^. •1 % .| . ' J, >/• ., ' ^i* >' '^ **jl'i '^t A>\ t .. '> . V H-« - ' "¦-4 " -.» ft. ^ ^ t •*t •/>* -''«. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY UNITARIANISM INCAPABLE OF VINDICATION. .^^j»;»^Wl^' THE AUTHOR. j»REr4cm ']^&is Repljo had swelled imitstprogjiess to a degree as far as possible, to predude the necessity, on my paj;t, of any pro- Ipogaitibn of the discussion, I resolyed,jsorae tin)$ after having begun,, ta allow myself freer sdope than I h?4 prigin^ily in tended; cpnceiviiiig that it wionld npt-be justjpe, either to ipyseif QTvtd nay subject, to omit iUiistotaoHs, or reasonings, which rflightj in any material degree, eontribjjte to the. elucidation and settlement of the questions at issue. An asser&n^ mftjr beiHjade in a single sentence, which it may reqi(iS"e pages to refute; while the buevity and imposing confidence with which it is made, njay increase, instead of lessening, the VIU necessity for its refiitation. But the ground on which I would chiefly rest, in vindicating this amplitude of discussion, is, the paramount importance of the questions themselves, and the infinite magnitude of the consequences dependent upon their just decision; — a consideration, surely, which ought to be sufficient to secure an attentive examination to arguments even much more extended. Not that I consider the perusal and examination of com- pUcated critical disquisitions as necessary to enable any reader to resolve these questions for himself, in an enhghten-- ed and satisfactory manner, from the word of God. To use an expression of my opponent, in his Sermon on the duty and manner of deciding reKgious controversies, — " On que»- " tions so important and fundamental, the language of revela- •« tion cannot be ambiguous:" and neither, on the same prin ciple, can it be dark, and difficult to be understood. " To the poor the gospel is preached:" — and the holy Scriptures, like the preaching of our Lord and his apostles, are adapted, in their phraseology, not to the learned few, but fo the un learned many; — ^not to " the wise and prudent," but to " babes." The way of salvation, as might, a priori, have been presumed, is made known there with so much plainness, that " the way-faring man, though a fool, shall not err there- " in." — But, when attempts are made, by the pride of phi losophy, misnamed theology, to pervert these Scriptures from their obvious and simple meaning, and to make the common people jealous and distrustful, on the most moment ous subjects, of that translation of the Bible, in which they have been accustomed to confide, as a faithful exhibition of the mind of God; — when Unitarian geographers endeavour, by the discovery of false readings, false renderings, and false Unterprietations, to lay down a map of the way to heaven, entirely different from the one which is there sq distinctly delineated: — ^it becomes an imperious duty, rightly to ap preciate the pretensions of those, who are thus " confident *'. that they themselves are guides of the blind, lights of them *' who are in darkness, instructors of the foolish, and teach- f ers of babes;" to expose, as far as we are able, the un soundness of their specious criticisms, and the fallacy of their high-minded reasonings; that, by this means, the faith of the stedfast may be confirmed, the confidence of the waver ing restored, and those reclaimed from their wanderings, who may, uiJiappily, have been induced to forsake " the good " and the right way." The last of -the *' Discourses on the principal points of " the Socinian Controversy," closed in the following terms : " If it shall be found that these objects," (namely, the glory of God, and the eternal interests of men) " which are in their " nature inseparable, have been, in the smallest degree, pro- " moted; — that the faith of God's people has been strengthen- " ed, or the minds of the wavering settled; — that, in any " one instance, tihie gainsayer has been convinced, or the b " careless sinner awakened, and ' turned from the error " of his way ;' — I shall consider my reward as obtained, " and my labour as infinitely more than compensated.".^ It has affijrded me sincere gratification, I trust from higher and purer principles than those of a merely selfish nature, to learn, from different quarters, that my labour has not, in these respects, been entirely fruitless. — Amongst the ac counts of this description, not the least pleasing has been from the other side of the Atlantic. In America, particular* ly in the state of Massachussets, the same controversy has, of late, been exciting unusual attention. During its pro- gress, a copy of the "Discourses" having been carried out from this country by an American minister, a large edition was published in Boston ; which, I am ^en to hope, has not been without some small service to the cause of Christ. It was followed, on the part of the Uni tarians, by the republication of Mr. Yates's " Vindication," with Notes, and an Appendix. — The letters conveying' these notices, (which were from eminent ministers of the gospel, although personally strangers to myself, and which pleasingly indicate the effect of the " one faith" in knitting the hearts of strangers, however distant, in the bonds of Christian affec tion) — were accompanied with copies of the various pub- hcations which had then issued from the American press, in the course of the recent controversy. As this volume is likely to reach the same quarter, it may not be improper to say, that at first I felt inclined to take some notice, XI in an Appendix, or otherwise, of the contents of these pub lications. But, besides the propriety of confining myself, as much as possible, to the field which my own adversary had marked out for me, as well as of avoiding longer delay in the publication of this reply,' want of leisure prevented me from giving them a deliberate examination ; nor did there appear, indeed, to be any sufficient call for entering the lists amongst the Transatlantic combatants. The arena is already well occupied. There are hearts there burning with unquenchable love to the Divine Redeemer, associated with uiderstandings fiilly adequate to do justice to thbiv zeal. We heartily bid them "God speed." And, although they should be grieted there, as we have been here, by seeing some " depart from the faith :" yet " those who are approved " will be made the more manifest^" and the truth, which is mighty, shall ultimately prevail. In the course of this work, I have occasionally refer red, with approbation, to "Strictures on Mr. Yates's Vin- " dication of Unitarianism," by the Rev. John Brown of Biggar. These Strictures are very creditable to the critical talents of their author; although, from the peculiar form in which they are written, (having been originally intended " as an article in one of the periodical journals,") they are necessarily limited, and, in some measure, desultory. There is in a few parts of them, a degree of sarcastic asperity, which will be condemned by some, and, perhaps, justified by Xll others ; and which I am myself timid to censure, because, in the composition of the following work, the trial of tem per has at times been such, as to render it not impro bable, that, in spite of my introductory remarks, and good resolutions, on the spirit of controversy, Mr. Brown ma^ find some occasion for retorting upon me, with the pro verb, " Physician, heal thyself." — 1 should very gladly have allowed these Strictures, together with the Reviews (some of them long and able) to which this controversy has given rise, to have sufficed as antidotes to the poison of Unitarian error, in Mr. Yates's work, and, desisting from my labour, have devoted my time to other departments of study :— but, having publicly taken up the cause, I felt that I should leave a sting in my conscience, if I did not attempt, with the same publicity, to meet the reasonings of my opponent with a more full and formal refutation ; and by this means, as well as by additional evidence, to settle still more firmly on the solid basis of Scripture testimony, those doctrines, which Christians have been accustomed to consider as the essential articles of revealed truth. The favourable reception experienced by the " Discourses," has inspired a diffident hope, that the present volume may not be altogether unacceptable to the Christian pubhc, or un accompanied with the blessing of God. Without that bless ing, I am deeply convinced, every expectation of good must be frustrated :— and no one who has read the epistles of xiu Paul, and imbibed any portion of his spirit, will charge me with enthusiasm, in requesting, in order to its success, and to the success of all similar efforts j the prayers of my Christian brethren. . , In a foot-note, page 20th of this volume, a reference is made to Note A. at the end. It was my intention to have inserted there some particulars relative to the theological sen timents of Dr. Isaac Watts. To avoid, however, the awk ward appearance of a solitary notCj (having found no parti cular occasion for more) I now prefer making a reference to the pamphlet from which these particulars should have been extracted. It is entitled, — " Dr. Watts no Socinian; a " Refutation of the Testimony of Dr. Lardner, as brought " forward in the Rev. T. Belsham's Memoirs of the late " Rev. Theophilus Lindsay, ' That Dr. Watts's last senti- " ments were completely Unitarian.' In a series of letters " to the Rev. Joseph Smith, of Manchester. By Samuel " Palmer. — ' Your glorying is not good.' 1 Cor. v. 6. « London, 1813." The references in this work to my former volume are made to ^hefine copy of ihejirst edition. My reason for this is, that a much greater number of persons are in possession of the first edition than of the second. The difference between the two, however, is so very slight, as to occasion no in convenience. — As for those who have the common copy of XI v the first edition, they will not he far wrong, if they pro- ceed upon the calculation of eight pages of the common to ten of \hejine: page 10 of the latter, corresponding to page 8 of the former; page 20, to page 16; page 30, to page 24; and so on in the same ratio. — This, I fear, may be a little trou blesome; and I now regret that I did not, throughout, refer distinctly to both. The frequency of reference, however, is not very great. I commend this work, hke the former " to the blessing of *' God, and to the candid judgment of men." R. W. Glasgow, June 2Uk, 1816. CONTENTS. PART L Observations on various Topics of Preliminary Discussion. Chap. I. - - - - - Page 1 Chap. IL ----- 15 Chap. IIL ----- 29 Chap. IV. ----- 40 PART IL Defence of the Seasonings in support of the Trinity, and of the Divinity of Christ, against the Animadversions of Mr. Yates. Chap. I. - . - - _ gi Chap. IL . . - . - 75 Chap. IIL - - - - - 103 Chap. IV. - - - - - 123 Chap. V. - - - . - 132 Chap. VL - - . - - 199 Chap. VII. ... - - 223 Chap. VIIL ----- 246 Chap. IX. ----- 275 XVI PART IIL Examination of the more direct "Evidence adduced by Mr. Yates, in support of the Principles of Unitarianism. Chap. I. - - . - Page 310 Chap. II. - - - - - 324. Chap. III. - - . . _ 34,7 Chap. IV. Containing additional proofs from Scripture of the Divinity of Christ, - - 364 Chap. V. Concluding Remarks, - - 378 ERRATA. p. 169. L 9.Jbr " Schleusner," read " Vigenis." P. 207. 2d 1. from bottom, in a few copies, Jbr " it that was" read " that it was." PART I. OBSERVATIONS ON VARIOUS TOPICS OF PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION. CHAPTER L JL owards the close of his " Vindication of Unitarianism," Mr. Yates represents the " instances of carelessness, indiscre- " tion, and misrepresentation, which abound in Mr. Ward- " law's Volume, and which he has been under the necessity " of noticing, as sufficient wholly to destroy its credit in the ap- " prehension of all impartial judges." — I will not venture, in " putting on my harness," to " boast myself," as Mr. Yates has thus done in " putting it off." Depending, however, on Divine assistance, I address myself anew, with no diminution of cour age, to " this great argument." I shall examine my opponent's work with all the freedom which a regard to truth requires ; and shall then leave the decision betwixt us to those " impar- " tial judges" to whom he has made his confident appeal. It must be a matter of very small consequence to the public, how Mr. Yates and his opponent stand affected towards each other ; whether they live in habits of inthnate friendship, or merely on terms of mutual good-will. From some expressions used in Mr. Yates's " Vindication," his readers might be led to suppose the former to be the case ; for in various instances, in the course of his work, he strongly expresses his regard, A and, with the emphasis of Italics, closes his volume by " joy- " fully erasing from the tablet of his memory every feeling of " hostility, and wishing to behave henceforth toward his oppo- " nent, — his friend, as his moral and intellectual excellences " prompt his esteem." (Page 273.) When Mr. Yates thus ex presses his wishes respecting his behaviour to his friend " hence forth," his reader may naturally be disposed to inquire, in what manner he lias behaved towards him in this controversy. And in seeking, in Mr. Yates's book, an answer to this inquiry, he will find some things, I fear, hardly quite consistent with that cordial union of spirit, which is generally and justly under stood to belong to the essence of true friendship. He will oc casionally feel cause for considerable surprise; and may begin, perhaps, to suspect that surely Mr. Yates uses this term, as U- nitarians do so many others, in a sense of his own. What sort of esteem and fiend ship must these be ? he will say to himself. This author certainly does not treat his esteemed friend very graciously. He compliments him, it is true, and compliments him strongly and generously. But his eulogies seem to be more than neutralized, when he charges this friend of his with management, and genej-alsMp, and manoeuvring, of various unworthy kinds;— with the artful expedients, and lotsc tricks, of a nibbling adversary ; — with contumely, and petulance, and posi- tiveness, and dogmatism; as well as with ignorance, and careless ness, and bitter misrepresentation, and overheated zeal -, — when he honours him with a place amongst " croisos and chattering "jays," in their impertinent pursuit of the bird of Jove;— and speaks of the « feeble diminutive accents of our worthy Author" in terms which could hardly be used without a certain scornful elevation of the upper lip, not extremely desirable in the coun tenance of a friend. — I am quite aware, however, of the diffe rent lights in which the same expressions will appear to a friend 3 of the cause that is defended, and to an enemy. Where the former finds no ground of complaint in an author's gene ral manner, but rather, perhaps, an excess of forbearance and gentleness, the latter will quickly discover the clearest symptoms of virulent animosity and insolent self-sufficiency. Certain words and phrases will be severely censured by the latter, as incontestable evidences of such tempers of mind ; while by the former they will be justified and commended, as indicating no more than that the writer is not indifferent to the cause he has espoused, but, as he ought to be, " zealously " affected in a good thing." It was certainly my wish to avoid the evils of which my adversary has so heavily accused nie. In this wish it is possible I may have failed ; yet I honestly declare I am not sensible of the failure, at least to any thing hke the extent of the indictment ; nor, so far as I have had access to know the public voice, have my readers in general concurred in the accusations. It may appear to some, perhaps, hardly generous, to bring these harshnesses forward into such prominent notice, after Mr. Yates has declared, towards the conclusion of his reply, the " special gratification it will afford him to expunge any " expressions which appear disrespectful to Mr. Wardlaw." (P. 273.) But the truth is, I cannot persuade myself that Mr. Yates was not sensible of something disrespectful in such ex pressions as those which have just been quoted. And surely, if he was, the spirit which would have been gratified by ex punging them from the printed volume, should have previously gratified itself, by expunging them from the manuscript. This procedure is certainly much liker sincerity, than first to show the public, by offensive personalities, what smart things we can say, and then to bow at the close, and protest our readiness to cancel them. — I have a similar observation to make re- specting the severe accusations in Mr. Yates's letter tome, pub lished at the end of his book. He says himself respecting that letter, " Some of the expressions in it are certainly harsh. " I used them, that he might see the full extent of my accusa- " tions against him, and because / always think it proper to <' speak of another in severer language to himself than to any "one else." (P. 273.) Mr. Yates, then, intended this letter for myself, and fm- no one else P So, upon the principle which he states (an exceedingly good one) it ought to have been. But so it was not. Mr. Yates, while using these confessedly harsh expressions, " because he thought it proper to speak of another " in severer terms to himself than to any -one else," was, at the very moment, writing for the public, and avows his intention of saying to the world all that he was saying to myself: — " P. S. I shall probably prefix this letter to my Reply, that, " if any disagreeable consequences do ensue from this contro- " versy, the public may see that I am not chargeable with « them." Could I plead guilty to all the charges of my opponent, I diould pronounce myself unworthy of his esteem, or of the esteem of any one else : and, what is of infinitely greater con sequence than the forfeiture of the regard of men, I should feel myself exposed to the frown, of an offended Master. I know it is his command, that " the servant of the Lord must « not strive, but be gentle unto all men— patient, in meekness " instructing those that oppose themselves." To this command — (a command to which he who was " meek and lowly in " heart" himself set the example of perfect conformity)— it is my desire, by his grace, to adhere, in inward feehng, and in outward act and expression. If the violation of it be neces sary to writing with spirit, let me rank with the dullest of the dull. I am no advocate for that facile complaisance, and simpering insipidity, which knows not how to be firm ; which assumes a style between assent and denial, that can scarcely be known for the one or for the other ; which minces truth, re duces and accommodates important differences, smiles when it ought to frown, and makes its courteous obeisance when it should stand erect in all the dignity of unbending decision. — But there is perfect harmony between decision and gentleness. If there were not, it were impossible that both should be com manded. W? are in general, I fear, too little sensible of the sin that is committed by speaking or writing, whether against one another, or against the common enemies of our faith, under the influence of such tempers of mind, and in such a style and manner, as are inconsistent with the precepts and example of our " meek and lowly" Master. We are not sufficiently jealous of the deceitfulness of our hearts. We write with passion, and flatter ourselves that we are writing with becoming zeal. We indulge ourselves freely in violent invective, pointed sarcasm, and contemptuous ridicule, and, according to one of the most common modes of self-deception, that of giving gentle names to ungentle things, we call this writing with spirit. — Nay, such is our inconsistency, such our insensibility to our own failings, such our readiness to act the part of extractors of motes from the eyes of others, without be ing conscious of the beams that are in our own ; — that, in the very act of pronouncing our censure on another's fault, we are sometimes guilty, and that in a more flagrant degree, of the very fault which we are censuring. In reproving bitterness and virulence, we show the gall of our own hearts : — we re probate self-sufficiency and pride, in the very spirit of proud self-sufficiency: — we are dogmatical in exposing dogmatism : — we laugh to scorn the claims of infallibility, and we ourselves are never in the wrong: — we swell with secret self-conceit, while we are admonishing others « not to think of themselves more highly than they ought to think:"— we conceive our ad versary sets himself too high ;— we bring him down ; — but we are so pleased with ourselves for the feat, that we mount the hrone from which we have dislodged him, and look around — ex cathedra — for admiration and homage. That ignorance should be exposed, that sophistry should be detected, that artful reasonings should be refuted, mali cious misrepresentations placed in their true light, and lofty and imposing pretensions sunk to their proper level, — all this is very right and very necessary. But should not the truth of the gospel be maintained in the spirit of the gospel? Should we not implore the grace of Christ, that we may show less of ourselves, and more of our Master ? ^hall we willingly incur his frown, to please the corrupt hkings of our fellow- creatures ? Shall we sacrifice his gracious smile for the laugh of the world ; and " court a grin, when we should " woo a soul?" While we establish the truth of his doctrine, shall we give a false and mischievous exhibition of its nature, and of its infuence on the heart ? Shall we encourage our fellow- Christians in thinking lightly of tempers which they ought to dread and to deprecate, — in considering questions relative to the fimdamental articles of divine truth, rather as party-distinctions, than as affecting the glory of Christ and the salvation of sinners ? — And, with regard to the adversa ries of the Jtruth themselves, shall we allow ourselves to forget that they toohave souls, immortal souls at stake, — and, instead of keeping steadily in view, their spiritual and eternal profit, their conviction and conversion to God, — instead of seeking to satisfy their judgments by a clear and argumentative mani festation of the truth, and to win them to the acknowledg- ment of it by affectionate persuasion, shall we bring upon ourselves the deep criminality of rather doing what is in our power to harden them in opposition, by rousing into jealous exercise all the feelings of eager hostility; making them parties with ourselves in a personal quarrel ; and encouraging, what of all things we ought to discountenance, a combat for victory instead of a controversy for truth ? It is my earnest prayer that the Holy Spirit may enable me to " keep my heart with all diligence," while engaged in defending the truth of the important doctrines revealed by his inspiration ; and preserve me from every expression that would either indicate an improper temper in my own breast, or ex cite such a temper in the breast of any one of my readers. I should reckon it a waste of time, to repel, by any length ened defence, the Charges before alluded to, which Mr. Yates has, either directly or indirectly, brought against my manner of conducting the controversy. The light in which these charges will be viewed by the reader will, I am quite aware, correspond with the predisposition of his mind, and the side which he has taken (if he has taken any) on the question un der discussion. — I must be allowed, however, a few brief re marks. In his introduction, Mr. Yates thus expresses himself. (Pages 3, 4.) " Mr. Wardlaw affirms solemnly, that his only " object isTKUTH; and doubtless the defence of the Calvinis- " tic doctrines, which he believes to be true, was his only ob- " ject. But there is a wide difference between defending a par- " ticular system, previously assumed as true, and pursuing truth " independently of system ; — a difference which will material- " ly affect the manner in which a man states his own argu- " ments, and views the arguments of others Mr. Wardlaw's " whole style and language in this controversy show, that " he has never put his mind into that state of calm and im- " partial deliberation, which is necessary to collect and ar- " range the proofs on either side, and to judge in favour of " which the evidence preponderates." In this, and some other parts of his Reply, Mr. Yates seems to proceed on the modest supposition, that at the time of pre paring my Discourses, the subject was quite new to me ; — that I had only then entered on the investigation of the truth of those doctrines, which, tor ten years before, I had been preaching to others as the doctrines of the word of God. If this be disavowed by him ; — if he be ready to admit, that the discourses may be an exhibition, not of the process of in vestigation by which the writer first arrived at his conviction of the truth which he defends, but of the grounds on which a long established conviction rested; — then is he very inconsis tent with himself. For in a subsequent page (37) we find him saying, at the close of a passage similar in its nature to the former, — " But although this kind of indifference is ab- " solutely necessary in the investigation of religious truth, " yet, when the truth is once discovered, when the contro- " versy is terminated, then let fervent enthusiasm apply the " theory to practice ; then let generous unabated zeal em- " ploy the weapons of divine truth to subdue the powers "of sin and darkness; then let the eloquent tongue ex- " press all the tender and kind emotions of the bleeding " heart ; then adopt the penetrating all-powerful rhetoric of " Paul, ' I have told you before, and now tell you even weep- « ing.' " When Mr. Yates here speaks of " the controversy being ter- « minated" he certainly cannot mean to condemn all preach ing of the fervent and animating kind which he so eloquently 9 describes, till such time as the said controversy shall be final ly settled to the satisfaction of all parties, — till either Unita rians on the one hand, or Trinitarians on the other, shall come to be universally convinced of their errors, and shall consequently cease their opposition. If this be his meaning, it is not easy to predict the time at which we shall be justified in proceeding to our practical application. Our zeal, I fear, must be repressed, our eloquence tongue-tacked, and our hearts kept in an ice-house, for an indefinite, and, in all pro- babiUty, a long period. He must mean, " when the truth is " once discovered" to ouri own personal satisfaction, " when the " controversy is terminated" in our own minds, in consequence of fair and deliberate investigation. And if this be his mean ing, I have just endeavoured to do, to the best of my abihty, the very thing, to which my adversary, with so nrach pro priety, and emphasis, and eloquence of expression, has given his hearty sanction. — Which of the two convictions, Mr. Yates's or mine, is founded on the most deliberate and impar tial investigation, it must be left to the reader, from a compa rison of our respective reasonings, to decide. I could not read without a smile, Mr. Yates's smart remarks on my unfortunate points of admiration. From what he says of my " frequent use'' of them, in their " single, double, and " treble form," (11! ! ! !)'his reader, if he had not previously perused my Volume, would expect, on his looking into it, to find them " bristling" in every page, " like quills iipon the " fretful porcupine;" — as numerous, and obtrusively remark able, as breaks and dashes in the pages of my uncle Toby. — I shall leave it to the reader, if he chuse to be at the trouble, to turn over 440 pages, and ascertain the number of times that the double and treble notes of admiration occur. Possi bly he may find half a dozen of the former, and half as many B 10 of the latter. As to single points of admiration, I have al ways understood them to be intended for use, and the em ployment of them in writing to be as legitimate, as that of the inflexions and mtonations of the voice in speaking. But with these, indeed, Mr. Yates seems as seriously of fended as with the other. I can only assure him, that the « tones of astonishment," of which he complains, were as far as possible from being " affected." The astonishment ex pressed in them was, bona fde, felt. There may, possibly, be some advantage in that unvarying monotony, which leaves our hearers at full liberty to guess, whether the state of our minds be satisfaction or disgust, indifference or surprise: yet, on the whole, I am disposed to think the ordinary rule preferable, that the looks and tones of the speaker should correspond with his predominant feelings. And I cannot well account for Mr. Yates's having felt so sore under these " tones of astonishment," and prickly " bristles of admira- " ration" — (a misnomer indeed on the present occasion, as it was any thing but admiration they were intended to indi cate) — on any other supposition, than that of a secret con sciousness of there being in truth some little cause for the wonder which they were intended to express. There are two other species of " management and gene- " ralship" and " manoeuvring' such as " a votary of truth " would scorn," which are laid to my charge in Mr. Yates's introduction. The first is my " making the best use" of the " very feKo proofs" which I had to adduce, " bringing them " forward different times, dwelling upon them at great length, " turning them about, and showing them in the most pleas- " ing variety of lights ;" and my professing to bring forward a specimen, and to proceed on the principle of selection, when I have nearly or entirely exhausted my store. — That I en- 2 II deavoured to make the best use of the proofs which I did adduce, I need not surely hesitate to admit. I should have been a recreant to my cause had I failed to do so : — but whether it has been done in the manner described by Mr. Yates, I must leave it to the candid reader of my Dis courses to judge. The falsity of the latter part of the above charge is well enough known to every one who knows any thing at all of the subject ; and I trust it will be sufficiently apparent to all my readers, before I have done with these remarks, that the stock of proofs is not quite exhausted, and that even Mr. Yates has unwittingly supplied a little to it himself. The second manceuvre is thus described. (P. 5.) " Instead '" of presenting a fair and full view of the Unitarian system " in its leading principles, and general aspects, he makes " it his object to bring into notice every thing absurd or " dangerous that was ever written by a Unitarian." — This is a serious charge : and I distinctly deny its truth. We shall afterwards see the extensive sense in which Mr. Yates is pleased to use the appellation Unitarians. I was writing, however, against Socinians. In exposing what I deemed their errors, I took my extracts not from the writings of any contemptible scribblers, but from those of the " chief " men of their synagogue." For where shall those, who are not themselves initiated, discover the distinguishing sen timents of the party, if not by reference to such men as Lardner and Priestley, and Lindsay and Belsham, and the Editors of the Improved Version of the New Testament ? — I know not what those " minor topics" may be to which Mr. Yates refers as opposed to the " few great principles" of Unitarianism; or what he means by " sentiments of indivi- " dual Authors," to which " the great body would refuse "•' their sanction." — Particular sentiments of individuals, I 12 may have occasionally introduced, to exemplify the tendency of the general principles of their party. But, Mr. Yates himself being judge, wherever he has given any thing like an enumeration of them, I have directed my attack ftdly and fairly against these general principles themselves ; — and I challenge him to the proof of the " Iffw tricV he is pleased to ascribe to me, the trick of a " nibbling adversary," who " gravely refutes the fancies, mistakes, or hasty conclusions " of individual writers, instead of considering the broad prin- " ciples espoused by the whole party." But of this imputation Mr. Yates has brought forward one proof. Let us examine it a little. If all his evidence should be like it, the reply will not be difficult. — " Indeed," says he, " through zeal to collect all the offensive matter to be " found in Unitarian publications, he has in one instance, " at least as the passage will be appUed by his readers, " violated fact." — I beg particular attrition to the qualify ing clause here, — " at least as the passage will be applied ' ' by his readers." — It seems to indicate, that the writer was not very sure of his ground : — that he could hardly so apply the passage himself. No, indeed, he could not. Mr. Yates possesses common sense. And I am bold to say that no reader, not entirely destitute of this precious commodity, could possibly interpret the passage as he supposes all my readers certainly must. — " Afier some very excellent remarks," con tinues Mr. Yates, " on the impropriety of indulging a pre- " sumptuous rashness in the pursuit of truth, he quotes a " passage from the Appendix to the Life of Priestley, show- " ing with what indifference this fearless temerity enables " a man to contemplate the conclusion that there is no God. « If he had turned to the title-page of the Volume, and page " iv. of the preface, he would have seen that the Author, « whose words he has quoted without mentioning any name IS " except that of Priestley, was Mr. Thomas Cooper, President " judge of the fourth district of Pennsylvania ; and if he had " made the inquiry which became him beifore producing this " passage as an illustration of the spirit cherished by Unita- " rians, he would have learned, that Judge Cooper is not a " Unitarian." — By the clause which is printed in Italics, I understand Mr. Yates to mean (and he has been so under stood by others) that, from my having mentioned no name except that of Dr. Priestley, the unwary reader might be led'to associate the words quoted with his name, and to affix to him the stigma contained in the note. But this is truly surprising. As the note referred to is short, I shall quote it at length. — " The following striking and affecting " instance of the sang froid with which this spirit enables a " man to suppose and to contemplate even the conclusion «' that there is no God, is taken from No. 4. of the Appendix " to the Memoirs of Dr. Priestley, vol. I. p. 423. Speaking " of the doctrine of equivocal or spontaneous generation, in " certain species of plants and animals, as maintained by " Dr. Darwin and impugned by Dr. Priestley, the latter of " whom considered it as a direct introduction to atheism, the " writer says : — ' I do not see the certain tendency of this " opinion to atheism ; for this property of spontaneous pro- " duction may have been originally communicated under " certain circumstances, as well as any of the other properties " of organized or unorganized matter ; and the one and the " other may be equally necessary parts of the pre-established " order of things. / But if it do lead to Atheism, what " then ? There can be no crime in following truth wherever " it leads ; and I think we have sufficient reason to believe, " that the result of truth must be more beneficial to mankind " than error.' "• — Such, reader, is the note. Is there any obscurity in it ? — " The writer says," respecting a doctrine 14 which was " impugned by Dr. Priestley, as being a direct " introduction to atheism," — " / do not see the certain ten- " dency of this opinion to atheism .•" that is, (is it not?) / do not see that this sentiment and apprehension of Dr. Priestley are well founded. — Can this " writer" then, be Dr. Priestley himself? Mr. Yates, like others of his sect, is in general willing enough to pay insinuating compliments to the under standings of his readers. As to my readers, he seems to have forgotten, on the present occasion, that they had understanding at all. For surely that reader " must have a most uncommon " skull," a skull over which Drs. Gall and Spurzheim would search in vain for the organs of penetration, who could for a moment suppose, that Dr. Priestley, whom the end of one sen tence had represented as impugning a particular doctrine on account of its direct tendency to atheism, should be " the writer" who, in the beginning of the next, says, " / do not perceive " this tendency at all." I think I might almost venture here on a point of admiration. — I can solemnly assure Mr. Yates that I had looked at the title-page, and absolutely knew, while I was writing, that the person whose sentiment I quot ed was Judge Cooper of Pennsylvania. But really the pos sibility of such a mistake, as he supposes to be not only likely but almost certain, never once entered my mind, till he sug gested it; nor do I believe in it yet. And, Were Mr. Yates to assure me that he knew instances of its having occurred, my inference would be, not want of clearness in the note, but want of clearness somewhere else. — As for Judge Cooper not being a Unitarian, — " whatsoever he was, it maketh no " matter to me." I had no reference, while writing that note, either to Unitarianism or Trinitarianism, but simply to the tendency of that spirit of arrogant self-sufficiency on which I had been commenting in the text. Of this the sen timent quoted in the note is, without controversy, what I have 15 termed it, " a strikmg and affecting instance." The spirit of it is the spirit of infidelity : and whether Judge Cooper was a Trinitarian infidel, or a Unitarian infidel, or " A smart free-thinker, all things in an hour," was a matter of little consequence in itself, and totally irrela tive to the object of the note. CHAPTER II. Mr. Yates has accused me of management and generalship. I will not retort the charge. There is one thing, however, for which I have felt it difficult to account, consistently with that manly openness and decision which I should have ex pected of him ; I mean the impossibility of discovering from his book, what his own sentiments are. What he is not, he leaves us at no loss to find out. He is not a Trinitarian. It may be alleged that this negative position necessarily im- phes the opposite positive — He is a Unitarian. True. But what, according to Mr. Yates, is a Unitarian? Still the only answer which his book furnishes to this question is, — It is not a Trinitarian : for under the appellation Unitarian he includes all the varieties of sentiment from the highest Arianism to the lowest Socinianism ; and if, between these two extreme points (inclusive) you ask me the question. What is Mr. Yates ? I frankly answer. So far as his book informs me, I cannot tell. — Now why is this ? Is Mr. Yates prepared to say, that he does not think the Scriptures have at all de cided, whether Jesus was a superangehc Being, created be fore all worlds, the instrument of the creation of all other 16 beings, an inferior God; — or a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, fallible and peccable like other men ? Does he think this wide difference on so interesting a subject, of so Httle consequence as to render it not worth while for the Divine Being, in revealing his truth to his creatures, to be at all explicit about it ? If so, I think he entertains very unworthy thoughts of Divine revelation. — If, again, he intend ed by this proceeding to straiten the bond of brotherhood be tween his Arian and Socinian friends, I fear, in that case, that his attempt to please every body will end in pleasing no body ; and that most, if not all, both of Socinians and Arians, will be dissatisfied with what they will consider as a compro mise of important truth. — Or has his object been to afford himself more convenient scope in his argument ? Whether this was his design or not, it is not for me to say ; but every reader of his book must have perceived how frequently it has served this purpose. By allowing himself this extensive range, whenever he feels a text pinch him on the Socinian hypo thesis of the mere manhood of Christ, he has recourse to the Arian view of his pre-existence and superangelic nature ; and if in either he can find any thing like an answer to the argu ment for his divinity, he is satisfied. It is not on account of any increased difficulty given to the general argument by this mode of procedure, that I complain of it: for the Arian hypothesis is not more tenable, on scrip tural ground, than the Socinian ; and every proof of the supreme divinity of Christ militates with the same force and conclusiveness against the one as against the other. I feel no more apprehension at encountering Mr. Yates in his Arian than in his Socinian armour. But when a man takes the field, he ought, I think, openly to appear what he really is. If Mr. Yates believes Jesus Christ to have been a Tnere man, why has 17 he not said so? If he believes him to have been a superangelic creature, existing before all worlds, why has he not said so? — I am satisfied, indeed, that if the supreme divinity of the Saviour is denied, it is a matter of comparatively small consequence 'iyhat raiik we assign to him in the scale of created existence. '.' The glorious gospel of the blessed God" is as effectually sub- Verted, — the solid basis of my hopes as a sinner as thorough ly undermined, by the Arian hypothesis as by the Socinian, by the scheme of Clarke as by that of Priestley and Belsham. Between these two, however, viewed in relation to each other, there is surely. a very wide difference; — the former considering Jesus as a.kind of subordinate deity, possessed of every di vine attribute, excepting self-existence and independence, and the proper object of a certain undefined but inferior species Of worship; — the latter pronouncing him a mere mortal man, in all respects like other men: — the former admitting, in Words at least, the doctrine of atonement; the latter proscrib ing and ridiculing every thing of the kind. Is Mr. Yates still " halting between these two opinions?" Probably not. Biit, for reasons unexplained in his work, and best known to himself, * he has judged it proper to leave these differences out of view. — " Another principle" says he, (p. 8.) "which I have " laid down for myself, is to vindicate those doctrines alone, in " maintaining which all Unitarians are agreed, without enter- " ing into the discussion of those subordinate questions, con- * Since writing this, I have perused a paper of Mr. Yates's in the Monthly Repository, sent me for that pin-pose by himself, in which he assigns his reasons for employing the designation Unitarian with so much latitude. I saw nothing in that paper that induced me to make any alteration on what I had previously written; — because that which 1 complain of here, is, not his extensive application ' of this term, which is a matter in itself of no consequence, and which Mr. Yates and his friends may be left to adjust among themselves to their mutual satisfac tion; — ^but it is his keeping his readers throughout his book utterly in the dark as to what descrijxion of Unitarian he himself is. C 18 " cerning which they differ among themselves." " This me- " thod," adds he, " is not only necessary in a work which « professes to be a Vindication of Unitarianism ¦¦ but it has « the advantage of greatly abridging the labour both for my- " self and for my readers."— Now, although I think it would have been more consistent with manly openness, to have explicitly avowed his onion views of the person of Christ, and defended them accordingly ; yet I am perfectly willing that he should make a virtue of this supposed necessity, and that he should enjoy the advantage of " abridged labour," and along with it the additional convenience already alluded to, of' more extensive scope for evasion, by springing to every point that may best answer his purpose, between the highest Arianism and the lowest Socinianism. Mr. Yates and his friends are far from being agreed as to the extent of meaning which should be attached to the ap pellation by which they are pleased to distinguish themselves. But it is not worth while to contend about a name. It has oflen been observed, that those who arrogate to themselves the exclusive title of Unitarians, design to convey by it the tacit insinuation that Trinitarians deny the Divine Unity. Let us not trouble ourselves, however, about the designation they have assumed: but, while we reject the charge which it implies, and which, in spite of all our explicit disavowals, we may still expect to be pertinaciously persisted in, let us give them their favourite appellation, attaching to it the only sense which, in strict fairness, it should be considered as bearing — not that we deny the Divine Unity (for as to this essential article of faith we are Unitarians as well as they) but that they deny the Divine Trinity. * Antitrinifarians is their correct • The following does credit to the candour of the writer : •• Unitarian is not opposed to Tritheist or Folytheist : h does not denote a believer in one God, as contradistinguished from a believer in three Gods, or in more Gods than one. 19 designation; but we call them Unitarians, on the same prin ciple as (in a case of infinitely inferior importance indeed, but precisely similar in kind) we give the title of Baptists to those of our Christian brethren whose proper denomination is Antipadobapiists. We are Baptists as well as they; but we frankly give them the name they have chosen to themselves, notwithstanding that on their part it conveys a reflection against the propriety of our own practice. There is another advantage, indeed, which I had almost overlooked, derived by Mr. Yates, from his comprehensive acceptation of the term Unitarian. It enables him to enlarge considerably his list of worthies. That list the reader may find in page 165 of the " Vindication." Although Mr. Yates professes that he " presents this list of illustrious and " venerated names, not for the sake of an empty boast, " nor to decide the question in dispute by great human " authorities, but simply- to counteract the false impression " which Mr. Wardlaw's treatment of Unitarian divines is " adapted to produce," — yet it cannot fail to strike the con siderate reader, what an anxiety there is to swell the list, not only by including Sabellians, Arians, Semiarians, and So cinians in all their variety of degrees, but by pressing into the service every one, in whose writings any thing is to be found that could attach to them the slightest suspicion of their verging towards a doubt of the ordinary doctrine of the Trinity. — It is generally understood that the sentiments of the excellent and venerable Dr. Isaac Watts tended in his latter years towards Sabellianism: — but how would he have It is opposed to Trinitarian — Tri-uni-tarian only, and signifies a believer in, and a worshipper of, one God in one person, as contradistinguished from a believer in, and a worshipper of, one God in three persons." From " Plea for Unitarian •' Dissenters," as quoted in the Monthly Repository for August 1815, — ^p. 480. 20 been horrified to have seen his name enrolled with the names of those who degrade to the rank of a mere fellow mortal that blessed Redeemer who was the object of his constant adoration, and who utterly deny that atonement on which all his hopes for eternity were founded, as well as the very exis tence of that Holy Spirit, to whose " quickening powers" he owed his spiritual life, and whose sacred and melting influences purified and warmed his heart, and tuned his harp to praise. — Who, that was not bent on giving his system popu larity and eclat, would ever have thought of classing together in the same theological list, the names of Dr. Isaac Watts, and Dr. Joseph Priestley? If ever there existed two men, antipodes in religious sentiment and religious feeling, these are the two. — Dr. Watts's prayer on the subject of the Trinity is usually referred to by Unitarians, in support of the pro priety of their classification of his name. That prayer is a most impressive and interesting one. It shows us a mind, — a great mind, labouring with the vast importance of the sub ject about which it is engaged, humbly distrustful of its own faculties, feelingly alive to the danger of self-deception, trem blingly apprehensive of the smallest error, breathing desires intensely earnest after the discovery of truth, and glowing with a pure and fervent devotion kindled by a live coal from the altar of God. I apprehend, if the spirit by which this remarkable effusion of a pious soul is characterized were more universally prevalent, we should have still fewer of the follow ers of Piiestley than even the few he has unhappily found. The heart by which it was dictated had not a constitution for « the frigid zone of Christianity." * * The prayer may be found amongst " Fragments of Time," at the end of Vol. IX. of the last edition of the Doctor's Works.— But see Note A. at the end of tiiis Treatise.^ 21 Althouo-h the theological sentiments of Dr. Whitby were certainly in some points very different from those of Dr. Watts, yet the whole tenor of his works justifies us in question ing his right (in the Irish sense of the term — See Miss Edge- worth) to the place assigned him in the Unitarian brotherhood: — if a brotherhood that may be called, of which the members are so strangely heterogeneous in their sentiments, some of them with hardly a feature that bears the slightest mark of family likeness, and some who, were they to rise from the dead, and chance to see Mr. Yates's list, would disown the relation with a frown of indignant astonislMnent, or with a sigh of heart-breaking grief, that any thing whatever should have been said or written by them, capable of being so per verted as to bring their names into such a catalogue. I feel no particular anxiety to define the precise bounda ries of agreement and difference between the various writers enumerated as the friends of Unitarianism. There are others of them, I am very sure, besides the two mentioned, that would not have been much better pleased than they with the classification. It is not, however, a very honourable means of giving authority and weight to a cause, to muster a host of imposing names. And this is done with a peculiar ly bad grace by those who set themselves forward as of all men the warmest advocates of unshackled inquiry and liberty of thought, the sworn foes of prejudice, and of all subjec tion to human dictation. Mr. Yates is well aware, what a mighty army of " illustrious and venerated names" could be set in array on the opposite side, and that without pressing into the ranks any that belong to the camp of the enemy. It is vain to say, that such names are not enumerated with the intention of giving weight to the sentiments which they supported. The thing cannot be done without such intention. 22 That Mr. Yates felt a secret conscious elation of mind in the list he had made out, an inward self-gratulation in mentally ap pending his own name to so honourable a roll, and a desire to give a certain dignity and respectability to the cause he was defending, his manner of expressing himself will not allow me to doubt. — Now, I am far from wishing to detract from the merits of Unitarian writers. Let all of them have their due proportion of credit, for their attainments in various erudition, and for the services which they may have rendered to Christianity by their able defences of its general truth, on the ground of external evidence: and let it be frankly ad mitted, that the credit of some of them will, in both respects, stand eminently high. But, notwithstanding the indignant disdain which the observation formerly excited in the breast of Mr. Yates, I must repeat it, as an important truth, that a writer may most ably and successfully illustrate and establish the external evidences of Christianity, and yet entertain notions grossly and fundamentally erroneous of what Christianity is. Nay, the service which he renders in its general defence may sometimes be more than counterbalanced by the mischief which his efforts on the other hand produce, or tend to pro duce, in undermining the truth taught by the inspired apOstles, depriving the religion of Christ of all its most essential pecu liarities, robbing it of whatever entitles it to the name of Gospel, or good news to a guilty and perishing world. " Whether the pleriary inspiration of the Scriptures," says Mr. Yates, "be a doctrine of the Christian religion, is one of " those questions, upon which Unitarians are divided in " opinion. It would therefore be inconsistent with my pre- " sent design to enter into the discussion. But it is totally " foreign from the inquiry concerning the Trinity of persons " in the Godhead, and the Divinity and atonement of Christ. 23 " When Unitarians endeavour to show, that the Scriptures *' do not contain these doctrines, they always suppose their " Divine authority." — (Pages 16, 17.) They " always suppose their Divine authority." For a few instances of the manner in which the Divine authority of the Scriptures is " supposed" by the writers in question, the reader is referred to my sixth discourse, " on the test of " truth in matters of religion." With these instances, how ever, Mr. Yates is not well pleased. They are, he alleges, a very partial selection. Yet Mr. Yates knew well enough, that the selection is taken from that particular description of writers, against whose tenets my Discourses were chiefly and avowedly directed. These were not the Arians, but the So cinians. And truly the laxity of their views respecting the plenary inspiration and universal authority of the Scriptures, is a matter of such flagrant and lamentable notoriety, that I feel no anxiety to defend myself on this head, against the charge of misrepresentation, to any who are at all acquainted with their writings. — It is against the spirit and views of the more modern Socinians that it is especially needful to warn the public. If the sentiments of the ancient men of the sect were not so loose and licentious, on the subject in question, as those of its more modern leaders, this only shows, that So cinianism has been going on, agreeably to its natural tendency, from bad to worse; and increases the necessity for putting the unwary on their guard. In bringing forward his evi dence of the regard paid to the Scriptures by Unitarians, Mr. Yates produces nothing from those moderns whose works supplied the examples of the contrary, which have been the occasion of awakening his jealousy on this point. He ^ does not attempt their vindication from the charge brought against them; but only denies that it is justly: made. 24 against the Unitarians as a body ; and complains of my par tiality, in referring to two or three individuals, and omitting to mention others whose sentiments and language were dif ferent. What, then, are the notable instances produced by Mr. Yates of the sacred veneration of Unitarians for the Holy Scriptures? " The Bible, the Bible, the Bible only, is the reli- " GioN OF Protestants," that great maxim which Protestants " have so often repeated with a noble indignation in reply " to the pretensions of the church of Rome, is found in ?« the writings of the ingenuous and high-minded Chilling- " worth, who having, in the early part of his life, wavered, " with a modest caution, between different religious senti- " ments, at length settled in the doctrines of Socinianism." It is not worth while to inquire, at what time of his life, whether before or after he had " settled in the doctrines of " Socinianism," ChiUingworth wrote this famous sentence. For in truth, excellent as it is, when considered as directed against the pretensions of the church of Rome, it is nothing to the purpose for which Mr. Yates adduces it. It is a sentiment to which Dr. Priestley or Mr. Belsham, with all their low estimate of. the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, would have put their signatures with as much readiness as ChiUingworth himself, or any Protestant in the kingdom. For to what more, after all, does the sentence amount, than an explicit disavowal, in opposition to the Romish church, of the authority of its traditions, and the decrees of its Ecclesiastical councils? It expresses a sen timent, therefore, common to all Protestants as such; but it ascertains nothing as to the views of any class of Protestants by whom it may be adopted and used, respecting the plenary inspiration and universal authority of the Bible. 