainly concluded that they were of God The Son. Thus 
 David and Ezekiel celebrate Him both as Adonai : but 
 David (most blessed type) celebrates that same Adonai as The 
 Son, and as Jah ; and that name Jah, so used by David is to 
 celebrate Him as with The Ark of the Covenant : and it was 
 borrowed from Moses who first gave it to The Angel, who 
 delivered His people from the Egyptians, when He habited the 
 fiery-cloudy pillar. The Son then is Adonai ; Adonai is Jah ; 
 
96 THE SON WITH THE PROPHETS. 
 
 and Jah is the Angel. But The Angel that appeared to Moses 
 was the same well-known Angel, who appeared sometimes 
 incarnate, sometimes in the celestial glory, to the Patriarchs, to 
 Hagar, and the Judges ; hence that same Angel was Jah, was 
 Adonai, was The Son: and Malachi closes the category by- 
 asserting He was Israel's Messiah, our Christ. Strange that 
 any Trinitarians should shrink from this conclusion ! The 
 Apostles, and the Apostolical Fathers, did not. Do we be- 
 lieve that Christ is God, or do we not? If we do, where is 
 the irrational, or unscriptural, character of our conclusion ? If 
 we do not, where is our religion ? 
 
 We conclude, then, that from the voice of God walking in the 
 garden at Eden, to the incarnation in the manger at Bethlehem, 
 all customary manifestations of the Deity to man were made by 
 the instrumentality of The Son; and that He is The Angel, The 
 Siloam, The Jah, The Adonai, of the Old Testament. We con- 
 clude from His titles, from His offices, from His acts, from His 
 worship, from His promises, contained in the Old Testament, that 
 He is Jehovah, The Lord God Almighty, and yet is The Son. 
 We know Him therein, as in the New Testament also, to be 
 " the brightness of The Father's glory, and the express image of 
 His person ; " and thus acknowledging Him, as revealed in the 
 Old Testament, to be of the essence of The Father by sonship, 
 declared through David, we neither confound the persons nor 
 divide the substance. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE DEITY OF THE 
 
 LY GHOST. 
 
 ITHERTO we have been engaged in tracing 
 
 throughout the Old Testament the Deity of 
 
 Him, whom Christians know as The Second in 
 
 The Holy Trinity. And we have shewn that 
 
 from the very earliest days, The Almighty God 
 
 manifested Himself to Israel by Him who, first 
 
 termed The Angel, is next termed The Angel of His presence ; is 
 
 afterwards revealed as The Son ; and finally, through Malachi, 
 
 as The Angel of the Covenant ; and by that title identified with 
 
 Israel's Messiah, in which character we shall speak of Him more 
 
 particularly in a succeeding chapter. 
 
 m7 „. , „, . We now proceed to enquire, what indications we 
 
 The Holy Ghost , 5 ^ ' . 
 
 as aiven in the have in the Old 1 estament of His existence and 
 
 age of the patn- Deity, whom Christians call The Holy Ghost, and 
 
 ClTCtlS 
 
 who is continually mentioned, in some sense or 
 other, in the Old Testament as The Spirit of Jehovah, and The 
 Spirit of God : commencing with the times of the Patriarchs. 
 At the commencement of which enquiry we must remember that 
 Moses' account of the antediluvian and patriarchal ages was not 
 intended to give us a systematic description of the doctrines of 
 faith, or modes of worship, then prevalent among men ; but only 
 such brief allusions to them as had manifest bearing upon the 
 revelation of God, which he was appointed to introduce. Thus 
 Abel's lamb l had undoubted reference to Abraham's, and Abra- 
 ham's 2 similar reference to the Paschal ; 3 as the Paschal had, 
 for later ages, to Christ our Passover. 4 We must also remember 
 
 1 Gen iv. 4. 
 
 2 Gen. xxii. 13. 
 4 1 Cor. v. 7. 
 H 
 
 3 Exod. xii. 3. 
 
98 THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 that Moses' books were, as a Pentateuch, contemporaneous and 
 continuous ; and that the whole five were intended to be but 
 part, though an integral part, of that entire revelation dictated 
 by one Omniscient Spirit, which we call the Old Testament. 
 Hence, as regards doctrines of faith, if we find them glanced at 
 as existing in patriarchal times it is as much as we can expect ; 
 the same doctrines being designed to be more minutely explained 
 afterwards by Moses and his successor prophets. Even less than 
 this of modes of worship. Now that the Patriarchs did know, did 
 sacrifice to, did pray to, did supremely worship The Angel, we 
 know ; and we may fairly infer the same of The Holy Spirit, if 
 there be any sufficient indication of His manifestation also, and 
 presence with the Patriarchs. The mode of manifestation is a 
 consideration distinct from the manifestation itself,- and the 
 modes may reasonably be expected to be quite as numerous as, or 
 more so, than The Beings to be manifested. Further, if these 
 Beings be distinct, distinct modes agreeable to each, may fairly 
 be expected. And what the incarnation already shewn was of 
 The Angel's presence ; that same, in effect, viz., a proof of actual 
 presence, the impulse and possession in the mind of certain gifts 
 may be of The Holy Spirit's. So that if we find it to be a fixed and 
 recorded principle in Moses and the Prophets that the possession 
 of certain spiritual, or supernatural, powers was the constant, 
 and undoubted proof of the Holy Ghost's presence ; then we 
 may fairly infer that, as recorded by Moses, the possession of 
 similar spiritual, or supernatural, powers was a proof of the same 
 holy presence to the Patriarchs : and was recorded by Moses as 
 such. 
 
 Now, as matter of fact to be further considered elsewhere, we 
 do find that by Moses and the prophets the possession of 
 spiritual wisdom in matters political, and ecclesiastical ; and of 
 spiritual force in making known the Word of God ; and of super- 
 natural power in foretelling things to come, were invariably 
 assigned to some person, or influence (call it what you will) 
 denominated The Spirit of God. Hence wherever such 
 spiritual, and supernatural, powers are manifested by the 
 Patriarchs, or their contemporaries, we are justified from Scrip- 
 ture in tracing the operation of that same Spirit of God. And 
 since we know the Patriarchs were fully conscious of the visits 
 
THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 99 
 
 and manifestations of The Angel, we may justly believe that 
 by the consciousness of divine wisdom, and prescience (if ever it 
 moved them) they recognised the visits, and manifestation, of 
 The Spirit of God. Now such wisdom and such prescience 
 did move them; Jacob prophesied, 1 Isaac prophesied, 2 Abraham 
 prophesied, 3 and they knew it. Moreover we must remember 
 that each of these, perhaps especially Abraham, was the priest 
 of the Lord in his family, as well as the social head of it ; and 
 that being in personal communication with Deity, they taught 
 with authority, knowing they were themselves taught imme- 
 diately of God ; and so, again, exhibiting the power of The 
 Spirit. Besides we must remember it was the age of such 
 men as Melchisedec and Job : 4 and that at this very patriarchal 
 time, the gems of sacred thought were being lavishly scattered 
 along the sands of Uz by men who knew that God spake among 
 them. Especially as regards Melchisedec, it is not without sig- 
 nificance he is registered as the Priest of The Most High God, who 
 blessed Abraham, and to whom Abraham gave the tenth of all. 5 
 He knew he was then the High-Priest with whom inspired truth 
 was found ; probably, indeed, the last of his order; and also knew 
 that Abraham was the father of that order which should succeed 
 him. But still, while he lived, he knew himself the deputed King 
 and Priest of God, and blessed Abraham exercising the influence 
 of The Holy Spirit. Thus much may suffice at present for noting 
 the existence and agency of The Holy Ghost during patriarchal 
 times. The records of those distant ages are scant indeed; but there 
 are certain fossil truths embedded in the pages of the books of 
 Moses ; incomplete, perhaps, but, to a skilful dissector of Holy 
 Scripture, sufficient for enabling him to determine to what section 
 of divine truth they belong. Indeed the New Testament stamps 
 our induction with its authority, and carries us farther back than 
 patriarchal times, for " Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, pro- 
 phesied of these, saying, 6 The Lord cometh with ten thousands 
 of His saints, to execute judgment upon all that are ungodly," 
 
 i Gen. xlviii., xlix. 2 Gen. xxvii. 3 Gen. xxv. 7- 
 
 * I adopt the view of the Book of Job, as determined by Prof. Lee : 
 
 see Zee's Job. 
 5 Gen. xiv. 19. 6 Jude ver. 14. 
 
100 THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 etc. Doubtless the same Holy Spirit taught Enoch, and the 
 
 Apostles, to predict the coming of the Lord. 
 
 _, __ ,1 observed just now that if it should be found an 
 The I I'll i/d host , _. , , . . - . .. . . , 
 
 in the times established principle m the revelation made through 
 
 of Moses and Moses that certain supernatural gifts affecting 
 either the religious or political condition of man 
 in those days, were invariably attributed to the action of one 
 who is termed The Holy Spirit, or The Spirit of (iod, or The 
 Spirit : then, bearing in mind that the books of Moses constitute 
 a continuous history written contemporaneously, we shall be 
 perfectly justified in assigning similar gifts, exercised in patri- 
 archal or antediluvian times, to the operation of the same Spirit. 
 And, moreover, that known identity of spiritual influence, though 
 perceivable not in person, but merely in effects and consequences, 
 was as truly a manifestation of deity as embodiment in a human 
 form or locality in a cloud. Though the question would still 
 remain to be asked, and answered— \V:is such manifestation by 
 identity of spiritual influence to be interpreted of Him whom we 
 know as The Father of all, or of some other distinct Being to 
 whom such spiritual influences, and all their consequent claims, 
 were intended to be assigned? 
 
 Now upon this question of a third personal manifestation in 
 the One God a very curious, and important, fad mi eta us al the 
 outset. It is this — that, while a certain expression, or phrase, 
 'The spirit of .Jehovah' is so used, and so frequently used, in 
 the Old Testament, as to justify Trinitarians (in their firm 
 opinion) to add belief in a third personal manifestation of Deity 
 to The Two already spoken of; or, in other words, to justify (as 
 
 they believe) their profession of faith in Trinity; there is nothing 
 
 whatever, not a word or phrase, to ensnare them in the danger 
 of going beyond this. "The Unity in Trinity," as itis called, 
 of Christians, and as gathered from the Old Testament, as well 
 as from the New, exposes them to no risk of polytheism. Tin re 
 is undoubtedly, say they, a manifestation of Three, but as un- 
 doubtedly of no more. The line is distinctly drawn ; and Bltrely 
 there must be some significance in Ihis curious and important 
 fact. Assuming Trinitarians to be wrong, it is very suggestive 
 that inspired Scripture so speaks that it has proved possible for 
 the Christian Church in mass almost complete and comprehen- 
 sive, to stumble upon the unprecedented notion that Jehovah 
 
THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 101 
 
 The One Great God, has manifested Himself under three ideas 
 of Deity, each equal and each equally to be worshipped, but 
 certainly under no more. And the deity of two of these being 
 proved, it surely is a fact worth considering that (assuming Trini- 
 tarians to be in error) they have deceived themselves in believing 
 The Deity of The Third. Accordingly it is practically found 
 that in holding the faith as opposed to Unitarianism, the great 
 crash of the controversy is found to lie about The Deity of 
 Christ ; that sublime and glorious doctrine is, in fact, the focal 
 centre of Christian light. And, that being proved, the question 
 about The Personality and Deity of The Holy Spirit, is reducible 
 to a very small compass. 
 
 Indeed the Unitarian opinion of the term " The Spirit of God," 
 and other terms in Holy Scripture of synonymous power, is that 
 the phrase is either a mere synonym for God himself, and there- 
 fore is to be read as equivalent to God ; or else is a term merely 
 expressive of a certain effluence, or spiritual emotion, proceeding 
 from God : in short, the whole question is as to the distinct 
 personality of The Spirit of God. For by the first Unitarian senti- 
 ment, viz. that of synonym, the Deity is of course admitted : and 
 the second Unitarian sentiment, viz. that of effluence, Trinitarians 
 cheerfully accept; but upon both sentiments the question of 
 distinct personality lies between us, and is raised ; is, indeed, the 
 very question demanding solution. As a matter of fact it cannot 
 be denied that the term "The Spirit of Jehovah" is continually 
 used in passages from Moses to Malachi, where the presence and 
 power of none less than Jehovah himself is intended to be 
 affirmed; but, if the term "The Spirit of Jehovah" be a mere 
 synonym for "Jehovah," wherefore the distinction? for we shall 
 prove that the distinction is maintained with peculiar constancy ; 
 and that there are certain conditions, or occasions', of character- 
 istic similarity, upon which the sacred writers are sure to say 
 "The Spirit of Jehovah," and not "Jehovah;" wherefore the 
 distinction ? If they be mere synonyms why is the seeming dis- 
 tinction so habitually, so carefully, drawn ? and under certain 
 and constant conditions, such as to lead us to infer that when 
 "The Spirit of Jehovah" is mentioned, and not "Jehovah" 
 merely, certain constant, and separate, functions are about to be 
 discharged? Further the very laws of speech imply that, having 
 regard to the manner in which Hebrew writers use this term 
 
102 THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 " The Spirit of Jehovah," they do mean to draw a real distinction 
 between that and the term " Jehovah." The phrase is not used 
 indifferently, or vaguely ; not for ornament, or mere poetical 
 effect ; but in plain narrative, on occasions most prosaic, which 
 the historian or prophet (as the case may be) intended to record 
 in the simplest, and tritest, language ; and when the single word 
 Jehovah would have been used as matter of course, had they 
 not known and wished their readers to understand, that the agent 
 mentioned was " The Spirit of Jehovah" to be some way under- 
 stood as distinct from Jehovah Himself. 
 
 Surely distinction, and constancy, of office may well be sup- 
 posed to imply distinction of agent : and, throughout the Jewish 
 economy, whether under Moses, or the Judges, or the Prophets, 
 wherever the office of teaching, leading, sanctifying, men has to 
 be discharged, it is invariably referred to " The Spirit of Je- 
 hovah :" and, (where by the laws of speech the simple word 
 Jehovah would have been otherwise employed), only let action 
 upon the human mind, and consequent developement of human 
 conduct, or teaching, or prophesying, or sanctifying, be the work 
 on hand — whether to manufacture well in blue and purple, or to 
 judge disputed cases in courts of law, or to vanquish the foes of 
 Israel with means hopelessly inadequate, or to presage things to 
 come — and all such work is invariably referred even in the times 
 of Moses and of the Judges (not at present to trespass upon the 
 Prophets) to " The Spirit of Jehovah." That such influences 
 must have indicated the presence of Jehovah all are agreed ; 
 the question is whether on such occasions "The Spirit of Jehovah" 
 indicates some personality not to be confounded with Him, who 
 is elsewhere termed merely Jehovah ? One would suppose that 
 constancy of office indicated constancy of distinction ; and that 
 the terms "Jehovah," and "The Spirit of Jehovah" implied that 
 distinction. It seems to me that we hardly do justice to the ex- 
 pression "The Spirit of Jehovah." True, the word itself is that 
 which stands for wind, or air, or breath ; as in other languages 
 beside the sacred. But may there not be a divine mystery in the 
 very term employed ? and does not our Blessed Lord intimate 
 that to Nicodemus? 1 The winds in operation are distinct from 
 
 1 Johu iii. 8. 
 
THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 103 
 
 the agencies which excite them. And, although to men some 
 subtle elusiveness, like very air itself, may characterise the title 
 of The Spirit, yet if the illustration be mentally carried out, 
 some distinction, some real distinction, becomes perceptible ; for 
 to speak of " The Spirit of Jehovah" as an influence, effluence, 
 or emanation, is little to the purpose, except in favour of Trini- 
 tarian doctrine ; because every emanation is distinctly not that 
 from which it emanates : the stream is not the fountain : and yet 
 there is a sense in which they are one, and inseparable. More- 
 over is there not a, figure involved in this expression, "The 
 Spirit of Jehovah" as of "The Breath of The Almighty:" as 
 when God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life, and man 
 became a living soul : or again, Christ breathed on them, and said 
 " Receive ye The Holy Ghost :" and as a man's breath is essential 
 to him, and yet is not the man, so is not Jehovah's Spirit of His 
 essence inseparable, and yet not to be confounded with Him ? 
 However, to our business, and its proofs. Let us put before us 
 plainly the subject of our enquiry. It is not whether The Deity 
 of The Holy Spirit is as clearly revealed in the Old Testament 
 as in the New ; we know it is not so; because His more especial 
 manifestation was fixed by Joel 1 to be one characteristic mark of 
 Christ's dispensation. It is not whether that Deity of The Holy 
 Spirit is so plainly revealed that no Jew could fail to perceive it» 
 as an article of his faith: alas! however plainly made known, 
 some Jews, like some Christians, would have refused to acknow- 
 ledge its plainness ; as they did refuse to acknowledge the 
 clearest truths relating to their Messiah. The question is — 
 Whether The Deity of The Holy Spirit is revealed with perspi- 
 cuity proportionate to other revelations of the Levitical age ? and 
 whether that Deity was, so far as we can gather from the ancient 
 Scriptures, an item of their belief? Whether it was apprehended 
 as such by the devout believers among them ? To such questions 
 we may safely reply in the affirmative. Again, let us keep the 
 extent of the enquiry before us. It involves two points : viz. 
 what has been called the "personality," and also the " deity" of 
 The Holy Spirit. But, as regards the deity, there can remain 
 but little dispute, once the personality admitted. For, without 
 
 1 Joel ii. 28. 
 
104 THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 assuming that personality, the very phrase "The Spirit of Jehovah" 
 implies the deity; seeing that if there be no distinctness here, 
 then there must be identity : and, whatever may be indicated by 
 the word Spirit (call it emanation, or what you will), if you deny 
 the distinct personality, you must admit the synonym ; viz., that 
 " The Spirit of Jehovah" is for certain purposes, a circumlocution 
 for the presence, power, and action of Jehovah Himself. This, 
 at the least, is intimated by David 1 when he says — " Cast me not 
 away from Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me;" 
 or again, 2 " Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit, or whither shall I 
 flee from Thy presence ?" It is manifest that* the presence of 
 The Spirit is the presence of Jehovah : and that, therefore, if we 
 attach any personality, as it has been termed, to such Spirit ; to 
 that personality we must also attach Deity. 
 
 But the difficulty lies, with the admission of all parties, in the 
 assertion of distinctness, and personality, to The Spirit ; and it is 
 that, consequently, we are especially concerned to prove. On 
 this head it is important to observe thatthe very first time "The 
 Spirit of Jehovah" is mentioned by Moses, in such a manner as 
 to enable us with confidence to assert that the actual presence of 
 Jehovah on the occasion is intended to be affirmed, is at a very 
 early stage of Israel's histoi'y, and so that this distinct person- 
 ality, and Deity, of" The Holy Spirit" seem to be implied. We 
 are told 3 that Jehovah came down in a cloud, and took of the 
 Spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders — 
 " And it came to pass that when The Spirit rested upon them, 
 they prophesied and did not cease." This was the institution of 
 the Sanhedrim — the political council, and afterwards religious 
 tribunal, of the Jewish nation ; and it is especially to be observed 
 that, though the functions they were called upon ordinarily to 
 discharge, were such as could be grasped by man's natural reason, 
 supernatural gifts were given to them, as to the apostles in sub- 
 sequent time, as testimonials from above of the divine source of 
 their commission. There is no doubt something difficult, and 
 mysterious, in the language Moses here employs, and his state- 
 ment may prove too high for man's comprehension ; but, so far 
 as his meaning can be followed, and accepting the simple force 
 
 3 Ps. li. 11. 2 Ps. cxxxix. 7. 3 Numb. xi. 25. 
 
THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 105 
 
 of his words, Jehovah is stated to have come down from heaven 
 to earth, and to have re-distributed among Moses and his seventy 
 elders, a something as truly distinct from Himself, as it was also 
 extraneous to Moses and the elders ; and this emanation, or 
 effluence, or spirit, or what you please, thus re-distributed by 
 Jehovah among seventy-one men is called 1 collectively "The 
 Spirit of Jehovah." " And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou 
 for my sake? Would God that all Jehovah's people were pro- 
 phets ; and that Jehovah would put His Spirit upon them." 
 Whence it would seem that what Jehovah had come down, and 
 re-distributed as distinct from Himself was " The Spirit of 
 Jehovah." Re-distributed without separation as light from light, 
 which is Jarchi's illustration. This place in Numbers I take to be 
 one radical text to which the Christian doctrine of the personality, 
 and Deity, of The Holy Spirit as The Sanctifier may be traced in all 
 its branches : The Gracious Spirit under all His influences ; which 
 we shall find, are numerous enough even according to Moses and 
 the Judges. The Sanhedrim began immediately to prophesy, viz., 
 to speak aloud of the highest works, and truth, of Almighty God, 
 though their immediate office was but temporal, and secular. 
 This narrative not only serves as a leading intimation in the 
 earliest times of the distinct personality of Jehovah's Spirit ; but 
 also to signify His fixed office among men, viz., to instruct them 
 in the things of God, and to qualify them to serve Him whether 
 as seers of future events, or expounders of His word, or minis- 
 ters to define the social operations of His laws : this incident, I 
 say, recorded by Moses, may be referred to as the type of all 
 future spiritual influences of The Holy Spirit recorded in the 
 word of God. It was the formal notification of His presence, 
 and operations, among them before the .assembled nation ; 
 especially as affecting any developements of prophecy. In other 
 respects, as for atonement and for prayer, His presence was already 
 otherwise notified among them. It was the Mosaic Pentecost. 
 
 The gift of prophecy, meaning thereby not so much the power 
 of foretelling things to come, as of authoritatively enouncing the 
 will of God, was even, and from the first, the acknowledged proof 
 of The Holy Spirit's presence. And as the people Israel were 
 socially, and politically, under the government immediately of 
 
 1 Numb. xi. 29. 
 
106 THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 God, this power of prophecy indicating The Spirit's presence, was 
 manifested even in their secular governors, whose judgments or 
 decisions were in such sense announcements of God's will in the 
 government of the people. Thus the same Holy Spirit, who 
 moved Moses and the seventy elders, afterwards wrought 
 mightily in the Judges. Thus " The Spirit of Jehovah" came on 
 Othniel, 1 on Gideon, on Jephthah, and began to move Samson; and 
 the mighty deeds which they were able to perform proceeded 
 from supernatural energy and courage, and physical power con- 
 ferred upon them immediately from on high. Each several case 
 was a fresh illustration of the divine energy promised to the 
 rulers of Israel from the times of Moses, and the elders. And 
 in each of these cases we observe the meaning of the passage 
 would be destroyed were we to attempt to substitute Jehovah 
 for The Spirit of Jehovah ; for who would say Jehovah came 
 on Othniel, or Gideon, or Jephthah .' and in each case we observe 
 that spiritual power, and with it of course increased intelli- 
 gence, and (as against the enemies of The Lord's people) a 
 supernatural craving to work God's will was imparted in 
 addition to, and as something quite different from, though co- 
 operating with, their natural understandings. The same Holy 
 Spirit incited and strengthened Barak, who stirred up Jephthah 
 and Samson ; and the same Holy Spirit who roused Barak to 
 deeds of war against the enemies of God's people under De- 
 borah's inspired commands, moved both Deborah and Barak 2 by 
 a gentler inspiration to indict that spiritual song, which they 
 published on the occasion. Thus we find from the book of 
 Judges, covering a period of about four hundred years after 
 Moses, that the same Holy Spirit, first notified as the director of 
 sound government among the Israelites to Moses and the elders, 
 continued to direct such governors not only in state events neces- 
 sary for the preservation of the people, but also to exercise His 
 more peculiar function, the especial proof of His presence, in in- 
 spiring chosen persons with the gift of prophecy. 
 
 The case in the time of the kings will be rightly held back 
 until we speak of The Holy Spirit as known, and manifested, to 
 the prophets ; but what the case should have been is indicated 
 
 1 Judg. iii. 10 ; vi. 34 ; xi. 29 ; xiii. 25, etc. 2 Judg. v. 1. 
 
THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 107 
 
 by the circumstances attending Saul's election to the monarchy, 
 of whom it is said 1 that, meeting a company of prophets, " The 
 Spirit of Jehovah" came upon him and he prophesied with them ; 
 or again, "The Spirit of Jehovah" was upon the messengers of 
 Saul and they prophesied; and afterwards that " The Spirit of 
 Jehovah" departed from Saul, but came upon David. In short 
 to prophesy, viz. to be especially moved of The Holy Spirit, was 
 the divine seal and sanction of the kingly, as well as of the 
 priestly office; and the Spirit of inspiration which afterwards so 
 marvellously moved David, and also moved Solomon, and Heze- 
 kiah, and also dictated the king's duty of reading the law before 
 the assembled people, was the action of the same Holy Spirit, 
 who in earlier days had descended mightily upon Moses and the 
 Sanhedrim, and stirred Deborah, and other Judges, to teach, 
 and war for, the people. It was perfectly in accordance with the 
 sacred institutions of Israel that kings should be authors of in- 
 spired books such as the Psalms, the Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes. 
 The exercise of prophecy, and the dictation of political acts, were 
 from the first regarded as proceeding from the influence of the 
 same Spirit. Thus The Spirit of God came upon Balaam — 
 " And he took up his parable and said" as to whom it is dis- 
 tinctly said that Jehovah met Balaam and put a word in his 
 mouth. 3 So that we are plainly informed that, whatever else 
 may be intimated by the expression, where "The Spirit of 
 Jehovah" is, there is " Jehovah." 
 
 But I intimated somewhere above that not only acts of govern- 
 ment, and judicial decisions, and religious teaching among the 
 people Israel, were assigned to the office of The Holy Spirit ; but 
 also acquirements in scientific knowledge upon certain occasions. 
 Thus of Bezaleel 3 it is said "I have filled him with The Spirit of 
 God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in all manner of work- 
 manship." I know that some object to understand in this place 
 that The Holy Spirit is spoken of: but unreasonably so. They 
 say that because the word used for God here is oftentimes em- 
 ployed in certain combinations merely by way of eminence ; e.g., 
 of Abraham, 4 " Thou art a prince of God among us," that is, a 
 
 1 1 Sam. x. 6, etc. 8 Num. xxiii. and xxiv. 3 Exod. xxxv. 30. 
 
 4 Gen. xxiii. 6. 
 
108 THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 mighty prince, that, therefore, in this place about Bezaleel it 
 means simply that he was gifted with extraordinary powers of 
 invention. But I would observe that the powers so given are 
 afterwards specified by the words wisdom, understanding, and 
 workmanship; and that The Spirit of God indicates the agent by 
 whom those powers were produced in Bezaleel. However we 
 need not dwell upon words ; look at the fact. Certain work in- 
 volving great artistic and scientific skill was needed to be done 
 for the tabernacle ; but a nation of newly emancipated serfs 
 could not produce the man, the most they could do was to 
 labour at the tale of bricks. Whither was Moses to look? 
 When unexpectedly The Lord caused him to select one man; 
 not heard of before, nor celebrated afterwards ; and told Moses 
 that to such obscure person He The Lord had supernaturally im- 
 parted the required genius ; and all the work would be skilfully, 
 and acceptably, wrought under his direction ; and that under 
 him he appointed other persons to work not supernaturally en- 
 dowed. After thus noting the character of the fact, it becomes 
 mere trifling to dispute about the words. The sudden possession 
 of scientific knowledge, and artistic skill, for the rearing of the 
 tabernacle, was assigned to the influence of The Spirit of God. 
 Afterwards, when " the true tabernacle, which The Lord pitched, 
 and not man," had to be reared, He who was to make and adorn 
 that edifice was also said to be gifted with " the spirit of wisdom 
 and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of 
 knowledge and of the fear of The Lord," for producing which it 
 was especially predicted, 1 " The Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon 
 Him." 
 
 In thus tracing the presence and operation of The Holy Spirit, 
 in the times of the Judges, and of Moses, back to the age of 
 patriarchs, and antediluvians, it is important for us to remem- 
 ber that the official position, and inspired character, of the sacred 
 writers stamp their record in this particular, as in others, with 
 the authority of religious doctrine : it is also very important for 
 us to remember into how late a period in the history of Israel 
 and for how long a space of time, we are thus enabled to follow up 
 the doctrine. Thus, whoever were the authors of the Book of 
 
 1 Isai. xi. 2. 
 
THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 109 
 
 Judges, they lived in the first days of the kings. And, as public 
 religious teachers, so taught Israel in such days that it was an 
 article of their faith to recognise peculiar powers of judicial, and 
 political, wisdom; as well as of religious teaching, and propheti- 
 cal foresight ; as proceeding from one whom they term " The 
 Spirit of Jehovah." Moses does the same when he delivers that 
 narrative concerning himself, and the seventy elders : and also 
 when he says 1 " The Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua 
 the son of Nun ; a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand 
 upon him," etc. And the same Moses, when he records of 
 Balaam, and of Melchisedec, that they delivered predictions ac- 
 cepted by The Lord, asserts that great truth, that with Israel it 
 should be, and was an article of belief, that even among the 
 Gentiles under the first covenant of all, viz., that made in Eden, 
 the gifts of inspiration still lingered under His protection who is 
 termed " The Spirit of Jehovah" — and also the gift of political 
 wisdom, recognised from such source among the Gentiles, when 
 he describes 2 Pharaoh as asserting that the gift of supernatural 
 prescience in interpretation of dreams was produced by The 
 Spirit of God. It is clear that the sacred writers teach us to con- 
 clude that from the earliest days until the days of Israel's kings 
 all supernatural mental endowment should be attributed to a 
 present, and indwelling, power of The Spirit of God. It would 
 not be difficult even upon what we have already advanced to pro- 
 ceed to argue for The Divine Personality of this Holy Spirit ; but 
 I prefer reserving all such arguments until I have traced His 
 operations through the times of the prophets ; which I now pro- 
 ceed to do. 
 
 In the days of Samuel the word of the Lord be- 
 t/ev S ^yj t came more and more precious : there was no open 
 
 vision. 3 The school of the prophets was estab- 
 lished, and the prophetical impulse became more frequent ; and 
 the times were prepared for the ministrations of those, whom we 
 call by especial distinction "the prophets." Hence the apostle, 
 alluding to the prophets, says 4 "Yea, and all the prophets from 
 Samuel, and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, 
 have likewise foretold of these days." There were prophets, of 
 
 1 Num. xxvii. 18. 2 Gen. xli. 38. 3 1 Sam. Hi. 1. 4 Acts iii. 24. 
 
110 THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 course, before : but the school, and institution, of prophets pecu- 
 liarly so called began with Samuel. Now it is a truth broadly 
 declared in the New Testament that God spake by the prophets : 
 thus Peter, " These things which God before had shewed by the 
 mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer He hath so 
 fulfilled :" 1 or the same Peter 2 at a later period — " Of which sal- 
 vation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who 
 prophesied of the grace that should come unto you : searching 
 what, or what manner of time The Spirit of Christ which was 
 in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings 
 of Christ, and the glory that should follow." Putting which two 
 passages from St. Peter's mouth together, we observe that in 
 Acts he says — " God spake by the prophets ;" and in his epistle 
 "The Spirit of Christ" spake by the prophets : hence it follows 
 that, in some sense or other, " The Spirit of Christ" is God. Now 
 the Unitarian argument as to The Spirit of God is this, that the 
 term expresses but an influence or emanation from God : and at 
 the most must be held as a synonym for God himself. Very 
 good: be it so at present — then "The Spirit of Christ" that 
 moved the prophets must at least be an emanation, or influence, 
 from Christ ; and at the most (according to Unitarians) a synonym 
 for Christ himself : but, whichever way we take it, it follows that 
 Christ must have been pre-existent, and by His own prescience, 
 have inspired the "holy prophets since the world began." In 
 short, all the inspiration which we are tracing to The Holy 
 Ghost, as the immediate cause, proceeded according to St. Peter 
 (explained by Unitarians) from Jesus Christ. Can He who could 
 so move The Spirit of God be less than God ? No wonder St. 
 Paul calls Jesus "the wisdom of God, and the power of God." 3 
 
 However, the school of the prophets commenced with Samuel. 
 Throughout the time of Moses, of Joshua, and the Judges, down to 
 Samuel the last of them, there were immediate personal manifes- 
 tations of Jehovah to His people : and, though the great truth 
 had been shortly recorded by Moses that "The Spirit of Jehovah," 
 as distinct from Jehovah, was the source of prophecy, yet it had 
 not been necessary to keep it formally before the people : but 
 now the open visions were ceasing; Urim and Thummim were 
 
 1 Acts hi. 18. 2 1 Pet. i. 11. 3 1 Cor. i. 24. 
 
THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. Ill 
 
 silent : l the school of the prophets was opened, supernatural im- 
 pulses every now and then swayed some of them, and it became 
 a notorious, and publicly acknowledged, fact that the power to 
 prophesy was the gift of "The Spirit of Jehovah," as it has 
 ever remained, and been exercised, since — whether to expound 
 the Scriptures, or to foretell things to come. Hence David, soon 
 after Samuel, averred — "The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, 2 
 and His word was on my tongue. The God of Israel said, The 
 Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be 
 just, ruling in the fear of God." A passage asserting undeniably 
 that, at least, The Spirit of Jehovah is a synonym for the God 
 of Israel : and, as such, is the means of prophetic inspiration. 
 Later still, the same truth is asserted by Zedekiah in Ahab's 
 time : and " The Spirit of Jehovah" avowed to be the known, and 
 only, source of true prophecy. 3 "Which way went The Spirit of 
 Jehovah from me to speak unto thee?" And motion, personal 
 presence, and speech, being attributes of "The Spirit of Jehovah," 
 it seems hard to refuse the attribute of personality itself. And 
 this "The Spirit of Jehovah" being thus the admitted source of 
 all prophecy, from Moses to all the prophets; in other words the 
 admitted fountain of infinite wisdom; no further proof of His 
 Deity can be required. For if "The Spirit of Jehovah" be a 
 synonym for Jehovah — which, at the least, it is clear it is — no one 
 can need such proof. And if a distinction be admitted between 
 Jehovah and The Spirit of Jehovah, then The Spirit which is 
 thus of Himself the source of the knowledge of God, must Him- 
 self be God ; or, as St. Paul writes it — " What man knoweth the 
 things of man, save the spirit of man that is in him ; so no man 
 knoweth the things of God, but The Spirit of God." 
 
 1 Exodus xxriii. 30. 8 2 Sam. xxiii. 2. 3 1 Kings xxii. 24. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY CHOST. 
 
 UT what do we mean by Personality of The 
 Holy Ghost? We mean that it has pleased 
 The One God to reveal Himself as Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, in such sense as that 
 neither one of these is an other ; but so that 
 The Son is not The Father but begotten of 
 Him ; and that The Holy Ghost is neither The Father nor 
 The Son, but proceeding from both of them. And that as The 
 Son, begotten of The Father, is therefore of one and the same 
 substance, essence, or being; so The Holy Ghost, proceeding 
 from both, is equally of the same substance, essence, or being. 
 And, just as we cannot explain, nor understand, how The Son 
 is begotten of The Father, so we cannot understand nor explain 
 how The Holy Ghost proceeds from these. Holy Scripture 
 which plainly asserts the fact has kept the mode concealed from 
 human ken. * 
 
 But let us trace the personality further on. We 
 have already seen that the idea of mere emanation or 
 influence, from Deity, as suiting the expression 
 " The Spirit of Jehovah," in any sense less than of a 
 Divine person is a gratuitous addition to Holy Scripture, which 
 after all is reducible to this, viz., that Jehovah and The Spirit 
 of Jehovah must be considered synonymous ; and that, therefore, 
 The Spirit is Jehovah. But if those who oppose the Trinitarian 
 doctrine, and maintain that, in the phrase " The Spirit of Jeho- 
 vah," that word Spirit does not stand for what we term a person, 
 but merely for an influence, or emanation, or power, would only 
 
 The person- 
 ality of the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 113 
 
 find us one word to suit all passages of Holy Scripture in which 
 that word Spirit occurs in the sense we suppose, we should be 
 much obliged to them. We would deal with them handsomely ; 
 not cavilling at the term they selected ; but content to have their 
 idea stated precisely in their own way. There is the Hebrew 
 word, one word ; and the Hebrew phrase, " The Spirit of 
 Jehovah," one phrase : that word, that phrase, must have one 
 fixed and constant meaning : our translators have followed the 
 original closely, and have chosen manfully their word, Spirit. 
 It well conveys their idea of personality in the phrase " The Spirit 
 of Jehovah ;" and suits all passages where that phrase is used in 
 the Trinitarian sense; Let those, who differ from us, select also 
 their one word to convey their fixed idea in this constant phrase ; 
 and then we shall know with certainty what they mean. They 
 cannot do it. Indeed, there are passages where it is utterly 
 impossible to sustain, perspicuously and with consistency, the 
 anti-triniiarian notion. Thus in Isaiah 1 — " The Spirit of Jehovah 
 shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the 
 spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the 
 fear of Jehovah; and shall make him of quick understanding in the 
 fear of Jehovah." Of whom this is spoken, and under the power 
 of what Spirit, we know from the gospel : but they who deny 
 the personality of The Holy Ghost will find it utterly impossible 
 to give us their one word to suit in each clause this one Hebrew 
 word, and convey the sacred writer's clear ideas with rational 
 expressions. The Unitarian notion is that The Spirit represents 
 no personal Agent. But, in this text, Isaiah carefully distin- 
 guishes between 'Jehovah' and 'The Spirit of Jehovah;' and 
 then resuming the word Spirit alone, as the proper title, speaks 
 of 'the spirit of counsel, of might,' etc. Now take from the 
 word spirit the idea of personal agency, and no sense can be 
 made of the passage. But once adopt a word Spirit, and under- 
 stand that word to signify an agent who imparts the gifts referred 
 to, and the place becomes clear; "the spirit of wisdom" is the 
 spirit that gives wisdom, etc. ; and " The Spirit of Jehovah " in- 
 stantly expresses an agent who imparts the various attributes of 
 counsel, might, knowledge, understanding, and fear of The Lord, 
 alluded to : and is, as The Spirit, contradistinguished by Isaiah 
 
 1 Isa. xi. 2. 
 I 
 
114 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 from The Lord. Just similarly of the passage which spake of 
 Bezaleel in preparingthe tabernacle; 1 just so of passages asserting 
 the gift of prophecy: 2 just so of places in the New Testament 3 
 which speak of the teaching and sanctifying of Christ's people. Of 
 which Joel's 4 may be taken as the supernatural expression and 
 summary — " And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will 
 pour out my Spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons, and your 
 daughters, shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, 
 your young men shall see visions : and also upon the servants, 
 and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my 
 Spirit," — orZechariah 5 in reference to the sons of Israel especially, 
 " And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabi- 
 tants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication, and 
 they shall look upon me whom they have pierced," etc. In all 
 of which passages the work of the Holy Spirit in teaching, con- 
 verting, and sanctifying the individual soul is affirmed as that of 
 «,n Almighty Agent ministering universally for the souls of men 
 in the things of God. And the uniform distinction of office, or 
 mode of manifestation, viz., by means of spiritual and mental 
 gifts, argues for distinction of person (as Trinitarians phrase it) 
 as truly as distinct modes of manifestation, by means of the fiery 
 cloudy pillar, etc., did for that of The Angel of The Covenant. 
 
 But there are passages which more directly, though perhaps 
 not more certainly, affirm the personality of the same Spirit of 
 Jehovah ; by assigning to Him the actions, and customs, of 
 personality — " When the enemy shall enter in like a flood, 6 The 
 Spirit of Jehovah shall lift up a standard against him :" or 
 again, " As a beast goeth down into a valley, The Spirit of 
 Jehovah caused him (Israel) to rest." Now if in such purely 
 prosaic passages the " Spirit of Jehovah " meant only Jehovah 
 we should have a weak redundancy of speech for which we 
 should find it difficult to account. The fact is that in such 
 passages the distinction of The Spirit of Jehovah is main- 
 tained by bearing in mind carefully the distinct assignment to 
 Him of the special office of operating spiritually among the 
 people. But let us take the entire passage with which the last 
 quotation is connected : 7 " But they rebelled, and vexed His Holy 
 
 1 Exod. xxxi. 2. * Isa. lxi. 1. 3 Gal. v. 22. * Joel ii. 28. 5 Zech. xii. 10. 
 6 Isa. lix. 19. 7 Isa. lxiii. 10. 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 115 
 
 Spirit ; therefore lie was turned to be their enemy, and he fought 
 against them. Then he remembered the days of old, Moses 
 and his people, saying — Where is he that put his Holy Spirit 
 within him (Moses) ? That led them by the right hand of Moses 
 with his glorious arm, dividing the water before them, to make 
 Him an everlasting name ? That led them through the deep, as 
 a horse in the wilderness ; that they should not stumble ? As a 
 beast goeth down into the valley The Spirit of Jehovah 
 caused him (Israel) to rest, so didst thou lead thy people to 
 make thyself a glorious name." Now in the preceding chapters 
 it was abundantly proved that He who led Israel was " The 
 Angel of Jehovah's presence," "The Angel of the Levitical 
 Covenant," "The Sent One," Jehovah whom Christians call 
 God The Son; therefore Jehovah The Son put His Holy Spirit 
 within Moses, and the procession (as it is termed) of The Holy 
 Ghost from that Son is proved ; and, consequently, the deity of 
 that Son also. No one has ever denied that The Holy Ghost (be 
 he person, emanation, influence, or power, or what you will) pro- 
 ceeds from Jehovah The Father. 
 
 „ There is a curious but (if authentic) unspeakably 
 
 j^RS&VblOYl Of 
 
 The Holy important passage in St. John's first epistle, 1 the 
 Trinity in authenticity of which has been vigorously disputed, 
 Scrivtu/es even by Trinitarians ; though it is a circumstance 
 peculiarly suspicious that every passage in the 
 word of God which, more distinctly than another, asserts either 
 the deity of The Son, or the deity of The Holy Ghost, or the 
 reality of The Holy Trinity, is first tainted with suspicion, and as 
 soon as possible cruelly assailed with virulence and reproach. 
 We ought to be, in these days, especially suspicious of new dis- 
 coveries affecting the text of Holy Scripture. Why are these 
 jurymen so spitefully challenged, except in the secret conscious- 
 ness of a bad cause ? However, this passage has been quarrelled 
 with, and rejected, even by Trinitarians — " For there are three 
 that bear record in heaven, The Father, The Word, and The 
 Holy Ghost ; and these three are one." So far as I have been 
 able to study the question my conviction is that the weight 
 of authority remains in favour of its acceptance ; for in look- 
 ing at the opinions of critics, we must have regard to other con- 
 
 1 1 John y. 7. 
 
116 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 siderations as well as to their learning. But, irrespective of that, 
 its ostentatiousness of doctrine would have made one doubtful 
 of its genuineness — doubtful, from its Trinitarian display, 
 whether it had the ring of true metal — had there not been its 
 almost exact correlative in 1 the Old Testament — "And now 
 The Lord God, and His Spirit, hath sent me." It was for this 
 very purpose I invited attention at p. 90 supra to the manner in 
 which that turn of expression sent me is used by Zechariah in 
 reference to The Angel or Sent One, of the Jewish Covenant. A 
 fact to which I shall again refer when speaking of The Sent 
 One, or Messiah. Meanwhile, observe there is no disputing of 
 the text here — no various reading is suggested 2 — there it stands 
 embalmed by Jewish national pride, and jealousy — and, which- 
 ever way we will read it, the doctrine of The Holy Trinity and 
 (what we term) the personality of The Father, of The Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost, result from it. Indeed, the Jews have settled 
 for us how to read it : viz., thus — " And now The Lord God 
 hath sent me ; and His Spirit." There must be an English semi- 
 colon after the word me, to give the real force of the passage as 
 follows — " And now the Lord God hath sent me ; and hath sent 
 His Spirit." But let us take the whole passage — " I have not 
 spoken in secret from the beginning ; from the time that it was, 
 there am I : and now The Lord Jehova'h, and His Spirit, hath 
 sent me." We know well who speaks from the phrase " sent me," 
 as I have just now explained. But whoever it was, he is called 
 in the second verse Jehovah of Hosts, and Jehovah God of 
 Hosts. And in the twelfth verse he says " I am He ; I am the 
 first ; I also am the last, Mine hand also hath laid the foundation 
 of the earth; My right hand hath spanned the heavens. When 
 I call unto them they stand up together." And he who thus 
 speaks says — " And now The Lord Jehovah, and His Spirit, hath 
 sent me;" or rather "The Lord Jehovah hath sent me, and His 
 Spirit. Origen, as quoted by Bishop Lowth comments on this 
 passage, as follows ; " Who is it that saith in Isaiah, ' And now 
 The Lord hath sent me, and His Spirit?' in which, as the 
 expression is ambiguous, is it The Father, and The Holy Spirit, 
 who have sent Jesus ? or The Father, who hath sent both Christ 
 and The Holy Spirit. The latter is the true interpretation." 
 
 1 Isa. xlviii. 16. 2 See KennicoW a Hebrew Bible. 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 117 
 
 This opinion of Origen appears to be just; because we no where 
 
 read in the Scriptures, that Christ was sent by The Spirit ; but 
 
 every where that both Christ, and The Spirit, were sent by The 
 
 Father, called in the text The Lord God. But whether The 
 
 Spirit send, or be sent, he is equally by this text determined to 
 
 be a living agent ; since in the physical sense it is impossible 
 
 that any other being should either send, or be sent. So that this 
 
 text declares the doctrine of The Holy Trinity distinctly, by the 
 
 voice of a person, the speaker, styled Jehovah of Hosts, and 
 
 asserting His own existence as Jehovah from all eternity. The 
 
 speaker is The Sent One ; is Christ. No wonder the Chaldee Para- 
 
 phrast Jonathan, was puzzled ! Well he might be, how could he 
 
 explain such a passage apart from Christianity ? It is a wonder, 
 
 though, that he dared to add to the words " sent me" dixit Pro- 
 
 pheta " saith the Prophet." But, once more, no wonder that 
 
 Unitarians in distress should catch hold of the Paraphrast, and 
 
 hope by him to be saved from the difficulty. However, there is 
 
 the text, and its contents — we can allow no dixit Prophetas here. 1 
 
 What would Unitarians think of us if, just when it suited us for 
 
 proving the deity of Jesus we threw in on any verse the little 
 
 words " saith God ?" Besides, did Isaiah call himself " Jehovah 
 
 of Hosts?" did Isaiah say "I am the first, I also am the last" 
 
 of himself? Did Isaiah mean himself when he declared, " I have 
 
 not spoken in secret from the beginning : from the time that it 
 
 was there am I." As to any such abrupt transition to himself, 
 
 even if such language did not disprove it, I have already proved 
 
 that " hath sent me" is in some places a prophetical indication of 
 
 the presence of Messiah, as the speaker. See p. 90 supra. 
 
 Unitarians are hard to be convinced. Still, I hope, 
 The transla- th t when gt Luke 3 „ The g Mt of The Lord 
 
 tions which J ' L 
 
 Ezckiel under- caught away Philip " and that he was found at 
 
 tvent by the Azotus, say twenty miles distant from the place where 
 
 Spirit. he baptized the eunuch, — I hope they will admit 
 
 that Philip must have experienced the effect of 
 
 1 Yates' Yind., p. 337. Yet I doubt not Mr. Yates slanders the Para- 
 phrast ; who says, " Then I brought near your father Abraham to worship 
 me, saith the Prophet ; and now The Lord God hath sent Me, and His 
 word !" Does not the me in each case refer to Him who is worshipped ? 
 
 8 Acts viii. 39. 
 
118 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 some locomotive power — the power of some personal agent. 
 Now, what is recorded once in the New Testament, viz., about 
 Philip, is recorded as well known to be habitual to the prophets 
 in the Old. Thus Obadiah says 1 to Ahab, "The Spirit of The 
 Lord shall carry thee whither I know not," etc. Thus the sons 
 of the prophets to Elisha, 2 " Peradventure The Spirit of The Lord 
 hath taken him up and cast him," etc. Here is undoubtedly 
 described the work of a personal agent, who is called The Spirit 
 of The Lord. Is it a mere synonym for Jehovah, The Lord; or 
 of some mighty being in some sense mentioned distinctively from 
 Jehovah ? Let us see what Ezekiel says. 
 
 Now, in such a passage as the following 3 — " Afterward The 
 Spirit took me up, and brought me in vision into Chaldea " — Uni- 
 tarians might possibly say that Ezekiel's translation was not 
 literal, but only in vision: hardly so, however, in the next — 
 " Then The Spirit took me up, and I heard behind me a voice of 
 a great rushing (understand wind — ' a mighty rushing wind' 4 ) 
 .... So The Spirit lifted me up, and took me away ; and I went 
 in bitterness in the heat of my spirit ; but the hand of The Lord 
 was strong upon me :" and so Ezekiel came to Tel-Abib. Per- 
 haps even yet they will consider the language figurative ; take 
 then one more place — " And he put forth the form of a hand, and 
 took me by a lock of mine head ; and The Spirit lifted me up be- 
 tween heaven and earth." Surely now we are satisfied that the 
 translations Ezekiel experienced were literal translations ; such 
 as those known to be peculiar to prophets in the Old Testament, 
 and such as is recorded of Philip in the N ew. 
 
 But who was the personal agent who effected them ? We per- 
 ceive he is habitually called "The Spirit of Jehovah:" and 
 sometimes "The Spirit " alone ; in which cases, as in the place 
 referred to in Isaiah, we are forced to understand the title " The 
 Spirit " as of " The Spirit of Jehovah " in the sense of a personal 
 agent. But is such personal agent Jehovah himself, or one called 
 "The Spirit of Jehovah" distinctively? Now, he is mentioned 
 by Ezekiel under these several titles, viz., "The Spirit," "The 
 Spirit of God," "The Spirit of Jehovah," "The hand of Je- 
 
 1 1 Kings xviii. 12. »2 Kings ii. 16. 
 
 3 Ezek. xi. 24 ; iii. 12, 14 ; and viii. 1—3. * Acts ii. 2. 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 119 
 
 hovah," and "The hand of Adonai-Jehovah," — he is said to 
 < enter into ' Ezekiel, to ' take up ' Ezekiel, and to ' speak unto ' 
 Ezekiel. Moreover, at chap. iii. 22, his presence, and influence 
 with Ezekiel are carefully distinguished from the "glory of 
 Jehovah " in the plain, as previously seen by the river Chebar. 
 So that while personal agency is signified beyond dispute — that 
 agency is in its power and influence kept, as such, distinct from 
 the glory of The Lord, seen by side of Chebar. " The Spirit, or 
 power of God which the prophet felt within him (called likewise 
 ' the hand of The Lord,' verses 14, 22, of this chapter, and viii. 1) 
 being distinguished," as Lowth observes, "from the Divine glory 
 or Shechinah, which the prophet saw, as it is very plainly, 
 chap. ii. 2." Hence, we have in Ezekiel, plain indication of the 
 presence of two, viz., of Adonai-Jehovah, from whom the 
 whole revelation, power, agency, and presence of the vision pro- 
 ceed; and "The Spirit of Adonai-Jehovah," by whose personal 
 agency the whole is conducted ; who spake by Ezekiel, lifted up 
 Ezekiel, carried Ezekiel, translated Ezekiel. And yet the unity 
 of Deity is carefully preserved. Thus, Adonai-Jehovah says, 
 "Stand upon thy feet;" and The Spirit entered mto Ezekiel 
 when he spake, and " set him upon his feet." Thus, The Spirit 
 says, " Arise, go forth into the plain, and / will there talk with 
 thee." And when Ezekiel arrives there he beholds The Glory of 
 Jehovah, as he had seen by Chebar, viz., the glory of Adonai- 
 Jehovah ; and (it is added) The Spirit entered into him, and 
 spake with him, and, among other things, said, " When / speak 
 unto thee / will open thy mouth, and thou shalt say unto them, 
 1 Thus saith Adonai-Jehovah,' " etc. So distinct is the agency, 
 yet so inseparable the agents. 
 
 But I have before shewn that Adonai-Jehovah, so seen by 
 Ezekiel on the banks of Chebar, was The Son of God in glory. 
 Hence, The Spirit, which is termed "The Spirit of Jehovah," 
 and "The Spirit of Adonai-Jehovah," and "The Spirit of God," 
 is in the same sense The Spirit both of The Father and of The 
 Son, viz., is of the essence, and proceeds in mighty agency, from 
 both. 
 
 Moreover, the unity being so carefully preserved, I cannot help 
 thinking that the manifestation of deity contained at chap, viii., 
 ver. 2, is of The Spirit himself, and not of Adonai-Jehovah, 
 
120 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 though, as far as the description goes, it corresponds with part 
 of the vision described at chap, i., ver. 27. " Then I beheld, and 
 lo a likeness as of the appearance of fire, from the appearance 
 of his loins even downward, fire ; and from his loins even upward, 
 as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber ; and He 
 put forth the form of a hand, and took me by a lock of mine 
 head ; and The Spirit lifted me up between the earth, and the 
 heaven, etc." I cannot help concluding that he who put forth the 
 hand is the spirit who took up Ezekiel ; and who, therefore, had 
 manifestations in distinct jwrsons of two, viz., of Adonai- Jehovah, 
 by the river of Chebar, and of The Spirit " in mine house," who 
 carried him to Jerusalem, where he again saw "the glory of 
 God," as he had seen it by Chebar, and in the plain. This 
 manifestation to Ezekiel induces me to observe upon Dan. x. 
 5 — 10, before alluded to, that it is worth consideration whether 
 the vision then granted to Daniel was not of that same Holy 
 Spirit which moved Ezekiel ; and whether the ineffable dignity 
 of the character be not indicated by the unparalleled emotion, in 
 exact accordance with the spirit of the Gospel, that yields Him 
 even greatest honour ; l and whether, if so, we have not distinct 
 symbolical manifestations of The Holy Trinity, viz., of God The 
 Father, as The Ancient of Days, in Dan. vii. 13, of God The Son, 
 as The Son of Man, in Dan. vii. 13, and as Adonai-Jehovah in 
 Ezek. i. 26 — 28, and of God The Holy Ghost, as " a certain man 
 clothed in linen," etc., in Dan. x. 5 — 10, and a man in "the ap- 
 pearance of fire " in Ezek. viii. 2. I advance this with caution, 
 but such is my conviction as to the fact in Holy Scripture ; and, 
 on this account, I said, 2 when speaking of Daniel, that he had 
 manifestations at least of two. 
 
 But as to any correspondence in the appearances, we shall 
 see that correspondence, with diversity, carefully supported in 
 all, whether they be of The Ancient of Days, or of The Son 
 of Man, or (as I suppose) of The Holy Spirit. Thus, refer to 
 Isaiah vi. 1 — 4; Ezek. i. 4 — 28; viii. 2 ; x. 4 — 22, and xliii. 2 — 6 ; 
 also Dan. vii. 9 — 27, and x. 4 — 9 ; also, in the New Testament, 
 Rev. i. 10 — 17 and iv. 2 — 11 with v. 6 — 14, and x. 1, and xiv. 14, 
 and xix. 11 — 16, and xx. 11. Now, let all these manifestations 
 
 1 Matt. xii. 31. s Page 89 supra. 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 121 
 
 of Deity be thrown together, and we shall see a correspondence, 
 yet with observable diversity, carefully sustained in each with 
 all. And such correspondence indicated Unity. Yet that there 
 are manifestions of two, viz., of The Ancient of Days, and The 
 Son of Man, i.e., of God The Father and God The Son is certain ; 
 and any correspondence in appearance does not vitiate the fact. 
 So of the two appearances, one to Daniel and the other to 
 Ezekiel, which I interpret of The Holy Ghost, correspondence 
 in appearance is no argument against the idea that these were 
 manifestations of one — neither The Father nor The Son, — which 
 I have gathered from other considerations. 
 
 It is curious, but true, that a just argument for the 
 ality of the 'personality of The Holy Spirit may be gathered 
 Holy Ghost from the admitted personality, in Hebrew Scripture, 
 from the per- °^ ev ^ spirits. From the earliest days of the 
 sonality of Mosaic dispensation dealings with familiar spirits 
 were absolutely forbidden Israel, as being dealings 
 not with certain impulses, or influences, or emanations, or in- 
 spirations, or mere properties of any such kind ; but as dealings 
 with intellectual agents, which had real personal existence. I 
 need hardly enlarge upon this : throughout the Holy Bible, but 
 especially in the pages of the New Testament, this is a clearly 
 defined, and admitted, fact among the Jews. However, for 
 illustration's sake ;* " Regard not them that have familiar 
 spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them : I am 
 The Lord your God:" and take the following example 2 — "And 
 The Lord said, Who will persuade Ahab, that he may go up and 
 fall at Ramoth-Gilead. And one said on this manner, and 
 another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit } and 
 stood before The Lord ; and said / will persuade him," etc. The 
 evil spirit, and all other such, are undeniably impersonated ; 
 they are all individual, personal, agents. Now, if we take the 
 following passage : 3 " The Spirit of The Lord departed from 
 Saul, and an evil spirit from The Lord troubled him." Just as 
 this evil spirit here mentioned, and all other evil spirits, are per- 
 sonal agencies : so The Spirit of Jehovah is a personal agent. 
 
 1 Lev. xix. 31. See also 1 Sam. xxviii. 3; Isa. xix. 3, and other passages, 
 a 1 Kings xxii. 20. 3 1 Sam, xvi. U* 
 
122 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 The difference is here, that in the one case many finite spirits of 
 evil are indicated ; in the other, One Great and Holy and Infinite 
 Spirit is declared as the sanctifier, and deliverer, of man from all. 
 Gen i 2 is But you surely do not mean to leave us to a very 
 the radical late passage in Isaiah for the only clear proof of 
 ^Imditij, The Hol y Trinity? Oh, no. Every page we have 
 The Holy hitherto written, or verse cited, is part of that proof. 
 Ghost. But for tlie persona ii ty f The Holy Ghost, are we to 
 
 be brought all the way down to Isaiah, or to Ezekiel, for a clear 
 statement of that? No ; you are to be taken back to Genesis ; and to 
 be told that the real, and radical, assertion of the personality of 
 The Holy Ghost is the second verse in the Holy Bible. Listen : — 
 "And the earth was without form and void ; and darkness was 
 upon the face of the deep. And The Spirit OF God moved upon 
 the face of the waters." Unitarians are already beginning to 
 rub their hands with glee : but let us be patient. What is the 
 meaning of the word Spirit here ? Does it stand for that myste- 
 rious agent whom we term The Spirit of God, or is it used here 
 in the sense of wind, or air ; the natural atmosphere in motion ? I 
 imagine that when darkness was upon the face of the deep, when 
 chaos reigned, and the earth was without form and void ; when 
 the material creation as now ordered had no existence, I imagine 
 that then the natural air, or atmosphere, or (when in motion) 
 wind, which chemists resolve into its compotent parts, and which 
 is necessary to sustain organic life whether in the animal or ve- 
 getable world ; I imagine that air, or atmosphere, or wind, had 
 no existence. Hence, The Spirit which then moved upon the 
 face of the waters could not be that ; and the Hebrew word can- 
 not properly be so translated. It is no good to tell us that some 
 atmosphere must have existed. We know nothing about that. 
 But this we do know, that Ruakh in the Hebrew Bible means the 
 natural air, breath, or wind, necessary to the existing state of 
 things — to the health of the world, and the sustenance of life ; 
 and no other air, breath, or wind. It means not the aether, miles 
 above, where man cannot live, neither does the round world de- 
 scribe its orbit. It means not the atmosphere around other planets ; 
 or moved by other suns, or by the formations of other earths, than 
 our own. It means our vital air, modified and moved by our sun and 
 no other. Hence, I say, that when darkness was upon the face of 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 123 
 
 the deep, and light and heat had not done their offices ; when all was 
 Tohu-Bohu — dreary chaos heaped without order ; when the dry 
 land had not appeared, nor plants, nor man commenced their re- 
 spiration ; then, I say, our wind, the Hebrew RuaJch, did not exist ; 
 and, therefore, the Hebrew Rualch has not that sense in Gen. i. 2. 
 The Arabic, and such translations, are wrong, which render this 
 word here " the wind of God moved upon the face of the waters ;" 
 and those translations which, like our own, read it of The 
 Spirit of God ; as of that mysterious emanation, or influence, 
 or power, which proceeds from Him, are right. Well, supposing 
 you are right, how does that prove the personality ? — Can you tell 
 me why in the first chapter of Genesis, Moses, describing creation, 
 says, God, twenty-six times ; and Spirit of God, once ? Can you 
 tell me, why, in such a matter of fact chapter, he makes that dis- 
 tinction at verse two if there be no difference? There is no 
 poetry, etc. here — no Personification ; or (since Unitarians love to 
 talk heavily) no Prosopopeia ! 
 