25 I have not at present the means of examining intothe circumstances of the case referred to by Mr. Yates, of " some " of the most learned Trinitarians, about 1 SO years ago, hav- " ing confessed that the doctrine of the Trinity was not found- " ed on the Scriptures, but on the traditions of the Church." But first of all, of the fact, as thus stated, I avow myself in- credidous. — Secondly, If any Trinitarians made such acon- cession, they were fools for their pains, ^nd traitors to their cause; and the Unitarians were clearly right, when they maintained, as a previous step to the establishment of their opi nions, that " the Scriptures are the only infallible rule whereby " to determine religious controversies," and when they declared their resolution to " prefer the infinite wisdom of God before " the fallible dictates of human or angelic reason-" — Thirdly, Th^ is only, after all, an appeal to Scripture in opposition to tradition, and does not, in the least degree, any more than the preceding maxim of ChiUingworth, secure the. Scriptures themselves from licentious freedoms in the apphcation of these principles to practice ; such freedoms as those which form " the " broadest foulest blot" in the theological and critical reputa tion of so many modern writers of the same school. In finding the answer to the question, "Hath the Scripture,— rthat is, hath " God said it?" there is still aniple room left for the discovery of interpolatiens. and false readings, and for all the ingenuity of misinterpretation and evasion. — The language, however, as used by Socinians, is certainly a curious andsomewhat inter esting relic. Reason does jiot appear here in so presumptu ous an attitude and .office as have since been assigned to her, enthroned as she has been asjsupreme and final arbitress of the dictates of Infinite Wisdom, to receive, reject, or question, as seemeth good in her sight. The expressions have certainly D 26 more of the general cast of Trinitarianism. But let us recol lect — " ' Tis a hundred and fifty years since." With regard to the beautiful and impressive saying of Locke, respecting the Holy Scripture, as having God for its Au thor; salvation foe its end; and truth without any MIXTURE of error FOR. ITS MATTER;" far be it from me to detract from its real excellence. Let the sentiment of this great philosopher of the human understanding have its full impression on the mind of every reader. But was Mr. Locke a Socinian? That he teaches doctrine inconsistent with " thegos- " pel of the GRACE of God," as delivered in its simplicity by the inspired apostles, I am deeply concerned at being obliged to think. But of his Socinianism the proof remains to be pro duced. — 'It may be deemed arrogant and presumptuous, to speak in these terms of a man so eminent as Locke. Put, admitting the claim made in his behalf to a high rank among men of genius and exalted powers, this does not obhge me even to approve all his philosophy ; and far less does it bind me to receive his theology. I cannot forget Him who said^ " I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because " thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and " hast revealed them unto babes : even so, Father, for so it " seemed good in thy sight." Mr. Yates next pays his tribute of respect, on account of their exemplary regard to the Scriptures, to Dr. Jebb, the Duke of Grafton, the Editors of the Improved Version of the New Testament, and Dr. John Taylor ; whom, for the present, I shall leave to the judgment of the reader ; — and then closes the chapter with a defence and eulogy of " the " honoured, injured name of Dr. Priestley." From the place in which this defence and eulogy are in troduced, it was naturally to be expected, that the sacredness 27 of the Doctor's regard to the volume of Divine truth should have been the principal topic of his panegyrist's praise, and his vindication from every charge of the contrary the chief object of his zealous defended ; — that he should have appear ed in Mr; Yates's ArnXoyia. as a decided asserter of its inspira tion, and of the decisiveness of its authority above all the " fallible dictates of human or angelic reason ;"— ^sitting at the feet of Jesus, with the humble docile spirit of a little child,— subjecting his understanding, without gainsaying, to the in struction of heaven, — acknowledging the scripture writers as " holy men of Godj who spake as they were moved by " the Holy Spirit," and as therefore, on every rational prin ciple, entitled to the entire 'deference of their readers. — But no. Nothing like this is af-all attempted. He is eulogized where I had neveir blamed him; defended where I had never attacked him ; and left exposed in the only point in which any fault had been found with him. Never surely was defence, in this respect, worse conducted, and never was eulogy more gratuitous and uncalled for. Dr. Priestley was amiable in his character, gentle in his manners, cheerful, kind, and instructive in his conversation. I have not denied him any of these excellences. Neither have I questioned the eminence and versatility of his talents, the extent and variety of his acquirements, the " wonderful activity and energy of his. " mind, his open frankness and simplicity in the expression of "his thoughts," nor the unwearied perseverance of his investi gations! I hdve neither " depreciated his attainments," nor " ridiculed his talents," nor " vilified his moi'als." — According to Mr. Yates, however, I have " treated him throughout my " volume with marked disrespect, and in one passage aniraad- " verted on him « in the severest terms offeprehensionJ " (P. 22.) The Itahcs contain my own phrase. It belonged to Mr. 28 Yates to show that such terms of reprehension were un deserved and misapplied, in the particular case in which I conceived they would have been justified. That the reader may judge of this for himself, I have only to refer him to the passages in my discourses alluded to by Mr. Yates. When he has read the extracts from Dr. Priestley, which are there adduced, he will, I apprehend, see sufficient reason to agree with me in thinking, as I still do, that the writer of them would have been more consistent, had he avowed himself a Deist; and that, so far as respects the authority of revelation (the only authority by which the points in question can be decided), " there is nothing to bind his conscience, nothing " to convince his judgment ; and that, having no common " ground on which it is at all possible to determine the " controversy, we must consequently, and of necessity, have « done with him." — Mr. Yates, in a quotation which he in troduces from Dr. Parr, grants it to be right, that Dr. Priestley should be " confuted where he is mistaken ; ex- " posed where he is superficial ; repressed where he is dog- " matical ; and rebuked where he is censorious." Have I, in any thing that I have said, exceeded this licence? I am con scious to myself that I have " set down naught in malice/' and, in matters of such infinite importance, I do not wish " in " aught tO' extenuate." If Mr. Yates reckons those of Dr. Priestley's views which I have endeavoured to- expose, amongst the " trivial errors of sentiment or expression which may be " selected from his hundred publications," and " in petulant " attacks upon which they who have not sufficient vigour of " intellect to comprehend what is truly important in his " doctrines exhaust their strength," I have only to say, that in my opinion he estimates them, I had almost said infinitely, too lightly. I am bold enough to think — (most frankly and 29 strongly admitting the Doctor's vast superiority in talents, and in variety and extent of attainments,) yet — I am bold enough to think, that on such points, even "a chatteringjay" (to use Mr. Yates's polite comparison) is a sufficient match for this " bird " of Jove," with all the terrors of his beak, and talons, and forked thunderbolt : — or, to change the allusion, — that against this Goliath of the Socinian host,- the sling and the stone, seconded by Him who was David's help, are weapons of suf ficient power, even although " the staff" of his spear be like " a weaver's beam ,•" — and although too, as on the present occasion, " one bearing a shield goes before him." CHAPTER IIL As I have no wish to lengthen out this Reply, either by enlarging on ground on which my adversary and myself are agreed, or by seizing, with hypercritical captiousness, on every minute point of difference, and every thing that is not ex pressed in the ipsissima verba which I might myself have chosen, I shall make no remarks on the general principles laid down in Mr. Yates's third chapter, " on the proper " method of ascertaining the sense of Scripture."— So far as relates to the simple statement of principles and rules, his observations on the three points treated of in the chapter — " the correctness of the Greek text ; the mode of translating it " into English; and the mode of interpreting that transla- " tion;" — are such as cannot be found fault with, but ought to be impressed on the minds of all especially who are desi rous of discharging their duty with fidelity as interpreters of 30 the word of God to others- To the entire contents of the chapter, however, I cannot give my unqualified approbation. In the course of it Mr. Yates bestows a well-merited tribute of applause on Professor Griesbach, and his edition of the Greek New Testament. Every scholar, although he may not adopt all the results of this eminent critic's learned and laborious researches, wiU yet most heartily unite in grateful commen dation ; as well as in the compliment paid by Mr. Yates, in a previous chapter, to the Duke of Grafton, for his exemplary munificence, in defraying the expenses necessary to render the labours of the critic accessible to the religious public. — The correctness of the general principles of that particular classi fication of manuscripts which Griesbach has employed as the ground-work of all his critical emendations of the received Text, has, indeed, lately been called into question, by a com petitor of no contemptible name in similar researches; * and so far as I am able to judge, not without grounds that are more than plausible. Dr. Laurence illustrates the difference between Griesbach's principle of classification and his own, by an appli cation of both to the disputed text in 1 Tim. iii. 16.; where his own produces a conclusion precisely the reverse of that which had been yielded by Griesbach's. It were the height of unpar donable presumption in me to intrude into a field of discus* sion, in which men so eminent in Biblical learning differ in their decisions, and which I have neither ability nor opportu nity to explore. It is not in the least degree necessary to ray argument, that the aluthority of Griesbach should be shaken. Without expressing any conviction that he was right in the conclusion to which he had come vrith regard to the principal » Dr. Richard Laurence, in » Tract entitled " Remarks on the Systematical •' Classification of Manuscripts adopted by Griesbach in his Edition of the Greek « Testament" 31 disputed texts on the subject of our Lord's Divinity, I former ly proceeded on the supposition of his being so ; for the sake of showing that these texts were not at all indispensable to the solid foundation of the orthodox faith. I wish still to occupy the same ground. Before proceeding, however, to notice Mr. Yates's strictures both on my spirit and accuracy respect ing these texts, I must beg the reader's particular attention, to the effect produced on the mind of Griesbach himself, by those alterations which he felt himself constrained in consciehce to adopt, by those canons of criticism, accordirlg to which his inquiries were directed, and his . decisions formed. Consider ing the deservedly high bpinion which Mr. Yates expresses of the judgment and candour df this eminent critic, the fol lowing most explicit and solemn declaration will surely be weighed by him with becoming seriousness. " Interim lini " tamen dogmati, eique palmario, doctrinae scilicet de vera " Jesu Christi divinitate, nonnihil a me detractum esse videri " posset nonnuUis qui non solum locum ilium celebratissimum •' 1 Joh. V. 7. e textu ejectum, verum etiam lectionem vulga- " rem loci 1 Tim. iii. 16. (ut et Act. xx. 28.) dubitationi sub- " jectam et lectorum arbitrio permissam, invenient. Quare, " ut iniquas suspiciones omnes, quantum in me est, amoliar, " et hominibus malevolis calumniandi ansam praeripiam, pri- " mum publice profteor atqice Deum testor, -neutiquam me de " veritate istius dogmatis dubitare. Atque sunt profecto tarn " multa et luculenta argtimenta et scripturce loca, quibus vera dei- " tas Christi vindicatur, ut ego quidem iritielligere vix possem, " quomodo, concessa scripturae sacrse divina auctoritate, et ad- " missis justis interpretandi regulis, dogma hoc in dubium a " quoquam vocari possit."* " Meantime it may appear to some " persons that I have not a little impaired the evidence of, one * Quoted in Laurence's Remarks on Griesbach's Systematical Classification of Manuscripts, pages S, 4. 32 " doctrine, and one too of prime excellence, the doctrine I mean " of the proper divinity of .Tesus Christ, when they find notonly " the celebrated passage, 1 John v. 7. thrown out of the text, " but also the received reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. (as well as of " Acts XX. 28.) brought into doubt, and left to the judg- " ment of the reader. Wherefore, that, as far as possible, " I may remove all unfair surmises, and deprive ill-dispos- " ed men of every handle for calumny, I first of all pub- " licly declare, and take God to witness, that I entertain " no doubt whatever respecting the truth of that doctrine. " And indeed the arguments and passages of Scripture by " which the proper deity of Christ is established, are so nu- " merous and so clear, that I am truly at a loss to conceive, " how any person, granting the Divine Authority of the Holy " Scriptures, and adopting just rules of intei:pretation, can " call this doctrine into question." Such, then, was the value at which these reductions of evi dence were appreciated in the mind of this critic himself, who was not indeed, by any means, the first to question the ge nuineness of the passages referred to in the above quotation, but to whose authority in setting them aside so much defer ence has been paid by the literary world in general, and espe cially, as might have been expected, by those of the Unitarian school. I feel highly gratified, in having it thus in my power to confirm the ground on which I proceeded in all my former reasonings, by a declaration from such a quarter, so full, so solemn, and so decided. In speaking of the perpetual appeal of Unitarians to the authority of Griesbach^ by which ignorant readers might naturally be led to conceive that Griesbach's New Testa-. ment was something entirely different from the one they were accustomed to use, I particularly stated, with a view to prevent any such mistaken conception, that there were 33 ©nly three texts relative to the great question of our blessed Lord's divinity which Griesbach had set aside ; viz. 1 John v. 7. as an interpolation, and 1 Tim. iii. 16. and Acts xx. 28. as erroneous readings; and that, as I had declined insisting on these texts, to show that I did not consider my cause as at all requiring their aid, there was not one of all the passages which I had adduced that was " in the slightest degree touched " by this high and vaunted authority." Mr. Yates objects both to the spirit and the accuracy of this passage. — In the previous part of the sentence, I had admitted the text of Griesbach to be " on all hands acknowledged the " most perfect." But the acknowledgment, says my opponent, is accompanied " with an angry sneer, which shows that he ill " endures to see the implicit deference paid to the decisions of " Griesbach by competent judges of all parties, and will never " forgive him, for having, in obstinate conformity to his stu- " pid rules, thrown down three main pillars of the Trinitarian " system." — While I am perfectly confident, that no candid reader of my work will discover in it any such anxious concern about these disputed passages, any such deadly resentment at finding my judgment compelled to relinquish them (which, in truth, I am far from being ready, with regard to all of them at least, to do) as will justify the sarcastic severity of this re mark ; — I must, at the same time, assure Mr. Yates, that he is entirely mistaken as to the object of what he is pleased to term my " angry sneer." I am not going to assert the perfect purity of the feeling which dictated the expression under censure. But, instead of bdng directed towards Griesbach, the imme diate objects of it were Mr. Yates himself and his brethren ; and it diiefly consisted, I honestly confess, oi indignant dis dain of that provoking, yet pitiful disingenuousness, which is forever, in the ears of the uninformed, vaunting of theautho- 34 rity of Griesbach; making its incessant appeal, in terms of un qualified generality, and in tones of triumphant confidence, to the text of Griesbach,— the text of Griesbach ;— as if no one could reasonably pretend to know any thing of apostolic doctrine, unless he were familiar with Griesbach ; — as if the whole texture of the New Testament, warp and woof, had, on this subject at least, been thoroughly changed by him ;— as if " Scripture and Scripture's laws lay hid in night," till " God " said. Let Griesbach be, and all was light."— Nothing can be more ridiculous than this — Griesbach himself being judge:— for they who, with irksome repetition, appeal to his authori ty, are perfectly aware of the fact, as above stated, that only three, of aU the texts in the New Testament usually quoted in support of the proper divinity of Christ, " are at all touched " by this high and vaunted authority;" and that of these three there is only one which he appears to have felt entire confidence in setting aside. But no — says Mr. Yates — this is not true. Besides censur ing the spirit of my " angry sneer," he " has some fault to find " with my accuracy." There is another text, which I have se veral times quoted, in different branches of my argument, which is touched by the authority of the eminent critic in question. I frankly admit the inadvertency. I had indeed overlooked the emendation of the passage in question; and cheerfully submit to such measure of censure as the reader may think due for this sin of omission. — But let us examine a little the pas sage itself. It is Rev. i. 8. " I am Alpha and Omega, the be- " ginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which " was, and which is to come, the Almighty." — " But," says Mr. Yates, " the verse, as corrected by Griesbach, reads thus: "lam Alpha and Omega, saith ^Ae Lord God, who is, and who " was, and who is to come, the Almighty." « The emendation," 35 he adds, " is ofconsiderable importance, because it determines " completely the reference of the passage to God, and not to " Jesus Christ." (Pages 31. 32.) On this statement let the reader observe — 1st, In one of the instances in which it is quoted in my Discourses, I have re marked respecting it — " Although I am folly satisfied that " these are the words of Jesus Christ, yet, if any shall insist " that they are spoken by the Father, the argument, it may " be observed, will not, by the admission of this, be at all " weakened. For, since the refusal to acknowledge them as " the words of Christ proceeds upon the principle that the " titles assumed in them belong exclusively to the only true " God, this gives the greater conclusiveness to other passages, " in which it is beyond a doubt that Christ does appropriate " some of these titles to himself. In the 17th and 1 8th verses " of the same chapter, he is introduced as saying to the be- " loved disciple : ' Fear not : I am the first and the last, and " the living one ; and I was dead ; and behold I am alive for "evermore; and have the keys of hell and of death.' And at " the 13th verse of the 22d chapter: 'I am Alpha and Omega, •' the beginning and the end, the first and thela^t.' " (Discour ses, p. 90.) — ^dly. If from other passages, and from the tenor of Scripture in general, it be satisfactorily proved that Jesus Christ is truly Jehovah Elohim, the Lord God, and if the con nexion in which the words iui'question stand, and the manner of the writer in other parts of the same book, naturally lead us to apply them to him, Mr. Yates speaks with an excess of confidence, when he affirms that Griesbach's emeiidation " de- " termines completely the reference of the passage to God, and " not to Jesus Christ." — " The evidence that this verse is " spoken by our Lord appears to us so strong, that, believing " as we do that Christ is the Lord God, Jehovah Elohim, 36 " the single circumstance that this is a singular instance in " the New Testament of calling hun by the double appellation, « while the simple appellations of which it is composed, are re. " peatedly given him, is not a sufficient reason for our aban- " doning this opinion ; and, retaining it, it follows of course, " that the Griesbachian reading greatly strengthens the argu- " ment from this passage for the Divinity of Christ." * — But 'idly, It will not, I presume, be denied by any Greek scholar, that the words under consideration, as amended by Griesbafch, are, without the slightest degree of perversion or overstretch ing, susceptible of another rendering besides the one given by Mr. Yates. Atyu icugios, is the most common phrase in the Sep- tuagint for, " saith the Lord." Taking it so in its present oc currence, the meaning of the verse will be: " I am Alpha and " Omega, saith the Lord, the God who is, and who was, and " who is to come (that is, the eternal, self-existent God), the Al- " mighty." f Another instance of inaccuracy is, my having said, that to no one of the three passages before alluded to had I referred in proof of the doctrine which it had been my object to estabhsh; whereas the fact is, that I had quoted 1 Tim. iii. 16. " God was manifested in the flesh," amongst my speci mens of the " current language of the New Testament," and that I twice use the phrase incidentally, once with inverted commas, and once without them. That in two instances I should have used this expression incidentally, not in the way of proof (for one of the instances is in the Discdurse on Atone ment), but simply as a convenient phrase, suited to express * Strictures on Mr. Yates's Vindication of Unitarianism, &c. by John Brown, Minister of the Associate Congregation, Biggar. f Eyai ufti 10 A xa; To il, Xsys/ xv^tos, i ©eo; h »», »«< i m, xai S S(X<>/tSMSi » *«»• 3T my idea, will not, I apprehend, appear to the reader a very astonishing circumstance. And as to the quotation of the text among the specimens of the current language of the New Testament, the fact, to be sure, is as stated, and it is very simply accounted for. In Note C. at the end of my Disco urses^ the following statement is made: " When this discourse was " delivered, 1 Tim. iii. 16. was introduced in this place, and " the following remarks made upon it ;" — then, having given the remarks — " I was induced to omit this passage in the " printed discourse, not by a decided conviction that these " remarks were destitute of force; — but because I was desi- " rous of having it to say, that I had built no part of my ar- " gument on any passage which eminent critics had pro- " nounced of doubtful authority." When this text, with the discussion of it, was left out of the discourse where it had been formally introduced, it ought at the same time to have befen expunged from the list of passages adduced as proving the current language of the New Testament, in a former discourse. This, in the progress of the volume through the press, was, by an unlucky oversight, omitted. This omission is " the " head and front of my offending;"— and I am concerned that the printing of the second edition had proceeded too far be fore it was perceived, to admit of the erazure in it. There are cases, in which we find it impossible to avoid understanding language according to the known sentiments and practice of those by whom it is used. A rule of inter pretation, consequently, may in itseff be quite unexception able, and may yet be expressed in terms so general and un- quaUfied (perhaps unavoidably so), as to be capable of the most licentious latitude of application. Thus, among the directions laid down by Mr. Yates to be followed in fixing the true sense of a passage of Scripture, who can deny that -•38 " in numberless instances the loords of Scripture are to be under- " stood fguratively ?" — and consequently, that "where we " meet -with a passage which, f literally explained, would be a " manifest violation of common sense, or directly contradict what " is asserted in other parts of the Bible, we must conclude that " the words are not to be taken in their primary acceptation." — But there is a wide difference between approving the rule, and approving the Unitarian application of it. Who, that knows any thing of the latter, can fail to be jealous of the phrases '¦^ fgurcUive language" and " common sense" when used by a Unitarian ? Every one that is at all acquainted with this controversy must be well aware, what a Unitarian has in mind, when he speaks of " violations of common sense." And as to ^^fgurative language," it is one of the chief of those " besoms of destruction" with which they vainly attempt to " sweep away" the foundations of our hope. They resolve mto fgure the most important dictates of the sacred volume: and with all their boasted attachment to " common sens^' theo logy, they impute figures to the sacred writers, which, inspira tion out of the question, no man possessing common sense would ever have used. The rule, therefore, is, in itself, one of essential utility; but the Unitarian application of it to prac tice, is licentious and mischievous in the extreme. " The " law is good, if a man use it lawfully." I am precluded the use of points of admiration; but the in telligent reader, I should fancy, will be disposed to supply a triad of them, when he finds Mr. Yates censuring Trinita rians for their non-adherence to those " severe and unaccortt- modating rules" of interpretation which he has laid down. This from a Unitarian! Mr. Yates must excuse me; but I real ly could not read the charge without a smile. The unaccom modating severity of himself and his brethren, in their adher- 39 ence to the legitimate rules of criticism and interpretation, forcibly reminds me of a saying of Dr. Samuel Johnson, to some person who was contending for a degree of latitudina- rianism in ecclesiastical polity, to which he was an avowed enemy — " Sir, you are a bigot to laxness." But what is the particular deviation from adherence to rule vvith which Trinitarians are charged? — " Instead of having " recourse to these severe and unaccommodating rules," says Mr. Yates, " it is very common with Trinitarians to adopt, " without further inquiry, any explanations which excite their " feelings, and please their fancy." The accusation is suffi ciently severe ; and I am myself specially included in the in dictment. " To this convenient and captivating, but licen- " tious and unprincipled, method of interpretation, Mr. Ward- " law has in many instances given the sanction of his example, " not considering, that the meaning which appears to him " grand, and interesting, and even obvious, may thus strike " his mind only because it falls in with his preconceived opi- " nions." (Page 35.) If the reader will do me the favour to look again (if he has looked before) into my second Discourse, from page 47 to page 58, he will find a specimen of that sort of interpretation which Mr. Yates here so heavily censures. Others possibly he may recollect. When he has looked at the passage referred to, I must leave it to himself to judge between us, whether I have there made my appeal to the fancy, and not to the understanding ; — whether my inferences are those of a person, who is " seeking for something to rouse " the feelings, and amuse the imagination, in proportion as " it offends the judgment." I cannot concede this point. My own heart, I trust, as well as the hearts of multitudes besides, has derived any spiritual warmth which it possesses (would that it possessed more !) from the blessed word of God; and not 40 the word of God a factitious fire from the false fervour of a previously heated spirit. The hearts of the inspired penmen, kindled from the altar of Jehovah, dictated "thoughts that " breathe," in " words that burn ;" and are we to feel all fearful and apprehensive, lest we catch the flame, which the communication of these was intended — if any thing was intend ed by it at all — to excite in our bosoms ? Mr. Yates will not deny, that if " the meaning which appears to me grand and " interesting, and even obvious, may so strike my mind, on- " ly because it falls in with my preconceived opinions," it is possible, that his own preconceived opinions may oc casion his being unawed by the grandeur, insensible to the interest, and blind to the obviousness, of that meaning. And, fully satisfied as I am, that the meanings which Mr. Yates and his friends are so anxious to explode, are the source of the purest, the happiest, the most elevated, and the most practical feelings of the renewed soul, even of all those feelings which are peculiarly Christian, I cannot but pity those, who immerse these passages of the Divine word in the freezing mixture of a cold and heartless philosophy, or who play upon them the ether of a refined and spurious criticism, till they have cooled them down to the very zero of infidelity. CHAPTER IV. Mr. Yates's Chapter on Mysteries appears to me a very mysterious chapter : I mean, it is something difficult to he accounted for, that he should have written it. In the first place, it contains a good deal of matter that is equally irrelevant and common -place: — 2<%, It is full of the confounding of 41 things that differ, and of consequent sophistical reasonings : and| lastly, it annuls itself, by containing admissions of all that we want. I shall endeavour to make good each of these positions. 1st. The chapter contains a good deal of matter that is equally irrelevant and common-place. I refer here particularly to all that part of the chapter, in which Mr. ^Yates " explains the use of the term (mystery) in " the New Testament :" of the whole of which it may well be said, " Who knoweth not such things as these?" The word " Mystery," says Mr. Yates, is " there employed " in a sense widely different from those given to it by mo- " dem Trinitarians." P. 47. Such language is apt to produce a very false impression on the reader's mind — as if modern Trinitarians, aware that the peculiar acceptation of the term mystery, in the New Testament, was unfavourable to their sys tem, had been disposed to set it aside, and to affix to it, as thert used, a more convenient sense. But this is not true. There is no dispute about the ordinary sense of the word fiuertigiov, in the New Testament. The discussion of this point has not the slightest connexion with ;the argument; and, although I am far from saying that it has been introduced with that view, yet the only end it can answer, is, to dazzle and mislead the ignorant, by a useless show of learning. The thoughtless and unwary reader is led to conclude, that Mr. Yates's op ponent has intentionally kept out of view the New Testament meaning of Mystery; — that this meaning must surely be the only right one in a Scripture controversy ; — and, consequently, that according.to this meaning only, is it proper or incumbent to be lieve in mysteries. But this is entirely an illusion. There is no debate about the propriety, or the duty, of believing " things " that were for a time unknown, but are now revealed." The 42 question is about the belief of mysteries, in the ordinary sense of the term. It is in this sense that the word is used, when Unitarians object to the articles of Trinitarian faith, on the ground of their mysteriousness. The controversy is not about names, but about things. Let the sense of mystery in the New Testament writings be what it may, will the particular use of the term there at all prove, that there actually is nothing in any of the doctrines revealed that is mysterious in the common ac ceptation of it ? Is not the simple matter of inquiry, whe ther we are called to believe mysteries in this sense of the word, — that is, to believe things that are '^'^ difficult to be under stood, or incomprehensible ?" If this be the simple state of the question, why perplex the minds of our readers, by a parade of common-place learning about uses of terms that are ex traneous to the controversy ? — If I were to be told, that by something which I had said, Mr. Yates had been greatly of fended, — I should be apt to understand the word offended in its common acceptation, as meaning that my opponent was greatly displeased. Suppose, then, that, instead of humbly considering whether there existed any just ground for his displeasure, I should entertain my informer with a critical dis quisition on the meaning of the terms offence and offend, in the New Testament, and insist iipon it that Mr. Yates was not,' and could not be, offended, unless he had been stumbled, and made to sin; mighty I not justly be told, « This is drivelling : « you know well enough that this is not the sense in which the « word was used by me." I call by the same name all disserta tions about terms, when we already know well enough their understood and estabhshed meaning on the subject under dis cussion. The meaning of terms cannot alter the nature of things. It would be inconsistent with the spirit of these observa- 5 43 tions, to enter into any examination of what Mr. Yates has written on the New Testament use of the word mystery. I shall therefore dismiss this part of the chapter under review with one remark. " The mysteries of the Christian religion," he says, " are the secrets which were unknown to mankind until Jesus " Christ came to reveal or discover them. But, being reveal- " ed, they are found to be plain and consistent truths, and " contain nothing which is either diffi,adt to be understood, or " apparently absurd." (P. 47.) How will this be made to comport vrith the declaration of the inspired apostle Peter, respecting the writings of his fellow-apostle Paul, and the o- ther Scriptures ? — " Even asour beloved brother Paul also, ac cording to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you : As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things ; in which * are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.", f 2dly. This chapter is full of the confounding of things which differ, and of consequent sophistical reasonings. " We believe in revelation," says Mr. Yates, (P. 39.) " be- " cause the evidences which show it to be from God, far out- " weigh the objections which may be brought to evince its " earthly origin. But supposing its doctrines to be irration- " al, this single circumstance would annul the whole body of " evidence in its favour, and prove that it is not revelation." The truth of this, as a hypothetical proposition, (which the ex-^ pression " supposing its doctrines to be irrational" implies it * Rather, perhaps, •' among which :" h sis is the received reading, and the reading preferred by Griesbach, although als is marked by him in the margin with a strong note of probability. If the received reading be retained, eis cannot agree with imtniMis, but with nuTut ; in which case, it seems more natural to render It, among. t 2 Pet. iii. IS, 16. 44 to be), I am not disposed to question. The inquiry, however, immediately suggests itself. How are the doctrines bf any pre tended revelation to be proved irrational ? It is very mani fest, that the reason of any individual man can never be as sumed as the standard of reason for mankind in general, and still less of reason in the abstract. — " The term mystery hath " a relative sense, and implies a respect to that person's un- " derstanding to whom a thing is mysterious. It will appear « from hence, that a doctrine is so far to any man mysterious, " as he cannot, or does not, comprehend it. And if a mys- " terious doctrine be therefore false, these consequences will " follow : — That the knowledge of the most ignorant person " is the standard of truth ; — that there can be no real dif* " ference in men's inteUectual attainments ; — and no real pro- " gress made in knowledge. For if every mysterious doctrine " be fdse, and if every doctrine not comprehended by the " most ignorant person be to him mysterious ; then every such " doctrine is false. It follows, that all truth is by him com- " prehended, i. e. that his understanding is the measure of " truth ; that no one man can be really more knowing 1;han " another; and no man really more knowing at one time than " another. — So fruitful is one absurdity of many more." * That, then, may be pronounced irrational by a Socinian, which may not appear so to a Trinitarian : who, in this case, is to de cide? Could we ourselves construct a brain that should con centrate all the individual rationahties of the species, we might then possess an oracular standard of the reason of mankind. Yet, even if we had within the reach of our appeal this extract ed essence of all human minds, there might still be articles of 'The Mysteries of the Christian Religion credible-a Sermon preached before ttie Umversity of Oxford, at St. Mary's, on Sunday, October 2Ist. 1722. By John Conybeare, M. A. &c. 45 &ith abooe its reach, although not contrary to its dictates : and, as an intellect so vast, would, we may presume, be proportion ally humble, it would not reject the claims of a professed re velation from God, because in some points it might find its comprehension baffled. " Accordingly," Mr. Yates adds, " those authors who have " stated the evidence of the Christian faith have, in general, " laid it down as an axiom, that even miracles cannot estab- " lish a doctrine which is in itself absurd, which is contrary " to known facts, to the fundamental articles of natural re- " ligion, or to other doctrines of the same pretended revela- " tion." — An axiom is a self-evident proposition, requiring no proof, but perceived intuitively to be true. An axiom, the proposition now stated must be acknowledged to be. But it is in every respect a merely hypothetical axiom. First of all, it assumes our having previously ascertained and defined, what is " in itself absurd," what are " known facts," what are the " fundamental articles of natural religion," and what are " the other doctrines of the same pretended revelation.'' But more than this — It supposes a case which can never possibly be realized — I mean the case of real miracles (that is, " works " such as no man can do, except God be with him,") of such mi racles being wrought in confirmation of a doctrine of the de scription specified. But if there be any thing whatever of which^we are warranted to affirm, that it is " in itself absurd," it seems to me to be this. I would rather state it as an axiom, that, supposing the reality of tlte,. miracles clearly ascertained, the doctrine attested by them must be, true. Miracles are the seal of Heaven appended to the statements which they ac company : — they are " God bearing witness-" and He can bear witness to nothing but truth. If, therefore, on the other hand, falsehood, absurdity, and contradiction, were made out 46 to be the qualities of any doctrine — to say that " miracles " themselves would not prove it," is only to introduce the use less supposition of a greater falsehood, absurdity, and contra diction, than itself; a supposition, of which all right notions of the moral character of God. forbid the admission for a moment. The proper inference is, that miracles cannot he wrought in its support; and that any which have been pre tended to be wrought, have not been real, but only apparent. So that, if we are convinced that the Scriptures are a Divine revelation, — fully ascertained to be such by clear, and indis- , putable miraculous evidence, — even the above-supposed in tellectual representative of our species, and standard of its ra tionality, would certainly pronounce it unreasonable not to bow, with imphcit assent, to its plain and infallible decisions; inasmuch as nothing which such a revelation contains can be contrary to reason in general, although it may be expected that some things in it should be beyond the range of compre hension embraced by the reason of men. «' Let it be remembered, then," says Mr. Yates, (the " then'* refers to my assent to the important proposition which he is so anxious that his readers should keep in mind) — " Let it be " remembered, then, that even the clearest declarations of " the Scriptures would not authorize us to believe in mysteries, " if mysteries be propositions which directly contradict first " principles, known facts, or indisputable truths." (P. 40.) Let this be remembered, by all means. Let it be recorded as an axiom. If mysteries be such propositions — they should not be believed. This is tolerably clear. " It needs no seer to " tell us that, Horatio ;" — that we should not believe what is contrary to known facts and indisputable truths — ^i. e. that we should not beheve known falsehoods : — No, not even " if" they were asserted in the Scriptures themselves. This is ano- 47 ther notable " if" It is perfectly true, however, that z/'this " if" were not a mere if, but a matter of fact, instead of the Scriptures warranting the reception of such mysteries, such mysteries would warrant the rejection of the Scriptures. But *' let it be remembered" that we know of no person who un derstands the word mystery in this sense, — and that we do not believe the Bible to contain any mysteries of this sort. " But besides being applied to doctrines which are under- '.' stood and seen to be absurd, the term mystery is also used, " to denote those which cannot be understood, and Which, " therefore, without the testimony of revelation, cannot pos- " sibly be proved to be either false or reasonable. In this " sense the word appears to be employed by Mr. Wardlaw. " He defines a mystery to be " something that is either diffi- " cidt to be imderstood, or entirely incomprehensible. I pro- " pose the following definition, as more exact, and also bet- " ter accommodated to the general tenor of Mr. Wardlaw's " reasoning and langijiage: A mystery is a proposition, to the «' terms (f which no distinct ideas are annexed." (P. 41.) That those doctrines which are denominated mysteries by Trinitarians " are understood and seen to be absurd" by U- nitarians, we know : — but who they are who apply the word mysteries to doctrines which are " understood and seen to be " absurd" by, themselves, we do woiknow. In the ear of a Uni tarian a mystery and an absurdity may sound as synonimous. Most readers, however, will be able to discern a difference between them. I should have been much obliged to Mr. Yates for his kind intention to make my definition and my reasoning more con sistent with each other, and, by improving the former, to give greater force and conclusiveness to the latter : — but " timeo Danaos." — I felt it difficult at first to understand, what my 48 opponent could intend by his proposed .alteration of the de finition. It seems to transfer the mystery from the subject of the proposition, to the terms of it ; — and yet it depends on a very simple circumstance, whether his definition be not, after all, the very same with mine. The circumstance is, whether by " the terms" of the mysterious proposition, he means the terms taken abstractly, or the terms as applied to the par ticular subject of the proposition. If the latter be his mean ing, his definition and mine are perfectly the same- For it is all one whether you say the mystery is in the subject of the proposition, or in the terms considered with reference to that subject. — From the illustrations which Mr. Yates presents of his meaning, it should seem that when he speaks of " affix- " ing no distinct ideas to the terms of the proposition" he means the terms taken abstractly. " A man," says he, " may an- " nounce to me something in an unknown tongue ; and, being " assured of his general veracity, I may believe that he " speaks the truth, and give my assent. Or a person may " enunciate a proposition having a relation to the doctrine " of porisms, the philosophy of Kant, or some other sub- " ject foreign to my studies; and knowing him to be well in- " formed on the subject, I may be convinced that his asser- " tion is true, without connecting any ideas with the terms « employed.'-' And again : « I may affirm, for example, in " the hearing of a man ignorant of mathematics, that the " ellipse is one of the conic sections. To these words he " annexes no distinct conceptions. The proposition is to him " a mystery." — But the cases are not parallel. In the pro position " God is one and three," — what is announced is nei ther in an unknown tongue, nor are the terms themselves at all unintelligible, or even obscure. The mystery is, beyond ques tion, in the si^ect; or, which is the same thing, it is in the 49 terms, as applied to the subject. — In a word, if Mr. Yates means that the mystery lies in the terms themselves of the pro position, he means what is evidently not true ; — if he means, that the mystery lies in the terms, as applied to the particular subject, he makes a distinction without a difference ; for this is perfectly the saine with its lying irithe subject itself. What is it which prevents our affixing distinct ideas to the terrhs of the proposition, biit the mysterious nature of its subject ? Under the present particular, I must offer a few remarks on Mr. Yates's three observations relative to mysterious pro positions. " In the first place," he observes, " it appears scarcely " possible, that a blind assent to an unintelligible proposition " can be of any use in the regulation of the conduct, the " amendment of the heart, or the alleviation of distress." Does Mr. Yates mean by this to affirm, that we can derive no profit, and no comfort or satisfaction, froin the assurance that any thing is, unless we can distinctly comprehend hem it is ? Unless he means this, he means nothing to the purpose : and if he does mean this, he means what is, in innumerable instances, obviously false. I have no distinct conception of the nature or the principle of gravitation: — yet the doctrine of gravitation is a very usefol, and a very comfortable doctriiie. The doctrine of the omnipresence of God involves in it dif- ficuhies which I am unable to explain : — but am I to banish the sacred and salutary awe, and to renounce the peace, and confidence, and joy, which the faith of his omnipresence is fitted to inspire, because I cannot clearly comprehend hafw it is that the infinite Being is present, in the full possession and exercise of all his infinite attributes, in every part of space, in every successive moment of time ? Referring to my observations " on the unavoidable difficulty 50 " of conceiving the manner of the Divine existence," Mr. Yates says, that " whatever force is attributed to them, it must be « allowed, that there is great force in the following remarks " of one of the best Divines whose works enrich the English " Hbrary. ' If,' observes Dr. James Foster, ' you say that " you cannot account for the manner of God's creating the " world, or for the manner in which he exists every where, " of the general resurrection, and the like, I answer. It is " NO part of YOUR RELIGION TO ACCOUNT FOR IT. WhEEE " THE MYSTERY BEGINS, RELIGION ENDS. MysterieS yield " neither pleasure nor profit,' " &c. Here we have a celebrated, and, amongst Unitarian^, a favourite maxim, blazoned in all the emphasis of capitals: — and when this capital maxim is taken by itself, it wears, no doubt, a very forbidding aspect towards every thing mysteri ous in religion. It seems to affirm, without qualification, that religion and mystery are incompatible. But taken in its connexion, and with Dr. Foster's own explanations, I am so far from being dissatisfied with it, that I am perfectly ready to adopt it, as a just expression of my own sentiments. " If " you cannot account," says the Doctor, " for the manner of " God's creating the world, or for the manner in which he ex- " ists every where, of the general resurrection, and the like, 1 " answer. It is no part of your religion to account for it." Perfectly right. But is it no part of the man's religion to believe the facts, that God created the world, that he exists every where, and that there is to be a general resurrection, — aUthou^ of creation out of nothing, of irifinite presence, and of the identity of the resurrection body, his ideas may be extreme ly indistinct, and perplexed with many difficulties ? Wliere is it, in this case, that " mystery begins ?" It is at the mode or manner of the facts. But this is precisely what is not re- 5 51 sealed. To say, therefore, that " where mystery begins, reli- " gion ends," is neither more nor less than to say that " where " what is not revealed begins, religion ends:" — a maxim, certainly, which no Trinitarian will feel any disposition to con trovert. " We have no great objection," says Mr. Brown, " to " apply the quotation to the Trinity, which Mr. Yates intro- *' duces with so absurdly exaggerated praise on its author, " Dr. Foster. ' If you say, that you cannot account for the " manner of the existence of the one Divinity in Trinity, I an- " swer, it is no part of your religion to account for it. Where " mystery (i. e. unrevealed mystery) begins, (which is equi- " valent to, where revelation ends) religion ends.' " * " Mysteries," adds Dr. Foster, as quoted by Mr. Yates, " yield neither pleasure not profit. For as with respect to " the works of nature, all our pleasure arises from the percep- " tion of beauty^ harmony, and usefulness; and however " we may imagine innumerable secret beauties, which we " have not discovered, yet, till they are known, they afford " no real satisfaction, nor can we reap any advantage from " them ; 'tis just the same with respect to mysteries in re- " ligion ; we can neither be delighted nor profited by them, " because we do not understand them. The utmost that can " be said is, that we are confounded and puzzled. And is " there any pleasure in that, or any advantage merely in be- " ing in the dark, and having no ideas?" Here there seems to be strange confusion. To take again Dr. Foster^s own cases : — Can we derive neither delight nor profit from the belief of God's having created the world, from the belief of the Divine omnipresence, or froih the belief of the general resurrection, without being able to comprehend * Strictures, &c. page 24. 52 the manner of these things ? If these are matters m which the fact is believed, while the manner of it is not comprehend ed, are they not " mysteries in religion" in the very same sense, although not, perhaps, to the same degree, in which the doctrine of the Trinity is a " mystery in religion ?"— with respect to which, the case is perfectly alike, t\^efact be ing declared, while the manner of it remains an undiscovered and incomprehensible secret. In neither case does the plea sure or profit arise from " being in the dark, and having no " ideas," but from that which we know, and of which we have ideas ; — that is, from the fact, which is revealed, not from the manner of it, which is not revealed. Mr. Yates's second general observation is — " that, if an " incomprehensible proposition be inculcated in Scripture as " an article of implicit faith, it must be delivered in the very " terms of the proposition." Ah ! here I seem to perceive something like a reason for my antagonist's desire to substitute a new definition of mystery, and to transfer the incomprehensibility from the subject of the proposition to its terms. If the terms themselves are unintel ligible, Mr. Yates is clearly right ; for in that case it would be impossible for us to substitute other terms, with any degree of certain assurance that we were enunciating the same doc trine. The man who knows not at all the meaning of j;he words Ellipse, Conic, and Sections, would in vajn attempt to convey, in other terms than those in which it has been an nounced to himself, the proposition that « An Ellipse is one of the Conic Sections .-"—he must satisfy himself with repeating the ipsissima verba. But in application to our subject of controversy, the obser vation seems to me unworthy of my opponent's good sense.— The terms themselves here are not unintelligible. And al- 53 though " reasoning" may be " out of the question," with any view to explain the manner of the existence of a Trinity in unity, reasoning (I mean " reasoning from the Scriptures") may be far from being out of the question, in proof of the revealed facts, that God is one, and yet that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, Re specting the manner in which Deity is at once One and Three, there is no proposition whatever presented to us in the Bible, to be the object of our faith ; — no proposition, — nothing which we are called to believe, with regard to that in which the mys tery properly lies. — ^But this leads me to Mr. Yates's third observation, which is expressed in the form bf a question : — " We may ask respecting propositions, " to the terms of which we annex no distinct conceptions, is it " proper to give to such propositions the name of Revelatimi?" I really expected Mr. Yates would have shown himself above having recourse to this trite and puerile objection. There never was a more complete . instance of playing with words. — How often must we be obliged to repeat, that all that we affirm to be revealed is the fact; and that the fact alone is, therefore, the object of our faith: — that the plain answer to the question, so often put to us. How can a thing be reveal ed, and y.et mysterious ? — ^is, " the truth of the proposition is " revealed ; the manner how 'tis true, is not revealed." * — " We think it evident," says Mr. Yates, " that subjects which " we cannot understand or comprehend, to us are not reveal- " ed." But are there no subjects (for the mystery after all, it seems, lies in the subject) — are there no subjects which we do not comprehend as to their manner or modus, while yet they are perfectly well known to us as facts ? Mr. Yates is a believer, I " Cooybeare's Sermon on Mysteries, formerly quoted. 54 presume, in the existence of substance, — in the reality of animal life, — in the law of gravitation, — in the connexion of body and, mind. But can Mr. Yates inform us what substance is, — what the principle of animal life is, — what the nature of the power of gravity is, — or how body and mind are united ? — It is affirmed by Mr. Yates (p. 45.), " Mr. Wardlaw in- " timates (page 20.) that if we make it a rule to understand " the terms of a proposition before believing it, we must a- " bandon some of the fundamental truths even of natural " religion." And from this alleged sentiment of mine the most fearful results are conjured up to the apprehensions of the pious mind : — the whole fabric of religion totters ; its very foundations are in danger of giving way ; and a basis is laid for a system of universal scepticism. To lay these unreal phantoms, and calm the perturbed spirits of the reader, it may be enough to notice, that / have said no such thing as that which is here imputed to me. My words are : " If the " mysterious nature of the doctrine in question be a sufficient " reason for its rejection, then may this reason be, with safety, " generalized, and reduced to a principle of universal applica- " tion. The principle will be : every thing that is mysterious " and incomprehensible ought to be disbelieved. Supposing, " then, for a moment, the correctness of this principle, let us " see what will become of some of the fundamental truths of " natural religion." — Such is the passage which Mr. Yates translates into — " if we make it a rule to understand the term " of a proposition before believing it, we must abandon some " of the fundamental truths even of natural religion." — But what is in reality said ? — that if we make it a rule, that before assenting to the truth of any proposition we must not merely understand the terms in which it is expressed, but comprehend clearly the nature of the thing itself which the proposition af- 55 firms, — the rule will more than bring into doubt some of the fundamental truths of natural religion. The instance which I have adduced in illustration, is that of the Divine omnipre sence; about which enough will come to be said in a future part of this work, — I now r6fer it to the reader, whether the sentiment thus expressed gave any just occasion for Mx. Yates's entering his " protest," in terms of severe and sweep ing censure, " against those desolating pleas for religious mys- ^^ tery, which tend to sap the foundation of all human know- " ledge, and to. introduce an irksome scepticism on every sub- "ject." (P. 45.) Nothing, indeed, can be more unfortunate than representing the sentiment in question as tending to scepticism. For it is the opposite sentiment that is the very principle and basis of scepticism — if it be proper to apply the term basis to a system of doubts. It is the sentiment that nothing is to be believed that we do not fully comprehend, — it is this sentiment that leads to the scepticism which Mr. Yates so feelingly deprecates. It is this that unsettles the mind, and throws it loose from all sure belief and stable principle. There are so many things the nature of which is beyond the apprehension of our limited faculties, — so few, indeed, a- bout which puzzling difficulties may not be started, that such a sentiment must necessarily leave us very little to believe. It is somewhat curious, that while Mr. Yates represents my views on the subject of mysjteries in religion, as calculated to ^'introduce an irksome scepticism on every subject," I happen to have mentioned, in the very context of the passage which he quotes, — or rather whidh he garbles and mistranslates, — their tendency to universal scepticism as one of the evils of the sentiments which I was opposing. " Incalculable mischief " has arisen from men's aspiring at knowledge beyond the '* reach of their own, or of any finite powers, and beyond 56 " the hmits of the Divine declarations. Yet the attempt to " comprehend the mode in which the Divine unity subsists in " three persons, is certainly not more foolish, than it is to re- " fuse credence to the fact, because it exceeds our compre- " hension. He who does so, on such a subject as this, must " either, as we have seen, be guilty of the most palpable and " glaring inconsistencies, or else the limits of his belief must be " narrow indeed. There is hardly a point, in fact, at which « a man of this description can consistently stop, short of uni- " versal scepticism." (Discourses, p. 24.) — The reader is left to judge, whether an humble readiness in the mind, to receive as true, on sufficient evidence, what yet it cannot compre hend, be a disposition Hkely to involve it in endless uiicer- tainty and hesitation ;— whether fa:ith is the dii^ct road to scepticism;— belief the high way to doubt.— I might safely, in deed leave the respective tendencies of the Unitarian and the orthodox system, in this particular, to the decision of fad. On which side is it that the greatest measure is to be found of a.free-thinking (I use the word in malam partem) and scep tical turn of mind ? Mr. Yates adopted his own definition of mystery in pre ference to mine, because it was "better accommodated to the "tenor of my reasonings."— ErrB.tnm— for tenor read subver. sion. So, I doubt not, Mr. Yates thought it. He has substitut ed his own definition for mine; and has made it mine, by inserting it in my argument where mine should have stood. He has « made his opponent say what he would have him say, " and then reasoned from his own misrepresentation," * doing what lay in his power to make me argue inconclusively, and to fasten on me sentiments widely different from those which ' Brown's Strictures, p. 23. 57 my language expresses. His malang me deny, without quali fication, the^propriety of " making it a rule to understand the •' terms of a proposition before believing it," arose from his having, " without leave asked or obtained," fathered his own definition upon me. For where is the proposition, of which I have denied the necessity of understanding the terms be fore believing it ? He has pointed out none; — and that for a very good reason, because there is none. There are propositions relative to the fact of the Trinity ; and the terms used in these, as declarative of the fact, are understood. Btit there is not (as I have already noticed) any proposition in the Scriptures, relative to that which we do not comprehend, namely, the MODE of the fact. There is nothing on this point which we are called to believe. There is no room, therefore, for the " rule" of " understanding the terms of a proposition •' before believing it;" — for there is no proposition to be be- lieved,-^no terms to be understood. Sdly. I might perhaps have spared the reader the trouble of going through the preceding reasonings, by placing my third observation ^r5^; — The chapter is futile and useless in the argument; because it admits all that I should reckon it necessary to plead for. Thus, (p. 45.) " I have already stated the fact, which it " would be the height of presumption to deny, that concern- " ing every class of beings there are truths, clear to superior " intelligences, though seen indistinctly, or not at all, by us." — If " concerning every class of beings," — most of all, surely, concerning the first and highest of beings. How will Mr. Yates prove, that the mode of the Divine existence may not be one of that description of truths to which he refers ? — that superior intelligences may have some clearer knowledge of it, — and that such knowledge we ourselves may attain, in the H 58 higher state of our future existence ? — that " what we know not nffw, we shall know hereafter?" — Perhaps, indeed, it may not be so; for the mode of the Divine subsistence may, for aught we can tell, be beyond the grasp of all finite intelligence: — but still it may be so; and this is enough — enough to silence the " presumption" that would refuse assent to an incomprehensi ble proposition (incomprehensible in its matter, not unintelligi' ble in its terms) on such a subject. Thus again : — " Notwithstanding, therefore, the apparent " force of these observations, I would still maintain an humble " conviction, that my understanding is weak and deceitful; " and hence I am prepared to admit the truth of any uninteh " ligible proposition, which is supported by the authority of " Scripture." (P. 44.) And again : — « On all these subjects " truths may be enunciated, so far as human language is ad- " apted to convey them, which to inferior minds will appear " difficult to be conceived, or entirely incomprehensible. Nor " thing, therefore, can be more unreasonable, than absolutely " to deny a proposition because we attach no distinct concep- " tions to the terms in which it is expressed." (P. 41.) Now, first of all here, what does Mr. Yates mean by as senting to the truth of an unintelligible proposition — i. e. of a proposition to the terms of which he affixes no conceptions, or no distinct conceptions ? — What is it, in this case, that he really believes? It is evidently nothing expressed in the pro position itself. There is a very material difference between believing that a particular proposition contains some truth or other, and believing the truth which the proposition contains. The former only is what a man believes, when a proposition is uttered to him in an unkncnm tongue; or, if he be entirely ignorant of mathematics, when he hears it said by a mathema tician, that " an ellipse is one of the conic serfzow."- Such 59 alone could be our belief with regard to the Trinity, if the terms in which the doctrine is expressed were unintelligible. — ^But " there is a vast difference between unintelligible and " incomprehensible. That is, strictly speaking, unintelligible, " concerning which we can frame no ideas ; and that only " irlcompriehensible concerning which our ideas are imperfect. " It is plain, therefore, that a doctrine may be intelligible, " and yet incomprehensible."* — Is Mr. Yates, then, prepared to give his assent to what is unintelligible, and determined to withhold it from what is incomprehensible? — to admit the truth of propositions whose terms he does not understand, and to deny the truth of propositions, which affirm a fact in terms perfectly clear and intelligible, and which only leave unexplained the manner of the fact ? — to yield his assent to what is not revealed at all (for that certainly is not at all re vealed, which is expressed in terms that cannot be under stood), and to refuse his assent to what is partially revealed, because it is not revealed more fully ; when, for aught we know, the reason of the hmitation may have been the impossibility of any thing further being so expressed as to bring it within the apprehension of the human faculties? I cannot suppose he will be so inconsistent. — To the inquiry. On what grounds our assent should be yielded to mysterious propositions? he answers, vrith great propriety — that " our belief must arise " solely from implicit reliance upon the authority which de- " dares them." I need not hesitate to say, that it is on this ground I am a beUever in the doctrine of the Trinity. I believe that in one sense Deity is One, and that in some other sense Deity is Three. I believe it simply on the authority of God, who declares it in his word; — and I durst not with- * Conybeare's Sermon. 60 hold my assent from the fact, that it is so, because he has not been pleased to tell me the mode of the fact, or how it is so. To the above quotations, the following may be added :— " A prophet who proves his Divine commission by miracles, " may announce a doctrine in terms, to which I annex no " distinct conceptions; yet I may believe that the prophet does, " that angels and superior spirits may, that I myself may, in a " more advanced stage of my existence ; in deference, there- "fore, to his Divine authority, I would yield my humble and " entire assent." (Pages 41, 42.) — Now the concessions made in these various extracts, of the propriety of believing even unintelligible propositions on the authority of the sacred re cords, being applicable, a fortiori, to partially revealed truths, appear to me to nullify the whole chapter about mysteries, converting it into a mere logomachy — a useless verbal dispute. PART II. DEFENCE OF THE REASONINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE TRINITY, AND OF THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, AGAINST THE ANIMAD- VERSIONS OF MR. YATES. CHAPTER. L I HAVE now done with preliminary topics: and if any of my readers shall think that on those of them which are of a personal nature I have detained him too long, I have only to assure him for his comfort, that I have left unsaid a good deal of what I once intended to say. I conceive it to be not merely natural and pardonable, but, on various and important grounds, obligatory on every man, and especial ly on every man who occupies a station of public useful ness, to vindicate himself from misrepresentations and as persions. But I trust I shall never be left to place myself and my cause on any thing like the same level in the scale of importance. Let what will of the mire of controversial dis paragement adhere to me, I shall consider myself richly recompensed, if I shall, in any measure, succeed in clearing the cause of God and truth. I have a slight objection to offer against the manner in which Mr. Yates announces the division of his subject, in the second and third parts of his work. In the former, he pro poses to state the opinions and arguments of Unitarians; and in the latter, to consider the objections by which I have en deavoured to invalidate them. I demur at this. 'I)rinita- 62 rians are not to be placed on the inferior ground of objectors; as if the opposite system were the generally received one, and theirs the exception. Their views are the views of nine ty-nine hundredths of what is called the Christian world. Their opponents are the dissenters from the prevaiUng faith. They tlierefore are the objectors; — they are the assailants. Trinitarians are entitled to consider themselves in full pos session of the field of Scripture, till this httle band of enemies shall succeed in dispossessing them. To some of my readers this may appear a circumstance of trivial moment. I have no wish to attach more importance to it than it deserves. But I must insist on the presumption being decidedly against so very small a minority of the professed believers and investi gators of the Bible; nor do I feel at all inclined to allow to those whom I consider as enemies of the truth of God, any higher ground than they are entitled to occupy. Although I have closed my remarks on preliminary to pics, I still find in my way a great deal of matter, that is en tirely irrelevant to the points immediately in dispute. Of Mr Yates's Second Part, the first chapter is entided — " The Evidence for the Unity of God from the Light of Na- " ture;" and the second — " The Evidences for the Unity of " God from the Testimony of the Scriptures." — These are very good. And as we are not less desirous than Mr. Yates to esta blish the doctrine of tlie Divine unity, we are obliged to hira for the concise and perspicuous view of the argument on this topic, especially in the former of these two chapters. — Of the provokingly disingenuous representation given by Mr. Yates, in a subsequent part of his volume, of my reasonings relative to the unity of God, I shall have occasion to speak afterwards. I pass over, in the mean time, the statements of Unitarian doctrine, and the reasonings used in support of them, contain- 63 ed in the remaining chapters of Part II. ; and proceed imme diately to Part III., in which Mr. Yates professes to state the views, and to answer the arguments, of Trinitarians. — How far he has done either, will by and by appear. When we consider the powerful propensity which man kind have always discovered, to intrude into what has been left secret, and to exercise their ingenuity in attempts to ex plain what is beyond the reach of their capacities, it will not surely appear wonderful, that different opinions should have been formed, and different theories, and principles of expli cation, adopted, on such a doctrine as that of the Trinity. These varieties have afforded a handle to its adversaries, of which they have shown, as might have been expected, abun dant readiness to take advantage. They are also, without doubt, fitted to stumble sincere and serious inquirers. Of such inquirers I request the particular attention to the re marks which follow. The varieties of opinion on this subject are reduced by Mr. Yates to three general heads. I have no particular objections to make to his classification. I have already, with sufficient distinctness, avowed myself to belong to the class which he places third in order, consisting of those who consider " the " subject as so completely removed beyond the view of the hu- " man understanding, that it is impossible for us to form up- " on it any clear or accurate conceptions." — I have made this avowal in the following, amongst other passages: — " Of the " precise import of the term personality, as applied to a dis- " tinction in the Divine essence, or of the peculiar nature " and mode of that distinction, I shall not presume to at- " tempt conveying to- your minds any clear conception. I " cannot impart to you what I do not possess myself: and, " convinced as I am that such conception cannot be attained 64 " by any, it had been well, I think, if such attempts at ex- " planation, by comparisons from nature and otherwise, had " never been made. They have afforded to the enemies of " the doctrine much unnecessary occasion for unhallowed bur- " lesque and blasphemy.— The Scriptures simply assure us " of the fact : of the mode of the fact they offer no explana- « tion. And where the Bible is silent, it becomes us to be " silent also ; for when, in such cases, we venture to speakj " we can only ' darken counsel by words without knowledge.' " The fact, and not the manner of it, being that which is " revealed, is the proper and only object of our faith. We " believe that it is so ; but how it is so, we are not ashamed " to say we do not presume even to conjecture." * Mr. Yates may call this " an elusive representation of the " doctrine," and hold me up to ridicule, as " striving to ren- " der the doctrine of the Trinity invulnerable by reducing it " to a shadow." I cannot help this. I have no desire to go farther, on this or any other subject, than my Bible carries me. Explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity is the inces sant demand of Unitarians; and an acknowledgment, fifty times repeated, that you do not pretend to explain, produces no abatement in the urgency of the demand. But the de mand is a most unreasonable one ; and every attempt to sa tisfy it is foolish. For my own part, I am perfectly resigned to be the object of Unitarian pity for my weakness, in humbly submitting to the limits of Divine instruction, in believing the fact, as testified in the Oracles of Truth, and leaving the mode of the fact amongst the " secret things that belong unto " the Lord," — concealed in that " light to which no man " can approach." I most readily admit (for how can it be otherwise ?) that on * Discourse I. page 11. 65 this and on all similar subjects, it is difficult to select, on every occasion, such terms as cannot be perverted, and made to as sume the appearance of inconsistency, by an acute and sub tle disputant. I am not, however, sensible that any thing in my volume is really at variance with the sentiments of the above extract. — When a man has once stated the sense in which he employs any particular term, he is certainly en titled to be understood accordingly, in his subsequent use of it on the same subject. In the preceding quotation from my first Discourse, it is explicitly declared, that when the terms person and personality are used, I would not be under stood as pretending to any precise and definite conception of the nature of that distinction in Deity which these terms import. W^as it, then, an unreasonable expectation, that my readers should carry this declaration along with them, through the remainder of my volume ; — that when the same terms are used again, they should be understood with the quali fication previously affixed to them ; — that when I speak of the persons in Deity as distinct, I should not be interpreted as pretending to comprehend clearly hem they are distinct ? A generous disputant would certainly have felt himself bound to proceed on this reasonable principle. Yet, because I have not been perpetually repeating my explanation, Mr, Yates* has thought fit to represent me as, " through more than the " latter half of my volume, treating the distinction of per- " sons in the Godhead as a clear and intelligible doctrine ;" and he strives, in this way, to set the latter half at va riance with the former. This attempt to convict me of inconsistency and contra diction, is connected with an endeavour to fix upon me the usual charge of tritheism. The former, indeed, is involved in the latter, and forms part of the disingenuous means by 66 which the charge is supported. It would have been very foolish in me, to expect to pass a Unitarian inquisition, without having this hackneyed hbel preferred against me. Let us see how Mr. Yates goes to work in finding ground for it. The first ground he finds, he makes for himself, by intro ducing a statement of the doctrine of the Trinity which is not mine. Finding it somewhat difficult, I presume, to attack me directly on the favourite charge of believing in three Gods; — disappointed at not being able to select any passage frony my Discourses sufficiently gross and revolting to the reader's mind; — he brings in a quotation from Dr. Sherlock, possessing this quality in a degree quite to his satisfaction,— a quotation containing a statement of the doctrine of the Tri nity, such as he perfectly well knows I never could adopt; — no, nor one in hundreds, I am bold to say, of the Trinitarian body: — and then he tries to make out that my sentiments are the same in substance, although different in expression. — I say, tries to make out. For what is his proof? — " Mr. Ward- " law," says he, " is no less explicit than Dr. Sherlock, in main- " taining that the three persons in the Godhead are distinct" The whole weight of evidence by which he seeks to identify me nvith Dr. Sherlock, consists in my having used the term per sons, and apphed to these persons the epithet distinct, to which he gives the emphasis of Italics. But was not Mr. Yates perfectly aware, that, in using these terms, I had explicitly disavowed all pretension to understanding the nature bf the distinction which is expressed by them?-^and that therefore I considered all attempts at explanation, and all such language as that of Dr. Sherlock, to be the height of presumption, ori ginating in self-sufficiency, and terminating in self-contradic tion ? I am explicit in maintaining the persons in Deity to be 67 distinct. And what then? Is there any inconsistency in using this epithet, to distinguish my views from Sabellianism, and yet meaning by the use of it no more, than that in the unity of the Godhead there is a distinction, which, while I believe it to exist, I cannot pretend to explain or to comprehend? ^ Remarks of a similar kind will apply to. my use of the term person. I have employed it in compliance with established usage, and because I do not know that another could be de vised more appropriate. But of its precise import, as appHed to a distinction in the Divine essence, I have professed my own incompetency, and my conviction of the incompetency of others, to form any clear conception. But Mr. Yates al leges, that the whole of the latter part of my volume is at variance with this profession. "In his Discourse," says he, " on the Divinity and Personality of the Holy Spirit, he gives " a most clear, ample, and correct account of the significa- *' tion of the terraperson. ' What,' says he, ' do we mean by *' a person? By a person we mean that v/hi(Ai possesses person- " al propertied, " &c. — Such, in truth, is the amount of the " clear, ample, and correct account" of the signification of the term^^sow; for as to the quotation afterwards introduced by me from Paley, the design of it is not at all to enumerate the particular properties, or kinds of properties, of which the pos session is essential to personality; but merely to confirm the position, that the only possible proof of personaUty, is the proof of the possession of personal properties: — ^which end it an swers, by showing, that in the department of natural religion, we do not, and cannot, prove the personality of Deity from any knowledge we possess of his essence, but solely from the indi cations abounding in the works of nature,' of certain properties possessed by their Author, from which his personality is ne cessarily inferred. — When, after defining aperson to be that 68 which possesses personal properties, I proceed to show that, in the Scriptures, properties confessedly of this nature are ascribed to the Holy Spirit, the inference certainly is intended to be, that the Holy Spirit, as possessing these properties, must be a person. But does this imply my understanding, or pretending to understand, hew the Holy Spirit subsists in personal distinc tion from the Father and the Son? — in what manner personal properties are possessed and exercised by each? — which is the same thing as, what the nature of the distinction is? — The question is. Are personal properties ascribed to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, in such a way as to in dicate a distinction in the unity of the Godhead? I have affirmed, and endeavoured to prove, that they are. But fur ther I have not presumed to go ; because the volume of Re velation goes no further, Mr. Yates, therefore, would have spared his laboured attempt, — an attempt which, I have no doubt, he himself thought peculiarly happy, — to set in pointed contrast the first and second parts of my volume, had he only done, what justice and generosity alike required of him; — had he taken along with him the qualifying explanation which I had given at the outset, and which I eertainly intended should accompany to the close my use of the terms distinct, subsisten ces, persons and personality, in their application to Deity. In the same connexion, in Mr. Yates's Reply, there occurs an instance of misrepresentation, which I hardly know whe ther to ascribe to carelessness or to design. After having en deavoured to fasten on me the view of Dr. Sheriock, as to the Holy Spirit being a distinct mind, or intelligent Being, he proceeds to say—" That he" (Mr. W.) " holds the same doc- « trine concerning the second person is equally manifest. He « assigns as a reason for not proving Jesus Christ to be a " person, that his personality, in the sense in which the term 69 " personality is applied to the Holy Spirit, was never disputed.* " When, therefore, he calls the second of the three distinct " subsistences a person, he means, that that subsistence is a " distinct mind, or intelligent being" (Pages 127, 128.) Now either Mr. Yates was nodding when he penned this, or he felt himself sadly pinched for proof, and calculated largely on the stupidity of his readers. The most effectual way to show this, will be to give at length the paragraph from which his garbled quotation is taken. " In the . more " direct discussion of this subject, I shall begin with the evi- " dence of personality. — To some of you this may, perhaps, " appear preposterous. But by the proof of personality, on " the present occasion, is meant, it should be observed, the " proof that the Holy Spirit is a person at all. On our for- " mer subject, there was no necessity for our leading a proof " of this nature; the personality of Jesus Christ, in this sense " of the term,f having never been disputed. The only ques- " tion on that subject was, not whether he was a person, but " whether he was a person in the Godhead. But in the argu- " ment now before us, the case is otherwise. The Holy Spi- " rit is not considered, at least in general, by the opponents " of his Divinity, as a creature, possessing distinct personal ex- " istence; but as a quahty, a power, an influence. In this case, " therefore, the proof of personality is an important and es- " sential step towards the proof of his Divinity. And, indeed, " in many instances, the evidence of the former will be found " to involve in it a proof of the latter." (Discourses, pages 280,281,) The meaning of this does not seem to be very obscure. The personality of Jesus Christ, apart from his Divinity, » The Italics are Mr. Yates's. f The words alluded to by Mr. Yates. 70 Unitarians never have questioned. He has never been con sidered, like the Holy Spirit, as a mere influence, or energy, or attribute. No proof of his personahty therefore, was necessary, prior to the demonstration of his Divinity.— When I say, that " by the proof of personality on the pre- *« sent occasion is meant the proof that the Holy Spirit is a " person at all ," and then subjoin, that the personahty of Je sus Christ in this sense of the term has never been disputed ; and add still further, that " the only question on that "subject (the personahty of Christ,) was, not whether -he " was a person, but whether he was a person in the God- " head ;" — if my meaning is not plain, I am at a loss to make it plainer. It obviously is, that the mere personality of Jesus Christ, the simple question whether he be aperson at all, apart altogether from the doctrine of his Divinity, has never been disputed ? — Well : and what does my interpreter make me say ? He first of all labours to show, that the term person ality, as applied by me to the Holy Spirit, means nothing less than his being one of three distinct, infinite, intelligent minds. And then, to show that I consider Jesus Christ, " the second of tlie three subsistences," in the same light, he represents me as saying, that his personality, in the sense in which the term personality is applied to the Holy Spirit, was NEVER DISPUTED." That is, wheu I speak of Unitarians as never having disputed the personality of Jesus Christ, Mr. Yates makes me say, that they never have disputed his per sonahty, as one of the three distinct subsistences in the Godr head ! — nay more ; that they never have disputed his being a person in the Godhead, even according to the explanation of Dr. Sherlock himself, as a distinct, infinite, intelligent Mind, or Being /—for this is the sense, in which, he affirms, the terraperson is apphed by me to the Holy Spirit—Such 71 is the "generalship" by which Mr. Yates endeavours to identify my sentiments with those of Dr. Sherlock. It may not be improper for me, once for all, to state in this place, a little more fully, what it is which the Scriptures require us to beheve respecting the doctrine of the Trinity. And I shall avail myself of the language of two other writers, who have expressed themselves with that modest discretion, which is so becoming in creatures on all such subjects ; but which is galhng to the adversaries of the doctrine, because- it does not furnish them with grounds sufficiently gross and palpable, to enable them to shock and horrify the minds of their readers, by burlesque, and ridicule, and bold unquahfied asseverations of the nonsense and absurdity of Trinita rianism : — " The word Trinity," says Dean Swift, " is indeed not " in Scripture ; but was a term of art, invented in the earlier " times, to express the doctrine by a single word, for the •' sake of brevity and convenience. The doctrine, then, as " delivered in Holy Scripture, though not exactly in the *' same words, is very short, and amounts only to this : — " that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each of •' them God, and yet there is but one God. For, as to " the word person, when we say there are three persons, " and as to those other explanations in the Athanasian Creed, " this day read to you, (whether composed by Athanasius " or not) they were taken up three hundred years after " Christ, to expound this doctrine ; and I will tell you on " what occasion — " &c. — *' God commands us to beheve there " is a union and there is a distinction : but what that union or " what that distinction is, all mankind are equally ignorant ; " and must continue so, at least till the day of judgment, with- *' out some new revelation. — Therefore I shall again repeat the 72 « doctrine of the Trinity, as it is positively affirmed in Scrip- " ture : — that God is there expressed in three different names, " as Father, as Son, and as Holy Ghost; that each of these is " God, and that there is but one God. But this union and dis- " tinction are a mystery utterly unknown to mankind. This " is enough for any good Christian to believe, on this great " article, without ever inquiring any farther. And this can " be contrary to no man's reason, although the knowledge "of it is hid from him." — " From what hath been said, " it is manifest that God did never command us to believe, *' nor his servants to preach, any doctrine which is contrary " to the reason he hath been pleased to endue us with ; but " for his own wise ends hath thought fit to conceal from us " the nature of the thing he commands, thereby to try our " faith and obedience, and increase our dependence on " him. It is highly probable, that if God should please '* to reveal unto us this great mystery of the Trinity, or some " other mysteries in our holy religion, we should not be able " to understand them, unless he should at the same time think " fit to bestow on us some new powers or faculties of the mind, " which we want at present, and which are reserved till the " resurrection to life eternal. For ' now,' as the Apostle says, " ' we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.' — " Reason itself is true and just ; but the reason of every par- " ticular man is weak and wavering, perpetually swayed or " turned by his interests, his passions, or his vices." *— " The doctrine of what is called the Trinity," says the late Rev. Mr. Venn, Rector of Clapham, " concisely stated, is " this : that although there is only one God, this God is " revealed to man as subsisting under three distinct names * Swift's Sermon on the Trinity ; Works, Vol. II. old edition. 73 " or persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who " are yet, in a sense to us mysterious and inscrutable, but '^ one God." — " It is true that, on this subject, some persons " may have spoken rashly and unwarrantably, in representing " the three persons to be so absolutely distinct, as to be, in all " respects, three different Beings," &c. — " The precise nature " of the distinction here implied is not described in Scripture, " nor perhaps is it conceivable by fallen man. It has, indeed, " been agreed to express this distinction by the term 'person :' " and this term is perhaps as eligible as any other, whilst it is^ " understood not to convey any real idea of the nature of this " distinction, but merely to affirm that it exists, and is not con- " fined to a distinction of mere titles or attributes." — " It may " be asked. What, then, do we in fact believe as to the Divine " nature ? I answer, we believe that one and the same God " is three, in a sense which we are able neither to express " nor comprehend." — " Such, indeed, is the obscurity in " which the Divine nature is necessarily involved, that it " matters little what terms are employed by us to describe it. " Change the terms j yet the obscurity remains. They " would either have no meaning affixed to them, or be " understood in precisely the same sense with those employ- " ed for the same purpose before. Had the very terras em- " ployed by us to express the doctrine of the Trinity " been employed in Scripture, the revelation of the doctrine " itself would not have been more distinct or intelligible. " Language could not have made that distinct, which we " have not the faculties to comprehend." — " You are re- " quired to believe, that these three terms, the Father, the " Son, and the Holy Spirit, are all applied in Scripture to "the one Supreme God; that all the actions, offices, attri- " butes, which are ascribed to any of these names, are plain- K 74 " ly attributed to, and do truly belong to one and the same « Divine nature ; that there are such frequent and evident " assertions in Scripture of the unity of God, and yet such " plain distinctions signified by the terms Father, Son, and " Holy Ghost, as imply both a perfect unity of nature, and yet « a distinction in the Godhead; and that this distinction, what- " ever it may be, is not the same with that which we conceive " between the attributes of God, nor a mere distinction of " name, office, or relation, but some other distinction, of " which we have but a confused conception, and which we " can express by no particular language. A more accurate " acquaintance with spiritual beings, and especially with the " nature of God, might develop the mysterious parts of " this doctrine. Till then, we profess our faith in them " only as mysteries." * I am not sensible that there is any thing in my volume in consistent with the modesty of such statements as these. If Mr. Yates chooses still to say, this is " rendering the doctrine " invulnerable by reducing it to a shadow," he is extremely welcome. If it be but a Scripture shadow, — " seen as in a " mirror, darkly" — it has all the substance which the Divine Author of the Bible has thought fit to give it, and therefore all that, in our present state, we dare wish it to have; No thing dehghts Unitarians more than when they prevail with Trinitarians to go beyond the limits of the Bible, and to try their wits in attempts to explain by fanciful comparisons, or to demonstrate by metaphysical argumentation, the doctrine of the Trinity, If Mr, Yates, then, will insist for explana tions of what I have admitted to be inexplicable, he may. I shall follow the advice of the king of Israel, " Answer him * Venn's Posthumous Sermons, VoL I. Sermon VI II. 3 75 " not;" at least till I have acquired, what it is jny prayer to be enabled to avoid, a little more of Unitarian presumption. In the passage before quoted from my first Discourse, I harve expressly condemned all such speculations, as worse than un profitable. The following sentences from a subsequent part of the same Discourse, are of a similar complexion : " Were we " to say, that the persons of the Godhead are one .and three " in the same sense, we should evidently affirm what is contrary " to reason; because such a proposition would involve in the " very terms of it an irreconcilable contradiction. But so long " as we do not pretend to know or to say, how they are one and " how they are three; to prove that we assert what is contrary to " reason, when we affirm that they are both, is, from the very " nature of the thing, impossible. For what is it which is to " be proved contrary to reason? Upon the supposition made, " we cannot tell: it is something which we do not know; of the " nature and circumstances of which we are left in total igno- " ranee. The truth is, we are lost, completely lost, whenever " we begin, in any view of it whatever, to think about the " Divine essence. We can form no more distinct conception " of a Being that never began to exist, or of a Being that is " every where present, and yet is wholly nowhere, than we " can of one essence, in which there are, and have been from " eternity, three distinct subsistences." * Mr. Yates, as a generous and manly disputant, ought, as I have already said, to have carried these quahfying explanations along with him, in interpreting the remainder of my Volume. Instead of this, he has introduced another writer; he has at tempted, T)y such perverse interpretations of my words as have been noticed, to make me chargeable with all the grossness and presumption of that writer ; whose modes of expression I am * Discourse I. p. 23. 76 so far from being disposed to adopt and to defend, that I consider them as in the highest degree indiscreet and un warrantable, as (in the phraseology of the law) " travelling " beyond the record:" — I should have said being wise above what is written, were it not that I should have appeared to fall into the common error, of quoting, as from the Bible, words which it does not contain. CHAPTER IL Having found such disingenuousness in the statement of our sentiments themselves, we need not be surprised, if we discover similar want of fairness in the comments on the evi dence by which they are supported. To these comments Mr. Yates proceeds in the beginning of the second chapter of his Second Part; and he commences them with the following most surprising sentence : — " I. In the first place, he" (Mr. Wardlaw) " objects to the " proof of the unity of God derived from the appearances of " the material creation.'' This is one of the many parts of Mr. Yates's work at which I felt the difficulty of repressing the risings of indignation. I could scarcely conceive it possible, that Mr. Yates seri ously behoved what he here affirms. — Did he really think, that, in my remarks on the part of the subject referred to, it was my object to invalidate the doctrine of the Divine Unity, for the sake of establishing that of the Trinity? If he did, then he musfalso have thought, that I, as well as himself, consider the two doctrines as inconsistent with each other, contrary to my own express and frequently repeated declaration;— for which courtesy let the reader determine the extent of my obligation. 77 But did not Mr. Yates know that one object of my first Dis course was to assert and prove the unity of God; although the general design of the«eriesof Discourses rendered it un necessary to enlarge on the argument in support of it? — I have said in the Discourse referred to: — " Whatever may be " the views we entertain as to the extent of natural evidence in " support of the unity of the Godhead, there can be no doubt " that this doctrine forms one of the first and fundamental " truths of Divine revelation. It is in many places of the in- " spired volume distinctly and plainly affirmed; and it appears " pervading the whole, as one of those great leading princi- " pies, to which it owes the peculiarity of its general complex- " ion, and to which all the subordinate parts of the system " bear a constant reference:" — " That the unity of God is a " leading doctrine of the Scriptures, and that this doctrine is " pointedly affirmed in the text, as an admonition to the Is- " raelites against the Polytheism of the surrounding nations, " I need not, I apprehend, take time to prove :" — " The unity " of the Godhead is proclaimed in the text in tierms fitted to " impress the vast importance of the doctrine on the minds of " the IsraeUtes," &c. Now, suppose I had " objected to the proof of the unity of " God derived from the appearances of the material creation," I have at least most decidedly declared my belief both of its reality and importance as an article of revelation. Does Mr. Yates, then, think his friend, his dear friend, capable of the abominable hypocrisy of endeavouring to strengthen the ar gument for the Trinity at the expense of the evidence for the Unity? and that too, at the very moment that he is affirming his belief of the latter as decidedly as his conviction of the former? — I am free to say, that if I saw the doctrine of the Tri nity to ha inconsistent with the Divine unity, I should feel 78 the necessity of renouncing the former for the security of the latter. But I fear I must, along with it, renounce those Scrip tures, in which I am satisfied it is so cleariy taught; and which are established to be a revelation from heaven by so " many " infallible proofs." With regard to the argument for the Divine unity drawn from the appearances of the material creation, my object, in the few cursory remarks allotted to it, was merely to show, in rather an incidental way, that it was not with out its difficulties; and especially, that, however conclu sive it might be as handled by philosophers, it was, on different accounts, more recondite, and remote from com- , mon apprehension, than the proof from nature of the ex istence and perfections of Deity. Mr. Yates^s illustration of the argument, however excellent, might yet be added to the extract I have given from Dr. Paley in my first Note (A.) in confirmation of the justice of this observation. — I stated amongst other things, in just hinting the difficul ties attending this argument, that harmony of design, even when fully estabhshed, does not necessarily and at once war rant the inference of only one designer ; because " unity of " counsel may subsist among a plurality of counsellors." — Of Dr. Paley, from whom this hmitation of the argument was taken, Mr. Yates says : " With respect to Dr. Paley, it " should be recollected, that he was (at least professedly) a " Trinitarian. His system of Christian faith would incline " him to consider uniformity of plan as proving only unity " of design maintained by three designers. He therefore " carries the argument no further than to the proof of unity « of counsel." (P. 134.)— Having adopted Dr. Paley's view of the argument, I of course feel myself involved in aU this. Let us see what its plain meaning is : — it means, 79 1. That we are secretly convinced in our own minds, that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot, after all, be maintained, in consistency with that of the Divine unity. — This is false. 2. That, being much more strongly attached to the former of these doctrines than to the latter, we feel no great scruple at surrendering, or purposely weakening, the evidence of the latter, for the sake of supporting the former. " He there tofore'' says Mr. Yates, "carries the argument no further " than to the proof of unity of counsel." — This is equally false. 3. That we profess to believe both the doctrine of the Unity, and the doctrine of the Trinity, to be express ar ticles of the Christian revelation; — and yet our system of Christian faith inchnes us to doubt and to deny the former, and to question, and limit, and invahdate, those proofs from nature by which it is confirmed. 4. Dr. Pal^ was a Trinitarian, " at least professedly" — It is here insinuated, that his profession of Trinitarian prin ciples was of at least doubtful sincerity. Be it so. It is very likely the suspicion is not entirely without foundation. Yet, one should think, it would require a person to be a very warm friend indeed to Trinitarian principles (on the supposition of their being at variance with the Divine unity) before he would, for the sake of them, intentionally intro duce confusion and dubiety into any of the arguments for the fundamental doctrine of the unity of God. 5. After all, Mr. Yates has said nothing to show the incorrectness of Dr. Paley's view of the argument. Is it not true, that unity of counsel may subsist amongst a plu rality of counsellors? Is it not, then, true also, that from the simple consideration of unity of design, it is impossible to infer, with conclusive certainty, the existence and ope ration of one designer ? Mr. Yates answers such questions, 80 by substituting an argument of a totally different description, namely " the competence of one omnipotent and infinite « Designer to produce every effect which is discernible « throughout the universe," connected with " the princi- " pie, that no more causes ought to be supposed than are " necessary to account for the effects." Now, supposing this ground of reasoning unobjectionable, still my remark would be well-founded, that it is recondite, and far from obvious and palpable to the great majority of mankind. But further ; though we may be able, from other considerations, to show the absurdity of supposing the existence of more than one infinite and almighty Being; I am not sure how far the inference is warrantable from this consideration alone, — viz. the sufficiency of one such Being to account for all discernible effects. The power of one man is sufficient to account for the existence of a watch. Yet we know we should be wide of the truth, were we to con clude that one such agent only was employed in the pro duction of it. And numberless, indeed, amongst mankind, are the instances of such harmony of design and of effect, while there is a plurality of designers and efficient agents. How, then, is the mind, and especially the untutored mind, that is a stranger to the reasonings of philosophy, to infer with certainty, the existence of only one Almighty Agent, merely from the circumstance of one only being necessary to account for existing effects ? The remarks under this last particular are introduced merely by the way. They belong to the doctrine of the Di vine unity ; with that of the Trinity they really have no connexion, Mr. Yates may aUege what he pleases about my system of Christian faith inclining me to consider uni formity of plan as proving only unity of design, maintained 81 " by three designers :" but 1 feel myself entitled to be behev- ed, both by Mr. Yates and by every other person, when I assure him, that when, in writing my observations on the proofs from natui'e of the unity of God, I introduced Dr. Paley's ^judification of the argument derived from harmony of design, I had no thought of the doctrine of the Trinity in my mind ; that the possibility never once entered my ima gination, of Mr, Yates, or any other reader, mistaking or per verting my remarks on this point, in the manner he has done ; that I am as firm a believer in the unity of God as Mr. Yates himself; that I hold, in connexion with this, the doctrine of a threefold distinction in the Divine essence, because the inspired records assure me of its existence,; that, while I cannot pretend to explain haw this distinction subsists, and how it is consistent with unity, I believe, on the authority which affirms both, that there is no contradiction between them, and reckon it quite enough, that, from the nature of the case, as one enthely beyond the comprehension of our minds, such contradiction can'never be proved. Mr. Yates next proceeds to the argument in support of a plurahty of persons in the Godhead, from the plural termina tion of Aleim, Adnim, and other Hebrew names for God. The force of this argument should be viewed as arising ra ther from the combined effect of the different considerations which I have so briefly touched upon. Mr. Yates takes them one by one, makes a distinct and formal argument for me out of each of them, discusses them in this insulated state, so as to prevent the reader from observing the support which they mutually afford to each other. Let us take his remarks, however, as they stand. He first of all thinks it necessary, formally to acquit me of any intention to burlesque the Scriptures, in giving as a 82 « translation" or " version" of my text, " Hear, O Israel, « Jehovah OUR Gods (Aleim) is one Jehovah,"— Now, surely Mr, Yates could hardly fail to be aware, that I never meant to propose this as a preferable translation or version . of this and similar passages; but used the term GoA in the plural, for no other purpose than, to show to the eye of the mere Enslish reader, that the Hebrew Aleim was iii that numljert I had originally written it, and perhaps it would have been better to have kept it so,—" Jehovah, our Aleim (Gods) i» " one Jehovah." Mr. Yates goes on to observe—^' 1. First, if the plural " termination of Aleim, &c, indicates plurality at all, it der " notes not only a plurahty of persons or subsistences, but a " plurahty ofGods; for on this supposition, Mr, Wardlaw's « translation is undoubtedly correct, ' Jehovah, our Gods' " But this, I presume, is more than even TrinitariMls will be « disposed to admit." (P. 135.) Yes, indeed. It is more, certainly, than even Trinitariaug^ with aU their voracious creduHty, are disposed to admit, My Very first remark on the text was in these words: " Unity ani " plurality are both here asserted ,• and the plurality is einpha- «' tically declared to be consistent with the unity" (P. 12.) The unity is not disputed. It is affirmed in the Scriptures:— it is pointedly asserted in the very text on which the observatjoji? are founded : — it is alike maintained by Trinitarians and Ujut*- rians. The only inference that can be drawn, if any is to be drawn at all, from the plural name for God, is, that this unity is a unity of such a nature as admits distinction; that God is one, but that, at the same time, there is a plurality in the Godhead. The text itself in which the Divine unity is so peremptorily affirmed, necessarily precludes all inference beyond this., 2, Mr. Yates next quotes a rule, as " resolving the whole S3 " mystery," from ** that useful book the Hebrew Gi-ammar,'' The rule quoted in this tone of sarcastic triumph is:— *« Words that express dominion, dignity, majesty, are cora- •« monly put in the plural.^' On this I observe, 1st. The rule, sappesingit to be one, is, beyond all doubt, stated in terms by far too generah If it were a rule of any thing like common application, one should exfiect to find it in aU the Hebrew Grammars. Nowj al* though I find it in Wilson, and in Robertson, I do not find it in Parkhurst, nor in Pike, nor in an anonymous grammar used by the teacher from whom I got the rudiments of the language. ' This appears somewhat straiige as to a common rule of syntax, 2dly. All the instances adduced of the application of this rule, in which the reference is to Jehovah, must be set aside as liot at all in point. It is from these that We derive our evi dence: and therefore, to bring forward these, as exemplifica- tibiB of a rule, which is alleged to subvert this evidence, is to beg the question in dispute. The rule,' if estabhshed, must be established from other casefe. — Now the particular words enumerated by Wilson are, Aleim, Gods, Adnim, Lords, BoLTiii, H'Usbands, Masters : — arid the exemplification of thfe rule which he adduces, is Isa. Hv. 5. " For thy Maker (Heb. " Makers) is thy Husbaiid (Heb. Husbands) Jehovah (God^ " of hosts is his name," &c. — one of the veiy passages on which We ground Our inference; and which, therefore, can never go to disprove that inference, until it has been otherwise shown, that the phraseology is cotaimon in Hebrew syntax, and that there is nothing at all peculiar in the case of its ap plication to Jehovah. The remark applies to all passages si milarly circumstanced. Sdly. If the rule were one of common application, we might 84 reasonably expect to find frequent instances of aU the words mentioned by Wilson occurring in the plural, with a singular application. Yet the only instances of Bol, when it sigftifies a husband, (and indeed of any of the different Hebrew words so translated in our common version,) occurring in the plural, are, so far as I have been able to discover, two in number,— viz. Isa. liv. 5. already quoted, and Jer. xxxi. 32.; in both of which, it is rather singular, the application happens to be to Jehovah,— As to the same word, when used to signify a masth- ov owner, the instances of its occurrence, when considered as exempli fications of dominion, dignity, and majesty, are somewhat cu rious. It is applied, Exod. xxi. 28. xxii. 11. to the "owner" of an ox, or an ass, or a sheep ; and in Isa. i, 3. to the "mas- "ter" of an ass: in which places it is in the plural number. 1 am not sure that the plural form of it occurs in this accepta tion any where else. There is a high degree, no doubt, of dominion, dignity, and jwo/ei/fj/, in being the proprietor of an ox, or an ass, or a sheep ; a degree eminently worthy of a de parture from the ordinary established principles of language to express it. I should think it, for my own part, more simple and reasonable to conclude, that since, throughout the context of the passages referred to, the word, when not in construction with the pronoun suffix, is in the singularnumber, and only as sumes an apparently ^J^M^a^ form, when in such construction, (a variation not readily accounted for on the principles oftherefe in question; the dominion of the master over his ox or his ass, and his dignity as its possessor, continuing the same) — either that BoLi is used as a singular form of the noun, when in these circmnstances of regimen *, or that owner in the singular, * Gousset, in his Commentarii Linguts Ebraicce (to which my attention has been directed since writing the above), in a long and ingenious defence of the argu ment for a plurality of persons in the Godhead from the plural form of Elohim, expresses, I observe, a similar opinicm : — " Nam ad id," says he, " allegantur die- §5 and owners in the plural, are used promiscuously, because an ox, or an ass, or a sheep, may be the property either of one owner, orof more than one. 4thly. With respect to die word Adnim, to which Mr. Yates confines his examples of the rule; — it is, first of all, to be noticed, that in no one of the instances which are adduced by hun, does it occur in its fuU plural form, Adnim. It is, in every one of them, in a state of regimen with some pronomi nal affix, and appears in the form Adni. I am not quite such a Tyro as to be ignorant that the mem of the plural ter mination is dxopt in such circumstances. But I find Adni Considered by some Hebrew grammarians as a form of this noun in the singular number. Thus, Parkhurst: " 9, « postfixed is- formative in some " nouns, both substantive, as -anN, (Adni) Lord, -is fruit; and " adjective," &c. Thus, too. Pike: " siik, jix, -iin, (Adni) a "Master, a Lord, a Sustainer." — AJlix, also, inhis"Judg- " ment of the Jewish Church against the Unitarians," (a scarce, and, in some respects, a valuable work) says : " This notion of <' plurality must have sunk deep into the minds of the Jews, " seeing they have constantly read the word Jehovah, which " is singular, with the vowels of the word Adonai, which is " plural, instead of Adoni, which is singular," (Page 132.) — See also, for the opinion of another learned Hebrean, j the preceding Note. tiones Boli, Adoru, constructss sic aut cufti a£5xis; sed dubitari potest annon sint vere singulares, quibus *, ex proprio quodam ingenio (ut prsepositforii bS( ''jK)accrescat: (quod etiam infra ita se habere ostendatur ; ) hicautem, nullum de nominis Aleim pluralitate dubium est" — Gussetii Comm. Ling. Ebr. p. 51. Amstel. 1702. — Wilson himself (p. 152 of his grammar) mentions the words 'for Father, Brother, and Father-in-law, as assuming lod before the affixes; -j-ax thi/ Father, i-riN his Brother, n-Dn her Father-in-law. May not Bol be another instance of the same kind?-'-In a note, too, page 264, he says — " lod is often added to prepositions and adverbs, ewphonits causa." May not this be the.casfe with other woids besides? 86 The only instance in which I find Adnim in its complete and decidedly plural form, and yet translated by the singular (with exception of those which relate to Jehovah), occurs in 1 Kings xxi. l7. " These have no master," (Heb. masters:) in which case, although the expression refers to the fall of Ahab; we yet should not feel as if the sense were very palpably vio lated, as to the state to which his fall reduced the people, al though the plural had been retained in the translation. 5thly. Had the riile in question been a common idiom of the language, we might very reasonably have expected to find it in application, in the case of such words as King, Prince, Ruler, and many others of a similar description, which con vey the ideas of dominion, dignity, arid majesty, surely much more impressively than the word used for the owner or mas ter of an ox or an ass. No such instances, however, are ad duced. 6thly. While the commonness of this rule or idiom is far froiii being established by the facts in the practice of the language', I almost wonder that it should not : — ^because it appears to me, that an idiom of this kind would find an origin so natural, in the very circumstance of the name of the One God in three persons having a plural form. In Him are concentrated all the ideas we can form, and infinitely more, of dominion, dignitj^, and majesty. And, in these circumstances, it might have been highly natural for the Hebrews, to give a plural terminatioft to other words in their, language, expressive of similar quali ties and attributes. 