 I will tell you how we prove the personality from the word trans- 
 lated moved. That word the Alexandrine Jews have translated 
 " borne upon." " The Spirit of God was borne upon " — a good 
 translation as far as it goes, because that which incubates is " borne 
 upon " that which lies under it. But bad, nevertheless. Bad first, 
 because the Alexandrines have taken a passive word to translate 
 another intensively active by necessity of conjugation. Bad second, 
 because it does not really give the action implied in the Hebrew 
 word. That word means to brood upon, to incubate, to give 
 warmth, and life, and energy to what lies under it. Yes ; the 
 very first indication of the presence of The Holy Ghost in 
 Hebrew Scripture is by means of figure ; viz., the figure of a 
 bird (a dove if you please) inidising ; viz., brooding down on, 
 hovering upon with tremulous, warmth-giving life, that which it 
 is striving to bring into existence. To that idea or figure we 
 must attach personality. Call The Spirit of God here emana- 
 tion, or what you will ; to that emanation, or procession, you 
 must attach (by force of the figure) the idea of personality ; by 
 which we mean that certain properties, certain powers proper to 
 that which is termed The Spirit of God, belong to that as TJie 
 Spirit, and are particularly assigned to it, and to no other. 
 Hence, Moses' distinction — God created, as the original cause ; 
 
124 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 but The Spirit of God created as the immediate. This force of 
 the word translated moved is so peculiar and indisputable, that in 
 Deuteronomy, when Moses wished to describe such action of a 
 bird, he took up the word again ; and in this form, for such 
 sense alone, is it found in the Hebrew Bible. Its force in 
 Syriac is the same ; and, in later days, when a Syrian wished to 
 describe the meaning and force of Elijah's action in stretching 
 himself upon the child — he took up again this word. Elijah 
 brooded on him, as a sign that the life, which God gives by His 
 Spirit, should be restored to that soul. Hence, T say, that per- 
 sonal agency, personality, the idea of a person possessing powers 
 peculiarly its own is the very first thought suggested to us in the 
 very second verse of the Hebrew Bible, for The Spirit of God 
 as distinguished, by twenty-six contrasting sentences, from God. 
 
 But do you mean to assign the material creation to The 
 Spirit of God, as the personal agent ? Just so ; and the spiritual 
 creation too. To these two ideas, as roots, all subsequent Scrip- 
 tures about The Spirit of God must be referred ; and passages, 
 which a Unitarian might possibly muddle, become clear as the 
 light of day which The Spirit created first. Thus, of the 
 natural creation, says Job 1 (shortly before Moses wrote) " By 
 His Spirit He garnished the heavens ;" or the same 2 Job, " The 
 Spirit of God hath made me ;" or the Psalmist, 3 " Thou sendest 
 forth thy spirit and they are created;" or Isaiah, 4 " Who hath 
 measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out 
 heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth 
 in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills 
 in a balance ? Who hath directed The Spirit of The Lord, 
 or being his counsellor hath taught Him ? With whom took he 
 counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of 
 judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way 
 of understanding." Thus, also, the spiritual creation. 5 " My 
 Spirit shall not always strive with man;" viz., the same Spirit 
 of God whom Moses had just before mentioned as the life- 
 giving agent, creating all things. This, too, is the Psalmist's 
 allusion, 6 " Create in me a clean heart, O God ; and renew a right 
 spirit within me. Cast me not away from Thy presence, and take 
 
 1 Job xxvi. 13. 2 Job xxxiii. 4. 3 Ps. civ. 30. 
 
 * Isa. xl. 12. 6 Gen. vi. 3. e Ps. li. 10. 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 125 
 
 not Thy Holy Spirit from me " — by whose agency the clean 
 heart is created; or Isaiah, 1 "They rebelled and vexed His Spirit," 
 who strove with them. Thus also, Nehemiah, 2 alluding to Israel 
 hi the wilderness," Thou gavest also Thy Good Spirit to instruct 
 them ; and withheldest not Thy manna from their mouth, and 
 gavest them water for their thirst." And where we are told 
 The Spirit of God rested upon people, and they prophesied, 
 as upon Moses and his elders, the same idea is conveyed ; viz., 
 that of a bird flying to, hovering over, settling down on, brood- 
 ing upon, to impart warmth, energy, and life. Thus The 
 Spirit rested on Moses and his elders ; 3 thus The Spirit 
 was promised 4 to rest upon Jesus ; The Spirit of God did 
 come "in a bodily shape, like a dove, and abode upon Him." 5 
 To this creative, brooding, or resting, agency of a being endowed 
 with proper and personal attributes, you must ascribe all such 
 expressions. The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him ; — The 
 Spirit of wisdom ; The Spirit of understanding ; The Spirit of 
 counsel ; The Spirit of might ; The Spirit of knowledge ; The 
 Spirit of the fear of the Lord ; The Spirit of grace ; The Spirit of 
 supplication ; it means the moving, brooding, inciting, energis- 
 ing spirit, whose proper, personal, agency, imparts such graces. 
 The second verse in the Holy Bible lays down the doctrine of 
 the personality of The Holy Ghost. 
 
 Tl T h JjJ S° me Trinitarians may say (perhaps some Uni- 
 the doctrine of tarians) — 'All this is very well; I cannot meet it; 
 
 The Most Holy but I wish I knew that the Jews had ever thought 
 Trinity . 
 
 so too. Did they know anything about the doc- 
 trine of The Holy Trinity? Give me facts, not arguments.' 
 Listen — Philo, the Alexandrian Jew, who lived before our 
 blessed Lord, speaks of a Being, whom he calls The Logos, the 
 eternal Logos, or Word ; and says, " He is necessarily eternal, 
 and the image of the invisible God." Further, he says, "He 
 who is, on each side, attended by his nearest powers ; of which 
 one is creative, the other kingly. The creative is God, by which 
 He founded and adorned the universe. The kingly is Lord. 
 He who is in the middle, being thus attended by both His 
 powers, exhibits to the discerning mind the appearance some- 
 
 1 Isa, lxiii. 10. 2 Neh. ix. 20. 3 Xumb. xi. 25. 4 Isa. xi. 2. 
 5 Luke hi. 22 with John i. 32. 
 
126 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 times of one, and sometimes of three." He often calls this Being, 
 The Logos, or Word, — the Divine Logos; the righteous Logos; 
 God's first-begotten Son ; an Angel; the name of God ; a man, etc. 1 
 The Chaldee Paraphrasts, and other Jewish commentators, speak 
 of Him in a similar manner. They call Him The Mamar, or 
 Mimra, which is the Chaldee word for the Greek Logos, or Word ; 
 they speak of Him as Redeemer, as Only-Begotten, as Creator. 
 They say — " The Word of The Lord said, ' Behold Adam, whom 
 I have created, as the only-begotten in the world, as I am the 
 only-begotten in the highest heavens." They paraphrase 
 Gen. iii. 8. thus : " They heard The Word of The Lord walking 
 in the garden." Philo, just now referred to, and Jonathan, the 
 Chaldee paraphrast, both say it was the Word of God who 
 appeared to Hagar. Jonathan also says, " God will receive the 
 prayer of Israel by His Word ; and paraphrasing Jer. xxix. 14 
 he says, "I will be sought by you in my Word." The Jeru- 
 salem Targum says, "Abraham prayed in the name of The 
 Word of The Lord, The God of the world;" and Jonathan also 
 says, " God will atone by His Word for His land, and for His 
 people ; even a people saved by The Word of The Lord." 
 
 But Mr. Bel sham tells us 2 that we do not understand Chaldee. 
 He admits that the Targum says, on Gen. i. 27, "The Word of 
 Jehovah created man;" also, Gen. iii. 9, "The Word of God 
 called Adam;" also, Gen. xviii. 1, "The Word of Jehovah 
 appeared to Abram,' etc.; but then we do not understand 
 Chaldee. " This argument is evidently founded upon a palpable 
 mistake. In the Chaldee idiom the term Mimra, ' Word,' is sub- 
 stituted for the reciprocal pronoun Self; so that The Word of 
 Jehovah means nothing more than Jehovah himself Thus, 2 Sam, 
 iii. 15, 16 ; " Phaltiel put a sword between his word ;" i. e., him- 
 self, " and Michal, the daughter of Saul." — True ; but does 
 Mr. Belsham see nothing in the portentous fact that in Chaldee 
 idiom The Word means self? God's Word is Himself? But 
 Mr. Belsham is sadly wrong nevertheless. He is wrong be- 
 cause he mistakes his case; he is wrong because he forgot that 
 one word may discharge two offices. Could Mr. Belsham have 
 
 1 See also quotations from Philo, and that he does not Platonise, in Bull's 
 Def. Mc. Creed, p. 32. See also Patrick on Kurub. xi. 20. 
 2 Calm Enquiry, p. 198. 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 127 
 
 explained this passage for us — " The Lord said unto His Word, 
 Sit thou at my right hand," etc. Such is the Chaldee paraphrase 
 of Psalm ex.. 1 — "The Lord said unto my Lord." Could 
 Mr. Belsham have told us how anyone can sit at his own right 
 hand? The fact is, that the Aramaic dialects express the re- 
 flexive pronouns — myself, himself, itself, etc., by various modes. 
 One mode is, in Chaldee, this use of Mimra ; as in Syriac, of 
 Napsha ; but each word has its own proper meaning and use for 
 all that ; and it would be a great mistake to suppose, because 
 Mimra can be used for self, that therefore it is alivays used for 
 self. The word Mimra is habitually used by the Paraphrasts for 
 Him who in Hebrew is called " Kol Jehovah," the Word of 
 Jehovah ; or, as Buxtorff says * — " This divine name the Para- 
 phrast is most frequently used to translate ' Mimra Jehovah,' 
 just as John the Evangelist says, Ho Logos." Mr. Belsham's 
 argument, therefore, not ours, was " evidently founded upon a 
 palpable mistake " in his Chaldee. 
 
 But to continue the Jewish evidence for The Holy Trinity. I 
 have admitted at p. 49 supra that the plural termination in 
 Elohim is no proof of plurality in Godhead. Nor is it of itself. 
 But some curious Jewish facts are connected with that word; 
 let us note them. The Jewish commentators say, " There are 
 three degrees in the mystery of Elohim ;" and these degrees they 
 call Persons; and say, "They are all one, and cannot be sepa- 
 rated." Deut. vi. 4. "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our Elohim is 
 one Jehovah," is thus rendered in the Jewish book called Zohar ; 
 "The Lord, and our God, and The Lord, are one;" and the 
 author adds — " The Lord, or Jehovah, is the beginning of all 
 things, and the perfection of all things, and He is called The 
 Father. The other, or our God, is the depth or fountain of 
 sciences ; and He is called The Son. The other, or Lord, He is 
 The Holy Ghost, who proceeds from them both, etc. Therefore, 
 He says, ' Hear, O Israel ;' that is, join together this Father, The 
 Son, and The Holy Ghost, and make Him one essence, one sub- 
 stance ; for whatever is in the one is in the other. He hath 
 been the whole ; He is the whole ; and He will be the whole." 
 Again, De. Rossi 2 (as quoted by Boothroyd) tells us that many 
 
 1 Buxtorff, Kabbin, Lex, p 125. 
 
 2 See my Notes Rest, and Conv. Isr., p. 98. 
 
128 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 Anti-christian Jewish writers acknowledge "Jehovah, our Righ- 
 teousness, to be a name of their Messiah ; and he quotes Rabbi 
 Abba, the son of Caana ; " For what is Messiah's name ? Rabbi 
 Abba, Caana's son, says — Jehovah is his name ; for it is said : 
 ' And this is His name whereby He shall be called Jehovah, our 
 Righteousness." Again, " The Holy God calls the king Messiah 
 by His name ; Jehovah is His name ; for it is said, Exod. vii. 1, 
 " The Lord is a man of war ; Jehovah is His name." This is on 
 Moses' song, which I referred to at p. 69 supra as celebrating 
 The Angel, Messiah, by His name JAH. Lastly, again, on the 
 word Elohim, and about thirty times in the account of creation 
 the Jewish Paraphrasts explain it by Jehovah ; His Word, i. e„ 
 His Son ; and His Wisdom, or Holy Spirit — which they call 
 three degrees. These three, they assert, are one ; and declare 
 them to be one inseparable Jehovah. Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh, 
 i.e., Judah the holy, thus states the doctrine of the Jewish 
 Church—" God The Father, God The Son, God The Holy Spirit, 
 three in unity, one in trinity." This holy Rabbi flourished in 
 the second century, shortly after the Chaldee Paraphrasts. 
 
 Moreover, the ancient Jews had certain signs, or symbolical 
 modes for expressing the Holy Trinity. Thus, Rabbi Mena- 
 chen says that the blessing (Numb. vi. 24) which appeals thrice 
 to Jehovah, was pronounced in three different tones correspond- 
 ing to each part; and two other rabbis assert that the priest's 
 hand was raised, with the three first fingers extended, the thumb 
 and little finger being closed. This they say was clone to denote 
 Trinity in the Godhead. The Jews used a solemn symbol of 
 deity which they called Sephiroth (it is the plural of that word in 
 the passage I quoted from Job, " the splendour of the heavens is 
 by His Spirit "). These splendours of deity they represented some- 
 times by a tree with its branches extended : sometimes by ten 
 concentric circles ; the circle being the ancient symbol of per- 
 fection ; as the Egyptian serpent coiled round with its tail in its 
 mouth was of eternity. Of the tree symbol Rabbi Schabte says . 
 " There are three degrees ; the root, the stem, and the branches; 
 and these three are one :" of the circle symbol, Rabbi Isaac says 
 of the three outer circles : " These are the highest numerations, 
 which possess one throne, on which sits The Holy, Holy, Holy, 
 Lord God of Hosts." The remaining seven Sephiroth, or 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 129 
 
 splendours, or circles, denoted the perfect attributes of God ; or, 
 as we should say, 1 "the seven spirits before His throne." The 
 ancient Jews, moreover, applied the three first letters of the 
 incommunicable name to denote the three superior splendours — 
 Yod, Be, Vau : and the second, viz., He, which occurs twice in the 
 word Je HoVaH denoted, they said, the two natures of the second 
 splendour, or person. 
 
 Bishop Pearson 2 has quoted from Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon, 
 more usually known as Rambam and Maimonides, to the effect 
 (as he understood him) that the Jews held the Unitarian opinion 
 as to The Holy Ghost ; but the passage, even as quoted by the 
 Bishop, is by no means clear to the purpose; moreover, the 
 same Maimonides says, " The crown is the primordial spirit of 
 the living Elohim : and his wisdom is a spirit from the Spirit ; 
 and the understanding, waters from the Spirit •, and between 
 these three, though thus distinguished, there is no distinction in 
 essence ; because the end is annexed to the beginning, and the 
 beginning to the end, and the middle is comprehended by them." 
 This is quite enough to annihilate Bishop Pearson's quotation. 
 
 There were other Jewish symbols for The Holy Trinity, of 
 which I shall mention three most remarkable. The equilateral 
 triangle, with three small circles at the angles, and the letter Yod, 
 the first in Jehovah, inscribed against the upper angle. The 
 three sides indicated the three persons; their equal length the 
 equality of such persons ; while the Yod was a direct proof that 
 Jehovah was intended; whose perfection was denoted by the 
 circles. The letter Schin was another emblem of The Holy 
 Trinity. It consists of three similar branches springing from 
 one stem (ar) : this letter was distinctly written on the phylac- 
 teries which the Jews wore upon their heads. Lastly: the 
 ancient Jews wrote the name of God symbolically, by including 
 three Yods within a circle, and subscribing the vowel Kamets 
 under the Yods, within the circle. The circle denoted perfection. 
 Yod being the initial letter of Jehovah, the three Yods indicated 
 the three persons. The Kamets was the point of perfection, and 
 denoted the unity of the divine essence. Upon this symbolizing 
 The Holy Trinity of course the greatest care needed to be 
 
 1 Rev. i. -1. 2 Pearson on the Creed, p. 469. 
 
 K 
 
130 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 exercised ; and the value of the symbols is enhanced accordingly: 
 it was a mode of expressing thought which could not creep in, 
 or become prevalent, without especial design ; as, indeed, the 
 significant power of the symbols shews. 1 I have ventured also 
 to hint at another illustration, " the threefold cord," at p. 7 
 supra ; but of course no illustration can convey accurately the 
 doctrine intended. 
 
 However, such were the sentiments of the Jewish Doctors, 
 expressed either by plain declarations, or symbolical forms. 
 They prove clearly that the Jewish Church held uniformly the 
 doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The modern Jews have denied it ; 
 but, to this denial they have been led merely by their hatred of 
 Christianity. 
 
 Let us briefly collate the whole argument advanced 
 flections on the to prove from the Old Testament a revelation of the 
 
 doctrine of The doctrine of The Holy Trinity. Its reality ; its kind; 
 Holy Trinity. ., , 
 thus traced lts degree. 
 
 from the Old Of course there is no doubt, or dispute, respect- 
 ing the revelation made of The Almighty Father. 
 Unitarians admit that revelation as much as we ; indeed, con- 
 sider they hold it more truly. We unite with them in maintain- 
 ing the deity of The Almighty Father in all His glorious and 
 ineffable perfections. They cannot love to exalt The Father 
 more than we ; only we maintain that The Father has been pleased 
 *to make known a certain way in which He loves to be exalted. 
 For we conceive, not only that The Father has manifested Him- 
 self, but also that He has seen fit to do so not directly to man, but 
 mediately, viz., through The Son, and through The Holy Ghost. 
 So that all displays of Divine presence, or exertions of Divine 
 power, made under the Jewish economy by The Son and by The 
 Holy Ghost, were displays equally of the Divine presence and 
 power of The Almighty Father. The foregoing enquiry, contained 
 in chapters 3 — 6, concerning the manifestation of Jehovah The 
 Father through His Angel The Son will easily divide itself to the 
 Trinitarian reader into two parts ; one being the fact that The 
 Father did so reveal Himself through The Son ; the other being 
 the extent to which such revelation has been correctly traced. 
 
 1 See for this summary Dwight's Theology: Sermon 71. 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 131 
 
 But, whatever may be the opinion of any reader concerning the 
 extent to which such revelation of The Father by The Son as 
 Angel, Jah, Adonai, may have been correctly traced, I believe 
 no doubt can remain as to the fact ; but that it is as clear as 
 need be from Old Testament Scripture that one called The 
 Angel, Jah, Adonai, The Son, and Jehovah has been distinctly 
 exhibited from the writings of Moses, David, Isaiah, Hosea, 
 Ezekiel, Daniel, and Malachi. Such Scriptures, I submit, have 
 been fairly quoted and reasoned upon to the sound result of 
 having convinced any candid mind that He, whom Christians 
 term God The Son, is plainly made known in the Old Testa- 
 ment, in that sense which we Trinitarians intend to designate 
 when we speak of distinctness of person. So that The Son is 
 such as begotten of The Father in this sense, viz., that the 
 two must not be confounded. 
 
 Similarly, as to the fact that the Deity of The Holy Ghost 
 is enjoined in the Old Testament by distinctness of person : so 
 that The Holy Ghost, as such, is neither The Father, nor The 
 Son. But there was an important difference in the means fur- 
 nished us of perceiving the Deity of either. The Divine Person, 
 Substance, or Being, of The Son was suggested by the very 
 titles given Him : since an Angel, or Messenger, must needs be 
 sent by another : A Son must needs be of A Father : in such a 
 sense as that it is necessarily clear there must be One who sends 
 correspondent with the Messenger ; and A Father correspondent 
 with The Son. But so great a facility of noting distinctness of 
 Person is not granted us in respect of The Holy Ghost. True, 
 any effluence, or emanation, is distinctly not that from which it 
 flows or emanates. Heat, and light, must not be confounded 
 with their sources ; the stream is not the fountain. But still 
 there is an elusiveness about this title, " The Spirit of God," 
 which renders it extremely difficult to become convinced from 
 such title alone of the distinct Divine personality of Him who 
 receives it. Though, so far as the title goes, it falls in with such 
 conclusions arrived at from other arguments; and certainly is 
 easier, and more perspicuous, for the Trinitarian conclusion of 
 personality than for the Unitarian conclusion of — they themselves 
 know not what. But the argument for the divine personality 
 of The Holy Ghost is based in the Old Testament not 
 
132 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 upon His name, but His offices. Distinctness and constancy of 
 office argue for distinct personality of Agent ; and, all through 
 the Old Testament, mental and spiritual influences of every good 
 and holy, but especially of every supernatural kind, are assigned 
 in the wisdom of The Most High — not directly to Himself, nor 
 to Him already traced as The Angel, and The Son — but me- 
 diately by The Holy Ghost to both of these : to both of these, 
 because in the Old Testament both of these are supremely wor- 
 shipped as authors and givers of spiritual and eternal life. 
 But, why such uniform distinction of office, unless distinction of 
 agency, i. e., 'personality, were intended to be assigned to The 
 Holy Ghost? In addition to which consideration, we also find 
 that in the Old Testament The Spirit of God is mentioned contra- 
 distinctively both to The Father, as God ; and to The Son, as 
 His Angel ; and as we are taught to attribute distinctiveness of 
 persons to these, so (by parity of reason) we must to the other. 
 And, lastly, as to fact such works are in the Old Testament im- 
 puted to The Holy Ghost as can be rationally understood of 
 none but a personal agent. 
 
 Next ; as to the kind of revelation which the Old Testament con- 
 veys concerning The Most Blessed Trinity. Though distinctness 
 of person be proved, such that The Father, The Son, and The 
 Holy Ghost are not confounded ; yet the unity of The God- 
 head is carefully maintained. So that, though we are utterly 
 incompetent to understand the mysterious relations indicated hy 
 the titles — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; yet we are able to con- 
 ceive how each may not be the other, yet each possess equal 
 attributes, viz., be of the same essence, substance, or being. 
 Since that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit : 1 and of, or from, 
 perfect spirit, nothing less than perfect spirit can be begotten, 
 or proceed. So that, in the perfect and infinite Spirit divine, 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, must needs be of one substance, 
 essence, or being : inequality becomes impossible. Hence the 
 manifestation of one was the manifestation of all. Just as, in 
 the New Testament, " He that hath seen Me hath seen The 
 Father;" or, "AH that the Father hath is Mine ; therefore said I, 
 He shall take of Mine, and shew it unto you." In the name of, 
 
 1 John iii. 6. 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 133 
 
 and for The Father, The Angel of the Covenant, The Son, pre- 
 sided over and directed, blessed or chastised, the church of old ; 
 precisely as in the present dispensation we know that The Father 
 " hath given Him to be head over all things to the Church, which 
 is His body ; the fulness of Him that filleth all in all:" or just 
 as it is to the glory of God The Father that every tongue should 
 confess that " Jesus Christ is Lord :" since it pleased The Father 
 that, for purpose of economy, " in Him should all fulness dwell." 
 And as, under the old dispensation, the gracious influences of 
 The Holy Spirit were diffused through the Jewish church 
 administered by The Angel, The Son, for The Father, in a sense 
 correspondent exactly to that asserted in the Scriptures of 
 the New, it follows that the kind of revelation regarding The 
 Holy Trinity is the same in the Old Testament, as in the New. 
 The One Almighty Father being the fount of light : The Son 
 eternally begotten of Him ; and The Holy Ghost bestowed by, 
 i. e., proceeding from both, in answer to the prayers of all faith- 
 ful people. So that all manifestations, and operations, of one 
 are to be considered as the operations, and manifestations, 
 of all. 
 
 Nor as to the degree in which The Holy Trinity is revealed, 
 let us be too sure that the advantage is with ourselves. True, 
 that for us the great mystery of Incarnation has been completed, 
 and the burden of a ceremonious religion rolled away : true, 
 the doctrines of salvation are more minutely explained in the 
 pages of the second Testament, and that the sanctifying influ- 
 ences of The Holy Ghost for all have been more signally 
 asserted: but, under the first Testament the presence of The Angel, 
 and The Father's manifestation by Him, if not constant, were 
 certainly habitual ; and God maintained, as it were, a personal 
 correspondence with His people, to which they have since been 
 strangers. And if The Holy Ghost was never poured out (since 
 Moses' time at Taberah) in a manner so conspicuous upon Israel 
 as at Pentecost, there was on the other hand the continual voice of 
 Urim and Thummim, and an unbroken line of openly and super- 
 naturally inspired teachers for about one thousand years : and 
 it was not until Israel was fast preparing to fill up the measure 
 of his iniquities that vision and prophecy were sealed up, and 
 closed ; and the people left without a miraculous, and divinely 
 
134 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 sustained, proof of The Holy Spirit's presence among them. Put 
 our Testament, and our teachers, on the one hand ; and their Tes- 
 tament, their teachers, their Urim and Thummim, their Shechinah, 
 their priests, their inspired prophets, on the other ; and then pause 
 before you decide to what extent ours is the advantage. As 
 for salvation it was always one ; unchangeable as The God of 
 Love who gave it : spiritual faith had the same Son for its object ; 
 and the same Holy Spirit for its promoter. With such recol- 
 lections we may conclude, surely without extravagance, that the 
 revelations of The Holy Trinity in the Old Testament were not 
 only real as to the fact ; but of one and the same great and holy 
 God, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost, in kind ; and 
 scarcely, if at all, inferior as to degree, when contrasted with 
 the revelations of the New Testament ; to which we shall shortly 
 direct attention. 
 
 But as to prayer. Prayer to one, is by necessity of the unity 
 prayer to each. Distinction of the persons in prayer is not 
 needed for soundness of faith ; though justified in the Word of 
 God. Moreover, that The Angel, He who dwelt between The 
 Cherubim, was habitually worshipped we know : The Son was 
 the object of supreme adoration. And, in such places as the one 
 hundred and nineteenth Psalm ; in short, in all such as implore 
 teaching and sanctifying influences, we may well consider that 
 He, The Holy Ghost, was addressed ; to whom such office of 
 teaching and sanctifying was properly assigned, ever since 
 Moses' time. " Let my cry come near before Thee, O Lord ; give 
 me understanding according to Thy word." 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 
 
 F all doctrines of Christianity the most funda- 
 mental, and characteristic is, probably, that of 
 the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 Which doctrine is to the effect that Jesus 
 Christ was God Incarnate. God, as the only- 
 begotten Son ; equal to The Father, as touch- 
 ing His Godhead : Incarnate, or made flesh, in the likeness of 
 man through His mother ; and, therefore, inferior to The Father, 
 as touching His manhood. The first, and necessary, conse- 
 quence of such statement of doctrine is, that Trinitarians, under- 
 taking to prove it from Holy Scripture, must be prepared to 
 trace equally in such Scripture statements that such two natures, 
 viz., of God, and of Man, were manifested in Christ Jesus — Perfect 
 Godhead, and Perfect Manhood. So that, if such doctrine be true, 
 there must be in Holy Scripture two distinct sets, or orders, of 
 texts ; the one, proving His Godhead; and the other, His Man- 
 hood. And such two distinct sets of Scriptures must, in re- 
 ference to such doctrine, be kept carefully apart ; and it is the 
 duty of a sound teacher, as a theologian, to be able and ready in 
 this respect "rightly to divide the word of truth." Of course, 
 Unitarians deny this doctrine of the Incarnation ; and, doing so, 
 have sadly confused the Word of God. Thus, Mr. Yates is 
 really a wonder ; and the manner 1 in which he mixes, and serves 
 up, Holy Scripture is something marvellous to behold : he is a 
 perfect theological chef. No doubt this doctrine of the Incarna- 
 tion is an astounding mystery ; no doubt it is to the human mind 
 utterly inconceivable; and, when suggested, as utterly incom- 
 
 1 Yindic. Unit., pp. 65—80. 
 
136 THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 
 
 prehensible. How The Most High God could tabernacle in hu- 
 man form. How the natures of deity, and of manhood, could be- 
 come, and be kept so united, yet so distinct. " One altogether : 
 not by confusion of substance ; but by unity of person." How, 
 being so God manifest in the flesh, He could suffer in flesh and 
 spirit for man's sin. And how, so suffering, He could make recon- 
 ciliation for man's iniquity. No doubt, these are transcendent 
 mysteries ; like the union inexplicable of man's soul and body ; 
 and, like other mysteries, such as The Holy Trinity itself, plainly 
 asserted, nevertheless, as doctrines in the Holy Scriptures. But 
 the question before us, and all candid Unitarians also, is — not 
 whether the Incarnation be a mystery ; but whether it is, or is 
 not, affirmed; and, if so, how affirmed in Holy Scripture ? It is 
 a mere question of Biblical fact, to be answered only by exami- 
 nation and collation of Scripture. And, as a question of Biblical 
 fact, it is curious indeed that in whatever language we take up 
 the Holy Bible, ancient language or modern, Eastern or 
 Western, that Bible so expresses itself as to lead us readers to 
 suppose that it distinctly affirms Christ to have had in one 
 person two natures, viz., one, as God ; the other, as Man. 
 However, with this certain truth of Biblical translations we have 
 nothing to do ; our business is to inquire whether our trans- 
 lation justifies such a conclusion ; and, if so, whether, in such 
 respect, it is a correct translation? And, as to its being a 
 mystery, are Unitarians prepared to assert that The Almighty 
 God could not become Incarnate, if He pleased? Or are they 
 patented with any antecedent proofs that The Almighty God, 
 and All Holy, ought not if He would ? Have Unitarians dis- 
 covered the best mode of re-creating man, in opposition to the 
 plain statements of revelation — a revelation which they profess 
 to admit, as much as we, to have been necessary ? Are they 
 prepared, being God's counsellors, to direct Him ? Unfortunately 
 this is what they undertake to do. They place the doctrine of 
 the Incarnation before their minds, according to their own view, 
 not ours, nor according to Holy Scripture ; and, having obsti- 
 nately determined that such a thing could not be, they fall to 
 hacking and hewing the Word of God until they suppose they 
 have shaped it to their own purposes. Thus, 1 " To maintain, 
 
 i The italics are Mr. Yates', Vinci. Unit., p , 157. 
 
THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 137 
 
 therefore, that the same mind is endued both with a Divine and 
 a human nature, is to maintain, that the same mind is both created 
 and uncreated, both finite and infinite, both dependent and indepen- 
 dent, 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 wo£ acquainted 
 with them, both ignorant of certain subjects, and possessed of the 
 most intimate knowledge of them. If it be not certain, that such a 
 doctrine as this is false, there is no certainty upon any subject. 
 It is vain to call it a mystery, it is an absurdity, it is an impossi- 
 bility. ^ But whose doctrine is this? Not ours; not Trini- 
 tarians'. Who does not perceive that very confusion of substance 
 here, against which Trinitarianism most vehemently protests? 
 Nay ; Mr. Yates has not even written common sense, and Uni- 
 tarians profess to have a great deal of that. " The same mind 
 mortal and immortal!" who ever heard of such a thing? They 
 are Mr. Yates' words, not mine. Do Unitarians believe that 
 mind is, or can be, mortal? Not so ; they do not quite believe in 
 annihilation. Mr. Yates misrepresents them ; he was carried 
 away by his ardour (alas !) against the blessed doctrine of the 
 Incarnation, and gave unhappy vent to an expression which 
 bespeaks neither Trinitarianism, nor Unitarianism ; but is arrant 
 nonsense — a mortal mind, quoth'a ! But, however, passing over 
 this lapsus calami, whose doctrine is it thus represented by the 
 choice Unitarian advocate ? Not Trinitarians'. Their doctrine is 
 that as soul and matter, united yet distinct, make one man ; so 
 God and man, united yet distinct, make one Christ. The sub- 
 stance, or being, Divine and human, they do not mix together so 
 as to confound ; but recognise God and man in one person. 
 Thus (as some Unitarians prefer him, they shall have him) Ter- 
 tullian against Praxeas, 1 " But we find Him exhibited directly 
 as God and Man, — certainly everywhere as Son of God and Son 
 of Man, as being God and Man according to each substance dis- 
 tinct in its propriety; because, neither is the Word any other 
 thing than God, nor the flesh any other thing than man. We 
 see the complex state, not confused but connected in one person, 
 
 1 Chap, xxvii., p. 280, quoted at p. 397 of Kadclifte's Illustration of 
 St. Athanasius' Creed. Eivington's. 1844. 
 
138 THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 
 
 Jesus, God and man." Now, Mr. Yates, or any other Unitarian, 
 may knock to pieces Ms man of straw (straw, indeed !) as much 
 as he pleases ; but, I beg my readers, especially Unitarian, to 
 mark that such a statement of the nature of Christ is not ours ; 
 is not Trinitarian. But hear another statement of our doctrine, 1 
 in addition to Tertullian's — " That like as man is soul and flesh, 
 so should Christ be God and man ; the same God who is man, 
 and He who is God, the same is man, not by confusion of nature, 
 but by unity of person ;" or, again 2 — " For as by unity of person 
 soul is united to body to make man ; so, in unity of person, God 
 is united to man, to make Christ. In that person, therefore, 
 there is a mixture of soul and body, in this there is a mixture of 
 God and man ; but my hearer must here dismiss from his mind what 
 takes place with bodies, viz., the mixture of two liquids, whereby neither 
 preserves its peculiar qualities ; although, in these very bodies, light is 
 mingled with air, without being affected by it." Enough ; such is 
 Trinitarian doctrine. We do not profess to explain the mystery; 
 but we do undertake to shew that it is enjoined, as an article of 
 faith, in the Holy Scripture; and that its assertion, and recep- 
 tion, is essential to the consistency of the Christian religion ; 
 and a basis indispensable to the doctrine of atonement, which 
 throughly pervades it. My object in the present chapter is to 
 shew that there is sound reason for concluding that the Old 
 Testament plainly authorised the sons of Israel to expect their 
 promised Messiah, whom we call Christ, as Adonai, or God- 
 Incarnate. I need scarcely remind any reader that the words 
 Messiah, and Christ, are synonymous ; and that the professed 
 foundation of Christianity, as a divinely authentic religion, is — 
 that Jesus of Nazareth was Israel's promised Christ, or Messiah. 
 The question, therefore, of Christ's deity as in the Old Testament 
 is reducible to this — Did the Old Testament declare to Israel 
 that The Messiah, would be God-Incarnate? — It did. 
 1 , r . , That the predicted deliverer of Israel was to be truly 
 
 JfLCSSlClJl Of* 
 
 The Anointed man, viz. as of a reasoning soul and human flesh 
 
 One, foretold subsisting, was manifest to them from the very 
 
 first ; as also, that He was to be the representa- 
 
 1 Augustine on the Nativity, quoted, Ibid. p. 401. 
 
 2 Augustine to Volusian, quoted, Ibid. p. 403. 
 
THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 139 
 
 tive of the religion and royalty of their state. His royal, or 
 kingly, character by Balaam ; x " There shall come a star out of 
 Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel :" His religious, or 
 prophetical, by Moses ; 2 " The Lord thy God shall raise up unto 
 thee & prophet from the midst of thee, like unto me; unto Him 
 shall ye hearken;" a prophet, like Moses, introducing a new 
 divine dispensation. Such passages permit no doubt of the real 
 human nature of the King and Prophet predicted ; and it is in 
 such a character exactly He is known to Israel as Messiah. That 
 word means The Anointed One, or Christ ; and was to be, in 
 later days, formally appropriated by Daniel 3 to Him who was to 
 "be cut off, but not for himself;" and it appertained to Israel's 
 predicted deliverer peculiarly as their King. Under the Leviti- 
 cal economy, priests were alone The Lord's anointed ; 4 and, of 
 all other priests, the High Priest was especially ' The anointed.' 
 But when Hannah, blessed with her first-born son against all 
 previous expectation, and in especial answer to prayer, was 
 taught by The Holy Ghost to utter that psalm of thanksgiving, 
 which Samuel has recorded ; 5 then she was also permitted to pre- 
 dict, as faintly shadowed forth in God's gift of Samuel (the first 
 of a new line of prophets) the marvellous birth of Israel's Re- 
 deemer, whom she is the first to designate as Messiah : "Jehovah 
 shall judge the ends of the earth; and He shall give strength 
 unto His King, and exalt the horn of His Messiah." It is to be 
 remembered that, in Hannah's day, there was no king in Israel ; 
 and that then, as above stated, only priests were anointed. But 
 this, Hannah's inspired declaration in a song afterwards referred 
 to 6 on a similar occasion by Mary, celebrated Israel's predicted 
 deliverer as their King; and, being such King, as also The 
 Anointed, i.e. The Messiah, i.e. The Christ. But, clearly as the 
 true humanity of Messiah was thus foretold, both as Prophet 
 and as King, no sooner did such predicted kingship receive illus- 
 tration in sovereigns merely human, than one of them, viz. David, 
 that first royal type of Christ, was made the means of assuring 
 Israel that predictions of their King, Messiah, were not to be in- 
 terpreted of humanity alone. Throughout the book of Samuel, 
 Saul and his successors are carefully described as The Lord's 
 
 1 Numb. xxiv. 17. 2 Deut. xviii. 15. 3 Dan. ix. 25. 
 
 * Levit. iv. 3, etc. 5 1 Sam. ii. 10. 6 Luke i. 51, 52. 
 
140 THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 
 
 anointed : and it is probable that Hannah's declaration bad 
 primary reference to Israel's line of kings : but no sooner was 
 David, the kingly type, settled on the throne securely — throne of 
 all Israel — than he delivered that marvellous second Psalm, 
 already referred to 1 as asserting the deity of the eternally-be- 
 gotten Son, foi the purpose at that same time of fixing upon 
 lei's mind the truth that their real King, the true Anointed, 
 was that same Son of God so hymned by him : and was to be 
 by Israel especially expected as The Messiah, or Lord's Anoint- 
 ed : i: The kin_ r s of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take 
 coimsel together, against Jehovah, and against His Messiah." 
 That second Psalm specifically asserted that The Messiah, against 
 m such treasonous conns si be taken, was He who. in 
 
 subsequent verses, is denominated The Son — viz. The Son of 
 God — The Begotten Son of God — and to whom the spiritual 
 attributes of deity are. in that Psalm, clearly assigned. That 
 this is its proper application, and that Thb S is The Lord's 
 Anointed, The Messiah, spoken of there by David we know by 
 inspiration through the Apostles. 2 And thus we know certainly 
 that, from the days of David. Israel was taught directly by ju- 
 ration, not ambiguously, that The Messiah was the eter- 
 nally-b. gotten Son f God, was Jehovah, was God. 
 
 From David's time various applications of the 
 were made : - viz. to the patriarchs, 
 to the kings, to Cyrus the Persian ; but its appli- 
 cation to Israel's expected deliverer, as by ex- 
 cellence T : Messiah, was so carefully sustained 
 that no misapprehension could arise concerning it ; and so - - 
 .so that, from David, till the days of Old Testament 
 inspiration passed away, the deity and manhood together of The 
 g were specifically declared. To other pi - n -hall 
 
 presently refer ; but now select, for an immediate purpose, the 
 pages of Daniel. 4 That prophet's mind had been deepiy exer- 
 1 about the approaching return of his people from Babylon 
 to Palestine ; and in answer to his prayer a special communica- 
 tion was made him by the agency of Gabriel. A commimica:. .. 
 
 1 Se " -79 supra. * A sis 
 
 . hron. 16, 22, Books of Ps. and Sam. passim / Isa. xlv. 1. 
 4 Dan ix. 25. 
 
THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 141 
 
 declaring not only their then immediate restoration, but also 
 their eventual dispersion and dishonour. But the marvel of 
 Gabriel's announcement lay here — that this overthrow of " the 
 city and the sanctuary" was to be in the very supposed halcyon 
 days of Israel's anticipated deliverer; and, moreover, the death 
 of that deliverer, through execution by the hands of others, was 
 to be the actual signal for such destruction of city and sanctuary : 
 " Know, therefore, and understand that from the going forth of 
 the commandment to restore, and to build, Jerusalem unto The 
 Messiah The Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two 
 weeks : the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in 
 troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall 
 Messiah be cut off] but not for himself: and the people of the 
 prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary ; 
 and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the 
 war desolations are determined." Thus the date was fixed for 
 Messiah's birth ; and it was also announced in language pregnant 
 with meaning to Levitical ears, that such Messiah would certainly 
 be cut off, or destroyed, in the flesh. Here was noticeable His 
 real humanity at the very moment His Messiahship, and Prince- 
 ship, were so plainly asserted. But (without entering too 
 critically into the prophecy) much more than this was manifest 
 upon the surface ; and doubtless to a learned Jew like Daniel, 
 and apart from inspiration, much more was plain as light to 
 Daniel, than even to ourselves. The language implied to a 
 Hebrew's ears that Messiah was to be made a sacrifice of; for 
 others, not for Himself; a vicarial, or atoning; such a sacrifice 
 as had its scape-goat to illustrate it : 1 nay, more, cut off even 
 penally, and as a malefactor, as an obdurate infringer of the law 
 of God. 2 And Gabriel commenced his information by describing 
 the effects, and (therefore) the nature of this sacrifice — it was "to 
 finish transgression, to make an end of sins, and to make recon- 
 ciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, 
 and to finish the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most 
 Holy." These words " to finish the vision and the prophecy" 
 enabled Daniel to understand the meaning of Messiah's bein<r 
 1 cut off" — but not for Himself— viz., but in Him was no fault to 
 
 1 Levit. xvi. 10. * Exod. xii. 15, 19; Levit. xvii. 4, 9; xviii. 29 ; xx. 18, etc. 
 
142 THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 
 
 justify His condemnation — " The vision and the prophecy " to be 
 sealed up, or put an end to, or finished, laid by as completed, 
 was the whole series of prophetical revelation which spoke be- 
 forehand of Messiah — as the atoning sacrifice for sinners. Then 
 the Levitical types (by sacrifices) would be finished ; then the 
 predictions of suffering, so especially enounced by David, 1 and by 
 Isaiah, 2 would be finished : and all would be done to sweep away 
 man's iniquity "which God had spoken by His holy prophets 
 since the world began." 3 This is that which Jesus said when He 
 exclaimed in agony on the cross "It is finished ;" 4 and then died : 
 This is that which St. Paul affirmed when he said "Christ is become 
 the end of the law for righteousness to everyone thatbelieveth." 5 
 And Daniel would easily understand that Messiah, The Prince, 
 Israel's King and Prophet from of old, was to be the promised 
 propitiation for sins ; which all sacrifices, from Abel's, 6 down- 
 wards, had pre-figured ; and so, by pre-figuring, promised. I 
 must forbear from being technically critical on Gabriel's lan- 
 guage : but, avoiding all intricate and disputed parts of this 
 remarkable prophecy, I may further observe that when Gabriel 
 spoke of Messiah's coming as making " reconciliation for iniquity," 
 he used that very Hebrew word which signified reconciliation by 
 atonement, and which would instantly carry back Daniel's Hebrew 
 mind to the atonement by vicarial sacrifices under the law of 
 Moses : of which, more in another chapter. And, in fact, all 
 Gabriel's language was calculated to convey to Daniel's mind the 
 truth that a covenant would be made by such cutting off, and 
 sacrifice, of Messiah. The Jews had no idea of sacrifice other 
 than covenantal : a sacrifice consecrated the first covenant with 
 Abraham; 7 sacrifices sanctioned the Levitical covenant; and, 
 apart from such sacrifices, the benefits of the covenant could not 
 be obtained. Hence, Gabriel's language was easy to Daniel 
 when, having announced the sacrifice, he added " He shall con- 
 firm the covenant," etc.: — clear, that a covenant was made by the 
 sacrifice ; the mystery (if there were any here to Daniel) was 
 — How could the sacrifice be chief party to the covenant? 
 How could he confirm the sacrifice? How could he, more- 
 
 1 Ps. xxii. and xl., etc. 8 Isa. 1. and liii., etc. 3 Luke i. 70. 
 4 John xix. 30. 5 Rom. x. 4. 6 Gen. iv. 4. 7 Gen. xv. 9. 
 
THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 
 
 143 
 
 #^ 
 
 over, confirming the covenant by sacrifice, cause all other 
 sacrifices to cease? That he was to do so was clear from 
 Gabriel's statement — " He shall confirm the covenant with many 
 for one week ; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the 
 sacrifice and the oblation to cease," etc., viz. all the Levitical 
 offerings — both bloody and bloodless. That this part of the 
 authorised translation is correct, and that one iveek and midst of 
 the week are " parts of time" (grammatically speaking) and not 
 subjects to the verbs as some have suggested, I have no doubt : 
 while also it is clear, that Gabriel's using the words Zevach and 
 Mincha, bloody offering, and bloodless, fixed his language to 
 Jewish offerings under the law — " Sacrifice and offering (viz., 
 Zevach and Mincha) thou wouldst not — neither hadst pleasure 
 therein — then said I — Lo ! I come," etc. Gabriel announced 
 that Messiah, being slain, would confirm one covenant and put 
 an end to another ; "take away the first that he might establish, 
 (or confirm) " the second i" 1 and he added that the same Messiah, 
 i so sacrificed, would keep Jerusalem desolate, " even until the 
 consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon the 
 desolate." This last phrase (as I have shewed elsewhere 2 ) 
 signified to Daniel that Messiah The Prince, who would confirm 
 the covenant with many, but put an end to Jewish offerings, 
 would also keep Jerusalem desolate until the indignation deter- 
 mined against Israel was completed. Thus, then, Gabriel 
 announced to Daniel that The Messiah was the great atoning 
 sacrifice for sins, typified under Moses' law ; that lite Messiah 
 was also to be the chief in a new covenant to be made by sacrifice 
 of Himself: that The Messiah, even after he had been "cut off," 
 (as if a transgressor under Moses' law) would confirm the 
 covenant he so made by sacrifice ; would himself put an end to 
 the Levitical economy, established by God ; and keep Jerusalem 
 desolate until the chastisement, appointed and determined by 
 Godf had been fulfilled. Could all this be predicated of a mere 
 man? If not, Messiah though clearly to be born, to live, and to 
 die in human flesh, was also to be something more. — What? 
 The Jews had no conception of covenant by sacrifice, except 
 
 1 Heb. x. 9. 2 See Call to England, pp. 66 and 343. 
 
 3 Isa. x. 23 ; and xxviii. 22. 
 
144 THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 
 
 with God. They dared not (unless they would be idolators) 
 
 sacrifice unless to God: " Gather My saints together unto Me ; 
 
 those that have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice," was 
 
 spoken in one 1 of those Scriptures, which explained to all devout 
 
 Jews the real meaning of their sacrifices. Of idolatrous sacrifice 
 
 Gabriel and Daniel could not be supposed to speak in prophecy- 
 
 ing God's will : at Daniel's time all idolatrous sacrifice had 
 
 ceased among Israel never to be revived : so that the covenant 
 
 here spoken of, as made by sacrifice of Messiah, was to be made 
 
 with The True God. Hence, since Gabriel told Daniel that 
 
 Messiah The Prince was to be " cut off " penally, and offered up 
 
 as atoning for all sins by such cutting off ; yet was also Himself 
 
 to be a chief party to the covenant made by such sacrifice ; 
 
 was also to remove the Levitical law out of its place; was 
 
 also to carry out the desolation of Jerusalem threatened by 
 
 Isaiah — what else could Daniel, or any other Jew, conclude than 
 
 what we conclude now — viz., that Messiah The Prince was also 
 
 that God of Israel to whom alone sacrifices were permitted to 
 
 be offered, who alone confirmed such covenants after they were 
 
 made, and who alone had, from the first, ordered the history 
 
 and constitutions, of Israel ; and had foretold, and threatened 
 
 them with, desolations by Isaiah the prophet? But, if so, then 
 
 Messiah The Prince, who was to be "cut off" in manhood, was 
 
 also God. 
 
 m , _ . I have hinted that there was nothing astonishing; to 
 
 The Deity and 
 
 the Manhood Daniel in the nature of Gabriel's statement ; and it 
 
 o/The Mes- i s noteworthy that Daniel expresses no surprise: 
 
 siah implied . . . , y , . 
 
 j w predictions y e ^ was wont to do so on other occasions. 2 But still 
 
 of His suffer- how deep was the mystery thus clearly stated in 
 ^ ' the fact! Daniel's silence is easily accounted for, 
 
 if the prophets and other devout Jews understood the spiritual 
 character of their fleshly sacrifices ; and, if other sacred writers 
 had already declared that Messiah, though Jehovah The Son 
 according to David, was also to be " cut off " in manhood accord- 
 ing to the same David, and to them. Depend upon it, if we 
 possessed the oral instructions given to Israel by devout high 
 priests under Urim and Thummim, 3 and by faithful men like 
 Nathan and Gad and Elijah and other prophets, we should soon 
 
 1 Ps. 1. 5. 2 Dan. vii. 28 ; and viii. 27 ; and x. 8. s Exod xxviii. 30. 
 
THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 145 
 
 perceive that St. Paul's was 1 no new statement that " the blood 
 of bulls and of goats can never take away sins;" nor, again, 2 
 that " those sacrifices which they offered year by year con- 
 tinually" could never make the comers thereunto perfect. 
 Depend upon it, those Jews who bowed no knee to Baal, but kept 
 the faith, knew well the spiritual import of their sacrifices ; and 
 when David, or Micah, 3 insisted upon it they only persevered in 
 notorious articles of Hebrew faith, which were reduced to 
 specific phrases in the era of the prophets, because Israel was 
 then fast lapsing from the pure doctrine of their fathers. The 
 reader can refer to Micah for himself. But David says — 
 " Sacrifice and offering" (Zevack and Mineha — Gabriel's words.) 
 "Thou didst not desire; mine ears hast Thou opened: burned 
 offering and sin offering hast Thou not required. Then said I, 
 Lo I come : in the volume of the book it is written of me, I 
 delight to do Thy will, O my God : yea, Thy law is within my 
 heart." Who is this that proclaims the insufficient character of 
 the sacrifices, ordered by Jehovah, under Moses' law? Who is 
 this that declares, through David, that he is coming (being at 
 that time, therefore, existent) to do God's will? Who is this 
 that dares to say, he can do it ? Who is this that condescends 
 to say, he delights to do it ? Who is this that speaks thus — yet 
 declares that God has opened his ears for obedience ; and that, 
 too, therefore obedience in manhood? Who is this? Let St. 
 Paul 4 first answer these questions, in his own peculiar way — 
 " Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice 
 and offering Thou wouldest not, out a body hast Thou prepared 
 Me ; in burned offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast had no 
 pleasure. Then said I, Lo ! I come " (in the volume of the 
 book it is written of me,) "to do Thy will, O God. Above when 
 He said, Sacrifice and offering and burned offerings and offering 
 for sin Thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which 
 are offered by the law: then said He, Lo ! I COME to do Thy will, 
 O God. He taketh away the first, that He may establish the 
 second. By the which will we are sanctified through the 
 offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." It is Christ, — 
 
 1 Heb. x. 4. 2 Heb. ix. 9 ; and x.' 1. 3 Ps. xl. 6 ; and Micah. vi. 7. 
 
 4 Heb. x. 5. 
 L 
 
146 THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 
 
 no, let us use the Hebrew word — it is Messiah that takes away 
 the first that He may establish the second; it is Messiah that 
 removes the sacrifices which Jehovah appointed; removes them 
 by the sacrifice of Himself, once for all ; it is Messiah that 
 declares by David that such was Jehovah's will, which He de- 
 lighted to do; it is Messiah that thus declares His pre-existence, 
 through David, and that He delights to subordinate Himself to do 
 God's will, in a human body especially prepared for Him. But 
 do not these, Messiah's professions savour of deity ? and, if pre- 
 existent before He took the body prepared for Him, how was He 
 pre-existent ? and what other spirits but God, Angels, and Man, 
 does Holy Scripture justify our belief in? This question we 
 leave for the present ; but at the moment let us enquire whence 
 St. Paul gets the expression " a body hast Thou prepared for 
 me?" David says nothing of the sort: he merely states of 
 Messiah "mine ear hast Thou opened," or dug through — as if 
 to make quick to hear and to obey ; which expression might be 
 but a figure of speech. Where does St. Paul find his idea " a 
 body hast Thou prepared for me," in allusion to Messiah's birth 
 into this world ? And can we, beyond mere implication, draw a 
 plain and positive, title of Messiah as Jehovah, in reference to 
 His coming in the flesh to suffer as the long-predicted sacrifice 
 for sins ; to finish (according to Daniel) the Levitical law? 
 
 It was Isaiah, 1 and David, who taught St. Paul; and who, 
 doubtless, had taught Daniel before. "The Lord God hath 
 opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away 
 back. I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them 
 that plucked off the hair ; I hid not my face from shame and 
 spitting." Here are no mere figures of speech : a human body 
 is minutely noted as the form of him, to whomsoever this place 
 refers. And we know, and Unitarians know, and dare not deny, 
 it refers to the crucifixion of Jesus. 2 From this passage, joined 
 to David's, St. Paul forms his full assertion " a body hast thou 
 prepared for me," in reference to Messiah's coming into the 
 world; having been, of course therefore, previously existent. 
 Now the theory about this fiftieth chapter of Isaiah is that it de- 
 scribes actual sufferings of Isaiah himself, which were typical of 
 
 1 Isa. 1, 5. * Matt. xxvi. G7 ; xxvii. 26. 
 
THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 147 
 
 those which Jesus underwent; and that, therefore, the gram- 
 matical continuity of the chapter may fairly be broken ; and the 
 parts which speak of sufferings referred to the prophet as their 
 subject, (and, through him, prophetically to Jesus) so as to be 
 separated from the rest of the chapter of which it is plain that 
 Jehovah is the subject. This is theory; let us look to facts. 
 Nothing is more likely than that Isaiah may have undergone 
 such persecution; indeed it is 1 asserted that he was put to death 
 by the Jews in consequence of the vision as of God Himself re- 
 corded in his sixth chapter already referred to. 2 But while it is 
 possible that Isaiah experienced, thus far, similar sufferings ; we 
 know, as fact, that the chapter minutely predicts the insults, and 
 base treatment which The Blessed Lord underwent immediately 
 before crucifixion : and, in the absence of any authority in the 
 context, we have no right to disjoin and mutilate it in the way 
 proposed. Any one perusing the chapter may see that He who 
 depicts Himself as the husband of the Jewish Church, is the same 
 who describes Himself as suffering the punishments referred to ; 
 and He, who thus speaks, is Jehovah. Had we, indeed, no other 
 authority but Isaiah fifty for concluding that Israel's Messiah was 
 Jehovah, Ave might possibly hesitate to trust to one single chapter 
 for such a conclusion ; but, in the presence of the abundant proofs 
 which I am collating, we need not fear to do so. Jehovah is the 
 speaker in this chapter, and of Jehovah in the flesh the sufferings 
 are predicted. That manhood is plainly predicted, no one will 
 deny : but what then ? where is Deity ? Note the beginning of 
 the chapter, and follow it attentively through: "Thus saith 
 Jehovah, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom 
 I have put away ? . . . . Wherefore when / came was there 
 no man? .... Is my hand shortened at all? . . . . / 
 
 clothe the heavens with blackness Adonai-J ehova'n 
 
 hath given unto me the tongue of the learned. . . . Adonai- 
 Jehovah hath opened mine ears," etc. Thus, then, He who speaks 
 in this chapter is Jehovah : and he gives to The Lord God the 
 title Adonai- Jehovah, elsewhere adopted as his own. 3 He claims 
 as Jehovah to be the husband of the Jewish Church (thus assert- 
 ing the relationship also given to Christ in the New Testament) : 4 
 
 1 Hilary quoted by Bull. Def. Nic. Cr. p. 621. 2 See p. 71 supra. 
 3 See p. 85 supra. * John iii. 29 ; Ephei. v. 24, etc. 
 
148 THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 
 
 He declares that He has divorced them for their sins : He de- 
 clares that He rules the heavens (or, as in the New Testament, 
 "by Him all things consist") : He declares, He, this Jehovah de- 
 clares, that Adonai-Jehovah gave Him the tongue of the learned 
 to speak, the ear of the learned to learn, the open ear to obey, the 
 back to be smitten, the cheeks to be plucked, the face to be spit 
 upon ! Oh ! wondrous truth ! it is spoken of Jehovah, to become 
 incarnate. Let Israel, and let Unitarians, hearken. He, who 
 was pre-existent, and for whom "a body was prepared," that He 
 mi^ht fulfil God's will by sacrifice ; He, who finished transgres- 
 sion, and made reconciliation for iniquity ; He, who completed 
 and shut up the vision and prophecy, " the volume of the book," 
 was pre-existent in no less sense than as Jehovah ; and rejoiced 
 to subordinate Himself to do the will of Adonai-Jehovah in dying 
 as man, upon the cross for sinners ! Here is Deity, and manhood, 
 combined. Israel's Messiah, according to Isaiah, was Jehovah 
 
 made flesh. 
 
 Gabriel's statement to Daniel was specific. 
 
 The Deity in Israel's long expected Messiah was to be ' cut 
 
 mlsLfnfces- off '' as an incorrigible breaker of God's law— viz. 
 
 sarily implied by reference to Leviticus as below 1 — as a male- 
 
 by His being f ac t r guilt v of death under Mosaic law ; (" by our 
 made an aton- ° * •> \ j 
 
 ing sacrifice. law he ought to die, because he made himself 
 
 The Son of God"). 2 And the statement was also 
 
 specific in another respect: that He was to be cut off, but not 
 
 " for Himself ;" for others. 3 Specific also in another respect — 
 
 the object of His being so cut off was "to make reconciliation for 
 
 iniquity, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, and 
 
 to bring in everlasting righteousness ;" also "to finish the vision 
 
 and prophecy," as fully delivered by Moses and others. Were 
 
 such the recognised principles of Jewish religion ? Were they so 
 
 much so that Daniel could immediately explain them to his own 
 
 mind ? Did the very words used by Gabriel point to explanatory 
 
 Scriptures before delivered? And, if so, which Scriptures are 
 
 they? If such Scriptures existed, and Messiah's sufferings were 
 
 1 Levit. xvii. 4, 9, xviii. 29, etc. 8 John xix. 7. 
 
 rt V$) 5 ou ^ there is not to him, viz. guilt : supply from the preceding 
 context ver. 24 ; Ji? or, NT?n, SttJQ And see John xviii. 38. 
 
THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 149 
 
 (as we have just shewn from Isaiah fifty) part of Jewish revealed 
 religion, we can well understand why Daniel expressed no sur- 
 prise at Gabriel's announcement. Now such were really well 
 known principles of Jewish revealed religion. That religion was 
 built entirely upon the doctrine of sacrifice propitiatory for sins. 
 Vicarial sufferings of some one for all. Gabriel's very words did 
 refer to explanatory Scriptures, both in the law and in the pro- 
 phets : he referred to the Levitical sacrifices instituted by Moses; 
 the very word he used for " make reconciliation" referred by its 
 use to the atonement : l he referred also to explanatory Scriptures 
 in the prophets. Of all such Scriptures there was one, which 
 would occur immediately to Daniel's mind ; asserting the suffer- 
 ings of one man for the sins of all ; and yet in such terms that it 
 was impossible consistently with the principles of Jewish faith, 
 to interpret the statements of man alone. Isaiah 2 had fully ex- 
 plained the finishing of all the Levitical sacrifices by the sacrifice 
 of one in manhood. Every line of his prediction teemed with 
 manhood ; there could be no doubt left upon a hearer's or reader's 
 mind, that He, whom Isaiah foretold, was to be real man ; " a 
 man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;" despised, and re- 
 jected, by his fellow-men. Yet He was to be a vicarial sacrifice 
 " wounded for our transgressions — bruised for our iniquities — 
 the chastisement of our peace was upon Him — and by His stripes 
 we were healed." Jehovah laid upon Him "the iniquity of us 
 all" — for the transgression of Jehovah's people was He stricken 
 — His soul was made an offering for sin, as if Himself guilty — 
 He poured out His soul unto death — He bare the sin of many — 
 and made " intercession for the transgressors." 
 
 The plain character of my present undertaking forbids our 
 entering into those minute and verbal criticisms, which would 
 carry back this prophecy for its explanation to the Levitical 
 institutions. Nor are we engaged in proving the Jewish doc- 
 trine of Atonement ; that blessed doctrine, which ought to be 
 preached every where, and every when, by every preacher, and 
 without which there is no Christianity, and can be no salvation. 
 So I must content myself with the assertion that the impression, 
 
 1 Exod. xxi. 30 ; xxx. 12 : Books of Moses, passim. 2 Isa. liii. 
 
150 THE PREDICTED INCARNATION 7 . 
 
 conveyed on the surface to the reader's mind by the English 
 words, is sound ; viz. that He, the man so spoken of, was to suffer 
 for others ; and, by so suffering, to take away their sins ; so that 
 they would become, by His sufferings, healed of their sins and 
 at peace with God. Let me, however, just give one illustration : 
 verse six — " All we like sheep have gone astray," is not to be 
 read as a mere abstract assertion of human universal sinfulness ; 
 but an assertion of such sinfulness in contrast with the predicted 
 sacrifice : thus, emphatically, " All we like sheep have gone 
 astray: we have turned each man to his own way : but Jehovah 
 hath overtaken him with wrath for the iniquity of all of us :" and 
 this, Jehovah's overtaking with anger Messiah instead of us is 
 beautifully thrown into contrast again with verse twelve, "Whereas 
 He poured out His soul unto death, and was numbered with 
 transgressors; and He bare the sin of the many; and enabled 
 Jehovah to meet transgressors in peace." In short, Gabriel's 
 statement to Daniel about Messiah found its minute explanation, 
 in this respect of vicarial suffering, by reference to Isaiah. And, 
 from Isaiah's chapter fifty-third now before us, Daniel's mind 
 would naturally refer to that which we call the fiftieth ; where 
 Jehovah, the husband of the Jewish Church, as there described, 
 by Isaiah, (and about the same time, more specifically 1 by Hosea) 
 represents Himself, Jehovah, as invested in a human form ; 
 giving " His back to the smiters," in order that, by such stripes, 
 men might be healed; and Daniel would perceive that Messiah, 
 the vicarial sacrifice, was to be in human frame tenanted by Je- 
 hovah. Hence his mind would travel back to the predictions of 
 King David — " Lo ! I come, in the volume of the book it is 
 written of me, to do thy will, O God;" and especially to that 
 twenty-second Psalm, which the Jews knew then, and know now, 
 to be Messianic, and where 2 Messiah's sufferings are foretold 
 with more minuteness, in some particulars, than by Isaiah : 
 "they pierced my hands and my feet," " they part my garments 
 among them, and cast lots upon my vesture," etc. 
 