3. The last observation is apphcable, with particular force, to the case of false gods. It is surely not at all a surprising thing, that when the plural name has been apphed to the true God, it should be used also in apphcation to the idols of the heathen. There is nothing more wonderful in the name 87; being so used in the plural form, than in its being so used at all. The same principle which accounts for the name God being given to heathen Deities at all, will equally well account for its being given to them in the particular form in which it is ajiplied.to the true God.-^:-" We know that an idol is no- ^\ thing in the world,, and that there is no other Gpd but one." Yet the name of God is given to them in the Scriptures, in ac commodation to the false conceptions and customary phraseo logy of their deluded worshippers. We never think of infer- ririg that idols in general possiess divinity,, from thefr being called Gods; — and -ri.either do we infer, on the same princi ple, plurality in the particular idol, froni the plural name of the One God being . used in speaking of it — The circum stance of the plural name being applied to individual idols, does not, therefore, by any means " show the futilitif' of th^ reasoning against which Mr, Yates argues ; because, if the name was first given to the true God, and then transferred in its application to false Gods, the cause of its assuming the plural form in its primary application, may, after, all, have been what we allege, the threefold distinction in the Divine Unity. — Andj if these remarks be well founded, the reason which accounts for the use of the plural name of God, when a false Deity is spoken o^ will, pf course, account also for the occurrence, on such occasions, of any peculiarities of syn tactical phraseology which arise out of it. 4. Mr. Yates mentions, that many of the most learned Trinitarians have rejected the argument from the plural form of the name of God. — Who these wzawy are, I am not at pre sent very careful to inquire. The argument may be a tolerably sound one after all ;— reven although Calvin himself should have questioned it. " That celebrated man," says Mr. Yates, *' had too much learning, and too much sense, to build his 88 " system on such a sandy foundation." — The answer to this is So have we. We do not build our system on this founda tion. It is only one consideration amongst many, which mu tually derive and communicate strength to one another. E- ven if Mr. Yates should make out this to be sand, we have abundance of solid rock besides. — With respect to learning (that is, Hebrew learning — the only description of learning that has to do with the case) we have higher authorities on our side than Calvin. The following is the conclusion to which Gousset draws his argument, in the learned work before referred to: " Ex hi« " sequitur pluralem de Deo locutionem proprie ac in tota vi " sua sumendam, ut idiomatis Ebraicae linguae obtemperetuii; " ideoque fatendum esse illam pluralitatem in. Deo disertis- " sime et vahdissime asseri." Comm, Ling, Ebr. p. 52.— " From these considerations it follows, that the plural form " of speech concerning God, is to be taken strictly and in its " full force, if we would comply with the idiom of the Hebrew « tongue ; and that therefore it ought to be acknowledged, " that by this phraseology, plurality in Deity is most distinctly " and strongly affirmed." — In the same connexion he ex presses himself in these remarkable words : — " At inquis, plu- " ralitati isti obstat Dei natura. Ego, contra, qui scis ? plus " valet locutio Dei qui scit, quam ratiocinatio tua, qui nes- " cis. Regeris, sunt ahae causae pluralis locutionis. Ego re- " pono, propria et naturalis ejus causa est.rerum insignitarum " pluralitas : ex ea venire solet pluralis forma nominis, nee " efficaciori modo ilia, indicari potuisset quam locutione ista " et diserta et solenni. Omnis ergo humUis verbi Dei disci- « pulus, quid ille dicat, bona fide, excipere studens acquies* « cat." Ibid. p. 52. " But you wiU say. This plurality is « inconsistent with the nature of God. I ask, in return* 89 " How do you know that? The declaration of God, who " knows, is of more weight than your reasoning, who do not " know. There are other causes, you retort, of a plural form " of speech. I answer, its proper and natural cause is plu- " rahty in the things signified. It is from this that the plu- " ral form of a noun usually arises j nor could it have been in- " dicated in a manner more effectual than by this description of " phrase, at once elegant and consistent with use. Let every " humble learner, therefore, of the word of God, settle it in '' his mind, to receive, in sincerity and truth, whatever he * may dictate." Kennicott himself, that master in Hebrew literature, main tains the validity of our argument. In mentioning the facts respecting the construction of Aleim, when used as the name of the true God, I took for granted the correctness of the or dinary statement, that it is sometimes connected with plural verbs, as well as with plural adjectives and pronouns. In the following passage, Kennicott denies the accuracy of this state ment, and places the argument in a different and interesting hght: — " MarsUius Ficinus, qui etiam medio sec. 15. floruit, « in tractatu de Christiana rehgione, cap. 30. ait— se in dispu^ " tationibus adversus Judeeos trandatione LXX Interpretma, li- " benter uti,ut eos egregiis iUustrium Judceorum, armis convinceret. " Hujus viri annotatio, quam statim proferemus, respicif rem " consideratione dignissimam, quamvis cam ipse leviter attige- " rit. Est autem hsec-^wrigitw nomen Dei plurale verba plura- "liinReg. lib. 2. ' Qute est gens, ut pi^vlus Israel ; propter " quavi iviT Deus.' Veritas Heb. dicit iverunt Dii. Dicere de- " buisset, tria dari loca in quibus verbum imncplurale est, hcet " ibi nominativus Aleim de uno vero Deo certissime intelhgen- "dus sit. Tria loca sunt Gen. xx. 13.; xxxv. 7.; et 2 Sam. vii. '• 23. Notatu qpidem dignum est, banc differentiam fere semper M 90 " observari; scilicet, quando plurale hoc nomen Aleim de falsis " diis usurpatur, verbum ipsi annexum plurale est ; et quando " de Deo adhibetur, verbum est singulare. Argumentum vero " hac differentia nixum, ssepius adhibitum ad probandam plu^ " ralitatem, et tamen unitatem, in Numine Divino, non valet " concluse, nisi verba, in unum omnia, hoc modo annexa, sin- " gularia vel nunc sint, vel olim fuerint, Tum enimdenique, " quando probatum est, banc regulam scribendi, prorsus pecu- "liarem, ab omnibus Scriptoribus Divinis, et in singulis ex- " emplis observari — tum denique, inquam, argumentum inde " petes firmum, atque (uti videtur) minime refellendum, Mo- " menti igitur hand levis est, si notetur, tria verba, hujus regulae " exceptiones, pro certo esse corrupta : quum horum duo prlo- " ra ab omnibus, quotquot reperiri potuerunt, Pentateuchi Sa- " maritani exemplis corriguntur; tertiumque corrigitur a loco " parallelo in ipso textu Hebraico 1 Chron, xvii. 21." — "Marsi- " lius Ficinus, who also flourished in the middle of the 15th " century, in a treatise on the Christian religion, chap, 30th, " says — that in disputing against the Jews, he made liberal " use of the translation of the Seventy, that he might over- " come them with the excellent weapons of eminent country- " men of their own. The remark of this writer, which we are " about to notice, respects a matter highly worthy of con- " sideration, although he himself has touched it but lightly; " It is this — In the 2d Book of Kings" (in our Bibles the 2d Book of Samuel,) " the plural name of God is joined to a " plural verb — ' What nation is like the people Israel, for " which God went, &c,' — in the original Hebrew, GodS " WENT. — He ought to have said, that three passages are ad- " duced, in which the verb is now in the plural number, al- " though in all of them the nominative Aleim is, without " controversy, to be understood of the one true God. The 91 " three passages are. Gen. xx. 13,; xxxv. 7.; and 2 Sam. vu. 23. " It is well deserving of notice, that the following distinction " is almost invariably observed ; namely, when this plural name ** Aleim is used to signify false Gods, the verb connected with. " it is plural; but when it is a designation of God himself, " the verb is singular. But the argument which rests on this " distinction, frequently adduced to prove plurality and yet " unity in the Godhead, is not conclusively valid, unless all " the verbs, without exception, which ai'e so connected, '* either now are singular, or were. so originally. Then, how-. *' ever, when it has been shown, that this rule of writing, so " entirely pecuhar, is observed by aU the sacred penmen, •' and in every instance, — then, I say, you will obtain from " the circumstance an argument, well founded, and, as it " seems to me, incapable of refutation. It is, therefore, of no " small consequence to observe, that the three verbs, in the " cases of exception to this rule, are unquestionably corrupt " readings ; the two former being corrected by all the copies " which have yet been discovered of the Samaritan Penta- •' teuch ; and the third by the parallel passage, in the Hebrew " text itself, 1 ChroiLxvii, 21," (Dissert. Gener, p, 48, §. 100,) Mr. Yates, with a contemptuous appeal to "those who " have learned Hebrew,"' is pleased to school me for speak ing of the plural name for God, and of certain constructions connected with it, as anomalies, or irregularities. (Pages 136. 138,) — Does Mr. Yates, then, deny the existence of any principles of general grammar? If their existence is admitted, then pecuhar idioms, even although uniform in their use in the particular language where they occur, are, with refer ence to such principles, in strict propriety of speech, anoma lous or irregular. And it becomes a matter of curious and sometimes interesting speculation, to trace such idioms to 92 their req)ective origins. Even if Mr. Yates had made it out that the constructions in question were agreeable to a imi- form rule of Hebrew syntax, they would still be deviations from the principles of general grammar, and, in this view, anomalous. But we have seen that, so far from the rule which he quotes being uniform, he has not made it out to he even common : so that I am still warranted to say, that in Hebrew syntax itself the constrnetions in questfon are ano malies, or irregularities. — In the latter of the two instances, indeed, in which he finds fault with me for So calling them, he fully admits that they are, after all, what he had just before denied them to be : — " In the third place," says he, " Mr. Wardlaw argues "for a plurality of persons in the Godhead, from the '* construction of the Hebrew names for God with verbs, " sometimes in the lingular number, and sometimes in the " plural. This construction he calls an anomaly or irre- " gularityt But those who have learned Hebrew knbw, " that, when a plural noun is used to denote a Single ob- " ject (which is the case in various instances) the verb is "sometimes put in the plilral, out of regard merely to " the plural terminaticm of the noun." (P. 138,)— This is curious. He had before quotied with triumph the rule — " Nouns that es^ress dominion, dignity, majesty, are "common^ put in the plural." Now, we know that the occurrence, in the Hebrew Scriptures, of words expressive of such qualities, is very frequent :— yet here, in heu of his common rule, we have the reduced and quahfied phrase- ology, — « it is the case in various instances." And with respect to the construction of suCh nouns with verbs in the plural, he says— « the verb is sometimes put in the " plural, out of regard merely to the plural termmation of 93 " the noun."— Now surely • that which is done only in va rious instances, and sometimes, is admitted to be a deviation from the customary practice or established usages of the language ; — that is, to be an anomaly or irregularity. I now come to Mr. Yates's strictures on the passages in which Deity is i?epresented as speaking of himself in the plu ral number: — " Let us make man m our image, after our likeness" — " Let us go down, and there confound their lan guage:" — " Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" My first remark here is, that Calvin, that "celebrated man," had neither so much learning, nor so much sense as to reject the argument for the Trinity derived from these.—" Scio," says he, " multis rtasutis ludibrio esse, quod ex verbis Mosis *'personarumdistinctionemehcimus,ubi Deum sic loquentem *' indncit, Faciamus homvnem ad imagznem nostrum. Videiit ta- " men pu lectores quam fri^de et iriepte hoc velut colloquium *' induceret Moses, nisi subessent in uno Deo plures personas. " Jam quos alloquitur pater, certum est fuisse increatos: nihil " vero increatum excepto ipso Deo, et quidem uno, &c." * — «• I am aware that our inferring a distinction of persons from " the words of Moses, when he introduces God as saying, " 'Let us make man inour image,' has been matter of mock- " ery to many scoffers. The pious reader, however, will be «' sensible how tamely and inappropriately this would be in- " troduced by Moses in the form of conversation, unless there " subsisted a plurality of persons in the one God. Those " whom the Father now addresses were without doubt un- " created ; — but nothing is uncreated excepting God, and « God is one," &c. My next observation 'is, that when Mr. Yates represents * Institutes, B, L Ch. 13. Sect. 24. 94 us as setting these three texts in opposition to the " thou sands and tens of thousands" of passages which, by the use of singular pronouns, imply the unity of God, he forgets, or rather tries to make his reader forget, that we see no oppo sition between the thousands and the three ; — that we con sider the distinction implied in the three to be a distinction perfectly consistent with the unity implied in the thousands ; and that we are as decided friends to the latter as to the former. Mr. Yates says, in another part of his work, (p. 59.) — "When " God appears to Abraham, he thus speaks (Gen. xvii. 1, 2.) " ' / am the Almighty God ; walk before me and be thou per- " feet : and I will make my covenant between me and thee.' " To represent the address of more persons than one, the fol- " lowing language would have been employed ; We are the " Almighty God (or Almighty Gods) ; walk before us, and " be thou perfect ; and we will make our covenant between " us and thee." — But this supposed language is precisely pa rallel to the language under discussion. We say that such language in the three passages in question does imply plura lity of persons ; while at the same time, the unity of God be ing so decidedly a doctrine of the same Book, we conclude that this plurality must (although in a way inexplicable by us) be consistent with unity. But what does Mr, Yates? He states the language which would be used if a plurahty of per sons were intended ; and yet, when such language is used, he refoses to admit that it has any reference to plurality at all, and endeavours to explain it as the language of majesty. But alas ! if this same language of majesty be also the lan guage which would have been used, if three persons (by which Mr. Yates means three gods) had been intended ; what a cloud would in that case have been thrown over the evi dence for the fundamental article of the Divine unity, if the 95 language of majesty had been uniformly employed by the Great Supreme 1 In opposition to the Unitarian explanation of the three texts above quoted — I had alleged^ in the first place, that " it is not consistent with fact, that the Supreme Being is " ever represented in the Scriptures as using this particular " style ;" — that is, the plural number as the language of ma jesty — " By this assertion," says Mr. Yates, "he (Mr. W.) " only takes for granted the thing to be proved." (Page 141 ,) — If the three passages themselves be considered as included in the assertion, Mr. Yates is perfectly correct ; and I frankly admit the inadvertent inaccuracy of my expression. It is still true, however, that all the rest of the Bible is against the interpretation of these three passages as the language of ma jesty : for it is still true, that no other instances of this style of expression occur, and especially in those " most sublime and " solemn portions of Holy Writ, in which the Divine Majes- " ty of heaven and earth is introduced as speaking;" where, surely, if any where, we might have expected to find it. The arguments, therefore, on this paint, in a comparative view, stand thus: — We can bring forward a multitude of passages from other parts of Scripture, which agree in proving that the Son and the Holy Spirit are God as well as the Father ; that is, that there is in the Divine unity a distinction or plu rahty of persons: and we think it reasonable j to consider thef particular expressions in question as arising also from the ex istence of this distinction, and as corroborative proofs of its reahty. Our opponents, on the contrary, interpret these ex pressions as the language of majesty; but they can produce no other passages throughout the Scriptures, not even in those parts of them where it might most naturally be expected, in W; 96 hich the blessed God employs this style. Let the reader, then, determine between the two sides of the case, I had said, m the second place, that « this was nol^ in "point of fact, the style of the kings of the earth themselves " in the time of Moses; and that no instance of it could be " produced from the whole Bible." In opposition to the latter part of this assertion, Mr. Yates produces the examples of Rehoboam, of Artaxerxes, of Christ, and of Paul.— With regard to Paul, it is sufficient to observe, that when he uses the plural pronouns. We, us, our, in " expressing his own feehngs and condition," he may natural ly be supposed to include fellow labourers as participating in those feelings and in that condition; such fellow labourers as those whom he frequently associates with himself at the com mencement of his letters: — " Paul, and Sosthenes," 1, Cor. i, 1, : " Paul and Timothy," 2 Cor. i. 1. : — " Paul and Timo- theus," Phil, i, 1.:—" Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus," 1 Thess, i. 1, : 2 Thess. i. 1. &c. As to the instance adduced of Jesus Christ using the style in question, viz. John iii. Jl. " We speak that which we " know, and testify that which we have seen, and ye receive )|;ov rou ©sou, to the tribunal " of God," See Lex. on the word Aleim. — The same dubiety attaches to Exod. xxii. 8, 9; where the very same phraseology occurs, and where the Seventy render it in the same way. — Exod. xxii. 28, "Thou shalt hot revile the Gods, nor curse *' the ruler bf thy people." In introducing this as an instance of the inferior sense of the name Aleim, it is taken for grant ed, that " the nder of thy people^' is explanatory of " the gods." But we ask, with Parkhurst, " Why should not Aleim here " retain its usual meaning, and the text be understood as " nearly paraUel to that of Saint Peter, 1 Ep, ii. 17, " Fear " God, honour the king?" f—De\xt. x. 17. Psal, xcvii, 9, In these passages it is used of the idols, or false gods of the hea then — to aU of which the infinite superiority of Jehovah s emphaticaUy affirmed, — 1 Sam, ii, 25*. " If one man * sin against another, the judge (literaUy, the God) shall ' judge him," The comment of Parkhurst is : — " * If man ' sin against man, the Aleim' (i. e, Gofi) ' shall judge ' him : but if a man sin against Jehovah, who shaU in- ' treat for him ?' Is not this very good sense, and much 'to the purpose?" — Psal.'lxxxii. 1. "God standeth in the ' congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods/' ' The Aleim stand in the congregation of God, (i. e. in ' the assembly of Israel ; compare Nunib, xvi. 3 : xx. 4 : ' Josh. xxii. 16.) in the midst (of this congregation name- ' ly) the Aleim wiU judge, or judgeth.^ So Symmachus, ' 'O QiQi xunerri ev eu}/o8)» o " Aoyog,' /lira, rjjs rou ag^jou itgoed^'Kini, n ys sk xa/ raurov rjyiiTO, tov nta,- " Tigct iiiiai xai TOV v'lov, aurov re sivou tov Aoyov tov iiti iravriav &iov." &c. — that is, " The Evangehst has clearly shown what is the nature " of the Word, by subjoining ' And the Word was a God;' al- " though he might have said, ' And the Word was God,' with " the addition of the article, if he had thought that the Father " and the Son were one and the same, and that the Word is " God over all." Euseb. de Eccles. Theol. L. II. c. 17. " From the argument of the venerable Father in this passage, " it is plain that he perceived no violation of the rules of syn- " tax in the .additfon of the article; and upon a matter of .this " kind it is impossible that he .could be mistaken. The ob- " servations of Origen, in his commentary on John, are pre- " cisely to the same purpose. They are too long to quote; but " may be seen in De la Rue's edition. Vol. IV. pp. 50, 51." Taking for granted the correctness both of the quotation and the commentary, and without consulting the originals of Origen and Eusebius at all, I find enough in Mr. Yates to confute his own reference. — One should have expected, that, having brought forward these " most illustrious and learned " men" with all the pomp of courtly ceremony, pronouncing not merely my opinion, but even Dr. Middleton's, and, by consequence, that of all the scholars who agree with him, to " be in opposition to them, not worth a rush;" — he would hardly have felt quite at hberty to dissent from these high au- 156 thoritieshimseff, and to relinquish their decision for his own — Yet this, strange as it may seem, he has certainly done. In the quotation from Eusebius, as above transcribed from Mr, Yates's note, that writer says, that if the Evangelist had wished to express the sentiment which we aUeig^ he htis expressed, he would have said " 'o ©EOS 'HN *o AOros." This, is the phrase, which, according to Eusebius, would have expressed our sentiment "without ambiguity. Well: and does Mr. Yates acquiesce in his decision ? Quite the contrary. " The sentiment * the Word was a god,'" says he, " could " not be expressed in any other way than that employed hythi " Evangelist (Seos fiv o Aoyoj); whereas the sehtitnent ' the Word " was God,' might have been expressed without ambiguity hj " the introduction of the article, (thus, 6 Xoyos jiv o ^sos) ; and " this arrangement would have been indisputably correct and " grammatical." P. 177. — Eusebius' s unambiguous expressfon, then, for " the Word was God," is " 'O ©EOS HN'O AOroS;" but Mr. Yates's is precisely the reverse, «'0 Aoros HN 'O ©EOS;" Now both of these cannot be right. Yet, in quoting the autho rity of Eusebius, Mr. Yates affirms it was " impossible he couU " be mistaken';" and when he gives his ownvray ofit, he is equal ly confident, that it is " indisputably correct and grammaticcdr , — In the cause " Origen and Eusebius, versus MiddletOn and " Wardlaw," Judge Yates pronounces the foUowing verdict: " Mr. Wardlaw's assertions, and even Dr. Middleton's, are hot " worth a rush: — the mere names of Origin and Eus^^ius " wiUbe sufficient, in the ears of aU who have the shghtesttitic- " ture of theological learning, to drown at once the feeble dimi- " nutive accents of our worthy author." P. 176. What, then, are we to say, when the cause comes to be " Origen and Euse- c' bius, versu.«Mr. Yateshimself?" Must we pronounce the same verdict.? — The truth is, if any further evidence were wanting to 157 show that neither of the two former is free from ambiguity, we have it in the fact of Eusebius pronouncing the one to be so, and Mr. Yates the other. Both forms are convertible; and so is every form constructed on the same principle. The sense, in such cases, remains to be determined by the connexion. 4. As the clause stands in the original, it is not convertible, even on Mr. Yates's own admission, according to " the juSt "rules of criticism:" (See Obs. l.)^and, having now before us Mr, Yates's own example for the deadly sin of differing from Origen and Eusebius; we still maintain, that the Evangelist has expressed the' sentiment, " the Word was Goo'^'in true grammatical form — and, with regard to the question whether ©BOS is to be understood in \ts proper or in its inferior sense, it should be determined by these f^vo considerations;— ^7-s#,« that; even in its proper and highest sehse, it ought, in the circum stances of construction in which it here stands; to be i^ithout the ^r^^exwndy secondly, that it is used without the article, to signify the supreme God, four times within the first eighteen verses of this Very chapter. * 5. I shaU elose my remarks on this text with the judgment of a writer, whom Mr, Yates holds in high arid deserved re putation, Imeah GriEsbach, We haVe foi'merly seen, how ex plicit his testimony is in favour of flie Divinity of Christ being a plain and'incbntrovertible doctrine of the Biblte;— his language is hot less eiplicit on the partididar text nbw before us: It is introduced; indeed, as a specimen of the " loca muha et lu- " cnlenta" to which he refers:^-" In primis locus Ule Joh. i. " 1; 2, 3, tarn, perspicuus est, atque omnibus exceptionibus ma- "jor, ntneque interpretuni neque criticorumaudacibuseonafi- * An instance, in which God is the predicate of the proportion, and where the artitle is accordingly aj()imji«g, occurs in 1 Kings xviii. 24. in the LXX. which may illustrate the case lj,efore us: xai srrai 'O 0EOS,o5 «» I'raxamriii tt ao^i, OT'TOX ©EOX- " And the God that answereth by fire, he shall'be God." 158 " bns unquam everti atque veritatis defensoribus eripi possit." — « That passage in particular, John i, 1 — 3, is so clear, and " so much above all exception, that it never can be overthrown, « and wrested from the defenders of the truth, by the daring " attempts of either commentators or critics," Mr. Yates's comment on the address of Thomas to Christ, John XX. 28. is one of the most extraordinary in his volume, « Leaving every reader," says he, " at full liberty to judge for " himself — (a liberty jvhich we certainly wish every reader to use, and entertain no apprehension of the result) — " and retain- " ing the right of changing my opinion, if at any future time I " shall see fit" — (we hope that subsequent reflection may bring him nearer the truth) — " I only remark upon this passage, with- " out stating aU my reasons, that these words appear to me to " have been addressed by Thomas to Christ, and may be just- " ly considered, both as an exclamation, expressive of his won- " der and delight, and also as acow/essfowthat Jesus was his Lord " and his God," P. 188, 179, — This is candid; and the conces sion is one of considerable importance. For, if the words be addressed to Christ, and contain " a confession that Jesus was " his Lord and his God," there ought to be no difficulty or hesi tation in drawing the inference. But alas ! what wUl not at tachment to a system effect in warping the judgment? Mark the remainder of Mr. Yates's commentary: — " But it is need- " less to dispute, that, when Thomas addressed Jesus as his " Lord, or Master, and his God, he might mean only, that Je- " sus was his inspired instructor in matters of religion, Agree- " ably, therefore, to the principles which have been before stat- " ed, his words ought to be understood according to this sim- " pie and reasonable interpretation." — "It is needless to dispute' this. It is needless indeed. For the commentator who can be sa tisfied withit must himself be hardly susceptible of conviction; 159 and my readers, I hope, have more understanding and freedom from prejudice, than to be misled by it. According to this sim- " pie and reasonable interpretation," not only is that taken for granted which has never been proved, that " a god" was a usual synonyme for a prophet or inspired religious instructor; but the appellation given by Thomas to Christ is no higher than the disciples in general might have given to himself. He too was one " to whom the word of God came;" and so were the other apostles and prophets of the New Testament church: and if " my God" means no more than " my inspired religious in- " structor," they were all aUke entitled to the same appellation. Let parallel cases, then, be produced, of prophets and apos tles being thus addressed, and we will be satisfied. Every man must judge for himself of simplicity and reasonableness; but till this is done, I must be aUowed to consider it as the very opposite of both, as an unexampled and arbitrary departure from the estabhshed meaning of words, betraying a system lamentably pressed for support, — If any reader is prepared to admit, that when Thomas, addressing Jesus, said, "my Lord " AND MY God," he meant no more than " my Master and in- " spired instructor;" — there is not much at which he wiU need to stop: — he must be tolerably well initiated already in the through-going principles of Unitarianism, if he has come to consider this as a " simple and reasonable interpretation." Bom. ix. 5, " Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ " came; who is over all God blessed for ever." " If there were any evidence," says Mr. Yates, " that this " translation is correct, here would be a case in point: the " words of the apostie would present a clear and valid argu- « ment for the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ." P. 180. — AU that we have to do, then, with regard to this text, is to estabhsh the correctness of the translation. — Mr. Yates is 160 of opinion that " the utmost that can be said to vindicate " this rendering is, that it does not violate the rules of gram* « mar, or the idioms of the Greek language, and therefore may "possibly be the true translation:" — and the reasons which he assigns for preferring the translation of the latter words of the verse as a doxology, " God, who is over all, be blessed « for ever!" — " appear to him to have so much weight, that^ " if he were not checked by a regard to the opinion of those *' learned men, who have embraced different views, he would « consider the passage as scarcely even ambiguous," Here, then, we are entirely at issue: and, referring the reader to what I have before written in support of the established trans lation, I shall now offer a few brief strictures on those " rea- " sons," which Mr, Yates considers as so cogent. " 1 St. Because such ascriptions of praise are very frequent " in the Old and New Testaments, and in all Jewish composi- " tions." — :I do not recollect these " very frequent'' instances of such abrupt ascriptions of praise at the close of sentences as are supposed in the Unitarian translation of this verse. At all events, they are nothing like so frequent as the texts which affirm or imply our Lord's supreme divinity : — so that even on this ground, — a calculation of probability from the com parative number of texts on either ^de, proceeding on the assumption that the phraseology of the verse is equally capa ble of the one translation or of the other, — we should not feel ourselves at all at a disadvantage. — But the proper con struction of the words in the text, is the very point in contro versy; and with this the mere frequency or infrequency of ascriptions of praise, has obvioilsly no connexion; unless it could be shown, that such ascriptions of praise are usually ex pressed ill the same manner as here. " 2dly. Because they almost uniformly want the mhstanlive 161 " verb (e" being placed any where else than at the end of the sentence, on the supposition of o«r ren dering being the right one? If not, this can be no ground of preference to the other;— and it is mere trifling to mention it. " Sth, Because the position of these words at the end of " the sentence, naturaUy, though not necessarily, draws the " participle ^^uX^nrog) Blessed, which they qualify, to the same "quarter."-This must be settled by an appeal to facts. Amongst the doxologies in the Old Testament Scriptures, in which the words "for ever," or equivalent phrases, occur, I do not find any instance of this drawing of the participle to the end of the sentence. See, in:the LXX, 1 Chron xvi 36: Psal, xli, 13: Ixxii. 19: cvi. 48. And when no par- aUel cases can be produced, in the ordinary practice of the language, we are not satisfied with Mr. Yates's ad- mission that this "drawing' .^ not necessary; we cannot concede to him that it is even natural. Mr. Yates may fancy it to be so. But no phrase can with any propriety be denommated natural, unless it corresponds with the customary usage of the language in which it occurs. The Idioms of one language must not be made the standard ot what IS natural or unnatural in another. M3 « 6th, Becauise, in Psalm Ixviu, 19. (Eaj/os o ©sos luKoynros) « the participle is placed in the latter part of the sentence " by the Septuagint translators, contrary to the assertion " of Dr. Whitby in his commentary," — Dr. Whitby's asser tion is : " The phrase occurs twenty times in the Old Testa- " ment, but in every place suXoyjjros goes before, and the " article is annexed to the word Qsog." — To this assertion Mr. Yates, like others, has discovered one exception. We have found him, above, in his second reason, resting his conclusion on the general form of the doxologies in scripture, as " al- " most uniformly wanting the substantive verb," I have re ferred to three exceptions to this: — and it does not seem very consistent, as has been already hinted, for Mr, Yates to rest there on the general practice, in opposition to three exceptions; and then here to question the validity of our argument from a practice, to the uniformity of which he can produce no exception but one. — But 1 go farther. I think it is more than doubtfal, whether, after all, this ex ception wiU stand. — In the LXX, the 18th and 19th verses of Psalm, Ixviii. stand thus: 18. 'Kva^ag tig i^os, p^/MiXuTiugoie ah}QiaXu(tMV iKa^ig So/iUTOt h oivSgwriji, xai yag avsiSowrsg rou xstTav xomm <' — communion of properties." — Let the reader assume the correctness of this principle, and he will find no difficulty'in conceiving, how Christ should be addressed as possessing the Divine nature, and yet, in the character of Mediatoi*, and in the form of a servant, as anointed; as having the Father for his God ; and as receiving " dominion, and glory, *' and a kingdom." From this single consideration, he may appreciate the value of Mr, Yates's confident assertion, that, " in order to remove every doubt" that the name God is to be understood in the inferior sense, " it is only ne- *' cessary to bring forward the entire quotation," 1 John V. 20. " We know that the Son of God is come, " and hath given us an understanding that we may kno^ " him that is true ; and we are in him that is true, even " in his Son Jesus Christ, This is the true God, and " eternal life," Of Mr, Yates's strictures on this text too (which is the text of my Discourses on the Divinity of Christ), I might simply say, " answered by anticipation." — The extreme con- 179 fidence of his assertions, however, which is here, as in some other cases, in the inverse ratio pf the strength of his argu ment, renders a few remarks necessary, 1, On the question whether the pronoun " this" refers to the near or to the remote antecedent, Mr. Yates first tries to get a near antecedent more suitable than the exist ing one to the Unitarian hypothesis, by observing, that Gries bach marks as doubtful the wOrds <' Jesus Christ." " Now,'' says he, "if these words be omitted, the nearest antecedent is " the word (aurou) 'his,' which refers to God." (P. 187.)— Had Mr. Yates felt perfect confidence in the vahdity of his subse quent principle of interpretation, by which the pronoun is made to refer to the r«wofe antecedent, he would hardly, I should think, have condescended to notice this. For, in the, first place, Griesbach not only does not r^ect the words "Jesus " Christ from the text, (which of itself should have been enough to prevent Mr. Yates from founding any thing on their " uncertainty") — ^he is so far from rejecting them, that , the particular mark which he affixes to them is one which im plies, that had they been absent from , the received text, he wordd have inserted them as having ,been omitted; only marking: them with a certain , sign, to indicate to the read er that this had, been done, from a preponderance of evi dence in their favour. — In the second place, their omission would, afl;er all, make no difference whatever in the ar gument. The words would run thus, — " and we are in him " that is tine, even in his Son. This is the true God, and " eternal life:"T— x«; ^jjt&s/j, kij.iv iv tui »Xn6ivi{>, 'EN T^ xi'n, at'tot"- OT'TOS Iffr/o «Xj)^/vo50£os, x. t. X — ^ATTOT, Mr. Yates aUeges, thus becofties the immediate antecedent to OT'TOS : and, no doubt, in poi^t of mere local position so it is. ^ut let the reader judge, hoW low he reduces himself in the argument, when 180 he chooses for his antecedent the most unemphatic word in the whole preceding sentence, — the he that is involved in the possessive his. I am fully persuaded, that, even on the supposition made, any reader, free from prejudice, will consider Tfl Tl'fl AT'TOT as still the immediate antecedent. I am not surprised that Mr. Yates should have taken no notice of the second of the eases mentioned by me as justifying the reference of the demonstrative pronoun to the remote antecedent; — namely, "when the immediate an- " tecedent holds nO prominent place in the sentence, but is " introduced only incidentally, the remote being obviously " the chief subject, having the entire, or greatly prepon- " derating emphasis, in the mind of the writer." Dis courses, p. 38. — He could not well question the correct ness of the rule ; but it would certainly have Ul comported with this criticism of his. T!heflrst of the two cases mentioned by me, of warrant able exception to the general rule of connecting the demon strative pronoun with the immediate antecedent, was — " when " obvious and indisputable necessity requires the contrary;" and on this I observed as follows: " But in the instance in " our text, no such necessity can be pleaded, except on the " previous assumption of the certainty that Jesus Christ is not " the true God. Were this antecedently demonstrated, it " might justify a deviation from ordinary practice. But to " proceed on such an assumjption, is to beg the question in dis- " pute."— Now, what says Mr. Yates to this? Why, with the utmost calmness and confidence, without so much as deigning to notice the observation, he ]nst proceeds on this very assump tion. He first of all refers to those passages (two of which I had noticed in a note, as usually adduced by Unitarians), name ly, 2 John 7. Actsiv. 11. vii. 19. dweUing particularly on the 181 first of them, " Many deceivers are entered into the world, " who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This " is a deceiver and an Antichrist." He then goes on thus: — " But, repHes Mr. Wardlaw, the sense of these passages is " clear; because, by supposing the pronoun to refer to the *' near antecedent, you make the Scriptures speak nonsense. •' True, my dear friend; and so do you, when you assert " that ' THIS is the true God' means ' Jesus Christ is the true " God.' A person, not previously instructed in the doctrines " of Trinitarianism, would at the first glance perceive this senti- " ment to be so false and absurd, that he would immediately " refer the pronoun to the more remote antecedent, forming " an instantaneous judgment, that the Apostle did not intend " to represent Jesus Christ as ' the true God' any more than " to describe him as ' a deceiver and an Antichrist.' The " primitive Christians, who were equally strangers to both of " these impossibilities, would without hesitation refer the pro- " noun to the more remote antecedent in both cases alike. I " maintain, therefore, with Mr. Belsham, that the cases are " ' similar;' though by so doing I incur that most unreason- " able charge which you have directed against him, of want " of candour." Pages 187, 188. Here we have a tissue of abundantly bold assumptions, without one pennyweight of argument. — We have, in the first place, the assumption, that we Trinitarians, in making the Scriptures affirm Jesus Christ to be God, make them af firm as great nonsense as if we should make them affirm Je sus Christ to be « deceiver and an Antichrist. This of itself is a tolerably fair specimen of Unitarian confidence. — But fur ther: whatever be Mr Yates's ideas of sense and nonsense, the question is a simple matter-of-fact one; — Do these Scriptures affirm Jesus Christ to be God — or do they not? The foregoing 182 assumption, therefore, implies another — namely, that there is just as much evidence in the Bible that Jesus Christ is " a de- " ceiver and an Antchrist," as there is that Jesus Christ is God. Now, is this Mr. Yates's bona flde conviction? I cannot believe that it is: because, before I can believe it, I must not only suppose him destitute of all candour, but bereft also of under standing, or given up to " strong delusion." Judging from the volume before me, I do not, I must honestly say, reckon candour amongst the cardinal virtues of his character; but of understanding, I know that he has been endowed with more than an ordinary share. May God dispose him, on this oc casion, to make a proper use of it! — But we have not yet done with his assumptions. He assumes still further, that the primitive Christians (that is, the Christians to whom John wrote, the Christians of apostolic times) were as entire stran gers to the doctrine of Jesus Christ being the true God, as they were to the self-contradictory absurdity of his being a deceiv er and an Antichrist. I say, he assumes this; for he does no more than barely assert it; and the assertion, like what pre cedes, is a mere begging of the question in dispute. Yet, in stead of saying, as he ought to have said, " To beg I am " ashamed," he does it with aU possible composure and non chalance, without the slightest symptom of" confusion of face." " The second argument," says Mr. Yates, " advanced to " prove that the person here asserted to be ' the true God' « is Jesus Christ, is, that the same God is also caUed ' eternal " life! The expression wiU be allowed by all to be figura^ « tive. It means, that the person so called was the giver, or " thepromiser, of eternal Ufe. It is maintained by Unitarians, « as a great and leading principle of their system, that aU the « blessings communicated to mankind thrcmgh Jesus Christ " originate in the wisdom and goodness of the one true God. 183 " Agreeably to this general maxim, they assert, that the Fa- " ther promises and gives eternal life through Jesus Christ. " The Father, therefore, is properly ' the eternal life:' Jesus " Christ is also ' the eternal life,' bui in an inferior sense. " Hence St, Paul observes, that ' eternsXMfe is the gift qf God " THROUGH Jesus Christ our Lord,' " Page 188, I cannot be fiUing up my pages by transcribing' long para graphs from my former volume. If the reader wiU take the trouble of looking over page 4«0th of that volume, he will at once perceive, that, in the extract just made, Mr, Yates has thought proper entirely to evade my argument; which is deriv ed from a comparison of the text in question with the opening of the Epistle. He does not so much as look near it; al though it is mentioned by me as " the circumstance which in " my mind placed the matter beyond dispute." — What reason Mr. Yates might have for this, I leave the reader to conjecture. I leave him also to compare for himself any remaining rea sonings on this text; as I dread the imputation of repetition and tediousness. For the same cause, I must decline entering into any enlarg ed additional discussion of the particular usage of the Greek language respecting the definite article, on which the argument for our Lord's divinity is founded, which is deduced from such passages as Tit. ii. 13. and 2 Pet. i. 1. I shall dismiss this part of the subject with two or three brief observations. 1. Mr. Yates wraps up the argument in terms of such vague generality, as pretty clearly to show, that he felt him self at a loss for any passages of the same construction with those in question, to confront with them, as evidences that they ought to be, or at least might be; rendered according to the common version:-^" We find in the Nfew Testament," says he, « numerous passages, in which God and our Lord Jesus 184 " Christ are mentioned in conjunction. While they resemble " one another in this one circumstance, they differ in an end- " less variety of ways respecting the use or the omission, " and also the arrangement qf articles, pronouns, and adjec- " lives. Owing to these irregularities, some of them are, " considered by themselves, ambiguous. But others can only be " translated in such a manner as to make a clear and marked " distinction between God and our Lord Jesus Christ. I con- " ceive, that the unambiguous examples ought to serve as our " guides towards the just interpretation qf those passages in " which the sense is not flxed by the grammatical construction. " For these reasons, the received translation ought to be fol- " lowed in the passages in question, even though no regard " were paid to the doctrines of the Divine unity and the in- " feriority of .lesus Christ." Pages 190, 191. — Now, Mr. Yates would have done more to his purpose, had he produc ed a few texts, in which the construction, with regard to the use of the article, is the same as in Tit. ii. 13. and 2 Pet. i. 1. while they contain, notwithstanding, " a clear and marked dis- " tinction between God and our Lord Jesus Christ." — What ever varieties he may find in the use, omission, and arrangement of articles, pronouns, and adjectives, unless he can bring for ward indisputable instances of the kind I have described, these varieties (which, however, with respect to the article, I do not beheve to be so endless as he represents them) can avail hira nothing. In the verse immediately following 2 Pet. i. 1 . there is a marked distinction between " God" and " Jesus our Lard-!' but it is worthy of notice, that the construction is changed. In the first verse, we have, " h dr^onoewri nu Qiou iifjuuv xai SwTjjgos Irjdou " XptSTou ;" in the second, " iv iiriyvueu tou Qiou, xoLi Irieou TOU Kuwou " rif^v," On the other hand, the precisely paraUel construction, adduced by me from the eleventh verse of the same chapter, and 185 rendered by our English translators agreeably to the princi ples of syntax contended for, is left by Mr. Yates unnoticed. In both verse 1st and verse 11th, the position of the pronoun iitjjuv (our) appears to me to render the received translation quite unaccountable. Had the words been tou ©sou xa,i Swrjigos ^jttojii Ijjirou Xg/ffTou, we should stiUhave maintained, even from this arrangement, the validity of our argument. But the case is still more decisive from the real order of the words, rou ©sou 'HMUN xoli 'S.uTi/j^ag lijtfou Xg/oTou. Surely, on all the principles of Greek construction, the possessive pronoun belongs here, in the first instance, to rou ©eou. To disjoin it from rou ©sou, which precedes, and connect it with xai 2wr»jgos rmuv, which follows, as our translators have done, is, I should think, without a parallel. It must belong to rou ©sou; and if it does, it must belong also to "S.iarrisog rifi^av: for any instance of the phrase rou ©sou rnj^wv xai tut- TTj^og Irjdau X^iirou, meaning " qf our God, and the Saviour " Jesus Christ," is, I presume, as little to be found as the other. 2. With regard to Tit, ii. 13. Mr, Yates ought to have adduced not only texts of the same construction, yet requiring a different translation from that maintained in our argument; — but also instances of the appearing qfthe Father being men- . tioned in Scripture as the object of Christian hope, along with the appearing of Jesus Christ. 3. With regard to Mr, Belsham, the particular part of his strictures on this subject, to which I apphed the strong epi thet of "shamefully disingenuous," was solely that in which he makes the supposition of the controversy on the great doc trine of our Lord's divinity being " reduced to this." — Mr. Belsham could not but be aware that such language was no thing better than empty gasconade; and that those against whom he thus writes were as far as possible from bringing forward their criticisms on the use of the article, from any Aa 186 consciousness felt by them of their necessity to the support of their system, in consequence of the failure of other arguments, — On this ground, I am not disposed to think the remarks on Mr. Belsham in Note E. overstrained. If any of my readers, however, shall reckon them unduly severe, I am quite contented to class Mr. Belsham's language amongst those " strong state- •' ments, or perhaps o»er-statements, to which every man is " liable, in defending his own side of an interesting question." Having made these brief remarks, I leave the reader to re- peruse my observations on this class of texts, in Discourse III.; to compare them with those of Mr. Yates; to consult also, if he has the opportunity, my references in Note E. along with those of Mr. Yates and Mr. Belsham; and, with his Greek Testament before him, to form his own judgment. I proceed to Mr. Yates's animadversions on the instances in which the name Jehovah is given to Christ. He admits, that, " in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, " Jehovah is used as the peculiar and appropriate name of " the one supreme God." — In this case, therefore, there is not, as there was in the former, any inferior sense of the name? — all that we have to do is, to ascertain the fact, that the name is given to Jesus Christ, Mr, Yates, as before, is determined not to be satisfied with any testimony on this point produced from the Bible, unless it be expressed in the direct ipsissima verba of his own dictation, — " Instead of direct Scriptur^testimonies," he says, " Mr, Wardlaw only brings forward remote deductions, form- " ed by the comparison of one set of passages with another." " We might reply," he immediately «dds, " that arguments " so complicated are not the proper kind of evidence to estab- " hsh such an awfol, stupendous, and infinitely important « doctrine," (Pj. 193.) — It belongs to the reader to judge, how 3 187 far the instances thus characterized as " remote deductions," and " complicated arguments," deserve to be so denominated. To me they appear, on the contrary, to be such as the sim plest and most untutored mind must be able instantly to ap prehend, " A person is called Jehovah in the Old Testa- " ment. The passage in which this person is spoken of is, " in the New Testament, expressly referred to Christ: there- " fore he is Jehovah, To be deduction at all, we can con- " ceive nothing further from being remote." * The first instance of the apphcation of the name Jehovah to Jesus Christ, and which Mr, Yates classes amongst remote deductions, is found in a comparison of Luke i, 16, 17, with Isa, xl. 3, John i, 23, Matth, iii, 3. John iii. 28. John i. 31. and Mai. iii. 1. ; for the illustration of which I refer the reader to pages 78 — 80, of my former volume. Let us see for a moment the remoteness qf the deduction, the complexity of the argument, in this instance. J — The prophets predict the coming of One, to whom they give the name qf Jehovah: — They call him, at the same time, "the Lord " whom the people sought," " the Messenger qfthe Covenant, " in whom they dehghted ;" and they testify that he should come to " his temple." It is also predicted, that a messen ger should go before him, to prepare his way. — In due time, John the Baptist makes his appearance; — and he comes in the character of a precursor, a preparer qf the way. That he is the person referred to by Isaiah and Malachi, is admitted. He, then, before whom — before whose face — John the Baptist came, is " the Lord, the Messenger of " the Covenant" the object of Jewish expectation, wha was to come to "his temple," — the temple of Jehovah. Now, John came to introduce the Christ — to prepare * Brown's Strictures, p. 55.. 188 for his "manifestation to Israel," John i. 31. He speaks of himself as " sent before him," John iii. 28. ; and of Jesus under the emphatic designation, " He that cometh after me :" and it is remarkable how the terms in which he speaks of Christ accord with the elevated and Divine appeUa tions previously given him by the prophets : — " This is he " of whom I said, after me cometh a man who is preferred " before me ; for he was before me." John i. 30.— -I am aware that the words or/ wgwros ^ou ^v &c. have been propos ed to be rendered " for he was my chief,'' or " my superior." But, without disputing the possibility of the words bear ing this rendering, it is most unnatural to suppose John to have used the past tense, if such was his meaning : " He " is preferred before me, for he was my superior." The use of ihis tense fixes the phrase to the meaning given it by our translators; — and then we have, in John's words^ a clear and striking declaration of the pre-existence of Christ. — He came after John ; — and yet he was before him : — a pointed, and obviously designed antithesis. — In aU this there is perfect harmony. — Jesus Christ is the person before whom, before whose face the predicted messenger is sent : — He is " the Lord, the Messenger of the Covenant, who was to *' come to his temple" — " Jehovah, whose way was to be " prepared." — I appeal to the impartial reader, if this be a " remote deduction" or a " complicated argument." — Mr. Yates alleges, that the principle of my argument is "that it is " impossible for the same thing to be asserted in Scripture " concerning two different beings." (P 194.) — He shows thus how logically he can generalize, and, by " remote deductioh," infer a universal principle from a particular case, as if it could not be made out, in that particular case, that the thing asserted is asserted of the same person under different 189 appellations, unless the universal irapossibUity stated in his general principle is admitted, that in no case can the same things be affirmed of two different beings. On this ground, however, Mr. Yates thus reasons : " The " argument may be thus summed up. John went before " Jehovah ; and John went before Christ ; therefore Christ " is Jehovah. — 1 Sam, ii- 12, ' The sons of Eli were sons of "Belial;' therefore Eli was Belial. — Exod. xx. 2. and " Deut. V. 6. He who brought the Israelites out of Egypt was "Jehovah: but, by Exod. xxxii, 7, xxxiii, 1. He who « brought the Israelites out of Egypt was Moses ; therefore " Moses was Jehovah, — Such are the endless absurdities " which would be derived from the Scriptures by proceed- " ing upon the principle of Mr, Wardlaw's argument, " that it is impossible for , the same thing to be affirmed in "Scripture concerning two different beings." (P, 194,) I have said, " Mr, Yates reasons." But I believe I have used a wrong word. There are some things which are so very unreasonable, that it is difficult to show them to be so. There is the same difficulty in refuting a self-evident ab surdity as there is in demonstrating a self-evident truth. If the reader is convinced by Mr. Yates's wit, (in which, if there is any salt, it wants the Attic poignancy) I cannot help him. I shall only say, in the words of Mr. Brown — " It is almost unnecessary to remark, that the true prin- " ciple of Mr. Wardlaw's argument is; and it is strange that " his opponent did not perceive it, that if it is plainly said " in the New, Testament that Jesus Christ is the person " mentioned in a particular passage of Old Testament Scrip- " ture, the name used in that passage properly belongs " to him," (Strictures, p, 56.)^— = Whether it be not " plainly " said in the New Testament," that Jescs Christ was the 190 person before whose face, according to the prophets, the messenger was to be sent, to prepare his way ; and whether the various designations and names by which that person was prophetically distinguished, and Jehovah among the rest, do not fairly and evidently belong to him, I leave the reader to judge. The figurative nature of the language used by some of the prophets, on which Mr. Yates enlarges, in pages 194 — 196, has nothing whatever to do with the argument. The next passage is Heb, i, 10, "And, thou. Lord, " in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth ; " and the heavens are the works of thine hands." With regard to this passage, Mr. Yates makes the follow ing important admissions : — " I shall grant to Mr. Ward- " law, that the word Lord ought here to be considered " as equivalent to Jehovah ; nor am I disposed to con- " sider this passage as a sudden apostrophe to God, because, " although this interpretation is very suitable to the idiom " of our language, I know of nothing parallel to it in the " Scriptures. The only question, therefore, is, .whether this " quotation was intended by the writer as an address to " Christ." (P. 196.) I am satisfied that the question should stand as thus stated. The sole reason assigned by Mr. Yates for not under standing the words as, in the application of them by the apostle, an address to the Son, is what I have already no ticed, page 176, with regard to the meaning of the prepo sition IIP02 in verse 8. Taking my observations on that criticism of Mr. Yates along with him, let the reader now remark : 1. The former quotation, as was then noticed, in what ever way you render npos, is an address to the Son, and can 191 be nothing else. It is admitted to be so by Mr. Yates, who translates it, " Thy throne, O God," — caUs it an " invo- " cation," and contends that in this invocation of the Son, God is used in its inferior sense. Such is the ground he takes as to the^r^^ address. Now, the second quotation is an address too. Is " Lord," then, to be also taken in its inferior sense ? No. Mr. Yates admits that it means Jehovah. He says, the words are an " address to Jehovah, referring to the government of «« Christ." — (P. 217.) Mr. Yates shows us in this, how weU he can at times satisfy himself with a "remote deduction." The words in the quotation, under the form of an address to Jehovah, contain no more then a simple declaration of his power in the creation of heaven and earth, of his dmmutability, and his eternal existence. — To the government if Christ there is, in the words themselves, no sort of re- feraice, direct or remote. — Socinian ingenuity has framed a reference, by connecting the power, and immutability, and eternity of Jehovah with the perpetuity of the reign of Christ; and this they think quite natural and easy. But it is bringing out qf the passage what is not in it. The reference is entirely gratuitous. It is truly a "remote de- " duction." But besides, such an interpretation deprives the passage of all peculiarity of apphcation to the apostle's purpose, — His purpose is, to show the superiority of Christ to angels, — But, unless the words quoted are considered as addressed to Christ, what are they to this purpose? How is a declaration that Jehovah created the heavens and the earth, that he is immutable, and everlasting, to be made to bear upon this point? — For my own part, I can see nothing in the words, on this interpretation, to prevent them beuig prefaced with " concerning the angels he saith," 192 with just as much propriety as " concerning the Son he " saith." Mr. Yates adopts the ordinary Unitarian method of setting aside that most plain and convincing proof of Jesus being Jehovah, derived from comparing Isa. vi. 1 — 5. with John xii, 37 — 41. He may, if he please, call it a "remote de- " duction" by which this proof is obtained. I stiU deny, as before, that it is a deduction at all. It is as plain and pointed a declaration as the Evangelist could have made, that the glory of Jehovah, seen by the prophet, on the occasion referred to, was the glory of Christ. " He saw " his glory," says the Evangehst, " and spake of him." Let the reader look at Isa. vi. and he will find in it a des cription of the GLORY which, on the occasion referred to, the prophet saw. But, according to Mr. Yates and his brethren, the glory which the Evangelist says Isaiah saw, was not at all the glory which Isaiah describes as having been seen by him, but something entirely diff^J'^nt ; — and something too, it is remarkable, of which there is no men tion whatever made in the whole of the vision there recorded. " He contemplated,". says Mr. Yates, "the future glory of " Christ displayed in the performance of miracles." This, it seems, was the glory which he " saw,'' — i. e. which he "fore- " saw." Yet of this glory no notice is taken by the prophet in the passage : — not a word is said about it. Can any thing, then, be more arbitrary than this ? Isaiah tells us of the glory which he saw, — viz. the glory of Je hovah ; and the Evangelist says, " These things said Esaias " when he saw his glory." Yet we must not suppose the ghry mentioned in the two passages to be the same; but the glory mentioned by John to be something entirely different; and glory too which the prophet does not in 193 the passage represent himself as having seen at all! — Yet these are the interpreters of Scripture, who reprimand us for our " remote deductions ;" who represent us as ^'contriving " to deduce an argument" for the divinity of Jesus from " a " mysterious and far-fetched interpretation" of the Evange list's words. — 1 pity the man who, on weighing the com parative claims of the two interpretations, can satisfy him self with pronouncing ours a " patched-up argument," and giving it the go-by with a constrained admission that " cer- " tainly the coincidences are a little remarkable, but that " they affi)rd not the shadow qf a proof that Jesus is Je- " hovah." — I repeat, with increased confidence, that " there " is no evading the inference which the comparison of " these passages forces upon our minds." Mr. Yates's translation of Jer. xxiii. 6, "This is the " name whereby he shaU be called, Jehovah is our pros- " ferity," seems a very unaccountable one. That " right- " eousnesi' is the usual, and the proper, rendering of the word which he translates "prosperity," is beyond question. Indeed, I know not of any instance in which it has the signification he annexes to it. — Blayney translates the verse — "And this is the name by which Jehovah shall call him, " our righteousness ;" — and he apologizes, on the ground of his obhgation to faithfulness as a critic, for the offence which might be taken by some, at being deprived of this proof of the divinity of Christ. There is more plausibility in this version. Yet there does not appear to be any sufficient ground for departing from the ordinary transla tion, — " Jehovah our righteousness," is an appellation which precisely corresponds with the phraseology of other passages — such as, for example, Isa, xlv, 24, 25, " Surely " shall one say, In Jehovah have I righteousness : — In B b 194 " Jehovah shaU aU the seed of Israel be justified, and " shall glory:" — And the established version of the text seems to be quite as consistent as the other with the syntax and idiom of the Hebrew language. With respect to the parallel passage in chap, xxxiii. 16. " This is the name wherewith she shall be called. The ^^ord " our Righteousness," the mere English reader will observe that the words " is the name" are supplementary. The verse is translated by Blayney, in consistency with his view of chap, xxiii, B, " And this is he whom Jehovah shall " call OUR righteousness," He says, the pronominal affix, (rendered she in our version) is not the feminine affix, but the masculine in the Chaldee form. Assuming this as correct, the words might be rendered, (and, as the same person is spoken of in both passages, under the same titles, it seems reasonable to harmonize them, when it can be done so simply) — " This is he whom they shall call (or who " shall be called) Jehovah our Righteousness," — Others, how ever, considering the pronominal affix as feminine, would render the words — " This person who shall call her, is " Jehovah our Righteousness.'" " It is generally agreed," says Dr, Guyse, " that this" (viz. the ordinary version) " is " a very odd translation of that text, which ought to be " rendered, ' He who shaU caU her, is Jehovah our Right- " eousness.' And so the Lord, or Jehovah, our Right- " eousness, is descriptive of Christ by that name, which it " was said in the xxiiid chapter he should be called by." * If, however, after all, the common version shaU by any be retained, the meaning wiU be, on comparing it with chap, xxiii. 6, — that the grand characteristic distinction of • Sermons on the Divinity of Christ ; Sermon III. near the end. 2 195 the church of God is, that aU its constituent members trust and glory in Him who is there named "Jehovah their " righteousness ;" — that the doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Jehovah in the human nature, is a fun- damental article in its constitution, in the charter of its privileges and hopes; — that " Jehovah our righteous- " ness" is the song and the boast of all the followers of the Captain of Salvation, the motto on the banners of the church militant; — banners which shall at length be sus pended in the temple above, retaining their appropriate in scription, when the warfare of the church shall terminate in everlasting peace. With regard to Zech. xiii. 7, " Awake, O sword, against " my Shepherd, and against the man that is my Fellow, " saith Jehovah of hosts :" I am fully convinced myself, notwithstanding the authorities produced by Newcome to the contrary, that the passage refers to the sufferings of Christ, and to their consequences as to the nation of the Jews, £!,nd the true Israel: — and that the proper sense of the appeUation "my fellow" is, "the companion, equal, " compeer, of the Lord of hosts ; the Son of the Father • " the ' Word that was with God, and was God;' " * — the same " Shepherd" who is called " the Lord God," in Isa. xl. 9 — 11. — But as the word translated "Fellow," is one which does not of itself necessarily imply equality, it might be difficult, on grounds merely critical, derived from the phraseology of the text itself, to estabhsh the justice of this interpretation to the satisfaction of those who are not previously convinced of the great and blessed truth for which I am contending, Mr, Yates says, that, "to produce this passage as one in which 'the * Scott's Commentary on the text. 196 " name Jehovah is directly given to Jesus of Nazareth, " proves nothing but the exigency of the case." (P. 200,) — But the case is as far as can be imagined from being a case of exigency; and therefore, although I have seen nothing to shake my estabhshed opinion of the object and import of the text, I feel no solicitude to press it, and shaU leave it to the judgment of the reader. For similar reasons, I have omitted Zech, xi, 12, 13, in the enumeration of passages in the second edition of my Discourses, The passage, with its application by the Evange hst Matthew, * (chapter xxvii, 9, 10.) is, in various re spects, obscure and difficult, Newcome says, on the words " ' a goodly price that I have been prized at by them :' " Jehovah calls the price of his prophet his own price; • The words of the Evangelist are : " Then was fulfilled that which was spoken " by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the " price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value, " and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." — With the difiiculty as to the name of the prophet, for which different solutions sufficiently satisfactory have been proposed, we have at present nothing to do. Neither is it my intention to discuss the various observations of critics and commentators, made with the view of bringing the quotation in the Evangelist to a correspondence with the words of Zechariah. I merely wish to suggest for consideration a thought that has occinTed to me respecting the verse in Matthew, which may not, after all, be new. May not those words in the verse, which are not to be found in the pro phet, and from which one of the chief difficulties relative to the quotation arises, be intended by the sacred historian, not as a part of the quotation, but as a par- enthetical explanation of his own ? On this supposition the verse would stand as follows ; — " Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Zechariah the prophet, " saying, ' And they took the thirty pieces of sUver' — (the price of him that was " valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value)—' and gave them for " the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.' " — In the parentheas, the historian makes a general reference to the transaction related by the prophet. — The quota tion will then be, " They took the thirty pieces of silver, and gave them for the " potter's field, as the Lord appointed me :" — between which and the words of the prophet, the difference is not very wide : — " And I took the thirty pieces of " silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord." — The substitution of iSmxx for tiuxxt would nearly complete the harmony. But for this, althou^ it has a place amongst the various readings, the authority does not appear at all suflicient. — For another view of the passage, I refer the reader to Dr. Campbell's translation of the Gospels. 197 " and commands that it should not be accepted, but given " to another ; — and to the potter, to foreshadow the trans- " action related Matth, xxvu. 7." (Minor Prophets, Note on the text.) — But might not Jehovah call the price his own price for a different reason than its being the price of his prophet?— the price paid, on the occasion referred to by the prophet, being intended to foreshadow the pay ment of the same price afterwards, for the hfe of the Son qf God; — for Jehovah, when he appeared for their sal vation, in the person of Jesus Christ ? The argument derived from the comparison of Rom, xiv. 10, 11. with Isa. xlv. 23. stands in its full force, unaffected by Mr. Yates's Unitarian gloss, — Let any reader peruse the verses in Rom, xiv. with the preceding context. He wiUthere find that Christ is the master whom Christians serve; the Lord, to whom they live, and to whom th^y die^ in opposition to hving and dying to themselves, — whose they are in life and in death, and to whom they must render their final account. To impress on their minds the remembrance that this Lord is not a mere man, — a mere fellow-creature like themselves; having reminded them that " we shall all stand before the "judgment-seat of Christ," he quotes, in proof of this, Isa. xlv. But the whole force of the argument, and appropriateness of the quotation, depend on the circumstance of the speaker in that passage being the same vrith Christ, The speaker speaks in his own person: " As /live — every knee shaU bow to me," &c. Now, unless this be Christ, what evidence at all does the passage contain, that we are to stand before ^zs judgment-seat? — " The whole force of the apostle's argument," says Dr. Guyse, " stands on this, that it was the Son, inclusively at " least, who ' swore by himself,' or, * as I hve,' ' every knee " shall bow to me,' &c. For if we suppose it to be the Fa- 198 " ther, exclusive of the Son, who said, ' I sware by myself,' " or ' as I live,' ' every knee shall bow to me,' &c, this " would have been so far from proving, as the apostle in- " tends and argues, that ' we shall all stand before the judg- " ment-seat of Christ,' that it would have proved just the con- " trary; because Christ is not that God that there sware by " himself, and consequently not that God, whom by that oath " we are obUged to stand before, and bow the knee, and con- " fessto. But if Christ is that God who there ' sware that every " knee should bow, and every tongue confess to him,' then " the proof is cogent and unanswerable, that we all shall stand " before his judgment-seat." * On 1 Cor. i. 30, 31. compared with Isa. xlv. 25. Mr. Yates simply says, " That the title Lord is here equivalent to Jeho- " tah, is evident from the passage of Isaiah alluded to by the " apostle, Isa. xlv. 25. The meaning evidently is, that " men should glory in God, by whom Christ has been made unto " them wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and re- " demption." Page 201. But this is not by any means so very clear. Christ is, in the 30th verse, designated as our " righte- " ousness," (which, as distinguished from sanctification, means " our justification:") — The passage in Isaiah says, " In the Lord (Jehovah) shaU all the seed of Israel be justified." Christ, then, is " Jehovah, in whom all the seed of Israel " are justified, and in whom they gloi-y." The apphcation of the title "my Lord," in Psal. ex. 1. to Christ, made by Christ himself, and particularly no ticed by me, in closing this branch of the subject, Mr, Yates passes over sub silentio. He must either have felt it too muck for him, or thought it too little, — The Pharisees of old were in the former predicament, * Sermons on the Deity of Christ, Sermon III. 199 CHAPTER VI. In Chapter VI. Mr. Yates examines " the passages in " WHICH the peculiar ATTRIBUTES OF DeITY ARE SUPPOSED " TO BE ASCRIBED TO ChRIST." 1. Eternal existence. His remarks on the passages adduced under this particular, strikingly shew the imbecility of his cause. John viii. 58. " Verily, verily, I say unto you. Before Abra- "ham was, I am." — No attempt is made to invalidate my reasoning on this text. " Mr. Wardlaw remarks," says Mr. Yates, " concerning this passage, ' Our Lord expressly affirms, " that he existed before Abraham.' The truth of his observa- " tion wUl be admitted probably by all Unitarians who beheve " in the pre-existence of Christ." Page 202, — Is Mr, Yates himself, then, one of these? He does not say. The words of Jesus must mean something. What then does he understand to be their meaning? He does not teU us, — And such is his way. When he thinks he can make any text to comport with the simple manhood of Christ, he tries it. When he feels himself pinched by any text on this hypothesis, he takes refoge behind that of his pre-existence, as the first of creatures. We are left thus to conclude, that Mr. Yates considers it as a matter of little or no consequence, whether Jesus was the first and most exalted of creatures, or a mere man, the offspring of Joseph and Mary; — and the Scriptures as leaving this point quite unsettled. No matter what he be, it should seem, provided it can be shown that he is not God. " After sounding his shrill clarion," Mr. Yates continues, " through three pages, over the Socinian expositors, he oh- 200 " serves, The idea, which has often been suggested, is far from '' being destitute of probability, that there was in our Lord's " words an allusion, perceived by the Jews, and rendered, per- " HAPS, emphatical by his manner, to the words of God to " Moses, ' I AM THAT I AM.' — As our Author here expresses " himself with becoming hesitation and modesty, I only won- " der that he has introduced this passage among the « direct " and immediate proofs of our Lord's divinity." (Pages 202, 203.) — This is partial quotation. The circumstance on which the probabUity is chiefly grounded is left out of view. The Jews conceived our Lord, in using the words, to be guilty of blasphemy. This is clear from their taking up stones to stone him. But there was no blasphemy in caUing himself the Mes siah; nor any blasphemy in the simple affirmation of his pre- existence as a creature. The blasphemy, on this, as on other occasions, consisted in that " he being a man made himself " God," And when we recoUect, that he spoke to them in their own language; that they had the look, and emphasis, and man ner of the speaker, to enable them to understand his meaning; and that our blessed Lord did not at all undeceive them, which every idea we can form of his character constrains us to think he must have done, had he perceived them to be ac tuated by a mistake so gross, and so unutterably revolting to his heart; — we have the strongest reason to beheve, that they were right in their interpretation of his words, although wrong in accounting them blasphemous. Heb. i. 10. Mr, Yates briefly repeats the view of this text which we have already considered, pages 190,191. Col, i, 17. « In the 15th verse of this chapter," Mr, Yates observes, " Christ is caUed ' the first-bom of every " creature,' which is a direct testimony that he was not an " eternal, but a created being. Nor is this assertion contra- 201 " dieted by the phrase • he is before all things,' For even " if we suppose it to mean, not ' he is,' but ' he was before " all things,' and if we were to grant that ' before aU things' " signifies pre-existence in time, and not pre-eminence in dig- " nity, still it could only signify, that h e existed before aU " things except himself and God, It proves, therefore, at " the very utmost, nothing more than our Lord's existence " before the creation of the universe," (Page 203,) Here is the same indecision as before. We have in this text, it seems, a direct testimony that Christ is not an eternal but a created being. But, if it be at all a direct testimony against his eternal existence, it must be as direct a testimony for his j»?"e-existence; — his existence before all other creatures. We ask again, then. Does Mr. Yates believe this testimony? But we ask in vain. Cautus horrescit. He sets out upon the principle of never saying what he thinks Christ is, — but only showing what he is not. And, to do him justice, he keeps it up. But let us examine his positions. And, to take the last first: — Although it were granted, it seems, that " before all " thiregs"' signifies pre-existence in time, and not pre-eminence in dignify, still it could only signify " that he existed before aU " things, except himself and God." — I shall not dispute the po sition implied in these words, that no being can exist before himself. But if the wordis " before all thingi' have any speci fic meaning at all, they must mean, " before d^ created things;" in which case, they exclude the person spoken of from being himself a creature. If he were of the number of created things himself, he could not be " before all things" for the very reason contained in the indisputable proposition that he could not exist before himself. Of no being but an wwcreated being can it, with strict propriety, be said that he is " be ifore all created things!' Cc 202 But in the expression, " the flrst-bom qf every creature," in verse 15th, we have, it is alleged, " a direct testimony " that he was not an eternal but a created being." — The phrase -ir^aroToxog •Tradrig xTieitag appears here, however, most na turally to mean the supremacy to which he is exalted, as the " appointed Heir of aU things," — the " Lord of all;" which the Heir is described to be. Gal. iv. 1. — In Psalm Ixxxix. 27, Jehovah, speaking of the Messiah, says, " Also I will "make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the " earth:" of which the meaning is, that he would invest hira with pre-eminent dignity and authority, " putting all things " under his feet." — This agrees well with the subsequent con text in the epistle: — " And he is the head of the body, the " church; who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; " that in all things he might have the pre-eminence;" — as it does also with Heb. i. 2, 3. where Jesus is spoken of as " Heir qfall things," and at the same time as " the bright- " ness of (the Father's) glory, and the express image qf his per- " SOW;" ju^ as in Col. i. 15. he is caUed " the image of the " in\'isible God," and " the first-born of the whole creation." — Schleusner says, " Christus vocatur irgcaToroxog -Trading xTigiug, " princeps et dominus omnium rerum creatarum:" — and Park hurst: " Christ is called. Col. i. 15. U^uToroxog -Trasng xTieiug, " the First-begotten, or First-born qfthe whole creation, because " he was begotten to be heir and Lord qf all things; (comp. " Heb. i. 2, 8. Acts x. 36.) and in all things, or over allper- " sons, to have the pre-eminence. (Comp. Psal. Ixxxix. 27.) And " because all things were created EIS avnv, for him, as well as ' ' di' auTou, by him, in the same view he is styled absolutely TON " irg&jroroxov, THE First-bom, Heb. i. 6." Rev. i. 8.; i. 17,; xxii, 13. — On these three passages I refer the reader back to pages 34 — 36, 203 Having repeated Griesbach's version of the first of these texts — " saith the Lord God," instead of " saith the Lord," Mr. Yates here says: " Since St. John attributes these words " to the Supreme God, they cannot prove any thing respect- " ing Jesus Christ." — If the reader is prepared to allow to Mr. Yates's bare assertions the force of conclusive proofs, he may be satisfied with this begging of the question. According to Mr. Yates, " when the Almighty is said to " be ' the first and the last,' the meaning is, that he is con- " temporary with the earliest and the latest events in that " chain of causes and effects, by which he accomplishes his " stupendous counsels. This remark is beautifully adapted " to the series of occurrences referred to by the prophet I- " saiah. It appears equally suitable at the commencement of " a prophetical narration of the successes and calamities " which were appointed by the Almighty for the Christian " church." Page 204. — In the passage referred to, how ever, in the prophecies of Isaiah, Jehovah applies the epithets to himself in distinguishing himself from the false gods of the heathen; and they are evidently intended to describe him as, in opposition to these " Vanities," the living and ETERNAL God. — The prophet Jeremiah contrasts Jehovah with idols in the following terms; and if the reader will compare with them the language of Isaiah in the passages referred to, especially chap, xlviii. 12, 13. he will at once perceive their parallehsm and equipoUence: " But the Lord " .(Jehovah) is the true God, he is the living God, and an " everlasting King: — thus shall ye say unto them. The gods " that have not made the earth and the heavens, even they shall " perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. He " hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the " world by his wisdom, he hath stretched out the heavens by 204 " his discretion;" Jer. x. 10 — 12. — The foUowing exposition of the language in Isaiah xli. 4. is as just as it is elegant: — " Fgo Jehovah primus et cum ultimis idem sum.] Attri- " butum est veri Dei insigne, quod in sequentibus non semel " repetitur. Sensus utique est, non esse se Deum nuper natura, " cujusmodi dabantur Dei inferioris ordinis ex hypothesi gen- " tium; sed esse Deum aihov, aeternum, cujus existentia naturae " essentiaeque suae summa perfectione involvitur ; omnium " rerum causam et principium; omnis alterius existentiae " ac substantiae basin ac fondamentum; nunquam ortum, " nunquam interiturum." — " This is a glorious attribute of " the true God, which is afterwards more than once repeat- " ed. The meaning clearly is, that he is not a God late- " ly come into existence, like the gods of inferior rank, " according to the heathen mythology ; but that he is the " eternal God, aihov, whose very existence is involved in the ab- " solute perfection of his nature and essence; the cause and " origin of all things; the basis and foundation of every other " existence and substance; without beginning, — without end." When the same epithets are given to Jesus Christ, they ought surely to be understood in the same sense. That the expression " / am the first," should mean " I am contem- " porary with the earliest events of the Christian dispensation," is a specimen of Socinian ingenuity; but it fornishes evidence of nothing else. " I am the flrst," suggests the question, "the first of what? — of creatures?" It cannot mean this when applied to Jehovah; and neither, on principles of fair interpretation can it mean this when apphed to Christ. " 1 " am the first," — is, " I am the first of Beings." It is difficult to repress indignation at the singular disin genuousness of such a remark as the following. Speaking of the two passages. Rev. i. 17, 18. and Rev. xxi i. 13., Mr. 205 Yates says, " In both cases, the apphcation of the words ' first " and last' to our Lord, is so guarded as to exclude the idea of " his supreme Divinity. In theflrst chapter, after being describ- " ed as ' the first and the last,' h^ is immediately stated to have " died. This shows, that he is not the Being who alone hath im- « mortaUty."(Page 201.) With such obstinate determination does Mr. Yates presist in forgetting the simple principle, that the same person, possessing two natures, may speak of himseff, nay cannot but speak of himself in terms that will seem contradictory, if the distinction of natures is not kept in view. It so hap pens, however, that in this passage of the first chapter, Jesus applies to himself a third epithet, which fixes the meaning of the other two, and renders still more striking and conclusive the correspondence between what is thus said of him, and what is said of Jehovah in the Old Testament Scriptures, as before referred to: — " I am the first and the last, and the " LIVING ONE," (syw iiiii d v^caTog, xai o ti^aTog, xai'O ZUN.) — This shows " that He is the Being who alone hath immortality." — Rev. xxii. 1 3. wiU come to be noticed afterwards. II. Almighty power. On the appellation " Mighty God" given to Christ, in Isa, ix, 6. the reader is referred to pages 148 — 153. Rev. i. 8. " The Almighty." " If any credit," says Mr. Yates, " is due to the assertion " of the sacred writer, these were the words of * the Lord God,' " and not of Jesus Christ." This is Mr. Yates's favourite stUe of logic — begging the question. We simply answer, that, giving all credit to the assertion of the sacred writer, and to Griesbach's version of his language, we believe these words to be the words of theLordGod, and yet the words of Jesus Christ notwithstanding. Those who wish to judge of the correctness of Mr. Yates's assertion, about its being " generally agreed by the fathers of 206 " the first four centuries, that the word (•iravroxgarwg) here trans- " lated Almighty, is the pecuhar designation of the Father," (p. 206) may consult the works that have been written, to ascertain the 'opinions of the early fathers. For my own part, as I have no idea of settling such a question by an appeal to the fathers, or founding my faith in " the wisdom of men;" — I satisfy myself with repeating on this text what I have before said in my Discourses; and the observations made upon it in former parts of this Treatise will add force, it is presumed, to the conclusion: " The connexion in which the words stand, " and the manner of the writer in other parts of the same " book, concur to show, that Jesus is the speaker. And " even if it were otheiwise, the clear and frequent applica- " tion of a part of these expressions to Christ is sufficient to " justify us in the application of the whole. He who is ' the " Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first " and the last,' ' the Living One,' we may be well assured is " also the Almighty." (Pages 91, 92.) — As Mr. Yates, how ever, has occasionally appealed to Origen, the reader is pre sented with the following sentence from that celebrated fa ther, as his opinion of the passage under discussion. I give it, as it is introduced by Jones, on the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity: — " Origen, who certainly was no Arian, though often repre- " sented as such by some who would be pleased to have the " vote of so celebrated a genius, has the following observa- " tion ' Ut autem unam et eandem omnipotentiam Pa- " tris et FUii esse cognoscas, sicut unus atque idem est cum <« Patre Deus et Dominus, audi hoc modo Joannem in Apo- " calypsi dicentem: Hffic dicet Dominus Deus qui est, et " qui erit, et qui venturus est, omnipotens. Qui enim ven- " turus est omnipotens, quis est ahus nisi Christus?" " Now, 207 " that you may know the omnipotence of the Father and the " Son to be, one and the same, as he is one and the same God " and Lord with the Father, hear what St, John has said " in the Revelation, — ' These things saith the Lord, who is, " and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.' For who " is the Almighty that is to come but Christ?' * On Phil. iii. 21. after quoting my words, that " such " language cannot with propriety be used respecting any " being who is not possessed of omnipotence," Mr. Yates says: — " The reader must make his choice between this unsupport- " ed assertion, and the declara,tions of Paul in other parts of " his epistles, that the same God who raised Jesus from the " dead, will also raise mankind, through the instrumentality " qf Jesus, and that it is God who shall put all things un- " der his feet; (2 Cor. iv. 14. 1 Cor, xv. 27.)" But the judicious reader will perceive, that it is only on Unitarian principles that he requires to make any choice in the case. A choice supposes the cases stated, to be incompatible with each other. But, on Trinitarian principles, there is no inconsist ency between the Father raismg up the dead " by Jesus" as Mediator, and the Mediator, himself being, at the same time, possessed qf Divine power, " I have formerly observed," Mr. Yates concludes, " that " the question respecting the power of Christ is, whether it " belonged to him originally by his own Divine nature, or " whether it was conferred upon him by a superior. By pror " ducing in order all the passages in the New Testament " which relate to the power of Christ, I proved the Unitarian " doctrine that it was given, Mr. Wardlaw has not even " attempted to prove the , contrary." (Page 207.) * Jones on the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, page i2th, Sth edition. 208 It would not be very reasonable in Mr, Yates, to ex pect me to argue against myself. That power was con ferred upon Christ, is not with us a matter of question. It is a necessary part of what we conceive to be the Scrip ture scheme of redemption, that, having finished his work, he was, in his mediatorial capacity, invested with " all power " in heaven and in earth,'' We see no inconsistency between this, and his, at the same time, possessing the inherent power of Deity. We reckon the admii^sion of both these views the only principle, on which the consistency and harmony of the language of the Scriptures respecting Christ can possibly be maintained, I may say, with truth, that Mr. Yates " has not even attempted to prove the contrary ,-" for this general principle, which it would have been most of all to his purpose to undermine, he has, throughout his work, left untouched. But more of this, when we come to notice Mr. Yates's ideas about derived and communicated power. I only forther observe at present, that his assertion, " Mr. Wardlaw has not even attempted to prove the con- " trary," must have looked, when he saw it fairly down upon his paper, very much like — something that should have made him blush, and blot it out. Whatever success Mr, Yates may think he has bad, in proving the attempt abortive, he knew that the attempt had been made ; that I had brought forward direct proofs of Christ's possessing inherent Divine power, as " the mighty God," " the Al mighty ;" and that all the evidences of his Supreme Divinity together were proofs of the same thing, 3. Omnipresence, Mr. Yates's strictures en this part of the sutgect, form one of the most curious " morsels of criticism" in his vo lume. The passages on which he animadverts are so 209 plain, that he may run who reads them. Let us see how he contrives to involve them in obscurity. 1. " In treating of omnipresence as an attribute of Christ, " Mr. Wardlaw seems to have forgotten, that he has no " distinct conception of it as an attribute of God, So far " as can be inferred from his language, he believes only in " the virtual omnipresence of God, or in his power of pro- " ducing effects in every part of space. In the same sense, I " presume, he understands the doctrine of the omnipresence " of Christ, If so, he is not far from Scripture trutli." (P, 207.) On the subject of the Divine omnipresence, enough has already been said ; and I had not at all "forgotten" it, when I wrote of the omnipresence of Christ. Without resuming the subject before discussed, I have now only to ask. Is Mr. Yates a behever in the virtual omnipresence qf Jesus .^— The expressions just d, which he did not possess ! But if, on the F f 226 other hand, his inferiority was the official inferiority of a re lation to the Father which he had voluntarily assumed, and was thus perfectly consistent, as we believe it to have been, with his possessing, at the same time, the power and majesty of underived Godhead, then equally accursed be the rea sonings that would rob him of his essential dignity and glory! When we come to examine a little the part of Mr. Yates's book to which he here so confidently refers, we shall have occasion to touch particularly on this important general ques tion. The proofs of the creation of all things being ascrib ed to Jesus Christ, Mr. Yates meets by a reference to a for mer part of his work, in which, he says, he had shown that " in every passage which can possibly be interpreted as at- " tributing the work of creation to Jesus, the idea is express- " ed of his executing this work as a subordinate agent, a " mere instrument, inferior to Jehovah." (P. 217.) — Having made this confident reference, he dismisses the whole in the following strain of happy irony. " Three of these passages, " (John i. 3, 10: Col. i. 16, 17.) together with the words " quoted in Hebrews i. 10. as referring to the government " of Christ, though addressed to Jehovah, form the ground- " work of such severe and triumphant criticism, extending " through ten pages, as will make the hapless Unitarians " smart so long as Mr. Wardlaw's critical celebrity shaU en- " dure." (Page 217.) — May I request of my reader to re-pe ruse those ten pages (104 — 112.) which are thus so briefly and so wittily despatched? I fear not the comparison of the reasoning which they contain with that of Mr. Yates in the pages of his volume referred to (82 — 88) by any reader, lettered or unlettered. When Mr. Yates states my affirmation that the Scriptures 5 227 " give no countenance to the idea of his executing this work " as a subordinate agent, a mere instrument, inferior to Jeho- " vah," he takes no notice of the grounds on which it is made, I must therefore repeat them: — " I have only to add, on this part of the subject, that while " creation is thus repeatedly, and in the plainest terms, ascrib- " ed to Jesus Christ, the Scriptures give no countenance to the " idea of his executing this work, as a subordinate agent, a " mere instrument, inferior to Jehovah, — The. very terms, in- " deed, in some of the passages already quoted, themselves pre- " elude every such supposition. They are universal. Thecre- " ator of all things, of all created beings, cannot be himself a " creature; — cannot, therefore, be, in any sense, or in any re- " spect, an inferior agent to the Supreme God. He who is " not a creature must be God: and God is one. — This idea is " strongly confirmed by such expressions as the following in " the prophecies of Isaiah: — « Hearken unto me, O Jacob " and Israel, my caUed: I am he; I am the first, I also am " the last. My hand also hath laid the foundations of the " earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens;" — " Thus saith Jehovah thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee " from the womb; I am Jehovah, that maketh all things; " that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth " abroad the earth by myself.' " It is somewhat curious, that, in the former part of his work, after having finished his critical strictures on the differ ent passages, Mr. Yates expresses himself in these terms: " The Greek words employed in these passages, cannot bear " to be interpreted so as to ascribe to our Lord the creation " of the material world by his own uncommunicated omni- " potence. They directly contradict the notion, that Christ « stretched out the heavens alone, and made the world by him- 228 « self!' (Page 87.) In this it is plainly implied, that if it had been said of Christ that he " stretched out the heavens alone, " and made the world by himself," it would have justified the conclusion that no other was employed in the work along with him. Do not the words, then, when used by Jehovah, imply, that no other besides Jehovah was employed in the work of creation? and if Jesus Christ be not Jehovah, do they not consequently express what is not true? Let me now examine a little the strictures themselves. I begin with observing, that here, as in all other places, we are left in the same mysterious uncertainty about Mr. Yates's own sentiments: — " The question to be determined," says he, " is, " Whether, supposing that our Saviour created the material " universe, he accomplished this undertaking by his own in- " herent, underived, and unaided omnipotence, or whether " he was employed and empowered to fulfil the counsels ofa " superior." (Page 217.)—" I have already stated, that many " Unitarians altogether deny the existence of Christ previous- " ly to his conception in the womb of his mother; but that " many others agree with the orthodox Christians in asserting, " that he lived before his incarnation in a state of glory, and " was employed by the Deity as an instrument in creating " the material world. The determination of these lesser difler- " ences does not belong to our present inquiry: they are to " be settied among Unitarians by their own amicable discus- " sions. The question now before us is. Whether, granting the " pre-existence qf Christ, he enjoyed before his incarnation tg'Pfl " ©sou uira^m, and that the apodosis then immediately com- " mences," * — At the hazard of being charged with parti ality, I must say, that I see no sufficient ground for this criticism. We may fancy that the construction proposed to be substituted for the common one would be more ele gant — perhaps more customary; but to affirm that it is re quired, is too much. If a»M be rendered "yet," the ordi nary construction appears to me to be perfectly consistent with Greek idiom; and what is more, to bring out, with greater force and emphasis, the sentiment of the apostle, than the other: — because, by the use ofa particle, expressly em ployed for the purpose, it fixes the notice of the reader more forcibly to the act of gracious condescension, which it is the special object of the apostle to recommend to attention and to imitation. Let the English reader compare the two in his own lan guage:—" Who being in the form of God, and not account- • Ecel. Rev. VoL V. Part I. p. 536. N n 282 " ing it robbery to be equal with God, made himself of no " reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant:" — " Who, being in the form of God, did not account it " robbery to be equal with God; yet made himself of no re- " putation, and took upon him the form of a servant."— Al though the sentiment expressed in both these sentences is the same, does not the particle " yef' in the latter, fasten the attention of the mind more forcibly on the idea of transition from one state to another, and the gracious copdescengion therein displayed? 9. The foUowing (which is neariy the same with that given by Mr. Nares) appears to be a literal version of the original words: — " Who, subsisting in the form of God, did; not " reckon it robbery to be on an equality with God; yet en?pti- " ed himself, assuming the form ofa servant, being; madein " the Ukeness of men: — and, having been faymd in fashion^s " a, man, humbled himself, becoming obedient unto .d^gtJ^i " even the death of the cross." — In w;hiph description, tljefi)!- low ing things are expressed: — 1st, The previous divine dig nity of Jesus — "who, subsisting injhe.form of God,, did pot " reckon it robbery tp be on an eq^iahty.^yith God:" — 2dly. His voluntary exinanition, |as divip^es, have sometimes ^tylfd it^" yet emptied himself:"— -Sdly. A,statemfpt of that wherein this emptying consisted— "he emptied himself, assuming ;tlie form of a servant, bping made in the liU^keness of roen;r- 4thly. His voluntary humihation of himself, a/i!er assuming tfie " form ofa servant, and being made in the hkeness of men:" — " having been found in fashion , as a man, he humbled " himself:" — And lastly, wherein this huniiliation consisted — "he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the crost." * * The original words are,— i'Os 'iv fcoifv &t5 k^i^^m, dx i^ imputed to me. — If ever I shall write again on the Unitarian controversy, which, however is not very hkely to be the Case, I shall certainly take better cars both of my points of admit'ation, and ray inverted commas. PART III. fiXAMINATION OF THE MORE DIRECT EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY MR. YATES. IN SUPPORT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF UNITA RIANISM. CHAPTER L Agreeably to the order I have prescribed to myself, I now go back to Part IL of Mr. Yates's Vindication, to consider the arguments which he there brings forward ih support" of Unitarian principles, relative, to the unity of God and 'the subordination of' Jesus Christ. ,' .Before entering .on the* particular examination of these, it is of importauKe to observe, ihl gerieral, that all evidence is irrelevant and inadmissibje, that does not immediately relate to.what.are, strictiy land properiy^ the peadim'ities of \Jni- t8rianism,-—the precise ipointt if . d^krenpe.-^— To Set about proving the c?/H«»e,MK%, for example, js to do a service to Trinitarians as .wellia&to Unitarians, It. is ah article offiiith which. is held by both; ahd .the former vi^Ul be as highly, gra tified as the latter, by the exceUence apd conclhsimfeness. of the reasoning by which it is established. There may be some diversity of opinion respecting the degree of certain ty with which the doctrine may be; learned: by the hglitof nature; but in the doctrine itseff, that God is one^ as a doctrine fuUy certified by revelation; and; according with every principle of enlightened reason, there is perfect agree ment.— The harmony on this point between my opponent 302 and myseff, wUl most satisfactorily appear from a compari son of our respective language. — " But whatever may be the " views we entertain, as to the extent of natural evidence " in support of the unity of the Godhead; there can be no •' doubt, that this doctrine forms one of the first and fonda- " mental truths of divine revelation. It is, in many places " of the inspired volume, distinctly and plainly affirmed; and " it appears pervading the whole, as one of those great lead- " ing principles, to which it owes the peculiarity of its " general complexion, and to which all the subordinate " parts of the system bear a constant reference." Discourses, pages 9, 10. — " Notwithstanding the proof of the unity " of God afforded by the harmonious correspondence of " parts in the material creation, it is probable that this " doctrine would have been unknown, or little regarded, if " it had not been taught to mankind by the clear and au- " thoritative voice of divine revelation. In almost every " page of the Bible it shines with incomparable lustre. « To reveal, establish, and propagate this tenet, to which, " however sublime and rational, men have, in aU ages, " evinced a strong disinchnation, was the great end pro- " posed to be accomplished by the inspiration of the He- « brew prophets, and by the splendid series of miracles " recorded in the Old Testament. To promulgate the same " great truth among Heathen nations, and ultimately to ef- " feet its universal reception in the world, appears to have " been one of the principal purposes which God designed " to answer by the mission of our Lord Jesus Christ." Vin dication, page 57. — Whatever difference might arise be tween us upon an explanation of the terms of the last sen tence, it is obvious, that in the sentiment that the unity of God is an important truth, and a leadmg doctrine of revela- 303 tion, we are one. — What, then, is the precise point at is sue? It is simply this. Both parties hold the unity of God. But Trinitarians maintain that, according to the Scrip tures, this unity is, in a way which is not explained, and which they do not therefore pretend to understand, con sistent with personal distinction. Unitarians deny that any such distinction of persons is taught in the Scriptures. The point, therefore, which it behoves them to estabhsh is, not the unity qf God, but simply the inconsistency df this unity with the personal distinction for which Trinitarians con tend; — or, in other words, that this doctrine of personal distinction has no place in the word of God. — All argument and discussion that are not confined to this one point, are entirely irrelevant to the question. As evidence of the unity of God is not evidence of Uni tarianism, I shall pass by Mr. Yates's two chapters, " on " the evidence for this doctrine from the light of nature, and " from the testimony nd the Scriptures," with a single remark : — In the latter of these chapters, he says, (page 58.) " The word God does not denote a collection of persons, or " a coKw«7 of intelligent agents: it signifies simply one per- " son, or intelligent agent. Consequently every text, which " affirms that there is but one God, imphes that there is «' but one person in the Godhead," — But is this argument? Is it not just the old style of petitio principii? Does not the question still recur, What is the kind qf unity which such texts affirm? Is it unity involving distinction — or is it not? If it can be proved that, according to the testimony of the Scriptures, there is a distinction in the divine unity, then it will follow that, so far from Mr, Yates's statement being just, every text which affirms the divine unity must be in- tterpreted, in consistency with this doctrine, as meaning that 304 God is one indeed — ^but one, according to the peculiar modi/kHi* tion qf unity which belongs to Deity: — a unity, as it should seem from his own word, different from that which can be predi cated of any of his creatures, and of which the precise na ture is by us incomprehensible. Supposing this were estab lished — (and it is just the point which it should have been Mr, Yates's business to disprove) — every text that affirms the unity of God wiU involve an affirmation of the Trinity; because, on this supposition, a unity involving a threefold personal distinction is the unity which pertains to the God^ head. No other unity can belong to God, than that which does belong to him; and that which does belong to him must be essential to his nature. He cannot possibly be other than he is. I pass on to the third chapter of Mr. Yates's Second Part, entitled " Evidence that the Father is the only true « God." Mr. Yates here proceeds on the assumption of his having made out, to the satisfaction of the reader, the doctrine of his former chapter: — " Having thus shown," says he, " from " the clear light Of nature, confirmed by the ample testi- " mony of revelation, that aU created things were produced " by the power, and are directed by the providence, of one " Infinite Mind, or Person, I proceed to estabhsh another " distinguishmg article of the Unitarian creed, viz. that " this one person is the same, who is repeatedly called in " Scripture the Father, and consequently that the Father « is the only true God." (Pages 60, 61.) Now, suppose it granted (and there are few Trinitarians, it is presumed, who wiU be disposed to question it) that the appeUation " the Father" is, in various instances, used, in the Scriptures, as a designation simply of the Devti, 305 the Godhead, the one Supreme. If Mr. Yates had pre viously estabhshed the point, that God is one, without personal distinction, . then it would certainly have followed, that the Father, in aU its occurrences, meant God in this, the Unita rian view of his nature. But until this point has been estab hshed, the mere employment of this appeUation can be a proof of nothing; — because, when used as a designation of the One Supreme, it may just as well signify the One Su preme, subsisting in three persons, as the One Supreme sub sisting in one person : — that is, it may just as weU mean God in the^ Trinitarian, as God in the Unitarian, view of his nature. — In this view of the matter, Mr. Yates might have multiplied his hundred passages by another hundred, without having, after aU, produced a single proof of his point. He would have proved abundantiy, that "the Father" is an appellation of the One only God, the Supreme Deity ; but he would not have proved at aU, that in this One only God, the Supreme Deity, there existed no distinction of persons. But further ; in many, perhaps in by far the greater number, of the passages in which the appeUation "the Father" occurs, it is an appellation of distinction from the Son ; to whom there is either an expressed, or an obviously imphed, reference. This is the case in a large proportion of Mr. Yates's hundred texts. To adduce such texts as proofs that the Father alone is God, to the exclusion of the Son, is the easiest no doubt, but hardly the most satisfactory way of set- tUng the controversy— the waiy which we have found Mr. Yates so often adopting — that of taking for granted the thing to be proved. — A text may be a proof that the Father is God, without being a proof at all that the Son is not God. But unless it be a proof of the latter position, it is nothing to the purpose;— it is a proof of what nobody disputes. Instances of the Father being an appellation of t^e Supreme Divinity, ;i06 can never be proofs that the Son and the Holy Spirit arc not essentially included in the Divinity so denominated : — and, on the other hand, instances of the designation the Father, used in express or imphed distinction from the Son, may be proofs that the Father is God, but cannot be proofs that the Son is not God. But I must go still a step forther. While the hundred texts adduced, as they aU belong to one class or description, all come under the same general observation ; — there are some of them which, I think, my opponent has been particu larly unfortunate for himself in bringing forward to notice. There is nothing I should more earnestiy desire, than the reader's attentive perusal of Mr. Yates's hundred texts. — I shall select a few of the kind to which I refer. The first on his fist is Matt. xi. 27. with its parallel, Luke X. 22. " AU things are delivered unto me of my Father ; and " no man (more properly no one) knoweth the Son but the " Father, neither knoweth any one the Father save the Son, " and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." — But, if Jesus was a mere human prophet, this is surely very singular and unaccountable language. The Father and the Son are here represented as having, reciprocally, a full and immediate knowledge of each other, of which no one else is possessed. The mode of expression leads us to conceive of the know ledge which the Father has of the Son, as being the same in kind and in degree with that which the Son has of the Father ; no full and immediate knowledge qf either being possessed by any other being. — " The meaning is," say the Editors of the improved Version, " that no one but the " Father can fully comprehend the object and extent of the " Son's commission ; and no one but the Son comprehends " the counsels and designs of the Father with respect to the 307 (' instruction and reformation of mankind." — But why is the knowledge of the Father to be interpreted as meaning the knowledge of a particular part of his counsels, and not the knowledge of himself ? The latter is surely its most natural import, and it is supported by such parallel passages as John i. 18. " No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begot- " ten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath de- " clared him :" — John vi. 46. " Not that any man hath seen " the Father, save he who is of God, he hath seen the " Father." * What was there, we may further ask, in the idea of a human prophet, commissioned to teach to mankind the certainty of a future state, and the necessity of a Ufe of virtue to the attainment of happiness in that state,— what was there in this idea that rendered it so peculiarly wonderful, so en tirely above created conception; — as incomprehensible by * " To see the 'Father refers not to a perception of the divine presence and glory. " The external symbols and pledges of Jehovah's existence and favour were " afforded to his servants from the beginning of the world. In this way he was " seenty the patriarchs, by Moses, by the prophets, and by aE the people of Israel " in the wilderness at Sinai, &c — Nor does the phrase to see the Father, relate to " the direct communications of the Divine mind and will to his servants, Godi " had ' at sundry times, and in divers manners, spoken in time past to the fathers " 1>y the prophets,' who were denominated 'Seers, on account of the discoveries with " which they were favoured by the Almighty. The infallible Spirit of inspiration " illuminated their minds ; dictating to their faithful tongues and pens, as the liv- " ing Oracles of God. In this sense, the apostles saw God, and revealed his mind, " more fully than then- Divine Master didby his personal ministry, John xvi. 12 — " 15.— To see God Tcmst, therefore, here intend a contemplation of Deity in his own, " immediate proper nature: — to see him in the direct mode of his infinite exist- " ence, as the eternal I AM : — to view him, independentiy of any medium of time, " place, or creatures. Neither man, nor angel, nor any finite intelligence, ever did " or can thus see, i. e. comprehend the unlimited essence of Jehovah ; for ' who by " searching can find out God ? who can find out the Almighty unto perfection ?'