 But, even taking Isaiah fifty-three by itself, there was much 
 to lead to the same conclusion ; quite enough to satisfy the 
 
 1 IIos. ii. and iii. a Ps. xxii. 16 — 18. 
 
THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 151 
 
 hearer, or reader, that lie who was so to suffer must be more 
 than man. It was undeniable that a man of human flesh, 
 and human spirit, subsisting, was described by the prophet ; 
 and every Jew would ask, like Candace's eunuch, 1 " Of whom 
 speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other 
 man ? " But vicarial suffering, suffering by substitution of 
 another, was also an established principle of revealed reli- 
 gion among Israel ; and equally so that human sacrifices 
 were forbidden ; and, moreover, that (even, if not forbidden) 
 no human sacrifices, no multiplication of human sacrifices ; 
 no man, nor multitude of men, could pay the ransom of 
 another's soul. Hence, when Isaiah's predictions of vicarial 
 suffering, suffering of one in manhood for all, were read, how 
 could they be understood of any mere man ? They could not 
 be so understood. Moreover, Enoch had been translated ; Moses 
 had died, and his body been taken of God (no place of sepul" 
 ture was known, lest Israel should make pilgrimages to the shrine) ' 
 Elijah had ascended to glory; but there was nothing to lead 
 them to infer that the sou^s of men departed were permitted to 
 exercise any influence, supervision, or controul, over the affairs 
 of men. Indeed the very, very contrary; for such a notion 
 was the essence of idolatry, as first by the Cushites directed 
 towards Ham ; and afterwards perpetuated in the worship of 
 Baalim and Ashtaroth, which was abomination and death to the 
 church and state of Judaism. The mystery was, therefore, in 
 Isaiah fifty-three that The Man who was to be a vicarial offering 
 for sin was also represented as living after his death, as overseeing 
 and conducting human affairs, as doing this especially in Jehovah's 
 name, and as His Representative, and yet, (which was, if possible, 
 more marvellous still) making intercession, i.e., producing friend- 
 ship between Jehovah and sinners, — " when Thou shalt make 
 His soul an offering for sin He shall see his seed, He shall 
 prolong his days ; and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in 
 his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be 
 satisfied ; by the knowledge of Him (his knowledge) shall my 
 righteous servant justify many : for He shall bear their iniqui- 
 
 1 Acts viii. 34. 
 
152 THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 
 
 ties." How could a Jew then, how can a Jew now, read this of 
 any mere man ? Here, if so, was a man to die by appointment 
 of Jehovah a human sacrifice for sins ; by His appointment 
 again, to live in power, to see his seed, to prolong his days, and 
 to carry on Jehovah's will among men! How could a Jew 
 believe this of any mere man ? This would have been in oppo- 
 sition to the most fixed, and approved principles of Judaism as 
 opposed to Paganism. Let Unitarians mark it : if He, Messiah, 
 here predicted of by Isaiah, be as they say any creature, and 
 less than God, Isaiah teaches not JEHOVAH-ism, but Jove-ism. ; 
 not Judaism, but Heathenism ; not Christianity, but Paganism. 
 This would have been stamping what Gentiles knew as Hero- 
 worship, viz. the exaltation over mundane affairs of noble human 
 souls departed, with the plain approbation of God's inspiration 
 through Isaiah. Could such a doctrine be of God ? No : and 
 all Israel knew it ; they must look further for explanation. 
 All Israel would know that Isaiah spake of no mere man ; and, 
 moreover, that he had fortified himself against misapprehension 
 just before, viz. in chap. 50, according to the Masorets, by 
 laying it down clearly that He who would suffer would give 
 Himself to suffer, and would be Jehovah in human form. 
 
 But further, Isaiah closed his chapter with a little sentence 
 which conducted Israel in his own day, but afterwards more 
 distinctly still, to the deity of their expected Messiah ; an ex- 
 pression to which, perhaps, Gabriel pointed when he told Daniel 
 that Messiah would " anoint the most Holy," viz. the Holy of 
 holies. The sentence in Isaiah to which I refer is — ll and made 
 intercession for the transgressors." These words were spoken 
 of The Man whom Isaiah described as a sin-offering ; and, accor- 
 ding to Jewish notions, represented him as, after being so 
 sacrificed, making peace for sinners, — viz., as a High Priest 
 in the holiest of all, before God. These were the correct Jewish 
 ideas of intercession for transgressors; viz. prayer in the holiest 
 place offered up for the sins of the people, after atonement made 
 by sacrifice, by the high priest. 1 And if such interpretation be 
 correct, then Isaiah declared that the man thus to be made an 
 
 1 Exod. xxx. 10 ; Lev. xvi. 2, 11 ; Heb. ix. 6, 7. 
 
THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 153 
 
 atoning offering, would also be Israel's high-priest interceding 
 before Jehovah, after dying ; and therefore not in the holiest of 
 all within an earthly temple. Had Israel, in Isaiah's time, any 
 authority for such thoughts regarding their Messiah ? or could 
 they conceive from Holy Scripture into what holiest place 
 Messiah, so sacrificed, would enter ? There was that wonderful 
 one hundred and tenth Psalm. They knew it spake of Messiah. 
 They knew He was there called David's Lord, though not yet 
 born, and yet was to be his Son. They knew He was therein 
 called Adonai, i.e., Jehovah. They knew He was to be a 
 " priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec ;" i. e. both king 
 and priest upon His throne. So that when Isaiah declared, in 
 chapter fifty, that Jehovah would take the form of man, and 
 be scourged, and buffeted, and spit upon ; and when Isaiah after- 
 wards declared that He, who had been so sacrificed as a sin- 
 offering in atonement, would also be enabled to do Jehovah's 
 will, and to make intercession for transgressors, they could not 
 but refer to that wonderful Psalm where God-as-man, viz. Adonai, 
 was seated by Jehovah at Jehovah's right hand, from thence- 
 forth expecting till his foes be made his footstool, a priest for 
 ever after the order of Melchisedec ; now at length they would 
 understand the real meaning of Enoch's translation before the 
 flood, and of Elijah's translation so very recently since, and 
 conclude by certain inference that their Messiah, and High 
 Priest, and Adonai, or God, in Psalm one hundred and ten was 
 their atoning sin-offering, and their Intercessor exalted to 
 glory, their Jehovah in Isaiah///?/ and fifty-three. Which truth, 
 clear enough from David and Isaiah by themselves, became 
 absolutely and specifically descriptive when Gabriel told Daniel 
 that he, who was to be so "cut off but not for himself" in flesh, 
 was undoubtedly The Messiah. The Messiah Priest, therefore, 
 was also The Messiah God ; dying upon earth as man ; inter- 
 ceding in heaven as Christ, or Messiah, viz. God-man. 
 He, who was to Room is precious ; but ought I to pass over 
 be oar Redeem- j b? j h ave s ^ c \ t h at redemption, or buying off 
 er.was fromthe , „ ,, nl , , 
 
 first declared to by payment of the price, was a well-known and 
 
 be God. established doctrine of Jewish religion. I need 
 
 not do more than refer below 1 to illustrations from the Levitical 
 
 1 Exod. xiii. 13, xxxiv. 20 ; Lev. xxv. 26, 32, 48, etc. 
 
154 THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 
 
 economy. The importance of Gabriel's announcement to Daniel 
 was, in this respect, that he specifically declared that He, who 
 according to such principles of Jewish faith, would be Redeemer 
 or ransom, by his death, was that same Messiah whom Daniel's 
 people were always expecting ; but as a glorious deliverer. 
 They were right in this respect ; and in another too. The Jews 
 had two ideas of redemption ; and an expression for them each. 
 There was The Redeemer who redeemed or bought off the 
 criminal by paying the penalty ; and there was also The Re- 
 deemer who delivered the captive by avenging his wrongs, and 
 vanquishing the enemy. Israel's One Redeemer was foretold in 
 two characters — viz. The Atoning Redeemer, who should die for 
 sinners ; and The Avenging Redeemer who should rescue his 
 people : and, speaking specially for Israel, the first of these was 
 to be Messiah humiliated and dying in flesh : the second, 
 Messiah raised again, and coming (as He will come) in 
 power and great glory. The clear predictions of the Messiah's 
 two redeeming characters contained in Isaiah's book, 1 enable us 
 to understand his perpetual use of the word Redeemer ; and 
 from such contexts as below referred to, to know two things, 
 viz. that Israel's Redeemer was to be Israel's Messiah ; and also 
 that Israel's Redeemer, and Messiah, would be Jehovah. But 
 this two-fold idea of the Redeemer, as Podeh and as Goel, viz. 
 as Buyer and as Avenger, was not originally Jewish — it was the 
 first revelation of God to Gentiles. It spoke in Abel's lamb, 
 which typified that " seed of the woman which should bruise 
 the serpent's head;" was perpetuated by the faithful down to 
 Noah's sacrifices, and to Abraham's ; was the doctrine of Gen- 
 tiles in times preceding the covenant with Abraham ; and is, in 
 its real power, announced by Job, " I know that my Redeemer 
 liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth ; 
 and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my 
 flesh shall I see God ; whom I shall see for myself, and mine 
 eyes shall behold, and not another ; though my reins be con- 
 sumed within me." Whoever wishes to see this passage minutely 
 investigated as a proof of Job's expectation of a resurrection 
 from the dead, and a future meeting with his Redeemer in glory, 
 
 1 Isa. xxxv. 9, 10 ; li. 10 ; lxii. 12, etc., especially Isa. xliv. 22. 
 
THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 155 
 
 can refer to Professor Lee's work on Job for such purpose. 1 
 My sole business with the passage now is this — to point out the 
 pre-existence in Deity of Job's Redeemer ; in a passage where Job 
 speaks of Him as the avenging Redeemer, rescuing his people 
 from death and the grave ; and thence to argue, that since Job 
 asserts the essential life at that time, "my Redeemer liveth," 
 and his deity, " in my flesh I shall see God," and since, according 
 to Jewish Scripture (of which the Book of Job was in Moses' 
 time a sort of Gospel) Messiah and He alone, was to be Re- 
 deemer; therefore Israel's Messiah was in Job's time pre-existent 
 as God ; but not yet made manifest in flesh. 
 
 But one great use of Job's announcement is this — that he 
 declares his Avenging Redeemer, who would compensate him 
 for all his woes, and shame the empty reproaches of his miserable 
 comforters, would become manifest in human form, and be seen in 
 the latter days by him, Job, so manifest in hitman form. Had Job 
 said simply he should hereafter ' see God;' we might have sup- 
 posed he spoke in figure: but when he says descriptively " yet in 
 my flesh I shall see God :" and adds, "whom mine eyes shall 
 behold, and not another ;" the description becomes so specific and 
 minute that we can draw no less conclusion than that this God, this 
 Avenging Redeemer, would appear in such form as man's own 
 fleshly eye can note ; and when he states of that Redeemer " that 
 he shall stand in the latter day upon the earth," we are com- 
 pelled to interpret the language still literally : that as Job 
 asserted he would be seen by flesh, so he shall stand visible in 
 human form ; and be taken cognizance of by the visual organs of 
 fleshly man, not under any symbolical or mysterious indication 
 of presence only; but in a presence manifested by the human 
 form. And, here let me note, that the Unitarian gloss admits 
 this force of the language, for they would have us suppose that 
 Job meant to say his requiter, some human recompenser of his 
 woes, some friend was then living upon earth, by means of 
 whom his integrity, and blamelessness, should be vindicated. 
 Predictions of But Messiah The Priest was also to be Messiah 
 the kingship The King. Let us see whether Israel's Mes- 
 dictions of man- sian as predicted to be king, was also foretold both 
 hood and deity . as man and as God. That wonderful one hundred 
 
 I Lee's Job, p. 334. 
 
156 THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 
 
 and tenth Psalm was decisive to the Jews in this particular — 
 that whereas it referred to their Messiah, who was yet to be born 
 a man, he was therein called David's Lord, or Master, though not 
 born ; and whose son he was to be ; and also was called Adonai, 
 or Jehovah, and represented as exalted at Jehovah's right hand 
 in power. This was mysterious enough ; but there was further 
 mystery alleged — He who was thus to be Messiah; and, there- 
 fore, King ; was also to be both King and Priest, upon his throne ; 
 for he was to be a "priest for ever after the order of Melchi- 
 sedec," king of Salem. It was in this twofold character he was 
 peculiarly to be The Anointed One ; or The Messiah. For under 
 the Levitical regime the anointing, which was at first limited to 
 priests ; was afterwards by Divine direction through Samuel 
 extended to kings : but no king could be priest also ; nor any 
 priest be king. This great honour was reserved for one alone, 
 viz., The Anointed One ; in other words, The Messiah ; or, as 
 we call it, The Christ. Now, in days long after David, 
 Zechariah (the last but one of the prophets) was taught specially 
 to explain the one hundred and tenth Psalm of The Messiah, by 
 the peculiar name of The Branch. It was no new name ; it had 
 been given to the Messiah before by Isaiah, 1 by Jeremiah, 2 and 
 by Zechariah 3 himself. But when last Zechariah referred to 
 The Messiah under this title, he left his hearers no doubt as to 
 his characters of King and Priest united ; nor, therefore, by such 
 reference to Psalm one himdred and ten, of his being Adonai, or 
 Jehovah. Zechariah says 4 — " Thus speaketh The Lord of Hosts, 
 saying, Behold the man whose name is The Branch ; and he 
 shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of The 
 Lord : even he shall build the temple of The Lord ; and he shall 
 bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne ; and he 
 shall be spriest upon his throne : and the counsel of peace shall 
 be between them both." Here was a Scripture directly referring 
 to the one hundred and tenth Psalm ; and to be explained, so far 
 as the united kingship and priesthood are concerned, only by 
 such reference ; which, therefore, indirectly taught that The 
 Branch, or Messiah, was Adonai. But, more than that, besides 
 
 1 Isa. iv. 2. i Jereni. xxiii. 5 ; and xxxiii. 15. 
 
 3 Zech. iii. 8; and vi. 12. * Zech. vi. 12, 13. 
 
THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 157 
 
 Isaiah's giving Messiah that sacred title Jehovah in his fiftieth 
 chapter, as previously referred to — the same title had been speci- 
 fically given him as The Branch. That title was " Jehovah — 
 Tsidkenu," Jehovah our righteousness. Now, I know that Jews 
 will deny that this is any proof of Deity; and that Unitarians 
 will join the Jews. They will tell us that the name of Deity was 
 frequently compounded with other words to make men's names, 
 without, in the least, implying Deity in the man who so received 
 the name. I admit this as regards the words El, Adoni, and 
 Jah : but neither of these is Jehovah ; Jah is not Jehovah ; nor 
 are we sure it is even a poetical form of it. At any rate 
 it is not the name, it is not Jehovah ; nor is El, nor is Adoni. 
 Neither is the termination Jahu (which is supposed to be Jehovah 
 with the last letter elided) the word Jehovah itself: nor is 
 it written with the same sound. Hence, it is undeniable 
 that such words as Abdi-el, or Ezeki-el, or Adoni-jah, or 
 Abi-jah, etc. etc., carry no proofs of Deity in the possession 
 of such names. But the name Jehovah is never given in 
 composition to any sentient being but The Messiah, The 
 Branch. He, and he alone, as man, is called Jehovah : and in 
 that particular combination by Jeremiah — " Behold, the days 
 come, saith The Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous 
 Branch, and a king shall reign and prosper, and shall execute 
 judgment, and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be 
 saved, and Israel shall dwell safely : and this is his name 
 whereby he shall be called Jehovah-Tsidkenu :" Jehovah our 
 righteousness. Now, if I be not mistaken, that great and holy 
 name Jehovah occurs in combination only in. four places besides; 
 and in each is given to an inanimate object commemorative of 
 The Messiah; viz., to Abraham's altar, 1 Jehovah- Jir eh, (The 
 Lord will look him out a lamb) — typical of Messiah, Israel's 
 redeeming paschal Lamb : to Moses' altar, 2 Jehovah-Nissi — 
 (The Lord is my standard) — typical, as I have shown elsewhere, 
 of Messiah, 3 Israel's avenging Redeemer ; to Gideon's altar, 
 Jehovah-Shalom 4 ' — (The Lord our Peace) typical, I still maintain, of 
 
 1 Gen. xxii. 14. 2 Exod. xvii. 15. 3 Call to England, p. 128. 
 
 4 Judges vi. 24. 
 
158 THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 
 
 The Angel, The Sent One, who appeared then to Gideon ; to 
 the city of Jerusalem, 1 Jehovah-Tsidkenu (The Lord our righte- 
 ousness) in a passage of Jeremiah, -which I have shewed else- 
 where, 2 should be " this is Ms name," i. e., Messiah's name; but 
 which I now let pass as it stands in the authorised version ; and 
 lastly to Ezekiel's restored Jerusalem, 3 Jehovah-Shammah (The 
 Lord is there) — typical, once more I say, of Messiah when he 
 has returned to Israel in peace. These I believe are all the 
 names, besides the one under consideration, in which the name 
 Jehovah is compounded. When given to an inanimate object, 
 such object was always indicative of Messiah : and no imputa- 
 tion of Deity could then be erroneously made : but to a sentient 
 being the name was never given except to The Most High God, 
 and also to The Branch, The Messiah, as such God of Israel; 
 and I assert that Jeremiah's giving such name to The Branch, 
 viz., The Messiah, is a positive assertion of his Deity — yet his 
 manhood is asserted; therefore his manhood was to be Deity 
 incarnate. Do Unitarians sneer 1 or Jews contradict ? What 
 means Rabbi Abba, the son of Caana? Hear the testimony 
 of De Rossi: 4 — "Most Jewish authors, though opposed to 
 Christianity, of whom many, either in manuscript or edited, are 
 in my possession, do not hesitate to acknowledge the name of 
 Messiah in Jehovah-Tsidkenu (The Lord our righteousness). 
 For what is the name of Messiah? Rabbi Abba, the son of 
 Caana, says Jehovah is His name ; because it is said, " And 
 this is His name, by which He will call Him, or He shall be 
 called, The Lord our righteousness," It is not I alone who tell 
 Jews, (and Unitarians,) that their Jeremiah calls The Messiah 
 Jehovah; most Jewish Rabbis of old have done the same. 
 Messiah, then, was to be both man and God. 
 
 Here I must add on a little piece for myself, and 
 ofMesthlh^yet tnose wno hold my sentiments about Israel's 
 unfulfilled, an- restoration, and conversion. I traced up 5 long ago 
 Tael Bis deity ^ e connec ti° n of all these Scriptures under the 
 
 titles Branch, and King, and Prince ; such as those 
 
 1 Jerem. xxxiii. 16. 2 Best, and Conv. of Israel, p. 98. 3 Ezek. xlviii. 35. 
 4 De Rossi quoted in Boothroyd's Bible, vol. 2, p. 311. 
 B Notes on Best, and Conv. of Israel, pp. 79 — 183. 
 
THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 159 
 
 marked below j 1 and shewed, in a way which none have ven- 
 tured to reply to, that when Messiah does come, (as He will come 
 for Israel's rescue), His presence will be the cause of their 
 acknowledging Him, Christ Jesus, to be their God ; and that, 
 therefore, all such Scriptures do directly, and to a marvellous 
 extent, assert the Deity of Christ; in other words, that Israel's 
 Me ' \ " Trf is to be God-Incarnate. I cannot spare room for 
 many examples , let one or two suffice. Thus, Isaiah xxv. is 
 one of Israel's songs of thanksgiving, when Christ, their Messiah, 
 interposes for their deliverance and conversion ; and verse nine 
 refers to Him — " And it shall be said in that day, Lo ! this is our 
 God ; we have waited for Him, and He will save us ; this is 
 Jehovah ; we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in 
 His salvation," etc. Or again in Ezekiel and others, in predic- 
 tions of the conversions, e.g., Ezek. xxxix. 22 — '•' So the house of 
 Israel shall know that I am Jehovah their God, from that day 
 and forward." That The Almighty Father is Jehovah their God 
 they know, and ever have known, especially after the Babylonian 
 captivity, when idolatry had ceased, and Ezekiel was prophecy- 
 ing. But what Ezekiel means is — that they shall know that 
 their avenging Redeemer, their Messiah, our Jesus Christ, is 
 Jehovah their God in that day. 
 
 I must not now enlarge upon this subject (which has long 
 attracted my attention), but it would be a good thing, in these 
 days especially, for some one who has means and leisure, 
 minutely, and critically, to dig out of Hebrew Scripture, and 
 Rabbinical authorities, the manifest proofs which can be multi- 
 plied that Israel's Messiah was to be God-Incarnate : and was of 
 ancient times expected as such : good for Jews, good also for 
 Unitarians. 
 
 Summary of Here I shall close the chapter on ' The Predicted 
 the preceding Incarnation.' I have not forgotten Isaiah's remark- 
 able prediction of " The Virgin " who was to bear a 
 son, and call His name Immanuel. But the argument, which 
 must necessarily embrace Isaiah's chapter vii. — ix., would be 
 
 I Isa. iv. and si. ; Jer. xxiii. and xxxiii. ; Zech. iii. and vi. ; Hosea i — iii. ; 
 Jer. xxx. and xxxi. ; Ezek. xxxvi. 
 
160 THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 
 
 elaborate and critical, and is not indispensable to my purpose. 
 The proof of Christ's Deity does not depend upon His miraculous 
 conception ; though undoubtedly the early Church A\*as convinced 
 that such miraculous conception implied His Deity. I would 
 only observe that the Unitarian efforts, supported by Gesenius 
 and others in late days, to render the word Alma (which means 
 Virgin, strictly so called) in the sense of ' young woman,' leaving 
 the fact of virginity unasserted, is the revived corruption of two 
 early Judaizers, viz., Aquila andTheodotian; 1 but that such word 
 Alma occurs just six times 2 elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, and 
 always means a virgin strictly so called; and no Hebrew scholar, 
 though eminent as Gesenius, has any right to foist another 
 meaning upon it. 
 
 I take it to be proved in the preceding pages, as clearly as any- 
 thing can be proved short of mathematical demonstration, that 
 Israel's Messiah was to be God-Incarnate, or Jehovah in flesh as 
 man. But I do not pretend to have exhausted this subject; on 
 the contrary, I beg to be understood as convinced of being able 
 to prove the same fact much more fully, minutely, and critically, 
 and as believing it would be a most valuable thing to do so for 
 Israel, especially in these days. All I wish to do now is to im- 
 press upon the Unitarian reader's mind this fact, viz., that such 
 revelation of Messiah's Divine and human characters in the Old 
 Testament necessitates a certain discrimination in explaining 
 passages of Scripture ; some referring to Messiah as God ; others 
 referring to the same Messiah as man. This necessity has 
 extended itself also to the New Testament. In fact, the Old 
 Testament style is followed in this respect ; and, consequently, 
 such system of interpretation is not to be taken up as a reproach 
 against us Trinitarians, as has been done. 3 It is an inspired 
 feature in the Word of God ; neglect of which has led to that 
 confusion, and jumbling together of Holy Scripture, which 
 induced me not long ago to call Mr. Yates a perfect theological 
 cook; and now to add, that thereby, and also by misapprehension 
 
 1 See Lee'sHeb.Lex.,p.461; also Waterland's Import. Doct.H.Trin., p. 300. 
 
 2 Gen. xxiv. 43 ;Exod. ii. 8 ; Ps. lxviii. 26 ; Prov. xxx. 19 ; Cant. i. 3, & vi. 8. 
 
 3 Yates' Yind., pp. 287—293. 
 
THE PREDICTED INCARNATION. 161 
 
 of the doctrine of 'Subordination,' a considerable part of his 
 work, 1 which Unitarians so much rely on, is absolutely nothing 
 to the purpose. Could Mr. Yates have proved the Incarnation 
 of Deity to be impossible, he might fairly have argued as he has. 
 But so long as Holy Scripture asserts two natures in Christ, viz., 
 the Divine and human (which it does), both of these must be held 
 in view in our interpretations. This Mr. Yates has refused to do. 
 I shall conclude my proofs that Israel's Messiah is specifically 
 announced as their Jehovah by referring once more to that 
 remarkable prediction by Malachi 2 — " Behold, I will send my 
 Messenger, and He shall prepare the way before Me : and Ha- 
 Adon {Jehovah), whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His 
 temple ; even The Angel of the covenant, whom ye delight in : 
 behold He shall come, saith Jehovah of Hosts." 
 
 Messiah is The Angel of Israel's covenant ; Messiah is Ha- 
 Adon, i.e., Jehovah ; Messiah did come suddenly to His own 
 temple, viz., Israel's Messiah, our Christ. 
 
 1 e.g., pp. Gl— 100. 2 Mai. iii. 1. 
 
 M 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE SON OF COD. 
 
 VERY page we have hitherto written in refer- 
 ence to The Second of The Holy Trinity has 
 gone clearly to prove in its own way His pre- 
 existence in deity. But I wish each chapter to 
 contain separate, and independent, proofs of 
 that deity ; and this chapter as truly as those 
 which have gone before. Supposing, then, all which precedes 
 to be now set aside and forgotten ; let us ask, as we approach 
 the New Testament, in what sense was The Son pre-existent, 
 if existent in any sense before born into this world hi the like- 
 ness of man? Was He pre-existent as Jehovah; or, in any 
 lesser and subordinate sense of lesser or of greater dignity? 
 This is the question which overthrows the Arians. Avians may 
 be briefly described as all those Unitarians who acknowledge 
 some pre-existence in Christ, of greater or less dignity (for they 
 vary among themselves) ; but all of whom deny Christ's proper 
 Deity. Of course, if Christ be in any sense whatever less than, 
 or inferior to God, then He is not God. To be subordinate, and 
 willingly subordinate, is quite another matter. Now Arians do 
 maintain that Christ, however great His dignity in pre-existence, 
 was always less than and inferior to God ; and, therefore, was 
 not God. But, if so, what was He ? This is the question they 
 cannot answer. The Holy Scriptures give us no idea of, nor 
 authority for believing in, other spiritual beings than as follow : 
 God, who created ; and Angels, and Man, who were created by 
 Him. Since, then, the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews l 
 has been written for the especial purpose of proving that Christ 
 was greater than the angels; what was He, seeing that Arians admit 
 
 Keb. i. i — 14. 
 
THE SON OF GOD. 163 
 
 He was pre-existent before born as man ? Greater than man, 
 and other than man, Arians admit Him to have been. Greater 
 than the angels, and other than the angels, St. Pauls affirms by 
 The Holy Ghost that He was. What else, therefore, than God 
 could He have been, if the authority of Holy Scripture is to be 
 followed ? Surely if any men set up an idol in the imaginations 
 of their own heart, Arians do so. True, they deny to Christ the 
 supreme worship, which they say should be given to The Father 
 alone ; but they invest Him, by imagination, with such a nature ; 
 and enrobe Him, properly enough, with such present power, 
 and dignity, and glory, that (as I shall shew) they are sorely 
 puzzled to withhold that same supreme worship, which Trini- 
 tarians accord Him equally with The Father ; and they abandon 
 all consistency by doing so. Mr. Yates appears to have been an 
 Arian ; 1 or, which comes to the same thing, he permits himself 
 to argue as if he were one ; and, surely, he was too much in 
 earnest to reason upon such a subject, as a common lawyer. 
 
 However, let us proceed to ask in what sense The 
 Remarks ur>on _, n . „, TT n „ . ., 
 
 Christ s new Second in lhe Holy lrmity was pre-existent. Was 
 
 title' The Word' He pre-existent from all eternity, as God? Was 
 He pre-existent from all eternity as The Son ? 
 Was He pre-existent from all eternity, as one, and of the same 
 substance, with The Father ? It would seem that the especial 
 design of the first chapter of John's gospel was to answer these 
 questions. For there John speaks of Jesus under a name which 
 raises no question of relationship likely to be replied to from 
 man's natural ideas, of relative position of inferiority, or even of 
 subordination. When Christ is called The Son of The Father 
 certain natural ideas of relative position are immediately sug- 
 gested to the human mind. True, tlffcse ideas may be properly, 
 and with certainty, modified by subsequent considerations drawn 
 from Holy Scripture ; but, at the moment, they do occur. But 
 when the Evangelist speaks of Christ as The Word, and intro- 
 duces Him by that title, as at least one proper title for Him, be- 
 fore being made flesh, no natural ideas of relative position are 
 suggested to the human mind : it is a purely abstract term, in- 
 volving a deep mystery of Godhead ; and whether suggested to 
 
 1 Vindic. pp. 86, 173. 
 
164 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 Chaldees as The Mimra, or to Greeks as The Logos, or to English- 
 men as The Word, no natural thoughts extending to relationship 
 with Deity are suggested ; but the expression, in whatever 
 language, throws out a mystery for isolated contemplation; in 
 treating of which we are as utterly dependent, as infants, upon 
 whatever The Lord God may please to add. And the argument 
 for the deity of Jesus Christ, dependent on John's gospel, chap, i., 
 must not be drawn from comments either historical or specidative, 
 as to the use of that title, Mimra, Logos, or Word, but from the 
 contents, contained in the first fourteen verses, wherein St. John 
 defines for us clearly what he means by that title, The Word. 
 Yet, let me pause here a few moments, to open the eyes of some 
 Unitarians on a matter of common truthfulness and honesty. 
 How can we blush enough for their favourite advocate, Mr. 
 Yates, who, in giving his Unitarian, 1 or (more accurately) Arian, 
 view of The Logos, or Word, undertakes to cite a multitude of 
 German authorities, as if supporting him in his Unitarian views, 
 though some of them are soundly orthodox ; and then adds — 
 " In our own country no clearer and more accurate account of 
 the matter has appeared than that given by the Rev. J. It. Beard, 
 D.D., in the People's Dictionary of the Bible, London, 1848. 
 Article — word; and by the Rev. Henry Alford, M.A., in his 
 Greek Testament, London, 1849, Vol. I., pp. 478—481." Can 
 this be right? Is it truthful? We have the Rev. J. R. Beard, 
 D.D., Unitarian Professor, and the Rev. H. Alford, M. A., Trinitarian 
 Commentator, coupled together ; for what purpose but to mislead, 
 and deceive, the ill-read and superficial? That note* in Alford's 
 Testament is all that earnest Trinitarians can desire; and 
 glories in setting forth the deity of Jesus, viz., His pre-existence 
 as God, in essential unity with The Father. And it traces out 
 beautifully the use of that title, Mimra, or Logos, or Word, his- 
 torically, and grammatically ; from the Old Testament, 3 from the 
 Apocrypha, from the Alexandrine Jews, and from the Chaldee 
 paraphrasts ; proving that it was used at, and before, the time 
 
 1 See Yates' Vind. Unit., p. 174, and Appen., Note P, p. 361. 
 2 Alford's Greek Test., Vol. I., John i. 
 3 Ps. xxxiii. 4, 6 ; cxix. 89, 105 ; evii. 20 ; cxlvii. 15, 18 ; Isa. lv. 10, 11; 
 xl. 8 ; Jer. xxiii. 29. 
 
THE SON OF GOD. 165 
 
 of John the Evangelist ; and is adopted by him as a well known 
 term, ready to hand, for the purpose of conveying in its own 
 peculiar way the all-important doctrine of the deity of Christ, 
 when accompanied with such explanation as John was em- 
 powered by The Holy Ghost to give. Not that John adopted it 
 in such a sense as it had conveyed in the writings of philoso- 
 phising Jews, or other unbelievers who had previously em- 
 ployed it, but in a manner peculiarly his own, and with a force 
 to be explained by other contexts of Holy Scripture ; though 
 there is also abundant reason to believe that the Chaldee para- 
 phrasts employed their corresponding word, Mimra, in a sense 
 much the same. So that the Unitarian argument through Mr. 
 Yates, 1 as if we fancied that St. John uses the word "in a sense 
 previously understood and adopted by others " falls to the 
 ground. 
 
 Examination of " In tne beginning was The Word, and The Word 
 John i 1—14, was with God, and The Word was God ;" or, as 
 Christ as The Unitarians would like to read it, "was a God;" 
 Word. because, say they, 2 the Greek definite article is 
 
 not used by St. John. But the article was not required here, 
 and to have inserted it would have destroyed John's meaning. 
 He did not wish to say that the Word was the God ; but to 
 say that He was God in the abstract. Therefore he uses no 
 article. But, as Bishop Pearson long ago observed, the question 
 of the deity of Christ is not to be settled by Ho, He, To ; an 
 opinion in which we might have supposed that Unitarians would 
 cheerfully agree, for, (as we showed at p. 6) if mysteries are 
 to be believed in at all, Unitarians like them stated in distinct 
 propositions. Now here is a very distinct proposition : " In 
 the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and 
 The Word was God;" but no — the moment we produce them a 
 distinct proposition they fall to Ho, He, To ; and that same 
 moment expose their ignorance. If any Unitarian school-boy 
 should get hold of this little book, I beg he will take his Greek 
 Testament, and mark as many places as he chooses where the 
 article is used, and also is not used, with the name God, 
 and, whatever else he may discover, he will quickly arrive 
 at such conclusions as follow: 1. That the proper title 
 
 1 Yates' Yindic, p. 174. 8 Ibid., pp. 174—177. 
 
166 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 God as of Deity supreme is expressed in The New Testa- 
 ment either with, or without, the article; 2. That when The 
 Father is alluded to as God, distinctly from The Son, the article 
 is used ; 3. That, when God is spoken of to the Jews as that 
 God whose existence and attributes they as Jews acknowledged, 
 the article is used ; 4. That, when God is alluded to in any 
 definite sense enjoined in the context, the article is used; 5. 
 That the title God is applied to Jesus Christ, either with, or 
 without, the article; which last settles the business. Thus, 
 when Thomas exclaimed, 1 " My Lord and My God," he threw 
 the proposition into a most definite form, viz. " The Lord of me 
 and The God of me" — using in each place, the Greek article ; 
 and thus asserting his conviction that Christ was both Adoni and 
 Adondi ; 2 Lord in the flesh, and God-as-man. Some interpreters, 
 beside Unitarian, have endeavoured to treat Thomas' words as 
 a mere exclamation, not implying confession. But, without 
 commenting on the impropriety of Thomas' so expressing 
 himself on such an occasion (there being no qualifying words 
 added to what may otherwise sound as a profanity) it is plain 
 that Thomas' words are addressed personally to Christ. And are 
 so accepted by Jesus. Even Mr. Yates admits this : 3 but would 
 have the word God taken in a subordinate sense, which we are 
 shewing (and shall shew) is impossible. I doubt not that 
 Thomas quoted Ps. xxxv. 23 : but at any rate his words are in 
 perfect accordance with Hebrew, and Syro-Chaldee, idiom as a 
 confession; which they would not be, as mere exclamation: to 
 say nothing of its questionable reverence, and propriety. 
 
 However, other cases 4 may be easily collected, where the 
 article is both used and also omitted with the title God as 
 applied to God in the essence. Thus — in that same first chapter 
 of John's Gospel, " to them gave He power to become children 
 of God" — " who are born not of blood, nor of the flesh, nor of 
 the will of man, but of God" — "no one hath seen God at any 
 time" — or John iii. "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher 
 come from God" — "He that doeth truth cometh to the light, 
 
 1 John xx. 28. s See Ps. xxxv. 23 3 See Vindio. Unit., p. 178. 
 
 4 See Middleton's Gr. Art., pp. 207, 240. 265: and Matt. xix. 26: Luke 
 xvi. 8 : John i. 18 : ix. 33 : xri. 30 : Kom. viii. 8 : 1 Cor. i. 3 . Gal. i. 1 : 
 Ephes. ii. 8 : Heb. ix. 14. 
 
THE SON OF GOD. 167 
 
 that his works may be seen that they are wrought in God." 
 Snch passages may be multiplied to any extent ; and they are 
 all of God, in the divine essence, and are without the article. 
 There is nothing, therefore, in the attempted Unitarian criticism, 
 but vox. The following passages are equally of the divine 
 essence, and are with the article : " God is a Spirit ; and they 
 that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth " 
 John iv. 24. " For they loved the praise of men more than the 
 praise of God," John xii. 43. The following is without the 
 article to the first word God, and with the article to the second — 
 " Jesus knowing that The Father had given all things into His 
 hands, and that He came from God, and went to God," — John 
 xiii. 3. 
 
 P f frq • , But the proofs of Christ's deity are to be gathered 
 deity as Creator from the context of John i. 1 — 14. Deity thus 
 of all things, asserted, viz. that The Word was co-existent 
 with The Father from all eternity ; and was also the Creator 
 of everything that was created. " All things were made by 
 Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made," 
 enables us to conclude with certainty that Christ was God 
 supreme. For whatever being, no matter of how highly exalted 
 a degree, is not God must have been created ; there is (so to 
 speak) no space remaining between God who creates, and beings 
 who are created ; but it is certain that " He who createth all 
 things is God;" and John distinctly affirms that The Word 
 created all things ; and then adds, in order that there may be 
 no possibility of mistake, "without Him was not any thing made 
 that was made." The Word, therefore, was not made ; was not 
 created ; is not a creature ; be the condition imagined for him 
 ever so exalted, is not a creature, and is therefore God. This 
 assignment of all creation to The Word enables us to fix with 
 certainty the proper meaning of the phrase In the beginning. 
 " In the beginning was The Word ;" it means not, as Unitarians 1 
 have suggested, in the beginning of the dispensation which he 
 introduced ; nor in the beginning of mundane dispensation of 
 any kind; nor can it be taken in any limited, or subordinate 
 sense as at " Ye are they that have been with me from the 
 beginning," etc.; but in the sense in which The Old Testament 
 1 Belsham's Calm Enquiry, p. 20. 
 
168 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 employed the expression in reference to all creation. " In the 
 beginning God created the heavens and the earth," viz. " all the 
 host of them by the breath of His mouth." 1 All such things 
 were made by The Word ; and in the beginning thus used in 
 relation to Him has the force of eternity ; and carries the mind 
 back until it knows no being, and no thing, to have been existent 
 but God Supreme. When no being, no thing, no world, no 
 creature, existed but only God Supeeme, then The Word was 
 with The Father; "The same was in the beginning with God:" 
 so that in whatever sense God was "in the beginning;" in that 
 same sense The Word was ' in the beginning' with God. This 
 is a plain assertion of the co-eternity, i. e. the co-existent deity 
 of The Word with The Father. How with, we must presently 
 inquire. This settlement of the force of the words " in the 
 beginning" enables us to gather up from St. Paul's epistle to 
 the Hebrews another remarkable assertion of Christ's deity. 
 St. John evidently speaks of Him, who afterwards was " made 
 flesh and dwelt among ns" in His essence by force (as I above 
 explained) of that mysterious title The Word : but St. Paul 
 speaking of Him as The Son (a title which may admit of more 
 interpretations than one) affirms the same truth respecting His 
 creation of all things : " Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid 
 the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of 
 Thy hands : they shall perish, but," etc., enabling us to fix St. 
 John's meaning again for the phrase in the beginning by reference 
 to the one hundred and second psalm ; and also enabling us to 
 note Christ's, or The Son's immutable deity ; " but thou art the 
 same, and thy years shall not fail." Now, though angels, and 
 men too, are never-dying, are immortal, we have no reason to 
 suppose that they are immutable, but the contrary. We have 
 the best reason for believing that in the worlds unseen those 
 spirits, perfect in their spheres, may even then increase in grace 
 and knowledge, and go on even there " from strength to strength " 
 advancing, though perfectly holy, in their spheres to higher 
 degrees of knowledge and of power. But Christ, being neither 
 angel nor man, is immutable, being God; "Jesus Christ, the 
 same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." 3 
 
 Upon this place in Hebrews, Mr. Yates makes a most extra- 
 ordinary remark for the purpose of enabling Unitarians to evade 
 1 Ps. xxxiii. 6. 8 Heb. xiii. 8. 
 
THE SON OF GOD. 169 
 
 its force. 1 The reader will observe that the authorised version 
 translates "unto The Son He saith" — now, says Mr. Yates, it is not 
 unto ; it is concerning, for the preposition Pros may mean either. 
 Be it so ; God speaks not unto The Son, but about The Son, through 
 David. What then ? we need no better admission. As the other 
 places quoted by St. Paul are concerning the angels, so this place is 
 concerning The Son: and such place is as follows — "Thou, Lord, in 
 the beginning hast created the heavens and the earth, etc." St. Paul, 
 taught by The Holy Spirit, states that this is asserted of The Son ; 
 who is, therefore, declared to have been pre-existent from all eter- 
 nity ; and to have created all things. The very truth which St. John 
 also affirms. But again, some (not Mr. Yates) object that the title 
 Lord here given by St. Paul to Christ is no proof of deity what- 
 ever ; but that the word is used in a subordinate sense. Let us, 
 then, refer to David's entire passage 2 — " I said, O my God, take me 
 not away hi the midst of my days : Thy years are throughout all 
 generations. Of old hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth : 
 and the heavens are the work of Thy hands." Where we have 
 in the passage, w r hich St. Paul states to be concerning Christ, not 
 only His eternity, and almighty power as Creator of all things, 
 asserted; but also prayer for life offered up to Him by David; 
 and the very title of God plainly given Him. Moreover, it is to 
 be observed, that the word Lord is not used in the original place 
 in David, but the word God only : for which, intending it to be 
 taken synonymously, St. Paul substitutes the word Lord. 
 Hence, therefore, according to David, St. Paul, and St. John, 
 The Son, or The Word, is God Almighty, who created the 
 universe, and all that it contains ; and was co-existent from all 
 eternity with The Father in divine essence. In what sense we 
 understand Him to have been co-existent, we shall presently 
 explain. Also, in the chapter titled " The Subordination " we 
 shall enquire, in what sense The Word is Creator of all things 
 with The Father. Meanwhile, I note that all passages in the 
 New Testament, speaking of The Son as Creator may be referred 
 to John's Gospel, chapter i., as a sort of root, for explanation. 
 
 Upon this matter of giving the title God plainly to Christ in 
 
 the New Testament, as John does, I shall next call attention to 
 
 the quotation in Heb. i., " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and 
 
 ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy king- 
 
 1 Vind. p. 196. 8 Ps. cii. 24—27. 
 
170 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 dom. Thou liast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, 
 therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of 
 gladness above thy fellows." On which last expression Mr. 
 Yates l breaks out (a curious example of his way of confusing 
 Scripture) "Can the all perfect Jehovah be anointed," etc. — Yes, 
 when incarnate : when become Messiah, The Anointed with the 
 Holy Ghost, in manhood. However, they say this is a wrong trans- 
 lation; and that it ought to be read " God is thy throne," i. e., 
 the strength, or stability, of thy throne : and, taking the Hebrew, 
 it is extremely difficult to rescue this passage from their hands. 
 But even Mr. Yates shrinks before the fact that there is no 
 correspondent expression in the Hebrew Bible. However, let- 
 ting that pass, there is a curious anecdote to be told concerning this 
 old attempt to corrupt such passage of Holy Scripture; for it is old. 
 It is related by Origen that he once pressed a Jew, esteemed a 
 wise man among his people, with the argument that Aquila an 
 ancient Judaiser did nevertheless translate the place, " Thy 
 throne, O God, etc.; " and that, being unable to escape from the 
 difficulty, he acknowledged that this referred to The God of the 
 universe ; and only what followed, to The Messiah. So that 
 this Jew, aware that Aquila and other Jews translated the place 
 " Thy throne, O God," had recourse to any quibble rather than 
 commit himself to the Unitarian one of " God is thy throne." 
 We know that the ancient Jews translated the place as we do, 
 and so did the ancient Christians. The modern Rabbis have 
 adopted the modern perversion : and so did Erasmus, and after 
 him Grotius ; two renowned Trinitarian writers, whom Mr. 
 Yates is fond of quoting ; but of whom 2 Bishop Bull has ob- 
 served, "both of them, I know not by what fate, born to disturb 
 all the more remarkable passages of Scripture which make for 
 the divinity of The Son, whilst at the same time themselves 
 appear to have acknowledged that doctrine." 
 
 . I intimated, some moments back, that one great 
 title for Christ va hie of John's new title for his beloved Master 
 of equal force The Word was that it denominated The Second 
 in lhe Holy Irinity in His essence: suggest- 
 ing no relationship in deity which man's natural ideas of 
 
 1 Yates' Yindic. p. 185. See also Acts iv. 27. ; and x. 38. 
 2 Bull's Def. Nic. Creed, p. 141. 
 
THE SON OF GOD. 171 
 
 relationship could abuse. They might, indeed, speculate upon 
 the meaning of the term : but the term itself carries no excuse 
 for such speculations ; which, perhaps, may be found in that other 
 mysterious title — The Son. What is the meaning of this title ? 
 Does it really denote The Second in His essence ? and is it so 
 equivalent to The Word ? or is it only used in some subordinate 
 sense, as connected with the Incarnation 1 The reader will be 
 pleased to note carefully that I am not asking in what sense The 
 Second is The Son of The First; but, in what sense, Holy 
 Scripture employs that title The Son as a name for The Second. 
 It is of some use at once to notice that just what John the 
 Evangelist states of The Word, viz., that He was the eternal, 
 and almighty, creator of all things co-existent with The Father 
 before all worlds ; that very same thing St. Paul asserts 1 of The 
 Son, as such : " God, who hi times past, spake unto the fathers 
 by the prophets ; hath in these last days spoken unto us by The 
 Son," — observe there is no his in the Greek; nor was there any 
 need of the article — the well known and acknoAvledged Son of 
 God among Christians. What God did by The Word according 
 to St. John, that same He did by The Son according to St. Paul 
 — " whom he hath appointed heir of all things; by whom, also, 
 he made the worlds," etc. Hence, it was by The Son, as such, 
 that God made the worlds : and, the very same almighty power 
 of creation being predicated of The Son as such, which was pre- 
 dicated of The Word as such, the inference is clear and sound, 
 that as The Word was such in essence, so The Son was such 
 in essence; in other words, that The Son is a title appertaining 
 to The Second in The Holy Trinity, in His divine essence, and 
 not merely in relation to His Incarnation ; or to any deputed 
 office He may undertake for man. But, of course, the fact that 
 The Son is a title for The Second in His essence, does not forbid 
 the same title being employed in a subordinate sense upon 
 other occasions : e. g., He who is The Son in essence, may also 
 be declared to be The Son, as manifested by Incarnation. This 
 same most glorious truth that The Son is such in essence of 
 deity; equal to The Father as touching His Godhead; and, 
 that, therefore, God The Father and God the Son, are Scriptural 
 titles, not titles of our own making, for Two of The Most 
 
 1 Heb. i. 2, 3. 
 
172 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 Holy Trinity, is further manifested, brilliant as light, from St. 
 Paul's subsequent expressions: " Who being the brightness of 
 his father's glory, and the express image of his person, when he 
 had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of 
 the Majesty on high, being made so much better than the 
 angels," etc. " Brightness of The Father's glory ; " i. e. as light, 
 or radiance, is of the very essence of, and inseparable from, the 
 substance which emits it : so The Son, as son, is of the very 
 essence of, and inseparable from, The Father: "God of God, 
 Light of Light — very God of very God." As when we gaze 
 upon the solar orb, and are blinded by his rays, and know that, 
 wherever that orb is, there must also be his radiance and his 
 power ; so where the Father is, there is inseparably The Son : 
 and by that light and radiance The Father's glory is manifested 
 to man. And just as by concentrating rays of light alone the 
 natural eye conceives the form of the luminous bodjr, so by The 
 Son alone contemplated in faith the spiritual man identifies "the 
 express image" of The Father's person. 
 
 This same great truth that The Son is a title for The Second in 
 the divine essence, similarly with The Word, is also clear from 
 further considerations. Thus John says, " The Word was made 
 flesh, and dwelt among us ; (and we beheld His glory, the glory 
 as of the only-begotten of The Father,) full of grace and truth." 
 Of course after only-begotten we must needs, from other places 
 in John's Gospel and Epistle, supply the word son, " only- 
 begotten Son full of grace and truth." And it would seem that 
 as The Word, pre-existent in divine essence was only made 
 manifest by flesh, so as to be seen by man's natural eye ; so 
 The Son, pre-existent in divine essence as "the only-begotten," 
 was merely made manifest by flesh, so as to be seen of men. 
 This is the force of St. John's expressions " God sent The Son :" 
 He was The Son before he was The Angel ; He was The Son 
 before he was sent. Or again, 1 " God so loved the world that 
 He gave his only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him 
 should not perish ; but should have everlasting life;" He was 
 only-begotten before He was given ; He was only-begotten Son in 
 divine essence. Similarly a host of other passages. Thus St. 
 Paul — " God sending his own Sonin the likeness of sinful flesh, 
 
 1 1 John iii. 16. 
 
THE SON OF GOD. 173 
 
 and for sin condemned sin in the flesh;" 1 or again, "He that 
 spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how 
 shall He not with Him also freely give us all things." He was 
 "God's own Son" before He was sent, and before He was not 
 spared. And in that amazing sacrifice is seen the marvellous 
 love of The Father to sinners, and the marvellous love of The 
 Son ; because, being such Son, he was so not spared, and he 
 so died. Similarly St. John, in his epistle : 2 " For this purpose 
 The Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works 
 of the devil ; or again, "-We know that The Son of God is come, 
 and hath given us an understanding," etc. ; He was The Son 
 before he was manifested, He was The Son before he came, He 
 was The Son when he exclaimed through David, " Lo ! I come 
 to do Thy will, O God ;" and once more, so St. John declares, 
 " No man hath seen God at any time ; the only-begotten Son 
 which is in the bosom of The Father, he hath declared Him ;" the 
 fact being that this meaning of the title The Son, as being such 
 in divine essence, is traceable to the second Psalm, where he is 
 called The Son in such a parallelism as to intimate that as The 
 Son, he is also Jehovah. 
 
 But if The Son be really, as we have shown a title for one, 
 as such so?i, in divine essence ; then all the Unitarian glosses 
 upon the term only-begotten fall to the ground. They would have 
 us suppose that the expression meant only "well-beloved :" as 
 if the Greek monogenes meant only well-beloved ; but such is not 
 the case. True, sometimes the word may stand for well-beloved, 
 because every only-begotten son may be supposed to be also well- 
 beloved, but every well-beloved son is not always the only-begotten, 
 and the proper force of monogenes is only-begotten : as also of the 
 corresponding Hebreiv word. Clearly there is a sense in which 
 The Son was begotten, and in which no other can be begotten ; 
 and a sense in which he is well-beloved, in which no other 
 can be well-beloved. It is useless to tell us 3 that believers 
 are also called God's sons, and God's begotten : we know they 
 are. 4 Such terms are applied to them " by adoption and grace ;" 
 but the same terms have a far different sense when applied to 
 the only-begotten. The same terms applied in Holy Scripture 
 
 1 Rom. viii. 3 and 32. 2 1 John hi. 8, and v. 20 ; also iv. 9, etc. 
 
 s Yates' Vind. pp. 71, 72. 
 
 4 Rom. viii. 15, 17 : Gal. iv. 7 : 1 John i. 2 ; and v. 18. 
 
174 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 in the same passages to persons of different orders of being, con- 
 tinually require to be taken in different senses — senses adapted 
 to the characters, determined from other sources, of those to 
 whom the language in question is applied ; but of that elsewhere. 
 . In what sense, then, does Jesus say " I and my 
 
 by the state- Father are one ?" What did John mean when 
 ment that Christ ne stated, " The same was in the beginning with 
 stance -with the God ?" What did our Blessed Lord mean when 
 Father. He said, "No man hath seen God at any time, the 
 
 only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath 
 declared Him?" What did St. Paul mean when he said that 
 Christ was " the brightness of his Father's glory, and the ex- 
 press image of his person?" The Christian church has replied 
 to such questions in a phrase which we render by saying that 
 Christ was " of one substance with the Father." But to untu- 
 tored ears the word substance is likely to convey an unhappy 
 idea. It seems somewhat to savour of that which is material ; 
 or, however, of that which admits of division, and extension, and 
 compression. But no such meaning was it intended to have, nor 
 has it when its proper force is understood. Any speculative 
 thoughts on the being of God suggested by that word substance 
 may be closed in one sentence, That whieh is infinite is inseparable. 
 That which is infinite cannot be extended ; cannot be lessened ; 
 cannot be divided: and God is infinite. Hence, though Holy 
 Scripture teaches us not to confound The Persons : it also forbids 
 our dividing the being, i. e. the substance, of God. When, there- 
 fore, it is said that The Son is of one substance with The Father, 
 the assertion made is that The Son is of one and the same 
 being : infinite, eternal, unchanging, identical in all His attri- 
 butes, whatever they may be. The Christian Church sought to 
 illustrate this great truth concerning the Holy Trinity in various 
 ways ; but the best way of all is, perhaps, that of a luminous 
 body, whose substance, heat, and light are inseparably one ; 
 the best, probably, I say, because based upon Holy Scripture. 1 
 "God is light." "The Sun of Righteousness shall arise," etc. 
 Thus, then, as in the solar orb, the luminous body, the heat, and 
 light, are one and inseparable, yet three ; so in the Holy Trinity 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — are inseparable in being, i.e. 
 substance, and operation. 
 
 1 1 John i. o ; Mai. iv. 2. 
 
THE SON OF GOD. 175 
 
 That, in such sense of nature of Deity, The Son is one with 
 The Father can be proved in several ways — by the Scriptural^wre 
 of Sonship. When writing on the second Psalm I reminded the 
 reader that the expression Father and Son must after all be taken 
 as metaphorical; but that certain distinct ideas were nevertheless 
 easily attached to the mysterious metaphor. The subject is con- 
 cerning the existence of deity ; and God being a spirit, a whole 
 class of gross ideas connected with the expression of Sonship is 
 instantly excluded. And the question before us is not as to the 
 mode in which The Son is of The Father ; but as to the meaning 
 of the asserted fact that He is " The Only-begotten of The 
 Father, full of grace and truth." Apart, therefore, from all 
 vain speculations about what has been unhappily termed the 
 generation of The Son, one clear idea is attachable to the word 
 begotten, viz., that that which is begotten is of the same substance, 
 or being, with that which begets. This is a position absolutely 
 unassailable ; it is stamped, on whatever side we look at it, with 
 the unconquerable conviction of reason — the fountain puts forth 
 its water, warm or cold, sweet or bitter; the pierced body pours 
 forth its life and essence ; the luminous substance emits its light 
 of such particular kind as appertains by necessity to its material, 
 whatever that may be : the nature of the heat and light varies 
 according to the substance ; but each ignitable body has un- 
 changingly its own : the tree, or plant, puts forth its bud and 
 branch — only according "to his kind:" the breathing, living, 
 thing (whatever it may be), brings forth only " according to his 
 kind " — like begets like — and in that Mosaic phrase, inspired of 
 God, according to his kind, you have the expression of the 
 sense that The Son is begotten of The Father — like of like — ac- 
 cording to his kind : attaching no vain speculations, far less 
 gross thought to the image any more than to the soft, and 
 gentle, and health-giving music, begotten of the air as it murmurs 
 through the grove. He that is begotten of God, as The Son is 
 said to be begotten of Him, is God. Nothing less than God can 
 be begotten of God. Like produces like : man produces man : 
 God produces God. Now, the subject is, not of the mode by 
 which, but of the sense in which, an infinite spirit re-produces, or 
 puts forth, or begets itself; and, from the above considerations 
 it follows that The Son being begotten of The Father: the 
 
176 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 infinite spirit thus re-producing, or putting forth itself — The Son, 
 as begotten, is recipient by very nature of all the infinite pro- 
 perties of The Father who begets. Hence, wherever we read, or 
 assert, that The Son is begotten of The Father, we assert, and 
 read, by necessity of language that The Son is " of one sub- 
 stance," i.e., of one and the same eternal, infinite, and un- 
 changing essence, or being, with The Father. 
 
 True, God has other sons : and even poor Christians are said 
 to be "begotten of The Father," but not "before all worlds "* — 
 not as pre-existent in infinite duration — not as The Word which 
 was " in the beginning with God," but in a sense precisely 
 limited by the capacities of their order of being: and varying 
 just as much as those several beings vary among themselves. 
 Thus, Elijah and Lazarus were both "begotten of God;" but 
 not in the same, i. e., equal sense. This infinite superiority of 
 Christ's Sonship, that, in fact, it is Divine, is proved — in other 
 words, His being of one substance, viz., of one and the same Deity — 
 is proved by all those places which bring home to Christ's posses- 
 sion personally the infinite attributes of Godhead ; which, that 
 we may not detain the reader too long, I subjoin, under short 
 and distinct headings, with Scripture references ; and add that, 
 in this sense it is we know and assert that Christ is " very God 
 of very God." Thus— 
 
 Eternal Being. " His dear Son. Tn whom we have re- 
 demption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Who 
 is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every crea- 
 ture : for by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and 
 that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones 
 or dominions, or principalities, or powers : all things were 
 created by Him, and for Him : and He is before all things, and 
 by Him all things consist." Col. i. 13—17. See also John i. 1 ; 
 Heb. i. 10; Rev. i. 8, 17, etc. 
 
 Almighty Power. The verses above quoted of Him, as 
 Creator, prove this attribute : and we may add the following — "For 
 our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the 
 Saviour, The Lord Jesus Christ : Who shall change our vile 
 body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, 
 according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all 
 tilings unto Himself," Phil. iii. 21. To which add Matt. xi. 27; 
 1 Col. i. 13—17 ; Heb. i. 2. 
 
THE SON OF GOD. 177 
 
 and xxviii. 18 ; John iii. 35; xiii. 3, and xvii. 2 ; Heb. i. 3 ; also 
 Rev. i. 8 ; v. 12—14; xi. 15—17 ; xix. 4—7, and 11—16. 
 
 Omnipresence. " For where two, or three, are gathered to- 
 gether in my name, there am I in the midst of them," Matt, xviii. 
 20 ; and " Lo ! I am with you always, even unto the end of the 
 world," xxviii. 20; with Matt. xiii. 39, 40, and 49. The same 
 attribute of omnipresence is implied in all those texts, which assign 
 unto Jesus Almighty Power, and make Him Head of the Church, 
 e.g., Ephes. i. 19—23, and iv. 8—13. 
 
 Omniscience. "But Jesus did not commit Himself unto them, 
 because He knew all men, and needed not that any should 
 testify of man : for He knew what was in man," John ii. 24, 25. 
 That such knowledge is attributed to Jesus in the sense of 
 Divine knowledge, just as God is said to " understand the 
 thoughts afar off" is clear from various incidents in our blessed 
 Saviour's life, e.g., the proof of superhuman knowledge which 
 convinced Nathaniel, John i. 48, 49 ; and the same knowledge 
 is, of course, implied in all passages which represent Him 
 Almighty, Omnipresent, directing and upholding all things, and 
 sustaining the Church as its Head. Add Matt. ix. 4 ; xi. 27, and 
 xii. 5 ; Luke v. 22 ; vi. 8, and ix. 17, 47. 
 
 In short, every one essential attribute of Deity involves the 
 others. He who is eternal must needs be infinite ; and, there- 
 fore, perfect in power and knowledge: and He who is omniscient 
 must needs be omnipresent. So that such essential attributes of 
 Deity having been brought home to The Son from Holy Scripture, 
 His equal deity with The Father is proved, viz., His being of one 
 deity, one being, one substance. Of which substance, or essence, of 
 deity the Greek is translated in our authorized version at Heb.i.3 
 by the word person, which gives offence to Unitarians. Mr. Yates l 
 says that, "in this particular case," our translators followed not 
 their own learning, but the reformer Beza. The insinuation is 
 unfair. Tertullian, who wrote in the second century is noticed as 
 the first who used the word person with substance, in reference to 
 The Holy Trinity ; and, reckoning from Tertullian to Beza, Mr. 
 Yates is about 1400 years out in his calculation. 2 However, these 
 disputes about words are profitless. Let us rather seek for the 
 
 1 Yates' Vindie. p. 310. 
 2 See Hutchinson's Image of God, p. 131. Par. Soc. Ed. ; also Radcliffe's 
 Athan. Ci\, p. 487 ; and Waterland's Imp. doct. H. Trin., p. 483. 
 
 N ^_ 
 
178 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 substance of doctrine. The following is from Tertullian: "We 
 are baptized not into one, nor once, but thrice, at every name, 
 into every several^ersow " — ad singula nominampersonas tingimur. 1 
 If Mr. Yates knew this — where was the honesty of insinuating 
 that Beza was our translators' real authority? 
 