— " The Son of God sees the Father, and the Father sees and Icnows himself. This " knowledge is essentially different from the knowledge of all creatures ; and con- " sequently must be the extlusive possession and prerogative of God. The Divine "' Being, though incomprehensible to all others, perfectly knows himself; and the " Son claims reciprocal knowledge with the Father." See a paper signed 'Fig- " linus' in the Evangelical Magazine for May 1S16. 308 any besides Jehovah, as the nature of Jehovah himself? The difficulty here does not consist merely in this prophet plac ing his knowledge of God on an equality with God's know ledge of him; but in his representing himself and the infinite Jehovah as reciprocally, and equally, the objects of knowledge to each other, in a sense that excludes all other beings, on both sides alike, from any participation in it — Again : — the knowledge of the Son, ascribed to the Father, and the knowledge of the Father ascribed to the Son, are, by the comment of the improved Version, perfectly identified. To know " the counsels and designs of the Father respecting the " instruction and reformation of mankind," is the very same, thing, (especiaUy on Unitarian principles as to the work of Christ) with knowing " the object and extent of the Son's " commission." John V. 23. " That aU men should honour the Son, even as " they honour the Father." Already noticed, pages 277, 278. John xiv. 8 — 10. "Philip saith unto him. Lord, show " us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto '' him. Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast " thou not known me, Philip ? He that hath seen me hath " seen the Father? and how sayest thou, then. Show us " the Father? Behevest thou not that I am in the Father, " and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you, " I speak not of myseff, but the Father that dweUeth in " me, he doeth the works," The words that Christ spoke were not " of himself:" — that is, what he taught was not of his own mind, or his own authority only. A part of his doctrine related to himself; — as, for example, in this very passage. But his tesimony with regard to himseff, it was obviously necessary, should have other attestations besides his own. Whatever he 309 was himself, he must not be the sole witness of it. Compare John V. 31 — 37. — To prove, accordingly, that the doctrine taught by him was not " qf himself," he appeals here, as he does in the passage just referred to, to his miracles, as wrought by the power of the Father — " The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works:" — that is, he attests the doctrine to be his; and particularly, attests the truth of what Jesus, on this and on other occasions, affirms con cerning himself. What, then, is it which he does affirm in this passage ? — that, in knowing him, they knew the Father ; that, in seeing him, they saw the Father. Knowing and seeing do not here mean, understanding what was taught concerning the Father. For Philip's request, " Show us the Father" did not express a desire to be taught what God was, but to be favoured with some peculiar manifestation of the divine glory, simUar, perhaps, to those visions recorded in some parts of the Old Testament history. It is to this request, that Jesus answers, " He that hath seen me hath seen the " Father ; and how sayest thou, then. Show us the Father ?" — And does not this answer imply, that there was in his character, as seen by them, something altogether above what mere human nature had ever exhibited ? — an untainted pu rity, and a sublime elevation, such as ought to have impressed all their minds with the conviction of his being more than man ? The language contains a reproof for their dulness of appre hension, and slowness of heart to beheve. Of the character of Christ, I am satisfied, we can form but very inadequate conceptions. He was " the brightness of the Father's glory." The perfections of Deity were, in him, exhibited to the view of men — and especially of Philip and his fellow-disciples. And his character, according to the appeal which he here makes to them, bore upon it the impress of divinity in such a way. 310 as to render them wit/iout excuse if they did not perceive and acknowledge it. They "beheld his glory, the glory as of " the only begotten of the Father." — What he adds here, " Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in " me ; or else believe me on account of the works themselves," — is the same with what he said to the Jews, John x. 38. in repelling from himself the charge of blasphemy ; and we have seen that it was interpreted, and rightly interpret ed, by them, as the same in import with the saying on which the charge was founded, " / and my Father are one," Gal. i. 1. " Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, " but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him " from the dead." — Not more fortunate for Mr, Yates surely, than the texts aheady noticed:— for, while it is true that Jesus Christ is here distinguished from God the Father, it is no less true, that he is, in the same terms with God the Father, distinguished from men. Gal. i. 3. " Grace be unto you, and peace, from God " the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ" — is an in stance of Christ being joined with the Father, as the object of supplication for spiritual blessings: — And of the same description are Eph. vi. 23. 2 Tim. i. 2, Tit. i. 4. 1 Cor. i. 3. 2 Cor. i. 2. Eph. i. 2. Phil. i. 2. Col. i, 2. 1 Tim, i. 1, 2. Philem. 3. 1 Thes, i, 1. 1 Thes. iii. 11. 2 Thes. i. 1, 2. — In the last two passages, not only are spiritual blessings desired from the Lord Jesus Christ conjointly with God the Father; but the church is addressed as " in" the Son, as weU as " in" the Father. Such are a specimen of Mr. Yates's hundred texts. Let the reader judge, whether they are fitted to " impress every " unprejudiced inquirer with the conviction that the Father " alone ought to be the God of Christians." (Page 63.)— The 311 passages he has collected, prove the Father to be the true God; but they do not at all prove that Jesus Christ is not the true God. So far from this, a number of them contain evi dence of the contrary. " The opinion of Unitarians upon this subject," adds Mr. Yates; " is forther confirmed by all those passages which " represent the^Father as the proper object qf supreme worship." (P. 63.) — But who denies that " the Father is the proper " object of supreme worship?" The question — the sole ques tion — ^is. Is he the ow^ proper object of such worship? We have before proved the contrary; and, until the texts adduc ed in evidence of the worship of the Son are better answer ed than they have yet been, we must continue to maintain the contrary. It is rather with a bad grace, indeed, that such a remark is introduced by Mr. Yates, considering the nature of so many of those very texts to which he had just been referring the reader. — That " the man Christ Jesus" worshipped the Father, what Trinitarian questions? In this, as in every thing else imitable by us, he " left us an example, " that we should follow his steps;" an example which Mr. Yates, with great truth, represents the apostle Paul as imi tating and recommending: — " In this respect, as in aU others, " the apostle Paul was a follower of Christ. To give thanks " for all things to the Father vf as his practice, andhispre- " cept." But when he adds, " Thus we are authorized'by " the example and the commands of Jesus our Master, and of " the apostle Paul, to consider the Father as the only pro- " per object of supreme adoration; whence we conclude "that he is the only God;" — he has forgotten his logic. By inserting the word " only," he has thrown into his con clusion a great deal more than is contained in his premises. We have formerly seen, (pages 255 — 266.) how clear the ex- 312 ample of Paul is for the worship of the Saviour; and that one of the instances of his practice Mr. Yates himseff ac knowledges he cannot explain to his own satisfaction. But these hundred texts are preceded by two or three others, which are made to lead the van. They are centurions, — captains of the hundred; and ihey deserve to be so distin guished. Seriously, and without a figure, they rank amongst the most plausible of Unitarian evidences, and are entitled to some more particular consideration. The first of them is 1 Cor. viii. 6, " To us there is but one God, the Father." — Mr. Yates quotes this little bit of the text, and satisfies himseff with saying, " no language can " be more explicit." — Let us take the words in their con nexion, and then consider what aspect they bear toward his system. — " As concerning, therefore, the eating of those " things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know " that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no " other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, " whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and " lords many,) yet to us there is but one God the Father, of " whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus " Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." Ver. 4 — 6. I cannot content myself with standing merely on the de fensive with regard to this passage; for I am satisfied that it not only does not oppose the divinity of Christ, but is a strong testimony in its favour; — that the thrust aimed with this weapon may not only be parried — but the weapon itself wrested from the hand of the adversary, and its point fair ly turned against himself. To show this, let the following series of observations be attended to. 1st. The subject of the apostle's reasoning is, the law fulness of eating meats that had been offered in sacrifice to 313 idols. And on this subject, he first of all admits, in ver. 4tiij the truth of what the abettors of the practice were dispos ed to urge in support of its lawfulness, that " an idol is no- " thing in the world, and that there is no other God but one." 2dly. He goes on, in ver. 5th, to state this laet proposi>- tion more at large. It is stiU the proposition " that there is " no other God but one," that he iUustrates and affirms. In ver. 4th, he announces it in general terms; and then in verses 5th and 6th, proceeds to establish it. — How then does he do this? Sdly. When he says, in verse 5th, " though there be that are " called gods whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods " many, and lords many," it is obvious, that the gods many, and lords many, are both included in the more general and comprehensive phrase, those " called gods whether in hea- " ven or in earth." The same beings, or supposed beings, which he first calls by the single appeUation " gods" he dis tributes under the two appellations dfgdds and lords. The lords many, then, belonged to the number of the heathen deities, as well as the gods many. He uses both appeUations, that he may include them all; for by these two appellations the Jews were accustomed, in general, to denominate the divini ties of the Gentile nations. 4thly. If this be the case, then, unless we would deprive the apostle's argument of all consistency, we must not con sider him as excluding from the claims and honours of deity " the one Lord Jesus Christ," The point to be proved was not, whether there were or were not various beings, of eminent power, in subordination to God; but whether there were any more than one only, that should receive divine homage and worship. He affirms that there is one only. But how does he affirm this? By opposing to the " gods many, R r 314 " and lords many" of the Gentiles — that is, as we have seen, to the deities of the Gentiles, to those " called gods, whether " in heaven or in earth," — by opposing to these, not " one " God the Father" only, but " one God the Father, and one " Lord Jesus Christ" The proposition, therefore, " There " is no other God but one," (which is the proposition to be estabhshed) must be considered as identified in the reason ing, not with the simple proposition " to us there is but " one God the Father," but with the complex proposition, " to us there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus " Christ." — The" one Lord Jesus Christ" is as directly op posed to the idol deities of the heathen as the " one God " the Father," is. 5thly. When the apostie calls the Father, God, and Jesus Christ, Lord, he makes it, at the same instant, abundantly clear, that he did not mean to be understood, as if either Christ was not God, or the Father not Lord, For, in the very same exclusive terms in which he affirms there is " one " God the Father," he also affirms, there is " one Lord Jesus " Christ." The argument, therefore; which would exclude Je sus Christ from Deity, would equally exclude the Father from Lordship, or dominion. It would subject mankind, or Christians rather, to Jesus Christ alone, to the entire ex clusion of the Father. There is no evading this consequence. It is vain to say, that Jesus Christ is Lord, in an inferior sense. This will not do. The affirmation that there is " one " Lord Jesus Christ," is just as explicit as the affirmation that there is one God the Father: — and, if it is alleged that the Father is the Suprem^e Lord, and Jesus Christ Lord by delega tion, then it is not true that to us there is but one Lord, 6th]y. This view is confirmed by the language here used respecting the " one Lord Jesus Christ." — " To us there 315 " 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:" — all things which are qfthe Father, are, in their utmost latitude, here affirmed to be by the Lord Jesus Christ; and that in the very same. terms in which, elsewhere, all things are said. to be by the Father. — Bom. xi. 36. Heb, ii. 10, &c, I conclude, therefore, in the words of an author before referred to, and from whom I have, in part, taken this argu ment: " Itaque hoc dictum divinitati Christi verae non " adyersatur ; sed multo magis eam commendat et confirmat : " docetque simul, etsi dari debet, Patrem esse iva kh, i^ ou ra " 'iravTu, xai rifiiig iig aunv, et Jesum Christum esse ha xu^iov bi " ou Ta icrMTa, xai jj/iE;s &' aarou, unum tamen solummodo esse " Deum ; qui non multiplicatur, quanquam divinitatis jus et " imperium his binis tribuitur,'' Royaard's Diatribe, &c. Page 182, — "This text, then, is not in opposition to the " proper deity of Jesus Christ ; but rather, greatly favours " and establishes it. Its doctrine is, that, admitting the " Father to be the ' one God, of whom are all things, and " we in him' (or rather, 'for him') and Jesus Christ to " be , the ' one Lord, by whom are all things, and we by " him,' yet there is one God only ; who is not multiplied, " although the claims and authority of Godhead are ascrib- " ed to both." A due attention to the observations made on this passage wUl leave little difficulty as to the next, Eph. iv. 4 — 6. — ^where the apostle, in enumerating the bonds of Christian unity, says, amongst other things, — " there is one Lord," and " one God and Father qf all, who is above all, and " through all, and in you all." 316 1. The same observation holds here as on the pre ceding text — viz. that the argument which would exclude the " one Lord" from the claims of Deity, would equaUy exclude the " one Father" from the claims of Lordship. 2. The same things that are here said of the Father, are elsewhere said of the Son. — See John iii. 31. Rom. ix. 5. Rom. X. 12. Col. i. 17. Heb. i. 3. &c. Of these two passages, ( 1 Cor. viii. 6. and Eph. iv. 4 — 6.) Mr. Yates says, " They require no comment. They de- " clare the ti'uth to be proved, viz. that the one God who " is above all, is the Father, in these very words. He, there- " fore, who derides or denies this Unitarian doctrine, de- " rides or denies the Scripture itself." (Page 61.) — The reader, I trust, is satisfied, that a little comment is some times not amiss ; and that it is possible to deny the Unita rian doctrine, (for as to derision we do not wish to deal in it) without denying the Scripture itself. The third passage which Mr. Yates thus selects for par ticular notice, is John xvii. 3. "This is hfe eternal, that " they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus " Christ whom thou hast sent." This text he char acterizes as " held deservedly dear by those who advo- " cate the doctrine of the proper unity of God." — Unita- rians, it seems, with aU their outcry about prejudice, have their favourite texts, as well as their neighbours : — texts which they " hold dear" for their coincidence with their own opinions. They caU themselves "advocates of the doctrine " of the proper unity of God." We cannot allow them the tide. The proper unity of God, is the unity which really belongs to him; the unity which is ascribed to hun in his own word. And, whether or not this is a unity 317 in which there subsists distinction, is precisely the question in debate. If the Scriptures affirm it to be so, then Trini tarians are the advocates of the proper, that is of the true, unity of God. — So dear, however, is the text under notice, that, in a recent Unitarian publication, the writer says : "The attention of every serious person should be directed " to this passage. It appears to me to be decisive of " the whole controversy. It is absolutely incapable of being " reconciled to the doctrine of the Trhiity." *— On this text, then, let the reader observe : — 1st. When the Father is addressed as "the true God," and " the only true God," he is so denominated, in distinction from all false gods,— £rom the idols of the heathen ; — to the exclusion of those " quos falsa gentium persuasio intro- " duxerat;" f — " whom the false persuasion of the GentUes had • " A Statement of die Principles of Unitarian Christianity, addressed to the Ih- " habitants of Greenock and Port- Glasgow, and to the Friends of Free Inquiry " tliroughout Scotland. — By a Unitarian." Respecting this Httle work, I have only time to say, that a great proportion of it, espeoiaJly what regards the unity of Godj and the humanity of Jesus Christ, contains proofs of what nobody denies. Let those who, in the cant language of the party, are here denominated " the friends of free in- " qu&y," mark this unfair suidillusive mode of arguing. We assert that ih the unity of God there is a distinction of persons :^we are met by proofs of the uriity of God. We assert that Jesus Christ was God as well as man : — we are encountered with multiplied evidences of his humanity. Tlie true pomts of difference on these subjects (for into otlier subjects it is not my present business to enter) are thus completely evaded. What wiU " the fi-iends of free inquiry" think of a book, which professes to guide thetn to Scriptural truth on these important topics, and yet never so much as adverts to any of those numerous passages of the word of God, on wMch tlie doctrines of the Trinity and the supreme Deity of Christ, are founded, any more than if no such passages had ever been adduced. It is not enough to say, that the work only professes to contain a iStatement of Unitarian principles. The object ofit is to sliow that these principles are scriptural; and it is addressed to the friends of free inquiry. But it is, ftom the nature of the caSe, impossible for a Unitarian to prove his principles on these subjects scriptural, except by prov ing that the principles of Trinitarians are uMscriptural. It ought to be liis bu siness, instead of prdving the ITniti/ of God, to disprove the trinity; instead of proving Christ's humanity, to disprove his divinity. If he can do this, he will have done every tiling : — but till he has done this, he has done absolutely nothing, ex- «ept having deceived his readers. •}¦ Grotius, as quoted by Whitby. 318 " introduced." To confirm this, let the reader compare 2 Chron. xv. 3, 8. Jer, x, 10, 1 Thes, i, 9. 2dly. We have formerly seen that, by this very writer, the same tide of " the time God," is expressly given to Jesus Christ; and with the same distinction too from idols. See 1 John V. 20, 21 ; compared with chap. i. 1, 2.; and " Dis- " courses on the Socinian Controversy," pages 37 — 41 ; with pages 1 78 — 182 of this work. — We have seen too, the manner in which John speaks of "the Word" in chapter i. 1 — 3. as well as in other parts of his Gospel history. The Evan gelist surely does not contradict himself; and, after having explicitly affirmed in one passage, " the Word was God," exclude him from all the claims of Deity in the other. If, therefore, there be any principle, by the application of which the language of John xvii. 3. may be explained in consistency with the language of John i. 1^3. and of all the other passages which assert the Divinity of Christ, more simply and easily than the language of John i. 1 — 3., and of all these other passages can be reconciled with the Unitarian interpretation of John xvii. 3. ; that principle ought to be adopted. — Such a principle, we are of opinion, is afford ed by the official character of Jesus Christ. It is in this character that he here speaks of himself — "Jesus Christ " whom thou hast sent." We have before shown, that there is no inconsistency between Jesus possessing Divine dignity, and his being sent, when he is considered as having vo luntarily assumed the official character of Mediator. — Now, in this text, the Father is distinguished from all false deities, as " the only true God," and he is distinguished from Jes'us Christ, as having " sent him .•" — and the " knowledge" of the character of God, as the God of salvation, and of the person and work of Christ as the Saviour, the Mediator between God and men, is declared to be " eternal life." 319 Sdly. A parallel case or two wUl serve to show the incon- clusiveness of the Unitarian argument. — We have already seen that Jesus Christ is called " the true God," as well a» the Father, and that therefore by the phrase " the only true " God," he cannot intend to exclude himself frOm the claims and honours of Deity. — -Speaking of " the appearing of our " Lord Jesus Christ," Pattl says, in 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16. " Which in his times He shall show, who is the blessed and " only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords; " who only hath immortality." — Supposing this to refer to THE Father, as Unitarians must of course interpret it; — we know that there is another " potentate," even He who " hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written. King " OF KINGS, AND LoRD OF LORDS;" — and that the Lord Jesus is caUed " the first and the last, and the living one;" who " in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth, and of " whose hands the heavens are the workmanship;" that there is therefore another who " hath immortality." — The word only, then, does not, either when put before " Potentate," or before " immortality," exclude Christ from the possession of these attributes. — Again: Solomon says to Jehovah, " Thou only " knowest the hearts of all the chUdren of men ;" 1 Kings viii. 39. ; yet Jesus says of himself, " I am He that searcheth the « reins and the hearts ;" Rev. u. 23. — If the exclusive particle only, does not, in this case, although not less explicit, deny to Jesus the attribute of omniscience; neither does the phrase " the only true God," applied to the Father, divest him of his proper divinity. Suppose Jesus to have addressed the Father, as " the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, " and Lord of lords, who only hath immortality;" or as the Being " who alone knew the hearts of all the children of " men;" — these forms of adoration would not, we have seen, 320 have excluded himself from the possession of the same at tributes; for of himself the same things are actuaUy affirm ed: — and yet these forms are in effect equivalent to that by which he does address him — " the only true God." Another favourite text which is here particularized by Mr. Yates, is Mark xiii. 32. where our Lord, speaking of the day of judgment, says, " But of that day and that hour " knoweth no one, no not the angels which are in heaven, " neitlier the Son, but the Father." It is foolish to talk of such passages as ff they contained no difficulty. Let us rather frankly admit the difficulty which the mode of expression involves, and endeavour to weigh it in an even balance. — " If any other being besides " the Father were God," says Mr. Yates, " he would have "known the day of judgment. Since, therefore, the Father " alone knew this day, it is manifest that He alone is the "omniscient God: — (pages 61, 62.) — and afterwards, when the same passage is introduced on another branch of his sub ject; " The Scripture teaches us that the knowledge of Christ " was not only derived, but also limited. For he himseff as-^ " serted, that he did not know the day of general judg- " ment, Mark xui. 32. The Father, who alone knew this " day, must be the only God. The Son, who knew it not, " could not be the supreme God, being inferior to him ia " knowledge." (Page 81.) — On these statements I observe, — 1st. It is admitted, and forms a part of our scheme, that the Lord Jesus Christ, in his official capacity, dehvered his instructions to men, according to a commission which he had received, — This idea is expressed in the foUowingi amongst other passages : " God, who, at sundry times, and "in divers manners, spoke in times past unto the fathers • " by the prophets, hath in these last days, spoken unto us 821 « by his own Son."—" My doctrine is not mine, but his that " sent me," — " He that sent me is true; and I speak to the " world those things which I have heard of him." — " Fpr I " have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me " he gave me a commandment what I should say, and what " I should speak:-^-and I know that his commandment is life " everlasting; whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father '< said unto me, so I speak." * In ihis sense we have no ob jections to saying that his knowledge was derived. He re ceives his official commission:— he is charged with the mes sage he is to deliver, — But then; 2dly. 7'hepe are other passages which as plainly describe this same person as the Searcher qf hearts, and as knowing all things; the government and judgmerit of the world are as cribed to him, to which functions omniscience is requisite ; and all the proofs together of his supreme Deity, are evi dences of his possessing this attribute, — Here, then, is a so- htary text, the only one which Unitarians have been able to produce as, in direct terms, asserting the limited extent of his knowledge, " He did not know," we are for ever remind ed, " the day of judgment," It wiU surely be acknowledg ed a singular thing, that this should be the sole limitation. The Governor and Judge of the world must of necessity be possessed of infallible prescience. Without this, the ad ministration of affairs could not be managed for an hour. How then are we to limit this prescience? It seems strange to think, that He who is to conduct the government of man kind, with a view to the final judgment, and who is himseff, in the close, to occupy the throne as universal Judge, should be in absolute ignorance of the time when the end was to come. He himself describes the solemn transactions of that approach- • Heb. i. I. John vii. 16. viii. 26. xit 49, SO. S s 322 ing day, when the " Son of man shall come in his glory, and " aU the holy angels with him, when he shall sit on the " throne of his glory, and when all nations shall be gathered to- " gether before him." He tells us, that " the hour is coming, in " which aU that are in their graves shaU hear his voice, and shall " come forth, they that have done good to the resurrection of " life, and they that have done evU to the resurrection of con- " demnation." Yet, according to the Unitarian hypothesis, he did not know any more than man or angel, when these things were to be. Nay, more; if the final judgment be meant in the text in question, then he gives a prophetic view of the general state of the world to the close of its history, yet knows not at all when that close is to arrive; — he describes himself as prescribing to his servants their respective charges " to occupy till he should come," and yet not merely leaving tliem in ignorance of the time of his return, but as ignorant of it himseff as they. Such considerations render it proba^ ble, a priori, that the ignorance of which he speaks in the text under discussion, was not absolute; but that he speaks of himself in his official capacity, and affirms, that the time of the final judgment, the precise period of the duration of the world, did not come within the limits of that commission which he had received of the Father, — formed no part of his official instructions, as a messenger to mankind. Sdly. In Acts i. 7. in reply to the question of his apostles, " Lord, wUt thou, at this time restore again the kingdom " to Israel?" — Jesus says, more generally, " It is not for « you to know the times and the seasons, which the Father " hath put in his own power," — Are we hence to infer, that our blessed Lord was unacquainted, not merely with the day of judgment, but with the times and seasons in general? This is not pretended, and would be contrary to fact; the very chapter in which the controverted words occur, demon- 323 strating the contrary. But these " times and seasons" " it " was not for them to know." The Father had ' ' put them in " his own power." Not that he himself was ignorant of them, and on that account unable to give the information desired; but it formed no part of his instructions at that time to make them known. They were secret things which belonged to God. May not our Lord, then, in the passage under con troversy, be understood as affirming the same thing with respect to the day qf judgment, which he here affirms respect ing " the times and seasons!' in general? 4thly. It is plain that if angels had known " that day and " that hour," it must have been by communication; — that if men had known it, it must also have been by communication. That neither man nor angel knew it, is equivalent to — that God had not communicated the knowledge of it to them. It is of know ledge received by communication that our Saviour speaks: — and as, in the passages before referred to, and in many others, he is represented, and represents himself, as sustaining an offi cial character, and bearing a commission from the Father to men; the whole of the difficulty consists in considering him in Mark xiii. 32, as speaking of himself in this, his official capacity, and declaring that the time of the judg ment was not among the things communicated to him as the commissioned messenger of the Father; — that it was to re main a divine secret,* * In these observations, I have taken no notice of the criticism of Dr. iVIac- knight, who thinks that the verb «;Ss» has here the force of the Hebrew conjuga tion HiphU, and signifies to make to know, or to declare. To avoid the obvious inference, that if" knoweth" means maketh known, when it is used of men and an gels, and the Son, it must have the same meaning as to the Father; which would make the text affirm, in opposition to fact, that the Father made known the day of judgment:— to avoid this inference, a second " */iot is" becomes necessary: " none maketh you to know," that is, " none hath power to make you know it." So that the verb " to know," is first made to signify to make known; and then, (0 make known means to have poiver to make known. This seems rather too much. 324 CHAPTER IL In the beginning of the fourth chapter of his Second Part, Mr. Yates announces three propositions respecting the Lord Jesus Christ, which in that and the two succeeding chapters he goes on to prove ; viz. " that our Lord Jesus Christ was " not God, but a distinct Being from him ; that he was in- " ferior and subordinate to the Father; and that he received " from the Father all his wisdom and power." — " To these " doctrines," be observes, " it is commonly objected, that they " lower the dignity of the Saviour. Let the considerate " reader bear in mind the maxim acknowledged on all " hands, and laid down at the commencement of our inquir- " ies, that the truth of religious doctrines ought to be tried, Is it not simpler to say at once, that not to know signifies not to have official commis sion to make known ? — The only parallel case which the Doctor adduces in support of his view, is 1 Cor. ii. 2. where Paul says, " I determined to know (fiSinsti) nothing " among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified;" L e. says he " I determined to " make known, to preach nothing among you but Jesus Christ." But although this may be considered as the effect of the verb here, it is the effect rather by consequenxe or inference,- than by its direct meaning. — It can hardly be said with propriety, that " to know nothing," means " to make known nothing." It is only a strong expression of the apostle's resolution to appear among them, and to preach among them, as if ignorant of every thing else, but the great subject of his minis try. He came among them in the character of an apostle of Jesus Christ. As a man, he was acquainted vrith many other things ; and he might be under temp tations to display his knowledge. But as an apostle he had one message to de liver, and he determined, in his official capacity, to know nothing else than that message. — In the same way, " the Son" did not " know" the day of judgment He knew it not in his official capacity, as the cominissioned ambassador of hea ven to men. It formed no part of the Divine communications to him in this cha racter. — This view has always appeared to me much more rational and satisfac tory, than that which is commonly given, that he was ignorant of it in his hu man nature, although he knew it in his dimne; — a mode of explanation with which, I confess, I have never been well satisfied. 325 " not by the standard of our fancies, wishes, and feelings, but " by the word of God." (Page 65.)— Agreed : « To the " law and to the testimony." The first point which he sets himself to prove, is, that " Jesus Christ is not God, but a distinct Being from him :" — " If," says be, " with a sincere desire of arriving at the truth, " we apply to this source of information, (the Scriptures) we, in " the first place, observe numerous passages which represent Je- " sus Christ as a distinct beingfrom God." (Page 65.) — Strings of passages are then produced, in which God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, are mentioned together, in evident distinction from each other. And to those quoted, I doubt not, a great many more might have been added. But, sup pose them multiphed indefinitely, what is it that is proved by them ? Is it any thing more than this ; that there is such a distinction between God our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, as admits qf their being spoken of as two ? — The ad ducing of such texts as proofs of the Unitarian doctrine, proceeds on the assumption, that in the Trinitarian system there is no such distinction held as could admit of their being so mentioned. But surely Mr. Yates knows, that sUch an assumption is unfounded. Trinitarians, he is well aware, not only maintain a distinction between the Eternal Father, and the Eternal Word in the nature of Deity ; but also a distinction between the Eternal Father and the Word made flesh, the Divine Mediator, In so far as he was man, they have no objection to admit the phraseology, that he is a dis tinct being from God, because the human nature, created, and, as created, dependent, was, and stiU is, unconfounded with the Divine, and can never become a part of the essence of Deity. Nothing, therefore, can be more futile, or less to the purpose, than to bring forward hsts of texts which, so 326 far as mere distinction is concerned, are equally explicable on either hypothesis, and which, in this respect, must stand as they are, whichsoever hypothesis be established as the true one. If the Father alone were God, and Jesus Christ a mere crea ture, they must have been mentioned distinctly : — but if the Father be a person in Deity, and the Son a person in Deity ; if, in the scheme of redemption, the Father asserts the claims of the Godhead, and the Incarnate Word is the Mediator be tween God and men ; — they must in that case also, have been mentioned distinctly. AU that is needful to the explanation of such texts, is the admission of personal distinction: and as, in the Trinitarian system, such distinction exists, in the senses just mentioned, the recognition ofthis distinction in the phraseology of the Scriptures, can never be fairly urged a- gainst it. — In these circumstances, I should think it quite as trifling and irrelevant for me to set about refiiting the argu ment derived from each of these texts separately, as it was for my opponent to bring them forward into the argument at all. They all belong to the same <;lass. They prove distinction : — they prove, therefore, what Trinitarians do not deny. They dwprove no one Trinitarian sentiment ; and therefore they cannot prove any sentiment that is pecuharly Unitarian, For with regard to precise points qf difference, no argument can prove one side that does not disprove the other. But whUe Mr. Yates adduces these passages as evidences of distinction, and in this view, as we have seen, adduces them to so little purpose, there is another view in which, it seems to me, the enumeration of them is, as in the case considered a little ago, most unfortunate for his own cause. — He brings forward, for instance, " seventeen passages," " each " of which," according to Unitarian phraseology, " expresses " a pious and benevolent wish of favour and assistance from 327 " two distinct beings," Several of these passages have bees adduced by me, in evidence of Jesus Christ being the object of divine worship ; and to the observations made on that branch of the subject, I refer the reader. The texts I allude to, were Eph. vi. 23. 2 John 3. 1 Thess. in. 11. 2 Thess, ii. 16. ; and almost aU the other thirteen might be added. They are Rom. i. 7. 1 Cor. i. 3. 2 Cor. i. 2. Eph. i. 2. Phil, i- 2. 1 Thess. i. 1. 2 Thess. i. 2. PhUem. 3. Gab i. 3. 1 Tim. i. 2. 2 Tim. i. 2. Tit. i, 4, 2 Pet, i. 2. — Let the reader turn to them if he wiU. It is my wish, indeed, that he should. For I am satisfied, that, ff his mind be open to conviction, he will see, in the constant junction of Jesus with the Father, in the prayers of the apostle for both temporal and spiritual bless ings, a much more convincipg proof on the Trinitarian side of the question, than the mere circumstance of their being named and spoken of distinctly, can ever be on its opposite ; — this circumstance being alike consistent with both, and inca pable, consequently, of being evidence on either. Distinction, no doubt, is also implied in those passages, next quoted by Mr. Yates, in which worship is addressed, or enjoined, to God, or to the Father, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. But what is this distinction ? — It is just the distinction between the Divine Father and the Divine Mediator. Had Mr. Yates attempted to show, that the Trinitarian view of the mediation of Christ, as the mediation of a Divine per son in the human nature, is incompatible with the " marked dis- " tinction" between this Mediator, and God, or the Godhead, as the object of worship, which the passages quoted express, he would have attempted something to his purpose ; and had he succeeded, he would have done something to his purpose. This, however, he has neither done nor attempted: and yet, till this is done, nothing is done. We hold, that the Eternal Word " was made flesh," associating his infinite glories with 328 the nature of man ; that, by his obedience unto death in the na ture he had assumed, he might make sufficient atonement for human guilt, and render the acceptance of ^nners, the par don of their sins, their access to God, and their everlasting happiness, consistent with the immutable perfection, and un- suUied honour, of the name, and law, and government, of the Great Supreme. We come, therefore, to the Father, in the name of the Son : — we come to the Godhead, — Father, Son and Holy Spirit, — in the name of the second person, in his capacity of incarnate Mediator : — we come to the Son him self, as " God over all, blessed for ever," on the ground of his own mediation, as " God manifest in the flesh." Till this view is shown to involve absurdity and contradiction, we hold by such passages as those referred to, as most satisfactory exhibitions of the Saviour, as the great medium of the ap proach of sinners to Deity ;-— we act agreeably to the direc tions, or to the example, which they contain ; — and we con ceive our view of the Mediator to give to them an energy and an interest of which they are utterly bereft by the self-right eous and frigid scheme of Unitarian theology. For, in what sense Unitarians draw near to God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is not very easy to say. " Further," says Mr. Yates, " there are various passages " of the New Testament, which assert that Jes'us Christ was " with God, (such as John i. 1, 2.) or that God was with him, " (such as John iii. 2. Acts x. 38.) These passages, while " they teach that Jesus was nearly allied to God in his en- " dowments er his office, at the same time prove that he was " a distinct being from God." (Page 67.) — But let him, ff he can, fairiy refute the Trinitarian explanation of such texts ; without doing this, he does nothing, — nay, he does less than nothing. He brings before the mind of his reader texts 329 which bear a most inauspicious aspect on his own cause. I now allude particularly to John i. 1, 2. ; which asserts, not, as Mr, Yates designs to represent it, that Jesus Christ (i. e, the 7nan Christ Jesus) was with God; but, that the Word, before being made fiesh, existed " in the beginning," and was then " with God;" and, in the same breath, with the same laconic simplicity, that this Word " was God" — of which enough has aheady been said: — the latter affirmation proving his divinity, and the former his personality in the Godhead. Mr. Yates iUustrates his argument from such passages by a supposed paraUel case. " To illustrate this phrase by a sim- " pie example: It has been conjectured, that Luke, the E- " vangelist, was the same man who is caUed in Paul's Epistles, " Sylvanus. We may conceive of the question being settled " in the foUowing manner. Suppose we were to find in any " part of the New Testament this expression, « Luke was '* with Sylvanus ;' we should immediately conclude that " Luke was not Sylvanus, but a different person. In like " manner, when we find it asserted, that ' the Word was with " God,' or that ' God was with Christ,' we draw the obviOus " inference, that Jesus Christ was not God, but, though fa- " voured with an intimate communion with him, a totally dis- " tinct being." (Pages 67, 68.) — But this imaginary parallel proceeds on the assumption of there bemg no difference be- tween the constitution of the person of Christ, and that of Luke or Sylvanus; and of there being no sense in which it could be said that " the Word was with God," except that sense which would imply the same kind of distinction between the Word and Gtod, as between one man and another, which is begging the question; — taking it for granted, either on the one hand, that Jesus was a mere man, which is the thing to be proved; or, on the other, that the unity of Deity is of the same nature with the unity of a man, which is also the thing T t , 330 to be proved. — As to God being " with Christ," there is no other distinction implied in such expressions, than that which has been already noticed, — namely, the distinction between Jesus as the Divine Mediator, in the assumed form of a" ser vant, and the Father, or the Godhead; as giving testimony to his doctrine and his work. The same general remarks apply to those passages in which Jesus is spoken of, as coming from God, and going to God. Indeed, these passages are also unfortunate, at least for the Socinian hypothesis. For they seem very clearly to denote a pre-existent state. If coming from God meant, in such connexion; merely having his commission from God, then going to Gorf, should mean his resigning that commission; but, if this be a forced and unnatural interpretation of the latter phrase, — if it evidently means something local, his going to heaven, represented as the place of the peculiar residence of God, — then must his coming from God, his " coming forth " from the Father, and coming into the world," have a cor responding signification. It must mean, his having come down from a pre-existent state of heavenly glory. The ques tion is. What was that state? Was it a state of Divine glory? The phrases in question do not imply the contrary; for God, although infinite, is often spoken of in language, such as, when apphed to creatures, indicates change of place; — among other expressions, as coming down. And, seeing an in spired writer teaches us; that the Word's being with God, before he appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh, was not in consistent with bis being God ; — ^neither, surely, are such de clarations of his coming from God, and going to God, Jesus Christ is caUed " the image of God," " the image of " the invisible God;" (2 Cor. iv. 4. CoL i. 15.) "the express " image of his person;" (Heb. i. 3.) and in PhU. ii. 6. is said to have been " in the form qf God!' " To say any person is 3- 331 " the image of himself, or in the form of himself," Mr. Yates alleges, " would be absolute nonsense," — But may not Christ be styled the "image of the invisible God," because his character, as" the M[ord made flesh," presents to mankind an embodied exhibition of the perfections of Deity ? In one of the passages where he is so denominated, it is said of him, in terms formerly discussed, that " all things in heaven and "earth, visible and invisible, were -created.^ him, and ^or " him, and that he is before all things, and that by him all " things consist," — And, without entering into any critical examination of the precise import of the original terms trans lated " the express image qf his person" it may be sufficient to observe, that, in the same verse, he is represented as " uphold- " ing aU things by the word of his power." On the phraseology of Phil, ii. 6, enough has been said before. On the whole, the arguments adduced in this chapter, with a view to prove that Jesus Christ is not God, but a distinct being from him, instead of proving this, prove no more than that he is distinct ; that the Eternal Word, or the Incarnate Mediator, is distinct from the Father, Distinction between the Father and the Lord Jesus <;!hrist, — between the Godhead and the Mediator, belongs to both systems. But the distinction affirmed in «ach, is materially different in kind. It behoved Mr. Yates to show not only that the language of the passages he has quoted, was consistent with the Unitarian hypothesis, but that it was wotxjonsistent with the Trinitarian. But this he has not attempted. And, while he has adduced a great many passages which, as proofs of mere distinction, are not at all to his purpose, he has, amongst them, brought forward some, which, in certain other views of them, afford strong evidence of the equahty of Christ with the Father. 332 Before proceeding to examine the contents of Chaper V. entitied " Evidence that our Lord Jesus Christ is inferior " and subordinate to the Father," — I must beg leave to transcribe a paragraph or two from my former volume, " But, it may be alleged, there are other passages of Scrip- " ture, which speak a very different language from those which " have been quoted: — passages, in which Jesus is spoken of as " ii ferior to the Father; as sent by the Father; as obeying and " serving the Father; as receiving a commission, and executing a " work gi'ven him to do. — AU this we at once admit; with the " very same readiness and cordiality, with which we admit his " having been a man. — I address myself at present to those who " acknowledge the Scriptures as the word of God; and who are " consequently satisfied that they cannot in reality contradict " themselves. To such I propose the foUowing simple ques- " tion: — Which of the two views — that which asserts the mere " humanity of Jesus Christ, or that which affirms the union of " his humanity with true and proper divinity — affords the easi- " est and most complete reconcUiation of these apparent con- " trarieties, and the fairest solution of the difficulty thence aris- " ing? — Talic, in the first place, the system from which the " Deity of Christ is entirely excluded. I need not say how su- " perlatively difficult the attempt must be, to bring the host of " texts already quoted, along with others ofa similar descrip- " tion, to speak a language in accordance with this hypothesis. " Every one who is at aU acquainted with the subject is aware, " that the attempt has employed, and exhausted, all the pos- " sible arts and resources of criticism: — with what success, re- " mains afterwards to be seen. — Take, on the other hand, the " view of the person and work of Christ presented in the fol- " lowing words : — < Who, being in the form of God, thought " it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no 333 " reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was " made in the likeness of men; and, being found in fashion %s a " man, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even " the death of the cross.' * Suppose, for the present, this trans- " lation to be correct, and the ordinary interpretation of the " passage to be the just one; — we have, on this supposition, a " double 'view of the person and character of Christ, which ap- " pears instantly to furnish a natural and satisfactory solution of " the whole difficulty. — If he be, indeed, both God and man, " we have no reason, surely, to be greatly astonished, if we find " language respecting him, of seemingly opposite complexions, " according as he is spoken of under the one, or under the " other view, of his person. When we adopt this principle of " interpretation, the apparent confusion becomes order and har- " mony, — If, besides, he voluntarily undertook the office of Me- " diator, and is represented, in the Scriptures, as performing " this work in the willingly assumed capacity ofa servant; there " can be no doubt, that this view of his Mediatorial character " and work does, in fact, afford a very easy and consistent inter- " pretation of almost aU the passages in which he is spoken of " as inferior and sulyect; as serving and obeying Jehovah; and " as receiving his reward. — On this principle, supposing it just, " we cease to wonder at the seeming contrarieties. We per- «' ceive them to be merely apparent; nay, to be such as we had " every reason previously to expect, — If, then, this be a key " which fits aU the wards of this" seemingly intricate lock, turn- " ing amongst them with hardly a touch of interruption, catch- " ing its bolts, and laying open to us, in the easiest and com- " pletest mannra-, the treasures of Divine truth: if this be a " principle which, in fact, does produce harmony and consist- " ency in the word of ^od, whUe the rejection of it, on the • Pha ii. 6—8. 334 "^ contrary, gives rise to difficulties without number; is not this, " of itself, a strong presumptive evidence that the principle is " correct, and weU-founded? — 1 shall probably have occasion, " in a subsequent Discourse, to touch again on the reasonable- " ness of this principle; — a principle which might be reduced " into a general rule of inteipretation : — that, of two contending " systems, that one ought to be preferred, which not only affords "a natural explanation of those texts by which it seems to be itself " supported, but, at the same time, furnishes a satisfactory prin- " ciple qf harmony, between these, and those other passages, which "have the appearance qf countenancing its opposite." — Discourse II. pages 45 — 47. " My last observation is, that we ought to beware of form- " ing our judgment from detached and insulated passages of " the word of God: — that we should take the Scriptures in their " harmony, comparing one part with another, and using them, " as much as possible, as self-expositors. — You will immediately " perceive the particular bearing of t\{\s remark, in reference to " our present subject. — In a former Discourse, I noticed the " seeming contrarieties in the Scripture testimony respecting " the person of Christ; and I endeavoured to point out also the " true principle qf harmony amongst them. A single observation " or two shall suffice at present, in addition to what was then " said. — ' Christ,' says a Unitarian writer, ' always prayed " to this one God, as his God and Father. He always spoke " of himself as receiving his doctrine and his power from him; " and again and again disclaimed having any power of his own. " ' Then answered Jesus, and said unto them, VerUy, verily, 1 " say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himseff;' John v. "19. * The words that I speak unto you I speak not of my- " self; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works;' " John xiv. 10. 'Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I 335 " ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your " God;' John xx. 17. It cannot surely be God,' adds he, 'that " uses such language as this! * — Now, without making any par- " ticular comment on the language which this writer uses, might " I not, on the other side, repeat again the various passages be- " fore quoted, in proof of his Divinity, and then say, with at '' least equal confidence, 'It cannot surely be a mere man, of whom " such things are said! — Here, then, is the question brought " into short compass. It comes at once to an is^ue. Here are " two classes of passages; both contained in the same book, — " both claiming to have their testimony received, as of the same " authority. — Here are two bands of witnesses. They all seem " to speak in language plain and distinctly intelligible. But " they appear to contradict one another. — What, then, shall " we make of them? — Whetber are we to receive the testimony " of the one, or that of the other ? — Or must we reject that of " both? — Or shall we apply scourges, and racks, and screws, " and all the instruments of torture, to force from the one, or x " from the other, a declaration, that they did not at all intend to " express what their language seems, beyond aU doubt, to con- " vey? — Or, lastly, is there no principle of reconciliation and " harmony between their apparently discordant testimonies? Is " there no ground on which both may consistently be beheved ; " since both appear to be supported by the very same measure " of credible evidence? — Here is the question; — here, I appre- " hend, the one great point on which the whole controversy " turns. And in answer to the question, I still affirm, as be- " fore. There is such a principle — there is such a ground — and " besides it there is no other. It is to be found, as formerly " stated, in the double view which is given by the apostle Paul, " of the person and official character of Jesus, when he says * Priestley's History of Early Opinions, Vol. I. p. 10. 336 " respecting him, that, ' being in the form of God, he thought " it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himseff of no " reputation, and took upon himseff the form ofa servant, and " was made in the likeness of men; and, being found in fashion " as a man, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, " even the death of the cross." — Admit the double view of the " person of Christ which is here stated, and the difficulty va- " nishes. The testimony of the different witnesses, elicited " without torture, and interpreted without perversion, becomes " one testimony, — In plain terms, there is, on this principle — (a " principle which, you may possibly think, I am disposed to " press too often upon your attention, but which reaUy merits " repetition on account of the extensiveness of its application " on this subject, the occasion for the use of it, as, from the na- " ture of the case, might have been expected, perpetually re- " curring) — there is, I say, on this principle, hardly a single text " that occasions any difficulty to an attentive and ingenuous " reader. — On every consideration, then, of feirness and can- " dour, is not this the view which ought to be preferred, by all " who are desirous rightly to obey the injunction in the text, " Prove all things." — Discourse VI. pages 184 — 186. I should, perhaps, ask pardon of the reader, for quoting passages of such length, which he may have read before. But the general principle which they contain, is one of such peculiar importance on the present part of the argument, that I am desirous of securing his attention to it, which a mere reference might not do. I have laid, and stiU lay, much of the stress of the argument upon this principle. Yet, as I formerly noticed, it is a principle against which my op ponent has not pointed a single piece of his critical ord nance. He has, in this chapter, brought forward lists of passages, in which Jesus Christ is represented as chosen, ap- 337 potnfedi sanctified, inspiredf anointed, given and sent by God, as receiving and executing a commission, as coming in the name qf the Lord, as the servant qf God, But he has never, either here or elsewhere, taken any notice, or at tempted any refutation, of the general principle, stated in the paragraphs I have quoted, on which such passages are explained by Trinitarians. And, tiU he has done this, " I " am not careful to answer him" further. Let him spoil our key, or prove it a picklock, and then we shall acknowledge our error, and give up the use of it. What Mr, Yates has v^ritten, in this chapter, on the mean ing of the title Son qfGod, is altogether irrelevant to the point in debate. This is a title about which, in its application to Jesus Christ, there is considerable diversity of opinion, not only between Unitarians and Trinitarians, but amongst Trini tarians themselves, — It has been questioned, whether it re lates to him in hia Divine nature alone, or in his human nature alone, or in the constitution of his person as God aiid man, connected with his official character as Mediator, The last of these views I am myseff inclined to prefer. But as the difierence respects a name merely, any one of the views may be held, along with the firm conviction of the supreme divinity of Him who bears it, Mr, Yates reasons on the assumed principle, that this title plainly implies inferi ority and subordination. But, if the title be considered as belonging to him on account of the. peculiar constitution of lus Mediatorial person, the idea of inferiority may be ad- mittedi on the principles laid down in the preceding quota tions; because, as Mediator, although uniting the Divine and human natures, he had assumed the form of a servant. And, even in opposition to those who consider the title Son of God, as expressing the mode of personal distinction in U ii 338 the Divine essence, Mr, Yates may find it difficult to prove that sonship implies inferiority in nature; inasmuch as a son must be, in nature, essentially the same with his father. That the name or title " Son of God," is a mark of" bhssful " and glorious distinction is evident," says Mr. Yates, " from " the manner in which it is applied both to the disciples of " Christ, and to our Saviour himself." (Page 72.) But it is no less evident, that the name is appUed in an infinitely higher sense to the Saviour himself, than to his disciples. " The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews," as Mr. Yates afterwards notices, " proves the superiority of Christ to an- " gels, by the evidence of passages in which he is called " by this designation." (P, 74.) — And the connexion in which these proofs are introduced, sufficiently shows the sense in which he understood the designation — " Unto the 5owhe saith, " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." — When Jesus spoke of God as his Father, the Jews took up stones to stone him, because he made himself " eq'ual with God." And, although nothing could have been ttiore easy than distinctly to disavow the inference, and although such disavowal was required by every consideration of piety and truth, he never did disavow it. Mr. Yates has not' disproved the justice of the interpretation put by the Jews on our Lord's words; — ^he has not disproved the propriety of any of the Trini tarian interpretations of the title; — for he has neither proved that it implies inferiority in nature, nor that the inferiority and subordination which he affirms it does imply, cannot be the inferiority and subordination involved in his voluntMy assumption of the human nature, arid of the form of a ser vant. TiU he has done both these, the tide Son of God-can avail him nothing, but rather, from the connexions in which it is sometimes given to Christ, is all against him,— ^It is in vain, therefor^ that Mr Yates, in this, as in former instances, 339 adduces his proofs by fifties and sixties. It is in this way . that he fulfils his engagement announced in the prospectus of his book, to establish the inferiority of Christ to the Father by " several hundred plain Scripture testimonies." Any per son, acquainted with the controversy, might have antici pated what sort of proofs these were to be; — iproofs of what nobody questions. Wherever Mr, Yates finds Jesus caUed rtie Son of God, or God called his Father, he finds a dis tinct proof that Jesus is not God. But he establishesno ge neral principle on which these multiplied proofs can be.made to tell upon his conclusion. He does not seem to think it at all incumbent ,upon him, to invalidate the principles of Trinitarian interpretation; but argues on, with all coolness, deliberation, and confidence, leaving the ignorant reader to wonder what Trinitarians make of these passages, ;or "whe ther they have not overlooked them altogether. In a -case of this kind, to dwell on each passage distinctly, would be an insult to the reader's understanding. They are all in the same predicament. The refutation of one is the refutation of the whole. They are like the Spectator's wooden library; — where, when - you touch a single volume, down comes an en tire shelf,- Mr. Yates takes it for granted, that the title " Son qf God!' implies inferiority and subordination; and then, understanding this inferiority and subordination in the Unitarian way, he has a host of proofs at his call: — the read er has only to take it for granted on the other side, that the title " Son of God" implies the equality of Christ with the Father, and the case is immediately reversed: the army of arguments vanii^es from the one side, and starts up in hostile array on the other. On this part of the subject, I cannot but advert to the gratulations with which Mr. Yates has haUed me in another 340 part of his volume, in consequence of my having professed doubts respecting the ordinary doctrine of the eternal gene ration of the Son from the Father, and the eternal proces sion of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, in the es sence of Deity. He considers this candid avowal'as " afford- " ing a gratifying illustration of the progress of good sense " and liberality of sentiment in matters of religion ;" and congratulates me on my freedom from the prison and the rack; as well as from the shackles of subscription to human articles. For both these species of liberty, — liberty from confinement and torture, and hberty from the trammels of subscription, I desire, along with Mr. Yates, to be duly thank* ful. The desirableness of the former will be felt and acknow ledged alike by all; of the advantage of the latter, 1 think I have had the satisfactory proof of personal experience. But, in his sanguine hopes of my future progress, I fear Mr. Yates must lay his account with disappointment. The present publication has already, in all probability, lowered his ex pectations; and they are likely to sink still farther, when I assure him, that, instead of being connected, in its origin, with any doubt as to the doctrine of the Trinity, the prin cipal source of my heshation respecting the common opin ion above mentioned, was a desire to clear that great and fundamental article of my faith from plausible objection. Whilst we ought never, in complaisance to the pride of hu man reason, either to give up, or to mitigate, those sublime mysteries, confessedly incomprehensible, but which form the very substance of the gospel; yet we should beware of add ing to them any thing of our own; and especially when the addition, instead of illustrating and confirming, tends rather to obscure and invalidate, the truth which we are de sirous to maintain. Such appeared to me to be the case with 341 regard to the doctrines of eternal generation and eternal pro cession; and, on examination, I could not find sufficient ground for them ih the holy Scriptures. But into the dis cussion of these topics, I feel no inchnation to enter. Although I consider the rejection of this explanation of the mode of the Divine subsistence as fitted to clear the great point of our blessed Lord's divinity from the most plausible of the ob jections and cavils of the adversary, — I am quite aware that others are of a contrary opinion; and from what I knOw of, them, I dare not take it upon me to impute their opinion to mere prejudice. Differing, as 1 do, from such, about the precise import of the title Son qf God, we both hold his su preme Divinity, and acknowledge him as the Eternal Word made flesh, to " put away sin by the sacrifice of himseff." I have no inclination to enter at present into any debate with these brethren, about the meaning of a name, but give them my hand and heart as fellow-disciples of the Divine Saviour. . — I must still, therefore, I presume, be content to rank, in my opponent's list, amongst the profeissors of " pristine non- " sense:" (for, under this appellation, I suppose, he wUl include the doctrine of the Trinity itself, as weff as the Nicene and Athanasian (explanations of it)— ^and I feel no desire to be honoured with a different place. In matters of rehgious sentiment, I take his scale by the rule of reverse; and make the lowest point of ^25 graduation the highest of mme. His pristine nonsense is my ancient truth; — the foundation of my hopes, the source of my joyi; to the defence of which, I trust, I shall ever be enabled to consecrate those " powers of " reasoning and persuasion," to which, as might have been expected, he has beefi pleased, on this occasion, to present a httle of the incense of his praise. It is certainly my dew sire to " conform my behef not to popular opinions, or hu- 342 " man creeds, but to the only infalhble test — the word of God." And, while I do this, it is my present conviction, that that word must be thoroughly changed, or that 1 must mysdf be given up to " strong delusion," before I can renounce the doctrmes which he has assailed. But there are two or three texts which Mr. Yates has more particularly specified, as proofs of the inferiority and sub ordination of Jesus Christ which merit a somewhat closer consideration. The first of these is John xiv. 28. " My Father is " greater than I ;" — of which Mr. Yates says, " This testi- " mony is so clear and explicit, that it does not admit of « Ulustration." (Page 69.) Let us notice, however, in the first place, the connexion in which these words stand : — " Ye have heard how I said " unto you, I go away, and come again unto you ; if ye loved " me, ye would rejoice because I said, I go to the Father; " for my Father is greater than I." — In going to the Father, he was going to " the joy that was set before him ;" — to the " glory that was to follow" all his sufferings ; — ^to the reward of his finished work. This reward, this glory, this joy, he was to receive as Mediator, in the capacity of the servant qf the Father. He had " taken upon him the form of a ser- *' vant :" — he was just about to " become obedient unto " death, even the death of the cross :" — and " therefore God " was highly to exalt him." — It is in this sense, and in this connexion, that Jesus says, " My Father is greater than 1." — Even here, therefore, our general principle of interpretation applies. We admit inferiority ; — ^not only the inferiority of the human nature of Jesus, but official inferiority. And the only question is, whether he is here speaking of himself in his official capacity? If he is, it is surely not unreasonable to conceive that it is to this inferiority he refers. 343 But, secondly: — It may sound strangely to speak of these words as a proof that he who used them was more than man, and more than a creature. — ^Yet my mind is not a little im pressed whh the improbabihty of a mere human prophet, or even a superangelic Messenger, assuring his fellow-men, or his fellow creatures, as of a thing of which they needed to be informed, that God was greater than he; — that he was irferior to the infinite Jehovah. We can hardly, I think, suppose a mere prophet, a good man, or any holy creature, to bring himseff thus into comparison with his Creator and his God. It is one of the , characteristic sentiments of all such crea tures, to feel, and to own, their utter insignificance, and absolute nothingness, before the Divine Majesty. Ascend as high as you please in the scale of created existence, you only give additional strength to the improbability in ques tion : — for there wiU still be an infinite disparity between the greatness of God, and the greatness of the most exalted creatures; and the higher you go, the sentiment referred to must be supposed the more powerfully felt. — I can scarce ly, therefore, imagine the words to have been used by a mere ly created Messenger; — nor is there any sense which I can attach to them, without an apprehension of impiety, but that which refers them to the official, Mediatorial, character of the Son of God ; — as " coming forth from the Father, " and coming into the world ;" — " finishing the work given " him to do ;" — and returning to the Father, to receive his reward, in " fulness of joy, and pleasures for evermore." ' The same general principle of official subordination, with out natural irferiority, may, without any difficulty or any direc tion of mine, be apphed by the intelligent reader to 1 Cor. iii. 23. " Ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's ,•" — and to 1 Cor. xi. 3. " The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the wo- 344 " man is the man; and the head of Christ is God." — " Christ " is God's," as being the Divinely appointed Mediator, all whose work, on earth, and in heaven, has the glory of God for its object. — " Tlie head of Christ is God ;" by whom he was commissioned and sent, whose wUl he came to do, who accepted his service, and bestowed his reward.; Mark x. 17, 18. " There came one running, and kneeled to " him, and asked him, Good master, what shall I do that I may " inherit eternal Itfe ? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest " thou me good ? there is none good but one, that is, God."> I have already noticed the folly of pretending that there are none of the passages brought forward by Unitarians a- gainst the divinity of Christ that present any difficulty. — The true state of the question is. Whether the numerous passage* understood by Trinitarians as asserting or implying his su^ preme Deity, are capable of a fair and consistent interpreta tion on the supposition of his being a mere creature? and, on the other hand, whether the passages understood by Unita rians as asserting or implying his being no more than a crea ture, are capable of such an interpretation, on the hypothesis of his being God and man in one person, and sustaining in that one person the official character of Mediator? I am not aware of any passage produced on the Uni tarian side of this alternative, that has greater plausi bility in it than the one now quoted.^ — In these words, it is aUeged, Jesus pointedly disavows supreme Godhead. — Lat us fairly see, then, how the matter stands. 1st. The epithet "good!' is evidently susceptiWe ofa higher and a lower sense. In our Lord's reply to this ruler's ques tion, he takes it in the highest acceptation of which it is sus ceptible, as signifying absolute unqudified perfection. — But it is an epithet often apphed to men; Matth. v. 45. xii, 35. 345 xxv. 21. Luke xxiu. SO. ActiS xi. 24, &c. It is generaUy understood, too, that the Jewish doctors (whose fondness for flattering titles is, on another occasion, exposed and re proved by our Saviour) affected this style of complimen tary address. 2dly. The title, it is sufficiently evident from the result, was not intended by the person who used it, to be understood in any higher sense than was applicable to a merely human being,-'— one whom, at the most, he considered as an emi nent prophet. iSdly. It was not, therefore, an address which it was at all possible for any who were present to consider it as blasphemy for Jesus to receive J — as implying his making himself God, whom alone he immediately declares in his answer to be good, — It could not, from its general use in apphcation to men, be understood as expressing any thing beyond mere humanity; so that there existed no occasion whatever why Jesus, supposing him to have been a mere human prophet, should have declined it, as an address to which the blessed God alone was entitied. — His answer, therefore, cannot be viewed as an instance of his revolting from the ascription to him of a Divine title ; because, from the ordinary use of the epithet, there was no danger, or even possibUity, of any such conception being formed. — It is not easy, in these circum stances, to perceive any reason why Jesus should have given a reply, disclaiming equedity with God, as Unitarians inter pret his words ; — because neither, on the one hand, was the person by whom he was addressed, ascribing such equahty to him; nor, on the other, was there the remotest possibUity of his hearers understanding him to claim such equality in ac cepting the title by which he was accosted. Is the reply of Jesus, then, capable of any natural and Xx 346 consistent interpretation, on the supposition of his having been himself a Divine person? — The two following views ofit are submitted to the reader: — 1. Our Lord may be understood as framing his reply ac cording to the views which he knew the 'person by whom he was addressed to entertain concerning him. There is no reason to suppose, that this ruler viewed our Lord as any thing more than a mere man, — a prophet, — " a teacher" (the ap pellation he employs) " sent.from God." Considered in this light, the words of Christ convey a severe and pointed reproof to those who affected such titles of flattery, and sought " the " honour that cometh from men." 2. He may be considered as inquiring the views qf this young man, with regard to him whom he thus so respectfully accosted, " kneehng to him," with an apparentiy humble ac knowledgment of his superior dignity and authority. — The reply will then be as if Jesus had said to bim: — Why callest thou me good? None is absolutely good but one, that is God. Do you mean by your address to ascribe this goodness to me? — to acknowledge and honour me in my Divine character? " I and my Father are one." Dost thou believe this? Or is your salutation a mere title of flattering courtesy, to be un derstood as when addressed to your own Rabbles? Let the reader, then, recollect that on other occasions, when Jesus was charged with making himself equal with God, he never disavowed the imputation; let him keep in mind also the copious evidence already produced of his real ly possessing Divine dignity ; and say, whether the one or the other of these senses, or a combination of both, shou^^ not be preferred to that interpretation which, without any good reason arising from the circumstances of the case, sets the words at variance with his conduct on other occasions, and with all the passages which assert or imply his divinity? I 347 CHAPTER IIL The general principles laid down in the preceding chap ter, are, in their full force, apphcable to all that Mr. Yates advances in Chapters YL and VII. of the Second Part of his " Vindication," respecting the wisdom, and knowledge, and power, of Christ, being derived from the Father. Mr. Yates thus states the' difference between Trinitarians and Unitarians, in answering the ancient question, " Whence « hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works?"— " The Trinitarians maintain that, as Jesus Christ was really and " truly God, he required no communication of knowledge " or power from any other being, but was, from all eternity, "and by his own nature, infinitely wise, omniscient, and " omnipotent. The Unitarians, on the contrary, assert, that « he derived his wisdom, his knowledge, and his poWer, from « the same Being who brought him into existence, from the " one eternal and almighty God, the Father." (Page 78.) But in this statement, he has been as careful as before to leave out of sight the double view of the person of Christ maintained by Trinitarians. Jesus Christ appears, as Me diator, " in the likeness of sinful flesh." In these circum stances, how were those, to whom be made his appearance, to be assured, that he came, that he taught, and that he acted, by divine authority? How, but by his announcing him self possessed of a commission from the Father,^ — and prov ing that commission by miraculous works? This he did. He declared that all that he taught was according to the commis sion he had received; that aU that he did was according to the will of Him that sent him; and .he appealed to his miracles, as works which the Father bad given him to do, and indi- 348 cations of his sanction and approbaticm. But what of this? The great general principle of the distinction of natures, and the official character of Jesus Christ, leaves no difficid- ty here. This general principle it should have been Mr. Yates's business to overthrow. But, instead of doing this, he has taken one side only of the Trinitarian view of the Saviour's person. He states that, as God, Trinitarians con sider his knowledge and wisdom as eternal and underived; in which he is right: but he entirely forgets, that they view him also as man, and, officially, as Mediator; that, in the human nature, all the knowledge and wisdom of his human soul must of necessity have been derived; and that, in his official capacity, he taught and acted by commission, communi cating what he had received to communicate, and doing, what he had been charged to do. — There is surely no great diffi culty in making the distinction between a personal and an official character. An ambassador from a prince, charged with a certain commission, may possess a vast deal of know ledge, even of the mind of his sovereign, beyond what is involved in 'his commission, and he may possess a large measure of general knowledge besides. Even of the sub stance of his commission he might have full knowledge in his personal capacity, before he received it in his official — But, as an ambassador, he is charged with a commission. That commission he delivers as from him that s^nt him. And he who, from the chcumstance.of this ambassador speaking of his commission in his official language, should conclude that he could have no knowledge of it except in his official capacity, and no persraial knowledge, no underived acquaint ance withany thing else; — would commit the same error with those, who argue, that because Jesus Christ, in his official capacity (which he had voluntarily assumed,) speaks of hun- 349 self as delivering what he was commissioned to deliver, — there fore all the knowledge and wisdom he possessed, were, and must have been, derived, and not inherent. The sophism arises from not distinguishing betv^een JesuS Christ, consider ed simply as God, and Jesus Christ^ considered in his official capacity as Mediatdi' between God and men — 'the voluntary servant of the Godhead. 'i' Chapter VII. Part II. m Mr. Yates's " Vindication," is one of the most laboured in the volume. Its object is to prove the Unitarian doctrine, " concerning the origin of Christ's " power, viz. that it was given to him." — As might have been expected, a great proportion of the reasoning is charac terized by the same species of sophism as the reasoning in proof of the derivation of Christ's wisdom and knowledge. — " To prove that any person is a God, no method can be «' more direct than to show that he is possessed of 'underived *' and independent power. I conceive, therefore, that we " might reduce the whole question concerning the Deity of " Christ within this short compasS. Did our Saviour pos- " sess his power without -having received it from any other " being, and did he exert it without being subject to the "pleasure and control of any other? Or were his authority, " his glory, and his majesty, conferred upon him by^ supe- *' rior? The former side of the question is espoused by the « Trinitarians, who affirm, that Jesus Christ was omnipotent " from eternity, and by his own nature, and that his power " is incapable of any increase as well as of any diminution. " The latter opinion is espoused with equal firmness by the " Unitarians, who assert, that all the power of Christ was " given to him. It is, therefore, my intention in this chapter, " by bringing forward all the passages in the New Testa- " ment, which relate to the power of Jesus, to enable every 350 " reader to decide for himself the principal question at issue, " viz. whether the power of Christ was given, or whetber it " was underived." (Pages 81, 82.) In this general statement, it will appear to the intelligent reader, that, as before, the Trinitarian distinction between Christ as God, and Christ in his complex person and offfcial character, as Emmanuel, is kept entirely out of sight. While the Unitarian doctrine is stated to be, that all the power of Christ was given to him, — was derived and not inherent, — ^the reader is left to conclude, that Trinitarians deny his having possessed any power of this description, — any power, that was, in any sense, given or derived; and that all the power which the Scriptures ascribe to him, is underived and inher ent; — than which, as Mr. Yates himself must know, nothing can be farther from truth. The chapter is divided into three parts: — the first, ex amining the question of our Lord's independent power " before his birth of the Virgin Mary :" — the second, con templating the exercise of his power during his /ibode upon earth .—and the third, the exercise of his power subsequently to his ascension to heaven. The first part of the inquiry proceeds on the hypothetical as sumption of the existence of Christ before his appearance on earth. " The question is, whether, granting the pre-existence qf " Christ, he enjoyed before his incarnation, underived power ?" Having already considered the principal passages on this head, namely, those in which the creation of all things is ascribed to Christ, and particularly examined the ground taken by Mr. Yates respecting the import of the prepositions AIA and 'rno, it would be impertinent to resume this dis cussion ; and I think it quite unnecessary to enlarge it. I re fer the reader to my Fourth Discourse, pages 104 — 112, 351 and to pages 229 — 236, ofthis work, and leave it to himself to judge, whether Mr. Yates has made good his assertions, •' that these paSfeages are decisively favourable to the Unita-, " rian doctrine, that if Jesus was concerned in the formation " of the heavens and the earth, he was only employed as an *' instrument in the hands of God his Father :" (page 83,) — and that, " when we direct our view to the first supposed " period of our Lord's existence, that preceding his in- *• carnation, we find that every passage of the New Testament " which ascribes to him power in that period, ascribes it "to him as a being inferior to, and dependent upon, the Father." (Page 88.) Of the exercise of our Lord's power during his abode on earth, Mr. Yates says, — " In the course of his public " ministry, he exhibited the astonishing and awful proofs " of supernatural power, by giving sight to the bhnd, and <• reason to the insane, by healing the sick, raising the dead, "and by many other stupendous miracles. Here again, " the question to be decided is. Whether he performed " his mighty acts by underived and independent power, " or whether he was enabled and authorised to exhibit them " by God the Father ? We may ascertain the truth, part- " ly from the opinions of those who saw our Lord's miracles . "performed, but chiefly from his own clear declarations." (Page 88;) On the argument derived from the manner in which Jesus performed some of his miracles, — I refer the reader to pages 223 — 226, of this treatise, and shaU offer very few additional observations on the way in which this argument is treated in this part of Mr. Yates's work. 1. The first is, that Mr. Yates renders it necessary to remind the reader, that the argument is derived, not from 352 the miracles themselves, but from thepeadiar manner in which, in some instances, they were performed. When, therefore, Mr. Yates says — " The more intelUgent and impartial Jews, " it appears, considered the miracles of Jesus as a proof, " that he was ' a teacher come from God,' which is the " exact hght in which they are regarded by all Unitarians; " — they reasoned, ' No man can do such miracles as Jesus " does,' (they did not say, as a Trinitarian would, ' except he " be God as well as man,' but) ' except God be with him :" (page 90.)^when Mr, Yates, I say, speaks thus, he deals unfairly, and ascribes to Trinitarians a mode of reasoning which they disavow. 2. The instances adduced by Mr. Yates to show the im pression made upon the spectators of our Lord's miracles, are not the instances adduced by me, as iUustrations of my argument. 3. With regard to our Lord's disciples, we are not without evidence that, amidst much darkness and confusion* of mind; they yet did entertain higher notions of their Master and Lord, than Mr. Yates is wiUing to admit : we not only find them acknowledging him as " the Son of the living God," but one of them caUing him " My Lord and my God," and another appeahng to his omniscience, as the Searcher of hearts, " Lord thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love " thee."" That the miracles of our Lord were never regarded by "the beloved John, the zealous Peter," and the other Apostles, as evincing his proper Deity, is, therefore, a gratis dictum. On one occasion, Peter was so overpowered with astonishment and dread by one of our Saviour's miracles, that he feU down at his knees, saying, "Depart from me, " for I am a sinful man, O Lord." — " The manner in which " Peter appears to have been affected," says Dr. Campbell, 353 " and the extraordinary petition he presented to a person "of whose benevolence and humanity he had been so oft " a witness, clearly show, that he discovered in his Master, " on this occasion, something superior to human, which " quite overwhelmed him with awe and fear." When, afl:er quoting John xx. 30, 31. Mr. Yates says, " We see that the beloved disciple, who always spoke of " his Master in the most glowing terms of admiration « and affection, and who wrote his history, when many were " disposed to fall away from the faith, in order to prevent their " love from waxing cold, never regarded the miracles of " Christ as a proof that he was God, but only as a proof " that he was the Messiah, the Son of God," — (page 91.) — he takes for granted that the title "Son of God" does not imply his equality with the Father. The comments of the Evangelist himself, however, on the meaning of the appella tion, may, perhaps, be more satisfactory to the reader, than that of Mr. Yates. He wUl find them in John i. 1 — 3, 10, 14. 1 John i. 1, 2. vrith v. 20, 4, WhUe in the minds of the disciples themselves there was such a measure Of ignorance and perplexity, so strange a mixture of temporal and spiritual notions and expectations, associated with their convictions of his being the Christ, that at times they appear to have been quite confounded, and not to have hnown weU what to think ;— we need not surely be much surprised, that the Jewish people in ge neral should have failed to draw the inference, which the manner of his performing his miracles was, on some oc casions, fitted to suggest. Their ignorance of their own prophets ;— their consequent ignorance of the Old Testament doctrine as to the person, character, and work of the Messiah ;— their rooted prejudices, and worldly-minded de- Yy 354 sires and hopes; — their bhndness, and hardness of heart, in resisting the clearest and most impressive evidence of the vaUdity of his claims, and the truth of his doctrine ; — aU pre^ pare us to learn without surprise, that his real dignity escaped their dark and misguided understandings. Con sidering the state of their minds, it is far from being " doubt- " less," that " the Jews," even although their " nation had " been signalized by the display of miracles during many " former ages," were " best able to judge of the nature of " the testimony" of miracles. The very reverse was the fact. 5. Both during our Lord's life, and after his ascension, his apostles, and other ministers, wrought their miracles in his name. It is difficult to conceive that the twelve, and the seventy, should - have been impressed with no high er notions of Jesus than as a fellow-man, or a great prophet, when they said to him, " Lord, even the devUs are subject " to us through thy name-" — a consideration, by the way, which may serve to give further strength to the observations made imder the third particular. — Christ says, before his ascension, (Mark xvi. 17.) " And these signs sbaU follow " them that beheve: in my name shall they cast out devUs," &c.; — and the Evangehst adds, " They went forth and preach- " ed every where, the Lord working with them^ and confirm- " ing the word, by signs following." Ver. 20. These ex pressions the reader may compare with the following passages, in the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles: Acts iiL 6, 16. iv. 7, 10. ix. 34. xvi. 18. Rom. xv. 18, &c. — It is surely very remarkable, that these mighty works should thus have been done in the name of Jesus ; that he should be spoken of as doing the works; — they the instruments of his power, — he the wonder working agent; — so that, in disclaiming any power or holiness of their own, as causing the effects produc- 2 355 ed, they should have ascribed all to the name and power qf Christ; — if, indeed, that name was only the name of a glori fied man. In speaking of the view given by Peter, of the miracles of his Master, in Acts x. 38. and Acts ii. 22. Mr. Yates explains his language as meaning that " in feet ' God " did the miracles through him,' God being the real author of " the miracles, and Christ the medium through the instrument- " ality of whom they were accomphshed." (Page 91.) — This is perfectly rational, if Jesus was a mere prophet: — it places him, as to miraculous power, on the ground which every mere prophet must occupy: — ^but it is hardly consistent with the sentiment held by Mr. Yates, and by Unitarians in ge neral, of his possessing power at his own disposal, in a way quite pecuhar to himself. — But what shall we make of those passages in which miracles are represented, both during his hfe, and especially after his ascension, as done ia his name ? Is he a mere instrument or medium when this is the case? No. The apostles are now the instruments, and they ascribe the power which produced the effect to their exalted Lord. The very place whjch the Father occupied in his miracles, HE HIMSELF occupics in theirs. So that, substituting Christ for God, and Peter or Paul for Christ, we may adopt Mr. Yates's own words, and say; — " Christ, in fact, did the mira- " cles through his apostle, Christ being the real author of the " iniracle, and his apostle the medium through whom they " were exhibited." " Having considered the inferences," says Mr. Yates, " derived from the miracles of Jesus by those who saw them " performed, let us, in the second place, inquire what account " he himseff gave of the power by which he exhibited them." (Page 92.) — Under this particular, we have proofs adduc ed, to which many more might have been added, of what 356 nobody questions; — viz. that the miracles of Jesus were wrought by the power of the Father, and that he himself, in performing them, openly acknowledged that power. It was indispensably necessary that Jesus should appear as having God with him, both in what he taught, and in the work which he executed. And so much has already been said, respecting the sense in which he was sent and commissioned, that this can present no difficulty to the mind of the intelU gent and candid inquirer. I shall only, therefore, further remark, that, even on those occasions when he is considered by Unitarians as most explicitly disclaiming underived power, he used language at the same time, which it is not easy to conceive any mere prophet — any mere creature-^to have em ployed. — Let us take for illustration a few verses of that re markable address of our Lord to the Jews, which is record ed in the fifth chapter of the Gospel by John, from the 17th verse. — The Jews having got information of the cure wrought by Jesus at the pool of Bethesda, " persecuted " and sought to slay hira, because he had done these things " on the Sabbath day." — To the charge of having violated the Sabbath, our Lord answered, " My Father worketh hither- " to, and I work." — His reply is generally understood to sig nify, that although the Divine Father had set apart the se venth day, after finishing the work of creation, as a day of rest from labour, and of holy worship, to be observed by men, in commemoration of the great Creator's glory,-«-yet that he had continued from the beginning till that time, car rying on the affairs of the world, maintaining the universe, and superintending, in the exercise of his wisdom and power, all its complicated concerns, without distinction of one day more than another. He was not bound himself by such in stitutions as he had appointed for his creatures: — that Jesus 35T vindicates himself, in this Instance, not on the ground of the merciful nature of the work he had performed, and the con sistency of SMC^ works with the spirit of the laws relative to the Sabbath, but directly from the example qfthe Father. — But this ground of vindication could hardly, I should think, be good and vaUd, except on the supposition, of the equality qf the parties. It would be rather a singular defence for any mere man to set up in his own behalf for his having performed some work on the Sabbath day, that God himself was en gaged on that day, as weU as on other days, in managing the affairs of the universe. However good and consistent the sense may be which Is thus yielded, I am disposed to think that our Lord refers, not to the divine superintendence of creation, but to his own miraculous works. The spirit of his viDdication appears to me to be this: — " In aU the miraculous works which I have " * hitherto' performed, my Father worketh as well as I. '^ His power has been In exercise as vfe\[ as mine, What- " ever, therefore, wIU condemn me, wiU equally condemn " God my Father also." Whatsoever view we adopt, it is plain, in the first place, that the Jews could never, on this, or on other occasions, have accused him of blasphemy, for simply calling God his Father. They themselves said, " We have one Father, even " God;" John viii, 41. They must have understood him as claiming this relation in a sense peculiar to himself. And so verse 18th informs us they did: " They sought the more " to kUl him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, " but said also that God was his Father," {¦jrari^a lAlON iXsyi " TOV ©sov) making himself equal with God." — {'M iaurov irom TtfiQiifi.) They understood him then to caU God his Father, in a sense implying equality with God. The mere phrase 358 " MY Father," in verse 17th, might, perhaps, from the use of the possessive pronoun in the singular number, convey to their minds an appropriation of God's paternal relation, in a sense peculiar to himseff; yet it seems much more probable that they deduced this inference from what he said respect ing the Father and himseff: — which they seem to have un derstood as implying the possession and exercise qf common power, and qf common independence and authority. This they condemned as blasphemy. "Upon which Jesus " answered them, saying. Verily, verily, I say unto you, the " Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Fa- " ther do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth " the Son likewise," Ver. 19. — Much depends here on the meaning of the phrase " qf himself," The foUowing passages will sufficiently show its meaning to be, that he said nothing and did nothing without commission, without authority; that all that he said and did had the sanction and concurrence of the Father ; chap. vii. 17, viii. 28. xii. 49, 50. xiv, 10, &c, — What follows confirms this: " The Son can do nothing of himself " but what he seeth the Father do." These words cannot surely mean, that he repeats what the Father does before him. They are explained by verse 20th; " For the Father loveth the Son, " and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and he will " show him greater works than these, that ye may mar- " vel." His MIRACLES, then, were " things which he satM " the Father do;" — which the Father "did;" — which the Fa ther " showed him." — (Compare as to what he taught, chap. in. 11. viii. 38.) — The meaning, therefore, of the 19th verse must be, (seeing these miracles were not first performed by the Father, and then repeated by the Son) that the Father and he exerted, in these miraculous works, a common and concurrent power; — that he was fully acquainted with the 359 mind and will of the Father, knew whatever he was to do before it was done, and exercised his own power along with the Father's, In performing the same works. — The principle of this interpretation extends to aU acts of divine power in creation and providence; — but it is of his miracles that he more Immediately speaks. By the " greater works" of which Jesus speaks in verse 20th, he seems to have meant especially the raising qfthe dead to life: — " For," adds he, " as the Father raiseth up the " dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth " whom he will." — The expression is remarkable — " quick- " eneth whom he will." There must be the will and the power of God, in order to the quickening of any. Yet Jesus speaks of himself as possessing a power sufficient for raising the dead, under the control of his own will. I am unable to understand this, unless upon the general principle just now stated, of the will and power qf the Father, and the will and power qf the Son, concurring in the production qf the same effects. — But this can be true of no one but a Divine person. A creature, in the performance of works which require divine power, can be nothing more than an instrument, utterly des titute of such power in himseff. Let the reader peruse the whole passage, from verse 16th to verse SOth.— He will find, that while there Is throughout, as was to be expected, constant reference to the mediatorial office and work of the speaker, there is language too, (such as that which has been noticed) which Is incapable of any simple and consistent explanation, except on the supposition of his possessing, in this capacity, a nature higher than the human. — Let our great general principle, of this twofold nature and character of the speaker, be then applied, as the key ofinterpretation ; and what was felt to be inexphcable 360 in relation to his human nature alone, or to his divine nature alone, or even to the divine and human natures together, when considered abstractedly from his official character, becomes harmonious and consistent, when his complex per son and mediatorial office are taken into account. " The third period of our Lord's existence," says Mr. Yates, " in which I proposed to consider the exercise of his " power, is that subsequent to his ascension into heaven. " The state to which he has been exalted, is described in " the New Testament in the most elevated language, but " is uniformly represented as the gift and the appoint- " ment of a superior Being, namely God the Father." — (Page 95.) Take out the word " Being," and Trinitarians wiU not object to this statement. " There is no incongruity in the " idea of delegated authority and dominion, when Jesus " is viewed as a Divine Mediator. Those who maintain this " view of his person and character, acknowledge such dele- " gation as an essential article of their scheme. Believing " him to be represented in the Scriptures, as voluntarily " assuming the form, and acting in the capacity, ofa servant, " they are not startled at finding this representation con 's sistently maintained throughout. In perfect harmony, there- " fore, with this view of his relation to the Father, in the " work of redemption, they consider all that he did as done " by appointment, and aU that he received, in his exaltation " to glory, as received in the form of reward; — and the re- " ward they account singularly appropriate, consisting, as it " does, In his investiture, as Mediator, with the administra- " tion of that branch of the Divine govermnent which has " for its immediate object the completion of the glorious " effects resulting from the work of salvation which he finish- 361 " ed when on earth. — Admit the principle of his acting, « In the scheme of redeeming mercy. In the voluntarily as- " sumed capacity of a servant, and aU is plain: — instead of " disorder, embarrassment, and difficulty, we have a perfect " plan, not only interesting in its design, and glorious In " Its consequences, but consistent and harmonious In all its ar- " rangements; — ' well ordered in all things and sure,' " — Dis courses, pages 116, 117. On this branch of the subject, I reckon it quite unneces sary to do more than transcribe these few sentences; refer ring my readers at the same time, to the subsequent reason ings in the same Discourse, and to various passages in this work. It may be very convenient for a Unitarian to accu mulate proofs of the Inferiority of Jesus when upon earth, and of the delegation to him of the power which he exercises in heaven. Chapter can thus be added to chapter; — and, all being stated with imposing confidence, — and no notice being taken of any other view of the passages, any more than if no other had ever been proposed; — both voluminous bulk, and an air of plausibility, may, in this way; be easily given to the whole. But there is, throughout, what Lord Bacon calls, I think, an error qf the den. Only one side of the question is presented. The principle of Trinitarian interpretation is left unnoticed; and the reader, who is ignorant of the con troversy, wonders, in this ignorance, how so much can be said. Yet, till the Trinitarian principle of interpretation is fairiy met, and successfully combated, nothing whatever is done. If Trinitarians denied that the Lord Jesus possesses delegated pow^^.ffjid authority, the passages adduced by Mr. Yates would come against them with irresistible force. But, since this Is not the case; — since Trinitarians assert his delegated authority, instead of denying It,— the simple question comes Z z 362 to be, whether they are right in the double view they take of the person of Christ? whether there be any scriptural foundation for the distinction between his natural and his offiy- cial power? whether there be any inconsistency in suppos ing him to possess, as God, inherent Divine authority, and, in his voluntarily assumed official character, as Mediator, to be invested with dominion, — to have " all things put under " his feet," — to be made " Head over all things to the " Church?" — While this view remains unrefuted, the pas sages, with their comments, may be multiplied into volumes instead of chapters, and be, after all, just as vahd and con clusive proofs of the Trinitarian system, as of its opposite. Mr. Yates " closes the evidence for the derivation of Christ's " power, and his inferiority to the Father, with the remark- '' able language of the apostle Paul, in his first Epistle to the " Corinthians (chap. xv. 24 — 28.) ' Then cometh the end, " when he shall have dehvered up the kingdom to God, even " the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all " authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put " all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall " be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under " his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under " him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all " things under him. And when all things shall be subdued " unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto " him that put all things under him, that God may be all in " all.' " — Even of this remarkable passage, I should have no great objection to adopt Mr. Yates's interpretation, only viewing Christ in his crfficial capacity, as Mediator: — " The " apostle here teaches, not only that all the power at pre- " sent exercised by our Saviour is conferred upon him by " God the Father, who is said to have ' put all things un-i 363 « der his feet,' but that, when the great and benevolent pur- " poses for which he is invested with that power, have been " fully answered, and aU the designs of his Mediatorial of- " fice finally accomplished, he will deliver up the kingdom, " and resign the authority granted to him." (Pages 100, 101.) — Yes: the mediatorial government of Christ is a branch of the great general administration of the Supreme Godhead. When all its important and interesting purposes have been fully and finally accomphshed, it shall, of course, cease, and matters shall, thus far, revert to their previous state: — God, that Is, THE Godhead, shall be all in all. The expression — " then shall the Son also be subject unto him that put aU " things under him," can mean no more than simply the cessation of his mediatorial reign. If it meant any more than this, then it would follow, that the Son is not now subject to the Father: an Idea which no Unitarian, at least, can con sistently maintain; unless he be ready to maintain that this creature is absolved from subjection to the Creator, by an act of the Creator himself, and that a part of the Divine do minions is relinquished to th^ sovereign uncontrolled com mand of such a creature, — left to the mercy ofa created, and, therefore, ofa mutable, wiU. In these circumstances, the reader is left to judge how far Mr. Yates, without the smallest attempt to invalidate the Trinitarian principle of interpretation, and before he came to touch a single Trinitarian argument for the divinity of Christ, was warranted to use such language as the foUowing: " We have found it to be the uniform doctrine of the New " Testament, that, in all these successive states," (i. e. be- ^'fore, and during, and after, his appearance on earth,) " he " Is inferior to God the Father, and possesses no power or " authority biit by derivation from the Father. If, there- 364 " fore, there be any truth in Scripture, or any Intelligible " meaning In the words of Christ and his apostles, the Uni- " tarian doctrine is now fully and irrefragably proved, viz, " that all the power by which our Saviour was ever distin- " guished, did not originally belong to him in his own nature, " but was given to him by the only true God, the Father." (Page 101.) — After this, I think it would have been well for Mr. Yates, to have said as httie as possible about con fidence and DOGMATISM. CHAPTER IV. Some passages in the course of the preceduig discussion, have been referred to by Mr. Yates, respecting which I have expressed my opinion, and given my reasons for it, that, so far from being favourable to his system, they contain evi dence against it. — In this chapter, I shall enumerate these, referring to the places where they have been previously no ticed: — and shall then subjoin a few more testimonies from Scripture, to the doctrine of our Lord's divinity, which were not adduced in my former Volume. 1. John x. 30 — 38. — See pages 136—145. 2. John xvii. 21. — See pages 145 — 148. 3. Matth. xi. 27. with Luke x. 22. — See pages 306—308. 4. John V. 23. — See pages 308 — 310. 5. Gal. i. 1.— Page 310. 6. Gal. i. 3. Eph. vi. 23. 2 Tim. i. 2. Tit. i. 4. 1 Cor. i. 3. 2 Cor. i, 2, Eph. i. 2. PhU. I. 2, Col, I. 2. 1 Tim. i. 1, 2, Philem. 3. 1 Thess. I, 1. 2 Thess. iii, 11. 2 Thess. I. 1, 2. — which are classed together under one head, on ac count of their siraUarity, but each of which affords a distinct 365 instance of prayer for blessings, either temporal or spiritual, addressed to Jesus equally with the Father. 7. 1 Cor. viii. 6. — See pages 312 — 315. 8. John V. 17 — 21. — Seepages 356 — 360. It Is not because I feel the slightest necessity for addition al proofs, that I now go on to bring them forward. I trust I have succeeded, to the satisfaction of the impartial reader, in firmly estabhshing the validity of those which were for merly adduced, by proving that, although they may have been touched in two or three trivial points, they are substan tially unaffected by any of the exceptions brought against them. My sole object Is to show, that what Mr. Yates alleges about our stock of proofs being exhausted, is not true; but that Bible evidences are still in reserve, not less conclusive than the former. I shall not enter, however, into any enlarged illustration of these; but shall content myself with a few brief remarks upon each, pointing out the light in which they strike my own mind. — I shall observe no par ticular arrangement in bringing them forward. 1. In Psalm Ixxvlil. 18, and 56, it is said of the Israelites in the wilderness: — " They tempted God in their heart, by " asking meat for their lust :" — " They tempted and provoked " the MOST High God, and kept not his testimonies." — In drawing instruction and admonition from their conduct and experience, the apostle Paul says, 1 Cor. x. 9. " Neither let " us TEMPT Christ, as some of them also tempted, and " were destroyed of serpents." — " These texts do both relate " to the same rebellious acts of the Israelites in the wUder- " ness. In the former of them, the person whom they tempt- " ed is called the most high God: in the latter, he is called " Christ: therefore Chist is the most high God;"* and the * Jones on the Cath. Doct. of the Trinity, p. 6. (C « 366 sin of tempting Christ, against which Christians are ad monished, is the very same, in nature and in guilt, with the sin committed by the Israelites in tempting Jehovah. 2. Isa. viii. 13, 14. " Sanctify the Lord or Hosts him- " self; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread. " and He shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stum bling, and a rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel." -" He who was to be a stumbhng stone, and a rock of of fence, is called by Isaiah, the Lord of Hosts; and he bids " the children of Israel * sanctifif (honour, worship, and " magnify) ' him, and make him their fear and their dread.' " — Fear is here put for the object of fear, which is God: " but the apostles Paul and Peter apply this expressly to " Christ. — Rom. ix. 32, 33. ' They stumbled at the stum- " bling stone; as it is written. Behold, I lay in Zion a stum- " bling stone, and rock of offence; and whosoever believeth " in him (Christ) shall not be ashamed.' — 1 Pet. ii. 7. 8. " ' Unto you, therefore, who believe, he (Jesus Christ) is " precious; but unto them who are disobedient, the stone ", which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head " of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of of- " fence, to those who stumble at the word.' Therefore, Je- " sus Christ is the Lord of hosts; — is to be sanctified, " (worshipped, and magnified,) and is the tiue object of religi- " ousfear and reverence," * 3, Psal. xcvii. 7. " Worship him, all ye gods:" — com pared with Heb. I. 6. " When he bringeth in his first-be- " gotten into the world, he saith. And let all the angels of " God worship him." — " That glorious and magnificent * " A clear display of the Trinity from Divine Revelation; with an impartial " examination of some traditions concerning God, in systems contrived by coun- " cils, assemblies and synods, and imposed upon mankind as articles of faith, &c. " By A. M, a Layman. — London, 1773." 