 If the eternal pre-existence in deity, and other 
 in which Christ attributes of deity, be proved respecting The Son, 
 is called The as we believe, bv the above considerations, it is of 
 
 small importance whether there be any other, and 
 inferior senses in which also Holy Scripture speaks of Christ as 
 The Son. We may rely upon it such inferior senses will be 
 traceable in a manner no way inconsistent with the first great 
 truth above declared, viz., that The Son is such in one, and the 
 same, divine essence. Indeed, we may say, with reverence, it 
 was matter of necessity that there should be certain inferior 
 senses in which The Son should be declared to be such so soon 
 either as He was to become incarnate, or whenever He was pub- 
 licly to commence His work among men. Hence, the angel 
 Gabriel, announcing the miraculous conception of Jesus, says, 
 " The Holy Ghost shall come unto thee, and the power 3 of The 
 Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore, also, that holy thing 
 that shall be born of thee shall be called The Son of God." 
 This was an announcement that a title previously His by right 
 of Divine nature, should also be fitly, and without degradation, 
 His in connection with humanity. Similarly, when He was tojbe 
 accredited as the Divine ambassador of His Father among men, 
 those credentials must be publicly displayed before chosen wit- 
 nesses. " The Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, and 
 there was a voice from heaven," 3 etc. — "This is my beloved 
 Son." And similarly, when entering upon His completed office 
 as the atoning deliverer and advocate for His people He is 
 " declared to be The Son of God with power, by the resurrection 
 from the dead." 4 But these declarations of character, these 
 proclamations of office and power, these open displays of creden- 
 tials, are not inconsistent, do not invalidate, nor in the least de- 
 gree oppose, the great truth already gathered out of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, viz., that 1000 years before His conception in a Scripture con- 
 
 1 Tertul. Adv. Prax., c. xxvi., Tom. 2, p. 199. Ed. Semler. 
 2 Luke i. 35. 3 Matt. iii. 17; Luke iii. 23. * Rom. i. 3, 4. 
 
THE SON OF GOD. 179 
 
 veying at tliat time sentiments of saving doctrine to Israel, then 
 worshipping, He was declared to be The Son vested with Divine 
 power, either to kill or make alive : are nothing against the fact 
 that all through the Holy Scripture such pre-existence in deity- 
 is made known ; nothing against the fact that the New Testa- 
 ment, explaining such Scriptures, minutely defines such pre- 
 existence in deity, as that of Sonship, in the abstract character 
 of The Word. 
 
 The testimony of evil spirits will be found, unless 
 of SniritT°ancl * rotate, of great importance in reference to the 
 of Men that deity of The Son, as such : and, after citing this 
 as t'heSoj? ^ testimony, I shall follow it up with that of men both 
 J ew and Gentile. It will be found, I think, of vast 
 importance in the following particulars : viz., that they testify 
 to Christ in two particulars : — 1. As The Son of God : 2. As 
 The Christ. But here let a most important remark be made : a 
 common notion is, that, in certain New Testament Scriptnres, 
 Jesus is called The Son of God because he is Christ : whereas the 
 truth, because the proper scriptural position, is that He is called 
 The Christ because He is The Son of God. In such scriptures this 
 makes all the difference. I showed in the last chapter that he 
 who was to become Incarnate was Jehovah; and, moreover, 
 Jehovah, The Son : in other words it was an established article 
 of Hebrew revelation that God The Son was to become Messiah, 
 os Christ. And He could not have been Messiah, or Christ, had 
 He not first been The Son of God, or God The Son : hence, in 
 the New Testament, assertions of his Christ-ship become asser- 
 tions of his deity, viz., of his Sonship : and He is so called The 
 Christ just because he is The Son Incarnate. God-and-man; 
 one Christ. Hence, Satan's temptation, 1 " If Thou be the Son of 
 God," — viz., according to the promises of salvation, and his 
 emissaries' confession, 2 — " What have we to do with thee, Jesus, 
 thou Son of God? art thou come," etc.; or again, 3 " Crying out 
 and saying, Thou art Christ The Son of God." All such Scrip- 
 tures are to be referred to the Old Testament for their force . 
 and to the well established Old Testament doctrine, that he 
 who should be born, and suffer, in the flesh was to be The 
 
 1 Matt. iv. 3, 6. 2 Matt. viii. 29. 3 Luke iy. 41. 
 
180 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 Messiah, or Christ, of the Jews : and that he who was to be The 
 Messiah, or Christ, was Jehovah, The Son. Hence, Satanic 
 demands of proof : and hence, Satanic convictions by His power. 
 The same important fact is derivable from the testimony of 
 men, both Gentile and Jew ; and, finally, by the fact that Jesus 
 was put to death because he claimed to be Christ, The Son of 
 God. I shall say little about Gentile testimony : except to allude 
 to the centurion's conviction, 1 — "Truly this was The Son of God." 
 But, in reference to the evidence of Jews, willing and unwilling, 
 much, and of importance, may be gathered. John 2 saw Him there 
 and then anointed — i. e., Messiahed with the Holy Ghost and with 
 power; and he " saw and bare record that this is The Son of God." 
 Nathaniel overcome 3 with the conviction of His supernatural 
 knowledge ; and, finding his meditations under the fig-tree 
 accurately referred to, exclaimed " Rabbi ! Thou art The Son of 
 God; Thou art the King of Israel," — ?'. e., Thou art the King 
 Messiah about whom I have been meditating ; and who was 
 declared by our prophets of old as to be The Son of God. In 
 the same spirit also Martha's confession, 4 " Yea, Lord : I believe 
 that Thou art The Messiah, The Son of God, which should come 
 into the world:" and from similar knowledge and expectation is 
 derived the High Priest's challenge, 5 — "Tell us, art thou The 
 Messiah, The Son of the living God,"— or, " The Son of The 
 Blessed :" and again, " By our law He ought to die," (be cut off 
 as an incorrigible breaker of Mosaic law,) 6 "because He made 
 Himself The Son of God :" for, according to Jewish ideas, to 
 profess to be Christ, or Messiah, was to profess to be The Son of 
 God : and to profess to be The Son of God was to profess to be 
 God ; and, therefore, He must die : and He did so die ; not 
 because He was son, and claimed to be son, in any inferior sense, 
 such as most beloved, or especially sanctified, or marvellous as a 
 prophet ; but in the sense of Messiahship, as The Son not only 
 beloved, but begotten ; not only begotten, but only-begotten, 
 because begotten in divine essence from all eternity. In such 
 sense, and in no inferior, is Christ termed in the holy gospel 
 MONOGENES, i. e., only-bc •gotten. 
 
 Matt, xxvii. 54. 2 John i. 32, 33. 3 John i. 47—51. 
 
 4 John xi. 27. 5 Matt, xxvi 63—68 ; Mark xiv. 61—65. 
 
 6 John xix. 7 ; also see p. 141 supra. 
 
THE SON OF GOD. 181 
 
 m ." , . I shall now conclude this chapter, the obi ect of 
 
 t/irist s profes- . l ' J 
 
 sion of Sonship which has been to shew that Jesus is The Son of 
 
 was intended to God not in any limited, merely human, or subordi- 
 assert equality. J . . _ J _ ' 
 
 nate, sense as born in manhood, or most beloved, 
 
 but as begotten from all eternity of the essence of The Father ; 
 and, therefore, of one and equal essence with Him. The proofs 
 adduced are so plain as to require no recapitulation ; I shall, 
 therefore, proceed to show very briefly that our Blessed Lord 
 when claiming to be Son intended to claim also equality with 
 The Father, and was so understood by The Jews, and was stoned 
 for doing so : and, lastly, that He is called specifically God by 
 other sacred writers besides John the Evangelist with whom 
 we set out. 
 
 " But Jesus answered them, 1 My Father worketh hitherto, 
 and I work. Therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, 
 because He not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that 
 God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." I shall 
 not comment now upon this place, but reserve it, and the con- 
 text, for further treatment in the next chapter. Let us turn to a 
 corresponding place 2 in St. John's Gospel. "I and My Father 
 are One. Then the Jews took up stones to stone Him. Jesus 
 answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my 
 Father ; for which of these works do ye stone me ? The Jews 
 answered saying, For a good work we stone Thee not ; but for 
 blasphemy ; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thy- 
 self God." What the Jews understood by the profession of 
 being Son of God is clear; and they expressed the common 
 and correct Jewish idea of that title. And our Blessed Lord, 
 instead of explaining away, or withdrawing, the claim, re-asserts 
 and reiterates it in stronger terms. He reminds them that even 
 the members of the Sanhedrim, their rulers, and their judges, 
 unto whom as such "the Word of God" came, are called gods 
 in the inferior sense ; men uninspired, men born in common 
 course, men without any miraculous powers to attest super- 
 natural claims — but, He adds, of Himself in contrast, " Say ye of 
 Him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, 
 Thou blasphemest ; because I said, I am The Son of God ? If I do 
 
 1 John v. 17. * John x. 30—41. 
 
182 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 not the works of my Father believe me not. But if I do," etc. 
 This was a stronger assertion still of His right to be recognised 
 as The Son of God in Jewish sense, viz., as equal to The Father ; 
 an assertion that He was The Sent One, pre-existent in Divine 
 glory, and an appeal to His astounding miracles, as proof of the 
 fact : and the Jews understood Him so, and felt the power of His 
 language — " Therefore, they sought again to take Him, but He 
 escaped out of their hands." In such sense, viz., as equal 
 to His Father, did our Blessed Lord declare " I and my Father 
 are One." 1 
 
 We are 2 informed that a learned Unitarian author observes, 
 " The question is not, whether Christ is called God in Scripture, 
 for that is undeniable : but, in what sense the word is to be under- 
 stood." This is a fatal admission. True : Christ is not only 
 called God in Scripture: but El-Shaddai, The Almighty God; 
 and also 3 Adonai, Ha-adon, and Jehovah. But more than that, 
 if need be, He is called God in the New Testament in the most 
 supreme sense. And I believe it to be true that the word God is 
 never used in an inferior sense in the New Testament. That 
 Hebraism is not therein copied. The passage in John ten above 
 alluded to is a mere translation of a place in the Psalms contain- 
 ing the plural Gods. " Qbo<- is God, or a god, either true or 
 false, real or imaginary : but never superior, or inferior" Middl. 
 Gr. Art. pp. 207 and 318. But, however, Christ is called 
 in the New Testament God in sense most supreme. John 
 has done so in his Gospel, as we have shewn, "And The Word 
 was God." Paul does so by citation of a Psalm to the Hebrews, 
 " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." And again, also, 
 to the Romans 4 — " Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ, who 
 is over all God blessed for ever." The piteous attempt 5 made 
 to set this aside is by the rendering " God be blessed for ever." 
 Erasmus (to whom reference is made at p. 170 supra) having been 
 followed in this respect by others. But let the answer of 
 antiquity, commencing with Irenceus the sainted disciple of St. 
 John's disciple Poly carp, suffice 6 — " The very ancient father 
 
 1 See also Bull's Judg. Cath. Ch. p. 93. 2 Yates' Vind. p. 167. 
 
 3 See above, chs. 3—6. 4 Rom. ix. 5. 5 Yates' Vind. p. 180—182. 
 
 6 Bull's Nic. Creed p. 163. 
 
THE SON OF GOD. 133 
 
 Irenceus, however, recognised none other than the received reading 
 and construction. And with Irenceus agree Tertullian in his treatise 
 against Praxeas, c. xiii. p. 107, and xv. p. 109 ; Novatian on The 
 Trinity, c. xiii. and xxx.; Cyprian, Testimonies against the Jews, 
 lib. ii.; Origen on Rom. ix. 5 ; Atkanasius' Orations ii. and v., against 
 Arians, and hi his work on The Common Essence; Gregory 
 Nyssen against Eunomius, lib. x.; Marius Victorinus against 
 Arms, lib. i.; Hilary, lib. iv. and viii. ; Ambrose, on The Holy- 
 Spirit, lib. i. c. 3 ; an.d on The Faith, lib. iv. c. 6 ; Augustin on 
 The Trinity, lib. ii. c. 13 ; also against Faustus, lib. xii. c. 3 and 
 6 ; Cyril, lib. i. of the Thesaurus ; Idacius against Varinadus, 
 lib. i. ; Cassian, on the Incarnation, lib. iii.; Gregory the Great, 
 8th Horn, on Ezekiel ; Isidore of Seville, in his Book on Differ- 
 ence, Numb, ii.; and almost all the other fathers." All honour 
 to Bishop Bull, for collecting such a list of authorities. Are 
 they not enough ? The early Christians recognised at Rom. ix. 5, 
 " Christ, over all, God blessed for ever." 
 
 There are other passages : l but let John close the list. " And 
 we know that The Son of God is come, and hath given us an 
 understanding, that we may know Him that is true, and we are 
 in Him that is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is The True 
 God, and eternal life. 
 
 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen." 
 1 Titus ii. 13 ; 2 Peter i. 1 ; 1 John v. 20. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 THE SON OF MA 
 
 GpziCB^^ss^ HEN calling attention to the visions of deity 
 granted to Ezekiel, I ventured to suggest that 
 Ezekiel's peculiar title Son of Man was not 
 to be accounted for as a mere idiomatic ex- 
 pression common to Hebrew or Chaldee, as 
 supposed by Lightfoot and others ; for that 
 then the question remained to be answered — why was Ezekiel's 
 humanity so unnecessarily (upon that supposition) specified at 
 all ? But that rather the title Son of man was given to Ezekiel 
 because he alone of all the prophets first had vision of Jehovah 
 in glory as Adonai ; the meaning of which name Adonai I had 
 previously explained was God-as-man, being given at the first 
 by Moses to God Incarnate. He, who was thus from time to 
 time incarnated, i. e., made flesh, I had shewed was The Angel, 
 Israel's Messiah, our Christ, God The Son. I also shewed 
 that He, whom Ezekiel saw in vision as Adonai ; and whom he, 
 therefore, always calls Adonai-Jehovah ; was the same whom 
 Isaiah saw in glory; and whom the Evangelist distinctly tells 
 us was he who became Christ ; was God The Son ; and hence it 
 follows by a connected and undeniable conclusion that He, 
 whom Ezekiel saw God-as-man in glory was God The Son ; 
 and that the title Adonai-Jehovah is therefore peculiarly His ; 
 and none the less so, nor less significantly so, because on some 
 few occasions, and especially when God The Son is the speaker, 
 that same title Adonai-Jehovah is given to The Father; enough 
 so to mark identity of essence in both ; and the claims of equal 
 deity in The Son. I now proceed to show that the title Son 
 
THE SON OF MAN. 185 
 
 OF Man in the New Testament corresponds exactly with that of 
 Adonai in the Old ; under these three particulars : First, That 
 the title Son of Man is a title of deity, viz. is applied to Christ, 
 as having been pre-existent in divine glory ; i. e., as God. 
 Second, That the title Son of Man appertains to Jesus as The 
 Messiah, or Christ ; i. e. (from chap. 9 on The Incarnation) to 
 Christ as God Incarnate ; viz. God-as-man, Adonai. Third, That 
 the title Son of Man is a title of deity in another sense ; viz. 
 of Christ as God exalted after his death and burial in manhood : 
 of Christ as now existent in glory as God ; viz. of God as having 
 taken up the human nature; i. e. Adonai in the precise sense of 
 Ps. ex. And in selecting various texts to establish these positions, 
 I shall also touch upon those particulars in which they help to 
 refute the God-denying heresy, as Unitarianism was called by 
 the earliest Christians. 
 
 The title Son * n wna * other character than as really God does 
 op Man « cW- The Son of Man undertake to forgive sins? 
 to Jesus in re- ^ as ^ e P ower °f forgiving sins ever deputed to 
 spect of pre- mere man ? Or to any other creature ? Could it 
 existent deity. poss ibly be so ? and to what part of the professing 
 Christian church must they belong who shall dare to say it was? 
 The power to declare and pronounce pardon, as ambassadors in 
 the name of Christ, does appertain even to mere men ; but Christ 
 forgave sins judicially and in His own name, and by His own power 
 as The Son of Man. 1 " Son, be of good cheer ; thy sins be for- 
 given thee. And behold, certain of the Scribes said within them- 
 selves, This man blaspJiemeth," etc. " But that ye may know that 
 The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins," etc. Or 
 take Mark's account, " Why doth this man thus speak blasphe- 
 mies? Who can forgive sins, but God only?" etc. And similarly 
 Luke. But each Evangelist distinctly asserts that Jesus, in reply 
 to this charge of blasphemy, viz. by claiming to act as God and 
 to forgive sins in His own name and right, assured them He did 
 so as Son of Man ; and that He had such power even upon earth: 
 the implication being that He exercised such power, as matter of 
 course, in heaven. However, as Son of Man Christ professed 
 to enact one of the offices of God. 
 
 1 Matt. ix. 6; Mark ii. 10 ; Luke v. 24. 
 
186 THE SON OF MAX. 
 
 Again : In what other sense than as God is the Son of Man 
 Lord also of the Sabbath day ? " But I say unto you, That in 
 this place is one greater than the temple. For if ye had known 
 what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would 
 not have condemned the guiltless. For The Son of Man is 
 Lord also of the Sabbath day." Who is this that implies that 
 for any to disregard the sacred authority of His presence would 
 be a worse sin than to desecrate the sanctuary of God Most 
 High? Who but He who is Lord also of the temple? Who but 
 He, who being Lord of the temple, is Lord also of that divine 
 religion of which it was the national monument and expression ? 
 Who but He, who as such, is Lord also of the sabbath day ; the 
 consecration of which was the very sign of fellowship between 
 The God of the temple and the people who worshipped there ? 
 Surely when Christ undertakes authoritatively to re-arrange 
 the observances of the sabbath ; and asserted that He was 
 Lord also of the sabbath ; surely then He claimed to be that 
 God of Israel, and of all men, who had first instituted that 
 sabbath. But this He tells us He professed to do as Son of 
 Man. 
 
 Once more : In what sense is it possible to blaspheme Christ? 
 As man, or as Godl " Wherefore 1 say unto you, All manner of 
 sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men ; but the blas- 
 phemy against The Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. And 
 whosoever speaketh a word against The Son of Man, it shall 
 be forgiven him ; but whosoever speaketh against The Holy 
 Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither 
 in the world to come." Now as from this text we argue unan- 
 swerably for the deity of The Holy Ghost, because to blaspheme 
 Him is the greatest of all sins, so we argue unanswerably for 
 the deity of The Son of Man ; and that too, by necessity of 
 our Saviour's language, as such Son of Man : wherefore, again, 
 Son of Man is a title of deity, as such ; i. e., of Christ as pre- 
 existent in divine essence. 
 
 Further : This same deity as Son of Man it was which Jesus 
 claimed by reference to Jacob's vision at Luz, when He said to 
 Nathaniel, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall 
 see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending 
 upon The Son of Man." By which allusion Christ identified 
 
THE SON OF MAN. 187 
 
 Himself to the mind of "the Israelite indeed " as the same Jehovah 
 whom Jacob had seen above the ladder, ministered to or at- 
 tended upon by the angelic hosts. In which same sense Jesus 
 said, " Doth this offend you ? What and if ye shall see The Son 
 OF Man ascend up where He was before?" Which remarkable 
 question of our Saviour's not only asserts that He has the title 
 Son of Man in divine essence as existing before his incar- 
 nation ; but also enables us to dispose of the attempted Unitarian 
 corruption of those passages where our blessed Lord's ascending 
 and descending are alluded to as if they could possibly mean l 
 metaphorically — His being made acquainted with the counsels 
 and purposes of God to mankind — by assuring us that they are 
 intended to assert Christ's previous presence in the glories of 
 heaven, and His coming thence ; and returning to the same 
 glory of The Godhead, as He actually did on the occasion of His 
 ascension. 2 I subjoin a list of such passages below; 3 as to 
 which it is noticeable they abound in St. John, who wrote against 
 Cerinthus, the earliest Unitarian. 
 
 And lastly, that the Jews understood the title The Son of 
 Man to be a divine title, a title assertive of proper deity, as truly 
 as that other title The Son of God is clear from the decision of 
 the Sanhedrim which condemned Him : 4 " And the high priest 
 answered and said, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell 
 us whether thou be the Christ, The Son of God. Jesus saith 
 unto him, Thou hast said : nevertheless, I say unto you, Here- 
 after shall ye see The Son of Man sitting on the right hand 
 of power and coming in the clouds of heaven." Here was a 
 bold assumption, by reference, of the glories predicted for Mes- 
 siah in the one hundred and tenth Psalm — " Adonai, at thy right 
 hand shall wound even kings in the day of his wrath" — " Then 
 the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blas- 
 phemy ; what further need have we of witnesses ? behold now 
 ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye ? They answered 
 and said, He is guilty of death. Then," etc. So Christ suffered ; 
 because He claimed to be The Son of God, and also because He 
 
 1 Belsham's Calm Enquiry, p. 29 — 35. a Acts i. 9. 
 
 3 John i. 1 ; hi- 13, 31 ; vi. 33—62 ; xiii. 3 ; xvi. 28 ; xvii. 5, 24 ; 
 1 Cor. xy. 47 ; 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; Ephes. iv. 9 ; Philip, ii. 5—9. 
 * Matt. xxvi. 63—66. 
 
188 THE SON OF MAN. 
 
 claimed to be The Son of Man ; each title being in Hebrew Scrip- 
 ture, a claim of deity ; viz. of Sonship equal with The Father ; 
 the first title, Son of God, having reference to his Messiahship, i.e. 
 to Him as Christ, in the second Psalm, "Thou art my Son," etc.: 
 "Kiss The Son, lest he be angry," etc.; and the second title, 
 Son of Man, having reference to His Messiahship, in the one 
 hundred and tenth Psalm, "The Lord said unto my Lord," etc., 
 and " Adonai, at thy right hand shall wound," etc., and also to 
 Daniel's vision of The Son of Man, at chap. vii. 13. 
 
 I shall not dwell upon this matter at further length, but con- 
 tent myself with observing that because Christ, as The Son of 
 Man, was able to forgive sins ; also was Lord of the Sabbath, 
 and greater than the temple ; also could be blasphemed against ; 
 also asserted that as such He was in heaven before His incarna- 
 tion, and ministered unto by the heavenly hosts ; also was con- 
 demned for claiming to be such, as equivalent to Son of God, and 
 therefore (as before) equal to The Father; that, on all these 
 accounts Sox of Man is a divine title ; a title of deity existent 
 before incarnation — a title of The Son as man : was known as 
 such to the Jews ; and is traceable to, and equivalent with, the 
 Hebrew title Adonai, which they knew to be a title of Jehovah 
 their God; given to Him, The Son, as continually incarnated ; 
 and predictively given to Him by Ezekiel, who 1 in Adonai- 
 Jehovah indicated that Jehovah who would judge Israel for their 
 multitudinous transgressions. " Wilt thou judge them, Son of 
 Man, wilt thou judge them?" 
 
 Son of Man a Probably the reader will not require any lengthy 
 title for lies- assurance that the title Son of Man is continually 
 in the flesh hit use d m the Holy Gospels as equivalent to Christ. 
 still expressive But there are some considerations which I wish to 
 °J ei y. urge upon him for the purpose of shewing that 
 
 such title, so assumed by, or applied to, our blessed Lord in His 
 visible humanity, did also like the word Christ necessarily carry 
 with it the implication of deity. That the title Son of Man was 
 assumed by our blessed Lord equivalently with Christ is plain 
 from His own 2 statement ; " John came neither eating nor drink- 
 ing, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of Man came eat- 
 ing and drinking, and they say," etc. — whence it is clear that as 
 
 i Ezekiel xx. 4. 3 Matt. xi. 19. 
 
THE SON OF MAN. 189 
 
 John Baptist professed to he the predicted forerunner of Christ, 
 and was by The Saviour acknowledged to be such, He, calling 
 Himself in this place, Son of Man, professes by such title to be 
 Christ, whom John preceded. Similarly in conversation with 
 His disciples ; l " Whom do men say that I, The Son of Man, 
 am ? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art The Christ, 
 The Son of the living God. And Jesus answered, and said unto 
 him, Blessed art thou Simon Barjona," etc. What was the 
 meaning of this confession, for which Peter was so solemnly 
 blessed ? W T hat great truth was it that Peter had so received by 
 the teaching immediately of The Father, which is in heaven? 
 Was it simply that Son of Man, and Christ as man, were synony- 
 mous ? Was it merely that Christ, The Son of Man, as a man 
 singularly pious and devoted, was The Son of the living God ? 
 Was it merely that Jesus was The Son of Man, and The Son of 
 the living God, in any such common, limited, and subordinate 
 sense as Unitarians would have us suppose ? Did not all the 
 disciples know at least as much as that ? Did Jesus desire His 
 apostles' confession to that end only? Did they need especial 
 revelation to enable them to see that fact ? or, was it in that 
 higher, and sublimer sense which St. Paul points at when he 
 affirms, 2 " No man can say that Jesus is The Lord, but by The 
 Holy Ghost ? " When our blessed Saviour educed from St. Peter 
 a blessed confession, to be received and promulgated by all the 
 apostles, that He, The Son of Man, was also The Christ, was also 
 The Son of the living God — the confession was made in that sense 
 of Sonship which, to Jewish ears, implied equality with deity ; 
 and Jesus stood before them, in lowly and despised humanity, 
 professing to be, and acknowledged by His apostles to be, The 
 Son of Man as The Christ, The Son of the living God : equal 
 with God. That the Jews knew well the title, Son of Man, to be 
 equivalent to Christ ; and that, moreover, their Christ, or Mes- 
 siah, was to be no mere man is also plain from their conversation 
 with our blessed Lord, as recorded by St. John, 3 "We have 
 heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever : and how 
 sayest thou, The Son of Man must be lifted up ? Who is this 
 Son of Man?" They knew that Son of Man was a title equi- 
 
 i Matt. xvi. 13. * 1 Cor. xii. 3. 3 John xii. 34. 
 
190 THE SON OF MAN. 
 
 valent to Christ, or Messiah ; their difficulty was — how He could 
 be, as He had just professed, that Son of Man, and yet be lifted 
 up, i. e., put to death ? That was the difficulty of which Jesus 
 gave them no explanation ; but His assertion of whose correct- 
 ness had just been sanctioned as heavenly truth by the voice 
 of God. 
 
 This same difficulty was felt also to an overwhelming degree 
 by His apostles. It was immediately after their faith had 
 been challenged, and that article of belief in Christ's deity laid 
 down for them by the instrumentality of Peter, that Jesus began 1 
 "to shew unto His disciples, how that He must go up to Jeru- 
 salem and suffer," etc. What I wish the reader to note is that 
 their difficulty was how The Son of Man could be so offered up ? 
 Had they supposed this was merely a human title, there could 
 have been no difficulty on that head : but, when they saw Jesus 
 before them as The Son of Man, and proclaiming Himself by that 
 name, they knew that name was a synonym for Christ, or 
 Messiah, in this particular sense, that He was to abide for ever, 
 was not to die, because He was The Son of the living God. But 
 this mysterious truth, that The Son of Man though Son of the 
 living God was to die, Jesus began at last to teach His disciples 
 from their own scriptures ; and, indeed, to the Jewish scriptures 
 we must go for some of the plainest proofs of Messiah's deity. 
 Which great fact has been in some degree neglected even by 
 sound, and devoted, Trinitarians. I fear (if the truth may be 
 told without offence) because the study of the Old Testament 
 language has been wonderfully neglected. But at least Uni- 
 tarians ought not to expose themselves to a similar charge : 
 they ought to be prepared to argue upon all scripture. Yet, 
 why is it that they venture, I might correctly say dare presume, 
 to base the defence of their principles upon the New Testament 
 alone ? I say alone ; for whoever will be at the pains to 
 refer (not to mention Mr. Belsham) to Mr. Yates' Vindication, 
 which is their standard work of defence, will find that the Old 
 Testament receives so passing, and inconsiderable reference, that 
 we are justified in saying its power, and authority, on this great 
 subject are ignored ; and Unitarianism is based upon perversions 
 
 1 Matt. xvi. 21, and xvii. 22, 23. 
 
THE SON OF MAN. 191 
 
 of the New Testament alone. I believe the attenuation inflicted 
 upon the teaching of Christianity by the fact that our Theologians 
 of late years have been ignorant, comparatively speaking, of the 
 Old Testament, exceeds just calculation. But, be this as it may, 
 it was to those same Scriptures x that Jesus referred, not for 
 proofs of His claims to be Christ-as-man, but to be Christ-as-God ; 
 the life-giving Messiah promised to Israel of old. "By this 
 time, I take it for granted, every pious reader must have 
 observed how copious and conclusive the Scriptures of the 
 Old Testament are upon the subject of The Trinity; and that 
 without having recourse to them upon every occasion, it is im- 
 possible for me, or for any man, to deal fairly and honestly by 
 the Apostolical doctrine of the Church of England. Our Lord 
 himself has told us that every scribe, or teacher, instructed unto 
 the kingdom of heaven, should bring forth out of his treasure 
 things new 2 and old. It was His own practice. He appealed at 
 every turn to the law, the prophets, and the psalms for the tes- 
 timony of His own doctrine ; and the Church has followed His 
 example, from the days of the Apostles, almost down to the pre- 
 sent times, And so far is the Old Testament from being no 
 part of the Scripture, that it is the book, and the only book, the 
 Gospel calls by the name of the Scripture. It was this book 
 which the noble and faithful Bereans 3 searched every day of their 
 lives to see whether the Gospel then preached, and afterward 
 published in the New Testament, was agreeable to it, with the 
 intention either to receive or reject it, as it should appear to 
 be recommended by this authority. It was this book, for his 
 skill in which Apollos is praised as one mighty in the Scriptures ; 
 the same Scriptures, of which St. Paul was bold to affirm, for 
 the benefit of a brother Christian, 4 that they were "able to make 
 him wise unto salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus." 
 As long as this faith flourished in the Church, these Scriptures 
 were much read, and profitably understood ; but now it is 
 dwindled into a dry, lifeless system of morality, they are become 
 in a manner useless ; and some (it grieves me to say), even of 
 those who have undertaken to teach others, want themselves to 
 
 1 John v. 39 ; Luke xxiy. 27, 45 ; Acts xvii. 2, and xviii. 5, etc. 
 2 Matt. xiii. 52. 3 Acts xvii. 10, and xviii. 24. 4 2 Tim. hi. 14—17. 
 
192 THE SON OF MAN. 
 
 be taught again this first element of Christianity, that the New 
 Testament can never be understood and explained, but by com- 
 paring it with the Old. Of this error and its consequences, we 
 have a sad example in the celebrated Dr. Clarke ; a man whose 
 talents might have adorned the doctrine of Christ, had not his 
 faith been eaten up by a heathen spirit of imagination, 1 and phi- 
 losophy." 
 
 However, thus it was that Jesus began to teach His disciples 
 that The Son of Man, 2 though as such He was also The Christ 
 The Son of the living God, must also suffer death : and that the 
 mysterious character of this truth was perceived in the fact that 
 He professed to be Son of Man is seen 3 also again by our 
 Saviour's statement in reference to His betrayal ; " The Son of 
 Man goeth as it is written of Him ; but woe unto that man by 
 whom The Son of Man is betrayed ! it had been good for that 
 man if he had not been born." In what lay Judas' unpardon- 
 able guilt ? In what particular was the horror of his conduct 
 thus proclaimed by Jesus, that he betrayed Christ as man 1 
 Did any such fearful guilt as Judas' attach to those 4 who had 
 shed the blood of all the prophets "from that of righteous Abel 
 to the blood of Zacharias, the son of Barachias, who was slain 
 between the altar and the temple ! " Surely not ; vast as their 
 iniquity was, Judas' was unequalled : for his guilt lay in the 
 fact that Jesus, as The Son of Man, was also The Son of the 
 living God; The Christ The Son of the living God: The Son of 
 Man, as confessed to by Martha ; 5 The Christ of Israel, as He 
 averred Himself to the woman of Samaria. 6 Lastly, for this 
 purpose of noting that The Son of Man is a title equivalent to 
 Christ as The Son of God, I shall refer again to John; 7 "And 
 as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must 
 The Son of Man be lifted up ; that whosoever believeth in Him 
 should not perish, but have eternal life." A declaration made 
 by the blessed Saviour immediately after His assertion of pre- 
 existence in deity as The Son of Man with The Father. And faith 
 in Jesus, if to be saving, is not faith in his manhood, but in his deity. 
 
 1 See Jones' Cath. Doct. Trinity. Cambridge. 1828. 
 
 8 Mark ix. 12, 31. 3 Matt. xxvi. 24 ; Mark xiv. 21 : Luke xxii. 22. 
 
 * Matt, xxiii. 35 ; Luke xi. 50. 3 John xi. 27. 6 John iv. 25, 26. 
 
 7 John iii. 13—15. 
 
THE SON OF MAN. 193 
 
 „,, _, „,, I have called attention elsewhere 1 to the impossi- 
 
 Thc Son of 3I(i)i 
 
 is a title of bility of the attempted Unitarian interpretations of 
 
 Christ ni glory such expressions as 'ascending and .descending' 
 
 when applied to Jesus : and we may, if we please, 
 
 take John's verse, 2 " No man hath ascended up to heaven," etc., as 
 
 a nucleus to which all such passages may be referred. But the 
 
 same fact, and the justice of the Trinitarian interpretation of 
 
 such places, viz., that Christ was pre-existent in Divine glory in 
 
 heaven, is seen from our Saviour's conversation with the Jews, 3 
 
 where He discourses of Himself as The Son of Man. He there 
 
 illustrates His character, His coming, and the object of His 
 
 coming, by the manna which literally came down from heaven. 
 
 He calls Himself " The Bread of Life ;" and when the Jews were 
 
 at a loss to understand in what sense they could eat His flesh 
 
 and drink His blood, He exclaims — " Doth this offend you ? 
 
 What, and if ye shall see The Son of Man ascend up where He 
 
 was before?" And some of them did so see Him ascend. 4 So 
 
 that we know that as Son of Man He was in glory above ; as Son 
 
 of Man He came down ; as Son of Man He literally ascended 
 
 again ; and that, therefore, • such title is no mere expression of 
 
 His human nature : but, as according to Daniel, is significant of 
 
 His Christship, viz., of His taking the manhood into God. To John 
 
 the sixth I shall recur again. 
 
 Further, that the title Son of Man appertains to Christ as 
 
 strictly such, viz., as God-man seen in glory we may also be 
 
 sure of from Stephen's dying exclamation ; 5 " Behold, 1 see the 
 
 heavens opened, and The Son of Man standing on the right hand 
 
 of God. Then they cried out," etc. It was a bold assertion in 
 
 the very face of the Sanhedrim that that Jesus whom they had 
 
 slain was the Adonai of Psalm ex. And, similarly, as Son of 
 
 Man, He will come from heaven to judge : 6 in His own glory, 
 
 and in the glory of The Father ; with the holy angels, and with 
 
 all His holy angels with Him ; as Son of Man, He sends forth 
 
 His angels ; and, as Son of Man, He acknowledges His faithful 
 
 people before The Father. 
 
 1 See p. 187, supra. 2 John iii. 13. 3 John vi. 31—65. 4 Acts i. 9, 10. 
 5 Actsvii. 56. 6 Matt. xvi. 27 ; and xxv. 31. Luke xii. 8; and xxi. 3G. 
 
 O 
 
194 THE SON OF MAN. 
 
 _ . But as the time is come when we should explain 
 
 Jttemarks on _ . . r 
 
 Johny. 17— 31, tne Trinitarian doctrine of 'The Subordination/ I 
 
 closing the pre- shall close this chapter with remarks upon 1 St. 
 
 John's statement that " The Father judgeth no 
 
 man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son," as a fitting 
 
 introduction to it. This remark occurs in an address of our 
 
 Saviour's to the Jews, occupying a considerable part of John's 
 
 fifth chapter : and I shall divide it for the reader's convenience 
 
 into four sections, ver. 17 — 20 ; ver. 21 — 24; ver. 25 — 27; and ver. 
 
 28 — 31, to which the reader can refer. In these sections, 
 
 nothing can be plainer than that Christ asserts equality with some 
 
 sort of inequality ; how are the two to be reconciled ? Thus, Sec. 1, 
 
 "Making Himself equal with God;" yet, "The Son can do 
 
 nothing of Himself, but what He seeth The Father do :" Sec. 2, 
 
 " For as The Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them ; 
 
 even so The Son quickeneth whom He will;" yet, "For The 
 
 Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto 
 
 The Son : Sec. 3, " For as The Father hath life in Himself, so hath 
 
 He given to The Son to have life in Himself; and hath given Him 
 
 authority to execute judgment also, because He is The Son of 
 
 Man:" Sec. 4, "I can of Myself do nothing." That the Jews 
 
 understood Him to assert equality with God is clear ; and Jesus 
 
 delivers this address to enforce His claims, and refers them to 
 
 their own Scriptures in proof of them ; yet, it is manifest, He 
 
 asserts of Himself with equal clearness two grand principles of 
 
 truth, viz., equal power and identity of will with The Father ; 
 
 but also derived power, or authority given or committed from 
 
 The Father. How are the two statements to be reconciled? 
 
 The answer, which will be set forth at length in the next chapter 
 
 is this:— 1. That as The Son, begotten, He is of one and the 
 
 same nature, essence, or substance, with The Father, who 
 
 begets ; and, therefore, equal with The Father ; the Unitarian 
 
 statement that the relation 2 of The Son " denotes a state of 
 
 approbation, of favour, of protection, and of privilege ; but it is also 
 
 a state of inferiority, of dependence, and of subordination," being 
 
 equally, and manifestly, opposed to human observation, reason, 
 
 and experience. Were we speaking of men and children there 
 
 1 John v. 17—31. 8 Yates' Vind. p. 73. 
 
THE SON OF MAN. 195 
 
 might be justice in it ; but, even as between men and men, the 
 cases are infinite wherein neither protection, nor inferiority, nor 
 dependence, nor subordination, of sons to their fathers are implied. 
 Moreover, such incidents of human relationship depend upon the 
 accidents of human nature, such as variations in mental and 
 physical power, and in local or social circumstances. But, in 
 considering deity, such accidents do not apply : and what we can 
 gather from the metaphor, The Father, and The Son, is identity 
 of essence, like from like ; and, in consequence, perfect equality. 
 But, 2. It has pleased The One True God to manifest Himself 
 to man for purposes of government, or economy, towards man 
 in the relations Father, Son, and Holy Ghost : and of these 
 three, order and direction, with subordination, are affirmed: 
 hence, The Son speaks as acting in subordination to The 
 Father : and The Holy Ghost is revealed as enacting the will 
 of both, also in subordination. Yet, of The Holy Ghost, 
 greatest dignity is affirmed, for blasphemy against Him is the 
 greatest sin, and unpardonable ; so that His subordination im- 
 plies no inferiority. And even The Father divests Himself 
 of authority, and leaves The Son absolute Lord and Master of 
 the universe, and of life eternal; losing no dignity by thus 
 divesting Himself : and, equally so The Son, Son of God, and 
 Son of Man, in both characters Divine, divests Himself of glory, 
 in the economy, and acts in willing subordination to The 
 Father ; without laying aside, or forfeiting, or suffering to be 
 denied, His Equality of Essence. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE SUBORDINATION. 
 
 He subject of the present chapter is of the 
 greatest importance, and I must solicit the 
 reader's closest, and most serious attention. 
 It is to be feared that through misapprehension 
 of Holy Scripture's statements on this head 
 many Trinitarians have been startled in their 
 faith ; and also that through similar misapprehension and mis- 
 take of the Church's avowed doctrine in respect of it many Uni- 
 tarians have been confirmed in their previous errors, or ha"ve 
 fallen into deeper. Let us remember as we enter upon it that 
 we have nothing to do with any speculations beyond the an- 
 nouncements of Holy Scripture into which some persons may 
 have thought proper to enter. We are not called upon to 
 explain the mode in which The Father, The Son, and The Holy 
 Ghost exist as God : nor to explain the meaning of relationship 
 in deity such as suggested by the words Father, or Proceeding : 
 nor to account for, nor justify, the fact that Deity has seen fit 
 to reveal Himself under such characters to man. All we have 
 to do is to enquire whether it be fact that Deity is so revealed in 
 the sense in which the Christian Church maintains ; and whether 
 the statements of Holy Scripture on the subject are undeniable, 
 and also consistent. Any contradiction in the Holy Bible 
 vitiates the truth of that part of it ; and of any quantity, even, it 
 may be, of all the Holy Bible affected by the part so proved to 
 be inconsistent, or contradictory. 
 
THE SUBORDINATION. 197 
 
 Let us first of all, merely by way of illustration, 
 Subordination . o i -u • • j. j.-l -u c 
 
 does not of itself trans f er ourselves by imagination into the world of 
 
 imply inequal- spirits. Let us suppose ourselves watching among 
 ordinate 6 ^ " ^ e angels, or among those who are equal to the 
 angels, viz., " the spirits of just men made perfect." 
 Let us suppose ourselves to perceive, or by ministration of 
 other spirits, have pointed out to us any number of such blessed 
 beings equal in all respects in their perfections ; having the same 
 attributes to the same degree in all particulars ; and moving in, 
 and belonging to the same order or degree of heavenly power. 
 Let us suppose we noticed in the operations of these willing sub- 
 ordination of some to the wishes and directions of any others. 
 Does this willing subordination imply any, even the least, 
 degree of inequality ? Is it not possible, and permissible, for 
 perfectly equal minds to arrange themselves in subordination, or 
 order, for effecting the purposes of their common design ? Rea- 
 son gives one clear answer to such enquiries — it is : and hence, 
 so far as reason can travel in this matter, and in this direction, 
 Deity having revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 there may be a subordination in deity, for purposes of economy, 
 without implying the slightest inequality in degree. 
 
 Nay ; reason carries us somewhat further. For let us regard 
 the actions of men among themselves. Is it quite impossible for 
 the superior in essence, i.e. (as regards man), the superior in 
 mind, to act in subordination to the inferior ? Cannot we conceive 
 the superior in such sense willingly placing himself in subordina- 
 tion to the inferior for the purposes of action, arrangement, or 
 economy, without in the slightest degree forfeiting, or impair- 
 ing, or causing to be questioned, his superiority? Do we 
 not perceive this habitually in human affairs ? But if so, then 
 once more reason, mere reason, justifies not our attaching the 
 slightest idea of inferiority to willing subordination in the rela- 
 tions of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Now, supposing it should 
 be that all revelation which Deity has made of Himself to man 
 should be economical, i.e., should be in relation to His government 
 of those spiritual beings which He has created; and especially to 
 His supernatural, and providential government of man? Cannot 
 we conceive an announcement of willing subordination for pur- 
 poses of such government in revealed relations of deity (if there 
 
198 THE SUBORDINATION. 
 
 be any such) without attaching the idea of inequalities to such 
 subordination ? Cannot we even conceive that hi the mysterious 
 relations revealed of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, either may 
 forego for some design in relation to man, and so far as that de- 
 sign is held in view, the exercise of His rightful, and proper 
 functions, until such design be accomplished? Thus, when we 
 are told that "The Father judgeth no man, but committeth all 
 judgment unto The Son" — are we prepared to argue for in- 
 feriority of The Father to The Son, because of such His gracious 
 condescension? Once more reason gives but one reply — Surely 
 we cannot. But if not, then since consistently even with mere 
 reason The Father may willingly divest Himself, for purposes to- 
 ward fallen man, of the exercise of divine dignity so far, and yet 
 we cannot therefrom argue for inequality in Him ; surely reason 
 affirms that The Son, and The Holy Ghost, may act similarly ; 
 and yet gives us no room to argue for inequality in Them. 
 
 _ But it will be said — ' All this is of official subordi- 
 
 Examination of . , , , „ 
 
 the terms Be- nation ; and we concede the argument. Be it 
 
 gotten and Pro- granted that willing official subordination implies 
 
 ceedmq as used . _ _ 
 
 of The Son and no inequality, l our Church affirms much more 
 
 of The Holy than that, viz., subordination of essence by the use 
 of such terms as Begotten and Proceeding. ' — What 
 the Christian Church affirms we shall take leave to consider for 
 ourselves by and by ; but, meanwhile, let us consider this sup- 
 posed objection. 
 
 As to the terms we use, they are adhered to as essential to the 
 argument only so far as they can be traced to, or justified, by 
 Scripture itself. Thus, when St. Paul asserts that Christ is the 
 express image of The Father's Hypostasis, that word indicates 
 the unchanging essential substance, or being, of God. Doubtless 
 the best that could be put into the mouth of St. Paul for the pur- 
 pose ; but still inefficient, like every other human term, for the 
 supernatural idea intended to be conveyed : but our best single 
 word for its expression has been considered to be the wordier- 
 sow — " the express image of His person :" and, could a better be 
 found, we are not wedded to that. Similarly of the words be- 
 gotten and proceeding. They are, we conceive, the best in our 
 language to express the corresponding words, or phrases, in re- 
 ference to the deity of The Son and of The Holy Ghost : but on 
 
THE SUBORDINATION. 199 
 
 such account alone do we adhere to them. Let us direct our 
 thoughts to this part of the subject, therefore, under the 
 guidance of these two terms. Let us understand that of the 
 essence of The Son it is said He is begotten; and of the essence 
 of The Holy Ghost it is said He is proceeding. 
 
 That word begotten spoken in reference to The Son seems far 
 better to express the force of the original word in either testa- 
 ment, than the word person above alluded to does the substance, 
 or being, of The Father ; but still we must carefully remember, 
 that in expressing the nature of deitg, all language, (even those 
 languages which at the crucifixion received a sort of divine im- 
 primatur for scriptural purposes, viz., Hebrew, Greek, and 
 Latin,) is necessarily insufficient and imperfect. Now the subject 
 is of Deity ; and on such subject the term begotten, or its equi- 
 valents, are admitted to be used in the Holy Bible. Let us bless 
 The Lord God of Israel and of the Gentiles, and pray to be per- 
 mitted to gaze at the word, and its ideas, in calmness. The term 
 is of deity, begotten — the question is of spirit, not of matter. Let 
 us ask a question or two ? Does reason tell us that Spirit cannot 
 be propagated? If so, whence the propagation of human 
 spirits ? Surely man is a spirit ; and Unitarians admit it. And 
 if such spirits are not daily propagated, then they are daily 
 created. But if so, who creates them, with all their sinful propen- 
 sities ? Unitarians know but one Creator, viz., God, nor do we, 
 But according to them, and us, He is a perfectly holy God ; and 
 never creates, nor in any way causes, evil. Man's evil spirit, 
 therefore, is not created, but propagated. Spirits, then, can be 
 propagated: spirits, as distinguished from bodies; for Unitarians 
 do not need to be told, any more than we, that the spirit of man 
 that is in him is a being or existence, to be distinguished from, 
 and which can, and will, be separate from, the body of flesh. In- 
 corporeal spirit, then, can be propagated. And, so far as reason 
 carries us, God can, if He please, beget, i. e. (the subject being 
 incorporeal), put forth spirit in His own likeness. Now as to 
 spirits subject to accidents, viz., to external influences of bodily 
 connection, or social relation, or material influences of this earth, 
 or any other, we can conceive rationally their variation in kind, 
 viz., in power, or character ; though it seems to be settled by 
 reason, and observation, that whatever produces must produce 
 after his kind, and cannot produce after any other kind. Thus, 
 
200 THE SUBORDINATION. 
 
 the spirit of man when it puts forth, as it does, spirit, puts 
 forth, or begets, only the spirit of man : which begotten spirit 
 being subject to external influences may vary, and does vary, in 
 power and character in the various individuals begotten. More- 
 over, every human spirit propagated, begotten, or put forth, is 
 such by union, and commingling, of two ; hence, again, reason 
 dictates the variableness in power, or character, though asso- 
 ciated invariably with sameness of kind. 
 
 Such thoughts, though involving impenetrable mystery, are so 
 far in strict consonance with reason ; and, carried on to the idea 
 of Deity, lead us to important results connected with The Holy 
 Trinity. Thus God has been pleased to affirm of One, to whom 
 we find that the name, and all the infinite attributes, with the su- 
 preme worship due only to Deity, are assigned — "Thou art my Son, 
 to-day have I begotten Thee." Is man prepared to say that God 
 could not beget, propagate, i.e. (since the subject is incorporeal) 
 put forth, spirit after His land? Reason answers, No ; man cannot 
 be qualified to make affirmation on the subject ; but reason does 
 assert, and man is qualified to affirm, that if God does so put 
 forth spirit, that spirit must be after His kind ; and since deity 
 can be subject to no accidents, or external influence, such spirit 
 so put forth after His kind, must be of the same kind, order, 
 power, character, and degree, must in the Church's phrase be of 
 one substance, i. e., of one being, alike infinite in all its attributes ; 
 and, therefore, must needs be on equality. Moreover, the subject 
 being still incorporeal, the spirit so put forth being put forth of 
 one, must ever have been co-existent, and, as it were, contained 
 in that one; and since of spirits reason can conceive as to existence, 
 no increase, nor diminution, nor separation of parts ; since spirit 
 has no body, parts, or proportions ; therefore it follows, and 
 thus far consistently with mere human reason, that the spirit 
 propagated, begotten, or put forth of one infinite spirit, is put 
 forth, or begotten, with strict identity of essence, was co-existent 
 with that by which it is so put forth, or begotten ; and is put 
 forth without diminution, or separation of parts : as light may be 
 put forth, or begotten, of light. In such sense The Son is the 
 only begotten of The Father : in all respects equal in essence : 
 and with The Father in very essence, in the beginning, before time 
 was, and before all worlds : God of God, Light of Light, Very 
 God of Very God : begotten, not made ; being of one substance 
 
THE SUBORDINATION - . 201 
 
 with The Father. So that we conceive of no time when The 
 Son, so begotten, was not. Thus far, even reason carries us on 
 the term begotten : and so to be begotten implies no inferiority. 
 
 Let us look at the term proceeding. This is used in reference 
 to The Most Holy Spirit, and is traced to that verse in John's 
 Gospel, where he says, " The Spirit of truth -which proceedeth 
 (i. e., goes out from, ixTrogevsrca) from The Father," and also 
 to statements repeated in several and various forms in 
 Holy Scripture. But as to the sense of the word proceeding, 
 when applied to spirit, it will be plain to the reader that much 
 which has been said upon the term begotten is applicable also to 
 this : e.g. the spirit which proceeds from spirit must be in all 
 respects the same, and equal in essence to, that spirit from which 
 it proceeds. This is the reason why Unitarians denying the 
 personality of The Holy Ghost maintain that The Spirit of God is 
 continually a mere synonym for God. But what I want them 
 now to tell me is this : — How is it that they admit that spirit 
 when proceeding from God must needs be of the same essence, 
 and synonymous with God ; but that spirit if begotten of God 
 is not so ? What sort of meaning do they attach to the word 
 begotten ? or if they admit, as they do, that spirit can emanate, 
 or flow forth, or proceed from God, why do they deny it can be 
 begotten of God? Once more I ask, what sort of meaning do 
 they attach to that word begotten ? There is a sense in which, 
 applied to deity, these two words, begotten and proceeding are 
 synonymous ; and he who admits, as the Unitarian does ad- 
 mit, that Spirit of God can proceed, will find it hard to deny 
 that Spirit of God can also be begotten. There is a sense 
 in which the two are synonymous, and, therefore, the earliest 
 fathers continually spake of Christ under the name Spirit. 
 But is that your Church's sense ? Yes ; it is our Church's 
 sense. Then wherefore any distinction? For this reason, viz. 
 that The Son is of The Father alone; but The Spirit is of 
 both The Father and The Son. " The Son is of The Father 
 alone ; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost 
 is of The Father, and of The Son ; neither made, not created, 
 nor begotten, but proceeding. ," Hence the distinction between 
 begotten and proceeding. The Son proceeds ; but in a different 
 sense : to mark that peculiar sense Holy Scripture, not we, 
 has employed a word which means begotten; and has appro- 
 
202 THE SUBORDINATION. 
 
 priated that to The Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from The 
 Father and The Son, but in a sense not applicable to The Son ; 
 and therefore the Church has appropriated the word proceeding 
 to Him, and that by authority of Holy Scripture, for it is as- 
 serted that The Father sends The Comforter, which is The Holy 
 Ghost, in Christ's name, 1 and also that Christ sends Him " from 
 The Father :" and The Spirit thus proceeding equally from The 
 Father and from The Son, their equality in essence is mani- 
 festly proved. For I wish Unitarians to tell my readers how, 
 since they admit that The Spirit of God is synonymous with 
 God, how Christ can send God, unless he be God? Or, adopting 
 St. John's own words, how can Christ send The Comforter, The 
 Holy Ghost, from The Father, unless He be one in essence, 
 inseparable from, and co-operating with The Father. There is 
 St. John's language, let them look at it ; let them get the biggest 
 bible that England is blessed by printing, and look at it ; there 
 is the language. Do they mean to say that Christ has power, 
 or controul, over The Father ? Do they mean to say that The 
 Father is subordinated, and inferior to The Son, because The 
 Son sends The Holy Ghost from The Father ? Do they mean 
 to say that The Holy Spirit, which they maintain is synonymous 
 with God, is inferior to God because He is sent ? Do they 
 mean to say that The Father sends Himself? or The Son sends 
 Himself? What is this that they say? we know not what they 
 say. But we know what we say ourselves ; because we keep to 
 scripture : viz. that The Holy Ghost is sent by The Father, 
 and is sent by The Son ; that therefore, as sent, He proceeds both 
 from The Father and from The Son ; that, so proceeding, He 
 must be of their essence, and therefore must be God ; which we 
 are also prepared to prove from other sources ; and, lastly, that 
 seeing He so proceeds from The Son, as well as from The 
 Father, therefore The Son is God equally with The Father. 
 Thus much on the terms begotten and proceeding. 
 
 But do not the very terms Father, Son, Holy Ghost, 
 Precedence or _ tM _ .. . , „ 
 
 order in The Begotten, Proceeding, imply some sort 01 prece- 
 
 Eoly Trinity dence, or order, in the Three? Yes; a prece- 
 as reveahd in , , ' , . n TT -, „ . , i • i 
 
 the Scriptures, dence, or order, which Holy Scripture plainly 
 
 asserts ; and which the Christian Church has 
 
 from the first acknowledged as part of her Trinitarianism. Not 
 
 1 John xiv. 26 ; and xv. 26. 
 
THE SUBORDINATION. 203 
 
 such a precedence, or order, as implies pre-existence of one 
 before the others ; seeing that eternity is equally asserted of all; 
 seeing also that essence, mind, or spirit, cannot beget, or put 
 forth, or cause to proceed, that which did not previously exist 
 in itself as put forth, begotten, or proceeding : seeing also that 
 essence, mind, or spirit, being incorporeal admits of no variation 
 or increase of parts. Nor again such a precedence, or order, as 
 makes in any degree whatever in favour of Unitarianism, This 
 is seen in a moment : for since the Unitarian is compelled to 
 admit that The Spirit is at least an emanation from The Father, 
 or even a synonym for The Almighty Father Himself; and since 
 also it is certain that St. John says such Spirit is sent both by 
 The Father and The Son, it is manifest enough that The Spirit 
 being such as admitted by Unitarians, and being so sent, any 
 idea of precedence in the sense of inequality, i.e., of greater or 
 less dignity, is destroyed. On that head Unitarians refute them- 
 selves, so long as John's Gospel stands as it is. 
 
 What, then, is the precedence, or order, of persons referred to 
 in The Holy Trinity? We may gather some idea in answer to 
 this question by observing, first of all, the order of offices towards 
 man revealed to us in Holy Scripture respecting The Father, 
 The Son, and The Holy Ghost. Any way, even calling Unita- 
 rians (especially those more correctly termed Arians) as our wit- 
 nesses The Father is revealed as originating and willing salvation; 
 The Son, as working out in His own person, and exemplifying 
 salvation ; The Holy Spirit, as working within the believer's soul, 
 and fitting for salvation. I say this is so even among those who 
 strip The Son and The Holy Spirit of their proper dignity. Here, 
 then, is an economy of parts, or offices, to be discharged ; which 
 indicate precedence, or order, in the persons discharging them : 
 and it would not be difficult to shew now, as we have else- 
 where, that the enactment of each part successfully neces- 
 sitates the agency of deity, and that therefore, each person so 
 enacting each part in this scheme of salvation is equally God. 
 Now a similar sort of precedence, or order, is revealed in Holy 
 Scripture respecting the persons of The Holy Trinity; and is 
 implied in the terms Father, Begotten, and Proceeding. The 
 Father is revealed as the fount of deity : The Son and The 
 Holy Spirit, under the terms Begotten and Proceeding, as de- 
 riving deity from Him ; in essence the same, eternal and inse- 
 
204 THE SUBORDINATION. 
 
 parable. This great truth, part of Trinitarianism, is laid down 
 clearly in various scriptures ; and the earliest apostolical writers 
 denote it in the fact that they employ various terms to signify 
 this precedence, or order, in The Holy Trinity ; without detract- 
 ing from the dignity of either. " And in this Trinity none is 
 afore, or after, other ; none is greater, or less, than another : 
 but the whole Three Persons are co-eternal together, and co- 
 equal." To express such ideas the earliest Christian writers used 
 to speak of The Father, as the fount, the root, the beginning, the 
 head even the cause, of Deity as to The Son and to The Holy 
 Ghost. But as no human terms can, with exact accuracy, define 
 the nature of God, they did so appending explanatory clauses 
 for the purpose of showing that they preserved the co-eternity, 
 and co-equality of the Three. That, e.g. as light imparted only 
 what was originally existent in it, and that without diminution 
 of itself, — so The Son was Begotten, and The Holy Ghost did 
 Proceed, as previously co-existent with The Father, and The 
 Son, without diminution of the essential Godhead of the one, 
 nor contradiction to, or degradation of, the Godhead of the 
 others. Hence, as respects the Son it was added, God of God ; 
 Light of Light ; Very God of Very God, etc. : where the word 
 of has the force of out of, and the word very prefixed to both 
 in the third clause has the power of expressing identity, and 
 equality, of divine essence. Also, as respects The Holy Spirit 
 it was added — " The Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth 
 from The Father and The Son ; who with The Father and the 
 Son together is worshipped and glorified," etc. 
 
 „ This being the admitted doctrine of The Christian 
 Importance of _, , „ ., „„.... 
 
 remembering m Church, protessedly a part ot Irinitananism, 
 
 what senseTEE based upon Holy Scripture, and acknowledged in 
 Father is as- , , ., : .„ , , , , ° , 
 
 sorted to be the ner cree ds, it is manliest how much depends 
 
 fount of Deity, upon the sense in which we speak of the power 
 or character, of The Son or of The Holy Ghost as derived from 
 The Father. The Church acknowledges this derivation; but in 
 the sense of co-existence, or co-eternity, and of co-equality. Uni- 
 tarians, like Mr. Belsham, misrepresent us by sneering at a 
 "subordinate Jehovah"; Arians, like Mr. Yates, mistake our 
 views, mix up and confound scripture in such a way that when 
 we come to analyze their statements as to what they call Christ's 
 derived being and power, we find their objections fall precipi- 
 
THE SUBORDINATION. 205 
 
 ately to pieces. A large part of Mr. Yates' work is valueless 
 on this very account, e.g. chap. 6, " Christ's wisdom and know- 
 ledge imparted to Him by God The Father:" chap. 7, "The 
 power of Christ given to Him ;" why, of course, we know they 
 were : and that in a two-fold sense, demanding corresponding 
 discernment in treating Holy Scripture : given to Him, by 
 begotten essence — in the sense that He is Very God of Very 
 God : given to Him also, by incarnation of deity — in the sense 
 that one Christ is God and man. But what then ? the Deity of 
 The Son is not hereby impaired. 
 
 I shall illustrate Unitarian error, and false teaching, by 
 selecting one part of Mr. Yates' book especially designed to en- 
 force the Arian view of Christ's inferiority. I mean that which 
 speaks in chap, vii., and Appendix Note D, of Christ's power as 
 Creator of all things as not His own, but God's : so that in 
 creation The Son of God was a mere instrument. Mr. Yates 
 makes the wonderful discovery that there are two Greek pre- 
 positions, Dia and Hypo, whose meaning may affect, as he sup- 
 poses, this part of the question ; and he works these unfortunate 
 prepositions with all the desperation of a sailor sinking at the 
 pumps. His argument is this, that the New Testament asserts 
 that God made the worlds through Christ, using the preposition 
 dia ; and not by Christ, using the preposition hypo : that hypo 
 would have been used to express the efficient cause ; but dia 
 only the instrumental; and that, therefore, Christ was an 
 instrumental cause merely, and not the efficient cause of creation ; 
 that, therefore, His powers were derived, not originally His 
 own. Even, if his idea about the prepositions was sound, (which 
 it is not) the argument is absurd : for many causes are at the 
 same time not only instrumental, but also efficient. Thus, for 
 illustration's sake, one great architect, say Inigo Jones, em- 
 powers another great architect, say Christopher Wren, to 
 build a cathedral in London ; and concerting the result, or 
 object designed to be erected, leaves the details, and ordering of 
 the building, in every particular to him : Wren is the instru- 
 mental cause : but is he not also the efficient ? and does the fact 
 that he is such instrument imply, that his creative power is 
 inferior to Inigo 's? Nay more: to man's own reason, is not 
 the instrumental exercise of power the clearest proof of its 
 personal possession? Really it is absurd in these days (Mr. 
 