367 " description in the ninety-seventh Psalm, is of one, who in " several parts of it, is called Jehovah, and worship com- " manded to be given to him ; ' Worship him all ye gods.' " But the apostle says, it was the Son of God Who was " ^oken of in that sacred hymn. Therefore he is Jehovah to whom divine worship is due, and of whom the glorious things " in that Psalm are said, proper to none but the true God," * — " If," says Bishop Horsley, " in argument with any of the " false teachers of the present day, 1 were to allege this " text of the Psalm in proof of our Lord's divinity, my an- " tagonist would probably reply, that our Lord is not once " mentioned in the Psalm; that the subject of the Psalm is " an assertion of the proper divinity of' Jehovah, the God of " the Israelites, as distinguished from the imaginary deities " which the heathen worshipped. This Psalm, therefore, " which proposes Jehovah, the God of the Israelites, as the " sole object of worship to men and angels, is alleged, he " would say, to no purpose, in justification of worship paid " to another person. And to any one who might know no- " thing more of the true sense of this passage than may ap« " pear in the words taken by themselves, my adversary might "seem to have the better in the argument. I think I should " seem to myself to stand confuted, if I knew no more of the " meaning of my text, or rather of the inspired song of which " it makes a part, than an inattentive reader might collect " from a hasty view of its general purport. But observe the " references on the margin of the Bible, and you wUl find " that a parallel passage occurs in the Epistle to the He- " brews, in the first chapter at the sixth verse. Turn to this " passage of the Epistle, and there you will find this text " of the Psalmist cited by St. Paul to this very purpose, name- • Ibid. 368 " ly, to prove that adoration is due from the blessed an- " gels of God to the only-begotten Son: — for thus he rea- " sons: ' When he bringeth in the first-begotten into the " world he saith. And let all the angels of God worship " him.' The only passage in the Old Testament, as the " Hebrew text now stands, is this seventh verse of the nine- " ty-seventh Psalm. The words of the Psalmist, indeed, are " these, ' Worship him, all ye gods.' The apostle, that " he might clearly exclude a plurality of gods whUe he as- " serts the Godhead of the Son, thinks proper to explain " the Psalmist's words by substituting, ' all the angels of God' " for ' all the gods.' But it is very evident, that the first- " begotten was, in the apostle's judgment, the object of wor- " ship propounded by the Psalmist, otherwise these words " of the Psalmist, in which he caUs upon the angels to wor- " ship Jehovah, were alleged to no purpose in proof of the " Son's natural pre-eminence above the angels. For either " the Son is the object of worship intended by the Psalm- " ist, or the Son himself is to bear a part in the worship f so universally enjoined." * 4. Isa. liv. 5. " Thy Maker is thy Husband, — the Lord " (Jehovah) of hosts is his name: and thy Redeemer, the " Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall " he be called." — " The Husband, or Bridegroom, of the " church, and her Redeemer, is here called the Lord of " hosts, and the God of the whole earth. But Jesus " Christ is Husband or Bridegroom, and Redeemer of the " church. — Eph. v. 23. ' The husband is the head of the " wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.' — Rev. xix. " 7. ' Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to hira: for * Nine Sermons on the nature of the evidence by which the fact of our Lord's resurrection is established, and on various other subjects. Pages 228 — 231, 369 *' the marriage qf the Lamb is come, and his Wife hathmade " herself ready.' — Rev. xxi. 9. ' Come hither, and I wUl "show thee the Bride, the Lamb's wife.' — Gal. iii, 13. , J! ^ C^mi hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.' — Col. ffl. 14. ' In whom we have redemption throng his hlood" " &c, — Jesus Christ, therefore, is the Lord of hosts, the " God of the whole earth," * 5. PsaL Ixviii. 17, 18. " The chariots of God are twenty " thousand, thousands of angels; Jehovah is among them, as " in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended up on " high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received " gifts for men," — Eph, iv. 7, 8. " But unto every one of " us is given grace, according to the measure of the -gift of " Christ. Wherefore he saith. When he ascended up on " high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." — According to the Psalmist, it was God, Jehovah, that ascended up on high:— raccording to the apostle, it was Christ. 6. Zech. xii. 10. "And I" (namely Jehovah) "wiU pour " upon the house of- David, and upon the inhabitants of Je- " rusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication, and they " shall' look upon me whom they have pierced :"— John xix. 34. " One of the soldiers with a spear pierced his (Christ's) " side; — that the Scripture should be fulfilled — ' They shaU "look on him whom they pierced! " — Jesus Christ, there fore. Is Jehovah. -c 7. Jude; verses 24, 25. " Now unto him who is able to " keep you from falling, and to present you fauhless be- " fore the presence of his glory, with exceeding joy; to " God alone our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Loji', f * Clear Display of the Trinity, &c. by A. M. t I follow, in translating this verse, the text of Griesbach, altWiugh the com mon version would afford an argument still more powerful. 3 A 370 " be glory and majesty, dominion and power, (as) from eter- " nity, so now, and to eternity. Amen." — That which God the Father Is, In these words, represented as able, and alone able, to do, Is declared elsewhere to be done by Jesus Christ : — " Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that " he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water " by the word ; that he might present it to himself (a5rof " iauTifi, Griesbach) a glorious church, not having spot or " wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy, " and without blemish." — Christ, then, is, in power, and purpose, and operation, one with the Father, and shares with him the glory arising from the final salvation of the church. 8. The principle which apphes to so many passages of the New Testament, of Jesus Christ being spoken of under the two characters ofa Divine person, and " the Mediator between " God and men," the servant of Jehovah, furnishes the most reasonable ground of interpretation for some parts of the Old. Isaiah, chap. L. — The chapter begins with " Thus saith " Jehovah;" and there is not the least intimation of any change of speaker, — The same speaker, so far as appears, who says, in the third verse, " I clothe the heavens with " blackness, and I make sackcloth their covering," says, in the sixth, " I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks " to them that plucked offthe hair: I hid not my face from " shame and spitting." — The same speaker, resuming the style of Deity, says of his enemies. In the close of the chap ter, " This shall ye have of my hand, ye shaU lie down in " sorrow:" — and goes on, in the beginning of the chapter foUowing, to say of Abraham; " I called him alone, and " blessed him, and increased him." — Suppose this speaker throughout to be Messiah " in the form of God," and Mes- 371 slab " in the form of a servant, and the likeness of men," and all is simple and harmonious: whereas the supposition of a change of speaker at verse 4th, where the style of inferior ity commences, and a change again, where this style ceases, requires very considerable violence; the more especially, as the things that are said in verses 4 — 9. are in many respects inapplicable to the prophet himselfi while they are strikingly applicable to the promised Redeemer. 9. Isaiah xl. 9 — 11. In the preceding verses of the chap ter, we have the proclamation of the predicted forerunner of THE Messiah: " The voice of him that crieth in the wil- " derness. Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight " In the desert a high-way for our God," The apphcation of these words to Christ we have formerly considered. forty, and thence, perhaps, to thirty, before he reaches the highest number; and when he has descended to twenty, and to ten, he win not have arrived at the lowest. — One of the towns men tioned as having a delegate present, was left, I have been in formed, empty of its Unitarianism, when the said delegate took his departure to attend the meeting. Invited for this purpose to Edinburgh, he complied with the invitation, and appeared there as the representative of — himself! — and gave withal, it may be presumed, a "very encouraging account" of the pro gress of Unitarianism in the place where he had got and given his commission of delegation. — In another of these towns, there has been discovered a solitary old woman professing Unitarian principles, who is not acquainted with any " of that way" in the place, besides herself — In more places than one, although they have made several attempts to gain a footing, their suc cess has been so very small, that inquirers after them have hardly been able to discover their existence; from which, (as It is not, in general, their nature, to " bluish unseen,") we may, I presume, infer, that in such places they are not at least in, suflicienti numbers to keep one another in countenance. — In several of these stations I have heard of three, in one of five or six, , in another of from eight to twelve, in another of seventeen, in another of twenty ; the largest number of which I have heard In anyplace Is between twenty and thirty, and even this only in one instance ; and some of the persons Includ ed in the number, hardly avowed Unitarians, but only " tan- " quam suspecti," — Theinquiries which have produced such re sults, have been made at the most considerable of the places enu merated, which it is, perhaps, more than justice to take as a 391 standard for the rest. Double, if you please, the amount In every one of them; and still, surely, there must be some little quackery; In puffing them off as " very encouraging accounts." I do not mention these thlttgs, because I think there is no ground for apprehension, or because I am disposed to contemn and set at nought their efforts. No one who knows his own heart, and who believes the Bible account of human nature, will feel confidence in saying, respecting any error whatever, in any given circumstances, that there Is no dan ger of Its making progress, — " No human voice," Mr. Yates rejoices, " can say. Halt! to the march of Intellect," But alas! this is true of its retrograde, as weU as of Its advancing, march! " There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, " but the end thereof are the ways of death." A man may " call evil good, and good evil, may put bitter for sweet, and " sweet for bitter, may put darktiess for light, and light for " darkness." The very " light that is in him may be dark- " ness." He may turn his back on the Confines of truth, aild make hasty and haughty strides into the regions of er ror, exulting in the confidence that " no human voice can " say. Halt!" to his progress There is not, perhaps, a sin gle point of error, to which there is not some correspond ing point in the variety of human corruption; — some princi ple or passion to which it presents a tempting gratification. One of the great leading tendencies of the Unitarian system is, the exdltation qfman. It flatters the conscious dignity of his nature, by treating as *' an old-wlves'-fable" the doctrine of Original depravity. It flatters his pride of intellect, by making Reason the arbitress of the dictates of Revelation, It flatters his pride of self-righteousness, by assuring him, that his own virtue Is to procure his acceptance with God. By denying, the deity and atonement of Christ, it releases 392 the mind from the overwhelming impression of the infinite malignity of sin. By exhibiting " a God all mercy," soft- tening down the " terrors of the Lord," and proclaiming an assurance, that none shaU finally perish, but that aU shaU ultimately arrive at the enjoyment of everlasting happiness, it alleviates the sinner's apprehension of danger, makes him feel more at his ease with God, as a Being whose counte nance, instead of the frown of an offended Judge, wears to wards all his creatures the smiles of paternal love, and who will not be severe to mark or to punish the frailties of his erring children. By denying the existence and influences of the Holy Spirit, it offers incense to the seff-sufficiency of man, and to the omnipotence of human resolutions and hu man efforts, in working out a self-procured salvation. If these things be so; — if Unitarianism be thus consonant with so many of the principles of corrupt nature, how comes it to pass that it does not meet with a more general recep tion? That its converts are comparatively few; — ^that, with not many exceptions, its preachers proclaim their doctrines to empty pews and echoing walls; — are matters of unquestion able notoriety. Why is it so? It is all owing. Unitarians wiU say, to the strength of early prejudice, to the natural predUec- tion of the human mind for marvels and mysteries, and its consequent aversion to the simplicity of reason and truth. — That, in some instances, such causes do operate, it would be unreasonable to deny. That religion is, with too many, a matter of educational prejudice, and not of personal inquiry and personal experience, cannot, alas ! admit of a doubt. And it is equaUy true, that some minds are fond of mystery, and like every thing the better the more mysterious it can be rendered. — But there are causes, I apprehend, of more extensive and powerful operation. 393 The first of these is, the very pretension of Unitarianism to be the doctrine qf the Bible. — The whole system of its ge neral principles, and particular tenets, stands so plainly and diametrically opposed to the clearest dictates of the sacred volume, that this of Itself Is enough to disgust ninety-nine in the hundred of all who are able to read. They shake their heads and say, " No, no; this will never do. True " or false, this is not the doctrine taught In the Bible:— .*' these men should honestly confess that they did not learn " their system there, and either abandon It, or renounce « revelation." — " Your system," might a Deist say to a Uni- " tarian — " Your system is no doubt free of most of the " mysterious absurdities of orthodox theology. It is much *' more rational and manly, and approaches to the simplicity " of our own creed. But why impose upon us, and Impose " upon yourselves, by calling it the system of the Bible? " Your eyes have been opened to see the falsehood and folly " of that contradictory jargon, that is received as gospel by " simple, or unhappily prejudiced, believers. One reason of " our rejecting the pretensions of the Bible as a Divine re- " velation, is, that it does, beyond all reasonable question, " contain the doctrines which you have had the good sense *' to disavow. But, to be consistent, you must go a step " farther. Reject the book; and, giving up aU your attempts *« to torture it into consistency with your more rational senti- " ments, frankly confess, that the doctrines which it contains *' are enough to sink it, and aU its evidences, together." — There, may be many things in a sdieme of doctrine very palatable to human corruption, and. In so far, calculated to procure for It an extensive reception; while yet there is such a palpable and flagrant opposition between it and the book from which It professes to be taken, as at once to shock the 5 D 394 judgment of the great majority of men, effectually to counter act their wishes for its truth, (if such they may secretly have formed) and to ensure its general rejection. — On this ground, the speculative acquaintance with the contents of the Bible, which pervades Scotland, (even although so extensively heartless and inefficacious) will form one strong barrier to the progress of Unitarian principles amongst its population. But besides, there are wants in the condition of mankind, which Unitarianism does not meet. However reluctant men may be to acknowledge themselves utterly " lost," and " with- " out strength;" yet there exists a prevaling consciousness of sin, and guilt, and condemnation. The gospel, in its exhibitions of an atoning Mediator, meets this natural feel ing. There is an obvious congruity between the general idea of such a Saviour, and the secret dictates of conscience in the human breast. In some, these dictates, becoming power- fill and awakening, lead the sinner, through the blessing of God, to a glad and grateful reception of the free salvation which is offered to him in the gospel. In others, they are re pressed and resisted; the love of sin and of the world maintains the ascendency, and opposes the result to which a conscious ness of guilt might otherwise lead. Yet, while sin and the world have the vote of the heart, this vote is given In opposi tion to certain secret intimations of the judgment. The under standing does not, from conviction, join in the course which the heart pursues, but is only kept at bay; and such per sons, although, from unwillingness to " crucify the flesh 'f with its affections and lusts," they do not embrace the gosT pel, yet still perceive the harmony between the general idea of a guilty and condemned sinner, and the general idea of a mediating and atoning Sayiour, and would consider any thing else than the gospel, as unsuitable and tantalizing, — Even 395 those, (and they are not few,) who attempt»an unscriptural compromise between the freedom of gospel grace, and de pendence on their own fancied deservings, refusing, with the air of offended pride, to renounce the latter, while yet, along with them, they are fain to retaih the merits ofa Savi our, to serve as occasion may require, if, unfortunately, the balance should dip on the wrong side, and the scale of their sins outweigh the scale of their virtues; — even they will be the enemies of a system which entirely sweeps away from them this convenient resource.^ And with regard to the im mense multitude, the largest class of all, who pass through life with the vacuity of thoughtless indifference as to all that felates to rehgion, toiling in the businesses of this world; absorbed by its pleasures, or amusing themselves with its vanities, it Is not likely that many of them will put them selves to the trouble of inquiry. They wiU pursue their wonted course; leave thoSe whom it riiay concern to settie re ligions controversies; and, with aU the magnanimity of infatit* ated folly, let eternity shift for itself. — When such persons have been attracted by the novelty and the Imposing preten sions of Unitarianism, and have been induced to embrace the profession of its principles, we have heard Christians utteir expressions of surprise and grief. Thei"e is; perhaps, littie cause for the latter feelihg; and there is stUl less for the for mer. Why should we be surprised that worldty men should embrace a system, which amalgamates so well with the world, and the adoption of which can hardly be said to imply any transition from one state, or from one course, to another? And as to grief— -we may be grieved; indeed,' that they haVe not embraced better principles, but we can hardly be griev ed; surely, that they have not continued what they were. Even the excitement of thought, is, I should thinlc, a fil- 396 vourable point gained. Subsequent consideration may, through the Divine influence, lead them to another mind. But it is, above all, to the providence and the grace of God that we must look, for the prevention of the progress of error. The Unitarians are very boastful of their " day of " smaU things" in Scotland. Long may it continue such ! — long, I trust, it shall continue such. It is not of their doctrine that God hath said, " It shall accomplish that which " I please, and prosper in the thing whereto I sent it," It is not to their " planting," or to their " watering," that he has promised to " give an increase," They have sown their " handful," not of " com," but of tares; and they are look ing for a plentiful crop. But " the Lord of the harvest," we trust, will disappoint their expectations. Their seed wants the showers of Divine blessing; and never, either on the mountains or in the valleys of Caledonia, shall it " shake " with prosperous fruit" It shaU be " as the grass on the " house-tops, which withereth before It groweth up; where- " with the mower fiUeth not his hand, nor he that bindeth " sheaves, his bosom." Far different, however, are the sanguine anticipations of Mr. Yates: — " Considering," says he, " the clear, abundant, " and unanswerable, evidence to the truth of the Unitarian " doctrines, the tolerant and liberal spirit, the diffusion of " Information upon general subjects, the habits of Inquiry, " and the turn for speculation, as weU as the usual good *' sense, which prevaU among the middling and lower orders " of society throughout Scotland, it appears to me, that " the extensive propagation of Unitarian sentiments m^ " reasonably be expected." (Pages 273, 274.) The Scottish people, that Is, are aU that is good, and Unitarianism Is aU that is good; therefore Unitarianism must needs find &vour in the 397 eyes of the Scottish people. If, indeed, the evidence to the truth of Unitarianism were as " clear, abundant, and unan- " swerable," as Mr. Yates affirms it to be, the excellences as cribed to our countrymen would, no doubt, eminently quahfy them for discerning and appreciating Its force; but If, as we have endeavoured to show, the evidence be the contrary of all this, the same excellences, happily, will equaUy well fit them for the detection of its fallacies, and for estimating the validity of Its refutation. " The only material cause," in Mr. Yates's judgment, " which is likely to obstruct the progress of Unitarian prin- " ciples In Scotiand, seems to be this; that, as many of those " who embrace Unitarian principles will be men more dis- " posed to Inquire after truth, than to apply It steadily to <' practice when found, and as the discussion of controvert- " ed questions in theology, has a natural tendency to weak- " en the devotional feelings, the converts to Unitarianism " may become careless and indifferent about their rehgious " duties, and adopt habits of useless roving speculation, to •' the neglect of their hearts and lives." (Page 274.) In what he immediately adds, he is clearly in the right, and is entitled to credit for his candour: — " Instead of concealing *' this formidable evil, it Is Infinitely Wiser to bring it fully " into view, so that we may be on our guard against it." But the admission made In the first clause of the preceding ex tract, is particularly deserving of attention : — " many of those ?' who embrace Unitarian principles, will be men more disposed " to inquire after truth, than to apply it steadily to practice when ** found!' This singular admission. It is presumed, must be founded either in the nature of the thing, or in past experi ence. And whether the one, or the other, or both of these, be the ground on^which it rests, it seems evidently to imply, 398 that there is something about th^ Unitarian system which recommends it more to the head of the roving speculatist, than to the heart of the humble and devout inquirer; to the would-be theologian, and the metaphysical amateur, rather than to the man who is " renewed in the spirit of his mind," and desirous to " perfect holiness in the fear of God." — In this view, the admission harmonizes remarkably with the style in which former Unitarian writers have expressed them selves ! " It cannot be denied," says Dr. Priestiey, " that many of " those who judge so truly concerning particular tenets in " religion, have attained to that cool, unbiassed temper of " mind, in consequence of becoming more indifferent to re- " ligion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of " it." — " Men who are indifferent to the practice of rell- " gion," says Mr. Belsham, " and whose minds, therefore; " are least attached to any set of principled, will ever be " the first to see the absurdity of a popular superstition, " and to embrace a rational system of faith." — And do not these admissions, and that of Mr. Yates, still correspond, in a remarkable manner, with existing facts? Who are, in general, the converts to Unitarianism? Do they not stiU, as when Mr. Fuller published his comparative view of the Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, consist chiefly of " a spe- " culating sort qf people among professing Christians?" — Where are the hardened sinners whose consciences it has awakened? Where are the profligates whom it has reclaimed? Where are the worldhngs whom it has spiritualized? Where are the Jews, the Deists, the infidels, whom it has brought to the faith and obedience of the truth? And, even with regard to those who have, from time to time, gone over to its adhe rents from the various denominations of professing Christians, 399 what Improvement, we may ask, has the transition produced? Has It Increased their humUity? Has it warmed and elevated their devotion? Has it purified their affections from the de basing alloy of the world, and made them more heavenly- minded? Has it enlivened their deUght in communion with God, and heightened their attachment to the exercises of the closet, the family, and the sanctuary? Has it rendered them more thankful in prosperity, more resigned and patient In adversity ? Has It enlarged their practical benevolence ? Has it made them more "fervent in spirit" for the glory of God, and the good of men ? — more " sober, just, " holy, temperate ?"-^better husbands and wives ; better parents and children ; better brothers and sisters ; better masters and servants ; better members of society ; — ^in a word, better men, than they were before ? — I make my appeal to the consciences of these converts to Unitarianism them selves, and, with all humility and affection, intreat them to examine themselves, and to compare. In their own expe rience, the respective tendencies of the system which they have renounced, and of that which they have espoused. And I make my appeal, at the same time, to all my fellow- Christians who have had any opportunities for personal observation. — " Among the various Socinian converts, have " we ever been used to hear of any remariiable change " of life or behaviour, which a conversion to their peculiar " principles effected ? I hope there are few Calvinistic cpn- " gregations In the kingdom, but what could point out " examples of persons among them, who, at the time of " their coming over to their doctrinal principles, came " over also from the course of this world, and have ever " since lived In newness of life. Can this be said of the " generahty of Socinian congregations? Those who have 400 " had the greatest opportunity of observing them, say the " contrary. Yea, they add, that the conversion of sinners " to a hfe of holiness, does not appear to be their aim ; that " their concern seems to be, to persuade those who, in their " account, have too much religion, that less will suffice, rather " than to address themselves to the irreligious, to convince " them of their defect." * If the efficacy of Unitarianism, as an instrument of moral and spiritual improvement. Is to be estimated by the effects which it is seen to produce amongst ourselves, we shall be at a loss for grounds to account for, or to justify, the recent eagerness of its proselyting spirit. Differences of sentiment, in the opinion of most Unitarians, are of httie essential account in the matter of salvation ; and conversion to the principles of Unitarianism, has, it would appear, no such influence upon the converts as to make any material change for the better in their character. Whence, then, the active zeal of its friends ? To what is this zeal directed ? What valuable ends do they expect to accomplish l^ it? Of what mighty consequence Is a mere change of sentiment and profession, if the change does not materially. If at aU, affect, either the safety or the character of him who under goes it? Those who hold the divinity and atonement of Christ, and the doctrine of acceptance with God through his merits and mediation, are consistent In their zeal, because they consider these Scripture truths as essentially connected * FuUer's " Calvinistic and Socinian Systems examined and compared, as to their " Moral Tendency;" a vfork which cannot be too often or too strongly recommend ed to the attention of the reader ; a v/aik, to winch the psdm must still be assigned amongst the productions of its able and lamented Author ; a work " to which," in fbe language of Dr. Johnson respecting Lord Lyttleton's observations on the con version of Paul, Unitarianisni " has never yet been able to frame even a specious " answer.'' 401 with the salvation of sinners ; because they can look around on their congFegations, and, enumerating in their minds the various characters who " shall not inherit the kingdom " of. God," can say with Paul, " Such were some of you ; " but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are jusli- " fied, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit " of our God ;" and because they expect the same re novations of heart, and transformations of character, as the result of " the preaching of the cross," in " every kindred, " and tongue, and people, and nation." — But where are those trophies of Unitarian success — where those evidences of the Divine blessing upon their labours, by which they are incited to " compass sea and land to make one pro- " selyte ?" — We cannot allow them to go back for these to apostolic times ; to take for granted the Unitarianism of the primitive church; to claim for their party all the early triumphs of the cross; and, on this ground, to exult in the anticipation of triumphs yet to come. Unitarianism, according to Mr. Yates, was then " unadulterated;" that is, as he after ward explains the term, " unincumbered and unobscured by " Trinitarian errors." But does not Unitarianism appear, in the system of Mr. Yates and his friends, sufficiently divested of these errors, — sufficiently " unadulterated ?" And, as similar causes, operating upon similar materials, should produce simi lar effects, might we not reasonably expect to see some of the same results arising from the propagation of unadulterated Unitarianism in our own day, which are aUeged to have arisen from It In days of yore? The tree must be known by its present fruits. If these fruits are not the same with those which ffrew of old, we may be assured that Unitarianism is . not a slip of the true vine. Wherever that has been plant ed, its fruits have been invariably the same. 3 E 402 Mr. Yates "considers Unitarianism as the remedy which " Infinite Wisdom has provided for all moral evil ;" and expresses his conviction, that no unbiassed mind can " doubt " its sufficiency to accomplish this purpose, when properly " understood and applied." * In bringing this estimate of Unitarianism to the test of fact, he first of all refers to " the wonderful changes produced by It in the state of " society, while it was yet unadulterated." But this, as I have just noticed, we consider as more than debatable ground. We claim it distinctly and decidedly for the op posite system ; and substantiate our claim by a direct appeal to apostolic testimony in the Scriptures ; the only sure way of ascertaining the doctrines by which the " wonderful " changes" in question were really produced. — He next appeals to " the benefits which its principles have con- " tinued to diffuse through the world, even while incumbered " and obscured by the addition of Trinitarian errors." f But, in opposition to this, we have two counter appeals, — First, to Scripture: If these " Trinitarian errors" have been successfully shown to be Scriptural truths, to them must those benefits be imputed, which Mr, Yates represents them as having impeded, and Unitarianism as having pro duced in spite of their counteracting influence. Secondly, to fact: The benefits referred to by Mr, Yates, are those which have accrued to the world from the propagation of Christianity in the ages subsequent to the primitive. Now what, in point of fact, have been the doctrines chiefly insist ed upon by those who have followed the apostles in " turning " the world upside down ?" — Have they been the points in • Dedication of Sermon on the duty and manner of deciding religious con troversies. t Ibid. 2 403 which Unitarians and Trinitarians are agreed? Or have they not rather been those on which they are toto ccelo at variance? Have not the depravity, guilt, and condemnation of mankind, the deity and atonement of the Saviour, justi fication by grace through faith in his merits and sacri fice, and the enlightening and sanctifying agency of the Divine Spirit ; — ^have not these, and such as these, been the great themes of preaching, wherever any material effects have been produced on the personal characters and the social condition of men? Has it not been that "preaching " of the cross" which is, by Unitarians, as weU as by the philosophers of this world, esteemed foohshness, that has all along proved " the power of God unto salvation ?" — It is silly, indeed, to speak of Unitarianism with the addition of Trinitarian errors ; — as if, in their substrata, in their fundamental articles, the two systems were the same, and the propagation of Trinitarianism were only the propagation of Unitarianism with the accompaniment of certain erroneous additions ; whereas, in fact, they are so completely dissirailar, as to constitute different religions; and the successful pro pagation of the one, whichsoever it be, must be the entire subversion of the other. But Unitarianism has been disincumbered of these "ad- «' ditional errors," and has been brought to the test of fact and experience, in what its advocates declare to have been its primitive simplicity: — and where, we again ask, is any thing resembling the "wonderfrl changes" which it is so confi dently alleged to have effected " In the beginning of the " gospel?" Are Its weapons now, as of old, "mighty through " God, to the pulling down of strong-holds, casting down •' imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself " against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity 404 " every thought to the obedience of Christ ?" * It has as yet, indeed, only been tried at home — in Christian countries. Let it, then, be tried abroad. Carry it far hence unto the Heathen. Let active zeal send forth its missionaries to the regions of darkness and of the shadow of death. I wiU not ask for instan taneous and extensive revolutions in the views and characters of men ; for altars overturned, temples deserted, and bonfires. of magical books. These, I should be told, distinguished the days of miraculous evidence. But I will ask, first of all, for the manifestation of apostolic benevolence and apostolic zeal, amongst those who arrogate to themselves the exclusive possession of apostolic principles, — of the gospel in its original purity and simplicity. Paul's " spirit was stirred in him, " when he saw the city (Athens) wholly given to idolatry." Let us see some stirrings of this deep concern for the glory of a dishonoured Deity, and of this melting compassion for the souls of deluded and perishing men. Can those principles be the same with Paul's, which allow the pro-- fessors of them to sit still in listless apathy, while they view a world given to idolatry? — making no attempts themselves to turn men from idols to the living God, and deriding, as visionary enthusiasm, the missionary efforts of others? It is useless to ask for the effects of such attempts, while the attempts themselves have not been made. — But the preaching of " Christ crucified" — the preaching of a Divine Redeemer, atoning for the guilt of men by the sacrifice of himself — has been tried, and has not been tried in vain. The effects produced have been the same in kind, although more limited in their extent, with those which resulted from the labours of the first preachers of the cross. The gospel has been proved " its own witness." It has found a testi mony in the consciences, and has opened and entered the * 2 Cor. X. 405 hearts, of men of, every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. It has been " the rod of the Redeemer's " strength," by which he has established his reign " in the " midst of his enemies." At this moment, through the zealous exertions of his servants, who are fighting this " good " fight of faith," the people are " falling under him" in wiUing subjection. Over many of those who were " fiUed " with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetous- " ness, maliciousness ; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, " malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters Of God, de- " spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobe- " dient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, " without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful; who, " knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such " things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have " pleasure in them that do them:" * — over many such, hap pily, we have reason to adopt the language of the apostle of the GentUes, "God be thanked that ye were the servants " of sin : — but now, being made free from sin, and become " servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the " end everlasting life." f — Instead of bringing forward such effects as these to prove the identity of the Unitarian with the apostolic doctrine, Mr. Yates speaks of his " witnessing, in " the conduct of many of its professors, its admirable efficacy " to cherish all the noblest and best affections, and to ad- " vance human nature toward its highest exceUence." % — I am not, as may be presumed, personaUy acquainted with many of the professors of Unitarianism. The character of my opponent himself, I rejoice to say, is one which I have never heard a lip opened to accuse or to slander. I beheve it to be, • Romans i. 29 — 32. f Romans vi. 17, 22. t Dedication to Sermon &c. as before. 406 as to moral deportment, highly correct and exemplary. Be yond himself, I would rather be silent ; as I do not wish to point injurious reflections, or to excite invidious comparisons. I leave it to my readers, according to the extent of their person al knowledge, and their opportunities of information, to form their own judgment, as to the " admirable efficacy" which is ascribed by Mr. Yates to the Unitarian doctrines. Of the exceUent persons to whom he alludes, I know nothing, and shall therefore say nothing ; further than to observe, that the moral characters of many of the Unitarians, perhaps of some of the best amongst them, have been formed previously to their embracing the sentiments of that party; and of such, the excellences, whatever they may be, are not fairly imputable to the influence of their new principles. But even as to them, and as to the body at large to which they have joined themselves, report speaks very falsely, if they be In general distinguished for that godliness, devotion, and spirituality of mind, which stand so prominent in the charac ters of the saints of holy writ. It were unreasonable, indeed, to expect that it should be otherwise, if what Mr Yates says be true, that " many of those who embrace Unitarian princi- " pies, wiU be men more disposed to inquire after truth, than " to apply It steadily to practice when found." — " If Unitari- " ans," he adds, " in the midst of that joy which often over- " powers them upon the first breaking in of the light, be care- " ful not to spht upon this rock ; if they be as anxious to im- " prove their hearts, as to inform their understandings ; If " they not only strive after the attainment of correct ideas, " but attend yet more to the cultivation of the devotional, the " moral, and the sympathetic feelings, &c. &c. ; then Uni- " tarianism wUl assuredly triumph over the united opposition " of prejudice, interest, and passion; It Is gone forth conquer- 407 " ing, and to conquer." (Vindication, page 274.)— The ad monitions thus tendered are exceUent : but the supposition that makes them necessary, does not say much for the spirit ual nature, or the regenerating Influence, of Unitarianism, What sort of " ligM' must this be, the entrance of which into the mind exposes the heart to the danger of being forgotten ? Of what description is this overpowering joy, which is so en tirely unconnected with the devotional and the moral feelings, as to produce the imminent hazard of their being overlooked and neglected ? Is It not the joy of a man of science upon a new discovery, rather than the joy of a sinner on finding a Saviour? The light of the gospel is holy light; the joy which it inspires, holy joy. The truth as it is in Jesus makes Its way to the heart, with gladdening, no doubt, but, at the same time, with bumbling and purifying, influence, at the same Instant that it enters the understanding. It prostrates the soul in self-abased and grateful adoration. It fills the eyes with the mingled tears of penitential sorrow, and of sacred and animated delight, — the "peace of God that pass- " eth all understanding," — " the joy of God's salvation." Instead of leaving the sinner in danger, " in the midst of the " joy that overpowers him," of forgetting that he has a heart to be rectified, as weU as an understanding to be enlightened, " the entrance of God's word," while it " giveth light," is the invariable means of " renewing the spirit of the mind," and turning the heart to God. But to enlarge on the practical tendencies of the two sys tems of doctrine, would lead me to write another volume; and the ground has been pre-occupled to incomparably bet ter purpose in the work of Mr, Fuller, before referred to, I shall conclude my remarks on this topic, with two short extracts from that admirable pubhcation: " Let us examine more particularly what sort of people" 408 " they, in general, are, who are converted to Socinianism, '* It is an object wortiiy of inquiry, whether they appear " to be modest, humble, serious Christians; such as have " known the plague of their own hearts; in whom tribula- " tion hath wrought patience, and patience, experience; such " as know who.m they have believed, and have learned to " count aU things but loss for the excellency of the know- " ledge of Jesus their Lord; such as, in their investigation of " sentiments, have been used to mingle earnest and humble " prayer, with patient and impartial inquiry; such, in fine, " as have become as little children in their own eyes? — If " they be, it is a circumstance of consequence, not sufficient, " indeed, to justify their change of sentiments, but to render " that change an object of attention. When persons of this " description embrace a new set of principles, it becomes " a matter of serious consideration, what could induce them " to do so. But if they be not, their case deserves but little " regard. When the body of converts to a system are mere " speculatists in rehgion, men of littie or no seriousness, " and who pay no manner of attention to vital and practi- " cal religion, it reflects neither honour on the cause they " have espoused, nor dishonour on that which they have " rejected. When we see persons of this stamp go over to " the Socinian standard, it does not at all surprise us; on " the contrary, we are ready to say, as the apostle said of " the defection of some of the professors of Christianity, " in his day, ' They went out from us, but they woe not of us! " " WUl Dr. Priestley undertake to prove, that a loose, dis- " sipated, and abandoned life, is a more general thing among " the Calinnists, than among their opponents? I am persuad- " ed he will not. He knows that the Calvinists, in general, " are far from being a dissipated or an abandoned people, " and goes about to account for it; and that in a way that 409 «' shall reflect no honcmr upon their principles. ' Our moral " conduct (he observes) is not left at the mercy of our opi- " nions; and the regard to virtue which Is kept up by those " who maintain the opinions above-mentioned, is owing to " the influence of other principles implanted In our nature.'* *' Admitting this to be true, yet one would think the worst " principles wUl, upon the whole, be productive of the worst " practices. They whose Innate principles of virtue are all " employed in counteracting the influence of a pernicious " system, cannot be expected to form such amiable charac- " ters, as where those principles are not only left at hberty *' to operate, but are aided by a good system. It might, •' therefore, be expected, I say again, if our principles be *' what our opponents say they are, that a loose, dissipated, *' and abandoned life, would be a more general thing among «' us than among them. " I may be told, that the same thing, ff put to us, would «' be found equaUy difficult; or that, notwithstanding we " contend for the superior influence of the Calvinistic system « to that of Socinians, yet we should find It difficult to prove, « that a loose, dissipated, and abandoned life, is a more ge- " neral thing among Socinians, than it is among Calvinists. " And I allow that I am not sufficiently acquainted with the " bulk of the people of that denomination, to hazard an as- « sertlon of this nature. But If what is allowed by their «« own writers (who ought to know them) may be admitted « as evidence, such an assertion might nevertheless be « supported. ' Rational Christians are often represented « (says Mr. Belsham) as indifferent to practical rehgion.' « Nor does he deny the justice of this representation, but • Consid. on Diff. Opin. §. III. 3 F 410 " admits, though with apparent reluctance, that ' there has " been some plausible ground for the accusation;' and goes " about to account for it, as we have seen in Letter lY.; in " such a way, however, as may reflect no dishonour upon their "principles. The same thing is acknowledged by Dr. Priest- " ley, who allows that ' a great number of the Unitarians of " the present age, are only men of good sense, and without " much practical religion;' and that ' there is a greater ap- " parent conformity to the world in them, than is observable " in others.' Yet he also goes about to account for these " things, as Mr. Belsham does, in such a way as may reflect no " dishonour upon their principles. It is^ather extraordinary, " that when facts are introduced in favour of the virtue of " the general body of the Calvinists, they are not denied, " but accounted for in such a way, that their principles must " share none of the honour ; and when facts of an opposite " kind are introduced in proof of the want of virtue among " Unitarians, they also are not denied, but accounted for " in such a way, that their principles must have none of the " ^honour. Calvinism, it seems, must be irnmoral, though " Calvinists be virtuous, and Socinianism must be amiable, " though Socinians be vicious. I shaU not inquire whether " these very opposite methods of accounting for facts be fair or " candid. On ,this, the reader will form his own judgment : " it is enough for me that the facts themselves are allowed." * In anticipating the prevalence of Unitarianism in Scotland, Mr. Yates is commendably anxious to " prevent those divisions " in churches, dissensions in famihes," and other incidental evils, that are likely, in many cases, to accompany a change of religious sentiment. He deprecates, — and all should unite • The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems examined and compared, &c. SiStU Edition, Letter IV. pages 57, 58, and Letter VI. pages 110 — U2. 2 411 with him here, — every attempt to suppress heresy by persecut ing statutes, (a measure, by the way, which, whatever Bishops may advise, the government of the country has of late laud ably shown the very opposite of an inclination to adopt;) — as well as all ignorant misrepresentation, and angry and terrifying remonstrances. And then, with all due formality, and pre paratory eulogy, he brings forward his own healing, or ra ther preventive, measure. The measure, in sooth, is this: — " That the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland " should no longer enforce subscription to the Westminster " Confession of Faith ; at least, that they should permit ex- " ceptions to be made to so much of it as relates to the Tri- " nity, and thus allow conscientious Unitarians to become " ministers in the Estabhshment, upon the same footing with " Trinitarian candidates." — This measure, gentle reader, is rec-ommended, vfith all gravity, as " simple, easy, righteous, " and conciliatory," and as one " which, after calm and at- " tentive dehberation, all wise, and most good; men, wiU cor- " dially approve:" — that is, (since all such good men as are at the same time wise are comprehended under the first deno mination) which all will approve, except a few weak-minded •enthusiasts, whose hearts are better than their heads. I have not heard that the hint, thus modestly given, has been adopt ed by any of the wise, that is of the moderate, party in the Establishment; that any overture has been proposed in any of the Presbyteries or Synods, for transmission to the Ge neral Assembly; or that the matter has, in any shape, been brought under the notice of that " venerable Court." Either the case must be considered as a hopeless one, or there must be less wisdom and goodness in the Establishment, than Mr. Yates anticipated.— He seems. Indeed, to have better hopes af the Dissenters than of the Church. " If that much re- 412 " spected body," says he, " shaU not see fit to pass an act «« to this effect, I am not without hopes, that the example «' will be set them by some of the sects of Presbyterian Dis- " senters, those taking the lead who are the most distingubh- " ed by their attachment to the Scriptures in preference tp *' creeds of human Invention." Does Mr. Yates, then, fancy, that the Dissentere are less firmly attached to what they pro fess to consider as the great and essential articles of the Christian faith, than the clergy and members of the Estab lished Church? — And is it his opinion, that this attachment is hkely to be loose and unsteady, in proportion as Christians are hostUe to subscription to " creeds of human " invention?" In both these fancies he wiU find himseff mis- tajsen. The Presbyterian Dissenters have been eminently in strumental in preventing the progress of error, and maintam- ing the purity of gospel doctrine, in Scotland. And although I dissent from some points of doctrine and modes of expres sion, in the Confession of Faith to which they profess adher ence, and also, on grounds which I need not at present state, from the propriety of subscription to human creeds at all;^ yet, I trust, they will never submit their articles to be mended by these soi-disant rationalists, and accommodated either to the taste or to the conscience of Unitarians. Before this can be done, they must either have become " conscientious Unitari- " ans" themselves, or, which Is certainly not much better, have broken terms with conscience altogether, and discarded her sacred authority. How absurd to talk of adapting the Scot tish Confession of Faith to the consciences of both parties, by " permitting exceptions to be made to so much of it as re- " lates to the Trinity." I cannot but think how the metamor phosis would amaze the venerable Divines of Westminster, before a conscientious Unitarian could have done with his 413 amendments! — With regard to the Independents and Bap tists, who " pursue the principle of making the Bible the only standard of their faith and practice," although there has been a great deal too much amongst them of " strife and debate" and division, about matters of comparatively Inferior moment, and although individuals have now and then dis played a spirit of self-conceited speculation, and have " turned " away their ears from the truth ;" yet are they united, and, by the Influence of time chastening and softenu)g a dis proportionate zeal about smaller matters, they wUl become more and more united, in attachment to the great doc trines that constitute " the glorious gospel of the blessed " God ;" and will present a combined front of opposition, wielding, in their holy warfare, " the sword of the Spirit, " which is the word of God," against the progress of those, whom, with their views of the Bible, they must necessarUy consider as " enemies of the cross of Christ." I have thus finished my task. I have " examined my op- " ponent's work with all the freedom which a regard to truth " requires;" and I now leave th^ decision betwixt us to those " Impartial judges" to whom he has made " his confi- " dent appeal." The talents of ray opponent are highly repectable; and so, I beheve, are his attainments In classical erudition, in philoso phy, and in general hterature. His own estimate of the value of these, and of certain other quahfications of a more adventitious nature, may be learned from the Note at page 256, of his " Vindication," respecting a Sermon pubUshed by the Rev. A. Symington of Paisley, on the same text with his own on " the grounds of Unitarian dissent." While he speaks of that gentleman as " possessing many qualifications 414 " for great respectability and usefulness in the Christian " ministry," he, at the same time, adds, — " He does not " seem to have the means, or the habit, of applying to those " sources of information, by which alone it is possible to " determine the import of disputed passages of Scripture. " I humbly conceive, that ministers so situated, while they " follow their own judgment in the zealous and faithful use " of the other talents, equally important and valuable, with " which they are favoured by Providence, ought to leave the " emendation of the Greek text, the translation of it into " English, and even, to a certain degree, the interpretation " of it, when translated, to those persons, cither among Uni- " tarians or the orthodox, who, by the requisite labour and " study, have become intimately acquainted with the original " language of Scripture, and who are versed in the impartial " application of the sound and established principles of Bibli- " cal criticism." — This, it will be allowed, is quite high enough. With Mr. Symington I have not the pleasure of any personal acquaintance. According to the testimony of others, however, he was a front-rank man amongst his competitors at the University : — the sphere of his present labours does not certainly seclude him from easy access to various sources of aid in the researches of Biblical criticism : — and the sermon referred to, discovers talents that quali fy him to avail himself of such means, and is very far from warranting the supercUious sentence by which Mr. Yates would interdict him this field of labour. — How far the judge who has pronounced the interdict, has shown himself " ver.sed in the impartial application of the sound and esta- " blished principles of Biblical criticism," the reader is left to determine from the precedmg pages. So far ^s I have ever heard, there has been but one opinion 415 respecting the proposal made by my opponent in his letter to me, published at the end of his "Vindication," that I should revise his manuscript, and make my animadversions, in a friendly way, in his own pages. That opinion has coincided with my own, as expressed in my answer to his letter: — and it Is not likely to undergo any change, when the extent of these animadversions is now perceived Judging from the strain of his letter, it would appear that Mr. Yates anticipat ed nothing at all like this. He seems to have thought, either that his own work was so irresistible, in the clearness and co gency of its reasonings, that it could not fail to carry im mediate conviction to the mind of his opponent ; or that the differences between us were such, that a few slight mutua,! explanations might be sufficient for their removal; — so that we might appear before the pubhc, in a copartnery Volume, with all the courtly courtesy of reciprocal concessions, and, at the close. In all the harmony of brotherly agreement. — I an ticipated the reverse of all this, and have not been deceived. In the prospectus of his " Vindication," ray opponent advertised the public, that he had spared no pains to make it decisive of the questions under debate: and, at the close of the work itself, besides the vaunting declaration that his exposure of the defects of my former volume " must " wholly destroy its credit in the apprehension of all im- " partial judges," he thus also congratulates himself upon the Issue of his labours: — " Every reader will be able, by the " cool and dispassionate examination of what I have written, " to decide for himself these momentous questions. The im- " pression made upon my own mind by considering the vari- " ous evidences which I have brought together, Is, that if " it be not certain that the commonly received doctrine of " the Trinity is false, tliere is an end of all religion,and no 416 «' certainty upon any subject." (Page 266.) — You, Reader, I hope, are of a different mind. On the back of the title-page of his Sermon on the deci sion of religious controversies, Mr. Yates has pubhshed the foUowing notice : " I take this opportunity of correcting the following inac- " curacies of statement, in my « Vindication of Unitarianism! " They are aU that I have yet been able to discover. Any, *' ^blch may come to my knowledge hereafter, I shaU in like " manner rectify, as soon as occasion is presented. Those " who have copies of the ' Vindication^ are requested to cor- •' rect with the pen, as follows : " P. 1 16, fine 3d, from bottom; erase, ' or any person,' and "P. 118, erase the remarks immediately following John •' xiv. 16, 17. from ' In this passage,' to ' of the address.' " For the ground of this emendation, see John iii. 16. « P. 165, 1. 4, for 'John Elwall,' read ' Edward Elwall." « P. 198, erase the Note. See Schleusner, ' V. Hjos, No. 2.'" If this, as I desire to believe, has been the dictate of a truly candid mind, I trust that the same candour, upon the perusal of the preceding reasonings, will lead to acknowledg ment of errors much more extensive and radical than these. THE END. Andrew and James Duncan, Printers, Glasgow. I 3 9002 08844 0749 f %l iU, i' 'r LI*!';' , *¦ V >«Jl 1 Va;? ^!; i^ .