206 THE SUBORDINATION. 
 
 Yates' 4th Edition is dated 1850) for any men, professing 
 scholarship, to be talking about the prepositions dia and hypo. 
 I merely allude to them lest any young man should suppose 
 that Unitarians have learning on their side ; and I fix upon this 
 part of Mr. Yates' work as being disagreeably rotten. Taking 
 his stand upon Unitarianism, in a manner most amusingly 
 gallic, Mr. Yates playing at dia and hypo reminds one of the 
 cock upon a certain place who scratched up a jewel, and had 
 great difficulty (as might be expected) in understanding what it 
 meant. The fact is that dia is used both of the instrumental, 
 and of the original and efficient, cause ; and if anybody needs to 
 be convinced of this, I should say, read Mr. Yates' Appendix, 
 Note D, where it will be seen that Mr. Yates is driven to hope- 
 less shifts to get rid of the New Testament in this particular ; 
 and in trying to do so is not afraid to make God the author 
 of sin. See references below. 1 
 
 But, leaving those who choose to consult Mr. Yates, let me 
 state the argument in a more popular form. The Christian 
 Church by its earliest writers habitually speaks of God as crea- 
 ting the worlds through Christ : using that very preposition dia ; 
 and, if in other languages, those which are equivalent to it. 
 Some of them even spake of Christ, as the instrument of The 
 Father ; but as an instrument, not extraneous but con-natural. So 
 that there is really nothing in this Arian argument. Mr. Yates' 
 notion is not his own; but actually taken from the ancient 
 Arians. So that Bishop Bull observes : " Athenagoras, in treat- 
 ing of the work of creation, which in the Scriptures is attributed 
 to The Son of God, teaches that the universe was created, not 
 only di'autou, ' through ' The Son, which the Arians were willing 
 to allow (understanding of course ' through Him ' to mean, 
 through Him as an instrument, which of itself has no power to 
 do anything), but also pros autou, 'by Him;' that is, as con- 
 joined with The Father, the primary and efficient cause ; and 
 that with the addition of this reason, that The Father, and The 
 Son, are one in essence, that is to say, and nature ; and, conse- 
 quently, in power and operation ; which is diametrically opposed 
 to the Arian heresy:" also to Mr. Yates'. There is nothing 
 then in the supposed criticism upon dia through ; the Christian 
 
 1 Yates' Yindic, p. 295, on Matt, xviii. 7, and xxvi. 24 ; and p. 296 on 
 
 Romans y. 12. 
 
THE SUBORDINATION. 207 
 
 fathers themselves habitually use the expression, of which 
 numerous examples might be quoted; but I give references 
 below. 1 And there is an additional curious fact connected with 
 this dia, against which the reader should be warned, viz., that 
 when in prayers, and doxologies, such as those which now lie 
 before me (which I hope to refer to again elsewhere) they 
 say "through Jesus Christ our Lord :" or " Now unto the King- 
 eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God : be honour and 
 glory, through Jesus Christ, for ever and ever:" they use our 
 words ; but do not mean them as we do. And sincere enquirers 
 need to be guarded against the mutilation of our Church's 
 formulas. Ancient doxologies were as follow : " With whom 
 (The Son) to Thee (The Father) be glory, honour, praise, glori- 
 fication, and thanksgiving ; and to The Holy Ghost, for ever and 
 ever, Amen:" or, "To Thee (The Father) be glory, praise, 
 majesty, worship, and adoration; also to Thy child Jesus, Thy 
 Christ, our Lord, and God, and King ; and to The Holy Ghost, 
 both now and ever, and world without end, Amen." Now, the 
 Arians did not like tln&t" ivith whom," so they altered it tfl "through 
 whom " (that same handy little preposition, dia), or, in whom ; 
 with the design of intimating that in nature The Son is inferior 
 to, and therefore alien fifem, The Father. Hence, to shew their 
 meaning for " through whom " (dia), Christians both before and 
 after the council of Nice joined the two together in praising The 
 Son ; thus, " through whom, and with whom." This is the force 
 of the doxology in the concluding prayer of our Holy Com- 
 munion Service ; " through Jesus Christ our Lord ; by whom, 
 and with whom, in the unity of The Holy Ghost, all honour and 
 glory be unto Thee, O Father Almighty, world without end." 
 Let stragglers, and the thoughtless, and the anxious too, take 
 care how they worship with Unitarians ; for their Christ is not 
 our Christ ; their Mediator not our Mediator : ' through Christ ' 
 according to them is not ' through Christ ' according to us. 
 
 But, indeed, the argument upon dia lies in a nutshell. Let the 
 young Unitarian mark what I say. Assuming that Christ was 
 the instrument in creation, how can a finite instrument be 
 invested with infinite power? How can an acorn-cup contain the 
 universe ? If Christ created all the worlds, as instrument, He 
 1 Bull's Def. Nic. Creed, pp. 52, 53, 54, 86, 113, 114, 124, and 153. 
 
208 THE SUBORDINATION. 
 
 must have received, have retained, have exercised, infinite wisdom 
 and power. Give Him these, and you make Him God : and 
 since infinity cannot vary, or be unequal, you make Him God, 
 equal to The Father. When, therefore, Unitarians, like Mr. 
 Yates and his followers, acknowledge the pre-existence of Christ, 
 and that He created, and now upholds, the icorlds by wisdom and 
 power which He was capable of receiving; they either acknow- 
 ledge Him to be God, or they talk nonsense. He that wields 
 infinity is God. Moreover, can God deny Himself.' No; but if 
 Christ be not God, He is finite: and God cannot deny Himself; 
 and give infinite power to one whom He has already made finite. 
 When God imparts infinity He imparts His own unchangeable 
 essence ; and that which is so begotten, proceeding, or derived 
 from God in essence, must also be God. 
 
 Above, I have endeavoured in such language as I 
 fromsome early could command > to explain the Trinitarian doctrine 
 writers concern,- of the Subordination : a term used in its proper 
 
 xng the buoor- sense f or derlu arrangement : a term indicating no 
 dinatwn. . 
 
 inequality in the persons of The Holy Trinity : 
 
 expressing not gradation in essential dignity, but gradation in 
 
 official order : a term illustrated by the offices undertaken by The 
 
 Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost : a term whose meaning 
 
 is suggested by such very title ; and also by the expressions 
 
 begotten, and proceeding : a term expressive of the existence of 
 
 Deity before any creation ; so that we conceive of no moment 
 
 when The Son was not begotten ; nor when The Holy Ghost was 
 
 not proceeding : a term which, though much misrepresented and 
 
 abused by them, makes nothing in favour of Unitarians ; nor 
 
 justifies the Arian view of Christ's derived existence, knowledge, 
 
 or power : a term which, from the first, has been carefully 
 
 guarded and explained as against such very Arians. But that 
 
 so awful and important a subject may not be trusted to the 
 
 accuracy of any words I may use, I proceed to express the same 
 
 doctrine by a few short extracts from the fathers ; and shall 
 
 then shew the effects of such doctrine in the interpretation of 
 
 certain scriptures, too likely to be generally misunderstood. 
 
 Justin Martyr ; " The prophetic word intimates that there were 
 
 two in number : one being on earth, who says that He had 
 
 come down to see the cry of Sodom ; the other being in the 
 
 heavens, who is The Lord even of The Lord on the earth, as 
 
THE SUBORDINATION. 209 
 
 being Father and God, and to Him the cause of His being both 
 mighty, and Lord, and God:" Irenatus ; "The immeasurable 
 Father is measured in The Son, for The Son is the measure of 
 The Father, since He also contains Him :" Clement of Alexandria ; 
 "The Perfect Word born of The Perfect Father:" or again, 
 " The Divine Word, who truly is the most manifest God, made 
 equal to The Lord of all ; because He was His Son, and The 
 Word was in God :" Tertullian ; " The Father delivered all things 
 to Him who is not less than Himself — to The Son : all things, 
 which He created by Him ;" or again, "Nor shall we approxi- 
 mate to the opinions of the Gentiles, who, if at any time they be 
 forced to confess God, yet will have other Gods below Him. 
 The Godhead, however, has no gradation, for it is only one." 
 Thus unity, and equality of The Persons, were taught in relation 
 to the Godhead ; and quotations might be multiplied ; but the 
 same fathers taught also distinctly the subordination ; viz., grada- 
 tion in order, but not gradation in essence. Thus Tertullian, in his 
 treatise against Praxeas, " I shall follow the Apostle so that if 
 The Father and The Son are to be mentioned together, I shall 
 call The Father God, and name Jesus Christ Lord. But Christ 
 alone, I shall be able to call God ; as the same Apostle says, — 
 1 Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever.' For 
 a ray of the sun also by itself, I should call sun ; but if I were 
 speaking of the sun, of which it is a ray, I should not forthwith 
 call the ray also sun :" Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of The Three 
 Divine Persons, " How, then are they not alike without begin- 
 ning, seeing they are alike eternal? Because they are from 
 Him, although not after Him. For that which is without begin- 
 ning is also eternal; but that which is eternal is not in all senses 
 without beginning, so long as it be referred to The Father as a 
 beginning. They are not then without beginning in respect of 
 cause :" Ambrose ; "The Father is Lord, because He is the root 
 of The Son" — again, " The Father is the fountain of The Son ; 
 The Father is the root of The Son:" Basil; " For The Father, 
 indeed, has His being perfect, and wanting in nothing, being the 
 root and fountain of The Son and of the Holy Ghost :" Augustine; 
 " In the Father is suggested to us authorship, in The Son nativity, 
 in The Holy Ghost the communion of The Father and The Son, 
 in the three equality :" Hilary; "For since the unbegotten God 
 
 P 
 
210 THE SUBORDINATION. 
 
 is author to the only-begotten God, unto the perfect begetting of 
 Divine blessedness, to be the author of the begetting is the 
 mystery that belongs to The Father. However, it is no deroga- 
 tion from Him, who, by a genuine begetting, fully makes Him- 
 self to be the image of His author :" Damascene ; " We acknow- 
 ledge a difference of The Persons in these three properties 
 alone; of being uncaused, and what belongs to The Father; 
 being caused, and what belongs to The Son ; and of being caused 
 and proceeding" 
 
 It is needless to multiply quotations. Nothing can be clearer 
 than that the earliest teachers in the Church, maintained the 
 unity of God ; the equal Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; 
 yet taught gradation of order in the three persons, The Father 
 as fountain of deity, The Son as begotten, and the Holy Ghost as 
 proceeding. Their authority for this distinctive teaching being 
 Holy Scripture. 
 
 Here I shall state a fact, for which I do not pretend to account. 
 I have found it necessary to be extremely cautious in accepting pro- 
 fessed quotations from other writers made by Unitarians. Thus, Mr* 
 Yates, with a flourish of trumpets, calls up Origen and Eusebius ; 
 and quotes Origen on St. John, " Thus also here, if all things 
 were made through The Word, they were not made by The Word* 
 but by one more powerful and greater than The Word :" as if, 
 therefore, Origen taught that The Word was less than The 
 Father. But the same Origen, in the second chapter of his work 
 Peri Archon, — " Now that you may know that the omnipotence of 
 The Father and of The Son is one and the same, as He is one and the 
 same God and Lord with The Father, hear John in the apocalypse 
 speaking on this wise, — ' These things saith The Lord God, 
 which is, and which was, and which is to come, The Almighty.' 
 For He which is to come, who is He but Christ? And as no one 
 ought to be offended, that The Father being God, The Saviour 
 likewise is God ; so also The Father being called Almighty, no 
 one ought to be offended that The Son of God likewise is 
 called Almighty." The truth is that Origen, and others, enforc- 
 ing or stating the doctrine of the subordination used terms which 
 the Unitarians, viz. Arians, have perverted and abused ; but 
 good Bishop Bull cast his noble eye upon this fact, and winds 
 up his defence of Origen, that he did not teach inferiority of The 
 
THE SUBORDINATION. 211 
 
 Son to The Father, in the following words : " For, unquestionably, 
 there is scarce any one of the primitive fathers who has rejected 
 this blasphemy more distinctly than he." 
 
 Let us next look to Eusebius, and defend his honour too from 
 Mr. Yates. He is quoted thus, " And when he says in one place 
 (ver. 10) that the world, and in another (ver. 3.) that all things, 
 were made through Him, he declares the ministration of The 
 Word to God. For when the evangelist might have said, ' All 
 things were made by Him,' and again, ' The world was made by 
 Him;' he has not said by Him, but through Him; in order that 
 he might raise our conceptions to the underived power of The 
 Father as the original cause of all things." Now, as I have 
 already shewn, in enforcing the doctrine of the Subordination it 
 was usual with the ancient writers to use such terms as that The 
 Father (as such) is the fountain, origin, principle, or even cause of 
 The Son : or that The Son (as such) was caused, received from 
 The Father His nature and godhead, so that even Justin Martyr 
 calls The Son the minister of The Father ; and Origen goes so 
 far even as to call Him 'The Second God.' Such terms the 
 ancient Arians separated from their explanatory contexts, 
 seized hold of, and perverted. And Eusebius has been treated 
 so more than others. For he wrote with peculiar ardour against 
 Sabellians, viz., those who denied distinctness of persons in the 
 deity : but perceiving how the Arians were misrepresenting him, 
 he wrote an apology to all the bishops, and said that if he had ever 
 put forth or written anything which savoured ever so little of 
 the doctrine of Arius, he had put it forth and written it, ; ' not 
 according to his (Arms') impious notion, but through a careless 
 and unregarded simplicity" being wholly intent, that is, on 
 attacking the Sabellian heresy. But what the real opinion of 
 Eusebius is, though thus enforcing the subordination of The Son, 
 is clear from the fact that he asserts elsewhere that The Saviour 
 is " worshipped, and rightly worshipped, as the genuine Son of 
 the supreme God, and very God." Of course, Trinitarian verity 
 is quite safe, irrespective of both Origen and Eusebius ; but it 
 seemed no more than right to say thus much in their defence. 
 
 Yet once more, upon this question about dia and hypo here 
 touched on again by reference to Eusebius, those who wish to 
 assure themselves that dia is used of the efficient cause, and ev^n 
 of The Almighty Father, can refer to the Greek for John vi. 57 ; 
 
212 THE SUBORDINATION. 
 
 Rom. xi. 36 ; Gal. i. 1 ; 2 Tim. i. 14 ; Heb. ii. 10, and ix. 14. How 
 can we, even with the utmost charity, justify Mr. Yates' assertion 
 that 1 Cor. i. 9 is the only exception to his fancied rule ? See 
 Vindic, p. 298. 
 _, . As previously observed, Scripture needs discrimina- 
 
 (JOMStuCVft-tlOfl 
 
 of special texts tion in respect of the person of Christ, that He was 
 involving the D0 th. God and man. It also needs discrimination in 
 Subordination. ^xi^tt mo rmT. -n 
 
 respect that He was The Son of The Father. For 
 
 The Father is often called such by distinction ; sometimes God 
 absolutely, sometimes The one God, sometimes The ' God and 
 Father of all.' So our blessed Saviour, " Thee the only true 
 God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent :" so St. Paul, " But 
 to us there is but one God, The Father, of whom are all things, 
 and we in Him : and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all 
 things, and we by Him;" or again, " One Lord, one faith, one 
 baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and 
 through all, and in you all." Such passages distinguish The 
 Father as the head, and source, the principle or beginning of 
 deity as the fathers express it, but contravene not the equal 
 deity of The Son, which is proveable from other sources. Or 
 again, " The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth 
 The Father do ; for what things soever The Father doth, these 
 things doeth The Son likewise : for The Father loveth The Son, 
 and sheweth Him all things that Himself doeth," etc., viz., by 
 necessity of divine essence: the perfect unity between The Father, 
 and The Son ; and necessity of the fact that The Father begets ; 
 The Son is begotten. And so throughout St. John's chapter 
 subordination as The Son : official subordination as The Christ : 
 and power, and authority, deputed in such a way as to imply the 
 equal capacity of deity in The Son, who could receive such 
 power. It is in this sense of subordination, viz., of gradation in 
 order, for the mysterious purposes of the divine economy, or 
 divine government, that we are just permitted to gaze into the 
 other world, and perceive that there also, as in the present state 
 of existence, The Son acts as willingly subordinate in represent- 
 ing the will and power of The Father ; " Then cometh the end, 
 when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even The 
 Father ; when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority 
 and power .... And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, 
 then shall The Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all 
 
THE SUBORDINATION. 213 
 
 things under Him, that God may be all in all." As now, and from 
 the first creation, when The Son wrought out of the will of The 
 Father by creation of the worlds, so then in the government of 
 all creation saved, or lost, always upright, or for ever fallen, The 
 Son will represent, and enact The Father's will, in economical, 
 and willing, subjection or subordination. 
 
 But there is one Scripture, of such seeming importance to this 
 branch of the subject, that I shall place it formally by itself. 
 Our blessed Lord declares 1 that He knoweth not the day fixed 
 for the final judgment. " Of that day, and that hour, knoweth 
 no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither The Son, 
 but The Father." The short explanation of which passage is this, 
 viz., that The Son had not the date of the final judgment among 
 those truths which He was commissioned to make known to 
 man : it was part of His duty, in willing subordination, not to 
 declare that day to men. And the right explanation of His 
 mode of expressing this truth is to be found in the fact that, in 
 biblical language, whether in the Old Testament or the New, 
 verbs used in the same clauses have frequently to be interpreted 
 with different senses, according to their different subjects men- 
 tioned in such verses. 2 Thus, " the people believed Jehovah, 
 and His servant, Moses:" "And all the people greatly feared 
 Jehovah and Samuel : " And all the congregation .... wor- 
 shipped Jehovah and the king:" Hezekiah and the prinaes 
 "blessed Jehovah and His people, Israel:" "No man knoweth 
 The Son, but The Father ; neither knoweth any man The Father, 
 save The Son, and he to whomsoever The Son will reveal Him :" 
 " It seemed good to The Holy Ghost and to us :" "Ye are wit- 
 nesses and God also." In such passages the verbs have different 
 meanings, according to their subjects; thus, he to whom The 
 Son reveals The Father knoweth The Father, but not in the same 
 degree, or sense, in which The Son knoweth The Father. So 
 man knoweth not the day of judgment in his mode or degree of 
 knowledge ; angels know it not in theirs ; nor The Son in His; 
 for in the divine economy The Father hath reserved the times 
 and the seasons in His own power ; and it belongs not to The 
 Son to meddle with, to take cognizance of, nor to promulgate them. 
 
 1 Mark xiii. 32. 
 
 8 Yates' Vind., pp. 237, 238; ExocL xiv. 31 ; 1 Sam. xii. 18 ; lCkron. xxix. 20- 
 
 2 Chron. xxxi. 8 ; Matt. xi. 27 ; Acts xv. 28 ; 1 Thess. ii. 10. 
 
214 THE SUBORDINATION. 
 
 He who knowingly, and willingly, came to save, yet was sent,h\x.t 
 said/' Lo ! I come," will once more be sent, yet come knowingly and 
 willingly, and say, Lo ! I come " to judge— -"to do Thy will, O God." 
 There is a sweet subordination, and oneness of will between the 
 loving Father and The Son ever loved : and though as God with 
 The Father He knoweth all things : yet as The Son with The 
 Father He knoweth not ; but waits, in conscious unity of power 
 and of purpose, the moment for His mission — when the voice of 
 the archangel, and the trump of God before Him, shall proclaim, 
 " Behold, He cometh in clouds, and every eye shall see Him, 
 and they also that pierced Him, and all the kindreds of the 
 earth shall wail because of Him." But if any prefer to read the 
 text merely of His manhood, it is permissible to do so ; for, as 
 Bengel has 1 observed, " Do you ask, why He is here called The 
 Son, not by a name taken from His human nature ? The answer 
 is, In announcements respecting The Saviour it is usual to join 
 humiliation in the subject with glory in the predicate ; and humi- 
 liation in the predicate with glory in the subject. Hence, though 
 Jesus in manhood knows not He is none the less The Son in glory 
 and in knowledge, as God." 
 
 And, in fact, discrimination is required upon certain texts 
 which might be supposed to bespeak the subordination of The Son ; 
 but really refer to His manhood as Messiah. Thus, " If ye loved 
 me ye would rejoice because T said I go unto my Father : for my 
 Father is greater than I." Would ye have me always in humi- 
 liation? remember the glory of my Father, with whom I once 
 was, but came down for man's sake to die. Oh ! if ye really 
 loved me, ye would rejoice that once more I return to my Father, 
 rescued from the degradation of the flesh — for my Father in 
 glory is greater than His Son thus humiliated. Similarly, " My 
 Father which gave them me is greater than all (the enemies of 
 my sheep), and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's 
 hand;" no, nor out of mine own hand, for " I give unto them 
 eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man 
 pluck them out of my hand ;" for, " I and my Father are one." 
 But, indeed, that Christ's subordination as Christ, or as Son, im- 
 plies no inferiority to The Father is manifest from St. John's 
 chapter, wherein our blessed Lord explains this subordination; 
 
 See Bengel' s Gnomon on Mark xiii. 32. 
 
THE SUBORDINATION. 215 
 
 introducing the conversation thus, " My Father worketh hitherto, 
 and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, 
 because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said that God 
 was His Father, making Himself equal with God." Which con- 
 clusion of the Jews our Saviour proceeds not to condemn, but to 
 justify, as before 1 explained. Again, 2 " Who is the image of the 
 invisible God, the firstborn of every creature (i.e., of all creation; 
 and, therefore, no part of creation, i.e., not a creature). For by 
 Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are m 
 earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, 
 or principalities, or powers, all things were created for Him, and 
 by Him ; and He is before all things, and by Him all things con- 
 sist." Certainly we should never have thought of quoting this 
 verse, in a chapter upon the subordination, but for Unitarians, 
 who will persist in the following vicious, mode of reasoning, 
 that He, because He is called " first-born of every creature" 
 therefore He must be a creature. Whereas the apostle's 
 whole context is to assert that He is not a creature, or part 
 of creation, but The Creator ; and the meaning of the word 
 first-born in this place may be well expressed thus, " Born of His 
 Father, before all worlds." Similarly Christ is called, Rev. iii. 14, 
 "The beginning of the creation of God," not as though He were 
 part of that creation, but the eternal source of it. One 3 more 
 text — " Therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with 
 the oil of gladness above Thy fellows," viz., in manhood. 
 
 The early Christians regarded the doctrine of ' The 
 the chapter Subordination ' as of the greatest use, and abso- 
 with remarks lutely necessary to be known and believed; because, 
 mPhMipp, u. wlie ther v i ewe( i m relation to The Son as begotten, 
 
 or to The Holy Ghost as proceeding, it maintained 
 in the clearest manner the unity of Deity. This unity, under such 
 aspect, they were wont to call the monarchy of The Father — not 
 in any such sense as implied inferiority in The Son, or in The 
 Holy Ghost ; but, the equal deity of these being proved from 
 other sources, the monarchy of The Father was thrown forward 
 by ' The Subordination ' in order both of The Son, and of The 
 Holy Ghost, as the lone source of divine government, which they 
 had been accustomed to express in other words, by saying that 
 
 1 See supra, p. 194. ' * Col. i. 16—17. 3 Heb. i. 9. 
 
216 THE SUBORDINATION. 
 
 The Father was the sole arche, the source, the fount, the beginning, 
 the principle, the author, even the cause, of deity in The Son, 
 whom He begat from all eternity ; and of The Holy Ghost who 
 proceeded out of them also from all eternity. Hence it is an unjust 
 perversion 1 Qf 'Tertullian against Praxeas,'to represent Him as 
 asserting the monarchy of The Father in such sense as to deny the 
 deity of The Son, or of The Holy Ghost ; on the contrary we 
 shall select Tertullian writing against Praxeas, for the purpose of 
 asserting the monarchy of The Father with the equal deity of 
 The Three. "They," viz., the god-denying heretics, "now give 
 out that we preach two or three Gods ; and assume that they 
 themselves are worshippers of the one God ; as if it were not 
 the case, both that an unity brought together contrary to reason 
 makes heresy, and that a Trinity drawn out in conformity with reason 
 constitutes the truth. We hold the monarchy, say they. And so ar- 
 ticulately do even Latins, even the ignorant, enunciate the sound, 
 that you would suppose they understood monarchy as well as 
 they pronounce it. But monarchy Latins take pains to pro- 
 nounce; economy even Greeks are unwilling to understand. But 
 for myself, if I have gleaned any knowledge of either language 
 I know that monarchy means nothing else than single and indi- 
 vidual rule ; yet still that monarchy does not on that account, 
 because it is the rule of one, preclude him whose rule it is, either 
 from having a son, or from having made himself a son to him- 
 self, or from administering his own monarchy by whomsoever he 
 will " " Therefore if the divine monarchy also is adminis- 
 tered by so many legions, and hosts of angels, — according as it 
 is written, ' Thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten 
 thousand times ten thousand stood before Him;' — and it hath 
 not on this account ceased to be the rule of One, so as to be no 
 longer a monarchy, because it is administered by so many thou- 
 sands of powers ; how is it that God should be thought to suffer divi- 
 sion and severance in The Son and in The Holy Ghost, to whom 
 are assigned the second and the third places, being so participant in 
 the substance of 'The FATHER; which division and severance He suffers 
 not in the multitude of so many angels, and those too so alien from the 
 substance of The Father?" Thus, then, Tertullian (by whom 
 we elect on this matter to represent the other early writers of 
 1 See Beard's Seasons for being a Unitarian, p. 94, 
 
THE SUBORDINATION. 217 
 
 the Christian Church) asserted the monarchy for the purpose of 
 enforcing the Unity and the Trinity : the monarchy of The Father 
 with subordination of The Son and of The Holy Ghost: but with 
 the equal deity of these, by reason of participation in the substance 
 of The Father. The reader will, I trust, now perceive how con- 
 sistently the monarchy of The Father, and subordination of The 
 Son and of The PIoly Ghost, are asserted with The Unity and 
 The Trinity — The equal deity of The Three. 
 
 But, strange as it may appear, I shall take extracts from Mr 
 Yates' book, 1 to enforce (as I conclude) this equal deity of The 
 Son. The following Scriptures Unitarians accept as they stand: 
 " Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into His handy 
 and that He was come 2 from God and went to God," John xiii. 3. 
 " Father, the hour is come : glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also 
 may glorify Thee : as Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that 
 He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him/* 
 John xvii. 1,2. " According to the mighty power of God, which 
 He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and 
 set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all 
 principality and power and might and dominion, and every name 
 that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is 
 to come; and hath put all things under His feet, and given Him to 
 be the head over all things to the Church," Ephes. i. 19 — 22. " God 
 hath highly exalted Him and given Him a name, which is above 
 every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, 
 of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the 
 earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is 
 Lord to the glory of God the Father" Philip, ii. 9 — 11. Now all 
 these passages so accepted by Unitarians clearly designate divine 
 power in the exalted Saviour: but, not understanding or (choosing 
 to ignore), the Trinitarian doctrine of the Subordination, the y argue 
 that Christ's power and glory are derived from The Father. Of 
 course they were . Was He not begotten ? They were derived 
 by unity of substance from all eternity. But to admit, as Unitarians 
 do, that a creature could receive such infinite powers, is to make 
 
 1 Vind. Unit., p. 94. 
 8 Curiously enough the word come is omitted in Mr. Yates' beautifully 
 printed book. But Mr. Yates professes to be so good a Greek scholar that I 
 am sure he knew it ought to be there. And J perceive he ) indireetlg : admits: 
 this at Vindic.j p. 67. 
 
218 THE SUBORDINATION. 
 
 God deny Himself; and to assert that He can constitute that 
 capable of infinity, which He has already fixed as finite by crea- 
 tion ; and to make such a creature, as Unitarians do, receive such 
 divine honour and worship as here described, is to make God the 
 patron and promoter of demonology ; Christ having been (as we 
 know), whatever else He was, a man : and to say that this can 
 be done "to the glory of God The Father,' is to make God again 
 deny Himself; and, by St. Paul in this place, overthrow all the 
 revealed principles of divine service stated in these two words, 
 "Worship God." But the fact is, these passages have peculiar 
 reference to His exaltation to glory after death, and as Christ. 
 These passages from the New Testament, announce the fulfil- 
 ment of David's one hundred and tenth Psalm, when Christ is ex- 
 alted as our High Priest at the right hand of The Father ; 
 where, by David, and to the Jews, He is glorified as Adonai, 
 equal to Jehovah ; and when St. Paul says, in Philippians, that 
 every tongue shall confess that "Jesus Christ is Lord to the 
 glory of God the Father ; " it is as though he had said that 
 Jesus Christ is Adonai to the glory of God The Father." Adonai 
 meaning Jehovah. 
 
 But how can I better finish this chapter than by referring to 
 that splendid passage in Philippians ? " Who, being in the form 
 of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made 
 Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a ser- 
 vant, and was made in the likeness of men ; and being found in 
 fashion as a man, He humbled Himself; and became obedient 
 unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also 
 hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above 
 every name ; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of 
 things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the 
 earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is 
 Lord, to the glory of God The Father." He who took the form of 
 man, and so became very man : had before the form of God, and 
 so was very God : the form of God being not corporeal, but of 
 mind, or essence ; and, therefore, indivisible. Moreover, He took 
 it upon Himself, and humbled Himself, therefore He was pre- 
 existent in the form of God, i.e., as very God, before He did so ; 
 and having thus humbled Himself in manhood unto death He 
 has reascended, welcomed by The Father to His previous glory ; 
 
THE SUBORDINATION. 219 
 
 and to Him as Lord, or Adonai ; Him as very God so re-installed 
 in the glory, of which He willingly emptied Himself for a time ; 
 all creatures in heaven, and in earth, and under the earth, bow 
 the knee, and give worship as to very God. For that expression 
 " bow the knee " is indicative of supreme worship to God. See 
 passages below. 1 Thus St. Paul, " For this cause I bow my 
 knee unto The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the 
 whole family in heaven and earth is named, That," etc. 
 
 A good deal has been said upon this place in Philippians ; but, 
 after all, I believe the old-fashioned interpretation was the best. 
 The proof of Christ's pre-existent deity turns upon the expressions 
 "being in the form of God," "made Himself of no reputation," 
 viz., emptied Himself of the glory which He properly possessed, 
 " took upon Him the form of a servant," and " humbled Himself." 
 But upon the expression, " thought it no robbery to be equal 
 with God," which, in fact, is of but inferior place in the ar- 
 gument, a vast deal has been said, and not of much moment 
 either. The old-fashioned interpretation is loved not to display 
 His equality with God, but laid it aside, and humiliated Himself 
 for a time for the purposes of redemption. He counted not a 
 thing to be eagerly coveted, or snatched at, viz., that display of 
 equal glory with His Father. But, because the ancient Uni- 
 tarians, called Avians, abused this interpretation (as they did 
 many other excellent interpretations), therefore some Trini- 
 tarians have been dissatisfied, and have tried to replace it with a 
 better. The old 2 Arian perversion of the passage was to this 
 end; "because, being a lesser God, He grasped notunduly to Him- 
 self the being equal to The great God, and greater God than 
 He." Such an interpretation carries its own refutation ; besides 
 which, the proof of Christ's deity in this place is dependent upon 
 other expressions, and is hardly touched by this. A modern in- 
 terpretation 3 suggested is " regarded not as self-enrichment His 
 equality with God," which is little more than putting into a new 
 dress the old-fashioned English, "thought it not robbery to be 
 equal with God," and is scarcely necessary. And it has also 
 
 1 Isa. xlv. 23 ; Eom. xiv. 11 ; Ephes. iii. 14. 
 
 8 It is amusing to see Mr. Yates dressing up the old Arian interpretation 
 in his own way, as if he had discovered something new. See Yind., p. 243. 
 
 3 Alford's Gr. Test, in loco. 
 
220 THE SUBORDINATION. 
 
 been asked, 1 whether the "worship spoken of is to be understood 
 as given to Christ, or through Christ ; but such a question is sur- 
 prising. No worship of God The Father can be given Christianly 
 to Him through Christ, except as God The Son ; to worship The 
 Father through Christ is to acknowledge Christ as God ; or the 
 worship becomes heathenish, not Christian. It is by reason of 
 deity, not manhood, that He is intercessor, or mediator ; the man- 
 hood being taken into God. Here I must once more guard the 
 Unitarian reader of Mr. Yates' Vindication against being led into 
 serious error respecting Trinitarian commentators. He tells us 3 
 that " The translation, adopted by the modern Unitarians, is not 
 only sanctioned by the authority of many of the ancient fathers, 
 but has received the approbation of various eminent Trinita- 
 rians," whom he mentions. Why, yes, so it has ; but with the 
 qualification above explained, viz., that Christ ambitioned not to 
 display the deity, which was really His ; but emptied Himself, 
 and laid aside such glory for a time, that He might resume it 
 again with undiminished splendour in deity supreme. In short, 
 Trinitarians perceive the clearest assertion of Christ's deity, apart 
 from subordination, in this passage of Philippians. Mr. Yates, 
 and his Unitarians, see none. This describes all the agreement 
 between them, and all the divergence too. I close this chapter 
 with references on subjects to be discriminated in interpreting 
 the New Testament. Jesus speaks of Himself, or is spoken of: 
 
 1. As man ; in which sense God is His God, and we His breth- 
 ren : John xx. 17 ; Rom. viii. 16, 17, and xv. 6 ; 2 Cor. i. 3, and 
 xi. 31 ; Gal. iv. 5 — 7 ; Ephes. i. 3 and 17; Col. i. 3 ; 1 Peter i. 3 ; 
 Rev. i. 6, and iii. 12. 
 
 2. As Christ, i.e., God The Son incarnate ; in which sense He 
 is said to be chosen, anointed, insjrired, appointed, etc. : Matt.xii. 18; 
 Luke iv. 18 ; John x. 36 ; Acts iv. 26, 27, and x. 38 ; Rom. viii. 3 ; 
 Gal. iv. 4 ; Heb. i. 9 ; and a multitude of similar places. 
 
 3. As subordinate , in a sense similar to that explained in the 
 present chapter : John vi. 38 ; xii. 49 ; xiv. 31 ; xv. 10 ; xvii. 3, 
 4, and xviii. 1 1 ; 1 Cor. iii. 23 ; viii. 6, and xi, 3 ; Ephes. iv. 4 — 6 ; 
 Heb. iii. 2, etc. 
 
 1 Ibid. Also Yates' false quotation, Bull, etc., p. 243, Yindic. 
 
 2 Yates' Vindie., p. 243. See Bull's Nic. Creed, p. 88. 
 
CHAPTER Xttl. 
 
 ATONEMENT. 
 
 REEKS were acute and clever people. What 
 was it that seemed to them such foolishness? 
 Was it that St. Paul preached Jesus, a mere 
 man, son of a common carpenter, who had been 
 unjustly put to death, though an eminent 
 /^^SS22£^2? example of a pious and holy life 1 Could not 
 they have instanced, from among themselves, a similar example? 
 What was it that proved such a stumbling-block to the Jews ? 
 Was it that St. Paul told them they had crucified Jesus of 
 Nazareth, a mere man, son of Joseph and Mary, because He 
 claimed to be a teacher come from God ? Or, both as to Jews and 
 Greeks, why did they stumble, why did they deride ? Was it 
 because St. Paul preached Jesus Christ, as a mere man and pro- 
 phet, who brought to both of them " the doctrine of a future 
 life, in which men 1 shall be rewarded according to their works?" 
 Had they not both of them heard of such a doctrine before ? 
 W r as it not to both of them a subject of serious expectation ? and 
 to Jews especially an article of belief? Yet St. Paul says, 2 " We 
 preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and 
 unto the Greeks foolishness ; but unto them which are called 
 both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom 
 of God" — the last words of which verses shew a believer plainly 
 enough what it was that proved such a stumbling-block to 
 Jews, to Greeks such foolishness. But, all the prophecies and 
 promises which had gone before, did they speak merely of God's 
 
 1 Belsham's Calm Enquiry, p. 291, 
 
 * 1 Cor. i. 23. 
 
222 ATONEMENT. 
 
 raising up a prophet mighty in word and deed, 1 a mere man, 
 proved afterward to be son of one Joseph and of Mary ? Was it 
 for such a purpose, ordinary in Jewish history, that Moses and 
 all the other prophets teemed with such peculiar types, and with 
 passages of such unequalled sublimity and beauty? Was Jesus, 
 as a mere man, really the greatest ever born of women ; that, in 
 such point of view, such predictions and types can be justified 
 of Him ? He says 2 Himself distinctly that He was not : " I say 
 unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not 
 risen a greater than John the Baptist :" moreover He also dis- 
 tinctly says 3 that John the Baptist was greater than any prophet : 
 " But what went ye out for to see ? A prophet? Yea, I say unto 
 you, and more than a prophet." If then Jesus be mere man, 
 born in course of natural generation by Joseph of Mary, he was 
 (according to his own admission) less than John the Baptist. 
 But, on the other hand, if He be greater than John the Baptist, 
 He claims to be greater than one who was (according to Jesus' 
 own statement) greater than any prophet ; and, therefore, it is 
 impious to call him, as he has been 4 called, " the last of the 
 series." But, more than this, Jesus 5 asserts that John the 
 Baptist was greater than any prophet, because he came as 
 Christ's forerunner ; and does, therefore, claim to be greater 
 than John the Baptist, as the herald, or outrider, is less than the 
 majesty he precedes : so that Jesus not only asserts He was far 
 greater than John the Baptist, as John himself was greater than 
 any prophet : but that also, as John the Baptist was the greatest 
 of all men born in natural generation by man of woman, there- 
 fore, He, Jesus Christ, who was greater than John the Baptist, 
 was not born in natural generation by man of woman; therefore, 
 was not the son of Joseph and Mary ; but he was the son of 
 Mary, therefore he was miraculously conceived without the instru- 
 mentality of man. It is really time to ask Unitarians 6 " What 
 think ye of Christ? whose son is He." 
 
 rr . . . Mr. Yates, whom we have taken to represent the 
 
 Unitarian opi- . . r 
 
 nionsoftheper- Avian section 01 Unitarians, observes 7 that " al- 
 
 son and nature though Unitarians differ among themselves Con- 
 or Jesus Christ. . „ . . . , 
 
 cermng the miraculous conception and pre-existence 
 
 1 Luke xxiv. 19. ■ Matt. xi. 11. 3 Matt. xi. 9. 
 
 4 Beard's Reasons for being Unit., p. 32. 3 Matt. xi. 10. 6 Matt. xxii. 42. 
 
 7 Yindic, pp. 60, 67. 81, 86, 217, 219. 
 
ATONEMENT. 223 
 
 of Christ, some rejecting and others believing these tenets; yet 
 they all deny that He was The Eternal God, and those of them 
 who believe that He created the material world, nevertheless con- 
 ceive that in the execution of this work, He was only employed 
 as an instrument in the hands of the Deity, and unite with other 
 Unitarians in maintaining, that He was not possessed of un- 
 derived wisdom, and independent power." He admits " that 
 Jesus was nearly allied to God in His endowments, or His 
 office." He speaks of Him during "the period preceding His 
 incarnation." He admits " that The Father bestowed upon Him 
 a full participation of His own power and glory;" admits that 
 He was instrumental creator of the universe, and is appointed to 
 be the judge of all mankind. Of course, it is for Unitarians to 
 explain how God can deny 1 Himself; so that any finite creature 
 can be made competent to an infinite work, without himself 
 becoming infinite; and, also, how any finite creature can be 
 recipient of "a full participation of His own power and glory," 
 who has 2 said, "My glory will I not give to another;" without, 
 at the same time, becoming equally God. But, leaving them to 
 do so, I wish the reader now to observe that Unitarianism, as 
 stated by Mr. Yates, destroys itself. For, let every earnest 
 Unitarian observe, this doctrine conceives the pre-existence 
 of some Being, above the angels, because "nearly allied to 
 God in His endowments and office ;" which Being afterwards 
 becomes man, proper man. Here is all the difficulty of the 
 Trinitarian doctrine of the incarnation, without its Trinitarian 
 dignity and glory. We can no more imagine how this inexpli- 
 cable Being, invented by Unitarians, took man's nature upon 
 him, than we can how God The Son did so. Here must be 
 two natures in the Unitarian Christ, by force of reasoning, as 
 much as in ours ; and the consequence is that by far the greater 
 part of Mr. Yates' Vindication falls helplessly to pieces. I en- 
 treat earnest Unitarians to attend. For Mr. Yates studiously 
 denies, and ignores, 3 the doctrine of two natures in Christ; 
 writing especially to prove "the union of divine and human 
 natures impossible;" and sternly concluding that Jesus Christ 
 
 1 2 Tim. ii. 13. 2 Isa. xlii. 8 ; and xlviii. 11. 
 
 3 Yates' Vind. pp. 155—159. 
 
224 ATONEMENT. 
 
 was only mere man. But the Unitarian Christ (according to Mr. 
 Yates) is not mere man. It conceives in him two distinct natures, 
 as truly as Trinitarianism does ; viz., first, the nature of some 
 pre-existent Being "nearly allied to God," and having " a full 
 participation in His own power and glory :" and, second, the 
 man Jesus horn of Mary by miraculous conception, or otherwise. 
 This I say, is incarnation without Trinitarian glory. Moreover, 
 Unitarians are without scriptural authority for supposing the 
 pre-existence of any such Being. The only beings made known 
 to us in the Holy Word are God, Angels, and Man. And, since 
 the Arian Christ was pre-existent above the angels, because 
 " nearly allied to God in His endowments, or His office," they 
 cannot tell us what He was unless He were God. He is entirely 
 a creature of their own imaginations. Let not Unitarians demur 
 at this statement of their chosen advocate's views. It admits 
 not of denial. A large part of his l work is written upon the 
 express profession and conviction, that Jesus Christ was only a 
 man ; hence, he refuses to permit the separation, and discrimina- 
 tion, of texts, according to the Trinitarian principle of interpreta- 
 tion; 2 he claims that they all go together, and the consequence 
 must necessarily be that many texts which speak about Jesus 
 merely in His manhood (of which texts there is a multitude) are, 
 according to the Unitarian theory by Mr. Yates, interpreted of 
 one who was not merely man ; but, before He became man, was 
 also pre-existent in heavenly glory " nearly allied to God in 
 endowments," and therefore must have had a proper nature of 
 His own apart from manhood. This, I say, is Trinitarian Incar- 
 nation without its glory ; and is, moreover, self-contradiction in 
 Mr* Yates, and destroys his Vindication of Unitarianism. 
 
 We have taken this gentleman to represent the extreme fea- 
 tures of Unitarianism on one side, and that the best. We may 
 take Mr. Belsham to represent them on the other, and that the 
 worst. I have studiously avoided all through this book any 
 harsh, or censorious expressions ; but feel I should be wanting 
 in what is due to the sanctity of religion did I forbear to say 
 that I cannot, without mingled shame and horror, take up Mr. 
 
 i Vind. cits. 5—7. * Virtd. Append., Note C, p. 287—293. 
 
ATONEMENT. 225 
 
 Belsham. Unitarians represented by this writer, 1 deny any 
 pre-existence of Christ, and maintain Him to have been mere 
 man, the son of the carpenter Joseph and of Mary. But they 
 have seen very clearly the dilemma in which other Unitarians 
 place themselves, as just explained ; and they have exactly 
 discovered that between Trinitarianism and their own naked 2 
 Unitarianism, there is no sound standing-place. Accordingly 
 they maintain " that Jesus of Nazareth was a man constituted 
 in all respects like other men, subject to the same infirmities, 
 the same ignorance, prejudice, and frailties, descended from the 
 family of David, the son of Joseph and Mary." They deny 
 atonement, they deny Christ's ascension. In short, conceding 
 (like good Mussulmen) " the superior dignity of His pro- 
 phetical character," they maintain that He was merely, and 
 only, man. I proceed to consider how either class of Unitarian 
 opinions, and all diversities of Unitarianism included between 
 them, can be reconciled with the scriptural doctrine of " Messiah 
 Crucified." 
 
 The vrecious ^ ll * ; > a P ar ^ fr° m ^ ne predictions of His incarnate 
 blood of Christ deity already cited in chap. 9, how can we ac- 
 
 withiu/blemist count > u P° n the supposition that Christ was mere 
 and without man, for the gorgeous language in which the 
 s P ot - New Testament speaks of the fact of His being 
 
 sent? It is represented as unspeakable love, and condescension 3 
 on the Father's part ; infinite pity, and compassion, on the part 
 of Jesus. " So God loved the world that He gave His only- 
 begotten Son :" " God commendeth His love towards us, in that 
 while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us :" " He that spared 
 not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all ; how shall 
 He not with Him also freely give us all things :" " Herein is 
 love, not that we loved God ; but that He loved us, and sent His 
 Son to be the propitiation of our sins." Such passages — and 
 there are plenty similar — how can they be accounted for upon 
 the supposition that Jesus was a mere man, a prophet, but of 
 superior dignity, such as Moses, or Elijah, or Isaiah? Such 
 language, applied to Jesus, is unprecedented as regards any 
 
 1 Calm Enquiry, p. 291—303. Beard's Eeasons, p. 47, I. 2. 
 * Rev. xvi. 15. s John iii. 16 ; Rom. v. 8, and viii. 32 ; 1 John iv. 10. 
 
 Q 
 
226 ATONEMENT. 
 
 mere man and prophet. Moreover (and as we shall see more 
 clearly presently) the act of having come, and lived, and suffered, 
 is represented as amazing goodness and condescension 1 on The 
 Saviour's part, — He " endured the contradiction of sinners 
 against Himself" — He "humbled Himself," — "though he were 
 a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered" 
 — how can such language be interpreted of Jesus, as mere man? 
 Would he not, as such mere man, have been the first to say 
 " we are unprofitable servants ; we have done that which is our 
 duty to do ?" If he were indeed mere man, to be exalted to 
 great glory, as the reward of his self-denial and suffering, it 
 would be difficult, indeed, to show in what his love and con- 
 descension consists ; or why he should hesitate, any more than 
 others, to bear all the afflictions consequent on his own reli- 
 gious teachings, and purity of life. The gain in the end was, 
 if he were mere man, sure to be vastly his own. 
 
 Unitarians, acknowledging Jesus as mere man, maintain as we 
 stated that he was subject to the infirmities, prejudices, and 
 frailties of other men; and that we maybe sure they mean moral 
 frailties as well as physical, we 2 are carefully informed it was 
 "more honourable to Christ, and more useful as an example 
 to his followers" that his "character should have been gra- 
 dually formed to that high degree of dignity and excellence 
 which is exhibited in his history, by the practice of virtue, and 
 by the discipline of his sufferings." But it is necessary for at 
 least ourselves to perceive the subtle manner in which an un- 
 truth is here affirmed, and to note that although Jesus in human 
 nature did gradually progress physically, mentally, and morally, 
 from childhood to manhood, yet that Holy Scripture distinctly 
 asserts he was without sin, and perfectly holy, during every 
 portion of his life, according to his age : 3 " The prince of this 
 world cometh, and hath nothing in Me ;" " For He hath made 
 Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin :" " He did no sin, nei- 
 ther was guile found in his mouth:" " Ye were not redeemed 
 with corruptible things as with silver and gold . . . but with the 
 precious blood of Christ, as of a Iamb without blemish and 
 
 1 Heb. xii. 3 ; Phil. ii. 8 ; Heb. v. 8. * Calm Enquiry, p. 307. 
 
 8 John xiv. 30; 2 Cor. v. 21; 1 Peter ii. 22, and i. 18; Heb. via. 26; 
 1 Jobn iii. 5. 
 
ATONEMENT. 227 
 
 without spot:" "Such a High-Priest became us, who is holy, 
 harmless, undefined, and separate from sinners :" "And ye know 
 that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is 
 no sin." So that, on this head, it remains either that the writers 
 in the New Testament were not here inspired, and did not 
 confine themselves to truth, or else that we may consider them 
 in such places unworthy of attention. This is, in effect, the 
 avowed opinion of Unitarians such as Mr. Belsham. 1 They 
 profess to treat the Holy Scriptures with utmost reverence, but 
 deny their inspiration to any extent which pleases themselves ; 
 maintaining "that Jesus and His apostles, and others of the 
 primitive believers, were occasionally inspired to foretell future 
 events." Whether Mr. Yates, as Arian advocate, held the perfect 
 holiness of Jesus is not quite clear: but, from the manner in 
 which he mis-interprets the beautiful anecdote of The Young 
 Ruler, at p. 76 of Vindic, one might fairly suppose he did not. 
 " Why callest thou me good?" etc. Mr. Yates does not perceive 
 that our Blessed Lord is answering the self-righteous young 
 ruler " according to his folly:" and to his incorrect idea of 
 Jesus' own character. 
 
 But, to us, the sinlessness of The Blessed Saviour being 
 admitted, a very important consequence immediately follows. 
 Such manifest assertions of His prepare us in their own way 
 to expect that Jesus was not born of Joseph and of Mary, in 
 the course of natural generation. To say that The Almighty 
 could not cause a sinless creature to be born of sinner parents, 
 would of course be unjustifiable. And, no doubt, The Incarna- 
 tion is a mystery which will elude every human effort, to 
 comprehend it ; nor ought we, perhaps, to essay to do so. But 
 still the perfect sinlessness of Jesus, so positively asserted, pre- 
 pares us to expect some stupendous exercise of divine grace, 
 and holiness, and power, in his conception. And, be the mys- 
 tery ever so great (the greater, the more glorious — the more 
 withheld from man's impure mind) there is a sublime, a holy, 
 and affecting propriety in St. Luke's narrative 2 of The Miracu- 
 lous Conception, which requires no strong imagination to com- 
 mend it even to man's approval. A narrative, in rejecting 
 
 1 Calm Enquiry, p. 293, 294. 8 St. Luke i. 
 
228 ATONEMENT. 
 
 which it has pleased some Unitarians to follow the gross and 
 carnal feelings of that early unbeliever, Marcion, of whom * 
 Irenaeus says he " was the only one who openly ventured to 
 mutilate the Scriptures, and shamelessly, above all others, to 
 vilify God ;" who was among the first that paved the way to the 
 antichristian fallacies of Unitarianism ; and of whom even Uni- 
 tarians seem, in some respects, 2 ashamed. A narrative, how- 
 ever, which has been received by the Christian Church from the 
 very first as an undoubted portion of the inspired Word of God. 
 But we need not concern ourselves much about this ; since, con- 
 sistent as it may be entirely with other parts 3 of the sacred 
 writings, The Miraculous Conception does not, taken by itself, 
 enable us to prove the deity of Jesus. So grand, so dignified, 
 so awful, so affecting an introduction to human life we can 
 perceive to have been worthy of the occasion ; and, also, to have 
 been utterly unrequired for one who, if mere man (as Unitarians 
 affirm) was, according to His own confession, inferior to John 
 the Baptist. 
 
 Christ's growth Another consequence of rejecting the first two 
 in wisdom and chapters of Luke is that Unitarians can induce 
 to the Arian themselves to affirm, as Mr. Belsham does, 4 that 
 view of Mis per- " It does not appear that Jesus was at all conscious 
 of the honour, and dignity, for which he was in- 
 tended till after his baptism;" whereas, the truth is, that the 
 Evangelist records 5 his superhuman knowledge, and conviction 
 of his mission, at so early an age as twelve years ; at which 
 time " all that heard him were astonished at his understanding 
 and answers:" "How is it that ye sought Me? Wist ye not 
 that I must be about My Father's business ? And they under- 
 stood not the saying which He spake unto them." But, for the 
 Arian section of them, let us turn to Mr. Yates, and ask him to 
 explain how, upon the Arian idea, to account for Jesus increas- 
 ing in wisdom and knowledge ? That he did so increase is cer- 
 tain ; "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in 
 favour with God and man:" though, it is noticeable, that while 
 
 1 Bull's Nic. Cr., p. 389. 2 See Unit. Imp. Vers. New Test., p. 125. 
 
 3 Isa. vii. 14, and Matt. xi. 11. * Calm Enquiry, p. 292. 
 
 5 Luke ii. 46—52. 
 
ATONEMENT. 229 
 
 this is recorded of his childhood, no corresponding incomplete- 
 ness of knoAvledge, or experience, is indicated as to his man- 
 hood ; but, on the contrary, a supernatural and mysterious 
 knowledge of the human heart. However, Jesus thus growing 
 in wisdom, thus experiencing the mental developements of a 
 proper human nature, how can we accept Mr. Yates' system of 
 interpreting Holy Scripture ; which is, that every Scripture 
 speaking of Christ, must be interpreted of Him as mere proper 
 man ? The Avian view of Christ is that He was some Being: 
 "nearly allied to God in His endowments," and pre-existent be- 
 fore He became man, i.e., became incarnate ; and, therefore, hav- 
 ing necessarily a previous, and proper, nature of His own before 
 He took man's. Were these hvo natures ; or were they not? If 
 they were; what becomes of the Unitarian objection against the 
 Trinitarian doctrine of incarnation ? for then it is manifest that 
 they hold incarnation more strangely than we. And what be- 
 comes of Mr. Yates' Vindication, and of his mode of explaining 
 Scripture in this respect ? But if they were not two natures, do 
 Unitarians mean to tell us that such mysterious, spiritual, intel- 
 lectual Being, "nearly allied to God in His endowments," in- 
 creased in wisdom upon earth? The dilemma is fatal to that sec- 
 tion of Unitarians, who choose Mr. Y"ates as their represen- 
 tative ! 
 
 In fact, St. Luke's brief notice of Jesus' childhood is unspeak- 
 ably important on that very account. It enables us to note His 
 proper humanity, mentally, as well as physically; so that, as man 
 He increased in mind as well as in body : while as One who 
 came down from heaven (as Arians admit He did) He possessed 
 another, and superior, nature of divine order, which admitted of 
 no increase, or growth, of intelligence upon earth. Here is the 
 proper foundation of that distinction, 1 that spiritual discernment, 
 in interpreting Holy Scripture, which requires the two natures, 
 viz., of God and of man, in Christ to be kept in view together; 
 which is rejected and derided by Mr. Yates ; which, however, is 
 necessary to his own system, and which is (as I shewed in 
 chap, ix.), the unavoidable consequence of the mode in which 
 the prophets predicted the advent of Messiah. 
 
 1 Phil. i. 10, and 2 Tim. ii. 15. 
 
230 ATONEMENT. 
 
 Christ s suffer- rt is natural, but humiliating, that upon one other 
 ings an atone- great subject all the deniers of Christ's deity — 
 MENT - Jews, and Arians, and Mussulmen, and Socinians, 
 
 and Unitarians, should shake hands ; l they are one fold without 
 a shepherd. There is (say they) no atonement, by the blood of 
 Jesus. Now, strictly speaking, it is no part of my present duty 
 either to prove, or to explain, that great doctrine of The Atone- 
 ment. All I have to do, on such head, is (assuming its truth) to 
 point out in what manner it tends to confirm our belief in the 
 deity of Christ, or the contrary. Still we may be allowed to ex- 
 press amazement that any persons, professing to accept the 
 Holy Bible as a revelation from God, should feel justified in 
 denying that doctrine. If it be intended to deny man's capacity 
 to comprehend it fully, we immediately assent ; but, if to deny 
 the fact of its being enjoined as a doctrine necessary to salvation, 
 we are amazed. Atonement was the condition laid down for 
 pardon of sin when our first parents were expelled from Eden : 
 that lamb of Abel typified a blood of better sprinkling. 2 Atone- 
 ment is the idea from which branch out all the ordinations of 
 Levitical sacrifice ; and that Paschal Lamb of Moses reminds us, 
 even in these late days, 3 that " Christ our passover is slain for 
 us." It was this great doctrine, and its accompaniment of high- 
 priestly intercession, 4 which St. Paul wrote the epistle to the 
 Hebrews to explain. That, since the blood of bulls and of goats, 
 which were offered by the law could never take away sins, nor 
 make the comers unto such sacrifices perfect in the all-searching 
 eye of God, therefore Christ, the great Antitype, by one sacri- 
 ficial and atoning offering of Himself once offered, perfected for 
 ever them that are sanctified. Atonement is the spirit which 
 pervades utterly the Levitical institution, without shedding of 
 blood was no remission, and atonement is the very life of Chris- 
 tian doctrine, which is illustrated accordingly in the New Testa- 
 ment by habitual reference to such institutions. We may not be 
 
 1 I do not believe that Unitarians generally will be desirous of that honour. 
 It is the more necessary they should know that the affinity with Mussulmen 
 claimed for them all by Mr. Yates is very prettily expressed at pp. 239, 240, 
 of his Vindication. 
 
 2 Calm Enquiry, pp. 302, 313. 3 Heb. xii. 24. 
 
 4 1 Cor. v. 7. 5 Heb. ix. 11—14, and 23—28 ; x. 8—22, etc. 
 
ATONEMENT. 231 
 
 able to understand the nature of this atonement ; ftyiKf, ,we are 
 not. But of the fact that such atonement is the very foundation 
 of the Christian religion, and the first condition of a dinner's 
 acceptance, there should remain no doubt upon our minds. 
 
 The enquiry, in its earliest stage, may be reduced to this — Does 
 the Holy Bible declare that man, as he universally exists, is at 
 enmity with God, and needs a reconciliation ? Because, if so, the 
 great question of all must be — What are the terms which The 
 Almighty, who alone is competent to arrange them, has assigned 
 as the conditions of such reconciliation ? Surely there can be no 
 difficulty in replying from Holy Scripture, that man everywhere 
 is by nature at enmity with God. Reason and observation may 
 convince us so ; and the Holy Scriptures 1 perpetually reiterate the 
 statement: " They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, 
 there is none that doeth good;" "They go astray as soon as 
 they be born, speaking lies;" "God is angry with the wicked 
 every day;" " The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the 
 nations that forget God;" "Indignation and wrath, tribulation 
 and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew 
 first, and also of the Gentile;" "The carnal mind is enmity 
 against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed 
 can be;" "dead in trespasses and sins;" "by nature the 
 children of wrath even as others." It is needless to multiply 
 such texts. Both covenants, old and new, are conditional cove- 
 nants, defining certain terms upon which sinful man, thus 
 described in either, may be pardoned ; but, without which, man 
 shall be condemned. The Holy Bible is full of denunciations of 
 God's wrath against sinners ; and, this being so, it is evident 
 that man requires some means of reconciliation, if indeed he is to 
 be accepted of God at all, as Holy Scripture as plainly every- 
 where declares he may. How, then, "can man be just with 
 God?" This question, it is plain, that gracious God-alone can 
 answer, who delights to shew mercy and to forgive, but upon 
 whose will, and the appointments of it, man is absolutely depen- 
 dent for salvation. We are perfectly conscious of helpless imbe- 
 cility to define the terms upon which man can possibly become 
 
 ^s. ix. 17; xiv. 1— 3; li. 5; lviii.3; Rom. ii. 9; viii 7;Eph. ii. 1—4. 
 Add also Rom. ii. 5 ; v. 9 ; ix. 22 ; 1 Thess. i. 10 ; v. 9 ; Rev. vi. 16, etc. 
 
232 ATONEMENT. 
 
 acceptable to a perfectly holy God ; and He alone, who bestows 
 the unspeakable gift, has a right to decide upon what conditions 
 it shall be granted. That "The High and Lofty One, who in- 
 habiteth eternity, whose name is holy " cannot pardon sin indis- 
 criminately, and without conditions, is certain ; for this would be 
 to encourage sin. Because, if there be no conditions for discrimi- 
 nation between characters, there is no motive held out for avoid- 
 ing evil. Moreover, it has pleased The Almighty, in a manner 
 most awful, and notorious, to assure us of His determination on 
 this matter ; by promulgating a law, "holy, and just, and good " 
 to perfection, as the declaration of His view of moral fitness 
 among men: and " God cannot deny himself." There is to be 
 an assize held of sinners ; and offences are not to be pardoned 
 without conditions complied with. That law remains as a test of 
 moral fitness, and acceptance with God, only unto condemnation; 
 and we are sure that sinners cannot be reconciled to God, in con- 
 sideration of compliance with that law ; for this plain reason, that 
 imperfect, sinful man, cannot fulfil a perfect law. Hence St. Paul 
 has 1 said, " If there had been a law given which could have given 
 life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." But, on 
 the contrary, it is distinctly asserted that all God's law, instead of 
 justifying, condemns ; instead of making man at peace with 
 God, makes him convinced of enmity the more, and leaves him 
 hopelessly convicted of sin. 2 " By the law is the knowledge of 
 sin;" "Sin, by the commandment, became exceeding sinful:" 
 "The law hath concluded all under sin;" on all sides, and in 
 various terms, it is declared with equal plainness, that " by the 
 deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight." No re- 
 gulations of moral fitness can be efficient unto the salvation of 
 sinners. If there be terms of reconciliation (as there are) those 
 terms are not found in the law of God ; but, on the contrary, 
 condemnation. 
 
 But shall not sinful man be pardoned, if he does his best ? 
 There is a time when every man does not wish, nor try, to do his 
 best ; and no subsequent repentance, nor effort at improvement, 
 can vindicate the honour of a broken law. For God sits upon 
 His throne as a righteous judge ; and His law is a law for moral, 
 
 1 Gal. iii. 21. a Horn. vii. 7—13 ; Gal. ii. 16 and iii. 19—24. 
 
ATONEMENT. 233 
 
 and judicial, government of the world; having no respect to per- 
 sons, but to be vindicated in integrity for the safety, and welfare, 
 of all. And he who has fallen into lust, and envy, and such 
 offences, will find it little consolation to plead that he has not 
 habitually cheated customers, nor robbed a bank. The guilt of 
 one transgression cannot be removed by acknowledged freedom 
 from others. Besides, St. James has explained this for us. 1 
 There is, besides actual sin, sin also in its essence ; which, while 
 it may escape our own sensibilities, or conviction, or conscience, 
 cannot elude the grasp of His law, nor the cognizance of Him, 
 who is of "too pure eyes to behold iniquity." Says St. James, 
 " If any man keep the whole law, yet offend in one point, he is 
 guilty of all;" i.e., he is held in the judgment of God to be 
 spotted with sin, so as to be absolutely ineligible, in that state, 
 unto life eternal. David knew, and felt, the terrors of this fact 
 when he exclaimed in prayer, "Who can understand his errors? 
 Cleanse Thou me from secret faults." Thus it is that we are 
 concerned to know, not only how man may be discharged from 
 sin, but also delivered from guilt; not only rescued from the 
 punishment of actual transgression, but clean brought away 
 from the tendency to trangress, and from the taint of it — from 
 the smell of fire that has passed upon us — not only from observ- 
 able outward offence, but from inward moral offensiveness. 
 Hence, in Holy Scripture, sin is likened to the leprosy, which 
 not only has its outward proof and token; but its essential virus; 
 deadly. Incurable to man, but removable by God. Hence sin 
 is compared to the native blackness of the Ethiopian; 2 or to the 
 characteristic marks of any beast in its kind. " Can the Ethiopian 
 change his skin, or the leopard its spots ? " And of such sin, in 
 very nature, God alone can be judge: He alone define it : Pie 
 see its ultimate nature, and thoroughly estimate it. He alone 
 can have the power to cleanse ; or to determine the mode of 
 cleansing: He alone to appoint conditions upon which He will 
 condescend to cleanse. 
 
 " Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of 
 grace, but of debt ; but to him that worketh not, but believeth 
 on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is 3 reckoned for 
 
 1 James ii. 10, and Ps. xix. 12, 8 Jer. xiii, 23. ' 3 Rom. iv. 4, 5, 
 
234 ATONEMENT. 
 
 righteousness." And we have seen that man cannot work com- 
 pletely ; the law is too good for him to keep it ; and, therefore, 
 man cannot be entitled to the reward as of debt. For not to 
 work completely is altogether to lose claim to the reward ; to 
 "fall short of the glory of God " at all, is to spring at the side 
 of the ark too late, and to perish in the waters : to fail in the 
 least, is to fail fatally. And indeed (if I understand the nature of 
 objections to atonement) this much, at least, is admitted, that man, 
 notwithstanding his truest and best efforts, is still incomplete ; 
 and that, consequently, salvation is in the end the gift, the un- 
 merited gift, of God : " forasmuch as they had not to pay, He 
 frankly forgave them 1 both." But, if so, then, since a righteous 
 Judge cannot pardon offences unconditionally, all we have to 
 seek for is the condition, or arrangement, according to which 
 such gift shall be bestowed. And here it is : " For the wages of 
 sin is death ; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord." We may cite to any extent. " Neither is there 
 salvation in any other : for there is none other name under 
 heaven given among men whereby we must be saved " but the 
 name of Christ Jesus ; and that because He suffered, and died, 
 for our sins ; 2 " was delivered for our offences, and raised again 
 for our justification ; " died that " we might live through Him ; " 
 " in due time Christ died for the ungodly ; " i. e., in the stead of 
 the ungodly. All through the New Testament the same glorious 
 doctrine is set forth ; and St. Paul specifically explains, in He- 
 brews, that such was the meaning and import of the sacrifices of 
 the Old, which were merely typical ; and of all the Levitical 
 institutions which pointed to Christ alone, from the spotless 
 lamb upon the altar to the consecrated high priest interceding 
 in " The holiest of all." Therefore, 3 John the Baptist—" Behold 
 the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world:" there- 
 fore, Peter — "Ye were redeemed with the precious blood of 
 Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:" there- 
 fore, Paul — " Christ our Passover is slain for us ; " " in that He 
 died He died unto sin once, but in that He liveth He liveth unto 
 God:" or, again — "In Him we have redemption through His blood, 
 
 1 Luke vii. 42. 8 Rom. iv. 25. 
 
 3 John i. 29 ; 1 Peter i. 18—21 ; Ephes. i. 7 ; 1 John i. 7, and ii. 1, 2 ; 
 
 Heb. x. 12, 13; 1 Peter ii. 24, 25. 
 
ATONEMENT. 235 
 
 even the forgiveness of sins :" therefore, St. John — "The blood 
 of Jesus Christ, God's Son, cleanseth lis from all sin :" or, again 
 — " If any man sin we have an advocate with The Father, Jesus 
 Christ the righteous ; and He is the propitiation for our sins." 
 But time would fail to cite Scripture in all its beauty and power 
 upon this all-important subject : only once more hear St. Paul — 
 " But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for 
 ever, sat clown on the right hand of God ; from henceforth ex- 
 pecting till His enemies be made His footstool : for by one offer- 
 ing he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified : " and 
 Peter — " Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on 
 the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteous- 
 ness ; by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep 
 going astray, but are now returned unto the Shepherd, and 
 Bishop of your souls." 
 
 Thus have I just glanced, nothing more, at the necessity, 
 nature, and proofs, of the doctrine of atonement for sin by the 
 blood of Jesus ; and, supposing such doctrine to be proved from 
 other sources and admitted, the following important deductions 
 may be gathered from it in refutation of Unitarian errors. First : 
 it is clear that no sinful man could possibly atone for the sins of 
 others : and, therefore, Jesus being an atonement for the sins 
 of others, was not a sinful man ; or, as Scripture says, 1 " In Him 
 was no sin." Second: No mere man, even if perfect, could atone 
 for sins ; because every hour of his life, and power of his nature, 
 would be due to God in order to secure his own perfection, and 
 consequent right to salvation ; and he could not be proved to be 
 perfect until he had done and endured the very last and utmost, 
 that God might see fit to lay upon him : therefore, Jesus being 
 an atonement for sinners was more than mere man ; and, as 
 before proved, if more than mere man reason suggests no sound 
 motive for supposing He was less than Scripture says, 2 viz., God- 
 man ; for angel we are 3 distinctly told He was not, " Verily He 
 took not on Him the nature of angels :" or, as Scripture states, 4 
 " God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself; not 
 imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto 
 us the ministry of reconciliation." Third: the fact that Christ 
 
 ! Heb. ii. 16. 2 2 Cor. v. 19. 3 Heb. i. 4 ; and ii. 16. 
 
 4 2 Cor. v. 19—21. 
 
236 ATONEMENT. 
 
 was man, and perfect man, and that God " hath made Him, who 
 knew no sin, to be sin (i. e., a sin-offering *) for us ;" yet more 
 than man, viz., man 2 in whom dwelt " all the fulness of the God- 
 head bodily; " enables us with just one little glimpse to perceive 
 the nature of the sufferings of Christ; and how, even perceptibly 
 to reason, they could be of such immeasurable worth as to cure 
 all transgressions, even for all time, in all the world : and yet, 
 being offered by Jesus of His own will, and accord, how God 
 might righteously accept that sacrifice, and " be just, yet the 
 justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." Of which more in the 
 following chapter. 
 
 1 Dean Alford has observed upon this verse (see Gr. Test.) that it should 
 be read "made Him to be sin" not " sin-offering : for the word d/xaprta 
 never has the meaning in the LXX. The observation may be made of great 
 importance ; and ought not to be passed by. The Hebrew word riNTOT sin 
 is habitually used for sin-offering ; and is translated by the LXX by a/j-apTia, 
 though they more usually wrote to 7repl afxapTias or to. vnep ajuaprtas. The fol- 
 lowing place is decisive, " And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin " 
 (tou -rijs ajuap-uas — i. e., the blood of the sin-offering) "with his finger," etc. 
 He adds, "and if it had, the former sense of the same word in this same 
 sentence would preclude it here :" but antanaclasis is a very common figure 
 in scriptural style, viz., that by which the same word is repeated in a 
 different sense in the same verse, e. g,, " Follow me, and let the dead bury 
 their dead." Matt. viii. 22. See Levit. iv. 20, 21, 24, 25, 29, and 32; 
 also v. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12: also vi. 25; and x. 16, 17; and xvi. 25, 27; also 
 Ezek. xliii. 19, 22, 25 ; and xliv. 29. 
 
 8 Col, ii. 9, 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 IESSIAH CRUCIFIED. 
 
 ET us briefly preface any further observations we 
 may have to make upon the sufferings of Christ 
 by reminding the reader once more of the per- 
 fect purity of His life, and two great purposes 
 of it in reference to ourselves. We have already 
 seen that the spotless character of Jesus was 
 an indispensable qualification in Him, as the atonement for man's 
 sins : no imperfect man could have purchased salvation by his 
 sufferings for others. But, besides this, Holy Scripture declares 
 that two other great purposes in reference to man's salvation 
 were fulfilled by the unalloyed holiness of our Redeemer's 
 character. He Himself declared that " not one jot nor one tittle 
 of the law should pass away until all was fulfilled." And He 
 asserted this, as may be seen by reference to the Evangelists, 1 
 in vindication of the truth and beauty and goodness of that law. 
 The honour of His Father who gave that law was to be main- 
 tained ; and the guilt and depravity of man exposed who lives in 
 habitual violation of it. Our blessed Lord's distinct assertion, 
 " For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot 
 or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be ful- 
 filled," leaves Unitarians and ourselves but one alternative, viz., 
 either to conclude and confess that Jesus was perfect man, 
 and knew no sin ; or else to conclude and confess that He was 
 mistaken in His mission, and capacities, and made a false state- 
 ment in reference to the object and results of His life. However, 
 God be praised, we know that in this, as in all other respects, 
 
 1 Matt. v. 17—20; and Luke xvi. 17. 
 
238 MESSIAH CRUCIFIED. 
 
 our Blessed Saviour did not, could not, err: He knew whence 
 he came 1 and whither he went, and that he came down from 
 heaven to do his Father's will not only in dying for and thereby 
 redeeming sinners ; but also in exhibiting in his life without 
 blemish the holiness of that Father who had given such law unto 
 men ; and the beauty of holiness for men themselves, who unless 
 they follow his example in this respect shall never see God in 
 love. For not only did Jesus " magnify the law and make it 
 honourable," but by doing so, taught those who love Him to do 
 the same, 2 " leaving us an example that we should follow His 
 steps." And besides, this keeping of God's law without failing 
 in a single point involved of necessity a part of His atoning 
 sufferings : that part to which we are now about more particu- 
 larly to allude. For, though to obey was his joy, to be tempted 
 unto disobedience was his pain ; and a daily suffering, which our 
 Redeemer endured for us, was that conflict of the spirit against 
 the flesh in completeness which each of his followers is des- 
 tined to know in part. But of this I shall speak more at large 
 presently. 
 
 Let us now contemplate the institution of the 
 
 lhe Lord s Supper which was first indicative, and then com- 
 
 iSupper an or- *■ ? ' 
 
 dinance of Su- memorative, of such sufferings. That holy ins titu- 
 
 preme worship t ^ on ^ a sacmmen f which Unitarians do not acknow- 
 paid to Christ. \ 
 
 ledge, as such. It is far more than a commemoration, 
 
 which they do acknowledge it to be. It is an act of supreme 
 
 worship offered to Jesus Christ, as Messiah exalted in divine 
 
 glory, which they affirm they in no manner believe. Of course, 
 
 were it but a commemoration, it must cease to have any peculiar 
 
 religious significance. Similar commemorations of the death of 
 
 any good, and holy, martyr might be held; and then we make a 
 
 long and immediate stride to such feast days, as have their 
 
 earliest type in heathen festivals. But when our Blessed Lord 
 
 said, "This do in remembrance of me ;" or St. Paul, "As often 
 
 as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ; ye do shew forth The 
 
 Lord's death till He come : the one meant in remembrance of 
 
 Him, as all that scripture taught, and that He had professed Himself 
 
 to be ; and the other, ye do shew forth The Lord's death, and all 
 
 1 John viii. 14. 2 Isa. xlii. 21 ; 1 Pet. ii. 21. 
 
MESSIAH CRUCIFIED. 239 
 
 that He, and we His apostles, have taught you such death im- 
 plies : viz., the death of Jesus as an atonement, or sacrifice, for 
 man's sin. 1 So that the doctrine of the atonement being denied, 
 and the deity of Jesus upon which that atonement depends, there 
 remains no Lord's Supper in the scriptural sense. They who 
 deny that atonement, and the proper character of The Blessed 
 Saviour as God-Incarnate, may hold whatever festival they 
 choose to consider it, but it is not The Lord's Supper of the New 
 Testament ; and (they are right in so concluding) it is no sacra- 
 ment : they 2 count "the blood of the covenant an unholy thing." 
 Which truth is more clearly seen by remembering the character 
 of the symbols ; and the language with which our Blessed Lord 
 passed them to His apostles. 3 "Take, eat, this is my body 
 which is given for you ; " or, "This cup is the New Testament in 
 my blood, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission 
 of sins." Thus, the symbols indicate the sacrifice, which conse- 
 crated and ratified the testament, i. e., covenant, in Christ's 
 blood : and, unless the symbols be received in such sense, and 
 are accepted as indicative of actual covenant of reconciliation with 
 God by the blood of Jesus, in other words, as indicative of atone- 
 ment, there is no Lord's Supper to those who take them other- 
 wise. For it is not merely a commemoration; but, so often as 
 received, a fresh ratification of the covenant of pardon and of 
 peace between our righteous God, and ourselves as helpless 
 sinners. They, who knew not Jesus thus as " The Saviour, 
 which is Christ The Lord," have no Lord's Supper. Unita- 
 rians do not. 
 
 That conversation of our Blessed Lord's, recorded in John's 
 sixth chapter* preceded some time the formal institution of the 
 Holy Sacrament. But one must be resolute indeed to cavil, if 
 he suggest a doubt of its having been intended to presage that 
 sacred institution. But, be that as it may, the language then 
 employed by the Blessed Saviour illustrates exactly the nature 
 and purpose of that sacrament ; and from this language we know 
 that the Lord's Supper, properly received, is an act of supreme 
 
 1 Luke xxii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xi. 26. * Heb. x. 29. 
 
 3 Mat. xxvi. 26—28 ,- Mark xiv. 22—24 , Luke xxii. 19, 20. 
 
 4 John vi. 48—63. 
 
240 MESSIAH CRUCIFIED. 
 
 worship directed to Christ, as God. He tells the Jews, and His 
 disciples especially, " Except ye eat the flesh of The Son of 
 Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you :" and, when 
 they wonder what he can possibly mean, observing, " How can 
 this man give us his flesh to eat?" He explains himself dis- 
 tinctly as not intending to say they must eat his flesh, and 
 drink his blood, really, substantially, and literally, for that 
 would have been an injunction contrary to God's law given to 
 the Jews ; that could not be, never has been, and never was in- 
 tended to be ; but spiritually (" it is The Spirit that quickeneth, 
 the flesh profiteth nothing;") spiritually by faith, ana as an act 
 of supreme, and lowly, worship of Christ, fully impartive of 
 life eternal, to those who so receive it. For he adds, " As the 
 living Father hath sent me, and 1 live by the Father ; so he that 
 eateth me, even he shall live by me." We can scarcely require 
 language more precise. As The Father hath life in Himself, and 
 1 worship The Father, with utmost and ineffable dependence, 
 adoration and praise, continuing instant in prayer, and even all 
 night in prayer to God; and by The Father and from The 
 Father receive The Spirit without measure to sustain and sanc- 
 tify me in manhood ; so hath He given to The Son to have 
 life in Himself, and he that eateth Me, as I intend, shall live by 
 me ; shall draw down spiritual life from me ; and, for the pur- 
 pose of doing so, shall worship me supremely, even as I in 
 manhood worship The Father, continuing long as He will in 
 deepest prayer with utmost dependence, adoration, and praise ; 
 and he, and he alone, who so eateth me shall receive from me 
 that same Spirit : and he, even he, shall live by me. 
 
 Unitarians ! I entreat your most earnest attention, as I usher 
 Mr. Belsham once more into your presence. It is on this awful 
 occasion in which the gentle and holy Saviour, who poured out 
 His soul unto death, is addressing us on "life eternal," that 
 Mr. Belsham charges him with having wilfully used offensive 
 and disgusting language. Long have 1 hesitated to foul my pen 
 with words so hideous and profane. But it is right you 
 should know the whole truth as regards the fatal errors you 
 profess, and (as part of that truth) by what sort of men and 
 arguments those errors have been promulgated. These are 
 
MESSIAH CRUCIFIED. 241 
 
 Mr. Belsliam's words : x — " Jesus knowing their mean and secu- 
 lar motives, and desirous of being forsaken by them, does not 
 condescend to correct their mistake, but proceeds to express Him- 
 self in language still more offensive and disgusting." Again : " Our 
 Lord Himself upon various occasions in His public discourses, 
 and particularly in those recorded by St. John, adopting a mys- 
 tical language in order to conceal His true meaning from the 
 Jews, who accompanied Him from secular and unworthy mo- 
 tives, to disgust them with His doctrine and to drive them from His 
 presence." I ask Unitarians, all among them of serious minds 
 and reverential hearts, anxious to learn the truth, are they 
 content to adopt the principles of any one who writes like this 
 — who so expounds the words of Him who spake as man never 
 spake, and came into the world to save sinners, and first of all 
 " the lost sheep of the house of Israel?" I ask them, Can they 
 feel confidence in advocates who need to talk thus, or else do so 
 wantonly 1 or can they be content with a cause which requires, 
 as its chosen advocates seem to think, such arguments as these ; 
 such profane perversions of Holy Scripture ? I know, of course, 
 that Unitarians are not tied, or wedded, to this advocate nor to 
 that in particular ; but certain men are recognised by them, as 
 especially and most successfully defending their views ; and I 
 observe that Mr. Yates does not hesitate, even in the year 1850, 
 in the fourth edition of his work, to make common cause with 
 Mr. Belsham. 2 He quotes him, and vindicates him as a brother 
 authority, and surely I cannot be in error in thus exhibiting his 
 dreadful words, as full of odium to the prejudice of Unitarianism. 
 But whither, indeed, shall we look for avowed Unitarian author- 
 ities ? Why have they never thrown their principles into some 
 fixed formula, that kind and considerate adversaries might be 
 spared the risk of inflicting injustice upon the body ? To have 
 neglected to do so, as they have from the very first, is not honour- 
 able ; not honourable to themselves, as a body ; not honourable 
 (in another sense) to those who feel constrained to oppose them; 
 not honourable, again, towards the unwary, and unconcerned, 
 who might possibly be allured from various motives within 
 
 1 Calm Enquiry, pp. 41 and 303. 
 2 Yindic. pp 191, 192, 218. See also p. 229 of that shameful Vers, of the 
 New Test. pub. by Unit. Soc. for Prom. Chr. Knowledge ! 
 
 R 
 
242 MESSIAH CRUCIFIED. 
 
 their toils. "Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of 
 any bird." 
 
 Here I must enter an affectionate, but decided, protest against 
 Unitarian mutilations of' Church ' services and < Church' prayers. 
 When our dissenting brethren, who hold with us in all doctrines 
 necessary to salvation, copy the services of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and apply them to their own purposes, we do not complain; 
 rather we feel approved and honoured by the imitation ; but 
 when Unitarians do so, who differ from us just as light from 
 darkness, we complain not for ourselves, but as a duty for the 
 ill-informed, illiterate, unwary, and neglectful. There lies before 
 me a Unitarian prayer-book of a very superior 1 kind, in which 
 I find most beautiful selections from the Prayer-book of the 
 Church of England ; and prayer concluded as with ourselves by 
 such forms as " in the name of Thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord," 
 or " through Jesus Christ our Lord :" hi which I find also our 
 service for Easter-Day, our Litany, our service for The Lord's 
 Supper, etc., very closely followed and carefully imitated ; and 
 it becomes my serious duty to warn every professing Trinitarian, 
 whether belonging to the Church of England or not, that such 
 services become abominable the moment Christ's deity is denied: 
 for, 1st, they plead the merits of a creature ; and, 2nd, do not 
 even confess that such creature was sinless. The Unitarian 
 Christ is not our Christ : their Christ is man, our Christ is God, 
 having taken manhood into deity; and whom, therefore, we 
 worship supremely not as man, but as God. 
 
 m . It is unhandsome, or something worse, of Uni- 
 
 lhy most pre- . ' ° ' 
 
 cious death and tarians 2 to insinuate that we suppose our blessed 
 burial. Saviour to have been " by nature and necessity a 
 
 perfectly holy and impeccable Being, incapable of being influenced 
 by temptation of any kind, and consequently in no respect similar 
 to his followers, or capable of exhibiting to them a proper ex- 
 ample of virtue in a state of probation." The language, like 
 most of Mr. Belsham's, is extremely subtle ; but, in naked truth, 
 conveys a misrepresentation. That Jesus was 'perfectly holy ' 
 we maintain as matter of fact, because the Bible says so; whether 
 
 1 Forms of Prayer for Public "Worship, 3rd edit, revised and enlarged. 
 Edward T. Whitfield, 2, Essex Street, Strand. 1851. 
 
 2 " Helsham's Calm Enquiry," p. 307. 
 
MESSIAH CRUCIFIED. 243 
 
 He was * peccable,' i. e„ could sin or not, we do not feel ourselves 
 called upon to argue; it is a speculative, and profitless question, 
 because in no way affecting tbe salvation of our souls ; or con- 
 sistency of our faith. But that Jesus was 'influenced by tempta- 
 tion ' is most certain ; most painfully influenced ; and in such 
 pains lay a great part of " His meritorious cross and passion " 
 for sinners. Thus St. Paul distinctly tells us 1 — "For in that 
 He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour 
 them that are tempted : " and again — " For we have not a High 
 Priest who cannot be touched with a feeling of our infirmities ; 
 but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." 
 The temptations which Jesus experienced formed the bitterness of 
 His atoning suffering, day by day, all through His life — when 
 He 2 " endured such contradiction of sinners against Himself" — 
 i. e., witnessed, and sustained, the trial of their unholiness, their 
 falsehood, their impurity, their hardness of heart, against His 
 own perfect sinlessness, and union with The Father, which knew 
 not the minutest flaw. Hence He 3 exclaimed — " O faithless and 
 perverse generation ! how long shall I be with you ? how long 
 shall I suffer you : " hence, again, He 4 was " grieved on account 
 of the hardness of their hearts : " hence, too, at the sight of 
 human woes, 5 as the penalty of sin "Jesus wept" at the grave of 
 Lazarus. His unmeasurable suffering at the hated presence of 
 the tempter, and horror at the rebellion against His Father's will 
 then suggested to Him, caused angels to be sent from Heaven to 
 minister to Him : and when 6 " His sweatwas as it were great drops 
 of blood, falling down to the ground " — surely He suffered being 
 tempted — and then once more angels came to minister unto Him. 
 All such sufferings of Christ, day by day, under temptation were 
 a part, and (regarding their duration) one chiefest part of His 
 atoning pains : for thirty years in the foul atmosphere of sin The 
 Holy One of God was redeeming man : and His fulfilment of the 
 perfect law under such temptation is a part of His atoning suffer- 
 ings as mysterious, as unaccountable, and affecting, as any. 
 
 For, I take it to be certain, that in speaking of the sufferings of 
 Christ, as our only hope of salvation, we are not to regard so 
 much His bodily pains, as His spiritual. It would surely derogate 
 
 1 Heb. ii. 18; and iv. 2 Heb. xii. 3. 3 Matt. xvii. 17 ; Luke ix. 4 
 
 4 Mark iii. 5. 5 John xi. 35. 6 Luke xxii. 41. 
 
244 MESSIAH CRUCIFIED. 
 
 from the dignity of our Saviour's manhood to imagine that the 
 thought of death, even of death most painful, could draw from 
 Him tears, or fears, when the same death failed to unnerve the 
 thief who blasphemed Him. 1 If such could be imagined to be 
 the case, our blessed Lord were not perfect ; and we should be 
 justified in saying that many a man has met death, and a more 
 horrible death? with more fortitude than He. Far from Trini- 
 tarians be such a mean and carnal view of the sufferings of their 
 Lord. His woes lay just where Unitarians have not placed 
 them, viz., in His temptations : in His thirty years, and more, of 
 struggling with sin, and sinners, the revolting presence of men 
 leprously diseased in their souls; in coming so, and subordi- 
 dinating Himself so, and suffering so, that He 2 might " seek and 
 save them who were lost." Hence it is said, 3 "who in the days 
 of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, 
 with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save 
 Him from death, and was heard in that He feared : " the death 
 He feared was not natural death, but spiritual death ; it was in this 
 sense 4 He "tasted death for every man " — in this sense 5 He gave 
 His "soul a ransom for shiners;" in this sense The Father 
 made 6 " His soul an offering for sin." In which places the word 
 soul stands not for mere natural life, but for spiritual; for soul 
 as the characteristic being, or substance, of man ; and it was 
 in such human soul that Christ tasted, by intellectual perception, 
 the bitterness of eternal woe ; as though all the sins of men, 
 hateful unspeakably in themselves, and all the punishment due 
 for them ineffably terrific, had been heaped on Him — The Lord 
 laying on Him the iniquity of us all — and hence " the strong 
 crying and tears;" hence the sweat " as it were great drops of 
 blood;" hence that exceeding great and bitter cry, 7 "My God! 
 My God ! why hast Thou forsaken Me ! " Oh, Unitarians ! such 
 were the sufferings of Christ; and such is our only hope of sal- 
 vation ! But if you still wish to understand, and hesitate not to 
 sustain " calm enquiry " when your souls ought to be over- 
 whelmed with penitence and joy, knowthat there is an infinite value 
 in His sufferings which we cannot duly estimate nor express — 
 
 1 Luke xxiii. 39. 2 Matt, xviii. 11 ; Luke xix. 10. 3 Heb. v. 7. 
 
 4 Eeb. ii 9. 5 Tim. ii. 6. * Isa . liii# 10j 11? 12 . 
 
 7 Ps. xxii. 1 ; Matt, xxvii. 46; Maark xv. 34. 
 
MESSIAH CRUCIFIED. 245 
 
 for ** Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for our sins ; 
 and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world ;" and 
 who can define the value of those sufferings, which have proved 
 an atoning satisfaction for unlimited offences ? Unitarians ! can 
 you measure, or define for us the natural essence of one sin ? Now 
 take it : one little sin — measure it, define it, weigh it, if you can ; 
 and, being foiled, remember that every sin is infinite; every sin 
 everlasting ; every sin an overwhelming flood of ruin which man 
 cannot stay ; every sin the leprous humour which frets unto 
 everlasting corruption, unless removed away. You cannot estimate 
 sin ; it is the slight divergence from the right line of duty, which 
 the longer it is protracted, leads the surer to infinite distance be- 
 tween God and man. Now, Christ did measure sin, did weigh it, 
 did estimate it, did realize its everlastingly fatal nature, did drink 
 to the utmost the dregs of its bitterness, did measure, did fore- 
 taste, did experience the wrath of God in punishing it. 
 
 What ! in His human soul ? How can this be ? How can a 
 finite human soul be equal to such unlimited experience? A 
 veil may be lifted, and man may strain to gaze within, and yet 
 perceive but the faintest traces of the interior ; but still perceive 
 enough to produce and justify conviction ; and to give a suffi- 
 ciently rational idea of all that lies within. Just so of this 
 divine mystery, this glorious doctrine of atonement. Who shall 
 say what, and how intense, and how infinitely acceptable before 
 God, are those " groanings, which cannot be uttered " by man, 
 but which the interceding 1 Spirit pours out for saints, before the 
 throne of grace ? Who shall say how intense the hatred of sin, 
 the horror of it, the fear of God's wrath against it, which may be, 
 which is, which has been, produced by the same sanctifying 
 Spirit, within the soul of many eminent, though not super- 
 naturally inspired, Christians? Is there never a time when 2 
 " horrible dread " has overwhelmed such? or when a foretaste 3 of 
 "unspeakable joy and full of glory" has carried them beyond 
 themselves? How it is The Spirit thus co-operates with, and 
 sanctifies man's soul, we cannot understand ; how that, which 
 Unitarians 4 call the emanation, or influence, from The Most High 
 
 1 Bom. viii. 26. 2 Ps. xl. 2 ; lv.5; cxix. 53. 3 1 Peter i. 8. 
 
 4 Yates' Vindic, p. 26i. 
 
246 MESSIAH CRUCIFIED. 
 
 God, does enter into, does pervade, does establish affinity with 
 the human soul, so that he, who is in Christ Jesus, becomes a 
 new creature, none can fully explain or understand, though mul- 
 titudes have experienced ; but, in such very fact lies the illustra- 
 tion, and (so far as permitted) the explanation of the atoning 
 sufferings of Christ. He suffered in His human soul — not body 
 only, but soul — in His human soul, intensified by The Holy 
 Ghost to that unlimited extent, which was demanded by a power 
 to appreciate all the sins, and all the woes, of all manhood, and 
 all the wrath of God for all eternity against them: for 1 "The 
 Father gave not the Spirit by measure unto Him." That is the 
 doctrine of atonement, that is the nature of atonement, so far as 
 God has been pleased to make known that mystery to man ; and 
 in such atoning respect it is that Christ is the object of saving 
 ■faith to sinners. Without atonement, believed in and confessed to, 
 there is no saving, living, loving, faith. It is not enough to know 
 Christ ; but we must know Him, as crucified; and this was what 
 St. Paul meant when he said he determined to know nothing 
 among the Corinthians 2 but " Jesus Christ, and Him crucified,'' 
 viz., as the atonement for man's sin. 
 
 But, if such be indeed the nature of atoning sufferings, we may 
 draw, with much certainty, the conclusion that Christ was God. 
 We may not be, we are not, able to understand in what mode the 
 manhood became so united to deity that its sufferings were capa- 
 ble of being an infinite satisfaction ; but this we may know, can 
 understand, and can conclude, that no inferior being, no finite 
 creature united to manhood could have been so. For such 
 sufferings imply a complete appreciation of the will of God ; they 
 indicate a power of seeing sin as God sees it ; a power of esti- 
 mating God's wrath, as God exhibits it ; a power of comprehend- 
 ing eternal woe as God perceives it in unlimited duration. And 
 all this implies a knowledge which Holy Scripture justifies not 
 our assigning to any angel, or other finite creature ; in short, it 
 implies the possession of powers possible to God alone. And 
 such powers He possessed who 3 "loved us, and washed us from 
 our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests 
 unto God and His Father ; to Him be glory and dominion for 
 ever and ever, Amen ;" where John applies to Christ " the power 
 
 1 John iii. 34. 8 t l Cor. ii. 2. 3 Eer. i. 5, 6. 
 
MESSIAH CRUCIFIED. 247 
 
 and the glory," which Christ in manhood applied to " Our Father 
 
 which is in heaven;" "for thine is the kingdom, the power and 
 
 the glory, for ever and ever, Amen." 
 
 T , j. But how can we contemplate the 1 incidents of 
 
 the Crucifixion: Calvary, and conclude that Christ was but man ? 
 
 and the malefac- "The veil of the temple was rent in twain from the 
 tor s prayer. , 
 
 top to the bottom ; and the earth did quake, and 
 
 the rocks rent;" "it was about the sixth hour, and there was dark- 
 ness over all the land until the ninth hour ;" " and all the people 
 that came together to that sight, beholding the things which 
 were done, smote their hearts, and returned. " Now, if Uni- 
 tarians choose to say ' all this may have happened, though He 
 were mere man,' of course we cannot deny it. All this might 
 have happened at the death of any one of the great prophets, or 
 even of anyone of the little prophets ; or even of John Baptist, or of 
 any one less than he ; as our Lord Himself describes every prophet, 
 however great, born in the course of natural generation. But, as 
 matter of fact, such things never had happened ; and people 
 knew that, and felt that, and smote their hearts in grief and 
 terror, and hastened from the scene. Moreover, every incident 
 recorded was typical of some great sentiment connected with The 
 Saviour's death ; the sun at noon-day was eclipsed, and con- 
 tinued so throughout the most brilliant part of that day, to inti- 
 mate 2 that the true light of the world had left them ; the veil of 
 the temple, which screened the holiest of all, was rent in twain, 
 to indicate that henceforward men 3 had " boldness to enter in 
 the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which 
 He hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, His 
 flesh ;" the very graves were subsequently opened, and many 
 bodies of the saints arose, and appeared unto many : to declare 4 
 that Christ was "the resurrection and the life;" "and that he 
 that believeth in Him, though he were dead yet should he live ; 
 and he that liveth, and believeth in Him, shall never die." 
 
 However, the deity and the manhood of Jesus were carefully 
 expressed throughout the terrors of the crucifixion. 5 His man- 
 
 2 Jffiatt. xxvii. 51 ; Luke xxiii, 44. 2 John i. 4 — 9, and xii. 34—36. 
 
 3 Heb. x. 19—22. < John xi. 23—27. 
 
 5 Matt, xxvii. 46, and Luke xxiii. 46. 
 
248 MESSIAH CRUCIFIED. 
 
 hood by the exclamations — " My God ! my God ! why hast Thou 
 forsaken me ; or, " Father, into Thy hands I commend my 
 spirit;" and His deity in that act of supreme mercy which has 
 been recorded for the encouragement of penitent sinners to the 
 end of time. In a chapter, 1 to which I must refer again, and 
 which Mr. Yates entitles ' Supreme worship supposed to be given 
 to Christ,' I can see no allusion to the prayer of the thief upon 
 the cross ; nor can I find any mention of it in Mr. Belsham's 
 work ; but upon turning to the (so-called) " Improved Version of 
 the New Testament," under Luke xxiii., I find this observation 
 upon verse 43 — "And Jesus said unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, 
 To-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise." This verse was ivanting 
 in the copies o/Marcion, and other reputed heretics, etc. Of Marcion we 
 have spoken before, 2 and the reader will probably have no diffi- 
 culty in accounting for the fact that Marcion's copy had not the 
 verse alluded to. The motive for its elision is plain enough ; 
 and none the less so that the prayer, " Lord ! remember me when 
 Thou comest into Thy kingdom " is undisputed. But the presence 
 of this verse may convict the Unitarian. The thief uttered a 
 prayer : a prayer as to supreme deity. The word ' Lord ' can 
 have no less meaning here. Suppose we try, ' Sir ! remember me 
 when thou comest into thy kingdom ! ' The thief, by allusion to 
 the kingdom, acknowledged Christ as The Messiah ; and to him 
 as The Messiah applied that title Lord. It was a prayer to 
 Jesus, as to supreme deity, — for life, and honour, and glory, in 
 that great kingdom, which all God's people are now awaiting. 
 That Jesus did hear, and could hear this prayer, is clear — He was 
 made to hear the other malefactor's railing ; and that other 
 malefactor, on the one side of Jesus, was made to hear the re- 
 buke of the penitent on this side of Jesus, the voices crossed our 
 blessed Lord ; and as the malefactors heard each other well, so 
 more certainly Jesus must have heard the prayer addressed to 
 Him as unto supreme deity. If Jesus, then, did hear such a 
 prayer addressed to Him, and did not rebuke it when he could, 
 he died in sin, he died in idolatrous sin; for, upon the suppo- 
 sition that he was not God, he permitted without rebuke, an act 
 of fatal idolatry to be perpetrated by the wretched thief, who 
 was sinking fast into eternal doom. Are Unitarians prepared to 
 1 Yindic, p. 230, s See p. 228, supra. 
 
MESSIAH CRUCIFIED. 249 
 
 accept this conclusion ? That The Saviour could hear, and did 
 hear the prayer so addressed to Him, is plain ; that our Saviour 
 at that time could speak, and did afterwards «peak, is plain ; for 
 three whole hours 1 elapsed before He exclaimed — " Father, into 
 Thy hands I commend my spirit ;" and, having said this, gave up 
 the ghost ; and it was during three preceding hours He conversed 
 upon the cross in the manner recorded by the Evangelists. 2 If, then, 
 Unitarians would account for the silence of their advocates res- 
 pecting the thief's prayer, by the assertions made in the Unitarian 
 Testament, one does not see what they gain by it, but refutation. 
 The prayer itself is undisputed, only the authenticity of the re- 
 corded answer is questioned; but, upon Unitarians' own admis- 
 sion, it was listened to unrebuked ; and, according to their ideas s 
 that fact destroys their best, and purest, views of Jesus. 
 
 But, the fact is, there is no authority for disputing the passage. 
 It is, and ever has been, undoubtedly a part of the sacred text. 
 Jesus' answer is recorded by The Holy Ghost, " Verily, I say 
 unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise." And 
 the incident presents a clear instance of supreme worship paid to 
 Christ upon earth under circumstances the most fearful, in regard 
 to each person concerned : a prayer offered up to Him for 
 eternal life, and glory ; and a prayer answered by Him to that 
 effect, and accepting the title Lord, which in this place is equi- 
 valent to supreme deity: a prayer answered with salvation, viz.^ 
 bliss in the place of souls departed, awaiting future and com- 
 pleted bliss in the body in the kingdom of glory. Perhaps, I may 
 be excused for expressing surprise that any Trinitarian commenta- 
 tors have expressed doubt, or speculation, as to the nature of the 
 kingdom alluded to by the praying thief. To me (may I be for- 
 given for saying so) the circumstance appears as clear as light ; 
 and that there ean be no doubt as to the nature of that kingdom* 
 Let us only conceive this poor penitent thief to have been some 
 Hebrew villager, poor and destitute as Lazarus; let us only 
 conceive that in bis most obscure hamlet (though, perhaps, he 
 was native of some populous town) there was but one faithful 
 priest, or Levite, or layman of any sort, and then Messiah's 
 kingdom as such a man would explain 3 Daniel, and correspondent 
 
 1 Matt, xxvii, 45—50. 2 Luke xxiii, 43—46, 3 Dan, vii, 13, 14. 
 
250 MESSIAH CRUCIFIED. 
 
 scriptures, could scarcely fail to have been heard of, by the 
 people he conversed with and instructed. It seems to me we do 
 no justice to HebreAv theology ; and that a bad habit of writing 
 down Judaism has prevailed among Christian divines : whose 
 learning, and soundness as theologians, has by no means been 
 exhibited by doing so. 
 
 Here, then, I close my observations upon the 
 cZtteT' 1 °^ atonin g sufferings of Jesus : trusting that in the 
 
 last two chapters it has been clearly shewn that 
 no sinful man could have atoned for other sinners' sins : and 
 that, therefore, Jesus was a man without sin : that it has been 
 shewn that no mere man could have atoned for sins, and that 
 therefore, Jesus was more than man : that it has been shewn 
 that no finite creature, however exalted we may conceive him to 
 have been, could have estimated or felt or endured the weight 
 of sin immeasurable, nor of the consequent wrath of God Most 
 High : could have estimated, or measured, that wrath of Infinite 
 Deity ; and that, therefore, he who did so (and Christ did) must 
 have had spiritual perception which equalled, and knew the 
 infinity of the mind of God ; and that, therefore, Christ who did 
 so was God : and not less, according to any Arian opinions 
 whatever. 
 
 But I desire no better place for communing with my Unitarian 
 brethren than the cross of Christ. If I have exceeded the tone, 
 and limits, of fair and charitable discussion I ask their pardon. 
 If I have used one harsh term, or spoken with undue warmth in 
 maintaining the honour of our Saviour, I hope they will forgive 
 it. I desire to speak in the spirit of meekness and of love, 
 believing with all my soul that neither they nor I can hope for 
 peace but through the precious blood of Christ as God- 
 Incarnate ; aud when we die, and the secret is uncovered, 
 when faith is no longer needed, but we may know even as we 
 are known, may they and I at that time, know no less prayer, 
 but have grace to use it like the dying thief :— " Lord! remember 
 me when Thou contest into Thy kingdom." 
 
I 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 RIST 8N GLORY, 
 
 GREAT matter in favour of Unitarians, as they 
 suppose and allege, is that Christ's power was 
 derived, or given to Him by The Father. But, 
 as already explained, their views in this respect 
 are based upon misapprehension. Of course 
 there is a sense in which that which is begotten, 
 or proceeding, may be said to be derived from that which begets, or 
 puts forth. If then the word derived (which is not scriptural) be 
 used synonymously with begotten, and proceeding, (which are 
 scriptural) Trinitarians have no objection to the use of the term. 
 For of The Son it would then mean that He was eternally derived 
 from The Father, and therefore co-existent with, and of the 
 same essence or being, with The Father; and of The Holy 
 Ghost, that He was eternally proceeding from The Father and 
 from The Son ; and, therefore, was co-eternal, and co-essential 
 with The Father and The Son. But if the term derived be applied 
 to Christ, as to His power, or attributes of any kind, in a sense 
 to imply inferiority then, we maintain, Unitarians are without 
 any scriptural authority for the assertion. 
 
 Thus, of Christ's miracles, 1 it is very strongly ar- 
 ZZ l ty^mr- g^ed that they were done solely by the power of 
 rection effected God, imparted to Christ, and afford no proof what- 
 ever of His deity. An inference, which is partly 
 true, and partly false. True when such miracles 
 
 by His oivn 
 power 
 
 1 Yates' Vindic, pp. 81, 215. 
 
252 CHRIST IN GLORY. 
 
 are viewed in respect of Christ's humanity ; and, therefore, Jesus 
 himself says, " The Father which dwelleth in me He doeth the 
 works." False, when viewed in regard to His deity, proved from other 
 sources. The fact that Jesus prayed at the grave of Lazarus, for 
 their sakes who stood by, is urged as a reason for concluding 
 that he never wrought a miracle, without previously praying for 
 power to do so. But, besides the fact that John does not say, 
 nor give us reason to believe, that Jesus prayed for power to 
 work that miracle, his doing so (even if He had always done so) 
 would have argued nothing against the deity of Him, who in 
 completeness of the manhood prayed always, and continued all 
 night in prayer to God. But such an inference from one miracle, 
 even if just in that case, cannot rightly be extended to others, in 
 direct opposition to the inspired records of the Evangelists. 
 And that Christ did work miracles by his own power, and without 
 prayer for power, in such a manner as to amaze the standers by 
 is certain enough from the following cases 1 — the leper cleansed ; 
 the centurion's servant healed; the two blind men, and the 
 dumb man, healed ; the devils cast out ; the thousands fed ; the 
 sea calmed, etc. But it is urged that neither Christ's disciples, 
 nor the people who were present, inferred his deity from these 
 miracles ; on the contrary, " they glorified God, who had given 
 such power unto men." And well they might : for that Jesus 
 stood before them as man is certain ; no wonder they halted, and 
 were amazed, and could not conceive that he was God. But 
 they did conceive enough to overturn the Unitarian. They could 
 not understand how he could so do his miracles, and yet be but 
 man ; and, at last, his miracles did so astound them that they were 
 forced to conclude, and did acknowledge by reason of such 
 miracles that he was The Messiah, The Christ, The Son of the 
 living God. Thus, say 2 they, " It was never so seen in Israel :" 
 "And all the people were amazed, and said, 'Is this The Son of 
 David? ' ' " Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped 
 Him, saying, Of a truth Thou art The Son of God." Again, "And 
 they were astonished with a great astonishment ;" or, " And they 
 were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a 
 
 i Matt, viii., ix., xii. and xiv. 
 3 Matt. ix. 33 ; xii. 23; xiv. 33 ; Mark vi. 42; Luke iv. 36; viii, 25. 
 
CHRIST IN GLORY. 253 
 
 word is this ! for with authority and power He commandeth the 
 unclean spirits, and they come out;" or again, " What manner of 
 man is this ! for He commandeth even the winds and the water, 
 and they obey Him." From all which Scriptures it is abundantly 
 clear that our Blessed Lord did work His wonders before the 
 people, as by His own authority and power, and in such sense 
 and manner as had never been seen nor heard of in the history 
 of Israel ; and that the people, and His apostles, felt and acknow- 
 ledged this with amazement ; and did eventually conclude, from 
 such very miracles, that He was The Messiah, The Son of God. 
 Thus our Saviour wrought, not as Moses, nor Elijah, nor Elisha, 
 but in His own proper character and right, and in His own proper 
 way ; and for the purpose of throwing out this proof of His 
 Messiahship, and consequent deity, into clearer, and more impres- 
 sive, relief, it was 1 ordained that "John did no miracle;" and, 
 moreover, 2 that such miracles were the appointed proof by pro- 
 phecy of His Messiahship, and all which that implied — " Go your 
 way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard ; how 
 that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the 
 deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. 
 And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in Me." 
 That the people, and the apostles, did not readily apprehend the 
 deity of Christ is perfectly certain ; the wonder is they appre- 
 hended so much and so quickly ; but the great truth of all was 
 gradually unfolded to them : Peter being the first apostle, and 
 Thomas the last, to make the glorious confession. But this 
 makes nothing in favour of the Unitarian view of Christ's mira- 
 cles ; because it cannot contravene the distinct statements of 
 Scripture just quoted to prove that never, in the history of 
 Israel, did any mere man work miracles, as Jesus wrought His. 
 But the proper use of the argument from Christ's miracles 
 appears to be this — not to treat them as a main proof of His deity, 
 but of His Messiahship ; and from His Messiahship to reason up 
 by other Scriptures to His deity. In short, we cite the miracles 
 by their kind, and mode, in confirmation of our arguments. 
 
 Now, Christ's greatest miracle of all, was His resurrection 
 from the dead. Resurrection by His own power. And if such a tre- 
 
 1 John x. 41. * lea. xxxv. 5 ; Matt. xi. 5, and Luke vii. 22. 
 
254 CHRIST IN GLORY. 
 
 mendous fact can be interpreted as Unitarians would interpret it, 
 of mere man, one does not see the use of reasoning with such peo- 
 ple ; nothing in this world can convince them. But, as to this 
 fact, they are careful to inform us l that Christ was raised from 
 the dead by God The Father. Thus, Mr. Belsham— " The Uni- 
 tarians also believe that Jesus was raised to life by the power of 
 God, agreeably to His own predictions." And they are perfectly 
 correct. Nothing is more certain than that Jesus was raised 
 from the dead by The Father Almighty. I subjoin a list of 
 texts ; but one quotation is enough for the purpose : 2 " And 
 to wait for His Son, whom He raised from the dead, even 
 Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come." So 
 far, perfectly correct : nothing is more certain from holy Scrip- 
 ture than that God The Father raised up Jesus, and exalted 
 Him at His own right hand in heavenly places. But, then, they 
 forget to add that our Blessed Saviour distinctly affirms 3 that 
 He would raise Himself from the dead ; such was His prediction ; 
 and a false prophet were He, if He did not so ; but if He did, He 
 never was mere man. " What sign shewest Thou unto us, seeing 
 that Thou doest these things ? Jesus answered, and said unto 
 them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 
 But He spake of the temple of His body. When, therefore, He 
 was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had 
 said this unto them ; and they believed the Scripture, and the 
 word which Jesus had said." And I hope my readers will do 
 the same ; but if so, nothing will be more certain to them than that 
 Jesus raised Himself from the dead. But if so, how was He 
 man, mere man ? How was He less than God ? for what creature 
 (and if less than God He was but a creature) what creature has 
 power in his own right over death and the grave? The truth is, 
 that holy Scripture represents both The Father and The Son, in 
 the mystery of divine unity as co-operating in all matters neces- 
 sary, like Christ's resurrection, for the salvation of man ; and, 
 hence our Lord, on another occasion, 4 declared, " Therefore doth 
 
 1 Calm Enquiry, p. 293. 
 
 2 Eoin. vi. 4, and viii. 11 ■ 1 Cor. xv. 15; Col. ii. 12 ; 1 Thess. i. 10 ; 
 
 2 Tim. ii. 8; 1 Peter i. 21. 
 
 3 John ii. 19. * John x. 17. 
 
CHRIST IN GLORY. 255 
 
 My Father love Me, because I lay down My life that / might 
 
 take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of 
 
 Myself. I have power to lay it down ; and I have power to take 
 
 it again. This commandment have I received from My Father." 
 
 Thus, in the great work of Christ's humiliation to save sinners, 
 
 The Father and The Son co-operate : the one willing, the other 
 
 delighting to do that will. Moreover Unitarians, who tell us, and 
 
 truly, that The Father raised up Christ seem to forget that one 
 
 of the passages, which asserts that very truth, does also assure 
 
 us of the superhuman nature of Jesus ; and that, therefore, He 
 
 could not have been, as they suppose, mere man : x " Whom God 
 
 hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was 
 
 not possible that He should be holden of it." Why not possible, if 
 
 mere man ? 
 
 Enough upon the glorious resurrection ; let us 
 
 By Thy glorious ^ urn ^ contemplate, the ascension of Jesus. Uni- 
 
 Mesurrection . 
 
 and Ascension, tarians have certainly a nomenclature peculiar to 
 
 themselves ; and, when they make admissions at all, 
 make them with an air of candour, and conscious liberality, which 
 is quite interesting. Hear Mr. Belsham 2 speak of the ascension. 
 " The Unitarians further believe, that after giving sufficient 
 proofs to His disciples, for forty days, of the truth of His resur- 
 rection, He was in a miraculous manner withdrawn from their 
 society, a circumstance which is described as an ascension into 
 heaven." No doubt, it was a circumstance ! and is described as an 
 ascension into heaven ! But suppose we read the description : 3 
 " And when He had spoken these words, while they beheld, He 
 was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And 
 while they looked stedfastlg toward heaven as He ivent up, behold 
 two men stood by them in white apparel ; which also said, Ye 
 men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven ? This same 
 Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in 
 like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven." Such is the cir- 
 cumstance! and such is the description! written by the finger of 
 The Holy Ghost : with such minuteness, and such repetition of 
 the idea of literal ascent and descent that we can hardly doubt it 
 was inspired in such a manner by anticipation of the Unitarian 
 heresy. I entreat my less educated Unitarian brethren not 
 
 1 Acts ii. 24 2 Calm Enquiry, p. 293. 3 Acts i. 9. 
 
256 CHRIST IN GLORY. 
 
 to allow themselves to be deluded by such words as Mr. 
 Belsham's : they are not less than insulting to their common 
 understandings. The sacred writer leaves us but one alter- 
 native, either to tear the place out of the Holy Bible, and 
 refuse to believe ; or else to accept the language as of a literal 
 ascension into heaven. But mind, my dear readers, the correct- 
 ness and authenticity of the passage is fully admitted by all 
 Unitarians. 1 
 
 Then note the importance of this literal ascension. It throws 
 a literal force upon all those places previously treated of, 2 in which 
 Christ is spoken of as having come down from heaven. 3 I sub- 
 j oined a list : and Christ's pre-existence is, therefore, clearly proved : 
 viz., that He was in heavenly glory with The Father; and, there- 
 fore, cannot be, as these Unitarians suppose, mere man. The 
 literal ascension being admitted ; a literal descension is admitted : 
 and, by consequence, the force of all such passages in which our 
 Saviour, and His apostles, speak of Jesus as having so 
 come down from heaven : and that in the very sense affirmed 
 in such places ; which I have abundantly shewed to be of 
 deity. As St. Paul expresses it, " The first man is of the 
 earth, earthy: the second man is The Lord from heaven." More- 
 over, Unitarians seem to forget that Christ's coming to judge 
 has a correlative force with St. Luke's description of the ascen- 
 sion. " The Unitarians believe that Christ is appointed to raise 
 the dead, and to judge the world." But it is distinctly affirmed, 
 again and again, 4 that Christ will descend from heaven to judge. 
 " For The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, 
 with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God : and 
 the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we," etc.; again, "For 
 our conversation is in heaven, from whence also we look for The 
 Saviour, The Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall," etc. Thus the 
 literal ascent to heaven after death and the literal descent to 
 judge, have a correlative power to throw convincing light upon 
 those scriptures, already cited, which say that Christ came down 
 from heaven literally to take our nature upon Him; and shew the 
 unscriptural character of opinions held by Unitarians, who 
 
 1 See Improved Yers. New Test. pp. 288, 289. 
 
 2 See p, 287, where the list is given. 
 
 8 Calm Enq. pp. 294 and 297. 4 Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 Thess. iv. 16. 
 
CHRIST IN GLORY. 257 
 
 "profess to prove that those passages in which Jesus represents 
 himself as having descended from heaven, signify nothing more 
 than the divine original of his doctrine." As for their idea that 
 to speak of Christ as literally in heaven above is derogatory to 
 sound reason because tending to localise the presence of God, who 
 is Omnipresent, it is manifestly a vain idea : for Scripture abun- 
 dantly teaches us to use such language, without in the least 
 localising deity ; in proof of which our Lord's prayer is enough 
 to cite ; which teaches us to say, " Our Father, which art in 
 heaven." 
 
 The object of Christ's glorious resurrection and 
 Christ's inter- . , , , ,-, XT „ 
 
 cession and ascension are stated every where in the JNew 
 
 absolute gift Testament to be to carry into active and personal 
 ^ l J e ' operations the ministrations of The Holy Spirit 
 
 for the effectual salvation of His people. " He died for our 
 sins, and rose again for our justification." So that Christians 
 are taught to look immediately, and absolutely, to Him for all 
 those blessed gifts upon which their eternal peace depends. 
 Thus " When He ascended up on high He led captivity cap- 
 tive, and received gifts for men ; yea, even for the rebellious 
 also." Received, that is, from The Father ; working in the 
 divine economy, as already explained in willing subordination 
 to the Father. This truth is conveyed in that scripture which 
 speaks 1 of the exceeding greatness of God's power "toward 
 us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power, 
 which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the 
 dead, and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places, 
 far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, 
 and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also 
 in that which is to come : and hath put all things under His 
 feet, and gave Him to be the Head over all things to His 
 church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all 
 in all." A passage of the New Testament which illustrates the 
 force of the one hundred and tenth Psalm in the Old, describing 
 The Father's joyful exaltation of The Son after humiliation in 
 Messiahship ; a passage which is closed with a distinct assertion 
 of deity, unless we are prepared to believe that any creature 
 " filleth all in all," and is, therefore, infinite. Similarly all the 
 
 1 Ephes. i. 19. 
 S 
 
258 CHRIST IN GLORY. 
 
 gifts of grace without exception, or limitation, of any kind are 
 declared to be bestowed upon us by The Son; appointed to such 
 office in the divine economy by The Father. Saith St. Peter, x 
 ■ " The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom ye slew, and 
 hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with His right hand 
 to be a Prince, and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, 
 and forgiveness of sins." Saith St. Paul: "But of Him are 
 ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and 
 righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption ; that, accord- 
 ing as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in The 
 Lord." 
 
 But a most important argument, and one fatal to Umtarianism 
 follows from these facts ; one which I beg the candid Unitarian 
 to look at well, and again and again ; for it is absolutely destruc- 
 tive of the errors of Unitarianism, even according to their own 
 avowed opinions. It is certain, and admitted by Unitarians 
 themselves, that all spiritual gifts, or graces, in the human soul 
 are produced by The Spirit of God, which Spirit of God Unitarians 
 call an effluence, or emanation, from The One God Most High ; 
 and indeed, tell us that The Spirit of God is only another form of 
 the name of God Himself. But since all spiritual gifts and 
 graces are bestowed upon His church by The Son, it follows 
 that The Son sends The Spirit of God by whose presence in man's 
 soul such graces are produced. Hence the doctrine of what 
 Trinitarians term the procession of The Spirit from The Son as 
 well as from The Father; which doctrine St. John distinctly 
 states as follows : 2 " But when The Comforter is come, whom 
 I will send unto you from The Father, even The Spirit of truth, 
 which proceedeth from The Father, He shall testify of Me." 
 Since, then, Unitarians admit that The Spirit of God is, at the 
 very least, an emanation from God Most High, how can the 
 creature Jesus Christ (according to Unitarians' opinions) be He 
 man or what not, send from Himself The Spirit of The Most 
 High God? If Christ Himself sends The Spirit of God, be- 
 stowing (as He does) all spiritual graces upon His Church, there 
 is but one rational conclusion to be drawn, viz., that Christ 
 is God. I shall return to this subject in the next chapter. 
 
 l Acts y. 30 ; 1 Cor. i. 30, 31. 8 John xv. 26. 
 
CHRIST IN GLORY. 259 
 
 But, as previously observed, salvation though the free gift, 
 is also the conditional gift of God. And the great condition of 
 all was that an atonement should be found; and the benefits of 
 this atonement brought home to each believer's soul by the 
 active exercise of faith. And Christ being such atonement, 
 faith is directed to Him as its proper object: to Him as the 
 giver of salvation, in whatever manner set forth in Holy Scrip- 
 ture. Now when St. Paul stated that "Christ died for our sins" 
 he briefly affirmed the doctrine of atonement : and when he 
 added " rose again for our justification," he further affirmed the 
 doctrine of intercession, viz., that Christ has risen from the dead, 
 to plead before The Father the fulfilment in His own person 
 of those conditions upon which life could be granted, and to 
 claim before The Father as His 1 " purchased possession" the 
 souls of all those who believe in Him. That this doctrine of 
 intercession is asserted in holy scripture beyond reasonable con- 
 tradiction one may suppose clear enough from the following 
 passages : 2 " Who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ that 
 died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right 
 hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us ;" " For there 
 is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, The Man 
 Christ Jesus ; who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified 
 in due time :" " Wherefore He is able also to save them to 
 the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth 
 to make intercession for them ;" " And for this cause He is 
 the Mediator of The New Testament:" "My little children, 
 these things write I unto you that ye sin not ; and if any man 
 sin, we have an advocate with The Father, Jesus Christ the 
 righteous; and He is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for 
 ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Then, 
 turning first to Unitarians, such as Mr. Belsham, who maintain 
 the mere humanity of Jesus Christ; and will not even assert 
 that He was sinless, do they accept the statements of the 
 intercession, or do they not ? If they do not, what limit are we 
 to put to their rejection of the plainest scripture, notwithstand- 
 ing the great reverence for it, and power to elucidate it, which 
 they boast so loudly ? If they do ; then assuming, as they do, 
 
 1 Ephes. i. 14. 
 8 Eom.viii. 34; 1 Tim. ii. 5; Heb. vii. 25; ix. 15; 1 John ii. 1. 
 
260 CHRIST IN GLORY. 
 
 the frail manhood of Jesus, upon what foundation of acceptance 
 do they base His intercession ? If they do, then, according to 
 their own views, they hold a worse doctrine than that commonly 
 known by the name of " the intercession of saints." 
 
 But the fact is, that the intercession by Jesus is based upon 
 the atonement which He made. And they who deny the one 
 must needs deny the other ; and be left without any mediator 
 or intercessor in the presence of " the great and terrible God." 
 The proper scripture to which to refer for proof of this is the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews ; and especially to those parts which I 
 have marked below. 1 And, whoever examines those scriptures 
 will perceive that the ground of Christ's intercession for peni- 
 tent and praying believers is, that having taken the manhood 
 into God and suffered upon the cross, one sacrifice of Himself 
 once offered, " He has now entered in the holiest of all, " into 
 the presence of God for us," to plead such " blood of sprinkling" 
 to plead such sacrifice as our High Priest; and to pray The 
 Father for us that we may be saved. Hence the interces- 
 sion is precisely correlative to the atonement, and is based upon 
 the sufficiency of the sacrifice for sins then offered. Turning, 
 then, to Unitarians, such as Mr. Yates, who acknowledge the 
 pre-existence of Christ, and conceive Him to have been some 
 great being " nearly allied to God in his endowments and offices ;" 
 what ground have they for expecting effectual intercession? 
 What power have they of proving that any finite creature, who 
 could not offer a perfect sacrifice, can nevertheless conduct a 
 perfect intercession ? What merits to satisfy God's will could 
 such a finite creature plead? What scripture can they produce 
 us to shew that such merits would be accepted ? Nay further ; 
 all that has gone before will prove that such Unitarians have 
 no advocate with The Father, no mediator of the New Testament, 
 no intercessor at the right hand of the Majesty on high ; for 
 let Hebrews be studied, and you will perceive that this inter- 
 cession is based for acceptance upon the Sonship. " Seeing, then, 
 that we have a great high-priest, that is passed into the heavens, 
 Jesus The Son of God, let us hold fast our profession :" " For 
 the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity ; but the 
 
 1 Heb. iv. 14—16; v. 1—10; vii. 23— 28; ix, 11—28: x. 19—24, and 
 
 xii. 24. 
 
CHRIST IN GLORY. 261 
 
 word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh The Son, 
 who is consecrated for evermore." He is high-priest, mediator, 
 intercessor, advocate, as The Son ; and this sonship means his 
 deity; without that deity, no intercessor ; without belief in that 
 deity, no intercession. 
 
 My Unitarian brethren, are you content to close with this 
 dreary conclusion? and to be left without God in the world? 
 God will not approach yon, except through His well-beloved 
 Son ; and if you will not receive that Son as sent, you cannot 
 receive or be reconciled to Him who sent Him. 
 
 Supreme war- T ° ld S ° P lain1 ^ aS we are that a11 spiritual gifts 
 ship paid to and" graces are bestowed upon the Church by 
 Christ %n hea- Jesus, we may well anticipate that He shall be 
 represented in holy Scripture as the object, in His 
 heavenly exaltation, of supreme worship by His people : but, of 
 course, this fact is stoutly denied by all Unitarians. I have just 
 explained that even prayer to The Almighty Father in the name 
 of Jesus implies the admission of His deity ; for, that as His 
 atonement, so His mediator ship depends for its efficacy not upon 
 any human merits which appertained to Him, but upon merits 
 infinitely perfect by the union of His deity with manhood ; or, as 
 the Church has phrased it, by His having taken the manhood 
 into God. And, indeed, our Blessed Saviour when directing His 
 apostles and people to pray in His name, intimates that such 
 prayers unto The Father may also be considered as addressed to 
 Himself; and promises in His own name that He will answer 
 such prayers by His own power. 1 " And whatsoever ye shall 
 ask in my name that will I do, that The Father may be glorified 
 in The Son. If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it." 
 But John distinctly enjoins the duty of praying to Jesus, as The 
 Son of God, in whom all true Christians believe unto the 
 saving of their souls, and notes such prayer to Jesus as the best 
 proof of our confiding faith in Him. " And this is the confidence 
 that we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his 
 will, he heareth us : and if w r e know that he hear us, we know 
 that we have the petitions that we desired of him." Such a 
 doctrine, viz., that of prayer to Jesus, is no more than the 
 
 1 John xiv. 13 ; xv. 16 ; xvi. 23 ; also 1 John v. 14, 15. 
 
262 CHRIST IN GLORY. 
 
 rational consequence of the announcements so distinctly and 
 abundantly made l in the New Testament that life eternal is the 
 absolute gift of Him, whom The Father hath appointed to be heir 
 of all things : and who rules over His own house as The Son, 
 appointed to that end by The Father who is pleased that in Him 
 should all fulness dwell. But let us look to facts. That prayer, 
 as an act of supreme worship was offered up to Christ, and 
 answered by Him, even when on earth, we have seen most im- 
 pressively from the case of the dying thief : and we shall be able 
 to perceive the same great duty even more distinctly in reference 
 to Jesus now exalted in glory. 
 
 Other cases I shall notice in the margin presently : but for 
 convincing instances of prayer, as supreme worship, offered up 
 to Jesus shall, for brevity's sake, confine myself to Mr. Yates the 
 select Unitarian advocate ; who admits that he cannot answer the 
 cases cited; and (as it appears to me) should be held by every 
 earnest, and judicious, reader of his work to give up the controversy by 
 such admission.' 1 
 
 " For this thing I besought The Lord thrice, that it might 
 depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for 
 thee : for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly 
 therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of 
 Christ may rest upon me." — 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9. 
 
 " And they stoned Stephen, calling upon (Jesus), and saying, Lord 
 Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a 
 loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." — Acts vii. 59, 60. 
 
 Let the Unitarian reader hear Mr. Yates on these passages : 
 'I confess, however, that I am not able, to my own satisfaction, 
 to reconcile these two instances of the invocation of Jesus with 
 those numerous and clear directions, which represent The Father 
 as the only proper object of religious adoration. But I humbly 
 trust that, if from this and every other difficulty, which occurs 
 to me in the study of divine revelation, I learn modesty and 
 
 1 John i. 14 ; v. 26 ; vi. 37—40 ; x. 28 , and xi. 25 ; 1 John i. 2 ; ii. 25 ; 
 v. 11, 12. I select from John only, that the young reader may remember 
 John wrote especially against Cerihthus and his followers, the earliest 
 Unitarians. 
 
 2 Yates' Vindic. p. 233, 234 ; especially p. 234. line 17. 
 
CHRIST IN GLORY". 263 
 
 charity, if I am careful to comply with those explicit, and often 
 repeated injunctions, which command the worship of The 
 Father in spirit and in truth, if I regard with due reverence 
 and admiration the character, the doctrines, and the precepts, of 
 Jesus Christ, and endeavour to testify my love to Him by keeping 
 His commandments, though men may condemn me, He will 
 approve." Now, of course, Avhen we behold Goliah mortally 
 wounded in the forehead, we can afford to forget what a weight 
 of brass he carried on his sides. And Mr. Yates, speaking thus, 
 we have scarcely any heart to strike him again. There he lies, 
 I submit to the Unitarian, stricken to the death by his own 
 admission. He to whom Paul prayed for delivery from his 
 temptation, and was answered by sufficiency of grace, that 
 Christ's power might be shewn in him ; and He to whom the 
 blessed Stephen, full of The Holy Ghost, prayed in the very 
 article of death (like the dying thief before him) that his soul 
 might be received into glory: He, to whom the blessed Stephen, 
 cried with a loud voice that the sin of his murderers might be for- 
 given (as Jesus had before 1 cried unto His Father that they, who 
 crucified Him, might be pardoned) how can He be less than God? 
 No doubt, human judgments vary ; but it seems to me, and 
 perhaps may seem upon reflection to some Unitarians, that if it 
 be admitted one, even one, clear case of prayer supreme to 
 Christ is found in Holy Scripture, then it is our duty to pray 
 supremely to Christ : and since it is one grand principle of 
 religion, pervading all the Bible, that prayer to other than God 
 is idolatry , therefore, if prayer be found to Christ heard and 
 accepted, and dictated by The Holy Ghost, i. e., by the power of 
 The Father, why then it follows that Christ must be God. And 
 again, if such prayer be for pardon of si?is, as Stephen's second 
 prayer was for the pardon of his murderers, then again Christ is 
 God; for it is another grand principle of divine revelation 2 that 
 none can forgive sins but God alone. 
 
 But still Mr. Yates' admission is not so candidly made as it 
 mi^ht have been : and we must warn the reader that he is not 
 correct in saying that Scripture abounds in passages enjoining 
 prayer to The Father, alone. Of course plenty of passages en- 
 
 i Luke xxiii. 34. 2 Matt. ix. 6 ; Mark ii. 7 ; Luke v. 21. 
 
264 CHRIST IN GLORY. 
 
 joining prayer to The Father maybe found in Scripture ; but 
 also, as we have shewn, and shall more show, prayer to The Son, 
 and to The Holy Ghost. Thus, 1 to The Son (which is our pre- 
 sent subject), "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall 
 call upon the name of The Lord shall be saved;" again, "For 
 the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be 
 ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the 
 Greek ; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call 
 upon Him; for whosoever shall call upon the name of The Lord 
 shall be saved." The quotation is from Joel, and affords another 
 instance of the incommunicable name Jehovah, which Joel uses, 
 applied to Jesus ; as I have elsewhere shewn is often the case in 
 the Old Testament. And as regards that phrase " call upon the 
 name of Jehovah," which, in the places referred to below, 2 Mr. 
 Yates would turn into "called by the name of The Lord," I shcill 
 merely observe it is a Hebraism copied in the New Testament, 
 the words being the same as those by which the Greek Jews 
 translated Joel in the place referred to ; so that " call upon the 
 name of The Lord " as an expression of prayer to Christ as Je- 
 hovah is the correct translation. Would Mr. Yates venture to 
 read "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall be called by 
 the name of The Lord shall be saved ?" We are sure he would 
 not. Let us, however, note a few more prayers 3 to Jesus, as 
 acts of supreme worship, " Now God himself and our Father, and 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you : and The Lord 
 make you to increase and abound in love one toward another 
 and toward all men;" once more, "And now our Lord Jesus 
 Christ himself, and God even our Father, who hath loved us and 
 given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, 
 comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word, and 
 work." In which places it is as plain as can be that our blessed 
 Saviour as Lord is associated with The Father in equal prayer, 
 for equal operation of saving grace. To which all Mr. Yates has 
 
 1 Acts ii. 21 ; Rom. x. 11—13 ; Joel ii. 32. 
 3 Acts ix. 14 ; xxii. 16 ; 1 Cor. i. 2. v See Grinfield's Hellen. Gr. Test., p. 604. 
 
 3 1 Thess. iii. 11—13 ; 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17 ; also iii. 16 ; also Rom. i. 7 ; 
 1 Cor. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 2 ; Gal. i. 3 ; Ephes. i. 2 ; Phil. i. 2 ; Col. i. 2 ; 
 
 1 Thess. i. 2 ; 2 Thess. i. 2 ; 1 Tim. i. 2 ; 2 Tim. i. 2 ; Titus i. 4 ; Philem. 3 ; 
 
 2 John 3 ; also 1 Cor. xvi. 23 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 14 ; Gal. vi. 18 ; Ephes. vi. 23, etc. 
 
CHRIST IN GLORY. 265 
 
 been able to say is 1 — " But it is clearly stated in many parts of 
 the New Testament, that our Lord discharges these offices in 
 subordination to The Father, and by means of power, and know- 
 ledge, communicated from him." True; and in what sense, de- 
 rived or communicated, and in what sense subordinate, I have abun- 
 dantly shewn above, 2 viz., not in the Unitarian sense of inferiority, 
 but as eternally begotten, and of the same essence with The Father, 
 in willing subordination, for purposes of government. Thus much 
 upon prayer to Jesus in supreme worship, and equal dignity, 
 with The Father: but, if so, then Christ is God: for no princi- 
 ple of divine revelation is more clearly asserted than that by our 
 blessed Lord : 3 " Get thee behind me, Satan : for it is written, 
 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only 
 shalt thou serve." 
 
 Let us turn to " the Revelation of Jesus Christ 
 sentmbieJnqel which God gave unto him," and behold Jesus as 
 to testify unto now in glory, presiding over all things for His 
 ti'tMolm-ch- church ; and take note whether He there appears 
 es" Kev. xxii. to us as man, or as God. I shall throw what we 
 
 1 a 
 
 need to say into three divisions : included between, 
 first — Ptev. chapters i. and iv. ; second — Rev. chapters vii., xi., and 
 xix. ; third — Rev. chapters xx., xxii. When Stephen, 4 " Being 
 full of The Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and 
 saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of 
 God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and The Son 
 of Man standing on the right hand of God," he taught us to be- 
 lieve in the literal ascent 5 of Jesus up to heaven, and also to look 
 for Him thence at His second coming ; and also that His pre- 
 viously descent, as he called it, was a literal descent from heaven ; 
 but his great offence in the ears and minds of the Sanhedrim was 
 that by this exclamation he boldly referred for the glory of Jesus 
 to the one hundred and tenth Psalm, which they knew and acknow- 
 ledged referred to their Messiah; " Behold, I see the heavens 
 opened, and Adonai standing at the right hand of God;" and 
 thus he reasserted for our blessed Saviour the same divine glory 
 which Christ Himself had claimed ; and for claiming which, as 
 
 1 Vindic, p. 231. 8 See above, pp. 196, 226. 
 
 3 Luke iv. 8. i Acts vii. 55, 56. 5 John iii. 13 ; vi. 22, etc. 
 
266 CHRIST IN GLORY. 
 
 implying equality with God, He was condemned to die ; x " Thou 
 hast said, nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see The 
 Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in 
 the clouds of heaven :" Therefore they rent their clothes and 
 cried out Blasphemy! therefore, in Stephen's case, they stopped their 
 ears, and ran upon Him with one accord. Unitarians themselves 
 could not be more fatally shocked, that Jesus should claim, or 
 Stephen should assert for Him, that He was the well-beloved Son, 
 equal to The Father, as touching His Godhead. But, then, 
 Jesus did so claim, and Stephen did so assert for Him ; and Uni- 
 tarians may take it, or reject, as they please ; but one thing is 
 clear, that Jesus so claiming, and Stephen so asserting for Him, 
 Jesus was not what He professed to be, nor even the prophet 
 which Unitarians admit Him to have been ; nor are such men as 
 Stephen, " filled with The Holy Ghost," to be followed; unless 
 The Son of Man be Adonai, be Jehovah, be God. 
 
 So then it is as Adonai, or Jehovah, we are to expect to have 
 Christ revealed, as now existing in heaven. Let us look to Re- 
 velation. 
 
 I said that the first part of the Revelation to which I should re- 
 fer for proofs of the deity of Jesus, was included within the first 
 four chapters ; and, in fact, contained the manifestation of 
 Jesus, as The Son of Man, or Adonai, in heavenly glory. To 
 these manifestations of deity in heavenly glory I have referred 
 before, 2 as certainly being of The Father, and of The Son ; 
 but, probably, also of The Holy Ghost : and I reminded 
 the reader that similarity in parts of such divine manifes- 
 tation was intended to indicate the unity, and equality, of 
 the persons, of "The Holy, Blessed, and Glorious Trinity, three 
 Persons, and one God." Now, if the heavenly manifestation, 
 recorded at Rev. i. 10 — 18, be carefully noted, there will 
 be no difficulty in perceiving that St. John is taught to refer 
 partly to Daniel, chapters seven and ten, and partly to Ezekiel, 
 chapters one, and ten, and forty-three. But I wish the reader es- 
 pecially to observe that, whereas Daniel's description of The 
 Son of Man is separate from that of The Ancient of Days, 
 viz., the description of The Son separate from that of The 
 
 1 Matt. xxvi. 64. 2 See p. 120, supra. 
 
CHRIST IN GLORY. 267 
 
 Father, St. Jolm includes, in his description of Christ in glory, 
 certain features which Daniel had assigned to The Ancient of 
 Days alone, and thereby asserts, symbolically, Christ's equality 
 with The Father. Thus, of The Ancient of Days Daniel says, 
 " Whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head 
 like pure wool : his throne was like the fiery flame, and his 
 wheels as burning fire ; a fiery stream issued, and came forth 
 from before Him ;" and also of Christ in glory John says, " His 
 head and his hairs were white as wool, as white as snow, and his 
 eyes as a flame of fire ; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if 
 they burned in a furnace ; and his voice as the sound of many 
 waters." The identity of the descriptions is sufficiently main- 
 tained, each being of God in human form ; each of deity most 
 glorious. The one, viz., Daniel's, being certainly of The Father ; 
 the other, viz., John's, being as certainly of The Son. Which 
 certainty, in relation to Jesus, is maintained with peculiar care ; 
 and that in two ways: first — by John's careful reference to 
 Isaiah, and to Daniel, and to Ezekiel ; and next by his direct 
 assertions. Thus, he refers to Daniel by distinctly calling Him, 
 whom he saw, The Son of Man ; and plainly asserts, that he 
 speaks of Jesug by the following — " I am he that liveth, and was 
 dead ; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen : and have the 
 keys of hell and of death;" indirectly also by such expressions 
 as the following — " He had in his right hand seven stars" (viz., 
 the angels of the seven churehes, ver. 20) ; "And out of his mouth 
 went a sharp two-edged sword," (viz., the word of God sharper 
 than any two-edged sword, Heb. iv. 12); "And his countenance 
 was as the sun," (viz., the Sun of Righteousness with healing in His 
 wings, Mai. iv. 2); " shineth in his strength." And St. John, 
 having thus left none of us any fair reason for doubting that he 
 speaks of Jesus, proceeds to assert His equal deity with The 
 Father, by borrowing from Isaiah the peculiar name, significant 
 of eternal attributes in God; of whom, says 1 Isaiah, (let Jews 
 or Unitarians deny it if they can), " I, Jehovah, the first and 
 with the last, I am he;" "Thus saith Jehovah, The King of 
 Israel ; and his redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts ; I am the first, and 
 I am the last; and beside me there is no God ;" and " Hearken 
 
 1 Isaiah xli. 4 ; xliv. 6, and xlviii. 12. 
 
268 CHRIST IN GLORY. 
 
 unto me, O Jacob and Israel my called ; I am he ; I am the 
 first, I also am the last." I am not concerned now to stop, and 
 prove, that these verses in Isaiah are spoken of Messiah, The 
 King of Israel, my object, at present, is merely to remind the 
 reader that both Jews and Unitarians do admit, and must admit, 
 that Isaiah speaks of Jehovah the only true God; and then to 
 point out to him that John " in The Spirit on Christ's day " 
 claims these very titles, and their implication of eternal attributes 
 as His: "I am Alpha and Omega; the first and the last:" and 
 " Fear not ; I am the first and the last ; I am he that liveth, and 
 was dead." I only wish we could gather together the Sanhedrim 
 which tried and condemned either Jesus or Stephen; and let my 
 readers see how they would demean themselves at this verse 
 from Revelation. I can conceive no passages, even in the New 
 Testament, which they would more fiercely spew out of their 
 mouths with blasphemy and with spitting, like Jews, than this 
 place in St. John's revelation ; and I challenge any Unitarian to 
 select any European Rabbi, of standing among that people, and 
 ask him what that Rabbi understands to be the meaning of the 
 words " Fear not ; I am the first, and the last ; I am he that 
 liveth, and was dead" as applied to Jesus Christ. He will say 
 two things : first — that to his mind the verse is nonsense, for in 
 the first section it predicates eternity, and in the second death, of 
 the same person; and second — that such folly makes the blas- 
 phemy of the writer, St. John, no less ; for undoubtedly he 
 asserts, in the first clause, that He, who he says was dead, is God. 
 Let Unitarians look to it. 
 
 But, completing my notice of this section of Revelation, St. John 
 still further asserts the deity of Jesus, by reference to Ezekiel. 
 Thus, take the manifestation of the Godhead given us in chapter 
 four, it is of The Almighty Father ; and yet, whoever will com- 
 pare it with the manifestations given us in Isaiah six and Ezekiel 
 one, will perceive that St. John's is a mixture of the two. 
 Leaving the reader to compare these for himself, 1 proceed to 
 observe that we know 1 Isaiah's was of Jesus: and, by con- 
 sequence, Ezekiel's also ; but John's here is of The Almighty 
 Father ; the similarity in manifestation, as already noticed, 
 
 1 John xii. 41 ; and see p. 72, supra. 
 
CHRIST IN GLORY. 269 
 
 asserting the unity and equality of the deity. But, further, St. 
 John leaves us no room for escape, or to plead non-conviction; 
 for he adds at ver. 8, " Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, 
 which was, and is, and is to come;" and such very words he ap- 
 plies to Jesus at chapter 1, verse 8: — " I am Alpha and Omega, 
 the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord; which is, and which 
 was, and which is to come, The Almighty :" leaving us once more 
 no sensible room for contradiction, by addmg at ver. 17, 18, "I 
 am the first and the last, I am He that was living and was dead." 
 Once more I say, let conscientious Unitarians refer to Jews ; and 
 ask them what they think of these places, upon the supposition 
 that the New Testament is part of the word of God. They will give 
 but one reply, viz. " He who seriously professes to believe that 
 this is the word of God is guilty of inexcusable sin if he denies 
 that Christ is God." Unitarians! you have but one alternative; 
 either admit that Christ is God, or cut these places out of your 
 bibles. 
 
 Let us turn to the next section of the Revelation, selected for 
 our purpose : it consists of chap. 7, ver. 10, 12, and 17 ; chap. 11, 
 ver. 15 — 17; and chap. 19, ver. 13 — 16. In John's description 
 of deity, previously selected from chap. 4, and continued through 
 chap. 5, Jesus is introduced as The Lamb, as it had been slain, 
 the well known paschal, propitiatory lamb ; or as to Jesus, " the 
 Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world," with the 
 marks of crucifixion upon him. Now as Adonai He is represented 
 as at the right hand of God ; and Unitarians are very fond of 
 telling us — ignoring the fact that (Jews being our witnesses) 
 Messiah is Adonai, — that to be exalted at the right hand of God 
 means only exalted to peculiar honour and blessedness : but 
 John uses a remarkable expression ; not only is Jesus repre- 
 sented to us, as by Stephen, at the right hand of God, but John 
 depicts him even with the marks of human humiliation upon 
 Him, " in the midst of the throne," chap. 5, ver. 6 ; a remarkable 
 expression which indicated his complete participation in the 
 glory of that throne ; and that his meaning may not be mis- 
 taken, he adds, " of the four beasts and in the midst of the 
 elders," so that Jesus, as crucified, is represented as the very 
 centre of divine glory, the focus of essential light, "the bright- 
 ness of his Father's glory, and express image of his person;" all 
 
270 CHRIST IN GLORY. 
 
 the glory of the deity surrounds Him ; and to Him the inspired 
 adorations of ' the beasts,' viz. of the heavenly symbols, of " the 
 cherubim and seraphim," to Him they continually do cry "Holy, 
 holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts :" hence it is called the throne 
 " of God and of the lamb," viz. the equal throne of either : and 
 hence, as by the passages marked below, 1 salvation and all the 
 honour and glory and praise and thanksgiving and worship it 
 claims from man for the bestower is given equally to " God and 
 to the Lamb;" equally, therefore (at the least) to The Father 
 and The Son. 
 
 Such an ascription of glory from the heavenly hosts assumes 
 a peculiar form, most worthy to be noticed and thought upon 
 by Unitarians, in the eleventh chapter. " There were great voices 
 in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the 
 kingdoms of our God and his Christ, and he shall reign for ever." 
 It is no Christ of our own imagination that God will accept us 
 for acknowledging; but Christ as He has revealed him; and, 
 once more, that we may not mistake in what sense He requires 
 us to acknowledge Christ as that beloved One whose shall 
 become all the kingdoms of the earth in unity with The Father, 
 John adds the ascription of praise given by the four and twenty 
 elders, viz., the heavenly representatives of " the blessed com- 
 pany of all faithful people," the Christian Church. " And the 
 four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, 
 fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, saying, We give thee 
 thanks, O Lord God Almighty ; which art, and wast, and art to 
 come, because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast 
 reigned." It is God's Christ who reigns with Him, in that 
 oriental sense in which the son reigning with his father was 
 acknowledged to be fully king ; and it is of this Christ the same 
 words are used at chap. 1, ver. 8, " I am Alpha and Omega, 
 the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord; which is, and 
 which was, and which is to come, The Almighty." And this is 
 precisely the sense in which Jesus is introduced as The Word 
 of God at chap. 19; and declared to be, as such, "King of 
 kings and Lord of lords." 
 
 This nineteenth chapter will introduce us properly to the 
 
 1 Kev. v. 6—14 ; vii. 10—17 ; xi. 15—19 ; xiv. 1—14 ; xix. 1—7 ; xxi. 3—7 
 and 22 ; xxii. 1 — 3, etc. 
 
CHRIST IN GLORY. 271 
 
 third and last section of the Revelation ; as I have ventured to 
 divide it for the purpose now before us. In the tenth verse of 
 that chapter John states in reference to the angel who shewed 
 him certain things that he " fell at his feet to worship him ; and 
 he said unto him, See that thou do it not ; for I am thy fellow- 
 servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus," 
 etc. A similar incident is recorded at chap. 22, ver. 8, " And 
 when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the 
 feet of the angel, which shewed me these things. Then saith he 
 unto me, See thou do it not," etc. Now Mr. Yates has very 
 properly felt, that the one incident should be taken to explain 
 the other ; but whereas the whole context is filled with proofs of 
 the deity of Christ, he copies large portions of it in a way 
 surprisingly ostentatious, and fears not to conclude l that the 
 angel who forbade John to worship him was Jesus himself. I trust 
 my readers will soon be of a different opinion. 
 
 Every one familiar with the book of Revelation knows that 
 it consists of a succession of scenic prophecies delivered by the 
 instrumentality of various angels : not of one, but of several, 
 to each of whom some part of the drama is assigned. It is also 
 true that The Lord Jesus Himself is styled, as we have abun- 
 dantly proved, The Angel of God ; and there is one place in 
 the Revelation, viz. chap. 10, ver. 1, where we have reason to 
 believe He is represented as a "mighty angel come down from 
 heaven, clothed with a cloud ; and a rainbow upon his head, and 
 his face as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire;" but 
 we shall see that there is no danger of confounding Jesus with 
 the angels referred to by St. John in the contexts before us. 
 For that part of the scenic prediction to which John refers at 
 chap. 19, ver. 10, " See thou do it not," etc. commences at 
 chap. 17, ver. 1 : " And there came one of the seven angels which 
 had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying," etc. etc. : and 
 these seven angels are carefully spoken of at chap. xv. 1, and 
 xvi. 1, as employed in pouring out the vials of God's wrath upon 
 the earth ; and they are enumerated in succession in chap. xvi. 
 as having done so. It is one of these angels, these seven de- 
 puted in similar and equal offices, who takes charge of John 
 
 1 Yates' Yimlic, pp. 223—226. 
 
272 CHRIST IN GLORY. 
 
 at chap. xvii. 1, and sinews him the vision which is recorded in 
 chapters 17, 18, and part of 19; and John, overwhelmed with 
 joy at the prevision granted him of the Church's final triumph, 
 and the recovery of his own people Israel, singing Alleluia! to 
 The Lamb whom their fathers sacrificed, falls down to worship 
 this one of the seven angels, who instantly forbids him, and 
 that in language which shews us plainly he could not be Jesus. 
 " See thou do it not ; I am thy fellow- servant, and of thy bre- 
 thren that have the testimony of Jesus ; worship God ; for the 
 testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Thus, instead of 
 being Jesus himself, this angel declares he is one that testifies 
 of Jesus ; as well he might, for he was of the seven especially 
 engaged at that time in predicting by scenic representation to 
 John a most important part of the history of Christ's church ; 
 and, as he says, the very spirit of his occupation then, as of all 
 similar occupations, is to testify for and to assert the divine 
 honour of the crucified Jesus. And, that John may be the more 
 deeply impressed with the amazing contrast between this one of 
 the seven angels, and Jesus, there immediately follows in the 
 rest of chap, xix, that terrific vision of Jesus as The Word of 
 God, attended by all the hosts of heaven, treading the wine- 
 press of the wrath of God : and announced as King of kings 
 and Lord of lords. About which, alas ! alas ! I perceive Mr. 
 Yates says not one word. 
 
 Still he is quite right in maintaining that the incident at, 
 chap. xix. 10, just explained, should be used to illustrate that 
 at chap. xxii. 9. Let us look at this last. "And I, John, saw 
 these things, and heard them ; and when I had heard, and seen, 
 I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed 
 me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not : 
 for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, 
 and of them which keep the sayings of this book : worship God." 
 Once more, we may see by reference to chap. 21, ver. 9, that he 
 who speaks is - " one of the seven angels which had the seven 
 vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with " John, say- 
 ing, " Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." 
 And he carried John away, in spirit, and the apostle had a sym- 
 bolical vision of the church in glory. Who The Lamb is we 
 know, the husband of the Church, which is here called the Bride. 
 
CHRIST IN GLORY. 273 
 
 Thus, the second angel carefully distinguished himself from Jesus 
 as The Lamb, just as the other had from The Lamb as Jesus. 
 The vision of Christ as The Word of God, i. e., of Christ in His 
 essential glory of deity, inserted between the two, leaving an 
 honest mind in no danger of misapprehension. There is no 
 reason for concluding that the angel on each occasion was the 
 same angel ; rather for inferring, from John's distinct introduction 
 of each, that they were two different angels ; each of them being 
 employed to pour out one of the seven vials ; from which reflec- 
 tion we may be strengthened in the conclusion that neither of 
 them could be Jesus. 
 
 But the deity of Christ is still further evident from the con- 
 text. Thus it is said, at chap, xxii., ver. 6, " These sayings are 
 faithful and true ; and The Lord God of the holy prophets sent his 
 angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be 
 done." This verse Mr. Yates carefully notices ; l and concludes 
 that Jesus is the angel sent. But, at ver. 16, viz., only ten verses 
 lower down, it is added, " I, Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify 
 unto you these things in the churches." Of this verse Mr. Yates 
 takes no notice. A fact upon which I leave the reader to form his 
 own conclusions. 
 
 However, that there may remain no doubt that Jesus is The 
 Lord God who sent His angel to testify unto the churches, the 
 book of Revelation resumes that most decided assertion of 
 •Christ's deity previously referred to: "And, behold, I come 
 quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according 
 as his work shall be. / am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and 
 the end, the first and the last:" of whom it is afterwards said, " He 
 which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly, Amen. 
 Even so, come, Lord Jesus." It is Christ who will come, as 
 Unitarians themselves 3 admit, to give to every man according as 
 his work shall be. It is Christ who will come again to judge 
 both "the quick and the dead;" "at whose coming all men shall 
 rise again with their bodies ; and shall give account of their 
 works. And they that have done good shall go into life ever- 
 lasting ; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire." But 
 Mr. Belsham, and those Unitarians whom he represents, inform 
 
 1 Vindic, p. 225. 3 Belsham's Calm Enquiry, p. 295. 
 
 T 
 
274 CHRIST IN GLORY. 
 
 us that " Christ is appointed to raise the dead, and to judge the 
 world." But that " whatever be the meaning of the declaration, 
 the part which Jesus will bear in it will, they are confident, be no 
 more than what may properly be allowed to a human being 
 (John v. 27), and, in the execution of which His apostles, and 
 disciples will, it is said, be associated with Him (Matt. xix. 28 ; 
 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3.)" And it is perfectly true that the manhood of 
 Jesus is specially notified as engaged in the work of judgment : 
 but the manhood as taken into Godhead ; and not manhood as 
 separate, and apart, from such Godhead. Thus Paul tells the 
 Athenians, God hath " appointed a day in the which he will judge 
 the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained." 
 But it is none the less true that Christ, in exercising such judg- 
 ment, is also God. I shall not stop to enquire how far it is pos- 
 sible for a mere man (which is the Unitarian supposition) to 
 exercise safe judgment for the everlasting weal or woe of un- 
 countable millions of human souls; a judgment penetrating to 
 the several inmost thoughts, minutest actions, and faintest words, 
 of each and all. I shall not stop to enquire, how far such know- 
 ledge is "too wonderful" for man; and, in fact, implies omnisci- 
 ence : I shall not stop to enquire in what way God can impart 
 such powers to any mere finite creature, however exalted Arians 
 may choose to conceive him : but shall shew once more, and 
 now finally, that Christ is specified as God, in this exercise of 
 eternal judgment. 
 
 I have just called attention to the fact that, at chap, xxii., verses 
 12, 13, our blessed Lord, announcing that He comes quickly to 
 give to every man according as his work shall be, resumes His 
 title asserted at the beginning of the Revelation — " I am Alpha 
 and Omega, the beginning, and the ending, the first and the last." 
 But this same title is also assumed, at chap, xxi., ver. 5, " And he 
 that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. 
 And he said unto me, Write : for these words are true and 
 faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and 
 Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is 
 athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that over- 
 cometh shall inherit all things : and / will be his God, and he 
 shall be my son." But, again, if we ask for further proof that 
 Jesus, who calls Himself thus "Alpha and Omega," and pro- 
 
CHRIST IN GLORY. 275 
 
 mises to be the God of those that endure unto the end, is God, let 
 us enquire who is he here represented as seated on the throne ? 
 The reference is to chap, xx., ver. 11, "And I saw a great white 
 throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and 
 the heaven fled away ; and there was found no place for them. 
 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the 
 books were opened," etc. It is Jesus who claims to be Alpha 
 and Omega; it is Jesus who promises to be the God of His 
 faithful people ; it is Jesus who sat upon the throne ; it is Jesus 
 before whom, as Judge, the small and great are standing ; for 
 " we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ to receive 
 for the deeds done in the body ;" it is Jesus who is here plainly 
 asserted to be God. 
 
 Conclusion of 1 am weai T witn reiterating proofs of the deity of 
 the chapter : Jesus. Not weary with the subject itself, for who 
 and brief sum- ^q-^^ c | are say so ? jt j s one f unspeakable 
 wary oj proofs ■,..,, 
 from the Neiv dignity and glory. But weary with having to 
 
 Testament that mee t shallow pretences to biblical learning, arsru- 
 
 Christ is God. _ r • -, i 
 
 ments of the most confused and unsubstantial and 
 
 delusive character, and (1 am sometimes tempted to say) falla- 
 cies urged with conscious dishonesty of purpose. But, if this 
 be too hard a speech, there is the undeniable fact that contexts 
 of Scripture are mutilated ; some authors misquoted ; others 
 misrepresented ; and others classed together in such a manner as 
 to cause a reader misapprehension, whether it was designed or 
 not ; not to add, that some language, referred to with precision 
 as being indescribably impious and profane, is used in defence 
 of Unitarianism. Let me very briefly conclude this chapter by 
 collating the main proofs of the deity of Jesus, as we have 
 gathered them from the New Testament alone. 
 
 My remarks on the book of Revelation have been purposely 
 concise : rather intended to lead the reader to examine for him- 
 self, than to set out the argument from this head with conclu- 
 siveness. Still, I hesitate not to say, conclusive they are : and 
 one of the peculiar features of that book is that the deity of 
 Jesus is so irradiated from passage to passage by its peculiar 
 construction that it is almost as impossible within a moderate 
 space, to gather up all the marks of His Godhead, as it would 
 have been for the beloved disciple to concentrate the rays of that 
 divine glory in which Jesus appeared to him at the commence- 
 
276 CHRIST IN GLORY. 
 
 ment of that Revelation. But this we perceive, that His titles 
 both as man and God are given to Him there : as Jesus, as 
 Lamb of God, as Word of God, as The First and The Last, as 
 God. Thus His manhood, and essential deity are equally borne 
 in mind, and delivered unto us, by John : and the revelation 
 granted Him is from Christ in glory : that is, from Messiah as 
 the well-beloved, and only-begotten Son, of equal deity with The 
 Father, having taken the manhood into God. In this character 
 He is represented in the Revelation as receiving supreme worship, 
 and adoration, from the heavenly host, and as united with The 
 Father in Godhead, dwelling in the midst of the throne : the 
 throne of God and of The Lamb. In this character the repre- 
 sentatives in heaven of the struggling saints on earth offer Him 
 continually their prayers, and praises ; and in this character, 
 which is that of Adonai, as predicted in the one hundred and tenth 
 Psalm, Stephen was permitted as an especial reward for his 
 fidelity to behold Him in glory at the right hand of The Father, 
 when gazing stedfastly into heaven. Such an act of supreme 
 worship by Stephen under such solemn circumstances, and filled 
 ■with The Holy Ghost, leaves us no doubt (if any could yet 
 remain iipon our minds) that we rightly interpret those many 
 passages of the New Testament which in various ways, and for 
 various purposes, implying acts of saving and almighty grace, 
 represent our Blessed Saviour to us as the proper object of con- 
 tinual, and supreme, worship from His people. And we speak 
 of Him, just as of " our Father, who is in heaven" not as though 
 His presence, or power, were localised there ; but merely because 
 it has pleased The Almighty God to justify such expressions in 
 His holy word, probably for the purpose of simplifying, and 
 giving more pointed reality and effect to the active faith of His 
 people. It is the language of man, and his mode of thought, 
 graciously adopted for his own settlement, and advancement in 
 the things of God. So our Blessed Lord is described as having 
 literally ascended into heaven, and was watched by His chosen 
 witnesses as literally proceeding thither ; and that they might be 
 confirmed in that impression, and not suppose that mere imagina- 
 tion, or excitement, had deceived them, a vision of angels was 
 granted them in addition, who assured them that as he had gone 
 away into heaven, so he would literally from heaven come again. 
 A literal ascension, and corresponding promise, which assure us 
 
CHRIST IN GLORY. 277 
 
 that we are right in interpreting certain scriptures, as speaking 
 of his having literally come down from heaven, before He took 
 upon him the form of man, and therefore as having been pre- 
 existent in heaven in some state; of which our Blessed Lord 
 permits us not to doubt when he speaks of returning from earth 
 unto the glory which he had in unity with the Father before the 
 world was. 
 
 It is observable that as the first remarkable notification of 
 Christ in glory as God is given us, after his ascension, by an act 
 of supreme worship from one of his most faithful, and blessed, 
 servants under circumstances of death, but filled with The Holy 
 Ghost ; so one of the last intimations of his real nature as God 
 Incarnate upon earth is given us by an act of supreme worship 
 from one of his people, snatched at the very moment of death 
 as a brand from eternal fire. The prayer of the thief upon the 
 cross, accepted and answered by our Blessed Lord either estab- 
 lishes the deity of Christ, or stamps his character with infamy. 
 It was a prayer for life eternal, and as such was immediately 
 replied to. Such as he descended from heaven, so he was upon 
 earth ; and such as he was upon earth, so he re-ascended to 
 heaven. The outward signs of Godhead he laid aside, emptying 
 himself, and content for such time not to display his glory; 
 but the real nature of deity never. Doubtless, God was in 
 Christ reconciling the world unto Himself; doubtless, God was 
 manifest in the flesh ; and until the whole text of the New 
 Testament has been torn to pieces, those who undertake to 
 enforce so many suspicious discoveries respecting its purity, will 
 not be able quite to rob us of the saving truth ; truth upon 
 which our salvation absolutely depends. For if Christ be not 
 God, there is no intercession, there has been no atonement ; and 
 the whole Christian system collapses into a bare, and uncheering 
 code of morals, dry as hay. Nay, worse than that ; for if Christ 
 be not God, it will be difficult indeed to rescue the entire Bible, 
 and the many writers in it of such different characters, and living 
 under circumstances so various, from the charge of having 
 expressed themselves so that the vast mass of its recipients 
 through many ages could not but interpret it so as to set up one 
 astounding, and idolatrous, lie as the foundation, and charac- 
 teristic of their faith ; and the inspiration of that Bible, in other 
 words its claim to be a revelation from God, falls to the ground. 
 
278 CHRIST IN GLORY. 
 
 Christianity (so-called) without the deity of Christ is mere deism; 
 and that deity denied we are as well without the Bible, as with it. 
 Hence, it happens that such doctrine of the deity of Christ is 
 the prime article of revealed truth ; pervading, as our Blessed 
 Saviour reminded his people, the writings of Moses and the 
 Prophets ; and as thoroughly insisted on, in various ways, by 
 the evangelists and apostles. The names of God, the attributes 
 of God, the works of God, the worship of God, are all perfectly 
 and supremely awarded to Christ ; claimed by him, and for 
 him, in eveiy conceivable form, under all varieties, and by clear 
 and ostensible acts. His birth, his conversation, his resurrec- 
 tion, his miracles ; the confessions of men, of devils, of angels ; 
 his death, his resurrection, his ascension, his appearances in 
 glory whether to Stephen, or Saul, or John; all betoken deity ; 
 and that so clearly expressed that the humblest mind, acting in 
 sincerity, will draw no less conclusion concerning him; while 
 they, who attempt to deny that deity, are driven to vain and 
 hopeless sophistries; and after all are forced, as we have seen, 
 from one shift to the other until -they must either give up the 
 Testaments, as not containing a revelation from God ; or incur 
 for themselves the well-founded charge either of fatal ignorance, 
 or of irrational obstinacy. The utmost they can allege with 
 safety in their final defence is that such matters are too won- 
 derful for man ; and that it passes his comprehension how The 
 Most High God can exist in the manner He is asserted to be 
 revealed ; and how He could so become incarnate, and dwell 
 among men, and suffer, and die in the flesh, for their sins ; and 
 so rise again for their salvation. If this be what they urge, 
 St. Paul himself will agree with them, 1 exclaiming, " O, the 
 depth of the riches, both of the wisdom, and knowledge, of God ! 
 how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding 
 out ! For who hath known the mind of The Lord ? or who hath 
 been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it 
 shall be recompensed unto him again ? For of him, and through 
 him, and to him, are all things ; to whom be glory for ever. 
 Amen." All things being equally through The Father, and 
 through The Son, and through The Holy Ghost: to the proofs of 
 whose personality we next proceed. 
 
 1 Rom. xi. 13. 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 PENTECOST. 
 
 ggig^v, S previously observed, the deity of The Lord 
 Jesus Christ may be properly considered that 
 great subject upon which the Trinitarian con- 
 troversy depends ; and if that be proved, as 
 we trust it has been by multitudinous Trini- 
 tarian writers, there remains very little in 
 relation to The Most Blessed Trinity about which the adversary 
 will care to dispute with us. For as regards the deity of The 
 Holy Ghost, it is readily and completely admitted by them that, 
 when not placed merely as an expression for the power, or in- 
 fluence, emanating from God into the Christian's soul, it is a 
 synonym for God Himself; so that not the deity, but the personal 
 deity, in other words, the personality (as it has been termed) of 
 The Holy Ghost is all that we are required to prove. 
 
 The meaning which Trinitarians attach to the 
 fhe P tl a m°Pei word personality, thus applied to The Holy 
 sonality thus Ghost, will be quickly apprehended by reference 
 employed. tQ ^ chapter on "The Subordination." It 
 
 is intended by such expression to affirm that as The Father 
 is not The Son, so The Holy Ghost is neither of these, but has 
 a proper person, of the same substance, or being, by which we are 
 taught to distinguish Him from both The Father and The Son ; 
 and in which He graciously carries on certain offices assigned to 
 Him in the divine economy, and undertaken by Him especially 
 for the redemption of man. But just as the very inferior mental 
 capacities of human kind are altogether incompetent to form 
 any correct notions whatever upon any question affecting th- 
 being, or existence, or nature, of God; so Trinitarians ackuow- 
 
280 PENTECOST. 
 
 ledge themselves entirely unable to comprehend the mode in 
 which The Holy Ghost thus exists in a proper person, or sub- 
 stance, or being, in such sense that He is not to be confounded 
 either with The Father, or with The Son. Supposing we accept 
 the Unitarian definition of the Godhead ; viz., tLat there is One 
 Almighty Father, and neither God The Son, nor God The Holy 
 Ghost : then if we ask them to explain to us what they mean by 
 The Almighty Father, and what is His person, or substance, or 
 being, they are quite unable to give us an answer. Man has no 
 power to explain, or describe, or define, the existence of God. 
 Unitarians are quite as helpless in their theory, as we in ours. 
 And this being so, we urge upon them that all of us are depen- 
 dent as very children upon revelation, viz., upon what God Him- 
 self may see fit to make known about this matter ; and that to 
 such revelation Unitarians, and all others (if they be rational 
 men), must come for what information they require. Further, so 
 having come to revelation for learning the knowledge of God, 
 we affirm that such revelation does distinctly make known to us 
 that God is One ; but in such sense of unity that He is pleased 
 to declare He exists in a threefold manner which He Himself, 
 not we, has defined as The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost. 
 But so that these are not three but one God ; and yet, in their 
 persons, must not be confounded. Any other definition of God's 
 unity the Holy Bible gives us not. And, though utterly unable 
 to comprehend the mode in which God so exists, we are not 
 more unable than Unitarians, or other men, who (like ourselves) 
 are utterly unable to comprehend how God exists at all. 
 
 As to the particular term employed to express the idea as, for 
 instance, person, we care nothing about that; but are prepared to 
 accept any other Unitarians prefer, provided we can attach the 
 same ideas to it. The word used in the New Testament is 
 hi/jjostasis, and (in the language to which it belongs) is like all 
 other human terms incompetent to express the essence of God. 
 But the Holy Bible was intended for man, every man, to read, 
 and God has, therefore, condescended to approach our minds by 
 means of our broken tongues. If the word person be not a 
 sufficiently good rendering of the word hyptostasis, which God has 
 employed, of course we are (so far) wrong; and we shall be under 
 an obligation if learned Unitarians will correct us, and find the 
 
PENTECOST. 281 
 
 word which is the proper rendering. But if, on the other hand, 
 they do admit that the Latin person (adopted into English) comes 
 sufficiently near to the Greek hypostasis ; why then we ask per- 
 mission to plead that their complaint about terms is very ill- 
 placed ; and, if they will persist in it, ought not to be urged 
 against us, but against the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; 
 or rather, with reverence be it spoken, if they will persist they 
 complain against God, who inspired him. But, again, if we be 
 demanded, in what sense we mean that The Son, and The Holy 
 Ghost, are one with The Father ; yet are not The Father, nor to 
 be confounded with Him ; but that each, though of the same hy- 
 postasis, or substance, has a proper person, or being, of His own ; we 
 reply we mean just, and only, but entirely, what the Holy Scrip- 
 ture says without adding explanatory terms of our own, viz., that 
 The Son is such as begotten of His Father before all worlds ; of 
 which we have already spoken abundantly : and that The Holy 
 Ghost is such as proceeding from The Father and from The Son : 
 and proceeding as such, from all eternity. So that we conceive of 
 no time, or point in duration, when God Most High did not exist 
 as God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Ghost : of 
 whom, The Holy Ghost, we proceed to prove the personality. 
 
 I have already, at p. 177, noted the fact that Tertullianw&s the 
 first to use this word person. But, that no mistake, nor confusion, 
 may arise from the use of the word as a translation for hypo- 
 stasis, as substance, or being, would further observe that as early 
 as the Jifth century it is noticed by Facundus, a bishop of Her- 
 miana, in Africa, how the use of it had been forced upon the 
 church in reference to The Most Holy Trinity. And, similarly, 
 disputes respecting the proper use of it, as also of words which 
 may be rendered subsistences, and substances : owing to the diver- 
 sity between the Greek and Latin tongues. The Greeks were 
 wont to say three hypostases, or substances ; where the Latins 
 would say three persons. Till, at last, by a synod, held at Alex- 
 andria, a.d. 362, their identity of intention was determined : and, 
 henceforward, while the unity of God was asserted as of one sub- 
 stance, or being ; the Trinity was also maintained, both by Greeks 
 and Latins, as of three subsistences, or persons. See Radcliffe's 
 Athanasian Creed, pp. 66 — 92; and Notes 6 and 7: see also 
 Augustine Heb. i. 3, as quoted by Capellus in Critici Sacri, 
 p. 4094. 
 
282 PENTECOST. 
 
 As with the deity of The Son, so in reference to 
 
 Remarks on St. tlie Godhead of The Holy* Ghost, the blessed 
 
 John s chapters * . ' 
 
 14 15 and 16. Apostle John, who was requested in the earliest 
 
 days of the Church, to defend the truth against 
 the error of Unitarianism, which was theu creeping on under 
 Cerinthus, 1 is among the clearest authorities. In his fourteenth, 
 fifteenth, and sixteenth chapters, he narrates that important, and 
 parting, conversation which The Blessed Saviour held with His 
 Apostles; and in the course of which He says, 2 " If ye love me 
 keep my commandments. And I will pray The Father, and he 
 shall give you another Comforter that he may abide with you 
 for ever ; even The Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot 
 receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth Him : but ye 
 know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you:" or 
 again, " But The Comforter, which is The Holy Ghost, whom 
 The Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things 
 and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have 
 said unto you :" or again, " But when The Comforter is come, 
 whom I will send unto you from The Father, even The Spirit of 
 truth, which proceedeth from The Father, He shall testify of 
 Me:" or again, "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth; it is ex- 
 pedient for you that I go away ; for if I go not away, The 
 Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I depart I will send 
 Him unto you ; and when He is come He will reprove the world 
 of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment." In which passages 
 we cannot fail to notice that The Comforter, or Spirit of Truth, 
 or The Holy Ghost, are one and the same, (what shall we say ?) 
 person. For the language employed is such as is rational 
 if used of a person, or individual being ; but not otherwise. 
 And is such as if used of The Father, or of Christ Himself, 
 would be admitted at once to convey such ideas of individuality, 
 as it were affronting to a common understanding to commence 
 explaining. He is to teach, to convince, i. e., reprove, to testify, to 
 bring things to mind, to abide, to be received, to be known ; all of 
 which implies personality. His testimony is thrown into contrast 
 with that of the Apostles, as persons ; and His presence, and 
 
 1 By calling, as at p. 14, Cerinthians, Ebionites, Samosatenes, Arians, etc., 
 Unitaiians, I mean that (in their several ways) they denied, and assailed, 
 the doctrine of The Holy Trinity. 
 
 2 John xiv. 15, 16 ; xv. 26 ; and xvi. 7, 8. 
 
PENTECOST. 283 
 
 His work, with those of Christ, as a person ; and we may safely 
 assert that it never would have entered the head of any sensible 
 man to deny that such language implied personality, did not 
 such an easy, and matter of course, admission conduct us un- 
 avoidably to the incomprehensible doctrine of The Holy Trinity. 
 Further we notice, from the above passages, that The Holy 
 Ghost is sent, that is, goes out from, or proceeds, both from The 
 Father, and from The Son ; for Jesus says specifically that The 
 Father gives, and sends, The Comforter, in His, The Son's 
 name ; and also that He himself, as such Son, sends The Com- 
 forter from The Father. Hence, whatever be the essence, sub- 
 stance, or being, of The Holy Ghost, it follows (the sub- 
 ject being spirit, not hody) that essence or being is such as The 
 Father and The Son send forth; and that, therefore, (the subject 
 being of spirit, and not of body) such as The Holy Ghost is such 
 are The Father, and such The Son, who send Him. And, as it is 
 better stated, " such as The Father is, such is The Son ; and 
 such is The Holy Ghost." Now, the very lowest view which 
 Unitarians admit of The Holy Ghost is that He is some ineffable 
 influence, or spiritual potver, emanating from The One True God ; 
 but Christ says He sends Him from The Father. And, if Christ 
 be a creature, as Unitarians say He is, how can He send The 
 Father's spirit from Him? Has any creature command over God 
 Almighty ? or can any one being send another's spirit ? Could 
 Mr. Yates send Mr. Belsham's spirit? or Mr. Bel sham, Dr. 
 Clarke's ? or Dr. Clarke, Dr. Priestley's ? But if Jesus be, as He 
 says He is, one with The Father ; if God The Father, and God 
 The Son, be of one substance, essence, and being, then The Spirit 
 which proceeds from both is one spirit of the same substance, 
 essence, or being ; and the word person attaches to either for 
 purpose of distinction, but not for severance, of being. For, 
 further, St. John's statement enables us to see the equality, or 
 equal being, of the three : for, as explained before, 1 in the putting 
 forth of spirit, w r hether we term it begetting, or proceeding, that 
 which is put forth must needs be exactly the same as that from 
 which it came. And The Spirit of God, thus put forth, and know- 
 ing no division, parts, or proportion, the same infinite and perfect 
 attributes, in other words, Godhead, must belong to The Spirit 
 
 1 See p. 175, supra. 
 
284 PENTECOST. 
 
 so put forth, as belongs to The Father and to The Son, from both 
 of whom He proceeds. Moreover, by Unitarians' own admis- 
 sion, the equal deity of Jesus with The Father results from 
 St. John's statement ; for the deity of The Holy Ghost (if he be 
 a person) they do not deny; and admit Him readily to be 
 synonymous with The Father ; but if so, The Spirit being, ac- 
 cording to them, continually a synonym for God, and thus de- 
 clared by St. John to be sent by Christ, it follows that Christ is 
 God : and hence it is that The Holy Spirit is called convertibly 
 either The Spirit of God, or The Spirit of Christ ; as in places 
 mentioned below, 1 e.g., " Now if any have not The Spirit of Christ 
 he is none of his." This same doctrine, that The Holy Ghost 
 proceeds from The Son, is also perceived by the fact that Jesus 
 breathed on His apostles, and said, " Receive ye The Holy 
 Ghost." — John xx. 22 ; also from John Baptist's assertion, 
 " He shall baptize you with The Holy Ghost, and with fire." 
 Matt. iii. 11. 
 
 Once more, we notice from St. John's language, mysteriously 
 but gloriously, the doctrine of relative, and willing, subordination 
 in deity, viz., subordination both of The Father, and of The 
 Holy Ghost. Of The Father, for whenever The Almighty 
 Father divests Himself for any time of any office, or authority, 
 or exercise of it, He does (so far) lay aside His own glory; and 
 if it be that in His own place He appoints, and introduces, His 
 own well-beloved Son, He does, to such end and extent, subor- 
 dinate Himself to that Son. This He hath done 2 in respect of 
 final judgment : a The Father judgeth no man :" this He did also 
 in respect of creation, leaving the exercise of infinite wisdom and 
 power, and all the glory of it, to The Son, through whose unad- 
 vised, unassisted, power He created all things, so that without 
 Him was not any thing made that was made. Likewise, also, we 
 observe that The Father subordinates Himself in the sending; 
 forth of The Holy Ghost ; for He sends not in His own name, 
 but in Christ's name ; and not otherwise than at Christ's re- 
 quest — for He prays The Father : and The Father sends in 
 Christ's name. Furthermore, we observe that The Holy Ghost, 
 thus sent from The Father by The Son, is therefore subordinate to 
 both, is He therefore unequal to either ? 
 
 1 Rom. viii. 9 1 Pet. i. 11. 2 See above, p. 198. 
 
PENTECOST. 285 
 
 Subordination Now that willing divestment from His proper 
 
 %hmt e implies glory ' ™ res P ect of an J design, or for any time, 
 no inequality ; by The Father, implies no inferiority, I suppose 
 
 proved from re- that Unitarians will admit. But, if so, the same 
 jlection upon 
 blaspheming argument must apply to The Son, and to The 
 
 H im - Holy Ghost ; and, indeed, common sense tells us 
 
 that to strip oneself of robes of dignity, as He does for man's 
 salvation, who is "glorious in his apparel," and "clothed with 
 majesty and honour," implies no abnegation of proper nature. 
 But if the fretting disease of scepticism still creeps about us let 
 us turn to the Evangelists. There are those 1 remarkable pas- 
 sages about blaspheming against The Holy Ghost. Is He a per- 
 son, or is He not ? Is He inferior in subordination, or is He not ? 
 Now, granting that it is possible to blaspheme an attribute, or 
 influence, or energy, or power, the language in which the Evan- 
 gelists express themselves forces us to conclude that The Holy 
 Ghost is a person, and of no inferior dignity by that subordination 
 to The Father and to The Son, which is avowed concerning Him. 
 It results, from the Evangelists, in two respects that He is a per- 
 son : for blasphemy against Him is thrown into contrast with 
 blasphemy against Christ, as The Son of Man ; and we fairly 
 argue that as Christ speaks of His being blasphemed in His own 
 proper person ; so The Holy Ghost, if blasphemed, is blasphemed 
 in His own proper person : and again, without any attempt to ex- 
 plain this sin against The Holy Ghost, we are permitted to note 
 enough of its character, to deduce therefrom His personality. 
 For we may say that, generally, sin against The Holy Ghost (as 
 there alluded to) was attributing to Satan the wonderful works 
 of blessedness due to Him, such Holy Ghost ; and hence we rea- 
 son that as Satan is referred to in his own appropriate and in- 
 dividual person, so The Holy Ghost (whose name be magnified) 
 is referred to ecpially in His. 
 
 But that no inferiority of degree can be inferred, respecting 
 The Holy Ghost, from the fact so manifestly stated by St. John 
 of His subordination as sent, and proceeding, and working under, 
 The Father and The Son, but the very, very contrary, is clear 
 from the awful warning given us by The Holy Saviour through 
 
 1 Matt. xii. 31, 32 ; Mark iii. 28, 29 ; Luke xii. 10—12. 
 
286 PENTECOST. 
 
 the Evangelists. God, in His mysterious love, and unspeakable 
 forbearance ; God, through, the mighty blood of Jesus, and for 
 the glory's sake of Him, The Son, will forgive us repentant sin- 
 ners, all manner of sin, and blasphemy, but this one sin, which is 
 called speaking against The Holy Ghost. Oh ! if I doubted that 
 The Holy Ghost was God, I would not for my soul's sake dare 
 to say so. It is one thing to have doubts and difficulties ; ano- 
 ther thing, and far worse, to teach, and spread them. If they 
 who are not convinced, would but hold their tongues ! How- 
 ever, sin against The Holy Ghost is the greatest of all sins; 
 therefore, surely, The Holy Ghost is not intended to be thought, 
 because subordinated, of lesser dignity. But, if so, then subordi- 
 nation in the Divine economy, whether of Father, of Son, or of 
 Holy Ghost, gives us no ground for arguing either for greater, or 
 lesser dignity. " And in this Trinity ; neither is afore, nor after, 
 other : neither is greater, or less, than another." 
 ThePersonality But again as to the personality. I have granted 
 
 of The Holy above, for the argument's sake, that we may 
 Ghost argued , , , . ., -, _, 
 
 for from, sin blaspheme against an attribute ; as, e.g., God s 
 
 against Him, power, or wisdom, or love, or holiness. But such 
 
 and from His , . . : . , , ., . . 
 
 gifts and language is irrational ; and evil speaking against 
 
 graces. attributes can have little significance except 
 
 against persons, understood to possess them. Moreover, there 
 are some sins which cannot be committed except against a per- 
 son. We cannot lie to an attribute ; we cannot vex, nor please 
 an attribute ; an attribute cannot have a mind. But such things, 
 and many more yet to be specified, are said in the New Testa- 
 ment respecting The Holy Ghost. Thus, Peter says of Ananias, 1 
 " Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to The Holy Ghost ? 
 
 thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." Thus, as 
 
 Isaiah, 2 so Stephen, " Ye stiffnecked, and uncircumcised in heart 
 and ears, ye do always resist The Holy Ghost ; as your fathers 
 did, so do ye." Thus 3 St. Paul, « Grieve not The Holy Spirit, 
 whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption;" or, again, 4 
 "hath done despite to The Spirit of Grace." In a word, is it 
 possible to sin against, in the sense of offending, The Holy Ghost ? 
 Scripture abundantly forewarns us that it is ; but we cannot offend 
 an attribute ; but we cannot ' despite,' or 'grieve,' or ' lie to ' an 
 1 Acts v. 3. * Acts vii. 51. s Ephes. iv. 30. * Heb. x. 29. 
 
PENTECOST. 287 
 
 attribute ; and hence it follows that The Holy Ghost, against 
 whom we can so lie, so rebel, so do despite, is not an attribute, 
 but a person. 
 
 Moreover attributes have not minds, nor do they exercise intel- 
 ligence ; on the contrary, they are themselves exercised, as 
 being parts of intelligence in those who exercise them. But 
 The Holy Ghost is said to have a mind, and to exercise 1 it. 
 Thus, " He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind 
 of The Spirit." Thus again 2 The Spirit searches and knows: 
 " The Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of God. 
 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of 
 a man which is in him ? Even so the things of God knoweth no 
 one but The Spirit of God." Where it is evident enough, and 
 common conversation every day confirms the thought, that 
 " spirit of a man" is not a mere synonym for man. But further, 
 The Holy Spirit thus spoken of, not as a mere attribute, but 
 as a proper intelligent being is represented in various ways as 
 exercising, imparting, and influencing man by such intelligence : 
 and God's various attributes, such as power, holiness, love, etc. etc. 
 are represented as exercised by Him ; so that he cannot be 
 such attributes themselves, much less any one of them; but a 
 person who possesses them all; and is, therefore, God. Thus, 
 He guides 3 ; "He will guide you into all truth:" He leads 4 ; 
 "As many as are led by The Spirit of God, they are the sons 
 of God :" He helps 5 ; " The Spirit helpeth our infirmities :" He 
 prays for us ; " maketh intercessions for us with groanings 
 which cannot be uttered:" He testifies 6 ; " The Spirit beareth 
 witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" He 
 reveals, 7 and that the things of God, " As it is now revealed 
 unto His holy prophets and apostles by The Spirit:" He 
 prophecies 8 ; " Now The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the 
 latter times some shall depart from the faith;" He works 
 miracles 9 ; " Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power 
 of The Spirit of God ." He sanctifies 10 ; " Ye are sanctified by 
 The Spirit of our God :" He gives life u ; " It is The Spirit that 
 
 1 Eom. viii. 27. s 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11. s John xvi. 13. 
 
 * Eom. viii. 14. 6 Rom. viii. 26. ' Eom. viii. 16. 
 
 7 Ephes. iii. 5. 8 1 Tim. iv. 11. 9 Eom. xv. 19. 
 
 10 1 Cor. vi. 11. H John vi. 63. 
 
288 PENTECOST. 
 
 quickeneth :" in short, He gives all good gifts 1 ; " All these 
 worketh one and the same Spirit, dividing to every man seve- 
 rally as He will." Since, then, He gives, and therefore possesses 
 all good attributes, which of them all is He himself? He is not 
 one of them ; but a person, possessor of them all. Let it not 
 be said that "The Spirit of God" is a synonym for the power 
 of God, which bestows such gifts. It is not ; for miracles are 
 wrought, says St. Paul, " by the power of The Spirit of God ;" 
 not by the power of the power. St. Paul's preaching, as our own 
 should be, was "in demonstration of The Spirit, and of power ;" 
 not " of the power of God, and of power." 1 Cor. ii. 4. 
 
 In short, there is no way of rationally interpreting such scrip- 
 tures except that which maintains The Holy Ghost to be a divine 
 person, possessing in himself, exercising, and imparting such 
 powers to the souls of men. 
 
 Surely Unitarians are among the least reasonable 
 ThePersonahty f men or -^hjch j s much the same thing, their 
 of The Holy . \ « 
 
 Ghost argued favourite advocates are among the worst of rea- 
 
 for from bap- SO ners. Thus Mr. Yates observes, 2 " Every one, 
 tismal form, ■,-,■, i « 
 
 and from St. who has accurately observed the phraseology ot 
 
 Paul's benedic- ^he Scriptures, knows that the name of a person 
 is an expression often used to signify the person 
 himself. As an example I refer to the beginning of the twen- 
 tieth Psalm, "The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble, the 
 name of the God of Jacob defend thee.' It is evident," etc. : 
 and then he proceeds to argue that our blessed Lord's injunction 3 
 11 Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the 
 name of The Father, and of The Son, and of the Holy Ghost," 
 is no proof of the doctrine of The Holy Trinity, since it means 
 into the faith of The Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy 
 Ghost. Be it so ; but then who does not see that, according to 
 Mr. Yates' own admission, it asserts the personality of the Three, 
 viz., that as the name of The Father is synonymous with the 
 person of The Father; so of The Son; so also of The Holy Ghost. 
 As The Father is a person (using Mr. Yates' word), and as Christ 
 is a person, so The Holy Ghost is & person. Their equal deity we 
 
 1 1 Cor. xii. 8—10, and Gal. v. 22. 2 Yates' Vhid., p. 145. 
 
 3 Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Mark xvi. 15. 
 
PENTECOST. 289 
 
 may prove from other sources ; the personality of The Holy 
 Ghost is, at least, asserted here. Moreover, Mr. Yates proceeds 
 to say that "the amiable Archbishop Tillotson, in his sermon 
 upon this text (vol. 2, fol. p. 512, 513) though he considers the 
 words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as denoting the three per- 
 sons of the Trinity, nevertheless represents the rite of baptism 
 " into the name of The Father, and of the Son, and of The Holy 
 Spirit," merely as & profession of faith in the Christian religion, the 
 principal doctrines of which relate to these three subjects. ,> I regret 
 — I extremely regret, to have once more, but gently and affec- 
 tionately, to assure Unitarians that their chosen advocate would 
 mislead them by misrepresenting Archbishop Tillotson. The 
 sermon, and apparently the same edition, but at least the same 
 pages of a folio, vol. 2, as referred to by Mr. Yates, now lie 
 before me ; and the Archbishop's words are : " As for the form 
 of baptism, into the name of The Father, and of The Son, and of 
 The Holy Ghost, it plainly refers to that short creed, or profes- 
 sion of faith, which was required of those that were to be bap- 
 tized, answerable to the reciting of the precepts of the law, at 
 the baptizing of proselytes among the Jews; now the articles 
 of this creed were reduced to these three heads, of The Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, and contains what was necessary to be 
 believed concerning each of these. And this, probably, is that 
 which the apostle calls the doctrine of baptism, Heb. vi. 2, viz. 
 a short summary of the Christian faith, the profession whereof 
 was to be made at baptism ; of which the most ancient fathers 
 make so frequent mention, calling it The Rule of Faith. It was a 
 great while, indeed, before Christians tied themselves strictly to 
 that very form of words which we now call the Apostles' Creed, 
 but the sense was the same, though every one expressed it in 
 his own words : nay, the same father reciting it upon several 
 occasions, does not confine himself to the very same expressions, 
 a plain indication that they were not then strictly bound up to 
 any form of words, but retaining the sense and substance of the 
 articles, every one expressed them as he pleased. So that to 
 baptize in the name of The Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy 
 Ghost, is to perform this rite, or sacrament, by the authority of 
 and with especial relation to the three persons of The Blessed 
 Trinity, " Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as the chief objects of 
 
 u 
 
290 PENTECOST. 
 
 the Christian faith, whereof solemn profession was then made, 
 So that npon this form of baptism appointed by our blessed 
 Saviour, compared with what is elsewhere said in Scripture, 
 concerning the divinity of The Son, and of The Holy Ghost, is prin- 
 cipally founded the doctrine of The Blessed Trinity ; I mean in that 
 simplicity in which the Scripture hath delivered it, and not as it 
 hath been since confounded and entangled in the cobwebs and 
 niceties of the Schools. The Scripture, indeed, nowhere calls 
 them Persons, but speaks of them as we do of several persons ; 
 and, therefore, that word is not unfitly used to express the 
 difference between them, or at least we do not know a fitter 
 word for that purpose." 
 
 I leave candid and conscientious Unitarians to judge between 
 us. Mr. Yates would lead his readers to believe that Archbishop 
 Tillotson perceived in Matthew's text an acknowledgment of the 
 persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost : but, not of such persons, 
 and of them as a Trinity in equal Godhead ; and that the verse 
 was regarded merely as a professftm of faith in such three. 
 Archbishop Tillotson says distinctly, it was a profession of faith, 
 viz., on Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as the chief objects of the 
 Christian faith, as afterwards embodied in the Apostles' creed: 
 and that the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is principally 
 founded upon this verse in Matthew about baptism, compared 
 with what is elsewhere said in scripture concerning the di- 
 vinity of The Son and of The Holy Ghost. In short, the 
 Archbishop's use of these words "the blessed Trinity," twice 
 in the course of so brief a quotation, shews us plainly what he 
 means. 
 
 But, to allude no more to Mr. Yates' perversion of Tillotson, 
 not only is the personality of The Holy Ghost (as in effect 
 admitted by Mr. Yates) taught us in this baptismal direction 
 given by our Lord through Matthew; but also his equal person- 
 ality, or deity, with The Father and with The Son. The verse 
 asserts The Holy Trinity quite as plainly as that disputed pas- 
 sage in John's first epistle, " There are three that bear record in 
 heaven, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost." For, the 
 reader will observe, it is not said " baptizing them into the names 
 of," but " mto the name of" — e.g., into the one name of; so that, 
 in whatever sense we are baptised into the name of The Father, 
 
PENTECOST. 201 
 
 in that same sense we are baptised into the name of The Son, 
 and into the name of The Holy Ghost ; and if to be baptised 
 into the name of The Father is a profession of faith in His deity, 
 to be baptised into the name of The Son and of The Holy 
 Ghost, is a profession of faith in the deity of them. The unity of 
 God is here asserted : " One Lord, and His name one," Zeeh. xiv. 
 9. But, Unitarians, if this be so, what means the form of bap- 
 tism that lies before me ? You are not partakers of Christian 
 baptism. You are not baptised. Here 1 is the form, I see, " I 
 baptise thee into the name of The Father, and of The Son, and of 
 The Holy Spirit." But, if you deny the deity of Christ, and the 
 personality of The Holy Ghost (as you profess to do) you may 
 just as well put down " I baptise thee in the name of The 
 Father, and of the man Jesus, and of the Holy Power" — in fact, it 
 becomes a lifeless form to yon ; and, especially, because the pro- 
 fession of faith is not made in the sense intended in Holy Scrip- 
 ture ; and, therefore, God will not bestow His blessing. If this 
 book meets the eye of any one who has, by thoughtless parents, 
 been taken and baptised at a Unitarian chapel, it is my duty to 
 tell him he is not baptised in the Christian sense ; and should 
 seek to be baptised again. For, though the Church of England 
 recognises baptism by other ministers than her own, and even by 
 laymen, she assumes that persons, so baptising, do " hold the 
 Catholic Faith." 
 
 St. Paul's bene- Let us next turn to St. Paul's benediction in 
 diction in2 Cor. 2 Cor. xiii. 14. " The grace of our Lord Jesus 
 of The Per- Christ, and the love of God, and the communion 
 bonalityo/7/^ of The Holy Ghost be with you all, Amen." 
 o y ws . What is it ? a mere expression of hope, or a 
 prayer ? Surely we cannot doubt it is a prayer. And, being so, 
 a prayer to each of the three persons in the most holy, blessed, 
 and glorious Trinity : three persons and one God. A prayer 
 expressive of the unity in all perfect deity. A prayer to each 
 for blessing of grace, and love, and fellowship, each of which is 
 necessary to, and must result in, life eternal. The saving grace, 
 or free favour, of Jesus : the unspeakable love of The Father 
 in not appointing us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through 
 oar Lord Jesus Christ; and the sanctifying communion, or 
 
 1 Unit. Pr. Bk. as referred to at p. 2-12, supra. 
 
292 PENTECOST. 
 
 fellowship, of the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, to guide us into 
 .ill truth necessary to eternal life. And there is an important 
 lesson to be learned by contrasting this form of benediction (and 
 even human benediction in things of God is lifeless, useless, 
 except as a prayer) with the baptismal form enjoined by our 
 Blessed Lord. That profession of faith is directed to be made 
 in The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost : in the essence as 
 existent from all eternity ; three persons in equal Godhead ; and 
 is equally fatal to the errors of the Unitarians who deny the 
 persons, and the godhead also, of The Son and of the Holy 
 Ghost ; as well as to those of the Sabellians, certain unbelievers 
 of old who, admitting the godhead, denied the distinctness of per- 
 sons. For, as Waterland has observed, 1 "Sabellianism, and Photi- 
 nianism, and Socinianism, do, in reality, come into one ; all resolv- 
 ing into Judaism ; for the fundamental error of them all is the 
 denying the divine sonship, and personal divinity of Jesus Christ ; 
 rejecting the eternal substantial Logos, who was with The Father 
 before the world was, and is God from everlasting to ever- 
 lasting." But just as that baptismal form of professed faith does 
 effectively necessitate our acknowledgment of the distinct 
 personality, and equal deity, of The Father, of The Son, and of 
 Holy Ghost ; so does St. Paul's benediction, in another way pecu- 
 liar to itself; for it takes in, besides that other momentous doc- 
 trine, viz., The Incarnation. For, in the baptismal form, Jesus 
 specifies himself as Son, or (if we please) the eternal Word or 
 Logos ; but, the benediction specifies Him as The Lord Jesus 
 Christ, viz., Messiah ; or, as I have abundantly shown, God- 
 Incarnate ; Adonai, Jehovah, exalted to the right hand of Jeho- 
 vah, having taken the monhood into God. And thus, as the 
 distinctness of the persons God and Christ, viz., God The Father, 
 and God The Son as Messiah, are maintained in St. Paul's bene- 
 diction, in other words prayer (for all human benedictions are life- 
 less, except as prayer), so the distinctness of the person Holy Ghost 
 is also maintained by this asssociation with The Father, and 
 with The Son, or with Christ and with God, in this benediction. 
 Let us test the Unitarian view on this subject by alteration of 
 St. Paul's prayer, as we did by the alteration of our blessed 
 Lord's baptismal form. " The grace of our created Lord Jesus 
 
 1 Wate .-land's Imp. Doc. Holy Trin., p. 324. 
 
PENTECOST. 293 
 
 Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy 
 Power, be with you all, Amen." What think you of this ? The 
 fact is, as the baptismal form is a profession of faith in The 
 Holy Trinity, as to One God in eternal essence ; so St. Paul's 
 prayer is a prayer directed to each person in that Holy Trinity, 
 in the three ecomical parts of the work of redemption. The 
 Father loving us unto life, and willing our salvation ; The Son 
 loving us unto life, becoming incarnate, and dying, and rising, for 
 our salvation ; The Holy Ghost loving us unto life, and by His 
 personal communion sanctifying, or fitting us, for salvation. 
 
 One favourite mode by which Unitarians have attempted to 
 dispose of the personality of the Holy Ghost has been an appeal 
 to the rhetorical figure known as " Personification," viz., that by 
 which certain attributes, or mental affections, are wont to be 
 spoken of, more especially in poetical compositions, as if they 
 were persons, though in fact they are not. And they adduce the 
 instance of wisdom in the Book of Proverbs in support of this 
 view ; adduce it, I may state, very unsoundly ; but with that, at 
 present, I have nothing to do. But this rhetorical exercise of 
 personification is not likely to be found in what one might term 
 judicial statements of duty upon which one's eternal salvation 
 depends. Our blessed Lord cannot be supposed to have had 
 recourse to ornamental figures of speech when He was warning 
 man against the one unpardonable sin ; nor when He was deliver- 
 ing the form in which He willed that His people's profession of 
 faith should be made unto the end of days ; nor St. Peter when 
 he rebuked Ananias and his wife to their soul's eternal woe ; nor 
 St. Paul when he prayed his parting blessing for the Corinthians. 
 Nor will this idea of rhetorical personification meet those multitu- 
 dinous prosaic cases in which the work, and character, and 
 presence, and power of The Holy Ghost are repeated in histori- 
 cal and epistolary writings in the New Testament. There was 
 no room for a mere figure of speech : " When the day of Penti- 
 cost was fully come, and they were all with one accord in one 
 place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a 
 rushing, mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were 
 sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as 
 of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled 
 with The Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, 
 
294 PENTECOST. 
 
 as The Spirit gave them utterance." St. Luke is not making a 
 
 speech, nor uttering poetry ; but writing plain, matter of fact, 
 
 history. The symbols are found in the sound, the wind, and the 
 
 fire, and with the Apostles, as 1 with Elijah and Ezekiel of old, 
 
 God is He whose presence is here symbolised in the person of The 
 
 Holy Ghost. So, in regard to the varied gifts and graces of The 
 
 Holy Ghost above referred to, 2 there is no reason for supposing 
 
 the exercise of mere ornamental figures of speech. He is 
 
 spoken of, as 3 in the Old Testament, as that divine and almighty 
 
 personal agent by whose instrumentality such gifts and graces 
 
 are bestowed. 
 
 _ . , I have spoken of St. Paul's benediction to the 
 Verses which . . , . . 
 
 specify the three Corinthians as a prayer ; and it is so ; for, once 
 
 persons of The more, no human benediction can be worth a straw? 
 HolyTrinity. , ., , . , ,. 
 
 except it be given as a prayer. And there is one 
 
 other verse of Holy Scripture in which, though not so directly, 
 yet sufficiently so, prayer seems to be directed to The Holy 
 Ghost, and the deity and personality of The Holy Ghost be 
 thereby proved : — " And the Lord direct your hearts into the 
 love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ." 2 Thess. 
 iii. 5. It seems to me that they are justified, by analogy of 
 Scripture, and the mode in which the offices of salvation are 
 described in relation to The Godhead, who infer that The Lord 
 here appealed to is The Holy Ghost, the peculiar leader and 
 sanctifier of God's people. " And The Holy Ghost direct your 
 hearts into the love of God (The Father) and the patient waiting 
 for Christ." Such prayers, of course, prove not only the person- 
 ality, but also the deity, of The Holy Ghost ; which, and that no 
 mere figure of speech by "personification" can be supposed, 
 will become clearer still by the following collations of Scrip- 
 ture : — 
 
 The Holy Ghost is a person in The Godhead : 
 
 1. As begetting the children of God. " That which is born of 
 The Spirit." John iii. 6. "That which is bom of God." 
 1 John v. 4. 
 
 2. As sending out apostles and ministers to preach. "The 
 Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabus and Saul, for the work 
 whereunto I have called them," Acts xiii. 2. "No man taketh 
 
 1 1 Kings xix. 11, and Ezek. iii. 12. 2 See p. 286. 3 See p. 114, supra. 
 
PENTECOST. 295 
 
 this honour to himself, but he that is called of God," Heb. v. 4. 
 " Pray ye, therefore, The Lord of the harvest, that he may 
 send forth labourers into his harvest," Matt. ix. 38. "So they 
 being sent forth by The Holy Ghost," Acts xiii. 4. 
 
 3. As revealing God's will to individuals. "And it was 
 revealed unto him by The Holy Ghost that he should not see 
 death before he had seen The Lord's Christ." Luke ii. 26. 
 "And he blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy 
 servant depart in peace, according to thy word." Luke ii. 28. 
 There is a fact worth notice respecting Luke's statement that it 
 was revealed to Simeon by The Holy Ghost. The preposition 
 used is that same hypo, previously referred to in contrast to 1 dia. 
 Now, Unitarians maintain that hypo designates the efficient cause ; 
 dia, only the instrumental. Here, then, the Holy Ghost, accord- 
 ing to Unitarians themselves, is no instrument, or secondary 
 cause, in revealing the will of God, but the efficient and original 
 cause. In other words, acts for himself, and in his own power 
 and not for another. So that such an expression proves at once 
 the personality and deity of the Holy Ghost, and slays the Uni- 
 tarian with his own weapon. 
 
 4. As dwelling in God's people. " He (The Spirit of Truth) 
 dwelleth with you, and shall be in you," John xiv. 17. " God is 
 in you of a truth," 1 Cor. xiv. 25. "And hereby we know that 
 he abideth in us, by The Spirit which he hath given us," 1 John 
 iii. 24. " The temple of God is holy, which temple are ye 1 " 
 1 Cor. iii. 16. " Know ye not that your bodies are the temple of 
 the Holy Ghost?" 1 Cor. vi. 19. 
 
 5. As teaching God's prophets and people. " All scripture is 
 given by inspiration of God," 2 Tim. iii. 16. " Holy men spake 
 as they were moved by The Holy Ghost," 2 Pet. i. 21. " It is 
 written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God," 
 John vi. 45. " They lift up their voice to God with one accord, 
 and said, Lord ! thou art God, which hast made heaven and earth, 
 and the sea, and all that therein is. Who by the mouth of Thy 
 servant David hast said," etc., Acts iv. 24, 25. "This scrip- 
 ture must needs have been fulfilled, which The Holy Ghost by the 
 mouth of David spake, 1 ' Acts i. 16. So that Acts iv. 24, 25 becomes 
 a direct ascription by the assembled Apostles and people of 
 
 1 See pp. 205, 211, supra. 
 
296 PENTECOST. 
 
 supreme deity, and, therefore, of personality to the Holy Ghost 
 as Lord and God, and inspirer of David as a prophet. 
 
 6. The Holy Ghost's deity and personality are proved by contrast 
 with man's. "Not in the words which mans wisdom teacheth, 
 but which The Holy Ghost teacheth," 1 Cor. ii. 13. " Nor of 
 the will of man, but of God," John i. 13. "He, therefore, that 
 despiseth, despiseth not manhut God," 1 Thess. iv. 8. "Whose 
 praise is not of men, but of God," Rom. i. 29. " Why hath 
 Satan filled thine heart to lie to The Holy Ghost ? Thou hast not 
 lied unto man, but unto God," Acts v. 3, 4. Other 1 parallels 
 might be struck, but I cannot help thinking- that these are 
 enough ; and the following conclusion results from them : — First, 
 That The Holy Ghost is continually spoken of in the same con- 
 struction of words as is also God ; if, then, ye deny the being of 
 The Holy Ghost by explaining such language as a mere figure of 
 speech called personification, ye must similarly, and by force of 
 reasoning, deny the being of God. Second, The Holy Ghost being 
 so spoken of in parallel and apposite places with the very name 
 God, is by necessity of construction that God so spoken of; and 
 Third, The Holy Ghost's personality is proved by being contrasted 
 with the personality of man. 
 
 But, indeed, there are passages of Holy Scripture which em- 
 brace by express mention the three persons, or that Holy Trinity 
 of The One God. I have elsewhere 2 referred to ha. xlviii. 16 ; 
 and the following is a similar passage : — " Seek ye out of the 
 book of Jehovah and read, for my mouth it hath commanded, 
 and his spirit it hath gathered them," ha. xxxiv. 16. Where one 
 person speaks of the spirit of another person, so that the whole 
 Trinity is included. But, from the New Testament, we may 
 take the following for the same purpose, " Baptising them in 
 the name of The Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy 
 Ghost," Matt, xxviii. 19. " The Lord direct your hearts into the 
 love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ," 2 Thess. 
 iii. 5. "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of 
 God, and the communion of The Holy Ghost," 2 Cor. xiii. 14. 
 And, " There are three that bear record in heaven, The Father. 
 The Word, and The Holy Ghost; and these three are one," 
 
 1 See Jones' Cath. Doc. of The Holy Trin., p. 43, etc. 
 2 See p. 116, supra. 
 
PENTECOST. 297 
 
 1 John v. 7. Of course, we all know, and, if we did not know, 
 should be prepared to hear, that the authenticity of this last text 
 is disputed. The reader will, I suppose, by this time regard it 
 as an established fact, and most suggestively curious in the 
 history of biblical criticism, that wherever there be found either 
 verse or word, asserting with peculiar emphasis either the doc- 
 trine of The Holy Trinity, or the deity of Christ, that verse or 
 word is made the subject of hostile dispute and attack. But, does 
 not such a curious fact argue on the part of those who exemplify 
 it a predetermination to assail such scriptures, in consequence 
 of preconceived opinions, which are opposed to them ? How- 
 ever, upon this place in St. John's first epistle I shall cite 1 the 
 author of an excellent little book. " I firmly believe it to be 
 genuine for the following reasons: — 1. St. Jerome, 2 who had a 
 better opportunity of examining the true merits of the cause 
 than we can possibly have at this distance of time, tells us 
 plainly that he found out how it had been adulterated, mis- 
 translated, and omitted, on purpose to elude the truth. 2. The 
 divines of Louvain, having compared many Latin copies, found 
 this text wanting but in Jive of them ; and Robert Stephens 
 found it retained in nine out of sixteen ancient manuscripts which 
 he used. 3. It is certainly quoted twice by St. Cyprian, 3 who 
 wrote before the Council of Nice, and also by Tertullian, as the 
 reader is left to judge after he has read the passage on the mar- 
 gin. 4 " Dr. Clarke, therefore, is not to be believed when he tells 
 us, it was " never cited by any of the Latins before St. Jerome." 
 4. The sense is not perfect without it — there being a contrast of 
 three witnesses hi heaven to three upon earth. The Father, The 
 Word, and The Holy Ghost, whose testimony is called the witness 
 of God ; and the spirit, the water, and the blood, which being 
 administered by the Church upon earth, is called the ivitness of 
 men. 5 But, even allowing it to be spurious, it contains nothing 
 but what is abundantly asserted elsewhere ; and that both with 
 regard to The Trinity in general, and this, their divine testimony 
 
 1 Jones' Cath. Doc. Trin., p. 82. 2 Prtef. ad Canon. Epist. 
 
 3 De Unit. Eccles., 109, epist. 73. 
 
 4 Connexm Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficet cohcerentes, 
 alterum ex altera ; qui tres unum sunt, etc., adv. Praxeas. 
 
 5 The reader can also consult Dr. Grabe's valuable note at the end of Bull's 
 Def. Nic. Creed, p. 712—719. 
 
298 PENTECOST. 
 
 in particular. For that there are three divine persons who bear 
 record to the mission of Christ, is evident from the following 
 scriptures : — " The testimony of two men is true ; I am one that 
 bear witness of myself, and The Father that sent me beareth 
 witness of me," John viii. 17, 18. And, "It is The Spirit that 
 beareth witness, because The Spirit is truth," 1 John v. 6. 
 
 I proceed, under direction of the same author, to 
 in Unity throw together, under twenty-three distinct head- 
 
 provecl from, ings, certain scriptures exhibiting The Most Holy 
 tures in attri- Trinity in unity, as the object of our faith. The 
 butes and ope- TRINITY IN UNITY is — 
 
 1. One Jehovah. — " The Lord our God is one 
 Jehovah," Deut. vi. 4. "Thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, 
 art most high over all the earth," Ps. lxxxiii. 18. Yet Christ is 
 Jehovah. " This is the name whereby He shall be called, 
 Jehovah our Righteousness," Jer. xxiii. 6. And the Holy Spirit 
 too : " The Lord Jehovah put forth the form of a hand and 
 
 took me and The Spirit lift me up," etc., Ezek. viii. 
 
 1, 3. 
 
 2. The Lord; Adondi, in Hebrew; Kurios, in Greek. — "The 
 same Lord over all, is rich unto all that call upon him," Rom. 
 x. 12. "A Saviour which is Christ The Lord," Luke ii. 11. 
 " Now The Lord is that Spirit," 2 Cor. iii. 18. And, since " The 
 Spirit giveth life," 2 Cor. iii. 6.—" I believe in The Holy Ghost, 
 The Lord and Giver of life." 
 
 3. God of Israel. — " The multitude glorified The God of Israel," 
 Matt. xv. 31. " The children of Israel shall he turn to The Lord 
 their God; and he shall go before Him, viz., Christ," Luke i. 
 16, 17. "The Spirit of The Lord spake by me . . . the God of 
 Israel said," 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3. 
 
 4. Author of The Law. — " I myself serve the law of God," 
 Rom. vii. 25. " Fulfil the law of Christ," Gal. vi. 2. " The law 
 of The Spirit of life," Rom. viii. 2. But, " There is one lawgiver 
 who is able to save and to destroy," Jas. iv. 12. 
 
 5. As being provoked by sin. — "Thou shall not tempt The 
 Lord thy God," Deut. vi. 16. "Neither let us tempt Christ, 
 as some of them also tempted," 1 Cor. x. 9. " How is it that 
 ye have agreed together to tempt The Spirit of The Lord 1 " 
 Acts v. 9. 
 
PENTECOST. 299 
 
 6. As having one mind. — " Who, hath known the mind of The 
 Lord?" 1 Cor. ii. 16. "We have the mind of Christ," Ibid. 
 " He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of The 
 Spirit," Rom. viii. 27. 
 
 7. As having one power. — "The grace of God given unto me by 
 the effectual working of his power," Ephes. iii. 7. " That the 
 power of Christ may rest upon me," 2 Cor. xii. 9. "Signs and 
 wonders by the power of The Spirit of God," Rom. xv. 19. 
 
 8. As eternal. — " The mystery, made manifest according to the 
 commandment of the everlasting God," Rom. xvi. 25, 26. " I 
 (Jesus) am The First and The Last," Rev. xxii. 13. " Who 
 through the Eternal Spirit," Heb. ix. 14. 
 
 9. As true i.e., essential truth. — "He that sent me is true," 
 John vii. 28. " I am the way, the truth, and the life ; no man 
 cometh unto The Father, but by me," John xiv. " These things, 
 saith he — that is true, he that hath the key of David," Rom. iii. 
 7. " It is the Spirit that beareth witness, because The Spirit is 
 truth," 1 John v. 6. 
 
 10. As Holy. — "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify 
 thy name ? for thou only art holy," Rev. xv. 4. " But ye denied 
 The Holy One, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you," 
 Acts iii. 14. " Ye have an unction from The Holy One;" that is, 
 an anointing from The Holy Ghost, who is called, The Spirit of 
 " The Holy One," 1 John ii. 20. "The Spirit of holiness," Rom. 
 i. 4, etc. 
 
 11. As Omnipresent. — "Do not I fill heaven and earth, saith 
 The Lord?" Jer. xxiii. 24. "The fulness of him (Christ) that 
 filleth all in all," Ephes. i. 22. " Whither shall I go from thy 
 spirit? If I go up into heaven thou art there; if I go down 
 into hell, thou art there also," Ps. cxxxix. 7, 8. 
 
 12. As the fountain of life eternal. — "Love The Lord thy 
 God, for he is thy life," Deut. xxx. 20. "When Christ who is 
 our life shall appear," Col. iii. 4. " The Spirit of life." Rom. 
 viii. 2. 
 
 13. Creating all mankind. — " The Lord he is God, it is he that 
 hath made us," Ps. c. 3. " By him (Christ) were all things 
 created," John i. 3. "The Spirit of God hath made me," Job 
 xxxiii. 4. 
 
 14. As quickening the dead. — " The Father raiseth up the dead, 
 
300 PENTECOST. 
 
 and quickeneth them. Even so The Son quickeneth whom he 
 will." " It is The Spirit that quickeneth, John v. 22, 63. 
 
 15. As teaching all God's people. — "They shall be all taught of 
 God," John vL 45. " Neither was I taught it, but by the reve- 
 lation of Jesus Christ," Gal. i. 12. "The Comforter, The Holy 
 Ghost, will teach you all things," John xiv. 26. 
 
 16. As holding fellowship with saints. — "Truly our fellowship 
 is with The Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ," 1 John i. 3. 
 "The fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all," 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 14. 
 
 17. As dwelling in the saints. — " God is in you of a truth," 
 
 1 Cor. xiv. 25. " Christ is in you except ye be reprobates," 
 
 2 Cor. xiii. 5. "The Spirit dwelleth in you, and shall be with 
 you," John xiv. 17. "God hath said, I will dwell in them," 
 2 Cor. vi. 16. "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith," 
 Ephes. iii. 17. "His Spirit that dwelleth in you," Rom. viii. 
 11. 
 
 18. As revealing the truth to God's people. — " God shall reveal 
 even this unto you," Phil. iii. 15. " Neither was I taught it 
 but by the revelation of Jesus Christ," Gal. i. 12. " It was 
 revealed unto him by The Holy Ghost," Luke ii. 26. "God who 
 spake unto the fathers by the prophets," Heb. i. 1. " Ye seek a 
 proof of Christ speaking in me," 2 Cor. xiii. 8. " It is not ye 
 that speak, but The Holy Ghost," Mark xiii. 11. 
 
 19. As raising the dead. — " God hath both raised up The Lord, 
 and will also raise us up by his own power," 1 Cor. vi. 14. 
 " Destroy this temple, and in three days / will raise it up ; but 
 he spake of the temple of his body," Johnii. 19. " Christ being 
 put to death in the flesh, but quickened by The Spirit," 1 Pet. 
 iii. 18. 
 
 20. As leading God's people. — " I am The Lord thy God, which 
 leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go," Isa. xlviii. 17. 
 " He (Christ the Shepherd) calleth his own sheep by name, and 
 leadeth them out," John x. 3. " As many as are led by The 
 Spirit of God, they are the sons of God," Rom. viii. 14. 
 
 21. Commissioning God's ministers. — " Our sufficiency is of God, 
 who made us able ministers," 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6. " Jesus Christ . . 
 counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry," 1 Tim. i. 12. 
 
 ■ 
 
PENTECOST. 301 
 
 " Take heed, therefore, to all the flock over which The Holy Ghost 
 hath made you overseers," Acts v. 28. 
 
 22. Sanctifying God's people. — To them that are sanctified by 
 God The Father," Jude, 1. "He that sanctifieth, and they who 
 are sanctified are all one ; for which cause he is not ashamed 
 to call them brethren," Heb. ii. 11. "Being sanctified by The 
 Holy Ghost," Rom. xv. 16. 
 
 23. Performing ALL sjnritual operations together. — " It is the 
 same God which worketh all in all," 1 Cor. xii. 6. " Christ is 
 all, and in all," Col. iii. 11. "But all these worketh that one 
 and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he 
 will," 1 Cor. xii. 11. 
 
 I cannot conceive that any rational man, however educated or 
 the contrary, if he accept The Holy Bible as the word of God, can 
 require any more, or any clearer, evidences that The Father, The 
 Son, and The Holy Ghost are three persons, but one God ; and 
 that to each and all the same name, attributes, and operations 
 of deity are assigned ; and I proceed at once to close this 
 chapter. 
 
 Let us reconsider what we have done. We have 
 Brief sum man/ ■, -. n , ,, , •,-,,, 
 
 of this work. been en o a g ed ( let us earnestly hope with the 
 
 blessing of our God) in setting forth the doctrine 
 of The Trinity in Unity as contained in the Holy Scriptures. 
 We commenced by asserting that the mode in which deity exists 
 was perfectly incomprehensible to man; and that on this vast 
 subject, as on many others admitted to be inferior, man's powers 
 of reason were left wholly at fault. That this was the case 
 with Unitarians as completely witli ourselves ; for that they 
 could not explain the nature of God's being any more than Ave ; 
 nor form any adequate comprehension of one of His essential 
 attributes. If we ask them to produce a definition of God's 
 unity out of the Holy Bible they cannot; for that most blessed 
 book contains none, except it be in this sense that the God of 
 the Bible is one as opposed to the polytheism and idolatry of 
 the heathen world ; a truth which Trinitarians love to acknow- 
 ledge as fully as they. Any other definition of God's unity the 
 Holy Bible contains not; and if we ask them what they mean 
 by the unity of God, they cannot tell us more than we know 
 ourselves, or better than we already believe. They will answer 
 
302 PENTECOST. 
 
 that God is one, not two or three. To which we reply, that is 
 precisely what we say. " There is one God, and none other but 
 He." The further information we require (and which they are 
 not able to give) is — what is meant by God's oneness ? Because 
 that unity is of kinds different from mere numerical oneness is 
 certain ; there being in nature many things, or existences, which 
 may be with equal truth spoken of under diverse aspects; as 
 now one, yet presently, more than one. The three-fold cord is 
 one, yet three; and we might conceive each of its strands of 
 ineffable power and perfection. The Holy Bible is one book, 
 yet many more than one ; and each assertion may be made of it 
 with equal truth. So countless objects, beings, or existences, 
 in the material world ; and so, too, of the human soul ; its reason, 
 its passions, its affections, being of the one same soul ; yet three 
 manifestations, distinctively existing, and capable of separate 
 operation. For it is matter of every-day experience that these 
 three, reason, passion, and affection, sometimes act in accordance, 
 but as often in opposition. But as regards the unity and trinity, 
 no human illustrations can reach it, nor bring it down to the 
 power of human comprehension. God is incomprehensible ; so, 
 too, "The Father is incomprehensible, The Son incomprehen- 
 sible, and The Holy Ghost incomprehensible ; and yet there are 
 not three incomprehensibles, but one incomprehensible." And 
 hence it is that Trinitarians maintain we must have recourse to 
 revelation, and trust implicitly to that, for Avhatever we hope to 
 know about the being and attributes of God. 
 
 In this assertion Unitarians profess to agree with us ; and, 
 moreover, accept as revelation from God the «ame canonical 
 scriptures, which we, in common with the great body of the 
 Christian Church from the very earliest times, have known as 
 such. And, further, in the absence of any better, they very wisely 
 agree to accept in the main those very translations of the ancient 
 scriptures into our native tongue, which Ave are accustomed to 
 call the Holy Bible. But no sooner do we come with them to 
 these sacred pages than a remarkable phenomenon meets the eye. 
 Like men suddenly translated into an ungenial or unnatural 
 atmosphere, too pure and ethereal for them to breathe ; no 
 sooner does the Unitarian sit down over the English Bible, than 
 he becomes restless and excited, the subject of evident incon- 
 
PENTECOST. 303 
 
 venience and pain; and begins to exhibit nnpleasant gestures, 
 and throws himself into distorted and unnatural attitudes, most 
 painful to behold. This word is offensive to him ; that verse is 
 wrong; nay, worse still; for to cut out whole chapters of 
 the Bible, which he before professed to take frankly as his 
 standard of truth ; he only just is not ashamed to make bold 
 and open profession of common cause with some of the foulest 
 of all ancient heretics. Indeed, he does really, by the pen of 
 his selected advocate, profess fellowship with the followers of 
 Mahomet, who love to revile us "dogs of Christians." But, 
 upon the question of the proper contents, and proper interpre- 
 tation of the contents, of the Holy Bible, we comfort ourselves 
 by remembering that, while sound learning is certainly on our 
 side, we need not diminish the privileges of the least of our 
 brethren by making him feel his helpless dependence upon that 
 which God, in His good providence, has placed beyond the power 
 of the many. A bad system of perverted doctrine is that which 
 has recourse to "quips, and quiddities, and wanton wiles," to 
 establish its accordance with the word of God. It is not so that 
 God speaks to man ; and we comfort the unlearned " poor in 
 this world but rich in faith," by saying, with pure and holy con- 
 ciousness of truth, "Go, dear brother, to the blessed word: 
 there read, and ponder, for thyself. The simplicity of Jesus 
 Christ, speaks there of eternal life. And be sure that subtleties 
 and distortions, and hues of divers colours in the same body of 
 truth, and soft nattering words appealing to the pride of human 
 reason, are the work of Satan, who tempted our first parents in 
 the body of the Serpent." The trumpet of God's word gives no 
 uncertain sound ; and while minute examination is necessary for 
 those who would defend the faith, all that needs to be known of 
 God, and His attributes, and of the way of life, lies as clear as 
 God"s first created light upon the surface. 
 
 Even so of the mysterous doctrine of God's Trinity in Unity. 
 That God is one, nothing can be more certain. And to the One 
 Great and Almighty God, the Unitarians can award no mede 
 of honour, and praise, and glory everlasting, to which, as 
 Trinitarians, we hesitate to accede. For not all the tongues of 
 men, or of angels, can ever sufficiently proclaim His glory and 
 His praise. Only we maintain, in addition to what they say, that 
 
304 PENTECOST. 
 
 God lias been pleased to make known that there is a certain way 
 by which He will be approached, if approached at all ; and a 
 certain mode of according from us men this honor and this 
 worship, by which alone our praises shall be received. For that 
 it has pleased God, not only to declare His unity, but to make 
 Himself known as The Father, as The Son, and as The Holy 
 Ghost ; existing in unity of nature, or substance, or being; but 
 acting always in economical, or orderly, direction and subordina- 
 tion, and not least so when working mightily for the salvation of 
 man. So that we perceive in the Holy Word, our only authority 
 on such a subject, that each of these, The Father, The Son, 
 and The Holy Ghost, acts in unity, yet in separation, not of 
 essence, but of office, in such sense as we are accustomed to 
 indicate by separate personality ; so that The Father, The Son, 
 and The Holy Ghost, as such, are three ; yet, as God, are one. 
 This we maintain from the clearest assertions of Holy Scripture; 
 maintaining that such fact is laid down in language so plain, and in 
 modes so perspicuous, yet various, that, had the same modes and 
 the same language been employed on any other subject, no man 
 could have resisted the conclusions suggested, without incurring 
 the charge of belying his reason for the unwise pleasure of 
 indulging his obstinacy. The names of God are given ; the 
 attributes of God assigned; the works of God imputed, equally 
 to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The}^ are spoken of as three 
 in terms of irresistible, and common-place, distinctness. And yet 
 the unity of God is as undoubtedly declared. What the mystery 
 may mean we can well believe ourselves, and all men at utter 
 loss to fathom ; but of that, as of many other subjects of reflec- 
 tion, the ultimate line of duty is, not to demand to know, but be 
 content submissively to believe. When Unitarians can show us 
 that reason has fathomed everything else ; we shall be ready to 
 consider what ground to allow them for complaining that it has 
 not fathomed the nature, or existence, of God. 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 NECESSARY TO SALVATION. 
 
 $f ROB ABLY there is no Christian who does not 
 slightly recoil from the utterance of such ex- 
 pressions as "Necessary to salvation;" "Who- 
 soever will be saved, above all things it is 
 necessary," etc.; or, "Which except a man 
 keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he 
 shall perish everlastingly." Doubtless it is right we should 
 feel so. Even if contemplating the fate of one whom we believe 
 to have lived among the most depraved of men, we are careful 
 not to give expression to our fears. We " hope the best." We 
 are eager to avail ourselves of the truisms which remind us that 
 to his own master every man must stand or fall ; that God alone 
 is judge, knowing all things, weighing the spirits ; that we our- 
 selves are weak and sinful creatures, not daring to judge even 
 ourselves ; the mind seems to revolt, (and may we not say pro- 
 perly so ?) from the task of realising the final and eternal perdition 
 of any human soul ; may we not even quote Scripture to that 
 end ? — " Judge not that ye be not judged," etc. Unitarians have 
 felt this as strongly as ourselves ; but, feeling it so strongly, it 
 has often proved to them a sad and delusive stumbling-block. 
 What is quite right in regard to individuals, may be equally 
 wrong in reference to systems of faith ; and, although we are 
 not called upon to decide the fate of individuals, we are expected 
 to pronounce with clearness upon doctrines of salvation. Are 
 any doctrines necessary to eternal life? or, are they not? If 
 they be not, of course we may then just as sensibly be deists 
 without revelation,' as Christians with. If no doctrines were so 
 
306 NECESSARY TO SALVATION. 
 
 necessary, why did God give that revelation, which we all admit 
 to have come from Him ? But, if there be doctrines necessary to 
 salvation, it behoves us well to consider what they are. Can we 
 conceive the all-wise God giving a revelation, containing doctrines 
 necessary to life, and yet so expressed that man cannot find out 
 what they are ? We may well conclude, not only that certain 
 doctrines are indispensably necessary to be believed, as we hope 
 to be saved, but also that every man can easily discover in the 
 pages of Revelation what such doctrines are. But, if so, why 
 should we hesitate to avow them ? particularly when the avowal 
 is to be made, not with allusion to individuals, but to systems ; 
 and not for other persons, but for ourselves. Indeed, we may 
 speak much more strongly, and aver, that it is the manifest duty 
 of A Church, to declare in terms, to the best of her ability not 
 to be misapprehended, what are those doctrines according to 
 which she professes to exist as a Church, and by the standard of 
 which she has resolved to measure all claims to her com- 
 munion. 
 m7 7 7 . We shall be justified in saving that, of all forms of 
 
 TJlG (tCClClVClt'101% 
 
 of Holy Scrip- faith, the most bigoted, and uncompromising, is pure 
 
 tweconcernmg Christianity. Let us not deceive ourselves. Cer- 
 
 this subject. , . n ;, .-., , , .. , 
 
 tarn words may gather ill-omened reputations ; and 
 
 men may start at bigotry, intolerance, UUberality, etc., the tribe of 
 vocables to which late ideas have rendered us unpleasantly 
 familiar. But after all let us stand like honest men by our 
 Bibles ; let the naked truth be told ; and the pure religion of our 
 crucified Redeemer is the most unyielding and exclusive ever 
 promulgated. And Christians, like Jews of old, must be so in- 
 separably wedded to their own form of faith, and the views of 
 other men and systems so refused, that they never can avoid in- 
 curring the charge of bigotry, and intolerance, from the unbe- 
 lieving world around them. Let us picture to ourselves some 
 most eminent prelate of the Christian church, peculiar for the 
 suavity and gentleness of his manners, ever dreading to pro- 
 nounce censure, always ready to approve, exhibiting love, ex- 
 citing love in all around, large minded, extensively informed in 
 men and things, large hearted, liberal, profuse in charity, and 
 not a Boanerges, ought he to hesitate to write thus : " We 
 know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wicked- 
 
NECESSARY TO SALVATION". 307 
 
 ness ?" So, at least, The Holy Ghost taught St. John to write. 1 
 So that The Holy Ghost being the teacher there is a set standard 
 of religious profession, according to which we are of God, and, 
 according to which, they who reject it lie in wickedness as long 
 as they continue to do so. And we poor Christians, so inferior 
 to John, approximate to his view of truth just in that degree by 
 which we are taught of God, and become, like John, confident in 
 our own views accordingly. John wrote, at the request of the 
 Church, against Cerinthus, a Unitarian : he is the only inspired 
 writer who did so ; but he is not the only inspired writer who ex- 
 presses himself to a similar effect. 
 
 For St. Paul, whether 3 writing to Timothy or to Titus, gives 
 such earnest and stringent directions respecting the doctrines 
 they were to teach, as shew us that there are doctrines, as to 
 which soundness in holding and maintaining them are necessary 
 both for the salvation of the minister and of the people : "The 
 law is made not for the righteous man, but for the lawless and 
 disobedient, etc., .... and if there be any other thing that is 
 contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious Gospel of the 
 Blessed God, which was committed to my trust;" or again, 
 " Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me, 
 in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus ;" or again, " For the 
 time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;" or 
 again, 3 "But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine." 
 Nor should we suppose that such directions have regard only to 
 the practical duties of a holy life, with which the passages cited 
 above are by the Apostle more immediately connected. For he 
 specifies " sound doctrine" with " faith and love in Christ Jesus ;" 
 and according to the Gospel of The Blessed God, no good works, 
 viz., no holiness of life, can be practised, and accepted as such of 
 God, unless such works be the offspring, or consequence, of a 
 living faith in Jesus, whom Paul preached ; and as he preached 
 Him. Hence 4 St. Paul warns the Corinthians, not simply as to 
 actions of life, but doctrines of belief: "Examine yourselves 
 whether ye be in the faith ;" and Jude exhorts us " that ye 
 should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered 
 
 1 John y. 19. * 1 Tim. ii. 10, 11 ;' 2 Tim. i. 13, and iy. 3. 
 
 3 Titus ii. 1. * 2 Cor. xiii. 5; Jude 3. 
 
308 NECESSARY TO SALVATION. 
 
 unto the saints." There is, therefore, some form of sound 
 words, embodying certain articles of faith as once delivered to 
 the saints, as to which all Christians should examine themselves, 
 and for which they should be resolved, when occasion happens, 
 earnestly to contend. It is that form of faith which we are con- 
 cerned to discover. Now, when St. Paul wrote to the Galatians, 
 only (as we might have called it) upon a little matter of Judaisivg, 
 viz., mixing up notions of their own pious formalities, and good 
 works, with simplicity of faith in the atoning blood of Jesus ; 
 this first, and seemingly faint departure from the purity of the 
 Gospel, was foreseen by the Apostle, inspired of The Holy 
 Ghost, to be so fatal in its consequences, that he wrote in instant 
 indignation 1 : "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any 
 other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto 
 you, let him be accursed." You perceive that the moment they 
 introduced notions of their own concerning Christ, and His work, 
 it became 'another gospel,' because a perversion of the gospel; 
 it remained not " the gospel of The Blessed God ;" it was not 
 Jesus whom St. Paul preached ; not " Christ and him crucified;" 
 but such a departure from that doctrine that The Holy Ghost 
 teaches St. Paul to pronounce all, who so departed, accursed. 
 So that, even thus by self-righteousness trusting to Judaising 
 formalities, and not looking only, and entirely, to the atoning 
 blood of Jesus, these Galatians fell into danger of eternal death; 
 whoever would be saved, it was necessary among them to hold 
 the faith, which Paul delivered, like other apostles, to the saints. 
 In a similar spirit St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians — "If 
 any man love not The Lord Jesus let him be Anathema- 
 maranatha" — cast aside as a thing accursed. Where St. Paul 
 means love, not by robbing him of his glory, denying his 
 proper dignity, much less degrading him to sinful manhood, 
 but loving Him as preached by the apostles, the well-beloved 
 Son of God, in the bosom of The Father, made man, though 
 perfect man for us, and giving himself a full propitiation for our 
 sins. But, of all the apostles, it is to St. John we must turn 3 
 for distinct condemnation of those who hold not the truth con- 
 
 » Gal. i. 6—8 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 22. 
 2 1 John ii. 22 ; iv. 15 ; v. 12 and 20. 
 
NECESSARY TO SALVATION. 309 
 
 cerning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ : whether they denied 
 that truth respecting his manhood, or that truth regarding his 
 deity. Thus his deity, " Who is a liar but he that denieth that 
 Jesus is The Christ ? He is Antichrist that denieth The Father 
 and The Son. Whosoever denieth The Son, the same hath not 
 The Father." Again, "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is 
 The Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." Again, 
 " He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not The Son 
 of God hath not life;" or again, " We are in him that is true, even 
 in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. 
 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen." His 1 man- 
 hood, " Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in 
 the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that 
 Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God; and this is that 
 spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come ; 
 and even now already is it in the world." It is plain enough, 
 both from St. Paul and St. John, that our eternal salvation 
 depends, among other things, upon holding soundly scriptural 
 views of the person, character, and work of The Lord Jesus 
 Christ as The Son of God. And our Blessed Lord himself 
 appears to have assured us that man's eternal salvation de- 
 pends, among other things, upon a right reception of the doc- 
 trine of the Holy Trinity. For, whereas 2 the injunction through 
 Matthew is, " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
 them into the name of The Father, and of The Son, and of The 
 Holy Ghost" (a verse, as before explained, asserting the equal 
 deity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), it is added through St. 
 Mark, as referring to the same injunction, " Go ye into all the 
 world, and preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth 
 and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be 
 damned" 
 
 But these two vast subjects, entirely subjects of revelation, viz. 
 the doctrine of The Holy Trinity, and that concerning The 
 Incarnation of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ with 
 their consequents; are all that the most strongly expressed creed 
 
 1 1 John iv. 1 — 3 ; St. John's epistle was especially directed against 
 Cerinthus, one of the earliest Unitarians, who denied the deity ; but also 
 against the Doceta?, who denied the manhood of Jesus. 
 2 Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Mark xvi. 15. 
 
310 NECESSARY TO SALVATION. 
 
 we have, viz. that which is called by the name of St. Athanasius, 
 lays down as necessary to eternal life ; and with regard to which, 
 as the catholic faith, or faith of the Christian church from the 
 earliest times, it adds " which faith unless a man keep whole and 
 undefiled, without doubt he shall perish 'everlastingly" — Keep 
 whole and uncorrupted, or unadulterated. Let us not quarrel v ith 
 this creed, unless we are quite sure that our Bibles do not say 
 the same. But from the places just cited, and from the whole 
 contents of this volume, some of my readers will probably be of 
 opinion that they do. 
 
 But as to creeds, I observed at the commencement 
 The origin and f t ]j is work / and let me tope with trut]l) that 
 use oj creeds, . r ' 
 
 with those of Unitarians were quite correct in refusing to be 
 
 earliest and pre- dictated to bv human creeds, and that their 
 
 sent use m the . \ 
 
 Church. appeal was rightly made to the Holy Bible. Our 
 
 complaint against them is, that, having made 
 that appeal, they do not abide by it fairly; a fact which I have 
 endeavoured, in some measure, to exhibit. However, if certain 
 doctrines be established from the Word of God, as e. g., that 
 concerning The Holy Trinity, or that other respecting the 
 incarnation of The Son of God, it were mere weakness not wis- 
 dom ; childishness, not proof of mental dignity ; to refuse to 
 have such doctrines embodied in a creed, or formalised as a 
 summary of Christian faith. Besides which, we can well con- 
 ceive that such embodiment of first and vital principles in brief 
 forms of profession may be desirable for the preservation of the 
 Church's purity. Creeds are due to ourselves, are due to others ; 
 due to ourselves that we may honour The Blessed God by open 
 profession of faith, for "with the heart man believeth unto 
 righteousness ; and with the mouth confession is made unto 
 salvation ; " due to ourselves that we may be fortified in the 
 faith by that obligation which open and undeniable profession 
 lays upon us, " witnessing a godly profession before many wit- 
 nesses ;" due to others whom we desire to draw to us, that we 
 may approach them in our real characters, and, as it were, with 
 our principles pinned upon our breast ; — due to others who deny 
 our faith, that we may testify plainly, though briefly, against 
 them ; warn them and others of their errors, and exhibit the 
 truth upon which we seriously believe the salvation of their 
 
NECESSARY TO SALVATION - . 31 1 
 
 soul depends. Something like this was, in fact, the origin of 
 creeds. For soon after Apostolic days, and (as Paul and John 
 both prove) even within them, various heresies began to peep 
 and mutter, subversive of the fundamental doctrines of the 
 Church. To prevent the bad effects of which, and to prevent 
 those who fell into such heresies from introducing their leprous 
 deformities among Christians, the verities opposed to such 
 heresies were cast into creeds ; and, with other articles unde- 
 niably received from the Apostles, were proposed as tests of 
 fidelity to all who wished to be baptised. 
 
 Our blessed Saviour's baptismal form is, in fact, a creed; 
 and the scriptural basis and authority for all sound creeds. 
 And it is certain that all the ancient creeds did contain more or 
 less directly the doctrine of The Holy Trinity ; for even that 
 called the Apostles', though it does not in express words declare 
 the divinity of the three persons in the unity of the divine 
 essence, yet, taking the sense of these articles as the Christian 
 Church understood them from the Apostles' times, then we have 
 as full and clear evidence of this doctrine as we have that we 
 received the scriptures from them ; as, e. g., " and in Jesus Christ 
 His only Son our Lord," the title k only son ' had reference to 
 monogenes, or the only-begotten, and such title was constantly 
 understood to denote the real and eternal deity of Christ. Per- 
 haps the most ancient creed of all was that which was ordinarily 
 used from the very times of the Apostles in the first administra- 
 tion of baptism : — " I believe in God The Father, The Son, and 
 The Holy Ghost," in which the true divinity of The Son and also 
 of The Holy Ghost are so explicitly stated, that it is hardly pos- 
 sible to have them expressed more clearly in so small a compass; 
 But the Greek is even clearer still, because it has the power of 
 more certainly carrying on the word ' God ' to The Son and to The 
 Holy Ghost: — Yiic-rivu £1$ rov ©gov rov Tlurepot, rov Tlov, xai to 
 *Ayiov Ylvtvpoi. ; and, in this sense, the ancients certainly under- 
 stood this brief confession. Hence, Tertullian against Praxeas, 
 chap. 13, setting forth the common faith of Christians respect- 
 ing The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost, says, "The 
 Father is God, and The Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is 
 God, and each is God." Says 1 Waterland, " The creed of Jeru- 
 1 Waterland's Imp. doc. II. Trin., p. 230. 
 
312 NECESSARY TO SALVATION. 
 
 salem, preserved by Cyril (the most ancient perhaps of any now 
 extant), is very express for the divinity of God the Son, in these 
 words, ' And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of 
 God, true God begotten of The Father before all ages, by whom 
 all things were made.' Expressions which seem directly pointed 
 at the-Cerinthians and others, who in the earliest times opposed 
 the divinity of Christ." 
 
 This Jerusalem creed, the earliest of all creeds, the creed of 
 the real Apostolical church, the creed of that church which was 
 called of old by the fathers "The Mother of all Churches," is 
 gathered from the writings of Cyril, who was appointed Bishop 
 of that Church a.d. 350, and is as follows : — " I believe in One 
 God The Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of 
 all things visible and invisible ; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, 
 the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of The Father before 
 all worlds ; very God, by whom all things were made ; [who 
 was] incarnate, and made man of the Virgin and the Holy 
 Ghost; was crucified and buried, and rose again from the 
 dead the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat on 
 the right hand of The Father; and cometh in glory to judge 
 the quick and the dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no 
 end ; and in one Holy Ghost, The Comforter, who spake by the 
 prophets ; in one baptism of repentance for the remission of 
 sins ; and in one holy Catholic Church ; and in the resurrection 
 of the flesh : and in the life everlasting." Such is the earliest 
 of all church creeds, the creed of the Jerusalem Church, as 
 gathered by portions from the sixth and following catachetical 
 lectures of Cyril, its bishop ; and the reader will observe, first, 
 that it is decisive, as against Unitarians, upon the deity of Christ, 
 whom it declares to be " the only-begotten Son of God, begotten 
 of The Father before all worlds, Very God ; " and second, that 
 it is the germ, or outline of what we call the Nicene Creed ; as 
 used by the Church of England. 
 
 But as to the Roman creed, or that which we term ' the Apos- 
 tles',' it is admitted that, though conformable to the doctrines of 
 the Apostles, it was by no means dictated nor composed by 
 them, nor did it receive its present completed form until a.d. 
 400. It is, in fact, the creed of the Church of Rome, or (if you 
 please) of the Western church ; the Eastern churches using, as 
 
NECESSARY TO SALVATION. 313 
 
 has just been shown, another form ; but both Eastern and West- 
 ern divisions of the church forms to the same effect, as against 
 Unitariamsm, which is the business we have in hand, and as 
 was just now observed. The fact is, that the churches of the 
 West could use, and did use, a creed, or form of profession, 
 more succinct and shorter than those of the East, because they 
 were not so harassed as these last by heretics of all kinds ; 
 especially by those who denied the doctrines of The Holy 
 Trinity, and others affecting the person of our Lord and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ. The history of the matter is thus 1 briefly expressed 
 by Bull :— 
 
 1. The formula, by which in primitive times those who came 
 to be baptised professed their belief in The Most Holy Trinity, 
 was simple, and couched in nearly these words : — " I believe in 
 God The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost." This is the 
 general opinion of the most learned theologians of the present 
 day. 
 
 2. The Church was not allowed by the heretics a long enjoy- 
 ment of this simple confession of The Trinity. For, when in 
 the very days of the Apostles there had arisen the Simonians, 
 Menandrians, Cerinthians, and other heretics of the same stamp, 
 who had busied themselves in secretly corrupting the sacred doc- 
 trine respecting God The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost, 
 and other principal articles of Christianity, by-and-bye, after the 
 departure of the Apostles from this life, those false Apostles 
 began to scatter about and disseminate their heresies with 
 increased audacity. Hence, it was thought good by the bishops 
 of those churches which the heretics were disturbing, to draw up 
 an enlarged confession of the faith; and, thenceforward, to 
 require it of those who were to be baptised ; one, that is, in 
 which the true view respecting The Most Holy Trinity should 
 be clearly set forth, with the addition, besides, of the other 
 articles of the Christian faith, which were likewise opposed by 
 the same heretics. 
 
 3. These first heretics arose in the East ; and, generally 
 speaking, it was the Eastern churches only which they molested. 
 
 4. From this we easily infer that the more ample confession 
 
 1 Bull's Judg. Cath. Ch., p. 134. 
 
314 NECESSARY TO SALVATION". 
 
 of faith was first made in the East. For, where the poison 
 spread, there was the remedy prepared. 
 
 5. The explanations and additions which are appended to that 
 earliest and most simple confession of faith by the Orientals, 
 were, most of them, afterwards received by the Roman and 
 Western Churches into their creeds ; although, indeed, some of 
 them at a later period. 
 
 Which excellent summary of facts will enable the reader 
 to note that such creeds are professed protests ; and the 
 various articles, or clauses, added to the first simple form by the 
 authority of the Christian church are so many several distinct 
 assertions of belief in opposition to the Unitarian errors of such 
 men as Cerinthus, and Ebion, and Arius ; who, in various 
 ways, corrupted the faith by denying the doctrine of The Holy 
 Trinity, and especially the deity, and right incarnation of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 As we are not engaged on the defence of creeds, the above 
 short notice might suffice. Yet it seems desirable, for the 
 guidance of younger readers, to add a few words about the 
 creeds called The Nicene and St. Athanasius'. Of the first it 
 will be sufficient to observe that it expresses the articles of faith, 
 decided on by the general council called by Constantine, a.d. 325, 
 at Nice, in Asia, for the purpose (among others) of condemning the 
 unscriptural opinions of Arius, from whom one large division of 
 Unitarianism takes its name ; as continually pointed out in the 
 preceding pages. This council has ever been regarded by the 
 Christian church as of the highest authority ; and, since the days 
 of the Apostles, there never was a synod with higher claims to 
 be considered universal and free. We have more than once 
 alluded to Unitarian quotations of Eusebius, as though he wrote 
 favourably to their cause. This Eusebius was a native of the 
 Holy Land, and Bishop of Csesarea there ; and was also one of 
 the prelates present at the council of Nice. The following is his 
 description of that council: — "At that council were assembled 
 out of all the Churches, which had filled the whole of Europe, 
 Asia, and Africa, the very choicest from among the ministers of 
 God ; and one sacred building, expanded as it were by the divine 
 command, embraced at once within its compass both Syrians and 
 Cilicians, Phoenicians and Arabians, and Christians of Pales- 
 
NECESSAFxY TO SALVATION. 315 
 
 tine ; Egyptians, too ; Thebans and Libyans, and some who 
 came out of Mesopotamia. A bishop also from Persia was 
 present at the council, and even Scythia was not wanting to that 
 company. Pontus, also, and Galatia, Pamphylia and Cappa- 
 docia, with Asia and Phrygia, contributed the choicest of their 
 prelates. Moreover, Thracians, Macedonians, Achaians, and 
 Epirotes, and inhabitants of still more remote districts were 
 notwithstanding their distance, present. Even from Spain itself 
 that most celebrated man Hosius took his seat with the rest. The 
 prelate of the imperial city of Rome was, indeed, absent on 
 account of his advanced age, but presbyters of his were present 
 to supply his place. Constantine is the only emperor from 
 the beginning of the world, who, by convening this vast 
 assembly, an image, as it were, of the company of the Apostles, 
 presented to Christ, his Saviour, a garland such as this, twined 
 and knitted together by the bond of peace, as a sacred memorial 
 of his gratitude for the victories which he had gained on his 
 foreign and domestic enemies." Such is part of Eusebius' 
 account of this celebrated council; of whose creed I shall 
 merely observe that it was an enlargement of, but based upon 
 the first of all separate church creeds, viz., the creed of the 
 Church of Jerusalem ; and that such enlargement was by clauses 
 explanatory of the Christian faith; levelled directly against 
 Unitarianism. It was Eusebius himself, that same Eusebius, whom 
 they affect to quote as favouring their cause, who proposed the 
 article " God of God," relating to The Lord Jesus. His object 
 being to assert the true divinity of The Son, so as at the same 
 time to assert of The Father his special prerogative as such ; and 
 thus to distinguish, against Sabellians, The Father and The Son. 
 To him the council hearkened, and added, also, "Very God of 
 Very God, of one substance with The Father." 
 
 Next, as regards the creed named of St. Athanasius, hard words 
 are used; and Unitarians have pleasure in calling it a " palpable 
 forgery," because it is termed St. Athanasius' ; when the fact is 
 he never wrote it. But, I need hardly remind the rawest person 
 who thinks about the matter that a mistake may be made as to 
 the name of an author, without for a moment prejudicin 
 imp 
 
 It was not until tl 
 
316 NECESSARY TO SALVATION. 
 
 held to be proved Athanasius was not the writer ; but, both then 
 andjiow, it is perfectly well known from his writings that the 
 creed expresses those sentiments of which he is, perhaps, the 
 ablest defender. The mistake, as to authorship, is known and 
 admitted ; but, Athanasius being so powerful a defender of its 
 articles, the creed is called by his name with propriety scarcely 
 less. However, we are not concerned about names ; the ques- 
 tion is, Are its articles according to the mind of God ? and our 
 church receives this creed, not because she thought it was 
 Athanasius', nor upon the authority of any other author, nor 
 does she determine anything about its age, or writer; but 
 because the truth of the doctrines contained in it maybe proved 
 by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture, as is expressly said 
 in our eigJdh article : with which I shall conclude — 
 
 "The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, 
 
 AND THAT WHICH IS COMMONLY CALLED THE Jpostles' 
 
 Creed, ought thoroughly to be received, and 
 believed : for they may be proved by most cer- 
 tain warrants of holy scripture." 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 H 
 
By the same Author'. 
 
 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION AND CONVERSION 
 
 OF ISRAEL. 
 
 One Vol. Octavo. Price 14s. 
 
 AND 
 
 ISAIAH'S CALL TO ENGLAND : BEING A CRITICAL 
 EXPOSITION OE ISAIAH XVIII. 
 
 One Vol. Octavo. Price 10s. 6d. 
 
 LONDON : WEKTHEIM, MACINTOSH, AND HUNT. 
 
SgggJBM&o-AmwiT 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 " 
 
 HOME USE 
 
 ■. Renewals and U^ ffi fe ^fe^^ '«'7 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BEin\A/~~ 
 
 KIEBUBR 
 
 Ai' 
 
 
 BERK, 
 
 SM NO. DD 6, 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELI 
 BERKELEY, CA 94720 
 
' c0 i4743aOb3